Erik Rush hosted right-wing activist Jim Garrow on his radio show this week, where the two once again insisted that Obama administration officials and members of Congress should be killedfortreason.
“They sold us out for the mess of pottage and the twenty-one pieces of silver and in the end we should be able to hang them,” Garrow said. “I say that for Right Wing Watch, because they’re going to now say that we’re asking that we now hang the people who are our representatives in the House and the Senate. Well, yeah! There should be some way for us to pay them back for treason.”
Rush concurred: “That’s what you do with people who commit treason, isn’t it.” He also suggested that leaders be executed by firing squad.
Garrow, ever the con man, then asked listeners to give him $3 million so he can build “Radio Free America,” since President Obama will attempt a nuclear EMP attack on the US that will knock out communications.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is fuming over the demise of the “right-to-discriminate” bill that passed the Arizona state legislature, arguing that Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto is “one more nail in the coffin of the First Amendment.”
In a column today, Farah defends anti-LGBT job discrimination and lambasts “homosexualists” as “part of a religious cult” that unfairly smeared the Arizona legislation in an effort to “kill the First Amendment.”
“Soon the land of the free will no longer be,” he concluded.
The homosexualists, who, whether they admit or not, are part of a religious cult themselves, went to work. Their friends in the media joined in the chorus, proclaiming the law would create Jim Crow-style situations in which a class of people would be denied service at lunch counters. And Jan Brewer vetoed the bill.
The kind of “discrimination” we don’t like is when people are unfairly treated on the basis of their race, ethnicity or religion. That’s what this bill sought to do. But is it wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their behavior? Let’s say a male job applicant wearing a dress comes for an interview at your office. Should you be forced to weigh his credentials and experience on an equal basis with others who are dressed more conventionally?
I don’t think so.
On almost a daily basis now we’re seeing one more nail in the coffin of the First Amendment.
Soon the land of the free will no longer be.
For heaven’s sake, if you want a wedding cake with two men on the top layer, hire a baker who thinks it’s cute. Don’t pick the one with the fish on the window. And don’t kill the First Amendment over it.
Alan Keyes writes today in WorldNetDaily that Congress must focus on “impeaching and removing Obama and his cohorts from office” in order to stop “his destructive, dictatorial intentions.”
Keyes, who ran against Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, writes that Obama is imposing “shackles of the mind” that “have been the mainstay of almost every tyrannical regime in human history.” He adds that Americans must “overcome the effects of the political AIDS virus” that Obama is using to create “tyranny.”
A basis still exists for restoring the political initiative of the American people so as to disrupt this elitist collusion and restore the people to their proper position as the arbiters of political power under the U.S. Constitution. In a multitude of ways, Barack Obama has made clear his destructive, dictatorial intentions. Many Americans have been awakened to the truth I saw early on, that his idea of change involves destroying America’s liberty. Quietly a tide is rising in favor of taking the necessary constitutional steps to remove the danger by impeaching and removing Obama and his cohorts from office. But since the GOP’s leadership has been and is acting in collusion with Obama, they refuse to provide a rallying point for this sentiment.
But with today’s instruments of communication and mutual encouragement, people can organize amongst themselves with relative ease. This is the idea behind the Pledge to Impeach effort. A growing number of senators and congressional representatives are speaking out against Obama’s lawlessness; his abuse of executive power; his all too obvious dictatorial predilections. But they will not be emboldened to act without a strong, visible public demand for action.
Nothing stands in your way except the shackles of the mind that are, in the end, the most effective bonds of tyranny. As I have confirmed from hard experience, even though they are largely invisible, these shackles are of such adamantine strength that they have been the mainstay of almost every tyrannical regime in human history. The American mind was once peculiarly immune to them, on any large scale. Is there left in us some vestige of that immunity? Will it prove strong enough to overcome the effects of the political AIDS virus that has left our polity prey to opportunistic, lawless ambition and greed?
The fifth anniversary of the Tea Party gives us an opportunity to look back not only at the many myths surrounding the movement, but also at what it has to show for its five years of political nihilism:
Many Tea Party activists seemed to be under the delusion that the GOP was pummeled in the 2012 election because Republican candidates weren’t conservative enough, and that voters really want more of their brand of uncompromising, ultraconservative, ideological politics. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz gave them just that when he convinced Republican congressional leaders to go along with him in forcing a government shutdown over the health care reform law.
The GOP and the Tea Party suffered a massivebacklash from the public, but Cruz fixed things by “unskewing” the polls and insisting that the GOP was actually winning the shutdown battle.
Of course, Republicans ended up getting nothing out of the shutdown, and Cruz is now desperately trying to claim that it was actually Obama and Senate Democrats who were responsible for it.
While GOP leaders have vowed not to follow the insane policy anymore, the Tea Party still has two debt limit crises to “celebrate,” and a third if they gettheirway.
Tea Party-backed candidates such as Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell and Richard Mourdock are best known for their spectacular ability to lose winnable races, not to mention their high entertainment value. But we shouldn’t be surprised that Tea Party activists are drawn to such candidates, as many take after more successful Tea Party leaders like Cruz and Michele Bachmann.
Just in case you thought Republicans had learned their lesson about fringy Tea Party candidates, Glenn Beck spent last year trying to encourage extremist figures including Rep. Louie Gohmert and pseudo-historian David Barton to take on incumbent Sen. John Cornyn of Texas in this year’s Republican primary. Ultimately, the equally far-right congressman Steve Stockman got in the race.
Despite much talk about “establishment” Republicans fighting back against Tea Party insurgents, very few Tea Party congressmen are facing primary challengers. After the 2013 shutdown and debt fights, business groups like the Chamber of Commerce announced that they would take on the Tea Party…but they made the same threat after the 2011 debt limit crisis, and ended up funding Tea Party-aligned Republicans anyway.
“Despite making statements and sending letters voicing their concern, the Chamber has failed to spend a single penny in advocacy against the Tea Party hostage-takers,” Lee Fang notes. “[A]fter helping the Tea Party seize the House and several governors’ mansions during the midterms, business groups pumped funds into an effort to gerrymander the Tea Party into permanent rule.”
Hardline activists have also taken over groups such as Heritage Foundation and empowered new organizations such as FreedomWorks, Senate Conservatives Fund and The Madison Project, who are now backing Tea Party challengers in GOP Senate primaries states like Kentucky, Kansas and Mississippi.
While there is a lot of fuss about fired aides and ad firms as signs of the GOP civil war, in the end Republicans have embraced most of the Tea Party’s agenda — if not their tactics — and the many Tea Party congressmen from deep red districts seem to be here to stay.
5)Obama’s Second Term
While the Tea Party is far from the only factor that helped President Obama win re-election, the Tea Party — along with their close allies in the Religious Right, talk radio and Fox News — moved the GOP and its leaders towards unpopular and extreme positions on issues ranging from immigration to Medicare.
Lively didn’t discuss this supposed gay-demonic conspiracy during his appearance today on NPR, but he didn’t exactly tone down his rhetoric either.
Speaking with NPR’s Michel Martin, Lively defended Uganda’s harsh new anti-gay law, arguing that the “gay movement has really brought this on themselves” and that the law is necessary to stop pedophiles.
When confronted with remarks made by a gay Ugandan activist Frank Mugisha about how anti-gay bias affects his daily life, Lively insisted that Mugisha is the real victim.
It looks like Matt Barber's new BarbWire news site has taken a page out of the American Family Association's playbook and started rewording headlines from Associated Press articles that it runs in order to better promote its right-wing, anti-gay agenda.
For instance, an AP article reporting that a federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize gay marriages that were performed in other states ran on most news websites under the headline "Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents."
Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values, who has called this week’s marriage equality ruling in Texas a “hollow victory,” yesterday called it “one of the most egregious forms of judicial activism of our generation.” “The federal judiciary is out of control,” Saenz told Family Research Council head Tony Perkins on yesterday’s edition of Washington Watch.
He promised that there would be an “epic battle” to defeat marriage equality in Texas.
Similarly irate, Perkins said that judges and the Obama administration believe they can “tear away at the foundation of the rule of law” when it comes to the issue of marriage equality, which he warned will lead to “anarchy” and a “breakdown of society altogether.”
In an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday about his call for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder, pastor William Owens insisted that President Obama is “anti-Christian” and the worst president in at least the last 75 years.
“We elected the wrong black president,” Owens said. “His strategy was, ‘If I get the Catholic Church, I can get all the churches because of their size; let’s knock them off, we’ll get all of them.’ He’s anti-Christian, he stands up for no Christian values whatsoever.”
Owens told Mefferd that he’s refraining from calling for the impeachment and removal of President Obama because he wants the president to leave a legacy of backing marriage equality and being the worst president ever: “Since he took this bold position and he wants to leave a legacy, we’re gonna see that he does leave a legacy, that he does leave the legacy that he did more to demoralize this country than anybody, any president, any administration since I’ve been here and I’m seventy-five years old.”
On today's "WallBuilders Live" radio program, David Barton responded to a question from a listener asking if he thought that President Obama might declare a state of emergency so that he could cancel the 2016 elections and serve a third term in office.
Barton said that he didn't think that such a scenario was very likely, but used the question to assert that nobody voiced this sort of concern about Presidents Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. The fact that people are asking such questions now, Barton said, is a sign that Obama is "lawless."
"It's interesting that this is the question that is asked by people when they find their presidents to be lawless," Barton declared. "If you have a president who is not lawless, you don't ask the question. You know that Ronald Reagan is not going to do a third term; he followed the Constitution. You know that George Bush, you may not like all that he did but he stayed with the Constitution in a very public way ... Nobody debated that he was going to change the Constitution for himself, for his own benefit. The fact that you have this question indicates something of the nature of the presidents with whom you're dealing ... Asking the question is the character of the leader who is in office at the time":
The Treasury Department warned in the midst of last year’s government shutdown [PDF]: “A default would be unprecedented and has the potential to be catastrophic: credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse…. Because the debt ceiling impasse contributed to the financial market disruptions, reduced confidence and increased uncertainty, the economic expansion was no doubt weaker than it otherwise would have been.”
One problem might be that Tea Party leaders seem to have no clue what they are talking about.
Tea Party politicians dismissed concerns about failing to raise the debt limit — with one Tea Party-aligned congressman arguing that such a move would help the economy — and didn’t seem to grasp the fact that “raising the debt ceiling simply lets Treasury borrow the money it needs to pay all U.S. bills and other legal obligations in full and on time” and isn’t a “license to spend more.”
Similarly, a Bloomberg News poll found that 93 percent of Tea Party Republicans believe the federal budget deficit is growing, even while it is rapidly shrinking.
Myth #2: Tea Party Wants Entitlement Cuts
We keep hearing about how the Tea Party will lead a push to cut entitlement programs, but Tea Party members are disproportionately entitlement program benefactors. A New York Times/CBS poll found that Tea Party members are more likely than others to claim that they or a family member receives Social Security benefits or is covered by Medicaid, and 62 percent believe “the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare [are] worth the costs of those programs.”
According to a McClatchy-Marist poll, 76 percent of Tea Party supporters oppose Social Security and Medicare cuts while 70 percent said they were against cuts to Medicaid.
“[W]hat many of the Tea Party candidates have found is that when push comes to shove, their backers want to protect their entitlements as much as the next guy,” writes Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation. “In fact, much of the fury of the Tea Partiers against government stimulus and bailouts might have less to do with any principled belief in the limits of government and more to do with fear of what this will do to their own entitlements.”
As Alex Seitz-Wald reported: “We know that in fact the IRS targeted lots of different kinds of groups, not just conservative ones; that the only organizations whose tax-exempt statuses were actually denied were progressive ones; that many of the targeted conservative groups legitimately crossed the line; that the IG’s report was limited to only Tea Party groups at congressional Republicans’ request; and that the White House was in no way involved in the targeting and didn’t even know about it until shortly before the public did. In short, the entire scandal narrative was a fiction.”
Many Tea Party leaders -- including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint and Glenn Beck -- are also favorites of the Religious Right. The GOP victories in the 2010 midterm election brought about what the Daily Beast called “one of the most religiously conservative [House of Representatives] in recent history” and Republican politicians in Congress and state legislatures immediately pursued a crackdown on abortion rights.
Pew found that just as “the Tea Party is much more Republican and conservative than the public as a whole… Tea Party supporters also tend to take socially conservative positions on abortion and same-sex marriage.” Tea Party activists oppose marriage equality and abortion rights at rates nearly identical to Republicans at large, and are just as likely to cite religion as the driving force on their stances on such issues.
A 2013 American Values survey observed that the majority of Tea Party activists “identify with the Christian Right,” and a study by political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell found Tea Party members to be “disproportionately social conservatives” with a penchant for the “overt use of religious language and imagery.” “It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity,” they added.
Myth #5: Tea Party Has Wide Popularity
Tea Party politicians like to fashion themselves as champions of a broadly popular movement that has supporters across partisan lines. Bachmann thinks the Tea Party represents “virtually 90 percent of America” and a poll of Tea Party supporters found that 84 percent agree that “the views of the people involved in the Tea Party movement generally reflect the views of most Americans.” Beck even believes that most Americans are in the Tea Party and to the right of the GOP.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) said this week that he will join efforts to impeach of Attorney General Eric Holder over his stance on marriage equality, citing a petition by the Coalition of African-American Pastors and accusing Holder of trying to “thwart” the Constitution by not defending the Defense of Marriage Act.
Of course, the Obama administration would be far from the first administration to decline to defend an unconstitutional law, with Republicans and Democrats alike doing the same in the past.
Several Republicans have already proposed a resolution seeking Holder’s impeachment.
“More lawlessness from a lawless administration; Attorney General Holder should not advise other attorneys general to violate their oaths of office. These elected officials have a duty and a solemn obligation to defend their states’ laws and Constitution - not allow ideology and politics to cloud their legal decisions. Whatever one’s personal opinions on the Second Amendment, the Internal Revenue Service, controlled substances, the freedom of the press, or even marriage, an Attorney General simply can’t pick and choose the laws or parts of the Constitution he or she would like to defend.
“In recent years, I have grown increasingly concerned by Holder’s actions – and those of others in the Obama Administration - to disregard the laws and the Constitution they have sworn to defend. I am not alone in these concerns. Dozens of my colleagues have called upon Holder to resign. Dozens have asked the President to remove Holder from office. Additionally, on June 28, 2012, 255 members of the U.S. House of Representatives held Mr. Holder in Contempt of Congress. It is the Attorney General’s job to uphold the Constitution and the law - not ignore it, nor rewrite it, nor encourage other attorneys general to thwart it.
“This has gone on far too long. The lawlessness at the Department of Justice - of this Administration - must end now. That is why I am announcing today my co-sponsorship of H.Res. 411, which introduces five articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.”
David Barton recently spoke at Victory Family Church in Decatur, Texas where he delivered his standard presentation about how every single aspect of American life and society ought to be governed according to the Bible, and that includes putting an end to things like "gender bender" days at elementary schools because "the Bible says you absolutely cannot do that."
"The Bible explicitly condemns cross-dressing," Barton said. "That's not just a cute little thing that happened at school, that's a biblically-addressed issue":
Trinity Broadcasting Network host Kim Clement says that God is raising up a leader who will “kill the giant of socialism” and “the giant of human secularism.”
In a performance on Saturday, the musician/self-proclaimed prophet told his audience that this godly politician will come up against Satan, who is “doing everything in his power to put a witch in the White House” with a “Jezebel” spirit.
WASHINGTON – In response to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to veto Senate Bill 1062, a measure that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBT customers, People For the American Way president Michael Keegan released the following statement:
“Almost four years after Arizona shocked the country with its anti-immigrant ‘show me your papers’ law, yesterday Governor Brewer avoided making her state the national leader, once again, in state-sponsored discrimination.
“In Arizona and across the country, Americans can see through the Right’s continued attempts to cloak anti-gay bigotry in the language of First Amendment rights. We hope that the pushback Arizona received this week will be a message, loud and clear, to the states with similar bills pending. Americans don’t want to live in a country where businesses have free rein to post a ‘No Gays’ sign.”
In the past week, tens of thousands of PFAW members and activists spoke out and urged Governor Brewer to veto the bill.
On Wednesday, the second anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s death, PFAW’s Director of Outreach and Public Engagement Diallo Brooks joined Thom Hartmann on The Big Picture to discuss how the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has helped promote Stand Your Ground laws in states across the country.
Brooks highlighted how the secretive organization fueled by wealthy right-wing donors and corporations pushes legislation that hurts real people:
Concerned Women for America senior fellow Janice Shaw Crouse is once again saying that she is furious that President Obama would dare criticize the harsh Ugandan law that makes being gay a crime punishable with life imprisonment.
In a statement today, Crouse tried to claim that she doesn’t necessarily support the Ugandan law, she just thinks that people are wrong to oppose it.
She writes that Obama’s denunciation of the anti-gay law shows that he only cares about “special interest campaigns” and “special rights, not human rights,” and represents “an affront, even a mockery, of those Judeo-Christian values that have been the foundation of virtually all Western civilizations across time and cultures.”
Last week, I was called by a reporter who said he wanted to interview me about President Obama’s statement that “homosexuality is a human right.” He said that the president’s recent comments about the situation in Uganda elevated homosexuality to the level of a “human right” or a “universal fundamental freedom.” My remarks were simply that the president of the United States has the responsibility to represent the entire nation. When he states his personal beliefs and values and presents those as representative of the United States of America, the full force of his office is behind those statements. It is clear that the beliefs of the president about “human rights” are controversial in his own country and offensive to many both in the U.S. and abroad, and serve to promote the political homosexual agenda worldwide. Claiming that homosexuality is a “human right” is an affront,¬¬ even a mockery, of¬¬ those Judeo-Christian values that have been the foundation of virtually all Western civilizations across time and cultures.
That critique is not an endorsement of Ugandan law. Concerned Women for America (CWA) supports the human rights of everyone, including homosexuals. The president should have criticized brutality (though he has not done that in some other notable international incidents) without embracing and promoting the political agenda of a relatively small special interest group.
The basic principles of religious liberty and freedom of speech are the context in which I criticized Mr. Obama. In this respect, Mr. Obama has been “arrogant,” and his actions have constituted “cultural imperialism.” One of Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) core issues is “national sovereignty,” and we defend the sovereignty of our own country, as well as that of other nations. We are an American organization, and our involvement in other nations is solely on the issue of national sovereignty and the other core issues (like Family and Life) that we share with our international colleagues. We analyze the statements of public officials, including the president, as they touch on our core issues; we have suggested that the president should forcefully condemn nations that violate the civil rights of homosexuals and women, but that approach is significantly different from the president’s endorsing and promoting the special interest campaigns of “homosexual rights” and “women’s rights” activists — campaigns that are political in nature and ask for approval rather than acceptance, that ask for special rights, not human rights.
Scott Lively said yesterday that a global Satanic “conspiracy” is “homosexualizing the world” and only a “revolution” of gay rights opponents can stop it.
In an interview with Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd, Lively insisted that gay rights victories are “proof of the conspiracy, we’re talking about the elites represented in the federal judiciary, across the top strata of our society — I don’t think there is really much difference between the Republicans and Democrats at that level — and they are imposing a global socialist agenda on all of us.”
“These federal judges are acting against all legal precedent in favor of this brand new, invented category of human rights; in four thousand years of human rights jurisprudence, sodomy has never been recognized as a human right,” Lively said. “Yet now, not only is it recognized as a human right but it’s trumping legitimate human rights like religious freedom and family values. Nothing short of a revolution is going to stop this.”
“It’s just astonishing how rapidly they are proceeding in homosexualizing the whole world,” he lamented.
Lively called the gay rights movement a demonic push to bring about the Last Days: “This is the moral issue of the End Times, it’s clearly a spiritual phenomenon, in the space of just fifty years this movement has gone from being illegal — homosexuality, homosexual sodomy was illegal in every country of the world except for Sweden which legalized it in in 1938 — and now this tiny group of people, 1 to 2 percent of the population, has more power in the legislatures and the courtrooms of the world than the Christian church does.”
“The most powerful countries of the world have almost completely been given over to the principalities behind this agenda,” Lively added. “Christians really need to recognize that this is spiritual warfare and it cuts right to the heart of what it means to be a human being created in the image of God.”
Lively added that the gay rights movement has moved the world into an “age of apostasy” and anti-gay activists must be ready to “give up our lives if necessary.”
He later called on activists to speak “into the face of the demons that are grabbing a hold of our society and tearing it down” and not to listen to “weenies“ who have fallen for “the lie of the pit of Hell.”
The pastor also praised Uganda’s president for “standing up for the truth” against “the powers of the earth” by signing his country’s new draconian anti-gay law.
Robert Jeffress was interviewed yesterday about the decision by a federal judge striking down Texas' same-sex marriage ban. Not surprisingly, he did not agree with the ruling, declaring that there is no such thing as a constitutional right to marry, which is why siblings are not allow to marry one another.
It was God who created the institution of marriage to be between one man and one woman, Jeffress stated, warning that America will not survive if it continues to condone "what God has condemned."
"As an American," he said, "I also realize that no nation can survive that condones what God has condemned. And God has condemned homosexuality, just like he does adultery or per-marital sex, as being wrong and, as a nation, we cannot be blessed by God if we're rejecting God":
Oddly, we don't see a lot of Religious Right activists leading efforts to outlaw adultery and per-marital sex or make it legal to discriminate against people on such grounds.
Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress warned today that churches that don’t embrace right-wing politics are going to “surrender the control and the direction of this country to the godless, immoral infidels who hate God.”
He made the remarks at a National Religious Broadcasters convention press conference that also featured Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and pastor Rafael Cruz, the father of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. During the press conference, Paul Stanley of the Christian Post asked Jeffress about pastor John MacArthur, a conservative megachurch pastor who at times has criticized the Religious Right.
Jeffress responded that MacArthur’s views would have silenced pastors protesting Nazism: “It’s that kind of thinking among German pastors that allowed for the Holocaust. I would ask anybody who would use that reasoning: ‘Then you would’ve stayed quiet while Adolf Hitler was slaughtering the Jewish people, six million of them?’”
Jeffress also predicted that soon all same-sex marriage bans will fall and as a result, the government will implement “hate speech” laws that would take away the free speech rights of gay rights opponents and put people in jail.
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty criticized a similar bill in Georgia that the group warned would turn religion into “an automatic trump card.”
The Mississippi ACLU said the bill may even go farther than the legislation passed in Arizona: “We are worried that this bill is broader than the Arizona bill. The bill would allow the government finding of discrimination by defining ‘burden’ to include withholding government benefits.”
Senate Bill 2681, the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, does not restore or expand religious freedom. It is simply a license to discriminate.
-In its current form, this law could allow people to argue that their religious beliefs exempt them from complying with laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, and national origin.
-This law would give private individuals and businesses a free pass to discriminate. This will allow businesses to deny basic services under the guise of religious freedom.
-This law would not protect against government funding of discrimination. By defining “burden” to include withholding of government benefits, religious organizations and individuals may use the statute to challenge exclusion from governmental programs. This could result in government funding of not only religious ends and activities, but also discrimination.
-This bill would do nothing more than allow the use of religion to discriminate and burden hardworking businesses with the threat of frivolous lawsuits.