C4

Cruz: Marriage Equality Is 'Heartbreaking'And A Threat To 'Constitutional Liberties'

Sen. Ted Cruz spoke with anti-gay talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday in his continued effort to drum up support for his State Marriage Defense Act, which would undermine the rights of legally married same-sex couples. The Texas Republican told Mefferd that gay rights advocates hope to “subvert our democratic system” since they can’t “win an argument with the American people.”

“They just want to use brute power to force the states to take down marriage laws that have been in place for centuries and that’s inconsistent with the Constitution, it’s not right and it’s heartbreaking,” Cruz added.

Cruz also said that there is a huge “awakening” among Americans in opposition to marriage equality, despite polls showing that a majority of Americans favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“We are getting a tremendous outpouring from citizens across the country who are interested in standing up and defending marriage,” he said, warning that “our liberties” are “facing a real threat right now.”

“The courts and the Obama administration are both pressing this assault and they have had real success undermining marriage,” Cruz continued. “We are seeing millions of Americans who are recognizing that our constitutional liberties are being eroded.”

Cruz added that gay rights advocates go up against “the facts” and urged listeners to pray against marriage equality: “I think the most important thing your listeners can do is simply pray because we need a great deal of prayer because marriage is really being undermined by a concerted effort and it’s causing significant harm.”

Pussy Riot's American Detractors

Two members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot, who in 2012 were sentenced to two years in a penal colony for staging a protest in a cathedral, were detained again in Sochi, Russia, today. The two were released after a few hours, during which they say that they were beaten by police .

While people across the world have held up the Pussy Riot prosecution as an example of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s human rights abuses, the group has had some strong detractors in the American right. Just as with Russia’s recent crackdown on LGBT people, the ordeal of Pussy Riot has divided the American conservative movement. While Texas senator Ted Cruz, a Tea Party hero, last month criticized the prosecution of the band (whose name he nevertheless wouldn’t say), some of his allies on the Religious Right have cheered Putin on.

Shortly after the sentencing of Pussy Riot’s members, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America – also a board member of the Rockford, Illinois-based World Congress of Families – wrote a column arguing that the band was guilty of “religious bigotry” and should “accept responsibility for [their] actions.” At a World Congress of Families event earlier this month, Crouse repeated that she had “no problem whatsoever” with the Pussy Riot prosecution.

The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a close ally of the World Congress of Families that works to oppose gay rights and reproductive rights advances at the United Nations, has repeatedly defended the Pussy Riot prosecution on its blog, calling them a "small group of female hooligans" and comparing them to 1960s political "terrorists."

Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan also defended Putin’s actions against Pussy Riot, praising the Russian president for “trying to re-establish the Orthodox Church as the moral compass of the nation it had been for 1,000 years before Russia fell captive to the atheistic and pagan ideology of Marxism.”

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer praised Putin’s supposed protection of “Christian values,” calling him a “lion of Christianity.”

As we discuss in our “Globalizing Homophobia” report, the anti-gay part of Putin’s agenda has caught the imagination of American social conservatives, who have rallied to support the Russian president’s defense of “Christian values.”

Putin’s targeting of Pussy Riot is closely linked to this crackdown on gay rights that has been enthusiastically embraced by American conservatives. Both are part of a broader campaign to stir up popular sentiment against minority rights: On the very same day that the Russian parliament passed its infamous “homosexual propaganda” ban, it also responded to the Pussy Riot controversy by imposing an anti-blasphemy law that imposes a three-year prison sentence for “offending religious sensibilities.”

'Pro-Gay, Pro-Immigration Reform' Mega-Donor Steers Money To Anti-Gay, Anti-Immigrant Republicans

Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, emulating the Koch brothers, is creating another right-wing fundraising outlet to back Republican politicians. Politico reports today that Singer’s fundraising network, the American Opportunity Alliance, will “bring together some of the richest pro-business GOP donors in the country, several of whom share Singer’s support for gay rights, immigration reform and the state of Israel.”

While noting that Singer, whose son is gay, is trying to aid Republican politicians who support immigration reform and LGBT equality, Politico points out that many of the candidates he supports “have not necessarily signed on to Singer’s broad agenda,” and that Singer “has been supportive of the Club for Growth, the hard-right organization of economic conservatives, giving the group more than $850,000 over the years, including a $100,000 check last cycle.”

In the 2012 election, many of Club for Growth’s top recipients were among the GOP’s most vocal opponents of gay rights and immigration legislation.

Club for Growth spent over $5.5 million on behalf of Ted Cruz in his upset victory in the Texas GOP primary, catapulting the nihilistic, Tea Party crusader into the U.S. Senate. Several House Republicans blamed Cruz for sinking immigration reform legislation, and he is now championing anti-gay legislation and spouting off harsh denunciations of gay rights.

The group is also a major supporter of Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the point man for the anti-immigrant movement, best known for his comments about how undocumented young people are drug traffickers with “calves the size of cantaloupes” and his comparison of immigration to terrorism and the Holocaust.

King also has a horrendous record on gay rights: He claimed same-sex marriage would take children away from their parents and force them to be “raised in warehouses”; likened gay people to unicorns and leprechauns; warned gay marriage would lead to socialism and called on gay people to stay in the closet.

The Club for Growth also is also a major cheerleader for Georgia congressman and Senate candidate Paul Broun, who believes that immigration reform is part of a ploy to doom America and “destroy our Constitution.” Broun also introduced a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and said “he opposes health insurance covering sex-change or hair-transplant procedures because he personally likes ‘being a boy.’”

One former Republican congressman told the conservative Washington Times that the Club’s “priority is to invariably go with any conservative, anti-gay, pro-life Republican they can find” and “endorse how the Christian coalition groups do.” The group also steered money to a leading anti-gay group.

Singer is also tied to the Koch brothers’ fundraising network, which has donated handsomely to anti-gay candidates and groups such as Concerned Women for America, which even defends the Ugandan anti-gay law.

It is hard to reconcile Singer’s personal support for gay rights and immigration reform with his sizeable financial support for candidates who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians and reform efforts.

Singer’s strong backing of not only organizations like the Club for Growth but also the House GOP leadership — which refuses to even allow House members to vote on immigration reform measures or gay rights bills such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — shows that Singer seems perfectly comfortable with propping up politicians who are working against the causes of LGBT equality and immigrant rights as long as they advance his “hardcore conservative” economic agenda.

Schlafly: Immigrants 'Don't Really Understand Our Country And Will Probably Vote Democratic'

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly released a report earlier this month that summarizes her argument that Republicans shouldn’t support immigration reform because she thinks Latino and Asian-American immigrants are inherently Democratic-leaning. Schlafly elaborated on the report in an interview Friday with Dove TV, claiming that immigrants will always vote Democratic because they “don’t even know what you’re talking about when you talk about limited government.”

“These immigrants, legal and illegal, coming in don’t really understand our country and will probably vote Democratic,” she said.

Schlafly added that a “good example” of liberal-leaning immigrants were the Boston Marathon bombers, who she said came into the country through “the asylum gimmick” and proceeded to collect welfare. “So we don’t want to just bring in more people to enhance the Democratic vote,” she concluded.

Schlafly added that President Obama is supporting immigration reform because he “wants to spread the power around” because “he thinks it isn’t fair that we’re richer and more powerful than other countries and he wants to bring us down to the level of other people.”

Ending the Disenfranchisement of Formerly Incarcerated Americans

The following is a guest blog from Reverend Michael Couch, a member of People For the American Way’s African American Ministers In Action.

On Tuesday, while speaking at the Georgetown University Law Center, Attorney General Eric Holder called for a repeal of state voting laws that disenfranchise formerly incarcerated people. In a country where nearly six million citizens are unable to vote because of felony convictions, these changes could not come quickly enough.

State laws dictating voting rights for those who have served time in prison vary, from an automatic restoration of rights after sentence completion in some states to outright bans in others. Restrictions on this civil right in states like Kentucky, Florida, Iowa, and Virginia should no longer be subject to criteria such as the type of convictions, arbitrary time frames, petitions to clemency boards and/or the state governor.

I work daily with others around the country to make sure nonpartisan voting education and voter registration of women and men who have completed their sentences takes place. Laws that disenfranchise formerly incarcerated people take away the single most fundamental American right, and they do so disproportionately to people of color. As Attorney General Holder pointed out in his speech, restrictive laws prohibit a shocking one in thirteen African Americans adults from voting.

As an African American faith leader, I find this to be both morally unacceptable and counterproductive to the goal of fostering supportive, engaged communities. I know from experience if someone has committed a crime, served their time in prison, and is released, no good could come of permanently stripping them of their most basic right and responsibility. Moreover, what isn’t often addressed is how restrictive laws keep families of those adults from helping them transition back to being a responsible, contributing citizen of their community. It’s time to change the message sent to the nearly six million Americans who have lost their voice and civic responsibility in our democracy.

Attorney General Holder is right: These laws are “unwise…unjust, and… not in keeping with our democratic values.” It’s time for states to get rid of laws that suppress those who have served their time and prevent them from fully participating in our democratic system.

PFAW

Paranoia-Rama: Disney's Gay Demons, Obama's Nazi Plot & The Revenge Of The Illuminati

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

The tired old arguments about gay recruitment seem to never die… but maybe our new Illuminati overlords will save folks like Rush Limbaugh from the gay menace.

5. Marriage Equality Makes Kids Gay

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council debated a caller on his radio show, Washington Watch, about why the FRC uses the phrase “natural marriage” since the definition of marriage has fluctuated over history and throughout different cultures.

Ultimately, Perkins tried to make the argument that marriage equality for same-sex couples will ultimately turn kids gay and make children obsessed with sex. The FRC head even worried that students will stop learning about science and reading comprehension as schools morph into sexual instruction laboratories.

That’s funny, because Education Weekly’s 2013 top three states for education — Maryland, Massachusetts and New York — have all legalized same-sex marriage.

4. The Illuminati Runs America

Newt Gingrich seems to be selling his email list to just about anybody, as sponsors seem to be out-competing each other to come up with the most bizarre and conspiratorial email to stir up fear among Gingrich fans.

Recent sponsor emails have purported to expose the “the 7 Deadly Drugs the U.S. Government can’t wait for you to swallow,” the missing gold in Fort Knox, a secret cancer cure hidden by the government and President Obama’s “secret mistress.”

One email, Media Matters points out, claims that the “Illuminati was behind every consequential wealth event of the past year,” warning that the group has “a deathgrip [sic] on America.” “Once on the brink of extinction, the secret society has powerfully re-emerged in the United States. In fact, it now wields more power than ever.”

3. Demons Run The Disney Channel

Gordon Klingenschmitt is worried that Disney is “recruiting our culture into an aberrant lifestyle” after the Disney Channell featured a same-sex couple on the show “Good Luck Charlie,” a move that incensed anti-gay activists.

According to Klingenschmitt, Disney’s attempt “to push a gay agenda upon your family” is the result of the “influence of demonic spirits who want to recruit your children into sin.”

2. Rush Limbaugh Fears Gay ‘Assault’ On Straight People

Right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh fears that “we’re fast approaching a world where it ain’t cool to be straight,” a revelation he made in response to defensive-end Michael Sam’s decision to come out of the closet.

The thrice-divorced talk show host was upset about Sam’s announcement, fearing that it will lead to a new gay tyranny where the heterosexual majority is “under assault by the 2-5 percent that are homosexual.”

1. Obama Turning America Into Nazi Germany

Right-wing darling Ben Carson is afraid that today’s “secular progressive movement” is doing “what Hitler was doing.” He even envies Vladimir Putin’s Russia for “gaining prestige and influence throughout the world” by “warming to religion,” unlike the “godless” United States.

Carson said that as a result of the work of the “extremely intolerant” left, Americans now “live in a Gestapo age.”

West: Norquist And Khan Helping 'Subvert' GOP And America 'From Within'

On Secure Freedom Radio this week, Frank Gaffney promoted a recent letter of support he received from a group of former officials including former congressman Allen West and Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin, backing him up in his ongoing feud with the American Conservative Union over whether or not prominent economic conservatives Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are infiltrating the movement on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gaffney discussed the letter with anti-Muslim activist Diana West, who agreed that Norquist and Khan represent “the successful civilization jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood,” adding that the United States and the conservative movement are being “subverted from within.”

We are undergoing civilizational change,” she warned, “And I think this letter is a very important step in our education, hopefully before it’s too late.”

Gaffney: Diana, does this underscore the concern that you’ve been expressing about what’s happening in our polity, that we’ve seen not only selective enforcement of the law taking place, but increasingly the successful civilization jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood taking advantage of it to take us down.

West: Absolutely. This is a very significant letter, and congratulations to you on receiving this endorsement, because this is so, so central to your own fight to warn America, to lay out the case that we are being suborned – that’s not the right word – subverted from within. And this becomes an extremely important marker, really a clarion call, to as Americans, as conservatives to examine these issues with a frank and logical eye.

We are being, in a sense, asked to dismantle our survival instincts, the instincts that tell us jihad, that Sharia, that material support, that all of these things that actually are connected are disconnected. And in some ways, much of what we’ve been undergoing is kind of this very notion of deconstructing our understanding of who we are, what we are, and how to stay that way, how to protect ourselves. By divorcing material support from jihad, from divorcing jihad from Sharia, from divorcing Sharia from Islam, from divorcing all of these things from any notion that we are undergoing civilizational change. And I think this letter is a very important step in our education, hopefully before it’s too late.

Right-Wing 'Religious Freedom' Narrative Taken To Its Logical Extreme With Anti-Gay, Anti-Evolution Push

During the controversy over Hobby Lobby’s refusal to provide its employees with contraception insurance coverage and the outrage over Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s being denied his supposed constitutional right to appear on television, we witnessed conservative activists stretch the limits of the meaning of religious freedom.

As Justice Scalia put it in Employment Division v. Smith, such an exaggerated view of religious freedom serves “to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

The Religious Right has increasingly brought this religious freedom argument into debates over gay rights and the teaching of evolution.

In Missouri, Republican lawmakers contend that public school students should get an exemption from any class on evolution — the bedrock of modern biology — if they think learning about science amounts to an “infringement on people’s beliefs”:

Rep. Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville Republican, said forcing students to study the natural selection theories developed by Charles Darwin a century and a half ago can violate their religious faith.

“It’s an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs,” Brattin said.



“Even though what’s being taught is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion,” he said.

“The bill is one of several anti-evolution proposals that have already appeared in statehouses across the country,” TPM notes. “The proposals would allow for a range of approaches to evolution, from presenting a ‘debate’ over evolution versus creationism to requiring that local school boards allow intelligent design to be included in biology courses.”

And GOP lawmakers in at least three states are now citing religious freedom to claim that anti-gay discrimination that violates civil rights laws should not face any legal consequences.

Of course, many proponents of Jim Crow cited religious reasons to support segregation.

Now there is a push in states including Tennessee, Idaho and Kansas to allow for legally protected discrimination. Mark Joseph Stern writes of the Kansas bill:

When passed, the new law will allow any individual, group, or private business to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Private employers can continue to fire gay employees on account of their sexuality. Stores may deny gay couples goods and services because they are gay. Hotels can eject gay couples or deny them entry in the first place. Businesses that provide public accommodations—movie theaters, restaurants—can turn away gay couples at the door. And if a gay couple sues for discrimination, they won’t just lose; they’ll be forced to pay their opponent’s attorney’s fees. As I’ve noted before, anti-gay businesses might as well put out signs alerting gay people that their business isn’t welcome.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” This is nothing new, but the sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

It gets worse. The law’s advocates claim that it applies only to gay couples—but there’s no clear limiting principle in the text of the bill that would keep it from applying to gay individuals as well. A catch-all clause allows businesses and bureaucrats to discriminate against gay people so long as this discrimination is somehow “related to, orrelated to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.” (Emphases mine.) This subtle loophole is really just a blank check to discriminate: As long as an individual believes that his service is somehow linked to a gay union of any form, he can legally refuse his services. And since anyone who denies gays service is completely shielded from any charges, no one will ever have to prove that their particular form of discrimination fell within the four corners of the law.

Uganda President Reportedly To Sign Anti-Homosexuality Bill

A spokesman for Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has announced that the president will sign the country’s draconian “Anti-Homosexuality Bill.”

The legislation was crafted and passed with the help and support of US-based Religious Right activists who have increasingly focused on exporting their anti-gay views abroad.

American groups including the Family Research CouncilAmerican Family Association, Liberty Counsel have applauded Uganda’s anti-gay bill.

J. Lester Feder reports:

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has decided to sign a law imposing up to a lifetime jail sentence for homosexuality, announced government spokesman Ofwono Opondo via Twitter on Friday. NRM caucus spokeswoman Evelyn Anite confirmed Opondo’s announcement to BuzzFeed.



Museveni made his announcement during a retreat with members of his party, the National Resistance Movement, which has primarily focused on the party’s leadership as it prepares for elections in 2016. Museveni had been facing stiff pressure from his colleagues to accept the bill.

The deciding factor may have been that a panel of party members with medical backgrounds Museveni convened to study the cause of homosexuality presented a report concluding homosexuality is not an in-born trait. Museveni had told lawmakers he would sign the bill if “I have got confirmation from scientists that this condition is not genetic.”

The committee chairman told BuzzFeed on Thursday, “Speaking as a medical doctor … homosexuality is just deviant behavior. It can be learned, and it can be unlearned.”

Religious Right Leaders Rail Against Virginia Marriage Equality Decision

A federal judge’s decision to strike down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriagehas unsurprisingly stoked the ire of conservatives.

Family Research Council head Tony Perkins offered a typical rebuke of “activist judges” and the “arrogant judiciary,” and once again warned that marriage equality will in fact lead to unprecedented inequality.

It appears that we have yet another example of an arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgment of the General Assembly and 57 percent of Virginia voters. Our nation's judicial system has been infected by activist judges, which threaten the stability of our nation and the rule of law.

This ruling comes on the heels of Attorney General Mark Herring's refusal to fulfill his constitutional duty to defend the state's marriage law. His lawlessness is an insult to the voters of Virginia who rightfully expected elected officials to uphold the laws and constitution of the state, not attack them as Herring has done.

An arrogant judiciary is only one of the major consequences of the drive to redefine marriage. Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions that not only step on free speech and religious liberty but also deny children a mom and a dad. Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith," concluded Perkins.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Liberty University Law School, which is based in Virginia, said the judge must not have ever read the Constitution.

“This decision is outrageous and legally flawed. Judges would be well-served to read the U.S. Constitution and not invent or rewrite it,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The Constitution cannot be changed by the stroke of a judge’s pen, nor does it bow to a judge’s personal ideology. The overwhelming majority of Virginia voters who make up ‘we the people’ voted to affirm natural marriage. Same-sex marriage, as a policy matter, sends the message that children do not need moms and dads. There is ample evidence that children fair [sic] best when raised with a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage is not the equivalent of natural marriage. Judges should be careful to render decisions grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law. Otherwise, judges and courts will render themselves impotent when the people lose confidence in the judicial system,” Staver continued.

The Family Foundation of Virginia, meanwhile, blamed Valentine’s Day for the ruling, which the group says threatens “our entire social fabric.”

“The timing of this decision certainly calls into question Judge Wright Allen’s objectivity,” a Friday morning statement from the group stated. “This rushed release just prior to Valentine’s Day reeks of political show, making her ruling less a legal argument and more a press release. It’s disappointing that a federal judge would so blatantly expose her personal political agenda at the expense of not just marriage, but our entire social fabric.”



“Regardless of one’s stance on marriage, the people of Virginia were disenfranchised by this ruling as our voice and our vote that amended our Constitution have been rendered meaningless by a single federal judge with the assistance of our own Attorney General,” the Family Foundation statement read. “Protecting a timeless institution for the well-being of children was the will of the overwhelming majority of Virginians and this ruling denies this important state interest as it places the desires of adults over the outcomes of children.”

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown said the “terrible decision” must be reversed:

This is another example of an Obama-appointed judge twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose her own views of marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia. There is no right to same-sex 'marriage' in the United States constitution. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that states have the preeminent duty of defining marriage. The people of Virginia did just that in voting overwhelmingly to affirm marriage as the union of one man and woman. That decision should be respected by federal judges and we hope that the U.S. Supreme Court ends up reversing this terrible decision. This case also leaves a particular stench because of the unconscionable decision of Attorney General Mark Herring to not only abandon his sworn duty to defend the laws of the state, but to actually join the case against the very people he is duty-bound to represent.

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation blasted the “imperious federal judiciary” and the “liberal state apparatus,” warning that they are trying “to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable” and “will force you to support homosexual marriage.”

The case, if it can be appealed must be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The problem is that appellate courts have to rule based on the record from the trial court. The record is the transcript of witnesses’ testimony and other evidence the trial judge heard.

With Virginia’s Attorney General refusing to defend the case, the case might not even be appealed and even if it is, the record may be very limited.

Once again, we see an imperious federal judiciary overruling the voters of a state to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable.

And with the striking down of this law, can the liberal state apparatus be far behind? That liberal state apparatus is the one that will force you to support homosexual marriage whether or not it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Alan Keyes Wants Michele Bachmann To Lead Campaign To Impeach Obama

Alan Keyes claims that Rep. Michele Bachmann’s plan to sue President Obama doesn’t go far enough and may actually aid Obama’s “dictatorship.”

Instead, he wants the Tea Party darling -- who last year accused Obama of “committing impeachable offenses” -- to join his Jesus Christ-endorsed campaign to get congressional candidates to pledge to support the impeachment and removal of the president.

“Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment/removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise,” Keyes writes. “Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama's lawless, unconstitutional administration.”

One problem with his approach, however, is that Bachmann is not running for re-election.

Let's assume, for instance, that Bachmann and her colleagues succeed in passing the legislation they seek. (All right, it's unlikely given the fact that the Democrats presently control the U.S. Senate. But "for the sake of the argument," as they say, let's ignore that difficulty.) Let's further assume that their case gets to the Supreme Court, which issues an opinion supporting their view that the President's actions are unconstitutional.

What happens next? Perhaps Obama rolls over, bows to the Supreme Court, and retracts his executive orders. That might happen, or it might not. Let's say it doesn't happen. Instead, Obama rejects the Court's view. To support his stand, he argues that his actions are necessary in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare of the country.

Let's say he further argues that, by failing to pass laws essential for achieving those ends, Congress has endangered the nation, exacerbating a serious situation which, without his timely preventive measures, threatens to plunge the country into a dire state of national emergency. …

The problem is that the whole sequence of events would set a precedent for successful dictatorship that Obama (and the elitist faction he serves) would abuse for the remainder of his occupation of the White House. It would also directly confirm, for better or worse, the ultimate impotence of the judicial branch (especially when dealing with disputes between the other branches), which Hamilton's lucid thinking foreshadows.

Bachmann and her colleagues need to think this through. They need to ask themselves the key strategic question: If we succeed in getting a favorable opinion from the Supreme Court (which is no foregone conclusion) what do we do if Obama simply refuses, on constitutional grounds, to enforce it? … When you think it through, building these impeachment/removal majorities is the only constitutional way to "force" the executive to respect the Constitution. The Courts can't do it. And even the people can't do it, constitutionally, except at election time.

This is precisely the thinking that led me to propose the impeachment/removal strategy for the 2014 election. Instead of spinning their wheels in an ineffectual appeal to a judicial branch that is ultimately powerless to enforce its opinions, Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment/removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise. [emphasis his]

Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama's lawless, unconstitutional administration. Instead of risking a precedent for ambitious, lawless dictatorship, it would set a precedent that restores government of, by, and for the people, through elected officials honestly pledged to represent them. Given the gravity of the present crisis, this would be nothing short of saving America's liberty, for us and our posterity. Will Bachmann and her colleagues rise to the occasion?

Kengor: People Aren't Mourning Shirley Temple's Death Because They're 'Too Obsessed With Miley Cyrus And Gay Marriage'

Paul Kengor is hoping to create a new faux-scandal surrounding Shirley Temple Black’s passing.

Writing in the perpetual-outrage-machine WorldNetDaily, Kengor asserts that Americans now ignore or actively dislike the child star-turned-ambassador because she didn’t “pole dance or ‘twerk,’” and now they refuse to mourn her appropriately.

“Our culture is too obsessed with Miley Cyrus and gay marriage to give proper recognition to [Temple Black],” Kengor writes, leaving us to wonder who exactly is criticizing the late actress.

I learned only yesterday that Shirley Temple, the iconic child actress, died earlier this week at age 85. Reports on her death were easy to miss. I went through my usual scan of various websites and saw nothing. I fortunately caught a buried “Shirley Temple, R.I.P.” by a writer at a political website.

I was dismayed by the sparse reaction to the loss of this woman who lived a great American life. Had Shirley Temple died 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago, the country would have stopped. People everywhere would have paused to give Temple her due. It would have been the lead in every newspaper.

But not today. Our culture is too obsessed with Miley Cyrus and gay marriage to give proper recognition to a woman who was one of the most acclaimed, respected, and even cherished Americans, a household name to children and adults alike.



In the 1934 classic, “Bright Eyes,” Shirley played a five-year-old who lost her father in an airplane crash and then lost her mother. She is comforted by loving people who would do anything for her, including her godfather, who is identified as just that. The godfather behaves like a true godfather. The movie includes constant, natural references to faith, never shying from words like God, Heaven, and even Jesus—verboten in Hollywood today.

Today’s sneering secular audiences would reflexively dismiss the film as Norman Rockwell-ish. To the contrary, the movie is hardly sugar-coated. Just when your heart is broken from the death of sweet Shirley’s dad, her mom is killed by a car while carrying a cake for Shirley on Christmas day.

That doesn’t remind me of any Norman Rockwell portrait I’ve seen.

What such cynics really mean is that the film isn’t sufficiently depraved for modern tastes. Shirley doesn’t pole dance or “twerk.” She doesn’t do a darling little strip tease for the boys while singing “Good Ship, Lollipop.” The references to God are not in vain or in the form of enlightening blasphemy. And the movie has a happy, not miserable, ending.

Come to think of it, maybe this isn’t a movie for modern audiences!

For 80 years, Shirley Temple’s bright eyes brightened the big screen. They reflected what was good and decent in this country. She embodied what made America great, and she brightened our lives in the process.

Cruz: 'Our Heart Weeps' Due To Marriage Equality Gains

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joined Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his proposed State Marriage Defense Act, which as we explained earlier would “make it more difficult for married same-sex couples to receive legal recognition.”

Cruz said that the Obama administration’s support for LGBT equality represents an “abuse of power and lawlessness” and chided gay rights advocates for their “litigation approach.”

“Our heart weeps for the damage to traditional marriage that has been done,” Cruz said, warning that marriage is “under attack.”

“We need to stand up and defend traditional marriage and especially do everything we can to prevent the federal government from forcing a different definition of marriage that is contrary to the views to the citizens of each state.”

The Texas senator also agreed with Perkins’ assessment that and Obama administration officials want to “move quick[ly]” on marriage equality “because there will be pushback from the country when people see the consequences of this redefinition of marriage; they are trying to lock this in quickly hoping that it cannot be reversed.”

There Are Two Christian Right Movies Called 'Persecuted' Coming Out This Year

We’ve written quite a bit about the Religious Right’s conviction that conservative Christians in the U.S. are facing religious persecution through things like gay rights and the expansion of contraception access. Well, in case we needed a confirmation that this is in fact the direction of the right-wing zeitgeist, it turns out that are several movies coming out this year about the supposed oppression of Christians in America. And two of them have the same title: “Persecuted.”

The much higher-budget, star-studded production is directed by 30-year-old Daniel Lusco, whose previous films have included collaborations with End Times alarmist Joel Rosenberg and a fawning documentary about former general and current Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin’s anti-Muslim activism.

Lusco's "Persecuted" stars James Remar and Dean Stockwell and includes guest appearances by Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson (in her film debut!) and former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

A press release outlines the plot:

PERSECUTED tells the story of a modern-day evangelist named John Luther, played by SAG Award-nominated and Saturn Award winning actor James Remar ( X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, "Dexter", DJANGO: UNCHAINED, WHAT LIES BENEATH, RED). Luther is the last hold out for a national endorsement to make sweeping reform in freedom of speech. As the government is mandating political correctness while covertly waging a war against religious organizations, a U.S. Senator, portrayed by Oscar-nominated actor Bruce Davison (X-MEN, "Lost", "Castle"), and his political allies create a sinister plan of denial and scandal to frame John Luther for murder. Suddenly his once normal life is turned upside down as he becomes a fugitive vowing to expose those responsible. It is a mission that brings him face-to-face with the coming storm of persecution that will threaten the moral ethics and freedoms of America.

American Center for Law and Justice director Jordan Sekulow, who also has a cameo in the film, explained today to the Christian Post that he doesn’t think the premise of the movie is that far-fetched:

On the surface, "Persecuted" plays out like many government thrillers. Similar to movies based upon Tom Clancy novels, it has a hero with limited resources faced off against corrupt politicians and government officials. Central to the plot, though, is an effort by the president and his cronies to pass the "Faith and Fairness Act," which would be similar to a "fairness doctrine" for religious groups. If this law were passed, religious broadcasters would be required to present all religious points of view when presenting their own point of view.

The notion that such a law could actually be passed in the United States is not out of the realm of possibility, Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, explained to The Christian Post. The law is similar to a resolution that was passed at the United Nations about the defamation of religion.

"It's backed predominantly by Islamic countries, but in the name of tolerance, so that they can criminalize defamation or defamatory speech so that you effectively become a criminal if you say Jesus is the only way, that becomes criminal. So it's real," Sekulow said.

Carlson apparently agrees. She told Charisma in December, “There’s a Christian message here, a political message here and I think that it is very timely in regard to what some politicians might do in some cases to get things done.”

The star-studded “Persecuted” will be released this spring and had a pre-screening this week that was reportedly attended by several members of Congress. The competing “Persecuted” hasn’t been so lucky. First-time director Benjamin Bondar apparently originally intended his “Persecuted” to be a feature film but after a Kickstarter funding campaign failed is now editing it into a short film to submit to Cannes.

Bondar’s film is set in the Soviet Union, but is clearly meant to be an allegorical tale about the United States today. Describing the film as “a romantic thriller about socialism, atheism, & the ultimate corruption of BIG GOVERNMENT,” its Facebook page outlines the plot:

After several failed attempts to capture four Evangelists who have been effectively supporting Christianity throughout the Soviet Union, the Soviet government orders its best trained undercover KGB officer to infiltrate the Christian Church and stop the growing number of believers through whatever means possible. While attempting to help his government abolish Christianity and find the elusive criminals, KGB officer Vavilov falls in love with Julia, a beautiful Christian girl. For the first time, he questions his government’s agenda, the meaning of life, and his own need for salvation.

In a Facebook comment in response to a skeptical viewer, Bondar wrote, “The unfortunate reality in the U.S. is that both socialist policies and atheist propaganda are actively trying to marginalize and demonize the practice of established religions such as Christianity. I feel that watching this movie with an open and attentive mind will help prove this point by providing a historical context with which to view current events happening in the U.S. right now.”

These two films are by no means the only ones coming out this year pushing the Christian persecution narrative. Liberty Counsel’s film “Uncommon” will take on the supposed crisis of “religious liberty in public school.”

PFAW Applauds Effort to Repeal Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Wisconsin

MADISON – In response to today’s introduction of a resolution to repeal Wisconsin’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples, People For the American Way regional political coordinator Scott Foval released the following statement:

“PFAW applauds State Sen. Tim Carpenter and Rep. JoCasta Zamarripa for fighting to repeal a ban that's preventing thousands of Wisconsin families from accessing the legal protections they need to take care of each other.

“Adjoining states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa have shown that marriage equality is a basic fairness issue. Wisconsinites also re​cognize that everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.”

The repeal resolution introduced by Sen. Carpenter and Rep. Zamarripa this morning strikes constitutional amendment language, originally enacted in 2006, defining marriage as solely reserved for one man and one woman.  Other states' same-sex marriage bans have recently been struck down by federal courts as violating the United States Constitution.

People For the American Way regional political coordinator Scott Foval is available for interviews with the press.  To arrange an interview, please contact sfoval@pfaw.org / 414-455-7329 or 608-469-7876.


###

AFA: Impeach Eric Holder Over Gay Rights Stance

The American Family Association is demanding that the House move to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for the supposed crime of treating legally married same-sex couples ... as legally married.

United States Attorney General Eric Holder, this week, has again overstepped the boundaries of the law when he arbitrarily ordered that homosexual couples will now receive government benefits reserved only for natural marriage status. This applies even in states that have laws defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Taking a nod from the playbook of his boss, President Barack Obama, Holder wielded his own pen and paper, trampling on states' rights and disenfranchising voters in states defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

It is time for Eric Holder to go!

...

It is the sworn duty of every member of Congress to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Allowing Eric Holder to remain in office unchallenged is a violation of that duty. Action must be taken to stop the abuse of power in the attorney general’s office.

Urge your representative to press for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In a sample email​ for members to send their congressmen, the anti-gay AFA claims that Holder's pro-equality move violates their "rights and freedoms":

There is no room for political corruption in government and when it is discovered, it is the duty of Congress to take immediate and swift action against it.

...

The American people desperately need leaders we can trust. Our district deserves representation that will firmly stand and defend our rights as citizens. And when rights and freedoms are being threatened through poor leadership at the Department of Justice, it is your sworn obligation to take steps necessary to protect our state and its citizenry.

Gaffney: Legal Immigration 'Dooms Our Constitutional Republic'

On Secure Freedom Radio yesterday, Frank Gaffney invited Phyllis Schlafly to discuss her new Eagle Forum report making the case that Republicans should oppose immigration reform because immigrants will always vote Democratic.

Schlafly repeated her usual talking points that people from other countries don’t “understand the concept of limited government” so expanding legal immigration would be “suicide for the conservative movement and the Republican party.”

Gaffney agreed, adding that if immigration reform “dooms” the Republican Party it also “dooms our constitutional republic that that party has historically been there to serve and advance.”

As you know, the freedom of America is based on limited government --“Bind him down from mischief,” as Jefferson said – and the conservative movement believes in government’s too big and too expensive. And the people coming in will just vote the other way. And that’s why I think the Democrats are so eager to bring them up, they see millions of Democratic votes coming in through this amnesty.

It’s of course not just people who are not in this country and will come in if there’s an amnesty and the borders remain open, it’s also the numbers of undocumented people already here – it seems to be 11 million, but God only knows what it actually is.

Well, that’s right, it’s the people who are already here, and they come from countries -- well, America is not only exceptional, it’s unique in that we believe in limited government and cutting down on government spending, and there’s just a large bloc of the world that has other experiences and doesn’t even understand the concept of limited government. So, when they come in they will vote Democratic, which is what they showed. And this is also true of the Asians who are coming in, although not in as large numbers as the Hispanics, and that is because that’s all they know and they think government should be big in their life, and conservatives don’t feel that way. So I think that the amnesty, which would bring in millions of legal and illegal immigrants would just be suicide for the conservative movement and the Repbulican party.

Gaffney: I want to commend you again and urge everyone to check out at eagleforum.org ‘How Mass Legal Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party,’ and I would argue – and I think you would too, Phyllis Schlafly, dooms our constitutional republic that that party has historically been there to serve and advance.

Engelbrecht: Obama 'Machine' Makes 'Watergate Look Like A Stubbed Toe'

True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht, who believes that she has been “targeted because of my political beliefs” by the IRS, told Frank Gaffney yesterday that she President Obama should be impeached because his “political machine” makes “Watergate seem like a stubbed toe.”

In 2012, Engelbrecht’s group challenged the voter registrations of people it believed it was committing fraud – most of its claims were filed in heavily black and Latino districts, and many were frivolous.

Speaking with Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio, Engelbrecht claimed that she was being targeted by “a political machine that is used to teach citizens to be the subjects and that we are best to stay in line.” The ultimate goal, she warned, “is for the establishment of a permanent political class separate from we the people.”

Engelbrecht: The bottom line, I think, is that we have entered a time where the government is no longer a body of the people, it is a political machine that is used to teach citizens to be the subjects and that we are best to stay in line because the power bases and the machines that they support don’t have any intention of going anywhere. We are entering a time where if we allow ourselves to forget why we believe what we believe, it will be wiped clean from our memories. And that’s a heady statement, but it is true. It is true. That is the longer play, is for the establishment of a permanent political class separate and apart from we the people.

Gaffney: Is this now in your judgment, this pattern of behavior, of misconduct and selective enforcement of the law and other abuses of our constitutional procedure, prize you to the point where at the minimum we should see the government’s purse strings pulled and perhaps high crimes and misdemeanors considered by the Congress?

Engelbrecht: Absolutely. I’m not sure at what point we wake up. It is happening right before our eyes, things that make Watergate seem like a stubbed toe and yet, it rolls on.

 

Gaffney: Childsplay.

WND: Girl Scouts Promote Prostitution

WorldNetDaily's Jane Chastain is pleading​ with readers not to purchase Girl Scout cookies this year, part of a growing Religious Right push against the Girl Scouts.

Why?

Chastain explains that the Girl Scouts should face a boycott due to their "lesbianism" and support for the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which she falsely claims "would force nations to legalize abortion and prostitution. Guess a girl has to make a living!"

Are you man (or woman) enough to say “no” to a child?

Before you answer this question, consider this: When liberals try to justify more government spending they trot out our youth. “Do it (whatever ill-conceived big government program they are promoting) for the children, boohoo, sob, sob!”

This makes conservative legislators quake in their boots. It is only a matter of time before they cave in to this pressure. I offer our $17 trillion national debt as Exhibit A.

Now, bring it down to a personal level. It is one thing to say “no” to a little boy. It is quite another to say “no” to a precious little girl, looking up at you with those beautiful, big, expectant eyes.

That’s what you will be up against if you join – and you should – the boycott against Girl Scout cookies begun by Pro-Life Waco and now joined by countless pro-life and pro-family organizations.

...

The Girl Scouts adopted a new global agenda and began bemoaning the fact that the United States has not signed the radical U.N. feminist treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, which would force nations to legalize abortion and prostitution. Guess a girl has to make a living!

...

The Girl Scouts adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which was as effective a the one in the military. It wasn’t long before the organization began accepting lesbian leaders and winked at lesbian activity within the ranks. In 1998, Nancy Manahan wrote the book, “On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on their Scouting Experience.” It is full of coming-of-age stories at Girl Scout Camp, and stories of lesbianism within the paid staff.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious