Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller joined Florida conservative radio host Joyce Kaufman earlier this week to discuss the controversy over Fox commentator Steve Emerson’s statement that Birmingham, England, had become a “no-go zone” controlled by Islamic law. Emerson retracted his statement and Fox issued a series of apologies for his remark and for other statements on the network about the myth of “no-go zones” in Europe.
Geller, who has been warning of European “no-go zones” for years, acknowledged that Emerson’s statement about Birmingham was wrong but was outraged that Fox had taken its retractions even further, agreeing with Kaufman that their opponents are winning “the propaganda war” and that Fox’s apologies were “egregious,” the result of a liberal ideology in which "Islam trumps gay."
“Look, any time anybody approaches this subject — you know and I know because we have suffered it for a decade —we are demonized, smeared and libeled,” she said.
“To be clear, there are absolutely no-go zones,” she said. “In parts of London, there are absolutely religious police that beat and wound and seriously attack anyone that doesn’t dress according to Islam.”
Geller went on to site a Daily Mail story about a small fringe group that had put up posters in a London neighborhood declaring it a “Sharia Controlled Zone” — not an actual designation observed by actual authorities. She also cited a Guardian story about a self-proclaimed “Muslim patrol gang” that harassed a number of people, including a gay man, in east London. Contrary to the “no-go zone” myth, the perpetrators were not given control of the area, but were arrested by actual British law enforcement officers. These stories illustrate the fact that, as a number of fact-checkers have noted, the supposed European Sharia zones are simply high-crime areas.
But Geller smelled a double-standard in the media: “Here we have the media, which is so pro-gay-issue it’s blinding, that you can’t turn on a television show or series or movie where there’s not some advancement of the gay agenda…and yet, Islam trumps gay.”
Kaufman, for her part, cited the killing of 13 people by ISIS in Syria as evidence of the existence of these no-go zones in Europe: “They killed 13 teenagers for watching a soccer match in Syria, obviously that’s a no-go zone.”
Rick Santorum is still reeling from Pope Francis’ remarks about how people shouldn’t procreate “like rabbits” and appeared on Newsmax TV today to speak with host Steve Malzberg about the pope’s comments.
Santorum told Malzberg that the pope is just the latest victim of the liberal media, alleging that reporters want to goad Pope Francis into making statements that will divide Roman Catholics.
“No doubt the pope is as solid as the pope, that’s not the issue, it’s what the media will do with some phrases that are out there like the use of ‘trickledown economics’ and the use of ‘breeding like rabbits,’ these are phrases out there that I think can be just taken out of context,” Santorum said, adding:
The casualness of the conversation [with reporters] leads many who would love to see division leads them to take those and run with them in a direction that the pope certainly didn’t attend. It’s hard because I know the pope’s heart. I read his encyclicals, I read his statements and they’re brilliant, they’re perfect, they’re right, and then he will say something which allows people to twist them and that is why it is hard to listen to because I know his heart and yet he will say things that I know he means innocently and I know they’re innocent but it can be taken by those, let’s just say not so innocent, to try to twist what his meanings really is.
Malzberg replied: “You’re talking about the liberal media with their agenda.”
“Yeah,” Santorum said. “It is. They want nothing more than to drive a real division between the church, not just here but around the world.”
“It hurts me to see him throw up softballs to the media to twist, I know he’s not doing it deliberately,” he said.
Paranoia-Rama: Islamists Take Over The White House, Minneapolis Through Subliminal Messages And No-Go Zones
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
After spending a week denouncing non-existent “no-go zones,” it was no surprise that conservatives steered their anti-Islam anger into attacks on President Obama, especially after his State of the Union address.
5) Bill O’Reilly Had Nothing To Do With Fox’s ‘No-Go Zone’ Mess…
Except that he did, but not according to Bill O’Reilly! The Fox News host, angry that the mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox News for repeatedly stating that the city was the home of several Islamic “no-go zones” — claims which the network later retracted with four apologies — insisted that he “didn't have anything to do with this.”
But as Media Matters reports, earlier that month, O’Reilly pushed the Fox News talking points that French no-go zones, where Sharia law is in effect, do in fact exist and were partly to blame for the Paris terrorist attacks: “France brought a lot of this terrorism on itself. We just talked about the no-go zones that they allow. They allow, 10 percent of the population is Muslim. They are all in there, they’re radicalized, they don't assimilate.”
Of course, no one is surprised that O’Reilly got his facts wrong when reporting about how he and his network got their facts wrong.
4) Is Tony Perkins Too Afraid To Visit Minneapolis?
While Fox News may have backed down from its erroneous reports about Muslim-dominated “no-go zones” [are] forming across Europe, Family Research Council president and conservative talk show host Tony Perkins is sticking to the false claim. In fact, Perkins believes that “no-go zones” have arrived in America, telling “Washington Watch” listeners that Sharia law has effectively taken over Dearborn, Michigan, and parts of Minneapolis:
Of course, neither city has adopted Sharia law, and Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democrat whose district encompasses most of Minneapolis, has invited Perkins to see the city for himself:
I am writing regarding your recent comments about my hometown. As you know, I represent the 5th district, of Minnesota which includes most of Minneapolis. You recently said that you believe parts of our city are so called “no-go zones” where state and federal laws are subordinate to Sharia Law. Having lived in Minneapolis for over two decades, I can assure you this is not true. But I would like you to come see firsthand that Minneapolis is an inclusive and thriving city completely under the jurisdiction of local, state, and federal authorities. The Muslim Americans in Minneapolis help make our vibrant and diverse place to live.
If you accept my invitation it may represent an important step toward interfaith understanding. I would be glad to organize meetings with local and federal enforcement as well as community leaders.
3) Alex Jones: NFL Part Of Obama Cabal
“InfoWars” host Alex Jones lashed out at Internet commenters who criticized his network for writing about the “deflategate” scandal, wondering why Jones is covering sports news instead of the litany of anti-government conspiracy theories he usually pushes to his fans.
Jones defended the coverage, saying that the complainers are missing the fact that the NFL is part of the Obama agenda.
“We wrote about it to expose the NFL run by gambling mafias,” Jones said. “We’re waging war on the Obama-promoting, Obamacare-promoting, anti-gun organization that I want to vomit on, that’s stolen the manhood of our society. I’m not promoting football, I’m hijacking it and I will start hijacking all of these entertainment platforms and taking it over so we can educate the people who only tune into this.”
“You go run an ‘InfoWar’ and if you do better than me, I will give you my job,” Jones added.
2) Treasonous, Diabolical Obama Pushing Extremism
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush was disgusted by President Obama’s State of the Union address, so disgusted in fact that he doesn’t want to even bother “enumerating his dubious intentions and the brazen lies he tells.”
“I believe that the primary value of this address was its potential for having demonstrated to a few million more Americans that this is the most diabolical individual to ever occupy the White House,” Rush said. “The basis of Saul Alinsky’s strategy for political conquest, detailed in his book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ is the widespread use of lies. Given that this tome is the sacred text of Obama and his Cabinet (or co-conspirators, if you prefer), one might interpret the State of the Union address in light of this.”
Rush added that Obama’s pledge to veto additional sanctions on the Iranian government as diplomatic negotiations continue is proof that he is “dedicated to Islamist ascendency, both domestically and abroad.” In fact, he thinks Obama is guilty of treason:
How many times is it worth reiterating that the president of the United States – an individual who attained that office by criminal artifice and systematic deception, by the way – has committed serial treason and is being shielded from the consequences of his actions by corrupt and compromised elected officials? There is a major push on worldwide toward advancing the designs of militant Muslims, minimizing the danger they represent and demonizing all who attempt to realistically frame the argument – and it has all been catalyzed by the individual in the White House. The wholesale failure of Obama’s supposed political opponents to publicly call him out on his crimes is as much of a crime as his own.
1) Obama’s Subliminal Messages
Sandy Rios is always finding new evidence that President Obama is a secret Muslim, and she uncovered indisputable proof of his undisclosed Islamic faith in his latest State of the Union address. After speaking to a caller who was angry that Obama accurately said that Colorado Springs is the home of the Air Force Academy, the American Family Association governmental affairs director suggested that Obama was sending Islamic subliminal messages when he talked about the “pillars” of American greatness.
“The other thing he said that I caught, he has done this before, you know there are five pillars of Islam, and he used the term ‘pillars’ again in his speech last night,” she said. “It is just really interesting, language can actually give us some insight, choices of words.”
After every official committee and panel investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack, including ones led by Republicans, debunked the many right-wing conspiracy theories surrounding the incident, conservative activists demanded that the House GOP establish a new special committee to look into the attack, hoping that the group, led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., would finally confirm their suspicions of foul play by the Obama administration.
Now, it seems, even the House Special Committee on Benghazi is part of the cover-up! At least that is what the ultraconservative outlet WorldNetDaily, a source of many false Benghazi claims, including one picked up by Sen. Rand Paul, is reporting. WND spoke to members of the far-right Citizens Committee on Benghazi, who expressed anger with the way Gowdy is handling the proceedings, including one who said that Gowdy is part of the “continued cover-up”:
The military commanders on the Citizens Committee on Benghazi reacted with skepticism to the announcement Thursday afternoon that the House Select Committee on Benghazi has scheduled a hearing, contending the congressional panel led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is not uncovering the truth behind the deadly episode that resulted in the death of an American ambassador.
Retired U.S Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, a founding member of the citizens’ commission – which WND reported has been conducting its own investigation for the past year and a half to ensure Congress uncovers the truth – said the “idea that government agency stonewalling continuing now for over two years is the reason Gowdy’s committee can’t make progress is pure nonsense.”
Lyons, a former four-star admiral who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said he was speaking for himself, not on behalf of the commission.
“Let’s say it clearly,” he told WND. “This is a continued cover-up. You have to take the wraps off and you have to go for the jugular. Is Gowdy so incapable and ineffective that he can’t boss these agency heads to comply with Congress’ mandate? Is he that ineffective?”
Lyons, meanwhile, compared the situation to a subordinate military commander coming to him during a military engagement with the enemy and complaining that an important objective could not be taken because enemy resistance was too stiff.
“I’d tell that subordinate commander to make sure the door didn’t hit him in the rear on the way out,” Lyons said. “The conclusion I’d come to is that I’d say, ‘You’re relieved,’ and I would find somebody that could break through.”
He said that if Gowdy “isn’t the man for the job because he’s being thwarted by some government bureaucrat that stonewalls Congress, then maybe we were wrong to be enthusiastic about Gowdy in the first place.”
Roger Aronoff, editor of Accuracy in Media and another CCB founding member, expressed similar concerns.
“Gowdy has subpoena powers,” Aronoff noted. “So, why doesn’t Gowdy subpoena Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice to testify before the select committee in person? I guess it’s a positive sign that we learn Gowdy and the select committee staff have been meeting with State Department recently, but if nothing comes of it, then it’s obviously for naught.
“Gowdy needs to be aggressive and the select committee needs to get this job done,” he said.
Following this State of the Union Address this year, President Obama sat down for interviews with three YouTube personalities and Glenn Beck is predictably disgusted, saying that it is offensive for Obama to do something like this at a time when the world is on the verge of utter chaos.
"For us, it's about the saving of the United States of America and the Western way of life," he fumed on his radio show this morning, saying that this is the equivalent of Winston Churchill showing up at "burlesque shows" in the 1930s and taking questions "while I squeeze her boobies."
"The world is about to cave in," Beck railed. "It's obscene. It is truly obscene. I don't know anybody that can bring the dignity back to that office":
This is the second post in a RWW series on the reemergence of the fetal personhood movement and what it means for the future of abortion rights in the U.S.
Part 1: The Personhood Movement: Where It Comes From And What It Means For The Future Of Choice
Part 3: The Personhood Movement: Undermining Roe In The Courts
Part 4: The Personhood Movement: Regrouping After Defeat
As proponents of the “personhood” strategy to end legal abortion like to remind those who will listen, the original goal of the anti-abortion rights movement after Roe v. Wade was to pass a constitutional amendment overturning the decision. And one possible amendment — along with a dubious statutory alternative — would have done so by defining “personhood” as starting at conception.
In the 1970s and 1980s, dozens of anti-Roe “Human Life Amendments” were introduced in Congress, containing a variety of language. Only one made it to an up-or-down vote in Congress: the “Hatch-Eagleton Amendment,” which would have simply gutted Roe by stating, “A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution.” In June of 1983, the amendment fell far short of the two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment, garnering just 49 yes votes.
But there was another strategy for amending the Constitution to reverse Roe, one that rather than just returning to the states the power to regulate abortion would have overturned Roe by declaring that fetuses are "persons" protected under the Constitution. In 1976, one such amendment was put up for a test vote in the Senate, garnering only 40 votes in support.
The language of these amendments was a matter of bitter internal debate among anti-abortion rights groups. One draft amendment formulated by the National Right to Life Committee in 1974, known as the NRLC Amendment, would have declared that the word "person" in the 14th and 5th Amendments "applies to all human beings irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development," but included a specific exemption for "medical procedures required to prevent the death of the mother."
Some members of NRLC’s budding coalition thought the amendment didn’t go far enough to prohibit abortion, arguing that the “life of the mother” exception was too broad. Two founding members of NRLC, Judie and Paul Brown, had left the group because they perceived it as too willing to compromise and founded their own anti-choice group, the American Life League (ALL) and helped to establish the radical abortion “rescue” movement. In 1979, ALL wrote its own amendment, nicknamed the “Paramount Amendment,” which would have erased all abortion exceptions by declaring, “The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency.”
Faced with a splintering movement, NRLC held months of talks with its fellow anti-abortion groups, hoping to hammer out a Human Life Amendment that they could unify behind. In October of 1981, NRLC announced that “with tears of joy and happiness” it had “solved what formerly appeared to be an irreconcilable difference over a fundamental question: how to allow for just those abortions truly needed to prevent the death of the mother without at the same time making her right to life superior to that of her unborn child.”
NRLC’s new “Unity Amendment,” which was introduced by Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina that December (and which ALL still refused to support), tightened the “life of the mother” exception by adding the stipulation that abortion would be allowed only to “prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring, as long as such law requires every reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of each.”
All of these amendments failed to get off the ground, as did a novel and controversial legislative approach to achieve the same goal. In 1981, Helms and Sen. Henry Hyde introduced a bill that they claimed could overturn Roe without a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court majority, by simply declaring that life begins “at conception.” The effect of the law, the New York Times reported at the time, would be to once again allow “states, if they choose, to prosecute abortion as murder.” President Reagan got behind the strategy, but legal scholars called the bill unconstitutional. NRLC and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops continued to favor the constitutional amendment strategy, doubting that the Helms-Hyde bill would hold up in the courts.
By that time, however, it became clear that a constitutional amendment and the Helms-Hyde personhood bill weren’t going anywhere in Congress, and proponents had already started focusing on other strategies to turn back the tide on abortion rights.
In 1975, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops had developed a plan to turn every diocese into an anti-choice political machine and to use its existing infrastructure to set up an office in every congressional district. The bishops’ plan included a four-pronged legislative strategy, which continues to guide the anti-choice movement today:
(a) Passage of a constitutional amendment providing protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.
(b) Passage of federal and state laws and adoption of administrative policies that will restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible.
(c) Continual research into and refinement and precise interpretation of Roe and Doe and subsequent court decisions.
(d) Support for legislation that provides alternatives to abortion.
In other words: fight for an amendment to undo Roe, but at the same time work through the courts and legislatures to make it harder for women to access legal abortion. While Roe would remain the law of the land, women would not be able to actually exercise their rights.
Part of this strategy involved targeting public funding for abortions. Frederick Jaffe, Barbara Lindheim and Philip Lee explained in their 1981 book "Abortion Politics":
The new strategy was outlined by RTL [Right to Life] leader Randy Engel, who urged restrictive riders on “any and all federal legislation related directly or indirectly to health,” in order to keep the abortion issue visible and build support. She argued that the efforts to win interim legislation would provide antiabortion workers with political experience, would educate the public, and would force members of Congress to go on record one way or the other. Not least important, she added, this strategy would require the forces supporting abortion rights to expend time, effort and resources in opposing riders.
One of the early victories of this strategy was the 1976 passage of the Hyde Amendment, a rider to the health and human services spending bill that prohibited Medicaid from funding abortions for low-income women. The Hyde Amendment was a victory, but it provoked yet more squabbling within the anti-abortion rights movement.
When it was first passed, the Hyde Amendment contained one exception: for abortions that could save the life of a “clearly endangered” pregnant woman. But because it was attached to a spending bill, the Hyde Amendment had to be renewed annually. The next year, after a lengthy legislative deadlock, Congress kept the exception for saving a woman’s life and added additional exceptions for ensuring a woman’s long-term health and for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
The 1977 compromise allowing abortion funding for rape and incest survivors — which has been modified several times since then — was a setback for anti-choice hardliners, but the anti-abortion rights movmement's leaders continue to celebrate the Hyde Amendment’s repeated renewal. In 2013, on the amendment’s anniversary, National Right to Life crowed that “over one million people are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment.”
But Daniel Becker, a longtime personhood activist and founder of the new Personhood Alliance, sees it differently. “The Hyde Amendment,” Becker wrote in his 2011 book on the personhood concept, “damaged the very fabric of our mission. No longer would the lofty rhetoric of ‘sanctity of all human life’ and ‘the personhood of the unborn’ be embodied in a strategy to achieve those protections. The prolife movement had a seat at the political table, but contented itself with crumbs.”
In 2007, the anti-choice movement achieved another seeming victory that was divisive in its own ranks. The Supreme Court, which now included George W. Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito, reversed a previous decision and upheld the 2003 ban on a specific procedure that the anti-choice movement had labeled “partial birth abortion.”
Linda Greenhouse wrote in the New York Times that the decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, was a “vindication” of the anti-choice movement’s strategy of pursuing a “partial birth” ban after the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey made a more sweeping victory look unfeasible: “By identifying the… procedure and giving it the provocative label ‘partial-birth abortion,’ the movement turned the public focus of the abortion debate from the rights of women to the fate of fetuses.”
As with the congressional fight over abortion coverage in Medicaid, abortion rights opponents hoped to use the debate over so-called “partial birth” abortion, an exceedingly rare procedure, to keep attention on their efforts to end legal abortion entirely.
But not everybody in the anti-choice movement was thrilled. In fact, the decision that was widely seen as a victory for the anti-choice movement brought into the public eye a long-simmering split in the movement.
Six weeks after Gonzales was handed down, a coalition of anti-abortion groups, including the Colorado chapter of National Right to Life, took out a full-page ad in newspapers around the country attacking Focus on the Family founder James Dobson for supporting the ruling.
One Denver pastor in the group, Bob Enyart, accused mainstream pro-life groups of fundraising off a strategy that “has no authority to prevent a single abortion” because other procedures could be used in place of the banned operation. Colorado Right to Life President Brian Rohrbough told the Washington Post, “What happened in the abortion world is that groups like National Right to Life, they're really a wing of the Republican Party, and they're not geared to push for personhood for an unborn child — they're geared to getting Republicans elected. So we're seeing these ridiculous laws like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban put forward, and then we're deceived about what they really do."
As the Post noted, NRLC’s detractors started referring to the group as the “pro-life industry” — a term intentionally reminiscent of the anti-choice movement’s “abortion industry” epithet for abortion providers, implying that those groups had sold out and cared more about their fundraising than their mission. (Several years later, Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia was using similar rhetoric to question the group’s motives.)
A week later, leaders of Colorado Right to Life confronted the board of NRLC at its annual meeting, attacking its “immoral and failed anti-abortion strategy.” Enyart told the board, in a speech secretly recorded by Colorado Right to Life:
We’ve provided cover to pro-choice politicians, even Democrats, who would say, ‘I’m not an extremist, I supported the partial-birth abortion ban.’ We wasted 15 years while 20 million kids — 20 million kids — have died. We’ve spent a quarter of a billion dollars as an industry for a ban that does not have the authority to save one life. You guys are worried about what’s growing in Colorado. I’ll tell you what’s growing in Washington, D.C. It’s called the abortion weed. Child-killing regulations — that’s what National Right to Life is really good at — child-killing regulations prune the abortion weed and sanction its root.
National Right to Life promptly voted to kick the Colorado group out of the organization. Colorado Right to Life then hired an Abraham Lincoln impersonator to accost conference-goers with a revised version of the Gettysburg Address: "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal...no exceptions!"
It was around this time that the “personhood” strategy began to see a national reemergence in the public eye, and along with it a legal theory that had long been dismissed even by leaders in the anti-choice movement.
The next post in this series will look at the debate within the anti-choice movement on how to best confront Roe v. Wade in the courts.
Organizations:U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life Committee , National Personhood Alliance, American Life League
During his Wednesday interview on “The Steve Deace Show,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal repeated his criticisms of Muslim faith leaders who denounced the recent attacks in Paris, insisting that their condemnations didn’t go far enough because they didn’t specifically say that the perpetrators are going to Hell. Maybe he missed the statements saying just that, or he is simply moving the goalposts so he can continue to score political points at the expense of a frequently demonized minority.
Nonetheless, Jindal made clear that as president, he plans to “hunt down, exterminate and kill” Islamists, which he, unlike President Obama, will apparently do by ignoring political correctness.
“He can’t seem to find the words ‘terrorism’ or ‘radical Islam’ in his vocabulary; he continues to think of this as a criminal act, that is not what this is,” Jindal said. “Other people want to tiptoe around the truth, they can do that if they want but I’m not going to do it anymore. We cannot be intimidated by the left or all of these liberals who don’t want us to speak about this. The reality is, we can pretend like it’s not happening, we can pretend that it’s a good thing to kill journalists, to kill teenagers for watching soccer, to kill over 150 schoolchildren, to treat women as second class citizens, but it’s not.”
Jindal said extreme Islam “sees weakness in the West and is trying to attack that weakness. According to Jindal, the radicals “use our freedoms to undermine our freedoms,” and liberals are letting them do it with political correctness and multiculturalism: “that’s not immigration, that’s invasion.”
On Wednesday, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., called into conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ radio show to promote the House GOP’s 20-week abortion ban, a bill which was supposed to be brought up for a vote on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade but was scuttled after several members raised concerns about the bill’s language regarding rape.
The congressman told the “InfoWars” host that abortions after 20 weeks are “partial birth abortions,” which is actually a specific procedure banned by a 2003 law, and called on Republicans to rally around the bill.
Alex Jones was positively thrilled: “If we get rid of this abortion industry, I think the curse that is on this country, and who can deny that we are under a curse, will be lifted. Who can kill 55 million babies and get away with it? It’s just unbelievable.”
“I agree,” Rep. Jones replied.
Just as Texas Gov. Rick Perry launched his 2012 presidential bid with a prayer rally called “The Response,” fellow Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is set to lead his own “Response” prayer event this Saturday in Baton Rouge. Many of the pastors and conservative activists who backed the 2011 rally credited Perry’s actions with various miracles, raising the bar for Jindal’s event, which is being organized by the very same people.
Unfortunately for Perry, the various miracles produced by his prayer rally did not include producing even a single delegate in his disastrous presidential campaign, but it did save Texas from the scourge of Native American cannibals, at least according to Cindy Jacobs, a self-proclaimed prophet who endorsed both “Response” prayer rallies.
Jacobs said that Native Americans who “ate people” produced a “curse” in Texas, until it was healed by Perry’s prayer rally:
Another evangelist who joined Perry at “The Response,” Lou Engle, noticed evidence that God blessed Perry’s bid for president. According to Engle, God sent rain to Texas in response to the governor’s campaign announcement.
“I heard that actually the day that Governor Perry announced that he’s running for president, and this is not an endorsement I’m giving here, it simply it rained I believe he said for five hours, it poured,” Engle said on a 2011 conference call. “And people think that that could’ve been a sign, I don’t know. I think that was a historic prayer gathering for a governor to call a true Joel:2 solemn assembly. You don’t always see an immediate answer to these kinds of prayers but God does, God sees and responds and I believe we’ll look back at that gathering as a historic moment in American history and that’s what I’ve got to believe.”
Rick Scarborough, a prominent Texas conservative activist, also claimed that Perry’s prayers ended a drought during a conference call for his 40 Days to Save America campaign. Texas Republican leader David Barton agreed, adding that Perry’s prayers also controlled the BP gulf oil spill:
Scarborough: Our Governor here in the state of Texas called for a day of prayer and fasting last May. We were at the height of a drought that meteorologists were telling us was part of a cycle that would last perhaps for a number of years and that it would take us years to get our lake levels back up and so forth. It occurs to me that, not immediately, but after that prayer event that thirty thousand people participated in, we started getting rain and in less than a year, our lakes are full, our fields are brimming. A lot of people seem not to connect the dots on that, but we've got a fresh illustration of how God honors prayer.
Barton: Yeah, that's one of those many things that historians will looks back upon and say 'look at the correlation.' But I look back over the last few years at Sonny Perdue of Georgia who called, in the middle of their drought - that was an unprecedented century drought that they had there - he called for prayer and within three days they had rain falling in Georgia again. They're back in good condition.
I recall what happened with the oil spill in the Gulf, how all the Gulf governors except for Charlie Crist of Florida got together and called for a time of prayer that God would mitigate the damage of that and cause that thing to be sealed. And guess what? All the expected damage along the shorelines to all the wildlife, it didn't happen.
Even after Fox News retracted several of their reports on European Muslim “no-go zones,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he knows that such areas are real since “people in Europe” have personally told him that no-go zones run according to Sharia law are popping up throughout the continent.
Jindal, speaking to Iowa talk show host Steve Deace yesterday, said that such anecdotal evidence trumps whatever facts are out there.
He warned that America may be next, unless his upcoming prayer rally ushers in a spiritual revival: “Folks, if we don’t get serious, that’s what is going to be in our future. One of the reasons we’re doing something called The Response this Saturday at LSU where we are calling Christians together in prayer, just to pray to turn back to God for a spiritual revival in our country. When you talk in those terms, the media, the academic left, they go apoplectic. Just like they will call you a racist for calling out radical Islam, they will attack you for talking about a spiritual revival. That is what our country needs.”
Sandy Rios: Obama Used Islamic Subliminal Messages In The State Of The Union
1/21/15 @ 4:45pm
Beck: Our Founding Principles Require That Christianity Receive Preferential Treatment
1/16/15 @ 12:23pm
Tony Perkins: Dearborn And Neighborhoods In Minneapolis Are Muslim No-Go Zones
1/20/15 @ 11:35am
Bobby Jindal's Extremist Prayer Rally Brings Together Prophets, Bigots And Far-Right Activists
1/22/15 @ 1:00pm
Sarah Palin: Defeat Hillary Clinton By Calling Liberals The Real Racists And Sexists
1/24/15 @ 7:05pm