Peter Montgomery's blog

Os Hillman: You Too Can Profit From God's Coming Judgment

If you’re trying to make plans for the Last Days, Religious Right commentators are making it a little hard to pick a date. As Brian noted this morning, WND news editor Leo Hohmann focused on various prophecies suggesting something cataclysmic is in store for September 23, 2015. But he also mentioned another sign in the heavens: “The Shemitah year comes to a climax on the Hebrew calendar date of Elul 29, which is Sept. 13 on the Gregorian calendar.”

If the reference to a Shemitah year has you scratching your head, Dominionist Os Hillman comes to the rescue via Charisma News with a question that has certainly been on our minds: “Are We Entering a Modern-Day Amorite Judgment?”

Hillman, who just last week was suggesting that God is using Donald Trump to wake up America, draws on the teaching of Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, the end-times author who says the 9/11 attacks are part of God’s judgment on America. In his book the Harbinger, Cahn said America’s current perils were foretold in the Old Testament. Hillman reports that Cahn has also written a book about The Mystery of the Shemitah.

The premise of the book is that in Jewish history and custom there was something called the Year of Jubilee. Every 49 years and every seventh year the people of Israel were to forgive their debts and allow their land to rest. The word Shemitah is most often translated as "the release" or "the remission." The English word remission is defined as "the cancellation or reduction of a debt or penalty."…

When people do not voluntarily release debt, God causes a forced debt release through a financial collapse. However, people lose their assets in this involuntary debt purge which leads to recessions, depressions, foreclosures and bankruptcies….

OK, it gets a little dense here, but let’s follow along:

Shemitah became the name of the last day of the seventh year, whereas Elul 29, became known as the Day of Remission. But it also became the name of the Sabbath year in its entirety. The seventh year would become known as the year of the Shemitah….So the word Shemitah covers both the seventh year and the last day of that 7th year. There's a reason for that. That last day of Elul 29 is the year's crescendo, it's peak and combination-the Remission of the Year for Remission.

In a sense, everything about the Shemitah year builds up to that final day, when everything is released, remitted and wiped away in one day—or, more specifically, to the eve of that day, to the final sunset.

Let’s get to next month’s cataclysm:

Rabbi Cahn has documented when the last seven major stock market crashes have taken place. He cites each of these have taken place in a Shemitah year: the seventh year of a seven-year cycle.

The 2007-2008 financial crash took place in a Shemitah year. 2015 is the seventh year of a seven-year Shemitah period.

The final day of the Shemitah year will be Sunday, September 13, 2015 which is also Elul 29, the last day of the Shemitah seventh year. The last open day of the markets will fall on Sept. 11, 2015 two days before Elul 29. The greatest stock market crashes have all been on these Elul 29 days, the last day of a Shemitah year.

Consider the following, arranged by the Shemitah years, the event, and the percentage the stock market crashed:

  • 1901-1902, Northern Pacific Crisis, 46 percent
  • 1916-1917, 1st World War, 40 percent
  • 1930-1932, Great Depression, 86 percent
  • 1937-1938, Great Depression, 50 percent
  • 1973-1974, Oil Crisis, 45 percent
  • 2000-2001, 911 attacks, dot.com crash 37 percent
  • 2007-2008, Mortgage Crisis, 50 percent
  • Now: 2015 Shemitah year—Sept. 13, Elul 29, last day of Shemitah year

But who are the Amorites? Well, it’s complicated.

In many ways I see the current crisis as a time of coming into a maturity of a judgment from God on mammon and greed in society worldwide. It is similar to the time when God caused the people of Israel to be freed while at the same time they went into the promised land to judge the Amorites. The iniquity of the Amorites had come to maturity and God was now judging the Amorites through the nation of Israel.

For clarification, “judging the Amorites” meant slaughtering them. So if we are in for an “Amorite judgment,” that doesn’t sound so good. But there is an upside: Hillman says that whatever “shaking” God has in store will open the door to needed revival.

Could we now be entering a modern-day version of the Amorite judgment in the world whereby God will accomplish two things again—exercise judgment while bringing a much-needed spiritual awakening? Genesis 15 describes the judgment of the Amorites when God told Abraham that his seed would go into exile in Egypt for 400 years, and then would come out, with God's help, and possess the land.

Have we come to a point in world history where God is saying, "Enough is enough" and He is now judging the financial systems of the world similar to the 400-year time with Amorites? I am not a prophet, but we certainly see a shaking throughout the world. The judgment of the Amorites ushered in the people of God to take the land. Regardless of whether this is true, I do believe this is ushering in a time when the church can make the greatest impact on the culture if we press into God during this season. The church has been in much prayer over the last decade asking God for revival….

Unlike other nations, there is a call of God on America. We had a spiritual birth as a nation. God will not allow His children and His nation to wander without reproofing sin as a good Father should. If there is no shaking then we have no hope for us. It is the only way to revival.

Ever the optimist, or ever the businessman, Hillman says believers can profit if they prepare:

How can believers take advantage of this season? If we are prepared this could be the greatest wealth transfer we have ever seen in our lifetime, or it can be a devastating time if you are not prepared.

Hillman asks for readers’ email address in order to get his preparation tips.

Let’s assume a major financial crash might happen as a result of the Shemitah year. What should you do now? Here are some steps I have taken along with many others I know who have taken them. Keep in mind that you must be directed by the Holy Spirit in your own preparation. God told Jeremiah to buy a piece of land when he knew his nation was going to be invaded by Babylon. Obeying God is not always logical.

  1. Get out of debt if you can. Now is not the time to purchase a major purchase like a home.
  2. Get out of the stock market – we expect a correction of at least 50% of its current value.
  3. Diversify – keep your funds in different places. Major banks may not be safe during this time. Smaller community banks tend to be safer.
  4. Cash – have some cash on hand in a safe place in your home or other location.
  5. Risk capital – use your risk capital to invest in things that may actually go up during a downturn in the stock market. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) might be a consideration. Talk to your investment adviser.
  6. Sell your home – this might seem radical, but if you do not plan to stay in your home for a very long time, it would be a good time to sell and use those proceeds to buy a home much cheaper during the downturn. You could purchase a home for 30-60% less if what we think happens actually happens.
  7. Cash Investments – Oversees there are banks and bonds that are paying a negative interest rank to depositors. Why would anyone do that? It is because they are looking for a safe haven because they believe what is coming could cause them to lose those funds if not placed in a safe place. US Treasury Bills are a safe investment for sums of cash right now. Go to http://www.treasurydirect.gov to learn more.

If there is a significant downturn and people are thrust into adversity, then this will be an opportunity for those who plan well to minister to those who did not. It is not a strategy to hoard or prepare out of fear, but a strategy to be a blessing to others should such an event occur. It is a strategy to benefit for yourself and others through wise planning.

 

Liberty Counsel Tells Kentucky Clerk To Defy Federal Court Ruling, Keep Refusing Marriage Licenses To Same-Sex Couples

Religious Right legal group Liberty Counsel, which opposes LGBT equality in the U.S. and around the world, has been urging resistance in the form of mass civil disobedience to the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling. On Wednesday, a federal court ruled against Liberty Counsel and its client, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who has refused on religious grounds to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples.  U.S. District Judge David Bunning  issued a preliminary injunction ordering her to do her job and comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Bunning, a Bush appointee, stated the issue this way:

At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party’s rights. The tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by answering one simple question: Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to samesex marriage? For reasons stated herein, the Court answers this question in the negative.

The judge analyzed the case under the U.S. Constitution, the Kentucky state constitution, and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act (which is patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act). He considered and rejected various arguments raised by Liberty Counsel defending Davis’s right to refuse to provide marriage licenses.

Davis contends that “[c]ompelling all individuals who have any connection with the issuance of marriage licenses . . . to authorize, approve, and participate in that act against their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, without providing accommodation, amounts to an improper religious test for holding (or maintaining) public office.” The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met the legal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval. The State is not requiring Davis to express a particular religious belief as a condition of public employment, nor is it forcing her to surrender her free exercise rights in order to perform her duties. Thus, it seems unlikely that Davis will be able to establish a violation of the Religious Test Clause….

As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk.

Liberty Counsel has filed an appeal of the ruling and requested a stay. Chairman Mat Staver denounced the judge’s ruling:

“Judge Bunning’s decision equated Kim’s free exercise of religion to going to church. This is absurd! Christianity is not a robe you take off when you leave a sanctuary,” said Staver. “The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government.”

“Kim Davis cannot license something that is prohibited by her religious convictions,” Staver continued. “To provide a license is to provide approval and places a legal authority behind what is being licensed. The First Amendment protects actions and not mere thought. Kim Davis should not be forced to violate her religious beliefs,” Staver concluded.

This morning, Davis’s office defied the Judge Bunning’s order and turned away gay couples who sought marriage licenses.  According to the Associated Press, “Davis wasn't at her office Thursday, but deputy clerk Nathan Davis said the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples as it appeals.”

Last year, after a federal court struck down North Carolina’s ban on same-sex couples getting married, Staver and anti-gay activist Matt Barber urged magistrates in the state with similar religious objections not to resign but to “stand their ground” and refuse to obey the ruling.  

Alan Keyes: No Self-Respecting Conservative Would Vote For 'Socialist' Trump

Far-right activist and perennial candidate Alan Keyes is fuming about conservatives’ embrace of Donald Trump. Writing in BarbWire, Keyes warns, “Trump stands for socialism, competently imposed.” Discussing Trump’s onetime support for single payer healthcare, he declares, “Trump doesn’t oppose socialism. He opposes what he sees as the incompetent administration of socialism.”

Keyes urges conservatives to pay more attention to Trump’s record than to his campaign rhetoric, calling Trump “a leftist Democrat” who “is not now nor has he ever been a conservative — in principle or in the policies of the candidates he has supported.” He says conservatives have been “mesmerized” by Trump’s rhetoric on immigration.

I’ve often told people that the only thing worse than the incompetent socialism we’ve seen around the world would be socialism, competently imposed. As someone like Solzhenitsyn well understood, the real objection to the socialist ideology isn’t just its failure to deliver “the goods.” It’s the fact that it invites people to understand those goods in strictly materialistic terms. By doing so socialism denies the spirit God shares with humanity, thereby endangering our living souls.

But exactly what significance do spirit and soul have for someone like Donald Trump, who professes to be a Christian, yet frankly admits that he has never seriously sought God’s forgiveness. Instead, he says, if and when he has sinned, he just fixes it himself. This is precisely the delusion that lies at the heart of the socialist ideology– the delusion of God-denying self-sufficiency that obscures the intangible essence of human being, so that people may be regarded as nothing more than complex arrangements of soulless matter, no more intrinsically significant than the dust. The literally atrocious aspects of the socialist regimes of the 20th century were not a function of the incompetence with which they were administered. They were the inevitable result of the degraded view of human personality the socialist ideology entails and inculcates.

Even though Keyes ran for the U.S. Senate three times as the Republican Party nominee (twice in Maryland and once in Illinois), he left the GOP after his second failed bid for the presidential nomination in 2008. It seems clear that he has lost faith and patience with Republican leaders and voters:

I’m tempted to believe that no self-respecting conservative could possibly be that thoughtless, but then I remember that many “conservatives” who still accept the GOP delusion are self-professed, not self-respecting. If they were the latter, they would cast aside the elitist faction’s sham two-party con game, and devote all their energy to building an authentically conservative political vehicle, compatible with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of the American people. They would also reject, out of hand, whichever candidate the elitist faction sham sends forth to beguile us into surrendering it. Donald Trump is such a candidate. So in fact are all the men and woman who have “made their bones” in either of the elitist gangs now masquerading as opposing political parties.

 

Ben Carson's Bible-Based Tax System and Other GOP Adventures In 'Biblical Economics'

In last night’s Republican presidential debate, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said he would base a new tax system on the biblical system of tithing. “I think God is a pretty fair guy,” he said.

And he said, you know, if you give me a tithe, it doesn’t matter how much you make. If you’ve had a bumper crop, you don’t owe me triple tithes. And if you’ve had no crops at all, you don’t owe me no tithes. So there must be something inherently fair about that.

And that’s why I’ve advocated a proportional tax system. You make $10 billion, you pay a billion. You make $10, you pay one. And everybody gets treated the same way. And you get rid of the deductions, you get rid of all the loopholes, and…

Carson has plenty of company on the far right. The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has declared, “God believes in a flat tax.” On his radio show last year, Fischer said, “That’s what a tithe is, it’s a tax.”

Of course, that kind of flat tax would amount to a massive tax cut for the richest Americans and a tax hike on the poorest. So it’s not terribly surprising the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity has teamed up with the Religious Right to promote the idea that progressive taxation is an un-Christian idea. AFP joined Religious Right groups to create the Freedom Federation, one of the right-wing coalitions that sprung up in opposition to Barack Obama’s election as president. The coalition’s founding “Declaration of American Values” declares its allegiance to a system of taxes that is “not progressive in nature.”

David Barton, the pseudo-historian, GOP activist, and Glenn Beck ally, is a major promoter of the idea that the Bible opposes progressive taxes, capital gains taxes, and minimum wage. Barton’s views are grounded in the philosophy of Christian Reconstructionism, a movement whose thinking has infused both the Religious Right and Tea Party movements with its notion that God gave the family, not the government, responsibility for education — and the church, not the government, responsibility for taking care of the poor. 

That’s how we have Republican members of Congress supporting cuts in food stamps by appealing to the Bible. And how we get Samuel Rodriguez, the most prominent conservative Hispanic evangelical leader, saying that a desire to “punish success” — i.e. progressive taxes — “is anti-Christian and anti-American.”

This notion that laissez-faire economics, small government, and flat taxes are divine mandates, and that taxation is theft, is also how we end up with the Heritage Foundation promoting the idea that “[t]hose who esteem the Bible should also applaud St. Milton Friedman and other Church of Chicago prelates, because their insights amplify what the Bible suggests about economics.” And the idea that unions and collective bargaining are unbiblical is how we get Religious Right groups celebrating Scott Walker’s war on unions.

Scott Walker’s False Claim That America Shares His Anti-Choice Extremism

Miranda reported this morning on Mike Huckabee’s radical and dangerous plan to give fertilized eggs full constitutional rights by declaring them to be human beings. But Huckabee wasn’t the only one at last night's GOP presidential debate making extreme statements when it comes to women’s health care.

Fox’s Megyn Kelly asked Walker about his position that all abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Walker did not answer Kelly’s direct question of whether he would really let a woman die rather than have an abortion. Instead he declared his “pro-life” credentials and said, “I’ve said many a time that the unborn child can be protected, and there are many other alternatives that can also protect the life of the mother.”

Of course, those “alternatives” don’t always exist, and the experiences of some women in Catholic hospitals make it clear that women’s lives are at stake when no-exceptions abortion bans are in place.

Walker asserted, “I’ve got a position that’s in line with everyday America.”

That statement is utterly false. Fewer than one in five Americans believes, like Walker, that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. A recent poll for Vox found that more than two-thirds of Americans would NOT like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. Kelly noted in her question that 83 percent of Americans believe abortion should be allowed to save a woman’s life.

Gallup reported in May that more Americans describe themselves as pro-choice than pro-life (50 – 44 percent). And even that question understates the depth of Americans’ support for women having access to safe and legal abortion. Researcher Tresa Undem told ThinkProgress recently that people in focus groups are stunned when presented with data about the range of attacks and restrictions on women’s health care:

“When you get in a focus group with people and you show them the entirely of the restrictions and exactly what’s going on, there is total outrage — it’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen in fifteen years of doing public opinion research,” she said.

Of course, last night’s debate was not the first time Walker has lied about his position on women’s access to abortion. In a television ad last year he said that an anti-abortion bill he was pushing “leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor,” which is basically the definition of being pro-choice. But in May, Walker explained to social conservative leaders that he was using purposefully deceptive language — in the words of anti-abortion activist Marjorie Dannenfelser, “using the language of the other side to support our own position” — a strategy she found impressive. “It’s the whole style of communication and content that you want to see moving into a presidential cycle that will make it different from 2012.”

I’m guessing that Dannenfelser was delighted by Walker’s “everyday America” line.

Fox And Its GOP Friends Stick With Offensive ‘Illegals’

At last night’s presidential debates hosted by Fox News, it was jarring to hear Fox personalities and Republican presidential candidates alike using the derogatory term “illegals” to refer to undocumented immigrants.

Fox and other conservative media outlets have rejected efforts — including Colorlines’ the Drop the I-Word campaign —  to stop using terms like “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien.” Jose Antonio Vargas, a journalist who “came out” as an undocumented immigrant in 2011, started the following year to challenge media outlets’ use of the term “illegal immigrant.” In January, FoxNews.com said its policy is to describe immigrants who are in the U.S. without authorization as “illegal immigrants,” but Fox News Latino reportedly does not use the term.

Last November, Fusion’s Felix Salmon published an overview of the policies various news organizations have adopted. Some, including the Associated Press, no longer use the term “illegal immigrant.” Some, like the New York Times, still do while encouraging reporters to also consider alternatives in a given context. Some find alternatives like “undocumented” or “unauthorized” to be confusing or bureaucratic.

But the sneering shorthand “illegals” is worse and there is a stronger consensus against its use — but not a universal one. In January, the Santa Barbara News-Press generated controversy, including vandalism of the paper’s building, when it used the term “illegals” in a headline. Fox ran a story about the vandalism with screen text declaring “Trouble with Illegals.”

A copyediting blog, commenting on the Santa Barbara controversy, declared it is no longer possible for journalists to “claim that the word illegal [used as a noun] can be neutral or objective.” Even the Wall Street Journal, whose stylebook says “illegal immigrant” is its preferred term, instructs, “Don’t use illegal or illegals as a noun.”

Despite having low expectations for Fox and the Republican candidates, it was striking to hear so many uses of “illegal” or “illegals” as a noun. Scanning through transcripts of the debates, I confirmed that Fox’s Bill Hemmer used the term twice in the also-rans debate, and Chris Wallace used it three times in the top ten debate. The term was also used by Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee, the latter in his sadly memorable formulation about “illegals, prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, all the people that are freeloading off the system now.”

This week, New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin wrote a follow-up piece to an article he published last month about immigration policy. In his new commentary, he reflects on feedback he received in opposition to his use of “illegal immigrant.” He says he will no longer use the term because it has become so widely regarded as pejorative.

Toobin says it is “clearly wrong” to use the term as a noun — to call someone “an illegal.” Former New York Times editor and columnist Bill Keller came to the same conclusion in late 2011, with help from readers and colleagues, after a column in which he had used “illegals” as shorthand for “illegal immigrants.”

Of course, given the state of the Republican Party on immigration, there were also plenty of uses of the term “amnesty” by candidates, including Jeb Bush making sure to qualify his support for a path to legal status for people now in the country —  “not amnesty” — and Ted Cruz, who slammed the other candidates for having supported “amnesty.” Bobby Jindal had another of the evening’s most memorable lines, declaring “immigration without assimilation is an invasion.” 

Right Wing Touts New Poll Pitting Religious Liberty Against LGBT Equality

Conservative media and Religious Right leaders and activists are touting a new poll that supposedly shows Americans “overwhelmingly” side with “religious liberty” over gay rights. The new poll, conducted by Fox News contributor Patrick Caddell, adopts right-wing framing that pits religious freedom and LGBT equality in conflict with each other. Even in that context, a majority agrees that both religious liberties and the rights of gays and lesbians are important, and that “there can be a common sense solution that both protects religious freedom and protects gay and lesbian couples from discrimination.”

Of course, religious liberty and LGBT equality can happily coexist, despite claims to the contrary from the Right, but anti-equality advocates touting the Caddell poll suggest that the “common sense solution” is a “truce” that would allow business owners to discriminate against gay people based on their religious beliefs. Anti-gay extremist Peter LaBarbera is arguing that the poll shows that people see a war on Christians coming out of the “homosexual activist movement” and he is urging Americans to push for repeal of existing “sexual orientation laws and gender identity laws.”

The Caddell poll, an online survey of 800 voters, asserts that more than two-thirds of Americans – 68% -- believe the government should not be able “to require by law a private citizen to provide a service or provide their private property for an event that is contrary to their religious beliefs.” More specifically, the poll claims that 82 percent of Americans supports the right of a photographer with religious objections to same-sex couples getting married to refuse to photograph a gay couple’s wedding.

Conservatives are complaining that the Caddell poll is being “ignored by the establishment media.” But there are some good reasons for that.

First, Caddell’s numbers are far out of line with other surveys that show Americans are uncomfortable with the can of worms that would be opened by allowing business owners to cite religion as a reason to opt out of laws that apply to everyone else.  In an article in the Atlantic in June, Robert Jones of Public Religion Research Institute writes:

By a margin of nearly two to one, Americans oppose allowing a small business owner to refuse products or services to gay and lesbian people, even if doing so violates their religious beliefs (60 percent oppose, 34 percent favor). Most religious groups oppose these exemptions; white evangelical Protestants are the only religious group with majority support for these exemptions, and even among this group, support is only a bare majority (51 percent).

PRRI has also reported that white evangelical Protestants were the only religious group that gives majority support – and then only 51 percent – to so called “religious freedom” laws designed to protect business owners and others who do not want to serve LGBT people or couples.

By contrast, 59% of white mainline Protestants, 63% of non-white Protestants, and 64% of Catholics oppose allowing small business owners to refuse service to gay and lesbian people on religious grounds, as do nearly three-quarters (73%) of religiously unaffiliated Americans.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll published in March of last year found that “nearly seven in 10 respondents say business should not be allowed to refuse service to gays,” even if that refusal if based on the owner’s religious beliefs.” And an earlier poll, a 2013 survey by Human Rights Campaign and Third Way, reported that when asked specifically about wedding-related services being provided by small businesses, “64% of voters were still opposed to new laws that would allow small businesses to deny wedding-related services based on their religious beliefs, compared to 31% in favor.”

Other polls show more of a split among Americans on the issue, but they too are far from the results Caddell reports. A Pew Research Center survey from last year found Americans about equally divided about whether businesses that provide wedding services should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples on religious grounds or whether they should be required to provide services. And an Associated Press-GfK poll from earlier this year found that while a slim majority of Americans said wedding-related businesses should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples, only 40 percent said businesses in general should be allowed to. 

Another reason journalists might view the poll with skepticism may be Caddell himself. Caddell is a Fox News regular who is useful to right-wingers by virtue of the fact that he describes himself as a Democratic strategist who helped get Jimmy Carter elected. But he has long since acted as an advocate for the Right by trashing the Democratic Party as the “tool” of special interests and saying “the left doesn’t care about ordinary people.”

Last year, on Sean Hannity’s show, Caddell denounced President Barack Obama as “a raging narcissist who has no grip on reality” and accused Republicans of not opposing him strongly enough. Caddell reportedly helped identify people to appear in an anti-Obama “documentary” distributed by the right-wing group Citizens United.

New York Magazine recently reported that Caddell has been speaking to Donald Trump “almost every day” about his campaign

Already-Huge Heritage Foundation Expands DC Presence To 'Hit Washington Establishment' From 'Close Range'

The Heritage Foundation is a giant within the massive right-wing legal, political and cultural infrastructure that has been built over the past several decades. An ideological marketing operation in the guise of a think tank, Heritage has played a significant role in in getting economic and social conservatives to work together to push the Republican Party further and further to the Right. It operates out of an enormous complex near the U.S. Capitol — one that Heritage has announced is now growing even bigger.

In an email headlined “From close range,” Heritage President Jim DeMint writes:

If we’re going to reclaim America, conservatives have to hit the Washington Establishment from close range.

That’s why a critical phase of The Heritage Foundation’s Reclaim America campaign is building the Freedom Center.

Only steps from the U.S. Capitol, the Freedom Center will be at very close range. It will be your conservative stronghold for retaking our country.

The group’s website says, “The new Freedom Center will be the driving force behind a revitalized conservative resurgence, not just in Washington, but also around the country.”

The Heritage Foundation is vastly expanding our presence in Washington D.C.—the belly of the beast.

Our headquarters in the heart of Washington, D.C. is just two city blocks from the Senate offices, three city blocks from the Capitol building, and three city blocks from the House offices. It’s from this base that we will wage a policy war with the Left and the Establishment at very close range. In politics, proximity matters. That’s why our physical presence is key and that’s why expansion is critical to future conservative victories.

To beat down Big Government, we need to expand our footprint on Capitol Hill.

The Freedom Center will be only blocks from the U.S. Capitol in a remodeled structure already purchased—prime real estate once rented by far-left groups. The modernized Freedom Center will be specifically outfitted for:

  • Educating Congress about how conservative ideas solve today’s problems and help the American people;
  • Reaching the American people with an enhanced media outreach program focused on spreading conservative ideas;
  • Communicating facts to mobilize grassroots Americans;
  • And bringing together conservative groups to coordinate strategy.

In short, the Freedom Center will be a beachhead from which we can advance your principles in Washington from inescapably close range. 

DeMint says that Heritage is trying to raise $1 million for the project by August 18 and that a donor will match gifts made by August 18. According to IRS filings from 2013, the Heritage Foundation had income that year of $112.7 million, with net assets of more than $194 million. Its explicitly political arm, Heritage Action for America, reported income of $8.8 million and net assets of $4.8 million.

NOM’s Brian Brown: Ending Anti-Gay Discrimination Means Giving 'Believers' the Shaft

Religious Right leaders have long argued that legal equality for LGBT people cannot coexist with religious freedom. Now that the Supreme Court has made marriage equality the law of the land, and the LGBT movementis seeking protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, these claims are getting more shrill.

The Right is worked up about the introduction in Congress last month of the Equality Act, which would provide legal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, access to public places, federal funding, credit, education and jury service. The Equality Act, says Lambda Legal, “does not change the religious exemptions already in federal law.”

Miranda reported last week that Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage said the Equality Act should be called “The Persecution of Americans Act.” Now, in a new fundraising email, NOM calls the “Beyond Marriage Equality” agenda “an outrageous attempt to persecute Americans who believe in God” and suggests that extending civil rights protections to protect LGBT people would be “catastrophic.”

The agenda being advanced by the left will have a catastrophic impact on every single American as it covers housing, employment, access to public places, federal funding, credit, education and jury service. Gays and lesbians get special legal rights and can beckon the government to target people of faith for investigations and punishment, while Americans who believe in God get the shaft.

But Brown doesn’t speak for “Americans who believe in God.” Most Americans, including religious Americans, support nondiscrimination laws that protect LGBT people. A Public Religion Research Institute survey from June found that 60 percent of white evangelical Protestants support nondiscrimination laws.  As PRRI’s Robert Jones recently wrote in the Atlantic:

Today, nearly seven in ten (69 percent) Americans favor laws that would protect LGBT individuals against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing, compared to 25 percent who oppose such policies. And there is majority support for these protections across partisan and religious lines. In fact, most Americans actually already believe that workplace nondiscrimination is the law of the land: Three-quarters (75 percent) of Americans incorrectly believe it is currently illegal under federal law to fire or refuse to hire someone because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.

A poll conducted for HRC earlier this year found overwhelming public support for a nondiscrimination law.

Religious Right Columnist: Obama Used By Satan Just Like Other ‘Pervert Despots of History’

You may have known that President Barack Obama has done much to advance LGBT equality in the U.S. and overseas, but did you realize that this makes him the latest in a long line of “sex depraved tyrants” who, throughout history, have “brought their respective empires close to and beyond ruin as a result of their megalomania and hubris?” No? Well, clearly you haven’t been getting the Sons of Liberty newsletter from anti-gay rocker and motivational speaker Bradlee Dean. Dean’s endorsers include RWW regulars Bryan Fischer, Harry Jackson, and Michael Peroutka.

“The irony of the Sodomy Rights movement in America,” begins contributor Jason Charles in a column published at Wake the Church as well as Sons of Liberty, “is the fact that it was built on the foundation of human trafficking, slavery, and hedonistic elitist lifestyles of ancient times.”

Charles argues that Rome fell “because it was infected by a contingency of prominent Homosexuals.”

These guilds of homosexuals also seem to be a prerequisite for anyone wishing to ascend to power. They become a spiritual proving ground for Satan as he vets future leaders for their compromised roles in history. People with power issues, especially sexually are often selected by the power brokers of each age for the sole reason they can be controlled and manipulated. Anyone that has become blinded by perversions usually has few moral limits of any kind they won't cross, this makes them ideal candidates for Satan's agenda in this world.

But back to the “new Rainbow tyrant of the modern age,” as Charles describes Obama. Charles places Obama at number 72 (or somewhere between 73 and 76 if you count his references to Bush Sr. and Jr.) on a list of “purported sodomite/bi-sexual rulers of History” that begins with Alexander the Great and continues through Julius Caesar and Adolph Hitler. The Bushes make the article based on their involvement with the Skull & Bones Society at Yale and the Bohemian Grove.

Charles cites WND’s anti-Obama conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi as the source for his assertion that “Obama when living in Chicago was a regular at homosexual bath houses.” And his most recent bit of evidence – those rainbow colors on the White House celebrating the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling.

…the enemy of this world has always had his guilds of sexual perversity for the sole reason of grooming compromised individuals, usually starting with children. Obama is so obsessed with creating a culture of homosexuality he has pushed it into public schools, praised the SCOTUS decision on sodomy-based “marriage” on official twitter accounts, coordinated corporate praise for sodomy-based “marriage,” and even lit up the White House in rainbow colors…

Obama has lived his entire life with disdain for God's natural laws of human sexuality, so of course he would live with disdain of manmade laws, and also Biblical laws, just like all the other pervert despots of history.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious