Last week on his talk radio program, Michael Savage got into an argument with a caller over whether California lawmakers should rename a San Francisco tunnel in honor of Robin Williams. The caller, who said he was a veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), defended the move, while Savage objected to the plan, claiming that it would promote suicide.
After a lengthy argument, Savage hung up on the caller and proceeded to attack him. “I am so sick and tired with everyone with their complaints about PTSD, depression. Everyone wants their hand held and a check, a government check. What, are you the only generation that had PTSD? The only generation that’s depressed?”
He then blamed America’s problems on those who “cry like a little baby” over depression: “If the whole nation is told, ‘boo-hoo-hoo, come and get a medication, come and get treatment, talk about mental illness,’ you know what you wind up with? You wind up with Obama in the White House and lawyers in every phase of the government, that’s what you wind up with. It’s a weak, sick nation. A weak, sick, broken nation.”
Savage continued that veterans with PTSD are a “bunch of losers” and recommended that they be more like Michael Savage.
“You need men like me to save the country,” he said. “You need men to stand up and say stop crying like a baby over everything.” He continued that “men are so weak and so narcissistic” that it is “no wonder ISIS can defeat our military.”
When Republican-controlled legislatures around the country have passed laws curtailing early voting, they have invariably insisted that these laws have nothing to do with politics.
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, however, has no problem with admitting the reason she wants to do away with early voting: giving people more time to cast their ballots might help Democrats.
Writing today in WorldNetDaily, Schlafly insists — without any evidence — that early voting is rife with fraud and enables Democratic campaign workers to “harass and nag low-information voters until they turned in their ballots.”
She blames early voting in states like Ohio for President Obama’s reelection victory, and worries that early voting may help Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections as people who have already voted “may wish to change their vote” because of “the Ebola scandal.”
Because of the Ebola scandal, some may wish to change their vote, but that is impossible for those who have already voted. Some early voters may die before Election Day, and early voting allows the votes of those dead people to be included. If there is any dispute over whether their votes were valid or fraudulent, they are no longer with us to defend themselves.
Typically, there are no poll watchers during early voting, so the integrity of the casting of the ballots cannot be monitored. Many of the early votes are cast in a coercive environment, such as a union boss driving employees to the polls and watching over the process so there is no guarantee that their votes will be private.
Democrats promote early voting for the same reason they oppose voter ID: because they view early voting as helping their side. In the absurdly long 35-day period of early voting in Ohio in 2012, Democrats racked up perhaps a million-vote advantage over Republicans before Election Day was ever reached.
Republicans have been slow to realize how early voting helps the Democrats. Most top Republican political operatives firmly believed, right up to the morning of the 2012 election, that Mitt Romney was going to win.
In his expert analysis of why Republicans lost the 2012 election, scholar and WND writer Jerome Corsi quoted Mitt Romney’s chief campaign strategist, Stuart Stevens, on the last plane flight of the 2012 campaign, confidently assuring all that Romney would win the presidency because “a positive campaign message trumps a good ground game every time.”
Romney lacked a message, too, but he was mainly defeated by the Democrats’ superb ground game, which exploited early voting in key states such as Florida and Ohio. By continuously updating their computer-based information about who had not yet voted, Democrats could harass and nag low-information voters until they turned in their ballots.
Alan Keyes is out with yetanothercolumn calling for Congress to impeach and remove President Obama, arguing that his 2004 U.S. Senate opponent should face impeachment proceedings over his handling of immigration, ISIS and Ebola.
Keyes suggests Obama is enacting “destructive policies” in a deliberate attempt to endanger American lives, establish “tyranny” and “permanently cripple America’s liberty.”
“But from abortion to crushing debt, from dissolute spending to the sinister promotion of specious ‘rights’ that dissolve the natural integrity of family life, the present generation of self-serving elitist faction political leaders has declared war on our posterity,”Keyes writes. “And so have all Americans who tolerate their continual betrayals of the genius of the American people, betrayals that must inevitably despoil our posterity of the blessings of liberty.”
From what I'm reading these days, Obama's response to the threatened spread of the Ebola epidemic is finally compelling other people to question the assumption of patriotic goodwill Americans are naturally inclined to make about the individual who occupies the White House. As WND editor and CEO Joseph Farah wrote in a recent column about Obama's Ebola strategy:
With at least 4000 military personnel...being sent into the hot zone, it's a near certainty some of them will contract the deadly disease. What then? Naturally, they will be brought home, with some risk of furthering the infection in the homeland.... Is this a purposeful effort to destroy the U.S. military? Whether it is or not, that is the effect it will surely have.
This is, of course, not the first time during Obama's White House tenure that Americans have been forced to ask themselves whether incompetence or malice is to blame for the undeniably destructive effect of Obama's policies on the lives, strength, and security of the people and institutions he is supposed to serve.
Though Obama and his collaborators (including many in the GOP's elitist faction leadership) couch it in terms of dreamy jobs and economic opportunity, their push to legitimize illegal immigration into the United State has already damaged the nation's health. It is now being openly admitted that it gives terrorist cadres (including agents of the Islamic State's anti-American terror campaign) opportunities to enter and disperse throughout the country.
The way to stop Obama in his tracks is to use impeachment to call him before the bar of constitutional accountability, and then to conduct the process that will put every representative and senator on the spot, with the choice to remove Obama and his collaborators, or declare themselves complicit in the destructive policies the Obama faction has pursued and the precedents for tyranny they are seeking to establish.
Of course, this proper constitutional proceeding would set the record straight, thwarting those who mean to use Obama's tenure as the excuse and justification for the tyranny they are determined to impose upon us. Such proceeding would serve our posterity, even if it failed to remove a lame duck president. For it would help to assure that his malicious precedents did not permanently cripple America's liberty.
But from abortion to crushing debt, from dissolute spending to the sinister promotion of specious "rights" that dissolve the natural integrity of family life, the present generation of self-serving elitist faction political leaders has declared war on our posterity. And so have all Americans who tolerate their continual betrayals of the genius of the American people, betrayals that must inevitably despoil our posterity of the blessings of liberty. Together they are creating a record for this generation that will make it a loathsome byword in the minds of our posterity, at least for any still capable of remembering what it means to be free.
This weekend, while speaking with Mission America’s Linda Harvey, Burress said that if more Republicans announce their support for marriage equality or merely offer muted opposition to marriage rights, then he and other conservatives will leave the GOP.
“You can put a cross on the grave of the Republican Party if they ditch this issue, it would be the same thing with the life issue,” he said. “If they’re not going to stand for life and natural marriage, Huckabee was the first one that came out and said that he would not only leave the Republican Party but he’ll take everybody with him. The Republicans had better take this serious because this is a nonnegotiable issue with us.”
Burress — whose group is the Ohio affiliate of the Family Research Council and of Focus on the Family’s political arm Citizenlink — predicted that Portman will lose his race for reelection because of his marriage equality support: “I find this rather amusing, he stands no chance whatsoever. He’s seen his numbers, he knows what his numbers are and so do we. He is basically lost, he’s not even going to hold his own seat in ‘16.”
“People will vote but they just will not vote for somebody who’s wrong on these nonnegotiable issues. If they’re wrong on life, marriage or religious freedom, they’ll go to the polls and vote but they just won’t vote for them,” he said. “I have been saying this and screaming it from the treetops: If Rob Portman decides to run in the primary in 2016, he is on the ballot in 2016, Ohio will again have two Democratic senators. This is not our fault, this is his fault if we lose this seat.”
Burress warned that if a primary challenger to Portman does emerge, the GOP “will still spend millions of dollars to support him” against an anti-gay opponent.
“Rob Portman stands no chance of being president, this is a hoax,” Burress said of the rumored Portman presidential campaign, adding that “there’s between 24 and 26 percent of the voters that go to the polls in Ohio [who] are evangelical Christians and if you lose that base then you’re dead.”
He attributed Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss in Ohio to the former governor’s “flip flops” on social issues, saying evangelical Christians “did not trust Romney.”
The conventional wisdom is that so-called establishment Republican candidates by and large triumphed over Tea Party radicals this election cycle. But the truth is that those victories were the result of a party establishment that itself has moved far to the right. Even where Tea Party candidates have failed, the Tea Party movement has increasingly remade the “establishment” GOP in its own image.
It is now core doctrine in the GOP to deny the science behind climate change, endorse sweeping abortion bans and engage in anti-government rhetoric reminiscent of the John Birch Society.
As Tea Party icon Michele Bachmann put it last week, while she may be retiring from Congress, she leaves with the knowledge that “even the establishment moved toward embracing the Tea Party’s messaging.”
Here, we look at five Republican congressional candidates who could be heading to the Capitol next year. Some have been labeled “establishment,” some “Tea Party,” but all are emblematic of the party’s strong turn to the right.
1. Joni Ernst
One Iowa conservative pundit has described state Sen. Joni Ernst, now the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate, as “the choice of the Republican establishment” who has “been backed by national Republican establishment figures like Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Marco Rubio.”
But in today’s Republican Party, even an “establishment” candidate like Ernst can be just as extreme as a Tea Party insurgent.
Ernst subscribes to the radical,neo-Confederate idea that states can “nullify” federal laws that they deem to be unconstitutional — and even went so far as to suggest that local law enforcement officers can arrest government officials for simply administering federal laws.
In response to a 2012 candidate survey for a group affiliated with former congressman Ron Paul, Ernst pledged to “support legislation to nullify ObamaCare and authorize state and local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement the unconstitutional health care scheme known as ObamaCare.” In a speech to a Religious Right group the next year, she criticized Congress for passing “laws that the states are considering nullifying.”
Not only does Ernst think states should simply be able to void laws they don’t like, but she also wants to abolish the federal minimum wage and eliminate federal agencies such as the Department of Education, the EPA and the IRS. She also came out in favor of a plan, known as the “Fair Tax,” that would scrap the income tax and replace it with a federal sales tax of 23 percent on nearly all goods.
Her anti-government paranoia even extends to taking on a non-binding United Nations sustainable development agreement, Agenda 21, which she warned will pave the way for the UN to remove Americans from rural lands and force them into cities. She has even disagreed with the official investigations finding that Iraq did not have WMDs at the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion.
But Ernst does support government intervention when it comes to women’s reproductive rights, sponsoring the Iowa personhood amendment, which would ban abortion in all cases along with common forms of birth control. “I think the provider should be punished, if there were a personhood amendment,” Ernst said, but has since insisted that she thinks the amendment would be purely symbolic.
In 2007, Tillis blasted government policies that “have redistributed trillions of dollars of wealth,” calling them “reparations” for slavery. The same year, he opposed a resolution apologizing for an 1898 massacre of African Americans in a North Carolina city, explaining that the amendment didn’t sufficiently honor white Republicans.
Tillis supported the repeal of North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act — which allowed death-row inmates to appeal their sentences based on evidence of racial bias — and backed heavily restrictive voting laws designed to weaken the black vote. In a 2012 interview, he lamented that Democrats were gaining ground in North Carolina thanks to growing Latino and African American populations while the “traditional population of North Carolina and the United States is more or less stable.”
At an event in 2011, he suggested that the government cut public spending by finding “a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance” — specifically by setting disabled people against “these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government.”
He has now pivoted his campaign to focus on addressing the menacing specter of people infected with Ebola coming to Mexico to illegally cross the southern border into the U.S.
3. Jody Hice
Jody Hice entered politics as a Religious Right activist and a conservative talk radio show host, making him part of two worlds that are at the core of the conservative movement. Now, as the frontrunner in an open Georgia House seat, currently held by outgoing far-right Rep. Paul Broun, Hice is set to bring his right-wing agenda to Congress.
Hice made his first foray into politics by trying to convince local governments to erect monuments of the Ten Commandments in public places, which were deemed unconstitutional by, in Hice’s words, “judicial terrorists .” A Christian Nationalist, Hice thinks the founding fathers would support his congressional campaign and has posted on his Facebook page numerous fake quotes from our nation’s founders about the dangers of “Big Government” and the need to mix religion and government.
Hice outlines his political beliefs and fears in his book, “It’s Now or Never: A Call to Reclaim America,” in which he claims that abortion rights make the U.S. worse than Nazi Germany; endorses the fringe “nullification” theory; argues that Islam “does not deserve First Amendment protection”; and spells out his worries about gay people trying to “sodomize” children and persecute Christians, fearing that children will be “preyed upon” by gay “recruitment” efforts until they embrace “destructive,” “militant homosexuality.”
When armed militia groups gathered at the Bundy ranch in Nevada to back a rancher and race-theorist who refused to pay grazing fees for using federal property, Hice praised the groups that were threatening violence against law enforcement officers. He has argued that individuals have the right to have “any, any, any, any weapon that our government and law enforcement possesses,” including “bazookas and missiles,” in order to give citizens a fighting chance in a potential war against the government.
The GOP nominee blamed mass shootings such as those that occurred at Virginia Tech and in Aurora, Colorado, on abortion rights, the separation of church and state, and the teaching of evolution, and said that the Sandy Hook school shooting was the result of “kicking God out of the public square” with the end of school-organized prayer.
Hice also believes that we are now living in the End Times, worrying that “we have little time” left on earth and citing the appearance of blood moons as proof of imminent cataclysmic, “world-changing events.”
While Hice is worried about the destructive consequences of blood moons, he dismissed climate change as a “propaganda” tool of the “Radical Environmental Movement” to make people of believe in an “impending environmental disaster due to ‘Global Warming.’”
Grothman opposes abortion rights without exceptions in cases of rape, incest and a woman’s health, even working to make it a felony offense for a doctor to perform an abortion that could save a woman’s life. Grothman successfully passed laws requiring doctors to read scripts meant to discourage women from terminating their pregnancies, which he said was necessary because oftentimes “women are looking for someone to talk them out of it.” He also sponsored a 24-hour waiting period for abortions that only exempts survivors of “forcible rape” who file a police report.
The Republican lawmaker worries that “gals” are running — and ruining — America by leading a “war on men.” He has said the U.S. “is in the process of committing suicide today” as a result of single mothers collecting public benefits and pushed a bill to declare single parenthood “a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect,” calling single parenthood a “choice” and the result of a culture that “encourages a single motherhood lifestyle.”
“I think a lot of women are adopting the single motherhood lifestyle because the government creates a situation in which it is almost preferred,” he said in a 2012 interview with Alan Colmes, adding that he believes women aren’t telling the truth about having unintended pregnancies: “I think people are trained to say that ‘this is a surprise to me,’ because there’s still enough of a stigma that they’re supposed to say this.”
In a similar vein, he defended Gov. Scott Walker’s decision to rescind a pay equity law because, according to Grothman, pay disparities are due to the fact that “money is more important for men.”
Grothman is a sponsor of the Wisconsin Personhood resolution [PDF], which would ban abortion in all cases and many forms of birth control, and his campaign has touted the support of personhood activists.
He once described Planned Parenthood as “probably the most racist organization” in the country, adding that he believes the group targets Asian Americans for abortion. In 2007, he voted against a bill that made sure hospitals provide information about emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors.
He opposes laws protecting employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, and once tried to strip a sex education bill of a nondiscrimination provision that he suspected was part of a plot to make kids gay. Grothman also demanded that his state refuse to follow a court order to recognize same-sex marriages, which he feared would “legitimiz[e] illegal and immoral marriages.”
Not content with just opposing gay rights in the U.S., Grothman also defended a Ugandan law that makes homosexuality a crime punishable by sentences including life in prison. He even suggested that “unbelievable” American criticism of Uganda’s law would prompt God to punish the United States.
Although Grothman fears that America might incur God’s wrath for standing up to state-sanctioned violence against gays and lesbians, he is less concerned about climate change, which he says “doesn’t exist.” Grothman told one interviewer: “This environmental stuff, this is the idea that is driven by this global warming thing. Global warming is not man-made and there is barely any global warming at all, there’s been no global warming for the last twelve or thirteen years. I see a shortage of Republicans stepping up to the plate and saying, ‘look, this global warming stuff is not going on.”
5. Zach Dasher
Taking advantage of his family’s new-found reality TV fame, “Duck Dynasty” cousin Zach Dasher is running for U.S. Congress in Louisiana in an election where the top two candidates advance to a runoff vote if no candidate takes over 50 percent of the vote.
Dasher cited the success of “Duck Dynasty” as one of the reasons he entered the race: “Five years ago, I didn’t see an opportunity or window of opportunity to get into this type of venture. But here recently, obviously with the family name and being able to get my message out there, I saw an opportunity that I couldn’t pass up.”
Of his uncle Phil Robertson, who came under fire for making statements in a magazine interview defending Jim Crow and demonizing gays and lesbians, Dasher gushed: “The support of the family means a lot to me. We share a very similar background and philosophy, and our spiritual beliefs are the same as well. They’re going to be a big part of the campaign. I’m going to have Phil as my PR director, since he’s so good with the media.”
Robertson also appears in commercials promoting Dasher’s candidacy, and Dasher has said he agreed with Robertson’s remarks about the gay community. Dasher’s wife wrote in a blog post that just as people should break out of addictions to alcohol and heroin, gay people can “overcome” and “come out of” homosexuality and find “healing.”
One of Dasher’s opponents, Rep. Vince McAllister, is a freshman Republican congressman who said he would retire after he was caught on video kissing a staffer who was not his wife, then changed his mind. Dasher says he is running as an even more conservative candidate than the GOP incumbent, and has received backing from Tea Party and pro-corporate groups such as the Club for Growth and Citizens United.
“My platform begins with God. That’s really what this whole thing is about. In Washington, when we look at what’s going on, we see an erosion away from that platform,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “We see the ruling classes kick God out and in His place they place themselves. That scares me because we didn't send these folks to Washington, D.C. to determine our rights, we sent them there to defend our rights.”
Dasher fears that the federal government “believes that they’re God” and is intent on “gain[ing] control over every aspect of our lives” as part of a plan to create a “culture of dependency.” In a personal podcast, Dasher said the “swift drift away from God will usher in tyranny and death,” warning: “Tyranny will get its foothold — if it already doesn't have it — and in the end, there will be mass carnage and mass death. It's inevitable.”
Dasher blamed the Sandy Hook shooting on atheists, whom he also accused of “brainwashing a generation ” through rap music and ushering in “moral decay” and the erosion of liberty. He said that schools should “arm the teachers,” arguing that laws targeting gun violence actually leave people as “unarmed sitting ducks, waiting for someone to come in and shoot their schools up.” Dasher recently claimed that the Second Amendment was established to allow people to defend themselves against “a tyrannical government,” warning that government officials intend to repeal the amendment in order to eliminate all other freedoms.
Pat Robertson went on another anti-gay diatribe on “The 700 Club” today, telling viewers that “this onslaught of homosexual behavior that is being forced on us by the Supreme Court of the United States is having deadly consequences.”
He was discussing a case out of Idaho where ministers working for a for-profit business and represented by the Religious Right group Alliance Defending Freedom are challenging a non-discrimination ordinance in the city of Coeur d’Alene.
The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel until recently said that it offered services to marry couples “using a traditional or civil ceremony,” and said that while its staff are Christian ministers, the business could “also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings.” As blogger Jeremy Hooper noted, the chapel recently edited its website and “changed the text so that all the mentions of civil weddings no longer appear.”
Robertson called on the business to “leave Idaho” and “get out of that state and if need be close that chapel down,” predicting that soon churches will be “forced to perform a gay marriage.” He also told a story in which he claimed that Cardinal O’Connor, the late archbishop of New York, once threatened to shut down Georgetown University, which is in Washington, D.C., over government pressure to “provide money, resources to support a gay club in the student body.”
“I would close the school down,” Robertson recalled O’Connor saying. “I think those guys in Idaho had better get out and dodge now before it gets any worse.”
We won’t get into all of the reasons that Loudon has uncovered, but she does tell us that Democrats want to bring an end to “traditional marriage” since they want couples to be sick, poor and childless.
Loudon even claims that Democrats seek to “destroy marriage” because they are “opposed to people being mentally healthier,” arguing that Democrats secretly hope for a “mentally deranged person to act out violently” so they can “rush to a TV camera to call for more gun control” and make sure that “all guns were banned.”
Have you ever wondered what it is about traditional marriage that is so offensive to Democrats?
1) Married people overwhelmingly vote Republican
For the last several elections, traditionally married people have overwhelmingly voted Republican. Married men and women supported Romney by 14 percent. Married women alone supported Romney by seven points. If only married people were allowed to vote, the GOP couldn’t lose no matter how hard it tried – no matter how spineless and worthless its candidates. The inverse is also true. If Democrats can cause fewer people to get married and fewer people to value traditional marriage, Democrats can destroy the GOP’s advantage among that group of voters.
2) Married people are physically healthier
Studies throughout the years have all agreed that in almost every way, married couples are physically healthier. Married people live longer, are less likely to develop cancer and heart disease, and are healthier in more ways than can be listed here.
You may wonder why Democrats are opposed to people being healthy.
Simply put, when people are healthy, they don’t need help from the government. Of course, no matter how healthy one may be, we are all now forced to purchase health insurance.
3) Married people are mentally healthier
Married people are less likely to suffer depression, develop dementia, commit suicide and are protected from a host of other disorders. Married people are also more likely to describe themselves as happy.
But why would Democrats be opposed to people being mentally healthier?
All it takes is one mentally deranged person to act out violently for Democrats to rush to a TV camera to call for more gun control and government surveillance. If only government agents were able to snoop on everyone (conservatives) 24/7, they could prevent violent outbursts. Also, they claim that if all guns were banned (except from men who guard the president and leftist politicians), there would be no more gun violence.
4) Married people are wealthier
Research done by Ohio State University found that married people individually are almost twice as wealthy (93 percent wealthier) than single people.
To a Democrat, that screams income inequality. It is unfair in the mind of a progressive for married people to have more money than unmarried people. Besides, what did those evil married people do to steal that money from everyone else? Don’t worry. Democrats will turn those tax credits for married couples into taxes levied against married couples. If only those pesky right-wing extremists would get out of the way, they could tax traditional marriage out of existence. That hasn’t been formally proposed yet, but don’t think that hasn’t crossed the minds of Democrats in D.C.
8) Marriage promotes children
Organizations like ZPG (Zero Population Growth), Planned Parenthood and even animal rights groups flourish when fewer children are born, or when having fewer children is the goal. All of those organizations are arms of the Democratic Party, so when they flourish, so does the cash in the coffers of the Democratic Party.
Should the government just stay out of marriage? No!
Democrats flourish when marriage is diminished, but many on the right side of the political spectrum still refuse to take a stand on the issue. They have fallen for the lie of the left that conservatives should be neutral on the issue. The idea that the government should “stay out of marriage” is exactly what the left would love the right to believe. If Democrats and their allies actively push to destroy marriage, and Republicans can be convinced that they should be neutral on the issue, then Democrats will win this one easily and traditional marriage will be something we will soon read about in history books.
Predicting that President Obama is paving the way for a wave of Ebola-related deaths in the United States, Larry Klayman took to WorldNetDaily on Friday to claim that “Obama has opened the door for Muslim terrorists to infect themselves with this deadly virus, illegally enter our country and spread the disease widely.”
Klayman argues that Obama had declined to enact a ban on travelers coming from West Africa not because medical and disease experts have advisedagainst such a move, but because the president is “a reverse racist whose actions, not just with regard to Ebola but across the board, are skewed toward feathering the nest of ‘his’ people, and calculated to harm the rest of us if not destroy the entire country.”
“I am not a racist, and neither are you!,” Klayman writes. “Does anyone doubt that former Alabama Gov. George Wallace was a racist, after he banned blacks from attending the state’s university in the 1960s? So too can anyone refute that Obama’s not even temporarily banning West Africans from entering the United States is also as least de facto racism, as this high risk caper puts whites and others at risk at the expense of not even temporarily ‘inconveniencing’ his fellow Africans. Wallace and Obama are both despicable and both to be condemned to the trash heap of history for their actions.”
Arising like a sphinx in the dark night of President Barack Hussein Obama’s growing list of what he has called “phony” scandals is Ebola-gate.
Bigger than IRS-gate, Benghazi-gate, Fast and Furious-gate or Obamacare-gate, Ebola-gate threatens the very lives of all of us.
In short, does anyone think that Obama would hesitate to implement a travel ban if Ebola emanated from a predominately white country? I, for one, do not believe he would.
In addition, by not stopping travelers from West Africa from entering the United States, and through his refusal to secure our southern borders in particular, Obama has opened the door for Muslim terrorists to infect themselves with this deadly virus, illegally enter our country and spread the disease widely.
When it comes to anything Muslim, our fraudulently elected president – himself one-half Muslim by birth and totally Muslim by mentality and deed – has a tin ear at best.
These words sound harsh, and by uttering them I have received a fair number of hate emails from our leftist friends, who would run interference for Obama at all costs. But I am not a racist, and neither are you! It is time that we all stood up and exposed the president for what he is: a reverse racist whose actions, not just with regard to Ebola but across the board, are skewed toward feathering the nest of “his” people, and calculated to harm the rest of us if not destroy the entire country.
Does anyone doubt that former Alabama Gov. George Wallace was a racist, after he banned blacks from attending the state’s university in the 1960s? So too can anyone refute that Obama’s not even temporarily banning West Africans from entering the United States is also as least de facto racism, as this high risk caper puts whites and others at risk at the expense of not even temporarily “inconveniencing” his fellow Africans. Wallace and Obama are both despicable and both to be condemned to the trash heap of history for their actions.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
While secretly plotting to use foreign forces to impose martial law on America, President Obama is also unleashing Ebola on Americans. Or maybe that’s just God punishing us for letting gay people be free. Either way, it may be too late for America because we all failed to listen to the wise words of Keith Ablow and Steve Stockman.
5) Gays To Blame For Ebola
It was only a matter of time before someone blamed the gays for Ebola, and North Carolina pastor Ron Baity was happy to be that brave person.
Back in 2012, Baity helped spearhead the campaign to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in his state. When that ban was struck down by a federal court this week, Baity connected it with something else he was seeing in the news, predicting that God will punish America with the Ebola virus because of the fall of same-sex marriage bans and laws criminalizing homosexuality.
“We are bringing the judgment of God on this nation,” Baity said in a sermon captured by Jeremy Hooper. “As sure as Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, don’t be surprised at the plagues, don’t be surprised at the judgment of God. You think Ebola is bad now? Just wait.”
4) Obama To Blame For Ebola Because He Hates America
Fox News therapist Keith Ablow believes he has the distinct ability to speak from “deep inside the president’s psyche.” And in that psyche, Ablow finds a bitter, racist man who wants to bring Ebola to America.
Eric Hananoki of Media Matters reports that during an appearance on Fox News Radio this week, Ablow reported that that while treating Obama over the TV, he discovered that the president hates America and “has it in for us.” According to Ablow, Obama’s “affinities” are with the people of Africa and he subsequently sees it is a matter of “fairness” that more Americans contract Ebola.
In his make-believe examination of Obama, it turns out Ablow also found a collection of right-wing memes from the 2012 election: “Let me speak as though I’m coming from deep inside the president’s psyche. You miserable people have destroyed so much in the world in terms of good things, and now you're going to build a wall? Really? To insulate yourself from things that are devastating other nations when your gains are ill-gotten? And the very fact that you can build a wall — you’re using wealth that you never should have had to build it. This is just another manifestation of you didn't build that, business. Right? You didn't build the right to make yourself immune from something that is devastating a country with lesser resources.”
Phyllis Schlafly also speculated this week that President Obama wants to bring Ebola to America to make the country more like Africa: “Obama doesn’t want America to believe that we’re exceptional. He wants us to be just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”
3) Obama To Blame For Ebola Because He Hates Freedom
“It’s just bizarre there’s not enough action up front and I’m wondering if that’s — I’m not saying this — but I’m wondering if that’s intentional in order to create a greater crisis to use it as a blunt force to say, well in order to solve this crisis we’re going to have to take control of the economy and individuals and so forth,” the actual member of Congress told End Times soothsayer Rick Wiles. “It’s just a strange non-response, a strange way of handling it and I think that if it does go forward and we do not control it, there may be an overreaction where the government starts taking away the rights of those that aren’t that necessarily involved or need that to happen.”
After all, Stockman explained, “this current government uses crisis to advance their philosophy and their agenda” and Obama already gave himself the authority to exercise “emergency powers to take over control of the economy and everything.”
Stockman insisted that he was “not saying this,” just asking the question!
2) Why Hasn’t The Military Staged A Coup?
When a GOP official in a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri, wrote a Facebook post this week asking why the military hasn’t yet staged a coup to overthrow the Obama administration, she made sure to use the “just asking the question” framing we see so frequently from conservative pundits and politicians who are trying to escape any responsibility for their statements.
Debbie Dunnegan Waters, Jefferson County’s recorder of deeds, an elected office, wrote on Facebook: “I have a question for all my friends who have served or are currently serving in our military … having not put on a uniform nor taken any type military oath [sic], there has to be something that I am just not aware of. But I cannot and do not understand why no action is being taken against our domestic enemy. I know he is supposedly the commander in chief, but the constitution gives you the authority. What am I missing?”
See, she wasn’t saying the military should overthrow Obama, just asking why it hadn’t.
“Something innocent and simple got twisted into a disaster because it’s an election,” she explained after her Facebook post attracted national attention. “I meant no ill intent toward the president. I meant no ill intent toward anybody.”
Well, that settles that!
1) Vets Must Prepare For A Coup!
Alex Jones knows why the military hasn’t staged a coup yet, and the answer may surprise you!
The “Infowars” host said on Wednesday that whenever he goes out and about, military service members and police officers keep approaching him to sing his praises and confirm his fears about fluoridated water, FEMA camps and Agenda 21.
While speaking with survivalist James Wesley Rawles on Wednesday, Jones reported that the government has been brainwashing service members with messages that “Christians are bad, gun owners are bad, the founding fathers were bad. It’s like something you’d expect to see in the Red Dawn movie when they show the reeducation camp at the sports stadium with the movie screens going ‘George Washington was a pig, gun owners are bad, capitalism is bad.’”
Fortunately, Jones thinks that as a result of his show getting the truth out there, such moves have turned the military against the government: “The propaganda of the people running things is so horrible it makes you think they’re inept because this is the stuff bad guys would tell the military. I think their attempt to demonize the liberty movement has totally backfired on them and is strategically one of the biggest defeats they’ve had.”
Rawles confirmed that service members “have woken up, they have done their homework, they can see what’s really going on and they are no longer falling for the lies the administration is trying to push,” thus thwarting Obama’s plans to impose martial law: “It’s very encouraging because if they ever tried to institute martial law, they’re not going to be able to do it with American troops, they’ll have to bring in overseas troops to try to institute martial law in this country because the American military is not going to put up with it.”
Even better, Rawles noted that once there is a “situation where there is a war of resistance in America,” then “all those returning veterans are going to form the core cadre of resistance.”
Jones, however, cautioned that the Hitlerian military now treats veterans as “enemy number one.”