After Trump casually mentioned something that Savage had said about not “liking” the videos of the two black men killed by police earlier this month, Savage asked Trump if he had heard that from listening to his show.
“I heard you say it, I heard you say it on the show,” Trump confirmed. “And, you know what, I heard you say it on the show, I do listen to your show, a lot of people listen to your show, I don’t even know if you know how many people. So many people come up and they say, ‘Michael Savages loves you.’ I say, ‘Well, that’s good news, I think that’s true.’”
This led Savage to ask if Trump would induct him into the Radio Hall of Fame in November. While the candidate said he couldn’t make the promise this far in advance because he might be busy negotiating a trade deal with China, he told Savage that “you deserve it” and promised that “if I could be a part of it in some way, I would be a part of it. You are doing a great job and you’ve been loyal to me from the beginning and I appreciate it.”
Later in the program, Savage declared that President Obama “has not only been flooding America with immigrants who cannot or will not work, he’s bringing in people who have brought back illnesses that were once basically eliminated in America” and offered to “help” Trump with the problem if he’s elected president.
“It’s a disaster to bring in diseased immigrants, don’t you agree?” Savage asked.
“Well that’s what’s happening,” Trump said, “and people don’t like talking about it and certainly it’s not politically correct to talk about it and that’s why they don’t do it, because everything we do today has to do with political correctness. If something’s a little bit off, off just a little bit, they say, ‘Oh, please don’t mention that.’ Even my people tell me ‘don’t mention that’ and I decide to mention things anyway, even though I know it’s going to end up being a firestorm I mention them anyway. But there’s something that’s one of the other elements, and the people are pouring into this country and, in many cases they’re not well people, in many respects.”
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, landed in some hot water this week after he gave an interview to a local TV station in his Sioux City district office and viewers noticed that he kept a Confederate flag on his desk.
In an interview with Iowa talk radio host Jeff Angelo on Wednesday, King explained that the flag had been on his desk, along with an American flag and a Gadsden flag, for “a long, long time” and “no one has ever commented about it” until now.
He told Angelo that his critics don’t understand the “real history of the Civil War” and that only a “small part of it was about slavery.” He claimed that nobody minded the Confederate flag until the past year or so when people starting using the flag as a “pretext in order to divide us.”
“This is a free country and there’s freedom of speech,” he said, “and, by the way, I’d encourage people to go back and read the real history of the Civil War and find out what it was about. A small part of it was about slavery, but there was a big part of it that was about states’ rights, it was about people that defended their homeland and fought next to their neighbors and their family. And on both sides of that, roughly 600,000 Americans lost their lives in the Civil War and we put an end to slavery, a stain upon our country. And we’ve lived with respecting the South and their way of life for 150 years and now, after 150 years, there has to be an issue about a Confederate flag?”
King told Angelo that he had ancestors who had fought and died in the Union Army.
“Our family cares a lot about unity but also about the truth and accuracy in history,” he said, “and so that Confederate flag has been here for a long, long time, it just does a reflection of our history, it’s not meant to be anything else. And, by the way, up until about a year ago, it never occurred to me that anyone would think that it has something to do with — that it was an advocacy for anything other than, let’s just say, a piece of our history that we should remember and remember the right lessons from.”
“I’m watching our civilization digress,” he added, “because people are pitting — they are looking for pretext in order to divide us, and this is the pretext that they have chosen upon. And so I’d say to them the same thing the Texans say about their flag with the cannon on it: ‘You see this flag? Come and take it.’”
The Institute on the Constitution’s David Whitney published a doozy of a response on Wednesday to the assassination of five police officers in Dallas, claiming that the sniper attack was likely a government-orchestrated false flag and, even if it wasn’t, it was the result of teaching evolution in schools.
Whitney first laid out the “false flag” theory, that the government orchestrated the shooting in order to “establish the New World Order, another name for the kingdom of Satan”:
… This sniper event couldn’t have happened at a more propitious time as the Congress is pushing through more gun control legislation. Could the timing just be just coincidental? Consider some similar sniper events.
In March 2011 the “spontaneous democratic protest” in Daraa led to carnage as trained snipers killed seven policemen and four protesters, escalating the crisis and launching the five-year long devastation of Syria. That sniper event was carefully planned and well coordinated in an attempt to destabilize that country and its government. In February 2014 paramilitary snipers (later identified as Gladio operatives) opened fire on protestors and police forces in Ukraine, escalating the crisis and putting the final nail in the coffin of Yanukovych’s rule. Now here in July 2016 unidentified snipers opened fire at an otherwise peaceful protest in Dallas. Is there a pattern here?
Could this be another false flag?
The difficult thing here as in other such events is that we cannot always get at the truth. We know the media, particularly the mainstream media, is lying to us regularly. We know our civil government in general is not to be trusted – they have their own agenda which is to establish the New World Order, another name for the kingdom of Satan. They will stop at nothing to achieve it, including murdering policemen. They are of their father the Devil and the works of the Devil they do. As he was a murderer from the beginning so murder is part of their playbook.
Whitney then explains that even if the shooting was not a false flag, it shows that legal abortion and teaching evolution in schools leads people like the Dallas shooter to mass murder:
By they way. If the narrative presented by the media and government were actually true, and I doubt that it is, what should be done? So we have an irate black man with a gun killing police officers. What should be done? Take away everyone’s guns? That begs the question, what brought this man to this point where he considers murdering others a good thing? How was he educated?
In a school house where the Bible was forbidden, prayer illegal, the Ten Commandments could never be seen by him or any student …
Add to that his school taught him evolution – that he was just a compilation of mutations and mistakes, just an overgrow ape. Add to that the notion of relativism, that there are no absolutes, nothing absolutely right or wrong. Compound that with the preaching from the school house that each individual is entitled to make up their own moral value system. Then top it of by showing the student for more that forty years murdering is not only valued as a social good, it has such an exalted status that the government will pay you to murder, provided you are female and it is your own child in the womb you are choosing to murder.
Given all these facts, that the government indoctrination centers have raised a generation of barbarians, what surprises me is that we don’t see more wholesale murder taking place in our already blood soaked land. In spite of the relentless Satanic propaganda drilled in by the government run schools, some survivors of those indoctrination camps still have a semblance of a conscience remaining.
As Peter noted earlier today, speculation that Donald Trump may move the Republican Party into greater acceptance of LGBT people is hard to take seriously given the GOP platform committee’s approval this week of an exceptionally anti-LGBT platform, not to mention the anti-LGBT activists whom Trump himself has enthusiastically embraced in his quest for the presidency.
A preliminary list of this year’s Republican National Convention speakers should also put that idea to rest.
Along with the many businessmen and celebrity buddies of Trump who appear on the speakers list are a number of activists and politicians who have long records of anti-LGBT activism.
Jerry Falwell Jr., the son of Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell and one of Trump’s earliest endorsers from the Religious Right, has a speaking slot. Falwell is the head of Liberty University, the school founded by his father, which is well known for itsanti-gay politics and student policies discouraging homosexuality. Liberty University is closely affiliated with Liberty Counsel, the anti-gay legal group that represented Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis in her quest to defy the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling.
Also speaking will be three former GOP presidential rivals to Trump who are known for their anti-LGBT politics.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who hooked his presidential campaign on an appeal to Religious Right voters, will have a speaking slot. As we previously wrote , Huckabee managed to cover plenty of extremist ground just in his 2016 campaign:
Cruz and Huckabee were both so eager to win the votes of anti-gay extremists that they attended a conference last year at which the organizer, radical pastor Kevin Swanson, repeatedlydeclared that the Bible demands that gay people be put to death.
While few sitting members of Congress are showing up to the convention, among those invited to speak are several with strongly anti-LGBT records. Just this year, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy personally twisted arms to ensure the last-minute defeat of a provision that would have protected LGBT people from employment discrimination from federal contractors, creating a chaotic scene on the House floor. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee was instrumental in making the 2012 Republican platform reach new levels of anti-LGBT sentiment (although this year’s platform is even worse). Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, when she was a state legislator, tried to get a referendum on the ballot in an effort to overturn the state supreme court’s landmark marriage equality ruling. She has claimed she wants to leave the marriage issue to the states, but at the same time has said that she would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.
The Republican National Convention released a partial list today of the politicians, activists, C-list celebrities and Donald Trump family members who will be speaking at next week’s convention. What the speakers’ list lacks in establishment GOP leaders it makes up for in fringe activists. One name especially stands out: Sheriff David Clarke, the Milwaukee law enforcement officer who has made a name for himself hurling anti-Obama vitriol on Fox News and elsewhere while quietly cozying up to anti-government extremist groups.
Clarke, who is African American, has built a conservative following by enthusiastically bashing President Obama, his Justice Department, Hillary Clinton and the Black Lives Matter movement.
Clarke said that Michael Brown, the black teenager shot by police in Ferguson, Missouri, was a “co-conspirator in his own demise” because he “chose thug life.” After Sandra Bland, a black woman who had been thrown to the ground during a traffic stop, died in police custody, Clarke went on Fox News to chastise her. He said that he would have used even more force against a group of black teenagers who were thrown to the ground by police outside a public swimming pool in Ohio, telling people who saw a racial component in the action to “shut up already.”
Clarke has been colorful in his condemnation of President Obama and Hillary Clinton for sympathizing with the Black Lives Matter movement, calling them “straight-up cop haters.” He called Obama a “heartless, soulless bastard” for speaking up about “goons” killed by police and said that the Obama administration’s attempts to address racial disparities in policing were a plot to “emasculate the police” in order to impose dictatorial control.” He accused the president of worsening racial divides in the country by pitting “whites against blacks” and “Hispanics against Americans.”
The sheriff is also happy to throw red meat to his conservative audience on a number of other topics. After the Supreme Court struck down state marriage equality bans, Clarke called for a “revolution” to “get this country back,” complete with “ pitchforks and torches ,” urging his audience to launch a standoff against the federal government the next time a bakery or the like is fined for refusing business to a same-sex couple.
When Trump caused a national uproar when he attacked a judge because of his Mexican-American heritage, Clarke took to his radio show to defend the candidate.
Clarke first became a conservative hero when, in 2013, he aired radio ads in his county urging citizens not to rely on calling 911 but instead to learn to protect themselves against crime. Speaking at the National Rifle Association’s convention last year, he proposed adding a semi-automatic rifle to the Great Seal of the United States. Appearing on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ radio program, Clarke warned that a renewal of the federal assault weapons ban would lead to gun confiscations that would spark “the second coming of the American Revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison.”
While Clarke has no patience for African Americans who have deadly run-ins with the police, he has repeatedly associated himself with anti-government militia groups who have staged armed standoffs with federal government agents or who threaten to defy federal law. Earlier this year, when a group of armed activists took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, Clarke backed their cause, saying that the country had reached a “pitchforks and torches moment” that couldn’t be solved by an election.
Just this year, Clarke spoke at a fundraising event for the New York chapter of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government group aligned with the Constitutional Sheriffs that urges law enforcement officers and military personnel to defy laws they believe are unconstitutional and encourages its members to form militias ready to defy an out-of-control federal government. At that event, Clarke called Black Lives Matter a “hate group” and vowed to do “everything I can” to get Trump elected president.
National Organization for Marriage spokesman Joe Grabowski urged the Republican Party maintain the opposition to LGBT rights in its platform yesterday, saying in a radio interview that LGBT advocates are promoting “social experimentation upon our children” that will result in greater costs to the state and arguing that “it’s just responsible to the laws of nature” for the GOP to continue to oppose LGBT rights.
Grabowski said on the Christian radio program “Issues, Etc.”:
Marriage as the building block of society, stable families, loving mother and father; all of these things have been shown to be the best environment to raise children so that they don’t become costs to the state, so that the state programs don’t have to step in and take care of the fallout when children come from broken homes, broken marriages, and from social experimentation upon our children, which is really what a lot of policies advocated by LGBT activists essentially are. So, it’s fiscally responsible, it’s constitutionally responsible and it’s just responsible to the laws of nature to continue to be the party of these family values.
NOM ended up getting its wish; yesterday morning the GOP’s platform committee shot down attempts to moderate its opposition to LGBT rights and added language calling for the reversal of the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision.
The Senate today confirmed Carla D. Hayden to be the librarian of Congress after a campaign of obstruction that’s unusual for such a nonpolitical post. Hayden seemed to run up against a combination of Senate gridlock and a campaign by an influential conservative activist who claimed that the fact that she would be the first African American and the first woman to hold the position was a concession to “political correctness.”
Last week, Zach Graves of the libertarian-leaning R Street Institute summarized the campaign that Heritage Foundation fellow Hans von Spakovsky launched against Hayden. Dismissing Hayden’s accomplishments, von Spakovsky declared that the head of the Library of Congress must be a “man of letters”:
To start off, von Spakovsky suggests Obama chose Hayden because she’s a black woman and “his administration has an unofficial quota system.” A remarkable sentiment, considering Hayden’s qualifications as a librarian: She has a doctorate in library science from the University of Chicago; taught at the University of Pittsburgh; served as CEO of the City of Baltimore’s Enoch Pratt Free Library, one of the oldest public library systems in the nation; served as president of the American Library Association; and was named National Librarian of the Year.
Despite her accomplishments, and a favorable Senate confirmation hearing, von Spakovsky insists Hayden is “unqualified.” She may be a fine librarian, he argues, but she’s “neither a scholar nor a historian” and the Library of Congress is an institution that must be run by a “man of letters” …
Von Spakovsky repeatedly suggested that Hayden had been picked for the job just because of her race and would be unable to be a keeper of “American cultural greatness,” writing, “The Librarians of Congress have been keepers of American memory, and public advocates for American cultural greatness. This is not a sinecure — like the post of United States treasurer — to be doled out to members of a politically favored demographic.” He warned that Hayden’s confirmation would make the Library of Congress a “monument to political correctness.”
The Senate Rules Committee approved Hayden’s nomination in April, but an anonymous senator placed a hold on the nomination, preventing it from coming to a vote. Astonishingly, even when Hayden’s nomination did come up for a vote today, 18 senators voted against her. Unless those senators explain their votes, it will be impossible to tell if they were swayed by von Spakovsky’s offensive arguments or were merely participating in the Senate GOP’s blanket obstruction of executive branch and judicial nominees.
Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wisc., said yesterday that while “race relations were very good” when President Obama took office, the president has made things worse by meeting with Al Sharpton and praising Black Lives Matter, claiming that Obama could help make things better by discouraging “black America” from having “anything to do” with either.
Wisconsin talk radio host Charlie Sykes asked Grothman to discuss the assassination of five police officers in Dallas and why the nation is “as divided and on edge as it has been in a long time.”
“I don’t think it’s surprising given the leadership we have in this country,” Grothman said. “You know, a lot of people felt, not me, but a lot of people felt that it was a good thing to elect Barack Obama, I think race relations were pretty good when he took office, but [those people were] saying, well, if there were any problems left, Barack Obama would solve these problems.”
“Instead,” he said, “we have a president who’s met with Al Sharpton over 100 times. And if he met with Al Sharpton 100 times, what does that tell you about how Barack Obama views race relations or how he should weigh in? And there’s your problem. Hillary Clinton has tried to get Al Sharpton’s endorsement; Barack Obama has praised Black Lives Matter.”
“See, the situation with race relations were very good eight years ago,” he continued, “but it seems as though both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — I mean, would you even be caught on stage with Al Sharpton?”
Sykes, seemingly missing the fact that Obama had forcefully condemned the violence against police officers, wondered when Obama would have a “Sister Souljah moment” and “call out the elements of that movement who are now condoning or even encouraging violence against police officers.”
“Well, right, he has the moral standing to take on Al Sharpton,” Grothman responded. “And the fact that Al Sharpton’s been in the White House over 100 times, and Black Lives Matter … to say, ‘Look, you are not a leader of black America, we discourage black America from having anything to do with you,’ he could fulfill some of the promise that some people had when he was elected two [sic] years ago.”
Rep. Robert Hurt, R-Va., said yesterday that President Obama reaped “what he has sowed” in the shooting of five police officers in Dallas last week, claiming that the president’s support of the Black Lives Matter movement is a “Chicago-style politics” attempt to divide Americans for political gain.
“It’s not even clear to me what the Black Lives Matter people really want, other than to draw attention to themselves,” Hurt told Virginia broadcaster John Fredericks. “And I would suggest to you this, John, that it’s really nothing more than a political organization. Again, this is an administration and this is representative of a political style, Chicago-style politics, that says ‘We’re going to slice and dice the American people and we’re going to create enough distrust and angst among them that we’ll be able to use them to our political advantage.’ And that’s what this is, this is just nothing more than, I fear, than that. It’s a political organization that’s used to try to win elections. Period. End of story. To get a candidate a fat, juicy spot in elected office. And I think it’s regrettable. I really do.”
He added that “an objective person can’t conclude that there’s that systemic racism in our society and government that there once was,” claiming that the president’s support of Black Lives Matter only serves to “diminish the harsh reality” of previous racial injustices.
Hurt went on to say that we’re now seeing Obama “reap what he has sowed,” saying that if he were a family member of one of the police officers killed in Dallas, he wouldn’t want Obama to show up to their memorial service.
“This is a narrative that he has drawn, I think very incorrectly, and he has drawn this narrative for political purposes and now we’re seeing him reap what he has sowed,” he said, adding that Obama shares the blame with other politicians “who are gutless and who don’t respect the truth and don’t see this country to be the greatest country on earth that it is.”
“He has sown this racial —he has fanned these flames, I think he has in many ways highlighted these things in ways that I don’t think are fair or right, and now we’re seeing the fruit of this,” he said.
“You know, I’m glad he’s going to Dallas,” he added, “I hope that he’s of some comfort to the families, I kind of wonder how well he will be received, considering he, I think, in many ways is responsible for fanning the flames of this anti-police feeling. And I know if I were a family member, I’m not sure I would want to be spending a lot of time with him.”
In a recent New York Times column, conservative writer Peter Wehner called out Robert Jeffress, a prominent Southern Baptist pastor, for his vocal support of Donald Trump.
Yesterday, conservative talk radio host Mike Gallagher invited Jeffress and Wehner to debate Trump’s candidacy on his program, where Jeffress defended his support for the presumptive GOP nominee by saying that it’s “biblical” to support a “strongman” in government.
Jeffress said that he supported Trump in the primary “because I believed that he was the only one who was electable and could beat Hillary Clinton,” adding that “our country has moved so far to the left” that “I just didn’t think that Ted Cruz was electable.”
“But as far as his worldview, Trump’s worldview,” he continued, “you know, I was debating an evangelical professor on NPR and this professor said, ‘Pastor, don’t you want a candidate who embodies the teaching of Jesus and would govern this country according to the principles found in the Sermon on the Mount?’ I said, ‘Heck no.’ I would run from that candidate as far as possible, because the Sermon on the Mount was not given as a governing principle for this nation.
“Nowhere is government told to forgive those who wrong it, nowhere is government told to turn the other cheek. Government is to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers. When I’m looking for somebody who’s going to deal with ISIS and exterminate ISIS, I don’t care about that candidate’s tone or vocabulary, I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can find, and I believe that’s biblical.”