To say that Bryan Fischer was outraged over evangelical pastor Louie Giglio's withdrawal from participation in President Obama’s inauguration over an anti-gay sermon he delivered would be a massive understatement, as Fischer has been venting his fury all day on Twitter and then letloose on his radio program, finally declaring that anti-gay Christians are "now the new Rosa Parks" and the victims of modern-day Jim Crow laws:
As is his custom, Bryan Fischer began today's radio program with a reading and discussion from the Bible, in this case a passage from the book of Joel which Fischer said revealed that all natural disasters were sent by God in order to correct humanity just as parents have to spank disobedient children in order to teach them a lesson:
At this point, we don't really expect much from Bryan Fischer ... but still, some basic honesty would be nice.
On his radio program today, Fischer was discussing remarks Sen. Harry Reid delivered on the Senate floor last week blasting the failure by Congress, thanks to House Republicans, to pass a relief package for those impacted by Hurricane Sandy. In his remarks, Reid noted that Congress passed legislation aiding victims of Hurricane Katrina within ten days back in 2005, while victims of Sandy have had to wait over two months for assistance.
Fischer was fully aware that Reid was criticizing Congress for failing to appropriate the money that FEMA needs to carry out relief work but flagrantly misrepresented his statement to claim that Reid was admitting that when President Bush was in charge, Katrina victims received assistance within days, while Sandy victims under Obama have been forced to wait months:
The next time any Religious Right activist wants to complain that we "misrepresent" their views or take their statements "out of context," we'll just point them to this Fischer clip as an example of what real, actual intentional misrepresentation looks like.
We have heard a lot of, well, interestingarguments against a potential ban on assault weapons in order to curb gun violence, and American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer wants to add his two cents. He argues that modern-day assault weapons are protected by the Constitution because they’re “nothing more than a fancy-pants hunting rifle” equivalent to what the Founding Fathers “used to defeat the British.” In Fischer’s eyes, there’s no difference between an AR-15 and a musket.
Fischer: What they’ve done is — whoever controls the language is going to control the debate. They picked the word ‘assault weapon’ to make it sound bad, to make it sound mean. They’re trying to say the Second Amendment does not protect assault weapons; I say exactly the reverse that is exactly what it protects, that is exactly what it was designed to protect. It was designed to protect the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, the same kind of arms, rifles, assault weapons, military-style weapons that were used to defeat the British. They just used their hunting rifles and used them to defend their independence. So the Second Amendment is exactly designed to protect assault rifles, that’s just nothing more than a fancy-pants hunting rifle.
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.”
Rick Joyer warns that "Obama has demonstrated the kind of leadership that is the foundation of tyranny" and declares that "if what is being done to us is found to have been intentional by Obama, others in our government, the Federal Reserve, or anyone one else, it is the highest form of treason."
After failing to purchase Current TV, Glenn Beck hints that he'll soon be launching a campaign to get his viewers to pressure their cable providers to start carrying his The Blaze network.
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.”
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":
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:
AFA's Buster Wilson says "it is NOT the time to politicize" the shooting in Connecticut before going on to argue that school officials ought to be able to carry concealed weapons on school grounds ... apparently utterly unaware that he is politicizing the discussion.
Apparently, making the case that marriage equality is a civil rights issue is "utterly cynical and possibly racist."
Did God kill British Labour Party MP Malcolm Wicks because he prevented Todd Bentley from entering the country? Todd Bentley thinks so.
John Stemberger says he has no problem with gays, except "what we aggressively oppose, is this notion of trying to transform society. And ‘gay’ as in-your-face, loud and proud, forcing everyone to buy into your assumptions about life and human sexuality. And if you don’t, we’re going to shout you down and call you a bigot."
Matt Barber yet again demonstrates that he is a genuinely awful person, tweeting that President Obama is an "absolute slime ball" following his remarks at the Sandy Hook memorial service.
Finally, Bryan Fischer explains that God gave us prayer and guns in order to protect kids and there is not much he can do if we decide not to use them as the Bible instructs:
Good grief, now Glenn Beck isobsessed with the new Hobbit movie and its hidden Christian meaning.
FRC wonders what is happening because "it's as if sex were the new constitutional right."
Speaking of FRC, Jim DeMint is featured in the organization's latest prayer alert: "Thank God for the Heritage Foundation. May God anoint and use Sen. Jim DeMint mightily in his new post. May the three important segments of the conservative movement strengthen their coalition! May those who labor ceaselessly to divide conservatives, completely fail in their efforts! May God awaken the American people, Democrats and Republicans, to see and resist the massive effort now underway to make the U.S. a socialist nation."
Sen. Roger Wicker is "devastated by the re-election" of President Obama.
Finally, Bryan Fischer is excited by reports that a massive flood may have occurred around 5,000 BC because that is evidence that the story of Noah and the ark is true ... except, according Fischer's calculations based on the Bible, Noah's flood occurred in 2456 BC, so the archeologists are "off by a couple thousand years."
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:
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.
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":
Several dozen Religious Right and conservatives leaders have signed on to a letter telling House Republicans never to compromise with Democrats because "you have a mandate to fight for conservative principles that is arguably much broader than the one that narrowly reelected President Barack Obama claims to have for his leftist agenda."
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.
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: