C4

David Horowitz: Everything Democrats Do Is 'An Attack On White People'

David Horowitz, a conservative pundit who regularly hosts Republican elected officials at his symposiums in Florida, praised Donald Trump last week for venturing into territory that other Republicans won’t by calling Democrats out for being “treasonous” and “racist.”

“Republicans and conservatives lose the battle because they won’t take the bull by the horns,” Horowitz told Indiana talk radio host Greg Garrison, “they won’t call the Democrats liars, they won’t say that they’re treasonous, which they are, they won’t say that they’re racist, which they are.”

“I mean, it’s just unbelievable to me when you see how racist the Democratic Party is,” he said. “Everything is about race and everything is an attack on white people and anybody who’s not black or Latino.”

Yet, he said, “Republicans never mention it.”

Correction: This post originally misidentified the radio program on which Horowitz made his remarks.

Heritage Fellow: Scalia's Vote Should Still Count From Beyond The Grave

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a former George W. Bush administration Justice Department official, said last week that the Supreme Court should count the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s votes on pending cases in which the justices have already cast preliminary votes.

Von Spakovsky mentioned in particular Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that would deal a blow to unions and in which Scalia was likely on the anti-union side.

In an interview with American Family Radio’s Sandy Rios on February 15, von Spakovsky said that Chief Justice John Roberts has “an absolute obligation” to count Scalia’s vote in Friedrichs and other cases in which justices have already held conferences.

“After oral arguments before the court, the justices leave the courtroom and they go to a conference room in the Supreme Court building and they take a vote,” he said. “So that’s the point at which they know how a case is going to be decided and the chief justice then makes assignments of who will write the majority opinion and etc. I think the chief justice has an absolute obligation to give credit to Scalia’s vote in those cases that have already been decided, even if he didn’t write his opinion yet, because they know how he would have voted.”

“So on particular cases like the Friedrichs case … that case was argued on January 11, so they know how Justice Scalia cast his vote in that case and I think the chief justice should give credit to it,” he said.

Von Spakovsky is correct that justices cast votes in a private conference after hearing cases … but those votes sometimes change as the justices work on their opinions. Shortly after Scalia’s death, veteran Supreme Court attorney Roy Englert told ABC that the “vote of a deceased justices does not count.”

We can’t help but point out the irony that von Spakovsky has been one of the primary drivers of the myth that massive voter fraud requires suppressive laws that make it harder to vote. One of the voter-fraud specters he has raised is that of people casting votes on behalf of people who have died.

The Extremists Behind the 2016 GOP Presidential Candidates

As People For the American Way (PFAW) Senior Researcher for Special Projects Miranda Blue explained on the most recent telebriefing for PFAW members, “In past years, we’ve seen extreme endorsers for Republican presidential candidates, but there was always a level of extremism that the candidates wouldn’t go past. This year, it’s completely different. Leading 2016 Republican presidential candidates have shared the stage with individuals who say that the government should kill gay people, embrace a Christian Nation ideology, and more.”

This unprecedented extremism was discussed during last Thursday’s telebriefing, and has been closely tracked by PFAW’s Right Wing Watch team.

Some of the most striking examples come from Ted Cruz. He spoke at a conference alongside far-right pastor Kevin Swanson, who believes that according to the Bible, our government should impose the death penalty on gay people. Troy Newman, who Cruz appointed to co-chair his anti-abortion committee, has argued that the government should execute abortion providers. And Cruz touted the endorsement of Mike Bickle, who says that Hitler was a “hunter” sent by God for the Jewish people. But don’t just take our word for it – watch this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show last month, which uses research from PFAW’s Right Wing Watch:

It’s not just Ted Cruz who’s courting extremists. Donald Trump, for example, has campaigned with the support of people like Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter. Coulter is not quite the household name that Palin is, but they’re two peas in a pod in their far-right extremism. Coulter said recently that Donald Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States was her “best birthday gift ever!”

Far-right figures also exert undue influence in the 2016 election through campaign spending. Because of Citizens United, millionaires and billionaires are able to push a far-right agenda in the Republican Party through unlimited expenditures. As PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery discussed on the telebriefing, Farris and Dan Wilks are top donors to Ted Cruz’s super PACs. The Wilks brothers hold strongly anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-government views. Peter was quoted earlier this month in the Houston Chronicle discussing the Wilks brothers: "Their willingness to pour millions of dollars into the presidential race and to write enormous checks for Religious Right organizations give them the potential to make a huge and destructive impact on our politics.”

Marco Rubio, for his part, is bankrolled both personally and professionally by billionaire Norman Braman. Marco Rubio returned the favor to Braman when he was in the Florida state legislature; Rubio “has steered taxpayer funds to Mr. Braman’s favored causes, successfully pushing for an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and securing $5 million for cancer research at a Miami instate for which Mr. Braman is a major donor.”

As the 2016 election continues, we’re sure to see more of the far-right financing and supporting the leading 2016 candidates. Be sure to follow our coverage at www.rightwingwatch.org.

PFAW

No, Biden Didn't Call For Rejecting All Supreme Court Nominees In Election Years

Within hours of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this month, conservatives retroactively invented a bogus “tradition” that Supreme Court justices are never confirmed in presidential election years. That claim is demonstrably false, but conservatives are sticking with it in an attempt to justify their efforts to keep President Obama from naming the next Supreme Court justice.

Today, the pro-obstruction crowd thought it got a boost when a short clip of now-Vice President Joe Biden was unearthed from the depths of the C-SPAN archives. In the clip of the 1992 floor speech, Biden, who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during what turned out to be the last year of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, urges the president to, in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy, “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

Hypocrisy!

Well, not quite.

As ThinkProgress’ Igor Volsky and Biden himself have pointed out, when taken in context, that wasn't Biden's point. The then-senator made the remarks in the context of a long speech bemoaning the increased politicization of the confirmation process and, in Biden’s words, urging the White House and the Senate to “work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended.”

Secondly, even if you were to claim that Biden were offering some new rule for blocking Supreme Court nominations, that rule wouldn't cover the current situation.

Look at the timestamp on the video. Biden was speaking on June 25, 1992 about filling a vacancy if a justice “resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks resigns at the end of the summer.” By June 25, the presidential primaries were over and Bill Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee. That’s a very different point in an election year than we are in today, when the vacancy opened so very early on in the presidential nominating contests and with the risk of a Supreme Court seat remaining open for more than a year, severely disrupting two consecutive terms.

If you go back to read the transcript of Biden’s remarks, he repeatedly states that he is concerned about vacancies that occur “in the summer or fall of a presidential election year” — not vacancies that occur as early in the year as Justice Scalia’s did. The last four Supreme Court confirmations took an average of 75 days from nomination to confirmation, meaning that if President Obama nominates anyone in the next month, they could be confirmed well before the period that Biden was supposedly arguing should be off-limits for Supreme Court nominations.

There is still no “tradition” of shutting down judicial nominations for the entire last year of a presidency or of leaving the Supreme Court short-handed for an entire year.

And, as Volsky notes, while Biden didn’t face a Supreme Court vacancy in 1992, his Judiciary Committee did continue approving Circuit Court nominees well through the summer and fall of the election year, a stark contrast to current Republican threats to shut down the judicial nominations process entirely this year:

 

 

PFAW

No, Biden Didn't Call For Rejecting All Supreme Court Nominees In Election Years

Within hours of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this month, conservatives retroactively invented a bogus “tradition” that Supreme Court justices are never confirmed in presidential election years. That claim is demonstrably false, but conservatives are sticking with it in an attempt to justify their efforts to keep President Obama from naming the next Supreme Court justice.

Today, the pro-obstruction crowd thought it got a boost when a short clip of now-Vice President Joe Biden was unearthed from the depths of the C-SPAN archives. In the clip of the 1992 floor speech, Biden, who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during what turned out to be the last year of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, urges the president to, in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy, “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

Hypocrisy!

Well, not quite.

As ThinkProgress’ Igor Volsky and Biden himself have pointed out, when taken in context, that wasn't Biden's point. The then-senator made the remarks in the context of a long speech bemoaning the increased politicization of the confirmation process and, in Biden’s words, urging the White House and the Senate to “work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended.”

Secondly, even if you were to claim that Biden was offering some new rule for blocking Supreme Court nominations, that rule wouldn't cover the current situation.

Look at the timestamp on the video. Biden was speaking on June 25, 1992 about filling a vacancy if a justice “resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks resigns at the end of the summer.” By June 25, the presidential primaries were over and Bill Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee. That’s a very different point in an election year than we are in today, when the vacancy opened so very early on in the presidential nominating contests and with the risk of a Supreme Court seat remaining open for more than a year, severely disrupting two consecutive terms.

If you go back to read the transcript of Biden’s remarks, he repeatedly states that he is concerned about vacancies that occur “in the summer or fall of a presidential election year” — not vacancies that occur as early in the year as Justice Scalia’s did. The last four Supreme Court confirmations took an average of 75 days from nomination to confirmation, meaning that if President Obama nominates anyone in the next month, they could be confirmed well before the period that Biden was supposedly arguing should be off-limits for Supreme Court nominations.

There is still no “tradition” of shutting down judicial nominations for the entire last year of a presidency or of leaving the Supreme Court short-handed for an entire year.

And, as Volsky notes, while Biden didn’t face a Supreme Court vacancy in 1992, his Judiciary Committee did continue approving Circuit Court nominees well through the summer and fall of the election year, a stark contrast to current Republican threats to shut down the judicial nominations process entirely this year:

 

 

Frank Gaffney: Pope Francis Has 'Anti-American' Views, President Obama 'Hostile To This Country'

Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, alleged in a radio interview last week that President Obama and Pope Francis are both in cahoots with Islamists to promote an “anti-American” agenda.

Gaffney told Indianapolis radio host Greg Garrison on Friday that the “red-green axis” of Islamists and progressives are working toward the “common purpose” of “taking down our country.”

Garrison alleged that President Obama doesn’t care about people saying “death to America” in Iran. “‘Death to America’ is a thing that is apparently meaningless to President Obama or something that in some sense of the word he’s kind of okay with,” he said.

“Yeah, that’s the scary part,” Gaffney said, “is that it sure sounds as though it isn’t fighting words for sure and, if it’s not something he actually endorses, and I shudder to think of that, he certainly isn’t doing anything to discourage it. To the contrary, what we’re watching him do is, as you said, emboldening folks who feel this way and empowering them to believe that they will be able with impunity not just to chant that sort of thing but to act on it.”

Earlier in the interview, Gaffney took on Pope Francis’ comments about the southern border wall, saying that the pope is “very much imbued” with “the sort of revolutionary, social justice, liberation theology agenda of the Jesuits of Latin America.”

That theology he said, is “rabidly anti-American” and “is increasingly an incitement to people to act against this country, including our sovereignty and our security, notably that extravaganza at the border.”

“But I’m sorry to say that I think this is in the service of people who are very much hostile to this country,” he said, “and whether that’s the Obama administration or whether that’s the enemies external to this country, they’re benefiting from his lending a patina of religious authority to what they’re about.”

Cruz Spokesman Ousted After Suggesting Rubio Renounced The Bible

In another strange development in the Republican presidential primary, Ted Cruz’s top campaign spokesman is out of his post after circulating a news article suggesting that Marco Rubio mocked the Bible.

Cruz, whose campaign has been dogged by allegations of perpetrating dirty tricks, said that his spokesman Rick Tyler committed “a grave error of judgment.”

It all started when Rubio bumped into Rafael Cruz, the Texas senator’s father and a frequent campaign surrogate, and a Cruz staffer in the lobby of a hotel in South Carolina. While walking by, Rubio briefly made remarks about the book the staffer was reading: the Bible.

An article in The Daily Pennsylvanian, the University of Pennsylvania’s student newspaper, originally reported that the Florida senator said that the Bible is a “good book” but casually added that there are “not many answers in it.”

While the audio in a video of the exchange is hard to make out, it seems highly unlikely that a presidential candidate would mock the Bible while chatting with a staffer of a rival campaign and the father of his chief opponent, not to mention in front of people with cameras. Rubio, in fact, seemed to say that the Bible had “all the answers in it.”

Nonetheless, Tyler shared on his Twitter and Facebook pages the Daily Pennsylvanian post claiming that Rubio challenged the Bible.

Tyler eventually deleted the posts and apologized, but Cruz nevertheless asked for his resignation over the matter.

However unlikely the Rubio story was, it seems almost inevitable that the Cruz campaign’s effort to portray its candidate as the one true Christian in the race would have eventually met a snag.

New Poll Shows Obstructionist Stance on Supreme Court Vacancy is Hurting Toomey and Portman With Voters

Note to senators in tough reelection battles: putting your Washington DC party bosses over the Constitution by standing in the way of filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court is not only the wrong thing to do for our country, it’s also making voters less likely to support you.

New Public Policy Polling surveys released today show that large majorities of voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Senators Pat Toomey and Rob Portman are running for reelection, want the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death to be filled this year. According to the polling memo:

  • Strong majorities of voters – 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania – think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers – and concerning for Portman and Toomey – is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37.
  • …Voters are particularly angry about Senators taking the stance that they’re not going to approve anyone before even knowing who President Obama decides to put forward. By a 76/20 spread in Pennsylvania and a 74/18 one in Ohio, voters think the Senate should wait to see who is nominated to the Court before deciding whether or not to confirm that person. Toomey and Portman are out of line even with their own party base on that one – Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them. [emphasis added]

Perhaps most notable for the senators, more than half of voters (52 percent in both states) say they would be less likely to vote for Toomey or Portman if they “refused to confirm a replacement for Justice Scalia this year no matter who it was.” Among independents, the numbers were even higher.

Senators Toomey and Portman would be wise to take heed of their constituents, and of the Constitution, and stop refusing to even consider any Supreme Court nominee, regardless of his or her credentials. Any nominee must be treated fairly and honestly. The Supreme Court is far too important to be held hostage to the overtly political obstruction of GOP senators.

PFAW

Ronald Reagan, 1988: 'Move Quickly' To 'Make Sure There's A Full Nine-Member Supreme Court'

In their effort to prevent President Obama from naming the next Supreme Court justice, Senate Republicans have seized upon a bogus talking point that the Senate has a long-held, bipartisan tradition of refusing confirmation votes to the Supreme Court during an election year.

This claim is demonstrably false, as illustrated by a cursory glance at Senate history and by some of the past statements and even votes of some of the very same senators.

Things got so bad that Ted Cruz, who in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was one of the first to call on the GOP to block consideration of any nominee from President Obama, falsely claimed in a presidential debate that Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate in 1987, when in fact he was confirmed in 1988, the final year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

The same politicians who try to out-position one another as a modern-day versions of Reagan must find it pretty inconvenient that Reagan, in his last year in office, urged the Senate to “move quickly and decisively” to “make sure there’s a full, nine-member Supreme Court to interpret the law and to protect the rights of all Americans.”

Howard Mortman of C-SPAN flagged the remarks Reagan made in his 1988 State of the Union address.

As Paul explained last week, filling a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of a presidency is indeed rare — because it is rare for a justice to die in office, and even rarer for a justice to die in a presidential election year.

But many Republicans, it seems, have found it easier to manufacture phony “traditions” than to admit they want to leave the court shorthanded for a year in the hopes of having a president they like better in the future.

Rafael Cruz: 'A Lot Of Our Freedoms Would Disappear' If Ted Cruz Were To Lose The Election

Greg Corombos of WorldNetDaily chatted with Rafael Cruz, Sen. Ted Cruz’s father and campaign surrogate, over the weekend about how Cruz plans to “eclipse Trump and emerge as the nominee.”

The elder Cruz once again declared that God is raising up his son to become president, and that the true Christians of America will recognize that God is backing his son’s candidacy and carry him to victory: “I think what is going to happen is the body of Christ is going to rise up. Believers are coalescing around Ted Cruz and I think when the people of God realize that we need a man of faith, a man of integrity, a man that you can trust his word — two things you can count on Ted Cruz, number one he will tell you the truth, and number two, he will do exactly what he says he’s going to do.”

He boasted that his son is a “man of truth” and the only candidate in the race who has said that the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling “is not the law of the land, this is an unconstitutional, unlawful decision and five justices have no right to impose their view upon 320 million Americans.”

“This election is the most important election of our lifetime,” he continued, warning that a Cruz defeat would mean “a lot of our freedoms would disappear” because a liberal jurist would end up replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Trump Confidant Roger Stone Wonders If Scalia Was Assassinated

Last week, radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones interviewed Roger Stone, the longtime adviser and confidant of Donald Trump, about the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Stone, who has served as a go-between for Jones and Trump, was happy to engage in speculation surrounding the justice’s death, just as the GOP frontrunner himself has.

When Jones, who has insisted that Scalia was assassinated and warned that Trump may be next, brought up the “red flags” surrounding the justice’s death, Stone mentioned the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

“I don’t think any of us are claiming foul play, we’d like to rule out foul play, but common sense dictates that there’d be some investigation and some autopsy to make sure this wasn’t another coup d’état,” he said. “We’ve had coups d’état in this country. We had one on November 22nd, 1963, we had another one at the time of Watergate, this could very well be another coup d’état.”

Stone also took time to explain that the New York Daily News has been critical of Trump because its owner, Mort Zuckerman, is “a very short guy, he has no luck with women and he’s very, very jealous of Donald Trump, who is tall, handsome and has the most beautiful wife on the planet.”

Later, Jones hailed Trump as “a hero” who is “under amazing danger” due to a grand plot involving the Vatican, Washington and Wall Street.

“I am so glad I back Trump,” he said. “He’s the real deal. There’s no way he’s an establishment scammer. I can look at their body language, they are crapping their pants, Mr. Stone, and for a lack of a better term, they are scared to death like vampires being hauled out at high noon. I am really concerned about Donald Trump right now. I’m not fear-mongering. I think he’s the most under-threat man on earth right now.”

Right-Wing Activists Suggest Obama Killed Scalia To Impose Martial Law

Two right-wing pundits who have suggested that the White House was behind the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC and InfoWars broadcaster Alex Jones, got together last week to discuss their theories about Scalia’s passing, both insisting that they were just asking the question if President Obama killed the conservative jurist.

Gheen rejoiced that more Americans are waking up to the fact that the U.S. “is being destabilized and overthrown by a socialist overthrow of [the] country that’s behind illegal immigration and behind the Black Lives Matter movement,” finding it suspicious that “Scalia was the number-one or one of the number-one top stumbling blocks to that agenda when he died.”

“We are under martial law,” Gheen declared.

Jones said that Scalia was “the one guy standing against” Obama and “was about to say no and they said, ‘Oh really?’”

GOP Rep. Slams Trump As Not 'Very Much Involved At All' In 9/11 Recovery

Rep. Peter King, Republican of New York, was not pleased with Donald Trump’s harsh words about President George W. Bush at a recent presidential campaign, issuing a press release at the time calling Trump a “feckless pretender” and “a poor man’s imitation of Michael Moore.”

In an interview with Newsmax’s J.D. Hayworth posted online on Friday, King continued his tirade against Trump, saying that he “never saw Donald Trump being very much involved at all” in New York’s recovery after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“J.D., from all I know and from my recollection at the time, I never saw Donald Trump being very much involved at all,” he said. “He talks about having hundreds of friends of his who were killed an, I’m not trying to minimize anything, I’m not aware of funerals he went to or any efforts or causes he was involved in, including the 9/11 Health Act or anything, really. I’m sure there could have been some private donations he made, but he was certainly not an active force at all in New York after 9/11 as far as the whole World Trade Center tragedy.”

He demanded that Trump apologize to Bush, before attacking the presidential candidate for praising the late musician Michael Jackson.

“Quite frankly, I found it interesting last night,” he said, “he was saying what a great friend of Michael Jackson that he was and he was saying great things about Michael Jackson, who, as far as I’m concerned, was a pedophile, the same week that he’s calling President Bush a liar is, to me, almost sacrilegious.”

The exchange starts at around 2:30 into this clip:

Georgia 'Religious Freedom' Bill Could Protect KKK, Sponsor Admits

Georgia’s state senate is considering a “religious liberty” bill that would make it easier to discriminate against LGBT people by, as Americans United explains, allowing “any individual or ‘faith-based’ business, non-profit entity, or taxpayer-funded organization to ignore any law that conflicts with their religious beliefs about marriage.”

This means, according to AU, that “any person, business, or taxpayer-funded organization could refuse anyone else rights, services, and benefits because they are part of an interracial couple; are part of an interfaith couple; are a single mother; are part of a same-sex couple; are divorced; are remarried; live or have lived with a partner without being married; or have had sex outside of marriage at any time in their life.”

The broad scope of the bill, which combines a House-passed measure with an even broader Senate bill, has alarmed many observers, including state Sen. Emanuel Jones.

In a debate over the bill today, Jones asked its sponsor, Sen. Greg Kirk, if the Ku Klux Klan would count as a faith-based organization protected under the law.

“I guess they could,” Kirk answered, adding, “I don’t know what would stop them.”

When Jones asked Kirk if that seemed like a problem to him, Kirk responded that it did not because the bill “certainly isn’t directed” at the KKK.

Kirk then compared the KKK to Beyoncé’s “tribute to the Black Panthers” at the Super Bowl, saying that the Black Panthers would also be protected under the legislation.

Georgia Equality captured the video:

Meanwhile, another Georgia GOP lawmaker, state Rep. Tommy Benton, has been under fire for claiming that the KKK “was not so much a racist thing but a vigilante thing to keep law and order.”

h/t reader Erik

Ted Cruz Super PAC Defends Confederate Flag As 'Our Flag' In South Carolina Robocall

Just one day before the South Carolina Republican primary, a super PAC aiding Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign is attacking Donald Trump and Gov. Nikki Haley —who recently endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio — for supporting the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina’s capitol grounds following the deadly shooting at a historically black church in Charleston last year.

Schuyler Kropf of The Post and Courier reports that the group is urging voters to defend “our flag” from politicians like Trump:

A pro-Ted Cruz robo-telephone call is blasting Donald Trump for butting his nose into support of the Confederate flag coming down.

The recorded message, coming late in the campaign, also takes a jab at Gov. Nikki Haley.

“Put it in a museum, let it go,” the recording says, quoting Trump and his view on removing the flag.

An announcer then picks up by saying “That’s Donald Trump supporting Nikki Haley removing the battle flag from the Confederate memorial in Columbia.”

It adds “people like Donald Trump are always butting their noses into other people’s business,” and that “Trump talks about our flag like it’s a social disease.”

The controversy over the Confederate flag is still a pressing issue in the state: A recent Public Policy Polling survey found a majority of likely Republican voters support “the Confederate flag hanging on the capital grounds.” Support is particularly high among Trump fans (70 percent) and Cruz backers (62 percent), who were also more likely to say that they “wish the South had won” the Civil War.

Cruz never came out in support of or opposition to the Confederate flag’s placement, going only so far as to say that it should be a states’ rights issue

However, the co-chair of his South Carolina campaign, state Sen. Lee Bright, was a vocal defender of the Confederate flag following the shooting, denouncing concerns about the flag as a distraction from debate over Satanic gay rights, while likening gay marriage and attacks on the flag as twin threats to states’ rights.

Bright also hailed the flag as a symbol of “freedom” and resistance to “federal tyranny.”

Is there any doubt that states’ rights are under attack more than ever before?

As I’m sure you’ve heard, the latest liberal hysteria surrounding the placement of the Confederate battle flag has swept the nation. And unfortunately, many of my conservative friends and colleagues have fallen prey to this radical, Big Government scheme.

With all the noise surrounding this issue, please allow me to be abundantly clear where I stand. It is my fervent belief that the Confederate flag is a proud symbol of the following:

• Resistance against a federal, centralized power that FAR overreached its Constitutional limits.

• States’ rights and Constitutional liberties, which many have fought and died protecting.

• Southern heritage and a culture that values freedom, even in the face of federal tyranny.

It is certainly important for us to take steps that prevent future acts of violence. But in this pursuit of peace, should we also dismantle the historical symbols that memorialize states’ rights?

My answer is an emphatic “NO!”

The plain and simple truth is that the placement of this flag will not prevent future tragedies. It’s abundantly clear that the radical liberal agenda is behind this push to remove the flag, which raises the question: where does it all end?

Are we to also remove the names of Confederate officers from our roads? Should we crumble all the Civil War monuments that dot our nation’s landscape?

[NAME], it’s time to take a stand. Right here. Right now.

Over 150 years ago, brave Confederates made a bold stand against an oppressive government that far overstepped its Constitutional limits. Will you please take a stand with me now by signing my online petition to keep the flag flying ?

States all over the nation are giving ground to the radical liberals by removing the symbol of states’ rights from their historical monuments. But if we can make a stand here and now, we can send a strong message to the elites in DC that states’ rights are still alive and well.

Please click here now to sign my petition , which I will then present to my colleagues in the South Carolina legislature. Let’s show them how much we value our heritage!

Paranoia-Rama: Scalia's Satanic Sacrifice, Antichrist Hillary And FEMA Camp Future

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has spurred right-wing conspiracy theorists into action, as they spin strange and increasingly absurd claims about the circumstances of his death. At the same time, others have been sticking to the typical attacks on President Obama as an anti-white, anti-Christian tyrant.

Ted Cruz: Phil Robertson 'Terrifies' People Because He 'Speaks With Joy'

In his final campaign push before the South Carolina Republican presidential primary on Saturday, Sen. Ted Cruz once again trotted out Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, showering the controversial reality TV star with praise.

Robertson dedicated his speech at the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, campaign event to ranting about the evils of premarital sex and how men need to marry a “clean” woman.

Cruz, in turn, joked that Robertson could serve as ambassador to the United Nations in his administration and praised the activist for his overwhelming “joy.”

“You know, there’s a reason he terrifies the mainstream media,” Cruz said. “He says the things you’re not supposed to say. He actually remembers who we are as Americans and just speaks it with a joy, not with an anger, not with a hatred, with a joy in who we are.”

Let’s go over some of the joyful things Robertson has had to say, shall we?

Robertson wants to “rid the earth” of those who support “evil” and “wicked” marriage equality, warning that the acceptance of gay people will lead to bestiality. He has denounced liberals as the pawns of Satan and said that black people were “happy” until the end of Jim Crow got them hooked on welfare. And who could forget his very joyful speculation about how an atheist man would react to watching his wife and children get brutally raped and murdered?

Very joyful and not terrifying at all.

Rick Wiles: Obama, Hillary And Pope Francis Will Destroy America

End Times radio host Rick Wiles took issue yesterday with Pope Francis’ recent remarks about Donald Trump and immigration, claiming that Francis wants to flood the U.S. with Roman Catholic immigrants from Latin America as part of a conspiracy to bring America down.

“What this Jesuit is doing is he’s using illegal immigration to accomplish what the Jesuits have been unable to do for hundreds of years in North America, and that is to topple this country,” the “Trunews” host said.

Later, Wiles recounted a prophecy he received from God about an “imminent” war that will lead to the “utter destruction” of America at the hands of Russia because the country’s “evil” and “bloodthirsty” leaders, President Obama and Hillary Clinton, are “full of devils” and provoking Vladimir Putin to “vaporize” America.

Michael Savage: 'It's The End Of The World' If Obama Appoints A New Justice To The Supreme Court

On Wednesday, conservative talk radio personality Michael Savage continued to hash out his conspiracy theory that President Obama was behind Justice Antonin Scalia’s death at a Texas ranch.

He told “Savage Nation” listeners that Scalia’s “suspicious” death was the single worst thing to ever happen to the world because if Obama “gets control of that Supreme Court you may as well pack your bags and move. Where? There’s nowhere to move. It’s the end of the world. You heard me, it’s the end of the world. Not the end of America, the end of the world.”

“Nothing worse could’ve happened,” Savage said, claiming that the U.S. will go “right into the toilet bowl” if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gains more clout on the court.

He then said the FBI would never investigate Scalia’s passing because it’s “in the back pocket of Barry Obama’s Blackberry union.”

GOP Rep: Ted Cruz Will Pull America Back From 'The Brink Of Destruction'

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, guest-hosted Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ “Washington Watch” program on Wednesday, where he spoke to his fellow Tea Party-aligned colleague Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, about the 2016 election.

Both Gohmert and Huelskamp have emerged as vocal supporters of Ted Cruz, whom Huelskamp claimed understands “the principles of life, the family, religious liberty and protecting folks who are just trying to run their business.”

“They go after Christians, they go after our way of life and they’re taking our money,” Huelskamp said of federal officials.

Indeed, Huelskamp was confident that Cruz “is going to fight for those basic foundational principles that built this nation and I think are going to bring us back from the brink of destruction.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious