Election 2012

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.

Scarborough Leading 40 Days of Prayer to Remove the Ungodly from Office

Vision America's Rick Scarborough has been organizing and hosting regular conference calls for his 40 Days to Save America campaign aimed at getting conservative Christians to pray and fast leading up to the election. 

During a call last week  featuring Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, Scarborough said that over the next forty days, they would be praying for every member of Congress by name, as well as members of the Supreme Court and the Obama administration and asking God to remove those who are ungodly from office:

In the course of the next forty days, we're going to pray for every member of Congress by name, every member of the Senate by name, the President, the Vice-President and the Attorney General every single day and also every member of the Supreme Court every single day. But we do want to call out, cry out, for these major leaders for our country and forty days from now we want to be able to report to them that thousands of people called their name to Heaven and asked God to give them wisdom, and if their heart is hardened, to remove them from leadership so that godly people can take their place.

People For the American Way Announces Spanish-Language TV, Radio, Direct Mail Campaign in Swing States

$1 Million Campaign Aimed at Latino Voters in Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia

Washington, DC – People For the American Way today launched a five-week campaign aimed at exposing Mitt Romney’s dangerous agenda for Latinos, focused in the key swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia. The first phase of the campaign, which will include over $1 million in TV, radio and direct mail outreach, starts today with a TV ad, “Somos el 47%” (“We are the 47%”), running in all three states.

“Mitt Romney and Republicans continually attack hard-working Latino families,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “Unfortunately for them, Americans are paying attention. At a fundraiser in April, Romney said that losing the Latino vote ‘spells doom for us.’ He was right.”

Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia have significant and growing Latino populations. The number of Latino eligible voters has grown by 76 percent in the past decade in Virginia, by 47 percent in Ohio and by 23 percent in Wisconsin.

“The Romney agenda is bad news for Latino families, and exposing that agenda could make the difference in this election,” continued Keegan. “Our efforts this summer to highlight what was at stake for Latino voters in the Wisconsin recall elections were instrumental in flipping party control in the state Senate. We are excited to replicate and bolster that effort in three key states in the five weeks before November’s election.”

People For the American Way’s ad, “Somos el 47%,” can be viewed here.

###

Bachmann Warns Obama May be Aiding the Rise of Global Sharia Law

 We know that when Michele Bachmann speaks, even fact-checkers can’t fully cover all of her dubious and debunked claims in just a single article. Now that Bachmann is completely engrossed in promoting her latest conspiracy theory focusing on the supposed Muslim Brotherhood “penetration” of the US government, she took to The Janet Mefferd Show to misrepresent President Obama’s address to the United Nations General Assembly to claim that Obama is not only refusing to defend the freedom of speech but may be even actively backing the curtailment of speech rights in favor of Sharia law.

The congresswoman told Mefferd that Islamic countries may be using “riots and terrorism” to ensure that “Sharia law will dominated over our United States Constitution.” “Our president either doesn’t know what’s happening or he’s playing along with what their goal is,” Bachmann said. “Either option is very dangerous for the free speech rights and the protection and safety of the American people.”

She also failed to mention that when Obama criticized “those who slander the prophet of Islam” it was part of a larger chastisement of religious bigotry, including against desecration of images of Jesus Christ, the destruction of churches and Holocaust denial.

Bachmann: We have just had four Americans killed, including two marines and an ambassador, and our President says to the UN the future does not belong to those who speak against the prophet? We need to remember that the fifty-seven Muslim governments across the world have what they call a ten year plan, it began in 2005 and their goal by 2015 is to criminalize any speech anywhere in the world that speaks against Islam or against the Prophet Mohammad. This is their plan. So their pretext is to find something they can point to and then have riots and terrorism and then force the rest of us to give up our free speech rights so that then that means their law, Sharia law, will dominate over our United States Constitution. That’s really what’s happening. Our president either doesn’t know what’s happening or he’s playing along with what their goal is. Either option is very dangerous for the free speech rights and the protection and safety of the American people.

Bachmann also maintained that Obama was simultaneously fashioning himself to be “‘Emperor of the World,’ telling the world what to do,” while also catering to the wishes of Muslim countries. She said that the President refused to make clear that “under no circumstances will the United States ever subvert the Constitution to Sharia law” and did not “articulate American values” against the coming global Islamic caliphate.

Bachmann: It almost sounds like he’s trying to speak as “‘Emperor of the World,’ telling the world what to do, as opposed to being the President of the United States who should be adamant and say it’s outrageous that these Islamist countries should be calling on the United States to take away the constitutional protections of the American people. This is very important to think that the United States would restrict speech of Americans. Now the president did talk in his remarks about the fact that we do have a constitutional right to free speech but really the only focus of that speech should have been under no circumstances will the United States ever subvert the Constitution to Sharia law. We didn’t get that kind of a forceful statement from our President.

Mefferd: No and that goes back to the day right after the consulate attack I think Mitt Romney did so much better than the President himself and saying we’re Americans, we believe in free speech, this was unacceptable. From Obama, it was sort of a ‘Chris Stevens was a really great guy’ and that was about it.

Bachmann: It was; it was ridiculous. Here we’ve been attacked, these were acts of war, what happened to us in Cairo, what happened to us in Libya, these were acts of war. Again, don’t forget these fifty-seven Muslim governments have a ten year plan: their goal is to criminalize speech against Islam. Why? Because they intend to establish a Caliphate, an Islamic government, across the entire world so that it isn’t just our speech rights that we would give up, we would have to give up all rights eventually and we would have to conform to Sharia law, the Islamic law. As women know, this would be a disaster for women, for freedom, for free speech. We’re not an Islamic nation, people can believe whatever they want to believe here, but we’re not an Islamic nation, we believe in freedom and I only wish our President would articulate American values. That’s one thing we’re getting from Mitt Romney, we are not getting it from Barack Obama. I’ll say it again, I believe he is the most dangerous president we have ever had on foreign policy and for that reason alone he must not have a second term.

Clearly, Bachmann missed the part in Obama’s speech (or all of it) where he forcefully defended the freedom of speech, expression, and religion as American values and unambiguously rejected violent extremism and discrimination against women and minorities.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.



The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.

Beck: A Romney Victory is the Work of God

Last week, Glenn Beck hosted David Barton for a discussion on the importance of prayer and fasting heading into this election, which Beck kicked off by pointing to the iconic, though historically dubious, myth of George Washington kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge to make the point that this nation was birthed in prayer. 

Eventually, the topic turned toward the current election, where Beck admitted that though Mitt Romney was not his first choice to be the Republican presidential nominee, he feels good about the upcoming election, as does everyone Beck considers to be a "spiritual giant," despite the fact that "nothing looks good" and all the polls and campaign developments are telling him that there is "no reason that I should feel good on this." 

But it is exactly the dire state of the campaign that is making Beck so confident because, as he said, "God is trying to make this so clear to us that, if it happens, it's His finger" as both Beck and Barton went on to credit Romney's deep spiritual life and compare him to George Washington:

Toobin Asks Candidates to 'Take a Stand' on Supreme Court. They Already Have.

On CNN’s website today, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin laments out how small a role the Supreme Court has played in the presidential election so far. He writes:

With a little more than a month to go, it's not too late to ask the candidates to take a stand on their plans for the court. The president has already had two appointments, and he named Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. But what does Obama, a former law professor, think about the court? Does he believe in a "living" Constitution, whose meaning evolves over time? Or does he believe, like Justices Scalia and Thomas, that the meaning of the document was fixed when it was ratified, in the 18th century.

By the same token, what kind of justices would Romney appoint? Who are his judicial role models? Romney has praised Chief Justice John Roberts, but is the candidate still a fan even after the chief voted to uphold the ACA?

No one is asking these questions. But there are few more important things to know about our current and future presidents.

Toobin is absolutely right that the candidates’ plans for the Supreme Court deserve a lot more air time than they’re getting. But he’s wrong to suggest that we know nothing about what President Obama and Governor Romney have in mind for the Court.

President Obama has already picked two Supreme Court justices. Both, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have been strong moderates, balancing out the retro extremism of Justices Scalia and Thomas. When female Wal-Mart employees wanted to band together to sue their employer for pay discrimination, Sotomayor and Kagan stood on the side of the women’s rights, while Scalia and Thomas twisted the law to side with the corporation. When Justices Thomas and Scalia ruled that a woman harmed by a generic drug couldn’t sue the drug’s manufacturer in state court, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan stood up for the rights of the consumer.

Mitt Romney obviously hasn’t had a chance to pick a Supreme Court justice yet, but he’s given us a pretty good idea of who he would choose if given the opportunity. On his website, Romney promises to “nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” After the Supreme Court’s ruling in the health care reform case, Romney announced he had changed his mind about Roberts, who declined to destroy the law while still writing a stunningly retrogressive opinion redefining the Commerce Clause.

And, of course, Romney sent a clear signal to his conservative base when he tapped Robert Bork to advise him on legal and judicial issues. Bork’s record, and what he signals about Romney’s position on the Supreme Court, is chilling:

Romney’s indicated that he would want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. He’s even attacked the premise of Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that prohibited states from outlawing birth control by establishing a right to privacy.

Yes, the candidates should be made to answer more questions about their plans for the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. But there’s a lot that we already know.

(For more, check out PFAW’s website RomneyCourt.com.)

PFAW

Robison Suggests Obama is Controlled by Satanic Lies

Televangelist James Robison warns in a blog post today that “the belief system controlling the most powerful leader and far too many leaders in America is built on lies,” which have emanated from Satan himself. Robison asserts that Obama and his supporters are trying to usher in a “dictatorially powerful state” and have fallen under a “deadly deception.” He maintains that their belief system derives from “Karl Marx, another demonically deceived individual,” who advocated “a lie birthed in the pit of hell.” The election will determine whether the US climbs out of “the ditch of defeat, debt, depravity, and deception” or turns itself “over to Pharaoh.”

Satan is the father of all lies. God is author of truth. Lies damage, defeat and destroy. Truth illuminates, reveals, heals, and sets captives free. Lies establish a foundation equal to sinking sand, while truth provides the only unshakable foundation.

Present day trends reveal that too many Americans have believed lies. Deception prevails in Washington and at the highest levels of leadership. This has damaged honest communication, corrupted relationships, diminished faith’s effectiveness, and divided the church.

Every national and local election is important. During every election cycle we hear how important that particular one happens to be. Let me state loudly again: the election this November is as critically important as any in my lifetime, and I’ve been a witness to many. This one will determine how much deeper we dig our way into the ditch of defeat, debt, depravity, and deception or whether we affirm our determination to stop the insanity, seek wisdom from above, and begin a steadfast ascent from the pit of hopelessness.

The belief system controlling the most powerful leader and far too many leaders in America is built on lies. I do not question the sincerity of those who have been deceived. I do not question their desire to offer assistance and relief where it is so obviously needed. But I question forcefully and could spend days proclaiming biblical passage after passage totally rebuking their line of reasoning, the proposals, possibilities, and policies being presented as answers. They are not! They are the result of deadly deception.



We hear so many presidents, candidates, and leaders say at the close of their speeches: “God bless America!” Let it be settled once and for all, the only way God is going to bless America is when the American people continually desire to bless God and bless others! We are our brother’s keeper. We must love our neighbors. We cannot turn that over to Pharaoh or some dictatorially powerful state.

Karl Marx, another demonically deceived individual, believed the all-powerful state was the answer and solution to the human dilemma. That was a lie birthed in the pit of hell and carried on the shoulders of deceived people who had turned their back on the wisdom that comes only from above. I don’t care how big a person’s smile is, I don’t care how cheerful they appear to be, I don’t care how often they claim to believe in God, when they point to another source as the solution, they are controlled by lies.

No political party is the answer, but some of our parties have been terribly deceived and those lies must be rejected by the American people. There is no perfect political party. They’ve all got their problems. But you can rest assured, if any party or candidate promotes the federal government as the primary solution; they have been deceived at the highest level. Those who believe in a limited, under-control government have at least acknowledged a very important and necessary truth.



If you think this election is going to solve the American dilemma, then you have bought the enemy’s lies. It is the direction, the necessary correction, yes, the national repentance beginning in the heart of each individual that will determine our nation’s future. We’ve got to correct this perilous course, and we’ve got to do it immediately! Everyone must pray, and everyone must vote with kingdom principles and convictions controlling their thoughts, their desires, prayers, and hopes. And we must be committed to God’s kingdom purpose and that’s to love Him with all our heart and love our neighbors as ourselves, and always refusing to depend on Pharaoh. We have already seen the bondage resulting from such dependency. How much more clearly can God reveal it when He spent the whole Old Testament showing it to us and then the New Testament revealing how we can overcome?

GOP Pollster advised Akin to Withstand Controversy like David Koresh Faced the ATF in Waco

While speaking with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch Weekly, Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said she told her client Todd Akin to withstand the controversy that emerged following his comments on “legitimate rape” just like David Koresh, the Waco compound cult leader whose standoff with the ATF led to over eighty deaths. Conway told Perkins that she advised Akin to survive efforts to “smoke him out” like Koresh until they “realize the guy’s not coming out of the bunker.” She was speaking with Perkins just as the deadline for Akin to drop out passed, and Republican figures such as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Jim DeMint, including DeMint’s powerful Senate Conservatives Fund, rallied to Akin’s behalf. Conway said she expects even more Republicans to follow Perkins’ lead in rallying behind Akin.

Perkins: The distance between them is narrowing, Todd Akin has bounced back up, and the evidence of that is pretty clear because now you see other Republicans who abandoned him are now taking a second look at the race and realizing just how important this seat is.

Conway: They are and they’re following your lead Tony. You saw former speaker Gingrich there on Todd’s behalf at a fundraiser on Monday, saying it’s just “conventional idiocy” that’s preventing people from backing Todd, and he predicts that come mid-October everyone will be following yours and his lead back to Missouri, with their money. Of course, former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Senator Jim DeMint came out just yesterday to support Todd. I believe that the establishment will have to look at this race and they will have to hold their nose because the first days—and I’ve expressed this to Todd as my client for a while now, I’ve expressed it to him directly—the first day or two where it was like the Waco with David Koresh situation where they’re trying to smoke him out with the SWAT teams and the helicopters and the bad Nancy Sinatra records. Then here comes day two and you realize the guy’s not coming out of the bunker. Listen, Todd has shown his principle to the voters.

Samuel Rodriguez: 'America for Jesus' to Make Voters 'Go Biblical' in Election

RWW has reported on plans for this weekend’s dominionist-heavy ‘America for Jesus’ rally in Philadelphia, which will kick off some of the prayer-and-fasting-to-beat-Obama campaigns being waged by Religious Right leaders. Today, Charisma published an interview about the rally with Hispanic evangelical leader Samuel Rodriguez.

Charisma, whose publisher Steven Strang is helping Harry Jackson raise funds for his anti-Obama, anti-marriage-equality swing-state racial wedge campaign, is not exactly a neutral source; it introduced the interview, in part, with “Despite all the atheistic, socialistic, humanistic agendas that are attacking our foundations, there is yet a remnant. And part of that remnant is gathering in an historical city to pray for the salvation of our nation.”

Rodriguez, who excels at portraying himself as above partisanship even while participating fully in the Religious Right’s political campaigns, cites a litany of right-wing talking points as “historical proof” of the rally’s importance:

I can give you historical proof of this. We have never spiritually been down the road we find ourselves in as a nation. From abortion on demand to the diluting of the basic definition of marriage to the government requiring religious organizations to offer contraception and abortion services via the HHS Mandate to even a political party extracting any mention of God from the platform, we have never been down this road before. Never ever, ever have we been down this road before.

He says a “lukewarm church” is America’s most serious problem and that the objective of the rally is “to revitalize, to ignite a fire in the American Bible-believing church so the church will stand up for righteousness and justice in the name of Jesus.” He says the national character of the rally, and its location in Philadelphia, make it stand out among other such gatherings. “There’s an issue here of independence and freedom about the values that make our nation great.”

Rodriguez also makes it clear that he believe the rally will have consequences for the November election:

I believe that God has a purpose for this rally. I believe it will serve as an ignition point for the church to really light up. There's an election coming up in November. There are decisions that a Christian has to make. I hope this rally will engage the Spirit of God in each and every Christian to go beyond political ideology and to start holding Biblical worldview and go biblical about it. And I hope the church understands that the only thing that can save America in the end is not the donkey or the elephant but the agenda of the lamb. But we need to act according to that agenda in the name of Jesus.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious