Perkins: Democrats Are Waging A 'War On Women' Through The Contraception Mandate

Recently it was reported that Republicans in Congress have been receiving training on how to communicate with female voters and, more importantly, learning what not to do when running against a female opponent.

The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins was asked about this effort by Newsmax's Steve Malzberg yesterday and it made us wish that the GOP would bring Perkins in to help them with their talking points because, as he sees it, the entire thing is utterly unnecessary since it is the Democrats who are really waging the "war on women" ... through the contraception mandate:

Let me tell you where the war on women is being waged. It is the Democratic Party that is putting an ideological emphasis on, let's take the contraception mandate that they're pushing, which is going to cost jobs, going to cost women the ability to provide for their families, it's going to take away their health care because they're putting organizations and businesses in a position of having to choose between their religious freedoms, their conscience, and providing healthcare for their workers. Look, who needs to apologize for that are not Republicans, it's the Democrats, it's the President that's pushing this failed policy that's kicking families off of coverage from health care and potentially ending their jobs. Now, what do Republicans have to apologize for because they've been fighting that?  I don't think they have anything to apologize for.

Remembering The Religious Right's Attacks On Nelson Mandela

The news today of Nelson Mandela’s passing is also time to reflect on the complicated relationship between Mandela and his anti-apartheid African National Congress (ANC) with the US, which did not always support the anti-apartheid struggle. In fact, American conservatives lobbied the federal government in the 1980s to withhold support from the anti-apartheid movement.

President Reagan added the ANC to the US terrorism watch list, a designation not removed until 2008, and unsuccessfully vetoed sanctions against the apartheid regime. Many Republican lawmakers did break with the Reagan administration’s stance, but “all 21 [Senate] votes to sustain the veto were cast by Republicans.”

Mandela faced criticism from Republican leaders including Dick Cheney, who described Mandela’s ANC as a “terrorist organization,” and Jesse Helms, who “turned his back during Mandela’s visit to the U.S. Capitol.” Even in 1998, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly lumped Mandela together with notorious dictators.

The late Jerry Falwell urged [PDF] his supporters to write their congressmen and senators to tell them to oppose sanctions against the apartheid regime. “The liberal media has for too long suppressed the other side of the story in South Africa,” he said. “It is very important that we stay close enough to South Africa so that it does not fall prey to the clutches of Communism.”

“South Africa is torn by civil unrest, instigated primarily by Communist-sponsored people who are capitalizing on the many legitimate grievances created by apartheid, unemployment and policy confrontations,” Falwell continued.

Finally, we should, if possible, invest in South Africa, because this inevitably improves the standard of living for nonwhites there.

Now is not the time to turn our backs on South Africa. The world has witnessed the Soviets capture nation after nation. They have been particularly aggressive in Africa. South Africa must not be the next victim!

David John Marley notes in Pat Robertson: An American Life that Robertson criticized the ANC because it was “led by communists and was hostile to Israel” and “far too radical an element to ever work with,” while “his campaign literature made similar claims for the need to support the white government.”

The televangelist regularly spoke ill of Mandela’s group and his Christian Broadcasting Network ran segments critical of sanctions against the apartheid government as Congress debated sanctions.

In 1986 The 700 Club did a series of reports on South Africa and the white government’s struggle against the African National Congress. While many socially liberal religious leaders decried the apartheid regime, Robertson openly supported it because he felt that it was a bastion against communism. For Robertson, everything else was secondary to defeating what he saw as the enemies of God. Robertson sent a copy of The 700 Club program to Freedom Council’s Dick Thompson to have it forwarded to Pat Buchanan, who in turn promised to show it to the president. Reagan’s attitude toward South Africa was one of his most controversial foreign policy stands, and Robertson was one of Reagan’s few allies on the policy.

Sam Kleiner mentions that now-Sen. Jeff Flake, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff were also active in lobbying against the anti-apartheid movement:

Jack Abramoff, now a disgraced former lobbyist convicted of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion, got much of his start from his work with South Africa. Abramoff visited the country following his term as National Chair of the College Republicans in 1983 and met with pro-apartheid student groups linked to the South Africa’s Bureau of Security Services. In 1986, he opened the International Freedom Foundation. Ostensibly a think tank, it was later revealed as a front group for the South African Army as part of “Operation Babushka” meant to undermine Nelson Mandela’s international approval. The group had over “30 young ideologues in offices on G Street in Washington, Johannesburg, London and Brussels” working on propaganda in support of the South African government.



Like Abramoff, GOP tax guru Grover Norquist became enamored with the conflict in South Africa and went there to extend his support. Norquist ran College Republicans from 1981 to 1983 and went to South Africa in 1985 for a “Youth for Freedom Conference” sponsored by South African businesses. While other college students, such as Barack Obama, had been active in anti-apartheid work, this conference was seeking to bring American and South African conservatives together to end that movement. In his speech there, Norquist said, “The left has no other issue [but apartheid] on campus. Economic issues are losers for them. There are no sexy Soviet colonies anymore.” A few months after the conference, Norquist went to Angola to work with Jonas Savimbi, the rebel leader that Abramoff valorized in his film. Norquist became a ghost-writer for Savimbi’s essay in Policy Review. When he returned to Washington, he was greeted in conservative circles as a “freedom fighter,” and he proudly placed an “I’d rather be killing commies” bumper sticker on his brief case.

A few years later and much further along in the anti-apartheid movement, a young Jeff Flake (now a senator from Arizona) became active in lobbying for South African mining interests in the late 1980s and early ’90s, after returning from his Mormon mission to South Africa. As a graduate student at Brigham Young University, he testified against an anti-apartheid resolution in the Utah State Senate and then became a lobbyist in Washington for Smoak, Shipley and Henry, a lobbying firm specializing in representing the South African mining industry. Flake went on to personally represent the Rossing Uranium plant in Namibia, which had been a major target of anti-apartheid activists for its discriminatory and unsafe practices.

Decades later, these Republican leaders would prefer not to have their adventures in South Africa mentioned. While Abramoff went down in a corruption scandal, Norquist went on to remake himself into a libertarian anti-tax activist, and Flake moved back to Arizona. The anti-communism that motivated the Republican allegiance to South Africa fizzled with the end of the Cold War, but the history of the Republican entanglement with South Africa remains one of the party’s darker episodes.

President Obama can proudly talk about how his first political act was in response to apartheid. While a few Republicans stood against apartheid, much of the Republican Party has nothing to offer about its position at the time but silence. I wouldn’t expect any reflections on apartheid from Abramoff, Flake or Norquist anytime soon.

Right Wing Round-Up - 12/5/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 12/5/13

  • Ted Cruz stands by his father's statement comparing President Obama to Fidel Castro.
  • Ted Cruz is also standing by ALEC.
  • Looks like Peter LaBarbera is taking his anti-gay activism to Jamaica.
  • Ken Blackwell says new IRS regulations are designed to limit "how much groups can speak about Obama's policies or promote alternative policies about healthcare, free markets, traditional values, or national defense."
  • Finally, FRC continues to pray against Obamacare: "May God stir his people and quiet Americans who know this is wrong, to pray and act! May His praying people recognize how truly dangerous this law is! May they boldly pray and recruit others to pray for the law's repeal by the merciful Hand of God! May He move upon our High Court to rule decisively for religious liberty. May God-fearing men and women win House and Senate seats in November 2014, and public offices across America. May God send us the Christian revival we so desperately need!"

Frank Gaffney Will Twist Any News Item In Order To Attack Obama

After the Ukrainian government’s decision to pull out of an agreement with the European Union triggered massive protests, Secretary of State John Kerry cancelled his trip to Ukraine and instead visited Moldova which, unlike Ukraine, decided to pursue closer relations with the EU.

This is how a real news source covered the story:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged the Ukrainian government on Tuesday to “listen to the voices of its people” after President Viktor Yanukovych's decision to spurn an agreement with the European Union sparked days of massive protests.

Kerry said Ukrainians had demonstrated “in unbelievable numbers” their support of the accord on closer ties with Europe, which Yanukovych rejected last week in favor of Russian incentives.

“Mr. Yanukovych has obviously made a personal decision and the people don't agree with that decision,” Kerry said after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.

“Clearly there is a very powerful evidence of people who would like to be associated with Europe... we stand with the vast majority of the Ukrainians who want to see this future for their country,” he told a news conference.



“I personally will be going to Moldova in order to support that country's European choice,” Kerry said. “I look forward to visiting Ukraine when it too gets back on the path to European integration and economic responsibility.”

But Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy claims that Secretary Kerry’s clear stance in favor of greater European integration and support for the demonstrators actually is proof that he opposes the pro-EU protest movement, proving once again that Obama administration officials can do no right in the eyes of right-wing activists: 

There’s a new revolution underway – this time in Ukraine. Mass demonstrations are insisting that country align with the European Union, not Russia, an idea adamantly opposed by Vladimir Putin and his puppets in Kiev. America should be standing with those seeking freedom and closer ties to the West. Yet, the Obama administration is literally missing in action, with Secretary of State John Kerry just cancelling a planned trip to Ukraine. See a pattern here? Where revolutionaries are working to overthrow friends of the United States, Team Obama is all for them. Where revolutionaries oppose regimes hostile to the United States and freedom – as in Iran in 2009 or Ukraine today – President Obama offers no help, or even rhetorical support. This pattern diminishes America’s standing internationally and makes for a more dangerous world.

Graham's Tea Party Challenger: Able-Bodied Food Stamp Recipients 'Shouldn't Eat,' Social Safety Net 'Role Of The Church'

South Carolina state Sen. Lee Bright is currently leading the field of Tea Party primary challengers to Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, all of whom think the very conservative senator is not conservative enough.

To give you an idea of what someone running to the right of Lindsey Graham looks like, Bright wants anyone enforcing health care reform in South Carolina to go to jail, wants the state to have its own currency and has even joked about secession.

At a fundraising event in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Tuesday, Bright elaborated even further on his far-right beliefs, calling for immigrants to “self-deport,” saying that all social services should be provided by the Church and that able-bodied people relying on food stamps “shouldn’t eat,” and comparing the IRS’s income-tax collection to Nazi Germany.

Bright bashed Graham for participating in the crafting of the Senate’s bipartisan immigration law, saying that he only did so in order to bring more Democratic voters into South Carolina so he could switch parties. “Lindsey Graham would like to be a Democrat, but the numbers aren’t there,” he alleged. “But if you bring all the illegals in and they vote Democrat, then a Democrat can win in South Carolina and just about anywhere in the country.”

Bright added that his immigration solution was “self-deportation,” the draconian idea that if the government makes life miserable enough for undocumented immigrants, they’ll flee of their own will.

Later in the talk, Bright alleged that immigration reform is just a “band-aid” because “a lot” of Americans “won’t work.”

“It’s not politically correct to say this, but we’ve got a lot of people who won’t work,” he said. “And they won’t work because we’ll provide their food, and we’ll provide their housing, and we’ll provide some spending money. We’ve all seen it, the folks in line who are using [food stamps], yet they’ve got the nicest nails and the nicest pocketbook and they get the nicest car.”

Bright acknowledged that there are some Americans who are physically unable to work, but said they should be the responsibility of the Church: “There’s people that are mentally ill, there are people that are disabled. I understand that, though I still think that’s the role of the Church to take care of those folks.

“But able-bodied people, if they don’t work, they shouldn’t eat,” he said.

In fact, three-quarters of households receiving SNAP benefits include a child, an elderly person or a disabled person and a third of recipients do work, but don’t earn living incomes.

Finally, Bright voiced his support for the Tea Party dream of abolishing the IRS and income taxes, saying that “there is no other institution in our government that people are more fearful of,” he said. Getting a letter from the IRS, he added, is something out of “Nazi Germany.”

 

Kevin Swanson Sees The Hunger Games, Disappointed 'Little Girl Anarchist' Katniss Became A Leader

Pastor Kevin Swanson took two of his daughters, paper and pen in hand, to the movie theater to see “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” and made them take notes about the movie to discuss later on his Generations Radio program. Swanson, a leader in the patriarchal fundamentalist homeschooling movement, naturally was aghast at the portrayal of “Hunger Games” heroine Katniss Everdeen as an icon of the rebellion against the tyrannical Capitol.

Swanson said that the fictional Panem’s main problem was a lack of male leadership (aside, you know, from its president).

“Think about the men,” Swanson said. “They were tyrants, they were wimpy, they were led around by the nose by women. Peeta is a puppy dog, he was cute, he was nice, he was fluffy and he did everything that his mistress told him to do. He was the puppy dog.”

“Girls, if society is so broken down and there are no fathers left, probably no sheriffs with courage and guts to defend the people from tyrants, what do you get when you don’t have any men?” he asked. “I guess you get Katniss, and Katniss is going to save society. It’s also interesting that the most popular movies that people watch are movies about witches, about vampires and about little girl anarchists, revolutionaries.”

Barton: The Bible Says Convicted Murderer Scott Peterson Should Not Have Received The Death Penalty

One of the main points that we try to make whenever we write about David Barton is not just that he is a pseudo-historian who has a problem telling the truth, but that he is also a borderline theocrat who believes that our nation's laws ought to be literally based upon the Bible.

During his recent appearance on "The Gospel Truth" with Andrew Wommack, Barton explained that Scott Peterson, who was convicted of having murdered his wife and unborn child back in 2002, should not have received the death penalty because there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.

Citing Deuteronomy 17:6, which states that "on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death," Barton argued that even though Peterson was guilty of murder, he should not have received a death sentence because there were not two or more witnesses to the crime as required by the Bible:

Pat Robertson Blames Woman For Drawing In 'Indigent Or Abusive' Spouses

Televangelist Pat Robertson has a flair for making sweeping judgments about people simply by reading the short questions they submit to the 700 Club’s Bring It On segment. Just today, Robertson seemed to be able to uncover intimate details about a the life of a twice-divorced woman who was wondering if she would go to hell if she married again.

“You’ve got a serious problem and I don’t think marriage is for you,” Robertson said. “You have picked a selection of losers, there is something in your character that draws you to these men who are indigent or abusive. I don’t think you’re marriage material.”

The viewer never referenced abuse in her question.

“Just for now, forget marriage, work out a life for yourself, get close to the Lord,” Robertson advised.

Watch:

Gun Owners Of America, Allen West Embrace Debunked EPA-Gun Control Conspiracy Theory

In a blog post this week, former Florida congressman Allen West gets behind a conspiracy theory that holds that the Environmental Protection Agency is launching a “clandestine” and “backdoor” assault on the Second Amendment. The gist of the theory is that President Obama used the EPA to shut down a Missouri smelter that refused to comply with anti-pollution regulations, thereby creating a scarcity of bullets and, in West’s words, “destroy[ing] the Second Amendment.”

Of course, there is no actual evidence to support West’s claim. In fact, the EPA first went after the smelter in question in 2008, the year before Obama became president. Steve Benen notes: “If enforcement of environmental safeguards was used to secretly undermine access to ammunition, the plot was launched by the notorious gun-grabbers in the Bush/Cheney administration.”

Despite the lack of evidence and the fact that the smelter was targeted before Obama even took office, now Gun Owners of America is also embracing the patently bogus conspiracy:

Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America (GOA), agrees with West, saying this is clearly a backdoor attack on the Second Amendment.

"We don't think it's coincidental that a company that melts lead for bullets was targeted by the Obama administration, given the politicization [of the issue]," he tells OneNewsNow. "As a matter of fact, every way the Obama administration can go at the Second Amendment through the back door it's attempted to do so."

Hammond says it is also scary that the federal government is buying up so much of the ammo that is produced.

"People all over the country are saying [they] can't buy bullets – and the Obama administration said Oh, we just need them," states the GOA spokesman. "But people all over the country are finding difficulty buying ammunition because of large government purchases."
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious