Hillary Clinton

Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman yesterday penned a column in Renew America floating the idea that President Obama has so far refused “to take any retaliatory military action” against Iran because he wants the Iranian regime to finance his re-election campaign. Klayman wondered if “the president’s minions,” particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “are shaking down the radical Islamic leadership in Iran to launder huge campaign contributions into Obama-Democratic Party re-election coffers.” Right-wing activists have previously argued that Obama’s 2008 campaign was financed by Hamas and his reelection bid by China. Klayman writes:

It came as no surprise that this week the Obama Justice Department — obviously to get ahead of the curve since news of an Iranian terrorist plot would have leaked in any event — begrudgingly disclosed that Persian-American "cut outs" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, with likely full approval of the supreme leader, had planned to line up Mexican drug cartels to assassinate the ambassador of Saudi Arabia and attack its Embassy and the Embassy of Israel in Washington, D.C. If such a plan had actually materialized, this would have amounted to an act of war on American soil. As it was, this brazen act, coupled with President Barack Hussein Obama's failure to take any retaliatory military action, underscores why Israel must now act on its own to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. American resolve to remove the cancer in Tehran simply does not exist.

…

But is there a method to Obama's madness? As I have hypothesized in earlier columns, can it be that the president's minions — including the mastermind of the Clinton Chinagate scandal in the late 1990s, Hillary Clinton — are shaking down the radical Islamic leadership in Iran to launder huge campaign contributions into Obama-Democratic Party re-election coffers — just as illegal Chinese money helped the Clintons win re-election in 1996? And, since it is increasingly likely that Ms. Hillary will replace Joe Biden as Obama's vice presidential pick in 2012, she has a real interest in using her criminal expertise in illegally laundering foreign money to win these elections. Is this why the United States has all but ignored the growing Iranian nuclear cancer, while actively supporting the overthrow of other regimes in the Middle East — including the formerly pro-American and pro-Israeli Egyptian regime of former President Hosni Mubarak?

And, let's not forget that our corrupt attorney general, Eric Holder, was a principal "bag man" during the Clinton Chinagate scandal years. He assisted then-Attorney General Janet Reno in deep-sixing any meaningful Justice Department investigation of Chinese money laundering. This is discussed in my book "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment."

…

The bottom line is this, my friends. It's time to take the mullahs out, whatever the cost. Let's pray that the Israelis will now act, as the cowards in our political leadership will not. Is their inaction the result of Tehran's lining their political pockets with laundered campaign contributions, as occurred with Chinagate? I would not be surprised if this were the case, so corrupt is our government!

In 2009, Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action organized a right-wing conference in St. Louis called "How To Take Back America" that was co-sponsored by the likes of WorldNetDaily, The American Family Association, Vision America, Liberty Counsel, and WallBuilders.  The keynote speakers at the conference were Mike Huckabee and Rep. Michele Bachmann.

The line-up at this conference was so radical that we put together a report on the participants which gave special attention to the truly fringe views espouse by Porter: 

It is probably impossible to overstate the extremism and lunacy of Janet Porter, whose radio program and Faith2Action.org website gives her a platform for promoting the most unhinged of conspiracy theories.

Porter is Mike Huckabee's biggest fan. She first fell in love when she organized the 2007 Values Voter Debate to which she had personally invited a gospel choir to sing "Why Should God Bless America?" and after which Porter (then Folger) declared that Huckabee had been revealed as the answer to Christians' prayers for a presidential candidate who shared their views, proclaiming him to be the "David among Jesse's sons." During the presidential primaries, she started a front group to attack Huckabee's arch nemesis Mitt Romney and wrote columns claiming that only Huckabee could prevent Hillary Clinton from throwing all Christians into prison and save her fantasy world from this "evil queen and her dragon of slaughter."

She has since claimed that God has cursed America for voting for Obama, that anyone who voted for him is bound for hell , and that anyone who has ever voted for a pro-choice candidate is also living under a curse. She has actively pushed the Birther conspiracies and even alleged that Obama's presidency was the culmination of a decade-long Communist conspiracy twenty years in the making. After the election, but before the inauguration, she called on God to prevent Obama from taking office, while warning that "AN EARTH-SHATTERING CALAMITY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN" to this nation because we deserve God's judgment.

Among other fears she has recently been stoking: the Obama administration is creating internment camps for conservatives and building mass evacuation buses to take them there, while warning that the H1N1 flu vaccine is really a nefarious plot by the government to kill millions of Americans. She helped to create and inflate the Right's false claims that a Department of Homeland Security report was equating conservatives and veterans with terrorists; as noted above, she's now pushing comparisons between the Obama administration and the rise of Nazism.

Porter has written a book called "The Criminalization of Christianity" and claims that hate crimes legislation will lead to Christians being thrown in jail. More recently she's joined the chorus of extremists falsely claiming that the bill would "give heightened protection to pedophiles." As part of her campaign against hate crimes legislation, Porter has repeatedly invited on to her radio show Ted Pike, a rabid anti-Semite who claims hate crimes laws are part of a Jewish plot for world domination.

Of course, the radical views held by Porter and the others in no way dissuaded Bachmann from attending.  In fact, Bachmann appeared on Porter's radio program ahead of the event and used it as an opportunity to praiser her and endorse the May Day at the Lincoln Memorial prayer event Porter was planning for the following spring:

That May Day event ended up being so infused with Seven Mountains Dominion Theology that Porter lost her radio program and almost ended her career at a Religious Right activist, until she showed up in Ohio earlier this year where she began scheduling fetuses to "testify" on behalf of her extremist anti-choice "Heartbeat Bill."  In her downtime, she was busy praying for God to give Christians control over the media and every level of government.

But none of that seemed to bother Bachmann, who joined Porter, Joseph Farah, and others in promoting Porter's "Pink Slip" campaign to warn members of Congress that they would lose their jobs if they voted for legislation opposed by the Right:

In 2008, Porter was a key supporter of Mike Huckabee.  But with Huckabee declining to run for President this time around, Porter's endorsement is still up in the air. 

But given the already existing ties between Bachmann and Porter (and judging by the poll Porter is currently running on her website) it seems increasingly like that Bachmann could wind up being her candidate of choice.

Did Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, marry disgraced New York Rep. Anthony Weiner to usher in an Islamic, socialist, Alinskyist plot to takeover America? So says conservative Washington Times blogger Eliana Benador, who posits (in an article since pulled from the website) that the power-hungry Abedin may have married Weiner to advance the “pro-Muslim political agenda” backed by President Obama, George Soros, and her close friends Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose actions “signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.” But their nefarious plans could be ruined by the congressman’s recent scandal.

Benador believes that Weiner may have even converted to Islam to marry Abedin, noting that no one can trust anything they say anyway because “an element of sharia that states there is a legal right and duty to distort the truth to promote the cause of Islam.” Good thing that Benador is asking the question everyone’s been thinking, “has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?”

Congressman Weiner‘s indiscretions, however, might end up inconveniencing the present Administration’s plans. “How?” you might ask.

The clues may be found in the marriage of Huma Abedin, a devout Muslim, and Anthony Weiner, a Jew.

…

When looking broadly at the Anthony Weiner–Huma Abedin union, we have to wonder if the coupling of a Jewish American man and a Muslim woman of her pedigree was fostered by love or by a socialist political agenda.

…

Less than a year ago, in July 2010, Huma Abedin married Jewish U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Attesting to the strength of her relationship with the Clintons, former President William J. Clinton officiated at the ceremony. Not unlike President Obama, the Clintons, as well as powerful politicos such as George Soros, are devotes of Saul Alinksy, who is considered “the founder of modern Community Organizing.” From my position, I clearly see that the actions of this group signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.

Which begs the question of whether Huma Abedin been groomed by family and political leaders to carry this agenda forward? It’s noteworthy that Time Magazine listed Huma Abedin in its “40 under 40” list of the new generation of civic leaders and “rising stars in American politics.” That certainly puts her in a position to move the Alinsky-group agenda forward.

The Imam of New York has stated: “I would tell her [Huma] to be a little bit patient. In our book, if you think your wife, or husband, is doing something unacceptable, you start by counseling her.”

Counseling? For whom, Huma or Anthony? The Imam’s statement seems to state that Huma is in need.

Regardless, those are words of compromise offered by a leading Muslim Imam trying to make us forget that the Koran actually advocates stoning wives for adultery while turning a blind eye toward the sexual mis-deeds of the husband.

It is also important, when looking at this situation, to remember that observant Muslims practice Taqiyya , an element of sharia that states there is a legal right and duty to distort the truth to promote the cause of Islam.

Given the defense articulated by the Imam, which would be offered only for a Muslim man, we must believe this opportunity to remove this Muslim woman from a union with an non-believer would be quickly taken. Therefore we must consider that Mr. Weiner *may* have converted to Islam, because if he did not, we have to consider the unlikely, that being that Ms. Abedin has abandoned her Muslim faith, even while she still practices.

However, we should also bear in mind that any who are Jewish by orthodox standards will always remain Jewish, even if they have converted to another faith. This may explain rumors that Mr. Weiner went to his synagogue looking for moral support.

The question that begs to be asked, however, is, has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?

If that is so, Anthony Weiner may be proven to be the weak link in a pro-Muslim political agenda.

And the final test of that may be in Huma Abedin’s reactions to her husband’s lack of moral principals.

Update (2:01) the article has now been pulled from The Washington Times website.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has intensified his defense of the deposed president of the Ivory Coast. Laurent Gbagbo, the country’s Roman Catholic president, lost a December election to opposition leader Alassane Ouattara, who is Muslim. While the country’s electoral commission and the international community, including African nations, recognized Ouattara as the winner, Gbagbo’s appointed national council threw out the results (saying Ouattara won through voter fraud) and Gbagbo declared himself the winner. Gbagbo’s wife, an evangelical Christian, even declared that “God has given us this victory.” Earlier this week forces loyal to Ouattara removed Gbagbo from power, clearing the way for Outtara to become president.

But the Religious Right in the U.S. has become one of Gbagbo’s biggest cheerleaders, even though the International Criminal Court wants him charged with crimes against humanity for human rights abuses. Pat Robertson defended Gbagbo, saying he’s “a Christian, he’s a nice person, and he’s run a fairly clean operation in the Ivory Coast” and accused Outarra of “building up that ring of Shariah law around the Middle East.”

In Congress, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has been one of the leading apologists for Gbagbo, who he knows through The Family/C Street. After unsuccessfully trying to soften the Obama Administration’s approach to Gbagbo in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said that Gbagbo’s arrest “sends a strong signal to dictators and tyrants throughout the region and around the worlds,” Inhofe is now ripping the administration’s handling of the crisis and utilizing Gbagbo’s talking points about the purported voter fraud and violence of Ouattara’s force in an interview with the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow:

Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) publically supported Laurent Gbagbo from the floor of the Senate Tuesday afternoon. In a 30-minute speech, Inhofe claimed massive vote fraud took place during the monitored election of the West African nation. The congressman from Oklahoma says France, the United Nations, and the U.S. State Department were instrumental in toppling Gbagbo.

"They rigged the election, [they] stole the election, and then they sided with...the Muslim rebels from up north to come in and try to seize control, which they've now done, of the government in Ivory Coast in Abidjan," the lawmaker tells OneNewsNow.

Forces loyal to Ivory Coast U.N.-sanctioned president Alassane Ouattara on April 6 stormed the presidential palace of incumbent leader Gbagbo, who has refused to cede power.

"[The rebels] killed thousands of people; they tortured the Gbagbos," says Inhofe. "We're now trying our best to get some kind of an arrangement where they can get either an exile to a country or something -- [we're] trying to save their lives."

Writing for the American Spectator, Jeff Walton of the Institute on Religion and Democracy condemned the State Department for advancing the rights of gays and lesbians abroad. The IRD is a far-right group with a two-pronged strategy to advance its opposition to gay rights: dividing and decrying churches, particularly Mainline Protestant denominations, which favor LGBT equality, while at the same time aiding and promoting groups in Africa and the U.S. that attack gays and even support the criminalization of homosexuality. Most recently, the IRD vilified a North Carolina church group for electing an openly gay layman as the President. In addition to the group’s militant stance on gay rights, the IRD also works against the rights of women and immigrants, and criticizes the environmental movement, and the IRD has ties to major right wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation, Concerned Women For America, Numbers USA, and the American Enterprise Institute.

Walton, the Communications Manager for the IRD who previously alleged that the Episcopal Church could be held responsible for the deaths of Christians abroad because it allows gays and lesbians to serve as Bishops, now is taking to the ultraconservative Spectator to reproach the State Department for “promoting homosexuality overseas.” He blasts Secretary Hillary Clinton for allegedly wanting to “legitimize homosexual practices in those socially traditional countries,” like those in Africa, and maintains that efforts to protect gays from discrimination are affronts to “religious freedom.” Walton denounces the State Department’s work to document anti-gay laws and violence, and the pressure it puts on countries like Uganda to improve the rights of gays:

Although the language of some U.S. officials begins with the legitimate concern for personal safety and freedom from the threat of violence, it often ends by demanding acceptance of homosexual acts as a human right.

"We've come such a far distance in our own country, but there are still so many who need the outreach, need the mentoring, need the support, to stand up and be who they are, and then think about people in so many countries where it just seems impossible," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a speech in June as part of "Pride Month" celebrations at the U.S. State Department.

At the event, which was organized by the group "Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies," Clinton said the State Department is supporting efforts to advance homosexual rights around the world. "We celebrate the progress of advancing the rights of LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] in our country, as we continue to advance the rights of all people around the world," Clinton gushed before the receptive audience, adding that the "struggle for equality is never, ever finished."

…

During her June address, Clinton stated that her department has formalized reporting on homosexual rights for the first time in the 2009 annual human rights report that was issued in February on every country in the world. But the top U.S. diplomat quickly honed in on Africa, saying that U.S. embassies there had been directed to ask their host government about the status of LGBT rights. A special panel discussion on LGBT rights in Africa was also held later in the day.

He goes on to rebuke Assistant Secretary of State Michael H. Posner, openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, and Bishop Christopher Senyonjo, an Anglican Bishop who worked in Ugana to improve the livelihoods of marginalized gay Ugandans and diligently opposed a bill in Uganda’s Parliament that “would make homosexuality illegal, in some cases punishable by death.” Walton says:

In March, Posner introduced the State Department human rights report to Congress, emphasizing what was termed a growing crisis in abuse directed against LGBT people worldwide, and urging the use of diplomacy to counter the alleged trend.

In introducing the report, Posner singled out the case of Uganda, where he alleged that introduction of anti-homosexuality legislation has resulted in abuse. The report further documents LGBT-related incidents in almost every country in the world.

Posner's report met agreement with Robinson and Senyonjo during their conversation at CAP.

“[The] time is coming when we should not work on just one bill, but towards decriminalization," Senyonjo said, adding that he was "very grateful for voices all over the world that work against oppression."

"It is wrong to say, 'Don't interfere, it's a domestic thing,'" the former Anglican bishop said. He compared foreigners working for decriminalization of homosexuality in Africa to aid workers providing earthquake relief in Haiti.

