Election 2012

In the second part of Jim Garlow’s post-election sermon at a conference with James Dobson, the California pastor claimed that President Obama’s re-election marked the death of America. Garlow, who warned of America’s impending doom if Obama was re-elected, said that “if a tombstone were to be prepared for America I think it might say ‘1776-2012.’” Garlow went on to compare the prospects of America’s survival to a clinically dead patient miraculously coming back to life.

18 months before the election from May 2011 on I started saying privately to certain people, I think America’s only got 18 months left. I was very hesitant to say that to anybody because it sounded so melodramatic, so over-the-top, and when I talked to people they would all nod and say, ‘I agree with you.’ I was hoping somebody would counter me. I did a countdown: 15 months America’s got left; 12 months America’s got left; 6 months as we approached November 6; 3 months; 2 months; 1 month, and then came November 6, 2012. If a tombstone were to be prepared for America I think it might say: ‘1776-2012.’

But, I’ve written two books having to do with having to do with heaven and the afterlife several years ago in which we studied and analyzed near-death experiences, people who were clinically dead but were remarkably resuscitated and came back to life. I’m hanging on like you are to a conviction, to a belief, that something could happen, that the spirit of God could be released in such a way that something stir within this nation and that revival we’ve longed for suddenly and inexplicably break out someplace, somewhere and sweep this nation, and touch enough lives and transform enough lives that we would see life come back to what appears to be a dead patient.

In whatever world Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman inhabits, President Obama has “unleashed black helicopters in our major cities to intimidate people and set up committees to determine who in its estimation is a ‘subversive’ and may have to be eliminated.”

Klayman, once again calling for armed rebellion, writes in WorldNetDaily that President Obama is trying to crush an “imminent rebellion by the informed masses” against his “mission to enslave the nation in his brand of Marxist ideology” by “removing the people’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

He dubs Obama a “modern-day disciple” of King George III and laments that he won re-election by “pitting the poor and middle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Latino against Anglo, gay against straight, and Muslim against Jew and Christian.” He concludes that if “all non-violent means” to depose Obama are exhausted, conservatives must follow the example of the Founding Fathers and stage an armed revolt.

The First Despot, King George III, raped the rich colonies with high taxes, ignored their grievances, subverted their legal system and as a final stroke seized and destroyed the colonists’ caches of guns and other means of self-defense when it became apparent that the citizens could stand no more tyranny from the Crown. Even worse, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, triggering the first American Revolution, the modern-day disciple of the king, demagogue President Barack Hussein Obama, has onerously raised taxes, engaged in class warfare, pitting the poor and middle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Latino against Anglo, gay against straight, and Muslim against Jew and Christian, in order to win re-election.

To insure that Obama’s mission to enslave the nation in his brand of Marxist ideology succeeds in the face of imminent rebellion by the informed masses, his government has armed itself to the teeth, unleashed black helicopters in our major cities to intimate the people and set up committees to determine who in its estimation is a “subversive” and may have to be eliminated with drone and other strikes on American citizens on U.S. soil. [See "Obama prepares to kill 2nd American Revolution"]. And, last but not least, to this end, Obama has also issued executive actions as the first step to removing the people’s Second Amendment right to bear arms to defend themselves against “his” government and its evil designs.

With the exception of a few, like Sen. Rand Paul, no one in the Republican opposition has the will or guts to oppose Obama’s dictatorial quest to remove our freedoms and civil liberties and potentially assassinate those American citizens who resist his and the rest of the government establishment’s claim of total “sovereignty” over us.

We the People, initially using all non-violent means, must ourselves rise up! But if in the end it means following the lead of our First Founding Father, Patrick Henry, we reserve our God-given rights to defend ourselves and to restore liberty to our shores.

As in colonial times leading to the birth of a free country, we will never surrender! Instead, must be prepared to use all legally righteous means to restore the country to greatness!

Give us liberty or give us death! God did not forsake our Founding Fathers, and He will not forsake us!

David Horowitz appeared on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly over the weekend and made the case that the Republican Party continues to lose elections because their candidates aren’t incendiary and combative enough, arguing that Republicans should model themselves after far-right activists like Schlafly and himself if they ever want to win an election again. If not, Horowitz said that Democrats will continue to “oppress” women and minorities and take the U.S. down the path of Nazi Germany.

Horowitz: I think that Obama has awakened conservatives to the fact that they have to get involved in politics in a very serious way. One of the ways they need to, where they are way behind, is in the political battle itself. You can’t just put your principles out there, you have to sell them. The way to sell them is to tap into this basic story that politics is about: the underdog and the people that are keeping the underdogs down. The Democratic Party, the bad-hat has to be put on it. Democrats are the oppressors of women, children, minorities and the poor. Phyllis, you have been so strong and good on the way Democrats oppress women. We have to use their language against them and none of our candidates did that.

…

Caller: I wonder if you share the same opinion that I see the same thing happening in America slowly that happened in Nazi Germany, quickly.

Horowitz: Yeah, of course I agree with that. They’re the same kind of movement. All these movements: Nazism, communism, socialism, progressivism; they are all substitutes for an authentic religion.

Horowitz maintained that Republicans need to portray the Democratic Party as an “enemy” of people of color that has “declared war on black people and Hispanics and minorities.” “Democrats have their boot heals on the necks of poor black and Hispanic children” through the public school system, Horowitz claimed, “Imagine if the Republican convention was about that instead of just patting themselves on the back for their success stories.”

Horowitz: The Republicans did not mention in that campaign the victims, the black victims, the Hispanic victims of Obama’s policies. If you want to communicate to minority communities who care about them, then you have to take up the battle against their enemies and the Democratic Party is the enemy, it has declared war on black people and Hispanics and minorities.

…

Horowitz: Democrats have their boot heals on the necks of poor black and Hispanic children. Imagine if the Republican convention was about that instead of just patting themselves on the back for their success stories.

Schlafly: Well I wish they would take some good advice from you.

Thanks to an email alert from Gary Cass, we learned about a radio program called TRUNEWS of which we had been unaware.  Hosted by a man named Rick Wiles, the program has featured a variety of Religious Right activists that we regularly monitor here, including Matt Barber, who appeared on the program the week after President Obama's re-election where he and Wiles lamented that fact that the election results demonstrated that communists had taken over the nation and declared that the scandal involving CIA Director David Petraeus was a Stalin-esque set-up ... while Wiles predicted that Obama's IRS would now start raiding churches and shooting people:

Barber: The party that this man [Obama] represents certainly and this man himself, when you look at his principles, it is a Romans 1 party and this is a Romans 1 president that has adopted all forms of sexual deviant behavior and sin as something good.  You know, Scripture says 'woe to those who call evil good and good evil;' we now have a president and a controlling party in the Senate that calls evil good and good evil and we now have a majority of Americans - at least 51 percent, give or take I don't know how many thousands based on the voter fraud that was pretty clear here - the scales have tipped where a nation has re-elected as their king, if you will, a man who is engaging in abject evil.

Wiles: Matt, the Democratic Party convention booed the mention of God three times. The people have elected a Marxist Muslim who I believe is a revolutionary. Voters in states like Maryland and Washington state [and] Maine endorsed homosexual marriage ... I believe Wisconsin elected an avowed lesbian as a senator.  In Massachusetts they elected a Marxist professor.  Matt, this is a communist takeover of the United States of America.

Barber: Those words are not too strong.  You know, there used to be a time when you used words like 'communism' and 'Marxism' - and of course inherent in the communist ideology and philosophy of Marxism is the demand that all reference to God and religion, particularly the Christian religion, be removed.  We see us heading down that path where Christians under this Marxist president and those in the Democratic Party, we see them pushing Christians to the fringes, trying to marginalize Christians, anybody who speaks the truth of Scripture in a public forum, they want that drummed out completely. And now that this president does not face re-election, I shudder to think of what he might do in terms of trying to silence those who oppose him.

You know, they talk about Chicago-style politics; we're talking about Stalin-esque style politics here and this whole thing with General Petraeus, my first thought - it may very well be that he was engaging in infidelity and all of this, but since when has the mainstream media cared about that?  But my first thought was, wow, this is a set-up, this is as close to Stalinist Russia to try and silence this guy, to try and shut him up when he needs to testify as anything we've seen.  It sent a chill down my spine and no longer are words like 'Marxism' and 'communism' hyperbole, we have reached that time.

...

Wiles: I see pastors going to prison.  I see IRS SWAT teams coming down on churches and shooting people and seizing buildings.  That's what I see.

Barber: God, I hope you're wrong.  I don't know.  I don't know what it is going to look like ...

Wiles: He's not going to allow anyone to disobey him.  This man is a tyrant and I've said all year he will take his mask off after the November election and quickly we're seeing, just as we've seen with General Petraeus, anybody that would dare to oppose him will be removed.

Barber: Yeah, they are setting him up for destruction and that is the way of Marxist regimes of old.

The pollster Wenzel Strategies had several entertaining and off the mark polls in the last election, which comes as no surprise as Wenzel is the chief pollster for the always-buffoonish WorldNetDaily. The firm’s latest survey for WND finds that American voters have already lost faith in President Obama’s leadership just days into his second term.

Wenzel claims that Americans had “a despondent reaction to his re-election and the in-your-face attitude that the White House has adopted” towards Republicans, and oppose his political agenda along with his “callous disregard for the massive problems that are about to destroy our nation.” Thanks to Obama, people are now apparently afraid of the country breaking apart or falling into dictatorship and tyranny.

“This finding is undoubtedly a reflection of the belief among most Americans that their leader has lost his way. Or maybe they just think that he doesn’t believe in America as that shining city on a hill, and so have lost their hope in their own country. It could very well be, at least for some, a despondent reaction to his re-election and the in-your-face attitude that the White House has adopted in dealing with the Congress in general, Republicans in Washington in particular, and Obama’s callous disregard for the massive problems that are about to destroy our nation,” Wenzel said.

“His first solution to every problem is to increase government spending and regulation, which Americans have consistently rejected. A majority still opposes Obamacare, and a majority opposed TARP and auto bailout. The idea that the nation may well have passed the point of no return in many areas may well be behind this shocking poll finding.”

Another section of the same poll revealed that there is a “shocking willingness” on the part of Americans to give up their privacy and freedoms for the sake of “safety.” It showed that while 61 percent say domestic drones violate privacy rights, 20 percent of the people are just fine with the idea. Further, 46 percent said local governments should use cameras to monitor traffic.

In related research, Wenzel also found that one in seven Americans sees a dictator in the nation’s future, and another one in five says it eventually will break up into several sovereign regions. The survey revealed that more than one in four believe the United States likely will collapse not just in their lifetime, but in the next decade.

Also, Wenzel earlier revealed that the seeds of tyranny already are present in America, with a heavily armed law enforcement presence and a population holding a disbelief that their government could do anything that would make them want to revolt.

If only there was a way that people could either vote to retain the President or elect a different candidate in his place!

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios yesterday spoke to Religious Right historian Bill Federer on her show where she criticized President Obama for mentioning nonbelievers and non-Christians as having “equal standing” with Christians in the U.S.

“When he lists all these denominations and atheists and Buddhists and Muslims it’s like we’re all equal, of equal proportion, and we are not,” Rios said, once again revealing that the AFA does indeed believe that people who do not subscribe to its version of Christianity are inferior and minority rights should be dictated by the whims of the majority.

Federer agreed and said it was part of Obama’s “intentional denigration of the contributions of Judeo-Christian faith in America’s history” and went on to say that “Obama’s been using the bully pulpit to advance Islam.”

Later, Rios mourned that African-American Christians support Obama even though he is working to “usher in a time of godlessness” and is “radically transforming this country” by including an openly gay poet and a gay band contingent in inaugural festivities. She naturally ended by doubting Obama’s Christian faith and patriotism: “Something is terribly wrong and it’s terribly wrong to see this man swear allegiance to the country on the bibles of men who went before him who were men who understood faith and who God was.”

We are radically transforming this country and it is happening by the first black president, which brings me to another point: today is Martin Luther King’s birthday and that’s something to really celebrate and I think about my black brothers and sisters, especially in Christ, and I think about the irony that the first black president that they are so excited about, and rightfully so, should usher in a time of godlessness. It’s just amazing to me. Isn’t that ironic? I mean that is really one of the most twisted things. The black community has to choose between rejoicing that there’s an African American president for the first time in the nation’s history while understanding in their deep conscience that he’s ushering in things that they live their lives are the opposite of, their passions are the opposite of. It’s a dilemma.

…

I think ironies of today are just not escaping any of us; it’s very hard, I would be lying if I said otherwise, to celebrate today. But I think it’s very good for us to remember our history, what our founding fathers stood for and there is nothing wrong with reminding each other and fighting to retain it because today does not example that when we have homosexual poet laureates and we have an evangelical pastor who has said that homosexuality was a sin banned from the platform and we have gay bands performing. Something is terribly wrong and it’s terribly wrong to see this man swear allegiance to the country on the bibles of men who went before him who were men who understood faith and who God was, it’s really ironic.

Apparently, Republicans were the big winner of the 2012 election! Or so says Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who on Friday told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins that conservatives in the House won a “mandate” in 2012.

“I think if you look at the country, even in the results of this election, we’re still a center-right nation,” Scalise said in the interview, “the House and the House conservatives did win and we’re there with a mandate to fight for the values that we believe in."

That’s right, losing the White House by a 332-206 electoral vote margin, losing seats in the U.S. Senate and losing the popular vote in House elections, all equals a GOP mandate. In fact, the House GOP may have lost its majority if it wasn’t for partisan gerrymandering.

While it may seem that only a fringe Republican completely detached from reality would interpret the 2012 election as a GOP victory, Rep. Scalise is the incoming chairman of the ultraconservative and influential Republican Study Committee.

Perkins, who hosted a morbid webcast the day following the election, agreed with Scalise’s fanciful election analysis, which comes as no surprise as FRC vice president Tom McClusky signed an equally delusional letter arguing that House Republicans received an electoral mandate.

Perkins: I would argue that the House of Representatives today is probably one of the most conservative Houses in modern times.

Scalise: I think if you look at the membership of the House and especially the RSC, as you mentioned we’re the largest caucus in all of Congress, we represent over 165 members of Congress that are in the RSC, it’s two-thirds of the House Republican majority. So you could say we’re a majority of the majority. But I think more importantly if you look at the reach across the country, RSC members, just looking at members of the Republican Study Committee, we represent over 100 million people. So when you talk about the view of the nation and what was a mandate coming out of this election, the fact that over 100 million people are represented by elected an conservative — conservatives to represent them — says that there’s a mandate to push for conservative values and to fight for the things that we believe in and that will actually solve the great problems facing this country.

Perkins: That’s a significant bloc of votes.

…

Scalise: You know, with probably one of the most radical liberal presidents that we’ve had in our history, I think people are counting on us to be that only line of defense and to fight to make sure that number one that we still push conservative solutions. I think if you look at the country, even in the results of this election, we’re still a center-right nation. When you have conservatives that run as conservatives, typically we win, most of our members got re-elected and if you look at the new members, thirty-five new members are coming in on the Republican side and all but four of them have joined the RSC and they ran as a very difficult climate as conservatives and they won. We shouldn’t be ashamed of or shy away from our principles, we’re disappointed in many things that came out of the election, but we ought to be proud of the fact that people sent us in the House back to be a check and a balance and not act like we got defeated because the House and the House conservatives did win and we’re there with a mandate to fight for the values that we believe in.

On the latest episode of Generations Radio, Pastor Kevin Swanson recounted the Religious Right’s political drubbings last year, especially the failure to defeat President Obama. He claimed Obama’s re-election “solidified our doom” and will encourage the election of “a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come.” Swanson maintained that women put Obama over the top because they tend to have “more communist” views. Later his cohost, pastor Dave Buehner, agreed and said Obama “doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him.”

They further speculated that TIME had trouble deciding whether to name Obama or North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un “Man of the Year” since they are “both committed to Marx.”

Swanson: It solidified our doom, it effectively said there is no way out of this thing at least for the time being unless we get back to the foundations, reconstruct the foundations, which is something we’ve been talking about for a long time. Unless we rebuild families, fatherhood, young men, unless we bring back manhood, a biblical manhood, we are going to be a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come. That’s what’s going to happen. It’s going to be the single women that run most of the households in America voting and they almost always vote more socialist, more government, more communist, because they find their security in the state and not in the social structure of that family. Dave, we’re headed in that election. I think the 2012 election really was a turning point for America.

…

Swanson: The man has tremendous influence. He has got a mandate; he’s got a lot of support—

Buehner: He doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him, which is why he’s their ‘Man of the Year.’

Swanson: He’s got a woman-date, big time. You know, the North Korean president got the most votes from the audience for ‘Man of the Year,’ he was a close second. If you had a choice between Barack Obama and the North Korean president, they’re both committed to Marx. They are, think about it. If you interviewed both of them and you said: what do you think about Marx and the redistribution of wealth? Remember what he said on that radio station in Chicago, Barack Obama some ten years ago, he said they should have had redistribution of the wealth in the Constitution. He is so committed to Marxism and so is the North Korean president, but it was a tossup for TIME Magazine.

After attacking Obama’s “woman-date,” they then went on to ridicule Sandra Fluke. Buehner later falsely claimed that the health care reform law included “free access” to abortifacients, and said Fluke didn’t win TIME’s honor because “there’s some question about how ladylike she might be.” Swanson wondered if Fluke is a woman at all.

Buehner: This is the year that we learned that it is a fundamental right for women to get free access and their abortifacients provided free. Sandra Fluke was there telling us how it’s unconscionable that women would have to pay.

Swanson: Time did not make her ‘Woman of the Year’ though; I’d like to point that out. I think that’s a positive.

Buehner: Well there’s some question about how ladylike she might be.

Swanson: So they were like, ‘Man of the Year,’ ‘Woman of the Year,’ we’re not exactly sure.

Buehner: Yeah, you know.

Swanson: I understand.

The Christian Right activists later went on to mock Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was recently hospitalized for a blood clot, with Buehner joking that her recent medical problems were a “dog ate her homework” excuse and that “her tummy’s upset.” Swanson expressed shock that Egypt elected a Muslim president and said that Clinton is elated over the election of a Muslim because “it involves killing Christians.” They agreed that Clinton “might even put on a burka” to put Christian-killing Muslims in power, which makes sense because that’s what any “softy-wofty” would do.

Swanson: The Egyptians placed a Muslim into the presidency, which does not bode well for freedom in America. Dave, I wonder what the Secretary of State of the United States thinks about the election in Egypt. I mean, they were pretty excited about the revolution.

Buehner: They were, the Arab Spring. And Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State was unavailable for comment. It turns out that she slipped on something and maybe banged her head—dog ate her homework. She’s not feeling well, her tummy’s upset and she’s not going to make a comment.

Swanson: It’s a sad, sad day in Egypt.

Buehner: The Muslim Brotherhood, not just a Muslim but a Muslim Brotherhood, we’re talking about the radical jihadists.

Swanson: So Egypt, out of the frying pan and into the fire for Egypt. I’m afraid that a lot of these secularist nations are going to flip-flop from secularism into hardcore Muslimism and that’s not going to be a very nice transition because the Muslims have never really been known to be much kinder than the secularists, socialists and communists that have ruled these nations.

Buehner: No, they tend to be a little on the violent edge.

Swanson: If you were Hillary Clinton and you had a choice between a Christian president and a Muslim president, which would you go for?

Buehner: If I was Hillary? Well Hillary would choose the Muslim.

Swanson: Oh yeah, of course. It involves killing Christians, I mean yeah.

Buehner: She might even put on a burka to get that done.

Swanson: Yeah.

Not only were many conservative leaders confidently predicting a comfortable Romney victory in last month’s elections but so were many Religious Right activists who cloaked the imminent Romney win in spiritual terms. Even the “Bible Code” pointed to a Romney presidency! Of course, President Obama ended up winning re-election and these predictions were quickly forgotten by those who made them.

But Rick Joyner is still perplexed that Romney lost given that all of his fellow “prophets” thought he’d win. In his “Word of the Week” bulletin, Joyner said he was “sorry that we did not do better in understanding this election” and wonders why he knew “a lot of prophetic people who fully expected Romney to win the election.”

The only explanation Joyner thought of was that while Christians were united against Obama like never before, they were just too afraid to vote for a Mormon.

Because the 2012 elections continue to be a source of confusion to many, we will address a couple of more lessons to learn from this to finish out this year. Then we will begin the New Year with possibly unprecedented opportunities to see our nation turn to the Lord for the greatest harvest in history.

I know a lot of prophetic people who fully expected Romney to win the election. Of those I communicated with about the election, I do not know of any who gave a prophecy that Romney would win, but it was an almost universal opinion. I did not even seek a word from the Lord about it myself because I felt that I already had His opinion. That was a huge presumption.

Bob Jones had an encounter with the Lord on January 16, 2012 in which the Lord asked him what he thought about having a Mormon for President. This was long before the Republican nomination had been decided, and Bob’s response was that he did not think very much of it. Bob held to that opinion until after the nomination was won by Romney, and then he believed that he must have been wrong and that Romney must be God’s choice. After the election, he realized how he had let his own opinions cancel out what the Lord was trying to show him in the first place.

Bob is the most seasoned and wise prophetic person I know, and in great wisdom, he embraced this correction. Even the greatest prophets still see in part and prophesy in part. We have had many prophetic words come true exactly as they were given, but we misinterpreted them until they were fulfilled. I still consider interpretation one of the greatest weaknesses in the prophetic ministry, but it was also this way throughout history, including biblical history. Even so, I believe we must do better with interpreting what we are being shown prophetically.

Some would interpret the question that Bob was asked by the Lord to mean that the Lord did not want a Mormon as President, but that is not what the Lord said either. In fact, the Lord did not say anything, but just asked a question. That question may have been the ultimate question that in fact decided the election. Maybe we should have spent far more attention trying to answer that question than we did. I’m not saying that it was, but it could have been. Romney could have been God’s choice, but I know many good Christians who did not vote because they said they could not vote for a Mormon.

…

This past election was too good of an opportunity to learn to sweep it under the rug. I feel that I have learned something profound almost every day since the election. Wisdom and understanding are worth much more than gold or silver. I am sorry that we did not do better in understanding this election, but I love the correction because of what I’m learning. If we learn our lessons from this, they could save us in far more crucial times to come. I hope this is helpful, and I have a bit more to share next week.

Or, maybe Romney really did win but Obama stole the election.