Right Wing Leftovers - 11/26/13

  • All of those reports about an epidemic of black youths playing the "Knockout Game" have got to be real; the story originated with WND, after all!
  • Florida Republicans want cocaine-buying Congressman Trey Radel to resign.
  • Now you know: "Christian reviewers say the sacrifices in the film ['Catching Fire'] prove remarkably similar to the deaths of early Christians in the Roman coliseum."
  • Peter LaBarbera says that "ex-gays are now one of the most politically incorrect groups in American, one of the most persecuted groups."
  • Finally, Dinesh D’Souza referred to President Barack Obama as “Grown-Up Trayvon” on Twitter today ... and then bravely deleted the tweet.

Garrow & Rush: Obama Should Be Tried And Executed Over Mythical EMP Plot

Did you know that the Iranian nuclear deal was really a way for President Obama to distract the world from his thwarted plot to nuke America? Well, you do now!

Conservative activist Jim Garrow appeared yesterday on Full Contact with Erik Rush, where he presented his theory that the Geneva talks weren’t, as some have claimed, about distracting Americans from Obamacare but were actually the latest trick of the “Barnum and Bailey huckster in the White House” to keep the lid on an aborted nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

Garrow and Rush, a Fox News regular, have both insisted that Obama almost nuked America until three anonymous members of the military [brass] blocked his deadly plan, which Garrow claims was meant to help George Soros make money by betting against the US dollar.

“People were looking and started looking at this whole notion that there could have been this EMP event being planned,” Garrow said. “300 million people would have died within a year if it hadn’t been for those three individuals who took a bullet, basically a career bullet, a career-ending bullet, and maybe a life-ending bullet, we’ll have to see, we will have to safeguard them by getting the details out there.”

The two also praised Paul Vallely, a former general who spoke at Larry Klayman’s rally in favor of a “Second American Revolution” against President Obama.

Garrow said that Obama should be removed from office, tried for treason and “either put up against a wall and shot or hung” over the EMP plot. He also envisioned a sheriff with military support trying to arrest Obama for treason, noting that “whether it would be legal or lawful to do it would be answered after the bullets were fired.”

Garrow: This call for the removal of the president is highly appropriate; in fact it is appropriate given what the alternative would be. If in fact this man is doing the things that he is being reported to be doing, he needs to be removed, he needs to be in fact tried for treason and of course the finality of that is a man gets either put up against a wall and shot or hung. Treason is not to be stood for — ever — and that’s what we have right now in the White House. Paul [Vallely] isn’t talking about the nuclear side of it but I know they are letting me do that and take bullets.

Rush: Aside from the fact that as I mentioned before you came one, Obama remains the consummate BS artist and actor. Despite all of that, I’m sure that he knows what the alternative is should he fail, should we succeed, should these things come out and be widely known and if he were to be removed I’m sure that he knows that the penalties for such actions that he has taken do fall within those unpleasant realms of execution and all of that unpleasant stuff. I think it is very noteworthy that General Vallely has come out and said that impeachment is not the way to go, he’s talking about making the President’s position so untenable that those in Congress right up to the Speaker and the Senate Minority Leader and all of those folks, action has to be taken and making things essentially not work, they won’t be able to get anything done for all of the political upheaval. He is talking about peaceful demonstrations.

Garrow: He’s also talking about the removal of Mr. Obama and to remove him has all sorts of ramifications and implications. How do you remove him? Frankly, we have sheriffs in the country who by law have the right to arrest people. They’re the guys, if someone was going to go in and arrest the president, it would be probably a sheriff along with military to back him up because you still got the Secret Service, you still got people who are there to protect the President, and they have to be contended with. Whether it would be legal or lawful to do it would be answered after the bullets were fired.

FRC Attacks Judicial Nominee For Saying There Should Be Women On The Supreme Court

The Family Research Council’s attempts to paint President Obama’s female nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as “radical feminists” aren’t going so well.

First, the FRC attacked Nina Pillard for quoting something the late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote about the importance of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Now, the FRC seems to think it’s found a winning argument against Patricia Millett, the other woman in the slate of three D.C. Circuit nominees: She thinks there should be women on the Supreme Court.

In his daily email on Friday, FRC’s Tony Perkins wrote:

As it stands right now, the D.C. Circuit is evenly divided between Democrat and Republican appointed judges -- but that's about to change. Using the nuclear option, the Senate moved forward with reconsidering Patricia Millett, the first of three previously blocked nominees the President will be employing to pack the court in his favor. Millett has shown an activist tendency in how she views the court, believing it's more important it look a certain way than judge a certain way.

When President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Millett bemoaned that O'Connor wasn't being replaced by another woman, as if gender impacts who's most qualified to apply the Constitution to the facts in a case or that our highest court should be seen as a representative body. She sees the redefinition of marriage turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law.

FRC seems to have picked up this line of attack from a talking points document put together by the right-wing Judicial Action Group, which claims that Millett's comment in a 2009 interview that “there was a lot of upset over the failure to put a woman on to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor” shows that she would have a poor "judicial temperament.”

Yes, this is actually the argument that FRC is using against an accomplished woman’s judicial nomination in 2013.

Here’s what Millett actually said, in a 2009 interview about whom President Obama might choose to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. At the time, there was just one woman on the court and Millett stressed that there were “many qualified women” who would make President Obama’s short-list, even if gender was not considered:

There was a lot of upset over the failure to put a woman on to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and…it would be extraordinary to have no women on the Supreme Court in this day and age. But even to only have one is, I think, a sorry statement about the appointment process thus far, and where it’s gotten in the last eight years.

So, I think the pressure to have a Supreme Court that looks in many ways – and gender is just one way – that is reflective of the public it serves, would require that a woman gets serious consideration. And there’s no doubt that there are many, many qualified women who – entirely apart from their gender, if nobody even considers about their gender –would be short-listed for the Supreme Court in any event, so it makes that easy.

By the way, in case you were wondering about FRC’s claim that Millett “sees the redefinition of marriage turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law,” that also comes from JAG's talking points. JAG points to an interview Millett gave previewing the Supreme Court’s hearing of the DOMA case, in which she referred to the question before the Court – whether DOMA’s unequal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex marriage’s violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause – as the “fundamental fairness question before the Court.” That is, she was accurately describing the issue the Court was asked to consider; she never implies that the issue is “turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law.”

Beck: 'I Believe This President Is In Danger'

While speaking at an event on immigration reform in San Francisco yesterday, President Obama was heckled by protestors demanding that he "stop all deportations."

One of the protestors happened to be standing in the crowd on stage, which has set off alarms for Glenn Beck who fears that people with "leftist ties" in the Obama administration are allowing the security bubble around the president to be routinely penetrated by radical Marxists who represent a violent threat.

"This is craziness," Beck said. "I am not a fan of this president but I want the President of the United States to be secure and the President, I do not believe, is secure. I believe this president is in danger because things are spiraling out of control and he is looking like he is an enemy ... They don't understand why he just won't seize power and do it, so he's a traitor to their revolution":

Larry Pratt: 'If We Have Gun Control In This Country, Then We Will Know We Are Under God's Judgment'

It turns out that Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt has a David Barton-esque sideline of combing through the Bible to find evidence that God is against gun laws.

At a prayer breakfast in Tulsa earlier this month – which was also attended by Pratt ally Sen. Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael – Pratt went through his argument that the Bible is against gun control. We’ll spare you the bulk Pratt’s biblical scholarship, most of which can be found in this convoluted essay, and  leave you with the conclusion.

“I would submit that if we have gun control in this country, then we will know we are under God’s judgment,” Pratt told the audience.

One way to know whether God’s judgment is upon us, Pratt contended, is to look at whether people are walking around armed. “We should be praying that we will all be able to go around armed, because that will be one outward indicator that we have God’s blessing,” Pratt said. “If we’re walking around like they are in New York City and San Francisco, we’re under his judgment.”

Pratt seems to get a little confused when he attempts to back up this theory with a story from the Book of Samuel about the Israelites going into battle against the Philistines armed with only two swords. He, of course, inserts an anachronistic gun into the Old Testament tale: “That must have been one nasty battle to have gone into battle with only two guys with a gun, everybody else empty-handed.”

Pat Robertson Back To Bragging About His Leg Presses

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson shared with viewers his fitness “secret.” The octogenarian televangelist boasted of regularly doing thirty 1,000 lbs. leg presses as part of his exercise routine: “A few years ago I did some pretty heavy stuffy, I used to, my leg presses, warm up with 500 lbs. and I went up from there, I did 30 reps of 1,000 lbs.”

Back in 2006, Robertson said he could leg press 2,000 lbs. The New York Times wrote at the time: “According to a related news release and photographs on the network's Web site (www.cbn.com), Mr. Robertson has leg-pressed 2,000 pounds, even though (as many online commentators have pointed out) he is 76 years old and the current world record is 1,335 pounds.”

GNC eventually pulled its Robertson-branded protein smoothie, “Pat’s Diet Shake,” but not before the episode raised questions about, as the Virginian-Pilot put it, “the fuzzy line between his tax-exempt operations and his profit-making ventures.” Slate’s Mike DeBonis commented at the time:

Let's get Pat Robertson's bonkers claims out of the way right now. As CBS Sportsline's Clay Travis reported earlier this week, there's no way the 76-year-old Robertson broke the leg press record—by more than 600 pounds—of a former Florida State quarterback.



Even when doing (what he claims to be) 1,000 pounds, Robertson's form is wack. First, he helps his legs by pushing on his knees with his arms. That's a no-no. He also achieves nowhere near the recommended full range of motion, which is to bring the knees to at least a 90-degree angle. And if he's going to double the weight, where's it going to fit? Neither Andrew Sullivan nor I have seen a machine capable of holding 20 plates of 100 pounds each.

Most telling is that Robertson has two staffers loading the machine for him. A big knock against the leg press is that it's inefficient. Most leg press machines are constructed as either a sled angled at 45 degrees or a lever. (There are some that use cables, too.) In all cases, some of the weight gets borne by the machine. You may be loading 400 pounds, but your muscles are feeling only 200. In other words, eight plates on the machine are only four plates worth of effective weight. And by the time you're finished loading and unloading, you could have done an extra set or two of squats.

Land: Single Moms Selfish, Should Always Put Kids Up For Adoption

In a Christian Post column his week, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land argues that single women are unqualified to raise their children and should always give their kids up for adoption as “the best option for everyone concerned.”

“Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home,” Land writes. Although Land notes that there are “more than 100,000 children in foster care in America alone,” he cites the Judgment of Solomon to suggest that single mothers are being selfish by not putting their kids up for adoption.

Currently there are more than 100,000 children in foster care in America alone, with many times more across the globe, awaiting permanent adoption into loving "forever" families.



Adoption is not only the best answer for the heartache and loneliness of foster children and those in orphanages both here and around the world, but it is also the best answer in almost every case where a mother finds herself with a "problem" pregnancy. Such pregnancies can arise from numerous circumstances, but most commonly they are a "problem" because the father is not married to the mother. Currently, almost all such single mothers choose either to abort or keep their babies (only 1 percent of such pregnancies currently end in adoption). Last year, 53 percent of babies born to women under thirty were born to single mothers. And yet, though adoption is seldom chosen in response to such pregnancies, it is virtually always the best option for everyone concerned.

Killing your "problem" or "unwanted" pregnancy through abortion is never an acceptable option (unless the child is a direct and immediate threat to the mother's continued physical life.) In an abortion, the baby always dies, and we lose that child's unique and never to be known God-given gifts and contributions to the world. Further, an abortion is much more traumatic physically to a mother's future reproductive life than carrying a baby to term would be. There are also often lingering psychological issues for the mother as well.

Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home. A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother's and the baby's economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways.

If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have. The Old Testament story of the two harlots who both had babies and one died in the night comes to mind (1Kings 3). Both women claimed the surviving baby was their child and wanted the king to give the baby to them. King Solomon decided to have the baby divided in two and each be given half. Immediately, the real mother told the king to give the baby to the other woman in order to save the child's life. In other words, she was thinking of the child's best interest, not her own.

Adoption allows the mother to give her child both a mother and a father who will love and cherish the child.

Lopez: Gay Marriage Leads To Human Trafficking

Appearing on Sandy Rios In The Morning today, anti-gay activist/gay erotic novelist Robert Oscar Lopez criticized marriage equality advocates for their role in passing a same-sex marriage law in Hawaii, which he said is uniquely offensive because it reminds Hawaii’s large Asian-American community of post-war human trafficking.

“Look what they did in Hawaii, that’s a state where over sixty percent of the population is Asian-American; they’re the people who came from South Korea, from Japan, from the Philippines, countries that have a very, very controversial history with adoption,” Lopez said. “And the predominantly white Human Rights Campaign went to Hawaii and ripped apart that state, you heard the testimony, they took a state and they just ripped at their heart.”

Lopez explained that married same-sex couples “end up buying children overseas,” which “echoes what happened in the past with the world wars in Korea and Vietnam where children were bought and sold because of couples that maybe thought they were doing the right thing but sometimes were also collaborating with human trafficking.”

Fischer: The Constitution Give States The Right To Outlaw Islam

Inspired by reports that the African nation of Angola had outlawed the religion of Islam and begun dismantling mosques, Bryan Fischer called for similar steps to be taken in America.

Though the claims turned out to be false, Fischer said on his radio program yesterday that under the Constitution as it was originally written, individual states have the freedom and power to declare Islam to be illegal and prohibit Muslims from practicing it or building mosques.

"Angola has made Islam illegal in the country," Fischer said, "and they are dismantling mosques. Mosques are illegal and they are dismantling the mosques that already exist; they're taking them down ... And you ask yourself the question, well, can we do that here? Could we do that in the United States? Could we make Islam illegal, could we prohibit the building of mosques, and the answer is yes!"

Klayman Oath Keeper: Homeland Security Behind Boston Bombing

Larry Klayman’s effort to launch a Second American Revolution is fueled by all kinds of conspiracy theories, in addition to some reality-based concerns like the extent of the NSA’s electronic snooping. At Klayman’s rally last week, the now-expected invocations of tyranny and gun control fascism appeared alongside more esoteric theories, such as one about American sovereignty having been destroyed by an act of Congress in 1871 that changed “The Constitution for the United States of America” to “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,” and in the process turned the U.S. from a country to a corporation in the service of nefarious bankers.

One speaker topped the conspiracy theory charts. Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart, an Oath Keeper who set his theatrical speech against a backdrop of patriotic music, said that the Department of Homeland Security “blew up Boston” and committed murder to hide it. 

“Because we now truly do fear our own government. The words fill sadness in my heart. I am a true son of liberty, born into it by my own bloodlines direct. And that is exactly what they have sought to destroy with multiculturalism forced, to disintegration of morality and of the family. It has become presidentially acceptable to not only embrace immorality but promote it with spectacles such as we have never seen, time and time again, attacked  by progressives, another word for communists…

Lacovara-Stewart encouraged people to visit his website, Libertyimprovementandcare.org. The website, which calls itself The Holy Order of the Sons of Liberty, promotes a remarkable collection of conspiracy theories, in addition to the charge that the Boston bombing was a “false flag” operation. Many are focused on conspiracy theory staples: Zionism, the Rothschilds, the Federal Reserve. Others are more creative. Lyme disease is biological warfare being carried out by former Nazis that were allowed entrance into the U.S.  And speaking of Nazis,

Does it not bother anyone that the German people submitted to Hitler?  Well here is why. The Nazis fluoridated the water of the people. And it made them passive and not able to do more than whine and complain but never have the nerve to do anything when faced with hard choices. Oh and by the way, they fluoridate ours too.

On his website, Lacovara-Stewart warns, “We must realize that these devils exist among us…continuing their one world government Nazi/Soviet Socialist bankers dream!”

At Klaymen’s rally, Lacovara-Stewart’s message for President Obama: “We are here to tell you that your eviction notice is served!”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious