C4

Robert Knight Accuses NAACP head Ben Jealous of 'Treason' for Denouncing Attack on Voting Rights

Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union is fighting back against claims that recently passed state laws restricting voters rights will adversely affect people of color by arguing that critics of the laws are “racist.” Today in his column Knight argues that it was treasonous for NAACP president Ben Jealous to denounce the new laws at the United Nations in Geneva.

What would you call it if some Americans went overseas to the UN's Human Rights Council and gave aid and comfort to some of the most repressive regimes on the planet?

What if they falsely accused America of suppressing the vote of racial minorities because some states require voter photo ID and other measures to deter fraud?

I'd call it "treason," but you could also say it's just liberal politics as usual.

Their core argument is that minorities are incapable of getting an ID and playing by the same rules that all adult citizens must follow regardless of race. It's the same poisonous brew of lowered expectations that liberals have been pushing on minorities in order to expand government and foster dependency.

On Wednesday (March 14), NAACP president Benjamin T. Jealous, who apparently longs for an electoral system like those in Cuba, China or Saudi Arabia, whose representatives hung on his every word, trashed his own country. I was not there, but I'm assuming these regimes enjoyed seeing a certified "civil rights" leader criticize the United States.

Here's some of what Mr. Jealous said, according to CNSNews.com:

"These voter-suppression laws included so-called strict voter ID laws, cutting of Sunday voting, early voting and same-day registration, and the re-imposing of notoriously racist bans on formerly incarcerated people voting." Mr. Jealous claimed that 25 laws passed in 14 states "will together make it harder for more than five million people to vote."

It's true, at least, that Mr. Jealous, a zealous Democrat, wants to deliver more of the ex-felon vote, disproportionately represented by minorities. This is because, sadly, minority communities have been targets of liberal "compassion," and fatherless young men commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Upon release, ex-cons of any race find a natural home in the Democratic Party, which uses taxes to steal in ways that unreformed ex-cons can only dream about.



The left is getting desperate. They have lost every fact-based argument about domestic policy. Their social experiments -- along with Hollywood's relentless mythmaking about sex without consequences -- have shattered families, left cities in shambles, and created a debt-ridden, mega-nanny government that is careening toward the cliffs of Greece. It isn't just minorities who are victimized by liberal policies, but they have taken the brunt of the war on marriage, religion and personal responsibility.

Alabama's Soon-To-Be Chief Justice Roy Moore Doubts Obama's Christian Faith

Roy Moore was removed from his job as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2003 after he disobeyed a court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument he placed in his court house, but last Tuesday he won the Republican nomination for the position, making it extremely likely that Moore will soon have his old job back. Moore celebrated his victory today with Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, where he urged Congress to impeach Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, among other judges he would like to see removed from office. The Religious Right went off the rails after Ginsberg suggested in an interview that Egypt look to the South African constitution when drafting its new constitution, acknowledging that what works in the US may not work in Egypt, and ignoring her immense praise for the Constitution in the same interview. Rios even suggested that progressives wanted to do away with the Constitution altogether:

He also told Rios that America has always been based on a “biblical standard” and warned that “if you take away that standard then you have same-sex marriages, marriages between two and three people, or whatever.”

Moore: There is no standard without the biblical standard that we’ve lived under for 225 years. If you take away that standard then you have same-sex marriages, marriages between two and three people, or whatever. You don’t have a standard and moral atheists may want to hold on to the past without any basis of doing so, they’ve got to recognize the basis of why they have the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in and that right comes from God, it is not from government. You can go to governments over in Southeast Asia or the Mideast and you find governments that restrict what you believe and what you think and how you worship and that is because that is what governments will do when you don’t have this freedom.

Moore went on to claim that he doesn’t know the faith of President Obama, a committed Christian, adding he thinks the President does “favor the Muslim faith” and is trying “to remove any acknowledgement of a particular God” in America.

Moore: We have people like Barack Obama who do favor the Muslim faith and there is a reason for this. Do I believe he is a Muslim? I don’t know his faith but he certainly doesn’t represent what this nation is founded upon. He is typical of secular humanists in government that try to remove any acknowledgement of a particular God and say they grant religious freedom and that is entirely opposite to what this country is founded upon.

Linda Harvey Likens Criticism of Anti-Gay Activism to the Nazi's Anti-Semitic Propaganda

No comment necessary for Mission America president Linda Harvey’s latest WorldNetDaily column, where she claims that gay rights advocates who criticize and expose the vitriolic rhetoric of Religious Right activists are just like the Nazis who used “hate branding, focusing on Jews” to brand “them as the ‘enemy.’”

Homosexual activists and their allies have become quite skilled at marketing the Hate brand. Jeers, vulgarities and name-calling are only the beginning. The goal is to keep their easy-to-manipulate followers simmering in a bitter stew of misinformation and sexual entitlement, and then unleash their power in focused humiliation/intimidation campaigns.

The Hate label has been affixed to an array of conservative luminaries recently. The newest enemies list of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, GLAAD, is a who’s-who of respected leaders and journalists: Chuck Colson, Robert George, Joseph Farah, Albert Mohler, Don Wildmon and Tony Perkins are just a few of the names. GLAAD has decided that Hate is the shameful badge these folks must now wear. Isn’t this what used to be called “shunning”?

...

The carefully cultivated Hate brand is a big seller among marginally informed youth who quickly process whom to heed and whom to dismiss. This volunteer sales force moves throughout the nation with whistleblowing at speeches, interruption of church services, heckling and predictable “H8″ protest signs. Demanding the “hater” lose his/her job ups the ante. Online petitions keep the pressure high. And of course, the N.Y. Times, Huffington Post, MSNBC and others will feature Hate product press releases verbatim.

Recognize this? Hate branding, focusing on Jews, succeeded in branding them as the “enemy” in public opinion in Nazi Germany. It’s the method used today by Islamic radicals who spread ludicrous fables about Jews in many mosques.

You would think the SPLC and even GLAAD might recognize this, search their hearts and say,”What are we doing here? Christians are not monsters and traditional values are not Hate!”

We have to call this what it is – an attempt at revolution. We need to come up with a no-nonsense response. I am of course not advocating anything abusive or violent. Unlike our ideological opponents, we tend to play by the rules, which is why truly honorable people are easy targets.

Linda Harvey Dubs the Anti-Bullying Day of Silence a 'God-Dishonoring Day'

Concerned Women for America’s Chelsen Vicari on Monday hosted a call with Linda Harvey of Mission America and Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute where they discussed their plans for a walkout on the Day of Silence, when students protest anti-LGBT bullying and bias by remaining silent throughout the school day. The walkout endorsers also include the American Family Association, Citizens for Community Values, Faith 2 Action, Liberty Counsel and Save California, all prominent supporters of the Religious Right’s anti-anti-bullying campaign.

We posted highlights from program where Higgins urged teachers to “plan activities that involve student communications so students are not allowed to do this” and Harvey warned that the Day of Silence is using children “as a tool” for an “ungodly agenda.” Harvey dubbed the Day of Silence a “God-dishonoring day” that makes children “bow before manipulative, exploitative and deceptive accusations.”

Higgins: What the Day of Silence does is ask kids to refuse to speak during instructional time in class, that they have no legal right to do and no school has to accommodate that, and so that’s what we’re doing is asking parents to call their school, ask if students are allowed to refuse to speak in instructional time, and if they are, to keep their kids home in protest about the disruption of instructional time for a political purpose.



Harvey: You can keep your kids home that day if you suspect or you find out that teachers are going to accommodate this protest silence in order to honor homosexuality, let’s be clear about what this is, this is a God-dishonoring day that honors sin, sinful, immoral behavior that most parents don’t want their children involved in.



Higgins: Christian teachers out there and if you’re working in a public school plan activities that involve student communications so students are not allowed to do this.



Vicari: So Christian families, it’s imperative really to take a stand against Day of Silence.

Harvey: Yes, because it’s teaching your children to dishonor [sic] what God finds sinful, it’s teaching even conservative parents who maybe are not believers it’s teaching your children to bow before manipulative, exploitative and deceptive accusations. They claim tolerance but they are creating division, hostility and they are undermining high standards for kids.



Harvey: Your child will remember this, you know the biggest lesson—of course the school is going to learn something as lots of kids are missing that day—but the biggest lesson is your child will learn that you don’t go along with this nonsense, you don’t let people lie to you and use you as a tool for their ungodly agenda.

Former Rep. Hostettler Laments Church’s Extraction from Government, Agrees Schools are Hiding Truth about the Constitution

Former Indiana Rep. John Hostettler lamented yesterday that the “church has extracted itself from government,” creating a vacuum filled by “those adversarial to biblical truth.”

Hostettler, talking with Truth in Action Ministries’ Carmen Pate on the organization’s radio program, agreed with Pate that the education system is controlled by “those who really don’t want our kids to understand what the Constitution has to say” – namely, as Hostettler, puts it, that “government is an institution that is not just a God-centered one, but it was ordained by God.”

Hostettler represented southwest Indiana in Congress from 1995 through 2007, and is now president of the Constitution Institute, which dedicates itself to providing state legislators and others with “a greater understanding of the United States Constitution.”

Pate: You know, it seems to me, Congressman, it’s very clear that the founding fathers intended for the government’s role to be limited, and they based this Constitution on biblical principles and truths. Yet we know that those on the left, the secular humanists, see the importance of a big government, not limited, because then they can wield more power over the people.

Not to sound conspiratorial here, but I wonder if there have been attempts perhaps by those secular humanists, those on the left, to really not allow or to take away some of the opportunities for learning more about what the Constitution has to say. Say in our public schools, you mentioned in school you didn’t learn all these things. I didn’t either. It wasn’t until I got out of school and started working with pro-family organizations that I really dug into the Constitution.

Have we allowed the education of our children to be given over to those who really don’t want our kids to understand what the Constitution has to say?

Hostettler: Well, Carmen, you’re exactly right. That is what has happened. Because the church has extracted itself from government and we have fundamentally forgotten, as Dr. Kennedy taught, that government is an institution ordained by God. Just as the family was ordained by God, and just as the church was ordained by God, government is an institution that is not just a God-centered one, but it was ordained by God.

So we have extracted ourselves from it – the church, the body of Christ has – we’ve handed it over to others, and we’ve forgotten that just has nature abhors a vacuum, politics and public policy and government likewise abhor a vacuum. Someone is going to occupy that space, some philosophy is going to occupy that space. And it’s either going to be fundamentally a philosophy that is sympathetic and is agreeable to biblical truths, or it is a philosophy that is adversarial to biblical truth. It’s going to be one of the two. And as you pointed out, it has been a philosophy overall that is adversarial to biblical truth.
 

Ryan budget further exposes hypocrisy of the war on women

“There is no way for ‘experts’ in Washington to know more about the health care needs of individual Americans than those individuals and their doctors know.”
PFAW

NOM’s Brown Claims Gay Rights Advocates Want to Take Away Opponents’ Right to Vote

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown joined Iowa anti-gay luminary Bob Vander Plaats at a Des Moines rally today to call for a ballot referendum to overturn the state’s marriage equality law. Following Vander Plaats, who compared same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest, Brown argued that making the civil rights of a minority subject to a popular vote is in fact right in line with the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

It’s marriage equality proponents, Brown argued, who are trying to “deprive” their opponents of civil rights– specifically “the right to vote":

Opposition to gay marriage is not rooted in fear and hate as supporters suggest, Vander Plaats said, but rather love and religious truth. He also lashed out at the notion of “marriage equality” as a slippery slope toward no restrictions on relationships whatsoever.

“If we want marriage equality, let’s just stop for a second. Why stop at same-sex marriage? Why not have polygamy? Why not have a dad marry his son or marry his daughter? If we’re going to have marriage equality, let’s open this puppy up and let’s have marriage equality,” he said. “Otherwise, let’s stick to the way God designed it – one man and one woman, period.”

Referring to Senate Democrats’ refusal to advance the amendment and clear the way for a statewide vote, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown invoked Martin Luther King, Jr., to suggest that it was the opponents of same-sex marriage whose civil rights were threatened.

“We hear that this is about civil rights, and that those of us who oppose the redefinition of marriage are somehow bigots,” Brown said. “And yet, what Dr. Martin Luther King called the most important civil right – the right to vote – these very same folks are trying to deprive us of this right.”
 

LaBarbera Warns of 'Activist-Minded Homosexuals' and 'Homosexual Activist Rhetoric' Controlling the Media

Religious Right pundits have been up in arms since GLAAD publicized many of their most vitriolic anti-gay statements as part of their Commentator Accountability Project, comparing GLAAD to the Irish Republican Army and calling the group a tool of Satan. Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality took his pity party to The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday, where he said that conservatives have been “a little too tolerant of the media bias” and that “activist-minded homosexuals” in the media are “leading a lot of other journalists to not bring both sides.” LaBarbera also defended Ron Paul’s writings about a “federal-homosexual coverup on AIDS,” saying they are not “homophobic” and no one should use that term anyway because it is “homosexual activist rhetoric.”

“You don’t see any Christians or any pro-family advocates, at least any that I’m aware of,” Mefferd said, “organizing any sort of accountability project to keep gay activists off the air.” Actually, the radio host didn’t have to look so far as LaBarbera himself, who who repeatedly tried to get Grove City College to fire professor Warren Throckmorton for his opposition to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Mefferd: Here’s what is interesting too, because you don’t see any Christians or any pro-family advocates, at least any that I’m aware of, organizing any sort of accountability project to keep gay activists off the air. I mean, this doesn’t go both ways. I actually think the Christians and the pro-family leaders are awfully, awfully tolerant of activists and what they have to say and what kind of media coverage they get.

LaBarbera: I think we’re a little too tolerant of the media bias, you’re absolutely right. You read a typical AP story these days, you won’t find another point of view.



LaBarbera: Then there’s lots of openly, I would call them, activist-minded homosexuals in the newsroom and I think they are leading a lot of other journalists to not bring both sides.

Mefferd: That’s true.

LaBarbera: And you do have gay journalists, openly gay journalists, covering stories and they might not be fair because maybe they’re too close to the story because they are activist-minded homosexuals themselves.



Mefferd: Tell both sides and stop calling it hate because I’ve never seen a Christian or a pro-family person ever exhibit hate toward a homosexual.

LaBarbera: Yes and stop using tendentious words like ‘homophobe,’ I remember Chris Wallace on Fox ran a story on Ron Paul, he described Ron Paul’s past writings as homophobic, I think it was ‘blatantly homophobic,’ and I read them and I said, look, this is Ron Paul’s point of view, these were not fearful, this is just a point of view about homosexuality and AIDS and something I don’t recall but we can’t use homosexual activist rhetoric in telling these stories.

Florida Family Association Warns of Star Wars RuPaul Character, or 'Darth VaPaula'

Religious Right groups have lately set their sights on attacking the game Star Wars: The Old Republic, which allows players to have their characters join same-sex relationships. The Family Research Council has blasted BioWare, the game’s creator, for crossing over “to the dark side” and the American Decency Association accused BioWare of pandering to “homosexual extremists.” The Florida Family Association, which earlier this month cautioned that the new Star Wars game will expose small children to gay Stormtroopers, now wonders if the game will “create Darth VaPaula, a (mock) transgender version of Darth Vader – RuPaul, for kids to choose as their action player.” The group even provided this image of how the drag superstar might look in the video game:

Will the makers of Star Wars video games create Darth VaPaula, a (mock) transgender version of Darth Vader - RuPaul, for kids to choose as their action player?

LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) extremists pressure Star Wars video game maker to commit to add LGBT content and censor critics. An overwhelming percentage of the 1.7 million games sold are being used by children who do not need to be introduced to this propaganda. Please send your email to BioWare's parent company Electronic Arts.

Will the makers of Star Wars video games create Darth VaPaula, a (mock) transgender version of Darth Vader - RuPaul, for kids to choose as their action player? If you have not sent your email to Electronic Arts and Lucas Films please click here.

These LGBT demands on Star Wars game maker must be opposed. Please forward this article to friends.

LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activists are demanding that the makers of Star Wars video games add LGBT characters for kids to select as their action figure when playing the games. Previous email alerts with more information on this issue are posted below.

These LGBT activists want children and young teens to be able to choose Star Wars action characters who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. This would mean:

• Children and teens, who never thought anyway but heterosexual, are now given a choice to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in their game player.

• Children and teens, who choose non-social agenda characters, would be forced to deal with lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender characters chosen by other players.

Should BioWare bow to the demands of these LGBT activists by adding such action characters to Star Wars video games they certainly would not create game rules that would allow regular players to prohibit entry into their games by these social agenda characters. That would be discrimination (sarcasm.)

There were no LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) characters in any of the Star Wars movies. So if BioWare, the maker of Star Wars video games, adds LGBT characters for kids to select as their action figure it could be something like Darth RuPaula, a combination of Darth Vader, one of the most popular Star Wars characters, and RuPaul, the renown transgender cross dresser. Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges officials at BioWare’s parent company Electronic Arts and Lucas Films to stop any additions of LGBT content to Star Wars video games.

Santorum Says He Loses the Catholic Vote Because He Only Does 'Well among People who take their Faith Seriously'

Fox News contributor Sandy Rios yesterday launched her new show, Sandy Rios in the Morning on the American Family Association’s American Family Radio, and had as her first guest Rick Santorum. Rios, who last week railed against secular Jews as among “the worst enemies of the country,” asked Santorum, a Catholic, about his consistent struggle to win over Catholic voters. Santorum claimed that he performs better “with folks who do practice their religion more ardently” and only has problems with voters, Catholic and Protestant alike, who do not “take their faith seriously.”

Rios: You are doing very well among evangelicals, not so well among Catholics. I have my own theory about that, but I want to know what yours is this.

Santorum: I really wish I could tell you. I think the bottom line is that we do well among people who take their faith seriously, and as you know just like some Protestants, some Protestants are not church going, they are folks who identify with a particular religion but don’t necessarily practice that from the standpoint of going to church and the like, and I think, you know, with folks who do practice their religion more ardently I tend to do well.

Rios: I have to interrupt you, I totally agree. I think you take your faith seriously and for the serious believers, you’e the man.

Religious Right Groups Plan Rallies to 'Stop the HHS Mandate'

Conservative organizations are planning to hold rallies on March 23rd across the country to “Stand up for Religious Freedom” and “Stop the HHS Mandate” on contraception coverage. Members of the new coalition include the Alliance Defense Fund, American Life League, Christian Defense Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Operation Rescue, Thomas More Society and various anti-choice groups, and they seek to organize demonstrations “outside federal buildings, Congressional offices and historic sites across the country.” In a statement responding to a conciliatory move by the administration which ensures that religious-based organizations won’t have to pay directly for contraceptives, rally organizers doubled down on their criticisms of the Obama administration and said that they are against the insurance mandate’s impact on “all businesses—not just religious institutions”:

"With their March 16 statement, President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius are once again pretending to accommodate employers' conscientious objections to their HHS Mandate. The accounting tricks they're proposing are nothing but smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, employers are still forced to provide free contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans," said Eric Scheidler, co-director of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rallies across the United States.



We protest the federal government's definition of what constitutes a religious institution through the narrowly constructed "exemption" to the HHS Mandate, a definition which is both false and beyond the federal government's authority to make.

We protest the fact that religious institutions, even after President Obama's so-called "accommodation," are being forced to facilitate contraception, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs through the health plans they are mandated to provide.

We protest the Mandate forcing all businesses -- not just religious institutions -- to provide coverage of contraception, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs, if even doing so violates their own moral convictions on these matters.

We protest the HHS Mandate because, in requiring all health plans to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs as "preventative care," it treats pregnancy and childbirth as a disease.

Perkins and Santorum: Star-Crossed Supporters

Last night at his home church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, following a scorching speech from pastor Dennis Terry, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins insisted that he will not endorse any candidate for president. Perkins even joked that the FRC didn’t even endorse its own leader, Gary Bauer, when he ran for president 2000.

But while Perkins, who calls Santorum his “good friend,” may not technically have endorsed anyone, he’s done just about everything else to support Santorum’s campaign.

Back in January it was Perkins who announced that Religious Right leaders had decided to coalesce behind Santorum, even as many were still supporting Newt Gingrich, and again earlier this month it was Perkins who hinted that Gingrich should drop out because “If they were to converge together you would have a majority” to defeat Romney. Perkins also participated in the Council for National Policy meeting where conservative leaders pledged financial support for his presidential campaign. Santorum even filled in for Perkins once on the American Family Association’s radio network as a guest host prior to launching his campaign for president.

Last night Perkins asked Santorum questions that surely provided red-meat to the megachurch crowd on issues like abortion, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the debt, and his faith, although at one point he asked the former Senator to explain his support for Arlen Specter’s re-election.

The Associated Press reported that Perkins hosted a private meeting between Santorum and pastors from across the country before last night’s event:

Nearly a hundred pastors from all over Louisiana and from as far away as Texas and Colorado accepted Family Research Council President Tony Perkins' invitation to hear a personal pitch Sunday from the former Pennsylvania senator, who met with them in a private briefing before he addressed the more than 1,400 faithful who crowded into the sanctuary at Greenwell Springs Baptist Church.

"What we need to do in this country is to rebuild that culture of life and rebuild that culture of marriage and families," Santorum said, standing in a small back room as the invited pastors gathered in an informal circle wearing handwritten name tags. "No one else talks about social issues."

...

Perkins, the head of the socially conservative Family Research Council, can't officially endorse a presidential candidate, but he made his personal feelings clear. "I'll tell you this," he said, "I wouldn't invite just anybody to my church."

Ironically, in 2008 Perkins was criticized for speaking too favorably of Romney and too critically of Mike Huckabee, who was then the preferred candidate of many in the Religious Right.

We have consistently documented Perkins’ extreme record:

  • said Islam is “evil”;
  • denied that there was a correlation between anti-gay bullying and depression and suicide, saying instead that gay and lesbian teens know they are “abnormal” and “have a higher propensity to depression or suicide because of that internal conflict";

With views like that, it is no wonder that Perkins has become one of Santorum’s (unofficial) cheerleaders.

Whether Supporting Incumbents or Challengers, Super PACs Put Big Money in Charge

Proponents of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling have argued that Super PACs help shake up the almost-guaranteed reelection prospects for congressional incumbents, going so far as to cast Super PACS as a way to bring about a new era of good government. But the very nature of the Super PAC – a mechanism that enables wealthy individuals and special interests to secretly funnel money through corporate political donations in support of their favored candidates – practically invites corruption.

From the New York Times:

Incumbents in Congress usually have a huge fund-raising advantage over challengers. Big donors correctly assume they will probably be in office for years, and curry favor with contributions that only wealthy challengers can match. So why not try to neutralize this advantage by spending money on behalf of challengers? …

But the method they are using — a super PAC that can collect and spend unlimited amounts of money — is the opposite of good government, and demonstrates the inherent danger in allowing big money to steer election results. The handful of donors say their motives are pure, but the public has no way of knowing what their long-term goals are, or whether they have personal interests in the races they have chosen.

The electoral advantages incumbents enjoy is indeed a problem, but not one that is caused or solved by Citizens United. Super PAC funds are comprised not by grassroots donations but by large contributions from a few wealthy donors. Using these resources to usher challengers into office perpetuates the fundamentally anti-democratic influence of special interests of money in our elections.

Regardless of whether wealthy special interests seek to reelect reliable incumbents or replace them with sympathetic challengers, the end result is that the most influential voice in our elections is not that of the American people. We need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to level the playing field for everyone – wealthy or otherwise.

PFAW

Want to Help the Economy? Start by Maintaining the Courts

The Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen explains why confirming nominees to our federal courts and helping to boost the economy aren’t two separate issues:

It's not complicated. When a federal judgeship goes vacant because of Senate intransigence, where judicial nominees with bipartisan approval are held up for no good reason, it's not typically the criminal cases which get unreasonably delayed. Criminal defendants have a speedy trial right under the Sixth Amendment. There is no such right for civil litigants. This means those litigants have to wait, often for years, for a trial judge to make available a time for the disposition of a dispute. The problem only gets worse, like it is now, when district courts are understaffed and judges are forced to handle more than their expected case load.

And who are civil litigants in our nation's federal courts? They are corporations and small business owners, investors and merchants, employees and employers, people just like you and me. Well, maybe not you and me since I didn't file a lawsuit this past year and you probably didn't either. But a lot of other people sure did. In 2010, according to federal court records, no fewer than 282,896 federal lawsuits were filed in America. In 2011, 289,252 lawsuits were filed, a 2.2 percent increase from the year before. The latest statistics reveal that there are currently 270,839 pending civil cases in our federal courts.

There's more alarming news. As Mike Scarcella reported last week in the National Law Journal, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts announced last week that there was "an 11 percent increase in intellectual property cases and a 15 percent increase in consumer credit filings" last year. The total number of pending cases in the federal system, including criminal cases, now is 367,600 and, guess what? Even as the number of federal laws (and federal crimes) increases, Congress plans to cut the budget for the federal judiciary come next January. Fewer judges. A smaller budget. Signposts on the road to third-world justice.

So what happens to many of these cases when our benches remain empty? They languish in limbo and the litigants have to live with the financial uncertainty that pending litigation brings. If you are sued for a million dollars, for example, you might choose not to invest that million dollars in a new store, or in hiring new employees, until the lawsuit is over. And if you are suing for money, you aren't likely to spend it until you get it. What federal trial judges do for these litigants, therefore, isn't just to pick a winner and a loser in a particular. The court system provides the oil that helps run the machinery of commerce.
 

PFAW

Randall Terry Weighing Third Party Run Against 'Pimp' Obama

While Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry’s challenge to President Obama for the Democratic nomination may have hit a snag recently, his campaign based around running graphic anti-abortion ads may continue into the general election as he is considering a run as a third party candidate and drafting allied congressional candidates. Terry believes that a presidential run won’t draw votes away from the Republican nominee, but from anti-choice Democrats who would otherwise support Obama:

To help carry his message on abortion and possibly expand opportunities to broadcast his anti-abortion television ads, he said that he has also helped recruit almost a half-dozen people running for Congress in swing states across the country who are making abortion the central issue of their campaigns.

“I am going to try to run my ads in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio,” he said. “I am going to try run them in all the swing states. Then on election night, when all the commentators are saying why he lost, it will be because of the images of those dead babies.”

Reacting to the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh’s tirades against Sandra Fluke, Terry called Fluke a “political prostitute” and Obama her “Political Pimp,” saying that Obama even had his “daughters pimped for the cause of sexual immorality.” “Obama prostituted Fluke in order to motivate and mobilize a small but important part of his base,” Terry writes, “fornicating college students who want to keep their beer money for beer, and get their birth control and abortifacients for free.”

The “slut” and “prostitute” comments by Rush Limbaugh are still making waves. The Obama administration is now pondering cutting off Rush from the Armed Forces Network radio stations. Is our Commander in Chief now moving toward thought control of the military?

The hubbub surrounding Rush's comments will clearly play a roll in the political debate for the rest of this election cycle. For that reason, it behooves those of us who still possess a functioning ethical compass to defend Rush, and call out the President for his horrific roll in this political drama.

Rush Limbaugh treated Miss Fluke as a worthy adversary. She stepped into the political ring to rumble; she decided – as the seasoned pro-abortion feminist activist that she is – to become the “poster prostitute” of “free love.” She decided – of her own free will – that she would become the lightning rod for all the poor little girls who want to “sleep around,” and have the rest of us pay for their birth control and abortifacients. Rush treated her as a worthy opponent, and responded to her with rhetoric equal to the battle.

Ms. Fluke chose her role as the protagonist/political prostitute. That means she has to take her licks like a big girl, and hold her own. Miss Fluke can’t have it both ways; she can’t be the adult in a fierce debate, and also be the little girl who is getting picked on. She cannot be both sultry superwoman and helpless damsel in distress. She cannot cry foul because a great political voice treated her public and political statements as political "free game."

Enter President Obama. He pretended to be her “Knight in Shining Armor” but in fact acted as her Political Pimp. He has shamelessly used her for his political agenda. By telephoning her and lionizing her he further prostituted her for his sake, not hers. For Ms. Fluke, this is the height of being used, objectified, and “politically pimped.”

But then President Obama really crossed the line: he used his own daughters to further this agenda. Ponder it well: Obama said, “I thought of my daughters when I called Sandra Fluke…I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate.”

I (Randall) raised two little girls. When my daughters were young, neither heaven nor hell could have compelled me to use them in an illustration where they were sexually promiscuous, and then publically demanding that tax payers fund their immoral behavior. I do not know a father who would say this. And I am certain – as one dad to another – that President Obama does not want his daughters as “sexually active” unmarried girls sleeping around, calling out to tax payers to pick up their birth control/abortifacient tab. If they were, he would not be proud, he would be heartbroken. As an intelligent man, President Obama knows the heartache and dangers that attend sexual immorality.

So why did he say it? Because this was about a political agenda for getting votes; it was not about sexual ethics or good parenting. Obama prostituted Fluke in order to motivate and mobilize a small but important part of his base; fornicating college students who want to keep their beer money for beer, and get their birth control and abortifacients for free. Obama had great enthusiasm with young voters for “hope and change” in 2008; since those promises have proved illusory, he is now opting for the lower road of drugs and orgasms.

Rush is a brilliant thinker; he treated Ms. Fluke as a worthy opponent. Obama treated her like a political prostitute. History will bear Rush witness that he was right. And believe me, fathers all over America are hoping they never see their daughters pimped for the cause of sexual immorality, birth control, and drugs that kill the unborn.

Gary Bauer Warns Against Violence Against Women Act

American Values president Gary Bauer demanded Republicans oppose the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, writing in Human Events today that the bill is a “trap.” Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans all voted against re-authorization and Bauer insisted that they oppose the legislation because of “provisions allowing abused illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas and programs for same-sex couples.” As Legal Momentum’s Lynn Hecht Schafran notes, protections for immigrants and women in same-sex relationships have “always been true about the bill but required clarification.”

Bauer, who regularly rails against the “war on religion,” the “war on Christmas” and the “social, political and cultural war in our country,” also expressed his anger that progressives are using the phrase “war” as part of “painting conservatives as domestic policy war mongers,” and of course didn’t miss an opportunity to criticize Sandra Fluke:

Whether it’s the “war on science” or the “war on labor unions,” the left never tires of painting conservatives as domestic policy war mongers. Now liberals are revisiting another fictitious conservative war, against women.

At the Women in the World Summit in New York last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blasted tyrants across the globe. “They want to control how we dress, they want to control how we act, they even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies,” Clinton said.

Then she compared Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to Sandra Fluke. “Women and girls…throughout the world,” she said, “are assuming the risks that come with sticking your neck out, whether you are a democracy activist in Burma or a Georgetown law student in the United States.”

It was absurd for America’s top diplomat to compare a chief target of one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes to the law student/abortion activist.



Obama cited Fluke’s “bravery” when he spoke about her. But a more apt word is “shamelessness.”

Speaking of shameless, while Clinton has made advancing women’s rights a major rhetorical theme of her time at State, the Obama administration has ignored and even supported egregious violations against women.



Whining about the “war on women” in a Politico op-ed last week, former Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm wrote, “Republican obsession with Planned Parenthood alone has become a form of legislative sexual McCarthyism.”

In case there was any doubt about the centrality of the “war on women” theme to the Democratic campaign, Senate Democrats are pushing to extend the Violence Against Women Act, with a vote by the end of March.

Most Republicans support the law, but it’s a trap. The legislation includes not only laudable programs like grants to battered women’s shelters but also provisions allowing abused illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas and programs for same-sex couples.



Allusions to the Republican “war on women” will continue as a major Democratic campaign theme. But they’re just Democrats’ way of diverting voters’ attention from their own failures and injustices toward women.

Update: Concerned Women for America, a consistent opponent of the Violence Against Women Act, in an email to members today claimed that the law “destroys the family”:

VAWA, in its current form, is a boondoggle for feminist groups. It has morphed into a series of rigid and ineffective law enforcement programs that continue to spend approximately $455 million each year. Instead of helping women and children, this legislation creates a large bureaucracy and destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.



Finally, this bill creates a new series of expensive and unnecessary programs that further complicate the process of giving aid to these women and push a feminist agenda (such as one $15 million program that attempts to "re-educate" school children into domestic violence ideology [Section 302]).

VAWA harms women by diluting assistance to real victims and by tearing the family apart. Please call your senators today at 202-224-3121, and urge them to oppose VAWA. 

Pastor Dennis Terry Introduces Rick Santorum, Tells Liberals and Non-Christians to 'Get Out' of America

Greenwell Springs Baptist Church pastor Dennis Terry introduced presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins tonight in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with a rousing speech railing against liberals and non-Christians and condemning abortion rights, "sexual perversion," same-sex marriage and secular government. Terry said that America "was founded as a Christian nation" and those that disagree with him should "get out! We don't worship Buddha, we don't worship Mohammad, we don't worship Allah!" Terry, who has a long history of attacks against the gay community, went on to criticize marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and said that the economy can only recover when we "put God back" in government.

Watch:

Update: At the end of the event, Terry prayed over Santorum and asked God to "have favor upon Rick Santorum" and to "do a mighty work" in President Obama's life:

Santorum Pledges to Restore Don't Ask Don't Tell

While sitting down with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, Rick Santorum doubled down on his commitment to bring back the discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Perkins, a staunch opponent of Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal, said the Obama administration "has systematically used this military for social experimentation" by "overturning the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and forcing open homosexuality on the military," asking Santorum if he would "reverse" the repeal. Santorum said the repeal was "not in the best interest of our men and women in uniform" and pledged to restore Don't Ask Don't Tell, but added, "that doesn't mean that people who are gays and lesbians can't serve."

Watch:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious