Politics

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) appeared in a Coral Ridge Ministries documentary about the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, which they claim is covertly trying to weed faith out of public life. Coral Ridge Ministries is one of the leading proponents of Christian Reconstructionism and frequently makes documentaries about creeping socialism and the dangers of Obama’s presidency. Akin, who recently declared that “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God,” argued that the Center's lack of religious content shows that it “will snuff out the light of freedom,” while DeMint argued that “secularization is a forerunner of socialization” and will destroy freedom.

Watch:

Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) continues to face criticism for comments he made, first reported here at Right Wing Watch, that “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God.” After defending his comments during a radio interview, in a new statement he tries to walk them back. Akin says in a new statement that it’s not that liberals hate God, just that liberal beliefs hate God. Get it?

People, who know me and my family, know that we take our faith and beliefs very seriously. As Christians, we would never question the sincerity of anyone’s personal relationship with God. My statement during my radio interview was directed at the political movement, Liberalism, not at any specific individual. If my statement gave a different impression, I offer my apologies.

My point was to object to the systematic assault that attempts to remove any reference to God from the public square.

NBC’s recent action only highlighted the continuing battle for those of us who believe that removing references to God go contrary to the Judeo-Christian heritage our nation was founded on -- the belief that our inalienable rights come from God himself, and the freedom to live our lives and worship as we see fit.

According to a report from NBC-affiliate KSDK, a group of clergymen will try to meet with the Congressman:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also reports that his apology has done little to end the outcry:

But the apology fell flat with a group of St. Louis-area clergy members, most of whom are liberal. They plan to gather at the Akin's Ballwin district office at 11 a.m. today to deliver a letter calling on him to "reconsider not only your words, but also your moral priorities as a political leader."

"Congressman Akin continues to insist that liberalism is anti-religion. As a pastor and a constituent of Congressman Akin's, I find this deeply offensive," said the Rev. Kevin Cameron of Parkway United Church of Christ in west St. Louis County.

…

The Rev. Krista Taves of Emerson Unitarian Universalist Chapel in Ellisville said Akin's comment 'shows how very little he knows about liberals, and how very little he knows about God."

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the sixth annual national conference of the “Network of enlightened Women” (NeW), a college conservative group that “meet[s] regularly to discuss issues relating to politics, gender and conservative principles” – sort of a politically ambitious anti-feminist book club. NeW nabbed a high-powered keynote speaker in Kate O’Bierne, a National Review editor and former VP of the Heritage Foundation. O’Bierne, the author of “Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military and Sports,” spent her hour-long speech viciously bashing feminism and trying to disprove the “phoney baloney wage gap.” O’Bierne insisted that “professional feminists” will never be satisfied, and cannot “declare victory and go home” because they have no home to go to and no job to fall back on.

O’Bierne also railed against the liberal media, but noted what she saw as a silver lining: that liberals don’t know that conservatives exist, or more importantly, what they’re saying and doing. She might want to check in with Bryan Fischer.

Meanwhile, a number of NeW chapter presidents spoke about how to thank the gentlemen in their lives for being so chivalrous, how awful it is that “hookup culture” is depleting their pool of marriageable men, and how a “true beauty” self esteem workshop could be improved by adding makeup tutorials.

• The Family Policy Network is actually acknowledging of the hypocrisy of the Anthony Weiner situation and is therefore calling on Sen. David Vitter to resign.
• Michele Bachmann gets the Matt Tiabbi treatment.
• Why is Elaine Donnelly commenting on USDA policy?
• Sometime I think Bryan Fischer is just intentionally dense.  He does understand the difference between people deciding not to join something and being banned from joining, does he not?
• Cindy Jacobs lays out God's plan for the nation.

PFAW President Michael Keegan's recent Huffington Post commentary pointed out that former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, the latest to throw his hat in the GOP presidential ring, is more conservative than his media-generated image as a moderate. Here’s more evidence supporting Keegan’s claim that Huntsman’s campaign strategy is to try to be all things to all people: Huntsman supporters are making a big play for campaign contributions from LGBT donors -- but they aren't telling the truth about his record. 

According to Politico, California Log Cabin Republican official Charles T. Moran has sent a fundraising email that makes this claim:“Governor Huntsman signed into law Utah’s first Civil Unions legislation – a politically courageous move on his part given that state’s politics.”

That claim is simply false.  It is true that in 2009, Huntsman declared his support for civil unions, five years after he backed a state constitutional amendment that bans marriage and forbids recognition of any "other domestic union" that has the "same or substantially equivalent legal effect" as marriage. But civil unions never became law in Utah.

In 2008, Huntsman did sign a law, SB 299, that allowed local governments to have something like a domestic partnership registry as long as they did not describe it as a domestic partnership registry. That’s a far cry from a state civil unions law, which is still prohibited by a constitutional amendment that Huntsman supported.

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judson Phillips, president of the Tea Party Nation, is raving about Herman Cain’s stance on appointing Muslims to public office. Cain has consistently shifted and lied about his position, earning himself a “pants on fire” rating from PolitiFact. While he denies ever having told Think Progress he would have a ban on Muslims serving in his Administration, Cain told Bryan Fischer exactly that, saying he didn’t have time to screen out Muslims who support imposing Sharia law from ones who don’t. Then the presidential candidate told Glenn Beck that he would have Muslims take a special loyalty oath that wouldn’t apply to people of other faiths… which left Phillips ecstatic.

The Tea Party leader is no fan of religious pluralism, even demanding the end of the Methodist Church. Phillips says that Cain is a “politician who gets it” and salutes him for channeling Joe McCarthy in his no-Muslims policy. Phillips added that if we only continued to use the tactics of McCarthy, we “would instantly disqualify 95% of the Obama regime from holding the jobs they currently do”:

What Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee did back in the day was insist on one simple idea. If you are going to work for the government of the United States, you are going to be loyal to the United States. The left did not like it then because so many leftists were communists and were in fact not loyal to the United States. It is a pity we do not have a loyalty test today, as that would instantly disqualify 95% of the Obama regime from holding the jobs they currently do.

Cain makes it clear this does not apply to other religions because other religions are not a threat. Only Islam tells its followers to make war against those who do not believe and to establish a theocracy.

We keep hearing that Islam is a religion of peace, but remember past conduct is the best indicator of future behavior. Islam has been at war with the West for 1400 years. Muslims are told they are to be at war with the unbelievers.

…

On this Cain is absolutely right. If we cannot prove you are loyal to the United States, you can do many things, but you will not work for the United States government.

So long as Herman Cain continues to lie about his pledge to ban Muslims from serving in his administration, we are going to continue writing posts about how Herman Cain continues to lie about his pledge to ban Muslims from serving in his administration.

Cain has recently started claiming that he merely said he's be "uncomfortable" with having a Muslim serve in his administration, not that they would be banned outright and that has apparently become his latest stock response, as he used it on CBS and again to Glenn Beck, telling Beck that he would hire Muslims, provided they could pass some sort of loyalty oath:

BECK: You said you would not appoint a Muslim to anybody in your administration.

CAIN: The exact language was when I was asked, “would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet?” And I said, “no, I would not be comfortable.” I didn’t say I wouldn’t appoint one because if they can prove to me that they’re putting the Constitution of the United States first then they would be a candidate just like everybody else. My entire career, I’ve hired good people, great people, regardless of their religious orientation.

BECK: So wait a minute. Are you saying that Muslims have to prove their, that there has to be some loyalty proof?

CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.

BECK: Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?

CAIN: Nope, I wouldn’t. Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know that there are some Muslims who talk about, “but we are a peaceful religion.” And I’m sure that there are some peace-loving Muslims.

But Cain keeps intentionally ignoring the statement he made to Bryan Fischer where he explicitly stated that he wouldn't hire Muslims because most Muslims believe in sharia and he, as President, doesn't have the time to "screen people based on their religious beliefs":

I have been upfront, which ruffles some feathers, but remember Bryan, being politically correct is not one of my strong points; I come at it straight from the heart and straight from the way I see it. And the comment that I made the become controversial, and that my staff keeps hoping will die, is that I wouldn't have Muslims in my administration. And it's real simple: the Constitution does not have room for sharia law. I want people who are going to believe and enforce the Constitution of the United States of America. And so I don't have time, as President of the United States, to try and screen people based upon their religious beliefs - I really don't care what your religious beliefs are, but I do know that most of the people of the Muslim faith, they believe in sharia law. And to introduce that element as part of an administration when we have all of these other issues, I think I have a right to say that I won't.

Cain clearly told Fischer that he doesn't have time to sort through a Muslim's religious beliefs and figure out if they support the Constitution, so he was just going to have a blanket ban on hiring them.

But he is now telling Beck that he would be willing to hire Muslims, provided that "they can prove to me that they’re putting the Constitution of the United States first" ... which is exactly the sort of screening based on religious beliefs that Cain told Fischer he didn't have time to undertake!

There is a reason that PoliFact declared that Cain's pants are on fire in claiming that he never said he wouldn't hire Muslims to serve in his administration.  And yet he continues to lie about it.