On his radio program yesterday, after he finished laying out his conspiracy theory about how the government is supposedly protecting an al Qaeda operative responsible for recruiting the Tsarnaev brothers to carry out the Boston Marathon bombing, Glenn Beck explained how this was all being done for the benefit of Saudi Arabia.
But it turns out that it is not just global forces that Beck is up against in trying to expose this conspiracy, but "principalities and powers" which is Religious Right speak for satanic and demonic forces.
This is not a conspiracy theory. We have the documentation. You want to play ball with us, Washington? Come on, bring it on, play ball! We are not afraid. We know exactly who we are dealing with. We are dealing with, quite honestly, principalites and power beyond our imagination. But we know who we have on our side. Bring it on.
On Thursday's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton attempted to explain why marriage equality is a violation of the Constitution because it is a violation of the Declaration of Independence which is a violation of natural law which is a violation of God's law.
As Barton sees it, the 7th Amendment's language regarding "in suits at common law" means that the Constitution incorporates all of natural law into our legal system, and since common law is based on God's law, our entire system of government is really based on God's law. And thus gay marriage can never be constitutional because it is a violation of God's law.
If that wasn't confusing enough, Barton went on to claim that the government must take a position on the issue of marriage because by not taking a position on it, it is creating an environment in which it must spend tax dollars on dealing with the negative things that happen as a result of not taking a position ... just like how supposedly "25% of all property theft occurs from people who are on drugs who steal money for their habit" somehow demonstrates the dangers of not outlawing drug use:
From a constitutional standpoint, you cannot exclude morals. A number of conservative libertarians in recent months have been saying "hey, marriage is not a constitutional issue" ... yet it is because Article 7 of the Constitutional through the attestation clause incorporates the Declaration [of Independence] into the Constitution.
The Declaration erects the moral standard by talking about the laws of nature and of nature's god. Marriage has always been defined not only as a law of nature - now, it's not necessarily in nature, but they called it a natural law that you should be married to one man, one woman because that is what divine law says; the laws of the god who created nature, the law of nature's god even in the very beginning said one man, one woman, this is good. Jesus reiterated that in Matthew 19 and other places.
So the moral standard, the moral law dictates that marriage is between and man and a woman. That was then incorporated into the Constitution in the Seventh Amendment in what was called the common law. The common law is part of the legal process. And if you look at the common law all the way through time, marriage has been part of the common that. That is why you do not allow bigamy or polygamy or other forms of "igamy" that attack marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman as part of the common law that's part of the Constitution.
Now what's happened in recent years, people have tried to say "hey, morals have nothing to do with government" ... yes they do ... and to believe that you can have government without morals, that's not part of the Constitution, that's not part of the Seventh Amendment, that's not part of the Declaration of Independence, it is a twisted view of constitutionality that says morals are to have no place in this.
The problem is once you don't legislate it, it becomes a government issue because if you say we're not going to legislate drugs, guess who's going to have to take care of all the drug problems that arise? It will be government. We know that right now, 25% of all property theft occurs from people who are on drugs who steal money for their habit. If you legalize that, then there goes property.
If you look at the justice system, the increase in needs to jails and jail beds and et cetera, government is going to take care of this. So if government says this is not an issue, it will be an issue. It will effect our money, it'll effect our spending so anytime a government takes a position that it won't take a position, it has taken a position that it is going to take a position because it is going to spend money on it, if all that convoluted nonsense makes sense.
Pat Robertson once again compared Islam to Nazism while speaking on the 700 Club today, arguing that the U.S. should view Muslims as we viewed Nazis during World War II.
“Sure this Islam is a religion,” Robertson said — which is actually new for Robertson as he previously claimed that “Islam is not a religion” — “at the same time it is a system of world government.”
He said that the government “refuses to acknowledge the problem of Islam” even though “during the Second World War we didn’t have any problems saying that Hitler was bad, no problem at all saying the Nazis were monsters, no problem, we were fighting the Nazis and our job was to defeat the Nazis and everybody in America was mobilized to defeat the Nazis…. Now we’re fighting a war but we refuse to identify our enemy even though it is in plain sight.”
Later in the program, Robertson called Islam “an evil system that is bringing death and destruction throughout the globe.”
Gun Owners of America may soon join fellow conservatives in opposing comprehensive immigration reform, warning that a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would lead to an increase in “anti-gun voters.”
Not only does the group oppose comprehensive legislation for clear partisan reasons, GOA spokesman Mike Hammond told the American Family Association’s news service the group may also work to defeat such bills if they include biometric identification or background checks for jobs.
Pro-gun group branching out
Meanwhile, a pro-gun organization is strongly considering getting into the immigration enforcement battle, believing that amnesty for illegal immigrants would likely mean millions more “anti-gun voters.”
Gun advocacy groups are breathing a collective sigh of relief after last week the Senate rejected several key measures that would have trampled on Second Amendment rights. Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, tells American Family News his organization might jump into the immigration debate.
"This is a debate in which presumably we're going to have about seven million new anti-gun voters put on the rolls,” he explains. “It is an issue which fundamentally is going to affect whether gun control is inevitable 15 years from now."
According to Hammond, GOA dislikes even the supposed “good” parts of the immigration reform package.
"We don't like the notion that every American would have to get a biometric ID card. We don't like the fact that every American would have to get a Brady check for jobs before he could get employed in America,” he states.
“So we not only don't like the bad things about the immigration bill, we don't like the good things about the immigration bill,” Hammond summarizes.
GOA has already put out an alert saying it is uncomfortable with amnesty.
NRA president David Keene appeared on The Mike Huckabee Show today where he told guest host J.D. Hayworth, a former congressman from Arizona, that President Obama is scared of America.
Keene claimed that Obama and his advisers don’t understand the gun debate because they live inside “the confines of urban Chicago or Cambridge, Massachusetts or Washington D.C.,” which Keene astonishingly seems to think are areas unaffected by gun violence.
He also blasted Obama for a comment about how he understands the appeal of gun ownerships in places like rural Iowa where law enforcement officers could be miles away, which Keene said is further proof that “he just doesn’t get it.”
Keene: The amazing thing to me about this administration is just how parochial it is. These are people — remember when Barack Obama recently went to Iowa and he looked around and he said ‘well gosh I can understand why if my wife lived out here she might want a gun,’ what’s that about? You know, in other words, he just doesn’t get it. If you are outside the confines of urban Chicago or Cambridge, Massachusetts or Washington D.C., he and most of his advisers have no concept of what the rest of the country is like and frankly the rest of the country scares him.
Keyes told Solomon and Davis that he found it “hard to believe” that President Obama, because he supports abortion rights, “was crying anything but crocodile tears” about the deaths in Boston. He also made the bogusclaim that Obama has supported infanticide:
Later in the program, the three turned the subject to immigration reform. Davis alleged that undocumented immigrants are “jumping the border” and “mocking the guards, saying ‘Obama’s going to let us go and give us goods.’” Solomon then suggested that the U.S. accept the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country and deport the president and first lady instead, to which Keyes responded, “Unfortunately, Stan, the way these folks have been observing the law when it comes to immigration, they’d let Michelle and Barack Obama slip back into the country.” Solomon replied with a “joke” about the first lady’s body, a racist meme popular among right-wing commentators:
Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt spoke with Stan Solomon about the Boston marathon bombing, and they both agreed that the left is actually pleased with the attack because it might result in increased government control.
After co-host ‘Chief’ Steve Davis said that the left doesn’t want anyone who doesn’t work for the government to have guns and “they don’t care how many of us get killed, blown up, assaulted, murdered or whatever as long as they can control us by taking away our guns,” Solomon maintained that liberals are even okay with other liberals getting murdered: “It’s not just how many conservatives or Republicans [die] because these people that were killed and maimed and devastated and traumatized were overwhelmingly their people, they don’t care, they are like the Chinese who don’t care if they have a million casualties because they got a billion backups.”
Naturally, Pratt agreed and likened liberals to terrorists.
“That’s exactly right,” Pratt said, “this is mission oriented, they don’t care who the victims are, if anything it might be to their liking because maybe they’re thinking that will make the liberals all the more prone to want more control, which plays right into the hands of terrorists and criminals, but then I repeat myself.”
David Outten of the Religious Right media group Movieguide is worried that a new Disney television show may be undermining the traditional family. Outten warns in “Is Disney’s New Princess Undermining Family Values?” that the Disney show Sofia the First, which is about a girl who enters a princess-training academy after her mom, a commoner, marries a King, may be promoting the “modern family” at the expense of “the long-term well-being of children.”
Sofia the First, Disney’s new preschool princess on television, doesn’t need a prince. She’s the daughter of a poor single mother who marries King Roland. This daughter of a shoe cobbler must learn what it is to be a princess. She’s aided by visits from famous Disney movie princesses.
Where will Sofia go? Where will she lead 2- to 5-year-olds?
Clearly, the creators see a role for the media in shaping the social and moral values of 2- to 5-year-olds. It’s fine to promote honesty, grace and civility, but any message that undermines the traditional family is harmful. Children raised by their natural parents are far less likely to live in poverty, quit school, use drugs, commit crimes or spend time in prison. If Disney actually cares about the long-term well-being of children, it would promote the traditional family rather than the “modern family.”
It would even be of benefit to Disney to do so. Children raised by their natural parents have far more disposable income to spend on Disney tickets, theme parks and merchandise than do children raised by single mothers. Few single mothers marry a king who can turn their daughters into princesses. More often the daughter of a single mother becomes a single mother herself. The havoc wreaked on children is immense. The economic impact is severe.
The name Disney has traditionally been associated with family entertainment. Disney’s future is strengthened when the family is strengthened. It’s damaged when the family is undermined.
Tremendous research goes into the production of a program like Sofia the First. Disney would be wise to do tremendous research on the cause of poverty and the cause of high disposable income. They may learn that a princess who has both a mother and a father to take care of them and guide them, and a princess who marries a prince, is more likely to escape poverty and become a better Disney customer.
Writing in the Christian Post, Os Hillman argues that people are gay because they grew up in troubled households and the best way to “see a reduction in the gay population” is “to heal marriages.” “Healthy marriages produce healthy children with healthy identities,” Hillman writes, “Divorce is the entry point of dysfunctional and wounded lives that often lead to aberrant behaviors in human beings” like homosexuality.
Hillman, the dominionist behind Reclaiming the Seven Mountains, claims that gay people need to be freed from “bondage” and know that “God didn't create Adam and Joe.” If the gay rights movement succeeds, Hillman warns, then we may “end up like the Roman Empire and disintegrate from within.”
In the last 50 years the Christian evangelical church has allowed the value of covenant in marriage to be exchanged for contract in marriage. We no longer honor the marital covenant and we make it easy for marriages to break up and reproduce the same pain through remarriage, which also violates scripture. There is no longer shame for divorce or remarriage in the church. The problem has become epidemic and so divorce has become a manufacturing mechanism for dysfunction in society. Consequently the church has lost its moral authority to speak on this issue of gay marriage. Also, the failure of the Catholic Church regarding sexual abuse contributes to the failed authority within the Catholic Church.
We have compounded this by the church making homosexuality as the unpardonable sin by judging and condemning those in this lifestyle. A friend of mine who was delivered from the gay lifestyle said to me one time, "If there was a divorce rate of less than 5%, you would not be talking about gay issues." It would be a non-issue. That's because healthy marriages produce healthy children with healthy identities.
Wounds can happen so early that a person can believe they were born that way. One thing is for sure, God never made a person gay. That would violate what the Bible teaches.
There's only one way to deal with the root problem; that is to heal marriages and return to covenant commitments in marriage learn to love those who are caught in a web of bondage. Only then will we see a reduction in the gay population.
Divorce is the entry point of dysfunctional and wounded lives that often lead to aberrant behaviors in human beings in each new generation. Unless there is a stop-gap somewhere in the cycle, more and more expressions of aberrant behavior will be the result until we end up like the Roman Empire and disintegrate from within.
In 2011, pop artist Lady Gaga received three American Music Awards from three nominations for her smash hit "Born This Way". Millions of young people and adults under 40 heard the gay propaganda over the airwaves compliments of Lady Gaga.
CNN weekend anchor, Don Lemmon revealed in 2012 he was gay during an interview. During one of his interviews with someone else on a CNN broadcast he subtly commented to the interviewer that he knew he was born gay. Because of the power of media viewers often take what is said as truth. Our young people have especially bought this lie. Yet there is no scientific data that proves a person is genetically pre-disposed to be gay. This deception is played out regularly in the media with few willing to state the truth for fear of backlash from the gay community.
Most of us hear the rationale of gay activists that they are born gay rather than their sexual preference being an influence of how they were raised and the exposure to societal factors and childhood wounds that predisposed them to this lifestyle. After the Ball authors Kirk and Madsen made an amazing admission in their book: "We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence." Here you have an amazing admission by gay leaders that "We are not born gay." But we want you to believe we were. What is their ultimate goal?
It isn't just to get acceptance. It is far more than that. David Kupelian explains: "The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality. In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law. This is already the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia."
Let's face it; God didn't create Adam and Joe. He created Adam and Eve.
However, being right about an issue has very little redemptive value in helping a gay person who we know is in bondage but may be unwilling to admit it.
On Friday, Glenn Beck vowed that, beginning today, he would reveal the government's cover-up of a Saudi Arabian connection to last week's Boston Marathon bombing. True to his word, most of his radio program today has been dedicated to laying out his case, but rather than try to edit down and synthesize Beck's explanation of the conspiracy that is supposedly afoot, we'll let The Blaze do it:
Beck proceeded to highlight the background of the Saudi national first identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston bombings, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, noting that the the NTC issued an event file calling for his deportation using section 212, 3B which is proven terrorist activity.
“We are not sure who actually tagged him as a ’212 3B,’ but we know it is very difficult to charge someone with this — it has to be almost certain,” Beck explained. “It is the equivalent in civil society of charging someone with premeditated murder and seeking the death penalty — it is not thrown around lightly.”
He continued, noting that after Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud on Tuesday, the FBI began backtracking on the Saudi national from suspect, to person of interest, to witness, to victim, to nobody.
Then, on Wednesday, President Obama had a “chance” encounter with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud and Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir.
“Wednesday at 5:35 p.m. the file is altered,” Beck said. “This is unheard of, this is impossible in the timeline due to the severity of the charge….You don’t one day put a 212 3B charge against somebody with deportation, and then the next day take it off. It would require too much to do it.”
“There are only two people that could revoke the deportation order — the director of the NTC could do it after speaking with each department, the FBI, the ATC, etc. — which is impossible to do in such a short period of time, — or, somebody at the very highest levels of the State Department could do it. We don’t have any evidence to tell you which one did it,” Beck said.
Congressman Duncan is in possession of the original event file along with other members of the House Homeland Security Committee, and have sent a formal letter of request (which we have a copy of) to Napolitano for a classified briefing on the Saudi national and the deportation order.
Beck proceeded to highlight more key points: it has been reported that the Saudi national was once flagged on a terror watch list and was granted a student visa without being properly vetted.
If, as an ICE official said last week, there is actually a second Saudi in custody, who is it? Beck asked. “Why were there were no names, no pictures presented? The fact is, an event was created for one Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi indicating he was to be deported for terrorism activity related to the Boston bombing. If this file was created with another Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi in mind, don’t you think we should know about it?”
According to Beck, the reason he called Al-Harbi "a very bad, bad, bad man" on Friday's program was to send a message to the government that The Blaze had evidence that he had been classified as "3B" and designated as a terrorist.
In short, Beck is convinced, despite reports to the contrary, that this Saudi national is an al Qaeda operative who successfully recruited the Tsarnaev brothers to carry out the Boston bombing and now the government is engaged in a massive disinformation campaign in an effort to cover it up:
Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman is upset that the government and the media don’t believe that the fertilizer plant explosion outside of Waco, Texas was a result of “Muslim terror.”
After arguing that President Obama is to blame for the Boston marathon bombing since “Obama has set the tone and led the way in giving this green light to his fellow Muslims bent on terror,” Klayman writes that Islamic terrorists were likely to blame for the explosion in Texas…along with the Oklahoma City bombing, which he believes was committed by Saddam Hussein and not Timothy McVeigh.
Klayman even blasted the media for not looking into whether there is an “Islamic connection” to the ricin letters case.
At first, Obama administration officials, as has become the norm, refused to implicate a possible Muslim terrorist plot, Obama himself describing the attack as a mere "tragedy." Indeed, given the latent and actual claims of persecution of Muslims in this country by Obama and his allies, like the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), even conservative channels like Fox News shied away from using the "M" word until it was crystal clear who had perpetrated the bombing. For example, Bret Baier of Fox News almost choked Friday morning when he broadcast the names and backgrounds of the bombers and sheepishly revealed their Muslim roots. This politically correct sensitivity, orchestrated and furthered by Obama and his minions, has contributed to the rise of Muslim extremism in our country. Terrorists like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to avoid even the appearance of prejudice against Muslims, are even given scholarships to prestigious schools and entrees into other venues of American society, which they can use as cover for their plots. In short, Obama has set the tone and led the way in giving this green light to his fellow Muslims bent on terror.
Nor was there hardly any mention on any station or other press entity of even the possibility that Muslim terror was involved in the huge explosion that occurred in West, Texas, where a fertilizer plant blew up Wednesday, just days after the Boston Marathon bombing. Typically, here is how the New York Times described the explosion:
"The blast was so powerful that the United States Geological Survey registered it as a 2.1 magnitude earthquake. It reduced an apartment complex to a charred skeleton, leveled homes in a five-block radius and burned with such intensity that railroad tracks were fused. It killed up to 15 people and injured up to 180. Volunteer firefighters were missing. Residents of a nursing home were pulled from debris and rushed to hospitals. ...
"By Thursday evening, one day after a fertilizer plant here caught fire and then exploded, no one among the hundreds of local state and federal officials and first responders who converged on this town north of Waco was certain about the cause. They only knew its effect." ["Blast at Plant Tears at Heart Of Texas Town" by Manny Fernandez and John Schwartz]
This intentionally "clueless" rendition of the likely cause of the blast continues to this day, despite the hard fact that fertilizer bombs are commonly used in the Middle East, were employed in the massive Oklahoma City federal building explosion – for which there was evidence that former Iraqi Sunni Muslim dictator Saddam Hussein played a role (I brought a lawsuit against Saddam Hussein and Iraq for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing) – and that the blast occurred in West, Texas, the former home of none other than former President George W. Bush. What symmetry and deadly timing with the Boston Marathon bombing – yet hardly a mention in the mainstream media of even the possibility of Muslim terrorism. And, of course, Obama and his comrades – including the FBI – refuse to even acknowledge the possibility (or likelihood) that the two events are somehow tied to Muslim terrorism.
And, while a ricin attack of this past week on a U.S. senator and, ironically, Obama himself apparently proved to be from a non-Muslim source, the irony again is that even the possibility of an Islamic connection was hardly mentioned by either the government or our mainstream media. This is despite the apparent similarity in timing and method to the Sept. 11, 2001, anthrax terror attack, which to this day have never been "solved."
Neville Chamberlain of pre-World War II days would have been proud of Obama and his pro-Muslim minions in the administration. Their actions and non-actions have furthered a march to terror by Muslims similar to what Chamberlain "accomplished" with the Nazis in the years leading up to that great war. Thanks to our "Muslim President," Muslim terrorism in this country is again on the rise, and it threatens the very survival of our nation.
A few weeks ago, we received a notice from YouTube that a representative of Glenn Beck's The Blaze had filed multiple copyright claims against ten of our recent videos featuring Beck freaking out over everything from Cyprus to Common Core:
As a result of these copyright claims, all of these videos were removed from our YouTube account.
Over the years, lots of people we have written about and posted videos of on our blog have similarly tried to get our videos removed from YouTube by filing these sorts of copyright claims, and after watching our first account get shut down, we started filing counter-claims, pointing out that our videos are protected by Fair Use.
Since then, every video of ours that has been removed has eventually been restored ... and now the same can be said for our Beck videos as we were informed by YouTube on Friday that all ten of the videos that The Blaze had gotten shut down have now been reinstated.
To celebrate, here are all of the posts featuring the videos Beck tried to have removed:
On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer renewed his call for a ban on immigration from majority Muslim nations, claiming that our immigration policy should simply consist of the question "do you believe that the Quran is the holy book of God"?
During his interview on The Blazethis afternoon on the Boston bombing, Rep. Louie Gohmert said we are living in one of those times that "the Bible talks about when right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right and people do not understand things that are spiritually discerned."
But, he added, what is needed now is simple common sense ... like not trying to pass gun control legislation:
What hit me this morning when I heard the residents there around Boston and in the area where they thought someone might be were ordered to stay in their homes, businesses were ordered closed, public transportation was ordered closed. Let me ask you, if you're sitting in your home and you know there are only two possibilities for people coming, one is law enforcement and the other is somebody who has already killed Americans and continues to do so, how many rounds do you want to be limited to in your magazine as you sit in your chair and wait?
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stopped by The Blaze today to weigh in on the Boston Marathon bombing and the on-going hunt for the suspect at-large. During the discussion, he stated that Osama bin Laden had set up terrorist training camps in Chechnya for the purpose of targeting America and so all Chechens who have come to this country need to be investigated and deported "if there is any violence in their background."
The lesson that this entire saga is sending to potential terrorists, Gohmert said, is that "this administration will not eliminate people who are here and have even shown violence in this country, that if you can just get into this country - and shoot, the President may even give you amnesty, just get here however you can and then you may be able to shut down an entire city also and then do what Osama bin Laden charged Chechnyans (sic) to do many years ago and that is train so you can go kill Americans and other westerners":
Near the end of today's radio broadcast, Glenn Beck declared that the cover-up of the Saudi link to the Boston Marathon bombing makes this the second most important story (behind 9/11) that he has ever covered in his broadcasting career. And depending on how the media and the government respond in the coming days, it just might be the most important thing he's ever covered because the response "will either save our country or we will be done."
Beck went on to send a semi-coded message to those in the upper level of the government, warning that they had better come clean about this Saudi national because The Blaze has information that reveals that he "is a very bad, bad, bad man" which will be revealed on Monday.
"I don't bluff," Beck stated, "I make promises. The truth matters. I've had enough of what you've done to our country. I thought I had heard and seen it all. I thought I didn't trust my government. Oh no, no, no. There is no depth that these people will not stoop to. They have until Monday and then The Blaze will expose it.":
The Family Research Council is joining many of its fellow right-wing groups in celebrating Wednesday’s Senate filibuster of a bill that would have expanded background checks on gun sales. In an email to supporters yesterday, the group claims that gun violence prevention legislation isn’t needed because it wouldn’t have stopped the Boston marathon bombing. What is to blame for recent mass murders, the group claims, is “the government’s own hostility to the institution of the family” compounded by Congress’ supposed encouragement of “abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility.”
In the aftermath of horrible tragedies like Newtown, the government desperately wants to do something--even if that something is the wrong thing. There seems to be this notion, at least among liberals, that more laws will protect us--but as we all witnessed in Boston, that isn't necessarily the case. The government can't make us safer until it recognizes that the problem isn't the instruments of violence--but the environment of it. Stronger background checks wouldn't have prevented the deaths of three people at the finish line on Monday, any more than it would have stopped Floyd Corkins from walking into our lobby and shooting Leo Johnson.
If Congress wants to stop these tragedies, then it has to address the government's own hostility to the institution of the family and organizations that can address the real problem: the human heart. As I've said before, America doesn't need gun control, it needs self-control. And a Congress that actively discourages it--through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility--is only compounding the problem.
In the midst of the on-going hunt for one of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing, Glenn Beck is broadcasting his daily radio program and working desperately to find some connection between the Chechen suspects and the Muslim Brotherhood or Saudi Arabia because he is obsessed with promoting a report from The Blaze that the government had planned to deport a Saudi national “linked to the Boston bombing.”
The government is denying the reports and few others in the media are giving it much credence, which led Beck to declare that the cover-up of this information "is so far beyond Benghazi" that it is literally criminal:
There is a rumortakingoffontheright, which has been embraced by the likes of Glenn Beck and Pamela Geller, that the Saudi student questioned over the Boston marathon attack is being deported. The rumor is, unsurprisingly, “one hundred percent false.”
But even though multiplenewsoutlets, including the conservative Daily Caller, have debunked the story, the anti-Muslim group ACT! For America has decided to go ahead and run with it. The group sent out an email at 4:47 this afternoon repeating the rumor and warning that “something fishy is going on.”
Act! For America had plenty of time to go keep up with this new information and hold back on sending their members an email about the two now-discredited stories. But accuracy has never been their strong point.
Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver has been spearheadingeffortstostrikedown a California law barring ex-gay therapy for minors. Today, he chatted with Mike Huckabee about Liberty Counsel’s case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Staver warned that if the law stands, minors will be forced to turn to harmful, back-alley ex-gay therapy rather than to “licensed professionals.” Huckabee compared this to having an untrained person trying to set a broken leg.
Of course, Staver and Huckabee both support personhood laws that would criminalize abortion in all cases and dramatically increase cases of unsafe, back-alley abortions.
Staver: They make the premise that this counseling is harmful, it’s harmful if it’s engaged in, they say, by licensed professionals that have training and education. Well guess what? If this law passes and it goes into effect and the court doesn’t stop it, then if it’s harmful to have this by licensed professionals, what’s the next step? It’s even more harmful to have it done by people who are not licensed or trained, but that’s where it’s going.
Huckabee: It’s almost like saying that if you set a broken leg as a medical doctor and you don’t do it a certain way, you’re in trouble. Obviously, if you’re not even a medical doctor, I think you’d clearly be clearly under a greater level of trouble, that’s the point you’re making.
Later, Staver made the case that survivors of child abuse would not be able to receive counseling under the law and described the law as “dangerous.” Huckabee, meanwhile, wondered about the plight of a young gay man who “decided” to be heterosexual.
Staver: If this client comes in and the parents say he was molested by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky and abused, now after that several months later he started to have these acting out behaviors and he doesn’t like it, nor do we, can you help him? The counselor would have to say, ‘I can’t, you’re going to have to just accept that, that’s who you are, that’s natural and normal, I can’t give you counsel to ultimately help you eliminate those kinds of attempts that you want to act out, the kind of behavior that you were abused by.’ This is just an absurd situation; it is politically motivated.
Huckabee: I mean this really is the courts stepping in and telling the clinical practitioner the limits of his or her practice to a level that would seem unprecedented. Mat, let me pose a question, let’s say a young person comes in and says, ‘you know I’ve always believed I’m homosexual, believed that since I was seven-years-old, but now that I’m seventeen, I’ve decided that I’m not, I’m heterosexual’ and goes to a pro-homosexual counselor. Would that person be at risk? It looks like some of those folks would be nervous that they couldn’t say, ‘oh no, no you are homosexual all right because you thought that when you were seven and therefore you have to stay that way.’
Staver: The interesting thing the way the law is essentially written is if you are trying to give them counsel, even for somebody who say for example they say they’re bisexual, they’re attracted to both sexes, if you are trying to counsel them to primarily be heterosexual as opposed to homosexual that would be a clear violation. If you are trying to move them away, however, from heterosexuality to bisexuality, transexuality, asexuality, whatever sexuality you come up with, questioning, confused, then that is personally fine as long as you affirm them in that situation. But if you move them back towards heterosexuality, nope, that’s simply not permissible. You can see really where this law is coming from, this law is a political statement; it’s dangerous.