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.
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.
Buster Wilson of the American Family Association as of late has dedicated his radio program to fighting the so-called “War on Christmas,” railing against municipalities that don’t erect Nativity Scenes and stores that say “Happy Holidays.” Of course, Chick-fil-A has so far escaped his wrath even though the company easily fails the AFA’s “War on Christmas” test.
Last week, Wilson made the absurd argument that not having a Nativity Scene on public property is direct a violation of his First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and his God-given rights.
There are people who can put nativity scenes on their front lawns, it’s their private property and if they want to do that, they can do that, why do you have to have the public square as well? Here’s the reason why that’s a problem. The reason why we rebel against that is that the First Amendment of the Constitution gives every individual American the freedom of worship without any possibility of interference from the government. We don’t want the government saying you can do it here. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, we declare that these rights are God-given; they are our unalienable rights from our Creator. They are not privileges granted by our government. If they are a privilege granted by the government then the government can number one, regulate it, or number two, take it away, we have unalienable rights.
However, nativity scenes and other religious symbols are allowed on public lands as long as they are part of a larger secular display and do not convey the state sponsorship of religion, something even the conservative American Center for Law and Justice admits:
In Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a government-erected crèche. Significantly, the Lynch Court upheld the constitutionality of the holiday display in that case because the crèche was a part of a larger holiday display in which there were a variety of secular symbols.
Today he took it a step further by saying that the courts are actually going to literally prevent people from “celebrating Christmas,” asserting that those pushing the “War on Christmas” are “using the court system of this country to force Christians to not be able to celebrate Christmas at Christmastime.”
He even suggested that President Obama’s attendance at Ramadan fast-breaking dinners shows that Christians are being slighted and Christmas marginalized.
I don’t understand, ‘you’re not the majority anymore, this is not a Christian nation and you’ve guys have got to quit trying to cram everything down people’s throats,’ nobody’s trying to cram—look, it is the folks who don’t want us celebrating Christmas that are cramming that view down our throats and using the courts to do it. So if we don’t want to start cramming things down people’s throats, then why don’t the folks who are opposed to us celebrating Christmas, why don’t they be quiet for a while because they are the ones that are using the court system of this country to force Christians to not be able to celebrate Christmas at Christmastime. I don’t understand it…I don’t get it, you know if you want to celebrate Ramadan, you celebrate Ramadan. The President of the United States of America has a Ramadan dinner with Muslims in the White House of the United States of America and celebrates Islam with those Muslims.
Earlier this month, the Religious Right's favorite climate change-denying "expert," Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance, appeared on American Family Radio where he declared that believing in climate change "is an insult to God." Yesterday, when he joined Bryan Fischer on "Focal Point" for yet another discussion about the "myth" of global warming, both he and Fischer declared that failure to use coal, oil, and natural gas is an insulting rejection of the gifts that God has given to us - gifts which, incidentally, He buried deep in the earth because He delights in our search for and discovery of them:
On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer made the entirely reasonable and logical argument that communists like President Obama "have a vested interest in keeping as many Americans as poor as possible" and to prevent them from succeeding in order to keep them dependent on the government.
In fact, Obama's push to help more students attend college, said Fischer, is really just an effort to saddle them with massive student loan debt and a worthless degree so that when they can't find a job, they become "helplessly, hopelessly, slavishly dependent upon government handouts."
Before founding the ex-gay therapy group JONAH, Arthur Goldberg was an investor convicted on felony charges and served time in prison for mail fraud and conspiracy. But the con man is being hailed as a hero by the Religious Right now that he is going up against the Southern Poverty Law Center in court, which is representing several customers of his New Jersey-based organization who are suing him for consumer fraud. Goldberg, however, will be unable to represent himself as he has been disbarred.
While speaking to American Family Association president Tim Wildmon and Family Research Council head Tony Perkins on AFA Today, Goldberg denied the SPLC’s claims that he defrauded customers by advertising that his group is able to “cure clients of being gay,” for example by instructing a group of men to “remove their clothing and stand naked in a circle” alongside a nude “counselor.”
Goldberg told Wildmon and Perkins that filing suit against an ex-gay therapy organization is like suing Weight Watchers for failing to lose weight through their program.
Shortly before the election, gay radio talk-show host Michelangelo Signorile got into a discussion with a gay Mitt Romney supporter who called into the program to defend his vote for Romney, which prompted Signorile to tell the caller that he would be better off committing suicide than "waiting for the slow, painful death that Mitt Romney will bring you."
Signorile apologized the following day, saying there was no excuse for what he said and admitting that it was a "total botch up."
American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios interviewed Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) to discuss Ruse’s efforts at the United Nations. Ruse is a staunch critic of the Obama administration’s initiative supporting LGBT rights abroad, even opposing efforts to prevent anti-LGBT violence. While speaking to Rios, he criticized the General Assembly for passing a resolution condemning extrajudicial executions, including killings based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
Ruse then mocked UN Ambassador Susan Rice for tweeting, “We will not allow the remarkable progress the UN has made on LGBT issues in the last four years to be rolled back,” leading to Rios to ask: “is she straight?”
Ruse did not know, to Rios’s dismay. Rice is married to television producer Ian Cameron and has two children.
Rios: I remember her only vaguely but I remember bad things about her during the Clinton years, but I don’t remember what those things were. What’s your perception? What do you see in Susan Rice as the UN Ambassador?
Ruse: There was a big vote in the UN General Assembly last week, a new phrase entered into a UN document for the very first time called “gender identity” and I’ll give you a thousand dollars if you can define it. Gender identity has never appeared in a UN document, it appeared in a document last week. Immediately, Susan Rice tweeted that ‘LGBT human rights have made a major stride and we will not go back.’ They are very aggressive on sexual orientation and gender identity and Susan Rice is leading the charge.
Frank Gaffney was the guest on AFA's "Today's Issues" radio program this morning to discuss the Right's ongoing obsession with the conspiracy that there has been a systematic cover-up of the attack in Benghazi, Libya back in September. The conspiracy theory now runs so deep that it prompted Tim Wildmon to go off on an extended rant about how President Obama and his administration lied and "intentionally misled the American people" about what happened in order to protect him ahead of the election. As such, Wildmon asserted, this "scandal" is worse than Watergate and that had this happened back in 1973, Obama would have been unanimously impeached:
Peter LaBarbera and John Kirkwood hosted the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios on the Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Radio Hour to respond to the victories of marriage equality activists and Neal Boortz’s post-election rant against the Religious Right. Rios said that Boortz was just one of many conservatives trying to push the GOP to abandon social issues like abortion rights and gay equality in order to win elections. According to Rios, it isn’t that most people don’t oppose the gay rights movement anymore; it’s just that they simply don’t understand how horrible it is!
She said that “education elites” are using gay rights to push “the most horrible trash down our children’s throats” and that even the child abuse scandal at Penn State is part of the “whole fabric” of gay rights. Rios went on to say that she wouldn’t want her family to have gay neighbors just as she wouldn’t like to live next door to a brother or an abortion clinic.
Rios: They find themselves totally shocked when a coach like Jerry Sandusky comes after little boys, that’s shocking, and yet that’s the very thing, the whole fabric of gay marriage is part of that issue of where we draw the lines on sexuality. We have very good reasons for feeling the way they do and they aren’t just scriptural, Scripture is the basis but all truth is God’s truth, we can make our case without Scripture. Most people naturally speaking abhor the things that homosexual activists really working towards, they just don’t know about them. So Neal Boortz is just speaking out of ignorance.
Kirkwood: You’re talking about a movement and activists but you like to be challenged so here’s my challenge to you. I’m going to put it in his leading words…he said he’s going to be waiting for a year for somebody to tell him one reason that the gay couple down the street from Sandy Rios will have any effect on your life.
Rios: Because I have children and grandchildren in school, at least not yet but I will, but I have kids that are going to be in school and because I know how the National Education Association and the education elites have been pushing, pushing, pushing the most horrible trash down our children’s throats in the guise of mainstreaming homosexuality and gay marriage is just a part of that. It may be that a couple next door to me doesn’t affect my life but on the other hand if I’m raising children and I care: do I want to live next door to a brothel? Do I want to live next door to an abortion clinic? There are things that we morally object to and we don’t want our children to consider as normal.
Rios also repeated her claim that the success of abortion rights and gay equality at the ballot box is proof that America is under divine judgment, warning that God is using a “a veil of deception” to confuse people and lamenting that the Republican Party is no longer “a champion of moral values.” She concluded by warning LaBarbera and Kirkwood that they may soon face jail time or a fine for preaching against homosexuality.
Rios: The confusion and the people that we look up to failing us and being confused themselves, I see God’s supernatural hand in this. I really do think that there is a veil of deception and I think that it’s kind of like the way we see God, the way he works in the Old Testament, how when people have chosen to be rebellious he eventually says okay, go for it, you can have it. I think the American people are getting what we want.
We want licentiousness, we do not want moral restraint, whether its homosexuality or living together or abortion or birth control so we can have all the sex we want without consequence. We desperately want that so badly, women want it so badly, it’s all that matters to them on the left, that’s all they can think about, is not having to give up abortion and birth control. Of all the issues it really does drive them and I think God is going to give it to them.
I think He is going to give us homosexual marriage; I don’t see it stopping. I don’t see the Republican Party surviving in any form or fashion in the way it has been. I don’t see it being a champion of moral values; it gave up that ground a long time ago. You’ve seen it happen in Illinois and certainly we’re seeing the death, like the last gasps of death, here in DC. I believe God is bringing judgment.
Kirkwood: Regarding homosexuality then, it is going to be transformed from a marriage issue, which it has been, to don’t you think the transformation is now that activism is going to center around religious freedom?
Rios: Absolutely, you better believe it. Pastors like you, you will be fined or jailed like they have been in Canada, that’s coming.
Yesterday, Bryan Fischer was a guest on Steve Deace's radio program where the two commiserated over the state of the Republican Party and discussed just what options social conservatives will have if the GOP attempts to jettison their culture war issues in an effort to win over moderate and independent voters.
In Fischer's assessment, such a move would be tantamount to political suicide for the GOP because, contrary to popular opinion, those who classify themselves as "independents" are not moderates, but rather hard-line conservatives who refuse to consider themselves Republicans because the party is not conservative enough ... and so the only way to win over "independents," especially white voters who are "naturally" a part of the Republican base, is for the GOP to become more conservative on all the issues:
Fischer: There are a lot of people in America who are independents because the Republican Party as it currently exists is not conservative enough for them, it doesn't represent their values. So they're to the right, actually, of where the Republican Party is; they're independents. So if the Republican Party thinks they've got to move toward the center, well they're moving further and further away from these conservatives that are looking for a conservative voice; they're actually hurting themselves moving away from their base.
Deace: You know, you think if the GOP is so much more business-smart, Bryan, well, the first rule of business is the customer is always right, isn't he? I mean, wouldn't you actually cater to the customers you have rather than trying to make them into something their not?
Fischer: Well, and you look at the turnout this year, Steve, where President Obama's vote totals dropped by X number of million votes, I don't know exactly what the final total was - I think it's between six and seven million fewer votes Obama received this year than 2008. So here's a guy that's ripe for being picked off, but Romney barely matched the vote totals of John McCain in 2008 and we know from some of the other exit polling that probably six to seven million white voters stayed home: they naturally would be a part of Romney's base. So he just wasn't sending any message to them that was convincing them, as part of the Republican base, that it was worth even showing up to vote.
This morning on AFA's "Today's Issues," Tim Wildmon took issue with the prevailing wisdom among conservatives and Republicans that the party needs to do a better job of reaching out to minority voters if it wants to win future elections, saying that there really isn't much point in trying to do so because African American voters will always vote Democratic and there is nothing the GOP can do to change their minds.
As for Hispanic voters, Wildmon asserted that most of them care mainly about getting amnesty for their fellow Hispanics ... plus, "they are used to a socialist form of government in Mexico, which is big government welfare programs, so that is what they're going to vote for":
We would like to thank Michael Hainey of GQ magazine for recently asking Sen. Marco Rubio about how old he believes the world to be, mainly because it has resulted in entertaining attempts to defend the young earth view, like this exchange between Bryan Fischer and Terry Mortenson from Answers In Genesis on yesterday's radio program when the two insisted that scientists can never determine the age of the earth because they weren't there and "the only way we can know the age of the earth is if we have eyewitness testimony of somebody who was there, and that's what we have in the Bible":
Last week, Bryan Fischer said that Republicans need to "clamp down" on immigration because Hispanics are "are socialists by nature" and tend to vote Democratic. But as leading voices in the Republican Party and conservative movement continue to work to soften the GOP's traditionally hardline approach to the issue of immigration, Fischer is warning that how the party comes down on this issue will determine whether it survives because "if the Republican Party comes down for amnesty, it's done":
As he traditionally does at the beginning of every radio program, Bryan Fischer dedicated the opening segment yesterday to a reading and discussion from the Bible. In this case, he was reading from Isaiah 10 in which the prophet explains that God had sent the Assyrians to invade Israel as judgment, which prompted Fischer to declare that the same thing happened to America as "the jihadists on 9/11 were the agents of God's wrath in order to get our attention as a people."
And it was a rather effective technique, Fischer explained, because ever since major league baseball games have sung "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch and "one of the reasons we haven't been hit since 9/11 is that we did learn that lesson, we needs as a people to go before God and ask for his protection":
On yesterday's radio program, Bryan Fischer speculated that now that former CIA Director David Petraeus has resigned from his position following revelations that he had engaged in an extra-marital affair, he'd now be free to tell the truth about what happen in Benghazi, Libya and, by doing so, "could bring Obama presidency down."
The real tragedy, Fischer insisted, about the whole Benghazi issue was that the "completely innocent civilian" behind the anti-Islam film that was initially blamed for setting off riots in Muslim countries has now been sent to prison for violating an "Obama de facto blasphemy law against criticizing Islam, criticizing the prophet":
Of course, the man in question was really sent back to prison for violating the terms of his probation stemming from a bank fraud conviction by "using aliases, fraudulently obtaining a California driver's license under an assumed name and lying to probation officers."
For many Religious Right groups, Christmas is not so much a time to celebrate Immanuel than it is to raise money by fomenting outrage when shops use slogans like “happy holidays.” The American Family Association has a “Naughty or Nice” list to stir up consumers to boycott companies which are “against Christmas” and yesterday Liberty Counsel announced its “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign,” targeting public spaces which “censor” Christmas and selling their “Help Save Christmas Acton Pack.”
As Jeremy Hooper noted yesterday, it appears that the Religious Right’s most beloved fast food chain, Chick-fil-A, has indeed declared war on Christmas. In their horrific assault on Christmas, the company released a statement celebrating the “holiday season” that doesn’t once include the word “Christmas” and also pushed out a press release about “holiday gift giving,” again failing to mention “Christmas.” Even their online ads are clear affronts to Christmas!
Earlier this week, PFAW’s Right Wing Watch caught this rant by American Family spokesman and all-purpose bigot Bryan Fischer, who declared on his radio program that American Latinos voted Democratic in record numbers this year because “they want big government goodies.”
Hispanics are not Democrats, don’t vote Democrat, because of immigration. That’s not the main reason why they vote for Democrats. It doesn’t have anything to do with lax immigration policy. It has to do with the fact that they are socialists by nature. They come from Mexico, which is a socialist country. They want big government intervention. They want big government goodies. It’s primarily about that.
Now, they want open borders, make no mistake, because they’ve got family and friends that they want to come up and be able to benefit from the plunder of the wealth of the United States just as they have been willing to do. Republicans can pander all they want to Hispanics, to immigrants, and it will not work. There is no way on Earth you’re going to get them to leave the Democratic party, it’s one reason we’ve got to clamp down on immigration.
Fischer’s racist diatribe echoes generations of right-wing innuendo about “handouts” for minorities. It also, as it happens, lines up pretty closely with the worldview of 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. In a call with donors today, Romney blamed his presidential loss on the “gifts” President Obama offered to African Americans, Latinos, women and young people. What “gifts” did he mean? Universal health care, contraception coverage, college loans and the DREAM Act.
A week after losing the presidential election to President Obama, Mitt Romney blamed his overwhelming electoral loss on what he said were big “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies — including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.
In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.
“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Sure, Bryan Fischer is more willing than Mitt Romney to say outright racist things. But the content of what they’re saying is pretty much the same. Bill O’Reilly put it even more clearly when he opined that “traditional America” was being lost to people of color who “want stuff.”
I have to guess this is not going to be the way for Republicans to win back non-white voters, women and young people, all of whom have been fleeing their party in droves.