All

Keyes: Impeach Obama Before It's Too Late

Addressing the dominionist Oak Initiative summit this weekend, Alan Keyes used his opportunity on stage with Janet Porter, Jerry Boykin, and Rick Joyner to urge Congress to impeach President Obama on the grounds that Obama is supporting international interventions in Libya and the Ivory Coast so as to establish a "precedent" whereby were he were to lose his reelection bid and refuse to "give up power," the international community would intervene militarily in the US to keep him in office.

In the video, posted by a conference attendee, Keyes said that if we “actually follow the Constitution” the people will vote out Obama and that Congress will impeach him:

Fischer and Cain Don't Care If You Think They Are Bigots

Herman Cain returned to Bryan Fischer's radio program last week where he reiterated his statement that, if elected president, he would not appoint any Muslims.  As he explained to Fischer, "the Constitution does not have room for Shariah law" and every Muslims believes in Shariah law, therefore they cannot work in his administration.

Fischer and Cain then bonded over the fact that every time they tell the truth, people accuse them of being bigots:

Jackson: Gay Marriage Part of a "Satanic Plot" to Destroy the Family

Over the weekend, we stumbled upon this interview between Bradlee Dean of vehemently anti-gay You Can Run But You Cannot Hide Ministry and their mentor Harry Jackson discussing his fight against marriage equality in Washington, DC.

Dean and Jackson commiserated over the fact that both have been "persecuted for righteousness's sake" by "the wicked," with Jackson declaring that gay marriage is part of "a Satanic plot to destroy our seed":

Santorum To Join The Family Leader In Iowa

Bob Vander Plaats’s The Family Leader just announced that Rick Santorum will join them for two events in early May. The Family Leader is an obsessive, militantly anti-gay organization that wants to remove the entire Iowa Supreme Court for ruling in favor of marriage equality. Already, likely presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul have joined Vander Plaats for his religious right group’s Presidential Lecture Series, and Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain plan to address the group this summer:

The goal of the Presidential Lecture Series is to provide an educational platform whereby Iowans can learn about the pro-family vision of national leaders.

Come and hear the pro-family lecture of former Senator Rick Santorum on Monday, May 2, 2011.

University of Iowa Iowa Memorial Union - Ballroom 125 N. Madison St., Iowa City, IA 52242 9:00 AM

Pella Christian High School, 300 Eagle Lane, Pella, IA 50219 Vermeer Auditorium 12:30 PM

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann Dordt College, 498 4th Ave. NE, Sioux Center, IA 51250 Campus Center 4:30 PM

Come hear the following leaders on these upcoming dates:
June 6 - Herman Cain
July 11 - Speaker Newt Gingrich
August - TBA
September - TBA
October - TBA

Chuck Norris’s New Project: Fighting Creeping Sharia

After railing against Obama’s purported attempts to wean Christianity out of public life, Chuck Norris now is warning of the supposed threat of religious involvement in government. Of course, in this case the threat comes from Islam. In his WorldNetDaily column “Holy Week, Holy Sharia? Part 1,” Norris begins his investigation into “creeping Sharia law.” He recommends the book Muslim Mafia, which alleges that radical Muslims are infiltrating the government through the congressional internship program, and says he plans to write at least four more articles as part of his exposé into the menace of Sharia.

Norris’s only evidence of creeping Sharia is a Florida judge’s ruling upholding a religious arbitration scheme (make sure to read Sarah Posner’s thorough debunking), an Alabama bill to ban Sharia law whose chief sponsor admits that he doesn’t even know what Sharia law is, and an Obama adviser’s statements on misconceptions about Sharia law:

The main point here is this: Where Muslim religion and culture has spread, Shariah law has shortly followed.

Of course, many Americans watch on video a Middle Eastern woman allegedly caught in adultery, buried in the ground up to her head and being stoned to death, and think, "That could never happen in America." But they fail to see how Shariah law has already been enabled and subtly invoked in our country, and that any such induction like it is brought about by understated lukewarm changes, like a frog boiled in a kettle by a slow simmer.

For those who don't believe in that Shariah simmer, consider in just the past few months that:

• A Florida judge ruled that a dispute between Muslim parties could proceed under Shariah law. "This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

• Alabama is joining a growing list of states that are considering outlawing the use of foreign and religious laws, specifically Muslim Shariah law, in their courts.

• President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, appeared on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Shariah law. Miss Mogahed said the Western view of Shariah was "oversimplified" and that the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice." Does she really think that Shariah is the ideological bastion of gender equality?

In the end, it seems to me we have a choice to believe that Shariah law is, or is not, a pro-Islamic system of civic, religious, moral and social laws, which is being used to run other countries and governments but is not being (nor ever will be) invoked to run ours, based upon the belief that our constitutional republic and Bill of Rights is inferior.

Right Wing Round-Up

  • JoeMyGod: MassResistance On The Day Of Silence.
  • Good As You: Pass the Bar(ber) exam: Judges must get appeal of opposite-sex coitus to understand Equal Protection.
  • Think Progress: Kyl Aide: My ‘Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement’ Statement Was Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement.

Right Wing Leftovers

Profiles in Debt-Busting Courage (Not)

Friday’s Washington Post features a story about a battle within the conservative movement. Hard-right figures like Sen. Tom Coburn and Grover “drown the government in the bathtub” Norquist are fighting among themselves about which is more important: reducing the deficit or sticking to Norquist’s  “no new taxes” pledge, which many Republicans have signed in recent years. 

The same question played out at last weekend’s “Awakening” conference, sponsored by the Freedom Federation at Liberty University. In a Saturday panel moderated by Tim Phillips, president of the Koch-funded Tea Party astroturfing group Americans for Prosperity, Norquist urged participants not to focus on the size of the deficit, but the size of government. 
 
Being told not to focus on the size of the deficit was a bit stunning given that a major theme of the conference had been that the growing national debt was an evil, immoral force. In fact, the night before Norquist’s panel, participants were told that the national debt was on the verge of destroying civilization as we know it. Former Reagan administration official Marc Nuttle, now on the board of the dominionist Oak Initiative, gave a gloom-and-doom-and-more-doom analysis of the mounting national debt. Nuttle’s thesis is that we could be less than two years from hitting a catastrophic debt wall, where interest rates rise and we can’t keep up payments, the U.S. fails, and with it freedom, and the world collapses into 1,000 years of darkness.
 
Nuttle had given essentially the same analysis in an interview with “apostles” Cindy and Rick Jacobs a few weeks earlier. But in that interview, Nuttle also presented the outline of his suggested plan for averting catastrophe. The dire threat required a spirit of shared sacrifice, he said, and the “Nuttle plan,” as he described it then, called for extraordinary temporary measures, including four years of sales taxes and taxes on the rich along with means-testing social security.
 
I had been surprised at parts of Nuttle’s proposal, and expected some sparks to fly when I saw he was appearing on the Norquist panel.  But under the gaze of Phillips and Norquist, Nuttle choked. His presentation painted the same frightening picture that he had described the night before, but did not talk about the kind of tax-inclusive shared sacrifice he had described in his interview with Cindy and Rick Jacobs.  So during the Q&A I asked him whether there wasn’t some disagreement on the panel between his and Norquist’s visions.
 
Nuttle was clearly uncomfortable and apparently unwilling to stand up to Norquist on the tax question, so he declared “I don’t want to raise taxes” and suggested the government could survive on 20 percent of what it now spends. When asked about his earlier interview, he suggested that he was talking about the fact that after the nation hit the wall and we were in crisis, we would be forced to take drastic measures to help the nation survive. 
 
But wouldn’t you want to make a shared sacrifice to prevent disaster rather than during the aftermath? It seems quite clear in Nuttle’s interview with the Jacobs that his call for shared sacrifice and temporary taxes was to help prevent the U.S.  from hitting the “wall” by dealing with the deficit while we still had a chance to get it under control. But his unwillingness to say so while seated next to Norquist demonstrates the same kind of uncomfortable position Republican lawmakers are in. Under pressure from Norquist, they’ve been making easy “no new taxes” pledges for years.  But this year, many Republicans were swept into power by Tea Partiers’ fears that the debt was destroying their children’s and grandchildren’s future and their urgent desire to reduce federal deficits.  And it's not so easy to reconcile the two.  Welcome to governing.

Eagle Forum Wonders, "Is Arizona State Promoting a Left-Wing Agenda?"

Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum Collegians is on the case to investigate whether Arizona State University is promoting socialism…through a sports motto. If the SunDevil wasn’t bad enough, a video celebrating the college’s sports teams ends with an image of a clenched fist with the Sun Devil’s pitchfork that turns into the college’s pitchfork hand gesture. But Eagle Forum finds a far more nefarious message in the video, accusing the school of trying “to communicate its traditional leftist message on the ASU campus” by using “a symbol of socialism, communism, and other extreme left-wing organizations”:

Is Arizona State Promoting a Left-Wing Agenda?

The Sun Devils of ASU are gearing up for this year’s football season with redesigned uniforms and logos. The school is promoting this greatly anticipated change with several YouTube videos.

Several of these videos end with an image of a clenched fist. After a second or two, the fist lifts three fingers, turning into the Sun Devil’s “pitchfork” hand-symbol.

The raised fist is a symbol of socialism, communism, and other extreme left-wing organizations, according to Wikipedia, It was first used as the emblem of the Red Front Fighter’s League of the Communist Party of Germany in 1932 and has since been used by groups such as the Black Panther Party and the Socialist Workers Party of the UK.

Why would ASU choose to put a symbol representing left-wing organizations at the end of a video promoting its football team?Will this symbol be used to express the Sun Devil's team spirit or will it continue to communicate its traditional leftist message on the ASU campus?

We all know sports teams already promote collectivism by encouraging cooperation and teamwork but see for yourself if you agree with the Eagle Forum. The image in question is 1:15 into this video from ASUAthletics:

Fischer: Boehner's Compromise On Planned Parenthood Was An Offense To God

Bryan Fischer is doubling-down on his previous comparison of House Speaker John Boehner to Pontius Pilate and Nazi apologists over the budget deal which includes funding for Planned Parenthood, and is now suggesting that the Republican leader was “was more of afraid of answering to the Washington Post than he was of answering to God.”

While Planned Parenthood by law is prohibited from receiving federal funding for abortion services, Republicans originally wanted to stop the organization from receiving support for its work in a wide variety of women’s healthcare. Under the compromise deal between Boehner and President Obama, Planned Parenthood’s funding was secured and a vote to defund the organization failed in the Senate. Fischer, the AFA’s Director of Issues Analysis, now claims that Boehner “sold out” the Tea Party to the “pro-death” Obama by having the government to “continue to pay Planned Parenthood to run their chambers of horror” and has allowed “the wicked to pollute the stream”:

The president was so committed to his pro-death platform that he was willing to see our soldiers go without pay. Think about that for a moment. It was more important to Mr. Obama to pay people to dismember babies in the womb than to pay the men in uniform who protect our liberties. Paying abortionists was more important to the president than paying soldiers.

Why did the speaker crumple while the president stood strong? The likeliest explanation is simple: the fear of man. The speaker has always seemed deathly afraid of a government shutdown, surrendering up his hole card before anyone had even anted up.

He seemed paralyzed at the thought that he would be blamed for a government slowdown, and everybody in the room knew it. He apparently was more of afraid of answering to the Washington Post than he was of answering to God. The Proverbs says, “The fear of man lays a snare” (Prov. 29:25),” and the speaker fell into a trap of his own making.

The speaker is afraid of the wrong people. Instead of fearing the New York Times, he should be living in mortal fear of the Tea Party. The Tea Party cannot help but feel they have been sold out, their pro-life convictions abandoned in exchange for a mess of pottage, a $352 million reduction in actual government outlays. That’s about what we will now continue to pay Planned Parenthood to run their chambers of horror.

I have no doubt that the speaker is a good man. He’s decent, upright and wanted to do the right thing. But the Scriptures also say, “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked” (Prv. 25:26). When a good and upright man surrenders his principles under pressure from the wicked, the stream is polluted just as much as if he gone to the water’s edge and dumped the toxins in himself. Weakness is as deadly as malice. Allowing the wicked to pollute the stream when it is in your power to stop it is little different than doing the deed yourself.