C4

Tancredo: Obama Possibly A Muslim, ‘Hates The America You And I Love’

During anti-immigrant hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform’s “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” radio row last month, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., claimed that President Obama “hates the America you and I love” and is bent on transforming American culture via the mass immigration of non-assimilating Muslims.

“What does this man care about the Constitution or the Supreme Court?” Tancredo asked the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney on his June 23 “Secure Freedom Radio” program.

“When we recognize that one of the very first things [Obama] ever really promised during a campaign, during his first campaign, was something no one really paid attention to until recently, and that is that he said, ‘I have every intent to thoroughly transform the United States of America,’” Tancredo said. “Well, if you understand that and if you understand he’s still totally committed to that, and that everything he does is designed to do that, then you can understand why he presses the issue of immigration so much, because especially immigration from Muslim countries, especially Islamic immigration, will help him in that endeavor. It does eventually thoroughly change and transform America. It reaches his goal. He hates the America you and I love.”

“Many of us have always raised the issue when we talk about immigration, we raise the issues of the impact on low-skilled labor, the lack of jobs, the cost of the education system, the cost of the medical system in America,” Tancredo said. “All these things are true, but they pale in comparison by the danger posed by massive immigration, both legal and illegal, of people who don’t want to be American.”

He continued, “Our own government is saying, ‘Don’t assimilate. There’s nothing here of value, there’s no reason for you to attach yourself to that old America. You wanna be separate and apart and we’ll help you do that. It is to change the culture in that way and for all times, in their estimation, in their hope, and I fear so often that they are ahead of us here.”

In an interview with Baltimore radio host Tom Marr at the FAIR event the same day, Tancredo wondered if Obama wants to transform America because he’s secretly Muslim.

“I often wonder what he actually was thinking, what went through his mind, each time he had to put his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, and say he was going to, you know, he swore to uphold the Constitution. What was going through his mind at the time?” Tancredo asked. Both Marr and Tancredo suggested that Obama wanted to have his other hand on the Quran.

“There’s always the, you know, is he really a Muslim? And for them, it is perfectly acceptable to lie about this kind of thing in order to accomplish the goal,” Tancredo said. Tancredo also claimed the best way to transform America for years to come, as he said Obama does, is to bring in millions of immigrants who don’t assimilate and intend to change America.

Larry Klayman: 'Revolution' Needed After Clinton Email Announcement

Larry Klayman, the founder of the Clinton-hounding conservative group Judicial Watch, has spent the last several years calling foramassuprising ora coup to depose President Obama and prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the presidential election. Unsurprisingly, Klayman returned to this theme yesterday in response to FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that his agency would not recommend that prosecutors press charges against Hillary Clinton for misuse of email at the State Department.

“This thing has been rigged from the start, Donald Trump is absolutely right, I said it long before Donald Trump,” Klayman told Newsmax’s J.D. Hayworth. “Our legal system is corrupt to the core and I think, you know, we just celebrated our Independence Day. We’re back to 1776. I advocate civil disobedience a la Martin Luther King. It’s going to take another revolution to bring this country back.”

“What I’m saying is that if we want justice, we the American people are going to have to rise up,” he said. “It’s only one day after July 4 and our forefathers rose up against King George III. Frankly, he was a better ruler than either Hillary Clinton would be or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or, for that matter, some of the Republicans. And we’re going to have to take our country back and it’s going to have to be done in a peaceful way with civil disobedience. We can no longer rely on the courts.”

He added that his nonviolent, 1776-style revolution would require “extreme, nonviolent measures.”

“I don’t advocate violence, I never have,” he said, “but it worked for Martin Luther King, it worked for Lech Walesa in Poland, it worked for Mahatma Gandhi in India, and in South Africa.”

More Evidence That David Barton Isn't Going To Stop Saying Something Just Because It Is False

It should be obvious by now to anyone familiar with David Barton and his particular brand of right-wing pseudo-history that he is not going to stop repeating claims just because those claims happen to be demonstrably false. 

The latest incident occurred when he appeared on "Table Talk" on Daystar TV last week where he, for the third time, falsely claimed that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion in which he stated that "we all know that all the provisions in the Bill of Rights, the due process clauses, came out of the Bible."

As we have noted the last two times that we found Barton making this assertion, his claim is utterly and demonstrably false. What Breyer actually said in his 1999 concurrence in Lilly v. Virginia was that the right to face one's accuser is mentioned in the Bible, as well as several other places (emphasis added):

The Court’s effort to tie the Clause so directly to the hearsay rule is of fairly recent vintage, compare Roberts, supra, with California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155—156 (1970), while the Confrontation Clause itself has ancient origins that predate the hearsay rule, see Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548 (1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions”). The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16; W. Shakespeare, Richard II, act i, sc. 1; W. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, act ii, sc. 1; 30 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure §6342, p. 227 (1997) (quoting statutes enacted under King Edward VI in 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I in 1558); cf. Case of Thomas Tong, Kelyng J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (out-of-court confession may be used against the confessor, but not against his co-conspirators); M. Hale, History of the Common Law of England 163—164 (C. Gray ed. 1971); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *373. As traditionally understood, the right was designed to prevent, for example, the kind of abuse that permitted the Crown to convict Sir Walter Raleigh of treason on the basis of the out-of-court confession of Lord Cobham, a co-conspirator. See 30 Wright & Graham, supra, §6342, at 258—269.

Barton's claim is easily debunked, but he knows that his right-wing audience will never bother to actually attempt to verify anything that he says, which allows him to continue to spread these sorts of falsehoods with impunity:

Right-Wing Activists Immediately Start Spreading Conspiracy Theories About Why Hillary Clinton Won't Be Indicted

For years now, American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer has insisted that President Obama does not want Hillary Clinton to succeed him as president and has repeatedly predicted that Obama would order the Justice Department to indict her over her mishandling of email while serving as secretary of state. 

Today, FBI Director James Comey recommended that the Justice Department not indict Clinton over the issue, so naturally Fischer went to work spinning a conspiracy theory on his radio program today, despite the fact that the theory he came up with directly contradicts his previous predictions.

As Fischer sees it, Comey has a reputation as a straight shooter who does things by the book and so he must have been "leaned on" by someone higher up - either by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or by President Obama - in coming to his decision not to recommend an indictment.

Given that Fischer has repeatedly stated that Obama does not want Clinton to become president, it is impossible to understand why he would now be claiming that it was Obama who quashed the indictment. But, for some reason, that is what Fischer is now suggesting, saying that Comey hosted his press conference today because "he wants the American people to know that she is guilty as sin" but that he was pressured into letting her off.

The AFA's Abe Hamilton, who was Fischer's guest on the program today, completely agreed and said that Comey's decision was "strikingly similar" to Chief Justice John Roberts' decision upholding Obamacare in 2015, which some right-wing activists are convinced he handed down only because he was being blackmailed by the Obama administration.

"Somebody is leaning on James Comey," Hamilton said.

Fischer and Hamilton are not the only ones floating this conspiracy theory without a stitch of evidence, as Rick Joyner took to Facebook today to suggest the same thing:

The FBI Director's judgement that Clinton should not be prosecuted was expected by many because everything has been so politicized that almost no one expects justice anymore. There was a misplaced hope in Director Comey like there was in Chief Justice John Roberts in regard to the Obamacare decision. These two incomprehensible decisions felt connected in some ways. No one could make sense out of Chief Justice Robert's decision to say Obamacare was constitutional because it was a tax, which even the Obama Administration refuted. It is likewise hard to figure out why someone as smart as FBI Director Comey would so blatantly contradict himself in the same press conference, and make the call that he did.

Many speculated that the only way Roberts made such a confused decision on Obamacare was that someone threatened him. This seemed feasible with all of the revelations that was then coming out about the info the NSA had been compiling on all Americans. Nothing else seemed to make sense. That is hard to imagine with the Director of the FBI, but in a similar way his decision just did not make sense, especially after his own statement about negligence in this case being a crime too, even if not intentional. How could anyone dispute that there was not at best gross negligence in the careless way Hillary handled classified information? Both of these decisions felt really foul, and somehow they are connected. I don't like conspiracy theories that can't be proven, but something really seemed awry in both of these.

Michele Bachmann: Obama And Hillary Have Switched Sides And Support Islamic Terrorism

Last week, former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., accused the U.S. government of “switching sides” in the war on terrorism as a result of the policies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton, saying that the two have been “assisting in jihad” by making sure that “our government was giving arms, giving ammunition and giving training to those who are a part of the Islamic jihad.”

“We used to be about fighting Islamic terrorism and what I saw happen in our government is that it seemed like we were switching modes to almost assisting them,” she said in an interview Friday with Southern Baptist Convention president Ronnie Floyd, who was guest-hosting the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” radio program.

Bachmann, a member of Donald Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board, urged listeners to support Trump — “this is an easy choice to make” — because Obama and Clinton are bringing members of the Muslim Brotherhood into the U.S. government and ignoring terrorist threats.

The former congresswoman and notorious conspiracy theorist said that Clinton has been pushing the agenda of Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, falsely claiming that she supports international blasphemy codes.

Obama and Clinton, according to Bachmann, are “favoring Islamic law, even here in the United States,” while persecuting American Christians.

She went on to depict Clinton as “a global elitist” who “favors one-world government” and “has been involved in bringing members of the Muslim Brotherhood here into the United States.”

Kelly Shackelford: Trump Would Pick A More Conservative Supreme Court Than Mitt Romney

Kelly Shackelford, president of the Religious Right legal group First Liberty (formerly Liberty Institute), was among the conservative religious leaders who met with Donald Trump in New York last month and, like many others, seems to have resigned himself to supporting Trump’s presidential candidacy on the assumption that Trump would hand over the process of picking Supreme Court justices to movement conservatives.

Shackelford said as much in an interview with Jerry Newcombe last week, explaining that while he wasn’t endorsing Trump, it’s “very conceivable” that, if elected, Trump would pick a more conservative Supreme Court than even Mitt Romney would have because he’s “going to sort of pass this off” to conservative groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

Trump mentioned both groups in response to a question from Shackelford at the New York event, also promising that his judicial nominees would be “100 percent” against abortion rights.

“Look, I haven’t endorsed anybody for president, I’m not telling people who to vote for, but I do think people need to think through some of these things,” Shackelford told Newcombe. “I’m not saying this would happen, but it’s very conceivable that Donald Trump, who is certainly not considered a right-wing conservative, it’s very, very possible that a Donald Trump as president would appoint a more conservative Supreme Court than, for instance, Mitt Romney would ever think about. Because Mitt Romney would appoint people more moderate like himself, you know, moderate conservative. Donald Trump is going to sort of pass this off to like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which are very conservative.”

“So it’s one of those things where sometimes you can look at the candidate and go, ‘Well, he’s not as conservative as I am,’” he said, “but really what you’re asking is what are they going to do as president, what their positions are going to be. And it could be that if your issue is the courts, you know, Trump could be very different than you would normally assume because he’s delegating this away from himself and the results might be more appetizing to people who are very conservative.”

Rick Joyner: Conservatives Refusing To Support Trump Is A Sign America Has Been Cursed With Madness

On a recent episode of his "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events" program, Rick Joyner said the fact that many conservatives are refusing to support Donald Trump even after he pledged to fill the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues is a sign that America has been cursed by madness.

Joyner said that he has not heard a single word of complaint about any of the people included on Trump's list of potential Supreme Court appointments because "for conservatives, this is the best list you could ever come up with."

Nonetheless, some conservatives have said that they would support Hillary Clinton over Trump, which Joyner said is "madness."

"This is madness," he said. "There is a madness in the land, but that's a curse that is promised to come upon any nation that starts calling good evil and evil good."

Gary Bauer: Trump Administration Will Give 'Key Positions' To Religious Right

Longtime Religious Right activist Gary Bauer was among the 1,000 movement leaders who met with Donald Trump in New York last month as the GOP presidential candidate tried to cement their support, and it seems like Trump got Bauer on his side. In an interview last week with Ave Maria Radio host Al Kresta, who was also at the meeting, Bauer said that “values voters” have no “real choice” when it comes to Trump or Hillary Clinton, adding that he was confident that Trump would staff his administration with “people that have our values.”

“In some ways, he’s the most ignorant presidential candidate I’ve seen,” Kresta said, “and I don’t want to retract that. At the same time, he does show, he seems to show a willingness to learn. So on the Supreme Court issue, he consults with the Federalist Society, you know. You could do a whole lot worse.”

“I don’t think at this point there’s any choice,” Bauer responded. “It’s Trump versus Hillary Clinton. And while we may have questions about what Trump will do, I know what Hillary Clinton’s going to do. She’s not going to reverse a lifetime of being pro-abortion, aggressively pro-abortion, pushing the gay rights movement, being very insensitive on matters of religious liberty. So I just don’t think there’s any real choice here for values voters other than to support Mr. Trump.”

“But in addition to that reason, you know, the people they’ll put in their administration I think is a huge factor,” he added, “and Donald Trump, if he wins, is not going to be able to come up with 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 people that are clueless about the issues, he wouldn’t want that to be the case, it’s going to be people like you and me and people that have our values and end up having the key positions in the federal government.”

Mat Staver: America Will Face a 'Day Of Reckoning' Over Legal Abortion

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver ripped the Supreme Court for striking down a Texas law aimed at limiting access to legal abortion under the guise of protecting the health of women, declaring that America will soon face a "day of reckoning" from God over the sin of abortion.

Citing a passage from Jeremiah condemning kings who build their palaces through the injustice of slave labor, Staver said that abortion has done much the same in America, with the Supreme Court "mixing this injustice into the mortar" of this nation.

"There will be a time of reckoning," Staver said. "I think what this Supreme Court has done in 1973 [and] 1992, when they reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, and throughout the history and obviously with this decision is they have built this country with a policy of mixing the blood of children into the mortar of this country. And there will be a day of reckoning; God will not continue to allow his children to be slaughtered by any nation. It will come a time when this nation, or any nation, that ultimately takes the lives of their innocent children that will have a day of reckoning and I think we, as a church, have to wake up to this fact."

Staver went on the urge lawmakers in Texas to defy the ruling and "stop pretending that these people on the Supreme Court can divine anything they want to and then pass it off as though it is constitutional when it has nothing to do with the Constitution at all."

Steve King: Democratic 'Gun-Grabbing' Would Lead To 'A Tremendous Amount of Bloodshed'

Last month during anti-immigrant hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform’s “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” radio row, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, claimed that Democrats want to “grab guns,” which he said would lead to “a tremendous amount of bloodshed” in the U.S.

Speaking with radio host Lars Larson on June 23, King speculated that the FBI dropped an investigation of Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen due to “political correctness in not going after someone that was Muslim” and faulted Democrats for calling attention to gun laws in the wake of the attack.

“This is a gun-grabbing agenda that’s there, and it came right out of the mouth of the president within hours of the shooting in Orlando when he gave his presidential address that spoke to that, and right away he blamed it on guns rather than radical Islamic terrorism,” King said.

He continued, “[Obama’s] got his minions out there blurring this and turning it onto guns.”

King criticized Democrats for “their clamor to grab guns," saying it was not “the gun’s fault.”

“This man was Omar Mateen, was three times, at least three times, was interviewed and questioned by the FBI,” King said. “They decided they would close his file and put it away because they didn’t have enough to work with. I think they might have been influenced by political correctness in not going after someone that was Muslim. But they put the file away, he had met his security background check by the security company that he worked for.

“He could’ve gotten a gun anywhere in this country, anytime he wanted to, and no law that they proposed as Democrats would’ve prevented the shooting in Orlando, unless you take all of our guns away, and that means stop selling them and go confiscate the ones we have, which means a tremendous amount of bloodshed if you try that in this country.”

Leading Anti-Immigration Activist: Trump Won't Actually Build A Wall

During the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s (FAIR) annual “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” radio row last Thursday, FAIR president Dan Stein told radio host Matt Tompkins that Donald Trump’s call to build a southern border wall is nothing more than campaign language and “a surrogate” for Trump’s real plans, explaining that Trump will not actually build a wall because there already is a wall in some areas and in other areas there is little need for one.

“The wall is a surrogate for getting the border under control,” Stein said. “There have been physical structures in place down there since the 1980s. You need physical structures at certain high entry points to channel traffic. Ranchers who are out there in the middle of nowhere, they don’t see why you would need a border wall.”

Stein continued, “Really, these issues are, the simple issues on the campaign, are surrogates.”

“The wall is a surrogate for border control operations,” Stein said. “What [Trump’s] saying is he’s gonna get the job done. People who believe he’s actually gonna put a brick on every centimeter of 2,000 miles are in a sense mistaking his intention. The language he’s using is what you use in a political campaign, and if you take Hillary Clinton at her word, then she wants to embrace a limitless immigration platform.”

When asked about Trump’s promises of mass deportations, Stein responded that under a Trump presidency, “some people will get to stay, I’m sure.”

“In the context of the real world we’re dealing with now, we either have a political leader who articulates firm messages that say respect for law is the cornerstone of citizenship, or we have politicians who try to game immigration for partisan advantage,” Stein said.

Trump Supporter Wants Muslim 'Hibi-Jabis' Fired From TSA

At a campaign rally in New Hampshire today, Donald Trump fielded a question from a supporter who asked him if he would support putting veterans in jobs in border security or in TSA, adding that she is tired of seeing Muslims wearing “hibi-jabis” working in airport security.

“Get rid of all these hibi-jabis they wear at TSA,” she said. “I’ve seen them myself.”

Trump gave a characteristically vague response — “I understand, and, you know, we are looking at that, we’re looking at a lot of things” — before boasting of his support from Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the anti-immigrant Arizona official who once bragged about running his own concentration camp, and the National Border Patrol Council, a group with deep ties to the Nativist movement.

Last year in New Hampshire, Trump, who has put anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies at the center of his presidential campaign, similarly refused to challenge a questioner who asked him if the U.S. could “get rid of” Muslims.

David Barton: Christians Must Accept That Trump Is 'God's Guy' In This Election

On his "WallBuilders Live" radio program today, David Barton fielded a question from a listener who will be serving as a delegate to the Republican convention but feels that he cannot support the nomination of Donald Trump. The listener asked Barton if there is anything that delegates can do to stop the nomination of Trump, to which Barton replied that Christians should simply accept that Trump is "God's guy" in this election.

Barton, who has already made clear that he will be voting for Trump despite the fact that he ran a super PAC supporting Ted Cruz, explained that since Christians were very active in the Republican primaries, they must conclude that Trump's victory was part of God's plans.

"One thing I know for sure is that in the race of primaries, we had a lot really good God guys in there," Barton said. "And we had a huge turnout of professing Christians and evangelicals and others, so there is nothing to complain about that we didn't get a voice, we didn't get a candidate. We had great candidates to choose from and this is who the people chose, and this is who the people chose with a really high turnout of evangelicals. So I kind of look back and say, 'Hmmm, I wonder where God's fingerprint is in this?' because this is not necessarily a failure of the church."

"This may not be our preferred candidate, but that doesn't mean it may not be God's candidate to do something that we don't see," he said. "We may look back in a few years and say, 'Wow, he really did some things that none of us expected.' So I am fully open to the possibility that because we did everything as Christians that we could, we can't complain about our turnout, we can't complain about our quality of candidates, and this is what the people chose; I'm a whole lot more open to the fact that God may have something going here that is much bigger than what we think or see."

GOP Rep: Apologizing For Anti-Muslim Comment Like Apologizing To Germany After World War II

The Alabama chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked Republican Rep. Mo Brooks to apologize last week after he said on a radio program that “the Muslim community … if it had its way, would kill every homosexual in the United States of America.” Brooks has refused to apologize, a decision which he explained on “The Dale Jackson Show” on Thursday by comparing apologizing to American Muslims for his comments to apologizing to the German or Japanese governments for stating their crimes after World War II. Islam, he said, promotes "death for a lot of people.”

Here’s a couple of analogies that I think are appropriate. Imagine the liberating American and allied troops as they go into Germany and they discover the concentration camps and the extermination of the Jews, the Poles and other entities that Germany was responsible for and the allied commander says, ‘Germany did this.’ Now imagine the outrage that would have occurred if Germany had demanded an apology from the allied troops that liberated those people that were still alive in the concentration camps. Or Japan in World War II, where Japan was brutally treating American POWs, where Japan was responsible for the murders of over 200,000 civilians in Nanjing, and someone stating the fact that Japan, Japanese troops, had done those horrific acts to American POWs or to civilians in Nanjing and then the Japanese government demanding an apology.

This is crazy. You’ve got Islam promoting death for a lot of different people, including people like you and me, unbelievers, specifically including homosexuals and then stating the fact that that’s what Islam promotes, people are demanding an apology for the truth and it’s not going to happen.

The Anti-Abortion 'Seneca Falls'

Last weekend, about 500 anti-abortion activists — nearly all of whom were women — gathered in Dallas for what was billed as the first-ever “Pro-Life Women’s Conference.”

The event’s organizer, Abby Johnson, said that she wanted to “reclaim the narrative” of the movement, putting women at its front and including “many different groups of people,” including nonbelievers and LGBT people. She repeatedly said that the movement needs to “embrace the f-word”: feminism.

“This is our Seneca Falls, baby!” she said.

Johnson recalled speaking at a recent March For Life alongside a long line of men. “We know that the pro-life movement is led and has been led by women,” she said. “But for many years, women have sort of been leading from behind. And we haven’t done a very good job with our optics, right? So there’s photos and in the photos, it’s dudes.”

The conference came immediately before the Supreme Court rejected Texas’ attempt to limit abortion rights by regulating clinics out of existence, an effort that had been dubiously promoted as an effort to protect women’s health. The mainstream anti-abortion movement in recent years has been trying to claim that their main focus is on “protecting” women and to portray abortion as an unsafe and damaging procedure promoted by nefarious, profit-hungry organizations.

But Johnson’s conference aimed for something more: crafting a narrative that presented opposition to abortion rights as an explicitly feminist movement, one that could attract more than what she called “the traditional Christian pro-lifer.”

While Johnson said she wanted to create a unified “pro-life” message, the conflicts within the movement — and the challenge of expanding its reach — were evident even that weekend in Dallas.

Finding Common Ground With Pro-Choicers?

Several speakers at the conference — all of the speakers were women — urged the anti-abortion movement to take on issues with which they might find common ground with pro-choice feminists , including family leave policies, poverty alleviation and access to child care.

Serrin Foster, the head of Feminists for Life, said, “There are three key reasons for the feminization of poverty: Lack of education, lack of workplace accommodation and paternal support. Do that, three-fourths of the reasons that women have an abortion are over.”

She accused the abortion rights movement of giving up on these issues, saying that “by accepting pregnancy discrimination in the school and in the workplace, by accepting … the lack of support for pregnant women and parents, especially the poor, [Sarah] Weddington [the attorney who argued Roe v. Wade] and the Supreme Court betrayed women and the greatest experiment on women and children began: abortion.”

Similarly, Leah Jacobson, the president of the Guiding Star network of anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers, talked about the need “to look at how women’s bodies function and make sure that our employers take this into account,” including by pushing for maternity and paternity leave laws, flexible work schedules for parents, and subsidized or on-site workplace child care.

Jacobson coupled this call with a heavy dose of maternalism, alluding to the transgender bathroom debate and saying that women must live out their “motherly calling”: “Men are wonderful but women are the heart of society. We love, we connect, we empathize, we are relational. Men are very good at seeing the large picture sometimes but they don’t see the littlest of all. We need to humanize the culture as women. And so it’s so important as women we live our motherly calling even if it’s not as a physical mother.”

While issues such as expanding family leave requirements and access to child care could be an area of consensus for self-identified pro-life and pro-choice feminists — whatever their reasons for supporting them — there seemed to be little enthusiasm at the conference for working with pro-choicers on these causes.

When Johnson asked who “the abortion movement” was united behind, an audience member yelled out, “the devil!” (The answer was Planned Parenthood.)

Similarly, when Johnson read a polite form letter that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had sent in response to a request to speak at the conference — Johnson had invited all three remaining presidential candidates, but Clinton was the only one to respond — it was met with howls of laughter and derision.

While Clinton has the clearly better record on policies supporting mothers — policies that speakers like Foster and Jacobson said help dissuade women from choosing abortion — the only positive references to presidential candidates at the event were allusions to Donald Trump’s promises to pick Supreme Court justices who would roll back Roe v. Wade. Anti-choice leaders as a whole have rallied behind Trump, who besides vowing to “cherish” women and appoint anti-choice judges, has not offered any serious plans for improving the lot of women in the workforce or helping women out of poverty.

The “pro-woman” talking points, ultimately, were largely meant to further one principal policy goal: recriminalizing abortion.

Many speakers hailed the slew of abortion restrictions that have been passed in the states in recent years, while noting that they don’t go far enough.

Karen Garnett, the director of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee of Dallas, moderated a panel on anti-abortion politics, telling the audience, “We cannot get pro-life laws passed unless we have pro-life legislators sitting in the state houses to pass those laws and in Washington, D.C. And it’s been good that we’ve been able to get that much done. But have we ended abortion yet? No. Have we fulfilled our call yet — no — to end this? It matters — look at this, where we are, where we sit together today with this Supreme Court decision coming down tomorrow — it matters who is sitting in the Oval Office in terms of the appointments of the Supreme Court justices.”

Star Parker, a frequent speaker at Religious Right events, kept her standard pitch to conservative audiences, blaming government “safety nets” for people getting “lost” and implying that churches rather than the government should be in charge of poverty alleviation: “Maybe God was right that you’re supposed to take care of the poor, not throw them off to some government bureaucrat.”

Ending Roe, Eliminating Planned Parenthood

While some speakers made nods to policies such as paid family leave and efforts to support pregnant women on college campuses, the real political enthusiasm at the event was behind shutting down abortion clinics, defunding Planned Parenthood and eventually eliminating Roe v. Wade.

“Roe v. Wade started here in Dallas, Texas,” Johnson said, “and I believe we can end it here.”

Marilyn Musgrave, a former Republican congresswoman who is now the vice president of governmental affairs at the Susan B. Anthony List, gave a speech in which she praised the House committee investigating Planned Parenthood for “kicking down the gates of hell.” She commended Texas’ restrictive legislation that was before the Supreme Court, saying that it was “going to save thousands of lives” and praying “that those abortion clinics will close down that do not meet those standards.”

During the politics panel, Texas activist Carolyn Cline held up a brick that she said was “the last brick in the lot” of an abortion clinic that had been closed by the Texas law, another acknowledgment that the law’s goal was to close clinics rather than improve safety. The law, said the Family Research Council’s Arina Grossu, was another sign that the anti-abortion movement “is winning.”

Throughout the event, Planned Parenthood was portrayed as a remorseless villain. Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee who now runs a group that tries to get abortion clinic employees to quit their jobs, showed a video she had recently found from her time at the group guiding counsellors on how to speak to women who are considering abortion, which she said showed “coercion” on the part of the group.

Parker went so far as to pin America’s economic troubles on Planned Parenthood’s continued existence: “Is it any wonder things are so dark in our country? Is it any wonder our economy is still sputtering? I don’t think that God is ready to bless America right now.”

Erin Brownback, a communications consultant who has worked with a number of prominent anti-choice politicians, had a similar warning about legal abortion in the U.S., saying, “Societies throughout history that allow a culture of death are destroyed. That is historically true, you can look back at the gladiators and different groups that have not protected life and those cultures have all died.”

While the criticism of Planned Parenthood centered on its role as a legal abortion provider, there was an undercurrent at the conference about resistance to hormonal contraception, including a workshop on Natural Family Planning. American Life League, a Catholic anti-abortion group, distributed a pamphlet arguing that the birth control pill “may cause an abortion.”

One interesting trend among the women anti-abortion activists was a willingness to talk forthrightly about their opposition to rape exceptions in abortion laws, something that Musgrave’s group has trained male politicians to avoid addressing. (This was in part thanks to the prodding of Rebecca Kiessling, a “conceived in rape” activist who asked as many speakers as she could about exceptions.) Some speakers approached the subject by portraying abortion in such cases not as violence against the “unborn” but as additional violence against the woman.

Musgrave, in response to a question by Kiessling, boasted of her group’s efforts to unseat Rep. Renee Ellmers, an anti-abortion Republican who derailed a vote on a 20-week abortion ban because she was worried that its rape exception was too restrictive. SBA List opposed Ellmers, she said, “because you know what, if we had let that action go unchallenged, we would have dumbed down ‘pro-life’ to where it didn’t mean anything.”

LGBT And Secular Outreach

Johnson made a deliberate effort to expand the reach of her conference beyond what she called “the traditional Christian pro-lifer.”

The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL) set up a table. One piece of literature the group distributed explained that the line of Supreme Court cases establishing a “right to privacy” that encompasses both reproductive rights and the rights of gays and lesbians is irrelevant because LGBT rights would have succeeded anyway without the courts. “Abortion rights will fail because, unlike gay rights, they are not the result of a democratic process but rather a brand new ‘constitutional right’ created by a court impatient with democratic changes,” it said, seemingly dismissing the importance of major court victories that furthered LGBT equality. The group shared its table with the Pro-Life Humanists, who distribute anti-abortion literature at atheist events.

Kelsey Hazzard, the head of Secular Pro-Life, gave a workshop on “reaching non-Christian, LGBT, and other minority audiences with the pro-life message.” Aimee Murphy, the director of Life Matters Journal, gave a workshop faulting both political parties for what she said was an inconsistent ethic of human rights when it comes to abortion, capital punishment, torture and war, echoing the message of some early liberal Catholic anti-abortion activists. Kristen Day, the head of Democrats for Life, spoke and sponsored a booth.

A panel of mostly young women discussing activism strategies lamented that the anti-abortion movement had alienated LGBT people and others. Kristen Hatten, the vice president of the group New Wave Feminists, said that her gay friends “don’t really feel welcome in the movement. I would love to see that change, and not just for homosexual people, but transgender people and just everybody, everybody of all colors and creeds.”

Yet some of that alienation could be seen at the conference itself. Parker railed against the “war on marriage” and the “elimination of all gender binary.” She lamented that a “war on religion” had removed “any reference to God” from schools and that Americans were sending their kids “to these cesspools we call schools and they learn secular humanism.” She urged young, anti-abortion women to become lawyers “so they can make you a judge and you can get on these courts” and reject laws that are “unlawful in God’s eyes.”

The Family Research Council, one of the most stridently anti-LGBT advocacy groups in the country, sponsored a booth.

In some cases, the embrace of LGBT and secular allies didn’t seem all that sincere. Brownback, the conservative messaging consultant, said at a breakout session how delighted she had been to talk to the representatives of LGBT and secular groups at the conference. Just weeks before, Brownback had written on Twitter that while she loves her gay friends she thinks “they are hurting themselves and society” and opined that it’s “sad to see a feminized man.”

While the event seemed to be mostly comprised of Christians, and was heavily sprinkled with references to the Bible, Johnson seemed to catch on at the end as she noted before a closing prayer that not everyone in the room would choose to participate.

Despite the presence of Democrats for Life and other nontraditional allies, there was not much suggestion of moving beyond the movement’s current alliance with fiscally conservative Republicans who resist expanding the social safety net but are on board with punitive abortion restrictions. Many speakers steered away from explicitly political topics, speaking instead about building a “culture of life” in which women choose not to terminate pregnancies. But politically, there was little question that this self-proclaimed “feminist” movement would continue to ally itself with the party of Donald Trump.

Victims And Heroes

Brownback, a former Alliance Defending Freedom employee who said that she had worked with congressional Republicans on messaging around their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and with the Texas attorney general, who brought the recent Supreme Court case, gave a crowded workshop on “Successful Pro-Life Messaging.”

She gave tips for how to connect with people on all sides of the issue. She recommended warming to pro-choicers by telling them “I hear you,” “that must be really hard” and, creatively, “you’re so pretty.” With people in the middle concerned with cases like rape and saving a woman’s life, she recommended not engaging on those issues but instead telling them that if they’re anti-abortion in 99 percent of cases, they’re anti-abortion.

Critically, she urged anti-abortion advocates to tell stories that “create the perception of a victim, a villain and a hero.”

