American Family Association

Fischer: Businesses Threatened by 'Flaming Homosexual' Job Applicants and the 'Return of Jim Crow Laws'

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer today blew up over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), warning in a blog post that “ENDA would represent the return of Jim Crow laws.” On his radio program Focal Point, Fischer warned that if ENDA is signed into law businesses will be faced with a barrage of “flaming homosexual” job applicants. “The homosexual lobby,” Fischer said, “will send a guy in there wearing stilettos, a dress and dangly earrings” in order to provoke Christian business-owners “not to hire him.”

Sandy Rios: Clinton Blood Clot an Alinskyite Feminist Lie

Naturally, the American Family Association is promoting conspiracy theories about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s medical condition. Today, the AFA’s Sandy Rios argued that Clinton is lying about the blood clot that was located between her brain and skull and about her earlier health problems. Citing the tabloid The National Enquirer, which says Clinton has brain cancer, Rios concludes that Clinton isn’t sick at all but rather orchestrating a lie straight from the Saul Alinsky playbook!

Rios finds a clue in the fact that Clinton’s doctors “are both women and they have these very strong female names” and therefore must be playing along in the blood clot deceit. She claims that “the doctors have refused to make statements” and “have not been allowed to ask questions.” (The doctors did in fact release a statement to the press.) The self-proclaimed “pro-family activist” even argued that Clinton isn’t telling the truth about her “supposed” health condition since she looked “happy” (gasp!) after she left the hospital.

She’s out of the hospital, so they say, but did anybody see that yesterday? They saw pictures of her riding in the car, a camera caught her, she looked perfectly happy, laughing. Leaving the hospital but there had been no report that she had left the hospital and then suddenly the State Department issues a statement, ‘oh yes she’s out of the hospital.’ This has been a bizarre story to me. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t one of the skeptics, I am a skeptic, I’m a huge skeptic. Let me just give you the exaggerated claims here. The National Enquirer printed a story saying that Hillary Clinton is having a ‘brain cancer drama.’ And then of course we’ve had detailed reports of this blood clot that supposedly happened as a result of a fall which supposedly happened as a result of a terrible flu which that had caught.

I read an article in the Washington Post just a couple of days ago where her two doctors, and I’m sorry I can do this because I’m a girl, they are both women and they have these very strong female names and I say to myself: you know what, I just, I’m sorry, I just—do you know that the doctors have refused to make statements? They have not been allowed to ask questions, it’s just been statements from the State Department reporting how dreadfully awful, terrible the disease, that Hillary Clinton has is.

I think the point I want to make is that Hillary Clinton has a long history. Many of us remember what a liar she is. She sat at the feet of Saul Alinsky, she wrote her master’s thesis on how to do propaganda and lie; I see her finger prints on Benghazi, I see her finger prints on this illness. I have to say this is like the ‘Boy that Cried Wolf,’ when you lie that many times in your life, when you won’t testify in all of these scandals with your family, when you destroy women that your husband’s been involved in by lying about them, when you create this vast right-wing conspiracy, then who can believe you when you say you’re sick? I’m sorry, I’m not there.

Huelskamp 'Not Convinced' Sandy Relief Bill Is Necessary; Claims Obama's Policies are Akin to Communism

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) appeared on the radio show of American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer today where the far-right congressman said he found no reason for a Sandy relief bill, arguing that FEMA “can’t spend all the [money] quick enough.” Of course, FEMA just today said that the flood insurance program is about to run out of funds and officials from Sandy-affected states roundly criticized the House Republican leadership for refusing to put the urgent care package up to a vote. But the congressman maintained the bill is “loaded up with pork” and that he is “not convinced yet” that a Sandy relief package is needed, seemingly dumbfounded that “for some reason” people want the aid.

While discussing the fiscal cliff deal, Huelskamp told Fischer that Obama has the view that “government should run everything” which he got straight from “the communist centers of the world.” “Far too many of my Republican colleagues don’t understand that about the President, what his ultimate goals are,” Huelskamp said, “that’s frustrating given that we know where the President is at.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 1/2/13

  • PFAW: Empty Courtrooms in Obama’s First Term: A Slow Start on Judicial Nominations Magnified Many Times Over By Republican Obstruction.
  • Chris Rodda: Barton’s “Jefferson Lies” Once Again Listed as a Thomas Nelson Book on Amazon –Thomas Nelson Probably Won’t Like That .
  • Joe Hagan @ New York Magazine: Blues Cruise.
  • Jeremy Hooper: How dare the 'warlike' bloggers quote Dr Dobson accurately?!
  • Matt Gertz @ Media Matters:  NRA Blames Violent Films For Mass Shootings, But Their Museum Features "Hollywood Guns."
  • Steve Benen @ The Maddow Blog: House GOP blocks Violence Against Women Act.
  • Scott Keyes @ Think Progress: Leading Conservative Religious Organization Warns That Christians Will Soon Be Treated Like Blacks In Jim Crow Era.

Fischer: Fiscal Cliff Legislation is 'Demonic'

Bryan Fischer is not at all pleased with the legislation passed last night by the House of Representatives in an effort to avoid the "fiscal cliff, "declaring that it is a violation of the Ten Commandments' prohibition on covetousness, meaning that the Democratic Party is driven by a "Satanic" ideology and the resulting legislation is "demonic":

Sandy Rios Exposes the Left's Plot to use Christmas to Distract Conservatives

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios today “exposed” the left’s plan to set crucial legislative votes around the Christmas season in order to distract conservative activists who are too busy celebrating the holiday to wage political battle. Pointing to the 2009 Senate Christmas Eve vote to pass the health care reform law and the push by LGBT rights advocates in Illinois to legalize same-sex marriage in January as proof, Rios claimed that crafty liberals know that “Christian people who care about Christmas [are] the same ones who are concerned about implementing homosexual marriage” and blocking the health care law. “This is how they win their battles,” she said.

It’s interesting how the left pushes this stuff, so much of this always comes down to Christmas. Remember last year, the Obamacare bill? They kept members of Congress debating on Christmas Eve, you know they have no concern, no real concern about what this season means to people because it doesn’t mean much to them. Other than just a family holiday, I don’t think they understand; there’s no reverence for it. So they voted Christmas Eve last year for Obamacare. Now interestingly enough the same tactic is being employed in Illinois in a very different way. When we come back in January we will discuss this. Suddenly, as of last Friday, gay activists in Illinois want homosexual marriage in Illinois, they want it. So it looks like a vote will take place, are you ready? Sometime between January 2nd and 9th. So pro-family forces are trying to gear up, guess what time of year this is? Guess what weekend this is? The weekend before Christmas when churches are doing special programs, music, pastors are preparing profound sermons as an outreach to the community; this is what Christian people who care about Christmas being the same ones who are concerned about implementing homosexual marriage. This is how they win their battles.

Of course, the House Republican leadership just (unsuccessfully) pushed their Plan B legislation a mere five days before Christmas, but apparently it’s only a problem when liberals hold votes during the holiday season.

Pastor: 9/11 and CT School Shooting were 'Gracious' Acts of God's Judgment

Pastor Bill Elliff of the Arkansas-based The Summit Church and the Religious Right group OneCry appeared on AFA Today with host Buster Wilson this week where he explained that the September 11 attacks and the elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut were “gracious” acts of divine punishment. He said that God allowed the two tragedies to occur because of “our humanistic pride” and secular government in order to “bring us to our senses and bring us back to him.”

Wilson was positively dumbfounded as to why people would be offended by such rhetoric and similar language by AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer, who said that God refused to stop the school shooting because he’s a “gentleman,” and Elliff worried the U.S. is going the way of the Roman and British empires.

Wilson: I have never seen the vitriol that has been unleashed against us, some of us here at this ministry, since we’ve been publicly saying: you know what one of the problems is for the last fifty years we’ve been saying to God we don’t want you, there’s a wall of separation between us, and the place you’ve seen that amplified most has been in the public schools. We have received just unbelievable vitriol for saying that, seeing it as too simplistic, one person wrote ‘this is 2013, are we still wrestling over Creationism?’ We are in a changing, almost post-Christian America is what it seems like at time, what’s gonna happen if we don’t turn back to the Lord and see great revival brought about?

Elliff: I think what’s going to happen is what’s happened to every society before us who has not turned back. I was thinking the other day probably in Rome they thought ‘this could never happen to us’ and England in its prime they said ‘this could never happen to us.’ There is something about our humanistic pride that causes us to think, we could never go down as a nation.



Elliff: I’ve often thought about 9/11 and what happened there. God doesn’t cause evil, he didn’t cause the shooting the other day. But when we say, ‘Lord we can live life without you,’ then he says, ‘okay, I’ll let you feel that.’

Wilson: Let you get a taste of it.

Elliff: I thought at 9/11 what happened was God’s protective hand was removed and we felt what pure evil is like. We felt that this last week. That was pure evil, it’s the devil who has come to steal, kill and destroy. He’d just as soon kill a baby or a child in the womb as anything else. God allows that moment, we’re pressing the issue by turning from him, but he allows that moment to bring us to our senses and say, ‘God we desperately need you.’ So really it’s gracious. The pain that comes, the judgment that has really come by our turning away from the Lord is a merciful thing that God does to bring us to our senses and bring us back to him.

Elliff explained that the shooting was a sign of God’s discipline as “judgment comes to a nation it is God saying, wake up, you have walked away from me and I have loved you and I have so much desire to protect you but when you walk away you forfeit that.”

Elliff: We look at what has happened recently here in the school shooting and the so many things that have happened in the past few years. If we put all of those in biblical context and surround it with the Scripture we would come to different conclusions about what was happening. I was thinking the other day that God has instituted pain in our body, you know when you get a rusty nail that goes up to the sole of your foot that’s a real good thing that you feel pain because it causes you to make an adjustment. God’s judgment is like that. It’s a loving God saying to us when judgment comes to a nation it is God saying, wake up, you have walked away from me and I have loved you and I have so much desire to protect you but when you walk away you forfeit that.

Franklin Graham on Sandy Hook: 'This is What Happens When a Society Turns Its Back on God'

Franklin Graham called in to American Family Radio today to talk with the AFA's leading conspiracy theorist Buster Wilson about a variety of issues, including last week's shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which Graham blamed on television and music and video games before inevitably blaming the supposed removal of God from our schools and public places, saying "these politicians in Washington; we've taken God our of our school, we've taken him out of our government and now we seem shocked at all of these things.  Why are we shocked? We shouldn't be shocked.  This is what happens when a society turns its back on God":

Connecticut and The Cause Of Our National Political Paralysis

Call it an occupational hazard for someone who pays close attention to the right wing in America. On Friday, even while my mind and heart were struggling with how to take in, much less make sense of, the news about the killings at a Connecticut elementary school, another part of me was steeling itself for what I knew was to come.

And come it has. Rather than contributing to constructive discussion about a way forward on issues like the insufficient availability of mental health treatment and the extravagant availability of equipment designed for large-scale killing, Religious Right leaders and their Tea Party allies have wasted no time in placing blame for the killing on their usual targets: liberals, teachers, religious pluralism, judges, and the separation of church and state. Yet again.

These past few days have reminded me how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, while the smoke had not even cleared from the destruction of the World Trade Center, blamed liberals, feminists, gays, People For the American Way, and others for the attacks. Falwell was shamed into an apology, which he later recanted. But Religious Right leaders are showing no shame in using this tragedy to push their agendas in offensive and destructive ways.

On his radio station Monday morning, James Dobson cited lack of belief in God, legal abortion, the advance of marriage equality as reasons for the school shooting: "I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us. I think that's what's going on."

The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer also blessed his listeners with his personal insight into what he says was God's gentlemanly reason not to protect those children from harm:

God is not going to go where he is not wanted. Now we have spent since 1962 - we're 50 years into this now - we have spent 50 years telling God to get lost. Telling God, 'We do not want you in our schools.'...In 1962 we kicked prayer out of the schools. In 1963 we kicked the word of God out of the schools. In 1980 we kicked the Ten Commandments out of schools. We've kicked God out of our public school system. And I think God would say to us, 'Hey, I'll be glad to protect your children, but you've got to invite me back into your world first. I'm not going to go where I am not wanted. I am a gentleman.

Presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee made similar comments as did others. The Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody defended them from their critics, saying their views were shared by millions of evangelicals.

Why look at what these people are saying? Because of the real power they now hold. What they say is what keeps us from even discussing, never mind solving, this country's critical problems.

Even efforts to bring people together to comfort the suffering brought attacks. Operation Save America called Sunday's interfaith memorial service "an affront to Almighty God" and added that "We expelled God from school and banished Him from the schoolyard. He was replaced with metal detectors, condoms, policemen, anti-bullying policies, No-gun zones, and violence of unprecedented order."

One of the most dismaying statements came predictably from Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, who responded to President Obama's remarks at the memorial service on Sunday with this tweet:

Absolute slime ball, #Obama exploiting memorial service to push radical#GunControl. His extremism knows no lows#Newtown

It is amazing what can be conveyed about our politics in 140 characters or less. It strikes me that Barber's tweet is emblematic of everything that the radical right has done to distort our political system and destroy our ability to even have a reasonable conversation about critical problems the country needs to solve.

Would that this was just about guns. This frenzied effort to forestall even a conversation about the ready availability of military-style weapons - and this is even before the NRA itself wades in - points to a larger picture.

Just five years ago, we were able to have some reasonable political conversations, even across party lines, about important issues like climate change and immigration reform. Of course, there were significant disagreements about the exact nature of the issues and the proper policy responses. But more recently, any effort to even acknowledge the existence of climate change runs up against a solid wall of denialism from the right wing and most importantly from legislators who now so fear the far right. Similarly, some conservatives who championed comprehensive immigration reform five or six years ago saw the effort savaged by the right wing who sounded the alarm of losing white America.

On the fiscal front, Grover Norquist's no-taxes-ever pledge, backed with the kind of political intimidation that deep-pocketed ideologues have perfected in the Tea Party era, have made it nearly impossible for the country to seriously address both its short-term job shortage and its long-term deficit problem. And we saw last year that the fear of a right wing primary challenge is much greater than the fear of damaging the credit rating of our country.

The horrific shootings in Connecticut may be leading some elected officials to consider tackling some problems that have been ignored or considered politically off-limits. But we should not have to rely on tragedies to overcome obstacles to needed action. While the far right's ideological enforcers can be counted on to fight any move by conservatives toward common sense and common ground, such movement is essential. As we are sometimes so painfully reminded, Americans need a functional political system, one with the ability to address urgent political questions to achieve much needed compromises. And quite simply, none of this can happen until we have political leaders with the courage to stand up against the far right's willingness to paralyze our country.

This post originally appeared at the Huffington Post.

PFAW

Fischer: Sandy Hook Shooting Proof That America's 'Moral Capital' has Run Out

Bryan Fischer essentially dedicated his entire radio program yesterday to defending the claims he made last Friday that God refused to prevent the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut because he is a "gentleman" who doesn't go where he is not wanted.

Since Fischer absolutely means everything he says, there was no need for him to attempt to apologize for or clarify his original comments in any way, so instead he simply reiterated and expanded upon them, explaining that the shooting was evidence that the reservoir of "moral capital" that this nation had built up by publicly honoring and recognizing God from its founding until 1962 has now been utterly depleted, thus weakening the shield of God's protection and allowing Satan to get through:

Wildmon: Satan Carried Out the Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School

American Family Association president Tim Wildmon offered up his thoughts on last week's tragic school shooting in Connecticut by saying that Satan literally took possession of shooter Adam Lanza and carried out the attack ... but "that doesn't exonerate the person of their responsibility" for what happened because Lanza knew what he was doing: 

Fischer: God Didn't Stop CT School Shooting Because He's a 'Gentleman' Who Doesn't Go Where He Is Not Wanted

Bryan Fischer blames the school shooting in Connecticut on prayer, the Bible and the Ten Commandments not being taught in public schools.

Fischer: New Theory Suggests 'Homosexuality is the Result of a Birth Defect'

Yesterday it was reported that a group of scientists had put forward a new theory that epigenetic marks may play a key role in determining why people are gay.  According to press reports, these "epi-marks" determine how genes are expressed and are normally "erased" between generations, but in cases where they are not erased, they may be passed on from a mother or father in a way that can lead to a child becoming gay.

Which means, according to Bryan Fischer, that homosexuality might be a "birth defect" which could lead prospective parents to choose abortion:

As I have said before, I suspect that not even homosexual activists today want the gay gene to be found, even if it exists, because of advances in prenatal genetic testing. It is now possible to routinely screen for 3500 genetic defects while a child is still in the womb. 

So these activists rationally fear that preborn children who are detected with this gene will be aborted before they even have the chance to be born. After all, if 90% of babies in the womb who are diagnosed with Downs syndrome never draw their first breath, what are the chances that parents disposed to abortion will not exercise the same choice with regard to the gay gene? 

The scientists in Koebler’s article, in my view, are now resorting to genetic subterfuge and are coming dangerously close to saying that homosexuality is the result of a genetic defect, a genetic abnormality. In other words, read from one angle, these same scientists are saying that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect.

...

So in other words, when something goes wrong genetically, and these markers are not erased, the epi-markers which provide an evolutionary advantage to parents instead do evolutionary damage to their offspring.

Now these researchers are quite at pains to avoid saying anything like this, but the logic to me seems inescapable: Homosexual children, on this theory, are born evolutionarily and genetically disadvantaged. They have been overexposed or underexposed to testosterone because something has gone wrong in the process of genetic transmission. In other words, they are the product of a genetic abnormality at best, a birth defect at worst.

...  I expect many abortion-minded parents will want to know exactly how strong this epi-marker is in their unborn children so they can decide whether or not to exercise reproductive choice. 

In fact, I expect that if this theory gains some currency, it will not be long before we have legislation from the homoexual lobby prohibiting “sex-selection” abortions on any child carrying this epi-marker.

UPDATE: Fischer reiterated many of these same points on his radio program today:

Wilson Uses Bogus Story to Warn that Liberals Will Put Pastors in Jail

American Family Association’s Buster Wilson yesterday warned that gays and liberals are trying to “elevate hate speech [laws] above the freedoms of our precious first amendment,” citing a case in Canada where he says a “pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached against homosexuality.”

As we think about the basics of Biblical morality, today we will discuss the issue of hate speech and the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of Speech.

While most Americans refuse to believe anyone could ever be imprisoned simply for something they said, the examples of it actually happening are abundant.

In our neighbor to the north, Canada, a local pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached about homosexuality. A member complained to the hate speech council and he was found guilty and jailed.

Now for certain, that’s in Canada. But the hate speecher’s in this country are modeling their efforts on those successful hate speech laws in Canada.

The left wants to control the speech of the right, and if left to themselves, they will find a way to elevate hate speech above the freedoms of our precious first amendment!

If a pastor was sentenced to jail for eighteen months in Canada, don’t you think there would be a single news story about it?

We couldn’t find a single one, but Wilson seems to be citing a decision by the Alberta Human Rights Commission which fined a pastor over an anti-gay letter to the editor which preceded an attack on a gay youth. But the ruling was overturned because it violated Canada’s constitutional protection of free speech. Even Canadian Baptist leaders have rebuffed claims that pastors in their country can go to jail over their stance on homosexuality.

So basically, a Canadian judge tosses out a fine against a pastor and reaffirms his free speech rights, but Wilson claims that he “spent 18 months in jail” and therefore hate speech laws are coming to the U.S.!

Young Earth Creationists Still Unhappy with Pat Robertson

Last week, young earth Creationist leader Ken Ham lashed out at Pat Robertson for disputing the belief that Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Now the American Family Association’s news arm OneNewsNow is out with a story, “Christian Broadcaster Straying From Scripture?” The AFA quotes a member of Ham’s Answers in Genesis skewering Robertson for insisting that humans did not live side-by-side with the dinosaurs:

Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis (AIG), who disagrees with Robertson, notes that the television show host challenges James Ussher, the renowned former archbishop of Ireland who traced the earth's creation based on the Bible and took the Bible as the Word of God.

"[Ussher] came up with a date of 4004 [B.C.] for creation by taking the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 as complete chronologies with no missing names, which is the way the church took those genealogies for 1,800 years," Dr. Mortenson explains. "So, he was just being a very, very careful student of the Scriptures and the chronological information given in Scripture."

Moreover, the AIG researcher notes that Robertson's claim that dinosaurs existed before biblical times is illogical, because there is no pre-biblical time; the Bible starts with the creation of the world.

Robertson also mentioned science's reliance on carbon dating, which Dr. Mortenson says reveals Robertson's ignorance on the subject.

"Carbon-14 is never used to date rocks or dinosaur bones; it's other dating methods which have much longer half-lives," Mortenson reports. "The maximum age you could date anything with radio carbon dating is about 80,000 or 100,000 years at the max, and dinosaurs supposedly lived 65 million to 245 million years ago. So he's really not informed on the dating methods."

AIG maintains that the Bible remains the true and final authority on the subject.

Bryan Fischer Defends Ban on Women in Combat by Lying about the Israeli Military

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association today dedicated his radio show to railing against the American Civil Liberties Union for filing a lawsuit against the ban on women in combat. He got most heated in responding to the claims from ban opponents who point to Israel’s policy towards women, arguing that Israel actually excludes women from combat roles and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

Don’t let people lie to you that the Israelis use women in combat, they do not. They tried it for three weeks in 1948, they scrapped it, it doesn’t work and they’ve never done it again. Now women still serve in the Israeli military, they serve as secretaries, clerks, communications specialists, nurses, teachers and army social workers. They do not serve in combat. They don’t serve as pilots, they don’t serve on ships, they don’t pump gas, they don’t even drive trucks. Now they do receive a minimal amount of weapons training but they receive no training in how to use weapons in combat and they don’t even practice shooting at combats. In fact the only time, and this is what perpetuates the myth, the only time that Israeli female soldiers carry weapons is on parade.

However, this is simply not the case.

“Women have served in combat roles in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) since the mid-1990s,” the BBC reports. “During the 2006 Lebanon conflict, women fired artillery, served on warships, and piloted aircraft.”

Apparently Fischer doesn’t believe the IDF’s own website which clearly states that women in “some of the most combative, extreme roles” in the military.

Everywhere in the IDF, women play a vital role in all positions, both combat and administrative. In the Air Force, Navy, and Ground Forces- these women man some of the most combative, extreme roles in the IDF.

Today, over 90% of all IDF jobs are available for female soldiers, including a variety of elite positions. Over the last decade, IDF women completed pilot’s course, became naval officers and took on a variety of infantry positions.

The following women fight alongside men, contributing to the security of the State of Israel and proving their immense toughness

The IDF says women serve as weapons instructors, pilots in the air force and soldiers in combat, K-9, field intelligence and engineering units.

 

There is even an entire page about combat options for Israeli female service members.

But Fischer doesn’t have any interest in doing even elementary research into this issue and is much more content with spewing baseless statements that fly in the face of reality.

Republicans Continue to Spin Election Results to Claim Obama Lacks Mandate

While Obama had a larger popular vote and Electoral College margin than George W. Bush, who claimed to have a mandate after he won re-election in 2004, now Republicans keep insisting that Obama doesn’t have a mandate because his election victory was too thin a margin. For example, while Dick Morris predicted that Mitt Romney would win a 325 electoral vote “landslide,” he then said Obama’s 332 electoral vote victory was merely a “squeaker.”

J.T. Young in the Washington Times today makes the case that Obama’s win wasn’t all that great because if you play around with the numbers and reduce the turnout numbers from Democratic-leaning groups like women then Romney would’ve won! Plus, the conservative share of the electorate was up in 2012 and Ronald Reagan posted huge margins when he ran for president so Americans must still be looking for Republican leadership, or something. 

Multiplying exit-polling participation percentage by preference percentage gives a good approximation of what the Kerry or Gore electoral impact would be on these groups so crucial to Mr. Obama’s victory. The average drop in support for Mr. Obama in 2012 from the higher of either Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore among the five groups is 2.4 percent. Delete women from the calculation, and the average decline is 2.8 percent — almost enough to have allowed Mr. Romney to win by Mr. Obama’s 2012 popular vote margin.

Even the decline in votes for Mr. Obama by 18- to 29-year-olds compared to Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore — 2.2 percent — is still more than enough to flip the popular vote to Mr. Romney. The declines in other demographics — blacks (2.4 percent), Hispanics, (2.8 percent) and liberals (3.7 percent) — are far greater.

Furthermore, vote totals for both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore came against George W. Bush, who hardly racked up Reagan-sized Republican margins.



Republicans also retain a real ideological advantage. Exit polling showed conservatives made up 35 percent of voters in 2012 and went 82 percent for Mr. Romney — hardly a conservative favorite. Liberals made up 25 percent of 2012 voters — their highest level among the past four elections and 3 percent more than in 2008 — going 86 percent for Mr. Obama. That means Republicans need only a little more than one-third of the remaining Independents to win, while Democrats need a bit less than two-thirds.

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson even had a post-election rant arguing that even though Obama won the election 51-47 percent, Romney tied him in geography and therefore Democrats don’t have a mandate. “There’s an awful lot of red there,” Wilson claimed. He even wondered if Harry Reid is mentally unbalanced because he said that Democrats had a mandate to raise tax on top-earners.

Of course, since Democrats typically lose the rural vote, if we were simply to judge election mandates according to the colors on maps then Democrats will almost never have a mandate.

Steve Deace on his radio show yesterday was flummoxed that Obama won re-election while capturing just 22 percent of counties. Ignoring the fact that county size has little to do with population rates, he maintained that because Romney carried far more counties than Obama, America still has a conservative majority but freedom-hating liberal elites have “infiltrated the population centers” and ruined everything.

“If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers,” Deace gloated, “we would steamroll them.”

What has happened here is we’ve been outflanked. Enemies of freedom and liberty, what they have done is infiltrated the population centers so that they run the editorial boards of almost every major newspaper in your city, they ran the government school board in almost every major city in America, they run even things to the point like the art center, who is on the board of your city’s art center? The statists are, the secularists are, the progressives are. They are running—they have outflanked us. If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers. First of all, most of them don’t believe in guns, that’s one advantage. The other thing is we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers, we would steamroll them, I mean they could not defeat our sheer numbers. But what has happened is the enemies of freedom and liberty have outflanked us, they have been strategic in their thinking and that’s where they have concentrated their resources. So we are a mile wide but an inch deep, they are the exact opposite, they are about a foot wide and a mile deep.

Basically, Obama can only claim to have a popular mandate if he wins the least populated areas of America.

'Barack the Destroyer': Bryan Fischer's Grand Unified Theory of Obama

On yesterday's program, Bryan Fischer responded to a caller who asserted that President Obama is "a very evil man" who wants to turn American into an Islamic state by laying out a wide-ranging theory about how Obama is not a Christian but rather a Muslim sympathizer who believes that the United States is fundamentally racist and evil and must be destroyed.  And that is exactly what Obama is trying to do, Fischer asserted, by entertaining ideas about capping tax deductions on charitable giving for high-income donors  because he wants to wipe out private charity so that people will become dependent on the government.

In fact, when companies lay off workers, Obama rejoices because "he wants to see America and Americans suffer" because "he is Barack the Destroyer; he is out to punish America for our misdeeds, to punish us for our racism, to bring us to our knees, to humble us in the dust so he can rebuild some kind of a socialist utopia on the ruins of what used to be the United States of America":

Wildmon: Obama Wouldn't Have Been Re-Elected if He Was White

The American Spectator's founder, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., was a guest on the American Family Association's "Today's Issues" broadcast this morning to explain how the thesis of his recent book, "The Death of Liberalism," was still valid despite the recent election results on the grounds that President Obama is not a liberal but rather a socialist. 

In Tyrrell's view, Obama's win was just a demonstration of the fact that conservatism has big victories but then reaches a plateau before going on to even greater victories.  So while the 2010 midterm elections were proof that America is a conservative nation, the 2012 election results were just a temporary plateau before the 2014 midterms, which will be another blowout win for conservatives.

But AFA's Tim Wildmon had a simpler explanation of why President Obama was re-elected:  because he is black.

How Unhinged Rhetoric Sank a Disabilities Rights Treaty in the Senate

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities failed to capture the 2/3 vote needed for ratification in the U.S. Senate today due to fierce Republican opposition. Many Republicans and their allies in the conservative movement claimed that the treaty codifies abortion into law, even though that preposterous claim was rejected by the National Right to Life Committee and Sen. John McCain. Along with the false charges about abortion, opponents of the treaty claimed it will undermine U.S. sovereignty and harm children. Critics like Rick Santorum warned that the treaty may kill his disabled daughter; Glenn Beck said it could create a “fascistic” government and Sen. Jim Inhofe alleged the treaty would help groups with “anti-American biases.”

One of the lesser-known but extremely active opponents of the bill was homeschooling activist Michael Farris.

During an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he claimed that the treaty will prompt the United Nations to ‘get control’ of children with glasses or ADHD and remove them from their families.

Farris: They’re called living documents, just like the disgraced living Constitution theory, which means the treaty doesn’t mean today what it’s going to mean tomorrow what it’s going to mean ten years from now. So you never know what you’re signing up for, that by itself is a good enough reason to leave it alone and to never enter into one of these things. But in particular, you hit the nail on the head Tony, the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty. My kid wears glasses, now they’re disabled, now the UN gets control over them; my child’s got a mild case of ADHD, now you’re under control of the UN treaty. There’s no definitional standard, it can change over time, and the UN, not American policymakers, are the ones who get it decided.

While speaking with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, the two warned that the treaty could lead to the deaths of disabled children, all the while admitting they have no evidence it would do such beyond their pure speculation.

Fischer: Disabled newborn babies in the UK are being put, oftentimes overriding the wishes of parents, on this death pathway where no matter what the parents want the doctors say this kid cannot live, severely disabled, too many congenital deformities, we think the best thing for this kid is just to be starved and dehydrated to death. It seems to me that although that’s not specifically contemplated in this treaty that could be an outcome.

Farris: Whether they thought about it or not, that’s exactly what Rick Santorum said in our press conference. He was holding his daughter Bella and she’s of the category of child that in Britain they would take that position because her official diagnosis is ‘incompatible with life.’ So when the doctor gets to decide, the doctor empowered by the government—these doctors aren’t doing it on their own, they are doing it because the government says they have the power to do it—the doctor/government deciding what they think is best for the child. It goes to the point of deciding whether the child lives or dies, it is that crazy. If we want to live in a Brave New World like that where the bureaucrats and the government and the UN all tell us what to do, fine, but this is the beginning of the end of American self-government if we go here, it’s just crazy, we cannot let this happen.

After warning that the treaty will kill children, Farris told conservative talk show host Steve Deace that the treaty will create a “cradle-to-grave care for the disabled” and said if the U.S. ratifies it “signing up to be an official socialist nation.” Farris claimed that the treaty will treat the parents of disabled children like child abusers in order to grow government power and implement “coercive socialism.”

“Everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement” if the treaty passes, Farris maintained, “it’s a way to make the socialist, liberal, amoral element a permanent feature of our law.” Deace agreed and said the treaty will “due in freedom and liberty.”

Farris: Every parent with a disabled child is going to be in the same legal position as if they’d been convicted of child abuse. We are taking away parental decision-making power in that area. The other thing that everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement. The United States resisted all the UN treaties of a certain category that began being proliferated in the 1960s; the first was the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. Our country said no that is coercive socialism, we’re not going to do that. So we rejected all those treaties ever since 1966. Yet we’re signing up now for our first economic, social and cultural treaty which means as a matter of international binding law that goes to the supremacy clause level in our Constitution, we’re signing up to be an official socialist nation, cradle-to-grave care for the disabled. Maybe Americans want to do that, but I think we’d want to do it as a matter of domestic law, not as a matter of international law. I personally don’t think that’s any business of Congress to do that sort of thing but I certainly don’t want to be doing it when the United Nations tells us to do it. So those are two big ways it will affect every American and there are more.

Deace: Michael Farris is here with us from Patrick Henry College, also from the Home School Legal Defense Association, talking about another attempt to usurp American sovereignty, to essentially do an end-run around the Constitution and then of course due in freedom and liberty through an effort through the United Nations.



Farris: If they can get this one through, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW, which is the women’s treaty with all kinds of junk in that one, and then a whole host of other UN treaties that the Obama administration wants to send our way, it’s a way to make the socialist, liberal, amoral element a permanent feature of our law through the use of treaties and they are going to do a full-force attack. We’ve got to stop them now. It’s not like just the camel nose in the tent, it is that too, but we don’t want a camel’s nose in our constitutional system, that’s what we don’t want.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious