Ann Coulter, who is on a media tour promoting her new anti-immigrant book “Adios America,” called in to Simon Conway’s talk radio show in Iowa yesterday, where the two got to discussing citizenship requirements and naturalization ceremonies.
Coulter told Conway that she was appalled that there is an exception to the English-language requirement for naturalized citizens for certain older people who have been legal residents for decades, who she implied don’t “love this country.” She also took exception to accommodations for citizenship applicants with disabilities.
“The INS has waived the English-language requirements for many immigrants, and it’s not just — that obviously goes to the heart of it, are you switching allegiance, do you love this country? — but beyond that, how about the wheelchair-only section? How about the section for the blind? Look, wish these people well, but we’re not running an international charity here,” she said.
On her radio program yesterday, Sandy Rios of the American Family Association said that Josh Duggar and Dennis Hastert, who have both been accused of sexually abusing minors, are the victims of a conspiracy against conservatives.
“What he did was wrong but I think maybe even the verbiage in describing it doesn’t describe the actual thing that happened,” she said of Josh Duggar. “It does seem very much to me that they are again the subject of targeting in order to completely destroy the family, it’s just an amazing thing.”
She added: “Something should go off in someone’s head about the way in which conservatives, social conservatives, are being systematically targeted. It’s going to happen and it’s been happening for a very long time.”
“This is the kind of thing that is going to be happening to conservatives, just think of the Denny Hastert situation,” she said, citing the Duggar and Hastert abuse scandals as reasons that conservatives, whom she suggested are the targets of government surveillance, should oppose measures like the PATRIOT Act and the USA Freedom Act.
Kevin Swanson, an anti-gay pastor and host of Generations Radio, is angry at his conservative brothers and sisters for “sporting this cover of Bruce Jenner” on conservative news sites, a reference to Caitlyn Jenner’s recent Vanity Fair cover. Swanson described to his listeners how “Bruce Jenner in drag is showing up on Vanity Fair, front cover, and I’m sure there are grocery stores all over America sporting Bruce in drag. And let’s just say it, Bruce Jenner looking like a prostitute on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.”
“It’s sickening, sickening,” lamented Swanson, “to be on a website checking the news, your favorite conservative website,” and they “seem to be supporting him by putting his shameful, shameful picture on the front page of their news magazines online. And friends, I’m telling ya, this is shameful. ”
“I am not using the new first name,” Swanson declared. “He’s got a new first name where he’s trying to sport himself as a female. But, of course, this itself is an abomination.” What Swanson recommends to “those who are in a workplace working with those who are trying to transgender is to refer to them by their last name. Do not refer to them by their female name. Don’t play the game.” Swanson warned his listeners that this “is going to subject you to some persecution.” However, Christians have apparently “been persecuted for a very long time, so, for 2,000 years,” and this is just part of preaching God’s word.
Swanson also had advice for how to teach your children about gender identity: “Just say well, now, if your child is standing there next to you, ‘There is Bruce Jenner in drag. That’s a man, in drag.’ Now, I hate to have to bring that up to a seven-year-old, and for that reason I would encourage Christians out there to own grocery stores and do not sport magazines like Vanity Fair, this soft porn stuff, in your grocery stores.” Swanson also “would encourage you to not take your kids into the grocery store if they're sporting pictures of men in drag dressed as prostitutes on the front cover of Vanity Fair magazine right there at the checkout counter. ”
Swanson remarked that “Jenner has set a new Twitter record, at 1 million followers in just the last week or so, so Americans very excited about the latest abomination.” He continued by arguing that “a 64-year-old burned out athlete dressed up like a whore on the front page of Vanity Fair magazine is a rather shameful, embarrassing thing, and seems to me that from the most rational, sane perspective here we’re looking at chaos. We’re looking at God giving them up to a depraved mind here.”
Swanson described how Jenner’s transition “is the corruption of a cadaver, this is the bondage of Satan, this is a pagan culture.” Caitlyn, as Swanson refused to call her, is “dressing up a cadaver. He’s putting lipstick on a cadaver.”
In case you were wondering why Jenner is doing this, Swanson explained that this is due to “the spiritual death that is reflected in the soul of a man who is not regenerated by the spirit of God. And it eventually, all that inside cadaverness, expresses itself externally. And that’s what we’re seeing friends. That’s what we’re seeing in the destruction of sexuality, this sexual nihilism, of the modern world, of this modern, homosexual and transgender movement.”
Swanson’s guest, Adam McManus, elaborated that “when you reject God and you reject everything he’s about…the only thing you are left with are evil and death.” Swanson offered a solution to evil and death, calling on Christians to “take the gospel to this world, remind them they’re dead. Remind them they’re putting lipstick on a cadaver, then bring them to Jesus.” He urged that “we ought to treat our children, or train our children, as the missionaries did when they took their kids to the pagan lands in the 19th century.” There “they homeschooled their kids and they would put the big fences around the compounds in order that their kids would not have regular contact with some of the more edgy elements of pagan culture, so to speak.” According to Swanson, the problem is “we don’t consider ourselves missionaries to a pagan land anymore.” We have to join together to “bring the gospel to these people and teach them to observe whatsoever Jesus has commanded.”
Last year, when the Family Research Council invited the newly freed Sudanese Christian religious prisoner Meriam Ibrahim to speak at its Values Voter Summit, Peter noted that while Ibrahim would have plenty of reason to want to thank American evangelical activists who had advocated for her release, the FRC seemed to have a different agenda for her appearance. Over the past few years, FRC president Tony Perkins has time and again used advocacy on behalf of Christians facing violent persecution around the world to cynically promote the claim that American Christians are similarly being persecuted through LGBT equality and reproductive rights laws at home.
Perkins accomplished this sleight of hand once again in an email to FRC members today urging them to donate to the group in exchange for a “Nasrani” pin expressing solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians who are being persecuted by ISIS. But Perkins doesn’t just ask for members to support their fellow Christians in the Middle East who are facing actual, violent persecution — he compares the persecution of Christians at the hands of ISIS to the supposed persecution of Christians in America.
“Please take a stand for persecuted Christians in America….and everywhere!” the email reads.
In an Iranian prison, a man is praying . . . for Christians in America.
In a hidden location in North Korea, a kneeling circle of believers cry out to God . . . for Christians in America.
I know of no stronger evidence of the connection between the persecuted church overseas and the persecuted church in America than this: they are praying for us!
That's why I urge you to allow me to send you a Nasrani Pin as my thank you for your gift to help FRC stand for religious freedom in America as Christian faith comes under growing attack -- and also speak out for the persecuted Christians overseas.
The man in an Iranian prison who Perkins refers to is Saeed Abedini, an American pastor who has been detained in Iran since 2012. Abedini did indeed send an open letter to Christians in America on the National Day of Prayer saying that he would be praying for America on that day. But he also mentioned several times the “freedom” enjoyed by American Christians to practice their religion. In a letter to President Obama, which the president read during his own National Day of Prayer remarks, Abedini similarly said that he was “proud to be part of this great nation of the United States of America that cares for religious freedom around the world.”
Perkins and FRC should be commended for any work they are doing to free prisoners like Abedini. But using the plight of Abedini and those like him to stoke fear that liberal social policies will lead to the persecution of Christians in America is another thing entirely.
In fact, Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, the Religious Right group that is leading the fight among American evangelicals for Abedini’s release, criticized Perkins in a congressional hearing earlier this year for his over-the-top talking points linking policies he doesn’t like to the real suffering of Christians at the hands of groups like ISIS:
Anti-gay Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson, host of Generation Radio Kevin Swanson, declared on his radio program on Monday that Americans are too “paralyzed by fear” to act against LGBT rights.
“We’re paralyzed by fear,” he remarked. “We’re incapable of moving ahead because of what we fear. Now as you’ve said before, what you fear is what you worship, and it’s probable that Americans worship the state, they worship their money, they worship sexuality, they worship materialism, they worship all these things and they don’t worship the true and living God.” Because Americans don’t fear God, he said, they are “afraid of lawsuits, or they’re afraid of being arrested, or they’re afraid of saying things that might get them arrested, and that’s why they’re not going to fear God and take a stand against the powers of evil.”
This led Swanson to compare the fight against LGBT rights (or “the homosexual borg”) to David and Goliath. “There’s no question that Goliath of Gath, the homosexual borg, is the power in the principality of the demonic world itself. There’s no question in my mind whatsoever.” He warned that “the demonic world had some influences upon the minds of one hundred million people in America.”
Swanson then addressed the support by Robert Gates, president of the Boy Scouts, for lifting his organization’s ban on adult gay members, pointing out that Gates was at the head of the Pentagon when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, which, he said, was similar to a policy that allowed Alexander the Great to defeat the Persians. “I don’t think it’s been accomplished anywhere in human history,” he said, “maybe by the Persians, who brought their paramours to battle and, ah, it went really, really bad for them when they fought Alexander the Great. So that would be an example in history where maybe they tried it for a week, and it didn’t turn out very well.”
Swanson then suggested that the Boy Scouts might soon let pedophiles lead troops, which led Alex McManus, a contributor to the show, to ask, “How dare he take God’s creation and mar it by putting over God’s creation pedophiles?...Christians need to say, ‘Boy Scouts, we’re done with you.’”
“This is just an indication of what’s happened to the nation,” Swanson responded. “The nation has committed suicide when it comes to social and sexual expression. They have abandoned rationality, they have destroyed themselves, and now they’re destroying the next generation of children.”
Conservative activist Alan Keyes says that Ireland’s decision to approve marriage equality in a national referendum is just as wrong and unjust as “if the people of Germany voted tomorrow to renew the Holocaust.”
“[W]ould the cardinal say the German state is duty-bound to re-open the death camps?” he asks, referring to a Roman Catholic cardinal who said that he would respect the vote. Respecting the marriage equality law, Keyes writes today in WorldNetDaily, is the “kind of spurious legalism” that “helped goose-step Germany into Hell in the last century.”
Keyes adds that the Nazi Holocaust comparison is not off-base since “misleading millions of people into mortal sin will be a spiritual holocaust.”
“It’s déjà vu all over again.” In an article at LifesiteNews.com, I read that, in response to the referendum in Ireland favoring homosexual “marriages,” Walter Kasper, a German cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, said: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.” So if the people of Germany voted tomorrow to renew the Holocaust, would the cardinal say the German state is duty-bound to re-open the death camps? That kind of spurious legalism helped goose-step Germany into Hell in the last century. Do German cardinals now propose to do the same to the Roman Catholic Church in this one?
Surely misleading millions of people into mortal sin will be a spiritual holocaust, with quite possibly eternal consequences. Does Cardinal Kasper think those spiritually deadly consequences are unreal? We learn from another Lifesitenews report that one of Cardinal Kasper’s liberal co-conspirators, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, is “well-known for his support for the ‘Kasper agenda’ and a prominent defender of the ‘value’ of homosexual unions.” Of course, the term “value” is valueless except in the context of some standard of judgment. Given the Catholic Church’s reliance upon natural law as an expression of God’s will, it’s reasonable to assume that both these cardinals still uphold that standard.
So what value does God assign to homosexual relations? For males, the Old Testament scroll of the law calls such relations an abomination (Leviticus 20:13). That term suggests a negative value, as does the death penalty the Torah prescribes for homosexual behavior.
Finally, when he asserts that it is right to follow the majority’s will when they purport to approve as lawful what God condemns as odious under the law, Cardinal Kasper is following the trendy idolatry of self-willed freedom, wrongfully abused, that now defames the name of right. By doing so, he casts away God’s standard of natural right. And he accepts an understanding of sovereignty that even pagan philosophers rejected. A sovereign act must always take account of the common good. When that good is not being respected, sovereign authority is not in play.
In such a circumstance, the will that purports to wield the sovereign power is not an exercise of sovereign right. It is a wrongful abuse of power that people of good will have, in principle, a duty to resist, not to obey. And this is true whether the specious exercise of sovereignty is that of the Irish people, the U.S. Supreme Court or the people of the United States, however assembled.
Yesterday, Michael Savage responded to David Axelrod’s claim that President Obama described himself as “the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office.” According to Savage, Obama is not far off … but only when it comes to the Jews who are “fools” and “idiots.”
“He’s right, liberal Jews in the Upper East Side of Manhattan and he are one in the same,” the right-wing talk show host said. “Yeah, he’s the best friend Jews ever had, self-hating Jews who want to die. No question about that.”
After all, Savage believes that Obama is “the terrorist in the White House” who is destroying America and who wants to bring in “the criminals and the perverts and the rapists and the terrorists.”
He continued: “So if an enemy were to break our borders, we would say he’s a terrorist, right? What if an enemy were to debase our language? What if an enemy were to destroy or decimate our culture? You would say he’s a terrorist, wouldn’t you?”
On Tuesday, right-wing talk show host Michael Savage criticized President Obama as a “con man shyster” who has the “nerve to make believe that he has suffered from white privilege, he has suffered from the things of slavery.”
Savage continued, saying that Obama is attempting to destroy America by “injecting, like a virus, Muslims from Syria into all-white communities in America” and taking “infected children from Honduras and put[ing] them in every school district that he could.”
The radio host continued that Obama wants to bring about “Section 8 housing on a national level,” hoping to “inject low-income troublemakers” into “an all-white suburban community” and “then you let the games begin.”
Likely 2016 make-believe presidential candidate Donald Trump is offended that nobody from the Obama administration has called him up to ask for his “beautiful” and “foolproof” plan to beat ISIS, which he says he wouldn’t actually give to the Obama administration because “they’re all a bunch of clowns.”
Trump first teased his “beautiful” but secret anti-ISIS plan in an interview with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren last week, and returned to the subject in a conversation with Iowa talk radio host Simon Conway yesterday:
Saying that Generals Douglas MacArthur and George Patton “must be spinning in their grave” at the Obama administration’s handling of ISIS, Trump said that, in contrast, he knows of “a way of beating ISIS so easily, so quickly, so effectively, and it would be so nice.”
“I know a way that would absolutely give us guaranteed victory,” Trump told Conway, adding that he doesn’t want to say his “foolproof” idea because, “number one,” people will forget it was his idea and “number two,” it would tip off the enemy.
When Conway asked if he had run his idea “past any generals, any SEALs, anybody with military experience,” Trump replied that he “ran it past two or three people” who of course “love it.” But, he lamented, nobody from the Obama administration has called him to share this brilliant idea, which he compared to the invention of the paper clip.
“So simple. It’s like the paper clip,” he said. “You know, somebody came up with the idea of the paper clip and made a lot of money and everybody’s saying, ‘Boy, why didn’t I think of that, it’s so simple.’ This is so simple, so surgical, it would be an unbelievable thing. Now, I’ve been around saying this, you would think somebody from the administration would at least call me and say, ‘Hey, could you tell us what it is?’ It happens to be a great idea. But at the right time, I guess I’ll give it. “
He then added that he’d be reluctant to share his idea with the Obama administration anyway, because “they’re all a bunch of clowns.”
One of Ann Coulter’s new favorite talking points, which she uses in her new anti-immigrant book “Adios America!” and has repeated in various media interviews, is that the U.S. has “taken in one-fourth of Mexico's entire population."
Earlier this week, Politifact gave that claim a “Pants on Fire” rating , noting that Coulter is comparing the number of people of Mexican heritage living in the U.S. — including people who’s families have been in the country for generations — with the current population of Mexico, which is kind of like saying that the large population of Irish Americans means that the U.S. has “taken in” Ireland’s population seven times.
But this, of course, is all part of the media’s persecution of Ann Coulter, at least according to her friend Joyce Kaufman, a conservative radio host in Florida, who cited the Politifact story in an interview with Coulter yesterday as an example of the media “going crazy trying to debunk facts.” The Mexican-American citizens Politifact mentions, Kaufman said, are “anchor babies” and therefore “should not count” as being Americans.
Coulter agreed, saying that granting birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants — something consistent with the history of the 14th Amendment — was an “invention” of the “mentally delusional” Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in the 1980s.
“This doesn’t go back to the 14th Amendment,” she said, “this is the invention of one mentally delusional Supreme Court justice. And he’s turned the most precious possession in the universe, citizenship in this wonderful country, into a game of tag with the border control. If they don’t catch you, you get to drop the baby and say, ‘Ha ha ha, I just had the baby and you can’t do anything!’ It’s madness.”
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, spoke to Roger Fredinburg on his far-right radio show in April about the attempt by Congress to restrict armor-piercing bullets. Pratt, responding to Fredinburg’s theory that the left wants to take away everyone’s rifles, said “we figured that’s kinda what they were up to.”
“The Second Amendment was designed for people just like the president and his administration,” Pratt said. “And yes, if the New York Times and the Rolling Stone, and whoever else wants to have a hissy fit, yes, our guns are in our hands for people like those in our government right now that think they wanna go tyrannical on us, we’ve got something for ‘em. That’s what it’s all about.”
“The Second Amendment,” he continued, “is not about hunting, it’s not about target shooting, it’s about Democrats who want to take our rights.”
Fredinburg, building off of the tyrannical Democrats theory, argued that “if you’re a Christian or subscribe to traditional Judeo-Christian values today, you’re considered a hate monger...if you’re a pervert, a deviant, a derelict, you know someone who’s captured by a decadent lifestyle, whatever, your rights are protected. But the good people, their rights are not being protected.” Pratt, agreeing that the left hates guns and religion, replied, “What a rhetorical sleight of hand, isn’t it? They say they’re for diversity, they say they’re for freedom of speech, and ‘you’re free to say anything you’d like as long as you agree with me.’ What hypocrites!”
The ability of Religious Right activists and their allies in the conservative media to paint themselves as the targets of horrible persecution, a core strategy of the conservative movement for decades, is truly astounding. No matter the issue, whether it is defending laws denying equal rights to gay people or opposing government neutrality towards religion, the strategy is always the same: play the victim.
Outside of just issue advocacy, Religious Right figures attempt to depict any criticism of their political positions and records as a direct attack on their freedoms and religious beliefs, suggesting that their deeply held beliefs should somehow give them immunity from political reproach.
This strategy has been so effective that the Duggar family, reeling from a sexual abuse cover-up scandal, has adopted it, and it was on full display in Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s interview last night with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.
“Do you think in particular your Christian beliefs at issue here?,” Kelly asked the Duggar parents, who, according to police reports, took months to report their son Josh Duggar’s alleged sexual abuse of several young girls including his sisters and may not have sought counseling for their children. Josh Duggar, who resigned from his position as a Family Research Council executive when the allegations became public and who has since admitted to sexually abusing several girls as a teenager, was not interviewed.
Jim Bob and Michelle, stars of the TLC reality show “19 Kids and Counting,” told Kelly that they are victims of an “agenda” that is out to get their family and a media that won’t offer them privacy as the scandal unfolds.
This victimization narrative, coming from a family that stars in a nationally broadcast reality TV show and that has been active in conservative political causes — including campaigning against a local nondiscrimination measure in North Carolina by portraying LGBT people as threats to child safety — may seem insincere. But the Duggars they know that the strategy is effective, and that outlets like Fox News are there to help them.
Mike Huckabee too labeled the Duggar parents and Josh Duggar as victims of an “insensitive” media. CNN reports that Chad Gallagher, Huckabee’s “longtime adviser” and “the executive director of Huck PAC,” is managing the Duggar family’s public relations strategy.
As for the daughters who survived the abuse, two of whom spoke to Kelly in defense of their brother, Jim Bob explained that “they didn’t even know he had done it” since they were asleep when several of the instances occurred. “This was not rape or anything like that. This was like touching over the clothes. There were a couple instances where he touched someone under the clothes, but for like a few seconds.”
Instead, Kelly and the Duggar parents took aim at In Touch magazine, which found the police report about Duggar’s abuse through a Freedom of Information Act request, and the local police unit which complied with the request, as the real perpetrators of wrongdoings, insisting that the current media coverage has been far more damaging to the abuse survivors.
As CNN’s Brian Stelter pointed out, Fox News “barely covered” the scandal when it first came to light, far less than their cable news rivals, but was more than happy to help the family “speak to their Christian conservative base” by helping the Duggars become the latest Religious Right activists to use the play-the-victim strategy.
Pat Robertson warned today that a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage would have devastating consequences, telling viewers of “The 700 Club” that marriage equality will jeopardize the free speech of religious broadcasters like himself who oppose gay marriage.
Curiously enough, Robertson broadcasts from Virginia, a state with marriage equality, and is freely able to denounce gay marriage on a regular basis without facing any legal consequences.
“Isn’t it chilling to think that a practice that was abhorrent and stigmatized for so many years has now become the dominant weapon of the left to hurt those who share traditional values?” he asked.
Robertson also addressed the Supreme Court’s 1983 in Bob Jones University v. US, in which the court found that the IRS did not violate the Constitution by stripping the evangelical university of its tax exempt status because of its rules barring interracial relationships. According to Robertson, such a rule never existed: “Bob Jones never prohibited men and women of different races from getting married, they never had any laws, as I understand, they merely said in their statement of faith, they didn’t believe that the Bible supported interracial marriage and interracial activity. That was their belief.”
He quickly added that while he disagreed with the university’s stance, he feared that the ruling would open the door to religious persecution by the government.
Robertson’s claim that Bob Jones University didn’t have an enforceable rule barring interracial relationships is simply false.
“There is to be no interracial dating,” declared the university’s rule book in the 1990s. “Students who become partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds interracial marriage as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled.”
Up until 2000, the university stated that it had “a rule prohibiting interracial dating among its students”:
God has separated people for His own purposes. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends for those differences to remain. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains.
The rule, which was put into place in the 1950s, was only lifted when it received national attention after George W. Bush, then a candidate for president, made a campaign appearance at the South Carolina school.
The rule stemmed from the teachings of Bob Jones Sr., the university’s founder, who made the case that anyone who believes the Bible should oppose interracial marriage, just as televangelists like Robertson are arguing about same-sex marriage today.
WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah issued an emergency plea to governors today asking them to consider seceding from the union if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage.
“We need a Promised Land. We need an Exodus strategy,” Farah wrote. “Are there any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?”
If not, Farah says that foreign nations that prohibit same-sex marriage should prepare for “a pilgrimage by millions of Americans” fleeing marriage equality.
Will a U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring “same-sex marriage” a “right” warrant secession by some state willing and eager to reclaim America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation?
You know it’s inevitable, right?
The fix is in. Two members of the Supreme Court have personally officiated at same-sex “marriages.” I count three solid votes against it. The chances of reaching five are somewhere between slim and none.
I’ve heard some chatter about civil disobedience. That’s all well and good. But I don’t see much in the way of serious organization taking place.
What I do see is a lot of grass-roots concern. I know there are millions of Christians, Jews and others who would pull up stakes and move to another country that honored the institution of marriage as it was designed by God – a union between one man and one woman.
As Jesus said it: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.”
Is there one state in 50 that would not only defy the coming abomination, but secede in response? The rewards could be great. I would certainly consider relocating. How about you?
The founders of this country found a place of refuge in America and shaped it into the greatest self-governing nation in the history of world. Just think what one state could do if it simply stuck to the principles that made this country great? Americans wouldn’t have to cross an ocean to rediscover what brought most of our ancestors here. We could simply drive.
Are any states so inclined?
I haven’t heard this question raised by anyone else. So I’m raising it now. We don’t have much time before the nine high priests in black robes decide to follow Baal instead of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We need a Promised Land. We need an Exodus strategy.
If not a state, are there any nations in the world interested in a pilgrimage by millions of Americans?
And here’s the second question: Are there any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?
Writing today in WorldNetDaily, Erik Rush says that “violent civil disobedience — vigilantism — may be the only practical response” to supposed efforts by “the political left” to use the government to persecute conservatives and wipe out religious freedom through gay marriage.
Rush calls on conservatives not to yield to the “satanic minions in our government” who are bent on using gay marriage to criminalize Christianity and painting all conservatives as “potential terrorist threats.”
“In fact, when otherwise rational, law-abiding Americans suddenly realize that the last of their liberties have been legislated, regulated and executive-ordered away, their response just might make the left’s accusations in the opening paragraph a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he writes.
Those on the left routinely typify their opponents as intolerant, hateful and potentially violent. This has increased in volume and frequency under the Obama administration, which codified these mischaracterizations into Department of Homeland Security policy; DHS has designated pro-lifers, patriots, constitutionalists, Christians, amnesty opponents, gun enthusiasts, military veterans and other groups as potential terrorist threats.
In keeping with their hypocrisy and incongruity, leftists conveniently omit the fact that they have carried out more terrorism, pogroms, mass murders and genocide than any political group in history. As regular readers will be aware, projection of their antisocial character defects onto opponents is a hallmark of the left’s methodology.
Their objective is to convince as much of the citizenry as possible that their warnings are at least somewhat plausible. This way, when DHS Storm Troopers arrive in the wee hours to collect their neighbors, they will accept the cover story without protest: The detainees were involved in a terrorist plot to carry out large scale “hate crimes” against illegal immigrants, homosexuals, or some species of endangered grouse.
What we are in fact seeing is the political left, through deception, incrementalism and outright violation of the Constitution, insidiously maneuvering rational, law-abiding Americans into a position so untenable that at some elusive but inevitable point, violent civil disobedience – vigilantism – may be the only practicable response.
There are a few very sobering commentaries published recently that address the de facto criminalization of Christianity in the wake of Canada having legalized “gay marriage” in 2005. One is Lea Z. Singh’s “Same-sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Christians in Canada,” written for Crisis Magazine.
So, how might American Christians react to such developments here? The reason I ask is because the wheels are already in motion. The satanic minions in our government absolutely must bring about these societal transformations in order to “kill off” God and establish the State as the ultimate arbiter of morality. Rending the family unit asunder will ensure that the State becomes the individual’s sole guide, instructor and authority from cradle to grave.
I’m not inclined to think that We the People will respond as submissively as Canadians did to a similar scenario transpiring here. In fact, when otherwise rational, law-abiding Americans suddenly realize that the last of their liberties have been legislated, regulated and executive-ordered away, their response just might make the left’s accusations in the opening paragraph a self-fulfilling prophecy.
With the 2016 national elections upcoming, wealthy donors supporting both parties are gearing up to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into the races; billionaires David and Charles Koch have already pledged to spend $889 million. But a report from Reuters shows that Americans, frustrated by the overwhelming influence of big money in politics, are organizing to fight back.
In the Philadelphia mayoral race, three billionaires spent $7 million to elect Anthony Hardy Williams. In response, unions and community groups rallied around his challenger, Jim Kenney, organizing a march to stop the wealthy donors from “buying [their] next mayor.” Technological developments are making such organization easier: the creators of Crowdpac, an app that lets entrepreneurs gather funding towards donations, say that they want the app to be used to organize small donors to counteract the effects of billionaire spending.
This is reflective of a wider trend in public opinion. Americans are sick of letting big money influence their elections; 84 percent say that money has too much influence in political campaigns today and nearly 3 in 4 Americans support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and limit campaign spending.
“There's growing public awareness about rich people trying to buy elections and that makes the task of winning all the more difficult," said Darrel West of the Brookings Institute.
Americans have organized at all levels of government to get big money out of politics. Activists have held rallies and marches devoted to the cause and demanded that their representatives in Congress take steps to reduce big money’s influence. Five million of them have signed a petition calling for a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money spent in politics. Sixteen states and more than 650 cities have already called for an amendment.
President Obama is on board, and presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham, and Bernie Sanders have expressed support for a constitutional amendment. Clinton and Sanders have also emphasized the importance of nominating Supreme Court Justices who would restore balance to the Supreme Court and restore the American people’s ability to impose reasonable limits on money in politics.
The movement against big money in politics is gaining momentum as the election nears.
In a speech to the Family Research Council yesterday, National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman said that he hoped Uganda’s supreme court would “in short order” reconsider a harsh anti-gay bill that it threw out on a technicality last year. The law would impose life imprisonment in some cases and would criminalize the “promotion” of homosexuality.
Eastman quoted Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s insistence that the new law was “provoked by western groups who come to our schools and try to recruit children into homosexuality." Noting that US aid restrictions prevent assistance from going to governments that commit human rights violations, including the failure to take “appropriate and adequate measures” to “protect children from exploitation,” Eastman implied that the real “exploitation” was coming from gay rights advocates recruiting children.
He also suggested that US opposition to laws criminalizing homosexuality hinders efforts to fight HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa. (In fact, experts say that the criminalization of homosexuality hurts the effort to fight the epidemic.)
Unsurprisingly, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly is a big fan of Ann Coulter’s new anti-immigrant screed “Adios America!”
In a rave review today, Schlafly hails Coulter for exposing how immigration is “diluting our population with people who don’t love America, don’t respect our Constitution and laws, don’t even speak our language, and commit all sorts of unspeakable crimes.”
She then goes into quite a bit of detail about these crimes, “in particular, crimes against very young women and girls.”
“Americans want our border closed to this flow of anti-American foreigners and criminals,” Schlafly concludes. “Thank you, Ann Coulter for alerting Americans to how Obama and the Democrats are destroying the land we love.”
Ann Coulter lives up to her reputation of issuing warnings and political comment that nobody else dares to say in her newest book, Adios, America! It’s aptly titled; she makes the case that it is Goodbye to the America we know and love if we don’t stop diluting our population with people who don’t love America, don’t respect our Constitution and laws, don’t even speak our language, and commit all sorts of unspeakable crimes.
Adios, America! brims with the scathing humor that has propelled Ann’s previous ten books into bestsellers.
Ann Coulter gives hundreds of specific examples of major crimes committed by illegal immigrants and, in particular, crimes against very young women and girls. She shows the devious ways that the media conceal the fact that these horrendous crimes are committed by illegals whom our government should never have let into our country.
The media cover-up doesn’t conceal merely the nationality of these criminals or the frequency of their crimes. The media cover-up also conceals the depravity of these crimes that are so horrific I can’t bring myself to describe them in this column.
Adios, America! spells out chapter and verse on the attitudes and customs of foreigners whom Obama is welcoming by the millions into America, including their horrific mistreatment of very young women and even some younger than teens. Where are the feminists when we need them to shout about the “war on women”?
A new Gallup poll reports that Americans are becoming more liberal on social issues. In fact, Americans are becoming more conservative on many social issues such as pro-life, so our candidates don’t have to take any more advice from those highly paid strategists who tell them to avoid mention of social issues.
Americans want our border closed to this flow of anti-American foreigners and criminals. Thank you, Ann Coulter for alerting Americans to how Obama and the Democrats are destroying the land we love.