C4

Sandy Rios Wishes Congress Could Prosecute George Soros For Un-American Activities

Last week, Sandy Rios of the American Family Association railed against Ohio Gov. John Kasich, claiming that the GOP presidential candidate took money from George Soros. (In reality, Kasich has raised money from people who work for Soros Fund Management.)

Rios said that Kasich’s alleged support from Soros is “absolutely deadly" because “the Hungarian, atheist, subversive” philanthropist “hates this country.”

“If we still had an active Congress that were prosecuting people for un-American activities, George Soros would be first on the list,” she said. “He spent $35 million in Ferguson trying to stir up trouble in Ferguson.

It is George Soros money that is funding John Kasich’s bid to agitate and stop Donald Trump and Ted Cruz from winning the nomination.”

A Baseless Attack Against Garland On ACA Cases

When you have a Supreme Court nominee as well respected across the political and ideological spectrum as Merrick Garland, it’s no wonder that far right groups’ attacks against him make so little sense. Their “he hates the Second Amendment” attack last week was so illogical that it just made them look foolish. A new attack relating to religious liberty and the Affordable Care Act is equally baseless.

As with the Second Amendment example, the new attack is not based at all on any substantive ruling by Judge Merrick – not a written dissent, nor a majority opinion he authored or joined, nor a concurrence he penned. Instead, his critics are reading into his votes on whether certain three-panel decisions should be reconsidered by the entire D.C. Circuit in what is called an en banc review.

The first involved a D.C. Circuit panel decision called Priests For Life v. HHS, which is currently one of the many cases consolidated into Zubik v. Burwell, which will be argued before the Supreme Court later this week. The case concerns the ability of religiously affiliated nonprofits to opt out of the requirement to provide their employees certain contraception health insurance coverage without a co-pay. The law allows an accommodation so the employees can get the coverage without their employers having to contract, arrange, or pay for it. Instead, the employers simply tell the insurer or the federal government of their objection, at which point the insurer must offer the coverage separately to employees who want it. But some religious nonprofits assert that even this accommodation violates their religious liberty. A unanimous three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit (which did not include Garland) upheld the law as not violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Hardly an outlier, the same legal conclusion has been reached by the 2nd Circuit, the 3rd Circuit, the 5th Circuit, the 6th Circuit, the 7th Circuit, the 10th Circuit, and the 11th Circuit. Last fall, the 8th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, creating a circuit split that will be resolved by the Supreme Court.

In any event, Life Site News slams Judge Garland for voting against having the entire D.C. Circuit rehear the Priests for Life case. A vote for or against en banc review, absent an accompanying opinion, does not necessarily tell you anything about why the judge voted that way. In fact, several of the judges wrote or joined lengthy opinions explaining why they were for or against an en banc review. Chief Judge Garland joined none of them. Neither did George W. Bush nominee Thomas Griffith or Clinton nominee David Tatel, both of whom voted along with Chief Judge Garland not to rehear the case. The majority of the court voted against en banc review, so we don’t know how Garland would have voted on the merits of the case.

There could be any number of reasons not to want to review a panel decision; perhaps you agree with it; perhaps you think the issue is not important enough to merit that unusual step; perhaps you think a different case would be a better vehicle for addressing the legal issues; perhaps you’re concerned about the court’s workload; perhaps you know that numerous other circuits are addressing the exact same question and that  regardless of whether your court reconsiders the panel decision — the issue will be resolved by the Supreme Court, so that an en banc review would be a pointless waste of time and resources.

Indeed, that last scenario is what happened in the second ACA case that Life Site News attacks Judge Garland for. In that case, Halbig v. Burwell, a D.C. Circuit panel struck down the ACA’s subsidies structure in response to a legal attack widely recognized as purely politically motivated and legally weak (to be charitable) effort to destroy the ACA. In September 2014, the full D.C. Circuit voted without noted dissent to rehear the case, with no judge writing separately to explain their reasoning. The parties submitted detailed briefs and replies, in preparation for scheduled oral arguments in December. But then the Supreme Court accepted a case from the 4th Circuit raising the same issue, King v. Burwell, leading the D.C. Circuit to cancel its own planned oral arguments as a waste of time. So we don’t know how Chief Judge Garland would have voted on the merits of the case. (The conservative Roberts Court rejected the challenge in a 6-3 vote.)

Perhaps Chief Judge Garland, seeing how much effort went into an ultimately unnecessary en banc proceeding in the ACA subsidies case, didn’t want to repeat that scenario in the ACA contraception coverage case, knowing that the Supreme Court would likely be the ultimate arbiter of the legal issue.

The point is, we don’t know. We can’t know. Chief Judge Garland’s votes on whether to reconsider panel opinions simply don’t tell us anything about his views on the merits of the case, unless he writes or joins an opinion explaining his reasoning, which he did not do in these cases.

Donald Trump Taps Figure Tied To Militia Group As Foreign Policy Adviser

After explaining that he consults his brain on foreign policy, Donald Trump told the Washington Post today that one of his advisers on foreign affairs is “counter-terrorism expert” Walid Phares.

It shouldn’t be that surprising that an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist like Trump is taking advice from Phares, who believes that the Obama administration is “being advised and suggested to by Muslim Brotherhood either fronts or advisers or sympathizers” and “has decided to quit the ideological confrontation” against terrorist groups.

Adam Serwer reported back in 2011, when Phares signed on as an adviser to Mitt Romney, that Phares “was a high ranking political official in a sectarian religious militia responsible for massacres during Lebanon's brutal, 15-year civil war” and worked as “a close adviser to Samir Geagea, a Lebanese warlord.”

In 1978, the Lebanese Forces emerged as the umbrella group of the assorted Christian militias. According to former colleagues, Phares became one of the group's chief ideologists, working closely with the Lebanese Forces' Fifth Bureau, a unit that specialized in psychological warfare.



That ideology, some experts say, helped rationalize the indiscriminate sectarian violence that characterized the conflict. "There were lots of horrendous, horrendous atrocities that took place during that civil war, in part fueled by that fairly hateful ideology," says a former State Department official and Middle East expert.

It’s almost fitting that Trump would select a person with ties to a militia group that committed atrocities, as the GOP frontrunner has pledged to order the military to commit war crimes if he’s elected president.

Alex Jones: Liberal Elites Creating Satan

In his latest rant about “delusional” liberals, Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones said that liberal elites are “building Lucifer” and “love the Devil” even though they don’t really believe that Satan exists.

After creating this Luciferian entity, he said, “the people running the world” plan to “build some beast computer that they’re going to merge with and fly off.”

And, according to Jones, they are trying to recruit him by shouting, “Join us and get the power!”

The GOP's Islamophobia Problem Is Much Bigger Than Donald Trump

Months before Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump called for a total ban on the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims from entering the U.S., the billionaire mogul claimed at an Iowa conference that President Obama had banned Christians from immigrating to the country.

“Muslims can come in but other people can’t; Christians can’t come into this country but Muslims can,” he said. “Now what’s that all about? What is that all about? I mean, something’s gotta be coming down from the top. When I heard that, I couldn’t believe it.”

Trump’s audience may have been receptive to his bogus claim, since he was speaking to one of the National Security Action Summits that anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney organized in early primary and caucus states. Many of Trump’s fellow GOP presidential candidates also addressed these gatherings, where they got to hear about things such as Obama’s thwarted plot to set off a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina.

Gaffney, who heads the right-wing Center for Security Policy, has emerged as one of the key conservative voices on issues such as immigration, Islam and U.S. foreign policy. Most recently, Gaffney was named a member of Ted Cruz’s foreign affairs advisory team.

But until recent years, Gaffney was seen as an outcast in the conservative movement as a result of his many bizarre views, from entertaining conspiracy theories about President Obama being a foreign-born Muslim to claiming that radical Islamists are running the White House, the Republican Party, NASA and the Internet. He’s even given a platform to and praised a prominent white nationalist.

Much of the blame for Gaffney’s rise can be pinned on the GOP itself. Trump has frequently suggested that Obama is a secret Muslim, and Cruz alleged at one of Gaffney’s security summits that the Obama administration has banned anti-Muslim speech.

Gaffney also organized the Washington, D.C., rally against the Iran nuclear deal headlined by Trump, Cruz, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

Trump and Cruz aren’t the only candidates to have embraced the conspiracy theorist.

Ben Carson, who told one of Gaffney’s meetings that the Obama administration has a communist and anti-American outlook, adopted one of Gaffney’s core positions, that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist group, as part of his anti-terrorism platform. Carson called for the government to “fully investigate the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of terrorism” and told CNN that the group is pushing “civilization jihad,” language that came straight from Gaffney.

The right-wing figure’s allegation that Obama is deliberately ignoring if not supporting terrorist groups has been picked up by CruzCarson and Bobby Jindal. He has also targeted Muslim houses of worship, accusing mosques of bringing Muslim Brotherhood agents into the U.S. under the guise of being doctors, scientists and engineers. These sorts of claims have, in turn, helped to prop up extreme policy positions such as Mike Huckabee’s call for government monitoring of mosques and Trump’s suggestion that he would close some mosques.

While Trump’s rhetoric has shocked many, extreme anti-Muslim views have permeated the GOP, and Frank Gaffney is one of the people to thank for that.

Jim Bakker: Bernie Sanders Is Our Adolf Hitler

Televangelist Jim Bakker warned last week that public schools are teaching anti-American views to students as part of a nefarious plot to bring down the U.S., which he said explained Bernie Sanders’ popularity among young voters.

Bakker said that Sanders’ support from young people proves that the U.S. is transforming into Nazi Germany.

“One of the most popular politicians right now is a socialist,” Bakker said. “And who is his biggest following? The young people of America, from the colleges. Maybe you understand a little bit what it felt like to live when Hitler was reigning and the church had to sit by and keep watching it and watching until millions, tens of millions — they had to build factories to kill people. All it takes is a couple bombs and all of America will be dead within a year, less than a year, just months.”

“I can’t tolerate this much longer,” he added. “I can’t tolerate it.”

Cruz National Security Adviser: Joseph McCarthy Was 'Spot-On'

Clare Lopez, a member of Sen. Ted Cruz’s recently announced national security advisory team, declared in a recent radio interview that Sen. Joseph McCarthy was “spot-on” in his investigation of communists infiltrating the U.S. government, implying that a similar effort should be made to root out Muslim Brotherhood associates in “the top levels of national security in our government.”

Lopez joined South Carolina radio host Vince Coakley on March 1 to discuss efforts in Congress — led in part by Cruz — to urge the Obama administration to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, which Lopez said misses the point because the real threat from the group is “the subversion, the infiltration, the influence operations."

“Brotherhood affiliates and associates and those connected to it are the go-to advisers, if not appointees, for the top levels of national security in our government, in this administration for sure, but going back many decades, really, is the program of this Brotherhood,” she claimed.

She compared the situation to the influence of communists before the House Un-American Activities Committee and Sen. McCarthy got involved in rooting out subversives, calling McCarthy’s efforts “spot-on.”

“We can go all the way back, of course, to the time of the Cold War and back to the 1920s, ‘30s, ‘40s when communists, you know, the KGB, infiltrated our government at the very highest levels,” she said. “And then, like now, we were unprepared and in large measure unaware of what was going on, at least until the House Un-American Activities got rolling in the 1950s with Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who absolutely was spot-on in just about everything he said about the levels of infiltration. So we have precedent for this where we were not fully aware of the infiltration occurring at the time.”

Another top Cruz adviser, Frank Gaffney — Lopez's boss at the Center for Security Policy —  has called for the reinstatement of HUAC.

Larry Pratt: Obama 'Hates America The Way Muslims Do'

Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, welcomed pastor and prominent Donald Trump endorser Carl Gallups to his “Gun Owners News Hour” radio program last week, where the two discussed what they believe is an Islamist infiltration of the White House.

Pratt claimed that Obama is “facilitating” the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. even though “Islam is kind of like the Nazism of our age.”

“According to Obama’s own books and writings, he comes out of the Sunni Muslim tradition himself,” Gallups said. “Now, I’m not claiming that he is a down-on-the-prayer-carpet-five-times-a-day-praying-to-Mecca Muslim, but that’s his heritage, that’s his background and he certainly does acquiesce to the Sunni Muslim tradition.”

“And whatever his allegiance, secret or open, to Islam,” Pratt added, “he hates America the way Muslims do, and that’s not a secret.”

Gallups went on to explain his (false) birther theory that “not a single hospital in America claims [Obama’s] birth.”

The discussion inevitably turned to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who conspiracy theorists have been accusing for years of being a Muslim Brotherhood agent infiltrating the government.

The two implied that Abedin’s marriage to former Rep. Anthony Weiner is part of the conspiracy because otherwise, in Gallups’ words, Abedin would have been the victim of a “mercy killing” by now because Weiner is Jewish.

“And then, of course, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, who does she make chief of staff? Huma Abedin,” Gallups explained. “Who is she married to? Anthony Weiner. Who was he? Well, he’s a congressman, a Democrat congressman, and look at this: who happens to be Jewish. Now, for a Sunni Muslim who’s so ingrained into the Sunni Muslim system that her entire family is deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most radical arms of Sunni Islam you can get, to marry a Jew? I mean, how does that happen without retribution? I mean, in the Middle East, we have mercy killings, I mean even in the United States we’ve had Muslim families do this when their daughters pull a stunt like that.”

“It kind of suggests that maybe there’s something more to it than meets the eye,” Pratt agreed. “Part of it, I guess, is called ‘taqiyya,’ the willingness to lie if it suits your purposes as a Muslim.”

Pratt's organization, Gun Owners of America, has endorsed and been embraced by Sen. Ted Cruz.

Cruz Touts Endorsement Of Activist Who Says 'Gay Sharia' Is A Bigger Threat Than ISIS

As we have noted again and again, it seems that there is no right-wing activist too extreme for Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign to embrace. We got yet another piece of evidence of this today when the Cruz campaign released a list of endorsements from 50 conservative Catholics, among them John Zmirak.

Zmirak, an editor of James Robison’s website The Stream, has warned of such things as “gay Sharia” in America and suggested that the Senate block all Democratic Supreme Court nominees until a Republican is elected president. (Both of these things might actually endear him to Cruz, who is a notorious obstructionist and once warned of the gay “jihad.”)

Some of Zmirak’s greatest hits:

  • He warned of the imminent genocide of American Christians, saying that Christians are “going to see ourselves reduced to the status of second-class citizens the way Christians are in countries like Egypt and Syria.”

  • He called for boycotts of Apple and Walmart after the companies opposed “right to discriminate” laws in Indiana and Arkansas, saying that Christians shouldn’t patronize “companies that want to persecute us.”
  •  He claimed that gay rights are a greater threat to the U.S. than ISIS and are imposing “gay Sharia.”

  • In praising the Center for Medical Progress’ smear on Planned Parenthood, he said approvingly, “If that continues, they’re going to need to put police in front of Planned Parenthood clinics to keep them safe and intact because the public outrage will just be so great.” After a gunman did attack a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, Zmirak claimed that “if terrorism and violence become an issue in the abortion debate, it will be the pro-choicers attacking pro-lifers and attacking churches."

  • Not only does he want Senate Republicans to block Obama’s Supreme Court nominee this year, but wants them to block all future nominees from Democratic presidents: “As justices retire or die the court will simply grow smaller. Big deal. America will muddle through.”

Courting Extremism: GOP Attacks On Garland Range From Pathetic To Bizarre

Courting Extremism is a weekly feature on conservative responses to the Supreme Court vacancy.

In the weeks since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans have relied on falsehoods and fabricated claims in an attempt to justify their refusal to consider any person President Obama nominates to take Scalia’s place on the Supreme Court. It comes as no surprise, then, that as soon as President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland for the seat, conservatives immediately turned to ridiculous and dishonest arguments to oppose his nomination.

Here are the five most ridiculous conservative pro-obstruction arguments of the week:

5) Blockbuster Scandal!

Conservatives think they have finally found a damning piece of opposition research on Garland: He once dared to appear at a book party for a book about Justice Harry Blackmun and, according to one report, “described the release of Blackmun’s papers to be a great gift to the country.”

Why is it scandalous to attend a celebration of a book about a justice who served on the Supreme Court for over two decades? Because Blackmun authored the Roe v. Wade decision, of course!

Garland’s attendance at the book party has rattled Americans United for Life and the Judicial Action Group, which favor the Senate GOP leadership’s Supreme Court blockade.

Here is how the anti-choice outlet LifeNews put it: “When it comes to President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, one of his inspirations is the author of Roe v. Wade, the high court case that ushered in an era of 58 million abortions.”

The group Live Action even said that by hailing the release of Blackmun’s papers, Garland “has lavished praised” on Blackmun, “author of the legally indefensible Roe v. Wade.” Live Action’s Calvin Freiburger also stated that Republicans should oppose Garland simply because Obama nominated him, saying that the president “a judicial activist at heart and is wildly committed to abortion-on-demand at any time for any reason as a ‘constitutional right.’”

Just to recap, according to the Right Wing, it is now a scandal that a federal judge praised the release of a Supreme Court justice’s papers, and it is controversial that a president fulfilled his constitutional duties to appoint jurists to the bench.

4) Giving Away The Game

Senate Republicans know they can’t come right out and admit that they oppose Garland’s nomination because he isn’t the kind of right-wing extremist they think they would get from a President Trump or Cruz. And they can’t come out against his impeccable qualifications either.

As such, all they are left with is the historically inaccurate talking point that the Senate has a “tradition” of refusing to confirm Supreme Court nominees in the final year of a president’s term. Since anyone who performs a simple Google search about past confirmation votes can easily debunk the GOP’s claim, it is hard to see how much longer they can trot this one out.

Obama’s nomination of Garland, who is widely respected on both sides of the aisle, caused at least some Republicans to throw out the bogus “tradition” argument and simply admit that their Supreme Court blockade is just about politics.

If the “tradition” argument was actually based in fact and Republicans truly believed that March 2016 is too late in the president’s term for him to appoint a Supreme Court justice, then why do they think that November and December of this year would be just fine?

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board similarly floated the idea of a lame-duck confirmation vote “if Mrs. Clinton wins the election” just one month after demanding that Senate Republicans “refuse to consider any nominee this year” and wait for the next president to nominate a new justice.

Former GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson also confessed to the political nature of the GOP’s stance, telling one radio host that the Senate should move to confirm Garland only if “Hillary won” because “otherwise we’re going to get somebody who’s really left-wing who’s going to be much, much worse than anything that [Garland] would likely do.”

3) Gun Grabber!

Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly joined gun groups like the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America in criticizing Garland’s nomination, saying this week that Garland “voted” to “keep guns away from private citizens” in Washington, D.C. “That vote will disqualify him among Republicans,” he said, referring to Garland's supposed “advocacy position that guns have to be kept away.”

O’Reilly’s colleague at Fox News, Bret Baier, also alleged that Garland “opposed Justice Scalia’s take on the Second Amendment in the Heller case.”

Except Garland never voted on anything close to that.

O’Reilly and Baier were referring to the Heller case, which challenged a District of Columbia law barring residents from owning handguns. When it reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a three-judge panel found that the ban was unconstitutional. Garland simply voted to have the case, which had national implications, reheard by the full court, which often happens in important cases.

It was not a vote for or against the constitutionality of the district’s gun regulation, but rather simply a vote to have the case heard in front of all the judges on the court. And far from being an outlier, he voted the same way as other judges on the bench including Judge A. Raymond Randolph, whom Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times once called “one of the most outspoken and agenda-driven conservatives on the entire federal bench.”

It seems conservatives like O’Reilly and Baier are either making things up or simply don’t understand how the justice system works.

2) Garland Is ‘A Slow, Stealth, Radical Liberal’

Conservative radio host Michael Savage has his own reasons for opposing Garland.

Savage took issue with commentators who described Garland as a “moderate liberal,” claiming this week that “there’s no such thing as a moderate liberal” because “liberalism itself is a radical philosophy whose aim is to slowly or rapidly erode or destroy the structural pillars of a traditional society.”

“No he’s not a moderate at all,” Savage said. “He is a slow, stealth, radical liberal like the rest of them.”

1) Cover-up!

Leave it to the conspiracy theorists at WorldNetDaily to issue this strange attack on Garland.

WND reporter Jack Cashill urged Republicans to grill Garland on his ties to the supposed “cover-ups” behind the TWA Flight 800 disaster and the Oklahoma City bombing, even demanding that Republicans ask Hillary Clinton to testify at confirmation hearings.

While his argument is rooted in conspiracy theories, at least Cashill is calling for the Judiciary Committee to have a hearing on Garland’s nomination, something many Republicans refuse to do.

Conservatives Make Pathetic Effort To Claim Garland Is 'Hostile' To Gun Rights

As soon as President Obama announced his nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court seat left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and the Republican National Committee unveiled embarrassingly thin dossiers to frame Garland — whom conservatives have previously praised — as an unconfirmable liberal activist.

Both organizations decided to focus their criticism on the claim that Garland is “hostile” to gun rights, something that other conservative groups have picked up and run with. The National Rifle Association, in turn, is out with a petition urging the Senate to reject Garland’s nomination, also claiming that he’s “hostile to the Second Amendment.”

The NRA cites three cases that it says show that Garland “supports a handgun ban” and “supports a national gun registry.” Not one shows anything of the sort.

Claim 1: “In 2007, he ruled in favor of reviewing the D.C. Circuit’s decision that invalidated the city’s handgun ban – the very ban Scalia helped overturn at the Supreme Court.”

The facts: A divided panel of three other judges of the D.C. Circuit Court, on which Garland sits, reversed a lower court ruling and found that a Washington, D.C., handgun ban was unconstitutional. The full court then had an opportunity to vote on whether the case should be reheard by all the judges on the entire D.C. Circuit. Garland was one of four members of the court, including a decidedly conservative colleague, Raymond Randolph, who voted to rehear the case. That vote indicates absolutely nothing about what Garland thought about the merits of the case and certainly doesn’t mean that Garland “supports a handgun ban” as the NRA claims. After all, this was before the Supreme Court ruling in Heller and, regardless of ideology, it made perfect sense for a judge to want the full circuit to consider the case.

Claim 2: “In 2004, he ruled against rehearing another pivotal Second Amendment case, thereby casting a vote against the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.”

The facts: It’s the same story here. The NRA seems to be referring to the 2005 case Seegers v. Gonzales, which had to do with whether the parties suing had standing to challenge D.C.’s handgun law; the substance of the Second Amendment argument was not at issue. This time, Garland voted with the majority of his colleagues to deny a full-court rehearing of the case. Again, that vote gave absolutely no indication of how he felt about the issue of standing (to say nothing of the merits of the Second Amendment case) and definitely was not “a vote against the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.”

Claim 3: “In 2000, he ruled in favor of the federal government’s plan to keep gun owners’ personal information in an unofficial national registry.”

The facts: In this case, NRA of America v. Reno, the NRA claimed that a regulation requiring information from gun background checks to be temporarily retained violated a law requiring background check records to be destroyed. Garland joined in an opinion finding that the law didn’t prohibit the temporary storage of that data “for audit purposes,” after which it would be destroyed as required by law. From this, the NRA falsely concludes that Garland “supports a national gun registry.”

There is frankly nothing in Garland’s record that indicates his substantive views, if any, on the Second Amendment. Could it possibly be that conservative groups are grasping at straws in an attempt to justify their blanket obstruction of the Supreme Court nomination process?

Paranoia-Rama: Donald Trump Edition

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

It’s been amazing to watch Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump tout any number of wild conspiracy theories and then get away with defending them even after his claims have been roundly debunked. Trump’s flexible relationship with the truth, however, seems not to be hindering his rush to the GOP nomination and may actually be helping him appeal to the party’s far-right base.

In fact, Trump’s willingness to embrace conspiracy theories seems to have encouraged his supporters to go all-out in their attempts to concoct wild theories about the real motivations of their candidate’s critics.

5) ‘All I Know Is What’s On The Internet’

“I never fall for scams,” Trump boasted back in 2012. “I am the only person who immediately walked out of my ‘Ali G’ interview.”

Of course, one would then have to wonder why Trump has fallen for so many scams and, at times, promoted his own ones.

Take Trump’s reaction to a man who tried to rush the stage at one of his rallies in Dayton, Ohio.

Trump immediately pointed to an online video as proof that the man is tied to ISIS.

Even after commentators pointed out that the video was a fabrication, Trump didn’t back down: “He was playing Arabic music, he was dragging the [American] flag along the ground, and he had Internet chatter with ISIS and about ISIS.”

“All I know is what’s on the Internet,” he said.

4) ‘There’s A High Degree Of Racism Towards White People’

Trump chatted with conservative talk show host Michael Savage about the incident in Dayton, insisting that the perpetrator hasn’t even been charged for trying to storm the stage: “How they don’t press charges is just beyond me, it’s just beyond me.”

That claim was another fib as the man was in fact charged.

Savage told Trump the real reason demonstrators protest his rallies: anti-white racism.

“There’s a high degree of racism towards white people coming out of these crowds,” Savage declared.

3) ‘A Satanic Conspiracy’

Far-right activist Theodore Shoebat knows why some conservative and evangelical leaders have strongly criticized Trump, claiming that they have joined “a satanic conspiracy” with “sodomites, Black Muslims and Muslims and La Raza supremacists” to undermine the GOP presidential frontrunner.

“When you’ve got all these guys getting together to go against one man, the Devil is working something,” he said. “This is a satanic conspiracy to stop Trump.”

2) ‘Trump Is Bad News For The New World Order’

And why might Satan and his minions oppose Trump so fervently? Well, as pastor Rodney Howard-Browne explains, Trump is the only man standing between the creation of “a one-world government, one-world religion, one-world money system, and the rise of the Antichrist.”

“Trump is bad news for the New World Order and the one-world government,” he said.

1) ‘It Is An Alien Force, Not Of This World, Attacking Humanity’

Alex Jones has similarly urged his viewers to back Trump, saying that “if he is a psy-op, he is the most sophisticated one I ever saw. And even if he is, he is a revelation of the awakening and they have to pull this trick to try to divert us. It doesn’t matter, it’s part of the awakening.”

Trump is waking people to the fact that a demonic “alien force” from outer space is “attacking humanity,” Jones explained, and humankind is on the brink of destruction unless people rise up.

'Swift Boat' PR Firm Takes Up Supreme Court Fight

The public relations firm that pushed the false “swift boat” smear on John Kerry in 2004 and has since taken up far-right causes from creationism to the Tea Party to recent attacks on Planned Parenthood has now gotten involved in the fight against confirming President Obama’s Supreme Court pick.

A new website, ScotusBrief.org, which appears to be dedicated to pushing the messaging of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), was registered four days after the death of Antonin Scalia by Leif Noren, the founder and chairman of the Virginia-based CRC Public relations. CRC has represented JCN in the past and in 2009 was involved in the effort to stop the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It’s on the CRC-created website that JCN published its embarrassingly thin opposition research dump on Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia.

CRC is most infamous for its role representing Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that in the months before the 2004 election pushed dishonest claims that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry had overstated his accomplishments in the Vietnam War. The smear was so nasty that it inspired the creation of the word “swiftboating” to describe false personal smears against a candidate.

Since then, CRC has taken up far-right causes including attacks on health care reform, climate-change denialism, the creationist Discovery Institute and the National Organization for Marriage. CRC is also representing David Daleiden, the activist behind last year’s series of videos smearing Planned Parenthood.

The Judicial Crisis Network — which during the Bush administration was called the Judicial Confirmation Network and was dedicated to pushing through conservative judicial nominees — has been laughably attempting to frame its efforts to stop a Supreme Court confirmation as some sort of high-minded, nonpartisan public service rather than the transparently partisan crusade that it is.

The group’s partnership with CRC, with its long history of vicious partisan smears, exposes that partisan crusade yet again.

Kevin Swanson: Obama Spreading 'The Gospel Of Gay' Around The World

Angry about President Obama’s appointment of gay ambassadors, Kevin Swanson said on his Generations Radio program today that these ambassadors want to promote “the gospel of gay” abroad.

Swanson praised efforts by religious leaders in the Dominican Republic to recall the openly gay U.S. ambassador and a ruling by a Puerto Rican judge reaffirming the commonwealth’s same-sex marriage ban, while noting that Tennessee lawmakers only managed to pass a “toothless resolution” decrying the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling.

“I think what you’re seeing here in America is not only a perversion of this country but a strong intent to pervert other nations as well,” Swanson said. “We’ve seen that with Barack Obama’s tour through Africa and we see that with the appointments of some of these homosexuals as ambassadors.”

He continued: “‘Harry Potter’ and 'How To Train Your Dragon’ and some of these major motion pictures have done their best to bring about a shift in the American attitude towards sexual sin.”

Michael Savage: President Obama And Hillary Clinton Make Me Lose Faith In God

Conservative talk show host Michael Savage told his listeners earlier this week why he goes “in and out of my belief in God,” explaining that the political success of President Obama and Hillary Clinton have made him doubt that God exists.

“I go in and out of it lately,” Savage said. “When I see what Obama gets away with and what Hillary gets away with, I lose my faith.”

Savage brought up his Obama-induced struggles with faith while talking about the problems facing the white working poor, saying that they, along with poor black families, were destroyed by the “‘60s hippies generation,” “the welfare state” and “a loss of God.”

However, Savage is sure that if God exists, he would definitely be a right-winger. While attacking Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Savage said that all liberals are “radical” and are never moderates.

“Who do you fear most: the vast right-wing conspiracy or the vast left-wing conspiracy?” he asked. “My answer was, if you analyze both sides of the equation, you will come to see the right wing supports God, country, family, the military and has far higher moral standards than the left. The left operates specifically to undermine God, country, family and the military. The left uses the courts to undermine the popular will. What they cannot gain through the ballot box, they gain through the gavels.”

“So my friends, if God could vote, he’d be a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Ben Carson Undermines GOP Claims On Supreme Court Nomination

While Republicans have spent the past several weeks declaring that their vow to obstruct any person President Obama nominates to the Supreme Court is a matter of principle and tradition (never mind that it’s a principle and tradition that they made up on the spot), some have begun changing their tune now that Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to the seat, hinting that they would confirm him in a lame duck session if a Democrat is elected president in November.

Former GOP presidential candidate and Donald Trump endorser Ben Carson was the latest to jump on this bandwagon, telling David Webb on his Sirius show last night that Senate Republicans should simply delay proceedings on Garland’s nomination until after the election.

“I would take a very slow, deliberate process that extended beyond the election in November,” he said, “so that in the chance that Hillary won, they’d be ready to confirm him, because otherwise we’re going to get somebody who’s really left-wing who’s going to be much, much worse than anything that he would likely do. By the same token, by taking it very, very slowly, beyond the election, you know, if the Republican wins, then you can say, ‘Okay, we took it that far, now let’s see who the president really wants to appoint.’”

David Horowitz: Trump Protesters Are The Real Nazis

Conservative commentator David Horowitz claimed yesterday that comparisons of Donald Trump to dictators like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are off base and that it is instead people who protest at Donald Trump events who are “fascists” and resemble “what led to the rise of Hitler.”

“This kind of fascist tactic — which is what it is, breaking up meetings, they went in to disrupt the meeting — it’s what led to the, you know people hate this analogy, but it is what led to the rise of Hitler in the ‘30s, the communists and the Nazis broke up the meetings of the social democrats and that’s how Hitler was elected,” Horowitz told Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg. “But they’re fascist tactics anyway, the left is dedicated to shutting down the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them by calling them names like ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ and by physical violence. And we’ve seen it from Ferguson and Baltimore, out of control leftist mobs.”

After declaring that the “only real fascists in America are on the left,” Horowitz echoed Trump in saying that protesters should be arrested, adding that student demonstrators in the 1960s should have been expelled and Black Lives Matter protesters should all be “in jail.”

Horowitz has close ties in the GOP, frequently recruting leading Republicans including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — to rub shoulders with anti-Muslim activists at retreats that he holds at a beach resort in Florida.

Cruz Adviser: Liberals & Islamists Plan To 'Take Us Down' With Aid To Non-English Speakers

The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney was, until very recently, a bit of a pariah in establishment GOP circles thanks to his obsessive quest to prove the Islamist infiltration of not only the Obama administration but also the Republican Party. But, as Brian noted yesterday, that has changed dramatically in recent months as Republican presidential candidates have flocked to his primary campaign events, Donald Trump cited his group’s shoddy research in his call to ban Muslims from the country, and, most recently, Ted Cruz named him as a top national security adviser to his campaign.

Despite all the new attention, Gaffney is still his same old self, pushing variations on his favorite theory that a “red-green axis” of progressives and Islamists are conspiring to destroy America with the enthusiastic support of a treasonous President Obama.

Gaffney returned to that theme in an interview earlier this month with Robert Vandervoort of the English-only group ProEnglish, in which he wondered if progressives are conspiring with Islamists to use government programs for people who aren’t proficient in English in order to “take us down.”

Vandervoort took over at ProEnglish after a stint running a white nationalist group in Illinois; ProEnglish itself is part of the network of anti-immigration organizations linked to John Tanton, who also espoused some white nationalist views. Earlier this year, Gaffney interviewed infamous white nationalist writer Jared Taylor — of whom Vandervoort is a fan before unconvincingly pleading ignorance of Taylor’s views when he was called out for it.

One of ProEnglish’s policy goals is to rescind an executive order signed by Bill Clinton that instructs federal agencies to implement systems to help people who are not fluent in English interact with government programs, which Vandervoort told Gaffney presents not just fiscal concerns but a “cultural concern” about the “kind of message we’re sending” by translating government documents.

Gaffney agreed that help for people who aren’t proficient in English undermines the nation’s “identity” and is probably part of a liberal plot to “take us down.”

“The character of a nation, the identity of a nation is obviously, to some extent at least, defined by those shared attributes like language,” he said. “So to the extent that we’ve essentially thrown that over the side, do you see this as part of a larger endeavor, my guess most especially by the left, to do away with the national identity of the United States and in the process sort of take us down?”

Vandervoort agreed that "it is part of the left’s agenda to drive us apart linguistically,” prompting Gaffney to note that the whole thing also ties into the “red-green axis” because the “Islamists who are seeking to balkanize and otherwise bring us down and would obviously be among the beneficiaries” of such translation services.

Frank Gaffney: From Pariah To Ted Cruz Adviser

Gaffney was banned from CPAC, the annual conservative event, after he promoted the bogus charge that two of the event’s organizers were secret agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then he got banned from the “Weyrich Lunch” of right-wing figures.

A witch hunt against Muslim-Americans serving in the Obama administration, crafted by Gaffney and spearheaded by then-Rep. Michele Bachmann, drew severe rebukes from Republican leaders such as John Boehner, Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who delivered a rousing floor speech on how his attacks had “no logic, no basis and no merit.”

But recently, things have changed. This year Gaffney returned to CPAC, and today it was announced that he has joined Ted Cruz’s foreign policy advisory team. It’s quite a turn of events, as one would think that Gaffney had lost all credibility when he said the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would lead to the reinstatement of the draft, wondered why liberal groups and Jewish leaders are “making common cause” with Islamists and said that Boehner and McCain, in opposing his anti-Muslim crusade, were “parroting the Muslim Brotherhood line.”

He has also endorsed the birther conspiracy theory, said President Obama is aiding terrorism and said that Muslims who believe in Sharia should be prosecuted for sedition.

Most recently, Gaffney interviewed and praised the work of an infamous white nationalist writer, although he tried to distance himself from the racist activist after being called out for it.

Despite this outrageous record, most of the major GOP candidates this cycle have appeared at Gaffney’s “national security action” summits, including Cruz and Donald Trump. It was at a Gaffney event that Trump accused Obama of barring non-Muslims from the country; later, Trump cited a bogus statistic from Gaffney’s group to justify his proposed ban on the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims from entering the country.

Seeing that the two top Republican candidates have used conspiracy theories and anti-Muslim rhetoric to score political points, it can’t be too surprising that Gaffney is no longer a right-wing pariah.

Televangelist: Donald Trump Will Save Us From Antichrist

Earlier this week on “Trunews,” televangelist Rodney Howard-Browne explained to host Rick Wiles why he decided to endorse Donald Trump for president.

Howard-Browne, who last appeared on “Trunews” to warn that America is now “Nazi Germany,” said that Trump is “a threat to the New World Order and the one-world government.”

By delaying the rise of the one-world government, he explained, Trump would delay coming of the Antichrist, but only for a short period of time.

A mark of a person's standing is who backs them or who attacks them. The New World Order and the establishment are spending tens upon tens of millions to take him down. When the pope attacks him, plus two former Mexican presidents and other world leaders, then that tells us that he’s a threat to the New World Order and the one-world government. And when the world's financial elite met in Davos, Switzerland, and they say they’re afraid of Trump — I say that's good enough for me.

Trump is bad news for the New World Order and the one-world government, spoken about by George Bush, Sr., in his "Thousand points of light" speech. Trump is good news to American sovereignty. And, of course, you’ve got world leaders calling Hillary to back her to try to stop Trump.

So this thing has started a firestorm across the world. Because of his stance on immigration, he’s been labeled by the left as a racist and Hitler — something that they even use in the U.K. against Nigel Farage and UKIP for the same reasons. If you’re a leftist-liberal and you don't have a valid argument to support your opposing view, just call people names and label them: racist, misogynist, Hitler, fascist, etc. Most people don't even know what those terms mean and the problem is that too many Americans are liberals when it comes to the way they lean because of the media and the education system and how they’ve been dumbed down and when it comes to American history, they don’t even know what took place in the history and the founding of our nation.

We should hear what the candidates say in his own words and not believe the twisted version that comes through the mainstream, propaganda media that’s obviously trying to manipulate the narrative. Immigration should take place but it should take place legally; open borders are not the way to do things.

We are in the final hour now, the final grains of sand are slipping through the hour glass. We stand on the brink of a one-world government, one-world religion, one-world money system, and the rise of the Antichrist. I will say that a Trump presidency will give us a stay of execution, only.

All the nonsense stirred up in the mainstream media, the propaganda, the lies, the racism stirred up, is all a ploy to take Mr. Trump down. My concern is that even if he becomes the nominee, he will be in danger for his life. The GOP wants a brokered convention to steal the nomination from the people's choice. Personally, I don't think they really want [Ted] Cruz either, but they have now co-opted him.
Syndicate content