National Review

'If America Laughs At This, America Is Beyond Redemption': The Right Reacts To Abortion Comedy 'Obvious Child'

Last week, I saw a screening of “Obvious Child,” the new rom-com starring Jenny Slate in which the main character gets an abortion and makes some dark jokes about it and, surprise, ends up okay.

A couple of the questions at the Q&A following the screening with Slate and the film’s director Gillian Robespierre were about the anti-choice reaction to the film. A few days before the film hit wide release, there hadn’t been much, except for a few initial whimpers of dissent when the film screened at Sundance.

But that’s starting to change as anti-choice groups get wind of the movie and find it to be promoting “evil” and putting America “beyond redemption.”

Arina Grossu of the Family Research Council told the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal this week that she was “appalled that the evil of abortion is now the subject of a ‘romantic comedy.’ “

Arina Grossu, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, told The Daily Signal that she is “appalled that the evil of abortion is now the subject of a ‘romantic comedy.’

Grossu, who has not yet seen the film, has a different take.

“The movie attempts to gloss over the gravity of abortion,” she said. “But no amount of acting or short-lived laughs can take away the reality that abortion is a grave moral evil that kills one person and wounds the other.”

Jillian Kay Melchior, writing in the National Review Online, bashes the film formaking such a difficult physical and metaphysical decision into a cheap joke, with dead babies as the punchline.”

Obvious Child is kind of funny sometimes but not that funny — which is not the film’s main problem. Obvious Child is reprehensible because, through tasteless and unsubtle humor, it trivializes something that’s of grave importance for pro-choice and pro-life women alike.

Robespierre does no favor to women by making such a difficult physical and metaphysical decision into a cheap joke, with dead babies as the punchline. In trivializing abortion so radically, she infantilizes women and undermines the feminism she purports to endorse.

LifeSiteNews went with sarcasm: “Finally, a movie that presents the murder of an innocent as the laugh riot it is!”

“Has Hollywood hit a new low?”asked the Daily Caller.

And Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center took the long view, warning, “If America laughs at this, America is beyond redemption.”

The feminist film critics can exhale now. Someone has finally concocted their dream movie: an "abortion comedy." Because apparently nothing sounds funnier than an unplanned one-night stand and a courageous destruction of God's most beautiful and most innocent creation.

It's called "Obvious Child." Feminist lingo sells this monstrosity.

Rolling Stone magazine described one scene of allegedly hilarious "empowerment" between female characters. "You're going to kill it," Donna's best friend Nellie says before a standup comedy set the night before her abortion. "Tomorrow I am," Donna replies, and "the two unravel in sheepish giggles.

If America laughs at this, America is beyond redemption.

Of course, to sell the movie, they oddly claim this abortion-advocating movie doesn't have an agenda. "Our film is not an agenda movie in any way," Slate told Rolling Stone. "The whole point is that women have this procedure, and they should have it safely, and it's a part of life. It doesn't have to be this giant obelisk sticking out." That is not an agenda, no siree.

A little murder is a part of life. A little life matters not at all.

Feminists like these movie-makers don't see a moral dilemma. They see abortion as a natural part of the daily grind. You wake up, you get an abortion, you have a cheeseburger. The critics call this a "refreshing matter-of-factness" about abortion.

It can also be described as feminist nihilism. The selfishness and autonomy of the woman is paramount, and the accidental baby is just cannon fodder. When the murder of the innocents is celebrated as comedy, civil society is destroyed.

Of course, with the exception of Melchior, none of these critics seem to have actually seen the movie that Bozell claims will destroy America.

Gaffney & McCarthy: Obama 'Contemptuous' of, 'Taking Out a Contract On' Constitution

The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and National Review columnist Andy McCarthy were unimpressed with President Obama’s second inaugural address, despite all its references to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. On yesterday’s edition of Secure Freedom Radio, McCarthy told Gaffney that the president is “taking out a contract on the Constitution as we know it.” Gaffney responded that the president “wrapped himself in a sort of nostalgia for the Constitution” while in fact being “rather contemptuous of it.”

McCarthy: I think what Obama’s trying to do -- and a lot of us who followed his career warned about this back in 2007, 2008 -- is really consummate the ambition of FDR to change the very nation of the American system, and certainly to change the nature of our constitutional framework from a charter of negative liberties, which is the protection of the American people against the adhesions and the extreme maneuvers of government, to basically a contract of the have-nots against the haves with government as the intermediary for demanding what government must do for people. With the big problem with that being, number one, what is your license to take from me, which is certainly not what the country was founded on. And number two, enough is never enough with the left. So even if you were to institute such a system it quickly becomes unsustainable.

Gaffney: Yeah, I take it you don’t mean “contract” in the sense of “taking out a contract” on somebody, but it certainly sounds as though that might be the gist.

McCarthy: It’s certainly taking out a contract, it’s taking out a contract on the Constitution as we know it.

Gaffney: Yeah. Even as we talked about with Dr. Paul Kengor earlier, and even as he wrapped himself in sort of nostalgia for the Constitution, he certainly showed himself to be rather contemptuous of it.

Gaffney: 'People For the Islamist Way' Advancing 'Red-Green Axis'

Frank Gaffney hosted Andrew McCarthy of the National Review yesterday on Secure Freedom Radio where he warned that People For the American Way is “promoting the Islamist agenda in the attack on Michele Bachmann” and should really be called the “People For the Islamist Way.”

PFAW recently delivered a petition opposing Bachmann’s reappointment to the House Intelligence Committee due to her long history of making extremist claims including her recent charge that Muslim Brotherhood agents have “penetrated” the U.S. government, a conspiracy that Gaffney helped concoct.

McCarthy joined Gaffney to defend the Minnesota congresswoman, who smeared Muslim-Americans in government including Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin, and once again argue that Bachmann is the real victim. He said that PFAW and other progressive groups have “decided to ‘bork’” Bachmann “because she has been so effective.” Gaffney said that the petition was part of the “red-green axis” that exists “between the left and the Islamists.”

Apparently, the PFAW-Islamist conspiracy must go all the way to the top of the Republican Party as Speaker John Boehner; Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC); House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chair Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) have all strongly denounced Bachmann’s allegations.

Gaffney: Let’s start with a woman that I think we both admire, who has been vilified in both Democratic and Republican circles, shamefully, for having had the courage to speak the truth about a problem that you have documented, most especially involving the woman that I guess caused so much controversy when Michele Bachmann and four of her colleagues asked the perfectly reasonable question: how did Huma Abedin with her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood get a security clearance and what influence is she having on policy? Give us your read on the fact that the so-called People For the American Way and I must say it sounds much more like it’s the People For the Islamist Way is up to when they try through a very substantially subscribed-to petition to have Michele Bachmann thrown off the Intelligence Committee in the House?

McCarthy: Well it seems to me Frank that it means that Michele has irritated all the right people who ought to be irritated. The American people ought to understand since we’re talking about People For the American Way that that organization is a contrivance of a far-left television icon of the 1970s and 80s named Norman Lear who was instrumental in the slander of Judge Robert Bork, so much of a slander that Judge Bork’s name became a verb in our modern lexicon and Michele Bachmann is the latest person that the left has decided to ‘bork’ because she has been so effective and because she’s been a staunch defender of American national security.



Gaffney: Andy McCarthy you have also drilled down in your writings about the axis, some call it the red-green axis, between the left and the Islamists. This certainly seems to be a prime example of it as you say with Norman Lear’s background and the role that they are playing and in this instance promoting the Islamist agenda in the attack on Michele Bachmann.

Andy McCarthy Describes Frank Gaffney's Claims as 'Nutty,' Then Denies Doing So

National Review columnist Andy McCarthy held a press conference today alongside Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy to defend the credibility of Michele Bachmann’s anti-Muslim witch hunt. However, McCarthy got tripped up after Nick Sementelli of Faith in Public Life asked him about Gaffney, who introduced McCarthy at the briefing, and his extremist views.

Gaffney is a birther, and in fact he dedicated an entire radio program to promote the birther conspiracy, and also thinks that President Obama may be a Muslim:

What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, “much has been made” — in this case by him and his campaign handlers — of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.

With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech”), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.

When Sementelli asked McCarthy about Gaffney’s claims, McCarthy went on to call such views “nutty” but then denied that he was referring to Gaffney.

Watch as McCarthy stutters through his answer and attempts to Sementelli’s questions:

Second White Nationalist Writing for Dow Jones’ MarketWatch

This has been a bad week for white nationalists at National Review – John Derbyshire was fired over the weekend and Robert Weissberg was fired on Wednesday. Both men were also contributors at VDARE, the white nationalist website run by Peter Brimelow, who moonlights at Dow Jones’ MarketWatch when he isn’t calling for end to immigration or promoting racial theories about genetic inferiority. 

Brimelow is already rallying to the defense of Derbyshire and Weissberg, but with any luck he’ll be able to land them jobs at MarketWatch like he did another of his white nationalist collaborators – Edwin Rubenstein. Rubenstein, an economic consultant, is a frequent contributor to MarketWatch and VDARE. He also provides research and analysis for the National Policy Institute, which was founded in 2005 to “elevate the consciousness of whites, ensure our biological and cultural continuity, and protect our civil rights.” Here’s NPI’s “about” page:
 
Rubenstein’s writing at VDARE seems to focus on three themes:
  • Americans (i.e. European whites) are on the verge of losing their country if they don’t take drastic steps to stop immigration
  • Education and affirmative action won’t help blacks and Hispanics because they can’t, or won’t, improve and assimilate
  • Not only are blue collar whites getting crushed by immigration, but so are white professionals, including doctors and PHDs in the sciences
This partial archive of Rubenstein’s writing for MarketWatch, which he does in conjunction with Brimelow, shows that he’s been working for them since 2003. That’s also when he began writing for VDARE.
 
MarketWatch, part of News Corporation’s Dow Jones division, has thus far refused to comment on why they employ a disgraced white nationalist leader who was fired back in 1998 from the right-wing National Review over his racist views and writing. Now it turns out that they employ not one – but two – prominent white nationalists. They have some explaining to do.
 
I’ve collected some of Rubenstein’s greatest hits on VDARE. Since the entire site has been temporarily given over to a fundraising appeal by Brimelow, I’ll instead link to Google cache versions of the articles:

 

 

White Nationalist Leader Peter Brimelow Still Working for Dow Jones’ MarketWatch

On Tuesday I wrote about John Derbyshire’s firing from National Review over a racist screed he authored for another publication. I also noted that prominent white nationalist Peter Brimelow, of VDARE.com and Alternative Right, was rallying support for Derbyshire. Brimelow has posted an update on VDARE saying that he’s spoken with Derbyshire, who “has agreed to start a weekly column for us as soon as his health allows—maybe as soon as next week! Help us pay him as much as possible!” 

Brimelow himself served as senior editor at National Review from 1993 until he was purged in 1998 for his white nationalist views. He then founded VDARE as safe-space of a different sort – one where racists, bigots, and hereditarians could meet and share their views. It’s no surprise then that Derbyshire, who was also purged for white nationalist views, would land at VDARE.
 
What is surprising is that Brimelow is still writing for Dow Jones’ MarketWatch, whose management knows full well about Brimelow’s other activities. You may recall that Brimelow made a controversial appearance in February at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Conference organizers preemptively distanced themselves from Brimelow, who spoke out against both illegal and legal immigration:
Brimelow participated on a panel discussion called "The failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening American Identity" at CPAC on Thursday. During the panel discussion, Brimelow and other panelists said immigration is polluting America. […]
 
Brimelow, an immigrant from Great Britain, said he's opposed to not only illegal immigration, but legal immigration too. He said it is creating a "Spanish speaking underclass parallel to the African American underclass."
 
"These are people who are completely dysfunctional. They're on welfare; they're not doing any kind of work - at least not legal work - and their children are having a terrible time. They're dropping out of school; there's an increase in teenage pregnancy," Brimelow said. […]
 
California is "rapidly turning into hispanic slum." He said California used to be "paradise" but is now "totally overrun by barrios of illegal immigrants."
Following the panel, Mark Lacter of LA Observed and Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider both asked aloud why MarketWatch was employing a white nationalist organizer as a columnist. Both then reached out to MarketWatch about Brimelow and said they’d update their posts when they heard back. That was in February. As of today – there are no updates, and Brimelow is still writing twice weekly for MarketWatch:
 
 
Brimelow’s MarketWatch column focuses on the stock market, gold prices and economic forecasting, and it must be said that Brimelow was once a full-time financial journalist. In fact, he was as an editor for years at Fortune, Forbes, Influence and the Financial Post and served as economic counsel for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). But in the early 90s he transitioned from business to politics, serving as senior editor at National Review, and by the late 90s he was a professional white nationalist.
 
Once Brimelow made that transition, he lost legitimacy and found that previously open doors had been closed. National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in 2007 that “Brimelow regularly whines about his justly stalled career.” Stalled, that is, with the exception of MarketWatch.
 
The question – already asked by Business Insider and LA Observed – remains: Why is Dow Jones’ MarketWatch employing a white nationalist? And not just any white nationalist, but a national racist organizer who is riding to the rescue of John Derbyshire, who was fired by the right-wing National Review for penning a “nasty and indefensible” column about why whites should avoid contact with blacks.

UPDATE: Ask MarketWatch directly at @MarketWatch

John Derbyshire and National Review – What Took So Long?

Over the weekend, National Review editor Rich Lowry ended the magazine’s long relationship with contributing editor John Derbyshire (“Derb”) over a racist article he wrote for another publication: 

His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise.
Lowry is certainly right to call Derbyshire’s piece “nasty and indefensible,” but I’m not so sure about his claim that National Review would never associate itself with such views. After all, they’ve been associated for years with people who hold such views, despite efforts to purge the magazine of so-called paleo-conservatives.
 
Here’s a taste of the article that got Derbyshire fired, which consisted of a list of suggested items for white and Asian parents to tell their teenage sons:
  • (10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
  • (10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
  • (10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
  • 10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
  • (10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
  • (10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
  • (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
Back in February, Derbyshire appeared on the notorious CPAC panel on the “Failure of Multiculturalism,” which featured prominent white nationalist Peter Brimelow. Brimelow himself was a senior editor at National Review from 1993 until he was purged by William F. Buckley, Jr in 1998. He then went on to found VDARE.com, which he named after the first white child born in the Americas to English parents.
 
At CPAC, Derbyshire argued that society could avoid disaster and racial violence by accepting that some groups (e.g. blacks) are inherently inferior and other groups (e.g. whites) are inherently superior. Once society accepted this premise, Derbyshire argued, individuals would be happier and know their stations in life:
Imagine you are a member of a group that, in the generality, underachieves socially and economically: a black in the U.S.A., an Inuit in Canada, a Pacific Islander in New Zealand, even a Malay in Malaysia. If the Standard Model is true, the only possible explanation for your group's underachievement is malice on the part of other groups. Hence the rancor, resentment, rage, and division.
 
If, on the other hand, group underachievement is a consequence of the laws of biology working on human populations, there is no blame to assign. The fact of group inequalities, even in societies that have striven mightily to remove them, is as natural and inevitable as individual inequality, which nobody minds very much. The only proper object of blame is Mother Nature; and she is capable of inflicting far worse things on us than mere statistical disparities between ancient inbred populations.
 
Under a reigning philosophy of candor and realism, each of us can strive to be the best he can be, to play as best he can the hand he's been dealt, in liberty and equality under the law.
The CPAC speech, which was published verbatim on VDARE, is arguably even more offensive and racist than the one that got him fired, but it wasn’t as explicit. The National Review apparently tolerates racism so long as there’s a sheen of intellect or sophistication. Derbyshire made the mistake of being too honest about his extremist views, and Lowry was forced to act.
 
UPDATE: Peter Brimelow is currently running a fundraising appeal on VDARE that suggests that National Review editors knew about Derbyshire's racist inclinations and were keeping him on a short leash: "Without betraying confidences, I hope that John Derbyshire will resume writing for us—he was prevented from doing so by NR’s current degenerate (and fearful) management."

 

After 9th Circuit Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional, Marriage Equality Opponents Look to the Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.



A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”



“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

After 9th Circuit Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional, Marriage Equality Opponents Look to the Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.



A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”



“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

Religious Right Reacts To Komen's Latest Statement with Confusion, Anger and Warnings of God's Wrath

In the world of Religious Right activists, waging a campaign to convince the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut funding to breast cancer exams at Planned Parenthood clinics is an admirable exercise of public advocacy, but when people join a campaign to convince the Komen foundation to continue their partnership with Planned Parenthood to fight breast cancer, it’s “gangsterism.”

After Komen released a statement that opened the door to maintain its ties to the women’s health organization, Planned Parenthood said it is “heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women” and “enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria.”

The uproar not only resulted in a huge black eye to Komen but also helped Planned Parenthood raise over $3 million to protect their breast health program from cuts. Moreover, the controversy exposed the Religious Right’s unabashed glee that tens of thousands of women would lose access to breast exams and gave them another opportunity to rekindle the debunked claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer.

But their excitement at women losing access to cancer screenings seems to be fading with the new statement from Komen.

Mona Charen of the National Review Online lamented that “it’s extremely disappointing that Komen has caved” but “it’s hardly surprising given the onslaught they’ve endured over the course of the last few days,” and NRO’s Daniel Foster charged Planned Parenthood with “gangsterism.” Of course, just days prior Kathryn Jean Lopez on NRO hailed Komen’s initial decision as a major victory, noting “this Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists.”

Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative (C-Fam) president Austin Ruse told LifeSiteNews called potentially successful effort to have the Komen foundation reverse their decision defunding Planned Parenthood a “mafia shakedown”:

Pro-life leaders say that the exact import of the statement is not yet clear, and that Komen seems to be asking for breathing room, possibly with the intention of caving in definitively to pro-abortion pressure.

Austin Ruse of C-Fam told LifeSiteNews.com Friday morning that, “The mafia shakedown tactics may have worked, but we’re not sure.”

Ruse advised that pro-lifers should “take a wait and see attitude” to discern whether the pro-abortion pushback against Komen would succeed.

Kristen Walker of Live Action called it a “terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood” and wondered what will happen to all the money people gave to Komen to reward them for dropping Planned Parenthood:

If raising money to cure breast cancer were their primary concern, they would not have reversed this decision. Their donations went up 100% in the short time since they announced the halting of grants to PP as pro-lifers who have refused to donate to Komen opened their wallets to thank them for their decision, happy to finally be able to give to their good work of fighting breast cancer with a clear conscience. I wonder if Komen has given any thought to the fact that those people gave money in good faith believing it wouldn’t be used to fund abortions. Will they refund that money? I guess we’ll see.



It is a terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood. It is a terrible shame they’re allowing PP and its followers to compromise their mission to cure breast cancer.

Evangelist Bill Keller warned that the latest move by the Komen foundation may well lead to “the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment”:

Keller said, "It only shows the level of spiritual decay in this nation when a private foundation who made a decision to stop giving money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, causes the media, politicians, and the supporters of killing babies to go into a wild frenzy. The Catholic Church has always stood for the sanctity of life, yet Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, were livid that the Komen Foundation decided to stop giving a $250,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood."



Keller concluded, "You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know that we are on the verge of seeing the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment. Every 24 hours we slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent babies. Where is the outrage about that in the media, in the halls of Congress? Sadly, society doesn't even give it a second thought and has fully embraced this 'culture of death' which hangs over this nation like a black cloud."

UPDATE: Liberty Counsel Action is now urging its members to cancel any donations they made to Komen, with Matt Barber arguing that the group should change their name to “Susan G. Komen for the Cause,” pushing the discredited charge that abortion is linked to breast cancer:

The reversal comes on the heels of news that Komen’s donations jumped 100% after deciding to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider that is currently under criminal investigation in multiple venues. Liberty Counsel Action is encouraging its members to cancel any checks and credit card contributions made in the wake of Komen’s initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood and asking any pro-life participants in Komen’s June 2 Global Race for the Cure run in Washington, D.C. to withdraw.

Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, says that anyone who sincerely wants to contribute to the fight against breast cancer has dozens if not hundreds of other options from hospitals to other nonprofit organizations, but Komen should be off the list.

“It’s a sad day for those who both seek a breast cancer cure and who respect the dignity of all human life,” said Barber. “Susan G. Komen for the Cure should recognize that abortion is not a cure for anything. Perhaps they should change the name to Susan G. Komen for the Cause. What a tragic paradox. There is mounting medical evidence that indicates abortion significantly increases the risk for breast cancer.”

Calling Komen’s decision “the coward’s way out,” Barber said that the decision to once again partner with Planned Parenthood was nothing more than capitulation to “tremendous left-wing political pressure.”

“They have chosen death over life – cancer over cure,” said Barber. “Instead of showing courage, they caved. Komen is now part of the breast cancer problem rather than the solution.”

Religious Right Reacts To Komen's Latest Statement with Confusion, Anger and Warnings of God's Wrath

In the world of Religious Right activists, waging a campaign to convince the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut funding to breast cancer exams at Planned Parenthood clinics is an admirable exercise of public advocacy, but when people join a campaign to convince the Komen foundation to continue their partnership with Planned Parenthood to fight breast cancer, it’s “gangsterism.”

After Komen released a statement that opened the door to maintain its ties to the women’s health organization, Planned Parenthood said it is “heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women” and “enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria.”

The uproar not only resulted in a huge black eye to Komen but also helped Planned Parenthood raise over $3 million to protect their breast health program from cuts. Moreover, the controversy exposed the Religious Right’s unabashed glee that tens of thousands of women would lose access to breast exams and gave them another opportunity to rekindle the debunked claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer.

But their excitement at women losing access to cancer screenings seems to be fading with the new statement from Komen.

Mona Charen of the National Review Online lamented that “it’s extremely disappointing that Komen has caved” but “it’s hardly surprising given the onslaught they’ve endured over the course of the last few days,” and NRO’s Daniel Foster charged Planned Parenthood with “gangsterism.” Of course, just days prior Kathryn Jean Lopez on NRO hailed Komen’s initial decision as a major victory, noting “this Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists.”

Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative (C-Fam) president Austin Ruse told LifeSiteNews called potentially successful effort to have the Komen foundation reverse their decision defunding Planned Parenthood a “mafia shakedown”:

Pro-life leaders say that the exact import of the statement is not yet clear, and that Komen seems to be asking for breathing room, possibly with the intention of caving in definitively to pro-abortion pressure.

Austin Ruse of C-Fam told LifeSiteNews.com Friday morning that, “The mafia shakedown tactics may have worked, but we’re not sure.”

Ruse advised that pro-lifers should “take a wait and see attitude” to discern whether the pro-abortion pushback against Komen would succeed.

Kristen Walker of Live Action called it a “terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood” and wondered what will happen to all the money people gave to Komen to reward them for dropping Planned Parenthood:

If raising money to cure breast cancer were their primary concern, they would not have reversed this decision. Their donations went up 100% in the short time since they announced the halting of grants to PP as pro-lifers who have refused to donate to Komen opened their wallets to thank them for their decision, happy to finally be able to give to their good work of fighting breast cancer with a clear conscience. I wonder if Komen has given any thought to the fact that those people gave money in good faith believing it wouldn’t be used to fund abortions. Will they refund that money? I guess we’ll see.



It is a terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood. It is a terrible shame they’re allowing PP and its followers to compromise their mission to cure breast cancer.

Evangelist Bill Keller warned that the latest move by the Komen foundation may well lead to “the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment”:

Keller said, "It only shows the level of spiritual decay in this nation when a private foundation who made a decision to stop giving money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, causes the media, politicians, and the supporters of killing babies to go into a wild frenzy. The Catholic Church has always stood for the sanctity of life, yet Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, were livid that the Komen Foundation decided to stop giving a $250,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood."



Keller concluded, "You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know that we are on the verge of seeing the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment. Every 24 hours we slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent babies. Where is the outrage about that in the media, in the halls of Congress? Sadly, society doesn't even give it a second thought and has fully embraced this 'culture of death' which hangs over this nation like a black cloud."

UPDATE: Liberty Counsel Action is now urging its members to cancel any donations they made to Komen, with Matt Barber arguing that the group should change their name to “Susan G. Komen for the Cause,” pushing the discredited charge that abortion is linked to breast cancer:

The reversal comes on the heels of news that Komen’s donations jumped 100% after deciding to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider that is currently under criminal investigation in multiple venues. Liberty Counsel Action is encouraging its members to cancel any checks and credit card contributions made in the wake of Komen’s initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood and asking any pro-life participants in Komen’s June 2 Global Race for the Cure run in Washington, D.C. to withdraw.

Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, says that anyone who sincerely wants to contribute to the fight against breast cancer has dozens if not hundreds of other options from hospitals to other nonprofit organizations, but Komen should be off the list.

“It’s a sad day for those who both seek a breast cancer cure and who respect the dignity of all human life,” said Barber. “Susan G. Komen for the Cure should recognize that abortion is not a cure for anything. Perhaps they should change the name to Susan G. Komen for the Cause. What a tragic paradox. There is mounting medical evidence that indicates abortion significantly increases the risk for breast cancer.”

Calling Komen’s decision “the coward’s way out,” Barber said that the decision to once again partner with Planned Parenthood was nothing more than capitulation to “tremendous left-wing political pressure.”

“They have chosen death over life – cancer over cure,” said Barber. “Instead of showing courage, they caved. Komen is now part of the breast cancer problem rather than the solution.”

Editorial Memo: The Right's Recycled Supreme Court Strategy

Right-wing advocates who have made a decades-long push to bring federal courts under ideological domination are planning to wage a campaign against any nominee President Obama makes to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Rise of the New McCarthyism: How Right Wing Extremists Try to Paralyze Government Through Ideological Smears and Baseless Attacks

Today, Joseph McCarthy’s ideological heirs in the Republican Party and right-wing media are using the language and tactics of McCarthy to stir fears that the nation is being destroyed by enemies from within. Republican Members of Congress and other GOP officials frequently act as an "amen chorus" to the far right’s demagogues or stay silent, hoping to reap political gain from the attacks on President Obama, administration officials and nominees, congressional democrats, and even military leaders.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious