Jim Inhofe Says Obama Is 'Supporting The Enemy'

In an appearance on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” yesterday, Sen. Jim Inhofe deliberated whether President Obama is a terrorist supporter or a buffoon, and decided that he president is intentionally “supporting the enemy.”

“Never in my political career in my memory did it ever occur to me that we would have a president of the United States who would be doing things supporting the enemy,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “Our system isn’t set up for Congress to deal with this kind of a situation.”

Inhofe told FRC president Tony Perkins that he is even comfortable leaking information from classified briefings: “All of these hearings, these classified briefings like the one we had this morning, I almost don’t mind talking about what they said because they are all so orchestrated, they always have five or six people from the administration, all of them agreeing with the president.”

“People now are calling in on a regular basis and saying, you know what I knew this administration was incompetent but I believe this goes beyond incompetence, I believe some of it’s intentional, either they are working intentionally to undermine America or they simply have no clue whatsoever,” Perkins said.

Inhofe suggested that he agrees with Perkins that Obama is deliberately harming America.

“If I were to agree with that, I’d lose all credibility in going on because that is the first thing they’d accuse me of,” Inhofe responded. “But I’d have to tell you, those people have every reason to believe what they are believing now. This couldn’t just keep happening over and over again.”

Tony Perkins Warns Obama Turned America Into Sodom, Wonders If He Threatened John Boehner

The Family Research Council is not happy about the decision by the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to fly the LGBT pride flag this month.

Yesterday on his radio program, “Washington Watch,” FRC president Tony Perkins denounced the embassy’s decision.

“The rainbow flag over Israel — the last time they were flying that over Sodom and Gomorrah it didn’t work out so well,” Perkins said. “This administration is not just ignoring or indifferent to traditional values, it is hostile to them, it is hostile to the very things that made America great.”

Perkinbs also spoke to a caller who said President Obama is “Satan personified” and a “terrorist” who “threatened” House Speaker John Boehner “and his family” to keep him in check.

Perkins kept the allegation alive, telling the caller that “there could be something to that, I don’t know, I don’t think it’s come to that” while noting that “this president and his policies” have “dismantled the country morally and culturally.”

BarbWire Pundit Says Rick Perry's Anti-Gay Remarks Made Him Presidential Material

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism this week was widely regarded as a major political misstep … except, of course, by the fervently anti-gay pundits on MattBarber’s website BarbWire.

BarbWire senior editor Jeff Allen writes today that Perry’s comments defending the Texas GOP’s support for ex-gay therapy “demonstrate his resolute refusal to back down to the bullies of Big Gay” and should “inspire a few other Republicans to grow a spine.”

“That’s what presidential poise under pressure looks like,” Allen writes, also hailing the gay-baiting TV ad that Perry ran during the 2012 Iowa caucuses.

Of course, Perry finished in fifth place in the caucuses and later dropped out of the race.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Perry’s comments resulted in a “smattering of groans and hisses” from the crowd. Perhaps his fearless fortitude, displayed while speaking in the hostile territory of the “gay” Mecca of San Francisco, will inspire a few other Republicans to grow a spine — but don’t hold your breath.



During his last presidential bid in 2012, Perry also emphasized his Christian faith in a campaign advertisement entitled “Strong” that debuted late 2011 in Iowa. The spot condemned the military’s perilous repeal of the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy which prevented open homosexuals from serving in the military.

“I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when ‘gays’ can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school,” Perry declared in the advertisement. And he also pledged to stand against the “liberal attacks on our religious heritage.”

Fortunately, Gov. Perry’s latest remarks demonstrate his resolute refusal to back down to the bullies of Big Gay. That’s what presidential poise under pressure looks like.

Pat Boone's Bad Dream Of A 'Black/White' Communist Becoming President

Maybe it was all a dream! How else, Pat Boone wonders in his WorldNetDaily column today, could America not see that “a secret cabal of Communist manipulators” had trained a “young black/white college student, originally school in Indonesia” to be a cunning politician after getting him "admitted to Columbia and then Harvard”?

Boone writes that following a stint as a community organizer, this “young anti-American man” in “an astonishing coup, was ‘elected’ president of the United States” despite the “absence of a valid birth certificate.”

The “audacious charlatan” governed with the help of his “fellow Marxists, socialists and Muslim activists,” Boone writes. 

I don’t dream much, but when I do, it’s usually dramatic – and memorable. Did you ever have a dream so vivid, so stark, that it seemed real, even after you woke up?

That’s what happened to me last night. I had just finished reading Tom Fitton’s electrifying book “The Corruption Chronicles,” a factual, documented masterpiece. My dream was actually a nightmare, a horrifying, surreal vision of contemporary life in America that was so sickening and unbelievable that I woke up in a cold sweat. And the worst part is that I still, to this minute, can’t decide if it was a dream – or real!

I dreamed that a spell was cast over the whole United States, affecting almost all of its people, especially those of voting age.

A secretive cabal of Communist manipulators, trained in the malevolent disciplines and Machiavellian methods of Saul Alinsky, had taken an interest in a young black/white college student, originally schooled in Indonesia, who’d sought out Marxist professors (as he revealed later in his own autobiographical book) at Occidental College.

In this young Marxist they felt they had a potential candidate for high elective office, first at the state and then possibly on the national level. He had a good mind, was glib and articulate and, according to a fellow Marxist at Occidental, was surprisingly angry. He was ready to foment a total overthrow of what he called “the colonial oppressor of Third World countries”!

This cabal had lots of money, so they got the young man admitted to Columbia and then Harvard, where he somehow was maneuvered briefly into the president’s chair at the Harvard Law Review. He never wrote anything of record (except calling the Constitution “a flawed document”) or distinguished himself in any way, but it looked good on a future resume.

Then, in my dream, this young anti-American man had brief jobs as a “community organizer” in Chicago, utilizing the disruptive, divisive and deceptive tactics he’d learned from Alinsky, and then went in a blinding scramble from state senator in Illinois to the U.S. Senate for a couple of low-profile, near invisible years … and then, in an astonishing coup, was “elected” president of the United States!

I say “elected” because the electoral process was so corrupted by another Marxist organization named ACORN that the outcome would always be questioned.

Four years went by, he was re-elected, and systematically went about wrecking the constitutional structure of the nation, piling up trillions of unpayable debt on the hapless taxpayers, bamboozling and intimidating both houses of Congress, shredding American influence all over the world, appointing fellow Marxists, socialists and Muslim activists to 33 “czarships” (unconstitutional regulators answerable only to him and not to Congress), and in countless ways overturning and abandoning the rule of law in the country.



At this point, I woke up trembling, in a cold sweat, furious but weeping for my country. Surely it couldn’t be true; America could never let this happen! Our Congress would surely have acted long before an audacious charlatan could have literally taken over the government and bankrupted a nation, economically and morally! Surely they … surely the courts … surely the Constitution … surely the press … surely the millions of people on every level of American life would have risen up and … and … the smoking guns were everywhere, in plain sight, right out on the table. Any one of them would disqualify a man from the presidency! How many would it take?

Rand Paul Is For Immigration Reform In Principle, But Won't Support It

A new flurry of stories is hailing Sen. Rand Paul as “pro-immigration reform,” despite the fact that the Kentucky Republican actually opposed a bipartisan reform bill.

In fact, Paul opposed the Senate immigration reform bill even after it was amended to include a border “surge” amendment, because he said the amendment — which Sen. John McCain said would give the U.S. the “most militarized border” since the Berlin Wall — didn’t go far enough. As the bill was being debated, Paul also played into right-wing fears by claiming that undocumented immigrants were being given greater rights than American citizens. 

In an interview with the anti-immigrant website WorldNetDaily yesterday, Paul’s spokesman Brian Darling insisted that while Paul appeared on a conference call with a conservative immigration reform group this week, he did not “advocate for the passage of anything.”

Darling also disputed a press release from the pro-immigration group, the Partnership for a New American Economy, which announced that Sen. Paul was “throwing his political weight behind an establishment lobby effort to get Congress to reform the country’s immigration system this year.”

He told WND that Paul’s staff “never approved any Partnership press release that said Rand Paul was going to push for immigration reform legislation this year, and we specifically asked them not to put that in any press release.”

So there you have it: Paul supports immigration reform with words, but won’t vote for a reform bill or propose one himself.

“Sen. Rand Paul never embraced amnesty on the call,” his office stated in an email. “Sen. Paul has never advocated for amnesty in any other forum and he voted against the Senate immigration bill.

“As a matter of fact, Sen. Paul offered an amendment on the immigration bill last year to strengthen border security by forcing annual votes in Congress before any benefits from the bill were authorized,” the statement said.



A press release issued by Partnership for a New American Economy announced Paul joined Norquist “to talk about immigration reform and the Senator’s ideas to strengthen border security, reform existing immigration laws for employers and attempt to find common ground on smaller immigration related matters.”

The Washington Times published a story Wednesday on the conference call with the headline “Rand Paul throws weight behind immigration reform effort.” The Times said Paul, on the heels of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning primary defeat, “on Wednesday waded deeper into an issue that has proved perilous to some of his GOP colleagues, throwing his political weight behind an establishment lobby effort to get Congress to reform the country’s immigration system this year.”

Brian Darling, a spokesman for Paul, told WND the Times story mischaracterized Paul’s position.

“He didn’t go on any call to advocate for the passage of anything,” Darling said. “He was just there to talk about his views on the issue, which he’s talked about a million times before.”



Darling told WND the Partnership for a New American Economy had sent a version of its press release to him, and it was supposed to be changed.

“The one I saw was totally different from the Partnership’s press release that I approved,” he said. “I did see one version of it, and the version they published is different. The version that said Rand Paul was on the call to push for immigration reform this year was not approved. Not only was it not approved, we flagged that and told them, do not publish that in any press release.”

He said Paul’s office “never approved any Partnership press release that said Rand Paul was going to push for immigration reform legislation this year, and we specifically asked them not to put that in any press release.”

BarbWire's Gina Miller Says The Push For Gay Rights Is Repulsive, 'Demonic,' And 'Born Of Hell'

BarbWire's Gina Miller, like others on the Right, is misrepresenting a recent law allowing gay couples to get married in Denmark's official state churches, to warn that "it is only a matter of time" until churches in America are compelled to do the same thing.

The push for gay rights, proclaims Miller, is "demonic" and was "born of Hell" and represents the front-line in the spiritual battle rooted in "Satan’s tyrannical desire to crush Christianity":

Transcendent truth, which is God’s law, does not change and will never change. It is revealed by God in the Bible and is written on the hearts of men. We call it “conscience.” People can bury this fundamental knowledge of right and wrong and the awareness through observing creation that God exists, but at some deep level they still know it. So it is with homosexual behavior. God has called it an abomination, a sin. Men have called it the infamous crime against nature. People are naturally, inherently repulsed by it. These timeless truths are not limited to a time in history. They are not outdated, as members of the radical homosexual movement would have you believe when they declare that support for homosexual “rights” equates to moving into the 21st century.

Those of us who are willing to speak out against the demonic homosexual movement have been warning you for many years that the God-given rights of those opposed to the mainstreaming of homosexuality cannot coexist with this movement. The fraud of homosexual “rights” and the genuine rights of Christians and others opposed to homosexuality are mutually exclusive, and one must give way to the other, period.

I have also warned you that at its core, this hellish movement is not about homosexuals simply wanting the “right” to “marry” or any of the other fallacious claims to unattainable “equality” they demand for their perverse sexual behavior. No. At its heart, this movement, born of Hell, is about Satan’s tyrannical desire to crush Christianity. Even though it is playing out in the physical realm, this is a spiritual battle between satanic forces and the forces of Jesus, Who is the only Way to God the Father, and He is deeply hated by Satan. This is why I keep saying that the militant homosexual movement’s chief targets are Christianity and the rights of the followers of Christ, whether the human pawns of the movement realize it or not.

This is a fascistic movement, meaning that its adherents employ authoritarian, militaristic tactics to push their radical agenda, which is just a “new” version of age-old tyranny. They use lying propaganda, intimidation and threats of targeting, boycotts and lawsuits to persuade people or to cow them into silence. Homosexual activists have been very successful in gaining the submission of leaders in corporate America, and they are even succeeding in swaying some churches to sign on in support of special “rights” for sodomites. The fact that far too many Christian pastors have remained silent in the face of this quickly spreading movement does not bode well for churches in America. Silence in the face of evil allows evil to easily flourish, and if Christians are afraid to speak out against the radical homosexual movement, then who will stand against it?

Right Wing Round-Up - 6/12/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 6/12/14

  • Wisconsin Republican Glenn Grothman wants to stop his state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples: “Our country is declining on an almost daily basis. The Office of Vital Records has no business participating in legitimizing illegal and immoral marriages.”
  • Televangelist Rick Joyner likens David Brat to the “greatest prophets” who arose “when ancient Israel fell into its deepest debauchery.”
  • Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel pledges to “re-deliver” his group’s “petition to ‘Impeach Barack Obama, our lawless President’ to key members of Congress.”
  • American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer demands that the U.S. stop helping Muslim-majority countries until their citizens convert to Christianity.
  • Os Hillman explains why he thinks the Obama presidency is part of God’s judgment on America.

Kobach: Obama Not Patriotic, 'We've Never Known Who This Guy Is'

On his radio program last month, after pointedly noting that “some people have questioned what exactly the president’s religious faith is,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said that “we’ve never known who this guy is” and agreed with a caller who said the president isn’t motivated by patriotism.

On his May 11 program on the station KCMO, while discussing the abduction of hundreds of schoolgirls in Nigeria, who just a few days earlier the president had sent a team of American specialists to help find, Kobach took a call from a listener who — channeling Newt Gingrich — explained her theory that Obama and his allies “don’t care much about Christians getting killed…because Christianity is considered a vestige of colonialism.”

“And white European people are mostly Christian and so there’s a kneejerk, idiotic sort of reflex response,” she said, adding that the media is biased toward Obama because he is black.

“You have to wonder what goes through the president’s mind when he makes these decisions to act or not to act,” Kobach speculated later in the conversation, adding, “it could be the neocolonialism that you began your point with.”

“We’ve never known who this guy is or where his heart is” and “still don’t know what motivates” him, he continued.

When the caller responded, “Well, whatever it is, it ain’t patriotism,” Kobach agreed, saying “Yeah, that seems to be the case.”

Caller: I think that the reason he doesn’t, that Obama and the whole bunch of them don’t care much about Christians getting killed — or Jews, needless to say, I mean Israel has been not important to the Obamaites — is because Christianity is considered a vestige of colonialism, which we all know is ‘bad, bad, bad, bad, bad in every way.’ And white European people are mostly Christian and so there’s a kneejerk, idiotic sort of reflex response.

And, you know, that’s the lady who called about the conspiracy. And unfortunately, there doesn’t even need to be a conspiracy, as you said, the libs just dominate the media and nobody has to pressure them to do or say anything. I mean, that’s just literally how they feel: ‘Obama, black, equals good.’ So, you know, that’s that.

Kobach: You have to wonder what goes through the president’s mind when he makes these decisions to act or not to act, but it certainly seems…

Caller: You don’t have to wonder. It’s what the most recent polls is.

Kobach: Well, that may be. I don’t know. It could be polling, it could be the neocolonialism that you began your point with.

Caller: It all works together.

Kobach: It could be — who knows what he’s thinking. But that’s the thing, we’ve never known who this guy is or where his heart is. George Bush, for all his faults, you knew who George Bush was. He’s an open book, you didn’t have a sense that George Bush would come out with something that would surprise us. Obama, I still don’t know what motivates President Obama. It’s a strange thing. But I digress.

Caller: Well, whatever it is, it ain’t patriotism.

Kobach: Yeah, that seems to be the case.

'If America Laughs At This, America Is Beyond Redemption': The Right Reacts To Abortion Comedy 'Obvious Child'

Last week, I saw a screening of “Obvious Child,” the new rom-com starring Jenny Slate in which the main character gets an abortion and makes some dark jokes about it and, surprise, ends up okay.

A couple of the questions at the Q&A following the screening with Slate and the film’s director Gillian Robespierre were about the anti-choice reaction to the film. A few days before the film hit wide release, there hadn’t been much, except for a few initial whimpers of dissent when the film screened at Sundance.

But that’s starting to change as anti-choice groups get wind of the movie and find it to be promoting “evil” and putting America “beyond redemption.”

Arina Grossu of the Family Research Council told the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal this week that she was “appalled that the evil of abortion is now the subject of a ‘romantic comedy.’ “

Arina Grossu, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, told The Daily Signal that she is “appalled that the evil of abortion is now the subject of a ‘romantic comedy.’

Grossu, who has not yet seen the film, has a different take.

“The movie attempts to gloss over the gravity of abortion,” she said. “But no amount of acting or short-lived laughs can take away the reality that abortion is a grave moral evil that kills one person and wounds the other.”

Jillian Kay Melchior, writing in the National Review Online, bashes the film formaking such a difficult physical and metaphysical decision into a cheap joke, with dead babies as the punchline.”

Obvious Child is kind of funny sometimes but not that funny — which is not the film’s main problem. Obvious Child is reprehensible because, through tasteless and unsubtle humor, it trivializes something that’s of grave importance for pro-choice and pro-life women alike.

Robespierre does no favor to women by making such a difficult physical and metaphysical decision into a cheap joke, with dead babies as the punchline. In trivializing abortion so radically, she infantilizes women and undermines the feminism she purports to endorse.

LifeSiteNews went with sarcasm: “Finally, a movie that presents the murder of an innocent as the laugh riot it is!”

“Has Hollywood hit a new low?”asked the Daily Caller.

And Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center took the long view, warning, “If America laughs at this, America is beyond redemption.”

The feminist film critics can exhale now. Someone has finally concocted their dream movie: an "abortion comedy." Because apparently nothing sounds funnier than an unplanned one-night stand and a courageous destruction of God's most beautiful and most innocent creation.

It's called "Obvious Child." Feminist lingo sells this monstrosity.

Rolling Stone magazine described one scene of allegedly hilarious "empowerment" between female characters. "You're going to kill it," Donna's best friend Nellie says before a standup comedy set the night before her abortion. "Tomorrow I am," Donna replies, and "the two unravel in sheepish giggles.

If America laughs at this, America is beyond redemption.

Of course, to sell the movie, they oddly claim this abortion-advocating movie doesn't have an agenda. "Our film is not an agenda movie in any way," Slate told Rolling Stone. "The whole point is that women have this procedure, and they should have it safely, and it's a part of life. It doesn't have to be this giant obelisk sticking out." That is not an agenda, no siree.

A little murder is a part of life. A little life matters not at all.

Feminists like these movie-makers don't see a moral dilemma. They see abortion as a natural part of the daily grind. You wake up, you get an abortion, you have a cheeseburger. The critics call this a "refreshing matter-of-factness" about abortion.

It can also be described as feminist nihilism. The selfishness and autonomy of the woman is paramount, and the accidental baby is just cannon fodder. When the murder of the innocents is celebrated as comedy, civil society is destroyed.

Of course, with the exception of Melchior, none of these critics seem to have actually seen the movie that Bozell claims will destroy America.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious