'Michelle Obama Is A Transvestite! Why Can't People Get The Facts?'

Last week, Dr. Jerry Johnson of the National Religious Broadcasters guest-hosted the Family Research Council’s radio program “Washington Watch” and spent the entire time railing against facility access for transgender students.

One caller, Patsy, chimed in to say that it is no wonder President Obama has taken a stance in favor of nondiscrimination policies since the president “is a sexual deviant and Michelle Obama is a transvestite.”

“Why can’t people get the facts?” the caller asked.

Johnson, in a hurry to move on, said that alleging that Michelle Obama is a “transvestite” may not be the most helpful political strategy.

“That’s a theory that’s out there,” Johnson replied, “but I think, actually, Patsy, and to the listeners out there, we’ve got to come against this really in a different way, we don’t need that kind of theory to oppose this. And it’s an accusation that I’ve seen out there but there’s no fact to that. The facts, though, of this case are clear and that is the president is pushing this agenda and foisting it upon the schools.”

The theory that the first lady is a transgender woman has been promoted by Alex Jones, a prominent Donald Trump endorser, and other far-right conspiracy theory outlets.

Samuel Rodriguez: Getting Conservative SCOTUS Trumps Immigration Reform

As head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Samuel Rodriguez has worked to get more Latino voters, especially evangelicals, to back conservative candidates, while at the same time trying to get Republicans to stop trash-talking Latino immigrants and back immigration reform.

But it appears that Rodriguez has thrown his lot in with Donald Trump, the very candidate who kicked off his campaign by trash-talking Latino immigrants and calling for mass deportations.

While he may be an outspoken advocate of immigration reform, when push comes to shove, as it has with Trump’s all-but-certain nomination, Rodriguez makes it clear that he is first and foremost a Religious Right culture warrior.

Rodriguez pushes the Religious Right line that religious freedom is threatened in America. There is an attempt to “silence Christians” in America, he says, and Christians cannot sit out elections because “today’s complacency is tomorrow’s captivity.” He also believes there is a spiritual battle under way to “annihilate” the family.

In the end, his advocacy for immigrant families takes a back seat to his opposition to legal abortion and marriage equality. He said as much at an Evangelicals for Life event in January, telling Latinos that it’s fine to march for immigration reform —“as long as it’s not amnesty or illegal immigration; we need to stop that” — but “we must be above all things pro-life.”

Although Rodriguez manages to cultivate a public image as a nonpartisan bridge-builder, he regularly partners with some of the most extreme voices within the Religious Right. The stridently anti-gay Liberty Counsel serves as NHCLC’s official “legislative and policy arm” and Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver serves as an NHCLC board member and its chief legal counsel. Last fall Rodriguez called Cindy Jacobs, who has predicted a new civil war between God-loving and gay-loving states,  “one of the most anointed voices, prophetic voices in the Kingdom of God.”

In a story last week by right-wing pundit Todd Starnes of Fox News, Rodriguez dismissed talk by some evangelical leaders that Christians should, in the words of pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Of evils choose none.” Rodriguez says not voting is “sacrificing your Christian worldview on the altar of political expediency. It is silly to talk about not voting for either candidate. Every single Christian should vote.”

And while Rodriguez doesn’t mention Trump by name, it is clear that he will not be voting for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders:

“I will vote my Christian values,” Rodriguez said. “It’s life, the family ethos, it’s religious liberty, it’s limited government. That’s the person I’m going to vote for.”

Rodriquez conceded that the 2016 candidates are not his “dream team” – but he’s only concerned about one issue – the Supreme Court.

“I’m going to vote for protecting the Supreme Court from judges that are activists – that run counter to our Judeo-Christian value system.”

This is a very different message than Rodriguez conveyed in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in July, which he co-wrote with Southern Baptist official Russell Moore, where he described Trump as an unchristian, unethical and unelectable politician.

Trump tweeted earlier this week that Moore is “a terrible representative of Evangelicals” and a “nasty guy with no heart!”

Unlike Rodriguez, Moore is standing by his opposition to Trump.

 

Tony Perkins: Obama Wants Us To 'Surrender Our Children'

Last week on “Washington Watch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins chatted with Dr. Jerry Johnson of National Religious Broadcasters about the need to “resist” a recent letter from the departments of Justice and Education telling schools to treat transgender students “consistent with the student’s gender identity.”

Perkins said that when he was reading the letter he thought of the Tea Act and the Stamp Act, which helped spark the American Revolution, “and how the Patriots responded to that.”

“We’re talking about our children,” he said. “We’re talking about the next generation. We’re talking about our children emotionally being scarred.”

Perkins then compared the situation to the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which Lot responds to a mob that wants to have sex with two angels that are inside his house by unsuccessfully offering up his two virgin daughters instead.

“I think this is a Genesis 19 moment,” he said. “This is a Lot moment where we’re going to decide whether or not we’re going to shove our children out the door in the pursuit of some false promise of temporal peace, and we know how that worked out.”

“It is wrong to surrender our children to a godless system that this president is promoting,” he said.

David Horowitz: NBA And Hip Hop Prove That Black Lives Matter Are The Real Racists

Conservative commentator David Horowitz caused some controversy today with a Breitbart article whose headline labels Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew” for supporting a third-party alternative to Donald Trump.

Such rhetoric is nothing new from Horowitz, who in an interview today with Pennsylvania talk radio host Bobby Gunther Walsh about his new book, “Progressive Racism,” claimed that any member of the Black Lives Matter movement who calls the U.S. a “white supremacist nation” is a “stone-cold racist or a lunatic,” as proved by the pervasiveness of hip hop and the financial success of some NBA athletes.

“Black people have been accepted; not black criminals, but black people generally,” he said, citing former GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, President Obama and others.

“Our culture is dominated by black music, if you can call that music,” he added. “Hip hop is the dominant music form, more than any other, and it pervades the white suburbs.”

“If it were true that a racial disparity, statistical disparity proves racism, then the National Basketball Association would be a racist association because 95 percent of the starting multi- multi-millionaires are black, and they make a lot of money,” he added.

“So when we hear Black Lives Matter say that America is a white supremacist nation, you know that you are listening to a stone-cold racist or a lunatic, either one,” he concluded.

Rand Paul Hypes Personhood Bill Because 'The Time To Grovel Before The Supreme Court Is Over'

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent out a fundraising appeal for the National Pro-Life Alliance, an anti-abortion “personhood” group today, seeking contributions to help the group pressure members of Congress to cosponsor Paul’s Life at Conception Act, which seeks to bypass the Supreme Court in order to ban all abortions.

Many “personhood” advocates, including Paul, believe that there is a magic loophole in Roe v. Wade that would allow Congress to declare fertilized eggs to be persons under the 14th Amendment, thereby banning all abortion without the need for a Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment overturning Roe. (Many leading anti-choice legal strategists, while they share the ultimate goal of criminalizing all abortion, are skeptical of this plan.) In the most recent version of his bill, Paul tries to allay concerns that granting legal rights to zygotes could outlaw some forms of birth control and in-vitro fertilization, although it’s not clear how effective his attempts at carve out exceptions would be.

Paul has publicly taken several contradictory positions on abortion rights, claiming at one point that abortion laws should not be changed and at another that the Life at Conception Act is merely meant to “drive the debate about when life begins.” However, in his email to anti-choice activists, he is very explicit that the goal of the bill is to enact a national ban on abortion without exceptions.

He writes in today’s email from the National Pro-Life Alliance that the “time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over” and that his bill could “end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.”

Excerpts from Paul’s email:

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

And each year in our nation, 1.6 million innocent babies are slaughtered for the mere crime of being born.

I suspect that like me, you would sacrifice whatever it takes to see this slaughter of unborn babies end NOW.

Yet you were not one of the tens of thousands of Americans who responded to my prior appeal.

I think I know why...

You probably doubted that anything could be done to reverse the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and the resulting slaughter.

You want hard proof that there truly is an approach that can end abortion-on-demand in our lifetime.

Having lost hope, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But it always seems that we come back to tiptoeing around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Well I have good news for you:

The time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it's so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

Thanks to the results of the last election, you and I are in a better than ever position to force an up or down roll call vote on the Life at Conception Act.

And your petition will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and ultimately win a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children "persons" as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to "collapse."

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that's where your help is critical .

You see, it will be a tough fight, but I believe with your signed petition it is one we can win.

By turning up the heat through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign in this session of Congress, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn't pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the 2016 elections .

Either way, the unborn win... unless you do nothing.

Donald Trump And Ralph Reed: A Match Made In Casino Heaven

While he may not have been their first choice to be the standard-bearer of the Republican Party, Religious Right leaders are starting to fall in line behind Donald Trump, jettisoning their usual messages about backing moral and ideologically pure candidates and instead saying that it is fine to support Trump now that he is the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

As Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition put it in a recent New York Times interview, conservative Christians “love a convert” and “are far more forgiving and extend far more mercy to political figures and others than is understood.”

We aren’t all that surprised that Reed is now praising the former casino mogul who once boasted that he never asks God for forgiveness, as the two actually have very similar backgrounds.

Shortly after he left his post as the head of the Christian Coalition in the late 1990s, Reed became involved in some shady activities with his friend Jack Abramoff, who later became embroiled in a massive corruption scandal related to his bilking of Native American casino clients.

As we wrote in a report on Reed’s Abramoff ties: “Beginning in 1999, Reed, who had once called gambling ‘a cancer on the American body politic,’ was hired by Abramoff on more than one occasion to employ his expertise in mobilizing the right-wing grassroots to help shut down gambling initiatives that threatened the interests of Abramoff’s casino-owning clients.”

In one instance, “Abramoff subcontracted Reed’s firm to generate opposition to attempts to legalize a state-sponsored lottery and video poker in Alabama, an effort that was bankrolled by the Choctaw Tribe in order to eliminate competition to its own casino in neighboring Mississippi.”

Because Reed did not want it to look like gambling interests were funding his Religious Right campaign, the tribe funneled the money through Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax group led by Grover Norquist.

According to emails obtained during a Senate investigation into Abramoff’s activities and reported in the media, Reed was well aware of who was paying for this anti-gambling effort. When the information began to surface in the press and the Christian Coalition learned of the source of the $850,000 it had received, it demanded an explanation from Reed who apologized in a letter saying he should have “explained that the contributions came from the Choctaws,” this admitting that he had been fully aware of the source of the funding. But by the time Reed offered his “after-the-fact apology,” the gambling initiative had been defeated and the Christian Coalition had been duped.

In 2000, Trump surreptitiously took out a racially charged advertisement to oppose an Indian casino in New York that could pose competition to his own casinos in Atlantic City:

Under a dark photograph showing hypodermic needles and drug paraphernalia, the newspaper advertisement warned in dire terms that violent criminals were coming to town. “Are these the new neighbors we want?” the paid message asked. “The St. Regis Mohawk Indian record of criminal activity is well documented.”

The ad, part of an advocacy campaign meant to stop a casino from being built in New York’s Catskill region, drew an indignant response from the tribe, which called it a naked appeal to racism. The incendiary ads, which ran in upstate newspapers in February 2000, were the work of the New York Institute for Law and Society, an opaque interest group that described itself as opposed to casino gambling.

It was only later that the man who bankrolled the ads identified himself: Donald J. Trump.



The anti-St. Regis ads drew the scrutiny of New York’s lobbying commission, and Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was the New York Institute for Law and Society’s primary sponsor. In a settlement with the state, he and his advisers agreed to pay a fine and run a set of ads apologizing, not for the content of the anti-Mohawk ads, but for evading state disclosure rules related to lobbying and political advocacy.

It turns out that Trump and Reed have a lot in common after all.

GOP Rep.: US Going 'Downhill' Thanks To Legal Contraception, LGBT Rights

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, blasted the Obama administration on Saturday for a new directive on transgender equality in public schools, joking that the administration won’t be satisfied until all students are “transgendered [sic] vegans” and lamenting a “downhill” descent in the United States that includes the Supreme Court rulings recognizing women’s right to access birth control.

King discussed the Obama administration letter to school districts in the “Caffeinated Thoughts Radio” podcast on Saturday, saying that “pranksters” in their last week of high school are probably “lined up right now” to take advantage of transgender rights to get into girls’ bathrooms.

Think of this: This is the last week of school for a lot of high school seniors. Some of these boys, especially, are a little rowdy when they’ve got their grades already in the bank and are just kind of waiting to go down and accept their diploma. … But, think of this, all over America, they’ve got to be lined up right now, the pranksters, going, ‘I’m going to go into the girls’ room,’ ‘I’m going,’ ‘I dare you,’ ‘Well, the two of us will go,’ ‘The three of us will go.’ There’s a line-up in some school right now and no school can discipline them because the federal government will come in with the Justice Department and jerk their No Child Left Behind funding.

He half-joked that the government would next announce that “‘We’re going to make you all vegans,’ transgendered [sic] vegans would satisfy them.”

“It’s the unhumorous humorous reality of how perverse our society has gotten under Barack Obama,” he added.

When asked if schools would resist the administration’s directive, King was pessimistic, saying that he had seen society “capitulate” to Supreme Court rulings on prayer in schools, abortion rights, and same-sex marriage, along with the court’s rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstaedt v. Baird, which established the right of married and unmarried people, respectively, to access birth control.

With all of these developments, King said, the U.S. has gone “downhill fast” as society has allowed the courts to “change the protocol of the civilization that goes back to Adam and Eve.”

Well, I was sitting [as] a freshman in high school when Murray vs. Curlett came down that ordered that there be no more prayer in the public schools. And I thought then, that was 1963, and I thought then, how are they going to stop us from praying in our schools? They could tape our mouths shut, that doesn’t do it. The only way they could stop us would be to empty the schools out. And in my mind’s eye, I can still see the images that were conjured up: two U.S. Army personnel standing there guarding the doors that were chained shut on our high school. … It was the image that came to mind, the only way to stop us from praying in public schools was to empty the schools out and guard them so we couldn’t sneak in and pray.

And, yet, what happened was, society capitulated to the command of the Supreme Court, and then we saw a watershed that went downhill: Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt, on and on and on ... but we went downhill fast. And then you saw, we were all part of the battle against what our Iowa Supreme Court did when they commanded that there be same-sex marriage in Iowa, and then we saw the Supreme Court order, just create a new command in the United States Constitution. So now we’ve got to submit to five members of the Supreme Court and one president and simply let them change the protocol of the civilization that goes back to Adam and Eve? And I’m going to say, society will capitulate because they didn’t fight on marriage.

Listen to the full audio of the interview at Caffeinated Thoughts; the discussion with King begins at around the 3-minute mark.

Top GOP Benghazi Investigator Debunks Conservative Myths: Nothing 'Could Have Been Done Differently'

A former three-star general who served as the Republicans’ chief counsel on the Benghazi Select Committee repeatedly acknowledged as he interviewed witnesses during the committee’s investigation that nothing “could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi.”

The quotes, which came from multiple interviews conducted by the committee, were revealed publicly for the first time in a letter to  Benghazi Select Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., from ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash.

Although he is not identified by name in the letter, it has been publicly reported that Gowdy had hired Lt. Gen. Dana K. Chipman “to lead the panel's legal team.” Chipman left the committee earlier this year.

While interviewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in January, the then-chief counsel acknowledged, “I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.” (Emphasis added)

Later in the interview he told Panetta, “And again, sir, I don’t mean to suggest that anything could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi, and I think you would agree with that.”

These statements undermine one of the GOP’s most heavily recycled — and completely unfounded — talking points about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans. Republicans have repeatedly and baselessly claimed that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered the military to "stand down" and not respond to the attacks. 

Gowdy praised Chipman when he brought him onto the committee’s legal team, remarking, “If you are serious about conducting a fair, thorough, fact-centric investigation devoid of gratuitous partisanship, it stands to reason you would select someone with those same characteristics to lead the investigation."

In the committee’s “Interim Progress Update,” released in May 2015, Gowdy boasted of the “highly-qualified staff” he had gathered to aid the investigation, specifically mentioning Chipman.

In an interview with Defense Department Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash, the form chief council made similar comments to those he had made to Panetta. “I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5:15 in the morning on the 12th of September in Benghazi, Libya,” he said. “So let me start with that positing or that stipulation.”

During the same interview, he also noted, “I don’t see any way to influence what occurred there. But what I am worried about is we’re caught by surprise on 9/11, we’ve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner — and you can debate what’s timely, what’s untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi.”

These statements are all in line with the conclusions of previous investigations, including those conducted by the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. They also match statements by military leaders including Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey.

Yet Gowdy continues to claim that his committee is uncovering ground-breaking new information, saying in a statement last week that “the committee has identified new facts that significantly impact our understanding of what happened before, during, and after Benghazi.”

Gowdy, in an apparently desperate attempt to find damning information about the administration’s response to the attack, has sought to call as witnesses a man who anonymously called in to a right-wing radio show claiming to have previously undisclosed knowledge of the events and a purported whistleblower who recently spoke with Fox News.

Despite Gowdy’s desperate attempts to salvage the image of his committee, Chipman’s statements raise serious questions about what the Benghazi Select Committee has accomplished in the course of its two-year, $6.9 million investigation.

Bryan Fischer: Maybe Texas Will Secede Over Obama's Demonic Transgender Directive

Among the Religious Right activists reacting calmly today to a reported Obama administration directive on transgender rights in schools was American Family Radio’s Bryan Fischer, who said that the move showed that President Obama is “doing the devil’s work” and that it might prompt Texas to secede from the Union.

Fischer read from a passage in Revelation in which the devil goes down to the earth and “is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.”

“So, again, I want to be clear, I’m not saying President Obama is the devil,” he said. “But is he doing the devil’s work? Yes. And he’s immitating the Enemy of our souls because he’s motivated by anger against America as founded, anger against the Judeo-Christian ideals that have founded and shaped this country, and he knows he’s running out of time.”

Later in the segment, a caller asked Fischer “what keeps the states from seceding from the Union and declaring their own government free from the United States with these executive orders.”

“The state of Texas is having their convention this weekend, their state convention, and there is a resolution that the Republican convention in the state of Texas is going to be voting on … about whether Texas ought to secede from the Union,” Fischer said, referring to a planned vote at this weekend’s state GOP convention . “And, trust me, after what President Obama has done today, there’s going to be a lot of energy behind that.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/13/16

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious