C4

Peter LaBarbera: Gay Rights Movement Is 'A Liberal Cult' And 'Anti-God'

Last Tuesday on the “Jesse Lee Peterson Radio Show,” Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality told guest host and fellow anti-gay activist Matt Barber that the gay rights movement is “a liberal cult,” “an anti-God movement” and a “sin movement.”

Barber argued that with African-American leaders’ acceptance of gay rights, “secular socialism” has “infested the black community.”

“The blacks are a noble people, certainly, and there are many … Bible-believing Christians who are offended and disgusted by these illegitimate comparisons between mutable, changeable, deviant behaviors, homosexual behavior, and immutable, neutral characteristics such as skin color,” Barber said. He claimed that “black leaders have completely sold out to the radical LGBT lobby and are complicit in making these illegitimate comparisons.”

“Yeah, the sellouts keep growing, Matt,” LaBarbera said. “You know, I sort of see this as a liberal cult, this homosexual revolution. Everybody’s joining it who, you know, who’s basically gotten rid of their Christian understanding of the world. They’ve just rejected God. It’s an anti-God movement. When you would purport to redefine humanity, redefine the rules of humanity, and let’s, you know, people are talking about the transgender issue now, but let’s remember the gay revolution started with transgenders. It was drag queens at that Stonewall bar who started throwing bottles and such at the police. And so we’re in a cult here, it’s a liberal cult, and a lot of corporate America has bent the knee, and many, many people, I think you once said, Matt, you think over half the evangelical Christians will accommodate themselves to this sin movement, and I fear you’re right.”

Bryan Fischer Says It's 'Hard To Believe' It's 'Just Coincidental' That So Many People Around The Clintons Have Mysteriously Die

On his American Family Radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer took a call from a listener who wanted to hear his thoughts about the death of a former UN official whom right-wing conspiracy theorist outlets have been falsely claiming was scheduled to testify in a case involving Hillary Clinton.

Despite the fact that this death had nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton, Fischer responded to the caller by declaring that 107 people with ties to the Clintons have died under suspicious circumstances over the years and, he said, "it is hard to believe that that is just coincidental."

Laughably claiming that he was not suggesting that the Clintons had anything to do with any of these deaths, Fischer then proceeded to marvel that "107 people have died under suspicious circumstances in and around the orbit of the Clintons."

Fischer doesn't have a single person his life who has died under mysterious circumstances, he said, and yet the Clintons have supposedly had over a 100, which makes it "hard to believe that that is just coincidental."

Trump's Defenders Say He Isn't Personally Bigoted. That's Not The Point.

Let’s stop debating whether Donald Trump is a bigot. He might not be racist, sexist or anti-Semitic. He might not hate Mexican-Americans or Muslims. Attempts to decipher his personal feelings are a distraction. 

Defenders of Trump’s presidential campaign, most recently his son-in-law, New York Observer* publisher Jared Kushner, have repeatedly denied that the presumptive GOP nominee harbors any personal bigotry or intolerance.

“My father-in-law is an incredibly loving and tolerant person who has embraced my family and our Judaism since I began dating my wife,” wrote Kushner. “I know that Donald does not at all subscribe to any racist or anti-Semitic thinking. I have personally seen him embrace people of all racial and religious backgrounds.”

He concluded, “The suggestion that he may be intolerant is not reflective of the Donald Trump I know.”

While it is certainly heartening to know that Trump’s son-in-law does not believe he is a bigot, that fact is irrelevant.

Throughout his career, Trump has used bigotry in the same way he has used bankruptcy. It is a tool that he uses to achieve personal or, now, political profit.

In previous decades, to benefit his casino business, Trump ran ads claiming a Native American tribe’s “record of criminal activity is well documented.” When an allegedly mob-connected high roller demanded his casino floor be cleared of African-American dealers, Trump’s staff at the Taj Mahal readily complied. (For that bigoted act he was fined $200,000.)

Seeking publicity in the 1980s, he stoked racial tensions in New York, running ads following the arrest of five African-American teens in connection with a horrific rape in Central Park, calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty. The teens were later exonerated after spending years in prison. Yusef Salaam, one of the falsely accused, called Trump the “fire starter.”

Trump’s recent success in politics has been in large part thanks to his willingness to exploit racial mistrust for his own benefit. His political rise began when he attached himself to racist claims that President Obama might not have been born in the United States. While announcing his candidacy, Trump claimed that Mexicans migrants are “rapists.” Later, he declared that as president he would bar Muslims from entering the United States.

For decades Republicans have obeyed Lee Atwater’s maxim and sought to use ever more coded language to hide their electoral appeals to racism and bigotry. Trump's campaign is unconventional in the way that he has broken with this pattern as well.

Political racism is no longer expressed through campaign ads showing an understated glance from a single African-American prisoner walking through the revolving door of a prison or a pair of white hands crumpling a piece of paper. Like his buildings, Trump’s bigotry knows no subtlety. His campaign’s attempts to stoke racial animus are loud, brash, plated in gold and stamped with his name.

Trump may or may not be a bigot, but his message is designed to advance bigotry by promoting it as the answer to any number of economic and social problems. This message has understandably attracted those who openly and proudly promote hate. It is no accident at this point that his campaign has repeatedly retweeted white supremacistsaccounts.

Hence a debate about whether or not Donald Trump feels racism or bigotry in his heart is immaterial to the larger question: Does he feel comfortable using hate and the hate of others to fuel his ambitions, without regard to the cost to individuals and our culture? The answer is clearly yes.

* Disclosure: On occasion I write for the New York Observer.

PFAW Denounces Anti-Immigrant Show on the Floor of the Republican-Controlled Senate

Today, the Republican-controlled Senate failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance their efforts to pass dangerous anti-immigrant legislation that would have targeted cities with community trust policies and created a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for undocumented individuals who re-enter the U.S.

“These bills were just the latest example of Republicans scapegoating immigrants for their own political gain,” said PFAW Director of Latinos Vote! and Manager of Political Campaigns Lizet Ocampo. “These measures aimed to make communities less safe by harming public trust in local law enforcement and to undercut incarceration reform efforts, further hurting families and our society. Congressional Republicans seem to feel the need to show that they hate immigrants on the floors and halls of Congress again and again. In doing so, they’re making clear that there is not much difference between them and Donald Trump, and they are eager to be his right hand in demonizing immigrants and tearing Latino families apart.”  

PFAW Executive Vice President Marge Baker added, “Republicans have important legislative work to do right now, especially giving fair consideration to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. But instead of doing their Constitutionally-mandated jobs, Republican senators are playing politics with people’s lives considering partisan bills that would do great harm to communities around the country.”

People For the American Way is a progressive advocacy organization founded to fight right-wing extremism and defend constitutional values including free expression, religious liberty, equal justice under the law, and the right to meaningfully participate in our democracy.

###

William Gheen: 'There's A Direct 1:1 Relationship Between Criminal Activity And Being A Democrat'

William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC joined Idaho radio host Kevin Miller on his show last Wednesday to discuss the recent sexual assault of a 5-year-old girl in Twin Falls, which some conservative media have blamed on Syrian refugees despite the fact that it was allegedly committed by two boys who are not from Syria, and eventually ended up on a tangent about how Democrats are prone to crime.

“This is what happens all over Europe,” Gheen said, comparing “the socialists” who he said are suppressing reports of crimes committed by refugees in Europe to Democrats in the U.S. He said Democratic precincts are “packed full of minorities, which have been bolstered by more minorities brought in as illegal aliens” by Democrats who want “to make sure that no one who is a conservative or anything like the Americans that have governed the country for 200 years can control things anymore.”

“Have you ever noticed, Kevin, that your highest-crime precincts around the country are your Democratic precincts?” Gheen asked. “It’s not just because people are white, black, Asian, or whatever. It’s because there’s a direct statistical association between Democrat precincts and your likelihood of being a victim of crime. And if you go down to the local police house and you check the registration of the people who are being brought in for crimes or charged every morning, you’re gonna look at a huge percentage of them being Democrats, because there’s a direct 1:1 relationship between criminal activity and being a Democrat or being in a Democratic precinct.”

House GOP Follows Orlando Tragedy with a License to Discriminate

On July 12, the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee is expected to hold a hearing on the so-called First Amendment Defense Act, an odious anti-LGBT bill that would redefine and hijack the Constitution’s protection of religious liberty.
PFAW

David Whitney: Government Should Be Christian-Only

On former Missouri state legislator Cynthia Davis’ show last Tuesday, David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution claimed that President Obama and the Supreme Court justices who struck down anti-gay state marriage amendments are going to hell and that those who hold public office should be “Christians who have a biblical understanding of law and government.”

Whitney urged Christians to “be in prayer for those in civil government. Be in prayer for those running for office, even those who you know have the wrong point of view, pray for their repentance. Pray that somebody like Barack Obama, who began violating his oath of office from the day he took his oath of office, that he would repent, because as I read his life, he’s headed on the road to hell and he’s gonna be eternally damned if he does not repent of his sins.”

Whitney stressed that the Founding Fathers were, in his opinion, Christians who built the country on their religious beliefs.

“We know that until people understand the worldview of our founders, a biblical worldview of law and government, they are really not qualified to hold office in any position, even down to the dogcatcher at the county level,” Whitney said. “We need Christians who have a biblical understanding of law and government, an understanding of our founders, they are the ones that need to take every position of leadership in our country at every level, county level, state level, and indeed, the federal level as well.”

In 2014, Whitney and his Institute on the Constitution colleague Michael Peroutka both ran for seats on their local county council in Maryland on explicitly theocratic platforms; Peroutka was successful.

Whitney claimed the Founding Fathers “said there is one god, the God of the Bible,” and today’s government must also follow God’s “standard of justice.” 

“I think of the Supreme Court justices, who, I probably shouldn’t call them justices, even, but anyway, who redefined God’s holy institution of marriage, I can’t imagine what deep pit in hell awaits those justices unless they repent,” Whitney said. “They think they’re higher than God. They put themselves above the Almighty, and believe me, there’s a comeuppance coming for every one of them where they’re gonna be dragged down off their high and mighty position on that bench with their black robes, and they’re gonna be cast into the pit of hell unless they repent.”

Rick Joyner Has No Idea What He Is Talking About

On his latest "Prophetic Perspectives on Current Events" program, Rick Joyner recounted his experience attending the meeting that Donald Trump held last month with nearly 1,000 Religious Right activists. 

One thing that really electrified the crowd, Joyner said, was Trump's pledge to repeal the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the tax code that has long restricted the ability of nonprofit organizations to engage in explicitly political activities and endorse or oppose candidates for office.

To hear Joyner tell it, that provision was placed into the tax code by then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson specifically because he wanted to punish churches and Christians.

"Lyndon Johnson was very candid about how he wanted to impose a restraint on Christians and on churches from speaking into the current issues of the times," Joyner claimed. "He was really angry at the church because of the way they had constantly opposed him or challenged him in his elections and this was a way he thought he could muzzle the church."

That alternate version of history must come as a surprise to groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, which launched its "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" initiative back in 2008 to challenge the Johnson Amendment on the grounds that it was never intended to apply to churches.

As the ADF explained in this video it made back in 2012, Johnson was upset that two wealthy businessmen had used nonprofit organizations they had created to attack him when he ran for re-election in 1954 on the grounds that he was too soft on communism. In response, Johnson inserted an amendment into a bill overhauling the tax code that restricted the ability of nonprofit organizations to engage in overtly political activities.

According to the ADF, and contrary to Joyner's claim, "Johnson never had churches in mind" when he added this amendment:

Laurie Higgins: 'Obama Dishonors National Park Service' With Stonewall Memorial

The Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins is not pleased with President Obama’s recent designation of a national monument commemorating the Stonewall uprising, writing today that the recognition of the gay rights turning point “dishonors” the National Park Service and promotes “the celebration of wickedness.”

“Was Obama’s unseemly act a proclamation of social and political liberation from unjust oppression,” she asks, “or was it the ordination of a gnostic/neopagan monument to the unyoking of sex from truth?”:

Obama Dishonors National Park Service

… During this centennial year, President Barack Obama has decided that what the world needs now is a national park dedicated to sexual deviance. In his unbiblical belief that homoeroticism is something to be publicly celebrated, on June 24 President Obama proclaimed that the 1969 Stonewall riot that took place outside a seedy homosexual bar in NYC and which officially marks the start of the social and political revolution to normalize sexual deviance should be commemorated[.] …

This proclamation follows as expectedly as dark night follows day from a president who has defaced the White House in the garish and misappropriated colors of the rainbow to honor the destruction of marriage by the five Supreme Court justices. About this defacement, Obama was pleased to say “how good the White House looked in rainbow colors.”

The rainbow, the symbol of God’s promise never to destroy the world for our iniquities, is now the appropriated symbol of the celebration of iniquity. The rainbow has been purloined by the perverse to represent the wholesale rejection of God’s order for maleness, femaleness, sex, and marriage. And our president, who claims to be a follower of Christ, not merely shares in the celebration of wickedness but uses the office established by God-fearing men to promote it.

Does Obama know something St. Paul did not, because while Obama celebrates faux-marriage, the creation of intentionally motherless and fatherless children, and riots in support of body- and soul-destroying sexual acts, St. Paul warns of the eternal consequences of homoeroticism:

“The men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27).

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Was Obama’s unseemly act a proclamation of social and political liberation from unjust oppression, or was it the ordination of a gnostic/neopagan monument to the unyoking of sex from truth?


 

Tancredo: Obama Possibly A Muslim, ‘Hates The America You And I Love’

During anti-immigrant hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform’s “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” radio row last month, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., claimed that President Obama “hates the America you and I love” and is bent on transforming American culture via the mass immigration of non-assimilating Muslims.

“What does this man care about the Constitution or the Supreme Court?” Tancredo asked the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney on his June 23 “Secure Freedom Radio” program.

“When we recognize that one of the very first things [Obama] ever really promised during a campaign, during his first campaign, was something no one really paid attention to until recently, and that is that he said, ‘I have every intent to thoroughly transform the United States of America,’” Tancredo said. “Well, if you understand that and if you understand he’s still totally committed to that, and that everything he does is designed to do that, then you can understand why he presses the issue of immigration so much, because especially immigration from Muslim countries, especially Islamic immigration, will help him in that endeavor. It does eventually thoroughly change and transform America. It reaches his goal. He hates the America you and I love.”

“Many of us have always raised the issue when we talk about immigration, we raise the issues of the impact on low-skilled labor, the lack of jobs, the cost of the education system, the cost of the medical system in America,” Tancredo said. “All these things are true, but they pale in comparison by the danger posed by massive immigration, both legal and illegal, of people who don’t want to be American.”

He continued, “Our own government is saying, ‘Don’t assimilate. There’s nothing here of value, there’s no reason for you to attach yourself to that old America. You wanna be separate and apart and we’ll help you do that. It is to change the culture in that way and for all times, in their estimation, in their hope, and I fear so often that they are ahead of us here.”

In an interview with Baltimore radio host Tom Marr at the FAIR event the same day, Tancredo wondered if Obama wants to transform America because he’s secretly Muslim.

“I often wonder what he actually was thinking, what went through his mind, each time he had to put his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, and say he was going to, you know, he swore to uphold the Constitution. What was going through his mind at the time?” Tancredo asked. Both Marr and Tancredo suggested that Obama wanted to have his other hand on the Quran.

“There’s always the, you know, is he really a Muslim? And for them, it is perfectly acceptable to lie about this kind of thing in order to accomplish the goal,” Tancredo said. Tancredo also claimed the best way to transform America for years to come, as he said Obama does, is to bring in millions of immigrants who don’t assimilate and intend to change America.

Larry Klayman: 'Revolution' Needed After Clinton Email Announcement

Larry Klayman, the founder of the Clinton-hounding conservative group Judicial Watch, has spent the last several years calling foramassuprising ora coup to depose President Obama and prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the presidential election. Unsurprisingly, Klayman returned to this theme yesterday in response to FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that his agency would not recommend that prosecutors press charges against Hillary Clinton for misuse of email at the State Department.

“This thing has been rigged from the start, Donald Trump is absolutely right, I said it long before Donald Trump,” Klayman told Newsmax’s J.D. Hayworth. “Our legal system is corrupt to the core and I think, you know, we just celebrated our Independence Day. We’re back to 1776. I advocate civil disobedience a la Martin Luther King. It’s going to take another revolution to bring this country back.”

“What I’m saying is that if we want justice, we the American people are going to have to rise up,” he said. “It’s only one day after July 4 and our forefathers rose up against King George III. Frankly, he was a better ruler than either Hillary Clinton would be or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or, for that matter, some of the Republicans. And we’re going to have to take our country back and it’s going to have to be done in a peaceful way with civil disobedience. We can no longer rely on the courts.”

He added that his nonviolent, 1776-style revolution would require “extreme, nonviolent measures.”

“I don’t advocate violence, I never have,” he said, “but it worked for Martin Luther King, it worked for Lech Walesa in Poland, it worked for Mahatma Gandhi in India, and in South Africa.”

More Evidence That David Barton Isn't Going To Stop Saying Something Just Because It Is False

It should be obvious by now to anyone familiar with David Barton and his particular brand of right-wing pseudo-history that he is not going to stop repeating claims just because those claims happen to be demonstrably false. 

The latest incident occurred when he appeared on "Table Talk" on Daystar TV last week where he, for the third time, falsely claimed that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion in which he stated that "we all know that all the provisions in the Bill of Rights, the due process clauses, came out of the Bible."

As we have noted the last two times that we found Barton making this assertion, his claim is utterly and demonstrably false. What Breyer actually said in his 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia was that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, as well as several other places (emphasis added):

The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.

Barton's claim is easily debunked, but he knows that his right-wing audience will never bother to actually attempt to verify anything that he says, which allows him to continue to spread these sorts of falsehoods with impunity:

Right-Wing Activists Immediately Start Spreading Conspiracy Theories About Why Hillary Clinton Won't Be Indicted

For years now, American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer has insisted that President Obama does not want Hillary Clinton to succeed him as president and has repeatedly predicted that Obama would order the Justice Department to indict her over her mishandling of email while serving as secretary of state. 

Today, FBI Director James Comey recommended that the Justice Department not indict Clinton over the issue, so naturally Fischer went to work spinning a conspiracy theory on his radio program today, despite the fact that the theory he came up with directly contradicts his previous predictions.

As Fischer sees it, Comey has a reputation as a straight shooter who does things by the book and so he must have been "leaned on" by someone higher up - either by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or by President Obama - in coming to his decision not to recommend an indictment.

Given that Fischer has repeatedly stated that Obama does not want Clinton to become president, it is impossible to understand why he would now be claiming that it was Obama who quashed the indictment. But, for some reason, that is what Fischer is now suggesting, saying that Comey hosted his press conference today because "he wants the American people to know that she is guilty as sin" but that he was pressured into letting her off.

The AFA's Abe Hamilton, who was Fischer's guest on the program today, completely agreed and said that Comey's decision was "strikingly similar" to Chief Justice John Roberts' decision upholding Obamacare in 2015, which some right-wing activists are convinced he handed down only because he was being blackmailed by the Obama administration.

"Somebody is leaning on James Comey," Hamilton said.

Fischer and Hamilton are not the only ones floating this conspiracy theory without a stitch of evidence, as Rick Joyner took to Facebook today to suggest the same thing:

The FBI Director's judgement that Clinton should not be prosecuted was expected by many because everything has been so politicized that almost no one expects justice anymore. There was a misplaced hope in Director Comey like there was in Chief Justice John Roberts in regard to the Obamacare decision. These two incomprehensible decisions felt connected in some ways. No one could make sense out of Chief Justice Robert's decision to say Obamacare was constitutional because it was a tax, which even the Obama Administration refuted. It is likewise hard to figure out why someone as smart as FBI Director Comey would so blatantly contradict himself in the same press conference, and make the call that he did.

Many speculated that the only way Roberts made such a confused decision on Obamacare was that someone threatened him. This seemed feasible with all of the revelations that was then coming out about the info the NSA had been compiling on all Americans. Nothing else seemed to make sense. That is hard to imagine with the Director of the FBI, but in a similar way his decision just did not make sense, especially after his own statement about negligence in this case being a crime too, even if not intentional. How could anyone dispute that there was not at best gross negligence in the careless way Hillary handled classified information? Both of these decisions felt really foul, and somehow they are connected. I don't like conspiracy theories that can't be proven, but something really seemed awry in both of these.

Michele Bachmann: Obama And Hillary Have Switched Sides And Support Islamic Terrorism

Last week, former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., accused the U.S. government of “switching sides” in the war on terrorism as a result of the policies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton, saying that the two have been “assisting in jihad” by making sure that “our government was giving arms, giving ammunition and giving training to those who are a part of the Islamic jihad.”

“We used to be about fighting Islamic terrorism and what I saw happen in our government is that it seemed like we were switching modes to almost assisting them,” she said in an interview Friday with Southern Baptist Convention president Ronnie Floyd, who was guest-hosting the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” radio program.

Bachmann, a member of Donald Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board, urged listeners to support Trump — “this is an easy choice to make” — because Obama and Clinton are bringing members of the Muslim Brotherhood into the U.S. government and ignoring terrorist threats.

The former congresswoman and notorious conspiracy theorist said that Clinton has been pushing the agenda of Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, falsely claiming that she supports international blasphemy codes.

Obama and Clinton, according to Bachmann, are “favoring Islamic law, even here in the United States,” while persecuting American Christians.

She went on to depict Clinton as “a global elitist” who “favors one-world government” and “has been involved in bringing members of the Muslim Brotherhood here into the United States.”

Kelly Shackelford: Trump Would Pick A More Conservative Supreme Court Than Mitt Romney

Kelly Shackelford, president of the Religious Right legal group First Liberty (formerly Liberty Institute), was among the conservative religious leaders who met with Donald Trump in New York last month and, like many others, seems to have resigned himself to supporting Trump’s presidential candidacy on the assumption that Trump would hand over the process of picking Supreme Court justices to movement conservatives.

Shackelford said as much in an interview with Jerry Newcombe last week, explaining that while he wasn’t endorsing Trump, it’s “very conceivable” that, if elected, Trump would pick a more conservative Supreme Court than even Mitt Romney would have because he’s “going to sort of pass this off” to conservative groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

Trump mentioned both groups in response to a question from Shackelford at the New York event, also promising that his judicial nominees would be “100 percent” against abortion rights.

“Look, I haven’t endorsed anybody for president, I’m not telling people who to vote for, but I do think people need to think through some of these things,” Shackelford told Newcombe. “I’m not saying this would happen, but it’s very conceivable that Donald Trump, who is certainly not considered a right-wing conservative, it’s very, very possible that a Donald Trump as president would appoint a more conservative Supreme Court than, for instance, Mitt Romney would ever think about. Because Mitt Romney would appoint people more moderate like himself, you know, moderate conservative. Donald Trump is going to sort of pass this off to like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which are very conservative.”

“So it’s one of those things where sometimes you can look at the candidate and go, ‘Well, he’s not as conservative as I am,’” he said, “but really what you’re asking is what are they going to do as president, what their positions are going to be. And it could be that if your issue is the courts, you know, Trump could be very different than you would normally assume because he’s delegating this away from himself and the results might be more appetizing to people who are very conservative.”

Rick Joyner: Conservatives Refusing To Support Trump Is A Sign America Has Been Cursed With Madness

On a recent episode of his "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events" program, Rick Joyner said the fact that many conservatives are refusing to support Donald Trump even after he pledged to fill the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues is a sign that America has been cursed by madness.

Joyner said that he has not heard a single word of complaint about any of the people included on Trump's list of potential Supreme Court appointments because "for conservatives, this is the best list you could ever come up with."

Nonetheless, some conservatives have said that they would support Hillary Clinton over Trump, which Joyner said is "madness."

"This is madness," he said. "There is a madness in the land, but that's a curse that is promised to come upon any nation that starts calling good evil and evil good."

The Fisher Decision Was a Victory for Equality of Opportunity

Last month the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in a case about equal educational opportunity for all people, regardless of their race. In a 4-3 decision, the Court upheld the University of Texas’s diversity admission policies, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion. Justice Kennedy remarked that “courts must give universities substantial but not total leeway in designing their admissions program.”

Some backstory on the case: in 2008, Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas-Austin undergraduate program and was denied admission. Fisher, who is white, filed a lawsuit against the university claiming that she was denied admission based on her race. In 2014, the conservative Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s decision in the case, in which it sided with the University of Texas. Fisher then filed a petition to the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments for the case in 2015.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Fisher v. University of Texas case was a crucial victory for racial justice in America. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the University of Texas to use race as part of the admissions policy for prospective students. The decision not only reflected the need for equality of opportunity for all people, it was also a step toward addressing the deep-seated racism that unfortunately is still present in our society. As PFAW Foundation president Michael Keegan put it: “From universities to the workplace, diversity policies are among the many needed programs to combat structural racism and strive towards equal opportunity for every American.”   

PFAW

Gary Bauer: Trump Administration Will Give 'Key Positions' To Religious Right

Longtime Religious Right activist Gary Bauer was among the 1,000 movement leaders who met with Donald Trump in New York last month as the GOP presidential candidate tried to cement their support, and it seems like Trump got Bauer on his side. In an interview last week with Ave Maria Radio host Al Kresta, who was also at the meeting, Bauer said that “values voters” have no “real choice” when it comes to Trump or Hillary Clinton, adding that he was confident that Trump would staff his administration with “people that have our values.”

“In some ways, he’s the most ignorant presidential candidate I’ve seen,” Kresta said, “and I don’t want to retract that. At the same time, he does show, he seems to show a willingness to learn. So on the Supreme Court issue, he consults with the Federalist Society, you know. You could do a whole lot worse.”

“I don’t think at this point there’s any choice,” Bauer responded. “It’s Trump versus Hillary Clinton. And while we may have questions about what Trump will do, I know what Hillary Clinton’s going to do. She’s not going to reverse a lifetime of being pro-abortion, aggressively pro-abortion, pushing the gay rights movement, being very insensitive on matters of religious liberty. So I just don’t think there’s any real choice here for values voters other than to support Mr. Trump.”

“But in addition to that reason, you know, the people they’ll put in their administration I think is a huge factor,” he added, “and Donald Trump, if he wins, is not going to be able to come up with 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 people that are clueless about the issues, he wouldn’t want that to be the case, it’s going to be people like you and me and people that have our values and end up having the key positions in the federal government.”

Mat Staver: America Will Face a 'Day Of Reckoning' Over Legal Abortion

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver ripped the Supreme Court for striking down a Texas law aimed at limiting access to legal abortion under the guise of protecting the health of women, declaring that America will soon face a "day of reckoning" from God over the sin of abortion.

Citing a passage from Jeremiah condemning kings who build their palaces through the injustice of slave labor, Staver said that abortion has done much the same in America, with the Supreme Court "mixing this injustice into the mortar" of this nation.

"There will be a time of reckoning," Staver said. "I think what this Supreme Court has done in 1973 [and] 1992, when they reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, and throughout the history and obviously with this decision is they have built this country with a policy of mixing the blood of children into the mortar of this country. And there will be a day of reckoning; God will not continue to allow his children to be slaughtered by any nation. It will come a time when this nation, or any nation, that ultimately takes the lives of their innocent children that will have a day of reckoning and I think we, as a church, have to wake up to this fact."

Staver went on the urge lawmakers in Texas to defy the ruling and "stop pretending that these people on the Supreme Court can divine anything they want to and then pass it off as though it is constitutional when it has nothing to do with the Constitution at all."

Steve King: Democratic 'Gun-Grabbing' Would Lead To 'A Tremendous Amount of Bloodshed'

Last month during anti-immigrant hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform’s “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” radio row, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, claimed that Democrats want to “grab guns,” which he said would lead to “a tremendous amount of bloodshed” in the U.S.

Speaking with radio host Lars Larson on June 23, King speculated that the FBI dropped an investigation of Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen due to “political correctness in not going after someone that was Muslim” and faulted Democrats for calling attention to gun laws in the wake of the attack.

“This is a gun-grabbing agenda that’s there, and it came right out of the mouth of the president within hours of the shooting in Orlando when he gave his presidential address that spoke to that, and right away he blamed it on guns rather than radical Islamic terrorism,” King said.

He continued, “[Obama’s] got his minions out there blurring this and turning it onto guns.”

King criticized Democrats for “their clamor to grab guns," saying it was not “the gun’s fault.”

“This man was Omar Mateen, was three times, at least three times, was interviewed and questioned by the FBI,” King said. “They decided they would close his file and put it away because they didn’t have enough to work with. I think they might have been influenced by political correctness in not going after someone that was Muslim. But they put the file away, he had met his security background check by the security company that he worked for.

“He could’ve gotten a gun anywhere in this country, anytime he wanted to, and no law that they proposed as Democrats would’ve prevented the shooting in Orlando, unless you take all of our guns away, and that means stop selling them and go confiscate the ones we have, which means a tremendous amount of bloodshed if you try that in this country.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious