At a 2011 Virginia Family Foundation summit, E.W. Jackson – now the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor – said that God will stop blessing the U.S. military because of a rule that allows chaplains to marry gay service members following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Jackson told the group that “our military is under attack” by those who want to allow chaplains to marry same-sex couples.
Jackson, who has made a career out of making extreme anti-gay statements, warned: “How in the world can we expect our military to be blessed by the hand of almighty God if we allow our military to become the equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah? God is not pleased.”
E.W. Jackson, the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor of Virginia, told a Republican forum prior to his nomination that a plan to have armed guards in schools didn’t go far enough to prevent school shootings.
He said that “every person who had a concealed carry permit and was trained to use a firearm” should be “allowed to bring that firearm to school,” adding that he believes it is a Second Amendment right to bring guns to schools.
Back in 2009, then-State Senator Ken Cuccinelli told the Shenandoah County Republican Party that it was nice to leave Richmond for the heavily Republican county because “the real Virginia is here.”
Cuccinelli, now the GOP nominee for governor, made the remark while defending Sarah Palin’s famous comment that conservative areas represent the “real America” and are more “pro-America” than the rest of the country.
Cuccinelli was also echoing the remarks of the McCain-Palin campaign’s Nancy Pfotenhauer, who said in 2008 that the more conservative regions outside of northern Virginia are the “real Virginia.”
In 2006, then-Sen. George Allen told a Democratic campaign worker of of Indian descent: “Let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.”
Cuccinelli also discussed his fight to defund Planned Parenthood and defend anti-gay marriage laws in a video of the event posted by a Virginia Republican activist.
Later this week, the Senate will vote on ending the Republican filibuster of Patricia Millett, the first of President Obama’s three nominees to fill vacancies on the influential US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Republican senators have no beef with Millett personally (she’s a renowned appellate attorney, military spouse and black belt), but they’re still threatening to block all three nominees because, they contend, President Obama is attempting to “pack” the 11-member court by going through the constitutionally mandated process to fill its three vacancies.
Backing up this obstruction effort, one familiar outside group has again stepped up to carry Republicans’ water: the Judicial Crisis Network.
In the 2004, as the battle was heating up over confirming some of President Bush’s most far-right nominees, former Bush-Cheney religious right outreach staffer Gary Marx and former Justice Thomas clerk Wendy Long teamed up to found a group called the Judicial Confirmation Network, housed in the offices of the right-wing American Center for Law and Justice and dedicated to “working to ensure a fair appointment process of highly qualified judges and justices.”
Four years later, the Judicial Confirmation Network found itself in a bind when President Obama was elected to be the one nominating federal judges. All of a sudden, JCN lost interest in working to confirm “highly qualified judges and justices” to the bench. So, in 2010 the group changed its name to the Judicial Crisis Network and announced that its mission would heretofore be “to confront the radical legal and legislative threats facing our country” – that is, trying to prevent President Obama from filling seats on the federal courts with highly qualified judges and justices.
Today, the Judicial Crisis Network has emerged as the primary outside group working to prevent the Senate from confirming President Obama’s three nominees to fill the three vacancies on the influential US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. JCN is running radio ads targeting moderate senators urging them to filibuster the three nominees and has launched a snazzy website with infographics purporting to show that President Obama’s nominating qualified people to existing judicial vacancies amounts to “court packing.”
Our colleague Paul Gordon has done a thorough point-by-point takedown of JCN’s “court packing” infographics, but the bottom line is this: Like Senate Republicans who are now trying to permanently cap the DC Circuit at eight judges, JCN sang an entirely different tune when it was a Republican president was doing the nominating.
In the era when JCN was the Judicial Confirmation Network, President Bush had four nominees confirmed to the DC Circuit, bringing its total number of active judges up to 11. Meanwhile, due to Republican obstruction, President Obama has had just one nominee confirmed to the court, bringing the total number of judges on the court to eight.
JCN and Republican senators contend that the DC Circuit’s caseload is significantly lower now than it was then, meriting a reduction of the number of judges on the court. That’s simply not true [pdf]. For instance, in June 2005, when the Senate confirmed far-right Bush nominees Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith to the tenth and eleventh seats on the DC Circuit, there were 1,313 cases pending before the court. Today, as the GOP is trying to cap the court at eight judges, it is facing 1,479 pending cases.
In 2005, the Judicial Confirmation Network was reminding senators of their “obligation to bring these nominations to the floor for a fair vote.” Today, the Judicial Crisis Network is urging senators to deny floor votes to nominees in the same position.
Later today, JCN’s chief counsel Carrie Severino will be a witness at a House hearing on the DC Circuit titled “Are More Judges Always the Answer?” We can guess that Severino’s public answer to that question will be “no.” But a more forthright answer would be, “It depends who’s nominating them.”
Much of the success of the Affordable Care Act depends on enough young, healthy people signing up for health care coverage to offset the cost for insurance companies of covering a larger pool of older and less healthy people. That’s why ACA’s supporters are investing a lot of time and energy in signing these “young invincibles” up for coverage….and why the law’s opponents are determined to discourage young people from acquiring health insurance plans. (See the ridiculous, more than a little ironic, ad by the Koch-backed Generation Opportunity showing a scary Uncle Sam delivering a gynecological exam.)
Concerned Women for America is now joining other right-wing groups in trying to discourage young people from signing up for insurance on the ACA’s exchanges. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday, CWA spokeswoman Alison Howard said healthy young people shouldn’t be called “young invincibles” but “young subsidizers” and insisted “they’re not buying in to having to subsidize a government-run program that’s a complete fail.”
Howard urged listeners to "continue to pray for our nation's leaders, that they have wisdom and clarity of how to fix this very broken problem and help us completely heal as a country."
Sen. Marco Rubio’s politically transparent U-turn on immigration reform may not be paying dividends among anti-immigrant activists as he would have hoped. The Florida Republican recently came out against the very comprehensive reform legislation he sponsored and helped pass in the Senate, but one of the country’s top opponents of his bill think it’s too little, too late.
NumbersUSA Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks told Sandy Rios yesterday that Rubio has already “poisoned the well” and now her group will urge congressman to vote against any immigration bill coming out of the House.
Rios: Do you think that Marco Rubio’s shift, slight shift, is helpful?
Jenks: Unfortunately, Rubio set out his positions in the Gang of 8 bill and that bill has essentially poisoned the well. We can’t go forward with a piecemeal approach now because that bill is sitting there, waiting for the House to pass any immigration bill so that Harry Reid can take that bill and substitute in S. 744, the Senate Gang of 8 bill, and then send it back to the House for a conference. That’s the path. So at this point, because that bill has poisoned the well, it’s too late for Marco Rubio to say, ‘oh you know I believed in a piecemeal approach all along and that’s what we should do.
Bradlee Dean tours schools and churches around the country to instruct kids about Christian Nationalism and the evils of abortion rights and homosexuality, but sometimes on his Sons Of Liberty radio show he also delves into history. Over the weekend, for example, Dean said that the word “racism” wouldn’t even exist…if it weren’t for “that devil Trotsky.”
While speaking to his wife/co-host Stephanie Dean (his former co-host and Dean’s entire staff recently quit) about why a new article called him “anti-gay” rather than “pro-family,” Dean latched onto an urban legend about how Leon Trotsky coined the word “racism” in order to “to browbeat dissenters.”
“So what they do is they would just belittle them — by the way, this is what you’re seeing across America today, that is communism from A-Z and it was contrived directly from that devil Trotsky,” Dean said.
He even claimed that Trotsky was a propagandist for Joseph Stalin…even though they were fierce rivals and Stalin actually had him killed.
This is this rhetoric that comes from Trotsky back in the 30s. Trotsky had actually brought up the word ‘racist’, it was contrived from that devil back then, he was a revolutionary under Stalin. Just saying, responding what to you just asked me pretty little princess, he used the word racist to browbeat dissenters. In other words, he created the word racism to combat those that weren’t in agreement with their ideology, their totalitarianism. So what they do is they would just belittle them — by the way, this is what you’re seeing across America today, that is communism from A-Z and it was contrived directly from that devil Trotsky.
Speaking yesterday with a caller who identified himself as a “non-practicing homosexual,” Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association reaffirmed his belief that homosexuality “is a matter of choice.” When the caller asked if Fischer “could have sex with a man,” Fischer was flummoxed and said he would never even begin to think about having gay sex.
When the caller pointed out the hypocrisy in Fischer’s position that gay men should simply just “choose” to see women, the AFA spokesman, still puzzled, said, “If an individual does not have a legitimate way to satisfy their sexual impulses, then the path that God has designed for them is the path of abstinence, chastity and celibacy.”
Caller: Could you have sex with a man?
Fischer: I’m sorry?
Caller: Could you have sex with a man?
Fischer: Would I?
Caller: Could you?
Caller: I thought it was a choice?
Fischer: Sure it is, I’m just saying it’s emotionally, morally, mentally impossible for me—
Caller: But you just told me that you couldn’t do it?
Fischer: Yeah, I couldn’t do it, there was no way; there is nothing in me that would let me do that.
Caller: OK. How do you think I feel about women?
Fischer: I don’t know. How do you feel about women?
Caller: There ain’t no way.
When Moore, Oklahoma, was hit with a devastating tornado last spring, a number of Oklahoma lawmakers were put in a tough position. While both Oklahoma senators and Reps. Jim Bridenstone, Markwayne Mullin and James Lankford had voted against a $50 billion aid package to provide disaster relief to the East Coast after Hurricane Sandy, they had no problem with asking for federal aid for their own state. Ultimately, affected communities in Oklahoma ended up receiving over $25 million in federal aid.
But that hasn’t stopped Oklahoma Republicans from downplaying the role the federal government played in disaster relief in Moore. Like Sen. Jim Inhofe, who said that federal aid to Moore would be “totally different” than Sandy relief, Rep. Mullin told a town hall meeting this summer that the aftermath of the Oklahoma tornado, unlike Sandy, showed the triumph of “self-responsibility.” The tornado in Oklahoma actually “proved my point” on Sandy relief, he said, because unlike those affected by Sandy, “we started taking care of ourselves, neighbor taking care of neighbors, and that’s what we had to do.”
Mullin’s remarks came in response to a question about the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance, which he used as a pivot to talk about the role of government in disaster relief.
“At some point, like I say, we’ve got to be responsible for ourselves,” he said. “So, I can’t tell you exactly how I’ll vote on [Patriot Act repeal] because I haven’t seen it, but I can tell you what I’ll refer back to: self-responsibility. I’m ok with voting no on some of this stuff, but I’m also ok with knowing I’ve got to stand on my own two feet.”
The American Family Association is once again telling its radio network’s listeners that the Obama administration is preparing the military to kill Christians. Upset that the AFA was included on an Army training session’s list of hate groups, AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer on Friday charged that the Armed Forces will use “lethal force” against Christians and Tea Party activists, and may even “surround” the hotel hosting next year’s Values Voter Summit.
“The military is being conditioned to use weapons on the American Family Association. The soldiers are being conditioned in their brains to think of evangelicals, Tea Partyers, the American Family Association and the Family Research Council as domestic enemies that may have to be neutralized by lethal force,” Fischer maintained. “The people you got to watch out for, you may have to turn your tanks on, are American Family Association.”
Tea Party groups are still reeling from the unsuccessful push by Sen. Ted Cruz and his allies to use a government shutdown to force the defunding of the Affordable Care Act, blaming RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) for their failure.
Tea Party Nation emailed members today urging them not to support so-called RINOs, even in the general election:
In every state where there is a RINO running for the Senate and certain establishment Republicans are running for reelection in the House, like John Boehner and Eric Cantor, conservatives need to agree on one challenger to support against the incumbent.
If that challenger wins, then everyone supports the challenger in the November 2014 elections. If the challenger fails, then instead of grudgingly supporting the establishment Republican, we all then need to fall back to supporting an independent or a third party candidate who is worthy of support.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party Leadership Fund is urging “true conservatives” to run campaigns against the 87 House Republican “traitors” who backed a deal to end the government shutdown and prevent a default on the debt:
The Family Research Council is outraged that the Air Force Academy has made it optional to say “So help me God” in its honor oath, claiming that the new policy is discriminatory against religious cadets…even though anyone can still say the phrase. On his radio program today, Tony Perkins of FRC said that the new policy is disrespectful of George Washington:
Who's running the United States Air Force: General Mark Welsh or Mikey Weinstein? Hello, this is Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Anti-Christian crusader Mikey Weinstein recently probed the Air Force Academy. The Air Force Academy Superintendent responded in 68 minutes, when he marked down his objections to the phrase, "So help me God," contained in the Academy honor code. Weinstein has been trying to drive Evangelicals out of the Academy for over a decade. During the tenure of one Superintendent, he boasted that he had a bath code that immediately connected him with the Academy boss. His complaint this time was a poster that included the honor oath with the phrase, "So help me God." Lieutenant General Michelle Johnson said the oath is being reviewed because the Academy values an inclusive environment that promotes dignity and respect for all. Really? Does that include those like General George Washington who initiated the phrase, "So help me God," or does that inclusion only make room for those who want to dismantle America's Christian heritage?
On the same note, FRC senior fellow Ken Blackwell cited Washington as a reason to keep the phrase a requirement:
Let's see: Why is that phrase so offensive? George Washington was a pretty successful general. And he took the oath as our first President in New York City on April 30, 1789.
When Chancellor Livingston swore Washington in as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, Washington added four words to the Constitutionally prescribed oath:
So Help Me God
Question for Mikey and Murfs: If George Washington could add those four words, and if every President since could add those four words, why should they offend an Air Force Academy cadet?
But as George Mason University history professor Peter Henriques writes, the story about Washington is most certainly a myth. In fact, James Madison excluded the words “So help me God” while working on a committee drafting an oath bill.
There is absolutely no extant contemporary evidence that President Washington altered the language of the oath as laid down in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” A long letter by the French foreign minister Comte de Moustier, who attended the ceremony, repeated the oath verbatim and did not include the additional words. Apparently, it was not until 65 years after the event that the story that Washington added this phrase first appeared in a published volume. In his book, The Republican Court, Rufus Griswold cited a childhood memory of Washington Irving as his source. It took another 27 years before the first clearly documented case of a President adding the words, “So help me God,” was recorded — when Chester A. Arthur took the oath in 1881.
Proponents of the myth contend that Washington had expressed no personal objection to saying “So help me God” and had routinely taken such oaths during the colonial era. Perhaps, they contend, he simply added it as an afterthought or because he was caught up in the solemnity and reverence of the moment. While at first glance this is plausible, it seems certain that any such modification of the oath would have created comment at the time that would have survived in the historical record.
The reason for this assertion is at exactly the same time as these inaugural events were unfolding, the first Congress was debating what oath the new members of the new federal government should take so as to comply with the Constitution. Article Six called for an oath but specifically added, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Early arrivals to the House of Representatives had taken an oath that included the words, “So help me God.” But, following the lead of a committee led by James Madison, legislators passed a new oath act on April 27, 1789 — just three days before Washington’s inauguration — that excluded the words “So help me God.” The Senate, after adding unrelated amendments, passed the bill on May 5, 1789. Would the Senate have passed an oath bill without the words, “So help me God,” only five days after the great hero of the American people “solemnly” and “with fervor” added them to his own oath? And do so without any contemporary comment surviving?
Taken together, the complete lack of contemporary evidence, George Washington’s political philosophy of strictly following the Constitution and the concurrent debate over the proper wording of oaths under the new Constitution make it virtually certain that George Washington did not add the words “So help me God” to his inaugural oath.
The New York Times adds:
It’s no surprise, then, that Washington should become the subject of the recent genre of biographical writing that focuses on the machinery of fame and the ways in which it manipulates, ignores, embellishes or distorts the known facts about a famous individual’s life and work. In “Inventing George Washington,” Edward G. Lengel — editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington and a professor at the University of Virginia — says he intends to examine “Washington myths and mythmakers” and trace “the means by which they have defined and redefined the founder from the beginning of the 19th century up to the present day.”
In addition, Mr. Lengel says, many efforts have been made to “prove” that Washington added the phrase “so help me God” to the presidential oath of office in 1789, even though “the evidence is against” this argument: “There are no contemporary accounts indicating that Washington said ‘so help me God.’ Indeed, the Comte de Moustier, the French foreign minister, who stood near Washington as he took the oath and recorded it word for word, did not include the phrase in his meticulous account of the event.”
“In sum,” Mr. Lengel argues, “any attempt to prove that Washington added the words ‘so help me God’ requires mental gymnastics of the sort that would do credit to the finest artist of the flying trapeze. How much easier, then, just to assert over and over that it happened without making any attempt to justify it in the historical record and then appeal to it as a ‘tradition’ that must never be broken. Such, at least, has been the approach taken by defenders of this story since its first appearance in 1854, and the results have met their desires. Since Chester Arthur in 1881, presidents have included the words in almost every known oath of office, with greater and lesser degrees of drama. Though atheists, secular humanists and outraged academics occasionally pop up to protest, the tradition has become set in stone.”
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is sick and tired of people invoking the Statue of Liberty to advocate for fixing our immigration laws.
In a radio commentary today Schlafly – who previously argued that the Bible’s mandate for “compassion” doesn’t apply to immigrants – commemorates the anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty by declaring that the statue “has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.” Instead, she argued, “people who had nothing to do with this great gift from the French were allowed to paste a plague on the base of the statue with a quotation that has misrepresented the statue as an invitation to open immigration.”
“Remember, it’s the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration,” she concludes.
While Schlafly is correct that the Statue of Liberty was not originally meant by the French to commemorate immigration, it quickly became a symbol of America’s promise for immigrants. As a National Parks Service historian told the New York Times, the statue “became really famous among immigrants. And it was really immigrants that lifted her up to a sort of a glory that was probably before America really fully embraced her.” The addition of the plaque with Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus” 20 years after the statue’s erection merely reinforced this symbolic value.
Schlafly somewhat undermines her case by quoting speeches from presidents who were very aware of the statue’s symbolic value. Schlafly selectively quotes Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech at the fiftieth anniversary of the dedication of the statue…a speech that was all about the importance of immigrants to American life. Likewise, she quotes Ronald Reagan’s speech at the statue’s centennial, which was also focused on the statue’s symbolism of a nation of immigrants. “Which of us does not think of other grandfathers and grandmothers, from so many places around the globe, for whom this statue was the first glimpse of America?” he asked.
But no, Schlafly says, “The statue has nothing to do with immigration.”
The Statue of Liberty is probably the most identifying symbol of America. It's almost like a religious shrine for Americans. Today is the anniversary of its dedication on October 28, 1886. A gift from France, it was built by Gustav Eiffel, the builder of the Eiffel Tower, and designed by Auguste Bartholdi, who wrote this about the Statue of Liberty: "The statue was born for this place which inspired its conception. May God be pleased to bless my efforts and my work, and to crown it with success, the duration and moral influence which it ought to have."
On the Statue of Liberty's 50th anniversary in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: "The Almighty did prepare this American continent to be a place of the second chance.... Millions have ... found ... freedom of opportunity, freedom of thought, freedom to worship God." President Dwight Eisenhower stated in 1954: "It represents ... a nation whose greatness is based on a firm unshakable belief that all of us mere mortals are dependent upon the mercy of a Superior Being." When the Statue of Liberty was relighted after a restoration, President Ronald Reagan said in 1986: "I've always thought ... that God had His reasons for placing this land here between two great oceans..."
The Statue of Liberty memorializes the unique liberty we enjoy in America. It has nothing whatever to do with immigration. It's most unfortunate that people who had nothing to do with this great gift from the French were allowed to paste a plaque on the base of the Statue with a quotation that has misrepresented the Statue as an invitation to open immigration. The Statue has nothing to do with immigration.
Remember, it's the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration.
Apparently, Americans will be so depressed about Obamacare that they will take their own lives…or so claims WorldNetDaily columnist Gina Loudon.
Loudon predicts that Obamacare will target women, gun owners, veterans and gay people, who will begin to fear that they will lose their reputations, jobs or lives under the Affordable Care Act as bureaucrats begin to leak information about pelvic exams, spousal abuse and porn addiction:
A 16-year-old goes to the doctor for her first gynecological exam. She wants to tell the doctor about concerns she has but she is afraid of it being disclosed and destroying her bright future. She read a story about doctors being paid tens of thousands of dollars to turn over their electronic medical records to the government, and she can’t trust that her secrets will be kept safe.
A 28-year-old divorcee stands alone in terror, in the corner of her room. She was denied a gun license because she disclosed feeling suicidal when her abusive husband beat her that last time. She has nowhere to go to be safe, and no way to keep her child safe from the man who threatened to kill them both. She doesn’t sleep, and she can’t function at work, so she is worried she will lose her job.
A 75-year-old widower sits quietly with a pistol pointed at his chest. He feels completely alone, betrayed by the country he fought for. His most private data was stolen when a laptop was taken from a cafeteria at the Department of Health and Human Services. Someone posted all of his information publicly, and now he fears his most private information will be made public. There are secrets of a man’s heart that he wants kept a secret. He regrets the day he went for counseling to gain control over a pornography addiction. How could this happen and threaten his legacy, after so many years of living responsibly? He cannot deal with that reality.
A young, gay man stands in front of a roulette table, his last hope to pay off the fines from the IRS since he disclosed his income to sign up for Obamacare, and was subsequently audited for a disparity in his tax forms. There are rumors of many gays being targeted by the current administration, though it doesn’t matter now and he can’t prove it anyway. He says a silent prayer as he lays down his last $250 in hopes that he can multiply it to stay out of jail.
As a behavioral expert, I have already heard from people that there is just certain information they don’t feel like they can discuss with a counselor any longer. From older people, I have heard that there are medical conditions they don’t feel they can discuss with their doctors for fear of it being disclosed. From constitutional experts, I have heard that Obamacare essentially leaves constitutional rights, especially the Bill of Rights, in tatters.
Liberty has eroded to such a degree that some wonder if it can ever be restored. But personal liberty, the bright light that distinguishes us as the freest nation of all time, has been permanently dimmed.
This administration has withheld health care without ever revoking a medical device. It has taken guns and lives without overturning the Second Amendment. It has caused suicides and deaths with only the weapon of Obamacare. It has made criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens, while criminals go free. It has done all of this with the silent threat of what can happen under a system that gives more power to government than it has ever had before.
For all of the chaos and commotion Obamacare will inflict on lives, more counseling will be needed. Unfortunately for the citizens of America, they might be afraid to seek it. Obamacare is anything but compassionate or helpful. It is the most unspeakably destructive piece of legislation to ever impose itself on our nation, and the psychological implications are devastating.
Larry Klayman is calling on “millions to occupy Washington D.C.” to “literally camp in Washington D.C. and not leave until we get results.” He writes in a brochure for the event [PDF] that the camp will be in front of the White House but will be so huge it will spread across the city: “In conjunction with the masses gathered in LaFayette Park [sic], we encourage millions to occupy parks, sidewalks, public areas.”
Klayman, who at a recent rally with Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin urged Tea Partiers to join his uprising, today in WorldNetDaily issues a list of Watergate-esque scandals supposedly imperiling the president.
The first on the list, of course, is the claim that President Obama was born in Kenya and is therefore not a “natural born citizen.” (We can’t wait for Klayman’s campaign against Canadian-born future presidential candidate Cruz.) Also included is the fact that war memorials were shut down when the GOP shut down the government and the shooting by Capitol Police of a woman who drove her car up against White House barricades.
Luckily for us, Klayman is writing a new Declaration of Independence to guide the nation after his successful anti-Obama coup. “I am preparing a new Declaration of Independence to present and ‘declare’ at the White House gates on Tuesday, Nov. 19,” Klayman writes. “I call upon all of you to join us on Nov. 19, 2013, to Reclaim American Now before it is too late and our nation collapses under the heavy weight of Obama’s long and growing train of abuses and usurpations.”
So it is too with Obama and his ultra-leftist government agents who have done all they can to dismantle the nation and remold it in his socialist concept of body politic, believing that We the People lack the focus or resolve, 237 years after our first Declaration of Independence, to again rise up and remove them. Consider these “Facts” requiring immediate action:
1. Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution eligible to run for and be elected president of the United States. Having lied about his place of birth, which was likely Kenya and not within the borders of territories of the United States, and not having two parents who were American citizens at the time of his birth, he later, after years of demands by concerned citizens, produced on the White House website a fraudulent birth certificate to try to subterfuge his deceit. Despite election law complaints in various states to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, the courts, as has become the norm, have thus far turned a blind eye, obviously out of fear of the tyrant. Not one court has legitimately addressed the law, and We the People have been abandoned by our judges, who have generally become highly politicized and corrupt.
2. The growing list of what the tyrant calls his “phony scandals,” from Benghazi-gate, Navy SEAL-gate, IRS-gate, NSA-gate, to Fast and Furious-gate and now Obamacare-gate, has been swept under the carpet by Obama and his pliant and highly corrupt attorney general, Eric Holder. Congress, while holding hearings on these scandals, lacks the courage or will to seek justice and to impeach and convict Obama.
3. Obama and his minions continue to leak highly classified and damaging national security information, such as American cyber-warfare and U.S. Israeli war plans should Iran’s nuclear facilities need to be destroyed, as low-level whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are burned at the legal stake. Obama and the likes of Hillary Clinton have damaged U.S. national security far worse than Snowden or Manning, yet they walk off scot-free.
4. Benefits to our military veterans and access to war memorials can be shut down under the guise of national debt issues, but Obama, members of Congress and other so-called government leaders continued to receive their “perks” without interruption.
5. The recent killing of a mother who, due to her postpartum depression, drove her car into the White House gates, was unnecessary and murderous, just as the Obama administration’s release of the identity of Navy SEAL Team VI following the killing of Osama bin Laden led to their death at the hands of the Taliban in a shoot-down of their helicopter on Aug. 6, 2011, in a raid called Extortion 17.
The long list of repeated injuries and usurpations is too long to put in this column, but I am preparing a new Declaration of Independence to present and “declare” at the White House gates on Tuesday, Nov. 19, when Obama’s resignation is demanded by the millions who we hope to have present that day.
I call upon all of you to join us on Nov. 19, 2013, to Reclaim American Now before it is too late and our nation collapses under the heavy weight of Obama’s long and growing train of abuses and usurpations.
Bradlee Dean, who has entertained the notion that President Obama is secretly gay, thinks that the president is practicing “discrimination towards heterosexuals” and “advocates Shariah law.”
“[L]ook at who President Barrack Hussein Obama and this current administration have appointed to key positions in government–over 225 homosexuals,” Dean writes in a WorldNetDaily column published yesterday. “Talk about discrimination towards heterosexuals.”
Dean, who once praised radical Muslims who want to execute gay people, calling them “more moral than even American Christians”, chides “radical homosexual communities” for not questioning “the Muslims’ call for the execution of the homosexuals.”
In fact, he thinks that Rep. Keith Ellison is lying about his support for LGBT equality as part of taqiyya, or the concealment of religious beliefs due to the threat of violence, in order to undermine Christianity and elevate political Islam. Of course, Dean even manages to link Ellison to 9/11.
This last week, the radical Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, was again proud to be named the vice-chairman of the Congressional LGBT Caucus.
Outside of the fact that Rep. Ellison, the first radial Muslim in the U.S. House (who swore into office with his hand upon the Quran) feels safe enough to take shots at me on a one-sided national platform (to the Daily Beast Keith stated to the American people that they “may not know how extreme this guy [Bradlee Dean] is”), what is interesting here is the fact that we cannot get Keith on LIVE radio to confront my “extremism” on an open platform. Keith likes straining at the gnat while he swallows the camel! So Keith, let’s go to the extreme and show America how extreme YOU really are! Now it is my turn.
Act For America’s Brigitte Gabriel said during an interview in a video called “Stealth Jihadie” that “Muslims can lie and the lie is permissible as long as the lie basically prepares the way for Islam to be either victorious or to win an argument against an enemy.”
Gabriel goes on to say that during Keith Ellison’s victory party, Allah Akbar (“God is greatest” – “Allah is greater”) were the words that were shouted. Those who perpetrated the downing of the twin towers in New York City on 9/11 said these same words.
Speaking of extremes, why is it that the Muslims have yet to be called into question by the radical homosexual communities concerning the Muslims’ call for the execution of the homosexuals?
Taking it another step, look at who President Barrack Hussein Obama and this current administration have appointed to key positions in government–over 225 homosexuals. Talk about discrimination towards heterosexuals.
This president not only entertains Muslims in the White House, but also advocates Shariah Law through his support of the Muslim Brotherhood, America’s sworn enemies.