…

In that commissioning, Senyonjo seems to have found a partner in the U.S. State Department. For them, seemingly sexual freedom is more important than religious freedom. Look for more developments in 2011.

Walton never explains how defending gays from violence and discrimination undermines “religious freedom,” and dismisses Bishop Senyonjo’s religiously-grounded defense of LGBT equality. Just as the IRD demonized many US churches who worked in social justice and anti-apartheid activism in South Africa because they also supported rights for gays and lesbians, Walton and the IRD are criticizing the State Department for working to document and prevent the persecution and oppression of gays outside of the U.S.

• Sen. John Thune says American needs "Christian people to be in the arena," influencing every aspect of public life.
• Hillary Clinton says she is done running for elected office.
• The pastor who said Facebook leads to affairs has copped to having his own affair.
• Religious Right groups are expecting to make gains on their social issues agenda with thanks to the GOP gains in Congress.
• What do you expect when you name an ACLJ affiliated attorney as the Chief of Staff for Georgia's Department of Education?
• Finally, Faith and Action put on a live nativity scene on the steps of the Supreme Court:

As I mentioned the other day, James Dobson has dedicated the last three days of his radio program to airing a speech he delivered back in 1998 at a gathering of the Council for National Policy in which he laid out his views regarding the GOP's continual abandonment of the Religious Right and the issues they hold dear. 

Today, Dobson aired the final portion of that speech in which he focused largely on attacking the Republicans for ignoring basic moral principles in order to maintain political power and threatened that the Religious Right would leave the coalition if the party continued to do so:

It's a lack of conviction that there is a boss to the universe and that there are moral standards that we are held to and we need officials who will stand up and represent them.

What that conveys to the constituency I'm talking about is that principle does not matter, it's party over principle. That there are some things that you stand for whether it is popular or politically astute to do so or not. That's what that pro-moral community stands for.

And yet it seemed to me that what I heard from the Republicans in Indian Wells was we cannot have power if we stand on principle - please don't take away our power.

What good is it to have power if you don't use it for good?

The Republican Party was born in the crucible of conviction and courage and moral righteousness, that's where the Republican Party started.

It took a stand against slavery in a day that cost six hundred thousand lives in the Civil War. But they knew is was wrong and they took a stand on it, whether win, lose, or draw, that's God business. They took a stand on what was right.

If they party has left that and it is now going to mouth these two things every two years and then go on to something else, I think we need to look for another. And it would be tragic if that happened. I don't want that to happen. There are many state houses of government where Republicans will suffer if that happens. It will be a disaster for the country, but somebody said "if you do that, you have no voice at all." I don't think we have a voice now. I can't hear the voice.

So, to hear Dobson tell it, the problem with the GOP it its utter lack of conviction to stand on principle even if it means losing some political power. 

Of course, that sort of condemnation from Dobson might carry a bit more weight if Dobson didn't repeatedly do the same thing, constantly threatening to abandon the Republican Party only to fall back in line when Election Day approached.

Does anyone remember this?

Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on the virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life.

That announcement was followed just a few months later by this one:

This has been the most difficult moral dilemma for me. It’s why you haven’t heard me say much about it because I have struggled on this issue. And there are some concerns here that matter to me more than my own life and neither of the candidates is consistent with my views in that regard. But Senator McCain is certainly closer to them then Senator Obama, by a wide margin. And there's no doubt, at least no doubt in my mind, about whose policies will result in more babies being killed. Or who will do the greatest damage to the institution of marriage and the family. I'm convinced that Senator McCain comes closer to what I believe. So I am not endorsing Senator McCain today … But as of this moment, I have to take into account the fact that Senator John McCain has voted pro-life consistently and that's a fact. He says he favors marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that. He opposes homosexual adoption. He favors smaller government and lower taxes and he seems to understand the Muslim threat, which matters a lot to me – I am very concerned about that.

If Dobson is going to spend three days airing a speech blasting the Republican Party for abandoning its principles for the sake of politics, maybe he should spend the rest of the week examining his own blatant hypocrisy.

I don't expect much from the Religious Right ... and I expect even less from the likes of the AFA's Bryan Fischer.  But sometimes I still have to marvel at the conspiracies that he is able to dream up, like his new claim that President Obama has been subtly "flipping off" his enemies:

The president developed a habit during the campaign of subtly flipping people off by scratching his face with his middle finger ... Mr. Obama has been repeatedly videotaped using this form of vulgarity when talking to or about Hillary Clinton or other political enemies. He used the technique to flip off Hillary Clinton, a Hillary Clinton supporter (Mayor John Callahan of Bethelehm, PA), John McCain, and the entire Republican party.

He can, of course, maintain plausible deniability, by saying he was just scratching an itch, but think about it: who naturally scratches his face with his middle finger? Try it yourself, and you’ll see what I mean.

It has happened too often and too strategically to be passed off as simple coincidence. It only seems to happen when he is speaking to or about someone for whom he has particular contempt ...

If this indeed is what is happening, it reveals something dark and thuggish about the president’s character, something far beneath the dignity of the office. The president is beginning to remind me of a juvenile delinquent as much as anything else: immaturity, an absence of moral values, and a perverse delight in destroying things (like the American economy) just for the pleasure of it.

If you are a rational person, you see the President scratching his face at the 2:19 mark - but if you are the the director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy for the American Family Association, you see him giving Jake Tapper "the finger":

Speaking at the Values Voter Summit last year, Bishop Harry Jackson pleaded with those in attendance to tone down their anti-Obama rhetoric because it was making them sound like racists, thereby making it harder for him to sell the conservative agenda to other black clergy and win them over to his efforts to oppose marriage equality.

Well, it looks like the message has not really sunk in, because Jackson is back with the same message, this time aimed specifically aimed at the Tea Party Movement, saying he believes Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver and calling on Tea Party activists to apologize to Cleaver and others members of Congress for being so disrespectful while working to feature more Black and Hispanic activists in an effort to counter the growing impression that the movement is racist: 

Just two weeks ago, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was harassed by a Tea Party participant at a rally in Washington, DC. There is also video footage recording the exchange of this unruly, angry rally participant. Conservative analysts have wasted time asking whether the man spit on Rev. Cleaver or whether it was an unintentional spray.

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, II has a long history of public service. First, he has served Kansas City as the pastor of St. James United Methodist Church with a membership of 2800 since 1974. After three terms as city council member he was elected the first African-American mayor of his city. He also served two terms as President of the National Conference of Black Mayors. Finally, he has been in Congress since 2004 and supported Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama until the end of the presidential primary. In light of his history and credibility, I believe Rev. Clever was actually called the “N” word. Despite the machinations of a handful of fringe participants, I am sure that racism is not the source of the movement’s energy.

In response to Tea Party critics, conservative media pundits have spent countless hours defending the movement and its motives. I believe that the Tea Party deserves the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, it must dispel the idea that it’s a new manifestation of older racist movements.

Ironically, the Tea Party movement has become a victim of its own success. Its popularity represents a threat to “business as usual” inside the Beltway. It is time for real, collaborative leadership to emerge and give direction to the Tea Party. As someone who believes that the Tea Party movement is a return to foundational American values, I suggest a PR makeover. The worst thing that could happen to this movement is that its important message gets marginalized because of poor messaging and management.

Specifically, I recommend that the movement do three things immediately. First, they should apologize for the disrespect many of its members showed Emmanuel Cleaver and other members of Congress two weeks ago. Second, the movement should have rally leaders go through media training and establish a message for each and every event. Third, as the movement grows, it should feature more black and Hispanic speakers. This is not window dressing because millions of minorities share Tea Party concerns but are put off by the movement’s disparaging mainstream media image.