C4

John Guandolo: Close The Majority Of Mosques In America

John Guandolo, the disgraced former FBI agent who is now a vocal anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, gave an interview to WorldNetDaily yesterday about why the U.S. government should treat mosques as security threats.

Alluding to a bogus study that claimed that eight out of 10 mosques in America preach violence and extremism, Guandolo urged the government to start “arresting all of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the U.S., shutting down their organizations, and all Muslim Brotherhood mosques, which is over 80 percent of them.”

Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller similarly told WorldNetDaily that mosques are a “clear and present danger.”

Pamela Geller, who was herself a target of an Islamic terror attack last year at a draw-Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, said the Obama administration has all but stopped the monitoring of U.S. mosques.

“For years, I have been calling on law enforcement and the FBI to pay closer attention to the mosques,” she told WND. “They present a clear and present danger.”



John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism agent specializing in Quranic-inspired violence, said the U.S. is not doing anything to push back on the jihadi community “which is centered in the mosques which Islamic leaders in North America call the ‘axis of their movement.'”

If anything, the Obama administration is protecting the Islamic community whose stated objective is the destruction of all un-Islamic governments and replacing them with Islamic control under Shariah, he said.

After leaving the FBI Guandolo formed Understanding the Threat, an organization that teaches the tenets of Islam to law enforcement agencies.

“If we ‘monitor’ mosques now, who will do that? So few in law enforcement have been taught about Shariah, the Muslim Brotherhood jihadi network, etcetera,” he said. “UTT is the only organization in the nation doing it.”

Guandolo said he would start by reining in the record influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, and then going after the Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

“If we begin with arresting all of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the U.S., shutting down their organizations, and all Muslim Brotherhood mosques, which is over 80 percent of them, that would be a good start,” he said.

He said this could be done under existing law.

“The underlying federal charge would fall under Title 18 – Conspiracy to Overthrow the Federal government,” he said.

Donald Trump: I Have No Plans To Moderate

Today on “The Savage Nation,” conservative talk radio host Michael Savage asked Donald Trump if he plans to moderate his message before the general election.

“The reason you’re popular is because of borders, because of immigration, because of the flood of Muslims coming into the country,” Savage said. “I would almost say, Donald, please don’t let the moderate influences in your campaign take you off-point, it’s what got you where you are. Are you going to modify your campaign and move a little bit more to the center now?”

Trump assured him that he would not adjust his message, telling Savage that “the last thing I should be doing now is changing so I don’t think you have anything to worry about, okay?”

Gabriel Sherman explained yesterday in New York magazine why Trump’s message sounds so much like Savage and other conservative radio commentators:

Throughout 2014, the three fed Trump strategy memos and political intelligence. “I listened to thousands of hours of talk radio, and he was getting reports from me,” [Sam] Nunberg recalled. What those reports said was that the GOP base was frothing over a handful of issues including immigration, Obamacare, and Common Core. While Jeb Bush talked about crossing the border as an “act of love,” Trump was thinking about how high to build his wall. “We either have borders or we don’t,” Trump told the faithful who flocked to the annual CPAC conference in 2014.



Trump didn’t read a prepared speech, but he knew what he wanted to say, which hardly mattered anyway because hardly anyone took his candidacy seriously at the time. “Nobody said anything,” Trump said about the fact that he had accused Mexico of sending “rapists” over the border into the U.S. “Then two weeks later, they started saying, ‘Wait a minute! Did he really say that?’ ”

He hadn’t tested the line, but Nunberg’s deep dive into talk radio had shown him that this was the sort of thing that would resonate with a certain segment of the Republican base. He also knew that this kind of outrageous statement would earn him the free media attention ($1.9 billion worth and counting, according to the New York Times) that would propel his campaign.

Jesse Lee Peterson Blames Trayvon Martin And Michael Brown's Mothers For Their Deaths

In a column yesterday, far-right radio host Jesse Lee Peterson lashed out at the people who criticized Donald Trump for suggesting that women who have abortions should face “some form of punishment.”

Peterson, who doesn’t even support women’s suffrage, wrote that “the failure of men is failure to address the evil in women,” urging male leaders to be tougher on women and “fight back.”

“Men who apologize and retreat from telling the truth come back defeated,” he wrote. “People suffer and die because men and women do not heed wisdom.”

He claimed that children suffer because women see themselves as victims: “We see the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown out front acting innocent and sweet. In reality, these women are primarily responsible for the inner rage that drove the teens to their deaths.”

The failure of men is failure to address the evil in women. Children suffer for it. With no correction, victims continue to create victims.

Donald Trump said a woman should be punished for having an abortion if it became illegal, and the liberals went nuts. He eventually put out a statement saying a woman should not be punished, but only the abortionist. He said, “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.” Whether or not she’s a “victim,” in most cases the woman is an accomplice.

A victim (or “survivor”) shifts responsibility and judges and victimizes others. A mother like this destroys her children spiritually if not physically.

I write about such mothers in my book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame and Victimhood.” One black woman became pregnant by a man who refused to take responsibility for the child. She tried to abort her son with a coat hanger, and killed his soul: Louis Farrakhan grew up as one of the most evil leaders today, deluding blacks in his mother’s anger and victimhood.

We see the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown out front acting innocent and sweet. In reality, these women are primarily responsible for the inner rage that drove the teens to their deaths.

Barack Obama said that his wife is “the boss.” I guarantee you she despises him for it. An angry woman cannot respect a weak man. And many Christian men are just like Obama.



Men who apologize and retreat from telling the truth come back defeated. People suffer and die because men and women do not heed wisdom. People would rather be angry and outraged on behalf of “women” (or politics) than listen and consider the truth in statements.



It is painful to watch conservative men pander and cater to women – grown men like Ted Cruz, whom I have respected and appreciated over the years, using women’s words, making meaningless, emotional statements that do not suit a man, even allowing Carly Fiorina to speak for him. Cruz said of Trump, “Real men don’t try to bully women.” He said, “Donald Trump is intimidated by strong women.” He said of his wife, “Heidi is my best friend in the whole world; she is the love of my life.” He said of his daughters: “I’m not looking forward to telling the girls why Donald Trump is launching insults and attacks at their mommy.”

“Mommy?” Who has Ted Cruz talking this way? Who finds this appealing? This is not what it means to be about family. I said on my radio show that, hearing this, I would never vote for Ted Cruz. He is a weak man. There are no “strong women.” And men don’t say, “Real men don’t try to bully women.” If a woman attacks you, you fight back.

Right-Wing Pundit Defends Trump's Abortion 'Punishment' Comments

Conservative commentator Gina Loudon dedicated her WorldNetDaily column yesterday to defending Donald Trump’s recent comment that, if abortion is recriminalized, women who have illegal abortions should face “some form of punishment.”

Trump’s campaign, taking heat from the anti-abortion movement for blowing up its PR strategy, attempted to retract the candidate’s comments shortly after he made them. Two days later, Trump suggested that he didn’t actually want to change the current abortion laws at all, a position that his campaign also ended up retracting.

Loudon, however, was just fine with Trump’s initial suggestion that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions, hailing the candidate for upending the debate on an important issue just as he did “when discussing illegal immigration.”

Loudon, defending Trump’s remarks, compared punishing a woman for having an abortion to prosecuting a person who “hires a contractor to kill someone.”

“Conservatives herald ‘the rule of law’ when discussing illegal immigration, but why do the rules suddenly change when we are talking about the killing of an unborn child?” she asked.

“His view was consistent with many things conservatives say,” Loudon continued. “He just didn’t know this was the unspeakable – kind of like saying we should stop illegal immigration was the unspeakable before Trump dared to say otherwise.”

Indeed, Loudon noted that Trump is simply saying what many people in the anti-abortion believe but refuse to say publicly: “Is there a pro-lifer out there that doesn’t think that in a perfect world — where we agreed abortion was, for example, illegal after the first trimester – that the woman could, if working with full knowledge, be held accountable for her complicity in the abortion? Shouldn’t this, like any law that is broken, be considered in a case-by-case manner?”

Abortion rights opponents who criticize Trump, Loudon argued, have decided to “jump on the gender identity ‘women are always victims’ bandwagon” rather than argue that women should be held accountable through prosecutions, making Trump “even more pro-life than the [sic] some of the pro-life groups out there.”

Donald Trump has no high-paid consultants around him telling him what he can and can’t say, even on the liberal’s favorite conservative-killing topic of abortion. They talk all about the woman’s right to choose as if women are so frail and helpless they shouldn’t bear any of the personal responsibility conservatives talk about in other political realms.

Trump knew this: If a person hires a contractor to kill someone, under the law, both the person hiring the contracted killer and the killer are held accountable. In his non-political mind, why would he think any differently?

Conservatives herald “the rule of law” when discussing illegal immigration, but why do the rules suddenly change when we are talking about the killing of an unborn child?

If you kill a pregnant woman, and her baby dies as a result, in most states that is a double homicide.

Donald Trump is new to political campaigns. He has not been formally trained on the political answer to every politically loaded question, like where one stands on abortion.

He has not spent hours in front of a mirror with consultants drilling his words, body language and intonation on every topic. If he had, rest assured, the consultants would have started with abortion. This is the single most un-discussable, off-limits, never-mention topic in all of politics.

When pressed by Chris Matthews, Trump said women who abort their unborn babies should perhaps receive some form of punishment if indeed the abortion in question was banned and, therefore, breaking the law. Trump said he hadn’t thought of what the punishment should be, but you could tell that he hadn’t seen the memo from the GOP consultants that said you aren’t supposed to discuss the personal responsibility of women in this scenario.

His view was consistent with many things conservatives say. He just didn’t know this was the unspeakable – kind of like saying we should stop illegal immigration was the unspeakable before Trump dared to say otherwise.



Is there a pro-lifer out there that doesn’t think that in a perfect world – where we agreed abortion was, for example, illegal after the first trimester – that the woman could, if working with full knowledge, be held accountable for her complicity in the abortion? Shouldn’t this, like any law that is broken, be considered in a case-by-case manner?



When Trump took on the issue of illegal immigration, he ignored conventional wisdom and said that people who broke the law and came here illegally should be punished. The silent majority surprisingly cheered.

Trump came to his position on illegal immigration by using logic and defying political correctness.

After his comments in the MSNBC town hall, Donald Trump has arguably become the most pro-life candidate in the race for president. He is now even more pro-life than the [sic] some of the pro-life groups out there.

I wish I didn’t have to come to Donald Trump’s defense, but to jump on the gender identity “women are always victims” bandwagon against him over this issue would be intellectually dishonest of me. It’s time for authenticity in politics. If conservatives want to talk about the power of women, the rule of law and personal responsibility, gray areas in abortion cannot be glossed over.

Mr. Trump said what he thought. Pro-lifers won’t win in this country until they are courageous enough to admit that not all women who chose to abort their babies are victims. Furthermore, Mr. Trump has vowed to appoint a pro-life Supreme Court justice, as has Sen. Ted Cruz.

Kevin Swanson Agrees With Trump: Abortion 'Ought To Be A Criminal Action'

Donald Trump’s recent comment about needing “some sort of punishment” for women who have abortions threw many in the anti-choice movement into damage control mode. But some anti-choice activists have been cheering Trump on, including, not exactly surprisingly, radical Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson, who said on his radio program today that abortion should be considered “a criminal action” by a woman.

Swanson, who a few months ago hosted Trump’s main Republican presidential rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, at a campaign forum in Iowa, explained that the principle of lex talionis, or “an eye for an eye,” means that women who have abortions should indeed be prosecuted.

“The answer to this,” he said, “is the lex talionis does bring out that if a hazardous condition is created such that a child would be likely to die, whether in the womb or outside of the womb, there ought to be some level of prosecution going on. In that case, it may be just a fine or a prison sentence of some sort. But the principle of the matter is that it’s a criminal action to kill a child, to murder a child, it ought to be a criminal action. And, now, there ought to be, I believe, some leeway as to what sort of prosecution, what sort of sentence might be used in that case.”

He added, however, that “the culpability of the woman might be mitigated somewhat” by the “many forces around her that are pressing her towards this decision.”

“Yes, in many cases, it’s the abortionist, it’s the boyfriend, it’s the mother, it’s the father, it’s — somebody is pressing that woman to kill her child,” he said. “That ought to be brought into the conversation.”

He added that “organizations like Planned Parenthood” are “extremely culpable” when it comes to abortion.

“In other words,” he said, “we need to take care of those that are most culpable first and foremost, and that would be the abortionists and the pro-abortion organizations that engage in as much of the propaganda that we’ve seen in the public schools and elsewhere. So if we deal with it at that level first, we won’t have to deal with it at the level of the average and ordinary woman who has to deal with the decision.”

Jim Bakker Would Not Be Surprised If The Government Stormed His Studio And Arrested Him For Teaching The Bible

Televangelist Jim Bakker interviewed the Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin on his television program last week, where the two warned that if Christians don't start standing up for their religious liberty, then all the freedoms in America will soon be lost.

Boykin asserted that the government no longer recognizes "freedom of religion" and will only protect the "freedom of worship," meaning that Christians are allowed to believe in their faith but are prohibited from actually practicing that faith in the public square, just as happened in Nazi Germany.

"In the public square, you can't live your faith," Boykin warned. "And I'm telling you, if America doesn't wake up and start rejecting this idea of freedom of worship versus freedom of religion, we're not going to have any freedom at all, of any kind."

Bakker readily agreed, insisting that it has gotten to the point where people cannot even pray, preach or read the Bible any more ... despite the fact that he happens to host a television show where he prays, preaches and reads the Bible every single day.

"If [the government] stormed in these doors right now and arrested me, I would not be surprised," he declared.

Were this to happen, it would certainly not be Bakker's first experience with getting arrested.

North Carolina Lt. Gov.: LGBT Rights Measure 'Discriminated' Against Women And Girls

Last week, North Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest spoke with anti-LGBT activist Tony Perkins about the state’s new law banning transgender people from using public restrooms of the gender they identify with and barring cities from instituting LGBT nondiscrimination measures.

The state law, HB2, was enacted in a special session that was called to block a Charlotte measure prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination in places of public accommodation.

Forest, in a March 31 interview with Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, on his “Washington Watch” radio program, said that the state law was actually needed to prevent discrimination, alleging that Charlotte’s protections for LGBT people discriminated against women and children.

“Nobody likes discrimination,” Forest said. “We don’t like discrimination and that’s why we passed an anti-discrimination law, that’s what HB2 was. Nobody likes discrimination, so it’s easy to stand up and say, ‘We don’t like anybody being discriminated against.’ Well, our bill does not discriminate against anybody. In fact, the Charlotte ordinance was amazingly discriminatory against especially women and girls who no longer had the freedom to walk into a restroom and know that they would be safe and secure in that restroom without a man walking in or a pedophile or a predator walking into that bathroom. That’s really discriminatory if you want to talk about discrimination.”

Forest’s allegation that protections for LGBT people will empower child predators has been roundly debunked.

Forest then claimed that the LGBT “lobby” has misrepresented the law because “for them, truth is all relative, there is no absolute truth anymore so they can bend the rules and twist it however they want to to push their agenda.”

Sarah Palin: Trump The Only Candidate Who 'Has Shattered The Glass Ceiling'

On Saturday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin introduced GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump at a rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, by delivering a “pop quiz” to attendees.

“Maybe if you guys yell out the answer then maybe the media will listen to you all and they can — with respect for you — they will be able to report accurately the answer to these simple questions,” Palin attempted to explain.

After declaring that Trump is “the only candidate who has actually created middle-class jobs and helped Americans realize the American Dream,” Palin asked, “Who is the only candidate who promotes women in his own company and has shattered the glass ceiling decades before that was a popular thing to do? Who respects the women?”

“Donald!” the crowd answered.

The former Republican vice presidential candidate explained that Trump showed his reliance on “strong women” by having his daughter, Ivanka, as one of his top advisers.

Palin made the remarks just days after Trump smeared a female reporter who accused his campaign manager of grabbing her and suggested, before backtracking, that women who have abortions should be punished, just the latest episodes in Trump’s long history of maligning women.

William Murray: 'We Still Sacrifice Babies To Moloch Today' Through Abortion

William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition appeared on The Dove TV's "Focus Today" program last week, where he declared that "we still sacrifice babies to Moloch today" through legal abortion.

Murray and host Perry Atkinson were discussing the fact that many people are, according to them, only nominal Christians who do not live and vote according to "proper" Christian values, which Murray noted was not necessarily a new problem.

"There was a period in Israel after King David," he explained, "where making sacrifices of infants and burying them at your doorstep in order to bring good financial luck to the family was an acceptable thing to do. I mean, there were actually some people worshiping Moloch. Just because society is doing it or society is approving it doesn't make it right."

"By the way," he continued, "we still sacrifice babies to Moloch today for the financial good of the family. We call it family planning and say, 'Well, if we abort this baby, the family will be better financially so it's okay.' It really is the same thing as the sacrifices that were done to Moloch several thousand years ago."

Paranoia-Rama: More Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories And The Liberal Plot 'To Enslave' America

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

Even as the GOP appears to be on the verge of nominating Donald Trump for president, it seems that not a day goes by without the candidate or his campaign promoting bizarre claims or flagrantly disregarding the truth.

5) What The Trump Campaign Considers ‘Proof’

While we would typically use this space to share conspiracy theories touted by Ted Cruz, this week we couldn’t pass up the chance to discuss a conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz.

The Texas senator, who is Trump’s strongest remaining rival in the GOP presidential race, has spent the last couple of weeks locked in a “You started it!” back-and-forth with Trump. (For the record, Trump started it).

Things escalated when Cruz accused the Trump campaign of planting a story in the National Enquirer alleging that Cruz has had extramarital affairs with several women, including former adviser Amanda Carpenter. Carpenter and Cruz have both denied the allegations.

Trump denied that his team planted the Enquirer story, while at the same time saying that “Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz.”

And Trump’s director of social media, Dan Scavino, was more than happy to push the allegations about Cruz’s supposed affair with Carpenter, posting a positively bizarre video involving temporary tattoos, a men’s jacket and cheese that he sees as proof of their relationship.

Given the sheer number of insane conspiracy theories embraced by Trump and his campaign, it isn’t too surprising that Scavino would publicize this insane video.

4) Donald Trump Debunked…Again

Donald Trump told CNN in February that he was most likely facing an IRS audit “because of religion” and “because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian and I feel strongly about it.”

Trump’s campaign eventually released a statement from his lawyers confirming that the GOP presidential frontrunner is being audited … but debunking Trump’s claim that the audit is an act of anti-Christian persecution.

The press release not only offers no proof that Trump is a victim of religious persecution, but explicitly debunks his argument, stating that the IRS’ scrutiny of his tax returns is “consistent with the IRS’ practice for large and complex businesses.”

But Trump will no doubt continue to claim that “Christianity is under siege” and that he is one of the foremost victims.

3) Watch Out, It’s A Pen!

The Secret Service may have denied a petition (started by a liberal satirist but apparently signed by many true believers) to allow guns into the Republican National Convention this year, but it turns out GOP may face a bigger security threat: journalists carrying pens.

After then-Breitbart news reporter Michelle Fields said that Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbed her and bruised her arm at a campaign event, Lewandowski claimed he “never touched” Fields and Trump himself said that Fields “made up” the assault.

However, after video was released corroborating Fields’ story and a Florida police department charged Lewandowski with simple battery, the campaign changed its story.

No longer denying that the incident ever happened, the candidate and his defenders are now ludicrously arguing that Lewandowski heroically stopped Fields from getting too close to Trump, who was signing autographs and speaking with other members of the press at the time.

Trump said Fields’ pen was “very dangerous” and could’ve been a “little bomb,” and even suggested that she was the one assaulting him.

Televangelist Pat Robertson, who has praised Trump repeatedly on his “700 Club” program, similarly alleged that Fields “rushed” the candidate and “could’ve had a bomb.”

2) False Flag

Leave it to Alex Jones, the InfoWars conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter, to allege that Lewandowski’s grabbing of Fields was somehow her fault and was part of “a frame job.”

“You talk about a staged event, you talk about a false flag, that’s a frame-up,” Jones said, suggesting that Fields, who at the time was working for the conservative outlet Breitbart, somehow wanted to get bruised by Lewandowski so she could manipulate “women to go basically vote for Hillary.”

1) ‘Plans To Enslave An Entire Nation’

During a recent broadcast of “Trunews,” Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and ex-Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, discussed the supposed threat of Democracy Spring, a protest calling for money-in-politics reform, with host Rick Wiles.

Stockman called the planned protest “a threat to our national security” and “a threat to our nation’s survival,” while Pratt thought the people involved in the Democracy Spring campaign would try to “take over” the U.S.

Unfortunately, according to Pratt, members of the media are covering up this insidious plot because they “don’t want to talk about plans to overthrow a government, they don’t want to talk about plans to enslave an entire nation and yet it happens before our very eyes.”

Trump's 'Punishment' Comments Have Caught Anti-Choice Leaders Flat-Footed

Donald Trump’s recent comments — since walked back — about the need to have “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned, even though those women would be forced to “illegal places” for the procedure, caused the anti-choice movement to go into damage control as all of its carefully honed talking points were dismantled by the man who may be their presidential candidate.

And it turned out that anti-choice leaders are so used to deflecting tough questions about the results of recriminalizing abortion that, when forced to face those questions head-on, they don’t really have any good answers.

Yesterday, Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of the Susan B. Anthony List, attempted to deflect concerns about women seeking illegal abortions if Roe is overturned by claiming, unbelievably, that illegal abortion wouldn’t be a problem because desperate women would be won over by anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers instead.

Then, today, Clarke Forsythe, a longtime attorney for Americans United for Life who is now apparently serving as the organization's acting president, published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times explaining that women need not worry because, if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be legal in many states. Those states that then want to enact abortion bans, he writes, will probably do it in a way that exempts women from prosecution:

The claim that women will be jailed for abortion when Roe is overturned rests on a second myth: that the Supreme Court's change of heart will result in the immediate re-criminalization of abortion.

But if Roe were overturned today, abortion would be legal well into the second trimester in at least 42 to 43 states tomorrow (and likely all 50 states) for the simple reason that nearly all of the state abortion prohibitions have been either repealed or are blocked by state court versions of Roe.

Extensive practical law enforcement experience in many states, over many years, is what led prosecutors not to target women. After Roe is overturned, that experience will certainly be influential with state policymakers who wish to effectively enforce abortion law.

Because we recognize that abortion is bad for both mother and child, pro-life leaders do not support the prosecution of women and will not push for such a policy when Roe is overturned. (Obviously, like Trump, any single legislator can spout their idiosyncratic ideas.)

Forsythe also argues that in states that did recriminalize abortion after the overturning of Roe, any criminal penalties on women would probably not be enforced because women who have abortions have traditionally been seen as a “victim” of “male coercion”:

Before the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade — which legalized abortion for any reason, at any time of pregnancy — state abortion laws targeted abortionists (those who performed abortions), not women.

The states understood that the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists; that the woman is the second victim of the abortionist; and that prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.

Since time immemorial, the law has recognized that male coercion, abandonment or indifference has been at the center of most abortions.

Granted, as many as 20 state statutes technically made it a crime for the woman to participate in her own abortion. But these were not enforced.

Forsythe is one of the most thoughtful legal strategists working in the anti-abortion movement today. And the best answer he can come up with to the question of what would happen to women if Roe were to be overturned tomorrow is that abortion wouldn’t actually be recriminalized in many places and even in places where it was, lawmakers would probably spare women.

