Eagle Forum’s San Diego chapter is hosting a conference in June to unite conservatives in Democratic-leaning California before the upcoming election:
Tomorrow, Friday June 1, 4-9pm prominent national, state and local leaders will address hundreds of conservatives at the "Rise Up California" Eagle Forum San Diego Convention at Skyline Church in Rancho San Diego. The purpose of the convention is to gather, energize, educate, empower and activate conservative Californians 4 days prior to the primary, and into the November general election.
Brian Brown and Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage will also address the conference alongside Vision America’s Rick Scarborough, a birther and “Christocrat” who believes AIDS is part of God’s judgment and is working against the “sexual anarchy led by sodomites.” The NOM leaders’ appearance with Scarborough, who as Kyle noted earlier today mourned the decline of the white population, won’t help their attempts to distance NOM from a campaign memo based on sowing racial divisions and build a “rainbow coalition” to oppose the gay rights “storm.”
Joining them will be Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, the anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist who was banned from CPAC and the “Weyrich lunch” for his extremist views and attacks on fellow conservative leader Grover Norquist.
Another speaker is Dinesh D’Souza, who is turning his discredited book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, into a movie with the help of Republican megadonor Joe Ricketts, who recently had to drop a proposed plan to finance racially-charged ads linking President Obama to Jeremiah Wright.
Other activists appearing at the event include Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, Charles LiMandri of the far-right Thomas More Law Center, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for Vice President in 2008 Wayne Allyn Root, Dran Reese of the Salt and Light Council, and anti-environmentalist campaigner Holly Swanson.
Earlier we reported that James Dobson warned that the environmental movement is a “Satanic” effort to help radical Islamists and Cal Beisner claimed that the movement is modeling itself after Satan. Conservative talk show host and Eco-Tyranny author Brian Sussman appeared yesterday on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly and identified yet another sinister force behind the environmental movement. Sussman claims that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels not only created the environmental movement but also the nefarious, anti-capitalist and anti-Christian notion of man-influenced climate change. And now, Sussman says, they have a powerful disciple in the White House:
1883, you had two well-known left-wing thinkers who had a pretty big audience, these were people who hated capitalism and hated Christianity as well, they wanted to liquidate Christianity, they came up with a scenario, they said, ‘capitalism produces pollution and that pollution could change the climate and bring us into an ice age that would destroy all species.’
That was 1883, they put together this wild theory to destroy capitalism by scaring people of the coming ice age. Those two thinkers were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this was 1883. Might I just add Phyllis, the left hasn’t left this, first it was global cooling, then it was global warming, then it was global cooling, then it was global warming, and now it’s just a catchall phrase known as climate change and the fact of the matter is there isn’t substantial science to back any of these claims up.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their ilk, they don’t care about capitalism, they don’t care about free market opportunities, they want a planned and controlled economy because they believe that most of us our incapable of running our own lives and the scary thing is now, Phyllis, we have these people in all levels of government of the United States, including in the White House and the West Wing of the White House.
Yesterday, Eagle Forum’s Roger Schlafly, son of Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly, mourned the dip in the white birth rate because of its impact on “American values.” Today, Schlafly is upset about the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Quoting excerpts from an Associated Press article, Schlafly mocked VAWA proponents who think the law could “protect women from marrying men who like to get drunk and crazy” and for including protections for immigrants who can provide evidence of domestic abuse, writing, “We have an immigration policy that favors liars and whiners.” Schlafly went on to chastise Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), who discussed her ordeal in trying to “press charges against her rapist before the law’s passage,” maintaining that she simply “did not want to answer questions about whether she seduced the man.”
What VAWA is about
AP reports:WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans set up a showdown Wednesday with the Senate and President Barack Obama over legislation to protect women from domestic violence, a fight that's become as much about female voters this election year as cracking down on abuse.Really? Is that what the law is about? Is VAWA going to somehow use federal law to protect women from marrying men who like to get drunk and crazy?
"The man I married had a penchant for drinking and was very violent when he drank," the bill's sponsor, freshman Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., said during floor debate.Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore recalled what it was like to try to press charges against her rapist in the days before the law's passage.So she testified in court that a man raped her, but did not want to answer questions about whether she seduced the man. She wants a federal law to presume that men are guilty so that female accusers do not have to answer embarrassing questions.
"I took him to court (but) indeed, I was on trial," Moore said. "I had to prove, as a victim, that I was not being fraudulent in my accusations. They brought up how I was an unwed mother with a baby. Maybe I seduced him. They talked about how I was dressed."
Another hot VAWA issue is visas:Ronan and his allies argue that there's what he calls a "big national fraud" in which immigrant women claim to be abuse victims in order to gain residency or citizenship through the act, which can offer women permanent residency if they testify against abusive husbands.More and more foreign women are getting permanent USA visas by making unverified accusations of abuse. We have an immigration policy that favors liars and whiners.
The Violence Against Women Act actually offers two avenues for victims of abuse to seek immigration relief. Women in the US illegally can currently seek temporary visas if they are victims of domestic violence.
Roger Schlafly, son of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, today mourned on the Eagle Forum Blog a Census Bureau report showing that non-white births have now exceeded white births in the U.S. “It is not a good thing,” Schlafly said, warning that “immigrants do not share American values” and therefore “will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.” He went on to claim that “NY Times liberals seek to destroy the American family of the 1950s,” saying that immigrants “do not share” American values like working hard and self-sufficiency, and instead “will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.”
For decades, the NY Times has been promoting immigration policies that heavily favored a huge influx of non-whites. Today's lead story brags:
WASHINGTON — After years of speculation, estimates and projections, the Census Bureau has made it official: White births are no longer a majority in the United States.
Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 49.6 percent of all births in the 12-month period that ended last July, according to Census Bureau data made public on Thursday, while minorities — including Hispanics, blacks, Asians and those of mixed race — reached 50.4 percent, representing a majority for the first time in the country’s history.
The article goes on to quote experts who say that this is a wonderful thing, except for the facts that the Hispanic immigrants are uneducated and do not vote Democrat often enough.
It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.
Latinos, on the other hand, are squarely within their peak fertility, with a median age of 27, said Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center. Between 2000 and 2010, there were more Hispanic births in the United States than there were arriving Hispanic immigrants, he said.
The result is striking: Minorities accounted for 92 percent of the nation’s population growth in the decade that ended in 2010, Mr. Frey calculated, a surge that has created a very different looking America from the one of the 1950s, when the TV characters Ozzie and Harriet were a national archetype.
The NY Times liberals seek to destroy the American family of the 1950s, as symbolized by Ozzie and Harriet. The TV characters were happy, self-sufficient, autonomous, law-abiding, honorable, patriotic, hard-working, and otherwise embodied qualities that made America great. In other words, the show promoted values that NY Times liberals despise.
Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.
Yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted E. Ray Moore on Eagle Forum Live to discuss the Christian Reconstructionist film, “IndoctriNation,” about the supposedly destructive nature of the public school system. Moore called public schools the “main culprit” on why young adults leave the church, likening it to “playing Russian Roulette with your children’s souls.” Throughout the show he said parents are mandated by the Bible to homeschool their children to place them in Christian schools, saying that while public schools are “godless and pagan by precept and design,” there should be “God in the math class and in the science class as much as in the Bible class.”
Moore: We have so much research showing that Christian children who stay in these government schools through their career, 80% of them of what we would call evangelical Christians are adopting a secular humanist or Marxist/Socialist worldview. We also know that we’re having terrible attrition in the Christian family when children get to be college age, 70-80% of them are dropping out of the church and just abandoning the Christian faith, and we believe that the main culprit for that also is the fact that so many Christians have left their children in these public schools.
Schlafly: Well we’re told that the public schools are trying to be religiously neutral, do you think that’s true?
Moore: No they’re not religiously neutral, they’re godless and pagan by precept and design. That’s another myth that we have to deal with that somehow math and science are religiously neutral, no, we want God in the math class and in the science class as much as in the Bible class.
Moore: Our own research shows 17-20% of Christian children seemed to have survived the experience.
Schlafly: Those aren’t very good odds.
Moore: It’s playing Russian Roulette with your children’s souls is what you’re doing.
While the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is mired in scandal resulting from ERLC head Richard Land’s repeated plagiarism and inflammatory remarks on race, it has found time to criticize the Violence Against Women Act. Doug Carlson, manager for administration and policy communications for the ERLC, voiced the group’s opposition to the highly successful law because of new provisions that ensure that LGBT victims of domestic violence do not encounter discrimination while seeking help.
Carlson quoted a letter Richard Land signed along with Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, Jim Garlow of Renewing American Leadership Action, Tom McClusky of Family Research Council Action, C. Preston Noell of Tradition, Family, Property Inc., Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and Penny Nance and Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America.
Notably, the letter was also signed by conservative activist Timothy Johnson, who was convicted of a felony domestic violence charge and was arrested a second time for putting his wife in a wrist lock and choking his son, as reported by Sarah Posner.
Under the reauthorization, VAWA, as the bill is known, would spend vast sums of taxpayer money—more than $400 million each year—on programs that lack sufficient oversight and fail to address the core issue of protecting vulnerable women from abuse. Many of the programs duplicate efforts already underway. Among other problems, it would expand special protections to include same-sex couples. Men who are victimized by their male sexual partners would receive the benefit of the law above heterosexuals. And with broadened definitions of who qualifies for services, those who are most in need of the bill’s protections would have diminished access to it.
Pro-family groups, too, have been leveling attacks on the bill for months for its anti-family policies. Many of them expressed those concerns to the Judiciary Committee in February in hopes of derailing the bill. “We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans nationwide, are writing to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),” Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land, along with nearly two dozen other religious and conservative leaders, wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This nice-sounding bill is deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.”
“There is no denying the very real problem of violence against women and children. However, the programs promoted in VAWA are harmful for families. VAWA often encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence,” they added.
Regrettably, a slim majority of committee members rejected that counsel, ultimately approving the bill in February on a narrow 10-8 vote. Now the battle lies in the full Senate, where those opposed to the new VAWA are facing significant pressure to support it. Allies of the bill are tagging its opponents as waging a “war on women.”
But no matter how noble its title suggests, the Violence Against Women Act is the wrong answer to addressing ongoing domestic abuse. With a shortage of evidence to date of VAWA’s success in reducing levels of violence against women, the war to decrease such violence and to ultimately strengthen the family shouldn’t include reauthorizing a flawed policy that promises an expansion of the same.
Phyllis Schlafly is an all-around right-wing activist who has been around forever. You could say she was Tea Party before her time, railing against liberals and taxes and the UN's threat to US sovereignty. Her 2009 "How to Take Back America" conference was an amazing gathering at which health care reform was described as fascism, President Obama was described by Rep. Trent Franks as an "enemy of humanity," and attendees were encouraged to buy guns and ammo to defend themselves against impending tyranny.
But Schlafly’s real bread and butter is the hostility to feminism that fueled her campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment – and it was her anti-feminist schtick that she brought to George Washington University in D.C. last night. I use the word schtick because it’s hard to take seriously Schlafly’s caricature of feminists as anti-men, anti-marriage, anti-family, and anti-child-rearing, not to mention claims like these:
What? Feminists don’t believe women can be successful? That didn’t ring true to the many GW students, women and men, who politely protested Schlafly’s appearance. During the Q&A, one challenged Schlafly directly, saying her mother is a feminist, a role model of happiness, and had instilled in her children a love of family. The student said Schlafly seemed to be having a 40-year old argument with quotes plucked from early feminist writers.
Schlafly did have her admirers. The young woman who introduced her said Schlafly had given her an example of how to stand up against the emerging “gender-interchangeable society.” Schlafly returned to that theme later, saying that feminists don’t want equality for women, they want “gender interchangeability.”
Schlafly reveled in the recent flap about Ann Romney never having to work outside the home, since she saw it as proof that feminists have no respect for mothers who choose to answer to a husband rather than a boss. But Schlafly was not on message with the Romney campaign’s claims that women have accounted for almost all job losses during the Obama administration. Schlafly, who repeatedly claimed that the Obama administration is utterly controlled by feminists, “proved” her case by saying that feminists had successfully demanded that most jobs created by federal stimulus funds went to women.
Schlafly touched on a few other issues, such as her opposition to marriage equality (though she seemed to say she didn’t think civil unions were worth fighting about). And she pushed the same theme being pushed by Ralph Reed and other strategists trying to build a broad electoral coalition: you can’t separate fiscal and social conservatism. She took a shot at Mitch Daniels for seeking a “truce” on social values, something she called “impossible.”
In the end, she told the young women, they should get married before having babies, and they should ignore feminists who might poison their attitude toward life by telling them that women are victims of the patriarchy. She derided the notion of a "glass ceiling" and denied that unequal pay is a problem. Men, she said, are willing to do dangerous jobs that women aren't, because "women like nice inside jobs with carpeted offices." American women, she said, are the most fortunate people who have ever lived. Why, in Africa, she said, some women have to wash their clothing in the river. “We have all these wonderful modern conveniences that men have invented for our pleasure.”
Earlier this month, we posted a report on remarks that Phyllis Schlafly delivered to a class at The Citadel entitled the "Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America" during which she warned the cadets not to date feminists.
The Citadel has finally posted the video of Schlafly's appearance, which turned out to be an excruciatingly dull hour and forty five minutes of Schlafly railing against feminism and gay marriage and abortion to a group of cadets who, based on the question and answer session toward the end, clearly did not share many of her views.
The bulk of Schlafly's remarks was dedicated to recounting the rise of the conservative movement and her efforts to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, which she said was unnecessary because "women have had every constitutional right men have [had] since the day it was written" ... which seems like a rather odd statement considering that the Constitution had to be specifically amended to give women the right to vote.
We managed to grab a few "highlights" from Schlafly's remarks, such as we she said that feminism "is a bad word and everything they stand for is bad and destructive" because "American women are the most fortunate people who ever lived on this earth."
She then went on to explain that the true motive of feminists is to destroy the stay-at-home mother as a model because it gives men an advantage over women in the workplace. As Schlafly explained it, men have wives at home cooking them dinner and raising their children and the feminist "is insanely jealous of that [and since] she can't have a wife of her own, she wants to abolish the wife of the man."
Finally, she warned the cadets not to date women who are feminists, no matter how pretty they are and offered a surefire way to know whether a woman is a feminist or not - simply ask her how she feels about Phyllis Schlafly:
Intelligent Design activist Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute, who recently coauthored the book Indivisible with televangelist James Robison, appeared on Phyllis Schlafly’s radio program Eagle Forum Live this week where he argued that those who believe in individual rights and limited government should oppose the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. Richards maintained that stopping the legalization of same-sex marriage is needed to defend the rights of individuals, and argued that since marriage is “outside the jurisdiction of the state” same-sex couples cannot take part in it.
Richards: We argue that there are other pre-political realities besides just the individual that a limited government has to recognize and marriage is one of those realities, it’s a universal human institution, we find it in every time and place, in every culture, every religious tradition has this basic concept of marriage as between one man and one woman with a special connection to children. So a limited government is going to recognize that institution rather than try to redefine it, so that’s why we think, in fact, if you believe in limited government you need to believe in laws that protect marriage as it actually is historically. The institution of marriage is one of those things that is outside the jurisdiction of the state, so quite apart from the consequences, we think, if you believe that government should recognize individual rights, then you need to believe that the government is also going to recognize the rights and realities of this institution which it can’t dictate.
Here's an addition to our recap of right-wing direct mail, this time from Phyllis Schlafly, the long-time anti-feminist and all-around right wing activist. Like most of the other recent mail, the letter from Schlafly is about raising money with over-the-top rhetoric about the tyranny being visited upon America by President Obama. "He's taken control of your healthcare and stolen your money. Now he wants to dictate to your church," warns the envelope. "Stop Obama's War on Faith." Inside, more of the same:
The culture of dicatorship is rearing its ugly head. The forcef of imperial government and totalitarian treatment of American citizens are growing stronger every day.
Under the guise of "health care" and "tolerance" and "equality," Barack Obama is using all the power he can grasp in order to control how we live and what we believe. He is exploiting eveyr legal and illegal loophole to consolidate governmenet power into his own hands.
He's trying to control our standard of living by restricting our energy use. Hey's trying to control theminds of our children by imposing a national curriculum in the schools. And now, he's using his hated ObamaCare health law to assault religious liberty....
Let there be no doubt about it. Barack Obama is at war with the vast majority of Americans who believe in God and the freedom to worship. Now it the time for you and me to stand up for religious liberty....
If Obama wins this battle and gets his way, religiously affiliated hospitals, schools, colleges, and charities all over America will be forced to pay for abortion drugs, sterilization procedures, and contraceptives.
If Obama gets by with thisk you can be sure that the next steps will be ordering priests, ministers and rabbis to perform same-sex marriages. God will be stripped out of the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" will be banished to the dustbin of history."
Yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly traveled to South Carolina to speak to at The Citadel, which now offers a course entitled the "Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America."
Speaking to an all-male audience, Schlafly assured them that women don't care about the issue of contraception and warned them not to date feminists:
The recent political flap about contraception being an important issue for women is completely contrived by Democrats and the media to divert attention from abortion and other important issues, said conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly.
“Contraception is not controversial,” she said. “The issue is not access. It’s who’s going to pay for it.”
Most women are concerned about issues such as jobs and religious liberty, Schlafly said, not issues being drummed up by feminists to foster support for President Barack Obama.
And feminists are working through the media and other channels because the American public no longer seems to strongly support their agenda, Schlafly said. “Feminists are having a hard time being elected because they essentially are unlikable,” she said.
Schlafly talked to a group of Citadel students about the culture of conservatism and the history of the religious right. She told the all-male group that “feminist is a bad word and everything they stand for is bad.”
And she warned them about having personal relationships with feminists. “Find out if your girlfriend is a feminist before you get too far into it,” she said. “Some of them are pretty. They don’t all look like Bella Abzug.”
Today Phyllis Schlafly hosted Guy Rodgers of ACT! for America on Eagle Forum Live where Rodgers discussed his anti-Muslim group’s new report arguing that children have been “indoctrinated in Islam” by textbooks. Rodgers called on parents to follow the example of famed right-wing activists Mel and Norma Gabler to pressure schools into rejecting textbooks the group claims have a “pro-Islam” bias. “We need another Norma Gabler,” Schlafly said.
Of course, the Gablers were notorious textbook censors who attacked the inclusion of evolution and anything they deemed part of the liberals’ “mental child abuse.” Diane Ravitch writes in The Language Police that the Gablers went after any textbooks they believed “taught ‘humanism,’ sex-education, ‘one-worldism,’ ‘women’s lib,’ or the occult” or promoted “a religion of secular humanism, in violation of the Constitution.”
While both of the Gablers have passed away, their group, Educational Research Analysts, was instrumental in crafting a successful Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) resolution condemning the “pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias” that “has tainted some past Texas Social Studies textbooks.”
As the Texas Freedom Network points out, “the Gablers had prominent roles in the Texas textbook wars for decades before their deaths” and an Educational Research Analysts’ newsletter on the supposed anti-Christian bias in textbooks was released just one month before the state passed its September resolution. The newsletter blasted “both militant Islamic cultural jihadists (backed by Arab petrowealth in the U.S. textbook industry), and American academic secularists, in their com¬bined assault on Christianity in World History classes” and called on the SBOE to resist the “Allah-lobby,” while noting that “Christian conservative mastery of detail in Texas' textbook approval process is power”:
High school World History will thus fulfill the Texas Education Code's legislative intent better than U.S. History, whose new standards stress free-market benefits much less emphatically. The SBOE should now add that while U.S. History texts must stop ignoring Christianity, high school World History books must cease attacking it. In World History the SBOE should take action in the interna¬tional as well as the national culture war. It should check both militant Islamic cultural jihadists (backed by Arab petrowealth in the U.S. textbook industry), and American academic secularists, in their com¬bined assault on Christianity in World History classes.
Many wrongly think Texas’ SBOE can reject only those textbooks that meet less than 50% of its course content standards, flunk certain manufacturing guidelines, or contain factual errors. But it can also dump those that clearly conflict with basic democratic values. For the first time ever the SBOE should invoke that power to warn publishers not to pander to Islam against Christianity – long a festering malaise (see the Manifesto within here) – in their new high school World History submissions.Christian conservative mastery of detail in Texas' textbook approval process is power … as vital to identify textbooks that so prostitute themselves, as it is to abort their local adoption statewide. Texas' elected SBOE is the one viable national democratic proven check and balance on textbook publishers' otherwise seemingly-unslakeable lust to kowtow to Allah-lobby conceits. All the oil money in Arabia cannot actually sell into American schools a book rejected by Texas' elected SBOE in response to documentation by knowledgeable citizen-voters
Yesterday the US Senate voted 51-48 to kill the Blunt Amendment to the transportation bill that would have given employers the right to deny insurance coverage for any treatment that they objected to for any reason, representing a major setback for Religious Right groups who urged passage of the extreme amendment.
Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink called the vote an affront to the First Amendment, although it is hard to see how anyone’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is being violated:
“Today the government, this time via Congress, again told Americans they must ‘conform or pay a price’ when it comes to their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion,” he said. “Americans are speaking out because they understand that they should not be forced to fight to protect what the Constitution already grants them under the First Amendment.”
The Obama Administration has issued an initial mandate that requires nearly all employers to purchase plans that cover all FDA-approved methods of birth control. NRLC has pointed out that the same authority could be employed by the Administration in the future to order virtually all health plans to cover all abortions. The focus now shifts to the House, where the same legislation, introduced as H.R. 1179 by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Ne.), currently has 220 cosponsors (more than half of all House members). In addition, numerous lawsuits have been filed by religiously affiliated employers, challenging the Obama mandate as a violation of constitutional rights and of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
"National Right to Life will continue to challenge the Obama Administration's abortion-expansionist agenda on Capitol Hill, and we will encourage millions of like-minded Americans to remember this issue when they cast their ballots in November," said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president.
Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly said that contraceptives “are not really medical care”:
"The contraceptive mandate is an introduction to the real ObamaCare, whereby a handful of leftists in D.C. impose the views of their big-money donors on more than 300 million Americans," said Schlafly. "If the Obama Administration's contraceptive mandate remains intact, then liberals will continue to demand that Americans pay for objectionable items and services that are not really medical care."
Tony Perkins of FRCAction warned that the Constitution has been “sacrificed”:
"Today, 51 senators, led by Sen. Harry Reid, sacrificed the Constitutional right of religious liberty on the altar of the Obama administration's radical big-government agenda. They turned a deaf ear to the very real religious and moral objections of millions of Americans and the First Amendment rights of all.
Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance maintained that the mandate was part of a growing “oppressive federal bureaucracy”:
"America's women refuse to accept this unconstitutional government order," said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America. The Obama Administration's HHS Mandate demolishes our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and conscience rights."
"Churches, religious organizations, and people of faith and conscience must have the right to choose their own health care and make their own moral decisions without having to submit to the one size fits all policies of President Obama and Secretary Sebelius' oppressive federal bureaucracy," Nance said.
Whenever we see the Religious Right collectively begin to cite some new tale of government overreach and/or Christian persecution at some public school, the name "Raymond Raines" comes to mind.
As we've explained before, back in the 1990's, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and the entire conservative community were outraged about an incident in which a student named Raymond Raines had supposedly been sentenced to a week of detention for simply praying before eating his lunch in the cafeteria of an elementary school in St. Loius.
Of course, it was entirely untrue, as Raines had actually been disciplined for fighting.
So now, whenever we start seeing Religious Right groups cite a story like this one out of North Carolina about a four year-old preschool student who supposedly had her homemade lunch confiscated by a Department of Health and Human Services employee for not being healthy enough and was forced to eat school-approved chicken nuggets instead ... well, we get a little suspicious.
So far, the story has been promoted by the Eagle Forum and the Family Research Council, which sees it as proof that "the Left's goal is not just to control you. The goal is to control your children. And the more authority it can siphon away from parents, the better its chances are."
Gary Bauer also featured it in his daily email, declaring "welcome to Obama's brave new world. If the government can force us to buy specific products, force religious institutions to violate their values and send lunchbox inspectors to sort through our kids' food, Chinese-style 'commissars' are in our future."
And, never one to be outdone, Bryan Fischer was apoplectic that Michele Obama's army of Brownshirt/Stormtrooper/Stasi thugs are out there confiscating the lunches of little children:
Now, who among us will be surprised to learn that this whole thing is false and all of this outrage is rooted in the misunderstanding of one little girl?
School and state officials say a misunderstanding resulted in a West Hoke Elementary School preschooler's homemade lunch being replaced with chicken nuggets.
An agent from the Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Child Development and Early Education was at the school Jan. 30 assessing the pre-kindergarten program, said Bob Barnes, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction for Hoke County schools.
The agent examined the lunches for the six students in the class and believed one did not meet nutritional requirements spelled out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Barnes said.
According to the USDA, schools are required to provide lunches that include one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
The 4-year-old, whose name was not released, brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice.
The Department of Health and Human Services declined to say which requirement was not provided in the child's lunch.
The girl thought she had to go through the lunch line for a new meal, Barnes said.
The Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement that it is investigating. In the statement, the department denies that its employee inspected the lunch and denies instructing "any child to replace or remove any meal items."
Typically, if a teacher sees a student with a lunch that does not meet the nutritional requirements, he or she will offer the child the missing components free of charge, Barnes said.
In this instance, Barnes said, the girl misunderstood her instructor and believed she had to get a new lunch rather than receive an additional element.
Rule of thumb: The amount of outrage being generated among the Religious Right to any given story is generally inversely proportional to the truth of said story.
Pyllis Schlafly had David Noebel, founder of Summit Ministries, on her Eagle Forum Live radio program on Monday to talk about the ongoing threat of communism to America and the world. When a listener called in to complain that communist-hunter Joseph McCarthy is now “demonized” in schools, Schlafly and Noebel agreed that McCarthy was, in fact, a “hero”:
Caller: I remember learning in school about McCarthyism, and they demonized him, essentially, is what they did. And probably he was more of a hero than he was a villain. So I just wanted to get you guys’ take on that. Thanks.
Schlafly: Well, plenty of us thought he was a hero. What about you, David Noebel?
Noebel: I think he was a hero. Now look, I was born in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Remember, he was from Appleton, Wisconsin, just 20 miles away. He was a hero.
Later in the program, Noebel warned that the central tenets of communism have been “nearly fulfilled” in the United States today:
Noebel: If you read the manifesto, the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, Marx and Engels come out with no God, no private property, no family – traditional family – no inheritance, graduated income tax, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. In fact, if you read the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, you’ll be surprised at how we have nearly moved into every one of those areas. And later on, about 1958, Cleon Skousen came out with a book called “The Naked Communist,” and he listed 45 goals in 1958 of the communists and today we have nearly fulfilled every one of them. So people say, ‘This can’t happen.’ But it’s happening right in front of us. Right in front of us, and we can’t even…we just don’t seem to see it.
Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly today applauded a Canadian court for ruling that the government does not have to recognize polygamous marriages, which she used to make an argument against marriage equality for gays and lesbians:
The Canadian courts have legalized same-sex marriage. Will they legalize polygamy, too? After all, if consenting adults should be able to marry anybody they like, then why should same-sex marriage be allowed but not polygamy?
Many libertarians now insist that government should get out of the business of marriage, and not prohibit same-sex marriage. But if government lets everyone do what they like, then that would presumably include allowing polygamy. This issue was presented to an appellate court in British Columbia, a province of Canada. And it delivered a resoundingly pro-marriage decision, and upheld Canada’s 121-year ban on polygamy.
The Court held that “the institution of monogamous marriage [is] a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times.” Its 335-page opinion cited numerous ways in which polygamy causes harm to society, from higher rates of abuse to greater emotional problems, to underachievement by the children in schools. The Court traced the history of monogamous marriage between one man and one woman back to the ancient world, observing that from 600 B.C. to the 500s A.D. “marriage was understood as a union between a man and a woman presumptively for life” and that “by the ninth century, Byzantine emperors had decreed polygamy a capital offence.”
The Court pointed out that in the United States, in the mid-1800s, “Polygamy and slavery were considered to be among the ‘twin relics of barbarism,’” and that the American “Congress has ‘the right and the duty to prohibit’ this ‘odious institution.’” Those principles were established by the Republican Party platform of 1856. An appeal of this recent polygamy decision is expected eventually to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. That court previously established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage so no one knows what it will do.
But the decision Schlafly just praised actually makes the case why the legalization of same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy.
In the ruling, the judge answers Schlafly’s question “why should same-sex marriage be allowed but not polygamy?” He argues that monogamous same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy “because committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage” and dismisses Schlafly’s claim as an “alarmist view” that “misses the whole point,” as “the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage”:
[M]ore importantly, this line reflects, again, the pre-eminent place that the institution of monogamous marriage takes in Western culture and, as we have seen, Western heritage over the millennia. When all is said, I suggest that the prohibition in s. 293 is directed in part at protecting the institution of monogamous marriage. And let me here recognize that we have come, in this century and in this country, to accept same-sex marriage as part of that institution. That is so, in part, because committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage.
The alarmist view expressed by some that the recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage will lead to the legitimization of polygamy misses the whole point. As Maura Strassberg, Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, points out in “Distinctions of Form or Substance: Monogamy, Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage” (1997) North Carolina L.R. 1501 at 1594, the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage as revised to conform to modern norms of gender equality. This counters, as well, the argument advanced by many, that “in this day and age” when we have adopted expansive views of acceptable marriage units and common law living arrangements, the acceptance of polygamy, or at least the abandonment of its criminal prohibition, is the next logical step. This is said in the context of the sentiment often expressed that the “State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation”. Here, I say it does when in defence of what it views is a critical institution - monogamous marriage - from attack by an institution - polygamy - which is said to be inevitably associated with serious harms.
Last week on Eagle Forum Live, Phyllis Schlafly’s guest host Bill Borst had WorldNetDaily researcher Brenda J. Elliott on to discuss her new book written with WND’s Aaron Klein. The book, Red Army, is the sequel to their book The Manchurian President. Red Army purportedly exposes “a radical socialist movement has been quietly infiltrating the major institutions of American power” and “the multipronged policy offensive aimed at disarming America.” Elliott told Borst that President Obama is merely a “useful idiot” of this shadowy, socialist network and didn’t hold back on the book’s conspiratorial nature, exclaiming, “it is a conspiracy!” “The word conspiracy theory has been really distorted,” Elliott said, “it’s been made to sound like something loony, and it’s not loony, it’s not loony!”
Borst: Brenda we were talking about President Barack Obama and the “Red Army,” how important is he to this army? Is he like the leader? Or is he a mere commissar or just a peon, so to speak?
Elliott: He’s a useful idiot. He doesn’t bring anything to the table except for a willingness to go along with the agenda. You could’ve plugged in somebody else but he’s just a guy who was in the right place at the right time.
Borst: They want to cripple America I guess, right?
Elliott: Absolutely. America, you know, is just too good of a country, we’re just too arrogant and we need to lower our standards to help out other country so they can prosper as well. Barack Obama has set back American history and American exceptionalism to almost day one, it’s very frightening. Do we have an absolute reason for why they want to do this? Stupidity is my answer. Honestly folks it is a conspiracy, two people is all it takes for a conspiracy and an intent to make something happen, that’s a conspiracy. The word conspiracy theory has been really distorted, it’s been made to sound like something loony, and it’s not loony, it’s not loony!