Tony Perkins

Paranoia-Rama: Straights Forced Into The Closet, Las Vegas 'False Flag,' Agenda 21 Destroying Iowa

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

Religious Right activists claimed this week that they are losing their “right” to not see gay people, even going so far as to compare their situation to the Holocaust.

5) It Ain’t Easy Being Straight

American Family Association president Tim Wildmon thinks straight people have it rough in America. In an email to the AFA’s members this week, Wildmon complained that heterosexuals are being pushed into the closet and forced to watch gay people kiss “mouth to mouth” on TV.

“Straight America is scared to death of offending or potentially offending gay, lesbian and transgender people and their powerful movement. It’s really embarrassing to watch,” he wrote, objecting especially to “Michael Sam’s mouth to mouth kiss of his lover on EPSN [sic].” Wildmon insisted that while he was grossed out by the kiss, he felt pressured by the media to enjoy it:

Sam and his boyfriend, Vito Cammisano, decided to go "in your face," both to themselves (literally) and to those watching the draft on television including millions of young boys no doubt. After first kissing without debris, Sam then decided to put some cake in his mouth and go back after Vito for some more affection.

It was gross. But then I'm an old-school prude who doesn't believe men should be having sex with other men, so that is the reaction you would expect from people like me. I believe that kind of behavior is immoral, unhealthy and unnatural. If people want to live this lifestyle, that is their choice, but this idea of forcing people who disagree with it to applaud or else be shouted down, fined by the government or lose your job has gotten way out of hand.

“Now it is clear the sports world is also bowing the knee to GLBTQ,” he added. “We must get more Christians to wake up and fight back or we will lose our country” to public displays of “man-to-man mouth kissing.”

4) Gays Taking Away Freedom By Celebrating Pride Month

On a similar note, Linda Harvey of Mission America said this week that LGBT Pride Month celebrations have violated her freedom. She didn’t say which freedoms she lost exactly, but she definitely felt oppressed!

“Such conduct is nothing to be proud of,” she wrote in WorldNetDaily. “Their alleged freedom means loss of liberty for you and me.”

Harvey, who wants the government to ban such celebrations from taking place, warns that “this movement is causing collateral damage in America. Are we willing to open our eyes and see where this is going? More pride means less freedom for Christians. That means loss of virtue and a farewell to America’s soul. Isn’t it time for America to stop the parade?”

3) Holocaust Against American Christians Approaching

In case you thought the outpourings from Wildmon and Harvey were enough, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said this week that he’s pretty sure gay rights advocates will “start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians” to concentration camps any day now.

In keeping with the theme, Southern Baptist Convention official Russell Moore worried about the prospect of pastors soon “going to jail” and Liberty Counsel attorneys Mat Staver and Matt Barber offered their own Nazi Germany analogy.

2) Blame Obama (And Facebook) For Las Vegas Shooting

No one should be surprised that Alex Jones claimed that the murder of three people in Las Vegas by two far-right activists hoping to launch an anti-government revolution was actually a false flag operation by Obama.

What is slightly surprising is that the InfoWars host claimed Facebook was in on the maneuver too:

1) Agenda 21 In Iowa

Right-wing conspiracy theories and absurd allegations about how the United Nations’ Agenda 21 will take away private property rights and force people into cities have truly gone mainstream in the GOP, with the latest musings about the non-binding environmental plan coming from the Iowa lawmaker who just won the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate.

Joni Ernst, a Republican state senator, suggested in a 2013 speech that the United Nations will use Agenda 21 to have Iowans thrown off “their agricultural land” and “consolidated into city centers.”

Jim Inhofe Says Obama Is 'Supporting The Enemy'

In an appearance on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” yesterday, Sen. Jim Inhofe deliberated whether President Obama is a terrorist supporter or a buffoon, and decided that he president is intentionally “supporting the enemy.”

“Never in my political career in my memory did it ever occur to me that we would have a president of the United States who would be doing things supporting the enemy,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “Our system isn’t set up for Congress to deal with this kind of a situation.”

Inhofe told FRC president Tony Perkins that he is even comfortable leaking information from classified briefings: “All of these hearings, these classified briefings like the one we had this morning, I almost don’t mind talking about what they said because they are all so orchestrated, they always have five or six people from the administration, all of them agreeing with the president.”

“People now are calling in on a regular basis and saying, you know what I knew this administration was incompetent but I believe this goes beyond incompetence, I believe some of it’s intentional, either they are working intentionally to undermine America or they simply have no clue whatsoever,” Perkins said.

Inhofe suggested that he agrees with Perkins that Obama is deliberately harming America.

“If I were to agree with that, I’d lose all credibility in going on because that is the first thing they’d accuse me of,” Inhofe responded. “But I’d have to tell you, those people have every reason to believe what they are believing now. This couldn’t just keep happening over and over again.”

Tony Perkins Warns Obama Turned America Into Sodom, Wonders If He Threatened John Boehner

The Family Research Council is not happy about the decision by the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to fly the LGBT pride flag this month.

Yesterday on his radio program, “Washington Watch,” FRC president Tony Perkins denounced the embassy’s decision.

“The rainbow flag over Israel — the last time they were flying that over Sodom and Gomorrah it didn’t work out so well,” Perkins said. “This administration is not just ignoring or indifferent to traditional values, it is hostile to them, it is hostile to the very things that made America great.”

Perkinbs also spoke to a caller who said President Obama is “Satan personified” and a “terrorist” who “threatened” House Speaker John Boehner “and his family” to keep him in check.

Perkins kept the allegation alive, telling the caller that “there could be something to that, I don’t know, I don’t think it’s come to that” while noting that “this president and his policies” have “dismantled the country morally and culturally.”

Rick Perry's Comparison Of Homosexuality To Alcoholism Is Nothing New From The Anti-Gay Right

Surprise! Yesterday, the same Republican politician who tried to save his foundering presidential campaign with a gay-baiting TV ad defended ex-gay therapy and compared homosexuality to alcohol abuse.

Speaking at a summit in California, Texas Gov. Rick Perry responded to questions about the Texas Republican Party’s endorsement of ex-gay therapy in its new far-right platform by arguing that homosexuality is like alcoholism: “Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that. I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”

Perry is far from the only Republican figure to have expressed this view.

Another former GOP presidential candidate who is also considering a second run, Gov. Mike Huckabee, likened homosexuality to alcoholism in a 2009 interview with Esquire:

Huckabee says he doesn't know if homosexuality is inborn, but he believes you can control the behavior. He compares homosexuality to obesity or alcoholism: "Some people have a predisposition to alcoholism. Does that mean they're not responsible for getting drunk? No."

Fellow 2012 presidential contender Rick Santorum cited “people who were gay and lived a gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore” as a reason to oppose gay rights. Michele Bachmann’s husband heads a clinic that practices ex-gay therapy. Ted Cruz’s father and political adviser, Rafael Cruz, has defended ex-gay therapy as legitimate “biblical” counseling, adding, “sexual orientation is a choice, it’s not a civil right.”

Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema recently got in trouble with his own party after he, among other offensive remarks, compared gay people to alcoholics. So did top Religious Right leaders Mat Staver and Tony Perkins. Robert Jeffress, a Texas pastor close to Perry, also “equates being gay with alcoholism or a genetic proclivity toward violence,” according to the Dallas-based D Magazine.

Despite story after story about the GOP’s purported shift on gay rights, the party is still mired in anti-gay bigotry.

Tony Perkins Worries Obama Will Seize Control of Government, Cancel 2016 Election

On his “Washington Watch” radio program yesterday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins read a letter from a listener, Todd, who warned that President Obama is attempting a “hostile government takeover” that would cancel the 2016 presidential election.

“Well, Todd, good point,” Perkins responded.

Anti-Defamation League Condemns Tony Perkins For 'Using Holocaust Imagery' To Attack Gay Rights

Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League released a statement yesterday condemning Family Research Council President Tony Perkins for warning that supporters of gay rights will soon “start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians” to camps, rebuking his remarks as “offensive and inappropriate.”

Tony Perkins’ invocation of the Holocaust in his statement referring to a judge’s finding that a baker unlawfully discriminated against gay customers is offensive and inappropriate.

There is no comparison between contemporary American political issues and the actions of Hitler’s regime during the Holocaust. Such inappropriate analogies only serve to trivialize the Holocaust and are deeply offensive to Jews and other survivors, as well as those Americans who fought valiantly against the Nazis in World War II.

We urge Perkins to apologize and to refrain from using Holocaust imagery to make his point.

Perkins, of course, is far from the first Religious Right activist to describe gay people, who were among the victims of the Holocaust, as modern-day Nazis.

You can listen to Perkins’ remarks, first reported by Right Wing Watch, here:

Tony Perkins Attacks 'Supposed' Christians Who Support Reproductive Rights

In recent weeks, the Religious Right has caught wind of a “pastoral letter” from Planned Parenthood’s clergy advocacy group that has been posted on the organization’s website for several months and states, “The decision about abortion is a matter between a woman, her conscience, and/or her God, and that those close to her should offer support in any way they can.”

Upon learning about the letter, the Alliance Defending Freedom offered to send a copy of the Bible to every Planned Parenthood clinic, Robert Jeffress called the letter “ridiculous” and WorldNetDaily blasted “Planned Parenthood’s Pastoral Letter from Hell.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins also weighed in in an email to members, writing, “Women are used to Planned Parenthood preying on them -- but praying on them? That's a new approach altogether.”

In a statement to Time yesterday, members of the Planned Parenthood clergy board responded to Perkins, saying, “Too often, the voices of negative religious discourse around abortion are those that loudly proclaim their teachings are the only ones that are valid. They try to shame and judge women who are making deeply personal and often complex decisions about their pregnancies.”

To which Perkins, of course, responded by implying that Christians who support reproductive rights are just “supposed” Christians, who “do not fully understand” the issue of abortion rights.

This line of argument is not a huge surprise coming from Perkins, who recently claimed that pro-gay clergy don’t have the same religious rights as conservatives because religious liberty is a freedom that’s based on orthodox religious viewpoints.”

Three clergy board members—the Board’s chair, Reform Jewish Rabbi Jon Adland of Canton, Ohio; vice-chair Rev. Susan Russell, of All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, Calif.; and Reform Jewish Rabbi Dennis Ross of Concerned Clergy for Choice in Albany, N.Y.—responded to Perkins’ criticism against their work in a statement to TIME. “Too often, the voices of negative religious discourse around abortion are those that loudly proclaim their teachings are the only ones that are valid,” they say. “They try to shame and judge women who are making deeply personal and often complex decisions about their pregnancies.”

For these Christian and Jewish leaders, their efforts far from spiritualize abortion–they defend a woman’s religious liberty. “As clergy members, we work every day to make clear that everyone is entitled to follow their own conscience and religious beliefs; what they don’t have the right to do is impose those beliefs on everyone else,” they say.

As ministers, they also believe they also have a spiritual responsibility to care for and counsel families in their communities. “As faith leaders, we recognize that women need to be supported and receive compassionate care while making deeply personal decisions based on faith and conscience,” they say. “It is important that women know that there are people of faith who respect a woman’s ability to make these deeply personal decisions in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her faith.”

Perkins, however, suggests that Christianity and Planned Parenthood are incompatible. “A straightforward reading of the Bible shows that since the beginning God held human life to be sacred, and values human life, no matter the stage,” Perkins says. “I imagine that Christians, supposed or true, who support Planned Parenthood either do not fully understand what abortion is, what its physical and emotional consequences are or what Planned Parenthood as an organization actually stands for and advocates.”

Janet Porter Wants Republicans 'Nationwide' To Adopt Texas GOP's Ex-Gay Resolution

Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action is so happy about the Republican Party of Texas’s decision to embrace ex-gay therapy as part of its new far-right platform that she wants similar language endorsing the pseudo-science “adopted nationwide”:

She might find allies in Tony Perkins and David Barton, members of the 2012 Republican National Committee platform committee who are both vocal supporters of ex-gay therapy.

Barton, a former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, bragged in 2012 of getting 70 of his 71 resolutions approved by the RNC, and Perkins released a statement yesterday praising the Texas GOP’s ex-gay resolution.

In 2012, Perkins claimed that his Family Research Council joined forces with Eagle Forum to shape the national GOP platform. Eagle Forum is the same group that successfully added the ex-gay language to the Texas GOP platform.

Is President Obama A 'Muslim Terrorist'? Tony Perkins Can't Say For Sure

Yesterday, after warning parents about the dangers of public schools and predicting that gay people are going to launch an anti-Christian Holocaust, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins mused that one really has to wonder whether President Obama is a terrorist.

During his “Washington Watch” radio program, Perkins fielded a question from a caller, Daniel, who said that “President Obama and Eric Holder act like they are radical Muslims in the fact that everything they’ve done in not going after the people in Benghazi, releasing the five terrorists, on and on and on, it just makes you think he’s a Muslim terrorist.”

“Daniel, it raises questions for me,” Perkins responded, accusing the Obama administration of failing to help a Sudanese woman who was jailed for converting to Christianity.

“To Daniel’s point you have to wonder, why, why are they so soft, in not wanting to make reference to Islam and terrorism?” he continued. “I don’t know. I don’t know the answer. I just know it’s troubling, it’s problematic. Is it driven by political correctness? What is it? I don’t know the answer, Daniel, but there’s clearly something wrong.”

Tony Perkins Calls On Families To Pull Kids Out Of Public Schools After DC Principal Comes Out As Gay

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins is urging parents across the country to pull their children out of public schools in response to a Washington, D.C., principal’s decision to come out to his students and school staff.

The principal of Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington D.C. publicly announced that he is gay at a Pride Day event yesterday, thanking students and community members for their support.

Perkins was of course appalled, urging his Washington Watch listeners yesterday to pull their kids from public schools: “If you have your children in the public schools, unless you’re in a district where you know exactly what’s going on in some rural part of the country where values are still embraced, you really need to think about whether or not you want to expose your kids to what’s happening in our public school system. I would encourage you to look for other alternatives.”

“Eighty-three percent of the students coming out of the District of Columbia are not proficient in reading skills, but they know how to celebrate gay pride,” Perkins said. “As we drop further and further in the global ranking of math and science scores, at least our kids will understand sex-ed. Amazing.”

Tony Perkins Says Gay Rights Advocates Want Anti-Christian Holocaust, Will 'Start Rolling Out The Boxcars'

After Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission unanimously upheld a judge’s finding that a baker unlawfully discriminated against gay customers, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins invited the baker’s attorney, Nicolle Martin of Alliance Defending Freedom, to discuss the case yesterday on “Washington Watch.”

Perkins reacted to the discrimination case by offering a comparison to the Holocaust: “I’m beginning to think, are re-education camps next? When are they going to start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians?”

“I guarantee that we are going to continue to see the witch hunt,” Martin said.

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 6/4/14

  • Bryan Fischer flatly declares that "Bowe Bergdahl deserves to die for what he has done."
  • Tony Perkins is a class act: "Taxpayer-funded sex changes: They aren't just for traitors and illegal immigrants anymore!"
  • Rob Schenck calls on Evangelical leaders to speak out against gun violence, saying "while I appreciate so much of what the NRA has done historically, it is not playing a constructive role in this situation."
  • We have no idea what this "Unite to Restore America As One Nation Under God Event" is going to be, but Cindy Jacobs is involved, so we'll be sure to watch.
  • Linda Harvey lays out the "12 Ways Homosexual Adults Endanger Children."
  • Gordon Klingenschmitt says that everyone remembers "when those terrorists from Afghanistan" carried out the 9/11 attacks. We'd like to point out that none of the hijackers were from Afghanistan.
  • Finally, Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton says that gay relationships are not at all like straight relationships: "[I]t is difficult to say with honesty that serious gay and lesbian relationships are just like heterosexual relationships."

Tony Perkins Claims ENDA Will Turn America Into Nazi Germany, Do Away With First Amendment

With right-wing opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) becoming increasingly unhinged, it was no surprise that Family Research Council president Tony Perkins warned members in an email today that ENDA would destroy businesses, entire communities, and the First Amendment.

Perkins writes that ENDA, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to current non-discrimination protections such as race, religion, gender and disability, would “banish” Christians from society and have them “stripped of their livelihood” while turning America into Nazi Germany.

They're pushing ENDA again -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- which would strip Americans of their religious liberties. No longer will an employer be able to make employment decisions based on what qualities or characteristics are most relevant to a particular job. Instead, ENDA will grant special rights and privileges, special power over an employer's religious convictions, to an entire group of people -- simply because of their preference for a certain type of sexual activity.

This is the most perverse distortion of the Constitution of the United States imaginable. And is more likely to impact you personally than ever before. Because ENDA is the federal government forcing a pro-homosexual point of view upon the entire (supposedly "free") marketplace.



You enjoy working in a Christian-owned business, for example. It's a great place to work, a good family-friendly environment. If your company does any work with the federal government, or if you're a subcontractor to a business holding a federal contract, you could suddenly find that your company's policies, if they reflect biblical views and values, are considered a violation -- and the company could lose that contract. Company revenues plummet. People get laid off. Maybe the company has to close its doors altogether and you are out of work.

As businesses are boarded up, whole communities will be affected. But the powerful anti-Christian lobby will dust off their hands: mission accomplished.

ENDA takes the chilling concept of "Big Brother" one diabolical step further . . . to "Big Bully." The federal government becomes the "enforcer" for liberal activists, driving anyone with a traditional view of natural marriage into the shadows ... because of the threat of a federal lawsuit.

You no longer enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of association. The First Amendment is dead to you -- because of your biblical views on the sin of homosexuality.



If the federal government can coerce you to comply with its views . . . cooperate with its policies . . . contribute to its plans for the transformation of America . . .

. . . well, sadly, this looks more and more like totalitarianism. We only have to look back to 1930 in Germany, or the USSR in the 1950s, to see what happens when leaders impose a totalitarian state on the people.



They are pushing for America to conform to their ideology. Freedom of speech and religion have no place in their vision. We can't let it happen.



. . . then anyone in America can be targeted ... called out ... pilloried in the public square . . . stripped of their livelihood ... branded as a "bigot" and banished from "society."

The 10 Most Absurd Arguments Against The Udall Citizens United Amendment

While good-government groups have been calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s dismantling of campaign finance laws since the day the Court handed down Citizens United in 2010, the issue has been largely off the radar of conservative activists – and has actually enjoyed broad bipartisan support in an array of polls and in state and municipal ballot measures.

It was largely off their radar, that is, until this week. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a proposal by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to send a constitutional amendment to the states restoring to Congress and state governments the ability to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections. In response, Republican politicians and conservative activists have kicked into gear and are starting to try out new talking points to get their movement to oppose efforts to lessen the influence of big money in politics.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, launched the misleading campaign two weeks ago when he warned a group of pastors that the Udall proposal would “repeal the First Amendment” and allow Congress to “muzzle” the free speech of clergy. In advance of the hearing today, conservative groups including the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Tea Party Patriots and the Home School Legal Defense Association started to mobilize against the amendment. Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation held a panel discussion to test out arguments against the amendment, featuring Bobby Burchfield, the attorney who argued the McCutcheon case before the Supreme Court, controversial former FEC chairman Don McGahn, and infamous voter-fraud conspiracy theorist Hans van Spakovsky .

Here, we’ve collected some of the most deceptive arguments that have been launched so far against the Udall amendment.

1. Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment!

When we first heard Ted Cruz  tell a stunned group of pastors that Democrats in the Senate were planning to “repeal the First Amendment,” we knew that we would be hearing that line again and again.

And we were right. Tea Party Patriots adopted the line in mobilizing its activists, as did the Eagle Forum. The Family Research Council claimed the Udall amendment would “strip political speech out of the First Amendment,” and von Spakovsky told the Heritage panel that the amendment would “roll back” the Bill of Rights.

Burchfield and McGahn both argued that the introduction of the constitutional amendment means, in the words of McGahn, that campaign finance law advocates are “admitting” that campaign finance regulations are “unconstitutional.”

On the surface, this is the opposition’s strongest argument, because it sounds so scary. But it’s just not true. Whether you support the Udall amendment or not, it’s dishonest to suggest that it would amount to a “repeal of the First Amendment.” Instead, proponents argue that it strengthens the First Amendment by undoing the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence declaring that spending on elections, including from corporate treasuries, cannot be limited. Proponents of the Udall amendment hold that this jurisprudence, including recent decisions in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, represented a radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment; undoing them would simply re-establish the ability of Congress and the states to set reasonable regulations on the raising and spending of money to influence elections.

2. Amendment supporters want to ‘silence critics’ and ‘cling to power’!

The Heritage panelists repeatedly claimed that the Udall amendment is an attempt to protect incumbency by preventing challengers from raising enough money to win elections. McGahn insisted that it was an effort by Democratic incumbents “desperately clinging to power.”

“They want to change the rules of the game and prevent people from criticizing them, not unlike England did before our revolution, and which led to our revolution,” he added.

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios also invoked the American Revolution in an interview with von Spakovsky yesterday, saying, “The First Amendment, the rights to free speech – particularly the right to political speech – were the right to criticize the king, criticize the authorities over you.”

In a later interview with Rios, Tea Party Patriots spokesman Scott Hogenson even managed to connect the Udall amendment with immigration reform, claiming that both are part of a “larger, concerted effort to maintain the Democratic Party’s control of American politics and eventually move to one-party rule.”

In reality, it’s unlimited campaign spending that tends to be a boon for incumbents, who on average are able to raise far more than challengers. For instance, in Texas, a state with few campaign finance limits, incumbents who win on average raise more than twelve times the average amount raised by challengers. By contrast, in Colorado, which has relatively low individual contribution limits, incumbents on average raise less than three times what challengers are able to raise [pdf].

3. Liberals just want to protect the lame-stream media!

In his speech to the pastors' group, Ted Cruz seized on the Udall proposal’s stipulation that “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press” to claim that the amendment carved out an exemption to protect the New York Times.

Von Spakovsky also played up conservative conspiracy theories about the “liberal media,” telling Rios, “No surprise, there’s a glaring exception in this proposed amendment for the press. And that means that MSNBC or the New York Times Company, which are big corporations, they could spend as much newsprint or airtime as they wanted going after and criticizing candidates or talking about political issues.”

These arguments fail to recognize one key distinction, which is that there is a difference between the New York Times publishing an editorial (which would be protected under the proposed amendment, as it is now) and the corporate managers of the New York Times taking $50 million out of their corporate treasury to buy ads to influence an election (which would not be protected).

4. They’ll go after pastors!

Opponents of the constitutional amendment have also been trying to tie the proposal to the right-wing paranoia about the impending persecution of America’s Christian majority .

It’s no coincidence that Cruz rolled out his criticism of the Udall proposal at a pastors’ event organized by the Family Research Council, a main theme of which was the supposed assault on the religious liberty of Christians in America. Cruz told the pastors that the Udall measure would “muzzle” clergy and was being proposed because “they don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth.”

Likewise, McGahn said at the Heritage event that the amendment would endanger the religious liberty of clergy: “What about pastors and churches? This is an issue that comes up once in a while. Can the government get in there and tell a priest he can’t talk to his congregation because it may somehow have something to do with politics?”

This might be true if the proposal would, in fact, “repeal the First Amendment.” In fact, the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty would remain in place.

Of course, that didn’t stop the FRC’s Tony Perkins from somehow linking the Udall amendment to the imprisonment of a Christian woman in Sudan:

5. It’s like the Alien & Sedition Acts!

Along with comparisons to British control before the American Revolution, amendment opponents are trying to link the Udall proposal to the 18th century Alien & Sedition Acts.

In his interview with Rios yesterday, van Spakovsky claimed that “the last time Congress tried to do something like this was when they passed the Alien & Sedition Act in 1798 that criminalized criticism of the government.” Multiple GOP senators at today’s hearing, including Judiciary Committeee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, repeated the talking point.

Of course, the amendment does nothing to reduce the right of individuals to criticize the government or politicians.

6. The polls are skewed!

When an audience member at yesterday’s Heritage Foundation panel asked about polls showing overwhelming opposition to the Citizens United decision, McGahn replied that the questions in the polls were “skewed.”

You can judge for yourself whether this question from a recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll  – which found 80 percent opposition to the Citizens United decision  – is “skewed” on behalf of campaign finance law proponents:

(image via Buzzfeed)

7. What about disclosure?

In one of the least self-aware moments we’ve witnessed in the last few days, McGahn told the Heritage audience that campaign finance reform proponents could have just worked for tougher disclosure requirements, which the Supreme Court’s majority has consistently endorsed as a way to prevent corruption:

What’s interesting is the courts have upheld some disclosure of independent speech, which six months ago was supposed to be the answer, a year ago was supposed to be the answer – remember the DISCLOSE Act, Part 1 and Part 2? Well, that was supposed to cure all the ills in our democracy, but unfortunately I guess they’ve given up on that and they’ve moved to the more radical change, which is the constitutional amendment.

Of course, the DISCLOSE Act – which would have exposed the source of some of the “dark money” behind large campaign expenditures – was blocked by Senate Republicans. And McGahn, when he was at the FEC, fought hard against disclosure requirements proposed in the wake of the Citizens United decision, even though the decision explicitly sanctioned such requirements.

8. The poor don’t participate anyway!

Speaking to the Heritage audience, Burchfield  presented the curious argument that the Udall amendment would demand to "equalize debate among the haves and have-nots,” and since “the portion is small” of “those with limited means” who participate in electoral debates, this would require “severe restrictions.”

The rich do not advocate a single viewpoint. Think of Sheldon Adelson and George Soros, they don’t agree on anything. There are strong voices on the left and on the right, not just in privately funded campaign advertisements, but also in the broadcast and print media. Only a small portion of those with significant resources even bother to participate in the debate. And among those with limited means, the portion is small indeed. In order to equalize debate among the haves and the have-nots, severe restrictions would be necessary. The quantity and quality of discourse would certainly suffer.

The amendment under consideration doesn’t require that everybody be heard an equal amount; instead, it gives Congress and the states the ability to create a more even platform for those who wish to be heard, regardless of their financial means.  

Burchfield's reasoning echoes the arguments of voter-suppression proponents who claim that their laws only inconvenience people who don’t really care about voting anyway.

9. It’s voter suppression!

Although many of the advocates of unlimited, undisclosed money in politics are the same people pushing harmful voter suppression laws, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas yesterday insisted that it’s actually amendment proponents who are advocating “voter suppression” and want to “silence” critics.

10. Blame Saul Alinsky!

Inevitably, anti-amendment activists have begun invoking the right-wing bogey-man Saul Alinsky.

Hogenson told Rios that the Udall amendment is “just taken right out of Saul Alinksy’s book, ‘Rules for Radicals,’ it just makes up a gigantic lie and perpetuates it, that somehow democracy needs to be restored.”

Von Spakovsky also invoked Alinsky in his interview with Rios, claiming that criticism of the enormous political spending of the Koch brothers is an Alinskyite plot: “What’s really going on here is, look, if you look at Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals,’ one of the rules that he sets out is you pick a villain and you basically blame those villains for all of the problems. It’s a way of distracting the public, it’s a way of diverting attention, and that’s exactly what Harry Reid and the Democrats are doing here.”

Tony Perkins Links Effort To Overturn Citizens United To Imprisonment Of Christian Sudanese Woman

On Friday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins — who earlier last week managed to connect the Isla Vista shooting to the Affordable Care Act — tied the imprisonment of a Sudanese Christian woman to a Senate hearing on a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, a ruling which allowed for unrestricted, undisclosed corporate political donations.

Speaking on his radio program, “Washington Watch,” Perkins chastised Democratic leaders like Chuck Schumer — who Perkins said “thinks he understands freedom better than America’s Bill of Rights” — and Mark Udall for opposing the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision.

“The National Archives will need more than bombproofing to protect America’s founding documents,” he warned. Perkins then invited Sen. Pat Roberts onto the show to discuss the proposed amendment.

The Kansas Republican thanked Perkins for not only defending Citizens United but also bringing attention to the imprisonment of Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman married to an American who is in jail in Sudan for converting to Christianity. Perkins replied that the two cases are actually related: “The two of them are very connected. In our First Amendment we have our freedom of religion and freedom of speech and we keep our freedom of religion by working to keep our freedom of speech, and political speech is actually what’s under attack here.”

Roberts accused Senate Democrats of trying to “restrict the free speech of those who simply disagree with them.”

Later, Roberts said supporters of a constitutional amendment like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seek to “regulate free speech so they can silence their critics and retain their hold on power.”

“This is voter suppression, this is to silence his critics,” he said.

Tony Perkins Manages To Link Isla Vista Massacre To Obamacare

After linking the Isla Vista shooting to gay marriage, now the Family Research Council is somehow trying to use the incident to criticize Obamacare.

On his Tuesday radio show, FRC head Tony Perkins managed to turn a discussion of shooter Elliot Rodger’s misogynist thinking into a right-wing attack on Obamacare, explaining that “nothing is being said about how Hollywood has sexualized everything where it’s almost like Obamacare, you have a right to healthcare, you have a right to sexual gratification, almost.”

American Family Association: Don't Open Letters With Harvey Milk Stamp

Incensed by the release of a postage stamp honoring Harvey Milk, the American Family Association is urging its members not only to avoid purchasing the stamp…but to refuse to accept or open any letter or package postmarked with one.

1. Refuse to accept the Harvey Milk stamp if offered by your local post office. Instead, ask for a stamp of the United States flag.

2. Refuse to accept mail at your home or business if it is postmarked with the Harvey Milk stamp. Simply write 'Return to Sender" on the envelope and tell your postman you won't accept it.

In his daily email alert yesterday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins also attacked the Obama administration for issuing the stamp, linking the move to the imprisonment of a Sudanese mother who is facing the death penalty for her conversion to Christianity: “[T]he Obama administration -- which had more than enough time to throw a party in honor of homosexual activist Harvey Milk -- hasn't had a spare second to demand the freedom of two of America’s youngest citizens.”

FRC also marked the occasion by republishing a 2009 article by senior fellow Peter Sprigg attacking Milk:

Pro-homosexual activists will describe the issue as one of identity – “who they are.” But the real issue is one of behavior – what they do. And what Harvey Milk (like other homosexual activists) wanted was not only the freedom to engage in homosexual sex, but the right to do so without ever being criticized. Milk told one audience that “it is madness to … be ashamed of the sexual act, the act that conceived you. …” Yet homosexual acts never conceived anyone, which is what separates them, undeniably, from heterosexual acts.

Since Harvey Milk died from an assassin’s bullet, over a quarter million American men have died of AIDS, which they contracted because they had sex with other men. What’s truly “madness” is that someone whose only claim to fame is that they promoted such deadly behavior should be honored with a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Trent Franks Claims Obama Wouldn't Care If Al Qaeda Attacked Texas

Rep. Trent Franks stopped by the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” yesterday to discuss the plight of a Sudanese woman who is facing a death sentence for converting to Christianity.

The Arizona Republican of course managed to blame President Obama for the situation, telling FRC president Tony Perkins that the administration isn’t helping the woman, who is married to a U.S. citizen.

“I wonder if this administration would worry if Al Qaeda took Texas,” he said. “He might say it’s none of our business. It’s just really starting to be something that frightens me terribly and I think it is indicative of why this administration has been so soft on trying to protect religious freedom here.” 

When Perkins joked that Al Qaeda would have a tough time “taking Texas,” Franks responded that Texans “might not get much help from the federal government, from this administration anyway.”

Franks has in the past called Obama an “enemy of humanity,” pushed birther conspiracy theories and suggested the the president is a secret Muslim

Family Research Council Spokesman Links Isla Vista Shooting Spree To Gay Marriage

Family Research Council senior fellow Ken Blackwell yesterday linked the Isla Vista mass killings to marriage equality laws, which he claimed are destroying the culture. Speaking with FRC president Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch,” Blackwell blamed the shooting on “the crumbling of the moral foundation of the country” and “the attack on natural marriage and the family.”

“When these fundamental institutions are attacked and destroyed and weakened and abandoned, you get what we are now seeing,” Blackwell said, arguing that people who are “blaming the Second Amendment” are “avoiding talking about what is at the root cause of the problem.”

Blackwell has previously described marriage equality advocates as “opponents of natural marriage.”

FRC Officials Really Want You To Know They Are Definitely Not Gay

We don’t know what happened at Wednesday evening’s Capitol tour for the pastors at the Family Research Council’s Watchmen on the Wall conference, but in speeches the next day, two FRC officials really wanted to make it clear that they are definitely not gay.

Craig James, the former Fox Sports analyst who was hired by FRC after becoming the Right’s latest anti-gay martyr, began his speech by joking that there should be a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about the previous night, specifically calling out FRC president Tony Perkins and executive vice president Jerry Boykin. He then joked that Boykin – who once said that the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” led to the military’s “moral decline” and “absolute destruction” – won’t let anyone wear a pink shirt in the FRC office.

Later that afternoon, Perkins was introduced by his hometown pastor, who gave him a hearty hug as he walked to the stage. “Thank you,” Perkins said as he reached the microphone. “I was just glad you didn’t kiss me.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious