Fischer: 'There Will be Blood' and 'Civil Unrest' if Obama Loses

On yesterday's radio program, Bryan Fischer expounded on a tweet he sent out the other day predicting that there would be organized "flash mobs" who would loot and riot if Mitt Romney wins the election.  Fischer based this theory on reports of looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, saying such looting "is just a preview of what's going to happen if President Obama loses the election" and warning that "there will be blood" and "civil unrest":  

Porter: Obama to use FEMA to 'Stifle Dissent'

As FEMA helps the millions of people affected by Hurricane Sandy, Janet Porter of Faith2Action is warning that the agency is actually out to suppress conservatives. Porter has previously suggested that Obama is going to throw Americans into FEMA buses and put them in internment camps, all while conducting peace negotiations with Osama bin Laden. Today she used her radio alert to warn that FEMA Corps may be “a standing army to stifle dissent.”

Is it a standing army to stifle dissent? That’s what some think the real purpose is for the new group that the government calls FEMA Corps. In September, the Department of Homeland Security graduated its first class of 231 students, consisting of 18 to 24 year olds who were recruited from the President’s AmeriCorps volunteers.

Some question whether they are really part of a new civilian security force that President Obama has called for in speeches. Reasons for the concern include FEMA’s 2,500 new armored vehicles that come complete with slots for machine guns.

I know it sound’s unbelievable, but so does the fact that Homeland Security has purchased more than one billion bullets this year.

It’s time to take a closer look into FEMA Corps!

FEMA Corps is actually a partnership between FEMA and AmeriCorps “designed to give members comprehensive skills to help relief efforts in nationally designated disaster areas” by training “young volunteers to physically and psychologically handle the demands of working in hazardous areas.” Fire Chief editor Mary Rose Roberts adds that “FEMA Corps members’ assignments can range from rehabilitating low-income housing, responding to natural disasters, cleaning up streams, helping communities develop emergency plans and addressing other local needs.”

In fact, 240 FEMA Corps members are aiding the response to Hurricane Sandy. But maybe they are going to put conservatives into prison camps? Who knows!

Not to be outdone, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah today argued that conservatives, veterans and people of faith all may be sent to jail if Obama is re-elected. He argues that Obama get rid of free elections and the media as his “biggest critics will be rounded up in the name of national security.” How? According to Farah, the new Homeland Security Partnership Council, which works with NGOs in responding to natural disasters and preventing terrorist attacks, is actually going to “deputize ‘community organizers’ like him to determine who represents a real threat to the republic.”

I know it’s Halloween, but this is more terrifying than ghosts and goblins and vampires.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If Barack Obama is re-elected Nov. 6 for a second term, he will declare a full-scale war on his domestic opposition.

There may not be another free and fair election in America.

I would expect due process to go the way of the horse and buggy.

I think he will move to shut down and destroy all independent media.

In fact, I think his biggest critics will be rounded up in the name of national security.

Last week, for instance, with little fanfare, Obama issued an executive order establishing something that sounds so innocent on the surface – but it could prove to be a vehicle for the kind of political putsch I am describing.

It establishes the “White House Homeland Security Partnership Council.”



Essentially, Obama wants to deputize “community organizers” like him to determine who represents a real threat to the republic.



If any Republican, conservative, independent journalist, pro-life activist, returning veteran, gun-rights activist, constitutionalist, Bible believer or critic of Obama thinks they will be safe in a second term under this would-be despot, they had better think again – real fast.

Barber & Staver: California Law Banning 'Change Therapy' is a Form of Bullying and Abuse

When California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation banning the use of therapy designed to change the sexual orientation of patients under the age of 18, the anti-gay zealots at Liberty Counsel were quick to file suit against the new law.

On their "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Mat Staver and Matt Barber explained that it was important for them to file suit because, as Barber said, the ban on such therapy was really nothing more than "bullying" of children with unwanted same-sex attractions.  For his part, Staver warned that it would harm children who have been molested by pedophiles like Jerry Sandusky because if they begin to experience same-sex attraction as a result, they'll be told to "just go with it," which prompted Barber to declare that it was even worse than that because "this law says that the abuse has to continue; they have to continue abusing that boy by affirming and saying you must embrace these dysfunctional attractions now": 

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/31/12

Right Wing Leftovers - 10/31/12

  • Charisma publisher Steven Strang is urging all Americans to vote for Mitt Romney. 
  • Sen. Scott Brown is bravely using Hurricane Sandy as an excuse to skip the final debate against Elizabeth Warren.
  • Is there a "new Christian conservatism"? The fact that it was unveiled at the Family Research Council headquarters makes us doubt it.
  • Ted Nugent says "we are all heartbroken that the Herculean work ethic that dominated The Last Best Place and made America The Last Best Place has dwindled considerably since the big lies of The New Deal and The Great Society succeeded in brainwashing a segment of our country to believe Fedzilla would provide for anyone who decided, for whatever reason, to not be productive." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
  • Finally, this is a new election ad from Focus on the Family:

Religious Right Leader: Vote Romney Because Mormons Believe US Constitution is Biblical Truth

As RWW has noted, most Religious Right leaders have cast aside whatever reservations they once had about voting for Mitt Romney, whose Mormonism many do not consider a Christian faith.  Sure, they’d rather have a conservative evangelical or right-wing Catholic as the GOP nominee, but they lost that chance in the primaries.  And they are so eager to defeat Barack Obama, and avoid the divine wrath that his re-election would provoke, that they have circled the wagons around Romney.

In September, more than two dozen Religious Right leaders wrote a letter dismissing differences over doctrine, praising the Republican platform, and saying “it is time to remind ourselves that civil government is not about a particular theology but rather about public policy." Long past time, some might say.
 
Marc Nuttle, a board member of the dominionist Oak Initiative and regular speaker at the Freedom Federation’s Awakening conferences, goes one better. Rather than telling evangelicals they should vote for Romney in spite of his Mormonism, he essentially says in a recent Oak Initiative bulletin that people should vote for Romney because of the Mormon faith’s incorporation of the US Constitution into a particularly potent form of American exceptionalism:
 
Governor Romney has been criticized by some for being a Mormon.  I find this curious given the fact that little criticism has been given to the President who belonged to a church headed by a pastor who condemned the United States of America.  
 
The Mormon Church is the only religion that has canonized the Constitution of the United States as biblical truth.  The scripture in point is Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101, Verses 77-80.  In verse 80 the Lord is speaking, “And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”
 
Mormons believe the principles within the Constitution are eternal principles given to us from God Himself for the benefit of all mankind.  They support the Constitution, they revere it, and they will defend it with all their strength.  It is fundamental to their belief.
 
If you are an evangelical and concerned about the federalization of moral values without consideration of the 9th or 10th Amendment, if you are a small business owner concerned about unfair taxes from a big business viewpoint, if you are a community banker concerned about onerous regulations based upon the concept of “big banks are too big to fail,” if you are worried about federal judges who legislate from the bench and do not respect the Constitution or state laws, then Governor Romney is the answer for your security.

Beisner: Hurricane Sandy was Sent By God as 'a Matter of Grace'

Today on "Focal Point,"  Bryan Fischer brought on Dr. Cal Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance to discuss the impact of Hurricane Sandy.  Beisner, who received his doctorate in Scottish History, is the Religious Right's favorite climate change "expert" primarily because his entire agenda is rooted in the belief that environmentalism is a religion that is out to destroy Christianity.

Back in 2011, after a massive tornado devastated parts of Missouri and killed more than 300 people, Beisner claimed that it was sent as "a little taste" of God's judgment, which is a claim he reiterated this time around, saying that through Hurricane Sandy, God is alerting mankind that "there is an eternity of suffering ahead" for those who do not repent and is therefore really "a matter of grace."  That prompted Fischer to declare that Americans now need to "search our hearts, we need to go before God, we need to fast and pray to see if we can understand why we may be, at this time, the object of God's wrath": 

Pastor: Obama's Re-Election will be 'Setting Ourselves up to Get the Divine Judgment we Deserve'

Pastor Joseph Mattera in a commentary for Charisma warns that the re-election of President Obama will compel God to punish America in the form of natural disasters and even terrorist attacks. He warns that Obama’s pro-choice policies that will keep abortion legal will lead to an “increase of natural disasters over the past 10 to 15 years like statewide droughts, wildfires, massive flooding, devastating tornadoes and hurricanes, in addition to terrorist attacks at home and abroad.” Mattera adds that re-electing a President who supports marriage equality for gays and lesbians “would be the ultimate act of snubbing our noses against God and His moral law” and consequently Americans “are setting ourselves up to get the divine judgment we deserve to satisfy the justice of God.” He goes on to accuse Obama of stoking potential race riots and working to impose hate speech laws.

I hate to think of what could start happening to the United States after the 40th anniversary of legalized abortion (in 2013) if we continue to perpetuate this systemic sin by pro-choice elected officials and elite liberals pushing this hideous act in the name of a woman’s right over her body (in spite of our new technology that proves the so-called fetus is a human life!).

I shudder to think of the extent of this judgment on the population if the prayers, actions and intervention of the body of Christ don’t go far enough to delay the fullness of the wrath of God for bloodletting! Perhaps the increase of natural disasters over the past 10 to 15 years like statewide droughts, wildfires, massive flooding, devastating tornadoes and hurricanes, in addition to terrorist attacks at home and abroad are merely a portent of more devastation to come if we don’t repent of the sin of abortion as a nation.

If Obama gets re-elected we can expect a perpetuation of this culture of death on our nation, especially since he will probably be able to pick the next two Supreme Court justices who would more than likely share his same liberal views. If Romney gets elected, he would need the guts to go against Democratic pressure to pick a so-called “moderate” and instead pick constitutionalist justices who will protect the values of life, liberty, justice, and the sanctity of life for all.



If the American people actually re-elect the most radical pro-choice president in our history, along with the fact that he is the first standing president to support same-sex marriage, then it would be the ultimate act of snubbing our noses against God and His moral law! It would show the enormous extent in which we as a nation have hardened our hearts against our Creator and, as a result, are setting ourselves up to get the divine judgment we deserve to satisfy the justice of God!

Furthermore, our current president not only supports same-sex marriage but he has also forbidden the U.S. Justice Department from defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which gives federal protection to states that don’t want to legalize or recognize same-sex marriage.

If Romney gets elected, one of the first things he should do is order the Justice Department to legally enforce DOMA, or else we will continue down this slippery slope of redefining marriage and family.



Many thought that electing the first black president was going to help ease ethnic tensions because it showed that the white majority in our nation has gotten over racism. But, in my opinion, his frequent pro-government, anti-business rhetoric has also brought to the public square the socialist language of class warfare that divides the rich from the middle class and the poor. His socialistic economic philosophy is based on a “zero sum game” in which, in his view, a person can never get rich without taking it unjustly from the poor, thus spawning a policy based on greed, envy and covetousness!

Making it worse, in my opinion, some of his surrogates in media often make it seem that the (real) reason white people don’t either agree with or vote for Obama is because he is black. Also, I recently read that some leaders have predicted and many disgruntled people have tweeted that if Romney gets elected, there will be riots in the streets.



If Obama gets re-elected, look for more challenges to our freedom of speech and the First Amendment that could possibly squelch what is preached on the airwaves and from the pulpit. For example, in Canada the pulpits and airwaves have already been restricted in the name of hate speech.

In closing, sometimes a nation has to unravel and its people experience disorientation before they are desperate enough to open up their hearts for a spiritual awakening. It may have to come to that in America, especially if this nation continues to choose leaders and elected officials who snub their noses at God. At the end of the day, whether America stands or falls, His kingdom and government will continue to increase and will outlast every man-made nation, kingdom and government!

Jackson: Elect Romney or America Will Remain 'Under the Chastening Hand of God'

Harry Jackson was the guest on "WallBuilders Live" today where the topic of discussion was "the difficulty immigrants have in gaining citizenship, which encourages illegal immigration." During the interview, Jackson rolled out a truly incomprehensible theory about how President Obama was only enforcing immigration laws in order to make Republicans look bad ... or something; we honestly have no idea what he was trying to say:

Now, one perversion of the immigration process would be that since the President and the current administration took office, they have enforced deportation and rounding people up in various places more than they had during George Bush's time. And while they will not actually enforce the Defense of Marriage Act - DOMA - and think that's unconstitutional, on the other hand, they have had more raids on immigrants to put them out of the country. And then they come down on the people in Arizona for being too hard on folks, and now, just weeks ago, there's some legislation that let's people stay, by executive order, let them stay in the country without going through a process.

So my concern is that the administration is playing a game of saying "hey guys, be afraid because you know the Republicans are not your friends and I only did what I did because I've got to enforce the law." But it was really a process of demonizing one party versus another in an attempt to win an unfair advantage at the polls.

But one thing that was unmistakably clear was the point Jackson made later when he said that if we do not reject President Obama's "ungodly agenda" by electing Mitt Romney, America will remain "under the chastening hand of God":  

Since 9/11, I believe America has been under the chastening hand God and the Lord is saying "I want to provide protection, provision, and freedom from plague or disease but you the Christian church within the nation have to return to me." So I believe that if we go on four years more with the current administration, because our economic problems are spiritual and moral at root, that God's displeasure is being manifest through the lack of finance and the lack of these things that we shared with you, the plagues and rejection are manifestations of chastening, the church has to vote the best it can our values, stop the onslaught of an ungodly agenda in America. And I think that if we do that, it will be the beginning stages perhaps of God saying "okay, I'm going to stop the process and bring you back to the place of blessing."

Todd Akin Sought to Narrow the Definition of Child Abuse

Many seem to think that Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks placed him on the fringe of the Republican Party. In reality, he’s spent most of his career there.

It’s now widely known that Akin teamed up with Paul Ryan in 2011 to try to narrow the definition of rape – i.e. “forcible rape.” This is no anomaly. Early in his career as a state legislator, Akin even tried to narrow the definition of child abuse.

Back in May of 1991, the Missouri House debated a bill to “outlaw rape and sexual abuse in marriage.” “Rape is rape,” said Rep. Jo Ann Karll shortly before the bill was overwhelmingly passed. “Missouri is finally moving into the 20th century,” said Colleen Coble, executive director of the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

But not everyone was celebrating. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on 5/1/91 that Akin voted for the bill but “questioned whether a marital rape law might be misused ‘in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband.’”

Just about any law can be abused, and lawmakers must always be cognizant of this. But Akin seems to be preoccupied with the potential for abuse of the law whenever it relates to the government preventing abuse in the household.

Akin and his supporters believe that the husband is head of the household, and they’re loathe to regulate what he can and cannot do to his wife and children. In fact, prominent Akin supporter Phyllis Schlafly denies the very possibility of marital rape: “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape.”

And so in March of 1992, Akin fought for a narrower definition of child abuse. The Missouri House was considering a bill to create a “statewide child abuse review board” and tighten the standard for proving child abuse from “reason to suspect” to “credible evidence.”

The bill’s sponsor said the definition change was necessary to ensure that “all cases of child abuse can be covered.” Akin, however, was suspicious. He argued that the bill “needed a more restrictive definition of abuse” because of the potential for abuse of the child abuse law. The Post-Dispatch reported on 3/5/92:

Akin said he was concerned that ‘the department could come into your home and if your kid had just fallen off his bike and skinned his knee…take your kid away.’ Akin also said that with a loose definition of abuse, neighbors might use child-abuse reports ‘as a tool to harass, a way to get even with’ someone they dislike.

This is how Akin’s mind works. You need to worry about vengeful soon-to-be ex-wives claiming rape to get back at their husbands. You need to make sure that non-forcibly raped women aren’t getting government-funded medical care. And you can’t let neighbors harass one another by falsely claiming child abuse to the overbearing nanny state enforcers who will take kids away for having a scraped knee.

Akin’s efforts earned him a rebuke from the Post-Dispatch editorial board, which singled him as an alarmist who supports an “excessively restrictive child-mistreatment law” and resorts to “extreme and unlikely examples to bolster his case.” It seems like they had him pegged way back then.

Here is the full 3/10/92 editorial, entitled “Abuse Law Fair to the Accused, Children”:

The Missouri House is moving ahead in setting up a state board that would arbitrate disputes between people accused of child abuse and the Division of Family Services. The House gave initial approval to this proposal on Wednesday. It shouldn't allow critics to prevent it from passing the bill, sponsored by Rep. Kaye Steinmetz of Florissant.
 
Missouri's child-abuse law is basically a good one, but it needed to be revised. The bill would restrict the standard the state would use in proving child abuse. The old standard called for ‘reason to suspect.’ The new standard would require ‘credible evidence.’
 
Clearly, the change is aimed at protecting people from being recklessly and falsely accused of abusing children. Some critics say the definition should be even more restrictive, but they should give this proposal the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, more restrictions will be added to the law if critics, like Republican Rep. Todd Akin of St. Charles, get their way. Mr. Akin resorts to extreme and unlikely examples to bolster his case.
 
The bill, he argues, would permit child-abuse investigators to ‘come into your home and if your kid had just fallen off his bike and skinned his knee…take your kid away.’ In fact, the more restrictive the law, the more it ties the hands of child-abuse investigators and the more likely serious cases of child mistreatment might go undetected.
 
Mr. Akin does raise a real concern, however, when he says a disgruntled person might try to use the child-abuse law to harass a neighbor. But the way to address that issue is through better trained child-abuse investigators. The bill would mandate improved training, which should make the workers more proficient in investigating cases while protecting people from being falsely accused.
 
The statewide child abuse review board would be appointed by the governor and would require Senate confirmation. The Legislature should see the benefits in passing the bill in its existing form rather than weakening it to appease alarmists who favor an excessively restrictive child-mistreatment law.

 

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious