Fighting the Right

BarbWire Warns That Obama Is The Antichrist Who Was Put Into Office By Satan

Last week, BarbWire's director of development Tristan Emmanuel wrote a column for the website fuming that other Christians refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that President Obama is probably the Antichrist:

Obama, has supported abortion on demand and thwarted religious freedom via his many domestic policies – Obama Care, and Gay “Marriage” to name only two. He continues to associate with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, he has revealed his antipathy towards Israel, and continues to preach tolerance for Islam while chastising Christians.

Let me put it this way: not only is Obama the most powerful jihadist in the World – he is in my estimation anti-Christ – if not the Anti-Christ foretold in the book of Revelation.

Revelation chapter thirteen makes it very clear that the anti-Christ would be a worker of wonders and seducer of the world. And that he would systematically seek to destroy the Seed of Christ on the earth.

The Anti-Christ of the book of Revelation is an individual who wields world-wide power and world-wide influence. His hatred for Christ and the people of Christ is legendary and very real.

To any observant individual Obama embodies all the characteristics of the legendary nemesis.

Obama’s reaction to the suffering of people such as Pastor Sayeed in Iran is, if nothing else, a manifestation of anti-Christian bigotry. And frankly, I wouldn’t surprise me if he goes down as history’s Anti-Christ of Revelation.

This week, Emmanuel followed that up with another column calling on Christians to demand Obama's impeachment because he was put into office by Satan:

How dare I equate Obama to Satan?

Yes, Obama is just a man. But in our modern era no leader of prominence has managed a rise to such heights with absolutely no qualifying credentials whatsoever.

No one!

How do you explain the Usurper’s rise to power other then that “principalities and powers of darkness” have coalesced around his person, around his administration, aided his efforts, breathed intellectual life to his policy, guided him, enabling him and worked an uncanny level of success and global veneration?

How is Satan not the source of it all?

Sure the comparison is unnerving to any reasonable person. But it’s unnerving precisely because it is impossible to ignore.

And consider the result of this demonic rise. Unlike any president of the modern area Obama has used his power previous left of center president (including Bill Clinton) Obama has used his power to rail against the moral underpinnings of America’s Christian heritage, mock Christians, rebuke Christians, trivialized Christian teaching and turn a blind eye to the persecution of Christians all the while aiding Islamists.

And yet Christians continue to be apathetic about the Usurper’s tenure.

But its not simply a passive complicity that implicates us in the evil that now grips the nation. Many of us give credence to the growing mythology about Obama.

The mythology that says Obama is simply a “misguided progressive” or a “liberal secularist” or an “egotistical power grubber.” Countless pundits echo this ridiculous notion and Christians are complicit in echoing it – what is it about our inability to name the evil for what it is?

To explain away Obama’s manifest and manifold political evil as “he’s just mistakenly arrogant” trivializes the very real evil that surrounds his entire presidency.


Obama is not your average or normal president. Obama is the threat! He is the enemy that occupies the seat of our government and trust me, he not go away peaceably.

If at all possible impeach the Usurper now!

'What's Wrong With Slavery?' And Jan Mickelson's Other Worst Pro-Confederacy, Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Gay Moments

If you are a presidential candidate, you spend a lot of time talking to people in Iowa. And if you’re a Republican, that means a lot of time on Iowa conservative radio, including popular programs hosted by right-wing activists Steve Deace and Jan Mickelson.

The fact that Deace and Mickelson have long histories of extreme rhetoric has not dissuaded Republican candidates from joining their shows. But Mickelson just upped the ante with comments he made on his program today.

Media Matters caught Mickelson proposing that undocumented immigrants in Iowa become “property of the state” and pressed into hard labor. When a listener called in to point out that Mickelson’s proposal “sounds like slavery,” Mickelson asked, “Well, what’s wrong with slavery?” Undocumented immigrants, he went on to say, are the ones who are enslaving American citizens:

It will be interesting to see if any of the GOP candidates who have been on Mickelson’s radio program recently — which, according to Media Matters’ count, includes Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal — repudiate his remarks.

But the fact is that if these candidates were concerned about Mickelson’s rhetoric, they should have stopped going on his show long ago.

When Graham appeared on his program in June, Mickelson declared his allegiance to the Confederacy, as Graham scrambled to distance himself:

Mickelson has also backed Jim Crow-type voting laws.

Today’s comments are hardly Mickelson’s first foray into anti-immigrant extremism either. He has proposed barring undocumented children from public schools and said that if someone has a Hispanic name and is involved with the police, “I assume you’re not here legally.” After an interview with anti-immigrant activist Ann Corcoran, Mickelson promised to press every candidate he had on his show to oppose the U.S. resettlement of refugees from war-torn Muslim countries, which he said was an “act of jihad.” When he asked Rand Paul about it, Paul said the U.S. shouldn’t resettle Iraqi refugees because “we won the war.”

Mickelson’s anti-gay activism includes calling AIDS an “invention” of God to punish homosexuality and agreeing with former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on the issue of homosexuality.

The Iowa talk radio host also enjoys promoting fringe right-wing conspiracy theories. Mickelson helped to bring the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory into the GOP mainstream, asking Paul on his program about the supposed federal plan to take over Texas .

And just last week, Mickelson was getting Rep. Steve King to entertain the conspiracy theory that a botched EPA mine cleanup in Colorado was a deliberate plan to pollute a river to create a Superfund site:

Republican candidates may try to avoid Mickelson’s show after today. But given their track record, we somehow doubt that they will.

Tony Perkins: Women Need To Stop Acting Like Men Or Society Will Go Down The Tubes

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins brought Fox News commentator Todd Starnes onto his “Washington Watch” radio program yesterday to discuss Starnes’ report that “court officials in Tennessee had replaced the words ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ on court documents with the gender-neutral terms ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2,’” a decision they have since reversed.

While fielding calls from listeners about the matter, Perkins spoke with one caller who told him, “All of this began back in the mid-20th century when women started dressing and acting like men. It started a whole thing, not to mention the whole immodesty issue, but it started a whole thing where you couldn’t tell one from the other. Women are doing the same things as men, they dress like men, their hair looks like men, right there I believe started all the confusion. When women dress like men their behavior and their posture becomes very masculine-like and I think that was a real mistake.”

Perkins told the caller that she was “absolutely right” that “this has been a long time in the making” and now America is transforming into a “genderless society,” pointing to “the feminist movement tearing down the difference between the genders.”

“What we’re doing here and what we’re seeing through the courts, what we’re seeing here in Tennessee is just another example of this, is to force this redefinition on everyone to accommodate a small percentage and it’s going to have far-reaching repercussions for society as a whole,” he said.

Ben Carson Says He's Open To Drone Strikes On American Soil To Fight Immigration

GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson dropped by Pinal County, Arizona, today to speak with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a favorite of anti-immigrant activists and one-time GOP candidate for Congress, where the candidate said he was open to drone strikes in order to combat unlawful immigration along the southern border.

The television station KPHO captured part of the exchange, in which reporter Dennis Welch, apparently responding to an earlier comment from Carson, says that “drone strikes on American soil seems a little over the top, even to entertain that idea.”

“You can entertain all kinds of things,” Carson responds. “Here’s the take-home point: The take-home point is that we have excellent military leaders and we need to employ their expertise because this is a war we are fighting. That’s the bottom line."

Welch also tweeted that Carson said the drone strikes could go after “caves and things” on the southern border:

Evangelical Official Criticizes Bachmann & Huckabee For 'Outrageous' Iran Deal Rhetoric

In an interview with the Christian Post today, Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, the chairman of the World Evangelical Alliance’s Global Task Force on Nuclear Weapons, hailed the Iran deal for offering a “high confidence of inhibiting any move by Iran to a nuclear weapon.”

When the newspaper asked Wigg-Stevenson for his reaction to Mike Huckabee’s claim that the nuclear accord will usher in a second Holocaust and Michele Bachmann’s allegation that it fulfilled Last Days prophecy by paving the way for “World War III,” the World Evangelical Alliance official was not amused.

Noting that many Jewish leaders support the deal, he described Huckabee’s remarks as “pretty outrageous” and “wildly irresponsible,” and expressed bewilderment at Bachmann’s End Times claims: “I don't even know what to say to that.”

"I think that kind of rhetoric is pretty outrageous. The Holocaust is a living memory and I think that because it was Christian Europe that perpetrated the Holocaust on Jews, Christian have an ethical responcibility [sic] forever to take seriously future existential threats to the Jewish people," he said.

While criticizing Iran's denial of how devastating the Holocaust truly was, the WEA chair on Nuclear Weapons said that it is an "outrageous stretch of rhetoric for Huackbee [sic] to invoke the Holocaust based on a treaty that the vast majority of arms control experts in the United States have said is a good treaty."

He added that the GOP presidential candidate's remarks were "wildly irresponsible," and pointed out that there is divided opinion in Israel on whether the nuclear deal is a good development or not.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has heavily condemned the lifting of sanctions on Iran, a group of 340 rabbis from "all streams of Judaism" signed a letter in support of the Iran deal earlier this week, opposing the idea that the American Jewish community is united in opposition to the agreement.

As for the idea that the deal will be the fulfillment of biblical End Times prophecy, as former GOP presidential candidate and former Minnesota Rep. Bachmann suggested, Wigg-Stevenson responded: "I don't even know what to say to that."

As a former Baptist minister, who told CP he has since become an Anglican, Wigg-Stevenson noted that "people have for hundreds and hundreds of years been pointing to current events as sure indicators that the End Times are upon us."

He added that statements like Bachmann's are "nothing new," and up to this point have never turned out to be correct.

He said that ultimately the Iran deal bars Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and said that "so how that brings about the End Times is beyond me."

Alveda King Links Iraq War & School Shootings To Legal Abortion

In a press release promoting a new anti-abortion book by her boss, Frank Pavone, Priests for Life’s Alveda King links the Iraq war, urban violence, school shootings and the massacre at an African-American church in South Carolina to legal abortion, asking, “[W]hat would you expect from societies that allow a mother to kill her own child and call it a personal 'choice?'”

King starts off by comparing Pavone to her uncle, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., writing that just as the civil rights leader “fanned the flames of the civil rights movement, so today Rev. Frank Pavone is doing the same for the movement to end abortion.”

She goes on to blame legal abortion for the fact that “ALL life has been devalued” in America, leading to war, violence and mass shootings:

Life today seems to have less value, at least in the eyes of many. Whether it's Black lives, unborn lives, lives of the disabled, lives of the elderly, ALL life has been devalued. Yet what would you expect from societies that allow a mother to kill her own child and call it a personal 'choice?'

Today death has spread from the abortion facilities to the deserts of Iraq, to the streets of our cities, to the classrooms of our schools, and to the prayer meetings of our churches.

The killing will not end until we begin to defend the most innocent of all, the unborn babies in the womb. When we say that their lives matter, then we can truly say, "All Lives Matter." And yes, we can even put a hashtag in front of it if we like.

King made similar remarks in a Fox News interview shortly after the Charleston shooting, saying, “You kill babies in the womb, kill people in their beds, shoot people on the streets so now you go into the church when people are praying.”

Andrea Lafferty: Affirming Trans Kids 'The Ultimate Act Of Child Abuse'

On Monday, Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition called in to “Sandy Rios In The Morning” from Bentonville, Arkansas, where the school board was weighing adding protections for sexual orientation and gender identity to its employment nondiscrimination code. (The board ultimately voted against the measure.)

Lafferty told Rios that she came to Bentonville to warn that such a move would “put psychologically unhealthy teachers in the classroom” and ultimately grant legal protections to LGBT students, which she described as a danger. After Lafferty claimed that trans youth experience higher suicide rates because they are “psychologically unhealthy and unstable,” Rios likened affirmation of trans children to affirming people’s porn addictions or extramarital affairs: “We don’t say it’s okay, it’s just the way you are.”

“There are studies, the federal government is funding a study of transgendered [sic] kids, but it’s more to promote it,” Lafferty said. “To me, it’s the ultimate act of child abuse to not try and really help your child through this and to become whole but they are psychologically unhealthy.”

Scott Lively Warns Christians To Prepare For Relentless Persecution In Wake Of Gay Marriage Ruling

Speaking at an event in Chicago last night, anti-gay activist Scott Lively warned the audience to prepare for wholesale persecution in the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling because the goal of gay rights activists is "to punish anyone who disagrees with them as severely as they can."

"As Christians, our world changed on the day the Obergefell case came down," he said, "and there's going to be persecution unfolding for all of us in this country because this movement of people is implacable, they can't be placated. They're relentless and their goal is supremacy. It's not tolerance, it's not acceptance, it isn't even celebration, it isn't even being able to force everyone to participate in their culture, it's to punish anyone who disagrees with them as severely as they can and that is what's coming for every person."

The time is coming, Lively warned, for Christians to decide that they are willing to "stand with the Lord and the truth of the Bible and say that homosexuality is an abomination," regardless of the consequences.

Scott Lively: LGBT Rights Brought Us To The 'Twilight Zone'

Religious Right activists Peter LaBarbera and Scott Lively appeared on “Crosstalk” yesterday to discuss the “massive push underway to undermine Christianity and to change the moral fabric of our nation” through LGBT rights.

“This is very spiritual warfare at the most intense level,” Lively said regarding the recent legal defeat for the ex-gay group Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), which was found guilty of violating consumer fraud laws. “The idea that any person cannot reorient their sexuality to the design of their own body is preposterous and to win a lawsuit on the theme that it’s consumer fraud to suggest that it’s possible, we’ve entered into the Twilight Zone here.”

After host Jim Schneider asked the two about transgender White House staffer Raffi Freedman-Gurspan, whom Schneider made a point of misgendering, Lively said that “we’re a mockery around the world because of this.”

“I’m actually a little surprised they moved so fast into transgenderism when they still haven’t finished mopping up on just simple homosexuality,” he added. “And I was especially shocked when they went into the military and said they were going to actually legitimize transsexuals in the U.S. military. What a disaster in the making. It’s mindboggling to see what is going on here.”

Pat Robertson: Gays Can Never Be Happy, Call My Network For 'Freedom' From Homosexuality

Today, Pat Robertson’s news program “The 700 Club” aired a story about one man’s “struggle with homosexuality,” which ended, supposedly, after the man joined a “support group for Christians caught in the gay and lesbian lifestyle,” became abstinent, and eventually married a woman and founded a church.

Following the report, Robertson lamented that “it used to be that psychologists would tell people how to come out of this, now they tell them how to stay in it and be happy.” “Well, you’ll never be happy unless you’re happy in Jesus,” he said.

Later, Robertson urged gay viewers to call his Christian Broadcasting Network to speak with someone who can tell them how to receive deliverance: “If you’re into the homosexual lifestyle and you want freedom, somebody is here to love you.”

Lively: 'The Widespread Acceptance Of Homosexuality By Society Is The Harbinger Of The Wrath Of God'

Last night, virulently anti-gay activist Scott Lively joined fellow activists Peter LaBarbera and John Kirkwood for a discussion on the supposed persecution of Christians in the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.

Predictably, the conversation was filled with dire warnings and over-the-top language, such as when Lively declared that America has "entered into a time of apostasy" as evidenced by school shootings and "the barbarianistic behavior that is manifested so much on the internet."

But worst of all, he said, is the acceptance of homosexuality, which is the most abominable of all sins because, according to the Bible, "it's the only sin associated with the incineration of four cities."

"The widespread acceptance of homosexuality by society is the harbinger of wrath of God," he said. "It's the only sin that is associated with the reprobate mind, the worst state that a person can have and then the apostate culture that derives from that ... [If you read Romans,] you see what God believes about this and what he warns about. Even AIDS and these other diseases, it says they receive in themselves the penalty of their error, which is appropriate. It's plain, simple Scripture, stated as clear as could possibly be done and that's manifest before our eyes in the way that these people are now struggling with all these diseases that are associated with their conduct."

"The heart of it is malicious deception," Lively concluded, "which is the satanic goal, isn't it?"

Linda Harvey: Transgender People Are Possessed By Demons

Mission America’s Linda Harvey is outraged that many journalists refer to transgender people by their preferred pronouns, telling readers of her weekly WorldNetDaily column that they must fight back any time they “hear a so-called journalist or government official refer to any male like Bruce Jenner as ‘she’” because “our children deserve a heritage of sane pronouns.”

Harvey, attacking the media for “inventing gender fables,” calls the use of preferred pronouns “untrue, inappropriate, cruel, disrespectful and hypocritical.”

She claims that such “naked propaganda” is suppressing the truth that trans people are really just possessed by the Devil: “There’s one tragic explanation for such pervasive delusion: Demonic deception may be active in the lives of these people and their advocates. Prayers are needed instead of lies.”

The next time you hear a so-called journalist or government official refer to any male like Bruce Jenner as “she,” please scream, then blast an email to demand that truth be told.

Our children deserve a heritage of sane pronouns.

If reporters aspire to a higher plane than naked propaganda, they need to stop inventing gender fables and describe objectively verifiable attributes of actual people.

Responsible journalists don’t make up the street addresses and ages of people for news reporting. Why invent gender? This popular mythology is no more justifiable than picking new names for people, variable facts in a police investigation, or inventing witnesses to crime who don’t exist.

Bruce Jenner is a guy. So is American traitor Bradley (not “Chelsea”) Manning. So are “Laverne” Cox, confused star of “Orange is the New Black,” and “Jazz” Jennings, teen TV personality. These are males – and the use of female names and pronouns is untrue, inappropriate, cruel, disrespectful and hypocritical.

Chastity Bono is a woman, not a troubled “man” called “Chaz.” There is no “he” in the reality of this person’s life, only in her public mask.

What is the problem with claiming one’s authentic sex? There’s one tragic explanation for such pervasive delusion: Demonic deception may be active in the lives of these people and their advocates. Prayers are needed instead of lies.

Mike Huckabee Jokes About Clinton Murder Conspiracy Theories, Hillary Leaving Nuke Codes At Chipotle

Earlier today, Newsmax host Steve Malzberg asked former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee if a joke he told about living to tell the tale of defeating the Arkansas “Clinton machine” had anything to do with the persistent rumors from the far right that Bill and Hillary Clinton are behind several murders (including that of a cat).

While Huckabee refused to make the connection directly, Malzberg kept pushing him on whether he was referencing “the people who didn’t survive to talk about it.”

“I’ll let the listener decide, but I think most people when they heard me say that knew that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek,” Huckabee replied. “I’m not making reference into anything in particular. Whether I was speaking metaphorically of political surviving or otherwise, I will leave it to the listener.”

Huckabee later said that Hillary Clinton is “an ideal person to run against for the Republicans” since she is “such a damaged and wounded candidate without credibility or trust.”

“So let’s hope she stays in [the race], I don’t see how she can convince the American people that they can trust her with the nuclear launch codes when she might leave them at a Chipotle restaurant sitting at the table,” he added.

Rand Paul Claims That His Personhood Bill Is Merely Meant To Start A 'Debate'

Sen. Rand Paul was the chief sponsor in the last Congress of a “personhood” bill that would have granted full constitutional rights to zygotes, thereby banning all abortions, in-vitro fertilization, and even possibly common forms of birth control. But for someone who champions an unambiguously anti-abortion plan, Paul has been curiously unwilling to talk about it in a straightforward manner.

In his communications with anti-abortion activists, Paul has taken a hard line, writing in a fundraising email for one pro-personhood group that his Life at Conception Act would “collapse” Roe v. Wade without even needing a Constitutional amendment and telling another Religious Right group that American civilization won’t “endure” without ending all abortion.

“Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over,” he enthusiastically declared in an email for the pro-personhood National Pro-Life Alliance. “Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.”

But to the mainstream media, Paul has been more circumspect, claiming that the no-exceptions abortion ban he sponsored would have “thousands of exceptions,” saying that the country is too divided to change any abortion laws, and opining that laws about the very procedure that his bill would attempt to ban nationwide would be best left up to the states.

Paul took the obfuscation tack again in an interview last week with the Catholic television network EWTN, responding to news anchor Raymond Arroyo’s question about his Life at Conception Act by saying that the goal of the bill is to merely “drive the debate about when life begins” and to make liberals talk about abortion.

“We get trapped by the other side, the liberals who always want to talk about the very beginning of gestation,” he said. “And I think it’s important to want to talk about and make them express their opinion that a six-, seven-, eight-pound baby has no rights. But I believe for religious and scientific reasons that life begins at the beginning, otherwise we just keep finding an arbitrary time.”

Paul has won praise from anti-choice activists for trying to turn criticism of his extreme anti-abortion policies back on liberals. But he can hardly claim to be starting a “debate” when he won’t even cop to what his true policy position is.

Wait. Is Ben Carson Pro-Choice?

Ben Carson has made a point of courting Religious Right voters, suggesting that God called on him to run for the GOP presidential nomination and perfecting the right-wing persecution narrative about how conservatives are being repressed by a Nazi-like government and politically correct culture. It seemed that it went without saying that Carson would emerge as a staunch opponent of abortion rights.

However, as Politico’s Katie Glueck pointed out in an article today, Carson and his campaign have been using the exact same language used by a good many supporters of abortion rights, saying that while abortion may be objectionable, it should not be outlawed.

The attention to Carson’s ambiguous position on abortion rights comes after it was revealed that Carson once used aborted fetuses in his medical research, to which he offered an incomprehensible explanation. Back in 1992, he disavowed an anti-choice campaign ad that featured his remarks, telling the Baltimore Sun at the time that he did not believe in legal sanctions on abortion and had referred patients to doctors who offer abortion services:

“As a physician who does not believe in abortion, when faced with a patient who has severe medical problems, I would refer someone for an abortion,” Carson told the Baltimore Sun in September of 1992. “I believe that person needs to hear both sides … I would never advocate it’s illegal for a person to get an abortion. I think in the long run we do a lot of harm when we bludgeon people.”

In an interview with Glueck, a spokesman for Carson’s campaign made a similar argument, saying that while Carson personally opposes abortion, he doesn’t think the laws should be changed to take away that choice. 

We can’t imagine that this position will sit well with Carson’s enthusiastic Religious Right fan base. But we also aren’t sure that Carson’s campaign even knows what his position on abortion rights is.

“He believes in quality medical care, No. 1, and secondly, he believes in people making their own decisions based on facts and information,” said Carson communications director Doug Watts, when asked whether Carson stands by his previous decisions to refer women whose fetuses had genetic defects to doctors who provide abortions. He does, Watts said.

“He believes people ought to have all the facts available to them, but he is steadfastly opposed to abortion,” Watts continued. “Referring it on does not mean he is advocating it, he’s advocating they are getting qualified medical supervision. He has always believed that the battle over abortion had to be waged in the hearts and minds of Americans, that you cannot legislate morality. But he also believes we’re winning the debate.”

Many pro-abortion rights politicians also personally have qualms about the procedure, but don’t feel it’s their role to pursue legal restrictions on the measure. Pressed repeatedly to name a legal restriction Carson supports, Watts demurred even as he stressed that the candidate is adamantly anti-abortion.

“It’s not a matter of legality, because there is legal abortion, but you’re asking for his point of view, where his restrictions are,” he said in a follow-up call. “Restrictions are not necessarily in his mind determined by laws. He believes that life begins at conception and that he is opposed to abortion after that.”

Carson has, in fact, come out in support of a bill in Congress that would ban abortion at 20 weeks, and he has said that cases in which giving birth endangers the life of the mother are rare — but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But Watts reiterated that the legal realm is not Carson’s focus.

“It is legal,” Watts said of abortion. “And as I say, he does not think the issue is one that can be legislated as much as having to win the hearts and minds of people, to discover the morality or immorality of abortion. He is unequivocally, completely, positively opposed to abortion.”

He thinks it is not something that is legislated,” Watts said of reining in abortion. “There’s been all kinds of laws over the years on abortion, some far more harsh than we have today, some less harsh. But what’s going on, to properly address the issue in his mind, is speaking to people in their hearts and minds so they realize the immorality of the act.” (emphasis added)

'I Was Born That Way': Bryan Fischer Claims He Was Born Christian, Repulsed By Homosexuality

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer argued that he and others like him were "born a Christian" and repulsed by homosexuality and so they ought to be entitled to have their associated rights respected and protected by the government.

Fischer took a call from "Terry in Macon, Georgia," who argued that he didn't have a choice about being a Christian because he was made in God's image and was therefore born that way. As such, he wanted to know why he has "fewer rights" than gays who also claim to have been born that way.

"I think, actually, that's a good argument," Fischer replied. "The way I am, I was born this way. And you know, you think about it Terry, who would choose, at this time in our nation's history, to be a Christian? You're ridiculed. You're mocked. You're made fun of. You get fired ... I mean, who would choose a lifestyle where you are the unending subject of ridicule, mockery, and contempt by liberals in society, by elites, by professors, on the media, by politicians? Who's going to choose that? So our defense is, hey, I was born that way."

After admitting that this was really nothing more than a facetious argument because "we know that our faith is a matter of choice," Fischer went on to assert that being repulsed by homosexuality was actually something most people were born with.

"I think that most of us have an instinctive, I think revulsion is not too strong of  a word, to the act of homosexuality, what actually happens when homosexuals come together and engage in sexual congress," he said. "We look at that and there is just an inner revulsion to that."

"God has the same reaction that you and I do," he continued, "but that instinctive revulsion that we have when we think about homosexuality, I was born that way."

Oath Keepers, Preparing For Obama-Provoked Race War, Say They'll Arm Ferguson Protesters. What?

The Oath Keepers, the group that helped provoke the heavily armed standoff with federal officials at the Bundy Ranch last year, made some news last week when they showed up in Ferguson, Missouri, wearing body armor and carrying assault weapons. Now, the head of the group’s St. Louis County chapter says he’s angry that his men were “discredited” by the county police chief – he called their presence “unnecessary and inflammatory” – and the Oath Keepers are planning to signal their displeasure by arming 50 black demonstrators with AR-15 assault rifles.

To prevent those protesters from being shot by police, the Oath Keepers will “surround the black demonstrators as protection.” Sam Andrews, the county Oath Keepers leader, says the event will be an iconic event like Martin Luther King, Jr.’s March on Washington.

Martin Luther King? Let’s step back a minute, and encourage any Ferguson activists who might be thinking about partnering with the Oath Keepers to do the same, and remind ourselves who the Oath Keepers are and why they were in Ferguson.

At an abstract level, the idea behind the Oath Keepers sounds reasonable, almost noble – getting military and law enforcement officers to pledge to uphold their oath to protect the Constitution, and to declare that they will not participate in acts that would violate Americans’ constitutional rights, such as warrantless searches. Some members of the group have denounced excessive use of force by police. In reality, though, the group’s lofty mission statement hides a far-right, anti-government ideology and a strong dose of race-based paranoia. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, promotes the kind of wild conspiracy theories that have thrived since the election of Barack Obama as president, including the idea that Obama is trying to provoke a race war as an excuse for declaring martial law and discarding the Constitution.

Rhodes is fond of talking about civil war. In December he said that a 2013 Connecticut law banning some assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would lead to an attempt at door-to-door confiscation and “civil war.” Rhodes said last year that if Congress didn’t impeach Obama for his executive actions on immigration, “then they will lose all credibility, and throw us into a TRUE constitutional crisis, because they will have failed to do their jobs, leaving the people with the necessity of pursuing ‘other options’ to stop him.” In May, he said Sen. John McCain should be tried for treason and then hung.

As Right Wing Watch reported, Rhodes gave a speech to the Oath Keepers’ New York chapter in June, in which he “encouraged his group’s members to organize and stock up on food in order to resist the government’s plan to institute martial law after bringing down the country with an economic collapse, a race war, ISIS attacks and unchecked immigration.” From his speech:

I think that keeping with that communist agenda of a fourth-generation warfare assault, the intent is to use an economic neutron bomb — doesn’t destroy the buildings, but it kills the people eventually, it starves you out — cause chaos, and in the middle of all that chaos, spark a race war, and in the middle of that, unleash these ISIS cells that are now all over the country. And they don’t just ignore the influx of these cells, they cultivate it, they give them fertilizer, water and fresh air and make them grow.

Rhodes said “the leftists in this country hate this country, they hate it, and they will get in bed with radical Islamists because they have a common enemy, western civilization.”

The Oath Keepers’ concern for the Constitution doesn’t seem to apply to the constitutional rights of gay people. Mike Koeniger, vice president of the Virginia state chapter, declared last month that a couple hundred sheriffs could defy the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling if they were backed by Oath Keepers:

Imagine that we only had 200 sheriffs that stood in the gap, and behind every one of those sheriffs there were 2,000 Oath Keepers, being civilian or prior military or whatever, imagine the power of 200 sheriffs…

We’d win. We’d win with just 200 sheriffs and 2,000 people behind each of those sheriffs. And then we win the war.

That’s not the only time the Oath Keepers have waded into issues involving gay rights. Earlier this summer, Rhodes accepted an invitation from James David Manning, a Harlem-based pastor who says gays should be stoned to death, to speak at a July 4 event in Gettysburg that Manning hoped would draw attention to “attempts to divide the races.” Rhodes’ contribution to racial healing at the event was claiming that liberals want to divide Americans by race and prompt another civil war. Manning, for his part, called Obama the “son of Satan” and asked the crowd to join him in yelling, “Sodomites, go to Hell!”

But didn’t Oath Keepers say they were in Ferguson to promote unity? Where’s unity, and where’s the Constitution, in all this?

Take the standoff at the Bundy Ranch, at which heavily armed Oath Keepers and other assorted “patriots” sided with a millionaire rancher who was refusing to pay fees that he legally owed for grazing his cattle on federal land. There’s certainly no constitutional right to break federal law or refuse to pay your bills – unless you adopt rancher Bundy’s radical-right refusal to acknowledge the authority of the federal government altogether. During the Bundy standoff, Oath Keepers founder Rhodes warned that Attorney General Eric Holder had authorized a drone strike on the compound. When that turned out to be false, the group claimed that the rumor itself had been an example of psychological warfare by the federal government.

More from the Bundy episode:

Noting that a number of military veterans joined the armed anti-government protest at the Nevada ranch, Rhodes said that “the politicians and the would-be dictators in Washington, D.C…have to worry if they go too hard, if they drop the hammer too blatantly on Americans like at Bundy Ranch, that the Marine Corps would flip on them. And I think it would. And same goes for the tip of the spear in the Army, Army Airborne, special forces, your Navy SEALs, all of those groups out there, the more hardcore they are as warriors, the more likely they are to look at something like that and say, ‘that’s it, I’m done’ and join the resistance.”

Last year, an Oregon mine owner called in the Oath Keepers to prevent government officials from closing him down before a court could hear his appeal. But the mine owner soon decried the “absolute bullshit” being circulated on social media and said the situation had “taken on a life of its own.” He pleaded with activists to stop calling and threatening the Bureau of Land Management personnel.

Back to Ferguson and the protests that were being held around the anniversary of Michael Brown’s killing. Oath Keepers initially said they were there to protect “journalists” working for Alex Jones’ InfoWars. The connection to Jones is not surprising; he is probably the country’s most energetic promoters of outrageous anti-government conspiracy theories, including his claim that killings at Charleston’s Emanuel AME church were part of a government plot to foment a race war and persecute conservatives.

“This is all a set-up.” Jones agreed: “Oh it is. Look at the priming, look at the preparations…. You can see all of the preparation building towards this, this is the big move, it’s a race war to bring in total chaos and then total federalization with this evil Justice Department, they even got rid of the other attorney general who had baggage, they put the new one in for the political persecutions of conservatives and Christians. They’re dropping the hammer.”

At a 2013 Washington, D.C., rally that right-wing activist Larry Klayman convened for the purpose of forcing Obama to step down as president, an Oath Keeper speaker said that the Department of Homeland Security was behind the Boston bombing and committed murder to cover it up.  

Rhodes said this spring that the military exercise called Jade Helm 15 – which right-wing activists warned was going to impose martial law on conservative states – was “conditioning and assessment and vetting” of politicians and members of the armed forces to identify who is willing to go along and “drop the hammer on us.”

Given all this history, Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told Gawker’s Andy Cush that he doesn’t buy Oath Keepers’ recent claims to have been in Ferguson to protect protesters.

“I think they realized rather quickly that very few people looked on them kindly, and all of a sudden they became defenders of black protest against police violence,” Potok said. “The reality is they’ve never said anything like that in their entire history. I think it’s ludicrous.”


For more on the Oath Keepers, see the Southern Poverty Law Center and Mother Jones magazine.


Rand Paul: 'So Much Of Our Population' Lacks 'Work Ethic'

In an interview with the Catholic television network EWTN last week, Sen. Rand Paul said that the main problem that must be addressed in the immigration debate is that we have “almost defeated the work ethic in our country” and “we’ve destroyed the ethic of work in so much of our population.”

When EWTN anchor Raymond Arroyo asked the Kentucky Republican about the 250 Disney employees who were let go after training their replacements who came to the U.S. on temporary visas, Paul said the U.S. must “look very carefully at how many people we need.”

But he added that immigration is a “two-fold problem” because “we’re rotting from the inside” thanks to unspecified “people” who lack a work ethic.

“We also have almost defeated the work ethic in our country,” he said. “And so, for like picking crops, hard work, if we didn’t bring in migrant labor, we’re rotting from the inside. We have people who really — we’ve destroyed the ethic of work in so much of our population.”


Religious Right Lawyer Debunks Religious Right's Favorite Talking Point On Gay Marriage

Anti-gay activists have claimed that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down same-sex marriage bans in Obergefell v. Hodges will lead to a tidal wave of oppression and persecution — just as they did following the passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009. Struggling to find the “victims” of gay marriage, Religious Right activists have pointed to a small handful of wedding cake bakers or photographers who were sued after denying service to gay couples.

One of these bakers, Jack Phillips, recently lost his appeal after he was found to be in violation of Colorado’s nondiscrimination law. After the courts ruled against Phillips for a second time, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Fox News pundit Todd Starnes linked the ruling to the Obgerefell decision, even though the lawsuit against the baker was filed prior to Obgerefell and even before Colorado legalized same-sex marriage (the couple was married in Massachusetts).

Alliance Defending Freedom’s Nicolle Martin, who is representing Phillips, appeared yesterday on Perkins’ radio show, where she spoke to guest host Craig James, another FRC official, about the case. (When Martin spoke to Perkins about the case last year, Perkins speculated that it could be a forerunner to an anti-Christian holocaust, asking when the government would “start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians.”)

When James asked Martin if Phillips would have “prevailed if the Supreme Court had not redefined marriage,” the attorney flatly answered, “No.”

“This court used decisions that predated Obgerefell,” she said, adding, “Obgerefell has nothing to do with the First Amendment and the right of all Americans to live and work according to their conscience, it has nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause, it does not affect those fundamental rights, the pre-eminent civil rights laws of our nation, it doesn’t affect those laws in anyway.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom attorney’s statement pretty much rebuts the Religious Right’s favorite talking point about how the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling “abolished” the First Amendment.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious