C4

Bryan Fischer Warns 'Modern Family' Makes Gay Couples Seem Like They're 'Tiptoeing Through Tulips' In The 'Garden Of Eden'

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is convinced that Modern Family is a “poisonous” show that deceives people into thinking “that heterosexual marriage is bondage,” and expounded on his disgust with the popular sitcom during today’s edition of Focal Point.

Unlike the straight couples on the sitcom who “bicker and fight all the time,” Fischer said, the gay couple and their daughter are portrayed like they’re living in “paradise.”

“It’s the Garden of Eden, it’s paradise, they are tiptoeing through the tulips, everything is wonderful,” he said, warning that the show makes people who “have a marriage of one man and one woman and are happy with each other” seem like “Neanderthals.”

Watch:

Wisconsin GOP House Candidate Glenn Grothman Speaks Out Against 'The War On Men'

As we wrote earlier today, Wisconsin State Sen. Glenn Grothman is running in the Republican primary this year against U.S. Rep. Tom Petri , which promises to bring extremism in the GOP primaries to a whole new level.

In our round-up of Grothman’s extremism we mentioned a speech he gave to a 2010 Tea Party rally, in which he claimed that “gals” are unfairly getting promoted ahead of men when really “in the long run, a lot of women like to stay at home and have their husbands be the primary breadwinner.”

He also blamed the downfall of America on single mothers on public benefits, even though he claims to have met many single moms while protesting outside abortion clinics: “Now, I know a lot of gals who are having kids out of wedlock, and I love them. I’ve been outside abortion clinics, and I’ve encouraged them.”

“Our country is not going to survive if we continue this war on men,” he concludes.

Although Grothman’s speech has been reported on a number of Wisconsin blogs, we believe it deserves a wider audience. Here’s a slightly shortened version of the legendary speech, via Blogging Blue.

Also in the speech, Grothman claimed that the government is forcing businesses to hire women and people of color and thereby attempting to “divide Americans by race.”

“In addition to the unfairness, the reason that will destroy the country is we are telling people they are not Americans,” he said. “And particularly we are telling our new immigrants, when you come here, if you’re from the Philippines, if you’re from Costa Rica, if you’re from Nigeria, if you’re from Pakistan, you should walk around with a chip on your shoulder and ask your government, ‘What are you going to give me, because I’m from the Phillipines?’ and ‘What are you going to give me because I’m from Pakistan?’ and ‘What are you going to give me because I’m from Mexico?’”

Wisconsin GOP House Candidate Glenn Grothman's 10 Most Outrageous Moments

Wisconsin Republican state senator Glenn Grothman announced today that he is launching a primary challenge against US Rep. Tom Petri. [Update: On April 11, Petri announced that he would retire]. Grothman has higher national name recognition than your typical state lawmaker because of his record of making outrageous statements and pushing extremist positions. In honor of Grothman’s bid for federal office, we’ve collected ten highlights from his time in the Wisconsin legislature.

1. Claims women earn less because “money is more important for men.”

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker repealed the states equal pay law, Grothman explained pay disparties by saying, “You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”

2. Advocates for seven-day work weeks.

This year, Grothman has pushed to undo a state law that requires businesses to give their employees at least one day off a week. Grothman also backed efforts to block paid sick leave requirements and require state employees to work on Martin Luther King Day. In 2011, when protesters were occupying the state capitol in protest of Gov. Walkers’ union-busting laws, Grothman called the protesters “a bunch slobs” and “college students having a fun party.”

3. Worries gays are using sex-ed classes for recruitment.

After Wisconsin passed a comprehensive sex education bill in 2010 in an effort to combat a growing rate of STIs among teenagers, Grothman told a reporter that the sex ed classes would be used to recruit kids into homosexuality.

“Did people even know what homosexuality was in high school in 1975?” he asked. “I don't remember any discussion about that at the time. There were a few guys who would make fun of a few effeminate boys, but that's a different thing than homosexuality…Homosexuality was not on anybody's radar. And that's a good thing.”

He added: “Why sit down with 7th graders and say to some you will be heterosexual, some homosexual? Part of that agenda which is left unsaid is that some of those who throw it out as an option would like it if more kids became homosexuals.”

4. Warns of a “war” on white men.

In a 2010 speech to a Tea Party rally warned, “in a lot of ways, I’m afraid our country is in the process of committing suicide” through welfare, diversity, and a “war on men.” In particular, he was upset about businesses making an effort to hire “gals”: “In this country, can we continue to exist if we have a government that is actively discouraging businesses from hiring men? Our country is not going to survive if we continue this war on men.” In a 2009 press release on diversity programs at the University of Wisconsin, he asked, “Does the university hate white men?”

5. Wants to classify single parenthood as child abuse.

In 2012, Grothman introduced a bill that would have required state agencies to list single parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse. He later claimed that single mothers scheme to have children out of wedlock and are “trained” to say that their pregnancies are unintended. He wrote in a newsletter the same year that “the Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.”

6. Thinks low-income people are fleecing taxpayers.

In the same newsletter, Grothman writes that he “frequently” hears store clerks say that “the people on food stamps eat more generously than people not on food stamps…some may say this is harsh, but we cannot continue to have the single mom buy food that the married clerk at the food store could not afford.”

He also reported complaints that “sometimes apartments available with Section 8 vouchers are superior to apartments people pay for themselves as well as boyfriends illegally staying in these apartments.”

7. Champions voter suppression.

Grothman was the chief sponsor of a bill to limit early voting and prohibit weekend voting in Wisconsin, a direct assault on turnout efforts in Democratic-leaning districts. Grothman also proposed a measure to weaken campaign finance reporting requirements and another to make it more difficult for the elderly to seek assistance in voting, and even tried to end same-day voter registration in the state, which in 2012 had the nation’s second-highest turnout rate.

Last year, Grothman co-sponsored a bill that would weaken local courts that had ruled against voter suppression measures. He supported a state voter ID law in 2012, which he admitted he thought would help Romney “in a close race” and implied that voters without ID probably didn’t want to vote anyway. After the election, he claimed that President Obama and Sen. Tammy Baldwin both won their elections due to fraud.

8. Opposes water sanitation.

National Journal reports that “in 2011, Grothman sponsored a bill to do away with municipal water disinfection. For context: in 1993, a Cryptosporidium outbreak in the Milwaukee area's water supply led to the deaths of at least 69 people.”

9. Thinks Planned Parenthood is targeting Asian Americans.

In an interview last year, Grothman called Planned Parenthood “the most racist organization” in the country and suggested that it was “aggressively promoting” sex-selective abortions to Asian Americans. Last year, Grothman backed Planned Parenthood funding cuts that closed four clinics in Wisconsin. This year, he is sponsoring several bills meant to restrict access to abortion.  

10. Will not abide by Kwanzaa.

Grothman issued a press release last year declaring that “Almost no black people today care about Kwanzaa -- just white left-wingers who try to shove this down black people's throats in an effort to divide Americans.”

Tea Party Leader: God Opposes Efforts To Reduce Income Inequality

Following last week’s Tea Party Unity summit in Texas, TPU head Rick Scarborough convened a conference call today with Howard Kaloogian of the Tea Party Express.

Kaloogian, a former Republican state lawmaker from California, told the Tea Party activists that God is on their side and opposes the work of progressives to reduce income inequality:

I think it’s very important that churches get involved and that Christians follow the dictates of biblical principles in casting their vote. I think it’s clear that God has a position on many of the things we deem political today, from life to theft to the doctrine of covetousness, which by the way seems to be the promotion of the left. You know, they talk about ‘income inequality,’ well what is that but covetousness? So how could somebody support that cause if they’re biblical believing Christians?

Scarborough later claimed that God will “intervene” on behalf of the Tea Party in order to save America from “collapse,” arguing that the 1929 economic crash and the Civil War were both God’s judgment on the nation.

If we do our part then I’m confident that the God of Heaven will intervene. This country has been on the brink of complete disaster and collapse in several occasions in our national history. During the Roaring Twenties, socially this country was on the brink and deserved judgment; go back during the pre-Civil War era when we were buying and selling human beings, we deserved God’s judgment. But there was always a thread of Christians active in politics who didn’t lose sight of the prize and did what they could and God intervened, and that’s what I pray for and work for in this latter period of our national history. No matter what we do, if God doesn’t intervene the country is lost. But I know this, all the prayers in the world won’t change this country and God’s not going to act if those of us who I call the remnant don’t get involved, pay the price, like you’re doing, so I encourage you to continue doing that.

Tea Party Senate Candidates Court Favor Of Extreme Anti-Immigrant Group ALIPAC

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) may be the fringe operation of a lone anti-immigrant extremist, but hasn’t stopped two Tea Party-backed US Senate candidates from filling out the group’s unhinged candidate survey and seeking its endorsement.

ALIPAC’s president (and sole employee) William Gheen announced today that his group is endorsing Matt Bevin in his bid to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and Rob Maness, one of several Republicans running to take on Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana.

Both candidates won the “honor” by filling out Gheen’s one-question candidate survey, which asks candidates to choose between “Support[ing] Americans and legal immigrants by support the adequate enforcement of America's existing border and immigration laws as the US Constitution requires” and “Supporting illegal aliens and their supporters by supporting changing existing laws to accommodate millions of illegal immigrants through 'immigration reform' amnesty.”

Current members of Congress who have sought ALIPAC’s endorsement in previous years by filling out Gheen’s survey include Mo Brooks, Dennis Ross, Austin Scott, Walter Jones, Patrick McHenry, Tom Marino, Lou Barletta, Joe Wilson, Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, Kenny Marchant and Morgan Griffith.

The attention GOP candidates are giving ALIPAC is especially alarming considering that the group is basically the work of one anti-immigrant extremist that always seems one small donation short of total collapse.

Every three months, like clockwork, Gheen sends out a series of increasingly desperate emails begging his supporters for cash, berating them for insufficient commitment to the cause, and threatening to shut down his operation if he doesn’t get a certain amount of money by a certain time.

And then, every quarter, he manages to raise just enough to keep on going, appearing in conservative media to push his unabashedly racist anti-immigrant message, warning that an immigrant “invasion” will undermine the ability of “ traditional Americans” to rule the country, something that he thinks may need to be stopped by “ illegal and violent” means and an anti-Obama coup.

But despite Gheen’s boast that his group “put the brakes on Boehner’s immigration reform push” and his assumption that members of Congress cower in fear of losing his endorsement and being put on his “traitors” list, his organization appears to be running on fumes.

ALIPAC is organized as a political action committee, but according to records on OpenSecrets.org, the group hasn’t contributed to a federal candidate or made an independent expenditure since 2010, when it contributed $2,000 to former congressman J.D. Hayworth’s primary challenge to Sen. John McCain in Arizona, spent another $3,248 in independent expenditures in the race. That year, Gheen’s group also gave small contributions to Tea Party candidates including Sharron Angle in Nevada and Joe Walsh in Illinois. ALIPAC’s spending on behalf of Hayworth’s losing campaign was its most serious election effort since Gheen founded the group in 2004.

In the 2012 election cycle and so far in the current election cycle,most of the organization’s funds have gone toward Gheen’s salary; the rest have been administrative and fundraising expenses, with a few thousand dollars spent on “web ads.”

Gheen’s reports to the FEC give us an idea of who is base is: Among ALIPAC’s largest donors is Elizabeth Van Staaveren, cofounder of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a “ nativist extremist group”; and a handful of anti-immigrant activists who lurk in onlinecomment sections.

Gheen regularly exaggerates ALIPAC’s reach and impact. For instance, despite claiming that his Facebook page reaches 195,000 people and that his “effort to circulate social media pictures of Boehner and Obama together” made all the difference in the immigration debate, the picture in question was shared a whopping 14 times on Facebook.

This is all on top of the fact that Gheen doesn’t exactly come across as a serious policy thinker. He keeps a Pinterest page where he postsracist, homophobic and just plain bizarre images and he started a Facebook page called “Mark zuckerberg sucks.” Gheen’s most recent project was the launch of a weird anti-immigrant “encyclopedia.”

Despite the fact that his organization struggles every quarter to stay open, as well as the fact that he hasn’t been active in a federal election for four years, Gheen is still taken seriously in conservative media, congressional candidates court his endorsement, and his talking points sometimes appear in the mouths of politicians (here’s a video of Gheen and Rep. Steve King agreeing about the supposed threat of violence from undocumented immigrants).

It says a lot that Gheen, who inhabits the fringe of a fringe movement, still manages to garner frequent media appearances and even has congressional candidates seeking his endorsement.

Jesse Tyler Ferguson Laughs Off Bryan Fischer's Claim That 'Modern Family' Is 'Poisoning' America

After American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer called Modern Family a dangerous “poison” that demonizes heterosexuality, Modern Family star Jesse Tyler Ferguson laughed off the criticism from the rabidly anti-gay activist.

Ferguson told Huffington Post Live that it is “hard for [him] to even comment” on Fischer’s “hilariously ridiculous” remarks, adding: “You have to allow it to roll of your back, as my favorite drag queen Jinkx Monsoon says, ‘water off a duck’s back,’ I try not to get too worked up about those things.”

The comments on Fischer start at the 14:40 mark.

Listen to Fischer’s anti-gay diatribe attacking Modern Family.

Miller: One of the most popular shows on television, "Modern Family," and you have the guy from "Married With Children" who is married to a young, attractive Latina woman with a kid from another marriage. You've got the heterosexual couple with the stereotypical family; they're the most challenged or, dare we say, the most screwed-up. And then we have the same-sex male family where we have a man and man in a loving, committed relationship that just doesn't have any, any problems. And apparently the promotion on ABC has allowed this show to be very popular and it does impact people and you have good Christians who turn the other cheek, who don't want to be labeled as intolerant and yet, they don't want these values on the airwaves.

Fischer: What's illustrated there is way that the media influences the way that people think about life. The portrait there that's being presented is designed to make you think that same-sex households are wonderful, they're loving, this is paradise, this is the optimum nurturing environment for children; to make you think that heterosexual marriage is bondage, it's dreary, it's gloomy, and we know that the social research indicates exactly the opposite.

...

You know, that's the danger. It's just like getting a little bit of poison over a long period of time, eventually getting enough accumulation in there where it can be kind of lethal to the organism. And I think that's what you're seeing with a lot of this programming. It has to do with kind of the basic view of morality and marriage and life and family that people have. It's very corrosive; people are just watching TV to be entertained, not realizing that their view of life is being twisted in a way that's very harmful to them and harmful to our culture.

WND: 'Libs' And Gays Will 'Murder' Conservatives

It has been rich with irony that Religious Right activists are simultaneously calling for a boycott of World Vision for its move — since retracted — to recognize gay employees’ spouses while criticizing gay rights advocates who are upset that Mozilla’s new CEO donated to the campaign to repeal marriage equality in California. 

WorldNetDaily, which has published several articles attacking World Vision over the matter, today published a column by Phil Elmore criticizing the dating website OKCupid for informing members using the Firefox browser that Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, donated to the Proposition 8 campaign (OKCupid users on Firefox can still use the browser). “If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal,” the note reads.

Elmore writes that the “progressive mind-control mob” is trying “to establish thoughtcrime” punishments that are “marginalizing and criminalizing any opinion with which they disagree, declaring it ‘hate’ and an assault on ‘rights’ (while denying First Amendment freedom to those they threaten, bully, and hector).”

“If you are a liberal, you have rights. If you are a conservative, you don’t,” he claims, before suggesting that liberals will have their opponents killed: “You must therefore be denigrated, punished and silenced – and that’s only because the libs haven’t yet worked up the courage to murder you. Yet.”

Liberals have invaded your computer and attempted to dictate which browser you may use based on the political incorrectness of a single employee at a single software firm. Specifically, the management of dating site OKCupid has declared Mozilla’s new CEO, Brenden Eich, persona non grata because – GASP! – Eich has dared to exercise his constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion by donating to political causes he supports (and of which progressives disapprove). Eich donated to California’s Proposition 8, stating his support for the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman (a position held by President “Mom Jeans” Obama until only recently).



This definition is no longer good enough for liberals. We saw it when the progressives targeted Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby. In every case, whether the target is high technology or old tradition, the result is the same: Liberals wish to purge from both public and private life any religious conviction or devotion to traditional morality. They do so by marginalizing and criminalizing any opinion with which they disagree, declaring it “hate” and an assault on “rights” (while denying First Amendment freedom to those they threaten, bully, and hector).

What, after all, is Brenden Eich’s crime? He committed no illegal act. He did nothing improper or immoral. He violated no campaign finance laws. He simply expressed an opinion in accordance with how our political system is supposed to work. For daring to do so he is now being punished by an overreaching and unrelentingly “progressive” mind-control mob. This mob seeks, on multiple fronts, to establish thoughtcrime. It seeks to redefine a lack of affirmation for liberal ideas as the active opposition of them. That opposition, in turn, is redefined as illegitimate and as hatred. Conservatives are thus redefined as haters and then consigned to irrelevance in liberal politics (as seen recently in New York, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo told conservatives there was no place in the state for their opinions).

In a “free” country, your government can force you to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, but Muslim cashiers don’t have to check out pork or alcohol. These conclusions are inconsistent because liberals in power believe wholeheartedly in a double standard. If you are a liberal, you have rights. If you are a conservative, you don’t. You are, in fact, an evil, hateful person if you believe in traditional morality or, God help you, Christianity. You must therefore be denigrated, punished and silenced – and that’s only because the libs haven’t yet worked up the courage to murder you.

Yet.

Michele Bachmann Comes Up With New Benghazi Conspiracy Theory To Attack Hillary Clinton

The GOP’s brazen attempts to politicize the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi are getting even more pathetic, if that’s possible. In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that because ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell’s recent congressional testimony didn’t support her discredited Benghazi conspiracy theories, he must be “taking the fall” for Hillary Clinton and “preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected.”

“[I]f Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA,” Bachmann told the fringe conspiracy website. “That’s what this is all about.”

She suggested that Clinton will in turn appoint Morell to lead the CIA, explaining that is the only reason why Morell didn’t corroborate her conspiracy theory: “The cover story matches the Obama story.”

In an exclusive interview with WND, Bachmann said former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell could be repaid for his efforts by being named head of the CIA if Clinton is elected president.

Bachmann said Morell’s testimony Wednesday before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was the narrative that will be pushed to protect Clinton from any future Benghazi political fallout.

“She couldn’t have a better person to take the fall for her because Morell was involved in rewriting the talking points and was the No. 2 at CIA. So, he can come in authoritatively say, ‘No, that’s not the story. The story is the fake story we tried to push.’”

Bachmann explained to WND that Morell is taking the fall by pointing at underlings and saying he relied on analysts. That way, “he can preserve his status, so, if Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA. That’s what this is all about.”

“They don’t care about Obama now,” she said. “The more important thing is making sure it preserves the way for Hillary, because Democrats can’t afford to be exposed for what they are: failures on foreign policy, defense and intelligence. We have never had a bigger failure than under the Obama administration in any of those areas.”



“So, they’re essentially buying out Morell,” Bachmann said. “The cover story matches the Obama story. And all Morell has to do is point to the wrong view of the underlings and say, ‘Well, I was relying on what they told me. The president was relying on his analysts. Hillary Clinton relied on the analysts.’”



“Now, its [sic] about preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected. And the only way they can do that is absolve her from any responsibility. And so Morell, who is now in Hillary’s think tank, probably being paid very well, is in cold storage for one reason and one reason only, and that’s to take the fall for Hillary Clinton and clean up any dirt from Obama.”

BarbWire Blames Gays For Child Rapist’s Light Sentence

To most observers, the incredibly light sentence received last month by industrial heir Robert Richards after he confessed to raping his infant children is a sign of how differently our justice system treats the very wealthy. But to Matt Barber’s BarbWire, it was evidence of the “slippery slope” set off by gay rights.

“For those pushing to undermine all moral restraints and sexual standards, they now have a new ‘hero’ for their cause,” writes BarbWire senior editor Jeff Allen. “And don’t anyone dare try to tell me that the recent efforts to normalize homosexual deviancy won’t have adverse, wide-ranging repercussions.”

“Letting child molesters off the hook is really all about foisting the agenda of sexual autonomy and anarchy upon America,” he adds.

If the pedophiles of our nation were looking for the symbolic “green light” to engage in their heinous, criminal activities, then they most certainly received it from Judge Jan Jurden, the Delaware Superior Court judge who reprehensibly set a vile sexual predator free to roam the streets.

For those pushing to undermine all moral restraints and sexual standards, they now have a new “hero” for their cause. And don’t anyone dare try to tell me that the recent efforts to normalize homosexual deviancy won’t have adverse, wide-ranging repercussions. In fact, I pin most of the blame for America’s moral free fall squarely on the destructive strategies of the militant homosexual activists.

So, throw him to the wolves, and maybe people will start realizing that child molesters will not be stomached. Unless, of course, as I suspect, letting child molesters off the hook is really all about foisting the agenda of sexual autonomy and anarchy upon America. 

All I can say is that the outraged citizens of Delaware and our entire nation need to rise up and put the brakes on this nation’s rapid descent down the slippery slope. And fast!

McCutcheon v. FEC Response Rally Hosted by People For The American Way at the Supreme Court

Within hours of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, People For the American Way organized a rapid response protest, the first of over 140 that are taking place across the country today. 

The protest featured key movement leaders from Congress and a wide range of advocacy organizations, all of whom were outraged about the Roberts Court’s disregard for democratic safeguards, like those gutted in McCutcheon v. FEC.

Emceed by People For the American Way’s Diallo Brooks and concluded by People For’s Drew Courtney, the rally featured Senator Bernie Sanders [VT], Representative Keith Ellison [MN-5], and Representative Ted Deutch [FL-19], as well as Jotaka Eaddy of the NAACP, Michael Russo of US PIRG, Steve Cobble of Free Speech For People, Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign, George Kohl of Communication Workers of America, Miles Rappaport of Common Cause, Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, and Courtney Hight of the Sierra Club.

Speakers highlighted the problem of “big money” dominating the political process, and discussed the range of solutions--from enacting disclosure and public financing laws to amending the Constitution--that are available to solve it.

 
   
PFAW

How Much Congressional Representation Does Billionaire Shaun McCutcheon Have?

This post originally appeared on the People For blog.

Chief Justice Roberts caps his opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC by waxing eloquently about the need to ensure that elected officials are responsive to the people. This and other cases have described campaign contributions as a way to promote such responsiveness. But considering that this case is about a non-constituent buying influence in elections across the country, the passage's repeated references to constituents seems strangely out of place:

For the past 40 years, our campaign finance jurisprudence has focused on the need to preserve authority for the Government to combat corruption, without at the same time compromising the political responsiveness at the heart of the democratic process, or allowing the Government to favor some participants in that process over others. As Edmund Burke explained in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol, a representative owes constituents the exercise of his "mature judgment," but judgment informed by "the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents." Constituents have the right to support candidates who share their views and concerns. Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials. (emphasis added, internal citations removed)

Shaun McCutcheon – whose contributions are at issue in this case – told the Court that he wanted to make contributions of $1,776 to each of more than two dozen different congressional candidates (as well as to various party committees) during the 2012 election cycle. It seems unlikely that he could have been a constituent of more than two dozen different members of Congress.

Obviously, people have a First Amendment right to participate in congressional races outside of where they live. But a stirring paragraph about political responsiveness to constituents hardly seems appropriate in a case that is all about political responsiveness to non-constituents.

Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson Calls Gay Marriage 'An Elite Luxury Good Bought For On The Backs Of The Poor'

In a talk in Salt Lake City this weekend, Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation claimed that same-sex marriage is “an elite luxury good bought for on the backs of the poor.”

He made the comment while discussing U.S. v. Windsor, in which Edith Windsor argued successfully that she was unjustly forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes after her wife’s death because DOMA prevented the government from recognizing their marriage. Anderson absurdly claimed that the media suppressed the facts of the case, and insisted that the solution to Windsor’s problem was simply to repeal the estate tax.

He continued in the same vein, claiming that free markets, rather than nondiscrimination measures, will protect LGBT people from employment and housing discrimination.

Anderson warned that measures protecting LGBT people from housing and employment discrimination will oppress conservatives: “Too often, the nondiscrimination laws are just used as a way of discriminating against those who hold traditional views about marriage.”

“I think, to a certain extent, if you want to protect housing and employment for any person, encourage free markets,” he continued. “Employers want the best employees, regardless of their sexual attractions. A landlord wants the best tenants, regardless of their sexual attractions. It wouldn’t be, in the long run, for a business, profitable to be discriminating against good employees for no reason whatsoever.”

In fact, 21 percent of LGBT people report having been discriminated against in the workplace, including 47 percent of transgender people. Ample research also shows that the free market has done nothing to prevent LGBT people  from facing discrimination in renting and buying homes.

But Anderson wasn’t just concerned with public policy. Later in the talk, an audience member asked about pro-gay “subliminal messaging” in pop culture. “The television show Glee has done just as much to corrupt a young generation about marriage as anything the Supreme Court has done,” he responded.

Supreme Court's McCutcheon Decision Is Great News For Billionaires

This post originally appeared on the People For blog.

The Supreme Court's McCutcheon opinion, released this morning, is another 5-4 body blow to our democracy. To justify striking down limits that cap aggregate campaign contributions during a single election cycle, the Roberts Court ignores the way the world really works and makes it far more difficult to justify much-needed protections against those who would purchase our elections and elected officials.

Americans are deeply concerned that control of our elections and our government is being usurped by a tiny sliver of extremely wealthy and powerful individuals (and the corporations they control). That is not the democracy that our Constitution established and protects. The enormous impact of money in politics can destroy a democracy, undermining its foundations by disconnecting elected officials from the people they are supposed to serve and eroding the trust of the people in their system of government.

But the Roberts Court today stressed that campaign contributions can be justified under the First Amendment only if they address "quid pro quo" corruption – i.e. bribery – despite contrary pre-Citizens United holdings with a broader and more realistic vision. A democratic system rotting at its core – a government of, by, and for the wealthy – is not corrupt in their eyes.

If a wealthy person gives millions of dollars to a party (distributed to the party's multiple candidates and PACs across the country), he clearly exercises enormous influence over the laws that get passed. What the voters want becomes far less relevant, because it's the billionaire whose money is vital to getting elected. A government where elected officials allow a few plutocrats to have enormous access and influence over their policies is not an indication of a healthy government of, by, and for the people.

As Justice Breyer write in his McCutcheon dissent:

Today a majority of the Court overrules this holding [Buckley's 1976 upholding of aggregate limits]. It is wrong to do so. Its conclusion rests upon its own, not a record-based, view of the facts. Its legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake. It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate's campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), today's decision eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.

Americans are organizing around the country to restore our democracy in light of Citizens United and other dangerous court opinions. Today's McCutcheon opinion gives us another reason to rally.

Last year, People For the American Way Foundation released an analysis of McCutcheon within the context of the Supreme Court's past rulings on campaign finance.

CBN: Sweden Is Just Like North Korea

What does Sweden have in common with the brutally oppressive dictatorship of North Korea? According to Christian Broadcasting Network senior reporter Dale Hurd, a lot! Hurd claims that Swedish critics of Islam and immigration are facing North Korean-style oppression.

“Sweden has been compared to a couple of nations which also tried to build perfect societies, North Korea and the Soviet Union,” Hurd said in a 700 Club report today. He admitted that “if you don’t like how utopia is being built here, you won’t be shot like in North Korea,” but added, “your life could become very unpleasant.”

Yes, receiving an “unpleasant” response to your unpopular political views is just like what happens to dissidents in North Korea, but without the mass killings.

Hurd, who interviewed anti-Muslim writer Ingrid Carlqvist for his report, later described Sweden as having a “Stalinist-style atmosphere” and predicted that it will soon become a “Third World nation.”

700 Club host Pat Robertson said he was shocked by Hurd’s “frightening” report: “To think they can be killed by political correctness shows what can happen here.”

Watch highlights here:

American Decency Association: Satan Behind Graham Cracker Ad Featuring Gay Couple

The American Decency Association is joining the anti-gay boycott of Honey Maid graham crackers, led by the American Family Association subsidiary One Million Moms. The groups are upset that the cracker company’s “This Is Wholesome” ad features a same-sex couple with their children, which the ADA’s Steve Huston claims is Satan’s doing.

“With Nabisco, Coca-cola, Chevrolet and the plethora of advertisers out there trying to make homosexuality look normal and wholesome, you’d think that this issue has become a cultural wave that has taken in a very large percentage of the population,” Huston writes.

“It’s not a matter of acceptance; it’s a matter of an evil agenda which is being pushed upon America and around the world. Satan continues to attack God’s design and skew it to his own workings. He continues to take words like ‘wholesome’ and ‘family’ and twist them for his own purposes.”

When I think of graham crackers I think of the camping I may do this summer and the smores I might eat around a campfire. I fondly remember eating a bowl full of soggy graham crackers for breakfast and talking with my mom. They were an easy snack to give my children with a little frosting on them. Yes, I have some wholesome memories of graham crackers, Nabisco graham crackers.

Apparently Nabisco and I have a fondness for different things now. Of course they wanted to sell crackers and I was really just interested in eating them; but now Nabisco wants to change definitions like family and wholesome. Now I am older and more interested in protecting definitions like family and wholesome; I’m interested in being a conscientious consumer, watching where I spend my dollar.



Satan wants us to see sin as normal and not so bad. He delights in taking what God has made “good” and was meant to glorify God and change it, counterfeit it, making it to please Satan himself instead of the Creator God. The fallen one desires men to see themselves as gods, having to answer to no one but themselves.

As Honey Maid explains on their Youtube page,

“Today we celebrate all families. From working moms to two moms;” I can’t help but think how far we have come. Do you realize we’ve been accepting two moms for a long time? Granted, we’ve been accepting two moms in different homes because of divorce; but now Honey Maid and others are putting two moms in a same-sex relationship. They are making two dads to seem normal. Both are wrong; both are unwholesome; both run contrary to the Word of God. Satan whispers, “Did God really say…?” “YES, HE DID!” should be our quick and relentless cry.

With Nabisco, Coca-cola, Chevrolet and the plethora of advertisers out there trying to make homosexuality look normal and wholesome, you’d think that this issue has become a cultural wave that has taken in a very large percentage of the population. THIS IS NOT THE CASE! The fact is that homosexuals account for less than 2% of the population of the United States of America. You can see the numbers of this 2011 study for yourself here.

It’s not a matter of acceptance; it’s a matter of an evil agenda which is being pushed upon America and around the world. Satan continues to attack God’s design and skew it to his own workings. He continues to take words like “wholesome” and “family” and twist them for his own purposes. He takes a symbol of God’s promise (the rainbow) and hijacks it, twisting it to his own design. Satan calls it normal; God calls it sin. We live in a day when “evil” is called “good” and “good” is called “evil.” That which is meant to glorify God (family, the church, etc) is being taken and bent out of shape until it is hardly recognizable.

Boykin: Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Led To The 'Absolute Destruction' Of The Military

On yesterday’s edition of Washington Watch, Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin said that America is experiencing an “absolute destruction of our military readiness and our military morale because the leadership in our military has not been willing to stand up to the President” on issues like the 2010 repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Boykin was talking to host Tony Perkins about a recent BuzzFeed post that said President Obama “was unwilling to compromise with service leaders over DADT during a meeting in 2010.”

Boykin likened generals who supported Obama’s efforts to end the ban on openly gay service members to former general Harold K. Johnson, who regretted not resigning over President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam war.

“I believe we have some people in the Joint Chiefs of Staff today who will live to regret the decisions that they’ve made in terms of supporting the radical policies of this administration,” Boykin said, before arguing that military leaders should have resigned to protest the lifting of the ban on gay service members: “It is a matter of honor, it is a matter of honor in doing what you believe in and standing on principle and not on career, career has to take a second seat to principle and I don’t believe that these guys are operating on principle.”

True The Vote Misreads Poll To Claim 20 Percent Of Americans Want To Let Non-Citizens Vote

A leader of voter suppression group True The Vote apparently believes that a significant percentage of Americans want non-citizens to be able to vote in U.S. federal elections.

On yesterday’s True The Vote conference call, which featured Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky, True The Vote executive director Jennifer Wright claimed that over 20 percent of Americans want non-citizens to be given voting rights.

Discussing Kobach’s new law in Kansas, which requires people registering to vote to present a birth certificate or similar documentation of citizenship, Wright warned there is a growing push to let non-citizens vote in national elections: “I wonder about those citizens who think that non-citizens should be able to vote. Because I don’t think anyone would argue that we should be able to vote [or] that I should be able to vote in an election in Mexico even though I live in a border state.”

She cited polls “showing that over 70, 78, 80-plus percent of people throughout the United States agree that you should be a citizen to vote.” She appears to be referring to a recent poll from the conservative Rassmussen, which found that 78 percent of respondents agreed that voters should be required to prove their citizenship before registering. It asked no questions about whether or not non-citizens should be allowed to vote.

Of course, the current federal voter registration form does require proof of citizenship in the form of a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Kansas’ law requires extra proof in the form of a birth certificate or naturalization document, an administrative hurdle that has left the voting rights of tens of thousands of Kansans in limbo .

But in the paranoid universe of True The Vote, people who oppose voter suppression laws actually want foreign nationals to be able to cast votes in American federa; elections, using the federal voter registration form as a “work-around around the proof of citizenship.”

I originally hail from Arizona myself, so I am familiar with how this ruling came down through Arizona and the concerns we had in our state that this federal form would then be a work-around around the proof of citizenship. So to be able to have it now spelled out in black and white, and I think quite confidently it will remain so, is a boon for election integrity.

Because, obviously, the studies are out there showing that over 70, 78, 80-plus percent of people throughout the United States agree that you should be a citizen to vote. I wonder about those citizens who think that non-citizens should be able to vote. Because I don’t think anyone would argue that we should be able to vote, that I should be able to vote in an election in Mexico even though I live in a border state, or whatever arguments we may have.

Kris Kobach Inadvertently Explains What's Wrong With Kansas' Strict Voter ID Law

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, following a federal court ruling upholding his strict requirement that people registering to vote must present a birth certificate or comparable proof of citizenship, is now hoping to peddle the law to other states. But in a conference call last night hosted by the group True The Vote, which was founded to support voter suppression laws, Kobach inadvertently explained what is so wrong with his policy, which has left 16,000 Kansans with their voter registrations suspended.

Kobach told True The Vote that he hoped that other states with voter ID laws would adopt his stricter version, and said that he had already discussed the possibility with Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann. He also promised to put a generic version of the law on his personal website for activists to present to their own state legislators.

But while defending the law, Kobach made an argument that in fact illustrates what an extraordinary hurdle it may present to some voters.

“We really gave people lots of options” to prove their citizenship, Kobach boasted. He noted that there was even a “special process” for people who don’t have their birth certificate: “We created a process for that person to go before the state elections board and provide affidavit evidence and other evidence to show that they’re a US citizen. And that process has only been used twice.”

Yes, out of 16,000 people who have yet to provide the state with citizenship documentation, just two people without the proper documents have made it through the new bureaucratic hurdles to prove that they are citizens....which Kobach somehow sees as a great victory.

Later in the call, Kobach speculated that voter suppression laws helped increase the turnout in the 2012 elections because the people who are targeted by such laws actually love them. He said that he had talked to a counterpart in a southern state who told him of counties with high minority populations “where election fraud is so ingrained in the experience of voters…so when voter ID came along they had hope.”

“He believes it was the hope of a fairer election among some minority communities that had experienced fraudulent elections that drives the higher turnout,” Kobach said.

In fact, many elections experts say that high turnout among African-American voters in 2012 was driven in part by a backlash to voter suppression laws, not support for them.

Amend the Constitution to Get Big Money Out of Elections

It's time to amend the Constitution to undo the harm of decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon, get big money OUT of elections and restore Government By the People.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious