On his radio program yesterday, as part of his crusade to get right-wing anti-tax activist Grover Norquist removed from the board of the National Rifle Association for supposedly being a front man for the Muslim Brotherhood, Glenn Beck interviewed the Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin, who is a longtime Norquist critic and anti-Islam activist.
Following the interview, Beck literally begged the NRA members in his audience to vote to remove Norquist from the organization's board, warning that this is the last chance to stop him.
"If this works, his empire really falls apart," Beck said. "If it doesn't, no one will ever touch him and his influence will expand and so will the Muslim Brotherhood, at the highest levels."
Beck then likened Norquist to the protagonists of the television show "The Americans," which is about deep-cover KGB spies in America during the Cold War, which he cited to praise the efforts of Joseph McCarthy.
While McCarthy was "wrong in presentation and he was the wrong messenger," Beck said, history as proven "that what McCarthy was saying was true."
"If you watch that show 'The Americans,' that happened, that's true,' Beck declared. "Grover Norquist is the modern-day version of that KGB handler, if you will, whether he knows it or not. But the infiltration has happened and he's the doorway to it."
Glenn Beck dedicated his television program last night to once again promoting his ongoing campaign to get right-wing anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist removed from the board of the National Rifle Association on the grounds that Norquist is supposedly a front man for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Predictably, Beck brought right-wing activists Kenneth Timmerman and Frank Gaffney — who, just this week, was blasted by former NRA president David Keene as an unhinged conspiracy nut — onto the program to make the case against Norquist.
Beck went to great lengths to try to bolster Timmerman's credibility by mentioning three times that he had once been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Timmerman "is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee," Beck said in opening the show, so that gives him "some real credibility."
In case viewers weren't convinced, Beck mentioned it again — twice — during his introduction.
"Just so you know, he comes to the table with a little bit of credibility," Beck said. "He was nominated a few years ago for a Nobel Peace Prize."
Of course, just about anybody can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, so simply being nominated doesn't automatically mean that the nominee is credible, now does it?
Courting Extremism is a weekly feature on conservative responses to the Supreme Court vacancy.
Donald Trump, currently the frontrunner in the Republican presidential primary, believes that Barack Obama is an illegitimate president who isn’t a natural born citizen. So it’s only natural that Senate Republicans, having apparently decided that Obama’s second term in office only lasted for three years, seem intent on letting a future President Trump pick the next Supreme Court justice.
Not only would delaying a Supreme Court confirmation until the next president takes office leave the court short one justice for about a year, it could let Trump set the direction of the court for decades to come.
Conservative activists have pressured Republican leaders into taking an extreme stance that is opposed by a majority of voters, a stance so ridiculous that it even requires some Republicans to ignore their past statements on the judiciary.
Here are the five worst pro-obstruction arguments, blatant changes of heart and accidental admissions of truth that conservatives have made about the Supreme Court this week:
Perhaps Grassley would rather not talk to his constituents about why he thinks the Senate shouldn’t even hold a hearing on Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination because back in 2005 he was making exactly the opposite argument, telling his colleagues in a Senate floor speech about judicial nominees: “Let’s do our jobs.”
4) The Judicial C̶o̶n̶f̶i̶r̶m̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ Crisis Network
It’s hard not to roll your eyes when the Judicial Crisis Network demands that Senate Republicans ratchet up their unprecedented obstruction of Garland and other judicial nominees when one remembers that prior to President Obama’s swearing-in, the group was called the Judicial Confirmation Network. Indeed, JCN was created for the sole purpose of encouraging the Senate to confirm President Bush’s nominees, especially his most extreme and controversial ones.
Now JCN is targetingGarland, a man JCN’s own leader implied in 2010 would make a suitable replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens.
“But of those the president could nominate, we could do a lot worse than Merrick Garland,” JCN chief counsel and policy director Carrie Severino said 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.”
In a March interview, Pennsylvania radio host Bobby Gunther Walsh spoke with Severino about the JCN and hailed her organization for its work confirming judicial nominees during the Bush administration.
When Walsh incorrectly claimed that the group was called the Judicial Crisis Network at the time — suggesting that it was formed to fight Senate Democrats who were supposedly bent on creating a “crisis” in the courts — Severino chose to let Walsh’s false claim stand and went on to attack Democrats for trying to “repeat false facts over and over again.”
3) NRA’s Lawyer Problem
The NRA has been one of the most vocal opponents of Garland’s nomination, and has even pushed outright falsehoods in hopes of blocking his nomination. The group has insisted that Garland ruled against gun activists in the landmark Heller case and supported a national gun registry. Both claims are completelyfalse, but that hasn’t stopped conservatives like Bill O’Reilly and Larry Pratt from running with the bogus talking points.
But at least one NRA leader didn’t get the memo.
Timothy Johnson of Media Matters points out that one of the organization’s top lawyers lavished praise on Garland, although he toed the Senate GOP’s line that no nominee for the high court should be considered until after a new president takes office.
The NRA's dishonest and fiery rhetoric on Garland is at odds with the views of one of the organization's top constitutional litigators, conservative lawyer Charles J. Cooper.
Cooper, "a longtime stalwart of the Federalist Society" who often represents the NRA and other conservative interests in his private appellate litigation practice, praised Garland in a March 28 interview, saying his respect for Garland has only grown since he supported Garland's nomination to the D.C. Circuit in 1997.
In a 1997 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cooper noted that his legal philosophy differed from Garland's, but also wrote, "Not only is Merrick enormously gifted intellectually, but he is thoughtful as well, for he respects other points of view and fairly and honestly assesses the merits of all sides of an issue," and that should he be confirmed, "He would comport himself on the bench with dignity and fairness."
Asked about the letter by The Washington Post, Cooper said his "high opinion of Judge Garland has not changed -- indeed, it has only strengthened -- over the course of the 19 years since I wrote these words." (Cooper, however, does support Senate Republicans in obstructing Garland's nomination for political reasons.)
Among the cases Cooper was involved in? The Heller case, the very one that the NRA is citing in its false attacks against Garland.
Not only would Americans be stripped of their gun rights if a “liberal justice” were to be appointed to the court, Cruz warned, but America could transform into an authoritarian state: “[T]hink back in history: Every dictator that has taken the guns away from the population has used them against the population.”
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.”
The NRA's Wayne LaPierre spoke at Liberty University yesterday, where he told the students gathered for convocation that American gun owners are smarter than everyone else and are perhaps some of the smartest people in all of human history.
"So many of those elites, they think they're better than us," he stated. "They somehow think they're more sophisticated. They think they're more intellectually evolved somehow than we are. Or they think they're just somehow plain smarter than we are. Well, I've got news for the elites who look down their noses at all of us and our rights: We gun owners are a heck of a lot smarter than you'll ever be. It's true."
"In all of history," he continued, "there's never been a group of citizens so engaged, so determined, so resolute and so unified in defending freedom, so politically savvy and individually prepared and responsible for protecting our families and our communities. Never have there been smarter, freer American citizens than America's one hundred million gun owners."
"Let me say that again," he emphasized, "in all of the world, some of the smartest citizens are American gun owners."
Glenn Beck continues to promote his campaign to get right-wing anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist removed from the board of the National Rifle Association on the grounds that Norquist is a front man for the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic radicals, rolling out a new effort today aimed at mobilizing his listeners who are NRA members to vote to recall Norquist.
As Beck explained on his radio program today, Norquist is a "shill" for the Muslim Brotherhood and "a very shifty man" who has greatly endangered this nation by associating with "really bad people" and vouching for known "terrorists," referring to the bogus claim that Norquist is a secret agent working for the Islamist group.
Norquist is "a really bad mole," Beck said, and therefore it is vitally important that he be removed from the NRA board via this recall effort.
For its part, the NRA is urging members not to remove Norquist from the board, saying that the allegations against him are without "factual support":
... the NRA itself and a "Who's Who" of national conservative leaders have rallied Norquist's defense, saying the allegations are nonsense ... The NRA has examined all the criticisms of Norquist and found them baseless and strongly urged all NRA members to vote "no" on the recall.
"Given the staleness of all allegations [and] the lack of factual support," concluded a special NRA panel, "we disagree with the Petitioner in this case and recommend a NO vote."
Of course, Beck entirely dismissed the NRA's position by asserting that the board was moved to sympathy simply because Norquist wept during an inquiry into the allegations against him, speculating that other board members are afraid that they too will be targeted for removal if the effort against Norquist is successful.
"The board made their recommendation on a couple of things," Beck said. "Grover Norquist cried at the hearing and said, 'Gee, I just don't know why they're coming after me and my family.' And the board looked at him and, I believe, said, 'There by the grace of God go I, it's gonna be me; they come after him then they're going to come after me for something else and anybody can be thrown off the board and it'll be a witch hunt.' That's not true. Grover Norquist is in a special category."
NRA board member Ted Nugent, who recently got in some hot water for sharing anti-Semiticmemes on his Facebook page, took to Facebook again today to post side-by-side photos of Adolf Hitler and Hillary Clinton, accompanied by two fake quotes.
Now sitback & enjoy the abject insanity as zombies squaller like rabid coons in denial! Bringit goofballs! tell us hillary isnt a lying felon & how dems support anything American. dare ya
The purported quotation from Hillary Clinton ("We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society") has been widely reproduced online over the last several years and has been included in dozens of books; yet no one seems to know when, where, or in what context she supposedly said it. Some sources claim that Hillary Clinton uttered those words sometime in 1993 (during her initial year as First Lady) but provide no documentation beyond simply citing a year.
Given the complete lack of any documentation that Hillary Clinton actually spoke the words attributed to her, the likely conclusion is that this alleged Hitlerian echo quote is a fabricated "Hillariasm."
Moreover, we came up short attempting to document the original quotation of Hitler's that Hillary Clinton supposedly reflected with her own words. It appears to be, at best, a loose paraphrase of something Hitler once said (or someone's idea of the type of thing Hitler might have said), as noted in the book From a Race of Masters to a Master Race:
Fascism, communism and national socialism all share in common the explicit premise that the individual must subordinate himself to society's needs, or as Hitler would phrase it: 'Society's needs come before the individual needs.'
Even though Hitler led a political party known as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not class.
Finally, we note that whatever the truth of either quotation, this item is a prime example of the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument, a logical fallacy holding that a particular viewpoint is undeniably "bad" or "wrong" if it happens to have been shared by Hitler.
Glenn Beck used his radio program today to once again call upon his listeners who are members of the NRA to vote to remove anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist from the organization's board due to his supposed ties to Islamic radicals.
Nearly a year ago, Beck threatened to quit the NRA if Norquist remained on the board, which prompted the organization to launch an investigation into the allegations that he has links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Though the NRA promised that the probe would be "fully transparent" and the results posted on its website, it has been more than 11 months since it supposedly launched this investigation and nothing has come of it.
On top of that, Beck has not actually quit the NRA, as he originally threatened, and has instead turned his efforts toward getting Norquist removed from the board via a recall election.
"Remember, I said about a year ago that if Grover Norquist is on the board of directors of places like the NRA, I just don't know what I'm going to do," Beck stated. "I just don't know if I can keep my membership. Well, here's what happened: That caused up a whole just sandstorm everywhere so we had to find out what is the right way to do this, what is the right thing to do?"
"The right thing to do is to start a petition," he continued, "and then have an election, a recall ballot put into the NRA magazine at this time. The votes have to be in by May 1st on Grover Norquist and, believe me, you're going to have everybody he knows voting 'no' on the recall. If you believe what we talked about, that Grover Norquist is a very, very dangerous influence when it comes to Islam, we really think that you should stand up if you're a NRA member and vote 'yes' on the recall."
"This is vitally important," Beck stated. "Please vote 'yes' on the recall of Grover Norquist."
Eleven months ago, Glenn Beck launched a crusade against right-wing anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist for supposedly being a frontman for the Muslim Brotherhood, announcing that he was so concerned about Norquist's nefarious influence on the conservative movement that he might cancel his lifetime membership to the NRA is Norquist was re-elected to the organization's board of directors.
The NRA was so alarmed by Beck's threat that the organization promised that it would launch an ethics investigation into Norquist that would be "fully transparent" and that the findings would be "posted on the web." The following month, Norquist was re-elected to the board but then "voluntarily suspended his Board activities pending the outcome of the investigation."
That was nearly a year ago and the NRA has yet to release the results of its investigation.
But Beck is not giving up and announced on last Friday's radio program that an effort to recall Norquist from the NRA board is underway and that he is urging his listeners to cast their ballots accordingly.
"If you're a NRA member," Beck said, "you're going to be getting a ballot in the mail, I think it's in the magazine, and it's a recall ballot for Grover Norquist. They had to do it the right way, they had to go through, so many people wrote in and one guy started this ballot and said, 'As a member, I can start a recall,' and so there's a recall ballot to get Grover Norquist off the board of the NRA and that guy is very dangerous and needs to be removed from the NRA. So when you get your ballot, if you're a NRA member, make sure you vote 'yes' on the recall of Grover Norquist from the board; yes, you want him removed from the board of directors of the NRA."
"Enough infiltration," he continued. "I love his flat tax ideas, but his idea of what a good Muslim is and his connections to really, really dangerous people in the Islamacist side is frightening and it needs to end and his influence needs to be dramatically reduced, at least in conservative circles."
Nugent did not serve in the Iraq War, although he did meet with troops in Iraq alongside fellow musician Toby Keith as part of a USO tour. There is a runningdebate as to whether Nugent faked a medical exam in order to avoid the Vietnam War draft.
The conservative entertainer also criticized a Jewish gun group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, for issuing a statement condemning his “deeply anti-Semitic comments.”
In his response, Nugent condemned the group’s “sad bullshit” and said that if he had lived in Nazi Germany, he would have helped lead “the charge to disarm Nazis and kill them with their own Lugers.”
How tragic that the self inflicted scourge of political correctness can blind so many otherwise intelligent people! Jews...
It seems that NRA board member Ted Nugent is quite upset that anyone would dare criticize his anti-SemiticFacebook memes, writing on his Facebook page last night that he is simply trying to honor victims of the Holocaust by stopping the next one.
"What sort of racist prejudiced POS could possibly not know that Jews for guncontrol are nazis in disguise?" Nugent said. "'NEVER AGAIN!' Anyone? Anyone?? RUFKM!"
Just when you hope that mankind couldnt possibly get any dumber or more dishonest, superFreaks rise to the occasion....
Naturally, Nugent followed that first meme by posting a photo of Nazi soldiers rounding up Jewish families, whom he called “Soulless sheep to the slaughter.” The meme claimed that America is on “the same path” as Nazi Germany.
Nugent once fantasized about how he would lead the resistance to Nazi tyranny.
NRA board member Ted Nugent posted a photo of Jewish leaders on his Facebook page today with the caption “So who is really behind gun control?” alleging that “these punks” support stricter gun laws because they “hate freedom.” Just to drive home the point that the pictured activists and politicians are Jewish, the photo includes an Israeli flag emblem by each person’s face.
“Tell every1 you know how evil they are,” Nugent wrote. “Let us raise maximum hell to shut them down!”
The leaders listed include the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.); Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.); Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.); Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.); Sen. Mark Levin (D-Mich.); Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.); Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel; former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; attorney and pundit Alan Dershowitz; Boston developer John Rosenthal, who founded the group Stop Handgun Violence; Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; and Max Nacheman, the former executive director of CeaseFire PA.
“He’s been groomed to fool the dumbing-down victims, the self-inflicted, dumbing-down victims of America,” Nugent said of Obama. “Nobody in their right mind, and I do mean correct-educated, conscientious, logical, self-evident-truth-grasping mind, will believe this punk. This guy does want an unarmed public. This guy does want to economically ruin America. This guy hates America, he hates the Constitution and he hates the Bill of Rights. I believe, as so many Americans are learning more and more every day, that the president of the United States hates freedom. He’s the enemy of America.”
Nugent went on to claim that Obama is “the engineer and the ramrod for the worst clusterfuck in the history of America” who was “raised by Frank Marshall ‘Communist’ Davis and adheres to the Saul Alinsky book of destroying America.”
Naturally, Nugent said that all of Obama’s supporters are “liabilities” to America and “braindead” haters of freedom, while gushing that “Donald Trump is as close to Ted Nugent as you’re going to get in politics.”
However, “my dream is if Ted Cruz became president tonight.”
As you might have guessed, NRA board member and conservative musician Ted Nugent is not exactly happy with President Obama’s executive actions on gun violence.
“The president’s a freak,” Nugent announced on “The Joe Pags Show” yesterday. “The president is a Saul Alinsky master of puppetry.”
Resuscitating the NRA-bolstered myth that “the most innocent lives in the United States of America have been lost in every instance in gun-free zones,” Nugent asked of Obama: “What kind of evil-facilitating, complicit freak would want more gun-free zones? That’s like literally saying, this is the whitewater rapids where all the children have died, line the children up to jump in the whitewater rapids. This is Fedzilla at its most evil. This is Fedzilla on the side of criminals.”
He then went on to accuse Obama of “being racist” in his remarks on the death of Trayvon Martin, whom Nugent called “a known drug addict” and “a known thug.”
Nugent also told Pags, a San Antonio radio host, that soldiers and veterans consistently tell him that “the commander-in-chief is the enemy of America,” while insisting that several states have already eliminated the Second Amendment.
“Our president and his administration is the enemy of freedom,” he said.
Last month, Donald Trump appeared on “The Alex Jones Show,” where he told the right-wing pundit that he has an “amazing” reputation, unlike other journalists, whom Trump commonlyrefers to as “scum.” Among Jones’ many wild conspiracy theories is his belief that the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which took place three years ago today, was “staged” by the Obama administration.
Trump has not faced any criticism from his fellow Republicans for going on Jones’ program or for touting his work, despite the fact that Jones has been instrumental in pushing the harmful Sandy Hook conspiracy theory.
A 2013 Fairleigh Dickinson University poll found that “a quarter (25%) of Americans think that facts about the shootings at Sandy Hook elementary last year are being hidden and an additional eleven percent are unsure” and that “Republicans are more likely to think that the truth about Sandy Hook is being suppressed, with 32 percent agreeing.”
Sandy Hook truthers, who largely believe that the attack was faked as part of a government plot to push strict gun laws, are not alone in delivering twisted responses to the mass shooting. Others have used the massacre to attack gay marriage, the separation of church and state and, of course, gun laws.
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush said that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza “positively reeked of what intelligence operatives I know would call the tell-tale signs of recruitment and conditioning,” and wondered if Lanza was the target of a government scheme to recruit “vulnerable individuals for psyops” to advance “their diabolical agenda.”
Renew America’s Austin Miles similarly suggested that the massacre was “purposely orchestrated” to “disarm all Americans to retard resistance,” writing that Lanza and others were “brainwashed into carrying out such deeds that would prove a point about private gun ownership and the threat to all families as a result.” Then, he said, there would be no opposition to Obama using an “Executive Order to declare himself president (dictator) for life.” Fellow Renew America pundit, Laurie Roth, claimed Obama “staged” the attack because he’s on a “mission to take assault weapons from the people.”
Radio host Rick Wiles stated that “Sandy Hook was timed to coincide with the political agenda of the socialist Democrats such as Barry Soetoro [Obama], Chuckie Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein to pass stringent federal gun control laws,” alleging that “the shooting event was timed to coincide with the gun control initiative.” Another conservative radio host, Bradlee Dean, likened the Sandy Hook killings to Adolf Hitler “attacking his own Reichstag to start a world war” and said that it was orchestrated to pass an arms control treaty.
The Tea Party-aligned National Liberty Foundation insisted that the “staged” massacre showed just “how far your president went to get your guns”: “He wants to be a dictator, he doesn’t want to get out of the White House and he loves spending your money.”
Many of their assertions relied heavily on discredited claims that “crisis actors” posed as grieving family members at the school and that one of the young victims later met with President Obama (she didn’t, it was her little sister).
One Republican congressman, Louie Gohmert, however, told a fan of his that he would watch a Sandy Hook conspiracy theory video because he’s “always learning new things.”
Religious Right’s Reaction
Several Religious Right activists responded to the Sandy Hook shooting by warning that the massacre was a sign that God is no longer protecting America, removing his hand of protection due to supposed societal ills such as gay marriage, abortion rights and the separation of church and state.
“Millions of people have decided that God doesn’t exist, or he’s irrelevant to me and we have killed 54 million babies and the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition,” Focus on the Family founder James Dobson lamented. “Believe me, that is going to have consequences too. And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us.”
“We’ve taken God our of our school, we’ve taken him out of our government and now we seem shocked at all of these things,” Franklin Graham stated following the attack. “Why are we shocked? We shouldn’t be shocked. This is what happens when a society turns its back on God.” Author Joel Rosenberg said the shooting was one of the tragedies America is “reaping as a result of a society that increasingly ignores God,” specifically blaming comedian Jon Stewart for waging a “war on Christmas” and mocking conservatives.
One pastor said that a “gracious,” “merciful” and “loving” God decided not to intervene to prevent the shooting because it would “bring us back to our senses” and make people realize that God’s judgment “has really come by our turning away from the Lord.” Bryan Fischer of American Family Radio specifically blamed legal abortion and the lack of state-sponsored prayer for the attack, stating that God is a “gentleman” who “is not going to go where he is not wanted.”
Blocking background checks
Ted Cruz has proudly boasted of his role in successfully blocking a bipartisan Senate measure to expand background checks on gun purchases following the school shooting, bragging that unlike Republican “squishes,” he stood firm in opposing universal background checks. The Sandy Hook-affected families who supported the efforts, he said, were being used as “political props.”
National Rifle Association board member and musician Ted Nugent blamed the shooting on America’s “politically correct culture” and “‘anything goes’ value system” which “vilifies, condemns and mocks traditional societal values and customs at every opportunity,” while NRA executive director Wayne LaPierre delivered an unhinged speech against gun control measures, lashing out at the group’s critics, the entertainment industry, video games, the media and a lack of guns in schools.
But while nearly nine out of 10 Americans, including nine out of 10 gun owners, support more background checks, Republican lawmakers care more about the support they receive from groups like the NRA, and have done next to nothing to tackle the issue of gun violence in the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook.
Instead, Republicans claimed that the government should focus on mental health and thentried to block access to mental health services.
Few if any of the GOP presidential candidates are offering any meaningful gun reform proposals, outside of their unwavering dogma: More guns.
Nugent, proudly boasting that he was challenging “political correctness” and “liberal denial freaks,” wrote that he was proud of the officer for having “yanked the Spring Valley High School defiant brat out of her classroom desk and dragged her kicking and squealing like the disobedient punk she is.”
“Act like an animal and you will end up being treated like an animal,” he added.
I would like to obliterate the obscenity of political correctness yet once again by offering a huge Nuge thank you and SALUTE to Columbia, South Carolina, Senior Deputy Ben Fields. You know, that master of “improvise, adapt and overcome” good citizen cop all good Americans have come to admire and respect, who yanked the Spring Valley High School defiant brat out of her classroom desk and dragged her kicking and squealing like the disobedient punk she is.
As the liberal denial freaks recoil in feigned horror at such “unnecessary” violent disruption by the good officer Fields, I am proud to stand with the many millions of Americans who know damn well she had it coming, and clearly long overdue at that.
Here's a basic principle of life for anybody with a soul: obey!
By all accounts, the brat, like so many undisciplined brats before her, simply refused to obey the rules, refused to obey the teacher, refused to obey the principal and refused to obey officer Fields.
By all these consistent indicators, how much do you want to bet she disobeyed her parents and every other authority figure her entire life, and got away with it?
Finally, somebody did the right thing and gave the poor child a dose of reality that will probably save her life, unless she is let off again. Political correctness still reigns supreme, and a guy that did the right thing has been fired. I still stand with Fields.
Obey and you won't get ripped from your desk and put under control.
Act like an animal and you will end up being treated like an animal.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
While some Religious Right groups are busy trying to turn Kim Davis into a modern-day martyr, other conservative activists are addressing more pressing concerns, such as Pope Francis’ murderous agenda, ISIS infiltration of American churches and looming cannibalism.
5) Welcome To America, Pope Francis!
Alex Jones welcomed Pope Francis to the U.S. the only way he knows how: by ranting that Francis is bent on turning Americans into slaves and paving the way for the death of at least one billion people.
Jones added that he was “going to vomit” while thinking about the fawning media coverage of the “slimebag” pope.
Naturally, Davis' defenders are using her flouting of the law to raise money.
Liberty Counsel, the extreme anti-gay group that is representing Davis, put it this way in a fundraising email: “The American Civil Liberty Union’s motion to again hold Kim Davis in contempt reveals that their interest is not their clients’ license but rather a marriage license bearing the name of Kim Davis. They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy!”
Another conservative group, the Family Research Council, said in a fundraising email that Davis’ plight would lead to mass persecution of Christians.
Consider that carefully. If "politically correct" government officials will put a Christian like Kim in jail for the faith we all SHARE -- well, what plans do they have in store for YOU?
Depending on the circumstances, they'll do whatever is necessary to drive Christianity from influence in America by indoctrinating your children or grandchildren . . . ruining your job or career . . . getting you to compromise your faith . . . go silent . . . shut up . . . affirm sexual immorality . . . or deny key parts of the Bible.
3) ISIS Everywhere!
While groups like the Family Research Council and Liberty Counsel are on the lookout for phony cases of anti-Christian persecution, televangelist Jim Bakker thinks that people should really be investigating all of the ISIS terrorists who have stealthily joined every church in the U.S.
Bakker is far from the only one trying to stir up fears in order to sell merchandise. Chuck Holton of the NRA radio show “Frontlines,” for instance, warned this week about a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack.
Along with killing nine out of every 10 Americans, Holton said, an electromagnetic pulse attack will lead to people be “eating each other in the streets, because when you have these sort of systemic issues in our government of nearly half of the people in the United States receiving some sort of subsidy from the government, imagine what happens when all the EBT cards start flashing zeroes.”