war on women

Conservative Radio Hosts Parse Feminists: Some are 'Cute,' Some are 'Ugly,' All are 'Family-Destroying Whores'

Christian conservative radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner are not exactly big fans of feminism in any of its forms. So far this month, they have opined that a woman fired for being too attractive shouldn’t have been working for a man who wasn’t her husband in the first place; that “socialist” single women are taking over America; and that Sandra Fluke isn’t “ladylike” enough to be considered for Woman of the Year.

On Tuesday’s edition of Generations Radio, Swanson and Buehner sat down in Swanson’s basement studio to discuss a report they came across that claims “rising college costs are driving a new trend called ‘Sugar Daddies.’” This led to a wide-ranging discussion of the scourge of women’s independence and a new unified theory of feminism.

There are “two forms of feminism,” Buehner argued. There are “cute” feminists like Sarah Palin who will find jobs in the “marketplace” and “get themselves a husband” but  will “never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.” Then, there are the “ugly” feminists whose “lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace.” These “attractively challenged” feminists will only find careers in academia and in government agencies, for instance, “you can run the EPA.”

What all these feminists have in common, Swanson argues, is that “all of them want to be free from the family” and together with “the homosexuals” are “destroying society.” Buehner speculates that in the future, feminism will be remembered as “a time in which women lost the love of their children” and “decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.”


Swanson: Now remember, the goal is that these women have to be independent. The goal is lots and lots of birth control. The goal is lots and lots and lots of fornication. The goal is abortion. The day-after pill will help. And it will help a lot. Remember, the goal is to get that girl a job because she needs no stinkin’ husband, she’s got the fascist corporation and government-mandated insurance programs and socialist welfare that will take care of her womb to tomb. Who needs a cotton-pickin’ husband? Who needs a family? That’s pretty much the worldview that’s dominating, my friends. That’s what the college is all about.

Buehner: Because her feminist professors have told her her husband will abuse her, she will be like a slave to him. Instead she will just go to the slave market and sell herself, at least sell her body, to the highest bidder. See, that’s much, much better!

Swanson: And Dave, you talk about the two kinds of feminists now, this is your new division, you say there’s two kinds of feminists.

Buehner: There are.

Swanson: All of them want to be free from the family. They want to be free from the husband. Who needs a stinkin’ husband? Who wants to be submitting to a husband and find security in the family when she can find security in the state or a sugar daddy for the four years that she needs to get through college?

Buehner: Right. Actually, you’re talking about perhaps even a third stream of feminism. There’s the Sarah Palin kind of feminism that wants to have a husband, just not one to submit to. And she still wants to..

Swanson: But talk about the two forms of feminism you see that are rising today.

Buehner: Right, there are two forms of feminism, and it actually has to do with a division of how attractive a woman is. So, you have the group that is very attractive, they’re in the sororities, they’re gonna be in the beauty contests. They’re actually going to get the good jobs. They’re going to leverage their attractiveness in the marketplace because it has a market value. Marketing. It helps market who you are. They’re going to proceed, now they will probably some of them become the Sarah Palin-style feminists, they’ll get themselves a husband, but they’ll never be dependent on the husband, they’ll never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.

Swanson: Okay, so you have the cute feminists.

Buehner: Right, you have the good-looking ones.

Swanson: Well, who are the others?

Buehner: Well, the other ones are those who we should say are, um, attractive-deficient. And they have not been…

Swanson: That’s nicely put. Attractively challenged.

Buehner: Attractively challenged. Optically challenged. These are the kinds that will look for careers mostly likely in academia.

Swanson: Now, just to say, they’re ugly. They’re the feminazis that Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to.

Buehner: Right, right, and they’re generally very angry about it because their attractive…or their lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace. So they can get jobs…

Swanson: And they’re certainly not going to get a lot of power sexually.

Buehner: No, but they can get jobs in the government bureaucracy, they can work as an FDA administrator, or you can actually run the EPA if you want, or academia. Academia’s actually the best place because you can be angry, ugly and you can also get tenure. It’s great, it’s the big trifecta.

Swanson: You’re gonna make some people mad about what you’ve just said. There will be some very angry feminists.

Buehner: You mean there will be angrier angry feminists.

Swanson: Angrier angry feminists are gonna come at you for what you just said, and probably from our listening audience, because if we tick anybody off we’re ticking two different folks off, the feminists and the homosexuals, they can’t stand this kind of stuff.

Buehner: Neither one of them have a high regard for the family or for the Word of God.

Swanson: That’s true, yeah, you’re right, you’re right, you’re right. And they’re the ones who are destroying society.

Buehner: The systems we are living in are coming down before our very eyes, the fiat currency won’t last, the corporate economies, they’re going to collapse. What’s going to last will be those who go back to a biblical worldview. I believe history will go back to this period of time and will look at feminism and say there was a time in which women lost the love of their children. They no longer cared about having children, they no longer loved their children, they no longer loved their husbands, where for all of history women very much cared about protecting the family. Now they only cared about themselves. They were riled up into a froth about how they were victims of society, patriarchal society, and they decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.

PFAW Urges Congress to Pass Reauthorization of Violence Against Women Act

WASHINGTON – People For the American Way today praised members of the House and Senate for reintroducing a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which House Republicans allowed to expire at the end of last year.

“Democrats in Congress are right to keep pushing until this bill becomes law,” said Minister Leslie Watson Malachi, Director of African American Religious Affairs at People For the American Way. “VAWA was passed and reauthorized twice with broad bipartisan support, and has succeeded for 18 years in making women safer. It’s absolutely shameful that Republicans blocked a routine reauthorization of the law. Fighting domestic abuse and sexual assault should be bipartisan priorities.”

“Tea Party Republicans are jeopardizing the safety of all Americans because they object to protections for LGBT people, immigrants and Native women,” continued Malachi. “This extremist obstruction must stop.”

###
 

Sandy Rios Hails Failure of Violence Against Women Act, Attacks Biden's 'Private Behavior with Women'

The Violence Against Women Act expired this year after House Republicans blocked a reauthorization that boosted protections for Native Americans, immigrants and the LGBT community. This development has overjoyed Religious Right activists, who have long opposed the anti-violence law.

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, speaking today with Ed Bartlett of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, criticized the indisputably effective law and attacked Vice President Joe Biden, warning that “if we knew Joe Biden’s private behavior with women it might not be a pretty picture.” Rios stated that Biden’s “crassness, crudeness and disrespect for women” raises doubts about his work on VAWA while Bartlett used Biden’s own admission that abuse occurred in his household when he was younger as a reason to block the law.

Rios was also upset that VAWA may soon include protections for the LGBT community. Bartlett contended that these new protections prove VAWA is too easy on women since “studies have shown that lesbian-perpetrated domestic violence is higher than violence among heterosexual couples.”

However, according to the Center for American Progress, “Studies have found that domestic violence occurs among same-sex couples at comparable rates to straight couples.” While Bartlett admits that domestic violence is a concern among same-sex couples, he and Rios seem to believe that is a reason to oppose the inclusion of LGBT protections in VAWA.

Rios: Then we have this whole business of reaching out to the LGBT community and now that’s confusing because that’s women against women in many cases. That would have to be women against women.

Bartlett: Exactly, you’re right. In fact, studies have shown that lesbian-perpetrated domestic violence is higher than violence among heterosexual couples. So that again shows that this is a problem not limited to male perpetrators and female victims.

Rios: You know the person that has been pushing for all these years is Vice President Joe Biden, I find that very curious, what can you say about that?

Bartlett: I’ll tell you something that most people don’t know about Vice President Biden. He himself as a child was subjected to very serious physical abuse by his female sister, his sibling. Most people don’t know that but he has actually stated that in hearings held in the Senate. There’s a high irony here, a fellow who as a child was subjected to female violence is now denying the very existence of that.

Rios: I also think it’s ironic. I have a personal opinion because of Joe Biden’s repeated behavior. I know he’s become the brunt of jokes because he’s always saying something silly. But one theme in his jokes is crassness, crudeness and disrespect for women. He’s supposed to be some champion for women and yet he comes out and says these outrageous things which are insulting. I think if we knew Joe Biden’s private behavior with women it might not be a pretty picture.

Rios even argued that the law has had “an extremely detrimental, unfair, tilted, bad effect on men.” Bartlett dismissed reports that women face disproportionate rates of domestic violence and said that VAWA was actually passed by those seeking “to undermine family stability.”

Rios: The problem with this particular law, as I understand it, is it has had an extremely detrimental, unfair, tilted, bad effect on men. Give us an example of how that has happened.

Bartlett: Sandy, you’re right and it’s happened in many ways. Part of what many people believe is the agenda is to undermine family stability by stereotyping men as being abusive. So over and over when you go to the websites of these various domestic violence organizations, they quote arrest statistics but they don’t quote the actual statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, which are the best statistics of all, which show that this is an equal opportunity problem. So we have men being stereotyped as being abusive, obviously that’s not good for strong, respectful gender-relationships in our country.

To be clear, the CDC and the Department of Justice [PDF] both find that women are much more likely than men to experience intimate partner violence. The DOJ found that “intimate partners were responsible for 3% of all violence against males and 23% of all violence against females in 2008,” and the CDC reports that “about 1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner” in their lifetime.

Buehner: Woman Fired for Being 'Irresistible' Should Have Been 'Working For Her Husband'

On yesterday’s Generations Radio, Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner took on the recent case in which the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a dentist was justified in firing an assistant whom he found “irresistible.” Swanson and Buehner, who agreed with the court’s decision, used the case as a jumping-off point for a discussion of the woes of modern workplaces that throw men together with women to whom they are not married. Such arrangements, Buehner fretted, are “pseudo-marriages.” Swanson feared that they come dangerously close to “polygamy”:

Swanson: This is not unusual, unfortunately, and it certainly is going to happen when you have a decrease in family economies. It’s one reason why we push the family economic vision, because the family economy is pretty much the way God set things up. The man and the woman come together not just for sexual union but also to be helpmeets and dominion-takers together as a team, as a lean, mean team in the dominion effort. That’s the way it was designed in the garden when the woman came to the man as the helpmeet for the man in the dominion task.

Buehner: And Kevin, I think that’s key. What we have in some of these business workplaces is a woman who’s not the wife being the helper or the helpmeet of the man and she has taken on the role of the helper…

Swanson: …for the man.

Buehner: And the only thing that’s missing in that relationship is the sexual consummation.

Swanson: Or the polygamy.

Buehner: Right. So remember, when God placed Adam in the garden, he gave him a mandate. He said you need a helper. He told Adam to go out and take some dominion, Adam named the animals, He said, ‘Yeah, this is really hard, you’re gonna need yourself a helper.” So He made Eve for him. It does not say that Eve was created because Adam needed to have a sexual outlet, it was created because Adam needed a helper. Now we take a man and we give him a helper out in the marketplace. He’s in a pseudo-marriage.

Swanson: And yeah, it can move in that direction pretty quickly.

The root cause of these inappropriate workplace relationships, Swanson and Buehner conclude, is an economic system built by “universities and colleges and political systems and corporate systems” in which women work outside the family unit. The fired dental assistant, Buehner contends, “would have been better off working for her husband.”

Swanson: Friends, you gotta understand that we have tremendous socio-economic forces that have been set up by systems that want to systematically destroy the integrity of the family life and the marriage in the 20th century and the 21st century. This is what you’re up against. I just want people to understand that as we are trying to reconfigure entire socio-economic systems by way of our familyeconomics.com and by our huge conferences we are sponsoring around the country to this year, we are going up against this socio-economic structure that has been put in place by universities and colleges and political systems and corporate systems, etcetera, etcetera, that makes it extremely difficult for the family to survive in the 21st century.

Buehner: In this dentist case situation, the dentist was married, his wife was working in the office with him. That’s great. This woman, this “irresistible” woman, she was also married and had two children. It would have been better if she was working for her husband! I mean, these are utopian ideas here, but these are Biblical ideas.
 

 

Thanks to House GOP, New Year Starts Without Violence Against Women Act

Back in April, the Senate passed  a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which since 1994 has provided funding and training for state and local law enforcement to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. The law has worked incredibly well: between 1993 and 2010, the rate of intimate partner violence fell by 67 percent and the reporting of domestic violence has increased dramatically.

But this week, the Violence Against Women Act expires because House Republicans refused to reauthorize it. They refused even to hold a vote on it, instead proposing a watered-down bill that the president promised to veto. What they objected to were the new bill’s increased protections for immigrants, LGBT people and Native American women, which Majority Leader Eric Cantor characterized as “issues that divide us.”

Now the new Congress will have to start the process of reauthorizing VAWA all over again. Until they do, women across the country will be left without the safety net that VAWA provides.

PFAW

Swanson: Obama's Reelection 'Solidified our Doom' and Empowered 'Softy-Wofty, Weeny Socialists'

On the latest episode of Generations Radio, Pastor Kevin Swanson recounted the Religious Right’s political drubbings last year, especially the failure to defeat President Obama. He claimed Obama’s re-election “solidified our doom” and will encourage the election of “a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come.” Swanson maintained that women put Obama over the top because they tend to have “more communist” views. Later his cohost, pastor Dave Buehner, agreed and said Obama “doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him.”

They further speculated that TIME had trouble deciding whether to name Obama or North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un “Man of the Year” since they are “both committed to Marx.”

Swanson: It solidified our doom, it effectively said there is no way out of this thing at least for the time being unless we get back to the foundations, reconstruct the foundations, which is something we’ve been talking about for a long time. Unless we rebuild families, fatherhood, young men, unless we bring back manhood, a biblical manhood, we are going to be a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come. That’s what’s going to happen. It’s going to be the single women that run most of the households in America voting and they almost always vote more socialist, more government, more communist, because they find their security in the state and not in the social structure of that family. Dave, we’re headed in that election. I think the 2012 election really was a turning point for America.



Swanson: The man has tremendous influence. He has got a mandate; he’s got a lot of support—

Buehner: He doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him, which is why he’s their ‘Man of the Year.’

Swanson: He’s got a woman-date, big time. You know, the North Korean president got the most votes from the audience for ‘Man of the Year,’ he was a close second. If you had a choice between Barack Obama and the North Korean president, they’re both committed to Marx. They are, think about it. If you interviewed both of them and you said: what do you think about Marx and the redistribution of wealth? Remember what he said on that radio station in Chicago, Barack Obama some ten years ago, he said they should have had redistribution of the wealth in the Constitution. He is so committed to Marxism and so is the North Korean president, but it was a tossup for TIME Magazine.

After attacking Obama’s “woman-date,” they then went on to ridicule Sandra Fluke. Buehner later falsely claimed that the health care reform law included “free access” to abortifacients, and said Fluke didn’t win TIME’s honor because “there’s some question about how ladylike she might be.” Swanson wondered if Fluke is a woman at all.

Buehner: This is the year that we learned that it is a fundamental right for women to get free access and their abortifacients provided free. Sandra Fluke was there telling us how it’s unconscionable that women would have to pay.

Swanson: Time did not make her ‘Woman of the Year’ though; I’d like to point that out. I think that’s a positive.

Buehner: Well there’s some question about how ladylike she might be.

Swanson: So they were like, ‘Man of the Year,’ ‘Woman of the Year,’ we’re not exactly sure.

Buehner: Yeah, you know.

Swanson: I understand.

The Christian Right activists later went on to mock Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was recently hospitalized for a blood clot, with Buehner joking that her recent medical problems were a “dog ate her homework” excuse and that “her tummy’s upset.” Swanson expressed shock that Egypt elected a Muslim president and said that Clinton is elated over the election of a Muslim because “it involves killing Christians.” They agreed that Clinton “might even put on a burka” to put Christian-killing Muslims in power, which makes sense because that’s what any “softy-wofty” would do.

Swanson: The Egyptians placed a Muslim into the presidency, which does not bode well for freedom in America. Dave, I wonder what the Secretary of State of the United States thinks about the election in Egypt. I mean, they were pretty excited about the revolution.

Buehner: They were, the Arab Spring. And Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State was unavailable for comment. It turns out that she slipped on something and maybe banged her head—dog ate her homework. She’s not feeling well, her tummy’s upset and she’s not going to make a comment.

Swanson: It’s a sad, sad day in Egypt.

Buehner: The Muslim Brotherhood, not just a Muslim but a Muslim Brotherhood, we’re talking about the radical jihadists.

Swanson: So Egypt, out of the frying pan and into the fire for Egypt. I’m afraid that a lot of these secularist nations are going to flip-flop from secularism into hardcore Muslimism and that’s not going to be a very nice transition because the Muslims have never really been known to be much kinder than the secularists, socialists and communists that have ruled these nations.

Buehner: No, they tend to be a little on the violent edge.

Swanson: If you were Hillary Clinton and you had a choice between a Christian president and a Muslim president, which would you go for?

Buehner: If I was Hillary? Well Hillary would choose the Muslim.

Swanson: Oh yeah, of course. It involves killing Christians, I mean yeah.

Buehner: She might even put on a burka to get that done.

Swanson: Yeah.

Handel: Planned Parenthood 'Literally Co-Opted the Color Pink' from Komen

Former Susan G. Komen executive Karen Handel, the Georgia Republican politician who has been largely credited with the cancer charity’s disastrous decision last year to withdraw its grants to Planned Parenthood, spoke yesterday to the Family Research Council. Promoting her book about the episode, “Planned Bullyhood,” Handel accused Planned Parenthood of launching an “unprecedented, premeditated, Mafia-style assault” on Komen. Further, she alleges that Planned Parenthood “literally co-opted the color pink” from Komen in a sinister “bait and switch.”

 

What Republican 'Soul-Searching'?

On Nov. 6, Americans turned out in massive numbers to reelect President Obama, take away seats from Republicans in the House and the Senate, and pass progressive ballot measures throughout the country. But it seems that Republicans in Washington and in states across the country just didn't get the hint. Despite all the talk of post-election "soul-searching," there doesn't appear to be any self-examination going on among those currently clinging to their seats in Congress and state legislatures.

Just look at Michigan. Just weeks after the state legislature's Republicans took a drubbing from voters, who cut their majority in the state House from 18 to 8 despite recent Republican gerrymandering, the state's GOP leadership went on a right-wing rampage.

First, they passed a package of so-called "right to work" laws that are meant to politically weaken unions and have the side effect of financially weakening the middle class. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder was against "right to work" before he was for it, thanks to some powerful arm-twisting from corporate front groups.

Then, they got to work on some extreme anti-choice measures. One tries to force abortion clinics out of business by regulating them into the ground. It also places unnecessary burdens on women, including requiring them to prove they weren't "coerced" into seeking an abortion; prohibiting them from consulting with their doctor via videoconference; and requiring them to sign a death certificate and hold a funeral for the aborted fetus (this requirement, at least, has just been removed from the bill). Yet another bill would let doctors refuse to provide or employers refuse to cover any procedures they find immoral. This one isn't just about abortion - it could allow employers to refuse their employees insurance coverage for contraception, or even blood transfusions. Sounds familiar? The Blunt Amendment in the U.S. Senate - wildly unpopular except among the Senate GOP - would have done the same thing.

Anybody who was paying the least bit of attention to this year's elections would have noticed that two of the things voters find most repugnant about today's GOP is its blind allegiance to big corporations and its enthusiasm for regulating women's health.

Apparently the Republican Party wasn't paying attention. Or is just too beholden to the interests of the Corporate and Christian Right to care.

What's happening in Michigan is just a microcosm of the whole. In Ohio, immediately after an election shaped in part by the GOP's toxic attacks on women's health, Republican legislators got to work trying to defund Planned Parenthood. And in Washington, DC, Republican leaders are approaching fiscal cliff negotiations with the sole goal of protecting George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

This isn't what I'd call "soul-searching."

This post originally appeared at the Huffington Post.

PFAW

Swanson: Single, Independent Women are 'Leading the Charge' Toward Socialism

Fearing for the fate of our nation after the election, Pastor Kevin Swanson of Generations with Vision Ministry cautioned that socialism, homosexuality, the legalization of marijuana, and most of all, independent women will contribute to the destruction of America. Swanson emphasized that single women are “leading the charge toward socialism,” and that they have been conditioned to “think like feminists,” abandon relationships with their family and become utterly dependent on government. Women no longer seek security from their fathers and husbands, asserts Swanson, but from the government and Barack Obama. And it’s not just the single women that Swanson vilifies, but the women acquiring leadership positions. He contends that “one of the other indications that a nation is falling down…is that women are leading the nation,” citing “God’s descriptions of the breakdown of empires in the BC years.”

Remember, it’s mostly independent women that are leading the charge here. Remember that the majority of households are led by independent, single women today in America, and what is it 54% to 45% voted for the most socialist than the lesser socialist on the ballot. Our nation is being led by single women, independent women who have been trained to think like feminists, they no longer see the family as an important social unit, and their security does not come from their fathers and husbands, it comes from Barack Obama. And we’ve been saying this for the last ten years, friends, I’ve crisscrossed the nation I’ve told hundreds of thousands of people this, and of course, many of them will lead their daughters to become independent so that they will vote for Barack Obama, or somebody even more socialist in years to come.



One of the other indications that a nation is falling down according to Isaiah 3 and Isaiah 19 is that women are leading the nation. This is clear, really, really clear from God’s descriptions of the breakdown of empires in the BC years. You’re going to get this all the way through the Old Testament…I know it’s unpopular, people don’t want to hear oh, when women lead, this is an indication that men aren’t leading and women are leading and you’re going to see a breakdown of systems and a breakdown of nations and empires. I’m sorry but that’s just the way it’s been over the last six thousand years so get over it.

Swanson, who previously implored America to revert to the biblical law of Pilgrim society where homosexuality was punishable by death, also claimed that “homosexuality is on a roll.” He attributes this to the liberal education system and the “pro-homosexual” agenda of the schools, alleging that there will be “a seven times increase in incidents of homosexuality in the 2020s and 2030s.”

Homosexuality is of course on a roll, and will be for the next twenty years at least. And we have been saying so many times, this is no surprise at all because of what’s going on in the schools, because you educate children in a pro-homosexual anti-God’s law perspective over twenty, twenty-five years, of course they’re going to be pro-homosexual. When you’ve got a liberal education system, and you’ve got a breakdown of the family…42% of these little boys are born without fathers up from six percent in 1960, of course you’re going to have a seven times increase in incidents of homosexuality in the 2020s and 2030s, you’re going to continue to see homosexual marriage on the roll.

Wilson: Obama is Leading a 'War on Christian People'

Lawsuits challenging the mandate for contraception coverage have not fared well in the courts, but American Family Association general manager Buster Wilson today said that the provision is clearly unconstitutional and is proof of the Obama administration’s purported hostility towards Christians. “There’s no war on women, that’s a fantasy,” Wilson said. “The war is on Christian people.” He later warned that the government may soon “cause you to hire homosexuals” and eradicate religious freedom.

There’s no war on women, that’s a fantasy. The war is on Christian people. The war is on the First Amendment. What does the First Amendment say, let’s just go back to basics, what does the First Amendment say? The First Amendment says Congress shall impose no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. What is this mandate out of the Obamacare law if it is not a congressional imposition on the exercise of religion?



If they win this argument then we will lose other religious liberties. Here’s the way the argument will go: we have proven through the courts and otherwise that businesses don’t have the freedom to practice the religious liberties of the First Amendment so we can cause businesses to do anything. Next will be to cause you to hire homosexuals or next will be to cause you to pay into something else you don’t agree to. I mean it will just be one thing after another. And for all the folks out there from Right Wing Watch and all their entities that want to mock us for this, you just wait, one day something is going to come that is going to infringe on some Constitutional liberty that you cherish and you’re going to start screaming bloody murder too.

Harvey: Feminists and Democrats are 'Making a War on Women'

Expounding on her belief that feminism is a pagan philosophy that promotes witchcraft and is “destructive to the church,” Linda Harvey of Mission America told listeners yesterday that feminism is trying to “disguise” their “sexual permissiveness agenda” as “concern about harming women” and “human rights.” She argued that feminists and their allies in the Democratic Party “are the ones truly making a war on women” by opposing the criminalization of abortion. She added that “homosexuality, wasteful government spending, dependency on welfare, our weak national defense and many of the other items the Democratic Party proudly stands for” also harm women, and that “every liberal woman” is at war with God’s design.

Harvey: Anyone who is genuinely objective cannot miss the fact that life does indeed begin at conception and that true human equality should make us value all human life from that time forward. Those who don’t don’t really have a human rights agenda, they have a sexual permissiveness agenda, that is the actual priority of most feminists even as they try to disguise it as concern about harming women. It’s another lie. The Democrats are the ones truly making a war on women, right from targeting and killing babies in the womb, female and male, abortion hurts women. So by the way does homosexuality, wasteful government spending, dependency on welfare, our weak national defense and many of the other items the Democratic Party proudly stands for. Back when I was a feminist there was a war going on, but it was me, a war with myself and with how God created me, and that in my opinion is what is taking place in the hart, mind and soul of every liberal woman.

Gary Bauer Attacks Sandra Fluke over Shooting of Pakistani Education Activist

Fourteen year-old Pakistani girl Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by a Taliban militant yesterday, targeting her because she is an outspoken advocate for the rights of women in education. Religious Right activist Gary Bauer, who has built his career attacking the rights of Muslim-Americans and women, is using the tragic incident to attack Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who was lambasted and denigrated by right-wing talk show hosts for supporting the inclusion of contraception coverage in insurance plans.

Bauer suggested in an email for the Campaign for Working Families that Fluke won’t condemn the attempted murder of the women’s rights activist (which she actually has done) and hoped that the shooting will make Fluke reconsider her women’s rights advocacy in the U.S. Bauer said he wonders “what Fluke thinks about Malala Yousafzai” and “predict[s] Sandra Fluke will not take time out from her crusade for free birth control to condemn radical Islam.” “Women all over the Islamic world face brutal persecution, but the American left hates us and hurls its bile at conservatives,” Bauer maintained.

For over a year, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, radical feminists and their media allies have promoted the idea that there is a conservative "war on women." We have seen poor "victims" like Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke whine about how expensive her birth control pills are and how mean Republicans don't want to pay for them.

I wonder what Fluke thinks about Malala Yousafzai. She is a 14 year-old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by an Islamic "warrior" who walked onto her school bus yesterday in the city of Mingora. The Taliban quickly claimed "credit" for the shooting.

Malala did not make a movie critical of Mohammed or try to convert to Christianity. She simply said publicly that girls should be able to go to school. For that she clings to life today in a Pakistani hospital.

I predict there will be no Islamic mobs in the streets protesting the distortions of their faith. I predict Sandra Fluke will not take time out from her crusade for free birth control to condemn radical Islam. I predict Planned Parenthood will continue its multi-million-dollar ad campaign accusing conservatives of wanting to take away its right to destroy innocent unborn children.

Women all over the Islamic world face brutal persecution, but the American left hates us and hurls its bile at conservatives.

New TV Ad! "Mitt Romney's Supreme Court: Too Extreme For America"

Mitt Romney says that a woman's right to choose an abortion even in cases of rape and incest is a "decision that will be made by the Supreme Court." But Romney has promised Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Roe v Wade...
PFAW

Paul Ryan: Roe v. Wade is 'Virtually Identical' to Dred Scott

In the 2004 presidential election, President Bush used “dog whistle” politics during a debate with John Kerry by subtly linking the Dred Scott case to Roe v. Wade. This year, Republican vice presidential pick Paul Ryan is more explicit about his views. He supported a bill to outlaw all abortions and some contraceptives, and in 2010 he said that the “the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake” in Roe v. Wade that it made in the 1857 Dred Scott case:

Yet, identifying who “qualifies” as a human being has historically proved to be more difficult than the above examples suggest. Twice in the past the U.S. Supreme Court—charged with being the guardian of rights—has failed so drastically in making this crucial determination that it “disqualified” a whole category of human beings, with profoundly tragic results.

The first time was in the 1857 case, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court held, absurdly, that Africans and their American descendants, whether slave or free, could not be citizens with a right to go to court to enforce contracts or rights or for any other reason. Why? Because “among the whole human race,” the Court declared, “the enslaved African race were not intended to be included…[T]hey had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” In other words, persons of African origin did not “qualify” as human beings for purposes of protecting their natural rights. It was held that, since the white man did not recognize them as having such rights, they didn’t have them. The implication was that Africans were property—things that white persons could choose to buy and sell. In contrast, whites did “qualify,” so government protected their natural rights.

Every person in this country was wounded the day this dreadful opinion was handed down by this nation’s highest tribunal. It made a mockery of the American idea that human equality and rights were given by God and recognized by government, not constructed by governments or ethnic groups by consensus vote. The abhorrent decision directly led to terrible bloodshed and opened up a racial gap that has never been completely overcome. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake. At what point in time does a human being exist, the state of Texas asked. The Court refused to answer: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In other words, the Court would not “qualify” unborn children as living persons whose human rights must be guaranteed.



At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person’s right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person’s right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature—the “law of the jungle”—the determination of who “qualifies” as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.

Rep. Jeff Landry Baselessly Claims the Obama Administration offers Muslim Airline Passengers 'Waivers' to bypass TSA Screenings

Today on Jay Sekulow Live, Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) discussed with the American Center for Law and Justice’s Chief Counsel an amicus brief that the ACLJ is putting together on behalf of the congressman in the lawsuit against the Obama administration’s mandate for health insurance plans to include contraception coverage. Landry maintained that the Obama administration is showing its “hypocrisy” by mandating that religiously-affiliated hospitals and universities cover contraception in their health insurance plans while also “granting special status or waivers to Muslims as they go through TSA screenings.”

The congressman’s allegation that the Obama administration is giving Muslim passengers “special rights as they go through the TSA screening” doesn’t seem to have any basis in reality, as the TSA on its website gives no mention of religious exemptions and TSA administrator John Pistole testified that anyone who wants to avoid a pat down based on religious reasons is “not going to get on an airplane.”

Sekulow: How big of a deal, how big of an issue is this both in the body politics [sic] and among your constituents?

Landry: Down here in south Louisiana this is huge, this is very important to my constituency. I think the biggest problems that a lot of Americans are having out there is the hypocrisy of this administration. Remember, this is an administration who has no problem granting special status or waivers to Muslims as they go through TSA screenings. Look, as they believe that there is a need to grant them special rights as they go through the TSA screening based upon their religion, that’s fine, I’m ok with that. But then don’t turn around and attack Christians when they stand up and say ‘listen, we believe that the policies you’re putting in place violate our religious freedoms as well.

Landry warned that if the contraception mandate, which he called a “dangerous” exercise of power, is upheld then there will be “no limit to what the federal government can do”:

This strikes at the very foundation of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, if we allow the federal government to violate this principle there is no limit to what the federal government can do thereafter.



To me this is one of the biggest cases brought forth in the country in a long, long time. I got to tell you, my hat’s off to the Catholic bishops around America, they have gotten to the point where they understand that this exercise that is going on with the federal government is a dangerous one. If they allow this to happen, if we allow this to happen as Americans, as Catholics, as Christians, there is no limit to where the government goes from here. You know, Jay, to me that is the biggest danger, that should be the biggest concern, I mean where does it stop after this?

Mitt Romney's Constitutional Advisor, Robert Bork, Continues the War on Women's Rights

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

Mitt Romney is eager these days to change the subject from what the public sees as his party's "war on women." He seeks to close the huge gender gap that has opened up as women flee the party of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in search of something a little less patriarchal and misogynistic.

But Romney's problems with America's women may be just beginning. He can distance himself from the theocratic musings of other Republicans and the macho bullying of Fox News talking heads, but he cannot run away from his own selection of former Judge Robert Bork, in August of last year, to become his principal advisor on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Bork hopes to wipe out not only the constitutional right to privacy, especially the right to contraception and to abortion, but decades of Equal Protection decisions handed down by what he calls a feminized Supreme Court deploying "sterile feminist logic" to guarantee equal treatment and inclusion of women. Bork is no casual chauvinist but rather a sworn enemy of feminism, a political force that he considers "totalitarian" and in which, he has concluded, "the extremists are the movement."

Romney may never have to elaborate his bizarrely muted reaction to Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" ("it's not the language I would have used"), but he will definitely have to answer whether he agrees with his hand-picked constitutional advisor that feminism is "totalitarian"; that the Supreme Court, with two women Justices, had become "feminized" at the time of U.S. v. Virginia (1996) and produced a "feminization of the military"; and that gender-based discrimination by government should no longer trigger heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

Romney has already said that, "The key thing the president is going to do... it's going to be appointing Supreme Court and Justices throughout the judicial system." He has also said that he wishes Robert Bork "were already on the Court."

So look what Robert Bork thinks Romney's Supreme Court Justices should do about the rights of women.

Wiping Out Contraceptive, Abortion and Privacy Rights

Romney certainly hoped to leave behind the surprising controversy in the Republican primaries over access to contraception, but Robert Bork's extremist views on the subject guarantee that it stays hot. Bork rejects the line of decisions, beginning with Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), affirming the right of Americans to privacy in their procreative and reproductive choices. He denounces the Supreme Court's protection of both married couples' and individuals' right to contraception in Griswold and Eisenstaedt v. Baird (1972), declaring that such a right to privacy in matters of procreation was created "out of thin air." He calls the Ninth Amendment -- which states that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" -- an "inkblot" without meaning. For him, the right of people to decide about birth control has nothing to do with Due Process liberty or other rights "retained by the people" -- it is the illegitimate expression of "radical individualism" on the Supreme Court.

Bork detests Roe v. Wade (1973), a decision he says has "no constitutional foundation" and is based on "no constitutional reasoning." He would overturn it and empower states to prosecute women and doctors who violate criminal abortion laws. Bork promises:

 

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, just so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of the judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that.

 

In other words, the Court's "integrity" would require a President Romney to impose an anti-Roe v. Wade litmus test on all nominations to the Court.

Ending Heightened Scrutiny of Government Sex Discrimination under Equal Protection

Bork is the leading voice in America assailing the Supreme Court for using "heightened" Equal Protection scrutiny to examine government sex discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. While women and men all over America cheered the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in United States v. Virginia (1996), the decision that forced the Virginia Military Institute to stop discriminating and to admit its first women cadets, Bork attacked it for producing the "feminization of the military," which for him is a standard and cutting insult --"feminization" is always akin to degradation and dilution of standards. He writes: "Radical feminism, an increasingly powerful force across the full range of American institutions, overrode the Constitution in United States v. Virginia." Of course, in his view, this decision was no aberration: "VMI is only one example of a feminized Court transforming the Constitution," he wrote. Naturally, a "feminized Court" creates a "feminized military."

Bork argues that, outside of standard "rational basis" review, "the equal protection clause should be restricted to race and ethnicity because to go further would plunge the courts into making law without guidance from anything the ratifiers understood themselves to be doing." This rejection of gender as a protected form of classification ignores the fact that that the Fourteenth Amendment gives "equal protection" to all "persons." But, if Bork and his acolytes have their way, decades of Supreme Court decisions striking down gender-discriminatory laws under the Equal Protection Clause will be thrown into doubt as the Court comes to examine sex discrimination under the "rational basis" test, the most relaxed kind of scrutiny. Instead of asking whether government sex discrimination "substantially" advances an "important" government interest, the Court will ask simply whether it is "conceivably related" to some "rational purpose." Remarkably, Mitt Romney's key constitutional advisor wants to turn back the clock on Equal Protection jurisprudence by watering down the standards for reviewing sex-discriminatory laws.

Judge Bork Means Business: the Case of the Sterilized Women Employees

If you don't think Bork means all this, go back and look at his bleak record as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Take just one Bork opinion that became a crucial point of discussion in the hearings over his failed 1987 Supreme Court nomination. In a 1984 case called Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. American Cyanamid Co., Bork found that the Occupational Safety and Health Act did not protect women at work in a manufacturing plant from a company policy that forced them to be sterilized -- or else lose their jobs -- because of high levels of lead in the air. The Secretary of Labor had decided that the Act's requirement that employers must provide workers "employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards" meant that American Cynamid had to "fix the workplace" through industrial clean-up rather than "fix the employees" by sterilizing or removing all women workers of child-bearing age. But Bork strongly disagreed. He wrote an opinion for his colleagues apparently endorsing the view that other clean-up measures were not necessary or possible and that the sterilization policy was, in any event, a "realistic and clearly lawful" way to prevent harm to the women's fetuses. Because the company's "fetus protection policy" took place by virtue of sterilization in a hospital -- outside of the physical workplace -- the plain terms of the Act simply did not apply, according to Bork. Thus, as Public Citizen put it, "an employer may require its female workers to be sterilized in order to reduce employer liability for harm to the potential children."

Decisions like this are part of Bork's dark Social Darwinist view of America in which big corporations are always right and the law should rarely ever be interpreted to protect the rights of employees, especially women, in the workplace.

No matter how vigorously Mitt Romney shakes his Etch-a-Sketch, Americans already have an indelible picture of what a Romney-run presidency and Bork-run judiciary would look like and what it would mean for women. With Robert Bork calling the shots on the courts, a vote for Mitt Romney is plainly a vote against women's rights, women's equality and women's freedom.

Jamin Raskin is the author of the new PFAW Report, "Borking America: What Robert Bork Will Mean for the Supreme Court and American Justice."

PFAW

Southern Baptist Convention's Political Arm Pushes Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act

While the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is mired in scandal resulting from ERLC head Richard Land’s repeated plagiarism and inflammatory remarks on race, it has found time to criticize the Violence Against Women Act. Doug Carlson, manager for administration and policy communications for the ERLC, voiced the group’s opposition to the highly successful law because of new provisions that ensure that LGBT victims of domestic violence do not encounter discrimination while seeking help.

Carlson quoted a letter Richard Land signed along with Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, Jim Garlow of Renewing American Leadership Action, Tom McClusky of Family Research Council Action, C. Preston Noell of Tradition, Family, Property Inc., Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and Penny Nance and Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America.

Notably, the letter was also signed by conservative activist Timothy Johnson, who was convicted of a felony domestic violence charge and was arrested a second time for putting his wife in a wrist lock and choking his son, as reported by Sarah Posner.

Carlson writes:

Under the reauthorization, VAWA, as the bill is known, would spend vast sums of taxpayer money—more than $400 million each year—on programs that lack sufficient oversight and fail to address the core issue of protecting vulnerable women from abuse. Many of the programs duplicate efforts already underway. Among other problems, it would expand special protections to include same-sex couples. Men who are victimized by their male sexual partners would receive the benefit of the law above heterosexuals. And with broadened definitions of who qualifies for services, those who are most in need of the bill’s protections would have diminished access to it.



Pro-family groups, too, have been leveling attacks on the bill for months for its anti-family policies. Many of them expressed those concerns to the Judiciary Committee in February in hopes of derailing the bill. “We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans nationwide, are writing to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),” Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land, along with nearly two dozen other religious and conservative leaders, wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This nice-sounding bill is deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.”

“There is no denying the very real problem of violence against women and children. However, the programs promoted in VAWA are harmful for families. VAWA often encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence,” they added.

Regrettably, a slim majority of committee members rejected that counsel, ultimately approving the bill in February on a narrow 10-8 vote. Now the battle lies in the full Senate, where those opposed to the new VAWA are facing significant pressure to support it. Allies of the bill are tagging its opponents as waging a “war on women.”

But no matter how noble its title suggests, the Violence Against Women Act is the wrong answer to addressing ongoing domestic abuse. With a shortage of evidence to date of VAWA’s success in reducing levels of violence against women, the war to decrease such violence and to ultimately strengthen the family shouldn’t include reauthorizing a flawed policy that promises an expansion of the same.

Phil Bryant: Liberals' 'One Mission in Life is to Abort Children'

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant today appeared on American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues with American Family Association president Tim Wildmon and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins where he defended a new Mississippi law that could close the state’s one abortion clinic. As noted in a People For the American Way report, “The War on Women,” Bryant signed a TRAP bill, or targeted regulations of abortion providers, that is meant to impose “unnecessary and burdensome regulations on physicians who perform abortion services” and shut down the only abortion clinic in the state by making it more difficult for the clinic to employ doctors who live outside the state:

The state’s Republican lieutenant governor, Tate Reeves, boasted that the TRAP bill would “effectively close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi” by preventing the clinic from relying on out-of-state physicians. The clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, depends on out-of-state physicians because many doctors who live in Mississippi face constant harassment and threats of violence.

Bryant, a major supporter of the state’s unsuccessful personhood amendment, now wants to stop women from exercising their right to choose after failing to eliminate that right in last year’s referendum.

He defended the law in the interview by arguing that “Barack Obama and all those on the left” are hypocrites for opposing it, demonstrating that “their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb.” After knocking “fly-in abortionists,” Perkins agreed and said that abortion providers are simply driven by profit.

Watch:

Bryant: You would think that Barack Obama and all those on the left that love so much to talk about women’s health care would rush to support this bill, would just say, ‘absolutely we want the strongest health care, we want admissions privileges, we want that women that is going through that abortion for her life and safety to be paramount,’ well it should be the paramount of the child.

Even if you believe in abortion, the hypocrisy of the left that now tried to kill this bill, that says that I should have never signed it, the true hypocrisy is that their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb. It doesn’t really matter, they don’t care if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, that if something goes wrong that a doctor can’t admit them to a local hospital, that he’s not even board certified. We passed that bill and I think you’ll see other states follow and when that happens at least these fly-in abortionists are going to be regulated under the state laws of the Medical Procedures Act here in the state of Mississippi as they should be across the nation.

Perkins: Well the driving factor is profit for many of them.

Concerned Women for America Urges Congress to Block the Violence Against Women Act

The far-right group Concerned Women for America has continued its campaign against the Violence Against Women Act, calling it “a boondoggle for feminists” and alleging that it supports the “homosexual agenda” by ensuring that LGBT victims aren’t turned away from shelters. Republicans in Congress have been working to block reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, even though the law has been a success in helping spouses report domestic abuse and incidences of domestic violence have been on the decline since it was signed into law. The group said in an email:

It is astounding that the left's "war on woman" has some senators afraid to oppose a bad bill simply because it's titled, "The Violence Against Women Act."

This legislation, which is normally a boondoggle for feminists groups, has become even more political this Congress. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), S. 1925, creates new protections for homosexuals. In order to receive federal grants, domestic violence organizations have to agree to embrace the homosexual agenda. It also expands categories of who is eligible to receive services.

These broad definitions actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims. According to Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, VAWA currently does not address the 30 items on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's list of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Further broadening programs dilutes precious help and resources even more.

The Violence Against Women Act spends over $400 million each year. According to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), VAWA fails to ensure that the money being spent is not wasted on ineffective programs. He said that random audits by the Inspector General found repeated irregularities and misconduct, including unauthorized and unallowable expenses in 21 of 22 grants.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious