Right Wing Leftovers - 3/7/13

  • How sad: James O'Keefe is now $100,000 poorer.
  • Hey Todd Starnes, maybe we "claimed" and "alleged" all of these things because they are true.
  • Is anyone surprised that Samuel Rodriguez and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference are threatening to stop supporting immigration reform because they "refuse to budge on allowing visas for same-sex couples, due to their biblical view on marriage."
  • With the Supreme Court scheduled to heard Prop 8 and DOMA cases, now is the time to pray.
  • Finally, "CWA Celebrates Women's History Month" by lumping Rosa Parks in with Phyllis Schlafly:  

Fischer: Just Like Judas, Liberals and Obama Don't Care About the Poor

As he normally does, Bryan Fischer began his program today with a reading and discussion from the Bible; in this case the story of Jesus being anointed at Bethany in Matthew 26:

Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.”

But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

Even though the passage says "the disciples" were indignant, Fischer asserted that is was really only Judas who was upset because he was greedy and didn't care about the poor ... just like President Obama and liberals today:

Schlafly: 'We Need to Train the Men' to 'Stand Up to the Feminists'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly spoke earlier this week to Sandy Rios of the American Family Association about the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which Schlafly called a “terrible” law that “would have been an excellent place to cut” spending. She lamented that “Republicans are just scared by the feminists” when “they ought to stand up and show how really vicious they are.”

Schlafly: It’s a terrible bill. At this time when we’re talking about the sequester and trying to cut here and there, that would have been an excellent place to cut.

Rios: You know I’m sure that you’ve heard Phyllis that Eric Cantor, it’s been reported by conservative Republican aides that in a private meeting he threatened conservatives that there would be civil war if they didn’t allow this to be brought out on the floor for a vote. They are so concerned that the press and the country is going to think they don’t like women because they’ve been so burned through the last campaign. If they had listened to you what would you have said to them about that?

Schlafly: Well the Violence Against Women Act was a payoff to the feminists for endorsing Bill Clinton and the Republicans are just scared by the feminists, which is very unfortunate, they ought to stand up and show how really vicious they are.

At the end of the interview, she told Rios that “we need to train the men” how to fight feminists: “It isn’t natural for men to fight women and it’s just very hard for the men to stand up to the feminists” and their “many nutty ideas.”

Schlafly: We need to train the men. It isn’t natural for men to fight women and it’s just very hard for the men to stand up to the feminists. But the feminists control the Obama administration and they have so many nutty ideas. They’ve been trying to tell us that there really isn’t any difference between the genders, they are interchangeable, but then when it comes to the matter of domestic violence they enforce all these stereotypes and it’s just so wrong.

Cliff Kincaid Wants CPAC to Investigate Why Gays 'Seem Prone to Violence, Terror and Treason'

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media is quite pleased with CPAC’s decision to ban the gay Republican group GOProud, and even thinks that “CPAC should be sponsoring a panel on the dangers of the homosexual movement and why some of its members seem prone to violence, terror, and treason.”

He warns that “there is a homosexual movement that has its roots in Marxism and is characterized by anti-Americanism and hatred of Christian values,” citing Bradley Manning and Floyd Corkins as “two of this movement’s members.” Kincaid goes on to write that homosexuality will lead to communism and the downfall of civilization, arguing that “this monster wants to impose itself on our children in the schools and even the Boy Scouts of America.”

Unsurprisingly, AIM will be giving an award to Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft at CPAC this year.

The term “gay conservative” is being used by some news outlets in connection with the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and whether certain homosexual groups should be invited to appear. There is no such thing as a “gay conservative,” unless the term “conservative” has lost all meaning. But there is a homosexual movement that has its roots in Marxism and is characterized by anti-Americanism and hatred of Christian values.

Two of this movement’s members, Bradley Manning and Floyd Corkins, have recently been in the news. Manning betrayed his country in the WikiLeaks scandal, while Corkins has pleaded guilty to trying to kill conservative officials of the Christian Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Rather than debate whether “gay conservatives” exist or ought to have prominent speaking roles, CPAC should be sponsoring a panel on the dangers of the homosexual movement and why some of its members seem prone to violence, terror, and treason.

Since I started out in Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) in high school, I know something about the conservative movement. It seems clear that the homosexuals are trying to make inroads in the Republican Party through the conservative movement. No one can seriously dispute this. That is partly what the CPAC controversy is all about.

But the fate of a political party is not only what is in jeopardy.

Historian Paul Johnson knows something about why nations fail, and he says one reason is the acceptance of homosexuality.

Johnson’s book, The Quest for God, laments that Western society made a huge mistake by decriminalizing homosexuality and thinking that acceptance of the lifestyle on a basic level would satisfy its practitioners. He wrote, “Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.” It became, he says, a “monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental—and to most of us horrifying—changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior.”

Today, this monster wants to impose itself on our children in the schools and even the Boy Scouts of America.



In his report, “The Marxist Roots of ‘Gay Liberation,’” well-known conservative commentator Robert Knight explains what motivated Marx and his followers: “Families and the moral order stand firmly in the way of any socialist revolution. Families and religion inculcate independence and a strong set of values and personal responsibility.”

Marx’s partner Frederick Engels wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which argued in substantial detail for the abolition of the family. The family was always viewed by the communists as a target because it was a bulwark against state control of the individual and society.

What better way to destroy the family than to undermine the relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, and eliminate the need for children to have mothers and fathers?

Here, again, the homosexuals deliberately pervert the language, so that two women or two men have now become shacked-up “partners” or even “husband and wife” in “civil unions” or even “marriages.”

Hay’s contribution to communism in America was developing the idea that homosexuals, like the “workers” under capitalism, were being oppressed and had to assert their “rights.”

The donation of gay blood to the nation’s blood supply, despite the health risks, is the next “right” that the male homosexuals now are demanding the government grant to them.

Right-Wing Voucher Push Undermines Public Education & Constitution

Religious Right leaders and anti-government ideologues have shared a decades-long dream: to dismantle public education through a system of vouchers that would divert taxpayer funds out of public schools and into religious schools and other private academies.  For some, privatizing education is primarily a religious or ideological project. For others, the billions of dollars that flow through public schools is a tempting source of cash. For some it’s both.  Whatever the incentive, voucher proponents are finding success.  A renewed push for the creation and expansion of voucher and voucher-like schemes is contributing to a disturbing rise in public education dollars being diverted to schools that face little to no oversight or public accountability and teach religious dogma at the expense of science.

Most recently, on February 28, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Douglas County’s voucher program – labeled a “Choice Scholarship Program” in accord with the messaging tactics of Republican spinmeister Frank Luntz – does not violate the state Constitution’s explicit prohibitions against public funding for religious education, even though 18 of the county’s 23 “private partner” schools are religious.  As reported by the Associated Press, dissenting Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Steve Bernard wrote, "In my view,[the Colorado Constitution] prohibits public school districts from channeling public money to private religious schools. I think that the Choice Scholarship Program is a pipeline that violates this direct and clear constitutional command." 

The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State say they will appeal to the state Supreme Court.  Heather L. Weaver, staff attorney for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief said “Public education funds should be used to help improve our public schools, not to promote religion in violation of the state constitution.”  Unfortunately, the Colorado case is not the first in which courts have been willing to go along with voucher plans.  In 2011, in a 5-4 ruling, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority allowed an Arizona tax-credit / voucher program to stand while weakening the ability of citizens to challenge programs that divert public funds for religious purposes.

State legislators and their corporate backers in the American Legislative Exchange Council have pushed similar voucher-like tax breaks in other states, often employing the language of “choice” and “options” to divert public attention from the intent and effect of these schemes.  After conservative victories in state elections in 2010, governors and legislators in many states, including Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Florida, pushed to create or expand programs that divert public education dollars into religious schools and other private academies.

Among the most aggressive is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is basically pushing an effort to privatize public education in his state.  He has instituted a massive voucher program grounded in the “model legislation” pushed by ALEC, which honored Jindal in 2011 with its Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award.  Think Progress notes that Jindal’s plan will divert huge sums from public schools:  “Since the public schools will lose commensurate funding every time one of their students opt for a voucher, the state’s public school system could by some estimates lose up to $3.3 billion annually once the program is fully implemented. “

Ed Kilgore noted last summer in Washington Monthly:

In heading his state in the direction of universally available vouchers rationalized by public school failure, Jindal is not, of course, holding any of the private school beneficiaries accountable for results, or for common curricula, or, it appears, for much of anything. A big chunk of the money already out there is being snapped up by conservative evangelical schools with exotic and hardly public-minded curricular offerings, with the theory being that any public oversight would interfere with the accountability provided by “the market.” So if you want your kid to attend, at public expense, the Christian Nationalist Academy for Servant-Leader Boys & Fecund Submissive Girls, that’s okay by Bobby.

Lack of accountability is a real concern.  While proponents of voucher programs paint a picture of a poor student being given a chance to attend an elite private academy, most of those schools have few openings, meaning that the “choice” offered to many students and parents is something far different, including fly-by-night schools with little track record of their own.  According to the Louisiana Budget Project,

Louisiana requires almost no accountability from voucher schools....While voucher students are required to take the same assessment tests as public school students, there are no penalties for private schools if they fail to measure up to their public counterparts. In fact, Gov. Jindal vetoed language in a 2011 appropriations bill that would have removed participating schools if their students’ scores lagged those in the lowest performing schools in the Recovery School District, which incorporates most New Orleans public schools.

So if public schools have lousy test scores, they're failures and their students all get vouchers. But if the private schools have lousy test scores, then....nothing. Presumably the magic of the free market will fix them up.

In June 2011, an investigation by Miami New Times found a breathtaking lack of oversight and accountability in Florida’s voucher program for disabled students, likening it to “a perverse science experiment, using disabled school kids as lab rats.”

In addition to defunding public schools at the expense of unaccountable private schools, voucher programs end up using tax dollars to promote sectarian religious education and proselytizing. 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops describes Catholic schools as central to the church’s “New Evangelization.”   And in Louisiana and elsewhere, tax dollars are being used to support schools that teach young-earth creationism, revisionist U.S. history published by fundamentalist Bob Jones University, and other religious dogma applied to civics, politics, and literature. 

The Agenda Behind the Voucher Agenda

During “National School Choice Week,” which ran from January 27 to February 3, the Heritage Foundation published a special report, “Choosing to Succeed,” which included a call for abandoning the “myth” and “relic” of the common school.  In January, Americans for Prosperity published a report blaming the federal government for the failure of education reform and promoting vouchers and voucher-like tax schemes, such as Pennsylvania’s “Education Improvement Tax Credit.” 

On February 5, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor gave a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, where he argued that education funds should follow students whether they “choose” public, private, or charter schools. He asserted, “One of our priorities this year will be to move heaven and earth to fix our education system for the most vulnerable.”  It is important to understand that targeted voucher programs that allow students from poor families, children with disabilities or students in underperforming schools to attend private schools that will accept them are not the ultimate goal of school privatizers. They are a tactical means to a much larger strategic end, which is the end of public education altogether, as pushed by David Koch in his run for the White House in 1980. As Milton Friedman, intellectual godfather of the movement, said “Vouchers are not an end in themselves; they are a means to make a transition from a government to a free-market system.”

In a May 2011 article, researcher Rachel Tabachnik reviewed the history and financing of the school privatization movement. Its financial backers have been pouring millions of dollars into state politics for the past decade in order to build legislatures more to their liking.  Right-wing donors such as Betsy DeVos and the Walton Foundation funnel money through groups with media-friendly names like All Children Matter, its successor the American Federation for Children, and AFC-affiliated state-level political action committees like Students First, which raised more than $6 million for the 2010 election cycle in Pennsylvania.

“Like most other conservatives and libertarians, we see vouchers as a major step toward the complete privatization of schooling,” wrote Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast in 1997. “In fact, after careful study, we have come to the conclusion that they are the only way to dismantle the current socialist regime.” Heartland has received significant funding from right-wing foundations over the years, including the Charles Koch Foundation.

Another major ideological target is public employee unions, and teachers unions in particular.  A 2011 New York Times story about FreedomWorks’ lobbying for a Pennsylvania voucher program noted, “FreedomWorks is pushing anti-union legislation in several states, and saw the school choice legislation as part of that larger battle.”

School vouchers are just one part of the immensely complicated arena of education policy.  A wide array of strategies and policy proposals is often confusingly lumped together under the banner of “education reform” or “school choice,” terms that can encompass everything from curricula, student testing and teacher evaluation, charter and cyber-charter schools and more.  Some strategies may identify effective reforms that can be replicated and used to strengthen public schools and improve educational opportunity.  Others, like vouchers, are designed to weaken or dismantle public education altogether.

As parents, educators, and activists evaluate various education reform proposals, it is worth keeping in mind the question posed  by Stan Karp, in the Spring 2011 edition of Rethinking Schools, when he said that what is ultimately at stake in the school reform debate is “whether the right to a free public education for all children is going to survive as a fundamental democratic promise in our society, and whether the schools and districts needed to provide it are going to survive as public institutions, collectively owned and democratically managed – however imperfectly – by all of us as citizens. Or will they be privatized and commercialized by the corporate interests that increasingly dominate all aspects of our society?”

Note: this is the first in a series of posts about right-wing efforts to undermine public education, often in the name of education reform.

See also: Predatory Privatization, a 2012 Right Wing Watch In Focus report; and  Voucher Veneer: The Deeper Agenda to Privatize Public Education, a 2003 report from People For the American Way Foundation.

 

 

Talk to the Hand: Glenn Beck Explains Extremism

Last night, Glenn Beck kicked off his television program with a long monologue about the rise of extremism in America.  Of course, Beck insisted that he and his viewers are not the extremists but rather everyone else who doesn't see how President Obama is trying to take away their guns, provoke civil unrest, and destroy America. 

Eventually, Beck offered up a simple way of identifying extremists by using his own body, saying that the core - consisting of the "God-given helmet" of your head and the "God-given vest" of your chest - is what keeps you alive, which is why your body shuts down blood flow to your fingers and toes in times of emergency.

In the case of America, Beck explained, the Constitution is the core and people like Eric Holder, Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama, John Holdren, and Van Jones are the "extremities" that need to be cut off.

"I warn you, man," he said, "hunker down because there is a storm coming and you've got to protect the core because the extremities are beginning to make a fist and they're already beginning to throw blows":

Erik Rush: Obama and Allies 'Merit Being Removed by Force of Arms'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is out with another unhinged rant, this time arguing that new gun control legislation in Colorado is a “precursor” to the rise of civil unrest and an American version of the Gestapo. Rush maintains that the government seeks to pass new gun laws in order to deliberately spark a violent response, which will justify the use of Gestapo-like tactics and the criminalization of gun ownership.

He contends that Obama administration officials want to confiscate guns because “they know that they are already guilty of prosecutable crimes and are planning many more” and “already merit being removed by force of arms. They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that realization and respond accordingly.”

The Democrat members of the Colorado legislature have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America and the people of the state of Colorado. What occurred in Colorado on that day was nothing short of a disgusting outrage and a chilling precursor of things to come.



It is no secret among conservatives that for the last several years, Colorado has been a chief target of one high-profile progressive billionaire and former Nazi collaborator (George Soros) through his various radical astroturf political organizations. With this aid, and through the aforementioned methods, the White House effectively subverted Colorado’s legislative processes and is ruling by proxy, while maintaining the illusion of legitimate due process.

What concerns me most about the developments in Colorado and other states vis-à-vis firearms laws is that this progression has brought us that much closer to law-enforcement officials showing up at citizens’ homes and demanding their guns. Raised in the same environment as the rest of us, many peace officers won’t realize that they are operating well outside of the law.

And that’s when things will have the potential to get really ugly.

On Jan. 6, 2013, Nathan Haddad, a former Army staff sergeant and decorated combat veteran, was selling some gun magazines when he was arrested for violating a new New York state law prohibiting possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Haddad was charged with five felonies.

The officers who arrested Haddad, and those prosecuting him have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. Officials who enforce immoral laws are no better than Hitler’s Gestapo. Where, pray tell, do they plan to draw the line at what unlawful decrees they will and will not uphold?

Very soon, we are likely to hear of an individual who, upon being contacted by law enforcement, winds up in a firefight with them over their enforcement of newly implemented gun-control measures. Law-enforcement officers may be wounded or killed, as might our citizen. If arrested, he or she will be a political prisoner. This will be the final nail in the coffin for legal firearms ownership in America, as the government and the press will capitalize upon this event (and perhaps similar others) to prove once and for all that all gun owners are potential psycho cop killers.

Why does the government (and the Obama administration in particular) want Americans’ firearms? Because they know that they are already guilty of prosecutable crimes and are planning many more. They know that they represent precisely why America’s founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution in the first place, and that they already merit being removed by force of arms. They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that realization and respond accordingly.

Geller: CPAC Is 'Enforcing the Sharia'

Incensed that she was not invited back to CPAC, the annual gathering of conservative activists, Pamela Geller took to The Janet Mefferd Show to once again claim that she is a victim of Sharia law. She accused CPAC of “enforcing the Sharia” and “blasphemy laws” as a result of “the influence of what can only be described as Muslim Brotherhood facilitators or operatives like Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist.”

Mefferd: What did CPAC do to you? What happened?

Geller: As you know I’ve always held events there even though I wasn’t warmly welcomed because of the influence of what can only be described as Muslim Brotherhood facilitators or operatives like Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist. But I would hold events at a conference of close to 12,000 conservative activists that are coming for their marching orders, that are coming for information and there’s never anything on jihad or the Sharia. You know I brought Geert Wilders to CPAC, by the way 600 people and I turned away a couple of hundred, every one of our events is always standing room only. This year I could not get an event, I was banned.



Geller: But you see this is going on a long time, it took five years for the people to know but I think at this point people need to know just how deeply we have been infiltrated. What are they doing at CPAC? Essentially they are enforcing the Sharia. Under the Sharia, the blasphemy laws, you cannot say, you cannot offend, you cannot criticize and you cannot insult Islam. That is effectively what they’re doing, they are enforcing the Sharia.

Fischer: Obama Is a Tyrant Who Would Launch Drone Strikes Against the Tea Party

Yesterday, as Sen. Rand Paul was conducting a filibuster over the Obama administration's assertion that there could possibly be hypothetical "extraordinary circumstance" under which it would be necessary for the President to authorize the use of military force or drone strike against US citizens within the United States, Bryan Fischer dedicated a segment of his program to praising Paul for his stance.

In Fischer's view, Paul's filibuster was important because President Obama is a tyrant who does not want to allow anyone who disagrees with him to express their views and so, "based on the way the administration is crafting their policy here about the use of drones, you've got to be concerned that something you might say at a Tea Party would be used as an excuse" to launched a drone strike against your house:

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/6/13

 

 

 

 

 

  • PFAW: Memo: The Filibuster of Caitlin Halligan and the Future of the Courts.
  • Joe.My.God: Clementi's Parents Want NOM Apology.
  • Jeremy Hooper: NOM's Roback Morse: My verbatim audio was 'mischaracterized'; Clementi family should meet me.
  • Simon Maloy @ Media Matters: When Tucker Carlson Thought A Senator Soliciting Prostitutes Was "None Of Our Business."
  • Alvin McEwen: 'Homosexuality is dangerous and Obama hates mothers!'
  • David Weigel @ Slate: The Menendez-Dominican prostitute story, and why it’s teetering.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious