Islam

Right Wing Round-Up

  • PFAW: House-Passes Devastating Amendment in Latest Attack in the GOP's War on Women.
     
  • Ezra Klein: Unions aren't to blame for Wisconsin's budget.
     
  • Jim Burroway @ Box Turtle Bulletin: KC Vigil To Tell Lou Engle to Stop Exporting Hate to Uganda.
     
  • Steve Benen: Rove to GOP base: It's a trap.
     
  • Ryan J. Reilly @ TPM: Palin Knocks Obama For Promoting Breastfeeding, But Declared Awareness Month As Gov.
     
  • Alvin McEwen: Family Research Council's 'detailed response' to SPLC's charges leave much to be desired.
     
  • County Fair: Beck Modifies Islam And Communism Symbols To Look More Like UN Emblem.
     
  • Igor Volsky @ Wonk Room: Christian Post: Military Chaplians Don’t See DADT Repeal As ‘A Big Deal.’

Right Wing Round-Up

  • PFAW: House-Passes Devastating Amendment in Latest Attack in the GOP's War on Women.
     
  • Ezra Klein: Unions aren't to blame for Wisconsin's budget.
     
  • Jim Burroway @ Box Turtle Bulletin: KC Vigil To Tell Lou Engle to Stop Exporting Hate to Uganda.
     
  • Steve Benen: Rove to GOP base: It's a trap.
     
  • Ryan J. Reilly @ TPM: Palin Knocks Obama For Promoting Breastfeeding, But Declared Awareness Month As Gov.
     
  • Alvin McEwen: Family Research Council's 'detailed response' to SPLC's charges leave much to be desired.
     
  • County Fair: Beck Modifies Islam And Communism Symbols To Look More Like UN Emblem.
     
  • Igor Volsky @ Wonk Room: Christian Post: Military Chaplians Don’t See DADT Repeal As ‘A Big Deal.’

Boykin Terrifies Dobson With Dire Warnings Of America's Pending Islamification

Yesterday, James Dobson hosted Lt. General Jerry Boykin on his radio program to explain to his audience how the Muslim Brotherhood is currently entering "phase four" of its five-stage plan to take over America.

The interview proved to be so alarming to Dobson and his listeners that they kept Boykin around for another half-hour so that he could continue to enlightening them about the dire threat that this nation is facing.

I cannot even begin to adequately capture the utter terror and paranoia that drove this second episode as Dobson and his co-hosts grew increasingly alarmed as Boykin informed them of American's impending doom, claiming that the US does not want to try those responsible for 9/11 because we are intimidated by the Muslim world and that they day is fast approaching where his granddaughters will be forced to wear burkas:

Boykin: You know, it's interesting to me that two of the groups that have not said anything about this - in fact, have kind of been on the other side on this - are the women's groups and the homosexual groups. Both of those groups are discriminated against very heavily, so if there was total sharia law in this country, by sharia law homosexuals would be killed and all the women would be wearing burkas and hijabs and would be subjugated to the authority of men. But these two groups have no come out and said anything.

LuAnne Crane: They've been silent.

Boykin: We are at war. And I think that until Americans are willing to find out was Islam is and to find out the truth about what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing in our country, we're going to continue to live in darkness.

James Dobson: Are there activist judges that are taking us in that direction?

Boykin: Absolutely, and you know I have a great respect for the Governor of New Jersey, but he just appointed a judge, a Muslim judge, to one of the courts up there in New Jersey who has been known to be associated with operatives from Hamas.

Dobson: This is Christie? Governor Christie?

Boykin: Yes. And this kind of thing reflects, I don't think an effort on his part of implement sharia law, I think it's this whole concept of trying to appease the people that, in fact, are our enemies.

Dobson: General, I have wanted to ask this question of somebody for a long time - I'm sure it has a good answer, but I've never heard it. 9/11 occurred ten years ago and the people who are responsible for that horrible day of bombing have still not stood trial. Ten years! It's one thing for them to have been convicted and put in prison for ten years - they haven't even been brought to trial and I don't understand why. Can you explain that?

Boykin: No, sadly I can't because I think that the whole thing is a political issue. I think, this is my personal view, but I think neither the previous administration nor this administration is willing to take them to trial because I think they fear the outrage from the Islamic world because there is so much support around the world for what those people did.

Dobson: Well, that's appeasement again. We're intimidated.

Boykin: We are intimidated.

Let me say I have six grandchildren and three of them are females and I must tell you, I am greatly concerned about the day coming when they will be wearing burkas. That's how serious I consider this threat.

Dobson: Are you serious?

Crane: That's not just extreme?

Boykin: I am very serious.

And the only hope for avoiding this catastrophe, of course, is to vote for the candidates who truly recognize the peril that America is facing.

Boykin Terrifies Dobson With Dire Warnings Of America's Pending Islamification

Yesterday, James Dobson hosted Lt. General Jerry Boykin on his radio program to explain to his audience how the Muslim Brotherhood is currently entering "phase four" of its five-stage plan to take over America.

The interview proved to be so alarming to Dobson and his listeners that they kept Boykin around for another half-hour so that he could continue to enlightening them about the dire threat that this nation is facing.

I cannot even begin to adequately capture the utter terror and paranoia that drove this second episode as Dobson and his co-hosts grew increasingly alarmed as Boykin informed them of American's impending doom, claiming that the US does not want to try those responsible for 9/11 because we are intimidated by the Muslim world and that they day is fast approaching where his granddaughters will be forced to wear burkas:

Boykin: You know, it's interesting to me that two of the groups that have not said anything about this - in fact, have kind of been on the other side on this - are the women's groups and the homosexual groups. Both of those groups are discriminated against very heavily, so if there was total sharia law in this country, by sharia law homosexuals would be killed and all the women would be wearing burkas and hijabs and would be subjugated to the authority of men. But these two groups have no come out and said anything.

LuAnne Crane: They've been silent.

Boykin: We are at war. And I think that until Americans are willing to find out was Islam is and to find out the truth about what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing in our country, we're going to continue to live in darkness.

James Dobson: Are there activist judges that are taking us in that direction?

Boykin: Absolutely, and you know I have a great respect for the Governor of New Jersey, but he just appointed a judge, a Muslim judge, to one of the courts up there in New Jersey who has been known to be associated with operatives from Hamas.

Dobson: This is Christie? Governor Christie?

Boykin: Yes. And this kind of thing reflects, I don't think an effort on his part of implement sharia law, I think it's this whole concept of trying to appease the people that, in fact, are our enemies.

Dobson: General, I have wanted to ask this question of somebody for a long time - I'm sure it has a good answer, but I've never heard it. 9/11 occurred ten years ago and the people who are responsible for that horrible day of bombing have still not stood trial. Ten years! It's one thing for them to have been convicted and put in prison for ten years - they haven't even been brought to trial and I don't understand why. Can you explain that?

Boykin: No, sadly I can't because I think that the whole thing is a political issue. I think, this is my personal view, but I think neither the previous administration nor this administration is willing to take them to trial because I think they fear the outrage from the Islamic world because there is so much support around the world for what those people did.

Dobson: Well, that's appeasement again. We're intimidated.

Boykin: We are intimidated.

Let me say I have six grandchildren and three of them are females and I must tell you, I am greatly concerned about the day coming when they will be wearing burkas. That's how serious I consider this threat.

Dobson: Are you serious?

Crane: That's not just extreme?

Boykin: I am very serious.

And the only hope for avoiding this catastrophe, of course, is to vote for the candidates who truly recognize the peril that America is facing.

Beck To Host End Times Obsessed Authors

Ben Dimiero reports that tonight's episode of Glenn Beck will feature the End Times-obsessed Joel Richardson, author of "The Islamic Antichrist," who claims that "Islam is indeed the primary vehicle that will be used by Satan to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible about the future political/religious/military system of the Antichrist that will overwhelm the entire world just prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ."

So I guess it should come as no surprise that Concerned Women for America, founded by Beverly LaHaye, is reporting that her husband, Tim LaHaye, will also be featured on the program:

If today’s headlines are renewing your interest in the end times, you’re not alone! Don’t miss Dr. Tim LaHaye this Thursday, February 24, as he discusses this hot topic on the Glenn Beck Show, which airs from 5-6 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel.

Dr. Tim LaHaye holds a Doctor of Ministry degree from Western Theological Seminary, a Doctor of Literature degree from Liberty University, and is a leading expert on pretribulation thought.

So this seems like as good a time as any to repost this clip of Tim and Beverly on Mike Huckabee's TV show explaining that President Obama is bringing about the End Times:

Beck To Host End Times Obsessed Authors

Ben Dimiero reports that tonight's episode of Glenn Beck will feature the End Times-obsessed Joel Richardson, author of "The Islamic Antichrist," who claims that "Islam is indeed the primary vehicle that will be used by Satan to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible about the future political/religious/military system of the Antichrist that will overwhelm the entire world just prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ."

So I guess it should come as no surprise that Concerned Women for America, founded by Beverly LaHaye, is reporting that her husband, Tim LaHaye, will also be featured on the program:

If today’s headlines are renewing your interest in the end times, you’re not alone! Don’t miss Dr. Tim LaHaye this Thursday, February 24, as he discusses this hot topic on the Glenn Beck Show, which airs from 5-6 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel.

Dr. Tim LaHaye holds a Doctor of Ministry degree from Western Theological Seminary, a Doctor of Literature degree from Liberty University, and is a leading expert on pretribulation thought.

So this seems like as good a time as any to repost this clip of Tim and Beverly on Mike Huckabee's TV show explaining that President Obama is bringing about the End Times:

Dobson and Boykin Expose The Muslim Conspiracy To Take Over The World

The other day we noted how Lt. General Jerry Boykin has become the right-wing's expert of choice on all things Islam despite the fact that he believes that there is a plot underway by President Obama to take over America by creating an army of Brownshirts loyal only to him via passage of Health Care Reform:

So I guess it is no surprise that Boykin would show up on James Dobson's radio program today to give his expert opinion on "The Threat of Islamic Terrorism" where he asserted that Islam is not a religion and does not deserve First Amendment protections and that the Muslim Brotherhood is currently entering "phase four" of a five-phase plan to take over America:

Boykin: Islam is not a religion. Islam is a totalitarian way of life and it starts with a legal system call sharia law. It is then a financial system, it is a military system, it is a government system, I mean it's a geo-political system and that is hard for us to deal with, the fact that Islam is not a religion and does not deserve First Amendment protections.

In 2004, in Annandale, Virginia we discovered a false basement in a man's home there. It turns out he was the operations officer for the Muslim Brotherhood in America. They went through all of the things in this false basement and they discovered a five-phase plan to take over America. And as you look at the plan, and it's on the web, you'll see that they are in the latter stages of phase three and moving into phase four very quickly. And they've done this just since the early Sixties when they came to this country and it is difficult for Americans, for Westerners as a whole, to understand that Islam is not a religion.

The Muslim Brotherhood was started in 1928 in Cairo. They didn't do very well in the first decade, they only had about 800 members but then along came a guy named Adolf Hitler and Adolf Hitler began to fund the Muslim Brotherhood. That's when he made the arrangements with the Mufti in Jerusalem and that's why, during World War II, the Jews couldn't return to that area because Hitler was funding the Muslim Brotherhood to keep the Jews from coming back.

Dobson: So it's rooted in hatred for the Jews and for Israel and we have now our president and his administration dealing with, in some ways, surreptitiously with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and that works counter too our interests in Israel.

Boykin: That's right. And when you say you are going to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, you're saying I'm going to deal with al Qaeda, I'm going to deal with Hamas - these are spin-off terrorist organizations that are part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now I think as we look at the situation in Egypt today we need to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood is very much at the root of this thing.

Dobson and Boykin Expose The Muslim Conspiracy To Take Over The World

The other day we noted how Lt. General Jerry Boykin has become the right-wing's expert of choice on all things Islam despite the fact that he believes that there is a plot underway by President Obama to take over America by creating an army of Brownshirts loyal only to him via passage of Health Care Reform:

So I guess it is no surprise that Boykin would show up on James Dobson's radio program today to give his expert opinion on "The Threat of Islamic Terrorism" where he asserted that Islam is not a religion and does not deserve First Amendment protections and that the Muslim Brotherhood is currently entering "phase four" of a five-phase plan to take over America:

Boykin: Islam is not a religion. Islam is a totalitarian way of life and it starts with a legal system call sharia law. It is then a financial system, it is a military system, it is a government system, I mean it's a geo-political system and that is hard for us to deal with, the fact that Islam is not a religion and does not deserve First Amendment protections.

In 2004, in Annandale, Virginia we discovered a false basement in a man's home there. It turns out he was the operations officer for the Muslim Brotherhood in America. They went through all of the things in this false basement and they discovered a five-phase plan to take over America. And as you look at the plan, and it's on the web, you'll see that they are in the latter stages of phase three and moving into phase four very quickly. And they've done this just since the early Sixties when they came to this country and it is difficult for Americans, for Westerners as a whole, to understand that Islam is not a religion.

The Muslim Brotherhood was started in 1928 in Cairo. They didn't do very well in the first decade, they only had about 800 members but then along came a guy named Adolf Hitler and Adolf Hitler began to fund the Muslim Brotherhood. That's when he made the arrangements with the Mufti in Jerusalem and that's why, during World War II, the Jews couldn't return to that area because Hitler was funding the Muslim Brotherhood to keep the Jews from coming back.

Dobson: So it's rooted in hatred for the Jews and for Israel and we have now our president and his administration dealing with, in some ways, surreptitiously with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and that works counter too our interests in Israel.

Boykin: That's right. And when you say you are going to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, you're saying I'm going to deal with al Qaeda, I'm going to deal with Hamas - these are spin-off terrorist organizations that are part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now I think as we look at the situation in Egypt today we need to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood is very much at the root of this thing.

Barton Raises Money For Stemberger's Defense By Spreading More Lies

As we have mentioned several times before, John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council, was an early and central player in the Rifqa Bary saga when she turned up in Florida in 2009.  His actions during that case have now resulted in misconduct complaint being filed against him by the Florida Bar as well as a $10 million defamation lawsuit from the attorney who represented Bary's parents.

As such, Stemberger has set up a legal defense fund to cover his mounting legal expenses that has the support of Jerry Bokin, Newt Gingrich, Tony Perkins, Lou Engle and David Barton. 

And today, Barton had Stemberger on his "Wallbuilders Live" radio program where they, along with Rick Green, alleged that the lawsuit and misconduct complaint are an attempt by radical Muslims to destroy anyone who dares to criticize them. [I would like to point out that none of the claims made by Bary about her parents or the claims Stemberger asserts in this interview were ever substantiated by state investigators who examined them]:

Barton: The message is don't talk about us or we'll come after you the same way.

Green: It's an intimidation factor.

Barton: We're showing you what happens to people who talk about us or people who come after us in court - we will make you pay. And they may eventually lose, but that's only if you have enough money to outlast them. And so it really is a bad thing and we've got a good friend of ours on today that's in the middle of one of these things were Islamic groups have come after him because he stood and actually won a court for justice. And because he won, now they are going to make him pay a price.

Stemberger: Well, as your listeners may remember the name Rifqa Bary was a former Muslim teenager who made international headlines in about the summer and fall of 2009 when she ran away from her parents in Ohio to Florida, to a Methodist pastor and his wife after her parents threatened her life for not renouncing her Christian faith.

You know, she knew the repercussions of this so she was very, very careful to be discreet with it. But then when the parents, when the [leaders] of the mosque confronted the parents, that's when they began to blow up and the father specifically threatened her, demanded she denounce her faith, said that "you'll be dead to me" and that, according to her affidavit which is public knowledge, made some really specific threats ... But when they found a book on Esther in her bedroom, that's when they just said "we're going to send you back to Sri Lanka" and she knew she would just be a walking dead girl at that point.

Just weeks after [Rifqa turned 18] the lawyer who opposed Rifqa in court and who represented Rifqa's parents, Mr. Omar Tarazi, whose family has deep ties with CAIR, which is the Council on American Islamic Relations, he filed a grievance against me.

Green: This is their typical game plan. You mentioned CAIR, this is how they strike back, they trump up these kind of things and just give you a barrage of quote "ethical complains" so that you have to spend your time, energy, and money defending those instead of fighting the real fight, right?

Stemberger: Well, there is a clear growing trend of malicious lawsuits and other legal actions which are filed by adherents of radical strains of Islam and they're designed to punish, silence, and to chill legitimate speech and public discourse about Islam.

Barton: That's Islamic lawfare. I mean, they're coming after you to make him an example and say "don't anybody else every try to intervene ..."

Green: Whether they win or lose, they example is made that we're going to cost you money ...

Barton: And if there is every a time to step up and help a brother, this is it. We're not going to bring a BB gun to a tank fight. We're going to show up and we're going to take you toe-to-toe on this thing.

Barton Raises Money For Stemberger's Defense By Spreading More Lies

As we have mentioned several times before, John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council, was an early and central player in the Rifqa Bary saga when she turned up in Florida in 2009.  His actions during that case have now resulted in misconduct complaint being filed against him by the Florida Bar as well as a $10 million defamation lawsuit from the attorney who represented Bary's parents.

As such, Stemberger has set up a legal defense fund to cover his mounting legal expenses that has the support of Jerry Bokin, Newt Gingrich, Tony Perkins, Lou Engle and David Barton. 

And today, Barton had Stemberger on his "Wallbuilders Live" radio program where they, along with Rick Green, alleged that the lawsuit and misconduct complaint are an attempt by radical Muslims to destroy anyone who dares to criticize them. [I would like to point out that none of the claims made by Bary about her parents or the claims Stemberger asserts in this interview were ever substantiated by state investigators who examined them]:

Barton: The message is don't talk about us or we'll come after you the same way.

Green: It's an intimidation factor.

Barton: We're showing you what happens to people who talk about us or people who come after us in court - we will make you pay. And they may eventually lose, but that's only if you have enough money to outlast them. And so it really is a bad thing and we've got a good friend of ours on today that's in the middle of one of these things were Islamic groups have come after him because he stood and actually won a court for justice. And because he won, now they are going to make him pay a price.

Stemberger: Well, as your listeners may remember the name Rifqa Bary was a former Muslim teenager who made international headlines in about the summer and fall of 2009 when she ran away from her parents in Ohio to Florida, to a Methodist pastor and his wife after her parents threatened her life for not renouncing her Christian faith.

You know, she knew the repercussions of this so she was very, very careful to be discreet with it. But then when the parents, when the [leaders] of the mosque confronted the parents, that's when they began to blow up and the father specifically threatened her, demanded she denounce her faith, said that "you'll be dead to me" and that, according to her affidavit which is public knowledge, made some really specific threats ... But when they found a book on Esther in her bedroom, that's when they just said "we're going to send you back to Sri Lanka" and she knew she would just be a walking dead girl at that point.

Just weeks after [Rifqa turned 18] the lawyer who opposed Rifqa in court and who represented Rifqa's parents, Mr. Omar Tarazi, whose family has deep ties with CAIR, which is the Council on American Islamic Relations, he filed a grievance against me.

Green: This is their typical game plan. You mentioned CAIR, this is how they strike back, they trump up these kind of things and just give you a barrage of quote "ethical complains" so that you have to spend your time, energy, and money defending those instead of fighting the real fight, right?

Stemberger: Well, there is a clear growing trend of malicious lawsuits and other legal actions which are filed by adherents of radical strains of Islam and they're designed to punish, silence, and to chill legitimate speech and public discourse about Islam.

Barton: That's Islamic lawfare. I mean, they're coming after you to make him an example and say "don't anybody else every try to intervene ..."

Green: Whether they win or lose, they example is made that we're going to cost you money ...

Barton: And if there is every a time to step up and help a brother, this is it. We're not going to bring a BB gun to a tank fight. We're going to show up and we're going to take you toe-to-toe on this thing.

Bryan Fischer's Genocide Apologetics

Say what you will about Bryan Fischer, but the man just refuses to give up or ever back down. 

Case in point: after his blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force was taken down by the AFA, Fischer has continued to defend it, claiming that people were just too immature and dim-witted to deal with this truth.

But that wasn't enough, so Fischer penned a new column explaining if all Native Americans had just been as deferential as Pocahontas and converted to Christianity, the European settlers wouldn't have had to resort to all that "bloodshed and violence" ... a point he made again on his radio program yesterday:

But you think about how different American history would have been if every member of the indigenous tribes had followed Pocahontas' example. She not only converted, she assimilated. She did not just convert to Christianity and then try to maintain some separate tribal identity, some segregated style of life. She converted, she recognized the superiority of the spiritual convictions of the colonists, of the Englishmen, she embraced their religion, she embraced their faith, she embraced their god, she embraced their savior because she recognized that the god that the English served was superior to the gods that the Indian people served. So she identified herself no longer as an Algonquin Indian but as an Englishman. So she melded into the culture that she recognized was superior to her own. If the example of Pocahontas had been followed, things could have been much, much different - we would have had a seamless and bloodless assimilation, integration, of the indigenous peoples into the melting pot which became America.

Let's take a step back for a moment. 

Fischer asserts that Native American were "steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality" and that, for those reasons, European Christians had been tasked by God with emptying out the "slop bucket" and taking control of the nation.

And the reason that these European Christians had to resort to "bloodshed and violence" was because the Native Americans refused to submit to the "laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations" that says Europeans had the right to take the continent and likewise refused to convert to Christianity and assimilate.

Now, keep in mind that Fischer makes similar claims about Muslims today.

He says "Islam is an evil and wicked religion, and unworthy of a Christian nation." 

He says that Muslims "are engaged in subversive activity, treasonous activity, against the United States."

He says that lands dominated by Islam are filled with nothing but darkness, tyranny, repression, poverty, disease, and emptiness.

He says that Muslims are dangerous, violent, and stupid because of rampant inbreeding and that the world must fight the "ravages of Islam" and oppose "the spread of this dark and dangerous religion."

So it seems that, based on Fischer's logic, Muslims are likewise "morally disqualified" from controlling any land and therefore Christians are justified in taking control of any such areas.  And should the Muslim inhabitants of such lands refuse to embrace Christianity and assimilate, then the Christian conquerors are entirely within their rights to resort to "bloodshed and violence" in order to subdue them in accordance with the "laws of nature [and] nature's God."

I guess now we know why the AFA put that post up on its blog a few weeks ago claiming that it is okay to commit genocide so long as God tells you do it.

Bryan Fischer's Genocide Apologetics

Say what you will about Bryan Fischer, but the man just refuses to give up or ever back down. 

Case in point: after his blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force was taken down by the AFA, Fischer has continued to defend it, claiming that people were just too immature and dim-witted to deal with this truth.

But that wasn't enough, so Fischer penned a new column explaining if all Native Americans had just been as deferential as Pocahontas and converted to Christianity, the European settlers wouldn't have had to resort to all that "bloodshed and violence" ... a point he made again on his radio program yesterday:

But you think about how different American history would have been if every member of the indigenous tribes had followed Pocahontas' example. She not only converted, she assimilated. She did not just convert to Christianity and then try to maintain some separate tribal identity, some segregated style of life. She converted, she recognized the superiority of the spiritual convictions of the colonists, of the Englishmen, she embraced their religion, she embraced their faith, she embraced their god, she embraced their savior because she recognized that the god that the English served was superior to the gods that the Indian people served. So she identified herself no longer as an Algonquin Indian but as an Englishman. So she melded into the culture that she recognized was superior to her own. If the example of Pocahontas had been followed, things could have been much, much different - we would have had a seamless and bloodless assimilation, integration, of the indigenous peoples into the melting pot which became America.

Let's take a step back for a moment. 

Fischer asserts that Native American were "steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality" and that, for those reasons, European Christians had been tasked by God with emptying out the "slop bucket" and taking control of the nation.

And the reason that these European Christians had to resort to "bloodshed and violence" was because the Native Americans refused to submit to the "laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations" that says Europeans had the right to take the continent and likewise refused to convert to Christianity and assimilate.

Now, keep in mind that Fischer makes similar claims about Muslims today.

He says "Islam is an evil and wicked religion, and unworthy of a Christian nation." 

He says that Muslims "are engaged in subversive activity, treasonous activity, against the United States."

He says that lands dominated by Islam are filled with nothing but darkness, tyranny, repression, poverty, disease, and emptiness.

He says that Muslims are dangerous, violent, and stupid because of rampant inbreeding and that the world must fight the "ravages of Islam" and oppose "the spread of this dark and dangerous religion."

So it seems that, based on Fischer's logic, Muslims are likewise "morally disqualified" from controlling any land and therefore Christians are justified in taking control of any such areas.  And should the Muslim inhabitants of such lands refuse to embrace Christianity and assimilate, then the Christian conquerors are entirely within their rights to resort to "bloodshed and violence" in order to subdue them in accordance with the "laws of nature [and] nature's God."

I guess now we know why the AFA put that post up on its blog a few weeks ago claiming that it is okay to commit genocide so long as God tells you do it.

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Round-Up

Just When Is Fischer Speaking For the AFA?

As we noted yesterday, the American Family Association has pulled Bryan Fischer's recent blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force.

So far, the AFA has not offered any statement on why it did so and all we have gotten is Fischer's side as he claims it was taken down because people are just "not mature" enough to handle the truth and was becoming a distraction because the Left was just too "dim-witted" to understand that Fischer was speaking only for himself and not for the organization.

Now, as Warren Throckmorton reports, a representative of the AFA showed up in the comments to a Throckmorton post on Crosswalk about Fischer's piece to reject Fischer's bigotry and claim that his views do not represent the AFA:

Bryan Fischer’s blog runs on the AFA website. His blog does not speak for AFA. His statements about Native Americans were wrong and disturbing. I am posting this as an individual, but provide my job description to illustrate that Bryan’s views were not those of AFA as a whole.

Patrick Vaughn
General Counsel
American Family Association, Inc.

This raises an interesting question: just when does Fischer speak for the AFA?

Fischer claims that when he writes on the blog, he is speaking only for himself.  Fine.  But what about when he shows up on the radio or in the press? Does he represent the AFA in those situations? 

What about when he is given a speaking slot at the Values Voter Summit where he attacks "the dark and dangerous and devious religion of Islam." Or when he appears in right-wing documentaries?

What about when he is hosting his radio program for the AFA on which he interviews Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls? Does he represent AFA then?  Does he represent the AFA when he uses his radio program to say that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism, when he says that Muslims should be banned from the military, or when he claims that Hitler filled the Nazi ranks with gays because they were the only ones capable of being savage and brutal enough to carry out his orders? Did he represent the AFA in any of those situations?

Or finally, what about when Fischer demands a ban on the construction of all mosques in America?  He first made the assertion on the AFA blog, which he claims does not represent the AFA.  He then made the same point on his AFA radio program. He then defended the statement on a program with Alan Colmes.  And then defended it again on CNN.

Did Fischer represent the AFA in any capacity in any of those venues, or was he simply representing himself? 

If Fischer doesn't represent the AFA when he writes on their blog, hosts their radio show, or appears in the press or at a public event as Director of Issue Analysis, just when does he represent the AFA? 

And if the AFA doesn't want to be associated with Fischer's unrelenting bigotry, why do they keep him on staff and continue to give him venues from which to spew his hatred?

It would be really helpful to the rest of us if the AFA could clarify just when Fischer is speaking on behalf of the organization and when he is spewing his bigotry as a private citizen so that we can know when to hold the AFA accountable for the outrageous and offensive things he says on their blog, radio network, or in public appearances as the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy for the American Family Association.

Just When Is Fischer Speaking For the AFA?

As we noted yesterday, the American Family Association has pulled Bryan Fischer's recent blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force.

So far, the AFA has not offered any statement on why it did so and all we have gotten is Fischer's side as he claims it was taken down because people are just "not mature" enough to handle the truth and was becoming a distraction because the Left was just too "dim-witted" to understand that Fischer was speaking only for himself and not for the organization.

Now, as Warren Throckmorton reports, a representative of the AFA showed up in the comments to a Throckmorton post on Crosswalk about Fischer's piece to reject Fischer's bigotry and claim that his views do not represent the AFA:

Bryan Fischer’s blog runs on the AFA website. His blog does not speak for AFA. His statements about Native Americans were wrong and disturbing. I am posting this as an individual, but provide my job description to illustrate that Bryan’s views were not those of AFA as a whole.

Patrick Vaughn
General Counsel
American Family Association, Inc.

This raises an interesting question: just when does Fischer speak for the AFA?

Fischer claims that when he writes on the blog, he is speaking only for himself.  Fine.  But what about when he shows up on the radio or in the press? Does he represent the AFA in those situations? 

What about when he is given a speaking slot at the Values Voter Summit where he attacks "the dark and dangerous and devious religion of Islam." Or when he appears in right-wing documentaries?

What about when he is hosting his radio program for the AFA on which he interviews Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls? Does he represent AFA then?  Does he represent the AFA when he uses his radio program to say that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism, when he says that Muslims should be banned from the military, or when he claims that Hitler filled the Nazi ranks with gays because they were the only ones capable of being savage and brutal enough to carry out his orders? Did he represent the AFA in any of those situations?

Or finally, what about when Fischer demands a ban on the construction of all mosques in America?  He first made the assertion on the AFA blog, which he claims does not represent the AFA.  He then made the same point on his AFA radio program. He then defended the statement on a program with Alan Colmes.  And then defended it again on CNN.

Did Fischer represent the AFA in any capacity in any of those venues, or was he simply representing himself? 

If Fischer doesn't represent the AFA when he writes on their blog, hosts their radio show, or appears in the press or at a public event as Director of Issue Analysis, just when does he represent the AFA? 

And if the AFA doesn't want to be associated with Fischer's unrelenting bigotry, why do they keep him on staff and continue to give him venues from which to spew his hatred?

It would be really helpful to the rest of us if the AFA could clarify just when Fischer is speaking on behalf of the organization and when he is spewing his bigotry as a private citizen so that we can know when to hold the AFA accountable for the outrageous and offensive things he says on their blog, radio network, or in public appearances as the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy for the American Family Association.

CPAC Immigration Panel: Readying the Fight to Save the GOP and White America

If there is one message to take away from CPAC’s panel on immigration, it’s that White America is in serious jeopardy and may soon succumb to immigration, multiculturalism, and socialism. The panel “Will Immigration Kill the GOP?” featured former congressmen Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Virgil Goode (R-VA), Bay Buchanan of Team America PAC, and special guest Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA). The group Youth for Western Civilization sponsored the panel, and its head Kevin DeAnna was also a panelist. Youth for Western Civilization is a far-right group that regularly criticizes affinity groups on college campuses, especially those that represent black, Hispanic, LGBT, Native American, and Muslim students.

Tancredo, a star among anti-immigrant activists, started the event by claiming that he wasn’t bigoted against Latinos and that the majority of Hispanic Americans support him and favor Arizona’s draconian SB-1070 law. “I have a lot of people who have Hispanic last names who support me,” Tancredo told the jam-packed room, “I speak for most Americans.” The former congressman, who in 2010 received just 37% of the vote in his bid for governor of Colorado, claimed that the GOP should embrace his nativist politics because immigration is the “ultimate economic issue,” and even claimed that Hispanics supported him over his Democratic opponent, Governor John Hickenlooper.

Responding to a questioner who believed that Democrats would drop their support of immigration reform if immigrants were stripped of their right to vote, Tancredo said that even immigrants without voting rights still pose a grave danger to the country.

“No more of this multiculturalism garbage,” Tancredo said, adding that “the cult of multiculturalism has captured the world” and is “the dagger in the heart” of civilization.

Not to be out done, Goode maintained that immigration in general “will not only kill the GOP but will kill the United States of America.” He went on to say that Democratic politicians support undocumented immigration only in order to introduce “socialized medicine” and gain future voters. The Virginia firebrand maintained that the majority of Americans favor his fervently anti-immigrant views, and wanted every state to emulate Arizona’s SB-1070. He asked, “Who could really be against doing away with birthright citizenship?”

Both Tancredo and Goode agreed that U.S. citizens are now being treated unfairly as undocumented immigrants reap all the benefits of American society.

Tancredo claimed that undocumented immigrants “get better health care in detention centers than some of my constituents,” and Goode argued that “today, being a citizen means you’re second class.”

Later, Bay Buchanan said that Tancredo and his dogmatic Nativism represent a model increasingly followed by Republican politicians, including Sen. John McCain, once an advocate of reform, who she said became a “Tancredo disciple when he ran for reelection.” Buchanan also pointed to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s reelection to demonstrate that anti-immigrant politics can lead to Republican success at the polls, and said that every state should have a governor like Brewer.

DeAnna of Youth for Western Civilization gave a much darker outlook on the success of the Republican Party, and the country as a whole. He said that the “system is stacked against” the anti-immigrant movement, maintaining that an alliance of corporate and Republican elites is preventing the party from moving farther to the right on the issue of immigration. He warned of the rising tide of multiculturalism, especially among young people. “The Left gets power from multiculturalism,” DeAnna said, and “when you lose the culture you lose the policy too.”

He also argued that the GOP is “dead” in California because of the rising population of Latinos, and said that the Democratic Party and their allies in organized labor want further immigration to strengthen their electoral clout.

Rep. Lou Barletta was the final speaker before questions, and he discussed how he saved the city of Hazleton as mayor by cracking down on employers and landlords who do business with undocumented immigrants. “I stood up for the rule of law,” Barletta said, even though his anti-immigrant ordinance was declared unconstitutional. The congressman has a long history of partnering with Nativist groups, and he asked the audience to support him as he pledged to take his case to the Supreme Court.

But while many panelists like Tancredo and Buchanan began their speeches by saying that they were absolutely not bigoted or racist in any way, participants at the event asked many racially-tinged questions.

A questioner asked Goode how to “control immigration from the Islamic and Arab world,” and said that unless that happens there could be “more Keith Ellisons.” Ellison is a Democratic congressman from Minnesota who converted to Islam as an adult, and is not an immigrant, but Goode did write a letter to his constituents saying, “The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”

Another questioner discussed how astounded he was that “in the northeast, majority-Caucasian communities” tend to back “support ‘amnesty,’” or at least pro-reform politicians. He asked the panelists how he could turn more “Caucasian communities” against amnesty, and Buchanan assured him that even voters in Massachusetts oppose reform efforts like the DREAM Act.

One member of the audience wondered if Congress could “defund the National Council of La Raza,” a Latino civil rights group, which he said was “just like the Ku Klux Klan.” Goode appeared to agree, and demanded that Congress end the organization’s funding. Asking if “it’s possible that [American] society devolves into South Africa,” one questioner discussed the declining population rate of “European Americans” and floated the idea of ethnic groups living separately. While he directed the question towards Barletta, the congressman ignored the question.

Evidently, while the panel’s speakers see unrepentant Nativism and immigrant-bashing as the way for the GOP’s electoral success, it mainly appealed to the CPAC attendees who feared the demise of White America and the emergence of a more diverse population. All four panelists agreed that unless the Republican Party embraces their hard line anti-immigrant stance, the GOP will become inextricably weakened and the country will dissolve into multicultural dystopia.

Although the panelists all said that it wasn’t about race, it’s easy to see why many audience members thought it was.

CPAC Immigration Panel: Readying the Fight to Save the GOP and White America

If there is one message to take away from CPAC’s panel on immigration, it’s that White America is in serious jeopardy and may soon succumb to immigration, multiculturalism, and socialism. The panel “Will Immigration Kill the GOP?” featured former congressmen Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Virgil Goode (R-VA), Bay Buchanan of Team America PAC, and special guest Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA). The group Youth for Western Civilization sponsored the panel, and its head Kevin DeAnna was also a panelist. Youth for Western Civilization is a far-right group that regularly criticizes affinity groups on college campuses, especially those that represent black, Hispanic, LGBT, Native American, and Muslim students.

Tancredo, a star among anti-immigrant activists, started the event by claiming that he wasn’t bigoted against Latinos and that the majority of Hispanic Americans support him and favor Arizona’s draconian SB-1070 law. “I have a lot of people who have Hispanic last names who support me,” Tancredo told the jam-packed room, “I speak for most Americans.” The former congressman, who in 2010 received just 37% of the vote in his bid for governor of Colorado, claimed that the GOP should embrace his nativist politics because immigration is the “ultimate economic issue,” and even claimed that Hispanics supported him over his Democratic opponent, Governor John Hickenlooper.

Responding to a questioner who believed that Democrats would drop their support of immigration reform if immigrants were stripped of their right to vote, Tancredo said that even immigrants without voting rights still pose a grave danger to the country.

“No more of this multiculturalism garbage,” Tancredo said, adding that “the cult of multiculturalism has captured the world” and is “the dagger in the heart” of civilization.

Not to be out done, Goode maintained that immigration in general “will not only kill the GOP but will kill the United States of America.” He went on to say that Democratic politicians support undocumented immigration only in order to introduce “socialized medicine” and gain future voters. The Virginia firebrand maintained that the majority of Americans favor his fervently anti-immigrant views, and wanted every state to emulate Arizona’s SB-1070. He asked, “Who could really be against doing away with birthright citizenship?”

Both Tancredo and Goode agreed that U.S. citizens are now being treated unfairly as undocumented immigrants reap all the benefits of American society.

Tancredo claimed that undocumented immigrants “get better health care in detention centers than some of my constituents,” and Goode argued that “today, being a citizen means you’re second class.”

Later, Bay Buchanan said that Tancredo and his dogmatic Nativism represent a model increasingly followed by Republican politicians, including Sen. John McCain, once an advocate of reform, who she said became a “Tancredo disciple when he ran for reelection.” Buchanan also pointed to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s reelection to demonstrate that anti-immigrant politics can lead to Republican success at the polls, and said that every state should have a governor like Brewer.

DeAnna of Youth for Western Civilization gave a much darker outlook on the success of the Republican Party, and the country as a whole. He said that the “system is stacked against” the anti-immigrant movement, maintaining that an alliance of corporate and Republican elites is preventing the party from moving farther to the right on the issue of immigration. He warned of the rising tide of multiculturalism, especially among young people. “The Left gets power from multiculturalism,” DeAnna said, and “when you lose the culture you lose the policy too.”

He also argued that the GOP is “dead” in California because of the rising population of Latinos, and said that the Democratic Party and their allies in organized labor want further immigration to strengthen their electoral clout.

Rep. Lou Barletta was the final speaker before questions, and he discussed how he saved the city of Hazleton as mayor by cracking down on employers and landlords who do business with undocumented immigrants. “I stood up for the rule of law,” Barletta said, even though his anti-immigrant ordinance was declared unconstitutional. The congressman has a long history of partnering with Nativist groups, and he asked the audience to support him as he pledged to take his case to the Supreme Court.

But while many panelists like Tancredo and Buchanan began their speeches by saying that they were absolutely not bigoted or racist in any way, participants at the event asked many racially-tinged questions.

A questioner asked Goode how to “control immigration from the Islamic and Arab world,” and said that unless that happens there could be “more Keith Ellisons.” Ellison is a Democratic congressman from Minnesota who converted to Islam as an adult, and is not an immigrant, but Goode did write a letter to his constituents saying, “The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”

Another questioner discussed how astounded he was that “in the northeast, majority-Caucasian communities” tend to back “support ‘amnesty,’” or at least pro-reform politicians. He asked the panelists how he could turn more “Caucasian communities” against amnesty, and Buchanan assured him that even voters in Massachusetts oppose reform efforts like the DREAM Act.

One member of the audience wondered if Congress could “defund the National Council of La Raza,” a Latino civil rights group, which he said was “just like the Ku Klux Klan.” Goode appeared to agree, and demanded that Congress end the organization’s funding. Asking if “it’s possible that [American] society devolves into South Africa,” one questioner discussed the declining population rate of “European Americans” and floated the idea of ethnic groups living separately. While he directed the question towards Barletta, the congressman ignored the question.

Evidently, while the panel’s speakers see unrepentant Nativism and immigrant-bashing as the way for the GOP’s electoral success, it mainly appealed to the CPAC attendees who feared the demise of White America and the emergence of a more diverse population. All four panelists agreed that unless the Republican Party embraces their hard line anti-immigrant stance, the GOP will become inextricably weakened and the country will dissolve into multicultural dystopia.

Although the panelists all said that it wasn’t about race, it’s easy to see why many audience members thought it was.

Horowitz Condemns CPAC for Purported Islamist Ties

Following in the footsteps of right-wing pundit Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz is accusing CPAC of having connections to radical Islam. Horowitz spoke at a CPAC panel in 2009, where he was introduced by notorious anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center is a CPAC participating organization. But Horowitz, who recently defended Glenn Beck in his linking of the progressive movement to the Muslim Brotherhood and claimed that public school teachers encourage the indoctrination of students into “Jihadist doctrines," has now joined other CPAC detractors like Gaffney to blast the involvement of Suhail Khan. Khan is a board member of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC, and tomorrow is leading a panel on inclusion in the conservative movement.

Gaffney first charged Khan with ties to extremist groups in early January. Now Horowitz and another anti-Muslim activist, Robert Spencer, are joining a coalition of anti-gay Religious Right groups in boycotting the conference.

Rick Scarborough, the head of Vision America, recently placed an ad in The Washington Times attacking CPAC for including the gay conservative group GOProud, and today condemned the gathering for supposedly slighting Religious Right groups (a fear also present at the conference).

The American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, which supports the CPAC boycott, reports:


A full-page ad in The Washington Times -- placed by Vision America -- challenges the direction of CPAC. Vision America president Pastor Rick Scarborough, who initiated the project, notes that the "driving force" in the conservative movement, generally speaking, has been Christians.

"Right now [though], libertarians are trying to force us out -- and I just simply decided that enough is enough," says the longtime Christian activist. "So we're trying to speak out, and we're finding that it's resonating with a lot of folks."

...

Islamic influence within CPAC?

Meanwhile, a terrorism expert who is also advocating for a drastic change in the leadership of CPAC believes the event has been compromised by radical Islamic influences. Author and activist David Horowitz says a CPAC board member by the name of Suhail Kahn has not been forthcoming about his ties to extreme Muslim groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Suhail Kahn is a member of the board of the American Conservative Union. He's moderating a [CPAC] panel," Horowitz explains. "His father created an Islamist mosque in California that held fundraisers for Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number-two [man] in al-Qaeda. This was in the [19]90s."

Terrorism expert Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, comments as well on Kahn.

"Suhail Kahn has also spoken about how Muslims should be eager to die for the Palestinian question, using the same kind of language that suicide bombers have employed," he notes. "This is not really somebody who should be considered moderate or certainly not conservative."

Spencer is calling for changes. "There needs to be a drastic overhaul at the top of CPAC -- and [for] the American Conservative Union that runs it," he says.

Horowitz Condemns CPAC for Purported Islamist Ties

Following in the footsteps of right-wing pundit Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz is accusing CPAC of having connections to radical Islam. Horowitz spoke at a CPAC panel in 2009, where he was introduced by notorious anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center is a CPAC participating organization. But Horowitz, who recently defended Glenn Beck in his linking of the progressive movement to the Muslim Brotherhood and claimed that public school teachers encourage the indoctrination of students into “Jihadist doctrines," has now joined other CPAC detractors like Gaffney to blast the involvement of Suhail Khan. Khan is a board member of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC, and tomorrow is leading a panel on inclusion in the conservative movement.

Gaffney first charged Khan with ties to extremist groups in early January. Now Horowitz and another anti-Muslim activist, Robert Spencer, are joining a coalition of anti-gay Religious Right groups in boycotting the conference.

Rick Scarborough, the head of Vision America, recently placed an ad in The Washington Times attacking CPAC for including the gay conservative group GOProud, and today condemned the gathering for supposedly slighting Religious Right groups (a fear also present at the conference).

The American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, which supports the CPAC boycott, reports:


A full-page ad in The Washington Times -- placed by Vision America -- challenges the direction of CPAC. Vision America president Pastor Rick Scarborough, who initiated the project, notes that the "driving force" in the conservative movement, generally speaking, has been Christians.

"Right now [though], libertarians are trying to force us out -- and I just simply decided that enough is enough," says the longtime Christian activist. "So we're trying to speak out, and we're finding that it's resonating with a lot of folks."

...

Islamic influence within CPAC?

Meanwhile, a terrorism expert who is also advocating for a drastic change in the leadership of CPAC believes the event has been compromised by radical Islamic influences. Author and activist David Horowitz says a CPAC board member by the name of Suhail Kahn has not been forthcoming about his ties to extreme Muslim groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Suhail Kahn is a member of the board of the American Conservative Union. He's moderating a [CPAC] panel," Horowitz explains. "His father created an Islamist mosque in California that held fundraisers for Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number-two [man] in al-Qaeda. This was in the [19]90s."

Terrorism expert Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, comments as well on Kahn.

"Suhail Kahn has also spoken about how Muslims should be eager to die for the Palestinian question, using the same kind of language that suicide bombers have employed," he notes. "This is not really somebody who should be considered moderate or certainly not conservative."

Spencer is calling for changes. "There needs to be a drastic overhaul at the top of CPAC -- and [for] the American Conservative Union that runs it," he says.
Syndicate content

Islam Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Tuesday 09/17/2013, 2:45pm
Erick Stakelbeck, the former sports reporter who fashions himself to be an expert on terrorism, regularly argues that progressives and Islamic extremists are working together to establish some sort of communist, Islamic state. While appearing on It’s Supernatural!, host Sid Roth said he couldn’t understand his assertion since the “political left is not going to be aligned with someone who wants to kill homosexuals.” But as the Christian Broadcasting Network reporter explained, even though “the left would be the first ones with their heads on the chopping block if... MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 09/12/2013, 10:45am
Today’s WorldNetDaily News Alert was a true double-whammy, with two heavily slated reports phrased as questions so as to not take actual responsibility for the incendiary claims made in the articles. “Are Terrorists Setting U.S. Wildfires?’ Joe Kovacs asks, relying on unsupported claims that Islamic extremists were maybe behind a Colorado wildfire. As WND reported in June, an expert on Islamic terrorism believes a wildfire that ravaged the outskirts of Colorado Springs, Colo., killing two people and destroying more than 500 homes, should be examined by terror investigators... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 09/11/2013, 11:55am
Two days following 9/11 terrorist attacks, televangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed the attacks on “the pagans, the abortions, the feminists and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way.” Today, Robertson remembered 9/11 by attacking former president George W. Bush for calling Islam a “religion of peace.” “They believe that anybody who doesn’t submit is at war with them and they are prime targets, and for the Western nations to welcome this fifth column into their... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 09/09/2013, 3:30pm
Last year, Rep. Michele Bachmann appeared alongside End Times broadcaster Jan Markell to warn that President Obama is trying to “lift up the Islamists” and impose “Islamic speech codes” that would “take away the free speech rights of the American people.” The Minnesota congresswoman visited Understanding The Times again this weekend to discuss with Markell why she believes Obama shares the same “worldview” as Islamist groups. Bachmann recently visited Egypt to endorse the brutal repression of opposition groups, even falsely linking the... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 09/05/2013, 4:46pm
Bryan Fischer dedicated a segment of his radio program today to laying out his latest theory that President Obama may secretly be a Muslim who is practicing taqiyya and claiming to be a Christian in order to advance the cause of Islam around the world. As Fischer sees it, as a child, Obama was raised as a Muslim but then claims to have become a Christian.  Since the penalty in Islam for apostasy is death, Fischer said, Muslim clerics ought to have issued a fatwa against Obama, calling for him to be put to death. But that hasn't happened, which suggests that Obama is still a Muslim... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 09/04/2013, 10:30am
After cracking the case of President Obama’s secret Muslim ring, WorldNetDaily’s latest scoop exposes Obama’s secret Muslim foot signals. In her column, “Obama Sending Muslim Subtle Message?,” Andrea Shea King claims that a photo of Obama with his foot on the Resolute desk of the Oval Office is actually “a wordless message of support to the Muslim Brotherhood, Arab street and Islamic community in general.” “It is, after all, common knowledge that the Arab world considers the bottom of one’s shoes the ultimate sign of disrespect,” she... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 08/26/2013, 11:15am
In an interview with Janet Mefferd Friday, the chief advocate of Oklahoma’s Sharia law ban lashed out at federal judge Vicki Miles LaGrange for her ruling striking down the 2010 amendment. Rex Duncan, a former Republican state representative and now a district attorney, told Mefferd that the judge, who is African American, was upset by the prohibition on any “special treatment for a minority ideology or religion” because of her past support for “preferential treatment for minorities.” “She just went out of her way to side with the minorities and make up a... MORE