Brian Tashman's blog

Tancredo: 'Street Hustler' Obama Trying To Compare Himself To Mandela

Tom Tancredo, the former Republican congressman and possible 2014 Colorado gubernatorial candidate, is angry that President Obama wants to compare himself to Nelson Mandela, even though Obama hasn’t done that. Tancredo writes in a WorldNetDaily column, “Mandela and Obama: Hero vs. Street Hustler,” that “our reigning narcissist” sees himself like the late South African leader.

“Obama does remind me of Winnie Mandela, the scandalous, self-serving, demagogic second wife whom Nelson Mandela divorced because she was such an embarrassment,” Tancredo adds. “We can only wish that America could divorce Obama as easily as Mandela divorced his agitator-wife, but Obama’s crimes are more insidious and his support network more forgiving than Winnie Mandela’s.”

Curiously, Tancredo’s column hailing Mandela as South Africa’s George Washington ran in WorldNetDaily, whose editor Joseph Farah explicitly condemned Obama for likening Mandela to George Washington.

This week the world lost a rare, genuine hero of national reconciliation and racial progress, Nelson Mandela. A leader of Mandela’s character, courage and nobility comes along maybe once in a century; the 21st century has yet to see one.

Comparisons of Mandela and Obama are probably inevitable, especially when promoted by our reigning narcissist, Obama himself.

Yes, Barack Obama can be compared to Nelson Mandela – the same way a midget is compared to a giant, a zircon to a diamond, or a street-corner hustler to an astronaut. No matter how hard the mainstream media try to paint a different picture, Obama will forever remain a little speck lost in Mandela’s long shadow.

On the other hand, in one way Obama does remind me of Mandela, but not the Mandela whose legacy will be celebrated universally. Obama does remind me of Winnie Mandela, the scandalous, self-serving, demagogic second wife whom Nelson Mandela divorced because she was such an embarrassment.

We can only wish that America could divorce Obama as easily as Mandela divorced his agitator-wife, but Obama’s crimes are more insidious and his support network more forgiving than Winnie Mandela’s. She and her bodyguards were convicted of kidnapping and assault, and her tenure in the South African Parliament was marked by controversy and arrests for financial manipulations.



Mandela was not corrupted by the trappings of power, by the love of popular adulation or the lure of riches. His nation needed a George Washington, not an Adolf Hitler, and he filled the role beautifully. Mandela served only one five-year term as president of South Africa before turning over leadership to a new generation.



The United States’ constitutional traditions used to provide a model for emerging nations to follow in contrast to dictatorships and military dynasties. As Barack Obama heads off to Nelson Mandela’s funeral, we can only hope South Africa’s leaders look to America’s past achievements for guidance and inspiration, and not our present condition as a nation spiraling downward into the despotism our ancestors fought so nobly to avoid.

WND Remembers Nelson Mandela By Calling Him A Con Man

WorldNetDaily’s magazine, WND Weekly, will dedicate its latest issue to smearing Nelson Mandela:

WND Weekly is run by Elizabeth Farah, the wife of WND editor Joseph Farah, who has denounced Mandela as a terrorist bent on anti-white genocide.

The day after Mandela’s death, the group polled its readers about their perceptions of his “life and work.” Most answered that he should have been kept in jail.

Top Christian Publisher: Driscoll Plagiarized

Despite Mark Driscoll’s efforts to suppress information about his unfurling plagiarism scandal, one Christian publisher has gone public with claims that the right-wing megachurch pastor plagiarized a passage in one of his books. This is far from the only charge of plagiarism Driscoll has faced in recent days, but his allies seem intent on burying the issue.

InterVarsity Press, which bills itself as “the leading publisher of thoughtful Christian books dedicated to serving the university, the church and the world,” released a statement this morning to Christianity Today alleging that Driscoll had plagiarized entire paragraphs from a book that it published:

Several paragraphs from the New Bible Commentary edited by G. J. Wenham, J. A. Motyer, D. A. Carson and R. T. France published by InterVarsity Press appear in Mark Driscoll's now out of print book Trial: 8 Witnesses From 1 & 2 Peter. These improperly appeared without quotation or attribution. With proper citation the material would have been a case of fair use.

InterVarsity Press believes all writers should use great care as they do research and prepare texts for any use to make sure that proper acknowledgement is given to source material.

“We are grateful this was brought to our attention, and we have removed that document from our website to correct the mistake,” Driscoll’s church said in response to InterVarsity’s statement. “Additionally, we are examining all of our similar content as a precautionary measure.”

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd uncovered several examples of plagiarism by Driscoll and confronted him about the matter on her radio show last week. Soon afterwards, Mefferd’s supporting material and her interview with Driscoll disappeared from her website, and she apologized for making the claims public.

In case you need another clue as to why Mefferd apologized and is trying to remove all evidence of the matter, the Christian Post reports that Driscoll’s publisher, Tyndale House, has a partnership with Mefferd’s employer, the Salem Radio Network. Salem’s “Testimonials” page features an excerpt from a Tyndale spokesperson:

Salem Radio Network is one of Tyndale’s most valued and respected media partners. They have always provided us with custom advertising campaigns that deliver outstanding results. Their professionalism and expertise has brought us back year after year. We couldn’t be happier with the quality of service we’ve received from SRN.

Tyndale criticized Mefferd for her “belligerent tone” during the interview in which she confronted Driscoll with plagiarism charges. One pastor close to Driscoll even called for a boycott of Mefferd’s show.

Ingrid Schlueter resigned as a producer from Mefferd’s show shortly after Mefferd apologized to Driscoll, strongly suggesting that she faced pressure from “the machine”:

I was a part-time, topic producer for Janet Mefferd until yesterday when I resigned over this situation. All I can share is that there is an evangelical celebrity machine that is more powerful than anyone realizes. You may not go up against the machine. That is all. Mark Driscoll clearly plagiarized and those who could have underscored the seriousness of it and demanded accountability did not. That is the reality of the evangelical industrial complex.



I’ve read much speculation online, which is understandable given the confusing situation, most of it dead wrong. Being limited in what I can share, let me just say that truth tellers face multiple pressure sources these days. I hosted a radio show for 23 years and know from experience how Big Publishing protects its celebrities. Anything but fawning adulation for those who come on your show (a gift of free air time for the author/publisher by the way) is not taken well. Like Dr. Carl Trueman so aptly asked yesterday in his column at Reformation 21, does honest journalism have any role to play in evangelicalism now? (It was rhetorical.) My own take on that question is, no, it does not. The moment hard questions are asked, the negative focus goes on the questioner, not the celebrity, when there is something that needs scrutiny. Those who have the temerity to call out a celebrity have tremendous courage. The easiest thing in the world is to do fluffy interviews with fluffy guests on fluffy books. So hats off to those like Janet who have the courage to ask at all. And my own opinion on Mr. Driscoll is that despite the bravado, despite the near silence of his Reformed peers and enablers, his brand is damaged, and damaged by his own hand.

WND Investigates: Is Obama A Communist Or A Nazi?

In a bombshell investigation published yesterday, the right-wing news outlet WorldNetDaily has learned that President Obama is not a communist! But don’t be too stunned by this startling claim, as instead it turns out that the president is a Nazi.

WND’s Bob Unruh interviewed radio host Chuck Morse yesterday about the president’s alleged Nazism, which is based on the laughable claim that the Nazis were actually left-wing.

“I’m not suggesting [Obama] is an anti-Semite. I’m not suggesting he’s going to set up a Holocaust. But putting all that stuff aside, when you strip that away from historical Nazism and look at the political philosophy of Nazism, this is very much what Barack Obama is into,” Morse said.

His evidence?

Well, Obama talks about Nazi-things like “hope” and “change” and supports “left-progressivism,” which he argues “is largely to blame not only for the Nazi Holocaust but also for most of the programs of Holocaust, Genocide and Democide that have been implemented in the modern era.”

Critics of Barack Obama, horrified at his “transformation” of America and particularly his government takeovers of large parts of the U.S. economy, have gone so far as to accuse him of being a communist or neo-communist. However, those critics are mistaken, contends a conservative talk host and author whose new book “Was Hitler a Leftist?” examines the German dictator’s radical agenda in light of today’s leftist movement in the United States.

His conclusion? Obama is, at least in some ways, more akin to a “national socialist” than a communist.

“I have to be careful saying that,” said Chuck Morse, host of the IRN USA News talk show. “I’m not suggesting [Obama] is an anti-Semite. I’m not suggesting he’s going to set up a Holocaust. But putting all that stuff aside, when you strip that away from historical Nazism and look at the political philosophy of Nazism, this is very much what Barack Obama is into.”



Morse examines elements of National Socialism he sees in Obama’s administration. Those include a national welfare system, nationalization of police forces, a centralized regulation of private businesses, a centralization of power and bureaucracies imposing their own demands on a citizenry.

He also looks at the use of demonization, noting many leftists today don’t say their political opponents merely are wrong but that they want to hurt people. His book notes Hitler’s suspension of the German Constitution. Members of Congress just this week held a hearing in which experts testified Obama has systematically breached the Constitution.

That Nazism was leftist hardly can be argued, he said.



Morse said it’s a concern that the federal government has been purchasing tens of millions of hollow point ammunition, which is illegal in international use, he said. What, he asked, would it be used for?

In his book, he challenges “students of Nazism and of the Nazi Holocaust to integrate the missing link into the otherwise excellent body of work and research that has been done on Hitler and his evil regime.”



“Let’s be clear,” he writes, “Left-progressives today are not responsible for the Holocaust, nor were most well-meaning left-progressives at the time of the Holocaust responsible. Yet, and unquestionably, left-progressivism, as a political philosophy and theory, when enthroned and when holding the reins of absolute power, is largely to blame not only for the Nazi Holocaust but also for most of the programs of Holocaust, Genocide and Democide that have been implemented in the modern era.”



He also noted that among Hitler’s themes were the now-familiar “hope” and “change.”

Religious Right Activists Laud Congressman's Campaign Against Gay Republicans

Anti-gay leaders are cheering on Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) in his effort to block funding and support for two openly gay Republican congressional candidates. Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s Peter LaBarbera praised Forbes for trying to preserve the GOP’s hard line against gay equality:

"The Republican party platform is opposed for the most part to homosexual activism, especially gay so-called marriage," says LaBarbera. "So Forbes understands that the Republican Party should not be in the business of promoting candidates that are going to promote sexual immorality."

LaBarbera says he is disappointed that many other prominent Republicans don't have a problem with "gay" GOP candidates.

"It's disappointing to see House Speaker Boehner and other prominent Republicans backing openly homosexual candidates because these candidates are not going to serve the interest of the Republican Party if the party still claims to be pro-family," the family advocate tells OneNewsNow.

Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values, meanwhile, criticized House Speaker John Boehner for distancing himself from Forbes’ initiative.

In fact, Burress thinks “it is time for Boehner to be replaced as speaker” for caving to “self-proclaimed homosexuals” and “the homosexual agenda.”

"Sometimes I think he's been in Washington too long," Phil Burress, chairman of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values Action Political Action Committee, says of House Speaker John Boehner.



"If you're going to elect people who are self-proclaimed homosexuals, then you're totally ignoring what the Republican Party stands for in its national platform, marriage between one man and one woman," Burress tells OneNewsNow.

Burress observes he has never seen a homosexual in the Republican Party "who does not promote the homosexual agenda," which he says includes same-sex marriage and abortion.

One problem plaguing the GOP is the so-called big tent approach.

"The Democrats have two non-negotiable issues, same-sex marriage and abortion rights," Burress claims. "The Republican Party never talks about their non-negotiable issues because I don't think they have any."

Burress also says it is time for Boehner to be replaced as speaker.

UPDATE: Family Research Council president Tony Perkins also favors Forbes’ push against gay candidates:

While Forbes has been blasted for his comments, he knows -- as well as we do -- that this debate is about a lot more than someone's sexual preference. While we reject the false dichotomy of private and public morality, I -- like most Americans -- would rather not know about a person's bedroom habits. That's not the issue for Rep. Forbes. What he cares about --and what the GOP should too -- is whether these candidates will abide by the party's platform. When Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was asked if his party could support an openly homosexual candidate, he replied, "I do." But the real question isn't whether the GOP would support an openly homosexual candidate, but whether it would support an openly homosexual activist who has sought to redefine marriage and undermine religious freedom. At the end of the day, conservatives and homosexual activists cannot coexist in a movement predicated on virtues that pre-date positive law. If there is a litmus test, it should be on ideology.

Instead, the NRCC and Republican Establishment are so desperate to beat the opposition that they'll sacrifice core principles to try. And here's the irony: that weak-kneed approach is what turns voters off. "Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender, or sexual orientation," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the NRCC, "but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats." Translation: the GOP will throw its support behind any candidate they believe can win, even it means throwing the party's stated principles overboard.

Klayman: Fight To Overthrow Obama Like Mandela's Fight Against Apartheid

Channeling Rick Santorum, Freedom Watch’s Larry Klayman wrote in a column this weekend that Tea Party activists fighting President Obama are the true heirs to Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.

Klayman, who is calling for the overthrow of the Obama administration, wrote in WorldNetDaily that he will soon establish a Third Continental Congress and a “government in waiting” since his tiny White House rally failed to convince the president to resign.

“[L]et us take Mandela’s achievement in liberating South Africa from bondage as a further example of what we can accomplish in freeing our own nation from the choking despotic governmental slavery of Obama and his pliant Democratic and Republican minions in Congress and the judiciary,” Klayman wrote.

“We will soon be announcing the date to convene the Third Continental Congress in Philadelphia early next year where, taking a page from the Founding Fathers, we will meet to plan the next steps of our Second American Revolution, with delegates from all 50 states.”

The parallels to the even direr situation the United States now finds itself in today are striking. We are ruled by someone who is in effect the pharaoh and at the least a Muslim at heart who disdains the Judeo-Christian heritage and foundations upon which our nation was forged and who has rung up extreme national debt and loathes capitalism, instead seeing it his “duty” to redistribute wealth to “his” people for years of their slavery. President Barack Hussein Obama and his compromised if not corrupt enablers in Congress and in the judiciary, like a time warp, have thrust We the People back to 1776 and provoked our Second American Revolution. And, the current revolutionary climate is even more severe, since unlike the colonies, contemporary America is on the steep decline. Our resources, wealth, ethics, spirituality and liberties are being stifled by a socialistic choke hold on our economy and lives, where our “Muslim” president and the government, not God, is to be worshiped and obeyed – else authoritarian henchmen and thugs at the NSA and IRS will destroy you.

To seek redress for our grievances, as our forefathers attempted leading up to independence day on July 4, 1776, the Reclaim America Now Coalition gave notice in front of the White House on Nov.19 of this year that if the people’s freedoms were not restored by the day after Thanksgiving, the Second American Revolution would begin in earnest. True to the predictions of anyone living in our times, our grievances went unanswered by our illegitimate government usurpers, and now we must make good on our threats of non-violent, civil disobedience to attempt redress.

In this regard, as we mourn the death this week of Nelson Mandela, a great man who, like his American counterpart Martin Luther King, used civil disobedience successfully to bring freedom to his people and by definition all people (who are created equal with certain unalienable rights, as Jefferson put it), let us take Mandela’s achievement in liberating South Africa from bondage as a further example of what we can accomplish in freeing our own nation from the choking despotic governmental slavery of Obama and his pliant Democratic and Republican minions in Congress and the judiciary.

We will soon be announcing the date to convene the Third Continental Congress in Philadelphia early next year where, taking a page from the Founding Fathers, we will meet to plan the next steps of our Second American Revolution, with delegates from all 50 states.

We will also use the occasion to appoint committees to coordinate the revolution and to elect a government in waiting to take over on the day when our current corrupt leaders are forced by the citizenry to leave their thrones and freedom is restored to our shores.

Like our Founding Fathers in 1776, the time is now to risk all we have to save the nation from government tyrants before all is lost.

Sandy Rios On The War On Christmas: 'This Is Exactly What Hitler Did In Nazi Germany'

American Family Association head Tim Wildmon joined AFA radio host Sandy Rios today to discuss a USA Today article about how “Not all Christians believe there is a ‘War on Christmas.’” Wildmon spent most of the interview complaining that any Christian would dare criticize the AFA, which is a leading voice in movement to expose the “War on Christmas.” He told Rios that he resented Christian leaders who mock the idea of the War on Christmas or note that the AFA’s campaign actually emphasizes the material aspect of the holiday by focusing on how many stores tell customers “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.”

Wildmon accused one pastor, who told USA Today that Christians needed to come to grips with the religious diversity in the US, of wanting Christians to partake in “a dangerous retreat into isolating ourselves from the larger culture.”

“This is exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany,” Rios said. She went on to compare the supposed War on Christmas to religious oppression in the Soviet Union and North Korea.

“I don’t think this pastor understands and I don’t think people understand what is going on in the world,” she said. “They don’t have a large enough world. Their world is too small and so they don’t understand the dangers.”

Sorry Sarah Palin, But Thomas Jefferson Led The War On Christmas

Sarah Palin seems to be under the impression that Thomas Jefferson would stand with her and the folks at Fox News and Liberty University in protesting the non-existent “War on Christmas” and set straight “those who would want to try to abort Christ from Christianity.”

But Palin might want to read The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, or The Jefferson Bible, from which the nation’s founder actually removed passages from the Bible, including the virgin birth and angelic visitations detailed in Matthew and Luke, at the center of Christian teaching on Christ’s birth:

1: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

2: (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3: And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5: To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6: And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7: And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8: And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS.

9: And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

New Twist In Mark Driscoll Plagiarism Scandal: 'You May Not Go Up Against The Machine'

Conservative radio host Janet Mefferd has decided to pull her report on plagiarism by Christian Right megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll, but not for the reasons you might think. The evidence is quite clear that Driscoll repeatedly engaged in plagiarism, but Mefferd has decided to pull incriminating documents, and even copies of her initial interview with the pastor, in what appears to be a reaction to criticism from Driscoll’s allies.

On the Wednesday edition of her radio show, Mefferd even apologized to Driscoll: “The interview should not have occurred at all, I should have contacted Tyndale House [Driscoll’s publisher] directly to alert them to the plagiarism issue and I never should have brought it to the attention of listeners publicly. I would like to apologize to all of you and to Mark Driscoll for how I behaved, I am sorry.”

Reflecting on the matter, Carl Trueman of the Westminster Theological Seminary wondered: “Is journalism no longer considered a legitimate Christian calling? Or is the task of the Christian journalist simply to strengthen the hand of the vested interests?” Blogger Dee Parsons noted that Driscoll may have been especially offended that the charges of plagiarism came from a woman.

Indeed, it seems that Mefferd faced tremendous pressure and criticism from Tyndale House Publishers and Driscoll’s allies, one of whom called for an interview boycott of her show.

One of Mefferd’s producers, Ingrid Schlueter, even resigned in reaction to the criticism.

Schleuter used to work for VCY America’s Crosstalk (whose host is her father, Vic Eliason). But she left in 2011, warning that “the mafia crime families have nothing on ‘Christian ministry.’”

Warren Throckmorton grabbed Schleuter’s posts about the Driscoll plagiarism scandal before they were removed from an online forum:

I was a part-time, topic producer for Janet Mefferd until yesterday when I resigned over this situation. All I can share is that there is an evangelical celebrity machine that is more powerful than anyone realizes. You may not go up against the machine. That is all. Mark Driscoll clearly plagiarized and those who could have underscored the seriousness of it and demanded accountability did not. That is the reality of the evangelical industrial complex.



I’ve read much speculation online, which is understandable given the confusing situation, most of it dead wrong. Being limited in what I can share, let me just say that truth tellers face multiple pressure sources these days. I hosted a radio show for 23 years and know from experience how Big Publishing protects its celebrities. Anything but fawning adulation for those who come on your show (a gift of free air time for the author/publisher by the way) is not taken well. Like Dr. Carl Trueman so aptly asked yesterday in his column at Reformation 21, does honest journalism have any role to play in evangelicalism now? (It was rhetorical.) My own take on that question is, no, it does not. The moment hard questions are asked, the negative focus goes on the questioner, not the celebrity, when there is something that needs scrutiny. Those who have the temerity to call out a celebrity have tremendous courage. The easiest thing in the world is to do fluffy interviews with fluffy guests on fluffy books. So hats off to those like Janet who have the courage to ask at all. And my own opinion on Mr. Driscoll is that despite the bravado, despite the near silence of his Reformed peers and enablers, his brand is damaged, and damaged by his own hand. (emphasis ours)

UPDATE: Jonathan Merritt reports that Mefferd refuses to comment on the cae:

It seems likely that, at the very least, Schlueter’s did in fact resign. I say this because I called and spoke with Mefferd moments ago. I asked her to confirm whether Ingrid Schlueter did, in fact, resign. She responded, “No comment.” I asked a round of six follow-up questions about Schlueter and whether Mefferd still believes the allegations she made were true. Each time, she responded with “no comment.”

Emails to Bobby Belt, another producer with the Janet Mefferd Show, have not been returned.

Paranoia-Rama: This Week In Right-Wing Lunacy - 12/6/13

RWW's Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

Did you know that gay people seek to use the government to steal the children of conservative parents and kill Christians? Or that a commonsense, bipartisan bill to ban undetectable guns first signed into law by Ronald Reagan is actually a plot by President Obama to threaten all gun owners? Well, we didn’t! But thanks to the totally reasonable and coherent arguments from right-wing figures, we do now:

5. The Gay-Liberal Adoption Plot Exposed

Stan Solomon, who you might remember from such conspiracy theories as ‘Obama is forming a black paramilitary’ and ‘Obamacare will force people into electro-shock therapy,’ now warns that liberals will take the children of conservative parents and put them into the homes of abusive gay couples. Of course, Phyllis Schlafly thinks Solomon is onto something:

4. Limbaugh Senses Conspiracy Behind Retraction Of Erroneous Report

The World Health Organization corrected a report that mistakenly claimed there was a rise in “self-inflicted” HIV infections in Greece as a way to collect welfare benefits , saying the report was unfounded and a result of an editing error: “There is no evidence suggesting that deliberate self-infection with H.I.V. goes beyond a few anecdotal cases.” But it didn't matter to Rush Limbaugh, who insisted that, in fact, the original, erroneous WHO declaration was true:

So what do you think really happened here? Do you think they goofed up? I don’t, either. I think they’re trying to walk back what they inadvertently admitted yesterday. And being leftists, I’m sure they didn't think that they would get the kind of reaction they got. I’m sure they were expecting to get reactions rooted in sympathy and compassion, and instead they got reactions that were based and rooted in outrage. They were not prepared for that, so now it's, dare we say, CYA time here at the World Health Organization.

3. Obama Trying To Close Vatican Embassy

Even though the words “relocate” and “close” are different words that mean different things, Republicans pounced on the news that the US Embassy to the Holy See, or the Vatican, will be relocated to charge that Obama is trying to close the embassy as part of his anti-Catholic agenda.

Jeb Bush suggested it was the result of “retribution for Catholic organizations opposing Obamacare;” the National Republican Senatorial Committee called it “a slap in the face to Catholic-Americans;” one Washington Times columnist billed the move as an attempt to “snub the Pope” and “pick a fight with Catholics” and a Breitbart blogger said it was the result of “the Regime’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance.”

“Neither Obama, nor the State Department, are planning on permanently closing the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See – also known as the Vatican,” CNN reports. “What is happening, however, is the building the embassy is currently using is being moved to a property closer to Vatican City.”

The Washington Post points out that the government report “which urged moving the embassy for both cost and security reasons — as well as practicality” was issued during the Bush administration in 2008, or before Obama even took office.

2. Ban On Undetectable Guns Threatens All Gun Owners

Gun Owners of America is deeply concerned that the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to “extend a ban on manufacturing plastic firearms that are not detectable by security-screening devices.” The right-wing group’s spokesman Erich Pratt claims that the bill will open “the door for greater mischief much later,” will inevitably be “twisted by President Obama,” and represents “an unconstitutional infringement of our liberties that is not only ineffective, but could eventually be expanded by an anti-gun administration to ban even more guns.”

The National Association for Gun Rights put out a similar petition demanding the House “oppose any and all gun control legislation” unless they too want to be labeled as “gun-grabbers” and “anti-gunners.” NAGR calls the bill “a ticking time bomb” that “could spell disaster for gun owners.”

How far out are GOA and NAGR for opposing a bill prohibiting the manufacture of undetectable plastic guns? Not only does the GOP leadership support an extension of the 1988 law (that’s right, signed into law by Ronald Reagan), but even the National Rifle Association refused to oppose the bill.

1. Gay Marriage Will Kill Christians

We probably shouldn’t be surprised that a commentator for Renew America believes that the gay rights movement is a Satanic plot to murder Christians.

“The Godless communists (or fascists, if you prefer) are using the homosexual agenda to work toward eradicating Christian opposition to their plans, which are Satan’s plans,” Gina Miller writes. “If you know your Bible, then you know that Christianity is destined to be outlawed. We are moving steadily toward a time when Christians here in America will be in danger of state-sanctioned murder for their beliefs.”

We really couldn’t make this stuff up if we tried:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious