Barber: Christians Are Being Persecuted By An 'Islamo-Progressive Axis Of Evil'

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver and Matt Barber likened the supposed "persecution" of Christians in America to the attack in Kenya earlier this month in which Islamic terrorists killed 147 people, saying that Christians all over the world are under attack from the "Islamo-progressive axis of evil."

Barber said that while those murdered in Kenya were victims of "hard persecution," at the same time "right here in the United States, Christians at an escalating rate are experiencing a softer persecution, but it's still anti-Christian persecution."

Just as John the Baptist was beheaded for speaking out against "sexual immorality," so too are Christians being persecuted in America today, Barber said.

"You have those who are pushing for sexual immorality and acceptance of sexual immorality and Islamists kind of both targeting Christians for persecution," he said, "some with hard persecution, others with more of a soft persecution. We're not being beheaded here in the United States yet but certainly advocates of sexual relativism are what I call the Islamo-progressive axis of evil."

"So-called progressives, they have a common enemy," Barber continued. "The common enemy is truth, is Christ, is Christians, is Christ followers":

Rafael Cruz: If Hillary Clinton Elected, 'Might As Well Kiss This Country Goodbye'

In a speech to a Tea Party event in Rome, Georgia, last week, Rafael Cruz declared that if Hillary Clinton is elected president next year, “you might as well kiss this country goodbye.”

The father and close adviser of GOP presidential candidate and Texas senator Ted Cruz echoed his son’s frequent comparisons of himself to Ronald Reagan, telling the audience that “there are so many parallels” between Reagan’s election in 1980 and the 2016 contest.

Drawing directly from Ted Cruz’s misleading talking points about the Carter and Obama economies, the elder Cruz reassured his audience, “It took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan. Because of Jimmy Carter, we were able to mobilize millions of Americans. We did it in 1980, we can do it again.”

“If we did it then, you bet we can do it again,” he said. “And let me tell you, if we have someone like Hillary Clinton elected in 2016, you might as well kiss this country goodbye, this country’s gone. We are fighting for the survival of America.”

Georgiapolitics.org captured the video:

Right Wing Round-Up - 4/14/15

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 4/14/15

  • After being re-elected to the NRA board, Grover Norquist has voluntarily stepped aside until the organization completes its Glenn Beck-backed inquisition into his supposed ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Bryan Fischer tells GOP presidential hopefuls that "there is no possible way for them to out-pander a hardcore liberal like Hillary on homosexuality."
  • Phyllis Schlafly knows what is really to blame for the shooting of Walter Scott: "It was caused by the obnoxious anti-father rulings of the family courts."
  • Paul Kengor asserts that "Marx and Engels and friends would be absolutely thrilled that gay marriage is offering a sledgehammer not only to remold the family but to bludgeon religious believers."
  • Michael Brown says that "we are seeing the most sustained anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-Christian attack in our history, and its common root is the attempt to demonize believers and remove the influence of God and His Word from society."
  • Finally, Brian Camenker and Amy Contrada warn that "liberals and LGBT activists are vicious, bullying, lying, hypocritical, angry, and fanatically dedicated. Such a large-scale denial of reality requires it. They have no interest in fairness – only force."

Tony Perkins Attacks Hillary Clinton For Counting Gay Couples As Families

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins was not happy that Hillary Clinton included two gay couples in her campaign launch video, in which she says that “when families are strong, America is strong.”

“Her definition of family is a bit different,” Perkins said on his “Washington Watch” radio program yesterday. “She actually had same-sex couples there in her video.”

Perkins then asked his guest, Terry Jeffrey of the conservative outlet CNSNews, if GOP presidential hopefuls will address the marriage debate during the campaign.

Jeffrey was not optimistic, citing what he called the “almost incomprehensible” interview that Rand Paul recently gave to CNN on the subject and warning that “married folks with families” are going to stay home from the polls if Republicans are not vocal in their opposition to marriage equality.

“So it seemed to me that Rand Paul yesterday was essentially surrendering the marriage issue,” Jeffrey said. “If you have a candidate that does that, a Republican Party candidate who does that in the fall election, then there is going to be millions of voters all over America — especially people who are married folks with families who get out and go to work and support and raise their own kids and believe in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition that made America great and made America free — you will have millions of voters like that say ‘wait a minute’ and they’re going to be turned off and some of them, quite frankly, aren’t going to want to vote for somebody who takes that position.”

Perkins agreed with Jeffrey’s assessment, alleging that Mitt Romney lost the election because he didn’t take a more vocal stand on social issues.

Anti-Muslim Pundit: Capitol Police Should Arrest Muslim 'Terrorist' Lobbyists

Conservatives were outraged last year when several Muslim-American groups launched an umbrella organization with the mission of “coordinating the efforts of Muslim organizations” and “bridging the gap between national and local leaderships.”

John Guandolo, a disgraced former FBI agent who has a long history of peddling conspiracy theories, including claims that CIA director John Brennan and President Obama are secret Muslims and that Tennessee is falling under Sharia law, joined the American Family Association’s Sand Rios yesterday to attack the group, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, for organizing a National Muslim Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill. Guandolo said that the activists involved are “terrorists” who should have been arrested by the police.

“They’re Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations, why are they being allowed up on Capitol Hill,” he said. “Where is the Capitol Police? Where is the FBI? I encourage all of your listeners to call DHS. You know, DHS has a ‘see something, say something’ program where you can go online or you can call them, I’d call them and say, ‘There are terrorists up on Capitol Hill today and I’d like to know what you are doing about it.’”

Rios directed her indignation at Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who some on the far right believe is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, and GOP strategist Karl Rove: “We are weak and it started under President Bush. What’s the matter — President Bush, why did you do this? Why did you listen to people like Grover Norquist and Karl Rove, who allowed the worst kind of Islamists to come into your office and mislead you and set us on a trajectory that I’m not sure we can recover from?”

Alex Jones Marks Bundy Ranch Anniversary With False Flag Attack Conspiracy Theory

This weekend marked the first anniversary of the Bureau of Land Management’s decision to pull out of the tense armed standoff with militia groups at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada, which Bundy celebrated by holding a weekend-long party and Infowars host Alex Jones marked by spinning a conspiracy theory about government “false flag” attacks.

In a special segment marking the anniversary of the Bundy standoff, which centered around the rancher’s refusal to recognize court rulings which ordered him to pay grazing fees, Jones claimed that federal forces were ready to “massacre” the activists at the ranch but didn’t because “if they would have massacred the people out there, it would have caused a revolution from our angle, no amount of false flags would have won.”

Blaming the murder of two police officers by a couple who had spent time at the Bundy ranch on a governmentfalse flagoperation, Jones claimed that the government backed down in Nevada because they want to provoke a civil war by staging a false flag attack on a daycare center and blaming it on right-wing extremists.

“It came that moment of chicken, they backed down and it freaked the gangsters out like Harry Reid,” Jones said. “And they didn’t understand, when they blow up federal buildings and blame it on us or shoot a few cops and blame it on some loons that are upset with super hero stuff and into nihilism, we’re not going to buy you blaming us. We’re not here to be enslaved, we’re not here to be cannon fodder in your war, we don't want a physical war, but push comes to shove, it’s over.

“And if they would have massacred the people out there, it would have caused a revolution from our angle, no amount of false flags would have won. That’s why they don’t want to have the revolution there and backed off. They want to have false flags to say we launched the revolution by blowing up daycare centers — guaranteed they’ll pick a place with kids, theme park, you name it — they’re going to blame us.”

Sandy Rios: Possibly Lesbian Hillary Clinton Excluded 'Anglo-American Husband-And-Wife' In Launch Video

On her radio program yesterday, American Family Association governmental affairs director Sandy Rios once again suggested that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, telling listeners that “rumors swirl” about Clinton’s sexuality since she promoted “lesbianism” during the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing. Rios also speculated that the appearance of a lesbian couple in Clinton’s campaign launch video was another clue about her sexual orientation.

“When it comes to lesbian couples being featured on her video, please keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was one of the first public officials to push this whole notion of embracing homosexuality,” Rios said. “I would never forget my own personal shock in the late ‘90s when there was a women’s conference in Beijing and Hillary Clinton was in charge and they brought in women from all over the world at this UN conference, and the emphasis for the American delegation under Hillary’s tutelage was on lesbianism. There was a tent on lesbian lovemaking, there was an insistence that there were not just two genders at the time, they said there were five genders.”

Rios added that Clinton has “always advocated for homosexuality, rumors swirl around her.”

“It’s going to be hard to take listening to her talk” if she gets elected president, Rios said, adding that Clinton’s campaign video “features everybody except, you know, Anglo-American husband-and-wife with family in church.”

Klayman: Hillary Clinton 'Is Technically A Woman But She Acts Like An Evil Man'

Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, who thinks that it’s “past time that Hillary, the ‘Wicked Witch of the Left,’ be put behind bars,” spoke last month with far-right radio host Pete Santilli — who once called for Clinton to be “shot in the vagina” — about why he thinks Clinton should be in prison. 

Klayman alleged that Rep. Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee on Benghazi isn’t moving fast enough to prosecute Clinton, saying that he will step up to the plate since the committee is “for show and not for dough.” 

He claimed that Gowdy refuses to go after Clinton since “he is afraid of being seen of beating up on a woman,” although the former secretary of state, he argued, “is technically a woman but she acts more like an evil man.” “It’s the same deference that they paid to Obama, everyone in this country is afraid of being called a sexist or racist,” Klayman added.

Return Of The Rubio Birthers

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s announcement yesterday that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination has brought back a strain of far-right birtherism that contends that Rubio is not eligible to be president because his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

In its write-up of Rubio’s announcement, birther outlet WorldNetDaily (which has been a big promoter of Ted Cruz’s candidacy) cites unnamed people who “contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency”:

Meanwhile, others contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency. Rubio’s parents, as WND previously reported on at least two occasions, were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio, who were born in Cuba, though the senator has not released his birth certificate for the world to scrutinize.

As WND reported in 2011, Rubio press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971.

Then four years after Marco was born, “Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975,” Burgos told WND.

WND links to a 2012 article by its chief birther reporter Jerome Corsi, who cited far-right attorney Larry Klayman’s argument that the Constitution “requires a person eligible to be president to be born to parents who are each U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.”

Mainstream legal scholarship — as exhaustively detailed in a 2009 Congressional Research Service memo  and a 2011 report — rejects this, finding that the Constitution merely requires that a president have been eligible for U.S. citizenship at birth. Under Klayman’s rule, not only would President Obama be ineligible for the presidency, but so would Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Cruz.

The website of Bradlee Dean, a longtime Michele Bachmann ally, also published an essay yesterday claiming that Rubio is ineligible for the presidency and calling the senator an “anchor baby.”

Suzanne Hamner writes on Dean’s “Sons of Liberty” website: “If Obama is hailed as the ‘first’ black president, one could say Rubio is the ‘first’ anchor baby contender.”

“Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?” she asks.

Wikipedia, while not considered a truly reliable source, states Marco Rubio was born on May 23, 1971, to “Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia” who were Cubans that “immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as US citizens in 1975.”

So, Sen. Marco Rubio needs to clearly establish his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States in order to receive the party nomination. Neither of Rubio’s parents were citizens of the United States until 1975, four years after Rubio’s birth. Under this scenario, one could acquaint it to the “anchor baby born today being elected president upon reaching the age of thirty-five and living within the US for fourteen years.” Is Marco Rubio comfortable in claiming “natural born” citizen status in order to run for president? Clearly, he is. But, Rubio is ineligible to run and hold the office of the President of the United States. If Obama is hailed as the “first” black president, one could say Rubio is the “first” anchor baby contender. If Rubio is a supporter, protector and defender of the Constitution, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

Rubio’s supporters, along with those of Ted Cruz, will vehemently defend their candidate’s natural born citizen status regardless of the evidence to the contrary based on history indicating the framers did not subscribe to the natural-born citizen status as being anything but a child born of two citizen parents. Those who admit neither of these two candidates truly meets that all important requirement will declare that “it’s our turn,” “the Dems did it with Obama, so can we,” or “they would be better than Obama.” The problem in all of this remains consistency with the law.

The Democrats cannot protest as it would confirm that Obama would be ineligible thereby exposing the criminal, lawless, treasonous activities of the Democratic National Committee, key Democrats in Congress, such as Pelosi, the Republican National Committee, key Republicans in Congress, RINOs and complicity of the state governments in allowing Obama on the ticket, not to mention the numerous judges at every level who have upheld Obama’s eligibility. And, why would judges refuse to hear valid legal arguments opposing Obama’s eligibility if the definition of “natural born citizen” did not mean an individual born to two citizen parents?

Judges have denied hearing the case based on “standing” and “establishment of harm.” Isn’t every US citizen harmed by an individual holding the office of the President when eligibility is in question? Shouldn’t every US citizen have “standing” in a case such as this? It would mean the President has divided loyalty and would possibly not conduct business within the confines of the Constitution nor have the best interest of the country at heart. Are we not actually witness to that with Obama? Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious