Todd Akin Is Angry People 'Made Fun' Of Him: 'A Terrible Tactic To Destroy America'

Todd Akin took his increasingly desperate and unintentionally comical persecution tour today to WorldNetDaily, the conservative outlet which is publishing his new book. Sitting down with WND editor Joseph Farah, Akin said he lost his race for the U.S. Senate as the result of an Alinsky-inspired conspiracy to destroy him — and America — by making fun of him.

“Going all the way back to the old Saul Alinsky and his tactics, instead of dealing with the thought or the issue or the question at hand, instead what you do is you try to destroy their character, you make fun of them,” Akin said.

“It’s a form of very destructive politics, the attempt to destroy people’s credibility and it is used by the left very effectively to the point that Republicans cower and are afraid of it.”

Instead of cowering, Akin explained, people need to be more heroic…just like Todd Akin: “My belief is it’s time in America for heroes, for people who have the courage to stand up for what’s right, to call truth truth, for calling what they are doing a terrible tactic to destroy America and to destroy other people and just call them out on that.”

Meet The Latest Conservative To Cry Persecution: Iowa Newspaper Editor Who Said Satan Is Behind The 'Gaystapo'

We have watched conservatives claim again and again that they are the victims of liberal persecution, which allows them to then embark on the almost routine practice of filing a lawsuit with the help of a Religious Right legal group or making an appeal to the media, then appearing on right-wing talk radio shows and Fox News and then, if they are really good at describing their purported persecution, landing a book deal to allow them to repeat the process anew.

So meet the next contender in the persecution Olympics: Bob Eschliman, who lost his job at a newspaper after writing a blog post on his personal website about how people must fight Satan and his minions in the evil “Gaystapo.”

The Newton Daily News fired him as editor-in-chief over the blog post, which he has since bravely removed from his website. He insists that he is the victim of having “sincerely held religious beliefs” and is now suing the newspaper, citing religious discrimination.

Fox News commentator Todd Starnes – who frequently describes the plight of persecuted Americana Christians, even when he is completely making it up or pushing a totally untrue story – has predictably picked up Eschliman's tale and turned it into a column describing the tragic saga of this good, decent Christian man losing his Constitutional rights.

Bob Eschliman is a Christian. He’s also a veteran news editor. And when he decided to write a column on his personal blog objecting to a gay-friendly version of the Bible, Bob was unceremoniously marched out of the Newton Daily News and shoved out the front door.

After a brief investigation, the Iowa newspaper fired Bob and then publicly castigated him in an editorial. They accused him of compromising the reputation of the newspaper. They said what he wrote resulted in the loss of public trust.



“If you ask me, it sounds like the Gaystapo is well on its way,” Bob wrote. “We must fight back against the enemy.”



Wednesday, Bob filed formal charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Shaw Media and the Newton Daily News. Attorneys from Liberty Institute allege the newspaper and its parent company are guilty of religious discrimination and retaliation.

And based on my conversations with Liberty Institute attorneys – they’re going to go after the newspaper like a pit bull going after a pork chop.

“No one should be fired for simply expressing their religious beliefs,” Liberty Institute attorney Jeremy Dys told me. “That’s exactly what happened to Bob. This kind of religious intolerance has no place in today’s welcoming work force. In America, it is against the law to fire an employee for simply expressing a religious belief that his or her employer may not share.”

Dys said Bob was fired for trying to “explain his belief in Holy Scripture along with the definition of marriage.”



So are Shaw Media and the Newton Daily News anti-Christian? Do they employ executives who are religious bigots? Should journalists who endorse traditional marriage simply not apply for jobs?



And then there was the matter of the content. At first glance, it appears Bob was referring to the LGBT community as “the enemy.”

But it turns out – that’s not the case at all. He said he was referring to Satan – not homosexuals.



So for what it’s worth – Shaw Media decided that Bob, a faithful husband and father, a devout and outspoken Christian man, an award-winning journalist – did not represent the values of their company.

Maybe Shaw Media ought to reconsider its values.

It’s a shame a company that exists, thanks to freedom of press, wants to take away a man’s freedom of speech.

Current Middle East Conflict Predictably Fuels Bizarrely Incoherent Theories From Glenn Beck

Yesterday, Glenn Beck got very upset by a decision by the FAA to prohibit U.S. airlines from "flying to or from Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport for a period of up to 24 hours" after a Hamas rocket hit a home approximately a mile from the airport.

On his radio show, Beck bizarrely fumed that this move was an effort to punish and blame Israel for the current conflict and was all part of the Obama administration's ongoing "anti-Israel actions." Beck went so far as to even apologize to Israel on America's behalf, saying "forgive us, for we know not what we do."

Beck returned to this crazy theory last night on his television program where he asserted that if a commercial airplane traveling to Israel were to be shot down by Hamas, the entire world would immediately blame Israel, which would then rapidly descend into vicious anti-Semitic attacks about how all Jews are "greedy, capitalist Zionists" who only care about money.

"That is what it would turn into," Beck said. "And that is exactly the situation this administration has now put Israel in":

What Happened To GOP House Candidate Jody Hice's Radio Archives?

This week, pastor, radio host and Religious Right activist Jody Hice won the GOP primary to succeed Rep. Paul Broun in the U.S. House in Georgia’s 10th District.

Now, it seems that he may be trying to brush his record of extremism under the rug.

In the weeks leading up to this week's primary, we and several other outlets posted audio excerpts from Hice's extensive radio archives. Now, suddenly, all of the shows we had listened to are nowhere to be found. Each of the four radio programs we had linked to and excerpted have been removed from YouTube. In fact, all of Hice’s radio programs from before last month have disappeared from his show’s YouTube page.

We’ve reached out to Hice’s campaign to ask about the removal of the archives and will update this post if we hear back. But in the meantime you can listen to the audio we have captured, since removed from YouTube, of Hice blaming the Sandy Hook shooting on the separation of church and state,

lamenting that homosexuality “enslaves” people “in a lifestyle that frankly they are not,”

complaining about hate crimes protections for transgender people,

and musing on the meaning of “blood moons” on Jewish holidays.

Right Wing Gets It: Elections Matter Because Courts Matter

For right-wing advocates, big conservative wins in the Supreme Court’s recently completed term have only confirmed the importance of electing a president in 2016 who will give them more justices in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts.  The Roberts and Alito nominations, and the conservative majority created by their confirmations, represent the triumph of a decades-long push by right-wing funders, big business, conservative political strategists, and legal groups to take ideological dominion of all levels of the federal judiciary.

Right-wing groups have long made attacks on the federal judiciary a staple of their rhetoric. Many claim America’s decline began with Supreme Court rulings against required prayer and Bible readings in public schools in the 1960s. Roe v. Wade, and more recently, judicial rulings in favor of marriage equality, have been characterized as “judicial tyranny” and “judicial activism.” Of course right-wing legal groups have been pushing hard for their own form of judicial activism, and have pushed Republican presidents to nominate judges they can count on. 

As Jeffrey Toobin notes in a recent profile of presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz in the New Yorker,

Conservatives like Cruz never stopped denouncing liberals for their efforts to use the courts to promote their ideological agenda, even as they began to do much the same thing themselves. The heart of Cruz’s legal career was a sustained and often successful undertaking to use the courts for conservative ends, like promoting the death penalty, lowering the barriers between church and state, and undermining international institutions and agreements.

Right-wing activists are proud of what they have accomplished, as Richard Land, long-time leader of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, told National Journal’s Tiffany Stanley.  As Brian Tashman reports in RWW, Land “waxed nostalgic for the days when President Bush was in office…and especially for Bush’s commitment to nominating ultra-conservative federal judges.”

 “Alito and Roberts are the gifts that keep on giving, and we would have gotten neither one of those without our involvement,” Land said, predicting that Roe v. Wade will soon be “thrown onto the ash heap of history.”

…The Supreme Court’s ruling this year in the Hobby Lobby case shows the Religious Right’s strong focus on the judiciary is paying off.  And Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told Stanley that conservatives will continue to use the courts as part of their strategy to keep “the barbarians at bay.”

But in spite of their wins, and their success in creating the most pro-corporate Court since the New Deal, right-wing activists are nervous that some of their big wins, like Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, were 5-4 decisions. They want to pad their majority and continue their march to remake America via the courts.

The Senate

Since federal judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right-wing groups are also using the Supreme Court in 2014 Senate campaigns. An anti-choice PAC, Women Speak Out, followed the Hobby Lobby ruling almost immediately with attacks on Mark Pryor and other Democrats for not having supported the confirmation of Samuel Alito.

On the day of the Court’s decisions in Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn, North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis, a Republican, who is challenging U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, tweeted “Today’s SCOTUS rulings were a win for our 1st Amendment freedoms, a loss for Hagan, Obama, & DC bureaucrats.”

Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who represents right-wing groups, told the Washington Post, “These Supreme Court decisions, it’s a reminder to people on our side of the aisle of the importance of the court, and then the importance of recapturing the Senate.”

Religious Liberty ‘Hanging by a Thread’

Right-wing pundits and organizations are already ramping up their rhetoric on judges as a 2016 presidential campaign issue, with many touting the 5-4 decision in Hobby Lobby as evidence that religious liberty is “hanging by a thread.”

Rush Limbaugh went on a tirade against Hillary Clinton after she criticized the Hobby Lobby ruling:

Can I tell you the truth about the Hobby Lobby ruling?  We're in such dangerous territory in terms of losing our freedom that we cheer when five out of nine people uphold the Constitution.  We're not advancing anything, folks.  We are barely hanging on here.  …  And here comes Hillary Clinton thinking this decision is a step toward the kind of anti-women policy seen in extremist undemocratic nations is outrageous. 

The woman is either a blithering idiot or a total in-the-tank statist, maybe a combination of the two.  But this is not a step toward anything.  This is a temporary halt in the onslaught toward totalitarianism.

We're just barely hanging on.  We cheer! We conservatives stand up and cheer when we manage to get five people to see it the right way.  "Oh, my God! Oh, Lord! Thank you so much, Lord. You saved another day."  Five people out of nine, five said the Constitution means what it says.  The troubling thing to me is the four people that didn't!  Liberty and freedom are hanging by a thread here! 

That theme was echoed by the Archdiocese of Washington’s Msgr. Charles Pope:

“OK, We won. But the Hobby Lobby vote should have been 9-0. Wake up, America. Your liberty is on the line!”

It is simply outrageous that four Supreme Court Justices, and many Americans, cannot see the clear and offensive proposition of the Government in this regard…..We won today, but barely. It should have been 9–0. Wake up, America; your religious and other liberties are hanging by the thread of one vote.

Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer of American Values weighed in in similar fashion:

“While we celebrate this victory, the fact remains that four justices on the Supreme Court, including the two appointed by Obama, evidently share his narrow view of America's first freedom and were willing to trample the religious liberty of millions of Americans in order to advance their radical pro-abortion agenda.

This narrow decision, with four liberal justices eager to go the wrong way, is a stark reminder to every man and woman of faith that their religious liberty is hanging by a thread.

The Court as Right-Wing Campaign Issue for 2016

Right-wing pundits and presidential candidates frequently use the federal judiciary as an issue to excite base voters. Back in 2012, one of the most effective things Mitt Romney did to shore up his weak support among conservative activists was to name a judicial advisory team headed by Robert Bork. That year, Terence Jeffrey, who worked on Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaigns and has written for right-wing publications, wrote:

Three of the nine justices on a U.S. Supreme Court that has decided many significant issues by 5-4 votes over the past decade will turn 80 years of age before the 2016 presidential election.

The three justices are Antonin Scalia, an anchor of the court’s conservative wing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an anchor of the court’s liberal wing, and Anthony Kennedy, who is often the decisive swing vote in 5-4 opinions….

Bobby Jindal is among the crop of potential 2016 presidential candidates who is making an issue of the courts.  In an interview with a conservative Christian blogger during last month’s Iowa state Republican convention, Jindal suggested if Republicans take control of the Senate this year they would block additional nominees. Asked about federal judges overturning state marriage bans for same-sex couples, Jindal said, ““This shows you the importance of the November elections.  We don’t need this President putting more liberal judges on the bench.”

It is important, whether you are a lawyer or not, to understand what it means for the courts to actually apply the Constitution as opposed for them just to create new laws or to read things and just decide they are going to contradict what the other two branches of government did.  We’ve gotten away from these three separate but equal branches of government and instead we’ve got these activist judges who are overreaching. We have to recognize the problem for what it is,” Jindal added.

He emphasized the importance of elections and their impact on judicial confirmations because sometimes Constitutional amendments will correct the problem, and other times federal judges will just overrule them.

Mike Huckabee has seemingly made attacks on the judiciary a centerpiece of his campaign. In May, he called for the impeachment of an Arkansas judge who ruled in favor of marriage equality. Last year, urging Senate Republicans to block an Obama appeals court nominee, he said, “Judges can linger on for decades after a President leaves office, and a bad one can wreak havoc that echoes down the ages.”

Meanwhile, presidential contender Rick Santorum and the right-wing Judicial Crisis Network are attacking Chris Christie for not sufficiently making right-wing ideology a litmus test for his state judicial appointments.  Santorum told Yahoo News earlier this month, “To see a record as abysmal as Gov. Christie’s record in the state of New Jersey, I guarantee you that will be a red flag for most voters in the state of Iowa, but also most voters in the Republican primary.” (Earlier this month, while in Iowa campaigning for Gov. Terry Branstad, Christie said he supports the Court’s Hobby Lobby decision; he had initially declined to say whether he supported the decision.)  

The Judicial Crisis Network has also slammed Christie, saying his failure to “deliver on judicial activism” may have doomed his 2016 presidential hopes. It has created an entire website devoted to trashing Christie’s judicial record to conservative voters:  www.christiebadonjudges.com. In June, Fox News ran an op ed by JCN’s Carrie Severino using Christie’s alleged failure to appoint right-wing ideologues to the state supreme court as a way to discredit him with conservative activists.

Christie didn’t deliver on judicial activism. Has he doomed his 2016 bid?

If a candidate’s tenure as governor is his road-test for the presidency, Governor Chris Christie just flunked.

As a candidate for governor, Christie talked the talk on judges, vowing to "remake" the New Jersey Supreme Court and to transform the most activist court in the nation into one that operates under the rule of law. 

Despite having the opportunity to appoint four of seven justices on the court since taking office, Christie has repeatedly nominated individuals with no discernible judicial philosophy….

And while elected representatives must stand for re-election every few years, federal judges sit for life. 

Today’s nominee could still be playing the same tricks in 2050 or beyond.  That is why the issue of judges matters so much during presidential primaries and caucuses….

Right-wing advocates have been talking for a while about how important it is to their judicial plans not just to elect a Republican, but to elect a Republican committed to making the kind of Supreme Court nominations they want. In February, right-wing activist Mychal Massie complained that many justices nominated by Republican presidents over the past few decades did not turn out to be ideological warriors (though that is hardly the case with more recent nominees).

But forward-thinking conservatives are keenly aware that we must be concerned about the future as well, and not just because of Obama. Based on age alone, one of the primary areas of concern is that the person elected president in 2016 will potentially have at least four Supreme Court Justices to replace. Two of the potential four are liberals, so a Democrat president would simply be replacing liberals with liberals, ergo, it would be a wash. But of the other two the one is a solid Constructionist, and the other is a swing vote who has, in recent years, ruled based on Constructionism enough times that we should be concerned if a Democrat president replaces him….

As you can see, the potential for the political complexion of the High Court to be changed for decades to come should be of critical concern if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2016. But, it is myopic betise on an epic level to even for an instant believe we need not be concerned if a Republican wins. Especially if it is an establishment Republican….

With Karl Rove and Reince Priebus pulling the strings of the GOP and RNC, the Republican Party resembles a RINO theme park more than it does the Party true conservatives have supported.

With them controlling things from behind the curtain it is not just critical that the next president be “conservative” but he/she must be a legitimate conservative whose conservative bonafides are unimpeachable. It does conservatism no good to elect a Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Jeb Bush type. The 2016 election will place in office a person with the potential to change the face of SCOTUS for many decades to come. And as John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, et al. have showed us — it’s not just Democrats who are betraying us.

Religious Right leaders will certainly be keeping the issue of judicial nominations at the forefront of the 2016 campaigns. This week, George O. Wood, who heads the Assemblies of God denomination, wrote:

Moreover, we should encourage voting because elections have consequences. One of those consequences is that the president nominates judges who serve on district and appellate courts and on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate must then approve those nominees. It is a sad fact that no evangelical sits on the Supreme Court—even though evangelicals constitute a very large faith community in America. I suspect that at present no evangelicals could even be nominated or confirmed to a federal bench because they hold views that are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. People in our Fellowship need to remember that when they cast a ballot, they effectively decide who will sit as a federal judge. Indirectly, they are casting a vote for or against a robust understanding of the free exercise of religion.

Conservative Writer Claims Voting For Elizabeth Warren Is Part Of A 'Communist Coup'

As part of Matt Barber’s apparent quest to bring down the Religious Right from the inside by making it look completely ridiculous, his website today published this column by contributor Luke Hamilton about how the “Demokratik Party” is deciding between “Shrillary” and the “hardcore socialist progressive” Elizabeth Warren.

Hamilton writes that Hillary Clinton may not capture the “Demokratik” nomination because “she has looked more ready for a knockout than the Oval Office. It’s hard to tell with her pantsuits, but those legs look rubbery and her corner has got to be concerned.”

If voters instead nominate and elect Warren president, Hamilton warns, it would represent “a contiguous communist coup with long-ranging repercussions.”

That’s right, voters using the democratic, constitutional process to elect a president are actually carrying out a communist coup!

At one point, it seemed virtually predetermined that Shrillary would be the 2016 Demokratik Presidential candidate. So it’s surprising that recently she has looked more ready for a knockout than the Oval Office. It’s hard to tell with her pantsuits, but those legs look rubbery and her corner has got to be concerned. Her political blunders over the past several weeks seem to confirm the fact that the political acumen in that family resides exclusively in Bubba. For someone with such extensive experience with the limelight and televised interviews, it is hard to believe that she misspoke so badly by claiming poverty after Bill left office. She has since tried to fall back on relativism and insist that she and Bill aren’t broke but they’re also not like some of those people who are “truly well off”. Riiiight, because the rest of us have made $100m over the past 20 years.



But hold the phone! There appears to be a new snout in the pigpen. The whisper campaign is gaining a full head of steam to draft Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcohontas” Warren into the race for President. According to Edward Klein, the author of Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas, the President has tasked Valerie Jarrett with the job of convincing Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016. It is hard to know if Klein’s sources are accurate, but it is logical to think that Obama is involved in this effort. Primarily because Obama is incessantly distracted from doing his actual job by anything and everything. This project would allow him to avoid geopolitical crises like the Islamification of Iraq, unknown numbers of people (with unknown identities!) pouring over our borders, ongoing attacks faced by our allies Ukraine & Israel, and an American economy more fragile than the sanity of Ed Schultz. Also, it’s logical to think that Obama would be interested in convincing Warren to run for President because playing Kingmaker to the next progressive socialist in the White House would scratch his egomaniacal itch and cement his name as the first of a new generation of Marxist “forefathers” who fundamentally transformed the United States into poverty-stricken irrelevancy. A Chicago Machine Marxist is an unfortunate accident, a Chicago Machine Marxist followed by an East Coast Socialist Egghead is a contiguous communist coup with long-ranging repercussions.



What would a Warren Presidency mean for the country? Like Obama, she’s a hardcore socialist progressive, but there is a subtle difference. Obama seems to feel the need to explain his redistributive policies, almost apologetically at times. Warren is unashamed of her avarice. Her boilerplate stump speech seems to suggest that she would be able to tap into the populist anger which Clinton is so desperately trying to access; anger at the capitalist cronies who have benefited from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies. But unlike libertarian conservatives, who share her anger at crony capitalism, her only solution seems to be the vilification of success and the exponential growth of central authority. In many ways, a Warren presidency would complete the transformation begun on Barack’s watch, which explains why Jarrett is helping measure lawn space for Elizabeth’s presidential teepee.

Todd Akin Insists He's Not Playing The Victim, Just Thinks 'Jerks' In The Media 'Assassinated' Him!

Yesterday, Todd Akin insisted that he is not into trying to play the victim…he just wants to make it clear that the “jerks” in the media “assassinated” him during his campaign for the U.S. Senate. Akin, who has been promoting his new book by explaining that he was the target of an evil conspiracy to censor and destroy him because of his patriotic and Christian values, appeared on Tuesday’s “The Steve Deace Show” to retell the tale.

Seeing that Akin has been trotting out the usual right-wing talking points about persecution from the media and the left, we thought Deace was being ironic when he said during the interview: “We’re conservatives here, so we’re not into victimology.”

“Right,” Akin replied … before blaming his notorious remark about “legitimate rape” and women’s bodies on “gotcha questions” and a left-wing media plot to “victimize any Republican they could.”

Akin, still insisting that he is not into victimology, went on to allege that the politicians who called on him to drop out of the race “basically threatened me” and painted himself as the victim of a media “assassination.”

“The media wants to roll another Republican and do this assassination thing, but when is someone just going to stand up to these jerks and tell them what they are and say they are manipulating the news for their own agenda,” he said.

The interview also veered into the realm of absurdity when Akin insisted that he is actually a very “electable” candidate because he consistently won re-election to the U.S. House and described Republicans as “stupid” for thinking that right-wing candidates can’t win elections.

“That was the only race I’ve ever lost,” he said of his landslide defeat in 2012.

Akin did in fact win successfully win re-election in his congressional district. Of course, the Missouri congressional district he represented is not exactly a swing district representative of the rest of the country, as it is heavily Republican and 90.5 percent white.

Sandy Rios Warns Trans FBI Agents Will Come After You Following Obama's ENDA Executive Order

Sandy Rios was horrified by President Obama’s decision to sign an executive worker ensuring that federal contractors don’t discriminate against LGBT employees, and had a stark message for her listeners on her Tuesday radio program: “That means of course that maybe in six weeks or so maybe your doorbell will ring and you will have the privilege of being interviewed by an FBI agent male wearing a dress, because that’s really what this does mean, this is stunning.”

Rios, the American Family Association’s government affairs director, alleged that Obama is a “rock star” for the LGBT community and a phony Christian, claiming that she simply does not believe “the notion that Barack Obama is a Christ follower.”

“I can say I’m a ballerina, it doesn’t make it so,” she said. “A Christian, a Christ follower does not legislate ad nauseam rights and benefits and privileges for people who are in a lifestyle that is at odds with biblical truth, just doesn’t do it. There’s the president of the United States, all about homosexuality.”

BarbWire Pundit Defends Brazil's Past Violent Dictatorship, Fears Looming 'Gay Agenda'

Brazilian anti-gay activist Julio Severo is outraged that the United States has handed over to the Brazilian National Truth Commission documents about human rights abuses, including the torture of dissidents, during Brazil’s military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985.

He took to BarbWire today to denounce the disclosure of documents verifying claims of state-sponsored violence, warning that the move will only transform Brazil into a socialist, pro-gay nation.

Severo writes that that the military regime saved the country from becoming “a communist hell,” but “the Brazil Truth Commission, now helped by the U.S. government, will perpetuate the lie that communists wanted just to bring ‘democracy’ — which means now, for the current socialist White House, to impose the gay agenda around the world, and which means, for the current socialist government in Brazil, to mimic it.”

He also warns that the U.S. is committed to push gay rights in Brazil in order to silence televangelists like Pat Robertson: “The biggest socialist threat today is the imposition of abortion and the gay agenda.”

The Brazilian Armed Forces, which during that time received U.S. assistance against the communist threat, have been under increasing attack from the ruling Left. However, whereas their counterparts in other Latin American nations have been condemned and jailed, they have barely been able to survive the massive government and media onslaught from the Left. Now, with the official assistance of the U.S. government, they will be condemned for saving Brazil from Soviet, Cuban or Chinese “democracy.”

The Brazilian Armed Forces were not perfect, and definitely, they were not representative of a genuine democracy. But without them, Brazil would be today a communist hell, a gigantic Cuba. It is not so because of them and American assistance.



Kissinger was right: It is fatal to be a friend of the United States — this is, of the U.S. government. Now the U.S. government is helping the Brazil Truth Commission to condemn the Brazilian military men who, despite their imperfections, kept the communist threat out and Billy Graham, Rex Humbard and Pat Robertson in Brazil.

I could add that it is equally fatal to be a friend of the World Council of Churches (WCC), which has worked for many years to defend Brazilian communists and is helping the Truth Commission too. The WCC behavior, in its socialist passions, is a betrayal against Christian brothers and against the Gospel.

The Brazil Truth Commission, now helped by the U.S. government, will perpetuate the lie that communists wanted just to bring “democracy” — which means now, for the current socialist White House, to impose the gay agenda around the world, and which means, for the current socialist government in Brazil, to mimic it.

If the Truth Commission were really about truth, it would confirm that there was a communist threat. It would also confirm that during the military rule in Brazil, different from communist tyrannies, there was total freedom for the greatest Truth: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The biggest socialist threat today is the imposition of abortion and the gay agenda. As ever, the preaching of the true Gospel is the biggest hindrance to this threat.

Jody Hice Says The Second Amendment Gives Citizens The Right To Own 'Cannons And Bazookas And Missiles'

As Miranda noted yesterday, Jody Hice, a Religious Right activist and radio host with a long history of making outrageous statements, won a run-off election in Georgia to become the official Republican Party nominee for a seat in Congress.

Hice seems to have almost completely wiped away the archives of his radio broadcasts when he decided to run for office but some of his programs still remain available, such as this one posted on YouTube in which Hice reacts to the 2012 shooting that killed twelve people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado by blaming the separation of church and state, legal abortion, and evolution.

"The more the Judeo-Christian principles of our Founders are removed," Hice said, "the more you can expect Batman theater-type events taking place, the more you can expect Columbine and Virginia Tech-type tragedies occurring in America. This is what you get absent God."

Hice went on to blame things like legal abortion and the teaching of evolution is schools for conditioning people to accept the idea that "life is meaningless" and "the more we promote that junk ... the more we will get this type of result":

Hice then spent the second half of his program warning that liberals would seek to use the shooting to push for gun control, prompting him to stake out the extreme position that there are to be no limits on the Second Amendment because American citizens have the right to possess literally any weapon that the government possesses.

"It is my belief that any, any, any, any weapon that our government and law enforcement possesses," Hice said, "ought to be allowed for individuals to possess in this country."

Apparently this applies to tanks, fighter jets, and even nuclear weapons because, Hice argued, so long as people can pay for them and don't have a criminal record, they have a right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government with the same weapons that the government can use against them.

"The Second Amendment," he said, "is about us defending ourselves against potentially tyrannical government. You cannot defend yourself with a BB gun if your opponent has cannons and bazookas and missiles":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious