American Family Association head Tim Wildmon joined AFA radio host Sandy Rios today to discuss a USA Today article about how “Not all Christians believe there is a ‘War on Christmas.’” Wildmon spent most of the interview complaining that any Christian would dare criticize the AFA, which is a leading voice in movement to expose the “War on Christmas.” He told Rios that he resented Christian leaders who mock the idea of the War on Christmas or note that the AFA’s campaign actually emphasizes the material aspect of the holiday by focusing on how many stores tell customers “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.”
Wildmon accused one pastor, who told USA Today that Christians needed to come to grips with the religious diversity in the US, of wanting Christians to partake in “a dangerous retreat into isolating ourselves from the larger culture.”
“This is exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany,” Rios said. She went on to compare the supposed War on Christmas to religious oppression in the Soviet Union and North Korea.
“I don’t think this pastor understands and I don’t think people understand what is going on in the world,” she said. “They don’t have a large enough world. Their world is too small and so they don’t understand the dangers.”
Sarah Palin seems to be under the impression that Thomas Jefferson would stand with her and the folks at Fox News and Liberty University in protesting the non-existent “War on Christmas” and set straight “those who would want to try to abort Christ from Christianity.”
But Palin might want to read The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, or The Jefferson Bible, from which the nation’s founder actually removed passages from the Bible, including the virgin birth and angelic visitations detailed in Matthew and Luke, at the center of Christian teaching on Christ’s birth:
1: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2: (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3: And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5: To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6: And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7: And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8: And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS.
9: And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer agreed with a caller who demanded that Republicans in the House of Representatives "take a stand" and impeach President Obama even if he won't be convicted and removed by the Senate.
Fischer readily agreed, saying that even though there is no chance that Obama would actually be removed from office, House Republicans ought to go ahead and impeach him any way ... for educational purposes.
"There could be a powerful educational benefit from the House filing articles of impeachment," Fischer said, because "it would give the House the opportunity to make their case why this man needs to be removed from office ... And so they're be tremendous educational value in that; it may not go anywhere in the Senate ... but it may be time to recognize there's an educational benefit here":
Conservative radio host Janet Mefferd has decided to pull her report on plagiarism by Christian Right megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll, but not for the reasons you might think. The evidence is quite clear that Driscoll repeatedly engaged in plagiarism, but Mefferd has decided to pull incriminating documents, and even copies of her initial interview with the pastor, in what appears to be a reaction to criticism from Driscoll’s allies.
On the Wednesday edition of her radio show, Mefferd even apologized to Driscoll: “The interview should not have occurred at all, I should have contacted Tyndale House [Driscoll’s publisher] directly to alert them to the plagiarism issue and I never should have brought it to the attention of listeners publicly. I would like to apologize to all of you and to Mark Driscoll for how I behaved, I am sorry.”
Reflecting on the matter, Carl Trueman of the Westminster Theological Seminary wondered: “Is journalism no longer considered a legitimate Christian calling? Or is the task of the Christian journalist simply to strengthen the hand of the vested interests?” Blogger Dee Parsons noted that Driscoll may have been especially offended that the charges of plagiarism came from a woman.
Indeed, it seems that Mefferd faced tremendous pressure and criticism from Tyndale House Publishers and Driscoll’s allies, one of whom called for an interview boycott of her show.
One of Mefferd’s producers, Ingrid Schlueter, even resigned in reaction to the criticism.
Schleuter used to work for VCY America’s Crosstalk (whose host is her father, Vic Eliason). But she left in 2011, warning that “the mafia crime families have nothing on ‘Christian ministry.’”
Warren Throckmorton grabbed Schleuter’s posts about the Driscoll plagiarism scandal before they were removed from an online forum:
I was a part-time, topic producer for Janet Mefferd until yesterday when I resigned over this situation. All I can share is that there is an evangelical celebrity machine that is more powerful than anyone realizes. You may not go up against the machine. That is all. Mark Driscoll clearly plagiarized and those who could have underscored the seriousness of it and demanded accountability did not. That is the reality of the evangelical industrial complex.
I’ve read much speculation online, which is understandable given the confusing situation, most of it dead wrong. Being limited in what I can share, let me just say that truth tellers face multiple pressure sources these days. I hosted a radio show for 23 years and know from experience how Big Publishing protects its celebrities. Anything but fawning adulation for those who come on your show (a gift of free air time for the author/publisher by the way) is not taken well. Like Dr. Carl Trueman so aptly asked yesterday in his column at Reformation 21, does honest journalism have any role to play in evangelicalism now? (It was rhetorical.) My own take on that question is, no, it does not. The moment hard questions are asked, the negative focus goes on the questioner, not the celebrity, when there is something that needs scrutiny. Those who have the temerity to call out a celebrity have tremendous courage. The easiest thing in the world is to do fluffy interviews with fluffy guests on fluffy books. So hats off to those like Janet who have the courage to ask at all. And my own opinion on Mr. Driscoll is that despite the bravado, despite the near silence of his Reformed peers and enablers, his brand is damaged, and damaged by his own hand. (emphasis ours)
UPDATE: Jonathan Merritt reports that Mefferd refuses to comment on the cae:
It seems likely that, at the very least, Schlueter’s did in fact resign. I say this because I called and spoke with Mefferd moments ago. I asked her to confirm whether Ingrid Schlueter did, in fact, resign. She responded, “No comment.” I asked a round of six follow-up questions about Schlueter and whether Mefferd still believes the allegations she made were true. Each time, she responded with “no comment.”
Emails to Bobby Belt, another producer with the Janet Mefferd Show, have not been returned.
RWW's Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
Did you know that gay people seek to use the government to steal the children of conservative parents and kill Christians? Or that a commonsense, bipartisan bill to ban undetectable guns first signed into law by Ronald Reagan is actually a plot by President Obama to threaten all gun owners? Well, we didn’t! But thanks to the totally reasonable and coherent arguments from right-wing figures, we do now:
5. The Gay-Liberal Adoption Plot Exposed
Stan Solomon, who you might remember from such conspiracy theories as ‘Obama is forming a black paramilitary’ and ‘Obamacare will force people into electro-shock therapy,’ now warns that liberals will take the children of conservative parents and put them into the homes of abusive gay couples. Of course, Phyllis Schlafly thinks Solomon is onto something:
4. Limbaugh Senses Conspiracy Behind Retraction Of Erroneous Report
The World Health Organization corrected a report that mistakenly claimed there was a rise in “self-inflicted” HIV infections in Greece as a way to collect welfare benefits , saying the report was unfounded and a result of an editing error: “There is no evidence suggesting that deliberate self-infection with H.I.V. goes beyond a few anecdotal cases.” But it didn't matter to Rush Limbaugh, who insisted that, in fact, the original, erroneous WHO declaration was true:
So what do you think really happened here? Do you think they goofed up? I don’t, either. I think they’re trying to walk back what they inadvertently admitted yesterday. And being leftists, I’m sure they didn't think that they would get the kind of reaction they got. I’m sure they were expecting to get reactions rooted in sympathy and compassion, and instead they got reactions that were based and rooted in outrage. They were not prepared for that, so now it's, dare we say, CYA time here at the World Health Organization.
3. Obama Trying To Close Vatican Embassy
Even though the words “relocate” and “close” are different words that mean different things, Republicans pounced on the news that the US Embassy to the Holy See, or the Vatican, will be relocated to charge that Obama is trying to close the embassy as part of his anti-Catholic agenda.
Jeb Bush suggested it was the result of “retribution for Catholic organizations opposing Obamacare;” the National Republican Senatorial Committee called it “a slap in the face to Catholic-Americans;” one Washington Times columnist billed the move as an attempt to “snub the Pope” and “pick a fight with Catholics” and a Breitbart blogger said it was the result of “the Regime’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance.”
“Neither Obama, nor the State Department, are planning on permanently closing the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See – also known as the Vatican,” CNN reports. “What is happening, however, is the building the embassy is currently using is being moved to a property closer to Vatican City.”
The Washington Post points out that the government report “which urged moving the embassy for both cost and security reasons — as well as practicality” was issued during the Bush administration in 2008, or before Obama even took office.
2. Ban On Undetectable Guns Threatens All Gun Owners
Gun Owners of America is deeply concerned that the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to “extend a ban on manufacturing plastic firearms that are not detectable by security-screening devices.” The right-wing group’s spokesman Erich Pratt claims that the bill will open “the door for greater mischief much later,” will inevitably be “twisted by President Obama,” and represents “an unconstitutional infringement of our liberties that is not only ineffective, but could eventually be expanded by an anti-gun administration to ban even more guns.”
The National Association for Gun Rights put out a similar petition demanding the House “oppose any and all gun control legislation” unless they too want to be labeled as “gun-grabbers” and “anti-gunners.” NAGR calls the bill “a ticking time bomb” that “could spell disaster for gun owners.”
How far out are GOA and NAGR for opposing a bill prohibiting the manufacture of undetectable plastic guns? Not only does the GOP leadership support an extension of the 1988 law (that’s right, signed into law by Ronald Reagan), but even the National Rifle Association refused to oppose the bill.
1. Gay Marriage Will Kill Christians
We probably shouldn’t be surprised that a commentator for Renew America believes that the gay rights movement is a Satanic plot to murder Christians.
“The Godless communists (or fascists, if you prefer) are using the homosexual agenda to work toward eradicating Christian opposition to their plans, which are Satan’s plans,” Gina Miller writes. “If you know your Bible, then you know that Christianity is destined to be outlawed. We are moving steadily toward a time when Christians here in America will be in danger of state-sanctioned murder for their beliefs.”
We really couldn’t make this stuff up if we tried:
While one week he is screaming that America has gone insane and been engulfed by darkness, the next he is declaring that he and his audience were chosen by God to save the nation ... and that is where he is now, as he asserted on his television broadcast last night that even though our entire society is on the verge of complete collapse, Beck remains optimistic because his audience of Tea Party activists are just the sort of people the Founding Fathers envisioned would one day finally create the perfect America.
"I tell you know," Beck said, "we are the people that our Founders saw, the wise and the honest. They knew it would fall apart, they knew the system would have to be re-booted and in 1822, [Thomas] Jefferson and [John] Adams are going back and forth and they said 'yeah, but trust the people, trust the people, they'll see what we were doing and they'll do it better'":
Pamela Geller is once again calling for Congress to reject a resolution condemning the persecution of Burma’s Rohingya minority. As we noted on Wednesday, the Rohingya minority in Burma is facing a campaign of persecution that many human rights groups describe as ethnic cleansing. But since they are Muslim, they have little sympathy from Geller.
In a blog post today, she claims that the Rohingya are waging “jihad in Burma,” but the “goosestepping thugs” of “Jihad agitators and their leftist shills” are covering it up and unfairly criticizing her. “Pure evil. The Left always does this,” she writes.
Geller must then consider Jim DeMint’s Heritage Foundation as a leftist, jihadist group, as the conservative organization denounced the “ethnic cleansing” and “atrocities” committed against the Rohingya. We’re sure she also has words for the Republican congressmen who are co-sponsoring the resolution.
Opposition to the jihad in Burma is fast becoming the third rail. The bogus myth of Muslim victimhood has become the rallying cry for Islamic supremacists organizations (CAIR, the OIC, et al) and their leftwing operatives across the nation and the world. And I dared touch that third rail when I called for Atlas readers, twitter followers and FB friends to contact their congressmen and vote NO on resolution 418 (more here). Jihad agitators and their leftist shills were none too pleased.
It is clear that jihad terrorists are converging on Burma from Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan -- a jihad group from the Caucasus announced that back in July. Still, media coverage and reportage on the violence in Burma is notoriously pro-jihad (is there any country that opposes jihad that the media likes?). Much is made of the Buddhists' reponse [sic] to Muslim violence against Buddhists in Burma. But Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese nobel peace prize winner and Myanmar's democracy and human rights icon, has spoken uneqivocally [sic] in support of the Buddhists, much to the media's crushing dismay. She had been, up until that point, a media darling.
Now their goosestepping thugs, the illegal uber-left network of hacktivists and anarchist entities, "Anonymous," has taken up the jihad in Burma as their latest cause -- so of course they would target me on twitter. The FBI has dismantled the leaders of Anonymous and arrested the group's core members, but anonymous trolls abound.
This is left's idea od [sic] intellectual sparring. Pure evil. The Left always does this. They try to demean the character of their enemies by engaging in mockery and ridicule, which only makes more glaring their total inability and unwillingness to engage on the level of ideas.
Although we keep hearing from far-right activists that the Constitution is a Bible-based document that belongs solely to the Tea Party, today WorldNetDaily tells us that the nation’s founders were wrong to replace the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789) with the Constitution. WND columnist Ilana Mercer writes that the anti-Federalists were prophetic and right after all, thanks to Obama.
“Having prophesied that Philadelphia was the beginning of the end of the freedoms won in the American Revolution, our Anti-Federalist philosophical fathers fought to forestall the inevitable,” Mercer laments. “They failed.”
This isn’t the first time a WND columnist has attacked the Constitution: In 2011, WND’s Robert Ringer maintained that the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution is to blame for Obama’s “communist dictatorship.”
Should the federal constitution be ratified, there would be “no checks, no real balances,” thundered Patrick Henry. Instead, the country would live under a “powerful and mighty empire.” Writing under the assumed name “Agrippa,” yet another Anti-Federalist scoffed at the idea of an enormous “uncompounded republic,” “containing 6 million white inhabitants,” all “reduced to the same standard of morals or habits and of laws.” This “in itself is an absurdity,” mocked “Agrippa.”
The tower of Babel that is 21st century America is home not to 6 but 317 million alienated, antagonistic individuals, diverse to the point of distrust. These modern-day Americans, some of whose ancestors were brought together by a “profound intellectual and emotional attachment to individual liberty,” possess little by way of “social capital” to unify them. Surveys say Americans today avoid one another, hunkering down unhappily in front of the TV, instead. This would have hardly surprised “Agrippa.”
The Commerce Clause has given us the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. ACA, or Obamacare, forces 21st-century Americans to purchase the federal government’s version of health insurance, or risk punishment. The Clause was the focus of scathing Anti-Federalist critique. “What is meant by ‘the power to regulate’?” they demanded to know. “What, precisely, is ‘commerce’?” The new Constitution, argued the prescient Anti-Federalists, is mum on these matters, providing little by way of precision in definition.
Brilliant too was “Brutus” in his prediction that, if instituted, the “new system of government” would see the federal judiciary “swallow up the State courts.” Back then, “Brutus” saw Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution as vesting the judicial branch with the kind of power that would bring about “the entire subversion of the legislative, executive, and judiciary power of the individual states.”
As the saying goes, “A prophet is not without honor save in his own country.”
To observe Obama (and predecessor) in action is to realize that Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry and New York Anti-Federalist “Cato” were prophets who deserve a lot more honor in their own country. Both forewarned of an imperial presidency in the making. “‘The president,’ wrote ‘Cato,’ has so much power that his office ‘differs very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain.’”
Indeed, President Barack Obama habitually “uses executive orders to circumvent federal legislation.” He exempts his “friends or political cronies” from oppressive laws his subjects must obey. And he orders the suspension of “duly enacted [immigration] law” – even “barring enforcement” – because he does not like the law.
A propagandized population has a hard time choosing worthy heroes. It is high time Americans celebrate the Anti-Federalists, for they were correct in predicting the fate of freedom after Philadelphia.
To deny that the Anti-Federalists were right is to deny reality.
Having prophesied that Philadelphia was the beginning of the end of the freedoms won in the American Revolution, our Anti-Federalist philosophical fathers fought to forestall the inevitable. They failed.
In a WorldNetDaily column today, Religious Right activist Bradlee Dean warns that President Obama is committed to creating a government system of mass dependency in order to “to destroy what America is.” Dean alleges that Obama wants to “stupefy” young people and keep them illiterate, jobless and on entitlement programs.
“He needed dependents; therefore, he created dependents. Those dependents were sure to keep him in office, and keep him in office they did,” Dean writes. “What would you say if I told you that over 700,000 of the up-and-coming generation graduating from public schools in America each year cannot even read there [sic] own high school diplomas?”
But most Americans are ignorant of Obama’s sinister plot because they just aren’t as smart as Dean: “Oh, how little the American people know about the history of tyrants and dictators like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, etc.”
Let me say this plainly: This president is not failing; he is succeeding! He knows exactly what demographic he should go to; the older generation has not yet figured out this method. He is going to the younger generation where the real battle is being waged, and that is where America must go if we are to win the future.
A recent poll out from the Washington Examiner stated that President Barack Hussein Obama is seen as America’s biggest “failure” among modern presidents.
Oh, how little the American people know about the history of tyrants and dictators like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, etc.
The American people look at this president as if he does not know what he and his criminal administration are doing. Friends, he knows exactly what he is attempting to do! Barack Hussein Obama has already stated that he was out to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” If he is out to destroy what America is, then he is in fact not a failure, but rather a success.
For example: It was not too long ago that I heard many in the older age demographic saying they believed that this president made a huge mistake because he had so many people on government entitlement programs. Little did they realize that this was not a failure on the behalf of this president and his criminal administration, it was a total success.
He needed dependents; therefore, he created dependents. Those dependents were sure to keep him in office, and keep him in office they did. Was this a failure on his behalf, or a success? Who are a good majority of the dependents? I’ll tell you who they are: the up-and-coming generation.
What would you say if I told you that over 700,000 of the up-and-coming generation graduating from public schools in America each year cannot even read there own [sic] high school diplomas? This, in fact, is true. They cannot.
Is this a failure or a success on the behalf of those who wish to stupefy the next generation (Hosea 4:6)? Of course … a success!
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah writes today that the death of Nelson Mandela should not be mourned because “the system Mandela’s revolution brought about” is bent on “the deliberate, systematic elimination” of the white race in South Africa.
In an editorial entitled, “Don’t Mourn for Mandela,” the right-wing activist claims Mandela was a terrorist and “the Mandela mythology is as dangerous as the terror he and his followers perpetrated on so many innocent victims – white and black.”
Apartheid was inarguably an evil and unjustifiable system. But so is the system Mandela’s revolution brought about – one in which anti-white racism is so strong today that a prominent genocide watchdog group has labeled the current situation a “precursor” to the deliberate, systematic elimination of the race.
In other words, the world has been sold a bill of goods about Mandela. He wasn’t the saintly character portrayed by Morgan Freeman. He wasn’t someone fighting for racial equality. He was the leader of a violent, Communist revolution that has nearly succeeded in all of its grisly horror.
Today, in South Africa’s white population of 4 million, 1 million live in utter poverty.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
You will read today many stories describing Mandela as a “political prisoner.”
In fact, he served 27 years in prison for 23 specific acts of sabotage and attempting to overthrow the government.
It was only a year ago that some of the international press began to report the truth about Mandela for the first time. Last December, the London Telegraph reported that, indeed, the records showed Mandela was not only a member of the South African Communist Party, he held a “senior rank.”
By the way, Mandela was offered his freedom while incarcerated many times. All he had to do was renounce terrorism. He wouldn’t do it.
Of course, it’s fashionable to forget about all of this today. Nelson Mandela is dead. He is being proclaimed a saint all over the world.
Nevertheless, these inconvenient truths need to be stated by someone because the Mandela mythology is as dangerous as the terror he and his followers perpetrated on so many innocent victims – white and black.
Recently it was reported that Republicans in Congress have been receiving training on how to communicate with female voters and, more importantly, learning what not to do when running against a female opponent.
The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins was asked about this effort by Newsmax's Steve Malzberg yesterday and it made us wish that the GOP would bring Perkins in to help them with their talking points because, as he sees it, the entire thing is utterly unnecessary since it is the Democrats who are really waging the "war on women" ... through the contraception mandate:
Let me tell you where the war on women is being waged. It is the Democratic Party that is putting an ideological emphasis on, let's take the contraception mandate that they're pushing, which is going to cost jobs, going to cost women the ability to provide for their families, it's going to take away their health care because they're putting organizations and businesses in a position of having to choose between their religious freedoms, their conscience, and providing healthcare for their workers. Look, who needs to apologize for that are not Republicans, it's the Democrats, it's the President that's pushing this failed policy that's kicking families off of coverage from health care and potentially ending their jobs. Now, what do Republicans have to apologize for because they've been fighting that? I don't think they have anything to apologize for.
The news today of Nelson Mandela’s passing is also time to reflect on the complicated relationship between Mandela and his anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC) with the US, which did not always support the anti-apartheid struggle. In fact, American conservatives lobbied the federal government in the 1980s to withhold support from the anti-apartheid movement.
President Reagan added the ANC to the US terrorism watch list, a designation not removed until 2008, and unsuccessfully vetoed sanctions against the apartheid regime. Many Republican lawmakers did break with the Reagan administration’s stance, but “all 21 [Senate] votes to sustain the veto were cast by Republicans.”
Mandela faced criticism from Republican leaders including Dick Cheney, who described Mandela’s ANC as a “terrorist organization,” and Jesse Helms, who “turned his back during Mandela’s visit to the U.S. Capitol.” Even in 1998, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly lumped Mandela together with notorious dictators.
The late Jerry Falwell urged [PDF] his supporters to write their congressmen and senators to tell them to oppose sanctions against the apartheid regime. “The liberal media has for too long suppressed the other side of the story in South Africa,” he said. “It is very important that we stay close enough to South Africa so that it does not fall prey to the clutches of Communism.”
“South Africa is torn by civil unrest, instigated primarily by Communist-sponsored people who are capitalizing on the many legitimate grievances created by apartheid, unemployment and policy confrontations,” Falwell continued.
Finally, we should, if possible, invest in South Africa, because this inevitably improves the standard of living for nonwhites there.
Now is not the time to turn our backs on South Africa. The world has witnessed the Soviets capture nation after nation. They have been particularly aggressive in Africa. South Africa must not be the next victim!
David John Marley notes in Pat Robertson: An American Life that Robertson criticized the ANC because it was “led by communists and was hostile to Israel” and “far too radical an element to ever work with,” while “his campaign literature made similar claims for the need to support the white government.”
The televangelist regularly spoke ill of Mandela’s group and his Christian Broadcasting Network ran segments critical of sanctions against the apartheid government as Congress debated sanctions.
In 1986 The 700 Club did a series of reports on South Africa and the white government’s struggle against the African National Congress. While many socially liberal religious leaders decried the apartheid regime, Robertson openly supported it because he felt that it was a bastion against communism. For Robertson, everything else was secondary to defeating what he saw as the enemies of God. Robertson sent a copy of The 700 Club program to Freedom Council’s Dick Thompson to have it forwarded to Pat Buchanan, who in turn promised to show it to the president. Reagan’s attitude toward South Africa was one of his most controversial foreign policy stands, and Robertson was one of Reagan’s few allies on the policy.
Sam Kleiner mentions that now-Sen. Jeff Flake, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff were also active in lobbying against the anti-apartheid movement:
Jack Abramoff, now a disgraced former lobbyist convicted of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion, got much of his start from his work with South Africa. Abramoff visited the country following his term as National Chair of the College Republicans in 1983 and met with pro-apartheid student groups linked to the South Africa’s Bureau of Security Services. In 1986, he opened the International Freedom Foundation. Ostensibly a think tank, it was later revealed as a front group for the South African Army as part of “Operation Babushka” meant to undermine Nelson Mandela’s international approval. The group had over “30 young ideologues in offices on G Street in Washington, Johannesburg, London and Brussels” working on propaganda in support of the South African government.
Like Abramoff, GOP tax guru Grover Norquist became enamored with the conflict in South Africa and went there to extend his support. Norquist ran College Republicans from 1981 to 1983 and went to South Africa in 1985 for a “Youth for Freedom Conference” sponsored by South African businesses. While other college students, such as Barack Obama, had been active in anti-apartheid work, this conference was seeking to bring American and South African conservatives together to end that movement. In his speech there, Norquist said, “The left has no other issue [but apartheid] on campus. Economic issues are losers for them. There are no sexy Soviet colonies anymore.” A few months after the conference, Norquist went to Angola to work with Jonas Savimbi, the rebel leader that Abramoff valorized in his film. Norquist became a ghost-writer for Savimbi’s essay in Policy Review. When he returned to Washington, he was greeted in conservative circles as a “freedom fighter,” and he proudly placed an “I’d rather be killing commies” bumper sticker on his brief case.
A few years later and much further along in the anti-apartheid movement, a young Jeff Flake (now a senator from Arizona) became active in lobbying for South African mining interests in the late 1980s and early ’90s, after returning from his Mormon mission to South Africa. As a graduate student at Brigham Young University, he testified against an anti-apartheid resolution in the Utah State Senate and then became a lobbyist in Washington for Smoak, Shipley and Henry, a lobbying firm specializing in representing the South African mining industry. Flake went on to personally represent the Rossing Uranium plant in Namibia, which had been a major target of anti-apartheid activists for its discriminatory and unsafe practices.
Decades later, these Republican leaders would prefer not to have their adventures in South Africa mentioned. While Abramoff went down in a corruption scandal, Norquist went on to remake himself into a libertarian anti-tax activist, and Flake moved back to Arizona. The anti-communism that motivated the Republican allegiance to South Africa fizzled with the end of the Cold War, but the history of the Republican entanglement with South Africa remains one of the party’s darker episodes.
President Obama can proudly talk about how his first political act was in response to apartheid. While a few Republicans stood against apartheid, much of the Republican Party has nothing to offer about its position at the time but silence. I wouldn’t expect any reflections on apartheid from Abramoff, Flake or Norquist anytime soon.
After the Ukrainian government’s decision to pull out of an agreement with the European Union triggered massive protests, Secretary of State John Kerry cancelled his trip to Ukraine and instead visited Moldova which, unlike Ukraine, decided to pursue closer relations with the EU.
This is how a real news source covered the story:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged the Ukrainian government on Tuesday to “listen to the voices of its people” after President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to spurn an agreement with the European Union sparked days of massive protests.
Kerry said Ukrainians had demonstrated “in unbelievable numbers” their support of the accord on closer ties with Europe, which Yanukovych rejected last week in favor of Russian incentives.
“Mr. Yanukovych has obviously made a personal decision and the people don't agree with that decision,” Kerry said after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.
“Clearly there is a very powerful evidence of people who would like to be associated with Europe... we stand with the vast majority of the Ukrainians who want to see this future for their country,” he told a news conference.
“I personally will be going to Moldova in order to support that country's European choice,” Kerry said. “I look forward to visiting Ukraine when it too gets back on the path to European integration and economic responsibility.”
But Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy claims that Secretary Kerry’s clear stance in favor of greater European integration and support for the demonstrators actually is proof that he opposes the pro-EU protest movement, proving once again that Obama administration officials can do no right in the eyes of right-wing activists:
There’s a new revolution underway – this time in Ukraine. Mass demonstrations are insisting that country align with the European Union, not Russia, an idea adamantly opposed by Vladimir Putin and his puppets in Kiev. America should be standing with those seeking freedom and closer ties to the West. Yet, the Obama administration is literally missing in action, with Secretary of State John Kerry just cancelling a planned trip to Ukraine. See a pattern here? Where revolutionaries are working to overthrow friends of the United States, Team Obama is all for them. Where revolutionaries oppose regimes hostile to the United States and freedom – as in Iran in 2009 or Ukraine today – President Obama offers no help, or even rhetorical support. This pattern diminishes America’s standing internationally and makes for a more dangerous world.
Pastor Kevin Swanson took two of his daughters, paper and pen in hand, to the movie theater to see “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” and made them take notes about the movie to discuss later on his Generations Radio program. Swanson, a leader in the patriarchal fundamentalist homeschooling movement, naturally was aghast at the portrayal of “Hunger Games” heroine Katniss Everdeen as an icon of the rebellion against the tyrannical Capitol.
Swanson said that the fictional Panem’s main problem was a lack of male leadership (aside, you know, from its president).
“Think about the men,” Swanson said. “They were tyrants, they were wimpy, they were led around by the nose by women. Peeta is a puppy dog, he was cute, he was nice, he was fluffy and he did everything that his mistress told him to do. He was the puppy dog.”
“Girls, if society is so broken down and there are no fathers left, probably no sheriffs with courage and guts to defend the people from tyrants, what do you get when you don’t have any men?” he asked. “I guess you get Katniss, and Katniss is going to save society. It’s also interesting that the most popular movies that people watch are movies about witches, about vampires and about little girl anarchists, revolutionaries.”
One of the main points that we try to make whenever we write about David Barton is not just that he is a pseudo-historian who has a problem telling the truth, but that he is also a borderline theocrat who believes that our nation's laws ought to be literally based upon the Bible.
During his recent appearance on "The Gospel Truth" with Andrew Wommack, Barton explained that Scott Peterson, who was convicted of having murdered his wife and unborn child back in 2002, should not have received the death penalty because there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.
Citing Deuteronomy 17:6, which states that "on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death," Barton argued that even though Peterson was guilty of murder, he should not have received a death sentence because there were not two or more witnesses to the crime as required by the Bible:
Televangelist Pat Robertson has a flair for making sweeping judgments about people simply by reading the short questions they submit to the 700 Club’s Bring It On segment. Just today, Robertson seemed to be able to uncover intimate details about a the life of a twice-divorced woman who was wondering if she would go to hell if she married again.
“You’ve got a serious problem and I don’t think marriage is for you,” Robertson said. “You have picked a selection of losers, there is something in your character that draws you to these men who are indigent or abusive. I don’t think you’re marriage material.”
The viewer never referenced abuse in her question.
“Just for now, forget marriage, work out a life for yourself, get close to the Lord,” Robertson advised.
In a blog post this week, former Florida congressman Allen West gets behind a conspiracy theory that holds that the Environmental Protection Agency is launching a “clandestine” and “backdoor” assault on the Second Amendment. The gist of the theory is that President Obama used the EPA to shut down a Missouri smelter that refused to comply with anti-pollution regulations, thereby creating a scarcity of bullets and, in West’s words, “destroy[ing] the Second Amendment.”
Of course, there is no actual evidence to support West’s claim. In fact, the EPA first went after the smelter in question in 2008, the year before Obama became president. Steve Benen notes: “If enforcement of environmental safeguards was used to secretly undermine access to ammunition, the plot was launched by the notorious gun-grabbers in the Bush/Cheney administration.”
Despite the lack of evidence and the fact that the smelter was targeted before Obama even took office, now Gun Owners of America is also embracing the patently bogus conspiracy:
Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America (GOA), agrees with West, saying this is clearly a backdoor attack on the Second Amendment.
"We don't think it's coincidental that a company that melts lead for bullets was targeted by the Obama administration, given the politicization [of the issue]," he tells OneNewsNow. "As a matter of fact, every way the Obama administration can go at the Second Amendment through the back door it's attempted to do so."
Hammond says it is also scary that the federal government is buying up so much of the ammo that is produced.
"People all over the country are saying [they] can't buy bullets – and the Obama administration said Oh, we just need them," states the GOA spokesman. "But people all over the country are finding difficulty buying ammunition because of large government purchases."
We already know that Bryan Fischer has a pretty active political imagination, dreaming up scenarios in which Democrats might decide to impeach President Obama in order to win re-election in 2014.
On his program yesterday, Fischer returned to fantasy land in order to declare Obamacare is such a monumental disaster that, a hundred years from now, people will study this time in American history as the moment when socialism finally died.
"Obamacare is catastrophic, it is cataclysmic," Fischer said. "I've said this before, I'll say it again: it is not fixable, this thing is an utter, absolute, complete disaster of historic proportions. Ladies and gentlemen, you are living through American history. I want you to understand the significance of this. You are a living witness of American history. You are living through something that people will be writing about a hundred years from now and that is the time period in American history when socialism exploded, when it imploded, when it became evident to every thinking American that socialism does not work, it cannot work, it is impossible to work, nobody can make it work. We are witnessing the death throes of socialism and you are witnessing that":
We hope this is true, primarily because we are just getting tired of hearing the Right reflexively declare that everything they don't like is "socialism."
Of course, Fischer does not have a very good track record of making predictions, so we won't hold our breath.
Back in June, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins pointed to the marriage equality fight in Illinois to argue that marriage equality is not inevitable:
Today, Pew Research Center did its part to dispirit supporters of natural marriage by insisting that 72% of Americans believe same-sex "marriage" is inevitable (including 85% of same-sex "marriage" supporters and 59% of natural marriage proponents). Apparently, the folks at Pew didn't survey anyone in Illinois. Advocates of same-sex "marriage" thought victory in the President's home state was "inevitable" too -- until the churches got involved.
The reality is, same-sex "marriage" is only as inevitable as we make it. If Christians play into the media's hands and adopt this defeatist attitude, then the Left is right: It is helpless. But if believers rediscover the power of the truth, they can do more than stop the dissolution of marriage (like they did in Illinois), they can "turn the world upside down" (Acts 17:6).
Of course, Illinois eventually did in fact legalize same-sex marriage. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia now have marriage equality laws, which are favored by 58 percent of Americans and a huge majority of young people.
But undeterred by the facts, Perkins said in his radio address today that “the tide may already be turning” against equality:
Plenty of states have been processing down the same-sex marriage aisle. But according to pundits, that's all about to change. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Homosexual activists like to say that momentum is on their side. And until recently, they might have been right. Sixteen U.S. states now recognize a right to same-sex marriage. And unfortunately, the Left's success in places like Hawaii and Illinois have helped feed the lie in America that homosexual marriage is inevitable. But don't believe it, say experts. All we've witnessed lately is the Left taking advantage of easy targets. With the exception of West Virginia, none of the other 34 states are under Democratic control. That means the Left's toughest battles are yet to come. And in places like Indiana, the tide may already be turning. State liberals are rushing to play defense while a marriage protection amendment works its way to the statewide ballot. So be encouraged. Not all same-sex wedding bills are leading to wedding bells.
Indiana will vote on an amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2014, but Indiana GOP leaders are already distancing themselves from or even opposing the discriminatory initiative. While the vote is a year away, the latest polling found that most Hoosiers oppose the amendment.
Marriage equality may also soon arrive in Oregon and New Mexico (where it is already legal in some counties), which may disappoint Perkins as he tries to pretend anti-gay activists are somehow winning the fight on marriage rights.