In the film, which features appearances by Santorum and Mike Huckabee, the FRC warns that a Supreme Court ruling striking down bans on same-sex marriage would jeopardize religious freedom and undermine the separation of church and state. The film mentions cases in Oregon and Washington state where a baker and florist, respectively, were sued for violating their states’ non-discrimination laws — not marriage laws — for refusing service to gay customers. (The baker and florist both lost their cases).
The new FRC film, narrated by the group’s president, Tony Perkins, points to the lawsuits as signs of a dark future in which the government will infringe on the rights of religious people in order to promote gay equality.
This week, as far-right groups are celebrating the first anniversary of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management over his refusal to pay years’ worth of grazing fees, the anti-government group Oath Keepers is getting involved in another dispute with the BLM, this time in Oregon.
The Mail Tribune in Medford, Oregon, reports that members of the Oath Keepers are gathering in southwest Oregon to prevent the BLM from temporarily shutting down operations of a mine that is violating federal regulations, claiming that the BLM’s actions are “unconstitutional.”
A group of armed volunteers has descended on rural Josephine County in defense of a mining claim that's become the subject of regulatory action by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
The federal agency says the Sugar Pine Mine, near Merlin, has been operating outside current mining laws and regulations, and the BLM recently ordered the claim's owners to cease operations until they file a plan of operations.
In response, the local chapter of the Oath Keepers, a group of former and current military and law enforcement personnel who've pledged to disobey any "unconstitutional" orders, says it was asked to defend the property from any encroachment by federal authorities.
Mary Emerick, a spokeswoman for the local Oath Keepers chapter, told the paper that she doesn’t want what’s going on in Merlin referred to as a “standoff” and that it has nothing to do with the Bundy anniversary:
She says the group doesn't want its security operation referred to as a "standoff," and says the event's timing coinciding with the one-year anniversary of Bundy's showdown with BLM agents was unintentional. "There's absolutely no relationship to that," she says.
But some of the national activists streaming to Oregon (Emerick says she’s “been contacted by people from Colorado, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, all parts of Oregon”) seem to see it differently. An article on the national Oath Keepers website promises a “brewing fight,” referring to it as a “potential standoff,” as does a piece in the popular far-right outlet Infowars and another on Glenn Beck's The Blaze.
The private mining consortium that includes the disputed mine is also promising to “do battle” with the BLM, posting a manifesto on its website that the non-standoff “presents what is probably a once-in-a-generation prime opportunity to strike at the heart of the very surface management authority of the DOI and USDA.”
Where is this all headed?
This case is headed in a direction that presents what is probably a once-in-a-generation prime opportunity to strike at the heart of the very surface management authority of the DOI and USDA and to restore the "as patent" rights of every mining claim owner in the United States by striking down the actual source of that intrusive authority.
Regardless, we intend to take BLM fully to task and will not feel sorry for any civil or criminal consequences that may be leveled upon any BLM employees who are found to be negligent of wrong doing. We are actively pursuing these individuals through a wide range of tactics with the intent to reign in these wrong doers.
Meanwhile, the BLM says it’s just asking for the Sugar Pine Mine to submit a “plan of operations” for the mine or appeal the decision. The local sheriff — viewed by many in the militia movement as the ultimate law enforcement authority in the country — says he’s trying to mediate the conflict.
Joe Miller, the onetime Alaska GOP Senate candidate who is now the host of a fringy radio program, brought on Grove City College professor Paul Kengor this week to discuss Kengor’s book discussing President Obama’s connections to a childhood family friend, Frank Marshall Davis, who Kengor contends mentored the president and instilled in him a communist worldview.
“It’s pretty amazing that we’ve got a guy sitting in the Oval Office that was by his own admission mentored at least a dozen times by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party,” Miller said. “And then you combine with that his childhood experience growing up in Indonesia.”
“It’s a verified report, his mom was invited to a party of ex-pats in Indonesia and she declined, saying ‘those aren’t my people.’ And that was the environment that our current president was raised in,” Miller claimed. (In fact, Obama recalled in his memoir “Dreams From My Father” that his mother argued with her husband Lolo Soetoro about attending his “company dinner parties,” saying that his American colleagues were “not my people”; she wasn’t referring to Americans in general.)
“Yeah, that’s right,” Kengor agreed. “And again, the people listening, especially any liberals who are listening who don’t like any of this, find for me any other president on the right or the left, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, who has an upbringing like this. I mean, there flat-out aren’t any. This is extremely unusual.”
“So that’s why someone like Rudy Giuliani, who got in a lot of trouble for this a few weeks ago, when he comes out and everybody’s scratching their heads and perplexed about why Obama acts the way he does toward the Iranians, toward the Israelis, why he won’t mention the words ‘radical Islam’ together, why has he kind of curious, baffling policies that are hard to understand,” he said. “Well, what Rudy Giuliani said was exactly right.”
Later in the interview, Kengor took particular issue with “Sex Rebel,” an erotic novel thought to have been penned by Davis.
“You can’t make this stuff up,” he said. “This is a really weird, really strange, really bad environment, and the American people really screwed us up big-time in electing somebody and not caring about any of this radical stuff in his background.”
Long a target of frenzied right-wing smear campaigns, Hillary Clinton faced attacks during her tenure as secretary of state from activists and pundits who claimed she was trying destroy the U.S., impose Sharia law and shut down churches across America. And that doesn’t even include the Benghazi truthers who have tried to exploit the deadly 2012 terrorist attack on an American diplomatic compound in Libya by coming up with bizarre, easily debunked, conspiracy theories about Clinton’s handling of the incident.
Now that Clinton has officially announced her second presidential run, the right-wing media has kicked off its latest round of Clinton-bashing. Here are just five of the lowlights from the last five days of right-wing anti-Clinton hysteria.
Shortly after the news of Clinton’s impending announcement broke on Friday, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre kicked off his group’s annual summit — attended by several GOP presidential hopefuls — by rolling out a list of purported “scandals” that he blamed on Clinton, including the 1993 death of White House aide Vince Foster.
LaPierre also trotted out his patentedparanoia, telling the NRA crowd that “Hillary Rodham Clinton will bring a permanent darkness of deceit and despair, forced upon the American people to endure.”
In another sign that Clinton will be criticized no matter what she does, one Fox News panel slighted her for visiting an Iowa Chipotle with her aide Huma Abedin, whom host Andrea Tantaros suggested was hungover. Tantaros even speculated that Clinton only ordered food from Chipotle because she is afraid that Sen. Marco Rubio may be consolidating the Latino vote.
2. Persecuted White Men
Bill O’Reilly, a staunch defender of the persecuted white Christian man, said that Clinton’s candidacy has potential because “traditional American values” are under assault. Reacting to the announcement of Clinton’s presidential bid, the Fox News host said that she has an “advantage” in a climate like today’s where “if you’re a Christian or a white man in America, it’s open season on you.”
1.Too Ugly To Be President
Surprising nobody, sexist attacks on Clinton’s age and looks began as soon as the news broke about her announcement. Fox News pundit Sean Hannity laid out his compelling case against Clinton like so: “She’s aging, out of ideas, often shrill, apparently, according to oral reports, angry and clearly not inspiring.” Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman called her the “Wicked Witch of the Left,” saying she is only “technically a woman.”
“Lyndon Baines Johnson was the last profoundly ugly candidate to be elected president, and he was a legacy of the martyred JFK,” Feder wrote. “Voters don't want a leader who looks frazzled or frumpy. We're told that Lincoln was too homely to be elected president in an age of television and paparazzi. But Lincoln's homely face had a dignity, a gravitas. If nothing else, we want a face that reassures us, not one that scares us, a la Night of the Living Alinskyites.”
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul recently sat down with the far-right outlet WorldNetDaily to discuss immigration reform, an issue about which he has been alloverthemap. The Republican presidential candidate, who stated in 2013 that any legal status for undocumented immigrants should “start with DREAM Act kids” but backed last year’s GOP plan to end the program that protects DREAMers from deportation, told WND that “I would’ve voted ‘no’" on the DREAM Act.
Paul also told WND’s Taylor Rose that he wants to end birthright citizenship, a key provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, claiming that it is turning the U.S. into “a magnet for the world” and lets “everybody come in here, have children and they all become citizens.”
Paul added that while it isn’t “fair” to send DREAMers “back to Mexico,” it also isn’t fair “to say they can stay and everybody else like them from Mexico can come also.”
“The DREAM Act alone I would’ve voted ‘no’ on because the DREAM Act didn’t fix the border,” he said. This led the senator to criticize the Motor Voter Act, saying that it has allowed for undocumented immigrants to commit voter fraud.
When Rose asked Paul about the unemployment rate in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota, the senator blamed it on immigration, adding that he “hasn’t met any farmers who say Americans will pick crops.”
“Americans are unwilling to work for $8 an hour and pick crops because they can sit at home and watch soap operas for government pay for 10 bucks an hour,” Paul said. “The problem is, we have a very generous safety net, maybe overly generous. What I say is if they look like you or look like me and they hop out of their truck, they shouldn’t be on disability.”
Referring to a “picture of a Social Security office floating around the internet,” he said that Americans won’t take low-paying jobs because it is easier to claim that they are disabled in order to collect Social Security benefits.
In an interview on the “Faith & Liberty” radio show last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, repeated his refrain that “Christians are the only people that it is politically correct to persecute” in America, warning that the U.S. is “not going to continue to see the blessings that America has experienced in the past” because of this supposedly widespread anti-Christian persecution.
When host Dave Garrison posited that gay people have become the “intolerant” ones, Gohmert agreed and said that it is “extremely unfortunate that Christians all over the country now are being persecuted for believing what Moses said” about marriage.
“Let me tell you, the word of God tells us in Genesis 12:3, God’s speaking to Abraham, the father of Israel: ‘I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you,’” Rafael Cruz told the Georgia group. “This current administration has cursed the Jewish people, has cursed the nation of Israel more than any other administration in history. I believe the only reason judgment has not fallen upon America is because of the faithful remnant that is standing in the gap.”
At another point in his appearance, Cruz blasted what he called Obama’s “disastrous” move toward relations with Cuba.
“Well, he’s out to destroy us,” an audience member interjected.
In his daily “Washington Update” email to Family Research Council members last night, the group’s president, Tony Perkins, once again castigated Hillary Clinton for including two gay couples in her presidential campaign kickoff video.
“Over her long career as a senator and America’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton has been a global advocate for abortion-on-demand and the complete demolition of the natural family, making her anything but an ally of children or the family,” Perkins wrote. “Even her presidential announcement video made a point of elevating the homosexual agenda above other key American priorities.”
Attacking Clinton as “out of touch” for focusing on “radical fringe issues” like gay rights, Perkins demanded that GOP presidential hopefuls take a vocal stance on social issues and “contend with those in far away [sic] places trying to kill people because of their religion — while also contending with those here at home who want to kill the freedom of religion.”
Over her long career as a senator and America’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton has been a global advocate for abortion-on-demand and the complete demolition of the natural family, making her anything but an ally of children or the family. Even her presidential announcement video made a point of elevating the homosexual agenda above other key American priorities. “I’m getting married this summer to someone I really care about,” says one man in the video before the camera pans to him holding hands with another man. “When families are strong,” viewers hear Mrs. Clinton saying, “America is strong.” In the next frame, another same-sex couple is featured. Proving once again just how out of touch the Left is with mainstream America, the ad ignores the military and the global threat in favor of radical fringe issues.
If the two minutes of Hillary’s YouTube announcement demonstrated anything, it’s that Republicans need a candidate who is in clear contrast to the Obama-Clinton agenda -- not just in rhetoric, but in record. After the failures of the last two Republican bids for the White House, a number of GOP hopefuls seem anxious to verify their conservative credentials on a full-portfolio of issues. Obviously, they’ve gotten the message that voters are not looking for a Republican, they are looking for a conservative leader who has the courage to act and undo what this administration has done. We need a leader who will not apologize for America’s exceptionalism, but embrace the source of it. And we need a leader who will contend with those in far away [sic] places trying to kill people because of their religion -- while also contending with those here at home who want to kill the freedom of religion. In this year’s field, there is reason for optimism with candidates who have fought for children and families.
In an interview on Ohio Christian University’s “Faith & Liberty” radio program last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, blasted the Obama administration’s handling of the Iranian nuclear negotiations, claiming that the White House “betrayed” Israel “by showing their enemies their nuclear program.”
“Those are the kind of things that an enemy does,” Gohmert said. “An enemy within. There will be consequences for the betrayals of this administration. As the leaders of our country, it is a little scary the kind of betrayals there have been.”
Gohmert said that while he has been “praying that God would be merciful and give us better government that we deserve,” American voters have picked leaders who were not God’s “choice.”
“We’re going to be accountable for the bad leaders that we have and we have leaders that do things that harm the world, harm Christianity, harm Israel and we’re accountable for that,” Gohmert said.
In an address to an anti-Common Core rally in the early GOP primary state of South Carolina in February, Rafael Cruz warned that the Common Core education standards are a Hitler-like plan for “brainwashing” children.
Cruz’s son, presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, has made “repealing” the academic standards a key plank of his campaign, even though they are adopted by states and not part of any federal statute that can be repealed. The elder Cruz told the group, South Carolina Parents Involved in Education, that “Common Core is not about education, Common Core is about control.”
“In Nazi Germany, Hitler said, ‘Give me the children and I will rule the world.’ That’s what’s behind Common Core,” he said. “It’s brainwashing of our children, it’s changing and destroying the foundations that have made America the greatest country on the face of the earth.”
Later in the speech, Cruz said that Common Core is “molding the minds to adopt a secular worldview which destroys American exceptionalism, which destroys the historical foundations of America, which destroys what has made America a unique place in the world.”
After warning that government “brainwashing” is bringing about the “destruction of our Judeo-Christian foundation” and “our religious liberty,” Cruz blasted “the concept of ‘diversity,’” which he called “totally opposite of what made America great.”
“Diversity is the opposite of the melting pot,” he continued. “It is just trying to divide everybody into a series of little groups that all become something else than Americans, that all are being portrayed as victims of an evil society, and as victims they have no choice but become dependent on almighty government.”
In a column for Matt Barber’s outlet BarbWire today, Michael Bresciani expounds on an amicus brief submitted by a number of Religious Right groups warning the Supreme Court that a ruling in favor of marriage equality could bring God’s judgment down on America. Bresiciani approvingly cites the amicus brief, agreeing that the Bible “clearly warns that the practice and promulgation of homosexuality and other perversions will draw God’s disfavor and in time his severe judgment on this and any nation.”
Should LGBT rights activist succeed with their “demonic plan” at the Supreme Court, he warns, “there will be absolutely nothing left to block an impending and imminent judgment against the United States from a very patient God who after all, will not be mocked.”
Bresciani concludes by assuring readers that he does not hate gay people because “the only thing real Christians hate about the gays is the fact that more creatures created in the image of God will be cast into an eternal hell.”
The Bible clearly warns that the practice and promulgation of homosexuality and other perversions will draw God’s disfavor and in time his severe judgment on this and any nation. Those who take their bibles seriously cannot wait until others take them seriously – it will be too late by then.
There is little left for the LGBT to disrupt in America and the gay agenda’s public relations activists have clobbered the nation through the media, the state legislatures and it is now looming at the door of the Supreme Court to bring marriage in line with its demonic plan.
Should they succeed there will be absolutely nothing left to block an impending and imminent judgment against the United States from a very patient God who after all, will not be mocked
Having spent the last ten years intensely focusing on America’s waltz into the deepest levels of moral depravity and reprobation, I have often wondered why God drives us to warn a people who turn a deaf ear to its best voices for good, like those listed above. It seems that the voices are called into play only so in the end no one will call for the excuse that they were not warned. It seems that they will be granted what they want while ignoring the approach to losing all that they already have. Such futility is not new to nations throughout history, but now it’s coming to a neighborhood near you.
America has ignored every warning and message of those sent to her and is about to slam headlong into what I describe as the “40 Year Factor.”
I can’t say what that means in every detail, but I can say what I have seen and heard and that starts with an economic collapse that will parallel and go beyond the dust bowl days and the stock market crash of 1929. It will be a time of “extreme poverty and scarcity” such as never seen in our history.
The mighty push against all things Biblical, constitutional, rational, moral and decent is about to cross a line marked “no return allowed.”
The use of the word “homophobia’ is subterfuge being used as the last day’s PC war cry for anyone who does not want to face the serious nature and consequences of their own worst behaviors.
Not wanting to bake cakes for gays is nothing when considering that Christians are called upon to refrain from even mentioning what gays do in secret – why would they consent to promote or celebrate such behaviors. To wit:
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” (Eph 5: 11-12)
Regardless of which way these legal battles turn out one thing is clear the only thing real Christians hate about the gays is the fact that more creatures created in the image of God will be cast into an eternal hell.
Concern and sadness about the loss of their lives and futures is something that compassionate believers all share because it is not the will of God that anyone should perish. If it is not God’s will then it is not our will.
With the movement to take back our democracy from wealthy special interests growing by the day, some of the country’s top political leaders are taking note and bringing the issue of money in politics front and center for 2016.
Yesterday presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed support for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics and said that campaign finance reform was going to be one of the four pillars of her campaign.
As PFAW’s Executive Vice President Marge Baker pointed out:
That Hillary Clinton will make the fight against big money in politics the centerpiece of her campaign is indicative of how much Americans care about this issue. She’s tapping into a deep-seated belief among people of all political stripes that we have to reclaim our democracy from corporations and billionaires. Americans are ready for a constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United, and ready for leaders who are going to make it a priority.
Amending the Constitution to overturn cases like Citizens United is a widely popular proposal with cross-partisan support. A July 2014 poll of Senate battleground states found that nearly three in four voters (73 percent) favor a constitutional amendment, including majorities “in even the reddest states.” In the five years since the Citizens United decision, local organizing has led 16 states and 650 cities and towns to support an amendment to overturn the decision and get big money out of politics. More than 5 million Americans have signed petitions in support of an amendment.
Drawing directly from Ted Cruz’s misleading talking points about the Carter and Obama economies, the elder Cruz reassured his audience, “It took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan. Because of Jimmy Carter, we were able to mobilize millions of Americans. We did it in 1980, we can do it again.”
“If we did it then, you bet we can do it again,” he said. “And let me tell you, if we have someone like Hillary Clinton elected in 2016, you might as well kiss this country goodbye, this country’s gone. We are fighting for the survival of America.”
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins was not happy that Hillary Clinton included two gay couples in her campaign launch video, in which she says that “when families are strong, America is strong.”
“Her definition of family is a bit different,” Perkins said on his “Washington Watch” radio program yesterday. “She actually had same-sex couples there in her video.”
Perkins then asked his guest, Terry Jeffrey of the conservative outlet CNSNews, if GOP presidential hopefuls will address the marriage debate during the campaign.
Jeffrey was not optimistic, citing what he called the “almost incomprehensible” interview that Rand Paul recently gave to CNN on the subject and warning that “married folks with families” are going to stay home from the polls if Republicans are not vocal in their opposition to marriage equality.
“So it seemed to me that Rand Paul yesterday was essentially surrendering the marriage issue,” Jeffrey said. “If you have a candidate that does that, a Republican Party candidate who does that in the fall election, then there is going to be millions of voters all over America — especially people who are married folks with families who get out and go to work and support and raise their own kids and believe in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition that made America great and made America free — you will have millions of voters like that say ‘wait a minute’ and they’re going to be turned off and some of them, quite frankly, aren’t going to want to vote for somebody who takes that position.”
Perkins agreed with Jeffrey’s assessment, alleging that Mitt Romney lost the election because he didn’t take a more vocal stand on social issues.
WASHINGTON – According to media reports, today presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed support for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics, with campaign finance reform set to be one of the four pillars of her campaign.
“That Hillary Clinton will make the fight against big money in politics the centerpiece of her campaign is indicative of how much Americans care about this issue,” said People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker. “She’s tapping into a deep-seated belief among people of all political stripes that we have to reclaim our democracy from corporations and billionaires. Americans are ready for a constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United, and ready for leaders who are going to make it a priority.”
Amending the Constitution to overturn cases like Citizens United is a proposal that enjoys broad, cross-partisan support. A July 2014 poll of Senate battleground states found that nearly three in four voters (73 percent) favor a constitutional amendment, including majorities “in even the reddest states.” In the five years since the Citizens United decision, local organizing has led 16 states and 650 cities and towns to support an amendment to overturn the decision and get big money out of politics. More than 5 million Americans have signed petitions in support of an amendment.
This is not the first time Clinton has spoken about a possible amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United. In July 2014, Clinton said that she would “consider supporting an amendment.”
Conservatives were outraged last year when several Muslim-American groups launched an umbrella organization with the mission of “coordinating the efforts of Muslim organizations” and “bridging the gap between national and local leaderships.”
“They’re Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations, why are they being allowed up on Capitol Hill,” he said. “Where is the Capitol Police? Where is the FBI? I encourage all of your listeners to call DHS. You know, DHS has a ‘see something, say something’ program where you can go online or you can call them, I’d call them and say, ‘There are terrorists up on Capitol Hill today and I’d like to know what you are doing about it.’”
Rios directed her indignation at Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who some on the far right believe is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, and GOP strategist Karl Rove: “We are weak and it started under President Bush. What’s the matter — President Bush, why did you do this? Why did you listen to people like Grover Norquist and Karl Rove, who allowed the worst kind of Islamists to come into your office and mislead you and set us on a trajectory that I’m not sure we can recover from?”
In a special segment marking the anniversary of the Bundy standoff, which centered around the rancher’s refusal to recognize court rulings which ordered him to pay grazing fees, Jones claimed that federal forces were ready to “massacre” the activists at the ranch but didn’t because “if they would have massacred the people out there, it would have caused a revolution from our angle, no amount of false flags would have won.”
Blaming the murder of two police officers by a couple who had spent time at the Bundy ranch on a government “falseflag” operation, Jones claimed that the government backed down in Nevada because they want to provoke a civil war by staging a false flag attack on a daycare center and blaming it on right-wing extremists.
“It came that moment of chicken, they backed down and it freaked the gangsters out like Harry Reid,” Jones said. “And they didn’t understand, when they blow up federal buildings and blame it on us or shoot a few cops and blame it on some loons that are upset with super hero stuff and into nihilism, we’re not going to buy you blaming us. We’re not here to be enslaved, we’re not here to be cannon fodder in your war, we don't want a physical war, but push comes to shove, it’s over.
“And if they would have massacred the people out there, it would have caused a revolution from our angle, no amount of false flags would have won. That’s why they don’t want to have the revolution there and backed off. They want to have false flags to say we launched the revolution by blowing up daycare centers — guaranteed they’ll pick a place with kids, theme park, you name it — they’re going to blame us.”
On her radio program yesterday, American Family Association governmental affairs director Sandy Rios once again suggested that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, telling listeners that “rumors swirl” about Clinton’s sexuality since she promoted “lesbianism” during the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing. Rios also speculated that the appearance of a lesbian couple in Clinton’s campaign launch video was another clue about her sexual orientation.
“When it comes to lesbian couples being featured on her video, please keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was one of the first public officials to push this whole notion of embracing homosexuality,” Rios said. “I would never forget my own personal shock in the late ‘90s when there was a women’s conference in Beijing and Hillary Clinton was in charge and they brought in women from all over the world at this UN conference, and the emphasis for the American delegation under Hillary’s tutelage was on lesbianism. There was a tent on lesbian lovemaking, there was an insistence that there were not just two genders at the time, they said there were five genders.”
Rios added that Clinton has “always advocated for homosexuality, rumors swirl around her.”
“It’s going to be hard to take listening to her talk” if she gets elected president, Rios said, adding that Clinton’s campaign video “features everybody except, you know, Anglo-American husband-and-wife with family in church.”
Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, who thinks that it’s “past time that Hillary, the ‘Wicked Witch of the Left,’ be put behind bars,” spoke last month with far-right radio host Pete Santilli — who once called for Clinton to be “shot in the vagina” — about why he thinks Clinton should be in prison.
Klayman alleged that Rep. Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee on Benghazi isn’t moving fast enough to prosecute Clinton, saying that he will step up to the plate since the committee is “for show and not for dough.”
He claimed that Gowdy refuses to go after Clinton since “he is afraid of being seen of beating up on a woman,” although the former secretary of state, he argued, “is technically a woman but she acts more like an evil man.” “It’s the same deference that they paid to Obama, everyone in this country is afraid of being called a sexist or racist,” Klayman added.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s announcement yesterday that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination has brought back a strain of far-right birtherism that contends that Rubio is not eligible to be president because his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
In its write-up of Rubio’s announcement, birther outlet WorldNetDaily (which has been abigpromoter of Ted Cruz’s candidacy) cites unnamed people who “contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency”:
Meanwhile, others contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency. Rubio’s parents, as WND previously reported on at least two occasions, were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio, who were born in Cuba, though the senator has not released his birth certificate for the world to scrutinize.
As WND reported in 2011, Rubio press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971.
Then four years after Marco was born, “Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975,” Burgos told WND.
WND links to a 2012 article by its chief birther reporter Jerome Corsi, who cited far-right attorney Larry Klayman’s argument that the Constitution “requires a person eligible to be president to be born to parents who are each U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.”
Mainstream legal scholarship — as exhaustively detailed in a 2009 Congressional Research Service memo and a 2011 report — rejects this, finding that the Constitution merely requires that a president have been eligible for U.S. citizenship at birth. Under Klayman’s rule, not only would President Obama be ineligible for the presidency, but so would Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Cruz.
The website of Bradlee Dean, a longtime Michele Bachmann ally, also published an essay yesterday claiming that Rubio is ineligible for the presidency and calling the senator an “anchor baby.”
Suzanne Hamner writes on Dean’s “Sons of Liberty” website: “If Obama is hailed as the ‘first’ black president, one could say Rubio is the ‘first’ anchor baby contender.”
“Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?” she asks.
Wikipedia, while not considered a truly reliable source, states Marco Rubio was born on May 23, 1971, to “Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia” who were Cubans that “immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as US citizens in 1975.”
So, Sen. Marco Rubio needs to clearly establish his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States in order to receive the party nomination. Neither of Rubio’s parents were citizens of the United States until 1975, four years after Rubio’s birth. Under this scenario, one could acquaint it to the “anchor baby born today being elected president upon reaching the age of thirty-five and living within the US for fourteen years.” Is Marco Rubio comfortable in claiming “natural born” citizen status in order to run for president? Clearly, he is. But, Rubio is ineligible to run and hold the office of the President of the United States. If Obama is hailed as the “first” black president, one could say Rubio is the “first” anchor baby contender. If Rubio is a supporter, protector and defender of the Constitution, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.
Rubio’s supporters, along with those of Ted Cruz, will vehemently defend their candidate’s natural born citizen status regardless of the evidence to the contrary based on history indicating the framers did not subscribe to the natural-born citizen status as being anything but a child born of two citizen parents. Those who admit neither of these two candidates truly meets that all important requirement will declare that “it’s our turn,” “the Dems did it with Obama, so can we,” or “they would be better than Obama.” The problem in all of this remains consistency with the law.
The Democrats cannot protest as it would confirm that Obama would be ineligible thereby exposing the criminal, lawless, treasonous activities of the Democratic National Committee, key Democrats in Congress, such as Pelosi, the Republican National Committee, key Republicans in Congress, RINOs and complicity of the state governments in allowing Obama on the ticket, not to mention the numerous judges at every level who have upheld Obama’s eligibility. And, why would judges refuse to hear valid legal arguments opposing Obama’s eligibility if the definition of “natural born citizen” did not mean an individual born to two citizen parents?
Judges have denied hearing the case based on “standing” and “establishment of harm.” Isn’t every US citizen harmed by an individual holding the office of the President when eligibility is in question? Shouldn’t every US citizen have “standing” in a case such as this? It would mean the President has divided loyalty and would possibly not conduct business within the confines of the Constitution nor have the best interest of the country at heart. Are we not actually witness to that with Obama? Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?