In those stories, she said, the woman obtaining an abortion is the victim and the provider is the villain (with supporting villain roles sometimes played by overbearing boyfriends pressuring women to get abortions). “Anyone coercing women into having an abortion is in the role of the villain,” she said. “And keep in mind that a lot of times the people coercing women into having abortions are the ones who stand to financially profit from it. So that’s why we’ve talked about Planned Parenthood and we’ve talked about abortion businesses, because they are trained to sell abortions.”

“And who is the hero?” she asked. “You are the hero, your supporters are the heroes. You’re saying, here’s a victim that you have saved from this or someone that you could have saved. You are the hero, you are in that position.”

She said that she tries to bolster this image of anti-abortion heroes by taking “pictures of very attractive, beautiful, youthful people” at events and posting “a ton of them” on social media.

Brownback’s template story of the woman as a victim and the abortion provider as a villain looms large in the messaging of the anti-abortion movement. Yet not everyone at the conference was on board with characterization. Murphy said she was sick of anti-abortion literature that portrayed women as “a damsel in distress,” saying, “Let’s give them information that’s going to empower them and not play into this whole victim mindset.” Destiny De La Rosa of New Wave Feminists said, “When you make someone the hero of their own story, I think that’s very important, and I think the pro-life movement has missed an opportunity because, unfortunately, we tend to put women in the victim role a lot.”

Right Wing Round-Up - 6/29/16

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 6/29/16

  • Donald Trump can’t stop asking foreign politicians for money. 
  • Judicial Watch spokesman Chris Farrell is not pleased with Trey Gowdy and the Benghazi Select Committee: “They made a huge error allowing Hillary Clinton to hold forth for 11 hours and appear as a martyr.” 
  • Linda Harvey wants to know, “When did a preference for anal sex between men achieve the same status as being an American citizen?”
  • Bill Owens says President Obama is a “sick man” who “thinks he can be a king like they have in Africa, but America don’t have kings.”

Rick Wiles: President Trump Would Prevent War With Russia

On “The Jim Bakker Show” on Tuesday, radio host Rick Wiles accused NATO of trying to provoke Russia into war, warning that another world war is imminent unless President Donald Trump unites the U.S. with Russia to “clobber the Muslims.”

“There’s a lot of military exercises taking place around the world,” Bakker said. “What do you think this means? Are we gearing up for a major war? Just say yes or no.”

“Yes,” Wiles responded. “Yes. Called NATO versus Russia. NATO has now put a military, a naval fleet in the Black Sea. You gotta look at a map, look at a geographical map of the Black Sea. When you see it, you understand the significance of it because it would be like Russia putting a naval fleet in the Great Lakes.”

“You wonder if the Russians are paranoid, nervous, and angry right now,” Wiles continued. “We’re pushing Russia to throw a punch, and the reason is the Western financial system is collapsing and the only way out of this thing is to start a world war and whoever survives the war is ruling the world.”

Wiles, a vocal supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that “if we had a President Trump, I think he’d probably go to Moscow and say, ‘Hey, let’s just unite and go clobber the Muslims.’”

He even made the bogus claim that the U.S. is aiding ISIS: “We are ISIS in the Middle East. ”

Michael Savage: 'Trey Gowdy Should Be Impeached For Wasting My Time' On Benghazi

Conservative talk radio host Michael Savage mocked Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., yesterday after Gowdy’s Benghazi Select Committee released a report that offered no new information about the 2012 attack.

“Trey Gowdy should be impeached for wasting my time!” he fumed. “He promised us a lot! Remember?”

He added: “He had a Benghazi hearing three months ago and it was an embarrassment. Hillary turned them into idiots. Trey Gowdy. Here he is again now, $80 million later, what did he find out? What we knew already.”

Savage, nonetheless, still stood by the claim that the Obama administration told officers to “stand down” during the attack, a debunked conspiracy theory that was not corroborated by Gowdy’s report.

GOP Rep Dave Brat Appears On Alex Jones' Conspiracy Radio Show

Donald Trump and Rand Paul aren’t the only Republican politicians enthralled by far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as Rep. David Brat, R-Va., appeared on Jones’ Infowars network show yesterday to claim that liberals are allied with radical Islamists.

After Jones falsely claimed that the city of London’s new mayor is imposing Sharia law and that President Obama and liberals have “allied with Islam,” Brat wholeheartedly agreed — “You nailed it” — and said the Founding Fathers never thought that an “intolerant” religion like Islam would be able to integrate into American culture.

Brat added that just as the British need to “go back to restoring their culture” after they voted to leave the European Union, Americans need to reclaim “the Judeo-Christian tradition,” lamenting that “religious toleration is becoming a ‘safe zone’ where you’ve got to sign up before you can go to church, it looks like.”

Syndicate content