But, aside from being clueless about why his “cool” comment was offensive, does Walker even know what was in the law he signed?
At a campaign event in Concord, New Hampshire on Saturday, an audience member asked Walker about his ultrasound comments, and he struggled to explain what was in the bill, falsely claiming that the law allows a woman to choose whether to undergo the procedure.
The Concord Monitor reports that a Walker spokesman “later clarified that he was referring to transvaginal ultrasounds when he was indicating that the procedure was optional.”
We obtained audio of the exchange, which you can listen to here:
Walker also stated that the law says an ultrasound “has to be offered, it doesn’t have to be done,” and that a woman “can choose whether they want to see [the ultrasound] or not, or have it done or not.”
This is not true. With a few narrow exceptions, the law requires a woman to undergo an ultrasound and for the doctor to describe it to her. The only choice the woman has is to decline to view the ultrasound images.
Scott then repeated the very same story he told to Loesch of viewing his children’s ultrasounds, saying, “I think for most people that ultrasound picture that many of us have, that many of us have seen from our children and grandchildren now, is a wonderful thing and a wonderful opportunity.”
Huma Abedin, a senior aide to Hillary Clinton, has long been the target of a smear campaign by right-wing commentators who claim that she is aiding terrorists and a secret agent of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, a myth that made its way into the halls of Congress thanks to then-Rep. Michele Bachmann. Bachmann’s claims, which were echoed by a small handful of her colleagues, were so bizarre and unfounded that they were roundly criticized by her fellow Republicans.
But lacking evidence hasn’t stopped outlets such as WorldNetDaily from repeating them, as today the conspiracy theory website ran an article, “Hillary’s Top Aide With Terror Sties Saw All Emails,” implying that Abedin had a suspicious interest in information about Amb. Christopher Stevens’ whereabouts in Benghazi.
It was Abedin who forwarded to Clinton’s personal email address details about the initial establishment of the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, updates about security threats to both the mission and Ambassador Chris Stevens, intelligence on the growing terrorist threat in Libya and insider information on the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi.
Abedin was privy to emails that contained the exact movements of Stevens while he was stationed in arguably one of the most dangerous zones in the world for any American diplomat. WND previously reported on Abedin’s personal and family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other to Islamic supremacists.
The connections not only extend to her mother and father, who are both deeply tied to al-Qaida fronts, but to Abedin herself, as WND previously reported in a series of exposés.
The email stated the interim Libyan government “conducted a raid on a house/storage facility and found and arrested an Egyptian cell reportedly there for the purpose of attacking hotels.”
Despite the threat, the email revealed Stevens “still feels comfortable in the hotel,” meaning the email exposed that the ambassador would continue to stay there.
“They are looking into the idea of moving into a villa, but that is some way off,” the email continued. “Based on discussion with DS yesterday, the hotel remains the safest location.”
Startlingly, the email contained information about Stevens’ exact movements, including that he “will be meeting with MFA in one hour and will make a written request for better security at the hotel and for better security-related coordination.”
Another sent to Clinton from Abedin detailed Stevens’ movements regarding his hotel stay.
A March 27, 2011, email forwarded by Abedin to Clinton contained updates about the plans for the Benghazi mission’s establishment.
Another email forwarded to Clinton by Abedin briefed Clinton about such specific matters as mission staffing and the temporary rotation of personnel at the mission.
Conservative radio host Gina Loudon published a column in WorldNetDaily today about how various life experiences have changed her previously doctrinaire views on a series of issues. For example, Loudon explains that her views on homosexuality changed after her encounters with openly gay friends and family members.
However, Loudon said that having Muslim neighbors “who seemed friendly and were good neighbors” did not change her suspicion that they were really faux-families working for ISIS.
“A ‘nice’ Muslim family was part of a ring of Muslims here to recruit little American girls to be taken to ISIS to be sold off or bargained away to live a life of rape, abuse and torture,” she wrote. "Many ‘families’ employed to do this are front people, posing as nice families preying on our tolerance and using it against us. Those who may actually be nice are not vocally opposed enough to the terror that the rest of them are creating for the world, in my opinion.”
She said that even “nice” Muslim high school student may actually be “a professional lure for ISIS” who tries to “target” young girls and sell them into sex slavery to the so-called Islamic State.
Until I had Islamic neighbors, I had never known a Muslim. There were three darling little children and two parents who seemed friendly and were good neighbors. It was at a stage in my life where I was struggling to find trendy clothing for my tween girls and was appalled at the way parents were dressing their daughters. I appreciated the modesty of the Muslim girls in our neighborhood.
But in the case of Islam, I feel differently. A “nice” Muslim family was part of a ring of Muslims here to recruit little American girls to be taken to ISIS to be sold off or bargained away to live a life of rape, abuse and torture. Many “families” employed to do this are front people, posing as nice families preying on our tolerance and using it against us. Those who may actually be nice are not vocally opposed enough to the terror that the rest of them are creating for the world, in my opinion. If it were my “faith” that was inspiring such heinousness, I would question that faith, not continue to defend it blindly. That isn’t tolerance; that is radical militancy.
There is an invisible cyber war raging by ISIS 24/7 in which cyber detectives across the nation work valiantly posing online as children hoping to catch cyber predators before those predators catch our children.
The predators are crafty. How would you lure a naive 14-year-old girl? A predator (whether sexual or today, too often, Islamic) on the prowl will create an online persona using a fake identity of an attractive teen boy. First, they find their target, a young girl or boy who appears lonely or otherwise isolatable. Before ever making contact, the predator will learn about that child’s deepest desires and cultural interests. Then he drops the lure.
He will flatter the child. He will mention passion for things the child likes before the child mentions them to show common interests. As the child takes the bait, he waits patiently and looks for the perfect opportunity.
“Hey, I will be at the church Tuesday,” he says, knowing the church is the perfect disarming connection and knowing that no one is at the church on Tuesdays. “How about meeting me there and we can walk to the ice cream shop?” The child thinks they are meeting a young American teen. They are meeting someone who is a professional lure for ISIS. This has happened hundreds of times in the last year.
The scenario can also be live. Young girl meets young Muslim boy at school. He seems nice. He says all the right things. She has no clue that the meeting was not random. She is a target.
Tolerance has gone too far. Our children are being actively recruited and kidnapped now. We must hold fast to the liberal ideals of our founders to be gentle as doves, but also wise as serpents. As the admonition goes, “It is not paranoia if they really are out to get you.” We have enemies in pursuit of our kids who seek to destroy the nation as we know it. There can be no tolerance of that.
On her radio program Friday, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios predicted that God will send a “major shift or disaster” to punish the world for gay marriage.
Rios was responding to social media comments from an LGBT rights supporter named Peter, who pointed out that none of the countries that have legalized marriage equality have yet fallen to ruin because of it.
“There are some effects already early on, there are here in this country as well,” Rios responded. “But it’s too early to see any kind of major shift or disaster that I think most of us who believe that God’s word is true are predicting for the whole world, really, Peter, for the whole world. For God will not let us just continue to be debauched and ignore him.”
Rios also responded to “a very good point” that Peter made about “the sanctity of marriage and the divorce rate.”
She explained that while “God does hate divorce” it is “not a sin” and it is allowed under some circumstances. “But gay marriage is never allowed,” she said. “Gay marriage is a subject of a whole different matter, and it strikes at God and his design for man, creating male and female from the very beginning, giving women to man at the very beginning.”
Gov. Scott Walker was chatting recently with right-wing radio host Dana Loesch about his efforts to set up regulatory hurdles to abortion access in Wisconsin, when heoffered this defense of a law he signed that would require a woman to undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound before exercising her constitutionally protected right to an abortion:
I'm pro-life. I've passed pro-life legislation. We defunded Planned Parenthood, we signed a law that requires an ultrasound. Which, the thing about that, the media tried to make that sound like that was a crazy idea. You know, most people I talked to, whether they're pro-life or not, I find people all the time that pull out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids' ultrasound and how excited they are, so that's a lovely thing. I think about my sons are 19 and 20, we still have their first ultrasounds. It's just a cool thing out there.
Right Wing Watch, a project of People For the American Way, was listening to the show and brought attention to Walker's comments, and they understandably hit a nerve.
Sure, an ultrasound could be "cool" if you are a woman carrying a healthy child, surrounded by family, love and support and making your own medical choices along with your doctor. Or you are excited grandparents looking forward to years of joy with a child. What's not "cool" is if the state mandates that you undergo a medically unnecessary procedure in an effort to prevent you from making a choice that you, an adult woman whose circumstances your politicians have no right to know or judge,have already made and are unlikely to change.
Unlike the ultrasounds of the Walkers' children, forced ultrasounds like these aren't the kind that anyone wants to show off. What's astonishing is that Walker doesn't seem to get this. Instead, he's accusing the "gotcha" media of being "biased" and "lazy" and twisting the meaning of his comments. Unfortunately, some of the media are taking him at his word.
Walker's remarks weren't twisted. You can listen to his whole answer to the questionhere. The problem is that Walker just doesn't seem to get why what he said was so offensive. For someone who wants to be president, that's deeply troubling.
Last Friday Maryland Governor Larry Hogan vetoed a bill that would allow formerly incarcerated persons to regain the right to vote upon release from prison. The bill had passed through Maryland’s General Assembly with a significant majority. Hogan’s veto sustains current Maryland law, which prohibits people from voting until they have completed their entire sentence – including parole and probation.
This decision impacts approximately 40,000 Marylanders who live, work, and pay taxes in the state. The bill would have both supported formerly incarcerated persons in the reintegration process and addressed the systemic disenfranchisement of ex-offenders. As Maryland Delegates Cory McCray and Alonzo Washington put it:
In representative democracy, the right to vote is a fundamental interest. When folks have their access to the ballot box restricted, they lose their ability to have a voice in the decision making process.
PFAW advocates in Maryland, and members of PFAW’s African American Ministers In Action, have been organizing with supporters to restore full voting rights to formerly incarcerated persons. They called on local community leaders and state representatives to promote this important cause.
Hogan’s decision is deeply disappointing and disproportionately marginalizes people of color, continuing a legacy of racially discriminatory ex-offender laws. It highlights how harmful the power to veto can be in the wrong hands. But the fight for voting rights for all is far from over, and activists in Maryland and across the country will continue to push to ensure that fundamental democratic rights are protected.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
This week, the far-right still cannot let go of Jade Helm 15, the ever looming rapture, the true origin of racism, and a children’s movie gets political.
5. Belief In Evolution Causes Racism
We have found the culprit for racism, and his name is Charles Darwin.
Alex McFarlan, host of an American Family Radio program, recently appeared on TheDove TV to explain to those who trust the lies of science that belief in evolution is the root cause of racism in America today. Because the Bible teaches that the only race is the human race, it logically follows that racist individuals are getting those ideas elsewhere, McFarlane explained. “Evolution,” he said, “for about 75 years, has had a stranglehold on American education, and so the number one reason for racism is belief in evolution.”
McFarlan, apparently forgetting such things as the history of slavery in America, claimed that the Founding Fathers clearly knew all men are created equal and blamed “150 years of Darwinian evolution” for ruining this core American principle.
4. The ‘Lego Movie’ Is ‘Insidious’ Propaganda Against Business Owners
Apparently, a concerted leftist propaganda effort has shifted cultural attitudes toward believing that “government is good and business is bad,” and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., is not going to stand for it.
The latest evidence for this effort is, according to Johnson, “The Lego Movie,” in which a Lego businessman is a bad guy attempting to destroy the Lego world for profit. But don’t let yourself think this is any innocent children’s film. According to Johnson, “That’s done for a reason. They’re starting that propaganda, and it’s insidious.”
Johnson continues with a heart-wrenching story of some leftist indoctrination of children he heard about while fundraising. He apparently “called a gentleman, it was a couple months ago, he was so upset, he took his children to an animated movie, six-andseven-year-old children, to an animated movie – and guess who the villain was? Evil Mr. Businessperson. It’s insidious. That propaganda starts very early.”
After a number of media outlets reported on Johnson's comments, he responded that he was surprised that people had “never encountered the idea before.”
3. Jade Helm 15 Evolves
The anti-government militia group Oath Keepers published an article on its website this week that offers a fresh take on the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory. The U.S. government, argues AltMarket.com journalist Brandon Smith, created ISIS in order to manufacture a threat that will allow them to impose martial law.
Smith argues that “the organization known as ISIS has long been a collaborative creation of the U.S. government and its allies,” which will at some point attack the U.S., giving the government a “rationale” for imposing martial law, which they are preparing for with Jade Helm 15:
With at least 45% of Americans concerned that open domestic military exercises are a precursor to greater federal control over states and more than 62% convinced that government power is suffocating individual liberty, it is only a matter of time before the government spin doctors create a semi-believable rationale for such endeavors as Jade Helm. I believe that ISIS could be their perfect rationale.
As public concern is amplified and evidence indicating that the Department of Defense is lying about the purpose of JH15 is more widely recognized, the DOD may very well admit that the operation is not for training in foreign theaters. Rather, they may argue that JH15 is in fact training designed to protect Americans on American soil from widespread terrorist threats. That is to say, the new spin will be that Jade Helm is meant to save us all from the psychopathic child killing cannibal monstrosity known as ISIS.
Smith notes that this is all very similar to the plot of the 1985 Chuck Norris movie “Invasion U.S.A.”
2. The Rapture Is Near (Again)
The Rapture is here (again), and according to anti-gay Religious Right commentator Larry Tomczak it will look strikingly similar to the new blockbuster disaster film “San Andreas”.
Tomczak explains that “San Andreas” acts as a prophetic warning of the End Times, and is only a small portion of what humanity should expect to experience soon.
“Jesus gave warning also about pestilence and diseases," Timczak says. "Think about airborne Ebola and the porous southern border. Is it going to take another stock market crash, global economic collapse? All of these things are present day realities. Do we see the handwriting on the wall that we are at an apocalyptic unprecedented tipping point?”
Apparently this knowledge comes straight from the Bible. Tomczak adds that "the Book of Revelation, in chapter 9, says there will be a cataclysmic event that will kill a third of mankind. Now Jesus Christ predicted fearful events, a time of punishment, men's hearts failing them with fear and maybe believe 9/11 was our wake up call, but we've hit the snooze alarm." For Tomczak, "we need to awaken to the reality that America has forgotten God. We've drifted and it's time to turn back to him. The clock is ticking."
Tomczak is not alone in thinking this, as last Friday Anne Graham Lotz appeared on CBN to discuss her courageous efforts to save America from God’s judgement. Lotz explained that terrorism, natural disasters, economic problems, and social unrest are all warning signs from God that the return of Jesus Christ will happen within her lifetime.
Lotz, like Tomczak, believes, “with deep conviction, that it's my generation, I believe that in my lifetime, if I live out my lifetime, a natural lifetime, I believe I will live to see the return of Jesus in the Rapture when he comes back to take us to be with himself. Which means, preceding that, there are going to be some signs, there are going to be some warnings".
These signs will look much like the movie “San Andreas,” so beware.
1. Texas Flooding Due To Flood Of Gays
Texas is flooding. And Bryan Fischer knows where the blame lies: with those who are bringing “witchcraft and sodomy” into the state. Fischer agreed with a caller on his radio program yesterday who said that the only parts of Texas that are underwater are the parts “that are overrun with witchcraft and sodomy,” such as Houston, which has a “sodomite mayor.”
The caller claimed, "If God is judging Texas, it's because of the witchcraft and sodomy that we've allowed to run rampant,” and Fischer agreed that that was a very plausible explanation.
"If you're going to attribute the flooding in Texas to some kind of supernatural cause, you can make a geographical connection between the flooding and the practice of the occult and witchcraft and the embrace of homosexuality,” he said. “That's where the disaster is being felt the worse.” Just like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was also a localized natural disaster that "just wiped out those two cities where homosexuality had been embraced.”
So, “if you're going to make a case that there is some supernatural origin to this natural disaster that would probably be the place to look."
On her radio program this morning, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios got to talking about comments that liberals leave on her Facebook page, which she says she doesn’t mind because she knows that “this is a spiritual battle” and her critics don’t “understand who it is that they serve,” which is Satan and the “spiritual forces of darkness.”
“This is a spiritual battle and I don’t think people understand who they’ve signed up to serve, and it’s not God,” she said.
Rios then read an email from a listener who said, “Liberals don’t seem to be outraged about radical Islam but they hate Christianity. The only thing that I can figure is evil likes evil.”
“Yep,” Rios responded, “well, they have the same root, the same father, and that’s Satan himself.
After saying on her radio program today that President Obama has “pushed things so far back” in terms of race relations, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios told a man who called in to challenge her statement that the media had made him an “angry black man” in its efforts to “whip the black community into a frenzy” over police shootings.
Rios wholeheartedly agreed with Lewis, saying that President Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder “have pushed things so far back” in terms of race relations. “I hate that," she said. “I hate what it’s done to race relations. I hate that. It’s divisive. And that’s what the president’s all about, is dividing people by race, color, sex, it’s just amazing to me.”
Later in the program, a listener who identified himself as Charles from Columbus, Ohio, called in to challenge Rios on the point, citing the recent acquittal of a police officer in the shooting deaths of an unarmed black couple in Cleveland. “Unfortunately, sisters and brothers like yourselves and others just don’t get it as it pertains to basically to black America and the history of black America with regards to America,” he told Rios. “I get so discouraged when I hear you guys talk about the current situation with policing and black America.”
Rios told Charles that he was being duped by “people who want to whip the black community in a frenzy by misrepresenting facts” on police shootings, saying that he has to be careful with the facts just as the Right does in talking about Jade Helm 15 and other anti-Obama conspiracy theories (something that Rios herself does not exactly do).
“You do understand, Charles, that there are people who want to whip the black community into a frenzy by misrepresenting facts?” she asked. “You know, I was just the object of this, I have just been — people have been whipped into a frenzy over statements that I made about the train conductor. And what they’re saying is, they take a lot of what I said and twist it, and then it goes like a house afire. So I know how this works. Maybe you don’t. But I tell you there are people that benefit from twisting the story ever so slightly to get you whipped into a rage.”
“Look, ABC doesn’t care about giving you the whole story, neither does CBS, because they want you to be an angry black man,” she said. “Do you understand that?”
Former Pennsylvania senator and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said yesterday at a campaign stop in Iowa that he worries “about anti-government rhetoric,” according to a local paper and to Washington Post reporter James Hohmann, who tweeted about the remark:
Santorum: "I worry abt anti-government rhetoric. I want to make sure we're talking to ppl where they are and not just to make them angry."
Really? The Santorum we know has spent the entire Obama presidency stoking mistrust of the federal government. Here are just fifteen examples, in no particular order, of Santorum’s anti-government rhetoric in the past few years.
1. When he claimed that Obama is a ‘tyrant’ hell-bent on destroying America
"If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we're done. Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health...When Thatcher ran for prime minister she said - remember this, this is the Iron Lady - she said, 'The British national health care system is safe in my hands.' She wasn't going to take on health care, because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can't take it away from them. And the reason is because most people don't get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don't get health care, you die and you don't vote. It's actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote and people who can't vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can't vote against you. That's how it works."
7. When he claimed that in Obama’s America, religious people are on “the path” to being beheaded like clergy in the French Revolution
8. When he warned that Christians must fight “persecution” in America to stop us from turning into Nazi Germany
9. When he claimed Obama is faking a war with ISIS and allowing the persecution of Christians
10. Whenhe warned of the hidden Obamacare agenda of using pre-natal testing to “cull the ranks of disabled” who are “less able than the elites who want to govern our society”
11. When he said the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would empower the government to kill his daughter
“In the case of our 4-year-old daughter, Bella, who has Trisomy 18, a condition that the medical literature says is 'incompatible with life,' would her 'best interest' be that she be allowed to die? Some would undoubtedly say so.
So if the state, and not Karen and I, would have the final word on what is in the best interest of a child like Bella, what chance would a parent have to get appropriate care in the days of increasingly government-funded medical care?
Proponents have said that Section 7 would not affect a parent’s right under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but the education standards of CRPD do not repeat the parental rights rules of past U.N. human-rights treaties. Omission of these rules combined with Section 7 could lead to the elimination of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.
These issues become real for parents because, despite what the proponents insist, ratifying the treaty will require changes to U.S. laws to comply with the U.N. provisions. Section 4 requires any country that adopts this treaty 'to adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention.'”
12. When he claimed the health care reform’s contraception mandateis “a descendent of the French Revolution”
13. When he told Bryan Fischer that business owners who refuse service to gay customers have been sent to “reeducation camps” and pastors will soon be jailed or martyred
14. When he said the Democrats are worried Obama will go to Indonesia and “bow to more Muslims”
“Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions.”
Earlier this week, we reported on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s comment on Dana Loesch’s radio program that a bill he signed requiring that women seeking abortions first undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound was no big deal because ultrasounds are “lovely” and “just a cool thing.”
The comment was subsequently picked up by a number of media outlets, eventually leading to a backlash from the right-wing media, who claimed that the whole thing was taken out of context.
Yesterday, Walker returned to Loesch’s show to slam the media for being “biased” and “lazy” for reporting on his comments, encouraged by pro-choice advocates who “can’t win” on the issues.
But then he repeated the very same sentiment he expressed in the original interview, saying that mandatory ultrasounds are no big deal: “Who’s opposed to an ultrasound?’”
Here, as in our original post, is the full audio of Walker’s comments. Judge for yourself:
The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson — the fresh face of the movement against marriage equality — agreed with an interviewer last week that the road to marriage equality started with widespread contraception use, saying that the acceptance of gay marriage came about because “we’ve had a culture since the ‘60s, since the sexual revolution, that has largely made a mess of human sexuality, the family and marriage.”
Patrick Coffin, who hosts a podcast for the group Catholic Answers, asked Anderson whether “the widespread acceptance of contraception” was “the first domino to fall” on the way to marriage equality.
“Yes, the sexual revolution explains quite a bit of this,” Anderson agreed. “We only arrived at the place where we are today, in 2015, at the cusp of a potential Supreme Court case redefining marriage everywhere because we’ve had a culture since the ‘60s, since the sexual revolution, that has largely made a mess of human sexuality, the family and marriage. It’s only after a generation or two of premarital sex, non-marital childbearing, the hookup culture, pornography, no-fault divorce, that you’d then be at the point of saying, ‘Oh, yeah, marriage has nothing to do with men and women.’”
Opponents of marriage equality don’t always acknowledge that the rights that they would like to roll back don’t stop with gay marriage. But just as the gay rights and women’s rights movements have been intertwined for decades, so has the opposition to those advances.
As people continue to see the bad results of the sexual revolution, they are likely to reevaluate their current attitudes toward sex, and while doing so they may find that the logic of human sexuality leads right back to traditional Christian orthodoxy. Might the continued push for same-sex "marriage" and the normalization of homosexuality prove to be the tipping point, the catalyst for a widespread reexamination of Christian sexual practice? Might these issues push the envelope so far that, as faithful Christians reflect on the reasons why they must conclude that homosexual acts fail to embody the truth of human sexuality, they come to realize that these same reasons entail the immorality of contraception? (For the moment I’ll assume that anyone entertaining this line of thought has already concluded that premarital and extramarital sex likewise fail to embody the truth of human sexuality.)
Last month, during the Supreme Court arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges marriage equality cases, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg challenged the idea that the definition of marriage has existed for “millennia,” pointing out that the ground for same-sex marriage was paved by a “change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian” for women. More recently, the legal fight for reproductive rights for women — starting with defending the right to contraception — has gone hand in hand with the fight for LGBT rights.
This post has been updated with Anderson's 2006 article.
In a radio commentary earlier this month, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly acknowledged that it’s “quite true that America was built by hard-working people from all over the world,” but cautioned that today’s immigrants from Latin America are “not the same sort” as the wave of mostly European immigrants who came to the U.S. in the early 20th century.
Schlafly criticized President Obama for calling the U.S. “a nation of immigrants,” saying, “The problem is that the immigrants coming into our country today are not the same sort as the immigrants who contributed so much to building our great country. The immigrants who came to America in the 1920s and ‘30s were different – with very different motives.”
“It’s quite true that America was built by hard working people from all over the world who sought a place of freedom where they could realize their dream,” she said. “But today’s immigrants don’t have the same motivation, the same love for America, the same desire to be part of the American culture and dream.”
She cited Russian-born songwriter Irving Berlin as the kind of America-loving immigrant who supposedly no longer come to the United States.
Schlafly's commentary varies slightly from a transcript provided on Eagle Forum's website, which adds this thought: "[Today's immigrants] don’t want to leave their homes and become Americans, accepting all that comes along with it. Many of them just want to reap the rewards of our free nation without accepting American culture, the English language, and the rule of law.”
Pat Robertson’s “The 700 Club” ran an alarmed segment about this “new social media trend” today, citing “spiritual experts” who warn that there are “clear warnings” against such activities in the Bible.
Robertson was also not amused, warning that “like it or not, demons are real” and “they will possess and they will destroy” those who mess with them:
Homosexual activists long ago declared war on the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and have for years delivered blow after blow against them for their stand against open homosexuality within their leadership.
The Scouts have stood with dignity and valor through every attempt, but that's about to change ...
Homosexual activists are on the brink of finally bullying them into submission. and BSA President Gates needs to know just where you stand regarding his lack of courage.
In Congress and state legislatures across the country, right-wing politicians are pushing hard to construct new barriers to women exercising the constitutional right to have an abortion.
Earlier this month the U.S. House passed a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and GOP legislators in Wisconsin are staging a parallel attack. They introduced a similar 20-week ban, which Gov. Scott Walker has indicated he would sign, and have scheduled a hearing on the bill for next week. PFAW supporters in Wisconsin will be out in force to demonstrate their commitment to protecting this core right.
A couple of important points about 20-week bans: first, they are plainly unconstitutional. One of the main holdings of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was a woman’s right to an abortion before the fetus becomes viable – that is, the point when a fetus could survive outside the uterus. As Imani Gandy writes at RH Reality Check:
In the past 40 years, the Court has never wavered from the fetal viability benchmark…Courts have consistently smacked down legislative attempts to ban abortions at 20 weeks. But states are undeterred by such pedestrian concerns as constitutionality.
Second, the overwhelming majority of abortions (close to 99 percent) happen before 21 weeks. Those that happen after that are often because of a complicated situation – such as the discovery of a severe fetal abnormality – and the path forward should be determined by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians looking to score points with their base.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these bans are part of an anti-choice agenda with a much broader goal: banning abortions across the board. From mandatory waiting period laws to “personhood” efforts which would give embryos full legal rights from the moment of conception, the anti-choice movement is playing the long game and slowly “chipping away at choice.”
When legislators try to insert themselves into decisions that should be made by women and their health care providers, it’s more than a political ploy. It’s a real threat to every woman’s health and autonomy.
Several years ago, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins strongly defended a Uganda bill, which at the time included a measure making homosexuality in some cases a capital offense. While the provision was dropped, the Ugandan government still increased the draconian penalties punishing people for being.
So it came as no surprise that on yesterday’s edition of “Washington Watch,” FRC senior fellow Peter Sprigg — who once called for the U.S. to “ export homosexuals” — criticized Randy Berry, the Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons, for reportedly traveling to travel to Uganda and Jamaica, where homosexuality is also criminalized.
Sprigg said that Berry and the Obama administration are trying to “force this American-style homosexual agenda down the throats of other countries” such as Uganda, “which is one of the countries which has been most bitterly attacked by homosexual activists around the world.”
Today on “Generations Radio,” Colorado homeschooling activists Kevin Swanson and Steve Vaughn discussed the Duggar family child sexual abuse scandal.
Swanson insisted that liberals were waiting for the opportunity to mock the Duggar family because “the world has killed billions of babies since 1960 thanks to abortion and the abortifacient birth control pill,” and are hoping to silence anyone who says “that there is something wrong with killing babies or there’s something wrong with having sex with anything out there that moves or doesn’t move.”
Then, Swanson sarcastically shared “a list of things we’re not going to say about the recent revelations,” for example, “we’re not going to say that incest is worse than homosexuality.”
Sen. Rand Paul’s recent remark that the issue of abortion rights would be best handled “by the states” rather than “under the 14th Amendment” and his ambiguous answer to the question of “when does life begin” were, as commentators on the leftand the right have pointed out, somewhat confounding since Paul has sponsored a Senate bill that aims to undermine Roe v. Wade by defining life as beginning “at conception.”
Adding to the confusion, just a few weeks before Paul made his remarks, the “personhood” group National Pro-Life Alliance forwarded to its members a fundraising email Paul wrote last year urging them to support the effort to “bypass Roe v. Wade” by declaring “unborn children ‘persons’ as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.”
On April 4, National Pro-Life Alliance forwarded Paul’s letter with the subject line “Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade”:
In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there -- passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.
But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won't be offended.
Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over .
Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.
Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and ultimately win a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.
A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children "persons" as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection .
This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to "collapse."
Today, the group sent a similar message from former Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas. Paul’s and Stockman’s argument is based on the somewhat questionable legal theory — rejected by even many anti-choice leaders — that Congress can “bypass” a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision overturning Roe by simply passing legislation declaring fertilized eggs and fetuses to be “persons” under the law.
Some anti-choice leaders worry that this strategy would backfire in the courts, giving the Supreme Court a broad opening to strengthen Roe v. Wade. But if it were to succeed, the consequences would be enormous , not only defining all abortion as murder, but endangering common forms of birth control as well. Back in 2013, Paul claimed that such a measure would have “thousands of exceptions,” which his staff later clarified that he did not actually mean.
In fact, saying completely contradictory things on reproductive rights seems to be becoming Paul’s official campaign line. In his profile of Paul in March, Brian summarized Paul’s shifting stance on abortion rights as he heads into the 2016 presidential election:
Paul has also been on all sides of the question of abortion rights. Although Paul is the chief sponsor of a federal personhood bill that would ban abortion in all cases and has warned that a failure to pass the bill will result in the collapse of civilization, he has also said that he does not favor changing the nation’s abortion laws because the country is currently too divided on the issue. Paul insists that he opposes bans on birth control, despite the fact that his own personhood bill would give legal rights to zygotes and could ban common forms of contraception. In a 2013 CNN interview, Paul said that there would be “thousands of exceptions” to his personhood bill, but a spokesman later assured anti-choice activists that the senator approved of just a single exception, allowing abortion in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is at risk.