The New York Times came out with a story yesterday about why ISIS leaders are hoping that the U.S. sends in troops to battle them in order to fulfill their prophecy of waging an apocalyptic showdown with American forces in Syria, where the true forces of Islam will defeat Western crusaders.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum may want to read the report and similarobservations from other ISIS experts, as he told the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins on his “Washington Watch” program yesterday that ISIS is glad that President Obama opposes sending ground troops into Syria and that he has denied that the terrorist group represents Muslims at large.
The GOP presidential candidate said that the U.S. should in fact “identify and accept the fact” that ISIS is “an Islamic Sunni caliphate” and then “invade their land.”
He went on to say that ISIS is not perverting the Islamic faith but “really is an orthodox interpretation of Islam.”
Today on “The 700 Club,” televangelist Pat Robertson said that people should not view Islam as a religious faith since it is a “political system masquerading as a religion” and is really “an aggressive, military, disciplined” group “bent on world domination.”
“It isn’t a ‘religion’ as such,” he said, claiming that unlike Christianity, Islam is obsessed with violently converting people throughout the world.
“We’re not dealing with a religion,” Robertson continued. “People say, ‘Oh, it’s just terrible, you shouldn’t discriminate one religion versus the other.’ Well, yes you can if one religion is actually a political system that is intent on dominating you and killing you. Christianity isn’t intent on dominating and killing you, it just isn’t.”
He said more people would agree with him once we start “telling it like it is.”
In a column for the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal on Sunday, American Family Association president Tim Wildmon speculated that a large number of Americans believe that President Obama is secretly a Muslim because “he is always so sensitive about criticism of Islam” and “clearly … identifies more with Islam than any other religion ‘for all practical purposes.’” This, Wildmon wrote, explains why the president “defends Islam any chance he gets.”
Wildmon went on to warn readers to be wary of their Muslim neighbors because terrorists “often blend into western countries well because an essential part of jihad is to deceive the infidels into believing you are a ‘nice guy’ until the day you are ready to strike.”
Given this strategy, he asked, “how in the world are Americans supposed to tell the good Muslims from the bad Muslims?”
According to a September CNN poll, 29 percent of the general American public believes that he is. Every time there is an act of Islamic jihad like in San Bernardino, California, this week and Obama pretends there is no connection to Islam and terrorism it only causes more people to consider this possibility.
Why he is always so sensitive about criticism of Islam? My view is clearly Obama identifies more with Islam than any other religion “for all practical purposes.” This would explain why he defends Islam any chance he gets. In fact, there were news reports on Thursday that his administration was putting pressure on the FBI not to label what happened in California “terrorism” despite all the evidence mounting that points to the fact that it was. Evidence like building bombs in their garage, subscribing to jihadi materials, etc.
It bears repeating that while all Muslims are not terrorists, almost without exception all the terrorists are Muslims. Why is that? There is rarely any context given to what is going on with the jihad movement wreaking havoc around the world. The news media just moves from one attack to the next. Many westerners are ignorant of why these people continue to do what they do. And if they are indeed perverting Islam – and Obama and others say that they are – then tell us exactly how and call on the true Islamic leaders and countries of the world to please stand up and join those of us trying to defeat these “radicals.” I’ve not heard Obama one time call for Muslim leaders to take the lead on confronting this ideology that has “hijacked” their religion.
Those committed to Islamic jihad are not crazy people and they often blend into western countries well because an essential part of jihad is to deceive the infidels into believing you are a “nice guy” until the day you are ready to strike. That is what happened with Farook. In fact, the L.A. Times interviewed some who worked with him and here is what they wrote: “Co-workers told The Times they were shocked to hear Farook’s name linked to the shooting. Two who were in the restroom when the bullets began to fly said he was quiet and polite, with no obvious grudges.” They also described him as “very religious.”
So given how these jihadists operate, as we saw in Boston, Chattanooga and other places – how in the world are Americans supposed to tell the good Muslims from the bad Muslims?
Maybe President Obama will call a conference of world-wide leaders to condemn jihad and hold the event in Mecca. He just did that in Paris to combat climate change. Maybe he will do that and rally the Islamic world to fight this jihadi ideology within its own societies. Yeah. Maybe…
Gaffney, like Trump, promotes birther conspiracy theories along with bizarre claims that Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law advocates are taking over the U.S. government and both political parties, touted his poll as “an insight into how the Muslims that we polled felt and it’s worrisome.”
“Fortunately, Donald Trump, like you, I’m not endorsing him, I’m not speaking of his fitness, I’m just saying that in response to events that have taken place in this country and elsewhere in recent months has recognized what I think most Americans recognize, that we don’t actually want more jihadists in this country,” he said, insisting that Americans “don’t think augmenting them willy-nilly in the name of some kind of sense that they are entitled to come here is a sound policy.”
He continued: “We have called for a moratorium on the introduction of still more Muslims, particularly from countries with a tradition of Islamic supremacism.”
Gaffney wasn’t alone. Fox News pundit Todd Starnes also defend the GOP presidential front-runner plan:
So the answer is to allow unfettered Muslim immigration — and just pray nothing happens?
Santorum told Stephen Bannon on the SiriusXM program “Breitbart News Daily” this morning that he has “proposed actual concrete things in our immigration law that would have not the effect of banning all Muslims, but a lot of them.”
“We start changing our immigration laws, we can deal with this problem,” he said. “I think the way Trump has proposed it, it may have some constitutional infirmity. We can do it in a more practical way than the way that Donald Trump is suggesting.”
Santorum also told Bannon that while he is considered an “enemy of ISIS,” the terrorist group doesn’t “call President Obama an enemy” because he “creates the false narrative which allows ISIS to survive.”
“The reason they called me an enemy was because I identified them accurately and said why they had to be defeated, just like I explained to you,” he said. “To them, that made me an enemy, because I was someone out there telling the truth which will, if the American public and the West would believe it, would lead to the destruction of ISIS. They don’t call President Obama an enemy because President Obama creates the obfuscation, creates the false narrative which allows ISIS to survive.”
“They’re very happy that the president’s out there trying to convince the Muslim world that they’re illegitimate,” he added.
The lawmaker, Al Baldasaro, also said the chairwoman of the state’s Republican Party should resign for criticizing Trump’s remarks, reported WMUR:
State Republican Party chairwoman Jennifer Horn said Monday that Donald Trump’s call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States is “un-American.”
But two top Trump supporters in New Hampshire said the controversial Republican presidential frontrunner is right.
State Reps. Al Baldasaro of Londonderry and Steve Stepanek of Amherst said Horn should resign her post for criticizing Trump because she is not being neutral in the presidential primary.
But Baldasaro, a co-chair of Trump’s state veterans coalition, said Trump is “100 percent right” and Horn is wrong.
“What he’s saying is no different than the situation during World War II, when we put the Japanese in camps,” Baldasaro, a Marine veteran, said. “The people who attacked innocent people in Paris came through open borders. From a military mind standpoint, all Donald Trump is saying is to do what needs to be done until we get a handle on how to do background checks.”
Baldasaro said a petition is being circulated among some New Hampshire Republicans to convene a special Republican State Committee meeting to call on Horn to resign or to try to remove her from office. He said he signed a such a petition on Monday night.
“She needs to resign because she has no clue,” Baldasaro said. “She’s my friend, but I have to separate that from the Republican Party.”
Trump himself said that he wouldn’t have ruled out supporting internment camps for Japanese-Americans had he been around at the time:
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump told TIME that he does not know whether he would have supported or opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
“I would have had to be there at the time to tell you, to give you a proper answer,” he said during a recent interview in his office in New York City. “I certainly hate the concept of it. But I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.”
Trump added that he believes wartime sometimes requires difficult choices. “It’s a tough thing. It’s tough,” he said. “But you know war is tough. And winning is tough. We don’t win anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We don’t win wars anymore. We’re not a strong country anymore. We’re just so off.”
Pressed numerous times during an appearance Monday morning on MSNBC to say whether or not the internment violated American values, Trump refused to respond.
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid is calling upon Congress to impeach President Obama and remove him from office on the grounds that he is currently mentally incompetent due to excessive use of marijuana when he was younger.
In a piece logically titled "Is Our Stoner President Mentally Impaired?," Kincaid asserts that Congress must begin the process of "removing Obama from office because of cognitive impairment" as "he is so affected by previous drug use that he is just not capable of comprehending reality":
Obama is, presumably, not smoking marijuana in the White House. But he talks and acts as if he is still under the influence. Indeed, the long-term impact of the weed on his intellectual processes is a subject of concern. David Maraniss, author of a book on Obama, notes that the word “choom,” taken from “Choom Gang,” means to smoke marijuana. He said Obama “started a few pot-smoking trends,” suggesting the future president understood ways to make the “high” from the drug even more powerful and lasting. One method they used was to smoke dope in a car and then inhale or suck in what was left of the smoke in the ceiling of the car.
What Maraniss leaves out of his book on Obama is the role played by Obama’s mentor, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, another dope smoker who probably gave the young Barry some tips on inhaling the drug for full effect. Davis, a pedophile, probably also taught young Barry about experimenting with sex.
It is worth recalling that when he ran for office, Obama refused to release his complete medical records. Instead, a sympathetic doctor merely released a 276-word “summary,” claiming he was in excellent health.
If Congress doesn’t want to find Obama guilty of having an ideology that explains his sympathy for radical Islam and disqualifies his continued service as President, the only alternative is to diagnose his medical condition with public hearings and conclude that he has lost touch with reality and is mentally ill. A Congressional Research Service study cites evidence that section four of the 25th amendment is designed for “a sick president who refuses or is unable to confront his disability,” or “a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside.”
This section is complicated, but it explicitly allows for Congress to establish a committee or another body to review the president’s disability and recommend his removal from office. It refers to several ways the president can be removed, including through a body “as Congress may by law provide.” This would begin the process of congressional action.
The main objection will be that using Obama’s dope-smoking days against him is going back too far in his life to justify his removal from office. But many observers see that something is seriously wrong with this President’s approach to his job. Blaming his performance on the lingering effects of the heavy use of illegal drugs makes as much sense as any other explanation at this point.
Indeed, with impeachment on ideological grounds off the table, it is within the jurisdiction of Congress to decide that Obama has done enough damage to the nation and the world and that he must go. Since Obama seems to be AWOL in the War on Terror, dereliction of duty by Congress in this case would only increase the danger and risk to the nation.
Conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones doubled down today on his claim that the San Bernardino shooting was a false flag attack, speaking with fellow conspiracy theorist Steve Pieczenik about why they believe the tragedy was an Obama administration plot to push gun control.
Pieczenik said it was “absolutely impossible” for shooter Tashfeen Malik to have carried out the attack, claiming that the attack, like the Sandy Hook school shooting, was staged in order to advance “gun control for Obama.”
“His last wish and dying wish, may well be dying wish, is that we have gun control in the United States,” Pieczenik said of President Obama, accusing the president of committing “criminal acts against the United States.”
He continued: “We do not have one year left to live out this administration.”
Pieczenik went on to say that the shooting was designed to deflect attention from the controversy surrounding the delayed release of the Laquan McDonald shooting video, claiming that Obama takes orders from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
“What we need to do is to initiate a referendum where we will ask the president to step down,” he said. “I do not want an assassination, what I want is a referendum where the people say we can no longer wait for a year, we do not want anyone else and we will want to nominate, by choice, Trump. Either we have the elections now or we don’t have the elections, we do not have one more year.”
He even claimed that ISIS leaders work for the U.S. government while “we create the false flags.” Jones added that the administration “brought in” terrorists to “have them attack us and then take our guns and then restrict internet free speech.”
Less happy about the development were the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and the Center for Military Readiness’ Elaine Donnelly, who spoke about the policy change on Gaffney’s “Secure Freedom Radio” program on Friday.
Gaffney added that such developments are “so clearly at odds with the concepts that are absolutely central to the military’s whole raison d’etre, and yet that’s being thrown to the side in favor of gender quotas and lower standards and otherwise accommodating the ‘Lean In’ agenda.”
“There will be a price to pay,” Donnelly agreed. “Women will pay the price, unfortunately. Men will as well. Our national security will suffer as a result of this decision.”
Donald Trump has recently been praisingRussian President Vladimir Putin for his military intervention in Syria, claiming that he got to know Putin while filming a “60 Minutes” segment for which the two gave separate interviews that took place on separate continents.
“I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS,” Trump said back in October. The next month, Trump claimed that “Russia’s been amazing in what they're doing because they’re fighting to win,” again saying that it’s “wonderful” that Putin is “really bombing the hell out of them.”
On Saturday, Roy Gutman of McClatchy described how Russian airstrikes have “benefited the Islamic State” and are helping the group gain territory in Syria as it attacks anti-regime rebels, who, along with civilians and relief agencies, bear the brunt of Russian attacks.
In the days since Turkey downed a Russian warplane that flew into its airspace, Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered a bombing campaign that’s destroyed bakeries and relief convoys in northern Syria, cutting the flow of food to more than half a million civilians.
The result has been a complete halt in relief operations by major humanitarian aid groups, all of which operate out of Turkey. It’s also brought the region to the brink of further catastrophe as hundreds of thousands of residents are caught in the crossfire and are unable to flee their homes.
The stepped-up Russian bombing campaign has had another effect, rebels and aid workers say, allowing the Islamic State to move into areas that it previously had not controlled close to the Turkish border.
The Russian air campaign, combined with a ground offensive by Iranian and Syrian government forces, also benefited the Islamic State, which reportedly has advanced as moderate rebel forces fell back to meet the Iranian push.
And while moderate Arab rebel forces, backed by U.S. and Turkish air strikes, have conquered several villages controlled by the Islamic State close to the Turkish border, the main gains in the fighting of the past 10 days have been made by the Islamic State, observers say.
Gutman goes on to detail how Russian airstrikes have pounded rebels who are fighting ISIS near the city of Azaz.
Unlike the Russian air campaign, the U.S.-led coalition has actually targeted ISIS with over 8,000 airstrikes. And Trump, displaying both his propensity for stroking his ego and making false claims, is trying to take the credit.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, responded last month to the Obama administration’s efforts to enforce transgender rights in public schools by declaring that he doesn’t want his young daughters “taking showers with little boys.”
Asked by Robert George in a November 25 interview on the EWTN network about a Department of Education ruling that an Illinois school district should have provided a transgender girl access to the girls’ locker room at her school, Cruz said it was a “ridiculous” decision made by “zealots.”
“Well, look,” he said. “This is ridiculous. It shows just how radical and extreme the current administration is. You know, I’m the father of two little girls. Caroline and Catherine are seven and five. I don’t want my daughters taking showers with little boys, I don’t want them when they’re in junior high or high school. And it’s absurd, no parents do. And these are zealots.”
He then pivoted to his pledge to do away with the Common Core standards initiative and abolish the Department of Education entirely.
Mike Huckabee onceagaininsisted that Supreme Court rulings are simply opinions that carry no legal authority if not for the “good will” and “assent” of the legislative and executive branches, this time making the case for defiance of the top court in an interview with Robert George on the Catholic television network EWTN this weekend.
If elected president, Huckabee said, he would “absolutely decline” to enforce the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision and order the Justice Department to “protect in every way the rights of those citizens who joined in disagreeing.”
“It’s a matter of saving our republic to say that as president, we’re not going to accept this decision, we will ignore it and we will not enforce it,” Huckabee said, adding that he would only recognize same-sex marriages in states that legalize same-sex marriage, or polygamy, for that matter, “by a vote of its people.”
When George asked if conservatives then “couldn’t criticize” President Obama for acting lawlessly “if he refused to enforce” recent Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance reform and gun control, Huckabee responded, “Well, no.” He said that if that were to happen, Congress should then exercise its power to impeach the president or defund the executive branch, seeming to open himself up to impeachment if he decided to defy the courts on same-sex marriage.
In an interview with influential social conservative commentator Robert George on the Catholic television network EWTN last month, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said that the president should defy the Supreme Court’s “fundamentally illegitimate” decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage, which he compared to “Nazi decrees.”
George, the co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a mentor of Cruz’s, likened the court’s “tragic mistake” in Obergefell to infamous Supreme Court decisions including Dred Scott, asking Cruz, “Was Lincoln right to defy the court on [Dred Scott] and would you, as president, do that with the Obergefell decision?”
“Lincoln was absolutely right, I agree with President Lincoln,” Cruz responded. “And courts do not make law. That is not what a court does. A court interprets the law, a court applies the law, but courts don’t make law.”
Saying that it is “profoundly wrong” to refer to the gay marriage decision as the law of the land, Cruz said, “I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate, it was lawless, it was not based on the Constitution.”
Cruz then brought up remarks that Justice Anthony Kennedy made recently at Harvard Law School, in which he discussed when it is the duty of public officials to resign rather than carry out laws that they think are unjust, such as in the case of opponents of marriage equality. Kennedy used the extreme example of judges who resigned under Nazi rule, saying that whether they can morally carry out their official duties is “a fair question that officials can and should ask themselves” and that “great respect … ought to be given to people who resign rather than do something they think is morally wrong in order to make a point.”
This, Cruz declared, amounted to Kennedy comparing “the Supreme Court of the United States to the Nazis.”
“This isn’t me calling them the Nazis,” he said, “this is Justice Kennedy calling the court on which he serves, calling the opinion that he wrote, analogizing that to the Nazi decrees that we must obey.”
George interjected: “Just to be clear, surely Justice Kennedy was not embracing Nazism.”
Cruz hesitated and smiled. “He drew the analogy,” he said, “and the obvious implication was just as you were forced to obey the Nazis, you’re forced to obey us as well … even if we are tyrannical and oppressive. Now, look, certainly he wasn’t embracing all of the horrible things the Nazis did but to make that analogy, that is essentially saying, we wear the jackboot and you must obey us.”
In a blog post on Priests for Life’s website on Friday, the group’s director of African American outreach, Alveda King, insisted that there is a need to “connect some dots” between terrorism and legal abortion, which she called terrorism “in the womb.”
“Terrorism, be it in the womb, from distant shores, behind the domestic walls of our homes, or wherever it occurs, terrorism by any other name is still the same,” she wrote.
Writing that “Killing is fast becoming the choice many people are ‘choosing’ in order to fix their problems,” King asked, “Is there any wonder that mass killings are occurring on a regular, almost daily, basis?”
What we are missing here is the not so subtle connection to what on the surface seems to be random violent outbreaks in the atmosphere. Yet as Rev. Pavone points out, the problems with the Colorado Springs shooting is not the pro-lifers referring to abortion as murder but rather the abortion industry’s utter lack of respect for life and choosing its solution to solving someone’s problem by killing their child.
Although the Colorado Springs shooting was abortion related, we should consider that there is a common denominator; an utter lack of respect for life. Whether there are various underlying causes for the lack of disregard of the rights of others, consequent actions lead to outcomes such as these mass shootings, high abortion rates, high levels of incarceration, suicide and many other threats to the human family.
Terrorism, be it in the womb, from distant shores, behind the domestic walls of our homes, or wherever it occurs, terrorism by any other name is still the same.
Killing has been a part of humanity since Cain killed Abel. Throughout history humans have been killing for greed, convenience, emotional pain, and the like in order to acquire what others have; whether it be land, money, power, or [and we can fill in the blanks here].
Human life has long been devalued to the point that life has often become disposable as long as we can’t see the danger to our own. Herein lies the Catch 22: we disregard others to save ourselves – sadly not realizing that we are universally connected to our human family.
With the passage of time America has joined the rest of the world in rubber stamping the killing of our babies in the womb, as well as the sick, the elderly and in alarmingly increasing numbers, the poor.
With this acceptance of devaluation of humanity, the consciences of men, women and children have been numbed. The answer to one’s problem becomes the dehumanization and elimination of those who would interfere with what someone wants.
Is there any wonder that mass killings are occurring on a regular, almost daily, basis?
Let’s connect some dots.
Have an unplanned pregnancy? Illness? Getting too old? Other problems? Eliminate your problems with abortion or euthanasia.
Killing is fast becoming the choice many people are “choosing” in order to fix their problems. Killing of another or of self both devalue and destroy life.
We must wake up and recognize that the taking of any life, born, unborn, sick, handicapped, elderly, those of faith outside of ours — is wrong.
Ted Cruz's presidential campaign has been openly contemptuous and downright dismissive of anyone who has tried to get the Republican presidential hopeful to explain why he spoke at a conference last month organized and hosted by extremist pastor and radio host Kevin Swanson.
On multiple occasions prior the conference, and twice during the conference itself, Swanson explicitly endorsed the idea of imposing the death penalty for homosexuality, yet the Cruz campaign has cavalierly waved away questions about his appearance along side Swanson at his conference, insisting that Cruz is not some sort of "gay basher":
Recently two left-wing media mainstays, MSNBC and The Daily Beast went after Cruz’s appearance at a religious freedom conference that he and two other candidates were invited to. The two liberal organizations played a video clip from another extreme left group, People for the American Way’s RightWingWatch, and imagined the conference a “kill the gays” event.
Cruz’s response to their misrepresentations was simple. He elected not to respond, “acknowledge or take their bait,” the staffer explained. “We’ve seen their follow up attempts and accusations to place Cruz into their definition of gay bashers, but that’s not even close to who he is. You have to look at his record and history, not what the left wants him to be.”
Cruz's refusal to denounce Swanson and his views is rather interesting, especially since Swanson himself has no trouble denouncing anyone who does not share his "kill the gays" views.
For instance, on a radio program from March of this year, Swanson criticized Bob Jones III for daring to apologize for comments he made 35 years ago advocating that gays be stoned to death.
"As far as I know," Swanson said, "the Apostle Paul has not backtracked on Romans 1, in which he refers to the unnatural relation between males and males, females and females, and says such who does these things are worthy of death ... I'm going to be the last guy who stands up and says whatever Paul was saying when he said they're worthy of death, whatever Moses is saying in Leviticus 20:13 as communicated to God's people as the very law God, from the lips of God himself, I'm going to be the last person to say, well, God's law is unjust. And if anybody wants to say that, I'm going to be standing about 40 feet away, whatever the diameter of lightening is."
Later in that same broadcast, Swanson took issue with those who get outraged at the prospect of the government putting people to death for homosexuality, saying that it is no big deal when compared to the prospect of gay people spending eternity in Hell.
"When people focus on the civil penalty for the sin of homosexuality," he said, "they're diverting attention from the real issue, and that is the judgment of God upon that behavior ... Capital punishment? Execution at the hands of the state? Big deal! Big deal! That's nothing. That's nothing. In comparison with the judgment of God, the judgment of the civil courts, of the human courts, as compared to the judgement of Almighty God? No comparison!"
If Cruz wants to prove that he is not one of those "gay bashers," denouncing Swanson and his rhetoric would be an easy way for him to do so. But so far, Cruz and his campaign have conspicuously refused to that while touting the endorsements of severalotheranti-gayextremists ... and that speaks volumes.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said last month that Congress could “absolutely” criminalize all abortion by passing a law giving 14th Amendment protections to fetuses and zygotes, thus bypassing a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade.
Cruz made the comments in a November 25 interview with influential social conservative commentator Robert George as part of a series of candidate interviews that George is hosting on the the Catholic television network EWTN.
After outlining the personhood strategy, George asked Cruz, “Do you believe that unborn babies are persons within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and, if so, will you call on Congress to use its authority under the 14th Amendment pursuant to Section Five, to protect the unborn? Or do you take the view, as some do, that we can’t do that until Roe v. Wade is overturned either by the court itself or by constitutional amendment? Where do you stand on that?”
“Listen, absolutely yes,” Cruz responded.
“I very much agree with the pope’s longstanding and prior popes’ before him longstanding call to protect every human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death,” he added.
“And we can do that by Congressional action without waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade?” George asked.
“Absolutely yes, under the 14th Amendment,” Cruz responded.
In the second part of his recent interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, which was posted on CBN’s website over the weekend, Marco Rubio said that he will only nominate Supreme Court justices who believe that the court’s rulings on marriage equality and abortion rights are “constitutionally flawed.”
After claiming that Obergefell and Roe have no constitutional basis, the Florida senator added that he would also reverse President Obama’s executive order barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity among federal contractors.
In a previously released part of the interview, Rubio told Brody that government officials should flout court rulings on gay rights and abortion because “God’s rules always win.”
Brody: What could a President Rubio do in a situation like that? A lot of folks have talked about maybe religious liberty, the religious freedom act. Mike Huckabee and others have said some things like that.
Rubio: There’s no doubt that we need to be extra vigilant now about protecting the religious liberties of Americans and that includes having a justice department that’s vigilant about ensuring that those who hold traditional values are not being discriminated against. That includes reversing any administrative decisions made by this President that force religious, or religious motivated entities. You may not be owned by a church, but you are a religious school, or your mission is to spread the Gospel and adhere to God’s teachings ensure that people in the private sector and the not-for-profit sector are being protected in living out their faith.
And beyond it, I think one of the biggest things the next President is going to do is appoint justices to the Supreme Court -- justices who understand that the Constitution is not a living and breathing document. It is a document of limitation and it’s supposed to be interpreted and applied based on its original intent. And there is no way that you can read that Constitution and deduce from it that there is constitutional right to an abortion, or a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. And what you have is a Supreme Court that wanted to reach a certain policy outcome and so creatively manipulated the Constitution to discover a right that for over two centuries, some of the most brilliant minds in legal history didn’t find.
So you need judges that understand how constitutionally flawed that those two kinds of rulings and others have been and that’s what the most important thing the next President will do is appoint Supreme Court justices that actually will apply the constitution irrespective of their personal feelings about the issue.
Brody: As well as potential executive orders and possibly a strong attorney general in that role.
Rubio: Well, the executive orders would be to reverse the executive orders the President has made on things like gender equality in restrooms. You’ve seen some local districts and others been forced to provide girls access to a boys’ bathroom and so forth. These sorts of things you’ve seen in Illinois for example, but also ensure that we’re not doing anything that at any part in our government that is putting organizations that are either motivated by their faith or organized around their faith from having to violate the tenants of their faith and that includes government contractors.
There are many government contractors and small companies who provide services to the government who are faith-based people, and they are, they are being compelled to sin by government in their business conduct. That is not something that we should be supporting.
In an enlightening interview with Alex Jones yesterday, conservative musician and NRA board member Ted Nugent declared that Americans need to “cleanse this country” of “subhuman freak” liberals like President Obama and Nancy Pelosi who want people “bending over and taking it in the ass.” The two then laid out how America would be great if only someone like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz were to become president … or maybe Nugent himself.
Nugent fashioned himself as not only a good president, but also as someone who could have thwarted the Nazis had he lived in the 1930s.
Nugent said he simply gives a voice to those who know the truth “about this criminal empire in the government of the United States of America” and “this freedom-hating, America-hating punk president.”
“They now recognize the curse, the self-inflicted curse that is Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats who hate freedom, who hate the Constitution, who hate the Bill of Rights,” he said. “They don’t believe in self-defense, they don’t believe in independence, they don’t believe in being the best that you can be, they are intentionally on a runaway freight train to weaken America and to reward the bloodsuckers while they punish the producers.”
Jones managed to use even more colorful terms to portray America’s current political climate: “The Democrat leadership and their constituents now, more and more, literally hate America and have a death score to settle and want to mount our head on the wall like a trophy when this country and our forbearers gave these spoiled ass bitches everything they’ve got.”
Nugent lamented that military service members feel conflicted because they know “that their commander-in-chief is the enemy,” and began pleading with listeners that “if we don’t vote Republican in 2016, we will become Barack Obama’s dream and that is a suburb of Indonesia where individuality, independence and freedom is gone like a Dodo bird.”
Jones floated the question of whether one of the GOP candidates would tap Nugent as vice president or a cabinet secretary, Nugent said that millions of his fans are “asking me to run for president.”
If he actually became president, he said, he would move to “eliminate welfare because all it is is a carrot for dopes who want free stuff.”
After visualizing his presidency, Nugent then fantasized about being a Jew who was targeted by the Nazis: “I wanted to be a Jew in Nuremberg in 1938. While the Brownshirts were hurling people onto trains, I would have figured out a way to get that Brownshirt, Nazi-punk-ass luger away from him. I would’ve shoved it up his ass and I’d touched off a clip, I would’ve got the magazine and I would’ve got all the other Jews to raise hell. Now I’m not knocking people who fell for it, but I’m telling you, don’t fall for it. Don’t get on the train.” Jones added that “if the globalists down the road want a fight, they’re going to get one.”
While Donald Trump’s friends at Fox News are defending his false statements about Muslim-Americans, the GOP front-runner’s new friends at InfoWars are floating conspiracy theories of their own about the San Bernardino shooting.
On today's radio program, Glenn Beck and his cohost Pat Gray alleged that there was some sort of conspiracy afoot to scrub the internet of evidence of White House press secretary Josh Earnest admitting that stronger background checks would not have prevented this week's terrorist shooting in San Bernardino, California.
Asked by ABC News' Jonathan Karl whether there is any evidence that expanded background checks would have prevented the attack, Earnest stated that, "In this instance, of course not."
Beck wanted to play audio of that exchange on his program today but Gray was unable to locate it ... which naturally can only mean that there some White House cover-up at work.
"It's interesting," Gray said, "because there's no, I can't find a single piece of audio on that. It's all printed. And every time this guy says something this butt stupid, that's the case. I don't know if they scrub the internet of the audio, of the video, because every White House press conference is recorded, right? They're all recorded."
"And yet you can't get any audio of that," Beck responded. "That's really [interesting]."
If there was a single person on Beck's team who was capable of doing five minutes of basic research, they could have found this crucial piece of audio in the video of the press briefing posted on the White House's YouTube page:
Note to Beck and friends: your inability to do basic research is not evidence of a massive cover-up.
UPDATE: Later in the radio broadcast, Gray did manage to track down and play this piece of audio. We had not yet listened to that part of the broadcast at the time that this post was written. That doesn't, of course, change the fact that Beck and Gray both initially blamed a cover-up for their own inability to find it.