Election 2012

Dobson on Obama's Reelection: 'Nearly Everything I Have Stood for these Past 35 Years Went Down to Defeat'

James Dobson in his January newsletter for his Family Talk radio program reflected on President Obama’s re-election and the Democrats’ gains in Congress by lamenting that “moral and spiritual issues” took “a beating on November 6th.” “Nearly everything I have stood for these past 35 years went down to defeat,” Dobson said, arguing that the Democratic Party’s platform “represents a kind of spiritual warfare that has not been seen before in American politics.”

The Focus on the Family founder went on to state that “Barack Obama is the worst president in American history” and claimed Obama holds “dictatorial powers.” He also called judges “the most dangerous” threat to America and warned that “the family and the nation will never be the same” if gay marriage becomes legal across the country.

In his post-election Family Talk broadcast, Dobson said that Obama’s re-election was God rejecting the prayers of his wife’s National Day of Prayer Task Force and will bring about divine judgment on America.

Now let me share my heart with you. I'm sure many of you are discouraged in the aftermath of the National Elections, especially in view of the moral and spiritual issues that took such a beating on November 6th. Nearly everything I have stood for these past 35 years went down to defeat. Consider, for example, these four shocking components of the Democrats' 2012 platform.

They are:

1. Abortion should be legalized through nine months of pregnancy.

Imagine full-term, healthy babies across the nation being poisoned or dismembered a few days before normal delivery. What a tragedy!

2. Same-sex marriages should be permitted by law in every state in the nation.

In May, Barack Obama was pictured on the cover of Newsweek with the caption, "The First Gay President." His policies for the family were affirmed by liberal voters on November 6th. The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider the same-sex marriage issue. If they rule that it is the law, they will open the door to a redefinition of marriage in every state in the land. The family and the nation will never be the same. Nevertheless, neither Democrat nor Republican Congressmen have uttered a word of concern about it. They are deaf and mute while the very future of this great country hangs in the balance. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by an overwhelming vote a few years ago, but it will be overridden if the Supreme Court issues an adverse ruling. But, who in Congress cares?



The brazenness of these policies represents a kind of spiritual warfare that has not been seen before in American politics. The Republicans' Platform, by contrast, was one of the finest conservative documents of this era. It was strongly pro-life, pro-marriage, and contained other components that conservatives cheered. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, chaired the writing committee and he is to be commended for his work.



Likewise, very little was said by the GOP during the campaign or the debates about terrorism or the makeup of the Supreme Court. The imperious judiciary is arguably the most dangerous issue facing America because it imposes itself on almost every dimension of culture. Nevertheless, it was hardly mentioned by those seeking office. Silence also prevailed in response to the radical U.N. treaties that Democrats are about to raise in the U.S. Senate. If ratified, they will change this nation forever. I will say it again: both parties ignored these and dozens of other critical issues throughout the campaign.



Well, the election is over and we have a president who often ignores the Constitution and imposes dictatorial powers on the American people. Some people believe, and I am one of them, that Barack Obama is the worst president in American history. Pundits are scrambling to explain what happened and offering advice for the future. Karl Rove and others are telling the nation that conservatives need to abandon their long held moral beliefs, such as opposition to abortion, and become more like liberals. They have said, "We will never win another election unless our party develops a bigger tent." Being interpreted, that means political parties should stay away from the moral and social issues. Those controversial topics, they say, just drive voters away because at the end of the day, "It's the economy, stupid." There we go again!

Swanson: Obama's Reelection 'Solidified our Doom' and Empowered 'Softy-Wofty, Weeny Socialists'

On the latest episode of Generations Radio, Pastor Kevin Swanson recounted the Religious Right’s political drubbings last year, especially the failure to defeat President Obama. He claimed Obama’s re-election “solidified our doom” and will encourage the election of “a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come.” Swanson maintained that women put Obama over the top because they tend to have “more communist” views. Later his cohost, pastor Dave Buehner, agreed and said Obama “doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him.”

They further speculated that TIME had trouble deciding whether to name Obama or North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un “Man of the Year” since they are “both committed to Marx.”

Swanson: It solidified our doom, it effectively said there is no way out of this thing at least for the time being unless we get back to the foundations, reconstruct the foundations, which is something we’ve been talking about for a long time. Unless we rebuild families, fatherhood, young men, unless we bring back manhood, a biblical manhood, we are going to be a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come. That’s what’s going to happen. It’s going to be the single women that run most of the households in America voting and they almost always vote more socialist, more government, more communist, because they find their security in the state and not in the social structure of that family. Dave, we’re headed in that election. I think the 2012 election really was a turning point for America.



Swanson: The man has tremendous influence. He has got a mandate; he’s got a lot of support—

Buehner: He doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him, which is why he’s their ‘Man of the Year.’

Swanson: He’s got a woman-date, big time. You know, the North Korean president got the most votes from the audience for ‘Man of the Year,’ he was a close second. If you had a choice between Barack Obama and the North Korean president, they’re both committed to Marx. They are, think about it. If you interviewed both of them and you said: what do you think about Marx and the redistribution of wealth? Remember what he said on that radio station in Chicago, Barack Obama some ten years ago, he said they should have had redistribution of the wealth in the Constitution. He is so committed to Marxism and so is the North Korean president, but it was a tossup for TIME Magazine.

After attacking Obama’s “woman-date,” they then went on to ridicule Sandra Fluke. Buehner later falsely claimed that the health care reform law included “free access” to abortifacients, and said Fluke didn’t win TIME’s honor because “there’s some question about how ladylike she might be.” Swanson wondered if Fluke is a woman at all.

Buehner: This is the year that we learned that it is a fundamental right for women to get free access and their abortifacients provided free. Sandra Fluke was there telling us how it’s unconscionable that women would have to pay.

Swanson: Time did not make her ‘Woman of the Year’ though; I’d like to point that out. I think that’s a positive.

Buehner: Well there’s some question about how ladylike she might be.

Swanson: So they were like, ‘Man of the Year,’ ‘Woman of the Year,’ we’re not exactly sure.

Buehner: Yeah, you know.

Swanson: I understand.

The Christian Right activists later went on to mock Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was recently hospitalized for a blood clot, with Buehner joking that her recent medical problems were a “dog ate her homework” excuse and that “her tummy’s upset.” Swanson expressed shock that Egypt elected a Muslim president and said that Clinton is elated over the election of a Muslim because “it involves killing Christians.” They agreed that Clinton “might even put on a burka” to put Christian-killing Muslims in power, which makes sense because that’s what any “softy-wofty” would do.

Swanson: The Egyptians placed a Muslim into the presidency, which does not bode well for freedom in America. Dave, I wonder what the Secretary of State of the United States thinks about the election in Egypt. I mean, they were pretty excited about the revolution.

Buehner: They were, the Arab Spring. And Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State was unavailable for comment. It turns out that she slipped on something and maybe banged her head—dog ate her homework. She’s not feeling well, her tummy’s upset and she’s not going to make a comment.

Swanson: It’s a sad, sad day in Egypt.

Buehner: The Muslim Brotherhood, not just a Muslim but a Muslim Brotherhood, we’re talking about the radical jihadists.

Swanson: So Egypt, out of the frying pan and into the fire for Egypt. I’m afraid that a lot of these secularist nations are going to flip-flop from secularism into hardcore Muslimism and that’s not going to be a very nice transition because the Muslims have never really been known to be much kinder than the secularists, socialists and communists that have ruled these nations.

Buehner: No, they tend to be a little on the violent edge.

Swanson: If you were Hillary Clinton and you had a choice between a Christian president and a Muslim president, which would you go for?

Buehner: If I was Hillary? Well Hillary would choose the Muslim.

Swanson: Oh yeah, of course. It involves killing Christians, I mean yeah.

Buehner: She might even put on a burka to get that done.

Swanson: Yeah.

WND: Roberts Should Refuse to Swear In Obama

After unsuccessful attempts to knock President Obama off the ballot and defeat Obama after the election by throwing the Electoral College into chaos, WorldNetDaily now is petitioning Chief Justice John Roberts to refuse to administer the presidential oath of office. WND commentator Craige McMillan said that if Roberts doesn’t withhold the oath, he will face “impeachment and eternal dishonor.” He even compared the current state of the U.S. to Nazi Germany by warning that America will have its own Nuremberg Trials to prosecute those who had been “violating their own oath of office, continu[ing] the sham through a second presidential term”

Dear Mr. Roberts,

When you administered the oath of office to Barack Obama for his first term as president, you could have been excused for believing that Mr. Obama was qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of president, which he had sought and won. After all, Obama’s opponent, John McCain, never raised the issue of Mr. Obama’s qualifications.

Now that Mr. Obama has been re-elected and is preparing to serve a second term of office, there can be no doubt regarding his qualifications. This is because by Mr. Obama’s own admission, his father was of Kenyan nationality and perhaps holding British citizenship as well.



Your own oath of office, sworn before God and the American people, requires you to uphold the Constitution. (If not you, then who?) If you now administer the oath of office for the presidency to a man who by his own admission fails to meet the natural born citizen requirement imposed by that Constitution, you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment by any House of Representatives, at any time, now or in the future.

If you choose the easy course of ignoring our Constitution, it does not change the fact that Mr. Obama is barred by that same Constitution from acting as president. I am sure that if you turn your judicial mind to the ramifications of this fraud, both foreign and domestic, you will understand that the harm you will have done insures your impeachment and eternal dishonor at some point down the road: If not this House of Representatives, then the next, or the next, or the next.

These things do not end well. One need only look to the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials to see what awaits. Illegal wars. Illegal debts. Illegal laws. Will the rest of the Supreme Court’s justices, now knowing they are violating their own oath of office, continue the sham through a second presidential term? How, then, is the highest court of law in the nation any different than that pictorial proverb in Japan of the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?

Given the gravity of this situation, we therefore urge you to take the honorable course of action and refuse to administer the oath of office to Mr. Obama. And yes, this will also require you to explain to the nation in the clearest possible terms why you have been compelled to take this most extraordinary action.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, for your consideration.

'Prophets' Forecasted Romney Victory Until He Lost

Not only were many conservative leaders confidently predicting a comfortable Romney victory in last month’s elections but so were many Religious Right activists who cloaked the imminent Romney win in spiritual terms. Even the “Bible Code” pointed to a Romney presidency! Of course, President Obama ended up winning re-election and these predictions were quickly forgotten by those who made them.

But Rick Joyner is still perplexed that Romney lost given that all of his fellow “prophets” thought he’d win. In his “Word of the Week” bulletin, Joyner said he was “sorry that we did not do better in understanding this election” and wonders why he knew “a lot of prophetic people who fully expected Romney to win the election.”

The only explanation Joyner thought of was that while Christians were united against Obama like never before, they were just too afraid to vote for a Mormon.

Because the 2012 elections continue to be a source of confusion to many, we will address a couple of more lessons to learn from this to finish out this year. Then we will begin the New Year with possibly unprecedented opportunities to see our nation turn to the Lord for the greatest harvest in history.

I know a lot of prophetic people who fully expected Romney to win the election. Of those I communicated with about the election, I do not know of any who gave a prophecy that Romney would win, but it was an almost universal opinion. I did not even seek a word from the Lord about it myself because I felt that I already had His opinion. That was a huge presumption.

Bob Jones had an encounter with the Lord on January 16, 2012 in which the Lord asked him what he thought about having a Mormon for President. This was long before the Republican nomination had been decided, and Bob’s response was that he did not think very much of it. Bob held to that opinion until after the nomination was won by Romney, and then he believed that he must have been wrong and that Romney must be God’s choice. After the election, he realized how he had let his own opinions cancel out what the Lord was trying to show him in the first place.

Bob is the most seasoned and wise prophetic person I know, and in great wisdom, he embraced this correction. Even the greatest prophets still see in part and prophesy in part. We have had many prophetic words come true exactly as they were given, but we misinterpreted them until they were fulfilled. I still consider interpretation one of the greatest weaknesses in the prophetic ministry, but it was also this way throughout history, including biblical history. Even so, I believe we must do better with interpreting what we are being shown prophetically.

Some would interpret the question that Bob was asked by the Lord to mean that the Lord did not want a Mormon as President, but that is not what the Lord said either. In fact, the Lord did not say anything, but just asked a question. That question may have been the ultimate question that in fact decided the election. Maybe we should have spent far more attention trying to answer that question than we did. I’m not saying that it was, but it could have been. Romney could have been God’s choice, but I know many good Christians who did not vote because they said they could not vote for a Mormon.



This past election was too good of an opportunity to learn to sweep it under the rug. I feel that I have learned something profound almost every day since the election. Wisdom and understanding are worth much more than gold or silver. I am sorry that we did not do better in understanding this election, but I love the correction because of what I’m learning. If we learn our lessons from this, they could save us in far more crucial times to come. I hope this is helpful, and I have a bit more to share next week.

Or, maybe Romney really did win but Obama stole the election.

Catholic College President Attacks Obama as a 'Clear and Present Danger'

Imagine if a university president released a video on the school’s official YouTube page celebrating President Obama’s re-election and praising his political agenda. Such a video would spark outrage, and right-wing media outlets would attack it as evidence of left-wing academic bias and intimidation of conservative students.

The president of Christendom College, a Virginia-based Roman Catholic institution, did in fact make a clearly partisan post-election video, but he was mourning the re-election of President Obama.

Dr. Timothy O’Donnell said he is “bitterly disappointed” and “discouraged” by Obama’s election victory, calling his administration a “clear and present danger” and warning about the supposed dangers of gay equality and reproductive health:

With this administration there remains a very clear and present danger, so to speak, so much that we hold and cherish as Catholics will be attacked. We’ll see an increased assault on marriage and family life, and those attacks will increase in their intensity. Homosexual relationships will be held up as the new normal and certainly these will be advanced with an even greater passion. Contraception and abortion, the sacraments of the new morality, will be aggressively promoted here in our country, sadly not only here but around the world as well.

O’Donnell urged students to join “this great battle” against the President’s policies and “this present darkness.”

Eagle Forum: 'Non-Whites, Non-Christians and Non-Marrieds' will 'Tear Down Traditional American Culture'

After warning that a decline in the white birth rate will lead to the demise of American culture, Eagle Forum is now attacking racial and religious minorities for supposedly trying to “tear down traditional American culture” and “undermine Americanism.” As Kyle noted yesterday, Roger Schlafly (son of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly) is taking a page from Bill O’Reilly in blaming President Obama’s re-election on Democrats who have been “badmouthing traditional American values” and “increasing government dependence.” Schlafly, who earlier claimed that people should fear that “immigrants do not share American values” and “will not be voting Republican,” writes that Republicans and WASP culture are the last bastions of “traditional American values” against “non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds.”

America was founded by WASPs -- White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They had nuclear families, attended church, and believed in the Protestant work ethic. Republicans are seen as believing in traditional American values.

Democrats campaign largely by badmouthing traditional American values, and convincing various demographic groups that they are outside the Republican base, and hence better off voting Democrat. So non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds vote Democrat out of group identifications. That is, they see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture.

Democrats never persuade voters based on reason or logic. They gain voters by increasing government dependence and by promoting changes to immigration policy, family law, and schools that increase the population wanting to undermine Americanism.

We used to have independent voters who decided elections by voting for who they thought were the better candidates. This election has convinced everyone that now elections are determined msinly [sic] by demographics.

MacArthur: Obama is 'Evidence of God's Judgment'

Pastor John MacArthur, who before Election Day warned that the Democrats are an “anti-God party” that has “made the sins of Romans 1 their agenda,” delivered a post-election sermon in which he declared that President Obama himself is a judgment of God. “We have the President, we have as a judgment from God, that is a judgment from God, he is an evidence of God’s judgment,” MacArthur said, and went on to doubt Obama's Christian faith and reiterate his claim that God is abandoning America to “sexual sin.”

We have the President we have as a judgment from God, that is a judgment from God, he is an evidence of God’s judgment. Because of Romans 1, God has given us over, ‘when those who know God glorify him not as God and do not like to retain God in their knowledge,’ which is what the Democratic platform said originally, get God out. By the way that’s a big change, four years ago McCain and Obama interviewed at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, both affirmed to be Christians, both affirmed to believe in Jesus Christ, that all went by the board and God was removed four years later because that wasn’t going to be popular this time around. So that kind of an accommodating religion has been unmasked. But the bottom line is Romans 1 says that if you do not retain God in your knowledge, if you do not glorify him, his wrath is unleashed. It’s talking about the cycle of history, Acts 14: God allows all the nations to go their own way. We’re going our own way; we’re going the way of our own choices. When the wrath of God is in motion, God gives them over—this is his wrath in motion—to sexual sin, that’s what we’ve got, sexual sin which is rampant. Over fifty percent of adult women are single and men as well, this kind of single life with promiscuous behavior everywhere is what this generation wants. That’s an evidence of wrath: the smashing and crushing of the family. Then the next one, verse 26, he gave them over to homosexuality. Now we are not only tolerant but advocates of that. Then he gave them over to a reprobate mind and that includes murder and all kinds of other crimes, which would include abortion.

He also argued that gay marriage and abortion rights will grow the size of government and persecute the church.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future there are less and less and less freedoms that people in America enjoy, right now they are willing to make that exchange for two reasons: they are willing to make it number one for the sake of money in their pocket and number two for the sake of immorality. If the government will let them have free sex, homosexual marriage and abortion, they are fine, they are okay with that. As we pointed out to you before the election when you have a platform of a party being remove God, affirm free sex and government provided contraception, homosexual marriage and abortion, when that’s the platform you know how far that nation has gone into immorality. And when the people vote it into power again, that either means they advocate that kind of life or they are indifferent to it as long as you keep giving them what they want. So there is a real tipping point I think that’s happened in our country. I don’t mind the darkness getting darker, I don’t mind the illusion of morality going away, I don’t mind the darker environment in the sense ‘that darker the night the brighter the light.’ But the church has to step up and be the church and proclaim the Gospel and confront the culture, that’s what we have to do. And when we do that what’s going to happen is persecution. They are already talking about hate speech and the categories of hate speech are going to escalate as the immoral country begins to try to defend itself and isolate itself and not face the reality of its immorality.

Joyner: 'I'm Not Convinced That the Election Was Not Stolen'

Yesterday, Rick Joyner dedicated his "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events" program to discussing the re-election of President Obama ... which he is pretty sure was stolen. 

Citing a 2006 paper from Princeton University revealing that electronic voting machines could be easily hacked, Joyner declared that he has heard lots of anecdotal evidence about voting machines changing votes cast for Mitt Romney and giving them to Barack Obama. On top of that, Joyner is sure that the implementation of Voter ID laws in Indiana and North Carolina was instrumental in swinging those states away from Obama, who won them in 2008, to Romney this year.  Add to that stories about buses full of non-English speaking voters being driving from precinct to precinct to cast votes for Obama coupled with stories of entire precincts not registering a single vote for Romney and it is pretty obvious that the election was fraudulent, which means that President Obama's second term is entirely illegitimate: 

Republicans Continue to Spin Election Results to Claim Obama Lacks Mandate

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penny Nance Likens Obama to Tarzan for Defending Susan Rice

Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance is getting herself in the involved debate over UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s potential nomination to be Secretary of State. Nance has attempted to paint President Obama as somehow anti-woman by claiming his campaign is “misogynistic” and views women as “a bunch of cheap floozies.” She even mocked Obama supporter Sandra Fluke by saying she and her colleagues couldn’t afford birth control because they spent too much money on beer, while refusing to defend her from Rush Limbaugh’s sexist attacks. Nance’s group launched the SheVotes campaign to energize conservative women and during an Election Day interview with VCY America’s Jim Schneider, she insisted that polling data shows Obama’s efforts to reach out to women voters were a “disaster.”

Of course, Obama carried women voters by eleven points, but being completely wrong about the women’s vote in the election hasn’t stopped Nance from claiming that women across the country are appalled by his purported sexism.

How is he acting like a sexist now? By defending Rice from baseless Republican attacks.

Nance writes that Obama is acting like Tarzan and even threw out the debunked claim that the White House practices paycheck discrimination. She says that instead of speaking out in favor of Rice, he should be defending people like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Michele Bachmann from “his own misogynistic attack dogs.” Speaking out against the attacks against Rice, Nance explains, is effectively “an admission that left-leaning women aren’t nearly as savvy and strong as conservative women and, therefore, need a little extra protection.”

Basically, if Obama doesn’t defend women like Palin, Coulter and Bachmann, it is sexist, and if he speaks out on behalf of a Democratic official like Rice, it is sexist and a sign that liberal women are weak. Get it?

It’s absurd to think Obama would similarly defend his male subordinates. Such statements made by the president would undermine their authority and insult their professional capabilities.

But maybe public displays of “Me Tarzan, You Jane” are just one of the perks you get when you’re part of an administration that pays its women an average of 18 percent less than their male counterparts.

Or maybe it’s finally an admission that left-leaning women aren’t nearly as savvy and strong as conservative women and, therefore, need a little extra protection. Heaven knows there were plenty of times (a la Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann, etc., etc., etc.) when the president could have — and should have — called off his own misogynistic attack dogs. Those were full-on, unbridled, unrestrained, vicious attacks on conservative women. But honest-to-goodness, hard-but-relevant questions pointed at a female, Obama administration mouthpiece is what finally gets the president in an uproar?

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

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

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

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

CWA: Young Voters Want 'Dependency' and Weed

The Pew Research Center is out with a new analysis showing that the support of people under 30 was critical to President Obama’s reelection victory. Concerned Women For America’s Janice Crouse has a theory as to why, a theory that she bolsters with a quote from a “popular Amazon discussion.”

Why, then, did young voters overwhelmingly support President Obama? The short answer is: Demographics and Dependency.

Nearly 60% of young voters favor an activist government (compared to 44% of older voters). A sharp generational difference was noted in the racial and ethnic makeup of this year's voters. Seventy-six percent of voters 30 and older were white, with 12% black, 8% Latino and the rest falling under a number of other self-identifiers. Among young voters, 58% identified themselves as white, while 42% were either black, Latino or among another minority group. A popular Amazon discussion declared, "Young voters choose marijuana and government dependency over jobs and prosperity."

For the record, this thread of 15 comments appears to be the “popular Amazon discussion” at issue. (Apparently young voters are also interested in “bicycles and beards.”)

Rep. Huizenga Hopes Obama won't 'Misinterpret' the Election as an Endorsement of his Policies

After President Obama’s huge victory over Mitt Romney, conservatives are already trying to spin the results by insisting that his big win does not mean that Americans favor the agenda he actively campaigned on. For example, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said that voters actually elected Republicans “to be in charge” and resist tax increases while Weekly Standard columnist Fred Barnes claimed Obama “hardly has a mandate for anything,” like his tax policy, because it was a “status quo election.”

Naturally, Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) told Tony Perkins last week on Washington Watch Weekly that President Obama and the House GOP may not come to a tax deal before the fiscal deadline because he fears that the Obama administration “is going to misinterpret this past election and say, ‘well we campaign on increasing tax rates, not just revenues but increasing tax rates, and maintaining our spending.’” Indeed, Obama did make raising taxes on high earners a top campaign priority and both post-election polls and exit polls found that 60 percent of support raising taxes on income over $250,000. But apparently, Huizenga believes that House Republicans, who actually received fewer votes than Democratic House candidates, get to decide for Obama how to interpret his victory.

Perkins: I think you’re right, no one really knows what will the effect of that be. It could actually have a—it’s certainly not going to have a positive effect upon the families that are paying that increased taxation—but in terms of the cuts that may be the only way we get to real cuts.

Huizenga: And that would be sad, frankly, that would be horribly sad, tragic and once again demonstrate how we don’t have the courage of our convictions. We know we need to go further, faster, when it comes to controlling our spending. I’m afraid that this administration is going to misinterpret this past election and say, ‘well we campaign on increasing tax rates, not just revenues but increasing tax rates, and maintaining our spending.’ That’s why I think you saw [AFL-CIO president] Richard Trumka and others all trot to the White House and extract these blood oaths that no reforms to any of the entitlement programs are allowed to be on the table and all these other things, and that’s just not reality.

For Sen. Rand Paul, Elections Do Not Have Consequences

Today, Sen. Rand Paul appeared on Glenn Beck's radio program to make the case that, despite the results of the recent election, the American people want Republicans to refuse to even consider raising any taxes whatsoever in order to deal with the looming "fiscal cliff."

As Paul sees it, if Republicans are willing to raise taxes in this case, then the entire party ought to simply disband; an idea that Beck wholeheartedly endorsed since the GOP has become the Whig Party and everyone, outside of his immediate family, hates House Speaker John Boehner. 

Paul went on to claim that since Republicans only lost 52%-48% in the last election, they didn't really get "creamed," so there is no reason for them to have to compromise.  Instead they simply need to come up with an alternative solution to the crisis that doesn't involve any tax increases at all and "show the American people we are willing to avert the so-called cliff, but this is how we would fix the country if we were in charge, because we are in charge of the United States House of Representatives. You elected us to be in charge; let's act like we're in charge." 

The only problem with that, Paul explained, was that any such plan would have to go through the House Republican leadership, which would be quite difficult since, as Beck proclaimed, that means it has to go through Boehner "and he sucks": 

Steve King: Democrats will Never Lose the Hispanic Vote because they Promise Immigrants a 'Great Big Check'

Steve King stopped by The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday where he dismissed claims that a major reason Mitt Romney lost is due to his lopsided defeat among Latinos. According to King, it wasn’t that Romney did a poor job in winning over Latino voters; it’s that he wasn’t able to turn out enough conservatives to the polls.

King: John McCain got 31 percent of the Hispanic vote and Mitt Romney got 27 percent, so it dropped off four points between McCain and Romney. Romney didn’t reach the low water point; the low water point was 1996 with Bob Dole who got only 21 percent of the Hispanic vote. So when you look at the balance of this and you think, why didn’t Mitt Romney win the election? There are a whole number of other things. A lot of Republicans and conservatives didn’t turn out. Just plain constitutional conservative were not motivated in numbers as one would’ve expected, even compared to the McCain race.

So King thinks that Romney lost because dedicated conservatives didn’t bother to show up in a presidential election in which right-wing leaders put anti-Obama hysteria into overdrive and warned that Obama’s re-election will literally destroy America?

Let’s see.

According to exit polls from this election, 35 percent of voters identified themselves as conservatives. That number was 34 percent in 2008 and in 2004. While the percentage of self-described conservatives who turn out for presidential elections is rather stable, Latinos have steadily increased their share of the electorate as their population continues to grow.

King and Mefferd later agreed that working on immigration reform with Democrats is pointless as it won’t help the GOP win any votes because, in King’s words, “Democrats will find a way to hand deliver citizenship papers along with a great big check.”

Mefferd: How in the world do you out-left the left anyway? If we go to the left on amnesty, do you think the Democrats are going to sit still and just go ‘oh I guess that they’re more caring than we are’? It’s a zero-sum game. I don’t know how in the world the Republicans expect to get votes when the Democrats are already farther along than we are.

King: There’s no possible way. Whatever we might say we are going to do, reduce the enforcement of the rule of law, waive the rule of law, Democrats will find a way to hand deliver citizenship papers along with a great big check from money borrowed from the Chinese.

If King really thinks it is best for the GOP to maintain their hard line stance against immigration, he may want to ask his fellow Republicans in California how that worked out for them.

Linda Harvey's Message to Obama Supporters: 'What Kind of Wrath are you Calling Down on Yourselves?'

Linda Harvey of Mission America this weekend interviewed Mark Harrington, the anti-choice activist previously with the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and now with CreatedEqual, to discuss how Obama won re-election while at the same time arguing that the majority of Americans oppose reproductive rights. They argued that Romney would’ve won if voters made abortion their top voting priority, even though exit polls found that 59% of voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Harvey and Harrington eventually concluded that people who supported Obama and the ‘Democrat party’ no longer have a “functioning conscience” and were simply inviting God’s wrath upon themselves and America at large:

Harrington: We have passed over this line when it comes to people having a functioning conscience. We may have passed to a place that maybe we won’t see returning, at least for a generation, at least that’s the way I see it.

Harvey: I think, yeah. You look at this and you say: what kind of wrath are you calling down on yourselves with that? God help you. This is so heart hardened and so cruel, these are human beings and you’re saying ‘hey, it’s fine.’

Harrington: The Democrat party, their party platform this year was brazen by taking out God and then putting it back in and have people boo, taking the ‘safe, legal and rare’ out of the abortion plank and then the rejection of Israel and Jerusalem as its capital, then the support for homosexual marriage. This is a change, now it’s overt. It’s no longer, ‘we support these things kind of in the background.’ Now it’s front and center, it’s who we are. When you put Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood at your Democrat National Convention as one of the main speakers, we have reached a different place in the Democrat party.

Harvey: And God is not ignoring all this.

Harrington: No, He’s not.

Harvey: He lives and He has been patient with us and I just shudder for our whole nation. It’s not just these people that support that, everybody is going to reap some of this.

Farah Warns of an Obama Third Term

The folks at VCY America regularly promote all of the insanity posted on WorldNetDaily by its senior reporter Jerome Corsi, broadcasting his claims that President Obama’s wedding ring (yes, his wedding ring) transmits “secret communications” to Muslims and also publicizing Corsi’s “scoop” that Obama is secretly gay. Yesterday, VCY America’s Vic Eliason interviewed WND editor Joseph Farah, who claims that Obama won reelection due to voter fraud because his campaign accepted money from foreign donors (it didn’t) and stuffed ballot boxes in urban precincts (also not true). After ranting about massive voter fraud while not pointing to any real evidence of it, Farah then talked to Eliason about what he considers the all-too-real possibility of Obama undermining the Constitution in order to serve a third term.

Eliason: Interesting on Fox this morning, there is somebody promoting that there is a possibility if certain things happen that the President could be in for a third term, I got chills.

Farah: Listen, if you don’t believe in the Constitution and you’ve got a President who is not even eligible under the Constitution to serve, anything is possible, isn’t it? See the difference with the United States of America is that we’re supposed to be a country under the rule of law and that starts with the Constitution and that’s the most important law we have. And yet we ignore it every single day in Washington, every single day. Most acts of Congress are unconstitutional; we’ve gotten to that point. And the President has no—, he thinks we have a living Constitution that could mean whatever he wants it to mean. So hey, I wouldn’t rule it out.

He went on to claim that America is “on the brink” of losing “elections in the future” because of all the (non-existent) voter fraud and Obama’s re-election. He even took one last dig at Gov. Chris Christie for working with President Obama on relief efforts following Hurricane Sandy: “Unfortunately, instead of turning to God he turned to Obama for help, that’s the problem that we have in America.”

Farah: I don’t believe there is any way we are going to overturn this election because of what I’m telling you now, but what I am concerned about is this country, its future, elections in the future. We are very near the point, I believe, where elections won’t matter anymore. When elections don’t matter anymore, that means you don’t matter anymore, your rights don’t matter anymore. We’re on the brink of that. That’s why it’s important for us to make a lot of noise about this and demand reforms be made.

Eliason: The tipping point. I tell you we need to pray for our country. As we are facing the next four years, I was listening to some of the secular news this morning, they were talking about Armageddon.

Farah: They recognize it. A lot of things coming together at once, super storms and all these kinds of things, and it makes even the disbelievers believe, doesn’t it?

Eliason: You know I was on the air on our morning show talking about 2 Chronicles 7:14, but oftentimes we forget 13 and 15, verse 13 talks about the penalties and God’s judgment, and it talks about the locusts and the pestilence. I made a comment that morning just warning people that this may be God dealing with us, considering the storms and all of the things that are happening. I turned on the radio as I left the studios and here was Chris Christie and out of his mouth came, ‘I’m looking for the locusts and the pestilence.’

Farah: Unfortunately, instead of turning to God he turned to Obama for help, that’s the problem that we have in America. It’s a problem that we have in Israel, for that matter, Israel relying on its own strength and America’s strength for its survival and so forth.

Graham: God Will Judge America for Re-Electing Obama Through a Massive Economic Collapse

Franklin Graham recently sat down with Newsmax where he reiterated his belief that America has turned its back on God by re-electing President Obama and declared that God will judge this nation for doing so by bringing America to its knees through a massive economic collapse in order to wake people up and turn them back to Him:

Liberty Counsel: God's Judgment is on America for Electing Obama and 'Adopting Sin as Official Public Policy'

It has been two weeks since President Obama was re-elected and Mat Staver and Matt Barber do not seem to have gotten over it yet as they dedicated a recent program to lamenting that America has re-elected the "most liberal, socialist, anti-liberty, anti-Israel, anti-life, anti-marriage, anti-religious values, anti-religious freedom, anti-free enterprise and pro-regulation president in American history" and, in doing so, has brought God's judgment upon itself by "adopting sin as official public policy": 

LaBarbera: Tammy Baldwin's Election and 'Glee' are Signs that America is 'Falling Apart'

Talk show host Janet Mefferd invited Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality onto her program on Friday to mourn the recent string of electoral victories of openly gay candidates and gay rights measures. While we continued to hear over and over again from conservatives that President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality greatly undermined his support among minority voters, it turned out that Obama performed just as well—if not better—among minorities. Now, Mefferd and LaBarbera wondered if millions of more white voters would have turned out if only the Romney campaign had promoted his anti-gay stances more vigorously.

Mefferd: Seven million white voters stayed home, everything was about this minority group and we should’ve been more pro-amnesty etcetera, and there was a lot of discussion about how the GOP needs to be for amnesty now, needs to do this and that to reach the particular Latino group or what have you, and in fact you wonder how many of those white voters who stayed home actually would’ve come out if they would’ve had a candidate who had a backbone on issues that are culturally important to them.

LaBarbera: Let’s talk about the homosexual issue Janet, of course Romney barely, I don’t know in the general election, was it raised at all?

Mefferd: No.

LaBarbera said that he will pray that Senator-elect “Tammy Baldwin leaves the lesbian lifestyle as so many women have,” and lashed out at the media’s treatment of officials like Baldwin as historic milestones, wondering if the media would have similar reports on the “first alcoholic” to win an election. He went on to rail against the Huffington Post for “celebrating homosexuality” and claimed that “homosexuality and abortion” are now “the sacraments of liberalism.” “That’s what it’s all about for liberals now and it’s just so sad to see, especially with Obama’s triumph, it’s sad to see that this won in America,” LaBarbera lamented. “America it seems is just falling apart right before our eyes.”

LaBarbera: We’re talking about a sin movement here. Would we be ticking off any other collective group of public representatives who had another sin problem: ‘Say Janet boy did you hear the first alcoholic just got elected in Colorado’? It’s preposterous, the whole movement is preposterous, and we got to retain our thinking as Christians. This is not an achievement. Homosexuality is a problem and the good news is people can overcome it. I hope and pray that one day Tammy Baldwin leaves the lesbian lifestyle as so many women have. The big achievement decades ago was to acknowledge homosexuality as some kind of minority, it’s not really a minority, it’s about behavior and behavior that can be changed. I’m sorry to offend the homosexual lobby but that’s what it is to us. This is not a great achievement and it’s nothing to be proud of.

Mefferd: They are really crowing though. I can’t even count how many stories I saw on the Huffington Post where they were just jumping for joy, how exciting this is. The other issue that came up were these four marriage amendments—

LaBarbera: By the way Janet, that’s the same Huffington Post which I believe in today’s Huffington Post about how Abraham Lincoln might’ve been gay. The Huffington Post is now celebrating homosexuality, they can’t get enough of it, they have a whole section called “Gay Voices” which is all about homosexuality. This has become one of the sacraments of liberalism: homosexuality and abortion, we should add to that maybe promiscuity for heterosexuals. That’s what it’s all about for liberals now and it’s just so sad to see, especially with Obama’s triumph, it’s sad to see that this won in America. America it seems is just falling apart right before our eyes.

Mefferd: I agree.

Later in the show, Mefferd called the gains of the gay rights movement a “rejection of God” while LaBarbera appeared nostalgic for the days when states had anti-sodomy laws on the books. He said that the legalization of same-sex marriage will turn the government into “a promoter of evil” and make homosexuality more “popular,” just as Roe v. Wade supposedly increased the abortion rate (actually, abortion rates are higher in countries where it is illegal).

He even said that the kiss between two gay characters on “Glee” was a sign that America is in “big, big trouble.” “When you saw two teenage boys in a romantic set-up kiss, making out, during primetime TV and it didn’t engender mass outrage among Americans, you know we are pretty far gone,” LaBarbera said.

Mefferd: What we’re really seeing here is the unfolding of the attack against God’s authority and God’s creation, and I think for that reason it’s really a much bigger fight than just what we’re saying , it’s not just even about homosexuality, it’s about a view of God and a rejection of God and how He has created this world to operate.

LaBarbera: The fact is a lot of Americans don’t care about God anymore, they don’t care about what God thinks about this issue or other issues. I think it is much deeper, when government goes from dissuading people from committing a sin, that’s why we had sodomy laws in all the states, anti-sodomy laws, until 1961 I believe, maybe I have that wrong, but the point is we used to discourage sin. Now when you turn it around and government actually promotes sin and ultimately homosexual so-called marriage, that’s the ultimate promotion of what God calls detestable behavior as even noble, there are a lot of repercussions when government changes complete opposite and becomes a promoter of evil and a promoter of sin and that’s what we’re seeing. It’s the same with abortion, look at how many more abortions happened because it became legalized, so many millions of babies would not have been killed had the law not made it popular. I’m afraid we’re going to see that happen with homosexuality as well.

Mefferd: I don’t know if you heard John MacArthur’s great sermon on this but he was talking about how now we have a party in the United States that has the sins of Romans 1 as its party platform. It’s stunning in our lifetimes to see something that egregious going on.

LaBarbera: Yes and the homosexual movement if you look back, it is fascinating how it was marketed. I don’t know if it was last year or the year before with the “Glee” kiss. That showed me that America was in big, big trouble. I think we are probably ten years behind understanding how bad it really is. When you saw two teenage boys in a romantic set-up kiss, making out, during primetime TV and it didn’t engender mass outrage among Americans, you know we are pretty far gone. Nobody wants to talk about what happens when you practice homosexuality, all the higher rates of disease, especially for men who have sex with men, these are statistics you can get by just going to the CDC website, obviously it’s a very dangerous and immoral behavior.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious