Rep. Louie Gohmert guest-hosted the "Point of View" radio program last Friday, where he proclaimed that the Supreme Court had declared itself to be God when it struck down state bans on gay marriage.
Gohmert had taken a call from a listener named Debbie, who insisted that the Supreme Court had no constitutional authority to rule on the issue of marriage, which prompted the Texas Republican to likewise blast the court for its gay marriage ruling.
Gohmert faulted the Supreme Court for supposedly saying that the "federal government has no business getting involved in marriage" when it struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, only to then turn around and say exactly the opposite when it struck down gay marriage bans.
"It really disturbs me," he said. "For 50 years, the Supreme Court has been saying, okay, less of God, less of God, not in the schools, not in public, you can't pray, you can't talk about the Bible. And with that decision last summer, they said forget what Moses said when he said, 'A man shall leave his father and mother, a woman will leave her home, the two become on flesh,' forget what Jesus said God said and what Moses said, he quoted exactly the same thing, forget what they said, we, the majority of the Supreme Court, are now your god."
Yesterday, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, spoke with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council about Donald Trump’s appeal to evangelical voters.
While both Gohmert and Perkins have endorsed Ted Cruz and were campaigning for the Texas senator in Iowa before the “Washington Watch” interview, the two said that Trump is winning over some conservative evangelicals because they are fed up with anti-Christian “persecution” and “sick of the nation being fundamentally transformed away from being a Christian nation.”
How a sitting member of Congress can possibly believe that he is facing persecution for being a member of the country’s largest religious group shows just how absurd Religious Right’s persecution narrative has become. And, ironically enough, these conservative leaders are now worrying that their manufactured paranoia of religious persecution may end up sinking their preferred candidate and help Trump.
Gohmert: I understand where so many believers, so many Christians have been in the past seven years, we now are experiencing something I never thought I would experience in my life, I never experienced it growing up and it’s what Jesus promised us would happen, and that is, ‘You will be persecuted for my sake.’ I never got persecuted growing up in Texas and I bet you didn’t in Louisiana, but we’re being persecuted now, Christians are being persecuted here for our religious beliefs and I think people are so sick of the nation being fundamentally transformed away from being a Christian nation.
You know, it reminds me maybe of the children of Israel. They had not been as faithful to God as they should have and things weren’t going like they wanted so they said, ‘God, give us a king and he can fix all this,’ and God said, ‘That’s not what’s going to fix it and it’s not a good idea.’ But I get the feeling people are thinking, if we can just have somebody that is as narcissistic and self-centered and will stand up to anybody as Obama is, then that person can go back and fix it. That’s a problem.
Perkins: What I see as I travel the country is there’s a fear, a fear that the country has changed, that we’re losing the country, just a fear of the loss of religious freedom. But we have to operate in faith, not fear. Fear causes us to make the wrong choices and go the wrong direction.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said last week that “it’s time to start impeaching” Supreme Court justices in response to the Obergefell marriage equality ruling, which he called an “illegal decision” that amounted to the court declaring itself to be God.
In an interview with Florida talk radio host Joyce Kaufman on Friday, Gohmert falsely claimed that church-state separation decisions in the 1950s and 1960s mandated that “you can’t talk about God in schools and public places.” But, he said, the Supreme Court did something even worse with Obergefell.
“The Supreme Court said, ‘You know, we told you you couldn’t use ‘God,’ now here’s the new line: We’re God,’” he said. “‘We are your God. Forget what God, Moses, Jesus ever said, we are your God now, the five of us in the majority, you do as we tell you.’”
Gohmert went on to repeat his call for Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to be impeached for participating in the decision after having performed legal same-sex marriages.
“We have two of them who had done same-sex marriages before they participated, they were disqualified, but they illegally participated, it’s an illegal decision, and it’s time to start impeaching judges and remove them from the Supreme Court,” he said.
Kaufman, for her part, seemed to say that Ginsburg and Kagan should have been disqualified for “being gay.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, has a theory as to why Hillary Clinton has been largely supporting President Obama’s policies and record on the campaign trail: because she knows that if she crosses him, she’ll be indicted.
Gohmert spoke yesterday with Alex Marlow on Breitbart News’ Sunday show on SiriusXM, where he insisted that as long as Clinton “doesn’t trash Obama, then she’s probably going to avoid indictment.”
Gohmert, who has been an enthusiastic proponent of the conspiracy theory that former CIA director David Petraeus was indicted for leaking classified information because he was about to expose information about the Benghazi attack, said that Clinton is probably facing a similar situation as Petraeus was.
“I know others who are saying, ‘Oh, it’s going to happen she’s going to be indicted,’” he said, “but look at Petraeus, they saw him as a threat, they’d been sitting on information about his affair for 10, 11 months or so, however long it’d been, and decided to use it right before he could destroy their scenario about the video causing Benghazi. So, I don’t know, just looking at the way this administration operates. If you’re on their side, you don’t get indicted. If you’re a threat to them, you get indicted.”
This prompted Marlow to bring up a theory of his own. “Did you notice what Hillary’s latest campaign tactic is, if you saw the latest debate, you know what she’s doing these days?” he asked. “She keeps backing Obama’s entire agenda. She keeps saying what his success has been.”
“Exactly,” Gohmert responded. “Why do you think that is?”
“Well, I’m starting to think, maybe all these rumors flying that she could be indicted, and I’d always thought that it wasn’t a chance, but maybe she’s thinking, ‘Well, we’d better make sure,’” Marlow said.
“Yeah, well, I mean, I think if she becomes a threat then she gets indicted like Petraeus was,” Gohmert responded. “You know, they’ve got the evidence, if they want to use it, then they can. But they obviously look the other way if you’re helping them, if you’re intimidating voters that may be Republican at a polling place then you walk, despite the laws you violate. It’s what this administration has done. They support those that help them even when they’re breaking the law.”
Yesterday, Iran briefly detained 10 Navy sailors after their small boats experienced mechanical problems and inadvertently drifted into Iranian waters. Almost immediately, Iran promised to release the soldiers and did so early this morning.
But last night, while the process was being worked out and the sailors were still being held by Iran, Rep. Louie Gohmert appeared on Dana Loesch's television and delivered a predictably Gohmertian response to the situation by declaring that the United States should put our armed forces on high alert and inform Iran that we will begin destroying its naval fleet if the sailors are not immediately released.
"When our Navy ships have problems, we don't call Iran," Gohmert blustered, "we call the rest of the Navy, we can call the Air Force, the Army, the Marines, the Coast Guard. We don't call Iran!"
"For the Iranians to even issue a statement at all saying, 'We are going to release them soon,' tells you that they control whether or not they can leave," he continued. "That situation should not be allowed to happen ... We should demand that Iran let these people go, our Navy men or women, whatever they are, let them go or we're going to start taking your ships out one at a time."
Yesterday, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, claimed that the Obama administration has “let loose” criminals and brought “massive” numbers of “violent terrorists” into the U.S. so that the president can eventually tell people to “give up your Second Amendment rights because I let all these terrorists in.”
Gohmert unveiled the elaborate plot while guest-hosting “Washington Watch,” the Family Research Council’s radio show.
Following an interview with a pastor who claimed that the Antichrist revealed in the Bible may be the same person as the Mahdi of Shia Islam, Gohmert connected gun violence in the U.S. to issues like immigration and refugee resettlement.
He insisted that the White House is spreading criminals and terrorists around the country in order to justify implementing new gun laws and undermining the Second Amendment, claiming that two-thirds of all Muslims believe that Sharia law should trump the U.S. Constitution:
The places in the country where there’s so much death from guns are places that have very strong gun control, so it’s rather ironic that we have a president and Hillary Clinton, a wannabe president, who's telling us after they have allowed so many people to come into this country as refugees; we know just this year there were at least a dozen people who came in, were brought into this country as refugees, most of them given citizenship and then they have been charged this year, some have been charged, some have been convicted already, of being terrorists. So the president has an open, porous border, people are pouring across and we know that some violent people have come in across our southern border. They come in, every week we read of new violent crimes, murders, rapes, obviously the vast majority don’t do that, but when you have a porous border, you get people who are criminals.
Then we learned again this week that it may be 179,000 or so that we know of who are illegally in the country, have been picked up by the administration but have been let loose on the interior of our country. You know the name Caitlin [sic] who was killed out in San Francisco by an illegal alien, a criminal illegal alien, and fortunately every alien that’s here illegally is not committing felonies but there are those who are.
So the president has presided over hundreds of thousands, millions really, being in the country illegally, at least 179,000 that, as I understand it, they have detained previously but have let loose on the country who have committed crimes, including murder, rape, robbery. And with all of those people that are coming into the country, some of whom are violent criminals, coming into our interior, some of them are actually picked up by Homeland Security and shipped all over our country, no matter whether they’re sick or not, I’ve seen them shipped out while they’re sick, but they’re shipped all over the country, not knowing for sure whether they’re violent criminals or not. So then we have people in the country that should never have been allowed in the country.
Refugees that have been allowed in the country, some of whom are violent terrorists, and they’ve been let in the country, and then when they do some act of violence, we’re told, and I know they haven’t said these words but basically by the position the administration is taking, they’re saying, ‘Yep, we’ve let all of these terrorists, these criminals come into the middle of our country, so all of you law-abiding citizens are going to have to give up your Second Amendment rights because I’ve let all these terrorists in; we can’t let terrorists go in and buy guns so we need to be really restrictive.’ So law-abiding citizens are going to have to give up a big portion of their Second Amendment rights because we’ve allowed all of these terrorists to be in our country without doing anything to remove them. Yes they’ve removed some, but there’s a massive number they haven’t.
As members of Congress, we are supposed to, we take an oath and we are supposed to be defensive against all enemies foreign and domestic. The president is. We owe an oath to the Constitution. Then we see reports that some folks, maybe two-thirds of people who believe in Allah, actually would like to see Sharia law take over the place of our Constitution. You cannot be an American citizen and believe Sharia law should supplant our Constitution.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, spoke with Stephen Bannon of Breitbart News today about the political squabble over resettling refugees, alleging that the president is allowing terrorists to enter the country as part of his plan to “fundamentally transform America.”
Bannon asked the congressman to respond to listener who had told Bannon that they were afraid that terrorists are using the refugee resettlement program to enter the U.S.
Gohmert didn’t have reassuring words: “They’re here, they’re here, there is no question, they’re here, that’s been confirmed over and over but it’s got to stop, it’s got to stop.”
He also thanked Bannon for defending “lonely” and “ostracized” Christians like himself who have been “standing against political correctness that is about to bring the greatest nation in history down if we don’t stop the insanity.”
“This president wanted to fundamentally transform America and he’s been doing it,” Gohmert said. “Unfortunately, he’s been doing it by looking the other way at the border.”
He told Bannon that while President Bush eventually started to crack down on border traffic toward the end of his term, “as soon as President Obama took the oath, took over, those days were over and it was back to just being wide open almost. It’s just insane.”
Last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert delivered the convocation at Liberty University, where he repeated his call for a study in which straight couples and gay and lesbian couples are placed on separate deserted islands in order to prove that homosexuality is unnatural.
Gohmert was complaining about the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision and was attempting to make the case that even people who don't believe in God ought to be able to see that same-sex relationships are not natural.
"Let's just take a totally secular approach to this," he said. "Congress is good about having studies; how about if we take four heterosexual couples and put them on an island where they have everything they need to live and exist and we take four couples of just men and put them on an island where they have all they need to survive and then let's take four couples of just women and put them on an island and then lets come back in 100 years and see which one nature favors."
On Friday, Rep. Louie Gohmert guest hosted the Family Research Council radio show “Washington Watch,” where he fielded a question from a caller who wanted to know why Congress hasn’t attempted to impeach President Obama since “we have enough proof” that Obama “has committed treasonous acts.”
The Texas Republican praised the caller, saying that he was “so grateful that there are people like you that understand just how detrimental this president has been to the ongoing of this country, we’re really at risk, like, now,” but cautioned that impeachment isn’t likely to happen until Republicans win popular support for such a move.
Gohmert added that Congress would be right to impeach Obama but won’t do so because “there are not enough in the people in the country, across America, that want him removed from office before his office is over,” at least, not yet. As he explained, the GOP attempt to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen may pave the way for Obama’s impeachment.
“I would have hoped that once we start removing people from office because of the lies, misrepresentation and treason, if that comes out, or just so detrimental to the country, then we would have a case that could be made involving the president,” he said. “But the will of the American people is just not there, that’s my problem. He has done grave damage and this Iran deal, it’s really a treaty, he’s lied about it up and down, and now we’re finding out Iran is violating the treaty, yet this administration is defending Iran and betraying Israel right and left.” He went on to claim that the administration accused Israel of “war crimes” and “terrorism.”
After telling the caller that he appreciated his “concern because it tells me that you are a red-blooded American” and that “obviously you care about America,” he said that “we’ll keep pushing to see if there’s something to be done.”
Just weeks after praising Planned Parenthood supporter Rosa Parks, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has sent a letter [PDF] to the National Portrait Gallery demanding that the Smithsonian museum remove a bust of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger from its “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which features well-known leaders of social movements.
Cruz, in a letter drafted with Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and joined by two dozen House Republicans, tells the gallery’s director that the presence of the bust “is an affront both to basic human decency and the very meaning of justice.” After citing the discredited claim that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue for profit, the group then badly twists a Sanger quote, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
In Sanger’s letter, which you can find here, she was saying that she wanted black leaders to join her effort to promote birth control access because she was afraid that opponents would disseminate such unfounded rumors, which is ironically exactly what Cruz and Gohmert did with their letter.
While Sanger was a believer in eugenics, so were many leaders of her time, including Winston Churchill. Ironically, Cruz consistently says on the stump that one of his first acts as president would be putting a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office. (The Obama administration’s decision not to hold onto a Churchill bust that the British government had temporarily loaned to George W. Bush has become a frequent point of attack from the Right, despite the fact that there is another Churchill bust still in the White House residence.)
Nevertheless, Cruz and Gohmert go on to say that Sanger’s “racist views have had a very real and devastating impact on the widespread destruction of unborn human life — especially in minority communities.”
The signers include anti-choice stalwarts Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who is slated to chair a House special committee targeting Planned Parenthood.
The letter appears to be part of a larger campaign launched by extremist pastor E.W. Jackson to remove the bust from the gallery. Jackson said that Sanger’s presence in the gallery would dishonor civil rights leaders like Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. However, like Parks, King was a supporter of Planned Parenthood and praised Margaret Sanger for her “courage and vision.”
There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.
Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element - Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted.
During the 2013 government shutdown fight, Rep. David Nunes, R-Calif., referred to the extremist members advocating a shutdown as “lemmings with suicide vests.” But the far-right flank, often called the “Suicide Caucus,” has only grown in power since then and has recently gained momentum in its push to remove John Boehner, who they say hasn't done enough to fight President Obama, from his position as speaker of the House.
The "Suicide Caucus" is particularly angry that the House Republican leadership approved an increase in the debt ceiling and hasn’t successfully defunded Planned Parenthood or the Affordable Care Act. Of course, there was little Boehner could do to accomplish any of these goals, since Republicans could not override an inevitable veto from the president or overcome opposition from Senate Democrats. But the “Suicide Caucus” doesn’t exactly function according to logic.
Many of the most radical members of Congress became more organized with the formation of the House Freedom Caucus, which The Economist described as a group dedicated to making “reckless and unrealistic” demands of Boehner, “consistent with their record of attempting wild, hapless heists against both Mr. Obama and the Republican leadership.”
With Boehner announcing his resignation today, it’s important to remember that the people who have spent years calling for Boehner’s ouster also represent the far-right flank of the party. As Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., put it, “this is a victory for the crazies.”
And, of course, the "Suicide Caucus" treats Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as its leader, which Boehner doesn't exactly like.
The anti-Boehner caucus also got help from conservative talk radio. American Family Radio's Sandy Rios dubbed Boehner a “big liar,” AFR's Bryan Fischer compared him to Pontius Pilate and syndicated radio host Michael Savage referred to the speaker as a “deranged drunk.”
One of Boehner’s most vocal opponents was Glenn Beck, who told his listeners that they should consider themselves “done with the Republican Party” if Boehner won re-election to his post as speaker (which he did).
Beck’s choice to replace Boehner? None other than Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, the top conspiracy theorist of the House GOP.
After Gohmert tried, and failed, to win the speakership earlier this year, he explained that Americans would only turn to him to be speaker in a time of war or a similar crisis, when everyone would realize that he was the right choice all along. “The only way a guy like me could ever get elected to be speaker would be is if we were during a time of all-out war and people had figured, ‘Wow, Louie’s been right all along and maybe we should give him a chance,’” he said. “That’s the only — we’re not going to elect me in a time of undeclared war and I know that and I understood that.”
But who could better reflect the Republican Party’s decline into a hotbed of radicalism and conspiracy theories than Gohmert?
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, urged the Senate to block President Obama's nominee for Secretary of the Army, Eric Fanning, because having an openly gay Army secretary may send the message that the U.S. condones the sexual abuse of children.
In an interview with Gohmert yesterday on his “Washington Watch” radio program, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said that the Senate should refuse to confirm a new Army secretary following a New York Times report alleging that U.S. officials in Afghanistan told service members to look the other way on cases of sex abuse among allied Afghan fighters. Perkins said that the Senate should tell the president that "we are not going to confirm your nominee, especially this guy."
"What do you think they will think,” Gohmert wondered, “when they hear that not only did we tolerate what was being done to their boys by people under our authority but we turn around and approve a Secretary of the Army that they as moderate Muslims believe is just an atrocious thing? They're going to think that that is quite consistent with us approving of what was going on between the older men in authority and these boys."
He added: "This is not a good move, but the president's priority has not been the lives of our military."
For most of the summer, a military training exercise called Jade Helm 15 captivated the imaginations of the Right, striking fear into the hearts of Republican presidential candidates, members of Congress and even governors. Latching on to a conspiracy theory that originated in the far-right fringes of the internet, they warned that the training exercise was in fact part of a plot by President Obama to invade Texas, impose martial law and abolish civil liberties.
Outlets such as WorldNetDaily and InfoWars, far-right sites that also regularly host Republican politicians, led the way in spreading the conspiracy theories. But the theories soon spread beyond the far-right, and suddenly people had to debate whether the government would use secret tunnels, closed Walmart stores and cattle cars as part of an increasingly fantastical plot to eviscerate American freedom.
Unsurprisingly, the people who were pushing conspiracy theories about the military training exercise fell silent when it became clear that none of the scenarios they predicted had materialized. Jade Helm 15 proceeded as planned over the summer officially ended today without a federal takeover of Texas.
Perhaps no one furthered the cause of Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theorists more than Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who ordered the Texas State Guard to “monitor Operation Jade Helm 15 ” and give him “regular updates on the progress sand safety of the Operations” to ensure that Texans’ “safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties” would “not be infringed.” Texas State Guard officials viewed the order as a “great opportunity” to find new recruits, but conspiracy theorists used it as an excuse to pounce.
Matt Barber’s website BarbWire ran a column warning that Jade Helm 15 could be “the final exercise before the Obama-Jarrett team install Martial Law nationwide.” WorldNetDaily even consulted a “Bible prophecy expert” for an article asking if Jade Helm 15 was proof that the government was “preparing for some major future event that will bring chaos to America.”
“We know full well that Obama would declare martial law at the earliest opportunity if he could,” Vallely said. “I’ve seen the documents, it gives them plenty of latitude to start talking about how do you control the civilian population if they rise up? And that’s part of what Obama is trying to do and the question that came out again, ‘Will the military turn on the American people if Obama decides to do any kind of a martial law activity?’ That’s what the American people are concerned about.”
