WorldNetDaily: Obama Replacing Constitution With Sharia Law

The far-right outlet WorldNetDaily published an interview today with Joy Brighton, the author of ‘Sharia-ism is Here,’ which portrays a burqa-clad Statue of Liberty on the front cover, about President Obama’s response to the terrorist attacks in France. Unsurprisingly, Brighton believes that Obama’s reaction wasn’t forceful enough because he didn’t condemn Islam in his remarks, and she even accuses him of pushing Sharia law in his 2012 address to the United Nations.

“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” she told WND. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”

Perhaps Brighton never bothered to actually read Obama’s 2012 speech, as the president dedicated his remarks to defending constitutional protections for the freedom of speech, even when it applies to speech considered by some to be hateful or blasphemous.

“Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech,” he said. “We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.”

But according to Brighton, such words amount to an endorsement of blasphemy laws.

“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” she said. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”

She pointed out that totalitarian movements historically have advanced by restricting free speech.

“Communism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of communism the same as Nazism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of Nazism,” she pointed out. “Shariah-ism, what I call the global political movement of radical Islam, will also succeed by shutting down criticism and political debate.”

“Under the First Amendment, we have to be able to use our words freely, and when we have public officials like the president and the United Nations not using their words freely, but hedging to avoid describing the violence as radical Islamic terrorism, then we can see the extent to which ‘Shariah-ism’ has already developed strong roots in American society and the international community,” she said.

“The terrorist attack in Paris is a tragedy and a sobering reminder that ‘Shariah-ist’ ideology tolerates no dissent, no debate, no questioning, no challenge,” she warned.

“‘Shariah-ism’ is all about absolute power, absolute rule and absolute control, and it’s not just a European problem – it’s growing here in the United States as well,” she stressed. “Our state and local governments and public institutions need to get educated about this threat so they can take action to stop its growth. Western European countries allowed the threat of ‘Shariah-ism’ to spread until now tragically, it may be too late there. Let’s hope it’s not too late here.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 1/8/15

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 1/8/15

  • Rick Santorum believes that he uniquely possesses the ability to unite all of America and that is why he will become president.
  • According to Bob Ellis at BarbWire, Jeb Bush's wishy-washy statement on gay marriage in Florida "has provided all the proof needed that he is completely and totally unworthy of even being a Republican nominee, much less President of the United States."
  • Oklahoma State Rep. John Bennett is demanding that Muslim groups specifically denounce passages from the Quran that he doesn't like.
  • Gary Bauer says that "the brutality of this attack [against Charlie Hebdo] cannot be understated." That doesn't make any sense. We assume he means "overstated."
  • Finally, "Coach" Dave Daubenmire says that future generations will wonder "how could a man with three Muslim names be elected President of the United States in the midst of the greatest surge of Islamic extremism in the history of America?"

Jerry Boykin: Police Can't Go Into Dearborn, Michigan, Because Of Muslim Population

Jerry Boykin, a former Army general who prior to serving as the Family Research Council’s executive vice president was reprimanded by President Bush for making anti-Muslim statements, appeared on “Washington Watch” yesterday to discuss the Charlie Hebdo attack.

After host Tony Perkins warned that Muslim-Americans are “not assimilating into the broader American culture” and instead seek to establish “closed communities” in states like Minnesota and Michigan, Boykin insisted that it has gotten so bad that the police now refuse to go into Dearborn, Michigan, except for in cases of emergency.

“Talk to the police in Dearborn, talk to the police in Detroit, and ask them how often they go into Dearborn and the reality is it’s more on an emergency basis than it is for any kind of routine police activities there,” Boykin said. “We have the same problem here, by not assimilating these people, we are creating the same kind of situation that France and Britain and much of Europe has.”

Dearborn has been the focus of many right-wing conspiracy theories which typically center around the myth that the city is ruled according to Sharia law. Boykin once said that Dearborn could be easily confused with Damascus.

Dearborn, of course, is not under Sharia law, as the city’s mayor politely explained to Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle when she made that claim in 2010.

Boykin has previously called on the government to ban mosques and strip Muslim-Americans of their First Amendment rights. At the same time, he works closely with groups seeking to introduce biblical law.

Fischer: 'Being An Active Homosexual Should Disqualify You From Public Office'

Bryan Fischer is very upset that Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran was fired for violating city employment policies after distributing to co-workers an anti-gay book that he had self-published, responding on his radio program today by declaring that gay people ought to be disqualified from serving in public office.

The American Family Association spokesman reiterated his view that gay people should not be allowed to serve in office after learning that one of the city council members who objected to Cochran's book is gay.

"This is one of the reasons why, ladies and gentlemen," he said, "I believe being an active homosexual should disqualify you from public office because it's a form of sexual perversion and remember, we're going to have to choose between the gay agenda and Christianity. We can't have both. It's going to have to be one or the other and here's a case in point. An active homosexual gets a copy of the book, on the city council and he says, 'We've got to do something about this.' And he goes on a campaign, on a crusade to get this fire chief fired and he pulled it off."

Fischer then went on to declare that "the homosexual agenda is the single greatest threat Christianity, to Christian liberty, to religious liberty and to the First Amendment" that America has ever faced:

Mike Huckabee: Ban Marriage Equality Because Bisexuals Demand Two Spouses

U.S. News posted excerpts today from an early copy of Mike Huckabee’s new book, “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” where the former Arkansas governor and likely presidential candidate tries to make the case for banning same-sex marriage.

Huckabee, who also spends time in the book analyzing Jay-Z and Beyoncé’s marriage and comparing the Club for Growth, one of his fiercest critics on the right, to suicide bombers, claims that the government must continue to prohibit same-sex unions because of bisexuals who, according to Huckabee, desire to have two spouses – one male and one female. “Shouldn’t a bisexual be able to have both a male and female spouse?” Huckabee asks. “Wouldn’t restricting that person access to both genders be denying the bisexual his or her marriage ‘equality?’”

Unsurprisingly, Huckabee isn’t the first anti-LGBT pundit to display his complete misunderstanding of bisexuality to defend their opposition to marriage equality.

In another excerpt, which David Catanese of U.S. News calls a “considerable concession,” Huckabee writes that marriage equality bans should remain in place because we don’t know what the future holds. “When advocates of same-sex marriage say, ‘What’s the harm?’ the honest reply is that at this point, we simply don’t have enough reliable accumulated data to be able to say,” he said.

Huckabee, of course, has repeatedly claimed in front of right-wing audiences that he knows exactly what will happen to society if same-sex marriages become legalized: divine punishment.

“There is no doubt in my mind that this country would not exist had it not been for the providential hand of God,” Huckabee said during his speech at the National Organization for Marriage’s June march against marriage equality in Washington D.C. [reordered] “And I’m also convinced that if we reject his hand of blessing, we will feel his hand of judgment.”

Huckabee similarly told his European tour group following a visit to Nazi concentration camps that “the soul of America is in real trouble” as a result of the growing movement to “tinker” with “the foundation of our society and culture: marriage.”

He warned that Americans are following in the footsteps of the Nazis by losing sight of moral principles: “when we tinker with [marriage’s] definition and decide that it can mean anything we wish for it to mean, and that rather than to take a biblical perspective we will take a very human one and we will base marriage on human experience and desire as opposed to biblical standard, then I fear that we will pay the consequences for having upended the very foundation, which is the essence of how a civilization survives.”

It’s almost as if Huckabee has one message for his fiercely conservative base and a more nuanced message for a wider audience.

Anti-LGBT Writer: Satan Tricked Leelah Alcorn Into Believing She Was Transgender

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, the state affiliate of the American Family Association, joined other Religious Right activists in condemning the LGBT community for the death of Leelah Alcorn, a teenager who discussed her family’s rejection of her transgender identity in her suicide note.

In a column published this week, Higgins insists it was LGBT rights supporters, not Alcorn's parents, who drove the teen (whom she makes a point of misgendering throughout her article) to severe depression by pushing “lies that now devour them.”

These lies, Higgins writes, come from Satan himself: “It is the Father of Lies who deceived Josh and then falsely accuses all those who follow Christ for Josh’s suffering.”

The Left attributes to conservatives blame for the depression and suicidal ideation of both those who identify as “transgender” and those who identify as homosexual, and in so doing overlook other possible causes for the depression that these girls, boys, men, and women experience.

Perhaps the depression and suicidal ideation that gender-confused teens, post-op “transsexuals,” and homosexuals experience results in part from societal disapproval,* but perhaps their anguish results at least in part from apprehension of the truth that God has written on their hearts regarding homoerotic activity, cross-dressing, and bodily mutilation. Or perhaps both depression and disordered desires related to sexuality are symptoms of other underlying problems.

Unfortunately, homosexual and “trans”activists are making it impossible to explore such possibilities. They vehemently oppose such exploration even if it may result in less suffering for those who experience same-sex attraction or gender confusion.

Homosexual and “trans” activists are not interested in finding ways to mitigate suffering unless such ways include promoting their assumptions about homoerotic activity and gender confusion. They will tolerate no discussion of theories regarding causation that may undermine their social and political goals of compulsory affirmation of their non-factual beliefs. The promotion of their self-serving sexuality ideology supersedes everything, including the welfare of others.

Acknowledging the profound suffering of Josh Alcorn should not lead other parents of similarly suffering teens to affirm their desires or to blindly accept that Josh’s posthumously published words reflect the real cause of his suffering. Most teens at some point or many points blame their parents for their suffering in matters great and small.

If Christians hope to alleviate the suffering of children and adults who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, they must guard against the lies that now devour them. Don’t believe the lie that speaking truth in love causes death. And don’t believe the false accusations of those who do not know truth.

Instead, remember these words from Jesus who accuses rightly: “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). It is the Father of Lies who deceived Josh and then falsely accuses all those who follow Christ for Josh’s suffering.

*The fact that disapproval of a particular behavior causes distress in those who desire to engage in such behavior does not mean that disapproval is wrong.

Why Does David Barton's History Of The Fight For Racial Equality Always End In The Mid-1960s?

As we have noted before, David Barton's telling of the history of the fight for racial equality in America always mysteriously seems to stop right around the mid-1960s, right before the rise of the GOP's "Southern Strategy." Barton has written books and produced DVDs that claim to "set the record straight" on the role that both major political parties played in ending slavery, passing civil rights laws, and pushing for equality but his materials always portray Democrats are the enemies of black equality and conveniently never seem to make it beyond 1964.

On his radio program today, Barton sought to answer a question for a listener who wondered why, today, the Democrats are believed to be the party that fought to end slavery and for civil rights while the Republicans are believed to be the party that opposed such things.

The simple answer is "the Southern Strategy" and the fundamental shift that took place politically in the wake of civil rights gains when Democrats lost the support of white Southern voters as the party began to support civil rights in the 1960s and the GOP sought to win the support of those disaffected voters by appealing to them on contentious racial issues:

In 1968, George Wallace ran as a third-party candidate against Nixon and Humphrey, on an explicitly segregationist platform. Humphrey had been the main champion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the Senate; Nixon, while no civil rights activist, rejected an overtly racist platform. Feeling abandoned by both parties, Southern white racists flocked to Wallace's cause, winning him the Deep South states of Ark., La., Miss., Ala. and Ga.

Political analyst and Nixon campaigner Kevin Phillips, analyzing 1948-1968 voting trends, viewed these rebellious Southern voters as ripe for Republican picking. In The Emerging Republican Majority (Arlington House, 1969), he correctly predicted that the Republican party would shift its national base to the South by appealing to whites' disaffection with liberal democratic racial and welfare policies. President Nixon shrewdly played this "Southern strategy" by promoting affirmative action in employment, a "wedge" issue that later Republicans would exploit to split the Democratic coalition of white working class and black voters.

Barton, of course, completely ignores this basic history and instead blames it all on miseducation; specifically the idea that Democrats refuse to allow schools to teach the real history that it was Democrats who started the Ku Klux Klan, opposed civil rights laws, supported slavery, and defended segregation.

"In the Sixties, it was called the Solid Democrat South," Barton said. "Every southern state was solidly Democrat and that is what the Democrats counted on for every presidential election. Not the New England areas, they counted on the Solid Democrat South and there is no way that Democrat legislators and Democrat boards of education and everything else are going to let textbooks come out with they're the ones who started the Klan, they're the ones who violated all the civil rights, they're the ones who did the Black Codes ... They're not going to have that, so that's what happens when you let history become something political instead of simply telling the good, the bad, and the ugly":

This is rather ironic given that Barton's preferred version of history is entirely political, in that he only wants to tell the part of history that portrays Democrats as the party of slavery, segregation, and discrimination while routinely omitting and ignoring anything that does not further his agenda.

Dinesh D'Souza: 'Liberals Coddle Islamic Radicalism'

Conservative author Dinesh D’Souza stopped by “The Steve Mazlberg Show” on Newsmax TV yesterday to claim that people who criticize the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammad have actually empowered terrorists such as those behind the Charlie Hebdo attack.

D’Souza even suggested that progressives and radical Islamists have joined forces to quash free speech through government oppression and violence.

“It’s a particular irony of our time that it is we conservatives who have now become the defenders of the liberal tradition while these so-called liberals coddle this Islamic radicalism,’” D’Souza said. “They are willing to suppress free speech on the campus, so they are licensing the curtailment of speech and in a sense acceding to the Islamic radicals who say, ‘Listen, you want to outlaw speech on campus, we want to outlaw it by shooting people who do it.’”

700 Club: 'Radical Islamists' Behind Obama White House

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson and Christian Broadcasting Network reporter Erick Stakelbeck faulted President Obama for failing to blame Islam for the Charlie Hebdo attack. Stakelbeck said Obama and other leaders are “burying their heads in the sand” while “reaching out to Islamists.”

“The people who have the ear of the Obama administration are foot soldiers of the Muslim Brotherhood, these are radical Islamists who are advising this White House,” Stakelbeck said. “So you have a big problem here when you can’t acknowledge the enemy because the enemy is actually advising you.”

The two then made the absurd claim that no one in the Muslim community is speaking out against terrorists organizations like ISIS, with Robertson asking: “Will they ever wake up?”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious