C4

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.

PFAW Statement on McCutcheon v. FEC Decision

WASHINGTON – In response to today’s Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, a campaign finance case with vast implications for our democracy, People For the American Way’s executive vice president Marge Baker released the following statement:

Our nation’s wealthiest people don’t need even more political influence, but that’s what today’s decision hands them. The Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to a government unduly influenced by the rich and powerful.

As with the 2010 Citizens United decision, the consequences for our democracy of today’s deeply misguided decision will be grave, opening the door for wealthy donors to give, in aggregate, millions of dollars in direct contributions in a single election cycle. The Roberts Court has once again proven itself to be ideologically-driven, going out of its way to protect the interests of the most powerful among us at the expense of everyday Americans.

But big threats create big opportunities. From efforts to amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United and related cases to small donor public financing proposals, a range of mutually reinforcing, pro-democracy reforms are coming together in communities across the country. Despite today’s damaging decision, Americans remain committed to restoring a political system of, by, and for the people.

Last year our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation released an in-depth edit memo outlining the particulars of McCutcheon within the context of the Supreme Court’s past rulings on campaign finance. We also filed an amicus brief in the case.

At noon today, PFAW members will join other area activists in front of the Supreme Court at a rally in reaction to the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. More than 130 other events across the country are also planned for the day of the ruling, including rallies in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, and many more.

Today PFAW is also joining partner advocacy organizations in sending a letter to every member of Congress urging them to cosponsor constitutional amendment resolutions that would restore the authority of Congress and the states to effectively regulate election spending.

PFAW executive vice president Marge Baker and PFAW senior fellow Jamie Raskin are both available for interviews with the press about the McCutcheon case. To arrange an interview, please contact Layne Amerikaner at media@pfaw.org / 202-467-4999.

###

BarbWire: Pro-Gay Groups Are The Real Homophobes

BarbWire’s Gina Miller thinks gay rights advocates are leading a Satanic movement from Hell that is bent on murdering Christians, but she insists that she doesn’t have a bigoted bone in her body when it comes to gay people.

In fact, Miller writes today that she can’t understand why she gets “maligned as being ‘homophobic’” for simply speaking about “the immoral, unnatural and very unhealthy reality of homosexual behavior” and warning that the “powerful, evil tyrants” of the “anti-American, anti-freedom, Godless Left” have “dumbed down” young people to embrace gay rights.

You see, according to Miller, homophobia doesn’t exist and has no meaning…but if it does, then it describes only those who choose to “step aboard the hijacked-rainbow express” and support equal rights for gays and lesbians.

“It should occur to any thinking man that those of us who speak boldly against this diabolical movement are in reality the opposite of ‘homophobic,’” Miller writes. “I can tell you that if there is anything close to ‘homophobia’ out there, it is found in people who bow in subservience to the perverse demands of the homosexual movement.”

I do not fear homosexuals, irrationally or otherwise. Anyone who speaks unequivocally of the immoral, unnatural and very unhealthy reality of homosexual behavior is invariably maligned as being “homophobic.” Superficially it doesn’t even make sense, but when you look a little deeper, it should occur to any thinking man that those of us who speak boldly against this diabolical movement are in reality the opposite of “homophobic.” If I am unafraid to call a spade a spade, then how can I be accused of being afraid of the spade? It’s nonsense, but homosexual activists don’t let sense impede their wrong-headed assertions and twisted agenda.

While I do not concede the faulty premise of the sham term “homophobia,” I can tell you that if there is anything close to “homophobia” out there, it is found in people who bow in subservience to the perverse demands of the homosexual movement. It is the people who run corporations who fear lawsuits by these activists, and who cast aside the rights and concerns of their employees to accommodate the small percentage of deviants who insist on imposing their degenerate bedroom habits on their coworkers and workplaces.

If “homophobia” were a real thing, it would describe the behavior of politicians and managers and leaders of companies, schools, churches and institutions who abandon their moral convictions and compromise their principles in obeisance to what they inherently know is wrong. Why do they do this? Their “homophobia” (which, in truth, is just cowardice) directs them, because it is out of fear of media attacks, lawsuits, loss of employment, even fear of the disapproval of others, that they step aboard the hijacked-rainbow express. But using the term “homophobia” to describe what is simply cowardice isn’t right, because the fact is that “homophobia” is a phony construct of the radical Left. It is a word weapon with a false meaning.

We have allowed the Left to abuse and distort our language for so long that we may not be able to gain control of the national dialogue. We are also at a disadvantage in that the powers of the air — the media, entertainment, Hollywood, and the rest — are controlled by leftists, so naturally they determine the “memes” and the terms. Neither does it help our cause that the younger generations are being dumbed down to the point that many of them leave school unable to write a coherent paragraph, much less have a strong grasp on the meaning of words and why it matters. But, that’s just the way the anti-American, anti-freedom, Godless Left likes it. Dumb people are as malleable as the “new” term “gender,” and they can easily be made to proudly and stupidly embrace their chains by the powerful, evil tyrants who have a very good grasp on the English language.

Fair Housing for LGBT People Rejected in Louisiana

Under current law, Louisiana protects the ability "to compete for available housing on an open, fair, and equitable basis, regardless of race, color, religion, [and] sex." House Bill 804, introduced by Representative Jared Brossett of New Orleans, would have added to the list protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and marital status.
PFAW

WND: TNT's 'Dallas' Is 'Taking Orders From Obama'

After yesterday’s earthshattering exposé on US aid to provide basic sanitation for children in Kenya, WorldNetDaily is out today with yet another report on a Watergate-level scandal, this time exposing how the TNT show “Dallas” is a tool of the Obama administration.

A WND article with a classic “just asking the question” headline, “Is ‘Dallas’ TV Show Taking Orders From Obama?,” suggests that White House officials used a scene on the TV show to promote opposition to fracking.

The Obama administration may be strategically writing its agenda into your favorite television shows.



Now there’s reason to wonder just how many of its policies the Obama administration may have been “nagging” Hollywood to promote.

That’s because the similarities between a recent television episode and one of the latest moves by the administration may be too uncanny to be mere coincidence.

The March 10 episode of TNT’s “Dallas” featured a plot in which the main character, Bobby Ewing, conspires with the Sierra Club to highlight the purported plight of the lesser prairie chicken to stop fracking on the Southfork Ranch.

Seventeen days later, the Obama administration’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it had listed the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species.

Of course, natural gas production has increased dramatically under the Obama administration, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has warned [PDF] about threats to the lesser prairie chicken’s population decline for the last 15 years.

The debate about the lesser prairie chicken’s status has been taking place forseveral years … but no, “Dallas” probably just got orders from President Obama himself to include it on the show in order to brainwash unsuspecting viewers. Or maybe not! Just asking the question!

Anti-Immigrant Leader Brent Bozell Launches Latino Media Watchdog

Yesterday, the Media Research Center launched a new affiliate called MRC Latino with support from Rand Paul and the American Principles Project, a Religious Right group. On the day of its launch, MRC Latino came out with a report attacking Univision and Telemundo for allegedly having a liberal bias, suggesting that the networks are “being used as pawns of public relations” by the Obama administration. Politico reports:

The study is part of the launch of MRC’s new Spanish-language media watch group MRC Latino, which is officially launching on Tuesday. Oliver-Méndez and MRC President Brent Bozell said they hope the study and MRC Latino will lead to more conservative voices in Spanish-language media and that they plan to meet with executives at the two networks to discuss the study.

“It’s going to be outreach that we’re going to do to hopefully sit down with some of the major players in the Latino media, go through these findings and try to see if we can have a constructive dialogue,” Bozell said. “I don’t believe in any suggestion that liberals shouldn’t have their world view presented, but a, conservatives need to have equal footing. And b, you can’t use your network to actively promote a political agenda.”

MRC Latino will be run by Ken Oliver-Méndez, who “led the Bush administration’s domestic ethnic and religious media outreach, including management of the White House Spanish language web site and serving as Spanish-language coach to the President.”

While Bozell insists that the Spanish-language press is unfair to Republicans, the activist who once compared President Obama to “a skinny, ghetto crackhead” may want to consider if he himself is playing a role in damaging the GOP brand.

For example, Bozell “called for a clean sweep of the House Republican leadership if it moved forward on the issue” of immigration reform, and his group “blitzed the speaker’s office with thousands of phone calls to jam the lines and protest his stance on immigration.” He also defended Arizona’s draconian anti-immigrant SB 1070, a law strongly opposed by Latino voters.

Even though Bozell says he now supports greater Latino outreach and engagement, he once criticized “Big Tent conservatism” for hurting the larger movement. “We reject completely the idea of Big Tent conservatism,” he told a Citizens United event in March.

He also dismissed the Latino vote, which swung heavily towards Obama, in the run-up to the 2012 election and attacked the media for being “too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.”

Time's cover carried the words "Yo Decido: Why Latinos Will Pick the Next President."

This is odd, since whites are still 64 percent of the population. Time and CNN select the Latino vote as crucial because they want to make the Republicans cry uncle on amnesty. Time's Michael Scherer began his cover story by slamming Gov. Jan Brewer for "the most incendiary immigration law in the country."

But who made that law a national issue? The liberal media did. They put all the political pressure on anyone opposed to illegal immigration. It was "incendiary" despite a Rasmussen poll finding 70 percent of Arizonans supported the tougher law. The Obama-obedient media never found it "incendiary" for Obama to announce in 2011 that he was suspending most deportations in a transparently political move.

Take a look at the numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimated that 69 percent of Latinos voted for Democrats in 2006 and 67 percent for Obama in 2008. But in 2010, that percentage dropped to 60 percent, even though liberals surely tried to make Tea Party "racism" an issue to Latino voters.

Republicans shouldn't write off the Latino vote, but they can wonder how much of that 9-percent slice of Latinos would vote Republican if they Xeroxed the liberal amnesty position. CNN and Time could wonder if Obama will hurt his Latino "landslide" by canceling pipelines and signaling a hard-left position on abortion, gay marriage and religious liberty. But they're too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.

Scott Lively Denies Calling Obama The Antichrist, Admits He Did When Confronted With Audio Of His Comments

During Scott Lively’s interview with Michelangelo Signorile last week, the anti-gay pastor denied ever having said that President Obama is the Antichrist…until Signorile played audio captured by Right Wing Watch of Lively saying exactly that.

Last year, Lively told Rick Wiles of TruNews that the Antichrist “is heading the largest superpower of the world today,” obviously referring to Obama, who he predicted would eliminate “the debts of the world,” bring about “a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis” and establish “secular humanism” as a global religion.

Later in the Wiles interview, Lively said that gay rights will bring about the End Times and hailed Russia’s Vladimir Putin for “championing the traditional marriage and Christian values regarding the central moral issue of our time,” homosexuality.

But Lively told Signorile that he never referred to Obama as the Antichrist or Putin as a champion of right-wing Christianity: “No I didn’t say that. Oh boy, that’s quite the leap you’re making. No, I’ve never said either of those things. In terms of the Antichrist thing, we need to have a conversation about prophecy and those things for it to make any sense at all, but I did not say that Obama is the Antichrist.”

“Where are you getting this? What’s that from?,” he demanded.

But he eventually conceded that he did in fact call Obama the Antichrist after Signorile played his words back to him. “No, that’s Obama,” Lively said, but then tried to spin it as merely a “hypothetical” discussion of the End Times.

However, Lively was clearly referring to the current leader of the “largest superpower” (Obama) and even suggested that the cancellation of debts will take place in 2015.

Here is audio of Lively’s denial, and admission, from The Michelangelo Signorile Show via The New Civil Rights Movement:

Anti-Gay Activists: Day Of Silence Is 'Medical Malpractice,' 'Silences Conservatives'

Conservative groups including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and Liberty Counsel are urging parents to keep their children at home on April 11, the annual anti-bullying Day of Silence, in order to avoid exposing them to protests against anti-LGBT bullying.

Mission America’s Linda Harvey and Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, an AFA affiliate, discussed the boycott plans on Harvey’s weekend radio show, where Harvey claimed that the Day of Silence actually represents “medical malpractice.”

“This is educational malpractice, it really is, and it really should be medical malpractice,” she said of gay rights advocacy, “especially when you have HIV rates and the other hazards we know that are out there for kids.”

Higgins added that public school educators “censor” anti-gay activists by citing concerns about “safety, or whatever that is,” and said that their curriculum “violates any kind of principles of sound pedagogy.”

Harvey warned that the Day of Silence helps LGBT and allied students feel “empowered in very inappropriate ways,” to intimidate others: “The Day of Silence, the real silencing going on is not the so-called LGBT students, the real silencing going on is conservative and Christian thought.”

“What’s dishonest about this movement is they don’t acknowledge that their end goal is not ending bullying, they’re using that; their end goal is to eradicate conservative moral beliefs or to make it socially, politically impossible to repeat them,” Higgins said. “This is dishonest to say this is just about bullying, this is really and truly about silencing conservatives.”

Personhood USA Joins Battle Over Anti-Choice Leadership In Georgia

The radical anti-choice group Personhood USA has waded into the very public battle over the anti-choice movement’s strategy that is playing out in Georgia.

Over the weekend, a long-running feud among abortion-rights opponents broke into a full civil war when the National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest anti-choice group, cut its ties with Georgia Right to Life because of the Georgia group’s hardline, no-compromise strategy.

While all the major anti-choice groups share the same goal – criminalizing all abortions under nearly all circumstances – they differ in how to go about reaching that goal in a post-Roe v. Wade world. This came to a boil last year, when the House voted on a bill banning all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. At the last minute, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor added rape and incest exemptions to the bill after the legislation’s chief sponsor, Trent Franks, stoked controversy when he said “the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.” The addition of rape and incest exceptions then caused the anti-choice movement to split.

National Right to Life supported the revised bill and included the vote on its congressional scorecard. But Georgia Right to Life, then the state affiliate of NRLC, opposed the revised bill because of its rape and incest exceptions and urged House members to “vote against this shameful legislation.” Two Georgia Republicans, including Rep. Paul Broun, who is now running for Senate, crossed party lines to vote against the bill, siding with Georgia Right to Life.

One of the loudest critics of Georgia Right to Life’s insubordination was Georgia-based conservative pundit Erick Erickson, who called the group the “Westboro Baptist Church of the pro-life movement.” A few weeks ago, a new group with Erickson on its board sprung up with the goal of replacing Georgia Right to Life as the official state affiliate of NRLC. And this weekend, they succeeded, as NRLC cut ties with Georgia Right to Life and took on Erickson’s group, Georgia Life Alliance, in its place.

NRLC’s decision has served to further split the anti-choice movement. Yesterday, Personhood USA – the group behind radical “personhood” laws – waded into the fight, with its president Keith Mason issuing an open letter to NRLC saying that he was “shocked” by the group’s decision and giving it an ultimatum: “We can have no conflict between us unless it is you who abandon our common aim to protect every human being's right to life. Only then will we part ways.”

National Right to Life,

What does it mean to be pro-life? Is it about protecting every innocent human being or about getting good marks on the NRLC scorecard? I was shocked when I read your decision to revoke affiliation with Georgia Right to Life.

….

It's time to decide what our standard is as a movement. If being pro-life is about getting good marks on the NRLC scorecard and voting the party line, like Eric Cantor, then we will continue to enable political opportunists who have no interest in ending abortion. If it is about protecting the lives and inherent dignity of every unborn child -- Personhood -- then we will praise statesmen who adhere to that standard rather than reprimanding them. That was the standard set by the GOP platform and the legislative agenda endorsed in President Ronald Reagan's Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.

We are not enemies, but friends. We ought not be enemies, for we are allied in the same great struggle for human dignity. We seek unity with you toward that end. It is in your hands to decide which standard to follow. We can have no conflict between us unless it is you who abandon our common aim to protect every human being's right to life. Only then will we part ways. I ask you to reconsider your commitment to our movement's singular purpose and beg you to rededicate yourselves to protecting and defending Personhood for all, no matter the cost.

UPDATE (4/1/14): The personhood group American Right to Life, which makes no secret of its disdain for NRLC, has also  come out to defend Georgia Right to Life, writing in a press release that NRLC have "lost the vision for victory" and "ruined the term" "pro-life."

WND: Aid For Kenyan School 'A Slap In The Face' To Military Service Members

These days, it is apparently a scandal that an aid project is helping children gain access to basic sanitation, because Obama!

WorldNetDaily’s latest exposé, “Obama Gives Military Latrine Duty New Meaning,” reports the scandal that an engineering office in the Navy is soliciting contracts [PDF] “to provide for the construction of (16) female dry-pit latrines and to furnish and install a centrifugal pump to serve the potable water catchment system” at a Kenyan school.

WND writes that this contract is just “the latest slap to the face of U.S. Department of Defense personnel.”

The Obama administration lately has demanded much from American soldiers, who now face possible reductions in the number in their ranks as well as higher payments toward their health benefits. That’s in addition to duty in Afghanistan, or worse.

In the latest slap to the face of U.S. Department of Defense personnel, Obama now is asking those soldiers to oversee the digging of toilets at a girl’s school in Kenya, his “home country,” as First Lady Michelle Obama once publicly put it.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command is tasked with coordinating the endeavor, involving the construction of a building containing 16 female “dry-pit latrines” for the Mpeketoni Secondary School, according to project Statement of Work that WND discovered during routine database research.

Caught red-handed, Obama!

WND even provides a drawing of the latrine plans as further proof of this scandal of the century.

Obviously, Obama is personally responsible for this Watergate-level disgrace, and came up with the entire idea of foreign aid.

Marco Rubio Doesn't Believe In Constitutional Separation Of Church And State

In a discussion with Eric Metaxas at last year’s Florida Family Policy Council summit, Sen. Marco Rubio said that the separation of church and state is a myth, arguing that the First Amendment only precludes an “officially sanctioned denomination.”

“This notion of separation between church and state, you won’t find those words in the Constitution,” Rubio said. “That doesn’t mean that we should have an officially sanctioned denomination.”

Rubio warned that “there is an effort to silence those or to crowd out of its rightful place the role of the faith community in our country. The government cannot tell you what faith to belong to but it cannot tell you that it cannot speak about your faith.”

Of course, the Constitution also doesn’t include words like “separation of powers” and “checks and balances,” but that doesn’t mean that those principles aren’t in the Constitution.

Rubio also seems to think that the drafters of the Constitution only meant to prevent the government from sanctioning one religious denomination over another. But the founders actually rejected language about “establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another” (same with “religious society” and “national church”) in favor of the more broad First Amendment’s prohibition of the “establishment of religion.”

Schlafly: Obama Using 'Handouts' To 'Break The Capitalist System'

On her Eagle Forum Live radio program Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly claimed that President Obama’s “communist training by Saul Alinsky” inspired him to try to “break the capitalist system” by giving out government “handouts.”

Schlafly made her remarks in response to a caller who demanded, “I’d like to know how many in our Congress, in our government, are really in truly Americans. I would like to see how many communists we have in there.”

“Well, I’m not ready to call them communists,” Schlafly said, “but of course the training that Obama had when he was a young man was really kind of a communist training by Saul Alinsky in Chicago. And he also had training by these people who think the way to break the capitalist system is to put so many people getting handouts from the government that you simply break it down. And I think that’s what he’s trying to do.”

Schlafly’s guest on the program was conservative radio host and speaker Mason Weaver, author of “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation.”  During the show, Weaver, who is African American, compared a number of government programs he dislikes to slavery, including of course the Affordable Care Act, which he also claimed would intentionally kill people before they can collect retirement savings.

“It’s just slavery, folks,” he said. “I mean, think about it. On the plantation, master gave you minimum wage, master gave you your working hours, master gave you low-income housing, he gave you your food, he gave you retirement. And you worked yourself to death. Obamacare and everything Obama implements is to take control over your life, work you until your work is done, tax you to death, and then allow  you to die peacefully before paying you your retirement.”

He added, oddly, that there was “no demand” for universal health care from voters.

Safe Schools Letter Campaign Wraps Another Week, Twelve Groups Have Gone on Record

The letter-a-day campaign for safe schools that PFAW is leading just finished another week, and now twelve groups have gone on record with Congress in support of safe schools legislation. Together, we are sending loud and clear the message that all students deserve far better than what they're getting when it comes to bullying and harassment in schools.
PFAW

Making Men Head Of Household Is True Women's Liberation Because It Makes Life Easier

If feminists truly want to liberate women, says author and WorldNetDaily columnist Patrice Lewis, then they should simply make their husbands head of the household so they can be free from making tough decisions.

Lewis writes today that giving her husband “the final say” is “freeing” because it “makes life easier for both my husband and me.”

The real oppressors, of course, are feminists: “If there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance. Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.”

In the wake of some feminist headlines this week (such as this and this), I am going to confess something so shocking, so appalling and so outrageously backward to the progressive cause that I’m certain feminists the world over will faint in horror.

Ready? Here it goes: My husband is the head of our household.

Yes, really. Here, some smelling salts will revive you.

In today’s world marinated with progressive morals and ideals, it’s tantamount to heresy for a woman to freely admit that her husband heads the household. But let’s face it: It makes life easier for both my husband and me.



As much as feminists want to deny reality, the fact remains that men and women are biologically different. (Scandalous, I know.) I like to think that God in His divine wisdom came up with the spiffy concept of a division of labor for the sake of efficiency. Divisions of labor are utilized the world over in the workplace to increase efficiency. Why not try it at home as well?

Feminists call this oppression. Homemakers call it freeing.

Why is it oppressive or subservient to look to one’s husband for guidance and strength, rather than to feminists? Why can’t it be a freeing thing for a woman to lean on her husband? Unless she’s unmarried, it’s comforting when a woman doesn’t have to “do it all.”



I am the Heart of this household, and as everyone knows, a body is no good without a heart, just as a body is no good without a head. We need both, and the fact that I view my husband as my Head in no way diminishes my importance as his Heart. But someone has to have the final say in a house for peace and order to prevail, and that job goes to my husband.

A wise Head takes advice and counsel from his Heart. My husband and I discuss all household decisions and mutually agree on nearly everything. But if there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance.

Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious