C4

Radio Host Mason Weaver: Liberal Mindset Legitimizes Criminal Activity

During a recent appearance on Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum Live radio show, conservative radio talk show host Mason Weaver, whom Schlafly introduced as “a very articulate black” who is urging African Americans to “get a life” and “get off the plantation.”

Schlafly: Our guest today is Mason Weaver, who is a very articulate black, he is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, and he’s trying to encourage blacks to get a life, get off the plantation, make something of yourself and stop depending on Uncle Sam to give you everything from food to childcare for your kids.

He described the feminist movement as “anti-God”, and insisted that liberal social policy, (in this case referred to euphemistically as ‘the other man’) breeds dependency and thus promotes and justifies criminal activity. Schlafly’s organization recently lamented the downward trend in the white birth rate, and Schalfly herself has said wistfully that the United States “was a lot better off before 1962,” before the civil rights movement had made major gains.

Schlafly: And you realize the disaster the feminist movement has been in this country because they’re anti-men, and anti-husbands, and anti-masculine, and when they talk about liberation…

Weaver: They’re anti-God, that’s all it is.

Schlafly: Yeah.

Weaver: They’re anti-God. The feminist movement was created to have another front on the attack on masculinity. It’s an attack on the culture in the family, it’s an attack on success. They want dependency, they want failure, they want themselves to be in charge, it’s just simply agreed on their part.

Schlafly: And they want everybody, blacks and women, to believe they’re victims of society. And of course if you wake up in the morning and you think you’re a victim, how far are you going to get?

Weaver: Well think about the male ego. If you convince a 20 year old man, black or white, that another man controls his family, his health, his income, his job, why go get a job? The other man controls it. Why go out and try to earn something? He’s going to take it from you. But you also feel justified in criminal activity, in not respecting your family. If you buy the liberal mindset of yourself, as a black man, you are by definition depressed.

Schlafly: That's right.

Romney, the Senate GOP and the Right-Wing Secrecy Machine

The following originally appeared at Huffington Post.

Yesterday, Senate Republicans voted, for a second time in two days, to continue their filibuster of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would simply require outside groups spending money on elections to tell the public where their money comes from. At the same time, not surprisingly, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is in hot water for failing to disclose more than the minimum of personal tax returns and lying about his history at the company that made his fortune -- all while we know that a portion of his wealth was hidden in infamously secretive Swiss bank accounts.

Senate Republicans and Romney are spending a lot of time and energy this week to keep their financial histories secret. It's only natural to ask: What do they have to hide?

You would think the DISCLOSE Act would be an easy bill to pass. In fact, many Republican Senators were "for it before they were against it". What it does is simple: it requires any organization -- corporation, union, super PAC or non-profit -- that spends money influencing elections to report within a day any election-related expenditure of $10,000 or more. It also requires that these organizations make public the names of the individuals and corporations contributing $10,000 or more to fund this election spending. In short, all those front groups that have been pouring money into elections since Citizens United will have to disclose who their major donors are. Voters would know who was trying to tell them what.

This is not a partisan issue. Disclosure requirements, like those in the DISCLOSE Act, were endorsed as constitutional by the Supreme Court majority that handed down Citizens United. Even the conservative justices who saw no problem with more money in politics assumed that disclosure would be a check on the integrity of the election process.

But Republicans in Congress have been fighting tooth and nail to keep DISCLOSE from the books. Why? The fact that they might not want to publicize the motives of some of these super donors, and the fact that the new flood of outside political spending overwhelmingly favors conservatives, might have something to do with it.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is having disclosure problems of his own. It's standard practice for presidential candidates to release their past tax returns -- President Obama has made public his returns from the past dozen years. Even Romney called on his gubernatorial opponents in Massachusetts to release their returns. (In a classic Romney flip-flop, when he was later asked to hold himself to the same standard, he said his original demands had been wrong).

The only conclusion to draw from Romney's tax-return reticence is that there's something he doesn't want us to see. The recent revelations that Romney has told conflicting stories about when he left his job at Bain Capital might give us a taste of what he's kept hidden. And hiding part of his fortune in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and in Swiss bank accounts that have for centuries epitomized financial secrecy doesn't help.

The issue of financial disclosure isn't a sideshow to this election -- it's a big part of what this election is about. How can we trust senators who spend more time covering up the sources of election spending on their behalf than they do legislating? How can we trust a candidate who won't be open and honest with voters about the source of his personal fortune and the taxes he has paid?

Full disclosure should be a no-brainer in honest politics. The public knows that. Even the Supreme Court knows that. The only people who seem to be missing the message are the politicians who are desperately trying to win elections without telling voters who might be buying them.

PFAW

Don’t Forget Who John Roberts Is

Add this to the good news/bad news mix from the Supreme Court's healthcare decision: Because of the good news (Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act), we get the bad news that his standing among the nation's Democrats has significantly increased. This collective amnesia about who John Roberts is and what he has done is disturbing, especially since the direction of the Court is one of the most important issues upon which Democrats should be voting in November.

A new Gallup Poll shows wild fluctuations in Democrats and Republicans' assessment of Chief Justice John Roberts since their last poll in 2005, a change Gallup attributes to his role in upholding the Affordable Care Act. Roberts' approval rating among Republicans has plummeted 40 percentage points from 2005, falling from 67% to 27%. In contrast, his favorability among Democrats has risen from 35% to 54%. That the healthcare decision is a catalyst of this change is supported by a PEW Research Center poll last week showing that between April and July, approval of the Supreme Court dropped 18 points among Republicans and rose 12% among Democrats.

Yes, John Roberts upheld the ACA, but only as a tax. At the same time, he agreed with his four far right compatriots that it fell outside the authority granted Congress by the Commerce Clause, leaving many observers concerned that he has set traps designed to let the Court later strike down congressional legislation that should in no way be considered constitutionally suspect. He also joined the majority that restricted Congress's constitutional authority under the Spending Clause to define the contours of state programs financed with federal funds.

Just as importantly, Roberts's upholding the ACA does not erase the past seven years, during which he has repeatedly been part of thin conservative majority decisions bending the law beyond recognition in order to achieve a right wing political result. John Roberts cast the deciding vote in a number of disastrous decisions, including those that:

Oh, and then there's that little 5-4 Citizens United opinion that has upended our nation's electoral system and put our government up to sale to the highest bidder.

With a rap sheet like that – and this is hardly a complete a list – no one should be under the illusion that John Roberts is anything but a right-wing ideologue using the Supreme Court to cement his favorite right-wing policies into law.

Next term, Roberts is expected to lead the judicial front of the Republican Party's war against affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. Whether he succeeds may depend on whether it is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama who fills the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.

PFAW

Dirty Money Underwriting Pro-Romney Super PAC?

Although he voted to block the Senate from considering the DISCLOSE Act yesterday, Senator John McCain is usually a supporter of campaign finance reform. In an interview on PBS Newshour, McCain said that the astronomical contributions of Mitt Romney’s major financier, casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, are particularly problematic because those contributions amount to foreign money influencing U.S. elections:

MCCAIN: Mr. Adeleson [sic], who gave large amounts of money to the Gingrich campaign and much of Mr. Adeleson’s casino profits, that go to him, come from this casino in Macau.

WOODRUFF: Which says what?

MCCAIN: This which says that obviously, maybe in a round-about way, foreign money is coming into an American campaign, political campaigns.

Regardless of where Adelson acquired his billions, a new report by ProPublica and PBS reveals that Adelson’s business dealings may have been improper or even illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, complete with shady dealings with the Chinese mob and crooked politicians. As Think Progress summarizes, Adelson’s operation in Macau may have been made possible because of payments to Chinese organized crime figures:

Among the junket companies under scrutiny is a concern that records show was financed by Cheung Chi Tai, a Hong Kong businessman.

Cheung was named in a 1992 U.S. Senate report as a leader of a Chinese organized crime gang, or triad. A casino in Macau owned by Las Vegas Sands granted tens of millions of dollars in credit to a junket backed by Cheung, documents show.

Cheung did not respond to requests for comment.

Another document says that a Las Vegas Sands subsidiary did business with Charles Heung, a well-known Hong Kong film producer who was identified as an office holder in the Sun Yee On triad in the same 1992 Senate report. Heung, who has repeatedly denied any involvement in organized crime, did not return phone calls.

Because Nevada gambling authorities forbid doing any business with organized crime, Sands’s Las Vegas gambling licenses could hang in the balance. (Adelson and his company refused to comment for the PBS story.) But Adelson has other issues with his China operations.

Sheldon Adelson has pledged to give up to $100 million to unseat President Obama. But according to one of Adelson’s friends, he could spend far more than that: “We think ‘$100 million, wow!’ But it’s a meaningless amount of money to [Adelson].”

The system we have today allows for single individuals to give as much potentially money – clean or dirty – as they want to buy an election. This isn’t how democracy is supposed to work. Some sunlight is beginning to shine through on how Mitt Romney is benefitting from Sheldon Adelson’s shadowy dealings, but the extent of unaccountable money in our elections runs even deeper. Without a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the people will be unable to stop secret contributions by special interests, no matter where the money comes from.

PFAW

Perkins on Obama: 'I am Amazed that this Man is the President of the United States'

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has called President Obama the “worst president this country has ever had” and warned that America will not “have a future as a country” if Obama is re-elected because his administration “will destroy this country.” Perkins even said that Christian Obama supporters must “repent” for electing a president who “has a disdain for Christianity.” And so today it was no surprise that after Perkins and co-host Tim Wildmon, the president of American Family Association, played an out of context portion of a recent Obama speech, he said he’s “amazed that this man is the President of the United States.” Wildmon also chimed in, maintaining that Obama is “oozing with envy and jealousy” and claiming it “was so un-American what he just spouted.” In the address, Obama was referring to the importance of government investment in education, infrastructure and technology in growing the economy, but right-wing detractors have twisted his speech into an attack on businessmen.

Wildmon: That was just, he was all over the map, that’s just class warfare, he was oozing with envy and jealously, he was stirring up the crowd to be against people who have created wealth for themselves and for others.

Perkins: I am amazed that this man is the President of the United States.

Wildmon: As am I. That was so un-American what he just spouted, in keeping with our traditions. And he created a straw man there too to knock down, saying that people who are wealthy ‘think they are so smart and they work so much harder, and I’m here to tell you that they don’t and it’s time for them to pay their fair share by golly and I’m going to make it happen because I’m the President.’ Well, anyway, so much for the years of Ronald Reagan’s optimism, morning in America talks.

Jan Brewer on SB 1070: Jesus 'Got Me Here'

According to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, the aftermath of SB 1070 was hardest on… Jan Brewer. In an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Brewer defended her harsh and partly unconstitutional anti-immigration law SB 1070, and even cited Jesus. She told Brody that she felt politicians turned on her after she signed the discriminatory, racial profiling bill into law, noting that the aftermath was “tough” on her and she would sit on her patio and think “Jesus hold my hand, you got me here, now you’ve got to get me through all of this.”

Watch:

The signing of SB 1070 was a very difficult time for me personally because I knew immediately that although we monitored the bill and amended the bill in the legislature that it was going to be a lightning rod, however, I didn’t know or realize at the time just how big of a lightning rod it was going to be. But I knew that they would be out there, some of the political pundits and elected officials calling Arizona racist and bigots. And they turned on me, they really turned on me harshly and it hurts. And when you see protesters saying and doing and presenting things out there that represent things that you just absolutely know aren’t true, that was tough. Many a night I would sit on my patio and think, Jesus hold my hand, you got me here, now you’ve got to get me through all of this.

Janet Porter Swears Off Google over Gay Rights Initiative

Earlier this month, Buster Wilson of the American Family Association weighed boycotting Google because of its new “Legalizing Love” campaign “to decriminalize homosexuality and eliminate homophobia around the world.” Today, Janet Porter of Faith2Action in her radio alert said that “While it may be next to impossible to avoid all of the social media that Google owns,” the “Legalize Love” initiative “is one more good reason to have your e-mail and conduct your searches with someone else.” In fairness, Porter should alert listeners to avoid Google rivals Apple, Microsoft and Yahoo for also favoring gay rights causes.

Promoting homosexual rights around the globe.

That’s the new campaign that Google has recently launched. In a written statement, the search engine giant announced that their new “Legalize Love” initiative seeks to promote human rights and tackle discrimination in countries with “anti-gay laws on the books.”

A spokesman said “we want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office.”

They say that the campaign will not push for the legalization of same-sex marriage, but the company has actively opposed the efforts to ban it in California.

While it may be next to impossible to avoid all of the social media that Google owns, this is one more good reason to have your e-mail and conduct your searches with someone else!

Kincaid: Islam and Communism 'Are Synthesized in the Person of Barack Obama'

Cliff Kincaid has been making the rounds on right-wing radio to promote his bizarre new conference on how President Obama and George Soros are spearheading a secretive Islamic-Communist plot to destroy America. He spoke to Janet Mefferd yesterday where he detailed how his new conference will look into the ways radical Islamists and Communists are working together and “how these two movements coincide or parallel each other and actually are synthesized in the person of Barack Obama.” Indeed, Kincaid believes that George Soros is creating a new version of the Communist International and “has become the new Armand Hammer.” He also called for the reestablishment of the House Internal Security Committee, which was previously known as the House Un-American Activities Committee until it changed its name in 1969.

My group America’s Survival has held conferences over the years, some of them dealing with global Islam, some of them dealing with international Communism, and I came to the conclusion that some of the speakers and people coming to the different conferences were speaking past each other and I thought, we’ve got to get them together to look at how these two movements coincide or parallel each other and actually are synthesized in the person of Barack Obama, and that’s what we’re trying to do.



It’s incredible what we’ve developed. It gets even beyond what we know because we’re trying to pursue this to its logical conclusion: how are they working together? Look, we don’t have all the answers. One of the things that we’re trying to do is organize people at our conference and around the world, especially in the United States, to bring back the congressional committees that we used to have that investigated these things. We don’t have the House Internal Security Committee anymore, we don’t have the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security; we do have something called the Homeland Security Committee run by Peter King but he’s only looking at the Muslim part of the problem, we have to take a look at both of these international movements. Here’s where Soros comes in. There used to be something called the Communist International, the Comintern, it used to fund the Communist Party, all these Marxist and Communist and Soviet fronts, we believe and we have a report coming out that’s going to prove this that it’s really moneybags Soros that has filled the void there, it’s almost as if Soros has become the new Armand Hammer.

Republicans Put Big Money First, Continue to Block Transparency in Elections

Today, Senate Republicans voted to block the DISCLOSE Act, legislation designed to bring some basic but essential transparency to the electoral system in response to the Supreme Court’s flawed Citizens United decision. First proposed in 2010, the DISCLOSE Act would shed light on the secretive outside groups who aim to influence our elections. The Act would require the identification of individuals who give over $10,000 to outside groups that spend money on politics.

“The DISCLOSE Act would help the American people understand who is behind the political messages we’re bombarded with every day,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way.“Apparently, GOP senators would rather keep the public in the dark about who is bankrolling their campaigns. What do they have to hide? It’s telling that even Senators who previously supported strong disclosure laws would today let special interests buy our elections from the shadows instead of standing up for open and honest elections.

Citizens United opened up the floodgates to unaccountable, unrestricted spending by corporations and special interests to influence our elections. But even the conservative Supreme Court majority that gave us that decision acknowledged that robust disclosure is necessary to preserve the integrity of our elections.

“Today, the Senate had a chance to protect the American people’s right to know who is trying to sway their vote. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans chose to protect the anonymity of the wealthy few at the expense of the American public. Considering Mitt Romney’s refusal to release years of tax returns and his secret foreign bank accounts, it’s beginning to look like the GOP’s top priority is keeping money in the shadows. Instead, the Republican Party should embrace transparency – from personal records to political contributions – and bring greater integrity to the democratic process. ”

###

Linda Harvey Laments that 'Effeminized' Gays are Overpowering Exodus International

Alan Chambers of Exodus International has drawn the ire of a number of Religious Right activists after stating that the group will no longer officially endorse sexual orientation conversion therapy but will instead encourage people to repress their sexual orientation. Chambers also upset anti-gay leaders when he said that openly gay Christians can go to Heaven and asserted that “99.9%” of people who tried conversion therapy experienced no real change. Linda Harvey of Mission America, who last week denounced Chambers for showing “very poor judgment,” criticized Chambers not only for his apparent turnabout on ‘ex-gay’ therapy but also for dropping the youth-oriented Day of Truth, which became Focus on the Family’s Day of Dialogue, over fears that it was contributing to anti-gay bias in schools.

Harvey on her Saturday radio show insisted that Chambers showed his willingness to “pull the plug on kids and just abandon them” by ending the Day of Truth, and is conforming to “the stereotype of men who are not being men.” “Well the people running over you are the homosexuals, how ironic is this?” Harvey asked. “How ironic is this that the ones with the real guts are the ones who are the more effeminized or non-masculine males who aren’t embracing their real, God-given masculine identity.” After arguing that anti-bullying programs have “corrupted” kids, Harvey tearfully called for people to pray that Chambers will stop “embarrassing and humiliating and hurting” his own family by talking about his own same-sex attractions and “come back to the Lord and publicly repudiate all of this and be healed.”

For Exodus, as a position led by Alan Chambers and he’s not the only one in leadership there that are really misled, for them to pull the plug on kids and just abandon them, this is just the stereotype of men who are not being men, shall I just go there, because that’s what it is. Just don’t defend anything, just let people run right all over you. Well the people running over you are the homosexuals, how ironic is this? How ironic is this that the ones with the real guts are the ones who are the more effeminized or non-masculine males who aren’t embracing their real, God-given masculine identity. But the ex-homosexuals, supposedly, or the leadership there, won’t stand up. Come on, you are our best witness out there. If you won’t stand for this and you will just let kids be corrupted in this way all by buying into this phony notion that in order to have ‘no climate of hate’ in schools you can’t say anything bad about homosexuality; no, to have a ‘no climate of hate’ in schools you need to be telling kids the truth, giving them real hope. I didn’t get to the other issues I was going to cover today but this one is important enough.

I hope folks that you would pray for Exodus, stand up for those people who are disaffiliating from the current regime but maybe they’ll change. Pray that Alan Chambers and the other folks there in leadership with these false and very damaging ideas and this horrendous witness that they are giving to America and to American Christianity will change their heart and come back to the Lord and repent in their own lives, they will stop dishonoring their own families and embarrassing and humiliating and hurting them, come back to the Lord and publicly repudiate all of this and be healed.

For DISCLOSE Before They Were Against It

The DISCLOSE 2012 Act is a simple and seemingly-unobjectionable proposal that would require outside groups spending money in elections to disclose their donors and help inform the American people as to who is trying to sway their votes. Yet the proposal faces a slim (read: zero) chance of passage in the Senate this week. It even had partisan support when it was introduced first introduced in 2010 as a response to the Supreme Court’s flawed Citizens United decision, and Republican support for general campaign-related expenditures dates back many years.

Not anymore. The Huffington Post notes that there are 14 Republican senators serving since 2000 who previously voted for disclosure, but today would rather protect the anonymity of wealthy special interests and corporations than shed light on the funders of today’s endless barrage of attack ads.

These Senators have been whipped into line by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (who was undoubtedly whipped into line by wealthy special interests and corporations who write big checks to Republicans, and would prefer to continue to do so in secret). Senator McConnell himself has flip-flopped on the issue:

Sen. McConnell in 2000: “Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?”

Sen. McConnell in 2012: “[Disclosure is] a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.”

The Sunlight Foundation has put together a video “depicting” other Republicans’ contradictory statements on the DISCLOSE Act. Watch it here:

 

PFAW

Cliff Kincaid Endorses Movie Exposing Obama's 'Real Father'

Earlier this month we reported on an upcoming conference that seemed exceptionally crazy even by right-wing standards, as it plans to focus on the purported connections between Communism and Sharia law and the claim that Barack Obama’s real father is Frank Marshall Davis, the late civil rights activist and a friend of Obama’s grandfather. Conference organizer Cliff Kincaid, who also heads Accuracy In Media and America’s Survival, appeared on Secure Freedom Radio last week with Fred Grandy, the former Republican congressman and actor (‘Gopher’ from The Love Boat) who was filling in for host Frank Gaffney, to promote the summit and push the charge that Davis is Obama’s real father and still, even though he passed away in 1987, “has an influence over our President.” But this new Birther saga undermines the classical Birther conspiracy that Gaffney now pushes on Secure Freedom Radio, in which Obama’s mother travels with Obama, Sr. to Kenya (for some reason) to give birth.

Grandy: Another one of your panelists at your event next week is actually going to be trying to make the case that perhaps—and I’ve heard this rumor before—that Frank Marshall Davis was more than just a surrogate father to Barack Obama, he may well have been this guy’s real father and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., to some degree, is merely a minor influence in this kid’s life. How much credibility do you put into that?

Kincaid: I put a lot into it now that I’ve seen Joel Gilbert’s film, it’s called Dreams from My Real Father. It’s an incredible film. He’s going to show excerpts, he’s going to talk about his research. He’s expanded upon what we and Paul Kengor have done and I think it deserves a fair hearing. Now, whether or not he was a real father or not, the fact is Frank Marshall Davis has an influence over our President and that’s the critical issue but if indeed if he was Obama’s real father and the comparison’s photos are striking then we’ve got even more of a mystery behind this guy in the Oval Office.

Obstruction to Election Spending Disclosure: Welcome to 2012 America

Today, Monday July 16th 2012, the U.S. Senate will vote on whether to end the filibuster of the DISCLOSE Act, and more likely than not, the effort to bring the popular bill to a final floor vote will fail. Yet the DISCLOSE Act is a bill so fundamentally logical and conspicuously necessary for the health of our democracy, it is mind boggling that even one U.S. Senator would dare to not support it - let alone label it so extreme that the Senate should not even be allowed to vote on it.

The bill is about transparency, and the American people’s right to know who’s funding the campaign ads that are flooding our airwaves and influencing our opinions.

Here’s a brief history on how we got here:

On January 21st, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, overturning key provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act, creating a new campaign finance system in which corporations and unions could use treasury funds to influence elections.

Three months later, the D.C. Court of appeals struck down federal law limiting contributions to entities engaged in independent expenditures in the case SpeechNOW v. FEC. To reach their decision, the lower court relied upon the rationale put forth in Citizens United, particularly that “independent expenditures … do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” The Roberts Court declined to consider an appeal of the lower court’s ruling in SpeechNOW, and thus ushered in the era of the super PAC.

Yet anonymous spending was not supposed to be the result of these rulings.

In the opinion of Justice Kennedy, writing for eight of the nine justices on the Court, it was assumed that disclosure requirements were constitutionally permissible and would serve as a check in this new I.E. spending reality.

Kennedy wrote:

With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.

… citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.

… disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.


But that transparency has not been codified into law.  At present, there is no law or statute that requires entities that make independent expenditures to disclose to the general public the identities of those who gave money to the entity specifically for political ads and other spending.

Following Citizens United in 2010, Congress came close to mandating disclosure when the House passed the DISCLOSE act. The bill had strong majority support in the Senate, so the Republicans filibustered it. Unfortunately, the effort to end the filibuster failed in the Senate by one vote. It died on the Senate floor with a 59 to 39 split on a cloture motion, presciently extending what historian Robert Caro wrote about the Senate of the late 1950’s to the present day, that “For almost a century, [the Senate] had not merely embodied but had empowered, with an immense power, the forces of conservatism and reaction in America.”

Yet disclosure should not be a conservative issue or a liberal issue. This is a democratic issue, with the fundamentals of our democracy at stake. In 2012 America however, Republican political partisanship and hunger for power at all costs have taken precedent over the need for reform; and Republican Senate leadership is holding firm. Issues vital to the health of our democracy - whether they be voting rights or campaign finance rules - are now warped into partisan issues.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and opponents of the DISCLOSE act are desperate to find ways to discredit it and justify their unjustifiable opposition.

Take for example, McConnell’s piece in the USA Today, "Disclose Act is un-American," where he writes:

The Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. the FEC, correctly ruled that Congress may not ban political speech based on the identity of the speaker. (sic)

The Disclose Act would make this and any future administration's ability to punish and intimidate its political enemies even easier. It is the Democrats' attempt to get around the court by compelling certain targeted groups to disclose the names of their donors, while excluding others, such as unions, from doing the same.

While Senator McConnell cries out "un-American" and "unions" to scare his base - like Senator McCarthy once cried out "communists" on the Senate floor - the facts are irrefutable. Under the bill’s provisions, unions are treated equally to for-profit corporations. Case closed.

Furthermore, supporting the DISCLOSE Act is not a political power grab; however to reject it is, since the majority of the undisclosed money is benefiting the Republican party. So it goes for the bill’s opponents. Take reality and turn it on its head.

McConnell then declares:

This bill calls for government-compelled disclosure of contributions to all grassroots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents admit.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in 1958 in NAACP v. Alabama, ruling that forced disclosure of the NAACP's member lists by Alabama would discourage people from freely associating with a cause or group.

Once again, McConnell has to obfuscate the truth to hide the fact that he has no real argument.

The bill requires organizations (corporations, unions, super PACs, non-profits) to report within 24 hours of making an election expenditure of $10,000 or more. Donors that give $10,000 or more to the organization would be made public, unless they specify that their contributions to the organization cannot be used for election spending. The idea that every grassroots group will have to turn in their membership lists to the evil federal government is a scare tactic, and unsubstantiated.

The bill is designed to remove the added layer of anonymity ‘speakers’ are currently hiding behind by donating to nondescript (c)(4) and (c)(6) organizations that – unlike for-profit corporations, advocacy groups, and unions – do not operate in the public sphere, and whose purpose generally is unknown to the public.

One would imagine that halting this egregious process would be a quick fix. But one would also imagine the same for voting on judicial nominations, or extending the debt ceiling, or allowing Americans to cast a vote on Election Day. Unfortunately, that’s not how 2012 America functions.

The most unbelievable part of McConnell’s and Republican obstruction is that this DISCLOSE act is a watered-down version of its original. The 2010 provisions that would have required funders to “Stand By Their Ads” has been removed, as have the prohibition on electoral advocacy participation by corporations that received TARP funds. The bill will not be effective until 2013, so would not even affect this election cycle. But in the end, it’s definitely a step in the right direction and should be a no brainer for any elected official committed to the integrity of our elections.

Yet we are bound to hear the absurd cry of “union carve-out” tonight on the Senate floor when the bill is debated, and all the other diversionary arguments. The obstructionists need straw men, since without them, there could only be silence.

PFAW

Tony Perkins Pushes Bizarre Student Loan Conspiracy

In 2010, Congress codified the Affordable Care Act by passing the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which included an amended version of the health care reform bill along with student loan reform. Before passing the act, banks served as middlemen between the government and students seeking loans for higher education, but the reform law cuts out the middleman and created a system of direct loans, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Seemingly unable to come up with an argument against a system that is more beneficial to taxpayers and fairer to students, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins today warned, without any evidence at all, that the government is trying to use student loan reform to pressure Christian colleges to “provide coverage for abortions, sterilizations, or sex changes” and “advance the agenda of the Left by excluding” students attending Christian schools from the loan program:

King Solomon said - much study is wearisome to the flesh maybe that explains the connection between college loans and healthcare. Hello, this is Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Many people were puzzled to learn that student loans in America had been commandeered by the federal government. Even stranger was that the takeover was a part of the huge 2,700 page health care takeover known as Obamacare. What are student loans to do with nationalizing health care? Well, quite a bit if you think about it. Look down the road ten years. Imagine you want to send your son or daughter to a small Christian college that does not provide coverage for abortions, sterilizations, or sex changes. Will such institutions be approved for students who attend who are using federal loans? The takeover of student loans is just one more way to advance the agenda of the Left by excluding others. It is not studying that is so wearisome - it is the relentless push of the Left that's truly wearisome.

Sandy Rios: Child Abuse is tied to 'Homosexual Recruitment'

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association last week discussed Louis Freeh’s report on the Penn State child abuse scandal, and like countless other anti-gay activists, tied child abuse to homosexuality, a claim dismissed by groups like the American Psychological Association but commonplace on the far-right fringe. While likening the Penn State scandal to child abuse found in the Catholic Church, Rios said that Catholic seminaries were “just festering with homosexual activism” and “homosexual recruitment,” leading to child molestation:

I think that the point I want to make with this is this sounds stunning, it sounds a little bit like the priest scandal, doesn’t it? Where all of this stuff went on, where Catholic seminaries, it was just festering with homosexual activism—homosexual recruitment, I should say. A priest just turning the other way or engaging in it and not doing anything about it. So you might say, ‘well that’s shocking,’ but I think this is typical.

Naturally, AFA’s Dianne Gramley and Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber also linked gays to child abuse in the wake of the Freeh report:

Through all this we cannot ignore the fact that Jerry Sandusky's victims were all young boys. We can't ignore the homosexual aspect of this," Gramley offers. "And through Graham Spanier's tenure as president, he has brought more and more homosexual-oriented programming and events to the campus than ever before."

Adds Barber: "There also is an element of political correctness run amok here," he explains. "Anytime homosexuality is involved -- even though in this case it's a homosexual predator preying on children -- people seem to have this innate fear that they are going to be crushed by the sexual anarchist lobby if they speak out against it." Yet Barber says it is a fact that percentage-wise more sexual crimes are committed against children by homosexuals than by heterosexuals.

Linda Harvey: LGBT-Inclusive Schools Facilitate Child Abuse

Leave it to Mission America president Linda Harvey to claim that LGBT-inclusive Gay Straight Alliances and anti-bullying programs are creating a child abuse epidemic in public schools. “The unreported molestations facilitated daily by the ‘gay’ lobby’s insistence on access to children must surely dwarf anything done by Jerry Sandusky,” Harvey writes in World Net Daily, arguing that educators and gay rights advocates are “grooming” children “to become victims of homosexual pedophilia” and sending an “engraved invitation” to “untold numbers of pedophiles and pederasts”:

An investigative report has found that Penn State President Graham Spanier, head football coach Joe Paterno and others at Penn State turned a blind eye for years to Jerry Sandusky’s molestation of boys.

They were not the perpetrators, but their cover-up allowed Sandusky’s assaults to continue. When grown-ups who are in a position to prevent predatory behavior fail to do so, the message to the victims is, “This must be OK with them.” That further betrayal adds to bodily assault, the rape of the spirit.

Yet we have turned a blind eye to the same betrayal happening every day to thousands of children in our schools and communities. We should be outraged at the routine “grooming” of children in our schools to become victims of homosexual pedophilia. How are our kids being blithely set up to accept victimization when it happens?



So, the engraved invitation has been sent to untold numbers of pedophiles and pederasts. School “non-discrimination” policies on “sexual orientation” keep that door open and all protectors of children at arm’s length. The National Education Association has numerous policies supporting the “safe” (read: unchallenged) expression of homosexual behavior by children in schools. These are often pushed by its “GLBT” Teachers’ Caucus.

Schools feel the increasing presence, whether they like it or not, of advocacy groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, and the Human Rights Campaign. The newest campaigns of both these groups is to reach elementary students. If we cooperate, it’s easy for some children to become targets.

Adults may approach them, and they won’t realize it’s not only outrageous, but illegal. It may be a coach or assistant coach. It may be the college student who was the invited speaker at your school’s “gay-straight alliance” meeting. It may be a 24 year old you met as a 12 year old when your school’s homosexual club marched in the town’s pride parade, carrying the school banner to support “LGBT” youth.



And we complain about Penn State? The unreported molestations facilitated daily by the “gay” lobby’s insistence on access to children must surely dwarf anything done by Jerry Sandusky, horrific as his actions were.



As bad as heterosexual molestation is, it isn’t being packaged as the natural outgrowth of a “right,” an element of “social justice.” Same-sex molestation has always been easier to facilitate in venues for children, since children and adults of the same sex do sometimes use the same restrooms, go on camp outs and – as we saw with Sandusky – shower in the same facilities. Access is easier, and the blind eye we are turning due to the repositioning of truth by the “gay” lobby is making the risk greater than ever.

Gary Bauer: Gay Marriage Stands in the Way of Reducing Crime in Chicago

On Wednesday, Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families attempted to tie the Obama administration’s support for gay rights…to violent crime. Bauer said that the escalating crime rate in the city of Chicago is due to children growing up in fatherless homes, which he maintained is a result of Democratic policies that have “made it comfortable for many women to not have husbands in the home” and even same-sex marriage. “Obama and the Democrats have embraced the radical idea of men marrying other men,” Bauer sneered, “How is that going to help the black family?”

I'd like to go to Chicago for a second. I about fell out of my chair watching a recent CBS interview with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. He was lamenting the values, or lack of values, of Chicago's gang culture, as nearly three hundred people have been killed in Chicago this year, many of them little kids. That's higher casualties than we're suffering in Afghanistan. Here's what Mayor Rahm Emanuel said:

"It is about values. As I said then [referring to when a 7-year-old girl was shot and killed last month], who raised you? How were you raised? And I don't buy this case where people say they don't have values. They do have values. They have the wrong values. Don't come near the kids -- don't touch them."

Well, thanks for speaking up Mr. Mayor, you're asking the right questions, but sadly you can't come up with the right answers. Certainly these kids aren't getting their values from their fathers because they don't have fathers in their households. For the past fifty years, Rahm Emanuel's party, the Democratic Party, has made it comfortable for many women to not have husbands in the home. Now Obama and the Democrats have embraced the radical idea of men marrying other men! How is that going to help the black family?

When Emanuel worked in the Clinton White House, the response to gang violence, do you remember this, was midnight basketball programs. It didn't work, midnight basketball programs don't replace fathers. And, of course, it was around that time when Democrats and their media allies did their best to convince us that values really didn't matter. Even the disgusting values demonstrated in the Oval Office with a White House intern.

The fact is that values do matter. There is no government program dreamed up by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Rahm Emanuel that can make up for the breakdown of the family. And this election be about more than just about economics.

A Romney Supreme Court – The Dream of Corporate Special Interests

For the mega-corporations and wealthy ideologues bankrolling Romney's campaign, a Romney-nominated Supreme Court would be a dream come true.
PFAW

Desperate Religious Right Activists Say Military is Endangered by Having Service Members Share Barracks with Gay Soldiers

Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty and a former Republican politician, appeared alongside Family Research Council president Tony Perkins today on Washington Watch Weekly to push back against reports showing that only a small number of chaplains say they have been negatively impacted by the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. While the Religious Right’s prediction that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would have catastrophic consequences on the military and national security contradicts nearly all of the evidence, Crews insisted that President Obama and his appointees are “turning our military into a social experiment to promote the cause of the homosexual agenda in this country” at “the expense ultimately of what our military is intended to do and that is to provide for the protection of this country, to defend this nation.” Later, Crews said that the military may experience a significant decline in “retention and recruitment” because parents will not want their children to serve in a “two-man barrack, a two person barrack, where they may be placed with a homosexual soldier.”

Perkins: The Department of Defense is kind of suppressing these differing views, only kind of giving a platform to those who are embracing this new policy, where do you think that pressure is coming from within the Department of Defense?

Crews: It’s coming from the very top. The senior leaders of the military are all presidential appointees, the senior attorney, Jeh Johnson, of the military is a presidential appointee. So these senior leaders fall in line with the president and his policy, who is turning our military into a social experiment, I believe, at the expense ultimately of what our military is intended to do and that is to provide for the protection of this country, to defend this nation. The current administration is turning our military into a social experiment to promote the cause of the homosexual agenda in this country. I am very concerned about the direction that the current administration has been leading our military over the last couple of years.



Crews: The jury is still out. I’m concerned about long-term retention and recruitment. How many moms and dads are going to want their children to go into a military where their son or daughter may be in a barrack that they have no control over, in a two-man barrack, a two person barrack, where they may be placed with a homosexual soldier and they have no recourse, so we’re concerned.

Reverend William Owens’ Offensive Anti-Gay Politics

Reverend William (Bill) Owens is the founder and president of a tiny outfit that goes by the name of the Coalition of African-American Pastors. The group’s sole reason for existing appears to be attacking African-American leaders and organizations from the right. Among other things, Owens thinks a man having sex with another man is like a man having sex with a dog. He also thinks that people become gay because they were molested as kids. But more on that later. 

Yesterday in Houston, Owens held a press conference outside the NAACP annual convention to attack the group for endorsing marriage equality. Back in May, Owens generated some press by attacking President Obama, likewise for endorsing marriage equality.
 
I wasn’t surprised then, to learn that Owens is affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage, whose internal planning documents talk of the need to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks.” Owens was once a heroic civil rights leader in Nashville, but these days it’s hard to know – apart from NOM – who or what Owens’ constituency is. For instance, Owens is a collecting signatures for an anti-marriage equality pledge at 100000signatures4marriage.com (that’s with a 1 with 5 zeros). But he wrote in a May 31 letter that “over one thousand” people had signed (so close, just 99% more to go!).
 
And just last week, the African Methodist Episcopal Church took exception with a Coalition of African-American Pastors press release that claimed that both organizations would call on black pastors to “withhold support from President Obama because of his ongoing disrespect for the views of many of us in the black church.” Bishop Carolyn Tyler Guidry, chair of AME’s Commission on Social Action, said that “contrary to the report, neither the AME Church nor its leadership is involved with or partnering with the Coalition of African-American Pastors.” Oops.
 
Owens, it must be said, is a true believer and comes by his anti-gay wedge politics honestly (although NOM is likely providing some financial backing). At the May press conference where he attacked Obama, Owens belied his own ignorance and homophobia. He equated gay sex with bestiality and said that homosexuality is caused by, and spreads through, molestation. You can listen to highlights of the full event here:
 
A few months ago, the Commercial Appeal carried an article with a young man’s picture in it. He was charged with having sex with a dog. Now I wonder was that his civil right? Will we go down that road where whatever we choose to do, we’ll call it our civil rights? Well if it’s a civil right for a man to marry man, and a woman to marry woman, what’s the difference of a man deciding he wants to have sex with a dog? […]
 
When people that you don’t know they’re homosexuals, and they get caught into something, they will tell you it was early childhood that they were molested. Sometimes by a family member, sometimes by their father, or sometimes by a friend. It starts in early childhood. […] Homosexuality spreads because somebody abused children.
With views like these, it’s little wonder that Owens is struggling to convince people that he, not the NAACP and Obama, is on the side of justice.

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious