C4

Tea Party Nation: America Won't Elect Black President 'For a Generation or Two' Because of Obama

Yesterday, Tea Party Nation sent out an article to members by activist Alan Caruba, warning that President Obama is not only bad for the black community but also that Americans are unlikely to trust a black leader again. Reacting to an interview with comedian D.L. Hughley, where he said Obama should have been more aggressive in responding to right-wing attacks and calling out the endurance of anti-black racism in America, Caruba said that “Obama has been the ‘affirmative action’ President whose life has been characterized by the special treatment he received growing up,” and has therefore been able to get away with having a “forgery” of a birth certificate.

“I believe Obama has made it nearly impossible for a black American to be elected President for a generation or two,” Caruba concluded. “I believe he will be rejected by the voters in November and I believe he will, as he has done throughout his presidency, blame others for it.”

“I’m a black man too and I didn’t grow up in that kind of world. I couldn’t grow up thinking everything would be OK because it wasn’t for a lot of people I knew,” said Hughly who apparently thinks Obama was naïve and didn’t realize the depth of racism in America, but ignores the fact that a lot of whites voted for Obama because they wanted to demonstrate to the world that a black man could be elected President.

If Obama had been raised by a black father, says Hughly, he would have learned that “you can’t let someone disrespect you but one time.” Hughly mistakes criticism of Obama’s performance in office as racism and, in fact, the half-black, half-white Obama has generally been given a pass his whole life precisely because of his racial mix. All Presidents have been subjected to often harsh criticism.

If anything, Obama has been the “affirmative action” President whose life has been characterized by the special treatment he received growing up. It has been a life whose actual facts Obama has gone out of his way to conceal by having his college and other records hidden from public review, not the least of which has been his birth certificate, deemed by many to be a forgery along with his phony Social Security number.



What struck me about the Hughly interview was his uncritical embrace of Obama and the view that it is racism that is holding blacks back. Obama has not opened any doors for black Americans that were not already in place.

To the contrary, Obama has offered them more food stamps and has tried via an illegal executive order to gut the successful welfare law that Bill Clinton signed. He has failed the millions, black, white, Asian, and Hispanic, who are unemployed as the result of his Marxist ideology.

I believe Obama has made it nearly impossible for a black American to be elected President for a generation or two. I believe he will be rejected by the voters in November and I believe he will, as he has done throughout his presidency, blame others for it.

Religious Right Still Oblivious of their Double Standard on Boycotts

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality joined Janet Mefferd yesterday to attack gay rights advocates over calls to boycott Chick-fil-A because of the company’s anti-gay advocacy, including their donations to anti-gay organizations, as an attack on private enterprise: 

Of course, much like activists from the National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and the American Family Association, after denouncing boycotts as a grave wrong…they simultaneously called for boycotts of companies that support gay rights, such as General Mills, Chili’s and Target. According to LaBarbera and Mefferd, it is inappropriate for companies to back gay rights efforts or groups because they will be offending customers when they should be remaining neutral in the “culture war.” However, if a company like Chick-fil-A opposes gay rights, then it is an admirable decision worthy of support and any criticism of their activism is an assault on freedom.

LaBarbera: I think our next step is going to a place like General Mills and saying why are you doing this? You can’t even maintain a neutrality? Can’t you at least be neutral? Not give to the homosexual activists? If you’re not going to give to Americans for Truth, OK that’s fine, but don’t give to the homosexual lobby because the mass, silent majority of Americans does not support radically redefining marriage to include two men or two women, they just don’t support that.

Mefferd: I agree, one of the other companies that has really started supporting it too is Target. I was made enough, I don’t go out and tell people what to do, but I was mad enough personally as a mother when this has been such a family-oriented company over the years, they had Amy Grant doing their publicity years ago, now they are selling same-sex wedding cards, they had two men on an ad for a wedding registry. I finally just said, you know what enough is enough, enough is enough, I’m not shopping here anymore, and I emailed them and I said I’m not shopping here anymore and I spend a lot of money at Target, I’ve just had enough.

LaBarbera: I’m with you on boycotts. We can’t boycott everybody. At Americans For Truth our policy is we pick specific boycotts, for example we’re boycotting Chili’s restaurants and Maggiano’s. They’re owned by a company, Brinker International, that supports the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force which is one of the most extreme and radical homosexual organizations in the world. So we are targeting certain corporations. The message here is we need to defend Godly values, if you’re in a culture war and only one side is doing all the fighting, spending all the money, bieng aggressive, while the other side is ambiguous about whether they should be in this battle at all, guess who is going to win? There is nothing Christian or noble about disengaging from the culture war, that’s for sure.

Fischer and Beisner Praise Ryan's 'Biblical View of the Environment'

American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer today was joined by pro-corporate, anti-environmental activist Cal Beisner on Focal Point to discuss Rep. Paul Ryan’s egregious record on environmental protection. The two celebrated his votes against the EPA and climate change legislation as signs that he has a “sane, objective and biblical or evangelical understanding of man’s relationship with the environment. “Paul Ryan seems to get it,” Fischer said, and Beisner applauded Ryan’s voting record “fits well with the biblical understanding” of the environment, which for them means that there should be few if any restrictions on environmental exploitation. Later, Beisner repeated his bogus charge that increased carbon dioxide levels and climate change will help the environment and the poor.

Watch:

Fischer: It seems like we’ve got another clear differential when it comes to a sane, objective and biblical or evangelical understanding of man’s relationship with the environment. Paul Ryan seems to get ii and the other team doesn’t. So that would be potentially very good news for those of us that care about seeing a biblical view of the environment in public policy.

Beisner: Yes it would. Ryan’s understanding I think fits well with the biblical understanding that God made man in His image to be creative and productive as He is, to fill and to rule the earth. Not to abuse the earth, not to rape the land so to speak as many environmentalists talk, but rather to increase its fruitfulness, its beauty and its safety to the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors. I think that really underlies the comments that Ryan has made on these issues through the years and it comes I think from his solidly Christian worldview background.



Beisner: Most Americans do not see any real purpose in tight restrictions on CO2 admissions. Many Americans actually remembered what they learned way back in seventh and eighth grade biology class, mainly that carbon dioxide is plant food. So the more of that there is in the air the more the crops grow and the cheaper the food is around the world, this actually helps especially the poor.

Top Five Books Thomas Nelson Found More Credible Than David Barton's 'The Jefferson Lies'

The world’s largest Christian publisher Thomas Nelson has pulled David Barton’s book “The Jefferson Lies” because of Barton’s “unsupportable” claims regarding the third president’s views on religion. Barton’s deputy Rick Green accused academic “elitists” of acting like Adolf Hitler to smear Barton, while Barton ironically defended his book by insisting that a group of anonymous academics endorsed his work. Now that Thomas Nelson has recalled Barton’s book and removed all mention of it from its website, we wanted to see what books the publisher apparently found to be more credible than Barton’s “The Jefferson Lies”:

1. Todd Burpo’s “Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back.” Pastor Todd Burpo describes how his 3-year-old son Colton went to heaven during surgery where he saw God literally “fit the entire world into his hands” and Jesus’ “sea-blue eyes”!

 

 

 

2. Rick Joyner’s “The Vision: A Two-in-One Volume of The Final Quest and The Call.” Thomas Nelson considers not one but two books by the self-proclaimed prophet who claimed to have miraculously made a dish of casserole multiply and stopped the Asian Flu, blamed Hurricane Katrina on homosexuality and warned of the West Coast’s impending doom, as more supportable than Barton’s “The Jefferson Lies.”

 

 

3. Hank Hanegraaff’s “The Creation Answer Book.” This book claims that humans and dinosaurs walked on the earth together and that the earth was created in six consecutive 24 hour days, apparently less of a stretch than Barton’s argument that Jefferson and the rest of the Founders were fundamentalist Christians.

 

 

 

4. John Hagee’s “The Beginning of the End.” The televangelist describes how the Antichrist will soon come to power, using microchips implanted in humans and hate crimes laws to secure his authority.

 

 

 

 

5. Michael Savage’s “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder.” It’s a book called “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder”!

 

 

 

 

 

Again, these are the books seen as more reliable than Barton’s “The Jefferson Lies.”

Paul Ryan Featured Alongside 'Former Terrorist’

This, in a nutshell, is your modern Religious Right:

The website for the upcoming Values Voter Summit in DC, hosted by the Family Research Council, features Mitt Romney’s running mate side-by-side with “former terrorist” Kamal Saleem, seen here:
 
 
I can’t imagine Ryan would appreciate being given equal billing with a “former terrorist,” but Saleem is a big deal to the Religious Right.
 
Saleem, whose real name is Khodor Shami, claims that he was Muslim Brotherhood operative who “came to the United States of America…to destroy this country,” saying that he crossed the Canadian border and “brought weapon caches right through cities.” Somewhere along the way he converted, got a job at Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, and became the favorite ex-Muslim of the Religious Right. As a result, he says his life is constantly in danger, and he is being pursued by foreign agents.
 
If you’re asking yourself why Saleem isn’t in jail as opposed to speaking at a conference with the likes of Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann, Jerry Boykin, and Tony Perkins, it’s because Saleem is widely considered to be a fraud. But this begs a question.
 
Does FRC believe Saleem? Do they think he came to America as a Muslim Brotherhood member bent on destroying our nation? They have scheduled him to speak alongside Jerry Boykin in a breakout session on “the strategic nature of Israel, and its role in the Middle East, America, and in the future of Western Civilization.” That suggests they do.
 
FRC is either knowingly presenting a fraud or someone who plotted to destroy the nation. If it’s the latter, they must also believe that Saleem is being pursued by foreign agents who are threatening his life. Now I’m not an event planner, but I would lean against booking anyone like that at a high-profile conference with governors and members of Congress.
 
But no matter FRC’s real intentions, Saleem is clearly useful to their anti-Muslim efforts. He is willing to say pretty much anything to confirm the darkest, most paranoid suspicions of his audiences, e.g.:
I, for one, welcome an investigation by the proper authorities to ensure Paul Ryan’s safety and prevent Michele Bachmann from accidentally palling around with a terrorist. If Saleem is to be believed, that is.
 

 

Paul Ryan: Roe v. Wade is 'Virtually Identical' to Dred Scott

In the 2004 presidential election, President Bush used “dog whistle” politics during a debate with John Kerry by subtly linking the Dred Scott case to Roe v. Wade. This year, Republican vice presidential pick Paul Ryan is more explicit about his views. He supported a bill to outlaw all abortions and some contraceptives, and in 2010 he said that the “the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake” in Roe v. Wade that it made in the 1857 Dred Scott case:

Yet, identifying who “qualifies” as a human being has historically proved to be more difficult than the above examples suggest. Twice in the past the U.S. Supreme Court—charged with being the guardian of rights—has failed so drastically in making this crucial determination that it “disqualified” a whole category of human beings, with profoundly tragic results.

The first time was in the 1857 case, Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court held, absurdly, that Africans and their American descendants, whether slave or free, could not be citizens with a right to go to court to enforce contracts or rights or for any other reason. Why? Because “among the whole human race,” the Court declared, “the enslaved African race were not intended to be included…[T]hey had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” In other words, persons of African origin did not “qualify” as human beings for purposes of protecting their natural rights. It was held that, since the white man did not recognize them as having such rights, they didn’t have them. The implication was that Africans were property—things that white persons could choose to buy and sell. In contrast, whites did “qualify,” so government protected their natural rights.

Every person in this country was wounded the day this dreadful opinion was handed down by this nation’s highest tribunal. It made a mockery of the American idea that human equality and rights were given by God and recognized by government, not constructed by governments or ethnic groups by consensus vote. The abhorrent decision directly led to terrible bloodshed and opened up a racial gap that has never been completely overcome. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake. At what point in time does a human being exist, the state of Texas asked. The Court refused to answer: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In other words, the Court would not “qualify” unborn children as living persons whose human rights must be guaranteed.



At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

In contrast, pro-life conservatives are natural optimists. On balance, we see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person’s right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person’s right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature—the “law of the jungle”—the determination of who “qualifies” as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.

Religious Right Groups Laud Paul Ryan, Highlight Anti-Choice and Anti-Gay Voting Record

Conservative leaders hailed Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan, the far-right congressman, to be his running mate, emphasizing his opposition to LGBT and reproductive rights.

Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance said that besides his one-time vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, she is excited “to pull back out my t-shirt from 2008 that says ‘Our VP is hotter than your VP!’”

Paul Ryan is a great choice. He has one little blip in that he voted for ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) a long time ago but voted right on the marriage amendment and supports the unborn. Plus, I get to pull back out my t-shirt from 2008 that says ‘Our VP is hotter than your VP!’ Bonus.

Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition commended Ryan’s “100 percent pro-life and pro-family voting record.”

Mitt Romney choosing Paul Ryan as his vice presidential nominee is an inspired, outstanding selection. Paul Ryan is a rare and exceptional public servant who combines the courage of his convictions with a sharp intellect and a winsome personality. I have known him since he worked for Jack Kemp at Empower America in the early 1990s, worked with him in passing sound budgets in the House, and am proud to count him as a friend. He is a person of devout Christian faith who has a 100 percent pro-life and pro-family voting record in his 14 years in Congress. He will excite and energize social conservatives, who will play a critical role in the outcome of the elections.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is proud that Ryan “believes that social, fiscal and national security conservatism is indivisible.”

Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan shows that he is serious about getting America's fiscal house in order. Paul Ryan's voting record also suggests that he believes that social, fiscal and national security conservatism is indivisible. Paul Ryan's philosophy clearly includes the understanding that America's financial greatness is tied directly to its moral and cultural wholeness.

As a member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, he has been a defender of religious expression in the public square. Paul Ryan has spoken out strongly against President Obama's abortion drug and contraception mandates as an affront to religious liberty. He has articulately described how the President's government takeover of health care has pushed aside our First Amendment right of religious freedom.

We look forward to hearing Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan speak at the upcoming Values Voter Summit so that the conservative grassroots will have an opportunity to hear more about their agenda on the critical issues facing our country including religious liberty, marriage, the sanctity of human life as well as fiscal responsibility and national security.

The Susan B. Anthony List’s Marjore Dannenfelser hailed Ryan’s rejection of a “culture war truce.”

“By selecting Congressman Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, Governor Romney demonstrates his commitment to protecting American women and unborn children,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List. “A longtime pro-life advocate and a strong fiscal conservative, Congressman Ryan has insisted that there can be no ‘truce’ when it comes to advancing the rights of the unborn and achieving fiscal responsibility. He has a pristine pro-life voting record and will be an asset to Governor Romney’s campaign.

“Pro-life voters are a key demographic and help secure victory in critical elections,” continued Dannenfelser. “The addition of a second strong pro-life leader to the ticket energizes the pro-life base – we are thrilled with this pick.”

The Catholic Association called Ryan an “excellent choice” since “he has been thoughtful and articulate in applying Catholic principles to the other challenges facing America.”

We believe Governor Romney has made an excellent choice. As a smart, serious Catholic, Congressman Ryan has been steadfast on issues of fundamental principle – defending religious liberty, life, and traditional marriage.

In addition, he has been thoughtful and articulate in applying Catholic principles to the other challenges facing America.

The American Center for Law and Justice’s David French noted Ryan’s opposition to reproductive rights.

In the next days and weeks, there will be a lot of attention on Paul Ryan’s economic expertise and experience with fiscal reform. He became famous in political circles for the “Ryan budget” and for his fearlessness and effectiveness in challenging President Obama in the midst of the Obamacare debate. But what many may not know is that Paul Ryan is a man completely committed to the cause of life.

Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families is glad this “youthful, forward-looking ticket [is] reminding us that with the right choices America's best days are still ahead of us.”

Just moments ago, Governor Mitt Romney formally announced his selection of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to be his vice presidential running mate. He made the announcement at a naval museum in Norfolk, Virginia, with the USS Wisconsin as his backdrop. This is a bold choice, and I am very excited about this pick!

The selection of Paul Ryan shows Governor Romney is serious about confronting the fiscal challenges facing our country. It shows the kind of talented and experienced team Governor Romney will put together that will work for American exceptionalism.

Ryan is a strong conservative. He is pro-life and believes in traditional marriage. Of course, what he is most known for is entitlement reform and stopping the growth of government. He's 42 with a young family.

So this will be a youthful, forward-looking ticket, reminding us that with the right choices America's best days are still ahead of us. It will be a stark contrast to Obama's failed tax and spend policies that are taking us down the dead-end road of European-style socialism. It's clear which presidential ticket is serious about making real change!

Judson Phillips Demands Commentators like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck Moderate the Presidential Debates

On the hook for a $748,000 hotel bill, Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips is still trying to make the case that he is a true fiscal conservative. So conservative that he has rejected all the presidential debate moderators outright and instead wants the debates moderated by someone from birther outlets like WND and Breitbart or commentators Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh!

There are four debates. Can we have at least one conservative moderator?

Why is it the Republicans always walk into these debates and agree to give the other side a leg up by having moderators that openly cheer for the Democrat?

Is it asking the Republicans too much to grow a pair and start fighting?

Who is the brain donor at the GOP that agreed to this non-sense?

When is the Republican Party going to learn the drive by media is the enemy? I don’t care if you go to the same trendy parties in DC they are the enemy. They are not the unbiased purveyors of information they would like to claim to be.

The Republicans do have allies. It is the conservative media. From WND to Breitbart, to the Blaze to Drudge and many others, there are a lot of conservatives who can moderate debates. There is Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, just to mention three.

The conservative media is carrying the water for the Republicans so why aren’t they demanding the conservative media have a seat at the table?

Why aren’t the Republicans demanding that at least half of the moderators be conservatives? Instead they are yielding the field to the Democrats.

Mitt Romney Capitulates to the Right, Yet Again

Governor Mitt Romney today announced his selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. People For the American Way President Michael Keegan issued the following statement:

“Of all the things we’ve learned about Mitt Romney in this campaign, the most striking is his willingness to cave to the extreme Right at every opportunity. His selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate just underscores that.

“From his support of ‘personhood’ legislation that would criminalize some forms of birth control, to his crusade to gut Medicare, cut Pell Grants and protect subsidies for Big Oil, Paul Ryan is the ideal Vice President for the far Right. The fact that Ryan’s budget raises taxes on working families and slashes programs helping the middle class in order to give huge breaks to the rich is just par for the course.

“If there was any question that Mitt Romney’s campaign is catering to billionaires, there shouldn’t be anymore. This is the Koch brothers' dream ticket. But for ordinary Americans, the Romney-Ryan agenda would be a nightmare.”
 

###

Blackwell Distorts Ohio Voter Suit

In an interview with Tony Perkins on Washington Watch Weekly, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell slammed the Obama campaign’s effort to expand early voting procedures in Ohio, saying that the President is running “probably the most bareknuckle campaign I’ve seen”.

Blackwell also accused democrats of exploiting the “Voter ID controversy to gin up their base” and energize minority voters in their favor. The controversy surrounding early voting in Ohio centers on a new special exemption that the state extends to military voters. The Obama campaign filed suit, seeking to restore early voting procedures for all citizens, including servicemen and women.

Despite decrying the so-called “bareknuckle” tactics of the Obama campaign, Blackwell is no stranger to political combat. His 2006 gubernatorial campaign smeared his opponent as gay, and Blackwell worked tirelessly to suppress minority voting in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.

Perkins: To me it suggests that they’re pretty desperate, that they see every vote as being, as counting, in the state of Ohio, that they cannot spare a single vote in that state.

Blackwell: Well you’re absolutely right, and just think about, there is an alarming pattern. They are actively opposed, and in the case of what I’m getting ready to say, the administration is actively opposed to Voter ID. And they are using the Voter ID controversy to gin up their base because they are running a base turnout campaign and its imperative that they get a high voter turnout from blacks and Latinos and that they get a substantial disproportionate share of their vote, so they are basically creating the conservative republican boogeyman by saying, you know, voter ID requirements suppress votes. They then, on the other hands, they’re suppressing the votes on the military because they know the numbers are against them. So you begin to see, or the Obama campaign and their friends going after chick-fil-a. You know, it is, this is, probably the most bareknuckle campaign that I’ve seen from a sitting President, it is Chicago-style politics, and there are no rules. It’s a no-man’s land.

Anti-Gay Extremists Unite to Denounce US Embassy for Backing Czech LGBT Pride Festival

The US Embassy in the Czech Republic, as part of the State Department’s new LGBT rights initiative, is supporting a pride festival in Prague “to address discriminatory behavior based on sexual orientation and to promote a tolerant civil society and equal opportunities in the Czech Republic.” Already irate over Secretary Hillary Clinton’s speech on LGBT rights, American Religious Right activists joined their European, African and Latin American allies to denounce the Obama administration for “aggressively promoting the ‘gay’ agenda internationally” and leading a campaign of “cultural imperialism” [PDF]:

At the directive of the president of the United States, Washington is aggressively promoting the “gay’’ agenda internationally, including same-sex “marriage” and the stigmatization and marginalization of any who object to the same.

The Obama’s administration’s embrace of “same-sex marriage” has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. There have been 32 state referenda on marriage. In every one of them, voters endorsed the natural definition of marriage (a man and a woman). The North Carolina vote, on May 8, was 61% in favor of natural marriage.



It stands to reason, then, that anything which undermines the family – including changing the definition of marriage – is a breach of the State’s responsibility to protect this indispensable institution which precedes government and makes a stable and free society possible.

The Madrid Declaration of World Congress of Families VI (May 25-27, 2012) --which was unanimously adopted by more than 3,200 delegates from 72 countries --provides, in part: “We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.”

Regarding “gay rights,” those caught up in this lifestyle have the same rights as other citizens. This does not include the “right” to force others to validate a lifestyle they find objectionable, for religious or other reasons. It also does not include the right of men to marry men and women to marry women.

The foregoing pseudo-rights do not advance human freedom and dignity but debase them.

We can not imagine a worse form of cultural imperialism than Washington trying to force approval of the “gay” agenda on societies with traditional values.

The list of signatories is mighty long, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay; Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver and Matt Barber; American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon; Catholic League’s Bill Donohue; Vision America’s Rick Scarborough; Rabbi Daniel Lapin; American Civil Rights Union’s Robert Knight; Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse; Pastor Jim Garlow; WND’s David Kupelian; TFP’s C. Preston Noell III; conservative activist Richard Viguerie; World Congress of Families’ Don Feder; Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell; Traditional Values Coalition’s Louis Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty; and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Paige Peterson.

Other activists like Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, Scott Lively of Defend the Family International and Sharon Slater of Family Watch International are also among the signatories, as is Mission America’s Linda Harvey, who believes people should refuse care for themselves and their children from openly gay doctors and nurses:

Another signatory was Yehuda Levin has claimed that gay marriage caused last year’s D.C. earthquake and linked gay rights to the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami and the 2010 Haiti earthquake:

The list even included former chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who performs gay exorcisms:

Robertson: Gay Rights Advocates Should 'Shut Their Mouth'

Yesterday on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson said that activists who don’t want Chick-fil-A on their college campus due to the company’s anti-gay advocacy should keep quiet: “I defy these homosexuals to bring forth a baby from that part of the anatomy which they concentrate on, when that happens I will change everything I’m saying; until that happens, I wish those demonstrators would shut their mouth.” Robertson warned that legal abortion and homosexuality are violations of God’s law and are “the reasons why land will vomit out its inhabitants.”

Watch:

Robertson: It’s a chicken sandwich, it’s a piece of white meat chicken between two pieces of white bread, it’s also a milkshake, now we’re going to go have demonstrations over that? But you know something, I was reading today in Leviticus, which is the law of the Old Testament, but it lays out the reasons why land will vomit out its inhabitants and it goes through a category of stuff we are calling Constitutional rights: killing babies, offering them to Moloch, and it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman. It’s what it says. That is the moral law that God set forth and now we’ve got people at a university petitioning because somebody said I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I defy these homosexuals to bring forth a baby from that part of the anatomy which they concentrate on, when that happens I will change everything I’m saying; until that happens, I wish those demonstrators would shut their mouth.

Scott Lively Pushes Claim that Obama Was Once Married to a Man

Jerome Corsi worked his way up the ranks in Republican circles by swiftboating John Kerry, pushing birther conspiracies with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and writing books such as Where’s The Birth Certificate and Where’s The Real Birth Certificate Lately though, he has been peddling the conspiracy that Obama had a same-sex relationship with his Pakistani roommate, and was even married to him:

is gay is nothing new on the far right, and so it was no surprise to see that Scott Lively, the Religious Right hero for his work as an anti-gay activist in Uganda in trying to criminalize homosexuality, is pushing the claim himself:

Much like birtherism, which started out on the fringe but has since became a mainstream idea within the GOP, maybe it is only a matter of time before more and more conservative activists demand Obama “prove” he isn’t gay.

Newest Young Elected Progressive Candidates

People For the American Way is excited to continue rolling out our Young Elected Progressive candidates. These are astounding candidates for local and state office who are the next generation of leadership in America. Each is a progressive voice in their communities and is 35 years of age or younger.

Crisanta Duran (CO)

Crisanta Duran is running for reelection to the Colorado House of Representatives in the 5th district. Duran became the youngest Latina legislator in the state’s history when she was first elected in 2010, earning a place in the Denver Post’s list of “Colorado Women Who Broke Political Barriers.” In the legislature, Duran serves on the Judiciary, Finance, State Veterans & Military Affairs and Joint Council committees. She has proven herself to be a progressive champion and has fought hard for the rights of all Coloradans. Learn more about Crisanta here.

Bryan Townsend (DE)

Bryan Townsend is running to represent the 11th district in Delaware’s Senate. Townsend, who currently works as an attorney in Wilmington, has been a volunteer with Special Olympics Delaware for the past thirteen years and is a Big Brother with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Delaware. He hopes to greatly improve the public education system in the Newark/Bear community and to create jobs through public works projects. He also vows to fight for those in the community whose voices are not often heard. Learn more about Bryan here.

Rashida Tlaib (MI)

Rashida Tlaib is running for reelection to the Michigan House of Representatives. Tlaib was first elected in 2008 to represent the 12th House district, in Southwest Detroit. In her first term she was appointed to the House Appropriations Committee and was also named the Minority Vice Chair of Judiciary and Department of Community Health Subcommittees. She also made history by being named the first female Muslim elected to the Michigan legislature and the second ever in the country. Learn more about Rashida here.

PFAW

Bryan Fischer Believes Nancy Pelosi 'Heard the Voice of Demonic Spirits'

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer does not dispute Nancy Pelosi’s story that she felt the spirits of feminist leaders like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul and Sojourner Truth after she became the first woman to be Speaker of the House. However, Fischer says “if she did hear something, what she heard was the voice of demonic spirits…that was the voice of a demonic spirit pretending to be Susan B. Anthony.” He later falsely claimed that Anthony and Stanton were both anti-choice activists.

Watch:

People For Raises Awareness of the 'Romney Court' on Sotomayor Anniversary

PFAW Activists Rally Outside Romney Headquarters in Greentree, PA

Yesterday marked the 3rd anniversary of Sonia Sotomayor officially assuming her office as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. People for the American Way, in partnership with other progressive organizations including NARAL and the AFL-CIO, marked the occasion with activists on the ground in the key states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

At a campaign event in Colorado yesterday, President Obama underscored the importance of the election for its impact on the future of the court.

Today is the three-year anniversary of Sonia Sotomayor taking her seat on the Supreme Court. Yesterday was the two-year anniversary of Elena Kagan taking her seat on the Supreme Court. So let's be very clear -- the next President could tip the balance of the Court in a way that turns back the clock for women and families for decades to come. The choice between going backward and moving forward has never been so clear.

People For president Michael Keegan also laid out the stakes in the Huffington Post.

President Obama’s decisions to nominate Justices Kagan and Sotomayor prove his commitment to selecting qualified jurists and building a more representative and inclusive court that respects the Constitution and the rights of every American. Mitt Romney’s decision to turn to ultra-conservative judge Robert Bork for judicial counsel is a clear signal that he would only appoint far-right figures to the Supreme Court, judges that are even further to the right than Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.

It’s difficult to imagine a more conservative court than the one we have now, but that’s exactly what a Romney presidency would bring. With critical issues such as reproductive rights, voting rights, LGBT rights, campaign finance, and worker protections almost certain to come before the court next presidential term, stakes have never been higher.

For more on Mitt Romney’s dangerous vision for the Supreme Court, visit Romneycourt.com.

Yesterday, PFAW avtivists were featured on Ohio Public Radio:

 

ONN Tv,

and Ohio Capital Blog:

PFAW

NPR Looks Into David Barton's Bunk History, Refusal to Respond to Criticism

NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty profiled David Barton yesterday on “All Things Considered,” and in the devastating profile debunked many of the claims made by the right-wing pseudo-historian. Messiah College professor John Fea pointed out in the story that Barton, who will be a “a Texas representative to the GOP Platform Committee” at the upcoming Republican National Convention,” is a political activist who tries to present himself as a historian: “He’s in this for activism. He's in this for policy. He’s in this to make changes to our culture.”

In typical Barton fashion, he said any of his critics only “come after me” because “they disagree with me, and my religious faith, and my view on America.” Of course, Fea and other Barton critics quoted in the story, Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton and Rev. Ray McMillian of Cincinnati’s Oasis Church, are evangelical Christians. But since Barton can’t defend his own discredited “research,” he simply plays the victim and says he is being attacked for his patriotism and Christian beliefs.

Liberty University Law School dean Mat Staver, who made Barton required reading for his students, said he “would put him against any historian and would have no question who would win in a debate.”

Of course, Hagerty notes, Barton “has a policy of not debating anyone.”

Right Wing Watch readers will be familiar with many of Barton’s claims presented in the piece, including his assertion that the Constitution quotes the Bible “verbatim”:

“We looked up every citation Barton said was from the Bible, but not one of them checked out,” Hagerty writes.

Or that the Founders “already had the entire debate on creation-evolution,” long before Charles Darwin was born:

NPR also covered Barton’s belief that he will influence the minds of America’s future leaders through his work shaping in the Texas textbooks, “it’s in the pipe coming down”:

That is also the dream of Mike Huckabee, who wished that “all Americans will be forced, forced — at gunpoint, no less — to listen to every David Barton message”:

Brian Camenker Blames Gay Marriage for Spike in Domestic Violence

MassResistance has updated its report, “What same-sex ‘marriage’ has done to Massachusetts,” and the group’s head Brian Camenker appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk to go down the list of all of the so-called negative impacts of marriage equality.

Anyone who thinks that same-sex "marriage" is a benign eccentricity which won't affect the average person should consider what it has done to Massachusetts since 2004. It's become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. The slippery slope is real. New radical demands never cease. What has happened in the last several years is truly frightening.

Camenker rehashed the typical claims about how gay rights is leading to anti-Christian persecution, but also told host Vice Eliason that marriage equality is responsible for an uptick in the state’s domestic violence cases. Experts say that domestic violence has increased nationwide, likely connected to economic stress, Massachusetts included.

But Camenker says gay couples are responsible for the increase, arguing that “the rates of domestic violence among homosexual couples is many, many times that of heterosexual couples,” which he alleges is a manifestation of “the dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships.”

However, Jane Doe Inc. The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence writes, “Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are abused at approximately the same levels as heterosexual couples, but the abuse may be exacerbated by social isolation caused by societal oppression and discrimination.” The Center for American Progress also notes that “studies have found that domestic violence occurs among same-sex couples at comparable rates to straight couples,” not “many, many times that of heterosexual couples” as Camenker claims.

Eliason: Domestic violence, what’s happening in that field dealing with this new lifestyle?

Camenker: Well it’s well known that the rates of domestic violence among homosexual couples is many, many times that of heterosexual couples for all kinds of reasons. What’s happened in Massachusetts is that it has gotten so high that the legislature is having to budget more and more money, millions of dollars now, toward dealing with this problem up from a hundred thousand dollars just a few years go.



Camenker: It’s interesting at homosexual related events, you know gay pride events and all this stuff, they’re handing out all this gay domestic violence, partner violence literature, which is funded by the state. Apparently this has become a big problem; it’s even being passed out at high school gay clubs and all of this stuff. You know, the dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, which nobody wants to talk about, is being manifest more and more we’re seeing.

Schlafly: Obama is 'Trying to Wipe God out of Public Life'

Phyllis Schlafly continued her book tour yesterday by speaking with Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, and accused Obama of “trying to wipe God out of our public life” and “wipe Christianity out of our public life.” She also suggested that Obama refuses to discuss his Christian faith, which is not true, and that his campaign is promoting a cult, “When he arrives his followers all stand around and chant ‘You’re the one we’ve been waiting for!’” Obama used the line “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” in a speech, citing a poem by an anti-Apartheid activist. It was not a campaign chant as Schlafly insists, but the falsehoods didn’t end there:

Schlafly: This is so ominous, this is so un-American, you know we’ve had several years Sandy and I’m sure you’ve reported on them where the ACLU and the atheists have been litigating to get rid of crosses, standing to honor our veterans and the Ten Commandments, pictures and monuments, and he just fits right into that, that’s why when he arrives his followers all stand around and chant ‘You’re the one we’ve been waiting for!’ He fits right into that. There are just so many ways that he’s just trying to wipe God out of our public life.

Rios: I’d like to give another illustration, because when I was on radio in Chicago we played this clip over and over again, I don’t have the clip this morning but he has said repeatedly, this always stunned me too Phyllis when he’s made speeches on allegedly to religious freedom or illusions to that topic, he has said repeatedly ‘we are a nation of’ and he gives a whole list, ‘Buddhists and Muslims and non-believers,’ and he always puts Muslims and non-believers right at the top of the list. He emphasizes always non-believers and Christians are just one of a series that he lists. The inference of course is that we are not a Christian nation, we are nation of Buddhists and Muslims and non-believers. That’s what he has said repeatedly and that was a huge red flag to me a very long time ago.

Schlafly: That’s right and over in the Middle East he repeated, ‘we are not a Christian nation.’ While he is trying to wipe Christianity out of our public life, he is giving a pass to the Muslims. He never says anything criticizing that. He says they are a peaceful nation, well I don’t know when I see those pictures of the World Trade towers I don’t think they’re very peaceful.

Of course, Obama was not the first president to say we are not a Christian nation. In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli, which was crafted under George Washington and ratified by John Adams after it was approved unanimously by the Senate, reads: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,” [Muslims]. And Obama is also not the first President to condemn the argument, made by Schlafly, that radical terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are representative of all of Islam.

As for Rios’ claim that Obama downplays America’s Christian community and “always puts Muslims and non-believers right at the top of the list” in his speeches, that is simply not the case. She is referring to a 2007 speech where Obama said: “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” Muslim is the third religion mentioned, and nonbelievers are mentioned last. Plus, there is nothing wrong with what Obama said. Indeed, America is not just made up of Christians, but is a nation that includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, among various other people of faith. That is simply a statement of fact.

A Sotomayor or a Bork? The Decision Is Ours in November

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

Three years ago today, the first Supreme Court confirmation battle of Barack Obama's presidency came to an end. Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the oath of office on August 8, 2009, after enduring days of hearings at which she had been lambasted by Senate Republicans for such offenses as calling herself a "wise Latina" and acknowledging, like many male nominees before her, the shocking fact that her life experiences had shaped her perspective on the law.

In the three years since, I've been relieved to have Justice Sotomayor on the Court. I haven't agreed with all her decisions, but she has shown time and again that she understands how the Constitution protects our rights -- all of our rights. In 2010, she dissented to the Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, which twisted the law and Constitution to give corporations and the super wealthy dangerous influence over our elections. In 2011, she joined the four-justice minority that stood up for the rights of women Wal-Mart employees who were the victims of entrenched sex discrimination. This year, she was part of the narrow majority that upheld the Affordable Care Act, saving a clearly constitutional law that is already helping millions of Americans receive health care coverage.

Over and over again in the past years, the Supreme Court has split between two very different visions of the law and the Constitution. On one side, we have justices like Sotomayor who understand how the Constitution protects all of our rights in changing times. On the other side, we have right-wing justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who are determined to walk back American progress, turn their backs on the values enshrined in the Constitution, and ignore decades of our laws and history. On issues from voting rights to women's equality to environmental regulation, Americans' rights are being decided by the Supreme Court -- often by a single vote. Even the decision to uphold health care reform, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined Sotomayor and the three other moderates on the court, would not have been as close as it was if the Court had not moved steadily to the right.

November's presidential election will be a turning point for the Supreme Court. The next president will likely have the chance to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, setting the course of the Court for decades to come. President Obama has shown his priorities in his picks of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.

Mitt Romney has a very different vision for the Supreme Court. Campaigning in Puerto Rico earlier this year, Romney bashed Sotomayor -- who also happens to be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice and the Court's third woman ever. Instead, he says he'd pick more justices like Thomas, Alito and Antonin Scalia, the core of the right-wing bloc whose decisions are systematically rolling back Americans' hard-won rights. He used to say that he'd pick more Justices like Chief Justice Roberts, but changed his mind when Roberts ruled in favor of the health care reform plan similar to the one that Romney himself had helped pilot in Massachusetts.

So who would Romney pick for the Supreme Court? We've gotten a hint from his choice of former judge Robert Bork as his campaign's judicial advisor. Bork's brand of judicial extremism was so out of step with the mainstream that a bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987. Bork objected to the part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that desegregated lunch counters; he defended state laws banning birth control and "sodomy"; he was unabashedly in favor of censorship; he once ruled that a corporation could order its female employees to be sterilized or be fired. And, though it might not seem possible, since his confirmation battle Bork has gotten even more extreme.

Any justice appointed by Romney would likely fall in the footsteps of Bork in undermining workers' rights, eliminating civil rights protections, siding with corporations over the rights of individuals, threatening women's reproductive freedom, and rolling back basic LGBT rights. President Obama, on the other hand, has promised to pick more justices who share the constitutional values of Justice Sotomayor.

Three years into the term of Justice Sotomayor, the Court hangs in the balance. It's important that we all know the stakes.

PFAW
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious