Islam

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.

CPAC: A Christian Nation Needs a Biblical Military

At the CPAC panel on “How Political Correctness is Harming America’s Military,” Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness continued her campaign against gay and lesbian members of the armed forces serving openly and honorably, but she was upstaged by GOP congressional candidate Ilario Pantano, who insisted that America is meant to be a Christian nation and that the military must reflect biblical values.

Donnelly’s remarks were a mostly unsurprising reprise of the arguments she used in her failed effort to prevent Congress from repealnig Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.   She slammed the Pentagon for advancing equal opportunity “to an extreme” and recycled arguments about living in close quarters and chaplains supposedly being forced to abandon their religious beliefs.
 
One of Donelly’s main arguments did not seem exactly respectful of our armed forces: she said repeatedly that servicemembers can’t be counted on – or trained – to control their sexual urges. That’s why, she said, we are losing so many ship captains due to sexual misconduct. Sexual mistreatment of women in the military is not their fault, she said, but it’s not surprising.
 
But Donnelly’s comments seemed thin gruel compared to the Religious Right red-meat hurled into the crowd by Ilario Pantano, a former and current GOP congressional candidate from North Carolina.   Pantano, a former Marine, didn’t dwell about the specifics of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because he wanted to talk more broadly about the threat of moral relativism to the nation and the military.
 
He insisted that America is and was meant to be a Christian nation and that our problems come from denying the truth of Jesus:  “The ultimate founding document of the United States is the Bible.” The nation’s problems were unsurprising given that we have kicked God out of classrooms, courts, and foxholes. Pantano’s made attacks on the “Ground Zero Mosque” part of his 2010 campaign.
 
It’s time to start offending people, he said, and time to start talking about God’s truth. He said that America’s media, academic and cultural institutions have been infiltrated by agents of atheistic, socialist and communist regimes. (In Q&A with reporters afterward, he confirmed that he was not speaking only about our history but also about today.)
 
The divide between the east and the west, he said, boils down to Christian and non-Christian. America was “undeniably” founded as a Christian nation and to suggest otherwise “is simply untrue.” He argued that members of the military have to be grounded in biblical truths, and blamed the thousands of suicides among veterans on the “God-shaped hole in our hearts.” 
 
Pantano, who said he and his children are learning Chinese, asked, “What are the Chinese afraid of?”
 
“It’s not capitalism, it’s not Google, it’s not Wal-mart, it’s not Boeing, it’s not Islam. They’re afraid of Jesus Christ."

CPAC: A Christian Nation Needs a Biblical Military

At the CPAC panel on “How Political Correctness is Harming America’s Military,” Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness continued her campaign against gay and lesbian members of the armed forces serving openly and honorably, but she was upstaged by GOP congressional candidate Ilario Pantano, who insisted that America is meant to be a Christian nation and that the military must reflect biblical values.

Donnelly’s remarks were a mostly unsurprising reprise of the arguments she used in her failed effort to prevent Congress from repealnig Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.   She slammed the Pentagon for advancing equal opportunity “to an extreme” and recycled arguments about living in close quarters and chaplains supposedly being forced to abandon their religious beliefs.
 
One of Donelly’s main arguments did not seem exactly respectful of our armed forces: she said repeatedly that servicemembers can’t be counted on – or trained – to control their sexual urges. That’s why, she said, we are losing so many ship captains due to sexual misconduct. Sexual mistreatment of women in the military is not their fault, she said, but it’s not surprising.
 
But Donnelly’s comments seemed thin gruel compared to the Religious Right red-meat hurled into the crowd by Ilario Pantano, a former and current GOP congressional candidate from North Carolina.   Pantano, a former Marine, didn’t dwell about the specifics of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because he wanted to talk more broadly about the threat of moral relativism to the nation and the military.
 
He insisted that America is and was meant to be a Christian nation and that our problems come from denying the truth of Jesus:  “The ultimate founding document of the United States is the Bible.” The nation’s problems were unsurprising given that we have kicked God out of classrooms, courts, and foxholes. Pantano’s made attacks on the “Ground Zero Mosque” part of his 2010 campaign.
 
It’s time to start offending people, he said, and time to start talking about God’s truth. He said that America’s media, academic and cultural institutions have been infiltrated by agents of atheistic, socialist and communist regimes. (In Q&A with reporters afterward, he confirmed that he was not speaking only about our history but also about today.)
 
The divide between the east and the west, he said, boils down to Christian and non-Christian. America was “undeniably” founded as a Christian nation and to suggest otherwise “is simply untrue.” He argued that members of the military have to be grounded in biblical truths, and blamed the thousands of suicides among veterans on the “God-shaped hole in our hearts.” 
 
Pantano, who said he and his children are learning Chinese, asked, “What are the Chinese afraid of?”
 
“It’s not capitalism, it’s not Google, it’s not Wal-mart, it’s not Boeing, it’s not Islam. They’re afraid of Jesus Christ."

David Horowtiz Rallies to Defend Beck on Supposed Progressive-Islamist Axis

The feud between Glenn Beck and William Kristol over Beck’s bizarre and paranoid ranting about the crisis in Egypt has become increasingly bitter. Beck prophesizes an alliance between the political left and an Islamic caliphate that he claims will takes over Europe and the Middle East. Beck believes that progressives and Islamists “stand together” as “one nation” and predicts that the anti-Mubarak uprising will engender a pernicious socialist-Islamist-Chinese union will try to takeover the world. Conservative writer William Kristol responded in his Weekly Standard column that as Beck “lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.”

Beck, in his own signature obsessive way, has struck back at Kristol, earning further criticism from conservative writers including the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. But not all neoconservatives are defending Kristol, who unlike Beck supports Egypt’s democracy movement. One major backer of Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy is rushing to Beck’s defense. David Horowitz has a long-held belief that an axis between radical Islamists and progressive activists and university professors will attempt to topple the US government (among others), a claim embraced by other right-wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Cliff Kincaid, and Robert Spencer. Even Gateway Pundit is trying to use Code Pink’s support for the anti-Mubarak protests to tie the group to the Muslim Brotherhood.

On his blog, Horowitz writes that Kristol should immediately apologize to Beck and “should be embarrassed by his own ignorance of the agendas of both American radicals and their jihadist allies.” He continues:

Bill Kristol is entitled to his optimism about democratic revolutions in the Islamic world. Perhaps the elections in Egypt will turn out better than those in Gaza where Hamas now rules a terrorist state; Iraq, which has instituted an Islamic Republic; Lebanon, where Hezbollah now rules a terrorist state; and Afghanistan, which is a kleptocracy wooing the terrorist theocracy in Iran. What he should not be doing as a conservative leader is demonizing Glenn Beck, who has done more to educate Americans about the unholy alliance between the secular left and the Islamic jihadists than anyone else. Kristol needs to apologize to Beck for comparing him — outrageously — to the conspiracist Robert Welch, and should be embarrassed by his own ignorance of the agendas of both American radicals and their jihadist allies. At this point in time, such ignorance is not only inexcusable but dangerous.

Previously, Horowitz even tried to link right-wing boogeyman Bill Ayres to the Muslim Brothers:

We saw the unholy alliance at work in the Hamas inspired campaign to break the Gaza blockade. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were leaders of the American wing of the Hamas coalition against the blockade and went to Gaza to meet with Hamas shortly before the terrorist Flotilla was intercepted by Israeli forces. The Gaza blockade was jointly instituted by Israel and Egypt – by the Mubarak regime in Egypt. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood’s army. If the Muslim Brotherhood topples the Mubarak regime, Hamas’s war against the Jews will be immeasureably [sic] strengthened. The radical left in America and internationally is committed to Hamas and its genocidal campaign against the Jews and its general war against the United States. That is why the fate of Egypt in this crisis resonates for all of us.

David Horowtiz Rallies to Defend Beck on Supposed Progressive-Islamist Axis

The feud between Glenn Beck and William Kristol over Beck’s bizarre and paranoid ranting about the crisis in Egypt has become increasingly bitter. Beck prophesizes an alliance between the political left and an Islamic caliphate that he claims will takes over Europe and the Middle East. Beck believes that progressives and Islamists “stand together” as “one nation” and predicts that the anti-Mubarak uprising will engender a pernicious socialist-Islamist-Chinese union will try to takeover the world. Conservative writer William Kristol responded in his Weekly Standard column that as Beck “lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.”

Beck, in his own signature obsessive way, has struck back at Kristol, earning further criticism from conservative writers including the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. But not all neoconservatives are defending Kristol, who unlike Beck supports Egypt’s democracy movement. One major backer of Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy is rushing to Beck’s defense. David Horowitz has a long-held belief that an axis between radical Islamists and progressive activists and university professors will attempt to topple the US government (among others), a claim embraced by other right-wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Cliff Kincaid, and Robert Spencer. Even Gateway Pundit is trying to use Code Pink’s support for the anti-Mubarak protests to tie the group to the Muslim Brotherhood.

On his blog, Horowitz writes that Kristol should immediately apologize to Beck and “should be embarrassed by his own ignorance of the agendas of both American radicals and their jihadist allies.” He continues:

Bill Kristol is entitled to his optimism about democratic revolutions in the Islamic world. Perhaps the elections in Egypt will turn out better than those in Gaza where Hamas now rules a terrorist state; Iraq, which has instituted an Islamic Republic; Lebanon, where Hezbollah now rules a terrorist state; and Afghanistan, which is a kleptocracy wooing the terrorist theocracy in Iran. What he should not be doing as a conservative leader is demonizing Glenn Beck, who has done more to educate Americans about the unholy alliance between the secular left and the Islamic jihadists than anyone else. Kristol needs to apologize to Beck for comparing him — outrageously — to the conspiracist Robert Welch, and should be embarrassed by his own ignorance of the agendas of both American radicals and their jihadist allies. At this point in time, such ignorance is not only inexcusable but dangerous.

Previously, Horowitz even tried to link right-wing boogeyman Bill Ayres to the Muslim Brothers:

We saw the unholy alliance at work in the Hamas inspired campaign to break the Gaza blockade. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were leaders of the American wing of the Hamas coalition against the blockade and went to Gaza to meet with Hamas shortly before the terrorist Flotilla was intercepted by Israeli forces. The Gaza blockade was jointly instituted by Israel and Egypt – by the Mubarak regime in Egypt. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood’s army. If the Muslim Brotherhood topples the Mubarak regime, Hamas’s war against the Jews will be immeasureably [sic] strengthened. The radical left in America and internationally is committed to Hamas and its genocidal campaign against the Jews and its general war against the United States. That is why the fate of Egypt in this crisis resonates for all of us.

Wyoming State Rep’s Desire to Invoke His “Christian Faith” in Government Motivated Sharia-Law Ban

Proposing a law to ban the use of Sharia law in courts, Wyoming State Rep. Gerald Gay said he was mounting a “pre-emptive strike” on judges from employing Islamic legal code in their decisions. Sarah Posner of Religion Dispatches reports that while campaigning, Gay made videos shooting balls representing “socialism” and “big government.”

Gay wants to replicate an Oklahoma law that was recently found to be unconstitutional, fearing that Wyoming’s judiciary may become an outpost of Islamic law. Gay says he makes “governmental decisions based on certain tenants [sic] of the Christian faith,” and his desire to maintain his Christian-outlook towards governing “motivated his proposal” to ban Sharia:

"I have quite a bit of extensive personal exposure to sharia, so it's not like I'm dealing with something that's unfamiliar or like somebody else came up with the idea and just came to me and asked for sponsorship," the Wyoming Republican explains. "I'm bringing my own basket of goods to the deal."

While Gay admits his Christian convictions have motivated his proposal, he points out that the spread of radical Islam could bring sharia law to Wyoming courts in cases involving arranged marriages or so-called "honor killings."

"Wyoming's Constitution has Article VII, Aection 22, which says, 'The duty of the legislature is to promote such laws that protect the morality, health and general welfare of the citizens of the state,'" the legislator notes. "By invoking that, I feel very comfortable in making my governmental decisions based on certain tenants of the Christian faith."

Wyoming State Rep’s Desire to Invoke His “Christian Faith” in Government Motivated Sharia-Law Ban

Proposing a law to ban the use of Sharia law in courts, Wyoming State Rep. Gerald Gay said he was mounting a “pre-emptive strike” on judges from employing Islamic legal code in their decisions. Sarah Posner of Religion Dispatches reports that while campaigning, Gay made videos shooting balls representing “socialism” and “big government.”

Gay wants to replicate an Oklahoma law that was recently found to be unconstitutional, fearing that Wyoming’s judiciary may become an outpost of Islamic law. Gay says he makes “governmental decisions based on certain tenants [sic] of the Christian faith,” and his desire to maintain his Christian-outlook towards governing “motivated his proposal” to ban Sharia:

"I have quite a bit of extensive personal exposure to sharia, so it's not like I'm dealing with something that's unfamiliar or like somebody else came up with the idea and just came to me and asked for sponsorship," the Wyoming Republican explains. "I'm bringing my own basket of goods to the deal."

While Gay admits his Christian convictions have motivated his proposal, he points out that the spread of radical Islam could bring sharia law to Wyoming courts in cases involving arranged marriages or so-called "honor killings."

"Wyoming's Constitution has Article VII, Aection 22, which says, 'The duty of the legislature is to promote such laws that protect the morality, health and general welfare of the citizens of the state,'" the legislator notes. "By invoking that, I feel very comfortable in making my governmental decisions based on certain tenants of the Christian faith."

Republican Leaders Continue To Embrace Bryan Fischer

As we have said time and time again, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer is among the most openly and viciously bigoted Religious Right leaders active today ... but that does not seem to bother any of the Republican leaders who continually appear on his radio program.

Just last week, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker joined Fischer to discuss his anti-choice legislation, and before that it was presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty telling Fischer he'll reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

This is in addition to past appearances from Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. Alan Nunnelee, and Rep. Raul Labrador.

And the pattern continues, as in the last few days Fischer has had two more Republican members on Congress on his program, starting last Friday with Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey who joined Fischer to discuss his anti-choice efforts:

And then on Monday, Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia also joined Fischer to discuss his appearance on Bill Maher and defend his Creationist views:

Bryan Fischer spends the majority of his time viciously attacking gays and Mulsims (and bears) and yet Republican leaders are eager to make time to regularly join him on his radio program.

 

Republican Leaders Continue To Embrace Bryan Fischer

As we have said time and time again, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer is among the most openly and viciously bigoted Religious Right leaders active today ... but that does not seem to bother any of the Republican leaders who continually appear on his radio program.

Just last week, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker joined Fischer to discuss his anti-choice legislation, and before that it was presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty telling Fischer he'll reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

This is in addition to past appearances from Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. Alan Nunnelee, and Rep. Raul Labrador.

And the pattern continues, as in the last few days Fischer has had two more Republican members on Congress on his program, starting last Friday with Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey who joined Fischer to discuss his anti-choice efforts:

And then on Monday, Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia also joined Fischer to discuss his appearance on Bill Maher and defend his Creationist views:

Bryan Fischer spends the majority of his time viciously attacking gays and Mulsims (and bears) and yet Republican leaders are eager to make time to regularly join him on his radio program.

 

Syndicate content

Islam Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Friday 08/16/2013, 11:30am
Erick Stakelbeck of the Christian Broadcasting Network joined fellow conspiracy theorist Rick Wiles yesterday, where they wondered why John McCain and Lindsey Graham have “sided” with the Muslim Brotherhood. Wiles said that they are “carrying out the instructions of their master,” and like President Obama, “are in the pockets of radical Muslims.” “This country is being converted while we watch into an Islamic bastion,” the TruNews host warned, “it’s frightening.” MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 08/14/2013, 2:30pm
American Family Association talk show host Sandy Rios, like her colleague Bryan Fischer, enjoys repeating right-wing material — often based on email chains — as absolute fact without any evidence. Rios, who has previously repeated the widely debunked rumor (which probably originated from this chain email) that Obamacare has a specific exemption for Muslim-Americans, on her radio program today asserted that President Obama kicked off his first term as President by resettling thousands of Palestinian refugees in the U.S. She made the false claim while criticizing the Michigan... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 08/02/2013, 2:25pm
Conservative leaders from Herman Cain to Pat Robertson lauded anti-Muslim activists in Tennessee who tried to block the construction of a mosque in the city of Murfreesboro. Mosque opponents alleged that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (ICM) would aid terrorists, establish Sharia law and increase the Muslim population. With the help of Frank Gaffney, they argued that their push to stop construction of the mosque didn’t violate the First Amendment since Islam is not a religion. Even after losing their lawsuit and the completion of construction, anti-Muslim activists... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/31/2013, 10:50am
American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer yesterday alleged that former congressman Anthony Weiner is running for mayor in order to “create an opportunity for more jihadist activity” as part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot, led by his wife Huma Abedin. Fischer, who on Monday said that Abedin seeks to “destroy Western Civilization,” claimed that Weiner is running for mayor in order to “pull back” on the NYPD’s surveillance of the city’s Muslim community and aid “Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood and their agenda to exterminate and... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 07/29/2013, 10:50am
Brooke Goldstein of the Lawfare Project is trying to use the attention surrounding the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal to warn that his wife and Clinton aide Huma Abedin is a secret Muslim Brotherhood operative. While on Fox News, Sean Hannity and Monica Crowley eagerly agreed with Goldstein’s claim that that Huma Abedin is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. However, Goldstein didn’t get such a favorable response on Fox’s Red Eye, where host Greg Gutfeld and other panelists laughed at her attempt to resuscitate the discredited smear campaign against Abedin. “... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 07/26/2013, 2:05pm
WorldNetDaily’s Diana West is out with a new column entitled “Huma Abedin: Muslim Brotherhood Princess.” Of course, since this is WorldNetDaily after all, she somehow managed to link this to Obamacare. West maintains that the health care reform law means that the Communists were the real winners of the Cold War as the “totalitarian” law creates a “super-state” that will destroy the Republic. She argues that the “cover-up” of Huma Abedin’s status as “a veritable Muslim Brotherhood princess” is part of a plan to shield... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 07/16/2013, 11:15am
On yesterday’s broadcast of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson once again suggested that President Obama is a secret Muslim. Robertson asked CBN terrorism “expert”/sports reporter Erick Stakelbeck, “Do you think Obama is a crypto-Muslim?” Stakelbeck replied that Obama is “revolutionary leftist” who, like the Occupy movement, is working with “hardcore Islamists” to bring down “Judeo-Christian western civilization” and “traditional America.” Watch: MORE