Pamela Geller: Oklahoma Beheading Was The Next 9/11

In an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday, anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller insisted that the beheading of an Oklahoma woman by a former coworker last week — which the district attorney in the case says was motivated by the man’s loss of his job and a feud about racist comments he had made — was “really a game-changer” and “a 9/11 in a different way.”

“You know, everyone’s looking backwards Janet, like ‘When’s the next big 9/11?’ It doesn’t work like that,” she told Mefferd. “It’s the element of surprise, it’s the element of change, and I believe that this is the beginning of a terrible sort of episodic era in American history. I can tell you that this is not the end, it’s absolutely the beginning.”

Geller also linked the attack to President Obama, whom she said had led the U.S. into “Dante’s Inferno.”

FrontPageMag Claims Labor Secretary Tom Perez 'Supports Islamic Terrorists And The Imposition of Shariah Law In America'

There are very few people the Right loves to hate more than outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, so when Holder announced his intention to retire last week, he left something of a vacuum in the right-wing media’s outrage machine.

Luckily, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, who is rumored to be on President Obama’s shortlist to succeed Holder, was there to take his place. In fact, some of the attacks on Perez are already outstripping the hatred of Holder, including a piece in FrontPageMag this week that not only calls Perez an “illegal alien enabler” who is “obsessed with race,” but asserts that “Perez sides with America’s enemies in the Global War on Terror” and “apparently supports Islamic terrorists and the imposition of Shariah law in America.”

Blogger Matthew Vadum backs up these claims by citing Perez’s stated concern about Islamaphobia and a congressional hearing at which he claims Perez “pointedly refused to rule out” bringing “Saudi-style anti-blasphemy laws” to the U.S.

At the hearing in question, Perez in fact stated that bans on hate speech are unconstitutional.

Illegal alien enabler Thomas Perez would not be an improvement over Holder, the scandal-plagued left-wing attorney general who has taken the Department of Justice to new lows of corruption and lawlessness. Perez, who previously ran the DoJ’s civil rights branch, would likely be a Holder clone or worse.

Perez sides with America’s enemies in the Global War on Terror. He apparently supports Islamic terrorists and the imposition of Shariah law in America.

Perez seems to favor Saudi-style anti-blasphemy laws. In Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries offenders are condemned to death merely for insulting Islam.

Disturbingly, at a congressional hearing Perez pointedly refused to rule out bringing such laws to America. At a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee’s panel on the Constitution in 2012, Perez would not say whether he would uphold the religious speech protections in the First Amendment in the future.

“Will you tell us … that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) asked four times to no avail.

Perez, like so many Obama administration officials, believes that America is a seething hotbed of “Islamophobia,” filled with ignorant racist rubes who irrationally fear the Muslim religion. He has worked with hardcore Islamist groups such as the terrorist-linked Islamic Society of North America and applauded Islamists for lobbying against airline security measures.

Like Holder and Obama, Perez is obsessed with race.

“I wish discrimination were a thing of the past,” Perez said in 2012 when he headed the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division. “I wish we were living in post-racial America. I wish my phone were not ringing. But regrettably, it’s ringing off the hook in the voting context. It’s ringing off the hook in the hate crimes context and in so many other contexts.”

During his time at DoJ, members of the Civil Rights Division conspired with ACORN-affiliated Project Vote to weaken electoral integrity-related law enforcement. Voter ID laws, in his twisted view, are racist, calculated to deprive people of color of their voting rights.

He has targeted Maricopa County, Ariz. Sheriff Joe Arpaio for legal harassment because he doesn’t like Arpaio’s tough-on-crime approach, especially with respect to illegal aliens.

Michele Bachmann: The GOP's End Times 'Foreign Policy Expert'

Michele Bachmann has big plans for her career after Congress, and apparently that includes “looking to burnish her credentials as a foreign policy expert.”

As Politico reports today, the retiring Minnesota congressman is working with Rick Santorum and Tony Perkins in hopes of becoming “a female conservative foil” to Hillary Clinton.

The divisive four-term congresswoman is leaving Capitol Hill in January, but she has no intention of fading into post-congressional irrelevance.

Instead, the Minnesota Republican is fiercely courting media and speaking opportunities, likely in Washington, New York or Los Angeles, and looking to burnish her credentials as a foreign policy expert ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Her hope is to emerge as the “anti-Hillary,” a female conservative foil to likely Democratic presidential contender and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.



But even critics have learned to underestimate Bachmann at their peril. To prepare for the post-congressional transition, Bachmann is working with conservative heavyweights like former GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. She’s also working on softening her public persona by repeatedly hitting up television shows with younger audiences that focus on families.

Bachmann’s foreign policy views are, by her own admission, immensely shaped by her belief that the U.S. is living in the End Times.

Last year, after falsely claiming that President Obama was aiding Al Qaeda, Bachmann cited the non-existent aid to Al Qaeda as proof that “we are in God’s End Times history” and that “we need to rejoice, Maranatha come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand. When we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this; these days would be as the days of Noah. We are seeing that in our time.”

“These are the times of birth pangs, we’re seeing the intensity of age and the speed and rapidity that these events are starting to speed up so fast that we can hardly get our minds about it,” she said of the coming Last Days in another interview last year.

Bachmann believes that Obama’s Mideast policy was predicted by biblical passages about an End Times battle where the powers of the world align against Israel: “The nations of the world will come against Israel and the scripture very specifically says all nations, now for the United States we don’t have that experience until recently under President Obama with the United States not standing with Israel.”

She also contends that the Obama administration, especially the State Department under former Secretary of State Clinton, has experienced “deep penetration” by Muslim Brotherhood agents and as a result U.S. officials have “embraced the worldview aspirations of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

If Bachmann does decide to become a leading conservative voice on foreign affairs as a “foil” to Clinton, we shouldn’t forget that Bachmann sees the End Times struggle taking place today, and has already claimed that God is not on Clinton’s side:

Anti-Immigrant Zealot William Gheen Boasts Marco Rubio Is Now 'Quoting My Lines'

William Gheen, who runs the one-man anti-immigration group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, is the subject of a fawning profile in WorldNetDaily today that focuses on Gheen’s latest grand scheme: compiling an “America hate group list” of politicians and organizations that have every said or done anything in support of immigration reform.

Claiming that “tens of thousands of Americans have been killed” and “massive atrocities” have occurred because of undocumented immigrants, Gheen tells WND, “These open-borders traitors have opened America and Americans up to every unwanted thing around the globe.”

“There’s a host of motivations,” he adds, including some who “see it as a way to destroy the U.S. and lead to the eventual displacement of our citizens.”

One politician who hasn’t been spared a place on Gheen’s list despite his about-face on immigration reform is Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, even though Gheen boasts Rubio is “out there right now quoting my lines.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who like Paul has expressed interest in running for president in 2016, voted in favor of SB 744 but has been talking lately as though he is against amnesty.

“He’s out there right now quoting my lines. He was on Sean Hannity’s show a couple of weeks ago and my lines are suddenly on the lips of Marco Rubio,” Gheen said.

And it won’t take much to get on the list. Even if a candidate has a solid voting record, such as Paul, one comment that is made in favor of granting leniency to illegal aliens will be enough to land him on the list permanently, Gheen said.

“Once you go on the list, you’re always going to be on the list. You don’t get any second chances,” Gheen said. “Once we put you on that list, we are going to do everything in our power to make sure you are never elected or re-elected.”

He added, “Our plan is to make this the most comprehensive amnesty list in the country, so that when loved ones get the bad news that someone’s been killed by an illegal immigrant, or they lose a job, or lose their home, or maybe they lose a local school or hospital resource, they will know who to blame.”


“This is our America hate group list. It’s an America-hating group,” Gheen said. “That’s why the Southern Poverty Law Center will eventually be listed, as well as La Raza.”

Gheen said ALIPAC’s ultimate goal is to create two lists. One with amnesty supporters in business, politics and the nonprofit world and a second showing the victims of illegal immigration.

“We hope if we receive enough support that this list will be married to another list that will be for all those Americans that have lost their lives due to illegal immigration. It will be an online monument to the massive atrocities that have been committed against our citizens by this betrayal,” he said. “We’re now looking at a situation in which tens of thousands of Americans have been killed by this plan that has been furthered by the likes of Marco Rubio, George Bush, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, the Chamber of Commerce and the list goes on. The blood from these victims of the illegal immigration invasion cries from the ground, and we hope to see the American people correcting the injustice.”

Gheen said ALIPAC does not have actual numbers of Americans killed due to the non-enforcement policies of the federal government, but he believes they are in the thousands.

“It’s through murders, drunken-driving deaths, deaths by diseases that have come in through unscreened illegal immigrants, including the Mexican flu,” he said. “These open-borders traitors have opened America and Americans up to every unwanted thing around the globe. We’re wide open to it. The defenses of the United States are down. There’s a host of motivations. Whether it’s corporate greed or liberal socialists with a political agenda, and some see it as a way to destroy the U.S. and lead to the eventual displacement of our citizens.”

Holding The Religious Right To Its Own Standard

A few weeks ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was speaking to students at the University of Minnesota Law School when she made the rather straightforward observation that if 6th Circuit Court of Appeals follows other recent court decisions and strikes down gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, then the prospects of the Supreme Court taking up the issue of marriage equality would be less likely in the near term.

The reasoning behind this statement is that if appellate courts consistently strike down such bans, then the Supreme Court will not need to get involved right away whereas, if the 6th Circuit were to uphold such bans, that would create a conflict among recent appellate rulings and so, as Ginsburg said, "there will be some urgency" for the Supreme Court to take up with issue in order to address those conflicting rulings.

There is nothing controversial or improper about this obvious observation, but anti-gay Religious Right groups have seized upon it to launch a campaign demanding that Ginsburg recuse herself from any Supreme Court case involving the issue of marriage equality on the grounds that she has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct by "making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action."

As Liberty Counsel, which first launched this effort, declared:

“In casting a vote publicly before the case is even heard, Justice Ginsburg has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “It is now her duty to recuse herself from cases involving same-sex marriage.”

According to Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, “A judicial employee should not lend the prestige of the office to advance or to appear to advance the private interests of others.”

Canon 3(D) declares, “A judicial employee should avoid making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action.”

“Justice Ginsburg’s comments implied that the merits of the state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman were such that the Supreme Court would have to overturn them with haste, if upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Staver. “This is an inappropriate comment for any judicial employee, much less a Supreme Court Justice!”

The call has since been echoed by the Foundation for Moral Law, Faith 2 Action, and the American Family Association, where Bryan Fischer and former Liberty Counsel attorney Steve Crampton recently discussed the need for right-wing activists to "beat on our pots" in order to create so much political pressure on Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan that they have no choice but to recuse themselves from any such cases.

In fact, just yesterday, Fischer wrote a column arguing that Ginsburg and Kagan would be "committing a federal crime" if they did not recuse themselves:

The Supreme Court will, perhaps even in this session, take up the issue of sodomy-based marriage. If it does, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan will have an obligation to step off the bench for those cases on the grounds that their impartiality has been severely compromised.

Both have performed sodomy-based “wedding” ceremonies. Kagan performed her first one on September 22 of this year, and Ginsburg has done the deed multiple times, including at least one in the Supreme Court building itself. Thus they have clearly tipped their hand by their actions as well as their words. They have publicly demonstrated that their minds are already made up on the issue. It is inconceivable that either of them now would vote against the “marriages” they themselves have solemnized. They would stand self-condemned.

...

[T]he necessity for Kagan and Ginsburg to recuse is not just a matter of fairness or rightness. It’s also a matter of law. They have a statutory obligation to recuse. If they refuse to step off the bench when and if marriage cases come before them, they would be breaking federal law. They would be, from a strictly legal standpoint, committing a federal crime. Their sacred responsibility is to uphold the law, not break it.

So it was with great interest that we read this article in The Washington Times yesterday reporting on remarks made by Justice Antonin Scalia at Colorado Christian University in which he stated that the separation of church and state is "utterly absurd" and the idea that the government must remain neutral on the issue of religion is "just a lie":

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday that secularists are wrong when they argue the Constitution requires religious references to be banished from the public square.

Justice Scalia, part of the court’s conservative wing, was preaching to the choir when he told the audience at Colorado Christian University that a battle is underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance to holding prayers before city hall meetings.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.

“That’s a possible way to run a political system. The Europeans run it that way,” Justice Scalia said. “And if the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute. But to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

...

“We do him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” Justice Scalia said. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

The biggest danger lies with judges who interpret the Constitution as a malleable document that changes with the times, he said.

“Our [the court‘s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”

Given that Scalia was very clearly "making public comment" in a way that directly relates to a whole host of church-state separation questions that could potentially come before the Supreme Court at any time, we trust that these Religious Right groups will now demand that he recuse himself from any such cases as well, right?

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/1/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 10/1/14

  • Michele Bachmann warns that President Obama is "going to give full-scale amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, which by the way would include terrorists who are currently in this country who came in illegally."
  • Glenn Beck's new theory is that the U.S. bombed the Khorasan Group in order to help Iran.
  • Bryan Fischer asserts that if Justices Kagan and Ginsburg do not recuse themselves from cases involving marriage equality, they will be "committing a federal crime."
  • Alex McFarland says that efforts to pass a constitutional amendment regulating money in politics are "driving America down the path of a socialist leftist agenda that will result in our kids and grandkids living in a socialist utopia that is free for no one."
  • Finally, Charisma's Jennifer LeClaire warns that "the prince of the power of the air is celebrating his success this week using media to promote the gay agenda and subtly indoctrinate a generation with the message 'it's OK to be gay'."

Fischer: Ban Muslim Immigration Because We Don't Know Who Is Carrying 'The Decapitation Virus'

On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer reiterated his belief that the government ought to ban immigration from nations where the Ebola virus is present as well as from Muslim-majority nations because, just as there is no way to determine who is carrying Ebola until the disease emerges, there is also no way to know which Muslims are carrying "the decapitation virus."

"I think our policy toward Islam should be the same as our policy toward Ebola," he said, asserting the America just cannot take a chance on allowing a potential Ebola carrier to enter this country. "Now we ought to be saying exactly the same thing about people who come from Muslim-majority countries because we have no way of knowing who might be carrying the decapitation virus.'

"We simply don't know," Fischer continued. "And so we say to them 'look, I'm sorry we can't let you into our country. I don't believe that you represent a threat of any kind but we simply don't know. We have no way to tell, we've got no kind of scanning device that can identify whether the decapitation virus is in you, whether it's alive in you, whether it's going to erupt'":

Texas Supreme Court Justice: 'The Church Has Gone To Sleep' And Let Progressives Rule 'Every Facet of Government'

Texas Supreme Court Justice John Devine joined the “Faith & Liberty” program recently to discuss his originalist judicial philosophy, which he said reflects the “intent of the founders,” unlike that of the progressives who now — thanks to the negligence of the church — control “the White House and almost every facet of government.”

“How do you react when you hear the Constitution as a living and breathing document?” host Dave Garrison asked Devine.

“Well, it’s just not what the intent of the Founding Fathers was,” Devine replied. “It’s like the Ten Commandments, if we would just stick to those basic principles our nation would be far better off and we would once again be the light on the hill. And unfortunately, the church has gone to sleep, many Americans have gone to sleep and we have allowed those with these progressive ideas to have the White House and almost every facet of government.”

Another Glenn Beck Prediction Comes 'True'

Last week, Glenn Beck spent a good part of one of his programs warning his audience that the world was possibly on the verge of a global Ebola pandemic once the virus mutates into an airborne disease that would be brought into the United States by Nigerian prison guards working in Texas.

Yesterday, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that someone who had recently flown from Liberia to Dallas has been diagnosed with the disease and is now in quarantine.

So naturally, Beck is now taking a victory lap, declaring on his radio program that his warning has been proven correct.

Fuming that he had been mocked for his warning, Beck wanted to know "how many times do you have to be right" before people will listen to you, insisting that other than the infected patient having come from Liberia and not Nigeria, "everything else I had right."

Beck then warned his audience, utterly without irony, to "stop listening to people who are telling you things that continue to be wrong":

Beck warned that airborne Ebola would would be brought into America by Nigerian prison workers. Instead, one traveler from Liberia has been diagnosed and quarantined, yet Beck insists that his prediction has been proven true while fuming that people dare to mock him despite his exemplary record of being right.

Let us remind Beck of his amazing record:

Remember when Beck repeatedly warned that President Obama was seeking to foment a race-based civil war? Or when he warned that the administration was trying to take away guns in order to impose slavery and carry out mass killings? Or when he told his audience to prepare because President Obama was about to snap and start putting them all in internment camps? Or when he told them to start hoarding cash because the government was going to seize their bank accounts, just like in Cyprus?

Remember when he warned that a shooting at the Dallas airport was almost certainly a false flag operation carried out by Occupy Wall Street to press for gun confiscation? Let's not forget his prediction that undocumented children crossing the southern border would lead to an Israel/Palestine-type conflict in America. What about the time Beck warned that military action in Syria was designed to create a one world government? Or his assertion that efforts were underway to outlaw homeschooling in America?

Anyone recall his theory that the missing Malaysian airplane had been hijacked so that it could be "cloaked" and then flown into the United States in a terrorist attack? Or his fears that supposedly missing planes in Libya would be used to destroy the global economy?

And who can forget the days after the Boston Marathon bombing that Beck spent explicitly asserting that one of the injured victims was, in fact, responsible for carrying out the attack, because of which statements he is now being sued for defamation?

Instead of asking "how many times do you have to be right" for people to trust your warnings, we'd ask how many times Beck is allowed to be totally wrong while still insisting that he is consistently proven right?

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious