Larry Pratt, the executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America, said on his “Gun Owners News Hour” radio program this weekend that if a Democrat wins the White House and the Supreme Court starts issuing decisions in favor of gun regulations, conservatives may turn to the “bullet box” to rectify the situation.
Pratt was interviewing Robert Knight, a senior fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, who warned that “if a liberal Democrat is elected president, then there goes the Supreme Court, it could be two, three, four justices, and I think the Second Amendment would be in great peril if that happens.”
Pratt responded that if such a court interprets the Constitution in ways that conservatives don’t like, they may have to restore “proper constitutional balance” through the “bullet box”:
And at that point, we would have to come to an understanding, which we’ve been sort of taught, it’s been taught out of us, that the courts do not have the last word on what the Constitution is. They decide particular cases, they don’t make law. Their decisions, unlike the Roe v. Wade usurpation, don’t extend to the whole of society, they’re not supposed to. And we may have to reassert that proper constitutional balance, and it may not be pretty. So, I’d much rather have an election where we solve this matter at the ballot box than have to resort to the bullet box.
Pratt has previously hinted at his willingness to use violence against Supreme Court justices with whom he disagrees, issuing a warning to Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, saying that “the Second Amendment is all about people like Judge Garland.”
Republicans have tried for years to use the terrorist attack — which led to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens — to go after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is testifying before the committee today. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy recently admitted that the special committee was formed to bring down Clinton’s popularity in advance of the 2016 presidential election.
Of course, uncovering facts has never been the GOP’s primary motivation when it comes to Benghazi (or much else). As these five instances show, Republicans and their allies in the conservative media have been much more concerned with creating bizarre scenarios to claim that the administration, and fellow Republicans, are suppressing the truth of the attack.
1) ‘No Evidence’ But What The Hell…
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch unveiled an elaborate conspiracy theory earlier this year, alleging that the Obama administration wanted Libyan militants to kidnap Stevens in order to then do a prisoner swap for terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. However, the compound attackers botched the job after Stevens died, Fitton said, and therefore we can never know if the administration was actually ready to release Abdel-Rahman.
Fitton conceded in an interview with WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi, a fellow Benghazi truther, that there is “no evidence” to support his theory.
“Given what we know now, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the terrorist attack on Benghazi could have been a kidnapping attempt aimed at releasing the Blind Sheik,” Fitton said.
He noted, however, there is “no evidence” that the Obama administration may have been complicit in any kidnapping plot related to the Benghazi attack.
And since he can’t find any evidence to substantiate this claim, Fitton is pretty sure that there must have been a cover-up, insinuating that the State Department was trying to stop his group from receiving corroborating information.
2) Cover-Up Of The Cover-Up!
When President Obama first proposed bombing the Syrian regime after it used chemical weapons on civilians in Ghouta, Glenn Beck knew that Obama didn’t want to stop such war crimes — but instead wanted to cover up what really happened in Benghazi.
According to one conspiracy theory, Stevens was actually organizing an operation to transfer weapons from Libya to Syria to aid Islamic extremists (which of course raises the question of why these extremists would then want to attack the American post in the first place).
Seizing on that conspiracy theory, Beck speculated that it wasn’t the Assad regime that used the chemical weapons in Ghouta, but rebels using weapons delivered from the U.S. via Benghazi. Now, Beck reasoned, Obama wanted to bomb Syria because he was “covering the trail of the lost weapons from Benghazi.”
Beck later claimed that David Petraeus stepped down as CIA director not because he leaked classified information to his mistress but because he was about to blow the Benghazi scandal wide open. Beck’s theory ran into a slight hitch when Petraeus publicly praised Clinton’s response to the attack.
Beck has also alleged that the administration “let them die” in Benghazi after issuing a stand-down order, an accusation refuted on his very own news website.
While we weren’t surprised that Beck would pick up a conspiracy theory from such a website, it was a bit more shocking when a U.S. senator brought up WND’s conspiracy theory in a hearing with Clinton. At a 2013 hearing, Sen. Rand Paul demanded that a dumbfounded Clinton tell him if the U.S. was transferring weapons from Libya into Syria via Turkey.
Paul admitted that he didn’t “have any proof” before suggesting that the gun-running scheme was what was really happening “and the cover-up was an attempt to massage and get over this issue without getting into the gun trade.”
Investigations, including one led by Republicans, have found that Stevens was trying to find weapons, but in order to keep them out of the hands of extremists, with no evidence at all that he then sent those weapons to Syrian groups.
4) Marijuana A Benghazi Distraction!
Ben Carson is very upset about the Obama administration’s push to reform American drug laws. The GOP presidential candidate told Joseph Farah, the editor of WorldNetDaily (notice a theme?), that the administration’s push to liberalize laws on marijuana, along with its stance on the trademark of the Washington Redskins, is all part of a plot to “distract people” from the Benghazi attack.
Carson told Farah last year that most people now just think Benghazi “is a singer.”
“And these people vote and they have no idea,” he lamented.
Carson isn’t the only one to latch onto the “distraction” theme. Conservative activist Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union dedicated a column in the Washington Times about New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady’s since-lifted suspension by insisting that the “Deflategate” scandal was part of an effort to distract people from Benghazi. Iowa radio broadcaster Steve Deace similarly wonder if NFL prospect Michael Sam’s decision to come out of the closet was also just a Benghazi distraction.
5) Benghazi Special Committee Is Part Of The Benghazi Cover-Up!
Since every single official committee, including ones led by Republicans, that has investigated the Benghazi attack has ended up debunking the conspiracy theories percolating through the right-wing media, a group of conservative activists has launched the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi to find the real truth.
This unofficial committee has embraced so many conspiracy theories surrounding the attack that its members even believe that the GOP-led Benghazi Special Committee is aiding the cover-up!
One member, Ret. Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, told, guess who, WorldNetDaily, that committee chairman Trey Gowdy needs to go, lamenting that “this is a continued cover-up.”
This is the second in a series of posts about the upcoming World Congress of Families in Salt Lake City, Utah. Read our introduction to the World Congress of Families here.
The World Congress of Families has been stung by intensecriticism over its promotion of anti-gay bias and policies around the world, and has mounted a public relations campaign portraying itself as interested in civil discourse and uninterested in slamming gay people. If only it were true.
WCF Executive Director Janet Shaw Crouse has said the group’s support for traditional notions of family “does not mean disrespect for anyone else.” Crouse says, “We do not and will not engage in ‘gay-bashing’ or ‘hate’ language." In its 2014 “Call for Civic Dialogue” WCF said:
In its history, the WCF has never taken a position for or against anti-sodomy laws, nor has it attempted to roll back the rights gained by these individuals and organizations…. The WCF never has and never will advocate for any policy that brings harm to innocent individuals….
These assertions are grossly disingenuous and deceptive. WCF depends on, and celebrates, its association with what it calls “exemplary”anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council, American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, and many others who aggressively resist the advance of LGBT equality in the U.S. and overseas -- and promote policies that most definitely bring harm to innocent individuals. For example, WCF and its allies played a significant role in organizing the stridently anti-gay “pro-family” movement in Russia. And not taking a position on laws that subject LGBT people to long jail terms and worse is hardly something to brag about.
Sadly, Cruz is not an outlier. WCF and the speakers it provides with a platform have a long record of resisting protections for the rights of LGBT people. Last year WCF initiated a letter signed by 120 Religious Right figures from around the world in “vigorous protest” of the U.S. Embassy’s participation in a gay pride celebration in the Czech Republic. It refers to marriage equality as a “pseudo-right” that debases human freedom and dignity. The letter concludes, “We can not imagine a worse form of cultural imperialism than Washington trying to force approval of the ‘gay’ agenda on societies with traditional values.”
More to the point, WCF’s own Africa regional director, Theresa Okafor, who is being honored at the event, supported a harsh anti-gay law in Nigeria that not only provides for long jail sentences for gay sex, but also bans gay people from meeting in groups. Okafor has suggested that pro-equality groups from the west are allied with the violent Islamist Boko Haram in a conspiracy to silence Christians.
WCF Executive Director Crouse has her own track record. She has said children being raised by gay couples are being “used as guinea pigs.” She has praised Russia’s anti-gay right, saying approvingly, “I wouldn’t bet on the Russians capitulating to western LGBTIQ fascists without a fight.” At a 2013 Howard Center press conference, Crouse said American gay-rights activists are “turning into thugs who are destroying freedom of speech, destroying religious liberty.” She praised anti-gay activists in France, Spain, Trinidad & Tobago, and Nigeria. And while Crouse portrays American gays as enemies of free speech, she enthusiastically backed the prosecution and jailing of Pussy Riot activists over their anti-Putin protest in a Moscow cathedral.
Among other anti-gay speakers who will be given a platform at WCF:
Peter Sprigg represents the stridently anti-gay Family Research Council, whose leader Tony Perkins once defended Uganda’s notorious “kill the gays” bill as an effort to uphold morality. Sprigg, who once said he would like to “export” homosexuals from the U.S., complained this year about Randy Berry, Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons, for traveling to Uganda and Jamaica. Sprigg criticized the Obama administration for trying to “force this American-style homosexual agenda down the throats of other countries” like Uganda, “which is one of the countries that has been most bitterly attacked by homosexual activists around the world.”
Robert Knight, a Religious Right pundit and former FRC staffer, has argued that judges who rule in favor of marriage equality should be impeached.
Errol Naidoo received training from the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C before founding the Family Policy Institute in South Africa in response to the legalization of marriage equality, which he had lobbied against. He blames abortion and “the homosexual agenda” for creating a “culture of death” that is “slowly killing off the human family in Western civilization.”
Jennifer Roback Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, formerly affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage, says the “sexual revolution” is a “totalitarian” movement” and “a pagan ideology” that Christians should refuse to compromise with. She says “the only reason we’re dealing with gay marriage now is because we never faced up to the harms that have already been inflicted by feminism.”
Frank Schubert is a political communications strategist notorious as the mastermind of the strategy to ground the campaign for California’s Prop 8 in fear-mongering about gay people and couples being a threat to children. Schubert was paid handsomely to take that destructive strategy to other states.
Washington Times contributor Robert Knight reacted this week to New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady’s suspension for his role in “Deflategate” by explaining that the scandal is really like Benghazi.
Despite the fact that all of the officialreportshavedebunked the conspiracy theories surrounding the 2012 attack, Knight still insists that administration officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were deliberately lying about the incident, and like Brady, must be punished.
If nothing really painful happens to Mr. Brady or the Patriots, it would be one more high-profile example of people in public life getting away with dishonesty, which is culturally corrosive. I say this in sorrow, having rooted for the Pats for many years.
Cynicism and misconduct grow when certain people seem to be beyond accountability.
The cultural damage was enormous when Bill Clinton not only was caught in lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, but also that he got away with it and has prospered mightily since leaving office. Think of the messages sent to America's children: Character doesn't count, marital vows are a joke, and changing the definitions of words like "is" are just something you do to get people off your back.
On April 14, we learned that the Internal Revenue Service, whose wrath knows no bounds for "everyday American" taxpayers who make mistakes on their tax forms, has retained thousands of IRS employees who violated the tax code and even gave many of them promotions and raises. Above the law? It certainly seems to be the case.
This is the same IRS whose officials flatly denied that orders had come down from the top in Washington to target Tea Party groups before the 2012 elections and deny them nonprofit status. It was just some rogue officials in Cincinnati, we were told.
The head of the nonprofit division, Lois G. Lerner, not only refused to testify under oath to Congress about the IRS jihad against conservatives, but somehow also managed to "lose" thousands of pertinent emails. Hillary Rodham Clinton one-upped her by not only ditching thousands of emails from her stint as secretary of state but also by wiping her personal server clean.
And while we're on the subject of cover-up, nothing has happened to those who got caught brazenly lying about what triggered the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
For two weeks, Obama administration officials, most notably then-United Nations Ambassador Susan E. Rice, President Obama himself and Mrs. Clinton, insisted that an obscure anti-Islamic video triggered a spontaneous riot. Thanks to State Department emails obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by Judicial Watch, it has become clear that officials in Washington knew about the nature of the attack in real time.
It had nothing to do with a video. Is anybody ever going to face any repercussions about the lies surrounding the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans?
Compared with these scandals, Deflategate is small potatoes, despite the outsized media attention it's getting because of America's obsession with sports and celebrities.
In an interview with a West Virginia radio program on Thursday, conservative commentator and American Civil Rights Union senior fellow Robert Knight claimed that President Obama is encouraging undocumented immigrants to vote and “trying to replace the American electorate with illegal aliens who are easily bribed with federal welfare.”
Complaining about what he sees as ineffective GOP leadership in Congress, Knight told talk radio host Tom Roten, “The Democrats don’t operate like that. They play guerilla warfare and they win, they do whatever is necessary to win.”
“Right now, I think they’re trying to replace the American electorate with illegal aliens who are easily bribed with federal welfare,” he said. “I think that’s the game here. President Obama didn’t like what happened in 2010 and 2014 when there was a conservative wave that swept the country, and so he’s decided to replace the American voter with imported millions from Central and South America and from Mexico, and first get them on welfare so that they’re dependent on the government and then get them to vote for politicians who will raise taxes and expand government. That seems to be the plan for the next few years.”
“If it was just a matter of having some more voters who happen to be Hispanic, that’s no problem at all,” he said. “It’s the fact that they’re making voters out of illegals who have come to the country illegally, who are therefore vulnerable to deportation and they’re susceptible to bribes in the form of federal welfare, food stamps, you name it.”
Knight added that new immigrants don’t “understand or appreciate American exceptionalism or American liberty.”
Later in the interview, Knight discussed allegations by J. Christian Adams that a Department of Homeland Security initiative to help green-card holders work toward citizenship is actually a plot to increase the Democratic electorate before the 2016 election.
Claiming that this program for legal immigrants is a plan “to convert millions of illegal aliens into U.S. citizens and voters by 2016,” Knight warned, “Your tax dollars are working to basically create a new class of voters who will vote to seize more of your paycheck and exert more power over you and your family.”
“So this is how they steal the 2016 election?” Roten asked.
“Well, this is how they’re trying,” Knight responded.
Conservative commentator Robert Knight is not optimistic about the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in a set of marriage equality cases, telling a West Virginia radio program yesterday that “unless God intervenes, the court looks poised to create a brand-new right to gay marriage out of the Constitution, which is just literally insane and absurd.”
Knight was particularly annoyed by Justice Kennedy’s comments about marriage conferring “dignity” and “ennoblement” to gay couples. “I was thinking about that,” he told Huntington-based talk radio host Tom Roten, “and I thought, the way you’re doing that is by stealing the moral capital of marriage and conveying it to other relationships that aren’t anything like it. That is not ennobling them, that is transferring moral capital.”
“It’s like taking a losing team, and they feel bad about their losing record,” he explained, “so they say, okay, now they’re going to have the same record as this winning team over here so everybody feels better.”
Knight was also upset that the only children discussed during the Supreme Court arguments were children being raised by gay parents. “What about the vast impact on children across America if gay marriage is legalized?” he asked. “Think of the textbook changes. Think of what schools will be teaching directly against the beliefs of millions of American parents. I mean, we’re putting a counterfeit in the law, we’re going to use the law to impose it on the country.”
Although the attorneys arguing on behalf of marriage equality at the court explicitly noted that clergy in marriage equality states are not required to marry same-sex couples, Knight falsely claimed that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had said that question should be left to the states.
“Think in the free country of ours, they’re casually talking about using the power of the state to force pastors to bless something that the Bible says is an abomination,” he said. “We are really in an insane age here when it’s come to that. And unless the American people rise up and say ‘enough,’ it’s just going to get worse.”
While speaking last week in Ohio, President Obama was asked his thoughts on how to control the amount of money in politics and spending on campaigns, to which he responded by noting, among other things, that some nations have mandatory voting.
"If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," Obama said, and that has predictably alarmed conservative activists who notoriouslydo not want everyone to vote, such as Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union and Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association.
Discussing Obama's statement on the "Today's Issues" radio program this morning, Knight and Wildmon both stated that most people who don't vote are uninformed and ignorant and so "we don't want those people voting" in the first place.
Knight went on to claim that Obama is seeking to "flood the nation with illegal immigrants, get them hooked on welfare and then have them vote for Democrats," which Wildmon said was part of a plan to bring about "the death of the Republican Party as we know it":
Radical Religious Right activist Janet Porter has released yet another trailer for her upcoming documentary "Light Wins: How To Overcome The Criminalization Of Christianity," which features a who's who of anti-gay activists as well as several Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee.
"Like a tank in Tiananmen Square," Porter says, as she walks down the middle of a dark street as a pair of headlights bear down upon her, "the homosexual agenda has been running over people since Anita Bryant's courageous stand in the 1970s."
After that, it is nothing but 10 minutes of anti-gay activists calling upon Christians to rise up and fight back against the "homosexual agenda."
Among the participants we immediately recognized in this new clip are Huckabee, David Barton, Gary Glenn, Steven Hotze, Robert Knight, Judith Reisman, Stacy Swimp, Greg Quinlan, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Brian Camenker, James Dobson, Bill Donohue, Scott Lively, Frank Pavone, Dutch Sheets, Phyllis Schlafly, Rick Scarborough, Gary Bauer, Mark Crutcher, Jerry Boykin, and Harry Jackson.
At one point, Gohmert declares that it is the duty of Christians to "love people who engage in homosexualty" because "we all have family members that we think are making major mistakes with their lives, but you can still love them."
Later, Pastor Steve Witt declares that just as God would have saved Sodom and Gomorrah if only 10 righteous people could be found, so too can most American cities be spared, but only if thousands of people will take a stand against homosexuality.
At the end of this new clip, Porter is shown in an empty football stadium, warning that "the battle for our freedom is being fought while most Christians are on the sidelines. We need to get out of the stands and into the game because the Super Bowl for our country is being fought and our team is not even on the field."
Washington Times columnist Robert Knight joined Steve Deace on his radio program yesterday to discuss the showdown in Alabama over a federal court ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Knight lamented that “judges have gotten out of control” because state and federal lawmakers have failed to bring them “to heel” by impeaching judges who rule in favor of marriage equality.
“The reason judges have gotten out of control is because legislators have not protected their turf, they have not used the constitutional means to bring these judges to heel,” he said. “One of them is impeachment. At the federal level and at the state level, there are many ways judges can be removed. In Massachusetts, it would have been easy to remove the Supreme Court judges who found a right to gay marriage in the Massachusetts Constitution in 2004, but that would have taken Gov. Mitt Romney to go ahead and get the process going and he refused.”
He also blamed the “pro-family movement” for failing to address why homosexuality is “bad for people” and neglecting to lift up the stories of people “who have recovered and become straight.”
Deace told Knight that Republicans who think a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality would help them by putting aside a contentious issue are wrong, and that the ensuing national debate would
“make Roe v. Wade look like a picnic.”
“This is going to go DEFCON 1, DEFCON subterranean, because now we’re going to be in an issue where the other side of the argument now thinks they are empowered and emboldened to unleash the full coercive power of government to force believers nationwide all the way to the church door to change their belief system,” he said.
“This is going to escalate if the court goes Roe v. Wade on this in the summer,” he warned. “It won’t diminish it at all. It will take this from a largely provincial state-by-state issue into a national debate that I think’s going to make Roe v. Wade look like a picnic.”
Bryan Fischer was out sick yesterday, so the American Family Association's news director, Fred Jackson, filled in as guest host on Fischer's "Focal Point" radio program where he interviewed the ACRU's Robert Knight about the protests that have erupted after two separate grand juries failed to indict police officers for killing unarmed black men.
Knight declared that the activists who have protested these decisions are "trying desperately to start a race war" and blamed President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder for fanning the flames by supposedly suggesting that all police officers are racist.
"They really need to be taken to the woodshed for this," Knight said, which prompted Jackson to declare that those who are demanding that these police officers face trial for their actions are really calling for them to be lynched.
"Somebody was saying this morning, 'we ought to have public trials,'" Jackson said. "What do you mean by a public trial? That sounds a whole lot like lynching to me":
Washington Times columnist Robert Knight is bringing back the right-wing “victory mosque” meme, this time claiming that a Muslim prayer service held at the National Cathedral in Washington sends a message “of weakness” to American Muslims who “see it as akin to raising their flag over a conquered enemy.”
At the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, the Episcopal Church announced that the historic edifice was to host its first Muslim service on Friday. That's right. The symbol of America's Christian heritage in the nation's capital, which earlier turned the nave into a yoga center, was to ring with homages to Allah.
Planners call it "a powerful symbolic gesture," and hope it will inspire more religious tolerance around the world. You know, like those "coexist" bumper stickers that imply all religions are equally intolerant and need to get, like, tolerant.
The cathedral is, indeed, sending a powerful message — of weakness. Many Muslims will see it as akin to raising their flag over a conquered enemy. Ever since Muhammad launched jihad in the 7th century, victorious Muslims have made a point of erecting mosques on the site of synagogues or churches, or converting grand church buildings into mosques, such as the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (now Istanbul).
This is one reason many people were apoplectic when plans were announced for a mosque near ground zero in New York, the site of Muslim militants' greatest victory over the Great Satan America.
In the brave new world of tolerance, only Christians and sometimes Jews are told to be silent, to celebrate sin, or even to host worship of what Christians and Jews for centuries have regarded as a false god.
Over the weekend, Washington Times columnist Robert Knight criticized Hillary Clinton’s response to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling by accusing her of wanting to instill in America a “quasi-religious culture of death” which “reflects the religious sensibilities of the priests of Baal and the rulers of Sodom and Gomorrah.”
According to Knight’s unhinged column, Clinton is bent on “the destruction of marriage and the family” and, like President Obama, is a Marxist radical hoping to destroy America.
Her liberal friends at some major corporations have been pushing the quasi-religious culture of death since the 1970s.
Hapless employees have by association aided and abetted Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda as well as homosexual activism, both of which are anathema to devout Christians and Jews. A number of large corporations have been up to their ears selling hard-core, illegal pornography. The willful embrace of immorality is as clearly a decision with religious significance as is willful adherence to God-given natural law.
Mrs. Clinton has no problem with corporate, religious-inspired activity, providing it reflects the religious sensibilities of the priests of Baal or the rulers of Sodom and Gomorrah.
What about the “bad slippery slope” of an America descending into decadence and moral anarchy? It’s a good bet that, like any thinking leftist, Mrs. Clinton welcomes it. The destruction of marriage and family makes people dependent on government and hence dependent on politicians like her.
What if, as with Mrs. Clinton’s reverential Wellesley dissertation on Marxist community organizer Saul Alinsky, Mr. Obama is a true believer of the left who hates everything that makes America unique? What if he took to heart the leftist bromides from his Muslim father and stepfather, his mother, his grandparents in Hawaii and his self-acknowledged mentor, communist writer Frank Marshall Davis?
What if he were schooled in radical politics by his friend, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, and came to believe that if he ever acquired the power to do so, he would show these spoiled Americans a thing or two?
What else rationally explains 5 years of ripping apart the Constitution, economic and foreign-policy disasters, the government takeover of health care, antipathy toward Israel, a slavish devotion to using government to further sexual anarchy, an open-borders policy, and the criminal misuse of the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies to try to crush political opponents?
As bad as it has been, we may not have seen the worst.
Mrs. Clinton said she found the Supreme Court’s moment of moral sanity the other day “deeply disturbing.”
It’s nothing she won’t fix pronto if she ever gets the chance.
Phil Robertson continues to display his
love for the gays: "I'm trying to help those poor souls and turn them to Jesus."
Glenn Beck is beginning to have deep misgivings about Rand Paul.
Joseph Farah declares that if Hillary Clinton
becomes president, she will "eliminate the First Amendment and the Second Amendment in one fell swoop" because
"she’s every bit as un-American and evil as Barack Obama."
Ibrahim, the Sudanese Christian woman sentenced to death for refusing to convert to Islam, has been freed.
Finally, Robert Knight says he used to be a
liberal but then turned toward conservatism. Why? "In my formative years I also noticed that many leftist men, who
supposedly bought into feminism, treated women badly. Their idea of being a gentleman was making sure someone —
preferably not them — paid for the girl’s abortion while they scored a bag of weed."
Knight claims that suing JONAH over its offer to turn gay people straight – a practice discredited by all of the country’s majorcounselingandpsychiatricgroups – is like suing Alcoholics Anonymous or Weight Watchers.
“If the SPLC’s argument is valid that all temptations must cease for counseling to be legitimate,” Knight writes, “Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers and other groups assisting with behavioral change should be charged with fraud because some clients fall off the wagon.”
The Alabama-based SPLC has a project called Teaching Tolerance, with a website and print periodical of that name aimed at educators. Much of it deals with countering bullies.
Yet the SPLC itself, with a $281 million endowment and scores of attorneys, is the consummate bully in a case involving a tiny New Jersey organization.
Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) counsels people with unwanted desires, including same-sex attraction. The SPLC’s lawsuit contends that the group is committing fraud under New Jersey’s consumer law.
Their argument? People are born with same-sex desires, they cannot possibly change in any way and, therefore, any counseling to reduce temptations or re-channel them toward the opposite sex is fraudulent. This preposterous claim is based on the same thinking behind laws in New Jersey and California that punish licensed counselors for trying to help parents deal with their children’s unwanted same-sex desires.
The SPLC’s lawsuit, like those laws, violates the basic right to self-determination. They are dictating that a person cannot seek licensed help in overcoming an unwanted temptation. The SPLC has trotted out some disaffected people who tried counseling and say it failed. They ignore voluminous evidence of people who say they were helped.
If the SPLC’s argument is valid that all temptations must cease for counseling to be legitimate, then Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers and other groups assisting with behavioral change should be charged with fraud because some clients fall off the wagon.
The SPLC is throwing the kitchen sink at this for a reason: If they win, it will set the stage for outlawing all counseling that the left does not like, including counseling by clergy. Jesus said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.” That’s never easy, especially when someone is trying to use the law to abolish God-given moral standards and persecute good people who are trying to help others.
“[S]ome of the pastors are spectacularly naïve while others are knowingly trying to destroy the two-party system and bring America under Godless socialism,” they write.
They also report that they wholeheartedly agree with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s remark to Roll Call that “if [the pastors] really wanted to help people who are here illegally or in bad situations they, they want to pay for their health insurance and everything, then I would be saying how wonderful that is. But if they are advocating that the government do that, then it will break our bank and destroy our country.”
A lot of well-meaning but frankly wrong evangelical brothers and sisters are pressuring Congress to enact what would amount to immigration amnesty. This would empower the Left to finally end the world’s longest experiment in liberty and self-government. It is that serious, friends. This is misplaced compassion at its worst, and it could usher in an oppressive era that could make the current lawlessness seem like a golden age.
The group is acting under the auspices of the Evangelical Immigration Table, whose leadership includes Marxist Jim Wallis of Sojourners, who World magazine editor Marvin OIasky caught in bald-faced lies denying billionaire financier George Soros’ heavy funding of the group. As such, some of the pastors are spectacularly naïve while others are knowingly trying to destroy the two-party system and bring America under Godless socialism.
On last week’s Tea Party Unity conference call, TPU founder Rick Scarborough praised lawless rancher Cliven Bundy for giving Americans “hope and courage,” likening the rancher and allied armed militias to the colonists who fought in the American Revolution.
While conceding that “clearly the man has some issues, he should’ve been paying his grazing rights,” Scarborough condemned the government’s “Gestapo tactics” against Bundy: “If people want to see what tyranny is, take a close look at that…. This is an illustration of where we’re headed if the American people don’t wake up to the tyranny that’s encroaching on our lives.”
“There’s a big pushback coming and it’s going on now,” Washington Times columnist Robert Knight added. “If you see the video of maybe one hundred riders on horses, most of them armed, riding up the road to help their neighbor against the federal assault, I don’t know about you but that reminds me of Lexington, these people meant business.”
Craig James allegedly lost his last job for being anti-gay so, of course, he has now been hired by the Family Research Council.
Anti-immigration activists are notreacting well to Jeb Bush's statement that those who enter this country illegally do so as an "act of love."
Robert Knight does not support the push for marriage equality: "It’s one thing to have the idea that a cow is now a horse. It’s another to use the power of the law to impose this delusion on everybody else. Same-sex 'marriage' is a direct attack on freedom of conscience for millions of people."
Liberty University dismisses concerns that it has hired a gay choreographer for an upcoming production of Mary Poppins.
Finally, James Dobson has a long list of ways that America is collapsing, including "in early March, Lena Dunham, the creator and star of the cable sitcom, Girls, appeared totally nude in a two minute skit on Saturday Night Live. She was naked as a jaybird. Dunham was accompanied by her co-star, Taran Killam, who was wearing nothing but a scanty leaf. Not only was the skit obscene; it mocked the biblical account of Creation and the Creator. Was there any outrage to the response? None that I heard about."
FRC says that by vetoing Arizona's gay discrimination bill, Gov. Jan Brewer "is saying she supports
government discrimination against people's religious freedoms."
Speaking of FRC, they are urging activists to pray against gay marriage: "Lord, intervene to prevent evil from overcoming what you have
forever declared to be good! Help the U.S. Senate to pass the State Marriage Defense Act (S. 2024) to protect each state's right
to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prevent the federal government from undermining a state's
definition of marriage."
Robert Knight says that it is "the lack of negative reporting on
Hillary Clinton and her high visibility is a reason she still polls high."
Scott Lively says that "from the inability to distinguish
disagreement from 'hate' or tolerance from approval, to conflating sex and love, homosexualists (i.e. anyone
'gay' or straight who advocates for the mainstreaming of homosexuality) just can’t think straight."
The anti-transgender group Privacy for All Students has come up short in securing enough signatures to try and repeal California's anti-discrimination bill.
An atheist group that wanted to have a booth a CPAC has now been kicked out of the event.
The AFA warns about "the marginalization of biblical Christianity, the erosion of hard-won liberties, the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in every area of our culture, gay marriage accepted everywhere, and certain cults (we will leave them unnamed here) to be seen as part of Orthodox Christianity."
Finally, what is Robert Knight even talking about? He says "it’s getting harder every day to be a liberal" because of things like "the Ukrainians sullying the Olympics for Mr. Obama’s friend, Vladimir Putin."