Congress

For the last several weeks, we have been taking a look at the ultra-right-wing with whom Gov. Rick Perry is partnering for his upcoming "The Response" prayer rally and now, via the Texas Freedom Network, we get some rather revealing information about another one of the event's endorsers: Pastor Stephen Broden.

In 2010, Broden ran for Congress as a Republican vying to win a seat to represent a district in Dallas  and, during the campaign, was asked by WFAA-TV Channel 8 to defend a litany of controversial statements he had made, including his view that the prospect of violently overthrowing the US government was an option that must always remain on the table ... and Broden stood by that view:

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."

A candidate running against Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison says that Ellison, who is one of two Muslim House members, is a “radical Islamist” who doesn’t uphold the Constitution. Lynne Torgerson unsuccessfully challenged Ellison as an Independent in 2010, but her floundering campaign received immense support from the Tea Party Nation and its vehemently anti-Muslim president Judson Phillips. That year, Torgerson said that Ellison “has no business being in our federal government” and that Muslims are subverting the Constitution. In a post on Tea Party Nation that was sent to TPN members, Torgerson accused the Congressman of failing “to support that the United States Constitution should be supreme over Islamic Sharia law.”

Islamic Sharia law must be banned throughout our state and federal governments.

We have duly enacted state laws and statutes throughout our 50 states in this, our United States of America. We also have duly enacted, by our elected officials, federal laws and statutes. Everyone who is a citizen of, and who lives in or visits the United States of America, is subject to the laws of our states and federal government. No one gets to come to the United States and bring their own laws here and expect them to apply in our states or federal government, or our courts. Islamic Sharia has no place in America. We must enact legislation barring the implementation of this foreign, non-representative sect of law. Islamic Sharia law must be banned throughout the United States.

I, Lynne Torgerson, am running for Congress in Minnesota, against radical Islamist Keith Ellison. Keith Ellison fails to oppose banning Islamic Sharia law in the United States. He accuses people of trying to ban it as "conspiratorilists." Keith Ellison also fails to support that the United States Constitution should be supreme over Islamic Sharia law.

A conservative columnist and a news analyst for Renew America suggested in her latest column that President Obama is like the Beast found in the Book of Revelation who wages “war against God’s holy people and to conquer them.” Sher Zieve quoted from Revelation 13 when discussing how Americans should rise up against Obama for his alleged acts of treason and if they can’t defeat him peacefully, she says “there seems to be no other solution except violent civil unrest.” Zieve writes:

Treason is generally defined as "betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy."

High treason is defined as "treason perpetrated by somebody against his or her own country."

Another apt definition of treason is "any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government."

It is my contention that Barack Hussein Obama has perpetrated all of these. It is also my assertion that our current Congress and our increasingly leftist court system have allowed — and continue to allow — Obama to perpetrate such treachery upon the United States of America and its citizens with impunity.

…

Once he gained (many say "usurped") the office of the presidency, Obama has undertaken repeated attempts to unravel the First Amendment. These attempts have ranged from banning and refusing to speak with reporters who asked him tough questions to actually locking them in closets!

…

Virtually every day, Barack Hussein Obama is committing multiple treasons and high treasons against the United States of America. And STILL he is allowed to do so with nary a scolding...or a whimper. Nothing is ever done to stop him. Isn't it time for us to do so? Isn't it?

Who or what group might be willing to organize a few massive marches on D.C., and especially Congress, to stop this insanity and destruction of our country, our lives, and everything that — by the grace of God — we Americans have built or hold dear? Otherwise, there seems to be no other solution except violent civil unrest.

Even dyed-in-the-wool Democrat James Carville has said: "You know, look...you're smart enough to see this. People, you know, if it continues, we're going to start to see civil unrest in this country. I hate to say that, but I think it's imminently possible."

"And all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?" (Revelation 13:3-5).

Last week the Washington Times (briefly) wondered if ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner was part of a larger plot to bring Sharia law into America because his wife is Muslim and a close aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While the Washington Times eventually pulled the article, the conservative blogosphere is still asking questions.

Rich Swier, an activist for Tea Party Nation and ACT! for America, claims that Weiner and President Obama “have partnered with the Muslim Brotherhood”:

Many Americans are awakening to the term "Muslim Brotherhood". They are also noticing that the Obama administration has an ongoing love affair with this shariah Islamist organization. The most recent example is provided by Pajamas Media when they discovered that Huma Abedin's — wife of former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner and deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton — mother was reported as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

…

It is now clear that President Obama and his administration have partnered with the Muslim Brotherhood. This is dangerous for our national security and akin to FDR partnering with the Soviet Union during WWII. But wait FDR did and look what happened afterword - the Cold War.

Eileen Toplansky of The American Thinker, a prominent conservative blog frequently cited by Rush Limbaugh, also paints Abedin as a Muslim spy:

Moreover, one needs to question why Huma Abedin, a member of a family of devout Muslims, would ever marry a Jewish Congressman -- in a ceremony officiated by Bill Clinton. Sharia law clearly forbids Muslims from marrying non-believers, so what does this portend?

Furthermore, when Huma Abedin accompanied Hillary Clinton to the Dar El-Hekma women's college in Saudi Arabia, where Huma's mother is co-founder and vice dean, it was reported that "Hillary explained that Huma holds an important and sensitive position in her office." Where was the scrutiny?

Why are so many at the highest levels of American government ignoring the methodology of Islamists like [Fethullah] Gulen, who has declared that the best way to seize power is to lie in wait "with the patience of a spider" in order to "wait for people to get caught in the web"? Is Clinton so naïve?

Thus, Huma Abedin's position with Clinton in the State Department, as well as her marriage to Representative Weiner, has given her enormous exposure "to state secrets and access to the inner workings of Congress."

…

Last year, Obama appointed two devout Muslims to Homeland Security. Obama's record concerning Islamic terror was alarming from the beginning of his term and it has only become more entrenched.

Congressman Keith Ellison aka Keith Hakim, who converted to Islam, is already in place in Congress. His connections to CAIR are troubling.

Is the Weiner scandal really covering up a far more disturbing scenario whereby jihadists continue to infiltrate and influence American universities, military installations, homeland security, even local police forces, all while the press ignores the steady encroachment of these radicals who seek to overturn and destroy America?

The disgraceful indifference by the general press to Weiner's in-laws and their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood keeps eroding America's ability to rout those who wish to see her destroyed.

The AFA's resident spokesbigot Bryan Fischer operates on a very consistent pattern:  he spends months saying and writing outrageously bigoted things but when some pressure starts to mount over all of the bigoted things he says, he lashes out and accuses his detractors of lying about what he said.

He has done it several times before, and now that Gov. Rick Perry is getting some heat for associating with Fischer and the AFA, he has done it again, taking issue with this Tim Murphy piece in Mother Jones.  Fischer claims that Murphy "strung together a litany of lies and distortions" and then proceeds to try and set the record straight.

In three instances Fischer fully admits to the views attributed to him - gays should be banned from public office and Muslims should be banned from the military and from building mosques:

- "gays should be banned from holding public office" — This is accurate. I do believe this, for the same reason that I believe Anthony Weiner should resign, as did Larry Craig, John Ensign and Mark Foley and numerous other Republicans caught in sexual misconduct. Aberrant sexuality morally disqualifies a practitioner from public office, and whatever else homosexual behavior is, it is aberrant sexual behavior.

- "there should be a permanent ban on mosque construction in the United States" — Partly true. What I have recommended is that local planning and zoning boards no longer issue permits — what about the word "permit" do people not understand? — for the building of mosques. This is because 81% of the mosques in America distribute literature that supports violent jihad and the imposition of sharia law by force, and 95% of Muslims who attend prayers regularly attend one of these mosques. I have suggested our policies toward Islam should be the same as our policies toward the KKK and white supremacist groups, since they are equally and violently antisemitic. Whatever the NAACP thinks ought to be done to halt the spread of the KKK and white supremacists I'll be happy to adopt as our policy against the spread of Islam.

- "Muslims should be prohibited from serving in the armed forces" — True. Serving in the United States military is a privilege not a right, and we should have no room in our military for those whose religion teaches them to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Surah 9:5). If you don't think this policy suggestion makes sense, ask the families of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's homicidal rampage at Ft. Hood, done in the name of Allah.

But Fischer takes issue with several other assertions ... and, in typical Fischer fashion, attempts to clarify the record by more or less reiterating the very thing he claims he never said in the first place:

1. "gays caused the Holocaust." False. What I spoke is the simple truth: the Nazi Party was responsible for the Holocaust. If the question is then further asked, who was responsible for the Nazi Party, the answer, as a matter of simple historical truth: homosexual thugs. The Nazi Party was actually formed in a gay bar in Munich, and virtually all of Hitler's early enforcers in his rise to power were homosexuals.

Here is what I wrote in my column on what Nazi Germany teaches us about the wisdom of allowing open homosexuals in the military:

"Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews. Gays in the military is an experiment that has been tried and found disastrously and tragically wanting. Maybe it's time for Congress to learn a lesson from history."

So I clearly lay the blame for the Holocaust on the Nazi Party, but attribute the rise of the Nazi Party to homosexual brutes. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of historical fact, as inconvenient as that fact may be to the mavens of political correctness on the left.

2. "gays...are planning on doing it (the Holocaust) again." False.

Here is the transcript of my remarks:

"Homosexual activists, when it comes to freedom of speech, are Nazis. When it comes to freedom of religion, they are Nazis. There is no room in their world for dissent, there is no room in their world for disagreement, there is no room in their world for criticism. You criticize homosexual behavior, they tag you as a bigot and a homophobe and then they go to work to silence you just like the Roman Catholic Church did in the days of Galileo — it's no different; it's the Spanish Inquisition all over again.

"Ladies and gentlemen, they are Nazis. Do not be under any illusions about what homosexual activists will do with your freedoms and your religion if they have the opportunity. They'll do the same thing to you that the Nazis did to their opponents in Nazi Germany."

Clearly the parallel I was drawing here is that homosexuals are out to suppress freedom of speech, religion, and dissent just as the Nazis did. This is indisputable.

So Fischer never said that gays caused the Holocaust and they are going to commit another one against Christians - he simply said that the Holocaust was the fault of the Nazis (who were all gay) and that, if given the chance, gays would do the same thing again today.

So you can see that that is totally different. 

Fischer also claims he never called for the forced conversion of Muslims or their deportation from America:

5. "foreign Muslims should either be exterminated or forced to convert to Christianity" — Horrendous distortion. What I said was that, if we are attacked from or by a Muslim nation, we should go in with military force and neutralize the threat. Then I suggest we bring missionaries in, since it is Christianity that has made the United States the freest, strongest, and most prosperous nation on earth. If they don't want to listen to our missionaries, fine. We'll bring them and our soldiers home. But we let them know that if you attack us again and we have to come back, this time we'll come back not with missionaries but with overwhelming lethal force.

6. "American Muslims should be deported" — Wrong again. What I have written is that American Muslims who have been naturalized of course should remain, as well as American citizens who convert to Islam. But I do believe we should not extend citizenship any longer to immigrant Muslims, even the ones who are here legally. When their legal immigration provisions expire, we should happily bear the cost of repatriating them to their homelands. Immigration is a privilege, not a right, and the god of Islam teaches his followers to kill Americans. It's simply bad policy to extend citizenship to people who have a solemn, sacred, religious obligation to exterminate us.

Fischer was quite clear when he said that when the US goes into a Muslim nation, it must try to convert them to Christianity but if the Muslims refuse to convert, then the next time the US returns, it will be to kill them. 

Likewise, Fischer has asserted that simply by virtue of being a Muslim, they are guilty of treason and that Muslims living in the US ought to be deported.

Yet, somehow Fischer thinks it is an unfair distortion of his views to claim that he supports forced conversion and the deportation of Muslims.

Fischer has a long history of saying openly bigoted things on an almost daily basis ... and he has just as long a history of claiming that all of the bigoted things he said were taken out of context or misrepresented.

As I have said before, it is utterly pointless to try and have any sort of rational debate with Fischer ... and this is further evidence of just why that is the case. 

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) built her political career on opposing gay rights: she spearheaded the Missouri campaign to enshrine discrimination in the state constitution and since her election to Congress last November has fought to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act and block the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Yesterday, Hartzler addressed Eagle Forum Collegians 2011 Summit in Washington on why young people should oppose marriage equality.

Joined by Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, Hartzler compared gay marriage to polygamy and incest, and later argued that we shouldn’t give equal marriage rights to gay couples just as “it’s not a right of a three-year old to drive a car.”

Watch:

Opposition to marriage equality was a major theme at the conference, due in part to fears that young people disproportionately favor legalizing gay marriage. Participants even received a pamphlet “77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage” from Jennifer Roback Morse of The Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage. The pamphlet harshly criticized gay families as “unjust and cruel to the child” and argues that “we will not be able to maintain a free society” if gay marriage is legalized.

As we noted last week, Bryan Fischer has made it his new cause in life to prove that "the number one class of people who are committing hate crimes today are homosexual activists."

Fischer bases this idea upon a definition of a hate crime that he took off us USLegal.com, which reads:

"A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability."

Fischer has seized upon the phrases "harassment" and "religion" and is now basically using them to declare anything and everything he doesn't like to be a "hate crime."

Last week it was situation with Peter Vidmar, who stepped down from his position with the 2012 U.S. Olympic team over his support for Proposition 8, and today is it some case involving a doctor in England:

If facing harassment because others have prejudice against your religion is a hate crime, then Dr. Richard Scott of the U.K. is the latest victim of the P.C. police.

He is facing an official sanction from the professional medical body in England, the General Medical Council (GMC) for having the effrontery to suggest to a patient that nurturing his spiritual life might be one part of a holistic course of treatment.

It makes no difference to the Tolerance Nazis that study after study has shown the beneficial health effects of faith in God and prayer, or that Dr. Scott only broached the subject with this patient after a lengthy consultation, and after medical checks had been performed and referrals for further care were arranged.

Nope, the Torquemadas of the left want to put Dr. Scott on the rack and punish him despite his unblemished 28-year record and despite the fact the patient in question is still seeking care at his clinic and so himself is apparently not criminally offended in the least.

This case doesn't even have anything to do with gays, so Fischer is now claiming that it is "secular fundamentalists" who are committing this particular hate crime.

The interesting thing about this new development is that Fischer intentionally overlooks the other elements of the definition of a hate crime, most notably the listing of "sexual orientation."

And given that, in Fischer's view, basically any criticism or pressure put on any conservative or Christian is "harassment" and therefore a "hate crime," let us point out that Fischer and the AFA led the charge to fire Kevin Jennings and impeach Judge Vaughn Walker, solely because they were gay:

AFA calls for resignation of Kevin Jennings, “Safe and Drug Free Schools” head

The American Family Association today called for the resignation of Kevin Jennings, the head of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the Department of Education.

“This man is not a good role model for the nation’s children, nor will he fairly represent all Americans due to his spiteful attitude toward evangelical Christians,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon.

Time to impeach Judge Vaughn Walker

Contact your representative today and urge him to start impeachment proceedings

August 5, 2010

Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.

...

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

If Peter Vidmar stepping down and some foreign doctor facing possible discipline are examples of "hate crimes," what just what is the AFA prolonged and orchestrated campaign to get two gay public servants fired from the jobs?

And can I point out that Islam is also a "religion" ... and Fischer has been leading a full-blown crusade against Muslims for years now.

So by Fischer's own standard, he is personally guilty of committing hate crimes on a daily basis. 

• Joseph Farah says "Newt Gingrich is a liberal."
• Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, says Mitch Daniels "has a bit of a weakness on the homosexual demands."
• Phyllis Schlafly gets worked up over the strangest things.
• Mitt Romney hires Mark DeMoss.
• From the latest FRC prayer update: "May Tennessee enact this bill to prevent ENDA-like ordinances! May Congress do so likewise, if the President dares to circumvent Congress by issuing an ENDA-like Executive Order!"
• Finally, quote of the day from Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler: "The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces."

The Tea Party movement is frequently criticized for hyperventilating about the threat of encroaching Communism while advocating for Corporate America. Then people like Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips come around and confirm those exact charges.

In a letter to his fellow Tea Partyers, Phillips accuses Senate Democrats of admiring Joseph Stalin and leading a “Democratic Senate show trial” straight “from the Stalin handbook.”

Who are the victims of this outrage? Oil companies like Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, who were asked to testify about the massive subsidies they receive from the federal government. Apparently while Phillips has a problem with government involvement in the economy, he has no beef with corporate welfare.

Responding to Democratic plans to reign in subsidies for the oil giants, Phillips slams Democrats as “Marixsts and the brain dead” and calls Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) a “Joseph Stalin fan boy and dim bulb”:

Soviet dictator and mass murderer Joseph Stalin has always been an inspiration to liberal democrats. Once again, they have taken a play from the Stalin handbook.

One of the hallmarks of Stalin was his famous show trials and Democrats in the United States Senate, eager to show they had learned from him, staged a show trial.

Five executives from big Oil were summoned. Make no mistake; it was a summons, complete with subpoena, served by a United States Marshall.

…

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia won the booby prize for the really dumbest comment of the day, when he said the executives of Big Oil were “out of touch” with the American people.

Joseph Stalin fan boy and dim bulb Bob Menendez, who gave Rockefeller strong competition for the dumbest comment of the day, whined that the oil companies were making profits. He wants $2 billion from the oil companies so he can squander that money. He claims the Oil Companies will make $125 billion in profits this year and they can give up a couple of billion.

This is what happens when you put Marxists and the brain dead in charge of the country. Menendez is clearly a lost ball in high weeds. He has no clue where profits go.

…

Of course, the CEO’s have it lucky. They only had to deal with verbal abuse at the Democratic Senate show trial.

Stalin shot the stars of his show trials.