Conservative Author: Obama Wants 'Chaos' To 'Deflect Attention From His Executive Orders And Numerous Scandals'

Morgan Brittany, a conservative pundit and coauthor of the book “What Women Really Want,” is out with a new column on the demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri. Given that Brittany is pretty sure that President Obama wants to sic the military on conservatives and use Ebola to throw us in FEMA camps, it’s hardly surprising that her take on Ferguson is also ridden with conspiracy theories.

Brittany writes in WorldNetDaily today that Obama’s repeated condemnations of violence and looting in response to a grand jury’s decision not to indict the police officer who killed Michael Brown prove that Obama actually supports violence and looting.

“[H]e almost sounded as though he condoned it and felt that it was all right for these people to violently express their disgust and distrust of the judicial system,” she writes, claiming that the president “was showing sympathy for the hoodlums in the streets!”

She suggests that Obama could have truly united the nation if he gave “one of the speeches that stirred everyone to elect him president” about how “Michael Brown brought all of this on himself.”

Brittany ends by just asking the question whether Obama may want to stir up the situation in Ferguson in order to distract people from his latest executive order on immigration: “Maybe he even welcomes some of the chaos in the streets of our cities in order to deflect attention from his executive orders and numerous scandals. With a complicit media who live for ratings, he lit the fire, and now can watch it burn. Could this possibly be what he really wants?”

As I sat watching the split screen on my television, with Obama on one side and riots breaking out on the other, I couldn’t help but hope and pray that he would say something, anything, that would harshly condemn this type of behavior. Instead, he almost sounded as though he condoned it and felt that it was all right for these people to violently express their disgust and distrust of the judicial system. He wasn’t showing anger and contempt at those that were burning businesses to the ground, destroying the property and dreams of hard-working people who had nothing to do with the verdict; instead, he was showing sympathy for the hoodlums in the streets!

All Americans who were watching this spectacle knew it was coming. We all were prepared because virtually every media outlet telegraphed it days in advance. The police department knew, the National Guard was called out, yet as we watched our screens, no one did anything to stop the destruction! Why? Why was the National Guard not stationed in front of every business threatened or at least in front of the most vulnerable? Why was the police force and fire department late to the scene? Were they ordered not to stop the rioting and just let it go? Who gave this stand down order if there was one? Why on the one night they knew problems would occur did the governor of Missouri and his office not return any phone calls from the lieutenant governor and the mayor of Ferguson? And why, in God’s name, did they announce the verdict late at night when they knew the outcome all day long?

If Barack Obama was the type of leader who wanted unity in this country, this would have been the time for him to stand in front of the American people and give one of the speeches that stirred everyone to elect him president. He should have had the courage to speak up about the consequences of breaking the law and explained that, unfortunately, Michael Brown brought all of this on himself. He should not have glorified him as the innocent victim of an out-of-control police officer, but should have explained that there is a price to pay for your actions. He should have said that this had nothing to do with race and all to do with attitude and disrespect for the law. He should have stressed that the grand jury did its job by looking at the evidence presented and that its decision needed to be respected.



Obama seems to sit back patiently and watch all of this happen. Maybe he even welcomes some of the chaos in the streets of our cities in order to deflect attention from his executive orders and numerous scandals. With a complicit media who live for ratings, he lit the fire, and now can watch it burn. Could this possibly be what he really wants?

WND: Klingenschmitt Lost Because The Judge Was A Lesbian!

Back in November, a federal judge upheld the U.S. Navy’s decision to fire Gordon “Dr. Chaps” Klingenschmitt from his job as a chaplain after he broke military rules by wearing his uniform while speaking at a political rally and earned a series of bad job performance evaluations. Klingenschmitt, however, insisted that he was fired because he used the name of Jesus in his prayers and therefore was a victim of anti-Christian persecution.

Judge Elaine Kaplan found Klingenschmitt’s claim of religious discrimination to be groundless, writing that his superiors “did not limit Dr. Klingenschmitt’s right to engage in any religious practices (including presenting an opening prayer at the event or invoking the name of Jesus in his prayer). It simply prohibited Dr. Klingenschmitt from engaging in this activity while wearing his uniform at what was clearly a political event and not, as Dr. Klingenschmitt seems to suggest, a bona fide religious service.”

Klingenschmitt, who has built his entire career as a political activist on this claim of religious persecution, is now receiving support from the right-wing outlet WorldNetDaily, which implies today that the judge only ruled against Klingenschmitt because she is a lesbian.

In an article with the headline “Lesbian Judge Takes On Jesus In Court,” WND reporter Bob Unruh suggests that Kaplan was biased against Klingenschmitt.

Klingenschmitt, who is also an incoming GOP state representative in Colorado, told Unruh that he is not “surprised that a new Obama appointee and liberal judge ruled that a Navy chaplain can be legally punished for his sermons, punished for writing to Congress, and punished for praying in Jesus’ name in uniform.”

An openly lesbian federal judge whose appointment was opposed by dozens of U.S. senators has ruled against a Christian former Navy chaplain who alleged his superiors engineered his dismissal from the service because he was not “ecumenical.”

The decision by Elaine Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims rejected the allegations of former chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who recently was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives.

He had routinely prayed “in Jesus name” as part of his work as a chaplain.

The judge, who formerly worked for the National Treasury Employees Union, was opposed by 35 GOP senators when she was appointed by President Obama.

The Washington Blade, a homosexual-advocacy publication, quoted Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign praising Kaplan’s confirmation.

“LGBT people are increasingly visible in all areas of public service, but as a community that so deeply cherishes the virtues of fairness and equality, there is a unique power in seeing role models like Kaplan preside over a court of law,” Sainz said.

In her profile on the federal court system website, Kaplan notes she resides in Washington “with her partner.”

She also explains her legal background includes “civil rights” work.

Klingenschmitt told WND he likely will appeal the decision.

“Is anybody surprised that a new Obama appointee and liberal judge ruled that a Navy chaplain can be legally punished for his sermons, punished for writing to Congress, and punished for praying in Jesus’ name in uniform?” he asked.

“Although Judge Elaine Kaplan ruled against me, at least she affirmed how I was vindicated by the U.S. Congress, who rescinded [military regulation] 1730.7C after it was enforced against me in the Navy court,” he continued.

“She also admitted in her ruling that the government really did punish me, a Navy chaplain, for quoting the Bible in chapel, which would be protected by the First Amendment, but this judge refused to correct the Navy’s obvious abuse of power.

“She also acknowledged that I had written permission to wear my uniform during ‘public worship’ but that my prayers offered in Jesus’ name at a press conference did not qualify as ‘public worship,’” he said.

“Finally, she acknowledged I was punished for writing to my congressman and the president, but again claimed she didn’t have jurisdiction to enforce whistleblower laws. My lawyer and I plan to immediately appeal this bad ruling, and again later if necessary all the way to the Supreme Court,” Klingenschmitt told WND.

Huckabee: 'Incredibly Dangerous' For Congressmen, Rams Players To Use 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' Gesture

Mike Huckabee said today that he was “disgusted” by the “incredibly dangerous” decision of some black members of Congress and St. Louis Rams players to use the “hands up, don’t shoot” gesture to protest the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, arguing that such actions actually inspire looting and murder.

In an interview with Newsmax TV host J.D. Hayworth, a former GOP congressman, Huckabee said he “found it just incredibly dangerous that you have members of Congress on the floor of Congress holding up their hands in the ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ position as if to say that somehow that is going to get you shot.”

Huckabee, who previously compared Ferguson demonstrators to the killers of civil rights activist Medgar Evers, said people making the gesture are effectively “teaching” young people “to go loot a store, beat up a cop, reach for his gun and hope you get it before he does.”

“This is not only foolish and dangerous but it is really on the verge of anarchy and I’m just disgusted that you have NFL players, politicians and others who no matter what the evidence reveals, no matter how many sworn testimonies show that Darren Wilson — it’s a tragedy that the young man got shot, but this is a young man who had just roughed up a store owner, just robbed a store and now he’s going after a cop’s gun and it’s a horrible thing that he was killed but he could’ve avoided that if he had behaved as something other than a thug,” he said.

Anti-LGBT Activist: Transgender Inclusion Policy 'Puts Children In Danger'

Yesterday, Michelle Lentz, the state coordinator for the anti-LGBT group Minnesota Child Protection League Action, appeared on VCY America’s “Crosstalk” radio program to discuss a proposal to better accommodate students who identify as transgender in Minnesota high school sports.

Lentz argued that the proposed policy, which would allow children to participate in sports teams based on their gender identity, rather than biological gender, would have grave consequences for students. Insisting that “it’s all fair the way it is” now, she described the proposal as a “reckless policy that puts children in danger,” and accused advocates of lying about religious exemptions for parochial schools and local control over rollout of the policy. “A look at this policy shows that it is dangerous to all kids, including transgender kids,” she said.

Lentz also used the opportunity to criticize other efforts to combat bullying in schools and ensure equality for LGBT students. “The anti-bullying movement is a precursor that opens the door to all kinds of curriculum and policies of sexually explicitly material, ideas, themes,” she continued. “And this may be the pattern we are seeing all across the country. It is necessary for us as a people to stand up against these policies when they are harmful and put children at risk.”

Todd Starnes: Wrong Again

Over the weekend, Todd Starnes received a message on Facebook from a mother in North Carolina who claimed that the Disney Channel's website had banned the word "God." The website, it seems, had asked people to list what they were thankful for and her daughter had attempted to write that she was thankful for "God, my family, my church and my friends," only to have her message rejected.

So naturally, the mother complained to Starnes about this "discrimination" and Starnes, of course, turned the entire thing into another column about supposed anti-Christian persecution in America:

“We together figured out that the word God was the problem,” Julie said.

Sure enough, when they removed the word “God” from the post – the Disney Channel approved Lilly’s message. And then – Julie contacted me.

So, I gave it a try, too. I tried posting what I was thankful for on the Disney Channel website.

And just like Lilly and Julie, Disney prevented me from posting any message that included the word “God.”

...

Disney certainly seems to be implying that thanking God is not nice. Well, neither is blocking the Almighty from a website.

Julie said her daughter is a very loving and accepting child who was raised to understand that not everyone believes in God.

“We’ve always told her that inevitably there would come a day when she would be discriminated against for her faith but we never thought Disney would be the source,” she said.

I do wonder what sort of message the Disney Channel is sending when they tell children that mentioning God in public is bad manners.

Predictably, Fox News seized on the story and interviewed the mother and daughter about Disney's blatant hostility toward God, which eventually prompted Disney to issue an exasperated statement, which Starnes has now added to his column, pointing out that it was not bigotry at work, but simple filtering software:

Disney employs word filtering technology to prevent profanity from appearing on our websites.  Unfortunately, because so many people attempt to abuse the system and use the word "God" in conjunction with profanity, in an abundance of caution our system is forced to catch and prevent any use of the word on our websites.  The company would have been happy to explain our filtering technology to the inquiring family had they contacted us.

Right Wing Round-Up - 12/2/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 12/2/14

  • Another hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism from Todd Starnes.
  • Bryan Fischer is now attacking Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention for apparently going soft on the fight against homosexuality.
  • Michael Youssef says liberals are liars who "need to repent of their arrogance while there is still time. One day the truth will triumph, and all deceivers will have to face the Judge of the universe. I pray that they awake to their eternal reality soon."
  • If you make a donation to NOM today, you will "get a free copy of the renowned book, 'What Is Marriage?,' written by NOM co-founder Professor Robert P. George along with Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Gergis."
  • Gordon Klingenschmitt vows to fight on after losing his lawsuit.
  • Finally, Dr. George Yancey declares that "we do have Christianophobia in the United States."

Sandy Rios: Obama Inspired Fatal Hammer Attack By Condemning Violence

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association made the case on her radio show today that President Obama’s repeated condemnations of violence in Ferguson, Missouri, actually proved that Obama wanted to encourage violence.

In fact, Rios believes that Obama, along with Attorney General Eric Holder and the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, inspired the murder of a Bosnian-American in St. Louis: “I guess a bunch of teens near Ferguson must have been listening, or at least they took to heart the message of the race haters like Louis Farrakhan and I believe like Eric Holder and I believe like Barack Obama because outside, not far from Ferguson, Missouri, an immigrant who was Bosnian but of course he looks white, he was in his car driving, he came up to a stop sign, black young men came to the car, started hitting his car with a hammer, he got out of his car to stop them and they beat him to death.”

“The president is saying publicly, ‘oh we shouldn’t be violent,’ wink-wink, nod-nod, and yet he stokes it constantly, we know that he actually met with protesters in Ferguson,” Rios said.

She also criticized Professor Christopher Emdin for writing a blog post on “5 Ways to Teach About Michael Brown and Ferguson in the New School Year,” warning that he and others are “stoking the fires.”

Judge Allows Glenn Beck Boston Marathon Defamation Lawsuit To Move Forward

Following the Boston Marathon bombing last year, Glenn Beck set out on a mission to prove that the government was engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth, during which he repeatedly asserted that one of the victims who was injured in the attack was really an al Qaeda operative responsible for the bombing.

In the weeks following the bombing, Beck repeatedly insisted that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, a spectator who was briefly considered to be a "person of interest" by investigators though quickly exonerated, was really an al Qaeda "control agent" and the "money man" who had financed the entire operation and had recruited the Tsarnaev brothers to carry it out.

In response to these unfounded claims, Alharbi eventually sued Beck for defamation and slander, and Beck's lawyers responded by trying to get the lawsuit thrown out on the grounds that Alharbi was "involuntary public figure" which would require Alharbi to prove not simply that Beck made false accusations against him, but that he did so with "actual malice."

Of course, it was Beck himself who continued to focus attention on Alharbi, meaning that Beck's legal team was essentially arguing that Alharbi became a public figure as a result of Beck's attacks ... which they said means that Alharbi cannot now sue Beck for those very same attacks because he was a public figure.

Needless to say, this novel legal argument did not get very far with the federal judge hearing the case:

A federal judge has rejected a bid by conservative commentator Glenn Beck to toss out a libel lawsuit filed by a Saudi student Beck repeatedly accused of funding the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

In a ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris said the suit brought by Abdulrahman Alharbi could go forward notwithstanding claims by Beck, his website The Blaze.com, and firms connected to his radio show that the Saudi's role in events near the finish line of the marathon made him a public figure. If deemed a public figure, Alharbi would have found it difficult or impossible to proceed with the suit since he would need proof of actual malice: namely, that Beck intentionally lied or recklessly disregarded the truth.

...

"Choosing to attend a sporting event as one of thousands of spectators is not the kind of conduct that a reasonable person would expect to result in publicity. Quite to the contrary, a spectator at an event like the Boston Marathon would reasonably expect to disappear into the throngs of others, never attracting notice by the press. Because he did not 'assume the risk of publicity,' Alharbi does not meet the definition of an involuntary public figure," the judge wrote.

Saris went on to note that Beck continued to level allegations at the Saudi student for several weeks after authorities made clear Alharbi was no longer under investigation.

"Even if a private person meets the definition of an involuntary public figure as a matter of bad luck during a public controversy, the status is of limited duration.

Glenn Beck Theorizes That Progressives Want To Reinstate The Alien and Sedition Acts In Response To Ferguson Unrest

On his radio broadcast today, Glenn Beck played a clip of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan threatening to "tear this goddamn country up" in response to Ferguson, bizarrely suggesting that progressives would now seek to use such threats as an excuse for President Obama to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts through executive order.

Facetiously playing the role of a naive progressive responding to Farrakhan's remarks, Beck said that the only proper solution is to reinstate the Alien and Sedition Acts so that "if you say anything against the country, we can put you in prison."

Linking this to President Obama's plan to provide millions of dollars for body cameras and training in an effort to help improve relations between local police departments and minority communities, Beck mockingly said that "if only we could get that Alien and Sedition Act back, we'd be a perfect nation, wouldn't we?"

"We'd have somebody that could take it into their own hands," Beck continued, still in character. "We need somebody who is going to start taking matters into their own hands and just getting the job done":

Syndicate content