C4

Gun Owners of America Opposes Immigration Reform to Prevent Increase in 'Anti-Gun Voters'

Gun Owners of America may soon join fellow conservatives in opposing comprehensive immigration reform, warning that a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would lead to an increase in “anti-gun voters.”

Not only does the group oppose comprehensive legislation for clear partisan reasons, GOA spokesman Mike Hammond told the American Family Association’s news service the group may also work to defeat such bills if they include biometric identification or background checks for jobs.

Pro-gun group branching out

Meanwhile, a pro-gun organization is strongly considering getting into the immigration enforcement battle, believing that amnesty for illegal immigrants would likely mean millions more “anti-gun voters.”

Gun advocacy groups are breathing a collective sigh of relief after last week the Senate rejected several key measures that would have trampled on Second Amendment rights. Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, tells American Family News his organization might jump into the immigration debate.

"This is a debate in which presumably we're going to have about seven million new anti-gun voters put on the rolls,” he explains. “It is an issue which fundamentally is going to affect whether gun control is inevitable 15 years from now."

According to Hammond, GOA dislikes even the supposed “good” parts of the immigration reform package.

"We don't like the notion that every American would have to get a biometric ID card. We don't like the fact that every American would have to get a Brady check for jobs before he could get employed in America,” he states.

“So we not only don't like the bad things about the immigration bill, we don't like the good things about the immigration bill,” Hammond summarizes.

GOA has already put out an alert saying it is uncomfortable with amnesty.

NRA's David Keene Claims Obama Is Scared of America

NRA president David Keene appeared on The Mike Huckabee Show today where he told guest host J.D. Hayworth, a former congressman from Arizona, that President Obama is scared of America.

Keene claimed that Obama and his advisers don’t understand the gun debate because they live inside “the confines of urban Chicago or Cambridge, Massachusetts or Washington D.C.,” which Keene astonishingly seems to think are areas unaffected by gun violence.

He also blasted Obama for a comment about how he understands the appeal of gun ownerships in places like rural Iowa where law enforcement officers could be miles away, which Keene said is further proof that “he just doesn’t get it.”

Keene, whose group opposed background check legislation backed by a huge majority of Americans, including most gun owners and voters in “red states,” argued that Obama is out of step with the country and claimed that “frankly the rest of the country scares him.”

Keene: The amazing thing to me about this administration is just how parochial it is. These are people — remember when Barack Obama recently went to Iowa and he looked around and he said ‘well gosh I can understand why if my wife lived out here she might want a gun,’ what’s that about? You know, in other words, he just doesn’t get it. If you are outside the confines of urban Chicago or Cambridge, Massachusetts or Washington D.C., he and most of his advisers have no concept of what the rest of the country is like and frankly the rest of the country scares him.

Keyes Claims Obama Crying 'Crocodile Tears' over Boston Bombing, Jokes About Deporting First Family

Former ambassador and perennial presidential candidate Alan Keyes has recently taken a liking to the “Talk to Solomon Show,” a fringe radio program hosted by Stan Solomon and his sidekick “Chief” Steve Davis. Keyes, who frequently appears on the show to warn about the various ways in which progressives are destroying America, was back on Tuesday to discuss the Boston Marathon bombing

Keyes told Solomon and Davis that he found it “hard to believe” that President Obama, because he supports abortion rights, “was crying anything but crocodile tears” about the deaths in Boston. He also made the bogus claim that Obama has supported infanticide:

Later in the program, the three turned the subject to immigration reform. Davis alleged that undocumented immigrants are “jumping the border” and “mocking the guards, saying ‘Obama’s going to let us go and give us goods.’” Solomon then suggested that the U.S. accept the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country and deport the president and first lady instead, to which Keyes responded, “Unfortunately, Stan, the way these folks have been observing the law when it comes to immigration, they’d let Michelle and Barack Obama slip back into the country.” Solomon replied with a “joke” about the first lady’s body, a racist meme popular among right-wing commentators: 

Pratt: Liberals Happy About Boston Bombing Because It Will Foster More Government Control

Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt spoke with Stan Solomon about the Boston marathon bombing, and they both agreed that the left is actually pleased with the attack because it might result in increased government control.

After co-host ‘Chief’ Steve Davis said that the left doesn’t want anyone who doesn’t work for the government to have guns and “they don’t care how many of us get killed, blown up, assaulted, murdered or whatever as long as they can control us by taking away our guns,” Solomon maintained that liberals are even okay with other liberals getting murdered: “It’s not just how many conservatives or Republicans [die] because these people that were killed and maimed and devastated and traumatized were overwhelmingly their people, they don’t care, they are like the Chinese who don’t care if they have a million casualties because they got a billion backups.”

Naturally, Pratt agreed and likened liberals to terrorists.

“That’s exactly right,” Pratt said, “this is mission oriented, they don’t care who the victims are, if anything it might be to their liking because maybe they’re thinking that will make the liberals all the more prone to want more control, which plays right into the hands of terrorists and criminals, but then I repeat myself.”

In earlier interviews, Pratt and Solomon warned that President Obama is bent on launching a race war that will target upper-class white heterosexual Christians.

Watch:

 

Movieguide Wonders If Disney's 'Sofia the First' Is 'Undermining Family Values'

David Outten of the Religious Right media group Movieguide is worried that a new Disney television show may be undermining the traditional family. Outten warns in “Is Disney’s New Princess Undermining Family Values?” that the Disney show Sofia the First, which is about a girl who enters a princess-training academy after her mom, a commoner, marries a King, may be promoting the “modern family” at the expense of “the long-term well-being of children.”

Sofia the First, Disney’s new preschool princess on television, doesn’t need a prince. She’s the daughter of a poor single mother who marries King Roland. This daughter of a shoe cobbler must learn what it is to be a princess. She’s aided by visits from famous Disney movie princesses.



Where will Sofia go? Where will she lead 2- to 5-year-olds?

Clearly, the creators see a role for the media in shaping the social and moral values of 2- to 5-year-olds. It’s fine to promote honesty, grace and civility, but any message that undermines the traditional family is harmful. Children raised by their natural parents are far less likely to live in poverty, quit school, use drugs, commit crimes or spend time in prison. If Disney actually cares about the long-term well-being of children, it would promote the traditional family rather than the “modern family.”

It would even be of benefit to Disney to do so. Children raised by their natural parents have far more disposable income to spend on Disney tickets, theme parks and merchandise than do children raised by single mothers. Few single mothers marry a king who can turn their daughters into princesses. More often the daughter of a single mother becomes a single mother herself. The havoc wreaked on children is immense. The economic impact is severe.



The name Disney has traditionally been associated with family entertainment. Disney’s future is strengthened when the family is strengthened. It’s damaged when the family is undermined.

Tremendous research goes into the production of a program like Sofia the First. Disney would be wise to do tremendous research on the cause of poverty and the cause of high disposable income. They may learn that a princess who has both a mother and a father to take care of them and guide them, and a princess who marries a prince, is more likely to escape poverty and become a better Disney customer.

Os Hillman: Lowering the Divorce Rate Will Lead to a 'Reduction in the Gay Population'

Writing in the Christian Post, Os Hillman argues that people are gay because they grew up in troubled households and the best way to “see a reduction in the gay population” is “to heal marriages.” “Healthy marriages produce healthy children with healthy identities,” Hillman writes, “Divorce is the entry point of dysfunctional and wounded lives that often lead to aberrant behaviors in human beings” like homosexuality.

Hillman, the dominionist behind Reclaiming the Seven Mountains, claims that gay people need to be freed from “bondage” and know that “God didn't create Adam and Joe.” If the gay rights movement succeeds, Hillman warns, then we may “end up like the Roman Empire and disintegrate from within.”

In the last 50 years the Christian evangelical church has allowed the value of covenant in marriage to be exchanged for contract in marriage. We no longer honor the marital covenant and we make it easy for marriages to break up and reproduce the same pain through remarriage, which also violates scripture. There is no longer shame for divorce or remarriage in the church. The problem has become epidemic and so divorce has become a manufacturing mechanism for dysfunction in society. Consequently the church has lost its moral authority to speak on this issue of gay marriage. Also, the failure of the Catholic Church regarding sexual abuse contributes to the failed authority within the Catholic Church.

We have compounded this by the church making homosexuality as the unpardonable sin by judging and condemning those in this lifestyle. A friend of mine who was delivered from the gay lifestyle said to me one time, "If there was a divorce rate of less than 5%, you would not be talking about gay issues." It would be a non-issue. That's because healthy marriages produce healthy children with healthy identities.



Wounds can happen so early that a person can believe they were born that way. One thing is for sure, God never made a person gay. That would violate what the Bible teaches.

There's only one way to deal with the root problem; that is to heal marriages and return to covenant commitments in marriage learn to love those who are caught in a web of bondage. Only then will we see a reduction in the gay population.



Divorce is the entry point of dysfunctional and wounded lives that often lead to aberrant behaviors in human beings in each new generation. Unless there is a stop-gap somewhere in the cycle, more and more expressions of aberrant behavior will be the result until we end up like the Roman Empire and disintegrate from within.



In 2011, pop artist Lady Gaga received three American Music Awards from three nominations for her smash hit "Born This Way". Millions of young people and adults under 40 heard the gay propaganda over the airwaves compliments of Lady Gaga.

CNN weekend anchor, Don Lemmon revealed in 2012 he was gay during an interview. During one of his interviews with someone else on a CNN broadcast he subtly commented to the interviewer that he knew he was born gay. Because of the power of media viewers often take what is said as truth. Our young people have especially bought this lie. Yet there is no scientific data that proves a person is genetically pre-disposed to be gay. This deception is played out regularly in the media with few willing to state the truth for fear of backlash from the gay community.

Most of us hear the rationale of gay activists that they are born gay rather than their sexual preference being an influence of how they were raised and the exposure to societal factors and childhood wounds that predisposed them to this lifestyle. After the Ball authors Kirk and Madsen made an amazing admission in their book: "We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence." Here you have an amazing admission by gay leaders that "We are not born gay." But we want you to believe we were. What is their ultimate goal?

It isn't just to get acceptance. It is far more than that. David Kupelian explains: "The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality. In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law. This is already the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia."

Let's face it; God didn't create Adam and Joe. He created Adam and Eve.

However, being right about an issue has very little redemptive value in helping a gay person who we know is in bondage but may be unwilling to admit it.

Klayman: Muslims Likely Behind Texas Fertilizer Explosion

Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman is upset that the government and the media don’t believe that the fertilizer plant explosion outside of Waco, Texas was a result of “Muslim terror.”

After arguing that President Obama is to blame for the Boston marathon bombing since “Obama has set the tone and led the way in giving this green light to his fellow Muslims bent on terror,” Klayman writes that Islamic terrorists were likely to blame for the explosion in Texas…along with the Oklahoma City bombing, which he believes was committed by Saddam Hussein and not Timothy McVeigh.

Klayman even blasted the media for not looking into whether there is an “Islamic connection” to the ricin letters case.

At first, Obama administration officials, as has become the norm, refused to implicate a possible Muslim terrorist plot, Obama himself describing the attack as a mere "tragedy." Indeed, given the latent and actual claims of persecution of Muslims in this country by Obama and his allies, like the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), even conservative channels like Fox News shied away from using the "M" word until it was crystal clear who had perpetrated the bombing. For example, Bret Baier of Fox News almost choked Friday morning when he broadcast the names and backgrounds of the bombers and sheepishly revealed their Muslim roots. This politically correct sensitivity, orchestrated and furthered by Obama and his minions, has contributed to the rise of Muslim extremism in our country. Terrorists like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to avoid even the appearance of prejudice against Muslims, are even given scholarships to prestigious schools and entrees into other venues of American society, which they can use as cover for their plots. In short, Obama has set the tone and led the way in giving this green light to his fellow Muslims bent on terror.

Nor was there hardly any mention on any station or other press entity of even the possibility that Muslim terror was involved in the huge explosion that occurred in West, Texas, where a fertilizer plant blew up Wednesday, just days after the Boston Marathon bombing. Typically, here is how the New York Times described the explosion:

"The blast was so powerful that the United States Geological Survey registered it as a 2.1 magnitude earthquake. It reduced an apartment complex to a charred skeleton, leveled homes in a five-block radius and burned with such intensity that railroad tracks were fused. It killed up to 15 people and injured up to 180. Volunteer firefighters were missing. Residents of a nursing home were pulled from debris and rushed to hospitals. ...

"By Thursday evening, one day after a fertilizer plant here caught fire and then exploded, no one among the hundreds of local state and federal officials and first responders who converged on this town north of Waco was certain about the cause. They only knew its effect." ["Blast at Plant Tears at Heart Of Texas Town" by Manny Fernandez and John Schwartz]

This intentionally "clueless" rendition of the likely cause of the blast continues to this day, despite the hard fact that fertilizer bombs are commonly used in the Middle East, were employed in the massive Oklahoma City federal building explosion – for which there was evidence that former Iraqi Sunni Muslim dictator Saddam Hussein played a role (I brought a lawsuit against Saddam Hussein and Iraq for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing) – and that the blast occurred in West, Texas, the former home of none other than former President George W. Bush. What symmetry and deadly timing with the Boston Marathon bombing – yet hardly a mention in the mainstream media of even the possibility of Muslim terrorism. And, of course, Obama and his comrades – including the FBI – refuse to even acknowledge the possibility (or likelihood) that the two events are somehow tied to Muslim terrorism.

And, while a ricin attack of this past week on a U.S. senator and, ironically, Obama himself apparently proved to be from a non-Muslim source, the irony again is that even the possibility of an Islamic connection was hardly mentioned by either the government or our mainstream media. This is despite the apparent similarity in timing and method to the Sept. 11, 2001, anthrax terror attack, which to this day have never been "solved."



Neville Chamberlain of pre-World War II days would have been proud of Obama and his pro-Muslim minions in the administration. Their actions and non-actions have furthered a march to terror by Muslims similar to what Chamberlain "accomplished" with the Nazis in the years leading up to that great war. Thanks to our "Muslim President," Muslim terrorism in this country is again on the rise, and it threatens the very survival of our nation.

FRC Blames 'Sexual Liberalism' and 'Family Breakdown' for Mass Murders

The Family Research Council is joining many of its fellow right-wing groups in celebrating Wednesday’s Senate filibuster of a bill that would have expanded background checks on gun sales. In an email to supporters yesterday, the group claims that gun violence prevention legislation isn’t needed because it wouldn’t have stopped the Boston marathon bombing. What is to blame for recent mass murders, the group claims, is “the government’s own hostility to the institution of the family” compounded by Congress’ supposed encouragement of  “abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility.”

In the aftermath of horrible tragedies like Newtown, the government desperately wants to do something--even if that something is the wrong thing. There seems to be this notion, at least among liberals, that more laws will protect us--but as we all witnessed in Boston, that isn't necessarily the case. The government can't make us safer until it recognizes that the problem isn't the instruments of violence--but the environment of it. Stronger background checks wouldn't have prevented the deaths of three people at the finish line on Monday, any more than it would have stopped Floyd Corkins from walking into our lobby and shooting Leo Johnson.

If Congress wants to stop these tragedies, then it has to address the government's own hostility to the institution of the family and organizations that can address the real problem: the human heart. As I've said before, America doesn't need gun control, it needs self-control. And a Congress that actively discourages it--through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility--is only compounding the problem.

PFAW Joins Over 80 Ally Organizations in Calling for Support of Student Non-Discrimination Act

Today People For the American Way joined with more than eighty other national and state organizations in sending a letter to all members of Congress asking for support of the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA).  SNDA, which was reintroduced in the House today by Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), would prohibit discrimination and harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools. 

As the letter notes, the need for this type of legislation is profound:

“A 2011 study of more than 8,500 LGBT middle and high school students across the US found that eight out of ten reported experiencing harassment at their school within the past year based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, and three-fifths said they felt unsafe at school because of who they are. Nearly three in ten skipped at least one day of school within the previous month because of concerns for their safety. Most tragically, LGBT youth face significantly increased risks for suicide related to mental health issues that often arise from poor treatment and discrimination in schools.”

Today a Florida eighth grader named Bayli put a face on these alarming numbers, telling the Huffington Post that her friends regularly face bullying because of their sexual orientation:

“Watching it tear apart my friends is what scared me the most. It's not right, I don't like it, and I don't [like seeing] my friends going through it.”

PFAW has long spoken out on the pervasive problem of bullying, including tracking the work of right wing anti-anti-bullying activists.  With the majority of LGBT young people reporting that they do not feel safe in their own schools, the need for action only continues to grow.  Discrimination and harassment of LGBT youth has no place in our nation’s classrooms. 
 

PFAW

Act! For America Pushes Two Debunked Boston Marathon Stories

There is a rumor taking off on the right, which has been embraced by the likes of Glenn Beck and Pamela Geller, that the Saudi student questioned over the Boston marathon attack is being deported. The rumor is, unsurprisingly, “one hundred percent false.”

But even though multiple news outlets, including the conservative Daily Caller, have debunked the story, the anti-Muslim group ACT! For America has decided to go ahead and run with it. The group sent out an email at 4:47 this afternoon repeating the rumor and warning that “something fishy is going on.”

The email also cites a debunked New York Post story (which has even been recanted by the Post) that identified two men who were supposedly potential suspects.

Act! For America had plenty of time to go keep up with this new information and hold back on sending their members an email about the two now-discredited stories. But accuracy has never been their strong point.

Staver Warns of Back-Alley Ex-Gay Therapy; Huckabee Wonders About Gay People Deciding To Be Straight

Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver has been spearheading efforts to strike down a California law barring ex-gay therapy for minors. Today, he chatted with Mike Huckabee about Liberty Counsel’s case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Staver warned that if the law stands, minors will be forced to turn to harmful, back-alley ex-gay therapy rather than to “licensed professionals.” Huckabee compared this to having an untrained person trying to set a broken leg.

Of course, Staver and Huckabee both support personhood laws that would criminalize abortion in all cases and dramatically increase cases of unsafe, back-alley abortions.

Staver: They make the premise that this counseling is harmful, it’s harmful if it’s engaged in, they say, by licensed professionals that have training and education. Well guess what? If this law passes and it goes into effect and the court doesn’t stop it, then if it’s harmful to have this by licensed professionals, what’s the next step? It’s even more harmful to have it done by people who are not licensed or trained, but that’s where it’s going.

Huckabee: It’s almost like saying that if you set a broken leg as a medical doctor and you don’t do it a certain way, you’re in trouble. Obviously, if you’re not even a medical doctor, I think you’d clearly be clearly under a greater level of trouble, that’s the point you’re making.

Later, Staver made the case that survivors of child abuse would not be able to receive counseling under the law and described the law as “dangerous.” Huckabee, meanwhile, wondered about the plight of a young gay man who “decided” to be heterosexual.

Staver: If this client comes in and the parents say he was molested by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky and abused, now after that several months later he started to have these acting out behaviors and he doesn’t like it, nor do we, can you help him? The counselor would have to say, ‘I can’t, you’re going to have to just accept that, that’s who you are, that’s natural and normal, I can’t give you counsel to ultimately help you eliminate those kinds of attempts that you want to act out, the kind of behavior that you were abused by.’ This is just an absurd situation; it is politically motivated.

Huckabee: I mean this really is the courts stepping in and telling the clinical practitioner the limits of his or her practice to a level that would seem unprecedented. Mat, let me pose a question, let’s say a young person comes in and says, ‘you know I’ve always believed I’m homosexual, believed that since I was seven-years-old, but now that I’m seventeen, I’ve decided that I’m not, I’m heterosexual’ and goes to a pro-homosexual counselor. Would that person be at risk? It looks like some of those folks would be nervous that they couldn’t say, ‘oh no, no you are homosexual all right because you thought that when you were seven and therefore you have to stay that way.’

Staver: The interesting thing the way the law is essentially written is if you are trying to give them counsel, even for somebody who say for example they say they’re bisexual, they’re attracted to both sexes, if you are trying to counsel them to primarily be heterosexual as opposed to homosexual that would be a clear violation. If you are trying to move them away, however, from heterosexuality to bisexuality, transexuality, asexuality, whatever sexuality you come up with, questioning, confused, then that is personally fine as long as you affirm them in that situation. But if you move them back towards heterosexuality, nope, that’s simply not permissible. You can see really where this law is coming from, this law is a political statement; it’s dangerous.

The Background Check Filibuster: "Who's Laughing Now?"

Senators who voted to filibuster a bipartisan gun sale background check bill are losing friends quickly. After all, 90 percent of voters and 90 percent of gun owners supported the measure...
PFAW

Erik Rush Wasn't Joking When He Said Kill Muslims

Fox News contributor Erik Rush complains in his latest column at World Net Daily that he was only joking when he said that Muslims are evil and should be killed. But he manages to prove otherwise by closing the column with a justification for killing Muslims:

For the record, I still maintain that Islam is, by its nature, wholly incompatible with Western society. I analogize liberalism, which is promoting this dhimmitude, to Stage 3 cancer in America’s body politic. For the record: While killing people is definitely undesirable, that is what war tends to be about.

And we are at war – just study the history of Islam, or ask any Islamist.

You’ll recall that Rush had the following Twitter exchange with Bill Schmalfeldt on Monday in the immediate aftermath of the bombing:

We reported on the exchange, and it was quickly picked up by other media outlets. Rush accuses us and others of “leaving out the fact that it was sarcasm.” Rush claims that Bill’s “irate” tweet prompted his “sarcastic response,” and that “kill them all” was merely echoing Muslims’ “favored disposition toward Americans.”

Rush deleted the tweet later that day and rolled out his sarcasm defense, which numerous outlets uncritically parroted. We didn’t buy it then, and we certainly don’t buy it after reading Rush’s latest column.

Rush has a long track record of paranoid and hate-filled rhetoric. The “just kidding” defense doesn’t work when you’ve previously called for armed revolution against President Obama, said that liberals and journalists should be jailed for treason and claimed that the Chinese government is building a military base inside the US with help from Obama.

It’s clear that Rush supports the sentiment behind his “sarcastic” tweet. The onus was on him to prove otherwise. Not only has he failed to do so, he’s doubled down with a justification for killing Muslims.

Until now, Rush has enjoyed a close relationship with Fox News, and Sean Hannity in particular. A transcript search reveals that he’s appeared on Fox nearly 20 times and has made additional appearances on Fox News Radio, as recently as last Friday. Hannity’s website even features a review for Rush’s book, with the catchy name of Negrophilia.

Despite this close relationship, representatives of Fox News scrambled behind the scenes this week to distance the channel from Rush. If they don’t want their precious brand to be tainted by him, they need to cut ties with him entirely. We have a petition calling on Fox to do so, which has already been signed by more than 50,000 people.

LaBarbera Finds It 'Reassuring' When Gays Are Affected By STIs and Violence

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality spoke to “Coach” Dave Daubenmire last week, telling Daubenmire that he finds it “reassuring” that the gay community is impacted by STIs and violence as it confirms to him that “God believes [homosexuality] is an abomination.”

“If it really is a detestable behavior as God says, you’d expect it to be linked disproportionately to disease, we see lots of gay-on-gay violence, domestic violence,” LaBarbera said. “There’s no logic to the liberal left, they are all about doing whatever the homosexual movement wants, it is like spoiled children but nobody wants to say no them.”

Listen:

UPDATE: Peter LaBarbera has posted an “explanation” of his remarks on his website.

Tea Party Nation Suggests Obama Is Behind Boston Attack Cover-Up

The Christian Post is out with two op-eds today on the Boston attack. Neither is exactly constructive.

The first comes from Tony Katz, who inexplicably claims that the shooters in Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and Tucson were “connected to the left”:

Facts don't matter to Progressives. The shooters in the Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook murders each were in some way connected to the left. But in aftermath of those shootings, the media machine worked overtime to make a connection between conservatives and the mass murders.

Once we know who set the bombs there will be time for commentary. In the meantime, Americans should be alert to pseudo-journalists interested not in truth but rather in a Clockwork Orange approach of forcing you to throw up when you hear the words Republican, right, freedom, rights, or guns - regardless of the truth.

Next, Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips, who has already blamed President Obama for the bombing, suggests that the Obama administration is working with Saudi Arabia to cover up the potential role of a Saudi student in the attack.

The hospitalized student has been cleared of any wrongdoing, as it seems his main offense was running away from the bomb.

But since Phillips is convinced that a Muslim must be responsible for the attack, he argues that Obama is in cahoots with Saudi officials to protect the student, whom Phillips finds suspicious because he is Muslim and suffered burns from the blast.

Now, three days after the bombing there are even more questions than answers. While there needs to be some secrecy during an investigation, there are some questions the Obama Regime must answer now.

Immediately after the blast, reports surfaced that a Saudi national was in the hospital. Various reports said he was detained, not free to leave or in custody. Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi is the Saudi national. His apartment was searched. The first reports said it was done with a search warrant. Now reports are coming out that the search was a consent search. Reports then came out saying Alharbi was only a witness and not a suspect or person of interest.

Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism is now reporting that next Tuesday, Alharbi will be deported for "national security reasons."

On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud Al Faisal in a meeting that had been scheduled for some time but was abruptly closed to the media for "scheduling reasons."

Yesterday, the same Saudi Foreign Minister met with Obama, even though the meeting was not on Obama's public schedule. The White House said, "The president and Prince Saud al-Faisal reaffirmed the strong partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia and discussed developments in the region, including the conflict in Syria." According to other sources, Alharbi is a devout Muslim and is a member of a Saudi Clan that has a lot of Al-Qaeda members.

This whole mess stinks to high heaven.



The first question that needs to be answered is why this guy was at the Boston Marathon. Did he suddenly develop an interest in long distance running? How was he injured? Press reports said he had burns as well as other injuries. Burns are significant because to be burned by the explosion would mean he would have to be very close to the explosion.

Press reports indicated that the FBI and other agencies executed a search warrant on Alharbi's apartment the night after the attack. If this was a search done by search warrant, this is very significant. A search warrant requires the showing of probable cause. An agent must go to a federal judge and swear under oath to the facts that establish probable cause. Narratives supporting probable cause in federal search warrants are not boilerplate language. They are lengthy and detailed.

If the search was a consent search, there will be a written consent form. In a search in a case of this magnitude, the FBI is not going to simply go on a verbal consent. The consent would be written. If Alharbi is not a suspect, then it is a simple matter to show the consent to the press.

Alharbi has suddenly gone from a person of interest, to a witness to no one at all. Then why is he being deported for national security reasons the day after Obama meets with the Saudi Foreign Minister in an unscheduled meeting and two days after the Minister has a meeting with John Kerry where the doors are abruptly closed?

Once Alharbi is deported, we will never see him again.

Why is the Regime in such a hurry to get him out of the country?

The Regime and far left have already tried to set the agenda. If they believed in God, they would be praying that the suspect, when caught would be a Tea Party member, whose car is covered with 2nd Amendment bumper stickers.

The Government even has an acronym for what they are searching for. It is an HVE standing for "Homegrown Violent Extremist."

The Obama Regime is desperate that the Boston Bomber be a rightwing extremist. They are in absolute fear that it turns out the bomber is a Muslim with ties to Al-Qaeda. And they are now doing their best to make sure the latter is not the case.

As with everything else with the Obama Regime, this stinks to high heaven. What really happened at those meetings? Why is there the rush to deport Alharbi? He could and should be kept in this country at least as a material witness.

If anyone is ever caught for this and there is an attempt to try him in Federal Court, the Regime is already setting the stage to make that trial almost impossible for the government to win.

This is the Obama Regime at work.

Barber: 'Homosexualization' of the Military Leading to 'Marxist' Persecution

The folks at Liberty Counsel are quite upset about an email sent by a lieutenant colonel which called out anti-gay groups, and as you might expect, Matt Barber is already blaming the incident on the “homosexualization of the United States military” that began following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Barber, an ardent supporter of the military’s then-ban on gay service members, also told Faith & Freedom cohost and Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver that the email is part of a “Marxist” attempt “to marginalize people with whom they disagree.”

Watch:

Washington Times Columnist: Sandy Hook Families 'Don't Deserve A Vote From Congress'

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro declared today in the right-wing Washington Times that the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre do not deserve a vote in Congress.

Citing the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns, Shapiro claimed that the federal government has no authority to make any laws regulating guns.

However, the Manchin-Toomey bill that was just blocked by a GOP-led filibuster wouldn’t ban any guns. It would simply expand background checks for gun purchases. The Heller opinion also makes clear that lawmakers are able to enact certain regulations on firearms.

It seems Shapiro is upset about a bill that would ban all guns that was never proposed in the first place.

But that doesn’t stop him from attacking Obama for having “exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope” and engaging in an “abuse of power.”

“The president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense,” Shapiro writes. “Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.”

Even more strikingly, Shaprio says that it would be “just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation.”

I don’t believe the families of the victims from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., deserve a vote.

It may sound harsh and uncaring, but even the greatest tragedies are not a valid reason to disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States. If they were, our free speech and our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination would have all been abolished long ago amid every crime wave in American history.

Five years ago, the Supreme Court settled the issue of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, making it clear that guns in “common use” were constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, President Obama recently flew several family members of Sandy Hook victims to Washington on Air Force One to pressure congressional legislators to enact new gun laws.



Congress creates laws, the president enforces laws and the courts are a check and balance to decide if those laws are constitutional. Since, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” the voice of the Supreme Court is the final word on any legal issue not Congress, and certainly not the president.

It’s a relatively simple principle, but one that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to understand or care about. He seems to think the tragic shootings of innocent people at Sandy Hook is a justifiable excuse to completely disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution. In places such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., thousands of innocent people have also been killed during times when comprehensive firearms bans were in effect. Don’t those families deserve a vote as well?

At every possible turn, the president has exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope, convincing them they deserve a vote on an issue he knows has already been settled by the Supreme Court, a vote he knows would be unconstitutional and a vote that, short of a constitutional convention to repeal the Second Amendment, would be illegal.

It would be just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation. That’s not leadership, nor is it compassion. It’s deceitful and preys upon broken families, who are lost in grief.

The president knows there is no chance of constitutionally expanding firearms regulations beyond minor changes, such as universal background checks. If the president has any common sense, he also knows that registration laws and universal background checks will accomplish almost nothing, since they will not obstruct criminals from getting illegal guns on the black market, just as they always have.

Everything Mr. Obama is doing to lessen the criminal use of firearms is counterintuitive to what makes sense. Instead of targeting criminals with illegal firearms, the president is trying regulate law-abiding citizens who buy legal firearms. Instead of waging war against Mexican cartels for trafficking millions of illegal guns into America each year, the president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense.

Mr. Obama is wrong to say that if we can save one child’s life, we should do “everything” we can in our power. However, abuse of power is a dangerous thing in a constitutional republic.

Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.

Despite the tragic circumstances of what happened at Sandy Hook, pain, sadness and desperation are never a reason to jeopardize freedom and liberty. The families of Sandy Hook victims deserve sympathy, but they do not deserve a vote from Congress on a matter that has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The Constitution, not compassion, must remain the currency of our country’s lawmaking process.

Ted Nugent Links Liberals to Boston Attack

In a WorldNetDaily column today, Ted Nugent claims that President Obama has no interest in pursuing the perpetrators behind the Boston marathon bombing and that liberals are partly to blame for the tragedy because they “champion keeping nuts out of nuthouses.”

“Liberal logic is evil’s best friend,” Nugent writes.

He adds that if the marathon bomber “is found to be from a Middle East country,” the U.S. should deport all people from the Middle East and “put a boot in their ass.”

As I write this, the cops don’t appear to have any solid leads or suspects in the Boston Massacre II.

The president pledged to bring the individuals or organizations responsible for this massacre to justice. Good for him. But I don’t believe him.

The president also promised to do the same for the terrorists who killed four of our citizens and torched our mission in Libya. So far, nothing. He should have provided proper security that was requested time and time again to have prevented the attack. Go figure.

Though no Libyan terrorists have been apprehended, the president continues to argued that punishing law-abiding Americans will somehow magically protect Americans from murderous bug-eyed psychotics. The very concept is terminally flawed: that liberal dog don’t hunt.

Regardless the flavor of psychosis, the terror America faces is planned and executed by evil, soulless lunatics. Whether its religious voodoo nutjobs or young men with loose screws or strung out on doctor-prescribed pharmaceuticals, the enemies we face are a potpourri of over-the-rainbow kooks, flakes, crackpots, screwballs, cranks and evil nuts who could stand facing a sandstorm and not bat an eye.



The lesson here is that while the good guys of the thin blue line do what they can, a crackpot intent on blowing up Americans has a reasonably good chance of setting off bombs without getting caught.

Wringing your hands and hoping you’re not in the frag pattern of the next bomb is not a meaningful strategy unless you are a frightened liberal who needs a conservative to protect you.

There are things we can do to make America safe.

Using the president’s logic of punishing the law-abiding for the acts of the deranged, should the psycho who bombed the Boston Marathon be found to be from a Middle Eastern country, we should immediately cancel all student visas and work permits for people from the Middle East. As my buddy Toby Keith sings, “put a boot in their ass,” and send them all home on the next available flight.



Keep things in perspective. You are much more likely to be a victim of a paroled thug than being blown up by a religious voodoo kook. Blowing holes in paroled punks is a great crime-control strategy and a proven deterrent that reduces the overall violent crime rate. Dead bad guys don’t repeat crimes. Never forget, the only good bad guy is a dead bad guy. I recommend ticker-tape parades for people who dust bad guys.

So long as liberals champion keeping nuts out of nuthouses, there is little we can do to keep lunatics from gaining access to guns, gas, knives, blowtorches or bomb-filled Buicks and committing mayhem.

We should arm a few teachers to protect our kids. Our shopping malls should follow billionaire Warren Buffet’s lead in allowing shoppers with concealed carry permits into his Nebraska Furniture Mart in Omaha.

Common sense will protect us. Liberal logic is evil’s best friend.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Corporations in Human Rights Abuses Case

Back in September, PFAW senior fellow Jamie Raskin wrote a preview of the major cases coming before the Supreme Court this term, one of which, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, deals with the ability of foreign nationals to sue corporations for human rights abuses in American courts. The Supreme Court today issued a sweeping ruling siding with the multinational corporations accused of abuse. Main Justice sums up the facts of the case:

The plaintiffs accuse Royal Dutch, the Shell Transport and Trading Company and their joint Nigerian subsidy of allowing, indeed encouraging, atrocities by the Nigerian military against people who were protesting environmental damage caused by drilling in the Niger Delta in the 1990s. The companies were complicit in beatings, rapes and mass arrests by paying the soldiers, feeding them and allowing them to use oil company property as staging areas for their attacks, the plaintiffs maintain.

At issue was the application of the Alien Tort Statute, enacted in 1789, that gives United States courts jurisdiction over civil actions brought by aliens alleging torts committed in violation of United States treaties or international law. The seldom-used ATS was enacted partly in response to piracy on the high seas. The Nigerian plaintiffs, now legal residents of the United States, tried to use it in a present-day context.

As Jamie Raskin wrote in his Supreme Court preview, the Second Circuit radically twisted legal precedent in this case to rule that individuals could not sue corporations under the Alien Tort Statute:

Jurisdiction to hear the suit was clear. In 2004, the Supreme Court held, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, that the Alien Tort Statute gave federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims about torts committed against aliens that violate well-established international norms like the human rights norms implicated in this case. Yet a bitterly divided Second Circuit panel in Kiobel held for the first time that the statute does not allow courts to hear suits against corporations as opposed to individuals. The Kiobel majority’s ruling on this issue was amazing since the issue was never raised, never briefed, never argued and never decided in any of the proceedings below that took place over the course of nearly a decade. (This rings a bell for close observers of the Citizens United majority, which also pulled a rabbit out of a hat to ask and answer a question never raised below.)

Today, the Roberts Court agreed. The Court unanimously ruled against the Nigerians in Kiobel, but disagreed about how far the ruling should go. Justice Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, wrote a broad ruling in favor of the corporations accused of human rights abuses. The four moderate justices concurred with the majority’s ruling on this particular case, but left the door open for similar cases to be tried in U.S. Courts. Main Justice explains:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the defendants’ “minimal and indirect presence in the United States was not enough to give American courts jurisdiction over the case.”  But he stopped short of declaring that similar cases should never end up in American courts if the abuse at issue “adversely affects an important American national interest.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed with him.

Nicole Flatow at ThinkProgress explains the possible implications of the majority’s ruling:

This decision not only means that Nigerians cannot sue foreign corporations for their conduct abroad. On this particular point, the four-justice Breyer concurrence agreed that this case did not pass muster. Roberts’ sweeping pronouncement against extraterritoriality may also mean that foreign nationals subject to abuse, for example, at the hands of a U.S. corporation that houses its factories in places whose laws shield it from liability, or an American citizen who commits human rights violations abroad against foreigners, also could not be subject to suit in the United States.

The scope of the opinion will not become clear until it is interpreted by courts. Extraterritoriality is a legal concept that asks not just whether conduct took place abroad, but also whether the claims “touch and concern the territory of the United States” such that a plaintiff can overcome the presumption against them. The only hint the court gives is that lawsuits against corporations will face a particularly heavy burden, noting, “Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices.”

What is clear is that the presumption is exceedingly difficult to overcome, and that both individuals and corporations have a high chance of skirting liability simply by doing their dirty work elsewhere.

PFAW

Robertson: Gay Marriage Advocates, Following In Steps of Illuminati, Out to Destroy God and Family

Introducing a story on the 700 Club yesterday about the debate over legalizing same-sex marriage in France, Pat Robertson claimed that marriage equality supporters are following in the footsteps of the Illuminati.

Robertson told viewers that the French Revolution was “spurred by the writings of a group called the Illuminati,” which meant “to destroy the family, to destroy the state, to destroy capitalism and to destroy the church.” The gay community, he claimed, has similarly broad goals. “We have here a debate over same-sex marriage,” Robertson said.

“But is it really just about marriage or does it go far beyond that: to destroying the traditional family and building a country without God?”

Watch:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious