All

Roger Stone: Huma Abedin Married A Jewish Man As 'Cover' For Terrorist Work

Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone continued his smear campaign against Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton who Stone believes is a radical Islamic “terrorist agent,” on “Breitbart News Daily” yesterday, where he suggested that Abedin married Anthony Weiner, the former congressman from New York, because his Jewish faith would be a good cover for her Islamist agenda.

“That was a prestigious marriage,” he said of Abedin and Weiner. “Also given her radical background, marrying a Jewish fellow, that’s pretty good cover if you ask me.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 8/17/16

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 8/17/16

  • Just how many reboots is Donald Trump's campaign going to have?
  • Wayne Allyn Root says that "Justice Scalia is begging from his grave" for Republicans to wake up and rally around Trump.
  • Milo Yiannopoulos declares that "God-Emperor Daddy" Trump "has dramatically overtaken the chronically Muslim-friendly Democratic Party on gay rights."
  • Behold the latest right-wing scandal: Hillary Clinton sometimes sits with a pillow behind her back.
  • Finally, Lance Wallnau says that Trump's campaign is prophectic: "The commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem starts with the decree of Cyrus recorded in Ezra 1:1-4. The word starts with rebuilding the house of the Lord. It was this 'Cyrus decree' that worked its way through King Darius and King Artaxerxes till Nehemiah engaged his task to build the wall surrounding Jerusalem. We've got prayers for America still stored up and waiting for release!  These two phases 'the house' and 'the wall' should make believers stop and wonder. This is a direct promise touching the church and restoration of society. The controversy over 'building the wall' in current-day politics is more symbolic than people think."

Linda Harvey: Satan Behind LGBT-inclusive Lessons In School

Yesterday, Mission America’s Linda Harvey wrote a column to help those parents who haven’t already pulled their kids out of public schools “prep kids to resist Satan’s school revolution.”

Harvey warned of classes about “a Satanic smorgasbord of ever-changing [gender] fluidity” and “outrageously pornographic sex ed programs.”

“There is no androgyny in the eyes of God,” she wrote. “Satan, however, loves this and encourages it through his confused human servants.”

Will your kids embrace “the Gender Unicorn” or the “Genderbread Person“?

Without guidance, they may. These and other trendy, gender-smashing curricula are deeply harmful and inaccurate, maintaining there are three or more sexes – male, female and “other” – in a Satanic smorgasbord of ever-changing fluidity.



There is no androgyny in the eyes of God. Satan, however, loves this and encourages it through his confused human servants.

And if you think, “Oh, my child could never be captivated by such nonsense!” then please read this about the cult-like attributes of gender anarchy.

If you remove your children from public schools, their risks diminish considerably.



Be wary. While much of America is over here protesting the invasion of bathrooms, homosexual behavior is quietly being inserted into the school curricula while few are looking, as if it did no harm, as if it truly were an inborn identity like race.

Especially watch for outrageously pornographic sex ed programs to be launched, the details of which you as a parent are unlikely to receive unless you push past all the roadblocks the school will erect.

The latest trend is to enact “inclusive” sex ed under the banner of being “comprehensive.” But that means they will just be ramping up the normalization of teen sex and abortion and now, homosexual behavior as well.

'It's Going To Be A Bloodbath': Glenn Beck Calls On Republicans Supporting Trump To 'Jump Ship'

Glenn Beck spent most of today's radio show calling upon Republicans to abandon Donald Trump in the wake of the announcement that the GOP presidential nominee has hired Breitbart's Steve Bannon to serve as the campaign's CEO.

Bannon is "possibly the most dangerous guy in all of American politics," Beck said, declaring that Trump's decision to hire him is giving Republicans who are backing the GOP nominee a perfect excuse for withdrawing their support.

"There is a hall pass for the next 48 hours for all Republicans," he said. "Anybody who was on the bandwagon, Donald Trump has just given you the greatest gift and a warning: It's going to get ugly and now is the time to jump ship. Now is the time to separate yourself and if you don't, you are going to regret it."

Trump is surrounding himself with ruthless "hatchet men" like Bannon, Roger Stone and Roger Ailes, who will destroy anyone who gets in their way, Beck warned.

"You are going see things in the next 82 days that will make you go, 'You gotta be kidding me,'" Beck predicted. "I think it's going to be a bloodbath. What is coming will be an absolute bloodbath because these guys do not take prisoners. If you are not with them, they will destroy you and if you deviate from their path at all, they will destroy you."

The Hostile Takeover Of The GOP Is Now Complete

At Goldman Sachs, Steve Bannon’s job was to defend companies against hostile takeovers by junk bond raiders from Drexel Burnham and First Boston. This morning Bannon himself completed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, when it was announced that he would move from his post as chairman of Breitbart.com to become CEO of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Beyond its enthusiastic cheerleading for the GOP presidential nominee, Breitbart, since its namesake's passing, has represented a formulation of conservatism identical to that which drove Trump’s campaign to victory in the Republican primary. While lacking the ideological consistency of most political movements, it is a blend of right-wing populism, Saul Alinsky’s tactics and Sun Tzu’s strategies. It is jingoistic, angry and anti-institutional.

For years the Republican Party used dog whistles to avoid accusations of racism. (The strategy was famously explained by former RNC Chair Lee Atwater.) The Trump/Breitbart ideology now unflinchingly promotes racism, while openly courting the support of bigots. Former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro noted this in a post this morning that under Bannon’s leadership “Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with [Milo] Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist meme makers.”

It is a thin-skinned ideology, consistently positioning those who adhere to it as victims of the liberal media, progressive college professors (and even students), and institutional Republicans, that relies on a constant stream of conspiracies theories about government institutions out to get white conservatives.

Those who adopt the Trump/Breitbart ideology ignore any evidence that does not conform to their worldview and live their lives in a completely binary world. One is either a friend or an enemy with no in between. This means that even those who are ideological allies are targets for their enmity, including members of the political elite such as John Boehner and Paul Ryan, who, by not showing 100 percent fealty, have committed some crime against the movement. The movement’s enemies list also includes conservative media figures who don’t necessarily toe the line and former employees who are no longer viewed as loyal.

The Trump/Breitbart ideology is defined not by any coherent set of conservative beliefs but instead by rabid anti-liberalism. For the past eight years that has meant standing in opposition to the Obama administration, even when it took stances that more traditional conservatives would have been happy to adopt, and now translates into unquestioning opposition to the Clinton campaign.

Trump’s campaign has demonstrated the extent of the support for this anti-liberal ideology among Republican Party voters. Yet for the past few weeks, Trump’s poll numbers have flagged as promised resets, marked by teleprompter-driven policy speeches, are undercut, often in less than 24 hours, when the candidate’s often racist gaffes step on his own news cycle.

In July, the ousting of former campaign manager Corey Lewandowsky and the elevation of campaign chairman Paul Manafort signaled an attempt to bring Trump back into the Republican fold. This has clearly failed.

While Bannon’s elevation marks the completion of the takeover, it in fact began long ago.

For eight years, Fox News served as a megaphone, promoting anger among the base of the Republican Party. It promoted and fueled the Tea Party in the spring of 2009 and the angry town halls that members of Congress came home to that summer. These voters became a dominant force in the party, leading to Republican victories, most notably taking back the House of Representatives in 2010. The rise of the Tea Party also led to embarrassments, such as the nomination of Christine “I’m not a witch” O’Donnell, that year in the Delaware Senate race.

Looking back just 24 hours, yesterday’s New York Times report that former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes is now assisting the Trump campaign with debate prep is even less surprising.

Republicans who claim that Trump and Breitbart do not represent their movement now face a new reality: Warriors for an ideology they claim not to support are now on their way to gaining full control of the institutions of their party.

Steve Bannon, in business and politics, has shown himself to be a crafty merger artist. While arranging the sale of Castle Rock, in lieu of a fee he accepted the rights to several television shows, among them “Seinfeld,” which had not yet become the dominant cultural force of the 1990s, leading to an untold financial windfall.

Now, by force, he and Trump have taken over the Republican Party. They control their own media platform and have demonstrated influence over a base far larger than any other in the party. Most of all, Trump and Bannon are fighters, unafraid to get in the mud, and they are unlikely to surrender the institutions they now control without open warfare.

A Perfect Match: Donald Trump And Breitbart Share A Curious Relationship With The Truth

The appeals to populist anger and racial resentment. The barefaced misogyny. The winks at anti-Semitism and white supremacy.

These are all attributes shared by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Breitbart News, making Breitbart chairman Stephen K. Bannon’s move to the Trump campaign, where he will serve as CEO, more understandable, as the GOP presidential nominee seeks to only ratchet up and intensify the nastiness and bigotry that have defined his run for the White House.

Besides its feverish promotion of Trump’s presidential bid , Breitbart News often promotes bogus, racist and conspiratorial claims, much like the candidate himself.

Here is a brief and far from exhaustive list of the many embarrassing, bogus stories that Breitbart has promoted:

1) Friends of Hamas

It started as a joke.

During the fight over former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be secretary of defense, which included Republicans like Ted Cruz questioning the Purple Heart recipient’s patriotism, a New York Daily News reporter, Dan Friedman, joked with a GOP Senate aide about Hagel having ties to obviously nonexistent groups like “Friends of Hamas” and “Junior League of Hezbollah.”

“No one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed—let alone that a former senator would speak to them,” Friedman said. “Or so I thought.”

Ben Shapiro of Breitbart, however, ran with it: “On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called ‘Friends of Hamas.’”

Friends of Hamas doesn’t exist, but the rumor made its way through the conservative media , and Breitbart stood by the story, claiming that the onus was on Hagel to prove that he didn’t speak to a fictional group.

It was like a page out of the Donald Trump playbook.

2) Shirley Sherrod

Breitbart has become a go-to source for those who believe that whites in America are under attack by black people and their allies in the Obama administration—the “real racists.” In one case, Andrew Breitbart, the site’s late founder, claimed that a USDA official, a black woman named Shirley Sherrod, openly admitted to discriminating against a white farmer and that “Sherrod’s racist tale” was “received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement.” And he posted video to prove it.

Conservative media outlets heavily promoted Breitbart’s video and Sherrod was fired.

As it turned out, Breitbart had only posted a small clip of a longer speech that “showed that Sherrod was giving a cautionary tale about the evils of racial separation,” and the families of the white farmers she mentioned vigorously defended Sherrod. The part where Sherrod explained how she ended up fighting for white farmers and condemned racial prejudice were left out of Breitbart’s clip. Sherrod later sued Breitbart for defamation because it had posted clips that “made her sound like she was advocating denying services to white farmers when in fact she was making the opposite point” and later reached a settlement.

Naturally, Andrew Breitbart defended his smear with conspiracy theories and innuendo, suggesting that the farmers might be lying as part of a grand conspiracy to make him look bad.

Sound familiar?

3) The Other Loretta Lynch

When President Obama nominated U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to be attorney general, Breitbart wondered why the biased liberal media refused to report Lynch’s involvement in the Whitewater case, a phony Clinton real estate scandal. But as Media Matters reported, Breitbart had the wrong Loretta Lynch:

According to a November 8 Breitbart.com article by Warner Todd Huston, "few are talking about" the fact nominee Lynch "was part of Bill Clinton's Whitewater probe defense team in 1992." Huston pointed to a March 1992 New York Times article that "reported that Lynch was one of the Clintons' Whitewater defense attorneys as well as a 'campaign aide.'" And in a November 9 article Huston's colleague, Breitbart.com Senior Editor-at Large Joel Pollak wrote, "The connection to Whitewater ought to provide additional fodder for Republicans during Lynch's confirmation hearings":

The connection to Whitewater ought to provide additional fodder for Republicans during Lynch's confirmation hearings. It is odd that Obama chose someone so close to the Clintons--or perhaps not, given the prominent role played by Clinton insider John Podesta in the second term of the Obama White House. Lynch has been rewarded throughout her career for her political loyalty--not an unusual path up the career ladder for federal prosecutors, but certainly one that will allow the GOP, as well as Obama, to raise the political stakes.

The Loretta Lynch referred to in the New York Times article is a California based attorney who has worked on several prominent political campaigns, not Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch.

Breitbart eventually posted a correction at the very bottom of the completely erroneous post, before eventually removing it from its website.

4) Skewed Polls

In 2012, Breitbart was at the forefront of a conservative attack on presidential election polls, alleging that the polls were deliberately “skewed” to hide Republican Mitt Romney’s lead over President Obama.

Breitbart’s Mike Flynn wrote:

I totally get that pollsters have to weight their samples to reflect their estimation of the electorate. But why is it that virtually every media poll this election weights their samples in a way that is beneficial for Democrats? Where is the poll that over-samples GOP voters? That every media poll errs in the same direction is what, in poker, we call a “tell”.

This poll, and many others like it, are simply propaganda. They are meant to reinforce the idea that Obama’s and the media’s attacks on Mitt Romney are working. They are meant to reverse the growing belief that Obama’s reelection is in serious jeopardy. But, the days of the media controlling the campaign narrative are over.

Flynn mocked one Colorado poll showing Obama leading Romney 50-46 in Colorado, saying it was like “unicorns and pixie dust.”

Of course, Obama ended up winning re-election by about the margin predicted by the supposedly “skewed” polls, and won Colorado by five points.

While Breitbart should have been embarrassed after assuring readers that the polls were all skewed by the media when they turned out to be quite accurate, the group stuck with the theme.

This month, the outlet decided to sponsor its own presidential poll, saying that mainstream polls had been “manipulated” by the liberal media—the same message pushed by Trump.

Breitbart’s own poll, however, like nearly all the other polls, showed Trump losing to Clinton.

The site also championed the campaign of Paul Nehlen, a GOP primary challenger to Speaker Paul Ryan who ran as a candidate who would reflexively support Trump and consider deporting all Muslims from America. Nehlen appeared on Breitbart’s Sirius XM radio program and received fawning coverage. While polls showed Ryan holding a commanding lead, Breitbart ran stories about how Nehlen was making Ryan run scared with headlines like, “Good for the Soul: Paul Ryan Bows Down to Nationalist Populism as His Career Flashes Before His Eyes.”

Ryan crushed Nehlen 84-16

5) Obama Founded ISIS

While Trump drew criticism for his claim that Obama founded ISIS, a comment that he later claimed was sarcastic “but not that sarcastic,” Breitbart rushed to his defense. Trump happily tweeted a link to a story in the ultraconservative outlet that purportedly backed up Trump’s claim that Obama supported the terrorist group. According to the site, “Hillary Clinton received a classified intelligence report stating that the Obama administration was actively supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, the terrorist group that became the Islamic State.”

The intelligence report Breitbart cited did not say that the Obama administration supported Al Qaeda or any terrorist group. It only stated that many terrorist groups, including AQI, which later became ISIS, have entered the Syrian conflict. The U.S. has supported opposition groups fighting both Assad and ISIS, and nowhere in the memo does it claim that the U.S. backs Al Qaeda.

Experts on the Syrian Civil War told PolitiFact that the Breitbart article was a clear misreading of the memo:

"The United States has never backed AQI and has never backed ISIS," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "It was never part of the opposition that the United States supported, full stop."

Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, agreed. "It has never been the policy or stated goal of the Obama administration to arm or assist al-Qaida," he said.

"I would say it's another unsupportable conspiracy theory," said John Limbert, an international affairs professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who previously served as a foreign service officer in post-war Iraq and as deputy coordinator for counterterrorism in the State Department.

John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org, said it would be putting it "mildly" to call it a conspiracy theory. And Gartenstein-Ross also used that term, tweeting that Trump’s effort to make this argument was a "transparently fallacious conspiracy theory."

Not that Breitbart has backed down from its story.

Trump Evangelical Adviser: God Won't Heal Racism Under Clinton Because She's 'Anchored In Anti-Biblical Darkness'

Bishop Harry Jackson, a member of Donald Trump’s evangelical advisory board, joined fellow advisory board member Mark Burns on his “The Colors That Unite” program on Sunday to discuss “why African Americans should vote for Donald Trump.”

Responding to a caller who said that she feared for her white son and his wife who live near Ferguson, Missouri, Jackson directed listeners to his “The Reconciled Church” website, which he said offers ways to combat “the problem of race in America, black lives matter and all of that.”

But, he said, nothing can be done without “a spiritual awakening,” which can never be achieved under Hillary Clinton “because her agenda is anchored in anti-biblical darkness”:

I think we win this battle against racism heart to heart, house to house, community to community. And I think we’ll win, ultimately, we need a spiritual awakening in America because of its sin. Now if we promote, though, unrighteous ideas like promulgating abortion … then we’ll hinder God’s process of restoration for the nation. So, for me, anybody but Hillary’s where I’m at because, just because her agenda is anchored in anti-biblical darkness, it is an ungodly ethos at the very heart of it, and Donald Trump is for free enterprise and he is for lift that will bring dignity to all people.

The Men Who Say God Says A Woman Shouldn’t Be President

Hillary Clinton has faced her share of sexist attacks in her presidential campaign, and plenty of Clinton supporters have been accused of voting for her “just because she’s a woman,” but attacking Clinton explicitly for being a woman has generally been considered to be beyond the pale. Except, that is, among a small segment of Religious Right activists who believe that God proscribes women from taking political leadership roles and are willing to talk about it.

Back in 2008, when John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, some Religious Right leaders had muddled reactions to a female nominee who also happened to share many of their policy priorities.

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins explained that there was no contradiction in supporting a woman as vice president even though he is a member of a denomination that bars women from serving as pastors because the Bible only prohibits a woman from being a “spiritual leader.” Richard Land, then the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, said that it was perfectly fine for Palin to serve in the role as long as her husband was okay with it. Al Mohler said that while he was thrilled with Palin’s politics, if he were her pastor he “would be concerned about how she could balance these responsibilities and what this would mean for her family and her roles as wife and mother.”

Michele Bachmann met some similar reactions when she ran for president in 2012, complicated by the fact that Bachmann herself had declared adherence to submission theology, the belief, as Sarah Posner has explained, that the “husband is the spiritual head of the household, the wife his obedient ‘helpmeet,’ the vessel for their children, devoted mother, and warrior for the faith.” Bachmann deflected those criticisms using logic similar to Perkins’, saying that the presidency “is not a spiritual position, it is a position of authority in our government, it is very different from that of a wife to her husband.”

Not everyone was convinced. While Bryan Fischer, then an official with the American Family Association, wrote early on in Bachmann’s campaign that the congresswoman was “in fact submitting to her husband by running for president ” because her husband had urged her to run, he did not seem completely convinced of his own point. Fischer said on his radio program the very same week that a woman should be allowed to become president only as a last resort “if God can't find any men with the spine and with the testicular fortitude” to lead. In that case, he said, God would “send a woman to do a man’s job.” As the election approached, Fischer went back to stating his belief that political leadership should be “reserved for the hands of males.”

It’s not surprising, then, that the question of whether a woman should be president has bubbled up again this year among some of the same people. Fischer declared this week that he doesn’t “believe that women should be entrusted with high political office,” implying that it would be reasonable to “vote for Trump because he's a man.”

Sam Roher, a former Pennsylvania state legislator who heads the American Pastors Network, which works to organize politically engaged conservative pastors, cited the book of Isaiah this month to argue that having women in political leadership is a mark of judgment upon a nation. “God does raise up women,” he explained, “there is no question about it, but the real condemnation is not the women in office, the condemnation is the disregard and the absolute inability for male leadership to perform as God intended it and I believe that that's the application for us now.”

Gary Dull, a board member of the pastors’ network who also runs its Pennsylvania chapter, used the same passage from Isaiah to argue more firmly that women should not lead nations. “In God's line of authority,” he said last month, “it seems very clear in the scripture that a woman should not be in authority over men, which would limit a woman from being the president of the United States of America or even a queen of some other particular nation.”

Kevin Swanson, a fringe pastor who nonetheless hosted three GOP presidential candidates at a campaign event in Iowa last year, responded to Clinton’s candidacy this month by saying that electing a female president would be “the final chapter” in feminists’ war against America. The white nationalist radio host James Edwards — a big Donald Trump fan — has cited “God’s law” to question whether a woman should be president.

And this isn’t even to mention the fringe activists who have said that women shouldn’t even be allowed to vote, including Theodore Shoebat, who recently managed to feed a conspiracy theory about Khizr Khan to the Trump campaign. Jesse Lee Peterson, a frequent guest on conservative talk shows, has also argued that women should never have been given the right to vote.

Those who think a female candidate should be disqualified from the presidency are mercifully few. And submission theology, which deals with a woman’s role in the household and the world, varies greatly among those who preach it. But as the reactions to Clinton’s candidacy have shown, the question of whether a woman should be president hasn’t been entirely settled in the Christian Right. After all, as Phyllis Schlafly says, who needs a woman president when “all our greatest presidents have been men"?

So Predictable: Ardent 'Never Trump' Activist Brad Thor Has Now Become 'Maybe Trump'

From the moment Donald Trump began racking up wins during the Republican presidential primary race, right-wing author Brad Thor has served as one of the most ardent "Never Trump" voices within the conservative movement, declaring that the election of Trump would be "an extinction-level event potentially for our republic, for democracy."

Thor was so alarmed by the prospect of a Trump presidency that he even briefly flirted with the idea of launching his own third party bid in an effort to prevent Trump from winning the election, though that scheme quickly collapsed.

Despite all of his principled declarations that he could never, ever vote for Trump because of the terrifying dangers that the GOP nominee represents to our nation, Thor is now, predictably, beginning to cave, publishing a post on HotAir yesterday saying that Trump might represent America's last hope for survival.

America, Thor analogized, has a deadly cancer and only three months to live and while Hillary Clinton represents an ineffective drug that "will actually strengthen it and speed our death," Trump is some sketchy, untested and possibly dangerous drug being sold by some unlicensed clinic in Mexico that carries unknown side effects and questionable effectiveness ... but it is also our only hope:

Drug #1 will kill us – no question. Drug #2 might kill us, but it also might:

A) Slow the cancer, or even

B) Cure the cancer

It’s a lot to hope for, I know, but hope is all we have left. We have exhausted every other avenue. Make no mistake – I believe one hundred percent in standing on principle. Principle, in this case though, will not cure cancer.

Sadly, that crappy clinic south of the border is starting to look like our only option.

UPDATE: Thor appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show today to try to defend his shameless flip-flop and it did not go well, as Beck and his co-hosts relentlessly mocked Thor's desperate effort to justify supporting a man that he admits bears all the hallmarks of a dictator: