Roger Stone, a confidant of and former adviser to Donald Trump, told far-right activist Jesse Lee Peterson on his radio program last week that the GOP presidential frontrunner developed his self-confidence from the knowledge that God has a hand in his campaign.
“I think that he believes that his election is guided by God,” Stone said. “I think that he believes that he’s been put here at this time and place to save this country. I don’t think he talks about it that way because, as you know, some non-believers would accuse him of being insane, but I think that there’s an internal guidance here that is very much a part of him.”
“I do believe he has divine guidance,” Stone added.
After failing to block the Charlotte city council from approving a nondiscrimination ordinance protecting the LGBT community, conservative activists successfully persuaded North Carolina’s GOP-led government last month to pass a sweeping law blocking Charlotte’s measure.
In a WorldNetDaily column today defending the new state law, the Benham twins write that just as the men in the city of Sodom tried to rape the angels who appeared in Lot’s house, now “the newest fruit of the vine of Sodom is the sexual revolution — and it’s poisoning our land. It has nearly taken over everything and is forcing itself on everyone.”
The brothers argue that just as the rapists of Sodom refused Lot’s offer that they rape his daughter instead of the angels, the sexual revolutionaries in America do not believe in compromise or accommodation and simply seek to destroy anyone who doesn’t go along with their demonic agenda.
“Today, the sexual revolution of Sodom has pervaded every sphere of society,” the Benhams write, “capturing both young and old. And anyone standing in the way will be surrounded by an angry mob demanding participation.”
“The sexual revolution is ‘blind’ to its own rage and hate,” they write. “It has no capacity for reason. It has no ability to see its own hypocrisy or discern its hopeless future. It just forces itself on others regardless of cost or consequence.”
America has fallen to this “demanding and pervasive” spirit, the Benham’s continue, “and nothing short of a miracle will stop its deadly poison.”
Alluding to a bogusstudy that claimed that eight out of 10 mosques in America preach violence and extremism, Guandolo urged the government to start “arresting all of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the U.S., shutting down their organizations, and all Muslim Brotherhood mosques, which is over 80 percent of them.”
Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller similarly told WorldNetDaily that mosques are a “clear and present danger.”
Pamela Geller, who was herself a target of an Islamic terror attack last year at a draw-Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, said the Obama administration has all but stopped the monitoring of U.S. mosques.
“For years, I have been calling on law enforcement and the FBI to pay closer attention to the mosques,” she told WND. “They present a clear and present danger.”
John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism agent specializing in Quranic-inspired violence, said the U.S. is not doing anything to push back on the jihadi community “which is centered in the mosques which Islamic leaders in North America call the ‘axis of their movement.'”
If anything, the Obama administration is protecting the Islamic community whose stated objective is the destruction of all un-Islamic governments and replacing them with Islamic control under Shariah, he said.
After leaving the FBI Guandolo formed Understanding the Threat, an organization that teaches the tenets of Islam to law enforcement agencies.
“If we ‘monitor’ mosques now, who will do that? So few in law enforcement have been taught about Shariah, the Muslim Brotherhood jihadi network, etcetera,” he said. “UTT is the only organization in the nation doing it.”
Guandolo said he would start by reining in the record influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, and then going after the Muslim Brotherhood operatives.
“If we begin with arresting all of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the U.S., shutting down their organizations, and all Muslim Brotherhood mosques, which is over 80 percent of them, that would be a good start,” he said.
He said this could be done under existing law.
“The underlying federal charge would fall under Title 18 – Conspiracy to Overthrow the Federal government,” he said.
Today on “The Savage Nation,” conservative talk radio host Michael Savage asked Donald Trump if he plans to moderate his message before the general election.
“The reason you’re popular is because of borders, because of immigration, because of the flood of Muslims coming into the country,” Savage said. “I would almost say, Donald, please don’t let the moderate influences in your campaign take you off-point, it’s what got you where you are. Are you going to modify your campaign and move a little bit more to the center now?”
Trump assured him that he would not adjust his message, telling Savage that “the last thing I should be doing now is changing so I don’t think you have anything to worry about, okay?”
Throughout 2014, the three fed Trump strategy memos and political intelligence. “I listened to thousands of hours of talk radio, and he was getting reports from me,” [Sam] Nunberg recalled. What those reports said was that the GOP base was frothing over a handful of issues including immigration, Obamacare, and Common Core. While Jeb Bush talked about crossing the border as an “act of love,” Trump was thinking about how high to build his wall. “We either have borders or we don’t,” Trump told the faithful who flocked to the annual CPAC conference in 2014.
Trump didn’t read a prepared speech, but he knew what he wanted to say, which hardly mattered anyway because hardly anyone took his candidacy seriously at the time. “Nobody said anything,” Trump said about the fact that he had accused Mexico of sending “rapists” over the border into the U.S. “Then two weeks later, they started saying, ‘Wait a minute! Did he really say that?’ ”
He hadn’t tested the line, but Nunberg’s deep dive into talk radio had shown him that this was the sort of thing that would resonate with a certain segment of the Republican base. He also knew that this kind of outrageous statement would earn him the free media attention ($1.9 billion worth and counting, according to the New York Times) that would propel his campaign.
“Men who apologize and retreat from telling the truth come back defeated,” he wrote. “People suffer and die because men and women do not heed wisdom.”
He claimed that children suffer because women see themselves as victims: “We see the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown out front acting innocent and sweet. In reality, these women are primarily responsible for the inner rage that drove the teens to their deaths.”
The failure of men is failure to address the evil in women. Children suffer for it. With no correction, victims continue to create victims.
Donald Trump said a woman should be punished for having an abortion if it became illegal, and the liberals went nuts. He eventually put out a statement saying a woman should not be punished, but only the abortionist. He said, “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.” Whether or not she’s a “victim,” in most cases the woman is an accomplice.
A victim (or “survivor”) shifts responsibility and judges and victimizes others. A mother like this destroys her children spiritually if not physically.
I write about such mothers in my book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame and Victimhood.” One black woman became pregnant by a man who refused to take responsibility for the child. She tried to abort her son with a coat hanger, and killed his soul: Louis Farrakhan grew up as one of the most evil leaders today, deluding blacks in his mother’s anger and victimhood.
We see the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown out front acting innocent and sweet. In reality, these women are primarily responsible for the inner rage that drove the teens to their deaths.
Barack Obama said that his wife is “the boss.” I guarantee you she despises him for it. An angry woman cannot respect a weak man. And many Christian men are just like Obama.
Men who apologize and retreat from telling the truth come back defeated. People suffer and die because men and women do not heed wisdom. People would rather be angry and outraged on behalf of “women” (or politics) than listen and consider the truth in statements.
It is painful to watch conservative men pander and cater to women – grown men like Ted Cruz, whom I have respected and appreciated over the years, using women’s words, making meaningless, emotional statements that do not suit a man, even allowing Carly Fiorina to speak for him. Cruz said of Trump, “Real men don’t try to bully women.” He said, “Donald Trump is intimidated by strong women.” He said of his wife, “Heidi is my best friend in the whole world; she is the love of my life.” He said of his daughters: “I’m not looking forward to telling the girls why Donald Trump is launching insults and attacks at their mommy.”
“Mommy?” Who has Ted Cruz talking this way? Who finds this appealing? This is not what it means to be about family. I said on my radio show that, hearing this, I would never vote for Ted Cruz. He is a weak man. There are no “strong women.” And men don’t say, “Real men don’t try to bully women.” If a woman attacks you, you fight back.
Conservative commentator Gina Loudon dedicated her WorldNetDaily column yesterday to defending Donald Trump’s recent comment that, if abortion is recriminalized, women who have illegal abortions should face “some form of punishment.”
Trump’s campaign, taking heat from the anti-abortion movement for blowing up its PR strategy, attempted to retract the candidate’s comments shortly after he made them. Two days later, Trump suggested that he didn’t actually want to change the current abortion laws at all, a position that his campaign also ended up retracting.
Loudon, however, was just fine with Trump’s initial suggestion that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions, hailing the candidate for upending the debate on an important issue just as he did “when discussing illegal immigration.”
Loudon, defending Trump’s remarks, compared punishing a woman for having an abortion to prosecuting a person who “hires a contractor to kill someone.”
“Conservatives herald ‘the rule of law’ when discussing illegal immigration, but why do the rules suddenly change when we are talking about the killing of an unborn child?” she asked.
“His view was consistent with many things conservatives say,” Loudon continued. “He just didn’t know this was the unspeakable – kind of like saying we should stop illegal immigration was the unspeakable before Trump dared to say otherwise.”
Indeed, Loudon noted that Trump is simply saying what many people in the anti-abortion believe but refuse to say publicly: “Is there a pro-lifer out there that doesn’t think that in a perfect world — where we agreed abortion was, for example, illegal after the first trimester – that the woman could, if working with full knowledge, be held accountable for her complicity in the abortion? Shouldn’t this, like any law that is broken, be considered in a case-by-case manner?”
Abortion rights opponents who criticize Trump, Loudon argued, have decided to “jump on the gender identity ‘women are always victims’ bandwagon” rather than argue that women should be held accountable through prosecutions, making Trump “even more pro-life than the [sic] some of the pro-life groups out there.”
Donald Trump has no high-paid consultants around him telling him what he can and can’t say, even on the liberal’s favorite conservative-killing topic of abortion. They talk all about the woman’s right to choose as if women are so frail and helpless they shouldn’t bear any of the personal responsibility conservatives talk about in other political realms.
Trump knew this: If a person hires a contractor to kill someone, under the law, both the person hiring the contracted killer and the killer are held accountable. In his non-political mind, why would he think any differently?
Conservatives herald “the rule of law” when discussing illegal immigration, but why do the rules suddenly change when we are talking about the killing of an unborn child?
If you kill a pregnant woman, and her baby dies as a result, in most states that is a double homicide.
Donald Trump is new to political campaigns. He has not been formally trained on the political answer to every politically loaded question, like where one stands on abortion.
He has not spent hours in front of a mirror with consultants drilling his words, body language and intonation on every topic. If he had, rest assured, the consultants would have started with abortion. This is the single most un-discussable, off-limits, never-mention topic in all of politics.
When pressed by Chris Matthews, Trump said women who abort their unborn babies should perhaps receive some form of punishment if indeed the abortion in question was banned and, therefore, breaking the law. Trump said he hadn’t thought of what the punishment should be, but you could tell that he hadn’t seen the memo from the GOP consultants that said you aren’t supposed to discuss the personal responsibility of women in this scenario.
His view was consistent with many things conservatives say. He just didn’t know this was the unspeakable – kind of like saying we should stop illegal immigration was the unspeakable before Trump dared to say otherwise.
Is there a pro-lifer out there that doesn’t think that in a perfect world – where we agreed abortion was, for example, illegal after the first trimester – that the woman could, if working with full knowledge, be held accountable for her complicity in the abortion? Shouldn’t this, like any law that is broken, be considered in a case-by-case manner?
When Trump took on the issue of illegal immigration, he ignored conventional wisdom and said that people who broke the law and came here illegally should be punished. The silent majority surprisingly cheered.
Trump came to his position on illegal immigration by using logic and defying political correctness.
After his comments in the MSNBC town hall, Donald Trump has arguably become the most pro-life candidate in the race for president. He is now even more pro-life than the [sic] some of the pro-life groups out there.
I wish I didn’t have to come to Donald Trump’s defense, but to jump on the gender identity “women are always victims” bandwagon against him over this issue would be intellectually dishonest of me. It’s time for authenticity in politics. If conservatives want to talk about the power of women, the rule of law and personal responsibility, gray areas in abortion cannot be glossed over.
Mr. Trump said what he thought. Pro-lifers won’t win in this country until they are courageous enough to admit that not all women who chose to abort their babies are victims. Furthermore, Mr. Trump has vowed to appoint a pro-life Supreme Court justice, as has Sen. Ted Cruz.
Last week, North Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest spoke with anti-LGBT activist Tony Perkins about the state’s new law banning transgender people from using public restrooms of the gender they identify with and barring cities from instituting LGBT nondiscrimination measures.
The state law, HB2, was enacted in a special session that was called to block a Charlotte measure prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination in places of public accommodation.
Forest, in a March 31 interview with Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, on his “Washington Watch” radio program, said that the state law was actually needed to prevent discrimination, alleging that Charlotte’s protections for LGBT people discriminated against women and children.
“Nobody likes discrimination,” Forest said. “We don’t like discrimination and that’s why we passed an anti-discrimination law, that’s what HB2 was. Nobody likes discrimination, so it’s easy to stand up and say, ‘We don’t like anybody being discriminated against.’ Well, our bill does not discriminate against anybody. In fact, the Charlotte ordinance was amazingly discriminatory against especially women and girls who no longer had the freedom to walk into a restroom and know that they would be safe and secure in that restroom without a man walking in or a pedophile or a predator walking into that bathroom. That’s really discriminatory if you want to talk about discrimination.”
Forest’s allegation that protections for LGBT people will empower child predators has been roundlydebunked.
Forest then claimed that the LGBT “lobby” has misrepresented the law because “for them, truth is all relative, there is no absolute truth anymore so they can bend the rules and twist it however they want to to push their agenda.”
On Saturday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin introduced GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump at a rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, by delivering a “pop quiz” to attendees.
“Maybe if you guys yell out the answer then maybe the media will listen to you all and they can — with respect for you — they will be able to report accurately the answer to these simple questions,” Palin attempted to explain.
After declaring that Trump is “the only candidate who has actually created middle-class jobs and helped Americans realize the American Dream,” Palin asked, “Who is the only candidate who promotes women in his own company and has shattered the glass ceiling decades before that was a popular thing to do? Who respects the women?”
“Donald!” the crowd answered.
The former Republican vice presidential candidate explained that Trump showed his reliance on “strong women” by having his daughter, Ivanka, as one of his top advisers.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
Even as the GOP appears to be on the verge of nominating Donald Trump for president, it seems that not a day goes by without the candidate or his campaign promoting bizarre claims or flagrantly disregarding the truth.
5) What The Trump Campaign Considers ‘Proof’
While we would typically use this space to share conspiracy theories touted by Ted Cruz, this week we couldn’t pass up the chance to discuss a conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz.
The Texas senator, who is Trump’s strongest remaining rival in the GOP presidential race, has spent the last couple of weeks locked in a “You started it!” back-and-forth with Trump. (For the record, Trump started it).
Things escalated when Cruz accused the Trump campaign of planting a story in the National Enquirer alleging that Cruz has had extramarital affairs with several women, including former adviser Amanda Carpenter. Carpenter and Cruz have both denied the allegations.
Trump denied that his team planted the Enquirer story, while at the same time saying that “Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz.”
And Trump’s director of social media, Dan Scavino, was more than happy to push the allegations about Cruz’s supposed affair with Carpenter, posting a positively bizarre video involving temporary tattoos, a men’s jacket and cheese that he sees as proof of their relationship.
Given the sheer number of insane conspiracy theories embraced by Trump and his campaign, it isn’t too surprising that Scavino would publicize this insane video.
4) Donald Trump Debunked…Again
Donald Trump told CNN in February that he was most likely facing an IRS audit “because of religion” and “because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian and I feel strongly about it.”
Trump’s campaign eventually released a statement from his lawyers confirming that the GOP presidential frontrunner is being audited … but debunking Trump’s claim that the audit is an act of anti-Christian persecution.
The Secret Service may have denied a petition (started by a liberal satirist but apparently signed by many true believers) to allow guns into the Republican National Convention this year, but it turns out GOP may face a bigger security threat: journalists carrying pens.
After then-Breitbart news reporter Michelle Fields said that Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbed her and bruised her arm at a campaign event, Lewandowski claimed he “never touched” Fields and Trump himself said that Fields “made up” the assault.
No longer denying that the incident ever happened, the candidate and his defenders are now ludicrously arguing that Lewandowski heroically stopped Fields from getting too close to Trump, who was signing autographs and speaking with other members of the press at the time.
Trump said Fields’ pen was “very dangerous” and could’ve been a “little bomb,” and even suggested that she was the one assaulting him.
Televangelist Pat Robertson, who has praised Trump repeatedly on his “700 Club” program, similarly alleged that Fields “rushed” the candidate and “could’ve had a bomb.”
2) False Flag
Leave it to Alex Jones, the InfoWars conspiracy theorist and Trumpsupporter, to allege that Lewandowski’s grabbing of Fields was somehow her fault and was part of “a frame job.”
“You talk about a staged event, you talk about a false flag, that’s a frame-up,” Jones said, suggesting that Fields, who at the time was working for the conservative outlet Breitbart, somehow wanted to get bruised by Lewandowski so she could manipulate “women to go basically vote for Hillary.”
1) ‘Plans To Enslave An Entire Nation’
During a recent broadcast of “Trunews,” Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and ex-Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, discussed the supposed threat of Democracy Spring, a protest calling for money-in-politics reform, with host Rick Wiles.
Stockman called the planned protest “a threat to our national security” and “a threat to our nation’s survival,” while Pratt thought the people involved in the Democracy Spring campaign would try to “take over” the U.S.
Unfortunately, according to Pratt, members of the media are covering up this insidious plot because they “don’t want to talk about plans to overthrow a government, they don’t want to talk about plans to enslave an entire nation and yet it happens before our very eyes.”
Today, the conservative website WorldNetDaily responded to the news that the Federal Communications Commission just “approved a $9.25 monthly broadband subsidy to help millions of low-income households connect to the Internet” through the Lifeline program by bashing it as the “ObamaInternet.”