It is obvious that Glenn Beck lives in a very isolated bubble and that if certain information and/or events do not happen to penetrate that bubble, then he is confident that such information and/or events do not exist.
This was perfectly demonstrated on his radio program today when he and his co-hosts had a discussion about Caitlyn Jenner's gender transition and Beck absurdly proclaimed that nobody thinks it is a big deal and even conservatives have no problem with it.
"I wish you happiness," Beck said. "I don't hate Bruce or Caitlyn and I don't know anybody who does. What's so striking here is, if you're a liberal, you would expect there to be a massive outrage, especially since he came out and said he was conservative ... Have you heard any push back from any conservative? You didn't hear any of that."
This is laughable, especially since we have written several posts in just the last few days of Religious Right activists doing just that.
Bryan Fischer said Jenner's transition is a sign that America is "morally corrupt" and on the verge of destruction, while Alex McFarland has called it "demonic" and Sandy Rios said it was "a human tragedy." Michael Savage said that Jenner belongs in a straitjacket, and Beck's good friend Ted Nugent said that Jenner was mentally ill and a "Bizzarro World Planet of the Apes over the cuckoos nest clockwork dayglo orange Mad Magazine spoof on life."
One of Ann Coulter’s new favorite talking points, which she uses in her new anti-immigrant book “Adios America!” and has repeated in various media interviews, is that the U.S. has “taken in one-fourth of Mexico's entire population."
Earlier this week, Politifact gave that claim a “Pants on Fire” rating , noting that Coulter is comparing the number of people of Mexican heritage living in the U.S. — including people who’s families have been in the country for generations — with the current population of Mexico, which is kind of like saying that the large population of Irish Americans means that the U.S. has “taken in” Ireland’s population seven times.
But this, of course, is all part of the media’s persecution of Ann Coulter, at least according to her friend Joyce Kaufman, a conservative radio host in Florida, who cited the Politifact story in an interview with Coulter yesterday as an example of the media “going crazy trying to debunk facts.” The Mexican-American citizens Politifact mentions, Kaufman said, are “anchor babies” and therefore “should not count” as being Americans.
Coulter agreed, saying that granting birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants — something consistent with the history of the 14th Amendment — was an “invention” of the “mentally delusional” Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in the 1980s.
“This doesn’t go back to the 14th Amendment,” she said, “this is the invention of one mentally delusional Supreme Court justice. And he’s turned the most precious possession in the universe, citizenship in this wonderful country, into a game of tag with the border control. If they don’t catch you, you get to drop the baby and say, ‘Ha ha ha, I just had the baby and you can’t do anything!’ It’s madness.”
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, spoke to Roger Fredinburg on his far-right radio show in April about the attempt by Congress to restrict armor-piercing bullets. Pratt, responding to Fredinburg’s theory that the left wants to take away everyone’s rifles, said “we figured that’s kinda what they were up to.”
“The Second Amendment was designed for people just like the president and his administration,” Pratt said. “And yes, if the New York Times and the Rolling Stone, and whoever else wants to have a hissy fit, yes, our guns are in our hands for people like those in our government right now that think they wanna go tyrannical on us, we’ve got something for ‘em. That’s what it’s all about.”
“The Second Amendment,” he continued, “is not about hunting, it’s not about target shooting, it’s about Democrats who want to take our rights.”
Fredinburg, building off of the tyrannical Democrats theory, argued that “if you’re a Christian or subscribe to traditional Judeo-Christian values today, you’re considered a hate monger...if you’re a pervert, a deviant, a derelict, you know someone who’s captured by a decadent lifestyle, whatever, your rights are protected. But the good people, their rights are not being protected.” Pratt, agreeing that the left hates guns and religion, replied, “What a rhetorical sleight of hand, isn’t it? They say they’re for diversity, they say they’re for freedom of speech, and ‘you’re free to say anything you’d like as long as you agree with me.’ What hypocrites!”
The ability of Religious Right activists and their allies in the conservative media to paint themselves as the targets of horrible persecution, a core strategy of the conservative movement for decades, is truly astounding. No matter the issue, whether it is defending laws denying equal rights to gay people or opposing government neutrality towards religion, the strategy is always the same: play the victim.
Outside of just issue advocacy, Religious Right figures attempt to depict any criticism of their political positions and records as a direct attack on their freedoms and religious beliefs, suggesting that their deeply held beliefs should somehow give them immunity from political reproach.
This strategy has been so effective that the Duggar family, reeling from a sexual abuse cover-up scandal, has adopted it, and it was on full display in Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s interview last night with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.
“Do you think in particular your Christian beliefs at issue here?,” Kelly asked the Duggar parents, who, according to police reports, took months to report their son Josh Duggar’s alleged sexual abuse of several young girls including his sisters and may not have sought counseling for their children. Josh Duggar, who resigned from his position as a Family Research Council executive when the allegations became public and who has since admitted to sexually abusing several girls as a teenager, was not interviewed.
Jim Bob and Michelle, stars of the TLC reality show “19 Kids and Counting,” told Kelly that they are victims of an “agenda” that is out to get their family and a media that won’t offer them privacy as the scandal unfolds.
This victimization narrative, coming from a family that stars in a nationally broadcast reality TV show and that has been active in conservative political causes — including campaigning against a local nondiscrimination measure in North Carolina by portraying LGBT people as threats to child safety — may seem insincere. But the Duggars they know that the strategy is effective, and that outlets like Fox News are there to help them.
Mike Huckabee too labeled the Duggar parents and Josh Duggar as victims of an “insensitive” media. CNN reports that Chad Gallagher, Huckabee’s “longtime adviser” and “the executive director of Huck PAC,” is managing the Duggar family’s public relations strategy.
As for the daughters who survived the abuse, two of whom spoke to Kelly in defense of their brother, Jim Bob explained that “they didn’t even know he had done it” since they were asleep when several of the instances occurred. “This was not rape or anything like that. This was like touching over the clothes. There were a couple instances where he touched someone under the clothes, but for like a few seconds.”
Instead, Kelly and the Duggar parents took aim at In Touch magazine, which found the police report about Duggar’s abuse through a Freedom of Information Act request, and the local police unit which complied with the request, as the real perpetrators of wrongdoings, insisting that the current media coverage has been far more damaging to the abuse survivors.
As CNN’s Brian Stelter pointed out, Fox News “barely covered” the scandal when it first came to light, far less than their cable news rivals, but was more than happy to help the family “speak to their Christian conservative base” by helping the Duggars become the latest Religious Right activists to use the play-the-victim strategy.
The LIBRE Initiative is the Latino outreach program of the Koch brothers’ political network. With millions of dollars from the Kochs and their allies since its founding in 2011, LIBRE has established a presence in 10 states and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on deceptive political ads. Its ultimate goal, shared with the broader network of Koch organizations, is to build political power by electing anti-government conservatives to office at all levels. LIBRE’s job is to help right-wingers into office by a) convincing more Latinos to support anti-government candidates, and/or b) discouraging other Latinos from bothering to vote by running attack ads on progressive candidates.
LIBRE is also part of another right-wing tactic – convincing religious voters that opposition to progressive taxes, unions, and government regulation are actually biblical positions. LIBRE's executive director Daniel Garza himself does this, asking in an interview with a newspaper at Pat Robertson’s Regent University, “Why should the principles espoused by Gloria Steinem or Ralph Nader have more supremacy over those espoused by Jesus Christ in the Bible?”
Garza has enlisted others as well, including Latino evangelical leader Samuel Rodriguez, who says in a 2011 LIBRE video that Hispanic people are being enslaved by big government and that it is both anti-Christian and anti-American to “punish success” – code for progressive taxation.
Garza and Rodriguez commiserate over the fact that the Hispanic community no longer embraces the values of family and entrepreneurship brought to this country by immigrant parents and grandparents, and they blame dependency on government. Says Rodriguez, “We become assimilated and acculturated, not to the good values but to the bad values of government dependency. We become acculturated and assimilated and integrated to the ideas of the New Deal, and big uber-government.”
Rodriguez refers to the Christian Reconstructionist notion that the government must not do things that the Bible says are the role of the family. He decries “the current reality of uber-subsidization, the role of government taking over the role of God and family.” When government replaces man’s role as bread-winner, and people depend on government, he says, “We are basically being enslaved by big government, and by uber-subsidization.”
Rodriguez says the family is in peril because “government is growing in our lives. We need to go back to the formula that made us great, which is the idea of our faith in the Lord and economic liberty, economic freedom.” He says government dependency is leading to the continued destruction of the Hispanic community as a community that “embodies the idea of la familia” into one that embodies “failure, misery, poverty, both economic poverty, but spiritual, mental, emotional and collective corporate poverty.”
In a 2014 LIBRE video telling the story of Garza’s family, much is made of his father’s “noble” refusal to accept assistance from the government. In his interview with Garza, Rodriguez also implies that there is something shameful about accepting welfare: “We need to rebuke the welfare presence, and embrace the presence of scripture, and of family, and of education…we really need to free ourselves from that slave mentality of Egypt….”
Garza asks when Latinos began to see rich people as the enemy, and Rodriguez blames liberals and a liberal media. He says wealth is a sign of God’s blessing. “It’s anti-Christian to think that people that have been blessed…that they are wrong….Blessed people are a manifestation of scripture….In scripture there is an incredible amount of support for the idea that, yes, provision and abundance comes from God…”
Rodriguez said that many have taken Jesus’s saying that it is more difficult for a rich man to make it to heaven “completely out of context.” Says Rodriguez, “We’re beyond that. We understand that one verse does not establish doctrine.” Jesus’s ministry, he says, had some “financial resourcing” from “resourceful fisherman,” tax collectors, and others who invested in his ministry. Adds Rodriguez, “We cannot punish success…For us to want to actually want to punish success is anti-Christian and anti-American.”
Pat Robertson warned today that a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage would have devastating consequences, telling viewers of “The 700 Club” that marriage equality will jeopardize the free speech of religious broadcasters like himself who oppose gay marriage.
Curiously enough, Robertson broadcasts from Virginia, a state with marriage equality, and is freely able to denounce gay marriage on a regular basis without facing any legal consequences.
“Isn’t it chilling to think that a practice that was abhorrent and stigmatized for so many years has now become the dominant weapon of the left to hurt those who share traditional values?” he asked.
Robertson also addressed the Supreme Court’s 1983 in Bob Jones University v. US, in which the court found that the IRS did not violate the Constitution by stripping the evangelical university of its tax exempt status because of its rules barring interracial relationships. According to Robertson, such a rule never existed: “Bob Jones never prohibited men and women of different races from getting married, they never had any laws, as I understand, they merely said in their statement of faith, they didn’t believe that the Bible supported interracial marriage and interracial activity. That was their belief.”
He quickly added that while he disagreed with the university’s stance, he feared that the ruling would open the door to religious persecution by the government.
Robertson’s claim that Bob Jones University didn’t have an enforceable rule barring interracial relationships is simply false.
“There is to be no interracial dating,” declared the university’s rule book in the 1990s. “Students who become partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds interracial marriage as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled.”
Up until 2000, the university stated that it had “a rule prohibiting interracial dating among its students”:
God has separated people for His own purposes. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends for those differences to remain. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains.
The rule, which was put into place in the 1950s, was only lifted when it received national attention after George W. Bush, then a candidate for president, made a campaign appearance at the South Carolina school.
WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah issued an emergency plea to governors today asking them to consider seceding from the union if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage.
“We need a Promised Land. We need an Exodus strategy,” Farah wrote. “Are there any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?”
If not, Farah says that foreign nations that prohibit same-sex marriage should prepare for “a pilgrimage by millions of Americans” fleeing marriage equality.
Will a U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring “same-sex marriage” a “right” warrant secession by some state willing and eager to reclaim America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation?
You know it’s inevitable, right?
The fix is in. Two members of the Supreme Court have personally officiated at same-sex “marriages.” I count three solid votes against it. The chances of reaching five are somewhere between slim and none.
I’ve heard some chatter about civil disobedience. That’s all well and good. But I don’t see much in the way of serious organization taking place.
What I do see is a lot of grass-roots concern. I know there are millions of Christians, Jews and others who would pull up stakes and move to another country that honored the institution of marriage as it was designed by God – a union between one man and one woman.
As Jesus said it: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.”
Is there one state in 50 that would not only defy the coming abomination, but secede in response? The rewards could be great. I would certainly consider relocating. How about you?
The founders of this country found a place of refuge in America and shaped it into the greatest self-governing nation in the history of world. Just think what one state could do if it simply stuck to the principles that made this country great? Americans wouldn’t have to cross an ocean to rediscover what brought most of our ancestors here. We could simply drive.
Are any states so inclined?
I haven’t heard this question raised by anyone else. So I’m raising it now. We don’t have much time before the nine high priests in black robes decide to follow Baal instead of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We need a Promised Land. We need an Exodus strategy.
If not a state, are there any nations in the world interested in a pilgrimage by millions of Americans?
And here’s the second question: Are there any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?
Writing today in WorldNetDaily, Erik Rush says that “violent civil disobedience — vigilantism — may be the only practical response” to supposed efforts by “the political left” to use the government to persecute conservatives and wipe out religious freedom through gay marriage.
Rush calls on conservatives not to yield to the “satanic minions in our government” who are bent on using gay marriage to criminalize Christianity and painting all conservatives as “potential terrorist threats.”
“In fact, when otherwise rational, law-abiding Americans suddenly realize that the last of their liberties have been legislated, regulated and executive-ordered away, their response just might make the left’s accusations in the opening paragraph a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he writes.
Those on the left routinely typify their opponents as intolerant, hateful and potentially violent. This has increased in volume and frequency under the Obama administration, which codified these mischaracterizations into Department of Homeland Security policy; DHS has designated pro-lifers, patriots, constitutionalists, Christians, amnesty opponents, gun enthusiasts, military veterans and other groups as potential terrorist threats.
In keeping with their hypocrisy and incongruity, leftists conveniently omit the fact that they have carried out more terrorism, pogroms, mass murders and genocide than any political group in history. As regular readers will be aware, projection of their antisocial character defects onto opponents is a hallmark of the left’s methodology.
Their objective is to convince as much of the citizenry as possible that their warnings are at least somewhat plausible. This way, when DHS Storm Troopers arrive in the wee hours to collect their neighbors, they will accept the cover story without protest: The detainees were involved in a terrorist plot to carry out large scale “hate crimes” against illegal immigrants, homosexuals, or some species of endangered grouse.
What we are in fact seeing is the political left, through deception, incrementalism and outright violation of the Constitution, insidiously maneuvering rational, law-abiding Americans into a position so untenable that at some elusive but inevitable point, violent civil disobedience – vigilantism – may be the only practicable response.
There are a few very sobering commentaries published recently that address the de facto criminalization of Christianity in the wake of Canada having legalized “gay marriage” in 2005. One is Lea Z. Singh’s “Same-sex ‘Marriage’ and the Persecution of Christians in Canada,” written for Crisis Magazine.
So, how might American Christians react to such developments here? The reason I ask is because the wheels are already in motion. The satanic minions in our government absolutely must bring about these societal transformations in order to “kill off” God and establish the State as the ultimate arbiter of morality. Rending the family unit asunder will ensure that the State becomes the individual’s sole guide, instructor and authority from cradle to grave.
I’m not inclined to think that We the People will respond as submissively as Canadians did to a similar scenario transpiring here. In fact, when otherwise rational, law-abiding Americans suddenly realize that the last of their liberties have been legislated, regulated and executive-ordered away, their response just might make the left’s accusations in the opening paragraph a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bryan Fischer began his radio program yesterday with a Bible lesson and a warning that America will face "the destruction of this land through the shedding of blood in our streets" unless this nation outlaws and repents for allowing legal abortion.
"The thing that brings kingdoms down, even great nations like the United States," Fischer said, "is moral rot, it is moral decay, that is what signals the end of a once mighty nation, a once great nation. And I believe we are on the precipice, as many others have argued, we are on the precipice of going over the edge and if we go over the edge, there's no stopping until we hit the bottom."
"You look at what's going on with this Bruce Jenner thing," he continued, in reference to Caitlyn Jenner's gender transition, "and you wonder how close we have come to that moment in the United States."
But what is ultimately going to destroy America is abortion, Fischer warned.
"We have filled this entire country with innocent blood and the Lord will not pardon that," he declared, saying that the nation must collectively repent and beg God's forgiveness or face the alternative, "which is the destruction of this land through the shedding of blood in our streets. That will come."
Eastman quoted Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s insistence that the new law was “provoked by western groups who come to our schools and try to recruit children into homosexuality." Noting that US aid restrictions prevent assistance from going to governments that commit human rights violations, including the failure to take “appropriate and adequate measures” to “protect children from exploitation,” Eastman implied that the real “exploitation” was coming from gay rights advocates recruiting children.
He also suggested that US opposition to laws criminalizing homosexuality hinders efforts to fight HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa. (In fact, experts say that the criminalization of homosexuality hurtsthe effort to fight the epidemic.)