Miranda Blue's blog

Todd Starnes: Liberals 'Hate America' And Obama Doesn't Like Us

Fox News outrage machine Todd Starnes used his signature brand of skewed reporting last week to claim that innocuous comments that President Obama recently made to a group of students in Laos mean that the president doesn’t like America and thinks that American workers are lazy.

Starnes told Virginia-based radio host Rob Schilling in an interview at the Values Voter Summit on Friday that liberals “hate America” and that the president “does not believe that we are an exceptional nation, and I just don’t think he likes us.”

As evidence, Starnes cited a recent column of his in which he claims Obama “talked about how lazy American” workers are to the Laotian students. “And this is the guy who’s played golf, what, 180-some-odd times talking about American workers being lazy,” he insisted. “And again, it’s part of a routine with this guy that he goes on foreign soil and he disparages America.”

If you’re surprised that you haven’t heard the news that Obama went to Laos to call American workers lazy, it might be because that did not actually happen. Here’s what Obama actually said:

And I believe that the United States is and can be a great force for good in the world. But because we're such a big country, we haven't always had to know about other parts of the world. If you are in Laos, you need to know about Thailand and China and Cambodia, because you're a small country and they’re right next door and you need to know who they are. If you you're in the United States, sometimes you can feel lazy and think we're so big we don't have to really know anything about other people.

And that's part of what I'm trying to change, because this is actually the region that's going to grow faster than anyplace else in the world. It has the youngest population, and the economy is growing faster than anyplace. And if we aren't here interacting and learning from you, and understanding the culture of the region, then we'll be left behind. We'll miss an opportunity. And I don't want to that to happen.

Schilling, for his part, said that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “should have been impeached immediately” after she said that South Africa’s constitution might be a better model for a country writing a new constitution today than the United States’.

Matt Barber: US In Greater Trouble Than Before The Civil War, Thanks To 'Ancient Pagan Sexuality'

Matt Barber, an anti-gay pundit and Liberty University law professor, attended last weekend’s Values Voter Summit, which he told Virginia-based radio host Rob Schilling felt “like an island of reason in a sea of insanity” because “this United States of America right now is more insane than certainly you and I have seen in our lifetimes.”

Schilling agreed, noting the rainbow display on the White House last year, which he said put “a spiritual target on the building.”

Our leaders, Barber said, are “devolving into ancient pagan sexuality of the Sodom and Gomorrah type and touting it as good, it makes you worry for your country.”

“Well we saw what happened to those places, Matt,” Schilling responded, “and I’m very concerned. And certainly maybe even a decade or at least for sure two decades ago, this seemed like a fortress that was protected by two oceans and nothing could touch us. And now you and I know there are many ways that this nation could be obliterated almost instantly.”

Barber agreed that there are “so many threats to this country right now” and that “the frog is just about dead that is boiling in the pot.”

“And I think we recognize now that we are in trouble, serious trouble as a nation, more so than any time immediately preceding the Civil War,” Barber added. “That’s how volatile the situation is here domestically, I’m just speaking about, you throw the global threat into the mix and these are tumultuous times.”

Rep. Trent Franks: If Clinton Is Elected, 'The Constitution Is Lost'

Rep. Trent Franks, Republican of Arizona, had a dire message for American voters this weekend, declaring in an interview with Breitbart News’ radio program that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, the Constitution will be lost, possibly forever.

Franks spoke with Breitbart’s Matt Boyle at the Values Voter Summit, the annual Religious Right conference hosted by the Family Research Council, in an interview that was aired on Sunday.

“Well, I know that listeners to any political program are used to hearing political hyperbole,” Franks told Boyle. “I understand that and I know that it’s hard sometimes to take so-called politicians seriously. But I have the privilege of chairing a Constitution subcommittee in the Congress, and I can tell you with everything in me that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will appoint at least probably three Supreme Court justices and undermine this Constitution to the extent that it will essentially be vitiated and abrogated for a generation or more. I can’t express to you how serious that is. This generation could be the ones that lose the Constitution either for the next 30 years or maybe forever. And so this November is going to tell that story.”

Franks said that if Trump picks Supreme Court nominees from the list that he has put forward, which was shaped by conservative groups, then “we have a chance to save this country.”

“If Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, appoints the Supreme Court justices, the Constitution is lost,” he said. “Let me say that again: If she does it, the Constitution is lost and my children and yours will face a completely different future than they otherwise would have and the greatest republic in the history of the world has become perhaps just on the track of another European socialist experiment.”

Franks effusively praised Trump’s speech to the Values Voter Summit, saying, “I believe if every Christian, for that matter every really committed American, could have heard this speech they would have become a committed, irrevocable supporter of Donald Trump.”

He also warned that terrorists around the world will be celebrating if Clinton is elected.

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, we ought to all start sleeping with the lights on because national security will be at grave risk,” he said. “I don’t know how to express it in any stronger terms. If she becomes president, terrorists the world over will celebrate. Their celebration will make the one at the DNC look like a slumber party. This is that significant.”

Family Research Council: Vote For Trump & GOP To Put 'Religious Freedom' Above 'Sexual Unrestraint'

As this weekend’s Values Voter Summit got underway, Jerry Boykin, the executive vice president of the summit’s sponsor, the Family Research Council, said that he hoped the event would help conservative Christians become “comfortable” with the idea of voting for Donald Trump.

The event ended up being packed with references to the importance of voting for Trump over Hillary Clinton. And, on Saturday, FRC members received a direct mail piece from the organization making an argument for conservative Christians to support the GOP nominee and his fellow Republicans in order to fight Democrats who are trying to put “the priority of sexual unrestraint ahead of religious freedom in every area of our lives.”

While never mentioning Trump or Clinton by name, the mailing, signed by the group’s president, Tony Perkins, makes its point clear.

Perkins first boasts of the FRC’s role in shaping the ultraconservative Republican platform, contrasting it with the Democrats’ platform of “sexual unrestraint”:

[T]he major political parties have confirmed their nominees, and in spite of the understandable misgivings of many true conservatives, this election now presents America with a clear choice:

· One party has declared in its platform that they will continue putting the priority of sexual unrestraint ahead of religious freedom in every area of our lives.

· The other party has committed itself to the most strongly conservative platform of any we’ve seen in a century.

And you had a hand in this platform victory. Your support for FRC Action made it possible for us to bring maximum influence to bear on the Republican Party platform-development process.

With your strong support, I was able to add eight amendments to the platform and was able to work with other delegates on dozens more, many of them designed specifically to champion and protect religious liberty. Your investment in FRC Action produced a tremendous return.

He then moves on to a defense of Trump, citing the GOP nominee’s promise to appoint judges who will uphold the Religious Right’s priorities, his vow to repeal IRS restrictions on politicking by churches that receive nonprofit tax breaks, and his “support for the freedom to say ‘Merry Christmas’ in the public sphere.”

“This is not an evangelical Christian candidate,” Perkins writes, “but these are connection points with evangelical Christians who have seen their beliefs constantly attacked in recent years. These are starting points for a new administration with a renewed friendliness toward Christian values”:

The candidate of one party has consistently reached out to Christian groups. The other has opposed everything we believe and everything we’ve worked for.

· One of these candidates would continue to appoint liberal activist judges and justices who will deny religious liberty for families like the Stormans…continue to use the sexual revolution (new “genders,” redefining marriage, etc.) to attack religious freedom…and will continue allowing the killing of unborn children.

· The other candidate has committed to appointing judges who will adhere to the confines of the Constitution. This candidate has also embraced the cause of religious liberty.

This candidate has specifically called out the Johnson Amendment, which restricts the freedom of churches to address political issues. This candidate has even expressed support for the freedom to say “Merry Christmas” in the public sphere!

This is not an evangelical Christian candidate, but these are connection points with evangelical Christians who have seen their beliefs constantly attacked in recent years. These are starting points for a new administration with a renewed friendliness toward Christian values.

All emphases are from the original.

Michele Bachmann: 'We Are So Blessed' By Trump, Who Will 'Call Out The Haters'

Former Minnesota Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann spoke to “Breitbart News Daily” at the Values Voter Summit this weekend, declaring that America is “so blessed” to have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate because “he’s willing to call out the haters that hate the United States of America” and gets that many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. “don’t understand what it means to become an American.”

“After 9/11, we’ve allowed in 2 million Muslims into the United States, many of whom don’t embrace American ideals, they continue to embrace Islamic Sharia law ideals, and they intend to foist them on the rest of us in the United States,” Bachmann said, attributing her statistics to Ann Coulter. “They don’t understand what it means to become an American and to embrace American values because Islamic Sharia laws are antithetical to American values. This is something that Donald Trump gets. He gets the border, he gets American values, he’s not ashamed to stand for American values and he’s willing to call out the haters that hate the United States of America. We are so blessed that we have this man as our candidate this time around.”

She also brought up her ongoing campaign against Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, saying “it makes total sense” to ask where Abedin’s “allegiances lie and what her influence has been on the woman who could be the next commander in chief of the United States.”

“It’s very serious,” she added. “We’ve had a president now in Barack Obama who has embraced Iran and advancing Iran’s ideals. Now we have Hillary Clinton, whose chief aide advances the interests in Saudi Arabia. We have in Donald Trump someone who wants to advance the interests of the United States. Wouldn’t it be nice to have somebody who’s more interested in advancing our interests as a country rather than Saudi Arabia’s or Iran’s?”

Anti-Gay, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Mormon Pastor Accuses Hillary Clinton Of 'Hate Speech'

As Brian noted today, Hillary Clinton’s comments over the weekend about the “deplorables” who support Donald Trump have resulted in some deliciously ironic criticism from Trump and some of his supporters. Among the Trump supporters slamming Clinton was Robert Jeffress, a pastor with a long record of anti-gay, anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic rhetoric, who accused Clinton of “hate speech” and “intolerance.”

“I tell you, it reveals the hypocrisy of liberalism, and that is liberals who cry loudest for tolerance are usually the most intolerant people in the world when it comes to ideas with which they disagree,” Jeffress told conservative radio host Mike Gallagher today. “I mean, think about it, according to Clinton you’re a racist if you believe in secure borders, you’re xenophobic if you believe people ought to only be in this country legally and you’re homophobic if you believe in traditional marriage. The fact is, Hillary Clinton is exhibit A of intolerance and her comments Friday were nothing but hate speech.”

Jeffress himself, of course, is a model of tolerance:

Jeffress made waves in the last presidential election when, after endorsing Rick Perry, he told Christians that they shouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith, which wasn’t too surprising since he once blasted Mormonism as “a cult” from “the pit of hell.”

Jeffress has similarly stated that Satan created Roman Catholicism, declared that Jews, Mormons, Muslims and gay people are all destined for hell and maintained that President Obama “is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist.”

No fan of the gay community, Jeffress believes that gays and lesbians are “perverse” people who are either pedophiles or likely to abuse children in the future; compared homosexuality to bestiality and called it “a miserable lifestyle”; accused gay people of using “brainwashing techniques” to have homosexuality “crammed down our throats”; said that gay people “are engaged in the most detestable, unclean, abominable acts you can imagine”; predicted that the gay rights movement “will pave the way for that future world dictator, the Antichrist”; and labeled homosexuality a “filthy practice” that will lead to the “ implosion of our country.”

Jon Voight Warns Of Democrats 'Manipulating The Voting'

Actor Jon Voight, who introduced Donald Trump at this weekend’s Values Voter Summit, gave an interview at the summit to the “Breitbart News Daily” radio program, where he echoed Trump’s claim that the election might be “rigged,” claiming that Democrats have “a history of manipulating the voting.”

“I have great concerns about the ballot box being used properly,” he said. “We know that the Democrat Party has a history of manipulating the voting. They certainly will allow anyone in the country who will vote their way and then take away all the restrictions on voting in order to make that possible, so it’s going to be a tough election.”

Tony Perkins On The Alt-Right: Trump Has 'Given Voice' To 'A Lot Of Alternative Voices'

At a press conference outside this weekend’s Values Voter Summit, the annual Religious Right gathering organized by the Family Research Council, Alternet’s Adele Stan asked FRC president Tony Perkins what he thought of the Donald Trump campaign’s increasing embrace of the racist alt-right movement. Perkins has said that he’ll vote for Trump and this year’s Values Voter Summit was in part an effort to convince Christian conservatives to support the GOP nominee.

In response to Stan’s question, Perkins first seemed to indicate that he didn’t know what the alt-right was, but then praised the Trump campaign for giving “voice to a lot of people who feel like their voice has all but been snuffed out under this administration,” saying that “there have been a lot of alternative voices that have risen up” as the Obama administration “has increasingly tried to marginalize people who do not surrender to a progressive, liberal agenda.”

Here’s the full exchange, via Alternet:

AlterNet: I’m wondering what you make of Trump’s hiring of Steve Bannon, who said that he had provided the platform for the alt-right.

Tony Perkins: The what?

AlterNet: The alt-right, which Hillary Clinton—

TP: —I didn’t hear his comment, so I can’t really speak to that. I can speak to the fact that, in the last eight years, this administration, which Hillary Clinton has been a part of, has increasingly tried to marginalize people who do not surrender to a progressive, liberal agenda. And there have been a lot of alternative voices that have risen up, just because Americans feel they are under constant threat by this administration’s policies. So, what has given Donald Trump, I believe, the nomination, is that he has given voice to a lot of people who feel like their voice has all but been snuffed out under this administration.

Conservative Groups Urge Maximum Obstruction Of Hillary Clinton's Judicial Nominees

At a Values Voter Summit panel this weekend, top conservative legal groups promised that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, they will pressure GOP senators to obstruct her judicial nominees to the greatest extent possible, including attempting to prevent her from replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network, Phillip Jauregui of the Judicial Action Group, and David Christensen and Mandi Ancalle of the Family Research Council discussed what they would urge the president and the Senate to do in the first 100 days of the next presidency. In the case of a Clinton presidency and a Republican-controlled Senate, they promised maximum obstruction of judicial nominees.

Severino, who once called Judge Merrick Garland “the best scenario we could hope for” in an Obama Supreme Court nominee and said that “of those the president could nominate, we could do a lot worse” than Garland, predictably changed her tune once Obama actually did nominate Garland to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court. At the Values Voter Summit, Severino insisted that senators would “effectively nullify their oath to uphold the Constitution” by voting to confirm Garland.

“Say you’re in a state where there’s no chance on who’s going to win on the president’s side, it’s so important to remember how significant these senatorial races are, because the senators also had an oath to the Constitution,” she said. “They have to uphold and defend the Constitution. That means, when it comes to a vote for a nominee, so even if it is someone who is absolutely not going to uphold the Constitution as it is written, like Merrick Garland even, even if he does come to a vote—and I suspect that if he remains the nominee into the next presidency, he probably would come up for hearings and a vote at some point—our senators simply cannot be voting for someone that would effectively nullify their oath to uphold the Constitution. So I think we have to remember to remind our senators of that.”

Severino dismissed the idea of the Republican Senate confirming Garland in a lame duck session if Clinton wins the election, saying that if Clinton becomes president and renominates Garland or picks someone “more radical” for the court, GOP senators could stall proceedings and “maybe we'll have eight justices for awhile.” When asked how long she thought it would be realistic for a GOP senate to block a Clinton nominee to the court, she said, “I think the court could really function as long as it needed to with eight justices.”

She said that the “best case scenario” under a Clinton presidency would be if Clinton worked with Republicans in the Senate to pick a nominee who “did actually have a record of upholding the Constitution”; it’s unclear who she thinks such a nominee could be, since she previously called Garland the “best scenario” for a Democratic Supreme Court nominee.

Severino’s message that the Senate should obstruct just about any Hillary Clinton nominee contradicts the claims made by her group and others that they are merely blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee because the decision on who to appoint to the Supreme Court should be left to the next president. (In the words of a Judicial Crisis Network ad: “This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats. It’s about your voice. You choose the next president, the next president chooses the next justice.”)

The Judicial Action Group’s Jauregui impressed upon the activists in the room that they would also have to be prepared to “fight vigorously” on nominations to the lower federal courts under the next president, including closely monitoring a President Trump’s nominations. He praised the effort of Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz to prevent President Obama’s filling of judicial vacancies in their home state by refusing to turn in “blue slips” giving the go-ahead for hearings on nominees, hinting at an obstruction strategy conservative groups might urge GOP senators to use under a Clinton presidency.

Jauregui urged the current Republican Senate to vow now to keep the current rules barring filibusters of lower-court judicial nominees if they stay in power, no matter who becomes president, saying it would be “foolish to say the best” to do otherwise.

Severino agreed that it would be “just as well” to see the judicial filibuster abolished for good after Senate Democrats invoked the so-called “nuclear option” in the face of entrenched GOP obstruction in 2013. She said that eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominees would probably help conservatives in the long run.

“If you’re not using a weapon, you might as well not have it anyway,” she said. “So now I say, move on, I think we’re living in a world, unfortunately, a post-nuclear world where 51 votes is all you need for a nominee, and that in the long term may actually help in terms of getting some of these constitutionally sound judges on the court.”

FRC's Agenda For President Trump's First 100 Days: Roll Back LGBT & Reproductive Rights

At a panel at this weekend’s Values Voter Summit, activists representing the event’s organizer, the Family Research Council, and other conservative groups laid out what they will press Republican lawmakers to do in the first 100 days of the next presidency.

Under a Hillary Clinton administration, the conservative activists said, Republicans in the Senate should do as much as they can to obstruct her nominees to the judicial and executive branch. If Donald Trump is elected, they had a wish list of priorities for his administration, focusing on rolling back advances to LGBT and reproductive rights that have taken place during the Obama administration.

Mandi Ancalle, the FRC’s general counsel for government affairs, reminded the audience that FRC had helped to shape the Republican Party’s ultraconservative platform at the GOP convention in Cleveland and was hopeful that a Republican president—i.e. Trump—would help to make much of it law.

Ancalle said that the FRC is “working to generate a comprehensive list” for the Trump administration of executive orders, executive guidance and administrative regulations that a President Trump should rescind soon after taking office, and of Bush-era policies that he should reinstate. She said that the group was working with contacts on Trump’s transition team to get their wish list into the GOP nominee’s hands.

Among the priorities that she said FRC is pushing for in the first 100 days of a Trump administration:

  • Rescind the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s guidance assuring that federally funded emergency shelters house transgender people according to the sex with which they identify.
  • Reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which bars U.S. foreign aid from going to groups that provide abortion-related services or advocate for abortion rights abroad, even when those services are not paid for by U.S. government funding. This so-called “ global gag rule” was rescinded by President Obama.
  • Reinstate a rule instituted by President George W. Bush that provided broad “conscience protections” for health care workers refusing to participate in care for religious reasons. According to the Washington Post, the rule “was widely interpreted as shielding workers who refuse to participate in a range of medical services, such as providing birth control pills, caring for gay men with AIDS and performing in-vitro fertilization for lesbians or single women.” In 2011, the Obama administration rescinded much of the Bush-era regulation but maintained conscience protections for health care providers who do not want to perform abortions. Ancalle noted that the FRC wants to make sure that new regulations allow physicians not to care for transgender patients by providing hormone therapy and other treatment.
  • Rescind President Obama’s executive order banning federal contractors from engaging in anti-LGBT discrimination.

Although Ancalle did not explicitly name them among FRC’s first-100-days priorities, she also criticized the Department of Education’s guidance on access for transgender students in public schools; the Department of Health and Human Services' contraception mandate; the “completely lawless” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance on access for transgender people in the workplace; and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

She also indicated that the FRC would urge a President Trump to undo the Obama administration’s work pushing LGBT and reproductive rights abroad, saying that the administration has “in some ways become a lobbying organization” and that “ambassadors that are appointed and sent overseas to represent American values have not only kind of flipped on their head what Americans stand for, what you and I stand for, but have really begun to lobby governments in attempting to accept same-sex marriage, in attempting to accept this gender identity dysphoria and attempting to push abortion acceptance and pro-abortion legislation in those different governments.”

She reminded the activists in the room that executive branch nominees—including nominees for ambassador—can be confirmed or blocked by the Senate, and urged the Senate to broadly exercise its power to block these nominees, whoever becomes president.

“It’s important that as we maintain a majority in the Senate that we’re encouraging our senators to not defer to what the president—honestly, whether it’s a Trump or a Hillary Clinton presidency—not to just defer to the president,” she said. “We’ve heard some senators say ‘elections have consequences’ and just put their stamp of approval on any secretary, on any nominee, and it’s really important that senators are out here in Washington, D.C., representing you all as you’re back at home, and representing your views on who those heads of these very authoritative departments and agencies are.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious