Yesterday, the Family Research Council’s Craig James used his time as the guest host of “Washington Watch” to suggest that President Obama is seeking an unconstitutional third term in office, possibly in order to advance the cause of Islam.
Last week, James also filled in for FRC President Tony Perkins as the host of the radio program, and spoke with several callers who said Obama is a secret Muslim, a point he did not deny.
When one caller told James that Obama “doesn’t like the United States, he’s not a Christian, he’s a Muslim and he’s defending the Muslim country,” James replied: “I agree. He definitely does not have the faith system that I have….I don’t get the sense that he has a personal relationship with the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that I do. And he’s the leader of our country and for him to be there, it’s just mindboggling. I can’t say he’s a Muslim, I don’t know what he is, but I can say what he’s not, he’s not a good leader.”
Another caller said that Obama is “an Islamic sympathizer” and “a terrorist in hiding” who is “trying to destroy this country and he was put here to destroy this country.”
“Yeah,” James replied. “You’re entitled to your thoughts and your opinion and you’re not crazy. Without question he has backed off of the role of leadership in realizing that America is exceptional, that we are the leaders of the free world. He didn’t go to Paris in leading the other worldwide leaders…. There are just so many examples of where he has failed.”
He added: “We’ve got almost two years to go and that’s a lot of time, a lot of destruction can take place during that point in time.”
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore threw his state into turmoil this week when he ordered probate judges to defy a federal judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Moore, who has a history of making extreme anti-gay statements, insists that the federal judge is the one who is really breaking the law since she violateddivinelaw by ruling for marriage equality.
Moore’s call for statewide defiance of the federal judiciary’s “tyranny” stems from a belief that the Constitution was made to protect biblical commandments, so that anything that goes against his personal interpretation of the Bible is therefore in violation of the Constitution.
Moore shares that belief with a powerful ally: Michael Peroutka, a neo-Confederate activist who is also one of the most influential behind-the-scenes figures in the Religious Right’s reimagining of American law.
Peroutka, who once held a leadership position in the neo-Confederate League of the South and remained a member of the group until it hampered his run for a local office in Maryland last year, promotes this theocratic view of the law through his group the Institute on the Constitution. Speaking at an event at the Institute in 2011, Moore gushed that Peroutka would help lead America to a “glorious triumph” over the federal government’s “tyranny.”
After Moore was removed from his original position on Alabama’s high court in 2003 for defying a federal court order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building, Peroutka paid for the ousted judge to go on a national speaking tour to build support for his cause. He also funded a group that held rallies in support of Moore.
Over nine years, Peroutka contributed over a quarter of a million dollars to two groups founded by Moore, the Foundation for Moral Law (which is now run by Moore’s wife Kayla) and the now-defunct Coalition to Restore America.
In 2004, the far-right Constitution Party tried to recruit Moore to run for president on its ticket. When he declined, Peroutka stepped in to run in his place.
This neo-Confederate leader helped to lay the ideological groundwork for Moore’s current standoff with the federal courts, a standoff which many commentators have compared to Alabama Gov. George Wallace’s decision to defy federal law on desegregation.
Peroutka said last year that such rulings would “coerce” state officials to “declare that which is sinful and immoral” to be “valid and right,” even forcing them to “participate in it.” Such “evil” decisions, according to Peroutka, must be “resisted at every level of government, even the lower levels of government, most especially the lower levels of government,” since local governments are the true “protectors against those who would force these things on us tyrannically from above.”
For example, after a federal judge struck down Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage last year, Peroutka insisted that Sen. Rand Paul move to impeach the judge who made the decision, defund the court, and press for his state to defy the ruling: “He should use every influence he has in Kentucky to have people not obey this; the Kentucky legislature, the Kentucky courts, should not obey this, this is not lawful.”
Peroutka also believes that local officials should defy their state legislatures on issues like marriage equality. After Maryland’s general assembly voted in 2012 to legalize same-sex marriage in the state, Peroutka declared that the assembly’s decision to “violate God’s laws” effectively invalidated its legal authority, since any law that contradicts divine law does “not constitute a law – even if it were enacted and signed.”
Using an argument similar to the one Moore is now making in Alabama, Peroutka said that lower-level officials could ignore not only the marriage equality law but any law passed by the state’s general assembly, since it had invalidated itself by breaking biblical decrees: “Is it possible that those who are sworn to uphold the law, such as police and sheriffs and judges and prosecutors, may soon come to the conclusion that the enactments of this body should be ignored because they are based not in law, but in lawlessness?”
In Peroutka’s view, anything that breaks the “organic law,” or biblical law, is automatically unconstitutional.
Peroutka believes that America needs to “go back to what God called marriage, not what the state has perverted the definition to be, but what God called marriage.” Since biblical law doesn’t permit same-sex marriage in his view, then civil law can’t either: “There is no way we are ever going to validate homo- or sodomite-‘unmarriage’ because God defined marriage as between a man and a woman once and forever.”
“I always go back to these two standards: What does God say and what does the Constitution say?” Peroutka explained in 2013.
He added that the United States will have a small, limited government as long as it adheres to biblical standards. But he believes that the Union’s victory in the Civil War — or as he calls it, “The War Between the States” — enabled the federal government to greatly expand its powers, thus undermining the authority of biblical law and leading to such evils as same-sex marriage.
“Ever since then, there’s been this huge black hole of centralized power that’s formed in Washington, D.C.” he said. “People sometimes talk about ‘The War Between the States’ as being about the issue of slavery. I believe that history is written by the winners, it wasn’t about that at all. What it was about was consolidating power into the hands of a few people.”
“[T]he real effect of the war and the Reconstruction after the war was to take the very foundation of our understanding of our rights away from us, that is to say that they come from God, and put them in the hands of men and say that they come from the Supreme Court or they come from the legislature or they come from the executive,” he added.
The end of the Civil War, Peroutka claims, produced an “evil anti-God, anti-Christian revolution” that led to a “tyrannical consolidation of power” in Washington, D.C., undermining the “biblical worldview that acknowledges Christ’s authority over all things.”
Peroutka also contends that the gay rights movement isn’t just “federalizing homosexuality” but “federalizing perversion,” even claiming that the federal government violated the Constitution by imposing civil rights laws on the states.
“[T]he so-called civil rights laws are not law,” he said in 2013. “They never should’ve been passed. They’re not law now, they weren’t law then. They aren’t law now because there is no such thing as a civil right.”
Since Peroutka believes “rights come from God” and not civil government, he argues that all civil rights laws are illegitimate since “the term ‘civil rights’ is kind of an oxymoron. There’s no ‘right’ in the sense of a permanent, fixed, thing that you have, that can be defended, if in fact it comes from the civil government.”
Now Moore is once again putting Peroutka’s words into action, threatening state judges who lawfully issue a marriage licenses to a same-sex couples. Because in the eyes of Moore and Peroutka, their personal reading of the Bible takes precedence over the law of the land.
Pouncing on David Axelrod’s recent claim that President Obama hid his support for same-sex marriage during the 2008 presidential campaign, Jack Cashill of WorldNetDaily wonders today about what else the president is hiding…perhaps, his secret Muslim faith?
Cashill writes today in a column titled “Barry’s Stunning Bit of Blasphemy” that Axelrod’s “revelation casts further doubt upon Obama’s professed Christianity and fuels the speculation that he might well be a crypto-Muslim.”
Cashill points to a Jamie Foxx joke as further proof that while Obama may be “a secret Muslim,” “even Allah must take a seat in the back pews of the Church of Obama.”
For Obama, lying about his faith was apparently no big deal. As he told Axelrod after stumbling through a question on same-sex marriage, “I’m just not very good at bulls––ing.”
One has to ask, if Obama was willing to bulls–- about his relationship with God, what was he not willing to bulls–- about? Why should anyone, for instance, believe his “for me as a Christian” line?
The Axelrod revelation casts further doubt upon Obama’s professed Christianity and fuels the speculation that he might well be a crypto-Muslim.
Obama did little to shore up his Christian credentials in comparing ISIS to the Crusades at least week’s much discussed National Prayer Breakfast.
“It’s like church in here,” actor Jamie Foxx said at the 2012 Soul Train Awards. “First of all, give an honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama.”
Obama could not have said it better himself. If he really is a secret Muslim, I suspect even Allah must take a seat in the back pews of the Church of Obama.
Earlier this week a South Dakota state senate committee tabled a bill promoted by the “intelligent design” group Discovery Institute that identified "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, [and] human cloning" as scientifically controversial areas and, in the words of the National Center for Science Education, "would, in effect, have allowed public school teachers to miseducate their students about science — and would have prevented state and local educational authorities from intervening."
Although the bill didn’t make it out of committee, it had some high-profile backers, including a state representative of Concerned Women for America and a representative from the South Dakota Family Policy Council. In addition, the Discovery Institute flew in a spokesman, Casey Luskin, to testify on behalf of the bill, which seems to have been loosely based on the Institute’s model legislation.
Luskin told the committee that while in the days of the Scopes trial teachers were persecuted for teaching evolution, today teachers are being “persecuted” and “censored” for dissenting to “Darwin’s theory and other controversial scientific topics.”
“The old Scopes trial stereotype of teachers fearing persecution for teaching the evidence for evolution has been overturned,” he said. “Today, it’s the teachers and students who are raising questions about modern neo-Darwinian theory who are being stifled.”
Rep. Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, stopped by a “Defeat Jihad Summit” hosted by Frank Gaffney yesterday, to discuss the “conundrum” that he’s in about whether to vote for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that President Obama has sent to Congress to formally approve the ongoing military actions against the so-called Islamic State.
Perry said that while he feels “duty bound” to stop the “growing scourge” of the Islamic State, he doesn’t want to sanction the use of force by Obama, who he claimed is “really working collaboratively with what I would say is the enemy of freedom and individual freedom and liberty and Western civilization and modernity.”
“And in that context, how do you vote to give this commander-in-chief the authority and power to take action when…you know in your heart that, if past performance is any indicator of future performance, that he won’t, and that he actually might use it to further their cause and what seems to be his cause and just drag you as a complicitor [sic] in it,” he said.
Jennifer LeClaire warns that God is deeply grieved by "Fifty Shades of Grey" and that "the spirit of Jezebel is often behind this immoral trend, tapping into the lust of the flesh with its seductive agenda."
NOM likens its scheduled "March for Marriage" to the fight for civil rights and 1963's "March on Washington."
Stu Burguiere is not going to miss Jon Stewart when he leaves "The Daily Show" because Stewart is an unfunny hack who has been repetitive and boring for years ... says the man who sits beside Glenn Beck every day.
Apparently, the organization Morality In Media is now known as the National Center on Sexual Exploitation.
Mark Creech says that "if Republicans move away from conservative evangelical Christians and tango with the left on social issues, no Judas kiss is going to make everything alright. They'll find themselves abandoned on the dance floor and with no ride home."
Finally, Bryan Fischer decided to cover the death of Kayla Mueller on his radio show today by calling her anti-Semitic and, for some reason, raising questions about whether she had a Muslim boyfriend.
Last week, we noted that fringe Religious Right activist Janet Porter was readying the release of a new anti-gay documentary she produced called "Light Wins: How To Overcome The Criminalization Of Christianity" that was reported to feature a variety of members of Congress and Republican presidential hopefuls.
At the time, there were only two clips from the movie available and the only political figure shown in either was Mike Huckabee. Today, Porter released another preview of her film, which contains footage of interviews she conducted with several anti-gay activists as well as with Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Rep. Trent Franks, and Sen. Rand Paul, all attacking the Supreme Court for striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and for threatening to utterly destroy the institution of marriage entirely by legalizing gay marriage:
Pamela Geller said in an interview yesterday that she warned America early on in Barack Obama’s presidency that he was “this usurper, this interloper, this fraud,” but that nobody listened to her because he was “the first black president and America wanted to show she wasn’t racist.”
As a result, Geller told VCY America’s Vic Eliason, Obama’s “coup from within” is “going to be America’s greatest challenge,” even greater than the Civil War. She said she would have rather the first African American president be someone “noble and American and patriotic” like conservative author and pundit Thomas Sowell, columnist Shelby Steele or former Florida Rep. Allen West. But, she told Eliason, she fears the “zombie-like” younger generation will do nothing to stop the course of the country because it was raised on a “toxic ooze of leftist inculcation.”
But I wasn’t reading the tea leaves, it was there for anyone that was interested. But the world was in love with this idea, you know, the first black president and America wanted to show she wasn’t racist. But what America neglected to ascertain was the content of the man’s character and he was not vetted. So it’s a pity that the first African American president wasn’t someone who was noble and American and patriotic like, you know, a Thomas Sowell or an Allen West or a Shelby Steele, or, you know, some of the greats, some of the really American greats, and it was this usurper, this interloper, this fraud.
So, this is, I think, going to be America’s greatest challenge. And she’s been challenged. I mean, I’m not discounting the Civil War and myriad difficulties. This is a great nation with great problems and great successes and a magnificence, an exceptionalism all its own. But this, this is a coup from within. So, we have to, it’s going to be, I think, a terrible struggle. And if it’s not a terrible struggle, that means that we’re just going to go quietly into the night.
I don’t see America going quietly into the night. But I could be wrong. We have a generation that’s been raised on this leftist ooze, this toxic ooze of leftist inculcation, and they’re pretty zombie-like, so I don’t know.
Geller told Eliason that Obama’s use of the term is “to deceive and it’s to distract.” She also objected to Secretary of State John Kerry’s occasional use of the Arabic term “Daesh” — which the so-called Islamic State hates — to describe the group when speaking to Arab leaders.
“And now he’s calling them to further confuse the people, ‘Daesh,’” Geller complained. “And ‘Daesh’ is Islamic State in Arabic. Well, excuse me, Mr. President, but we speak American here. We speak American English here. We speak English.”
“So, the idea that he’s speaking Arabic to further confuse the American people,” she said. “Because the American people, they love their fun, they love their lives, their hobbies, they’re not news junkies. And so, they turn on a report and hear ‘ISIL’ and they turn on another report and hear ‘ISIS’ and they hear another report and they say ‘Daesh,’ and they think it’s four different, five different groups!”
On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer discussed David Axelrod's claim in his new book that President Obama concealed his support for gay marriage when running for office for political reasons, a claim which Obama disputes.
Fischer's main takeaway from the whole episode, of course, is that what President Obama was really doing in eventually announcing his support for gay marriage was declaring that he was not a Christian.
"Think about this for a second," Fischer said. "President Obama said several times, 'The reason I believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman is because I am a Christian.' So what does it mean, what are the implications when President Obama says, 'I no longer believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman'? The implication is, 'I'm no longer a Christian. Christianity teaches marriage is a union of one man and one woman, I used to be one of those, I used to be a Christian, I used to believe in a Christian view of marriage. I don't any longer' ... If you press what Obama's saying there, he would be saying 'look, I'm no longer a Christian'":