Miranda Blue's blog

Sandy Rios: If Target Boycott Fails, 'We Will Not Be Able To Go To The Bathroom Anywhere'

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios joined “Breitbart News Daily” this morning to discuss her organization’s ongoing boycott of Target for allowing customers to use the restrooms that match their gender identity. (Breitbart News, whose head just became the CEO of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, has been feverishly promoting the idea that the retail chain’s policy will lead to sexual assault.)

Rios told Breitbart’s Alex Marlow that the boycott “isn’t just about Target” but is about scaring other corporations and governments so that they don’t adopt similar policies and leave people like Rios with nowhere left to relieve themselves.

“If we do not keep the pressure on Target,” she said, “this will quickly—we know how major corporations are, they are scared to death of anything that isn’t politically correct—this will spread like wildfire, we will not be able to go to the bathroom anywhere.”

Trump's Dystopian TV Ad Cites Anti-Immigrant Group's Attack On DACA/DAPA

Donald Trump is out with his first TV ad of the general election, and it’s predictably despicable: an image of “Hillary Clinton’s America” being flooded with refugees and “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes” while “the system stays rigged against Americans.” The ad has drawn comparisons to the infamous anti-immigrant ad that California Gov. Pete Wilson ran in 1994 as he was trying to push through a ballot measure imposing draconian penalties on undocumented immigrants.

The ad, also unsurprisingly, cites the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the group whose reports provide a constant stream of ammunition to anti-immigrant politicians despite its troubling roots in white nationalism and history of skewing the facts.

The CIS citation comes about 10 seconds into the ad, when the narrator warns that in Clinton’s America, “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay, collecting Social Security benefits, skipping the line.”

The ad’s citation appears to be referring to an April 14 CIS article on the implications of U.S. v. Texas, the Supreme Court case on President Obama’s DAPA and expanded DACA executive actions, which extended temporary deportation relief to some people brought to the country as children and some of their parents. This appears to be where the Trump campaign got the “collecting Social Security benefits” line, which it dishonestly links to its smear of “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes” (the DAPA and DACA programs bar people convicted of most crimes from eligibility). Those who receive eligibility to work under the programs do become eligible for Social Security, which they pay into like nearly every other American worker, under rules that existed long before President Obama took office.

It’s telling that the Trump campaign is getting its arguments about immigration policy from CIS. The group is one of a large network of anti-immigrant organizations started by John Tanton, an activist with white nationalist leanings and a troublingly extreme “population control” agenda including such things as supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.

CIS itself is more conservative in its rhetoric than its founder—allowing it to gain a foothold among members of Congress and others eager for research supporting an anti-immigrant agenda—but the agenda it promotes is one that demonizes immigrants.

As we noted in a recent report on CIS and its fellow Tanton-linked organizations, CIS has been a proponent of the idea “that instead of embracing a moderate position on immigration in order to win back Latinos who favored George W. Bush, the GOP should put its energy and resources into expanding its popularity and increasing turnout among white voters, in part by scapegoating people of color”—a strategy that Trump’s campaign is putting to the test:

CIS spokespeople regularly make this argument, along with another one that has long been popular among white nationalists: that Latino immigrants will never vote Republican because they are inherently liberal. During the debate over the “Gang of Eight” bill, CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian argued that the GOP shouldn’t bother trying to increase its share of the Latino vote because “generally speaking, Hispanic voters are Democrats, and so the idea of importing more of them as a solution to the Republican Party’s problems is kind of silly.” In another interview, Krikorian argued that immigration reform would “destroy the Republican Party” and ultimately “the republic.” The next year, he charged that Democrats were using immigration as “a way of importing voters” and to “create the conditions, such as increased poverty, increased lack of health insurance, that lead even non-immigrant voters to be more receptive to big government solutions.” At one point, Krikorian told Republicans that they should oppose immigration reform simply to deny President Obama a political victory.

Steven Camarota, the research director at CIS, has said that the current level of legal immigration “dooms” conservatives. Stephen Steinlight, a senior policy analyst at CIS, has said that immigration reform would lead to “the unmaking of America” by “destroying the Republican Party” and turning the U.S. into a “tyrannical and corrupt” one-party state. He explained that Latinos aren’t likely to vote Republican because they “don’t exemplify ‘strong family values,’” as illustrated by high rates of “illegitimacy.” More than a year before Donald Trump made national headlines by calling for a ban on all Muslim immigration, Steinlight said that he would like to ban Muslims from coming to the country because they “believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution.”

Steinlight summed up the argument in 2005, when he said that immigration threatens “the American people as a whole and the future of Western civilization.” More recently, Steinlight told a tea party group in 2014 that the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform bill amounted to “a plot against America ” because it would turn the U.S. into a Democrat-led “one-party state” where citizens would “lose our liberty” and “social cohesion.” Steinlight has happily fed into some of the more vitriolic tea party hatred of President Obama, saying that the president should not only be impeached for his handling of immigration, but that “ being hung, drawn and quartered is probably too good for him .” On another occasion, Steinlight said that he’d like to attack religious leaders who support immigration reform with “a baseball bat.”

Larry Pratt: If Police Can’t Control Milwaukee Unrest, 'The Looters Should Be Shot'

Larry Pratt, the executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America, responded to the recent riots in Milwaukee following a police shooting by saying that armed vigilantes should be able to shoot people looting businesses if the police are unable to keep the situation under control.

Pratt had the following exchange with conservative radio host Rusty Humphries on his “Trending Today USA” program yesterday:

Transcript via USA Radio, emphases are ours:

HUMPHRIES: Is it working though? I mean they still shut the city down. Communist groups are now going to Milwaukee to help the revolution.

PRATT: Well, hopefully, there has been a minimum of property destruction. It’s one thing that people can’t drive around, it’s another thing if they started torching people’s businesses.

HUMPHRIES: Mm well what is this from, from the Gun Owners of America? What is your position on this?

PRATT: Well, we think that the authorities definitely should do their job, should keep cities safe, and if need be they should make massive arrests and take…

HUMPHRIES: Your gun you’re gun group shouldn’t just be around there shooting folk.

PRATT: Right. Well, I’ll tell you who should be getting shot – if the cops can’t contain the looters, the looters should be shot.

HUMPHRIES: So are you calling for that we should be out there hunting down looters?

PRATT: I’m calling for the cops to be given free rein to keep things under control so that people don’t have to defend themselves by shooting the looters.

Family Security Matters: 'Muslim DNA' Makes Olympic Fencer Prone To 'Attacking Others With Knives'

Family Security Matters, a group started by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy that includes a number of prominent anti-Muslim pundits and activists on its board of advisers, published a particularly vituperative article today railing against Ibtihaj Muhammad, the U.S. Olympic fencer who competed in a hijab, suggesting that her choice of sport is related to violence in the “Muslim DNA.”

In an article titled “Political Correctness Taints the Olympics,” Paul Hollrah, a contributing editor to Family Security Matters and senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute, claims that Muhammad chose fencing as her sport because she risked being the victim of an “honor killing” if she participated in a sport that required skimpier clothes. Fencing, he writes, was more appealing to Muhammad because “hacking, stabbing, or slashing non-Muslims with knives, axes, machetes, and other sharp instruments” is in the “Muslim DNA”:

It was also interesting to ponder the nature of Ms. Muhammad's sport. Was she a swimmer, a diver, a volleyball player, or a gymnast? We could quickly reject all of those possibilities because of the skimpiness of the costumes worn in those events. Participation in any of those sports would have made her an immediate target of Muslim religious police who might have had her stoned to death for exposing too much of her body. Or they might have ordered her father or a brother to kill her in an "honor killing" for bringing shame upon her family name.

As it turns out, Ms. Muhammad's sport of choice is fencing. This is understandable because, given the penchant of Muslims for hacking, stabbing, or slashing non-Muslims with knives, axes, machetes, and other sharp instruments, it's only natural that Ms. Muhammad would gravitate toward the fencing competition. Fighting and attacking others with knives and other sharp objects appears to be in the Muslim DNA.

Hollrah also attacks Muhammad for telling a reporter that she wished “the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States” and that she hoped her appearance at the Olympics would help change “the rhetoric around the Muslim community.”

While Muhammad was born in the U.S. to parents who converted to Islam, Hollrah writes that she needs to learn how to assimilate to American society or should leave the country.

“If Ms. Muhammad is unhappy in America, or made to feel ill at ease, one wonders why she continues to live here,” Hollrah writes, adding that “Most Americans would be happy to help defray the cost of a one-way plane ticket to the destination of her choice.” He claims that “[l]ike most Muslims in the U.S., Ms. Muhammad appears to be upset that she is expected to fully assimilate into American society” and that Muslim immigrants believe “that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. federal and state law should be superseded by Sharia law.”

He then declares that both Newt Gingrich’s suggestion that the U.S. deport Muslims who believe in the wide-ranging theological concept of Sharia law and Donald Trump’s plan to stop Muslim immigration could be carried out right now by politicians with “courage”:

What critics fail to understand is that we already have sufficient statutory authority to do exactly as Trump and Gingrich suggest.

Not only is Islam completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, making it impossible for a devout Muslim to hold full allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, Islam is the only "religious" movement on Earth that proposes to extend its dominion to every corner of the globe by rape, murder, terror, and oppression. Speaker Gingrich warns, "We better rethink the rules, or we're going to lose the war." I disagree. There's no need to "rethink the rules." The necessary laws are already on the books. What we lack is the courage to enforce them.

Lance Wallnau: Trump Can Help Stop Satan From Taking Control Of The Seven Mountains

Lance Wallnau, a Seven Mountains dominionist who has been a leading Christian conservative apologist for Donald Trump, returned to Charisma magazine founder Steve Strang’s podcast yesterday, where he continued building his biblical justification for supporting Trump’s candidacy.

Asked why he thought his previous podcast with Strang, in which he had similarly made the case for Trump, was so popular, Wallnau speculated, “I think it’s because Christians, for some reason, really resonated with Donald Trump and lacked any kind of a theological justification for it.”

Wallnau explained that “a lot of people felt the anointing on Trump” but weren’t able to come up with any biblical reasons to support the candidate, but Wallnau “sensed something on Donald Trump and it just put me in a position of being open to hearing what God was doing.”

Wallnau told Strang how he thinks Trump, by being a “wrecking ball” to political correctness, could help Christian conservatives regain control of cultural institutions that are currently occupied by Satan. Seven Mountains dominionists hold that conservative Christians must battle Satan for control of the seven main institutions, or mountains, of culture: religion, family, education, government, media, arts and entertainment, and business.

Christians, he said, are faced with a “cultural landscape” of “burning cities, race challenges, the sensitivity of our bathrooms, transgender issues,” all the result of losing the culture war and handing these cultural institutions over to liberals.

“And what we never understood,” he said, “is that the power that you have when you win the culture war is that you occupy the gates of influence, and that means that academia, media, arts and government can create a whole new meaning for words, and that’s exactly what’s happened on our watch. So the power to define the meaning of things is the peculiar spoils of the culture war. And since Christians haven’t been doing very good at that, the political landscape has been just a minefield of politically correct terminology and language.”

Trump, he said, “came along and literally interrupted that whole process.”

Wallnau said that Trump would especially have to go up against “media mind control.”

“If I was talking as a Charismatic, I’d say there literally is a spirit that wants to control the minds of people and it’s operating through an ideological convergence of strongholds on the American mind through media,” he said. “Trump’s up against this, but I say he’s anointed as a wrecking ball and I’m going to be watching to see how it breaks through this.”

Wallnau said that he had only recently realized the significance of the Supreme Court in the upcoming election, saying that Supreme Court appointments could “literally reset a radical, almost socialist meltdown of America.”

“If Hillary Clinton has the power in this culture to promote radicals to the Supreme Court, that process of redefining the meaning of words I can almost guarantee is going to continue to extend itself right on down to the free speech of Christians to be able to speak biblical truth,” he said. “That’s the end game the devil’s at. So, I’m talking to Christians now, we must understand Satan wants to wrap up his institutional control of high places in government, media, arts, academia, and business is about to come under assault with Hillary Clinton. And the end game will be a redefinition, the ultimate redefining will be what America is, and it’s going to happen in her administration and it’s going to affect our children. For 40 years they’re going to have to live with it.”

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"?

Trump Campaign Absorbs 'Trump's Personal Pravda,' Moves Further To The Racist Fringe

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign announced this morning that it was shaking up its leadership in midst of terrible polling, bringing on Breitbart chairman Stephen Bannon as its CEO and pollster Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager. The choice of Bannon, whom former employee Ben Shapiro has described as a “vindictive, nasty figure” and “a smarter version of Trump,” is likely to take the Trump campaign yet another step in the direction of unabashed, racist nationalism.

GOP consultant Rick Wilson told the Washington Post: “If you were looking for a tone or pivot, Bannon will pivot you in a dark, racist and divisive direction. It’ll be a nationalist, hateful campaign. Republicans should run away."

Shapiro, who resigned as an editor at Breitbart after Bannon sided with Trump’s campaign in a dispute with then-Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, said afterward that Bannon had “shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda.” Now that Bannon is officially working for Trump’s campaign, that transition is complete.

Breitbart’s role as a propaganda arm for Trump’s campaign goes beyond boosting the candidate. The outlet also fuels the racial panic that is the subtext of much of what Trump says. Breitbart’s editor-in-chief told Bloomberg last year that the outlet focused less on specific stories than on creating long-running narratives with heroes and villains—many of them painting immigrants and people of color as the latter:

[Late Breitbart founder Andrew] Breitbart’s genius was that he grasped better than anyone else what the early 20th century press barons understood—that most readers don’t approach the news as a clinical exercise in absorbing facts, but experience it viscerally as an ongoing drama, with distinct story lines, heroes, and villains. Breitbart excelled at creating these narratives, an editorial approach that's lived on. “When we do an editorial call, I don’t even bring anything I feel like is only a one-off story, even if it’d be the best story on the site,” says Alex Marlow, the site’s editor in chief. “Our whole mindset is looking for these rolling narratives.” He rattles off the most popular ones, which Breitbart News covers intensively from a posture of aggrieved persecution. “The big ones won’t surprise you,” he says. “Immigration, ISIS, race riots, and what we call ‘the collapse of traditional values.’ But I’d say Hillary Clinton is tops.”

It could easily be a description of Trump’s campaign.

The Southern Poverty Law Center documented earlier this year Breitbart is becoming the “media arm” of the alt-right, a young “white identity” movement that sees Trump as a hero:

Breitbart recently published a lengthy defense of the Alt-Right, claiming the white nationalists such asRichard Spencer and Jared Taylor who created the ideology “have been accused of racism,” choosing to ignore the well-documented openly-racist views.

But Breitbart’s open defense of the Alt-Right didn’t appear out of thin air.

Over the past year the media outlet has been openly promoting the core issues of the Alt-Right, introducing these racist ideas to its readership – much to the delight of many in the white nationalist world who could never dream of reaching such a vast number of people.

Breitbart has always given a platform to parts of the radical right, most notably elements of the organized anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant movements. Breitbart has also organized conferences featuring nativist speakers and published op-eds and interviews with movement leaders. But since 2015, Breitbart began publishing more overtly racist diatribes about Muslims and immigrants.

One of the co-authors of Breitbart’s defense of the alt-right was Milo Yiannopoulous, who was on hand at the Republican National Convention this summer to boost Trump.

SPLC noted that Breitbart also traffics in panic about “black-on-white crime,” something that Trump has also dabbled in:

Another popular racist conspiracy theory that Breitbart has propagated is the trope that African-Americans are committing crimes against whites at alarming rates.

Following the August 2015 murder of a white journalist and a cameraman live on air by a disgruntled African-American former co-worker, Breitbart published the race-baiting headline, “Race Murder in Virginia: Black Reporter Suspected of Executing White Colleagues – On Live Television!” The headline is remarkably similar to ones seen on the website of the white nationalist group Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), which is dedicated to spreading the falsehood to the public about the “epidemic” of black on white crime.

Shapiro writes that since Bannon has jumped on board the Trump train, “Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers.”

It’s a perfect match.

Kris Kobach Wants His Disastrous Voting Restrictions Adopted In Every State

Breitbart’s Ken Klukowski has a dispatch from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s latest effort to spread his innovative voter suppression policies around the country. Over the weekend, Kobach spoke at an American Civil Rights Union event at the Republican National Lawyers Association convention in Colorado, where he urged his fellow election officials and lawyers to adopt legislation modeled after a law he helped push through in Kansas.

Kansas’ voter ID law is one of the harshest in the country, requiring that those registering to vote produce “proof of citizenship” such as a passport, birth certificate or naturalization papers. Since the law went into effect in 2013, it has been caught up in legal battles as it wreaks havoc with the state’s elections.

In May, a federal judge ruled that Kansas couldn’t require people registering using a federal form to produce the burdensome extra documentation. In response, Kobach tried to set up a two-tier voting system in which people who registered using the federal form could only vote in federal elections and would be barred from casting ballots in state and local races. Then, in a last-minute decision, another federal judge ruled that Kobach couldn’t throw out the primary votes of more than 17,000 people who hadn’t produced the extra documentation, including many who had registered using the federal form.

As Klukowski reports, this is precisely the model that Kobach hopes will be adopted in every single state:

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) held a national election law seminar in Denver on Friday and Saturday, and the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) convened an invitation-only event alongside RNLA’s seminar, featuring several secretaries of state, chief election officers, Republican former and current federal elections officials, and constitutional lawyers, to explore strategies to protect against voter fraud. Kobach spoke at both events.

During the ACRU event, Kobach touted his SAFE Act, which was designed to require proof of U.S. citizenship and proof of identity in a manner fulfilling the requirements the U.S. Supreme Court has held are consistent with the Constitution. It is model legislation for states to adopt as part of their election laws, rather than a federal law, since the Constitution entrusts the sovereign states with primary responsibility for holding elections.

Speaking exclusively with Breitbart News in Denver at the ACRU event, Kobach said, “Every time an alien votes, it cancels out the vote of a United States citizen. This is a nationwide problem.”

“Every state needs to address it and take steps to secure the most fundamental privilege of citizenship—the vote,” he added.

Kobach, who also specializes in draconian anti-immigrant legislation, acts like something of a one-man American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the group that helps spread conservative and corporate-friendly laws to state legislatures. In fact, Kobach responded on his weekly radio program last month to a critic who called him an “ALEC pawn,” saying that he is the one who is trying to get ALEC to spread voter restrictions across the country.

“I’ve been trying to get the American Legislative Exchange Council interested in photo ID and proof of citizenship,” he said. “They never called me and said, ‘Hey, Kobach, would you do this?’ I’ve been trying to get them off their backside and get them encouraging other states to do it.”

Frank Gaffney & Sandy Rios Long For The Days Of HUAC

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios invited Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney on to her radio show this morning to discuss Donald Trump’s recent speech on foreign policy, which Gaffney called “Reaganesque,” and the recent hack of organizations related to philanthropist George Soros.

Discussing work that Soros’ Open Society Foundations has done in combatting Islamophobia, Rios lamented that America no longer has anything like the communist-hunting House Un-American Activities Committee that could root out people just like Soros.

“When I think of this,” she said, “I remember the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and how it was their job to sort of ferret out subversive groups, subversive people in the country who were trying to undermine American interests. And I have often thought that if we had such a thing now, George Soros would be front and center in this.”

“Oh, big time,” Gaffney agreed. “But, you know, the hard left did such an amazing job of vilifying the people that ferreted out the domestic components of that last existential threat to freedom, that of Soviet communism, Sandy, that the idea of having a House committee like that is now considered to be just completely out of the question."

“But you’re right,” he continued, “and interestingly enough, one of the things that Donald Trump did speak about yesterday, which I think is incredibly important, is he talked about the necessity of going after the support networks that have been established inside this country to promote radicalization. And that of course is the Muslim Brotherhood and the infrastructure it’s built here. We’ve seen it at work in Europe, the danger that it represents to freedom there, it is on the march here as well, and we do need congressional oversight.”

Gaffney praised a hearing that Sen. Ted Cruz, for whose presidential campaign Gaffney served as an adviser, held in June at which one witness claimed that the two Muslim members of Congress have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. He added that he hoped Trump’s candidacy could lead to more of the same.

“I’m hoping Donald Trump has really energized and made possible the sort of debate about whether we can afford to continue to do what we’ve been doing and, really, I think the extreme peril of the American people and our Constitution and the freedoms that they take for granted too often,” he said.

Syndicate content