On “The 700 Club” today, Pat Robertson responded to a concerned viewer who feared that ever since her family moved to Santa Fe, New Mexico, they have been exposed to “New Age spirituality” such as “dream catchers, yoga [and] veganism,” and wondered whether she should let her daughter take “yoga classes with one of her friends.”
Robertson cautioned that while there is nothing wrong with stretching exercises, “along with yoga they have a mantra, and the mantra you say is in Hindu.”
“You don’t know what the Hindu says, but actually it’s a prayer to a Hindu deity and so it sounds like gibberish. So you’re saying ‘kali, kali, kali,’ but you’re praying to a Hindu deity and you don’t want your daughter in that,” Robertson said. “Stretching exercise is cool, praying to a Hindu deity is not too cool.”
In its monthly newsletter, Texas Eagle Forum has published a warning that America’s growing Muslim population will inevitably lead to “Islamic domination” in the form of violence, anti-Christian persecution, ethnic cleansing and Sharia law.
Islamic domination occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called “religious rights.” When politically correct and culturally diverse societies, such as ours, agree to seemingly reasonable Muslim demands for their religious liberties, they are subsequently enforced on the remainder of the population through the use of their political and military components. … At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. Right now, the U.S. is thought to be in this category. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions: India, Israel, Kenya, Russia. [France 7.5% in 2010] After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burning of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues: Ethiopia. At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia, Lebanon. From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and jizya, a special tax placed on infidels: Qatar, Malaysia. After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad: Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey. 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’—the Islamic House of Peace. The Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. Please note how much of our nation’s foreign policy activity— military and financial—is involved in the Islamic-dominated countries throughout the world. Opposing some and propping up others. So why bring this up now? While much of the nation mourned the murder of two NYC policemen at the hands of Muslim Ismaaiyl Abdulla Brinsley, our Commander in Chief teed-off on Christmas Eve with the radical Islamist prime minister Najib Razak of Malaysia, a country in the 60%+ category. Obama’s advisors say President Obama is simply taking advantage of the “warm temperatures in Hawaii to hit the links,” and that his opponent is not a factor.
Just remember the statement of the President on page 261 in the paperback edition of his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
I do believe the political winds have shifted into an “ugly direction.”
Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson warned that comprehensive immigration reform would give Mexico power over American politics and put the government “firmly in the hands of left-wing progressives.”
“They’re trying to get these people so they become voters. ‘So they can’t speak English— too bad. So they can’t hold a job — tough luck. We’re going to give them drivers’ licenses, we’re going to give them healthcare, we’re going to give them a free education if they want it, but more than anything, we’re going to sign them up as Democrats so they will vote Democrat.’ That’s the game,” Robertson said. “If people don’t wake up to that fact, this country is going to be radically changed and our politics will be dictated by Mexico.”
WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie says he is deeply troubled that one of his friends criticized his use of the word “fairy” to describe President Obama, a criticism which Massie is treating as a grave attack on his freedom of speech.
But rest assured, Massie tells readers that he will never “accept that my using the words such as ‘fairy, niggardly, heathen, pagan,’ ad nauseum [sic] are injurious to homosexuals, blacks and Muslims.”
Massie adds that the same friend who rebuked his choice of words also has “information” that Obama “remains a closet homosexual using family as his ‘beard.’”
WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi has also repeatedly suggested that the president issecretlygay.
Political correctness is the bludgeon cultural Marxists wield to demagogue the craven into obedience. It is the meme employed that ensures the acceptable form of social engineering. I reject “political correctness” in all of its constructs and have pledged to myself that I will never succumb to what amounts to a veiled unconstitutional attempt to enslave the nation on a plantation of forced group think, group speak and group behavior.
Such was the gist of a conversation I recently had with Susan Highfield. She suffered under the fallacious idea that certain speech was permissible only for her to use. She said: “Mychal, I hate the man [i.e., Obama] … but only a homosexual like myself can be calling him a … fairy. Otherwise it’s a derogatory statement against [homosexual] people. With all due respect, I’m pretty sure you understand.” She continued by saying, “calling him a fairy is basically hate speech.” Apparently, Ms. Highfield neglected to note that it was me she was speaking to and failed to consider my rejection of such asinine reasoning. I explained to her that “I refuse to have speech privatized … nor do I subscribe to the myth that homosexuals are harmed” by individuals using proper grammar as it was intended because they do not like it.
Highfield was attempting to silence any potential criticism and/or rejection of her chosen lifestyle in the same way Muslims attempt to detract attention away from their passive acceptance of the horrors inflicted the world over by those claiming allegiance to their so-called religion. It is also the weapon used to intimidate and silence criticism of Obama.
The word “fairy” as I intended it is defined by the Urban Dictionary as “a male who acts slightly feminine but not necessarily means that they are gay.” Thus my response to Highfield, questioning whether she had seen the photos of Obama on a bicycle or throwing a baseball, which cemented my usage of “fairy” to describe him.
Highfield claimed she was “disappointed” because I wasn’t “focusing on the fact that Obama is an impostor by attempting to pass himself off as a heterosexual, with a wife and children when its been uncovered that he is indeed a homosexual.” This was the source of her anger over Obama – and as she also commented, she was upset because “what he’s done to this country is liable to take a couple of generations to fix.”
Yet her angst with me is that I called him a “fairy” – while her angst with him was that, according to the information she apparently has access to, he remains a closet homosexual using family as his “beard.”
I refuse to accept that my using the words such as “fairy, niggardly, heathen, pagan,” ad nauseum are injurious to homosexuals, blacks and Muslims. Nor will I be bullied into accepting a contrived lexicon that is inherently illiterate and dishonest and serves only to promote that which is antithetical to everything I believe.
Ever since the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the American Family Association as an anti-gay "hate group" back in 2010, the AFA has vehemently objected to being designated as such. In addition to regularly attackingthe SPLC, the AFA has also taken a few half-hearted steps to try and distance itself from Bryan Fischer, who was almost single-handedly responsible for getting the AFA placed on the SPLC's hate list in the first place, in an effort to salvage its reputation.
Now, it seems, the AFA has decided to take a page out of the SPLC's playbook by releasing its own "Bigotry Map" which seeks to highlight organizations that it claims "openly display bigotry toward the Christian faith":
These groups are deeply intolerant towards the Christian religion. Their objectives are to silence Christians and to remove all public displays of Christian heritage and faith in America.
A common practice of these groups is threatening our nation’s schools, cities and states. By threat of lawsuit, they demand prayer removed from schools and city council meetings, Ten Commandments monuments stricken from courthouses and memorial crosses purged from cemeteries and parks.
Because of anti-Christian bigotry, private business owners have been sued and forced to close their business. Families and businesses that express a Christian worldview on social issues often face vicious retaliation from bigoted anti-Christian zealots.
Some members or supporters of these groups have committed violent crimes against Christians and faith-based groups. Physical and profane verbal assaults against Christians are methods frequently exercised in their angry methods of intimidation.
At first glance, the map appears to be pretty heavily populated, but a quick search of the actual groups listed reveals that the AFA basically just listed every atheist, humanist, or freethinker organization it could find, as well as the state chapters of national organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, SPLC, the Human Rights Campaign, and GLSEN:
We're honored to see that we here at PFAW also made the map as one of the groups that supposedly "actively engages in the complete eradication of the Christian faith from society, government and private commerce. These groups file lawsuits and use intimidation to silence any reference to Christianity from the public square":
A Republican state legislator in Tennessee has introduced a bill to root out and eliminate so-called “no-go zones” in the state, despite no evidence that such zones exist in Tennessee or anywhere else.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Susan Lynn, instructs the state attorney general to “report to the department of justice that a no-go zone exists within political subdivisions of the state” and to then “take all necessary steps to eliminate the no-go zone to enforce compliance with state and federal law.”
It defines a “no-go zone” as “a contiguous geographical area consisting of public space or privately owned public space where community organizing efforts systematically intimidate or exclude the general public or public workers from entering or being present within the area.”
Lynn told the Tennessean that her bill was not meant to target Muslims, although she had heard of “no-go zones” being established by “certain religious groups.” She added that her effort is “the same sort of thing” as federal efforts to desegregate schools:
[Lynn] argues her bill doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Muslims. She said banning such zones will combat systemic problems and protect commerce.
"You might find it with gang activity, you might find it with organized crime, and of course we have heard that there were some places where it is happening with certain religious groups," Lynn said.
There are already laws that prevent gangs, or anyone else, from harassing people in public spaces. Lynn argued those laws might help prevent one-time events, but they're no use for "a systemic" problem. She said the federal government intervening to force public universities to allow black students to attend during the Civil Rights era is "really the same sort of thing."
"People were prevented from getting an education. Do you call the police for that? Well no, that's not the right mechanism. They had to call the Department of Justice," Lynn said.
Tennessee has long been on the forefront of combatting nonexistent Muslim threats, passing one of the nation’s first Sharia law bans in 2010. The sponsor of the senate version of Lynn’s bill is Bill Ketron, introduced a bill in 2011 that would have jailed anyone who personally adheredto Sharia law, and once frettedthat a low-set bathroom sink in the state capitol was installed for Muslims to wash their feet before prayer (it was, in fact, meant for janitors to wash their mops).
Concerned Women for America’s legal counsel, Mario Diaz, stopped by Iowa CWA director Tamara Scott’s radio program last week to discuss the Supreme Court’s upcoming consideration of a number of marriage equality cases.
Scott, who is also a Republican National Committee member, told Diaz that LGBT rights advocates, “the group that exploits the term ‘tolerant’ as their poster,” are actually “so incredibly intolerant to anyone with an opposing view.”
Diaz agreed that a collision between LGBT rights and religious liberty is “inevitable,” and that a Supreme Court marriage equality victory would lead to the “criminalization of religious beliefs.”
“And it is one of the great tragedies that I think I put now at the feet of the Supreme Court, if they are considering finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, they must consider, and I hope they are, that they will be effectively opening the door for the criminalization of religious beliefs, especially Christian beliefs.”
Later in the interview, Scott and Diaz agreed that LGBT rights victories in the courts amount to, in Diaz’s words, a “transformation of the form of government we have.”
Pointing to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comment that it wouldn’t take “a large adjustment” for Americans to adapt to same-sex marriage, Diaz said she is planning to wave a “magic wand and declare that the country’s ready now to move to same-sex marriage.”
“And in a few years, when the country’s ready for polygamy, then the country’s ready for that also, and we continue down that track to anything that the majority of us agree about. It’s just preposterous,” he added.
National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown joined Iowa Republican National Committee member Tamara Scott on her radio program last week, where the two discussed the upcoming Supreme Court decision on marriage equality.
Brown told Scott that a pro-equality decision would be “illegitimate” and anti-LGBT groups would have to emulate the anti-choice movement after Roe and “build a movement that continues to stand and proclaim the truth.”
He compared a potential marriage equality decision to infamous Supreme Court rulings upholding the Fugitive Slave Act, the prohibition on citizenship for African Americans, and school desegregation.
“It may be a generation or two down the line, but this lie about what it means to be a human being cannot stand. It cannot stand,” he said. “And just because the Supreme Court says it’s so, it doesn’t make it so. The Supreme Court has had horrible decisions in the past, horrible decisions like the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, the Fugitive Slave Act, Roe v. Wade. Just because the Supreme Court said it was so didn’t make it so, and there was an obligation for people living in those times to stand up and say ‘no this is wrong’ and to fight with every ounce of their being for the truth.”
He added that the movement would have to contend with “some weakness from Republican leaders on the marriage issue.”
Earlier in the interview, Scott asked Brown about the decision to approve hormone therapy for Chelsea Manning, which Scott joked was part of a “witness protection program.”
“Well, I don’t know about that, but I do know that once you redefine what it means, or attempt to redefine what it means to be a man and a woman, then this clearly is the next step,” Brown responded. “And I don’t think people, at times we may not think deeply about what we’re being asked to accept, especially on the issue of same-sex marriage, but what we’re essentially being asked to accept is the very deconstruction of what it means to be a mother and father, husband and wife, and what it means to be a human being.”
“And once you go down this road of acting as if the biological reality of mothers and fathers, husbands and wives doesn’t matter, it doesn’t exist, then the next step is to say that gender itself is a construct. And we’re seeing that across the country, the next step on quote-unquote ‘transgender rights,’” he said.
He added that transgender rights measures would have "profound consequences" that are being seen "across the country."
Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation is thrilled that Rudy Giuliani questioned President Obama’s love for his country, writing in the Washington Times this weekend that the former New York mayor “said what conservatives have been saying for years: Mr. Obama doesn’t love America.”
Warning that Obama “wants to help the Islamists” and “insanely continues to claim America is a Muslim nation,” Phillips concludes that the values Obama “holds of hating America and Western Civilization [that] are the mainstream ideas of the Democrat Party as well.”
“He hates this nation,” Phillips writes. “He is not a patriot. He is the opposite of a patriot.”
Rudy Giuliani shocked the left wing media that acts as a palace guard for Barack Obama this week. He spoke a simple truth.
“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” the former New York mayor said at a dinner attended by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Mr. Giuliani said what conservatives have been saying for years: Mr. Obama doesn’t love America.
Liberals scream when their patriotism is questioned. While they have no compunction about questioning the patriotism of real Americans, they act as if real Americans cannot possibly question their patriotism.
Yes, real Americans can because their patriotism is non-existent.
There are a lot of unpatriotic acts Mr. Obama has committed — from calling conservatives domestic terrorists, to policies designed to undermine the American economy to his release of terrorists so they can return to jihad against America.
America is a Christian nation. While not everyone in this nation professes the Christian faith, culturally this is a Christian nation. Mr. Obama insanely continues to claim America is a Muslim nation. At his seminar this week on Combating Extremist Violence, Mr. Obama again repeated the assertion that Muslims helped build the fabric of America.
Mr. Obama will not name Islamic terrorism as a threat America faces.
Americans have been kidnapped and killed by Islamists and what does Mr. Obama want to do? He wants to help the Islamists.
Mr. Obama does not love this nation. He hates this nation. He is not a patriot. He is the opposite of a patriot.
The alarming part of all of this is that the values Obama holds of hating America and Western Civilization are the mainstream ideas of the Democrat Party as well.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Newsmax host Steve Malzberg today that Rudy Giuliani “should not apologize” for claiming that President Obama doesn’t love America. The congressman said Giuliani wasn’t questioning Obama’s patriotism, but simply “does not understand why the president doesn’t have the intensity, doesn’t have any feeling when he speaks about terrorism and combating terrorism.”
“He’s not questioning whether or not he’s a patriot,” King said. “He really believes that President Obama does not have his heart in it the way other presidents have.”
King added that he agrees with Giuliani’s claim: “I feel like [Obama] looks at it in a very intellectual or antiseptic way, that he has to always equalize it, he has to always take one step forward and one step sideways when he talks about this issue. Back in 2009 when he did his apology tour. He does not have the same fervor that other presidents have had.”
“He should not apologize and he has not apologized,” King said of Giuliani. “He displayed the context of it, he was not saying that he’s not patriotic, but he did say that he does not have the fervor and the drive that a president needs to effectively carry out a war.”
Earlier this month, Phyllis Schlafly spoke to right-wing personality Stan Solomon about the supposed dangers of transgender rights and communists working in Hollywood.
When Solomon asked the Eagle Forum founder about her views on the decision of Bryn Mawr College, an all-women’s college, to accept transgender students, Schlafly called the announcement “nuts.” She also mocked Bruce Jenner’s reported gender transition: “I don’t know what the world’s coming to, I think it’s just plain nuts.”
“If you destroy modesty, if you destroy privacy, you actually destroy humanity,” Solomon said, warning that transgender rights is a fulfilment of biblical prophecy.
In the same program, Solomon and Schlafly used the commercial success of the film “American Sniper” to criticize Hollywood, despite the fact that the movie was a major Hollywood picture.
Solomon said he is tired of seeing movies where “the hero is a person who comes out as a homosexual and comes out against America because America’s bad,” and Schlafly warned that communists infiltrated Hollywood to put “their propaganda on the screen.”
The conversation ultimately turned to Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to Congress, as Solomon scolded Jewish supporters of President Obama as “idiots,” “moronic” and “stupid.”
In an interview with Newsmax posted online today, Sen. Ted Cruz said that it would be a “travesty” for the Senate to hold a vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be U.S. attorney general, saying she would be “materially worse” than Attorney General Holder.
Cruz told Newsmax host John Bachman, “We have the ability to defeat this nomination, and there are two ways to do so. Number one, if every Republican on the Judiciary Committee simply votes no, the nomination is dead.”
“Secondly,” he added, “even if the committee votes on her nomination, leadership has the authority simply not to report the nomination to the floor.”
“If leadership brings it to the floor, the Republican Senate will have put in place an attorney general who will continue the lawlessness and abuse of power of President Obama,” he said. “I think that would be a travesty, I think it would be an abdication of our responsibility, I certainly hope we don’t do that.”
A coalition of far-right groups, including Faith 2 Action, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, BarbWire, Vision America Action and the Judicial Action Group, wants Congress to order the Supreme Court and other federal courts to “cease and desist” from ruling on same-sex marriage cases.
In a letter to Congress, which it dubs a “Restraining Order,” the coalition claims that the “judicial usurpation” on marriage “fueled a government assault on Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights of pastors, churches, business and facility owners, employees, public officials, organizations, ministries and citizens.”
Of course, the coalition is asking for as much as $49.95 to send the letters to members of Congress.
Today, People For the American Way released a new Spanish-language web ad challenging members of the Republican party at the state and federal level for doing anything possible to block the President’s executive actions on immigration.
“Republicans at all levels of government are doing anything they can to attack policies aimed at keeping families together,” said Randy Borntrager, Political Director of People For the American Way. “We know that as we approach 2016, many Republicans will try to claim that they’re different on immigration. But the actions we’ve seen so far this year paint a much darker – and more accurate – picture of exactly where the Republican Party stands.”
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore doesn’t seem to quite understand the LGBT community that he is so set against, telling the Associated Press this weekend that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, bisexual and “transgendered” people will then demand to marry two people each. “Can they marry two persons, one of the same sex and one of the opposite sex? Then, you've got a family of four or how many?" he asked:
Moore argues that no federal court, even the U.S. Supreme Court, has the right to define marriage.
"You're taking any definition of a family away. When two bisexuals or two transgendered marry, how large is that family? Can they marry two persons, one of the same sex and one of the opposite sex? Then, you've got a family of four or how many?"
Moore also resisted comparisons of his standoff with the federal courts over marriage equality to former Gov. George Wallace’s stand against desegregation, saying that one major difference is that Wallace eventually backed down, and he won’t:
Moore's actions have drawn inevitable comparisons to former Gov. George Wallace's 1963 largely symbolic "stand in the schoolhouse door" aimed at preventing desegregation at the University of Alabama, nine years after education segregation was ruled illegal.
Moore said there is another difference.
"George Wallace moved," he said, noting how the former governor eventually stepped aside.
"I can't move from my position because I'm bound to uphold the Constitution," Moore said.
In response to the Wisconsin legislature considering a fast-tracked “right to work” bill attacking the state’s unions, People For the American Way President Michael Keegan released the following statement:
“Plain and simple, this is an attack on working Wisconsin families. All Americans should be able to come together, have a real voice at their workplace, and make a decent living. But the GOP is bent on undermining these rights and making it more difficult for hard-working Wisconsinites to make ends meet.
“With the legislation taken nearly word-for-word from model legislation of the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the push for this bill is yet another example of the interests of corporations trumping the interests of everyday Americans in our political system. People For the American Way stands with those in Wisconsin fighting this shameful attack on workers in the state.”
Recently, David Barton sat down for a conversation with Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, California, during which he asserted that even Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer knows that the due process clauses in the Bill of Rights came directly out of the Bible and even mentioned this fact in one of his Supreme Court decisions.
"I was reading a Supreme Court case," Barton said, "and in it, Justice Breyer — and no one is going to accuse Justice Breyer of being a religious individual, he'll not be found guilty of that — and he makes the comment that 'of course we all know that all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible.'"
Barton said that Breyer even footnoted this assertion in his ruling, citing Volume 30 of "Federal Practice and Procedure," which Barton claims contains a sixty page explanation of how our system of due process came directly out of the Bible.
"There's Breyer saying 'of course we all know that the due process clauses came out of the Bible,'" Barton said. "We don't know that today":
As is typical when Barton makes these sorts of claims, he doesn't actually provide any information about the ruling in which Breyer supposedly made this assertion, making it all but impossible verify the claim that he has just made.
Our best guess is that Barton is referring to Breyer's 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia (emphasis added):
The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.
You'll note that, contrary to Barton's claim, Breyer is not saying that "all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible," but merely that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, among other places. On top of that, the Bible verse that Breyer cites, Acts 25:16, consists of the Apostle Paul citing his right to confront his accuser according to Roman law:
I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.
In a Friday appearance on “The Steve Deace Show,” Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt skewered Kayla Mueller, the American woman who was kidnapped by ISIS after visiting a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Aleppo and later killed in captivity.
Pratt said that Mueller was a “little revolutionary who had gone pals-ies with the Palestinian terrorists,” calling her a representative of a liberal anti-American mindset that prefers “capitulating to evil.”
“She wanted to kill Jews, what a sweetheart,” he said.
Deace agreed, calling Mueller’s death a “great irony” and “a tragic example of what Shakespeare once noted as being hoisted from your own petard.”
Pratt then claimed that Thomas Jefferson bought an edition of the Quran after learning from a Moroccan ambassador that kidnapping and enslaving people was party of the Islamic faith. “Jefferson went and got a copy and then he knew his enemy,” he said.
Trevor Loudon, author of the book “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within,” appeared on Sandy Rios’ radio program today to discuss Rudy Giuliani’s claim that President Obama doesn’t love America. Loudon said he slightly disagreed with Giuliani’s comments and believes that Obama does in fact love America, but in a deadly and “twisted fashion” reminiscent of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
“I think Barack Obama does love his country, but he does it in the same way that Adolf Hitler loved Germany or Joseph Stalin loved Russia, you know, he wants to transform it into a new vision,” Loudon said. “Obama has proven time and time again that he wants to transform America into a socialist state, he wants to reduce America’s power in the world and make it more vulnerable to its enemies. He’s destroying America’s nuclear capabilities, he’s destroying America’s military and that may cost millions of American lives.”
Loudon added: “Though he may love America in some twisted fashion, all his actions are leading to the destruction of the greatest republic the world has ever seen. He is a hugely destructive figure and if you figure out his background, figure out who meets with him, who he has worked with his entire life right up to the present day, you can figure out his agenda and his agenda is completely anti-American.”
Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, claimed in an interview on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” radio program this weekend, that President Obama isn’t taking the threat of the Islamic State “seriously” and is doing “nothing” to stop the extremist group because he believes that “America’s not exceptional.”
When Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, the host of the program, asked Smith why the president of Egypt and the king of Jordan are “responding in a more direct and authoritative way to these attacks of ISIS than our own president,” Smith responded, “That is true. Other countries seem to be doing more or taking it more seriously.”
“He was going to ‘degrade and destroy,’” Smith added. “Well, I don’t see any evidence of degrading and I don’t see certainly any evidence of destroying ISIS. Other countries are moving better than we are. And we certainly ought to get other countries engaged without any doubt, but we cannot just sit around and do nothing, all it does is embolden our enemies.”
Smith warned that “it would not surprise me if you didn’t see more American citizens subject to some of these killings when they see America doing nothing to try to stop them.”
Later in the interview, Smith said “one might hope” that the president “would be a little bit more responsive and a little bit more assertive and, frankly, trying to assert American power and provide weapons to those who are our allies, for example, or take actions to stop the atrocities that are occurring, or support other nations that are doing more than we are. But the president is doing none of these things.”
“He’s decided in effect that America’s not exceptional, that we don’t have a role to play in the world, and that he’s not going to be concerned about it,” he theorized. “And I think that this is actually a greater danger to our country than almost anything else because it just encourages our opponents and frankly it demoralizes our allies.”