Today the 700 Club featured a news report on mental health and suicide, highlighting the tragic story of the suicide of the daughter of Southern Baptist leader Frank Page. Bizarrely, host Pat Robertson tried to link suicide to “demonic games” like Dungeons and Dragons, which he put on par with bulimia and anorexia.
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Equal Pay Act. It should be a celebration. But it should also be a wake-up call about how far our country still has to go toward fair pay.
When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law, he called the practice of paying women employees less than men doing the same job “unconscionable.” The year was 1963, and Kennedy noted that women were making about 60 percent of men’s average wage.
What was unconscionable then at 60 cents on the dollars is unconscionable now at 77 cents on the dollar, with women of color facing an even greater pay gap. A recent study by the American Association of University Women found that this gap starts early:
“[I]n 2009—the most recent year for which data are available—women one year out of college who were working full time were paid, on average, just 82 percent of what their male peers were paid. After we control for hours, occupation, college major, employment sector, and other factors associated with pay, the pay gap shrinks but does not disappear. About one-third of the gap cannot be explained by any of the factors commonly understood to affect earnings…”
In order words, even after controlling for “choice” factors such as college major – men, for example, are more likely to major in lucrative fields like computer science – the pay gap remains. Women doing the same work as men are still, on average, being paid less.
This discrepancy runs counter to basic ideas of fairness, with implications for almost all other aspects of women’s lives, from long-term economic stability to health and wellness. While 77 cents on the dollar may sound small, over the lifetime women lose hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this gap. It is an injustice that harms not only women, but also their families. And with women increasingly serving as primary breadwinners, the implications for families are compounded. For all of these reasons, PFAW continues to advocate for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide women with additional tools to identify and fight back against pay discrimination.
“Equal pay for equal work” has been a women’s rights rallying cry for decades, powerful in its simplicity and incontestable logic. But as a country, we are not there yet.
Did you realize that the decriminalization of abortion is responsible for the creation of the NSA surveillance program? According to Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, because “killing children in the womb is a constitutional right,” there are now “no civil rights in this country” and “everything else can be stripped away from us.”
Newman told LifeSiteNews this weekend that he hopes that President Obama will be impeached over the program and that “the people who are monitoring my conversations will be impacted and turned to life.”
The American Life League’s Jim Sedlak had a similar take, arguing that the NSA program might be targeting groups like his that oppose Planned Parenthood.
Newman linked the administration’s disregard for the most vulnerable human life with its apparent disregard for privacy rights, saying, “If killing children in the womb is a constitutional right, then we have no civil rights in this country. Everything else can be stripped away from us. So, this ought not surprise anyone.”
But just because Newman is not surprised by the government’s spying does not mean he doesn’t want to see the people responsible punished.
Asked what he thinks is the proper response to the news of the NSA’s intelligence gathering efforts centered on ordinary Americans, Newman said, “I think Obama should be impeached.” “I think half of Congress should be thrown out,” he said. “We should fire everybody in the NSA, the heads of the FBI, the CIA, and force everybody to take a basic course on constitutional liberties.”
He admitted such an outcome was unlikely but nonetheless warranted.
Jim Sedlak of American Life League compared the NSA’s tactics to those used in dictatorships and communist countries. He told LifeSiteNews.com that such practices have no place in a free nation.
“We’ve been concerned the the [sic] government would try to regulate speech,” Sedlak said, “and that’s what listening in does, is it tries to put a fear in so that people will be hesitant to say what they really believe.”
“There’s no place for this in the United States of America,” he said. “ They do this in other countries, you know; if you’re in a Middle East country and speaking in the backyard to your neighbor and you say something against the government, you wind up in jail.”
Sedlak said that because his group is on Planned Parenthood’s list of top 15 “anti-choice” organizations, and because President Obama is very closely tied to the abortion giant, he wouldn’t be surprised if they were targeted by the administration for monitoring. But he said the threat of retribution wouldn’t stop him or his group from speaking up for unborn babies.
“What we’re going to do is, we going to do our work,” Sedlak told LifeSiteNews. “We’re going to speak out when we need to speak out, we’re going to write what we need to write in order to get our work done, and trust that if we do the right thing and we do it for the right purpose, which is God’s purpose, God will take care of us.”
He vowed, “We will not be intimidated.”
Newman went one step further, saying that he hopes the government not only listens to but thinks about the words he is saying. “I’m not going to do anything differently,” he said. “I hope that the people who are monitoring my conversations will be impacted and turned to life.”
American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios is marking LGBT Pride Month byonceagainarguing that gay men are much more likely to be sexual predators. On her show last Friday, Rios told listeners that “there is a huge amount of sexual abuse in the male gay community,” saying that the levels of abuse are “epidemic.”
She later went on to diagnose President Obama with a case of self-hatred against the white side of his family and suggested that he is ungrateful for all that America has done for him: “Obama seems to have a certain hatred for—oh I should be careful—let’s just say his sympathies aren’t with the white demographic.” “He is a man with both races coursing through his veins and what happened to him? He seems to have had every privilege known to man,” Rios wondered, “and still he seems resentful” of whites.
Close to 1,100 pastors have signed up for this weekend’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday, promising to dedicate their sermons to opposing marriage equality. Pulpit Freedom Sunday started as a project to challenge regulations that prohibit churches from enjoying tax-exempt status -- in effect a taxpayer subsidy -- if they endorse or oppose candidates for elected office. The event’s advocates, including Religious Right figures Jim Garlow and Harry Jackson, claim that the tax code muzzles pastors and will lead to the downfall of America.
Now with the presidential election over, Pulpit Freedom Sunday is moving its focus from endorsing candidates for office to denouncing marriage equality. It’s organizers go so far as to compare anti-gay pastors to pastors who spoke out against slavery:
Of course, pastors have long been able to freely discuss their support or opposition to marriage equality, but Pulpit Freedom Sunday supporters insist that they are subject to “government censorship or intimidation”:
But there are no national elections in 2013, so the focus this year is on what Stanley calls "the most pressing issue of our day."
"One of the things we've been saying to pastors is that even though this is a non-election year, it's not a non-engagement year for pastors," he said. "Pastors have a lot of work to do to educate even the church about what marriage is and why it should remain as God created it and intended for it to be. So we want pastors to feel free to do that, to know that they have support when they do so, to not fear any kind of government censorship or intimidation when they speak on those biblical issues that confront our culture."
Stanley says nearly 1,100 ministers had signed up to participate in this weekend's event as of Thursday. Event registration will be left open for several weeks for those who want to participate but are unable to do so this Sunday.
Michael Hirsch, senior pastor of Calvary Christian Church in Fredericksburg, Virg., has participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday three times and says the event is a show of "solidarity" among pastors.
"I believe that there are issues that are in society that are needing direction from a biblical worldview," Hirsch told The Christian Post. "Public policy affects every aspect of our culture and society. God ordained institutions like marriage right now, family, gender specificity, things that are very clear in the scripture, and so we need to speak out on them."
Nigeria’s legislature recently passed a harsh anti-gay law that would punish same-sex couples and the “public show of same-sex amorous relationships” with long jail sentences and make the advocacy of gay rights illegal. The head of Nigeria’s Human Rights Commission warned that the legislation would even criminalize public displays of affection between family members of the same sex.
But the anti-gay group MassResistance is quite pleased and praised Nigeria for “taking bold steps to fight back” against attempts “to subvert public morality.”
“The breakdown in society caused by the homosexual movement seems to bring more general social destruction in African cultures than in the West,” the group said in a blog post. “And nation after nation has had enough.”
The government of Nigeria, which has one of the world's largest populations of AIDS sufferers, is outraged by what they feel is the Western world's efforts to subvert public morality. They are now taking bold steps to fight back.
Almost predictably, Great Britain and the United States are threatening to take action against Nigeria for having the nerve to challenge Western political correctness. A strong bill passes the Nigerian legislature
On Thursday, May 30 the Nigerian House passed a bill which outlaws and provides jail terms for homosexual activism, public homosexual behavior, and anyone entering into or conducting a "gay marriage." An identical bill passed the Senate in 2011. It now goes to the President.
As the Associated Press reported on Thursday:
Nigeria's House of Representatives voted Thursday to ban gay marriage and outlaw any groups actively supporting gay rights, endorsing a measure that also calls for 10-year prison sentences for any "public show" of affection by a same-sex couple.
Representatives appeared to unanimously approve the proposal in a voice vote, sending it immediately to President Goodluck Jonathan for him to potentially sign into law in Africa's most populous nation. It wasn't immediately clear if Jonathan would sign the measure, though gays and lesbians already face public ridicule and possible prison sentences in Nigeria.
While Western diplomats declined to immediately comment, the United Kingdom already has threatened to stop aid to nations that discriminate against gays. But those threats appear unlikely to assuage the desire of Nigerian authorities to further criminalize homosexuality, part of a wave of such laws in African nations eager to legislate against what they believe is a challenge of their traditional values by the West.
. . .In 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama issued a similar directiveasking officials to "ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of" gays, lesbians and the transgendered. That included having diplomats "combat the criminalization" of being gay by foreign governments. . .
The Obama Administration even has an "openly gay" State Department official who specializes in dealing with African and Asian countries that are deemed "hostile" to the LGBT worldwide agenda.
In many ways, the Africans are feeling the brunt of the world-wide homosexual activist movement even more than the United States. They are dealing with the huge spread of AIDS. But also, the breakdown in society caused by the homosexual movement seems to bring more general social destruction in African cultures than in the West. And nation after nation has had enough.
Luckily, they're not intimidated by the West. We'll let you know what happens.
Discussing the NSA surveillance program, the alleged IRS targeting of conservative groups and Obamacare on his show today, Glenn Beck warned that America is becoming a “totalitarian state” and “will be remembered as the most evil nation in the history of the world, we will dwarf what Germany did.”
Later, Beck wondered about how easily the Obama administration could “shut down the Tea Party” and “round up” Tea Party members like Hitler went after the Jews.
Beck even suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts changed his decision on the constitutionality of the health care reform law after he was blackmailed or threatened by the Obama administration: “Did someone approach you with some sort of information? Who are you sleeping with, Mr. Supreme Court Justice? What have you done?”
“Are we crazy or can we make this case enough, it may not be able to do anything but discredit you, your whole life will be destroyed,” Beck continued. “You know sometimes children just don’t behave, do they? Sometimes children just do awful things and I would hate to see your family torn apart.”
On Generations Radio this week, Kevin Swanson discussed the parenting conundrum of censoring children’s entertainment. The pastor and right-wing radio broadcaster began by criticizing Star Trek Into Darkness for a scene in which Captain Kirk wakes up next to “not just one, but two” females of the “wrong” species.
Swanson condemned the movie for endorsing bestiality. He blamed evolution for the blockbuster’s vice, as “evolution has no basic problem with bestiality or cross-species mating.”
Swanson: Do I really want to take my kids to watch a movie that implicates the good guy in the film as mating with the wrong species- but not just one, but two.
Beuhner: Well you know I could understand that Christians would get upset if it was a male of a different species. No actually, I’m not sure that the bestiality and the homosexuality are really all that different.
Swanson: So uh Dave I said to myself we’re not gonna go see that movie. So, you know, you gotta draw the line somewhere don’t ya? I mean, ay yay yay. And how many Christians asked that question? I actually did a survey, I mean I went on to Google and kind of goggled, you know, Christian sites, I mean I try not to put the wrong kind of wording into the Google search, cause if you do that, you can be in a heap of trouble. So I did a little search, turns out there was a Catholic site, had a little forum discussion on the issue. And nobody brought up Leviticus 18 Dave, and of course the whole premise of this is that within an evolutionary construct there is no real problem with speciation and cross-species mating, there’s no problem with that at all, in fact that’s how you evolve, that’s how you get evolution, and so the end result of course is that evolution has no basic problem with bestiality or cross-species mating. Okay? Now some of you are saying that I can’t believe these guys are saying this on this radio program. I can’t believe I’m saying this either. They are going places where no man has gone before. Or should.
Later in the program, Swanson and his co-host Dave Beuhner discussed the animated show Shezow of the Hub network. The show features a twelve-year-old male superhero who must become a girl to utilize his powers. Swanson questioned the superhero’s ability to fight evil when he should be fighting the “evil” of “homosexuality and this transgender thing.”
Instead, “he’s probably fighting Christians and trying to be sure that they’re burned at the stake or something.”
Swanson: What he does, it’s a twelve year old boy, and he’s got this little magic statement he makes, “You go girl,” so once he says “you go girl”, he turns into a girl, he wears a purple skirt and a cape, as well as pink gloves and white boots, and he, you know, overcomes evil. The problem is-
Buehner: And he’s able to find really good deals on Rodeo Drive while shopping. Swanson: Well no. The problem is he tries to overcome evil, but Dave, evil as it turns out as defined by scripture is homosexuality and this transgender thing, so that would be evil. So if he was fighting the evil he would have to fight that. But apparently he’s probably fighting Christians and trying to be sure that they’re burned at the stake or something.
On June 5th, hundreds of students made their way to Capitol Hill to express their concerns and tell their personal stories about rising student debt. We wanted to bring attention to the federal student loan interest rate that is set to expire on July 1st. After meeting with and leaving information for over 120 Senate and House members, student advocates from affiliate Young People For, Campus Progress, and other youth organizations hope to have left an impact on the senators considering various plans to address the impending increase.
Students roaming the halls of the Senate and House offices were passionate and excited about their movement. In meetings with offices including Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA), students were encouraged to continue making noise about this issue, as public attention is a key factor in forcing a bipartisan solution. We were told that the public attention brought to the issue by President Obama’s campaign and 2012 State of the Union address was a key factor in passing the one year freeze that was enacted last summer. Although the president spoke to a group of students on Friday about the interest rates, the public attention to the matter is smaller than it was last year.
But student debt remains a pressing issue. The average college student graduates with roughly $26,000 in student debt, and doubling the interest rate would result in what the president referred to as a $1,000 tax hike each year for students. Over the course of four years, that’s $4,000 in addition to the initial loan amount. That is $4,000 that is not going towards stimulating the economy, preventing graduates from buying cars and houses, and forcing them to put off big decisions like moving out of their parents’ houses and starting families and lives of their own. This is something each student on the Hill echoed regardless of the degree to which they are personally affected by the student loan deficit. As the roughly 7 million students with student debt contemplate how they will face the reality of their futures, they are turning around and telling future generations something we were never told: It is not worth it. If you are incurring debt in your undergrad years, going to graduate school might be even further out of the question. As one student shared yesterday, “Masters degrees have become the new bachelors.” When students cannot afford the education needed to be hired for the jobs available, the effects are felt across the nation. We now have less than one month to ensure that students are not incurring even more unnecessary debt that does nothing for our economy but hold us back.
Intern for affiliate People For the American Way Foundation’s Young People For Program
On Monday, we reported on the recent Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association convention, a gathering of Tenther law enforcement officers at which Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt presented such prizes as the “High Noon Award” and “Nullifier of the Year” to opponents of federal gun laws.
In an interview after the event with right-wing Internet broadcast PPSimmons radio, Zullo explains that he had a great stroke of luck when the convention’s keynote speaker, Republican Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas, attended his presentation. Not only did Stockman attend, Zullo reports, he was “deeply concerned about it and he really does want to have a lengthy, lengthy discussion about this.” Zullo said that he is planning a trip to Washington to meet with Stockman “in the near future,” adding that the congressman’s support is “going to really, really move things forward for us.”
Only the “hand of God,” the host replies, could have arranged for Stockman to be at the convention to hear Zullo’s speech.
PPSimmons: This meeting at this National Sheriffs’ Convention… and Peace Officers’ Convention…was just icing on the cake. I mean, you’ve been working on some other meetings that are coming up and some other big promises that have been made, you’ve been going full steam on that. And then about five weeks ago, this opportunity is dropped into your lap. And unbeknownst to you, one of the people you and I spoke with at CPAC and on Capitol Hill was Congressman Steve Stockman, and he winds up being the keynote speaker at this event, and so he winds up hearing all of your presentation material. And I understand that he has asked for another meeting with you and that he is deeply concerned about this. Am I correct about all of that so far.
Zullo: You’re correct. It looks like there’s going to be another trip to Washington in the near future. He is deeply concerned about it and he really does want to have a lengthy, lengthy discussion about this, so I’m sure that something’s going to happen very, very soon about that. In addition, there were some other things that you had mentioned or alluded to, that you and I had worked on some other avenues. One of those avenues was just pushed wide open as a result of this, a key player happened to be here as well. And that’s going to really, really move things forward for us.
PPSimmons: And Mike, I just can’t help but to see the hand of God in this. This just seems so providential. Because you could not have arranged to have one of the congressmen that we spoke to wind up being the keynote speaker, you could not have arranged for him to be in the presence of scores and scores of constitutional law enforcement officers, you could not have arranged to have had a better sit-down meeting with a congressman and constitutional attorneys and sheriffs and police chiefs. I mean, you can not have made that happen, but I can really see the hand of God in this.
Rick Wiles declared on his radio show yesterday that President Obama is the head of a “modern day Nazi regime” and the “Fourth Reich.” The End Times radio broadcaster further alleged that the Obama administration “is the Fourth Beast as foretold by Daniel in the Holy Bible,” referring to the apocalyptic writings of Daniel 7.
After repeating the false claim that insurance plans under Obamacare will cost at least $20,000 per family, Wiles alleged that the health care reform law is bringing “population control,” Nazism and Marxism to America.
The Marxist revolutionary in the White House, Barack Obama, and his regime has empowered the IRS to implement and enforce compliance to Obamacare. The agency admitted earlier this week that the cheapest Obamacare health care policy for uninsured families will be a whopping $20,000 per year. And if you don’t pay your Obamacare extortion money, the IRS will come after you. Is it any wonder the IRS has been harassing conservative, patriotic and Christian organizations that oppose the passage of Obamacare and other parts of the Obama Marxist revolution? Should we be surprised that the NSA is secretly gathering the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans? This isn’t about fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, this is about population control in the USA. When we posted an article on TruNews.com today about the NSA gathering our private telephone records to be stored in their massive big data surveillance complex in Utah, I posted with the article a photo of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich military officers. What is quickly rising in the USA is the Fourth Reich of the Nazi Empire; this is the Fourth Beast as foretold by Daniel in the Holy Bible. I blame America’s preachers for this mess, this modern day Nazi regime did not appear overnight in America.
The American Family Association’s One Million Moms is asking members to contact advertisers on “The Fosters,” a show about a lesbian couple raising adopted, biological and foster children, and demand that they drop the program for “attacking my faith, morals and values.”
“Not only is this program insulting to conservative viewers and traditional families,” the sample email to advertisers reads, “but it also focuses on a controversial subject that your company would probably not desire to be associated with.”
The group claims that the show’s emphasis on helping foster children is offset by the attempt to “redefine marriage and family by having two moms raise these children together” and “desensitize America and our children by promoting inappropriate behavior, especially on a family channel.”
ABC Family Channel has several anti-family programs and has now added to that growing list. ABC Family's new show "The Fosters" is about a lesbian couple and their diverse family. Adding this program to a lineup that already includes "Pretty Little Liars," "Twisted," "Daddy Baby" and "The Lying Game" many demonstrates to families that ABC Family Channel is anything but family-friendly. But, because "family" is part of the network's name, we thought a warning should be sent out to anyone who continues to watch the channel.
New episodes will air on Monday evenings at 9:00pm ET/8:00pm CT. In addition, frequent promos are airing for this new series. Families should avoid the network completely; otherwise, you run the risk of viewing a commercial for this new, offensive program.
ABC Family's show "The Fosters" is about two women raising a multi-ethnic mix of foster and biological kids. While foster care and adoption is a wonderful thing and the Bible does teach us to help orphans, this program is attempting to redefine marriage and family by having two moms raise these children together. Unacceptable content in the first episode included one foster child as an inmate in a juvenile detention center, sneaking and selling prescription drugs to earn money, a lesbian couple kissing on the mouth and snuggling in bed together, mentioning they are gay multiple times and purchasing condoms for their eldest son. …
Please send an email letter to the sponsors of this week's program "The Fosters." This week's national sponsors were: Olive Garden, Pier 1 Imports, Popeye's, Wendy's and Royal Caribbean.
Urge advertisers to place it on their "do not advertise" list in protest of the attempt to desensitize America and our children by promoting inappropriate behavior on a family channel.
As a parent and a member of OneMillionMoms.com, I strongly encourage your company to drop all plans of financially supporting the inappropriate ABC Family Channel program "The Fosters." This show is degrading to families and damaging to our culture.
I am appalled that your company is supporting a show that features homosexuality in a positive light on a family channel. While foster care and adoption is a wonderful thing, this program is attempting to redefine marriage and family by having two moms raise these children together. The content of this program also includes violence involving children, children selling drugs and parents purchasing condoms for their children so they can practice casual sex before marriage. Obviously, none of this material is acceptable to air on a family show.
While your company is a household name, I do not agree with your financial backing of this program. As a Christian, I feel you are attacking my faith, morals and values. Not only is this program insulting to conservative viewers and traditional families, but it also focuses on a controversial subject that your company would probably not desire to be associated with.
As a consumer, I am asking you to please pull your ad immediately and to support traditional family values and family-friendly programming instead. My decision to support your company depends on it.
I urge your company to place "The Fosters" on your "do not advertise" list in protest of attempting to desensitize America and our children by promoting inappropriate behavior, especially on a family channel.
Charisma news editor Jennifer LeClaire says that there may be a “saving grace to active sports stars coming out as gay”: becoming an ex-gay.
“If Jason Collins coming out as gay caused such media hype,” LeClaire writes, arguing that Collins is not a Christian, “how much more of a stir would it cause if he fully surrendered his heart to Jesus Christ, waged war on same-sex attraction and urged others to seek God?”
She warns that if more athletes “start making their homosexualality [sic] known to the masses,” then they will advance “the radical gay agenda’s campaign” and alter “the face of what was once Christian culture in America.”
When I read the CBS report back in March about how “a current gay NFL player is strongly considering coming out publicly within the next few months,” I predicted that gay professional athletes would indeed start making their homosexualality [sic] known to the masses in 2013, especially if the U.S. Supreme Court validates gay marriage at a federal level.
We’re still waiting on the High Court to rule on the same-sex marriage issue, but we didn’t have to wait long for gay sports stars to begin telling the world about their same-sex attractions.
About a month after the CBS report made national headlines, a gay NBA player fulfilled my second prediction: Whoever comes out first will be the poster child for the radical gay agenda’s campaign as they seek to make all things LGBT mainstream in a nation under God that’s divided on gay marriage.
As Dr. Michael Brown points out in his book A Queer Thing Happened to America, 40 years ago, most Americans said they didn’t know anyone who was gay or lesbian and claimed to know little or nothing about homosexuality. He writes, “Today, there’s hardly a sitcom without a prominent gay character, gay-themed movies have won Oscars, the media celebrates the marriages of same-sex celebrities, elementary school textbooks indoctrinate children with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ideology, many churches and synagogues now ordain gay clergy—and one of our elected officials is a man with cleavage who often wears a dress and high heels to work.”
Brown doesn't specifically mention sports in that list, but we can now safely add “professional athletes are parading their homosexuality” to the proof that gay activists have succeeded in changing the face of what was once Christian culture in America. Collins is the poster child du jour, but you can be sure there will be others.
If there’s any saving grace to active sports stars coming out as gay, it’s this: We can now actively pray them. Christian athletes in their sphere of influence can minister to them.
Think about it for a minute: If Jason Collins coming out as gay caused such media hype, how much more of a stir would it cause if he fully surrendered his heart to Jesus Christ, waged war on same-sex attraction and urged others to seek God? Amen.
Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt has been going-all out against immigration reform, warning that immigrants will “vote to take away our guns” and are “going to be probably just sitting around drawing welfare and voting Democrat.” He told radio host Steve Deace earlier this week that if a reform bill passes, “you can buh bye to your guns and buh bye to the rest of your freedom because this would be a country that had been californicated.”
In an action alert this week, GOA tells its members to call their senators and oppose immigration reform because if it passes “you could lose all your guns before 2035.”
“By 2035,” the alert warns, “the battle will no longer be about stopping the expansion of background checks. Most likely, it will be about stopping the government from coming to take your guns away.”
You Could Lose all your Guns before 2035 under the Amnesty Bill before the Senate
Contact your Senators and urge them to vote against the anti-gun immigration amnesty bill.
We’ve written you before about the immigration amnesty bill that will be debated on the Senate floor beginning June 10.
We had just been through a hard fight to stop gun bans and registration. And some of you may have even felt the immigration amnesty was not a “gun” issue.
But if the amnesty bill is passed, within 20 years, Washington could be as anti-gun as Albany, Hartford, and Sacramento.
This is because the bill will create at least 11,500,000 new citizens -- but probably closer to 20,000,000 -- and, if history is any guide, they will vote 71% of the time for far Left Democrats like Barack Obama.
By 2035, the battle will no longer be about stopping the expansion of background checks. Most likely, it will be about stopping the government from coming to take your guns away. And there is nothing we will be able to do about it.
Yesterday afternoon the Delaware Senate passed a historic civil rights bill adding gender identity to the state’s hate crime prevention and non-discrimination laws. Despite damaging lies about transgender Americans pushed by organizations like Focus on the Family and the Delaware Family Policy Council, the state Senate approved the bill in an 11-7 vote.
“The Senate vote today inspired a lot of hope in me and I’m sure that’s true for many other transgender people across Delaware. It was inspiring to see a majority of the Senators stand up for a group that has seen disproportionate levels of discrimination and violence.”
If enacted, Delaware will become the 17th state with an employment non-discrimination law that covers gender identity in addition to sexual orientation.
Earlier this week, a group calling itself the Black American Leadership Alliance (BALA) sent a letter to members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight and to members of the Congressional Black Caucus urging them to abandon immigration reform, claiming that reform would lead to “higher unemployment, more poverty, and a lower standard of living for many in the black community.”
BALA didn’t provide much information about itself in its press release…in fact, the group doesn’t seem to have existed until very recently (one indication is that it joined Facebook on May 13). The Anti-Defamation League reports that this is because BALA is just the latest incarnation of a shifting series of front groups for the anti-immigrant nativist group FAIR, which has been trying for years to drive a wedge between African Americans and Latinos. Until its recent name change, BALA was known as the African American Leadership Council (AALC), which itself, according to our friends at the Center for a New Community, was “simply a redressing of FAIR’s old front group, Choose Black America.”
In fact, the Center for a New Community notes, BALA seems to be running entirely through another FAIR front group, one of many stemming from white nationalist John Tanton, misleadingly called “Progressives for Immigration Reform” (PFIR). In a fact sheet on PFIR [pdf], the Center notes, “PFIR emblazons its public image with symbols and rhetoric that profess support for environmental causes. But under this veneer, PFIR faults the ills of American society on ‘mass migration,’ and in fact, immigrants in general—sharing more with the bigotry of the far-right than any ‘progressive’ cause.”
A look at the twelve signers of BALA’s letter gives a clear picture of the new group. Of the twelve signers, two are longtime anti-immigrant activists entrenched in the Tanton network – including groups like PFIR, FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies– and four are vocal conservative extremists who have appeared on these pages before:
Frank Morris, who identifies himself as a former director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. But these days, Morris is tied up in a number of Tanton-connected anti-immigrant groups, including sitting on the boards of FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies and serving as the vice president of PFIR.
Leah V. Durant, who left her position as a staff attorney at FAIR’s Immigration Reform Law Institute [pdf], which writes anti-immigrant laws, to become the executive director of PFIR when it launched in 2008 [pdf].
Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, a columnist and talk show host who:
Complains society is being run by “women who look like men, act worse than men, and who have essentially sacrificed their womanhood at the alter [sic] of ‘achievement.’”
In case it’s not clear, he’s really not a fan of the women’s movement: “There is a war against beautiful women, and it’s being waged by the Women’s Movement, ironically….Let’s face it, the women who rise through the ranks in Leftist politics look like dudes. In fact, if you put high-ranking female political Plutopians against their “male” counterparts, it would be the CHICKS WITH…well…CUPS, and I’m not talking bras. ….Women on the Left secretly wish to build a society of powerful ugly women…to match how they feel (and are) inside. A beautiful Liberal woman (not that I’ve ever seen one) might as well be fitted for knee pads and given Bill Clinton’s ‘How to Pleasure a President While On Your Knees Under a Desk” manual and a box of Cuban cigars.’
Discussing Michelle Obama’s confrontation with a GetEqual protester on his show today, Glenn Beck referred to the First Lady as a “monster,” “Lady MacBeth” and “a frightening woman.” He even claimed that the First Lady, Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett and Eric Holder’s wife Sharon Malone, whose name he didn’t seem to know but like Obama and Jarrett is also African American, are the real powers behind the Obama administration.
“I’ll tell you something, I really truly believe, Valerie Jarrett, Michelle and Mrs. Eric Holder, that’s where the information is going, the wives are talking,” Beck said.
While speaking to Glenn Beck earlier today, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) maintained that UN Ambassador nominee Samantha Power, best known for her human rights advocacy, “grovels” before dictators. Beck called Power, whom he referred to as “Powers,” as an “extraordinarily dangerous person” and accused her husband Cass Sunstein, who formerly led the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, of directing the IRS to target conservatives.
Cruz called Power “extreme” and “far outside of the mainstream,” and said that she and other “left-wing academics” appointed by Obama consistently “grovel before tyrants like Castro in Cuba and North Korea.”
Earlier this week President Obama nominated three unquestionably qualified candidates – appellate attorney Patricia Millet, former civil rights attorney Cornelia Pillard and D.C. District Court judge Robert Wilkins – to the D.C. Circuit, the second most influential court in the country. Republicans are already fighting hard against these nominations, claiming that the D.C. Circuit doesn’t have a large enough workload to necessitate filling the vacant seats. Sen. Chuck Grassley (D-IA) even went as far as to say, “No matter how you slice it, the D.C. Circuit ranks last or almost last in nearly every category that measures workload.”
Not quite. Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post wrote an article this morning delving deeper into Sen. Grassley’s claims. Kessler wrote,
“Challenged by Grassley’s claim that the D.C. Circuit is last ‘no matter how you slice it,’ we came up with two other measures that might shed more light on the D.C. Circuit’s workload… One way to measure this is by looking at the data for ‘administrative appeals.’
In 2012, nearly 45 percent of those appeals at the D.C. Circuit involved administrative appeals concerning federal rules and regulations, which many experts say are highly complex and take more time to review. By contrast, at the other circuits, virtually all of the administrative appeals involve immigration cases. Using the data in Table B-3, we found that in the other circuits, administrative appeals that did not involve immigration matters accounted for less than 3 percent of the appeals. (In some circuits, it was less than 1 percent.)”
In other words, the D.C. Circuit is considering some of the most intricate and far-reaching cases of any court. The complexity of these types of cases make apples-to-apples comparisons with other circuits difficult.
“Another measure of the complexity of the cases are statistics on written opinions. The raw data suggest that judges on the D.C. Circuit write fewer opinions than judges on other appeals circuits. (This was one stat that Grassley staff sent us.) But Table S-3 shows that the D.C. Circuit produced a greater proportion of written, signed opinions on cases determined on the merits than most other circuits.”
Overall, the Post concludes,
“[T]he certainty in Grassley’s argument is particularly misplaced, given the unusual nature of the D.C. Circuit… you can’t just assert that one appeals filing is equal to another — or that one set of statistics is better than another. Depending on the metrics, the D.C. Circuit could very well be in first place.”
In 2005, Sen. Grassley did not seem to have these workload concerns when he voted to confirm Bush nominees Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas B. Griffith to the tenth and eleventh seats on the D.C. Circuit. Yet when he and other Republicans cast those votes, the court was handling the same number of cases as it is now. As President Obama pointed out in his speech announcing the three nominees, this is an overtly political move on the part of Senate Republicans:
“When a Republican was president, 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit Court made complete sense. Now that a Democrat is president, it apparently doesn't – eight is suddenly enough.”