Back in January, Rick Santorum kicked off his Florida campaign by speaking at Florida’s Worldwide Christian Center, whose pastor, Rev. O’Neal Dozier, is a fervently anti-gay and anti-Muslim activist with close ties to leading Republican officials across the state, and co-chaired Santorum’s Florida campaign. During the Florida campaign and even after Romney all but locked up the party’s nomination, Dozier has consistently warned that his nomination would jeopardize the future of the GOP with black voters because according to Dozier, who is African American, “blacks are not going to vote for anyone of the Mormon faith.” Dozier even went so far as to write a letter to Southern Baptist leader Richard Land urging him to press Romney to explicitly “renounce” past Mormon doctrines on race. While speaking yesterday with conservative talk show host Steve Deace, who has hosted anti-Mormon activists before, Dozier appeared to be using a Bryan Fischer-liketactic of stoking anti-Mormon animosity but under the guise of insinuating that Democrats are to blame for attacks on his religion, accusing the left of potentially making Romney’s faith an issue in the future.
I don’t know whether people understand this or not but the Mormon religion believes that the Negros were cursed, that they were cursed in the pre-existence because of something they did in the pre-existence and in this life they are cursed, they are cursed with black skin, a flat nose and big lips. They believe this, this is written all through their doctrine, it’s in there, it’s in the Mormon book and it’s also in the Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young is one of the main ones who said these things and other prophets that they have had. I tell you, listen to me very, very carefully, when Mitt Romney is fully vetted by the Democratic Party, I don’t think a black person, a Jewish person, I don’t think any minorities will want to come nowhere next to him.
Here’s my fear, Mitt Romney being the face and the leader now of the Republican Party. What does that do to the Republican Party? Number one, it will taint the Republican Party. And a nomination of Mitt Romney will widen the racial divide in this country.
Calls have been made for some time now for President Obama to officially support anti-bullying legislation. As of April 20, he stands strong behind the Student Non-Discrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act.
Truth in Action Ministries has embraced the work of anti-gay activist Michael Brown in recent weeks, producing a condensed version of his book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, called A Stealth Agenda, and inviting him to appear in short films describing the “radical homosexual agenda” as a deadly iceberg and another defending countries that criminalize homosexuality. Today, Brown appeared on the group’s flagship radio program Truth that Transforms where he was introduced by hosts Carmen Pate and John Rabe, who likened homosexuality to “bondage” and even “slavery”:
Pate: Homosexuality, those who are struggling with that lifestyle and are desiring to leave it, are hungry for truth, John. And so it’s so important when we consider that our government ignores the truth and instead supports an agenda that really keeps them in bondage. It’s important that we speak truth so they might find that healing and restoration.
Rabe: It’s absolutely true, Carmen, there is liberation for people who are enmeshed in slavery, and this is a form of it. It really is an agenda; this didn’t just sort of happen by chance, there is an agenda here.
Brown told Pate and Rabe that government officials, businesses, Hollywood and TV shows like Glee are boosting “homosexual activism,” which he called the “principal threat to religious freedom, freedom of conscience [and] freedom of speech”:
Brown: So their creativity, energy, gets them in high places in Hollywood, so kids are watching shows like Glee on TV and that pervasive message is coming. We have many politicians fighting these things, our own government says, ‘this is now a civil rights issue and we’re going to stand for this, we’re going to fight for this,’ major businesses are championing it. Across the board, court cases, decisions being made, homosexual activism has become the principal threat to religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, in America and in other countries around the world. If we don’t see it now, we’re going to have to apologize to our kids and our grandkids.
On Thursday, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) appeared on Today’s Issues with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, in an effort to drum up support for his Military Religious Freedom Protection Act. Huelskamp’s bill purportedly prevents “discrimination” against members of the military based on their beliefs on “human sexuality,” while also banning the use of military property for any same-sex “marriage or marriage-like ceremony.” Discussing the bill, the congressman accused President Obama of launching a “shocking violation of religious liberty” as part of his “administration’s push for the radical homosexual agenda”:
Huelskamp: We have forty-seven cosponsors in the House including some leading members of the Armed Services Committee and we’re having a lot of great support also as well. We continue to hear, and this is the scariest thing, we hear from chaplains all across the country and even military bases elsewhere around the world that the administration’s push for the radical homosexual agenda goes all the way down to having to get approval for their sermon notes, having to have man’s approval for things they’re going to preach, I mean the idea that we’re going to not allow chaplains to disagree with the President of the United States and his administration is a shocking violation of religious liberty.
Later in the interview, Rep. Huelskamp claimed that “radical secularism” is working with the “radical homosexual movement” to suppress religious freedom:
Huelskamp: It’s an issue of whether or not chaplains can actually preach the Gospel and that men and women can actually live the Gospel. I think you have this radical secularism and you put it together with the radical homosexual movement and say ‘hey, if you have those beliefs that’s fine but you can talk about it for an hour on Sunday, maybe, and after that just keep quiet for the other hundred and some hours a week.’ The idea that chaplains would not be able to preach certain parts of the Gospel and say, ‘you know what this is the way we interpret it and this is what it means,’ and those are being shut down.
After American Family Association Bryan Fischer wentintoall-outwar with Mitt Romney’s campaign for hiring an openly gay foreign policy spokesman, his “straights only” position won support from other Religious Right leaders like Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins. Now, Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is jumping to Fischer’s defense as well, telling talk show host Janet Mefferd on Friday that Romney is “putting his finger in the eye of the pro-family movement” with the hire, even though Romney has emphasized his anti-gaybonafides throughout the campaign.
Later, LaBarbera denounced the “hidden homosexuality” in Washington D.C., in particular the Republicans who “have a homosexual problem” and are not public about it. He also told Mefferd that “Americans would rally to our position” on homosexuality if only the GOP recruits a candidate like Rick Santorum who can inspire the anti-gay “silent majority” and combat the “media, Hollywood and academy [that] are 1,000 percent for perversion.” If not, LaBarbera warned that the Right may “see a bigger push for a third party,” a view also supported by Family Research Council Vice President Tom McCluskly.
LaBarbera: I think the significance of what Mitt Romney has done is he’s putting his finger in the eye of the pro-family movement, as you alluded to, here’s the entire conservative movement, especially social conservatives like us, saying ‘it’s going to be hard to get enthused about Mitt Romney.’ I’m speaking as a private citizen, our group is non-partisan, but what does he do? He appoints a homosexual activist for one of his spokespeople.
Mefferd: Mostly in the past they’ve been quasi-closeted if not fully closeted, Ken Mehlman is a perfect example, he didn’t come out until after he was out as the campaign chief of Bush.
LaBarbera: But he did say that he used his influence that he could behind the scenes, which is what I always suspected of these homosexual Republicans. I’ve always called on them to be open, if they have a homosexual problem, as I put it, I don’t believe it’s a positive identity; the people have a right to know if they’re in elected office. There’s a lot of hidden homosexuality, especially in Washington.
Mefferd: The reason this bothers me so much is because increasingly you’re seeing the GOP indicating that, ‘because this is a losing issue and we see these polls showing more and more people support so-called homosexual marriage, we want to win, we need to be able to draw some of these voters to our side.’ My feeling on that is: if you’re drawing voters to your side on an issue that actually matters, then what does it matter if you win if you’ve compromised everything that matters?
LaBarbera: Absolutely. It’s shame on them. Guess what, there was a time when anti-Communism was unpopular, and Reagan is known for that as his greatest accomplishment, stopping Soviet Communism. Rick Santorum went very far and it’s interesting, the homosexual magazine The Advocate seems very concerned that Rick Santorum got so far, so I think there’s a lot of silent support for our position. The media, Hollywood and academy are 1,000 percent for perversion, for homosexuality, but the silent majority I believe still opposes them. I think the support for so-called gay rights is a mile wide and an inch deep. I think if you had a candidate like Santorum that explains the issue, explains how religious freedom is going to be trampled over by this tiny minority of homosexual activists who want to push their agenda at any cost, I think Americans would rally to our position.
Mefferd: It may make things a little bit dicey in future elections, won’t it, if the GOP keeps going in this direction?
LaBarbera: I think if they keep going in this direction I think you will see a bigger push for a third party because this is one of the core issues. Unless, you know, Christians just give up on their faith and you know say we’re not going to believe that part of the Bible, absolutely.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is upset that Republican congressional candidate Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, believes President Obama is a Christian (which he explained in a rather peculiar and patronizing letter to David Brody), because according to Farah, Obama “has been at war with God before he took office and ever since”:
But what is the evidence of Obama’s Christian faith? His attendance for 20 years in Jeremiah Wright’s schizoid, America-hating, Liberation Theology cult? What does this have to do the Jesus? Nothing.
Is this naiveté on Joe the Plumber’s part, or is this politics?
Where is the evidence that Jesus is the Lord of Barack Obama’s life? Calling oneself a Christian does not mean one is a Christian.
Yet, Joe the Plumber insists he doesn’t question Obama’s faith.
“I don’t question his faith, and when I read or hear people claiming he’s not a Christian because of this or that, I don’t like it,” he wrote in his letter to CBN. “[But] Barack Obama once famously told me he just wanted to spread the wealth around and I take him at his word about that as well. After three years of watching the policies he’s put forth, the agenda he’s pushed and the detrimental effect it’s had on our country, I don’t question it one bit.”
How about this?
• his support of same-sex marriage
• his support of open homosexual activity in the military
• his support of killing innocent babies in the womb
• his support for withholding life support for survivors of abortion
• his support for forcing those of Christian conscience to provide sterilization and abortion services to their employees through mandatory health-care programs
Barack Obama has been at war with God before he took office and ever since.
Mitt Romney is eager these days to change the subject from what the public sees as his party's "war on women." He seeks to close the huge gender gap that has opened up as women flee the party of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in search of something a little less patriarchal and misogynistic.
But Romney's problems with America's women may be just beginning. He can distance himself from the theocratic musings of other Republicans and the macho bullying of Fox News talking heads, but he cannot run away from his own selection of former Judge Robert Bork, in August of last year, to become his principal advisor on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
Bork hopes to wipe out not only the constitutional right to privacy, especially the right to contraception and to abortion, but decades of Equal Protection decisions handed down by what he calls a feminized Supreme Court deploying "sterile feminist logic" to guarantee equal treatment and inclusion of women. Bork is no casual chauvinist but rather a sworn enemy of feminism, a political force that he considers "totalitarian" and in which, he has concluded, "the extremists are the movement."
Romney may never have to elaborate his bizarrely muted reaction to Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" ("it's not the language I would have used"), but he will definitely have to answer whether he agrees with his hand-picked constitutional advisor that feminism is "totalitarian"; that the Supreme Court, with two women Justices, had become "feminized" at the time of U.S. v. Virginia (1996) and produced a "feminization of the military"; and that gender-based discrimination by government should no longer trigger heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
Romney has already said that, "The key thing the president is going to do... it's going to be appointing Supreme Court and Justices throughout the judicial system." He has also said that he wishes Robert Bork "were already on the Court."
So look what Robert Bork thinks Romney's Supreme Court Justices should do about the rights of women.
Wiping Out Contraceptive, Abortion and Privacy Rights
Romney certainly hoped to leave behind the surprising controversy in the Republican primaries over access to contraception, but Robert Bork's extremist views on the subject guarantee that it stays hot. Bork rejects the line of decisions, beginning with Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), affirming the right of Americans to privacy in their procreative and reproductive choices. He denounces the Supreme Court's protection of both married couples' and individuals' right to contraception in Griswold and Eisenstaedt v. Baird (1972), declaring that such a right to privacy in matters of procreation was created "out of thin air." He calls the Ninth Amendment -- which states that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" -- an "inkblot" without meaning. For him, the right of people to decide about birth control has nothing to do with Due Process liberty or other rights "retained by the people" -- it is the illegitimate expression of "radical individualism" on the Supreme Court.
Bork detests Roe v. Wade (1973), a decision he says has "no constitutional foundation" and is based on "no constitutional reasoning." He would overturn it and empower states to prosecute women and doctors who violate criminal abortion laws. Bork promises:
Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, just so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of the judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that.
In other words, the Court's "integrity" would require a President Romney to impose an anti-Roe v. Wade litmus test on all nominations to the Court.
Ending Heightened Scrutiny of Government Sex Discrimination under Equal Protection
Bork is the leading voice in America assailing the Supreme Court for using "heightened" Equal Protection scrutiny to examine government sex discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. While women and men all over America cheered the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in United States v. Virginia (1996), the decision that forced the Virginia Military Institute to stop discriminating and to admit its first women cadets, Bork attacked it for producing the "feminization of the military," which for him is a standard and cutting insult --"feminization" is always akin to degradation and dilution of standards. He writes: "Radical feminism, an increasingly powerful force across the full range of American institutions, overrode the Constitution in United States v. Virginia." Of course, in his view, this decision was no aberration: "VMI is only one example of a feminized Court transforming the Constitution," he wrote. Naturally, a "feminized Court" creates a "feminized military."
Bork argues that, outside of standard "rational basis" review, "the equal protection clause should be restricted to race and ethnicity because to go further would plunge the courts into making law without guidance from anything the ratifiers understood themselves to be doing." This rejection of gender as a protected form of classification ignores the fact that that the Fourteenth Amendment gives "equal protection" to all "persons." But, if Bork and his acolytes have their way, decades of Supreme Court decisions striking down gender-discriminatory laws under the Equal Protection Clause will be thrown into doubt as the Court comes to examine sex discrimination under the "rational basis" test, the most relaxed kind of scrutiny. Instead of asking whether government sex discrimination "substantially" advances an "important" government interest, the Court will ask simply whether it is "conceivably related" to some "rational purpose." Remarkably, Mitt Romney's key constitutional advisor wants to turn back the clock on Equal Protection jurisprudence by watering down the standards for reviewing sex-discriminatory laws.
Judge Bork Means Business: the Case of the Sterilized Women Employees
If you don't think Bork means all this, go back and look at his bleak record as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Take just one Bork opinion that became a crucial point of discussion in the hearings over his failed 1987 Supreme Court nomination. In a 1984 case calledOil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. American Cyanamid Co., Bork found that the Occupational Safety and Health Act did not protect women at work in a manufacturing plant from a company policy that forced them to be sterilized -- or else lose their jobs -- because of high levels of lead in the air. The Secretary of Labor had decided that the Act's requirement that employers must provide workers "employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards" meant that American Cynamid had to "fix the workplace" through industrial clean-up rather than "fix the employees" by sterilizing or removing all women workers of child-bearing age. But Bork strongly disagreed. He wrote an opinion for his colleagues apparently endorsing the view that other clean-up measures were not necessary or possible and that the sterilization policy was, in any event, a "realistic and clearly lawful" way to prevent harm to the women's fetuses. Because the company's "fetus protection policy" took place by virtue of sterilization in a hospital -- outside of the physical workplace -- the plain terms of the Act simply did not apply, according to Bork. Thus, as Public Citizen put it, "an employer may require its female workers to be sterilized in order to reduce employer liability for harm to the potential children."
Decisions like this are part of Bork's dark Social Darwinist view of America in which big corporations are always right and the law should rarely ever be interpreted to protect the rights of employees, especially women, in the workplace.
No matter how vigorously Mitt Romney shakes his Etch-a-Sketch, Americans already have an indelible picture of what a Romney-run presidency and Bork-run judiciary would look like and what it would mean for women. With Robert Bork calling the shots on the courts, a vote for Mitt Romney is plainly a vote against women's rights, women's equality and women's freedom.
The Wisconsin recall campaigns have heated up with the Spring weather, and both sides in the fight are pushing their big arguments and unleashing their cash reserves in an all-out battle for the hearts and minds of Wisconsin voters. With the Primaries for Governor, Lt. Governor, and recall Senate candidates rapidly approaching on May 8th, a measure of tit-for-tat claims and debunking is happening on radio and TV, with most of the Republican advertising money coming from interest groups.
Embattled Governor Scott Walker, in multiple TV, radio, and print interviews, made outrageous success claims over the last week, saying just about anything to save his hide. Just in the last 10 days alone, Walker compared himself to Abe Lincoln , denied gutting the Wisconsin Equal Pay Act and claimed his budget saved Wisconsin taxpayers $1 Billion since he's been in office.
As they tend to do, though, facts soon took the Governor's claims apart, using hard numbers to debunk his nonsensical overstatements. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers released earlier this week nailed Walker on his jobs creation claim, with reporters across Wisconsin and the United States highlighting that Wisconsin was actually dead last in job creation in all categories. Walker's week didn't get any better when Illinois Governor Pat Quinn shot back at Walker for his derisive comments before the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois Policy Institute about job creation, when he lambasted Walker with the facts about Illinois' incredible rebound from economic decline. Finally, Democratic women in Wisconsin took Governor Walker to task for his assertion that he didn't repeal Equal Pay in Wisconsin, filling in the blanks on the Governor's claims, and demanding he explain himself.
Wisconsin State Senators under threat of recall, along with Tea Party darling, Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch who is also in danger of losing her seat, came under more scrutiny for their memberships in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with some Senators claiming they are no longer members of the group. This comes in the wake of the announcement that ALEC is dissolving the key committee responsible for drafting legislation currently under the microscope as part of the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida. Wisconsin ALEC members, including Governor Walker, have pushed through concealed carry laws and castle defense laws similar to those enacted in Florida, Arizona, and many other states. People For The American Way is continuing to follow this story as part of its Wisconsin Fight The Right Campaign.
Looking forward to next week, financial filings for political candidates and officials in Wisconsin are due on April 30. People For The American Way will be paying special attention to whether these “former” ALEC members actually received money from the organization's donors recently. Our "Fight The Right" effort in Wisconsin will continue to roll-out, with new information posted daily on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. On Wisconsin!
Today on Washington Watch Weekly Family Research Council president Tony Perkins hosted California pastor Jack Hibbs, who is promoting a petition drive to overturn SB 48 through a referendum. SB 48 ensures that prominent LGBT historical figures are included in textbooks, and has been a majortargetoffierceoppositionfromReligiousRightgroups, including the FRC. “Our children are being under attack,” Hibbs told Perkins, “we need to stand up and take our schools back so we can rescue our children.” Hibbs concluded, “We’re fighting for our children’s lives, right here in California.”
What we need Tony of representatives across the nation is to stand for what’s right, we need to be very careful, we’re not standing for some political kingdom or some political direction, this has come to a point now Tony where our children are being under attack, on our watch. Jesus said, woe to the man who allows the littlest of these to be offended for it would have been better for him to have never been born. That’s a serious issue, as pastors, as Christians, as churches, for that matter, as concerned citizens no matter what your belief is, we need to stand up and take our schools back so we can rescue our children from quite frankly an ongoing group of people who I don’t think any longer has what’s best in my child in mine any longer. There is an agenda and we need to push back from that agenda.
Get people in California that you know to sign the petition. You need to be a registered voter, at our church for example, you can register to vote and then move right on over the piece of paper and sign the petition. Signing the petition, dear friends, if we cannot sign a petition when it’s as easy as this then what are we going to do when things really get tough? So, you asked Tony how is it going, it’s going well but it can be going better. We need people involved, we need people to step up. We’re fighting for our children’s lives right here in California.
People For the American Way President Michael Keegan issued the following statement congratulating PFAW board member Dolores Huerta, who was yesterday named a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom:
“Dolores Huerta is an inspiration to all who work to make our country a fairer, freer and more just place. She has dedicated her life to fighting for the downtrodden and speaking for those whose voices are too rarely heard. Her tireless work on behalf of working people, women, immigrants, gays and lesbians and others has improved – and continues to improve -- countless lives. We are enormously grateful for the leadership and guidance she’s provided to People For the American Way, and we couldn’t be prouder for her to receive this honor.”
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the nation’s highest civilian honor. According to the official announcement from the White House, others to receive the honor along with Huerta include former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, singer and poet Bob Dylan, astronaut and Senator John Glenn, writer Toni Morrison, and former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
“All of us at People For the American Way congratulate Dolores Huerta on this great honor,” said Keegan. “There is no one who could be more deserving.”
Before the upcoming election, the GOP is looking to restore its traditional polling advantage on national security with virulent criticisms of President Obama’s handling of foreign affairs. But as MSNBC’s Chuck Todd pointed out last September, “No president since George H.W. Bush has had more foreign-policy successes happen under his watch than President Obama,” and Americans have given Obama high marks for his counter-terrorism strategy.
On Wednesday, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) joined Gaffney in distorting a quote from an anonymous State Department official regarding thesuccessfuldismantling of Al-Qaeda and the administration’s aversion to using the phrase “war on terror.” West told Gaffney that the official’s words meant Obama had “signed a surrender agreement.” Later, he pointedly used the president’s middle name in calling for the defeat of “Barack Hussein Obama” and said that the president has been “absolutely horrible as far as the national security of the United States of America and the foreign policy relations in the Middle East.” Rep. West also suggested that “radical Islamist groups” have seized control of Libya after the rebellion and NATO effort which toppled Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, even though Libya’s National Transitional Council explicitly banned religious parties.
Gaffney: Congressman West, just in the past twenty-four hours as you know there is an unnamed State Department official who kind of has personified this witlessness or worse this submission to the Brotherhood with the comment, ‘the war on terror is over.’
West: I know, I’m going to pop a bottle of champagne tonight, I guess we just raised the flag. I don’t know who signed the surrender agreement but I guess it’s all done.
Gaffney: Well if anybody has I’m afraid it’s us, but the question I’m working to get at is, can we realistically expect from an administration that seems to be indulging in this idea, the sort of leadership that you’re talking about on so many of these fronts?
West: No. That’s the short answer to your question. The Obama administration has been absolutely horrible as far as the national security of the United States of America and the foreign policy relations in the Middle East, especially with these actors like you say, with the Muslim Brotherhood, totally misread what was happening in Libya, now we have more radical Islamist groups that are controlling these countries throughout the Maghreb, which is North Africa. So this is why we have to have a sure shift in the leadership of this country and it starts on high with President Barack Hussein Obama and we have to have him replaced.
Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on Gaffney’s show to discuss a recent executive order regarding INTERPOL. In the interview, Paul attempted to link INTERPOL to Egypt’s prosecution of American NGO employees, who have since left the country. Paul blatantly distorted the executive order by insisting that Obama gave INTERPOL “diplomatic immunity.” ABC’s Kristina Wong points out the executive order does not give INTERPOL agents diplomatic immunity and only extends to them privileges regarding different federal taxes and custom duties.
Paul also suggested that INTERPOL is involved in investigations of “religious crimes,” even though the group is prohibited from “political, military, religious or racial” interventions and on Monday “refused a request by Egypt to issue worldwide arrest warrants” for the fifteen US employees. The senator later claimed that Obama “has very little regard for the rule of law or for the Constitution”: very little regard for the rule of law or for the Constitution”:
Paul: As you’ve pointed out in some of your articles that INTERPOL’s been given diplomatic immunity here, INTERPOL has also extradited religious people who are accused of religious crimes from other countries.
Gaffney: This business about the executive order that the President issued concerning INTERPOL is again a place where we have I think we have very, very much the same concerns. Do you believe Senator Rand Paul that we are looking at a President who is disposed, at least in principle, to having this extra-constitutional role played by INTERPOL, perhaps in this case, perhaps in some others, might result in American citizens not being allowed to have the protections that the Constitution affords them from unreasonable search and seizure, among other things.
Paul: Yeah, I think this President has very little regard for the rule of law or for the Constitution.
In another case of right-wing paranoia, sports-reporter-turned-“terrorism analyst” for the Christian Broadcasting Network Erick Stakelbeck told Gaffney in an interview yesterday that Obama is intentionally bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in the U.S. and abroad so he and “the rest of his compadres on the radical Marxist left” can work with “hardcore Islamists” to push “the downfall of Judeo-Christian Western civilization.” Gaffney agreed and went even further, saying that Obama has “not only a deep background in the radical left but also of course considerable experience with Islamists, certainly with Islam himself” and is the “personification” of the “Red-Green” axis between the left and radical Islamists:
Stakelbeck: They are welcomed in to the inner sanctum and they are whispering in our leaders’ ears, telling them, ‘Hey the Muslim Brotherhood has reformed, they have renounced violence, we can deal with these guys, you need to embrace them and use them as a counterweight against the really bad guys and Al-Qaeda.’ That’s exactly what’s happening, our leaders are letting them in through ignorance in many cases, but in other cases and I believe in the case of President Obama, he knows exactly what the Brotherhood is all about, and for him and the rest of his compadres on the radical Marxist left, empowering Islamists is just a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Hardcore left, hardcore Islamists, both seek the downfall of Judeo-Christian Western civilization, so they must be embraced by the left.
Gaffney: Wow. This is of course a very powerful indictment, Erick Stakelbeck of ‘Stakelbeck on Terror,’ and I must tell you the only quibble that I guess I would have with what you’ve said is the President brings to the party of course not only a deep background in the radical left but also of course considerable experience with Islamists, certainly with Islam himself, and in a way he kind of is the personification of what’s been called the Red-Green axis, it comes together with him.
Peter LaBarbara’s and the Religious Right’s long war against Glee has not gained traction outside of the frantic rants of conservative activists, so he has decided to take matters into his own hands and censor a picture of Glee characters Blaine and Kurt kissing:
LaBarbera, the head of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, also republished an article by Pass the Salt Ministries’ Coach Dave Daubenmire on the upcoming vote to restore same-sex marriage in Maine where he refers to gays and lesbians as “pigs” and “thugs.” Daubenmire also praises anti-gay activist and Ron Paul’s former Iowa campaign director Mike Heath and his fellow marriage equality opponent Paul Madore for working “to take on the sodomites in Maine” and “homo-queen Elton John.” Later, Daubenmire asked readers to imagine Barney Frank having sex with the singer-songwriter, asking, “Would you let them put YOUR grandchild into a sodomy-based family?”
The boys are back in town.
Not that they ever went anywhere. But Mike Heath and Paul Madore are teaming up once again to take on the sodomites in Maine.
That is bad news for the gay-rights thugs, and they know it. Heath and Madore are like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Batman and Robin, or the Lone Ranger and Tonto.
They are the homosexual movement’s worst nightmare.
But at least they have scars. Rare is the man willing to take the arrows that come for standing publicly for what he believes. With all due respect to homo-queen Elton John, Madore and Heath can sing “I’m still standing” as they enter the ring in what they believe is the final round against the sodomy crowd.
Permit me to clarify the definition. Sodomy is one MAN inserting his genitals into the mouth or anus of ANOTHER MAN.
Say it again. Say it out loud so your ears hear it. Picture it in your mind. Picture Barney Frank and Elton John in action…Barney Frank putting his genitals into Elton John’s…
That is what they want to tell us is normal…no wait…tell our children is normal. Into that “union” they are asking permission to place children. Would you let them put YOUR grandchild into a sodomy-based family? Why would you let them do it to someone else’s child? Have normal people lost their minds?”
Rev. Mike Heath and “Mr. Maine” Paul Madore are taking the gloves off. They are putting the pictures on mobile trucks and are taking the truth of sodomy to every city, every school, and every home in Maine. Here is the picture they will put on the trucks that they will drive throughout Maine.
Oh, how the pigs will squeal. The sodomites will cry “hate” as if the truth of a picture can be hateful. The Christians in pretty suits will cry “mean” as if being nice ever won a war.
Hey! Listen to me! Send them some money!! They are on the front lines. They know the people of Maine. They are battle tested and uncompromising. David taking on Goliath. Put some gas into their tanks. Redirect all of your giving from the “national ministries” to the two manly men in Maine. Their gloves are off. This is Clay against Liston III, Lewiston, Maine 2012.
If you trust me, trust them. I wouldn’t steer you wrong. Help deliver a knockout to the homosexual agenda
Earlier this month we posted a segment of Bishop Daniel Jenky’s Homily comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, arguing that the President is “following a similar path” as the two dictators:
Jenky has faced criticisms from groups including the Anti-Defamation League and Faithful America, which organized a petition asking Jenky to apologize. Over eighty faculty members of the University of Notre Dame, where Jenky serves as a member of its Board of Fellows, in a letter said that they found it “profoundly offensive” to “compare the president’s actions with those whose genocidal policies murdered tens of millions of people,” asserting that “it would be in the best interest of Notre Dame if Jenky resigned from the University’s Board of Fellows if he is unwilling to renounce loudly and publicly this destructive analogy.”
Unsurprisingly, Operation Rescue founder and “presidential candidate” Randall Terry is rushing to Jenky’s defense with a planned press conference at Notre Dame and a letter demanding the faculty members protesting Jenky to resign or repent before they face God’s judgment:
Dear esteemed faculty of Notre Dame,
Have you actually read Bishop Jenky's homily that you so forcefully condemn?
There was not one word in his homily - not one syllable - that was not true. With pathos and charity, he upheld the teachings of the Catholic Church, defended human life and liberty, and rightly rebuked the President for his actions.
You stated that Bishop Jenky showed an "ignorance of history, [and an] insensitivity to victims of genocide." It is you who show a profound ignorance of the history; it is you who show a calloused insensitivity to the victims of the abortion holocaust...the millions of babies who are being murdered under Obama's policies, whose mangled bodies are thrown in sewers and landfills.
Obama is clearly at war with the Catholic Church's teachings on human life and liberty; he is clearly promoting the genocide of millions of babies; and he is clearly seeking to coerce the Church to participate in his crimes against humanity.
Have you no shame? You clearly have little honor, and even less regard for innocent human life. There was not one word - not one syllable - in your letter that condemned or confronted the atrocities being committed by Obama. By your words and your omissions, you show your own treachery against innocent human life, and the teachings of the Church. You have betrayed Jesus Christ, Mother Church, and the babies who are being slaughtered.
The souls of the innocent - who have been dispatched into eternity under Obama's evils - will testify against you.
We call on you to repent, or to at least have the decency to resign from a University that bears the Holy Name of the Mother of God.
May God have mercy on your souls. You are going to need it.
National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman talked to conservative radio talk show host Steve Deace yesterday where he assured Deace, a vocal critic of Mitt Romney, that NOM is confident that Romney will actively oppose marriage equality if elected president and dismissed fears that his donors who favor legalizing same-sex marriage might influence his views:
Deace: John, I want to ask you about a story that came out over the weekend, three men, Paul Singer, Dan Loeb, Cliff Asness, they are hedge fund managers, they are major Romney donors, and they each cut six figure checks toward the effort to redefine, or destroy, marriage in the state of New York. Is that a concern of your group that the Republican nominee has major donors in his camp that are funding the other side of this debate?
Eastman: You know, people running for president accept donations from all sorts of people who don’t always agree with them on all issues. The fact of the matter is, Governor Romney has signed our pledge where he will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, where he will support an amendment to protect traditional marriage nationwide. He has signed that pledge and we fully expect that he will honor his pledge in that regard.
Indeed, Romney, a NOM donor, in August signed NOM’s presidential candidate pledge [pdf] and committed to not only push for a Federal Marriage Amendment and defend the unconstitutional DOM, but also to nominate anti-equality judges, put Washington DC’s marriage equality law up to a popular referendum, and “establish a presidential commission” to “investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters”:
One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.
Three, defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.
Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.
Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality hosted Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute and Barbara Anderson of the Parents Action League and the Minnesota Family Council. Higgins railed against the “homosexual agenda” as the “greatest threat to First Amendment speech and religious liberty in America today” and later Anderson, who called anti-bullying efforts “child abuse,” said that Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin school district’s new guidelines regarding sexual orientation will turn kids gay:
Higgins: This is not about sound pedagogy, it will do the exact opposite; it will interfere with intellectual exploration and critical thinking. And I don’t think there is a greatest threat to First Amendment speech and religious liberty in America today than that posed by the homosexual agenda.
LaBarbera: And it just keeps going on and on and they want to go younger and younger.
Higgins: That’s right.
Anderson: They want school children to be bombarded with homosexual references in math, geography, science, English, all of this to promote the gay agenda. I think kids are going to get so sick of this, but unfortunately it’s going to brainwash many of the children with this propaganda and will bring many of the kids into the gay lifestyle as they experiment with this and are told that this is normal and a choice that they can make as well.
During the interview, LaBarbera also congratulated Anderson after she informed him that the Parents Action League was designated as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and LaBarbera repeated his claim that organizations working “to counter the homosexual activist movement” should strive to find a place the SPLC’s hate group list. Anderson, who has warned that “homosexual teachers” are targeting “creative” students and that gay rights advocates will “increase bullying as more kids get into this kind of a lifestyle,” told LaBarbera in 2010 that AFTAH’s hate group designation was a “badge of honor.”
LaBarbera: Barbara, I wouldn’t be surprised if SPLC started labeling Minnesota Family Council or your Parents Action League as a hate group.
Anderson: They already have.
LaBarbera: Oh they did? I’m behind the times. Which one?
Anderson: Parents Action League has been added to their ridiculous catalogue of haters.
LaBarbera: Congratulations, Barb! We decided that if you’re not labeled a hate group by the SPLC you’re not really doing anything to counter the homosexual activist movement.
While some columnists like to believe that it is only people on the “far fringes of the evangelical right” who oppose the Romney campaign’s hiring of an openly gay staffer, now two major Religious Right figures have joined the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer in denouncing openly gay foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell’s employment in the Romney campaign.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in his Washington Update stated that “there is strong evidence that Grenell would lobby” in favor of the pro-LGBT rights stance of President Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While Romney himself is an opponent of LGBT equality, Perkins said that Grenell’s hiring is troubling for conservatives:
Most conservatives have been anxious to see how the Romney campaign would react now that the strongest social conservative, Sen. Rick Santorum, is out of the race. Would the Governor try to fill the void left on values issues or would he stick to his more moderate approach? Some people believe that question was answered last week with the selection of Richard Grenell as Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman. Grenell, who served in President Bush's administration, specialized in the U.N., but the areas where he disagreed with his old boss are what concern conservatives most.
Grenell, who has been very open about his homosexual lifestyle, publicly condemned the Bush administration (shortly after leaving it) for opposing a U.N. resolution urging the full acceptance of homosexuality. While Bush (like nearly two thirds of the U.N. member states) refused to endorse the measure endorsing homosexuality, President Obama signed it shortly after taking office. Since then, his State Department, under the direction of Hillary Clinton, has tossed aside the cultural and religious beliefs of other countries to promote homosexuality as a basic human right, while downgrading the importance of religious liberty. Clearly, the strategy is for the State Department to force these policies (which most U.S. states reject) on the international stage and then build pressure on the U.S. to adopt measures like Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and same-sex "marriage."
In a recent column for the Washington Blade, Grenell hinted at where he falls on the marriage issue when he criticized gay and lesbian Democrats for supporting President Obama despite the fact that he hasn't done enough to redefine marriage. Still others point to Grenell's long-time partner and his desire to tie the knot, "It's not an option for us... but hopefully someday soon it will be." While past performance is not a guarantee of future results, there is strong evidence that Grenell would lobby for foreign policy more in line with the current administration than the last Republican one.
Gary Bauer, in his daily email to Campaign for Working Families members, called the hire an “unforced error” and a “disappointment.” Bauer said he is not upset that Grenell is gay but is angry that he wants to marry his longtime partner, claiming that it would only be acceptable if Grenell would oppose his own right to marry:
Unforced Error, Governor
While Governor Mitt Romney is clearly enjoying a bounce in the polls and a boost in momentum, his campaign still has some work to do when it comes to reassuring the conservative base and values voters. That's why his appointment of Richard Grenell, who worked in the Bush Administration, to be his spokesman on national security issues was a disappointment to many conservatives.
I share their disappointment not because Grenell is gay. He is not weak on defense. In fact, former Ambassador John Bolton is defending Grenell today. Conservative pro-family leaders are disappointed because Grenell has been an outspoken advocate of redefining normal marriage. For the overwhelmingly majority of folks who support Governor Romney that issue is starkly clear -- marriage is the union of one and one woman. But Grenell once caused a controversy by trying to have his partner listed as his spouse when he worked at the U.N.
Thankfully, Grenell is not going to be making policy on domestic issues. But his appointment was disappointing because it comes at a time when the Romney campaign should be reaching out to the conservative base. Instead, this appointment seems like a slap at the base.
Moreover, Grenell is known for having an acerbic personality, and critics have described his comments in social media as being "catty." He may be competent, but he is creating controversies on multiple fronts where the Romney campaign can least afford them.
That said, we should not exaggerate this. Homosexuals were part of the Reagan Administration and the Bush Administrations. Our concern is policy. One of the ways Governor Romney can reassure values voters is to make more statements in his speeches that speak to their concerns about the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage and the importance of faith and family.
Pointing this out does not hurt Mitt Romney. I am making this observation precisely because it is so important that he defeat Barack Obama. There is no path to victory for a Republican presidential candidate that does not involve massive turnout by pro-family voters. The only way Mitt Romney will end up with a majority on Election Day -- and I will do everything I can to make sure that happens -- is to unite economic, defense and social conservatives behind his candidacy.
I am a proud Latina and a proud supporter of LGBT rights.
The National Organization for Marriage seems to think I can’t be both.
In a 2009 strategy document that was made public last month, NOM outlines a “wedge” strategy to drive black and Latino Americans away from supporting gay rights. About Latinos, NOM writes, “Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We can interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity.”
There are many great values that can be put forward as “key badges of Latino identity.” Opposition to gay rights should not be one of them. In fact, if NOM wants to keep Latinos from embracing LGBT equality, they’re already falling behind. A poll late last year found that a majority of Latinos – like a majority of all Americans – support legal recognition of same-sex unions. Opposition to LGBT rights is no more a hallmark of Latino culture than it is of American culture as a whole.
This is the deep cynicism of NOM and other groups that devote themselves to stopping equality for gay and lesbian Americans. They will attempt to exploit and inflame existing prejudices and fears in order to reach the ends they desire. They forget that the people they attempt to exploit have our own thoughts, opinions and experiences. We have our own relationships with God. We have gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender friends and family members. And we know when we’re being used. Nom should learn what Latinos live by, the words of the great Mexican President Benito Juarez, “Respecting the rights of others is Peace.”
NOM’s attempt to stir up mutual resentment between African Americans, Latinos and the gay community echoes some of the most destructive politics of our past. That they are resorting to this kind of dangerous and divisive tactic shows just how desperate the anti-gay movement has become.
NOM’s mistake is to think that our cultural identity is a definition of who we are not and whom we are against. But of course, our identities are definitions of who we are and what we love. Latinos across America are embracing equal rights for our gay and lesbian friends and family. Those of us who support LGBT equality haven’t abandoned our Latino identity. We’re embracing the values that define who we are as individuals, as Latinos and as Americans. Dolores Huerta is a member of the board of People For the American Way.
This morning, the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments of Arizona v. United States, a case that will examine key provisions of Arizona’s infamous and draconian immigration law, SB 1070. If implemented, the law, colloquially known as the ‘show me your papers bill,’ would lead to the unjust targeting of Arizonans through racial profiling and increased jail sentencing.
Because of SB 1070’s blatant assault on civil liberties, much of the nation was shocked by its passage. The United States challenged it in court, arguing that the state was unconstitutionally encroaching on the federal government’s responsibility for immigration law. Four sections of the bill were blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton of Phoenix on July 28, 2010. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Bolton’s ruling, and after Arizona appealed that decision, the case arrived at the Supreme Court, which has chosen to address yet another politically polarizing issue in this critical election year. Although the threat to the basic rights of people – both citizens and immigrants – is the subject of significant concern, the legal issue before the Supreme Court today addresses whether Arizona’s effort to make life so miserable for immigrants that they leave the state is preempted by federal law.
Below is an analysis of the legislation that People For the American Way published when participating in a statewide boycott of Arizona following the passage of the legislation nearly two years ago.
Question: How does the Arizona law, S.B. 1070, expand racial profiling? Isn't it focused only on migrant workers?
Answer: Under current law, state-local police are authorized to enforce federal immigration laws only in limited circumstances. Even so, law enforcement in Arizona and across the country already is challenged by substantial evidence of wrongful arrests, racial profiling, and discrimination. The new law would dramatically expand the problem. Specifically, the new law:
• Increases the scope of those enforcing immigration laws from a few police departments, or units within departments, to every single law enforcement officer in the entire state.
• Expands the population at risk of being stopped, arrested, and detained from a limited number – those targeted by bona fide immigration enforcement operations, or those already in police custody – to everyone who comes into contact with a law enforcement officer who has a "reasonable suspicion" someone may be undocumented.
• Virtually guarantees that Latinos and other minorities will be asked to provide proof of legal residency, and be subject to arrest and detention if they cannot do so, at far higher rates than non-minorities. Research on racial profiling shows that, not only do minority drivers experience more traffic stops than non-minority drivers, once stopped, minorities are subject to higher rates of searches, arrests, and formal charges than similarly-situated non-minority drivers.
• Provides powerful incentives for wrongful arrests, racial profiling, and other abuse by creating a private right of action against any agency that fails to uphold the new law's provisions, while at the same time indemnifying police officers from litigation brought by those who are wrongfully detained or racially profiled.
Demonstrations in support of the U.S. Justice Department took place this morning, and PFAW staff were able to attend in solidarity.
Televangelist John Hagee stopped by WallBuilders Live today where the preacher and conservative activist told hosts David Barton and Rick Green that universities are “poisoning the minds of America’s young people” as a result of Saudi financing of “anti-American” professors. He went on to claim that the US is facing decline because of prohibitions on public school-organized prayer and legal abortion as America “in the ’60s turned our back on the very foundations of spiritual and moral greatness that established this nation and we have been going downhill ever since”:
Hagee: The American people simply do not realize that whenever they pull up to the gas pump and pay, what they’re paying, that much of their money is going straight to Saudi Arabia who’s sending it back to our universities and to interests here who are building mosques and who are sponsoring professors at America’s universities who are anti-American and anti-Israel and who are poisoning the minds of America’s young people at secular universities about the exceptionalism of America, about our destiny as a great people and about our future.
All people need to do is sit down and consider how far we have fallen in the last forty or fifty years. For instance, in 1948 the first initiatives were made called separation of church and state and then in 1960 came the edict that you cannot pray in school, and we thought that would never happen, but it has happened. We now have federal judges threatening to send children who pray at graduations to jail and then came the abortion issue, oh that will not happen, but it did happen, now we have the systematic state supported murder of 4,000 children every day in America’s abortion mills. We in the ’60s turned our back on the very foundations of spiritual and moral greatness that established this nation and we have been going downhill ever since. Now we are opening our society to the concept that Jehovah God is one of many Gods and I assure you the word of God says ‘if you deny me before men I will deny you before my Father.’ ‘Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,’ there is one God, he’s Jehovah God, the God of Israel, Isaac and Jacob, and there is no other.