C4

Larry Pratt: 'If We Have Gun Control In This Country, Then We Will Know We Are Under God's Judgment'

It turns out that Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt has a David Barton-esque sideline of combing through the Bible to find evidence that God is against gun laws.

At a prayer breakfast in Tulsa earlier this month – which was also attended by Pratt ally Sen. Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael – Pratt went through his argument that the Bible is against gun control. We’ll spare you the bulk Pratt’s biblical scholarship, most of which can be found in this convoluted essay, and  leave you with the conclusion.

“I would submit that if we have gun control in this country, then we will know we are under God’s judgment,” Pratt told the audience.

One way to know whether God’s judgment is upon us, Pratt contended, is to look at whether people are walking around armed. “We should be praying that we will all be able to go around armed, because that will be one outward indicator that we have God’s blessing,” Pratt said. “If we’re walking around like they are in New York City and San Francisco, we’re under his judgment.”

Pratt seems to get a little confused when he attempts to back up this theory with a story from the Book of Samuel about the Israelites going into battle against the Philistines armed with only two swords. He, of course, inserts an anachronistic gun into the Old Testament tale: “That must have been one nasty battle to have gone into battle with only two guys with a gun, everybody else empty-handed.”

Pat Robertson Back To Bragging About His Leg Presses

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson shared with viewers his fitness “secret.” The octogenarian televangelist boasted of regularly doing thirty 1,000 lbs. leg presses as part of his exercise routine: “A few years ago I did some pretty heavy stuffy, I used to, my leg presses, warm up with 500 lbs. and I went up from there, I did 30 reps of 1,000 lbs.”

Back in 2006, Robertson said he could leg press 2,000 lbs. The New York Times wrote at the time: “According to a related news release and photographs on the network's Web site (www.cbn.com), Mr. Robertson has leg-pressed 2,000 pounds, even though (as many online commentators have pointed out) he is 76 years old and the current world record is 1,335 pounds.”

GNC eventually pulled its Robertson-branded protein smoothie, “Pat’s Diet Shake,” but not before the episode raised questions about, as the Virginian-Pilot put it, “the fuzzy line between his tax-exempt operations and his profit-making ventures.” Slate’s Mike DeBonis commented at the time:

Let's get Pat Robertson's bonkers claims out of the way right now. As CBS Sportsline's Clay Travis reported earlier this week, there's no way the 76-year-old Robertson broke the leg press record—by more than 600 pounds—of a former Florida State quarterback.



Even when doing (what he claims to be) 1,000 pounds, Robertson's form is wack. First, he helps his legs by pushing on his knees with his arms. That's a no-no. He also achieves nowhere near the recommended full range of motion, which is to bring the knees to at least a 90-degree angle. And if he's going to double the weight, where's it going to fit? Neither Andrew Sullivan nor I have seen a machine capable of holding 20 plates of 100 pounds each.

Most telling is that Robertson has two staffers loading the machine for him. A big knock against the leg press is that it's inefficient. Most leg press machines are constructed as either a sled angled at 45 degrees or a lever. (There are some that use cables, too.) In all cases, some of the weight gets borne by the machine. You may be loading 400 pounds, but your muscles are feeling only 200. In other words, eight plates on the machine are only four plates worth of effective weight. And by the time you're finished loading and unloading, you could have done an extra set or two of squats.

Land: Single Moms Selfish, Should Always Put Kids Up For Adoption

In a Christian Post column his week, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land argues that single women are unqualified to raise their children and should always give their kids up for adoption as “the best option for everyone concerned.”

“Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home,” Land writes. Although Land notes that there are “more than 100,000 children in foster care in America alone,” he cites the Judgment of Solomon to suggest that single mothers are being selfish by not putting their kids up for adoption.

Currently there are more than 100,000 children in foster care in America alone, with many times more across the globe, awaiting permanent adoption into loving "forever" families.



Adoption is not only the best answer for the heartache and loneliness of foster children and those in orphanages both here and around the world, but it is also the best answer in almost every case where a mother finds herself with a "problem" pregnancy. Such pregnancies can arise from numerous circumstances, but most commonly they are a "problem" because the father is not married to the mother. Currently, almost all such single mothers choose either to abort or keep their babies (only 1 percent of such pregnancies currently end in adoption). Last year, 53 percent of babies born to women under thirty were born to single mothers. And yet, though adoption is seldom chosen in response to such pregnancies, it is virtually always the best option for everyone concerned.

Killing your "problem" or "unwanted" pregnancy through abortion is never an acceptable option (unless the child is a direct and immediate threat to the mother's continued physical life.) In an abortion, the baby always dies, and we lose that child's unique and never to be known God-given gifts and contributions to the world. Further, an abortion is much more traumatic physically to a mother's future reproductive life than carrying a baby to term would be. There are also often lingering psychological issues for the mother as well.

Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home. A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother's and the baby's economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways.

If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have. The Old Testament story of the two harlots who both had babies and one died in the night comes to mind (1Kings 3). Both women claimed the surviving baby was their child and wanted the king to give the baby to them. King Solomon decided to have the baby divided in two and each be given half. Immediately, the real mother told the king to give the baby to the other woman in order to save the child's life. In other words, she was thinking of the child's best interest, not her own.

Adoption allows the mother to give her child both a mother and a father who will love and cherish the child.

Lopez: Gay Marriage Leads To Human Trafficking

Appearing on Sandy Rios In The Morning today, anti-gay activist/gay erotic novelist Robert Oscar Lopez criticized marriage equality advocates for their role in passing a same-sex marriage law in Hawaii, which he said is uniquely offensive because it reminds Hawaii’s large Asian-American community of post-war human trafficking.

“Look what they did in Hawaii, that’s a state where over sixty percent of the population is Asian-American; they’re the people who came from South Korea, from Japan, from the Philippines, countries that have a very, very controversial history with adoption,” Lopez said. “And the predominantly white Human Rights Campaign went to Hawaii and ripped apart that state, you heard the testimony, they took a state and they just ripped at their heart.”

Lopez explained that married same-sex couples “end up buying children overseas,” which “echoes what happened in the past with the world wars in Korea and Vietnam where children were bought and sold because of couples that maybe thought they were doing the right thing but sometimes were also collaborating with human trafficking.”

Religious Right Piles On To Defend Proponent Of Russia Anti-Gay Laws

A couple of weeks ago, the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society -- an Illinois-based group that through its World Congress of Families helped promote Russia’s new anti-gay laws -- was forced to relocate a Capitol Hill symposium on “family policy lessons from foreign lands” when Sen. Mark Kirk learned what it was up to and pulled the plug on its meeting room.

The group got a last-minute helping hand from House Speaker John Boehner , but the symposium’s speakers – World Congress of Families (WCF) founder Allan Carlson, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute president Austin Ruse, and Concerned Women For America senior fellow/WCF board member Janice Shaw Crouse – still spent much of the event bashing Kirk over the scheduling snafu .

Now, Religious Right groups including the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association are coming to WCF’s defense.

The National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown – who WCF arranged to testify before the Russian parliament in favor of its broad ban on adoption by gay people – told the American Family Association’s One News Now that Kirk decided to “discriminate against a group that stands for traditional marriage” and that by doing so he was “undermining the party platform” because “it’s part of the Republican Party platform to stand up for traditional marriage.”

The Family Research Council piled on with a press release accusing the senator of “true discrimination” and “silencing anyone who doesn’t adhere to a politically correct view of sexuality.”

"Holding a different view of marriage and sexuality is not discriminatory - especially when all the social science research demonstrates the benefits of the natural family,” added FRC’s Tony Perkins.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Family Institute, the state affiliate of the American Family Association, published an article accusing Sen. Kirk of wanting to “normalize sexual deviance while trampling the conscience rights of untold numbers of people” and followed it up with an email urging its members to call Kirk’s office and express their displeasure.

Despite what all three groups said, the Howard Center and the World Congress of Families don’t merely hold “a different view of marriage and sexuality.” WCF actively works to push oppressive anti-gay laws throughout the world, including actively working toward Russia’s ban on pro-gay-rights speech. Indeed, the speakers at the Capitol Hill symposium enthusiastically defended Russia's anti-gay laws and denyied that the laws actually harm gay people.

It maybe shouldn’t come as a surprise that three of the largest anti-gay groups in the US have jumped to the defense of WCF: Brown has close ties with WCF and has signed fundraising emails for the group, and FRC and AFA are both official “partners” of the organization.

WND: Frank Marshall Davis Sexually Molested Obama As A Child

WorldNetDaily’s Mychal Massie, who has suggested that President Obama is the Antichrist and a Satanic pawn, contends in a column today that the president is a lying, communist monster because he was sexually molested as a child…by Frank Marshall Davis.

Right-wing conspiracy theorists regularly claim that Davis, a labor rights activist, indoctrinated Obama as part of a Manchurian Candidate scheme, or is even Obama’s real father.

In the column, Massie chides Obama’s parents for being “the most dysfunctional, hate-filled, delusional, ersatz couple for parents a child could have short of being an offspring of a parentage between Idi Amin and Emma Goldman.” He then argues that the president’s grandparents are responsible for the supposed sexual abuse: “His grandparents forced him into a mentorship with Frank Marshall Davis who was a rabid communist and pedophile, and although it hasn’t been proven, if as I and others suspect, that led to young Obama being sexually molested.”

Massie admits he has absolutely no evidence to prove Davis molested Obama, but this is WorldNetDaily after all.

According to Massie, Obama’s parents and grandparents helped turn him into “a hardcore neo-Leninist, a hybrid communist.” But at the same time he hates them because they let him be molested. Yet he is still pursuing their communist goals. It’s complicated.

“He knows that he is the equivalent of an empty suit who found he could prostitute his skin color for free rides,” Massie writes. “But like most of his kind, when they find themselves in positions of prominence they realize they are frauds and the secret haunts them.”

I’m going to ask what seems like a rhetorical question, but it is a legitimate question that deserves to be examined in encouraging articles of impeachment for Obama.

The question is: “Exactly what kind of person is Obama?” At first blush, the simple answer would be that he is the worst kind of human being – the kind who is willing to lie and betray without remorse as long as his lies and betrayal get him what he wants. He is a shell of a human being, consumed by the hauntings of his socio-inadequate childhood and the most dysfunctional, hate-filled, delusional, ersatz couple for parents a child could have short of being an offspring of a parentage between Idi Amin and Emma Goldman.

In my syndicated opinion piece “Darth Democrat” (Nov. 16, 2004), I wrote, “Obama embraces the darkest interests of the uber-liberal socialist.” Specific to that point is the question of why Obama came into office committed to the idea that “his” government should take over one-sixth of the national economy in the form of Obamacare. Where did the idea come from, and why was it such a fixation for him?

Once again, the simple answer would be that government-controlled health care is a hallmark of socialism. While there is a galaxy of empirical evidence that Obama is a hardcore neo-Leninist (i.e., a hybrid of Marx, Mao, Stalin and Lenin) who has since long ago shed his Fabianism, I believe there is still more.



I have written extensively in my “The Daily Rant” (TDR) blog that Obama suffers from emotional instability that makes him a threat to our national security and drives him to attempt elevating his self-esteem.

He knows that he is the equivalent of an empty suit who found he could prostitute his skin color for free rides. But like most of his kind, when they find themselves in positions of prominence they realize they are frauds and the secret haunts them. Add the dysfunctional parentage and family setting he grew up within, and we understand that he lies as a means to make a damaged person puff himself up to be what he isn’t. Lying has become his first language because his true opinion of himself is one he cannot stomach.

His grandparents forced him into a mentorship with Frank Marshall Davis who was a rabid communist and pedophile, and although it hasn’t been proven, if as I and others suspect, that led to young Obama being sexually molested. The feelings of worthlessness that would understandably bring about combined with a sense of betrayal by his grandparents (who brought Davis into his life) and feelings of abandonment by his biological parents, which allowed for the betrayal by his grandparents, which led to more feelings of abandonment, anger, and worthlessness. This resulted in an unstable and volatile person unfit for office.

Pursuant to my “why” question per his entering office committed to socializing health care – he is a hardcore neo-Leninist, a hybrid communist. What else could we have expected?

Venker: 'Mad Men' Is A Thing Of The Past, And Women Only Have Themselves To Blame

Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schalfly’s niece and an anti-feminist crusader in her own right, joined the pickup geniuses from “The Art of Charm Podcast” last week to provide an introduction to anti-feminism for lovelorn men.

Venker lamented that feminism is “messing with people’s lives” by egging on women to get “degree upon degree upon degree” who “may be 30 before they’re getting out and even starting their career.”

Which prompted Venker’s interviewer to ask her about Mad Men: “That’s one of the reasons that show’s so fascinating, because guys are watching and saying ‘Was it ever really like this? And where along the lines did these things change? We, as men, definitely look at women way differently than our fathers looked at our mothers.”

Venker shared this nostalgia for a time when women faced limited career options and institutionalized sexism. Women are perceived in “a totally different way” now, Venker responded. “And it’s not a better way. It’s a worse way. And who did that? The men didn’t do that, the women did that, because they followed their leaders.”

Tea Party Nation Exposes 'The Gay Food Nazis' Once And For All

On Saturday, Tea Party Nation emailed readers a TPN blog post, “The Gay Food Nazis,” which argues that progressives are “hypocrites” for supporting portion control and gay rights. Timothy Birdnow, who blamed the Sandy Hook shooting on teachers and called for school to hire George Zimmerman, attacked Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon for his decision to recognize married same-sex couples for tax purposes.

“If controlling the kinds of food and portion sizes that children are allowed is a state-sanctioned function, than shouldn't controlling homosexual imagery and experience be likewise?” Birdnow asks, using an argument also floated by David Barton. “Shouldn’t we be trying to put homosexuality back into the closet to prevent children with genetic tendencies from suffering temptation?”

He writes that “two men or two women can no more be married than can a man and his goldfish,” warning that “the current ‘gay fad’” is part of “the advancement of socialism” and leads to “greater government control.”

Birdnow’s article is nothing new from TPN, which regularly pushes out virulently anti-gay commentaries.

This sort of dissembling is endemic of the "gay marriage" debate (which is itself a term rank with dishonesty; two men or two women can no more be married than can a man and his goldfish, the two being biologically incapable of reproducing in either case. The promotion of homosexual behavior by the Progressives in our society is now reaching a crescendo and the first casualty in this titanic struggle for the right to fornicate in an largely painful and unhygienic fashion and receive societal approval has been the truth.



So Jay Nixon has attempted to backdoor gay marriage (no pun intended) in the State of Missouri.



Homosexuality is but one leg in the dream world of the Left, a world where breeding is not considered a right but a very special privilege. The Left seeks to divorce sex from reproduction, to make sex a simple physical act, a feeding of a hunger. That is why Sandra Fluke can demand free contraception without batting an eye; sex has little to do with creating families or binding yourself permanently to one person, the person who will ultimately help you raise your children. Homosexuality is the ultimate rebellion against this "Bourgeois morality". The Progressives have a powerful incentive to promote being gay.



The Left, seeking a "new man", one freed from the restraints imposed by Christian morality and Nature's God, have risen in rebellion against the entire order of society, against Natural Law, against Divine Revelation. Sex is the bayonet of that revolution.

That last is important because what the current "gay fad" is intended to do is to break this passing along of received wisdom from our forbearers. The Left wants to make a "New Man" and to do that the chain of "contagion" of old ideas and beliefs must be broken. Children must be raised by the State or at least have the State be the primary influence over their intellectual and moral development. Common Core is one of the tools now being implemented to accomplish this, and that is being promoted in both the public schools (the original source for Leftist indoctrination) and the private ones as well.



Strange how aggressive this government - led by committed leftists - is toward dietary problems while at the same time promoting homosexuality. And they HAVE promoted it; they have regularized it in the military, have refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, etc.

If there is a societal interest in reducing obesity, is there not an equal societal interest in reducing homosexuality?



If controlling the kinds of food and portion sizes that children are allowed is a state-sanctioned function, than shouldn't controlling homosexual imagery and experience be likewise? Shouldn't we be trying to put homosexuality back into the closet to prevent children with genetic tendencies from suffering temptation? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The difference in approach is astonishing.



So both obesity and homosexuality may have a biological component and both are bad for the public health. So why are we treating these two behavioral issues differently? If society must discourage obesity, should it not equally discourage homosexuality?

That is the opposite of what is happening. We are celebrating being gay while condemning being overweight. The left's hypocrisy is astonishing.

But that is because the two both serve real purposes to the advancement of socialism. In the case of food the prevention of obesity allows government to grow obese itself, to metastasize as it tells the individual and the family what they can or cannot eat while there would be no similar benefit from the prohibition of homosexuality. The promotion of homosexuality offers many benefits that the Left finds attractive. It damages the family, opening the door to greater government control. It promotes a platform to assault traditional values and particularly Christianity. It creates a solid voting block that favors Democrats.

Rios: CAIR Is 'Joined At The Hip With Al Qaeda And The Terrorists'

Last week, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) joined the McCarthyite group Citizens For National Security (CFNS) at a forum highlighting the supposed security threat posed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its “seditious and subversive” activities. The day after the briefing, anti-Muslim activist Deborah Weiss spoke to Sandy Rios of the American Family Association to promote a CFNS’s new report on CAIR.

Rios kicked off the interview by accusing CAIR — which she mistakenly called the Council for American Immigration Relations — of working with Al Qaeda and advocating terrorism. Later, Weiss warned that CAIR will “Islamize the whole country.”

Rios: There aren’t just hidden cells in the United States, there are open, out, proponents of terrorism who couch themselves as some sort of a civil rights group. One of the leading groups in this country that’s joined at the hip with Al Qaeda and the terrorists is the Council for American Immigration Relations.



Weiss: Their main goals are to shut people up for a myriad of reasons. One of which is it’s against their religion to ‘defame’ Islam but the second reason is if you shut people up then they don’t really know what’s going on in the world on terror and there other goal is to Islamize the workplace and indeed to Islamize the whole country.

Rios: So it is all about propaganda for the terrorist cause and for turning America into a Muslim state. Of course they don’t state that but that is exactly what they are doing.

Ironically, Weiss spent the interview attacking CAIR for criticizing TV shows and boycotting businesses…something the AFA does on a regular basis.

WorldNetDaily also ran a flattering report on the CFNS press conference this weekend. According to the report, Wolf seemed to suggest that CAIR may have ties to the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab, while CFNS co-founder Peter Leitner warned of CAIR “psy-ops.”

CAIR is the operational part of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. As such, and as part of Hamas, they’re the domestic side of an international terrorist group. What they’re doing is psychological operations,” Leitner said. “Their mission to do misinformation and psy-ops is for the purpose of supporting jihadist movements in the United States and Canada,” Leitner said. … Leitner said CAIR’s “masquerade is to divert attention from the Islamic threat in the U. S. by oversensitizing law enforcement and intelligence officials.”

“To make that happen, they’ve infiltrated their agents into the various national security agencies,” Leitner said.



“Their greatest work is to create a grand illusion of a peaceful religion to distract attention from what their real plan is,” Leitner said.

He also says the lawfare tactics ares [sic] fundraising mechanism.



Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a frequent advocate for persecuted Christians, affirmed that his committee research shows that CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated terrorist organizations pose a real security threat.

“The threat is real and I serve on the committee that has jurisdiction of the FBI. We’ve put language in a bill that will completely prevent the FBI from involving themselves with CAIR,” Wolf said.

“An example of the depth of the threat comes from the Somali al-Qaida-affiliate al-Shabaab. Imams recruit for al-Shabaab from Somali groups in Minneapolis. Not only that, they’re telling Somalis not to cooperate with federal authorities who are investigating the Somali mosques,” Wolf said.

The FBI has become more cautious in its dealings with CAIR, he said, as has his committee. “I know we’ve been very careful interacting with any group that is involved with CAIR,” Wolf said. “I refused to go to any group that has connections to CAIR.”

Krikorian: Pro-Immigration Republicans Should Vote Against Reform To Spite Obama

At least Mark Krikorian knows his audience. In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, the Center for Immigration Studies director urged House Republicans who support immigration reform to oppose the Senate’s bipartisan immigration plan simply in order to deny President Obama a “victory.”

“The only thing he has left now that would salvage the wreckage of his administration is an amnesty,” Krikorian told WND. “And why any Republican, even if they agreed with him, would save President Obama’s political fortunes is beyond me.”

Klayman's 'Peaceful' Revolution Comes With Hints Of Violence

At last week’s Reclaim America Now rally, a placard next to the speaker’s podium featured a Thomas Jefferson quote that many speakers cited: "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." But there is apparently no evidence that Jefferson ever said this: the website of Monticello, Jefferson’s home, lists it among “spurious” quotations attributed to him.

Larry Klayman repeatedly described the Second American Revolution he is launching in nonviolent terms. He says massive peaceful civil disobedience will lead to the downfall of the current government and patriots from across the country will convene in Philadelphia to convene a new one. In recent weeks, though, Klayman has repeatedly warned that if the nonviolent approach doesn’t work, the people and the military will rise up and resort to “another recourse.” He has said that “violent revolution…looms on the horizon, if we cannot find a way to peacefully settle the score with the political establishment…”

A similar theme was heard at last week’s rally from speaker Manny Vega, who was identified as a retired marine and a Three Percenter. Three Percenters take their name from their belief that during the American Revolution only three percent of colonists took up arms against the British. The Anti-Defamation League reported a few years ago that Three Percenters, like the Oath Keepers, “promote the idea that the federal government is plotting to take away the rights of American citizens and must be resisted. The two groups are apparently trying to make inroads in the U.S. military.”

Vega, who said he served multiple tours in Iraq, said he thinks war is “abhorrent” and he wants peace to prevail. But he also said the Virginia Three Percenters are “planning and getting ready to mobilize if anything comes down.”

“But I’ll tell you what. There are a lot of men and women across this country who are willing to give it all, ok? Our forefathers, they fought for less. I am willing to fight today, ok? And, God, we don’t want violence, but if it should ever come to that, I can tell you what. I was willing to give my life in Iraq, over there, today I am more than willing to give my life over here, and I hope the president of the United States understands that. There are many more men and women like myself who are more than willing to give their lives here at home. Spread the word.”

JCN Cries Crocodile Tears For Senate Bipartisanship

After President Obama was elected, the right-wing Judicial Confirmation Network changed its name to the Judicial Crisis Network and altered its mission from “working to ensure a fair appointment process of highly qualified judges and justices” to blocking anyone Obama appoints to the bench.

The group’s name and mission statement aren’t the only things to have changed under a Democratic president. JCN’s chief counsel Carrie Severino appeared last week on Sandy Rios In The Morning to decry the Senate’s recent move to modify the filibuster to allow a simple majority to end debate on most nominees – a rules change that the JCN once said it supported “regardless of what party’s in power.”

“The 60 vote majority is there because we need to have both parties working together,” Severino said. “You don’t want to do things by a bare majority vote all the time, and it is actually a benefit to get something that has a larger consensus. I don’t know if Thomas Jefferson initiated it but I wouldn’t be surprised because those kinds of consensuses things that our founders thought were important.”

But during the Bush era Severino’s predecessor, Wendy Long, now a Republican politician, said in 2006 that finding a “consensus” over judicial nominees is “not the right thing to do”:

Seeking a 'consensus' candidate is not the right thing to do. It is not what the Constitution contemplates, in our system built on the consent of the governed. Majorities didn't elect George W. Bush and 55 Republican Senators to do that. For the President to choose a Justice on this basis would retroactively disenfranchise the voters in these elections. The people elected the President so that he would exercise his own judgment according to the criteria he stated in two elections. By definition, those will never be 'consensus' nominees. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were not 'consensus' nominees, nor should any Republican nominees be — particularly when Republicans control the Senate, for heaven's sake.

But the real issue with Severino’s claim is that Senate Republicans didn’t block Obama’s three picks for the DC Circuit Court because they weren’t “consensus” candidates. Rather, GOP leaders explicitly said they would oppose any person President Obama nominated to the court — a position that they took before even knowing who the nominees would be.

Plus, Republicans’ unprecedented obstructionism — cheered on by the JCN — makes it hard to believe that they were merely hoping for “both parties to work together” to find a “consensus” as Severino maintains.

Michael Peroutka, God, and Christian Reconstructionists At Larry Klayman's Revolution

At last week’s less-than-spectacular kickoff for the Second American Revolution, Larry Klayman announced that President Obama has until this coming Friday, November 29, to resign. If he doesn’t, Klayman and his friends will move forward with their plan to organize mass civil disobedience, force the resignation of President Obama and the Congress, and replace them with a government-in-waiting to be formed in Philadelphia in the coming weeks.

The idea was even too much for Alan Keyes, who decided not to show up at Klayman’s rally in Washington DC last week.  Klayman read the crowd a letter from Keyes explaining his decision, then dismissed Keyes’ argument that Americans should rely on grassroots political organizing rather than Egyptian-style mass demonstrations. Klayman said he no longer believes America can be fixed through elections, at least not until he’s “cleaned house.” Klayman complained bitterly that none of the Tea Party-affiliated members of Congress was willing to attend his revolution rally.

One speaker who did show up at Klayman’s rally was Michael Peroutka, the U.S. Constitution Party’s presidential nominee in 2004 (he got about 150,000 votes). According to the party’s platform, “The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.” Peroutka is also a southern secessionist and Christian Reconstructionist who sees the Republican Party and “Godless” conservative movement as part of the problem.

Just last month, Peroutka wrote, “Anyone, including those who identify with the ‘Tea Party’, who loves America and desires real reform, would do well to disengage themselves from the Republican Party and their brand of worthless, Godless, unprincipled conservatism.” And in challenging Rush Limbaugh’s rhetoric about Republicans having been “hoodwinked” by Democrats and the media during the government shutdown showdown, Peroutka wrote,

Isn’t it more likely that those who have been “hoodwinked” are those that put their trust in the Republican party and the Godless, conservative movement? Isn’t it beyond time to return to the true American View of law and government, acknowledging the Creator God as the Supreme Judge of the Universe and the written Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land?

At the rally, Peroutka praised Klayman as a “legal restorer,” saying “an order has been denigrated and lost and needs to be found and recovered and restored.” His rhetoric echoes Christian Reconstructionist godfather Rousas John Rushdoony, who said, “The only true order is founded on Biblical law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.” Klayman is a member of the secretive Council on National Policy, where he has had the chance to rub shoulders with people like Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips, who died earlier this year. In his introduction to Peroutka, Klayman praised Phillips as “a great American” and “one of the icons of the conservative movement.”

In addition to his association with the Constitution Party, Peroutka is the founder of the Institute on the Constitution, a Maryland-based group that spreads Christian Reconstructionist ideas about the law and Constitution through seminars presented around the country. Peroutka’s remarks at the rally echo the Institute’s message that the only law that matters is God’s law:

“There is a God. Our rights come from him. The purpose of civil government is to protect and defend God-given rights. This is the American view of law and government. It also happens to be the biblical view of law and government. America was founded upon the biblical view of law and government….”

According to this Christian Reconstructionist view, God has not granted government the authority to have any role, for example, in education or the alleviation of poverty; God gives that responsibility to churches and families. Religion scholar Julie Ingersoll describes Christian Reconstructionism this way:

For Reconstructionists, the civil government’s authority is limited to protecting citizens from criminals. Family and ecclesiastical authority are established to uphold (and enforce) other aspects of biblical law. That’s not to say that any of these institutions are understood as functioning autonomously; all are under the authority of God and are to function according to biblical law. But each is independent of the others.

The idea that the Bible puts strict limits on government’s “jurisdiction” is at the core of Christian Reconstructionist thinking, and is frequently embraced by more “mainstream” Religious Right leaders. Peroutka writes:

Since civil government is ordained by God in order to protect God-given rights, then the function of civil government is to obey God and to enforce God’s law – PERIOD.

It is not the role of civil government to house, feed, clothe, educate or give heath care to…ANYBODY! (Or to operate a Panda-cam at the National Zoo.)

On a website promoting the Institute on the Constitution’s course, Peroutka says, “As American culture has moved away from the acknowledgment of God’s authority, and the desire for his blessing, American government has untethered itself from God’s requirement that it stay within its limited jurisdiction.” He argues that “When God’s law is ignored, chaos ensues.” Peroutka recently told right-wing radio host Steve Deece that “so-called civil rights laws” are not law because “there is no such thing as a civil right.” And he denounced the proposed Employment Non Discrimination Act as “federalizing perversion.”

Echoing a theme heard frequently at Religious Right events, Peroutka told rally participants they share the blame for the country’s problems because they have allowed “usurpers” who don’t have allegiance to his view of law and government to “rule over us.” He said, “We need to repent of these ways, these things that we have done. Because we have broken the law by allowing this to occur. We are responsible. We need to repent before God.”

Last year, the Human Rights Campaign noticed that Peroutka, a Maryland-based lawyer, was one of the biggest donors to the anti-marriage-equality effort in the state, and slammed his association with The League of the South. Peroutka denied that he is a white supremacist, but called himself a “proud member” of the group; in fact he is a board member. He was a featured speaker at the group’s conference last June, which was entitled, “Southern Independence: Antidote to Tyranny.” The group defines its mission this way: “The League of the South is a Southern Nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is a free and independent Southern republic.”   Also:

We also encourage individuals and families to personally withdraw (secede) from the corrupt and corrupting influence of post-Christian culture in America. We call this "abjuring the realm," and it's a real and dramatic first step all of us can take by simply withdrawing our support of and allegiance to the corrupt government in Washington that through its greed, corruption and lack of Christian values has destroyed your children's and grand children's future.

Plenty of other speakers, including a couple of clergy, claimed God’s endorsement.  Even W. Cleon Skausen, the late far-right Mormon conspiracy theorist, was invoked. Sheriff Richard Mack demonstrated a “political prayer” that he said Skausen had taught 250 law enforcement officers at a training session – a series of hand motions to go along with a recitation of the preamble to the Constitution. Skausen, also a member of the Council on National Policy, was popularized by Glenn Beck’s promotion of his book The 5000 Year Leap as divinely inspired. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the book as “an illustrated recipe for turning the United States into 50 little theocracies.”

Klayman himself wasn’t shy about invoking God’s blessing on his revolution:

“Our strength comes from God. We take orders only from him. We don’t take orders from Hussein over there. We take orders from our God, not his. So consequently we are moving forward and we look for your support and your help.” He ended his remarks by saying, “and most important of all, we have God on our side.”

 

 

Klayman Rally Speaker: America Under God's Judgment, Must Repent

Among the speakers at Larry Klayman’s rally in Washington was Brooke McGowan, a Tea Party activist from North Carolina. She had also spoken at the “We the People” rally on Veteran’s Day. McGowan, who was introduced as a representative of the Tea Party News Network, devoted her remarks to the need for national repentance, declaring that “we are in dire trouble today in America. We are a nation under judgment.” Among the reasons McGowan cited were abortion, religious pluralism, and church-state separation:

“In this nation we have turned away from the God of the Bible, and we’ve told Him He’s simply not welcome here. We have welcomed pluralism, atheism, secular humanism, Wicca, and even Islam, but we’ve told the Holy God to stay away. Legally, we removed God from the public schools over 50 years ago, and then 40 years ago through a court of nine justices, though not unanimous, we determined that His very image, precious life in the womb, could now be legally torn apart, killed, and discarded. Legalized murder began our rapid moral downfall....Now, how can we expect as a nation to stay blessed or even prosper when we willingly stay under this curse?”

McGowan cited the theories of Jonathan Cahn, whose book The Harbinger and movie Isaiah 9:10 Judgment argue that America is experiencing the end-times wrath of God in ways that were foretold in the Old Testament. According to Cahn, the 9/11 attacks were a wake-up call from God, but America didn’t repent, so the 2008 financial crisis was sent our way, but still we as a nation have not repented. If we don’t repent now, we’re looking at a military takeover in 2015.

McGowan pushed right-wing “war on Christianity” themes and a couple of false myths meant to prove it. “Today there is a cold war on Christianity, a civil war,” McGowan said. “Will we repent? How far does it have to go before we give in to His call for repentance?”

“At Walter Reed hospital down the road where our broken and mangled servicemen and women lie, you can’t even speak the name of Jesus or take in a Bible,” she said. “This is a disgrace!”

Actually, it’s a lie.

Klayman: God Will Help Us Overthrow Obama, Stop 'Degenerate' PFAW

After his White House rally of “millions” of Tea Party activists flopped, Larry Klayman took to WorldNetDaily on Friday to declare victory, likening the conservatives who “massed in front of the White House” to the founding fathers, Moses and Jesus Christ.

Klayman also blasted the “slanderous” coverage from “the self-anointed Rev. Al Sharpton and MSNBC, aided by the equally degenerate People for the American Way,” which he calls an “atheist socialist organization” that “dedicates itself to the destruction of the tea party and conservatives in general.”

Despite the “smears,” Klayman claims he has “the support of our Creator.”

Last Tuesday, the Reclaim America Now Coalition, true to our word, massed in front of the White House in Lafayette Park and delivered a Declaration of Independence demanding that President Barack Hussein Obama either address and remedy the grievances of the people or resign. We gave him until the day after this Thanksgiving to comply, as a host of activists and patriots made known their views that he had violated his oath of office and committed treason.

A video of all of the speeches at this “Day of Reckoning” kicking off the Second American Revolution will soon be available on our website, YouTube and other media, including WND.

Immediately following our demonstration and declaration, predictably, the self-anointed Rev. Al Sharpton and MSNBC, aided by the equally degenerate People for the American Way – an atheist socialist organization which, through publications like its “Right Wing Watch,” dedicates itself to the destruction of the tea party and conservatives in general – broadcast a slanderous piece that tried to tie Sen. Ted Cruz and our Reclaim America Now Coalition and the tea party, branding us all racists, and otherwise defaming our intentions and character – and, for good measure, gleefully claiming that we are dragging down the Republican Party.

While we are nonpartisan and have criticized Republicans for their inaction and lack of resolve in truly taking on Obama on several occasions, including at this rally, Sharpton and his ultra-leftist cronies, like MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe, who appeared on the demagogue’s broadcast, used the occasion to try to destroy our reputations. They obviously fear the force of our message and planned nonviolent actions and want to kill the messenger.

However, Sharpton and Wolffe and People for the American Way are not unique. Such hateful groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center have attempted to smear fellow conservatives and people of faith, including me, many times in the past and undoubtedly will step it up in the future as the heat in the kitchen grows hotter for Obama to resign or be removed from office through legal means.



Neither yours truly nor other members of our ever-growing coalition will be deterred by these actions of the far left, no more than other revolutionaries in past U.S. history were. Indeed, our Founding Fathers – Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and others – were attacked similarly not just by King George III and his British crown, but by colonial Tories. And, while I do not equate myself to Jesus Christ or Moses, so too were these true revolutionaries, one of which is the Son of God and the other a messenger and agent. They were called every name in the book in unsuccessful attempts to destroy them, and I am not talking about the Bible.

We the People will not be deterred in our revolution to free the nation from the corrupt establishment class that has driven the country into the ground, of which Obama sits atop as the current president, no matter how we are smeared and threatened and no matter how the left and their allies in the media and elsewhere try to destroy us all.



So we must act alone, with the support of our Creator. As it declares in the Declaration of Independence, which we read to the crowd Tuesday, “A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of free people. … And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

It’s time for the people to rise up and to this end, the Reclaim America Now Coalition will announce soon the date that it will reconvene in Philadelphia to hold a Second Continental Congress and plot the future of the peaceful revolution. Stay tuned.

Texas School Board Adopts Accurate Biology Books, Rebuffing Last-Ditch Campaign By Creationists

This afternoon, the Texas State Board of Education gave its final approval to a set of biology textbooks that include scientifically sound teachings about evolution, rebuffing a campaign by creationists to include “biblical principles” in science texts. However, the board delayed its approval of one of the books until a board of experts reviews the complaints of anti-evolutionists.

The Texas Freedom Network, which has been fighting to keep science in the state’s science textbooks, called the vote a “huge win for science education” and noted that “throughout the adoption process, publishers refused to make concessions that would have compromised science instruction on evolution and climate change in their textbooks.” People For the American Way joined TFN earlier this year to deliver 300,000 petitions to the school board urging them to reject attempts to insert creationism into science texts.

Creationists on the school board, in a last-ditch attempt to delay the process, are still holding up one biology book. TFN reported yesterday:

The adoption of the Pearson textbook was held up because an anti-evolution activist appointed to serve as an official state reviewer alleged that it included nearly two dozen factual errors. Some of the alleged “errors” focused on relatively small and almost trivial details — such as whether scientists estimate the age of Earth as 4 billion or 4.2 billion years old. But most dealt with evolution or related concepts and essentially repeated many discredited claims anti-evolution activists have been pushing for decades.

One Republican school board member accused his anti-evolution colleagues of attempting to “hijack” the process by causing the last-minute delay, according to the AP:

Pearson and many other major publishers weren't willing to make suggested major edits and changes, however.

That prompted some of the board's socially conservative members to call for delaying approval of the book because of concerns including how long it took Earth to cool and objection to lessons about natural selection because "selection operates as a selective but not a creative force."

Members outside the socially conservative bloc claimed their colleagues waited until the dead of night to try to impose ideological edits.

"To ask me — a business degree major from Texas Tech University — to distinguish whether the Earth cooled 4 billion years ago or 4.2 billion years ago for purposes of approving a textbook at 10:15 on a Thursday night is laughable," said Thomas Ratliff, a Republican from Mount Pleasant.

He added: "I believe this process is being hijacked, this book is being held hostage to make political changes."

On Wednesday, an oil and gas industry representative objected to another science textbook’s treatment of the harms of fracking and carbon emissions; she gained some allies on the board, but the board ultimately approved the text.

Senators Use PFAW Chart to Show Unprecedented Nature of GOP Obstruction

In their press conference following yesterday’s vote to change the Senate rules on filibusters, Democratic senators used a chart provided by PFAW to outline the extremity and unprecedented nature of the GOP’s obstruction of President Obama’s nominees.

chart-schumer

chart-Reid

Photos by J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press via The Washington Post

PFAW

Paranoia-Rama: This Week In Right-Wing Lunacy - 11/22/13

RWW's Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

Next time you turn on “The Walking Dead,” be warned that it may actually be part of a government plot to condition Americans to accept mass killings. That is, if Obama doesn’t get away with his plan to nuke America first!

Check out what we learned from some of the “brightest” minds of the far-right this week:

5. Next Stop: Military Coup

Even though the National Review once demanded the Senate change its rules on the filibustering of judicial nominees, one columnist for the conservative journal, Charles W. Cooke, told Fox News host Gretchen Carlson yesterday that Obama is setting the stage to undermine the democratic system of government: “You could just ignore the House. You could have a military coup; you could have anything at the end of this.” And all this time we thought conservatives would be delighted at the thought of a military coup.

4. Gay People Behind Homophobic Violence

Pastor Scott Lively helped come up with Russia’s new law that stifles free speech perceived to be “homosexual propaganda,” and he relies on some incredible logic when trying to explain how the country’s crackdown on the gay community and the increase in gay hate crimes has nothing to do with its anti-gay laws.

See, according to Lively, the Nazis were all gay. Therefore, neo-Nazis in Russia who are beating up gay people must be gay, too! Lively didn’t offer any evidence to back up his claims that Russia is only experiencing “gay-on-gay crime.” “The guys that are beating up gays in Russia,” Lively insisted, “are butch homosexuals.”

3. Immigration Reform A Muslim Brotherhood Plot

It turns out the allegation that Obama has secret plan to bring 50-100 million Muslim immigrants was shockingly not true. Apparently, Obama actually wants to open the borders to 150 million Muslims. The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios even thinks that the whole push for immigration reform is being engineered by the Muslim Brotherhood “to bring in tons of illegal immigrant Muslims who don’t wish us any kind of good.”

2. Government Using Zombie Culture To Prepare For Mass Executions

Are TV shows like “The Walking Dead” helping the government prepare “the public for mass executions of people”? Conservative talk show host Rick Wiles is just asking the question! During an interview with a spokesman for the Zombie Response Team, Wiles wondered if the popularity of zombie culture is really just a big government plot to make people more comfortable for impending killings. “I’m trying to figure out: What are they up to? What are they preparing for?”

1. Obama Almost Nuked America

And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn’t for three meddling admirals. According to right-wing activists Erik Rush and Jim Garrow, Obama planned to kill 300 million people by setting off nuclear bombs across the US in order to help George Soros make more money.

While Obama’s dastardly plan was stopped in the nick of time by “three absolute heroes,” Garrow believes Obama will blackmail his way into an unconstitutional third term and maybe then he will nuke America for real.

Farah: Tiny Klayman Rally Was 'A Show Of Force By The American People' That Will Save The Country

Earlier this month, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah wrote that “millions of tea-party activists are just waiting, like me, for an invitation to come to Washington to show the world some Americans still care about the principles upon which the nation was founded.” He got his wish with Larry Klayman’s event where, Klayman said, “millions” would “occupy Washington D.C.” for a “Second American Revolution.” Farah even spoke at the rally.

Of course, the rally was a complete bust. Only around one hundred Tea Party activists showed up, far from the millions Klayman predicted would “occupy parks, sidewalks, public areas” until Obama resigned or was forced out of office.

But Farah was so inspired by the tiny rally that he believes it will launch a new anti-Obama movement, lamenting that the media refuses to cover the “growing undercurrent of rebellion.” In a column this week, he describes the gathering as an event where “hundreds rallied near the White House to make the case for what amounts to a second American revolution through a show of force by the American people.”

“There’s a growing recognition that America is nearing the point of no return,” Farah writes.

Nobody is yet daring to address it in what is euphemistically called “the mainstream media,” but there’s a strong and growing undercurrent of rebellion among some of the most accomplished retired military brass in the nation.

Yesterday, retired Maj. General Paul E. Vallely made his most passionate and forceful case for the “forced resignations” of Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the top leadership in Congress from both parties for policies he says are “destroying America.”

He’s calling for massive demonstrations in the streets like the kind that brought down the government of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt.

“We are in a war for America,” he told WND.

He’s right.

And he’s not alone in making such dire observations.

Of particular concern to the generals – including Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, and Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – is what appears to be a purge of the top officer class in the U.S. military characterized by some as part of an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.



Yesterday, for the first time, hundreds rallied near the White House to make the case for what amounts to a second American revolution through a show of force by the American people.

Among the speakers at that rally was former Rep. Bob Barr who holds a unique role in American history. He was the very first member of Congress to call for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It came at a time when the idea of impeachment was considered preposterous by the ruling class and the media. Yet, it came to pass within a relatively short period of time. Today, dozens of members of Congress are already on the record as supporting the impeachment of Barack Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Those crimes have been well chronicled in the book “Impeachable Offenses” by New York Times best-selling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott, published earlier this year.

There’s a growing recognition that America is nearing the point of no return – a historic moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point.

It’s all part of a conscious betrayal of the principles upon which America was founded. The only thing that can stop it is a massive outpouring of strength and force by the remnant of Americans who will dare, as America’s founders did, to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to preserve and restore liberty, morality and common sense no matter the cost.

It’s time to decide whether you will sit back and watch the American Dream pass quietly into the night or if you will stand up boldly and courageously in response to the clarion calls for an uprising.



It’s time. The hour is late. Get mobilized. Be ready.

America may not get another chance.

Derbyshire: 12 Years A Slave Is 'Abolitionist Porn'

No, former National Review columnist John Derbyshire hasn’t seen 12 Years a Slave, but he knows it is a bad movie because it is unfair to the poor, persecuted and maligned slave-owners of the antebellum South. In his latest racist column, Derbyshire calls 12 Years a Slave Abolitionist Porn” and chides the film for not including what he sees as the happier instances of slavery, such as one slaveholder who only doled out beatings “once in a while.”

“Plainly there was more to American race slavery that white masters brutalizing resentful Negroes,” Derbyshire writes. “Slavery is more irksome to some than to others; and freedom can be irksome, too.”

Derbyshire compares slavery in the US to the communist system in China, saying that “while there was much grumbling, and some scattered seething rebelliousness, most Chinese got along with the system. A lot of people were very happy with it.”

“In the matter of slavery, though, I already feel sure that the shallow good North, bad South simplicities of Abolitionist Porn and popular perception bear little relation to the thorny tangles of reality,” he concludes.

It seems I’ve picked up an interest in the Civil War just as America is undergoing a revival of Abolitionist Porn. That, at any rate, is what I take this much-talked-of new movie 12 Years a Slave to be.

No, I haven’t seen the thing, but I’ve read reviews. Also I’ve seen (and reviewed) a specimen of the allied genre: Civil Rights Porn.

And I’ve no doubt there was such a thing as Abolitionist Porn. It would have been surprising if there wasn’t. Whenever there’s a deep and long-standing difference between two sets of social principles, a genre of lurid tales will come up in one camp, denigrating the other.



The Slave Narratives are recorded reminiscences from ex-slaves, gathered by the Federal Writers’ Project in 1936-38. The speaker here was born “around 1852”:

Mars George fed an’ clo’esed well an’ was kin’ to his slaves, but once in a while one would git onruly an’ have to be punished. De worse I ever seen one whupped was a slave man dat had slipped off an’ hid out in de woods to git out of wuk. Dey chased him wid blood hounds, an’ when dey did fin’ him dey tied him to a tree, stroppin’ him ’round an’ ’round. Dey sho’ did gib him a lashin’.

[Mississippi Slave Narratives , Harriet Walker.]

As that extract illustrates, though, the Slave Narratives also remind us how remarkably often ex-slaves spoke well of their masters.

Plainly there was more to American race slavery that white masters brutalizing resentful Negroes. How much more, though? What was slavery actually like?



People are born, raised, educated, and find themselves in a certain kind of society to which those around them are all accustomed. American slave society was a way of life; a settled way that most people took for granted, as most people will anywhere.

There were aspects of life resembling slavery in the communist China where I lived, 1982-3. People had no liberty to find their own employment. You were “assigned” to a “unit.” If unhappy there, it was a devil of a job to get re-assigned.

Families broken up? One of my Chinese colleagues lived alone because his wife was “assigned” to a distant province. He only saw her once a year.

The guy drank a lot.

Yet while there was much grumbling, and some scattered seething rebelliousness, most Chinese got along with the system. A lot of people were very happy with it. You didn’t have to think much, or take much responsibility. And that suits many of us just fine.



Slavery is more irksome to some than to others; and freedom can be irksome, too. Personally, I’d be a terrible slave—too ornery. I know people, though—and I’m talking about white people—who I quietly suspect would be happy in slavery.



In the matter of slavery, though, I already feel sure that the shallow good North, bad South simplicities of Abolitionist Porn and popular perception bear little relation to the thorny tangles of reality.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious