Fighting the Right

Michael Savage: Obama Should Be Called 'Obola,' Will Destroy America With Abe Lincoln Praise

Michael Savage took to “The Steve Malzberg Show” today to promote his new book, “Stop the Coming Civil War,” and expound on his conspiracy theory that President Obama is deliberately infecting Americans with Ebola.

“The fact of the matter is, in two more years we’re not going to survive,” Savage said of the Obama presidency. “He has been conducting a civil war on America’s institutions from the day he seized power. But it’s not just him. Take a look at the people surrounding him, ‘the four horsewomen of the apocalypse,’ they’re all thirty, forty years radicals on the left, that’s what they’re doing, they’re achieving their revolutionary goals right in front of our eyes.”

(We aren't entirely sure who Savage's "four horsewomen" are, only that in an WorldNetDaily article earlier this year, he identified two as State Department official Victoria Newland and National Security Advisor Susan Rice.)

He said Obama is letting Ebola “get out of control,” adding: “I named the president Obola the other day because my fear is that will be his legacy.”

Savage also attacked Obama for praising Abraham Lincoln, suggesting that because Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, Obama is going to send his critics to jail without trial any day now.

Of course, virtually every U.S. president in modern times has spoken highly of Lincoln, but never mind that!

“That’s one of Obama’s role models, that’s why I say you may think I’m inventing this to sell a book, then answer this, then how come there were 1.4 million hits on the article WND wrote the other day that was linked on Drudge, ‘Savage: Civil War, Savage says 30 days to save America'? 1.4 million people clicked on that, there are people who understand what’s going on,” he said.

Rep. Rob DeSantis: GOP Will Never Ditch Anti-Gay Positions

Responding today to Mike Huckabee’s threat to leave the GOP over Republican leaders’ muted response to gay marriage victories, Rep. Rob DeSantis reassured the former governor that the Republican Party is not giving up on its fight against gay rights.

The freshman Republican from Florida told Newsmax TV that Huckabee and other Religious Right leaders shouldn’t even think about leaving the GOP.

“Being in Congress and seeing the left wing of the Democratic Party and the elite media in action, they are hostile to conservative cultural values across the board, they are hostile to religious liberty and a lot of our traditions and I think that the Republican Party and conservative voters are really the only force against that,” he said.

“I understand where [Huckabee's] coming from but I think there’s a whole bunch of issues in which the left is hostile to where the governor is going to be coming from and really you’ve got to have a strong opposition party to be able to stand up for those values.”

Linda Harvey: Fight 'Evil' Gay Marriage With 'Civil Disobedience'

Linda Harvey of Mission America warned on her radio bulletin yesterday that America has entered “a time of possible civil disobedience” following the Supreme Court’s recent marriage equality announcement, telling listeners that “we must not serve the interests of sin and darkness” and “this court’s inaction is an act motivated by evil and deception and ultimately will not stand.”

“This is attempted theft of what God has ordained and our Lord will not honor this lawlessness,” Harvey said. “Allowing homosexuality to become normal in America may certainly be part of God’s judgment on our once-Christian nation for our irresponsible sexual practices and for turning our back on what the Lord has taught us. Even so, God will at some point allow the consequences of such defiance to play itself out and that will be a very tragic day indeed for those who have thumbed their noses at the Lord as they celebrate sin.”

Harvey hoped the court’s action will actually give a boost to the work of anti-gay activists: “Those of us who know the truth about homosexuality are far from finished, and in fact, God will use this cowardly act by the majority in our high court to bring a new zeal and fervor to the pro-family movement.”

Still More Evidence That David Barton's History Simply Cannot Be Trusted

Several times, we have heard David Barton make the absurd claim that biblical law was directly incorporated into the U.S. Constitution through the Seventh Amendment, which he then uses to assert that laws legalizing abortion and gay marriage are unconstitutional.

Lately, Barton has tried to bolster this argument by citing an obscure 1913 Texas Supreme Court ruling in a case called Grigsby v Reib, which he claims proves that America can never accept a definition of marriage that differs from God's definition.

In Barton's telling, this case was about efforts to attain legal recognition for secular "civil unions" that were separate from marriage as a religious institution but which the court denied on the grounds that "government is not allowed to redefine something that God himself has defined."

On his radio show yesterday, Barton once again cited the case and read excerpts from the decision to argue that gay marriage can never be legal: 

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband ... The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage. which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary. Marriages will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.

The key finding in this case, Barton asserts, is that the court basically ruled that "we can't do something different than what God's done on" the issue of marriage.

Given that nothing that Barton says ought ever to be taken at face value, we decided to read the court decision for ourselves and, not surprisingly, found that Barton's interpretation of the ruling is entirely misleading.

The case involved a woman named Jessie Stallcup, who claimed to have been the wife of a widower named G.M.D. Grigsby and who had sued Grigsby's sister for control of his estate following his death. Stallcup was a prostitute whom Grigsby used to visit and she claimed that the two had agreed to become husband and wife, though they never held a ceremony, nor did they cohabitate or take any other actions to signal that they were now living has husband and wife.

The case heard by the Texas Supreme Court revolved around Stallcup's contention that she lost her lawsuit because the trial court ignored a binding appellate court precedent that stated that a common law marriage "requires only the agreement of the man and woman to become then and thenceforth husband and wife. When this takes place, the marriage is complete."

The Texas Supreme Court disagreed with Stallcup's contention, pointing out that the ruling in question involved a couple that had lived and presented themselves as husband and wife following their agreement, with the Texas Supreme Court stating that it takes more than a simple verbal agreement to constitute a legitimate marriage.

To demonstrate this point, the Texas Supreme Court proposed a hypothetical situation in which a man and a women met for the first time, agreed to become man and wife, and then went their separate ways, never to see one another again. This obviously would not constitute a binding marriage, the court found, and neither did the relationship between Stallcup and Grigsby on the grounds that, beyond their apparent agreement, they never took any further steps to establish themselves as husband and wife.

"It would be sacrilegious" to give legal standing to such relationships, the court found, because it would then give complete strangers the right to contest seemingly every inheritance by simply claiming to have been the secret spouse of the deceased.

Contrary to Barton's claims that this case enshrines divine principles about marriage into our civil laws, the court repeatedly notes that marriage is a nothing more than a civil contract that requires "neither license nor solemnization of religious or official ceremony" to be legally binding.

​Barton claims that this case was about trying to create a secular alternative to marriage, which the court slapped down because there can never be any legal marriage that does not correspond to "God's definition." In reality, the case addressed the issue of whether a supposedly secret verbal agreement to become husband and wife constitutes a legally binding and recognizable common law marriage and whether the relationship between Stallcup and Grigsby qualified as one under the law, with the court ruling that it did not because it didn't meet the most basic requirements.

This is just one more example of Barton's willingness to intentionally and flagrantly misrepresent history in order to promote his religious and political agenda.

Pat Buchanan: 'Massive Civil Disobedience' Needed To Fight 'Anti-Christian Discrimination'

Incensed with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to turn down appeals of several marriage equality rulings, Pat Buchanan fears that Americans, a “once-free people,” are now “under the rule of a judicial dictatorship.”

Buchanan writes in his syndicated column today that court rulings in favor of gay rights are just the latest in a long line of decisions that have “ordered the de-Christianization of all public institutions in what was a predominantly Christian country.”

“Secular humanism became, through Supreme Court edict, our established religion in the United States,” he said. “Why was there not massive civil disobedience against this anti-Christian discrimination, as there was against segregation?”

After praising opponents of desegregation busing for making “our black-robed radicals back down,” Buchanan quotes the pro-slavery, Confederate Army chaplain Robert Lewis Dabney's comments on “the failure of conservatives to halt the march of the egalitarians.”

Do the states have the right to outlaw same-sex marriage?

Not long ago the question would have been seen as absurd. For every state regarded homosexual acts as crimes.

Moreover, the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage had all been enacted democratically, by statewide referenda, like Proposition 8 in California, or by Congress or elected state legislatures.

But today rogue judges and justices, appointed for life, answerable to no one, instruct a once-democratic republic on what laws we may and may not enact.

Last week, the Supreme Court refused to stop federal judges from overturning laws banning same-sex marriage. We are now told to expect the Supreme Court itself to discover in the Constitution a right of men to marry men and of women to marry women.

How, in little more than half a century, did the American people fall under the rule of a judicial dictatorship where judges and justices twist phrases in the Constitution to impose their ideology on this once-free people?



The Supreme Court has ordered the de-Christianization of all public institutions in what was a predominantly Christian country. Christian holy days, holidays, Bibles, books, prayers and invocations were all declared to be impermissible in public schools and the public square.

Secular humanism became, through Supreme Court edict, our established religion in the United States.

And the American people took it.

Why was there not massive civil disobedience against this anti-Christian discrimination, as there was against segregation? Why did Congress, which has the power to abolish every federal district and appellate court and to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not act?



In 1954, the Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of all public schools. But when the court began to dictate the racial balance of public schools, and order the forced busing of children based on race across cities and county lines to bring it about, a rebellion arose. Only when resistance became national and a violent reaction began did our black-robed radicals back down.

Yet the Supreme Court was not deterred in its resolve to remake America. In 1973, the Court discovered the right to an abortion in the Ninth Amendment. Then it found, also hidden in the Constitution, the right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill Quirk urged it to utilize Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, and write in a provision stripping the Supreme Court of any right to review the act.

Congress declined, and the court, predictably, dumped over DOMA.



Indeed, with neoconservatives in the van, the GOP hierarchy is today in headlong retreat on same-sex marriage. Its performance calls to mind the insight of that unreconstructed Confederate chaplain to Stonewall Jackson, Robert Lewis Dabney, on the failure of conservatives to halt the march of the egalitarians:

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. … Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.”

Glenn Beck's Sanity Box: How Our Society Will Go From Gender-Inclusive Classrooms To Mass Genocide

Yesterday, The National Review reported on a document produced by a group called Gender Spectrum providing teachers with suggestions on how to create gender inclusive classrooms. Among the suggestions was that rather than separating the boys into one line and the girl into another, teachers could come up with gender-neutral ways of breaking up the class, such as separating by birthdays.

Another suggestion was for teachers to avoid using phrases like "boys and girls" and instead have the students come up with a class nickname and then use that nickname for calling the class together. The example the document provided was "purple penguins," so that the teacher could then, for example, call out for all the purple penguins to meet on the rug for reading time.

Predictably, Glenn Beck pretty much lost his mind on his radio show today over this, saying that he is going to start printing out these sorts of stories and sealing them up in a box that he can bury in the side of a mountain so that future generations can see just how deranged our society has become.

"Five thousand years from now," Beck ranted, "they will dig on the side of a mountain and they will find a big thing marked 'Glenn Beck's Sanity Box - what drove him insane is all in this box; open at your own peril.'"

Upon reading these stories, future generations will ask "what the hell were they thinking" and then they will find a message, Beck said, "probably scrawled in my own urine and poop" informing them that at least some of those living today realized the world had gone utterly insane, but nobody would listen to them.

Naturally, Beck then explained that all of this is rooted in a failure to acknowledge the existence of God, warning that when there is no Creator and society can decide its own rules, "this is what leads to mass genocide, every time!"

Anti-Gay Mega-Donor Sean Fieler Is Funding Mark Regnerus' New Think Tank

Last year, University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus — author of a widely panned study on same-sex parenting that is nonetheless frequently cited on the Religious Right — helped launch a new group called the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, which has since been publishing his research on topics including pre-marital sex, divorce, religion among college students and masturbation.

According to tax records filed this summer, the Austin Institute receives much of its funding from one donor: New York hedge fund honcho and social conservative mega-donor Sean Fieler.

The 2013 tax return for Fieler’s Chiaroscuro Foundation reports two grants to the Austin Institute, totaling $250,000. Although the public copy of Chiaroscuro’s tax return obscures the dates of its fiscal year, the organization’s 2010 return indicates that its tax year runs from January through December.

Meanwhile, the Austin Institute’s return reports that it took in just $205,000 in contributions between February and June 2013, indicating that a significant portion of its initial funding came from Fieler’s charity.

Fieler’s funding of the Austin Institute shouldn’t come as a surprise. To begin with, he is a trustee of the Witherspoon Institute, the Princeton-based think tank that kicked in $700,000 for Regnerus’ now infamous “New Family Structures” study. The study claimed to show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents suffer all sorts of harmful consequences like drug use and abuse, despite only actually studying two people raised by same-sex couples.

According to the Austin Chronicle, the new group was quickly dubbed “Witherspoon Institute South” — a name stemming from its staff’s plentiful ties to the Witherspoon Institute and the Religious Right.

The Austin Institute grants were among the biggest expenditures last year by Fielder’s Chiaroscuro Foundation, many of which went to groups fighting marriage equality and abortion rights. This year, recipients include Americans United for Life ($20,000), the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty ($260,000), the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), which fights pro-choice and LGBT rights initiatives at the U.N. ($20,000), the National Abstinence Education Foundation ($50,000) and the Susan B. Anthony List ($40,000). As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Fieler’s foundation also gave $50,000 last year to Morality in Media for its increasingly quixotic anti-porn campaign.

In 2012, the foundation gave $20,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, but seems to have snubbed the group in 2013.

The Chiaroscuro Foundation is just the beginning of Fieler’s influence: Last month, RH Reality Check delved in detail into Fieler’s political spending, including his funding of the American Principles Project and his hand in political races across the country.

While Regnerus’ research at the Austin Institute has so far made less of a splash than his faulty same-sex parenting study, he has continued to lend his voice to the effort to stop marriage equality, including testifying on behalf of a same-sex marriage ban in Michigan this year. (That move caused some of his UT colleagues to distance themselves from his work.)

The Austin Institute’s most noticeable contribution so far is a viral YouTube video applying a pop-economics veneer to the Religious Right’s favorite target, the sexual revolution. The video explains (in economic terms, of course) how contraception led to women turning against each other while men became video-game playing slobs — the only solution to which is for women to band together to withhold sex until marriage.

And the Austin Institute seems primed to provide more research to conveniently reinforce the Religious Right’s policy views — a solid investment for a donor like Fieler.

UPDATE: A reader points out that the Bradley Foundation, a conservative group that includes the Witherspoon Institute's Robert George on its board and that also helped to fund Regnerus' "New Family Structures" study, also reported a $100,000 grant to the Austin Institute last year.

Pat Robertson: Halloween Is A 'Festival For Demonic Spirits'

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson once again warned viewers against partaking in “demonic” Halloween revelry“Halloween is a festival for demonic spirits,” Robertson said in response to a viewer who wondered whether to let her children go to their aunt’s Halloween party. 

“The whole idea of trick-or-treating is the Druids would go to somebody’s house and ask for money and if they didn’t get money they’d kill one of their sheep, that was the sheep and it was serious stuff. All this business about goblins and jack-o’-lanterns all comes out of demonic rituals of the Druids and the people who lived in England at that particular time.”

Robertson suggested that churches instead “turn it into a Christian festival and that’s what we ought to do, we need to redeem these days, but that day was given over to Satanic things.”

Watch:

Kris Kobach Doesn't Like The New GAO Study Showing His Voter ID Law Decreased Turnout

Surprise! A new Government Accountability Office study shows that Kansas’ new voter ID requirement depressed turnout in the 2012 election, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is not happy about it.

Kobach was the driving force behind Kansas’ voter ID law, which he called the “Cadillac of voter security.” The law passed in 2011, and its photo ID requirement kicked in for the 2012 election — that’s the provision that the GAO found decreased turnout, especially among young people and African Americans.

But since then, a new provision in the law has taken effect, making it even harder to vote in Kansas. As of last month, tens of thousands of Kansans had had their voter registrations suspended because of failure to provide one of a narrow list of “proof of citizenship” documents required under this new, Kobach-backed provision.

The “proof of citizenship” fiasco has become a main issue in Kobach’s tough reelection fight, causing many moderate Republicans to break ranks and back his Democratic opponent Jean Schodorf.

So, unsurprisingly, Kobach is not thrilled with the GAO study showing that even the first step of his “Cadillac” plan is driving people from voting, telling the Wichita Eagle that the report from the nonpartisan agency is just “dead wrong.”

“I think the GAO just got it dead wrong,” Kobach told The Eagle Wednesday. “This year we have a very competitive U.S. Senate race and lots of get-out-the-vote efforts. It’s a huge factor in driving turnout when campaigns spend this kind of money.”

Kobach also said it would have been more accurate to compare Kansas’ turnout in 2012 to its turnout in 2000, the last time there were no U.S. Senate or statewide offices on the ballot. In 2000, voter turnout was 66.7 percent, and in 2012, it was 66.8 percent.

The report says voter turnout decreased in Kansas and Tennessee from the 2008 to the 2012 general elections to a greater extent than turnout decreased in selected comparison states – Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine. Tennessee’s secretary of state, Tre Hargett, also called the study flawed.

The GAO stood by its study, saying its “methodology was robust and valid.”

Rebecca Gambler, director of homeland security and justice issues for the GAO, said the agency selected Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine for comparison because they did not have any changes to their state voter ID requirements between 2008 and 2012.

“They didn’t have other contemporaneous changes. They had similar election cycles to Kansas and Tennessee,” Gambler said.

The GAO reported that its analysis “suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in comparison states were attributable to changes in the two states’ voter ID requirements.”

Barber: SCOTUS Is 'Tempting The Wrath Of God' With Gay Marriage Decision

Matt Barber and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel continue to fume about the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow several lower-court marriage equality rulings to stand and have dedicated several recent episodes of their "Faith and Freedom" radio program to ranting about it, with Barber at one point warning that America will soon face divine wrath.

On an episode set to run on Tuesday, Barber warns that "homosexual conduct is demonstrably and explicitly, throughout the Old and New Testament, called sin. And when you have a sin-centered redefinition of marriage and the government puts its official stamp on sin, you have the government blessing sin, well, sin cannot be blessed, it cannot be sanctified."

By trying to do so, Barber said, America is "tempting the wrath of God":

Mat Staver: Third Party Needed To Stop Gay Marriage, Just Like With Slavery

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver, who is still reeling from the Supreme Court’s decision this week to allow several lower-court marriage equality rulings to stand, is now lambasting his fellow Republicans for failing to defend the party’s anti-gay positions.

Staver told Greg Corombos of Radio America yesterday that a third party will be needed to take a strong stance against the legalization of same-sex marriage, just as the Republican Party emerged in the 1850s to oppose slavery as the Whigs were foundering due to divisions on the issue.

When Corombos asked why Republicans have delivered a muted response to the marriage decision, Staver didn’t hold back: “They’re cowards, and if Republicans don’t stand up for this, the party will become a non-issue and there will be a third party that will ultimately take its place. That’s what happened with the issue of slavery and there’s no party that’s immune from this situation.”

He said George W. Bush could have pushed through the Federal Marriage Amendment following the 2004 election but was too fixated on advocating for the privatization of Social Security.

Staver urged Republicans to ignore polls showing growing support for marriage equality: “Just because polls change, that doesn’t make the marriage issue change. You can’t change gravity because a number of people want to fly and get rid of gravity.”

He predicted that the tide will soon turn against gay rights advocates as “more people feel the impact of same-sex marriage, both directly within the family but also specifically with regards to religious liberty.”

Staver added that it is “absolute stupidity” to think that the fight over marriage equality is over: “That would be like saying with regards to Dred Scot, when the Supreme Court said, ‘Sorry Dred Scott, you’re black and blacks are inferior human beings, you don’t have rights of a citizen, therefore the debates over.’ That would be ridiculous then, it’s ridiculous now.”

Phyllis Schlafly: Obama Intentionally Bringing In Ebola To Make America More Like Africa

In an interview with WorldNetDaily published today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly weighed in on the unfounded theory gaining traction in the right-wing media that Central American young people are to blame for an outbreak of a childhood respiratory illness in the U.S.

“There are all kinds of diseases in the rest of the world, and we don’t want them in this country,” Schlafly told WND, adding that “of all the things [Obama has] done, I think this thing of letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people is just the most outrageous of all.”

She went on to imply that President Obama is intentionally allowing people infected with Ebola into the United States because he wants America to be “just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly – author of “Who Killed the American Family?” – said she agrees Obama is responsible for allowing diseases to enter the country.

“There are all kinds of diseases in the rest of the world, and we don’t want them in this country,” Schlafly said. “And it’s Obama’s job to keep them out.

“Out of all the things he’s done, I think this thing of letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people is just the most outrageous of all.”

Schlafly said the government should screen immigrants for disease before they enter the country, as was done at Ellis Island a hundred years ago.

“That was the purpose of Ellis Island – to have a waiting place where it was decided whether people were healthy enough or responsible enough to come into our country,” she said. “The idea that anybody can just walk in and carry this disease with them is just an outrage, and it is Obama’s fault because he’s responsible for doing it.”

When asked why the current administration hasn’t done more to prevent diseased illegal aliens or Ebola carriers from Africa from entering the country, Schlafly said Obama wants to make the U.S. more like the rest of the world.

“Obama doesn’t want America to believe that we’re exceptional,” Schlafly said. “He wants us to be just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”

Erik Rush Asks: Is Obama Trying 'To Facilitate An Ebola Outbreak In The United States?'

WorldNetDaily commentator Erik Rush insists in his column today that he is just asking the question: Does President Obama intend “to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?”

Rush writes that the president is not an “unluckly, incompetent or intellectually compromised” leader, as in fact “the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.”

According to Rush, Obama is an “incomprehensibly diabolical individual” who hopes to create an Islamic caliphate and allow members of terrorist groups to enter the United States. Following this train of thought, Rush insists that it is only reasonable to wonder if Obama is hoping to spread Ebola in the U.S.

I’ve said before (and I am by no means the only one) that it would be statistically impossible for an individual to be sufficiently unlucky, incompetent, or intellectually compromised that their policies would overwhelmingly result in disaster after disaster. Unfortunately, we’ve cultivated a population wherein there are individuals among us so mind-blowingly stupid that they believe travel restrictions imposed on Ebola-stricken nations would be racist. Thus, there are plenty of folks who still buy into the “Obama as the good-natured bungler” narrative – sort of a Steve Urkel with a pen and a phone.

While I have breath, however, I will continue to affirm that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.

Obama used political correctness as a pretext for failing to control our southern border. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to overwhelm the system, thus allowing massive numbers of illegal immigrants and potential terrorists access to the United States.

Obama used humanitarianism and regional security as a pretext for arming “moderate” rebels in Syria. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to facilitate the rise of an Islamic caliphate that would destabilize the Middle East and threaten the United States.

Obama used economics and social justice as a pretext for comprehensive changes to America’s health-care system. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to massively increase Americans’ dependency on the government.

Obama used loyalty as a pretext for trading five jihadi generals for one deserter – illegally, I might add. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to provide terrorist groups with the invaluable experience these murderers could offer.

Obama uses citizenship as a pretext for failing to take decisive action against Americans fighting with ISIS in the Middle East upon their return. It is viewed as imprudent, but his intention is to enable terrorist groups within our borders.

Obama is even using the constitutional separation (of church and state) clause as a pretext for refusing to address Islamist ideology, despite his administration’s unconstitutional deportment toward Christians (in the form of the abortifacient and contraceptive mandates under Obamacare and the widespread disenfranchisement of Christians in the military).



Barack Obama used the denial of risk as a pretext for failing to restrict travel from Ebola-stricken African nations. This, too, was viewed as imprudent. Is his intention to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?

If the above questions paint the picture of an incomprehensibly diabolical individual, bear in mind that this individual and his contemporaries have despised everything America stands for their entire lives, and that their idols are among worst mass murderers the world has known. Then, consider their track record as indicated above.

Then, ask yourself why they wouldn’t use any and every means at their disposal to bring about the desired result.

Clint Didier: Athletes Lean Conservative Because 'There's No Equality In Being Number One'

Former NFL tight end Clint Didier, who is now a Republican candidate for Congress in Washington state, spoke last month with Mama Grizzly Radio’s Kevin Scholla, who asked him why, in his experience, “athletes and those in sports” tend to be conservative.

Didier responded that “the heart and soul of it is competition” because “as much as the left wants to take it out of America,” athletes “love to compete” which is “what America is all about.”

“And that is what about the athletes that brings them into the conservative mold because, you know, when you’re a champion, there’s no equality in being number one,” he reflected.

Later in the interview, Scholla asked Didier about the controversy over the name of the Washington, D.C., football team, for which Didier played in the 1980s. Didier insisted that “if the American people were truly offended by the Redskins   name, then they wouldn’t be going to the games and they wouldn’t be buying all that memorabilia.”

He then suggested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark office’s decision to remove the team’s trademark was a politically motivated attack on the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, whose campaign contributions have gone largely to Republicans….a conspiracy theory that seems to have originated with Glenn Beck.

“One of the things people need to be looking at is who does Snyder contribute his campaign funds to, is to conservatives,” Didier said. “Is it about the name or is it about Snyder being a conservative and giving to conservative candidates? This is a question that needs to be posed in this attack on the Redskins.”

Catholic League: 'Mindy Project' Showed 'Potentially Lethal' Anal Sex Scene

The Catholic League is displeased with Mindy Kaling, warning in a statement today — “Anal Sex Thrills ‘Mindy’” — that the “The Mindy Project” creator, along with her “homosexual writers,” may inadvertently kill people with a suggestive scene involving jokes about anal sex.

“Binge drinking, like anal sex, is potentially lethal, but Hollywood only has an interest in promoting the latter,” Catholic League president Bill Donohue writes. “That’s because of the large number of homosexual writers who work there. Catholics would appreciate it, however, if they would keep their dark secrets in the closet, where they belong.”

HT: RWW reader Andrew.

Last night’s episode of “The Mindy Project,” a Fox show, opened with an implied sex scene involving Dr. Mindy Lahiri (played by Mindy Kaling) and Danny Castellano (played by Chris Messina); it was titled, “I Slipped!” The room is dark and there is moaning.



After the title sequence, the two characters are shown in an office arguing about the sexual encounter from the night before. Mindy is upset with what Danny did. Danny insists it was a mistake. It is implied that Danny attempted anal sex.



Bill Donohue offers his thoughts on this episode:

Binge drinking, like anal sex, is potentially lethal, but Hollywood only has an interest in promoting the latter. That’s because of the large number of homosexual writers who work there. Catholics would appreciate it, however, if they would keep their dark secrets in the closet, where they belong.

Allen West: Obama Waging Biological Warfare Against Americans

In an interview yesterday with conservative talk show host Jesse Lee Peterson, former Republican congressman Allen West reiterated his unsubstantiated claim that undocumented youth are spreading a childhood respiratory disease through America, an increasingly popular talking point in the right-wing media.

West alleged that if researchers ever do find a connection between “dispersed illegal alien children” and enterovirus D68, “then shame on the president for playing politics with the health of our children, that would just be abhorrent.”

When Peterson asked West if he thought the respiratory illness “is a biological warfare,” the former congressman responded that could be a strong possibility: “You know the thing is, biological warfare doesn’t have to be something purposeful, but all of the sudden when you have contagions that are in your environment that are attacking your people, that is an aspect of biological warfare. I believe it was Tom Clancy who wrote a book about weaponizing Ebola so we need to be very aware of these things.”

GOPer Zach Dasher: Americans Need Unlimited Guns To Defend Against 'Tyrannical Government'

In an interview with the Sarah Palin enthusiasts at Mama Grizzly Radio last month, Louisiana Republican congressional candidate Zach Dasher — a nephew of "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson — repeated the view of anti-government extremists that the Second Amendment was designed to enable Americans to launch an armed insurrection against the sitting government.

“Well, you know, the Second Amendment is the one right that ensures the rest,” Dasher told host Kevin Scholla. “You take away a person’s right to defend themselves, then guess what, you can do whatever you want to them.”

“It’s important to recognize that the Second Amendment is not just the right to bear arms so we can go duck hunting or deer hunting or shoot skeet. This is a right to defend yourself, and not just against criminals but against a tyrannical government as well,” he added.

When Scholla suggested that tyranny might have arrived with the Obama administration, Dasher was less sure about the timeline, but added, “You’re right, Ronald Reagan said we’re always one generation away from tyranny. And I think it’s something that if we don’t fight for our rights, it’s a continual fight to stay free, then this will happen, you will eventually end up being taken over by a tyrant.”

WorldNetDaily Pundit: Obama Using Ebola To Put Us In FEMA Coffins, Impose Martial Law

Right-wing commentator Morgan Brittany, who has been busy promoting her new book “What Women Really Want” on conservative networks like Fox News and The Blaze, took to WorldNetDaily today to recount a recent dinner party conversation about whether people can trust the Obama administration to handle the spread of Ebola.

Brittany, in WND’s trademark just asking the question style of journalism, wondered if the government is “orchestrating” the Ebola outbreak to murder people and put them in FEMA coffins while imposing martial law.

“Questions were then brought up about the stockpiling of ammunition and weapons by Homeland Security over the past couple of years and the $1 billion worth of disposable FEMA coffins supposedly stored in Georgia. Why was there preparation being made for FEMA camps to house people in isolation?” she writes. “My fear is that this has all been orchestrated from the very beginning. Who knows? Maybe the current administration needs this to happen so martial law can be declared, guns can be seized and the populace can be controlled. Once that happens … game over.”

We’re happy to report to Brittany that the “$1 billion worth of disposable FEMA coffins” do not actually exist.

I sat with two men and a woman who were debating the question of whether or not Ebola was something to really be concerned about, and their comments took me aback. The men were bringing up the fact that in the past few years, everything that has come out of Washington has been misleading or an out and out lie – from Obamacare, “if you like your doctor,” to the Department of Veterans Affairs allowing vets to die waiting for an appointment. They said that they were viewing the reassurances about Ebola coming from the CDC with a skeptical eye. Their biggest question was: Why is there no urgency to stop the disease from entering the U.S.?

At that point I jumped in with some facts I had just discovered about the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Thomas Frieden, who has been the out front spokesman on the Ebola crisis. I found an article published by the Washington Post on July 16 of this year reporting that Frieden had been called to testify on Capitol Hill about researchers at his agency that had mishandled live anthrax and other deadly pathogens in a number of mishaps over the past year or so. This came on the heels of federal officials finding forgotten smallpox samples in a storage room at the National Institute for Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. They also discovered 12 boxes and 327 vials with pathogens that included the virus behind dengue and spotted fever. When Frieden testified about the anthrax, his response was: “We missed a critical pattern, and the pattern is an insufficient culture of safety.” Really? And this is the guy in charge of making decisions on Ebola?

Upon hearing this latest evidence of the incompetence permeating our government, the conversation veered into conspiracy territory. One of the men brought up the fact that Washington has known for months if not years that we were at risk for some sort of global pandemic. According to a government supplier of emergency products, the Disaster Assistance Response Team was told to be prepared to be activated in the month of October for an outbreak of Ebola. Hmm, that’s just like the fact that they knew 60,000 illegal children were going to be coming across our southern border eight months before it happened.

Questions were then brought up about the stockpiling of ammunition and weapons by Homeland Security over the past couple of years and the $1 billion worth of disposable FEMA coffins supposedly stored in Georgia. Why was there preparation being made for FEMA camps to house people in isolation? These were the questions being seriously discussed.



My fear is that this has all been orchestrated from the very beginning. Who knows? Maybe the current administration needs this to happen so martial law can be declared, guns can be seized and the populace can be controlled. Once that happens … game over.

Mat Staver: 'Shameful' Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling Will Spread Disease

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver delivered a blistering response to the Supreme Court’s decision this week not to take-up marriage equality appeals, telling host Jim Schneider of “Crosstalk” yesterday that the court is endangering public health by effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in several states.

Staver said same-sex marriage should remain illegal because “we know male-male sexual relationships are notoriously harmful, physically as well as mentally, and also female-female, same kinds of things.”

“It’s harmful to the individuals and those harms ultimately effect those around because they’re communicable and other kinds of serious and deadly disease,” he added.

Staver lamented that America is witnessing “a debasing of morals” as county clerks in new marriage equality states begin to issue marriage licenses, with even “people on the sidelines who don’t necessarily participate directly in the debasing acts cheering on those that do.”

“This is not something to cheer about, this is a shameful day in American history, it’s a shameful day that the Supreme Court has ultimately engulfed itself with,” Staver said.

“It’s shameful for the Supreme Court for what they have done to marriage as it has been shameful in the history of the court with regards to the Dred Scott decision or the Buck v. Bell decision, where they said that the state of Virginia can forcibly sterilize her because of this eugenics idea that they want to eliminate the undesirables of the world. That was the shameful day that we ultimately look back with shame upon and I think this is going to be one of those same kind of situations.”

Richard Land Angry That Gays Will 'Ram' Nondiscrimination Laws 'Down Your Throat'

This week a Kentucky-based administrative law judge upheld a 2012 human rights commission decision against a t-shirt company that cited its owner’s religious beliefs to deny service to a local gay service organization.

The ruling did not please Fox News correspondent Todd Starnes or former Southern Baptist Convention official Richard Land, who discussed the case on yesterday’s edition of “Washington Watch,” which Land was guest-hosting.

“What they just did violates the Constitution of the United States,” Land insisted. “It also shows, once again, the ugly face of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender movement. They are not a live-and-let-live bunch, they are, ‘We’re going to ram this down your throat, we’re going to force you to accept this or we’re going to run you out of business.’”

Starnes said the decision was proof of anti-Christian “hostility” against business owners: “Christians are coming under attack for their beliefs.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious