It looks like we will now get to look forward to weekly videos featuring Gary Bauer offering his thoughts on contemporary issues, as his YouTube page uploaded a new video yesterday entitled "Gary Bauer's Weekly Reflection" in which he declared that the Democratic Party's platform was "the most radical left-wing document ever adopted by a major political party" ... so radical in fact, that God wouldn't even want to be a part of it:
Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance said that besides his one-time vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, she is excited “to pull back out my t-shirt from 2008 that says ‘Our VP is hotter than your VP!’”
Paul Ryan is a great choice. He has one little blip in that he voted for ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) a long time ago but voted right on the marriage amendment and supports the unborn. Plus, I get to pull back out my t-shirt from 2008 that says ‘Our VP is hotter than your VP!’ Bonus.
Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition commended Ryan’s “100 percent pro-life and pro-family voting record.”
Mitt Romney choosing Paul Ryan as his vice presidential nominee is an inspired, outstanding selection. Paul Ryan is a rare and exceptional public servant who combines the courage of his convictions with a sharp intellect and a winsome personality. I have known him since he worked for Jack Kemp at Empower America in the early 1990s, worked with him in passing sound budgets in the House, and am proud to count him as a friend. He is a person of devout Christian faith who has a 100 percent pro-life and pro-family voting record in his 14 years in Congress. He will excite and energize social conservatives, who will play a critical role in the outcome of the elections.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is proud that Ryan “believes that social, fiscal and national security conservatism is indivisible.”
Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan shows that he is serious about getting America's fiscal house in order. Paul Ryan's voting record also suggests that he believes that social, fiscal and national security conservatism is indivisible. Paul Ryan's philosophy clearly includes the understanding that America's financial greatness is tied directly to its moral and cultural wholeness.
As a member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, he has been a defender of religious expression in the public square. Paul Ryan has spoken out strongly against President Obama's abortion drug and contraception mandates as an affront to religious liberty. He has articulately described how the President's government takeover of health care has pushed aside our First Amendment right of religious freedom.
We look forward to hearing Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan speak at the upcoming Values Voter Summit so that the conservative grassroots will have an opportunity to hear more about their agenda on the critical issues facing our country including religious liberty, marriage, the sanctity of human life as well as fiscal responsibility and national security.
The Susan B. Anthony List’s Marjore Dannenfelser hailed Ryan’s rejection of a “culture war truce.”
“By selecting Congressman Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, Governor Romney demonstrates his commitment to protecting American women and unborn children,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List. “A longtime pro-life advocate and a strong fiscal conservative, Congressman Ryan has insisted that there can be no ‘truce’ when it comes to advancing the rights of the unborn and achieving fiscal responsibility. He has a pristine pro-life voting record and will be an asset to Governor Romney’s campaign.
“Pro-life voters are a key demographic and help secure victory in critical elections,” continued Dannenfelser. “The addition of a second strong pro-life leader to the ticket energizes the pro-life base – we are thrilled with this pick.”
The Catholic Association called Ryan an “excellent choice” since “he has been thoughtful and articulate in applying Catholic principles to the other challenges facing America.”
We believe Governor Romney has made an excellent choice. As a smart, serious Catholic, Congressman Ryan has been steadfast on issues of fundamental principle – defending religious liberty, life, and traditional marriage.
In addition, he has been thoughtful and articulate in applying Catholic principles to the other challenges facing America.
The American Center for Law and Justice’s David French noted Ryan’s opposition to reproductive rights.
In the next days and weeks, there will be a lot of attention on Paul Ryan’s economic expertise and experience with fiscal reform. He became famous in political circles for the “Ryan budget” and for his fearlessness and effectiveness in challenging President Obama in the midst of the Obamacare debate. But what many may not know is that Paul Ryan is a man completely committed to the cause of life.
Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families is glad this “youthful, forward-looking ticket [is] reminding us that with the right choices America's best days are still ahead of us.”
Just moments ago, Governor Mitt Romney formally announced his selection of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to be his vice presidential running mate. He made the announcement at a naval museum in Norfolk, Virginia, with the USS Wisconsin as his backdrop. This is a bold choice, and I am very excited about this pick!
The selection of Paul Ryan shows Governor Romney is serious about confronting the fiscal challenges facing our country. It shows the kind of talented and experienced team Governor Romney will put together that will work for American exceptionalism.
Ryan is a strong conservative. He is pro-life and believes in traditional marriage. Of course, what he is most known for is entitlement reform and stopping the growth of government. He's 42 with a young family.
So this will be a youthful, forward-looking ticket, reminding us that with the right choices America's best days are still ahead of us. It will be a stark contrast to Obama's failed tax and spend policies that are taking us down the dead-end road of European-style socialism. It's clear which presidential ticket is serious about making real change!
“We have incrementally moved towards Marxism and now I think it's at an accelerated pace. ...One of the things that Hitler did was he established the Brownshirts. ... Well, in the lead-up to the election, during the campaigns, our current president said very openly, and you can find it on YouTube, if I am elected President, I will have a national civilian security force that is as large as and as powerful as the US military.For what? Why do you need a national civilian security force?Now most people say, well we haven't seen any signs of the administration doing that. Until you go back and read what nobody in Washington read, and that's the health care legislation that lays out a provision for the commissioning of officers to work directly for the President in time of a national emergency.Now what would bring about a national emergency? An economic collapse, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster - we talked about all those things here - which would then allow for martial law. The foundation has been laid.”
“We need to recognize that Islam itself is not just a religion - it is a totalitarian way of life. It's a legal system, sharia law; it's a financial system; it's a moral code; it's a political system; it's a military system. It should not be protected under the First Amendment, particularly given that those following the dictates of the Quran are under an obligation to destroy our Constitution and replace it with sharia law.”
“No mosques in America. Islam is a totalitarian way of life; it’s not just a religion. … But Islam, we need to think Sharia, it is not just a religion it is a totalitarian way of life. A mosque is an embassy for Islam and they recognize only a global caliphate, not the sanctity or sovereignty of the United States.”
"If you look at Hitler, one of the most disgusting things I hear is for people to call Hitler the extreme Right. The absolute opposite was true. It was the National Socialist Party. He was an extraordinarily off the scale leftist.But many Jews in America, for example, can't identify with the Republican Party because they're called the party of the Right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth."
The Religious Right continues to applaud the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to reaffirm their ban on openly gay members. Today, Tradition, Family, Property Student Action director John Ritchie emailed members today to thank the Boy scouts for “resisting the encroachments of the pro-homosexual lobby” and “the ‘rainbow’ revolution” in order to “respect moral values and protect minors from potential abuse” and “exclude individuals who flaunt unnatural vice”:
Why is the homosexual movement targeting the Boy Scouts?
Here's the reason:
Because the Boy Scout Oath talks about honor, duty to God, and moral uprightness, which necessarily excludes sinful lifestyles.
You see, just last week the Boy Scouts of America confirmed a long-standing policy barring open homosexuality from its membership ranks. As a private organization serving 2.7 million boys, they have the RIGHT to make sound policies that respect moral values and protect minors from potential abuse.
Click here to thank the Boy Scouts for standing strong
Even the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts' right to exclude individuals who flaunt unnatural vice.
But the "rainbow" revolution – aided by the liberal mass media – unleashed a barrage of pressure against the Boy Scouts, as if it were a crime to stand firm on moral values and do what is best for our youth.
Thank you for standing strong! I applaud the Boy Scouts of America for resisting the encroachments of the pro-homosexual lobby. Please continue to hold fast to the virtues expressed in the Scout Oath: Honor, duty to God, and moral uprightness.
Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families warned that the “militant homosexual movement” has revealed itself to be “extremely intolerant”:
I want to close today with a tip of my hat to the Boy Scouts of America. They have been quietly reviewing their policy over the years that bans homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters for obvious reasons. The organization has faced unrelenting pressure from the militant homosexual movement, left-wing politicians, Hollywood and even corporate elites to change the policy.
Yesterday a BSA spokesman told the Associated Press that an 11-member committee unanimously reaffirmed the ban as "absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts."
Not surprisingly, the so-called tolerant left is having fits, and is extremely intolerant of the Scout's decision to maintain their values. Please take a moment to encourage the Boy Scouts of America for standing firm.
Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action in her radio bulletin today also hailed the BSA for “protecting the boys”:
The decision is final.
Homosexuals will still not be allowed to serve as leaders in the Boy Scouts. That was the good news coming from the offices of the Boy Scouts of America last week. An 11-member special committee, formed by top Boy Scout officials two years ago, concluded that it would be best to reaffirm their longstanding policy of protecting the boys from leaders who favor or engage in same-sex relationships.
You may recall that an earlier challenge of their policy went the whole way to the Supreme Court, resulting in a decision twelve years ago affirming the exclusion of homosexuals from positions of leadership.
Please call the Scouts today at 972-580-2000 to express your support for a very good decision!
On Wednesday, Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families attempted to tie the Obama administration’s support for gay rights…to violent crime. Bauer said that the escalating crime rate in the city of Chicago is due to children growing up in fatherless homes, which he maintained is a result of Democratic policies that have “made it comfortable for many women to not have husbands in the home” and even same-sex marriage. “Obama and the Democrats have embraced the radical idea of men marrying other men,” Bauer sneered, “How is that going to help the black family?”
I'd like to go to Chicago for a second. I about fell out of my chair watching a recent CBS interview with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. He was lamenting the values, or lack of values, of Chicago's gang culture, as nearly three hundred people have been killed in Chicago this year, many of them little kids. That's higher casualties than we're suffering in Afghanistan. Here's what Mayor Rahm Emanuel said:
"It is about values. As I said then [referring to when a 7-year-old girl was shot and killed last month], who raised you? How were you raised? And I don't buy this case where people say they don't have values. They do have values. They have the wrong values. Don't come near the kids -- don't touch them."
Well, thanks for speaking up Mr. Mayor, you're asking the right questions, but sadly you can't come up with the right answers. Certainly these kids aren't getting their values from their fathers because they don't have fathers in their households. For the past fifty years, Rahm Emanuel's party, the Democratic Party, has made it comfortable for many women to not have husbands in the home. Now Obama and the Democrats have embraced the radical idea of men marrying other men! How is that going to help the black family?
When Emanuel worked in the Clinton White House, the response to gang violence, do you remember this, was midnight basketball programs. It didn't work, midnight basketball programs don't replace fathers. And, of course, it was around that time when Democrats and their media allies did their best to convince us that values really didn't matter. Even the disgusting values demonstrated in the Oval Office with a White House intern.
The fact is that values do matter. There is no government program dreamed up by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Rahm Emanuel that can make up for the breakdown of the family. And this election be about more than just about economics.
In New Mexico today the state Court of Appeals upheld decisions by the state’s Human Rights Commission and a district court and found that a photography business which refused to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony violated the state’s Human Rights Act, which declares that public accommodations like photo studios can’t discriminate on the basis of “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical or mental handicap.” The court rejected the business’s claim that they are like a black photography company which wouldn’t want to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally, pointing out that the “Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class. Sexual orientation, however, is protected.” The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund represented the couple and pledged to repeal the decision.
American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said the case points to the danger of the “homosexual agenda.” “Folks, it’s coming to your town, the homosexual agenda, their social and political movement is coming to your town, you can’t avoid it,” Wildmon said:
AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer claimed that New Mexico “kicked out” the First Amendment, and said the further proof that homosexuality and freedom are incompatible:
I just cannot exaggerate the reality of what we face; we have got to come to grips with the fact that in America we are going to have to choose between homosexuality and religious liberty. You can just ask Elaine Huguenin, this Christian photographer in New Mexico, she is not even being allowed by the Court of Appeals in the state of New Mexico to make her own business decisions, to decide who she would like to do business with.
You can see right away the entire First Amendment has just been kicked out of New Mexico, the First Amendment is a worthless scrap of paper now in the state of New Mexico, no respect for freedom of religion, no respect for freedom of speech, no respect for freedom of association. That’s what’s at risk here, ladies and gentlemen, I am not exaggerating this: we have to choose as a nation, it’s either homosexuality or religious liberty, homosexuality or freedom of speech, homosexuality or freedom of association, we are going to have to choose.
Gary Bauer in an email to members of Campaign for Working Families lamented, “In New Mexico, the private bedroom behaviors of homosexuals trump religious freedom”:
For six years the Christian owners of a small photography business have fought the state of New Mexico for violating their religious liberty. At issue in this case was whether the owners would be forced to photograph a homosexual "marriage." When the couple refused, New Mexico's Civil Rights Commission accused them of discrimination and slapped them with a $7,000 fine. So the couple sued.
Last week, an appeals court upheld the Civil Rights Commission's fine ruling that religious freedom could not be the basis for discriminating against "protected classes," including homosexuals. According to one report, attorneys for the Christian couple asked the court to consider the example of a black photographer being asked to photograph a KKK rally. The judge was unmoved. In New Mexico, the private bedroom behaviors of homosexuals trump religious freedom.
My friends, I know the economy is front and center in this election, but the culture war is very real. This election will have tremendous consequences for the values we will pass on to our children and grandchildren. I cannot stress enough just how important it is for every conservative to vote this November.
The Religious Right never fails to try to divide African Americans and the LGBT community and ignores the fact that there are many LGBT African Americans.
The latest example is an email alert from Gary Bauer of American Values, who said that the NAACP is hurting black families by endorsing same-sex marriage because allowing men to marry other men, Bauer claims, would exacerbate the problem of single motherhood:
The governing board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) endorsed same-sex "marriage" over the weekend. The move is not likely to go over well with blacks, who have overwhelmingly supported traditional marriage in previous ballot measures.
Moreover, it is complete nonsense. The socio-economic status of black Americans has declined over the last few decades. We have an emerging black middle class, but the percentage of out-of-wedlock births, the number of abandoned black women, the number of black men incarcerated, etc., have all gone up and in some cases dramatically so. The NAACP's marriage to liberal ideology has been a failure.
The unemployment rate among blacks is a staggering 13%. Yet, the leaders of the NAACP got together this weekend and decided that a top priority for their organization was men "marrying" other men. How does that help the black family, which is already suffering from a lack of men in the home? If black leaders want to come up with a plan to address the ills of the black community and restoring fathers to their children and mothers is not at the top of their list, then they are not helping the black community.
The NAACP's decision pits the breakdown of the black family versus the demand of a largely white, upper-income sexual minority to redefine the meaning of marriage. That would seem to be an easy choice. But NAACP leaders chose to spend their political capital fighting for the interests of San Francisco and Greenwich Village. In doing so, they risk losing the moral authority of the people they claim to represent.
Star Parker even tried to link President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s endorsement of marriage equality to low-performing public schools:
President Barack Obama now commands center stage following his formal announcement that, yes, he supports same sex marriage.
But for perspective on how we got to this point, we should shift our sights to three days before the president's announcement. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan appeared on MSNBC where he responded "yes, I do" when asked if he supports same sex marriage.
It's not trivial that Duncan, the man who oversees this massive enterprise molding the minds of our nation's youth, publicly rejects the traditional definition of marriage in favor of one saying it just takes two (so far) warm bodies of any gender combination.
The president brandishes one of his favorite words in explaining his support for same sex marriage. "Fairness."
Actually, this is about unfairness.
We have bought into a grand illusion that we can make our public spaces value neutral. But this is impossible.
The struggle in our public spaces is about competing worldviews. Not neutrality.
2011-2012 Resolutions of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, include support of same sex marriage and sex education programs that appreciate "diversity of ...sexual orientation and gender identification."
Randi Weingarten, president of the nation's second largest teacher's union, American Federation of Teachers, lives in an open lesbian relationship.
It should come as no surprise when Obama says he sees much of the growth in support for same sex marriage as "generational," with strong support coming from our youth.
Attitudes reflect education. We have created a world in which it is illegal to teach youth in our public schools traditional religious values but it is not illegal to teach them competing values of nihilism, materialism and relativism. And these competing values are actively promoted.
As elsewhere, the main victims are poor, minority kids, often from broken families, held hostage in these public schools and prohibited from being taught the very values that could save their lives.
Is there a way out? I only see one: Universal school choice. Liberate parents and kids from government and union controlled schools. In a free America, parents who don't share Arne Duncan's values shouldn't have them forced on them.
Today, American Values president Gary Bauer spoke to Truth in Action Ministries’ Carmen Pate and John Rabe of Truth that Transforms where he claimed that because of legal abortion “we really do risk God taking His hand of protection off of our country.” He said that abortion rights could lead to the end of liberty, and also went on to claim that marriage equality for gays and lesbians would similarly have “devastating impacts on our society.” Later in the interview he falsely claimed that the legalization of same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy as “secular forces” try “to redefine American society”:
Bauer: As a society I think if we continue down this road of the destruction of a million innocent unborn children over a year we really do risk God taking His hand of protection off of our country. That would be tragic; it could very well mean the end of the American experiment in liberty under God. I always look at that issue, if somebody is wrong on that, they might be right on taxes, the size of government, national defense and so forth but if they are wrong on this I have found over the years that they end up in many cases being unreliable on those other things. So I would recommend that as being key.
Second of all this issue about the definition of marriage, marriage has been between a man and a woman in Western civilization for several thousand years, every state that has voted on this issue wants to keep it a man and a woman, but there is absolutely no doubt that if the wrong people are elected or re-elected this coming November we are going to have forced on us either by the courts or by these politicians a fundamental redefinition of the meaning of marriage, which I think would have just devastating impacts on our society.
Once we get a court ruling from a Supreme Court that says that under some provision in the Constitution that we’ve never thought authorized this we’d have to allow same-sex marriage, there would be no constitutional grounds that that court could say we’re going to keep illegal multiple marriages or group marriages or polygamy or a variety of other types of marriage that exist in other parts of the world and increasingly exist in Western countries in Europe where there are large Muslim populations, so this will follow as surely as night follows day. Anybody that thinks it will stop just with same-sex marriage either doesn’t understand the law or doesn’t understand that demands of secular forces that want to redefine American society.
Gary Bauer yesterday emailed members of his Campaign for Working Families arguing that Democrats are dishonest by representing ‘themselves as champions of the ‘little guy’ because President Obama…supports gay rights. Apparently, gays and lesbians can’t be a “little guy,” and Bauer went on to plead with Republicans to use Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality against him in the election, saying “it is far easier to defend normal marriage than it is to argue for cuts in popular programs”:
Fighting For The Little Guy?
For decades Democrats have presented themselves as champions of the "little guy." The president's reelection team is desperately trying to rebuild that image by embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement and portraying Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch corporate elitist.
But just think about what Obama has been doing lately. While millions of Americans are worrying about their next paycheck or making their next mortgage payment, Obama has spent the last week pushing the radical idea that men should "marry" other men!
Who is demanding this? Certainly not the "little guy," as the voters of North Carolina made abundantly clear. Same-sex "marriage" may be popular in New York City and San Francisco, but that is just more evidence that Obama's radical agenda is tailored to small, vocal left-wing special interest groups.
A Day In The Life Of Barack Obama
Obama was a busy man yesterday. First, he gave the commencement speech at Barnard College, an elite women's school affiliated with Columbia University. Obama shared the stage with Evan Wolfson, founder of the same-sex "marriage" group Freedom to Marry, who also received an award from the college. Wolfson was praised by the college's president for, among other things, his efforts to fight the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual scoutmasters.
Next, Obama went on the "The View" to defend his support for same-sex "marriage." When Barbara Walters pressed Obama on whether he would fight to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, thereby forcing every state to recognize same-sex "marriage," he dodged the question.
Later in the day, he attended a fundraiser with openly gay singer Ricky Martin. According to CNN, Obama "outlined goals he hopes to accomplish under a second term, including the repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act." (How any of this is helping the unemployed or people losing their homes is a mystery.)
Once again, Obama is playing rhetorical games with the public. He won't give the audience of "The View" a straight answer. But just as he assured Russian leader Dmitri Medvedev to wait until after the election, he told homosexual activists and donors behind closed doors that he'll have "more flexibility" to ram their agenda into law in his second term.
I know many GOP strategists think values issues are "losers" on Election Day. But it is far easier to defend normal marriage than it is to argue for cuts in popular programs. And it has been my experience that if a candidate can't get it right on the sanctity of life or the meaning of marriage, he isn't likely to hold the line on economic issues.
If Obama wants to pick a fight over marriage, Republicans shouldn't run from it. They should fight back. The American people are with us!
Following President Obama’s remarks supporting marriage equality, the Religious Right is now moving from expressing its anger to rallying the base for Mitt Romney.
American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer on Focal Point yesterday said that Obama is “toast” and “just handed the election to Mitt Romney” because he favors “behavior that will kill you if you don’t catch yourself in time”:
President Barack Obama has officially come out in favor of homosexual marriage, he has officially come out in favor of unnatural marriage, he has come out in favor of giving society’s highest recognition to behavior which is immoral, which is unnatural and which is unhealthy, behavior that will kill you if you don’t catch yourself in time. Be encouraged, because this is going to be decisive in this campaign. This thing right here is decisive in this campaign. President Barack Obama just kicked away his re-election chances, they’re gone, toast, out the window, stick a fork in Barack Obama, he stuck a fork in himself, he’s done, he’s toast, if Mitt Romney will hold the line. Mitt Romney just got handed this election. Ladies and gentlemen, do not underestimate what just happened, Barack Obama just handed the election to Mitt Romney.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality talked to Janet Mefferd yesterday where he derided Obama’s mention of the Golden Rule in his announcement as “preposterous,” calling Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality an “appalling blasphemy”:
It’s appalling, Janet, it’s just appalling. He’s distorted the Bible from the get-go, remember, he sort of dismissed Romans 1, I can’t remember the adjective he used but ‘not very important’ because that got in the way of his embrace of homosexuality. The Golden Rule, as I think we both understand it, is that you don’t want somebody to practice sin; you want them to experience Jesus Christ, to be forgiven through Jesus Christ and live a Godly life. So helping somebody embrace homosexuality, especially with state recognition of so-called homosexual marriage, which is actually a blasphemy, you’re taking a perversion, what God calls an abomination, the practice of homosexuality, and you’re attaching it to one of the most noble institutions that mankind can experience, which is marriage, it’s an appalling blasphemy. For Obama to say that’s the Golden Rule to advocate that is just preposterous and I hope that most Christians, people of faith, even those who aren’t Christians, can see through what this is, that he’s just trying to justify this pandering act to his left-wing base.
Not to be outdone, Randall Terry accused Obama of being “courageous for evil” and “bold for iniquity,” urging pastors to “demand Obama’s ouster from office” for “his betrayal of God’s Law regarding marriage”:
The moment of Truth has arrived for Catholic Bishops and Evangelical Superstars: Will they demand Obama's ouster from office because of his betrayal of God's Law regarding marriage, or will they equivocate, excuse, or just remain silent? Their souls are now weighed in the balance.
Obama has been courageous for evil, bold for iniquity. Will Christian clergy rise to the challenge, and at least show equal valor for the Truth, and for the Lord God whose laws they have sworn to uphold? If they do, they are made of the stuff of saints and prophets. If not, they show they are hirelings, not shepherds; false prophets, not watchmen on the wall.
Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families emailed members alleging that Obama revealed his “disdain and disrespect for anyone in this country who believes in Judeo-Christian values”:
When President Obama publicly declared his support for same-sex marriage yesterday he was displaying his disdain and disrespect for anyone in this country who believes in Judeo-Christian values. Obama thinks that the same-sex marriage movement is so powerful and that we are so weak that his attack on normal marriage will actually help him win a second term.
I need you to help me show him just how wrong he is. Thirty-one states have voted in favor of normal marriage. Tuesday's vote in North Carolina was a landslide for our side. But if he wins a second term our votes may not matter as his appointed judges overrule us and eventually restrict religious liberty in the process.
I don’t think there is anything else I can say. If we won’t stand up now, when will we? Please give whatever you can to help us defeat Obama and his congressional socialist cronies.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins even released a video message saying that Obama’s stance will rally Religious Right voters to back Romney:
While gay conservative groups have come out attacking President Obama for endorsing marriage equality today, Religious Right groups have also started to berate Obama on the issue.
Tony Perkins of Family Research Council said Obama’s position has handed Mitt Romney “the key to social conservative support”:
The President's announcement today that he supports legalizing same-sex marriage finally brings his words in sync with his actions. From opposing state marriage amendments to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) to giving taxpayer funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the President has undermined the spirit if not the letter of the law.
As demonstrated by yesterday's overwhelming vote in North Carolina, redefining marriage remains outside the mainstream of American politics, especially in the critical battleground states and among minority voters. In North Carolina, the amendment received more than 60 percent of the vote in majority-black counties.
Considering that ten of the sixteen battleground states have marriage amendments that could be overturned by the President's new policy position on marriage, today's announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election.
The President has provided a clear contrast between him and his challenger Mitt Romney. Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by President Obama.
American Values head and former FRC president Gary Bauer claimed to be perplexed that Obama “is spending even one second of his time thinking about how and to radically transform the institution of marriage”:
The charade is finally up. We've always known that Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage. With every action he's taken, from court appointments to his rhetoric, he's been preparing the way to undermine traditional marriage. Obama's finally made that support explicit.
Every American who can't find work, whose home is under water or who can't afford to fill up his gas tank should be wondering why the president is spending even one second of his time thinking about how and to radically transform the institution of marriage. It's a political move meant to energize his left-wing base and distract Americans from his disastrous economic policies."
Bauer later commented in an email to supporters that Obama “may have just lost the presidency”:
President Obama just told ABC News that he now supports same-sex marriage. Surprised? Didn’t think so. Obama is no doubt hoping to energize his leftwing base. And he is betting this will help him to re-energize the youth vote this November. But in fact he may have just lost the presidency.
Attention Republican Party: Obama’s announcement is a chance for boldness. There are many Republicans who would rather not talk about this issue. But if the GOP confronts Obama over marriage, it could make him a one-term president. If Republicans allow Obama to exploit this issue, then it could prove decisive for him. Republicans need to remember that if their candidates can manage to win as much of the vote as the state marriage amendments have received in 31 states, they will win in a landslide in November.
Now look at North Carolina. It is considered a swing state. Obama won it by only 14,000 votes in 2008 – and it is a high priority for the Dems this year, which is why they are holding their national convention in Charlotte and why he has visited the state repeatedly. This morning Obama might be second guessing that Charlotte venue.
Voters in North Carolina passed a marriage amendment yesterday, making clear that marriage is one man and one woman. Obama, Biden and the entire media establishment opposed the amendment. Bill Clinton did robo calls opposing the measure. The voters felt otherwise by a 61% to 39% vote – a huge landslide and a record turnout. Current polls have Romney beating Obama in North Carolina by only two points! Governor Romney should look at the results of the marriage issue. He can win North Carolina by a landslide if he takes on Obama on this issue.
Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage pledged to defeat Obama and warned, "God is the author of marriage, and we will not let an activist politician like Barack Obama who is beholden to gay marriage activists for campaign financing to turn marriage into something political that can be redefined according to presidential whim”:
President Obama has now made the definition of marriage a defining issue in the presidential contest, especially in swing states like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Nevada. Voters in all these states, and over two dozen more, have adopted state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. President Obama says that although he personally supports gay marriage, he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. However, that is completely disingenuous. His administration is already trying to dismantle the nation's marriage laws by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. All the state marriage amendments and laws are at risk under a president who actively wants to change the definition of marriage. NOM will work ceaselessly in these swing states and across the nation to preserve traditional marriage because it is profoundly in the public good to do so. God is the author of marriage, and we will not let an activist politician like Barack Obama who is beholden to gay marriage activists for campaign financing to turn marriage into something political that can be redefined according to presidential whim. The definition of marriage was already headed for the ballot in four states this fall; now it will be one of the defining issues of the presidential election. No state in this country has ever voted for gay marriage. Just yesterday North Carolina voters sent a clear message that America wants to preserve marriage. We intend to win the marriage debate this November.
The Traditional Values Coalition president Andrea Lafferty maintained Obama’s view on marriage equality displays his “radical ideology”:
This isn’t exactly a bold move by the president. Forced by Joe Biden’s big mouth, Obama had no choice left but to publicly embrace an agenda he has privately promoted for years.
I’ve been saying this for the last four years. Obama has always been in favor of homosexual marriage, but was forced to keep his enthusiasm at a distance for fear of offending the American public.
Obama needs new friends. His leadership has completely alienated Wall Street, financial investors, small businesses, soccer moms, and virtually every other constituency by pushing his radical ideology at a time when America needed principled leadership. Who better to appease than the LGBT community with tons of disposable income to fund his re-election campaign?
North Carolina just became the 31st state to affirm the sanctity of marriage. As if mainstream Americans needed any further reasons to reject Obama’s radical social agenda, we were most certainly reminded today.
Matt Smith of the Catholic Advocate said Obama’s support for marriage equality is part of “an anti-Catholic agenda”:
Once again, the President is spending time advancing an anti-Catholic agenda. Marriage was created long before any government came into existence. It is a settled issue in the eyes of the Catholic Church and should not be redefined.
First, the Obama administration takes away grant money helping victims of sex-trafficking over the Church refusing to refer the victims for abortions. Then the Obama administration violates our religious liberties by forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization as the President's health care law is being implemented. And now, should his advocacy for same-sex marriage succeed, Catholic institutions could be forced once again to violate our beliefs.
Many faithful Catholics were fooled by clever political rhetoric in 2008. This year, the anti-Catholic record of the Obama administration should inform their vote."
Rob Schenck of the Faith and Action commented: “Frankly, I question whether he really does in his heart-of-hearts. Maybe I'm naive, but, if I'm right, it's even worse, because it means he has surrendered a moral conviction for political expediency. Very wrong and very sad.”
Update: Faith and Freedom Coalition chairman Ralph Reed said the announcement shows the President is “tone-deaf and out-of-touch with the time-honored values of millions of Americans”:
Four years ago 2008 Barack Obama promised if elected not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000, pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term — and made clear his support for traditional marriage. All those promises are now broken.
At a time of high unemployment and severe economic distress, President Obama chose the week he launched his re-election campaign to flip-flop on same-sex marriage.
Combined with his administration’s opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, it reveals a president who is tone-deaf and out-of-touch with the time-honored values of millions of Americans. This is an unanticipated gift to the Romney campaign. It is certain to fuel a record turnout of voters of faith to the polls this November.
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League claimed Obama “has fully broken with his Christian moorings” and suggested he also favors polygamy:
In 1996, when Barack Obama was up for a state senate post in Illinois, he said he supported gay marriage. Eight years later, when he set his sights on the U.S. Senate, he discovered his Christian roots and said he was against it. In 2008, he said he was opposed to homosexuals marrying, but he also opposed a ballot initiative in California, Proposition 8, that affirmed marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. In other words, his Christian roots were losing their grip. Since then he’s been “evolving.” Now the evolution is over and he has fully broken with his Christian moorings.
The president of the United States likes the idea of Tom and Dick marrying. He did not say whether he supports Tom, Dick and Harry marrying, or whether he is “evolving” in that direction. Perhaps he has to consult with his mentor on this issue, Mr. Joseph Biden of Delaware.
Yesterday, North Carolina voters affirmed marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the 32 times voters have been asked to decide this issue, they have voted 32 times to support traditional marriage. Gay rights advocates have never won.
President Obama will be hurt by this decision in the swing states. More than that, he has now made this cultural matter a major issue in the presidential campaign.
The time has finally come to pass a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as an institution reserved to the only two people who can naturally produce a family, namely a man and a woman.
NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes:
On the one hand, morally this is good because lying to the American people is always wrong. President Obama has come clean that he is for gay marriage. Politically, we welcome this. We think it's a huge mistake. President Obama is choosing the money over the voters the day after 61 percent of North Carolinians in a key swing state demonstrated they oppose gay marriage. We now have clear choice between Romney and Obama, and we look forward to demonstrating in November that it's a bad idea for a national candidate to support gay marriage. Marriage is a winning issue for the GOP.
American Family Association president Tim Wildmon tells OneNewsNow:
[He] has finally come out of the closet, if you will, on the homosexual marriage issue. He's in favor of it. He always has been. The only reason he didn't say anything about it before the election last time is because he didn't want to hurt himself [politically].
President Obama, [in] his first year in office, had the homosexual activists to the White House for a dinner and he promised them he would be their 'champion' -- and so he is coming through for them on many different fronts, including the military, changing the military to allow open homosexuality there.
Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund said his endorsement “promotes the creation of even more fatherless and motherless homes”:
This shows that the Obama administration doesn’t understand the public purpose of marriage. Marriage–the lifelong, faithful union of one man and one woman–is the building block of a thriving society. It’s not something that politicians should attempt to redefine for political purposes. The president has spoken eloquently about how fatherless homes often hurt children and society. Today’s statement is a tragic contradiction that promotes the creation of even more fatherless and motherless homes.
Liberty Counsel Action released a statement [pdf] from chairman Mathew Staver, who said the country under Obama’s leadership is “headed to disaster”:
“The President has made the issues in this election very clear,” said Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action. “Today, Governor Mitt Romney said he unequivocally supports natural marriage and opposes ‘marriage between people of the same gender,’ drawing a stark contrast in the upcoming election. For most voters, this election will now be an easy choice,” said Staver.
The decision by the President is not a surprise. He needs to appeal to his far-left base that helped propel him to the White House in 2008 but whose support has weakened in 2012.
“We are six months away from arguably the most critical national election in our lifetime,” said Mat Staver. “America is headed in the wrong direction: we are on the edge of a moral, financial, spiritual, and national security abyss. President Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan is ‘Forward.’ The Titanic was moving forward but headed to disaster. We need to change course.”
Today, Mitt Romney spokesman Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, resigned from his job on the Romney campaign. Grenell’s hiring less than two weeks ago provoked harsh criticism among Religious Right activists including the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, former FRC president Gary Bauer and the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer. Fischer went so far as to suggest that Grenell posed a national security risk, as reported by People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch.
Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way, said:
“Mitt Romney is once again trying to have it both ways: claiming that he personally tolerates gays and lesbians while at the same time pandering to the anti-gay right-wing base whose intolerance is legendary. Obviously, it’s not working.
“Romney is clearly depending on Religious Right leaders to help him energize a wary base and they insist that he toe the line. But the support of those leaders comes at a price. If Romney is letting the likes of Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer dictate all his hiring decisions, he leaves no doubt as to what kind of president he would be.
“If Romney will cave to the far-right fringe on this, is there anything he won’t give them when they ask?”
While some columnists like to believe that it is only people on the “far fringes of the evangelical right” who oppose the Romney campaign’s hiring of an openly gay staffer, now two major Religious Right figures have joined the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer in denouncing openly gay foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell’s employment in the Romney campaign.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in his Washington Update stated that “there is strong evidence that Grenell would lobby” in favor of the pro-LGBT rights stance of President Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While Romney himself is an opponent of LGBT equality, Perkins said that Grenell’s hiring is troubling for conservatives:
Most conservatives have been anxious to see how the Romney campaign would react now that the strongest social conservative, Sen. Rick Santorum, is out of the race. Would the Governor try to fill the void left on values issues or would he stick to his more moderate approach? Some people believe that question was answered last week with the selection of Richard Grenell as Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman. Grenell, who served in President Bush's administration, specialized in the U.N., but the areas where he disagreed with his old boss are what concern conservatives most.
Grenell, who has been very open about his homosexual lifestyle, publicly condemned the Bush administration (shortly after leaving it) for opposing a U.N. resolution urging the full acceptance of homosexuality. While Bush (like nearly two thirds of the U.N. member states) refused to endorse the measure endorsing homosexuality, President Obama signed it shortly after taking office. Since then, his State Department, under the direction of Hillary Clinton, has tossed aside the cultural and religious beliefs of other countries to promote homosexuality as a basic human right, while downgrading the importance of religious liberty. Clearly, the strategy is for the State Department to force these policies (which most U.S. states reject) on the international stage and then build pressure on the U.S. to adopt measures like Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and same-sex "marriage."
In a recent column for the Washington Blade, Grenell hinted at where he falls on the marriage issue when he criticized gay and lesbian Democrats for supporting President Obama despite the fact that he hasn't done enough to redefine marriage. Still others point to Grenell's long-time partner and his desire to tie the knot, "It's not an option for us... but hopefully someday soon it will be." While past performance is not a guarantee of future results, there is strong evidence that Grenell would lobby for foreign policy more in line with the current administration than the last Republican one.
Gary Bauer, in his daily email to Campaign for Working Families members, called the hire an “unforced error” and a “disappointment.” Bauer said he is not upset that Grenell is gay but is angry that he wants to marry his longtime partner, claiming that it would only be acceptable if Grenell would oppose his own right to marry:
Unforced Error, Governor
While Governor Mitt Romney is clearly enjoying a bounce in the polls and a boost in momentum, his campaign still has some work to do when it comes to reassuring the conservative base and values voters. That's why his appointment of Richard Grenell, who worked in the Bush Administration, to be his spokesman on national security issues was a disappointment to many conservatives.
I share their disappointment not because Grenell is gay. He is not weak on defense. In fact, former Ambassador John Bolton is defending Grenell today. Conservative pro-family leaders are disappointed because Grenell has been an outspoken advocate of redefining normal marriage. For the overwhelmingly majority of folks who support Governor Romney that issue is starkly clear -- marriage is the union of one and one woman. But Grenell once caused a controversy by trying to have his partner listed as his spouse when he worked at the U.N.
Thankfully, Grenell is not going to be making policy on domestic issues. But his appointment was disappointing because it comes at a time when the Romney campaign should be reaching out to the conservative base. Instead, this appointment seems like a slap at the base.
Moreover, Grenell is known for having an acerbic personality, and critics have described his comments in social media as being "catty." He may be competent, but he is creating controversies on multiple fronts where the Romney campaign can least afford them.
That said, we should not exaggerate this. Homosexuals were part of the Reagan Administration and the Bush Administrations. Our concern is policy. One of the ways Governor Romney can reassure values voters is to make more statements in his speeches that speak to their concerns about the sanctity of life, the meaning of marriage and the importance of faith and family.
Pointing this out does not hurt Mitt Romney. I am making this observation precisely because it is so important that he defeat Barack Obama. There is no path to victory for a Republican presidential candidate that does not involve massive turnout by pro-family voters. The only way Mitt Romney will end up with a majority on Election Day -- and I will do everything I can to make sure that happens -- is to unite economic, defense and social conservatives behind his candidacy.
When Rick Santorum ended his presidential campaign last week, his Religious Right supporters were heartbroken ... and now they seem to have moved on to a new strategy of pressuring Mitt Romney to adopt Santorum's campaign message is he wants to win their support:
Of course, if Santorum's message had been so energizing and effective, he probably would not have been forced to end his bid because his campaign "basically raised almost no money" toward the end.
American Values president Gary Bauer joined Sandy Rios of the American Family Association yesterday where Bauer criticized President Obama for weighing in on the Trayvon Martin case. Bauer said that Obama, who said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” and urged law enforcement “to get to the bottom of what happened,” was trying to “stir the pot” by using “disturbing” and “dangerous” rhetoric. Earlier, Rios bemoaned that Martin’s death “is threatening I think the very fiber of this truce that blacks and whites have come to over the last fifty years.”
Rios: The whole issue over Trayvon Martin is threatening I think the very fiber of this truce that blacks and whites have come to over the last fifty years. I think that tensions are getting worse, people are stoking them, and this too is an issue, a spiritual matter.
Bauer: The fact that Jesse Jackson and Sharpton would immediately attempt to exploit this and make it a racial issue, and that even the President in his public comments would stir that pot, I find that deeply disturbing and I think it’s dangerous.
American Values president Gary Bauer demanded Republicans oppose the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, writing in Human Events today that the bill is a “trap.” Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans all voted against re-authorization and Bauer insisted that they oppose the legislation because of “provisions allowing abused illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas and programs for same-sex couples.” As Legal Momentum’s Lynn Hecht Schafran notes, protections for immigrants and women in same-sex relationships have “always been true about the bill but required clarification.”
Bauer, who regularly rails against the “war on religion,” the “war on Christmas” and the “social, political and cultural war in our country,” also expressed his anger that progressives are using the phrase “war” as part of “painting conservatives as domestic policy war mongers,” and of course didn’t miss an opportunity to criticize Sandra Fluke:
Whether it’s the “war on science” or the “war on labor unions,” the left never tires of painting conservatives as domestic policy war mongers. Now liberals are revisiting another fictitious conservative war, against women.
At the Women in the World Summit in New York last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blasted tyrants across the globe. “They want to control how we dress, they want to control how we act, they even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies,” Clinton said.
Then she compared Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to Sandra Fluke. “Women and girls…throughout the world,” she said, “are assuming the risks that come with sticking your neck out, whether you are a democracy activist in Burma or a Georgetown law student in the United States.”
It was absurd for America’s top diplomat to compare a chief target of one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes to the law student/abortion activist.
Obama cited Fluke’s “bravery” when he spoke about her. But a more apt word is “shamelessness.”
Speaking of shameless, while Clinton has made advancing women’s rights a major rhetorical theme of her time at State, the Obama administration has ignored and even supported egregious violations against women.
Whining about the “war on women” in a Politico op-ed last week, former Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm wrote, “Republican obsession with Planned Parenthood alone has become a form of legislative sexual McCarthyism.”
In case there was any doubt about the centrality of the “war on women” theme to the Democratic campaign, Senate Democrats are pushing to extend the Violence Against Women Act, with a vote by the end of March.
Most Republicans support the law, but it’s a trap. The legislation includes not only laudable programs like grants to battered women’s shelters but also provisions allowing abused illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas and programs for same-sex couples.
Allusions to the Republican “war on women” will continue as a major Democratic campaign theme. But they’re just Democrats’ way of diverting voters’ attention from their own failures and injustices toward women.
Update: Concerned Women for America, a consistent opponent of the Violence Against Women Act, in an email to members today claimed that the law “destroys the family”:
VAWA, in its current form, is a boondoggle for feminist groups. It has morphed into a series of rigid and ineffective law enforcement programs that continue to spend approximately $455 million each year. Instead of helping women and children, this legislation creates a large bureaucracy and destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.
Finally, this bill creates a new series of expensive and unnecessary programs that further complicate the process of giving aid to these women and push a feminist agenda (such as one $15 million program that attempts to "re-educate" school children into domestic violence ideology [Section 302]).
VAWA harms women by diluting assistance to real victims and by tearing the family apart. Please call your senators today at 202-224-3121, and urge them to oppose VAWA.
Former child star Kirk Cameron’s anti-gay tirade, calling homosexuality “unnatural” and “detrimental and ultimately destructive,” led to a backlash from some prominent actors, but Religious Right groups are more than happy to broadcast his claims. Tony Perkins of FRC Action defended Cameron from criticism by citing a poll by the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund which tried to overstate the number of people who oppose marriage equality, as recent surveys show that more Americans favor marriage equality than oppose it and that support for legalizing same-sex marriage is on the rise.
Where is the tolerance? You won't find any on display with homosexual activists who are determined to attack and silence anyone who dares to disagree or challenge their political or social agenda. Their latest target is actor Kirk Cameron. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is attacking Cameron for remarks he made in an interview with Piers Morgan last Friday, in which he said that the definition of marriage should be, "One man, one woman for life till death do you part." Cameron, a born-again Christian who starred in the movie Left Behind and the pro-marriage film Fireproof, also said he considers homosexuality to be "unnatural," "detrimental," and "destructive." Perhaps it's GLAAD, not the 1980s teen star, who's out of step, since a 2011 poll showed that 62% of Americans agree with the statement, "I believe marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman." Another 2011 poll found a substantial majority of Americans (56%) believe that "sex between two adults of the same gender" is "morally wrong."
Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families also weighed in, saying that the “radical left” is trying to expunge “faith” and “traditional values” and that conservatives need to fight back and make sure that there “will be no ‘truce’ in the culture war”:
The left went nuts. Homosexual rights groups blasted Cameron's alleged bigotry and intolerance. Liberal Hollywood types rushed to Tweet their condemnation of Cameron's values and to reaffirm their fidelity to the gay marriage cause.
Not long ago, virtually no one would have argued with Cameron's comments. But the cultural left is determined to impose its values on the rest of society. It began by purging faith from the public square and forcing it into the closet. Then abortion was forced on every state in the country. Now marriage is being redefined. The secularists want an America where traditional values cannot be spoken.
As the Democrat Party embraced the radical left, more and more values voters found a home in the Republican Party. They expect the GOP to unapologetically defend their cherished values. Increasingly, however, it seems only one party is committed to fighting and winning the culture war.
Yet I am bothered when I hear conservatives buy into this line of reasoning. There will be no "truce" in the culture war. The left fully intends to win it. It's absurd that many Republicans and even some conservatives are preemptively surrendering by refusing to bring up these issues!
Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality attacked the “Hollywood liberals and LGBT militants” who have criticized Cameron:
As you can see, this is not the tone of an “extremist” but a thoughtful Christian man who is smart enough to know that Hollywood liberals and LGBT militants will pounce on any statement he makes critical of homosexual behavior [sic], which God through the Bible condemns. (By the way, I think Kirk would have been better off just saying “yes” to Morgan’s question about whether he believes homosexuality is a sin.)
GLAAD is awarded unprecedented access and sway in Hollywood (and the media) to advocate for, essentially, one side of a controversial moral issue. Here it stokes anti-Christian bigotry against Cameron, as it does against anyone who voices politically incorrect beliefs about homosexuality through the media. Ultimately, GLAAD (while curiously extolling “diversity”) hopes to keep interviews like Morgan’s with Cameron out of the media altogether. (Otherwise, why would they previously have lobbied so hard against CNN for including Christian former homosexual Richard Cohen in a debate segment?) GLAAD is afraid of a fair debate, hence their demonizing name-calling against Cameron. Please help encourage him.
Of course, American Family Association Bryan Fischer praised Cameron on Focal Point for standing up to “anti-Christian, anti-morality bigot” Piers Morgan:
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.