Gun Owners of America, the radical gun group that bills itself as far to the right of the NRA, announced in an email to its members yesterday that it will be holding a series of “tele-town hall meetings” with Republican presidential candidates in order to vet the candidates on their gun-law orthodoxy. The “first of several” calls, to be held next week, will feature Sen. Ted Cruz, a favorite of GOA’s executive director Larry Pratt.
In response, People For the American Way President Michael Keegan released the following statement:
“Pandering to Larry Pratt – who believes President Obama is trying to ‘commandeer the military’ and agrees that Obama is ‘definitely capable of something as evil’ as leading black Americans to massacre white Americans – is beyond the pale, even for Ted Cruz.
“No one who aspires to be president of the United States should be willing to dignify the violent, bigoted record of someone like Larry Pratt. Cruz should pull out of this event immediately, and we’ll be paying close attention to see if other GOP candidates join these tele-town halls to appeal to the most extreme elements of their party’s base.”
Background on Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt:
History with radical militia movement
Was forced to step down from a position on Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential campaign when it came to light that he had spoken at a militia event featuring a number of neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic activists. Was influential in the formation of the militia movement in the 1990s.
Gun Owners of America, the radical and influential gun group that boasts that it is far to the right of the NRA, announced in an email to its members yesterday that it will be holding a series of “tele-town hall meetings” with Republican presidential candidates in order to vet the candidates on their gun-law orthodoxy.
The “first of several” calls, to be held next week, will feature Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a clear favorite of Gun Owners of America’s executive director, Larry Pratt.
While it’s unclear which other GOP candidates have agreed to participate in GOA’s calls, it’s disturbing that any have agreed to associate themselves with the far-right group and with Pratt.
Pratt has long stood at the intersection of the “mainstream” right, Christian nationalists, and fringe militia movements. In 1996, he was forced to step down from a position on Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign when it came to light that he had spoken at a militia event featuring a number of neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic activists. Several years earlier, Pratt had coauthored what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls the book that “introduced the concept of citizen militias to the radical right.”
A few days after the Oklahoma City bombing, he spoke to a far-right “Christian Patriots” group on the “biblical mandate to arm,” telling them that whoever had taken on the government “beast” in Oklahoma knew that “they can’t rely on the Lord to take vengeance.”
Pratt continues to promote an anti-government paranoia, urging citizens to arm themselves against a repressive government and make their elected officials fear assassination.
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!”
Pratt repeatedly suggests that President Obama will seek to bring violence against white Christians, possibly in the form of race riots. In a 2013 conversation with far-right pundit Stan Solomon, Pratt predicted that “there is inevitably going to be some kind of social implosion, some kind of neighbor-against-neighbor” violence brought about by “these folks in power.” When Solomon predicted that that “implosion” would take the form of a race war pitting “black, Muslim and/or atheist…have-nots” on “Christian, heterosexual white haves,” Pratt replied that he wasn’t “stretching” anything.
In a separate interview, Pratt agreed with Solomon that Obama “would definitely be capable of something as evil” as raising what Solomon called “a black force” to massacre white Americans. Pratt later denied that their conversation had anything to do with race, insisting that it was really about ninjas, but said that such a racial massacre was “something that the president wouldn’t mind seeing.” Pratt holds that this race war will then allow Obama and Hillary Clinton to “build their own communist society” in the race war’s wreckage.
Pratt’s reaction to recent protests of police brutality and racial inequality have taken a similar tone. Earlier this month, he suggested that there would be no problems in Baltimore if armed citizens had simply shot dead anyone who rioted; in 2013, he blamed Trayvon Martin’s death on the teen’s “broken family.” On his radio program last year, he mused that “the African from Africa” is generally “a very happy person” and could therefore “approach some of their fellow blacks” in America to teach them to exhibit less “surliness.”
Abbott has since tried to distance himself from the conspiracy theory, but Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex., has demanded — and apparently received — a meeting with military leaders over the matter.
Jade Helm 15 is just the latest in a litany of far-right conspiracy theories about President Obama planning a military takeover of the country. While none of the theories has ever actually panned out, far-right pundits and activists keep inventing new ones, insisting that whoever doesn’t agree with them either doesn’t see the truth or is enabling Obama’s dictatorial agenda.
Remember: Obama’s plot against America goes all the way back to his birth…
1) Barack the Baby Communist
Faith 2 Action founder Janet Porter, who recently worked with Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul and several GOP candidates on a film about how the gay rights movement will “criminalize Christianity,” revealed to WorldNetDaily readers just two weeks into Obama’s first term that she had learned through a chain email that the president had been planted as a baby by Russian communists who would use him to take over America.
“I can’t prove whether it’s true or not, but in light of all that is happening, it just doesn’t seem that far-fetched anymore,” Porter wrote, claiming that the letter was “not some e-mail scam” and that she personally reached out to its source to confirm the details.
According to the email’s author, during the early 1990s he met two Russian scientists, spouses “V.M” and “T.M,” who told him that “you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist” … named “Barack.” The Russians continued:
This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your president.
It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black, so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America
The female scientist seemed to know a lot about this young man: “She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the Legislature. ‘Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet …. [H]e will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.’ She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism, and Barack was going to pave the way.”
As it turned out, every single word in this chain email was true! Maybe. And now, Obama is on the brink of taking over America with his secret squads of Obamacare militias, immigrants, African Americans and/or foreign troops.
2) Obamacare Squads
Before joining the Family Research Council, retired Army Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin released a video with the far-right group the Oak Initiative suggesting that Obama is leading a “Marxist insurgency” in the U.S. He claimed that Obama inserted into the Affordable Care Act a measure that would create a personal army reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s Brownshirts, warning that the president was “laying the groundwork for a constabulary force that will control the population in America.”
Porter joined in in 2012, claiming that FEMA Corps, which trains young people to work in disaster response, might actually be “a standing army to stifle dissent” and “part of a new civilian security force that President Obama has called for in speeches.” WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, who once alleged that Obama sent a secret signal to Muslims to “finish” the Holocaust against the Jews, similarly warned that Obama would soon “move to shut down and destroy all independent media” and would make sure that “his biggest critics will be rounded up in the name of national security.”
3) About That Executive Order…
In 2012, when Obama issued an emergency preparedness executive order similar to ones issued by presidents since Dwight Eisenhower, some right-wing commentators went ballistic since this time, the president was Obama!
“He is openly implementing martial law in this country,” InfoWars host Alex Jones said about the executive order. The executive order, Jones claimed, declared that administration officials would have the power to “secretly arrest Americans and disappear us any time they want” and build “the domestic security force that’s just as big and just as strong as the military Obama’s always talked about as the ‘FEMA Corps.’”
One congressman, then-Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, suggested that the president would use the executive order to seize total power. In fact, Stockman speculated that Obama may have deliberately brought Ebola to America in order to create a crisis to justify the implementation of his order granting himself “emergency powers to take over control of the economy and everything.”
4) Ebola! Remember That?
Last year, four people were diagnosed with Ebola while in the U.S., two after travelling from West Africa and two after caring for an Ebola patient at a hospital in Texas. In the eyes of conservatives, this was a widespread pandemic that was all Obama’s fault.
According to Stockman, Obama may have had an “intentional” plan to bring Ebola into the U.S. “in order to create a greater crisis to use it as a blunt force to say, well in order to solve this crisis we’re going to have to take control of the economy and individuals and so forth…. [T]here may be an overreaction where the government starts taking away the rights of those that aren’t that necessarily involved or need that to happen. I hope that’s not that case but, as you know, this current government uses crisis to advance their philosophy and their agenda.”
Another far-right radio host, Laurie Roth, predicted that Obama would deliberately fuel an Ebola outbreak in order to “create a guise to declare martial law due to created outbreaks,” giving him the power to “control speech, food, travel and health care” and even “demand adults and children take some sort of mandated/mystery vaccination that kills off even more people”:
My prediction is that a forced vaccination plan from Obama and his administration is on its way. This will not only allow someone put in control (so Obama can’t be blamed) to release something potentially fatal into our system, but also act as a tracker – the complete end of our privacy and freedom.
Prior to the Ebola scare, Porter took to WorldNetDaily to predict that Obama would use swine flu to “round up American citizens” and force them into FEMA concentration camps. She also told WorldNetDaily readers that the president, emulating Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, would create “a food shortage” to see that people are “starved to death.”
5) Obama’s Race War Ruse
Since predictions about Obama’s dastardly plan to infect all other Americans with the Ebola virus in order to seize power didn’t exactly come true, conservative activists have turned to recent demonstrations over issues such as racial profiling as another Obama-orchestrated plot to take control of the country.
Others in the right-wing media took similar views. Wiles claimed that protests in Ferguson, Missouri, were all part of a plot to enable “Emperor Obama” to “start a civil war,” which would give him a reason to implement stringent gun control so people could no longer “protect themselves from tyrants.” His fellow conservative talk show host Jesse Lee Peterson said that Obama brought “chaos” to Baltimore just so “he can federalize the police departments around the country.” WorldNetDaily columnist Morgan Brittany claimed that the Baltimore riots were “planned” by the government, which she said is bent on “stirring up unrest” in order to give Obama the justification “to institute martial law to preserve order, form a national police force and postpone the 2016 elections.”
Savage, the conservative radio host, even went so far as to allege that Obama started the riots as a way to send arms to gang members under the pretext of preserving order: “It’s a race war. These are their shock troops, they don’t have the brown shirts yet, they don’t have the armbands, but soon Obama could deputize them. Isn’t that a natural army for him? Take the Crips and the Bloods, give them a green uniform and give them a weapon and they’ll keep order in the streets.”
In another interview, Pratt accused Obama of hoping to “bring violence” and “some kind of social implosion to America” as a way to keep power, with Solomon warning of “an explosion of attacks on haves by have-nots” and “more specifically on white haves by black have-nots; more specifically on Christian, heterosexual white haves by black, Muslim and/or atheist — not that there’s much difference — black have-nots.”
6) Bundy Ranch Standoff
The short-lived standoff between federal law enforcement and Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher and Fox News darling who refused to pay grazing fees for his cattle or to recognize the legal authority of the U.S. government, gave another opportunity for right-wing commentators to warn of an imminent federal takeover spurred on by Obama-instigated violence.
WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush pointed to the Bundy standoff as proof that “the federal government intends to control everything,” including “our food supply.” Denouncing President Obama as a someone who “embodies the diabolical Manchurian President, clandestinely working to destroy America,” Rush warned that the Bundy standoff might have been a test case for imminent FEMA camp internment.
“Do we wait until a family is slaughtered because they opened fire on government agents executing an illegal raid on their home?” he asked. “Do we wait until Department of Homeland Security operatives come around to arrest ‘domestic terrorists’ as designated by Harry Reid and ship them off to FEMA camps?”
Televangelist Gordon Klingenschmitt, who has since been elected to the Colorado legislature, said that the federal government dug “mass graves” near the ranch to hold the bodies of the “cowboys” they planned to murder. Wiles had a similar theory:
Civil unrest is brewing, the Obamanistas have tried a number of tactics to insult and infuriate the American people to respond with violence…. I expect dirty Harry Reid and his Washington sidekick Barry Soetoro will send federal agents back to Nevada this summer and my fear is that federal snipers will take out a bunch of cowboys and militia men.
Not only will Obama have loyal armies of doctors, AmeriCorps members, black protesters and gang members, but he will also, according to several conspiracy theorists, create a force of undocumented immigrants — specifically young Central American refugees escaping the drug war — to do his bidding.
Anti-immigrant activist William Gheen offered his own version of this prediction, alleging that the federal government was “going to give the illegal immigrants badges, they’re going to give them guns, and they’re going to put them in positions of authority over Americans in every way imaginable. So when you step out your door and there’s a knock at the door, you’re going to be looking at the new face of the state, which is the prior illegal immigrants that now have a badge and a gun and dominion over you.”
Gheen added that the Obama administration was “supporting the organized and well-funded illegal alien invasion of our homeland” and therefore has “the blood of many thousands of Americans on their hands that have been killed, injured raped and robbed by illegal immigrants,” warning that “center-right, Christian, heterosexual” men were particularly at risk.
Gheen even told Jones, the “InfoWars” host, that the young immigrants were the pawns and child soldiers of U.S. “elites” who want to subjugate patriotic Christians: “They’re willing to literally say and do anything that their new masters call on them to do to protect their position. Once Obama rams these ‘kids’ in, gives them their Obamaphone, enrolls them in Obamacare, puts them in a public school, pays for their housing, pays for their food…these people will do anything that their leaders call on them to do and I do mean anything.”
Alan Keyes wondered if Obama, whom he thinks wants to become America’s “Führer,” was “importing” immigrants “in order to facilitate what I think is an overthrow of our Constitution.”
WorldNetDaily’s resident health “expert” Elizabeth Lee Vliet claimed that the government would use a “flood of illegals” who carry exotic diseases to “overwhelm and collapse the economic and social systems, in order to replace them with a ‘new socialist order’ under federal control.”
8) Obama’s Atheist/Islamic/Canadian/Alien Army
Building off the birther conspiracy theory that Obama is not a U.S.-born citizen and the general right-wing belief that he is not a real American, several conservative activists believe that the president will use foreign forces, outside of just immigrants and health care workers, to oppress Americans.
According to Bill Federer, a Religious Right “historian,” the Arab Spring was designed by nefarious forces who wanted to create a surge in Muslim refugees who would then settle in the U.S. in order to establish Islamic “sleeper cells.” Soon, these sleeper cells would “get a signal to have Ferguson riots in malls across America,” which would give Obama the justification to “restore order” by setting up a “militarized dictatorship.” Obama, Federer warned, could follow in the footsteps of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot in killing millions of Christians.
Federer cited a man named Avi Lipkin, who apparently heard from his wife, who heard from an unspecified Arabic-language broadcast, about a plot to bring millions of Muslim refugees into the country in order to bring about Sharia law. Lipkin alleged that Obama was “going to bring in 50 to 100 million Muslims” and settle them in national parks and “lands confiscated by Agenda 21” — a sustainable development initiative that is at the center of its very own right-wing conspiracy theory — ultimately forcing America to “surrender its Christianity” in the face of a new “Muslim majority.” Then, Obama would establish a “dictatorship” … with the help of “the Masons, the Illuminati [and] the Trilateral Commission.”
Lipkin and Federer, however, don’t hold a candle to Jim Garrow, a right-wing activist who believes that Obama tried to kill 300 million Americans with an EMP attack for the sake of enriching George Soros and giving him the chance to live in a luxurious bunker underneath the White House. Garrow also believes that Obama will try to improve his poll numbers by claiming that he is able to communicate with aliens, but if they plummet any further and Americans start to revolt, then Obama will “ask [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper to send troops into America to help quell the rioting and vice versa.”
Jones talked to another “real source” about the need to “brace for a nuclear attack in South Carolina,” who alleged that Charleston was the target because of the presence of U.S. submarines: “This is a false flag operation, a major false flag, that is about to occur because if they take out our naval base in Charleston, they will cripple about one-third of our fleet ballistic missile submarine force.”
“Everything they are doing is like trying to set America up,” Jones replied, wondering if “Obama is like a triple agent of the globalists, we know that, and they are maneuvering America towards a set-up to destroy us and then Homeland Security will then detonate nukes in all of our bases as an inside sneak attack.”
“This ultimately reeks of yet another false flag being orchestrated by the United States government in order to send us into war,” Jones said in another commentary about the matter. “I just wish to God that this wasn’t happening,” he said.
This is the same Alex Jones who launched Jade Helm 15 into the GOP mainstream and led to such a fear that the governor of Texas ordered the National Guard to monitor the U.S. military during the drill.
Of course, when one conspiracy theory fails to materialize, radio hosts like Alex Jones just move on to the next one, and then eventually, Republican politicians just move along with them.
“If Operation Jade Helm were being conducted under a President Paul or President Cruz or President Walker, three of the conservative frontrunners I guess we could say, we might be watching to see what’s happening, but we wouldn’t have the same inability to accept what the administration is saying,” he said. “This administration has not earned our trust. They have lied repeatedly. So even if what they’re saying happens to be true, who’s to know?”
Jones — who was instrumental in pushing the Jade Helm conspiracy theory before it broke into the Republican mainstream — heartily agreed, saying, “The president is acting as a dictator more and more, Congress is letting him do it, and it might be too little too late, who knows what power grab he may pull. This shows a little of that old American instinct, like Ronald Reagan said, to ‘trust but verify.’”
Jones told Pratt that “everybody knows” that the Obama administration is “training the military to take on vets and gun owners, and saying we’re the threat, not Al Qaeda or ISIS,” to which Pratt added that the administration is trying to fire military officers who believe in the Constitution.
In a recent interview, Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt responded to demonstrations and riots in Baltimore by insisting that they would not have been a problem if police and armed citizens had simply shot rioters dead.
“This should be a wakeup call, if one were still needed, for Americans to arm themselves and be vigilant and, frankly, to know who your neighbors are,” Pratt said on the “Liberty Roundtable” last week, “and if, God forbid, something like Baltimore were to loom as a possibility where you live, that you and your neighbors would be able to hopefully head it off before it gets as bad as Baltimore got. Because one thing I’m pretty sure of is if the bad boys see that this is not going to be taking candy from a baby, that you break a window, you get shot. ‘Oops!’”
When the program’s host, Sam Bushman, suggested that “Eric Holder or the next attorney general or Barack Obama or somebody else from above” was “calling the shots” during the riots in Baltimore, Pratt responded that that was “a reasonable supposition” although Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake was probably just acting like a “hardcore liberal.”
Rawlings-Blake, Pratt said, should have simply demanded that “the first time one of the demonstrators looked cross-eyed, they got arrested, and then if they had broken a window, shot.”
“Then, it seems to me, we wouldn’t even still know where Baltimore is,” he said.
Later in the interview Pratt repeated his belief that “we need to deal more firmly with those that would try to create the sort of disorder.”
“So at the first instance of collective criminal activity, ‘Boom!’ In comes the paddy wagon, off they go,” he said. “And if they start violating persons or destroying property, ‘Bang!’ Then you don’t need a paddy wagon. “
Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt has consistently opposed any type of comprehensive immigration reform because he insists that if undocumented immigrants are allowed a path to citizenship, they will eventually “vote to take away our guns.”
Pratt repeated this point in an interview with far-right radio host Andrea Shea King last month, when he lamented that Sen. Marco Rubio, although he “is an attractive conservative on many issues,” worked on the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill “which meant all these anti-Second Amendment voters were being cued up to come and vote against the Second Amendment.”
King tried to defend Rubio, citing an interview he gave to the Washington Examiner during the debate over the Gang of Eight bill in which he said that if Congress failed to act on immigration, the president would issue an executive order deferring deportation for some immigrants, and “I cannot imagine a scenario where a future president is going to take away the status they're going to get.”
“It’s impossible, once you’ve given them amnesty, you rescind the amnesty,” King said.
“Well, I would,” Pratt responded, “and I would have no problem doing it. I’d come and take that voter card right out of their hand and rip it up in front of their face.”
On his “Gun Owners News Hour” program in March, Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt invited Christian reconstructionist activist Joel McDurmon to discuss is work republishing a book from the 1920s on the role of pastors and “biblical law” in the founding of America.
This led to a discussion of how, in McDurmon’s words, President Obama along with “the entirety of Congress and the Supreme Court justices” are all “lawbreakers” because “they all operate outside the law to different degrees,” just like the English monarchy before the American Revolution.
McDurmon then brought up a colonial sermon citing the example of Charles I, who was executed for treason in 1649, as justification for regicide. This reminded Pratt of a speech by Patrick Henry against King George that made a similar point in justifying the killing of tyrants, which he said would provide a useful lesson to President Obama.
“Well, I like the way Patrick Henry finessed the question of regicide, of tyrannicide,” he said, “and he then pointed, I think it might have been to Charles I, and he was likening the current king and situation to that. And there were cries of, ‘Treason! Treason!’ And he had a pregnant pause, and then he said, ‘And may he learn from his example.’”
“But yes, might he learn!” he continued. “Might Barack Hussein Obama learn. Might they all learn. They live in a world of limits. They are not men without limits, and that’s something that I think astonishes some of our rulers. They really think, because as the president has said, ‘I have a pen and I have a phone,’ they think he can do any bloody thing he wants. Well, we’ll see about that.”
Later in the program, Pratt praised so-called “constitutional sheriffs” — who believe they have the power to arrest federal officials who are enforcing laws they believe violate the Constitution — and legislatures like that of Kansas that have passed laws “nullifying” federal laws they don’t like. These politicians, he said, are carrying on the spirit of the American revolution.
“You’ve got sheriffs who understand constitutional government and understand their role,” he said, “you’ve got the state of Kansas, which has passed legislation warning the feds that if they come in and try to do something unconstitutional to enforce some of their gun laws, the folks that try that will be charged with a crime. Obviously they will be detained and not permitted to continue that kind of illegal and unconstitutional action."
“That, I’m sure, is greeted with disdain in the proper parts of Washington, D.C., New York City and so forth, but frankly I think the folks in Kansas are serious as a heart attack, I think these constitutional sheriffs would without question make an arrest if they saw something unconstitutional that was oppressing one of the citizens of their county, and that’s the kind of spirit that we saw at the time of this period leading up to the war for American independence. It may not be dead yet in this country, the spirit that brought us from the New England pulpit, it may well be beginning to raise its head again, beginning to articulate itself again.”
Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand conservative activist who has devoted himself in recent years to exposing President Obama as an “enemy within,” joined Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt on his radio program last month to discuss his upcoming movie, which he hopes will help get Ted Cruz elected president next year, thus saving America and the world.
Loudon promised Pratt that his movie “will go way further” than Dinesh D’Souza’s anti-Obama polemics “in exposing the Marxist” Obama. “America stands in the balance, and if America goes down, every Western country will fall, including my own,” he said.
Claiming that the president and dozens of members of Congress “could not pass a basic FBI security clearance to clean the toilets at any military base in your country,” he told Pratt that “Americans deserve to know the traitors that they have in their government.”
“If the Democrats get elected again, they’re going to dissolve the southern border, they’re going to legalize all the illegals, they’ll turn Texas blue, they’ll give them the vote, and basically you’ll have a one-party state in America,” he warned.
“Ted Cruz or a comparable patriot has to win the next election,” he said. “That is not a negotiable.”
Pratt was very impressed, telling Loudon, “Really, not since Joe McCarthy has anybody been willing to call these people out and say, ‘You don’t have the best interests of the country at heart.’”
Claiming that “any competent journalist could determine that Obama was a Marxist, a committed Marxist, his entire life with a couple of hours of decent research,” Loudon told Pratt that Obama is acting just like Russian agent sent to undermine America.
“If Obama was just incompetent, as some naïve people still tell you, clearly he’d make some mistakes in your favor from time to time,” he said. “Look, I say this, this is controversial: If Obama was a fully paid-up Russian agent, here to destroy the United States military, wreck your economy and take away your sovereignty, what would he be doing differently than he is today?”
“Collecting a bonus for a job done over and beyond expectation,” Pratt responded.
“This is Czechoslovakia in 1948, this is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez,” Loudon said. “And you’ve still got these naïve conservatives who tell you that America’s going to turn into France or Germany. I wish!”
Fiore criticized President Obama for talking about combatting rape while failing to support her bill, to which Pratt responded that Obama wouldn’t support her measure because he is a “tyrant” who “doesn’t want the people having guns” because otherwise they’ll rise up against him.
“He doesn’t want the people having guns because he’s a tyrant, and he knows that as long as we’re armed there are certain limits to how far he can go,” he said.
“And actually, Mr. Obama, didn’t you find out the limits there in Bunkerville, Nevada?” he said, referring to the armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management at the Bundy ranch.
Jaeger believes Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks and he recently compared the state of Israel to ISIS: “Is it thus any surprise that when Zionists call for a Jewish state (ISRAEL) and Arab-Muslims call for an Islamic State (ISIS aka ISIL) there is going to be massive and endless conflict?”
One article he links to on his site, “Are Jews Conspiring to Take Over the World?,” says that while it may be a fraudulent document, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion “accurately describe much of what is happening in our world today.”
Alias hailed Jaeger’s latest film as “a very classy showcase for the Oath Keepers [sic] mission, to the promotion of our ‘Ten Orders We Will Not Obey,’” a reference to the militia group’s conspiracy-theory-laden manifesto about disarmament, nullification and concentration camps. He added that “Oath Keepers is helping James Jaeger fund the production of this important film, and the film will feature Oath Keepers in many ways.”
“I’ll give President Obama one thing,” Pratt said. “In all the appointments he’s made that I’m aware of, unlike Republican presidents who have appointed people because they played golf with them, or because somebody said something nice about them among the elite, President Obama has only appointed, to my knowledge, people who are willing to be as ruthless as is he. That explains Eric Holder. That explains Loretta Lynch, who is an Obama appointee as U.S. attorney in New York.”
When Schneider noted with scorn that “Lynch views voter ID laws as being racist,” Pratt said that opposition to such voting restrictions is part of Obama’s “ruthless” attempt to steal elections for Democrats, which will eventually lead to the Republican Party dying out.
“If they have to deal with photo voter ID, they lose, because it makes it much more difficult to steal elections,” he said. “And in all too many cases, the Democrats have been able to win only because of election fraud. And that’s why they are so bitterly resisting photo voter ID. That is a very, very key issue. And when I hear Republicans saying that ‘well, you know, it’s kind of embarrassing for us to be continually opposing that,’ I guess they’re suggesting it makes us look racist, what they’re saying is, they’re okay with the demise of the Republican Party in about 10 years.”
Pratt was a guest on VCY America’s “Crosstalk” program on Tuesday when a listener called in identifying himself as a “sovereign” from Wisconsin and asked him, “I just wondered if somebody of your stature would stand up and scream from the rooftops that these 60 million codes and regulations don’t apply to us, only to U.S. citizens.”
While Pratt didn’t address the “sovereign citizen” movement directly, he told the caller that most federal laws are unconstitutional anyway and “should be stricken.”
“Well, I think you can make the same point with another argument, that the body of, the corpus of law and regulations you’re pointing to, almost none of it comes under the Constitution,” he said. “It gives powers to the federal government that were not given to the federal government in the Constitution. They should be stricken.”
This led the show’s host, Jim Eliason, to bring up the upcoming Supreme Court arguments about marriage equality, which Pratt agreed is “not something for the federal government or the federal judiciary to be sticking their nose into.”
“God bless Judge Roy Moore,” he added, praising the Alabama Supreme Court’s chief justice for defying a federal court ruling striking down the state’s marriage equality ban.
Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council also described marriage equality as a threat to freedom this week, writing that the Supreme Court is “headed for another Dred Scott opinion” if it finds same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional, referring to the ruling which said that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens.
“If the Court overturns marriage, it will not only further delegitimize itself as an institution, it will gravely damage American society,” he said. “And it will undermine the ‘consent of the governed’ — the only basis for just laws.”
Blackwell, notorious for his efforts as Ohio’s secretary of state to stiflevoting in the 2004 election, went on to compare judges who rule in favor of marriage equality to officials in the Jim Crow South who restricted the voting rights of African Americans: “We should remember Selma and the ‘Bloody Sunday’ that was necessary to achieve the too-long-denied equal voting rights for all our citizens. Today, rogue federal judges are engaged in the most massive case of voter suppression we have seen since the days of Jim Crow! Across the country, but especially in the South, black Americans joined other citizens in voting to affirm true marriage.”
But neither Blackwell nor Cruz can claim the prize for the most distraught outburst against gay marriage of the week, as that honor belongs to Indiana politician John Price, who suggested that Americans should “flee” the U.S. before the Supreme Court rules on marriage rights.
4) Gay Twilight Zone
So how exactly does LGBT equality threaten freedom?
I’ve watched with dismay the controversy surrounding Amarillo Town Club’s family membership policy, which was placed prominently before our community by the Amarillo Globe-News on March 2 with its front-page article showing a picture of two angry-looking homosexual women.
The story was also mentioned by a reader in a letter to the editor (Letter: Shame on Amarillo Town Club, March 6, amarillo.com) who believed the business’ conduct was “shameful.”
Shameful? Sometimes I feel like we are living in the twilight zone.
Mechler went on to write that people who criticize his view that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legalized are actually attacking the freedom of speech: “What I find troubling is the incredible attack that has been launched on free speech. I love this country, and as an American the Bill of Rights gives me the right to say what I please.”
3) Immigrants Will Take Your Guns
Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt is a staunch opponent of immigration reform since he believes that new citizens will vote Democratic and “take away our guns.”
Pratt expanded on this theory in an interview with Armed America Radio recently, explaining that immigrants have a “dependent mentality” and thus don’t understand what it’s like to want to protect yourself from bodily harm.
“A dependent class that depends on the government for their income, for all kinds of financial and other assistance, is not generally of a mind to be able to protect itself, which is after all the most important part about living, is staying alive from one moment to the next in case some dirtbag wants to try to terminate you,” he said. “And if you don’t think enough of your own freedom to take charge of that aspect of your existence, then of course you’re likely to expect handouts and ‘more, more, more’ because you have a dependent mentality.”
On Wednesday, as Media Matters notes, Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim, alleging that administration officials knew Petraeus was leaking sensitive material but “kept it in reserve” and acted on it only “when Petraeus refused to go out and spout the company line on Benghazi.” Limbaugh said that Clinton knew that this cover-up of the cover-up occurred, and that is why she used a personal email account at the State Department: “And so Mrs. Clinton knew that they knew, because she was secretary of state when they sent Petraeus out there to spout the company line and refused to do it. Plus she knew Obama — so that server is to keep things from Obama.”
Since “Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office,” according to Farah, there is reason to believe that “he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office” since he has no respect for the Constitution anyway. After all, Farah believes that the Obama family enjoys lavish vacations and is “living it up” on the taxpayers’ dime so much that they may refuse to leave the White House.
Farah even suggested that groups like People For the American Way are paving the way for the third Obama term since there is “simply no organized opposition to Obama’s illegal, criminal actions and behavior.” The only one who can stop Obama, Farah writes, may be Hillary Clinton.
Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt was a guest on Armed America Radio two weeks ago, where he told host Mark Walters that Obama’s executive actions on immigration will destroy the Second Amendment because immigrants are part of a “dependent class” that’s “not generally of a mind to be able to protect itself” or to take care of “staying alive from one moment to the next in case some dirtbag wants to try to terminate you.”
Walters prompted Pratt to discuss why the president’s immigration actions are “a threat to gun owners” because “he’s going to create an underclass, handout, ‘gimme, gimme, gimme’ dependency class” of Democratic votes.
“First of all, we’ve seen that survey data indicates that some 85 percent of the illegals, were they to vote, would vote Democrat,” Pratt agreed. “And on the national level, really without exception anymore, that means anti-Second Amendment.”
“And you actually kind of sketched the larger picture,” he continued. “A dependent class that depends on the government for their income, for all kinds of financial and other assistance, is not generally of a mind to be able to protect itself, which is after all the most important part about living, is staying alive from one moment to the next in case some dirtbag wants to try to terminate you.
“And if you don’t think enough of your own freedom to take charge of that aspect of your existence, then of course you’re likely to expect handouts and ‘more, more, more’ because you have a dependent mentality.”
Earlier in the interview, Pratt predicted that Obama’s last two years in office will bring “an unimaginable assault on all kinds of liberties of Americans” in Obama’s effort to turn the U.S. into a communist country:
We’re going to see, I think, just an unimaginable assault on all kinds of liberties of Americans, be it the mining of coal, the manufacture of ammunition, financing of the firearms industry and their need for loans or whatever. This guy is now going to be in a serious assault mode against so many freedoms that we thought were kind of established here in the United States. Now we’re going to see that no, not according to our Dear Leader, our Dear Leader thinks this has been injurious to the world.
He thinks just the way every communist thinks, that the only reason the United States is prosperous is because we stole our wealth. He doesn’t have the first notion of how the free market works, how it encourages people to produce, how it has actually created wealth. Freedom means prosperity. Socialism has always meant drudgery.
In a Friday appearance on “The Steve Deace Show,” Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt skewered Kayla Mueller, the American woman who was kidnapped by ISIS after visiting a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Aleppo and later killed in captivity.
Pratt said that Mueller was a “little revolutionary who had gone pals-ies with the Palestinian terrorists,” calling her a representative of a liberal anti-American mindset that prefers “capitulating to evil.”
“She wanted to kill Jews, what a sweetheart,” he said.
Deace agreed, calling Mueller’s death a “great irony” and “a tragic example of what Shakespeare once noted as being hoisted from your own petard.”
Pratt then claimed that Thomas Jefferson bought an edition of the Quran after learning from a Moroccan ambassador that kidnapping and enslaving people was party of the Islamic faith. “Jefferson went and got a copy and then he knew his enemy,” he said.
Shortly after terrorist gunmen killed 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris earlier this month, conservative commentator Steve Emerson went on Fox News and claimed that Europe was being taken over by “no-go zones” controlled by Islamic law to such an extent that non-Muslims were not allowed to enter Birmingham, England’s second-largest city.
But at the same time, the “no-go zone” myth gained traction among conservative activists and Republican leaders, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who mentioned it in a speech in London despite refusing to offer the names or locations of the purported no-go zones, and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who claimed last week that France has “like 700 no-go zones where authorities have allowed Sharia law to be imposed,” something that he claimed is also beginning to happen in the United States.
The “no-go zone” myth didn’t spring out of nowhere two weeks ago. Instead, it has been percolating for years in fringe media, perpetuated by anti-Muslim activists warning that Europe was being overtaken by Sharia law, soon to be followed by the United States.
Bloomberg pinpoints the beginning of the myth at a 2006 article by conservative pundit Daniel Pipes, who gave the name “no-go zones” to a list of French “sensitive urban zones,” some with large populations of Muslim immigrants, that were, in reality, nothing more than areas hit by high crime and poverty that were actually targeted by the government for urban renewal projects. A few years later, Pipes had the opportunity to visit a few of these “no-go zones” and reported that they were “very mild, even dull” compared to high-crime neighborhoods in the U.S. and that “immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.” He wrote, “Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.”
But Pipes’ retraction came too late to stop the “no-go zone” story from becoming an established fact in fringe right-wing media.
The Muslim population, for example, in France is over 10 percent,” she said. “You see outside of Paris … it can be very frightening. The no-go zones, the Shariah zones, where firefighters and police cannot go. They are many times lured by particular criminal activity into these zones, only to be ambushed. We see it in the U.K., increasingly, the imposition of Shariah law. And people think it can’t happen here, but it is happening here.
Last year, the Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro similarly warned in a FrontPageMag article that European “no-go zones” would provide “precedent” for such “Muslim enclaves” in the U.S. The publication has been another prominent generator of the myth, frequentlyciting Pipes since-rejected claim about French “no-go” neighborhood.
The myth percolated to the top of the news cycle briefly in 2010 when Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle claimed that Dearborn, Michigan, and the made-up town of Frankford, Texas, were ruled by “Sharia law.” She didn’t use the term “no-go zone,” but was clearly influenced by the myth that had by then become established fact in fringe media.
As recently as last month, Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt was citing the myth to warn that U.S. protests against police brutality would create “no-go zones.”
“It’s like in England and Scandinavia and I guess in Paris and a lot of Europe, perhaps in a lot of their metropolitan areas, the Muslims have come to a preponderant population in those areas that the police do not dare go into the urban areas controlled by Muslims,” he said.
The myth, propagated by a few voices in fringe media, is too wild for Fox News. But it is now apparently perfectly acceptable in the Republican Party.
We think this bears repeating now that a report is making the rounds that Morgan recently turned away a father and son of South Asian descent after asking them if they were Muslim.
The Arkansas Times talked with the young man who was reportedly turned away along with his father:
"My dad and I used to go to this gun range," said the young man, who asked not to be identified by name, "but we haven’t had as much of a chance to go in recent years since I've been at college. It's changed ownership recently."
"When we went in, a woman asked, ‘Where are you guys from?’ We told her we were from Hot Springs. She said, "this is a Muslim free shooting range," so if we are [Muslim] and if we don’t like the rule, then leave. We said that we’re not Muslim, but my dad asked, ‘Why is it Muslim free?’ and they started having a conversation. Then, all of a sudden, I don’t know what went wrong, but she stopped us from filling out the paperwork and said ‘I don’t think you guys should be here.’ She told us to leave or she’d call the cops on us."
Not wanting to cause a scene, they left.
"We’re brown; I don’t know if she assumed we were Muslim," he continued. "When she first asked us, she said, ‘I would hope if you were Muslim you guys wouldn't be cowards and would be up front about it.'" The student told the Times he was born in the U.S. and lived in Hot Springs for ten years before going to college in a different Arkansas town; he considers Hot Springs his home.
He recalls reading about the "Muslim free" shooting range, he says, but "I didn't know it was this place." Once he made the connection, he said, "I kept quiet because I just wanted to have some fun and shoot some guns." He says going shooting with his dad is just something they do occasionally: "father-son time, guy time."
In an interview with the Washington Post, Morgan denied turning the pair away because of their ethnicity and said she did so because they appeared to be “under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” But she did not back away from her ban on Muslim customers, explaining to the Post that the whole reason she opened her gun range was because she had received “death threats because of posting the truth about Islam.” She insisted that she won’t change her policy unless the Koran is altered to remove passages that she believes prescribe violence.
Morgan insisted that she doesn’t “believe all Muslims are terrorists,” although she seemed to say the opposite in a recent tweet:
If you align with a religion whose prophet is a mass murderer/pedophile that commands death to all non-Muslims, then YOU ARE A TERRORIST.
“I don’t believe all Muslims are terrorists,” Morgan said, adding she has “no idea which Muslims are going to be devout and follow those 109 dictates and those who won’t.” So in her mind, the safest thing to do is to ban all Muslims from her club. “I can’t trust that they can be safe to handle guns” in front of non-Muslims, she added.
There’s another reason Morgan doesn’t take much comfort in the vast numbers of Muslims who are not violent: She believes Islam will remain fundamentally a threat until the religion is permanently reformed by removing the more than 100 passages from the Koran that she believes demand violence from its followers.
Morgan isn’t alone in her belief. At the gun range, she said, “business is booming” since she announced the ban.
The gun range itself, in a way, owes its existence to Morgan’s interpretation of the Koran. “I didn’t even own a gun five years ago,” she said, adding that she learned to shoot because of “death threats because of posting the truth about Islam” on the internet. After that Morgan kept “training and training and training” until she became an instructor. Before all this, she worked in TV news — part of the media that has now become one of her biggest adversaries.
Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt has an explanation for the death of Eric Garner, who was choked by a New York police officer apprehending him for selling loose cigarettes on the sidewalk: “socialism breeds death.”
Discussing the assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn last month with talk show host Steve Deace yesterday, Pratt noted that the gunman had mentioned Garner’s death in social media posts before the shooting, implying that the officers’ murder was also part of the death wreaked by New York’s “socialism.”
The dirtbag that murdered the two cops sitting in their car said that he was getting even for Eric, what’s his name, Garner, the guy the cop had taken down and subsequently died on the way to the hospital in an ambulance.
Had New York politicians had not been so bodaciously greedy to have passed such astronomically draconian tax laws so that a guy can actually sell a single cigarette in the black market as a way to make money and I guess at least some kind of a living, and it so bothered the merchants that were selling at required lawful higher prices that they dropped the dime on the guy. And the cop wasn’t just trying to enforce stupid laws because he was a jerk, there had been an actual complaint filed about the guy selling loosies, namely single cigarettes loose from the pack.
That’s how bizarre it is in a socialist city like New York City in a socialist state like New York. Socialism breeds death.
Gun Owners of America’s executive director, Larry Pratt, once again egged onan unhinged violent rant from Internet talk show host Stan Solomon this week, this time as Solomon urged police officers to kill nonviolent protesters demonstrating against police violence.
In an interview posted online yesterday, Solomon and Pratt discussed the assassination of two police officers in New York last week, which they blamed on demonstrators.
Solomon, trying to give Pratt cover by saying “Larry will not condone this” suggested, “The next time there’s a die-in, make sure they’re dead. The next time they block the road, run their asses over. I think it will slow down.”
“Well, it’s a very confrontational mentality that we’re dealing with,” Pratt responded, “and at some point the police will have to come to the conclusion that it’s us or them.”
He went on to suggest that the protests would create “no-go zones” in cities where police would refuse to enter: “If they’re going to have to deal with an enemy terrain where a lot of people, and they can’t sort out ahead of time who’s the enemy and who is not, I think that’s going to lead to the conclusion that ‘I’m not going in there.’”
Back in March, Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, gave a radio interview in which he told the story of one of his group’s members threatening a member of Congress, which Pratt thought was just fine because the fear of being shot is “probably a healthy fear” for elected officials to have. A few months later, the exchange made it into a Rolling Stone profile of Pratt and caught the eye of Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who it turns out was the threatened congresswoman in question, and who immediately notified the Capitol Police.
Pratt, in fact, was so delighted by the story of threats to Rep. Maloney that he told it last month to a gathering of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association in Washington, a group that believes states and counties should ignore federal gun laws.
Rep. Maloney, Pratt said, “went off on a hissy fit” after hearing his comments. The Capitol Police, he added, “came back with a conclusion that there was no articulable threat, which I think was a nice way of saying, ‘You’re nuts, lady, shut up.’”