American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer yesterday alleged that former congressman Anthony Weiner is running for mayor in order to “create an opportunity for more jihadist activity” as part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot, led by his wife Huma Abedin. Fischer, who on Monday said that Abedin seeks to “destroy Western Civilization,” claimed that Weiner is running for mayor in order to “pull back” on the NYPD’s surveillance of the city’s Muslim community and aid “Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood and their agenda to exterminate and destroy Western Civilization.”
WASHINGTON – North Carolina’s governor signs a law forcing most of the state’s abortion providers to close. Ohio threatens to defund rape crisis centers that counsel women about abortion. Wisconsin tries to make it illegal for many abortion providers to provide care. A new report from People For the American Way, "Chipping Away at Choice," details how conservative state legislatures throughout the country are quietly chipping away at women's ability to make informed decisions about their health care, including mandating that doctors provide false or misleading information; requiring that women undergo costly and unnecessary medical procedures and waiting periods; and forcing clinics to shut their doors.
"While national attention often focuses on extreme efforts to ban all abortion and challenge Roe v. Wade in the courts, anti-choice activists are staging a dangerous parallel effort to chip away at women's reproductive rights," said Dawn Huckelbridge, policy director of YEO Action, a program of People For the American Way that represents the interests of young, progressive elected officials. "Just this week, North Carolina’s governor signed a law meant to close most of the abortion clinics in the state, making it harder for women to exercise their constitutional right to choose. Reproductive choice without access to reproductive care is an empty promise."
The PFAW report examines five growing threats to women's health care access:
"These attacks on women's health often receive little national attention," added Huckelbridge. "But women are noticing. As a NARAL poll in Virginia found this week, attacks on women’s health motivate women to go to the polls. And throughout the country, progressive state elected officials are fighting to restore the rights of women to access safe, affordable reproductive care, guided by doctors rather than politicians.”
The full report, Chipping Away at Choice: Five Growing Threats to Women's Healthcare Access and Autonomy is available at www.pfaw.org.
Ohio-based Religious Right activist Linda Harvey today expressed outrage that a district court judge ruled on behalf of a gay couple, who are both Ohio residents but were married in Maryland, against the state’s ban on same-sex unions. One of the men has Lou Gehrig’s disease and is seeking to have his partner listed on his death certificate as his surviving spouse and be buried in the same family plot.
Harvey called their lawsuit “nonsense” and charged that if the men wanted to be married, they should have married women: “There’s no discrimination or inequality, either of these men could be married to a woman.” She said that the couple is in a pretend marriage, just like a girl who pretends to be a doctor simply because she believes she is one:
Can marriage just be what anyone thinks it is? Here’s a possible analogy. Sophie wants to be a doctor, she’s never gone to medical school but in her mind she’s qualified to treat patients, even perform surgery. But the law only allows the practice of medicine by those who have attended medical school, passed the state board exams and so on. But isn’t this unequal protection? Aren’t Sophie’s fantasies valid? She believes she should be allowed to practice medicine therefore the requirements to be a licensed MD are unconstitutional for her.
That’s right: a married gay person is no different than an unlicensed surgeon.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality was the special guest today on Sandy Rios In The Morning, where he was called in to discuss the Pope’s recent comments on gay priests. While LaBarbera didn’t think the Pope’s remarks reflected a major shift in church policy, he was worried that the new Pope isn’t anti-gay enough.
“It seems to me that the last thing that the Catholic Church needs is more homosexual priests,” he said, claiming that gay activists led a “penetration of the church” in order to molest children and shield themselves from blame: “Homosexuality has done incredible devastation to this church but you listen to gay activists and it’s like they don’t even acknowledge that, it’s so bizarre; homosexual activists never take responsibility for their own behavior and the repercussions from it.”
Rios added that gay people won’t take responsibility for the Catholic Church’s abuse scandal because they are “very narcissistic.”
When discussing recent vandalism at the National Cathedral, LaBarbera said that the Episcopal congregation was already “desecrated” by its support of gay rights.
“You could say that the Cathedral was desecrated by vandalism but I think that the Cathedral has already been desecrated by homosexual activism and sexual immorality,” LaBarbera told Rios, who asserted that the vandalism at the Lincoln Memorial was a “metaphor” for America’s decline.
Frank Gaffney is upset about the “fatuous” coverage of the marriage of Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner: “Weiner is married to a woman who has longstanding ties to a dangerous jihadist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Like the other conservative commentators demanding that the media report on debunked claims that Abedin is part of a Muslim Brotherhood secret agent, Gaffney is incensed “the mainstream media and many others are deliberately ignoring or papering over the fact that Ms. Abedin was brilliantly placed to run Islamist influence operations for sixteen years under the recently departed Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) accused President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder of acting like “despots” over the “outrageous” Justice Department decision to challenge new voter suppression efforts in Texas.
While the Supreme Court recently gutted a key enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, DoJ retains the right to ask a federal court to impose preclearance requirements on a particular state under Section 3 of the law, which the court’s ruling did not alter.
“He’s trying to reinstitute the Voting Rights Act in Texas; if I was a Texan I would be so doggone livid and mad about that I don’t think I’d ever get over it,” Hatch told NewsMax. “It just shows how this administration ignores the law; they act like they are tinpot despots.”
After arguing that the administration’s actions to protect voting rights are part of a plan to create permanent Democratic control, he claimed that Democratic-leaning states treat people of color the “like dirt”: “Some of the worst states are blue states where they treat minorities like dirt, don’t care of them, don’t do what’s right about them and frankly a lot of this liberal stuff comes out of those states.”
It was just another day on the 700 Club, as a viewer asked Pat Robertson what to do about his seemingly haunted house: “My house is haunted. There is moaning coming from the walls, lights turn on and off, the TV changes channels on its own, the beds move, stuff floats off tables, mirrors break, and there is sometimes a creepy fog. The ghosts look like people, but have dark blue light around their feet and hands. What do I do?”
Robertson joked that “if it was me I’d burn the house down and move on,” but “assuming you can’t afford that,” he advised the viewer to get an exorcism.
After explaining that he doesn’t believe in ghosts, Robertson said that the house is likely haunted by “demonic forces and you need to get people to come and do an exorcism over that property and command those demons to leave, that’s what you do…. If you can’t do that, move.”
Texas Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott claims the Obama administration’s lawsuit against a redistricting plan, which a federal court unanimously ruled was designed to deliberately discriminate against Latino voters, is proof that the administration is actually discriminating against Latino Republicans.
With new legal battles heating up between the Justice Department and Texas over redistricting and voter ID laws, Abbott has taken to the Washington Times to argue that the Obama administration seeks to violate “the rights of Hispanic voters who preferred representatives” who are Republicans. “The administration’s approach reveals the Democrats fear that Republican candidates were making inroads with Hispanic voters,” Abbott writes.
While around 1.4 million Texans lack voter ID, Abbott claims that “crying ‘voter suppression’ is nothing but a cynical scare tactic designed to mobilize Democratic partisans, none of whom ever will be prevented from voting by these laws,” adding that “the Obama administration is sowing racial divide to score cheap political points.”
In redistricting, the Obama administration has aligned itself with Democratic state representatives and Democratic members of Congress who already are suing Texas. It is no surprise then that the legal position of President Obama’s attorneys seeks to improve Democratic candidates’ prospects. Of course, Mr. Obama’s attorneys conceal this partisan agenda with lofty rhetoric about minority voting rights. But it is no coincidence that every change to district lines supported by the administration benefits Democrats. Behind the empty allegations of racial discrimination lies one goal — helping Democrats in 2014.
The president’s partisan use of the Voting Rights Act actually hurts many minority voters in Texas. With the administration’s support, redistricting litigation already has unseated Texas state Reps. Jose Aliseda, Raul Torres, Aaron Pena and John Garza, as well as U.S. Rep. Quico Canseco. These representatives — all Republicans — won in 2010 in predominantly Hispanic districts. In 2011, however, the Obama administration and other partisan interest groups succeeded in getting a court to draw district lines so that only a Democrat could win these seats. As a direct result, all of these Republican Hispanic representatives lost their seats in 2012 except for Mr. Aliseda, who chose not to run for re-election. His district had been dismantled altogether at Democrats request.
The administration’s approach reveals the Democrats fear that Republican candidates were making inroads with Hispanic voters. Democrats could never “turn Texas blue” if that trend continued, so they got the courts to draw district lines that guarantee Democratic victory in predominantly Hispanic areas. What about the rights of Hispanic voters who preferred representatives such as Mr. Aliseda, you might ask? They apparently don’t matter to this administration.
Similarly, polling consistently shows that Hispanic Texans strongly support voter-ID requirements, another target of the administration’s litigious political strategy. Electoral fraud harms voters of all races, and voter ID is a simple, nondiscriminatory way to help stop it. Getting an ID is free of charge for any Texan who needs one. Voter-ID laws already have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Crying “voter suppression” is nothing but a cynical scare tactic designed to mobilize Democratic partisans, none of whom ever will be prevented from voting by these laws. The administration’s absurd claim that this common-sense fraud prevention device is actually a racist plot to prevent minorities from voting would be comical if it weren’t so depressing to see an American president stoop to that level.
After the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act still works. It just no longer imposes an onerous and costly preclearance requirement that disrupts the state-federal balance of power enshrined in the Constitution. Instead of allowing the Voting Rights Act to work in a way the Constitution allows, the Obama administration is sowing racial divide to score cheap political points. The president is using the legal system as a sword to wage partisan battles rather than a shield to protect voting rights. This overreaching action undermines the Voting Rights Act and the rule of law. Texas will not tolerate it. So far, neither will the Supreme Court.
Reproductive choice is a central issue for women who otherwise might not vote in the Virginia gubernatorial election, a new NARAL survey finds. This is not good news for Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli, who once described himself as “the most aggressive pro-life leader in the Virginia Senate.”
In a survey of 600 largely Democratic “drop-off” women in the state – those who have voted in presidential years but not in other years – choice was a make-or-break issue among pro-choice women, with 57% saying they “would never vote for anyone running for president who opposes a woman's right to have a legal abortion, no matter how much I agree with them on other issues.” It was such an important issue, in fact, that after hearing choice-based messaging about the race between Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli, pro-choice drop-off women became significantly more interested in turning out to cast a vote in the election.
“They found that statements about Cuccinelli’s position on abortion had a bigger effect among this group than any other issue in generating both the level of support and intensity for Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe. ‘Protecting a woman’s right to choose’ trumped health care, guns, transportation, spending and college affordability.”
And Cuccinelli’s track record on abortion rights is indeed bleak. He pressured the Virginia Board of Health to pass a set of unnecessarily burdensome building regulations that threaten to close the majority of the state’s abortion clinics. He supports the passage of radical “personhood” legislation giving fertilized eggs rights. He attempted to defund Planned Parenthood in Virginia. He has stated that his “ultimate goal” is to “make abortion disappear in America.”
Although Cuccinelli has tried to convince voters this year that his focus as governor would not be on social issues, he cannot hide his regressive, anti-choice beliefs from Virginia women who, according to the new data, will take their concern for protecting reproductive choice to the ballot box.
Larry Klayman is angry at President Obama for dismissing the “phony scandals” that are distracting attention away from meaningful policy debates, charging that Obama “is not merely a disgrace, but a dangerous man whose allegiance to Islam, disdain of Jews and Christians, and favoritism toward all things black have cast him into the role of a very cheap, bigoted and hateful man.”
He warns that Obama is a “Muslim through and through” and “a Hitler-like figure, finding scapegoats such as whites, Christians and Jews to use to rally the shock troops for his black-Muslim crusade.”
Indeed, “Obama is even more of a dangerous tyrant than King George III,” Klayman argues, since at least King George III wasn’t “a racist Muslim socialist” who sought to “reduce the United States to the equivalent of a socialist, African-Muslim nation.”
“Remove him from office,” the totally-not-dramatic Klayman writes, “before all is lost.”
Plain and simple, Obama is the most despicable, criminally minded fraud to have ever occupied the Oval Office. He is not merely a disgrace, but a dangerous man whose allegiance to Islam, disdain of Jews and Christians, and favoritism toward all things black have cast him into the role of a very cheap, bigoted and hateful man. In contrast, Obama makes the felonious former President Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout.
Second, coming on the heels of the Trayvon statement, this week also brought yet another indication that Obama is a Muslim through and through, which not coincidentally was the "faith" of his revered Kenyan father. Trying to resurrect his "brothers" of the Muslim Brotherhood who were just ousted from power by the Egyptian military, Obama suspended military aid to this largest of Middle Eastern nations, obviously to send a signal to this granddaddy of Islamic terrorist groups that he supported its return to power. A return of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt would be a blow to the Jewish state of Israel, not coincidentally also the birthplace of Jesus Christ and the rest of the Western world.
The primary aspect these two events have in common is that they show that Obama has a clear mindset to further what he perceives to be the interests of "his" people, meaning blacks and Muslims, at the expense of everyone else. He is thus a Hitler-like figure, finding scapegoats such as whites, Christians and Jews to use to rally the shock troops for his black-Muslim crusade. These words may sound harsh, but not in the context of the "fraudster in chief's" actions during his first five years in office. Coupled with his words, the nation is on its way to destruction unless this dangerous man is legally stopped in his slimy, prejudiced and hateful tracks.
And, this is why I have said on many occasions that Obama is even more of a dangerous tyrant than King George III. The king may have wanted to rape the colonies of their wealth and exert his monarchical control over their populace, but he was never a racist Muslim socialist bent on remaking our Judeo-Christian culture and roots and furthering an agenda that seeks to destroy our Anglo-American heritage. It is now clear that Obama will use whatever means are at his disposal to reduce the United States to the equivalent of a socialist, African-Muslim nation.
Time is short before this man succeeds at this mission. And, that is why the so-called phony scandals to which he refers must be used as a means to remove him from office, before all is lost.
I am doing my part through lawsuits and a citizens' grand jury in Ocala, Fla. But now is the time for others to also seriously step up to the plate, in what has become a "life and death" struggle for the heart and soul of the nation. We have seen the eyes of the enemy, and they are clearly focused on the destruction of the inspired vision of our Founding Fathers and our way of life as one nation under a Judeo-Christian God.
One of the small joys of our day is receiving the Family Research Council’s daily “Washington Update” email, which is frequently accompanied by an ambitious pun related to the day’s news. (Recent examples: “Florist Won't Back-Petal on Marriage,” “Hawaii Leis It on the Line for Marriage,” “Muffins Signal Bran New Day at Justice” and an all-time favorite, the St. Patrick’s Day-themed “Defending DOMA: Pros and Leprechauns”).
But, as we were reminded today, sometimes the FRC can take its commitment to punny-ness just a little bit too far. Here are ten of the FRC’s most truly tasteless subject line puns along with excerpts from the emails they accompanied.
Sandy Rios of the American Family Association dedicated part of her radio show today to criticizing the National Education Association for its strong stance in favor of LGBT equality and gay-inclusive curricula. “I think that we can lay at the feet of the National Education Association the reason why this culture has been slouching toward Gomorrah,” Rios told her listeners. “The NEA has been for the last twenty years indoctrinating our children.”
One of her guests, a South Carolina teacher and pastor named Ira Thomas, attended the recent NEA convention in Atlanta and lamented that he is “accused of hating” because he opposes the NEA’s pro-gay “indoctrination plans.” “To me it’s like teaching people about how to use crack. It’s a dangerous game to play on,” Thomas said.
The Heritage Foundation has been trying to position itself at the center of the opposition to the Senate’s bipartisan immigration proposal, an effort that got off to a rocky start when the group issued a deeply flawed report on immigration reform’s costs that was co-written by an enthusiastic racist.
Like most opponents of meaningful immigration reform, Heritage opposes creating a roadmap to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants who are currently living and working in the United States. But, like its allies in the GOP, the group doesn’t really have an idea of how else to respond to the undocumented population. In an interview with the Latino news site Voxxi last week, Heritage policy analyst Jessica Zuckerman admitted that the group doesn’t have any suggested plan when it comes to undocumented immigrants. “That is the big question,” she said, “and I wish somebody actually had an answer on that.”
What should be done with undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States?
That is the big question, and I wish somebody actually had an answer on that, which is why I say this dialogue we are having on immigration reform is important so that we keep discussing this and trying to reach an answer that folks agree on. We haven’t gotten there yet, but it’s important that we’re having this conversation to get to that point.
Following CBN reporter Paul Strand’s heavily slanted report where he claimed that gay rights may be “biggest threat to religious liberty in all of America’s history,” Pat Robertson went on to argue that the gay community is on a mission to “destroy the church if need be, then to destroy the military if need be, then to destroy marriage if need be, then to destroy businesses if they need be.” He said that the gay rights advocates won’t stop until “the way they perform sex acts is acceptable” in society and turn America into Ancient Rome, “where sexual morality had gone out the window.”
He asked: “If there are 100 million Christians in America, maximum two percent of the population are homosexual and one percent are lesbian, is that minority going to destroy all of the foundations of the morality of the majority?”
Robertson said that Christians may soon be imprisoned over their “loving” anti-gay stance.
“If you see somebody who is not going to go to Heaven and you really love him you want to do what it takes to get him into Heaven, if you don’t care about him you let him go to Hell,” Robertson continued. “We are a people who love and yet now your love is going to put you in jail because the people who are going to Hell feel their lifestyle—think, ‘well, we want to be affirmed.’”
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has joined two far-right groups led by White Nationalists in filing an amicus brief in a case involving gun crimes. Stockman’s brief in United States v. Abramski seeks to weaken the power of the government to prosecute cases dealing with “straw purchases” of guns and false statements made on required forms for gun purchases.
Peroutka is a board member of the white supremacist and secessionist League of the South and denounces the Union’s victory in what he calls the “War Between the States.” He even pledged to use the Institute on the Constitution to aid the League of the South and advance the cause of imposing biblical law.
Pratt’s ties to White Nationalist and anti-Semitic groups are also well documented, and he joined Peroutka at a July 4 event hosted by an anti-Semitic rock band. Pratt also fears that the Obama administration may be building a black paramilitary force that will target straight, Christian white people.
We wonder how a Republican congressman’s decision to team up with White Nationalist-linked groups will mesh with the GOP’s new minority outreach campaign….
Brooke Goldstein of the Lawfare Project is trying to use the attention surrounding the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal to warn that his wife and Clinton aide Huma Abedin is a secret Muslim Brotherhood operative. While on Fox News, Sean Hannity and Monica Crowley eagerly agreed with Goldstein’s claim that that Huma Abedin is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.
However, Goldstein didn’t get such a favorable response on Fox’s Red Eye, where host Greg Gutfeld and other panelists laughed at her attempt to resuscitate the discredited smear campaign against Abedin.
“Why is Weiner so un-attracted to Huma Abedin? Perhaps it’s because she is connected with Islamists who want to kill us!” Goldstein said, before alleging that Abedin “poses one of the greatest national security threats of this administration.”
Goldstein then alleged that Abedin “knows” about her husband’s sexting ways but won’t leave him because of her Muslim Brotherhood ties, or something.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul spoke, along with Ted Cruz, at this week’s Religious Right summit in Iowa, organized by Christian-nation advocate David Lane. Echoing themes from his speech last year to the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Paul gave his audience what they wanted, calling for a “revival” and comparing current times to the leadup to the Civil War.
“America is in a full-blown crisis, I think a spiritual crisis,” he said. Quoting Lincoln, Paul declared that we have “arrived at a day of reckoning” similar to the “tumultuous time when the country was being torn apart” before the Civil War.
“What America needs is a revival,” Paul says. “A war is being waged between those who understand and embrace America’s exceptional founding and those who simply want to divide.”
He closes his remarks with a quotation from Thomas Paine, a noted critic of Christianity.
Clips from the speech were originally posted by CBN’s David Brody.