Glenn Beck returned from his lengthy holiday vacation to announce a new policy for his daily three-hour radio program: anyone who mentions the name of President Obama or plays any audio from him is fired:
Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt went back on VCY America’s Crosstalk, where he last month insisted that the health care reform law was meant to “take away your guns,” to talk to host Jim Schneider about the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
Pratt agreed with a caller who said that drugs such as Prozac were leading people to kill and another caller wondered if drugs are “raising a bunch of Manchurian candidates.” A man purporting to be Lanza’s uncle had claimed that he was using an antipsychotic drug, Fanapt, but the “uncle” turned out to be an imposter.
Just as many other right-wing commentators blamed the Newtown massacre on the public school system, even though Lanza was homeschooled, Pratt suggested that corporal punishment, along with the arming of teachers, would ensure that schools aren’t “death traps for kids.”
Caller: These kids are on psychotropic drugs, mainly Prozac, which makes them homicidal or suicidal and a lot of the teachers who can’t handle these kids are recommending that they go in for psychiatric treatment and next thing you know they are on these drugs.
Pratt: The teachers aren’t allowed to spank them anymore, which didn’t have any long lasting effects other than, ‘I don’t want that to happen again so I’ll behave in the future.’ But the drugs, as you were getting to I think change their minds.
Caller: I also wanted to know on the coattails of the gentleman that mentioned Prozac: are we raising a bunch of Manchurian candidates?
Pratt: That’s a valid question. I guess there could be long-term damage done by these drugs that may not manifest themselves until sometime in the future because of who knows what stimulus that occurs. But it’s just a very dangerous thing to be playing with the makeup of people’s minds. It’s so avoidable, all we have do is admit that children need discipline, they respond well to it and then things are much more under control. We’ve lost control of our schools in so many places in the United States and it really could be addressed effectively and we refuse to. It’s almost equivalent to the refusal to talk about using drugs in self-defense and making it so teachers, principals and janitors could be armed at schools. ‘Everybody knows that guns and children don’t mix,’ well no, actually everybody doesn’t know that, and in fact that notion, as I have said before today, that notion is unhappily the big reason why schools are such death traps for kids.
After warning against government “confiscation” of firearms, Pratt floated debunked conspiracy theories about the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security purchasing ammunition for nefarious reasons and maintained that all policing on the federal level is unconstitutional.
Pratt: I think the more people invest in protecting themselves in this fashion, paying all this money for firearms to defend themselves, any call for confiscation such as came from the Governor of New York and I gather other politicians as well is going to be met with, shall we say, no respect.
Schneider: Perhaps on that issue there have been a number of stories that have come out recently that the US government is just buying up massive rounds of ammunition. One story indicated the Department of Homeland Security has purchased over a billion rounds of hollow point ammunition for domestic purposes, not for military purposes. Some stories have indicated that even the Social Security Administration has purchased 174,000 rounds of ammo. Is there any truth for this or is this some kind of hype that’s out of control?
Pratt: The reports continue and they are in the mainline press. When you read about the Social Security buying large quantities of ammunition, whatever for? Did somebody lose their check and they’re going to go shoot them up? What exactly is it that Social Security Administration needs a police force at all let alone buying that many rounds? Target practice I don’t think consumes that many and frankly they shouldn’t be having target practices, they shouldn’t have police forces at the federal level, those are not constitutional.
Shortly after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, James Dobson weighed in to declare that the shooting was evidence that God has "allowed judgment to fall upon us" because the nation has turned its back on him by accepting things like abortion and gay marriage.
Those remarks, not surprisingly, generated some controversy and so, last Friday, Ryan Dobson sought to set the record straight on "Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk" radio broadcast where he asserted that his father's remarks were taken out of context and that he is the victim of an agenda-driven effort to smear him:
Some of our listeners may have seen some of the buzz on-line, especially on our Facebook page, surrounding comments made by my dad right here on the Family Talk broadcast following the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy that took place on Friday, December 14th. But believe it or not, people with their own personal agenda have splattered all over the internet and the blogosphere that my dad, Dr. James Dobson, said that God caused the murder of those children and those adults and let me tell you that is a lie, and I believe that is an intentional distortion of my dad's words and it's taken totally out of context.
There have been a lot of accusations aimed at my dad over the years; he is called hateful and a bigot, all kinds of vile things that I would never repeat on the air and I always ask people [to] just quote him. Show me where ... I mean, if he's that hateful, if he's that mean of a person, he's been on air for thirty-five years, he's written over eighty book, if that's who he is, you should have volumes of evidence to bring forth, but there's nothing there!
I just want to say to our friends and our listeners, if you see something distributed about my dad that is outlandish, please consider the source. A lot of these bloggers and online columnists have an agenda and they are just throwing bricks at a man who is making a stand for righteousness.
Of course, our entire original post was built on directly quoting James Dobson himself saying that Sandy Hook was God's judgment:
Our country really does seem in complete disarray. I'm not talking politically, I'm not talking about the result of the November sixth election; I am saying that something has gone wrong in America and that we have turned our back on God.
I mean millions of people have decided that God doesn't exist, or he's irrelevant to me and we have killed fifty-four million babies and the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition. Believe me, that is going to have consequences too.
And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us. I think that's what's going on.
We have to admit that things are getting very confusing when right-wing gun advocates are now worrying that criticism of their agenda is putting them at risk of becoming victims of hate crimes:
Statements made by broadcasters including CNN’s Piers Morgan and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, as well as comments on social media have contributed to an environment of hate directed against law-abiding Americans who are being demonized for a crime they did not commit, said Joseph P. Tartaro, the president of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.
Morgan called one national gun rights leader Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America: “an unbelievably stupid man,” he said.
Matthews suggested gun owners are, “..people on the far-right (who) never lose their passion…Normal people have other interests like their spouses, their lives, their children, and even their generalized politics isn’t driven by one issue,” he said
“This kind of rhetoric does not contribute to any rational discussion,” [Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF executive vice president] said.
“Vitriol like this only promotes hate, but apparently it’s okay to perpetuate bigotry so long as you are an anti-gunner, and a liberal. If anyone is harmed as a result of this hate campaign, we expect them to be prosecuted under the hate crimes laws,” he said.
“If this hate speech leads to hate crimes,” Gottlieb concluded, “people like Piers Morgan and Chris Matthews will be partly responsible.”
Of course, actual hate crimes legislation only applies to crimes commited on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability; gun ownership does not qualify.
The claim that progressives and radical Islamists are secretly working together would be considered laughable if it didn’t inspire violent terrorists like Norway’s Anders Breivik and emerge as a frequent talking point among right-wing activists. Christian Broadcasting Network’s sports reporter/terrorism “expert” Erick Stakelbeck hosted Jamie Glazov of the David Horowitz Freedom Center to explain the purported alliance.
According to Glazov, both liberals and Islamic extremists “share the agenda to destroy freedom, capitalism, democracy, American and Israel” in order to establish Sharia law and communism! Liberalism and Islamism, he claims, both have “a hatred for humans for who and what they are.”
“I haven’t been this scared since I was watching eleven years old watching the Exorcist,” Glazov said, “we have our first political prisoner in the United States.” He was referring to the producer of an anti-Islam film who was put back in prison for violating his probation agreement following a bank fraud conviction.
Later, Glazov explained that Islamic-aligned leftists “are in the White House” and “infiltrating the State Department” to advance their goal of “destroying this country.”
American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios today “exposed” the left’s plan to set crucial legislative votes around the Christmas season in order to distract conservative activists who are too busy celebrating the holiday to wage political battle. Pointing to the 2009 Senate Christmas Eve vote to pass the health care reform law and the push by LGBT rights advocates in Illinois to legalize same-sex marriage in January as proof, Rios claimed that crafty liberals know that “Christian people who care about Christmas [are] the same ones who are concerned about implementing homosexual marriage” and blocking the health care law. “This is how they win their battles,” she said.
It’s interesting how the left pushes this stuff, so much of this always comes down to Christmas. Remember last year, the Obamacare bill? They kept members of Congress debating on Christmas Eve, you know they have no concern, no real concern about what this season means to people because it doesn’t mean much to them. Other than just a family holiday, I don’t think they understand; there’s no reverence for it. So they voted Christmas Eve last year for Obamacare. Now interestingly enough the same tactic is being employed in Illinois in a very different way. When we come back in January we will discuss this. Suddenly, as of last Friday, gay activists in Illinois want homosexual marriage in Illinois, they want it. So it looks like a vote will take place, are you ready? Sometime between January 2nd and 9th. So pro-family forces are trying to gear up, guess what time of year this is? Guess what weekend this is? The weekend before Christmas when churches are doing special programs, music, pastors are preparing profound sermons as an outreach to the community; this is what Christian people who care about Christmas being the same ones who are concerned about implementing homosexual marriage. This is how they win their battles.
Of course, the House Republican leadership just (unsuccessfully) pushed their Plan B legislation a mere five days before Christmas, but apparently it’s only a problem when liberals hold votes during the holiday season.
Bradlee Dean, whose close ties to Rep. Michele Bachmann are well-known and well-established, published a column in WND (Rick Santorum's new home) suggesting that, just as the Nazis burned the Reichstag, the shootings at Sandy Hook and in Aurora, Colorado were orchestrated by the government:
The Sandy Hook shooting occurred just days after Sen. Rand Paul sent out an alert that the U.N. was set to pass the final version of the Small Arms Treaty, supported by Obama the day after election.
Part of the treaty bans the trade, sale and ownership of all semi-automatic weapons … like the one Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children and 6 adults.
The “Batman shooting” in Aurora, Colo., also happened to coincide with the same time as negotiations of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty.
The timing is impeccable.
As we reflect upon massacres such as Sandy Hook, Aurora, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, Tuscon, Ariz., and Columbine, we cannot help but see the similarities: conflicting news reports on what happened, who did the killing and the number of shooters. Eyewitnesses in all of these massacres said there were more shooters than the media maintain, indicating the shootings were coordinated and planned.
When the “fire” is started, these government gun banners are right there to strip away your rights in an attempt to gain control under the guise of “putting out the fire.”
Adolf Hitler was responsible for attacking his own Reichstag to start a world war. Hitler was also responsible for sending his brownshirts to incite the people so he could play the role of solving their problems. No one believed Hitler was guilty of these crimes until after the fact.
Then it was too late.
It turns out that not only was the government behind these two shootings, but also Columbine, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11, according to this new video produced and narrated by Dean:
Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips has been pushing out articles from his fellow TPN activists attacking teachers over the Sandy Hook shooting and is now finally out with a post of his own blaming teachers for the massacre. He said teachers’ unions are a “focus of evil” as they have turned the school into a “target rich environments for some lunatic or terrorist,” urging the government to ban unions and “break up the public school system.”
If you want to pin blame on Sandy Hook, blame the Teachers Unions that have championed schools being gun free zones. While the left is demonizing the NRA and moronic actors like Marg Helgenberger are calling for NRA members to be shot, the Teachers Union is actually the focus of evil in the pre and post Sandy Hook world.
The American Federation of Teachers is led by a nitwit named Randi Weingarten. After Sandy Hook, this brain donor opined the way to stop future mass killings in schools was to make them a complete and absolute gun free zone.
Weingarten certainly proves that a high IQ is clearly an impediment to being the leader of the Teachers Union.
As Sandy Hook proved, our schools are target rich environments for some lunatic or terrorist.
As the Teachers Union screams about banning guns, we need to talk about banning the Teachers Union.
Most Americans with children have no other choice but to send their kids to public schools. Americans deserve better than a rotten education system that serves only to benefit the Teachers Union and corrupt left wing politicians.
After Sandy Hook, one of the best things we can do is break the back of the Teachers Union and break up the public school system.
Franklin Graham called in to American Family Radio today to talk with the AFA's leading conspiracy theorist Buster Wilson about a variety of issues, including last week's shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which Graham blamed on television and music and video games before inevitably blaming the supposed removal of God from our schools and public places, saying "these politicians in Washington; we've taken God our of our school, we've taken him out of our government and now we seem shocked at all of these things. Why are we shocked? We shouldn't be shocked. This is what happens when a society turns its back on God":
On the most recent episode of the Generals International "God Knows" television program, "respected prophet" Cindy Jacobs and her husband Mike were discussing the existence of an "invisible realm [that] is populated with powerful angelic hosts that want to take care of you."
Case in point was the time when Jacobs traveled to Venezuela and arrived just as the airport was closing, only to find that there was nobody there to pick her up. Not speaking the language or having any local currency, Jacobs was trapped ... until a literal angel appeared with a calling card to help her make hotel and travel arrangements:
According to Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, America may head toward outright revolt and a second civil war. Staver told Janet Parshall that marriage equality will mean that the institution of marriage, freedom of speech and the freedom of religion will be “destroyed” and “bulldozed over.”
Like Family Research Council president Tony Perkins who last month maintained that the Supreme Court may start a “revolution” and “break this nation apart” by striking down gay marriage bans, Staver said that the court “could split the country right in two” as “this is the thing that revolutions literally are made of.”
“This would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak and to Christians around the country, then anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing,” Staver said, “This could cause another civil war.”
Staver: Basically marriage will be completely destroyed, families will be destroyed, children will be hurt by this and freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including in the pulpit itself, will absolutely be bulldozed over. This would open a floodgate of unimaginable proportions. That’s why with those kinds of consequences to have five of the nine justices ultimately have this kind of power in their hands, that’s not how this court and this country was established, to have five individuals to be able to have that kind of catastrophic, social reengineering power in their hands, that’s just not something that was envisioned by the founders.
Parshall: Absolutely right. God hasn’t given us a spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a sound mind so we need to be in prayer, but I also think we need to be preparing our hearts as well Mat that if in fact the Supreme Court decides to trample underfoot the truth of God’s word, we as a church are going have to decide what we’re going to do. Mat, you know I’m going to appeal to your pastor’s heart, that means that every single pastor who is called to hold out the word of life is going to have to decide whether or not he is going to sidestep certain passages for fear of some sort of response from the government.
Staver: This is the thing that revolutions literally are made of. This would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak and to Christians around the country, then anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing. This would be the thing that revolutions are made of. This could split the country right in two. This could cause another civil war. I’m not talking about just people protesting in the streets, this could be that level because what would ultimately happen is a direct collision would immediately happen with pastors, with churches, with Christians, with Christian ministries, with other businesses, it would be an avalanche that would go across the country.
He even argued that marriage equality laws “destroy the very foundation of our family” and have “catastrophic consequences,” including “the unraveling of the United States.”
Parshall: There is no ambiguity as to what the definition of marriage is. Here are nine people in black robes who are basically going to judge, and I’m going to put this in the vernacular of the common man, these are nine people who are basically going to say: God didn’t say that and here’s our ruling. I know I really distilled it down but you’ve got judges who are basically going to decide for us at the high level, potentially, how marriage should be defined. That’s amazing. Who would have thought we would ever find ourselves in that place?
Staver: It’s stunning. That’s why I am very concerned that this has made its way to the United States Supreme Court because only five of those nine can make a decision and so five people, potentially, in the United States, only five out of the hundreds of millions that we have, have in their hand this opportunity to literally wreck marriage, to destroy the very foundation of our family and the biblical definition of marriage. The consequences are staggering. This could be the Roe v. Wade of marriage and family. If we ultimately say as a court and if the country follows it that marriage is between two people of the same sex and it’s now how common sense, history and the Bible ultimately defines it, that has catastrophic consequences. That is staggering and it is actually something that we ought to be in significant prayer about because this could be the unraveling of the United States.
What Newt Gingrich you get - the seemingly reasonable conservative commentator or the egotistical bomb-throwing partisan - seems to be determined by whether or not there is an election on the horizon.
When he is not running for office and there are no elections at stake, Gingrich likes to present himself as a reasonable, rational conservative who is attuned to reality, leading to comments like this new one where he says the GOP has to adjust to changing opinions on marriage equality:
On gay marriage, meanwhile, Gingrich argued that Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion. While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, he suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a "marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state" -- the latter being acceptable.
"I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with," he said, noting that the debate's dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage. "It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period."
Now compare that to the bomb-throwing Gingrich who ran for president last year and did all he could to gin up Religious Right support for his campaign by calling for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the grounds that it is a perfect example of "the rise of paganism" and a "fundamental violation of our civilization":
So you'll have to forgive us if we're a bit skeptical of this apparent change of heart, coming from a thrice-married serial adulterer who ran for president as a champion of traditional marriage and family values.
Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition used the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in order to bolster her campaign against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act over the bill’s protections for LGBT employees. While speaking to Janet Mefferd yesterday about the Orange County, Florida, school system’s new non-discrimination policy that is similar to ENDA, Laffery said that just as parents are upset about the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting and are concerned about keeping their children safe, they should also be worried about ENDA’s “devastating effects” as schools will have “people with some real issues playing out their personal problems in the classroom.”
ENDA, the bill itself as I have been talking about it won’t become law, but they’re going to piece meal it. They’re going to start by making federal contractors—if you want to be a plumber for the government or want to do this, that or the other with the government, you have to comply with this order. They make try and find other ways of doing it, implementing the whole ENDA but I’m not sure exactly how at this point. But what I think people should focus on is: what does this mean locally?
People are really upset because of this tragedy up in Connecticut and protecting our children and we’re going to see some devastating effects. What they did in Florida is they passed a measure which affects adults, teachers, staff and kids. Our concern is that transgender children in schools are a different issue than teachers and staff. What we’re going to see is people with some real issues playing out their personal problems in the classroom.
Like other Religious Right activists who have warned that ENDA will lead to sexual assault and death, Lafferty maintained that ENDA is part of the left’s “open season” on Christians on behalf of “fringe minorities and people that are truly sick.”
Lafferty warned that Chick-fil-A restaurants may soon be “forced” to hire “weirdos” seeking to undermine Christian businesses, warning that transgender people are committing “the ultimate act of self-hatred” and need “special medical treatment” rather than job protections.
Lafferty: I fully expect that depending on how the administration pushes this, we’re going to see people applying for jobs at Chick-fil-A and Christian businesses because families go there because A) the food is good and B) they want to support what Chick-fil-A stands for, and no better way of hurting a Chick-fil-A restaurant than to have a bunch of weirdos working there.
Mefferd: That is so weird you say that because I had an experience like that at Chick-fil-A just a couple of weeks ago, exact same experience. I thought: that’s very strange that this person is working at Chick-fil-A.
Lafferty: They may have chosen to hire this person but they’re going to be forced to.
Lafferty: I think minorities, those protected classes, are going to be shocked when they find out that a transgendered man or woman is going to be treated the same as an African American man or woman. That’s not right and the laws will be overridden if ENDA should pass. That’s why they are going jurisdiction by jurisdiction to try and force communities to accept this. This is the ultimate act of self-hatred and we are lifting this up? We should be giving them special medical treatment maybe.
Mefferd: Get them some help.
Lafferty: Not protected class [status].
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice-elect Roy Moore appeared on City On A Hill Radio to lash out at marriage equality and the theory of evolution, warning that they undermine the Constitution. Moore, who has argued that same-sex marriage leads to divine punishment and will “destroy this country,” maintained that the Founding Fathers “would be up in arms” over President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality as it will “destroy the very foundation” of America.
What we’re doing in this country is—if Washington and Jefferson and Madison, name one, if they were alive today would be up in arms. None of them, federalists or antifederalists, never believed that it would come to this. Those that were for big government like Hamilton, Washington, Adams would never have believed that our courts would be doing what they’re doing today, that people would be trying to change the definition of marriage. We don’t take a moment just to stop and clear our eyes and our ears and think: what is happening when a President of the United States can get up and say we need to redefine marriage? You know, when they do that they are attempting to destroy the very foundation on which this country was built.
Moore also denied the theory of evolution and said it was warping people’s understanding of the Constitution by covering up its Biblical precepts. “Evolution has so distorted our way of thinking,” Moore said, “we know we were created but they say we evolved from whatever, something out of the ocean, you’ve got to understand that evolution affects your mental processes.” He explained that evolution makes people think that they are “smarter” than their predecessors while the Constitution shows that “human nature doesn’t change.”
Barbara Moore: Judge Moore I want to ask you, as you read the United States Constitution you can see that biblical concepts and precepts are within that Constitution, everything from separation of powers because of the sinful nature of man, and I would think that any Bible believing Christian would feel that when they look at our United States Constitution, wouldn’t you say?
Roy Moore: I think they don’t and I think there’s a reason they don’t and I think the reason like you see it maybe because you’ve studied a little bit but I think it’s not evident to those who have lost the knowledge of God. What I mean to say by that is you know we started by teaching history at the beginning of the program and it’s like going to football games and seeing who wins and who loses and going to football games and forgetting the rules. If you know the rules it makes the game more interesting because you know there is some way they get to the end of the game and win or lose and you got to go by the rules. We’re not going by the rules because we don’t think the rules matter anymore.
Evolution has so distorted our way of thinking. It’s not just about where we came from. Of course, we know we were created but they say we evolved from whatever, something out of the ocean, you’ve got to understand that evolution affects your mental processes. When you think you have evolved then you think you’re better than those who have gone before you. If you’re better than those who have gone before you then you won’t make the same mistakes, you won’t think the same way, you know better, you’re smarter. The point is, human nature doesn’t change and human nature is what the Constitution sought to restrain.
In his initial response to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips emailed members an article about the massacre which sharply criticized teachers and urged government to cripple teachers’ unions and place guards like George Zimmerman at every school. Today, Phillips emailed out a piece arguing that it should “be required that all teachers and other staff be armed and in trained in SWAT” because Americans should worry about “the bloodbath you may well see if Iranian and Hamas agents go en masse into the schools of this nation.”
The TPN article also attacked teachers as “abject pacifist cowards” and liberals for allegedly “dancing gleefully in the blood of victims” in order to help the government “enslave” Americans through forcible disarmament.
I knew it as soon as I tuned in the news on Friday morning and saw the unfolding story of the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. We were looking at another “Columbine”, possibly worse.
And like Columbine, I also knew for sure that the leftist gun ban advocates would be out dancing gleefully in the blood of the victims, before it had even dried.
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before.” - Rahm Emanuel – Obama's former White House Chief of Staff.
Sure enough, a tearful “President Mordred” was on TV the same day, claiming that this was not the time to talk about gun control, but implying that tomorrow certainly will be, while all the while his surrogates are already at it again.
This despite the facts that overall violent crime has decreased in the concealed carry states and has decreased since the “Assault Weapons Ban” expired years ago.
But those facts are ignored, for the purpose of an underlying agenda.
You see, it's as old as humanity, the propensity of tyrants to always want to disarm those they would enslave.
If you were a parent, why would you want to entrust the safety of your precious child or children to abject cowards who would not be willing to lift a finger to protect them while your child or children are in their care?
And again, if they would be willing to protect them, how in the world could they have any hope of doing so, if they were not willing to be trained and armed so that they could do so effectively?!
Therefore: If teachers are such abject pacifist cowards that they would not be willing to be well-trained and armed, to be able to protect the children in their care, why in the world would you want any children in their care?
And the American people had best think long and hard about those questions and rethink their false strategy of creating Victim Disarmament Zones instead of trained and armed defense zones, because if something like an attack on Israel happens in the near future, you ain't seen nothing yet, people, compared to the bloodbath you may well see if Iranian and Hamas agents go en masse into the schools of this nation!
Updated 12-16: What if, instead of more useless gun ban laws, it were to be required that all teachers and other staff be armed and trained in SWAT, so they could immediately lock their children in a classroom and then go work as a team to clear their school of any threat(s), until the police arrived?
Wouldn't that be something constructive, for a change?
Former military chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt is citing an article by fellow anti-gay activist Ron Crews to warn that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has led to the “persecution” of Christians in the military. “Christian troops endure open homosexual harassment,” Klingenschmitt writes in his latest email to members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project, “Sexual harrassment [sic] is banned in the military, unless you're a homosexual abusing a Christian, then it's openly encouraged.”
Klingenschmitt also argued that soldiers should be able to refuse to share a bunk with an openly gay soldier because otherwise they will be groped: “imagine the horror of being ‘chosen’ as a bunkmate, and then being forced to endure ogling or groping without complaining.” Later, he called on activists to support the “Military Religious Freedom Act” because “President Obama's latest assault on military Christians” includes having “Christian chapels [become] desecrated by acts of sodomy.”
'Gay' Sailors can choose Bunkmates, but Christian Sailors can't opt-out.
As the Presidential election distracts the Senate from passing the Pentagon budget, military chaplains remain under immense pressure to facilitate homosexual 'weddings' in military chapels in all 50 states.
In New Jersey, Florida, and Lousiana [sic] Christian military chapels have been desecrated by acts of sodomy, despite the fact all three of these states prohibit gay 'marriage.'
Now the Washington Times confirms what we said all along, that military Christians face persecution since the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which already causes anti-Christian discrimination. Christian troops endure open homosexual harassment. For example:
"At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would 'make a great couple.' The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action."
Homosexual Sailors receive preferential treatment. "The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates," says Col. Ron Crews, a retired Chaplain leading the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.
But if Christian Sailors don't want a homosexual roommate, they cannot refuse one. Christians who refuse such open homosexual advances are labeled as discriminators. Can you say double-standard? Just imagine the horror of being "chosen" as a bunkmate, and then being forced to endure ogling or groping without complaining.
Sexual harrassment [sic] is banned in the military, unless you're a homosexual abusing a Christian, then it's openly encouraged. For example, desecrating their chapels. (Examples and proof below.) But will the Senate protect chaplains and Christians?
Let's take a stand for our Christian troops rights, especially Chaplains, today.
In response to YOUR faxes, two Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and my friend James Inhofe (R-OK) have just introduced new legislation in the Senate, as "The Military Religious Freedom Act." I met with Wicker's staff this summer, and they received my suggestion clearly, since the new bill mirrors the two good amendments already passed by the House, and protects both military chaplains AND chapels from desecration.
Sadly, more homosexual "weddings" are desecrating Christian chapels on military bases, for example in this story that features a Navy Chaplain who apparently desecrates a Christian chapel in New Jersey with a sodomite ceremony endorsing sin. (And then claims nobody is offended when Christian chapels are desecrated by acts of sodomy.)
This "wedding" in New Jersey is President Obama's latest assault on military Christians, after homosexual ceremonies have already desecrated chapels in Florida and Lousiana [sic].
One of the most remarkable things about the Religious Right today is the amazingly widespread belief that any criticism or disagreement with their agenda is somehow a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The Religious Right seems to truly believe that the First Amendment protects their rights to say anything they wish while simultaneously rendering them immune from criticism or opposition, as if the very same First Amendment that protects their free speech rights does not protect the free speech rights of those who disagree with them.
Case in point: the day after the election, the American Humanist Association sent a letter to all the newly elected members of Congress, encouraging them not to join the Congressional Prayer Caucus. But to Rep. Randy Forbes, founder of the Prayer Caucus, this is nothing more than an attempt to "censor people" and prevent them from talking about their faith, as he explained on "Wallbuilders Live" today:
None of us, and no member of our caucus believes, that we want government to dictate what the church should do and we don't want the church dictating what the government should do.
But these extremist groups try to switch that around and they try to carry it to another dimension where they don't want anybody in government to have the right to even speak about their faith, or prayer, or God, or religion. And they don't want anyone in the church to be able to speak about government.
What they want to do is censor people from their faith and from their First Amendment rights.
Members of Congress have the right to join the Prayer Caucus if they want, just as others have a right to ask them not to do so. That is how the First Amendment works.
Disagreement is not censorship and the Constitution does not protect you from criticism.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing this morning on “The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election.” 2011 and 2012 saw an influx of state laws and administrative decisions designed to make it harder for certain groups of people to vote, actions that we documented in our 2011 report “The Right to Vote Under Attack” and in a 2012 update.
People For the American Way Foundation’s leadership programs were active in combatting voter suppression efforts across the country by getting out the vote among targeted groups. PFAW Foundation’s Young People For program worked with campus leaders across the country to mobilize over 22,000 young voters. And PFAW Foundation’s African American Ministers Leadership Council worked with African-American clergy in 22 states to facilitate 400,000 voter registrations and transport over 27,000 people to the polls.
Minister Leslie Watson Malachi, Director of African American Religious Affairs, submitted testimony [pdf] for today’s hearing about AAMLC’s voting rights work. She wrote:
Across the country, restrictions on voting led to confusion and discouragement among voters. But they also were a powerful motivator, especially for those of us who lived and fought through the Civil Rights Movement. As Elder Lee Harris of Mt. Olive Primitive Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, put it, “We’ve come too far and fought too hard to let anybody take away our vote again.” Our task was to reach out to as many voters as we could to educate them on what they needed to vote and to make sure they got to the polls and stayed there.
Minister Malachi also emphasized the importance of the Voting Rights Act, which will be reviewed by the Supreme Court next year:
In the end, our efforts to educate and organize can only go so far. Equally important in the effort to maintain the right to vote has been the role of state and federal courts, where Americans can turn when powerful forces seek to deprive them of their right to vote. Federal courts play a particularly important role in protecting the guarantees set forth in the Voting Rights Act. From Ohio to Florida to Pennsylvania to South Carolina to Texas, the courts were critical in tamping down efforts to suppress the votes of African Americans and other targeted groups. As the Supreme Court prepares to review Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, this year offered us many powerful reminders that the preclearance provisions of the VRA are still relevant and still vitally necessary. In August, when a federal court struck down Texas’ new voter ID requirement, Rev. Dr. Simeon L. Queen of Prairie View, Texas, offered these words:
“It is inexcusable that nearly 50 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, politicians are still trying to make it harder for African Americans in Texas to vote. I wish the Voting Rights Act wasn’t still necessary, but thank the Lord it’s still there. African Americans in Texas have struggled throughout our history to exercise all of our rights as citizens, including the right to vote without unnecessary restrictions meant to discourage and disenfranchise. Today, thanks to the Voting Rights Act, a major threat to that effort has been defeated.”
You can read Minister Malachi’s full testimony here [pdf].
On last night's episode of "The Glenn Beck Program," guest host Tim Ballard brought on David Barton to give his "expert" perspective on how the Founding Fathers would have responded to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Barton insisted that the Founders called the Second Amendment "the biblical right of self defense" and crafted it to ensure that citizens could protect themselves again any and all threats, including the government, with equal firepower.
In Barton's view, whatever weapons the government possesses must also be available to the population at large because the citizens might one day need to resist the government, so this principle of "equal power ... has got to control the gun control debate":