Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to approve the nomination of Georgetown Law professor Cornelia “Nina” Pillard to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is often considered to be the nation’s second-highest court. The party-line vote wasn’t exactly a surprise – Republicans have decided they don’t want President Obama to fill any of the D.C. Circuit’s three vacancies, so have voted against both nominees who have come before them so far – but the content of at least some GOP senators' objections to Pillard was notable.
Specifically, both Republican senators who chose to speak on their decision to vote against Pillard went out of their way to object to Pillard’s record on women’s equality.
Yes, the Republican “rebranding” effort is going so well that they are now threatening to hold up a judicial nominee because she believes that men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law and has been very successful in arguing that view in the courts.
Pillard has a long record of working with Republicans and Democrats to defend women’s equality: She worked with the Bush administration to successfully defend the Family and Medical Leave Act in the Supreme Court and crafted the arguments that convinced the Supreme Court to open the Virginia Military Institute to women (which earned her the respect of, among others, the head of the school who was at the time opposed to allowing women in).
She also has worked on women’s equality issues as an academic, including questioning abstinence-only education that presents a double standard to boys and girls…which is what has sent the far right into a fit.
At yesterday's committee vote on Pillard’s nomination, both Sen. Chuck Grassley (the ranking Republican on the committee) and Sen. Orrin Hatch lifted talking points from right-wing activists like the Family Research Council, Phyllis Schlafly and Ed Whelan of the National Review to attack the nominee’s academic writings on reproductive rights and abstinence education and to even, bizarrely, question whether she appreciates the “benefits of marriage.”
And then every single Republican on the committee voted against allowing her nomination to go to the full Senate for a vote.
To put this in context, Republican senators including Grassley and Hatch were quick to defend demand the confirmation of George W. Bush judicial nominees who made rape jokes and belonged to clubs that excluded women and espoused any number of offensive views, claiming that they could hold these personal views and still be fair judges. As PFAW's Drew Courtney wrote in the Huffington Post yesterday:
Too often we're told that judicial nominations fights are too complicated, too subtle to get major national attention. Not this time. The Republican message is crystal clear: rape-joke making, gay-bashing, abuse-defending, discrimination-supporting, law-skirting, ideology-pushing Republican men are welcome to be judges in our federal courts.
Women who expect to be treated as equals are not.
After blaming Colorado wildfires on a kiss between State House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino and his partner that was featured on the Denver Post, pastor Kevin Swanson is also blaming the gay kiss on recent floods to hit the state.
While speaking with fellow pastor and Generations Radio co-host Dave Buehner, Swanson said that it is not a coincidence that the state experienced deadly floods at the same time Colorado “legislators committed homosexual acts on the front page of the Denver Post” and made sure to “kill as many babies as possible” and “encourage as much decadent homosexual activity as possible.” He even mentioned the new liberal marijuana law as a reason that the state is witnessing “the worst year ever in terms of flood and fire damage in Colorado’s history.”
Buehner added that “sometimes when you’re in a flood of dissipation, God might bring a real flood to show you the consequences of the flood of your dissipation.”
Swanson: Let me ask you this: is it a coincidence that this was the worst year politically in the history of Colorado, at least if you use God’s law as a means of determining human ethics, our legislators did the worst possible things this year than I have ever witnessed in the twenty years I’ve been in Colorado. Our legislators committed homosexual acts on the front page of the Denver Post, do you remember that? So here we have the very worst year in Colorado’s year in terms of let’s kill as many babies as possible, let’s make sure we encourage as much decadent homosexual activity as possible, let’s break God’s law with impudence at every single level, at every single level let’s make sure that we offend whoever wrote the Bible, so we have the worst year possible politically in the state of Colorado and it happens to be the worst year ever in terms of flood and fire damage in Colorado’s history. That is a weird coincidence; interesting to say the least.
Buehner: It is. Allow me a little freedom here with 1 Peter. In Colorado this last year we walked in lewdness, lust, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties—
Buehner: And abominable idolatries and they think it’s strange down at that Gold Dome that we are not running with them in the same flood of dissipation. Sometimes when you’re in a flood of dissipation, God might bring a real flood to show you the consequences of the flood of your dissipation.
Earlier this week Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz bought ad space in major national newspapers to run an open letter requesting “that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.”
Naturally, this prompted American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios to speculate if the “next shooting” will occur at Starbucks because criminals will now target Starbucks coffee shops: “Speaking of shooting, you just wonder if the next one is going to take place at one of your favorite coffee establishments because Starbucks is now…asking customers to stop bringing firearms to their stores or even outdoors.”
“I don’t know if people like the shooter on Monday,” referring to the Navy Yard shooting, “read the Washington Post or these treatises from people like Starbucks,” Rios said, alluding to the NRA-pushed myth that criminals target gun-free zones.
While American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer is confident that Americans would never elect Hillary Clinton as president because she is simply “too old” and “too saggy,” he now says that if Clinton should win, then she might be the “first lesbian president.”
Fischer pointed to an interview between Gennifer Flowers and the UK-based Daily Mail in which she claims that Bill Clinton told her that Hillary is bisexual, and therefore it isn’t out of the question that she may be having an affair with aide Huma Abedin.
Since Fischer accepts pure speculation from whatever source as indisputable fact so long as it fits his agenda, it is no surprise that he now claims that “the bottom line is that if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2016 she will not only be our first female president she could be our first lesbian president.”
Fellow AFA radio host Sandy Rios leveled a similar charge earlier this year after Clinton released a video endorsing marriage equality. Rios suggested that the former Secretary of State might be a lesbian since she has a “love of homosexuality.”
After months of deliberating, Southern Baptist pastor Mark Harris announced that he will run for US Senate in North Carolina as a Republican challenger to Kay Hagan. Harris’ wife described his Senate bid as “God’s will” and claimed that “the kind of preparation God has given Mark in ministry is the kind of leadership that is needed in a legislative body.”
As we’ve noted, Harris was behind the successful campaign to amend North Carolina’s constitution to include a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions. No stranger to anti-gay rhetoric, the Republican candidate recently sat down with Wayne Powers on “Speak Out Charlotte,” where he insisted that being gay is a choice.
“I’ve yet to buy in, as there is not the medical evidence, that an individual that chooses the homosexual lifestyle is born that way,” Harris said. “That is a choice.”
After Powers wondered why someone would choose to be gay when they will most likely face discrimination and ostracization, Harris said that “it’s kind of like if you get down to the issue of the evidence of global warming, you’ve got scientists on both sides; you have the medical community on both sides.”
Harris may want to find a new analogy, as there is indeed a consensus among climate scientists on the existence of man-made climate change.
Georgetown Law professor Nina Pillard, who has had a long and impressive career in law and public service, was approved today by the Senate Judiciary Committee to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Her nomination now goes to the full Senate.
Scores of people and organizations who have worked with Professor Pillard or observed her work have written to the Senate in support of her nomination. Her supporters include:
Alumni of the Virginia Military Institute, which Pillard helped open to women:
VMI gauges its success as an institution by measuring the societal contributions of its alumni. Professor Pillard would rank high for her work to open VMI to female cadets. The case was initiated by the George H.W. Bush Administration and made its way to the Supreme Court during Professor Pillard’s tenure at the office of the Solicitor General of the United States. Professor Pillard drafted the five Supreme Court briefs for the United States and her winning arguments opened VMI’s doors for women who have become leaders in the armed forces, elsewhere in public service, and in the private sector.
Josiah Bunting III, superindent of the Virginia Military Institute when women were first admitted:
During the course of the United States v. Virginia case, I was impressed by Pillard’s fairness and rigor. She respected others’ strongly held views about male-only education at VMI, and I always felt that while we had opposing positions at the time, she comported herself with integrity and understanding — qualities that distinguish the best judges at all levels.
A bipartisan group of former attorneys of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, where Pillard served for two years:
We believe that Ms. Pillard has the skill, character, and objectivity that would make her a superlative judge on the D.C. Circuit. She was a respected leader and trusted advisor in OLC, valued for her fair-minded and meticulous approach to legal questions of all sorts. She is an exemplary nominee whom we wholeheartedly endorse.
Dozens of retired members of the armed forces:
Our experience advocating for the full participation of women in the armed forces has shown us that women, indeed, are suited for rigorous military training, service, and leadership. Our military and our nation benefit when both women and men are able to fully contribute to the defense of our country. We support Professor Pillard’s nomination because her accomplishments and credentials demonstrate that she has the qualifications to be a federal
appellate judge, and because her dedication to principles of equality demonstrates that she will be a great one. We urge you to give her a swift and fair hearing, and vote to approve her nomination.
In her legal advocacy and scholarship, Professor Pillard shows a clear understanding offundamental distinctions between the roles of courts and the political branches, and between law and culture, morality, politics or other important sources ofnorms that guide and constrain human behavior. Throughout her work, she has shown an appreciation ofnuance and respect for opposing viewpoints, grounded in a profound commitment to fair process and fidelity to the law.
In short, Professor Pillard is a talented advocate, a brilliant legal mind, a sensible and moderate problem solver, and a careful thinker who has devoted her career to public service and work for others. We wholeheartedly urge that you confirm her to the D.C. Circuit.
Prominent prosecutors and law enforcement officials:
We urge her confirmation because she is unquestionably eminently qualified, and is a sensible and fairminded lawyer and scholar who has worked extensively with law enforcement in her career. She brings to the bench sensitivity to the compelling need for effective and legitimate law enforcement in the modern era. She stands for fidelity to the law above all, and has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the important, albeit limited, role of the courts in our federal system
I believe that Ms. Pillard has had invaluable work experience that makes her especially well-suited to the bench. While I do not know Ms. Pillard personally, others in the law enforcement community whom I know and respect are supporting her, and their views, combined with her superb experience and qualifications, convince me that she would make an excellent judge, especially on the DC Circuit, which requires someone with such experience and qualifications.
Based on our long and varied professional experience together, I know that Professor Pillard is exceptionally bright, a patient and unbiased listener, and a lawyer of great judgment and unquestioned integrity. We certainly do not agree on the merits of every issue, but Nina has always been fair, reasonable, and sensible in her judgments. She approaches faculty hiring, teaching and curriculum, and matters of faculty governance on their merits, without any ideological agenda--at times even against the tide of academic popularity to defend and respect different views and different types of people.
As we do not share academic specialties, I have not studied Professor Pillard's writings in full, but I know her to be a straight shooter when it comes to law and legal interpretation. She is a fair-minded thinker with enormous respect for the law and for the limited, and essential, role of the federal appellate judge-- qualities that make her well prepared to taken on the work of a D.C.
Circuit judge. I am confident that she would approach the judicial task of applying law to facts in a fair and meticulous manner.
Ms. Pillard’s record of achievement, and unanimous rating of Well-Qualified, the highest rating available, from the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, reflects her significant talents as an appellate litigator and scholar. Her legal career is remarkable for her accomplishments and the breadth and depth of her experience, and her reputation for fairmindedness, collegiality, and dedication to principles of equal justice is well founded.
Ron Paul appeared on the 700 Club today to promote his new curriculum for homeschoolers, of which televangelist Pat Robertson is a big fan. Robertson said that Paul’s curriculum, which includes instructions on “the Biblical principles of self-government” and “a thorough understanding of Austrian school economics,” is necessary to stop “indoctrination” in public education.
“Don’t the so-called progressives and whatever, don’t they really want education to indoctrinate children. It’s not just a question of educating they want to indoctrinate them in their philosophy, don’t they?” Robertson inquired.
“I think that’s the whole purpose, it’s indoctrination; it’s compulsory; it’s conformity; destroy creativity; destroy individuality,” Paul maintained. “They don’t want kids to be curious, they have to conform and mold it and then they are obedient to the state.”
Paul said that the NSA surveillance program, government spending and militarism are all the consequences of the public schools’ efforts to “condition” children “to say the government knows best, they’ll take care of it.”
He claims that Alexis probably went on the rampage because he “felt disaffected due to his race,” which he blames on “the self-serving machinations of the political left, career civil rights activists and the Obama administration in particular.”
According to Rush, the “political left” wins black voters over by “re-igniting the bitterness and militancy radical black activists displayed during the Civil Rights Movement,” contributing to Alexis’ supposed “racial hatred.”
Given all of the data, one cannot help but factor in the alleged racism Alexis claimed to have suffered as a possible contributing factor in the shootings. The racial climate in America has been deliberately poisoned in recent years by the self-serving machinations of the political left, career civil rights activists and the Obama administration in particular. This has led to a near-epidemic in black-on-white crime, one which goes wholly unreported by the establishment press. Might this contrived, institutional advancement of racial tension have contributed to the rage and instability of a man who already felt disaffected due to his race?
That sense of entitlement and tendency toward feeling disrespected among black Americans is part and parcel of the worldview spoon-fed to blacks by the political left. It is a common theme and corrosive thread that has run through the left’s racial narrative for decades. Indeed, this has been employed in order to entice blacks into political allegiance with the left, in keeping them in socioeconomic thralldom and – more recently – in re-igniting the bitterness and militancy radical black activists displayed during the Civil Rights Movement.
Was racial hatred the prime motivator for Aaron Alexis’ heinous attack this week, a factor, or a non-issue? While it is altogether possible that his were the actions of an individual with a psyche disintegrating so rapidly that even he may not have fully understood why he acted as he did, failing to consider race in light of the current political and social landscape would be imprudent indeed.
Rush’s WND colleague Jack Cashill agrees, and asserts that Alexis’ psychological problems “were aggravated by the message that the Democratic-media complex has been steadily pumping out, namely that a black American can never expect justice.”
“As the saner among the media elite know, the blame circles back upon themselves,” Cashill writes. “They helped create the atmosphere in which an emotionally unstable black person finds it easier to blame whites than he does himself.” The right-wing commentator goes on to blame the liberal media for having “continued to drum into the head of African-Americans the pervasiveness of racism in America.”
Aaron Alexis, the former Navy reservist who killed a dozen people in Monday’s Navy Yard shooting, no doubt had psychological problems aplenty.
But evidence suggests that those problems were aggravated by the message that the Democratic-media complex has been steadily pumping out, namely that a black American can never expect justice.
In the past, the media have desperately sought to blame mass violence directly on the right, as they did after the shootings in Tucson and Aurora, Colo., or to blame the right indirectly by focusing on guns, as they did after the Sandy Hook school shooting.
That doesn’t work here. As the saner among the media elite know, the blame circles back upon themselves. They helped create the atmosphere in which an emotionally unstable black person finds it easier to blame whites than he does himself.
In the month of his inauguration, 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of race relations in America.
By July 2013, those figures had fallen to 52 percent among whites and 38 percent among blacks, a calamitous decline, rarely addressed, never explained.
Although there are as many reasons for the decline in those numbers as there are for the decline in Alexis’ mental health, one fact seems undeniable: The media have continued to drum into the head of African-Americans the pervasiveness of racism in America, Obama’s election notwithstanding.
Indeed, by repeatedly interpreting criticism of Obama as racially based, the media have aggravated the tension between blacks and non-blacks.
In his paranoia and rage, Alexis seemed not at all unlike former L.A. cop and fellow Navy reservist Christopher Dorner. In February 2012, Dorner found it much easier to hold a white establishment accountable for his homicidal spree than the personal demons that beset him.
American Family Association radio commentator Sandy Rios was upset that women — most notably the FBI’s Valerie Parlave and Washington, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier — took a leading role in the response to the Navy Yard shooting.
On Tuesday, Rios mocked Navy Secretary Ray Mabus for mentioning grief counseling in his comments to the media and went on to marvel at the female presence in the response.
“It really struck me that the people that stood up to speak in the press conferences, the people leading the charge on this are all women,” Rios said, expressing disbelief that “the FBI woman in charge was a little woman.”
“It was the chicks running the show yesterday,” Rios said yesterday during her interview with Elaine Donnelly, “it is a shocking switch of roles.”
WASHINGTON – People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker issued the following statement in response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of the nomination of Georgetown Law professor Cornelia T.L. “Nina” Pillard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Professor Pillard’s nomination is now with the full Senate, which I hope will give her the fair consideration that she deserves.
Professor Pillard is an exceptionally qualified nominee. She has earned enormous respect from her colleagues across the ideological spectrum in her career as an appellate attorney, where she crafted the arguments that convinced the Supreme Court to open the Virginia Military Institute to women and joined the Bush administration in successfully defending the Family and Medical Leave Act. She now serves as co-director of Georgetown’s renowned Supreme Court Institute, which on a pro bono basis helped prepare attorneys for every single Supreme Court argument in the last term – regardless of the side of the case they were on. Her national reputation as a supremely talented and consistently fair attorney is well-earned.
In addition, Professor Pillard would become just the sixth women confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court in its 120-year history.
In looking for excuses to avoid confirming Professor Pillard to this vacancy, some on the Right have attacked her academic work promoting the entirely mainstream notion that men and women should be treated equally under the law. The fact that in 2013 a nominee is being attacked for believing in women’s equality is just absurd.
We applaud the Judiciary Committee members who voted in support of this highly qualified nominee, and hope that the full Senate will review her qualifications and give her a fair yes-or-no confirmation vote.
If you’re curious why many House Republicans are on board with an unhinged plan to threaten a government shutdown or default over demands to “defund” Obamacare, you should follow the money. That’s what the New York Times editorial board argued in a compelling op-ed Tuesday.
Far-right groups such as the Club for Growth are striking out at Republicans who refuse to take this reckless stance, wielding their considerable funds to “inflict political pain” on those who do not share their extremist position. And they are titillating their Tea Party supporters with political fantasies in order to get them to send in even more money, so they can ramp up their attack on Republicans who don’t toe the line. In “The Money Behind the Shutdown Crisis,” the editorial board wrote:
These groups, all financed with secret and unlimited money, feed on chaos and would like nothing better than to claim credit for pushing Washington into another crisis. Winning an ideological victory is far more important to them than the severe economic effects of a shutdown or, worse, a default, which could shatter the credit markets.
[…] Brian Walsh, a longtime Republican operative, recently noted in U.S. News and World Report that the right is now spending more money attacking Republicans than the Democrats are. “Money begets TV ads, which begets even more money for these groups’ personal coffers,” he wrote. “Pointing fingers and attacking Republicans is apparently a very profitable fund-raising business.”
And as more money pours into these shadowy groups, their influence – and thus their potential for inflicting further damage on our democracy – grows. With fewer effective campaign finance regulations left standing in the post-Citizens United landscape, there is little that can stop these groups from using their money to bully elected officials.
But the functioning of our government is not a game. And though for these fringe groups making an ideological point may seem more important than keeping our government from shutting down or defaulting, Americans are tired of having our basic economic security called into question over political posturing.
As the Times editorial board put it:
It may be good for their bank accounts, but the combination of unlimited money and rigid ideology is proving toxic for the most basic functioning of government.
Center for Military Readiness head Elaine Donnelly appeared on Sandy Rios In The Morning today to once again warn of the perils of allowing women in combat. She told the American Family Association radio host that the Obama administration’s plan to open combat roles to women service members is “like saying let’s take those cheerleaders and put them into the frontlines of the NFL and football games.”
Rios said that the problem all started with the “feminist influence” found in movies that made women think that they “can do it all.”
“We are watching movies, almost every action movie has a chick hero and she’s stronger than the men, and she’s able to kick and to move and to kill as lethally as they are,” Rios added. “It started maybe with Spider-Woman, I don’t know.”
She went on to recount her time in Israel talking to the country’s female soldiers who “were very proud of what they were able to do” on the frontlines.
Rios sidestepped the issue on whether Israel’s policy towards women in the military harmed its country’s security, unlike her AFA colleague Bryan Fischer who tackled it by falsely claiming that Israel bans women in combat.
Donnelly: In that environment, direct ground combat, women are at a severe disadvantage. They do not have an equal opportunity to survive or help fellow soldiers survive. To force women into that environment it’s like saying let’s take those cheerleaders and put them into the frontlines of the NFL and football games. Well we don’t even do that with the officials in the football games. To do that would be unfair, injuries would skyrocket and it certainly wouldn’t help that team win any games, and that’s non-lethal combat. So if we’re not going to do it in non-lethal combat in the NFL, why are we planning on doing this in lethal combat where national security is at risk?
Rios: You and I both know that our daughters and many women listening to you and me, women our age too, are products of feminist influence even if they don’t consider themselves a feminist. We are watching movies, almost every action movie has a chick hero and she’s stronger than the men, and she’s able to kick and to move and to kill as lethally as they are, with Catherine Zeta Jones and think of all the women who have played these roles. It started maybe with Spider-Woman, I don’t know. It’s like ‘women power’ and ‘we can do this.’ In fact I just was in Israel interviewing some of the females in the Israeli military and they were talking about their frontline experience and they were very proud of what they were able to do, so there’s this mood, this feeling, that women can do it all.
Pat Robertson and his Christian Broadcasting Network filed a report today that falsely claimed that having a “biblical view” on sexuality has been “criminalized” in San Antonio, Texas. Robertson said San Antonio “has gone off the rails” by adopting a non-discrimination ordinance [PDF] which includes protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, and claimed that the new law would lead to Christians being thrown in prison: “This means that if you speak out about your deeply held religious beliefs they will put you in jail or brand you some kind of a class 3 felon.”
“This whole thing is outrageous and that city council should be replaced,” Robertson charged.
The segment quoted Christian Right activists arguing that gay people are seeking “special rights” while taking away the rights to religious freedom and speech of Christians. CBN reporter Heather Sells even said the new policy “criminalizes those with a biblical view of sexuality.”
Of course, the ordinance neither curtails free speech nor bars anti-LGBT politicians from servicing in office.
And no Pat Robertson, it does not put Christians in jail or turn them into felons.
Watch highlights here:
Yesterday, Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli attended a fundraiser co-hosted by anti-gay and anti-choice activists. Now, the far-right state attorney general is calling for help from Religious Right leader Michael Farris, who runs Patrick Henry College and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).
Generation Joshua is the youth branch of the HSLDA, which sends homeschoolers to work on “races across the country, phone-banking, literature dropping and campaigning on behalf of conservative candidates” who oppose abortion rights and gay equality. “Many battles have been won on the homeschooling front, but there are many battles left to fight because the giants of abortion, homosexuality, and moral relativism remain in our land.”
Cuccinelli was the keynote speaker at the Generation Joshua’s first annual Future of America Banquet, and now the right-wing organization is returning the favor.
Watchdog.org reports that Generation Joshua is hoping to send around 200 students “to work with the Cuccinelli campaign in two weeks” as part of “Operation: Shock and Awe,” which is complete with this fantastic video:
Generation Joshua’s William Estrada said the youth group deserves credit for swaying former Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle’s decision to veto a civil unions law and Farris successfully led the opposition to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Last December, Farris gained publicity for his drive to make sure that no gay students are attending Patrick Henry College. A Patrick Henry professor during the college's annual “Faith and Reason” lecture criticized the government for prosecuting rape, sexual harassment, child abuse and domestic violence cases.
Cuccinelli delivered the 2012 commencement address at Patrick Henry College, where he attacked President Obama for thinking he knows “better than God” on the issue of same-sex marriage and called on graduates to engage in the fight “against the tide of political correctness, the intelligentsia and the media.”
Yesterday afternoon, the Texas State Board of Education held its first hearing on whether to require new high school biology textbooks to teach creationism alongside evolution. One member of the panel appointed by the Texas Education Agency to review potential textbooks –few of whom were actual biologists-- concluded by recommending that high school biology texts be rooted in “bibilical principles.”
Yesterday, People For the American Way sent a letter to the board urging them to reject attempts to inject creationism into science classes. PFAW also joined with the Texas Freedom Network and other groups to deliver 300,000 petitions urging the board to stand up for science.
While most of those who showed up to testify at the hearing supported teaching evolution– our friends at TFN documented many of these on their great live blog of the proceedings – there were some notable exceptions.
One of the first people to speak was Don McLeroy, a former chairman of the State Board of Education who was prominently featured in the documentary The Revisionaries. While most people were allowed just two minutes to speak, the board let McLeroy go on for over ten minutes in a bizarre speech in which he argued that the current textbooks teaching evolution should be approved because their evidence is so “weak” that children will realize that the theory of evolution is just “words” and a “just so story," and thereby strikes a "final blow" to the theory.
Scott Lively, the pastor behind anti-gay laws from Uganda to Russia, appeared on TruNews yesterday to reveal to host Rick Wiles the identity of the Antichrist: President Obama. While he refused to mention Obama by name, he said that the Antichrist is the person “heading the largest superpower of the world today.” Lively explained that the Antichrist (read: Obama) will cancel all of the world’s debts in 2015, end the Mideast conflict with a peace treaty between the Israelis and Palestinians and introduce a one-world economic system and secular humanist religion.
Lively: Regional war breaks out and at the same time, because of that, the global economy collapses, crashes. That begins the serious pain for the entire world that the globalists actually want to prepare them for the global, one-world system. They already have the economic system to bring in; just nobody is ready to accept it. So at the right time, after there’s been enough pain, what happens is the Antichrist—I won’t name any names here but he is heading the largest superpower of the world today—steps in at the right time and does three things. He declares a global jubilee in which all the debts of the world are eliminated, this is after there’s been massive numbers of people who have died—
Wiles: Scott, I told people, I told our audience years ago, I’m going to say 2008, I said on this program this global financial crisis will be so bad that at some point in the future a world leader will say the only solution is biblical, we will have to cancel all the debts and we are going to have a global jubilee.
Lively: Amen. And we just happen to have one coming up, September 23, 2015.
Wiles: And the politician who does it is going to be hailed as the greatest man on the planet.
Lively: The hero of the world, right? This is the guy that also is going to be able to do what no one else in the history of the Middle East conflict could do. He’s going to have brought a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis; the Palestinians get their two-state solution and the Israelis get the permission to build on the Temple Mount. And who is the hero? It’s the guy that I’m not going to mention his name.
Wiles: And a lot of Christians when they see the Temple going up are going to hyperventilate, thinking this is a great thing and they have no idea that Antichrist is coming.
Lively: Only because it’s a symbol of what’s coming. Here’s the one other part that’s been missing, you’ve alluded to it and we’re very close on this that at the same time he introduces the new global system but here’s the other missing component. What’s the religion of the Antichrist? The religion of the Antichrist is secular humanism.
As Lively explained, the imminent apocalypse is the result of homosexuality, which he said is “at the heart of the Antichrist kingdom” (along with Islam). He repeated his claim that homosexuality caused Noah’s Flood and the destruction of Sodom, arguing that gay rights is the issue that “portends the End Times” and is backed by the Devil.
What is the issue that God is using to divide the sheep and the goats right now? It’s not whether Jesus Christ is Lord. It’s where do you stand on homosexuality? You know why? He gave us the warnings about that. From Genesis to Revelation, he has given us the advance notice that this issue portends the End Times and that when you see these things happen you’ll know that is the context that you are in. That’s the issue that is dividing the church right down the middle, of all the issue that God could’ve chosen. And the people who are going to the world’s side and the Devil’s side on that question are completely blind to its importance as a biblical topic; they think it is unimportant, that God doesn’t care about that when He gave us the only sin associated with the destruction of cities with fire and brimstone, the only sin associated with a reprobate mind in Romans 1, the thing that the rabbis said was the last straw before God brought the Flood, the issue that seems to be the heart of the Antichrist kingdom in Revelation 11 when it says that the two witnesses are struck down in the city that is mystically called Sodom and Egypt: homosexuality and Islam.
Lively argued that only Vladimir Putin is the world’s last hope, and called for other nations to follow in his footsteps in implementing stringently anti-gay laws.
We don’t want to gloss over the problems that we have with Mr. Putin but by the same token he’s the only world leader capable of standing up to the West and he is championing the traditional marriage and Christian values regarding the central moral issue of our time that no one else has the capability to do what he’s doing. Really there’s a chance here for him to inspire all the morally conservative countries of the law to adopt a similar law that he just adopted, his country just adopted and really have a chance maybe to roll some of this terrible agenda back.