June, 2006

A group of right-wing leaders affiliated with Manuel Miranda’s National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters has responded to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s response to the Coalition’s first letter regarding Graham’s opposition to the nomination of Jim Haynes.

According to his own letter, Graham is “troubled that very distinguished military leaders have expressed strong opposition to the Haynes nomination” because of his role in creating this Bush administration's controversial policies regarding "unlawful combatants."

But the Right is having none of it and is demanding that Haynes receive a confirmation vote.  And they have chosen to up the ante by smearing Graham with the worst insult imaginable: comparing him to those allegedly unprincipled Democrats:

We are particularly concerned that your June 8 letter and the critics it quotes conflate policy disputes with improper behavior, frankly, in the way that Democrats do … [B]y blurring the distinction between Democrats' repeated use of obstructionist tactics and Republicans' principled treatment of judicial nominees, you are harming the GOP's chances in November.

There are 60+ Clinton nominees who never received a hearing or a vote in the days when Republicans controlled the Senate and they are probably a little confused as to just when the GOP became interested in the “principled treatment of judicial nominees.”

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform is defending himself from allegations contained in the recent Senate Indian Affairs Committee report [PDF] on Jack Abramoff.  The report says that Norquist siphoned money from transfers funneled through his organization that were destined for Ralph Reed’s work fighting the expansion of gambling for the benefit of one of Abramoff’s clients, the Choctaw Tribe of Mississippi. 

Abramoff and the Choctaw allegedly used ATR as a way to hide the origins of the money it was sending to Reed for his anti-gambling work, because “Ralph Reed did not want to be paid directly by a tribe with gaming interests.” 

The committee report alleges that Norquist received $50,000 for his role as a conduit for the tribe’s money, but Norquist insists that the money was just the tribe’s contribution to his organization and was, according to Newsmax, “roughly the same amount the tribe had contributed to ATR for more than seven years.”

Whatever the case may be, there is one nagging question: if the $50,000 ATR received was indeed part of a routine donation, why would the Choctaw bundle that money in with hundreds of thousands of dollars destined for Reed anti-gambling work?  

The report states

In late 1999, the Choctaw paid ATR $325,000. In a 2005 interview with The Boston Globe, Norquist said that ATR had sent $300,000 of that $325,000 to Citizens Against Legalized Lottery (“CALL) … Out of the Choctaw’s $325,000, ATR apparently kept $25,000 for its services.

…

The Tribe was nevertheless able to continue funding Reed’s efforts. On February 17, 2000, Abramoff advised Reed that “ATR will be sending a second $300K today.” This money, too, came from the Choctaw. Norquist kept another $25,000 from the second transfer, which apparently surprised Abramoff.

If the Choctaw intended to donate to ATR, couldn’t they have simply done so directly?

The Connecticut Jewish Ledger presses Paul Streitz, the co-founder of a Minuteman-like group called Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, about his restrictionist views:

If he were alive during the late 1800s or early 1900s, said Paul Streitz, he would have barred Eastern European Jews from entering this country, even if they were fleeing pogroms.

More recently, he said, in the 1970s, '80s and '90s, the United States should have never admitted the thousands of Jews who sought to leave the Soviet Union and, later, the former Soviet Union. "We're not their savior," he added. "They should have settled things in their own country."

As for the Jews who tried desperately to escape from Hitler's Europe, the co-director of Connecticut Citizens for Immigrant Control said he would have allowed in those refugees but under one condition: that they return, at some point, to their native land.

Lest anyone think that Streitz is anti-Semitic, the Darien activist, a 63-year-old marketing professional, would have also closed the nation's doors to Irish fleeing the potato famine and other groups, European, Asian or African, trying to escape the dire poverty of their lands.

Streitz, who spent some time with the Minuteman at the border, is also a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. He is most famous for attacking McDonald’s for employing too many Mexican immigrants:

The co-founder of an anti-immigration group in Connecticut demanded Wednesday that government officials investigate the "disproportionate" hiring of "Hispanics" at McDonald's restaurants after presenting what he had privately described to group members as his "MexDonald's" study. …

Streitz said the survey had observed 1,183 employees at McDonald's restaurants whom his group classified, based on "personal observations," as either white, African-American, Hispanic, or Asian.

You can read more of his views on this web site, where he writes that, “Mexico has declared war on the United States. The Mexicans call it Reconquista. They say they are reconquering Aztlan.”

Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Bud Kennedy describes a meeting between Texas Minuteman border vigilantes and Young Republicans at Texas A&M:

When the Minutemen's quirky leader started rambling about a secret plan to "merge Canada and Mexico with the United States," the good Republicans in the home of the George Bush Presidential Library started squirming in their chairs behind half-eaten barbecue plates.

When a Minutewoman from Dallas started complaining that ranchers can shoot diseased cattle at the border but not humans, and blamed permissive immigration on the "greedy business people" of America, their Republican host finally had enough and stood to cut off questions.

Citing the Minutemen’s “borderline paranoia,” Kennedy notes that “their handouts included something about the Trilateral Commission.”

NPR profiled Jerry Falwell this morning on the opening of his new 6,000-seat church, and notes the continuing influence he holds in Washington, D.C. Of politicians who he feels are ignoring his issues, he says, “Whenever it's a major problem, and I think we are being misled, I pick up the phone and I call whoever I need to call and take care of it.” And, according to Falwell, the White House call him, too.

Falwell explained the growth of his church into a television, megachurch, and political empire was partially due to his extremist rhetoric and the media attention surrounding it. But among his “brash statements,” they are “none of them by chance,” he said, citing the time he called South Africa Bishop Desmond Tutu a “phony” in order to get publicity for himself. “There’s a connection between outrageous remarks, and this huge sanctuary we see here today,” said the NPR reporter, and Falwell concurred, “Oh there’s no question about it.”

One such “brash statement” occurred two days after the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001, when Falwell appeared on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” TV show and blamed his political enemies in the U.S., saying, “[T]he Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. … I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”

In the NPR interview, Falwell flatly denied that 9/11 was God’s punishment for abortion or other things Falwell objects to, adding, “I don’t think God hurts innocent people because we hurt innocent people.” The NPR reporter, replied, puzzled, “Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t you make a statement one time about September 11 …?”

“What I said was, our secularization of America, our attempt to separate from God, could certainly cause the Lord to lift the veil. And I usually added, the local church, our sleeping church, and then gays and lesbians and so forth and so on, all who have taken us away from the faith of our fathers, may have exposed us to international hurt,” responded Falwell. In other words, “You helped this happen.”

Sen. Elizabeth Dole takes to the pages of the Charlotte Observer to complain about the opposition to the nomination of Terrence Boyle, whom she calls “a fine North Carolinian, distinguished jurist and dedicated public servant.”

That may or may not be the case, but Dole might want to do a little research before complaining that

Our federal courts currently have 47 open seats, 21 of which have been declared ‘judicial emergencies’ -- including the seat to which Judge Boyle has been nominated. Vacant since July 1994, this seat is the longest federal judicial vacancy in the country, by nearly six years!

Boyle was nominated to fill the seat vacated by J. Dickson Phillips.  But it just so happens that, prior to Boyle, President Clinton made two different nominations to that seat – James Beaty in 1995 and James Wynn in 1999.

At the times of their nominations there were, respectively, 53 and 69 federal court vacancies, but that didn’t seem to much matter to then-Senator Jesse Helms

Starting in 1995, President Clinton submitted several African-American nominees to that court from North Carolina, including James Beaty and James Wynn. Reportedly as a result of Helms' failure to return either of his blue slips, however, neither of these nominees even received a hearing from the Judiciary Committee. Not until President Clinton's 2000 recess appointment of Roger Gregory, whose nomination also failed to receive a hearing, has an African-American ever served on the Fourth Circuit.

So that seat has indeed been vacant for quite some time - and for that, Sen. Dole can thank the man whose position in the Senate she now holds.

Focus on the Family interviewed Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council about the upcoming Values Votes Summit, giving Perkins an opportunity to throw out his best sales pitch

This is designed for many different people, but primarily for Christians who want to make a difference in the life of their nation, who need information, who want to be encouraged and who want to connect with others from their state and other parts of the country. It's for people who are thinking that maybe one day they might want to be a candidate, so they might want to get connected with the right people to learn the proper steps it take. So there's a lot of information, but it's focused on families. This is a family event. This is something that the whole family can come to.

Indeed.  What kid wouldn’t want to spend a weekend in a stuffy conference room at the Omni Shoreham Hotel listening to likes of Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline?   

Just try and keep them away!  

A group of right-wing leaders including Phyllis Schlafly, Lou Sheldon, Alan Keyes, and Richard Viguerie have issued an open declaration [PDF] to “oppose any amnesty or guest worker plans like the Senate bill (S. 2611), the Pence bill, or any other such proposals.” 

That, in and of itself, is nothing new. 

But this is

If any such bill is enacted, including the Senate bill or the Pence bill, we pledge to withhold political support from any Member of Congress who votes for it.

Finally, we dedicate ourselves to defeating any 2008 presidential candidate who supports the Senate bill, the Pence bill, or any other bill that provides legalization of illegal aliens or substantial increases in legal immigration. We pledge to do so regardless of political party and in both the primaries and the general election.

They have been warned. 

The Harrison County, West Virginia school board is facing a lawsuit over a large portrait of Jesus Christ that hangs in a public high school—at issue is whether the state is improperly endorsing a religion and whether the school is infringing the parents’ freedom of religion in raising their children, both First Amendment claims. But according to Pat Robertson, these First Amendment-filers “hate America” and are launching a “Bolshevik or Marxist takeover.”

Speaking on his “700 Club” program—which is run twice a day on ABC Family Channel and, according to Robertson’s network, is available in “95 percent of the television markets across the United States”—Robertson said,

The so-called progressives, ladies and gentlemen, have launched an all-out assault on all the foundational principles of our nation. And we found our liberties on the strength of our religious belief—that’s what the Declaration of Independence says. And the idea is, if you hate America, you will strip America of its religious values. And those who are doing this, let’s face it—this was a Communist plan some decades ago to undermine America, break up families, and break up religious belief and then the country would be subject to a Bolshevik or Marxist takeover. Well Marxism is in the ash-bin of history, but some of the Marxist followers in today’s world are still carrying that agenda forward.

View the video highlight: Broadband or Dial-Up

At a summit of black ministers held in Dallas this week, some participants decried the “bedroom morality” preached by some churches at the expense of social justice concerns. In The Washington Times, a Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, fired back, asserting that “Their agenda hurts the black community; the fact that these ministers are saying that gay marriage and abortion are not Christian issues makes it clear that they are not men of God.” The Times also quotes one Bishop Harry Jackson, who said, "There is a new black church that Al [Sharpton] and Jesse [Jackson] don't speak to, and they are threatened by the new black megachurches and their pastors; and they tend to talk about us as if we are just uppity Negroes, asking 'why can't they just fall in line'?"

It may be helpful to know where Peterson and Jackson are coming from. Jackson has been a near-constant presence by the sides of Religious Right activists in pushing for right-wing judges and fighting against gay marriage. He spoke at both Justice Sunday and Justice Sunday II, televised church rallies organized by the leaders of the Religious Right to push for Bush’s judicial nominees, telling the audience, “You and I can bring the rule and reign of the Cross to America and we can change America on our watch, together.”

Gays are a particular target of his. In an article in Charisma magazine, Jackson wrote that the “wisdom behind” the “gay agenda” is “clearly satanic,” and he called for an aggressive “counterattack.”

Jackson’s six-point “Black Contract with America on Moral Values” is headed off with opposition to same-sex marriage, followed by school vouchers and Social Security privatization.

Peterson, a frequent spokesman on the Right who has an unhealthy obsession with Jesse Jackson, made headlines last September when he wrote that Hurricane Katrina’s victims were “immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out.” He continued,

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.

A few weeks later, he co-sponsored an event at the far-right Heritage Foundation to discuss the state of Black America, where he expanded on his opinion of Katrina evacuees: “I find that many of those people have lots of things. They have nice clothes to wear, they’re fat as a pig, they’re driving nice cars, big old color TVs. I think the reason many stayed there is because they lack moral character.” He criticized New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, saying that if you lived in the city, you were “out of your mind to wait on a Black Mayor to come help you.” And Rev. Peterson added that no Democrats were Christians: “You’re not born of God if you’re a Democrat… A real Christian can’t vote for a Democrat, the Democratic Party.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the narrow Senate defeat of the flag amendment “a regrettable loss” that will send “a terrible message” to U.S. soldiers fighting overseas. At the same time, Perkins complained about the recent (wide) defeat of another amendment, one to write discrimination into the Constitution. “There is no doubt a connection,” claimed Perkins.

In an e-mail to supporters yesterday, he wrote:

Still, I cannot help pointing out that we gained sixty-six votes in the U.S. Senate for an amendment that would have protected the symbol of our beloved country. Compare this with the vote earlier this month on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA). There, we got forty-nine votes. Consider this: Sixty-six votes for a revered symbol versus forty-nine for the foundation of society. That means there are at least seventeen senators who are readier to protect symbols than substance. As for the critics who have complained of misplaced priorities and symbolism, they are just flat wrong. The Senate should have approved both amendments. There is no doubt a connection. A country that dishonors marriage is sure to see its revered symbols dishonored as well.

There is a connection, but not the one Perkins sees: Both amendments would mar the Constitution’s protections for our liberty and equality, and both votes were timed for maximum political opportunism.

In his final sermon at his old church before moving into his new digs, Jerry Falwell took on the “Hollywood scene,” saying that “the world has gone sex crazy.”

Movie stars, not married to each other, having babies and making headlines all over the world as though they were doing some great thing. Big deal! Just another moral pervert. …

And don't—don't ever be proud of sin. You know, you almost got to be a homosexual to be recognized in the entertainment industry anymore. Ellen and all the rest, I love them, pray for their souls, but they're immoral, and the Hollywood scene, five and eight and ten marriages, not something to be emulated.

View the video highlight: Broadband or Dial-Up.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) appeared on Hannity & Colmes Monday to promote his new book about how Mexican immigrants are ruining the U.S. in a “clash of civilizations.” According to Tancredo, we are at war:

Mexico is aiding and abetting an invasion of this country. They are part of the problem. They are doing what they are -- in fact, they are creating situations along that border using their own military to protect drug trafficking into the United States, pushing their own people into the United States for a variety of reasons. It is an invasion. It is an act of aggression.

Read more and watch the video at PFAW’s “Right-Wing Outrage” section.

With the failure – by just one vote – of the Senate to pass the flag amendment, the Bill of Rights is safe for now. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) appeared on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” this morning to express his disappointment that future generations of Americans may have to suffer under the First Amendment. “I don’t think that burning a flag has much to do with freedom of speech,” said Roberts, who blamed “activist judge[s]” for protecting that form of dissent.

View the video highlight: Broadband or Dial-Up.

Sen. Roberts told Robertson that, “[T]o me, that flag means much more than just a flag, and so I get a little irritated when people say, ‘Oh you’re just introducing it to energize your base.’ Well, that base—and a lot of people other than that base—care about the American flag.” Most of us do care about the flag, it’s true—but we care even more about what it represents.

Many conservatives oppose the amendment. The Constitution is “the great shield of democracy,” as Colin Powell said:

We are rightfully outraged when anyone attacks or desecrates our flag. Few Americans do such things and when they do they are subject to the rightful condemnation of their fellow citizens. They may be destroying a piece of cloth, but they do no damage to our system of freedom which tolerates such desecration...

I would not amendment that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.

Pat Robertson told the senator that he noticed that all that potential Republican presidential candidates voted for the amendment, while potential Democratic candidates voted against it; however, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, who voted in favor, is still a Democrat.

The good news is that Sen. Roberts expressed little confidence that the amendment would be brought up again soon. The bad news is that 66 United States Senators voted the First Amendment obsolete.

In case there was any doubt that self-described “pro-life” activists care less about saving lives and more about limiting women’s reproductive choices, the issue appears to be settled.

When billionaire investor Warren Buffett donated $30 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation this week, most people cheered at the single largest act of charitable giving ever. In addition to large-scale funding for libraries and education, the Gates Foundation has spent nearly $6 billion on global health programs, such as fighting malaria, HIV, and TB; providing vaccines and research to make them more effective; and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to improve maternal and newborn health in the developing world.

But some on the Right are decrying such generosity. WorldNetDaily warns that “Bill and Melinda Gates also have spent millions promoting abortion in their home state, having given nearly $2 million to Planned Parenthood of Central Washington and Planned Parenthood of Western Washington to fund abortion centers. The Gates Foundation also gave the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada more than $1.3 million.” With Buffett’s donation, the Gates Foundation has assets of $60 billion, which means the Planned Parenthood contributions WorldNetDaily cites constitute 0.005% of the foundation’s potential giving.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the “pro-life” Susan B. Anthony List, calls the donation “tragic.” Father Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, concludes that “Warren Buffett's philanthropy aims at killing preborn children, not curing childhood disease; eliminating the poor, not poverty; and destroying the developing world, not aiding development.”

ProLifeBlogs grudgingly acknowledges that “The Gates Foundation does support many worthy causes in addition to organizations that encourage and enable the killing of unborn babies.”

Say what you will about Ralph Reed, but the man loves his military metaphors.

According to Nina Easton’s book “Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Ascendacy,” Reed developed a penchant for tough-talking bravado back when he was running the College Republicans with Grover Norquist and Jack Abramoff.

Easton reports that Reed and Norquist required new recruits to memorize passages from the movie “Patton” with the word “Democrats” replacing references to “Nazis”:  “The Democrats are the enemy.  Wade into them!  Spill their blood! Shoot them in the belly!”

Later, during his years at the Christian Coalition, he honed his military rhetoric even further, such as in 1991 when he stated

I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag.

A year after that, he bragged that this mentality played a key role in the Coalition’s effectiveness

It’s like guerrilla warfare.  If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It’s better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. You’ve got two choices: You can wear cammies and shimmy along on your belly, or you can put on a red coat and stand up for everyone to see.

Another quote can now be added to this collection, courtesy of the recent Senate Indian Affairs Committee report [PDF] on Jack Abramoff, which quotes Reed bragging that he was going all out to fight a gambling expansion in Alabama that would have threatened the interests of Abramoff’s client, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws

We are opening the bomb bay doors and holding nothing back. If victory is possible, we will achieve it.

Hopefully, Reed’s gung-ho attitude has prepared him for all the flak he’s taking for his work for Abramoff.

The Associated Press reports

House Republicans intend to hold votes this summer and fall touching on abortion, guns, religion and other priority issues for social conservatives, part of an attempt to improve the party's prospects in the midterm election.

…

One would to strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of jurisdiction over cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. The legislation is a response to a 2002 Appeals Court ruling that held the pledge is unconstitutional because of the presence of the words "under God." A federal judge made a similar ruling last fall, citing the appeals court precedent.

Another measure would block the payment of attorney fees in challenges to the display of the Ten Commandments in public areas and other, similar church-state lawsuits.

An abortion-related proposal would require that some women seeking to end their pregnancies be informed the procedure "will cause the unborn child pain" and they have the option of receiving drugs to reduce or eliminate it. A separate measure would ban human cloning, a prohibition that cleared the House in the previous Congress.

It looks as if House Republicans have taken a page directly out of the Right’s “Values Voters’ Contract With Congress,” a document launched at Vision America’s “War on Christian and Values Voters Conference” and supported by right-wing stalwarts such as Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, Lou Sheldon, Janet Folger, Andrea Lafferty, and others.

The Values Voter’s Contract seeks, among other things

1. TO AFFIRM the national relationship with God in our places of worship, schools, mottos, and public spaces, we call for the passage of –

* The Pledge Protection Act to prohibit activist judges from taking "under God" out of the Pledge (H.R. 2389, S.1046);

…

*The Public Expression of Religion Act to prohibit activist judges from ordering taxpayers to pay lawyers who seek to erode our national relationship with God (H.R. 2679); and

4. TO SECURE our God-bestowed right to life, we call for the passage of –

* The Human Cloning Protection Act to prohibit human cloning (S.658, H.R. 1357);

…

* The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act to raise awareness of the pain experienced by children before birth (S.51, H.R. 356)

Notice any similarities?

Apparently unable to raise money by touting the GOP’s accomplishments, the National Republican Senatorial Committee hyperventilates that it needs money or else

Every conservative ideal we've fought for over the last six years . . . might be erased this November.

The NRSC “guarantees” that if Democrats become the majority, they will

- Increase your taxes.

- Block all of President Bush's judicial nominees and allow our courts to be run by liberal activist judges.

- Call for endless congressional investigations, congressional censure and even impeachment of President Bush.

- Put the War on Terror on the back-burner.

- Go on an unprecedented spending spree.

- Lay the groundwork for taking back the White House in 2008.

They also say that funding is important in order to give voters a choice “between going back in time to the failed liberal ideals of the Democrats or proven conservative leadership of results.”

If the NRSC actually has evidence of “conservative leadership of results,” they’re keeping it to themselves.