Earlier this week, GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said that he didn’t want “stupid” people — i.e. people who won’t vote for him — to vote at all. Then a Republican state representative in Florida was caught suggesting that the party beat Rep. Corrine Brown by redrawing her African-American-majority district to include a large population of prisoners, who are not allowed to vote in Florida.
These are just two of the instances of Republican lawmakers admitting that their electoral strategy hinges not just on winning votes, but on suppressing the votes of people who they think will oppose them.
More than 30 years ago, an influential conservative leader explained why his movement shouldn’t “want everybody to vote.”
Paul Weyrich, an operative considered to be the “founding father of the conservative movement” because of his hand in founding the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, the Council for National Policy and other influential conservative groups, laid out the GOP’s voter suppression strategy in a 1980 speech in Dallas.
"I don't want everybody to vote,” he said. “Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
In 2013, North Carolina lawmakers pushed through a package of voter suppression bills , including restrictions on early voting, something that many African American voters had taken advantage of the previous year.
Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly rejoiced in the news , saying that the early voting restrictions were “particularly important” because early voting had tended to help Democrats:
The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that “early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.”
Doug Preisse, the chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party (whose area includes the city of Columbus), put his party’s case frankly in an email to the Columbus Dispatch:
I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter turnout machine.
Before the 2012 presidential election, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai declared that a new voter identification law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
In 2013, then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott — who has since become the state’s governor – responded to the Justice Department’s accusation that recent redistricting had discriminated against minorities by explaining that the goal was just to discriminate against Democrats and “effects on minority voters” were merely “incidental”:
DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.
In an address to the Eagle Forum’s annual convention in St. Louis on Sept. 11, Ann Coulter repeated her claim that Democratic candidates are “winning elections they never could have won before” because they used the immigration system to “bring in ringers” after they “realized they couldn’t get Americans to vote for them.”
As a result, every bad thing that has ever happened to America is the result of the country’s immigration system, she concluded.
“Everything bad thing that has happened, everything that you see them talking about on TV, whether it’s Obamacare or the Iran deal, Obama losing the war in Iraq for us, gay marriage, all of this is as a result of immigration, it never could have happened without Obama,” she said. “We are looking at, for the rest of our lifetimes, an entire Supreme Court of Ruth Bader Ginsburg if this isn’t stopped.”
Coulter said that the only legal immigrants who should be allowed to stay in the country are the ones who vote Republican: “To paraphrase Donald Trump, 20 percent are probably good people, they’re Republicans. But the other 80, the 8 out of 10, the other 80 percent, I’m sorry, they’ve got to go.”
At Eagle Forum’s annual convention in St. Louis earlier this month, Ann Coulter stuck with her standard speech about how the legal immigration system was set up by Democrats to destroy the GOP and, by extension, America, while praising Donald Trump for bringing anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies into the mainstream.
The U.S. should be so resistant to accepting new immigrants, Coulter told the Religious Right crowd, that she wouldn’t even let Christians fleeing the Mideast due to persecution from ISIS settle as refugees in America.
“First we have to save America,” Coulter said to applause. “It’s like the warnings that you are read on an airplane, ‘If you need your gas mask, put your gas mask on first and then help your child.’ We can’t help anyone if we’re Mexico.”
While the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling represented a major victory for gay rights advocates, Gayle Ruzicka of the Utah Eagle Forum warned at the Eagle Forum’s national conference last weekend that conservatives “better fight like tigers” because the gay rights movement’s “next target is the schools; it’s the children.”
“Are we going to let them take these schools?” she asked the activists who came in mid-September to the Eagle Council, the annual event hosted by Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, which also featured several GOP presidential candidates.
As Ruzicka put it, she knows that Equality Utah is an effective organization because its leader, Troy Williams, is her former protégé. She told the audience at an anti-gay-marriage panel that Williams is now using what he learned at Eagle Forum to fight conservatives:
In our state we have Equality Utah, who is, by the way, I guess you call him as my nemesis now, I trained him, he used to be Eagle Forum, he was at my side all the time, he loved everything about us and everything we did, he now is the head of Equality Utah and they’ve got plans, his name is Troy, the first words out of his mouth, how excited he was over marriage and then his next words were, “and we have just begun.”
“We have God on our side but we don’t have God if we don’t do anything,” she said. Later, she claimed that the fight over LGBT rights may eclipse the one over abortion rights since abortion rights supporters “kind of went away into their abortion mills and we didn’t have to look at the awful things they were doing there.”
“But with this, they are coming after us,” she said of LGBT rights groups. “For them, this is the beginning, this is not the end, and they are coming after us, daily, and daily they are threatening us.”
Many members in the audience agreed with this assessment. One wondered if gay rights advocates would “take our lives over” marriage and another bravely pledged to go to jail due to marriage equality. One activist with Utah Eagle Forum explained that same-sex marriage is comparable to abortion because “in abortion, we kill the baby once it’s born. But with homosexuality, the baby is never born.”
Andy Schlafly, Phyllis’ son and the co-host of the panel, agreed that abortion-rights opponents must speak up against LGBT equality “because the homosexuals and the liberals have taken over the Supreme Court and pro-lifers need to understand that they are going to lose everything on the pro-life issue because of this homosexual rights issue.”
“They are going to lose everything because liberals have come through on this other issue and they’ve got control of Kennedy and Kennedy is the swing vote,” he said.
Schlafly said that activists can do two things to fight gay marriage: One is to followMike Huckabee’slead in urging their elected officials to simply defy the Supreme Court ruling; the other is to find a congressman who would file articles of impeachment against Judge David Bunning, the Bush-nominated federal judge who placed Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. Marshals after finding her in contempt of court for blocking marriage licenses in her county.
If Congress were to even consider impeaching Bunning, Schlafly said, it would “send shockwaves to the other side” and put judges on notice. She warned that there is little time left before out-of-control judges go after pastors and Christian schools.
“I’m telling you, the homosexual movement is taking over the court system,” he said. “The courts are gone, the courts have been taken over by the homosexuals, so they are going to sue and bankrupt all of our churches and all of our schools.”
Religious liberty is on its last legs, he said, claiming that Tim Tebow is “excluded from the entire NFL simply because he quotes from the Bible.” He added that religious counselors practicing “ex-gay” therapy are also under attack because gays know that they need to “recruit” people while they are young.
“The battle over this is really with teenagers,” he explained, “there is not as much of a market for it for adults. The focus is on those teen years, when people are forming their sexuality. That’s why there is so much attention to teenagers. The other side is recruiting heavily for teenagers. We have no idea in this room how much recruitment is going on against teenagers right now.”
As expected, members of the audience agreed that gay marriage will effect everybody, and not just by supposedly destroying religious freedom and allowing abortion rights to continue. As one woman in the audience said, Eagle Forum must explain to Americans that they may all die if gay marriage continues:
People who have had any exposure to the Bible at all, people are familiar with Sodom and Gomorrah and this is what’s happened with this homosexual movement and the gay marriage. I mean, we are saying, ok, we are giving them a legal right to go in and commit sodomy, night after night, day after day after day, I mean, if people get that message, we’re making God mad, do we want to make him so mad that he comes down and destroys the whole country? Think of Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe something like that can be a visual, do you know what I’m saying?
Ruzicka responded to the audience member’s plea by saying that “we have to be sure to remind them who these people are and what it is that they do.”
One audience member similarly lamented that while “there are just not that many people who care about what God did to the people in Sodom,” someone should stand up for the rights of believers: “We have to get the young people who do care, we have to get the laws on the books to protect those of us who care. It is scary out there for what young people are being force-fed.”
Announcing that she worked alongside Phyllis Schlafly in the successful campaign to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, one woman in the audience said that activists need to realize that they are in a spiritual battle.
“We have demons that work against us,” she said. “If you ever a find a time where there was a hope, it was during the ERA days. We had everything against us, all the momentum, all the money, all the politicians, all the media, everything was against us.”
As it turns out, at least one man in the audience said he was expecting an even greater fight, asking if the U.S. military “is on our side or Obama’s side,” while another attendee speculated that U.S. service members are being conditioned to put on United Nations uniforms during a potential civil conflict.
Ruzicka seemed exasperated by the descent of the panel, which stretched until 11:30 at night, into manic paranoia about civil war and spiritual warfare. Of course, warning about the gay recruitment of children and the closure of Christian churches and schools may have had something to do with it.
Religious Right activists have spent decades warning about gay rights leading to divine wrath, judicial tyranny and the corruption of children, with little to show for it as support for marriage equality has only increased among voters.
Polls consistently show that barely one-third of Americans think that Kim Davis, the new, “persecuted” face of the gay-rights opponents, was in the right for barring her county office from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
With the collapse of its public image, the anti-gay Right desperately needs new spokesmen and ideas, but if this conference showed anything, old paranoias are hard to shake.
When Jake Tapper asked the Republican presidential candidates at last night’s debate which American woman they would put on the $10 bill, some named their wives or daughters, some named non-Americans, and some named Planned Parenthood board member Rosa Parks, but nobody picked Phyllis Schlafly, the anti-feminist hero whom several of the candidates have credited with shaping their conservative views.
That’s too bad, because the Phyllis Schlafly $10 bill has already been designed.
At last week’s Eagle Council, the annual gathering of Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, which was attended by Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and other Republican leaders, speaker after speaker praised Schlafly’s role in fighting the Equal Rights Amendment but lamented that nefarious feminist plots, such as the campaign to put a woman on the $10 bill, have gained traction under the Obama administration.
Schlafly’s son John quipped that the White House wants to have Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, grace the $10 bill, but Eagle Forum had other ideas, offering attendees this sample currency design:
Attendees wandering Eagle Council’s exhibit hall also had the opportunity to pick up several “informative” pamphlets on the dangers of sex, filled with misleading or outdated claims.
The above pamphlet, distributed by a Snowflake, Arizona, outfit called Heritage House 76, cites only articles written between 1987 and 1993, and contains claims such as: “When doctors work on someone with AIDS they put on two pairs of gloves, a full gown over their clothes, a mask and goggles. Even then, they don’t feel completely ‘safe.’”
“Latex breaks down in heat, yet condoms are transported in trucks that get so hot you can fry an egg!” it reads. “Do you want to live? Would you like to raise a family, have a career or follow a dream? Then don’t buy the ‘safe sex’ lie — it can kill you.”
A “Say ‘No’ To Drugs!” pamphlet we picked up at the event doesn’t mention drugs like cocaine or heroin, as one might expect.
Instead, it focuses on a far worse drug: the pill.
Warning that the “dangerous” birth control pill “can make you sterile,” the pamphlet (which does not identify its author or publisher) urges readers to remain abstinent until marriage: “Having sex before marriage is sort of like giving out all your Christmas gifts in July. It may be fun at the time. But when that big day comes around, the presents have all been given out!”
And it’s not just the pill that poses a danger, according to the pamphlet: “Using rubbers (condoms) to prevent AIDS is like playing Russian Roulette—your life is at stake!”
Eagle Council participants were also able to pick up plenty of useful information on the danger that public education poses to children.
In a booklet titled “Government Education…Is this what we want for our children?,” the anti-public-education group Citizens United for Responsible Education tells parents that social studies classes in public schools are “anti-Christian” and “pro-Islam.” Along with exalting Islam, the booklet alleges, “government schools” are trying to “promote atheism, homosexuality, and disrespect for parents and their values.” Even worse, public schools are pushing “pagan” worship and have made sure that “children are bullied into accepting evolution as scientific fact against their Biblical beliefs.”
But fortunately there are alternatives to raising atheist Muslim gay neo-pagan kids.
“God’s Standards for Educating Our Children,” a booklet produced by a Christian publisher in Kentucky, tells parents to consider homeschooling or private Christian education in order to avoid the “pagan and God-ignoring” influences of public schools, noting that “the danger of a child admiring and becoming attached to the unchristian teacher is great.” Other threats include “self-expression” and the same sort of sexual education classes that have destroyed Sweden:
The teaching of self-expression is in complete opposition to Bible principle. It militates against a life of obedience and submission. Disobedience, demonstrations, riots, and campus disorders are all a product of the exercising of self-expression.
The emphasis on sex education is not Biblical. The school was never intended to replace the teaching of the home but to supplement it. It is impossible for immoral, unregenerated, and defiled individuals to teach a subject such as this without being suggestive, thus demoralizing any moral that might be present. Sweden, after ten years of compulsory sex education, is the most immoral nation in the world. Sex relations at an early age is prevalent.
Eagle Forum offered copies of the August issue of its “Education Reporter” newsletter, which claims that “children at schools are indoctrinated into acceptance of whatever the [teachers’] union decides is normal. Programs supposedly meant to prevent bullying are actually meant to bully children into compliance.”
The newsletter attacks opponents of gay “conversion” therapy: “If assistance is offered that could possibly influence a person to leave the LGBTQ community, it is considered to be brainwashing and, by definition, negative. Although embracing and mainstreaming transgenderism could be more dangerous than providing therapy to help children adjust to their biological makeup.”
Other books available at the conference, including many dealing with signs of the impending apocalypse, were unfortunately for sale at a steep price, and Schlafly’s $10 bills sadly aren’t legal tender.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was forced to leave his first post on the state’s high court back in 2003 after he defied a court order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from state grounds. This, he said in an interview with Eagle Forum Live on Saturday, was all part of the anti-Christian persecution in America that he claims is forcing believers like him out of public office.
Anne Cori, Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter and the guest-host of the program, asked Moore “how can Christians today live fearlessly” when they are afraid of being “branded a public enemy” for beliefs like opposing marriage equality.
Moore responded that the separation of church and state is now being “used to exclude Christians from holding public office.”
“Well, that’s what they did to you!” Cori interjected.
“Yes, and that’s what they did to others. They’re saying you can profess your beliefs elsewhere, but when you’re under government you cannot,” Moore said.
“Christians are being forced to give up their position in government or else succumb to something that they don’t believe,” he added. “And that’s the whole point, in my opinion, of what’s going on. They want to force anybody who has a belief, in the sanctity of marriage, for example, not to hold public office.”
Earlier in the program, Moore explained that the idea of separation of church and state came from the Bible and therefore actually requires the government to acknowledge the “soveriengty of God” through things like his Ten Commandments display.
“Don’t you think there’s a misunderstanding of this phrase, the separation of church and state?” Cori asked.
“Yes, it’s a complete misunderstanding,” he replied. “In fact, the separation of church and state can be related to the Bible, if you really want to go back. It’s the way God separated the priests out of the tribe of Levi, the family of Aaron from the kings out of the tribe of Judah, the family of David. The priesthood and the civil government were not to interfere with each other. And in today’s society, you see the government actually interfering with the church and with our religious liberty.”
“If you separate God from our government, from our laws, then you lose your religious liberty,” he said. “And that’s so basic an understanding of religious liberty that most Christians and most Americans do not have.”
“Would that mean that the judges today when they throw out the Ten Commandments as their law, then they are really putting themselves above God?” Cori asked.
“Well, they not only threw out the Ten Commandments, you’ve got to understand, it was never about the Ten Commandments per se, it was about the sovereignty of God,” Moore replied. “And, yes, whey they say you can’t acknowledge the sovereignty of God, then they dispute the whole basis of religious freedom and the rights you get from that. So, basically, the battle over the Ten Commandments was a battle over acknowleding the soveriengty of God. And that was never to be permitted to be interfered with by government.”
Correction: This post originally incorrectly referred to Cori as Schlafly's niece.
Roy Moore, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, was a guest on Eagle Forum Live over the weekend, where he discussed the recent developments in marriage equality with Anne Cori, Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter.
Moore seemed to be thrown a little off guard when a listener called in and asked angrily why “people use the 14th Amendment to protect interracial marriage when the authors of the 14th Amendment were against interracial marriage.” (The Supreme Court has found bans on both same-sex and interracial marriages to be violations of the 14th Amendment.)
Cori interrupted the caller and asked Moore to instead address people who say “you have to agree with same-sex marriage because interracial marriage is okay.”
The difference, Moore said, is that the right to the “pursuit of happiness” found in the Declaration of Independence came from God and God supports interracial marriage but not same-sex marriage.
“I think people today would say that same-sex marriage is a pursuit of happiness,” Cori interjected.
“Well, they would say that, but that’s not the way the laws of God define the pursuit of happiness,” Moore responded. “And pursuit of happiness was given by God and recognized by the United States Supreme Court in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.”
While some Republican politicians contend that the most recent round of attacks on Planned Parenthood is aimed only at its donation of fetal tissue for medical research, a practice that became the focus of sting videos that misleadingly suggest that the organization is profiting off the donations, Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins told conservative activists last week that the real goal is to “take out Planned Parenthood.”
In a speech to Eagle Council 2015, the annual conference held by Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, Hawkins depicted Planned Parenthood as a money-obsessed and racist business that “promotes and covers up” statutory rape and aids sex traffickers. Hawkins claimed that Planned Parenthood only supports sexual education and birth control in order to convince young women to have premarital sex, causing them to go to Planned Parenthood to spend money on STD tests and treatment and, eventually, abortions.
“She’s going to start this cycle of bad decisions,” she said. “They made money off of her every step away. Everything was about that bottom line.”
Hawkins described in detail the anti-choice movement’s strategy to rebrand itself as a pro-women, social justice cause while also attempting to “rebrand Planned Parenthood” as the “abortion Goliath” that “preys upon women.”
“When this generation was coming to age and decided, ‘How can we make a difference? How can we make our Phyllis Schlafly mark on the pro-life movement?’ We set our sights on one target, and that’s Planned Parenthood, because they are the Goliath,” she said. While Planned Parenthood is the Goliath, Hawkins said, David Daleiden, the activist behind the sting videos, is fittingly named “David” — “I think the Holy Spirit had something to do when his mother named him.”
Why focus on Planned Parenthood? As Hawkins admits, it is because of Planned Parenthood’s popularity: “While we’ve been educating a movement since 2008 on Planned Parenthood, we’ve been losing in the court of public opinion. Every poll we’ve taken always shows that Planned Parenthood enjoys a positive view in people’s minds, because it’s Planned Parenthood.”
Hawkins said that anti-choice activists plan to run online ads targeting “Democratic-leaning,” “mushy middle” women voters, whom she characterized as the “Grey’s Anatomy binge-watchers and West Wing-watchers.”
Appropriating some of the themes used by the Occupy Wall Street movement, Hawkins urged the Eagle Forum activists to pressure Congress to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, saying that the move would give them an opportunity to rebrand Planned Parenthood as the “Walmart of abortion” and the true foe of the “99 percent.”
She also revealed that her group’s new ads will look like government-sponsored PSAs telling pregnant women that if they go to Planned Parenthood, they will probably end up getting an abortion.
Will you or will you not vote for a CR, continuing resolution, that funds Planned Parenthood? Yes or no? A non-commitment is allowing this to happen, that’s a pro-abortion vote in my record. You need to scare the bejeezus out of these people because they don’t want to do it, they don’t want to do it. House Republican leadership and Senate Republican leadership does not want to touch Planned Parenthood because they didn’t listen to their Bible stories very well. We need you to make those calls. We need to be talking about the presidency. There’s a little bit of an election coming up in a year and it is very, very important that we elect a pro-life president, not only so we defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider and vendor, but that we get a pro-life president who will appoint pro-life judges, this next president could literally determine if we overturn Roe v. Wade in our lifetime or not. I’m a very impatient person, I have other career goals, I don’t want to be doing this the rest of my life. I want to end abortion as quickly as possible and to do that we’ve got to take out Planned Parenthood.
The next thing we have to do is we need to rebrand Planned Parenthood. In our communities we need to promote organizations like Thrive, like other pregnancy resource centers that are literally taking money, client money, out of their hands. We need to talk about Planned Parenthood, we need to make people aware of what Planned Parenthood is doing. Students for Life has a tour coming up in October and November, ‘The Planned Parenthood Project.’ We don’t say abortion is bad because people already know abortion is bad, what we show young people is that Planned Parenthood makes money off them and that they’re using them. A very popular line we found with young people is, “Planned Parenthood is the Walmart of the abortion industry.” I love Walmart, trust me, I spent like $500 there last night, however, it’s a very “99%” approach to the issue, that they’re the big, bad dog and they are using you.
The next thing we have to do is we’re going to need to go on the airwaves and right now, Students for Life, I’ve got two commercials that we are getting ready to launch and we are putting out there to national organizations, saying, “please fund these commercials.” Because the commercials aren’t about us, they’re not about the pro-life movement, they are targeted to “mushy middle” women, 18- to 44-year-old women who are targeted by the Democrats every single election with a scary “war on women” rhetoric. The ads are light, they’re airy, they’re beautiful, they kind of look like a government PSA, that’s how I made them look. And it says, ‘Hey, you’re pregnant! Yay! Did you know that 94 percent of women who go to the Planned Parenthood get an abortion? However, you can visit a federally-funded health clinic that will serve all of your and your child’s needs for free.’ Then it links to HRSA.gov. It looks a little bit like a PSA. We are running it through the lawyers to make sure I don’t get sued for impersonation by the government. But we are going to be running these ads because we are going to make the point that we don’t need Planned Parenthood any longer. We don’t need Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the opposite of empowerment, Planned Parenthood is the opposite of empowerment for women. They do the exact opposite and we simply don’t need them.
Before Kim Davis, there was Roy Moore, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who invoked divine law in his effort to block his state from enforcing a pre-Obergefell federal court decision striking down its ban on same-sex marriage.
Moore was the keynote speaker at Eagle Council 2015, a St. Louis conference hosted by Phyllis Schlafly’s group Eagle Forum last week, where he naturally brought up Davis’ similar fight in Kentucky against marriage equality. The Alabama justice dedicated his entire speech to attacking the Obergefell decision and, like Davis’lawyers, compared the clerk to victims of the Holocaust.
After reading Martin Niemöller’s poem “First They Came For The Socialists…,” Moore decided to write his own version in honor of Davis: “Ladies in gentlemen, we can say the same thing today. They came for the bakers, I didn’t bake cakes. They came for the florists, but I didn’t deal with flowers. They came for the little clerk down in Kentucky by the name of Kim Davis, but I’m not a clerk, I have nothing do with issuing licenses. Then they came for me, and nobody was left.”
“This will touch every person in this room, every child in this room eventually,” he said of Obergefell. “This opinion is not like other opinions that have been issued.”
Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis’ attempt to block her office from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples has inspired Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, who writes in a column today that Rowan County should become “a ‘sanctuary county’ where the biblical view of marriage continues to be honored and respected.”
However, Schlafly writes in WorldNetDaily, judicial tyrants are instead sending Davis to jail “merely for abiding by state law and the Bible.”
When the Supreme Court ruled by the narrowest possible margin that Kentucky’s definition of marriage is unconstitutional, the Court’s decision was qualified by its assurance that religious freedom would not be jeopardized. “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection,” the Court solemnly intoned on June 26.
In the Appalachian hills of eastern Kentucky, one brave woman is testing whether Justice Anthony Kennedy really meant it when he wrote those words. But the local federal judge for eastern Kentucky, David Bunning, wrongly sent Kim Davis to jail for her beliefs, without respecting or accommodating her sincere Christian beliefs.
It is not “rule of law” to jail someone based on judge-made law; it is “rule by judges.” Kim Davis is not committing civil disobedience, because she has not violated any law. She was arrested, humiliated with a mug shot and jailed, merely for abiding by state law and the Bible.
When the Supreme Court ruled that all 50 states must license same-sex unions on the same terms as marriage, the court was implicitly declaring that Christianity and the Bible are wrong. If San Francisco can be a sanctuary city, let’s allow Rowan County, Kentucky, to be a “sanctuary county” where the biblical view of marriage continues to be honored and respected.
Linda Harvey of Mission America agrees, calling in her own WorldNetDaily column for such sanctuary cities to not only ban same-sex marriage but also prohibit gay pride parades and sexual reassignment surgery. Because “family life would be much healthier and safer in these cities,” Harvey thinks “the trend would be contagious as people share their positive experiences with friends and relatives across the country”:
Since we are beginning to see violations of constitutional rights based on objections to homosexuality as marriage, I believe there’s a clear precedent for establishing sanctuary cities for authentic, lawful, man/woman marriage.
Think about how great life would be in those cities. After all, unlike the defiance of immigration law, these cities would be upholding the actual law under our actual Constitution, not the imaginary one in the mind of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
So, why not cities that uphold a standing, just law? Family life would be much healthier and safer in these cities. Keep out the vile “gay-pride” parades as well as harassment lawsuits against bakers and florists. And how about no pro-homosexual lessons in school, falsely implying that some people are born homosexual, or born to mutilate themselves by sex-change surgery? Also, no ban on counseling for teens who have same-sex attractions.
Of course, such cities would not be without challenges. They would be targets for dirty tricks, phony “hate crimes,” special sections on “gay apartheid” by the New York Times and so on. The formulaic fables and drama, based on no facts but lots of screeching, can be composed now in advance.
We are not unaware of the schemes of Satan, nor of Saul Alinsky adherents.
It will take a courageous city council to take this step, yet the trend would be contagious as people share their positive experiences with friends and relatives across the country.
In a speech to a group of young conservatives last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, called for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in retribution for their ruling in favor of marriage equality, and insisted that a study trapping gay couples on an island would prove that gays and lesbians can’t have “what nature says is the preferred marriage.”
Gohmert, speaking at the Washington, D.C., conference of the college chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, said that Justices Ginsburg and Kagan “ought to be impeached” for participating in the marriage equality case after officiating the legal weddings of same-sex couples.
“I think they ought to be impeached, I think ought to be removed, and until Congress shows that we do have some say in the Constitution over the courts the abuses are just going to get worse,” Gohmert lamented. He warned audience members that the Supreme Court wants you to “forget what Moses said God said, forget what Jesus said God said, we’re God and you go by what we say.”
He then suggested a study to prove that same-sex couples can’t have “the preferred marriage”:
We could take four heterosexual couples, married, and put them on an island where they have everything they need to sustain life. Then take four all-male couples and put them on an island with all they need to sustain life, take four couples of women, married, and put them on an island, and let’s come back in 100 to 200 years and see which one nature says is the preferred marriage.
Gohmert also told the audience that there’s “a case to be made” for impeaching President Obama, although he admitted he “hadn’t really thought about it” until reading a book by extreme conservative author Andrew McCarthy.
In an interview with far-right pastor and Colorado state Rep. Gordon Klingenschmit today, Phyllis Schlafly declared that the Supreme Court’s recent marriage equality ruling should simply be ignored while "we the people" decide if we want to overturn it.
"There's nothing in the Constitution about homosexual marriage," Schlafly said. "The judges made it up and some people think that because they did and the Supreme Court has spoken, therefore we have to accept it. We don't."
Likening the ruling to the Dred Scott decision, Schlafly said that "we don't have to obey it just because a few judges said so," before declaring that GOP presidential hopefuls must declare that they will flout the decision, something several candidateshavealreadydone.
"We just don't believe in accepting what some judge says is the new law," she said. "The Constitution starts with 'we the people,' and so what we need to do is say just because the Supreme Court has handed down a decision, we'll re-evaluate it and we'll decide whether we want to overturn it or not."
Martin compared marriage equality opponents to David fighting Goliath, who “taunted Israel like the Supreme Court taunted us with this ruling.”
Saying that merely electing a new president or pressuring Congress won’t be enough to respond to the marriage equality ruling, he said, “David didn’t fight Goliath in the way that Goliath wanted. He fought in a different set of terms. And I will tell you, one thing that has not been invoked in a meaningful way is the doctrine of, is how to limit the judiciary with impeachment.”
“I think we’re to that point” of impeachment, he said, explaining that while the four more liberal justices are “corrupt in terms of their worldview,” Kennedy “has really put himself up as the king of America in a way that the founders would have recognized as a discussion point for an impeachable offense.”
Martin responded that he couldn’t speak for churches, but that if the GOP tries to “water down marriage,” that will be “the end of the Republican Party.”
Martin then, bizarrely, compared the emergence of the Republican Party in the 1860s to fight back efforts to extend slavery to the current Republican Party’s “retreat” on the issue of the Confederate flag.
“People have been trying to do that, what they did for years, and our people retreated and surrendered within like two days,” he said of the flag issue. “I’ve never seen the speed with which the culture put our people into rapid retreat. They didn’t even make meaningful arguments about the loss of life and the brother against brother and what the Confederacy meant. They just retreated to the space they were pointed to.”
“It’s an extraordinary moment, but the tide can shift, as you say, if we get back to first principles,” he added.
Phyllis Schlafly’s latest newsletter is promoting the Eagle Forum’s 44th annual leadership council gathering. The ever-direct Schlafly gets right to the point:
Why is this Eagle Council so important? It is absolutely urgent that we elect a conservative President. Eagle Council is both a strategic forum featuring top-notch experts helpful to activists like you AND a celebration of our values and achievements to encourage all Eagles.
What exactly are the values Schlafly’s gathering will be celebrating? If her main speakers are any indication, those values would be anti-immigrant and anti-gay bigotry, along with lawless resistance to court rulings on LGBT equality and church-state separation.
Can you guess? Friday night’s keynote will be given by Ann Coulter, who has been complaining that the media has gotten so tired of her predictable liberal-bashing shtick that they aren’t giving enough attention to her latest bottom-feeding screed, “Adios America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole.”
On Saturday evening, Schalfly’s Eagles will hear from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from the bench once for refusing to obey federal court orders to remove a Ten Commandments monument he installed in the courthouse. More recently, a group that he founded and that his wife leads, the Foundation for Moral Law, vowed to defy the “illegitimate” marriage equality ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Sunday, Moore told a congregation, “Welcome to the new world. It’s just changed for you Christians. You are going to be persecuted, according to the U.S. Supreme Court dissents.” Moore has previously claimed same-sex marriage would destroy America and invite God’s wrath on the country.
Schlafly’s event will be in St. Louis September 11-13. Mark your calendars!
Phyllis Schlafly is none too pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision striking down state gay marriage bans, and has a modest proposal for Congress: Pass a resolution affirming the “dignity of opposite-sex married couples,” especially that of couples where “a provider-husband is the principal breadwinner and his wife is dedicated to the job of homemaker.”
While this resolution might not change much in the short term, the anti-feminist crusader writes in her syndicated column today, it might act as an inspiration to the anti-gay movement as they continue to fight marriage equality.
Justice Kennedy's opinion for a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court has rightly been condemned for its lack of grounding in the constitutional text he is sworn to uphold. Unable to find gay marriage in either the due process clause or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Kennedy ultimately rests his case on what Justice Clarence Thomas sarcastically called the "dignity clause" of the Constitution.
There is no such clause, of course, although Kennedy's majority opinion mentioned "dignity" nine times. But if dignity can be conferred by decisions of the Supreme Court, then Congress can do so, too.
Therein lies a first response: Congress should formally recognize the dignity of opposite-sex married couples and resolve to protect that dignity in our laws. A joint resolution should recite the many reasons why the special union of husband and wife has been honored for "millennia," as Kennedy admitted.
A crash program to rebuild the traditional American nuclear family is urgently necessary for continuing our nation's political and economic success in this century. This won't happen if we transform marriage into a means of giving "dignity" to mostly childless homosexuals.
Once Congress is on a roll to confer dignity, it should confer an extra measure of dignity on the single-earner family, where a provider-husband is the principal breadwinner and his wife is dedicated to the job of homemaker, a role more socially beneficial than working in the paid labor force.
After reciting the foregoing reasons and many others, Congress should conclude its resolution by formally resolving that the traditional family, founded on a married husband and wife, carries special dignity and deserves special recognition because it provides unique benefits to society.
This is not to deny that every human person has value and dignity, or that other domestic relationships may have some value in limited circumstances. But Congress should respond to Kennedy with a ringing affirmation of the unique dignity that should be accorded to society's foundational unit: the marriage of husband and wife.
Naysayers will scoff that the foregoing resolution doesn't change the Supreme Court decision, and you can imagine a late-night comedian comparing it to the medal of courage the Wizard of Oz presented to the Cowardly Lion. But movie fans will recall how that gesture inspired Dorothy and her companions toward achieving their goal.
This past Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted former House GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay on “Eagle Forum Live” to discuss the alleged threat of gay marriage. Schlafly segued into the topic of gay marriage by describing an open letter to the SupremeCourt, signed by conservative pastors and politicians, pledging to defy any Court decision which strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage.
DeLay lamented that “people don’t understand the constitution. We haven’t taught our children now for three or four generations what the Constitution is, and the separation of powers, and what our Founding Fathers had in mind as this brilliant understanding of how you can limit government and limit the tyranny put on us through people or oligarchies.”
Because of this supposed constitutional ignorance, DeLay claimed, “right now, the American people don’t understand that the Supreme Court, when it makes a ruling, it’s just an opinion if no one enforces that ruling. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a police force; the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army; the Supreme Court doesn’t have people that can enforce their ruling.” Therefore, if conservatives “stand up to them and invoke the Constitution, then we don’t have to accept a ruling on marriage that redefines marriage. And that’s basically what this ad is all about. We’re sending a message to the Supreme Court that, number one, it’s illegal that they have this case before them; it’s not in their jurisdiction.”
Proving his Constitutional prowess, DeLay argued that “it’s not in their authority to write law by ten unelected, unaccountable people, lawyers, and if – this is a red line that we’re drawing. If they rule against marriage, we will all defy them.”
Further along in the show, a caller, responding to the overreach of the Supreme Court, noted that “civil rights laws, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Virginia v. Loving [sic], were put on us by courts legislating from the bench and presidential executive orders. And back then even one-third of the black people did not want integration. And Governor George Wallace warned about the tyranny now happening under the Obama administration.”
Responding to this lecture, Schlafly observed, “Well, lots of mistakes have been made along those lines.”
DeLay concluded his time on Schlafly’s show by commentating on the “danger” of the potential imposition of martial law by pointing to the stand-off at Bundy Ranch in April 2015, where Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused to pay grazing fees for using federal land. “He stood up to them and backed them down,” DeLay said.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah joined Phyllis Schlafly on her “Eagle Forum Live” radio program last month, where he took a call from a listener who asked if he agreed “that the original Constitution didn’t give the Supreme Court the power to rule anything about marriage” and that even Justice John Marshall, who established the principle of judicial review, “never said that the court could change the definition of marriage.”
“Where did the Supreme Court get the power to change the definition of marriage?” the caller asked. “And all the justices, all nine of them, even though they disagree, they all seem to think that they have the power to make that decision.”
“They don’t have that power, the Constitution didn’t give it to them,” Lee responded.
“There are a few who appear to take the position that something in the Constitution, something in the 14th Amendment in particular, gives them this power,” he said. “I strongly, strongly disagree with that viewpoint. I don’t think it does, and I think they are mistaken in that conclusion. And it think it’s wrong, I think it’s disruptive of the constitutional order for them to take a debatable matter and take it beyond debate, to take a state matter and take it to the federal government, not just to Congress, but to the Supreme Court, to a group of nine lawyers dressed in black robes who are not elected, but who are appointed for life. And I think that’s a big problem.”
“I fear that what could happen is that the government could start discriminating against religious individuals and religious institutions that have a religious belief about the definition of marriage,” he said. “I don’t want that to happen. I hesitate to imagine what an America that would have that as part of its legal system would look like.”
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
This week, we learn that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are in cahoots with radical Islam, Caitlyn Jenner’s gender transition is a hoax, Ferguson has unleashed a wave of criminals, and gays continue to destroy the nation.
Obama’s Muslim Plot
Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly explained in an interview with WorldNetDaily this week that President Obama is planning for the U.S. to take in Muslim refugees from war-torn nations such a Syria as part of his plan to wage “war on America,” knowing full well that Syrian refugees seek to “take over the world and establish their caliphate.”
“I don’t think he should let any Muslims in this country,” Schlafly said. “There is no reason why they should come in.” By permitting Muslim refugees to enter the U.S., Schlafly argued, “Obama is trying to absolutely change America by bringing in people who have no sympathy with what Americans believe.”
On her Eagle Forum blog, Schlafly also praised Ann Coulter’s new anti-immigrant screed “Adios America,” thanking Coulter for “alerting Americas to how Obama and the Democrats are destroying the land we love” by “diluting our population” with individuals “who commit all sorts of unspeakable crimes, in particular crimes against very young women and girls.”
Michael Savage joined in on the conspiracy theory, calling Obama a “con man shyster” who is attempting to destroy America by “injecting, like a virus, Muslims from Syria into all-white communities in America.” Obama, according to Savage, has also taken “infected children from Honduras and put them in every school district he could.”
Plenty of right-wing activists are upset about Caitlyn Jenner’s transition. But some have looked beyond the headlines to reveal the true conspiracy that’s afoot.
Alex Jones, host of “InfoWars”, hypothesized that Jenner’s announcement was actually just a plot to distract Americans from Obama’s mischievous, scheming ways. Jones declared that he does not “like being force-fed constantly this weird, one agenda. The obsession, it’s got to be from like five, six years, because I cover media, with the trannies and transvestites.”
“What’s behind the agenda?” Jones asked, revealing that the true agenda of the media is to not only distract us from Obama’s civil war but to “make the coolest thing to be” a “tranny or a transvestite” and glorify a “creepy old guy.”
Jones is not alone in his suspicions, as Cliff Kincaid of the conservative group Accuracy In Media wondered in Barbwire if Jenner’s transition was just “a hoax” to promote her upcoming TV show. Kincaid argued that the greatest threat is to children, criticizing Jenner’s supporters for sending an “extremely damaging” message. Kincaid made sure to warn us that “the nation may not survive, as it becomes a laughingstock before self-destructing or becoming easy pickings for a determined foreign adversary.”
While it may seem like Jenner is simply showing the world her authentic self, Kincaid urged us to question, “Where is the evidence that this is anything but a hoax?”
Hillary Clinton And Her Radical Muslim Cronies
The right loves to hate Hillary Clinton, and the latest conspiracy theories paint Clinton as a supporter and friend of “murderous Islamic thugs.” Rick Wiles, host of “Trunews,” spoke to Christopher Farrell of Judicial Watch Tuesday about his group’s claim that the U.S. compound in Benghazi was “arming Al Qaeda” and coordinating arms shipments to Islamic terrorists in Syria. While this connection may force some to then question why Islamic terrorists attacked the Benghazi compound in 2012, this question did not concern Wiles and Farrell.
Wiles compared the end of Gary Hart’s presidential campaign due to a photograph surfacing “of him with a pretty blonde sitting on his lap” to the apparent “murderous Islamic thugs sitting on the lap of Hillary Clinton.”
While a Republican-led investigation by the House Select Committee on Intelligence found Judicial Watch’s allegations about arm ships to Syria to be as credible as Hillary playing Santa with Islamic terrorists, Farrell and Wiles are not the only ones to remain unconvinced. David Horowitz, a far-right conservative activist, alleged in an interview with Newsmax TV on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, leaked information to the militants who killed four American diplomats in Benghazi. Clinton “got four people killed in Benghazi,” Horowitz argued. “She, you know, disclosed her private emails to Huma Abedin, a Muslim Brotherhood operative that showed where Ambassador Stephens was all the time, making him a perfect target.”
‘The Ferguson Effect”
Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal last Friday titled “The New Nationwide Crime Wave” and the effect has been a week of media outlets sounding the alarm. Apparently, the civil unrest that began after the killing of Michael Brown has flooded the country, inspiring widespread crime.
What this theory lacks in nuance it makes up for in cherry-picked statistics that create a misleading image of increased violence and death. Switching between comparing shootings, violent felonies, and gun-related homicides, Mac Donald argued that the U.S. is “in the grips of a hysteria against cops” and that “cops have gotten the message that they should back off policing,” causing the flood gates to open and crime to wash over the nation.
This tsunami of crime, claimed Mac Donald, is the fault of the “mainstream media, the university presidents talking about assaults on blacks and of course the president and former attorney general.”
Anti-Gay Conspiracy Of The Week
This week in anti-gay conspiracies, gay men are exporting sodomy “to the entire universe” and the prospect of gay marriage will destroy America and cause millions to flee and/or demand secession.
Mike Heath, former head of the Maine Family Policy Council and current blogger on BarbWire, warned that the “[gay] virus is spreading rapidly. It won’t be enough to pervert the whole world with this evil anti-family worldview. Since the developed governments of the world aspire to colonizing planets we have to prepare for the export of sodomy to other worlds—to the entire universe!” Referencing the Apostle Paul, Heath pointed out that “you can tell when a nation has become a walking corpse when it has endorsed perverted sex.”
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, in an interview with CNS News, had a similarly dire warning, claiming that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality would “literally cause the destruction of our country.” The court is “toying with something that’s like dynamite and will destroy our country,” he said.
If, however, by some stroke of luck America does not blow up following a ruling in favor of marriage equality, WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah promises that it would be met by secession and mass emigration. Farah wrote that “we need a Promised Land. We need and Exodus strategy.” He asked if there are “any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?” If governors cannot promise Farah this, he promised us there would be a “pilgrimage by millions of Americans” fleeing marriage equality.
CNS News posted an audio clip of part of the interview:
CNS News posted an audio clip of part of the interview: - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/roy-moore-gay-marriage-will-literally-cause-destruction-our-country#sthash.SG52o5UE.dpuf
Unsurprisingly, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly is a big fan of Ann Coulter’s new anti-immigrant screed “Adios America!”
In a rave review today, Schlafly hails Coulter for exposing how immigration is “diluting our population with people who don’t love America, don’t respect our Constitution and laws, don’t even speak our language, and commit all sorts of unspeakable crimes.”
She then goes into quite a bit of detail about these crimes, “in particular, crimes against very young women and girls.”
“Americans want our border closed to this flow of anti-American foreigners and criminals,” Schlafly concludes. “Thank you, Ann Coulter for alerting Americans to how Obama and the Democrats are destroying the land we love.”
Ann Coulter lives up to her reputation of issuing warnings and political comment that nobody else dares to say in her newest book, Adios, America! It’s aptly titled; she makes the case that it is Goodbye to the America we know and love if we don’t stop diluting our population with people who don’t love America, don’t respect our Constitution and laws, don’t even speak our language, and commit all sorts of unspeakable crimes.
Adios, America! brims with the scathing humor that has propelled Ann’s previous ten books into bestsellers.
Ann Coulter gives hundreds of specific examples of major crimes committed by illegal immigrants and, in particular, crimes against very young women and girls. She shows the devious ways that the media conceal the fact that these horrendous crimes are committed by illegals whom our government should never have let into our country.
The media cover-up doesn’t conceal merely the nationality of these criminals or the frequency of their crimes. The media cover-up also conceals the depravity of these crimes that are so horrific I can’t bring myself to describe them in this column.
Adios, America! spells out chapter and verse on the attitudes and customs of foreigners whom Obama is welcoming by the millions into America, including their horrific mistreatment of very young women and even some younger than teens. Where are the feminists when we need them to shout about the “war on women”?
A new Gallup poll reports that Americans are becoming more liberal on social issues. In fact, Americans are becoming more conservative on many social issues such as pro-life, so our candidates don’t have to take any more advice from those highly paid strategists who tell them to avoid mention of social issues.
Americans want our border closed to this flow of anti-American foreigners and criminals. Thank you, Ann Coulter for alerting Americans to how Obama and the Democrats are destroying the land we love.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily this weekend, conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly declared that the U.S.’s plans to take in refugees from Muslim countries, such as some who are fleeing Syria’s civil war, is in fact part of President Obama’s “war on America” and an attempt to help Muslims “take over the world and establish their caliphate.”
“I don’t think he should let any Muslims in this country,” Schlafly said. “There’s no reason why they should come in.”
President Obama is instigating a war on the United States, according to longtime conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly. But the president hasn’t dropped a bomb or fired a shot; rather, he has opened the country to tens of millions of immigrants and refugees from all over the world, including from Muslim countries that hate America.
“It is waging war on America,” Schlafly told WND. “Muslims would like to take over the world and establish their caliphate, and Obama has let so many Muslims in. I don’t think he should let any Muslims in this country. There’s no reason why they should come in.”
“Obama is trying to absolutely change America by bringing in people who have no sympathy with what Americans believe,” she declared. “They have no concept of limited government, of constitutional government, of rule of law, et cetera. There’s no reason we should let in people who don’t even like America.”
Schlafly, as always, is chiefly concerned with how immigrants will fit into the American social fabric.
“Anybody who comes in should have to renounce allegiance to his former country and accept the American way of life,” she declared. “And if he doesn’t want to do that, goodbye! Adios!”