C4

Voting Developments in Ohio and Wisconsin Show, Again, Why #CourtsMatter

The past week held both good news and bad news for voting rights, depending on your part of the country. On Friday in Ohio, an appeals court declined to put on hold a ruling that expands early voting in the state, a win for those of us who believe that voting should be fair and accessible for all people. But on the same day, an appeals court gave the okay to Wisconsin’s voter ID law — a law that had been blocked months ago by a federal judge who noted that it disproportionately affects Latino and black communities.

Commentators have noted that instating the new voter ID law in Wisconsin so close to an election could cause real confusion for voters, and advocates are asking for a re-hearing. As election law expert Rick Hasen said, “It is hard enough to administer an election with set rules — much less to change the rules midstream.”

Beyond the practical implications for voters, it’s also important to connect the dots back to how these decisions happened and who was making them. As The Nation’s Ari Berman wrote on Friday night:

[A] panel of Democrat-appointed judges on the Sixth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction from a Democrat-appointed district court judge striking down Ohio’s cuts to early voting. Two hours earlier, however, a trio of Republican-appointed judges on the Seventh Circuit overturned an injunction from a Democratic judge blocking Wisconsin’s voter ID law.

This is why elections matter. And the courts are increasingly becoming the arbiters of who does and does not get to participate in them. [emphasis added]

PFAW

Laurie Higgins: 'Counter-Insurgency Needed' To Stop 'Homo-Activism'

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, last heard yearning for the creation of a children’s book about kids celebrating the death of their gay parents, wrote today in BarbWire that there is no comparison between anti-miscegenation laws and marriage equality bans.

Higgins wants everyone to know that unlike people who supported bans on interracial marriage, anti-gay activists like herself have “nothing to do with hatred.” (Of course, opponents of interracial marriage also insisted that they didn’t subscribe to racial animus and were simply acting on their deeply-held religious beliefs formed by their reading of the Bible).

“Post-modernism, the sexual revolution, and a television-dominated culture created the wormy subsoil into which two other cultural phenomena have taken root and grown into a felicitous political environment for homo-activism,” Higgins adds.

“This is a stealth insurgent assault on the First Amendment, and it’s being opposed by a feeble, emasculated counter-insurgency effort.”

First, those who opposed interracial marriage did not argue that such unions were not marriages. They argued that such marriages were not proper. And their opposition to interracial marriage was motivated by false ideas about racial superiority and by actual hatred. While it is appropriate to make moral distinctions among volitional behaviors (e.g., homoerotic activity vs. heterosexual activity), it is inappropriate to posit some people as ontologically superior to others or to hate people.

Supporters of true marriage are making a wholly different argument—one which has nothing to do with hatred. They’re making the argument that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual difference. They’re arguing that a union of two people of the same sex is in reality not a marriage—even if the law permits it. They’re arguing that the law can no more make a non-marital same-sex union into a marriage than it can make a wholly human African American into 3/5 a person.



Counter-insurgency needed

Post-modernism, the sexual revolution, and a television-dominated culture created the wormy subsoil into which two other cultural phenomena have taken root and grown into a felicitous political environment for homo-activism. With large corporations dominating employment in America and the Internet disseminating information, disinformation, and demagoguery with lightening speed, homosexual activists are able to advance their doctrinaire and dogmatic ideology while undermining both religious liberty and speech rights. This is a stealth insurgent assault on the First Amendment, and it’s being opposed by a feeble, emasculated counter-insurgency effort.

BarbWire: God Will Avenge The Rise Of LGBT Rights

While comparing conservatives’ opposition to LGBT equality and abortion rights to the struggles against slavery and tyranny, BarbWire content editor Gina Miller writes in a column today that “the dangerous political agenda of the tyrannical homosexual movement” represents “a full-frontal assault on Christianity itself, as well as our God-given freedoms and the very foundations of our constitutional Republic.”

She adds that while “God will avenge every wrong done by the Godless in this world,” right-wing activists should not “stand silently by in the face of evil done by our civil leaders.”

Miller has previously warned that “demonic” gay rights advocates want to murder Christians.

Yet how many Christians throughout history, inspired by the fire of God’s Word in their spirits, have stood firmly against evil actions by civil governments? Were they wrong? Was William Wilberforce wrong, as a member of the British Parliament and a Christian, to work to abolish slavery and to speak out against other societal ills, while advocating for God’s morality in the public square? Was Telemachus the monk wrong for standing against the barbaric Roman gladiator spectacles, for which he paid with his life? Were our Founding Fathers (most of whom were Bible-believing Christians) wrong for standing against the tyranny of King George, standing to the point of violent revolution, in establishing a nation by God’s grace? The list of Christians who have firmly engaged civil government with the powerful weapon of God’s truth is long and includes the apostles and Jesus Himself.



It would be hard to support the argument that Christians are wrong for opposing government actions that God calls evil. Abortion is murder. God calls us to defend the powerless among us. How can anyone justify standing by silently as millions of pre-born babies are slaughtered in the evil name of “choice”? Are the dear Christians, whose hearts are heavy with the burden of grief over this hell-born “woman’s right,” wrong to tirelessly spend countless hours in prayer and abortion mill sidewalk ministry to the women and girls who enter these dens of death?

Are Christians wrong for speaking out against the dangerous political agenda of the tyrannical homosexual movement? God calls the sin of homosexuality an abomination. This abominable sin is being used by our evil culture and political leaders as a “right” to wage a full-frontal assault on Christianity itself, as well as our God-given freedoms and the very foundations of our constitutional Republic—a Constitution and a Republic that is, next to the nation of Israel, the most God-blessed in human history.

Yes, God will avenge every wrong done by the Godless in this world, but I do not believe He desires us to stand silently by in the face of evil done by our civil leaders. Further, opposing this same evil is not “blasphemy” against the Lord nor apostasy against His Word.

Children Raised By Gay Couples Become Orphans, Says Prominent French Anti-Gay Activist

This past weekend, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown was scheduled to stop in France on his way back from Moscow to train activists with the French anti-gay group Manif Pour Tous. Manif Pour Tous is the most prominent organization working against LGBT rights in France, and has strong ties with American groups, as evidenced by its president Ludovine de la Rochere’s appearance at this year’s March for Marriage in Washington, D.C.

So what was the Manif Pour Tous event that Brown participated in like? A reporter from the French publication Le Nouvel Observateur went to the group’s “summer university,” where she was barred from individual workshops like Brown’s, but did sit in on the general sessions, where she captured the following astounding quote from de la Rochere:

Depuis l’adoption de la loi du mariage pour tous, il y a eu 721 requêtes d’adoption par des couples homosexuels. Donc il va y avoir 721 enfants orphelins de plus, au nom de la loi!

Which translates roughly to:

Since the adoption of the law of marriage for all, there were 721 requests for adoption by homosexual couples. So there will be 721 more orphaned children, in the name of the law!

Yes, according to de la Rochere, children raised by same-sex couples end up as orphans.

This kind of rhetoric is similar to what Brown has been pushing in his travels, warning Russian lawmakers last year that adoption by same-sex couples deprives children of their “right to have normal parents: a father and a mother.”

Pamela Geller: Muslim Refugees Are Part Of UN-Islamist Plot To Take Over America

WorldNetDaily today warns that the United Nations is preparing to “dump a flood of Muslim refugees on U.S. cities,” which anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller tells the right-wing outlet is all part of a UN-Islamist plan to take over America.

“You can’t make this stuff up,” Geller said of the supposed plot.

Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch echoed Geller, telling WND, “Basically you have those who want to take over (countries) through immigration saying to the jihadists ‘you guys need to stop cutting people’s heads off and be patient.’”

Pamela Geller, author of “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” said it should come as no surprise that the U.N. would do everything in its power to flood the United States with as many Muslim refugees as possible.

She said the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, which is comprised of 56 Muslim countries and the Palestinian Authority, makes up the largest voting bloc at the U.N. General Assembly.

“They’re very powerful, they’re very dangerous,” Geller said. “You can’t make this stuff up.”

Geller, Corcoran and others such as Islam scholar Bat Ye’or have long warned that there are two methods of creating Islamic supremacy in the world. One is through violent jihad. The other is through al-hijra, or the Islamic doctrine of immigration.

“Basically you have those who want to take over (countries) through immigration saying to the jihadists “you guys need to stop cutting people’s heads off and be patient,’” Corcoran said. Al-hijra will accomplish the same goal over the long term in countries open to immigration, which includes the United States and most of Europe.

The U.S. takes in about 70,000 foreign refugees per year, more than any other country in the world. Besides the U.S., Germany and Sweden have also agreed to take in Syrian refugees through the U.N. program. Germany has agreed to accept another 10,000 Syrian refugees after already absorbing 6,000, while Sweden has agreed to accept up to 17,000 over the next year.

GOP on Immigration: No Wonder Poll Shows Latinos Prefer Democrat-Controlled Congress

A poll released last week by NBC/WSJ/Telemundo showed that Latinos prefer to see a Democrat-controlled Congress over a Republican one by a 2 to 1 margin, even while being frustrated with Washington as a whole. That’s no surprise considering the intolerant rhetoric coming from the Right Wing about immigration.

One need only to look at the last few weeks to appreciate the tenor of rhetoric coming from the GOP and its allies:

PFAW

Rick Wiles: Obama Hopes To Blow Up Schools

Trunews host Rick Wiles knows why President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama — or as Wiles refers to them, “Barry Benghazi Obama” and “Michael Obama” — worked with the nonprofit group KaBoom! on this year's 9/11 anniversary: they were signaling to terrorists to hit American schools.

Wiles said that the Obamas’ participation in the KaBoom! playground-building event to mark the National Day of Service and Remembrance is proof that they are “signaling that the next 9/11-style terrorist attack will be American schools going kaboom. Barack Obama is a stealth jihadist.”

GOP Blocks Paycheck Fairness Act a Fourth Time

Republican senators again filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act yesterday, an act that would provide women with additional tools to identify and fight back against pay discrimination. This is the fourth time that Republicans have blocked this bill, despite the persistence of unequal pay for women and men doing the same work.

It’s been over 50 years since the signing of the Equal Pay Act, yet, this unconscionable practice of paying women employees less than men for doing the same job continues to this day.

In Congress, though, Republicans derided the measure as a “show vote” staged by Democrats in an election year. Sen. Mitch McConnell even claimed this bill “threatens to hurt the very people that it claims to help.” But for women working full-time and earning an average of 77 cents for every dollar men earn, this bill would give them the tools to fight back against the pay discrimination that keeps them earning less.

Women are increasingly serving as the primary breadwinners for their households, which means the discrepancy in pay harms not only women’s lives, but also their families. The Paycheck Fairness Act is the best way to start fixing that injustice. Republican senators should stop the unnecessary filibusters so that the Senate can pass this bill and move our country towards equal pay for equal work.

PFAW

Sandy Rios Cites Hoax Story To Warn Of Scourge Of Mother-Daughter Couples

On her radio program today, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios promoted the upcoming Ex-Gay Awareness Month — at which she will be receiving the prestigious “Friend of Ex-Gays Freedom Award” — by repeating a hoax story about a mother-daughter lesbian couple.

Rios read her guest, ex-gay activist Christopher Doyle, an article from the website Stuppid.com that supposedly tells the story of a mother-daughter couple named Vertasha and Mary Carter.

But as the myth-busting website Snopes.com reports, the story is a complete hoax.

“The fight against this movement, it’s like a powerful force of immorality that threatens to overtake us,” Rios said of the fictitious story, before comparing ex-gay activists like Doyle to “Muslims who don’t declare their devotion to jihad.”

Doyle added: “There’s people out there that are trying to normalize this craziness. Where does it end?”

Ted Cruz Raises Money For Ted Cruz With Anti-Immigration Reform Campaign

Sen. Ted Cruz is out with a new effort today opposing President Obama’s possible executive action preventing the deportation of many undocumented immigrants living in the U.S…and in the process is raising money and collecting email addresses for Sen. Ted Cruz.

In a new website and online video, Cruz incorrectly links the crisis of unaccompanied minors at the southern border with Obama’s executive order deferring deportation for DREAMers. A voiceover in the online video says, “we cannot hope to address the crisis on the border without first addressing the fundamental cause of it,” before showing a still shot of someone climbing over the border fence.

But luckily, Cruz is here to save the day! “Senator Ted Cruz is leading the fight to secure the border, stop Obama’s amnesty and celebrate legal immigration,” he voiceover says.

The website, “StopObamasAmnesty.com,” then leads visitors to give Cruz’s fundraisers their email addresses and to donate to Cruz’s joint fundraising committee. The committee has raised over $4 million so far in this election cycle, much of it during the government shutdown that he orchestrated.

This summer, Cruz successfully lobbied a number of GOP House members to block a bill to handle the crisis of unaccompanied minors on the border. So, once again, Cruz is fundraising off a problem that he personally prevented the government from trying to solve.

h/t Center for New Community

Jody Hice, GOP House Candidate, Claims Gay People Have 'No Rights That Are Missing'

Georgia pastor and activist Jody Hice, who is now the GOP nominee to fill Rep. Paul Broun’s U.S. House seat, explained on an episode of his radio program posted today that LGBT people aren’t asking for equal rights because “gay people have the same rights as everybody else.”

“Let’s just suppose a gay person comes up to you and says something like, ‘Why shouldn’t I have the same rights as everybody else? Why can I not marry the person I love?’” Hice said.

“Well what rights are we talking about?” he asked, before implying that gay people can simply marry someone of the opposite sex: “Gay people have the same rights as everybody else. There are no rights that are missing. They have the same rights as anyone. We are Americans and we all have the same rights.”

“People have been loving one another as companions and so forth for a long, long time and they have been giving care to one another for a long, long time without calling every instance of love and mutual care, without calling that marriage. But now all of a sudden we have the demand to fundamentally redefine the world marriage,” he continued.

Later in the program he likened same-sex marriage bans to prohibitions against bigamy and incest, saying that when it comes to marriage, “homosexuals, gay people, have exactly the same right as heterosexuals have.”

“Homosexuals have the right to be married but what they are demanding, in reality, is that marriage be redefined to suit them,” he said.

“We already have marriage laws that prevent people from marrying the person they love,” he said, citing people who want to marry their siblings.

New Ex-Gay Movie Ad: 'Lady Gaga, Shut Up'

An advertisement for ex-gay activist David Kyle Foster’s movie, “Such Were Some Of You,” ran during today’s edition of “The 700 Club.”

The clip featured activists Michael Brown and Anne Paulk, and one young man who exclaimed: “I have to say, Lady Gaga, shut up. I was not born this way.”

Foster has warned of gay brainwashing in schools and divine punishment for gay rights, insisting that he changed his sexual orientation after “sleeping with 1,000 men.”

BarbWire: Ray Rice Punched His Girlfriend Out Of Fear, Feminism

The far-right outlet BarbWire published a column by Robert Stacy McCain today, in which he makes the case that Ray Rice punched his girlfriend in an Atlantic City casino elevator because feminists have turned men and women into equals, and therefore he was treating her just as he would treat anyone who was provoking him in an elevator.

McCain writes that women are temperamental and prone to rage, and thanks to feminism, now provoke their male partners into violence.

Everybody has focused on the obvious horror of Rice’s punch — the brute force of a 200-pound professional athlete used against a woman — and nobody seems interested in what Janay did immediately before the punch. The couple were in a confined space, inside an elevator, when Janay “got in his face,” screaming and lunging toward Rice. Of course, Janay’s behavior does not justify Rice hitting her, but one wonders why she acted that way, just as one wonders whether the circumstance of being trapped in an elevator with this enraged woman in some way explains Rice’s reaction. That is to say, if her angry rage triggered Rice’s fight-or-flight instinct, he couldn’t flee from her while they were on the elevator, and his adrenalin surge produced an autonomic reflex: BOOM.



From the feminist perspective, this isn’t about one man hitting one woman. This is about a “culture.” This is about “the power structure” of “patriarchy.” Individual responsibility disappears and the conversation is about “a larger systemic injustice.”

The world is full of “systemic injustice,” if you want to look at it that way, and almost everyone can somehow claim victimhood.



Do we have any evidence that Ray Rice is a chronic menace to women? Is there an established record of Ray Rice as a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence? Was this horrific incident caught on video part of a long-term pattern? Who benefits, and who is harmed, by dropping him from the Ravens lineup and indefinitely suspending him from the NFL? Insofar as Ray Rice is suffering the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful behavior, I have no complaint. But it seems to me that Ray Rice — and Janay Rice, and everyone with a direct stake in Ray Rice’s NFL career — is being made to suffer an extraordinary penalty because (a) feminists have turned this into a political cause célèbre, and (b) the NFL is run by cowardly swine who care more about their image than they care about human beings.



This stringent zero-tolerance policy — “Boys don’t hit girls” – sets up a problem: What happens if a woman loses her temper, behaves in an insulting manner, and even acts violently against a man? Some women are simply crazy, and some women have been spoiled rotten by over-indulgent parents who put up with tantrums. The “Daddy’s Precious Darling” Syndrome, as I call it, involves an entitlement mentality that makes it impossible for some women to admit wrongdoing or to accept criticism. If she can’t get what she wants, or if her bad behavior exposes her to criticism, Daddy’s Precious Darling can’t deal with it. She flies into a rage, and whoever she blames for thwarting her will — failing to kowtow to imperious demands or daring to criticize her selfish attitude — will become the target of unrestrained hatred. “Hell hath no fury,” et cetera.



What if, instead of going to the casino with a date, Ray Rice had gone to the casino with a male buddy who got drunk and caused a scene? What if, after Ray and his buddy got on the elevator, the buddy had started yelling angrily at him, “getting in his face?”

BOOM.

There’s your equality. How do you like it?

Of course, feminists don’t believe in this kind of equality, an equality which would make women and men equally vulnerable to the consequences of “getting in the face” of a 200-pound pro athlete. However, as a skinny man who doesn’t enjoy pain, I can absolutely guarantee you that I would never make the mistake of engaging in a face-to-face shouting match with a guy like Ray Rice.

Here’s some helpful advice: Just walk away.

This advice applies to anyone who is tempted to provoke a confrontation, and it also applies equally to anyone who finds themselves confronted with a helpless fool looking for trouble. It especially applies to any man whose girlfriend or wife loses her temper, goes into a rage and begins insulting or threatening him.

Just walk away.



None of this makes sense in the context of radical equality, where the selfish quest for power turns man and woman into rivals.

BOOM.

There’s your equality. How do you like it?

Perkins: Separation Of Church And State Helps ISIS

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said today that the separation of church and state in the United States has contributed to the rise of Islamic extremist groups like ISIS, arguing in his radio commentary that ISIS has “filled the void left by secularism.”

According to Perkins, American ISIS militants wouldn’t have left the country to fight for the group if only the government had promoted Christianity over other faiths.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. Hello, this is Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Americans have been shocked to see the brutality and barbarism of the Islamic militants of ISIS, and they've been stunned by the revelations that radicalized Americans have joined their ranks and taken up their cause. Pundits and politicians alike have publicly pondered the question as to how young Americans can be sucked into such an evil venture. While it may be troubling, the answer is not hard. Radical secularism that has driven the defining characteristics of our Western culture, our Judeo-Christian heritage, from our schools, our entertainment and even our government has left in its place a void, a vacuum. And we should know from experience that a vacuum will be filled by something. Without a creedal vision that a society can unify around, the people, the nation, will perish. Unless we are content to allow ISIS or some other radical belief system to fill the void left by secularism, we must rediscover America's founding, Christ-centered vision.

Edit Memo: Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Decisions Like Citizens United Debated in U.S. Senate, 55 Senators in Support

To: Interested Parties
From: Marge Baker, Executive Vice President, People For the American Way
Date: September 16, 2014
Subject: Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Decisions Like Citizens United Debated in U.S. Senate, 55 Senators in Support


On Thursday, September 11th the U.S. Senate had a historic vote. After a week of debate about the Democracy for All Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn decisions like Citizens United v. FEC and allow legislators to put reasonable limits on money in elections, 54 senators went on record to stand up for the voices of everyday Americans. Including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), an amendment cosponsor who was not able to be there for the vote, there are now 55 senators on record in support of the amendment.

The 55 senators in support put amendment proponents only 12 short of the 67 votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment through the Senate. While no Republican senators voted in support of the amendment, Washington D.C. appears to be the only place in the nation where the issue is partisan. Past amendments that similarly attempted to restore the ability of Congress and the states to enact reasonable campaign finance regulations until recently enjoyed bipartisan support from Congress and an amendment continues to be widely popular among the general public. According to a recent poll, nearly three-fourths of voters, including Republicans by a margin of 26%, are in favor of a constitutional amendment to limit the influence of big money in our elections.

This vote in the Senate marks an important milestone, with a majority of senators responding to a grassroots movement calling for an amendment to curtail the influence of money in politics. Less than five years after the Supreme Court made its radical decision in Citizens United, this proposed 28th Amendment has already had a majority vote on the Senate floor. This victory resulted from a massive mobilization of grassroots activists and progressive organizations, a coalition consisting of civil rights, social justice, environmental and labor advocacy groups.

Amending the Constitution is not a simple or fast process, as well it shouldn’t be. Yet, nearly every generation has amended the Constitution to address some of the most serious issues of their day. Money in politics is the underlying problem that prevents progress on many of the major issues of this generation, such as climate change, healthcare, minimum wage, and equal pay for equal work. This effort will likely take years, perhaps even decades.

Many inside the Beltway media have portrayed the Democracy for All amendment in a cynical light. What Washington insiders fail to grasp is that this is the debate that everyday Americans want to have, and this is the beginning of a long-term, concerted effort to protect American democracy.

The New York Times Editorial Board made this point in an editorial last week:

“They are not under the illusion that it will become the 28th Amendment soon, if ever. But their willingness to undertake a long and difficult effort shows the importance they attach to restoring fairness to American politics by reducing the influence of big money … and amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. It is a last resort to fix a grave civic problem. But the backers of this amendment recognize that the nature of American democracy is at stake.”

We urge you to use the opportunity created by this historic vote to tell the story of the grassroots movement to get big money out of politics and to hold your senators accountable for their votes. To aid in that process, below you will find a list of facts about the grassroots movement to overturn Citizens United, as well as links to some of the media coverage of the Senate vote.

Facts About the Grassroots Movement for an Amendment

•  Americans have protested the Citizen United decision consistently for nearly five years including 150 rallies in 41 states on the day of the McCutcheon decision.
16 states and 550 cities have passed resolutions urging Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution.
•  3.2 million Americans have signed petitions calling for an amendment.
•  159 local, state, and federal Republicans have criticized Citizens United and/or called for an amendment, including former Senator Alan Simpson who endorsed the Democracy for All Amendment on the first day of debate, and former communications director to President George W. Bush, Mark McKinnon, who said of the amendment, “We have to battle [money in politics] on every front every single day.”
•  A diverse coalition of citizen organizations and small business leaders representing millions of Americans have issued statements of support.

Media Coverage (Full list here)

Amendment to Cut Political Cash by New York Times Editorial Board:

“Republicans, fearful of deflating their cushion of cash, are trying to portray the amendment as an assault on the Bill of Rights. But writing unlimited checks on behalf of politicians was never part of the American birthright. This measure defines protected “speech” as it had been understood in the First Amendment for 185 years until the Buckley decision: actual words uttered or written by natural persons, not money spent, and certainly not from corporate treasuries.”

Bipartisan case for a Constitutional amendment on campaign finance by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and Sen. Tom Udall in The Hill:

“Our founders...would be appalled by corporate spending in elections and unlimited personal donations by billionaires. The solution is to clarify the Constitution so that the people may decide how, when and why to regulate campaign finance…Amending the Constitution is difficult – as it should be – but it is long past time to have an honest and thoughtful national dialogue about our broken electoral process and how we voters can fix it.”

This Is a ‘Pivotal Moment’ for the Movement to Remove Big Money From Politics by John Nichols at The Nation:

“Make no mistake, there will be a Twenty-Eighth Amendment; there must be if the American experiment is to survive as anything akin to a democratic republic. As with past amendments, however, this initial proposal for updating the Constitution will likely be altered—with language strengthened or weakened based on the ability of mass movements to place demands for more or less radical change.”

###
 

Richard Mack Has 'No Doubt' Obama Might Stage False Flag Sept. 11 Attack

Arizona sheriff and right-wing political activist Richard Mack said last month that he had “no doubt” the Obama administration might stage a “false flag” attack on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in an effort to “get us more under their control.”

In an interview with the Liberty Brothers radio show, Mack responded to a question about a potential false flag attack by saying, “I think that that has already happened a time or two" in the U.S.

He then went on to explain that “corrupt regimes” like Hitler’s have staged such attacks “and right now, I will say we have the most corrupt regime in American history.”

Mack added that the health care crisis addressed by the Affordable Care Act was, in fact, a “problem that didn’t exist” and a false flag allowing the president to “destroy liberty.”

“So they are willing to blatantly destroy liberty, blatantly destroy our Constitution, and so then we’re supposed to wonder if they would do a false flag attack to get us further, more under their control? No, I do not doubt that they would do such a thing,” he concluded

Gina Miller: 'Slutty' Women Encourage Sexual Assault

BarbWire content editor and columnist Gina Miller was the guest this weekend on “Mission America,” where she and host Linda Harvey took a break from attacking the LGBT community to discuss campus sexual assaults, for which they blame feminism for launching a “war on white males.”

Miller said feminists, and all liberals, “have this hatred for males, especially white males.”

“There is this palpable hatred for men,” she said. “Actual rape is a terrible thing and no one is saying that these men are not accountable but I at the same time hold women responsible for when they put themselves, present themselves in slutty attire at a drunken frat party and then expect these frat boys to behave like gentlemen. It’s nonsense.”

Harvey, for her part, claimed the “war on women” is a myth, when in reality there is “a war on unborn babies, a war on common sense [and] a war on Christianity.” Miller agreed: “The war on women is a completely fabricated, made-up thing. There is actually a war out there, it’s a war against all humanity led by the Devil himself and people that he inspires. A war on unborn babies, it’s a genocidal, homicidal war. There is a real war on white males in this nation.”

Linda Harvey: Anti-Gay Activists Must Go To 'Places That Are Homosexual' To Tell Them They're Not Gay

Linda Harvey of Mission America spoke to BarbWire columnist Gina Miller on her radio show this weekend, where the two reprised their attacks on LGBT rights as a demonic, destructive force.

Reflecting on a campaign to push for LGBT rights in Southern states, Harvey said anti-gay activists should have the same “kind of boldness” and go to pride parades and “places that are homosexual” like San Francisco, Provincetown and Key West.

Miller, however, cautioned that “a lot of the homosexual radicals are radical and they’re violent and vicious,” adding: “These people are vicious and we’re not. That’s the thing. We’re not vicious but we know the truth and the truth is on our side.”

Harvey and Miller then dismissed a Human Rights Campaign survey on harassment of LGBT youth in states like Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama, which they claimed — without any evidence to substantiate their claims — was a complete sham.

Miller said: “No I don’t believe it, while there may be some element of bullying — of course bullying happens all the time for various reasons in our schools, that’s the way kids are — but no, I don’t buy it and further they can easily make up these statistics…They’re using these kinds of statements whether they’re true or not to create a false image, a false impression that homosexuals are bullied and where is this rampant epidemic of homosexual kids?”

“These folks are highly sensitive — I’m not saying these things don’t happen, but I think all of this is exaggeration,” Harvey said. “‘One-in-three LGBT students,’ you might be talking about 45 people in the total of Mississippi and they are not born that way so the issue is we need to be educating and counseling and coming along these kids and saying ‘you don’t need to be in this lifestyle’ and harassment can be punished right now, no matter what the reason, so it’s all false.”

Debo Adegbile, Justice Department Nominee Blocked By Senate, Joins Private Practice

Debo Adegbile, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, announced today that he would return to private practice. Adegbile’s confirmation was blocked earlier this year despite his extensive qualifications and his record of commitment to civil rights. People For the American Way Vice President Marge Baker issued the following statement:

“Debo Adegbile’s decision to return to private practice is a great loss for the Department of Justice and for the country. Adegbile is extraordinarily well qualified to lead the Civil Rights Division and exactly the kind of person that the President and the Senate should want in a key DOJ post. Instead, he was attacked by his opponents for taking on important issues in our justice system. In particular, Adegbile should be commended for his commitment to the principle that every criminal defendant deserves robust, competent representation. The willingness of his opponents to abandon that principle will be a shameful mark on the Senate’s history.

“While Adegbile’s decision to move on with his career is understandable, it’s still a deeply disappointing conclusion. His absence at the DOJ will be felt for years to come.”

###

PFAW Memo: Senate Needs to Confirm Pending Judicial Nominees

To: Interested Parties
From: Paul Gordon, Senior Legislative Counsel, People For the American Way
Date: September 15, 2014
Subject: Senate Needs to Confirm Pending Judicial Nominees

There is probably little more than a week before the Senate goes out on recess until after the election. One of the most important – and undoubtedly quickest and easiest – things it can do before then is confirm 16 judicial nominees, most of whom have overwhelming bipartisan support.
                                                                                      
One of the most important responsibilities of the United States Senate is to maintain a functioning federal court system. District courts are the backbone of the American judicial system. They are where people turn when they feel their rights have been violated. “Having your day in court” is an essential part of the American ideal. But that ideal cannot be met if we don’t have enough judges to make it happen. Even if every vacancy in the country were filled tomorrow, it wouldn’t be enough: The Judicial Conference of the United States – the entity responsible for assessing the federal courts’ ability to effectively manage their caseloads – has urged Congress to create an additional 85 district court judgeships. So when an existing vacancy can be filled with a qualified nominee, it ought to be done with dispatch.

Right now, nominees for 16 such vacancies can be confirmed within the next few days. Seven of these were fully vetted and approved by the Judiciary Committee and have been waiting for a floor vote since June or July. Of these seven, all but one of them advanced without any opposition. Four alone are from Georgia: nominees who have the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee’s Democratic and Republican senators. There are no more questions to ask of these nominees, except when they will be allowed to take up their judicial responsibilities and fill empty courtrooms in Georgia, New York, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

The remaining nine were scheduled for a committee vote last week, having had their confirmation hearings back in July. They have been nominated for judgeships in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Four of them – nearly half – would serve in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a state with so many vacancies that it alone accounts for 15% of the nation’s total, but Chairman Leahy was forced by the GOP to delay the vote. Republicans gave no reason for the delay, but they rarely do: Since President Obama took office, Republicans have exercised the right of the minority party to have a committee vote “held over” (delayed) by at least a week without cause for nearly all of his judicial nominees, part of their overall mechanism of obstruction. Fortunately, they are expected to get their overdue committee approval later this week.

There remains plenty of time to confirm all 16 nominees before the Senate goes out for its pre-election recess next week.

The fact that we are heading into an election is no reason not to hold these confirmation votes. In fact, in September of 2008, a presidential election year – and the twilight of George W. Bush’s presidency, no less – Democrats rushed several of his nominees through to make sure they got confirmed before recess (and before his presidency ended). Ten of Bush’s district court nominees were confirmed just one day after being approved by the Judiciary Committee. All ten had had their committee hearings earlier that same month – in some cases, during that same week. The confirmation votes took hardly any time at all, since all ten were considered and confirmed as a bloc by unanimous consent.

Interestingly, three of those 2008 nominees were from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where four of the current 16 nominees could be serving by next week, if given the chance.

Republicans still have a chance to demonstrate that they can prioritize the functioning of the U.S. court system over their own partisan interests. But it seems unlikely. Since last year, the GOP has insisted that no judicial nominee, despite their bipartisan support, advance on the Senate floor without time-consuming cloture votes and roll-call confirmation votes. And it isn’t just the roll-call votes that take time (although each one can take nearly an hour). Without unanimous consent to waive the chamber’s time requirements, cloture votes cannot be held until two days after cloture petitions are filed, and each confirmation vote requires at least an hour of needless “post-cloture debate” even after the filibuster is broken.

If Republicans successfully prevent votes this month, the earliest the courtrooms will see some relief will be in a potential lame duck session.  That means another two month wait until clearly qualified nominees are  able to take their seats in courtrooms around the country.  There is simply no good reason for such delay.
 

###

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious