C4

Knight: Obama Acting Like Soviet Commissar While Agreeing With Me On First Amendment Case

American Civil Rights Union fellow Robert Knight has a column in the Washington Times today blasting President Obama and the American Civil Liberties Union for acting like Soviet commissar trying to extinguish religious liberty. Knight cites an upcoming Supreme Court case surrounding the town of Greece, New York, in which two non-Christian residents sued the town for exclusively inviting Christian pastors to open council meetings in prayer. The residents claimed that the town violated the establishment clause and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

But that is an interesting case for Knight to pick as proof that Obama is undermining the freedom of religion, since the Obama administration actually sided with the town of Greece.

Ever feel like an “outsider?”

If you have, then you have license to stamp out any public activity that you find religiously offensive.

That’s the claim advanced by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups that have taken a chain saw to the First Amendment. They intend to establish secularist sentiment as the only acceptable public expression.

Like the Soviet Union’s commissars and President Obama, they support “the freedom to worship,” a cramped view of religious freedom that protects essentially nothing. You can do what you want behind closed doors or inside your head. God help you, though, if you want to have an active faith and exercise your constitutional freedom outside those doors. Since before America’s founding, public meetings have opened with prayer. Usually, atheists or people of other faiths who find the mostly Christian prayers meaningless shrug and get on with business.

Increasingly, professional pests like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are using lawsuits to stamp out freedom of religion.

A key case at the U.S. Supreme Court may help sort things out. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the town council of the upstate New York town contends that prayers before meetings do not violate the Establishment Clause. They note that George Washington prayed in public and that Congress opens with prayer.



No, the unraveling of a civilization takes time, even when it’s proceeding at blinding speed, aided by government coercion.

Eagle Forum: Elysium and World War Z Show Need to Curtail Immigration

Roger Schlafly of Eagle Forum writes today that the summer blockbusters “Elysium” and “World War Z” represent not only warnings against immigration reform, which his organization has strenuously opposed, but immigration in general. In a blog post titled “Anti-immigration summer movies,” Schlafly argues that the two films “seem to be saying that the Earth is being overrun by barbarians, and the only want to preserve a civilized society is to build walls to keep out the intruders, and to kill them when they try to invade.”

Apparently, Schlafly was rooting for the super-rich residents of Elysium, which he laments “lacks the political will to defend itself against the non-citizen attacks, so it is destroyed and ransacked.” He claims the film is “a warning against unrestricted immigration.” He suggests that World War Z has a similar message and that its zombie invasion is an allegory for immigration.

The big-budget, sci-fi, A-list-actor summer blockbuster movies are: Elysium,World War Z, Man of Steel, Oblivion, and Pacific Rim. All were fun to watch.

Do these have political messages? The first two seem to be saying that the Earth is being overrun by barbarians, and the only want to preserve a civilized society is to build walls to keep out the intruders, and to kill them when they try to invade.

Each movie has a hero who supposedly is saving the world, but he is really just pursuing his self-interests or trying to impress a woman who does not deserve it. The Brad Pitt character in WWZ reluctant to help fight the disease that is killing billions of people until he is forced. Then he burns up his mobile phone battery talking to his wife when he should have been reporting to his superiors. The country that does the best is Israel, because it builds walls to keep out the invading zombies.

In Elysium, Earth is overpopulated and miserable. A few people escaped, and created a better world. The Matt Damon character tries to sabotage that world so that he can steal their medical technology and remedy a horrible workplace accident. Instead he helps some woman he barely knows. The off-world civilization lacks the political will to defend itself against the non-citizen attacks, so it is destroyed and ransacked. As the Wash. Posts reviews, "Matt Damon storms the ultimate gated community".

Some have suggested that Elysium is left-wing because of its theme to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Maybe so, but it is also a warning against unrestricted immigration.

Activist Toolkit: Stopping Senate Obstruction of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Even before the President nominated supremely qualified nominees to the DC Circuit, some Senate Republicans had threatened to filibuster the them -- whoever they were, whatever their qualifications.

'Ex-Gay' Activist: Gays and Lesbians 'Acting Out' Like Drug Addicts, Alcoholics

“Ex-gay” activist Anne Paulk (ex-wife of ex-ex-gay activist John Paulk) joined Janet Parshall yesterday to discuss the “way out of homosexuality.” Paulk, who has previously claimed that the majority of lesbians were sexually abused as children, told Parshall that “the reason most people end up gay is because they’ve had some really broken experiences in their early childhood” and that they are “acting out in this way” in response to “sorrow and pain.”

This “expression of sin,” she added, is “really not that much different” than alcoholism, drug abuse and “relational addiction.”

I do believe that if the Church understood that it’s the outcome of pain and sorrow and interpersonal challenges, and it’s the product of personal confusion. And that’s what I used to talk on all the time in years prior, is you know what, the reason why most people end up gay is because they’ve had some really broken experiences in their early childhood. It’s just manifesting in this way. And the more you get to know about what’s underlying of homosexuality, the more you get to understand that they’re just a human being that’s been wounded. That’s a little boy who’s grown up, who’s been very desperately hurt and is acting out in this way. That’s still, that was once a little girl whose heart was broken and her body misused. And the outcome is sorrow and pain, and this is the expression of it.

And I think that’s the expression of sin altogether, and it’s our rebellion against God, our rebellion against -- what we believe we want our way to be. Homosexuality is, not unlike any other sin, it’s a shortcut to getting your own needs met, and it’s not a healthy shortcut. Drugs don’t solve the problem of trying to hide from one’s trouble. Hiding doesn’t work at all. Alcohol doesn’t work that way, relational addiction doesn’t work that way, promiscuity doesn’t solve anything. Same thing with homosexuality. And I think when people understand that they’re really not that much different, it’s just a different outworking of similar underlying issues, it helps a lot.

But, like Sandy Rios, who takes heart in the fact that gay people sometimes get their hearts broken, Paulk has hope for gays and lesbians. “Even people in the gay community will celebrate someone’s amazing marriage, like the prince and the princess of England,” she said, meaning that they are in fact capable of understanding “the big picture of beauty that God has in mind.”

Yoest: Royal Baby Coverage Proves Media's Pro-Choice Bias

Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest visited the Mike Huckabee Show today to discuss yesterday’s “March on the Media,” an event organized by the anti-choice group Live Action to protest a perceived pro-choice bias in the media.  Yoest told Huckabee that the media displayed a pro-choice bias in its coverage of the birth of Kate Middleton’s pregnancy, because they referred to the future prince as “the royal baby” rather than “the royal fetus.”

Rios Will 'Not Affirm' That Obama's A Muslim, Only That His Priorities Are 'Islam First and Homosexuality Probably Second'

The right-wing media has been paying especially close attention to the trial of Nidal Hasan, the Army psychologist accused of opening fire at Ft. Hood in 2009, killing 13 people. Some on the right have gone so far as to personally blame President Obama for the shooting, but the general line is that the administration is somehow going easy on Hasan by subjecting him in a trial that will likely result in the death penalty.

American Family Radio’s Sandy Rios devoted her program on Wednesday to the Hasan trial and what she alleges are President Obama’s radical Muslim sympathies. Stating up front that she is “committed to accuracy in what we say,” Rios said she would “not affirm” that the president himself is a Muslim, but did note, “I will dispute the fact that he is a follower of Jesus Christ, or he would not embrace and advance the immorality that he does.”

I know the Left is listening to this conversation and I don’t care, it’s not going to intimidate me one bit, but I am committed to accuracy in what we say. And first, Barack Obama being a Muslim: We know that he has recited the Muslim call to prayer beautifully to a New York Times reporter, it’s Nicholas Kristof I believe, and as I understand it, when you recite that prayer, you state it over and over, that’s actually, that is how you become a Muslim.

Now, he was registered as a Muslim in Indonesia when he was a kid, through his step-father who was a Muslim, and we know that many of his family members in Kenya are Muslim. But I think, you know, he claims he’s a Christian. I dispute that claim. I will dispute that. I will not affirm that he’s Muslim. I will dispute the fact that he is a follower of Jesus Christ, or he would not embrace and advance the immorality that he does.

Rios came back to the subject later in the program,  claiming that the president wrote in one of his books that if “he had to decide between the Muslim world and the West, he would choose the Muslim. He did actually write that. And I think he’s certainly shown that, in case after case.”

But her belief that the president’s real sympathies are with the Muslim world “hasn’t anything to do with race,” she added. In fact, she said, “I think many black voters were persuaded that he was elected to represent them” when really his true priorities are “Islam first and homosexuality probably second.”

We have a dangerous situation here. I think we would all acknowledge, we must acknowledge, that we are in a dangerous situation. We have a president that,  and in fact, as I recall, he actually penned in one of his books-- and those of you on the Left can check me out on this – that when it came to some sort of showdown or a final decision or something he had to decide between the Muslim world and the West, he would choose the Muslim, he would favor the Muslims. He did actually write that. And I think he’s certainly shown that, in case after case.

And so, that’s what we…I, many of us tried to say this when he was running for president, but many of the American people, most of them didn’t want to hear it, did not want to hear it. And I would just like to go on record as saying, this is the fruit of electing someone with the past that he has, being the person that he is, with the philosophies and persuasions that he has. This is the result of that.

And so, it hasn’t anything to do with race. And that’s probably part of the distressing thing too, is that I think many black voters were persuaded that he was elected to represent them when really his most, it seems to me, most passionate interest is – this even sounds bizarre -- but it’s advancing homosexuality, that has been a passion of his since he’s been in office, and advancing Islam. Islam first and homosexuality probably second. And as weird and strange as that sounds, that’s been his record.

Rep. Broun: Immigration Law a Ploy to Doom America, 'Keep Democrats in Power for Perpetuity'

Georgia Republican congressman and Senate candidate Paul Broun has hardly hid his opposition to creating a new immigration policies. Back in June, for instance, he warned that immigration reform would “destroy our country” and “destroy our Constitution and limited government.”

Speaking with Steve Malzberg earlier this week, Broun repeated his warning that if the House GOP compromises at all on immigration, “America, economically, is doomed because we cannot afford to put these people on government largesse.”

By “these people,” Broun means formerly undocumented immigrations working toward citizenship, whom Broun claims Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of the authors of the Senate immigration bill, “wants to put on…federal welfare programs and federal largesse so that they vote for the Democrats and keep Democrats in power for perpetuity.”

“Anything that Chuck Schumer’s for, any freedom-loving American should be against,” Broun added.

Durbin Questions Potential ALEC Backers on Stand Your Ground Laws


As the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meets in a swanky Chicago hotel for its 40th annual summit this week, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) has raised some important questions for the corporations that may be funding the group.

Roll Call reports that Sen. Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s civil rights subcommittee, has reached out to more than 300 corporations that are possible ALEC funders to ask for their positions on “Stand Your Ground” laws.  Durbin announced last month that he will hold a hearing on these laws in the fall.

Because ALEC operates behind closed doors, it can be a challenge to expose the corporations, corporate trade associations, and corporate foundations backing its damaging work.  Durbin’s letter notes:

Although ALEC does not maintain a public list of corporate members or donors, other public documents indicate that your company funded ALEC at some point during the period between ALEC’s adoption of model “stand your ground” legislation in 2005 and the present day.

Despite the potential roadblocks, Durbin’s letter shines a spotlight on the clear link between ALEC, an organization that connects corporate lobbyists with state legislators, and the “Stand Your Ground” laws it helped to get on the books in over two dozen states.   And this is a critical connection to highlight, because as PFAW President Michael Keegan wrote last month, these are laws which “help create a climate like the one that encouraged George Zimmerman to use lethal force against an unarmed teenager.”

PFAW

Live Action Rally: Abortion Providers Just as Bad as the Taliban

Anti-choice activists gathered in front of ABC studios in Washington, D.C. today to draw attention to what they say is the “real” war on women.

The March on the Media rally claimed to be exposing the media’s supposed censorship of the realities of abortion and the lionization of pro-choice advocates like Wendy Davis. The rally was organized by Lila Rose, the president of Live Action, who previously equated the anti-choice movement with the abolitionist movement and the Revolutionary War.

Rose wasn’t alone in her questionable historical comparisons. Jill Stanek, an anti-choice activist who previously accused Obama of supporting infanticide while a member of the Illinois Senate, stole the show today by comparing abortion to the brutality of the Vietnam War, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the atrocities committed by the Taliban.

From the Archives: Ken Buck's Extreme Record

As you may have heard, 2010 Tea Party candidate Ken Buck has decided to throw his hat into the ring for the 2014 Senate race in Colorado. Unfortunately for him, no one has forgotten the extreme record that led voters to reject him last time around.

PFAW

Steve Stockman: We’re Not Shutting Down the Government, We’re Saving America!

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas has a clever new plan to avert government shutdown. Stockman suggests that the House GOP, rather than threatening to shut down the government if Obamacare remains funded, should instead offer to keep the government open except for funding Obamacare.

If the distinction isn’t clear to you, Stockman tried to clear things up in an appearance yesterday on Newsmax, where he explained, “One of the things that we’re doing wrong is that we’re accepting the argument that when we defund Obamacare, that we’re closing the government down. We’re not! In fact, we’re saving the nation’s future by not funding it.”

Stockman went on to explain that the shift in messaging is necessary because, while Republicans have math on their side, “Democrats will bring out somebody in a wheelchair, and we lose the argument on visuals.”

Dumped By National Anti-Choice Group Over Marriage Stand, Cleveland Right to Life Pushes Back

On Monday, Brian wrote about an interesting schism emerging within one of the nation’s largest anti-choice groups, National Right to Life.

When Ohio Sen. Rob Portman announced earlier this year that, inspired by his openly gay son, he had switched his position to support marriage equality, the National Right to Life’s Cleveland affiliate announced that it would no longer support Portman. In response, National Right to Life cut ties with the Cleveland group, citing its “public criticisms of and implicit political threats against a U.S. Senator who has supported the right-to-life position” over “a non-right-to-life issue.”

Although National Right to Life’s letter [PDF] was sent in July, it hit the news this week when Cleveland Right to Life decided to fight back, releasing the letter to the media,  alleging “coordination” between Sen. Portman’s office and the national group and asking, “How can you be for the child if you are not for the family?”

Yesterday, Cleveland Right to Life President Molly Smith took the group’s case to the Steve Deace show, where she speculated that National Right to Life dropped her chapter because they are “terrified about Sen. Portman’s position and the fact that they might lose his support on his pro-life stance.”

Smith told Deace that she had met with Portman and that “he assures us he’s never going to abandon the pro-life cause when it comes to abortion and the issues we’ve just spoken about.”

“But when it comes to gay marriage, he’s 100 percent behind his son,” she said. “That’s not pro-life!”

Deace was skeptical that Portman would hold onto his opposition to abortion rights.  “Does that mean that if he has a daughter that has an abortion, he changes his mind on that too, Molly?” he asked. Smith responded, “Absolutely.”

Smith concluded her interview with an odd caveat: “Even as I say all of this, Steve, I feel so terrible, because this is a very private matter for Sen. Portman’s family.”

FRC Fellow: Allowing Women in Combat ‘Tragic,’ ‘Immoral,’ and ‘Un-American’

On her radio show this week, Janet Parshall spoke with Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and the current senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, about the Pentagon’s recent decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat units.

Maginnis, who recently wrote a book on the topic, said that allowing women into combat goes against science. He called the situation “tragic,” “unnecessary,” “immoral,” and “un-American.”
 

Maginnis: I’m concerned about the direction of my country. I see this as a tragic mistake that’s going to weaken our fighting forces, compromise the battle proven standards that we’ve shed a lot of blood over the last couple centuries for. And also it’s unnecessary risk for the people that ultimately are pushed into this environment. And finally I think it’s immoral and I think it’s un-American what these people want to do. And yet, I see- the subtitle I think is very fair- I see cowardice on the Capitol Hill. Because our Founders were wise people. They said we want the Congress to set the rules and regulations for the armed forces. And guess what, they haven’t had a hearing in 34 years in the House armed services and they haven’t had one in 23 years in the Senate. They’ve relegated, they’ve abandoned the responsibility that the founders intended them to have and they’ve pushed it into the administration. And the administration, you know, they’re going to do what’s politically expedient. And that just hurts my heart. Cause I know the environment that we’re going to push these young people into, I know how vicious it is. And it just doesn’t fit with the science and common sense, much less the interests of our country.

Parshall, for her part, blamed the decision on the “radical feminist movement,” claiming the policy change would not only “push women” into a situation that they don’t want to be in, it flies in the face of God and what is “natural.”

“I thought men were made by God to defend women,” Parshall lamented. “It was just a natural.”
 

Parshall: So it begs the question- and I'm asking it, but at some level it's rhetorical- and that is, why we got here? But Bobby you and I have been in Washington. We watched the radical feminist movement. We saw the residuals of all of that, so this is just a tendril outreach it seems to me. But it goes deeper than just ardent feminism. It violates a core principle. And I’m going to say something terribly politically incorrect. I thought men were made by God to defend women. It was just a natural. And to push women into combat, front line combat- and you draw a distinction by the way between high intensity combat and high intensity police work which I love and I want you to explain in a minute. It seems to me to violate the very core at some level of how God designed us. Is that an overreaction on my part?

Maginnis: Not at all, Janet. Men are hard wired to protect women.

PFAW Crashes ALEC’s Party at Biggest Anti-ALEC Protest to Date


All photos by Scott Foval.

Bill Moyers once called ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) the “most influential corporate-funded political force most of America has never heard of.”  Today, PFAW is helping to change that – coming out in full force to shed some light on the harm ALEC’s extreme agenda causes to everyday Americans.

As ALEC holds its 40th annual meeting in Chicago, PFAW is there – along with ally organizations, labor groups, and advocates from around the country – to crash their party.  The protest happening now outside Chicago’s Palmer House Hilton is the biggest anti-ALEC protest to date. 

The mass of people at the rally underscores the growing momentum to expose and fight back against ALEC, which connects corporate lobbyists with state legislators to pass special interest legislation in all fifty states.  For four decades, ALEC has worked behind closed doors to get laws harmful to everyday Americans on the books – working against paid sick days, pushing tax policies favoring the rich, and helping “Stand Your Ground” become law in more than two dozen states.  As our signs say, “ALEC corporations write laws, real people suffer.”

And today, we’re calling them out.

PFAW

Steven Emerson: Blame Tolerance for the Fort Hood Attacks

American Family Radio host Sandy Rios spoke yesterday with Islamic extremism “expert” Steve Emerson about the ongoing trial of Nidal Hasan, the army major accused of killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 in a killing spree at Fort Hood back in 2009.

Rios and Emerson agreed that the killing was a result of the “deterrent effects” of tolerance and that if it weren’t for fear of being called a “racist,” and “Islamaphobe,” Hasan would have been reported to the FBI long ago.

Emerson took it one step further, saying that those who fight Islamophobia are “as much culpable as those pulling the trigger.”

Emerson: And there’s also going to be playing, maybe later today or tomorrow, a videotape of Hasan giving a presentation at Walter Reed where he openly and unambiguously calls for the killing of infidels. And not one person in that 200 person room listening ever reported him to the FBI.

Rios: That’s shocking.

Emerson: It is shocking. And you know what Sandy? It’s because of the fear that they would be called Islamaphobes. This is where this whole notion of the radical Islamic groups calling anybody who criticizes radical Islam as a racist has had a deterrent effect in reporting potential terrorist attacks and they are as much culpable as the people pulling the trigger.

Rios: Absolutely. And I want to say that this is across the board with our intelligence agencies. Their hands have been so restricted, their training manuals stripped of what’s really true. And they really are afraid to report even suspicious behavior. And that’s why we are probably, no doubt, more at risk now than we ever were before 9/11.

Sandy Rios Knows Gays Are Capable of 'The Right Kind of Love' Because They're Always Heartbroken From Breakups

American Family Radio host Sandy Rios dedicated a long chunk of her program yesterday to responding to the widespread attention to her recent comparison of gay couple’s love to the “love” Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro claimed he had for his prisoners.

Rios claimed she had been deliberately misunderstood, but then proceeded to repeat her claims in detail. She finally spoke directly to those who monitor her program, thanking us for finding her a wider audience and declaring, “I stand by what we say…As unfortunate and uncomfortable, heartbreaking, irrational that seems to some of you that are so steeped in the homosexual lifestyle, you’re steeped in popular culture, it’s still the truth.”

Rios then went on to deliver a direct message to the LGBT people who were offended by her comments, saying that the fact that people were upset proves that she was telling the truth. “If what we’re saying is not true, it should have no power over you,” she said.

But Rios has hope for gay people. She assured her listeners that gay people are “capable of great love” because she sees the “tremendous heartbreak in the homosexual community,” where “there aren’t many lasting relationships – maybe among lesbians, but certainly not among gay men.”

All this heartbreak, Rios concludes, shows that gay people could achieve “the right kind of love” – that is, opposite-sex marriage – if they just tried.

If what we’re saying is not true, it should have no power over you, it shouldn’t bother you. Because I think in time, what’s true and what’s right, what works, what comports with reality will be lasting. So, let’s just see if your view of this is lasting. Let’s just see if homosexual marriage is all that you think it is, if it’s a pure and wonderful expression of love for two people.

Now, I would never say that homosexuals cannot love. They can, of course. Capable of great love. And I know there’s been tremendous heartbreak in the homosexual community – and I’ve talked about this before – heartbreak when you lose a loved one, heartbreak when you break up. Because, you know, there aren’t many lasting relationships – maybe among lesbians, but certainly not among gay men, that’s not the norm.

So, there’s a lot of heartbreak, a lot of rejection when you get older, so I know that you’re capable and able. You’re humans, you love. The point is, the right kind of love. The right kind of love is life-giving. And the right kind of love is love for God, love for your natural family, love between a man and a woman and a woman and a man in marriage. Not cohabitating. There’s just some standards that God lays down.
 

"160 Summer" Citizens United Amendment Update

We're working to get 160 members of Congress to sponsor one of the fourteen "Money Out" amendment resolutions that have been introduced so far in the 113th session.
PFAW

Harvey: Non-Discrimination Laws 'Create a Climate of Suspicion, Spite and Revenge'

Mission America’s Linda Harvey dedicated her program this morning to LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination laws, which she claims are in fact “all about discrimination” and “create a climate of suspicion, spite and revenge.”

“If you disagree about being required to respect homosexuality -- however these folks want to define respect -- at work, at school, at the pool or at the playground, you may find yourself the victim of this unrelenting agenda,” she warned.

Phyllis Schlafly Was 'Extremely Offended' and 'Personally Insulted' By DOMA Decision

Eagle Forum founder and anti-gay activist Phyllis Schlafly was “extremely offended” by the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, because of “all the nasty names” she claims the court’s majority called DOMA’s proponents.

Speaking with Steve Deace yesterday, Schlafly said that it was “inappropriate, unprecedented and really nasty” for Justice Anthony Kennedy to find that DOMA’s passage had anything to do with “animus against gays.”

“I feel personally insulted by what Justice Kennedy said,” she added.

Deace: You wrote an interesting reaction to the US Supreme Court, I guess we would call it ‘opinion,’ but it really looked to me, Phyllis, like five justices, and Anthony Kennedy in particular, chose to write what amounts to an anti-Christian polemic disguised as a legal opinion. And it seems like you sort of got the same vibe from what they wrote.
 

Schlafly: Well, I was extremely offended at all the nasty names he called us. I just think it’s so inappropriate, unprecedented and really nasty for the justice to say that the reason DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, was passed, and those who stand up for traditional marriage is that they have animus against gays, they want to deny them equal dignity, that we want to brand them as unworthy, we want to humiliate their children, we have a hateful desire to harm a politically unpopular group. I just think, I feel personally insulted by what Justice Kennedy said. I don’t think that’s true, the idea that anybody who stood up for traditional marriage is guilty of all that hate in his heart is just outrageous.

Later in the interview, the two discussed Hobby Lobby’s suit against the health care law’s mandate that they provide their employees with insurance that includes birth control coverage. Deace claimed that the Obama administration is making “a clear attempt to eradicate the worldview that stands in opposition to statism.”

Schlafly agreed: “Well, I think you’re right, and that’s why I think Obama is definitely trying to make this a totally secular country where you’re not permitted to reference God in anything that anybody else can hear.”

It goes without saying that if the president is trying to eliminate public references to God, he’s doing a very poor job of it.

Deace: Well, and I think you look at something like religious freedom, you’ve got the Obama regime trying to tell companies like Hobby Lobby that your freedom of religion, when you walk into corporate headquarters there at Hobby Lobby, you no longer have the freedom of religion. So you have to do what we tell you to do, even if it violates the moral conscience of your religion, the Bill of Rights ends when you walk into your corporate headquarters. What we see going on in the US Military, for example. We’re seeing unprecedented threats to religious liberty. I know this is something you’ve written about as well. And I think this is a clear attempt to eradicate the worldview that stands in opposition to statism.

Schlafly: Well, I think you’re right, and that’s why I think Obama is definitely trying to make this a totally secular country where you’re not permitted to reference God in anything that anybody else can hear.

Phyllis Schlafly Upset By DC Circuit Nominee's Support for Women's Equality, Of Course

In a WorldNetDaily column today, legendary anti-feminist Phyllis Schafly joins the far-right attacks on Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, one of President Obama’s three nominees to fill vacancies on the influential Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has ably explained, the far right’s objection to Pillard is what they see as her excessive support for women’s equality – including “radical” ideas like access to birth control and paid family leave.

So it’s no surprise that Schlafly, who has built a long career out of opposing any and all advances to women’s rights, is now joining the Family Research Council in skewing the record to attack Pillard, whom she calls “a scary feminist” with a trail of “extremist feminist writings”:

Obama not only has the help of the ACLU and similar organizations to pursue anti-religion litigation, but he is determined to appoint many like-minded judges to the federal courts. He recently nominated a scary feminist named Nina Pillard to the important D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Her extremist views include the wild allegation that abortion is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.” She says that those who oppose Obamacare’s contraception-abortion mandate are really reinforcing “broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”

Obama would surely like to get supremacist judges to carry out his goals to rewrite the meaning of the First Amendment. We hope there are enough Republicans in the Senate to expose Pillard’s paper trail of extremist feminist writings.

It’s worth mentioning that the woman who Schlafly calls a “scary feminist” has a long history of finding common ground across ideological divides. She worked on the same side as both Bush administrations as a litigator on several major constitutional cases. She also runs Georgetown Law School’s respected Supreme Court Institute, which helps lawyers from around the country in preparing for Supreme Court arguments without regard to which side they represent (including attorneys arguing every single case before the Supreme Court this year). She even led the committee whose research was used by the American Bar Association that found ultra-conservative Justice Samuel Alito “well qualified” for his job.

But Schlafly’s definition of “scary feminist” encompasses just about anyone who supports any sort of legal rights for women. In fact, Schlafly has gone to bat against Pillard before, criticizing two of the nominee’s most widely-hailed victories on behalf of women’s equality: winning the Supreme Court case brought by the George H.W. Bush Administration that opened the Virginia Military Institute to women, and working on the same side as George W. Bush administration lawyers to successfully defend the Family and Medical Leave Act in the courts.

Schlafly, of course, railed against both victories. She charged that the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the FMLA “was based on feminist fantasies about a gender-neutral society” and when the Supreme Court unanimously struck down VMI’s discriminatory admissions procedures, she wrote to the school’s alumni:

The massive government lawsuit against VMI wasn't about "ending sex discrimination" or "allowing women to have access to the same educational benefits that men have at VMI." It was a no-holds-barred fight to feminize VMI waged by the radical feminists and their cohorts in the Federal Government.

Since feminists successfully got women admitted into the military academies, and got the Clinton Administration to assign women to military combat positions, VMI and the Citadel remained as the most visible fortresses of the concept that men and women are fundamentally different. The feminists hate you just because you exist.

Which is to say that if Republican senators decide to adopt Schlafly’s definition of “scary feminist,” they should know that it includes not only the basic defense of reproductive rights, but also support for laws that allow women to work outside the home while raising children and the belief that public institutions shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex.
 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious