Fresh after his speech insisting that President Obama is reestablishing the Ottoman Empire, Texas congressman Louie Gohmert told anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney that the Obama administration is “getting advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood from people who are in the Muslim Brotherhood.” He claimed that the Obama administration is sending money to “radical jihadists” in order to “buy [them] off,” not understanding that they can only use “raw power” against those who worship “a radical, mean-spirited, hateful Allah that these people that twist Islam believe in.”
Gohmert, who signed letters with Michele Bachmann calling for an anti-Muslim witch hunt within the administration that were ultimately rejected but lauded by Gaffney and Newt Gingrich, charged that Muslim Brotherhood agents may be the ones shaping Obama’s foreign policy. Gohmert claimed that Muslim Brotherhood operatives are involved in Janet Napolitano’s “super-secret, trusted, Homeland Security advisory council” but said she won’t give him the names. He also criticized Napolitano for allowing an Egyptian lawmaker to meet with members of the U.S. government in Washington, even after he was vetted by Homeland Security, the State Department and the Secret Service, because he is a member of a political party tied to a listed terrorist organization that has since renounced violence.
Gohmert: This administration thinks they’re going to buy off bullies, radical jihadists who want to destroy our way of life, they don’t understand that when you try to pay off a bully that wants to hurt you, not only do they not love you but they don’t respect you, they have more contempt for you, and this administration does not get that the only thing they understand is raw power and response that kills them and their beliefs of a radical, mean-spirited, hateful Allah that these people that twist Islam believe in. It tells them, ‘ah, Allah must not like what we’re doing’ because the United States had just overwhelmed and kill all of those who were trying to kill them.
Gaffney: Congressman, I mentioned that Newt Gingrich called you one of the National Security Five. That was in connection with a series of letters that you and Michele Bachmann and others sent out back in June asking about people who are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the prime mover behind much of this jihadism around the world, inside our government. You’ve not gotten answers to those inquires as I understand it, but as I understand it against the backdrop of this bewildering response by the administration, do you think that that may have something to do with the influence operations that these sorts of people are running inside the wire of our government?
Gohmert: I think it tells us very clearly that we are getting advice from people who are either A) intentionally misinforming them or misadvising them, or B) they are getting information from people that don’t have a clue about how to deal with our problem. It certainly is consistent, Janet Napolitano as you recall could not even tell me how many of her super-secret, trusted, Homeland Security advisory council or counter-violent extremism working group were actually Muslim Brotherhood. She didn’t know. When I brought up the fact that immediately before that there was a member of a known terrorist organization that had been allowed in the White House, she wasn’t even aware of it, she said that wasn’t true, but the next day when she was testifying before the Senate all the sudden she’d become aware of it and was able to talk about it but said ‘oh well he was vetted a number of times.’ These people have no idea what’s really going on, they are getting terrible advice from whomever and it certainly consisted with them getting advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood from people who are in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Save California’s Randy Thomasson went on yet another anti-gay tirade while appearing on The Janet Mefferd Show, this time excoriating gay rights advocates for successfully pushing a new law in California that puts limits on harmful and discredited sexual orientation conversion therapy. He claimed that the Democrats who backed the measure decided “to do the Devil’s work” and “to go against religious freedom, against free speech, against the freedom to even love your own child and care for your own child.” He argued that LGBT people were likely abused as children but because of the new law, parents will be prohibited by the “completely insane” law from providing counseling to a child who survived sexual abuse.
Let’s talk about hepatitis, let’s talk about HPV, let’s talk about a whole host of sexually transmitted diseases, let’s talk about higher cancer rates for homosexual men, let’s talk about earlier deaths for homosexual men; you’ve got to realize the harm of children going into this lifestyle, it puts them at greater risk of all of these ills. Again, the Democrats are saying ‘no, no, no,’ we want to go with our homosexual activist friends, our volunteers, our political supporters, we are going to go against religious freedom, against free speech, against the freedom to even love your own child and care for your own child, and we are going to do the Devil’s work here and that exactly what’s been done.
To label something that is helping the child overcome a conflict, the feelings that have resulted from trauma, you cannot say that it’s harmful to be helpful to a child deal with trauma, it’s absolutely opposite of that. So the state is coming in to say ‘let’s push aside parental rights, this is a health or safety issue’ is completely bonkers, it’s calling black white and white black, it’s calling right wrong and wrong right, it’s completely insane and it’s very angering to think about the child who belongs to the parents and the parents have a God-given right to seek what’s best for that child and if the child’s been molested at a camp or somewhere else, the parent wants counseling for the gender-confusion that’s resulted, even if the parent wants the counseling, even if the parent pays for the counseling, even if the parent finds the counseling, the state says to the parent ‘you can’t do that’ and tells the molested child ‘no help for you.’
Later, Thomasson said that gay rights supporters want to “wipe out all the competition” by placing limits on the pseudo-scientific practice, warning that next the state might decide to ban vaccinations or chemotherapy. He concluded by telling Mefferd that gays and lesbians should not receive civil rights protections since they can change their sexual orientation as “people get out of addictions in America when they work at it and try,” calling gay rights “dangerous for America” and “antithetical to a free society.”
Look at what we have in our society, we have conflicts in society, we have disagreements in society, but do we allow those who are in power to wipe out all competition? In fact, we have rules about companies can’t have a monopoly, right? The US Supreme Court has been involved in those types of rulings. But here we see that a rival, homosexual activists say ‘we want to wipe out our rivals here,’ look if something is controversial then you can’t wipe it out, otherwise, you have to apply the same rule: let’s wipe out regressive therapy, which is controversial, let’s wipe out tarot card therapy, let’s wipe out chiropractic care, let’s wipe out vaccinations, let’s wipe out chemotherapy, see you can’t in a free society get rid of all controversies, you have to allow controversy and disagreement within a free society.
Homosexuality is not biologically based, we’ve never heard bisexuality or transsexuality is biological, it’s obviously a chosen thing. But when you look at what has happened is it’s been turned into a minority even though a minority civil rights protected class requires that there be an immutable, non-changeable, characteristic. We have thousands and thousands of former homosexuals, showing that change occurs; people get out of addictions in America when they work at it and try. Now we have this turned into a hammer upon everyone else; ‘gay rights’ defeats and trumps everyone else’s rights who disagree and that’s why it’s so dangerous for America, gay rights are antithetical to a free society.
During an interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights. Focus on the Family and its founder James Dobson have a long history of promoting anti-gay policies and ex-gay therapy, and earned a shout-out from Romney earlier this week while campaigning in Colorado, where it is headquartered.
While Romney has moved in his career from backing gay rights to becoming a vocal foe, Ryan has a solidly anti-gay voting record in Congress. Ryan told Daly, whose political arm has been spending money on behalf of Romney and a number of other Republican candidates like Todd Akin, that the ticket is firmly against same-sex marriage and that he was a “big supporter” of a 2006 amendment which enshrined marriage discrimination into the Wisconsin state constitution. He also said the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act hurt the “rule of law” and “contradicts our system of government,” however, a number of presidents including George W. Bush have not defended statutes they deemed unconstitutional.
Daly: Focus on the Family has been behind the scenes working for years to defend marriage and to speak out for marriage and the importance of marriage. I think thirty-two out of thirty-two states where we have helped put a ballot initiative or some other mechanism in front of the people, we have won that thirty-two out of thirty-two times. It seems like when it’s in front of the people they vote for it, if it’s the state-level judges they will try to do it by fiat or if it is simply some other mechanism, the State House passes it without the vote of the people. For the Romney-Ryan ticket, when you look at marriage, what do we need to do in the culture to lift up and strengthen the very core building block of society and that’s family.
Ryan: It’s the foundation for society and for family for thousands of years. First of all, Mitt Romney and I — I’ll just say it, it’s worth repeating — we believe marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s number one. Number two, you know where I come from we had one of those amendments in Wisconsin, I was a big supporter of it and we passed it like you say, where it’s put on the ballot it passes. The second point is, President Obama gave up defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, I mean, not only is this decision to abandon this law the wrong decision, it passed in a bipartisan manner, it is very troubling because it undermines not only traditional marriage but it contradicts our system of government. It’s not the president’s job to pick and choose which laws he likes. A Romney administration will protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves.
In 2004, conservative political commentators hailed Jerome Corsi’s book on John Kerry’s military service, Unfit for Command, as a serious and devastating work despite the book’s factual shortcomings. Now targeting President Obama, Corsi has dedicated his career to peddling birther conspiracies. But with the birther movement’s efforts to declare Obama ineligible to be president going nowhere, Corsi is now arguing that Obama is secretly gay and was married to another man.
In his latest “report” for WorldNetDaily, Corsi ponders whether Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s church in order to meet other men at “The Down Low Club,” all confirmed by a source identified as “Carolyn,” who said Wright “helped Obama hide his homosexuality” and warned that people may have been killed to cover-up Obama’s dark, gay past.
Over the past several months, WND investigators have interviewed a number of members of the church who claim the president benefited from Wright’s efforts to help black men who engage in homosexual activity appear respectable in black society by finding them a wife.
The Down Low Club at Trinity “doesn’t have meetings, and it isn’t like the Rotary Club,” a source identified for this article as “Carolyn” explained to a WND investigator in Chicago.
“It was more that Wright served as a matchmaker,” said Carolyn, a 20-year member of Trinity who has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally.
“Trinity was a chance to network,” she said. “The stuff preached was hateful, but about 70 percent of those who go there ignore the radical rhetoric and just trying to get ahead.”
Carolyn said Trinity “helped a lot of blacks get successful and connected.”
“That’s what Wright did for Obama,” she claimed. “He connected Obama in the community, and he helped Obama hide his homosexuality.”
“I’m still scared to discuss any of this,” Carolyn said.
“At Trinity, if you even hint at talking about Obama being gay, you are reminded of our dear departed choir director,” she said. “He was killed, and it wasn’t a robbery. The Christmas presents weren’t touched. The TV was not taken, nothing in the apartment was missing.”
Survey finds high court is a significant factor for voters
A newly released Hart Research Associates poll indicates that Americans fear that if Mitt Romney is elected president, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will shift the court even more in favor of big business at the expense of everyday Americans. Hart also found that the Supreme Court is a significant factor for voters in the upcoming election.
The poll was conducted for the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and People for the American Way. It consisted of a national online survey of 1,007 registered, likely voters between August 24-30, 2012 and two focus groups in Philadelphia
It found that 63 percent of all voters, and more than half of independent voters and presidential “swing” voters, say the issue of who will serve on the Supreme Court is an important consideration in their vote this year. According to the survey, what most concerns voters – a full 54 percent --is their worry that Romney will nominate justices who will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans.
In contrast, voters believe that Obama is more likely to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” And they believe President Obama is much more likely to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” The voters surveyed were also concerned about Romney’s opposition to Supreme Court decisions favoring women’s rights, including Roe v. Wade, Indeed, 59 percent of all voters, and 62 percent of swing voters, say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.
“If the next president fills even one vacancy on the Supreme Court, he could change the court, and America, for decades,” said Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign. “This poll makes clear that the American people don’t want the president to further shift the court toward corporate special interests for a generation or more.”
“Americans are convinced that a Romney Court would make it harder for women and minorities to lead their day-to-day lives,” said Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “As the Court considers affirmative action and same-sex marriage, its role as the last arbiter of equality for millions of disadvantaged Americans is clear. And Romney will have to quell these fears if he ever hopes to gain the trust of these communities.”
“We pick a president for four years, but he picks Supreme Court justices for a lifetime,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “This polling shows that Americans are concerned about how this election will affect the future of the Supreme Court, and know that a Mitt Romney presidency would skew the Court ever further to the Right.”
Sixty percent of all voters, and 63 percent of swing voters said they had less confidence Romney would appoint the right kinds of justices to the Supreme Court when told that Romney favored the Citizens United decision, which led to opening the floodgates to massive corporate campaign contributions. Voters are influenced as well by a number of recent 5-4 decisions siding with corporations over people, including Wal-Mart over its female employees, AT&T over its customers, and the case decided against Lily Ledbetter that led to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
A full memo on the poll and focus groups is below. A pdf of the memo is available here.
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Guy Molyneux, Hart Research
DATE: September, 2012
RE: The Supreme Court and 2012
On behalf of Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and People for the American Way, Hart Research has conducted opinion research on the potential impact that the issue of Supreme Court nominations could have on the 2012 presidential election. A national online survey of 1,007 registered, likely voters was conducted August 24-30, 2012, followed by two focus groups in Philadelphia.
1) The issue of Supreme Court nominations is an important voting consideration for registered voters, including a substantial portion of swing voters.
Fully 63% of voters say that the issue of nominating justices to the Supreme Court will be an important consideration in their voting this year. That includes 30% who say “very important” consideration. As we would expect, strong partisans assign the greatest weight to the issue, but substantial numbers of independent voters (55%) and presidential swing voters (54%) also report a significant level of concern about the Supreme Court issue. Moreover, after survey respondents hear information about Mitt Romney’s positions on judicial issues and his model for judicial nominations, they rate the importance of the Court even more highly: 71% say it will be an important voting consideration, including 39% (a 9-point increase) who say very important.
2) Voters have more confidence in President Obama than Mitt Romney with respect to Supreme Court nominations.
Voters say that they have more confidence in Barack Obama (46%) than Mitt Romney (41%) to select good federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Obama is trusted on judicial nominees much more than Romney among the voters who will likely determine the outcome of the presidential election. Independent voters prefer Obama by an 8-point margin (39% to 31%), and Obama’s advantage grows to an impressive 18 points (42% to 24%) among presidential swing voters (those undecided or weakly committed to a candidate). Women in the center of the electorate strongly prefer Obama, as he enjoys a 19-point edge with independent women (43% to 24%) and a 26-point advantage among swing women (44%-18%).
The president’s advantage over Romney rests on two main elements. First, voters believe Obama (61%) is much more likely than Romney (39%) to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” Second, most voters trust Obama (59%) rather than Romney (41%) to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” Among swing voters, Obama enjoys commanding advantages of 55 points and 49 points, respectively, on these two dimensions.
3) The most compelling criticism of Mitt Romney regarding the Supreme Court is that his nominees will be biased in favor of corporations over average Americans.
The survey results reveal that what most concerns voters about the prospect of Mitt Romney nominating future justices is the notion that his nominees will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans. Fully 54% worry that Romney will appoint this kind of justice, far more than any other single concern (for example, 43% worry that Romney’s justices will “turn back the clock on civil rights and women’s rights”). Similarly, when voters are asked which of several criticisms of Romney concern them the most, the prospect of pro-corporate justices is the top choice for swing voters (30%), far ahead of limiting legal abortion (17%), turning back the clock on rights (17%), and other factors. And later in the survey, after voters have learned about Romney’s positions on a range of judicial issues, swing voters say their single biggest concern about Romney’s justices is they will favor corporate interests over average Americans (followed by the similar idea that they will “favor millionaires over the middle class”).
4) The single best “proof point” for the claim that Romney’s nominees will favor corporations is his support for Citizens United, which has already led to corporations and billionaires spending millions of dollars on negative political ads this year. Other powerful evidence includes the AT&T, Wal-Mart, and Ledbetter cases.
The research findings indicate that the single best way to demonstrate that Romney would appoint pro-corporate justices is to focus on his support for the Court’s decision [Citizens United] which opened the door for corporations and the wealthy to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. Linking that decision to what citizens are already experiencing – a huge number of negative political ads funded by corporations and individuals – gives this issue real salience now.
Mitt Romney does not have an extensive track record of taking positions on most other Supreme Court cases, but he has been clear about the kind of justices he would appoint: judges “in the mold of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.”
As seen in past research, the AT&T, Wal-Mart, and Ledbetter decisions all trouble voters. Here is how they were described in the survey, each of them raising significant concerns about Romney:
5) The concern that Romney will appoint anti-choice justices also has power with many voters.
Both the survey and focus groups reveal that Romney’s commitment to appoint anti-choice justices concerns many voters. In the survey, 59% of voters (and 62% of swing voters) say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.
6) Voters’ recognition of the importance of judicial nominees in evaluating Romney and Obama is greatly heightened when we remind them that justices serve for life.
Bishop E.W. Jackson has embarked on a campaign following his failed Senate bid to convince black voters to reject the Democrats’ “anti-God” views and partake in a “mass exodus of Christians from the Democrat party.” Today in an opinion piece in the Washington Times, “Blacks are abandoning the Democratic Party,” Jackson asserted that African Americans will abandon the Democratic party over the issues of abortion rights and gay equality, incredulously asking how Democrats have “managed to hold on to black Christians in spite of an agenda worthy of the Antichrist?” “Mr. Obama’s commitment to the radical left’s anti-Christian, anti-God politics may cost him the election,” Jackson writes, “because a constituency he has taken for granted has awakened to the truth that being the first black president is not enough.” Of course, recent polling shows that Obama has a commanding 94-0 lead among black voters.
I was raised to be an FDR Democrat because my father was a young man during the Depression and credited President Roosevelt with saving him from starvation. “The Republicans only care about rich people,” I was told. This was more than 40 years ago. In spite of my childhood indoctrination, as a young man newly committed to my Christian faith, I had a crisis of conscience in the late 1970s. Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank was pushing the homosexual agenda. How could I, as a Christian, be committed to a party led by Mr. Frank? In the end, I could not. My desire to be in a right relationship with God and my faith was greater than my desire to be approved by my father, my family or the black community. My wife and I, then Massachusetts residents, left the Democratic Party in 1980 and never looked back.
Democrats now have fully embraced an abortion policy that amounts to infanticide. They have also made the lesbian-homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda their vision for America. How have they managed to hold on to black Christians in spite of an agenda worthy of the Antichrist? They have shown a ruthless willingness to frighten black voters with outright lies about the plans of conservatives and Republicans. Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s “they gonna put y’all back in chains” was not a gaffe. It is part of the Democrats’ strategy of using fear to keep blacks as a captive audience. I always have believed that such lies could not distract black voters forever or keep them from noticing the increasingly anti-Christian radicalism of the Democratic Party.
Now black churchgoers are being told to suppress Christian conscience and remain beholden to a party that demands their loyalty while insulting their faith and blaspheming their God. For the first time in 50 years, there is a discussion going on in the black community as to whether their loyalty to the Democratic Party is deserved. Many black pastors are telling their members to stay home, rather than vote for a black president who has done more to advance the cause of homosexuality and abortion than that of black Americans.
We are hearing the rumblings of a fissure between black Christians and the Democratic Party. My organization, Staying True to America’s National Destiny (Stand), is calling for a mass exodus of Christians from the Democratic Party. We held a news conference at the National Press Club on Sept. 10 and produced several videos. This not only has prompted discussion, but perhaps has launched a movement. Mr. Obama’s commitment to the radical left’s anti-Christian, anti-God politics may cost him the election, because a constituency he has taken for granted has awakened to the truth that being the first black president is not enough.
New York City councilman Fernando Cabrera has become the favorite Democrat of far-right groups like the American Family Association and Family Research Council, and even the virulently anti-gay, anti-Muslim, birther Rick Scarborough of Vision America. Cabrera is apparently comfortable working with Scarborough even though he is known for his notorious views on immigration and ethnic minorities, including Latinos. Scarborough is fervently opposed to immigrant rights, called Justice Sonia Sotomayor a “disaster,” and told a Tea Party Nation event that if the US was “become 30 per cent Hispanic we will no longer be America…that would be a bad thing.” He recently said that the increasing minority birth rate is bad for America and will lead to a decline in Christianity.
Now we are witnessing more babies being born out of wedlock than in wedlock, leading to escalating social problems. That brings us back to this latest revelation on the growing influence of minorities in America. The sad reality is that more non-white families will also mean an America with more fatherless families.
The increasing polarization of the races is an additional cause for concern. Politicians and self-styled community leaders urge blacks and Hispanics to see themselves as members of a race first and foremost, and not as Americans or Christians.
On a conference call today with Scarborough’s 40 Days to Save America campaign to energize anti-Obama voters, Cabrera thanked Scarborough for his “prophetic call” to pray before the election and called for God to take “dominion over our lives” and fight back against “the grip of darkness that is trying to take over our land.”
Scarborough used the call for pray to God to stop abortion and gay rights, just as God ended slavery, and to “deliver us as a nation from the throes of secularism.”
This is our time; this is our opportunity to make a difference in America. We look around it seems bleak, I find pastors who are discouraged who don’t believe that even God can change America. But the good news is He did it once and gave us America, the first great awakening; He did it a second time and expunged the nation of slavery; He can do it a third time and deliver us from abortion and division and the advancement of gay rights, the Lord Jesus can do that.
Father deliver us as a nation from the throes of secularism and the encroaching secularist mindset that is seeking to stifle Christianity as a whole, give us a rebirth Lord of love for You, Lord cleanse us personally, cleanse us societally, Lord give us an outpouring of revival such as we have not seen in our lifetime, Father we do repent of the sins of complicity of allowing the culture to grow so coarse and so far from what You intended.
Jim Garlow’s Pastors Rapid Response Team hosted a conference call today with televangelist John Hagee and Charisma magazine publisher Steve Strang, where Garlow and his fellow speakers repeated the claim that President Obama’s re-election will lead to the end of America. Hagee told people to “vote the Bible, don’t get confused about Republican or Democrat,” and then went on to tell people that they cannot as Christians back Democratic candidates due to the party’s stance on gay rights and reproductive freedom.
Hagee also asked listeners to fight the “secular left” like Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood up to Adolf Hitler, warning that “the evil day is here.”
Later, Strang said that Christians must view Obama’s agenda for a second term with considerable trepidation, unlike the Jews and Christians in Germany who Strang said “did not really believe that Hitler was as bad as he said, even though he outlined it in his book Mein Kampf. But Hitler turned out to be that bad and worse.” Strang cited the decades-old Humanist Manifesto and the Homosexual Manifesto, which was actually a comical work of satire that Strang apparently takes seriously, and claimed that “the way of life that we have is over if Barack Obama is elected again.”
The man has an agenda and I just wrote a blog and I also put it in the next issue of Charisma magazine where I refer to something I think Pastor Hagee said, he referred to Adolf Hitler, and in the 1930s the Jews and even the Christians did not really believe that Hitler was as bad as he said, even though he outlined it in his book Mein Kampf. But Hitler turned out to be that bad and worse. There are people out there with an agenda and if you don’t believe it Google the Humanist Manifesto, which was written in 1921, and also the Homosexual Manifesto, which was written in 1987, and see what these people want to do and what is happening before our very eyes. What Jim Garlow says is true, the way of life that we have is over if Barack Obama is elected again.
$1 Million Campaign Aimed at Latino Voters in Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia
Washington, DC – People For the American Way today launched a five-week campaign aimed at exposing Mitt Romney’s dangerous agenda for Latinos, focused in the key swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia. The first phase of the campaign, which will include over $1 million in TV, radio and direct mail outreach, starts today with a TV ad, “Somos el 47%” (“We are the 47%”), running in all three states.
“Mitt Romney and Republicans continually attack hard-working Latino families,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “Unfortunately for them, Americans are paying attention. At a fundraiser in April, Romney said that losing the Latino vote ‘spells doom for us.’ He was right.”
Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia have significant and growing Latino populations. The number of Latino eligible voters has grown by 76 percent in the past decade in Virginia, by 47 percent in Ohio and by 23 percent in Wisconsin.
“The Romney agenda is bad news for Latino families, and exposing that agenda could make the difference in this election,” continued Keegan. “Our efforts this summer to highlight what was at stake for Latino voters in the Wisconsin recall elections were instrumental in flipping party control in the state Senate. We are excited to replicate and bolster that effort in three key states in the five weeks before November’s election.”
People For the American Way’s ad, “Somos el 47%,” can be viewed here.
The Southern Baptist Convention’s top ethicist and resident plagiarist Richard Land is offering a completely original idea that he hopes will end the debate over same-sex marriage once and for all! In his column, What Relationships Should Be Called Marriage: A Modest Proposal, Land proposes that gay couples should be barred from marrying but instead be treated the same way as “two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship.”
Marriage has been defined in Western civilization for at least two millennia now as being a sexual relationship between one man and one woman. Christianity has defined it so historically, most often coupling it with life-long permanence and monogamy. As an Evangelical Christian, I certainly embrace that definition.
However, how do we deal with those who would choose to extend some of the legal privileges our society has accorded marriage to same-sex relationships without shattering the definition of marriage or discriminating against people outside the heterosexual definition of marriage? How do we protect society against those who would extend the special status of marriage to homosexual, lesbian or polygamous relationships? How do we protect time-honored titles, like "husband" and "wife," from being attacked as homophobic or sexist terms to be replaced by spouse #1 and spouse #2 or "Mom" and "Dad" from being reduced legally to caregiver #1 and caregiver #2? Such legal assaults on these time-honored family terms seem inevitable if "same-sex" marriage becomes equal with heterosexual marriage.
I propose that as Americans we declare heterosexual marriage as the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature and that it will continue to be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman consummated by sexual intercourse.
If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: "We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?"
In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?
David Horowitz has been promoting his new book Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion on conservative talk radio by attacking Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin as a Muslim Brotherhood agent and arguing that President Obama was only elected because he is black because “part of the racism of our society is [that] if you’re black you can get away with murder.” Horowitz’s interview with Janet Mefferd was no different, as he charged that Abedin “is a Muslim Brotherhood operative and she has been all her life” and that she has been pushing foreign policy favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood. Horowitz even said that Abedin “is worse than Alger Hiss,” the accused Soviet spy.
But it is not just the Obama administration which has been penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, as Horowitz warned that “the Republican Party has also been infiltrated” thanks to conservative luminary Grover Norquist, whom he said is a “practicing Muslim.” Norquist is a reviled figure among anti-Muslim activists like Horowitz, who in 2011 lashed out at Norquist from the podium at CPAC, mainly due to the fact his wife is a Muslim-American and he works with Muslim Republicans like Suhail Kahn.
Horowitz: We have a medieval enemy with twenty-first century technology aimed at us, they’ve infiltrated our government. If you wondered how it’s possible that Obama and Hillary would not know or would pretend what was happening wasn’t happening in the Middle East or how they could turnover Egypt as they have to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of Al Qaeda and all of these terrible Islamic Nazi organizations, the answer is not really hard to find: the chief adviser to the American government on Muslim affairs, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, is a Muslim Brotherhood operative and she has been all her life, and her whole family is. This is worse than Alger Hiss, for those in your audience who are old enough to remember, Alger Hiss is a Soviet agent who was right next to Roosevelt at Yalta.
Mefferd: It’s very true and yet you had these five congressmen, Michele Bachmann and the others, who tried to say the inspectors-general need to look into this, and even Republicans stood up on the floor and said no!
Horowitz: You had Boehner and McCain, and McCain is just bonkers. But the Republican Party has also been infiltrated. Grover Norquist is a Muslim, he is a practicing Muslim.
Later, Horowitz explained that liberals and radical Islamists are working out of their shared “hatred for America” and promoted the ridiculous and debunked conspiracy that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book Dreams from My Father.
Mefferd: Why is it that you see so many who are radicals and progressives supporting radical Islam?
Horowitz: Because they share a common enemy: the great Satan, which is us, and the little Satan, which is Israel. It’s very simple, the left for many, many years now, maybe half a century, has had no practical program, they have no idea what they were going to do with the world when they get the power. So what organizes them is their hatred for America. Why would you want to bankrupt America? Why would you want to take its military down? Why would you apologize to our enemies, as our President has done, unless you were a radical and you believe that we’re the great oppressor nation. I know he talks out of two sides of his mouth, he actually makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout in the realm of rectitude in what he’s saying, this guy lies so easily. Of course because he’s black he gets a pass on everything. We have reached a very low point in our national evolution. I’m hoping that this book, you know it’s not going to change the world, but those people who are buying and reading “Radicals” will at least understand the mentality behind these people and how influential they are. Bill Ayers is an America-hating terrorist and was Barack Obama’s closest political ally for twenty years and wrote his autobiography.
We know that when Michele Bachmann speaks, even fact-checkers can’t fully cover all of her dubious and debunked claims in just a single article. Now that Bachmann is completely engrossed in promoting her latest conspiracy theory focusing on the supposed Muslim Brotherhood “penetration” of the US government, she took to The Janet Mefferd Show to misrepresent President Obama’s address to the United Nations General Assembly to claim that Obama is not only refusing to defend the freedom of speech but may be even actively backing the curtailment of speech rights in favor of Sharia law.
The congresswoman told Mefferd that Islamic countries may be using “riots and terrorism” to ensure that “Sharia law will dominated over our United States Constitution.” “Our president either doesn’t know what’s happening or he’s playing along with what their goal is,” Bachmann said. “Either option is very dangerous for the free speech rights and the protection and safety of the American people.”
She also failed to mention that when Obama criticized “those who slander the prophet of Islam” it was part of a larger chastisement of religious bigotry, including against desecration of images of Jesus Christ, the destruction of churches and Holocaust denial.
Bachmann: We have just had four Americans killed, including two marines and an ambassador, and our President says to the UN the future does not belong to those who speak against the prophet? We need to remember that the fifty-seven Muslim governments across the world have what they call a ten year plan, it began in 2005 and their goal by 2015 is to criminalize any speech anywhere in the world that speaks against Islam or against the Prophet Mohammad. This is their plan. So their pretext is to find something they can point to and then have riots and terrorism and then force the rest of us to give up our free speech rights so that then that means their law, Sharia law, will dominate over our United States Constitution. That’s really what’s happening. Our president either doesn’t know what’s happening or he’s playing along with what their goal is. Either option is very dangerous for the free speech rights and the protection and safety of the American people.
Bachmann also maintained that Obama was simultaneously fashioning himself to be “‘Emperor of the World,’ telling the world what to do,” while also catering to the wishes of Muslim countries. She said that the President refused to make clear that “under no circumstances will the United States ever subvert the Constitution to Sharia law” and did not “articulate American values” against the coming global Islamic caliphate.
Bachmann: It almost sounds like he’s trying to speak as “‘Emperor of the World,’ telling the world what to do, as opposed to being the President of the United States who should be adamant and say it’s outrageous that these Islamist countries should be calling on the United States to take away the constitutional protections of the American people. This is very important to think that the United States would restrict speech of Americans. Now the president did talk in his remarks about the fact that we do have a constitutional right to free speech but really the only focus of that speech should have been under no circumstances will the United States ever subvert the Constitution to Sharia law. We didn’t get that kind of a forceful statement from our President.
Mefferd: No and that goes back to the day right after the consulate attack I think Mitt Romney did so much better than the President himself and saying we’re Americans, we believe in free speech, this was unacceptable. From Obama, it was sort of a ‘Chris Stevens was a really great guy’ and that was about it.
Bachmann: It was; it was ridiculous. Here we’ve been attacked, these were acts of war, what happened to us in Cairo, what happened to us in Libya, these were acts of war. Again, don’t forget these fifty-seven Muslim governments have a ten year plan: their goal is to criminalize speech against Islam. Why? Because they intend to establish a Caliphate, an Islamic government, across the entire world so that it isn’t just our speech rights that we would give up, we would have to give up all rights eventually and we would have to conform to Sharia law, the Islamic law. As women know, this would be a disaster for women, for freedom, for free speech. We’re not an Islamic nation, people can believe whatever they want to believe here, but we’re not an Islamic nation, we believe in freedom and I only wish our President would articulate American values. That’s one thing we’re getting from Mitt Romney, we are not getting it from Barack Obama. I’ll say it again, I believe he is the most dangerous president we have ever had on foreign policy and for that reason alone he must not have a second term.
Clearly, Bachmann missed the part in Obama’s speech (or all of it) where he forcefully defended the freedom of speech, expression, and religion as American values and unambiguously rejected violent extremism and discrimination against women and minorities.
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?
And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.
Birther queen Orly Taitz remains isolated in her quest to prove that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is ineligible to be president. In an interview with Vic Eliason on VCY America, Taitz alleges that Barack Obama’s Social Security number is invalid, insists that “we are getting very close to a dictatorship” in the United States today, and expresses disappointment that she has not received support from fellow birthers Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona.
Taitz claimed that Obama’s Social Security number is a “Connecticut number which was issued to another individual,” and states that the number he is using is “not a valid number.” She was stunned that her “persuasive” evidence was rejected by courts in Georgia. Taitz concludes that judges continue to shoot down her allegations against the president not because they are wrong, but because the conspiracy goes all the way to the top. Eliason affirms this belief, asserting that judges are merely “intimidated” by “dealing with a case that is so volatile, [that involves] the highest executive in our country.”
Eliason: I cannot understand at a time when the vetting of a presidential candidate, checking if they are qualified, how all of this can be just brushed aside like a fly on the table and ignored completely when there’s been an awful lot of evidence brought forth.
Taitz: You should ask the judges, people are allowed to write to a judge and ask those questions, I’m the person who brings all this evidence. You know I had a case in Georgia and there I spent a lot of money, I spent $14,000, I brought witnesses, I brought a senior deportation officer from the Department of Homeland Security testifying that Barack Obama’s social security number is invalid, that it’s a Connecticut number which was issued to another individual, we brought E-Verify showing that this number that he’s using that he posted on his tax returns that he put online that it’s not a valid number. We had all the evidence and at the end the judge there ruled that it’s not persuasive enough and to me it’s just hard to believe, how could that not be persuasive enough, when you have a senior deportation officer providing this evidence?
Eliason: Could it be Dr. Taitz that there are judges who are so intimidated dealing with a case that is so volatile, dealing with the highest executive in our country, and then to find — I think maybe there are those that say they are afraid of the truth because if this comes to light and it is verified there is going to be egg all over the face of who knows how many.
Taitz: Yeah, yeah.
Taitz said that her inability to remove Obama from the ballot is further proof that “we are getting very close to a dictatorship” akin to the Soviet Union.
Eliason: Folks the thing that has me bewildered, Dr. Taitz, is if someone is an imposter, someone who is portraying something that they are not, if they were caught flying an airplane and they weren’t a pilot or somebody in a bank that was functioning in a way that they were not qualified, you wouldn’t wait for six months or a year to deal with it, you deal with it immediately, why is it that elections suddenly bring immunity?
Taitz: You know I lived in the Soviet Union which was a dictatorship and now we’re seeing such enormous corruption in the government that we are getting very close to a dictatorship.
Yet even the greatest supporters of the birther movement have failed to back Taitz. Taitz was “disheartened” that Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a leader of the “Cold Case Posse,” did not show up at her trial to testify. Donald Trump has also been unresponsive to Taitz.
Taitz: I have to say that I attempted to subpoena Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and I’m really disheartened by the fact that he did not show up, we tried to subpoena him in Georgia, Mississippi and Indiana and I’m really concerned about the fact that Sheriff Arpaio went around the country, raised several millions of dollars on this issue, did press conferences, but when he is asked when appear in court, either he or Mr. [Mike] Zullo, and I was willing to pay for them to fly here, they are not appearing in court. That’s something hopefully your listeners will address with Mr. Arpaio because if he would’ve been here today there is a very high likelihood that the judge would’ve granted a preliminary injunction.
Taitz: For example, Donald Trump, you know he talks about this quite a lot but I don’t see him, I’ve never heard back, he never donated one cent, just to give you an idea, it is extremely hard for me to put up evidence.
Back in July, the Boston Globe reported that Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly stated he left his job at Bain Capital in 1999, was listed on the company’s tax filings as its CEO through 2002. Romney’s campaign later, and confusingly, stated that he had retired “retroactively” from the firm.
The discrepancy wasn’t just about a footnote in Romney’s resume. It was critical to the whole story Romney had been telling about himself, since he had denied involvement in some of the firms more questionable practices during the three years in question.
Now, the Globe reports, MoveOn.org is asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Romney broke the law when he stated on a 2011 campaign ethics filing that his involvement with Bain ended in 1999:
WASHINGTON — A Democratic group supporting President Obama’s reelection has asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Republican Mitt Romney violated federal law by stating on a 2011 ethics filing that he was not involved with Bain Capital operations “in any way’’ after 1999.
The Globe, citing numerous Securities and Exchange Commission filings, reported in July that Romney continued to serve as chief executive and chairman of Bain Capital, as well as the principal in a number of Bain-related entities, until as late as 2002.
The organization MoveOn.org Political Action, a liberal group, seized on those discrepancies in a letter dated Thursday to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. The group, citing its own review of the public records, contends that Romney may have violated the False Statements Act by lying on his 2011 federal financial disclosure statement.
In the 2011 disclosure, which Romney was required to submit as a presidential candidate, the former Massachusetts governor stated that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way’’ since Feb. 11, 1999. MoveOn.org contends that appears to be false.
“There is substantial evidence that Governor Romney was in fact involved with the operations of Bain Capital after that date,’’ MoveOn.org said in its letter to the Justice Department. In a press release, the group asserts there is “substantial evidence that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony.’’
On CNN’s website today, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin laments out how small a role the Supreme Court has played in the presidential election so far. He writes:
With a little more than a month to go, it's not too late to ask the candidates to take a stand on their plans for the court. The president has already had two appointments, and he named Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. But what does Obama, a former law professor, think about the court? Does he believe in a "living" Constitution, whose meaning evolves over time? Or does he believe, like Justices Scalia and Thomas, that the meaning of the document was fixed when it was ratified, in the 18th century.
By the same token, what kind of justices would Romney appoint? Who are his judicial role models? Romney has praised Chief Justice John Roberts, but is the candidate still a fan even after the chief voted to uphold the ACA?
No one is asking these questions. But there are few more important things to know about our current and future presidents.
Toobin is absolutely right that the candidates’ plans for the Supreme Court deserve a lot more air time than they’re getting. But he’s wrong to suggest that we know nothing about what President Obama and Governor Romney have in mind for the Court.
President Obama has already picked two Supreme Court justices. Both, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have been strong moderates, balancing out the retro extremism of Justices Scalia and Thomas. When female Wal-Mart employees wanted to band together to sue their employer for pay discrimination, Sotomayor and Kagan stood on the side of the women’s rights, while Scalia and Thomas twisted the law to side with the corporation. When Justices Thomas and Scalia ruled that a woman harmed by a generic drug couldn’t sue the drug’s manufacturer in state court, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan stood up for the rights of the consumer.
Mitt Romney obviously hasn’t had a chance to pick a Supreme Court justice yet, but he’s given us a pretty good idea of who he would choose if given the opportunity. On his website, Romney promises to “nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” After the Supreme Court’s ruling in the health care reform case, Romney announced he had changed his mind about Roberts, who declined to destroy the law while still writing a stunningly retrogressive opinion redefining the Commerce Clause.
And, of course, Romney sent a clear signal to his conservative base when he tapped Robert Bork to advise him on legal and judicial issues. Bork’s record, and what he signals about Romney’s position on the Supreme Court, is chilling:
Romney’s indicated that he would want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. He’s even attacked the premise of Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that prohibited states from outlawing birth control by establishing a right to privacy.
Yes, the candidates should be made to answer more questions about their plans for the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. But there’s a lot that we already know.
(For more, check out PFAW’s website RomneyCourt.com.)
We ordinarily wouldn’t really pay attention to Joel Gilbert, a Bob Dylan enthusiast who also dabbles in anti-Obama conspiracy theories, most recently making a film that alleges that the president’s real father is labor activist and communist party organizer Frank Marshall Davis.
But when Bill Armistead, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, started promoting Gilbert’s movie, “Dreams from My Real Father,” and when news surfaced that Gilbert was sending thousands of copies of his movie gratis to households in swing states and that conservative groups were holding showings, we thought we should start keeping track of him.
Gilbert has a spiel that he repeats pretty much word for word on media appearances, but once in a while he comes up with something new (for instance when he said that the Aurora movie theater shooting could very well have been an Obama administration inside job).
In an interview with Iowa radio host Steve Deace yesterday, Gilbert asserted that the president is “comfortable around anti-American extremists” – including Michelle Obama. He also elaborated on his theory that Obama is “attempting to turn the entire United States into this one-party system by doubling the food stamp rolls, putting everybody on government healthcare, making illegals legal.”
Obama is comfortable around anti-American extremists, people that are anti-American – Bill Ayers, Michelle Obama, dare I say. These are the people that he feels comfortable with and they’re comfortable with him. Obama’s policies mirror this classic Marxist indoctrination that he received and reinforced his entire life by joining the Midwest Academy, his relationship with Bill Ayers and his family for 25, 30 years, as well as Bernadine Dorn, and this entire rat’s nest of Marxist ideologues that came out of Chicago and transformed their, took their little one-party ideology from Chicago and are attempting to turn the entire United States into this one-party system by doubling the food stamp rolls, putting everybody on government healthcare, making illegals legal. Their intent, it’s all about keeping power and creating a one-party state that they can never have to give up power.