Election 2012

Beck: 'I Believe [Mitt Romney] Could Be Abraham Lincoln'

On Friday, Glenn Beck featured David Barton on his program as the two once again discussed the importance of prayer and fasting leading up to the election as demonstrated by President Lincoln fact that it was, according to Barton, Lincoln's proclamation of a day of prayer and fasting in the middle of the Civil War that decisively turned the tide:

And since this upcoming election is, according to Beck, the most important one since the election of Lincoln, that can only mean that Mitt Romney is the next Abraham Lincoln:

VP Debate Highlights the Importance of the Supreme Court

Joe Biden spells out the danger of a Supreme Court with Romney justices hand-picked by the infamous Robert Bork.
PFAW

Owens: Marriage Equality will ‘Deteriorate the Black Family More than Anything Else’

William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors and the National Organization for Marriage’s religious liaison is hoping that his anti-Obama, anti-gay campaign will pay off in November by pulling black voters away from supporting Obama. While sitting down with Jamilah Lemieux of Ebony, Owens said that black voters are turning against Obama “because [our site] had nearly 90 thousand hits and 85 percent of the people are on our side on this issue” and also told Lemieux that “there isn’t such thing as separation as church and state.” Owens effectively admitted to Lemieux that CAAP is a single-issue organization dedicated to opposing same-sex marriage, insisting that marriage equality for gays and lesbians must be stopped because “the Black family has been destroyed” and will “help deteriorate the Black family more than anything else.”

JL: Black people are literally on fire right now. You have people--- teenagers, kids---dying in Chicago. Getting shot 10, 12, 30 in a night and you're sending out daily press releases about same sex marriage. Is this the greatest challenge of your generation or my generation? is this the biggest fight that we have in the middle of an election season? Do we have that much to lose from gay people getting married?

RO: I think we do. First of all, the Black family has been destroyed. When I grew up there were more Black men going to college, now there are more Black men going to prison. Something is wrong.

JL: What does that have to do with homosexuality? There are Black men who have went to college and graduate and got married and are gay and also Black men who have women who they’ve been in intimate relationships with who didn’t go to college and who don’t provide for their children. So who is the problem in our community?

RO: We're our own problem right now. We are are own problem and we need good moral leadership and I expected that from Obama. Same sex marriage is not [representative of that]...I felt that that one issue was enough to help deteriorate the Black family more than anything else.

His wife Deborah Owens made a similar assertion in a Washington Times op-ed where she warned that the “homosexual agenda” will “erode the very foundation of our society” and “place our youth on a dangerous trajectory toward a bleak future in which mothers and fathers don’t matter, values don’t matter and children are placed at risk.” She said gays and lesbians “have crept out of the closet, and now they want to take over the entire house,” arguing that Obama is “putting our country on a dangerous path and our children and families in peril” by backing their right to marry, jeopardizing “our future as a nation” and “our freedom.”

Some criticize us for not supporting the practice, but accepting homosexuals and lesbians is a separate issue from redefining marriage for millions of Americans. Homosexuals and lesbians have been around for a long time, though many of them were “in the closet.” Over time, they have crept out of the closet, and now they want to take over the entire house. If a man loves another man or a woman desires another woman, there is nothing in our current law stopping two consenting adults from engaging in a relationship, though it is not normal behavior. We are about to cross a dangerous line, with civil leaders trying to force all Americans to accept homosexual unions and change the historical and biblical definition of marriage.



The black American community already is plagued with problems related to children growing up in single-parent households. For example, a boy who lacks a father in the home is more likely to engage in delinquent and criminal behavior unless he has a positive male role model to help shape him. The homosexual agenda, which attempts to redefine family and marriage, will erode the very foundation of our society. It will place our youth on a dangerous trajectory toward a bleak future in which mothers and fathers don’t matter, values don’t matter and children are placed at risk.

Evidence shows that the lack of intact families in our society leads to social, psychological and emotional problems for children. Why would Mr. Obama want to make homosexual “marriage” equal to traditional marriage when children already face a multitude of issues? The president and others want to legitimize and normalize homosexual “marriage” and shove it down the throats of those who disagree because he is the leader and he said so.



What black person would deny the first black man running for the highest office in America a chance to become president? He represented hope for us all, and he was the realization of the dream for many Americans who never thought they would live to see a black president. We were soon disillusioned. Mr. Obama has betrayed us by his endorsement of homosexual “marriage,” putting our country on a dangerous path and our children and families in peril.

On the homosexual “marriage” issue, this black mom is not following Mr. Obama.

Our hope in man, even one man, cannot come at the cost of our hope in God.

Our future as a nation is at stake. Our freedom is in the balance. Mr. Obama has given his followers an invalid command: Endorse homosexual “marriage.” This edict must not be the law of this land. The risks are too great.

Staver: ‘I’m Not an Alarmist’ but this Election Will ‘Literally’ Determine ‘the Survival of Western Civilization’

On today's episode of Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Mat Staver and Matt Barber discussed "the awakening of pastors in this election and the critical importance of this fall." Such an awakening is particularly important now, Staver explained, because "we are at a critical time of the future of America and literally the survival of Western Civilization, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that":

NOM’s William Owens: Democrats are a ‘Demonic Party’

Today, the National Organization for Marriage’s religious liaison William Owens appeared on Today’s Issues with Family Research Council head Tony Perkins and American Family Association president Tim Wildmon, who spent much of the time talking to Owens about how because of the President’s stance on marriage equality black voters are now turning against Obama (they’re not) and that there is no way Obama is a Christian. Owens later claimed that not only is Obama not a Christian but also that his Democratic Party is a “demonic party” that must be stopped.

Owens: They haven’t seen anything yet, now I get hate mail now and I don’t know what they’ll say the next time, because I’m going at a party with God out, when it was God who brought black people through slavery, it was God that we trusted in that brought us through the civil rights movement when we were being beaten, put out of our homes, threatened, lost our jobs, it was God that we looked to. For them to take God out its demonic; it is a demonic party and I will call it what it is and I’ll take the heat, at my age what can I lose? I will tell the truth. I’m not trying to win favor with anybody I just want God to be pleased with my life.

Robison: America is Falling 'Under the Control of Ungodly Forces'

James Robison dedicated two days of his "Life Today" program this week to beseeching his audience to stand up for "faith, family, and freedom," especially heading into this election, because America is "going to have to choose between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil." At a time when "the collapse of commitment and relationships in marriage, the deterioration of the American family, [and] the literal mockery of God" are everywhere, Robison warned, Christians must take a stand and decide that either God is going to be placed at the head of our nation or America is just going to place itself totally "under the control of ungodly forces":

Truth in Action Ministries Warns of ‘Maoist-Style’ Instruction in Military after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal

Truth in Action Ministries has released their “2012 Issues Guide for Christian Voters” [PDF], which argues that federal spending on social services “goes against what the Bible says about caring for one’s own and others” and pushing for bans on abortion rights, stem cell research and emergency contraception. The group also warns of “radical judges” and an “out-of-control judiciary,” the “dangerous and destructive” health care reform law and the “false religion” of environmentalism.

But of course, no Religious Right voter guide goes without a section on gay rights, and Truth in Action Ministries tells members that END will “impose the homosexual political agenda on the workplace” and that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has started “Maoist-style ‘re-education’ in ‘diversity.’” The group also claims the repeal law will “violate the rights of those serving by forcing them to cohabit and shower with people who may desire them sexually” and “jeopardize the military’s health and blood supply, since homosexual men are far more likely to be promiscuous and to have STDs, including HIV/AIDS”

In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). But in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the state’s marriage law, and the state began issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses six months later, despite no change in the law. And in May 2012, a federal appeals court in Boston declared DOMA unconstitutional.

All candidates should be asked how they will defend marriage from this radical assault. It’s not enough to say they favor marriage if they also support same-sex “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships,” or “sexual orientation” laws, all of which incentivize homosexual relationships and devalue marriage. They should also be questioned about:

• The proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would impose the homosexual political agenda on the workplace;

• A constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union only of one man and one woman;

• New policies giving marital benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Servicemen and women put their lives on the line. They deserve policies that ensure maximum military readiness and the best chance to win wars and return home alive. That’s why Congress overwhelmingly passed a law in 1993 incorporating as policy the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s ban on homosexual sodomy. But now the federal government has overturned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We believe this is profoundly immoral on several levels. It would:

• Hurt unit cohesion, morale, retention, and recruitment;

• Violate the rights of those serving by forcing them to cohabit and shower with people who may desire them sexually;

• Jeopardize the military’s health and blood supply, since homosexual men are far more likely to be promiscuous and to have STDs, including HIV/AIDS;

• Force chaplains to resign or to jettison God’s Law in favor of political correctness;

• Subject all personnel to Maoist-style “re-education” in “diversity.”

Likewise, Congress should resist any effort eliminate women’s combat exemption.

FRC Partners with Church that Urged Members to ‘Actively Pray and Work for the Defeat of Barack Obama’

FRC president Tony Perkins and vice presidents Jerry Boykin and Kenyn Cureton are heading to Catalina Foothills Church in Tucson, Arizona for “Recapture America.” Cosponsors include the Center for Arizona Policy, the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) and the church’s Christian Impact Committee. Recently the church claimed [PDF] that Obama is pushing a “reprioritization in human rights policy in favor of the advancement of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights” that is contributing to a “global crisis in religious liberty” and likened Obama to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein.

During his Sunday sermon, Rev. Allen Cooney called on members of the church to “actively pray and work for the defeat of Barack Obama” in the upcoming election as he is an “enemy” of Christianity and religious freedom.

Of course that shouldn’t be a surprise as Perkins believes it is a sin for a Christian to vote for Obama and Boykin thinks Obama is using health care reform to create a personal Brownshirt army.

‘Nonpartisan’ Religious Right Leaders Demand that Christians Vote for Romney

Religious Right leaders love to proclaim that they are nonpartisan. Rick Scarborough insists he is not a Republican or a Democrat, but a Christocrat.  Samuel Rodriguez repeatedly claims that he is not pushing the agenda of the Elephant or the Donkey, but the Lamb. And yet they are actively involved in attempts to convince Christians that loyalty to biblical values requires a vote against Barack Obama and for Mitt Romney, even though many evangelicals do not consider Mormons to be Christians.  The latest example comes via Rick Joyner’s dominionist Oak Initiative. Joyner sent Oak supporters a long essay by Dr. James Richards of Impact Ministries, which denounces partisanship and says, “This is not about Democrats and Republicans; it is about being a believer, committed to the Lordship of Jesus.”  Richards’ essay concludes with a charge to elect Romney, the “least damaging” option on the ballot, in order to “buy time” to hold off socialism and get the right kind of people in office.

To my knowledge, there has never been a President that could satisfy all the interests of the church. So our only choice is to choose what we will overlook and what we will over emphasize. It is time for us to see the bigger picture. WE ARE ALWAYS VOTING FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. We must realize that in many instances, not voting means putting someone into office by default who may be a much greater risk to our beliefs and freedoms.

Many will not vote for Obama because he is in favor of gay marriage and abortion. However, those same people oppose Romney on the basis of his Mormon background. Many Christians will feel they have no choice and not vote. But we must remember, in 2008 the 30 million Christian evangelicals that didn’t vote decided the election by default.

We are not attempting to get a perfect man in office. We are attempting the get the least damaging man in office. As such we have peace, something the early church could only pray for, but we can vote for. If we can get a man in office who is not a socialist committed to the reduction of America and extreme leftist agendas, we will buy the time to make changes in Congress, and eventually at the State level. But most importantly, we can get people in office who will uphold God’s values and the Constitution. Based on the words and the track record of the extreme left, in four more years we may be too far gone to make a difference. YOU ARE NOT VOTING FOR THE MAN, YOU ARE VOTING FOR THE TIME TO MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE!

 

Perkins & Boykin Sense a Conspiracy That DADT Repeal is Being Used to Lower Military Voter Turnout

Amid reports that absentee ballot requests among those serving in the military are down dramatically this year in comparison to 2008, Tony Perkins and Don Wildmon brought Jerry Boykin on to "Today's Issues" today so all three could wildly speculate as to the cause.

While some are suggesting that requests for absentee ballots are down because the number of soldiers who are deployed is down and other are explaining that levels are similar to what they were in 2004, Perkins and Boykin suspect that something else is going on; namely that military leaders have had to spend so much time instituting the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and "implementing the President's social agenda" that they haven't had time to make sure soldiers were able to vote. 

In fact, suggested Boykin, this might even be intentional because members of the military are so angry over the repeal of DADT and "the way the military has been exploited for political purposes with all the release of information about the killing of bin Laden" that they are going to vote overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney:

Jackson: The Church Must 'Tell Us Who to Vote For'

All sorts of Religious Right activists are stressing the importance of prayer heading into this election and now Harry Jackson has produced a four-minute video on the need for "40 Days of Prayer for our Nation" in which he urges Christians to pray that their local churches as well as those around the nation will "speak to us and give us direction; they need to tell us who to vote for":

Beck: Romney's Debate Performance was Divine Providence

Last week, Glenn Beck and David Barton got together to discuss the importance of prayer and fasting heading into the upcoming election, with Beck proclaiming that considering that the Romney campaign was trailing in the polls and beset by negative press, when Romney wins the election it will have been nothing short of the work of God.

Yesterday, Beck brought Barton back on to his radio show to discuss the first presidential debate where Beck declared that his prayers were starting to be answered because the results were nothing short of divine providence:

Romney's Right Resorts to Racial Resentment

This week, on the eve of the first presidential debate, right-wing media, led by the Drudge Report, the Daily Caller, and Fox News, hyped a supposedly secret video that they dubbed “the other race speech.”  Fox News propagandist Sean Hannity tried desperately to portray the video as “explosive” footage that the liberal media had deliberately hid from voters to protect Barack Obama. Religious Right leaders played their part, with Liberty Counsel’s ludicrous Matt Barber demanding, “Romney simply must make ad upon ad out of this devastating video exposing Obama as a white-hating racist.”  Karl Rove, who with a cadre of right-wing billionaires has kept Republican hopes alive by funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into the election, piled on, saying Obama’s comments were designed to “stir up racial animosity” and called them “abhorrent.”

Of course, as it turned out, the video is neither news nor explosive.  It is a 2007 campaign speech that had been well covered by mainstream media at the time.  Ultimately what is newsworthy and offensive is not Obama’s 2007 speech, but the way that right-wing pundits, desperate to defeat him in November, have resorted to a brazen strategy of stoking racial resentment, and trying to create a distraction by accusing the president of doing the same thing.  Not only is Mitt Romney unwilling to stand up to the extremists in his own party, as President Obama pointed out in last night’s debate,  Romney and his campaign are fully engaged in destructive racial politicking. It’s worth noting the contrast with John McCain, who sometimes stood up to his party’s extremists; Romney cheers them on.
 
Some Romney backers are not even bothering to try to cloak the racial-resentment strategy.  Right-wing blogger John Hawkins flat-out declared this week, “Barack Obama is an Anti-White Racist.”  And he tweeted, “A white woman voting for Barack Obama is like a black woman voting for the KKK.” When Glenn Beck accused Obama of hating white people in 2009, the resulting uproar contributed to an exodus of advertisers from his show.  But in 2012, with the election on the line, there’s been no sign that the Romney campaign is troubled by Hawkins’ claims: his pro-Romney writing is still featured on the official campaign website.
 
Hawkins isn’t alone.  Earlier this year, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer, told his radio listeners:  “I believe that President Obama has a fundamental dislike, a fundamental distaste, nay I would even say he’s got what borders on a hatred for white people, and he is out to punish America and the white folks that make up the majority of the American population.”
 
Salon’s Joan Walsh has dissected the outrageous distortions of Obama’s speech by Hannity and Tucker Carlson in a post about “right-wing racial panic.” Romney officials said the campaign was not responsible for the recent “release” of the 2007 speech, but as Buzzfeed’s Zeke Miller points out, they did not distance themselves from it either.  In fact a senior Romney advisor said that voters “have to look at that video and have to make up their mind on that individually.” 
 
Indeed, the Romney campaign itself has made an appeal to racial resentment a centerpiece of its outreach to working-class white voters, who outside the South have been pretty equally divided between Romney and Obama.  Exhibit A is the television ad campaign, pretty much universally acknowledged to be an outright lie, charging that Obama gutted welfare reform by getting rid of its work requirement.  One ad shows glum white workers while claiming that thanks to Obama, people no longer have to work or train for a job; “they just send you your welfare check.”  Later ads have repeated the same false charge.
 
Romney himself pushed the same point when, gloating to a Republican audience about having been booed when he told NAACP members that he would repeal “Obamacare.”  Romney characterized those who disagreed with his speech as people who “want more free stuff” from the government. Journalist Adele Stan of AlterNet has chronicled various ways the Romney campaign is using racial resentment and racially coded language, including the welfare ads, statements such as John Sununu’s claim that Obama needs to learn how to be American, and the choice of “Keep America America” – one letter away from the KKK’s “Keep America American” – as a campaign slogan.
 
Divisive racial politics have a long history in America, of course.  But there is also a more recent history: right-wing leaders have made the politics of racial resentment key to their attacks on President Obama throughout his presidency, as People For the American Way Foundation noted in its 2009 report, “Right Plays the Race Card.” And right-wing groups such as the National Organization for Marriage have made racial wedge issues a centerpiece of their anti-equality campaigns.After this week’s debate, Romney campaign co-chair Sununu described the president as “lazy” and “not that bright.”
 
Romney might get a bit of a bump out of this week’s debate, though the president’s prospects should be boosted by Friday’s good economic news.  The longer President Obama's lead in the polls holds up, the more likely it is that we will see destructive racial politicking from the rabid right-wing.

