C4

Fisher v. University of Texas Rally Showcases Support for Affirmative Action

Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, a landmark case that could determine whether public colleges and universities can consider race as one of many factors when making admission decisions. Plaintiff Abigail Fisher, a white woman, alleges that the University of Texas discriminated against her based on her race when she was not admitted to the University of Texas in 2008. Should the Supreme Court choose to rule in favor of Fisher and rescind equality measures that were upheld by the Court just nine years ago in Grutter v. Bollinger, public colleges and universities would lose their ability to ensure a diverse student body.

People For the American Way, along with many proponents of affirmative action, rallied in front of the Supreme Court, stressing the necessity of diversity and inclusiveness in higher education. Champions of fairness and racial equality spoke, reflecting upon their own educational triumphs as a result of affirmative action and warning against a color-blind perspective that the Supreme Court may uphold. Speakers emphasized that individuals are multi-faceted, and cannot be judged solely by an SAT score or a GPA.

Speakers at the rally emphasized that a student must be evaluated wholly as an individual. A person’s race and ethnicity is part of their background and part of what they offer to the diverse university community, just like their athletic abilities or legacy family roots.

While people of color have made great strides in closing the education gap, disparities in higher education remain widespread. Colleges and universities must foster diversity and represent the vast spectrum of aspiring students and professionals. This will only enhance ingenuity, bridge the racial divides of our history, and preserve America’s platform of fairness and justice.

PFAW

Truth in Action Ministries Warns of ‘Maoist-Style’ Instruction in Military after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal

Truth in Action Ministries has released their “2012 Issues Guide for Christian Voters” [PDF], which argues that federal spending on social services “goes against what the Bible says about caring for one’s own and others” and pushing for bans on abortion rights, stem cell research and emergency contraception. The group also warns of “radical judges” and an “out-of-control judiciary,” the “dangerous and destructive” health care reform law and the “false religion” of environmentalism.

But of course, no Religious Right voter guide goes without a section on gay rights, and Truth in Action Ministries tells members that END will “impose the homosexual political agenda on the workplace” and that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has started “Maoist-style ‘re-education’ in ‘diversity.’” The group also claims the repeal law will “violate the rights of those serving by forcing them to cohabit and shower with people who may desire them sexually” and “jeopardize the military’s health and blood supply, since homosexual men are far more likely to be promiscuous and to have STDs, including HIV/AIDS”

In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). But in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the state’s marriage law, and the state began issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses six months later, despite no change in the law. And in May 2012, a federal appeals court in Boston declared DOMA unconstitutional.

All candidates should be asked how they will defend marriage from this radical assault. It’s not enough to say they favor marriage if they also support same-sex “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships,” or “sexual orientation” laws, all of which incentivize homosexual relationships and devalue marriage. They should also be questioned about:

• The proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would impose the homosexual political agenda on the workplace;

• A constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union only of one man and one woman;

• New policies giving marital benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Servicemen and women put their lives on the line. They deserve policies that ensure maximum military readiness and the best chance to win wars and return home alive. That’s why Congress overwhelmingly passed a law in 1993 incorporating as policy the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s ban on homosexual sodomy. But now the federal government has overturned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We believe this is profoundly immoral on several levels. It would:

• Hurt unit cohesion, morale, retention, and recruitment;

• Violate the rights of those serving by forcing them to cohabit and shower with people who may desire them sexually;

• Jeopardize the military’s health and blood supply, since homosexual men are far more likely to be promiscuous and to have STDs, including HIV/AIDS;

• Force chaplains to resign or to jettison God’s Law in favor of political correctness;

• Subject all personnel to Maoist-style “re-education” in “diversity.”

Likewise, Congress should resist any effort eliminate women’s combat exemption.

PFAW joins the “Stop the Greed Bus Tour” in Colorado

 

 

The "Stop the Greed" bus tour rolled into Denver, Colorado today and helped boost support for an important state ballot question on corporate political donations. PFAW’s Colorado Coordinator Ellen Dumm joined Elena Nunez of Colorado Common Cause (pictured above) and Luis Toro of Ethics Watch in support of the bus tour and a ballot initiative to overturn Citizens United.

On Election Day, Colorado voters will have a chance to say “no” to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited corporate campaign donations, by voting for Amendment 65. The ballot measure calls for the Colorado congressional delegation to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

The Stop the Greed Bus Tour is traveling to states to get the word out about how the billionaire oilmen Koch brothers are pouring millions of dollars into the 2012 elections in an effort to bolster their extreme right-wing agenda.

The Koch brothers have also bankrolled the controversial conservative group True the Vote, which has been accused of challenging eligible voters at the polls and disrupting elections.

 

PFAW

Gary Bauer Attacks Sandra Fluke over Shooting of Pakistani Education Activist

Fourteen year-old Pakistani girl Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by a Taliban militant yesterday, targeting her because she is an outspoken advocate for the rights of women in education. Religious Right activist Gary Bauer, who has built his career attacking the rights of Muslim-Americans and women, is using the tragic incident to attack Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who was lambasted and denigrated by right-wing talk show hosts for supporting the inclusion of contraception coverage in insurance plans.

Bauer suggested in an email for the Campaign for Working Families that Fluke won’t condemn the attempted murder of the women’s rights activist (which she actually has done) and hoped that the shooting will make Fluke reconsider her women’s rights advocacy in the U.S. Bauer said he wonders “what Fluke thinks about Malala Yousafzai” and “predict[s] Sandra Fluke will not take time out from her crusade for free birth control to condemn radical Islam.” “Women all over the Islamic world face brutal persecution, but the American left hates us and hurls its bile at conservatives,” Bauer maintained.

For over a year, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, radical feminists and their media allies have promoted the idea that there is a conservative "war on women." We have seen poor "victims" like Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke whine about how expensive her birth control pills are and how mean Republicans don't want to pay for them.

I wonder what Fluke thinks about Malala Yousafzai. She is a 14 year-old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by an Islamic "warrior" who walked onto her school bus yesterday in the city of Mingora. The Taliban quickly claimed "credit" for the shooting.

Malala did not make a movie critical of Mohammed or try to convert to Christianity. She simply said publicly that girls should be able to go to school. For that she clings to life today in a Pakistani hospital.

I predict there will be no Islamic mobs in the streets protesting the distortions of their faith. I predict Sandra Fluke will not take time out from her crusade for free birth control to condemn radical Islam. I predict Planned Parenthood will continue its multi-million-dollar ad campaign accusing conservatives of wanting to take away its right to destroy innocent unborn children.

Women all over the Islamic world face brutal persecution, but the American left hates us and hurls its bile at conservatives.

Kengor: Obama 'Change' Platform Appeared 'Almost Verbatim' in Frank Marshall Davis Column

Grove City College historian Paul Kengor had the good fortune this year to release “The Communist,” his biography of President Obama’s early mentor Frank Marshall Davis, just as director Joel Gilbert started promoting “Dreams From My Real Father,” a mysteriously well-funded film claiming that Davis was in fact Obama’s biological father. Gilbert has not only helped boost interest in Kengor’s object of study, he has succeeded in making Kengor by far the most reasonable person on the Right’s Frank Marshall Davis beat.

In an interview with Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Radio this week, Kengor declined to comment on the veracity of Gilbert’s “real father” hypothesis. But like Gilbert, Kengor is convinced that Davis was a bigger influence on Obama’s thinking than the mainstream media will admit. One example, he told Schlafly, are Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan of “Change” and his 2012 slogan of “Forward,” in which he sees “remarkable” similarities with Davis’ writing. He points to a 1946 column by Davis which contains “almost verbatim the Obama platform for 2008”:



Schlafly: I want to be clear about this, Paul. Nobody’s saying President Obama is a Communist, but there’s no question about the man who had the biggest influence on his life, Frank Marshall Davis. He was a real, honest to goodness Communist who had a membership card issued by the Communist Party. And in those days, a certain number of people actually did that. But today, when you read and hear Obama’s speeches, it’s kind of like it’s an echo of the many things that Frank Marshall Davis wrote in communist publications. What are some of those, and do they remind you of Frank Marshall Davis and you kind of think those are wordings that, goals that kind of hung around in his subconscious for years?

Kengor: They do, Phyllis, they remind me very much so of Frank Marshall Davis. And I have to say, as a scholar, I can’t say that, ‘Well, Obama said A and that’s because Davis believes in B.’ But, well, you look at these things and they’re remarkably similar. The constant use of class warfare, of class rhetoric. Some of these seem to be beyond the sort of standard similarities that you would see, just because Obama and Davis are both on the left. I’ll give you just another example. Obama, of course, ran under the mantra of ‘Change’ in 2008, ‘Hope and Change.’ Well, the very first column that Frank Marshall Davis wrote for the Chicago Star…

Schlafly: A Communist paper.

Kengor: Yes, a Communist paper. This is the kick-off column, and he wrote a piece, this was July 6, 1946, and it was called “Those Radicals of ’76.” And in that column, Frank Marshall Davis talked about the importance of advancing, quote, ‘fundamental change,’ unquote, in America. America needs to be ‘transformed through fundamental changed.’ And that’s almost verbatim the Obama platform for 2008. And Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan, which is simply, ‘Forward,’ I found on the front page of the Chicago Star, very top, right below the masthead, Frank Marshall Davis using that same slogan. One of them says, ‘Bravely Forward!” exclamation mark. So, could this just be a coincidence? Yeah, sure I guess it’s possible that it’s a coincidence. But you look at all the long list and the rhetoric and you look at that and you say, ‘Well, it seems like it might be more than just a coincidence.’

FRC Partners with Church that Urged Members to ‘Actively Pray and Work for the Defeat of Barack Obama’

FRC president Tony Perkins and vice presidents Jerry Boykin and Kenyn Cureton are heading to Catalina Foothills Church in Tucson, Arizona for “Recapture America.” Cosponsors include the Center for Arizona Policy, the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) and the church’s Christian Impact Committee. Recently the church claimed [PDF] that Obama is pushing a “reprioritization in human rights policy in favor of the advancement of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights” that is contributing to a “global crisis in religious liberty” and likened Obama to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein.

During his Sunday sermon, Rev. Allen Cooney called on members of the church to “actively pray and work for the defeat of Barack Obama” in the upcoming election as he is an “enemy” of Christianity and religious freedom.

Of course that shouldn’t be a surprise as Perkins believes it is a sin for a Christian to vote for Obama and Boykin thinks Obama is using health care reform to create a personal Brownshirt army.

‘Dreams From My Real Father’ Director’s New Project: Obama’s Secret Muslim Wedding Ring

WorldNetDaily’s intrepid birther Jerome Corsi is out with a new report today, in which he uncovers that President Obama’s wedding band is actually inscribed with the Arabic for “There is no god except Allah.”

Corsi’s source for this revelation? None other than all-purpose anti-Obama conspiracy theorist Joel Gilbert. Gilbert has recently achieved some success with his film “Dreams From My Real Father,” in which he claims that the president’s real father was labor activist and communist organizer Frank Marshall Davis. The film is currently being sent to households around Ohio, with the help of an undisclosed source of funding, and recently received the enthusiastic endorsement of the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party. Gilbert, apparently, believes that Obama is not only a hard-core Marxist, but also a secret Muslim:


"Dreams from My Real Father” producer Joel Gilbert, an Arabic speaker and an expert on the Middle East, was the first to conclude that Obama’s ring, reportedly from Indonesia, bore an Islamic inscription



Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, an expert on Islamic history, noted Obama wore the ring during his high-profile speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, in the first months of his presidency.

“Now we have a new context for what Obama meant when he told the Islamic audience in Cairo that he has ‘known Islam on three continents,” Gilbert said. “He also told the Cairo audience that he considered it part of his responsibility as president of the United States ‘to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ All religious Muslims are by definition required to defend Islam.”

Before he turned his attention to the president’s supposed Communist genetics, Gilbert directed a number of Bob Dylan documentaries and “Atomic Jihad,” a film accusing President Obama of appeasing Iran.

Corsi has previously speculated that the same ring, which the president has been pictured wearing before his marriage to Michelle Obama, is proof that he was once married to his male Pakistani roommate.

PFAW Calls on Romney to Come Clean About His Anti-Choice Agenda

In a meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board yesterday, Gov. Mitt Romney stated, "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” People For the American Way today is calling on Romney to clarify his position on a woman’s right to choose.

Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way, said:


“Mitt Romney has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and has even stated that women have no constitutional right to contraception. He supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers to deny their employees any health benefit that they decide is immoral. He has promised to ‘get rid of’ Planned Parenthood. He has vowed to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which jeopardizes women’s health programs abroad in order to appease anti-choice activists. Either Romney has changed his position on these issues, or he is lying about the content of his agenda. Either way, voters deserve to know  the truth about Romney's anti-choice agenda.”

###

The Romney Court: Losing Your Rights Has Never Been Easier!

This is Justice Antonin Scalia, who Mitt Romney and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown both hold up as their model Supreme Court Justice, discussing his approach to some thorny Constitutional issues:

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state”

Looking forward to seeing your rights eliminated with “ease” by the Supreme Court? We have just the candidate for you.

PFAW

Joyner Hopes Romney will Fulfill the 'White Horse Prophecy'

Rick Joyner has been optimistic about Mitt Romney’s chances at winning the presidency lately and floated the idea that Romney may even be the fulfillment of the “White Horse Prophecyduring an appearance on Jim Bakker’s show.  After agreeing with Bakker that the differences between Mormonism and Christianity are merely minor ones, Joyner suggested that a prophecy that Mormons would save the U.S. in its darkest hour may be realized in Romney. While Joyner sounded hopeful about that possibility since it would mean Obama’s defeat, the prophecy, which has not been accepted by the LDS Church, goes on to suggest that “Mormons will control the government.”

Watch:

Harvey: California is 'Helping Troubled Youth Feel Comfortable with Deviance' by Barring 'Ex-Gay' Therapy

With lawsuits challenging and calls to defy California’s new law barring the use of dangerous and unproven sexual orientation conversion therapy on minors, Mission America’s Linda Harvey today argued that the law violates the teachings of Jesus and is meant to make “troubled youth feel comfortable with deviance.” Harvey earlier described the proposal as “seriously evil” and, like one of her radio show’s guests, lamented that school counselors in California cannot perform such therapy on gay and lesbian students.

If a teen is struggling with homosexual feelings or gender confusion and has been convinced he or she may have been born gay, counselors in California will not be able to tell them there is no science to back that up nor to warn them and help them to begin to change these feelings. Many people have overcome homosexual desires but in California such advice will not be coming from school counselors or other therapists a parent might choose, instead they will be helping troubled youth feel comfortable with deviance.



Religious freedoms are being assaulted by the left regularly now and every Christian family needs to stay informed to understand what is happening. We always have a choice to believe God, in season or out. In the Bible, homosexuality is always a sin and there’s no indication our Lord acknowledges anything like a homosexual orientation. Yes people can have persistent struggle with the same sin but are we ever supposed to adopt a sin identity? No. We are supposed to flee sexual immorality and we are also warned by Jesus not to draw children into sin. But when government tells people they must allow their children to be led into homosexual sin, it is definitely time for new leadership.

Judge Cebull to Step Down from Full-Time Status

The U.S. Courts website posted an update this morning that Judge Richard Cebull, Chief U.S. District Judge for Montana, will take senior status in March of 2013. Cebull is currently the subject of a misconduct review by the Judicial Council of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Senior status is a form of semi-retirement where a judge vacates his or her seat and continues to hear some cases, but typically not a full caseload. The status provides a full salary for part-time work.

People For the American Way president Michael Keegan released the following statement:

“Judge Cebull should resign or retire, not take senior status. He used his official email account to send an incredibly disgusting and racist email. When asked why, he said he sent it because he opposes the President.

“Americans expect the courts to be fair, impartial, and open to all. Cebull clearly demonstrated that he does not have the temperament to serve as a federal judge, period.

“Cebull may hope that taking senior status before the misconduct review concludes will help him avoid sanction. But he should be held accountable by the 9th Circuit regardless of his status.

“Taking senior status is a half-measure that allows Cebull to continue hearing cases. That’s not appropriate. He should resign or retire immediately.”

#####

A Movement’s Katrina Moment

Romney's comments about the 47% are a clarifying moment that can forever change how Americans view him, his party, and the corporate right.
PFAW

What Is Todd Akin Hiding? Campaign Breaks Promise to Release Details of Candidate's Arrest

On Thursday, we released a video of Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin telling an audience that he had once been arrested for blocking access to a reproductive health clinic. At a press conference the following day in Kansas City, Akin told the Associated Press that he had been arrested “about 25 years ago or so,” and a campaign aide “promised to provide details of the arrest later Friday.” But the campaign failed to come through.

Gohmert: Obama Administration is 'Getting Advice' from 'People who are in the Muslim Brotherhood'

Fresh after his speech insisting that President Obama is reestablishing the Ottoman Empire, Texas congressman Louie Gohmert told anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney that the Obama administration is “getting advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood from people who are in the Muslim Brotherhood.” He claimed that the Obama administration is sending money to “radical jihadists” in order to “buy [them] off,” not understanding that they can only use “raw power” against those who worship “a radical, mean-spirited, hateful Allah that these people that twist Islam believe in.”

Gohmert, who signed letters with Michele Bachmann calling for an anti-Muslim witch hunt within the administration that were ultimately rejected but lauded by Gaffney and Newt Gingrich, charged that Muslim Brotherhood agents may be the ones shaping Obama’s foreign policy. Gohmert claimed that Muslim Brotherhood operatives are involved in Janet Napolitano’s “super-secret, trusted, Homeland Security advisory council” but said she won’t give him the names. He also criticized Napolitano for allowing an Egyptian lawmaker to meet with members of the U.S. government in Washington, even after he was vetted by Homeland Security, the State Department and the Secret Service, because he is a member of a political party tied to a listed terrorist organization that has since renounced violence.

Gohmert: This administration thinks they’re going to buy off bullies, radical jihadists who want to destroy our way of life, they don’t understand that when you try to pay off a bully that wants to hurt you, not only do they not love you but they don’t respect you, they have more contempt for you, and this administration does not get that the only thing they understand is raw power and response that kills them and their beliefs of a radical, mean-spirited, hateful Allah that these people that twist Islam believe in. It tells them, ‘ah, Allah must not like what we’re doing’ because the United States had just overwhelmed and kill all of those who were trying to kill them.

Gaffney: Congressman, I mentioned that Newt Gingrich called you one of the National Security Five. That was in connection with a series of letters that you and Michele Bachmann and others sent out back in June asking about people who are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the prime mover behind much of this jihadism around the world, inside our government. You’ve not gotten answers to those inquires as I understand it, but as I understand it against the backdrop of this bewildering response by the administration, do you think that that may have something to do with the influence operations that these sorts of people are running inside the wire of our government?

Gohmert: I think it tells us very clearly that we are getting advice from people who are either A) intentionally misinforming them or misadvising them, or B) they are getting information from people that don’t have a clue about how to deal with our problem. It certainly is consistent, Janet Napolitano as you recall could not even tell me how many of her super-secret, trusted, Homeland Security advisory council or counter-violent extremism working group were actually Muslim Brotherhood. She didn’t know. When I brought up the fact that immediately before that there was a member of a known terrorist organization that had been allowed in the White House, she wasn’t even aware of it, she said that wasn’t true, but the next day when she was testifying before the Senate all the sudden she’d become aware of it and was able to talk about it but said ‘oh well he was vetted a number of times.’ These people have no idea what’s really going on, they are getting terrible advice from whomever and it certainly consisted with them getting advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood from people who are in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Randy Thomasson: 'Gay Rights are Antithetical to a Free Society' and the 'Devil's Work'

Save California’s Randy Thomasson went on yet another anti-gay tirade while appearing on The Janet Mefferd Show, this time excoriating gay rights advocates for successfully pushing a new law in California that puts limits on harmful and discredited sexual orientation conversion therapy. He claimed that the Democrats who backed the measure decided “to do the Devil’s work” and “to go against religious freedom, against free speech, against the freedom to even love your own child and care for your own child.” He argued that LGBT people were likely abused as children but because of the new law, parents will be prohibited by the “completely insane” law from providing counseling to a child who survived sexual abuse.

Let’s talk about hepatitis, let’s talk about HPV, let’s talk about a whole host of sexually transmitted diseases, let’s talk about higher cancer rates for homosexual men, let’s talk about earlier deaths for homosexual men; you’ve got to realize the harm of children going into this lifestyle, it puts them at greater risk of all of these ills. Again, the Democrats are saying ‘no, no, no,’ we want to go with our homosexual activist friends, our volunteers, our political supporters, we are going to go against religious freedom, against free speech, against the freedom to even love your own child and care for your own child, and we are going to do the Devil’s work here and that exactly what’s been done.



To label something that is helping the child overcome a conflict, the feelings that have resulted from trauma, you cannot say that it’s harmful to be helpful to a child deal with trauma, it’s absolutely opposite of that. So the state is coming in to say ‘let’s push aside parental rights, this is a health or safety issue’ is completely bonkers, it’s calling black white and white black, it’s calling right wrong and wrong right, it’s completely insane and it’s very angering to think about the child who belongs to the parents and the parents have a God-given right to seek what’s best for that child and if the child’s been molested at a camp or somewhere else, the parent wants counseling for the gender-confusion that’s resulted, even if the parent wants the counseling, even if the parent pays for the counseling, even if the parent finds the counseling, the state says to the parent ‘you can’t do that’ and tells the molested child ‘no help for you.’

Later, Thomasson said that gay rights supporters want to “wipe out all the competition” by placing limits on the pseudo-scientific practice, warning that next the state might decide to ban vaccinations or chemotherapy. He concluded by telling Mefferd that gays and lesbians should not receive civil rights protections since they can change their sexual orientation as “people get out of addictions in America when they work at it and try,” calling gay rights “dangerous for America” and “antithetical to a free society.”

Look at what we have in our society, we have conflicts in society, we have disagreements in society, but do we allow those who are in power to wipe out all competition? In fact, we have rules about companies can’t have a monopoly, right? The US Supreme Court has been involved in those types of rulings. But here we see that a rival, homosexual activists say ‘we want to wipe out our rivals here,’ look if something is controversial then you can’t wipe it out, otherwise, you have to apply the same rule: let’s wipe out regressive therapy, which is controversial, let’s wipe out tarot card therapy, let’s wipe out chiropractic care, let’s wipe out vaccinations, let’s wipe out chemotherapy, see you can’t in a free society get rid of all controversies, you have to allow controversy and disagreement within a free society.



Homosexuality is not biologically based, we’ve never heard bisexuality or transsexuality is biological, it’s obviously a chosen thing. But when you look at what has happened is it’s been turned into a minority even though a minority civil rights protected class requires that there be an immutable, non-changeable, characteristic. We have thousands and thousands of former homosexuals, showing that change occurs; people get out of addictions in America when they work at it and try. Now we have this turned into a hammer upon everyone else; ‘gay rights’ defeats and trumps everyone else’s rights who disagree and that’s why it’s so dangerous for America, gay rights are antithetical to a free society.

Paul Ryan Promises Focus on the Family that He Will Fight Gay Equality

During an interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights. Focus on the Family and its founder James Dobson have a long history of promoting anti-gay policies and ex-gay therapy, and earned a shout-out from Romney earlier this week while campaigning in Colorado, where it is headquartered.

While Romney has moved in his career from backing gay rights to becoming a vocal foe, Ryan has a solidly anti-gay voting record in Congress. Ryan told Daly, whose political arm has been spending money on behalf of Romney and a number of other Republican candidates like Todd Akin, that the ticket is firmly against same-sex marriage and that he was a “big supporter” of a 2006 amendment which enshrined marriage discrimination into the Wisconsin state constitution. He also said the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act hurt the “rule of law” and “contradicts our system of government,” however, a number of presidents including George W. Bush have not defended statutes they deemed unconstitutional.

Daly: Focus on the Family has been behind the scenes working for years to defend marriage and to speak out for marriage and the importance of marriage. I think thirty-two out of thirty-two states where we have helped put a ballot initiative or some other mechanism in front of the people, we have won that thirty-two out of thirty-two times. It seems like when it’s in front of the people they vote for it, if it’s the state-level judges they will try to do it by fiat or if it is simply some other mechanism, the State House passes it without the vote of the people. For the Romney-Ryan ticket, when you look at marriage, what do we need to do in the culture to lift up and strengthen the very core building block of society and that’s family.

Ryan: It’s the foundation for society and for family for thousands of years. First of all, Mitt Romney and I — I’ll just say it, it’s worth repeating — we believe marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s number one. Number two, you know where I come from we had one of those amendments in Wisconsin, I was a big supporter of it and we passed it like you say, where it’s put on the ballot it passes. The second point is, President Obama gave up defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, I mean, not only is this decision to abandon this law the wrong decision, it passed in a bipartisan manner, it is very troubling because it undermines not only traditional marriage but it contradicts our system of government. It’s not the president’s job to pick and choose which laws he likes. A Romney administration will protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves.

Jerome Corsi Continues his 'Obama is Gay' Crusade

In 2004, conservative political commentators hailed Jerome Corsi’s book on John Kerry’s military service, Unfit for Command, as a serious and devastating work despite the book’s factual shortcomings. Now targeting President Obama, Corsi has dedicated his career to peddling birther conspiracies. But with the birther movement’s efforts to declare Obama ineligible to be president going nowhere, Corsi is now arguing that Obama is secretly gay and was married to another man.

In his latest “report” for WorldNetDaily, Corsi ponders whether Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s church in order to meet other men at “The Down Low Club,” all confirmed by a source identified as “Carolyn,” who said Wright “helped Obama hide his homosexuality” and warned that people may have been killed to cover-up Obama’s dark, gay past.

Over the past several months, WND investigators have interviewed a number of members of the church who claim the president benefited from Wright’s efforts to help black men who engage in homosexual activity appear respectable in black society by finding them a wife.



The Down Low Club at Trinity “doesn’t have meetings, and it isn’t like the Rotary Club,” a source identified for this article as “Carolyn” explained to a WND investigator in Chicago.

“It was more that Wright served as a matchmaker,” said Carolyn, a 20-year member of Trinity who has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally.



“Trinity was a chance to network,” she said. “The stuff preached was hateful, but about 70 percent of those who go there ignore the radical rhetoric and just trying to get ahead.”

Carolyn said Trinity “helped a lot of blacks get successful and connected.”

“That’s what Wright did for Obama,” she claimed. “He connected Obama in the community, and he helped Obama hide his homosexuality.”



“I’m still scared to discuss any of this,” Carolyn said.

“At Trinity, if you even hint at talking about Obama being gay, you are reminded of our dear departed choir director,” she said. “He was killed, and it wasn’t a robbery. The Christmas presents weren’t touched. The TV was not taken, nothing in the apartment was missing.”

Poll: Americans Fear Romney Would Further Shift Supreme Court Toward Big Business

Survey finds high court is a significant factor for voters

A newly released Hart Research Associates poll indicates that Americans fear that if Mitt Romney is elected president, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will shift the court even more in favor of big business at the expense of everyday Americans. Hart also found that the Supreme Court is a significant factor for voters in the upcoming election.

The poll was conducted for the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and People for the American Way. It consisted of a national online survey of 1,007 registered, likely voters between August 24-30, 2012 and two focus groups in Philadelphia

It found that 63 percent of all voters, and more than half of independent voters and presidential “swing” voters, say the issue of who will serve on the Supreme Court is an important consideration in their vote this year. According to the survey, what most concerns voters – a full 54 percent --is their worry that Romney will nominate justices who will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans.

In contrast, voters believe that Obama is more likely to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” And they believe President Obama is much more likely to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” The voters surveyed were also concerned about Romney’s opposition to Supreme Court decisions favoring women’s rights, including Roe v. Wade, Indeed, 59 percent of all voters, and 62 percent of swing voters, say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.

“If the next president fills even one vacancy on the Supreme Court, he could change the court, and America, for decades,” said Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign. “This poll makes clear that the American people don’t want the president to further shift the court toward corporate special interests for a generation or more.”

“Americans are convinced that a Romney Court would make it harder for women and minorities to lead their day-to-day lives,” said Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “As the Court considers affirmative action and same-sex marriage, its role as the last arbiter of equality for millions of disadvantaged Americans is clear. And Romney will have to quell these fears if he ever hopes to gain the trust of these communities.”

“We pick a president for four years, but he picks Supreme Court justices for a lifetime,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “This polling shows that Americans are concerned about how this election will affect the future of the Supreme Court, and know that a Mitt Romney presidency would skew the Court ever further to the Right.”

Sixty percent of all voters, and 63 percent of swing voters said they had less confidence Romney would appoint the right kinds of justices to the Supreme Court when told that Romney favored the Citizens United decision, which led to opening the floodgates to massive corporate campaign contributions. Voters are influenced as well by a number of recent 5-4 decisions siding with corporations over people, including Wal-Mart over its female employees, AT&T over its customers, and the case decided against Lily Ledbetter that led to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

A full memo on the poll and focus groups is below. A pdf of the memo is available here.

###

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Guy Molyneux, Hart Research

DATE: September, 2012

RE: The Supreme Court and 2012


On behalf of Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and People for the American Way, Hart Research has conducted opinion research on the potential impact that the issue of Supreme Court nominations could have on the 2012 presidential election. A national online survey of 1,007 registered, likely voters was conducted August 24-30, 2012, followed by two focus groups in Philadelphia.

1) The issue of Supreme Court nominations is an important voting consideration for registered voters, including a substantial portion of swing voters.

Fully 63% of voters say that the issue of nominating justices to the Supreme Court will be an important consideration in their voting this year. That includes 30% who say “very important” consideration. As we would expect, strong partisans assign the greatest weight to the issue, but substantial numbers of independent voters (55%) and presidential swing voters (54%) also report a significant level of concern about the Supreme Court issue. Moreover, after survey respondents hear information about Mitt Romney’s positions on judicial issues and his model for judicial nominations, they rate the importance of the Court even more highly: 71% say it will be an important voting consideration, including 39% (a 9-point increase) who say very important.

2) Voters have more confidence in President Obama than Mitt Romney with respect to Supreme Court nominations.

Voters say that they have more confidence in Barack Obama (46%) than Mitt Romney (41%) to select good federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Obama is trusted on judicial nominees much more than Romney among the voters who will likely determine the outcome of the presidential election. Independent voters prefer Obama by an 8-point margin (39% to 31%), and Obama’s advantage grows to an impressive 18 points (42% to 24%) among presidential swing voters (those undecided or weakly committed to a candidate). Women in the center of the electorate strongly prefer Obama, as he enjoys a 19-point edge with independent women (43% to 24%) and a 26-point advantage among swing women (44%-18%).

The president’s advantage over Romney rests on two main elements. First, voters believe Obama (61%) is much more likely than Romney (39%) to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” Second, most voters trust Obama (59%) rather than Romney (41%) to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” Among swing voters, Obama enjoys commanding advantages of 55 points and 49 points, respectively, on these two dimensions.

3) The most compelling criticism of Mitt Romney regarding the Supreme Court is that his nominees will be biased in favor of corporations over average Americans.

The survey results reveal that what most concerns voters about the prospect of Mitt Romney nominating future justices is the notion that his nominees will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans. Fully 54% worry that Romney will appoint this kind of justice, far more than any other single concern (for example, 43% worry that Romney’s justices will “turn back the clock on civil rights and women’s rights”). Similarly, when voters are asked which of several criticisms of Romney concern them the most, the prospect of pro-corporate justices is the top choice for swing voters (30%), far ahead of limiting legal abortion (17%), turning back the clock on rights (17%), and other factors. And later in the survey, after voters have learned about Romney’s positions on a range of judicial issues, swing voters say their single biggest concern about Romney’s justices is they will favor corporate interests over average Americans (followed by the similar idea that they will “favor millionaires over the middle class”).

  • In the focus groups, voters gave very high ratings to a flyer focused on the theme that Romney will appoint justices who favor corporations over average Americans, and citing Romney’s embrace of justices who voted to give immunity to corporations that defraud consumers [AT&T], to protect corporations that pay women less than men [Wal-Mart, Ledbetter], and allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts on negative political ads [Citizens United]. Swing voters worry most that Romney justices will be “biased,” followed by their concern that Romney justices would be “too conservative.”

4) The single best “proof point” for the claim that Romney’s nominees will favor corporations is his support for Citizens United, which has already led to corporations and billionaires spending millions of dollars on negative political ads this year. Other powerful evidence includes the AT&T, Wal-Mart, and Ledbetter cases.

The research findings indicate that the single best way to demonstrate that Romney would appoint pro-corporate justices is to focus on his support for the Court’s decision [Citizens United] which opened the door for corporations and the wealthy to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. Linking that decision to what citizens are already experiencing – a huge number of negative political ads funded by corporations and individuals – gives this issue real salience now.

Mitt Romney does not have an extensive track record of taking positions on most other Supreme Court cases, but he has been clear about the kind of justices he would appoint: judges “in the mold of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.”

As seen in past research, the AT&T, Wal-Mart, and Ledbetter decisions all trouble voters. Here is how they were described in the survey, each of them raising significant concerns about Romney:

  • Allow a company to use the fine print of its consumer contracts, such as for cell phones, to immunize itself from class-action lawsuits, even in cases in which the company knowingly defrauded its customers;
  • Deny female employees of a large national company who have been systematically paid less than men and denied promotions given to men the right to join together and go to court to stand up for their rights;
  • A woman could not file a discrimination suit against her employer for paying her less than men at her company for the same work for 20 years because she failed to file her suit within 180 days of her first paycheck, even though she had no way of knowing at that time that she was being discriminated against.

5) The concern that Romney will appoint anti-choice justices also has power with many voters.

Both the survey and focus groups reveal that Romney’s commitment to appoint anti-choice justices concerns many voters. In the survey, 59% of voters (and 62% of swing voters) say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.

  • The survey reveals that more voters are concerned when told that Romney believes there is no constitutional right to have an abortion than when informed simply that he favors “overturning Roe v. Wade,” suggesting that some voters do not fully understand the latter formulation in isolation.
  • When presented with two television ads concentrated on the choice issue, focus group participants indicated significant concerns about Romney among both independents (mean rating of 6.1 on scale of 1 to 10) and liberal Democrats (9.1).

6) Voters’ recognition of the importance of judicial nominees in evaluating Romney and Obama is greatly heightened when we remind them that justices serve for life.

  • Voters responded especially strongly to this formulation: “When you vote in November, you’re not just voting for the next four years – you’re voting for a generation.”

###

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious