Back in July, the Boston Globe reported that Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly stated he left his job at Bain Capital in 1999, was listed on the company’s tax filings as its CEO through 2002. Romney’s campaign later, and confusingly, stated that he had retired “retroactively” from the firm.
The discrepancy wasn’t just about a footnote in Romney’s resume. It was critical to the whole story Romney had been telling about himself, since he had denied involvement in some of the firms more questionable practices during the three years in question.
Now, the Globe reports, MoveOn.org is asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Romney broke the law when he stated on a 2011 campaign ethics filing that his involvement with Bain ended in 1999:
WASHINGTON — A Democratic group supporting President Obama’s reelection has asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Republican Mitt Romney violated federal law by stating on a 2011 ethics filing that he was not involved with Bain Capital operations “in any way’’ after 1999.
The Globe, citing numerous Securities and Exchange Commission filings, reported in July that Romney continued to serve as chief executive and chairman of Bain Capital, as well as the principal in a number of Bain-related entities, until as late as 2002.
The organization MoveOn.org Political Action, a liberal group, seized on those discrepancies in a letter dated Thursday to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. The group, citing its own review of the public records, contends that Romney may have violated the False Statements Act by lying on his 2011 federal financial disclosure statement.
In the 2011 disclosure, which Romney was required to submit as a presidential candidate, the former Massachusetts governor stated that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way’’ since Feb. 11, 1999. MoveOn.org contends that appears to be false.
“There is substantial evidence that Governor Romney was in fact involved with the operations of Bain Capital after that date,’’ MoveOn.org said in its letter to the Justice Department. In a press release, the group asserts there is “substantial evidence that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony.’’
On CNN’s website today, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin laments out how small a role the Supreme Court has played in the presidential election so far. He writes:
With a little more than a month to go, it's not too late to ask the candidates to take a stand on their plans for the court. The president has already had two appointments, and he named Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. But what does Obama, a former law professor, think about the court? Does he believe in a "living" Constitution, whose meaning evolves over time? Or does he believe, like Justices Scalia and Thomas, that the meaning of the document was fixed when it was ratified, in the 18th century.
By the same token, what kind of justices would Romney appoint? Who are his judicial role models? Romney has praised Chief Justice John Roberts, but is the candidate still a fan even after the chief voted to uphold the ACA?
No one is asking these questions. But there are few more important things to know about our current and future presidents.
Toobin is absolutely right that the candidates’ plans for the Supreme Court deserve a lot more air time than they’re getting. But he’s wrong to suggest that we know nothing about what President Obama and Governor Romney have in mind for the Court.
President Obama has already picked two Supreme Court justices. Both, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have been strong moderates, balancing out the retro extremism of Justices Scalia and Thomas. When female Wal-Mart employees wanted to band together to sue their employer for pay discrimination, Sotomayor and Kagan stood on the side of the women’s rights, while Scalia and Thomas twisted the law to side with the corporation. When Justices Thomas and Scalia ruled that a woman harmed by a generic drug couldn’t sue the drug’s manufacturer in state court, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan stood up for the rights of the consumer.
Mitt Romney obviously hasn’t had a chance to pick a Supreme Court justice yet, but he’s given us a pretty good idea of who he would choose if given the opportunity. On his website, Romney promises to “nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” After the Supreme Court’s ruling in the health care reform case, Romney announced he had changed his mind about Roberts, who declined to destroy the law while still writing a stunningly retrogressive opinion redefining the Commerce Clause.
And, of course, Romney sent a clear signal to his conservative base when he tapped Robert Bork to advise him on legal and judicial issues. Bork’s record, and what he signals about Romney’s position on the Supreme Court, is chilling:
Romney’s indicated that he would want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. He’s even attacked the premise of Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that prohibited states from outlawing birth control by establishing a right to privacy.
Yes, the candidates should be made to answer more questions about their plans for the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. But there’s a lot that we already know.
(For more, check out PFAW’s website RomneyCourt.com.)
We ordinarily wouldn’t really pay attention to Joel Gilbert, a Bob Dylan enthusiast who also dabbles in anti-Obama conspiracy theories, most recently making a film that alleges that the president’s real father is labor activist and communist party organizer Frank Marshall Davis.
But when Bill Armistead, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, started promoting Gilbert’s movie, “Dreams from My Real Father,” and when news surfaced that Gilbert was sending thousands of copies of his movie gratis to households in swing states and that conservative groups were holding showings, we thought we should start keeping track of him.
Gilbert has a spiel that he repeats pretty much word for word on media appearances, but once in a while he comes up with something new (for instance when he said that the Aurora movie theater shooting could very well have been an Obama administration inside job).
In an interview with Iowa radio host Steve Deace yesterday, Gilbert asserted that the president is “comfortable around anti-American extremists” – including Michelle Obama. He also elaborated on his theory that Obama is “attempting to turn the entire United States into this one-party system by doubling the food stamp rolls, putting everybody on government healthcare, making illegals legal.”
Obama is comfortable around anti-American extremists, people that are anti-American – Bill Ayers, Michelle Obama, dare I say. These are the people that he feels comfortable with and they’re comfortable with him. Obama’s policies mirror this classic Marxist indoctrination that he received and reinforced his entire life by joining the Midwest Academy, his relationship with Bill Ayers and his family for 25, 30 years, as well as Bernadine Dorn, and this entire rat’s nest of Marxist ideologues that came out of Chicago and transformed their, took their little one-party ideology from Chicago and are attempting to turn the entire United States into this one-party system by doubling the food stamp rolls, putting everybody on government healthcare, making illegals legal. Their intent, it’s all about keeping power and creating a one-party state that they can never have to give up power.
Televangelist James Robison warns in a blog post today that “the belief system controlling the most powerful leader and far too many leaders in America is built on lies,” which have emanated from Satan himself. Robison asserts that Obama and his supporters are trying to usher in a “dictatorially powerful state” and have fallen under a “deadly deception.” He maintains that their belief system derives from “Karl Marx, another demonically deceived individual,” who advocated “a lie birthed in the pit of hell.” The election will determine whether the US climbs out of “the ditch of defeat, debt, depravity, and deception” or turns itself “over to Pharaoh.”
Satan is the father of all lies. God is author of truth. Lies damage, defeat and destroy. Truth illuminates, reveals, heals, and sets captives free. Lies establish a foundation equal to sinking sand, while truth provides the only unshakable foundation.
Present day trends reveal that too many Americans have believed lies. Deception prevails in Washington and at the highest levels of leadership. This has damaged honest communication, corrupted relationships, diminished faith’s effectiveness, and divided the church.
Every national and local election is important. During every election cycle we hear how important that particular one happens to be. Let me state loudly again: the election this November is as critically important as any in my lifetime, and I’ve been a witness to many. This one will determine how much deeper we dig our way into the ditch of defeat, debt, depravity, and deception or whether we affirm our determination to stop the insanity, seek wisdom from above, and begin a steadfast ascent from the pit of hopelessness.
The belief system controlling the most powerful leader and far too many leaders in America is built on lies. I do not question the sincerity of those who have been deceived. I do not question their desire to offer assistance and relief where it is so obviously needed. But I question forcefully and could spend days proclaiming biblical passage after passage totally rebuking their line of reasoning, the proposals, possibilities, and policies being presented as answers. They are not! They are the result of deadly deception.
We hear so many presidents, candidates, and leaders say at the close of their speeches: “God bless America!” Let it be settled once and for all, the only way God is going to bless America is when the American people continually desire to bless God and bless others! We are our brother’s keeper. We must love our neighbors. We cannot turn that over to Pharaoh or some dictatorially powerful state.
Karl Marx, another demonically deceived individual, believed the all-powerful state was the answer and solution to the human dilemma. That was a lie birthed in the pit of hell and carried on the shoulders of deceived people who had turned their back on the wisdom that comes only from above. I don’t care how big a person’s smile is, I don’t care how cheerful they appear to be, I don’t care how often they claim to believe in God, when they point to another source as the solution, they are controlled by lies.
No political party is the answer, but some of our parties have been terribly deceived and those lies must be rejected by the American people. There is no perfect political party. They’ve all got their problems. But you can rest assured, if any party or candidate promotes the federal government as the primary solution; they have been deceived at the highest level. Those who believe in a limited, under-control government have at least acknowledged a very important and necessary truth.
If you think this election is going to solve the American dilemma, then you have bought the enemy’s lies. It is the direction, the necessary correction, yes, the national repentance beginning in the heart of each individual that will determine our nation’s future. We’ve got to correct this perilous course, and we’ve got to do it immediately! Everyone must pray, and everyone must vote with kingdom principles and convictions controlling their thoughts, their desires, prayers, and hopes. And we must be committed to God’s kingdom purpose and that’s to love Him with all our heart and love our neighbors as ourselves, and always refusing to depend on Pharaoh. We have already seen the bondage resulting from such dependency. How much more clearly can God reveal it when He spent the whole Old Testament showing it to us and then the New Testament revealing how we can overcome?
While speaking with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch Weekly, Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said she told her client Todd Akin to withstand the controversy that emerged following his comments on “legitimate rape” just like David Koresh, the Waco compound cult leader whose standoff with the ATF led to over eighty deaths. Conway told Perkins that she advised Akin to survive efforts to “smoke him out” like Koresh until they “realize the guy’s not coming out of the bunker.” She was speaking with Perkins just as the deadline for Akin to drop out passed, and Republican figures such as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Jim DeMint, including DeMint’s powerful Senate Conservatives Fund, rallied to Akin’s behalf. Conway said she expects even more Republicans to follow Perkins’ lead in rallying behind Akin.
Perkins: The distance between them is narrowing, Todd Akin has bounced back up, and the evidence of that is pretty clear because now you see other Republicans who abandoned him are now taking a second look at the race and realizing just how important this seat is.
Conway: They are and they’re following your lead Tony. You saw former speaker Gingrich there on Todd’s behalf at a fundraiser on Monday, saying it’s just “conventional idiocy” that’s preventing people from backing Todd, and he predicts that come mid-October everyone will be following yours and his lead back to Missouri, with their money. Of course, former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Senator Jim DeMint came out just yesterday to support Todd. I believe that the establishment will have to look at this race and they will have to hold their nose because the first days—and I’ve expressed this to Todd as my client for a while now, I’ve expressed it to him directly—the first day or two where it was like the Waco with David Koresh situation where they’re trying to smoke him out with the SWAT teams and the helicopters and the bad Nancy Sinatra records. Then here comes day two and you realize the guy’s not coming out of the bunker. Listen, Todd has shown his principle to the voters.
At a 2011 “pastor’s briefing” with disgraced pseudo-historian David Barton, Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-MO) recounted an experience of going to jail after protesting against abortion rights. Akin told the audience that he had earlier spoken with “a group of people who had been in jail with me” who were all “involved in the pro-life movement.”
“Don’t tell anybody I’m a jail bird,” Akin said, briefly telling a story about when “a bunch of us sat in front of these doors and the police gave us a ride to the free hotel for a while and you know how it goes.”
At the event with Barton, who has strongly backed his candidacy and has been campaigning with the embattled candidate, Akin was discussing biblical views on when to submit to governmental authority. Akin’s extreme views on abortion rights and rape are already well-known, but he only gave few details about his time as a “jail bird” during what may have been an illegal blockade of a clinic.
Akin: Yesterday I spoke to a group of people who had been in jail with me, you know don’t tell anybody I’m a jail bird, you know, but there were a bunch of us that were years ago involved in the pro-life movement and the question becomes: the Bible says, ‘rescue the innocent that is being led to slaughter,’ so a bunch of us sat in front of these doors and the police gave us a ride to the free hotel for a while and you know how it goes, and the question is, is that biblical or not?
UPDATE: Akin confirmed his arrest at a news conference, as reported by the Associated Press.
Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin said Friday that he had been arrested during an anti-abortion protest about two decades ago but didn't provide details of where or when the event occurred.
In a video circulating widely on the Internet Friday, Akin is seen discussing his involvement in an anti-abortion demonstration and says "you know, don't tell anybody I'm a jail bird." He also says in the video that "a bunch of us sat in front of these doors and the police gave us a ride to the free hotel for a while, and you know how it goes."
Asked at a press conference Friday in Kansas City to confirm the arrest, Akin said: "Yeah, well, certainly. Probably about 25 years ago or so I was involved in some peaceful protests. As I've made very clear I don't apologize for being pro-life. I stand up for the things I believe in."
His campaign promised to provide details of the arrest later Friday.
Mitt Romney took the stage at NBC's Education Nation to double down on his ridiculous past remarks that class size is "irrelevant" and "didn't make a difference." In light of Romney's remarks, American Bridge 21st Century launched ClassSizeMatters.com, featuring a great video and research revealing Romney's disastrous record on education.
Mitt Romney has said that "the effort to reduce classroom size may actually hurt education more than it helps." As governor, he proposed cutting $18 million in funding for class size reduction in Massachusetts. Yet when it came time to choose a school for his children, the Romneys chose an elite private school with an average class size of eleven students.
Mitt Romney wants small class sizes for his family -- but not for yours.
Learn more at http://classsizematters.com/learn-more/
Far-right activist David Horowitz has been out promoting his new book, Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion, and told conservative talk show host Steve Deace yesterday that President Obama, much like professor Cornel West, is taken seriously simply because he is black. During an incoherent rant, Horowitz asserted that Obama “would never be president if he weren’t black” as no one with the same “curious background and radicalism would ever have been nominated, let alone elected president if he weren’t black.” “Part of the racism of our society is if you’re black you can get away with murder,” Horowitz concludes.
Cornel West is just symbolic of the corruption of our culture and not unlike Obama who would never be president if he weren’t black, no white person with his resume and his thoughts and curious background and radicalism would ever have been nominated, let alone elected president if he weren’t black. So Cornel West is an empty suit who has twenty honorary degrees and he’s taught at all these prestigious universities but is basically an airhead, most people who’ve seen him on TV they’ve noticed. Part of the racism of our society is if you’re black you can get away with murder.
Later, Horowitz repeated his smear of Huma Abedin and said that she is a “Muslim Brotherhood operative” and the “chief adviser to the American government right now on Muslim affairs.” Not only is patently it absurd to claim that Abedin is a secret agent for the Brotherhood but she is also not a policymaker.
After attacking Obama as someone who “sympathizes with our enemy” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, Horowitz said that conservatives are much nicer and more open minded than liberals. But he couldn’t even make that audacious claim without attacking Obama: “we don’t set out to destroy the character of people. Obama is a Communist.” Not only is Obama a Communist, Horowitz explained, but so are his advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, whom he says all serve this “evil cause” with religious zeal.
Obama basically sympathizes with our enemy and Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser, the chief adviser to the American government right now on Muslim affairs is Huma Abedin, who is a Muslim Brotherhood operative. The Muslim Brotherhood, for people who don’t know, that’s the organization that created Osama bin Laden, it’s the parent organization of Hamas, and it’s agenda — well they’re already doing it in Egypt — is to turn it into an Islamic, fascist state, meaning that everybody is under Islamic laws, this seventh century law.
People have to stop thinking of them as liberals. Conservatives are liberal people, we believe in two sides to a question, we don’t shut people up, when we have channels on television there is more than one viewpoint, we don’t set out to destroy the character of people. Obama is a Communist. Stanley Kurtz has written a really good book called “Radical-in-Chief” and his entire life has been spent in the same left that I came out of, which is the radical, Marxist left. Only it’s even worse. [David] Axelrod, his family is all—they’re communists. Valerie Jarrett, I mean literally members of the Communist Party. And I know as somebody who came out of the left, you know if you’re involved with an evil cause and you leave it, you denounce it, you tell people, particularly if you’re a political person, you warn people. These people are really dangerous but they haven’t done that, they are still committed to this cause. I think that’s the main thing, people have to suddenly awaken and realize, and that’s one reason I wrote this book “Radicals” because it’s a portrait of this mentality, it’s a very religious mentality.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, Illinois, is warning that the Democratic Party has endorsed “intrinsic evils” and consequently, voters who back Democratic candidates have put their eternal salvation at risk. In the Catholic Times, the official newspaper of the Springfield diocese, Bishop Thomas John Paprocki uses the manufactured controversy about mentioning “God” in the Democratic Platform to argue that the Democrats are hostile to faith, and went on to attack Democrats for endorsing gay rights and opposing the criminalization of abortion. He said those two planks demonstrate that the Democrats “explicitly endorse intrinsic evils,” while noting that he has “read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin.”
Paprocki concludes with a warning that while he is “not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against,” backing the Democratic Party may put your eternal salvation at risk: “a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”
There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding "political" and didn't say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party's official "unequivocal" support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.
Certainly there are "pro-choice" Republicans who support abortion rights and "Log Cabin Republicans" who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.
Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.
Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council yesterday spoke to VCY America’s Crosstalk where he, like FRC president Tony Perkins, again tried to link both the Obama administration and the Southern Poverty Law Center to the tragic office shooting last month. But that wasn’t the only thing Blackwell told host Jim Schneider, as he also warned that all those who oppose the FRC and its mission are trying to form a “totalitarian state” and “destroy the family.”
Blackwell: We at the Family Research Council, we are a conservative Christian organization, we have answered the call, it’s a biblical call, in Psalms 11:3 the question is asked, if the foundation be destroyed what shall the righteous do? As an organization we have advanced these biblical truths, we defended them and as a consequence we have become despised by those who would recreate this country into something that its founders never expected it to be, and that is a big welfare state, a totalitarian state or an authoritarian state. In those models and the state-craft of those national models they’ve had to chase God and faith out of the public square and they’ve had to destroy the family as the basic unit of governance because they replace it with an all-powerful state.
The FRC senior fellow even agreed with a warning that the SPLC may start labeling churches throughout America as hate groups, based on the false claim that opposition to same-sex marriage was the reason the FRC received the designation, and suggested that President Obama and his allies are setting up the conditions for a “totalitarian” regime.
Schneider: If Family Research Council has been labeled as a hate group because of the position that you’ve taken on traditional marriage, that we have known since the beginning of this country, that thirty-some states have certified in their own constitutions, if FRC has been labeled as a hate group, aren’t we just a step away from our individual churches all across this nation being on this same hate list?
Blackwell: Oh absolutely. That’s why I started out by saying if you look at the various models of governance throughout human history we have shown in terms of a democratic Republic driven by constitutional governance that limits the reach and intrusion of government and puts an emphasis on individual liberty and is based on the fact that there is a moral foundation of this country, if you can compare that to totalitarian states, authoritarian states, big welfare states, there are a couple things that have had to happen for these states to consolidate power and use and misuse their power. They’ve had to destroy or weaken the family and they’ve had to run God and faith out of the public square, or at minimum they have had to silence the church. I don’t think it’s a step to far to say that this is a President that has carried out that strategy in the advancement of the reintroduction of the welfare state.
Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty head Ron Crews yesterday in the Washington Times said that the new study which once again proved that the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has had no negative impact on the military since the repeal was certified one year ago is mere “propaganda” that “should be shredded post-haste.” However, Crews does not even attempt to rebut the study or offer any evidence for why the report “has no connection to reality.” He did blame the repeal policy for one incidence of potential harassment and supposed uneasiness among chaplains who disapprove of homosexuality, and also inexplicably considered the performance of same-sex ceremonies on bases as an attack on religious freedom. Crews labeled the repeal a “threat to freedom” and an “assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members” by turning them into guinea pigs for a “radical sexual experiment.”
The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration. The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.
Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.
Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.
The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.
Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.
This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.
Focus on the Family president Jim Daly hosted conservative pastor Tony Evans to discuss the importance of voting yesterday, which Daly kicked off by claiming that just a single vote brought Texas into the Union, would have stopped Hitler from coming to power, made German a second language in the US and defeated John F. Kennedy. While of course every vote is important, unfortunately, Daly’s list is entirely false and based on urban legends.
Daly made sure to keep the program nominally nonpartisan but did discuss why evangelical voters should prefer a conservative non-Christian candidate over a left-leaning Christian and lamented the supposed tendency of African Americans to only vote only according to race. While it was already clear who Daly and Evans wanted listeners to support, they made their pitch more apparent when the two asserted that the current administration is quashing freedom and attacking Christians. Daly warned that government keeps getting “bigger and bigger and wants to take away more and more of our freedoms” and Evans maintained that there is an attempt “to remove God from government” by increasing its size and weakening freedom.
Daly: Going back to this idea when government gets bigger, our liberties tend to get smaller. The Founding Fathers were uniquely geared to understanding corrupt government and what happens when tyranny occurs. How do we guard against that in this modern day? It seems like nothing new under the sun is occurring and as government in the US gets bigger and bigger and wants to take away more and more of our freedoms, how do we actually respond?
Evans: I think the church of Jesus Christ has to rise up as a unit and say it is unacceptable to remove God from government, it is unhistorical, it is certainly biblio-centrically unacceptable and therefore we’re going to as responsible citizens raise up godly people to run for office; we are going to vote for people who have biblical value system to get into office; we are going to on the various levels of government make our voices heard; we are going to register our people to vote on Sunday after church; we are going to make a comprehensive statement that we are not to be denied as Christians our freedoms in America and we can argue clearly from the Bible on small government. You know 1 Samuel 8, He says if you elect a government of me it will expand, it is going to overtax you and it will take, take, take, take, take, and you will lose the freedom that I intended for you. That’s what is happening in America and that is why God’s people have got to vote for the right government.
Adding a dose of pseudo-history, Daly argued that the Founders established the US government according to the Bible and Evans said that the US is modeled after biblical Israel and the Garden of Eden.
Daly: Tony, as we look at the mandate in the Bible to vote there is so much there and the Founding Fathers again were brilliant in understanding God’s design for things and the Scripture is pretty clear and really the Founding Fathers in creating a Republic based it on their biblical understanding of God’s ordination of government, didn’t they?
Evans: Absolutely, they went right to Exodus 18, how Israel was organized as a representative government, and used that as a pattern for the government of the United States. The principles and the freedom which dominates the uniqueness of the United States is drawn right from Scripture, in fact freedom started with God in the Garden, ‘from every tree of the Garden you may freely eat,’ there was broad freedom, limited regulations and dire consequences, that’s how government is supposed to work, so whenever government gets too big it gets unbiblical.
Stumping in Iowa last year, Mitt Romney famously defended the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, declaring, “Corporations are people, my friend.”
But it turns out there’s one group that Romney thinks should be prohibited from spending money to influence elections: teachers’ unions. Speaking at a forum in New York, Romney expressed his wish for one specific campaign finance restriction:
The bigger problem, Romney said, is that "the person sitting across the table from them should not have received the largest campaign contribution from the teachers union themselves ... [It's] an extraordinary conflict of interest and something that should be addressed."
He later added that "we simply can't have" elected officials who have received large contributions from teachers sitting across from them at the bargaining table "supposedly" to represent the interests of children. "I think it's a mistake," Romney said. "I think we have to get the money out of the teachers unions going into campaigns. It's the wrong way for us to go. We've got to separate that."
Romney’s absolutely right that large campaign contributions and expenditures can improperly influence elected officials. But if he’s going to apply that standard to teachers, he needs to apply it to corporations as well.
Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin is organizing a “Common Sense Bus Tour” following Newt Gingrich’s visit to boost the congressman’s embattled campaign. While Akin seems to have lost the support of major GOP figures after he said that it is extremely unlikely for a woman to become pregnant as a result of “legitimate rape,” he has consistently held the support of Religious Right activists who adore his ultraconservative views. Eagle Forum, which is based in St. Louis, sent out this invitation:
Phyllis Schlafly invites you to join her at first stop of the Missouri Common Sense Bus on Tuesday, September 25 from 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Renaissance St. Louis Grand Hotel Ballroom, 800 Washington Avenue St. Louis, Missouri.
You will find encouragement at each stop of the Missouri Common Sense Bus tour across Missouri. Each stop will feature some of Missouri's most well-known conservative leaders who are standing with Todd Akin for U.S. Senate.
With only a few weeks until the election, invite your friends and family to come out to hear why Todd Akin is the right choice to represent common sense in the U.S. Senate. Participants will vary by stop, but include the following:
• Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum
• Dick Bott, Founder of Bott Radio Network
• Rich Bott, President of Bott Radio Network
• Don Hinkle, Editor of "The Pathway" and Director of Public Policy Missouri Baptist Convention
• Bev Ehlen, Missouri President, Concerned Women for America
• Pastor David Smith
• Buddy Smith, Executive Director, American Family Association
While it comes as no surprise that such far-right activists are rallying to Akin’s defense, here is why they may not help Akin improve his image among voters.
Operation Rescue founder and presidential candidate Randall Terry has announced another campaign, Operation Throw Obama Out, to run candidates for office so they can run graphic ads against abortion rights. According to the statement, Terry hopes to run ads that will be seen in swing states such as Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio.
Seven federal campaigns are poised to run withering ads against Obama in 21 states and the District of Columbia, including 7 vital swing states: Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Colorado.
The TV ads show babies murdered by abortion, and Christians and Jews who have been murdered by Muslims -- Muslims who have received direct or indirect funding from Obama. The ads put the blame of this slaughter squarely on Obama.
Obama won in 2008 with 55% of the Catholic vote, and 35% of the evangelical vote.
Since that time, he has crossed swords with Catholic bishops and evangelical leaders by promoting the killing of unborn babies, forcing the Church to pay for drugs that kill the unborn, supporting "homosexual marriage," and funding Islamic terrorists that persecute Christians in the Middle East.
One of those House candidates is Andrew Beacham, an anti-Muslim tea party activist who heckled Obama during his address at Notre Dame, who is running a campaign ad (warning: graphic) in Kentucky and Indiana comparing Obama to Adolf Hitler and other notorious killers. “Obama gives your money to Planned Parenthood to murder babies and to the Muslim Brotherhood who murders Christians and Jews,” Beachem says while holding a cigar, “if you vote for Obama, the real question is, what are you smoking?”
Family Research Council Vice President Jerry Boykin appeared on Janet Parshall’s radio show In the Market yesterday to do—what else?—whip up anti-Muslim animosity and spew bizarre conspiracy theories. He told Parshall that “Islam is not a religion” but a “totalitarian way of life” since, apparently, only “16 percent of Islam is a religion.” Boykin said that people need to act just like the Founding Fathers did in speaking up against the Muslim faith, citing Parshall, End Times fanatic Joel Rosenberg and others as courageous people who are channeling the Founders by attacking Islam and standing up to the “politically correct” elites!
Boykin: Islam is not a religion, now it has a religious component, 16 percent of Islam is religion, but the rest of it is a legal system, a geopolitical system, a military system, a financial system, it’s a totalitarian way of life and they say that. But our media and our leadership reject what they say about Islam so it’s incredible that we are just so politically correct and so afraid of these people. Where are the men of courage like the Founding Fathers that knew if they didn’t succeed they were going to be executed as being traitors, where are those kind of people today? Well you know where they are? They’re the Janet Parshall’s, they’re the Joel Rosenberg’s, they’re the people that are willing to stand up and speak openly about this stuff and take the ire of the media and critics.
Boykin also expressed his frustration that the Department of Defense will not “identify the enemy as the theology of Islam,” which Parshall said is just like trying to be “engaged in World War II without identifying the Nazis as the Nazis.”
Later, the former general later discussed the firestorm he caused in 2003 when he delivered speeches in uniform arguing that the US was at war against Islam and that Muslims worship an “idol.” He was reprimanded the following year by President Bush and found to have breached military regulations.
Always one to play the martyr-card, Boykin said he was simply attacked by the media for “my Christian faith” and “for boldly proclaiming that our real battle was not against the Taliban or the Al Qaeda but was a spiritual battle.” “When you expose Satan you must expect a reaction,” Boykin said, even alleging that his First Amendment rights were undermined. But while he told Parshall that he didn’t care what his critics said, Boykin actually apologized for his comments at the time.
Parshall: I shake my head, if you’re going to be even a passive student of history, how would we have ever engaged in World War II without identifying the Nazis as the Nazis? You’re military, teach us, how would you be able to defeat an enemy without rightfully identifying the enemy and it seems in this country we’re loath to identify the enemy.
Boykin: Sun Tzu, the great Chinese warrior and philosopher, said know your enemy and know yourself and you need not fear a thousand battles. I was so frustrated while I was in the Department of Defense because I kept trying to impress upon them that we have to identify the enemy as the theology of Islam and those people that are rabid adherents to the theology are the enemy. But no one would accept that and I was told to go sit in a corner and nobody wanted to hear it. Obviously now some are starting to get it; we cannot be victorious if we can’t identify the enemy.
Boykin: The worst period was 2003 when I was the front story on every news program and every newspaper for my Christian faith and for boldly proclaiming that our real battle was not against the Taliban or the Al Qaeda but was a spiritual battle and that certainly did not sit well. I also said that our real enemy in what we’re dealing with is Satan, you know when you expose Satan you must expect a reaction. So I took quite a beating for quite a while and I was devastated by it, I must tell you, the First Amendment that I protected for over three decades at that time, only to have the media turn on me, but you know what I’m a lot tougher now as a result of it and I don’t really care what they think because ultimately I answer to God and not to man.
In March, Pennsylvania’s governor signed one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the country. One study estimated that the law could impose extra burdens on 700,000 Pennsylvania voters, disproportionately affecting the poor, minorities, students and the elderly.
Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic writes today about one Pennsylvanian in her 80s who is struggling to keep her right to vote, sixty years after casting her first vote for Adlai Stevenson. Cohen quotes a letter that Robin Kane wrote to the voter ID law’s sponsor about her efforts to help her elderly mother, Jaqueline, register to vote in Pennsylvania:
For the past two weeks, my sister and I have been trying to help my mother gather the appropriate documents to get the newly required photo ID. The education campaign had inaccurate information and the rules keep shifting, making it difficult for me to understand and it would have been impossible for my elderly mother to do this without assistance.
First, VotesPA and PennDOT websites said she would need to get a non-driver's photo license. To do so, she would need her social security card; an original birth certificate with a raised seal; two proofs of residency; an application; and an oath that she had no other form of ID. My sister and mother spent two days looking for her birth certificate from 1930. They found my dead grandmother's birth certificate, plus ration cards from World War II, and lots of documents of my father's service during that war. But not her birth certificate.
I returned to the websites to learn that even without a birth certificate, she might be able to get the photo ID if the state Department of Health could confirm her birth. However, my mother was born in NY, not Pennsylvania. So, it turned out, this solution didn't apply to her. Instead, I was directed to seek a new birth certificate from the state of New York. Just when I thought we couldn't possibly get this done in time for her to vote, I learned that there is a new option for people exactly like my mom: the new, Department of State photo id for voting.
It still requires her to have her a social security card or number (which we found); proof of residency; an application; and an oath. And it still requires that my 82-year-old mother will travel by bus to a PennDOT office and hope that she has the stamina to wait in multiple lines to complete the process to get a photo ID that she needs for only this one purpose, ever. But she is determined to do so, if she is able. And she will vote against anyone who sided with you in this effort to suppress legitimate votes.
What this really means is that Jacqueline Kane is one of the lucky ones. She has a family that has the means to be able to help her in this fashion. But think of all the other elderly people out there, who won't have a health aid with them, or who don't have access to a bus, or who don't live in elder-care facilities where such opportunities exist. Those people aren't lazy, either. And yet they clearly face disenfranchisement if this law is permitted to stay in effect.
While Kane and countless others in Pennsylvania struggle to meet the voter ID requirement before election day, it’s still unclear whether the law will take effect in November. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently returned a challenge to the law to a lower court, ordering the lower court to halt the law if it’s not convinced the voter ID requirements won’t disenfranchise anybody.