Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Newsmax host Steve Malzberg today that Rudy Giuliani “should not apologize” for claiming that President Obama doesn’t love America. The congressman said Giuliani wasn’t questioning Obama’s patriotism, but simply “does not understand why the president doesn’t have the intensity, doesn’t have any feeling when he speaks about terrorism and combating terrorism.”
“He’s not questioning whether or not he’s a patriot,” King said. “He really believes that President Obama does not have his heart in it the way other presidents have.”
King added that he agrees with Giuliani’s claim: “I feel like [Obama] looks at it in a very intellectual or antiseptic way, that he has to always equalize it, he has to always take one step forward and one step sideways when he talks about this issue. Back in 2009 when he did his apology tour. He does not have the same fervor that other presidents have had.”
“He should not apologize and he has not apologized,” King said of Giuliani. “He displayed the context of it, he was not saying that he’s not patriotic, but he did say that he does not have the fervor and the drive that a president needs to effectively carry out a war.”
Earlier this month, Phyllis Schlafly spoke to right-wing personality Stan Solomon about the supposed dangers of transgender rights and communists working in Hollywood.
When Solomon asked the Eagle Forum founder about her views on the decision of Bryn Mawr College, an all-women’s college, to accept transgender students, Schlafly called the announcement “nuts.” She also mocked Bruce Jenner’s reported gender transition: “I don’t know what the world’s coming to, I think it’s just plain nuts.”
“If you destroy modesty, if you destroy privacy, you actually destroy humanity,” Solomon said, warning that transgender rights is a fulfilment of biblical prophecy.
In the same program, Solomon and Schlafly used the commercial success of the film “American Sniper” to criticize Hollywood, despite the fact that the movie was a major Hollywood picture.
Solomon said he is tired of seeing movies where “the hero is a person who comes out as a homosexual and comes out against America because America’s bad,” and Schlafly warned that communists infiltrated Hollywood to put “their propaganda on the screen.”
The conversation ultimately turned to Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to Congress, as Solomon scolded Jewish supporters of President Obama as “idiots,” “moronic” and “stupid.”
In an interview with Newsmax posted online today, Sen. Ted Cruz said that it would be a “travesty” for the Senate to hold a vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be U.S. attorney general, saying she would be “materially worse” than Attorney General Holder.
Cruz told Newsmax host John Bachman, “We have the ability to defeat this nomination, and there are two ways to do so. Number one, if every Republican on the Judiciary Committee simply votes no, the nomination is dead.”
“Secondly,” he added, “even if the committee votes on her nomination, leadership has the authority simply not to report the nomination to the floor.”
“If leadership brings it to the floor, the Republican Senate will have put in place an attorney general who will continue the lawlessness and abuse of power of President Obama,” he said. “I think that would be a travesty, I think it would be an abdication of our responsibility, I certainly hope we don’t do that.”
A coalition of far-right groups, including Faith 2 Action, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, BarbWire, Vision America Action and the Judicial Action Group, wants Congress to order the Supreme Court and other federal courts to “cease and desist” from ruling on same-sex marriage cases.
In a letter to Congress, which it dubs a “Restraining Order,” the coalition claims that the “judicial usurpation” on marriage “fueled a government assault on Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights of pastors, churches, business and facility owners, employees, public officials, organizations, ministries and citizens.”
Of course, the coalition is asking for as much as $49.95 to send the letters to members of Congress.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore doesn’t seem to quite understand the LGBT community that he is so set against, telling the Associated Press this weekend that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, bisexual and “transgendered” people will then demand to marry two people each. “Can they marry two persons, one of the same sex and one of the opposite sex? Then, you've got a family of four or how many?" he asked:
Moore argues that no federal court, even the U.S. Supreme Court, has the right to define marriage.
"You're taking any definition of a family away. When two bisexuals or two transgendered marry, how large is that family? Can they marry two persons, one of the same sex and one of the opposite sex? Then, you've got a family of four or how many?"
Moore also resisted comparisons of his standoff with the federal courts over marriage equality to former Gov. George Wallace’s stand against desegregation, saying that one major difference is that Wallace eventually backed down, and he won’t:
Moore's actions have drawn inevitable comparisons to former Gov. George Wallace's 1963 largely symbolic "stand in the schoolhouse door" aimed at preventing desegregation at the University of Alabama, nine years after education segregation was ruled illegal.
Moore said there is another difference.
"George Wallace moved," he said, noting how the former governor eventually stepped aside.
"I can't move from my position because I'm bound to uphold the Constitution," Moore said.
Recently, David Barton sat down for a conversation with Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, California, during which he asserted that even Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer knows that the due process clauses in the Bill of Rights came directly out of the Bible and even mentioned this fact in one of his Supreme Court decisions.
"I was reading a Supreme Court case," Barton said, "and in it, Justice Breyer — and no one is going to accuse Justice Breyer of being a religious individual, he'll not be found guilty of that — and he makes the comment that 'of course we all know that all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible.'"
Barton said that Breyer even footnoted this assertion in his ruling, citing Volume 30 of "Federal Practice and Procedure," which Barton claims contains a sixty page explanation of how our system of due process came directly out of the Bible.
"There's Breyer saying 'of course we all know that the due process clauses came out of the Bible,'" Barton said. "We don't know that today":
As is typical when Barton makes these sorts of claims, he doesn't actually provide any information about the ruling in which Breyer supposedly made this assertion, making it all but impossible verify the claim that he has just made.
Our best guess is that Barton is referring to Breyer's 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia (emphasis added):
The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.
You'll note that, contrary to Barton's claim, Breyer is not saying that "all of our due processes clauses in our Bill of Rights came out of the Bible," but merely that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, among other places. On top of that, the Bible verse that Breyer cites, Acts 25:16, consists of the Apostle Paul citing his right to confront his accuser according to Roman law:
I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.
In a Friday appearance on “The Steve Deace Show,” Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt skewered Kayla Mueller, the American woman who was kidnapped by ISIS after visiting a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Aleppo and later killed in captivity.
Pratt said that Mueller was a “little revolutionary who had gone pals-ies with the Palestinian terrorists,” calling her a representative of a liberal anti-American mindset that prefers “capitulating to evil.”
“She wanted to kill Jews, what a sweetheart,” he said.
Deace agreed, calling Mueller’s death a “great irony” and “a tragic example of what Shakespeare once noted as being hoisted from your own petard.”
Pratt then claimed that Thomas Jefferson bought an edition of the Quran after learning from a Moroccan ambassador that kidnapping and enslaving people was party of the Islamic faith. “Jefferson went and got a copy and then he knew his enemy,” he said.
Trevor Loudon, author of the book “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within,” appeared on Sandy Rios’ radio program today to discuss Rudy Giuliani’s claim that President Obama doesn’t love America. Loudon said he slightly disagreed with Giuliani’s comments and believes that Obama does in fact love America, but in a deadly and “twisted fashion” reminiscent of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
“I think Barack Obama does love his country, but he does it in the same way that Adolf Hitler loved Germany or Joseph Stalin loved Russia, you know, he wants to transform it into a new vision,” Loudon said. “Obama has proven time and time again that he wants to transform America into a socialist state, he wants to reduce America’s power in the world and make it more vulnerable to its enemies. He’s destroying America’s nuclear capabilities, he’s destroying America’s military and that may cost millions of American lives.”
Loudon added: “Though he may love America in some twisted fashion, all his actions are leading to the destruction of the greatest republic the world has ever seen. He is a hugely destructive figure and if you figure out his background, figure out who meets with him, who he has worked with his entire life right up to the present day, you can figure out his agenda and his agenda is completely anti-American.”
Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, claimed in an interview on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” radio program this weekend, that President Obama isn’t taking the threat of the Islamic State “seriously” and is doing “nothing” to stop the extremist group because he believes that “America’s not exceptional.”
When Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, the host of the program, asked Smith why the president of Egypt and the king of Jordan are “responding in a more direct and authoritative way to these attacks of ISIS than our own president,” Smith responded, “That is true. Other countries seem to be doing more or taking it more seriously.”
“He was going to ‘degrade and destroy,’” Smith added. “Well, I don’t see any evidence of degrading and I don’t see certainly any evidence of destroying ISIS. Other countries are moving better than we are. And we certainly ought to get other countries engaged without any doubt, but we cannot just sit around and do nothing, all it does is embolden our enemies.”
Smith warned that “it would not surprise me if you didn’t see more American citizens subject to some of these killings when they see America doing nothing to try to stop them.”
Later in the interview, Smith said “one might hope” that the president “would be a little bit more responsive and a little bit more assertive and, frankly, trying to assert American power and provide weapons to those who are our allies, for example, or take actions to stop the atrocities that are occurring, or support other nations that are doing more than we are. But the president is doing none of these things.”
“He’s decided in effect that America’s not exceptional, that we don’t have a role to play in the world, and that he’s not going to be concerned about it,” he theorized. “And I think that this is actually a greater danger to our country than almost anything else because it just encourages our opponents and frankly it demoralizes our allies.”
Radical anti-gay activist Scott Lively is warning that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, it could literally bring about the end of the world and the rise of the Antichrist by September of this year.
As Lively sees it, if gay marriage becomes legal we can all "expect some sort of severe judgment to fall on America in conjunction with this process" but the "coming calamity will almost certainly be a part of some larger act of God’s punishment on the entire world, most likely the Great Tribulation prophesied by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse," signaling the End Times.
He warns that gay marriage will unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which will take the form "gay theology," war, famine, and a "massive harvest of the grim reaper" of the souls of all who have died in the chaos. That, in turn, will give rise to the Antichrist by late September, which will result in full-scale persecution of Christians and the end of the world:
After weeks or months of global chaos, when the nations are sufficiently broken and the peoples of the world desperate for a return to order, a hero will step upon the world stage to end the crisis. In the human context he will secretly represent the globalist elites who have planned and prepared for this opportunity to impose a new world order: a new global government with a new economic system.
In the spiritual context he will be enacting a Satanic plot to usurp the role and identity of the Messiah and gain the adulation of the world.
Wielding great military power this self-aggrandizing human savior will force an end to war and impose a secular humanist paradigm and religious pluralism as a remedy to the various forms of “discrimination” which he will blame for the world crisis. Everyone will be given the choice (at first) to join the new order and gain immediate integration into its cradle-to-grave socialistic bounty. “Just sign this oath to reject and renounce all divisive and discriminatory beliefs and “supremacist” theologies,” he would say, “and take this mark of membership on your hand to receive free food, housing and medicine and all other benefits under our enlightened new order of tolerance and inclusiveness.”
Who would not rush to accept such relief after such a season of horror? Who would not offer heartfelt fealty to the one who provided it? — Only those willing to choose continued suffering and deprivation rather than to “take the mark” and renounce their faith.
In this speculative scenario of mine, the date on or around which this false messiah would emerge is Yom Kippur, September 23, 2015, the first day of the Jubilee — the day/year of liberation. Just as Christ began His earthy ministry by declaring the Jubilee in Luke 4:17-21, the false messiah would do the same, but in modern terms: “I hereby declare a global Jubilee of all debts, both public and private,” he would proclaim, “We are wiping the slate clean to start over on a foundation of social justice and cooperation.” He would not yet be exposed to the world as the Antichrist, but the Biblically literate would recognize him.
The fifth stage of the end-time chronology is persecution of the believers (Matthew 24:9), who, in this scenario, would be characterized as “black marketers” who refuse to support the new economic system and are thus blamed for its many inadequacies and hated by its adherents. Even as the rest of the world lauds its “savior” and embraces his government, the Christian believers (and Torah-faithful Jews) would be increasingly reviled and hunted.
Under the Antichrist kingdom, Jerusalem (the center of the universe for prophecy study) is described in Revelation 11:8 as “mystically called Sodom and Eqypt,” implying in part that both homosexuality and pantheism (religious pluralism) define its culture.
I don’t think there is any question, Biblically, that the cultural celebration of “gay marriage” portends judgment from God. The only real question in my mind is whether it truly signals the imminent “beginning of sorrows” or is just another step in the path leading to God’s wrath at a later time. God is long-suffering, even to the most wicked of societies and He does not act until their iniquity is “full” (Genesis 15:16).
If we are on the verge of “birth pangs” we will likely know it by Passover, but in either case we should brace for serious judgment on the United States in the form of natural and/or man-made disaster if the Supreme Court established sodomy as a basis for marriage under our constitution.