Todd Akin: September 11 Attacks Proved Liberals Are Wrong About Everything

In the second part of his sad, self-pitying interview with WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah last week, Todd Akin argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks shocked liberals into “silence,” arguing that liberals don’t believe “there are really bad people in this world” and “don’t think we need any defense in America.”

While he spent most of the interview criticizing Hillary Clinton for representing an accused rapist while working as a defense attorney for a legal aid group in Arkansas — because apparently individuals suspected of committing crimes do not deserve representation in court — he then complained that “we almost live in a culture where people want to believe something even though it isn’t true.”

The former Missouri congressman and failed Republican Senate candidate went on to say that 9/11 disproved everything liberals believe, leaving them “shocked to find that one of their life premises was totally wrong.”

“You can drive your Prius around with your yoga stickers and whatever, but these people still hate you,” he said. “Liberals want to believe, ‘can’t we all love each other, coexist?’ A coexist sticker didn’t keep those planes from hitting the towers.”

Akin also complained that he went through an “execution” during his failed bid for the U.S. Senate and called Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for him and wrote the foreword to his new book, a “champ” for standing by him.

He also thanked Newt Gingrich, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, David Barton and Farah for “having the courage” to support him throughout the campaign.

GOP Obstruction of the DC Circuit: Infographics

Share these infographics to help set the record straight on the DC Circuit.

The Critically Important DC Circuit Court

Despite progressive victories in 2012, the Right’s outsized influence on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gives it the power to undermine progressive laws and thwart the agenda that Americans elected President Obama to pursue.

Right Wing Round-Up - 7/28/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 7/28/14

  • Do you have $10 a month that you want to waste? Why not subscribe to Sarah Palin's internet news channel which she will probably just decide to quit running about halfway through?
  • Wayne Allyn Root warns that "if we do not secure this border, our entire country in endangered by poverty, by crime, by drugs, and by terrorism."
  • "Coach" Dave Daubenmire wants everyone to know that President Obama and his supporters are intentionally seeking to destroy America.
  • Laura Ingraham is "keeping an open mind about running for office in the future."
  • Finally, Joni Ernst, the Republican Senate nominee in Iowa, seems to think that states have the power to nullify federal laws that they don't like.

BarbWire: 'Pray That God Cuts Short The Obama Presidency, And Punishes All Those Who Enabled It'

Matt Barber’s website BarbWire has published yet another column calling on God to remove President Obama from office.

Lee Duigon writes today that Americans should “pray that God cuts short the Obama presidency, and punishes all those who enabled it, and erases their foul works from the face of the earth.”

He asks God to “save us” from Obama — whom he claims is more focused on “cracking down” on Christians over gay marriage than enforcing immigration laws — and his supporters: “Rid us of these wicked, lawless rulers. Amen.”

What does the Bible say is the purpose of the civil government? “Rulers” are to be a terror to evildoers (Romans 13:3). But the Obama Regime does everything backwards, so now the government is a terror to peaceable, law-abiding citizens, and the criminals’ best friend.



Want to break our immigration laws? Well, come on in! There will be a slight delay while the “president” draws up an executive order giving you all blanket amnesty, but in the meantime, help yourselves to all the freebies you can grab. The stupid American taxpayer is paying for it.

And don’t worry about law enforcement! We’ve got all we can handle, cracking down on bake sales, Christian bakers who won’t create cakes for same-sex imitation weddings, and all those “war on women” malefactors who don’t what to be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion.

People, please… Pray that God cuts short the Obama presidency, and punishes all those who enabled it, and erases their foul works from the face of the earth.

We have sinned against the Lord, and this Regime has been imposed on us as a scourge. But now the tool used by the Lord boasts itself against Him, and takes His name in vain. We confess our sins, O God–now save us. Not for our sakes, but for your own holy name’s sake.

Rid us of these wicked, lawless rulers. Amen.

Bryan Fischer Cites Mysterious Red River In China As Proof That Everything The Bible Says Is Literally True

On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer seized upon a story about a river in eastern China that mysteriously turned dark red over the weekend, pointing to it as evidence that the Bible can always be trusted since this is exactly what happened in the Book of Exodus.

Saying that this situation is "exactly what you read in the Old Testament account," Fischer proclaimed that "if this could happen, a large river could mysteriously, instantaneously turn blood red in 2014, it could also happen in 1446 B.C."

"Do not abandon your belief in trustworthiness of the Word of God," he concluded.

There is one small difference, of course, since in the story in Exodus the river was turned literally into blood and was not the result of someone illegally dumping dye or chemicals into the river, which is what is suspected of having happened in China.

Glenn Beck Says Obama Wants Impeachment Threats Because It Will Help Pass Immigration Reform

On his radio program today, Glenn Beck argued that nobody in the GOP is seriously calling for President Obama's impeachment, but Democrats and the media keep talking about it because doing so will help Obama pass immigration reform.

Saying that there is not one person within the Republican Party that is seriously considering impeaching Obama (despite the fact that he totally deserves it), nor even seriously making the case, Beck said that the issue keeps being brought up nonetheless, linking it to the immigration debate by warning that progressives are winning the fight over immigration reform by framing it in terms of "justice" rather than "freedom. "

Conservatives are going to lose the P.R battle, he warned, because "the president is going to change the subject and he's going to make it about impeachment."

"So who wants it?" Beck asked, rhetorically. "The president does, because then he'll be able to say 'I demand justice.'"

Impeachment, Beck explained, is just like the birther and race issues in that they were also ginned up by Democrats and the media, not conservatives and Republicans, in order to help Obama.

"The birther thing is over, the black thing is over," he said, "so now he needs to be able to call for justice" by using the threat of impeachment to promote his political agenda:

Jody Hice: Americans Must 'Rise Up' To Defend God's Laws In Government, Ten Commandments

In a 2003 interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, right-wing pastor Jody Hice, who is now the GOP nominee for an open U.S. House seat in Georgia, claimed that America must follow God’s law or slide down a slippery slope to catastrophe.

Hice, who also told host Ben Kinchlow that Satan is to blame for legal efforts to separate church and state, warned of “disastrous” attempts to “shove God’s law out of the way” in public life.

After Kinchlow said that without “Judeo-Christian” principles in government “people end up killing each other,” Hice claimed that the Ten Commandments “predate Christianity” and therefore do not represent an establishment of religion.

Hice also described his campaign to place copies of the Ten Commandments throughout public buildings is part of a spiritual battle to save America.

“Are we going to be a nation that is led by people who acknowledge God? Who acknowledge God’s law and acknowledge the role of God’s law in our society and the founding of our country? Or are we going to be led by people who totally reject God?” Hice continued. “It’s a frightening thing if we don’t rise up.”

Heritage Foundation Fellow Trots Out Radical Nullification Argument Against Marriage Equality

The anti-marriage-equality movement seems to have anointed Ryan T. Anderson as its next intellectual leader. Anderson, who is now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, follows in the footsteps of his mentor Robert P. George and National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher in being able to talk about the marriage issue without spewing fire and brimstone or talking about how gay people make them want to vomit .

This kinder, gentler approach has endeared Anderson and his predecessors to a movement that’s trying to snatch its image away from the likes of Bryan Fischer and Pat Robertson.

But it also can obscure the fact that Anderson’s supposedly intellectual arguments against marriage equality can still be far out of the mainstream.

On Friday, Heritage promoted on its website a video clip of Anderson speaking at a Stanford University event, where he was asked by an attendee why he, as a gay man, should not be able to file a joint tax return if he gets legally married in California.

Anderson responded that legally married same-sex couples should not have access to all the trappings of legal marriage, because while in some states they can “be issued a marriage license,” they “can’t actually get married” because marriage is inherently a union of a man and a woman.

This is basically a nullificationist argument against benefits for legally married same-sex couples. Like those who argue that gun laws or health care reform aren’t actually law because they violate their impression of what the Constitution says, Anderson is saying that even legal, state-sanctioned marriages don’t count because they violate his view of what marriage is, and therefore should not earn legal, state-sanctioned benefits.

Far from trying to brush over this nullificationist argument against marriage equality, Heritage is actively promoting the video to its followers.

The full clip is four minutes long, but the fun really starts at about the 2:10 mark.

Anderson: The reason that you should not have the option of filing a joint tax return is that you can’t get married, given what marriage is.

Questioner: But I could in California, I can get married.

Anderson: You can be issued a marriage license in the state of California, but you can’t actually get married. And I’m sorry to say it that way, but given what marriage is, a union of sexually complementary…

Questioner: How is that not discrimination?

Anderson: And it’s not discrimination, because everyone is equally eligible for entering into the marital relationship, where you understand marriage as a union of sexually complementary spouses, a permanent, exclusive union of man and a woman, husband and wife, mother and father. If you’re not interested in entering into that sort of a union, you’re not being discriminated against.

What you’re asking us to do is to redefine marriage to include the adult relationship of your choice. And the adult relationship of your choice happens to be a same-sex couple. There are other adults who want to have marriage redefined to include the relationship of their choice, which may be the same-sex throuple or the opposite-sex quartet. So what I’m asking you in response is, what principle are you appealing to when you say this is discrimination to vindicate your rights but not their rights? Because it seems to me that your position ultimately leaves to simply the dissolvement of the marital union.

It’s not that you don’t have a right to get married, it’s that you aren’t seeking out marriage. Marriage is by nature a union of sexually complementary spouses, a union of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. And based on just what you’ve said about yourself, it doesn’t sound like you’re interested in forming that sort of a union. It sounds like you’re interested in forming a union with another man, and that’s not a marriage. So that’s why I don’t think the law should treat the relationship that you want to form as a marriage.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious