All

Michael Savage: Obama Should Be Called 'Obola,' Will Destroy America With Abe Lincoln Praise

Michael Savage took to “The Steve Malzberg Show” today to promote his new book, “Stop the Coming Civil War,” and expound on his conspiracy theory that President Obama is deliberately infecting Americans with Ebola.

“The fact of the matter is, in two more years we’re not going to survive,” Savage said of the Obama presidency. “He has been conducting a civil war on America’s institutions from the day he seized power. But it’s not just him. Take a look at the people surrounding him, ‘the four horsewomen of the apocalypse,’ they’re all thirty, forty years radicals on the left, that’s what they’re doing, they’re achieving their revolutionary goals right in front of our eyes.”

(We aren't entirely sure who Savage's "four horsewomen" are, only that in an WorldNetDaily article earlier this year, he identified two as State Department official Victoria Newland and National Security Advisor Susan Rice.)

He said Obama is letting Ebola “get out of control,” adding: “I named the president Obola the other day because my fear is that will be his legacy.”

Savage also attacked Obama for praising Abraham Lincoln, suggesting that because Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, Obama is going to send his critics to jail without trial any day now.

Of course, virtually every U.S. president in modern times has spoken highly of Lincoln, but never mind that!

“That’s one of Obama’s role models, that’s why I say you may think I’m inventing this to sell a book, then answer this, then how come there were 1.4 million hits on the article WND wrote the other day that was linked on Drudge, ‘Savage: Civil War, Savage says 30 days to save America'? 1.4 million people clicked on that, there are people who understand what’s going on,” he said.

Rep. Rob DeSantis: GOP Will Never Ditch Anti-Gay Positions

Responding today to Mike Huckabee’s threat to leave the GOP over Republican leaders’ muted response to gay marriage victories, Rep. Rob DeSantis reassured the former governor that the Republican Party is not giving up on its fight against gay rights.

The freshman Republican from Florida told Newsmax TV that Huckabee and other Religious Right leaders shouldn’t even think about leaving the GOP.

“Being in Congress and seeing the left wing of the Democratic Party and the elite media in action, they are hostile to conservative cultural values across the board, they are hostile to religious liberty and a lot of our traditions and I think that the Republican Party and conservative voters are really the only force against that,” he said.

“I understand where [Huckabee's] coming from but I think there’s a whole bunch of issues in which the left is hostile to where the governor is going to be coming from and really you’ve got to have a strong opposition party to be able to stand up for those values.”

Linda Harvey: Fight 'Evil' Gay Marriage With 'Civil Disobedience'

Linda Harvey of Mission America warned on her radio bulletin yesterday that America has entered “a time of possible civil disobedience” following the Supreme Court’s recent marriage equality announcement, telling listeners that “we must not serve the interests of sin and darkness” and “this court’s inaction is an act motivated by evil and deception and ultimately will not stand.”

“This is attempted theft of what God has ordained and our Lord will not honor this lawlessness,” Harvey said. “Allowing homosexuality to become normal in America may certainly be part of God’s judgment on our once-Christian nation for our irresponsible sexual practices and for turning our back on what the Lord has taught us. Even so, God will at some point allow the consequences of such defiance to play itself out and that will be a very tragic day indeed for those who have thumbed their noses at the Lord as they celebrate sin.”

Harvey hoped the court’s action will actually give a boost to the work of anti-gay activists: “Those of us who know the truth about homosexuality are far from finished, and in fact, God will use this cowardly act by the majority in our high court to bring a new zeal and fervor to the pro-family movement.”

Still More Evidence That David Barton's History Simply Cannot Be Trusted

Several times, we have heard David Barton make the absurd claim that biblical law was directly incorporated into the U.S. Constitution through the Seventh Amendment, which he then uses to assert that laws legalizing abortion and gay marriage are unconstitutional.

Lately, Barton has tried to bolster this argument by citing an obscure 1913 Texas Supreme Court ruling in a case called Grigsby v Reib, which he claims proves that America can never accept a definition of marriage that differs from God's definition.

In Barton's telling, this case was about efforts to attain legal recognition for secular "civil unions" that were separate from marriage as a religious institution but which the court denied on the grounds that "government is not allowed to redefine something that God himself has defined."

On his radio show yesterday, Barton once again cited the case and read excerpts from the decision to argue that gay marriage can never be legal: 

Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband ... The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage. which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary. Marriages will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation "a civil contract" to such a marriage. It is that and more; a status ordained by God.

The key finding in this case, Barton asserts, is that the court basically ruled that "we can't do something different than what God's done on" the issue of marriage.

Given that nothing that Barton says ought ever to be taken at face value, we decided to read the court decision for ourselves and, not surprisingly, found that Barton's interpretation of the ruling is entirely misleading.

The case involved a woman named Jessie Stallcup, who claimed to have been the wife of a widower named G.M.D. Grigsby and who had sued Grigsby's sister for control of his estate following his death. Stallcup was a prostitute whom Grigsby used to visit and she claimed that the two had agreed to become husband and wife, though they never held a ceremony, nor did they cohabitate or take any other actions to signal that they were now living has husband and wife.

The case heard by the Texas Supreme Court revolved around Stallcup's contention that she lost her lawsuit because the trial court ignored a binding appellate court precedent that stated that a common law marriage "requires only the agreement of the man and woman to become then and thenceforth husband and wife. When this takes place, the marriage is complete."

The Texas Supreme Court disagreed with Stallcup's contention, pointing out that the ruling in question involved a couple that had lived and presented themselves as husband and wife following their agreement, with the Texas Supreme Court stating that it takes more than a simple verbal agreement to constitute a legitimate marriage.

To demonstrate this point, the Texas Supreme Court proposed a hypothetical situation in which a man and a women met for the first time, agreed to become man and wife, and then went their separate ways, never to see one another again. This obviously would not constitute a binding marriage, the court found, and neither did the relationship between Stallcup and Grigsby on the grounds that, beyond their apparent agreement, they never took any further steps to establish themselves as husband and wife.

"It would be sacrilegious" to give legal standing to such relationships, the court found, because it would then give complete strangers the right to contest seemingly every inheritance by simply claiming to have been the secret spouse of the deceased.

Contrary to Barton's claims that this case enshrines divine principles about marriage into our civil laws, the court repeatedly notes that marriage is a nothing more than a civil contract that requires "neither license nor solemnization of religious or official ceremony" to be legally binding.

​Barton claims that this case was about trying to create a secular alternative to marriage, which the court slapped down because there can never be any legal marriage that does not correspond to "God's definition." In reality, the case addressed the issue of whether a supposedly secret verbal agreement to become husband and wife constitutes a legally binding and recognizable common law marriage and whether the relationship between Stallcup and Grigsby qualified as one under the law, with the court ruling that it did not because it didn't meet the most basic requirements.

This is just one more example of Barton's willingness to intentionally and flagrantly misrepresent history in order to promote his religious and political agenda.

Pat Buchanan: 'Massive Civil Disobedience' Needed To Fight 'Anti-Christian Discrimination'

Incensed with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to turn down appeals of several marriage equality rulings, Pat Buchanan fears that Americans, a “once-free people,” are now “under the rule of a judicial dictatorship.”

Buchanan writes in his syndicated column today that court rulings in favor of gay rights are just the latest in a long line of decisions that have “ordered the de-Christianization of all public institutions in what was a predominantly Christian country.”

“Secular humanism became, through Supreme Court edict, our established religion in the United States,” he said. “Why was there not massive civil disobedience against this anti-Christian discrimination, as there was against segregation?”

After praising opponents of desegregation busing for making “our black-robed radicals back down,” Buchanan quotes the pro-slavery, Confederate Army chaplain Robert Lewis Dabney's comments on “the failure of conservatives to halt the march of the egalitarians.”

Do the states have the right to outlaw same-sex marriage?

Not long ago the question would have been seen as absurd. For every state regarded homosexual acts as crimes.

Moreover, the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage had all been enacted democratically, by statewide referenda, like Proposition 8 in California, or by Congress or elected state legislatures.

But today rogue judges and justices, appointed for life, answerable to no one, instruct a once-democratic republic on what laws we may and may not enact.

Last week, the Supreme Court refused to stop federal judges from overturning laws banning same-sex marriage. We are now told to expect the Supreme Court itself to discover in the Constitution a right of men to marry men and of women to marry women.

How, in little more than half a century, did the American people fall under the rule of a judicial dictatorship where judges and justices twist phrases in the Constitution to impose their ideology on this once-free people?



The Supreme Court has ordered the de-Christianization of all public institutions in what was a predominantly Christian country. Christian holy days, holidays, Bibles, books, prayers and invocations were all declared to be impermissible in public schools and the public square.

Secular humanism became, through Supreme Court edict, our established religion in the United States.

And the American people took it.

Why was there not massive civil disobedience against this anti-Christian discrimination, as there was against segregation? Why did Congress, which has the power to abolish every federal district and appellate court and to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not act?



In 1954, the Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of all public schools. But when the court began to dictate the racial balance of public schools, and order the forced busing of children based on race across cities and county lines to bring it about, a rebellion arose. Only when resistance became national and a violent reaction began did our black-robed radicals back down.

Yet the Supreme Court was not deterred in its resolve to remake America. In 1973, the Court discovered the right to an abortion in the Ninth Amendment. Then it found, also hidden in the Constitution, the right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill Quirk urged it to utilize Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, and write in a provision stripping the Supreme Court of any right to review the act.

Congress declined, and the court, predictably, dumped over DOMA.



Indeed, with neoconservatives in the van, the GOP hierarchy is today in headlong retreat on same-sex marriage. Its performance calls to mind the insight of that unreconstructed Confederate chaplain to Stonewall Jackson, Robert Lewis Dabney, on the failure of conservatives to halt the march of the egalitarians:

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. … Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/9/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 10/9/14

  • James Dobson says that "the preservation of the family is the Cause for which I was born. I knew it when I was 20 years old."
  • James Robison warns people to vote properly: "Whatever political banner you may wave, you need the banner of the Lord and the principles of Almighty God or you are going nowhere but down. The way up is God. The way out is Divine Direction."
  • A bunch of anti-gay Religious Right activists are so anti-gay that they are urging other anti-gay Republicans to vote for a Democrat over a gay Republican.
  • Linda Harvey fumes over advances in gay rights: "Vicious attacks have been launched by the Human Rights Campaign, the Southern Poverty Law Center and others against brave, compassionate, truthful Christian brothers like Peter LaBarbera, Dr. Scott Lively, Dr. Michael Brown and organizations like American Family Association and Family Research Council. Isn’t it obvious, isn’t this revelation enough, that the poison 'fruit' of homosexual advocacy is ripening in today’s America, revealing lies and oppression, and it stinks to high heaven?"
  • NOM likewise fumes over the success of gay marriage: "This is not democracy: it is judicial tyranny ... [M]arriage is on the ropes, and our principles of government are taking a beating as well."
  • Finally, read all about the Palin family's drunken brawl.

Glenn Beck's Sanity Box: How Our Society Will Go From Gender-Inclusive Classrooms To Mass Genocide

Yesterday, The National Review reported on a document produced by a group called Gender Spectrum providing teachers with suggestions on how to create gender inclusive classrooms. Among the suggestions was that rather than separating the boys into one line and the girl into another, teachers could come up with gender-neutral ways of breaking up the class, such as separating by birthdays.

Another suggestion was for teachers to avoid using phrases like "boys and girls" and instead have the students come up with a class nickname and then use that nickname for calling the class together. The example the document provided was "purple penguins," so that the teacher could then, for example, call out for all the purple penguins to meet on the rug for reading time.

Predictably, Glenn Beck pretty much lost his mind on his radio show today over this, saying that he is going to start printing out these sorts of stories and sealing them up in a box that he can bury in the side of a mountain so that future generations can see just how deranged our society has become.

"Five thousand years from now," Beck ranted, "they will dig on the side of a mountain and they will find a big thing marked 'Glenn Beck's Sanity Box - what drove him insane is all in this box; open at your own peril.'"

Upon reading these stories, future generations will ask "what the hell were they thinking" and then they will find a message, Beck said, "probably scrawled in my own urine and poop" informing them that at least some of those living today realized the world had gone utterly insane, but nobody would listen to them.

Naturally, Beck then explained that all of this is rooted in a failure to acknowledge the existence of God, warning that when there is no Creator and society can decide its own rules, "this is what leads to mass genocide, every time!"

Anti-Gay Mega-Donor Sean Fieler Is Funding Mark Regnerus' New Think Tank

Last year, University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus — author of a widely panned study on same-sex parenting that is nonetheless frequently cited on the Religious Right — helped launch a new group called the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, which has since been publishing his research on topics including pre-marital sex, divorce, religion among college students and masturbation.

According to tax records filed this summer, the Austin Institute receives much of its funding from one donor: New York hedge fund honcho and social conservative mega-donor Sean Fieler.

The 2013 tax return for Fieler’s Chiaroscuro Foundation reports two grants to the Austin Institute, totaling $250,000. Although the public copy of Chiaroscuro’s tax return obscures the dates of its fiscal year, the organization’s 2010 return indicates that its tax year runs from January through December.

Meanwhile, the Austin Institute’s return reports that it took in just $205,000 in contributions between February and June 2013, indicating that a significant portion of its initial funding came from Fieler’s charity.

Fieler’s funding of the Austin Institute shouldn’t come as a surprise. To begin with, he is a trustee of the Witherspoon Institute, the Princeton-based think tank that kicked in $700,000 for Regnerus’ now infamous “New Family Structures” study. The study claimed to show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents suffer all sorts of harmful consequences like drug use and abuse, despite only actually studying two people raised by same-sex couples.

According to the Austin Chronicle, the new group was quickly dubbed “Witherspoon Institute South” — a name stemming from its staff’s plentiful ties to the Witherspoon Institute and the Religious Right.

The Austin Institute grants were among the biggest expenditures last year by Fielder’s Chiaroscuro Foundation, many of which went to groups fighting marriage equality and abortion rights. This year, recipients include Americans United for Life ($20,000), the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty ($260,000), the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), which fights pro-choice and LGBT rights initiatives at the U.N. ($20,000), the National Abstinence Education Foundation ($50,000) and the Susan B. Anthony List ($40,000). As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Fieler’s foundation also gave $50,000 last year to Morality in Media for its increasingly quixotic anti-porn campaign.

In 2012, the foundation gave $20,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, but seems to have snubbed the group in 2013.

The Chiaroscuro Foundation is just the beginning of Fieler’s influence: Last month, RH Reality Check delved in detail into Fieler’s political spending, including his funding of the American Principles Project and his hand in political races across the country.

While Regnerus’ research at the Austin Institute has so far made less of a splash than his faulty same-sex parenting study, he has continued to lend his voice to the effort to stop marriage equality, including testifying on behalf of a same-sex marriage ban in Michigan this year. (That move caused some of his UT colleagues to distance themselves from his work.)

The Austin Institute’s most noticeable contribution so far is a viral YouTube video applying a pop-economics veneer to the Religious Right’s favorite target, the sexual revolution. The video explains (in economic terms, of course) how contraception led to women turning against each other while men became video-game playing slobs — the only solution to which is for women to band together to withhold sex until marriage.

And the Austin Institute seems primed to provide more research to conveniently reinforce the Religious Right’s policy views — a solid investment for a donor like Fieler.

UPDATE: A reader points out that the Bradley Foundation, a conservative group that includes the Witherspoon Institute's Robert George on its board and that also helped to fund Regnerus' "New Family Structures" study, also reported a $100,000 grant to the Austin Institute last year.

Pat Robertson: Halloween Is A 'Festival For Demonic Spirits'

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson once again warned viewers against partaking in “demonic” Halloween revelry“Halloween is a festival for demonic spirits,” Robertson said in response to a viewer who wondered whether to let her children go to their aunt’s Halloween party. 

“The whole idea of trick-or-treating is the Druids would go to somebody’s house and ask for money and if they didn’t get money they’d kill one of their sheep, that was the sheep and it was serious stuff. All this business about goblins and jack-o’-lanterns all comes out of demonic rituals of the Druids and the people who lived in England at that particular time.”

Robertson suggested that churches instead “turn it into a Christian festival and that’s what we ought to do, we need to redeem these days, but that day was given over to Satanic things.”

Watch: