It was during another episode of the Conservative talk show 'Focal Point' that American Family Association (AFA) spokesman Bryan Fischer reiterated some common right wing foundational political theories but later stretched the discussion a little further back in American history.....perhaps two hundred years ago?

       'Focal Point' is a popular conservative talk show that is played to a largely socially conservative audience both online and in some religious syndications. An offshoot project funded by the American Family Association, a Christian Conservative group in Mississippi, 'Focal point' reaches many viewers in religiously conservative homes every day.

        Now, before merely shrugging your shoulders and pushing such talk aside as fringe nuttery from a small group of religious fundies in the south, consider this:

A.) AFA's funding at last report was $14,186,203.00

B.) AFA has not only participated but was a sponsor of the "Faith and freedom conference" which hosts the likes of Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the gang.

C.) AFA divested from CPAC during the 'controversy' of allowing a group representing gay conservatives from merely attending the conference, a group that didn't even support marriage equality yet at the time! AFA later influenced major mainstream conservative groups to criticize and/or divest from CPAC altogether such as The Media Research Center, Liberty Counsel, and Heritage Foundation.

D.) AFA has survived the test of time as it was founded in 1977 and today claims 500,000 members.

      Perhaps the question asked should be less about why this one man serving as mouthpiece for a group is saying such things and instead ask why supposedly mainstream Republican politicians have essentially sat as figureheads for a larger movement that many outside of it can even recognize.

    I talk of the 'different America' - one that values more the mistakes of the distant past with adoration toward a more homogenous society based on social rankings, privilege, religious control, and virtually no common community action.

    It is this side of conservatism that rarely pokes its head above ground not because its followers don't want it to succeed but because its face would be too foreign for most modern Americans to accept.

Bryan Fischer elaborates:

     "You know, back in the day, in the colonial period you have to be a landowner, a property owner to be eligible to vote and I don't think that's a bad idea. And the is very simple: if somebody owns property in a community, they're invested in the community. If they're renters, they're going to be up and gone; they could leave the next day ........ people that are not property owners - it's like people that pay no taxes, they have no skin in the game. They don't care about the same things that somebody does who is rooted in the community":

Your Email has been sent.