C4

Donald Trump Defends Call For Punishing Women Who Have Abortions: 'I Didn't See Any Big Deal'

Last week, GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump took several competing positions on abortion rights over a period of three days.

Trump, who was once adamantly pro-choice, said on Wednesday that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions, only to claim later that day that he has never supported such a policy. Then, on Sunday, Trump declared that “we have to leave” current abortion laws in place, only to be again contradicted by his own campaign.

But the way conservative radio host Joe Pags sees it, Trump’s initial “punishment” comments were simply the result of a trap set by MSNBC in an effort to dislodge his candidacy. While speaking with Trump over the weekend, Pags said the candidate should have never even appeared on MSNBC “after what CNBC did in that one debate that was disgusting.”

Trump, interestingly enough, bragged about all the praise he received after saying that if abortion becomes illegal, women who have abortion should be punished.

“A lot of people thought my answer was excellent, by the way,” he told Pags. “There were a lot of people who thought that was a very good answer.”

He added that he “didn’t see any big deal” about the comments until they prompted “somewhat of a storm.”

Pags: Many people say that the difference in Wisconsin is because of that ridiculous question that Chris Matthews that asked you. I’m not going to ask you the question because it was hypothetical and it was stupid. I really don’t believe the question had any merit whatsoever and the guy is not a journalist. But having said that, why continue to go on any MSNBC property after what CNBC did in that one debate that was disgusting? And then you go on MSNBC and you have to expect to be attacked. Why even go? It only benefits them. How does it benefit you?

Trump: It was a hypothetical question. A lot of people thought my answer was excellent, by the way. There were a lot of people who thought that was a very good answer. It was a hypothetical question. I didn’t see any big deal and then all of a sudden there was somewhat of a storm. And you know, it’s interesting, this morning I’m hearing two hosts on television that were critical and they said, “We really thought his first answer was very good.” Because you can’t win. “We thought it was good, what was wrong with his first answer?” And I heard a pastor, who is a fantastic pastor, saying, “Well, you know, if you think about it, his first answer is right.”

Pags: Your answer was consistent with conservatism but Chris Matthews has an agenda, so I’m not even wondering about the question because I thought it was loaded and stupid and hypothetical.

Trump: It was disgraceful.

Pags: Why go on the show? Why go?

Trump: I heard people defending it today. Now they defend it. Now they say, “It was really right.” The whole thing is just so — the press is extremely unfair. A lot of very terrible people. It is interesting with MSNBC. Not only that, I made NBC a fortune with “The Apprentice.” An absolute fortune with “The Apprentice.” But they’ve all got agendas and I understand that. Frankly, they’re bad but they’re sort of all bad. I don’t get treated well on Fox. I don’t get treated well on CNN.

Anti-Gay Activists To Rally In Defense Of North Carolina's New Anti-LGBT Law

Anti-gay activist Mark Creech of the Christian Action League, who once declared that gay marriage is "an attempted gang rape of our culture," is organizing a show of support for North Carolina's recently passed anti-LGBT law.

In a video posted on his website, Creech asks people to demonstrate their "strong support" for the law and to push back against the "smear campaign" against it by joining him for a rally on Monday, April 11, at the state Capitol where they will hear from anti-gay activists like David and Jason Benham, Harry Jackson, Frank Turek, Ron Baity and others speak out in defense of the law and the lawmakers who enacted it:

Cruz Adviser: 'No-Go Zones' In Minneapolis

Clare Lopez, the vice president of the Center for Security Policy and a national security adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, told a Minnesota radio program yesterday that parts of Minneapolis have become “no-go zones” where the police “don’t go” and are letting Sharia law take hold.

Lopez, speaking on the “Ox in the Afternoon” program about supposed “no-go zones” in Europe, said that “we’ve got them in America, at least in the beginning stages.”

“In Minneapolis, for example, places where the police don’t go because they know they’ll be attacked, have been attacked in the past already, and places where the police know that Sharia is being practiced,” she said.

Last year, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins similarly claimed that neighborhoods in Minneapolis had become “no-go zones” where authorities had allowed Sharia to become the law of the land. This prompted Rep. Keith Ellison, who represents parts of Minneapolis, to invite Perkins to tour the city and see for himself. Perkins is now a prominent supporter of Cruz.

Cruz himself pointed to Minnesota as a place where the police should increase patrols of Muslim-American communities.

Lopez, who said she was in Minnesota to deliver several talks, warned that the U.S. is in danger of terrorist attacks like those that happened recently in Paris and Brussels because the country has “allowed in and invited in populations of Muslim migrants and refugees who do not have the same worldview, the same principles, the same democratic, constitutional principles that we live by in this country” and “allowed them not to assimilate.”

Islam, she said, “has actually conquered every single other major civilization it’s ever gone up against, from the Buddhists to the Byzantines to the Middle East Christians to the Middle East Jews to the Hindus to the Persians, conquered every last one of them, some of them might, sophisticated civilizations at their peak, conquered them all. There are only two left standing: the Han Chinese and whatever’s left of Western civilization. That is a sobering reality.”

Roger Stone: Trump Thinks 'His Election Is Guided By God' To 'Save This Country'

Roger Stone, a confidant of and former adviser to Donald Trump, told far-right activist Jesse Lee Peterson on his radio program last week that the GOP presidential frontrunner developed his self-confidence from the knowledge that God has a hand in his campaign.

“I think that he believes that his election is guided by God,” Stone said. “I think that he believes that he’s been put here at this time and place to save this country. I don’t think he talks about it that way because, as you know, some non-believers would accuse him of being insane, but I think that there’s an internal guidance here that is very much a part of him.”

“I do believe he has divine guidance,” Stone added.

Coulter: Trump The Only Candidate Who Will Stop Changes In The 'Demographics Of The Country'

Prominent Donald Trump supporter Ann Coulter joined conservative Wisconsin radio host and Trump critic Charlie Sykes yesterday to discuss the GOP frontrunner in advance of the state’s presidential primary.

Coulter dismissed Sykes’ criticisms of Trump, saying that the candidate’s interview with Chris Matthews in which he called for punishing women who have abortions was “fabulous”; brushing off Trump’s frequent interactions with racists on Twitter as “one dumb retweet”; and saying that the $1.9 billion in free media that Trump has gotten isn’t actually helping him because “this alleged free media has been free attack ads on him.”

When Sykes implored her to convince Trump to talk more about policy, Coulter insisted that “they” — presumably the media — don’t want to talk about Trump’s policies because his central policy is “not changing the entire demographics of the country so that no Republican or conservative can ever be elected again.”

“No, they will not talk about his policy,” she said, “because his policies, which is what I’d like to talk about, there’s no one else who has these policies. I think the most important issue now is not changing the entire demographics of the country so that no Republican or conservative can ever be elected again.”

Radical Anti-Gay Activist Judith Reisman Fondly Recounts Her Close Friendship With Antonin Scalia

Writing in WorldNetDaily yesterday, fringe right-wing "academic" Judith Reisman recounted her close friendship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who would eagerly read her "research" and meet her for lunch whenever she was in town:

Good I kept a record of our tête-à-tête. I’ve tried to stay inside the bounds of our actual conversation. We talked about pornography, and I say about 70 percent of our kids are being exposed, and about private schools and religious schools having sex education that was really traumatic for children. What about the teachers? he asks; and I say this is everywhere with teachers’ permission. I tell him about the libraries having pornography on the computer screens and how that impacts the child who views it; he is nodding, agreeing, commenting. I tell him about my experiment with the peripheral vision of children flipping speedily through ladies magazines, recalling the small dog picture 30 pages past. They capture everything that arouses their interest. I say he could try that with his own grandkids, except that the ladies magazines aren’t necessarily safe anymore. He asks, what about women, seems like there are more women into pornography. I say yes; and that is a huge risk since women are the ones closest to the children; they change the diapers, and arousal is nondiscriminatory – women are becoming part of the problem.

Sitting across from him at lunch, talking and talking, I ask, “But, what shall I call you? Justice Scalia?”

“Why not call me Nino,” he answers, kind of turning in his chair.

“Well, that’s fine,” I said. “I’m Judith.”

From then on it was Nino and Judith, except that he switched to “Judy,” both of us being old enough to go back in time. In semi-formal letters and emails I would usually address him as “Justice Scalia, Sir!”

After this kind reception, I would meet with Nino in his chambers whenever I got to Washington, on average, once or twice a year – assuming he was also in town.

I recall going over my paper on pictorial pornography, answering his questions, clarifying the charts and graphs, etc. There was the time he came into the office in shorts, having left the tennis court to make his appointment with me – ever generous, ever gracious.

We exchanged books, a few of mine for a few of his. He promised to read my books. I always doubted that he read them fully, but enough so that he could opine.

When we lost him, I had been working on a paper we had talked about and that Justice Scalia was waiting to see. The paper has a history that deserves commentary for another time. It was accepted by the Thurgood Marshall School of Law Journal on Gender, Race, and Justice, titled “Nearly 60 Years After His Death, Alfred Kinsey’s Pansexual Worldview Takes Root In Marriage Decisions” (by Judith A. Reisman and Mary E. McAlister, Esq.).

Reisman, as we've noted before, is a radical right-wing activist who wants pornography outlawed, among other things:

  • Has said that sex ed turns children into prostitutes and “little sexual deviants.”
  • Claimed that sex education classes are designed to brainwash children into thinking they might be gay, transgender or “all kinds of other things” and “these kids become fodder for adult predators, that’s exactly what they become."
  • Asserting that Gay-Straight Alliance clubs and anti-bullying campaigns are modeled on Hitler Youth efforts to “sever schoolchildren from their parents’ religious and sexual training."
  • Called GLSEN “a modern version of the Hitler Youth” and said that “the whole point” of GLSEN’s anti-bullying efforts was to promote pedophilia.
  • Claimed that “the aim of homosexual males and now increasingly females is not to have sex with other old guys and get married but to obtain sex with as many boys as possible.”
  • Joined her Liberty colleague Mat Staver in Jamaica in December for a conference organized by those working to preserve laws criminalizing consensual gay sex.
  • Wrote that condoms are not meant for anal sex and called for a “class action lawsuit by AIDS victims and their loved ones” against the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Planned Parenthood and teachers and school systems that promoted condom use.
  • Warned that the Boy Scouts’ vote to end the ban on participation by gay youth would lead to increased pedophilia, and agreed with right-wing radio host Rick Wiles that the Boy Scouts change was about “getting sexual predators into the Boy Scouts.” 

Last year, Reisman joined various other anti-gay activists, as well as several GOP presidential hopefuls and members of Congress, in appearing in Janet Porter's anti-gay film "Light Wins," where she asserted that public schools should face class action lawsuits from parents for illegally "grooming" children for sex:

Benham Bros.: Sexual Revolution Is 'Forcing Itself On Everyone'

After failing to block the Charlotte city council from approving a nondiscrimination ordinance protecting the LGBT community, conservative activists successfully persuaded North Carolina’s GOP-led government last month to pass a sweeping law blocking Charlotte’s measure.

Two of the most visible conservative activists advocating for the move were Jason and David Benham, who, along with their father, Flip Benham, have campaigned against LGBT rights in Charlotte and elsewhere for years, including calling for the Charlotte city government to deny permits to LGBT pride events and organizing a rally against gay rights when the Democratic National Convention was held in the city.

In a WorldNetDaily column today defending the new state law, the Benham twins write that just as the men in the city of Sodom tried to rape the angels who appeared in Lot’s house, now “the newest fruit of the vine of Sodom is the sexual revolution — and it’s poisoning our land. It has nearly taken over everything and is forcing itself on everyone.”

The brothers argue that just as the rapists of Sodom refused Lot’s offer that they rape his daughter instead of the angels, the sexual revolutionaries in America do not believe in compromise or accommodation and simply seek to destroy anyone who doesn’t go along with their demonic agenda.

“Today, the sexual revolution of Sodom has pervaded every sphere of society,” the Benhams write, “capturing both young and old. And anyone standing in the way will be surrounded by an angry mob demanding participation.”

“The sexual revolution is ‘blind’ to its own rage and hate,” they write. “It has no capacity for reason. It has no ability to see its own hypocrisy or discern its hopeless future. It just forces itself on others regardless of cost or consequence.”

America has fallen to this “demanding and pervasive” spirit, the Benham’s continue, “and nothing short of a miracle will stop its deadly poison.”

John Guandolo: Close The Majority Of Mosques In America

John Guandolo, the disgraced former FBI agent who is now a vocal anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, gave an interview to WorldNetDaily yesterday about why the U.S. government should treat mosques as security threats.

Alluding to a bogus study that claimed that eight out of 10 mosques in America preach violence and extremism, Guandolo urged the government to start “arresting all of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the U.S., shutting down their organizations, and all Muslim Brotherhood mosques, which is over 80 percent of them.”

Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller similarly told WorldNetDaily that mosques are a “clear and present danger.”

Pamela Geller, who was herself a target of an Islamic terror attack last year at a draw-Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, said the Obama administration has all but stopped the monitoring of U.S. mosques.

“For years, I have been calling on law enforcement and the FBI to pay closer attention to the mosques,” she told WND. “They present a clear and present danger.”



John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism agent specializing in Quranic-inspired violence, said the U.S. is not doing anything to push back on the jihadi community “which is centered in the mosques which Islamic leaders in North America call the ‘axis of their movement.'”

If anything, the Obama administration is protecting the Islamic community whose stated objective is the destruction of all un-Islamic governments and replacing them with Islamic control under Shariah, he said.

After leaving the FBI Guandolo formed Understanding the Threat, an organization that teaches the tenets of Islam to law enforcement agencies.

“If we ‘monitor’ mosques now, who will do that? So few in law enforcement have been taught about Shariah, the Muslim Brotherhood jihadi network, etcetera,” he said. “UTT is the only organization in the nation doing it.”

Guandolo said he would start by reining in the record influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, and then going after the Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

“If we begin with arresting all of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the U.S., shutting down their organizations, and all Muslim Brotherhood mosques, which is over 80 percent of them, that would be a good start,” he said.

He said this could be done under existing law.

“The underlying federal charge would fall under Title 18 – Conspiracy to Overthrow the Federal government,” he said.

Donald Trump: I Have No Plans To Moderate

Today on “The Savage Nation,” conservative talk radio host Michael Savage asked Donald Trump if he plans to moderate his message before the general election.

“The reason you’re popular is because of borders, because of immigration, because of the flood of Muslims coming into the country,” Savage said. “I would almost say, Donald, please don’t let the moderate influences in your campaign take you off-point, it’s what got you where you are. Are you going to modify your campaign and move a little bit more to the center now?”

Trump assured him that he would not adjust his message, telling Savage that “the last thing I should be doing now is changing so I don’t think you have anything to worry about, okay?”

Gabriel Sherman explained yesterday in New York magazine why Trump’s message sounds so much like Savage and other conservative radio commentators:

Throughout 2014, the three fed Trump strategy memos and political intelligence. “I listened to thousands of hours of talk radio, and he was getting reports from me,” [Sam] Nunberg recalled. What those reports said was that the GOP base was frothing over a handful of issues including immigration, Obamacare, and Common Core. While Jeb Bush talked about crossing the border as an “act of love,” Trump was thinking about how high to build his wall. “We either have borders or we don’t,” Trump told the faithful who flocked to the annual CPAC conference in 2014.



Trump didn’t read a prepared speech, but he knew what he wanted to say, which hardly mattered anyway because hardly anyone took his candidacy seriously at the time. “Nobody said anything,” Trump said about the fact that he had accused Mexico of sending “rapists” over the border into the U.S. “Then two weeks later, they started saying, ‘Wait a minute! Did he really say that?’ ”

He hadn’t tested the line, but Nunberg’s deep dive into talk radio had shown him that this was the sort of thing that would resonate with a certain segment of the Republican base. He also knew that this kind of outrageous statement would earn him the free media attention ($1.9 billion worth and counting, according to the New York Times) that would propel his campaign.

Jesse Lee Peterson Blames Trayvon Martin And Michael Brown's Mothers For Their Deaths

In a column yesterday, far-right radio host Jesse Lee Peterson lashed out at the people who criticized Donald Trump for suggesting that women who have abortions should face “some form of punishment.”

Peterson, who doesn’t even support women’s suffrage, wrote that “the failure of men is failure to address the evil in women,” urging male leaders to be tougher on women and “fight back.”

“Men who apologize and retreat from telling the truth come back defeated,” he wrote. “People suffer and die because men and women do not heed wisdom.”

He claimed that children suffer because women see themselves as victims: “We see the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown out front acting innocent and sweet. In reality, these women are primarily responsible for the inner rage that drove the teens to their deaths.”

The failure of men is failure to address the evil in women. Children suffer for it. With no correction, victims continue to create victims.

Donald Trump said a woman should be punished for having an abortion if it became illegal, and the liberals went nuts. He eventually put out a statement saying a woman should not be punished, but only the abortionist. He said, “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.” Whether or not she’s a “victim,” in most cases the woman is an accomplice.

A victim (or “survivor”) shifts responsibility and judges and victimizes others. A mother like this destroys her children spiritually if not physically.

I write about such mothers in my book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame and Victimhood.” One black woman became pregnant by a man who refused to take responsibility for the child. She tried to abort her son with a coat hanger, and killed his soul: Louis Farrakhan grew up as one of the most evil leaders today, deluding blacks in his mother’s anger and victimhood.

We see the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown out front acting innocent and sweet. In reality, these women are primarily responsible for the inner rage that drove the teens to their deaths.

Barack Obama said that his wife is “the boss.” I guarantee you she despises him for it. An angry woman cannot respect a weak man. And many Christian men are just like Obama.



Men who apologize and retreat from telling the truth come back defeated. People suffer and die because men and women do not heed wisdom. People would rather be angry and outraged on behalf of “women” (or politics) than listen and consider the truth in statements.



It is painful to watch conservative men pander and cater to women – grown men like Ted Cruz, whom I have respected and appreciated over the years, using women’s words, making meaningless, emotional statements that do not suit a man, even allowing Carly Fiorina to speak for him. Cruz said of Trump, “Real men don’t try to bully women.” He said, “Donald Trump is intimidated by strong women.” He said of his wife, “Heidi is my best friend in the whole world; she is the love of my life.” He said of his daughters: “I’m not looking forward to telling the girls why Donald Trump is launching insults and attacks at their mommy.”

“Mommy?” Who has Ted Cruz talking this way? Who finds this appealing? This is not what it means to be about family. I said on my radio show that, hearing this, I would never vote for Ted Cruz. He is a weak man. There are no “strong women.” And men don’t say, “Real men don’t try to bully women.” If a woman attacks you, you fight back.

Right-Wing Pundit Defends Trump's Abortion 'Punishment' Comments

Conservative commentator Gina Loudon dedicated her WorldNetDaily column yesterday to defending Donald Trump’s recent comment that, if abortion is recriminalized, women who have illegal abortions should face “some form of punishment.”

Trump’s campaign, taking heat from the anti-abortion movement for blowing up its PR strategy, attempted to retract the candidate’s comments shortly after he made them. Two days later, Trump suggested that he didn’t actually want to change the current abortion laws at all, a position that his campaign also ended up retracting.

Loudon, however, was just fine with Trump’s initial suggestion that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions, hailing the candidate for upending the debate on an important issue just as he did “when discussing illegal immigration.”

Loudon, defending Trump’s remarks, compared punishing a woman for having an abortion to prosecuting a person who “hires a contractor to kill someone.”

“Conservatives herald ‘the rule of law’ when discussing illegal immigration, but why do the rules suddenly change when we are talking about the killing of an unborn child?” she asked.

“His view was consistent with many things conservatives say,” Loudon continued. “He just didn’t know this was the unspeakable – kind of like saying we should stop illegal immigration was the unspeakable before Trump dared to say otherwise.”

Indeed, Loudon noted that Trump is simply saying what many people in the anti-abortion believe but refuse to say publicly: “Is there a pro-lifer out there that doesn’t think that in a perfect world — where we agreed abortion was, for example, illegal after the first trimester – that the woman could, if working with full knowledge, be held accountable for her complicity in the abortion? Shouldn’t this, like any law that is broken, be considered in a case-by-case manner?”

Abortion rights opponents who criticize Trump, Loudon argued, have decided to “jump on the gender identity ‘women are always victims’ bandwagon” rather than argue that women should be held accountable through prosecutions, making Trump “even more pro-life than the [sic] some of the pro-life groups out there.”

Donald Trump has no high-paid consultants around him telling him what he can and can’t say, even on the liberal’s favorite conservative-killing topic of abortion. They talk all about the woman’s right to choose as if women are so frail and helpless they shouldn’t bear any of the personal responsibility conservatives talk about in other political realms.

Trump knew this: If a person hires a contractor to kill someone, under the law, both the person hiring the contracted killer and the killer are held accountable. In his non-political mind, why would he think any differently?

Conservatives herald “the rule of law” when discussing illegal immigration, but why do the rules suddenly change when we are talking about the killing of an unborn child?

If you kill a pregnant woman, and her baby dies as a result, in most states that is a double homicide.

Donald Trump is new to political campaigns. He has not been formally trained on the political answer to every politically loaded question, like where one stands on abortion.

He has not spent hours in front of a mirror with consultants drilling his words, body language and intonation on every topic. If he had, rest assured, the consultants would have started with abortion. This is the single most un-discussable, off-limits, never-mention topic in all of politics.

When pressed by Chris Matthews, Trump said women who abort their unborn babies should perhaps receive some form of punishment if indeed the abortion in question was banned and, therefore, breaking the law. Trump said he hadn’t thought of what the punishment should be, but you could tell that he hadn’t seen the memo from the GOP consultants that said you aren’t supposed to discuss the personal responsibility of women in this scenario.

His view was consistent with many things conservatives say. He just didn’t know this was the unspeakable – kind of like saying we should stop illegal immigration was the unspeakable before Trump dared to say otherwise.



Is there a pro-lifer out there that doesn’t think that in a perfect world – where we agreed abortion was, for example, illegal after the first trimester – that the woman could, if working with full knowledge, be held accountable for her complicity in the abortion? Shouldn’t this, like any law that is broken, be considered in a case-by-case manner?



When Trump took on the issue of illegal immigration, he ignored conventional wisdom and said that people who broke the law and came here illegally should be punished. The silent majority surprisingly cheered.

Trump came to his position on illegal immigration by using logic and defying political correctness.

After his comments in the MSNBC town hall, Donald Trump has arguably become the most pro-life candidate in the race for president. He is now even more pro-life than the [sic] some of the pro-life groups out there.

I wish I didn’t have to come to Donald Trump’s defense, but to jump on the gender identity “women are always victims” bandwagon against him over this issue would be intellectually dishonest of me. It’s time for authenticity in politics. If conservatives want to talk about the power of women, the rule of law and personal responsibility, gray areas in abortion cannot be glossed over.

Mr. Trump said what he thought. Pro-lifers won’t win in this country until they are courageous enough to admit that not all women who chose to abort their babies are victims. Furthermore, Mr. Trump has vowed to appoint a pro-life Supreme Court justice, as has Sen. Ted Cruz.

Kevin Swanson Agrees With Trump: Abortion 'Ought To Be A Criminal Action'

Donald Trump’s recent comment about needing “some sort of punishment” for women who have abortions threw many in the anti-choice movement into damage control mode. But some anti-choice activists have been cheering Trump on, including, not exactly surprisingly, radical Colorado pastor Kevin Swanson, who said on his radio program today that abortion should be considered “a criminal action” by a woman.

Swanson, who a few months ago hosted Trump’s main Republican presidential rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, at a campaign forum in Iowa, explained that the principle of lex talionis, or “an eye for an eye,” means that women who have abortions should indeed be prosecuted.

“The answer to this,” he said, “is the lex talionis does bring out that if a hazardous condition is created such that a child would be likely to die, whether in the womb or outside of the womb, there ought to be some level of prosecution going on. In that case, it may be just a fine or a prison sentence of some sort. But the principle of the matter is that it’s a criminal action to kill a child, to murder a child, it ought to be a criminal action. And, now, there ought to be, I believe, some leeway as to what sort of prosecution, what sort of sentence might be used in that case.”

He added, however, that “the culpability of the woman might be mitigated somewhat” by the “many forces around her that are pressing her towards this decision.”

“Yes, in many cases, it’s the abortionist, it’s the boyfriend, it’s the mother, it’s the father, it’s — somebody is pressing that woman to kill her child,” he said. “That ought to be brought into the conversation.”

He added that “organizations like Planned Parenthood” are “extremely culpable” when it comes to abortion.

“In other words,” he said, “we need to take care of those that are most culpable first and foremost, and that would be the abortionists and the pro-abortion organizations that engage in as much of the propaganda that we’ve seen in the public schools and elsewhere. So if we deal with it at that level first, we won’t have to deal with it at the level of the average and ordinary woman who has to deal with the decision.”

Jim Bakker Would Not Be Surprised If The Government Stormed His Studio And Arrested Him For Teaching The Bible

Televangelist Jim Bakker interviewed the Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin on his television program last week, where the two warned that if Christians don't start standing up for their religious liberty, then all the freedoms in America will soon be lost.

Boykin asserted that the government no longer recognizes "freedom of religion" and will only protect the "freedom of worship," meaning that Christians are allowed to believe in their faith but are prohibited from actually practicing that faith in the public square, just as happened in Nazi Germany.

"In the public square, you can't live your faith," Boykin warned. "And I'm telling you, if America doesn't wake up and start rejecting this idea of freedom of worship versus freedom of religion, we're not going to have any freedom at all, of any kind."

Bakker readily agreed, insisting that it has gotten to the point where people cannot even pray, preach or read the Bible any more ... despite the fact that he happens to host a television show where he prays, preaches and reads the Bible every single day.

"If [the government] stormed in these doors right now and arrested me, I would not be surprised," he declared.

Were this to happen, it would certainly not be Bakker's first experience with getting arrested.

North Carolina Lt. Gov.: LGBT Rights Measure 'Discriminated' Against Women And Girls

Last week, North Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest spoke with anti-LGBT activist Tony Perkins about the state’s new law banning transgender people from using public restrooms of the gender they identify with and barring cities from instituting LGBT nondiscrimination measures.

The state law, HB2, was enacted in a special session that was called to block a Charlotte measure prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination in places of public accommodation.

Forest, in a March 31 interview with Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, on his “Washington Watch” radio program, said that the state law was actually needed to prevent discrimination, alleging that Charlotte’s protections for LGBT people discriminated against women and children.

“Nobody likes discrimination,” Forest said. “We don’t like discrimination and that’s why we passed an anti-discrimination law, that’s what HB2 was. Nobody likes discrimination, so it’s easy to stand up and say, ‘We don’t like anybody being discriminated against.’ Well, our bill does not discriminate against anybody. In fact, the Charlotte ordinance was amazingly discriminatory against especially women and girls who no longer had the freedom to walk into a restroom and know that they would be safe and secure in that restroom without a man walking in or a pedophile or a predator walking into that bathroom. That’s really discriminatory if you want to talk about discrimination.”

Forest’s allegation that protections for LGBT people will empower child predators has been roundly debunked.

Forest then claimed that the LGBT “lobby” has misrepresented the law because “for them, truth is all relative, there is no absolute truth anymore so they can bend the rules and twist it however they want to to push their agenda.”

Sarah Palin: Trump The Only Candidate Who 'Has Shattered The Glass Ceiling'

On Saturday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin introduced GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump at a rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, by delivering a “pop quiz” to attendees.

“Maybe if you guys yell out the answer then maybe the media will listen to you all and they can — with respect for you — they will be able to report accurately the answer to these simple questions,” Palin attempted to explain.

After declaring that Trump is “the only candidate who has actually created middle-class jobs and helped Americans realize the American Dream,” Palin asked, “Who is the only candidate who promotes women in his own company and has shattered the glass ceiling decades before that was a popular thing to do? Who respects the women?”

“Donald!” the crowd answered.

The former Republican vice presidential candidate explained that Trump showed his reliance on “strong women” by having his daughter, Ivanka, as one of his top advisers.

Palin made the remarks just days after Trump smeared a female reporter who accused his campaign manager of grabbing her and suggested, before backtracking, that women who have abortions should be punished, just the latest episodes in Trump’s long history of maligning women.

William Murray: 'We Still Sacrifice Babies To Moloch Today' Through Abortion

William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition appeared on The Dove TV's "Focus Today" program last week, where he declared that "we still sacrifice babies to Moloch today" through legal abortion.

Murray and host Perry Atkinson were discussing the fact that many people are, according to them, only nominal Christians who do not live and vote according to "proper" Christian values, which Murray noted was not necessarily a new problem.

"There was a period in Israel after King David," he explained, "where making sacrifices of infants and burying them at your doorstep in order to bring good financial luck to the family was an acceptable thing to do. I mean, there were actually some people worshiping Moloch. Just because society is doing it or society is approving it doesn't make it right."

"By the way," he continued, "we still sacrifice babies to Moloch today for the financial good of the family. We call it family planning and say, 'Well, if we abort this baby, the family will be better financially so it's okay.' It really is the same thing as the sacrifices that were done to Moloch several thousand years ago."

Paranoia-Rama: More Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories And The Liberal Plot 'To Enslave' America

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

Even as the GOP appears to be on the verge of nominating Donald Trump for president, it seems that not a day goes by without the candidate or his campaign promoting bizarre claims or flagrantly disregarding the truth.

5) What The Trump Campaign Considers ‘Proof’

While we would typically use this space to share conspiracy theories touted by Ted Cruz, this week we couldn’t pass up the chance to discuss a conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz.

The Texas senator, who is Trump’s strongest remaining rival in the GOP presidential race, has spent the last couple of weeks locked in a “You started it!” back-and-forth with Trump. (For the record, Trump started it).

Things escalated when Cruz accused the Trump campaign of planting a story in the National Enquirer alleging that Cruz has had extramarital affairs with several women, including former adviser Amanda Carpenter. Carpenter and Cruz have both denied the allegations.

Trump denied that his team planted the Enquirer story, while at the same time saying that “Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz.”

And Trump’s director of social media, Dan Scavino, was more than happy to push the allegations about Cruz’s supposed affair with Carpenter, posting a positively bizarre video involving temporary tattoos, a men’s jacket and cheese that he sees as proof of their relationship.

Given the sheer number of insane conspiracy theories embraced by Trump and his campaign, it isn’t too surprising that Scavino would publicize this insane video.

4) Donald Trump Debunked…Again

Donald Trump told CNN in February that he was most likely facing an IRS audit “because of religion” and “because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian and I feel strongly about it.”

Trump’s campaign eventually released a statement from his lawyers confirming that the GOP presidential frontrunner is being audited … but debunking Trump’s claim that the audit is an act of anti-Christian persecution.

The press release not only offers no proof that Trump is a victim of religious persecution, but explicitly debunks his argument, stating that the IRS’ scrutiny of his tax returns is “consistent with the IRS’ practice for large and complex businesses.”

But Trump will no doubt continue to claim that “Christianity is under siege” and that he is one of the foremost victims.

3) Watch Out, It’s A Pen!

The Secret Service may have denied a petition (started by a liberal satirist but apparently signed by many true believers) to allow guns into the Republican National Convention this year, but it turns out GOP may face a bigger security threat: journalists carrying pens.

After then-Breitbart news reporter Michelle Fields said that Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbed her and bruised her arm at a campaign event, Lewandowski claimed he “never touched” Fields and Trump himself said that Fields “made up” the assault.

However, after video was released corroborating Fields’ story and a Florida police department charged Lewandowski with simple battery, the campaign changed its story.

No longer denying that the incident ever happened, the candidate and his defenders are now ludicrously arguing that Lewandowski heroically stopped Fields from getting too close to Trump, who was signing autographs and speaking with other members of the press at the time.

Trump said Fields’ pen was “very dangerous” and could’ve been a “little bomb,” and even suggested that she was the one assaulting him.

Televangelist Pat Robertson, who has praised Trump repeatedly on his “700 Club” program, similarly alleged that Fields “rushed” the candidate and “could’ve had a bomb.”

2) False Flag

Leave it to Alex Jones, the InfoWars conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter, to allege that Lewandowski’s grabbing of Fields was somehow her fault and was part of “a frame job.”

“You talk about a staged event, you talk about a false flag, that’s a frame-up,” Jones said, suggesting that Fields, who at the time was working for the conservative outlet Breitbart, somehow wanted to get bruised by Lewandowski so she could manipulate “women to go basically vote for Hillary.”

1) ‘Plans To Enslave An Entire Nation’

During a recent broadcast of “Trunews,” Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and ex-Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, discussed the supposed threat of Democracy Spring, a protest calling for money-in-politics reform, with host Rick Wiles.

Stockman called the planned protest “a threat to our national security” and “a threat to our nation’s survival,” while Pratt thought the people involved in the Democracy Spring campaign would try to “take over” the U.S.

Unfortunately, according to Pratt, members of the media are covering up this insidious plot because they “don’t want to talk about plans to overthrow a government, they don’t want to talk about plans to enslave an entire nation and yet it happens before our very eyes.”

Trump's 'Punishment' Comments Have Caught Anti-Choice Leaders Flat-Footed

Donald Trump’s recent comments — since walked back — about the need to have “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned, even though those women would be forced to “illegal places” for the procedure, caused the anti-choice movement to go into damage control as all of its carefully honed talking points were dismantled by the man who may be their presidential candidate.

And it turned out that anti-choice leaders are so used to deflecting tough questions about the results of recriminalizing abortion that, when forced to face those questions head-on, they don’t really have any good answers.

Yesterday, Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of the Susan B. Anthony List, attempted to deflect concerns about women seeking illegal abortions if Roe is overturned by claiming, unbelievably, that illegal abortion wouldn’t be a problem because desperate women would be won over by anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers instead.

Then, today, Clarke Forsythe, a longtime attorney for Americans United for Life who is now apparently serving as the organization's acting president, published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times explaining that women need not worry because, if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be legal in many states. Those states that then want to enact abortion bans, he writes, will probably do it in a way that exempts women from prosecution:

The claim that women will be jailed for abortion when Roe is overturned rests on a second myth: that the Supreme Court's change of heart will result in the immediate re-criminalization of abortion.

But if Roe were overturned today, abortion would be legal well into the second trimester in at least 42 to 43 states tomorrow (and likely all 50 states) for the simple reason that nearly all of the state abortion prohibitions have been either repealed or are blocked by state court versions of Roe.

Extensive practical law enforcement experience in many states, over many years, is what led prosecutors not to target women. After Roe is overturned, that experience will certainly be influential with state policymakers who wish to effectively enforce abortion law.

Because we recognize that abortion is bad for both mother and child, pro-life leaders do not support the prosecution of women and will not push for such a policy when Roe is overturned. (Obviously, like Trump, any single legislator can spout their idiosyncratic ideas.)

Forsythe also argues that in states that did recriminalize abortion after the overturning of Roe, any criminal penalties on women would probably not be enforced because women who have abortions have traditionally been seen as a “victim” of “male coercion”:

Before the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade — which legalized abortion for any reason, at any time of pregnancy — state abortion laws targeted abortionists (those who performed abortions), not women.

The states understood that the point of abortion law is effective enforcement against abortionists; that the woman is the second victim of the abortionist; and that prosecuting women is counterproductive to the goal of effective enforcement of the law against abortionists.

Since time immemorial, the law has recognized that male coercion, abandonment or indifference has been at the center of most abortions.

Granted, as many as 20 state statutes technically made it a crime for the woman to participate in her own abortion. But these were not enforced.

Forsythe is one of the most thoughtful legal strategists working in the anti-abortion movement today. And the best answer he can come up with to the question of what would happen to women if Roe were to be overturned tomorrow is that abortion wouldn’t actually be recriminalized in many places and even in places where it was, lawmakers would probably spare women.

Of course, the anti-choice movement’s entire goal is to ban the procedure nationwide.

Donald Trump’s comments on abortion were terrifying. But the GOP frontrunner did a public service by exposing that, when it comes to the tough questions about banning abortion, anti-choice groups are completely unprepared.

WorldNetDaily Terrified Of The 'ObamaInternet'

One of the most dishonest smears against President Obama from conservatives in the last presidential election was that he distributed federally subsidized “Obama phones” to low-income African-Americans in order to win their votes.

These critics, however, generally failed to mention that the so-called “Obama phone” program, known as Lifeline, actually originated in the Reagan era and was expanded by the Bush administration.

Today, the conservative website WorldNetDaily responded to the news that the Federal Communications Commission just “approved a $9.25 monthly broadband subsidy to help millions of low-income households connect to the Internet” through the Lifeline program by bashing it as the “ObamaInternet.”

Should we be surprised that WorldNetDaily thinks a plan to help families gain broadband access is really a sinister Obama plot?

Religious Right Legal Leader: Of Course States Could Punish Women For Abortion

When Donald Trump said this week that, if abortion is recriminalized, women who have abortions should face “some form of punishment,” the anti-choice movement went into damage control mode and Trump quickly attempted to walk back his comments.

But not every abortion rights opponent got the memo about not touching the third rail of anti-abortion politics. Televangelist Pat Robertson, for instance, seemed genuinely perplexed by the issue, saying that while it “does seem a bit draconian” to punish women for abortion, “if somebody says abortion is murder, then what do you do to somebody who commits murder?”

Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, the Religious Right legal group founded by Robertson, similarly seemed to have not gotten the memo, explaining on his radio program yesterday that if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, of course states would be free to impose punishments on women who get abortions, especially if they view embryos and fetuses as “persons” under the law. Sekulow also hinted that he might agree with such a policy for women who use abortion for “birth control.”

While the current federal ban on “partial-birth” abortion protects women from prosecution, Sekulow explained, if Roe were overturned, states would be free to impose whatever abortion penalties they wanted.

“That’s a different question from whether you legally could have statutes, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, that criminalized the abortion activity,” he said, “including anybody that voluntarily — not coercion, not life of the mother, not rape or incest, because those would all be defenses — but could a state say if a woman voluntarily had a partial-birth abortion that that act could be criminalized, could a state say that? Sure, a state could say that. And if you believe that the child’s a person, well, I’m not so sure that that’s contradictory.”

Sekulow added that “politically we always focus on the abortion provider, not the woman” but “that’s a different question than legally” so, legally, “a state could say that anybody involved in the process is committing a crime, if you believe it’s a person.”

Sekulow’s son, Jordan, a cohost of the show, noted: “We’re talking hypotheticals here, I think it’s a long road until we get to that point where those kind of abortion laws would be potentially in place.”

“There’s a political question whether they should be,” Sekulow responded, “I think that’s a legitimate point. But the legal issue is not improbable.”

Later in the program, the Sekulows and their cohost, ACLJ government affairs director Nathanael Bennett, took a call from a listener who said that Trump’s comments were encouraging to her because while she doubted that the candidate was truly against abortion rights, the comments show “at least he’s thinking pro-life and would be willing to take that stance.”

Sekulow responded by repeating his point that Trump was not “legally incorrect” in saying there could be punishments for women if abortion becomes illegal.

“If we believe the child is a person,” he said, “in other words, the personhood of the child, that should be protected under the Constitution, that someone that knowingly, willfully and voluntarily takes the life of that person could be — not should be, could be — held culpable under criminal laws of the various states, that would not be illegal or extraconstitutional.”

“Now, I’m not saying that’s the right policy,” he added, “because a lot of us view that women are forced into coerced situations, but the reality is — and let me just drop a hypothetical, a woman’s having her third — and this happens — third partial-birth abortion, partial-birth abortion’s illegal and the state of California says, ‘You know what, anybody that participates in a partial-birth abortion, unless it’s the life of the mother, rape or incest, is a culpable criminal.’ That’s not illegal. A state could do that. I’m not saying that’s the right political decision, I’m not even saying that’s the right moral decision. I’m saying legally, was what Trump was saying legally incorrect? No, it wasn’t legally incorrect. Politically he had to take it back, but legally it was not incorrect.”

Jordan Sekulow and Bennett said that while they had seen some “positive” responses to Trump’s comments from their conservative audience members, including one who wrote in to say she had a “new respect for Donald Trump,” the comments would become a political liability for him in the general election.

Bennett said Trump’s comments had given him “some heartburn” because “we want to win hearts and minds on this.”

“You want to know why it gives you heartburn?” Sekulow demanded. “You want to know why it gives everybody heartburn? I’m going to say it and this is going to be controversial. You know why it really gives everybody heartburn? Here’s the real reason, and some of you are going to really disagree with this: because a lot of people really don’t believe the unborn child is a person.”

He then went on to suggest that he does believe that “the unborn child is a person” and thus might be open to punishments for women who use abortion as “birth control.”

“Because if you really believe,” he said, “that the unborn child’s a person — and as I’ve looked at my grandchildren’s ultrasounds — you would say, if somebody voluntarily did this for the purposes of birth control —which is generally what it is, is an inconvenience, not medically necessary, not life of the mother, not incest or rape — you think to yourself, if it’s really a person, what’s so, what’s so — but we aren’t there yet politically and we’re not there maybe even legally or morally, and that may be shame on us in one sense.

“I’m not saying it would be the right policy, by the way, to do this, because I believe politics are the art of the possible and I agree, Than, we want to win hearts and minds. But the problem is, if you really logically look at this, the fact of the matter is, if it’s a person for goodness sake, and I believe it is, the rules would be different. For any other person that somebody killed, they’d be held culpable, either as the primary person or the accessory to the crime. So this is not, it’s not craziness what’s being said here, and I think that’s why on social media you’re seeing kind of a mixed reaction.”

Just in case the audience didn’t get the point, the Sekulows returned to the point later in the program, as Jay insisted that “the kerfuffle that Donald Trump’s in” is because “he’s not familiar enough with the language or the nuance” of the anti-abortion movement, not because he’s “legally wrong.”

Jordan added that the anti-choice movement’s opposition to legal punishment for women is indeed a “policy position” and not necessarily the legal result of banning abortion. “On the legal side of it, though, you see why the reason would be, if you make something illegal then you could punish, and so ultimately that would be up to the policymakers to decide,” he said.

Syndicate content