Fighting the Right

Bryan Fischer Says 'Almost Everybody' In Washington Thinks Obama Is A Secret Muslim

On Friday’s edition of Focal Point, Bryan Fischer not only chatted with callers about President Obama’s supposed “leprosy” but also about whether the president is a secret Muslim.

Fischer told one caller — who said that Obama is a Muslim “double agent” — that he’s “talked to people that are insiders in D.C. and they’ve told me that everybody here thinks that, they won’t say it in public, but almost everybody here believes that secretly he is a follower of the Islamic faith.”

Fischer, who has repeatedly suggested that Obama is a “closeted Muslim,” nevertheless insisted that he has “no position” on whether Obama is Muslim or Christian.

“I just know for an absolute fact that he has an antipathy toward Christianity but an inordinate fondness and affection for the Islamic religion,” he said. 

BarbWire Warns Subway Has Joined A 'Stealth Jihad' Against Freedom

BarbWire columnist Bill Muehlenberg is worried that Subway may “soon remove female employees, or at least cover them in burqas.”

Why? Because of a Daily Mail story about Subway restaurants in the United Kingdom and Ireland serving halal meat in their stores.

As The Blaze notes, the Daily Mail’s article deals with a halal restaurant program that Subway launched in 2007. Snopes adds:

Since 2007, Subway's corporate policy has been to permit menu item substitutions in areas where the local customer base follows dietary restrictions. In India, many franchises substitute lamb and chicken items for beef and pork throughout their menus, and some do not sell any meat products at all. In the United States, Subway has several kosher franchises that do not carry pork products or serve dairy with meat. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, fewer than 200 out of 1,500 Subway sandwich franchises conform to Muslim dietary restrictions: their meat suppliers are certified halal, and no pork products are used. Instead, those locations use turkey products to substitute for ham and bacon.

But Muehlenberg warns that halal Subway restaurants are signs of “stealth jihad” and “the loss of freedom and democracy.”

Whether in Western nations or in supposed moderate Muslim nations, the spread of sharia continues unabated. And the loss of freedom and democracy is the inevitable result. As Islam continues to conquer by force of arms or stealth jihad, the liberties of the rest of the world continue to shrink.

Cases of this occurring are never ending it seems, and you finish one article on this, only to find new, even more frightening examples of creeping sharia. The capitulation of the Western world to the demands of Islam is hugely worrying, and places like Europe and the UK seem just about gone.

Consider the latest move in the UK to placate and appease Islam, even if it means snubbing your nose at Englishmen themselves. The headline reflects a growing trend to do everything to accommodate Islam, no matter what the consequences for everyone else: “Subway removes ham and bacon from nearly 200 stores and offers halal meat only after ‘strong demand’ from Muslims.”



And what next? Will Subway bow to further Islamic pressure and stop serving altogether during Ramadan? Will it soon remove female employees, or at least cover them in burqas to keep Muslims happy? Will they soon be lying out Islamic prayer mats for any devout Muslim seeking to do his daily religious duties while munching on his sub sandwich?

Matt Barber Claims Obama Criticized Donald Sterling To 'Test The Waters' For Hate-Speech Laws

Speaking on a Tea Party Unity conference call last week, Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber predicted that the U.S. is “five, six years at the most” away from enacting unconstitutional hate-speech laws and claimed that President Obama was “testing the waters” for such laws when he criticized LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s racist comments.

Discussing anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera’s recent detention in Canada, Barber claimed that the U.S. is at most six years away from enacting hate-speech bans, which he claimed are “already happening informally” with backlash to Sterling’s comments and to former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s anti-gay campaign donation.

Anti-gay activists frequently bring up the specter of hate-speech laws in criticizing anti-discrimination laws and public pressure campaigns, although hate-speech laws are clearly unconstitutional, and existing laws preventing discrimination based on gender, race, religion and disability have not resulted in the outlawing of hate speech.

We’re probably five, six years at the most, I think, behind Canada in terms of enacting such hate-speech kind of laws and crackdown. It’s already happening informally, as we saw, again, with Mozilla, with Eich, as we’re seeing with Donald Sterling.

And it’s easy to do with Donald Sterling. You know, they can test the waters because, I think, universally people agree that what he said his horrible and he’s just kind of a not a very appealing guy and his words were reprehensible. So, they’ve already banned him for life from the NBA, they’ve already banned him from having anything to do with the team that he owns, which may or may not be appropriate, but people are clamoring and saying, ‘That’s not enough!’ And I don’t know what else they want to, do they want him tarred and feathered, do they want him drawn and quartered? They certainly want to force, and confiscate his property, and that’s what we’re talking about, and that’s what happened with Brendan Eich, they confiscated, essentially, his livelihood, his means of carrying out a living and feeding his family.

Barber went on to blame President Obama for the fact that Donald Sterling’s girlfriend had possibly broken the law in recording his comments, which he said was “indicative of the lawlessness that we’re living under under this Obama administration.”

He then alleged that President Obama was using his criticism of Sterling – which came in response to a question from a reporter – as a way of “testing the waters” for an executive order to “go after hate speech” in private conversations recorded by the NSA.

Obama’s plot would mean that “they can come after any of us for things that we have said or things that we would say,” Barber added.

President Obama did not mention that, hey, a law was violated in the taping of this, yet they are using that illegally gained fruit of the poisonous tree in order to go after this guy, to excommunicate him from the NBA, and now to try and confiscate his property. This is scary stuff, but it’s indicative of the lawlessness that we’re living under under this Obama administration.

He knows he can get away with the GOP, regrettably, at this point – the go along, get along Republican Party establishment who doesn’t want to be called racist – he can get away with murder. So the only thing that would stop it would be their own cost-benefit analysis determining that the American public would not be ready for such an act.

This is why I believe they’re testing the waters, with Mozilla, with Brendan Eich, President Obama weighed in on that and exacerbated and fanned the flames, with Donald Sterling, President Obama weighed in on that, fanned the flames.

I think they’re testing the waters to see what they can get away with. And if they feel like the political climate is ripe for this kind of Orwellian executive order, I would not be surprised to see him essentially through executive fiat reinstate the Fairness Doctrine over the talk waves and go after hate speech even in the context of private conversations, that as Rick points out, are apparently, have all been recorded and are on record, so they can come after any of us for things that we have said or things that we would say.

Bryan Fischer Explains Obama Suffers From 'Spiritual Leprosy'

On his radio show today, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer chatted with a caller who claimed that “the problem with Obama is that he has leprosy” and “he’s infecting everybody that he touches just as the lepers did.”

“I told my wife this morning that he’s going to turn into a white man and it isn’t Caucasian, he’s fraught with leprosy,” the caller told Fischer.

While Fischer wouldn’t go as far as to say that President Obama had physical signs of leprosy, he argued that Obama is a spiritual leper who is “infecting the people around him” with his “toxic,” spiritual leprosy.

“There is something cancerous there that’s eating away at him,” Fischer said. “Because of the position he occupies, it’s eating away at our body politic.”

GOP Congressman Can't Help Himself But Mislead On Benghazi

In an appearance yesterday on “The Steve Malzberg Show,” Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas misrepresented the recent congressional testimony of Ret. Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell and the latest Benghazi “smoking gun” email.

Farenthold told Malzberg that the “smoking gun” email altered the Benghazi “talking points” against the advice of the CIA in order to help “the president’s re-election game.”

The email that Farenthold claims shows that the White House interjected a claim about anti-American demonstrations into the Benghazi “talking points” came in response to a set of CIA talking points sent nine hours earlier that already included a mention of demonstrations.

The CIA’s talking points said that the Benghazi attack was linked to the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over an anti-Islam YouTube video: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.”

“The White House's shifty-sounding excuse, that the ‘demonstration’ story line came not from its spin factory but from the CIA, remains surprisingly accurate,” Davie Weigel notes.

Farenthold also twisted Lovell’s testimony on the U.S. response to the attack.

“They were pleading for help in Benghazi, and I think for political considerations the answer was no,” Farenthold said of Lovell’s testimony. “We didn’t even start to send help, as an American it bothers me that we can’t respond to a situation like that.”

As for Lovell supposedly testifying that the US could have sent more assistance during the Benghazi attack, Media Matters pointed out that Lovell told Congress that it it’s “a fact” that the military couldn’t have intervened in time:

REP. JERRY CONNOLLY (D-VA): I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report. He said, quote, "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

CONNOLLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNOLLY: OK.

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

CONNOLLY: All right, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony? LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

CONNOLLY: I thank you very much.

This Edition Of Paranoia-Rama Is Just A Distraction From Benghazi

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

In a desperate attempt to distract from the GOP’s sad and dishonest effort to turn the 2012 Benghazi attack into a political sideshow, we have decided to post Paranoia-Rama today, as we always do on Fridays.

5. Obamacare Death Lists

It’s no wonder that Glenn Beck wants to recruit Rep. Louie Gohmert to run for the U.S. Senate, as the Texas GOP congressman recently warned that health care reform will lead to death lists.

While appearing on The Blaze, Beck’s TV network, Gohmert said that in order to preserve Obamacare, the Obama administration will have to “put people on lists” where they will “die waiting to get the treatment and care.” 

“This is where socialized medicine always goes,” he lamented.

Back in March, Gohmert similarly claimed that as a result of Obamacare, “we [will] see the morality rate start coming down, you die earlier, not because it’s an actual death panel but because you don’t get the treatment.”

4. Sharia Law In The Military

Yesterday, more than a year after he absurdly claimed that the Obama administration has issued a “litmus test for leadership in the military” based on whether prospective leaders “will fire on U.S. citizens or not,” activist Garrow “revealed” another dubious Obama military litmus test: whether service members “support” the “islamic [sic] ideology.”

The "new" Litmus Test of all senior officials of the Federal Government and their agencies.

 

As many will remember (except those who support Obama) I broke the news on January 20th of 2013 that senior members of the military were being asked a "litmus test" question to determine if they would be allowed to continue in their positions. That question determined if their loyalties lay with Obama.
Well it is now almost a year and a half later and I am now assured by many that the new criteria for senior leadership is their attitude towards and support of muslims [sic] and the islamic [sic] ideology.

Your Christian nation is now fully at the service of islam [sic] and its hateful ideology. The treason is complete and utter in its depth and breadth. Mark this date, May 1, 2014, the day that America was warned that the muslim-marxist [sic] in the White House Barack Hussein Obama is remaking the public service and government agencies into Sharia compliant entities as the next step in the subjugation of America to islam [sic].

- Dr. Jim Garrow -

please share this everywhere - the warning must be given - we are betrayed

3. Donald Sterling Scandal Meant To Distract From Benghazi

Since GOP activists failed in their truly bizarre campaign to link LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling to the Democratic Party (it turns out he is a registered Republican), they have now moved on to attempting to link the controversy over Sterling’s racist remarks to Benghazi.

Fox News contributor and former GOP congressman Allen West denounced the media’s coverage of the Sterling scandal as an attempt to cover up President Obama’s “incessant lies, deceit and abject failures,” particularly about the Benghazi attack.

Media Matters reports that West cited Sterling’s racist remarks in a Fox News Radio interview to call for greater public uproar over Benghazi: “The outrage of the public seems to be totally focused on Mr. Sterling but, you know, you've got this thing with Benghazi and we have an even bigger lie, an even bigger deceit, which is even more impactful on the country that no one is really caring about.”

2. Mass Grave For Cliven Bundy Militia

After suggesting that the military rise up against Obama in response to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Gordon Klingenschmitt is now warning that the government may begin digging a mass grave as it purportedly prepares to murder Cliven Bundy and his allied militiamen.

“Mass graves dug by the government, this time for the cattle, but next time, maybe for the cowboys, right?” he asked. “I suspect that in some months to come, there's going to be some secret mission by the feds to go in there and punish the people who are standing for freedom.”

1. Bundy Psy-ops

The Oath Keepers, an extremist right-wing group, is attempting to distance itself from a rumor it started that the Obama administration was imminently launching a drone strike against Bundy’s ranch.

The founder of Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, reportedly claimed that “Eric Holder approved a hot drone strike on the Bundy ranch within 48 hours.”

But a new Oath Keepers memo blames President Obama for the Oath Keepers’ own baseless claim, insisting that the drone rumor was actually an Obama “psy-ops” mission to discredit and undermine the Oath Keepers’ presence at Bundy’s ranch. The group says they were merely “indicating that a drone attack was at least ‘possible.’”

“Oath Keepers is tremendously happy that nothing happened and that this was a bad tip, a piece of ‘dis-info’, a ‘psy-op,’” a group spokesman said. “A typical FBI psy-op would plant ‘leaders’ in every militia they could infiltrate. What those sorts of FBI agents or surrogates do is always ‘handled.’”

Thanks for clarifying!

Of course the Bunkerland was filled with plenty of other crazy rants, including one by militia leader Mike Vanderboegh who warned of a “civil war” to protect the Bundy ranch (and also threatened to have Harry Reid’s “balls ripped off”).

David Horowitz Calls Obama A 'Dangerous, Evil Man' Who Gets A 'Free Ride' Because He's Black

David Horowitz stopped by “The Steve Malzberg Show” yesterday, where he delivered one of his patented anti-Obama rants.

He told Malzberg that “Obama is a dangerous, dangerous, evil man,” adding that “just because he’s black he shouldn’t get a free ride, although I know in America today if you are black you do get a free ride.”

Horowitz added that Obama is a “neo-communist” who wants to “take down” the United States.

Predictably, Horowitz also called Secretary of State John Kerry an “anti-Semite” and “an American traitor,” suggesting that Kerry believes Jews are evil.

Extremist Radio Host At Bundy Ranch Harasses Local Reporter, Accuses Glenn Beck Of Starting A 'Race War'

It should come as no surprise to learn that Pete Santilli, an Internet radio host best known for wishing he could shoot Hillary Clinton “right in the vagina” and helping to organize last year’s “Truckers For the Constitution” rally, has spent the last couple of weeks broadcasting live from Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada.

Last Friday, Santilli filmed the press conference at which Bundy attempted to explain that his view that black people were better off under slavery isn’t racist. After Bundy spoke, Santilli announced that “somehow” the Bureau of Land Management had used the media to “hijack” the press conference by “injecting race and dividing us.”

So, naturally, Santilli decided to confront a local TV reporter who had apparently questioned Bundy on his views about race, drawing the attention of Bundy supporters standing nearby.

“Who do you work for?” Santilli demanded of the reporter, who appears to be Antonio Castelan of Channel 3 New. “Do you believe that the media is state-run?” When Castelan responded that “as a Mexican-American” he didn’t think his questioning on race was biased, Santilli hounded him: “Why do you believe you need to inject Mexican-Americanism into your line of questioning?”

“As a Mexican-American you should know that we’re defending your rights, and you’re working for the state-run media, and you should know that, especially by the bias in the line of your questioning,” he yelled as Castelan walked away, hounded by Bundy supporters. “You’re not serving the American public and you do not deserve even First Amendment constitutional rights, sir!”

Later, talking to another reporter, Santilli accused Glenn Beck, who has criticized the Bundy ranch protester, of promoting a “race war” on behalf of the United Nations’ Agenda 21. That is surprising, given that Beck has written an entire book warning about the very same Agenda 21 conspiracy theory that he is being accused of promoting. 

Rep. John Fleming Warns Marijuana Use Will Lead To 'Death And Destruction' Among Veterans

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted down an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have allowed physicians working for the Department of Veterans Affairs to discuss medical marijuana options with patients in states where it is legal.

Rep. John Fleming took to conservative talk radio to voice opposition to the move, appearing on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” yesterday to warn that marijuana will lead to “death and destruction” among military veterans. “We’re creating a vicious cycle that could lead to more suicides, worse depression,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“Why in the world would we want to go out and damage and injure and even create death and destruction to our beloved veterans who have put their lives on the line by giving them marijuana?”

In an interview the same day, Fleming told Ernest Istook, the former GOP congressman and host of “Istook Live,” that “there is not a stitch of evidence to support” claims about the benefits of medical marijuana.

“It’s like adding gasoline to a fire. You would never order for a veteran that they begin drinking alcohol in response to PTSD, you would never tell a veteran they should use heroin as a solution to their depression problems, well that’s what you’re doing by suggesting the use of marijuana,” he said.

Fleming also dismissed concerns about the incarceration rate of people convicted of crimes surrounding marijuana use, alleging that the push to liberalize drug laws drives from financial interests.

“There’s a lot of money to be made,” he said. “Look at the downstream cost to society when you have, as in the case of the VA, all of these veterans who are going to have lung cancer, emphysema, brain damage, heart disease as a result of that so what we’re doing really is putting money in the pockets of some very greedy people out there who are taking advantage of this.”

Former Bush Administration Official Explains How Gays Are Worse Than Murderers

Former Bush administration official Robert R. Reilly is out with a new book called “Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything,” which has won endorsements from John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage and ex-gay therapist Joseph Nicolosi.

Reilly appeared on “The Janet Mefferd Show” yesterday to explain that gay people are worse than murderers, who at least feel remorse for their crimes.

After the person murders someone or looks at pornography, they come to see that what they did was actually wrong, they can’t excuse it and moral order is restored and they’re contrite for having done so. But what if you organize your life around something that is wrong? Then you must construct a more permanent rationalization that prevents your conscience from returning to tell you that you’ve just done something profoundly wrong.

This is exactly the case with active homosexuals, now extended to homosexual marriage, where they have to say that wrong is right and not only is it right but it’s normative, morally normative, so we need to teach it, we need to bless it in marriages, we need to ordain it in churches and we need to enforce it in our laws. And that is what is happening.

He went on to allege that marriage equality — or as he called it earlier in the interview, “sodomitical marriage” — is “an act of injustice” because it robs people of “the goods” from opposite-sex relationships.

When you take the goods proper to a marriage, which exactly can only exist between a man and a woman because those sexual powers are unitive and procreative, therefore only the relationship between a man and a woman can be spousal. Now when you take the goods and the obligations proper to that state of marriage and transfer them to two men or two women, that is an act of injustice.

You are giving the goods to something — you are not behaving toward that thing according to what it is, which is not a marriage because it can’t be unitive and it can’t be procreative. So you’re lying, you’re creating an unreality and assigning to something a good which it doesn’t deserve. It’s a fraud.

Reilly explained that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong and a misuse of “sexual powers.”

“The sexual act in homosexual in males is sodomy, and how could an unchaste act be a source of fidelity?” Reilly said. “That’s a contradiction in terms.”

“That’s as absurd as saying the eye isn’t for seeing. Who are you to say the eye is for seeing or the ear is for hearing? It’s not we who say that, it’s the eye that lets us know when we examine it. And we can’t just forget just because we get below the waist that all of the sudden, ‘Well, who knows what these organs are for?’ It’s some sort of epistemological amnesia: ‘Who could imagine what our sexual powers are for?’”

But he ended the interview on a high note, declaring that Americans will begin to fight back against this “highly disordered, immoral act.”

Reilly: What is the nature of this act of sodomy? We can only judge the nature of that act when we examine the nature and purpose of our sexual powers. Just through our reason we can know that this is a highly disordered, immoral act and a profound misuse of our sexual powers, which is why it has been condemned in Western civilization for 4,000 years, and not just in Western civilization.

Mefferd: So what do you think is ahead for our country? Do you have any expectation at all that the United States will one day wake up and say, ‘Wait a second, we’ve been had, we need to really fight this.’

Reilly: Yes, I think that will happen, it’s just a matter of how much damage will be done before it happens. This will fail because it is against nature. Its principal enemy is reality.

Alan Keyes Warns 'Genocidal' Obama Using Race As 'Some Kind Of Magic Cloak'

Alan Keyes marked yesterday’s National Day of Prayer with a WorldNetDaily column asking people to pray for Americans to “reject the ‘leaders’ complicit” in President Obama’s “assault on religious liberty” and “effort to overthrow the constitutional self-government of the American people.”

Keyes, who ran against Obama in the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate race, said Obama’s allies “pretend that Obama’s black skin is some kind of magic cloak that prevents the nation from interfering with his systematic nullification of the Supreme Law of the Land” and intend to “manipulate the nation’s conscience with respect to racial injustice to make cowards of us all.”

Among Obama’s supposed transgressions? His “shill[ing] for this genocidal movement” of abortion rights “with fanatical zeal.”

The most egregious example of these policies is, of course, the targeted promotion of abortion in the black community. Throughout his career, Obama has shilled for this genocidal movement with fanatical zeal. Tacit support for it extends to the supposed “conservatives” who slyly do everything in their power to promote the view that defending the God-endowed unalienable right to life, and the rights of the natural family, is “divisive” and politically harmful. These “conservatives” even go so far as to embrace a view of the U.S. Constitution that denies its logical dependence on the acknowledgment of God-endowed rights featured in the American Declaration of Independence.

On account of my adamant refusal to stop applying the logic and principles of the Declaration, I became persona non grata in the GOP once it fell firmly under the effectively unchallenged control of leaders committed to the elitist faction’s agenda. The evidence is now beyond conclusive that they are deeply committed to collaborating with Obama as he carries out the elitist faction’s effort to overthrow the constitutional self-government of the American people. That’s why, despite their repeated evocation of Obama’s “lawless” activities, they adamantly refuse to do what’s necessary to organize the nation’s political will in order to apply the provisions of the Constitution that empower the American people to end his lawless tenure.

In this respect they falsely evoke and manipulate the racial fixation. They pretend that Obama’s black skin is some kind of magic cloak that prevents the nation from interfering with his systematic nullification of the Supreme Law of the Land. Thus slyly they manipulate the nation’s conscience with respect to racial injustice to make cowards of us all, during the very time when the paralysis induced by that cowardice will assure the success of the elitist faction’s bid to end our liberty (i.e., right-securing constitutional self-government).

On this National Day of Prayer, I pray that God will open the eyes, encourage the spirit and enlighten the mind of the American people so that they will recognize and reject the “leaders” complicit in this assault on righteous liberty, whatever party label they wear. And so that they remember, instead, that God has provided the only leadership we need, dwelling in every heart that has accepted the word by which He fulfills His promise of salvation.

Surprise! National Day Of Prayer Morphed Into An Anti-Obama Affair

Why should anyone be surprised that the National Day of Prayer, led by right-wing activist Shirley Dobson, turned into an anti-Obama event?

Dobson promoted the event by warning that America “is being invaded by evils such as pornography, abortion, infidelity, same-sex marriage and the agenda of the far Left,” and invited Jonathan Cahn, who believes that President Obama’s re-election and marriage equality are signs of the End Times, to be the event’s keynote speaker.

Immediately after James Dobson, the Focus on the Family founder and Shirley’s husband, framed the National Day of Prayer as an apolitical event, he blasted Obama as the “abortion president.”

“Come and get me, Mr. President, if you must,” he said, quoting a letter he sent to Obama last week.

“I will not yield to your wicked regulations.” This is not a huge surprise coming from Dobson, who back in 2012 exposed the highly political nature of the National Day of Prayer.

Speaking with Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America after the 2012 election, Dobson said that his wife and National Day of Prayer vice chairman John Bornschein had used that year’s event to pray against Obama’s re-election.

Dobson: Many, many, many Christians were praying and we really need to address that issue first: where was God? Because there were these ’40 Days of Prayer,’ there were several of those that took place, where people fasted and prayed for forty days asking the Lord for His intervention on Election Day. We did a program last week where my wife Shirley came in with her vice-chairman John Bornschein and told how three hundred Gideon prayer warriors came to Washington, went to every single office of the House of Representatives and the Senate and prayed for the occupant, prayed for our representatives, went to the White House, went in a vigil to the Supreme Court, which is now at great risk, and went to the Pentagon. People like that were praying all over this country and the Lord said no.

Nance: He said no.

'Your Electricity Is People!': Glenn Beck Is Wrong Again

Last week, Glenn Beck was very upset about reports that the biomedical waste that was being burned at an Oregon waste-to-energy facility included the remains of aborted fetuses, comparing it on his radio show to the science fiction film "Soylent Green" while screaming "electricity is people, your electricity is people!"

It was, for Beck, simply further proof that America is in a moral nosedive and will soon become "the most horrific nation on the face of the earth" as he grew somber and beseeched his listeners to "go off the grid" if this is how our nation's energy is being produced.

"Do not be a part of that. Is there anything more evil than that?"

Now, a week later, the facility at the center of the controversy is speaking out and asserting that the report was "completely false":

A waste-to-energy garbage burning operation in the tiny unincorporated community of Brooks made global news last week, after allegations surfaced that the plant was processing aborted fetuses from Canada — despite express denials by the facility’s operator ... The allegation that aborted babies were being burned for electricity sparked a frenzy of media attention, being picked up by hundreds of outlets across the country and the world.

But as it turned out, the accusation was completely erroneous, according to Jill Stueck, vice president of marketing and communications for Covanta Energy Corporation, the company that owns and operates the plant in Brooks.

“It’s not just inaccurate; it’s completely false,” she said.

Stueck said “fetal tissue” refers to other biological material associated with birth, such as umbilical cords and placentas — not fetuses. Fetuses would be classified as “human remains” and are in a different category.

“This is a mixing-together of terms that mean completely different things,” she said. “We’re not burning babies.”

Stueck said she was as shocked as anyone when she saw the news last week.

“It’s a horrifying, horrible concept,” she said. “I was like, ‘If this is true, I’m alarmed. This is my company, and this is not something I would support.’”

Will Beck, who prides himself on always owning up to his mistakes (despite the fact that he actually hardly ever does so) correct the record?

We won't be holding our breath.

Steve King Warns 'This Place Will Blow Up And There Will Be A Crisis' If House Takes Up Immigration Reform

Rep. Steve King is threatening to throw the House of Representatives into a crisis if the GOP leadership decides to bring immigration reform legislation up for a vote. Appearing on "The Capitol Hill Show with Tim Constantine" yesterday, the Iowa Republican warned that the “rule of law people” will do whatever it takes to prevent any vote on immigration.

“If it happens, this place will blow up,” he said. “If they try to bring some kind of amnesty or a provision that convinces close to a majority of Republicans that it is a sleight of hand amnesty, this place will blow up and there will be a crisis like we have not seen in years in the House of Representatives.”

He also criticized Speaker Boehner: “He keeps taking a shovel and digging himself into a hole a little bit deeper.”

Fischer: 'Homosexuality Is A God Problem'

For the last few days, Bryan Fischer has been arguing that people reject God and his rules not for intellectual reasons but because they are in rebellion against God's moral standards and therefore reject God in their hearts which, in turn, messes up their minds so that they cannot see the clear and obvious truth that God exists.

And that is how people become gay, Fischer explained today.

"Homosexuality is not an orientation problem," he said. "Homosexuality is a God problem. People slide into homosexuality because they first of all refuse to acknowledge God, to honor him, or to give him thanks. And one of the products of that rejection of God is a declension into homosexual behavior":

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland Gives Away The GOP Game On Benghazi

The GOP’s latest Benghazi “smoking gun” has already fallen apart, but that hasn’t stopped Republican politicians from pushing the myth that the White House altered talking points about the Benghazi attack in order to shield the Obama administration from political damage.

Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia appeared on Newsmax TV today to discuss the latest “bombshell” with host J.D. Hayworth, a former GOP congressman from Arizona.

While Westmoreland didn’t answer Hayworth’s first question about whether he would support President Obama’s impeachment over Benghazi, he admitted at the very end of the interview that Republican members of Congress have been seeking out “evidence” only to back up a conclusion that they have already made.

“I think that we know exactly what happened,” he said. “It’s getting the proof to prove what happened that has been the biggest undertaking.”

Westomoreland also dismissed the administration’s argument that the disputed talking points were meant to respond not only the Benghazi incident but also security risks at the U.S. embassy in Egypt.

The American embassy in Egypt was indeed attacked, as were U.S. embassies in Tunisia, Yemen and Sudan. The Washington Post noted that “anti-U.S. protests spread to Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Britain, East Jerusalem, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, the West Bank and Yemen.”

“You think [Susan Rice] is going to go on there and ask questions about what went on in Egypt? Give me a break,” Westmoreland said.

Hayworth also hosted Paul Vallely — the birther ex-general who once floated the idea of leading a coup against Obama, who he thinks is a secret Muslim and Al Qaeda supporter — to discuss impeaching the president.

Operation American Spring Leader Says God Will Lead Millions Against Obama's 'Socialist-Fascist-Communist-Marxist' Dictatorship

Last month, Operation American Spring leader Harry Riley spoke to conservative radio host Dave Janda about his upcoming rally, which is intended to oust President Obama from office and put him in Gitmo.

Riley told Janda that Operation American Spring will stop Obama’s attempt to turn America into “a socialist-fascist-communist-Marxist dictatorial, tyrannical system.”

When Barack Obama became the White House occupant we saw the Constitution being destroyed and ignored at nearly the speed of light. We believe that our liberty and our freedom and our constitutional nation started on the downhill at something that we just couldn’t believe. We looked over and we said, we’ve been fighting for our nation for over 230 years and we have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren that are coming after us, and at the rate that Obama is taking us, we are going to be down into a socialist-fascist-communist-Marxist dictatorial, tyrannical system at the end of his administration if we don’t do something now, right now, to turn this around.

Riley also repeated his assertion that God is behind Operation American Spring and predicted that the event will draw 10 million attendees — which is actually lower than activist Jim Garrow’s estimate of 30 million.

We’re at the point now where I believe that the only way we could be this far ahead with so many supporters and so many patriots that are making efforts throughout the states that God’s wind is behind us, that this is something that He’s pushing us along. We’re calling for a peaceful, unarmed, non-violent gathering of 10 million Americans in Washington D.C. beginning on May 16 and we want to stay there in numbers as long as we possibly can.



I think it will work. I think God is behind it. He is going to give us a clear path, right into Washington D.C. and that’s what we’re going to ask for. At the same time we’re working on a formal declaration of demands that we’re going to present, we don’t know exactly who to yet or how they will be presented, but this will back up what it is we’re asking for with regard to these people to step down. We’re trust there’s going to be about 10 million or more people that are going to be there to back this up, verified, validated.

Newsweek Profiles John Paulk's Move From Ex-Gay Poster Boy To Movement Critic

Newsweek is out today with a story on John Paulk, who was featured on the magazine’s cover as an ex-gay success story back in 1998, and other ex-gay activists who have since recanted and left the movement.

Newsweek’s story reveals the personal struggles that many ex-gay leaders faced, even as they aided a movement that was harmful to gay people, particularly minors. The ex-gay movement, after all, was a product of a larger Religious Right push to undermine the claims of gay rights advocates by depicting homosexuality as a choice or a set of feelings that could be easily “fixed.”

Paulk’s ex-wife, Anne Paulk, however, continues to toe the ex-gay line.

Far-right groups including the Family Research Council and the American Family Association pooled $600,000 to place ads promising the effectiveness of reparative therapy in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. Anne and John Paulk smiled from full-page newspaper spreads.

In front of the crowds and cameras, Paulk was the image of certainty. But backstage, he was faltering. More than that, he knew he was lying.

“It’s funny, for those of us that worked in it, behind closed doors, we knew we hadn't really changed,” he says. “Our situations had changed—we had gotten married, and some of us had children, so our roles had changed. I was a husband and father; that was my identity. And the homosexuality had been tamped down. But you can only push it down for so long, and it would eke its way out every so often.”

When Paulk walked into that gay bar in 2000, someone recognized him and phoned Wayne Besen, a gay rights activist who now runs the nonprofit Truth Wins Out. Besen rushed over and snapped a picture. In the ensuing scandal, Paulk initially claimed he just went in to use the bathroom, and didn’t know it was a gay bar. But really, he was aching just to be in a welcoming environment.

“I went to a gay bar—not looking for sex, which is what people thought—but because I was missing my community. I was looking to sit in a place with people I felt comfortable with, and that was other gay people,” Paulk says. Though he continued to take speaking engagements, by 2003, he was burned out.

“I would be in hotel rooms, and I would be on my face sobbing and crying on the bed,” he says. “I felt like a liar and a hypocrite. Having to go out and give hope to these people. I was in despair knowing that what I was telling them was not entirely honest. I couldn’t do it anymore.”

Even in its earliest days, Exodus’s philosophy—that same-sex attraction meant a person was “broken” and could be “fixed”—was undermined by the reality of its members’ actions. Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, two of the co-founders, left the movement in 1979 to be in a committed relationship with one another. (Bussee has spent the decades since actively fighting Exodus’s message.) John Evans, one of the founders of Love in Action (LIA), an early ex-gay ministry that helped establish Exodus in 1974, left LIA after a friend committed suicide over his distress at being unable to change his sexual orientation. "They're destroying people's lives,” Evans told The Wall Street Journal in 1993. “They're living in a fantasy world.” (LIA has since changed its name to Restoration Path.)



First came the photo of Paulk in the gay bar. Then in 2003, Michael Johnson, founder of “National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day,” was revealed to have infected men he’d met on the Internet with HIV through unprotected sex. John Smid, who joined LIA in 1986 and eventually became its executive director, left the organization in 2008. Three years later, Smid wrote on his blog that he "never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual," and that reorientation is impossible, because being gay is intrinsic.

Then it crumbled further. In 2012, psychologist Robert Spitzer—one of the leaders of the successful push in the 1970s for the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a disease—retracted a controversial study, published in 2003, often cited by the ex-gay community that had concluded some “highly motivated” individuals could change their sexual orientation. Spitzer wrote an apology to LGBT people who “wasted time and energy” on reparative therapy.



Lastly, there’s the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), founded in 1992 by psychologist Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH considers itself the foremost secular proponent of conversion therapy; it counts hundreds of well-credentialed mental health professionals among its ranks and has issued a number of white papers on the subject. It too, however, has suffered in the public eye in recent years: In 2007, NARTH therapist Chris Austin was convicted of sexually assaulting a client, and sentenced to 10 years in prison; in 2010, NARTH board member George Rekers was found to have employed a male prostitute as a companion for a two-week European vacation; and in 2012 the Internal Revenue Service revoked NARTH’s nonprofit status for not properly filing its paperwork.

Paulk left Exodus in 2003. He cautions against “speaking for everybody,” but says in his more than two decades of watching people undergo ex-gay therapy, the “large majority” of people he met “did not change one iota.” Paulk remained silent for a decade, until he issued a formal apology last year. "I know that countless people were harmed by things I said and did in the past, " Paulk wrote in a statement. "I am truly, truly sorry for the pain I have caused.”

Rafael Cruz: Obama Promoting 'Social Justice' In Order To Create 'Vast, Dependent Society'

In a radio interview yesterday, Rafael Cruz accused President Obama of promoting the concepts of “hyphenated Americans” and “social justice” in order to “create a vast, dependent society” and establish a “permanent voting base.”

Boston radio host and Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner asked Cruz, the father of Sen. Ted Cruz and a Cuban immigrant, if he thought that immigrants today are different from those when he came to the country because they “hang on to their ethnic identity” and “don’t seem to be as grateful or as appreciative of all the benefits and opportunities and freedoms that we have here.”

Cruz agreed with Kuhner’s assessment, and blamed the supposed ingratitude of immigrants on the Obama administration and its commitment to “social justice.”

“One of the things that this administration has been doing is look at each one of those so-called groups as the victims of society and pushing them into a dependent status so that they can keep them under their thumb,” he said. “The whole concept is if they can create a vast, dependent society upon government, then they feel they have a permanent voting base to maintain them in power. “

Kuhner: When you look at America today, 2014, to when you came to the United States, how do we treat immigrants differently in terms of assimilating them? Because I listen to you and I hear a red-blooded American. I look at many immigrants who come today, and they hang on to their ethnic identity. They’re hyphenated Americans, they talk multiculturalism, they don’t seem to be as grateful or as appreciative of all the benefits and opportunities and freedoms that we have here. Have you seen a change in your lifetime over how immigrants are assimilated into the melting pot when you came and the immigrant experience today?

Cruz: Well, obviously there’s a change, but we have to realize where the change comes from. The change, it is a program change. This administration wants to promote the concept of ‘hyphenated Americans.’ This administration is bent on what they call ‘social justice.’ Now we need to define the terms. The term ‘social justice’ sounds very good, but basically, social justice is collectivism. It is the rights of the group, and it denies individual responsibility. So this whole concept of looking at all these different hyphenated groups, whether it is, and even any other groups, they even consider women as a separate group. So it is a divide and conquer concept.

And one of the things that this administration has been doing is look at each one of those so-called groups as the victims of society and pushing them into a dependent status so that they can keep them under their thumb. The whole concept is if they can create a vast, dependent society upon government, then they feel they have a permanent voting base to maintain them in power.

And I think we don’t need to be talking about hyphenated Americans, because we are all Americans and we all want the same thing.

Barton: Not Allowing Women To Vote Was Designed 'To Keep The Family Together'

On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton explained that women were not given the right to vote when the Constitution was written because the Founding Fathers were trying to protect the institution of the family by giving every "family" a right to vote through the male head of the household.

Responding to a question from a listener who argued that the Founding Fathers denied women the right to vote not out of sexism but rather based on the biblical principle that a house divided against itself cannot stand, Barton said that this interpretation was exactly right because not allowing women to vote was designed "to keep the family together":

The family was the first and fundamental unit of all government. Actually, you have individual self government first, then you have family government second, you have civil government third, and have church government fourth.  Those are the four levels of government in the order they are given in the Bible.

So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families. You look at the Pilgrims, when they finally moved away from socialism and moved toward the free enterprise system, they called the families together and gave families plots of land. Private property given to the families. And so that's the way things work.

And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept. That is the way they looked at them in the civil community. That is a family that is voting and so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so ...

Now, as we've moved away from the family unit - you need to be independent from the family, don't be chained down and be a mother and don't be chained down and be a father and don't be chained down to your parents, you know, we've moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing, the 'Modern Family' kind of portrayal - that understanding has gone away.

Clearly, what [the listener] has asked is a brilliant question because it does reveal that the bigotry we're told they held back then, they didn't hold and what they did was they put the family unit higher than the government unit and they tried to work hard to keep the family together. And, as we can show in two or three hundred studies since then, the more you weaken the family, the more it hurts the entire culture and society.

So they had a strong culture, a strong society and it was based on a strong family to preceded government and they crafted their policies to protect a strong family.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious