Horowitz stated that Black Lives Matter is a “racist movement” but that Republicans don’t criticize it because they’re “afraid of being called racist.”
Anti-choice groups have made no secret of the fact that they are pressuring Senate Republicans to continue their blockade of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, in the hope that a Republican-nominated justice will vote to undo Roe v. Wade.
Americans United for Life, the group that shapes the anti-choice movement’s legal strategy, made this argument explicitly in an email today asking members to pressure their senators to keep up the blockade of Garland.
Clarke Forsythe, the group’s acting president, claims in the email that the “only reason abortion advocates are pushing this nomination is to roll back the pro-life gains in courts and legislatures across the country” and promises that “the right Supreme Court” will roll back Roe.
AUL is one of a number of anti-choice groups, including the Susan B. Anthony List, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, Priests for Life, the clinic protest group Pro-Life Action League and David Daleiden’s attorneys at Life Legal Defense Foundation, who have launched a website targeting Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, urging them to continue to stall Garland’s nomination.
Forsythe writes, under the subject line “You Have the Power to Help Roll Back Roe v. Wade”:
Do you believe Roe v. Wade can be rolled back? At Americans United for Life, we know that the answer is YES … with the right Supreme Court.
For more than 40 years, we pro-life Americans have been working to overturn the destructiveness of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the twin cases that brought incredible devastation to mothers and their unborn children, making both vulnerable to the profiteering of a greedy abortion industry. With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court hangs in the balance today, making it vital that NO appointment to the high court occur until after the voters weigh in on Election Day. You can help make that happen.
Please click here to contact your U.S. Senators, telling them to wait until after the election to deal with the opening on the Supreme Court.
All that AUL has been working for since 1971 is at stake in President Obama’s attempt to put a fifth pro-abortion justice on the Supreme Court. Don't let them crush democracy on the abortion issue for another two or three decades. No president has been more firmly committed to the abortion industry than Barack Obama, making his pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, the wrong choice to be added to the fragile balance in a fractured court.
Please click here to contact your U.S. Senators now.
Judge Garland is President Obama’s pro-abortion pick to tempt some Republicans to act now to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. But it’s important to remember that President Obama, Vice President Biden and even Sen. Chuck Schumer, all urged the Senate to hold the line against Supreme Court picks late in a president’s term. The only reason abortion advocates are pushing this nomination is to roll back the pro-life gains in courts and legislatures across the country.
Please contact your Senators today, asking them to let Americans have a voice in deciding the future of the Supreme Court, through their choice of leadership. Click here to contact them now, and please forward this to friends and family so that we all can have a voice in whether all people are welcomed in life and protected in law.
With so many Justices on the Supreme Court nearing retirement, the time is now to let your Senators know that it matters to you who sits on the nation’s Supreme Court.
Thank you for standing with Americans United for Life at this important time. We can make a difference.
Acting President & Senior Counsel
Americans United for Life
In an article published on the website of the anti-government organization Oath Keepers last week, Brandon Smith, who often writes for the organization, reviews what he calls “The Weirdest Possible Outcomes For The Strangest Election In U.S. History,” including what he says is the strong possibility that a victory by Hillary Clinton would provoke “outright civil war.”
Although he believes that “the winner of the election is already predetermined,” Smith goes through a number of scenarios that he thinks are possible, including “Convention-Inspired Conflicts And Riots,” which will be “a fantastic method to continue the distraction of the public away from greater problems”; a “Surprise Combined Ticket” in which “Trump and Cruz or Clinton and Sanders might actually combine forces at a brokered convention”; “Widespread Election Fraud On Both Sides”; a “Postponed Election”; and “Civil War.”
A Clinton win, he said, would “probably” result in civil war, while a Trump win could lead to war if he exploits the rioting of “social justice cultists” in order to seize power:
I have said it before and I’ll say it again, if Hillary Clinton is chosen by the establishment to take Obama’s place, the result would probably be outright civil war in the U.S. The level of hatred among conservatives for that woman is so stratospheric I cannot see any other outcome. It might not happen immediately, but a solid bet would be conflagration within her first term.
With a Trump win, I could also see at the very least nationwide riots similar in tone to those that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, with the social justice cultists running wild with their goofy slogans and molotov cocktails. These people are a paper tiger however, and are only a threat if they manage to convince a majority of the ethnic American population to follow their lead.
The greater danger is if Trump is actually an agent for the establishment rather than anti-establishment. If Trump responds to rioting using unconstitutional measures or exploits the crisis to overstep the bounds of federal power, at that point we will know exactly who he works for. Again, with Trump, everything is a gamble and we won’t know until we know.
Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller despaired in a radio interview today that the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that some say contain evidence of Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 2001 terrorist attacks will never be made public because within 50 years, the U.S. will “be living under the boot of Sharia.”
Geller told St. Louis talk radio host Jamie Allman this morning that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are already, in fact, enforcing Islamic law in the United States.
“The more jihad there is, the more Sharia enforcement there is,” she said, “the more you are admonished, the more you are clubbed about the head like a baby seal to be kind and be aware of backlash-ophobia, any criticism of jihad and Sharia is considered racist even though Islam is not a race. That’s where we are and it’s getting worse.”
Geller said she disagreed with those who say that “it’s getting better” because Donald Trump is “bringing up these important subjects,” claiming that Trump’s rhetoric has just made Obama “enforce Sharia” to a greater extent: “No! What happens is, is the more anyone talks about it, the more the Islamophobia enforcement team, Obama’s team at the Department of Justice, at the U.S. Attorneys office, goes into action to enforce Sharia, that’s what’s happening.”
She then addressed the issue of the 9/11 Commission Report. “When is this going to become declassified?” she asked. “In 50 years? I mean, it will never become declassified in 50 years because we’ll be living under the boot of Sharia. And don’t think it can’t happen, because it’s happening. Under these hate speech laws, you cannot criticize Islam.”
As evidence of the supposed imposition of hate speech laws in the U.S., she cited the State Department’s original assertions that the 2012 Benghazi attack was connected with an anti-Islam video (“That’s Sharia, ladies and gentlemen!”) and an out-of-context line of a speech Obama gave after the 2012 attack (“That is Sharia!”).
North Carolina’s Republican lieutenant governor, Dan Forest, hit back at critics of his state’s new radical anti-LGBT law in a radio interview yesterday, saying that the state has been hit by “a pretty amazing smear campaign” when all legislators were trying to do was “protect women and children from predators and sexual offenders and so forth going into bathrooms freely.”
Forest responded earlier this month to PayPal’s decision to cancel a planned expansion in North Carolina in response to the law, which among other things blocks transgender people from using the public restroom of their identifying gender, by saying that if the law protects “the life of just one child or one woman from being molested or assaulted, then it was worth it.”
He continued that theme in an interview yesterday with Relevant Radio host Drew Mariani, saying that North Carolina has been the victim of “a pretty amazing smear campaign” that’s “all based on a bunch of lies.”
The whole thing, he said, was the fault of LGBT rights activists and the Charlotte City Council, whose nondiscrimination ordinance was overturned by the state law.
“They knew that the General Assembly in North Carolina was going to have to do something about it,” he said, “they were going to have to fight it constitutionally, but more importantly they were going to have to protect women and children from predators and sexual offenders and so forth going into bathrooms freely.”
Of course, there have been zero cases of child predators using LGBT nondiscrimination laws to assault children.
Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, spoke at Georgetown University yesterday at the invitation of a student group, an event that was not welcomed by the Washington Archdiocese or the conservative Cardinal Newman Society.
Also displeased with the Catholic school’s welcoming of Richards was Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, who said on a Catholic radio program on Tuesday that inviting Richards was the equivalent of trying to “understand terrorism” by inviting “representatives of ISIS” to campus or inviting “the biggest mobsters to come in because we have to understand both sides of the debate about organized crime.”
In an interview with Teresa Tomeo on Ave Maria Radio’s “Catholic Connection,” Pavone blasted Georgetown for “adding to confusion, contention and division within the church on the most important issue of our day,” asking if there are “no better speakers in the world to stimulate the intellects of these students than people who preside over killing hundreds of thousands of children every year.”
He said he didn’t buy the argument that inviting someone like Richards to speak was allowing “inquiry into all different positions.”
“I mean, do we inquire, do we try to understand terrorism by inviting representatives of ISIS to come and speak?” he asked. “Or let’s get some of the biggest drug dealers in the country to come and talk about their business because, after all, we have to understand both sides of the issue of drug abuse. Why don’t we invite the biggest mobsters to come in because we have to understand both sides of the debate about organized crime? Are they doing that? Maybe I’m missing it, but do these universities invite these kinds of people too?”
“You know,” Tomeo said, “this is what I don’t get, why this issue is only talked about in terms of ‘both sides’ of a controversial issue when it comes to abortion and artificial contraception or even so-called same-sex marriage.”
“Yeah, the fact is the other side of these things is so totally bankrupt, unacceptable, outrageous, and has no place in civilized society that that should be self-evident right from the start,” Pavone responded. “Why do you have to think twice about why it’s wrong to kill a baby? See, that’s what I don’t understand either. I mean, you mean to tell me these students have to think twice about whether killing a child is wrong?”
We’ll just note that conservatives have been wringing their hands for years about intolerant liberals supposedly shutting down opposing speech on college campuses.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the influential anti-immigration operative who has been involved in both Donald Trump’s border wall policy and the immigration case currently before the Supreme Court, called into question President Obama’s birthplace on his radio program this weekend.
In response to a caller who wondered if the Obama administration’s opposition to restrictive voting laws such as a proof-of-citizenship requirement in Kansas is because the president himself is “not a citizen of the United States,” Kobach said that there are “interesting things” about the question of Obama’s citizenship that “just made you scratch your head.” He added that “maybe” the caller’s theory about the president’s opposition to voting restrictions was correct.
Kobach was speaking on his radio program on Kansas City’s KCMO on Sunday about a column in the Kansas City Star — which Kobach calls the “Kansas City Red Star” — blasting him for his role in enacting restrictive voting laws in Kansas and around the nation, when a listener identified as “Jim from Iowa” called in.
Jim told Kobach he didn’t understand “what the big deal” was about a law championed by Kobach requiring people to present proof of citizenship when registering to vote “because our president, his little grandma said he was born in Africa, he waited two years before he sent out that fake birth certificate, he got a scholarship to a place, a college in California that only gives it to foreigners, so what’s the difference?”
(Just to be clear, Obama’s grandmother did not say he was born in Kenya,his birth certificate is not fake, and he did not get a scholarship meant for foreign students.)
At first, Kobach didn’t address the birther issue, noting instead that Obama is indeed “opposed to Kansas” and “doesn’t like voter ID laws.”
But the caller persisted, saying, “He’s not going to bring up proof of citizenship because he’s not a citizen of the United States, he’s not supposed to be the president, his own grandma said he was born in Africa, what else do you need? And that birth certificate thing was all fake, it took him two years, like I said, to get it sent out. How did he get the scholarship to that college in California that only foreign people get it? How did he get that? How come everybody lets it go?”
“You know, you’re right,” Kobach responded, “and of course that issue’s kind of water under the bridge these days, but there were some interesting things. Like there was that one thing, it just made you scratch your head, there was that one thing that the Harvard Law Journal printed which described Barack Obama as a ‘young student born in Kenya.’ Now, he says that was wrong, and maybe it was wrong, but anyway, maybe you’re right, maybe that’s why he doesn’t talk about proof of citizenship, because he, you know, he would rather not bring up the citizenship issue. Of course, now he’s got nothing to worry about, he’s in office for the remaining year.”
(We don’t know what head-scratching “Harvard Law Journal” article Kobach was referring to, but he could have been getting it mixed up with a promotional flier for one of Obama’s books that mistakenly described him as being born in Kenya, which birthers have made much of.)
When Jim asked if Obama could still “get in trouble” for lying about his birthplace, Kobach responded that “at this point there’s not really any forum in which the facts will be further” examined.
“Well, why didn’t everybody do something about this eight years ago?” Jim demanded.
“Well,” Kobach said, “as you may recall, there was quite a kerfuffle about it back then.”
“Did you notice everybody that was complaining, they shut up like overnight?” Jim said. “I think they were all threatened just like Old Lady Clinton threatens everybody if you don’t do what she wants. I think they’re all threatened, that’s why they all shut up real fast.”
“Well, who knows?” Kobach said. “That whole issue has been a truly strange one, that’s for sure.”
Earlier this year, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, attributed the popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders to the fact that “we let some of the hippies from the ‘60s” start “teaching the teachers” in universities.
Gohmert brought up the subject again in an interview Monday with Armed America Radio’s Mark Walters, where he explained that “a lot of the hippies and the troublemakers from the ‘60s and the early ‘70s” figured out that instead of “blowing up the Pentagon or blowing up police cars,” they could just become teachers.
This means, he said, “that the socialists that wanted to destroy the country in the ‘60s and ‘70s have figured out you just miseducate the kids and you’re well on your way to taking over the country.”
It’s thanks to these same teachers, he said, that “people have heard over and over how horrible guns are.”
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, devoted his “Washington Watch” radio program yesterday to discussing a Tennessee bill making the Bible the state’s official book, which was vetoed by the state’s Republican governor after being approved by its legislature.
At one point, a listener called in to share his wish that “the United States government would enact a bill where the Holy Bible was the Bible of the United States,” noting that many government buildings have references to the Bible on them.
Perkins responded that “if the left has their way, they’re going to break out the jackhammers and the sandblasters and they’re going to try to take that off of the buildings. They’re trying to certainly take it out of the hearts and minds of people, especially our children, as they drive it far from our schools and now from the public square, and eventually they’re going to get back around to these buildings.”
He told the caller that he was right that “the best defense is a good offense” and that “we need to show that, you know what, the American people are not going to take this lying down. We have every right to have our views reflected in our government by our elected officials.”
Perkins then returned to a conversation he had had with an earlier caller who had opposed the Tennessee bill and asked Perkins how he would feel if a state named the Koran its official book.
“Well, if the Koran as the state book could get through Tennessee,” he said, “our nation is a lot worse off than I ever thought, even though after we’ve had Barack Obama for seven years and I know he’s done everything he can to promote Islam in this country, but we’re not at that point yet because the American people are not following him.”