Numbers USA To Marco Rubio: Too Little, Too Late

Sen. Marco Rubio’s politically transparent U-turn on immigration reform may not be paying dividends among anti-immigrant activists as he would have hoped. The Florida Republican recently came out against the very comprehensive reform legislation he sponsored and helped pass in the Senate, but one of the country’s top opponents of his bill think it’s too little, too late.

NumbersUSA Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks told Sandy Rios yesterday that Rubio has already “poisoned the well” and now her group will urge congressman to vote against any immigration bill coming out of the House.

Rios: Do you think that Marco Rubio’s shift, slight shift, is helpful?

Jenks: Unfortunately, Rubio set out his positions in the Gang of 8 bill and that bill has essentially poisoned the well. We can’t go forward with a piecemeal approach now because that bill is sitting there, waiting for the House to pass any immigration bill so that Harry Reid can take that bill and substitute in S. 744, the Senate Gang of 8 bill, and then send it back to the House for a conference. That’s the path. So at this point, because that bill has poisoned the well, it’s too late for Marco Rubio to say, ‘oh you know I believed in a piecemeal approach all along and that’s what we should do.

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/28/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 10/28/13

  • Tony Perkins says gay people are trying “to escape the conflict of living outside of God’s design” by “pushing to eliminate any negative speech about their behavior choices.”
  • WND editor Joseph Farah fears God will destroy the world because of marriage equality.

Bradlee Dean: Communists Invented Word 'Racism'

Bradlee Dean tours schools and churches around the country to instruct kids about Christian Nationalism and the evils of abortion rights and homosexuality, but sometimes on his Sons Of Liberty radio show he also delves into history. Over the weekend, for example, Dean said that the word “racism” wouldn’t even exist…if it weren’t for “that devil Trotsky.” 

While speaking to his wife/co-host Stephanie Dean (his former co-host and Dean’s entire staff recently quit) about why a new article called him “anti-gay” rather than “pro-family,” Dean latched onto an urban legend about how Leon Trotsky coined the word “racism” in order to “to browbeat dissenters.”

“So what they do is they would just belittle them — by the way, this is what you’re seeing across America today, that is communism from A-Z and it was contrived directly from that devil Trotsky,” Dean said.

He even claimed that Trotsky was a propagandist for Joseph Stalin…even though they were fierce rivals and Stalin actually had him killed.

This is this rhetoric that comes from Trotsky back in the 30s. Trotsky had actually brought up the word ‘racist’, it was contrived from that devil back then, he was a revolutionary under Stalin. Just saying, responding what to you just asked me pretty little princess, he used the word racist to browbeat dissenters. In other words, he created the word racism to combat those that weren’t in agreement with their ideology, their totalitarianism. So what they do is they would just belittle them — by the way, this is what you’re seeing across America today, that is communism from A-Z and it was contrived directly from that devil Trotsky.

Bryan Fischer Will Not Have Sex With A Man!

Speaking yesterday with a caller who identified himself as a “non-practicing homosexual,” Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association reaffirmed his belief that homosexuality “is a matter of choice.” When the caller asked if Fischer “could have sex with a man,” Fischer was flummoxed and said he would never even begin to think about having gay sex.

When the caller pointed out the hypocrisy in Fischer’s position that gay men should simply just “choose” to see women, the AFA spokesman, still puzzled, said, “If an individual does not have a legitimate way to satisfy their sexual impulses, then the path that God has designed for them is the path of abstinence, chastity and celibacy.”

Watch:

Caller: Could you have sex with a man?

Fischer: I’m sorry?

Caller: Could you have sex with a man?

Fischer: Would I?

Caller: Could you?

Fischer: No.

Caller: I thought it was a choice?

Fischer: Sure it is, I’m just saying it’s emotionally, morally, mentally impossible for me—

Caller: But you just told me that you couldn’t do it?

Fischer: Yeah, I couldn’t do it, there was no way; there is nothing in me that would let me do that.

Caller: OK. How do you think I feel about women?

Fischer: I don’t know. How do you feel about women?

Caller: There ain’t no way.

GOP Congressman: Tornado Relief Different Than Sandy Aid Because Oklahomans Showed 'Self-Responsibility'

When Moore, Oklahoma, was hit with a devastating tornado last spring, a number of Oklahoma lawmakers were put in a tough position. While both Oklahoma senators and Reps. Jim Bridenstone, Markwayne Mullin and James Lankford had voted against a $50 billion aid package to provide disaster relief to the East Coast after Hurricane Sandy, they had no problem with asking for federal aid for their own state. Ultimately, affected communities in Oklahoma ended up receiving over $25 million in federal aid.

But that hasn’t stopped Oklahoma Republicans from downplaying the role the federal government played in disaster relief in Moore. Like Sen. Jim Inhofe, who said that federal aid to Moore would be “totally different” than Sandy relief, Rep. Mullin told a town hall meeting this summer that the aftermath of the Oklahoma tornado, unlike Sandy, showed the triumph of “self-responsibility.” The tornado in Oklahoma actually “proved my point” on Sandy relief, he said, because unlike those affected by Sandy, “we started taking care of ourselves, neighbor taking care of neighbors, and that’s what we had to do.”

This may come as a surprise to the many Sandy survivors who lent helping hands to their neighbors during and after the storm.

Mullin’s remarks came in response to a question about the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance, which he used as a pivot to talk about the role of government in disaster relief.

“At some point, like I say, we’ve got to be responsible for ourselves,” he said. “So, I can’t tell you exactly how I’ll vote on [Patriot Act repeal] because I haven’t seen it, but I can tell you what I’ll refer back to: self-responsibility. I’m ok with voting no on some of this stuff, but I’m also ok with knowing I’ve got to stand on my own two feet.”

Fischer: Military Preparing To Kill Christians, Surround Values Voter Summit

The American Family Association is once again telling its radio network’s listeners that the Obama administration is preparing the military to kill Christians. Upset that the AFA was included on an Army training session’s list of hate groups, AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer on Friday charged that the Armed Forces will use “lethal force” against Christians and Tea Party activists, and may even “surround” the hotel hosting next year’s Values Voter Summit.

“The military is being conditioned to use weapons on the American Family Association. The soldiers are being conditioned in their brains to think of evangelicals, Tea Partyers, the American Family Association and the Family Research Council as domestic enemies that may have to be neutralized by lethal force,” Fischer maintained. “The people you got to watch out for, you may have to turn your tanks on, are American Family Association.”

Watch:

Tea Party Groups Warn GOP 'Traitors'

Tea Party groups are still reeling from the unsuccessful push by Sen. Ted Cruz and his allies to use a government shutdown to force the defunding of the Affordable Care Act, blaming RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) for their failure.

Tea Party Nation emailed members today urging them not to support so-called RINOs, even in the general election:

In every state where there is a RINO running for the Senate and certain establishment Republicans are running for reelection in the House, like John Boehner and Eric Cantor, conservatives need to agree on one challenger to support against the incumbent.

If that challenger wins, then everyone supports the challenger in the November 2014 elections. If the challenger fails, then instead of grudgingly supporting the establishment Republican, we all then need to fall back to supporting an independent or a third party candidate who is worthy of support.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party Leadership Fund is urging “true conservatives” to run campaigns against the 87 House Republican “traitors” who backed a deal to end the government shutdown and prevent a default on the debt:

FRC Cites Bogus George Washington Story To Promote Christian Nationalism

The Family Research Council is outraged that the Air Force Academy has made it optional to say “So help me God” in its honor oath, claiming that the new policy is discriminatory against religious cadets…even though anyone can still say the phrase. On his radio program today, Tony Perkins of FRC said that the new policy is disrespectful of George Washington:

Who's running the United States Air Force: General Mark Welsh or Mikey Weinstein? Hello, this is Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Anti-Christian crusader Mikey Weinstein recently probed the Air Force Academy. The Air Force Academy Superintendent responded in 68 minutes, when he marked down his objections to the phrase, "So help me God," contained in the Academy honor code. Weinstein has been trying to drive Evangelicals out of the Academy for over a decade. During the tenure of one Superintendent, he boasted that he had a bath code that immediately connected him with the Academy boss. His complaint this time was a poster that included the honor oath with the phrase, "So help me God." Lieutenant General Michelle Johnson said the oath is being reviewed because the Academy values an inclusive environment that promotes dignity and respect for all. Really? Does that include those like General George Washington who initiated the phrase, "So help me God," or does that inclusion only make room for those who want to dismantle America's Christian heritage?

On the same note, FRC senior fellow Ken Blackwell cited Washington as a reason to keep the phrase a requirement:

Let's see: Why is that phrase so offensive? George Washington was a pretty successful general. And he took the oath as our first President in New York City on April 30, 1789.

When Chancellor Livingston swore Washington in as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, Washington added four words to the Constitutionally prescribed oath:

So Help Me God

Question for Mikey and Murfs: If George Washington could add those four words, and if every President since could add those four words, why should they offend an Air Force Academy cadet?

But as George Mason University history professor Peter Henriques writes, the story about Washington is most certainly a myth. In fact, James Madison excluded the words “So help me God” while working on a committee drafting an oath bill.

There is absolutely no extant contemporary evidence that President Washington altered the language of the oath as laid down in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” A long letter by the French foreign minister Comte de Moustier, who attended the ceremony, repeated the oath verbatim and did not include the additional words. Apparently, it was not until 65 years after the event that the story that Washington added this phrase first appeared in a published volume. In his book, The Republican Court, Rufus Griswold cited a childhood memory of Washington Irving as his source. It took another 27 years before the first clearly documented case of a President adding the words, “So help me God,” was recorded — when Chester A. Arthur took the oath in 1881.



Proponents of the myth contend that Washington had expressed no personal objection to saying “So help me God” and had routinely taken such oaths during the colonial era. Perhaps, they contend, he simply added it as an afterthought or because he was caught up in the solemnity and reverence of the moment. While at first glance this is plausible, it seems certain that any such modification of the oath would have created comment at the time that would have survived in the historical record.

The reason for this assertion is at exactly the same time as these inaugural events were unfolding, the first Congress was debating what oath the new members of the new federal government should take so as to comply with the Constitution. Article Six called for an oath but specifically added, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Early arrivals to the House of Representatives had taken an oath that included the words, “So help me God.” But, following the lead of a committee led by James Madison, legislators passed a new oath act on April 27, 1789 — just three days before Washington’s inauguration — that excluded the words “So help me God.” The Senate, after adding unrelated amendments, passed the bill on May 5, 1789. Would the Senate have passed an oath bill without the words, “So help me God,” only five days after the great hero of the American people “solemnly” and “with fervor” added them to his own oath? And do so without any contemporary comment surviving?

Taken together, the complete lack of contemporary evidence, George Washington’s political philosophy of strictly following the Constitution and the concurrent debate over the proper wording of oaths under the new Constitution make it virtually certain that George Washington did not add the words “So help me God” to his inaugural oath.

The New York Times adds:

It’s no surprise, then, that Washington should become the subject of the recent genre of biographical writing that focuses on the machinery of fame and the ways in which it manipulates, ignores, embellishes or distorts the known facts about a famous individual’s life and work. In “Inventing George Washington,” Edward G. Lengel — editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington and a professor at the University of Virginia — says he intends to examine “Washington myths and mythmakers” and trace “the means by which they have defined and redefined the founder from the beginning of the 19th century up to the present day.”

...

In addition, Mr. Lengel says, many efforts have been made to “prove” that Washington added the phrase “so help me God” to the presidential oath of office in 1789, even though “the evidence is against” this argument: “There are no contemporary accounts indicating that Washington said ‘so help me God.’ Indeed, the Comte de Moustier, the French foreign minister, who stood near Washington as he took the oath and recorded it word for word, did not include the phrase in his meticulous account of the event.”

“In sum,” Mr. Lengel argues, “any attempt to prove that Washington added the words ‘so help me God’ requires mental gymnastics of the sort that would do credit to the finest artist of the flying trapeze. How much easier, then, just to assert over and over that it happened without making any attempt to justify it in the historical record and then appeal to it as a ‘tradition’ that must never be broken. Such, at least, has been the approach taken by defenders of this story since its first appearance in 1854, and the results have met their desires. Since Chester Arthur in 1881, presidents have included the words in almost every known oath of office, with greater and lesser degrees of drama. Though atheists, secular humanists and outraged academics occasionally pop up to protest, the tradition has become set in stone.”

Schlafly: 'It's The Statue Of Liberty, Not The Statue Of Immigration'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is sick and tired of people invoking the Statue of Liberty to advocate for fixing our immigration laws.

In a radio commentary today Schlafly – who previously argued that the Bible’s mandate for “compassion” doesn’t apply to immigrants – commemorates the anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty by declaring that the statue “has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.” Instead, she argued, “people who had nothing to do with this great gift from the French were allowed to paste a plague on the base of the statue with a quotation that has misrepresented the statue as an invitation to open immigration.”

“Remember, it’s the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration,” she concludes.

While Schlafly is correct that the Statue of Liberty was not originally meant by the French to commemorate immigration, it quickly became a symbol of America’s promise for immigrants. As a National Parks Service historian told the New York Times, the statue “became really famous among immigrants. And it was really immigrants that lifted her up to a sort of a glory that was probably before America really fully embraced her.” The addition of the plaque with Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus” 20 years after the statue’s erection merely reinforced this symbolic value.

Schlafly somewhat undermines her case by quoting speeches from presidents who were very aware of the statue’s symbolic value. Schlafly selectively quotes Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech at the fiftieth anniversary of the dedication of the statue…a speech that was all about the importance of immigrants to American life. Likewise, she quotes Ronald Reagan’s speech at the statue’s centennial, which was also focused on the statue’s symbolism of a nation of immigrants. “Which of us does not think of other grandfathers and grandmothers, from so many places around the globe, for whom this statue was the first glimpse of America?” he asked.

But no, Schlafly says, “The statue has nothing to do with immigration.”

The Statue of Liberty is probably the most identifying symbol of America. It's almost like a religious shrine for Americans. Today is the anniversary of its dedication on October 28, 1886. A gift from France, it was built by Gustav Eiffel, the builder of the Eiffel Tower, and designed by Auguste Bartholdi, who wrote this about the Statue of Liberty: "The statue was born for this place which inspired its conception. May God be pleased to bless my efforts and my work, and to crown it with success, the duration and moral influence which it ought to have."

On the Statue of Liberty's 50th anniversary in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: "The Almighty did prepare this American continent to be a place of the second chance.... Millions have ... found ... freedom of opportunity, freedom of thought, freedom to worship God." President Dwight Eisenhower stated in 1954: "It represents ... a nation whose greatness is based on a firm unshakable belief that all of us mere mortals are dependent upon the mercy of a Superior Being." When the Statue of Liberty was relighted after a restoration, President Ronald Reagan said in 1986: "I've always thought ... that God had His reasons for placing this land here between two great oceans..."

The Statue of Liberty memorializes the unique liberty we enjoy in America. It has nothing whatever to do with immigration. It's most unfortunate that people who had nothing to do with this great gift from the French were allowed to paste a plaque on the base of the Statue with a quotation that has misrepresented the Statue as an invitation to open immigration. The Statue has nothing to do with immigration.

Remember, it's the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration.
 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious