Fighting the Right

Markell: Pope Francis May Be The 'Second Beast' Of The End Times

End Times radio host Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries sent out an email to activists today warning that Pope Francis may be the "False Prophet" spoken of in the Book of Revelation, signaling the rise of the Antichrist and the End of Days.

As Markell explained, while Francis may not be the Antichrist himself, he very well might be the "second beast" warned of in the Bible:

I am cautious about "pinning the tail" on the Antichrist and the False Prophet.  We cannot know ahead of time who these personalities are; however, Pope Francis comes close to "filling the bill" on the False Prophet. Or he may be but a "type" of that man just like there are many "types" of the Antichrist throughout history. I think the devil has always had a candidate for the Antichrist waiting in the wings as he doesn't know when the final generation is.

The False Prophet is described in Revelation 13:11-15. He is also referred to as the "second beast" (Revelation 16:13, 19:20, 20:10). Together with the Antichrist and Satan, who empowers both of them, the False Prophet is the third party in the unholy trinity.

Pope Francis is revealing himself to be a blatant Marxist. He has also pulled back from issues Catholics have considered sacred. He apparently has replaced abortion with social justice and environmentalism. Most troubling, however, is his call for a "new world order" and that there be a global constitution, a global court and a one-world government. Scripture is clear that the Antichrist will be the head of a one-world government (Revelation 13).

Even conservative Catholics are sounding a warning that Pope Francis--the first Jesuit Pope--may be the most troubling Pope ever. He is raising apocalyptic concerns and some in the eschatological community feel that he, indeed, has gotten the nod to be the False Prophet.
 

 

Pat Robertson: Christians Forced To 'Bow Down' Before Gays Who Are Bent On Destroying Us

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson claimed that “left-wing so-called progressives” have “hijacked the Constitution and control the court system of America,” which has ushered in judicial “tyranny” with rulings such the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. As a result, America’s Christian majority “are being made to bow down before the two percent who are homosexual.”

“We have surrendered the great freedom we have in this nation to an oligarchy of non-elected judges,” he said. “This is a free country.” The televangelist especially took issue with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Obergefell decision: “These five, and Justice Kennedy is off on this kick about the personhood and sanctity of personhood and being gay is your self-identity and all that baloney, it’s not in the Constitution but he’s come up with all of these rules.”

“Why am I upset about this? We better be upset,” Robertson added.

Robertson further alleged that “homosexuals, gays, lesbians, transgender, whatever you call them,” are not satisfied with “acceptance.”

LGBT people, he said, are not “content,” despite the fact that they have “job protection” (which isn’t actually the case) and “homosexual marriage is protected by the Constitution,” adding that “the founders would have been turning in their graves if they thought such a thing was being said.”

“They now are on a vendetta to destroy everyone who disagree with them,” he warned. “They are going to do everything to destroy everyone who disagrees with this point of view.”

Glenn Beck's Birmingham Rally Is Designed To Allow Participants To 'Be Seen By God'

Glenn Beck opened his television program last night with a monologue about how his upcoming "Never Again Is Now" event is being held not for media coverage, but for God. In fact, Beck said that the event is designed to allow participants to be seen by God as they take a stand amid a nation that has utterly lost its way.

Beck revealed that his church hosted a regional conference over the weekend which sought to prepare members "to be a sign to God that you stand with him" because people do not "understand what is about to come our way." This terrified Beck because he sees it is proof that all of his doomsday predictions are not crazy.

"That freaked me out a little bit because I like thinking that I'm crazy," he said, "I like thinking that I'm the only one that is thinking this ... I told my kids it's important, even if you're standing all by yourself, it's important to be seen standing. I'm doing all I can do and I know you're doing all you can do as well, but good gosh, we're in trouble."

Beck went on to say that he is not even inviting the media to cover his rally in Birmingham, Alabama, next week because the event is not for them, but rather for God.

"We're going to be seen by God," Beck said. "The media's not going to cover it, nobody's going to cover this, and that's okay. I haven't even sent out a press release. It's not for them, it's for Him."

President Mike Huckabee Will Outlaw Abortion By Executive Fiat

At a campaign stop in Iowa last week, Mike Huckabee elaborated on his pledge to outlaw all abortion by declaring legal “personhood” for fertilized eggs and fetuses, telling the audience at a town hall event that if he is elected president, he will simply start operating as if zygotes have full constitutional rights. If anyone were to have a problem with that, he said, they could challenge him in the courts. (Whether or not he would actually abide by a court ruling is still an open question.)

“As president, I would say, ‘We will protect every person,’” Huckabee said in Waukee, Iowa. “And I know that would just send shockwaves. There would be lawsuits immediately. Fine. Let there be. Let’s let this now work its way, but from the position, instead of being where we defend the killing of 60 million babies since 1973…let us now operate on the principle that it is not okay and let them fight for the right to take those baby’s lives, let them tell us when that person becomes a person, let us argue their point of the unrestricted right to deny life and liberty to that person.”

The former Arkansas governor added that he would feel compelled to make such a move — which would criminalize abortion in all cases and could threaten common forms of birth control — because otherwise he couldn’t continue to ask God to bless America.

“We’ve never had a president who was willing to go there,” he said. “Well, I’m not just willing. If I’m elected, I will go there. And the reason why is because I don’t believe I can honestly make a speech and end it by saying ‘God bless you and God bless America’ if we are committing such savagery as the infanticide that we have continued to slaughter so many unborn children.”

Huckabee went on to reiterate his hope to see Planned Parenthood “criminally prosecuted” and “go out of business” because “we simply are protecting the people that they used to take money to end their lives.”

The Iowa conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts posted the comments on its YouTube page:

Santorum: Judicial Review Is Okay…If The Court Agrees Me!

Last month, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum got into a heated exchange with Rachel Maddow about his statement that the Supreme Court doesn’t “have the final say on anything,” including abortion rights and LGBT equality. He attempted to clarify his position at a campaign event in Iowa last week, explaining that while he is fine with the Supreme Court having judicial review powers, the president and Congress should simply ignore decisions that they think are wrong.

In comments captured on video by the conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts, Santorum said, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the right or the duty or the obligation to determine what is constitutional and what is not.”

“Marbury v. Madison is a Supreme Court case where they granted themselves that authority,” he continued. “And for a couple of hundred years, roughly, we have seen that deference given to the court. I think the court is the right place to make these types of constitutional judgments. But what happens if the court makes an unconstitutional judgment? What happens if the court itself violates the Constitution? Is there a remedy?"

“Our founders clearly wanted it to be very hard to change the Constitution,” he said. “That’s why when you see the court change the Constitution in an unconstitutional fashion, in other words…amend the Constitution by creating something that’s not there, they’ve short-circuited something that was supposed to be very hard to do, and there should be some remedy of saying, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ And what is that? Well, what is that is the president or the Congress saying, ‘You’re acting unconstitutionally and we’re not going to pay attention to that law, we’re not going to pay attention to your ruling.’”
 

Marco Rubio Reiterates His Opposition To Rape Or Incest Exceptions

Sen. Marco Rubio called into Glenn Beck's radio program today and reiterated his position that abortion ought to be outlawed, including in cases of rape or incest, predicting that within 100 years, people will look back on legal abortion with disbelief.

"I believe a human being is entitled to life, irrespective of the circumstances in which that human being was conceived and so forth," the Florida Republican said. "Now I recognize that other people don't hold that view and in order to save lives in this country, I have supported bills that had to have exceptions in them, and I know a lot of people who are pro-life but support exceptions because they feel it goes too far."

"I personally feel very, very strongly that every human life is entitled to the protection of our laws," he continued. "If we as a society start deciding which lives we're going to protect and which lives we're not, we've put ourselves on a very slippery, dangerous slope. I actually think in a hundred years or so, or less, future generations are going to look back at this time in history and say that it's really unbelievable that so many unborn human beings, their lives were ended simply because they didn't have a birth certificate, couldn't hire a lawyer, didn't vote, or we couldn't see them yet."

WorldNetDaily: The Apocalypse Is Coming!

Yesterday, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah wrote that he is always surprised when he gets accused “of being an apocalyptic doomsdayer” because, after all, people who believe in climate science are “the real doomsdayers in our world.”

The very same day, WorldNetDaily published an article claiming that this September will see a huge, cataclysmic event, a prediction that touched on theblood moonprophecy that the far-right outlet has been promoting for years. (Farah once starred in a WorldNetDaily movie about how blood moons signal the Last Days, and took offense when President Obama made a joke about Rep. Michele Bachmann’s claim that his presidency ushered in the End Times).

And just a few days ago, WorldNetDaily also posted this column, “Foreshocks of Armageddon,” which seems to contradict everything Farah just said by alleging that the Rapture and emergence of the Antichrist are just around the corner.

I believe we are seeing in our world right now what can be described as the foreshocks of Armageddon. We are seeing these foreshocks all around us. Jesus said that in the last days, we “will hear of wars and rumors of wars” (Matthew 24:6 NKJV). And it seems today that at every turn, there is a new conflict.



I don’t know if there has ever been an alignment of events with technology and global conflicts like we have today where it would not at all be a stretch to imagine end-times events unfolding before our very eyes.

And it is my opinion that the next event on this prophetic calendar is the rapture of the church, when all true believers are caught up to meet the Lord in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. In fact, I don’t even think the Tribulation period can begin until the church is first removed. And I don’t think Antichrist can emerge until that first takes place.



We see the signs of the times on the news and in the Scriptures, and these signs are saying the Antichrist is coming. But if the Antichrist is close, then the coming of Jesus Christ for his church is even closer.

Larry Klayman: 1776-Style Revolution Coming If Conservatives Don't Win 2016 Election

Last week, a U.S. Appeals Court unanimously rejected a lawsuit brought by right-wing legal activist Larry Klayman on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio challenging the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration.

Klayman used his weekly WorldNetDaily column on Friday to declare that he is now taking his battle to the Supreme Court, hoping that the court “will stand up against growing tyranny.”

“Our country is dying, most Americans are feeling and fearing,” Klayman claimed, writing that those who feel that way are beginning “to flock to Donald Trump and other anti-establishment presidential candidates.”

“Tomorrow, if real, honest, non-establishment leaders fail to get elected, such as a president who can arrest the downward spiral of the nation, revolution will break out as it did in 1776,” he wrote. “All political persuasions in this country have had it, and the judicial, legislative and executive establishment will figuratively be taken to the guillotines.”

Klayman made the same prediction about a revolution in 2013, when he urged “millions” to come to his rally calling for the overthrow of Obama. The revolution didn’t exactly materialize: Only about 100 people showed up.

As a lawless president, shredding the U.S. Constitution, Obama unilaterally granted amnesty to 6 million illegal aliens, plus benefits and work permits. He legislated in his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Nov. 20, 2014, expansion of deferred action.

However, Arpaio’s case was dismissed in December by Judge Beryl Howell – appointed by President Obama – for lack of “standing.” Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Arpaio’s case. Sadly, this does not surprise me. Two of the three judges on that D.C. Circuit panel were appointed by Obama. Only one was appointed by President George W. Bush. I have always expected that the questions will have to be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. And now we are moving the issue toward that final stage.

Is there hope the Supreme Court will stand up against growing tyranny to protect our Constitution? Even that hope is rapidly vanishing. I founded Judicial Watch in 1994 and later founded Freedom Watch with the goal of challenging the perversion of our nation’s laws, fighting government corruption and promoting transparency of government to the people. But I believed back then that there was still some chance left that some judges would stand up against lawlessness.



These problems are part of the lawlessness corrupting our nation. Our country is dying, most Americans are feeling and fearing – at least those not too busy keeping up with the Kardashians. This feeling drove thousands of ordinary Americans to tea party rallies in 2009 and beyond. Today, this is causing voters to flock to Donald Trump and other anti-establishment presidential candidates.

Tomorrow, if real, honest, non-establishment leaders fail to get elected, such as a president who can arrest the downward spiral of the nation, revolution will break out as it did in 1776. All political persuasions in this country have had it, and the judicial, legislative and executive establishment will figuratively be taken to the guillotines.

Santorum: 'Poisonous, Wretched, Cancerous' Abortion Rights Creating Another Holocaust

Speaking at an anti-Planned Parenthood rally in Iowa on Saturday, Rick Santorum compared the “poisonous, wretched, cancerous” legalization of abortion in America to the Holocaust, saying that both were “based on a lie.”

Santorum told the rally that he had recently read the book “How Do You Kill 11 Million People?” by Andy Andrews and thought it applied just as easily to legal abortion as to the Holocaust.

“The title of the book is ‘How Do You Kill 11 Million People?’ He could have retitled it ‘How Do You Kill 55 Million People Here In America?’” he said. “This book is about the Holocaust. And you know what his answer was, in one simple sentence? How do you kill 11 million people? You lie to them. Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry, Roe v. Wade, all of it is based on a lie about when a child becomes a human being.”

“We see the poisonous, wretched, cancerous result of that lie,” he continued. “Every lie, we all know, we tell our kids that when you lie that one lie leads to another lie, and another one, and another one, and pretty soon you just have this poisonous web that you can’t get out of. That’s where we are.”
 

 

Religious Right Freaks Out About TD Jakes Comments on Gay Rights, Church-State Separation

Just after John Oliver’s pointed take on “prosperity” televangelists, Bishop T.D. Jakes, a Dallas-based megachurch pastor, best-selling author and media personality once described by TIME magazine as possibly “the next Billy Graham,” launches a four-week test run of a new daily talk show today. But Jakes has spent much of the last two weeks responding to a backlash from conservative evangelical Christians over comments he made about gay rights and church-state separation.

During an August 3 Huffington Post Live interview with journalist and scholar Marc Lamont Hill, Jakes said his thinking on homosexuality is “evolved and evolving” and that it is “absolutely” possible for the gay community and the black church to coexist. "I think that it's going to be diverse from church to church. Every church has a different opinion on the issue and every gay person is different." 

LGBTs of different types and sorts have to find a place of worship that reflects what your views are and what you believe like anyone else. And the church should have the right to have its own convictions and values. If you don’t like those convictions and values, you totally disagree with it, don’t try to change my house, move into your own. And establish that sort of thing, and find somebody who gets what you get about faith, and, trust me, I’ve talked to enough LGBT and they’re not all the same.

Jakes said that members of the LGBT community, like all American citizens, deserve equal protection under the law.

We bought, the church bought into the myth that this was a Christian nation. And once you get past that, which a lot of people are going to criticize me because they’re still gonna think it’s a Christian nation, which is a whole different show, but once you begin to understand that democracy, that a republic actually, is designed to be an overarching system to protect our unique nuances then we no longer look for public policy to reflect biblical ethics…

If we can divide, or what you would call separation of church and state, then we can dwell together more effectively. Because atheists, agnostics, Jews, all types of people, Muslims, pay into the government, the government then cannot reflect one particular view over another, just because we are the dominant group of religious people in the country, because those numbers are changing every day. We need a neutralized government that protects our right to disagree with one another and agree with one another.

Jakes suggested a posture of spiritual humility: “Once you understand that you’re not God, you leave yourself an out clause to grow.”

How did the Religious Right hate this interview? Let us count the ways: Jakes spoke of his thinking on homosexuality “evolving,” a term used by President Obama to describe his move toward support for marriage equality; he encouraged LGBT people to find affirming churches; he spoke positively about church-state separation and described the idea that America is a Christian nation as “a myth.”

The Huffington Post interview was not the first time Jakes has said such things. On the Sunday after the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling, Jakes told his congregation, “I’m not really as concerned about this as a lot of people are. I’m really not as concerned about it. I think that we should not lose our mind about the world being the world and the Church being the Church. This is not a news flash.” He also said, “The Supreme Court is there to make a decision based on constitutional rights and legalities that fit all Americans. They are not debating Scripture," which led to applause from the congregation.

There doesn’t seem to have been a huge reaction to those initial comments on the Court ruling. But after the Huffingon Post interview, Heather Clark at Christian News published  an August 7 story – tagged “Apostasy” – with a headline blaring that Jakes had come out for gay marriage and LGBT churches and was evolving on homosexuality. The article fumed, “Megachurch leader and author T.D. Jakes says that homosexuals should attend congregations that affirm their lifestyle and that politics do not need to reflect biblical ethics, adding that his position on homosexuality is both “evolved and evolving.”

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must legalize same-sex “marriage,” igniting a battle between the Church and State over the issue. In his comments on Monday, Jakes advocated for the separation of Church and State, which would allow for “all types of people” to have whatever rights they desire despite biblical prohibitions. He said that politics don’t need to be based on Christianity.

That seems to have set off enough outrage that Jakes posted a statement to his Facebook page on August 9 responding to the criticism. Without naming Clark or Christian News by name, Jakes slammed his critics:

Just because a so-called Christian publication chooses to misconstrue my words using lazy journalistic tactics to further their own agenda and draw attention to their site does not make their statements an accurate depiction of what I said or meant.

In that August 9 statement, Jakes affirmed his religious opposition to same-sex marriage while also reiterating his stance separating his religious beliefs from public policy positions, saying, “For the record, I do not endorse same sex marriage but I respect the rights that this country affords those that disagree with me.” His statement, which attracted hundreds of comments, also said, “I have come to respect that I can't force my beliefs on others by controlling public policy for tax payers and other U.S. citizens. Jesus never sought to change the world through public policy but rather through personal transformation.”

For the Religious Right, them’s fightin’ words. On August 10, Jennifer LeClaire at Charisma wrote, “Leaders from across the body of Christ were contacting me all weekend” about Jakes’ interview. The Washington Times also reported on the controversy. LeClaire took note of Jakes’ clarification on Facebook, but seemed unsure whether it was enough, noting that anti-gay activist Michael Brown was asking for more.

Brown’s column, which circulated on right-wing media, said Jakes’ HuffPo comments “appeared to be intentionally ambiguous.”

At best, your comments left your hearers in the dark; at worst, they gave the impression that you now support same-sex “marriage.”

Surely this is not a minor issue, and surely a shepherd has a responsibility to the sheep. What, dear sir, do you believe?

Brown seemed particularly offended that Jakes had encouraged LGBT Christians to find a church that they were comfortable with.

I thought the church was called to bring people to Jesus, to stand for righteousness, to care for the needy, to shine like light in the darkness, to declare God’s will and to live it out. And don’t you have a responsibility as a leader to warn people about deception?

He also took umbrage with the idea that the U.S. as Christian nation is a myth, and the suggestion that Christians shouldn't expect public policy to reflect biblical ethics, asking whether Jakes would have said the same about slavery or rape.

But is it a myth that America was founded on Christian principles and that our founders presupposed that Christian religion would be the foundation of democracy and morality? Is it a myth that, throughout our history, we have overwhelmingly professed to be Christian in large majority?

On August 11, Jakes posted another, somewhat exasperated comment to Facebook, noting that his answer to Marc Lamont Hill had spurred “a virulent diatribe in cyber-Christian land.” He said “the vast majority of people” seemed to understand his first clarification, but that for those who didn’t, he would try again, “rather than play ‘whack-a-mole’ with the online Christian media.” And, he predicted, “there are those that will never be satisfied.” From his second clarification:

I firmly believe that marriage is ordained by God as a union between a man and a woman… My stance on the topic has never wavered. It is fixed, steadfast and well documented...I believe that all sex outside of that sacred union is sin and that would include but is not limited to, homosexuality…

I also believe in balancing that truth with grace, so that the word becomes the personification of Jesus Christ, his love, mercy and compassion…Because truth absent of grace fails to exemplify my heart or the heart of the Father, I draw the line at the extra-biblical exercise of calling people names, ostracizing or humiliating them because our beliefs fall on opposite sides of the spiritual chasm.

That attitude hasn’t shifted the tide in the battle for men’s souls in the last 30 years…

My hope is that the church will always be “evolving” in how we address and minister to the LGBT community in ways that are in line with our biblically-based beliefs without losing sight of Christ like compassion.

On Wednesday, Jennifer LeClaire at Charisma said that the second “crystal clear” statement from Jakes “should put an end to the questioning.” But as Jakes had predicted, some people are still not satisfied.

Back at Christian News, far-right activist Jesse Lee Peterson slammed Jakes for trying to “ride two horses at the same time” in an attempt to “appease” both the “homosexual” and Christian community.

“He’s trying to back pedal by lying about what he said and what his intent was behind what he said,” Peterson told Christian News Network. “For this man to speak out of both sides of his mouth indicates that he is a hypocrite.”

He said that he doesn’t believe Jakes’ comments to the Huffington Post were misconstrued, but rather that Jakes’ was telling the outlet—as reported—that while he has personal beliefs about homosexuality, he simultaneously believes that homosexuals should have their “rights” as the nation operates outside of biblical values—and in that sense, Jakes does support same-sex “marriage.”

…Peterson also expressed concern about Jakes’ remarks asserting that homosexuals should attend churches that affirm their beliefs instead of seeking to change Bible-based churches… “A real man of God would not suggest that a homosexual go to a church that agrees with their lifestyle,” Peterson added. “He would suggest that they repent and turn to God.”

On Thursday, Joseph Mattera, who heads the U.S. Coalition of Apostolic Elders, weighed in via Charisma specifically to challenge Jakes’ comments “related to biblical ethics and society.”

The fact is, the USA is no longer a Christian nation. But that is different from saying it should not be a Christianized nation and/or that it was never originally founded upon Christian principles. 

The writings demonstrating America's Christian history are so numerous I will not attempt to debate that in this article. Suffice it to say that the wording of the Declaration of Independence showed a Christian worldview, the U.S. Constitution was replete with principles from Scripture, and all the original state constitutions based their civic laws as well as their public school education on the teaching of Scripture. 

Furthermore there was at least one Supreme Court justice who declared that America is a Christian nation.

…Jakes believes it is possible to have "neutrality" in regards to the ethos of a nation and its government. However, neutrality is impossible because every human government is based on some religious, ideological and philosophical foundation. Either it is man centered or God centered.

…Throughout human and biblical history, God's kingdom has been set against the kingdom and pride of men… God's Word never separates faith from policy and politics. There is no neutrality!

Political leaders who do not represent God's law/Word are illegitimate in the eyes of God and will ultimately be judged for their rebellious autonomy.

And on Friday, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer entered the fray. Fischer said Jakes’ comments were “enormously troublesome” and complained that he “couldn’t make sense” of Jakes’ clarification. Fischer was offended by Jakes’ “enormously problematic” description of the “myth” of the U.S. as a Christian Nation. He said he didn’t even know where to begin to describe how troubling it is that Jakes said policy shouldn’t be counted on to reflect biblical views. And he denounced Jakes’ description of homosexuality as a complicated issue.

“No it’s not, T.D. Jakes. Homosexuality is not a complex issue. It is an abomination. I mean, how simple and unambiguous is that? There’s nothing complex about that. It is contrary to the will of God. It is sexual perversity. What’s complicated about that?”

This isn’t the first time Jakes has found himself targeted by fellow Christians. He has previously faced criticism for preaching a prosperity gospel and teaching a Oneness Pentecostal theology that differs from traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity. Jakes publicly committed himself to a more orthodox understanding of the Trinity in 2012 under questioning from Mark Driscoll, then-head of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church – though it did not satisfy all his critics.

Mike Huckabee Wouldn't Let A 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Access Abortion. He's Far From Alone In The GOP

Mike Huckabee’s statement on Sunday that he thinks a 10-year-old Paraguayan girl who became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather should have been denied access to abortion was no gaffe or fluke. In fact, Huckabee was expressing a belief shared by many of his fellow Republican presidential candidates and by the anti-choice establishment.

Even “mainstream” candidates Scott and Marco Rubio came out forcefully against rape exceptions in this month’s GOP presidential debate, with Walker also clarifying that he would not allow abortions that would save the lives of pregnant women.

Major anti-choice groups agree. The head of the Susan B. Anthony List, which has sponsored trainings to teach candidates how to speak about the abortion issue, decried rape exceptions as “abominable” and “completely intellectually dishonest,” and only supports them as a means to the end of passing legislation criminalizing abortion. Similarly, the National Right to Life Committee went after GOP congresswomen who undermined an anti-choice bill earlier this year because they thought its rape exception was much too narrow.

While Huckabee wants to bring Paraguay’s harsh abortion policies to America by granting constitutional protections to zygotes (the same plan proposed by Rand Paul) and possibly sending federal agents to raid abortion clinics, the Guttmacher Institute points out that “highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates.”

Indeed, the World Health Organization recorded [PDF] nearly 3,000,000 unsafe abortions taking place in South America in 2008, or 32 per 1,000 child-bearing aged women, even though abortion is banned in most South American countries. While there is no evidence that laws banning abortions eliminate the procedure, such restrictive laws are associated with maternal death and complications.

Pat Robertson: I Don't Have Psychic Powers, Just Get Messages From God To Heal People

On a typical episode of “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson dedicates a segment to calling out healings — curing everything from bacterial infections to tumors — or bequeathing miracle money on lucky viewers. Today, a viewer asked Robertson if he has “a psychic ability of sorts” that makes these healings through the television possible.

Robertson explained that he is not a psychic, but receives a word from the Lord “that will tell us what is going on and we can see it touch it, feel it and so forth.”

“This isn’t psychic, they are real and we’ve had thousands and thousands of people who have been healed,” he added.

Richard Land Decries 'The Weaponizing Of Government' Against Christians

Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, appeared on TheDove TV on Friday to warn that not allowing government clerks or business owners to discriminate against gay couples amounts to "the weaponizing of government" against Christians.

After host Perry Atkinson asserted that America is heading for more conflict in the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling as more and more Christian business owners and government officials refuse to provide services to same-sex couples, Land declared that not allowing Christians to discriminate in this manner is unconstitutional anti-Christian persecution.

"To me, this is the weaponizing of government against its own citizens," he said. "This case of the baker in Oregon and the case of wedding photographers in other states, this is scandalous."

Who Said It? Donald Trump Or Another GOP Candidate?

Think Donald Trump’s rhetoric on immigration is leaps and bounds worse than the rest of the Republican candidates running for president?

Test your knowledge by taking our quiz! Each of the statements below were made by Donald Trump or one of the other GOP candidates in the 2016 race.

 

Who Said It?

 
PFAW

Steve King: 'Plausible' That EPA Intentionally Caused Animas River Spill To Get Superfund Money

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said last week that he thought it was “plausible” that the Environmental Protection Agency purposefully caused a toxic spill in the Animas River in Colorado in order to establish a Superfund site.

Earlier this month, a crew working for the EPA to clean up an abandoned gold mine accidentally caused three million gallons of contaminated water to spill into the river. The Denver Post reported this weekend that a “theory has been making its way around town that the EPA purposefully caused” the spill in order to ensure that the area is designated as a Superfund site. That theory, based on a letter to the editor of a local paper that some say “predicted” the EPA conspiracy, has begun to get national attention, including from the website of Fox News.

Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson, who has a record of getting GOP figures to comment on right-wing conspiracy theories, asked King on Thursday about this “nasty, probably been better than average rumor” that is “past the rumor stage, it’s at the accusation stage, that the EPA may have polluted a river on purpose so that they could collect Superfund money.”

“I only saw the headline on that, so that’s all I know,” King responded, “but when you say this to me, what flashes through my mind is Fast and Furious, how plausible did that sound when it first emerged, and it sounded completely implausible and yet it turned out to be completely true. So I don’t want to make allegations about this particular incident, I certainly want to learn a lot more about it, and I will, but it’s plausible.”

Paranoia-Rama: Nuclear War, Civil War & Cannibalism Coming To America

The prophets have spoken, and the news isn’t good for America. It turns out that war, terrorist attacks and a possible nuclear Armageddon are all on the horizon, and more likely than not it’s Obama’s fault.

Todd Starnes: Colorado Cake Case An Assault On Religious Freedom

Yesterday on “Washington Watch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins invited Todd Starnes of Fox News to discuss a federal appeals court decision [PDF] which upheld an earlier ruling that a Colorado baker violated the law when he refused service to a gay couple who attempted to purchase a wedding cake from him.

“It’s not much of a legal stretch to imagine the day when they will tell pastors the same thing, you will participate in these weddings,” Starnes warned.

Perkins agreed, saying that day “probably will come.” The court dispatched with the bakery’s religious freedom claims, citing a federal court ruling against a South Carolina restaurant that said it had religious objections to racial nondiscrimination laws that compelled it to treat white and black customers equally:

Finally, we reiterate that CADA does not compel Masterpiece to support or endorse any particular religious views. The law merely prohibits Masterpiece from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation. As one court observed in addressing a similar free exercise challenge to the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs. (Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc.)

Likewise, Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.

Starnes and Perkins linked the decision to the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling, despite the fact that the gay couple’s lawsuit was filed before Colorado had marriage equality (they were married in Massachusetts). Instead, the ruling relied on Colorado’s nondiscrimination act.

Later in the program, Perkins asked Starnes about a recent move to update the guidelines regarding which naturalized citizens can decline to say the part of the oath of citizenship about “bear[ing] arms on behalf of the United States when required by law.”

As we reported earlier, ever since the “bear arms” line was added to the oath in 1950s, some new citizens have been exempt from saying the line as conscientious objectors; the new guidelines would simply update the process by which citizenship applicants are allowed to decline to say the line.

Starnes somehow managed to claim that this is further proof that “under the Obama administration, the Islamic faith is being given special accommodation while the Christian faith is being marginalized or set aside.”

He then went back to decrying the “bullying” by LGBT people who “assault” stores owned by Christians but are “not going after the Muslim bakers” and “the Muslim florists,” who he thinks would also refuse service to gay couples. Perkins agreed, saying that gay people aren’t “bullying” Muslims because they are afraid of violence.

Jim Bakker Preparing To Go To Jail Again, This Time Because Of Jade Helm 15

Jim Bakker, the televangelist who served time in jail for fraud in the 1990s, declared on his program earlier this week that he may very soon wind up in jail again … this time as a victim of the made-up Jade Helm 15 federal takeover of Texas.

Bakker discussed Jade Helm 15 with Rick Wiles during a series of programs in which the two floated a variety of unhinged conspiracy theories. The two pastors agreed that the military exercise is meant to foment civil strife and, according to Wiles, target Texas because the state is trying to subvert the Federal Reserve system through its gold depository.

“The government is saying, ‘All we’re doing is, we’ve got our troops practicing for foreign wars,’ but I’m not so sure about that,” Wiles said. “I think they are getting ready for social unrest.” Referring to the gold depository, Wiles told Bakker that “this is why Jade Helm 15 is listing Texas as hostile territory.”

“We’re getting close to a civil war,” Wiles said, before Bakker wondered when freedom in America will come to an end: “I’ve done my time, I really don’t want to do any more, but America is not the America that we once knew as children.”

Wiles previously predicted that Jade Helm 15 could lead to a nuclear attack on Texas and “a round-up of patriotic men.”

Linda Harvey: 'It's A Very Dark And Black Place That We’re Heading For' As God Judges America For Gay Rights

Mission America’s Linda Harvey stopped by the radio program hosted by Cleveland Right to Life’s Molly Smith last week, where the two warned that God’s judgment is already beginning to befall America thanks to gay pride parades and Planned Parenthood.

Smith told Harvey about a recent promotional video put out by the Cuyahoga County GOP that features some vaguely rainbow colors in the background, which she found “very upsetting,” along with the failure of Republican leaders in Congress to defund Planned Parenthood.

“Well, you know, and many people would say that the signs are all here that we are reaping some of God’s judgment,” Harvey agreed. “I believe that the fact that we are being shown in no uncertain terms what abortion is all about, what homosexuality is all about — they’re parading down our streets, we have hundreds of thousands of people that come to the Columbus gay pride parade, and you can see what they’re parading, it’s horrendous. And the Boy Scouts are now on board with this and they’re in these parades.”

“People should open their eyes,” she warned, “and if they’re not willing to, God is just going to give us what the majority of America, what we want, and it’s a very dark and black place that we’re heading for.”

Later in the interview, Harvey warned that opponents of gay rights might soon be forced to go to jail.

After Smith declared that “we will be persecuted and we are being persecuted,” Harvey advised listeners to “start thinking about where you will draw the line, at the workplace and schools, because you will be asked and God will be watching all of us.”

“It is going to cost,” she said. “Not simply reputation, but it may cost you a job or money. Down the road, it may cost people their freedom, there may be jail involved.”

Smith compared the future jailing of gay rights opponents to the arrests of anti-abortion protesters: “the same thing that happened in the pro-life movement, many people went to jail because they refused to accept what was going on.”

Steve King Explains How He Wants To Destroy Planned Parenthood Like ACORN

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said yesterday that he hopes that Congress defunds Planned Parenthood before there is a “full investigation” into its fetal tissue donation program, saying that Congress’ response to recent attacks the women’s health group should resemble its defunding of the community organizing group ACORN in 2009.

The recent series of videos smearing Planned Parenthood have drawn comparisons to right-wing activist James O’Keefe’s heavily edited videos charging ACORN with various wrongdoing, including voter fraud and misuse of federal funds. Congress moved quickly to defund the organization before the charges levied against it began to collapse. The current Planned Parenthood smear is clearly modeled on the work of O’Keefe, a friend of the activists who created the videos.

“When we hear people say, well we can’t defund Planned Parenthood because we don’t know all of the places that they’re getting money from and we can’t be passing judgment on this until we do a full investigation, I completely disagree with that,” King told Iowa talk radio host Simon Conway. “This is similar in the function of ACORN. When we saw what ACORN was doing inside the offices across the country from the videos that were put out there by Hanna [Giles] and James [O’Keefe], that was enough to be convincing for Congress to shut off all money to ACORN, which was far more complex than shutting off the money to Planned Parenthood because they had affiliates that were different names."

“We wrote language that was broad and that encompassed it and did shut off most of, and there are still, we didn’t quite get the people followed but we got the organizations followed to do that. We can do this with Planned Parenthood, and we must.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious