Long before winning a seat in the Colorado State House, Gordon Klingenschmitt became a right-wing martyr over his claim that he lost his position as a Navy chaplain for saying “Jesus” in his prayers. Klingenschmitt sued, launching the “Save Chaps” and “Pray In Jesus Name” campaigns, and he held up his purported firing as an example of anti-religious, anti-Christian hostility in government.
Klingenschmitt, however, lost his lawsuit, as a judge found that there was never an effort to “limit Dr. Klingenschmitt’s right to engage in any religious practices (including presenting an opening prayer at the event or invoking the name of Jesus in his prayer),” noting that he was appropriately disciplined for breaking well-established military rules which prohibit people from appearing at political events in full military garb.
But like other right-wing activists, Klingenschmitt never let this key detail get in the way of his narrative that he and other conservatives Christians in America are the victims of persecution.
So it is comes as no surprise that Klingesnchmitt is now creating yet another narrative about religious persecution in wake of recent comments he made about the gruesome attack on a pregnant Colorado woman. Klingenschmitt said on his “Pray In Jesus Name” televangelist program that the attack was the “curse of God upon America” for legalizing abortion: “part of that curse for our rebellion against God as a nation is that our pregnant women are ripped open.”
His remarks quickly incited an uproar, which Klingenschmitt hoped would die down after he made a donation to the woman’s recovery fund, regularly boasting about his contribution in media interviews. However, the woman’s family rejected his donation, and Democrats and Republicans alike condemned Klingenschmitt’s statements. He refused to apologize, insisting that he was only being criticized for “quoting the Bible in church” and standing up “against evil.”
He eventually offered an apology, but only after insisting that he was the victim of a media campaign to distort his remarks: “Klingenschmitt's apology in Monday's video comes after 23 minutes of recapping the tragedy and criticizing media reports about him. He accuses reporters of misquoting him and lying, and says the Gazette retracted its story, which is not true.”
Colorado House Republican Leader Brian DelGrosso yesterday decided to remove Klingenschmitt from the Health, Insurance and Environment Committee, although he will remain on another committee dealing with local government as a “kind of disciplinary action.”
The move inspired Klingenschmitt to fall back on his earlier claim that he is facing persecution for just quoting the Bible: “I am literally being punished for quoting unpopular Bible verses in my Sunday church, or interpreting the Old Testament differently than Leader DelGrosso interprets it, during my private ministry outside the Capitol. Is that suddenly a crime?”
House Republican leaders weren’t the only ones to incite the wrath of Klingenschmitt, as he also accused Right Wing Watch of persecuting him by quoting excerpts from his television program verbatim, as part of his long career of portraying himself as a perpetual victim of discriminatory practices that only exist in his own mind.
Drawing on the right-wing conspiracy theory that Democrats encourage non-citizens to illegally cast ballots in U.S. elections, Phyllis Schlalfy told American Family Radio today that President Obama’s executive actions on immigration are part of a larger plot to rig the vote.
The Eagle Forum founder told host Fred Jackson that the “purpose” of “Obama’s amnesty” is to help undocumented immigrants unlawfully vote: “They want to jimmy the next election by making these illegals grateful to the Democrats and able to vote, and that’s just really a change in our system that we don’t approve of. It isn’t fair, it isn’t honest, but once they have a driver’s license and a Social Security number, you can’t stop them from registering to vote.”
While likely presidential candidates chase billionaires they hope will bankroll their campaigns, activists in states across the country are ramping up a very different kind of campaign: grassroots organizing to restore some common sense to the rules governing money in elections. In March alone, we’ve seen significant victories in the movement to get big money out of politics.
Last week, following sustained advocacy by PFAW activists and allies, the New Hampshire Senate unanimously passed a bill in favor of a constitutional amendment to overturn cases like Citizens United v. FEC. If it passes in the House, New Hampshire will become the 17th state calling for an amendment. PFAW’s New Hampshire Campaign Coordinator Lindsay Jakows, who has been leading our on-the-ground effort in the state, said the vote shows that “our state senators are listening to, and responding to, the voices of their constituents.” And after passing 67 town resolutions in support of an amendment – including 11 just this month – the voices of New Hampshire constituents on this issue are crystal clear.
On the other side of the country, local leaders in Washington and Montana are also making important strides. Earlier this month, Washington’s state Senate unanimously passed a disclosure bill that would expose the spending of some of the largest political donors. PFAW activists in the state made calls to their senators, urging them to vote for the bill to strengthen transparency in Washington’s politics. And in Montana a disclosure bill that would help shine a light on “dark money” in state elections passed in the state House this weekend following calls from PFAW activists.
All of these victories share the same core ingredient: people power.
The sustained drumbeat of calls and emails from local advocates, which led to important wins in three states just this month, show what’s possible when grassroots leaders organize to take their democracy back from corporations and billionaires.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has been appearing all over the media in the last few days to insist, erroneously, that Indiana’s new “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” is no different from other similarly-named laws in other states and will not effectively legalize discrimination.
According to reports, Pence and others may push for the legislature to clarify that the law does not sanction discriminatory practices.
However, Micah Clark of the American Family Association’s Indiana chapter, who stood right behind Pence, along with several other Religious Right leaders, when he signed the bill into law and has quite a record of anti-gay activism, said today that he opposes any such clarification.
He told AFA President Tim Wildmon today that conservatives should call Pence and other state officials and demand that they oppose any effort to clarify that the law does not legalize discrimination: “That could totally destroy this bill.”(In Georgia, supporters of a similar bill also opposed a push to ensure that the legislation will not permit discrimination in business.)
Wildmon agreed, adding that the Indiana law is necessary to protect anti-gay business owners from “persecution.” The law’s critics, Wildmon claimed, are waging “spiritual warfare” against state officials.
This weekend, Mission America’s Linda Harvey hosted Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute to discuss the Religious Right campaign to have parents keep their children home from school in protest of the Day of Silence, an annual nationwide demonstration against anti-LGBT bullying.
Higgins said that the Day of Silence was really focused on promoting a political agenda rather than protecting LGBT children, labeling anyone who disagrees as “haters.”
Harvey agreed, repeating her claim that LGBT people don’t actually exist: “It goes on and on with the strong-arming, emotional and mental strong-arming, by implying that there are such – again – lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. This is not an inborn lifestyle, there is no evidence of homosexuality — or being transgendered [sic], that you were ever born in the wrong sex body.”
Ted Cruz’s father and adviser Rafael Cruz, a prominent right-wing activist in his own right, appeared on “Eagle Forum Live” this weekend with Phyllis Schlalfy, where he called on state leaders to follow Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s lead in flouting federal court decisions which strike down bans on same-sex marriage.
“Something very exciting that has happened is what happened in Alabama with Justice Roy Moore,” Cruz said, hailing a state supreme court ruling which found that “the courts of Alabama do not have to obey the opinion of a federal judge and as a matter of fact, Justice Roy Moore, ordered the civil courts in Alabama not to issue marriage licenses for homosexual couples. And so what they are doing is asserting that the state has supremacy and basically all of these laws were for the state to make those decisions, not the federal court, the federal court is overreaching and it is actually legislating from the bench, contrary to the opinion of the majority of the American people.”
Cruz added that states with marriage equality will begin forcing pastors to marry same-sex couples under penalty of prison, something that has never taken place in any of the dozens of states where same-sex marriage is legal.
“We need to realize that the attack on marriage is more than just an attack on marriage, it actually goes to the heart of religious freedom,” Cruz said. “What is going to come next and this is part of the danger of what may happen out of the Supreme Court in June, is that if marriage of anybody-with-anybody becomes a civil rights issue, then they are going to come to churches and force pastors to violate their religious convictions. And so it is going to come to America to where a pastor is going to be faced with a decision: do you obey a law that is not only unjust but violates your core principles, or do you obey God and face prison?”
“This is the dilemma that America’s pastors are going to be facing if this issue is labeled a civil rights issue. It goes way beyond marriage to actually violate the religious freedom of people of faith,” he continued.
Later in the program, Cruz warned that “we are on the brink of the destruction of this country” and said that President Obama is acting “like an emperor more than a president,” adding: “If we have eight more years of this type of government, this country will be destroyed.”
When a caller, Dan, called in to say that the American people should begin “killing judges” over the fear that “judges will order pastors to marry homosexuals,” Schlafly said that she is “not ready to kill anybody.”
Instead, Schlafly said that people should instead “use all the ways that are available to us in this free system.” Cruz agreed with Schlafly, arguing that elected officials are selected by “a small minority of Americans” and that people who believe in “biblical values” must turn out en masse to the polls.
Lord Christopher Monckton writes in WorldNetDaily today that liberals, in order to be consistent with their support for public health efforts, should run campaigns that highlight “the misery, disease and death that homosexuality – no less than smoking – brings to its unfortunate practitioners” and to people who are “drawn into the homosexual deathstyle.”
He claims that liberals are hypocrites for speaking out about the dangers of smoking and climate change while, at the same time, trying to “promote ‘gay’ ‘marriage.’”
In fact, Monckton goes so far to call for the “immediate, compulsory, permanent isolation of carriers” of HIV.
Life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, it is estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men now aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday.
Now, we can always hope that the development of anti-retroviral drugs has helped since 18 years ago. However, the life expectancy of a smoker is 10 years shorter than that of a non-smoker, which – even assuming a dramatic improvement in homosexual lifespans since the 1990s – makes promiscuous homosexuality no less dangerous to the health of those who practice it than smoking.
Yet leftists, instead of insisting – as they do with smoking – that public-health campaigns should warn people of the medical dangers of homosexuality, they “celebrate” it and promote “gay” “marriage.”
The facts are clear enough. But the left does not support the facts because the facts do not support the left.
What conclusion should be drawn? It is surely this: Public policy on questions from homosexuality to climate change – where the left is similarly cavalier with the facts (just read any statement from Mr. Obama about the climate) – should be determined on the basis of fact as well as fashion and sentiment.
The Church’s continuous teaching on homosexuality is not some outmoded, fuddy-duddy, far-right, redneck hate-crime. It is born of love for those who might otherwise be drawn into the homosexual deathstyle. It is intended to prevent the misery, disease and death that homosexuality – no less than smoking – brings to its unfortunate practitioners.
Thirty years ago, I pointed out in the American Spectator that in the absence of the usual public-health measure to contain a new and fatal infection – immediate, compulsory, permanent isolation of carriers – millions would die of HIV. I also pointed out that Western sensibilities would not permit the identification and isolation of carriers.
The arbiters of Christianity over at BarbWire today published a column by Timothy Buchanan about the move by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to allow churches in the denomination to perform same-sex weddings.
Buchanan asserted that by having “thrown in the towel and surrendered to the loud and obnoxious voices of militant lesbians and ‘gays,’” the church has embraced “utter lunacy” and inserted “the last nail in its coffin.”
“The moral high ground in this conflict has been surrendered to Satan,” he said, warning that other denominations will now be “pressured into defiling themselves, as well, or suffer persecution for their ‘stubbornness.’”
The Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (PCUSA) is now dead. After a long, tedious struggle to remain faithful to the scriptures and great Christian reformers like John Knox, the leadership of the PCUSA denomination (the liberal branch of Presbyterian churches) has thrown in the towel and surrendered to the loud and obnoxious voices of militant lesbians and “gays”. A PCUSA church near you will soon be conducting same-sex “marriages.” The moral high ground in this conflict has been surrendered to Satan.
How did this happen? It occurred as church deaths always do, with a membership that is ignorant of the scriptures. Bring in some spiritually dead anti-Christian heretics. Add a few New Age ideologies that sound “Christianese,” like ending discrimination and embracing the future, sprinkle with the words: love, community, and equality, and shake until blended. There you have it. A deadly cocktail of pharisaic poison. Each ingredient by itself is harmless, but together, they create a deadly toxin that is fatal to dignity, honor, faithfulness and righteousness.
In real numbers, the defection of the PCUSA doesn’t make much of an impact on Christendom. Its membership is at an all-time low with only about 1.8 million members. But the real impact will be felt when other denominations like the United Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, and the Southern Baptist Church are pressured into defiling themselves, as well, or suffer persecution for their “stubbornness.”
PCUSA members have ignorantly rejected Paul’s admonishing question, “What fellowship has light with darkness?” Homosexuality is “very grave sin.” That’s what God calls it, and that’s what it is. For Presbyterians to think that God will applaud them or anyone else who shakes his fist at Him by embracing same-sex marriage, is utter lunacy. This latest action by PCUSA leaders is simply the last nail in its coffin. The death has been a long time coming, and it began when leaders misappropriated for themselves, the authority to supplant the truth of God’s word with the policies of sinful and unredeemed men.
Contrary to the hopes and promises of proponents of same-sex marriage, PCUSA will not expand as a result of this movement, nor should it. (As if church expansion could ever be a compelling reason for faithlessness.) On the contrary, its demise is now locked in.
To: Interested Parties
From: Paul Gordon, Senior Legislative Counsel, People For the American Way
Date: March 27, 2015
Re: Senate Republicans' Failure to Confirm Obama Nominees—By the Numbers
Three months into the 114th Congress, it's a good time to take stock of how the newly-Republican Senate is doing when it comes to processing circuit and district court judicial nominations. While they are rightly being criticized for the interminable delay in voting to confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, they have also abdicated responsibility for confirming judges, having confirmed a grand total of zero so far. As they head home for a two-week break, Senate Republicans have made it clear that they have no interest in governing responsibly.
A useful basis of comparison is George W. Bush’s final two years in office, when his judicial nominees were considered by a newly-Democratic Senate. In 2007, the Judiciary Committee under Chairman Patrick Leahy hit the ground running. There were numerous nominees from the previous Congress approved by the GOP-controlled Judiciary Committee but left unconfirmed at the end of 2006. Rather than force them into new hearings for the benefit of the new committee members, Chairman Leahy arranged for quick votes instead. The Committee also processed several first-time nominees. As a result, by end of March 2007, the Senate had confirmed 15 new judges.
The Senate ended up confirming a total of 68 circuit and district court judges during that two-year period. The chart below shows how today’s Republican-controlled Senate compares to the Democratic-controlled Senate of Bush’s last two years, and the pace of confirmations they will be compared to this year and next.
Another way of contrasting how seriously the Democrats took their job in 2007-2008 vs. the attitude of Republicans today is to track the number of vacancies. Judicial vacancies open regularly and predictably, since judges usually announce their intent to retire or go into semi-retirement up to a year in advance. Just to keep the number of vacancies even requires that several new judges be confirmed each month.
At the beginning of 2007, there were 56 circuit and district court vacancies. Throughout the next two years, the number of vacancies generally remained at 50 or fewer, getting as low as 34 in the early fall of 2008. Because an unusually high number of vacancies opened up after Election Day, that number had climbed back to 55 by Inauguration Day, but even with that increase, the number of vacancies ended up at about what it had been two years earlier.
Today, in stark contrast, the number of vacancies is climbing steadily, from 40 at the beginning of the year to 51 today.
We see the same thing with judicial emergencies, which have skyrocketed from 12 at the beginning of the year to 23 today. As the chart below shows, Democrats in the Senate during Bush’s last two years did not allow the number of judicial emergencies to increase like that, and in fact the number generally remained steady or decreased during most of the two-year time.
Majority Leader McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley have their work cut out for them if they want to reduce the number of judicial vacancies and emergencies. It should not be difficult to do, if they take governance seriously.
During an interview with the conservative outlet LifeSiteNews, Roman Catholic Cardinal Raymond Burke said that the church must not budge on its teachings on homosexuality and remarriage, suggesting that gay and remarried Catholics who are dedicated members of the church are not all that different from “the person who murders someone and yet is kind to other people.”
Religion News Service, which first reported the story, notes that Pope Francis “effectively demoted” Burke, who emerged as “one of the pontiff’s most outspoken critics on the right.”
Burke told LifeSiteNews that the church must continue its practice of denying communion to such Catholics and see homosexuality as an “intrinsic evil.”
LifeSiteNews: Since the extraordinary synod on the family, we have entered a period of uncertainty and confusion over several “hot-button” issues: communion for divorced and “remarried” couples, a change of attitude towards homosexual unions and an apparent relaxing of attitudes towards non-married couples. Does your Eminence think that this confusion is already producing adverse effects among Catholics?
Cardinal Burke: Most certainly, it is. I hear it myself: I hear it from Catholics, I hear it from bishops. People are claiming now, for instance, that the Church has changed her teaching with regard to sexual relations outside of marriage, with regard to the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts. Or people who are within irregular matrimonial unions are demanding to receive Holy Communion, claiming that this is the will of the Holy Father. And we have astounding situations, like the declarations of the bishop of Antwerp with regard to homosexual acts, which go undisciplined, and so we can see that this confusion is spreading, really, in an alarming way.
LSN: Among the viewpoints of Cardinal Kasper and, more recently, Bishop Bonny of Antwerp, and others, was the consideration that “faithful” homosexuals, “remarried” divorcees and non-married couples show qualities of self-sacrifice, generosity and dedication that cannot be ignored. But through their choice of lifestyle, they are in what must be seen by outsiders as an objective state of mortal sin: a chosen and prolonged state of mortal sin. Could you remind us of the Church’s teaching on the value and merit of prayer and good actions in this state?
CB: If you are living publicly in a state of mortal sin there isn't any good act that you can perform that justifies that situation: the person remains in grave sin. We believe that God created everyone good, and that God wants the salvation of all men, but that can only come about by conversion of life. And so we have to call people who are living in these gravely sinful situations to conversion. And to give the impression that somehow there's something good about living in a state of grave sin is simply contrary to what the Church has always and everywhere taught.
LSN: So when the man in the street says, yes, it's true these people are kind, they are dedicated, they are generous, that is not enough?
CB: Of course it's not. It's like the person who murders someone and yet is kind to other people…
The Arizona state senator receiving widespread attention as a result of her call for mandatory church attendance is, surprise surprise, an ardent Religious Right lawmaker.
While debating a bill on allowing people to bring concealed weapons into public buildings, State Sen. Sylvia Allen criticized the legislation’s opponents by maintaining that individual souls — not guns — are the real source of gun violence. “Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday,” she said.
She later insisted that her remarks didn’t amount to a serious proposal, asserting that she wishes America would just return to the 1950s, which she said was a much more moral time in the country.
She also proposed that the state enable the creation of a volunteer border militia and pushed for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, warning that gay marriage would harm children and destroy Social Security:
Since the beginning of recorded history the foundation and continuation of all societies has been the family; father, mother, and children. When the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower they were in family unites. Even the Native Americans formed their society around a father, mother and children.
Over 1,049 federal laws in many categories, including Social Security, welfare, veterans, taxation, etc are based on the man-woman marriage relationship. Society has set up our laws to protect the children and to provide in the case of a spouse dying. All of that would change if same sex marriage gets its foot hold and demands are then placed upon government and businesses for benefits. Our already overburdened Social Security system could not survive.
This is not about mere tolerance, allowing people their sexual preference and living with who they want, they can already do that, but same sex marriage is about forcing all within our society regardless of religious or traditional beliefs to accept radical changes which will have far reaching consequences. Consequences that change the very core of our society and how it functions. The loser will be the children who must endure the selfish desires of adults.
Activist judges and a small percentage of Americans have forced the people to use the Constitution to protect marriage and all that it means to the continuation of our society. If ever the family is to be restored and protected it must start with the very definition of what marriage is.
Allen even offered a bill to protect her son-in-law who was under investigation for harassing female inmates while working in a country prison:
Last year, then-Navajo County Supervisor Allen tried to interfere with an internal investigation into her son-in-law's conduct with female inmates in the Navajo County jail.
This year, Allen has moved on to the state Senate where she sponsored a bill aimed at ensuring that others don't have to endure what she sees as a witch hunt against her son-in-law.
"She was interfering in the investigation," Navajo County Sheriff K.C. Clark told me this week. "At one point, I had to go to the county attorney and say if she gets in my way, I'm going to book her for interfering in the criminal investigation."
Allen's son-in-law, Timothy Hunt, was working as a detention officer in Navajo County jail in April 2014, when a former inmate alerted authorities to possible questionable conduct with female inmates while working nights, according to county records.
Hunt was reassigned to a desk job while an investigation was launched – a point that didn't please Supervisor Allen, who immediately texted Sheriff Clark.
"I need to talk to you about what is going on in the jail," she texted on April 29. "The commander put up a note in the control room telling EVERYONE that Tim Hunt was not allowed into the jail this was before he got to work then they made him sit out front all day not telling him why he was being investigated. He was humiliated and no one said WHY."
Hunt would soon find out why, if he didn't already know.
As part of an independent investigation into his activities, six women claimed that he made sexually suggestive remarks and gestures to female inmates and passed along cigarettes and matches to one female inmate in exchange for oral sex.
Several weeks later, the independent investigator sustained four of the five allegations against Hunt, finding that "the preponderance of evidence" suggests among other things that he provided cigarettes to an inmate after she performed a sex act on him in a shower.
"Despite Hunt's denial of wrongdoing, there was significant consistency between the accounts of the witness female inmates, and there is no credible evidence of any conspiracy," the investigator wrote, in a June 25, 2014, report to the Navajo County Sheriff's Office.
In July, Hunt took a polygraph test and was deemed "not truthful" when he denied engaging in oral sex with a female inmate, according to the polygraph report.
He later resigned and the file was sent to the Yavapai County Attorney's Office, to determine whether criminal charges are warranted.
Allen, meanwhile, ran for the state Senate, to replace the late Sen. Chester Crandell, and in January became a member of the Arizona Legislature and the Senate pro tempore no less.
Enter Senate Bill 1467. Allen's bill would strengthen the rights of law enforcement officials who face disciplinary proceedings. It was a surprise to many in the law enforcement community, given that the Peace Officers Bill of Rights was just passed last year and didn't take effect until Jan. 1.
Among Allen's proposals: to allow full-blown appeals trials rather than summary reviews if an officer is disciplined and to get rid of polygraph examinations.
Like the one her son-in-law failed.
In a video posted yesterday by the Christian Broadcasting Network, Rand Paul addressed “a group of pastors and religious leaders at a private prayer breakfast” in Washington D.C. on Thursday about the need for “revival” in America complete with “tent revivals” full of people demanding reform.
He suggested during the event that the debate about legalizing same-sex marriage is the result of a “moral crisis” in the country: “Don’t always look to Washington to solve anything. In fact, the moral crisis we have in our country, there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage, there’s also a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage.”
“We need a revival in the country,” Paul said. “We need another Great Awakening with tent revivals of thousands of people saying, ‘reform or see what’s going to happen if we don’t reform.’”
Previously, the likely presidential candidate said that gay marriage should remain banned because it “offends myself and a lot of people.”
While speaking with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Ted Cruz said that he hopes and prays that God put him in the position he is in today.
Cruz told Brody that “far too many Christians have ceded the public arena to people who aren’t believers,” urging pastors to become “watchmen on the wall” who will act “just like Esther” in the fight to save America.
Brody also hailed Cruz’s father, far-right activist Rafael Cruz, for his political views that he says have “rubbed off on Cruz.”
Today the New Hampshire Senate unanimously passed a bill (S.B. 136) in support of a constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United v. FEC. The bill also calls for a committee to study the proposed amendments currently being considering in the U.S. Congress.
“This is a big win for the people of New Hampshire,” said Lindsay Jakows, New Hampshire Campaign Coordinator for People For the American Way, who led a group of activists gathered in support of the bill at the State Senate today. “It shows that our state senators are listening to, and responding to, the voices of their constituents. New Hampshire residents have been calling loud and clear for an amendment to reclaim our democracy from the undue influence of corporations and billionaires. Today’s vote represents a big step forward in that grassroots movement.”
Support for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics is strong in New Hampshire, where in just the past two weeks eleven new towns have passed resolutions in favor of such an amendment. This brought the total number of New Hampshire towns on record in support of an amendment to 67.
People For the American Way has been working with ally groups to organize residents to speak out in favor of S.B. 136, including by encouraging New Hampshire PFAW activists to call their senators and urge them to vote in favor of the bill.
The bill now moves to the New Hampshire House. If it passes there, New Hampshire will become the 17th state calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United.
Who could have predicted that Gordon Klingenschmitt wouldn’t exactly live up to his promise, following his election to the Colorado State House last year, that he would “tone down the rhetoric” after building a career out of making off-the-wall statements as a Religious Right activist.
Klingenschmitt has set off a firestorm in Colorado after he claimed that a brutal attack on a pregnant woman in the state, in which a baby died after being cut from the woman's womb, was the result of God’s “curse” on America for legalizing abortion.
His colleagues in the state legislature, including the lawmaker who used to represent Klingenschmitt’s district, called out the GOP lawmaker for his remark:
"His statement was outrageous," said Rep. Beth McCann of Denver. "Rep. Klingenschmidt is politicizing a terrible human tragedy. The statement was incredibly insensitive to a family that is been through an unimaginable horrific experience."
Rep. Polly Lawrence, R-Douglas County, said Thursday she was "appalled" at her colleague's remarks.
"Gordon does not speak for his caucus," said Lawrence, the House assistant minority leader.
[Former State Rep. Mark] Waller said he is concerned that Wilkins, who has been released from the hospital, will read Klingenschmitt's comments.
"It's just plain wrong to say something like that, this poor woman," he said. "This was a horrible tragedy."
Republicans were quick to distance themselves from a member of their own caucus:
"I think this statement is reprehensible and disrespectful," House Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, a Democrat, said in a statement . "Given the sensitive nature of the events, as well as respect for the victim and her family, I'm not going to comment any further."
Steve House, the new chairman of the Colorado GOP, was less critical in his statement.
"Gordon has the right to exercise his First Amendment protection of free speech," House said in a written statement. "Gordon does not speak on behalf of the Colorado Republican Party and to suggest otherwise would be inaccurate and dishonest."
Others at the state Capitol were left to wonder how Klingenschmitt thought he could make the remarks without public backlash.
"It's so disrespectful to the victims," said one political operative in the state capitol. "Does [Klingenschmitt] not think that the Internet works in the building?"
Yesterady on “The Savage Nation,” Michael Savage lit into President Obama’s role in the release of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the former Taliban prisoner who is now facing chargers of desertion.
Savage claimed Obama is “diminishing the U.S. military” and “permitting the Islamo-fascists to rise,” mocking liberals who believe Obama is a “loyal American” who “loves America.”
“Are you sure of that?” Savage facetiously asked. “Are you sure you haven’t watched the show ‘Homeland’ sufficient to understand that occasionally along comes someone who has not the American interest at heart? Is that possible? ‘Oh no, you right-wing nuts, you have it all wrong, you’re a bunch of racists. How dare you say that about the greatest American since George Washington.’”