Kyle Mantyla's blog

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 10/6/14

  • Speaker John Boehner does not seem too concerned about the effort by anti-gay Religious Right groups to mobilize voters against gay Republican candidate Carl DeMaio.
  • Glenn Beck doesn't understand why nobody believes his new peace, love, and understanding message: "Why can’t we stop calling each other names? I know this is hard for many people to swallow from me. I do not claim to be perfect. In fact far from it. But everyone needs to start somewhere. I am trying to change my ways and be a better man. It begins with listening to others and not claiming to have all of the answers. It begins with humility and a willingness to admit to being wrong."
  • It is amazing that Dinesh D'Souza is actually treated as a serious intellectual by those on the Right.
  • Jan Markell does not have much faith in government efforts to convince American Muslims not to go overseas to fight jihad: "This is liberalism run amok. When liberalism gets away with these kinds of things, eventually there's going to be carnage on a mass scale, because they are willing to look the other way because of political correctness."
  • Gina Loudon warns that "the Democrats need the illegal vote to win in 2016, because they can’t win with only the vote of the American people. And they will win at any cost, even if it means Americans are infected with Third-World diseases ... This is no longer about Republicans versus Democrats. The midterm elections are about life versus death. This election and the 2016 election have become about one party that respects freedom and life, and one that thinks you are not only stupid, but expendable."
  • Finally, here are "9 Prophetic Keys for Binding the Homosexual Spirit."

The Religious Right Reacts To SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision: 'Unconscionable, Unconstitutional, And Un-American'

Earlier today, the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from several states challenging court decisions striking down gay marriage bans, resulting in such marriages now being legal in several more states.

To say that anti-gay Religious Right groups are furious with the Supreme Court would be a massive understatement and nobody was more livid about it than the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, who spent two segments of his radio program today blasting the Supreme Court for having now issued the "de facto Roe vs. Wade of sodomy-based marriage" by "imposing on every state in the union marriage that is based on the infamous crime against nature."

"It unconscionable, unconstitutional, and un-American," Fischer fumed:

Groups like Liberty Counsel were equally outraged, issuing a press release blasting the Court for its "decision to watch marriage burn to ashes:

"This is a total dereliction of duty," said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. "The Supreme Court abandoned its duty to take up or at least hold these marriage cases. The responsibility for the undermining of marriage rests solely at the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year's decision in the Defense of Marriage Act case that started this fire, and today's decision to watch marriage burn to ashes is the responsibility of the Supreme Court. The actions of the Supreme Court in particular, and of the judiciary in general, undermine the rule of law and erode the confidence of the people in the judicial branch of government. When the people lose confidence in the rule of law, the judiciary will lose is legitimacy. Everyone will be affected by same-sex marriage because it is an intolerant agenda that will directly collide with religious freedom," said Staver.

The Family Research Council was likewise outraged, warning that "more and more people [will] lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage":

"The Supreme Court decision to not take up these lower court rulings, which  undermine natural marriage and the rule of law, for now, puts the issue of marriage back before the US Congress.  This decision, in part, is an indication that those on the Court who desire to redefine natural marriage recognize the country will not accept a Roe v. Wade type decision on marriage.

"Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage.   Even more alarming, lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves.  This judicially led effort to force same sex 'marriage' on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage but also undermining the rule of and respect for law.

"The Court decision ensures that the debate over natural marriage will continue and the good news is that time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage.  As more states are forced to redefine marriage, contrary to nature and directly in conflict with the will of millions, more Americans will see and experience attacks on their religious freedom.   Parents will find a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curriculum is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children.  As more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, Americans will see the true goal, which is for activists to use the Court to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire nation.

"Congress should respond to today's announcement by moving forward with the State Marriage Defense Act, which is consistent with last year's Windsor ruling and ensures that the federal government in its definition of marriage respects the duly enacted marriage laws of the states," concluded Perkins.

As was the National Organization for Marriage, which called for the passage of a national marriage amendment:

"We are surprised and extremely disappointed that the US Supreme Court has refused to grant review of the same-sex marriage cases pending before them. This is wrong on so many levels. First, the entire idea that marriage can be redefined from the bench is illegitimate. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman; it has been this throughout the history of civilization and will remain this no matter what unelected judges say. Second, it's mind-boggling that lower court judges would be allowed to impose the redefinition of marriage in these states, and our highest court would have nothing to say about it. Third, the effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage' has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently. That's the absurd belief we are being told to accept.

"It's possible that the Supreme Court wants to wait to take a case when a Circuit split develops so that it can rule in favor of the people's right to define marriage as it has always been defined. We're hopeful that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will rule in our favor and that the Supreme Court will then take that case and decide that marriage is not unconstitutional.

"At the same time, given what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen, the only alternative to letting unelected judges impose their view of marriage on Americans across the country is to pursue a process that will allow the American people to decide for themselves what is marriage. It is critical not only to marriage but to the republican form of government in this country to amend the Constitution to reaffirm the meaning of marriage. We therefore call on the US Congress to move forward immediately to send a federal marriage amendment to the states for ratification.

"We call upon Americans vigorously to contest this development by turning to the political process, starting with the upcoming mid-term elections. We urge voters to hold politicians accountable and demand to know if they will accept the illegitimate act of attempting to redefine marriage or whether they will stand with the American people to resist. In particular, we urge Republicans to hold their party leaders to account, and to demand that they remain true to their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman which was a pillar of the party's founding in 1856, and remains essential to society's well-being today.

Focus on the Family warned that it will result in a "further expansion of threats to religious freedom"

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to accept five state marriage cases sets the stage for the further spread of same-sex marriage, and with it, a further expansion of threats to religious freedom.

Marriage has always been – and will always be – between a man and a woman.  Ultimately, no court can change that truth.  So regardless of legal outcomes, we’ll continue to address the importance of one-man, one-woman marriage to families, society and especially for children who have a right to both a mother and a father.

Our concern continues to be for children who deserve to grow up with both a mom and a dad, as well as for the religious freedom rights of people who strongly believe in God’s design for marriage and want to live consistently with those beliefs.

Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition called the decision a "miscarriage of justice" and warned that the Supreme Court will "reap a political whirlwind":

Today’s Supreme Court decision not to hear appeals of lower-court rulings that legalized same-sex marriage in five states is a miscarriage of justice that lays the predicate for a Roe v. Wade decision on marriage that will impose same-sex marriage on the entire country by judicial fiat.  The Court’s action has the effect of overturning the will of the voters in Indiana, Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, including instances in which state constitutions were amended to codify marriage as the union between a man and a woman.  Today’s decision further insures that the marriage issue will motivate and mobilize voters of faith who are concerned about marriage and deeply resent having the institution redefined contrary to the clearly expressed will of the people by federal judges who legislate from the bench.  For candidates running in 2014 and those who run for president in 2016, there will be no avoiding this issue.  If the Supreme Court is planning a Roe v. Wade on marriage, it will sow the wind and reap a political whirlwind.

The Florida Family Policy Council's John Stemberger warned that "Supreme Court risks losing enormous institutional legitimacy" if it rules in favor of gay marriage:

Over the last 15 years, more than 40 million Americans in more than 30 states have voted at the ballot box to define marriage as one man and one woman – the same definition of marriage used worldwide. In the last nano-second of human civilization, some U.S. judges have attempted to ignore and erase those votes. The Supreme Court risks losing enormous institutional legitimacy if they ignore biology, logic, anthropology, social science and the collective wisdom of human history, and overturn an act of direct democracy by such an overwhelming number of American voters who protected marriage in their state constitutions.

Marriage is about more than who you love; it’s about bringing together the two great halves of humanity, male and female-- not gay and straight. Also it’s important to recognize that legalizing same-sex marriage ignores and eliminates the importance of gender in society: it costs kids either a mom or a dad (who are not interchangeable), and it costs people of faith their First Amendment rights as government imposes the new definition across all aspects of society. States and counties that have so-called “non-discrimination” laws which cover sexual orientation are being used as weapons to punish people of faith, and mainly Christians, for failure to facilitate or host same sex marriage ceremonies. We as a state and a society need to carefully count those costs before we run headlong into this latest social experiment with marriage, which will have negative impact on so many areas of life and law."

Tea Party Leader: Women Shouldn't Serve In Combat Because Men Should Be Taught To 'Treat Them Like Queens'

On his radio program Friday, Bryan Fischer interviewed Scottie Nell Hughes, the news director for the Tea Party News Network, about her new book "Roar: The New Conservative Woman Speaks Out." During the course of the interview, Hughes explained that she opposes allowing women to serve in combat positions in the military because it would be very confusing to her son, whom she is teaching to treat women "like queens" and always protect them.

Hughes stated that women should not be allowed to serve in combat because it is a very stressful experience and men need to be free to relieve their stress without having women around creating added tension. But, more importantly, Hughes' own son might one day join the military and having to serve alongside of a woman in combat would very confusing to him.

"Right now, I'm doing everything I can to teach that young man to honor women, to open the doors, don't push them, don't hit them," she said, "respect them, treat them like queens, protect them. But what happens when he goes into the military and he has a woman serving next to him on the front lines? Both of them are getting shot at and is he going to sit there and have to think also about protecting her or is he just going to say "You know what, if she dies next to me, she dies'?"

"Do I really want to live in a culture where men are not trained in accordance to treat women with respect?" she asked:

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/3/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 10/3/14

  • Catholic leaders have now exorcised the Oklahoma City Civic Center Music Hall following the recent performance of a satanic "black mass."
  • If reelected to the Senate this year, Lindsey Graham says he'll start exploring a bid to run for president in 2016.
  • Bryan Fischer reiterates his pseudo-scientific belief that AIDS is not caused by HIV.
  • Another day, another book about how America is under God's judgment.
  • Noted legal scholar Peter LaBarbera takes on Judge Richard Posner over the latter's ignorance regarding the existence of ex-gays.
  • Finally, David Horowitz has a warning: "The terrorists are going to walk across [the border] and start blowing people up. And I think that's going to happen sooner rather than later. And every American that dies in those terrorist attacks, Democrats are responsible."

Influential Religious Right Donor Indicted For His Role In The Lisa Miller Kidnapping Case

For over five years, we have been covering the case of Lisa Miller, a self-proclaimed ex-gay who was represented by Liberty Counsel in her effort to prevent her former partner from having shared custody of the daughter they had together. After repeatedly refusing to comply with court orders granting her former partner, Janet Jenkins, visitation rights, Miller was eventually stripped of custody and ordered to transfer custody to Jenkins, at which point Miller kidnapped her daughter and fled the country to a Mennonite community in Central America.

Liberty Counsel immediately tried to wash its hands of any involvement in this kidnapping, which proved problematic once it was revealed that Miller and her daughter were reportedly staying at a home in Nicaragua owned by a man named Philip Zodhiates whose daughter just so happened to work at the Liberty University Law School, where Miller's attorneys, Mat Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen, both worked.

Liberty Law School was hit with a RICO lawsuit for the role it allegedly played in aiding Miller in the kidnapping and disappearance and now Philip Zodhiates, an influential Religious Right donor, has been indicted [PDF] in New York for conspiring with two other men (both also named Miller but neither having any relation to Lisa) to help Lisa Miller kidnap her daughter:

COUNT 1

(Conspiracy)

The Grand Jury Charges That:

From in or about September 2009 to in or about November 2009, in the Western District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendants, LISA MILLER, PHILIP ZODHIATES, and TIMOTHY MILLER, did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully combine, conspire and agree together and with Kenneth Miller and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to remove a child, J1, a person known to the Grand Jury, from the United States and to retain that child, who had been in the United States, outside the United States, with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1204.

Overt Acts

In order to effect the object of the conspiracy, the following acts were committed by the defendants and others in the Western District of New York and elsewhere:

1. On or about September 21, 2009, defendant LISA MILLER, J1, and defendant PHILIP ZODHIATES travelled from Virginia to the Buffalo, New York, area.

2. On or about September 21, 2009, defendant PHILIP ZODHIATES had telephone contact from the Buffalo, New York area with Kenneth Miller.

3. On or about September 21, 2009, defendant PHILIP ZODIATES had telephone contact from the Buffalo, New York area with an individual in Canada who had agreed to help transport defendant LISA MILLER in Canada.

4. On or about September 22, 2009, defendant LISA MILLER and J1 travelled across the Rainbow Bridge from Niagara Falls, New York, to Canada.

5. On or about September 22, 2009, defendant PHILIP ZODIATES had telephone contact from the Buffalo, New York area with an individual in Canada who helped transport defendant LISA MILLER in Canada.

6. On or about September 22, 2009, defendant PHILIP ZODHIATES had telephone contact from the Buffalo, New York area with Kenneth Miller. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

COUNT 2

(International Parental Kidnapping)

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

On or about September 22, 2009, in the Western District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendants, LISA MILLER, PHILIP ZODHIATES, and TIMOTHY MILLER, with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights, did knowingly remove, and aid and abet the removal of, a child, J1, a person known to the Grand Jury, from the United States.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1204 and 2.

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/2/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks- 10/2/14

  • Scott Lively declares that "I am sort of a Winston Churchill type of figure."
  • Tea Party Nation is pretty sure that the Obama administration "wants Ebola here."
  • Matt Barber says that gay activists "need to lighten up and take a step back": "Christians aren’t 'discriminating' against you because of your 'sexual orientation.' We just refuse to endorse sinful lifestyles, behaviors, messages or events. And guess what. It’s our constitutional right to do so. The First Amendment trumps your newfangled 'sexual orientation non-discrimination laws.' Yet even if it didn’t, God’s law supersedes man’s law."
  • FRC prays that God will "cause the messages delivered at VVS to 'go viral' between now and Nov. 4 and may they radically impact the way people vote!"
  • Finally, James Robison warns that "the recent beheadings in the Middle East and in our homeland reveal far more than the horrific deeds of a terrorist group. It actually reveals the evil intent of Satan himself."

Glenn Beck Warns That 'A Massive Humbling' Is Coming, Possibly Starting With Ebola

On his radio broadcast today, Glenn Beck revealed that he attended a dinner last night hosted by the Green Family, the owners of Hobby Lobby, where he was seated at a table with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal who asked Beck "where do you think we are headed" as a nation? Beck, of course, was his typically optimistic self when he warned Jindal that America is headed for a "massive humbling."

"We refuse to humble ourselves," Beck said, pointing to the recent failures within the Secret Service, the crisis in the Middle East, ongoing economic problems, and even Common Core as evidence that "our arrogance is getting worse" and that our society has become "completely unhinged from reality."

"I have news for you, gang," Beck declared. "A humbling is coming ... If we don't start re-rooting ourselves in those things that all men once found self-evident, a humbling is coming."

And Ebola "might be the beginning of one," he warned, "and you should prepare":

Holding The Religious Right To Its Own Standard

A few weeks ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was speaking to students at the University of Minnesota Law School when she made the rather straightforward observation that if 6th Circuit Court of Appeals follows other recent court decisions and strikes down gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, then the prospects of the Supreme Court taking up the issue of marriage equality would be less likely in the near term.

The reasoning behind this statement is that if appellate courts consistently strike down such bans, then the Supreme Court will not need to get involved right away whereas, if the 6th Circuit were to uphold such bans, that would create a conflict among recent appellate rulings and so, as Ginsburg said, "there will be some urgency" for the Supreme Court to take up with issue in order to address those conflicting rulings.

There is nothing controversial or improper about this obvious observation, but anti-gay Religious Right groups have seized upon it to launch a campaign demanding that Ginsburg recuse herself from any Supreme Court case involving the issue of marriage equality on the grounds that she has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct by "making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action."

As Liberty Counsel, which first launched this effort, declared:

“In casting a vote publicly before the case is even heard, Justice Ginsburg has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “It is now her duty to recuse herself from cases involving same-sex marriage.”

According to Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, “A judicial employee should not lend the prestige of the office to advance or to appear to advance the private interests of others.”

Canon 3(D) declares, “A judicial employee should avoid making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action.”

“Justice Ginsburg’s comments implied that the merits of the state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman were such that the Supreme Court would have to overturn them with haste, if upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Staver. “This is an inappropriate comment for any judicial employee, much less a Supreme Court Justice!”

The call has since been echoed by the Foundation for Moral Law, Faith 2 Action, and the American Family Association, where Bryan Fischer and former Liberty Counsel attorney Steve Crampton recently discussed the need for right-wing activists to "beat on our pots" in order to create so much political pressure on Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan that they have no choice but to recuse themselves from any such cases.

In fact, just yesterday, Fischer wrote a column arguing that Ginsburg and Kagan would be "committing a federal crime" if they did not recuse themselves:

The Supreme Court will, perhaps even in this session, take up the issue of sodomy-based marriage. If it does, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan will have an obligation to step off the bench for those cases on the grounds that their impartiality has been severely compromised.

Both have performed sodomy-based “wedding” ceremonies. Kagan performed her first one on September 22 of this year, and Ginsburg has done the deed multiple times, including at least one in the Supreme Court building itself. Thus they have clearly tipped their hand by their actions as well as their words. They have publicly demonstrated that their minds are already made up on the issue. It is inconceivable that either of them now would vote against the “marriages” they themselves have solemnized. They would stand self-condemned.

...

[T]he necessity for Kagan and Ginsburg to recuse is not just a matter of fairness or rightness. It’s also a matter of law. They have a statutory obligation to recuse. If they refuse to step off the bench when and if marriage cases come before them, they would be breaking federal law. They would be, from a strictly legal standpoint, committing a federal crime. Their sacred responsibility is to uphold the law, not break it.

So it was with great interest that we read this article in The Washington Times yesterday reporting on remarks made by Justice Antonin Scalia at Colorado Christian University in which he stated that the separation of church and state is "utterly absurd" and the idea that the government must remain neutral on the issue of religion is "just a lie":

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday that secularists are wrong when they argue the Constitution requires religious references to be banished from the public square.

Justice Scalia, part of the court’s conservative wing, was preaching to the choir when he told the audience at Colorado Christian University that a battle is underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance to holding prayers before city hall meetings.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.

“That’s a possible way to run a political system. The Europeans run it that way,” Justice Scalia said. “And if the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute. But to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

...

“We do him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” Justice Scalia said. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

The biggest danger lies with judges who interpret the Constitution as a malleable document that changes with the times, he said.

“Our [the court‘s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”

Given that Scalia was very clearly "making public comment" in a way that directly relates to a whole host of church-state separation questions that could potentially come before the Supreme Court at any time, we trust that these Religious Right groups will now demand that he recuse himself from any such cases as well, right?

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious