The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios joined “Breitbart News Daily” this morning to discuss her organization’s ongoing boycott of Target for allowing customers to use the restrooms that match their gender identity. (Breitbart News, whose head just became the CEO of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, has been feverishly promoting the idea that the retail chain’s policy will lead to sexual assault.)
Rios told Breitbart’s Alex Marlow that the boycott “isn’t just about Target” but is about scaring other corporations and governments so that they don’t adopt similar policies and leave people like Rios with nowhere left to relieve themselves.
“If we do not keep the pressure on Target,” she said, “this will quickly—we know how major corporations are, they are scared to death of anything that isn’t politically correct—this will spread like wildfire, we will not be able to go to the bathroom anywhere.”
Hillary Clinton has faced her share of sexist attacks in her presidential campaign, and plenty of Clinton supporters have been accused of voting for her “just because she’s a woman,” but attacking Clinton explicitly for being a woman has generally been considered to be beyond the pale. Except, that is, among a small segment of Religious Right activists who believe that God proscribes women from taking political leadership roles and are willing to talk about it.
Back in 2008, when John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, some Religious Right leaders had muddled reactions to a female nominee who also happened to share many of their policy priorities.
The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins explained that there was no contradiction in supporting a woman as vice president even though he is a member of a denomination that bars women from serving as pastors because the Bible only prohibits a woman from being a “spiritual leader.” Richard Land, then the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, said that it was perfectly fine for Palin to serve in the role as long as her husband was okay with it. Al Mohler said that while he was thrilled with Palin’s politics, if he were her pastor he “would be concerned about how she could balance these responsibilities and what this would mean for her family and her roles as wife and mother.”
Michele Bachmann met some similar reactions when she ran for president in 2012, complicated by the fact that Bachmann herself had declared adherence to submission theology, the belief, as Sarah Posner has explained, that the “husband is the spiritual head of the household, the wife his obedient ‘helpmeet,’ the vessel for their children, devoted mother, and warrior for the faith.” Bachmann deflected those criticisms using logic similar to Perkins’, saying that the presidency “is not a spiritual position, it is a position of authority in our government, it is very different from that of a wife to her husband.”
Not everyone was convinced. While Bryan Fischer, then an official with the American Family Association, wrote early on in Bachmann’s campaign that the congresswoman was “in fact submitting to her husband by running for president ” because her husband had urged her to run, he did not seem completely convinced of his own point. Fischer said on his radio program the very same week that a woman should be allowed to become president only as a last resort “if God can't find any men with the spine and with the testicular fortitude” to lead. In that case, he said, God would “send a woman to do a man’s job.” As the election approached, Fischer went back to stating his belief that political leadership should be “reserved for the hands of males.”
It’s not surprising, then, that the question of whether a woman should be president has bubbled up again this year among some of the same people. Fischer declared this week that he doesn’t “believe that women should be entrusted with high political office,” implying that it would be reasonable to “vote for Trump because he's a man.”
Sam Roher, a former Pennsylvania state legislator who heads the American Pastors Network, which works to organize politically engaged conservative pastors, cited the book of Isaiah this month to argue that having women in political leadership is a mark of judgment upon a nation. “God does raise up women,” he explained, “there is no question about it, but the real condemnation is not the women in office, the condemnation is the disregard and the absolute inability for male leadership to perform as God intended it and I believe that that's the application for us now.”
Gary Dull, a board member of the pastors’ network who also runs its Pennsylvania chapter, used the same passage from Isaiah to argue more firmly that women should not lead nations. “In God's line of authority,” he said last month, “it seems very clear in the scripture that a woman should not be in authority over men, which would limit a woman from being the president of the United States of America or even a queen of some other particular nation.”
And this isn’t even to mention the fringe activists who have said that women shouldn’t even be allowed to vote, including Theodore Shoebat, who recently managed to feed a conspiracy theory about Khizr Khan to the Trump campaign. Jesse Lee Peterson, a frequent guest on conservative talk shows, has also argued that women should never have been given the right to vote.
Those who think a female candidate should be disqualified from the presidency are mercifully few. And submission theology, which deals with a woman’s role in the household and the world, varies greatly among those who preach it. But as the reactions to Clinton’s candidacy have shown, the question of whether a woman should be president hasn’t been entirely settled in the Christian Right. After all, as Phyllis Schlafly says, who needs a woman president when “all our greatest presidents have been men"?
As we have noted, most Religious Right leaders supported Ted Cruz in the Republican presidential primary, while Trump’s “amen corner” consisted primarily of prosperity gospel preachers (like Paula White, who says Trump is “hungry in his heart” for God) and dominionist “prophets” and “apostles.”
And the Lord spoke very clearly to me, and he said to me, ‘This man is going to win the nomination and I want you to be ready to serve my cause when I call you.’…In this instance, it’s not because Donald Trump has heralded his faith or the name of God, but the Lord has put His favor upon him, and how amazing it is that the favor of God can overcome so many mistakes, so many bumbles, so many things that otherwise we would think would destroy somebody in business, destroy them in politics, destroy them in relationships. But yet it’s very evident it was the will of the Lord to do this and here we sit now.
2. God is using Trump to get pastors to fightfor religious freedom
Pastor Michael Anthony, president of Godfactor and founder of the National Week of Repentance, attended Trump’s June meeting with evangelicals and said he is convinced God is using Trump to move Christians to act to defend their religious freedom. “I think God was speaking through him at that moment, to the church, to tell us why are you being silent about the most important thing about your lives?”
3. Trump could make America worthy of God’s blessing
The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins was a big Ted Cruz backer and has publicly been a somewhat reluctant supporter of Donald Trump. He told radio host Sandy Rios that Trump has made plenty of mistakes, but that if he “walks in that grace that is available” and surrounds himself with good people, he could “cast a vision that moves America back to the country that honors God again and therefore would be a recipient of His blessing.”
4. Trump would make America friendlier to Israel
Many conservative evangelicals have embraced a theological approach to Middle East policy, interpreting Bible verses to suggest that in order to enjoy God’s blessing, America must unconditionally support the Israeli government. Says Pastor John Hagee, head of Christians United For Israel, “we have a mandate from the Bible and that mandate is to be supportive of Israel and the Jewish people.” Even though Trump said earlier this year that he would be “neutral” regarding the Israel-Palestine dispute (a position he later backed away from), right-wing leaders have long denounced Obama as an enemy of Israel. The Times of Israel notes that Hagee, “has all but endorsed Trump by name.” Indeed, Hagee told his viewing audience that God would hold them accountable for their vote, saying, “I’m not going to vote for the party that has betrayed Israel for the past seven years.” Hagee has complained that “three million evangelicals did not vote in the past election,” saying “God forbid that happen again. We are going to storm the voting booths of America this time around.”
Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress, one of Trump’s strongest Religious Right allies and a member of the campaign’s evangelical advisory board, declared that it is “biblical” to support a “strongman” to lead the government. Jeffress said he would run “as far as possible” from a candidate who said he would govern according to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount. “Nowhere is government told to forgive those who wrong it, nowhere is government told to turn the other cheek. Government is to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers. When I’m looking for somebody who’s going to deal with ISIS and exterminate ISIS, I don’t care about that candidate’s tone or vocabulary, I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can find, and I believe that’s biblical.”
Wallnau: "Donald Trump's got this like Elijah mantle on him.” In the biblical book of 2 Kings, the prophet Elijah passed both his physical cloak and spiritual authority to his disciple Elisha when Elijah was taken to heaven in a flaming chariot. The reference to Elijah’s mantle is another way for Wallnau to express his belief that Trump is carrying out a divine mission. Elisha also seems to have had a Trumpish temperament when it comes to accepting criticism; the Bible reports that when some boys jeered at him and called him Baldy, he called down a curse on them and two bears came out of the nearby woods and mauled 42 of the boys.
9. Trump has a Cyrus anointing
“Donald Trump is more prophetic than people think,” Wallnau has said. “There is a Cyrus anointing on this man. He is like a Reformer in secular garb." In a video posted on his Facebook page following a meeting between Trump and religious leaders, Wallnau recounted telling Trump that he would become the 45th president of the United States because he has a "Cyrus anointing" upon him as proclaimed in Isaiah 45, referring to the Persian king who freed the Jews from captivity. “And I believe God had put His hand on you as a Cyrus to be a governor and that the Bible talks about this critical 45th chapter, as the 45th president, it is the decisive moment in American history for leadership,” Wallnau said. He has also explained his Cyrus theory in an interview with Steven Strang.
Trump shall become My trumpet to the American people, for he possesses qualities that are even hard to find in My people these days. Trump does not fear man nor will he allow deception and lies to go unnoticed. I am going to use him to expose darkness and perversion in America like never before, but you must understand that he is like a bull in a china closet. Many will want to throw him away because he will disturb their sense of peace and tranquility, but you must listen through the bantering to discover the truth that I will speak through him. I will use the wealth that I have given him to expose and launch investigations searching for the truth. Just as I raised up Cyrus to fulfill My purposes and plans, so have I raised up Trump to fulfill my purposes and plans prior to the 2016 election...
Note: In February Johnson said his prophecy had been misunderstood and that it did not mean Trump would become president, simply that it provided “prophetic insight and direction for the body of Christ,” something Johnson also said about the prophetic dream he had in which the Holy Spirit told him, “Marco Rubio is carrying a Thomas Jefferson anointing for this generation. He will break the back of tyrants and restore the patriotic spirit in America.” It must be said, the Holy Spirit gives Johnson a lot of messages about Republican politicians, telling him in May that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is “my Esther of the hour.”
10. Trump has a ‘breaker anointing’
Trump “Christian policy” adviser Frank Amedia told Steven Strang that there is “a skirmish going on” in the “heavenlies” right now that “is the beginnings of the preparation of the way of the coming of the Lord.” As part of this preparation for the Second Coming, he said, a “breaker anointing” has taken place, giving Trump the power to break up “established norms” that have not served the “Kingdom of God.” Amedia said, “I perceive that Donald Trump has been raised up with that breaker anointing to just begin to crush all of the strangleholds that have been placed upon this country.”
11. Trump is a divine ‘wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness’
12. God has picked Trump to ‘beat down the walls of the New World Order’
Rick Wiles aired his “Trunews” radio show from a Trump rally in Kissimmee, Florida, in August. Wiles was excited about Trump accusing President Obama and Hillary Clinton of having founded the terrorist group ISIS (this was before Trump described the comments as sarcasm). “Donald Trump is telling the truth: Obama and Clinton are behind ISIS. This is what ‘Trunews’ has said for years,” Wiles said, adding later in the show, “It’s like he’s a battering ram, it’s like God has picked him up and used him as a battering ram to beat down the walls of the New World Order.”
13. Trump is fulfilling a 2011 prophecy that he will fight Satan
In April, “Trunews” host Rick Wiles invited self-proclaimed prophet Mark Taylor on to his End Times news program to discuss “his amazing 2011 prophecy that Donald Trump has been marked by God to lead America.” Taylor, a retired firefighter, explained that God told him that Donald Trump will be the next president and that anyone who criticizes him will be struck down, explaining that God has been preparing Trump for his entire life to become an extraordinarily successful president who will fight Satan. “The kingdom of darkness is attacking this man like never before,” Taylor said. “God is using this man—he’s not rattling the gates, because when you rattle the gates you don’t make entry—this man is literally splitting the kingdom of darkness right open.”
14. Trump is fulfilling a 2012 prophecy that he will bulldoze the White House
In January, Lou Comunale published a YouTube video (which now has more than 400,000 views) promoting a videotape he uncovered of late “prophet” John Paul Jackson interpreting a woman’s dream in 2012. A key element in the dream was a big bulldozer going “right through the White House just like it was a deck of cards.” “Only when you look at it now,” says Comunale “does it look like he’s actually talking about Donald J. Trump in the White House.”
16. Trump is like Jesus (and Martin Luther King and Jerry Falwell)
Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. is one of Trump’s strongest supporters on the Christian Right. When he introduced Trump on campus in January, Falwell compared Trump to his father, who was proud to be “politically incorrect,” and to Jesus and Martin Luther King, who said radical and unpopular things that upset the religious and political establishment.
17. Trump is like King David
During the primaries, Falwell responded to evangelicals who were critical of his endorsement by saying it’s wrong to be worried about electing the “most righteous” candidate. “God called King David a man after God’s own heart even though he was an adulterer and a murderer,” Falwell said. “You have to choose the leader that would make the best king or president and not necessarily someone who would be a good pastor. We’re not voting for pastor-in-chief. It means sometimes we have to choose a person who has the qualities to lead and who can protect our country and bring us back to economic vitality, and it might not be the person we call when we need somebody to give us spiritual counsel.”
18. Trump is like Saul/Paul
At Liberty Counsel’s “The Awakening” conference in March, televangelist James Robison literally screamed at participants that they must vote even if Trump was not their preferred candidate. Robison said he hoped that people who are close to Trump, like Falwell and Jeffress, will lead him to a “road to Damascus experience” like that described in the biblical story of Saul, who persecuted Christians but who became Paul the evangelist after an encounter with the risen Jesus. For the world to see God transform someone “who so obviously needs changing,” said Robison, would demonstrate God’s power even more effectively than if the Religious Right had been able to play kingmaker and get their preferred candidate the nomination.
19. Trump is like Samson
Anti-Islam extremist Walid Shoebat has decried Trump critics as “scum” and mocked Fox News’s Megyn Kelly as a “Delilah” sent by Trump’s enemies to try to take him down. “I thought that while this Samson (Trump) sinned, he must have God’s blessings since he is destined for a purpose.” Shoebat said Trump’s rejection of the GOP’s “autopsy report” was a sign that perhaps “God finally intervened.” Samson and Delilah are another scriptural reference, this time from the book of Judges. Samson was a warrior granted super-human strength by God; his unshaven hair was a sign of his commitment to God. But the duplicitous Delilah badgered him into revealing his secret and shaved his head while he was sleeping, allowing him to be captured by the Philistines. God eventually granted him the strength to bring down the pillars supporting the Philistines’ temple, killing himself and thousands of them.
20. Trump is like Churchill and Lincoln
Wallnau again: “When God wants to move in history, he doesn’t always pick the favorite evangelical.” He explained that God brought Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill to power at crucial moments in history, and that God is now raising up Trump for our time. He knows this, Wallnau said, because God told him so.
21. Trump is like George Washington
Wallnau again, citing the apocryphal story of George Washington supposedly surviving in battle despite his coat and hat being riddled with bullet holes thanks to the protection of God, told Trump that he too is being protected by God. "You've said things and done things that should have put the equivalent of a bullet in your coat," Wallnau said that he told Trump, "but they've passed through you because of the anointing. God is really watching over you.”
22. Trump is like Oscar Schindler
“The thing is, Trump’s supporters know that Trump is an Oscar Schindler, who did not mind bribing the Nazis to get to do what is good,” says Walid Shoebat. “No President can get elected without playing the game. They know that like Obama, who said he ‘loves Israel’ to only gain votes, Trump has to kiss dogs to get to the seat of power. Smattering of moderate-to-liberal policy positions he will gain the votes from democrats. Just as Obama did it, Trump will do the same trick.”
23. 2016 is a battle between good and evil
In June, Jeffress declared of the 2016 election, “This is not a battle between Republicans and Democrats. It’s a battle between good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness, light and darkness, and I think it is time for people who say they are conservative Christians to get off the fence and go to the polls and vote their convictions.” Jeffress said that unlike President Obama, who he said “hates” conservative Christians, Trump will be a “true friend in the White House” and “appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court.” Said Jeffress, “This isn’t about partisan politics. This is about good and evil.”
24. Hillary Clinton is motivated by the spirit of the Antichrist
American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer declared in August that Hillary Clinton must not be allowed to become president because she is driven by a “profound anti-Christ impulse.” Said Fischer, “Hillary Clinton is motivated by the spirit of the Antichrist because she is against Christ, she is against Christianity, she is against the free exercise of the Christian faith, she doesn’t want the Christian faith to be a part of the public square, to influence public policy in any way, she is against everything that Christianity stands for…She is an opponent of all that is good and right and noble.”
Bryan Fischer was very impressed with Donald Trump's proposal to implement an "extreme vetting" process for screening immigrants who wish to come to America and took it upon himself to draft a simple nine question test to be given to all Muslims seeking to enter this country.
Fischer, who has been calling for a complete ban on Muslim immigration and the deportation off all Muslims currently living in the United States for years, said that anyone who failed to provide a satisfactory answer to any of these questions should automatically be denied entry:
1. Do you believe in Israel’s right to exist?
2. Do you renounce all Palestinian acts of terror against Israel and Israelis?
3. Do you believe the 9/11 attack was carried out by Muslims or by Jews?
4. Do you believe the Holocaust occurred?
5. Have you made the pilgrimage to Mecca?
6. Do you support legal punishment for those who leave the Islamic faith?
7. Do you want the United States one day to be governed by Sharia law?
8.Are you willing to give up any right to have Muslim holidays on school calendars and halal food in school cafeterias and prisons?
9.Do you believe anyone who creates an image of Muhammad should be punished?
On his radio show today, a caller worried that Fischer's test might be undermined by "taqiyya," a reference to the false claim that Muslims are allowed to advance the cause of Islam. But Fischer had an obvious answer: require Muslims to take the test while strapped to a polygraph machine.
"I tried to devise these questions," Fischer said, "to make it virtually impossible for a Muslim to resort to taqiyya ... I think these questions ought to be administered with a polygraph machine, frankly. I think that anyone that's from a Muslim country that wants to immigrate to the United States, they not only should ask these questions, they should do it hooked up to a polygraph machine."
The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios invited Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney on to her radio show this morning to discuss Donald Trump’s recent speech on foreign policy, which Gaffney called “Reaganesque,” and the recent hack of organizations related to philanthropist George Soros.
Discussing work that Soros’ Open Society Foundations has done in combatting Islamophobia, Rios lamented that America no longer has anything like the communist-hunting House Un-American Activities Committee that could root out people just like Soros.
“When I think of this,” she said, “I remember the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and how it was their job to sort of ferret out subversive groups, subversive people in the country who were trying to undermine American interests. And I have often thought that if we had such a thing now, George Soros would be front and center in this.”
“Oh, big time,” Gaffney agreed. “But, you know, the hard left did such an amazing job of vilifying the people that ferreted out the domestic components of that last existential threat to freedom, that of Soviet communism, Sandy, that the idea of having a House committee like that is now considered to be just completely out of the question."
“But you’re right,” he continued, “and interestingly enough, one of the things that Donald Trump did speak about yesterday, which I think is incredibly important, is he talked about the necessity of going after the support networks that have been established inside this country to promote radicalization. And that of course is the Muslim Brotherhood and the infrastructure it’s built here. We’ve seen it at work in Europe, the danger that it represents to freedom there, it is on the march here as well, and we do need congressional oversight.”
Gaffney praised a hearing that Sen. Ted Cruz, for whose presidential campaign Gaffney served as an adviser, held in June at which one witness claimed that the two Muslim members of Congress have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. He added that he hoped Trump’s candidacy could lead to more of the same.
“I’m hoping Donald Trump has really energized and made possible the sort of debate about whether we can afford to continue to do what we’ve been doing and, really, I think the extreme peril of the American people and our Constitution and the freedoms that they take for granted too often,” he said.
Fresh from telling his radio audience that they cannot vote for Hillary Clinton because "women should not be entrusted with high political office," Bryan Fischer declared yesterday that Clinton cannot be allowed to become president because she is driven by the "spirit of the Antichrist."
Just like President Obama, Fischer explained, Clinton is "an enemy of religious liberty" who is driven by a "profound anti-Christ impulse."
"The same spirit that will one day animate the Antichrist is the same spirit that is at work in Hillary Clinton," he said. "She opposes Christ, she opposes biblical Christianity, she's hostile to it, she seeks to repress it, she seeks to punish it and she seeks to stifle it. That is the spirit of the Antichrist and it is at work in Hillary Clinton."
"Ladies and gentlemen, hear me when I say this," Fischer continued, "Hillary Clinton is motivated by the spirit of the Antichrist because she is against Christ, she is against Christianity, she is against the free exercise of the Christian faith, she doesn't want the Christian faith to be a part of the public square, to influence public policy in any way, she is against everything that Christianity stands for. She is for same-sex marriage, she is for the promotion of homosexuality, she is against the sanctity of human life, she is against religious liberty ... She is an opponent of all that is good and right and noble."
On his radio program today, American Family Radio's Bryan Fischer reiterated his position that women should not be entrusted with positions of political authority.
Responding to a caller, Fischer stated that "you could make a pretty good biblical case ... that only men are supposed to hold political office."
"That's always the pattern in the word of God," he said. "The kings were all males, when you had a departure from that with Jezebel and Athaliah, it was not a good thing, it did not work out well. Leadership in the church is reserved for men, leadership in the home is reserved for men. In other words, in God's economy, he has designed leadership and authority in society and in the church and in the home to be exercised by men."
"I think you could make a good case that leadership in culture, society, politically as well as in the home, that that is something in God's economy that's reserved for men," Fischer stated. "What if somebody had the courage to go on national TV, somebody of some kind of prominence or visibility, and said, 'Look, I'm going to vote for Trump because he's a man. I don't believe that women should be entrusted with high political office' ... That's the position I happen to take."
As we have notedseveraltimesbefore, American Family Radio's Bryan Fischer regularly promotes an entirely incoherent theory about the First Amendment, insisting that its prohibition against an establishment of religion only applies to Congress while also insisting that its prohibition against infringing upon the free exercise of religion applies to just about any government entity.
Fischer made this nonsensical argument against on his radio program today when he praised Joe Kennedy, a former assistant high school football coach who is now suing his school district for firing him for refusing to stop praying with students after games.
Despite the fact that, time and again, Fischer has insisted that the provisions of the First Amendment only apply to Congress and therefore cannot be violated by any other entity, Fischer bizarrely declared that the school district has violated Kennedy's First Amendment rights.
"Good for you, coach Joe Kennedy," Fischer declared. "He's taking the district to court for violating his First Amendment rights, which is exactly what they've done ... What does the First Amendment say? It says that Congress—and Bremerton [School District,] they interpret that to mean any governmental authority, that would include schools because they're government schools—is not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion. What did Bremerton School District do when they told Joe Kennedy, 'You can't pray at midfield after a game'? They prohibited his free exercise of religion! They told him, 'Your constitutional right—even though this is government property and the government is specifically prohibited from infringing on your free exercise rights—we are going to destroy the First Amendment here, doesn't apply in Bremerton, doesn't apply on a football field, you have lost that right. You have not only lost that right, you have lost your job.'"
Fischer's current assertion that Bremerton is violating Kennedy's First Amendment rights directly contradicts his longstanding assertion that only Congress can possibly violate the First Amendment. As he wrote just last year:
The truth is that it is constitutionally and historically impossible for a school to violate the First Amendment. Why? Easy. Because a school is not Congress.
As the very first word in the First Amendment makes clear, the First Amendment applies to Congress and Congress alone. “Congress shall make no law...” The only entity that is restrained by the Founders’ Constitution is Congress. Since Congress is the only entity restrained by the First Amendment, Congress is the only entity that can violate it.
Conservative politicians and commentators are outraged today by a report that the United States sent $400 million in cash to Iran earlier this year on the day that Iran released four American hostages that it had been holding, falsely claiming that the payment was essentially a ransom paid to the Islamic republic.
In reality, the payment was part of a settlement over hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons that Iran had purchased from the U.S. prior to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 but which were subsequently never delivered when diplomatic relations between the two nations were severed.
But American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer obviously doesn't care about the simple truth of the matter and instead used it as an excuse to attack President Obama for supposedly paying a jizya submission tax to Iran on his radio show today.
"Basically, he's being Sharia compliant here," Fischer said. "Our president is a fan of the Islamic faith, he's a Muslim sympathizer and one of the doctrines of Islam is that if you are an infidel nation, you must pay a submission tax. It's called jizya ... What this is is a jizya tax. Our Sharia compliant president paying a jizya tax, a submission tax to an Islamic government."
Continuing her smearcampaign against Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Sandy Rios of the American Family Association told Alan Colmes yesterday that the Khans may have been disappointed that their son served in the U.S. Army, making him an apostate from Islam when he died.
Rios falsely claimed that Khizr Khan has called Sharia law superior to the U.S. Constitution, claiming that since he “adheres to Sharia,” he would then “absolutely” want to kill Americans. (She appears to be citing an article which, as the myth-busting group Snopes points out, “in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim Brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper.”)
After citing the so-called Islamic State’s assertion that the Khans’ son was an “apostate,” Rios said that the Khans may agree with the terrorist group’s assertion: “I believe that they believe that anyone that adheres to Sharia believes their son is an apostate for serving in the American military.”
“He’s an apostate according to Islamic Sharia law,” she said.
American Family Radio's Bryan Fischer has an amazing ability to "misremember" history, especially when doing so allows him to conveniently ignore his own well-documented record of unmitigated bigotry.
In the latest example, Fischer dedicated a portion of his radio program yesterday to promoting the upcoming Values Voter Summit, which ended with him recounting that the last time he spoke at the annual event back in 2011, he was denounced from the stage by Mitt Romney, who would go on to secure the Republican presidential nomination:
Our values ennoble the citizen, and they strengthen the nation. We should remember that decency and civility are values too. One of the speakers who will follow me today, has crossed that line I think. Poisonous language does not advance our cause. It has never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind. The blessings of faith carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate. The task before us is to focus on the conservative beliefs and the values that unite us – let no agenda, narrow our vision or drive us apart.
In Fischer's retelling of the episode, he falsely claimed that Romney attacked him because he had criticized the Romney campaign for hiring a national security and foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, who was openly gay:
Laurie Higgins warns that efforts to protect the rights of transgender students mean "that eventually all restrooms, locker rooms, and showers will be co-ed."
The AFA's Walker Wildmon calls for an end to Muslim immigration and says that "if [Donald] Trump wins and we change our policy to spend the time and energy suspending immigration from countries we deem a significant risk, then we must be willing to monitor mosques."
Bryan Fischer says that naming a Navy ship after Harvey Milk is building a "'Jerry Sandusky Stadium' at Penn State."
Finally, the AFA shares Fischer's outrage and has launched a petition urging activists to "contact your members of Congress now, urging them to get involved in stopping plans to name a United States military ship after known sexual predator and pedophile Harvey Milk."
Throughout the interview, Lopez represented the view of the terrorist group ISIS, which recently attacked Humayun Khan as an apostate, as the “truest expression of Islam” and alleged that the Khan family knows that their son “died as an apostate” when he protected his fellow service members from a suicide bomber.
“As devout, faithful Muslims, [the Khans] know perfectly well what the commandments of their faith are,” Lopez said. “Now, they may not be obedient to those commandments, and that’s their right as long as they live in a free country like America, but the commandments of the faith are still there, and a Muslim like their son who died fighting against other Muslims has died an apostate, and they know that, and they yet chose to highlight that infidelity of their son before an international audience of millions.”
Lopez continued, “So the question has to be then, why were they up there sort of highlighting all of this in front of the entire world? Well, I think we have to understand that there are a couple of messages going on. The father, of course, is a lawyer. He works on immigration matters, helping to bring Muslim immigrants into the country, and his objective there was a political one to smear Donald Trump, who has spoken out against the unrestrained import, unvetted influx of Muslims who cannot be properly screened and called for a temporary moratorium on such immigration until the United States can work out a proper screening protocol for such Muslims.”
Lopez also suggested that Khan’s “political objective took precedence over the fact that he was highlighting his family’s shame in a way, not the shame of the son as an American; as we look at it, the son was an absolute hero and died in service to his country, but from the Muslim perspective – and this is what we have to get inside of – they look at that son as an apostate who died fighting other Muslims, which is absolutely forbidden in Islamic law.”
“The question to me is then, does that mean there’s some redemption in them cooperating with the, really it’s the Muslim Brotherhood line that Islam is so peaceful and that there’s no violence in it, I mean, do you see any link at all?” Rios asked. “I mean, is the cooperation with this whole deception a part of their penance? Is that possible?”
“Well, I wouldn’t call it penance, I would call it collaboration,” Lopez said.
Lopez also asserted that there was a secretive message in Khan’s speech only meant for Muslims’ ears.
“Muslims heard and understood that the political message Trump must be defeated because if he is not, the jig is up for all of those who support the Islamic supremacist objective promoted by jihad and Sharia and certainly immigration of non-vetted Muslims into this country would certainly be curtailed at least for a time,” Lopez said.
“The message that many Americans have heard is, you know, this is a grieving father and mother of a hero son, and that is also true, but there are two messages and we just have to realize that there are two,” Lopez continued.
“For any Muslim in America who truly does love this country and truly is patriotic, I’ve always felt, especially after 9/11, that’s when I first started talking about these kinds of things, it really does fall on them to distinguish themselves,” Rios maintained.
“[Khan] stood up there and pretended and fed the American people and everyone else listening a load of hogwash that this is not what Islam is, that Islam is not about jihad and Sharia, and of course, he was lying,” Lopez said, adding that the Islamic State “is the truest expression of Islam in the world today.”
“So Mr. Khan at the very least was being dishonest with us,” Rios said. “I was incensed, I felt he had no right to wave the Constitution and to insult Mr. Trump in the way that he did.
“Just to insult an American, any of us, to wave the Constitution and say you haven’t read it, what Mr. Khan does not know about the American public school system when Donald Trump was raised, you better believe each and every one of us memorized that thing practically, so that’s just ridiculous. He knows not what he’s talking about, and also, Clare, just what you alluded to, that faithful Muslims can’t embrace our Constitution, can they?” (Trump attended a boarding school, not a public school).
“Not if they’re going to be faithful to the doctrine of Islam, no,” Lopez said.
Rios, who serves as the AFA’s director of governmental affairs, said that because of his Muslim faith, Khan may be lying to Americans about his true beliefs, arguing that “supporters of Islam and the Quran cannot embrace the Constitution” and that it’s Khan’s “responsibility” to publicly “condemn Islamists” to prove his allegiance to the country.
“From my perspective, it is the responsibility of Mr. Khan to distinguish himself from Islamists, from the Muslim Brotherhood whose treatise is to destroy us from within,” Rios said. “If he is a patriotic, loyal, American Muslim, then we want to hear that, that’s great, and we grieve with them over the death of their son. But do not disparage Americans or Donald Trump for having concerns about Muslims in our midst.”
She continued, “And if you are so concerned, Mr. Khan, if you’re an American first, then distinguish yourself and condemn Islamists, condemn the Muslim Brotherhood, then we will listen to you, and stop waving the Constitution. As far as I can tell, Islam, truly, supporters of Islam and the Quran, cannot embrace the Constitution. Now, if you have a different view, then explain that to us and then maybe we can be persuaded, but don’t shame America for having genuine and rightful concerns about Muslims in our midst when we have no idea who they are or what they really believe, and we’re not even sure about you, sir, because we know about taqiyya, which is the practice of lying to the infidel in order to advance the Muslim cause.
“So, I’m sorry, we’ll not be shamed. I’m sorry for the loss of their son and I hope he is a loyal American, but I think a loyal American Muslim would be more like Zuhdi Jasser, who is very clear about where he stands, who was very patriotic and loyal and totally distances himself from Islamism, so if that’s the case for this gentleman, then he should’ve said that on the platform rather than shaming us for having concerns about Muslim immigration.”
On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer declared that "it is not possible for homosexual behavior to be a constitutional right" because all our rights come from God and God would never sanction homosexuality.
Fischer was complaining that students today are not taught the proper role of government, which, according to him, is to secure the rights that have been given to us by God. Given that government can only protect our God-given rights, Fischer said, it stands to reason that "homosexual behavior can never be a right."
"It is not possible for homosexual behavior to be a constitutional or moral or ethical or legal right," Fischer said. "Why? Because our rights come to us from God and would never, under any circumstances, ever grant human beings the right to engage in homosexual behavior."
Bryan Fischer kicked off his radio program on Friday with a Bible study on the Book of Revelation, during which he once again warned that "Satan is working overtime" through the LGBT rights community in an effort to impose the Mark of the Beast on Christians.
"This is the Mark of the Beast in our culture right now," Fischer declared. "If you want to know what the Mark of the Beast is today in America, it is the embrace of the homosexual agenda. If you want to buy, if you want to sell, if you want to engage in business, you have to embrace the god of homosexuality, you have got to embrace the agenda of homosexuality or you will not be allowed to buy or sell. That's the Mark of the Beast."
Fischer said that the NBA, in deciding to move the 2017 All-Star Game out of Charlotte in response to a new North Carolina anti-LGBT law, is punishing the state for refusing to "take the Mark of the Beast."
"If you will not take the Mark of the Beast," he said, "that is embrace the homosexual agenda, you will not be able to buy or sell, you will be closed down, you will be shut down, you will be fired, you will be punished."
On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer recounted a debate he had last week on Twitter with Christian Today writer Andrew Walton over Walton's piece criticizing the newly opened Ark Encounter theme park in Kentucky, which was built by the Creationist group Answers in Genesis for the purpose of promoting the organization's fundamentalist view of the Bible.
During his discussion, Fischer took exception to Walton's assertion in his article that Christians "may have diverse opinions on sexual ethics, on life issues, on evolution, on hell, on what role government should play in society, on healthcare, and indeed on science," insisting that, in fact, Christians cannot have opinions on those issues if they differ from Fischer's interpretation of the Bible.
"No, it is not okay for Christians to be all over the map, to have diverse opinions," Fischer insisted. "No, it's not okay. The Bible is abundantly clear about sexual ethics, sex is reserved for marriage, marriage is a union of one man and one woman, homosexuality is a sin, sexual immorality is a sin, et cetera. These things are not ambiguous in the scripture so, no, it's not okay to have diverse opinions on those issues."
"It's not okay to have diverse opinions on life issues," Fischer continued. "It's not okay for Christians to have diverse opinions about evolution."
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."
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 wasbeingblackmailed by the Obama administration.
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.
Sunday marked the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic marriage equality decision and American Family Radio's Bryan Fischer "honored" it on his radio show today by repeating his assertion that the ruling was the moral equivalent of 9/11.
"That day, June 26, 2015, is a date that will live in infamy," Fischer declared. "Just as the Pearl Harbor date is a date that will live in infamy, so this day in which same-sex marriage was imposed on the United States against the will of the citizens is a date that will live in moral infamy."
"What moral jihadists did on June 26, 2015," he continued, "what they did to the twin pillars of truth and righteousness [is] the same thing that the Muslim jihadists did to the World Trade Center on 9/11. So moral jihadists took down the twin pillars of truth and righteousness just like Muslim jihadists took down the twin towers on 9/11."