This fear also found a receptive audience in the Oath Keepers, a militant group that won notoriety when its armed members flocked to the Bundy ranch to stage a a standoff with law enforcement officers. Following the Bundy incident, the organization has been trying to find a new cause, such as Kim Davis, Ferguson, or, of course, Jade Helm 15. The group’s fear of Jade Helm 15 makes perfect sense considering that its entire reason for existing is to tell law enforcement officers that they should defy unconstitutional orders that may be coming down the pike, such as a command to throw Americans into concentration camps.
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes said that “Jade Helm is in part conditioning and vetting of the military to see who will and will not go along” with a future plot to repress Americans. “I think they’re figuring out who is loyal and who is not loyal and who is likely to go along, with the town councils and county commissioners as well,” he said.
“I think it is very likely that you’re going to see scenarios shift from supposedly being practicing for overseas, all the sudden it will be, ‘oh, today we are going to take down a compound of skinheads,’ or whatever least favorable people they can name domestically and get the guys to go along with it, see who does and doesn’t go along,” Rhodes said. “I think it’s also conditioning and assessment and vetting of the local politicians. Who raises questions? Who has any serious, meaningful questions about what we’re doing with this exercise? They put their name down. I think they’re figuring out who is loyal and who is not loyal and who is likely to go along, with the town councils and county commissioners as well.”
He claimed that the government was using Jade Helm 15 to send a message to the public, particularly “veterans, gun owners and anyone who is a constitutionalist,” that “resistance is futile” and if you object “Navy Seals and Delta Forces will come get you.”
“Jade Helm is definitely NOT meant to prepare troops for foreign operations,” read one article on the group’s website. “The program is admitted to be a primer for military response to ‘crisis scenarios,’ denoting domestic operation…. And they are training and infiltrating completely American environments, which they would not be doing unless they planned to operate in very similar environments.” Citing the plot of a Chuck Norris movie, the post claimed that the government would present Jade Helm 15 as a way to save the country from ISIS terrorist attacks:
Maybe I am connecting dots that are not dots, but it seems to me that the timing of ISIS warnings, the re-ignition of economic downturn in 2014/2015, the global shift away from the dollar, and Jade Helm are not entirely coincidental. Martial Law is not a scenario that can be generated in a vacuum; it needs a primer, a trigger event, if not multiple trigger events.
If the final trigger event is indeed intended to be a terror campaign on U.S. soil, then questions of the true purpose of Jade Helm will undoubtedly take a back seat to immediate solutions to what amounts to a foreign invasion (at least, that is how it will be painted), and none other than Jade Helm will be presented as that solution.
“ISIS has long been a collaborative creation of the U.S. government and its allies,” the post continued. “So should Americans be forced to relinquish their freedoms in order to combat an enemy that our own government engineered out of thin air?”
It strikes many people as a portentous government plan, a pre-fabricated and pre-constructed umbrella under which a black op by the Deep State’s compartmentalized agencies could possibly ‘Go Live’ in a fantastic sort of Shock and Awe False Flag psycho-coup to jar the public mind of America through fear into acceptance of some nefarious policy the government desired, such as the establishment of Martial Law and the complete loss of individual liberty and our Constitution. To do that, the public mind must be conditioned first. That is part of what is behind the Special Operation Command’s Jade Helm 15.
Now that Jade Helm 15 is over and literally nothing anyone predicted about a massive military operation intruding on the rights of Americans actually came true, don’t expect this to be a moment for right-wing politicians, activists and media personalities to reconsider their tried-and-true practice of carelessly engaging in baseless conspiracy theories.
If anything, the widespread belief in an imminent invasion of Texas among Republican voters, along with the success in early presidential polls of outspoken conspiracy theorists like Donald Trump and Ben Carson — the former of whom suggested that the 2012 election was a “total sham” and the latter that Obama may cancel the 2016 election — may actually give Republicans more reason to push the most wild conspiracy theories about Obama, no matter how bizarre or dangerous.
Earlier this week, headliners such as Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and numerous Republican congressman spoke at a rally on Capitol Hill aimed at rallying congressional opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. These are some of the stand-out moments from the three-hour event.
1 . When Donald Trump assured the crowd that Iran is terrified of him
After entering to R.E.M.’s “It’s the End of the World as We Know It” (which R.E.M., it turns out, did not appreciate), Trump wasted no time in simultaneously bashing the Obama administration and extolling the merits of his own negotiating power.
“I’ve been doing deals for a long time,” he said. “I’ve been making lots of wonderful deals, great deals, that’s what I do. Never, ever, ever in my life have I seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran. Never.”
Trump is so confident in his deal-making skills that he believes if he is elected president Iran will bend to his will before he even takes office. Trump asserted that the four Americans currently held hostage by the Iranian government “are never going to come back with this group,” referring to the Obama administration and members of Congress who support the nuclear deal with Iran. However, according to Trump, “those four prisoners are back in our country before he ever takes office,” simply because Iranian leaders will be too scared of Trump to defy him.
2. When Sarah Palin didn’t make any sense
As Sarah Palin took to the podium, she thanked the crowd for showing up in the D.C. heat to help “bring sanity to this discussion.” She didn’t exactly lead by example.
“Only in an Orwellian Obama world full of sprinkly fairy dust blown from atop his unicorn as he’s peeking through a really pretty pink kaleidoscope would he ever see victory or safety for America or Israel in this treaty,” the former GOP vice presidential nominee said.
3 . When Sarah Palin referred to Black Lives Matter protestors as Obama’s “dogs”
In between lauding the crowd and criticizing the Iran Deal, Palin took a minute to thank American police officers. However, her delivery of this message was careless and offensive.
“Since our president won’t say it, since he still won’t call of the dogs, we’ll say it: Police officers and first responders all across this great land, we got you’re back! We salute you!”
Palin, who has a history of racially insensitive remarks, seems oblivious to the implications of referring to Black Lives Matter protestors as Obama’s animals, especially at a rally that was already displaying hostility towards the movement.
4 . When the audience supported Donald Trump’s sexism
When Donald Trump took the stage, an audience member raised this homemade poster of Rosie O’Donnell’s face.
At the first Republican presidential primary debate in August, moderator Megyn Kelly had remarked that Trump did not seem to have a “politician’s filter,” especially when it came to comments about women. Trump responded by saying he only had referred to Rosie O’Donnell as “ fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.” His words were met with laughter and applause at the August debate, so it is no surprise that the poster was met with laughter and jeers by nearby crowd members.
5 . When the audience believed that Obama hates America
Rep. Louie Gohmert says that he may not run for re-election if the Iran nuclear deal is not defeated. Apparently, he thinks that is some sort of threat.
Robert Reilly, author of "Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything," will be the keynote speaker at Peter LaBarbera's annual fundraising dinner next month.
Larry Pratt and the radical Second Amendment activists over at Gun Owners of America have endorsed Ted Cruz for president.
If this quote from Sarah Palin doesn't perfectly sum up today's GOP, I don't know what does: "I think I’d rather have a president who is tough and puts America first than can win a game of Trivial Pursuit."
Matt Barber wants "a million more bold Christians like Kim Davis."
A.J. Castellitto agrees that "we must all become Kim Davis" because the gay "agenda is the undermining of the Godly standard and the normalization of homosexuality. The intentions are fundamental demonic transformation of the culture and eradication of the last remnants of Christian truth from mainstream society."
Finally, Donald Trump never served in the military but he "always felt that I was in the military" because he attended a military-themed boarding school where he received "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military."
Rep. Louie Gohmert seized on a debunked AP report that alleged that Iranians will be allowed to inspect their own nuclear sites under the recent nuclear accord, telling Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on his radio program yesterday that he’d “tend to believe the Iranian leaders” over the Obama administration, which he said is provoking God’s judgment on America.
Citing the AP story, which was revised soon after publication, the Texas Republican claimed that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry either “have no clue what’s going on” or “they’re flat-out lying about everything they say.”
“I tend to believe the Iranian leaders” over the administration officials, Gohmert added.
He then warned that Obama and Kerry are provoking God’s wrath on America: “This is a disaster and judgment will come down on the United States for doing this kind of damage, if it goes through, to the country of Israel.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, speculated in a radio interview yesterday that President Obama wants to increase the number of skilled-worker visas in order to “dilute” the American voting pool with people who haven’t “been educated about the responsibilities of keeping a republic going.”
Discussing H-1B visas with Virginia talk radio host John Fredericks, Gohmert said, “Wow, John, it’s like the president has some idea that he wants to just dilute people that have been educated about the responsibilities of keeping a republic going out there voting, Isn’t that a crazy idea.”
Gohmert and Fredericks also expressed frustration that the House GOP leadership has yet to move to defund Planned Parenthood after the release of a series of videos smearing the organization, which both said was just bringing America closer to a “day of reckoning.”
“People are starting to feel that there’s going to be a day of reckoning for all this stuff,” Fredericks said, “whether it’s $20 trillion in debt, $123 trillion of unfunded mandates, or 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, and now dismembering babies. I mean, there’s going to be a day of reckoning, it always happens throughout history.”
“Yes, and there will be a day of reckoning and we know it’s coming,” Gohmert said, “so it’s really outrageous for us not to be out there dealing with these critical issues.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, guest-hosted Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ “Washington Watch” program last night, where he marveled that Americans are not demanding that Congress impeach President Obama.
Gohmert made his comments about impeachment in response to a caller who asked if Congress would launch impeachment proceedings against President Obama if they rejected the Iran deal but the administration decided to go ahead with parts of it anyway.
Gohmert said that such a move would indeed be “unconscionable” but that impeachment is a “political tool,” so practically speaking requires the support of a majority of Americans.
“I’ve been astounded that more of the country has not been demanding impeachment already,” he added, “but it hasn’t, and until over half the country wants to see it, there’s no use bringing it up, nothing will happen, it will gum up all the works, we won’t be able to even talk about how devastating this Iran deal is for mankind.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said yesterday that the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations on nuclear development is “far worse than the deal that Neville Chamberlain made with Hitler” and will lead to God’s judgment on America.
In an interview with the Family Research Council's “Washington Watch" program, Gohmert predicted that Iran will soon attain a nuclear capability, which, he explained with some circular logic, the country will then use “to blackmail the rest of the world into removing the sanctions and now they will be able to buy nukes and be able to use those to blackmail people to back off the sanctions.”
“There is going to have to be judgment come down on America,” the congressman said. “This is devastating for the United States if this thing goes through.”
Gohmert also warned in great detail about a potential Iranian nuclear EMP attack against the U.S., claiming that Iranian ships will launch such a strike from the east coast or the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the “insane” agreement.
“It will fry virtually every computer chip in the country, all the electrical grids would go down,” he said. “Many cars wouldn’t work. It would prevent our ability to refine oil into gasoline. Walmarts, grocery stores that rely on computers, many of them would have to shut down. It would be an absolute disaster, there are estimates that tens of millions of people would die if an EMP were set off and everything shut down.”
In a speech to a group of young conservatives last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, called for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in retribution for their ruling in favor of marriage equality, and insisted that a study trapping gay couples on an island would prove that gays and lesbians can’t have “what nature says is the preferred marriage.”
Gohmert, speaking at the Washington, D.C., conference of the college chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, said that Justices Ginsburg and Kagan “ought to be impeached” for participating in the marriage equality case after officiating the legal weddings of same-sex couples.
“I think they ought to be impeached, I think ought to be removed, and until Congress shows that we do have some say in the Constitution over the courts the abuses are just going to get worse,” Gohmert lamented. He warned audience members that the Supreme Court wants you to “forget what Moses said God said, forget what Jesus said God said, we’re God and you go by what we say.”
He then suggested a study to prove that same-sex couples can’t have “the preferred marriage”:
We could take four heterosexual couples, married, and put them on an island where they have everything they need to sustain life. Then take four all-male couples and put them on an island with all they need to sustain life, take four couples of women, married, and put them on an island, and let’s come back in 100 to 200 years and see which one nature says is the preferred marriage.
Gohmert also told the audience that there’s “a case to be made” for impeaching President Obama, although he admitted he “hadn’t really thought about it” until reading a book by extreme conservative author Andrew McCarthy.