Fighting the Right

During his interview on The Blaze this 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?

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.":

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:

Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver has been spearheading efforts to strike down 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.

Fox News contributor Erik Rush complains in his latest column at World Net Daily that he was only joking when he said that Muslims are evil and should be killed. But he manages to prove otherwise by closing the column with a justification for killing Muslims:

For the record, I still maintain that Islam is, by its nature, wholly incompatible with Western society. I analogize liberalism, which is promoting this dhimmitude, to Stage 3 cancer in America’s body politic. For the record: While killing people is definitely undesirable, that is what war tends to be about.

And we are at war – just study the history of Islam, or ask any Islamist.

You’ll recall that Rush had the following Twitter exchange with Bill Schmalfeldt on Monday in the immediate aftermath of the bombing:

We reported on the exchange, and it was quickly picked up by other media outlets. Rush accuses us and others of “leaving out the fact that it was sarcasm.” Rush claims that Bill’s “irate” tweet prompted his “sarcastic response,” and that “kill them all” was merely echoing Muslims’ “favored disposition toward Americans.”

Rush deleted the tweet later that day and rolled out his sarcasm defense, which numerous outlets uncritically parroted. We didn’t buy it then, and we certainly don’t buy it after reading Rush’s latest column.

Rush has a long track record of paranoid and hate-filled rhetoric. The “just kidding” defense doesn’t work when you’ve previously called for armed revolution against President Obama, said that liberals and journalists should be jailed for treason and claimed that the Chinese government is building a military base inside the US with help from Obama.

It’s clear that Rush supports the sentiment behind his “sarcastic” tweet. The onus was on him to prove otherwise. Not only has he failed to do so, he’s doubled down with a justification for killing Muslims.

Until now, Rush has enjoyed a close relationship with Fox News, and Sean Hannity in particular. A transcript search reveals that he’s appeared on Fox nearly 20 times and has made additional appearances on Fox News Radio, as recently as last Friday. Hannity’s website even features a review for Rush’s book, with the catchy name of Negrophilia.

Despite this close relationship, representatives of Fox News scrambled behind the scenes this week to distance the channel from Rush. If they don’t want their precious brand to be tainted by him, they need to cut ties with him entirely. We have a petition calling on Fox to do so, which has already been signed by more than 50,000 people.

The Christian Post is out with two op-eds today on the Boston attack. Neither is exactly constructive.

The first comes from Tony Katz, who inexplicably claims that the shooters in Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and Tucson were “connected to the left”:

Facts don't matter to Progressives. The shooters in the Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook murders each were in some way connected to the left. But in aftermath of those shootings, the media machine worked overtime to make a connection between conservatives and the mass murders.

Once we know who set the bombs there will be time for commentary. In the meantime, Americans should be alert to pseudo-journalists interested not in truth but rather in a Clockwork Orange approach of forcing you to throw up when you hear the words Republican, right, freedom, rights, or guns - regardless of the truth.

Next, Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips, who has already blamed President Obama for the bombing, suggests that the Obama administration is working with Saudi Arabia to cover up the potential role of a Saudi student in the attack.

The hospitalized student has been cleared of any wrongdoing, as it seems his main offense was running away from the bomb.

But since Phillips is convinced that a Muslim must be responsible for the attack, he argues that Obama is in cahoots with Saudi officials to protect the student, whom Phillips finds suspicious because he is Muslim and suffered burns from the blast.

Now, three days after the bombing there are even more questions than answers. While there needs to be some secrecy during an investigation, there are some questions the Obama Regime must answer now.

Immediately after the blast, reports surfaced that a Saudi national was in the hospital. Various reports said he was detained, not free to leave or in custody. Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi is the Saudi national. His apartment was searched. The first reports said it was done with a search warrant. Now reports are coming out that the search was a consent search. Reports then came out saying Alharbi was only a witness and not a suspect or person of interest.

Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism is now reporting that next Tuesday, Alharbi will be deported for "national security reasons."

On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud Al Faisal in a meeting that had been scheduled for some time but was abruptly closed to the media for "scheduling reasons."

Yesterday, the same Saudi Foreign Minister met with Obama, even though the meeting was not on Obama's public schedule. The White House said, "The president and Prince Saud al-Faisal reaffirmed the strong partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia and discussed developments in the region, including the conflict in Syria." According to other sources, Alharbi is a devout Muslim and is a member of a Saudi Clan that has a lot of Al-Qaeda members.

This whole mess stinks to high heaven.

…

The first question that needs to be answered is why this guy was at the Boston Marathon. Did he suddenly develop an interest in long distance running? How was he injured? Press reports said he had burns as well as other injuries. Burns are significant because to be burned by the explosion would mean he would have to be very close to the explosion.

Press reports indicated that the FBI and other agencies executed a search warrant on Alharbi's apartment the night after the attack. If this was a search done by search warrant, this is very significant. A search warrant requires the showing of probable cause. An agent must go to a federal judge and swear under oath to the facts that establish probable cause. Narratives supporting probable cause in federal search warrants are not boilerplate language. They are lengthy and detailed.

If the search was a consent search, there will be a written consent form. In a search in a case of this magnitude, the FBI is not going to simply go on a verbal consent. The consent would be written. If Alharbi is not a suspect, then it is a simple matter to show the consent to the press.

Alharbi has suddenly gone from a person of interest, to a witness to no one at all. Then why is he being deported for national security reasons the day after Obama meets with the Saudi Foreign Minister in an unscheduled meeting and two days after the Minister has a meeting with John Kerry where the doors are abruptly closed?

Once Alharbi is deported, we will never see him again.

Why is the Regime in such a hurry to get him out of the country?

The Regime and far left have already tried to set the agenda. If they believed in God, they would be praying that the suspect, when caught would be a Tea Party member, whose car is covered with 2nd Amendment bumper stickers.

The Government even has an acronym for what they are searching for. It is an HVE standing for "Homegrown Violent Extremist."

The Obama Regime is desperate that the Boston Bomber be a rightwing extremist. They are in absolute fear that it turns out the bomber is a Muslim with ties to Al-Qaeda. And they are now doing their best to make sure the latter is not the case.

As with everything else with the Obama Regime, this stinks to high heaven. What really happened at those meetings? Why is there the rush to deport Alharbi? He could and should be kept in this country at least as a material witness.

If anyone is ever caught for this and there is an attempt to try him in Federal Court, the Regime is already setting the stage to make that trial almost impossible for the government to win.

This is the Obama Regime at work.

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro declared today in the right-wing Washington Times that the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre do not deserve a vote in Congress.

Citing the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns, Shapiro claimed that the federal government has no authority to make any laws regulating guns.

However, the Manchin-Toomey bill that was just blocked by a GOP-led filibuster wouldn’t ban any guns. It would simply expand background checks for gun purchases. The Heller opinion also makes clear that lawmakers are able to enact certain regulations on firearms.

It seems Shapiro is upset about a bill that would ban all guns that was never proposed in the first place.

But that doesn’t stop him from attacking Obama for having “exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope” and engaging in an “abuse of power.”

“The president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense,” Shapiro writes. “Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.”

Even more strikingly, Shaprio says that it would be “just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation.”

I don’t believe the families of the victims from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., deserve a vote.

It may sound harsh and uncaring, but even the greatest tragedies are not a valid reason to disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States. If they were, our free speech and our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination would have all been abolished long ago amid every crime wave in American history.

Five years ago, the Supreme Court settled the issue of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, making it clear that guns in “common use” were constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, President Obama recently flew several family members of Sandy Hook victims to Washington on Air Force One to pressure congressional legislators to enact new gun laws.

…

Congress creates laws, the president enforces laws and the courts are a check and balance to decide if those laws are constitutional. Since, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” the voice of the Supreme Court is the final word on any legal issue not Congress, and certainly not the president.

It’s a relatively simple principle, but one that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to understand or care about. He seems to think the tragic shootings of innocent people at Sandy Hook is a justifiable excuse to completely disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution. In places such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., thousands of innocent people have also been killed during times when comprehensive firearms bans were in effect. Don’t those families deserve a vote as well?

At every possible turn, the president has exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope, convincing them they deserve a vote on an issue he knows has already been settled by the Supreme Court, a vote he knows would be unconstitutional and a vote that, short of a constitutional convention to repeal the Second Amendment, would be illegal.

It would be just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation. That’s not leadership, nor is it compassion. It’s deceitful and preys upon broken families, who are lost in grief.

The president knows there is no chance of constitutionally expanding firearms regulations beyond minor changes, such as universal background checks. If the president has any common sense, he also knows that registration laws and universal background checks will accomplish almost nothing, since they will not obstruct criminals from getting illegal guns on the black market, just as they always have.

Everything Mr. Obama is doing to lessen the criminal use of firearms is counterintuitive to what makes sense. Instead of targeting criminals with illegal firearms, the president is trying regulate law-abiding citizens who buy legal firearms. Instead of waging war against Mexican cartels for trafficking millions of illegal guns into America each year, the president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense.

Mr. Obama is wrong to say that if we can save one child’s life, we should do “everything” we can in our power. However, abuse of power is a dangerous thing in a constitutional republic.

Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.

Despite the tragic circumstances of what happened at Sandy Hook, pain, sadness and desperation are never a reason to jeopardize freedom and liberty. The families of Sandy Hook victims deserve sympathy, but they do not deserve a vote from Congress on a matter that has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The Constitution, not compassion, must remain the currency of our country’s lawmaking process.

Recently, Peter LaBarbera was interviewed by "Coach" Dave Daubenmire of Pass the Salt Ministries for his program NewsWithViews.tv, which reminded us that we haven't written about Coach Daubenmire for several years. But that is probably about to change because, in the interim, Coach has begun regularly posting informative videos on his YouTube page with exciting titles like "Embrace The Hate!" and "Homosexual Sodomy Will Never Be Lawful" in which he calls for the criminalization of homosexuality sodomy because no society can survive once it engages in "acceptance of private sinful behavior" ... and somehow this is all related to Griswold v Connecticut, George Washington, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, women in the military, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the concept of stare decisis:

Last week's Tea Party Unity call ended with host Rick Scarborough announcing his hope that God will confuse the minds of the Supreme Court justices so that they will "punt" on the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act cases they will soon be deciding in order to give America one last chance to get "our politics right" before God's judgment rains down on us.

Saying that homosexuality and abortion are "the twin towers of evil," Scarborough declared that homosexuality is actually far more dangerous before warning that it will only be a matter of time before pastors are rounded up and imprisoned:

The twin towers of evil in America, I believe are abortion on demand and the homosexual movement ... I believe that of the two great sins of our country, the one that's the most grievous is this whole more toward the legalization of homosexuality.

In 2002, as you recall, in Lawrence v Texas the Supreme Court struck down the prohibitions in the state of Texas and applied it across the land that no longer could the citizenry declare that sodomy was a sin. You can take a position however you like on that but that law was based on a moral fabric in the country, a belief in biblical rights and wrongs. The reason I said at the time that that was a more dangerous precedent than even Roe v Wade is because of the following: I believe, as a Christian and as a pastor,  that as horrible as abortion is - and there's just no way to describe the horror of abortion - the only ray of sunshine is that at least the baby that was aborted, which is a living human being, suddenly finds itself in heaven. 

But with sodomy, it's a different sin altogether because what you do is you allow children now to be adopted into these families.  Those children are raised in the normalization of homosexuality; if they live like that and die like that and you have a biblical understanding you find yourself with children that are basically rejecting biblical truth and that has eternal implications.

Now I am fully aware that the Left monitors our calls and I have no doubt that I likely will be the subject of derision for saying something like this, but I'm praying at best God will confuse the minds of our Supreme Court that they'll simply, as Bob alluded, punt on the issue of standing and give you and I a little more time to start getting our politics right.

...

The very first thing Obama did when he got elected president was pass hate crimes legislation inclusive of sexual orientation.  The laws are now on the books to prosecute preachers who have the audacity to say in public what I just said from their pulpits.

You will find them armed with this Supreme Court ruling, if its adverse, then rounding up anyone who says otherwise and prosecuting, perhaps with fines at first but finally with jail and imprisonment.  And the laws are now, at least the foundation of laws through hate crimes legislation is in place to bring fill-scale persecution on those of us who stand for truth.