WorldNetDaily

After unsuccessful attempts to knock President Obama off the ballot and defeat Obama after the election by throwing the Electoral College into chaos, WorldNetDaily now is petitioning Chief Justice John Roberts to refuse to administer the presidential oath of office. WND commentator Craige McMillan said that if Roberts doesn’t withhold the oath, he will face “impeachment and eternal dishonor.” He even compared the current state of the U.S. to Nazi Germany by warning that America will have its own Nuremberg Trials to prosecute those who had been “violating their own oath of office, continu[ing] the sham through a second presidential term”

Dear Mr. Roberts,

When you administered the oath of office to Barack Obama for his first term as president, you could have been excused for believing that Mr. Obama was qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of president, which he had sought and won. After all, Obama’s opponent, John McCain, never raised the issue of Mr. Obama’s qualifications.

Now that Mr. Obama has been re-elected and is preparing to serve a second term of office, there can be no doubt regarding his qualifications. This is because by Mr. Obama’s own admission, his father was of Kenyan nationality and perhaps holding British citizenship as well.

…

Your own oath of office, sworn before God and the American people, requires you to uphold the Constitution. (If not you, then who?) If you now administer the oath of office for the presidency to a man who by his own admission fails to meet the natural born citizen requirement imposed by that Constitution, you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment by any House of Representatives, at any time, now or in the future.

If you choose the easy course of ignoring our Constitution, it does not change the fact that Mr. Obama is barred by that same Constitution from acting as president. I am sure that if you turn your judicial mind to the ramifications of this fraud, both foreign and domestic, you will understand that the harm you will have done insures your impeachment and eternal dishonor at some point down the road: If not this House of Representatives, then the next, or the next, or the next.

These things do not end well. One need only look to the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials to see what awaits. Illegal wars. Illegal debts. Illegal laws. Will the rest of the Supreme Court’s justices, now knowing they are violating their own oath of office, continue the sham through a second presidential term? How, then, is the highest court of law in the nation any different than that pictorial proverb in Japan of the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?

Given the gravity of this situation, we therefore urge you to take the honorable course of action and refuse to administer the oath of office to Mr. Obama. And yes, this will also require you to explain to the nation in the clearest possible terms why you have been compelled to take this most extraordinary action.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, for your consideration.

Earlier this week, WorldNetDaily columnist and regular Fox News guest Erik Rush tweeted a video arguing that President Obama orchestrated the Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado shootings in order to cover-up a massive government scandal, forcibly disarm Americans, put people in concentration camps and start a civil war. Of course the conspiracy theory is complete nonsense, but Rush doesn’t think so.

Today in WND, Rush effectively suggested that people should begin an armed revolt against the government: “There are also Americans – some misguided, some ideologues – who work every day of the week in the cause of compromising our liberties,” Rush writes, “I suppose suggesting that we shoot them wouldn’t be taken very well – although that is precisely what it came down to 236 years ago.”

Rush, who hoped that a Romney administration would imprison liberals and journalists, like in the conspiracy video warns that the Obama administration is using the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, to “divert attention from its own abject criminality,” crack down on gun ownership, do away with the Constitution and require “compulsory periodic assessments of citizens by government psychologists.”

Within hours of the first reports of the heinous massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last week, it was evident that members of the gun-control lobby, dedicated leftist organizations and elements of the press were finding the circumstances of this crime simply delicious. I say that because of the alacrity with which they immediately initiated email barrages to their mailing lists and the shamelessly biased reporting of the shootings in the context of a need for swift and sweeping changes to America’s firearms laws.

…

In an address advertised as intending to console residents of Newtown on Dec. 16 (I suppose one could call it a “consolation address”), President Obama furtively telegraphed his intention to advance gun-control legislation through more of his subtle tyranny. Like so many instances in the past, Obama peremptorily (though erroneously) circumscribed the problem, then alluded to more “fundamental transformation” being required to solve it, whether this involves the wholesale subordination of industrial sectors to the government, unconstitutional legislation, or dark-of-the-night, unpublicized executive orders.

In Obamaspeak, “We have to change” simply means we must be willing to pitch the Constitution, capitalism, notions of liberty and traditional values as Obama sees fit. In an effort to squeeze as much popular political capital from the Sandy Hook tragedy as possible, the administration sent an email late Monday directing supporters to the president’s weekend speech online, in which he promised to take action to prevent mass shootings.

There were also donation link buttons on the page with the video and Obama’s pledge, which gives rise to a visual of vultures picking flesh from the carcasses of dead first-graders. It also bears mentioning here that the Newtown massacre has presented the Obama administration with a stellar opportunity to divert attention from its own abject criminality.

Of course, Obama’s sympathies, like those of anti-gun lobbyists and liberals in general, ostensibly have their genesis in our safety. Everyone wants to feel safe, of course. Don’t you want your children to be safe? Progressives want guns out of citizens’ hands so they feel safe when they circumvent or otherwise subvert the Bill of Rights.

…

It is of the utmost importance that Americans become aware of the dedicated efforts that are being made to transform us from citizens into subjects, and that we are already at war. This is a war we have not seen the likes of previously and that will challenge notions of war for centuries to come. Even if we did not have the Second Amendment to stand on, I would still support gun rights, because guns are not the issue – power is. Next will come edged weapons control, then blunt weapons control, then compulsory periodic assessments of citizens by government psychologists.

There are millions of Americans for whom “it can’t happen here” has been well-inculcated into their worldview; these have been conditioned to operate at the basest of intellectual levels. They are also the ones who will blindly obey any laws enacted by government, whether these imperceptibly erode their liberties, or require their reporting neighbors to secret police.

There are also Americans – some misguided, some ideologues – who work every day of the week in the cause of compromising our liberties. They are just as dangerous and criminal as those who would stifle any of the liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.

I suppose suggesting that we shoot them wouldn’t be taken very well – although that is precisely what it came down to 236 years ago.

The far right’s reaction to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut continues to side into over-the-top rhetoric and conspiracy theories. The extremist group Oath Keepers released a statement claiming that the government is “complicit in the deaths of these children, and in fact an accessory to their mass murder” by promoting gun control laws:

This shooting is yet another tragic example of the failed, grotesque insistence on helpless victim zones where any crazed gunman can be assured of a large number of disarmed, undefended, helpless victims, all crammed into one place, where he can kill many children before an armed defender arrives from elsewhere. It is disturbing and sick that the federal government so hates the right of the American people to bear arms, and so hates their natural right to self defense, that the government insists on making them helpless, disarmed victims for anyone who cares to kill them. And in this case, all of the teachers and staff were willfully disarmed by the Federal Government, by force of law and threat of prison, to ensure that they would be disarmed and incapable of saving the lives of the children entrusted to their care.

That makes the Federal Government complicit in the deaths of these children, and in fact an accessory to their mass murder, by forcibly disarming (with the very real threat of prison) all the teachers, all the staff, and any parent who may have been on school property. That stupid law guaranteed the shooters would meet no immediate armed resistance, which is exactly what is needed to stop such an attack.

Randy Thomasson of Save California said that the shooting is “another example of societal degradation, a deadly consequence of promoting murderous abortions, godless evolution, and gratuitous violence,” urging schools to begin “teaching the fear of God” and arming “every school official”:

More than asking why this evil happened, we need to work diligently to prevent it. The innocents killed at Newtown are double the number of Columbine victims in 1999. We should be all the more grieved and all the more resolved to stop murders before they start. The answer is teaching the fear of God and love for God in schools and throughout society. Because mass murder is another example of societal degradation, a deadly consequence of promoting murderous abortions, godless evolution, and gratuitous violence. How opposite of teaching children that all people are worthy because they were created by God, that all innocent human beings deserve protection because they're made in God's image, and that every person is accountable to God when He judges the world.

Every school official should be armed and trained to repel these attacks upon schoolchildren. And every parent and every media industry decision maker should absolutely prohibit children from enjoying scenes that glorify violence and desensitize them to the taking of innocent human life.

WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day didn’t play down the gun imagery in a column about “firing back at gun controllers,” insisting that the government is using the shooting to acquire dictatorial powers and “assassinate [Americans] at will”:

The television is full of weeping parents and pictures of angelic children. Facebook is afire with solipsistic women attempting to co-opt the tragedy for their own emotional gratification. Politicians wipe away fake tears and thunder about the need for “meaningful action.” Psychologists blather about the killer’s motivation and wonder if his murderous rage stemmed from inadequate toilet-training, psychotropic medications or his parent’s divorce. Conspiracy theorists note inconsistencies in the news stories and mark the suicide that always seems to be accompanied by reports of a second gunman.

We know the drill. This isn’t our first rodeo.

Americans who value freedom know that they cannot permit ignorant comments from the overly emotional about how “we must do something” to stand unchallenged. The political elite that seeks to disarm the American people is getting increasingly desperate, seeing how public support for gun rights has consistently grown in keeping with the federal government’s assertion of its right to fly armed drones over their heads and assassinate them at will. They are alarmed by the way in which all of their attempts to emotionally manipulate the American people into submitting to a blatantly unconstitutional disarmament have not only failed, but backfired.

The ruling elite is presently embarking upon a full-court press for gun control, the likes of which have not been seen since George W. Bush’s administration used the 2008 financial crisis to ram TARP down the throats of an unwilling American people and bail out his friends on Wall Street. But it isn’t working. It isn’t working because we know the drill.

…

Don’t give them an inch. Cut them no slack. Punch back twice as hard. When they bring the knife of emotional blackmail to the argument, draw your .50 caliber Desert Eagle of facts, logic and history and blow them away without mercy.

...

Ask them this: 800,000 law enforcement officers have killed 525 unarmed citizens with guns so far this year. Approximately 310 million private citizens killed an estimated 10,500 of their fellow citizens with guns over the same period of time. Given that a law enforcement officer is 19.4 times more likely to shoot and kill an unarmed American than a private citizen, if you genuinely care about reducing gun deaths, why aren’t you calling for the disarmament of law enforcement?

WorldNetDaily is pushing a story about supposed Islamic indoctrination in Texas based on a chain email literally days after a review of the curriculum by the Irving Independent School District found nothing of the sort. The school district launched the review because of the chain email set off rumors that schools were trying to convert students to Islam with overt and subliminal messages and the Boston Tea Party was portrayed as an act of terrorism. The review found that “Christianity got twice as much attention in the curriculum as any other religion” and that “The Red Crescent and Boston Tea Party reference mentioned in the email were nowhere in CSCOPE’s curriculum.”

But WorldNetDaily, as you’d expect, decided to cite the chain email as a credible source and completely ignored reports about the study debunking its claims.

In the 70 percent of Texas public schools where a private curriculum has been installed, students are learning the “fact” that “Allah is the Almighty God,” charge critics of a new online curriculum that already is facing condemnation for its secrecy and restrictions on oversight.

The program, called CSCOPE, is a private venture operating under the umbrella of the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative, whose incorporation documents state its independence from the State Board of Education of the Texas Education Agency.

Other reports previously have raised alarm over the curriculum’s depiction of the Boston Tea Party as a terrorist act on par with the 9/11 attack.

According to documentation that has leaked out, the program describes the Boston Tea Party this way: “A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.”

…

Now come concerns about what critics describe as a definitively pro-Islam bias.

The critics say the studies border on proselytizing.

Rick Santorum must be proud that his new employer, WorldNetDaily, is promoting pastor Scott Lively’s endorsement of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Lively helped craft the original bill, which called for the death penalty for gays and lesbians, but ultimately distanced himself from the legislation that made homosexuality a crime punishable by death. This week Lively, who has always supported the criminalization of homosexuality, came out in favor of a proposed version of the bill that swaps out the death penalty in favor of life in prison for gays and lesbians. It would also criminalize advocacy of equal rights. Lively argues that the bill would prevent the “homosexualization of Ugandan culture.”

First, the Bible has always defined homosexuality as a crime, and not just in the Mosaic Law. Homosexuality was condemned by God long before Moses declared it a capital crime (by God’s own instruction), and God’s condemnation of it was reaffirmed repeatedly in the New Testament. Preceding Moses, there is the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, and a somewhat similar account in Judges 19. According to Rabbinic tradition, even the Great Flood of Noah in Genesis 6-9 was precipitated by homosexual sin. In the New Testament, Chapter 1 of Romans not only condemns homosexuality as “depraved,” but reaffirms the death penalty for it as well (verses 18-32). I Corinthians 6:9-11, the “ex-gay” passage, both condemns homosexuality and reports that some of the Corinthians to whom the letter was written were themselves recovered homosexuals who had been healed and delivered by faith in Christ. These are just a few of the numerous Bible passages addressing homosexuality, all of which condemn it in unequivocal terms.

…

Second, in all the media-driven hysteria about the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill, one glaring fact has been consistently omitted (despite my having pointed it out to nearly every “journalist” who has interviewed me). The fact is, Ugandan law is typical of most African law in that it tends to be very harsh in the letter, but very lenient in the application. I doubt very much that anyone arrested under the new law (if it passes) will receive anything close to the jail terms allowed for in the bill.

Third, and most importantly, there is one easy, guaranteed method of protecting oneself from ever being subject to the anti-homosexuality law in Uganda: Don’t commit sodomy! We all seem to forget, in the dense propaganda haze of American popular opinion, that homosexuality is defined by voluntary sexual acts. Homosexuals are no more compelled to commit sodomy with each other than a married man is compelled to cheat on his wife.

In my opinion, the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill is still too harsh in the letter. I would prefer something closer to the approach several American states have taken toward marijuana: Criminalize it, but minimize the penalty and turn a blind eye toward discrete violations. Indeed, this would be my prescription for dealing with homosexuality (and all sex outside of marriage) in the United States. This would preserve basic freedom of choice for people who choose to inhabit various subcultures out of the mainstream, yet provide the larger, marriage-based society with the legal power to prevent sex activists from advocating their lifestyles to children in the public schools or to flaunt their sins in “pride” parades through the city streets.

However, since I didn’t write the Ugandan bill and have no power to redraft it on my own terms, and since the alternative to passing this bill is to allow the continuing, rapid, foreigner-driven homosexualization of Ugandan culture, I am giving the revised anti-homosexuality bill my support.

After warning that government programs like Social Security turn people gay, Government Is Not God PAC head William Murray writes in WorldNetDaily today that President Obama is using Adolf Hitler as a model to pursue his “false Garden of Eden on Earth.” He says that just as Hitler used money stolen from Jews he sent to death camps to fund his war effort, Obama is trying to raise taxes on the rich to build a “culture of dependency.”

Murray also claims that Obama is targeting Jews and Christians because their faiths are getting in the way of his attempt to grow the size of government, while supposedly aiding Muslims, “radical environmentalists, Christian-hating atheists, homosexual radicals” and liberals. As Democrats put together “unholy alliances with evil,” Murray warns that if conservatives don’t embrace anti-choice and anti-gay positions then the U.S. will face God’s judgment.

President Barack Hussein Obama has a vision of an American utopia not of equal opportunity, but of centrally planned equal outcomes. Many refer to Obama as a socialist or even a communist, but those are just two of the roads politicians in the past have chosen to create their vision of a centrally planned utopia state, or a false Garden of Eden on Earth. Adolf Hitler is most often referred to as a fascist, but he was also one of the foremost central planners and utopianists in history. He called his brand of utopianism “national socialism.”

Central-planning attempts at creating a utopia have always been paid for with stolen money, and most have lasted only until the stolen money was all spent. Hitler, for example, was indeed anti-Semitic, but his hatred of the Jews had practical applications as well. He stole the homes, furniture, jewels, money and even gold teeth of the Jews he killed to finance his thousand-year utopian dream that lasted less than three decades and caused the deaths of tens of millions and the destruction of entire cities. He ran out of stolen money to finance his war machine and bring his utopian dream to the world. Toward the end he even tried to trade the Hungarian Jews who were still alive to the Allies for cash.

To create the “common good” and have “economic equality,” a central government must “plan.” Barack Hussein Obama has vastly increased government to expand the central planning that already existed, thanks to both political parties. His version of central planning covers everything from “green energy” to forcing religious institutions to pay for contraceptives and abortions. His utopian central-planning czars want to control our energy use, our diets and our incomes. Next government will tell us where and when we can talk about our faith in the Lord.

There is freedom in central planning, but as F.A. Hayek pointed out in his famous book “Road to Serfdom,” it is the “unlimited freedom of the planner to do with the society what he pleases.” Judeo-Christianity, which emphasizes the freedom of the individual under a supreme God, is not compatible with a central planner’s visions of a society in which “all gods are equal” under government. On the planet Barack Hussein Obama comes from, his vision of social good comes first, and all religions – except Islam – must conform to the centrally planned society. Individual freedom is not possible in a centrally planned society.

…

The nation has gone past the tipping point. There are simply not enough people paying income taxes to get majority public support for this position. Obama is robbing Peter to pay Paul, as mentioned above. All those “Pauls,” plus the radical environmentalists, Christian-hating atheists, homosexual radicals and nutty rich liberals like Warren Buffet came together to vote for Obama and keep Harry Reid in charge of the Senate. The Republicans desperately need social conservatives, yet are now ignoring our issues.

Not even a month has passed since the election, and the GOP establishment is distancing itself from social conservative leaders. These establishment guys really believe that telling the 50 percent of the adults who pay no income tax at all that they are going to reduce spending and cut taxes is going to get them elected. How? People on food stamps are not going to vote for the GOP if the social issues are tossed in the trash. And meanwhile, the Democrats are proud of their stance on social issues. Democratic congressmen ride in “gay” parades and help women get to abortion clinics. Most Republicans hide on the day of the Right to Life march in January.

Many of those who pay no taxes at all and receive government assistance vote for Republican candidates because they are pro-life and pro-traditional family. Is such a family on food stamps going to vote for a Republican who both supports same-sex marriage and wants to cut food stamps? The same family will, however, vote for a strong social conservative.

…

Democrats are proud of their unholy alliances with evil, but the Republican establishment is ashamed of their moral allies who stand with the Bible. Thankfully, there are more than 100 members of Congress in the Congressional Prayer Caucus that social conservative leaders like me can continue to work with.

The GOP establishment needs to get some Old Time Religion!

Yes, the nation needs low taxes for economic growth, but our nation also needs to be right in the eyes of God. America cannot at the same time kill over 1 million babies a year, mock the Bible with same-sex marriage and bow to the false god of Islam throughout the world, without receiving God’s judgment.

Yesterday, WorldNetDaily announced that Rick Santorum will become a regular commentator for the conspiratorial “news” site. And now, the former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate will get to share space with other commentators like Vox Day, who today uses his column to call for a new secessionist political party to resist the growing numbers of racial minorities.

Day was writing about British Prime Minister David Cameron’s resistance to attempts by the Scottish National Party (SNP) for Scotland to leave the UK and a campaign by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) for the country to exit the European Union. He writes that the SNP and UKIP can serve as a model for “white Americans who still hold to traditional values” to start a new country and leave the U.S. He claims that whites have every reason to secede as the “English people and the Scottish people have far more in common than Americans do with the tens of millions of post-1965 immigrants from various non-European nations around the world,” whom he says are ruining America.

There can be little doubt that Cameron’s opinion of UKIP is but a pale shadow of the U.S. bifactional ruling party’s hatred and contempt for white Americans who still hold to traditional values, believe in their constitutional liberties and derive their sense of identity from historical America. They mock the secessionist petitioners in Texas and other states, celebrate the infestation of even the smallest American heartland towns by African, Asian and Aztec cultures, and engage in ruthless doublethink as they worship at the altar of a false and entirely nonexistent equality.

And yet, they are afraid and they threaten every American who dares to think the unthinkable and speak the unspeakable. Why? Because they know time, history and socionomics are not on their side.

Is the secession of several American states truly unthinkable? Is the breakup of the United States of America really outside the boundaries of historically reasonable possibility?

Some would point to the amount of time that has passed since the Civil War, when the question was last considered. It has been 147 years since Americans attempted to exert their right to self-determination and leave the United States. However, it has been 305 years since the Scottish Parliament passed the Union with England Act in 1707, and even if Scotland does not vote to break up the Union in the referendum tentatively scheduled for 2014, the fact that the Scottish people are seriously considering an exit from a Union that is twice as old as the forcible one imposed by Abraham Lincoln should suffice to prove that the age of the U.S. does not render a potential breakup theoretically or practically impossible.

This is especially true given that the English people and the Scottish people have far more in common than Americans do with the tens of millions of post-1965 immigrants from various non-European nations around the world, or their urban enablers. The fact that the future citizens of Aztlán are presently content to continue collecting tribute in the form of state and federal largesse does not mean that they will refrain from exerting the political muscle that their growing demographic weight provides them once the contracting economy brings the gravy train to an end.

It also seems unlikely that the millions of Americans who have moved away from declining school systems, who have retreated from an increasingly vibrant communities, and who have fled from high-tax jurisdictions will continue to retreat as the people who destroyed their schools, their communities and their state budgets attempt to follow them.

They will not because they cannot. The frontiers are closed. There is nowhere else to go.

Many right-wing extremists loathe Grover Norquist because they think he is a secret Muslim and Muslim Brotherhood operative and argue that his strict opposition to any and all tax increases doesn’t excuse his supposed support for “jihadists undermining our Republic with Sharia.” WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, apparently trying to find new ways to top his other hilariously ridiculous columns, now asserts that Norquist is using his strict focus on tax issues to keep “rank-and-file Republicans distracted” as Democrats turn the U.S. into a socialist “oligarchical collective,” with the help of the Council on Foreign Relations and possibly even the New World Order.

Lately, some of our long-respected conservative commentators have also shown themselves to be … well, not nearly as smart as we thought they were, or else complicit in this elitist subjugation of the republic. Whether they have always been of these sentiments or if they’ve developed a different view of socialism now that their nests are well-feathered is unknown to me; such knowledge would be of no practical use to us in any event. We’ve seen an election that speaks to a dangerous shift in the worldview of our electorate, widespread election fraud, or both, and these fools continue their attempts to wax profound in their nightly analyses. As the country crumbles around us, they cavalierly pontificate, overcomplicating something that is very simple: a Marxist thug installing an oligarchical collective where a republic once stood.

…

Norquist is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which qualifies him for a place in Satan’s pantheon of arch-devils, in the view of many hard-line conservatives and libertarians. The CFR, one of several politically eclectic organizations wherein there is a queer overlap between Democratic and Republican power players, is considered to be instrumental in many “New World Order” conspiracy theories, some of which appear much less theoretical these days. So, Norquist is either doing an abysmal job of “really running” the GOP, or he is – as I charge many Republican leaders are doing – simply keeping rank-and-file Republicans distracted while the socialists go their merry unmolested way.

I would suggest that conservatives prepare to employ uncompromising and brutal honesty when discerning the character of those who sell themselves as conservatives. This will not be easy. There is a large crop of politicians and commentators whom many of us have heretofore admired who may need to go under the bus with all due speed.

The folks at VCY America regularly promote all of the insanity posted on WorldNetDaily by its senior reporter Jerome Corsi, broadcasting his claims that President Obama’s wedding ring (yes, his wedding ring) transmits “secret communications” to Muslims and also publicizing Corsi’s “scoop” that Obama is secretly gay. Yesterday, VCY America’s Vic Eliason interviewed WND editor Joseph Farah, who claims that Obama won reelection due to voter fraud because his campaign accepted money from foreign donors (it didn’t) and stuffed ballot boxes in urban precincts (also not true). After ranting about massive voter fraud while not pointing to any real evidence of it, Farah then talked to Eliason about what he considers the all-too-real possibility of Obama undermining the Constitution in order to serve a third term.

Eliason: Interesting on Fox this morning, there is somebody promoting that there is a possibility if certain things happen that the President could be in for a third term, I got chills.

Farah: Listen, if you don’t believe in the Constitution and you’ve got a President who is not even eligible under the Constitution to serve, anything is possible, isn’t it? See the difference with the United States of America is that we’re supposed to be a country under the rule of law and that starts with the Constitution and that’s the most important law we have. And yet we ignore it every single day in Washington, every single day. Most acts of Congress are unconstitutional; we’ve gotten to that point. And the President has no—, he thinks we have a living Constitution that could mean whatever he wants it to mean. So hey, I wouldn’t rule it out.

He went on to claim that America is “on the brink” of losing “elections in the future” because of all the (non-existent) voter fraud and Obama’s re-election. He even took one last dig at Gov. Chris Christie for working with President Obama on relief efforts following Hurricane Sandy: “Unfortunately, instead of turning to God he turned to Obama for help, that’s the problem that we have in America.”

Farah: I don’t believe there is any way we are going to overturn this election because of what I’m telling you now, but what I am concerned about is this country, its future, elections in the future. We are very near the point, I believe, where elections won’t matter anymore. When elections don’t matter anymore, that means you don’t matter anymore, your rights don’t matter anymore. We’re on the brink of that. That’s why it’s important for us to make a lot of noise about this and demand reforms be made.

Eliason: The tipping point. I tell you we need to pray for our country. As we are facing the next four years, I was listening to some of the secular news this morning, they were talking about Armageddon.

Farah: They recognize it. A lot of things coming together at once, super storms and all these kinds of things, and it makes even the disbelievers believe, doesn’t it?

Eliason: You know I was on the air on our morning show talking about 2 Chronicles 7:14, but oftentimes we forget 13 and 15, verse 13 talks about the penalties and God’s judgment, and it talks about the locusts and the pestilence. I made a comment that morning just warning people that this may be God dealing with us, considering the storms and all of the things that are happening. I turned on the radio as I left the studios and here was Chris Christie and out of his mouth came, ‘I’m looking for the locusts and the pestilence.’

Farah: Unfortunately, instead of turning to God he turned to Obama for help, that’s the problem that we have in America. It’s a problem that we have in Israel, for that matter, Israel relying on its own strength and America’s strength for its survival and so forth.