Rick Wiles: President Obama Has 'Spiritually Sodomized' the Military and the Nation

Yesterday, Harry Jackson appeared on "Trunews" with host Rick Wiles where the two discussed the burning question of whether President Obama has "spiritually sodomized the nation."

Wiles clearly believes that he has, since he is the one who stated it repeatedly, while Jackson said he might not put it that way even though Wiles' description of what Obama has done is "clear, concise, and it's true":

Wiles: Last year, Barack Obama spiritually sodomized the US armed forces by compelling American generals to accept his demand that the military alter its code of moral conduct and permit homosexuals and lesbians to openly serve in the military. 

Furthermore, he commanded the military to extend financial benefits to same-sex couples in the military.  Additionally, military chapels on US military bases were ordered to permit homosexual marriage ceremonies inside the facilities.

The Boy Scouts of America is the next target of the socialist Obamanistas.  Last week the Irving, Texas-based organization delayed a decision until May on whether the scouting organization will change its rules of conduct to allow homosexuals to serve as scout masters, troop leaders, and as Boy Scouts.

What will be the spiritual consequences of the American people allowing Barack Obama to spiritually sodomize the nation? Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr is on the telephone; I'm going to him that question.

Bishop Jackson, welcome to the program.

Jackson: Well Rick, I'm glad to be with you. You have quite a way with words.  That was an intense introduction.

Wiles: Am I being over-dramatic in saying that Barack Obama has spiritually sodomized the nation?

Jackson: In some ways.  Let me say it this way, your summary is clear, concise, and it's true but I would say it like this: his administration is, in fact, the culmination of the downward cycle, morally, that I believe our nation has been in for some time.

Larry Pratt: 'The President Should Remember King George III's Experience'

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America once again compared President Obama to King George III during an interview with the UK’s Channel 4 News. He told reporter Matt Frei that Americans don’t accept the “statistical argument” that a lack of gun control is linked to higher levels of gun violence, arguing that the Second Amendment is meant to “keep the government at bay.” 

“When the colonists said you’ve become a tyrant, stop it, and when he wouldn’t stop, we shot, and we got rid of your King,” Pratt said, who went on to liken Obama to King George III.

Pratt said that President Obama “should remember King George III’s experience” as he “seems to forget that he was democratically elected.”

Watch:

Later in the interview, Pratt said that people are “already being encouraged by the President’s actions and his words to go and buy firearms” because Obama is “doing all he can to destroy” the Second Amendment.

He added that he is “not calling the President a tyrant yet, but the President certainly has indicated he has a low regard for the law and a low regard for the Constitution.”

Previously, Pratt has demanded Obama’s impeachment, saying that he uses “the talk of a dictator.” He also told VCY America in an earlier interview that Obama is just like King George III.

They would be going door-to-door to see if you’ve registered your guns. That would be, I think, a very dangerous thing for them to do. I think they had better consider how it worked out for George III.



They don’t want to be told that they’ve crossed the line and become rebels against the Constitution. They have crossed the same line that George III did and they should consider how that ended for him. Actually, he ended up in a nut house, it was pretty stressful for him and he couldn’t handle it. That’s where I see this administration; they are just completely detached from the Constitution and from the law.

Barber & Staver: 'It Makes No Sense to Have Jerry Sandusky as Your Scout Master'

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Mat Staver and Matt Barber discussed the decisions by the Boy Scouts to delay the vote on lifting the ban on gay scouts and scout leaders as they wondered what the organization could even be thinking by contemplating such a change, saying there is no way that boy scouts can remain "morally straight" if "you have adults modeling for children what every major world religion and thousands of years of history have held to be immoral behavior."

As Staver said, "it makes no sense to have a Jerry Sandusky as your scout master and essentially that's what this policy would open up the doors to" while Barber asserted that gay activists are demanding access to your children, so "what father in his right mind" would let his son join the scouts if he knew that a gay man was serving as scout leader, especially since all gay men define themselves by the fact that they "sexually crave sex with other males" because they are "hyper-sexual":

Wilson: Government May Classify Christians as Mentally Ill to 'Get Us Out of the Picture'

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson is latching on to a new conspiracy theory that the government will eventually try to classify Christians as mentally ill in order to “get us out of the picture.” He said that the left uses terms like “right-wing fanatics” and “radicals” so that one day the government and the CDC can level “attacks against Christians based on some form of mental illness diagnosis” since they “hate” Christians.

Someday I believe that they are going to be attacks against Christians based on some form of mental illness diagnosis. I think it is not without reason that the left refers to people like us as those loony, right-wing fanatics or right-wing radicals, far-right-wing nut jobs. I think it is by design that they use those kinds of terminologies against us because one day I think there is going to be something in the hand of doctors, something in the hands of the CDC, something in the hands of the government that will be able to classify us a certain way and get us out of the picture. Again, who does the government hate? Who are they against? Who are they worried the most about? Those are the ones they are going to attack, you keep your eyes open to that.

Wilson’s bold stance against heated political rhetoric may come as a surprise since he frequently describes progressives as the “progressive-homo-left-Christian-Bible-conservative-traditional value-hating crowd,” a “hate filled, heterophobic, christiphobic, and conservaphobic group” and “Bible hating, Christian hating, conservative knocking, vile, foul mouthed name calling, socialist hetero/Christo-haters.”

Rep. Scalise: Obama Is Attacking Freedom, History Has Redeemed Bush Tax Cuts

Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) appeared on Washington Watch with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday to discuss the State of the Union address where he pushed the standard right-wing canards that President Obama is leading an attack on freedom and trying to exploit “tragedies that he uses to his own benefit.”

Perkins: There’s not been an administration that’s been more hostile to our first freedom, our fundamental right of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

Scalise: Right, look, just go in order. Right after that, he’s gone after freedom of speech and religion, now in that same speech he is going after our second amendment rights, our freedom to defend ourselves by having the ability to own guns for law-abiding citizens. All of these things he talked about, these tragedies that he uses to his own benefit, none of them would have been prevented by his own gun control measures, it just takes away the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Responding to Rep. Steny Hoyer’s insistence that Congress let the Bush tax cuts expire, Scalise falsely claimed that the tax cuts raised revenue and led to an economic boom.

Scalise: You know they are just living in some kind of parallel universe that doesn’t mesh with reality. You know I’ll just give you one point that he mentioned there Tony right out the box, he said, ‘oh we didn’t pay for the Bush tax cuts.’ Maybe Steny Hoyer needs to go back and look at the history, back in 2003 when those tax cuts took full effect the federal government actually took in forty percent more revenue, it actually brought in more money to the federal treasury to cut taxes because people had more money in their pockets and the economy took off in 2003. Go look at the history of this.

Of course, the economy didn’t “take off” after the Bush tax cuts passed. In fact, under President Bush the country had an exceptionally anemic recovery.

Scalise’s assertion about tax revenues also reveals that the congressman himself hasn’t taken a “look at the history of this.”

Citing data from the Congressional Budget Office, the Annenberg Public Policy Center concluded that the Bush tax policy “had a total negative effect on revenue growth,” and former Bush economist Alan Viard of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute said that there is “no dispute” among economists that “federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts.”

Former Reagan economist Bruce Bartlett also determined that “revenue as a share of G.D.P. was lower every year of the Bush presidency than it was in 2000,” citing this helpful chart:

source: Congressional Budget Office.

“Perhaps the whole point of the apparent Republican disinformation effort to deny that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenue is to make the reverse argument next year,” Bartlett writes, “allowing them to expire will not raise revenue.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 2/14/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/14/13

  • In addition to urging his audience to buy gold, Glenn Beck is now encouraging them to invest in farmland.
  • Apparently, the SPLC is engaged in a "hate campaign" against "ex-gays."
  • FRC issues it weekly prayer targets.
  • The chairman of U.S. English says there was no reason for Marco Rubio to deliver his State of the Union response in Spanish because "the Hispanics who really do not speak good English are the illegals who don't vote anyway."
  • Quote of the day from Erik Rush: "We may have already reached the point of no return with regard to that sociopolitical singularity which will carry the impact of the Civil War, the two World Wars and the Great Depression rolled into one."
  • Finally, Mary Kissel of the Wall Street Journal asks Ralph Reed why it took President Obama four years to start talking about the importance of families and fatherhood; we ask Mary Kissel where she has been for the last four years.

Tea Party Nation: Jewish Democratic Group Proves Liberals are Nazis

Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips sent an email to members today calling the National Jewish Democratic Council a Nazi group that, like other liberals, is “in love with totalitarian regimes” such as Hitler’s Germany. Phillips said their statement calling on Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to denounce Phillips’ recent comparison of liberals to Nazis is akin to Nazi book burning and proves that liberals “want to allow no dissent or freedom to disagree.”

Of course, asking a public official to denounce a group’s outrageous claims doesn’t take away anyone’s First Amendment rights, but the Tea Party Nation never really understood the Constitution anyway.

Are liberals really like the Nazis of 1930’s and 1940’s era German? Are they really the kind of people who engage in that kind of behavior? Or this just some conservative hyperbole?

Do liberals really want to silence their critics? To liberals really believe in a one party state? Do liberals really want to deny those who disagree with them the ability and the opportunity to offer different opinions?

The answer is yes.

Like the book burning Nazis of the 1930’s, the left wants to suppress all dissenting opinion.

This is not true of all liberals, only the overwhelming majority. I appear occasionally on Thom Hartman’s show on RT. Thom is very far to the left but to his credit, he brings on people like me who do not agree with him and he lets us make our points.

The vast majority of liberals are represented by people like Aaron Keyak who is the interim director of the National Jewish Democratic Committee.

After I made my blog post yesterday comparing liberals to Nazis, he took to Twitter to demand that Republicans denounce me.



He actually proved my point. Liberals do not want to discuss or debate issues. They want to silence those who disagree with them.

So did the Nazis.

The left is in love with totalitarian regimes. Obama himself has wistfully admired the power dictators have to simply impose their will.

But the truism of all totalitarian regimes is that they cannot stand criticism. If you look at the history of tyranny, the first thing every tyrant does is to try and control the press and public opinion.

When tyrants take over, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are always the first things to go.

Why must conservatives stand militantly against liberalism? Liberalism is not simply a policy disagreement. It is not simply a choice between higher taxes and lower taxes. The liberal movement wants more than just to win the policy debate. They want for there not to be a debate. They want to allow no dissent or freedom to disagree.

This is why liberalism is so dangerous to America.

This is why we conservatives must fight for America because if the left has its way, we will even be allowed to speak.

Fischer: Obama Is Deliberately Destroying the Military by Allowing Women in Combat

As Brian just demonstrated, the Religious Right is not at all pleased about the Pentagon's decision to allow women to serve in combat and that, of course, includes Bryan Fischer, who declared on his radio program today that the change is part of a deliberate effort on the part of President Obama to destroy the military.

As Fischer sees it, Obama "detests the military" because he views it as tool that "white colonial powers" use to oppress nations around the globe.  In fact, Obama is so imbued with hatred of America's fundamental "white supremacy [and] white racism," Fischer believes, that he is "systematically going about destroying the military" by allowing women to serve in combat:

Allen West Still Attacking Gays and Liberals in Life after Congress

After losing his bid for a second term in Congress, despite a more favorable district, Allen West is continuing his work as a fulltime conservative blowhard (but without a taxpayer-funded salary). West is working at PJ Media and appeared yesterday on Washington Watch with Family Research Council leaders Tony Perkins and Jerry Boykin, where he criticized the lifting of the bans on women in combat and gays and lesbians in the military.

West told Boykin that “the liberal progressive left” is “coming at the military so viciously and vehemently because they want to tear down that ‘last bastion of strength, honor and moral fortitude,’ things that they really don’t understand,” lamenting that the generals haven’t stopped them.

The former congressman pointed to the election of Ashley Broadway, who is married to Army Lt. Col. Heather Mack, as Fort Bragg’s 2013 “Spouse of the Year” in a Military Spouse magazine poll. Broadway had previously been turned away from joining the base’s spouses club. West said Broadway’s story will undermine military’s resolve and strength.

He added that if he was an “enemy propagandist and I look at the lifting of this combat exclusion ban I’m going to turn that my benefit.”

West: The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy and now this policy about lifting the exclusionary ban, people are starting to ask: what are the Generals in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps thinking about in not challenging to say, ‘this can’t be done.’

Boykin: I think your points are very well taken because I think one of the consequences of this will be a further erosion of the credibility of the General officer corps in the military and all services, as well an erosion of a confidence of the Americans in our military. You know the military has always been sort of the keepers of the keys of traditional American values and I think people are starting to question it and I think that’s what you were saying.

West: You are absolutely right and you know that from firsthand experience. I believe that is a reason why the liberal progressive left are coming at the military so viciously and vehemently because they want to tear down that ‘last bastion of strength, honor and moral fortitude,’ things that they really don’t understand. Look at just recently happened at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where the ‘Military Spouse of the Year’ for Fort Bragg, North Carolina is a lesbian partner to an Army Lt. Colonel or a Colonel. These are the type of things that are starting to happen which is going to question people’s resolve as far as, what are we doing to our military? Are we focused so much on winning social engineering points for special interest points or are we supposedly focused on what we should be doing which is going out there and fighting this very strong, very vicious, very determined radical Islamist enemy. If I’m an enemy propagandist and I look at the lifting of this combat exclusion ban I’m going to turn that my benefit and my messaging is going to be: the American men don’t want to fight us so they’re turning to their women.

Meanwhile, Perkins once again said that the “social engineering that has gone on in the military” and “tampering with the military environment” under President Obama “could very well lead to a draft.”

Perkins: What you have seen since you left the military but in particular under the four years of the Obama administration, I don’t think anybody could argue with the social engineering that has gone on in the military. My concern here in part is with all this tampering with the military environment that it’s going to have an effect—might be ten years until we see the total effect—it’s going to have an effect on retention, recruitment and this could very well lead to a draft once again because the volunteers are not going to be there in this environment which has been so damaged by these policies.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious