Fighting the Right

Pat Robertson: Islam Is A Dangerous Infection That Must Be Eliminated

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson said that countries like Belgium and France must respond with “violence” to the “infection” of Muslim immigrants, telling his co-host Terry Meeuwsen that these countries must fight Islam in the same way that a body fights a deadly disease.

Otherwise, “Europe is doomed. Doomed!” he said, before adding: “And we have a president here in America who refuses to name it, refuses to identify it and refuses to give us what’s needed to kill the infection.”

Robertson: Our bodies are amazingly resilient and they can throw off a small infection, something comes up and the body has mechanisms to deal with it and the body closes in on the invader and kills it and the body stays strong. But there comes a time if the infection is allowed to spread, and it will spread rapidly when the invader overtakes the healthy body, at which point there is sickness and then ultimately death.

No society should allow some alien body to come to its midst that preaches terror, preaches overthrow, preaches violence and preaches another form of government. We shouldn’t have that.

Now, that’s what is being allowed in Belgium and France and other parts of Europe in the name of political correctness. And the so-called socialist liberals think, ‘I want to be open and I want to be welcoming to these people who come in.’ Okay, a few of them, fine, assimilate into the society, learn the language, learn the customs and be Belgians. But these people are not. They’re keeping on with their Islamic customs, Islamic dress, they’re speaking Arabic and they’re in the middle of Belgium and they’re growing and metastasizing and it won’t be long before they overwhelm the healthy body. Here in America and other places, we can only stand so much infection before it overwhelms us.

Meeuwsen: But once you’ve allowed that to occur and roots have gone down into a city or a region, is it too late to change that?

Robertson: Not really, but it’s going to take violence. They’ve got to move in with the police dragnets.

Meeuwsen: Do you think they have the stomach for that?

Robertson: Well, no. That’s the problem. You don’t want to, you know, it seems like you’re violating people’s civil rights, you don’t want to take away their liberty and violate the thing you are, but people have got to stand up and recognize the threat and if they don’t do it the society’s doomed. That’s what’s happening. All of our shows are showing, I mean our reporters are showing that Europe is doomed. Doomed! Because they refuse to acknowledge the existence of a pathogen in their midst, an infection, that has come in, and that’s what radical Islam is, it’s an infection. And we have a president here in America who refuses to name it, refuses to identify it and refuses to give us what’s needed to kill the infection. As a matter of fact, he wants to take more of them and bring them into the country.

Meeuwsen: Crazy.

Robertson: It’s crazy.

Meeuwsen: And in doing so we lose our own rights.

Sandy Rios: LGBT Rights Advocates Support 'Fascism'

On her radio program today, American Family Association official Sandy Rios blasted New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for issuing a ban on non-essential state travel to Mississippi and North Carolina after the two states enacted anti-LGBT laws.

Rios, after baselessly claiming that Cuomo “was seen in a Che Guevara t-shirt in Cuba,” said that the executive order amounts to fascism: “This is the fascist movement in our country and the fascism is against people who have, primarily, Christian values, Judeo-Christian values, and it’s not going to end just because the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.”

She then went after the activists behind the tongue-in-cheek billboard featuring a drawing of Jesus reading, “Guys, I said hate figs and to love thy neighbor,” calling it “a clever play on words by the left to try to shame people for their strong position that Christians have a right to run their businesses and exercise their own consciences when it comes to accepting, embracing, supporting, encouraging gay relationships and homosexual marriage.”

Troy Newman Struggles To Explain Position On Abortion Punishment: 'You Have To Draw The Line Somewhere'

Troy Newman, the head of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and co-chair of a “pro-life” coalition for Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, has drawn some heat for a book he wrote in the early 2000s that argued that the U.S. has affronted God by failing to execute abortion providers.

Newman says that he was not actually arguing for the execution of abortion providers but was rather building up an Old Testament case that he then superseded with a New Testament message of mercy and redemption, an argument that he made again in an interview with Alan Colmes yesterday.

Newman, however, struggled to explain to Colmes his case that he doesn’t want a legal punishment for women who have abortions — whom he refers to in his book as “contract killers” — but does want abortion providers to be tried for murder.

“Yes, abortion is murder,” he told Colmes. “You punish the murderers. You punish the murderers, Alan, who are the abortionists.”

“If you’re hiring the murderer, wouldn’t you also be punished?” Colmes asked.

“No, traditionally in America, we’ve never punished a woman because she’s a secondary victim, the first victim is the innocent baby,” Newman responded. He later argued that it’s “more than likely” that a woman who has an abortion has been “coerced.”

When Colmes pressed further, Newman said that “you have to draw the line someplace” and that he draws the line at “punishing the abortionists” and “the likes of Planned Parenthood.”

“What should the punishment be for an abortion provider?” Colmes asked.

“Well, if it’s murder, then they should serve time,” Newman responded, “Whether it’s first, second, third degree, that’s for the courts to decide.”

He added that he was “against the death penalty” and that “life in prison” would be the proper punishment for an abortion provider.

David Barton Says That Candidates Who 'Don't Respect The Bible' Won't Respect The Constitution

On his "WallBuilders Live" radio program yesterday, right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton asserted that voters must employ a religious test when it comes to voting because how the presidential candidates "look at the Bible will tell you how they're going to look at the Constitution."

"If your religious faith is such that it doesn't connect you to God, you're not going to be good for the country," he stated. "How they look at the Bible will tell you how they're going to look at the Constitution. I'm not saying the Bible and the Constitution are the same thing, but I'm saying you have the same view toward authority, you have the same view toward there are absolutes, there are standards that should be followed and must be followed."

"The fervency with which someone follows their religious faith, a biblical faith, is nearly always a direct indicator of how well they will follow the Constitution," Barton claimed. "If they don't respect the Bible, they won't respect other firm, fixed documents like the Constitution, so we, as citizens, ought to engage in that type of personal religious test for our president."

Tony Perkins: Businesses Who Support LGBT Rights Have 'Stockholm Syndrome'

Yesterday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins announced that his organization will stop using PayPal because the company halted a planned expansion in North Carolina after the state’s Republican leaders enacted a sweeping anti-LGBT law.

Perkins said that businesses who oppose the North Carolina law may have “Stockholm syndrome” when it comes to the LGBT community, expressing anger that the business community “has been hijacked” by LGBT rights advocates and has failed to stand with Religious Right activists who have strongly supported pro-corporate measures in the past.

“I wouldn’t necessarily say they are being held hostage by the LGBT community, but they are certainly being used as puppets,” Perkins said.

Don't Cast 'False Asparagus' On Roger Stone

Yesterday, former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone chatted with Dana Loesch about the “Days of Rage” he is planning with Alex Jones to make sure that delegates and party officials at the Republican National Convention don’t “steal” the nomination from Trump.

Stone, who remains one of Trump’s close confidants, said he resented any claim that he was provoking violence.

“If somebody wanted to cast false asparagus on this, sure, but it’s a famous phrase from the ’68 convention,” he said.

(We are not sure if he simply flubbed the word “aspersions” or was deliberately channeling Rep. Louie Gohmert.)

“There’s no place in my comments ad nauseum where I advocated violence, but I do think there’s strength in numbers and I do think it’s important that people come to Cleveland to let their voice be heard,” Stone added.

He also criticized MSNBC for joining CNN in banning him from the air, alleging that the network practices “Soviet-style censorship” and “has decided to throw out the First Amendment to trample on free speech rights.” (Stone, like some others in the conservative movement, apparently thinks he has a constitutional right to appear on television.)

Glenn Beck And Sam Rodriguez: Persecution Of Christians Is Coming Because America Is Engaged In Modern-Day Baal Worship

Last night, supposedly "moderate" evangelical leader Samuel Rodriguez appeared on Glenn Beck's television show to promote his new book. During the conversation, Beck and Rodriguez agreed that full-scale persecution of Christians is coming to American because the country is now engaged in modern-day Baal worship.

"I think people think that I'm nuts," Beck said, "and they think that if you think this way, there's something wrong with you. But let me ask you this, have you spent any time serious time considering, gosh, the time period we're entering in, I may have to make the same kind of choices that [Dietrich] Bonhoeffer did?"

Rodriguez assured Beck that he's "not crazy" because "many Christians have had conversations" about this very topic.

"There's a great probability that in our lifetime," Rodriguez stated, "that we may have to be imprisoned and suffer great persecution, prosecution, as a result of our commitment to biblical truth, to Jesus, to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We are there, my friend. That's not hyperbole."

The next election is vital, he continued, because "we may be voting in a Jezebel or an Ahab" who will force Christians "to sacrifice truth on the altar of Baal."

"If people would just look up Baal and Moloch from the Scriptures," Beck responded, "we are worshiping them right now, we just don't know it, just in a different way. You used to have to sacrifice your children; it was promoted to have sexual intercourse and if you got pregnant, you brought the baby to the altar and killed the baby. I mean, it's the same thing. It was worship the god of finance, the god of war and the god of the earth. I mean, we're there!"

Anti-LGBT Activists Mobilize To Protest 'Satanic' Day Of Silence

When the Day of Silence takes place one week from tomorrow, Religious Right groups are urging parents to keep their children home from school if students decide to participate. During the Day of Silence, sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), students take a vow of silence in solidarity with closeted and bullied LGBT youth.

The groups organizing the “DOS Walkout” include the American Family Association, Liberty Counsel, state chapters of Concerned Women for America and the Coalition of African-American Pastors, a front group for the National Organization for Marriage.

They have joined forces with smaller groups such as Scott Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries, Brian Camenker’s MassResistance, Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, Janet Porter’s Faith 2 Action and Linda Harvey’s Mission America in urging parents to “actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes” by “calling your child out of school if your child's school allows students and/or teachers to refuse to speak during instructional time on the Day of Silence.”

Harvey penned a WorldNetDaily column warning that the Day of Silence is a Satanic (and Marxist!) plot to destroy America:

The “Day of Silence” is a stunning example of the widespread indoctrination of youth culture with trashy, deviant behavior masquerading as acceptable conduct. The GLSEN-sponsored pro-homosexual event is a well-developed exercise in cultural Marxism and, I have come to believe, a tragic symbol of the rapid demise of America.

And ironically, it poses as a protest of “bullying.” Satan is laughing as he messes with the minds and bodies of our dear children. This event is a blatant exercise in mental, emotional, physical and spiritual molestation as our children become apologists for sodomy and gender confusion.

Instead of discussing LGBT themes with students, Harvey recommends that school officials simply declare that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people don’t exist:

What if we declared that there are, or shouldn’t be, any such students? That no one is born this way? That these are destructive behaviors that no conference should ever, ever be detailing to our precious kids? And these are identities that no day of silence should ever honor?

She said on her daily radio broadcast yesterday that “it’s a really sad situation when impressionable kids are manipulated” by those who “promote homosexuality and gender confusion.”

“No one, especially young people, should take on this identity and behavior,” she said of homosexuality, while claiming that the event persecutes opponents of gay rights.

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute accused GLSEN of “silencing” conservatives:

"They're exploiting legitimate, anti-bullying sentiment to achieve their ultimate goal of eradicating conservative, moral, social, and political beliefs about homosexuality, or at least silencing them," she adds.

She says parents who keep their children home on that day should tell school administrators they're doing so because schools participating in Day of Silence are allowing classrooms with captive audiences to be politicized.

Ex-gay activist Linda Wall of MassResistance Virginia marked the occasion by posting a three-part series on her website titled “The Day of Silence – ‘We’re Coming After Your Children.’”

In it, she lamented that there are children who are “mentally being raped by this effort” and claimed that it “should be criminal for schools to promote such a behavior that is life threatening.”

As someone who had been in homosexual behavior for almost ten years and was no longer a part of that sinful behavior, my heart went out to the unsuspecting children who were mentally being raped by this effort to normalize a behavior that the three major religions of the world call abominable.

Let’s look at this through Heaven’s eyes. Jesus made it very clear how He felt about harming the children when He said if one harmed one of the little ones who believed in Him, it would be better for them for a millstone to be tied around their neck and thrown in the river.

What must Jesus think about this Day of Silence occurring in the schools? What must He think about Christian parents who send their children to school on that day? What must He think about Christian school teachers who attend school on that day? Each year there is a counter event occurring on The Day of Silence called Day of Silence Walkout.



Homosexuality is one of the numerous sexual perversions spreading through society like an out of control California brush fire. It destroys everything in its path. I know this because I was a part of it until I reached the end of my “rope of homosexuality”. A day did come that I realized I was wrong, I needed forgiveness and I needed the Lord Jesus Christ.



Just a few days ago I received a call from a Massachusetts mother, weeping over her son. She explained that her son became involved in homosexuality in high school after joining the school [endorsed?] gay club (Gay Straight Alliance). When he went to college he took every ‘gender’ course they offered. He is twenty two now and his mom said, “the schools destroyed him”. She is so fearful that his life will be ended early by one of the many diseases associated with his homosexual behavior that her heart is broken.

On April 15th the schools in this country will once again be celebrating the Day of Silence. Why are schools allowing a behavior that shortens one’s life span by 20 years and opens the door to 30 health risks (CDC) to be celebrated in their schools? It is reckless and should be criminal for schools to promote such a behavior that is life threatening.

Joseph Farah: LGBT Community Practices 'Terrorism' Against Conservative Christians

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, who once predicted that “millions of Americans” would flee the country if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, is out with a column today criticizing Georgia Republican Gov. Nathan Deal for vetoing a bill that would have allowed discrimination against LGBT people under the guise of “religious liberty.”

Farah declared that without such a law, “[i]t’s the end of the First Amendment and the constitutional principles that make the country a sanctuary of liberty for 300 years.”

The LGBT community, according to Farah, is practicing “bigotry of the worst kind” and “persecuting” conservative Christians: “This kind of terrorism, and I use that word advisedly, is going to cause a major backlash.”

“Long gone are the days when homosexuals faced discrimination,” he added. “Today, some of them are actively targeted [sic] others with something worse. And they are being actively encouraged by corporate interests and weak-kneed, limp-wristed politicians like Gov. Deal.”

It’s sickening to see this happening in America.

It’s coercion of the worst kind.

It’s bigotry of the worst kind.

It’s the end of the First Amendment and the constitutional principles that make the country a sanctuary of liberty for 300 years.

You cannot establish individual rights by trampling on the rights of others. It’s a simple principle.

In America, everyone’s God-given rights are to be protected. But no one has the right to demand that a bakery make a cake that is morally offensive to the baker. Get a life, for heaven’s sake. Go to another baker who shares your view of the world. Don’t force your will on others.

Isn’t that supposedly what the LGBTQ crowd is all about – doing your own thing?

It’s not the bakers who are breaking down the door of the homosexual couple and persecuting them. It’s the other way around.

And this must stop.

This kind of terrorism, and I use that word advisedly, is going to cause a major backlash.

Long gone are the days when homosexuals faced discrimination. Today, some of them are actively targeted others with something worse. And they are being actively encouraged by corporate interests and weak-kneed, limp-wristed politicians like Gov. Deal.

Frank Pavone: Women Who Have Had Abortions 'Are Already In Prison'

Fr. Frank Pavone, the head of Priests for Life, sent out a press statement today seeking to “correct the record” on reports that Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump had blown off a planned conference call with a group of anti-choice activists he organized yesterday.

Pavone declined to go into details, but said that the Trump campaign did not “break any commitment, promise, appointment, or expectation” and that he has extended to Trump a “standing invitation to dialogue.”

Pavone also addressed Trump’s recent controversial comments that women who have abortions should face “some form of punishment,” which the candidate quickly retracted before taking several additional contradictory positions on abortion rights over the course of a week.

Pavone said that his group believes that the legal punishment for abortion “should be for the abortionist, not the baby's mom,” but claimed that women who “have had abortions are already in prison.” (He meant this metaphorically, although it is also literally true.)

“We don't aim to imprison them, we aim to liberate them from the shame and guilt and wounds abortion brings,” he said.

He added that people like Trump who believe in punishing women for abortion are “much easier to bring to the right position” than those who are pro-choice:

Much has been made of his recent comments about who should be punished for abortion. As for punishing the woman, those who have had abortions are already in prison. As the Pastoral Director of the world's largest ministry of healing after abortion, Rachel's Vineyard, and also of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, by which those who have had abortions speak out about their experiences, I know this very well.

We don't aim to imprison them, we aim to liberate them from the shame and guilt and wounds abortion brings. The punishment should be for the abortionist, not the baby's mom. I have not spoken to Mr. Trump about this, but do look forward to doing so, and I am confident that he will listen to the voices and testimonies of women who suffer from abortion.

But Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have also made comments recently on abortion, including in a Town Hall on Fox News with Bret Baier. Sanders could name no circumstance, and Hillary hardly any, in which they thought it would be OK to make a single abortion illegal. That position is out of step with the American people. And neither of them has corrected or edited those comments.

Those who -- mistakenly -- think there should be a punishment for the women are much easier to bring to the right position than those who take the even more outrageous, offensive, and disastrous position -- like Sanders, Clinton, and the Democratic platform -- that the dismemberment and decapitation of children should continue in a practically unlimited way.

In the former position, there's an acknowledgment that society has to do something about the massive holocaust of children. In the latter position, there is a blatant disregard for the most fundamental right, the right to life.

If Republicans Get Their Wish On The Supreme Court, What Would Trump Or Cruz Do?

By Miranda Blue, Elliot Mincberg and Brian Tashman

Republicans in the Senate, pushed by outside conservative interest groups, are promising to block President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, and arguing that the next president should fill the current vacancy, in the hope that a Republican president will name a conservative ideologue to the bench.

Even if the Senate does confirm Garland, the next president will likely be charged with nominating at least one person to the Supreme Court, and possibly more. Since it looks like either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will win the Republican presidential nomination, looking at both men’s past statements gives us an idea of the kind of justices that Republicans are hoping for.

Trump and Cruz have both signaled that they would appease their base by nominating justices who would shift the court far to the right. Cruz has lamented that some justices nominated by Republican presidents have strayed from the party line on issues like abortion rights and has vowed that he would appoint “rock-ribbed conservatives” who have a “long paper trail” to demonstrate their “conservative” bona fides.

Trump, dogged by worries among movement conservatives that he would betray them when it comes to Supreme Court nominations, has promised to pick any Supreme Court nominees off a list he develops in partnership with the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.

Both candidates have indicated that they would nominate judges who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark abortion rights and marriage equality decisions. Trump, although he appears not to understand the central legal issue of Roe, has said that the decision “can be changed” through the right judicial nominations since “you know, things are put there and are passed but they can be unpassed with time.” Cruz has warned that unless a true conservative like him picks the next justice, the Supreme Court will soon be “mandating unlimited abortion.” Trump has said that Obergefell was wrongly decided, while Cruz has called the decision “fundamentally illegitimate” and said it can be ignored by the president.

Cruz has made the future of the court a centerpiece of his campaign, while Trump may not actually understand how the Supreme Court works. But both have made clear that as president they would work to shift the court even farther to the right on the issues important to social conservatives and to the corporate Right.

What would a court shaped by a President Trump or a President Cruz look like? Looking at a few of the possible judicial nominees whose names have been dropped by candidates or who have been recommended by the Heritage Foundation, we can get an idea of the kind of ideological conservatives whom Republicans are hoping to put on the bench.

William H. Pryor

One possible Supreme Court nominee whom Trump has specifically praised is William H. Pryor, selected by President George W. Bush to be on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Formerly Alabama’s attorney general, Pryor has a history of extreme right-wing activism, severely criticizing not just women’s right to choose under Roe v. Wade but even the constitutionality of the New Deal.

Pryor has called Roe the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” He has claimed that with the New Deal and other measures, the U.S. has “strayed too far in the expansion of the federal government,” and asserted that it “should not be in the business of public education nor the control of street crime.” As a judge, he has helped uphold a restrictive Georgia voter ID law and joined just one other judge on the 11th Circuit in claiming that “racially disparate effects” should not be enough to prove a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, even though the Supreme Court has ruled precisely the opposite.

Pryor came first on a wish list of Supreme Court picks that the Heritage Foundation published shortly after Trump promised to consult them before naming justices.

Diane Sykes

Trump has also repeatedly named Diane Sykes, a Seventh Circuit federal appeals court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Sykes, who previously served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and a trial court, has also won high praise from the Heritage Foundation and from right-wing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

In a series of dissents, Sykes has argued in favor of big business and against consumers and discrimination victims, including cases where she tried to limit corporate liability for product defects and overturn a $1 million damages award, to protect a corporation from having to defend against an employee’s claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and to reverse a $3.5 million bad faith judgment in favor of a Lutheran church against its insurance company.

She showed her anti-reproductive-choice views in providing a lenient sentence to two anti-abortion protesters who had to be forcibly removed from blocking the entrance to a Milwaukee abortion clinic and had previously been arrested 100 times for such offenses; Sykes nevertheless praised them for their “fine character” and expressed “respect” for the “ultimate goals” the blockade “sought to achieve.”

She asserted in dissent that a jury verdict against a criminal defendant should have been upheld even though one of the jurors did not understand English, that a prosecutor should be immune from a claim that he fabricated false evidence that wrongly convicted a man for 17 years, and that a conviction under federal law against someone convicted of domestic violence for possessing firearms should be reversed and that the law itself could well be unconstitutional, in disagreement with all 10 other judges on the court of appeals. She voted in favor of a Wisconsin voter ID law and of a claim by a student group that it should receive state funding and recognition despite its violation of a university rule prohibiting against discrimination based on sexual orientation, an issue on which the Supreme Court reached exactly the opposite conclusion several years later.

Steven Colloton

The third name on Heritage’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees is Judge Steven Colloton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, after previous service for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and as a U.S. attorney.

Colloton has been at the forefront of a number of troubling Eighth Circuit rulings, including writing decisions that reversed an $8.1 million award to whistleblowers who helped bring a defective pricing and kickback claim against a large corporation and a nearly $19 million class action judgment against Tyson Foods for violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. He also joined a ruling making the Eighth Circuit the only appellate court in the country that found that the Obama administration’s efforts to accommodate religious universities and other religious nonprofit objectors to the provision of contraceptive coverage under the ACA was insufficient, an issue now being considered by the Supreme Court.

Even more troubling, Colloton has dissented from a number of Eighth Circuit rulings that have upheld the rights of employees, consumers and others against big business and government agencies. He dissented from a decision giving African-American shoppers the opportunity to prove discrimination claims against a large department store, and then saw his view prevail by one vote when the full Eighth Circuit reheard the case. In another case, he dissented from a decision finding that a city had violated the Voting Rights Act by improperly diluting the voting strength of Native Americans.

Colloton dissented from rulings that gave individuals a chance to prove claims of use of excessive force and, in one case, that a city’s policy to use police dogs to bite and hold suspects without any warning was unconstitutional. In three separate cases, he dissented from decisions that employees should at least get the chance to prove in court that their employers retaliated against them for filing sex harassment, age discrimination, or other discrimination claims. In two more decisions, he argued in dissent that public employees should not have the opportunity to prove that they were retaliated against for speaking out in violation of their First Amendment rights. Yet he also claimed in a dissent that the First Amendment rights of a candidate for state supreme court justice were violated by a state judicial code of conduct restricting solicitation and other campaign activity in order to promote judicial impartiality and ethical conduct by judges. Even the conservative Roberts Court that decided the Citizens United case has agreed that these concerns justify solicitation restrictions in state supreme court elections.

Mike Lee

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is Cruz’s closest ally in the Senate and Cruz has said that Lee “would look good” on the Supreme Court. Lee also made the Heritage Foundation’s shortlist of potential Supreme Court justices.

Lee is a fervent “tenther,” someone who believes the 10th Amendment to the Constitution radically restricts the authority of the federal government. As Jeffrey Rosen wrote in the New York Times Magazine in 2010, “Lee offered glimpses of a truly radical vision of the U.S. Constitution, one that sees the document as divinely inspired and views much of what the federal government currently does as unconstitutional.” Among the areas that Lee has suggested it is unconstitutional for the federal government to be engaged in:

  • Social Security,
  • Medicare and Medicaid,
  • child labor laws,
  • food safety,
  • disaster relief,
  • food stamps,
  • the Violence Against Women Act,
  • and, of course, the Affordable Care Act.

Lee has criticized the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion rights and marriage equality, calling Roe v. Wade an “unconscionable decision” that “defied the spirit and the letter” of the Constitution and responding to Obergefell by introducing a measure that would protect anti-LGBT discrimination.

Ted Cruz

While we don’t expect Cruz to name himself to the Supreme Court, as recently as December Trump was receptive to the idea of extending an olive branch to his main Republican presidential rival in the form of a Supreme Court nomination.

A Justice Cruz would certainly align with Trump’s stated priorities of reversing the Obergefell marriage equality decision and making sure Roe v. Wade is “unpassed.” Cruz, who served as the solicitor general of Texas before his election to the U.S. Senate, has gone so far as to call for the U.S. government to defy Obergefell and to claim that Congress could ban abortion without overturning Roe. Before running for the Senate, Cruz proposed an unconstitutional plan to nullify the Affordable Care Act; last year, he said that a Supreme Court ruling rejecting a clearly meritless challenge to the ACA was the “lawless” work of “rogue justices.” Cruz is known for having politicized the Texas solicitor general’s office, filing dozens of Supreme Court amicus briefs defending conservative positions on hot-button issues such as gun rights and abortion. On the campaign trail, he frequently boasts of his work as an attorney fighting church-state separation.

If Cruz were to become a Supreme Court justice, however, we wonder if he would stick with his idea of subjecting justices to retention elections.

Steve King: GOP Primary Voters Channeling The Spirit Of The Revolutionary War

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who has endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential run, said in an interview with Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon yesterday that the success of “anti-establishment candidates” like Cruz and Donald Trump in the Republican primary shows that Republican voters are channeling the spirit of the American Revolution.

King attributed the success of Cruz and Trump to frustration that Republican leaders in Congress “haven’t followed through on their promises” to repeal the Affordable Care Act, block executive actions on immigration, or call out the president “on his constitutional violations of all kinds.”

He explained that it all started with the Tea Party, which he described as a Christian conservative movement with an energy that “goes back to the pipes of the Revolutionary War” and that is now reflected by the majority of the Republican electorate.

We have watched this within the Tea Party, and they are full-spectrum, conservative Christian, constitutional conservatives for the most part — and they don’t exclude people who are conservatives that happen to be of another faith or religion at all, they’re very welcoming to all people that would join the cause — but that energy and fervor that goes back to that, let’s say goes back to the pipes of the revolutionary war, that’s something that motivates us, we’re rooted in our history, it’s a common historical experience that we have.

And they know that the Declaration and the Constitution were shaped then, and if we fail to adhere to those values, if this is the time to restore and refurbish the pillars of American exceptionalism, that if we fail, our Constitution will be lost. And that’s the 80 percent out there of the Republicans and that’s about the zero percent of the Democrats.

King also explained that he knew he could count on Cruz in 2013 when he held an all-day press conference in protest of the Gang of Eight immigration bill and “for 45 minutes, [Cruz] delivered chapter and verse of everything that I have fought for and believed in with regard to the immigration issue.”

He said that his respect for Cruz was further cemented when he learned that the Texas senator “was raised with the Bible and the Constitution at the kitchen table, side by side, indexed to each other” and that’s when “I knew that it’s in his bones.”

The New Grassley Rule: Justices Must 'Vote In A Way That Advances Conservative Policy'

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, after flip-flopping on his long-held view that the Senate should do its job and confirm the president’s judicial nominees, went to the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon and delivered a rant on the state of the Supreme Court in which he staked out an even more extreme pro-obstruction position, declaring that he only wants to allow conservative policymakers on the court.

Grassley, who as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has refused to so much as hold a hearing on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, told his colleagues that of the justices currently on the court, only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas live up to his standards.

His chief complaint against the current court was that conservative justices sometimes side with their liberal colleagues. He announced on the Senate floor that “there are justices who frequently vote in a conservative way. But some of the justices appointed even by Republicans often don’t vote in a way that advances conservative policy.”

This was very different than the standard set by Grassley during George W. Bush’s presidency, when he told his colleagues:

… I probably had the same concerns about President Clinton and Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg when I voted for them. Regarding the political positions that Justice Ginsburg stood for in her life before coming to be a judge, I wouldn't agree with many of them. But she was totally qualified to be on the Supreme Court, and I voted for her based upon the proposition that Alexander Hamilton said that the purpose of our activities here of confirming people for the courts is basically two. Maybe there is some historian around who will say Grassley has it all wrong, but I think it was, No. 1, to make sure that people who were not qualified did not get on the courts. In other words, only qualified people get appointed to the courts and that political hacks do not get appointed to the courts.

That is somebody who was around when the Constitution was written, and the Federalist Papers, stating those things about our role. So I have a fairly flexible point of view of how I ought to look at people, even those with whom I disagree.

Grassley's pronouncement that it is the job of conservative justices to "vote in a way that advances conservative policy” contradicts the reasons he gave for voting against Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation. He said then:

Our American legal tradition demands that judges not take on the role of policy makers, but that they check their biases, personal preferences and politics at the door of the courthouse. The preservation of our individual freedoms depends on limiting policy-making to legislatures, rather than unelected judges who have life-time appointments.

We now have an addendum to the Grassley Rule: Democratic appointees must “check their biases,” while Republican ones must “vote in a way that advances conservative policy.”

Updated: Trump To Speak To Group That Threatens To Infiltrate Planned Parenthood

Update: Trump reportedly failed to call in to the Priests for Life conference, even further confusing his already confused place in the “pro-life” movement.

Update II: In a statement on Thursday, Pavone said that reports of Trump's snub were "incorrect" and that neither "Mr. Trump nor anyone associated with him or his campaign cancelled a meeting or phone call with pro-life leaders, nor did they break any commitment, promise, appointment, or expectation." 

Add this to the growing list of Donald Trump’s contradictory positions on reproductive rights: Trump, who has repeatedly said that Planned Parenthood does “very good work for millions of women,” is scheduled to speak today to an anti-choice organization that has been threatening to help infiltrate the women’s health provider in order to take it down.

Trump, facing an outcry from anti-abortion activists after taking several contradictory positions on abortion rights over the course of one week, will reportedly address a forum organized by Priests for Life tonight.

The director of Priests for Life, Fr. Frank Pavone, has been on the frontline of the anti-abortion movement for decades and is currently leading an “ongoing campaign of prayer and fasting with the specific intention of ending abortion in the United States and ending the evils perpetrated by Planned Parenthood.”

In January, Pavone helped organized a protest in front of a new Planned Parenthood clinic that is under construction in Washington. The most anticipated speaker at the event was David Daleiden, the activist behind the series of videos falsely smearing Planned Parenthood for supposedly “selling baby parts.” At the protest, Pavone boasted of the work of fellow anti-choice activist Mark Crutcher, who is hoping to train an “army” of activists like Daleiden to infiltrate Planned Parenthood clinics in an effort to dig up dirt about the organization … and to intimidate providers in the process.

“The troubles for Planned Parenthood have only just begun,” Pavone promised at the rally.

He added a “message to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry”:

“Be on your toes because we are in your midst, we are behind your doors, we are in your secret meetings, we are working for you and with you though you know it not, but in His good time the God who reveals all secrets will reveal that too.”

Pavone, like Daleiden, has close ties to the “rescue” movement, the leaders of confrontational protests outside of abortion clinics. The protest that Pavone helped lead in front of the Washington Planned Parenthood clinic in January forced a nearby school to close for two days.

That Trump is attending Pavone’s event in an attempt to make peace with pro-lifers somewhat undermines his praise for Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion-related services.

Ann Coulter Became A Republican In Kindergarten While Defending The Vietnam War

Ann Coulter told radio host Eric Metaxas yesterday that she realized she was a Republican when she was in kindergarten.

After defending Donald Trump’s extramarital affairs, Coulter explained her conservative origin story.

As the story goes, a school librarian was wearing a black armband in protest of the Vietnam War. Then, a young Coulter started debating with the librarian about the conflict in Vietnam, “raised my little paw” and told her that “we made promises to our allies and we need to stand by our allies, or something to that effect.”

The librarian, Coulter reveals, finally removed the armband so she could get through the class without an argument.

“It’s all starting to make sense,” Metaxas joked. “By the end of the hour I will have you psychoanalyzed.”

Frank Gaffney: Ted Cruz Will Save America From Sharia Law

Today on “Breitbart News Daily,” anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist and Ted Cruz adviser Frank Gaffney spoke with host Stephen Bannon about the Texas senator’s support for a police program in New York that monitored Muslims.

Bannon thanked Cruz for praising the NYPD’s Demographic Unit, which Bannon said “was so successful” in combating security threats. However, the Associated Press reported that the NYPD itself acknowledged that the since-abandoned spying program “never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation.”

Gaffney said that the GOP presidential candidate wants to make sure that no neighborhood becomes “dominated by folks who are engaged in a practice that is anti-constitutional and hostile to the values of our country, specifically those who are seeking to impose a program they call Sharia.”

He went on to say that Sharia law is “manifesting itself” in “parts of the United States,” although he didn’t say which U.S. localities he believes have fallen to Islamic rule.

Cruz himself has warned that the imposition of “Sharia law is an enormous problem” in the U.S. and called on the federal government to “empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.”

Ann Coulter Excuses Trump's Extramarital Affair: It Started In A Church!

Ann Coulter, the conservative author who has been campaigning for Donald Trump, whom she believes God is using to save America, stopped by “The Eric Metaxas Show” yesterday to praise the GOP presidential frontrunner for never dabbling in drugs or alcohol.

When Coulter tried to point to Trump’s teetotalism as proof of his personal virtues, Metaxas interjected: “His vice of choice was adultery.”

“Allegedly,” Coulter said with a laugh.

“You know where he met Marla Maples?” Coulter said of Trump’s second wife, who was rumored to be his mistress while he was married to his first wife, Ivana. “You know where he met her? I haven’t really followed his personal story very closely but he met her in church.”

People Magazine reported at the time that Trump and Maples met at a celebrity tennis tournament in Atlantic City in 1985 and by “1987, during services at the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, Trump was secretly romancing Maples as he found ways to temporarily ditch Ivana and their kids.”

“He kept going to some, like, Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, kept meeting Marla Maples there, got to know her as a friend and at some point he apparently went to the pastor and said, ‘I think I’m in trouble, I’m falling in love with this woman,’ and then he did marry her,” Coulter said.

She explained that just as “we have degrees of murder, we can have degrees of adultery.”

Trump, she said, is unlike other politicians who have had “sleazy” affairs.

“There are degrees of murder, there are degrees of adultery,” she said. “It’s not his strongest point, oh well. He’s the only one who’s going to build the wall.”

Modern-Day MLK Glenn Beck Volunteers To Be Punched In The Face By Trump Supporters

Convinced that 2016 will see a repeat of the riots and assassinations of 1968 and that God has been preparing his audience for years for this moment to save America, Glenn Beck is now contemplating going to Cleveland for the Republican convention this summer, where he hopes to become this generation's Martin Luther King Jr. by allowing himself to be punched in the face by angry Donald Trump supporters.

Alarmed by longtime Trump ally Roger Stone's threat to disclose the hotel room numbers of any Republican delegates who try to "steal" the nomination from Trump at the convention, Beck declared on his radio program today that perhaps God has been preparing him and his audience to go to Cleveland and link arms around the hotels in order to protect the delegates by taking a beating.

"This may be what we have been preparing for," Beck stated. "This is maybe what I've been prepared for, this is maybe what I've been hearing, what I'm supposed to do and I haven't understood it ... I do believe that Martin Luther King was right; where there is good versus evil and it is side by side, Americans will always side with good." 

"This is about good versus evil," he said. "I'm wondering if we're supposed to go to Cleveland ourselves and I don't know yet what, ring those hotels, stand someplace arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder and be immovable and let them punch us in the face."

Mike Huckabee Praises Trump's 'Shrewd Plan' To Squeeze Mexico By Punishing Immigrants

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who after dropping out of the GOP presidential race started shilling for his former rival Donald Trump, is praising Trump’s “shrewd plan” to make Mexico pay for a border wall by cutting off the money that immigrants send to their families.

Huckabee told Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg yesterday that Trump’s plan was “shrewd” and that it is “entirely possible” that it would work.

To Trump’s haters, he said: “One thing you have to realize, Donald Trump has been very, very smart in his business career by winning negotiated battles over everything from zoning to construction. You don’t get to be who he is and where he is without having some really, really shrewd, clever ideas about getting what you want.”

Glenn Grothman Joins Other Republicans In Admitting Voter ID Laws Are About Suppressing Democratic Voters

Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman has always stood out, even within the GOP, for his extreme views and statements, so it only makes sense that Sen. Ted Cruz touted the congressman’s endorsement prior to last night’s Wisconsin presidential primary.

At Cruz’s victory party, a Milwaukee television reporter asked Grothman why he thinks the GOP has a chance to win Wisconsin in the general election, since no Republican has won the state since 1984. Grothman replied by arguing that “Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up and now we have voter ID and I think voter ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.”

Grothman’s claim confirmed yet again what voter ID opponents have been saying all along: that GOP lawmakers throughout the country have tried to pass laws making it more difficult to vote in order to reduce the voting share of young people and people of color, who studies have consistently found are less likely to have the required identification documents. In Wisconsin alone, approximately 300,000 voters could be impacted by a new voter ID law, and many observers blamed the law for the long lines seen at the polls on Tuesday.

All of these restrictions, however, are ostensibly to solve the problem of in-person voter fraud, a crime so rare that one study found just 31 possible cases of it out of over a billion ballots cast in primary and general elections since 2000. Conservatives have often pointed to discredited and debunked claims about widespread voter fraud to justify their support for these voter suppression measures.

While serving in the Wisconsin legislature, Grothman was a vocal supporter of voting restrictions, even going so far as to say that such measures would help Mitt Romney carry the state in 2012:

Grothman was the chief sponsor of a bill to limit early voting and prohibit weekend voting in Wisconsin, a direct assault on turnout efforts in Democratic-leaning districts. Grothman also proposed a measure to weaken campaign finance reporting requirements and another to make it more difficult for the elderly to seek assistance in voting, and even tried to end same-day voter registration in the state, which in 2012 had the nation’s second-highest turnout rate.

Last year, Grothman co-sponsored a bill that would weaken local courts that had ruled against voter suppression measures. He supported a state voter ID law in 2012, which he admitted he thought would help Romney “in a close race” and implied that voters without ID probably didn’t want to vote anyway. After the election, he claimed that President Obama and Sen. Tammy Baldwin both won their elections due to fraud.

Grothman isn’t the only conservative who has inadvertently revealed the true purpose of voter ID laws and other restrictive voting measures, such as efforts to limit early voting.

Mike Turzai

Mike Turzai, who is now the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, confidently predicted at a GOP gathering in 2012 that a new restrictive voter ID law would secure Romney’s victory in the swing state.

“Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done,” he said.

John Fund

John Fund, a conservative commentator who has frequently warned of the scourge of voter fraud, once admitted that voter ID laws do little to stop absentee ballot fraud, which he called “the tool of choice amongst fraudsters,” since voter ID laws only impact in-person voting.

“I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to restrict that,” he admitted, before adding: “But the bottom line is, on good government grounds, we have to have both voter ID laws and absentee ballot laws.” (Indeed, while all types of voter fraud are extremely rare, PBS notes that “election law experts say it happens more often through mail-in ballots than people impersonating eligible voters at the polls.”)

Fund once pointed to 19 possible cases of voter fraud out of 421,997 ballots cast in one Ohio county as proof that voter ID laws are necessary. Out of the already small number of cases that authorities were investigating, just two involved alleged in-person voter fraud and neither involved someone impersonating someone else, the supposed target of voter ID laws.

Phyllis Schlafly

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly cheered on another way the GOP has tried to suppress the vote: by reducing voting hours.

Schlafly said in 2014 that Republican lawmakers must restrict early voting opportunities because high voter turnout helps Democrats:

Democrats promote early voting for the same reason they oppose voter ID: because they view early voting as helping their side. In the absurdly long 35-day period of early voting in Ohio in 2012, Democrats racked up perhaps a million-vote advantage over Republicans before Election Day was ever reached. Republicans have been slow to realize how early voting helps the Democrats.

Fran Millar

Georgia state Sen. Fran Millar, like Schlafly, has condemned attempts to increase voter turnout. He was particularly critical of an effort in DeKalb County, the state’s third largest, to open an early voting center in a mall near a predominantly black megachurch and “dominated by African American shoppers.” Millar wrote in 2014:

Now we are to have Sunday voting at South DeKalb Mall just prior to the election. Per Jim Galloway of the [Atlanta Journal-Constitution], this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist . Galloway also points out the Democratic Party thinks this is a wonderful idea – what a surprise. I’m sure Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter are delighted with this blatantly partisan move in DeKalb.

Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state.

He later added: “I would prefer more educated voters than a greater increase in the number of voters.”

Doug Preisse

Doug Preisse, the chairman of the Republican Party in Franklin County, Ohio, the home of Columbus, plainly admitted in the run-up to the 2012 election why he believed the state should curb early voting hours: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter turnout machine.”

The state party chairman later defended Preisse by explaining that his statement wasn’t meant to be on the record.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is currently running for president, signed legislation in 2014 that cut early voting and eliminated same-day registration in his state.”

Jim Greer

In 2012, after stepping down as chairman of the Florida Republican Party, Jim Greer told the Palm Beach Post that GOP strategists are committed to restricting voting access in order to hurt Democrats and simply use the menace of voter fraud as “a marketing ploy.”

Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.

“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.

“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”

Another Republican leader in the state, Wayne Bertsch, told the newspaper that Republicans used voting curbs to undercut the Democratic vote .

Don Yelton

One GOP official in North Carolina, Don Yelton, was quite candid about why he thought the state should enact voter restrictions.

“This law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt,” he said. “If it hurts a bunch of college kids that’s too lazy to get up off their bohunkus and go get a photo ID, so be it. If it hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that wants the government to give them everything, so be it.”

As captured in 2013 in an incredible interview with The Daily Show:

While Yelton eventually resigned from his position while still standing behind his remarks, that wasn’t much of a comfort to the thousands of North Carolina voters who could lose their ability to vote thanks to recent voting restrictions, despite the fact that “North Carolina officials made just two referrals of cases of voter impersonation fraud out of 35 million votes cast in primary and general federal elections between 2000 and 2014.”

But hey, at least he’s honest.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious