“The real climate change is going to be nuclear climate change if we’re not smart and tough and very, very careful because that’s a big danger and that’s a real danger,” Trump said. “I think Obama just said that the biggest threat that we have on the planet today is climate change, and a lot of people are saying, did he really say that? We have people chopping off heads and he’s talking about climate change. I call it weather. I call it weather. You know, the weather changes.”
Trump continued his explanation by ranting about weather forecasts on the news: “You look back and they were calling it global cooling and global warming and global everything, but if you look back and the biggest tornados were in the 1890s, the biggest hurricanes were in the 1860s and 1870s. It’s weather. You’re going to have bad weather. So often I watch the evening newscasts and every time there is a rainstorm some place, and then they wonder why they don’t do well, they say, ‘It’s raining here and it’s raining there,’ usually leading the program. I call it weather. Maybe there’s a little bit of change, I don’t happen to believe it’s manmade.”
Yesterday, Donald Trump appeared on “The Palin Update,” a show dedicated to all things Palin. After Trump hailed Palin as a “tough and smart” leader who bravely stood up to “disgusting lies,” host Kevin Scholla asked the GOP presidential candidate, “If there is a Trump administration, could you see picking up the phone, giving the governor a call and picking her brain on some things, or perhaps having her along in some official capacity.”
“I’d love that,” Trump replied. “Because she really is somebody who knows what’s happening and she’s a special person, she’s really a special person and I think people know that.”
“Everybody loves her,” he added. Trump went on to say that unlike the former half-term Alaska governor, his current Republican rivals are “weak” and “ineffective” leaders “to a degree that’s actually almost hard to believe.”
Voters, Trump explained, “like the Sarah Palin kind of strength, you just don’t see very much of it anymore.”
Palin recently lauded Trump as a “hero” after he insisted that John McCain was “not a war hero” and said of POWs, “I like people that weren’t captured.” She said that just as McCain was a hero for surviving several years in a prison during the Vietnam War, “Donald Trump is a hero” because he is “giving voice to untold millions of fed-up Americans witnessing a purposeful destruction of our economy.”
Anti-abortion activist Alveda King claimed in a radio interview yesterday that female journalists may be hesitant to be critical of abortion rights because they have had abortions themselves or have been rendered infertile by “the chemicals and things that they try to use for birth control.”
King was discussing with Rebecca Maxwell, guest host of the “Steave Deace Show,” the recent set of videos smearing Planned Parenthood by suggesting that the organization sells fetal tissue for profit. The media was forced to cover these videos, King said, even though they had been “hesitant to deal with” legal abortion in general, perhaps because of their own personal histories.
“One reason that people have been hesitant to deal with it: shame, secrecy,” she explained. “And even if you think about the media, how do we know [whether a journalist who] is reporting this information has had to grapple with abortion or loss of fertility through using the chemicals and things that they try to use for birth control?"
"There are so many layers," she added. "How do we know that the men themselves weren’t involved in having their own child aborted? So it’s bringing it right up to you, it’s unavoidable, it’s true.”
The myth that hormonal birth control causes long-term infertility has been debunked by no less a flaming liberal outfit than Fox News, which notes that the “birth control and infertility myth has been circling around since the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the pill in 1960.”
Vladimir Putin has become a bona fide hero to American Religious Right activists, who see him as a conservative Christian counterweight to President Obama and his support for LGBT equality. Anti-gay activists, for instance, rallied around the Russian leader after the Kremlin approved a ban on speech dealing with “homosexual propaganda” to minors.
U.S. Religious Right activists have prioritized their absolute contempt for the LGBT community above solidarity with Protestants in Russia, who have comeunderattack by the state and its allies in the Orthodox Church, which views evangelicals as heretics. Protestants in the occupied area of eastern Ukraine have faced violent attacks from Putin-backed forces.
Seeing that American conservatives are more than happy to ignore Putin’s campaign against Protestantism since he is, after all, the defender of traditional marriage against gay rights, it is more than likely that they will look the other way now that he is “potentially allowing — or at the very least turning a blind eye to — polygamy among Russia’s estimated 16 million Muslims.”
Julia Ioffe explained in Foreign Policy last week that the Russian government allowed for a friend of Chechnya’s leader to take a second wife in a case that received widespread attention in the country.
As Ioffe writes, “Christian warrior Vladimir Putin” has allowed for the Chechen government to enforce Islamic religious law within its boundaries. Putin’s decision to allow Chechnya to become “a small Islamic state within the borders of the Russian Federation” has paved the way for the legalization of polygamy.
Ioffe points to a case where a teenage girl was married to a 57-year-old police chief who was already married at the time in an arrangement that had all the appearances of a forced marriage. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who, like Putin, has a notorious human rights record, made sure that the wedding took place and even appeared at the reception.
One of polygamy’s noted defenders ended up being the country’s foremost supporter of the “homosexual propaganda” law: Yelena Mizulina. Ioffe writes:
[W]hen a lone member of the parliament proposed a law criminalizing polygamy, the initiative was duly shot down by Yelena Mizulina, the parliamentarian who was among the most vocal supporters of Russia’s anti-gay laws and other “traditional values” initiatives. Criminalizing polygamy, Mizulina said, was “absurd.” The reason for polygamy, she argued was that “there are not enough men, the kind with whom women would want to start a family and have children.” Last week, Mizulina was promoted to the upper chamber of parliament.
Putin’s “ombudsman for children’s rights — who was behind Russia’s ban on American adoptions,” Ioffe adds, justified the wedding by claiming that “in the North Caucasus, puberty hits earlier, so 16 was a great age for marrying. ‘There are places where women shrivel up by 27,’ he said.”
The Religious Right’s support for Putin, an authoritarian leader who has infringed on basic liberties and the democratic process, undermined the freedom of religion, particularly for Protestants, and allowed for the creation of a Sharia law enclave where polygamy is legal, once again proves that for a certain segment of American conservatives, everything comes down to opposing homosexuality.
Yesterday on “The Savage Nation,” conservative talk radio host Michael Savage said that he recently spoke with a friend who worried that the U.S. is “going to wind up with guillotines, hanging us all, anyone they don’t like.”
Savage explained, sarcastically, that such a thing would never happen…just as it would never happen that an “imposter” president would “do a deal with a terrorist state like Iran giving them a path to a nuclear bomb.”
“Obama is a criminal president,” he continued. “Obama has committed one crime against this nation after another and he continues to get away with it.”
For most of President Obama’s time in office, he has been dogged by accusations from the far-right that he is trying to fulfill a 1966 plan laid out by sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven “to wipe out poverty” by encouraging everyone who is eligible for welfare to register for such aid in order to create a severe financial strain on the federal government, which could then be pressured into “establishing a guaranteed annual income.”
Actor Chuck Norris writes in the far-right outlet WorldNetDaily today that the “Cloward-Piven strategy” will ultimately lead to massive voter fraud that will propel Hillary Clinton into the White House.
Norris explains that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires state governments to offer people an opportunity to register to vote when applying for a driver’s license or other social services, will be used by states to “extend voting rights to illegals.” While actual cases of such voter fraud are extremely low, Norris believes that “these new drivers and voters, who have flooded and are still flooding into our country through porous borders, are also at the heart of plan to overload the U.S. welfare system under the Cloward-Piven strategy.”
“You see, it’s a win-win-win-win-win-win to socialist Cloward-Piven progressives like Obama and Hillary,” he writes. “Illegals flood the country; illegals get driver’s licenses; illegals get voter rights; illegals get welfare benefits; illegals overload the U.S. welfare system; illegals keep progressives in office, who crown the Cloward-Piven strategy and the fundamental transformation of America as a victory.”
President Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter Bill into law and none other than Richard Cloward and his wife, Frances Piven, were standing behind him as he did. Even Wikipedia explains that Cloward was a “primary motivator” for the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 known as “Motor Voter,” which forces states’ department of motor vehicles to offer voter registration. Sounds so benign, right? Hold on.
What’s not surprising is how the “Motor Voter” law has morphed to incorporate more Cloward-Piven-Clinton strategies. For example in Oregon, legislators have just enacted a subsidiary law that registers a person to vote when they obtain or renew a state driver’s license. That might sound all fine and dandy, too, until one realizes that a stone’s throw away in neighboring states like California, they are doling out licenses to 1.5 million illegals over the next three years. How long will it be until California’s Motor Voter laws extend voting rights to illegals, too?
And California is not alone. Nevada and Washington – also butting up against Oregon’s borders, have also joined the ranks of states offering access to driver’s licenses despite immigrant status. And don’t forget Hawaii, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware and Washington, D.C., which are also a part of that non-citizen driver’s license distribution union, according to the National Immigration Law Center.
You see, it’s not a coincidence either that these new drivers and voters, who have flooded and are still flooding into our country through porous borders, are also at the heart of plan to overload the U.S. welfare system under the Cloward-Piven strategy. As Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa told WND: “I do feel this attempt to flood the border with illegals is a playing out of the Cloward-Piven theory.
You see, it’s a win-win-win-win-win-win to socialist Cloward-Piven progressives like Obama and Hillary. Illegals flood the country; illegals get driver’s licenses; illegals get voter rights; illegals get welfare benefits; illegals overload the U.S. welfare system; illegals keep progressives in office, who crown the Cloward-Piven strategy and the fundamental transformation of America as a victory.
On Thursday, right-wing talk show host Michael Savage couldn’t contain his glee at the prospect of Donald Trump actually winning the presidential election. Savage once again showered the GOP frontrunner with praise, this time for making a speech criticizing immigration in the Texas border town of Laredo.
When a listener called in to argue that Trump wouldn't be able to work with other policymakers, Savage responded that Trump should simply rule by decree:
We have Obama, who has dug his heels in and is ruling by fiat. He’s not ruling with the consent of the opposition party. We have a de facto dictatorship right now, we need a de facto dictatorship from the other side of the aisle for 50 years to straighten out the mess that was created from Bill Clinton going forward. I disagree with you. If what we have devolved to in this nation is no longer a nation of checks and balances and no longer a nation of ruling by consensus but ruling by decree, then I would say then Trump is even more important than ever because let him rule by decree and let him straighten the country out and let him start with a fence on the Mexican border. He can probably order that fence built by the illegals themselves.
Later in the program, Savage described Trump as the bold white leader that Americans have been praying for all this time.
“We’ve finally seen a white man with you know what,” Savage said. “Finally a white man stood up with you know what and said ‘go to hell’ to his enemies and if you don’t like it go take a walk. America’s been waiting for him, they’ve been praying for him.”
Earlier this month, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., appeared on “The Tom Roten Show” to criticize the House leadership’s handling of an appropriations bill which ended up not receiving a vote because of an amendment to remove the Confederate flag from federal grounds.
The House GOP tried to block a Democratic amendment to a bill on funding for the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency that would have banned the “Confederate battle flag’s display at federal parks and cemeteries administered by the National Park Service, as well as the sale of items displaying it,” throwing the body into chaos and delaying a vote on the bill.
“We’re having this debate because of the unfortunate circumstance that happened in South Carolina and my hearts go out to those people,” Massie said. “But I will say this: I am glad they are blaming a flag and not a gun this time because usually they are blaming the gun. They look for everything that could be wrong except for the real reason here and they go after it.”
The congressman said the Mother Emanuel AME Church could have prevented the shooting but didn’t: “This particular church disallowed any guns coming into the church, another gun-free zone, which makes people less safe. I think that’s why this time they wanted to have the debate on a flag instead of a gun because they realize that a gun would have been the only way to stop this.”
“I talked about these before, I call these weapons of mass distraction,” he continued. “When something this small gets blown up to this level and consumes all the news cycles and all of our time on the floor of the House of Representatives, watch out because they are doing something else in the other hand that you can’t see.”
In an interview with Indianapolis talk radio host Greg Garrison last week, conservative activist David Horowitz railed against President Obama’s stance on immigration and his handling of the recent shooting of military service members in Chattanooga, claiming that Obama is trying to bring in immigrants who either carry deadly diseases or only want to come to the U.S. to kill Americans.
“When you let tens of thousands of illegals just run across your border, you import them, which is what Obama’s doing, from South America, which has bad health care and a bad environment, you’re going to import disease and kill Americans when you open your borders and bring in and allow — this isn’t even illegal, he’s importing Somalis and Nigerians and Yemenis,” Horowitz said. “We’re importing terrorists.”
He said that “Obama and the communists in the White House and the Democratic Party” show preference for people of “a darker shade of skin” while they “show their contempt for Americans at every turn.” Horowitz was also angry that the president ordered that public buildings fly the flag at half-staff five days after the Chattanooga shooting rather than earlier, leading him to conclude that “Obama hates America. He hates the Marines. He hates our military. He likes the Islamists.”
“Wake up America,” he continued. “There’s only one conservative who is even near to talking like this and that’s [Donald] Trump and that’s why he’s way ahead.”
On Monday, July 20th Jeb Bush announced that he wants to curb the influence of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. by setting a six-year moratorium on former members of Congress registering as lobbyists. Bush said, ““We need to help politicians rediscover life outside of Washington… which — who knows? — might even be a pleasant surprise for them.” His comedic interjection is an indication of the stance he has decided to take on this issue, posing as a Beltway outsider who can see, and wants to reform, Washington’s corruption.
But Bush is anything but a political outsider. His father and brother spent a combined 20 years in the White House and he was Florida’s governor for eight years, after which he became a political consultant. Neither is he rejecting the money that lobbyists are currently collecting on his behalf: he has eight lobbyists working together to raise more than $228,000 for his campaign. That’s on top of his efforts to skirt campaign finance rules by spending months raising millions of dollars for a superPAC that purports not to coordinate with his own presidential campaign. Bush is the ultimate establishment candidate, regardless of whether or not he has spent time on the Hill.
And while this specific proposal is well and good, it’s also glaringly insufficient. The reforms Bush supports would not stop much of the lobbying that does occur in Washington. The six-year ban would only apply to registered lobbyists, a designation easily avoided by not engaging in specific activities or spending less than 20 percent of one’s time actually lobbying. There are simply too many loopholes Bush’s plan would not cover for real reform to occur.
Jeb Bush made this announcement in an effort to capture some of the grassroots anger at the role of money in politics. But, hopefully it will also ignite some real debate and raise public awareness of the reforms we would need to make a meaningful difference.
Pat Robertson, who once asked God to remove justices from the Supreme Court in order to give President Bush more opportunities to appoint conservatives to the bench, wondered on today’s edition of “The 700 Club” why God didn’t punish the justices behind the Roe v. Wade decision.
“You’ll have to ask God why he didn’t kill them,” Robertson said, somewhat facetiously, before noting that “it’s in God’s hands whether they live a long life” since he’s “not in charge of the death or life of the Supreme Court judges.”
Robertson’s remarks came in response to a viewer who asked the televangelist why the justices were able to “live to be such an old age, after committing such a despicable act that has brought a curse upon the land?”
He blamed the decision on the justices’ use of “stuff from Planned Parenthood,” before going into a rant about how Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger looked down on black people and Southern white Protestants. As we’ve noted in the past, Sanger’s views on race have been badly distorted by the Right.
Televangelist Pat Robertson today blasted the Satanic Temple for unveiling a statue of Baphomet in Detroit. The group doesn’t actually worship Satan but is trying to make a point about the separation of church and state, arguing that any government property displaying the Ten Commandments must also house a Satanic monument.
But the host of “The 700 Club” was having none of it, telling viewers that Detroit and the U.S. in general could face divine punishment for the Satanic Temple’s actions.
“Aren’t you appalled?” Robertson asked. “First of all, we say that being a homosexual is a constitutional right, before that we said that slaughtering unborn babies was a constitutional right and now we want to unveil a statue of Satan in the midst of that economically plagued city? Can you believe that? Where are we heading? Isn’t this going to bring the judgment of God upon us?”
Robertson continued: “You say, could we possibly be serving idols? Could we be sacrificing our babies to some heathen god? Is there something that we are going to be having ritual sacrifice on the statehouse lawn of some state? Are we going to be allowing this to happen? And while we are doing it, we’ll be having polygamy and polyamory and all the other things that go along with a corrupt culture. Is that the way we’re heading? Well it looks like it is.”
WorldNetDaily commentator Patrice Lewis has a message for parents in her column this weekend: “Protect your children. Don’t sacrifice them to the sex gods.”
According to Lewis, the LGBT community and “feminists trying to justify their slutty behavior” are turning kids “into raunchy little mini-adults,” all as part of an attempt to help “Planned Parenthood improve its bottom line” by urging children “to ‘explore their sexuality’ and experiment.”
The indoctrination taking place in school is nothing short of disgusting. Rather than concentrating on reading and writing, math and science, history and geography, students are instructed from kindergarten on the variations in human sexuality, encouraged to choose their gender du jour, and otherwise spoon-fed stimuli far beyond their capacities to comprehend.
It should come as no surprise that Planned Parenthood has an active role in what is euphemistically called “reproductive health services” in middle schools and high schools. With teens not just expected, but actively encouraged to be sexually active, Planned Parenthood stands in the wings to relieve girls of their unplanned “tissue” while refusing to counsel them about any repercussions such as psychological trauma or the increased risk of cancer.
And, as we’ve recently learned, sexualization of children is helping Planned Parenthood improve its bottom line.
One of the consequences of this sexualized culture is the ability to separate sex from procreation. Once upon a time, sex was considered a grave and serious undertaking – which is why it was best expressed within the bounds of marriage, where the consequences of sex had the best chance of a solid foundation. But today, sex is treated as nothing more than an unthinking recreational activity on par with eating ice cream or getting a pedicure.
Children of both genders are urged to “explore their sexuality” and experiment. Girls are told this is “empowering.” The natural consequences of this empowerment are sucked into a sink as unimportant clumps of cells, then the girl is told to return to her (cough) normal life, and the cycle starts again.
So what’s wrong with early sexualization? Since we can no longer just let kids be kids (and instead have to turn them into raunchy little mini-adults), what are the consequences of this early sexualization? I pay particular attention to the effects on girls since we have daughters and no sons.
In contrast to the “empowerment” bleat put out by feminists trying to justify their slutty behavior, sexualization teaches girls they’re not worth much more than the sum of their body parts. Forget what’s between their ears – the only thing that’s important is what’s between their legs. Anything it takes to attract a sex partner – makeup, clothing, behavior, language – becomes the focus of sexualization. Rather than learning to express themselves with their unique talents, gifts, interests or skills, girls are encouraged to flaunt their bodies.
Protect your children. Don’t sacrifice them to the sex gods.
WorldNetDaily columnist Lord Christopher Monckton is not pleased that President Obama stood up for LGBT rights in Kenya, a country where homosexuality is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Monckton claimed in a column yesterday that the president’s support for LGBT rights is part of his communist agenda, alleging that communists have been working within the U.S. for nearly 100 years to “promote ‘gay rights’ as a way of undermining and destroying the family" with the hope that “destroying the family would destroy the hated West.”
Monckton also managed to bring up his own personal birtherconspiracytheory, insisting that Obama “traveled from Kenya to Hawaii with his American mother within days of his birth in a village near Mombasa in August 1964.”
In Kenya, as in most of Africa, the biggest killer is infectious disease. Accordingly, those who willfully indulge in activities known to be likely to spread disease are heavily punished. Homosexuality is well established in the medico-scientific literature as being a particularly efficient vector of various sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.
For this very good reason, African political culture has always been strongly opposed to homosexuality, which carries a 14-year prison sentence in Kenya.
Embarrassingly, Mr. Obama chose a joint press conference with Mr Kenyatta to issue one of his whinnyingly pietistic Communism-101 lectures.
Even in the West, the average practicing homosexual is more likely to die before his time than a smoker. But in Africa, where all manner of infectious diseases are far more prevalent than in the West because public-health measures are largely non-existent, homosexuality is still more dangerous to the population. It is precisely because homosexuality does harm to people that it is firmly discouraged, and not just in Kenya.
The totalitarian left is eager enough to blame smoking on evil capitalist tobacco companies and to bully both smokers and those who supply them with their poison. However, the U.S. Communist Party in the 1920s, while publicly opposing homosexuality, was privately recommending to its cadres that they should promote “gay rights” as a way of undermining and destroying the family life that was at that time America’s greatest strength.
Ever since then, the hard left has been relentless in advancing the cause of so-called “gays.” There was never any electoral advantage in this, for “gays” represent perhaps 0.5 percent of the population – a numerically insignificant fraction. The advantage was purely political: Destroying the family would destroy the hated West.
Though the tone was a fine instance of the relentless diplomatic politesse that is a notable hallmark of Kenya’s present president, his remarks were a decisive slap in the face for the bleating Mr. Obama, who traveled from Kenya to Hawaii with his American mother within days of his birth in a village near Mombasa in August 1964.
As the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out in wake of the Lafayette, Louisiana, shooting, “in the last five years, an attack from the radical right was carried out or thwarted on average every 34 days and that the overwhelming majority of those attacks, 74 percent, were carried out by a single person, or a group of no more than two people.”
However, the Department of Homeland Security’s ability to monitor anti-government fanatics, who have carried out far more lethal attacks on Americans in recent years than Islamic extremists, was severely crippled after a 2009 dispute over a Department of Homeland Security report [PDF] on domestic right-wing terrorists.
The Right saw an opportunity to stir up a fake controversy in order to raise money, reinforce the narrative of conservative activists as victims and provoke animosity toward President Obama. In the process they helped make it harder for DHS to investigate a very real threat to American security.
The report [PDF] specifically assessed “lone wolves” who hold “violent rightwing extremist ideology” as “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States” bent on “commit[ing] violent acts,” noting that “white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy.”
But apparently the disbandment of Homeland Security’s team combating such violent extremists was worth it so right-wing groups could raise money and whip up completely unfounded fears of anti-conservative persecution.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
Have Michigan and Seattle, Washington, embraced Sharia law? Did the Supreme Court legalize pedophilia and bestiality? Is Hillary Clinton a Muslim Brotherhood spy? All of these questions are ridiculous, but not so off-base that conservative pundits aren’t taking them seriously.
5) Seattle Embraces Sharia
The mayor of Seattle recently charged a committee with finding ways to improve the city’s rate of homeownership. Among the proposals the city came up was a recommendation to make it easier for Muslim residents who, for religious reasons, cannot pay interest on loans, to purchase homes through a structured payment plan.
Religious Right leaders have long been warning that parts of Michigan arefallingtoSharialaw, warnings that may have played a role in one Michigan’s town decision to reject the establishment of a summer camp because the project’s organizer is a Muslim.
As the Huffington Post reported, several residents complained to the local planning commission that the summer camp, which would not have any religious affiliation, could be used as a “training camp” for terrorists.
“I have heard on the news that in every state in the United States we have an ISIS group,” one resident said, while another wondered if there was “anything written on paper that says this isn’t going to be turned into a terrorist training facility.” One official told the Huffington Post that “the whole state of Michigan should be worried” since there are “15 organizations” with possible terrorist ties that are trying to open training camps.
The commission ultimately voted to deny a permit to build the summer camp.
3) Gay Marriage Devastation
The ripple effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality continue, at least in the reality-free world of the right-wing media.
Televangelist Pat Robertson said that the court’s ruling paves the way for the legalization of pedophilia, polygamy and “love affairs between men and animals,” while Janet Porter said that very soon Christians will be “carted off to jail” as a result of the Obergefell decision.
But pseudo-historian David Barton’s sharp legal analysis truly demonstrated how out of touch the conservative movement really is on the issue, as he claimed that the court effectively legalized pedophilia with the help of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which he said became law in 2006.
The government’s supposed Islamist ties, Savage predicted, may soon pave the way for a “civil war,” which he said would be “overdue” and “the only thing that could save us.”
Savage also told the “criminal in the White House” that he would personally lead an armed rebellion if anyone ever calls for slavery reparations: “I would lead a reparations rebellion in this country. No matter what my age would be, if I had the strength from God, I would lead a reparations rebellion against the government and it would be an armed rebellion. I would lead an armed rebellion against the government if they try to push that one down my throat after ripping off my life with affirmative action and welfare, I’m sick of it!”
As the primaries for the 2016 elections get closer, we can expect to see the effects of big money in politics – the new normal after the 2010 Citizens United decision – in full force. Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush has raised $114 million through both his campaign and Right to Rise, a super PAC backing him. With the Koch brothers alone already pledging to raise $889 million through their network of wealthy donors, it’s likely that this election’s expenditures will well exceed the over $1 billion spent in the 2012 federal elections. As a result, many Americans are fed up with this new campaign finance system.
A Monmouth University survey released yesterday revealed that only 10 percent of Americans say that the influx of campaign spending post Citizens United has made the presidential nominating process better. Further, 42 percent expressed concern that the new campaign finance landscape makes it more likely that an unqualified or unserious candidate would be able to stay in the race longer.
These statistics are hardly surprising. A New York Times poll showed that 85 percent of Americans think that the campaign finance system needs either “fundamental changes” or to be “completely rebuil[t].” In addition, three out of four Americans support a constitutional amendment that would limit campaign spending, and 5 million have signed a petition in favor of such an amendment. All around the country, Americans are organizing to let their legislators know that they’re tired of big money’s undue influence in their elections.
“The public is starting to worry that the Wild West nature of campaign finance is damaging the way we choose presidential candidates,” said Patrick Murray, the polling institute’s director.
With the public standing strong against letting the wealthy few buy their elections, a national conversation about the harmful effects of Citizens United is taking place, blazing a trail for real reform.
Last year, a Nevada rancher who boasts that he doesn’t “recognize the United States government as even existing” become a hero of Fox News pundits and other conservative commentators for refusing to pay grazing fees he owes the government.
Despite predictions that GOP frontrunner Donald Trump’s incendiary comments on immigrants and POWs, among others, would sink his presidential campaign, Trump has maintained his lead in polls and is receiving plenty of backup from his allies at Fox News and in conservative talk radio.
Fox’s resident “culture war” reporter and super-patriot Todd Starnes has also been defendingTrump, even after the presidential candidate said of POWs like John McCain: “I like people who weren't captured.”
Yesterday on the Family Research Council's “Washington Watch” program, Starnes told FRC President Tony Perkins that Trump is a voice for the voiceless: “The American people see all of this and they see the illegals coming into our country, they see the massive surge from Islamic countries, immigrants coming here and towns and communities being overwhelmed, and they don’t feel like anyone is hearing their voice, except for one person, Donald Trump.”
Michael Savage, the right-wing talk show host who credited his own book with shaping Trump’s views on immigration, praised Trump this week as “the leader of the entire conservative movement in America and maybe the world.”
“He’s the leader of the Western world,” Savage said. “Donald Trump has moved up to being the leader of the whole Western world right now with his love for America, love for borders, language, culture, family, military, he’s the only one articulating those views.”
After the caller said that the Supreme Court's recent marriage equality decision is weakening "the hedge of protection coming across us,” Perkins readily agreed that God will lift His protective hand from the U.S. as a result of gay people getting married.
“Absolutely, absolutely,” Perkins replied, adding that with the Obergefell ruling, we “put ourselves in a very vulnerable position” just like in “1973 when the court basically said it’s open season on the unborn, there were consequences to that and I believe it’s a part of removing God’s hand of protection upon a nation.”