C4

The Best of Bachmann

While her record of championing baseless conspiracy theories and using vitriolic rhetoric has left a lasting legacy in the GOP, Rep. Michele Bachmann’s decision to retire from Congress doesn’t mean she’ll be going away any time soon. As Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Allen West and Newt Gingrich can attest, leaving elected office only creates more opportunities to become a leader of the far-right.

We decided to look back on just a few of the soon-to-be-former congresswoman’s greatest hits, from back when she accused President Obama of harboring “anti-American” sympathies and having too much “choot-spa,” to warning that hate crime laws take away the right to free speech and vaccines cause mental retardation.

Watch:

Joseph Farah Finds 'Little Comfort' In Saying 'I Told You So'

WorldNetDaily founder and prolific conspiracy theorist Joseph Farah has a message for America: “See, I told you so.”

In a WND column Tuesday, Farah writes that he takes “little comfort” in reminding us that he warned us of “radical, Chicago-style gangster” President Obama’s “Marxist connections” and “cover-up of his eligibility problems,” only to be ignored by the “low-information voters” who reelected him.

The result, Farah writes, is “three of the biggest political scandals in American history,” a health care reform law that “will result needlessly in immense pain, death and suffering,” and a president whose “enemies include the Constitution of the United States.”

Farah writes that the only solution, as he has said before, is his upcoming  9/11 day of prayer, which is also being promoted by Rep. Michele Bachmann.

It gives me little comfort to say, “See, I told you so.”

Starting in 2008, there were many voices warning what an administration headed by a radical, Chicago-style gangster like Barack Obama would mean for America. But none of those voices were as relentless and prolific as WND.

We exposed his background.

We exposed his associations.

We exposed his policy positions as a “community organizer,” an Illinois state senator and during his brief career as a U.S. senator.

We exposed the lies in his books.

We exposed the still-unanswered questions and cover-up of his eligibility problems.

We exposed his Marxist connections, appointments and leanings in “The Manchurian President.”

And we continued by exposing what he would do in a second term if he got the chance in “Fool Me Twice,” a book, by the way, as relevant today as the day it was published in 2012.

We hoped for the best, but, at the end of the day, “the low-information voters” prevailed.

Am I surprised Obama is now simultaneously caught up in three of the biggest political scandals in American history?

No.

I’m surprised it took this long.

It’s in Barack Obama’s nature and character to do “whatever is necessary” to prevail over his enemies. And his enemies include the Constitution of the United States.



Will the dysfunctional political system and the dysfunctional media do what needs to be done?

I hope so. But I can’t help but think Obama and all he has wrought on America – including a health-care system that violates the consciences of Americans and will result needlessly in immense pain, death and suffering – actually represent justice for the country. We’re getting just what we deserve – not only because we allowed him to be elected twice, but because Americans have lost their moral bearings.

Obama is only a symptom of the disease that plagues us.

We can’t win unless we recognize that what we are seeing happen to America is part of a divine judgment of those who were given so much, who were so blessed by God, yet turned our collective backs on Him.


Our nation is literally imploding morally and spiritually. Every man and woman does what’s right in his own eyes. The church is asleep.

Do you want to see miracles happen in America? Do you want to see the nation restored? Do you want to see us return to the godly principles that shaped the nation and provided blessings beyond imagination to us all for so long?

I am persuaded this is the way.

I hope and pray you will join me.

If you do, I look forward to saying, “See, I told you so!”
 

Exxon Mobil Votes Down LGBT Discrimination Ban, Again

Today, for the fourteenth time, Exxon Mobil shareholders voted down a resolution supporting an LGBT-inclusive equal employment opportunity statement. With  94% of the largest companies in America already prohibiting sexual orientation-based discrimination and 78% prohibiting gender identity-based discrimination, Exxon Mobil is way behind.  Exxon has even gone out of its way to avoid implementing this type of policy.  Though Mobil Oil had non-discrimination policies in place protecting workers on the basis of sexual orientation, Exxon rescinded them over a decade ago when they bought the company. 

Exxon Mobil’s refusal to change their outdated policy underscores the need for employment non-discrimination laws that protect LGBT workers.  Though most Americans believe that LGBT employees are already protected, in much of our country employers can still fire someone because of who they are or who they love. 

PFAW Communications Director Drew Courtney recently pointed out that on the question of whether it’s okay to fire someone for being LGBT,

“few Americans still think that’s a live question.  Overwhelming majorities of Americans support the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal to fire someone for being gay or transgender.”

But Exxon Mobil hasn’t yet gotten that memo.

PFAW

Harvey: Gays like Bullies and Terrorists, Putting Boy Scouts at Risk for Sexual Abuse

Linda Harvey of Mission America is clearly devastated by the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to allow openly gay youth and in a radio commentary said that the “truly heartbreaking” vote was “a slam on authentic boyhood and manhood” that will have “our children corrupted as a result.”

The Boy Scouts of America embraced open homosexual attraction for boys. Boys can now identify as gay and announce that to the whole troop, and this is OK. The vote was 61 percent in favor. It’s truly heartbreaking to watch the morals of a revered institution disintegrate in this way, and our children corrupted as a result. America, how did we get here? The statement coming out of the Boy Scout organization said that even though they knew this would be controversial, “We can all agree that kids are better off in scouting.” Well, not true. This statement is just as naive and foolish as the proposal itself. No, we can’t all agree that boys are better in scouting, not now. Knowledgeable parents will move their boys at the earliest possible time to a much better organization. Why? Because many, if not most, troops will quickly become homosexually affirming climates either in theory or in real-time practice. This is a vote of weakness and a slam on authentic boyhood and manhood.



Folks, whatever the motivation for this move, it’s insane. Troops are not supposed to be social experiments or, possibly, therapy centers for troubled boys who may be leaning toward homosexuality. As we’ve said here before, kids who have same-sex attractions can change and often do by adulthood. But it is not healthy or right to involve other children with these very personal struggles as confused boys are figuring all this out, or maybe not figuring it out.

Writing in WorldNetDaily, Harvey accused gay rights activists of supporting child abuse and using “tactics that increasingly resemble childish middle-school bullies morphing into terrorists.”

Condom training, cross-dressing troop members and lessons on “homophobia”: Welcome to the new, improved Boy Scouts of America.



Well, “gay activism” happened, and the pressure was apparently too much. It just goes to show you how much influence this lobby has, with tactics that increasingly resemble childish middle-school bullies morphing into terrorists. And Boy Scout parents and leaders who actually believe the pink mafia will stop here are beyond naïve.



As time rolls on, there will be incidents of abuse. Will the Boy Scout organization report these? Let’s not kid ourselves. They just showed how compromised/intimidated/clueless they are. Expect cover-up upon cover-up in the future, eventually resembling the Catholic Church scandal.



The climate of assent will erode each boy’s code of ethics, either quickly or slowly, but it will happen. It will erode the Christian boy’s reliance on Scripture, his relationship with the real, living Almighty God and our Savior Jesus Christ. If he begins to doubt that God actually is our Creator, the One who decided long ago what is good and what is evil, and did condemn homosexual behavior as a sin, and if he is lulled into failing to use the brain God gave him to observe that two men together is observably wrong, this is a boy who is being enabled in truth denial. He is then vulnerable to all kinds of other corruption and, without an anchor, is really no different than any un-Scouted kid in our rudderless society.

LaBarbera: 'God Is Giving Us Over To Our Sin' and Letting the 'Pro-Homosexual Side' Win

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk yesterday to discuss the recent decision by the Boy Scouts to include openly gay members under the age of 18 and the upcoming vote on marriage equality legislation in the Illinois State House. Understandably, LaBarbera was quite despondent and even resigned to increasing gay rights victories, warning that “God is giving us over to our sin.”

LaBarbera: I’ll tell you, I fear for our country, I believe God is giving us over to our sin. It seems that way to me, I don’t have a red phone to the Lord but it just seems that America is on such a precipitous decline, you know God seems to be saying: ‘You want homosexuality? You want abortion? Here, go ahead and have it.’ We’re a free society. The culture war on this issue alone is frightening, how much more resources and money the pro-sin side—which would be the homosexual side, that’s a sin—how much more resources they bring than to the side of righteousness and in a free society the people who bring the most organization, resources, money and people win and that’s what’s happening.

During the program, host Jim Schneider read Michael Swift’s obviously satirical “Gay Manifesto,” the 1987 essay which facetiously talks about gay “private armies” that will “conquer the world” and defeat the “hetero swine,” as if it was a serious political treatise, lamenting that “we are seeing item by item virtually everything that he has laid out here to be fulfilled today.”

LaBarbera called Swift’s piece “demonic” and “shockingly evil,” while even he admitted that it “may have been a satirical essay.”

Schneider later claimed that “same-sex assaults that are taking place in the military are just drastically on the increase” since the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was lifted.” As we have already pointed out, however, CNN has reported that the current sexual assault rate among active duty men has “remained unchanged” from 2010, the year before Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed.

Schneider: That was a quarter century ago, I recall when we first read this back many years ago that people hooted and hollered, they said oh that’s just one wacky individual, but we are seeing item by item virtually everything that he has laid out here to be fulfilled today.

LaBarbera: It’s shocking. It’s shockingly evil, just the demonic price that essay is just stunning. Absolutely. This may have been a satirical essay but it’s shocking, it’s amazing how so much of that came true. I think about the characters on TV, how many people these days tell you every time you turn on the TV set there’s a favorable depiction of an openly homosexual character, it’s like the good guys are the homosexuals and the bad guys are heterosexuals. We see this again and again. Basically, homosexual power has grown exponentially in our culture and a lot of the things that essay talked about are actually happening.

Schneider: Here he talked about the army bunkhouses and just a week ago we saw about the increase in the sexual assaults occurring in the military, especially since the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was lifted and same-sex assaults that are taking place in the military are just drastically on the increase. Certainly line by line the family unit, they say, is going to be annihilated.

PFAW Bids Adieu to Michele Bachmann

In response to Rep. Michele Bachmann’s announcement that she will not seek reelection to Congress, People For the American Way president Michael Keegan issued the following statement:

“Congress certainly won’t be the same without Michele Bachmann. Although plenty of her GOP colleagues are just as extreme, none of them could match her ability to concoct conspiracies and pursue them aggressively, without even a shred of evidence.

“Bachmann has a knack for making headlines, usually for all the wrong reasons. Just earlier this month, she blamed America for the 9/11 and Benghazi terrorist attacks, saying they were God’s judgment. This was a fitting capstone to her years of outrageous and offensive remarks as a member of Congress.

“In her relatively short time in Congress, Bachmann called for investigations into ‘anti-American’ elements within Congress and the ‘deep penetration’ of the US government by the Muslim Brotherhood. She personally led a witch hunt against committed civil servants like Huma Abedin on the basis of their religion. And she recklessly warned that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation, that AmeriCorps is a Communist-style ‘re-education camp’ for the young and that Census forms would be used to gather dissenting Americans into concentration camps. To be honest, that’s just scratching the surface.

“Despite Bachmann’s effort to put a positive spin on her retirement from Congress, that’s clearly not the case. Her ill-fated presidential campaign has come under scrutiny for ethical and financial lapses, and she faced likely defeat at the hands of Democrat Jim Graves. He nearly defeated her last time, and that was before her latest troubles and outbursts.

“I don’t imagine we’ve heard the last of Bachmann, I’m sorry to say. But I hope her retirement from Congress will leave slightly more room for rational debate and turn down the volume of the conspiracy caucus.”

###

Schlafly Encourages GOP to Ignore Latinos, Focus on White Turnout

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly is riled up about comprehensive immigration reform, and she has hardly been hiding the reason why. Last month, Schlafly predicted that comprehensive reform would be “suicide for the Republican Party” because immigrants “come from a country” where they expect “a handout” from the government. Last week, she lamented that today’s immigrants are less patriotic than the “Irish, Italian, Jewish, etc.” immigrants of “earlier generations.” Then, she claimed that Mitt Romney lost the presidential election not because of eroding support for the GOP among people of color, but because “his drop-off from white voters was tremendous” – which is just blatantly false.

But in an interview this week with conservative radio program Focus Today, Schlafly just came right out and said it. Calling the GOP’s need to reach out to Latinos a “great myth,” Schlafly said that “the people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes, the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election.” Schlafly accused the Republican “establishment” of nominating “a series of losers…who don’t connect with the grassroots.”

“The propagandists are leading us down the wrong path,” she said. “There’s not any evidence at all that these Hispanics coming in from Mexico will vote Republican.”

Although she doesn’t say it in so many words, Schlafly is basically repeating Pat Buchanan’s call for the GOP to revive the Southern Strategy, stirring up racial resentment among white voters against Latino immigrants in order to boost turnout.

PFAW and Allies Go ‘Door to Door’ in DE State Legislature in Campaign to Get Money Out of Politics


It was the tiring but rewarding work of democracy in action. 

PFAW Legislative Representative Calvin Sloan recently joined PFAW members and ally organizations Common Cause Delaware and Public Citizen in meeting with Delaware Senators and Representatives, asking them to sign a letter calling for a Constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Going “door to door” in the state legislature, the advocates held meetings with lawmakers about the importance of reclaiming our democracy from corporations and wealthy special interests.  By the end of the day, the advocates were exhausted but buoyed by the positive responses they had received from public officials on both sides of the aisle.

Already signed by more than two dozen Delaware legislators, the letter notes,

“The United States of America’s elections should not be permitted to go to the highest bidder, and yet this is the risk that rises from the ashes of the Citizens United decision. This risk must be abated.”

From grassroots advocacy in Delaware to tracking money in politics legislation across the country, PFAW continues to speak out about that risk.  And as President Michael Keegan wrote in an action alert last month,

“Our national movement to get unlimited corporate and special interest money out of our elections is growing stronger by the day.”

PFAW

Michele Bachmann's 5 Wildest Predictions, including Slavery, Sharia and More

Now that Michele Bachmann has announced she’s not running for reelection, we’re beginning to wonder what Congress will be like without her and her many totally reasonable claims, like that Democratic presidents are linked to swine flu and the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation.

But while Bachmann may be retiring from Congress, her many predictions live on. Here are five of the wildest among them:

1. Obama will impose Sharia law 

As the leader of a group of House Republicans that sought an investigation into Muslim-American staffers of the Obama administration, Bachmann repeatedly warned that administration officials and President Obama himself are determined to impose Sharia law in the US and around the world and take away the freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly.

2. Obama creating slavery, reeducation camps

At a 2010 conservative summit, Bachmann maintained that the first years of the Obama administration was part of an effort to turn “our country into a nation of slaves.” Ironically, Bachmann had signed a Religious Right group’s candidate pledge which said that African-American families were better off under slavery than “after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.” She also warned that Obama will create “re-education camps for young people” by expanding AmeriCorps, an organization of which her own son is a member, and might use the Census to put people into internment camps.

3. God will repeal Obamacare 

After leading an unsuccessful prayer effort to stop Congress from passing Obamacare, she has consistently guaranteed that the law will be rescinded. If not, Bachmann has claimed that the law will “literally kill” people, institute “death panels,” deny health care to conservatives and government critics and establish school “sex clinics” with abortion services. Earlier this month she told James Dobson that “God is going to answer our prayers” and compel Obama to repeal the health care law.

4. Schools will turn kids gay

Bachmann began her political career by working in education issues, and as Religious Right activist, she naturally thought that public schools will teach kids to be gay, warning that soon “all schools will begin teaching homosexuality” and “little K-12 children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural, and perhaps they should try it,” even suggesting that schools will use Elton John music in the Lion King to turn kids gay. “It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay,” Bachmann said at a conference hosted by the far-right group EdWatch, “If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” 

5. God backed her presidential bid 

While on the campaign trail (and after), Bachmann invoked God as a supporter of her presidential bid, and she also called on God to put together her campaign operations. Of course, she finished last among major contenders in the Iowa caucus with just over 6,000 votes, and her campaign team was plagued by infighting and is currently under investigation for campaign violations.

VCY America Host Slams 'Disgusting' Parents Who Don't 'Protect Your Child from the Filth of Homosexuality'

Matt Trewhella of Missionaries to the Preborn hosted last week’s edition of In Focus, Voice of Christian Youth America’s flagship television show, where he attacked gays and lesbians as “filthy.” After quoting from a column by Brian Camenker from MassResistance on the supposedly detrimental effects of marriage equality in Massachusetts, Trewhella said gay marriage “totally changes the entire culture” but that most Americans “don’t care anyway.”

“Your children would be getting perverted in their minds by these filthy people,” Trewhella claimed, before turning his venom to straight people who don’t condemn gays and lesbians: “I have no respect for people who are parents, who actually have children, and have no problem with homosexuality or homosexual marriage. They are the most base people on the planet to have totally abandoned every God-given vestige to protect your child from the filth of homosexuality, to blatantly go along with it is disgusting.”

“It’s disgusting to watch, it’s disgusting to see,” Trewhella said.

Watch:

Gaffney: Obama to Blame for Rise in Military Sexual Assaults for Encouraging Gays & Women to Serve

Frank Gaffney today made the case on Sandy Rios in the Morning that the increase in the sexual assault rate in the Armed Forces is President Obama’ fault because of his efforts to encourage women and gay people to serve.

After arguing that Obama has “savaged” the military with “vigor and lethality,” he linked Obama’s “sexual experimentation” and “social warfare against the military” to cases of sexual violence: “We’re hearing a lot about sexual assaults in the military and the like, it’s not to defend that by any means but it is to say if anybody is surprised that by putting more women and for that matter homosexuals into the military you are not going to get as a result that kind of unacceptable behavior is fatuous, it’s irresponsible, it’s malfeasance.”

The President came to office pledging fundamentally to transform the United States of America and I believe he has gone after every institution of our country, perhaps none with the vigor and lethality of the United States military. He has savaged the resources that it has relied upon to do the job we asked it to do to keep us safe, he has reduced both its numbers and its power projection capability and perhaps as troubling as anything I think he has done much to reduce its stature as a one of the most revered institutions in this country. We’re hearing a lot about sexual assaults in the military and the like, it’s not to defend that by any means but it is to say if anybody is surprised that by putting more women and for that matter homosexuals into the military you are not going to get as a result that kind of unacceptable behavior is fatuous, it’s irresponsible, it’s malfeasance, is what it’s amounts to. I’m afraid that the consequences of all of these steps, whether it’s the social experimentation or social warfare against the military or whether it’s hallowing it out through the budget and other means, the effect is we’re breaking the only military we have at a time when unfortunately we’re going to likely need them more than ever.

Wolf Calls On Corbett to Drop Electoral College Bill: PFAW Press Conference

This morning, gubernatorial candidate Tom Wolf became yet another in a long line of prominent Pennsylvanians of both parties to speak out against the Republican electoral college rigging proposal. At a People For the American Way press conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, this morning, Wolf and Sally Lyall of the Lancaster County Democrats called on Governor Tom Corbett to denounce the electoral vote rigging scheme drummed up by State Senator Dominic Pileggi. Wolf denounced the scheme as a “bad idea,” saying:

"There is such a thing as a bad idea. This is it. It’s a bad idea because it’s not fair…it’s not democratic. But it’s also a bad idea because it’s not smart. It puts Pennsylvania at a great, great disadvantage. I urge Governor Corbett to oppose this law as the bad idea it is.”

Governor Corbett has so far refused to denounce the bill even after more than 100,000 petitions against the scheme were dropped off at his office and hundreds of volunteers went door to door successfully mobilizing Pennsylvania voters in key districts to oppose the bill. Corbett continues to kowtow to the narrow special interests and Republican Party leaders like Senator Pileggi instead of standing with the people of Pennsylvania.

“Since Governor Corbett refuses to state his position on this scheme, we can only assume he sides with state Republican leadership and against Pennsylvania voters. Instead of focusing on growing the state’s economy, he would rather push a plan to disenfranchise millions of voters, gerrymander legislative districts and make Pennsylvania irrelevant in presidential elections. That is not  the kind of leadership Pennsylvania needs,” said Randy Borntrager, political director of People For the American Way.

It’s been clear for a while now that the Republican strategy on this bill has been to say it isn’t a priority, or just entirely avoid the question, not to actually defend its merits- because they know it doesn’t have any. They know it isn’t popular, fair, or right for Pennsylvania, but that won’t stop them from trying to sneak it through. Every day that we wait for an answer from Corbett is another day that this bill threatens the rights of Pennsylvanians. But People For the American Way isn’t going to wait quietly. With our partners in Pennsylvania, we’re asking the governor to stand up and be honest about his position on this bill.

 

PFAW

1000-Day Judicial Vacancy in Georgia

Georgia's senators are keeping President Obama's 11th Circuit Court nominee from even having a committee hearing.
PFAW

Tea Party Nation: 'E.W. Jackson Represents the Future of the Conservative Movement'

According to Tea Party Nation, “the future of conservative movement” is found in a candidate who believes gay people are “sick” and “degenerate” and that Planned Parenthood is worse than the Ku Klux Klan. In an email today, the group’s president Judson Phillips said that E.W. Jackson is under criticism because his anti-gay comments “are popular in the black community” and “that shocks and offends liberals.”

Phillips compared the Virginia GOP’s candidate for Lt. Governor to Ronald Reagan and bragged that “the 2013 ticket for the Republicans in Virginia represents the victory of the Tea Party over the establishment.”

E.W. Jackson represents a threat to the left.

Immediately after E.W. Jackson was nominated, the left wing media in Virginia began pulling out comments he had made, claiming he was too radical and extreme. Jackson is pro-life. To the media, if you are not Kermit Gosnell you are too extreme.

As a minister, Jackson has blasted homosexuality (as opposed to homosexuals). Amazingly enough, his comments on that subject are popular in the black community. That shocks and offends liberals.

After E.W. Jackson was nominated, the Democrats trotted out a couple of liberal Republicans who whined that the Party was now “too extreme” with Ken Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson leading the ticket.

A whispering campaign began that the GOP establishment was upset with Jackson’s selection and they were working on a plan to remove him.

Even the GOP establishment isn’t that dumb.

The 2013 ticket for the Republicans in Virginia represents the victory of the Tea Party over the establishment. The establishment is not happy about this but they don’t have a choice. They didn’t like Ronald Reagan either.

During the convention last Saturday when each of the candidates spoke, they all received applause. E.W. Jackson’s speech got a standing ovation and it was not just his supporters standing.

E.W. Jackson represents the future of the conservative movement.

Susan Collins’ D.C. Circuit Hypocrisy

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins signed on today as a cosponsor of a blatantly political bill meant to deny President Obama, unlike any of his predecessors, the ability to fill vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  

The D.C. Circuit is the second most influential court in the country, behind the Supreme Court. It has the final word on scores of federal laws and regulations, from consumer protections to workers’ rights to environmental protections

For more than 30 years, presidents of both parties have placed numerous judges on the D.C. Circuit:

Senate Republicans prevented President Obama from placing a single nominee on the court during his first term and the first four months of his second, despite the fact that one-third of its active judgeships were vacant. They were so eager to keep the court dominated by Republican-nominated judges that they twice filibustered President Obama’s first nominee to the court, the eminently qualified Caitlin Halligan. Yesterday, after a ten-month delay, the Senate finally confirmed an Obama nominee, Sri Srinivasan, to fill one of the court’s four vacancies. But Republicans are indicating that their cooperation will stop there.

Senate Republicans are not only vowing to block any Obama nominees to the remaining three seats on the D.C. Circuit, they are actually proposing a bill that would eliminate those three seats entirely in order to prevent President Obama from filling them. 

The bill, sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley and cosponsored by every other Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, just gained its first non-committee cosponsor: Sen. Collins.

The bill’s backers claim that the D.C. Circuit doesn’t have a great enough workload to justify filling the remaining three judgeships. However, Sen. Collins’ own voting record provides a perfect refutation of that argument.

Sen. Collins and her allies object to Obama’s filling the 9th, 10th and 11th seats on the D.C. Circuit. However, when George W. Bush was president, Sen. Collins had no such reservations about the need to fill the court's vacancies. In 2006, Collins voted to confirm Bush nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the 10th seat on the D.C. Circuit. In 2005, she voted to confirm Bush nominees Janice Rogers Brown to the 10th seat on the court and Thomas Griffith to the 11th.

Following the Griffith confirmation, which Collins supported,  the D.C. Circuit’s caseload was 119 cases per active judge. If every one of the D.C. Circuit’s 11 seats were filled today --  including the three seats that Sen. Collins wants to eliminate – the court’s caseload would be slightly higher than it was then, at 120 cases per active judge. Sen. Collins evidently thinks that what was a reasonable caseload for the court under President Bush is  somehow wastefully low under President Obama.

Meanwhile, here is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse refuting Sen. Grassley’s absurd claim that President Obama is trying to “pack” the D.C. Circuit by filling its vacancies:

PFAW

Lila Rose Equates Anti-Choice Movement with the Women's Movement and Revolutionary War

At a rally in Germantown, Maryland this week, anti-choice activist Lila Rose compared the effort to bring about “the complete end of abortion” with the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the movement to end child labor, the Revolutionary War and the early women’s movement.

Who says we can’t have an America completely free, with the complete end of abortion? We can have that America. We overcame many things in our history. We’ve overcome many things, from slavery to civil rights abuses in the 20th century to child labor. We’ve overcome many things, even the Revolutionary War to have our independence won. We’ve overcome many things in this country. The women’s rights movement for suffrage. And we can overcome, to defeat the hopelessness and the lies and the despair that says that we need abortion somehow. And it’s happening.

Schlafly: Gay Rights Violate Free Speech; Feminism 'The Most Destructive Element In Our Society'

Todd Akin isn’t the only one urging the Republican Party to move even further to the right. In an interview with Policy Mic, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum says the GOP should put more of an emphasis on social issues and look to conservative firebrands Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee as their role models. She blamed Mitt Romney’s loss on a “tremendous” drop-off in white voters, even though according to exit poll data white voter turnout was about the same as the last presidential election and Romney out-performed John McCain among white voters.

Schlafly, who also revealed that she is writing a book entitled Who Killed the American Family?, called feminism “the most destructive element in our society” and claimed feminists would “really like to get rid of” all men, while insisting that the Constitution has never been a sexist document and people should “stop complaining” about a lack of female candidates for office.

She also made the absurd claim that the government didn’t play a role in fighting the Great Depression and that Mexican immigrants aren’t becoming Americans because they are too comfortable with the welfare state and not voting Republican. Schlafly called the Senate immigration reform bill “suicide for our country” and said Mexico will use it to take over US territory.

On the topic of gay rights, Schlafly said that she continues to oppose marriage equality despite having a gay son, but also seems to be under the impression that same-sex couples can already get married: “Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There’s no law against that.”

She maintained that gay rights advocates are really pushing “an interference with our free speech rights” and warned that “homosexuals are teaching their ideology in the schools, and kids are learning it.”

When asked if President Obama should be impeached, Schlafly claimed that the recent IRS controversy is far worse than Watergate, which she called “just an ordinary little break in to an office,” and added that Obama could also be impeached over his opposition to the Defense Of Marriage Act.

Sagar Jethani: Reflecting on Mitt Romney's defeat in November, Senator Lindsey Graham said "If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts. We're not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough." You disagree.

Phyllis Schlafly: Lindsey Graham is one of the establishment Republicans. They picked Romney, and they have to defend him. There were many, many things wrong with the election and the campaign in 2012. One of them was that establishment Republicans really don't have a ground game. They really don't know how to relate to grassroots Americans. Romney appealed to the people who are well-to-do and traditionally Republican, but there wasn't any outreach from that. And the real block that he failed to get was the white voters — his drop-off from white voters was tremendous.



Who represents the future of the GOP?

People like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee who are not establishment candidates.

What about Marco Rubio? Wasn't he a grassroots candidate?

Originally, Marco Rubio was until he went over and joined the establishment and became their salesman for unlimited amnesty.



Republicans are often criticized for wanting to dismantle the safety nets people depend on. Do you think the government has a role to play in helping those who struggle to get by?

I grew up during the Great Depression, and didn't have any of these government handouts, and we grew up to be what was called the Greatest Generation. The idea of an enormous number of people getting food stamps? Nobody's hungry in the United States. I think we need to build more self-reliance. We need to build the nuclear family, in which the father is the provider and the mother is a mother.



You recently argued against amnesty for undocumented immigrants, saying it would be suicide for the Republican Party because they would all vote Democratic. You don't think that Hispanics resonate with Republican values?

I don't see any evidence that Hispanics resonate with Republican values. They have no experience or knowledge of the whole idea of limited government and keeping government out of our private lives. They come from a country where the government has to decide everything. I don't know where you get the idea that the Mexicans coming in resonate with Republican values. They're running an illegitimacy rate that is extremely high. I think it's the highest of any ethnic group. We welcome people who want to be Americans. And then you hear many of them talk about wanting Mexico to reclaim several of our Southwestern states, because they think Mexico should really own some of those states. Well, that's unacceptable. We don't want people like that.

What do you make of the Gang of Eight's bill on comprehensive immigration reform now making its way through Congress?

It is suicide for our country, and not just for the Republican Party.

...

According to Gallup, the number of Americans who consider gay or lesbian relationships morally acceptable has shot up from 38% in 2002 to 54% today. Is it time for conservatives to get with the program and start supporting gay rights?

No, it certainly isn't. The polls are very defective. If you look at the polls, most of them ask the question: Are you in favor of banning same-sex marriage? Now, we have no law that bans same-sex marriage. Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There's no law against that. What they are demanding is that we respect them as being OK, and that's an interference with our free speech rights. There's no obligation that we have to respect something we think is morally wrong.

Republicans oppose gay marriage by a large margin, with only about 25% supporting it. But if you break down the results by age, you find that young Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage, with about 40% supporting it.

What you say is certainly substantially true, but I think it's a result of what they're taught in the schools. They've been teaching in the schools that homosexuality is OK for years. So the kids who have been taught that have grown up, and they've been made to believe it. The homosexuals are teaching their ideology in the schools, and kids are learning it.

Your own son, John, is gay. What do you say to those who argue that your view on gay rights prevents people like him from enjoying the same rights that heterosexual Americans possess?

In the first place, I'd say it's really none of their business. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. My son is very supportive of my work. In fact, he works for me in the Eagle Forum. He's a fine, honorable man. It does not cause any problems in our family.



You don't think feminism has done some good in raising the status of women?

The feminist movement is the most destructive element in our society. It has done nothing but damage. It has not done anything good for women, whatsoever. The worst part of it is the attitude that breeds in young women in making them think that they are the victims of the oppressive patriarchy. That is so false. If you wake up in the morning thinking you're a victim, you're probably not going to be happy or accomplish anything.

Don't women in this country still have a long way to go in terms of enjoying the same rights that men have held from the beginning?

American women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth. We should rejoice in the great, wonderful country we have. Women have always been in the Constitution. There is no sexist word in the Constitution. It is written for We, the people and every word in it is sex-neutral, like person, citizen, elector, and Senator. I don't know what they're complaining about. You can do whatever you want.

Yesterday, Chris Jankowski, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, said that it's hard to recruit women to run for office because Republicans don't value women as much as men.

What you said is ridiculous, and the guy who said it has been influenced by feminist propaganda. I can tell you why it's hard to recruit women. I have run for office. I ran twice for Congress. Women don't like to do what you have to do to get elected in the same proportion that men do. It's just plain tough: eat all those bad chicken dinners, travel all the time, expose yourself to attack by the other side all the time. And if you get elected to Congress, you may live a couple of thousand miles away from home. There will never be a large proportion of women who choose that lifestyle as compared to men. So stop complaining.

You argue that radical feminists have pushed for easier divorce laws to destroy the traditional family unit.

Of course, radical feminists push for divorce. They think men are not necessary, and they'd really like to get rid of them. The easy divorce law should be called unilateral divorce: it means one spouse can break a contract, and get out of solemn promises made in public before witnesses without the consent of the other party — without any fault on the side of the other party. That is so contrary to American constitutional law. Our Constitution is supposed to uphold the sanctity of contracts, but it doesn't.



We've seen a few scandals unfold in the past couple of weeks — the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the Justice Department secretly monitoring private communications at the Associated Press, Fox, and other news organizations. Do you agree with Steve King and Michele Bachmann that these scandals are worse than Watergate?

Well, of course the IRS scandal is much worse than Watergate. Watergate was just an ordinary little break in to an office. The harassment by the IRS, particularly of those who use Tea Party or Patriot in their titles, is just a total outrage. These groups had every right to get their status approved in a couple of weeks. Instead, they were harassed for years.



Do you agree with those on the right who say the recent scandals merit impeachment proceedings?

I think there are many reasons why Obama could be impeached, but I'm not leading that battle. I think the best way is for Congress to stand up and stop a lot of the mischief that he's doing which may be illegal. The Constitution makes it the duty of the president to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He's got Eric Holder trying to overturn a law that was duly passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses and signed by Bill Clinton — namely, the Defense of Marriage Act. He's not taking care to see that the laws are faithfully executed. That's just one of his offenses.

Blockbuster Decisions Coming Soon from the Supreme Court . . .Will Conservative Justices Twist the Constitution to Subvert Equal Protection?

MEMO

TO: Reporters and Editors
FROM: Jamie Raskin, Senior Fellow, People for the American Way Foundation
DATE:  May 24, 2013

RE: Blockbuster Decisions Coming Soon from the Supreme Court . . .Will Conservative Justices Twist the Constitution to Subvert Equal Protection?

The Roberts Court will soon release major decisions shaping the future of voting rights protection, affirmative action in university admissions, and the rights of marriage for gay and lesbian Americans. In each case, the promotion of equal rights under law in our society is opposed by a conservative agenda that seeks to enshrine inequality in the name of “federalism,” “color-blindness,” or “social tradition.” What is at stake in these cases is whether America continues its journey towards strong and inclusive multi-racial democracy or accepts conservative arguments that undermine constitutional and social progress.   

Congressional Protection of Voting Rights versus “Federalism Costs”:

The Voting Rights Act on the Chopping Block in Shelby County v. Holder

In Shelby County v. Holder, conservatives seek to dismantle the essential machinery of modern voting rights protection, which is the pre-clearance procedure for voting changes in covered jurisdictions. This procedure is contained in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the monumental statutory achievement of Congress in the last century. Chief Justice Roberts, in a near-miss decision on the same subject in 2009, has already expressed the sentiment of his conservative colleagues that the provision now “raises serious constitutional questions.” At oral argument in Shelby County, Justice Scalia offered his view that the Voting Rights Act has become nothing more than a “racial entitlement.” Despite broad bipartisan support in Congress for the Voting rights Act, including Section 5, the conservative legal movement is mobilized for its destruction.

Section 5 obligates covered states and jurisdictions to “pre-clear” changes affecting voting with the Department of Justice or the federal district courts in Washington. This procedure affects states and counties that were the worst offenders against voting rights and has been in place for nearly a half-century. Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment clearly gives Congress the “power to enforce” voting rights “by appropriate legislation.” The Court has four times—in South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), Georgia v. U.S. (1973), City of Rome v. U.S. (1980), and Lopez v. Monterey County (1999)—rejected invitations by states to declare Section 5 as outside of Congress’ powers under the 14th and 15th Amendments.  Thus, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and later Alaska (along with certain jurisdictions in California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota) have had to prove that proposed changes in election laws do not disadvantage minority voters. While the Justice Departments and the courts routinely approve more than 99 percent of submitted plans, the VRA remains a critical stop against laws meant to disenfranchise racial minorities. Hundreds of state plans and thousands of proposed changes have been rejected under the law, preventing a backslide in the project of building a strong interracial democracy.

But the case against Section 5 today turns on neither constitutional precedent nor text nor the facts of political life on the ground, but rather on the talk-show fallacy that a nation which twice elects an African-American president simply cannot contain any states or counties where minority voters face actual barriers to participation. Backing up this non-sequitur intuition are constitutional myths: that Congress has to treat all states and counties the same and cannot distinguish among them based on their records of committing voting rights violations. and that the pre-clearance mechanism in the Voting Rights Act and its “coverage formula” impose far too high “federalism costs” on covered areas (i.e., it allegedly takes too much power from the states). All of these taking points are supposed to justify the Court’s substituting its judgment for that of Congress and to find that Section 5 is no longer a “congruent” or “proportional” remedy, under either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifteenth Amendment, for threats to voting rights.  But the lower courts in this case reviewed more than 15,000 pages of Congressional findings and testimony and were convinced of the continuing need for preclearance to deal with the disingenuous disenfranchising and diluting schemes in the covered areas, including voter photo ID laws, tightening restrictions on registration and at the polls, and racist gerrymanders.  

The arguments against Section 5 appeal to the racial fatigue of Supreme Court arch-conservatives, who are willing to give state legislatures, a majority of which are in conservative Republican hands today, the freedom to restrict voting rights. The pre-clearance procedures of Section 5 are the major obstacle to this goal because they mean that all of the traditional hijinks of Jim Crow politics must be submitted in advance to federal judges or DOJ civil rights lawyers for approval. Rather than placing the burden on African-Americans and other minority voters to find lawyers and make the case against repressive practices after they go into effect, the covered jurisdictions have to affirmatively show that their innovations are not discriminatory or “retrogressive” before the damage is done. As the Supreme Court put it approvingly in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, “After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment,” Congress chose “to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.”

The word “federalism” does not appear in the Constitution, nor does the opaque and mysterious phrase “federalism costs,” which has become the key mantra for the conservatives.  At least four Justices—and we’ll see about Justice Anthony Kennedy—appear poised to use these malleable concepts to override the clear enforcement powers that the Constitution explicitly assigns to Congress through Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court is on the brink of usurping Congressional power plainly granted by the Constitution by thwarting Congressional decisions to enforce the equal rights of Americans to vote and participate in the political process. 

Racial Integration, Inclusion and Diversity versus “Color-Blindness”:

Affirmative Action Walks the Plank in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The ceaseless attack on affirmative action returns again this Term with Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a sweeping challenge to a modest use of race and ethnicity in UT’s admissions process that was adopted to correct for continuing weakness in the numbers of minority students on campus. The twist here is that most UT students are admitted through a policy guaranteeing admission to students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their public high school classes. About one-fifth of the class is admitted outside of that race-neutral policy, and affirmative action plays a role in this small part of the process.   

Most people thought that the lawfulness of such a policy was settled for at least 25 years in 2003, when the Court decided Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, cases testing the constitutionality of affirmative action programs as practiced, respectively, at the University of Michigan Law School and the University of Michigan’s undergraduate program. The majority upheld the Law School’s “holistic” use of race and ethnicity in the process to promote diversity in the educational experience because all consideration of applicants remained individualized and there were no quotas and no numerical targets used in the selection process. (The University of Texas modeled its law school’s affirmative action program after that upheld in Grutter in 2003.) Meanwhile, the majority invalidated the undergraduate plan because racial or ethnic minority status was quantified and treated as adding bonus points in a rigid numerical weighing system, a process that the Court said leaned towards being a quota system. While rejecting the college plan as a blunt instrument, Justice O’Connor found that the kind of diffuse and holistic use of minority status embodied in the law school program was permissible. She thought such affirmative action would be warranted for a period of what she predicted to be another quarter-century. Given that most public universities remained segregated through the 1950s and 1960s, this seemed like a sensible time-line.

The Grutter decision reaffirmed and updated Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the 1978 high Court decision which struck down numerical quotas for minority admission but approved the generalized use of race in the admissions process to promote the compelling interest in having a diverse student body. Grutter was met with relief and enthusiasm throughout American academia, in the business sector, by the armed services, and across American society.

Now, once again, conservatives hope to turn the Constitution against the project of equal rights and equal opportunities.  The key move is to claim that Equal Protection mandates absolute “color-blindness” and therefore forecloses any conscious efforts to build diversity and inclusion into the educational experience of students. But the history of the Equal Protection Clause demonstrates that its Framers clearly contemplated that government would seek to take account of the racial implications of official discrimination in the past to fashion consciously inclusionary policies going forward.   

Equal Protection of the Rights of all Citizens in Marriage versus “Social Tradition”:

United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry

Two significant cases raise the important issue of whether gay and lesbian Americans enjoy an equal right to marry and to enjoy all the rights of marriage. Here, straightforward understandings of Equal Protection clash with an extra-constitutional commitment to the “social tradition” of discrimination against gay people.

One case, United States v. Windsor, deals with the constitutionality of Section 3 of “DOMA,” the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which provides that the word “marriage” in any federal law or regulation—including the Social Security Act, the Internal Revenue code, immigration law, and more than 1,000 others—shall apply only to the “legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.” This sweeping discrimination means that, although hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Americans have won and exercised the right to marry in twelve states and the District of Columbia, the rights, benefits, and duties that they should receive as married people under federal law are categorically withheld from them. Under federal law, married couples who are gay are treated as legal strangers to one another and as unworthy of the rights enjoyed by other citizens.

This discrimination has dramatic consequences. The respondent in Windsor, Edith Windsor, was forced to pay $363,000 in federal taxes on the estate she inherited after her wife (and life partner of 40 years) died, since DOMA prevents same-sex spouses from inheriting marital property on a tax-free basis, a benefit that heterosexual couples take for granted. Windsor won a clean victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which found that discrimination against gay people triggers Equal Protection “intermediate scrutiny” and that Congress could not even demonstrate a valid, much less an important, interest for defining marriage at the federal level so as to exclude from its benefits thousands of married couples in the states.

The other case taken up by the Supreme Court  is Hollingsworth v. Perry, which tests the constitutionality of California’s infamous Proposition 8 ballot measure, which revoked the marriage rights that gays and lesbians had enjoyed in the state under a landmark California Supreme Court decision.  Proposition 8 was voided in a broad pro-marriage decision handed down by California United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, a decision that was reaffirmed on narrower grounds by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which essentially found that California had no rational basis for taking away from its gay citizens the marriage rights that it had previously granted. 

Both cases involve government refusing to recognize the equal rights of gay people, either in married couples or couples who want to get married.  With DOMA, Congress denied the same equal rights and benefits to gay married people as it offers to straight married people, and with Proposition 8, California actually revoked the marriage rights of gay people and prohibited the legislature from ever restoring those rights.  The Proposition 8 proponents even sought to use the measure to annul gays’ and lesbians’ existing marriages without their consent.  The discrimination in both cases is plain to see, all of it justified on the grounds of “traditional marriage” and “social tradition.”

The right to get married as a basic civil right has frequently been  addressed by the Supreme Court, but the Court has never addressed whether that right extends to gay and lesbian Americans, and the Court could successfully dodge the underlying issue here. 

One good possibility is that the Court will strike down DOMA as a naked Equal Protection violation, saying that states need not necessarily extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian residents but that, if states do extend equal marriage rights, the federal government may not discriminate against people who avail themselves of those rights. Pro-marriage forces expecting this result place a high burden of hope on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has written excellent majority opinions upholding the equal rights of gay and lesbian Americans in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). But Kennedy may instead decide purely on federalism grounds, potentially providing a fifth vote to strike down DOMA but preventing any pro-equality legal rationale from having a majority that would bind lower courts in the future.

In the California Proposition 8 case, the Court could say that states that give all of the state-law rights of marriage to gay and lesbian citizens cannot withhold from them the title of marriage; this would affect eight states in a similar situation as California. Another possibility, more remote, is that Justice Kennedy would agree to join the moderate-liberal faction in simply declaring that gay people have equal rights to marry, which would mean invalidating discriminatory  laws still on the books in the vast majority of states. Conversely, the Court might also say that there is no obligation for California to protect the right of gay and lesbian citizens to marry at all. Or, finally, it could dismiss the whole case on either standing grounds—the Attorney general of California refused to defend  Proposition 8, leaving that task to anti-marriage advocates who put the initiative on the ballot—or on the grounds that cert was improvidently granted. There are still many ways to escape the basic issue of discrimination, even though all of the momentum in the states is towards marriage equality and the rationales for discrimination have been collapsing everywhere like a giant house of cards. 

Equal Protection versus the Politics of Inequality

As we await the Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases, Americans should not miss the big picture of this constitutional moment.  In a society that disenfranchised African-Americans and other minorities for centuries and discriminated openly against racial minorities and the gay and lesbian population, we are living through giant progressive changes in political democracy and voting rights, educational opportunity, and marriage rights for all. Yet, in politics, as in physics, every action creates an equal and opposite reaction, and a huge ideological undertow has formed on today’s Supreme Court, which has replaced the values of the long-ago Warren Court with commitments to corporate power over government and government power over people. What is at stake in these cases is whether the Supreme Court will interpret the Constitution to be the instrument of equal protection for all or will twist it to make it the guarantor of inequality and injustice.

* * * * * * *
Jamie Raskin, a Senior Fellow at People for the American Way Foundation, is a professor of constitutional law at American University’s Washington College of Law and a State Senator in Maryland.


 

 

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett Just Can't Find ANY Latinos

Sometimes, Governors ‘say the darndest things.’  In a roundtable discussion hosted by the Al Dia Spanish language newspaper at The Union League of Pennsylvania Wednesday, PA Gov. Tom Corbett let it slip that he didn’t ‘have any’ Latinos serving in his administration.

MODERATOR: Do you have staff members that are Latino?
CORBETT: No, we do not have any staff members in there. If you can find us one, please let me know.
MODERATOR: I am sure that there are Latinos that…
CORBETT: Do any of you want to come to Harrisburg? See?!

Could Gov. Corbett really not “find” any Latino Pennsylvanians to serve on his staff? The latest numbers indicate that there are 719,000 people in Pennsylvania who identify as Latino or Hispanic according to the Pew Research Hispanic Center.  That’s just over 6% of all Pennsylvanians, and growing. 

While talking about representing all Pennsylvanians, Corbett and Pennsylvania Republicans continue to overlook the Latinos all around them. Really, Governor, you couldn’t ‘find’ any qualified Latinos to serve on your staff?  Or is it that you aren’t really looking?

PFAW

Todd Akin Lectures Republicans on How to Win

You know the Republican Party is lost when failed GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin of “legitimate rape” fame takes to the conspiracy theory website WorldNetDaily to lecture his fellow conservatives on how to win elections. Akin, who received just 39 percent of the vote against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in a state Mitt Romney won by ten points, claims that the Republican Party is struggling because it is not conservative enough. Because we all know Akin would have defeated McCaskill if only he was more conservative!

In the column, Akin links secular government to violence, warns that the Democratic Party is turning the US into the Soviet Union and calls on conservative activists to run on their strict opposition to abortion rights, which obviously paid dividends for Akin.

We here at Right Wing Watch commend Akin’s efforts and hope future right-wing candidates follow in his path of disastrous election defeats. After they lose they can always write for WorldNetDaily. Just ask Rick Santorum.

Like a patient with an injury, the Republican Party is surrounded by many advising doctors who prescribe conflicting “cures.” Because, these cures can’t all be right, we should review our history for examples so that we choose the right one.

We have all heard the group of advisers who think the cure is that the Republican Party should become less conservative and more like the Democrats. They fault imperfect candidates who aren’t moderate enough. While no candidate is perfect (including me), this cure doesn’t explain why more moderate Republican Senate candidates lost in 2012 than conservatives. Through the lens of history, we see that the GOP needs the principled identity conservatives afford, that conservatism is a winning platform, and that conservative principles are what undergird America’s freedom. The Republican Party should boldly stand on its conservative values. This is the true cure.



The conservative position is a winning platform. While some argue that Republicans must become more pragmatic to create a winning platform, history says otherwise. The conservative Republican Presidents Lincoln, Coolidge, Eisenhower and Reagan were all very popular. They had a passion and confidence from standing on principle. In contrast, Nixon, Dole, McCain and now Romney were less comfortable defending conservative positions, and were less successful. A “fire in the bones” is more convincing than dry statistics.



The recognition of a Creator is core to conservative belief. Our founders fought the biggest military power in the world because they believed, as Jefferson said, “our liberties are the gift of God.” In sharp contrast, the Democrats last year tried to kick God out of their convention! President Washington, in his Farewell Address, asserted, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Ignoring Washington, our liberal courts have censored school prayer and the words “Thou shalt not kill” from classrooms. How has the loss of these conservative principles been working for us?

From painful experience, our founders understood the importance of limited government; therefore, they gave us a written constitution and the rule of law. Conservatives agree. In contrast, liberals and Democrats show a deep and abiding faith in their all-powerful government. The Soviet Union provided their citizens with food, health care, housing, education and employment, the same things the liberals are doing here in the U.S. The liberal’s blind faith ignores the lesson of the last century. A government that can give everything can also take everything. Communist governments alone killed more of their citizens than those who died in two World Wars. Big government is more deadly than war itself. America’s success has been tied to the conservative principle of limited government.

The founders, like conservatives today, placed a high value on individual life and liberty. However, they paid a terrible price for ignoring slavery. What will be the cost of ignoring the killing of over 50 million unborn Americans? Democrats support abortion and use the power of the government to force everyone else to be part of paying for it, all in the name of “choice.” Conservatives believe that abortion waters down our moral currency and cheapens life.

Finally, our founders and conservatives today stress individual responsibility. My parents’ generation labored and sacrificed to pass on a brighter future to their children. They believed in private property and hard work, and took a dim view of socialism and dependency. The Obama administration is burning over a trillion dollars a year in deficit spending on a $3.5 trillion budget. Our addiction to handouts will create poverty and dependence and leave our children in economic slavery. We must not trade our inheritance of freedom for the golden chains of dependency to the welfare state.

For these and many other reasons, the Republican Party needs to embrace conservatism. It needs to stop apologizing for the fact it stands on principle and needs to stop eating its own. It should boldly communicate that the prosperity and freedom we enjoy come from conservative principles.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious