Liberty Counsel, the right-wing legal group that represented Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in her unsuccessful attempt to flout the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling, released a statement yesterday urging its supporters to “vote for Kim” as TIME’s Person of the Year, since she “inspired a nation and the world to fight for religious liberty when she chose a prison cell rather than sacrificing her conscience.”
Davis has since backed down — under court orders — from her attempt to block her county office from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In an email to supporters, Liberty Counsel chairman Mathew Staver likened Davis to Christian leaders “we admire like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Jan Huss, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” while continuing to insist that “Kim adhered to Kentucky law while standing for her First Amendment right to religious liberty and freedom of conscience.”
Kim Davis became the first Christian in America jailed as a result of the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex "marriage."
She joins a long list of people who were imprisoned for their conscience. People who today we admire like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Jan Huss, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and others like them. Each had their own cause, but they all shared the same resolve not to violate their consciences.
Kim adhered to Kentucky law while standing for her First Amendment right to religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Liberty Counsel represented Kim throughout her ordeal.
According to the magazine, TIME editors will choose a winner with the announcement on December 9. But leading to the selection, they are asking readers to "have their say," in a face-off poll.
Wallnau, who claims that conservative Christians must seize control of the "seven mountains" of society, including the government and the media, has since become an enthusiastic supporter of Trump's presidential campaign, declaring that "God has given this man an anointing for the mantle of government in the United States and he will prosper!"
Interestingly, he also participated in the meeting Trump had earlier this week with a group of African American pastors, where he hailed Trump as a modern-day Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln who God is raising up "to answer the cry of God's people."
In a rather manic video posted on his Facebook page following the meeting, Wallnau recounted telling Trump that he would become the 45th president of the United States because he has a "Cyrus anointing" upon him as proclaimed in Isaiah 45, referring to the Persian king who freed the Jews from captivity.
"Donald Trump's got this like Elijah mantle on him," Wallnau said. "He's got the Cyrus anointing."
Citing the apocryphal story of George Washington supposedly surviving in battle despite his coat and hat being riddled with bullet holes thanks to the protection of God, Wallnau told Trump that he too is being protected by God.
"You've said things and done things that should have put the equivalent of a bullet in your coat," Wallnau said that he told Trump, "but they've passed through you because of the anointing. God is really watching over you. And I believe God had put His hand on you as a Cyrus to be a governor and that the Bible talks about this critical 45th chapter, as the 45th president, it is the decisive moment in American history for leadership."
Admitting that Trump is not perfect, Wallnau declared that "America is screwed up" and so a "flawed man" like Trump is exactly what this nation needs "because it means it is going to be God's grace on him."
Trump is "like a Churchill or a Lincoln," Wallnau said, who has been "called to rise up in a crisis and to answer the cry of God's people."
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush berated President Obama today as “the commander in chief of ISIS,” alleging that he “created, armed, trained and funded ISIS” and that his policies “have set America up quite nicely for a major terrorist attack.”
“Americans will die, and despite his feigned outrage after the fact, it will have been due to the deliberate intention of Barack Hussein Obama,” he wrote.
According to Rush, Obama has a “proclivity for treason and crimes against humanity” and is part of “a much broader agenda” that wants to see “our planet’s human population cut by three-fourths — even overnight.”
This week, our treasonous war-criminal president flitted off to France to discuss climate change – an issue that homeless, jobless and dispossessed Americans care so much about – with a bunch of other world leaders. As if it weren’t bad enough that climate change is a counterfeit issue that exists only so Western governments might more effectively enslave taxpayers and business economically.
Perhaps to defray any discussion of his failure to dispatch ISIS (which of course he has no intention of doing), Obama said that the meeting in Paris to discuss climate change was some sort of brave and audacious “act of defiance” in the face of ISIS, given its recent attack on that city.
It isn’t the first time the administration has proffered the notion that there’s some mysterious interplay between terrorism and completely unrelated factors. One may recall the inane blatherings of State Department spokesidiots Jen Psaki and Marie Harf, who have floated ideas such as poverty causing terrorism, and that if the climate wasn’t so screwy, the world’s Muslims might not go feral en masse and kill people.
All this is leaving aside the fact that the treasonous war-criminal president in question created, armed, trained and funded ISIS – or ISIL, Islamic State, Daesh, the Keystone Kamels, or whatever appellation they’re using this month to reference the barbarians. Now, strategically displaced Muslims and strategically placed terrorists are forming a chaotic, angry wave from east to west – a wave that is cresting in Europe and, if Obama gets his way, will break upon America.
The world knows all of this, by the way; here, I am referencing the incontrovertible body of evidence that Barack Obama is effectively the commander in chief of ISIS, and arguably a better one than he is of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Our treasonous war-criminal president’s policies have set America up quite nicely for a major terrorist attack, perhaps of a much wider scope than the recent attacks in Paris. These include everything from a refusal to even rhetorically associate Islamic terrorism with Muslims, to the nationwide Syrian refugee drop, to the clandestine importation of Muslims from destabilized nations in the Middle East and Africa, to an absolute refusal to effectively monitor who comes and goes in this country.
Americans will die, and despite his feigned outrage after the fact, it will have been due to the deliberate intention of Barack Hussein Obama.
In October of 2013, the White House took down its online visitor logs, blaming a partial government shutdown that had temporarily idled 17 percent of the federal workforce. The fact is that astute individuals in the alternative press and other patriotic Americans had begun widely discussing the Rogue’s Gallery of America-hating scum that paid visits to the White House on a regular basis, some with dizzying frequency.
Obama simply wanted to stop that flow of information.
A nation like ours does not go from respecting personal liberties and the rule of law to “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone” overnight. Are there really so many ethically compromised individuals in our government that there is no hope for any among them finally deciding to exercise the rule of law and remove this tyrant? Are they just cowards, willing to let Obama touch off World War III rather than risk the Black Lives Matter crowd setting America ablaze for “taking down” our precious first black president on account of his proclivity for treason and crimes against humanity?
Or are they, as some suspect, party to a much broader agenda, perhaps one rooted in the belief that our planet’s human population cut by three-fourths – even overnight – would be much better for everyone going forward?
Newman described the meetings he had with David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress in which they discussed the goals of their debunked “sting” videos of Planned Parenthood, which falsely alleged that the group sells fetal tissue for profit.
“We mapped out this plan, he was going to get up inside [Planned Parenthood] and we talked about how we were going to do it and what the end result was,” Newman said.
Their goal, he explained, was not simply publicity for their anti-choice views, but the total destruction of Planned Parenthood: “We said, ‘Look, if we just get on Fox News’ — and we were on Fox News, we were on there a couple weeks ago — ‘if we just got a bunch of YouTube video hits or something, if, you know, people are talking about - we would consider it a failure.’ The first and foremost thing is we wanted prosecutions. We want prosecutions, want to defund them, and, finally, we want to completely destroy the entity called Planned Parenthood. And we’re well on our way.”
Donald Trump has absolutely no evidence to support his claim that “thousands and thousands” of Muslim-Americans in Jersey City celebrated the fall of the Twin Towers on September 11, so naturally he turned to “InfoWars” host Alex Jones today to argue that he was right all along.
Trump told Jones that fans on Twitter and people from New Jersey who attended his recent rally in Sarasota, Florida, told him that they too saw the giant celebrations with their own eyes, proving that Trump was correct.
But Trump also found time to promote his new book, “Crippled America,” and lament that “if I don’t win, I’ve wasted a lot of time…because we can’t do anything to make our country great if I don’t win.”
Trump then returned to lavishing praise on Jones, and himself: “Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down. You will be very, very impressed, I hope. I think we’ll be speaking a lot but you’ll be looking to me in a year or two years, let’s give me a little bit of time to run things, but a year into office you’ll be saying, ‘Wow, I remember that interview, he said he was going to do it and he did a great job.’”
Last month, Ted Cruz's presidential campaign proudly announced that the Texas senator had received the endorsement of Flip Benham, the radical anti-choice and anti-gay founder of Operation Save America. Given Cruz's willingness to openly associate with the extreme fringes of the conservative movement, we have been taking a closer look at just whom Cruz is embracing and going through recent speeches that some of his supporters have made, like the remarks that Benham delivered in Louisiana last year.
Speaking to an Operation Save America pastors' briefing in New Orleans last June, Benham blasted HGTV for cancelling a reality show that was to be hosted by his sons David and Jason after their anti-choice and anti-gay activism came to light.
"That station, HGTV is 'Homosexual Garbage Television,'" Benham declared. "You've got to know that that's trash ... I mean, the homosexual community came after them with a vengeance. You see, the homosexual community doesn't want to just get you fired or something like that, they want to destroy you! They want to destroy everything because inside of them, their heart is raging against the Lord and they can't ever get satisfied because God thwarts the cravings of the wicked. And you understand that's the most violent community there is, is the homosexual community. They want you dead! I'm guaranteeing you they want you dead!"
This is someone whom Cruz is "excited" to have supporting his campaign.
The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson is one of the leading voices of the movement opposed to full legal equality for LGBT people. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling, he rushed out a book designed to be a road map for a continuing culture war to resist and overturn marriage equality.
This week, he published another broadside against the LGBT movement — this one a Heritage Foundation “backgrounder” making the case that laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are unnecessary and “threaten freedom.” Given that Anderson is actively arguing for a generational culture war against marriage equality, it is somewhat difficult to take seriously the concern stated in his new paper that nondiscrimination laws “risk becoming sources of social tension rather than unity.”
Echoing the language of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Anderson starts by saying, “All citizens should oppose unjust discrimination,” adding, “but sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws are not the way to achieve that goal.” His claimed opposition to unjust discrimination may sound promising but, like the bishops, Anderson suggests that moral judgments about homosexual behavior are always legitimate justifications for discrimination.
Government should never penalize people for expressing or acting on their view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, that sexual relations are properly reserved for such a union, or that maleness and femaleness are objective biological realities that people should accept instead of resist. Such views are inherently reasonable, even as people continue to disagree about them.
SOGI laws, he says, “do not protect equality before the law” but “grant special privileges.”
Anderson makes a libertarian anti-regulatory argument, charging that SOGI laws “expand state interference in labor markets, potentially discouraging economic growth and job creation,” though he offers no evidence that nondiscrimination laws have that economic impact. (A 2015 study by a Colorado-based think tank found no evidence that anti-discrimination laws hurt small business growth.) Anderson says such laws “chip away at the at-will employment doctrine that has made the American labor market so much stronger than European labor markets.”
Anderson argues instead for “liberty under law,” saying employers should be allowed to fire employees for virtually any reason, and insists that nondiscrimination laws make that harder to do by making employers subject to legal action for violating those laws. Under Anderson’s conception of liberty under law, businesses as well as charities and civic associations “would be generally free to operate by their own values.” He argues that the free market will take care of problems with unjust discrimination:
Any business in the United States that posted a “no gays allowed” sign would soon find the power of public opinion expressed in the marketplace intolerably costly, without any need for the government to weigh in.
While that might be the reaction in gay-friendly locales, it is not hard to imagine pressure being applied the other way in some conservative communities, especially those where local churches and anti-marriage-equality activists have taken up Anderson’s charge to wage a long-term campaign to “bear witness to the truth” within a culture that he says has been told a lie about marriage.
Anderson’s 15-page paper summarizes its key points thusly:
Anderson describes SOGI laws, including the proposed federal Equality Act, as if they are a secretive, nefarious plot by the LGBT movement:
Activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC)—an influential, sophisticated, and lavishly funded LGBT -activist organization—are pushing SOGI laws on unsuspecting citizens at the federal, state, and local levels.
First, it takes brass for Anderson to describe HRC as “lavishly funded” from his perch at the Heritage Foundation, whose 2013 income topped $112 million, with its political arm Heritage Action bringing in another $8.8 million — together more than double the combined income of HRC and its educational arm. Heritage has assets of well over $200 million and its already massive complex on Capitol Hill is in the midst of a major expansion. Lavishly funded, indeed.
Second, laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity are not being pushed invisibly “on unsuspecting citizens.” They are the result of decades of hard-fought advocacy by LGBT people and their allies. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws against discrimination in housing or on the job and almost as many have bans on discrimination in public accommodations. Protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity are also in place in dozens of cities and counties.
Anderson, of course, does not mention that more than two-thirds of Americans – 69 percent – support laws to protect LGBT people against discrimination in workplaces, housing, and public accommodation, according to a 2015 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. Even 60 percent of white evangelical Protestants support workplace nondiscrimination laws. “In fact,” reports PRRI, “fully three-quarters (75 percent) of Americans incorrectly believe workplace discrimination laws are already on the books.” In addition, 60 percent of Americans oppose allowing a small business owner to refuse products or services to gay and lesbian people, even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.
Nevertheless, nondiscrimination protections are being actively fought by opponents of equality. Anderson praises Houston voters who recently overturned the city’s equal rights ordinance after a brutally bigoted campaign centered on the groundless, inflammatory charge that the law would give child molesters an open door to attack children in public bathrooms. Anderson’s paper raises similar “privacy and safety” concerns and says that allowing transgender people to use bathrooms and locker rooms would defy “common sense.” What actually defies common sense is legislation that has been proposed in some states requiring transgender people to use only bathrooms designated for the gender they were assigned at birth, which would mean requiring bearded trans men to use women’s restrooms.
Anderson devotes substantial time to criticizing what he calls a “false analogy” between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, wrongly claiming that such analogies are the primary justification for SOGI laws. In reality, advocates for LGBT equality have been pushing for legal protections against discrimination for many years, well before the organized marriage equality campaign of the past decade or two. Anti-discrimination laws protect people on many grounds other than race, including religion, gender, disability, and marital status. They are not grounded in an analogy to the brutal history of race in America but in the principles of constitutional and civic equality.
Anderson repeatedly claims that nondiscrimination laws are vague and overly broad and do not make clear what actions might constitute discrimination. But in many, if not most, cases, sexual orientation and/or gender identity protections are added to existing civil rights laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, and a range of other characteristics. Anderson does not explain why there should be any greater confusion about what constitutes discriminatory actions when applied to sexual orientation or gender identity.
It is really difficult to know where to begin when cataloging all of the truly insane statements and conspiracy theories levied by radio host Alex Jones, who has talked about everything from how 9/11 and Oklahoma City were false flag operations to how juice turns kids gay and space lizards are running the world.
So it isn’t really surprising that Donald Trump appeared on Jones’ show today, although we were disappointed that they didn’t delve into a discussion about their shared concerns about vaccines.
Instead, Jones dedicated the interview to showering Trump with praise, at one point even describing him as a modern-day George Washington and boasting about the candidate’s relationships with the country’s top military and intelligence leaders.
Jones told Trump that America may not exist in a few years if he doesn’t win the presidential election, a point with which Trump readily agreed.
“If we don’t get it right this time, I’m not sure if you go another four or eight years with the insanity and the stupidity of these leaders,” Trump said. “I’m not sure you’re going to be able to turn it around anymore, I think it could be over.”
Update: Jackson later endorsed Cruz in a statement.
Sen. Ted Cruz continues to woo anti-gay extremists, this time appearing on a conference call for conservative activists organized by E.W. Jackson, the former GOP nominee for lieutenant governor of Virginia.
During his run for office, Jackson won notoriety for his remarks about gay people, whom he referred to in one interview with fringe anti-gay leader Peter LaBarbera as “perverted,” “degenerate,” “spiritually darkened” and “frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally.”
As it happens, LaBarbera, the leader of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, was on the call that Jackson organized with Cruz last week and had a chance to ask the Texas Republican about his stance on “the gay agenda.”
LaBarbera asked Cruz how he would reverse the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling and if he would “end Obama’s policy of actually flying the rainbow flag at U.S. embassies worldwide” and oppose “the Equality Act, which I’m calling the Homosexual Superiority Act, in Congress.”
Cruz only answered LaBarbera’s first question about the Obergefell case, railing against the landmark gay marriage decision as “one of the greatest threats to our democracy we had seen in modern times,” and went on to criticize President Obama for being “more interested in promoting homosexuality in the military than he is in defeating our enemy.”
“It is the decision reminiscent of Roe v. Wade of a handful of unelected judges arrogantly and lawlessly decreeing the authority to fundamentally change our country and to tear down the foundations of the country,” Cruz added.
He also criticized Republicans who decided to “surrender” to the Supreme Court and treat Obergefell as the “settled law of the land.”
“My response to this decision was that it was illegitimate, it was lawless, it was utterly contrary to the Constitution and that we should fight to defend marriage on every front,” he said, before promoting constitutional amendments to overturn the ruling and put justices up for retention elections, along with legislation “to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to marriage.”
Cruz conceded that none of his proposals are politically feasible at the moment. Once he is elected president, however, Cruz said he will make sure that “we will not use the federal government to enforce this lawless decision that is a usurpation of the authority of we the people in this country.” He also committed to only appoint Supreme Court justices who would not “legislate from the bench” like the justices did in Obergefell.
Jackson then asked Cruz to address how “the military is beset with these new LGBT rules and I’m just hearing terrible things.” Cruz agreed:
You look at the military and one of the things we’ve seen is morale in the military under the Obama administration has plummeted, and it has plummeted because you have a commander-in-chief that doesn’t support our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines, you have a commander-in-chief that doesn’t stand up against our enemies, that won’t even acknowledge or say the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ and you have a commander-in-chief that treats the military as a cauldron for social experimentation. He’s more interested in promoting homosexuality in the military than he is in defeating our enemy.
For example, the military is now focused on trying to promote transgendered [sic] soldiers. The role of the military is not to be some left-wing social experiment. The reason we have the brave men and women who sign up as service men and women to defend this nation is to stand for our values, to protect our safety and security, to protect innocent men and women and to stand up and defeat our enemies, and I would stop the shameless politicizing of our military to push a left-wing agenda that is contrary to the values and contrary to who we are as an American people and a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Later in the conference call, Jackson hailed Cruz as a “real believer” who is “not one of these candidates who is going to say, ‘I believe in traditional marriage but I would attend a gay wedding if it was a friend of mine.’”
Jackson expressed confidence that Cruz would “reverse this garbage and go in and clean the military up and get that transgender craziness out of the military and stop this implementation of this sexual-psycho garbage that this president has foisted on the military.”
The military, Jackson said, is now only focused on “sexual nonsense that the left thinks is so very important,” warning that “even some of these Republicans, I think they would just leave it as is because, as he said, some of them say, ‘Oh, it’s federal law, it’s over, it’s done with and we just need to move on.’”
“How are we going to move on and be prosperous as a nation if we are spitting in the face of Almighty God? And that is exactly what this whole homosexual, same-sex, transgender stuff has done,” Jackson said. “It is spitting in the face of Almighty God. And sooner or later, people are going to have to answer for it.”
“There will be a price to pay for that kind of rank rebellion because the Bible is true,” he added. “Ted Cruz understands that.”
This week on “TruNews,” Rick Wiles and his team discussed President Obama’s involvement in restraining ISIS. According to Wiles, rather than working to destroy ISIS, Obama is legitimizing the group and attempting to expand an ISIS controlled caliphate. “There’s a reason Obama says ‘ISIL,’ not ‘ISIS’… He is saying the Muslim caliphate will extend to Israel,” Wiles claimed.
“Obama is setting up an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East,” Wiles declared. “He’s doing it from the White House.”
Wiles was so confident in his analysis that he stated that his account is irrefutable. “My critics, all of the left wing media, they will not challenge me on this issue,” he said. “Oh, they’ll make fun of me, they’ll mock me about every other thing, but they will not challenge me on this issue that Obama is a Muslim building a caliphate in the Middle East. Because it’s true. It is the truth.”
Wiles then shifted the subject to Russia’s actions in the conflict. Wiles claimed that Putin, not Obama, is actually fighting back against ISIS in the Middle East, despite the fact that Russian airstrikes rarely target the terrorist group.
“I’m going to say something that’s going to shock a lot of American evangelicals,” he said, “but God is on Putin’s side. Did you hear what I said? The Almighty God is on the side of Putin and the Russians.” Wiles stated that God is supporting Putin because he is on the side of “justice” and is “preventing the genocide of Christians, which is being orchestrated by America’s Muslim caliphate, Mohammad President in the White House.”
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., a vocal climate science denialist, criticized President Obama’s participation in a Paris summit to address climate change yesterday, saying that climate science ignores the role of God in determining global temperatures.
Inhofe told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on his “Washington Watch” program that Americans simply don’t care about the issue anymore and that there is nothing the U.S. government can do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions anyway.
“I know there are some out there, probably a couple hundred people, who actually believe that the world is coming to an end and man-made global warming is going to cause it, so I just want to give them the assurance that if they’re right and we are wrong, [proposed climate policies are] not going to reduce but it will increase CO2 emissions,” he said.
“They don’t understand,” he added. “God’s still up there and there’s a reason for this to happen.”
Inhofe went on to argue that human activities cannot affect the climate as the atmosphere naturally fluctuates between cooling and warming periods.
Conservative radio host Trey Ware guest-hosted this week's "Hagee Hotline," where he interviewed Stream.org contributing senior editor John Zmirak for a discussion about the deadly shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood facility.
Zmirak dismissed the idea that the perpetrator of this attack was a Christian or an anti-abortion activist, insisting that the shooting was carried out by a mentally unstable person for unknown reasons. He backed-up this assertion by arguing that no true Christian would ever commit this sort of violence because doing so would be "an act of civil war" and "we're not ready to do that" ... though such a war may, in fact, be coming.
"Not every evil can be fought by war," Zmirak said, "and shooting doctors when their activity is unfortunately legal would amount to an act of civil war. Christians would have to declare civil war in America and we're not ready to do that."
Insisting that there are legal and peaceful means for anti-choice activists to use in their effort to outlaw abortion, Zmirak compared such efforts to abolitionists who worked to end slavery. The fight over slavery, of course, eventually resulted in exactly the sort of civil war that Zmirak said anti-choice Christians would never support, so logically he insisted that if such a war does start, it will be entirely the fault of pro-choice activists.
"It was the slave-owners who started the Civil War," Zmirak stated, "and I think if terrorism and violence become an issue in the abortion debate, it will be the pro-choicers attacking pro-lifers and attacking churches."
Last week on “The Savage Nation,” conservative radio host Michael Savage repeated his claim that President Obama intends to enlist Syrian refugees in a private army that will help him consolidate power over America.
Savage started his anti-refugee rant by attacking people who have noted the similarities between today’s arguments against resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. and those used against accepting Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany.
“Only a mentally ill liberal would compare the Jews of the 1930s fleeing Hitler to the Syrian refugees that Obama is importing into the United States of America,” he said. “Of course they’re different. Jewish immigrants weren’t trying to kill us. Jewish immigrants didn’t come here with suicide belts.”
Savage went on to say religious aid organizations that assist refugees in the U.S. are just like “the coyotes who smuggle people into this country,” claiming that Catholic groups are just trying to make money for the Vatican, which he said explains “why the pope and Obama are so cozily in agreement on so many things.”
This led him to demand that Congress impeach President Obama and John Kerry and “try them for insanity” over their handling of ISIS, wondering if there is “a sane person in the entire Obama administration.”
The right-wing commentator eventually brought together the Obama administration’s handling of ISIS, the Syrian refugee crisis and gun control, insisting that “the deranged Obama” intends to disarm Americans while turning Syrian refugees into his personal force.
“At a time that he’s flooding us with military-age males, mainly Muslims from Syria from war zones, he wants to disarm you, so does Hillary Clinton,” he said, before arguing that Middle Eastern countries are “exporting [refugees] by airplane to us because he’s bringing an army, Obama is literally seeding an army in the United States of America.… This has nothing to do with humanitarianism. He’s insane.”
“Coach” Dave Daubenmire, a conservative activist and speaker, blamed last week’s mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs on the women’s health care provider, insisting in a YouTube video he posted yesterday that Planned Parenthood clinics are “the ultimate terrorists” and “terrorism in the womb leads to terrorism in the world.”
“Folks, there’s terror every day inside those Planned Parenthood clinics,” Daubenmire said. “There was terrorism last week, there will be terrorism next week as long as we continue to allow this murder to take place inside those four walls. Terrorism in the womb leads to terrorism in the world.”
“Planned Parenthood: They’re the ultimate terrorists,” he concluded.
Last week, conservative radio talker Michael Savage once again railed against plans to accept Syrian refugees, this time lashing out at the American Civil Liberties Union for filing a lawsuit against Indiana Gov. Mike Pence for attempting to block the resettlement of refugees in his state.
“Me, if I were president, I would declare the ACLU a domestic terrorist organization, I would arrest their entire leadership, I would put all of their assets into a bank, etc., and I’d go from there,” he said.
Savage also suggested that he would crack down against aid organizations “making a fortune off the refugees.”
Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose endorsement Sen. Ted Cruz boasted of in a September presidential debate, claimed yesterday that the gunman who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs last week chose his target because he knew it was a “Democrat place” and his victims would be unarmed. The patients at the Planned Parenthood were likely unarmed liberals, Pratt said, because “conservatives typically don’t knock off their children.”
In an interview with Florida talk radio host Joyce Kaufman, the radical gun lobbyist agreed with Kaufman that the Colorado Springs attacker shouldn’t have been allowed to have a gun, a rather odd statement seeing that Pratt wants to abolish all background checks for gun buyers.
But, Pratt said, “bad guys have a way of getting guns” and the real “pity is that nobody in the danger zone was able to protect themselves and shoot back.”
Kaufman asked why that was, given Colorado Springs’ permissive gun laws.
“They can [carry] if they wish,” Pratt answered, “but apparently when you’re talking about, let’s face it, a Planned Parenthood clinic: liberal. Conservatives typically don’t knock off their children, they’re kind of looking forward to having them. So, Planned Parenthood, they give to Democrats, it’s a Democrat place. So that’s where this dirtbag decided to go.”
He added that the Planned Parenthood was “unofficially” a gun-free zone because “that’s the way liberals think.”
Pratt did not mention that one of the three people the Colorado Springs shooter killed was a well-armed (and reportedly conservative) police officer.
This is similar to Pratt’s response to previous mass shootings. When a man killed six people and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, Pratt alleged that the gunman “didn’t find any resistance” because his victims were Democrats. (In that incident, an armed person nearby almost shot the wrong person.) He similarly blamed this year’s shooting at a church in Charleston on church’s pastor's support for gun restrictions.
On Monday, the Knoxville Journal Express reported that Iowa State Sen. Mark Chelgren, who this year is challenging Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, for his seat in Congress, suggested that the U.S. use the death penalty to punish undocumented immigrants who commit felonies in the U.S. and later try to reenter the country.
“For border security, Chelgren believes a fence would define the border and control who enters and leaves. If one is found to have crossed into the country illegally, committed a felony while here, then been deported, he supports executing that individual if they break America's immigration laws a second time,” the paper reported.
Chelgren, who has served in the Iowa state senate since 2010, later confirmed his remarks in an interview with the Des Moines Register, saying that he “will be strong on crime” and “make sure that we don’t have criminals coming into the United States and victimizing our citizens.” He said that Democrats were “race-baiting” by criticizing his proposal.
State Sen. Mark Chelgren, a southeast Iowa Republican who is running for Congress, says he favors consideration of capital punishment for criminal immigrants who continually enter the United States illegally.
Iowa Democrats harshly criticized that stance Tuesday, and a spokesman for the Republican Party of Iowa issued a statement disassociating the party with Chelgren's comments.
Chelgren, an Ottumwa businessman, was quoted Monday by the Journal-Express of Knoxville and Marion County as saying that for border security, he believes a fence would define the border and control who enters and leaves. If one is found to have crossed into the country illegally, committed a felony while here, then been deported, he supports executing that individual if he or she breaks U.S. immigration laws a second time, the newspaper said.
Chelgren recently announced plans to seek Iowa's 2nd District U.S. House seat now held by Rep. Dave Loebsack, an Iowa City Democrat. He confirmed the remarks made to the Journal-Express in an interview Tuesday with The Des Moines Register, but he said he was only suggesting that capital punishment be considered narrowly in situations where persons repeatedly enter the United States with the intent of committing terrorism or other felony crimes. He contended that Democratic Party officials were overreacting to his remarks and engaging in "race-baiting."
"I am looking at people who are deported and who re-enter the country illegally. Obviously, I don't want to tear apart families. We need to be sure we are protecting the people of the United States," Chelgren said.
He added, "Of course, I will be strong on crime. I want to make sure that we don't have criminals coming into the United States and victimizing our citizens."
Conservative actor Kevin Sorbo appeared on Newsmax today, where he discussed topics ranging from Islamic terrorism to the attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic Colorado Springs, telling host Steve Malzberg that liberals are insane.
Sorbo didn’t exactly have kind words for Hillary Clinton and other leaders who have said that violent extremists don’t represent Islam: “It’s total insanity. It’s so strange to me. I don’t know if they have a chromosome that’s missing or what it is in their DNA but it is mindboggling to me that you can’t call it what it is because we all know what it is.”
The conversation then turned to the attack on Planned Parenthood, which Sorbo dismissed by saying that members of the media are “more upset about the murdering that happened by this one guy instead of the 60 million murders they’ve committed since Roe v. Wade. Once again, we’re dealing with insanity.”