Larry Pratt, the executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America, often blames mass shootings on a lack of armed “good guys with guns” ready to take down a shooter, saying that the ideal situation is for everyone to pack heat when they go to church, school, a political eventor a bar.
Pratt was questioned about this vision on CNN yesterday during a discussion of the recent mass shooting at a Florida gay club, which Pratt persisted in calling a “gun-free zone” despite the fact that shooter was met by an armed guard. After Pratt criticized Florida for preventing patrons of establishments that serve alcohol from carrying concealed firearms, Costello responded that “when people drink the state of Florida probably doesn't think it's a very good idea to arm patrons."
The solution to this, Pratt responded, was not to regulate guns at bars but for bars to “control the amount of booze” they sell so that patrons can remain armed.
Larry Pratt, an official with Gun Owners of America, suggested last week that Congress eliminate the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the court’s recent ruling that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right of individual citizens to carry concealed firearms in public.
Pratt joined Sam Bushman on his “Liberty Roundtable” program on Friday, where Bushman called the ruling “psychotic” and accused the Ninth Circuit judges of being “King George clones” responsible for “the destruction of the Second Amendment.” Bushman also called for “the patriots” to retaliate as they did when “King George came for the guns” in the 1700s.
Pratt responded that through Congress’ power of the purse, “it can simply say that in the Ninth Circuit or any federal court, questions of concealed carry may not be considered, period, paragraph, and no funds will be available for such consideration. Takes it off the table right there. They could also — and I might even prefer — to remove that jurisdiction from the courts.”
“The only court that is constitutional, that must exist, that must be able to operate, is the Supreme Court,” Pratt continued. “If Congress decided that they actually stood for something, they could tell the Ninth Circuit, ‘You’re the former Ninth Circuit, we’ve decided we can do without you. You guys make life so difficult, it’s gonna be better without you. Buh-bye.’”
Conservative South Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman, who briefly served as chief of staff to former Republican Rep. Allen West, said today that she did not believe that the terrorist who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando this weekend targeted the location out of animosity toward gay people, but instead because he knew that club-goers would be unarmed.
“How long does he have to be the president before he figures out that what we had happen in Orlando was a terrorist act?” Kaufman asked of President Obama, who called the massacre an “act of terror and an act of hate.”
“I don’t care if the guy was gay, I don’t care if his wife took him there, he launched an attack of terror against the patrons of the Pulse nightclub,” Kaufman said. “I don’t look at them as gay patrons, they are the patrons, they are fellow human beings. It could have been any nightclub in anywhere in any country. When you’re crazy like that, the last thing I think you’re concerned about is the gender preference of your victims. I just don’t believe it. I don’t think this was a hate crime, I think this was an act of terrorism, I think he knew he had a group of people who were in a gun-free zone and who don’t carry guns for the most part anyway … I don’t know any gay men who carry.”
While Florida concealed carry permit holders are not allowed to bring firearms into establishments that serve alcohol, the Orlando attacker did confront “good guys with guns”: He exchanged fire with an off-duty police officer who was guarding the club and two other police officers during the attack.
Yesterday, Kaufman interviewed former Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt, who said that politicians who support gun regulations are “complicit” in the Orlando shooting. Kaufman and Pratt urged listeners to defy gun-free zone regulations and carry firearms even where they are prohibited.
“Listen, I have had it with no-gun zones, I have had it with soft targets, and I recognize the fact that from now on, I’m responsible for my security,” Kaufman said, to an “amen” from Pratt.
They two said that if they had been in the club that was attacked, things would have turned out differently.
“Had I been one of those people cowering in the bathroom, I would have done more than text home,” Kaufman said.
“Yeah, shooting a text and shooting a gun are really enormously different in how effective they can be against a dirtbag with a gun,” Pratt said. “And for our legislators to keep insisting that somehow we are going to be better off in a gun-free zone, that makes them complicit. And I’ll say it to their face, they are complicit with what happens in Orlando…”
“And you and I both agree that what they’re forcing people to do is become lawbreakers themselves,” Kaufman said. “Law-abiding citizens are not going to abide by these laws in the future because they want a fighting chance.”
“Not if they want to survive and they go to any place that’s quote-unquote ‘gun free,’” Pratt responded.
Kaufman added that gun-free zones are impeding her “free access to places”: “Look, I don’t have to march into a post office with a gun or into a federal courthouse with a gun, but I’ll be darned if I’m told where I can eat, where I can drink, where I can dance by the government. And since I don’t go without a gun, they have begun to impinge upon my free access to places.”
Larry Pratt, the former executive director of Gun Owners of America, added Hillary Clinton this week to the list of public officials who he has warned will face violence from gun owners if they impose regulations on guns.
Pratt, who said last month that if conservatives lose at the “ballot box” they might “have to resort to the bullet box,” said in an interview on the “Crosstalk” radio program on Tuesday that Clinton’s support for some gun regulations may be an attempt to disarm civilians so that she can impose tyranny.
The Second Amendment means, he told Clinton, that “if you even try to go off in a tyrannical direction, the Constitution protects the people’s right to protect the people themselves against people like you.”
What she’s telling me is that she may understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, which is even scarier, because the Second Amendment is meant to tell people like her that might be thinking about going off in a tyrannical direction: ‘Don’t even think about it.’ Because the Second Amendment has recognized the right people have to possess the kind of firearms that your protectors have, Mrs. Clinton, and if you even think, if you even try to go off in a tyrannical direction, the Constitution protects the people’s right to protect the people themselves against people like you.
Larry Pratt, the executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America, said on his “Gun Owners News Hour” radio program this weekend that if a Democrat wins the White House and the Supreme Court starts issuing decisions in favor of gun regulations, conservatives may turn to the “bullet box” to rectify the situation.
Pratt was interviewing Robert Knight, a senior fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, who warned that “if a liberal Democrat is elected president, then there goes the Supreme Court, it could be two, three, four justices, and I think the Second Amendment would be in great peril if that happens.”
Pratt responded that if such a court interprets the Constitution in ways that conservatives don’t like, they may have to restore “proper constitutional balance” through the “bullet box”:
And at that point, we would have to come to an understanding, which we’ve been sort of taught, it’s been taught out of us, that the courts do not have the last word on what the Constitution is. They decide particular cases, they don’t make law. Their decisions, unlike the Roe v. Wade usurpation, don’t extend to the whole of society, they’re not supposed to. And we may have to reassert that proper constitutional balance, and it may not be pretty. So, I’d much rather have an election where we solve this matter at the ballot box than have to resort to the bullet box.
Pratt has previously hinted at his willingness to use violence against Supreme Court justices with whom he disagrees, issuing a warning to Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, saying that “the Second Amendment is all about people like Judge Garland.”
Among the groups pressuring Republicans in the Senate to continue their blockade of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is Gun Owners of America, a gun lobby group that holds considerable sway on Capitol Hill despite its history of promoting wild conspiracy theories, frequent warnings to elected officials that they should fear assassination and deep ties to radical militia groups and white supremacists.
GOA has circulated a petition to its members claiming that Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, “would reverse your ability to own a gun” and “hates the Second Amendment,” basing its claims on exceedingly thin evidence. While these attacks on Garland’s record have been widelydiscredited, severalRepublicansenators have pointed to the judge’s supposed disrespect for the Second Amendment as a reason to oppose him.
GOA’s general counsel, Michael Hammond, brought these claims to an op-ed in USA Today on Sunday, which GOA followed up with a video claiming again that Garland “hates the Second Amendment” and that if he gets on the court “good people will go to prison for exercising their constitutional rights.” Obama’s nomination of Garland, the video warns, is “the most significant step in his sordid trail towards transforming our nation.”
This paranoid and exaggerated language is typical of a group that has ties to the violent militia fringes of the Right and stays afloat by promoting conspiracy theories about various federal plots to snatch law-abiding people’s guns.
Tim Macy, the group’s chairman and the head of a “Second Amendment Coalition” on Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, used similar rhetoric in March when he said that the Garland nomination was Obama’s “last-ditch effort” to “ruin the Second Amendment and destroy this country.”
The group’s executive director, Larry Pratt, went even further when he implied that Garland should fear assassination if he displeases gun groups. “Happily, the Second Amendment is all about people like Judge Garland, so there is a limit to how far he can go, I think,” Pratt told radical radio host Rick Wiles.
In an interview last year, Pratt said that being afraid of assassination was “a healthy fear” for members of Congress to have, because that’s what makes them “behave.” When Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, who had felt threatened by one of GOA’s members, complained about his comments, Pratt doubled down, saying that elected officials should fear “ the cartridge box” and accusing the congresswoman of being “ foolish” and having “a hissy fit .” Later, he boasted that Democratic proponents of stricter gun laws are “afraid of getting shot and they ought to be!”
On his weekly radio program last year, Pratt said that President Obama should learn from the example of Charles I, who was executed for treason in the 17th century:
Pratt’s view of the Second Amendment as a tool for a well-armed minority of insurrectionists to take on a government they disagree with comes straight from the fringe militia movement, which Pratt helped shape in the 1990s.
And that’s not all. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “In 1996, Pratt was forced to resign as co-chairman of Patrick J. Buchanan's presidential campaign when it was publicized that he had been a speaker at the 1992 Gathering of Christian Men in Estes Park, Colo., where he rubbed shoulders with neo-Nazis, Klansmen, adherents of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology, and other radicals.”
More recently, Pratt was a cheerleader for the armed militias who staged a standoff with the federal government at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada, saying that the incident came “very close” to provoking “a civil war between the people and the government.”
In his role at the helm of GOA, Pratt is happy to stir up conspiracy theories and anti-government paranoia in an effort to turn his group’s membership against any attempt at reasonable gun law reform.
He has humored radical radio hosts who have suggested that the Sandy Hook school and Aurora movie theater massacres were inside jobs designed by the government.
And, as we wrote last year, Pratt has plenty of conspiracy theories of his own:
Rafael Cruz told Pratt that he was “so grateful” for GOA’s work, before launching into a discussion of how President Obama’s attempts to “take our guns away” and the “tremendous religious persecution” of Christians and Jews in America is all part of a plan to impose a murderous communist dictatorship.
Pratt, discussing the Batista and Castro regimes in Cruz’s native Cuba, mused that “arguably it could have made a difference” in Cuba “had people been able to defend themselves and had there been the militia tradition that we still sort of have in the United States.”
Cruz responded that the issue of gun rights is “critical” right now in the U.S., especially given the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
“That means if we get one more liberal justice with the same mind, we could all lose our right to keep and bear arms,” he said. “And I’ll tell you what, look at history, every dictator that has taken away the guns from the population have then used those guns to kill the population by the millions. Stalin did it, Hitler did it, Mao did it, Pol Pot did it, Castro did it, they’ve all done it. And Obama has been trying for the last seven years to take our guns away!”
Later in the interview, Cruz alleged that there is “tremendous religious persecution in America,” specifically against Christians and Jews, which he says is all part of an effort to destroy God and impose communism.
“You know, Larry, if we look at America,” he said, “there is tremendous religious persecution in America, more specifically, persecution against Christians and Jews in America. Well, we’ve got to realize that that is not the objective, that is only the means. You see, communism, socialism, Marxism — we can’t get caught up in semantics, it’s all the same — it requires for government to become your god. And in order for government to become your god, the must destroy the concept of God, and that’s what’s behind this attack on religion.”
The mutual admiration between Pratt and the Cruz family was evident during the hour-long interview.
“Thank you for standing in the gap, my brother,” Cruz told Pratt. “I know that you have been very instrumental in protecting that fundamental right for us.”
“Well, we’ve had the pleasure of working with Sen. Ted Cruz on more than one occasion,” Pratt replied.
This prompted Cruz to proudly bring up his son’s efforts to stop gun legislation in the wake of the Newtown school massacre. In particular, he said he was proud of the “leadership” his son his son showed in the infamous condescending lecture he delivered to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., at a committee hearing, which prompted Feinstein to tell Cruz, “I am not a sixth grader.”
Cruz told listeners to Google the exchange “if they want to get a laugh,” assuring them that they would “get a laugh for sure.”
“You know, she does have a point,” Pratt responded. “If he even implied that she was a sixth grader, it would have been insulting to a sixth grader, so I’m glad he’s not guilty of that.”
Conservative activist Jesse Lee Peterson appeared on the “Gun Owners News Hour” with Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt last weekend, where he repeated the thesis of his most recent book , which is that racism in America does not exist, but rather is a myth perpetuated by people like President Obama who was raised to hate white people and is incapable of feeling love.
Peterson told Pratt that once Americans “dispel that notion that racism exists,” liberals will lose power because “their father the Devil” feeds on such lies.
The two then, for some reason, started comparing and contrasting Dr. Ben Carson, the former Republican presidential candidate, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor who became a right-wing lightning rod during Obama’s first presidential campaign.
Peterson told Pratt that African American voters didn’t support Carson’s presidential bid because they’re in an “evil state” and “prefer evil over good.”
“And yet, in their fallen state of anger, most blacks see Dr. Carson as the enemy and they see Jeremiah Wright as the good guy,” he said. “And even though Jeremiah Wright speaks evil, he is evil, but because they’re in that evil state, they identify with him over a good, decent man like Dr. Ben Carson. And blacks would never vote for him, the majority would never vote for him because any time a person who’s good like that, they see them as a sell-out, they don’t accept good, they prefer evil over good and they call evil good and they call good evil.”
Earlier in the program, Peterson expounded on his theory that President Obama has been sympathetic toward the Black Lives Matter movement because he was raised by a mother who "hated her own race” and grew up without his father so “he doesn’t feel love, he has nothing but anger in his heart.”
Pratt evidently thought this was very perceptive and said that the president “has developed a very cold shell to cover that with and when I see him, it’s almost like looking at a robot, the lack of human emotion that’s on display.” Meanwhile, he said, the president has a “Mt. Vesuvius” of anger bubbling underneath.
Peterson agreed that “Obama is evil, he’s cold-hearted, he doesn’t care about anyone but Obama” but voters have never really understood “how wicked this man is.”
Kupelian’s book, which has won plaudits from conservative activists including Phyllis Schlafly, Matt Barber, David Barton, Dinesh D’Souza and former Rep. Michele Bachmann, argues that the “progressive Left” is “whether intentionally or not, promoting widespread dependency, debauchery, family breakdown, crime, corruption, addiction, despair, and suicide.”
Kupelian told Pratt that examples of “completely insane” progressive advances include “the sexual revolution and the LGBT movement,” including the choice of 50 genders on Facebook, “forcing teenage girls to have to shower with boys,” and marriage equality.
“These are things that most people, and a few years ago everybody, would have said is not only wrong but is completely insane, okay?” he said. “A few years ago, we would have said two men getting married is completely insane. Everybody in the world of all religions, left, right, center, everybody would have said you’re completely insane.”
“The case that I’m making in ‘The Snapping of the American Mind,’” he explained, “is that you know how we hear about all the suicides going on now, we hear about the huge upsurge among white, middle-class people living in the suburbs, we hear about the huge amount, one in four middle-aged women are taking antidepressants, we have all this individual pathology, all this wretchedness, all the suffering of the addiction and the 110 million people with sexually transmitted diseases. 110 million! All of these things, I’m saying that the left is the primary cause of all of this depression, anxiety, the huge amount of mental illness, of addiction, of suicide, all of these things that we hear about in a way that we sometimes hear about them in the news, but disconnect them from the source.
Other topics covered in Kupelian’s book, according to WND, include:
How the Left has succeeded in redefining not just “marriage,” but the rest of Americans’ core values, from “equality” to “justice” to “freedom”;
Why America, unquestionably the least racist nation on earth, is now being portrayed as a deeply racist pariah state;
Why the United States is intentionally being flooded with millions of needy, dependent, Third World immigrants;
How a group that amputates healthy body parts and has a 41 percent attempted suicide rate is officially declared “normal,” yet new “research” suggests conservatives have malformed brains;
Which of the two major US political parties has a far higher incidence of mental illness;
Why Americans today are more stressed-out, confused, conflicted, and addicted than at any time in the nation’s history—and where this ominous trend is leading.
Courting Extremism is a weekly feature on conservative responses to the Supreme Court vacancy.
Unable to come up with any honest attacks against Judge Merrick Garland’s record, conservatives continue to try to find new ways to justify the Republican leadership’s refusal to even hold hearings on Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. At least one activist, Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt, even suggested that the Second Amendment was designed in part to stop people like Garland.
Here are the five most ridiculous conservative pro-obstruction arguments of the week:
5) The NRA Rule
Mitch McConnell continues to move the goalposts on his party’s Supreme Court blockade. First, the Republican leader flatly declared that the Senate would not consider any nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court until a new president is in office.
Then, in an interview on Sunday with Fox News, McConnell added a new caveat, declaring that as long as Republicans hold a majority, the Senate would not confirm Garland because he is facing opposition from conservative groups like the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Rifle Association.
McConnell’s comments are particularly revealing, as he and other Republicans have insisted that their Supreme Court blockade isn’t about politics but is about a (nonexistent) Senate tradition to refuse to hold confirmation votes for Supreme Court nominees during election years.
If McConnell was taking this stance truly out of principle rather than partisanship, there would be no need to cite pressure from the NFIB and NRA. His statement also seems to imply that Republicans may obstruct any nominee if a Democrat succeeds Obama, seeing that the two right-wing groups are unlikely to support anyone nominated by a Democratic president.
4) Perpetual Obstructionism
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly appears to be on the side of those who think that only a Republican president should be allowed to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
She told Armed America Radio this week that Senate Republicans need to clearly state that “we don’t want any new nominee on the court until we have a Republican who will appoint somebody of the nature of Scalia.”
“The Court can continue to function indefinitely with fewer than nine Justices, as it has many times in our history,” Schlafly wrote in an op-ed. She then suggested that if a Republican becomes president, a Republican Senate could use the opportunity to pack the court with more than nine justices:
If Republicans elect the next president and retain control of Congress, there will be plenty of time to add new Justices to the Supreme Court. One scholar proposed expanding the size of the Court to 11 or more Justices, since a larger Court reduces the likelihood that any single appointee would fundamentally change the Court’s direction.
In addition to controlling the size of the Supreme Court, Congress could also authorize the President to nominate new Justices on a regular timetable — say, one during each two-year term of Congress. Under that system, a new Justice would join the Supreme Court every two years, regardless of whether an existing Justice dies or retires during that period.
3) If At First You Don’t Succeed…
Anti-choice activists are desperately trying to find reasons to oppose Garland’s nomination.
Now the outlet has LifeSiteNews run an article alleging that Garland “ruled against Priests for Life in a case involving the HHS mandate.”
Garland, however, wasn’t one of the three judges on the D.C. Circuit to hear Priests for Life’s challenge to the contraception mandate. LifeSiteNews was angry that Garland voted against rehearing the case — the three judge panel ruled unanimously against Priests for Life — before the full court of appeals, or an en banc review.
As Paul wrote, such a vote does not constitute a ruling against the group, despite LifeSiteNews’ claim:
A vote for or against en banc review, absent an accompanying opinion, does not necessarily tell you anything about why the judge voted that way. In fact, several of the judges wrote or joined lengthy opinions explaining why they were for or against an en banc review. Chief Judge Garland joined none of them. Neither did George W. Bush nominee Thomas Griffith or Clinton nominee David Tatel, both of whom voted along with Chief Judge Garland not to rehear the case. The majority of the court voted against en banc review, so we don’t know how Garland would have voted on the merits of the case.
The challenge to the contraception mandate was inevitably headed to the Supreme Court as several other circuit courts heard similar challenges. Indeed, the high court heard arguments on the Zubik case earlier this week.
2) He’s An Extremist!
After President Obama took office, the Judicial Confirmation Network changed its name to the Judicial Crisis Network and changed its mission from encouraging the speedy confirmation of judicial nominees to advocating for obstructionism and no-votes.
Just six years ago, JCN spokesperson Carrie Severino hinted that her group wouldn’t put up much of a fight if Obama nominated Garland to the Supreme Court. “[O]f those the president could nominate, we could do a lot worse than Merrick Garland,” Severino told the Washington Post at the time. “He’s the best scenario we could hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city down a notch for the summer.”
Fast forward six years, and all of a sudden JCN is attacking Garland as a left-wing extremist in this new web ad:
1) ‘The Second Amendment Is All About People Like Judge Garland’
Conservative groups have repeatedly claimed that Garland opposed a challenge to a Washington, D.C., handgun ban and supported a national gun registry.
“He voted against Dick Heller,” Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt said on “Trunews” this week. “He voted against the idea that any citizen of the District of Columbia has an individual right to keep and bear arms.” “He also voted to uphold Bill Clinton’s registration scheme,” he added, claiming that the judge’s track record demonstrates “opposition to the Second Amendment.”
“This is the guy that has been told to us by many folks, including the president, that ‘this is a moderate,’” Pratt said. “Well, I guess in the Kremlin there are moderates but that’s not the kind of moderate we need on the Supreme Court.”
Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, implied this week that Judge Merrick Garland could be assassinated if he continues to rule in “opposition to the Second Amendment,” saying that “the Second Amendment is all about people like Judge Garland, so there is a limit to how far he can go.”
“He voted against Dick Heller,” Pratt said. “He voted against the idea that any citizen of the District of Columbia has an individual right to keep and bear arms. This is the guy that has been told to us by many folks, including the president, that ‘this is a moderate.’ Well, I guess in the Kremlin there are moderates but that’s not the kind of moderate we need on the Supreme Court.”
He added: “He also voted to uphold Bill Clinton’s registration scheme in an earlier decision, so his track record is consistent and it’s one of opposition to the Second Amendment.”
This prompted Wiles to ask what would happen to the Second Amendment if Garland were to join the Supreme Court.
“Judicially, it’s in a heap of trouble,” Pratt said. “Happily, the Second Amendment is all about people like Judge Garland, so there is a limit to how far he can go, I think.”
He went on to say that Republicans in Congress should impeach jurists like Garland for their supposed hostility to the Constitution.
Pratt has a history of saying that the Second Amendment is meant to give people the right to assassinate or intimidate leaders they don’t like.
In Pratt’s view, the Second Amendment was created in order to instill in politicians “a healthy fear” in “the back of their minds” that they will be assassinated so “they’ll behave.”
He explicitly told Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., that she “should do her job in constant trepidation,” knowing that if she tries “to disarm Americans the way the British crown tried 240 years ago, the same sovereign people who constituted this government using the cartridge box someday may need to reconstitute it, as clearly anticipated by the Declaration of Independence.”
A top gun-rights adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign claimed this weekend that President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court is “his last-ditch effort” to “ruin the Second Amendment and destroy this country.”
Tim Macy, the chairman of the radical gun group Gun Owners of America and co-chair of Cruz’s “Second Amendment Coalition,” discussed the Supreme Court nomination in an interview Sunday with Mark Walters on “Armed America Radio.”
Macy said that Obama has “run up against the wall every time he’s tried” to “destroy the country” with gun restrictions, but that the Supreme Court vacancy is “his last-ditch effort before he leaves office to ruin the Second Amendment and destroy this country with Merrick Garland as his pick.”
“Clearly, if Garland got back on the court, the whole Heller decision, individual right to bear arms, would be put in severe jeopardy,” Macy claimed, “and you would have to imagine it would be gotten rid of as quick as the court could get another case up before them, they’d be looking for the case to bring up.”
Macy also brought up another case that gun groups have been using to attack Garland, in which Garland joined in a ruling that held that the FBI could temporarily store background check information from gun sales for audit purposes. Macy absurdly claimed that this shows that Garland “supports the ability of a president to illegally use executive power to advance liberal causes like taking guns away from honest citizens.”
These, he said, were all reasons to pressure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell so that he “keeps that nomination on hold until the president’s gone and we have a new president.”
Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, welcomed pastor and prominent Donald Trump endorser Carl Gallups to his “Gun Owners News Hour” radio program last week, where the two discussed what they believe is an Islamist infiltration of the White House.
Pratt claimed that Obama is “facilitating” the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. even though “Islam is kind of like the Nazism of our age.”
“According to Obama’s own books and writings, he comes out of the Sunni Muslim tradition himself,” Gallups said. “Now, I’m not claiming that he is a down-on-the-prayer-carpet-five-times-a-day-praying-to-Mecca Muslim, but that’s his heritage, that’s his background and he certainly does acquiesce to the Sunni Muslim tradition.”
“And whatever his allegiance, secret or open, to Islam,” Pratt added, “he hates America the way Muslims do, and that’s not a secret.”
Gallups went on to explain his (false) birther theory that “not a single hospital in America claims [Obama’s] birth.”
The discussion inevitably turned to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who conspiracy theorists have been accusing for years of being a Muslim Brotherhood agent infiltrating the government.
The two implied that Abedin’s marriage to former Rep. Anthony Weiner is part of the conspiracy because otherwise, in Gallups’ words, Abedin would have been the victim of a “mercy killing” by now because Weiner is Jewish.
“And then, of course, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, who does she make chief of staff? Huma Abedin,” Gallups explained. “Who is she married to? Anthony Weiner. Who was he? Well, he’s a congressman, a Democrat congressman, and look at this: who happens to be Jewish. Now, for a Sunni Muslim who’s so ingrained into the Sunni Muslim system that her entire family is deeply involved in the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most radical arms of Sunni Islam you can get, to marry a Jew? I mean, how does that happen without retribution? I mean, in the Middle East, we have mercy killings, I mean even in the United States we’ve had Muslim families do this when their daughters pull a stunt like that.”
“It kind of suggests that maybe there’s something more to it than meets the eye,” Pratt agreed. “Part of it, I guess, is called ‘taqiyya,’ the willingness to lie if it suits your purposes as a Muslim.”
Schlafly started things out by alleging that the political problems of conservatives stem from the fact that “we’ve taken in millions of people who have no concept of the whole idea of limited government” and who “don’t even know what it means or have a desire to be American.”
Pratt agreed that we are “bringing in people who have never had any tradition of, never been schooled in what it means to have a limited government” and that “folks coming abroad are all natural Democrats, they’re looking, as you say, for big government, that’s their whole idea of what government is about, it’s there to give them more and more things.”
He added that Democrats are “eagerly bringing in these immigrants who at best don’t have an idea of what it means to be an American if they were to become one and may well be terrorists.”
“You know, I have friends who came in long ago,” Schlafly said, “and they told me with pride that after they got off the boat at Ellis Island to immigrate, their parents would stand them up and say, ‘And now we’re in America and we’re going to be Americans and we’re going to learn English and we’re going to learn a whole new set of laws and this is our country now, we’re going to be American.’ But you don’t find these immigrants saying this today.”
Now, she said, “anybody can come, no matter how much you hate us, no matter how you have no concept about limited government and the rule of law and the things that we believe in.”
Pratt added that this problem was especially acute with Muslim immigrants because “they’re taught from the Koran, they’re taught to hate people like us, they’re taught to want to kill people like us, and to the extent that they don’t, that’s taqiyya, that’s just a temporary lying to get along until they are tactically and strategically in a position to strike.”
Wiles told Pratt that he thought Obama, whom he called “The Fuhrer His Royal Majesty King Barry Obama I,” teared up at the press conference announcing the move because he “was so overjoyed.”
Pratt wasn’t so sure, saying, “I am surprised to learn that tears were spotted coming from his eyes, because if there ever were a cold fish on two feet, he is the one,” and wondering if Obama “found a way” to make tears come out of his eyes.
“I think he cried because he’s so happy that the civil war he’s wanted to start for seven years is ready to happen,” Wiles said. “I think that’s why he’s crying.”
“Well, if he were to push some of the things that he’s done, that indeed could happen,” Pratt responded.
Larry Pratt, the executive director of Ted Cruz’s favorite gun group, Gun Owners of America, said in a radio interview last week that the armed standoff at the Bundy ranch in Nevada last year “came very close” to starting “a civil war between the people and the government,” but that the war was averted when the Bureau of Land Management backed down in the face of armed protesters.
“The Second Amendment is all about keeping government out of control, to keep it from moving off in a tyrannical direction,” Pratt responded. “And the most recent deployment of the Second Amendment occurred about three years ago in Bunkerville, Nevada, on Cliven Bundy’s ranch.”
Saying that the federal agents attempting to collect more than $1 million of unpaid fees for Bundy’s use of public land were acting “like a bunch of Jesse James outlaws,” Pratt boasted that their “plan didn’t work out because Americans came from all over the country during that standoff, with their guns.”
“Well, I think someday, Larry, the government’s going to back down,” Hodges said, “and I think that if Obama persists in the strategy of inventing false reasons to come get our guns, we’re going to see widespread violence and resistance. I mean, how do you gauge the American public’s mood and attitude toward gun confiscation?”
“Well, I think that standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada, was perhaps a canary in the coal mine and it told us that there is danger ahead,” Pratt responded. “But it also told the government that if you push too hard there will be pushback. And people did come with their guns and their ammunition and they were ready to shoot if the government attacked.”
“That seems to me to have been a lesson that was being sent to the government,” he continued, “and right now I don’t think any Democrat, let alone Republican, wants to have that kind of situation where their view’s precipitating the outbreak of civil war. And we came very close to that. And it wouldn’t have been a civil war between the North and the South, this would have been a civil war between the people and the government.”
The two went on to discuss Obama’s potential executive action requiring large gun dealers to conduct background checks, which Pratt has said Gun Owners of America will “openly defy.” Pratt gave Hodges some more details of this planned defiance, saying that if Obama were to go forward in the action, he would find somebody in his home state of Virginia to illegally buy a gun from or sell one to.
“Come and get us, Mr. President!” he declared. “You have no authority and if you try to exercise it we’re going to have you in court and your head spinning.”
Pratt told Aaron McIntire, who was guest-hosting Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace’s program, that GOA has a plan in the works to defy any such order. “If the president goes ahead and tries to do something for which he doesn’t have legal authority, let alone have constitutional authority, we’re going to make a very public effort to openly defy the law,” he said. “‘Come and get us’ would be, I guess, the flag flying here at Gun Owners of America.”
“I think it would be a major blunder for this administration to go ahead and initiate a gun control agenda that it admittedly cannot get through the Congress,” Pratt said. “The Constitution bars it as well. And yet for them to even talk about it gets people’s ire going pretty well and for them to actually try to do something I guarantee you will produce open defiance here at Gun Owners of America. I will have a courier deliver a letter to the White House announcing that you can take your extraordinary illegal and unconstitutional measures and you can clean your ear with them, because we’re not complying.”
“It’s just to the point where they’ve gone too far,” he continued. “They tried this in a microcosm in Bunkerville, Nevada. They had invaded a man’s land in a dispute over what was his proper use of it and while the matter was in court they weren’t going to wait, they were going to decide it with raw force. Well, that didn’t work out so well because the American people, armed, rallied to that rancher and came daily, toward the end hourly, to his ranch to defend him with guns. And so the federal government backed down. That was the Second Amendment at work in its full and robust fashion. And I would have thought the administration would have learned a lesson, but here we are in the last period of this president’s term … so I guess what we’re seeing is the full Obama, and it’s not very pretty.”
Ted Cruz sent a fundraising email on behalf of the radical gun group Gun Owners of America yesterday, boasting that he was “honored to work with GOA” to stop gun legislation after the Sandy Hook massacre and declaring that President Obama’s gun control efforts “have nothing to do with keeping Americans safe, and everything to do with his left-wing hatred of your liberty and your rights under the Constitution.”
When GOA mobilized to help defeat background check legislation in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, the New York Times identified Cruz as the gun group’s “key ally in the Senate.”
GOA is, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, “a more radical alternative to the National Rifle Association,” which through an absolutist stance against any and all gun regulation has helped to push both the NRA and the gun debate to the right and away from any possible compromise.
Pratt’s and GOA’s extremism is evidently no problem for Cruz, however, who signed on to an email raising funds for the group that sounds exactly like any of Pratt’s rants, declaring that President Obama “hates the 2nd Amendment for the same reason he hates most of what is in the Bill of Rights – it limits the power of government and protects the liberty of individuals” and that the president is “angry at the American people for rising up against him in defense of our liberty.” He urges GOA members to sign a petition calling for the defunding of a potential Obama proposal to expand background checks at gun shows and, of course, to give generously to GOA so that the group can continue “exposing the truth behind the anti-gun politicians’ real agenda of mass confiscation.”
Here are some excerpts:
Dear Fellow Patriot,
This is not a fundraising letter for my campaign.
You see, I am writing you today about something more important than any one man or one election: your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
My father fled an oppressive regime in Cuba where the people were not citizens, they were mere tools of the state.
That is why, during my time as Texas’ Solicitor General and in the U.S. Senate, I have taken all threats to the 2nd Amendment very seriously. The ability of people to arm themselves has been critical to securing liberty from monarchs and tyrants throughout history. And the 2nd Amendment upholds your fundamental right to protect yourself and your family from harm.
But President Obama disagrees. He hates the 2nd Amendment for the same reason he hates most of what is in the Bill of Rights – it limits the power of government and protects the liberty of individuals.
*** And so, just as he did in 2013, the president is trying to exploit a tragic shooting by unhinged lunatics as a reason to weaken the 2nd Amendment and punish law-abiding citizens. ***
However, he is not bothering to try and pass a law in Congress – he is scheming to do an “end run” around Congress and use Executive Orders to impose more intrusive background checks, restrictions on private sellers, and other illegal anti-gun regulations that will weaken your rights while not doing anything to keep Americans safe.
Congress has a chance to stop him, but we must act quickly and we must hear directly from millions of citizens like you.
Specifically, I am urging pro-2nd Amendment colleagues in the House and Senate to use the appropriations process – the “power of the purse” granted Congress by the Constitution – to defund President Obama’s Executive Gun Grab.
If the Obama ATF has no money to enforce his lawless anti-gun regulations, the president will be powerless to enact his grand schemes to shred the Constitution by executive decree.
Only with a huge grassroots outpouring from the American people can we stop the president’s desperate push for new gun controls . Why am I so confident this can work?
Because I already saw it work back in 2013. Do you remember how, in the wake of the sickening massacre at Sandy Hook, the president chose to use that tragedy as an excuse to further his long-standing hostility to the 2nd Amendment?
Back then, I was honored to work with GOA and lead a massive outpouring of grassroots opposition that shut down the Obama Gun Grab (shocking the media and the D.C. elites), but obviously, the fight is not over.
And, it is clear to me (and I know it is to you) that President Obama’s new plans to impose gun control by Executive Order have nothing to do with keeping Americans safe, and everything to do with his left-wing hatred of your liberty and your rights under the Constitution.
Gun Owners of America – an organization dedicated to no-compromise grassroots lobbying in support of the 2nd Amendment – has developed a massive plan to stop the Obama gun grab dead in its tracks . But there’s not much time to put it into action!
The good news is, we can stop them. But this fight will not be easy – or cheap.
That’s why, in addition to your signed PETITION, I hope you’ll agree to make a generous contribution to help stop the Obama Executive Gun Grab.
Your generous contribution will help pay for GOA’s massive mail, phone, and digital program designed to mobilize upwards of four million Americans to lobby their elected officials. That way, you and I can ensure all my colleagues in the House and Senate really begin to feel the heat.
Your contribution will also help GOA launch a full-scale public relations and advertising campaign nationwide, exposing the truth behind the anti-gun politicians’ real agenda of mass confiscation.
Gun Owners of America has already prepared hard-hitting ads calling on Congressmen and Senators by name to oppose President Obama’s radical, anti-liberty, anti-Constitution agenda.
But GOA needs an urgent – and substantial – influx of dollars from individual citizens to put this nationwide plan into action.
If GOA has the resources to put the full plan into action, we can send a strong message to everyone in Washington that the American people are not going to sit idly by and watch a failed, lame-duck president destroy the 2nd Amendment with his last gasp of power.
If we can send that message loud and clear, I can tell you the last thing any of my fellow senators will want to do in an election year is anger you and the millions of other Americans who take your 2nd Amendment rights seriously .
That’s why I urge you to act TODAY!
We’re staring head-on at one of the most desperate gun-control pushes we’ve ever seen, all brought to us by a president who is angry at the American people for rising up against him in defense of our liberty. President Obama is counting on you to be too distracted by other issues to do anything about his plans to shred the 2nd Amendment with the stroke of a pen in the Oval Office.
Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, perhaps more than any other activist on the Right provides a direct bridge between the Republican establishment and the chain-email conspiracy theories festering on the right-wing internet.
This was perfectly illustrated this weekend when, just one day after Sen. Ted Cruz announced that GOA’s chairman and Pratt’s boss Tim Macy would head up his presidential campaign’s “Second Amendment Coalition,” Pratt took to his “Gun Owners News Hour” radio program to discuss how President Obama is secretly building up a private army that can only be defeated if patriotic members of the military turn against him.
Pratt’s guest on Saturday’s program was Lawrence C. Mackin, the author of a new novel called “The Police Revolt of 2016,” which imagines a ragtag group of police officers and military personnel who must organize a revolution when “a group of radical Islamists allied with Obama's private internal army composed of units from the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, are planning to establish an Islamic dictatorship within the United States,” a premise that Pratt said was “not too fictional.”
Mackin came prepared with a great number of conspiracy theories that he had found on the internet, telling Pratt that Obama signed a deal with Russia “to bring Soviet troops into this country in the event that we needed extra security, such as a Super Bowl event, for example” as part of his “plan to build up his private internal army within the United States.”
Also manning Obama’s private army, Mackin said, would be undocumented immigrants and “all the illegal aliens from the Middle East that he’s bringing into this country right now,” who are “all men.”
Mackin also informed Pratt that former DHS secretary Janet Napolitano “stated that she wanted to buy an AR-15 rifle — that’s a personal defense weapon — for every federal employee” so that they could also join “Obama’s private army.”
His book, he told Pratt, is not that “far-fetched” because all of these things are already happening in the Obama administration.
Pratt agreed that the premise was entirely realistic because “as much as the president has tried to cull the military of senior officers who are known to be pro-American … he certainly hasn’t gotten them all, so if it ever did come down the rubber meeting the road, the president really couldn’t be sure that he would be giving an order that would be followed.”
If the president’s plan to build a private army continues, Pratt said, “at some point the guys and gals would say, that’s it, he’s gone too far, today’s the day, let’s go, let’s roll.”
I think we’re at that point right now,” Mackin said, “but again, we’re just looking for a leader.”
Elsewhere in the interview, Pratt brought up the debunked rumor that the nuclear deal with Iran included a mutual defense agreement that would require the U.S. to attack Israel if Israel attacked Iran, which Mackin said was just more proof that Obama is a “radical Muslim.”
Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose endorsement Sen. Ted Cruz boasted of in a September presidential debate, claimed yesterday that the gunman who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs last week chose his target because he knew it was a “Democrat place” and his victims would be unarmed. The patients at the Planned Parenthood were likely unarmed liberals, Pratt said, because “conservatives typically don’t knock off their children.”
But, Pratt said, “bad guys have a way of getting guns” and the real “pity is that nobody in the danger zone was able to protect themselves and shoot back.”
Kaufman asked why that was, given Colorado Springs’ permissive gun laws.
“They can [carry] if they wish,” Pratt answered, “but apparently when you’re talking about, let’s face it, a Planned Parenthood clinic: liberal. Conservatives typically don’t knock off their children, they’re kind of looking forward to having them. So, Planned Parenthood, they give to Democrats, it’s a Democrat place. So that’s where this dirtbag decided to go.”
He added that the Planned Parenthood was “unofficially” a gun-free zone because “that’s the way liberals think.”
Pratt did not mention that one of the three people the Colorado Springs shooter killed was a well-armed (and reportedly conservative) police officer.
This is similar to Pratt’s response to previous mass shootings. When a man killed six people and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, Pratt alleged that the gunman “didn’t find any resistance” because his victims were Democrats. (In that incident, an armed person nearby almost shot the wrong person.) He similarly blamed this year’s shooting at a church in Charleston on church’s pastor's support for gun restrictions.