 

Right Wing Round-Up - 10/4/12

A Movement’s Katrina Moment

Romney's comments about the 47% are a clarifying moment that can forever change how Americans view him, his party, and the corporate right.
PFAW

Democratic Party Platform Prompts a Religious Right 'Decree For America'

One of the fascinating things about the Religious Right is the sheer redundancy of so many of their mobilization efforts and the grandstanding that goes along with them as they launch coalitions and issue contracts and declarations in which they declare that they will never, ever abandon their radical agenda.

And so, with an important election coming up, it is no surprise to see that Janet Porter, Aryeh Spero, and others have launched a new effort they are calling the "Decree for America" which people can sign in order to declare that they will never support abortion or gay marriage or any division of Israel:

I. LIFE. We decree that human life possesses intrinsic dignity from the moment of conception until death. We decree that life begins at conception, and a baby in the womb is a living soul. We refute the culture of death established by Roe v. Wade and the expansion of such culture by current laws that legalize abortion on demand, in any stage of pregnancy. We further refute the implication that all Americans be required to invest their tax dollars in the slaughter of unborn children. Furthermore, we refute the ideology that encourages euthanasia, thereby erasing those who have been deemed to have lives “not worth living.” We decree that God has entrusted us as His guardians and agents to protect life.

II. FAMILY. We decree that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. We proclaim and decree that marriage laws in America will always adhere to the biblical worldview that marriage is a holy covenant before God between a man and a woman committed to lifelong fidelity and purity. As people of faith, we refute the movement to redefine marriage as simply a romantic relationship between people, and we refute maneuvers to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. Marriage is a monogamous relationship with a core value of procreation. We support the first commandment in the Bible given to a husband and wife that they should produce fruit through bearing and raising children. We decree that marriage laws in America will not include unions other than those between a man and a woman.

III. AN UNDIVIDED ISRAEL. We decree that the land of Israel shall not be divided. Out of heartfelt conviction we passionately support the Jewish state of Israel and see in it God’s promise and fulfillment of the covenant between the Jewish people and the land itself. We proclaim that Jerusalem has always been the holy and anointed spot of Jewish history, and we declare it will always be the indivisible capital of Israel. We decree that never again shall the Jewish people forfeit their land and their city.

We decree that we cannot support a so-called “right of return” by Arabs into Israel, designed to demographically denude Israel as a Jewish state and culturally and religiously transform it from a free society into one under Sharia and absolutist control. To ensure Jerusalem’s survival we strongly, without equivocation, endorse a policy that leaves Israel in a stronger military position against her manifold surrounding enemies. As with our forebears, we remain biblical Zionists who recognize the merit of being participants of Israel’s ingathering of her exiles and the rebirth of the biblical land.

This decree was necessary, apparently, because the Democratic Party platform was so "radical" in its efforts to "purposely defy the God of heaven, breaking His laws of life and marriage, and furthermore seek to divide His land" that conservative Christians simply must take a stand ... just as Esther did in the Bible:

The book of Esther gives us the answer. An evil ruler named Haman had written down his radical agenda of annihilating all of the Jewish people within his reach, which encompassed 127 provinces in the Persian Empire. He recorded the details of his plot in a decree signed by the king, carrying the force of law. Esther, the king’s wife, was Jewish. Through a series of godly appeals to the king, Esther was given the duty of refuting Haman’s evil plan by writing her own decree. She decreed justice for her people and through the authority of her written words, God delivered the Jews from destruction.

Join individuals, families, and church leaders across the country who will read and affirm this Decree for America on November 4th for the legacy of our generation and generations to come.

And if that wasn't enough to entice you to sign, this decree also has its own theme song and video:

Paul Ryan Promises Focus on the Family that He Will Fight Gay Equality

During an interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights. Focus on the Family and its founder James Dobson have a long history of promoting anti-gay policies and ex-gay therapy, and earned a shout-out from Romney earlier this week while campaigning in Colorado, where it is headquartered.

While Romney has moved in his career from backing gay rights to becoming a vocal foe, Ryan has a solidly anti-gay voting record in Congress. Ryan told Daly, whose political arm has been spending money on behalf of Romney and a number of other Republican candidates like Todd Akin, that the ticket is firmly against same-sex marriage and that he was a “big supporter” of a 2006 amendment which enshrined marriage discrimination into the Wisconsin state constitution. He also said the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act hurt the “rule of law” and “contradicts our system of government,” however, a number of presidents including George W. Bush have not defended statutes they deemed unconstitutional.

Daly: Focus on the Family has been behind the scenes working for years to defend marriage and to speak out for marriage and the importance of marriage. I think thirty-two out of thirty-two states where we have helped put a ballot initiative or some other mechanism in front of the people, we have won that thirty-two out of thirty-two times. It seems like when it’s in front of the people they vote for it, if it’s the state-level judges they will try to do it by fiat or if it is simply some other mechanism, the State House passes it without the vote of the people. For the Romney-Ryan ticket, when you look at marriage, what do we need to do in the culture to lift up and strengthen the very core building block of society and that’s family.

Ryan: It’s the foundation for society and for family for thousands of years. First of all, Mitt Romney and I — I’ll just say it, it’s worth repeating — we believe marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s number one. Number two, you know where I come from we had one of those amendments in Wisconsin, I was a big supporter of it and we passed it like you say, where it’s put on the ballot it passes. The second point is, President Obama gave up defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, I mean, not only is this decision to abandon this law the wrong decision, it passed in a bipartisan manner, it is very troubling because it undermines not only traditional marriage but it contradicts our system of government. It’s not the president’s job to pick and choose which laws he likes. A Romney administration will protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves.

Poll: Americans Fear Romney Would Further Shift Supreme Court Toward Big Business

Survey finds high court is a significant factor for voters

A newly released Hart Research Associates poll indicates that Americans fear that if Mitt Romney is elected president, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will shift the court even more in favor of big business at the expense of everyday Americans. Hart also found that the Supreme Court is a significant factor for voters in the upcoming election.

The poll was conducted for the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and People for the American Way. It consisted of a national online survey of 1,007 registered, likely voters between August 24-30, 2012 and two focus groups in Philadelphia

It found that 63 percent of all voters, and more than half of independent voters and presidential “swing” voters, say the issue of who will serve on the Supreme Court is an important consideration in their vote this year. According to the survey, what most concerns voters – a full 54 percent --is their worry that Romney will nominate justices who will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans.

In contrast, voters believe that Obama is more likely to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” And they believe President Obama is much more likely to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” The voters surveyed were also concerned about Romney’s opposition to Supreme Court decisions favoring women’s rights, including Roe v. Wade, Indeed, 59 percent of all voters, and 62 percent of swing voters, say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.

“If the next president fills even one vacancy on the Supreme Court, he could change the court, and America, for decades,” said Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign. “This poll makes clear that the American people don’t want the president to further shift the court toward corporate special interests for a generation or more.”

“Americans are convinced that a Romney Court would make it harder for women and minorities to lead their day-to-day lives,” said Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “As the Court considers affirmative action and same-sex marriage, its role as the last arbiter of equality for millions of disadvantaged Americans is clear. And Romney will have to quell these fears if he ever hopes to gain the trust of these communities.”

“We pick a president for four years, but he picks Supreme Court justices for a lifetime,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “This polling shows that Americans are concerned about how this election will affect the future of the Supreme Court, and know that a Mitt Romney presidency would skew the Court ever further to the Right.”

Sixty percent of all voters, and 63 percent of swing voters said they had less confidence Romney would appoint the right kinds of justices to the Supreme Court when told that Romney favored the Citizens United decision, which led to opening the floodgates to massive corporate campaign contributions. Voters are influenced as well by a number of recent 5-4 decisions siding with corporations over people, including Wal-Mart over its female employees, AT&T over its customers, and the case decided against Lily Ledbetter that led to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

A full memo on the poll and focus groups is below. A pdf of the memo is available here.

###

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Guy Molyneux, Hart Research

DATE: September, 2012

RE: The Supreme Court and 2012


On behalf of Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and People for the American Way, Hart Research has conducted opinion research on the potential impact that the issue of Supreme Court nominations could have on the 2012 presidential election. A national online survey of 1,007 registered, likely voters was conducted August 24-30, 2012, followed by two focus groups in Philadelphia.

1) The issue of Supreme Court nominations is an important voting consideration for registered voters, including a substantial portion of swing voters.

Fully 63% of voters say that the issue of nominating justices to the Supreme Court will be an important consideration in their voting this year. That includes 30% who say “very important” consideration. As we would expect, strong partisans assign the greatest weight to the issue, but substantial numbers of independent voters (55%) and presidential swing voters (54%) also report a significant level of concern about the Supreme Court issue. Moreover, after survey respondents hear information about Mitt Romney’s positions on judicial issues and his model for judicial nominations, they rate the importance of the Court even more highly: 71% say it will be an important voting consideration, including 39% (a 9-point increase) who say very important.

2) Voters have more confidence in President Obama than Mitt Romney with respect to Supreme Court nominations.

Voters say that they have more confidence in Barack Obama (46%) than Mitt Romney (41%) to select good federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Obama is trusted on judicial nominees much more than Romney among the voters who will likely determine the outcome of the presidential election. Independent voters prefer Obama by an 8-point margin (39% to 31%), and Obama’s advantage grows to an impressive 18 points (42% to 24%) among presidential swing voters (those undecided or weakly committed to a candidate). Women in the center of the electorate strongly prefer Obama, as he enjoys a 19-point edge with independent women (43% to 24%) and a 26-point advantage among swing women (44%-18%).

The president’s advantage over Romney rests on two main elements. First, voters believe Obama (61%) is much more likely than Romney (39%) to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” Second, most voters trust Obama (59%) rather than Romney (41%) to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” Among swing voters, Obama enjoys commanding advantages of 55 points and 49 points, respectively, on these two dimensions.

3) The most compelling criticism of Mitt Romney regarding the Supreme Court is that his nominees will be biased in favor of corporations over average Americans.

The survey results reveal that what most concerns voters about the prospect of Mitt Romney nominating future justices is the notion that his nominees will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans. Fully 54% worry that Romney will appoint this kind of justice, far more than any other single concern (for example, 43% worry that Romney’s justices will “turn back the clock on civil rights and women’s rights”). Similarly, when voters are asked which of several criticisms of Romney concern them the most, the prospect of pro-corporate justices is the top choice for swing voters (30%), far ahead of limiting legal abortion (17%), turning back the clock on rights (17%), and other factors. And later in the survey, after voters have learned about Romney’s positions on a range of judicial issues, swing voters say their single biggest concern about Romney’s justices is they will favor corporate interests over average Americans (followed by the similar idea that they will “favor millionaires over the middle class”).

  • In the focus groups, voters gave very high ratings to a flyer focused on the theme that Romney will appoint justices who favor corporations over average Americans, and citing Romney’s embrace of justices who voted to give immunity to corporations that defraud consumers [AT&T], to protect corporations that pay women less than men [Wal-Mart, Ledbetter], and allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts on negative political ads [Citizens United]. Swing voters worry most that Romney justices will be “biased,” followed by their concern that Romney justices would be “too conservative.”

4) The single best “proof point” for the claim that Romney’s nominees will favor corporations is his support for Citizens United, which has already led to corporations and billionaires spending millions of dollars on negative political ads this year. Other powerful evidence includes the AT&T, Wal-Mart, and Ledbetter cases.

The research findings indicate that the single best way to demonstrate that Romney would appoint pro-corporate justices is to focus on his support for the Court’s decision [Citizens United] which opened the door for corporations and the wealthy to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. Linking that decision to what citizens are already experiencing – a huge number of negative political ads funded by corporations and individuals – gives this issue real salience now.

Mitt Romney does not have an extensive track record of taking positions on most other Supreme Court cases, but he has been clear about the kind of justices he would appoint: judges “in the mold of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.”

As seen in past research, the AT&T, Wal-Mart, and Ledbetter decisions all trouble voters. Here is how they were described in the survey, each of them raising significant concerns about Romney:

  • Allow a company to use the fine print of its consumer contracts, such as for cell phones, to immunize itself from class-action lawsuits, even in cases in which the company knowingly defrauded its customers;
  • Deny female employees of a large national company who have been systematically paid less than men and denied promotions given to men the right to join together and go to court to stand up for their rights;
  • A woman could not file a discrimination suit against her employer for paying her less than men at her company for the same work for 20 years because she failed to file her suit within 180 days of her first paycheck, even though she had no way of knowing at that time that she was being discriminated against.

5) The concern that Romney will appoint anti-choice justices also has power with many voters.

Both the survey and focus groups reveal that Romney’s commitment to appoint anti-choice justices concerns many voters. In the survey, 59% of voters (and 62% of swing voters) say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.

  • The survey reveals that more voters are concerned when told that Romney believes there is no constitutional right to have an abortion than when informed simply that he favors “overturning Roe v. Wade,” suggesting that some voters do not fully understand the latter formulation in isolation.
  • When presented with two television ads concentrated on the choice issue, focus group participants indicated significant concerns about Romney among both independents (mean rating of 6.1 on scale of 1 to 10) and liberal Democrats (9.1).

6) Voters’ recognition of the importance of judicial nominees in evaluating Romney and Obama is greatly heightened when we remind them that justices serve for life.

  • Voters responded especially strongly to this formulation: “When you vote in November, you’re not just voting for the next four years – you’re voting for a generation.”

###

E.W. Jackson: Democrats Have an 'Agenda Worthy of the Antichrist'

Bishop E.W. Jackson has embarked on a campaign following his failed Senate bid to convince black voters to reject the Democrats’ “anti-God” views and partake in a “mass exodus of Christians from the Democrat party.” Today in an opinion piece in the Washington Times, “Blacks are abandoning the Democratic Party,” Jackson asserted that African Americans will abandon the Democratic party over the issues of abortion rights and gay equality, incredulously asking how Democrats have “managed to hold on to black Christians in spite of an agenda worthy of the Antichrist?” “Mr. Obama’s commitment to the radical left’s anti-Christian, anti-God politics may cost him the election,” Jackson writes, “because a constituency he has taken for granted has awakened to the truth that being the first black president is not enough.” Of course, recent polling shows that Obama has a commanding 94-0 lead among black voters.

I was raised to be an FDR Democrat because my father was a young man during the Depression and credited President Roosevelt with saving him from starvation. “The Republicans only care about rich people,” I was told. This was more than 40 years ago. In spite of my childhood indoctrination, as a young man newly committed to my Christian faith, I had a crisis of conscience in the late 1970s. Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank was pushing the homosexual agenda. How could I, as a Christian, be committed to a party led by Mr. Frank? In the end, I could not. My desire to be in a right relationship with God and my faith was greater than my desire to be approved by my father, my family or the black community. My wife and I, then Massachusetts residents, left the Democratic Party in 1980 and never looked back.

Democrats now have fully embraced an abortion policy that amounts to infanticide. They have also made the lesbian-homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda their vision for America. How have they managed to hold on to black Christians in spite of an agenda worthy of the Antichrist? They have shown a ruthless willingness to frighten black voters with outright lies about the plans of conservatives and Republicans. Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s “they gonna put y’all back in chains” was not a gaffe. It is part of the Democrats’ strategy of using fear to keep blacks as a captive audience. I always have believed that such lies could not distract black voters forever or keep them from noticing the increasingly anti-Christian radicalism of the Democratic Party.



Now black churchgoers are being told to suppress Christian conscience and remain beholden to a party that demands their loyalty while insulting their faith and blaspheming their God. For the first time in 50 years, there is a discussion going on in the black community as to whether their loyalty to the Democratic Party is deserved. Many black pastors are telling their members to stay home, rather than vote for a black president who has done more to advance the cause of homosexuality and abortion than that of black Americans.

We are hearing the rumblings of a fissure between black Christians and the Democratic Party. My organization, Staying True to America’s National Destiny (Stand), is calling for a mass exodus of Christians from the Democratic Party. We held a news conference at the National Press Club on Sept. 10 and produced several videos. This not only has prompted discussion, but perhaps has launched a movement. Mr. Obama’s commitment to the radical left’s anti-Christian, anti-God politics may cost him the election, because a constituency he has taken for granted has awakened to the truth that being the first black president is not enough.

Steve Strang Tells Christians to Fear Obama, Compares Him to Hitler

Jim Garlow’s Pastors Rapid Response Team hosted a conference call today with televangelist John Hagee and Charisma magazine publisher Steve Strang, where Garlow and his fellow speakers repeated the claim that President Obama’s re-election will lead to the end of America. Hagee told people to “vote the Bible, don’t get confused about Republican or Democrat,” and then went on to tell people that they cannot as Christians back Democratic candidates due to the party’s stance on gay rights and reproductive freedom.

Hagee also asked listeners to fight the “secular left” like Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood up to Adolf Hitler, warning that “the evil day is here.”

Later, Strang said that Christians must view Obama’s agenda for a second term with considerable trepidation, unlike the Jews and Christians in Germany who Strang said “did not really believe that Hitler was as bad as he said, even though he outlined it in his book Mein Kampf. But Hitler turned out to be that bad and worse.” Strang cited the decades-old Humanist Manifesto and the Homosexual Manifesto, which was actually a comical work of satire that Strang apparently takes seriously, and claimed that “the way of life that we have is over if Barack Obama is elected again.”

The man has an agenda and I just wrote a blog and I also put it in the next issue of Charisma magazine where I refer to something I think Pastor Hagee said, he referred to Adolf Hitler, and in the 1930s the Jews and even the Christians did not really believe that Hitler was as bad as he said, even though he outlined it in his book Mein Kampf. But Hitler turned out to be that bad and worse. There are people out there with an agenda and if you don’t believe it Google the Humanist Manifesto, which was written in 1921, and also the Homosexual Manifesto, which was written in 1987, and see what these people want to do and what is happening before our very eyes. What Jim Garlow says is true, the way of life that we have is over if Barack Obama is elected again.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious