National Review Releases “Conservatives Against Trump” Feature

National Review Editors And 22 Conservative Pundits Condemn Donald Trump In “Conservatives Against Trump” Feature. National Review published a January 21 feature criticizing Donald Trump's candidacy with an editorial and commentary from 22 right-wing pundits, including Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch, and Erick Erickson. The publication's editors denounced Trump, calling his politics “those of an averagely well-informed businessman” and him a “philosophically unmoored political opportunist”:

Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

[...]

Indeed, Trump's politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled. Especially if you are, at least by all outward indications, the most poll-obsessed politician in all of American history.

[...]

Any candidate can promise the moon. But politicians have records of success, failure, or plain backsliding by which their promises may be judged. Trump can try to make his blankness a virtue by calling it a kind of innocence. But he is like a man with no credit history applying for a mortgage -- or, in this case, applying to manage a $3.8 trillion budget and the most fearsome military on earth. [National Review, 1/21/16]

Trump's Critics Have Their Own Extreme Pasts

Glenn Beck

Beck: Obama Is “A Racist” With “A Deep-Seated Hatred For White People.” On the July 28, 2009, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Glenn Beck claimed that President Obama “has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture,” adding that he believes Obama is “a racist”:

GLENN BECK: This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture -- I don't know what it is. But you can't sit in a pew with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff, and not have it wash over.

[...]

BECK: I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. He has a -- this guy is, I believe, a racist. Look at the things that he has been surrounded by.

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]

Beck On Morbidly Obese Americans: “I Say Let Them Die.” On the September 14, 2010, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck stated, “If I want to be a fat, fat, fattie ... that is my choice.” Beck lamented the “costly conditions” associated with obesity because “we have government health care now,” and concluded, “I say let them die”:

GLENN BECK: If I want to be a fat, fat, fattie and shovel French fries all day long, that is my choice. But, oh ho. No, not so fast anymore. Because now we have the new fact, whether you like it or not, we have government health care now.

Well, what does that have to do with French fries? Did you miss the show about a year and a half ago? Because the nation's health care costs are directly tied to the government, and obesity is one of, if not the most costly conditions, costing you and me now at least $150 billion a year.

You know those fat people that sit in their couch -- and I mean really fat. I mean, not like me. I mean the people who, like -- their skin grows into the couch. And then, you know, they call the fire department and they cut them out of the wall, and then they have to bring in a truck, and then they take them to the hospital. I say let them die.

I say punish the person who's been bringing them the milkshakes that allowed them to eat and not get up off the couch. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 9/14/10]

Beck: “There Will Be Rivers Of Blood If We Don't Have Values And Principles.” On the May 14, 2010, edition of Glenn Beck, Beck claimed that if the U.S. doesn't “have values and principles,” there could be “rivers of blood three, four times before we finally gain freedom back”:

BECK: I just the other day read a letter between Thomas Jefferson and James -- or John Adams. It was 1920 -- 1823, 1824. And they were going back and forth and they were talking about, wow, this thing's going to fall apart at some point. And Thomas Jefferson said, yes, yes. But if they lose freedom -- he's speaking of us, future generations -- if they lose freedom, there will be rivers of blood.

I mean, he talks about rivers of blood three, four times before we finally gain freedom back. Boy, I hope that's not true. But I can tell you there will be rivers of blood if we don't have values and principles. Second attempt, third attempt, fourth attempt -- it's going to take a while to turn it back around. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 5/14/10]

Brent Bozell

Bozell Likened Obama To “A Skinny, Ghetto Crackhead.” On the December 22, 2011, edition of Fox News' Hannity, Media Research Center's Brent Bozell said, “How long do you think Sean Hannity's show would last if four times in one sentence, he made a comment about, say, the President of the United States, and said that he looked like a skinny, ghetto crackhead? Which, by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does.” [Fox News, Hannity, 12/22/11]

Bozell: Gay Characters On Children's Television Are “Propaganda.” In a October 25, 2013, column, Bozell said having gay characters on channels like “Teen Nick, Cartoon Network and the Disney Channel” was “propaganda” and that LGBT advocacy group GLAAD's push for more inclusive television was proof that “they want children indoctrinated as well”:

They want children indoctrinated as well. GLAAD is also not shy when it comes to Teen Nick, Cartoon Network and the Disney Channel. Apparently, children also desperately need the propaganda of gay characters in 42 percent of programming hours. They're extremely happy with the liberalism of “ABC Family” and have relayed that Disney Channel executives promised GLAAD they will “introduce LGBT characters in an episode of its original series 'Good Luck Charlie' set to air in 2014, a first for the network.” The first of many, they expect. [Townhall.com, 10/25/13]

Bozell On Whoopi Goldberg: "[D]og Muzzles, For People's Mouths, Sometimes Are A Very Good Thing." On the August 5, 2004, edition of CNN's Crossfire, Bozell said, "[W]hen I think of the people like Whoopi Goldberg and the kind of things they say, I'm reminded that muzzles, dog muzzles, for people's mouths, sometimes are a very good thing." [CNN, Crossfire, 8/9/04]

Mona Charen

Charen: Feminists Are To Blame For Sexual Assault On College Campuses. In a May 9, 2014, piece, National Review columnist Mona Charen suggested that feminists are to blame for creating a climate of “sexual insensitivity and sometimes even brutality” on college campuses by “encourag[ing] a sexual free-for-all,” “encourag[ing] the worst instincts among some young men,” and “brainwash[ing] women into thinking that this sexual sewer is empowering”: 

The young women who find themselves in a rough world of sexual insensitivity and sometimes even brutality are looking in all the wrong places to lay blame. They should look left; to the cultural left, that is, including the feminists.

The modern campus is a little hothouse of leftist ideas about human nature and the ideal human society. The universities are devout propagators of false nostrums about sex differences and sexuality. The world that the Left (very much including the feminist Left) has created is one that could have been designed by a poorly civilized teenaged boy. Far from teaching that women are more sensitive and vulnerable than men, the Left encourages a sexual free-for-all.

[...]

The current climate has encouraged the worst instincts among some young men and doubtless confused many others. Some may find themselves accused of sexual assault when they got mixed signals. Others are predators who pick off easy prey in a world without guardrails. Women have been brainwashed into thinking that this sexual sewer is empowering. [National Review, 5/9/14] 

Charen: It's “Child Abuse” To Allow Transgender Youth To Transition. In a January 14, 2014, column, Charen discussed children who struggle with sexuality identity, claiming that is it “child abuse” for parents and adults to support transgender youth:

[C]hildren as young as four are being permitted to style their hair, wear the clothing, and use the bathrooms of the other sex when they express the urge. This kind of change is one that liberal states approve. The state of California requires that students from kindergarten through grade 12 be permitted to choose which “gender” to be associated with (Connecticut and Massachusetts have similar rules). If a biological girl decides at the age of 12 that she wants to be addressed as a boy, play boys' sports, and use the boys' bathroom, state law requires that she be able to do so.

There are physicians who prescribe hormone-suppressing drugs to prevent preteens from going through puberty the better to prepare them for “gender reassignment” surgery.

This is child abuse. Children pass through phases. Nothing permanent should to be done to any child that is not medically necessary. Suppose a child decided that he wanted to be an amputee or a one-eyed pirate? We've lost all common sense in the face of this mania for sexual mutability. [National Review, 1/14/14]

Charen: The Affordable Care Act Is “Obama's Tar Baby.” In a November 9, 2010, column, Charen called the president's push for health care reform his “tar baby,” a term that describes a difficult situation, but is also a derogatory term for black people:

Obamacare is deeply unpopular. But the president (unlike the country, we must hope) is stuck with it. The measure that was supposed to be the Democrats' bid for greatness has become Obama's tar baby. He must defend it or risk discrediting his presidency. And yet his resistance to repeal will hurt his bid for reelection. [National Review, 11/9/10] 

Erick Erickson

Erickson Threatened To “Pull Out [His] Wife's Shotgun” If Arrested For Not Filling Out American Community Survey. On the April 1, 2010, edition of In the Morning with Erick Erickson, RedState founder and Fox contributor Erick Erickson responded to the American Community Survey portion of the U.S. Census, saying, “I'm not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail,” claiming he would “pull out [his] wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door”:

ERICK ERICKSON: This is crazy. What gives the Commerce Department the right to ask me how often I flush my toilet? Or about going to work? I'm not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They're not going on my property. They can't do that. They don't have the legal right, and yet they're trying. [WMAC, In the Morning with Erick Erickson, 4/1/10]

Erickson Called A Supreme Court Justice A “Goat Fucking Child Molester.” In an April 30, 2009, tweet, Erickson celebrated the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter by calling him a “goat fucking child molester”:

The nation loses the only goat fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement.

-- Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) May 1, 2009

[Twitter.com, 4/30/09]

Erickson Called Michelle Obama A “Marxist Harpy Wife.” In March 13, 2008, blog post, Erickson stated, “I assume that Obama's marxist harpy wife would go Lorena Bobbit on him should he even think” about hiring prostitutes:

I assume not. I assume that Obama's marxist harpy wife would go Lorena Bobbit on him should he even think about it, but I ask the question to make one simple point: Barack Obama, like Elliott Spitzer, is a creation of the liberal media and, as a result, could be a serial killing transvestite and the media would turn a blind eye. [ErickOnTheRadio.com, 3/13/08]

Bill Kristol

Kristol: “White Women Are A Problem ... We All Live With.” On the February 3, 2008, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox contributor and Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol stated that Hillary Clinton mostly draws support from “white women,” who are “a problem ... we all live with”:

BILL KRISTOL: Look, the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women. The Democratic establishment -- it would be crazy for the Democratic Party to follow an establishment that's led it to defeat year after year. White women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that. [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 2/3/08] 

Kristol: The Obama Administration “Think[s] About Veterans” As “Pathological Killers.” On the April 16, 2009, edition of Fox News' Special Report, Kristol described a report put out by the Department of Homeland Security, which said veterans could be recruited by right-wing extremist groups, as “juvenile” and claimed it “reveal[s]” that the administration “think[s] about veterans” as “pathological killers who are one step away from unleashing”:

BILL KRISTOL: The administration's put out a juvenile report, which does reveal something, I think, about the way they think about veterans, you know. That based on all these movies from the Vietnam era, these guys are pathological killers who are one step away from unleashing." [Fox News, Special Report, 4/16/09]

Kristol's Support Of Sarah Palin Was “Unflinching.” In an October 10, 2008, article, The Daily Beast noted that Kristol was an “unflinching” supporter of Sarah Palin and pushed for her to be John McCain's running mate in the 2008 election:

Kristol, in any event, was quick to press the campaign for the Palin candidacy with the party's faithful. Taking a cue from the Straussian handbook, Kristol appeared on Fox News on June 30, 2008, confidently predicting that McCain would select Sarah Palin and as a public display of support, oil prices would miraculously fall.

[...]

Kristol is one of the few conservative columnists whose support of Palin has been unflinching. He has used his space as a New York Times columnist to tout her candidacy repeatedly. But in the process Kristol has never bothered to disclose his role in the decision making process that led to the Palin pick. Kristol's Weekly Standard has figured as Palin's chief defender, and its writers have gone after even those who dare to pose questions about Palin's candidacy. Bill Kristol, it seems, has much at stake in the Palin candidacy. [The Daily Beast, 10/10/08]

Dana Loesch

Loesch: Politician's Attempt To Reach Out To Black Voters Was “The Political Equivalent Of Shaking A Klan Hood Out In The Street To Scare Up Votes.” On the June 25, 2014, edition of The Glenn Beck Program, Dana Loesch lamented that Thad Cochran, the Republican who beat a Tea Party candidate in a runoff for the Mississippi Senate, utilized “the political equivalent of shaking a Klan hood out in the streets to scare up votes.” Cochran distributed fliers that read, “The Tea Party intends to prevent blacks from votingon Tuesday”:

DANA LOESCH: Overall, Cochran wound up with 50.9 percent of the vote and McDaniel walked away with 49.1 percent -- a difference of about less than 7,000. I do think that there should be an investigation, especially considering some of what I have seen and heard related to how Cochran campaigned.

[...]

How they politic is more important than that they did at the moment. And Cochran doing the political equivalent of shaking a Klan hood out in the streets to scare up votes is really unbecoming of anybody fit to hold elected office. [The Blaze, The Glenn Beck Program, 6/25/14]

Loesch: Women Who Have Abortions Are “Ageist Bigot[s].” On the February 3, 2012, edition of The Dana Show, Loesch asserted that women who get abortions are “ageist bigot[s]” and “once creating life, you no longer have your choice”:

DANA LOESCH: There are many different choices out there. That's where choice comes into play. The choice ends after you've made the choice to engage in an activity where the creation of life is a result. And once creating life, you no longer have your choice. Someone else has their choice. You don't get to choose to overrule the choice of another person because you're a bigot, and you believe that age -- you're an ageist bigot and you think that children who can't, individuals who can't speak for themselves or who are not as far developed as you somehow don't count. Your choice ends there. [KTFK, The Dana Show, 2/3/12]

Loesch Defends Video Of Marines Urinating On The Dead Body Of A Taliban Member. On the January 12, 2012, edition of The Dana Show, Loesch defended Marines who were reportedly caught onvideo urinating on the corpse of a Taliban member. Loesch asked why the incident was “supposed to be a scandal” and said, “I'd drop trou and do it too”:

DANA LOESCH (HOST): Marines were -- there's a -- now, we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were Marines caught urinating on corpses -- Taliban corpses. Listen:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER [audio clip]: The U.S. Military is investigating a video showing what appears to be troops urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The footage of what seems to be U.S. Marines has been uploaded to several sites including video sharing site YouTube. The film could be another blow for America after previous scandals like the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib --

LOESCH: OK, stop this right here. Stop this right here.                                                                      

Can someone explain to me if there's supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who was -- as part of an organization murdered over 3,000 Americans? I'd drop trou and do it, too. That's me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say?

Come on, people. This is a war. [KFTK, The Dana Show, 1/12/12]

Andrew McCarthy

McCarthy Defends Trump's Proposal To Ban Muslim Entry Into US: “Islam, Strictly Speaking, Is Not Merely A Religion.” On the December 8, 2015, edition of The Laura Ingraham Show, National Review editor Andrew McCarthy defended Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States, claiming that “Islam, strictly speaking, is not merely a religion”:

ANDREW MCCARTHY: Big thing, Laura, is that Islam, strictly speaking, is not merely a religion. So everybody who's in an uproar over what he said on the basis of thinking that this is unconstitutionally applying a religious test to Islam is assuming that Islam is a religion just like other religions that we're familiar with in the west. And the challenge with Islam is to sort out the people who are pro-Western Muslims who accept the religious tenets of Islam -- because Islam does have religious tenet -- from the Islamic supremacists who want to impose the societal framework of Islam -- namely, Sharia, its legal code -- on all of society. And that's an interpretation of Islam that is mainstream from the source countries of immigration and that does not accept a division between spiritual sphere of life versus the political and civic sphere. Let's take Islam out of this for a second. If communism had been smart enough to sprinkle a couple of religious tenets into what otherwise is a sweeping ideological program that has nothing to do with religion, would we have said, gee we can't vet communists for fidelity to the Constitution because that would violate our religious test principles and our religious liberties principles? I don't think we'd ever have done anything so stupid. But the problem with Trump is, I'm not sure how much of a grasp he has on this fire that he's playing with and as a result I worry that he's going to be tainted as a bigot. And I'm afraid that everybody who tries to sort out what's meritorious versus what's not in what he's saying is going to be tainted that way. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 12/8/15]

Katie Pavlich

Pavlich: “Countries Like Sweden Import Rape Culture” From Muslim Countries. On the January 19 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox contributor and Townhall.com editor Katie Pavlich asserted that countries that accept refugees from Muslim countries, like Sweden, “import rape culture”:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): “Unresolved Problems” segment tonight. Viewer warning, we're going to show you some tape that's disturbing. As you may know millions of refugees have flooded into the European continent, mostly from Syria, Iraq and North Africa. On New Year's Eve, hundreds of women in Germany were sexually assaulted by roving bands of Semitic man. So far only one man has been charged and the Chief of Police of Cologne, Germany, was fired because he tried to cover things up. This all goes back to political correctness and politics. The primary reason that refugees are overrunning Europe right now is because of the failed Western policies dealing with ISIS and Iran. Some European leaders have encouraged the mass migration and those folks are in big trouble and that's because scenes like this in Sweden are becoming common.

[...]

O'REILLY: This is more than an individual problem here. What do you say, Katie?

KATIE PAVLICH: Look, what we are seeing in Sweden and in countries all over Europe -- which actually has been happening for a long time; it's not just a recent thing -- but what we have been seeing is a direct result of this progressive idea that multiculturalism trumps assimilation. And also the idea that cultures around the world no matter where they are are the same. That's not true. We are seeing that now as countries like Sweden import rape culture into their societies and then wonder why they are having an increase in rapes.

O'REILLY: You're saying rape culture. What's the rape culture?

PAVLICH: Bill, well, they are importing thousands of men from countries as you just explained. Countries that embrace rape for men as something that is acceptable in those countries. These men are coming from societies where misogyny is accepted on an extreme level. The tactics that we're seeing, the tactics that we saw in Cologne, Germany, on New Year's Eve of men surrounding women, tearing them away from their friends, tearing off their clothes -- that is actually a very normal practice we see in Arab countries. It happened to Lara Logan during the Arab spring --

O'REILLY: Some Arab countries.

PAVLICH: In most of them -- in most of them, Bill. We saw it in Egypt. We see it now and now we are seeing it happen in Europe. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 1/19/16]

Pavlich: “Confronting My White Privilege Is Going To The Tanning Salon.” On the December 1, 2015, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Pavlich claimed not only that “talking about white privilege” is “quite racist” but that to her “confronting my white privilege is going to the tanning salon”:

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): But the University of Vermont, Katie, counts the white privilege three days. They didn't need one day, they needed three days to confront their white privilege background.

KATIE PAVLICH: You know, Bill, to me, especially in the northeast, confronting my white privilege is going to the tanning salon. Don't worry, it's a spray tan, so it's not going to give me cancer, hopefully. But look, you know, we're talking about this white privilege issue and, yes, it's funny and it's easy to laugh at. But I actually think it's quite racist and I think we have to talk about it in those terms.

O'REILLY: Why is it racist? Why is white privilege racist -- I mean the other side says if you're white you're racist just by the privilege you have.

PAVLICH: You're being prejudiced towards people based on the color of their skin. And I reject this idea that only white people can be racist when white students on these university campuses are are now being ostracized for the color of their skin. I mean, it's out of control. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 12/1/15]

Pavlich: “Everyone On Welfare Should Be Public Information, Because We're Paying For It.” On the April 25, 2013, edition of Fox News' Hannity, Pavlich suggested that the information for “everyone on welfare should be public information because we're paying for it.” [Fox News, Hannity, 4/25/13]

Thomas Sowell

Sowell: Obama “Confiscated” $20 Billion From BP After The Oil Spill In The Gulf Of Mexico. In a June 21, 2010, column for Investor's Business Daily, Hoover Institute senior fellow Thomas Sowell claimed that President Obama “confiscated” $20 billion from BP. Sowell also compared the president to Adolf Hitler:

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

[...]

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.”

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion -- or $50 billion or $100 billion -- then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.”

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference. [Investors Business Daily, 6/21/10]

Sowell Compared Obama To Dictators And Cult Leaders, Including Adolf Hitler And Mao Zedong. In an October 22, 2008, column for National Review, Sowell compared Obama to Bolshevik revolutionaries, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Jim Jones, and "[o]ther despotic regimes in China, Cuba, and Iran." Sowell claimed Obama resembled those dictators and cult leaders because they “promised 'change'”:

Some of Senator Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education, or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.

The magic word “change” makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check “change.”

But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where “change” turned problems into catastrophes.

In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for “change.”

That “change” brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The Communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.

Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba, and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised “change” that turned out to be even worse than what went before.

Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, “change” will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.

These ranged from Jim Jones who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown to Hitler and Mao who led millions to their deaths. [National Review, 10/22/08] 

Cal Thomas

Thomas: Muslims “Seem Very Peaceful” But The Quran Requires Them “To Lie To Infidels Like The Rest Of Us.” On the August 15, 2013, edition of FoxNews.com's DEFCON 3, Fox contributor Cal Thomas said that while Muslims “seem very peaceful,” they are required and encouraged “to lie to infidels like the rest of us”:

CAL THOMAS: Islamism is a virus that is penetrating every area of society. You've got the Muslim Brotherhood, which has about 40 different chapters under different names, the Muslim Student Association, many other things in this country. I have met some of the students from various universities around the country. They all seem very peaceful. They all tell me they want peace. But if anyone understands or reads the Quran, they know that they are required -- indeed encouraged -- to lie to infidels like the rest of us. [FoxNews.com, DEFCON 3, 8/15/13]

Thomas Predicts Gay Marriages Will Lead To Polygamy And Child Marriage. In a March 12, 2013, column for FoxNews.com, Thomas asked if gay marriage were legalized, “what's to stop polygamists from demanding legal protection and cultural acceptance?”:

What advocates for same-sex marriage should be asked is whether they consider any other human relationship worthy of similar constitutional protection and based on what standard? The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to marry. States, not the federal government, issue marriage licenses.

Current laws restrict “underage” marriage, as well as polygamy. If same-sex marriage is approved, what's to stop polygamists from demanding legal protection and cultural acceptance? Justice Antonin Scalia predicted as much in 2003 in his dissent of the Lawrence v. Texas case, in which the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas. So I ask, if “fairness” and “equality” are the standard, isn't it also “unfair” to “discriminate” against polygamists who wish to live in “loving” and “committed” relationships?

Since we are rapidly discarding the rules for living and social order set down in a book found in most motel room drawers, what is to replace it? Opinion polls? Clever legal arguments? Fairness? What exactly does “fairness” mean and who decides what's fair? Many things may seem “unfair,” but not all can, or should, be addressed by courts. [FoxNews.com, 3/12/13]