Of course, the anti-choice movement’s entire goal is to ban the procedure nationwide.

Donald Trump’s comments on abortion were terrifying. But the GOP frontrunner did a public service by exposing that, when it comes to the tough questions about banning abortion, anti-choice groups are completely unprepared.

WorldNetDaily Terrified Of The 'ObamaInternet'

One of the most dishonest smears against President Obama from conservatives in the last presidential election was that he distributed federally subsidized “Obama phones” to low-income African-Americans in order to win their votes.

These critics, however, generally failed to mention that the so-called “Obama phone” program, known as Lifeline, actually originated in the Reagan era and was expanded by the Bush administration.

Today, the conservative website WorldNetDaily responded to the news that the Federal Communications Commission just “approved a $9.25 monthly broadband subsidy to help millions of low-income households connect to the Internet” through the Lifeline program by bashing it as the “ObamaInternet.”

Should we be surprised that WorldNetDaily thinks a plan to help families gain broadband access is really a sinister Obama plot?

Religious Right Legal Leader: Of Course States Could Punish Women For Abortion

When Donald Trump said this week that, if abortion is recriminalized, women who have abortions should face “some form of punishment,” the anti-choice movement went into damage control mode and Trump quickly attempted to walk back his comments.

But not every abortion rights opponent got the memo about not touching the third rail of anti-abortion politics. Televangelist Pat Robertson, for instance, seemed genuinely perplexed by the issue, saying that while it “does seem a bit draconian” to punish women for abortion, “if somebody says abortion is murder, then what do you do to somebody who commits murder?”

Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, the Religious Right legal group founded by Robertson, similarly seemed to have not gotten the memo, explaining on his radio program yesterday that if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, of course states would be free to impose punishments on women who get abortions, especially if they view embryos and fetuses as “persons” under the law. Sekulow also hinted that he might agree with such a policy for women who use abortion for “birth control.”

While the current federal ban on “partial-birth” abortion protects women from prosecution, Sekulow explained, if Roe were overturned, states would be free to impose whatever abortion penalties they wanted.

“That’s a different question from whether you legally could have statutes, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, that criminalized the abortion activity,” he said, “including anybody that voluntarily — not coercion, not life of the mother, not rape or incest, because those would all be defenses — but could a state say if a woman voluntarily had a partial-birth abortion that that act could be criminalized, could a state say that? Sure, a state could say that. And if you believe that the child’s a person, well, I’m not so sure that that’s contradictory.”

Sekulow added that “politically we always focus on the abortion provider, not the woman” but “that’s a different question than legally” so, legally, “a state could say that anybody involved in the process is committing a crime, if you believe it’s a person.”

Sekulow’s son, Jordan, a cohost of the show, noted: “We’re talking hypotheticals here, I think it’s a long road until we get to that point where those kind of abortion laws would be potentially in place.”

“There’s a political question whether they should be,” Sekulow responded, “I think that’s a legitimate point. But the legal issue is not improbable.”

Later in the program, the Sekulows and their cohost, ACLJ government affairs director Nathanael Bennett, took a call from a listener who said that Trump’s comments were encouraging to her because while she doubted that the candidate was truly against abortion rights, the comments show “at least he’s thinking pro-life and would be willing to take that stance.”

Sekulow responded by repeating his point that Trump was not “legally incorrect” in saying there could be punishments for women if abortion becomes illegal.

“If we believe the child is a person,” he said, “in other words, the personhood of the child, that should be protected under the Constitution, that someone that knowingly, willfully and voluntarily takes the life of that person could be — not should be, could be — held culpable under criminal laws of the various states, that would not be illegal or extraconstitutional.”

“Now, I’m not saying that’s the right policy,” he added, “because a lot of us view that women are forced into coerced situations, but the reality is — and let me just drop a hypothetical, a woman’s having her third — and this happens — third partial-birth abortion, partial-birth abortion’s illegal and the state of California says, ‘You know what, anybody that participates in a partial-birth abortion, unless it’s the life of the mother, rape or incest, is a culpable criminal.’ That’s not illegal. A state could do that. I’m not saying that’s the right political decision, I’m not even saying that’s the right moral decision. I’m saying legally, was what Trump was saying legally incorrect? No, it wasn’t legally incorrect. Politically he had to take it back, but legally it was not incorrect.”

Jordan Sekulow and Bennett said that while they had seen some “positive” responses to Trump’s comments from their conservative audience members, including one who wrote in to say she had a “new respect for Donald Trump,” the comments would become a political liability for him in the general election.

Bennett said Trump’s comments had given him “some heartburn” because “we want to win hearts and minds on this.”

“You want to know why it gives you heartburn?” Sekulow demanded. “You want to know why it gives everybody heartburn? I’m going to say it and this is going to be controversial. You know why it really gives everybody heartburn? Here’s the real reason, and some of you are going to really disagree with this: because a lot of people really don’t believe the unborn child is a person.”

He then went on to suggest that he does believe that “the unborn child is a person” and thus might be open to punishments for women who use abortion as “birth control.”

“Because if you really believe,” he said, “that the unborn child’s a person — and as I’ve looked at my grandchildren’s ultrasounds — you would say, if somebody voluntarily did this for the purposes of birth control —which is generally what it is, is an inconvenience, not medically necessary, not life of the mother, not incest or rape — you think to yourself, if it’s really a person, what’s so, what’s so — but we aren’t there yet politically and we’re not there maybe even legally or morally, and that may be shame on us in one sense.

“I’m not saying it would be the right policy, by the way, to do this, because I believe politics are the art of the possible and I agree, Than, we want to win hearts and minds. But the problem is, if you really logically look at this, the fact of the matter is, if it’s a person for goodness sake, and I believe it is, the rules would be different. For any other person that somebody killed, they’d be held culpable, either as the primary person or the accessory to the crime. So this is not, it’s not craziness what’s being said here, and I think that’s why on social media you’re seeing kind of a mixed reaction.”

Just in case the audience didn’t get the point, the Sekulows returned to the point later in the program, as Jay insisted that “the kerfuffle that Donald Trump’s in” is because “he’s not familiar enough with the language or the nuance” of the anti-abortion movement, not because he’s “legally wrong.”

Jordan added that the anti-choice movement’s opposition to legal punishment for women is indeed a “policy position” and not necessarily the legal result of banning abortion. “On the legal side of it, though, you see why the reason would be, if you make something illegal then you could punish, and so ultimately that would be up to the policymakers to decide,” he said.

Bryan Fischer: Woman Who Have Abortions Should Not Be Punished Because They Don't Know Any Better

On his radio show yesterday, Bryan Fischer took a call from a listener who didn't understand the outcry over Donald Trump's assertion that abortion should be outlawed and any woman who has an abortion should be punished, pointing out that if you are going to equate abortion with murder, then it makes no sense to say that women should not be held criminally responsible for their actions.

Fischer did his best to explain that this is not a position that most anti-choice groups and activists publicly advocate on the grounds that women who have abortions simply do not know what they are doing and therefore should not be held culpable. 

Fischer hopes that once abortion is completely outlawed and we "get the culture to the place where everybody understands that it's a baby," then the government could begin to impose legal penalties upon women who have abortions. But as it stands now, Fischer declared, women simply "do not realize how morally culpable they are" when they have an abortion and so they should not be punished.

"They didn't know better," Fischer said. "Nobody told them, nobody tried to talk them out of it, nobody explained the humanity of the baby in the womb, so they did not know what they were doing."

"I realize from a purist standpoint, there should be legal culpability for a woman," he later admitted. "Maybe some day we can get to that place where that would be accepted and we would actually be able to enact legislation like that."

Courting Extremism: Donald Trump's Supreme Court And Chuck Grassley's Revisionist History

Courting Extremism is a weekly feature on conservative responses to the Supreme Court vacancy.

Donald Trump, currently the frontrunner in the Republican presidential primary, believes that Barack Obama is an illegitimate president who isn’t a natural born citizen. So it’s only natural that Senate Republicans, having apparently decided that Obama’s second term in office only lasted for three years, seem intent on letting a future President Trump pick the next Supreme Court justice.

Not only would delaying a Supreme Court confirmation until the next president takes office leave the court short one justice for about a year, it could let Trump set the direction of the court for decades to come.

Conservative activists have pressured Republican leaders into taking an extreme stance that is opposed by a majority of voters, a stance so ridiculous that it even requires some Republicans to ignore their past statements on the judiciary.

Here are the five worst pro-obstruction arguments, blatant changes of heart and accidental admissions of truth that conservatives have made about the Supreme Court this week:

5) ‘Let’s Do Our Jobs’

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has been feeling the heat over his support for the GOP’s Supreme Court blockade. In fact, his staff even went so far as to keep details of his public meetings with constituents a secret in order to avoid protests over the matter.

Perhaps Grassley would rather not talk to his constituents about why he thinks the Senate shouldn’t even hold a hearing on Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination because back in 2005 he was making exactly the opposite argument, telling his colleagues in a Senate floor speech about judicial nominees: “Let’s do our jobs.”

4) The Judicial C̶o̶n̶f̶i̶r̶m̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ Crisis Network

It’s hard not to roll your eyes when the Judicial Crisis Network demands that Senate Republicans ratchet up their unprecedented obstruction of Garland and other judicial nominees when one remembers that prior to President Obama’s swearing-in, the group was called the Judicial Confirmation Network. Indeed, JCN was created for the sole purpose of encouraging the Senate to confirm President Bush’s nominees, especially his most extreme and controversial ones.

Now JCN is targeting Garland, a man JCN’s own leader implied in 2010 would make a suitable replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens.

“But of those the president could nominate, we could do a lot worse than Merrick Garland,” JCN chief counsel and policy director Carrie Severino said at the time. “He’s the best scenario we could hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city down a notch for the summer.”

Not only is Severino trying to reverse herself on Garland, but she is even trying to alter the history of her own group.

In a March interview, Pennsylvania radio host Bobby Gunther Walsh spoke with Severino about the JCN and hailed her organization for its work confirming judicial nominees during the Bush administration.

When Walsh incorrectly claimed that the group was called the Judicial Crisis Network at the time — suggesting that it was formed to fight Senate Democrats who were supposedly bent on creating a “crisis” in the courts — Severino chose to let Walsh’s false claim stand and went on to attack Democrats for trying to “repeat false facts over and over again.”

3) NRA’s Lawyer Problem

The NRA has been one of the most vocal opponents of Garland’s nomination, and has even pushed outright falsehoods in hopes of blocking his nomination. The group has insisted that Garland ruled against gun activists in the landmark Heller case and supported a national gun registry. Both claims are completely false, but that hasn’t stopped conservatives like Bill O’Reilly and Larry Pratt from running with the bogus talking points.

But at least one NRA leader didn’t get the memo.

Timothy Johnson of Media Matters points out that one of the organization’s top lawyers lavished praise on Garland, although he toed the Senate GOP’s line that no nominee for the high court should be considered until after a new president takes office.

The NRA's dishonest and fiery rhetoric on Garland is at odds with the views of one of the organization's top constitutional litigators, conservative lawyer Charles J. Cooper.

Cooper, "a longtime stalwart of the Federalist Society" who often represents the NRA and other conservative interests in his private appellate litigation practice, praised Garland in a March 28 interview, saying his respect for Garland has only grown since he supported Garland's nomination to the D.C. Circuit in 1997.

In a 1997 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cooper noted that his legal philosophy differed from Garland's, but also wrote, "Not only is Merrick enormously gifted intellectually, but he is thoughtful as well, for he respects other points of view and fairly and honestly assesses the merits of all sides of an issue," and that should he be confirmed, "He would comport himself on the bench with dignity and fairness."

Asked about the letter by The Washington Post, Cooper said his "high opinion of Judge Garland has not changed -- indeed, it has only strengthened -- over the course of the 19 years since I wrote these words." (Cooper, however, does support Senate Republicans in obstructing Garland's nomination for political reasons.)

Among the cases Cooper was involved in? The Heller case, the very one that the NRA is citing in its false attacks against Garland.

2) Looming Dictatorship

Rafael Cruz, the father of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and one of his top campaign surrogates, raised the issue of gun rights in an interview on Monday, warning that with “one more liberal justice” will lead Americans to “lose our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

Not only would Americans be stripped of their gun rights if a “liberal justice” were to be appointed to the court, Cruz warned, but America could transform into an authoritarian state: “[T]hink back in history: Every dictator that has taken the guns away from the population has used them against the population.”

1) The Trump Court

While Donald Trump may have struggled with knowing exactly what the Supreme Court does or what the right to privacy has to do with abortion rights, he has been clear that he has wanted to outlaw abortion ever since a friend who had contemplated terminating a pregnancy ended up raising a “super star” kid.

On Wednesday, Trump went on to take three different positions on abortion rights in three hours, and it remains unclear exactly what he believes.

But what Trump has made clear is that he plans to appoint to the Supreme Court only ultraconservative jurists in the mold of Antonin Scalia, ones who would likely support overturning Roe v. Wade and uphold state efforts to curtail abortion rights. He even said he would pick a justice from list of potential nominees issued by the Heritage Foundation, an anti-choice group led by Jim DeMint, who was “one of the most die-hard anti-choice lawmakers” during his time in the Senate. (The organization has since released a list of their conservative dream justices).

While Trump has reversed his position on whether women who have abortions should be punished, a Supreme Court shaped by Trump could make such a prospect a reality.

Glenn Beck Envisions President Ted Cruz's White House Literally 'Running The Senate As Well'

Glenn Beck took questions from a studio audience on his television show last night, where he was asked how Ted Cruz, if elected president, would enact his agenda amid the gridlock in Washington, D.C.

Beck laid out a scenario in which Cruz, being so well-versed in the Constitution, literally places his own vice president in charge of controlling the Senate.

The Constitution says that "the Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided," and Beck envisioned President Cruz exploiting that by tapping a "pit bull" like Carly Fiorina to serve as his vice president, tasking her with controlling the Senate in order to get it to do his bidding.

"If you're smart and you want to get things done," Beck said, "you partner with your vice president and you say, 'Go run the Senate.' And then the vice president then walks up to, let's say, [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and taps him on the shoulder and says, 'Excuse me, Mitch. You're in my chair.' And now the White House is running the Senate as well. That's how you get things done."

"Whether that will happen, I don't know," Beck said with a smirk, "but I do know that Ted Cruz is a constitutionalist and he's a historian. I know there's many things that have been forgotten that have stopped this gridlock in the past."

Needless to say, if President Obama and Vice President Biden were to try something like this, Beck would have a total aneurysm and immediately begin screaming for impeachment.

EAC Official Who Helped Make Voting Harder Linked To Voter Suppression Architect Kris Kobach

The AP reports today that Brian Newby, the Election Assistance Commission executive director who in February singlehandedly helped Kansas, Georgia and Alabama make it harder to vote using federal voter registration forms, was placed in his job in part thanks to the efforts of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the architect of voter suppression measures throughout the country.

In 2011, Kobach helped push through a law in his state requiring people registering to vote to present one of a narrow list of “proof of citizenship” documents, which led tens of thousands of Kansans to have their voter registrations suspended when they tried to sign up to vote in last year’s elections. Kobach was locked in a years-long battled with the EAC over federal voter registration forms, which did not require voters to present the same proof of citizenship, even attempting to create a two-tiered voting system in which people who registered with the federal form were barred from voting in state and local elections. Then, in February, Newby decided that people registering with the federal voter registration form in Kansas, Georgia and Alabama would have to present extra proof of citizenship, handing a major win to Kobach.

So, it is not entirely surprising to learn that it is Kobach who helped Newby to get his job at the EAC:

An email provided to The Associated Press through open records requests offers a glimpse into the mindset of Brian Newby, executive director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, who decided — without public comment or approval from bosses — that residents of Alabama, Kansas and Georgia can no longer register to vote using a national form without providing proof of U.S. citizenship.

As a finalist for the job of executive director, Newby said in a June email to his benefactor, Kansas' Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, that he was friends with two of the commissioners at the federal agency, and told Kobach: "I think I would enter the job empowered to lead the way I want to."

Documents obtained by AP show Newby's ties to Kobach, the architect of voter ID and other restrictive voter registration laws around the nation that he says are needed to prevent voter fraud. Critics say there is very little voter fraud and Kobach's measures hurt voter registration and deprive eligible voters of the right to vote.

Kobach had appointed Newby to be a county elections commissioner in Kansas, and helped him get the federal job that he took in November.

"I wanted you in the loop, in part because of other issues in the past with the EAC," Newby emailed Kobach. "I also don't want you thinking that you can't count on me in an upcoming period that will tax our resources."

Newby declined to comment for this story about the email, referring questions to a commission spokesman, Bryan Whitener, who declined comment. Newby was hired by the three sitting commissioners.

Kobach said Wednesday that he spoke to one, and possibly two of the Republican commissioners, about Newby prior to his hiring.

"I told that person I thought Newby would be excellent and he was one of Kansas' most talented county election officers and indeed one of the most talented election officers in country," Kobach said.

But documents from open records requests and interviews by AP show that as early as April 2015 and continuing in the months leading to Newby's hiring by the commission, Kobach and his staff met with county officials to discuss concerns about Newby's job performance in Kansas. Those concerns led officials to call for an audit of the Johnson County election office Newby led.

Kobach told AP he never informed the federal commissioners about those problems, and insisted they would not have affected Newby's performance at his federal job.

The audit released earlier this month found Newby intentionally skirted oversight of government credit card expenses, wasted taxpayer funds and improperly claimed mileage and travel expenses while at his former job in Kansas. Newby has called the audit inaccurate and misleading.

Ted Cruz 'Inspired' By Scott Walker’s Union-Busting

Sen. Ted Cruz, who won the endorsement of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker this week in the lead-up to the state’s Republican presidential primary, told a Wisconsin radio host yesterday that he was “inspired” by Walker’s notorious stand against unions in his state.

In 2011, Walker signed legislation stripping public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights, survived a recall election, and came back to severely weaken private-sector unions as well. The right-wing celebrity that this brought Walker was not enough, however, to win him the Republican presidential nomination, although he did say that battling union members had prepared him to fight ISIS.

In an interview with Wisconsin talk radio host Charlie Sykes yesterday, Cruz expressed his support for so-called “right-to-work” laws that are designed to weaken unions and said that Walker’s battle with union members had “inspired” him.

“Absolutely, I think right to work, it’s a fundamental right,” Cruz said, “and I think we need to have government that sides with the working men and women of this country rather than with special interests, rather than with union bosses.”

He added that “when Gov. Scott Walker and millions of men and women across Wisconsin stood up and took on the union bosses, it was powerful, it inspired people across the country, it inspired me.”

He told Sykes that “what y’all have done in the state of Wisconsin is exactly what we need to do in Washington, is we need a president who stands with the working men and women of this country against the special interests and lobbyists in Washington. “

Far-Right Pundit: Muslim-Americans Will Soon Have The Right To Murder, Rape And Kill As They Please

Erik Rush, the WorldNetDaily columnist who once advocated for killing all Muslims, is out with a new column today predicting that in the years to come, Muslims in America will win the right to kill, kidnap and rape other Americans.

To make his case, he cites an incident in 2014, which he falsely claims took place “last week,” in which a Muslim attorney asked his Facebook friends whether it was appropriate for a public school to advertise an Easter egg hunt to students because it was held at a church, noting that Islamic centers could then “promote Muslim holidays” to all public school students. Naturally, the conservative media used the incident to wrongly claim that a wave of Muslim parents were complaining about an Easter egg hunt. (Rush also claims that there is a conspiracy to suppress the story).

Rush concludes that this exaggerated incident will pave the way for future horrors: “Well, that’s how it starts. Give it a decade or two, and Muslims in America will have earned the right to Shariah courts, to rape non-Muslim women at will, to kidnap non-Muslim children for use as sex slaves and to behead American servicemen in broad daylight, just as they have in Britain, Europe and Scandinavia.”

I’ve always had a great respect for the Catholic Church, and I understand the reality of modern popes being political as much as spiritual leaders, but I am about a hair’s breadth away from declaring this pontiff an apostate Christian. In both his Christmas and Easter addresses, Pope Francis excoriated those who wish to prevent migrants from the Middle East and North Africa from entering Europe, even as they run roughshod over the nations of that continent. He has paid gratuitous, embarrassing deference to the world’s smirking, treacherous Muslim leaders, and although the pope has condemned the recent persecution (rape, maiming, murder, enslavement, etc.) of Christians in the Middle East by Muslims, he has spent just as much time misrepresenting Islam as benign as his contemporary political leaders have.

So is this pope stupid, naïve, or evil?

Last week, the Detroit Free Press reported that Muslim parents of elementary school students in Dearborn, Michigan, became upset after their children received flyers promoting an Easter egg hunt at a local church. While attending public elementary schools in New York during the 1960s, I cannot count the number of handouts I received for events celebrating religious holidays that my family did not celebrate. No one got intimidated, no one got offended, and no one went crying to the New York Times.

But you see, Muslims have made significant inroads into politics in Michigan, so they can afford to be uppity in that state. They’ve also become savvy to the practices employed by every other special-interest group in the American left’s big tent: Claim persecution, gain sympathy, secure genuinely unconstitutional protections under the law, and then you’re free to persecute your political opponents.

So, the poor, intimidated little Muslim parents went to the press, complaining that their childrens’ virgin eyes falling upon these horrid, blasphemous Easter flyers was somehow a form of religious persecution that naturally violates the Constitution.

Clever, aren’t they? Well, that’s how it starts. Give it a decade or two, and Muslims in America will have earned the right to Shariah courts, to rape non-Muslim women at will, to kidnap non-Muslim children for use as sex slaves and to behead American servicemen in broad daylight, just as they have in Britain, Europe and Scandinavia.

For the record: Although a link to the Detroit Free Press story now defaults to the publication’s home page for some unfathomable reason, other online news outlets did pick it up.

Sharon Slater: Sex Ed Is Planned Parenthood Plot To Make Money Off HIV Treatments & Condoms

Sharon Slater, the head of Family Watch International, which works to promote social conservative policies at the UN, recently released a documentary called “The War on Children: The Comprehensive Sexuality Education Agenda.” Slater joined “The Drew Mariani Show” on the Catholic radio network Relevant Radio on Tuesday to discuss it, explaining to listeners that sex ed in schools is a plot by Planned Parenthood to “sexualize children” so that they’ll eventually come back for contraception, abortion and STD treatments.

“What this means,” she said, “is that a business that makes money off of sexualizing children — because if they can sexualize children through the school system through their programs, they can provide them with sexual counseling, condoms, abortions, contraception, STD treatment, HIV treatment, etc., etc. — they’re making lots of money off of sexualizing children. So, they’re getting it into the classroom all across the United States and in countries all around the world.”

Mariani warned that it is indeed “deviant” to “have a five-year-old being taught what adults do,” especially since you “can change the direction of a child and their own appetites and things along those lines at that age.”

“What most people don’t understand,” Slater said later in the interview, “is that there is an intentional, targeted effort to get to your children and change the way they think about sexuality, to encourage them to engage in sexual activity, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual or self-stimulation, because if they can recruit children into this worldview and this sexual ideology, then they’ll have the future, if they can train up the next generation in all these radical ideas. And that’s what they’re after. In fact, even Hitler said, ‘He who owns the minds of the children owns the future.’”

This is why parents, she said, need to “make sure this is not in your school.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious