C4

Perkins: 30 Percent of Characters on TV are Gay; Used to Shield 'Dangerous Lifestyle'

Tony Perkins must be watching a lot of LOGO, as the Family Research Council president appears to be under the impression that gays and lesbians represent close to one out of three characters on TV. “Homosexuals make up 4% of the population, but they’re a whopping 30% of TV characters and storylines,” Perkins maintained on his daily radio commentary today, even though according to GLAAD, “LGBT characters account for 4.4% of scripted series regulars in the 2012-2013 broadcast television schedule.”

The FRC based the commentary on an article in the conservative National Catholic Register criticizing “Hollywood’s powerful homosexual culture.” The 30% figure Perkins cited does not refer to gay characters on TV but to one Catholic screenwriter’s claim that “based on her own experience, [homosexuals] make up 30% of Hollywood’s entertainment industry.”

Not only did Perkins manufacture the “30%” figure, he also alleged that “lovable gay characters” on TV are “make-believe people” whose “dangerous lifestyle is just another funny footnote.” He warned that these gay characters are being used “to desensitize America.”

Perkins asserted that in reality, gays are typically “dying of AIDS” and “bullying kids.”

“Of course, producers don’t show you the reality of homosexuality: the men and women dying of AIDS, or the same-sex couples threatening Christian businesses,” Perkins said. “They don’t cast the Dan Savages bullying kids or the parents kicked out of school for opposing gay curriculum.”

Is marriage headed for a Hollywood ending? Hello, I’m Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. The debate over same-sex marriage has been perfectly scripted by Hollywood. Television shows are full of lovable gay characters, whose dangerous lifestyle is just another funny footnote. Unfortunately for America, those make-believe people are having a real-life impact. In a new survey, almost 20% of Americans credit television with changing their minds on same-sex marriage. And that’s no accident. Homosexuals make up 4% of the population, but they’re a whopping 30% of TV characters and storylines. Liberals are using this barrage to desensitize America and viewers are buying it. Of course, producers don’t show you the reality of homosexuality: the men and women dying of AIDS, or the same-sex couples threatening Christian businesses. They don’t cast the Dan Savages bullying kids or the parents kicked out of school for opposing gay curriculum. Like most everything else on TV, it’s fiction. And the only way to fight it is knowing your role in speaking truth!

President Obama Blasts GOP Obstruction, Nominates Three to Influential Court

Today, President Obama nominated three people – experienced appellate attorney Patricia Millet, Georgetown law professor and former civil rights attorney Cornelia “Nina” Pillard and D.C. District Court judge and former public defender Robert Wilkins – to the influential Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

All three have stellar qualifications. Yet, Senate Republicans were threatening to block all three even before they knew who the nominees would be.

In a Rose Garden speech introducing the nominees, President Obama blasted Republican obstruction and urged the Senate to quickly review and hold votes on all three. “The Constitution demands that I nominate qualified individuals to fill those seats,” he said. “What I am doing today is my job.  I need the Senate to do its job.”


So one of the most important responsibilities of a President is to nominate qualified men and women to serve as judges on the federal bench. 

And Congress has a responsibility, as well.  The Senate is tasked with providing advice and consent.  They can approve a President’s nominee or they can reject a President’s nominee.  But they have a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation.

Now, throughout my first term as President, the Senate too often failed to do that.  Time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay and even block qualified nominees from coming to a full vote. 

As a result, my judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor.  Let me repeat that:  My nominees have taken three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor.  These individuals that I nominate are qualified.  When they were given an up or down vote in the Senate -- when they were finally given an up or down vote in the Senate, every one of them was confirmed.  So this is not about principled opposition.  This is about political obstruction. 

Despite that, some Republicans recently have suggested that by nominating these three individuals, I’m somehow engaging in -- and I’m quoting here -- in “court-packing.”  (Laughter.)  No -- people laugh, but this is an argument I’ve made.  For those of you who are familiar with the history of court-packing, that involved Franklin Delano Roosevelt trying to add additional seats to the Supreme Court in order to water down and get more support for his political agenda.  We’re not adding seats here.  We’re trying to fill seats that are already existing.  Each of the past five Presidents has seen at least three of their nominees confirmed to the D.C. Circuit.  Since I’ve been President, obstruction has slowed that down to one. 

Right now, there are three open seats on a critical court.  I didn’t create these seats.  I didn’t just wake up one day and say, let’s add three seats to the District Court of Appeals.  These are open seats.  And the Constitution demands that I nominate qualified individuals to fill those seats.  What I am doing today is my job.  I need the Senate to do its job.

For more background on the D.C. Circuit, see PFAW’s Marge Baker’s piece in the Huffington Post yesterday, “Five Things Republicans Don’t Want You to Know About the D.C. Circuit.”

PFAW

More Truthiness From Sen. Grassley on the Courts

When the Senate unanimously confirmed Sri Srinivasan to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last month, Republicans patted themselves on the back for cooperating in a relatively efficient confirmation process. But, by any objective standard, Srinivasan’s confirmation process wasn’t that efficient at all. In fact, Republican obstruction of Srinivasan started when they delayed a hearing on his nomination for ten months, from June 2012 to April of this year.

But Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is now pushing an alternate history of this delay on Srinivasan’s nomination. In a floor speech the day Srinivasan was confirmed, Grassley insisted that Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “made no effort to schedule a hearing on this nominee until late last year.”

In a press release this week, Sen. Leahy explained why this argument is just plain false. In fact, he wrote, it was Senate Republicans who kept insisting that Srinivasan’s hearing be pushed back:

By July 19, 2012, I had determined that the paperwork on the Srinivasan nomination was complete and the nominee could be included in a hearing.  It has been my practice as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to give the minority notice and allow consultation before scheduling a nomination for a hearing.  At that time, the next July hearing had been discussed as one devoted to the nominee to head the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice, a nomination that itself had been delayed and to which there was Republican opposition.  During the August recess, my staff asked Senator Grassley’s about holding the hearing on the Srinivasan nomination in September.  They raised objections and concerns about proceeding with the D.C. Circuit nomination at that time but agreed to proceed with four district nominees and a Court of International Trade nominee.

In November, 2012, after the American people reelected President Obama, we raised the need for a hearing on the D.C. Circuit nomination anew.  Republicans objected, again, in spite of the precedent of holding a hearing for one of President Bush’s D.C. Circuit nominees during a similar lame duck session. Instead, they wanted to proceed only with district court nominees during the lame duck.  Republicans insisted that the Srinivasan hearing be put off until the new Congress and the new year.  In deference to the Republican minority, I held off.  They agreed that he would be included at the first nominations hearing of the 113th Congress.

Then, in early January of this year, when called upon to hold up their end of the bargain, Republicans balked.

This isn’t just a matter of settling a complicated Senate score. Instead, Sen. Leahy is pointing out yet another incident of Sen. Grassley’s twisting the truth about judicial nominees and the judicial nominations process in an attempt to cover for slowing down Senate business and ultimately the business of the federal courts. As Leahy says in his statement:

Those erroneous Record statements have me wondering whether I should be so accommodating to Republican scheduling demands given that they forget their demands in their efforts to avoid responsibility and blame others.   
 

PFAW

Religious Right Therapist Claims Crayon Drawings Prove Ex-Gay Therapy Works

During a program on the conservative Christian television network Daystar on homosexuality, ex-gay therapist Jerry Mungadze insisted that he can prove his sexual orientation conversion efforts work because he has observed in his patients that after therapy the “areas of the brain that were showing the homosexuality show heterosexuality…the brain is able to go back and fire the way it is supposed to be.”

But Mungadze – who only has degrees in Biblical Studies and counselor education — wasn’t talking about actual brain scans. In fact, Mungadze’s “evidence” of brain transformation relies on crayon drawings.

Warren Throckmorton reports:

Note that patients color in a map of the brain and Mungadze reads the map like a projective test. Apparently, pink relates to femininity, red to anger/aggression, and so on. He says he can tell gay people apart from straights; and when they revert to heterosexuality, he can tell by how they color between the lines.

Who needs brain scans when you have crayons?

                                 



As for the theory of the brain revealing itself via colors chosen by patients, I know of nothing to support it. Projective tests in general are not reliable and this one in particular looks like a method invented by Mungadze without reference to research or validation.

Rios Warns LGBT Rights Movement Is Transforming America into Soviet Russia

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association hosted Fox News correspondent Todd Starnes today where they discussed a brochure [PDF] from the group DOJPride, a group representing LGBT employees at the Department of Justice, which they said was a sign that the U.S. is turning into the Soviet Union.

The brochure was simply a list of tips on creating an LGBT-inclusive work environment and has no enforcement provisions, but those plain facts didn’t stop Starns from arguing that the DOJ now “require[s] managers to post a symbol, an emblem, showing that they are pro-gay in their office.”

“This makes it clear that it’s not enough to give so-called equality, any objections must be eradicated and this is our future if we allow this to continue,” Rios warned, while Starnes called the brochure “un-American.”

Rios even claimed the LGBT rights movement is transforming America into the USSR: “When I was a girl the Soviet Union was such a great threat to the world, the spread of Communism, and those of us that remember that era we have not forgotten, we just never thought it would happen in our country. I’ve had callers to the radio show who grew up in the Soviet Bloc countries, I’ve had them call weeping to see what’s happening to our loss of freedoms.”

Perkins: 'Investors Flock' to ExxonMobil Because They Aren't 'Fueling the Homosexual Agenda'

Last year, Tony Perkins made the unintentionally hilarious argument that Starbucks’ support for Washington state’s marriage equality bill cost the company $10.2 billion in lost market capitalization. Now, the Family Research Council president is arguing that the reason ExxonMobil’s “shares rose 2% last year” is because “more investors flock to an organization unafraid to take a stand” against gay rights.

Perkins was referring to an ExxonMobil shareholder vote last week that rejected a resolution protecting LGBT employees from job discrimination. By not “fueling the homosexual agenda,” Perkins said, ExxonMobil was able to have “its second-biggest profit year ever.”

Yep, we can’t think of any other reasons why ExxonMobil’s earnings are rising.

At ExxonMobil, shareholders put their stock in something other than political correctness. Hello, I’m Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. It won’t change the price of gas, but it may comfort you to know that at ExxonMobil, your business isn’t fueling the homosexual agenda. For the 14th straight year, ExxonMobil refused to add special protections for sexual orientation in its employment policy. And while the outcome wasn’t a surprise, the margin of victory certainly was. By a four-to-one ratio, shareholders said “no,” shocking liberals and bolstering other companies under pressure from corporate bullies. Liberals say these kinds of views can affect your bottom line — and they’d be right! ExxonMobil is coming off its second-biggest profit year ever. The company’s shares rose 2% last year, as more investors flock to an organization unafraid to take a stand. Maybe Exxon’s courage will help other companies drill down on their priorities. Until then, at least this gas company is keeping our values in the pipeline.

Gaffney: Immigration Reform May Give Citizenship to Terrorists

Frank Gaffney took to the Washington Times today to warn Sen. Marco Rubio that if he continues to support the Senate immigration reform bill, then he will be effectively helping terrorists gain citizenship.

While Gaffney alleged that “illegal immigration is up as untold numbers of aliens seek to take advantage of our still-too-porous border to get themselves placed on the ‘path to citizenship,’” in reality, the flow of unauthorized immigrants is at historic lows.

He writes that Rubio is pushing the “undoing” of laws which “thwart terrorists and dangerous criminals seeking to exploit our immigration system.”

“As Mr. Rubio surely knows,” Gaffney continues, immigrants crossing the border include people “associated with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.” “Does Mr. Rubio want to be responsible for helping their ilk not only continue to come here, but to obtain legal status to stay?”

Like Mr. Obama’s earlier amnesty initiative — the Dream Act — the Gang of Eight bill is already having the predictable effect: Illegal immigration is up as untold numbers of aliens seek to take advantage of our still-too-porous border to get themselves placed on the “path to citizenship.” As Mr. Rubio surely knows, a non-trivial percentage of those are dubbed OTMs — “other than Mexicans.” These include persons from what are euphemistically called “special-interest countries,” notably, Iran and other Islamist-ruled nations. Some are even associated with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah — notwithstanding the Obama State Department’s preposterous announcement last week that there are “no known operational cells” of such groups in the Western Hemisphere.

Does Mr. Rubio want to be responsible for helping their ilk not only continue to come here, but to obtain legal status to stay? Is he OK with the extensive hamstringing of law enforcement this bill entails, which can only make it more difficult to protect us against such unwanted aliens?

Then there’s the screening process mandated by the gang’s legislation for the more than 11 million illegal immigrants already here. It seems designed to delude the innocent, not detect the dangerous. Its superficial, hands-off review bears no resemblance to the 14-hour interview the FBI conducted of Tamerlan Tsarnaev before the Boston Marathon bombings— and even that proved inadequate to the task of identifying and excluding a threat.

Mr. Rubio cannot finesse the hard choice before him. An amendment here or there will not fix the systemic problems with a bill that, at its core, ignores and subverts national security by undoing much of the law put in place after Sept. 11 to thwart terrorists and dangerous criminals seeking to exploit our immigration system. Will he enable it to become the devastating new law of the land?

Tell the Senate: No More Obstruction; Fill the D.C. Circuit!

BREAKING: President Obama Announces Nominees to Fill Critical Seats on D.C. Circuit. Tell the Senate to CONFIRM Cornelia Pillard, Patricia Ann Millet and Robert Leon Wilkins without delay.

PFAW Applauds Nomination of Three to DC Circuit Court

People For the American Way today applauded President Obama’s announcement that he would nominate Cornelia (Nina) Pillard, Patricia Ann Millett and Robert Leon Wilkins to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Today’s announcement is an important step toward filling the remaining vacancies on one of our nation’s highest courts,” said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President at People For the American Way. “These nominees all have accomplished records. They should receive prompt hearings and votes in the full Senate without delay.

“These nominations are a clear statement by the President that he won’t be held hostage by the relentless obstruction by Senate Republicans,” continued Baker. “Nearly five years after he was elected, President Obama has had only one nominee confirmed to the DC Circuit, but Republicans are insisting that fulfilling his constitutional obligation to nominate individuals to fill open seats on this Court is somehow ‘court packing.’ That’s ridiculous. Republican Senators should stop playing political games with the courts and end their mindless obstruction of President Obama’s nominees.”

###
 

College Republicans Tell GOP to Play Down Anti-Gay Views, Sponsor Anti-Gay Conference

A new report released by the College Republican National Committee has been making waves this week for its stern warning that the GOP’s appeal is foundering among young voters. Chris Moody notes that the group explicitly mentioned the party’s opposition to gay rights as a reason why young voters are repelled by the party:

"[T]he conventional wisdom is right," the study's authors write in a section on how Republicans should approach marriage policy for gay and lesbian couples. "Young people are unlikely to view homosexuality as morally wrong, and they lean toward legal recognition of same-sex relationships."



With the culture shifting away from the party's policies, here's what they recommend:

The best course of action for the party may be to promote the diversity of opinion on the issue within its ranks. (After all, for quite some time, former vice president Dick Cheney was to the left of President Obama on same-sex marriage) and to focus on acceptance and support for gay people as separate from the definition of marriage. Where the Republican Party will run into the most trouble over this issue is when it is not winning on any of the more prominent issues, either – the economy and spending. If a candidate is compelling enough on economic opportunity and spending, they may well be able to overcome a difference of opinion with young voters on same-sex marriage.

The authors conclude: "On the 'open-minded' issue, yes, we will face serious difficulty so long as the issue of gay marriage remains on the table. In the short term, the party ought to promote the diversity of thought within its ranks and make clear that we welcome healthy debate on the policy topic at hand. We should also strongly oppose the use of anti-gay rhetoric."

But it turns out the College Republican National Committee is sponsoring the “Road to the Majority Conference,” hosted by Ralph Reed’s far-right Faith & Freedom Coalition, along with other anti-gay groups like Concerned Women for America, the Manhattan Declaration, the American Civil Rights Union and televangelist Pat Robertson’s Regent University.

In fact, some of the GOP’s most stringently anti-gay leaders like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are scheduled to address the conference, and Robertson will receive Lifetime Achievement Award.

World Congress of Families Praises Russian Laws 'Preventing' Gays from 'Corrupting Children'

Last week, End Times radio host Rick Wiles spoke to Larry Jacobs of the World Congress of Families on TruNews about his organization’s summit in Moscow next year. The World Congress of Families is a US-based organization with an international focus, especially on stopping laws decriminalizing homosexuality, and so it was no surprise to learn that Jacobs cheered on Russian laws banning gay pride demonstrations and supposed “homosexual propaganda.” He called the ban a “great idea” and hailed officials for “preventing [gays] from corrupting children.” He even called the Russians the “Christian saviors to the world.”

Jacobs: The Russians might be the Christian saviors to the world; at the UN they really are the ones standing up for these traditional values of family and faith.

Wiles: Well look the city government of Moscow passed a 100 year ban on gay parades.

Jacobs: And the homosexual propaganda—the law in the Russian Duma it passed on first reading, it would ban propaganda to minors, preventing them from corrupting children. What a great idea and the rest of Europe is going the other way, legalizing LGBT propaganda.

Gay people regularly face violence and police harassment in Russia. In fact, even evangelicals in Russia increasingly encounter persecution and discrimination as the Russian Orthodox Church gains clout.

Jacobs also detailed how gay rights advocates, feminists and environmentalists are working together “to break the family apart” and introduce “totalitarianism.”

Wiles: We could do a 24 hour talkathon on the attack on families around the world; do you believe that there is a coordinated plan, attack, war on the basic concept of families?

Jacobs: Absolutely. Obviously there are some at high levels that are quite aware of the strategy, but even those that aren’t are implicitly participating in this strategy because everything that the far-left promotes from homosexual marriage to radical environmentalism to a socialist/communist approach to big government, all of these things require the breakdown of the family. The family, I think it was Chesterton that said that the family is the only natural unit that reproduces itself and therefore it is always a threat to the state, it is always a threat to freedom, to totalitarianism; it promotes freedom and liberty. Wherever you see radical leftists, radical environmentalists, radical feminists and radical LGBT groups all together it’s because they have an active agenda to break the family apart. Rabbi Daniel Lapin said this, it’s not just a Christian concept but it’s Judeo-Christian and it goes across various cultures. Rabbi Lapin said it’s not that they’re stupid and don’t understand what the family stands for, that’s the very reason that they’re against the family because it radically opposes their leftist agenda.

Wisconsin GOP Lawmaker Argues Income Limits on School Vouchers 'Penalize Married Couples'

Wisconsin state legislators are in the final days of negotiations on a plan that would expand private school vouchers statewide (they are currently only available in Milwaukee and Racine). The current deal on the program would cap voucher enrollment at one percent of a districts students, but Gov. Scott Walker and other lawmakers would like to expand them further. That includes Republican state Sen. Glenn Grothman, who told Jack Craver of The Capital Times today that not allowing wealthy families who can already afford to send their children to private school to participate in the program would “penalize married couples.”

One of the major concerns in recent years about school vouchers is that they often benefit families who already have the money to send their kids to private schools.

At the same time, the Legislature expanded the state-paid voucher program to Racine. And now, data show that nearly half of the students receiving vouchers in that city were already enrolled in private schools before the program was put in place.

But Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, an outspoken advocate for expanding vouchers to all people and all school districts, says he believes there’s a good side to higher-income families participating in the program: It promotes marriage.

“I think the major thing is we cannot allow the voucher program to penalize married couples,” he told me in a brief phone conversation Monday morning. “In Milwaukee, we raised (the limit) to 300 percent of the federal poverty line and we began to get more married couples in the program, and I don’t want to back off on that.”

The veteran legislator is worried that current negotiations over a further expansion of vouchers to other districts may result in lower income thresholds for voucher recipients and thus reduce the number of two-parent families participating in the program.

Grothman is the same state senator who authored a bill last year to label single parenthood as “a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.”

Boykin: 'Sexualization of our Military with Social Engineering' Responsible for Assaults

Mike Huckabee hosted Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin today to discuss a report on the rise of sexual assault cases in the military between 2010 and 2012, which Boykin linked to the “sexualization of our military with social engineering” policies like the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell 

While Boykin correctly stated that “there are actually more men that have been sexually assaulted than women,” as we have noted, women represent a higher percentage of assault cases since there are only 200,000 women in the active-duty military.

He repeated the false claim that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is linked to the number of assaults on men. However, CNN reports the 2012 rate “remained unchanged for active duty men” from 2010, the year before the law was repealed.

The two also tied the rise in assaults to the end on the ban on women in combat, a decision that was made in 2013 — before the study’s release — and hasn’t even been fully implemented.

Huckabee: General, there has been such a rash of sexual assault in the military and it’s become virtually epidemic. I wanted your assessment, do you think this has anything to do with the fact that we’ve so liberalized the policies of everything from women in combat, the whole conception of the separation of the gender, as well as saying we’re not going to have any restrictions on homosexuals in the military? Does that have anything at all to do with this?

Boykin: Well I think it has everything to do with it, Governor. We have seen, if I may use this term, a sexualization of our military with social engineering. One of the things that most of the people don’t realize is in a recent survey there are actually more men that have been sexually assaulted than women. We are trying to violate the laws of nature, failing to recognize that these young men and women are at the peak of their sex drive when we try to mix the genders for reasons that to me are illogical and in doing so what we are doing is we are inviting this kind of behavior, it’s not acceptable and it has to be punished and dealt with. But I think that this social engineering has manifested in a number of ways and this is certainly one of the clearest.

Bill Federer: Clinton Used 'Alinsky Tactics' To Realize 'Global Goal of Establishing Sharia Law'

Religious Right historian Bill Federer stopped by the 700 Club today to discuss his column arguing that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was “using [Saul] Alinsky tactics” in her response to the attack on the US compound in Benghazi and hoped to engender a “hurried rush for Americans to give up their free speech rights.”

During the interview with Pat Robertson, Federer said “Hillary [was] pulling back defense troops” and suggested that a “stand down” order given to a four-person support team came from Obama administration officials in either the White House or State Department.

However, the order actually came from the military, specifically Special Operations Command Africa, and it was given because the team would not have been able to reach the compound in time and were needed to secure the airport for evacuation. Even a top Republican aide in the House confirmed that there was no way the special operations team could have changed the outcome.

But Federer won’t let these facts get in the way of his argument that Clinton deliberately allowed the Benghazi attack to occur (or botched the response) as part of an Alinsky-inspired plot to impose Sharia law around the world.

“So the question is was Benghazi just inept actions by our government, was it something to put down negative speech that could affect the President’s reelection campaign or was it an Alinsky tactic to push an agenda to forbid free speech insulting Islam,” Federer asked, “We’re talking about a global goal of establishing Sharia law and we came very, very close to it happening right after the Benghazi attempt with this effort to forbid free speech insulting Islam.”

Of course, weeks after the attack Obama used his address at the UN General Assembly to defend the freedom of speech and speak out against blasphemy laws…which must have been another Alinksy tactic!

Larry Pratt Presents 'Nullifier of the Year' Award to Sheriff Who Warned of Gun Control 'Bloodbath'

Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt is a big fan of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, a group of Tenther county sheriffs who have declared that they answer directly to the Constitution (or their interpretation of it), rather than to the federal government. Unsurprisingly, the organization and the movement it represents have grown substantially during the presidency of Barack Obama.

Pratt often praises the Constitutional Sheriffs in his speeches, and was a guest of honor at their annual convention last week, where he presented the “High Noon Award” to the Milwaukee County Sheriff who took out an ad urging people to arm themselves rather than calling 911. Pratt also presented the “Nullifier of the Year” award to Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, who has announced that he will not enforce federal gun laws in his county, warning that there would be a “bloodbath in our community when they come in to take guns.”

Pratt himself summed up the gist of the Constitutional Sheriffs movement when he told WND:

There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that’s not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they’re going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, ‘so help me God’ – that’s something that they’re all obligated to do.

The nullification movement is growing in popularity in conservative state legislatures – for instance, Kansas has passed a law declaring that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas."

The nullification concept dates back to South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun, who argued that if the federal government did not allow a southern states to “nullify” an 1828 tariff act, they would be within their rights to secede from the Union. Historian Cody Carlson explains, “The unspoken fear, of course, was that if the federal government could levy a tariff to profoundly alter the economy of the South, was the institution of slavery safe from federal interference? Could not the North, in the guise of instituting new economic policies, virtually prohibit slavery?”

David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center, via Steve Benen, explains why nullification has long been discredited:

Nullification was a 19th century theory, identified most closely with South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun, based on the notion that the states created the Constitution and retained the power to determine whether the federal government complied with limitations on its power. This theory has been universally rejected throughout the course of American history by the courts as inconsistent with the Constitution. As the Constitution's preamble makes clear, 'We the People,' not the states, 'ordain[ed] and establish[ed] th[e] Constitution.'

The Constitution's Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is the 'supreme Law of the Land,' and Article III of the Constitution gives to the federal judiciary the power to decide "all cases arising under the Constitution.' States, thus, cannot simply declare that the acts of the federal government are null and void. But, despite the rock-solid arguments against nullification, state governments continue to press the idea that they have the power to treat certain federal laws as null and void. These arguments, while not new, have no basis in the Constitution."

Charisma: Boy Scouts 'Sold Their Souls to the Devil'

In a column for the Religious Right magazine Charisma, Republican strategist Raynard Jackson argues that the Boy Scouts “sold their souls to the devil” for having “decided to make 97 percent of its troop members uncomfortable in order to satisfy the perverted needs of 3 percent.” He writes that “radical homosexuals” have targeted the Boy Scouts as part of their scheme to turn kids into “pawns in an adult game perpetrated by immoral homosexual activists,” insisting that “there will be hell to pay as a result of that bonehead decision.”

When the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) leadership voted to allow openly homosexual kids to become Boy Scouts, they, in that one act, sold their souls to the devil. Consequently, there will be hell to pay as a result of that bonehead decision.

To make matters worse, they decided to continue to enforce their policy of not allowing participation by openly homosexual adults as troop leaders. In its bylaws, the BSA has for more than 100 years precluded homosexuals, atheists and agnostics from being involved with the Scouts. In recent years, pro-homosexual activists have increased pressure on the Scouts to rescind the policy, and they won the vote with more than 60 percent of the 1,400 eligible voters supporting the new policy.



How can you train youth in responsible citizenship, character development and self-reliance when you have adult cowards voting to shift the group’s moral compass to make radical homosexuals feel good?

You don’t give kids choices at that age; you give them direction. Kids should not be used by adults as pawns in an adult game perpetrated by immoral homosexual activists.

Furthermore, when did morals, values and beliefs become subject to the latest opinion poll or political whim? For more than 100 years, the BSA has been very clear in its position to exclude homosexuality, atheism and agnosticism.

It is estimated that gays account for 3 percent of the U.S. population. Assuming that percentage applies to youth as well, that means the BSA has decided to make 97 percent of its troop members uncomfortable in order to satisfy the perverted needs of 3 percent.

Krikorian: 'The Future of the Republic Rests' on Defeating Immigration Reform

Center for Immigration Studies director Mark Krikorian, like Phyllis Schlafly, is trying to sell Republicans on the idea that if they support comprehensive immigration reform they will face electoral doom for years to come. In an interview with Right Wing News published today, Krikorian insists that comprehensive reform would not only “destroy the Republican Party,” it would imperil “the future of the republic.”

Krikorian’s reasoning for this doomsday rhetoric is something we hear frequently from immigration opponents:  that “Hispanic voters and immigrant voters generally are predisposed to be Democrats” because “a party that’s promoting tax cuts is of no interest to them.” CIS, like Schlafly, has been urging the GOP to abandon its Latino outreach efforts and instead focus only on turning out white voters opposed to immigration reform.

Elsewhere in the interview, Krikorian mocked policies that would let legal immigrants stay in the U.S. with their U.S.-born children because “look, they’re so cute.”

How do you think we’re looking on this bill? What are you hearing? Are we on track to beat this thing or not?

There’s still an outside chance to beat it in the Senate, which would be kind of remarkable if that happened. The likelihood of it actually getting through the House is obviously dramatically less. I’m less worried about that part, although what I fear is that the House may pass something small and narrow, but as long as it has the word immigration in it, then Boehner can just get together with Reid and re-write immigration law between the two of them and then send it back saying, “Look, Conference Committee did this. This is what we came up with; vote for it or else.” Most Republicans won’t vote for it, but if Boehner is willing to bring it to the Floor for the Democrats to vote for, with 15 Republicans passing it, then we’re screwed. But it seems to me that’s the thing. In a sense, the whole thing comes down to whether Boehner is willing to destroy the Republican Party or not. It’s kind of melodramatic, but the future of the republic rests on him.

The flip side is that they have taken one part of the family immigration program which is limited and made it unlimited — and that is the spouses and minor children of Green Card holders. So, if you’re married when you get your Green Card, then your spouse gets a Green Card, too. …Also, I put air quotes around this “temporary” employment program; this legislation exempts all family members from the numerical caps on those programs. So those numbers increase dramatically under the bill and they all get to work, too. Of course, there’s no change in the citizenship laws. So all the kids that these “temporary” workers have while they’re in the United States are U.S. citizens and then, these very same people who are pushing this bill are going to say, “Well, we can’t make them leave now just because their Visa expired. They have U.S. born kids and look, they’re so cute. Look, they all have to stay; come on.” It’s just ridiculous.

Final question: One of the ways this is being sold is that it’s a way that’s going to fix everything with the Republican Party with Hispanics — that suddenly, all Hispanics are going to vote Republican after this. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense if you – I mean, after Reagan’s amnesty, the GOP’s numbers with Hispanics dropped. So, what’s going to happen? Is this going to be a big boom for the GOP with Hispanics if we pass this bill?

No, it’s going to be a disaster for the Republican Party for several reasons. One is Hispanic voters and immigrant voters generally are predisposed to be Democrats. They make much heavier use of public services. So, a party that’s interested in tightening up on welfare and government spending is not going to be appealing. They pay much less in taxes. Current illegal immigrants, if you look at their wages — a large majority of them have no income tax liability and that’s not going to change significantly if they’re legalized. So, a party that’s promoting tax cuts is of no interest to them. If anything, it’s quite the opposite.
 

Ryan Dobson: Dictator Obama Might Deny Healthcare to My Dad!

James Dobson’s son and Family Talk co-host Ryan Dobson appeared alongside insane End Times radio broadcaster Rick Wiles last week on TruNews, where the two warned that the Obama administration might deny healthcare to conservatives. That wasn’t the only conspiracy theory the duo discussed.

During the interview, Dobson pushed the discredited claim that the Obama administration blocked military intervention during the Benghazi attack. Dobson also repeated the false allegation that Operation Fast and Furious operation was designed to push gun control legislation and cited a debunked Daily Caller story that the head of the IRS visited the White House 157 times.

But then they turned to spouting even fringier conspiracy theories, including the claim that the administration will act like a dictatorship and abuse the Obamacare law to the detriment of conservatives such as James Dobson.

Dobson: The person that was targeting conservative groups now can have access to every single medical record that’s ever been documented on every American. That is scary.

Wiles: Ryan, do you know about the IRS raid of a California healthcare company and the agents seized 60 million healthcare records?

Dobson: That’s what they’re looking for. And what are they going to do with that? You can’t trust them. Clearly they are targeting people. Are they going to use that to embarrass people? Are they going to use it to deny claims and benefits? My dad is seventy-seven, he’s had a heart attack, he’s had a stroke, he’s had cancer and he’s healthier today than he was twenty years ago. He works out every single day, he eats right, he exercises, he goes to his doctors and yet under Obamacare, if he has another stroke or if he’s got medical complications he is now at an age where they would deny a lot of those claims assuming that he’s not productive.

Wiles: When you go to the hospital they’re going to run a computer check on you: who you are, what your views are, who you support politically and that’s going to make the decision about whether you get medical care. I don’t care if they say that’s conspiratorial talk, I don’t care, that’s what happens under a dictatorship.

Dobson: Yeah, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. You can call it what you want, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. Yeah.

Naturally, Wiles and Dobson ended the interview by agreeing that President Obama is a “street thug.”

PFAW Statement on the Passing of Sen. Frank Lautenberg

In response to the passing of U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, the longest serving New Jersey senator, People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan released the following statement:

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid once called Sen. Lautenberg ‘one of the most productive senators in the history of this country.’ It’s not hard to see why.  Sen. Lautenberg was a true progressive hero, championing issues ranging from environmental protection to gun violence prevention.   He was not afraid to take principled stands on issues that affected everyday Americans, even when it was the unpopular position to take.

“We at People For the American Way are deeply saddened by his passing.  Our thoughts are with his family and friends, and we hope they can take comfort in knowing that America is a safer, healthier, more just country because of Senator Lautenberg’s life work.”

###

Illinois Becomes 14th State to Call For Amendment Overturning Citizens United

With all eyes on Illinois today for a possible marriage equality vote, the Illinois General Assembly took another important action – they called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  Following on the heels of West Virginia and Maine last month, today’s action makes Illinois the fourteenth state to call for such a resolution.

The Rock River Times reports:

“The effort in Illinois was bipartisan, underscoring what poll data have shown: People of all political stripes are deeply concerned about corporations having too much influence over our democratic process. A measure calling for a constitutional amendment was on ballots across Illinois in November, and was supported by three-quarters of voters.”

Indeed, in Illinois and across the country, Americans of all “political stripes” are making clear that they do not want a democracy ruled by corporate spending.  And with each additional state that goes on record supporting the movement to reclaim our democracy from wealthy special interests, that momentum grows even stronger.
 

PFAW
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious