Rep. Hultgren: Unlike 'Dangerous' Sex-Ed, Abstinence-Only Programs Have 'Incredible Success Records'

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL) appeared on Washington Watch yesterday with Family Research Council Tony Perkins to discuss his legislation that “would spend $110 million a year for the next five years on grants to abstinence programs around the country,” funding that would have otherwise gone towards comprehensive sexual education. He claimed that while the Obama administration backs “very dangerous and experimental education programs,” programs pushing abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum have “incredible success records.”

Far from having “incredible success records,” abstinence programs have a history of failure. Reports have consistently found that there is no evidence to support the claim that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs reduce premarital sex or teen pregnancy; on the other hand, studies show that comprehensive sex-ed decreases the rate of teen pregnancy and STDs.

Perkins: What you’re doing is you’re redirecting money from a program that has negative consequences and redirecting some of it into one that has proven to have positive outcomes.

Hultgren: That’s right, yes. Like you said, this has changed dramatically under President Obama and his administration and Kathleen Sebelius. Basically they see it as a slush fund that they can use however they want to and they are putting it into some very dangerous and experimental education programs for younger and younger children. What this would do is money that is already there would put it into programs that we know work. You look at the track record for abstinence education, incredible success records, kids really want to make good choices and if we give them good information it will just help them make these good choices.

Remembering Jennifer Carroll: America Needs 'Christians to Step Up and Lead This Country'

The news broke this morning that Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll has resigned from office over her ties to an organization that ran a series of "internet cafes" in the state that is now at the center of a racketeering investigation. According to reports, Carroll had close ties this organization and even appeared in a commercial for it in 2010.

These "cafes" are often borderline casinos that exist in a legal gray area by claiming that they are merely offering "sweepstakes" to customers.

So it is just a little too perfect that back in 2011, Carroll was a featured speaker at a Faith and Freedom Coalition event ahead of a Republican presidential debate in Florida, organized by none other than Ralph Reed, where she declared that America needs "good, solid Christians to step up and lead this country on a proper moral path":

You know the Bible says faith is believing in what is not seen, today unfortunately many in the media would like nothing better to ridicule Christians: they promote 'The Da Vinci Code,' they place doubt in the public’s mind that Christ was not risen and they condemn the 'Passion of Christ,' yet they sensationalize stories that call for the end of prayer in school and removing the name of God from our country’s pledge. Ladies and gentlemen, these are very sad times when we allow the minority to poison the minds of the majority. This is exactly what dictators and socialist rulers did.

Man does not have all the answers, some of our political leaders bow down to scientists and let them have the stage to push their evolution, but there’s nothing, nothing a scientist can make, that is exactly like what God creates.

Trust Him to give you the strength to fight back against those who want to take God out of our country. Trust Him to give you the wisdom to speak out against injustice and blasphemy of His name. Trust God to guide your path to bring about a righteous government. …

Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity is in a fight and it is one of the greatest trials we have seen in modern times. Without a doubt, America and her people are in grave need of prayer, divine guidance, protection, to have good, solid Christians to step up and lead this country on a proper moral path. I firmly believe that if we magnify God, our problems will be minimized.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/12/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/12/13

  • Ralph Reed wants you to get your tickets now for the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s 2013 "Road to Majority" Conference.
  • Sarah Palin is writing a book about Christmas which, ironically, nobody will ask for next Christmas.
  • Christian apologist Alex McFarland says "the survival of America depends on a revival of Christianity."
  • Right-wing blogger John Hawkins helpfully offers up a list of "10 Hollywood Celebrities Who Should Be Blacklisted By Conservatives."
  • Finally, in trying to encourage people to attend the upcoming "March for Marriage," NOM is comparing the upcoming Prop 8 and DOMA cases to Roe v Wade: "If you could go back to 1973, would you participate in a march to save society from the scourge of abortion? Would you go to Washington to show the Supreme Court that you are one of a multitude of people who are demanding that they not use our constitution to create a great moral and civic wrong?"

DeMint: 'Secular Socialistic' Obama Orchestrating Crises for Political Gain

Former U.S. Senator and current Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint appeared on Today’s Issues with American Family Association head Tim Wildmon where he reiterated his “no compromise” mantra by arguing that President Obama and his allies are so extreme that there is no point in working with them.

When Wildmon asked if Obama even “has a conscience,” DeMint pointed to a 2008 quote by Rahm Emmanuel, whom DeMint mistakenly called “Raul Emmanuel,” about the financial crisis to suggest that Obama and his allies are deliberately creating crises in order to implement sweeping policy changes.

“What they understand on the liberal side is that the failures of their policies actually have empowered them to actually advance their policies,” DeMint told Wildmon, “A financial/economic crisis allows the president to reconfigure our whole economic and cultural system to redistribute the wealth the way he wants.”

After blaming the left for the 2008 financial crisis, DeMint argued that Obama has a “secular socialistic view” and that his “policies hurt people.” Consequently, people with a “faith and freedom view” shouldn’t even bother working with him.

Listen:

David Barton Continues to Peddle Falsehoods

It has become pretty obvious by this point that David Barton simply does not care that various claims he makes as part of his standard presentation are demonstrably false; he will simply continue to repeat them as fact because they are useful in promoting his right-wing political agenda.

As we have noted five times already, Barton repeatedly insists that the Constitution is filled with multiple "direct quotations" out of the Bible, insisting that anyone who doesn't see them is simply "biblically illiterate;" an assertion he made again while speaking at Fellowship Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan over the weekend:

And if you know the Bible and you know and read the Constitution, you will see Bible verses and Bible phrases all over the Constitution.  It quotes Bible phrases everywhere.  People today say 'oh, it's a godless Constitution, it's a secular document.' If somebody tells me it's a secular document, I know that they're biblically illiterate. They don't recognize a Bible verse when they see one because the Constitution is loaded up with direct quotations out of the Bible.

Of course, the only person who is illiterate here is Barton himself, as he is apparently unable to comprehend what the phrase "direct quoation" since none of the evidence he provides represent, in any way, "direct quotations."

But Barton wasn't done spreading falsehoods in this presentation, as he also repeated the claim that the Supreme Court ended mandatory Bible reading in public schools because it was causing brain damage to students:

[In 1963] the Supreme Court said no more Bible in schools. Now why would they do that?  We have 320 years, literally, of the Bible in school; the Supreme Court itself said this is without any historical precedent.  There is no historical precedent in our history for not having the Bible in schools, but it's time to take it out.  Why would they take it out?

Well, the Court explained why they would take it out.  As a matter of fact, they called on the testimony of a psychologist - they didn't have any historical precedent, they didn't have any legal precedent, but Dr. Solomon Grayzel told them what was going to happen if kids read the Bible in schools and they said 'that's what we thought.' And so here's the quote the Supreme Court pointed out in its decision on why we took the Bible out of schools; they said 'if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child.'

We've now discovered the Bible causes brain damage; we can't let you kids suffer brain damage, we've got to stop the brain damage.  That's the reason given by the Supreme Court on why the Bible went out of schools; it was psychological harm to children.

As we pointed out before, if you actually read the ruling in the case, you will find that the Supreme Court did not cite this as the reason for ending mandatory Bible reading in schools, rather the Court was merely describing the road the case had taken through the court system, noting that Dr. Grayzel's testimony had been heard during the initial trial.

Beyond that, Barton intentionally misrepresents the point of Grayzel's testimony itself, which was to note that forced Bible reading from a Christian perspective in public schools was potentially damaging to Jewish students:

Expert testimony was introduced by both appellants and appellees at the first trial, which testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:

Dr. Solomon Grayzel testified that there were marked differences between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian Holy Bible, the most obvious of which was the absence of the New Testament in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Dr. Grayzel testified that portions of the New Testament were offensive to Jewish tradition, and that, from the standpoint of Jewish faith, the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was "practically blasphemous." He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child, and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.

In both of these cases, it has been demonstrated time and again that the claims Barton is making are irrefutably false, but he simply does not care and continues to repeat them as truth as he delivers his pseudo-historical presentations to conservative audiences all across the country.

FRC: No Right to Have Sex Outside of Marriage, Society Should 'Punish It'

Family Research Council senior fellow Pat Fagan appeared alongside Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his article which claims that Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 case that overturned a Massachusetts law banning the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, may rank “as the single most destructive decision in the history of the Court.”

Fagan argued that the Supreme Court decision was wrong because it effectively meant that “single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.” “Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever,” Fagan said.

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have.



It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

Klayman: Obama Doesn't Like Jews, the Rich, People of Faith, or White People

Larry Klayman has been anything but shy about warning that violent resistance might be necessary to stop President Obama's "mission to enslave the nation." So last night, Alan Colmes invited Klayman onto his radio program to discuss his worries that black helicopters have been firing practice rounds on American cities, during which he asserted that he believes that Obama does not like Jews, the wealthy, people of faith, or white people ... or, for that matter, that Obama was even born in this country:

Klayman: I'm frightened for this country.  I really [am.] I don't feel that he represents the majority of Americans.  I have a Jewish background, Alan, like you do and what I've seen in the last four years is someone who has a disdain, I believe, for Jewish people and Israel.

Colmes:  Why did he have a Jewish Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel? Why does he have so many Jewish advisers?  It doesn't make any sense.

Klayman: This is a bad analogy and I'll take it a little too far.  Many times throughout history, Jewish people have been their own worst enemy.  I mean, we had Karl Marx.  We had people who were in and around Adolf Hitler even ... The fact that these people are around him, they are just simply cover.

...

The references to rich people, the constant 'we've got to pay our fair share,' it's kind of like we're talking about reparations.  It does lead one to think - and we should be allowed to talk about it too; you know, white people should be able to raise these issues just like black people legitimately raised them over the years in terms of racism - is I believe this guy has a tinge of racism towards whites and he wants to pay reparations. I don't believe that he likes Jewish people ... I don't think he likes people of faith.

Colmes: What have you seen that has you so scared?

Klayman: What I have seen is, and I never thought it was even imaginable when I was fighting [Bill] Clinton, I do believe that it is possible now.  I think that Obama knows that at some point a significant portion of this country is going to rise up and possibly become violent and I hope and pray that that does not happen.

Colmes: What are you basing this on?

Klayman: Well, what I've seen in recent weeks are black helicopters over the streets in Miami and Chicago and Houston, firing practice rounds ...

Colmes: Whose helicopters are these?

Klayman: They are government helicopters that have been doing that.

Colmes: Why has this not been widely reported?

Klayman: It is starting to become widely publicized.

Colmes: Where can I get documentation of it?

Klayman: Take a look at WorldNetDaily.com.

Colmes: Oh, WoldNetDaily; you mean the people who think that he wasn't born here?

Klayman: Well, I don't think he was born here either.

Harvey Denounces Girl Scouts for Supporting 'Homosexual Lifestyles' and 'Suspicion Toward Males'

It’s that time of year again when Girl Scouts sell cookies… and right-wing activists attack the Girl Scouts. Today, Linda Harvey of Mission America took offense that the Scouts support “radical feminists” and “homosexual lifestyles” and “feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials.” She alleged that they dismiss “authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood” and “sexual self-restraint” while at the same time promoting “an attitude of suspicion toward males.”

This is not at all the way the organization started, but Girl Scout materials and programs support role models like radical feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, they support homosexual lifestyles and feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials. At the same time virtually absent is respect for authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood. It’s one more way that girls are being taught that unless you have an attitude of suspicion toward males in general, unless you bring home a paycheck and unless you have a worldview based on self-indulgence with never a notion of sacrifice, you as a woman are really diminished in worth, sexual self-restraint or restraint of just your own female pride should be avoided at all costs.

Southern Baptist Convention Poll More Bad News for Anti-Gay Activists

The Southern Baptist Convention’s polling arm LifeWay is out with a new poll revealing widespread support for gay rights, particularly among young people. According to the survey, a clear majority of Americans believe that “homosexuality is a civil rights issue like gender, race and age,” agree that same-sex marriage is “inevitable” and oppose employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The denomination is a fierce critic of marriage equality and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and last year passed a resolution “opposing the idea that gay rights are the same as civil rights.”

Richard Land, the denomination’s top political spokesman, has claimed that the Devil is behind homosexuality and warned that gay rights will lead to divine judgment and “paganization.” While the SBC believes it is wrong to consider gay rights a civil rights issues, Land compared his own anti-gay activism to Martin Luther King Jr.’s leadership of the Civil Rights Movement.

Key findings from the poll include:

  • 64 percent of those polled agreed “it is inevitable that same-sex marriage will become legal throughout the United States.”
  • “80 percent of Americans disagree that employers should be allowed to refuse employment to someone based on their sexual preference.”
  • 58 percent of respondents agreed with the question: “like age, race, and gender, homosexuality is a civil rights issue.”
  • A majority of Americans believe rental halls and landlords should not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples.
  • “More Americans do not believe homosexual behavior is a sin than those who believe it is a sin.”

The poll also found that women, young people and people with college degrees were more likely to favor gay rights.

LifeWay’s survey appears to line up with a new bipartisan analysis of exit polls which found that opposition to marriage equality is concentrated among the elderly, white evangelical Christians and people without college degrees.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious