Miranda Blue's blog

Disability Rights Activist Recalls Trump Snub: He Sees Us 'As Less Than Others'

The conservative website PJ Media was at the Road to Majority summit, a Christian conservative event hosted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition and Concerned Women for America, last week and interviewed attendees about their views of Donald Trump. Yesterday, PJ Media wrote up a number of those interviews, including this anecdote from a disability rights activist who was in attendance and said that she had first met Trump years ago:

Melissa Ortiz, founder of the disabled advocacy organization Able Americans, also saw The Donald's speech, and said, "He was very fake, he wasn't himself." Ortiz recalled meeting Trump for the first time, years ago.

"He said everybody knows people with disabilities and Wounded Warriors don't have any money to spend anyway, so why do they need to be in my high-end buildings? And I've seen the way that some of you wheelchair people drive, you'll knock all the finishings off the walls," Ortiz confided. "That's a problem because it shows a mindset. He doesn't view us as sub-human, but as less than others. I don't know anybody in the community of people with disabilities who's good with that."

 …

Ortiz proved rather hostile to The Donald. She openly called for a delegate revolt at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveland, Ohio, next month, saying it was "not outside the realm of possibility" that Republican insiders reject Trump as the nominee, last minute. She also chided religious leaders for supporting Trump at the faith voters conference.

"He doesn't support biblical values, he doesn't live biblical values," Ortiz declared. "This is a faith voters conference. How can we do this?!"

Trump infamously mocked a disabled reporter last year, an action that has come back to haunt him via a damning ad from a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC.

Brigitte Gabriel: If Orlando Shooter Was Gay, He Would Have Shot Up A 'Heterosexual Club'

Responding to very early, unconfirmed reports that the terrorist who killed 49 people at a gay club in Orlando last weekend could have been gay himself, anti-Muslim activist Brigitte Gabriel said yesterday that if “his gayness” had been “an issue” in the shooting, he would have attacked “a heterosexual club” instead.

Gabriel told Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg that reports that the shooter may have repressed his sexuality were just an attempt by liberals to “divert the issue” from President Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s “failed policies” by noting the anti-gay nature of the attack.

“And, by the way, if this guy, if his gayness is an issue because he is gay and he wants to kill, you would think he would go into a heterosexual club and start shooting people out of complete frustration that he was not created like them or maybe heterosexuals look down at gays,” she said.

John Stemberger Is 'Tired Of Seeing Special Interest Rainbow Flags' After Orlando Massacre

The Florida Family Policy Council’s John Stemberger wrote in an email to his group’s members today that in the wake of the massacre at a gay club in Orlando on Sunday, he wants to see greater “unity” among Floridians in the form of more American flags and fewer “special interest rainbow flags” in memory of the victims:

The Pulse nightclub is right next to a Dunkin Doughnuts, Wendy’s, Radio Shack and a 7-11 store where I often buy gas and get my children Slurpees. I ride my bike through this area of town often. This is in part why this tragedy has affected me so deeply. This is my community. These are our streets and neighborhoods. The people that were killed and injured are not just “gay.” They are human beings! They are my neighbors! They are fellow Americans! Honestly, I am really tired of seeing special interest rainbow flags and wish we could see more American flags, as we stand together in unity against our greatest mutual enemy, radical Islamic jihadists!

He responded to criticism of conservative Christian LGBT rights opponents in the wake of the attack, saying that “Christians should be prepared to be attacked and persecuted if they do not bow down and pledge allegiance to the gay pride flag and all it supposedly represents.” LGBT rights advocates’ strategy, he said, is to “manipulate and bully Christians into submission to the new orthodoxy of the moral revolution.”

Christians should be prepared to be attacked and persecuted if they do not bow down and pledge allegiance to the gay pride flag and all it supposedly represents. In stunned disbelief, I was listening to CNN at 1:30am on Sunday night and I heard the leading gay-rights activist from Los Angeles being interviewed. She openly said you don’t need to find a terrorist cell to find this kind of hatred. All you need to do is look right here in America at fundamentalist Christians. The CNN anchor did NOTHING at all to challenge her or question her about her outrageous claim.

We need to be prepared for the stunning and false narrative of the Left which is that all major world religions, including but especially Christianity, breed hatred and create a hostile environment which "causes" the kind of violence we saw in Orlando. The goal of gay-rights activists is to try and get Christians to stop proclaiming God's design for marriage, gender and human sexuality. And they are not playing fair. The goal to simple. If you disagree in any way, no matter how gentle, loving or respectful they will call you a "hater" and a "bigot." They will scream at you publicly and test how committed you are to your beliefs. Their strategy is to manipulate and bully Christians into submission to the new orthodoxy of the moral revolution. Please know that as for me and "our house" at the FFPC, we will never be moved by this attempt at intimidation.

Stemberger, who is the most prominent anti-LGBT activist in Florida and has launched an anti-gay alternative to the Boy Scouts, said that he received a personal call from Sen. Marco Rubio after the massacre.

Conservative Radio Host: Orlando Club Targeted Because Patrons Were Unarmed, Not Because They Were Gay

Conservative South Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman, who briefly served as chief of staff to former Republican Rep. Allen West, said today that she did not believe that the terrorist who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando this weekend targeted the location out of animosity toward gay people, but instead because he knew that club-goers would be unarmed.

“How long does he have to be the president before he figures out that what we had happen in Orlando was a terrorist act?” Kaufman asked of President Obama, who called the massacre an “act of terror and an act of hate.”

“I don’t care if the guy was gay, I don’t care if his wife took him there, he launched an attack of terror against the patrons of the Pulse nightclub,” Kaufman said. “I don’t look at them as gay patrons, they are the patrons, they are fellow human beings. It could have been any nightclub in anywhere in any country. When you’re crazy like that, the last thing I think you’re concerned about is the gender preference of your victims. I just don’t believe it. I don’t think this was a hate crime, I think this was an act of terrorism, I think he knew he had a group of people who were in a gun-free zone and who don’t carry guns for the most part anyway … I don’t know any gay men who carry.”

While Florida concealed carry permit holders are not allowed to bring firearms into establishments that serve alcohol, the Orlando attacker did confront “good guys with guns”: He exchanged fire with an off-duty police officer who was guarding the club and two other police officers during the attack.

Yesterday, Kaufman interviewed former Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt, who said that politicians who support gun regulations are “complicit” in the Orlando shooting. Kaufman and Pratt urged listeners to defy gun-free zone regulations and carry firearms even where they are prohibited.

“Listen, I have had it with no-gun zones, I have had it with soft targets, and I recognize the fact that from now on, I’m responsible for my security,” Kaufman said, to an “amen” from Pratt.

They two said that if they had been in the club that was attacked, things would have turned out differently.

“Had I been one of those people cowering in the bathroom, I would have done more than text home,” Kaufman said.

“Yeah, shooting a text and shooting a gun are really enormously different in how effective they can be against a dirtbag with a gun,” Pratt said. “And for our legislators to keep insisting that somehow we are going to be better off in a gun-free zone, that makes them complicit. And I’ll say it to their face, they are complicit with what happens in Orlando…”

“And you and I both agree that what they’re forcing people to do is become lawbreakers themselves,” Kaufman said. “Law-abiding citizens are not going to abide by these laws in the future because they want a fighting chance.”

“Not if they want to survive and they go to any place that’s quote-unquote ‘gun free,’” Pratt responded.

Kaufman added that gun-free zones are impeding her “free access to places”: “Look, I don’t have to march into a post office with a gun or into a federal courthouse with a gun, but I’ll be darned if I’m told where I can eat, where I can drink, where I can dance by the government. And since I don’t go without a gun, they have begun to impinge upon my free access to places.”

Larry Pratt Compares Ninth Circuit To King George: 'We Know How That Turned Out'

Larry Pratt, the former executive director of Gun Owners of America, reacted yesterday to a Ninth Circuit ruling that there is no constitutional right to carry concealed weapons outside of the home, saying that the court was displaying a “totalitarian mindset” like that of King George III “and we know how that turned out.”

“The Ninth Circuit clearly is showing the mentality of a totalitarian mindset,” Pratt told WorldNetDaily’s Radio America. “And they were the very kind of people that our forefathers objected to and sent letters of remonstrance to King George saying ‘you got it wrong, stop doing this.’ And King George was tone-deaf, and we know how that turned out.”

Jeff Sessions: Keep 'Secular Mindset' Off The Supreme Court

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned in a speech to the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority conference today that “the courts are at risk” in the upcoming presidential election, lamenting that at least one current Supreme Court justice displays a “secular mindset.”

Sessions said that as the committee’s ranking member during the confirmation hearings of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, “I felt, like so many of you, the court hasn’t been performing in a way we like it to.”

He repeated a criticism of Sotomayor that conservatives had leveled at her during her confirmation hearings, expressing dismay that she had approvingly quoted legal scholar Martha Minow’s observation that in the law "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," an acknowledgment of the hidden assumptions and biases that all judges bring to the law.

Sessions said the quote “still makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.”

“You see, this is a postmodern, relativistic, secular mindset and I believe it’s directly contrary to the founding of our republic,” he said.

“So I really think this whole court system is really important,” he added later in the speech, “and the real value and battle that we’re engaged in here is one to reaffirm that there is objective truth, it’s not all relative. And that means some things are right and some things are wrong, and we’re getting too far away from that in my opinion and it’s not healthy for any country and it’s really not healthy for a democracy like ours that’s built on the rule of law.”

Jeff Sessions: My Immigration Position Is the 'Biblical' One

Speaking today at the Road to Majority conference, an annual event hosted by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a fierce immigration opponent in Congress who helped craft Donald Trump’s immigration policy, referred to a handful of Bible stories to declare that immigration reform advocates’ position, which he characterized as that nations can’t “establish who can and can’t enter,” is “not biblical.”

Sessions spoke of the biblical figure of Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls in Jerusalem after obtaining traveling papers from the king of Persia, and referred to another story, which although Sessions seems to have gotten the details mixed up, seems to be the tale of the Israelites being barred by the king of Edom from crossing his land.

“So the idea that nations don’t set laws, establish who can and can’t enter, is not biblical in my opinion. Nations do that and they’ve done it since time immemorial and there’s nothing wrong with it,” he said.

 

Pat Buchanan: Trump Just Saying 'What He Believes To Be True' About Mexican-American Judge

Pat Buchanan, who wrote a column earlier this week decrying the “lynching” of Donald Trump over his racist remarks about a federal judge, discussed the issue further in an interview yesterday with talk radio host Mike Gallagher.

Gallagher asked Buchanan if he found “any merit” in criticism of Trump for saying that the judge hearing a fraud suit against his Trump University is biased because he’s Mexican-American.

“I really don’t,” Buchanan said. “I mean, I can I understand why they would say that Donald Trump shouldn’t have suggested that it’s because he’s a Mexican-American that he’s biased against him, but I think that’s Trump’s point.”

“Look, let me just say this,” he said. “Donald has a perfect reason to believe he might be having this thing stuck to him right in the middle of a campaign, this guy dropping all these documents, etc. Secondly, and it might well be because the judge is a Mexican-American that he really does not like Donald Trump. There’s an awful lot of Mexican-Americans and, indeed, former presidents of Mexico who have said that they can’t stand the guy. But the basic point is, if Trump believes this, and it may be true, what is he supposed to do if he said what he believes to be true and now everybody wants him to apologize for a statement he believes to be true?”

Buchanan made a similar argument in his column today, adding that because “Hispanic rioters” have protested outside Trump rallies, Trump is right to be suspicious of a Mexican American judge.

He also favorably compared Trump’s stand against “political correctness” to Barry Goldwater’s refusal to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Assume, as we must, that Trump believes what he said.

Why, then, should he apologize for speaking the truth, as he sees it?

To do so would be to submit to extortion, to recant, to confess to a sin he does not believe he committed. It would be to capitulate to pressure, to tell a lie to stop the beating, to grovel before the Inquisition of Political Correctness.

Contrast Trump with Paul Ryan, who has buckled pathetically.

The speaker says Trump's remark about Judge Gonzalo Curiel being hostile to him, probably because the judge is Mexican-American, is the "textbook definition of a racist comment."

But Ryan's remark raises fewer questions about Trump's beliefs than it does about the depth of Ryan's mind.

We have seen a former president of Mexico curse Trump. We have heard Mexican-American journalists and politicians savage him. We have watched Hispanic rioters burn the American flag and flaunt the Mexican flag outside Trump rallies.

We are told Trump "provoked" these folks, to such a degree they are not entirely to blame for their actions.

Yet the simple suggestion that a Mexican-American judge might also be affected is "the textbook definition of a racist comment"?

The most depressing aspect of this episode is to witness the Republican Party in full panic, trashing Trump to mollify the media who detest them.

To see how far the party has come, consider:

After he had locked up his nomination, Barry Goldwater rose on the floor of the Senate in June of 1964 and voted "No" on the Civil Rights Act. The senator believed that the federal government was usurping the power of the states. He could not countenance this, no matter how noble the cause.

Say what you will about him, Barry Goldwater would never be found among this cut-and-run crowd that is deserting Trump to appease an angry elite.

These Republicans seem to believe that, if or when Trump goes down, this whole unfortunate affair will be over, and they can go back to business as usual.

Sorry, but there is no going back.

The nationalist resistance to the invasion across our Southern border and the will to preserve the unique character of America are surging, and they have their counterparts all across Europe. People sense that the fate and future of the West are in the balance.

Larry Pratt: Gun Owners Keeping Hillary Clinton From Imposing Tyranny

Larry Pratt, the former executive director of Gun Owners of America, added Hillary Clinton this week to the list of public officials who he has warned will face violence from gun owners if they impose regulations on guns.

Pratt, who said last month that if conservatives lose at the “ballot box” they might “have to resort to the bullet box,” said in an interview on the “Crosstalk” radio program on Tuesday that Clinton’s support for some gun regulations may be an attempt to disarm civilians so that she can impose tyranny.

The Second Amendment means, he told Clinton, that “if you even try to go off in a tyrannical direction, the Constitution protects the people’s right to protect the people themselves against people like you.”

What she’s telling me is that she may understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, which is even scarier, because the Second Amendment is meant to tell people like her that might be thinking about going off in a tyrannical direction: ‘Don’t even think about it.’ Because the Second Amendment has recognized the right people have to possess the kind of firearms that your protectors have, Mrs. Clinton, and if you even think, if you even try to go off in a tyrannical direction, the Constitution protects the people’s right to protect the people themselves against people like you.

Pratt has made similar comments about other public officials including President ObamaRep. Carolyn Maloney and Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

House GOPer: Investigate Planned Parenthood Just Because They Provide Abortions

Rep. Dianne Black, R-Tenn., spoke today at the Family Research Council about her work on the House’s “Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives” that House Republicans convened in response to the Center for Medical Progress’ smear of Planned Parenthood but that has a broad mandate to investigate basically anything involving abortion providers.

In her opening remarks, Black acknowledged that she saw the panel as an extension of her efforts to “go after” Planned Parenthood that began even before the Center for Medical Progress released its videos that claimed, falsely, that the women’s health organization illegally profits from the small amount of fetal tissue it donates to medical research. In fact, she said, the fact that Planned Parenthood provides abortion is evidence enough that “we must expose them.”

“Even before last summer’s videos were exposing Planned Parenthood and their role in the trafficking of aborted baby body parts,” she said, “their own annual report told us in black and white why we must expose them and go after what they stood for: They’re the largest abortion provider in this nation. They perform more than 320,000 abortions annually while they receive over $500 million of taxpayer dollars to perform these abortions.” (This last figure is incorrect: Planned Parenthood is barred by federal law from using taxpayer funding on abortions except in very limited cases.)

Black recalled how the very first law she introduced in Congress was a 2011 measure to cut funding from Planned Parenthood in a short-term spending bill but that her project met with “tepid” reception on Capitol Hill until David Daleiden’s videos provided an “opportunity” to further that goal.

Earlier this year, President Obama vetoed legislation that would have cut all federal funds from Planned Parenthood, which Black said means “if we had a willing partner in the White House, this is possible, so we cannot give up.”

She said that the select panel was designed as an alternative to this legislation: “We wanted to focus, since this didn’t become law, on the first steps that we can take to hold the abortion industry accountable that don’t require the signature of a president. And that was the genesis, really, of the [committee.]”

Remarkably, after explicitly saying that the panel grew out of her years-long fight against Planned Parenthood, Black said that the panel is not actually meant to target Planned Parenthood.

“They’ve called us a witch hunt against Planned Parenthood, though Planned Parenthood is never named anywhere in the resolution that authorizes the panel’s formation and was not called to testify at either one of our two public hearings that we have head to this point,” she said.

Later in the speech, when asked by an audience member what medical providers can do to help prevent abortion, Black responded that doctors should “help to educate young women with prevention first, using healthy practices to prevent pregnancies before they’re ready for that family” — which is, incidentally, the exact kind of medical care that much of Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding goes toward.

Black’s full presentation is here:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious