Fighting the Right

Frank Gaffney Is Outraged That Muslim-Americans Are Meeting With Members Of Congress

Today on “Sandy Rios In The Morning,” Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy expressed outrage that the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations has organized an “advocacy day” on Capitol Hill, despite the fact that groups across the political spectrum have organized similar lobby days where activists meet with lawmakers and congressional aides. The event page notes:

USCMO’S advocacy day event will focus on promoting a legislative agenda in support of equality and social justice issues that will be of benefit to all Americans, regardless of faith or background, including:

• Support for House and Senate resolutions recognizing and condemning Islamophobia.

• Support legislation that enables individuals to build a credit history without taking on credit debt.

• Support legislation that promotes greater access to fresh fruit, vegetables, and other healthful whole foods in impoverished areas.

• Address American Muslim community concerns regarding the oversight, management and approach of federal Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs.

Naturally, Gaffney said that the real goal of the occasion is to push Sharia law:

What they’re trying to do is essentially engage in influence operations. This isn’t to say like any other American citizen they don’t have the right to petition their elected representatives. What is worrying, though, is that as part of the larger Muslim Brotherhood operation inside the United States, this relatively new group, of which the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a part, called the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, USCMO, is trying to take political influence to a new level, and that is to actually build political muscle to compel legislators or other would-be elected officials to conform to their demands.

And their demands, unfortunately, are to obtain all kinds of accommodations, perhaps most worryingly, of the kind that would enable them to insinuate this really totalitarian program they call Sharia inside our country. I think that’s the agenda here and it’s very troubling indeed.

Something tells us that he wouldn’t label the many lobby days assembled by other groups “influence operations” or say that by sitting down with their elected representatives they are engaging in an insidious plot “to take political influence to a new level.”

Gaffney serves as a national security adviser to Ted Cruz along with his Center for Security Policy colleague Clare Lopez, who voiced similar anger about an effort to get Muslim-Americans out to vote.

Larry Klayman: 'Violent Reaction' If Supreme Court Doesn't Overturn Immigration Actions

Larry Klayman, the conservative legal activist who represents the anti-immigrant extremist Sheriff Joe Arpaio, penned a column in WorldNetDaily over the weekend about the Supreme Court case determining the future of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Klayman writes that Obama is a secret Muslim who possibly murdered Justice Antonin Scalia to make sure the court’s conservative bloc is one vote short in the case. If the court doesn’t strike down the president's immigration actions, Klayman wrote, there could be a “violent reaction” as Americans demand an end to Muslim immigration since “[w]e are at war with Islam.”

He even makes a reference to his failed attempt to launch a revolution in 2013, when he promised that “millions” of people would “occupy Washington D.C.” until Obama decided to leave office, only to have just a few dozen people show up. While Klayman claims his revolution was always meant to be nonviolent, he once called on military leaders to “rise up” to oust Obama.

This week, “America’s sheriff,” Joe Arpaio, and I filed an amicus, that is a “friend of the court” legal brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the executive orders of President Barack Hussein Obama that involve granting amnesty to over 5 million illegal aliens, many of whom are his “fellow Muslims.” Sheriff Arpaio has not specifically targeted illegal-alien Muslims for deportation in the amicus brief we filed, but frankly, that will be the natural consequence if President Obama’s executive orders allowing for this amnesty are overturned. I therefore write my own views in this column – which square with the views of millions of other Americans who are finally coming out of the woodwork.

These Muslims, as Donald Trump and others like myself have expressed, represent a grave threat to the national security, safety and well-being of all Americans. Whether they are actual or latent terrorists, or just – as is regrettably usually the case – sympathetic to the Islamic cause and its worldwide caliphate under their false god allah, these Muslims have no legal or other right to be here if they are not already citizens. And, that is notwithstanding that the Islamic religion and Muslim culture, in my opinion and the opinion of others who dare to speak the truth publicly, is simply not compatible with a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values and roots. To the extent they can be kept out of this country, this must be done. We are at war with Islam. If we don’t recognize that fact, our fate will soon morph into the disastrous fate of Western Europe, where Muslims have overrun their societies. In the demonstrated wake of past and present terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Paris and now Brussels, the continent is on the verge of going up in Islamic flames.



A few years ago, standing with presidential candidate Ted Cruz, Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Mike Lee, during the government shutdown, when Obama spitefully barred military veterans from visiting the recently built World War II Memorial, I stood up to speak before these veterans on a cold rainy day. Metaphorically, facing the Lincoln Memorial where the civil rights icon Rev. Martin Luther King has eloquently given his “I Have a Dream Speech” in the early ’60s, I called for a peaceful non-violent revolution using civil disobedience a la King. Speaking from my heart on “auto-drive,” I challenged our Muslim president, tongue in cheek, to get up off his knees, put the Quran down and come out with his hands up. My “satire” ignited a spark and was nationally televised, eliciting at least two weeks of non-stop coverage and leftist pro-Muslim commentary. The tea party, for which I am credited with having being a primary catalyst, and I were vilified and trashed on the pro-Obama leftist cable networks MSNBC and CNN.

It is ironic, indeed, that a few years later, my controversial satire is no longer satire, but sad recognizable reality. And, with all that is at stake – allowing illegal Muslim and other immigrants to remain in this nation by executive Obama fiat – We the People have to rely for now on the Supreme Court to nullify Obama’s lawless and unconstitutional amnesty. With the high court one conservative vote short – given the mysterious if not “Obama convenient death” of Justice Antonin Scalia – let us all pray that Obama’s executive amnesty will still be struck down. For if it is not, peaceful civil disobedience, as I urged on the National Mall that rainy day before the World War II memorial, will likely soon turn physical, and not by our doing.

As in Europe at this moment, the non-Islamic citizenry have had it with politicians who have opened their societies up to Muslim sexual assault and potentially nuclear, chemical and biological terrorism and mass murder. European leaders such as Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and Belgium’s Prime Minister Charles Michel will soon be shown the door at the ballot box. But the push back will not stop there, leaving behind hordes of non-Islamic European citizens who increasingly are taking matters into their own hands.

In short, if the Supreme Court does not throw out the Muslim in Chief’s executive amnesty, expect similar violent reaction soon coming to our shores.

Cruz & Backers Exploit Broken Campaign Finance System

“Emergency: Ted Cruz under attack” declares the urgent subject line in Monday morning’s email. “The attacks from Donald Trump and the establishment are absolutely blistering,” reads the letter begging for contributions, “and Ted Cruz urgently needs our help to lock up this nomination.”

Really? Hasn’t the “establishment” been busy easing Cruz’s path to the nomination by trying to derail Donald Trump? Never mind. “With the continued support of grassroots patriots like us, Ted is well on his way to securing the necessary delegates and winning the nomination.”

This fundraising pitch did not come from the Cruz campaign, but from one of the growing army of super PACs working to get him elected. The “grassroots patriots” behind this particular super PAC, Keep the Promise III, are fracking billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks, who along with their wives gave $15 million to get the super PAC going. Keep the Promise III also goes by the name “Reigniting the Promise.”

Cruz’s presidential bid is benefitting from the no-holds-barred campaign finance system created by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which trashed previous campaign finance regulations in Citizens United and other rulings. Those rulings gave rise to the creation of super PACs, which are allowed to take contributions of unlimited size.

Super PACs are only permitted by law to make independent expenditures. They are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns. But thanks to loose rules and enforcement by the perpetually gridlocked Federal Election Commission, Cruz and the super PACs supporting him have made a mockery of those rules.

Last week the Washington Post reported that super PACs are no longer just raising money and buying ads, but are actually taking over operations traditionally performed by candidates’ campaign committees, like holding pre-election rallies featuring the candidate. Cruz super PACs have, the Post reported, been “effectively serving as an extension of Cruz’s official campaign, hosting major rallies for him from South Carolina to Utah.”

The tactic serves to offload costs onto the super PAC, which has been financed by six-figure checks from wealthy Cruz supporters — allowing Cruz to harbor his resources for a drawn-out Republican nomination battle with front-runner Donald Trump.

How is this possible given rules against coordination? Cruz supporters say the candidate is simply invited to appear at the events as a “special guest,” which his campaign lawyers say is good enough to meet flimsy campaign finance rules. But Larry Noble of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center told the Post, “It’s one thing to have a candidate appear at something billed as a super PAC fundraiser. What this has morphed into is the super PAC putting on campaign events, and that is illegal.”

It’s actually hard to keep track of all the Cruz-supporting super PACs. There’s a family of four separate but affiliated super PACs operating under the Keep the Promise name – all funded by wealthy individuals, one of them now run by discredited Christian-nationalist “historian” David Barton. In December the Sunlight Foundation counted eight pro-Cruz super PACs. Since then, former Texas governor Rick Perry helped launch Keep the Promise to Veterans, and some of the same people behind the Keep the Promise super PACs decided that Cruz needed yet another one, and the Trusted Leadership PAC was born.

Politico reported in February that five of the major Cruz super PACs had spent $10.5 million in January and had $25.6 million cash on hand at the end of that month. Since then they’ve been spending heavily and the new Trusted Leadership PAC is meant to replenish the coffers for all the delegate battles between now and the convention. Cruz also benefits from super PAC spending that is aimed at denying Trump the delegates he needs to win the nomination.

The super PACs wield their muscle in a variety of ways. Last month Keep the Promise hosted a campaign rally for Cruz in Arizona, and the super PAC denied access to a reporter from the Phoenix New Times because a KTP official said the paper writes “hit pieces on Republicans.”

David Barton: Disney Movies Are Turning Animals Into Pagan Gods

On his "WallBuilders Live" radio program today, David Barton repeated his warning that Disney movies are anthropomorphizing animals by making people believe that they have human-like thoughts and feelings, which is causing people to essentially worship pagan gods.

"If you look back at the time of the Bible, a lot of the idols back then were actually animals," Barton said. "Dagon was the fish God."

Barton claimed that America never had any sort of animal rights movement until this nation got away from the Bible and Disney started producing movies like "Bambi" and "Lady and the Tramp," in which animals were presented as human surrogates.

"The Bible tells us that you are to be kind to your animals," he stated, "but you don't worship your animals, you don't make a Dagon god out of them and that's what we've now done."

Kris Kobach, Mastermind Of Anti-Immigrant Policies, Helped Write Trump's Border Wall Plan

Kris Kobach, a former Bush administration attorney who is now the secretary of state of Kansas, helped write Arizona's SB1070, the state's infamous anti-immigrant "show me your papers" law. He helped Alabama craft one of the most disastrous anti-immigrant laws in the U.S. In his home state, Kobach has raised the specter of undocumented immigrants committing voter fraud in an attempt to justify a "proof of citizenship" law that has kept tens of thousands of Kansans from registering to vote. In 2012, he advised Mitt Romney on his infamous "self-deportation" policy. When politicians want help cracking down on undocumented immigrants, and they don't mind going about it in creatively cruel ways, Kobach is their go-to guy.

So it should come as absolutely no surprise that when Donald Trump announced an astonishingly cruel plan to attempt to make Mexico pay for a wall at the southern border by holding hostage the money that Mexican immigrants send home to their family members, it was Kobach who was behind it.

When Kobach endorsed Trump back in February, he offered a version of what became the GOP frontrunner's plan for the wall:

“We have the ability to shut down the flow of remittances to Mexico from illegal aliens working in the United States,” he said. “Mexico will then have to make a choice: Either make a single payment of $5 billion to $10 billion to the United States to pay for the wall, or lose most of the $23 billion in remittances that Mexico receives every year from its nationals working illegally in the United States.”

Now Kobach says that he was in fact the one behind Trump's plan to seize remittances:

In an interview, Kobach said Trump’s focus on remittances — money sent by individuals in the U.S. to friends and family in other countries — is consistent with what he had been advising the campaign. He said he has spoken with the campaign directly, and Trump himself, about immigration.

“Mr. Trump was receptive to that idea and I think he’s an excellent negotiator and he looks for opportunities to put pressure on opposing parties in negotiations and this fits the bill,” Kobach said.

...

The path outlined by Trump is a more detailed version of what Kobach proposed in February when he endorsed the candidate. During an interview Friday, when directed to Trump’s plan on his campaign website, Kobach said he had drafted portions of the document. The Trump campaign didn’t respond to a request to elaborate on Kobach’s involvement with formulating Trump’s position on paying for the wall.

“I have been in touch with Mr. Trump directly and his campaign team about this issue,” Kobach said.

Trump's plan, like many ideas originating with Kobach, would not only be unnecessarily cruel but could also be a logistical nightmare and an economic disaster, one that would probably end up increasing the rate of Mexican immigration into the U.S.

Cruz Promotes Support of Demon-Hunting, Anti-Gay Exorcist State Legislator Gordon Klingenschmitt

This weekend Sen. Ted Cruz announced the support of demon-hunting, anti-gay exorcist and Colorado state Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt as part of his Colorado Leadership Team, stating “I am honored to have the support of so many courageous conservatives in Colorado.”

People For the American Way (PFAW) has long tracked the shocking and downright bizarre anti-Obama, anti-women, and anti-LGBT comments of Rep. Klingenschmitt. He was mocked on the Daily Show just last week for his comments against transgender people, and he’s been criticized by his fellow Republican lawmakers for his outrageous remarks, including his claim that a vicious attack on a pregnant woman in Colorado was caused by the “curse of God upon America” for legal abortion. An overview of Klingenschmitt’s extremism, including videos, is here from Right Wing Watch, a project of PFAW.

“Cruz’s choice to align with Klingenschmitt, who has been repeatedly denounced even by members of his own party, shows how dangerous a Ted Cruz presidency would be to most Americans,” said PFAW President Michael Keegan. “Even among far-right activists, Klingenschmitt’s comments stand out. Rep. Klingenschmitt has declared that ‘demonic spirits’ rule President Obama, that God cursed America for legal abortion through a brutal attack on a pregnant woman, and that teaching children about marriage equality subjects children to ‘rape, at least in their mind.’ Cruz’s decision to advertise his association with Klingenschmitt shows just how ugly his own extreme anti-gay agenda as president would be.”

Klingenschmitt is only the latest in a long list of endorsements and partnerships that Cruz has fostered with far-right extremists. For example, Cruz’s pro-life co-chair, Troy Newman, has written that God is punishing America for failing to institute the death penalty for abortion providers. Cruz has campaigned alongside Kevin Swanson, who believes a just government would execute gay people. Cruz has also touted the support of Mike Bickle, who believes that God sent Hitler as a “hunter” for the Jewish people.  For more information or to schedule an interview about the leaders and activists Cruz has engaged for his campaign, please email media@pfaw.org.

People For the American Way is a progressive advocacy organization founded to fight right-wing extremism and defend constitutional values including free expression, religious liberty, equal justice under the law, and the right to meaningfully participate in our democracy.

###

Phyllis Schlafly Faces Ouster Attempt Following Trump Endorsement

This post has been updated.

Over the weekend, Eagle Forum president Ed Martin emailed the group's members about a recently uncovered “scheme to push Phyllis Schlafly out of Eagle Forum.”

Schlafly, the nonagenarian conservative icon who is best known for her role in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), founded and chairs Eagle Forum, which opposes not only feminism but also LGBT equality, immigration reform and vaccines.

Last month, Schlafly introduced and endorsed Donald Trump at a rally in St. Louis, two months after many state and local Eagle Forum leaders had announced their support for Ted Cruz.

One of the Cruz supporters, Cathie Adams of Texas Eagle Forum, delivered a low blow to Schlafly after her campaign stop with Trump, speculating that Schlafly's age had allowed her to be manipulated into the endorsement. "At 91, it is just totally unfair to impose upon someone who has such a beautiful legacy … I think this was very much a manipulation," Adams said. "When you’re 91 and you’re not out with the grass roots all the time, it is very much taking advantage of someone.”

This obviously did not sit well with the national organization. In Martin’s email this weekend, he said that Adams was part of a “Gang of 6” seeking to oust Schlafly from the group she founded.

Five of the “Gang of 6” have publicly endorsed Cruz. The group includes Adams and even Schlafly’s own daughter, Anne Cori.

The others are Eunie Smith, Shirley Curry, Carolyn McLarty and Rosina Kovar, who in 2011 won internet fame for her unintentionally hilarious screed about anal sex.

The Missouri Eagle Forum said that “Phyllis Schlafy’s endorsement of Trump is a likely catalyst” of the “upcoming hostile takeover of Eagle Forum’s board and its assets.”

The email from Martin, however, does not mention the Cruz-Trump split, although he does mention that Adams “disparaged and insulted Phyllis.” Instead, he says that the “Gang of 6” are moving against Schlafly because of her opposition to holding a new constitutional convention.

Several conservative activists such as radio host Mark Levin and homeschooling activist Michael Farris have called for a convention of states in order to amend the U.S. Constitution with a litany of right-wing items. Schlafly, however, has repeatedly said that there would be no way to limit a constitutional convention to just advancing conservative causes like a Balanced Budget Amendment, warning that liberal activists could use it to ratify proposed amendments like the ERA.

“The rogue members have a hidden agenda, and most refused to return phone calls personally made to them by Phyllis to ask what their concerns are,” Martin wrote. “They are being guided by a big, liberal law firm that they refuse to identify (but the press has identified). They also refuse to say who is funding the high paid liberal lawyers.”

Schlafly herself wrote to members about what she called “the hostile takeover of Eagle Forum,” writing that for “reasons that are not entirely clear to me, some people have been working to attack me and Eagle Forum. My disappointment is compounded by the fact that these are people with whom I have worked closely in the past. I have asked them to resign from the Board immediately so that we may continue our important work.”

In a letter addressed to the so-called “Gang of 6,” Schlafly said that while she has “fond memories of our work together and our friendships,” she has asked them to “resign immediately” from the group’s board.

“[T]his morning Eunie said that this is about my judgment on personnel,” she said. “I don’t know what is the true plan but I believe it is an attack on me and my work.”

Martin added: “Phyllis has always stood up to bullies wherever they are found: the Soviets, the feminists, liberals of every stripe, and those who would undermine Phyllis’ successful leadership of Eagle Forum.”

UPDATE: In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Schlafly said that the attempt to remove her from Eagle Forum was, at least in part, a result of her Trump endorsement and that “the leader of the coup is my daughter Anne Cori and her husband at Eagle Forum Missouri.”

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly confirmed to WND that six board members of her group Eagle Forum have called a special meeting Monday that she believes is an attempt to remove her as CEO because of her support for Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House.

“This may be my Dobson moment,” Schlafly told WND, referring to the 2010 board vote that forced James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, to discontinue his popular national radio show.

“The six board members calling today’s telephone meeting won’t tell me what the meeting is about, but I think it’s an attempt to vote me out,” Schlafly said. “It’s disloyal and it’s terribly shocking, and I’m completely depressed about it.

“I may be one vote short to win today,” she conceded.



“This is a complete takeover attempt,” she said.

“I think the leader of the coup is my daughter Anne Cori and her husband at Eagle Forum of Missouri,” Schlafly said. “I think she and her husband want to take over the organization.”

Her son John Schlafly, the treasurer of Eagle Forum and a board member, explained to WND that among the six board members calling the meeting are several “who feel Donald Trump is unacceptable as the GOP presidential candidate in 2016.”

...

“Cathie gave this very disparaging interview to the press,” Phyllis explained to WND. “It was a very offensive interview about me. She finally called to apologize, but she didn’t retract anything she told the Dallas Morning News.”

Schlafly maintained that Cathie was one of the “ringleaders” of the six dissident board members seeking her ouster.

Adams, in an interview with WND, denied her goal was to take over the organization or remove Schlafly from heading the organization she founded.

“The six board members calling the meeting are among the most loyal to Phyllis,” Adams insisted. “Together we have over 200 years combined service to Eagle Forum among the six of us.”

Adams said the six disgruntled board members were angry at the management style of Ed Martin, a social conservative from Missouri who has served as a member of the Republican National Committee.

Did Glenn Beck Freak Out Over Baal Worship In America For Nothing?

On his radio show on Friday, Glenn Beck flipped out over reports that a reproduction of an arch from a 2,000-year-old Temple of Baal in Syria would be erected in Times Square to mark World Heritage Week, saying that such an act was nothing more than "slapping God in the face":

It turns out that Beck may have been freaking out for no reason as all.

Initial reports from back in December stated that the Institute for Digital Archaeology, as part of a project to use 3D cameras to capture images of threatened objects from around the world, planned to put replicas of an arch from the Temple of Baal that were recreated using such technology on display in London and New York. 

Since then, plans appear to have changed, as the IDA is not putting anything on display in New York and the reproduction that is going up in London is of a different arch from the site in Syria:

The centerpiece of our Trafalgar Square installation will be a scale reproduction of the 2,000 year old Triumphal Arch from the Palmyra site in Syria which was destroyed last year. Produced using state-of-the-art 3D technology, the arch will be installed in Trafalgar Square on Monday April, 18th and open to the public on Tuesday April 19th.

As the Telegraph reported last week, this Arch of Triumph has been under construction for months and will not be appearing in New York any time soon:

The monument in question is the Arch of Triumph of Palmyra, destroyed by Isil forces as they spread across Syria in the summer of 2015.

For the past two months, in a mountain workshop right next to where Michelangelo quarried a block of finest-quality white marble for his David, a new arch has been rising, and the week after next, in a culminating flight of fancy, it will touch down in Trafalgar Square.

...

When the IDA revealed last December that it was intending to use its data and expertise to build not one but two replica Palmyra arches – to be unveiled simultaneously in Trafalgar Square in London and Times Square in New York – it generated headlines across the world.

Since then there has been some backtracking on the original idea. There will be no simultaneous unveiling in New York – they may transport the London arch there later, or build another one – and the Palmyra arch that is being reconstructed is no longer the entrance to the Temple of Bel (which survived an attempt to blow it up in August 2015) but the Arch of Triumph (partially destroyed in October) formerly located at one end of the Great Colonnade.

Ted Cruz Is 'Honored' To Have The Support Of Colorado's Demon-Hunting, Anti-Gay Exorcist State Legislator Gordon Klingenschmitt

We have noted several times before that there seems to be no activist who is too extreme to be embraced by Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, so we were not particularly surprised when the Texas senator recently announced that infamous demon-hunting, anti-gay exorcist/state legislator Gordon Klingenschmitt would be part of his Colorado leadership team.

Jesse Lee Peterson: Black Americans Are In 'An Evil State,' Which Is Why They Didn't Back Ben Carson

Conservative activist Jesse Lee Peterson appeared on the “Gun Owners News Hour” with Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt last weekend, where he repeated the thesis of his most recent book , which is that racism in America does not exist, but rather is a myth perpetuated by people like President Obama who was raised to hate white people and is incapable of feeling love.

Peterson told Pratt that once Americans “dispel that notion that racism exists,” liberals will lose power because “their father the Devil” feeds on such lies.

The two then, for some reason, started comparing and contrasting Dr. Ben Carson, the former Republican presidential candidate, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor who became a right-wing lightning rod during Obama’s first presidential campaign.

Peterson told Pratt that African American voters didn’t support Carson’s presidential bid because they’re in an “evil state” and “prefer evil over good.”

“And yet, in their fallen state of anger, most blacks see Dr. Carson as the enemy and they see Jeremiah Wright as the good guy,” he said. “And even though Jeremiah Wright speaks evil, he is evil, but because they’re in that evil state, they identify with him over a good, decent man like Dr. Ben Carson. And blacks would never vote for him, the majority would never vote for him because any time a person who’s good like that, they see them as a sell-out, they don’t accept good, they prefer evil over good and they call evil good and they call good evil.”

Earlier in the program, Peterson expounded on his theory that President Obama has been sympathetic toward the Black Lives Matter movement because he was raised by a mother who "hated her own race” and grew up without his father so “he doesn’t feel love, he has nothing but anger in his heart.”

Pratt evidently thought this was very perceptive and said that the president “has developed a very cold shell to cover that with and when I see him, it’s almost like looking at a robot, the lack of human emotion that’s on display.” Meanwhile, he said, the president has a “Mt. Vesuvius” of anger bubbling underneath.

Peterson agreed that “Obama is evil, he’s cold-hearted, he doesn’t care about anyone but Obama” but voters have never really understood “how wicked this man is.”

'We Are Toast': Glenn Beck Does Not Appreciate Being Mocked For Warning About Baal Worship

Yesterday, we posted a clip of Glenn Beck and right-wing activist Samuel Rodriguez warning that America was unknowingly engaging in Baal worship, which was picked up the the Drudge Report.

On his radio show today, Beck voiced his displeasure with Drudge for this supposed display of "anti-Christian bigotry" and defended his claim by pointing to the fact that a reproduction of an arch from the 2,000-year-old Temple of Baal in Syria, which is under threat from ISIS, will be on display in Times Square for World Heritage Week.

Citing a column from the Charisma magazine website which claimed that it is no coincidence that the arch will go up "exactly 13 days before Baal's biggest day of the year," Beck grew increasingly irate that he was being mocked for pointing out the obvious.

"Why would you put it up on the high holy day of Satan?" Beck asked. "Good God Almighty, what are we doing? It's really creepy. And that's what Drudge is making fun of me on. I mean, if you want to pay attention at all, what are you doing? I mean, we are slapping God in the face over and over and over again and our press is making fun of [me]."

"This country was established through the might and the power of the Almighty God," he continued, growing more and more upset, "and I'm sorry if that's politically incorrect but read our own documents! Read the words of our founders. They were lead here by God, they established this country by God, our founding documents are all about God! Our rights do not belong to us; we borrow them, He gives them to us to protect. And what are we doing? In our darkest hour, we are erecting in Times Square, America's crossroads, we are erecting the Temple of Baal on Satan's high holy days and nobody seems to care and the press is silent and that's something that conservative organizations care to mock me about! We are toast."

Courting Extremism: Chuck Grassley Gives Away The Game And Donald Trump Outlines His Judicial Strategy

Courting Extremism is a weekly feature on conservative responses to the Supreme Court vacancy.

Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters want the Senate to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans continue to refuse to even let Garland answer questions.

In doing so, they are taking orders from — and sometimes directly repeating the talking points of — the conservative interest groups that are desperately trying to keep the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat open in the hopes that a Republican president will nominate a conservative ideologue to fill it. The Republican Party’s presidential frontrunner has even gone so far as to say that he would outsource the selection of the next justice to these groups.

Here are five ways the GOP has tried to support its Supreme Court blockade this week:

5) The Heller Lie Lives On

Republicans seem to have given up trying to find anything in Garland’s record that might disqualify him serving on the Supreme Court and seem content instead to just repeat blatant falsehoods about his judicial career.

For example, conservative activists have repeatedly claimed that Garland voted to uphold a Washington, D.C., handgun ban when the appeals court he serves on heard an early version of the Heller case. (The Supreme Court eventually used the case to dramatically expand gun rights.)

However, Garland never voted on the case. In fact, he never even heard the case.

Garland only voted to have the case, then known as Parker vs. District of Columbia, reargued in front of the entire Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after a three-judge panel on the court held that the handgun ban was unconstitutional. It is not uncommon for the court to have major cases reargued in front of all of its judges; in fact, one of the court’s most conservative members also voted to have the full court hear the case. However, the vote to rehear the case wasn’t successful, so Garland never ended up ruling on the matter.

But this didn’t stop Virginia Republican Party Chairman John Whitbeck from falsely claiming that Garland did in fact vote in favor of upholding the handgun ban:

"When Justice Antonin Scalia wrote his watershed opinion in D.C. v. Heller, it marked the first time that an individual right to keep and bear arms was recognized by the Supreme Court by a razor thin 5-4 vote," Whitbeck wrote.

"Now President (Barack) Obama is attempting to replace Justice Scalia with Judge Merrick Garland, an avowed opponent of our Second Amendment rights. While Justice Scalia voted to overturn D.C.’s draconian gun laws, Judge Garland voted to uphold them," the chairman added, emphasizing the second sentence with bold type.

“It’s simply inaccurate to say Garland’s vote to reconsider the case is tantamount to a vote to uphold D.C.’s gun restriction or to extrapolate from it the nominee’s position on the case,” Warren Fiske of PolitiFact wrote in response to Whitbeck’s anti-Garland appeal. “So we rate Whitbeck’s claim False.”

This falsehood, which is being pushed by the National Rifle Association, the Judicial Crisis Network and other outside groups, is also being repeated by Republican senators attempting to justify their blockade of Garland’s nomination.

Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, for instance, cited Garland’s supposed “disregard for Second Amendment rights” when he backed away from his previous support for holding a hearing on the nomination.

4) Family Ties

One of the groups pushing this dishonest smear of Garland has been the Judicial Crisis Network, the organization that was “founded in 2005 as the Judicial Confirmation Network, a pressure group with the goal of confirming President Bush’s federal judicial nominees in his second term in office.”

This group has been at the forefront of the conservative opposition to Garland’s nomination, shaping the movement’s messaging and spending at least $4 million on ads pressuring GOP senators to keep up their blockade.

JCN’s outsized role in the Supreme Court blockade, however, belies the fact that it is a tiny organization funded by an insular dark-money network centered around a single family of conservative operatives.

JCN has relied heavily on funding from a dark-money group called the Wellspring Committee, which is led by Ann Corkery. Coincidentally enough, Corkery’s husband, Neil, serves as the treasurer of JCN. Ann Corkery has also steered more than $1 million from Wellspring to a group called the Catholic Association, another group run by her husband.

Media Matters points out that the Corkery family isn’t the only one benefiting from the connection between JCN and Wellspring: “Michael Casey, who is listed on Wellspring’s 990 financial disclosure forms as its secretary and treasurer, is the son of Republican operative Dan Casey, who is a member of JCN’s board and is reportedly ‘the political and PR brains’ of the organization. Dan Casey is also listed on the Catholic Association Inc.’s 990 financial disclosure forms as its secretary and one of its directors.”

“[I]n 2011, the ties between these two dark money machines grew even closer when Ann Corkery sacked her two fellow board members at Wellspring and replaced them with her daughter and the son of JCN board member Casey, according to IRS filings and former board members,” The Daily Beast notes.

While JCN is the product of a small, well-financed group of right-wing interests, it has, in its effort to shut down the judicial confirmation process, attempted to pose as a group of everyday Americans who just really, really want the Senate to be more obstructionist.

3) Grassley’s Bizarre Speech

One of the most vocal supporters of the GOP’s Supreme Court blockade has been Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who also just so happens to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a remarkable speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Grassley attempted to justify his refusal to hold hearings on Garland’s nomination by claiming that it is in fact Chief Justice who has politicized the high court … by sometimes ruling in ways that do not advance the GOP’s agenda.

The extremely conservative Roberts, Grassley said, has made the court a political institution because he does not always “vote in a way that advances conservative policy.” As a Republican appointee, Grassley said, the chief justice should have upheld the GOP’s point of view in cases regarding the Affordable Care Act and, by not doing so, has helped politicize the court.

Dahlia Lithwick unpacks the senator’s “ insane logic ”:

Grassley now says that the only way to depoliticize the court would be to appoint nominees who conform their political views to those of the Republican Party. “Justices appointed by Republicans are generally committed to following the law,” he said. And then he argued that the court is too political because Republican nominees don’t act sufficiently politically. “There are justices who frequently vote in a conservative way,” he said. “But some of the justices appointed even by Republicans often don’t vote in a way that advances conservative policy.”

Wait, what? So the problem for Grassley isn’t “political” justices—it’s justices appointed by Republicans who don’t advance “conservative policy” 100 percent of the time. And with that, he revealed his real issue. His Senate floor attack isn’t about depoliticizing the court at all. It’s about calling out Roberts for being insufficiently loyal to the Tea Party agenda when he voted not to strike down Obamacare.

What is really being said here is that there is only one way to interpret the Constitution and that is in the way that “advances conservative policy.” According to Grassley’s thinking, a justice who fails to do that in every single case before him or her is “political” and damaging the court.

Now that Grassley believes that the duty of a Supreme Court justice is to advance the goals of the conservative movement, it shouldn’t come as any surprising that he is refusing to hold hearings on President Obama’s nominee.

This is in clear contrast to what Grassley said before Obama took office, when he insisted that senators should focus solely on a nominee’s qualifications in order to prevent the confirmation of “political hacks” from either side:

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

2) The Grassley Rule, Updated

Given that Grassley is now openly admitting that he only wants to confirm conservative policymakers on the Supreme Court, it should come as no surprise that the he also made it clear this week that the GOP’s blockade of Garland’s nomination is motivated by conservative interest groups with a partisan agenda:

“Conservative groups are very much behind what we’re trying to do,” Grassley said following a town hall event at Northwestern College in Orange City. “They figure that if this president appoints somebody, you’re going to have a lot of negative freedom-of-religion decisions, a lot of negative gun decisions, a lot of negative political-speech decisions. So we want to make sure the court doesn’t veer to the left.”

Once again, the best person to counter Grassley’s argument is Grassley 11 years ago.

Back in 2005, the Iowa senator criticized his Democratic colleagues for supposedly being beholden “to far left pressure groups” in their opposition to a handful of extreme Bush nominees and showing more “loyalty to what is probably their base” than to Americans at large.

1) The Trump Court

The Senate GOP’s effort to prevent President Obama from filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court has always been about its desire to have a Republican president shape the court, even if that means leaving the court short-staffed for a year or longer.

Indeed, these Republicans believe that the next Supreme Court justice should be selected by either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, a man who doesn’t seem to know how the Supreme Court works.

Both leading Republican presidential candidates have already expressed a desire to see the court overturn — or, in Trump’s words, “unpass” — the landmark Roe v. Wade and Obergefell rulings on abortion rights and marriage equality, respectively. “I’d like to have the person tailored to be just like Justice Scalia,” Trump said.

In a sign of just how powerful conservative pressure groups have become within the GOP, Trump has even said he would effectively let the right-wing Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation pick the next justice.

Among the potential justices that the Heritage Foundation has recommended are Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who believes that major programs like Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, and Bill Pryor, a federal judge who has similarly lambasted New Deal programs and called Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”

Such justices would shift the court even farther to the right that it is now, putting the social safety net, environmental regulations and reproductive rights in jeopardy.

Gohmert: If Immigration Reform Passes, 'The Republic Will Be Lost'

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, a prominent endorser of Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, warned last month that if the next president allows any sort of path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States, “the republic will be lost” because new citizens won’t understand the “responsibility to be properly educated before you vote” and thus will “vote for whoever will give them the most welfare.”

Gohmert made the comments in a March 31 interview with Baltimore talk radio hosts Sean Casey and Frank Luber.

Casey asked Gohmert about a Center for Immigration Studies report that he said showed that the “immigrant population in the United States is now at 61 million” (in fact, the CIS number alsoincluded the American-born children of immigrants) and whether that means that Texas could go the way of California and turn “into a blue state.”

Gohmert agreed, saying that while Republican Gov. Pete Wilson is often blamed for turning California Latino voters off from the GOP by pushing a draconian anti-immigrant ballot measure, the state’s political shift was actually the result of Ronald Reagan being “tricked into signing an amnesty bill and all the sudden you had 2 to 4 million Democratic voters.”

“So if we get a president that decides to do any kind of amnesty, then the republic will be lost,” he said. “Because you cannot give people the rights without them being educated to the responsibilities. If they come into this country and they don’t understand there’s a responsibility to be properly educated before you vote, then they’re going to vote for whoever will give them the most welfare, and we’re on our way to bankruptcy already, that will help push us over the edge.”

Glenn Beck Hints That George Soros Wants To Kill Him

On his television show last night, Glenn Beck told his studio audience that he decided to make himself the number one public enemy of billionaire philanthropist George Soros so that if anything ever "happened" to him, everyone would know that Soros was responsible.

As Beck explained, back when he was still broadcasting at Fox News, Soros' "number two man" came to Beck's "number two man" and "he made a threat," prompting Beck's advisors to tell him, 'You have to be his number one enemy, make yourself visibly his number one enemy so that if anything, God forbid, happened to you, everybody would go, 'George Soros.'"

Soros has been a constant target of Beck’s conspiracy theories, including a multi-part program, "The Puppet Master," that Michelle Goldberg described as "a symphony of anti-Semitic dog-whistles" that "cast him as the protagonist in an updated Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

A Young Louie Gohmert Wouldn't Have Resisted The Temptation To Enter Girls' Bathrooms

In a radio interview yesterday, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, defended North Carolina’s new anti-LGBT law, which bars transgender people from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity and prevents localities like Charlotte from enacting measures protecting LGBT people from discrimination, by insisting that it would prevent boys from going into women’s restrooms.

Citing his own childhood, the congressman said that boys would be unable to resist the temptation to see girls while they are in the bathroom.

Gohmert recounted to “Washington Watch” host and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins his junior-high fantasies.

“When it comes to this current legislation where — in most of the world, in most of the religions, the major religions, you have men and you have women, and there are some abnormalities but for heaven’s sake, I was as good a kid as you can have growing up, I never drank alcohol till I was legal, never to, still, use an illegal drug, but in the seventh grade if the law had been that all I had to do was say, ‘I’m a girl,’ and I got to go into the girls’ restroom, I don’t know if I could’ve withstood the temptation just to get educated back in those days,” he said.

Gohmert then said that businesses like PayPal are now “telling states that you have to let boys into little girls’ restrooms or we’re pulling our business, it’s just the height of lunacy.”

Cruz Advisers: Obama Using 'White Privilege And Nonsense Like That' To Weaken The Military

The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and the Family Research Council’s Jerry Boykin, both national security advisors to Sen. Ted Cruz, discussed on Gaffney’s radio program yesterday how they believe President Obama is, perhaps intentionally, weakening the military by allowing women in combat and training troops on what Boykin called “white privilege and nonsense like that.”

Gaffney asked Boykin if he thought that “the policies that the president has been pursuing” that he claimed have “diminished the readiness” of the military are “designed to have that effect” or if it’s just a coincidence.

Boykin responded that while he “can’t answer what this administration is thinking,” it’s “certainly a possibility” that the president is intentionally weakening the military.

He contrasted the recent capture of an American boat in Iranian waters to the Vietnam era, when “to get a statement out of a POW that was being held in Hanoi, you had to beat that man almost to the point of killing him.”

“Frank, what’s happened to our military?” he asked. “Now, I’ll tell you what part of it is. They have not spent their time being trained on the code of conduct. They’ve spent their time being trained on tolerance and inclusion.”

“Diversity, sensitivity, and white privilege,” Gaffney said derisively.

“Yeah, that’s right,” Boykin said, “on white privilege and nonsense like that. That’s where they spend their training time. I get feedback from military people all the time. 'Sir, we spent the entire week doing nothing but classroom training on tolerance and integrating women into the infantry.' And, I mean, Frank, we’re wasting precious training time at a time when our enemies are growing stronger and we’re growing weaker.”

Earlier in the interview, Boykin and Gaffney took aim at one of their favorite targets, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which Boykin called “probably, next to the Muslim Brotherhood, the most evil group in America.”

The two also revealed that in February Boykin presented Gaffney with the “George Washington Leadership Award” on behalf of the Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative umbrella group that is currently led by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

Glenn Beck Says Nobody Can Understand The Moses-Like Burden That Ted Cruz Carries

Glenn Beck is not just a passionate defender of Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, but he is also close personal friends with the Texas senator, with whom he is regularly in contact.

On his television program last night, Beck told his studio audience that he sent Cruz and his wife Heidi a note of support over Easter weekend in the wake of a report in the National Enquirer alleging that Cruz had engaged in several adulterous affairs.

Beck explained that he sent the note in an effort to offer encouragement because nobody knows what it is like to carry the Moses-like burden that Cruz bears.

"These guys actually believe it like we believe it," Beck said. "Imagine being in a position to where you believe it, you believe the country is at the end, you believe that God is telling you, 'Step up to the plate.' You believe that you, just like Moses, may be slow in speech and not the perfect guy, but you know if you get in there, you can actually do something and you've tried to stay loyal. Do you know what that life is like for two years of tearing yourself apart, of 'please Lord, just tell me, just tell me, just tell me, I'll do it, just tell me.' And the burden of I blew it? Oh my gosh, I don't want to be them."

Conservative Pundit: Gay People And Allies Are 'The Real One Percent'

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media warns in a column today that the “real one percent consists of the open and closeted homosexuals and their allies in positions of power,” and that this gay cabal is “determined to expel normal, white heterosexuals from the newsroom.”

Besides pushing out white heterosexuals from the media, since it considers whiteness to be “a cancer,” Kincaid also believes that this sinister group wants to defend “perverted behavior” and ensure that the “special rights of homosexuals and even ‘transgendered’ [sic] people suddenly take precedence over the constitutional rights of religious believers.”

White straight people, Kincaid warns, are now the least protected group in society.

The media are once again going nuts over the fact that a state legislature has acted to protect Christians and their churches and businesses from the demands of various sexual minorities. As we have noted before, the power of the real one percent has enormous influence in the major media. The real one percent consists of the open and closeted homosexuals and their allies in positions of power in the major media, academia and the corporate world.

When they want to make an example of Indiana, North Carolina and now Mississippi, they can do so. It is something to behold. They have the ability to make an entire state look like a hotbed of homophobia and hate. The special rights of homosexuals and even “transgendered” people suddenly take precedence over the constitutional rights of religious believers.

What is being demanded is nothing less than the “right” of a man to dress up as a woman and invade the privacy of real women and girls in a ladies’ restroom. That is one of the “rights” that is at stake in what is happening in Mississippi. The legislature and the governor have rejected what is clearly perverted behavior and have affirmed the rights and privacy of those of who understand the science of DNA and biological differences.



The idea of concentrating on such elementary questions as who, what, when, where, why and how, is now considered old-fashioned journalism. Instead, the focus is on who reports the news, as they define it, and whether they are members of protected groups. Being white is not a protected class of people. White people are the villains, unless they identify as a member of a protected group. That leaves white heterosexuals as people who have to be demoted or dismissed.



Indeed, whiteness is such a cancer in the newsroom that a “remedy” is needed. These white people have to be put in their place. They must be cut down to size.



You may have thought these news organizations were in competition with one another. That’s what they want you to believe. But when it comes to promoting the homosexual agenda, including the “rights” of transgenders, they are on the same page. That’s why the coverage of these sexual issues by so many news organizations that seem to differ in their ideological orientation is in fact similar in bias and approach. The real one percent is in charge and growing stronger by the day. They are now determined to expel normal, white heterosexuals from the newsroom.

Wayne Allyn Root Explains Why Liberals On Welfare Are Responsible For All The Violence At Trump Rallies

There are few people in America who can match Donald Trump when it comes to shameless narcissism and self-promotion, but right-wing activist Wayne Allyn Root certainly shares many of those same traits, which is why it is not surprising that Root has been a vocal supporter of Trump's presidential campaign and has been tapped to speak at Trump campaign rallies.

Earlier this week, Root appeared on One America News to defend Trump amid the criticism he's been receiving for his various incoherent and contradictory stances on whether women should face "some form of punishment" for having abortions. Root dismissed the entire controversy on the grounds that abortion is not an important issue because it is settled law and the only thing that matters is jobs and the economy and that is all that Trump should be focusing on.

Eventually, the conversation turned toward the tendency for acts of violence to occur at Trump rallies, which Root blamed entirely upon liberals who are on welfare.

As Root explained, conservatives like him have jobs, homes and families to protect and so they would never act violently because they can't afford to be sued or go to jail. 

"But the liberal crowd," he stated, "they're all on welfare, they don't own a home, they rent, they don't own a business, they have nothing to protect. They get arrested, they're out tomorrow, they don't care. It's not the Right that's ever violent; that's an absolutely ludicrous storyline."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meeuwsen: Crazy.

Robertson: It’s crazy.

Meeuwsen: And in doing so we lose our own rights.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious