April 2009

• Pam reports that Rep. Virginia Foxx is now trying to walk back from her claim that the murder to Matthew Shepard was a "hoax."
• The Box Turtle Bulletin has a good analysis of Carrie Prejean, her views, and her role as a martyr for the Religious Right.
• Good as You has the audio of Prejean's appearance on Matt Barber and Mat Staver's radio program (also, Jeremy has always had a fondness for puns and plays on words, and this post was exceptionally clever.)
• Publius predicts that Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman's stock will rise as the GOP's fortunes grow dimmer and they eventually need to recover from the descent into crazy base land.
• Steve Benen notes that, in the latest effort to re-brand the GOP, there is no mention of culture war issues and says it looks like the Republican Party is trying to throw social conservatives under the bus and asks them if they are "going to take this lying down?"

Via Americablog, we learn that the American Family Association is now going after Miley Cyrus for Twittering her views that Jesus loves everyone, whether they are gay or straight:

• "Everyone deserves to love and be loved and most importantly smile."

• "Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad!

• "Like I said everyone deserves to be happy."

• "God’s greatest commandment is to love. And judging is not loving."

• "I am a Christian and I love you - gay or not - because you are no different than anyone else! We are all God's children."

Now obviously that is outrageously offensive to the "real" Christians like those at the AFA, which is now saying the Cyrus is a terrible role model for children and calling on its supporters to besiege her with letters setting her straight: 

Such statements will send the wrong message to our children who are influenced by this teenage megastar. Parents need to realize that Cyrus is not the positive role model she was once thought to be.

Send Miley Cyrus a letter stating that you do not approve of her comments.

Clearly she is confused and does not understand the Bible. Please pray for the Lord to open her eyes to the truth.

Last year we noted that The National Day of Prayer Task Force, headed by James Dobson’s wife Shirley and based out of Focus on the Family offices in Colorado, had somehow managed to appoint itself the “official” organizer of the National Day of Prayer.

According to its history, the National Day of Prayer is nothing more than a presidential proclamation, but in the last 1970s a group calling itself the National Prayer Committee was formed - which itself is a project of Mission America  - and the NPC eventually created something called the National Day of Prayer Task Force, which is dedicated to “organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values:”

The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs. This diversity is what Congress intended when it designated the Day of Prayer, not that every faith and creed would be homogenized, but that all who sought to pray for this nation would be encouraged to do so in any way deemed appropriate. It is that broad invitation to the American people that led, in our case, to the creation of the Task Force and the Judeo-Christian principles on which it is based.

Neither Mission America, the National Prayer Committee, or the National Day of Prayer Task Force are official representatives of the National Day of Prayer, but they certainly seems as if they are.  If you search for "national day of prayer" on Google, the first link brings you the the Task Force website, as does every link on the National Prayer Committee's website promoting the National Day of Prayer.  And the National Day of Prayer has recently become a rally cry for the Religious Right, with the Alliance Defense Fund creating a Save the National Day of Prayer effort in response to a lawsuit filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation last year:

The suit alleges that a task force associated with Focus on the Family is "working hand-in-glove" with the government in organizing the National Day of Prayer.

The Foundation charges that the government "aligns and partners" with the NDP Task Force as the official organizer of the National Day of Prayer. The NDP Task Force identifies itself online as "The National Day of Prayer 'Official Website.' " The task force has close ties to Focus on the Family. Its chair person, Shirley Dobson, is married to Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, and the task force is located in the Focus on the Family headquarters.

Adding to the confusion was the fact that the Bush Administration regularly included members of the Task Force in the White House's Day of Prayer events - but it looks like that is about to change:

The National Day of Prayer Task Force had a friend in the White House. Every year, from 2001 to 2008, the Bush administration would invite members of the evangelical Christian organization to the White House to take part in a formal observance of the May 7 event.

But things are different in Washington now. This year, the Task Force - headed by Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson - has not been invited to take part.

Needless to say, the Religious Right will presumably throw a fit about this, alleging that it is just further proof that President Obama hates America and its Christian heritage ... by which they mean, of course, their quasi-official role in controlling the National Day of Prayer.

As we noted yesterday, Miss California Carrie Prejean was going to be featured in a new National Organization for Marriage ad released today.

Well, NOM has put it out and here it is:

Joined by Carrie Prejean, the now-famous beauty contestant who lost her crown when she spoke up for marriage, the National Organization for Marriage today launched the second in a series of television ads to be released as part of NOM's ongoing Religious Liberty Ad Campaign. The new ad, "No Offense," opens with footage of Ms. Prejean's response to a question she was asked regarding same-sex marriage during the Miss USA competition on April 19, 2009. The ad highlights the efforts of same-sex marriage activists to silence and discredit pro-marriage advocates, calling them "liars," "bigots," and worse. Over the protests of gay marriage advocates, a group of prominent religious liberty scholars (including scholars both for and against same-sex marriage) recently warned the Connecticut legislature that a bill codifying the state supreme court's ruling on same-sex marriage raised the potential of "widespread and devastating" effects for religious liberty, if robust exemptions were not provided for faith groups and religious organizations.

The most interesting part comes near the end with the narrator asserts that advocates of marriage equality are trying to silence those who oppose it "because they don't want to debate the consequences of same-sex marriage. They want to silence opposition. Some of the nation's foremost scholars warn that gay marriage can create widespread legal conflicts for individuals, small businesses, and religious organizations."

The NOM ad then flashes the quotes "will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflicts" and "effects would be ... devestating" on the screen, but doesn't say where they came from.

In the press release on its website, NOM instead links to these two letters [PDFs] addressed to Christopher Donovan, Speaker of the House in Connecticut, showing where the quotes came from.  The only problem is that the authors weren't warning of the "devastating" effects of gay marriage - they were urging the state legislature to pass an exemption for religious organizations when it enacted its marriage equality law:

We write to provide you with an analysis of the effects of Raised Bill 899 on religious liberty. Those effects would be widespread and devastating. If Raised Bill 899 is passed in its current form—without religious-conscience protections—many religious organizations and individuals will be forced to engage in conduct that violates their deepest religious beliefs, and religious organizations would be limited in crucial aspects of their religious exercise.

In the only comprehensive scholarly work on same-sex marriage and religious liberty to date, legal scholars on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate agreed that codifying same-sex marriage without providing robust religious accommodations will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflict.

The second letter comes from Douglas Laycock, Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, who is a supporter of same-sex marriage and wrote to the Connecticut Legislature to urge them to add such an exemption in order to prevent the Religious Right from playing the victim:

[I]is it in the interest of the gay and lesbian community to create religious martyrs in the enforcement of this bill. To impose legal penalties or civil liabilities on a wedding planner who refuses to do a same-sex wedding, or on a religious counseling agency that refuses to provide marriage counseling to same-sex couples, will simply ensure that conservative religious opinion on this issue can repeatedly be aroused to fever pitch. Every such case will be in the news repeatedly, and every such story will further inflame the opponents of same-sex marriage. Refusing exemptions to such religious dissenters will politically empower the most demagogic opponents of same-sex marriage. It will ensure that the issue remains alive, bitter, and deeply divisive.

Connecticut legislators did ultimately provide such an exemption when it passed its marriage equality legislation ... and NOM itself hailed it:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) applauds the Connecticut legislature which, in a surprise move today, adopted substantive religious liberty protections as part of what was expected to be a routine bill implementing the Connecticut court decision ordering same-sex marriage.

"We are just grateful that the Connecticut legislators acknowledged and addressed the serious potential implications of same-sex marriage for traditional faith communities," said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. "We hope this decision represents a change of heart among gay marriage advocates and a new willingness to accept broad conscience protections."

So NOM posted two letters urging the passage of a religious exemption to the state's marriage equality law - an exemption that was granted and hailed by NOM - yet is taking quotes from those letters out of context in their new ad to suggest that marriage equality itself will somehow have devastating effects for the nation, when the letters said nothing of the sort.

• Media Matters looks back at the media's coverage of the Obama administration's first 100 days.
• Think Progress offers its own look back at the period during which "the conservative movement has undergone a period of radicalization."
• Media Matters catches Rep. Virginia Foxx falsely claiming that Matthew Shepard's murder had nothing to do with the fact that he was gay, calling it a "hoax," while Think Progress provides a collection of other right-wing hysterics in the House during the hate crimes debate.
• Glenn Greenwald also weighs in on Foxx, noting that she approvingly quoted him in voicing her opposition to the legislation.  But, as Greenwald points out, he was writing about hate speech laws, not hate crimes legislation.
• Steve Benen notes that Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has been disinvited to address a gathering of GOP activists in Michigan because of his support for civil unions.
• Good as You takes on Focus on the Family and sets the record straight on Focus's claim that the San Francisco Unified School District "now has an entire division dedicated to promoting homosexuality."

Earlier this week I wrote a post about the fact Janet Porter and a gaggle of other fringe right-wing groups announced that they would be placing an ad in The Washington Times in which they demanded the resignation Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ever the recent “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” report.  

I’ve already written too much about this idiotic issue, so I’m not even going to get into it again and will simply note that the ad ran today and highlight the groups sponsoring it:

Current sponsors include: American Family Association, Religious Freedom Coalition, Let Freedom Ring, United States Justice Foundation, Faith2Action, Georgia Christian Alliance, Population Research Institute, Vision America, American Decency Association, Americans for Truth, AFA of Pennsylvania, Center for Security Policy, Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education, Eagle Forum of Alabama, Federal Intercessors, Legacy Church (Albuquerque, NM), Liberty Counsel, Move America Forward, Operation Rescue, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, Take Back Our Country and Traditional Values Coalition.

This coalition is also seeking donations so that they can run the ad in other media outlets and vowing to keep up the fight:

Coalition Chairman Janet Folger Porter (who hosts a nationally syndicated daily talk show and is the president of Faith2Action) observed: "If we don't speak out against this unconscionable attack on law-abiding citizens now, the left will use it to discredit everything we do from this point forward."

The irony here, of course, is that everyone realizes the report itself was entirely uncontroversial and that what is really discrediting the Right is their incessant hyperventilation and victimization over the report.

Note to Porter:  we don’t need a meaningless DHS report to discredit everything you do because you are perfectly capable of doing that all by yourself.

One thing I have never understood about the conservative movement is its knee-jerk willingness to hail any person who happens to gain media exposure while expressing conservative views and immediately turning them into the face of the movement.  

They did it with Joe the Plumber and now they are doing it with Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who stated her opposition to marriage equality when asked about during the Miss USA pageant last week.  Since then, she’s been hailed in just about every right-wing media outlet, including World Magazine, WorldNetDaily, OneNewsNow, and Townhall, praised by the likes of Harry Jackson, Roy Moore, Day Gardner, and Gary Bauer, and recently “hired one of the country's premier Christian PR firms, A. Larry Ross Communications—which represents such evangelical powerhouses as Rick Warren” to deal with all the media requests.

As Politico reported earler this week, Prejean has become the Religious Right’s newest star:

Miss California may have lost her shot at becoming Miss USA after expressing her opposition to same-sex marriage, but she’s nevertheless emerged as a star.

After getting booed by the beauty pageant crowd and berated by one of the contest judges on Sunday, Carrie Prejean is suddenly a conservative sensation, a poster girl for the right who has bloggers, talk show hosts and Republican pols singing her praises.

…

An Alabama state legislator introduced a House resolution praising her for speaking out against gay marriage. In a press release, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated his “admiration and support” for her and lauded “her fortitude in the face of continued baseless personal attacks.”

“There’s a lot of people cheering you tonight that you stood on your principles, that you put the principles above winning,” Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity told Prejean when she appeared on his television program. “Not enough people do that. And I admire you a lot for it.”

...

“I would like to nominate Miss California as the new face of the marriage movement. Much better than mine!” National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher wrote on National Review’s The Corner.

The praise from Gallagher is especially interesting because, as Good as You noted, earlier this week she was Twittering that she was about to meet Prejean for lunch – a lunch which must have been quite a success because Gallagher’s fantasies about turning Prejean into the face of the anti-gay marriage movement are about to come true:

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who offered memorable opposition to same-sex marriage and a young, attractive new face for the movement against it, will appear tomorrow at a press conference hosted by the National Organization for Marriage at the National Press Club, according to a press release from the group.

She'll be launching a new ad, the second in what the group says is a $1.5 million campaign.

The ad, the release says, will address:

What happens when a young California beauty pageant contestant is asked "do you support same-sex marriage?" She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values. But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values. "No Offense" calls gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences.

The news from today’s right-wing press conference on the Hate Crimes legislation: no news at all, in case you were expecting any. GOP Representatives Louie Gohmert of Texas and Trent Franks of Arizona joined by Bishop Harry Jackson and spokespeople from other groups including the Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women for America for another opportunity to spread lies about the intent of hate crimes legislation. Even with explicit First Amendment protections for clergy and religious communities written into the Hate Crimes legislation, the right wing’s dishonest talking points remain the same: The Hate Crimes bill will threaten religious teachings on morality and First Amendment rights as pastor’s sermons could be considered “hate speech.” And, of course, pastors could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

We got a copy of the talking points handed out by Rep. Louie Gohmert’s people:

“The Hate Crimes bill creates a new Federal “Thought Crime.” The Hate Crimes bill will require criminal investigations of a suspect’s philosophical beliefs, politics, biases, religion, membership in organizations, activities of those organizations, and any past statements.”

And perhaps one of the most ridiculous talking points comes from the Traditional Values Coalition, who says “the ‘moral’ of this law, if it has one, is that child molesters and those who only ‘date’ dead people need to be protected but is open season on pastors and churchgoers:”

“Ensures that crimes against a transgender, drag queen or a gay man are treated more harshly than a sexual assault on a child. It will make pedophiles a protected class who can claim federal protection if they are injured by a parent as a result of molesting a child.” Read more

Who needs facts when you can just make stuff up (and when you’re getting paid to do it). For the real facts on hate crimes, People For the American Way and the African American Ministers in Action put together a helpful 2-pager on the legislation.

• The Washington Blade reports on Harry Jackson's anti-marriage rally today and includes some good video.
• Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports that Carrie Prejean's church says there are "moral repercussions stemming from homosexual behavior as evidenced by the fact that one third of all sexual crimes against children are committed by homosexuals even though they are representative of only one percent of the population. Pedophilia has even been called central to the gay lifestyle."
• As Steve Benen says, the right-wing is not handling the swine flu outbreak particularly well.
• Jesse Taylor concisely rewrites the "news" that Mary Ann Glendon is refusing to receive an award from Notre Dame.
• On a related note, RH Reality Check examines the Cardinal Newman Society and its role as one of the driving forces behind the outrage over President Obama's planned speech at the university.
• Pam notes that Matt Barber seems to be an advocate for mob rule -- so long as he thinks the numbers are on his side.
• Dan Gilgoff reports that some Christian conservatives are welcoming the news that Sen. Arlen Specter has switched his affiliation to the Democrats, quoting Manuel Miranda saying Specter "has done the Party a disservice and is a detriment to the Conservative cause ... [T]he first goal for Republicans must be to be rid of leaders who have done the Party more harm than good."
• Finally, Think Progress catches Sen. Jim DeMint saying that Specter's departure is a sign of the GOP strength, but CNN's Rick Sanchez was having none of it.

The New York Times' Adam Nagourney has a piece in today's paper claiming that the "the issue of gay marriage may be turning into more of a hindrance than a help" for the Republican Party. 

Citing a recent poll showing that 57 percent of those under the age 40 said they support marriage equality, Nagourney says it suggests to "many Republicans that the potency of the gay-marriage question is on the decline." He then quotes three Republicans, the first being Steve Schmidt, John McCain's senior strategist during his presidential campaign.

Schmidt recently came out in favor of marriage equality, so it is no surprise that he thinks the GOP should re-examine its stance on the issue. But, as Timothy Potter of the Family Research Council put it, Steve Schmidt isn’t exactly speaking for the majority of the party these days:

Steve Schmidt isn’t the head of the GOP. But I don’t doubt that there are others in the GOP establishment who think like him, and I don’t care. The GOP should do what it thinks is best for itself. I don’t think abandoning a third of your base is necessarily a good idea.

The article also contains a quote from Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty:

Asked if he thought, given recent events, that Republicans were making a political mistake in emphasizing gay issues, Mr. Pawlenty, who is 48, responded: “I think it’s an important issue for our conservative voters.” But he notably did not dwell on the subject.

Apparently, because he didn't "dwell" on the topic, that somehow suggests that the party as a whole is undergoing some sort of shift.

Finally, Nagourney quotes Rudy Giuliani of all people, saying that voters are more concerned with issues like the economy and national security and don't really care about social issues right now:

“Right now, people are not concerned about issues like gay marriage because they are concerned about the economy,” Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York, told reporters in Albany after meeting with Republican members of the state Senate, who are opposing legislation to legalize gay marriage.

Mr. Giuliani explained that he opposed gay marriage — while supporting civil unions — but that he did not think it made much sense for Republicans to be harping on the issue if the party had any serious interest in returning to power.

“The Republican party does best organizing itself around economic issues and issues of national security,” said Mr. Giuliani, 64, who ran for president last year and is now thinking about running for governor of New York.

It should be pointed out that Giuliani might not be a particularly good representation of just what the Republican Party thinks about anything, considering that he spent $60 million seeking the GOP nomination last year and dropped out after securing a whopping one delegate. His campaign tanked thanks, in part, to right-wing threats to abandon the GOP should he become the nominee because of his views on the issue of marriage and reproductive choice.

While polls may show that the GOP's anti-gay views are becoming less popular with voters, especially younger voters, there is still a long way to go before the party itself abandons its traditional stance on the issue ... and considering that the Religious Right would rather see the party destroyed than allow that to happen, it's unlikely that any such a massive shift will be happening any time soon.

Bishop Harry Jackson, the point man for the Religious Right’s anti-gay outreach to African Americans, hosted a rally in downtown Washington D.C. across the street from the District building where the D.C. Council meets.  Jackson and his outraged entourage repeatedly threatened political retribution against Mayor Adrian Fenty and openly gay Councilmember David Catania for the Council’s preliminary vote to recognize marriages of same-sex couples performed legally in other states. 

Jackson had a much smaller crowd than the thousands he had hoped for.  As the rally began, there were well under 100 people; by the end there may have been close to 200. They were an enthusiastic bunch, shouting “the Devil is a liar” and other encouragement to the speakers.  Jackson made excuses about how little time they had to mobilize, but promised to pack the Council chambers on May 5 for the next vote.  Jackson said his group would be distributing inserts for churches to include in their bulletins this Sunday.

Jackson was joined at the podium by representatives of the Missionary Baptist pastors’ network as well as several Hispanic pastor group representatives, as well as the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, who made a few unremarkable remarks.  Focus on the Family’s James Dobson sent a letter supporting Jackson and attacking the members of the D.C. Council.  To this D.C. resident, the most disappointing moment was former Mayor and current Councilmember Marion Barry leading the crowd in chants against marriage equality (though he noted that he supports civil unions).

For those who have watched Jackson or read People For the American Way Foundation’s new report on him, there was expected rhetoric, such as Jackson criticizing gay rights supporters for “usurping” and “hijacking” the civil rights movement.  He of course had no problem using iconic civil rights songs (Lift Every Voice and Sing, We Shall Overcome) as part of his effort to deny equality to a group of their fellow Americans.

There was also some edgier anti-gay rhetoric.  Jackson compared marriage between gay couples to marriage between close relatives, or between “a man and a three-year old.”  One of the final speakers was a Rev. Daniels, who Jackson recruited for the rally from Florida.  He was fixated on gay sex acts, repeatedly urging people to “explain the act” because it would turn people’s stomachs and turn them against marriage equality.

Jackson ended by sending part of the crowd across the street to stand on the sidewalks in front of the District Building and lift their hands toward it while he prayed, “Washington, D.C., we call you into alignment with the word of God.”

We’ll get some video highlights up later today.

UPDATE: Here is the video of Marion Barry declaring himself a "moral leader":

We've written several posts over the last few month about how Sen. Sam Brownback's standing among the Religious Right has fallen due to his support of Katheleen Sebelius' nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, leading many right-wing activists to distance themselves from him.

Today, Dave Weigel has a good piece in The Washington Independent noting how, despite seemingly no help from anyone in the Senate, the Religious Right has managed to make the vote on Sebelius' nomination into a "controversy" all on its own:

The battle against Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.), President Obama’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has gone better than many pro-life activists had hoped. Yes, it’s true that Sebelius is expected to be confirmed after an eight-hour debate and cloture vote are held in the Senate today. It’s also true that activists have not managed to dislodge the support of Sebelius’s home state senators, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Republicans — an embarrassing setback that has prevented the Sebelius nomination from becoming quite the abortion rights showdown that they had hoped for. But they can count some small victories.

“Going into this, there didn’t seem to be any opposition,” said Wendy Wright, the president of Conservative Women for America. “I was at her hearing, and that morning, I was reading news reports about how she was going to ’sail through’ the Senate. Now I’m reading reports about the ‘controversy’ around Kathleen Sebelius. You can attribute that to what the grassroots have done here.”

The vote on her nomination is scheduled for today and she is expected to be confirmed and conservative and Religious Right leaders are basically saying it is all Brownback's fault:

Before that vote, the anti-Sebelius coalition will hold a press conference on the Hill making the case against her. Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) will make public a letter of opposition to the nomination that, as of press time, eight other conservatives had signed. Still, opponents of the governor have been frustrated by the early and consistent support for Sebelius from Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), a social conservative who is retiring in 2010 to run for governor of Kansas.

“This nomination should be more unpopular than it is,” grumbled one GOP Senate aide. “Brownback’s hesitation and his months of holding off on substantive criticism of Sebelius has basically frozen the ability of pro-life senators to fight as hard as they would like to. It’s tough. It’s very difficult for the pro-life leader in the Senate to mobilize his allies when he’s moving in the other direction.”

Although recently Brownback has been hinting that he might be rethinking his support for Sebelius' nomination, his explanation for supporting the nomination has been that installing her at HHS will get her out of the state and away from a possible run for Brownback's open Senate seat in 2010 and that whomever heads HHS will be pro-choice, so it may as well be someone from Kansas.

Needless to say, right-wing activists aren't buying his excuses, with one local activist saying its like justifying support of Hitler: 

“We’ll be extremely disappointed if Sen. Brownback doesn’t change his mind,” said Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs for FRC. “That will play a role in any of our future work with him.”

...

It’s all a bit much for Kansas activists to stomach. “Those guys in Washington don’t think like we do in Kansas,” said David Gittrich, the long-serving state development director of Kansans for Life. “It might be smart politically to get the governor out of Kansas, but it’s really hard for me to wish her on the nation. I’d rather have Hillary Clinton running health care than Kathleen Sebelius.”

According to Gittrich, when Brownback turns his sights on the governor’s race he’ll gave to “reestablish his credentials as a pro-lifer” and explain his vote. “All the pro-life votes in the world don’t make up for supporting Kathleen Sebelius,” said Gittrich. “This is like saying, ‘I’m against the Holocaust and Nazi Germany but I’d like Hitler to be in charge of the health care center.’”

• Politico reports that there is a rebellion brewing among the GOP's base and that "activists and officials say the party is as resolute as ever, if not more so, on cultural issues – regardless of the soundings of some party elites."
• Carrie Prejean continues to capitalize on her anti-gay Miss USA fame and has signed on with "one of the country's premier Christian PR firms, A. Larry Ross Communications—which represents such evangelical powerhouses as Rick Warren."
• You know the times they are a changing when Promise Keepers starts opening its events to women.
• YouDiligenceTM is teaming with Focus on the Family to provide Internet safety services to families who want to protect their children from online predators and cyber-bullies and inappropriate online exchanges. Maybe they should have put this in place a few weeks ago.
• Mike Huckabee says George Soros is behind the Obama administration's decision to release the torture memos.
• Concerned Women for America's Wendy Wright wonders if the timing of the swine flu scare was "a political thing to push the [Kathleen] Sebelius nomination through." Seriously. Glenn Beck makes the same allegation.
• Finally, there is this, which speaks for itself:

Utah County Republicans defeated a resolution opposing well-heeled groups that a delegate claims are pushing a satanic plan to encourage illegitimate births and illegal immigration.

Don Larsen, a Springville delegate, offered the resolution, titled "Resolution opposing the Hate America anti-Christian Open Borders cabal," warning delegates that an "invisible government" comprised of left-wing foundations was pumping money into the Democratic Party to push for looser immigration laws and anti-family legislation.

I honestly can’t believe that I am still writing about this phony “controversy” over the recent DHS report but, just as with the similarly phony controversy over the stimulus legislation, with every passing day the Right continues to twist this innocuous report into evidence that the government intends to round-up conservatives and toss them into prison and use the “outrage” to seek the removal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano:  

A non-profit organization devoted to national security is demanding the resignation of the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, or that President Obama fire her immediately.

The Internet-based Move America Forward is using their web site, email, and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter to push for the removal of Secretary Napolitano.

Napolitano noticeably demonstrates that she is incapable of protecting America from the threat of Islamic terrorism. She must be fired immediately if our country is going to be safe in the coming years, according to Move Forward America, an organization that supports the US military as well as federal, state and local law enforcement officials.

Just about every right-wing groups is getting in on the act, with Focus on the Family adding its voice with this article:

Conservatives and religious groups across the nation are outraged by a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security that labeled them as right-wing extremists and terrorists. Republican members of the House Committee on Homeland Security have requested a committee hearing and investigation on the report. Some are calling for the resignation of Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, said an investigation is unlikely to go very far with Democrats in charge.

“It’s going to be very difficult to get anything done about this outrage," he said, "or about any other issue, unless some of the members of President Obama’s party begin to step up and hold his feet to the fire.”

…

Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, said the department is on a rampage against people with biblical views.

She said: “It’s astounding to me in a world where we are fighting extremism of all sorts from terrorists around the nation — including pirates in the seas — that Homeland Security would be concerned about people who are pro-life.”  

And this video :

And here is FRC Action’s Tom McClusky complaining that the government is watching him instead of watching the real terrorists:

The report, which has been rightfully maligned to death on the right, was poorly written and even more poorly defended by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. While worrying about TEA party protests and pro-life veterans who supported Ron Paul for President DHS seems to have no problem (or at least they don't warrant their own separate reports) with groups and individuals who actually perform acts of terrorism. The same week the DHS report was released the FBI declared, for the first time ever, an American grown terrorist Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old animal rights activist. Meanwhile over the weekend, in the same city that DHS is located, a group of liberal protestors caused more than $110,000 in damage to two bank branches in the Logan Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C. when at least 15 people dressed in black used bricks, hammers and sticks to smash windows, smearing red paint symbols that denounced the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

But I'm the one DHS deems a potential terrorist?

Of course, DHS never deemed groups like FRC potential terrorist, despite their incessant cries of victimization.  And, as a matter of fact, DHS also released a report on left-wing extremists that Greg Sargent posted several weeks ago and guess who it focused on? That’s right, radical animal rights activists and anarchists:  

It focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities. This assessment is intended to alert DHS policymakers, state and local officials, and intelligence analysts monitoring the subject so they can better focus their collection requirements and analysis … Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable. Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks—all of which extremists regard as nonviolent—to bombings and arson.

Never to be outdone when it comes to crying “victimization” or general right-wing lunacy, Janet Porter and a handful of allied organizations are placing an ad in various news outlets demanding Napolitano’s resignation:

The No Political Profiling Coalition (www.NoPoliticalProfiling.com) has begun placing full-page ads, the first in this week's Washington Times Weekly edition and the Times' Wednesday daily edition, demanding the removal of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for the DHS report "Rightwing Extremism."
 
…

"Every day Janet Napolitano remains Secretary of Homeland Security is further proof of this administration's disdain for the Constitution and willingness stigmatize its opponents to advance a partisan agenda."
 
The ad includes pictures of George Washington, Mother Teresa, Ronald Reagan and Pope Benedict XVI – all "right-wing extremists," according to Napolitano's Department of Home Land Security.
 
The ad is sponsored by a coalition of more than a dozen conservative organizations, including the American Family Association, Religious Freedom Coalition, Let Freedom Ring, United States Justice Foundation, Vision America, and Faith2Action.

Everything about this ad is either misleading or outright false, especially this claim:

Ignoring the real threats to our security from known Islamic jihad terrorist cells currently training terrorists on American soil, DHS, instead, has declared law-abiding citizens who express their First Amendment Rights as: “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States” and has initiated domestic spying on them.

Here is what the DHS report actually says:

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.

Its not “law-abiding citizens who express their First Amendment Rights” that DHS says are  “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States,” its “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology.” 

How completely unhinged has the Right become when they are now paraphrasing “small terrorist cells”  to mean “law-abiding citizens” and then using that false characterization in order to play the victim?

I grew up in Appleton, WI and when I was seeking employment after I graduated from college, I diligently searched through the local newspaper for possible positions.  One day, I saw a listing for an organization needing a political researcher and immediately submitted my resume.  A few days later, I received a call asking me to come in for an interview with a local organization whose name I had heard before but didn’t know much about, so I headed to the library to do a bit of research about them and quickly realized that I was probably not what they were looking for but I still went to the interview nonetheless, open-minded and hopeful.

Needless to say, it did not go well and degenerated into a bit of a shouting match, after which I was escorted from the building.  Today, that same newspaper where I first saw the job listing, The Post Crescent, has profiled that very organization and you can probably understand why I didn’t get the job:

The young couple sipped chocolate milkshakes in a front-window booth at Culver's, unaware that the low-slung brown office building across the street was command central in the war to save America from a godless conspiracy.

By summer, the leafy lower branches of a maple tree will obscure some of the building's silver letters, but on this spring evening the sign was clearly visible.

"The John Birch Society," it read.

…

20 years ago this spring, when the John Birch Society moved its headquarters to the current location west of Appleton, home of then-chief executive officer G. Allen Bubolz, the group was hard to overlook — its unassuming small-town base notwithstanding.

In Grand Chute, the society's new headquarters shared a hometown with one of its best-known heroes, U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Like McCarthy, the Birchers achieved notoriety for an obsession with exposing communist infiltrators during the Cold War.

The organization is named for John Birch, a missionary and Army Air Force surveillance officer killed by communists in China 10 days after the end of World War II, making him the first American casualty of the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the John Birch Society branded President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, as a "dedicated, conscious agent of the communist conspiracy."

Years later, the group derided President Ronald Reagan, also a Republican, as a "lackey" of the perceived communist conspiracy.

Communist agents infiltrated or manipulated every level of the American government, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch claimed.

Art Thompson, the organization's 70-year-old chief executive officer, believes the John Birch Society saved America.

Eventually I moved to Washington DC and ended up here at People For the American Way.  So now, instead of helping the Birchers save America from a “godless conspiracy,” I became part of that very godless conspiracy that is, to hear them tell it, resolutely seeking to destroy this great country.

Go figure.

• Nate Silver wonders why Mike Huckabee doesn't get more respect.
• Andrew Sullivan says that Ed Whelan was involved, during his time in the Bush Administration, in discussions of torture, but Whelan denies it, calling it a vicious lie. [UPDATE: See this post regarding the EPPC's demand that we prominently note Sullivan's retraction.]
• Ed Brayton points out that David Hamilton's decision in Hinrichs v Bosma says the exact opposite of what right-wing groups like the Traditional Values Coalition are claiming it says.
• Matthew Yglesias tears apart Liz Cheney claim that waterboarding is not torture.
• When Michael Steele canceled his speaking engagement with the Religious Action Center earlier this week, he cited an "urgent family commitment." As Ben Smith points out that that was not necessarily the case.
• AU points out that Gordon Klingenschmitt has now changed his website after they pointed out that he might have been violating the law by presenting himself as an active-duty member of the armed services.
• John McCain is claiming that the author of the "controversial" DHS report has been fired, but Think Progress checked and found out that its not true.

Over the last few months, we wrote a handful of posts about how Sen. David Vitter was hard at work sealing off his right flank in an attempt to shut down any potential primary challenge he might face because of his past involvement with a prostitution ring.

Among those who considered mounting such a challenge was Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who toyed with the idea for a while before announcing that he would not seek to unseat Vitter.

With that awkward unpleasantness behind them, Perkins can now focus on helping Vitter restore his reputation among the Religious Right, which he started doing last week by inviting Vitter onto his Washington Watch Weekly radio program to discuss ... wait for it ... HHS nominee Kathleen Sebelius's supposed "ethical problems":

On this week's edition of Washington Watch Weekly: The nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services as head of the largest cabinet department should be troubling not only to pro-life Americans but to every American who cares about integrity and accountability within government. Senator David Vitter joins me to discuss her ethical problems and actions you can take to stop her nomination.

That's right - Perkins and FRC invited David Vitter on to discuss "ethical problems" ... not his, mind you, but Sebelius's.

The discussion itself was not really all that interesting, with the exception of Perkins' introduction to the segment:

Is someone whose integrity is clearly in question fit to guarantee the integrity of the largest, and some would say the most important, domestic agency of the federal government?  Well, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana joins me after the break [to discuss this question].

I guess that FRC thinks that if you are going to be discussing "someone whose integrity is clearly in question," who better to have that discussion with than someone like Vitter, whose integrity is clearly in question.

I've written a few posts recently about the utterly bogus “controversy” surrounding the recent Department of Homeland Security report “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” pointing out how the Right was intentionally misrepresenting what the report said and repeatedly lying about it in order to generate outrage and raise money.

In one of those posts, I linked to this Hill article about conservative House Republicans who are demanding Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s resignation which suggested that House leaders were going to bring up the issue with President Obama:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are set to meet with Obama at the White House on Thursday. It is unclear whether they will request Napolitano’s resignation, but several lawmakers said it was under discussion.

“I think leaders are going to bring it up with the president, maybe call for (her) resignation,” one conservative member told The Hill on Wednesday.

Today, The Hill followed up on the meeting, reporting that, despite the calls from a small group of GOP backbenchers, the leadership didn't even bring it up:

The White House and senior lawmakers on both sides of the aisle defended Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday as a cadre of Republicans continued to call for her resignation.

But House GOP leaders did not bring the topic up during a meeting with President Obama, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting.

...

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday morning that he was certain the topic of Napolitano 's resignation would be raised when he met with Obama later in the day. But according to a source with knowledge of the meeting, he failed to do so.

The article also quotes Ron Paul admitting that the calls for Napolitano’s resignation were attempts at political posturing, saying "this is mostly about politics."

Frankly, we have to disagree with Paul - this isn't "mostly" about politics, it's solely about politics. Fortunately the White House seem to fully recognize that fact and is rightfully dismissive of this entire "controversy":

“While these members of Congress engage in a typical Washington game, they are actually talking about a report that originated in the Bush administration,” said Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for Obama. “She [Napolitano] doesn’t have time for these games, and neither does the president.”

• Media Matters points out that Bill O'Reilly doesn't know what he is talking about and has the photographic evidence to prove it.
• Speaking of Media Matters, they want you to vote for the "the worst media moment of Obama's first 100 days" - it's going to be a difficult choice.
• Dan Gilgoff reports that Rick Warren is eager to clarify his stance on gay marriage and Prop 8 and has this interesting quote from Wendy Wright: "'I hope he is not intimidated by the tactics of homosexual activists,' says Concerned Women for America's Wright. 'He has a unique ability to present biblical truth on marriage to a wider audience.'"
• David Neiwert says that Chris Simcox's past will haunt his GOP primary bid against Sen. John McCain.
• Dominic Holden tries to figure out why Gary Randall of Faith and Freedom is opposing gay rights and just what he's doing with all the money he's been raising.
• Steve Benen notes that Michael Steele is now coming under fire from RNC members for failing to attack President Obama and Democrats as "socialists."
• Pam urges everyone to save the date of October 10, the day that Matt Barber will be the featured speaker at Americans For Truth’s annual banquet.
• Finally, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation are calling on the United States Chief of Naval Operations to investigate the fact that Gordon Klingenschmitt "is attempting to create the false impression that he is still an active-duty member of the U.S. armed forces."

Last week I wrote a few posts about the utterly inane “controversy” over the recent Department of Homeland Security report “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” [PDF], pointing out how the Right was intentionally misrepresenting what it said and repeatedly lying about it in order to generate outrage and raise money. Then I went on vacation for a few days, fully expecting that the entire charade would blow over by the time I got back to work … but of course I was wrong:

Conservative House Republicans are calling on their leaders to ask President Obama for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s resignation.

And GOP Conference Secretary John Carter (Texas) became the first member of leadership to call for the secretary's resignation, saying Wednesday that Napolitano should be removed or resign.

“No search or arrest warrant should ever be issued on the pure speculative grounds contained in the DHS report, and this report should never have been issued either. The fact that it was, coupled with Secretary Napolitano’s failure to issue an unqualified retraction and apology, displays a level of contempt for a healthy democracy that demands she be removed from office immediately," the judge of 20 years said.

Conservative House GOPs think Napolitano should resign because of the release of a report that singled out conservatives as “right-wing terrorists,” according to several GOP lawmakers.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are set to meet with Obama at the White House on Thursday. It is unclear whether they will request Napolitano’s resignation, but several lawmakers said it was under discussion.

“I think leaders are going to bring it up with the president, maybe call for (her) resignation,” one conservative member told The Hill on Wednesday.

Predictably, the American Center for Law and Justice is once again at the forefront of this “controversy,” just as it was of the “controversy” over the stimulus legislation, with Jay Sekulow showing up on Fox News to voice his manufactured outrage that the DHS report made no mention of the “real terrorists” such as Al Qaeda, a point he also made on the ACLJ’s website:

Nowhere in this report is there any mention of Al Qaida cell groups operating domestically here in the United States.  DHS has taken its focus away from rooting out those people that are bent on causing harm to the United States.  Instead, they are using government resources to monitor pro-life citizens who are exercising their free speech rights by holding up a sign in front of an abortion clinic.  On FOX News today I stated that the government needs to be spending its time rounding up terrorists who are bent on the destruction of our government rather than focusing on grandmothers holding up a pro-life sign outside an abortion clinic.

The scope of this report is also dangerous.  In discussing rightwing terrorists, the report states that there is a phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States.  Pointing to those who are opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, the report envisions what it calls the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States as these pro-life groups, those opposed to immigration, and returning veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This complaint might make sense if the report was about something other than, you know, domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups.  And to make matters worse, the ACLJ is claiming that the report declares “pro-lifers [to be the] most dangerous domestic terrorists” when it does nothing of the sort.  In fact, the report never even mentions pro-lifers beyond one footnote explaining that individuals driven by a “single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration” may join up with hate-oriented or antigovernment right-wing groups.  

Now the ACLJ is demanding a retraction from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and, in an email to activists, bragging that it has taken the lead in fighting this “blatant attack on conservative America” and, of course, seeking donations:

I’ve been away for the last several days and am trying to catch up on what has been going on.  And, judging by the dozens of right-wing statements that are clogging my reader and inbox, it seems as if the end of the world is at hand because the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up H.R. 1913, otherwise known as the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.”

For the Religious Right, issuing dire warnings about hate crimes legislation has been a standard practice for years and this time around is no different, which is why we have made it the focus of our current Right Wing Watch In Focus:

Hate crimes are violent attacks on people who are targeted because of who they are.   Thousands of Americans are physically attacked every year because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, or disability.  These crimes are meant to intimidate entire communities.   The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act – also known as the federal hate crimes bill – would direct federal resources to help local law enforcement fight violent hate crimes, and would let federal law enforcement step in when locals don’t.   Similar legislation passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support during the last session, but never made it to the president’s desk.

Religious Right leaders are vehemently opposed to federal hate crimes laws in large measure because they resist any legal recognition of LGBT people (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender).   They know that most Americans support hate-crimes legislation, anti-discrimination laws, and legal protection for gay couples.  So they create confusion by portraying these steps toward equality as dire threats to religious liberty.   This is part of a larger political strategy by Religious Right leaders to advance their policy goals and mobilize supporters with alarmist claims that Christians in America are on the verge of being jailed for their religious beliefs.

As we have noted before, there’s a dangerously cynical motive at the core of this strategy.  It is easier to convince Americans to support discrimination – even to oppose laws designed to discourage violent hate crimes – if you have first convinced them that their gay neighbors want to shut down their church and throw their pastor in jail for reading the Bible.

One of the Right’s favorite tropes is that, if such legislation passes, it will silence Christians and all those who speak out in opposition to homosexuality and will lead to pastors getting tossed in prison and churches getting shut down by the government.  Of course, none of that is true:

The federal hate crimes law doesn’t create something called a “thought” crime or somehow create “special rights” for a particular group of people.  It strengthens law enforcement’s ability to fight violent crime – not vigorous debate, not sermons against homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the infamous “God hates fags” protesters, not the spreading of misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere. 

Conservatives often say they want judges to focus on exactly what a law says.  Well, here’s exactly what the law says:

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Another section of the law makes it clear that federal courts could not rely on evidence of a person’s outlook or statements to convict someone of a hate crime unless those expressions were directly related to the commission of the violent crime in question:

“In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness."

Could it be any clearer that this has nothing to do with silencing preachers or punishing thoughts, and everything to do with discouraging and prosecuting violent hate crimes? 

But just because the Right’s claims are wildly untrue doesn’t mean they are going to stop making them, as evidenced by the fact that that they are making them once again.

Vision America:

It is imperative that we contact all members of the House and demand that they vote against this bill as it will not protect a pastor, Bible teacher, Sunday School teacher, youth leader or anyone else from prosecution if he or she teaches against homosexuality if an individual who hears their message then goes out and commits a crime against a homosexual.. The pastor or teacher could face prosecution for using "hate speech" and "conspiracy to commit a hate crime."

Focus on the Family:

Under "hate-crimes" laws like H.R. 1913, pastors could be prosecuted for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad.

"The homosexual activists' mantra is no longer tolerance — it's embrace and promote," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action. "Anything less will be silenced. Christians must speak up."

Family Research Council:

The act would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes.  It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses.

Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to people like you and me.

Concerned Women for America:

[E]xpanding "hate crimes" to include "sexual orientation" and gender identity could put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.  "Hate crimes" laws place us on a slippery slope toward religious persecution. These laws are already being employed as a tool in Brazil, Europe, Canada -- and even right here in America -- to intimidate and silence people who honor natural human sexuality and who value the sanctity of marriage as between one man and one woman.  If a person speaks out against various sexual behaviors, that person may be accused of "hate speech," which could lead to an accusation of associations with "hate crimes."

Liberty Counsel:

H.R. 1913 is not about stopping crime but is designed to give sexual preference the same legal status as race. This legislation is just a stepping stone to regulate the speech of people who support family values.

Matt Barber:

[I]f H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a “hate crime” to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a “gay pride” parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual’s shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony “hate crime.”

But the Christian needn’t even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in “apprehension of bodily injury” by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony “hate crime.”

And, never to be outdone when it comes to issuing over the top warnings about the dangers posed by the “homosexual agenda,” the Traditional Values Coalition has gone into overdrive, releasing various pieces that declare that Christians are going to get tossed into jail by legislation is designed to protect pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and those who engage in bestiality:

HR 1913 targets mainstream religious people for prosecution because their sincerely-held religious beliefs and centuries of theology inform them that homosexuality is a disordered behavior and a sin.  Just expressing that belief will amount to a crime under this bill and pastors across America will be risking their freedom to quote certain passages of the Bible from their pulpits.

This hate crimes bill creates that climate with its chilling effect on the First Amendment’s “free exercise” of  religion, taking rights away from one group of citizens in a phony ploy to protect another group of citizens from a contrived threat.

…

The main purpose of this legislation is to elevate homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender identity to race. H.R. 1913 will add the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “either actual or perceived,” as new classes of individuals receiving special protection by federal law. Sexual orientation includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. Gender identity includes such gender confused behaviors as cross-dressing, transvestism and such conditions as transsexualism.

The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible.

H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation. A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

…

The main purpose of this “hate crime” legislation is to add the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “either actual or perceived,” as new classes of individuals receiving special protection by federal law. Sexual orientation includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality on an ever-expanding continuum. Will Congress also protect these sexual orientations-zoophiles, pedophiles or polygamists?

Gender identity includes such gender confused behaviors as cross-dressing, she-male, drag queen, transvestite, transsexual or transgender. Under the Act, neither “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are really defined. How can a law be enforced if the new classes receiving special protection remain undefined?

The sexual behaviors considered sinful and immoral by most major religions will be elevated to a protected “minority” class under federal law.

Once “sexual orientation” is added to federal law, anyone with a bizarre sexual orientation will have total protection for his or her activities by claiming that Congress sanctions their appearance, behavior or attitudes.

Inevitably this will negatively affect the performance of co-workers who are forced to work alongside of individuals with bizarre sex habits. Imagine working next to a person who gets sexual pleasure from rubbing up against a woman (Fronteurism) or enjoys wearing opposite sex clothing. These are “sexual orientations.”

• The Thomas More Law Center has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Homeland Security seeking answers about the recent report on right-wing extremists.
• Gary Dull and his nascent Faith and Freedom Institute received some press coverage for their participation in a "tea party" rally yesterday, declaring "stop taking our freedoms away from us."
• Bill Donohue opposes efforts to bring marriage quality to New York state, declaring "once you allow two men to marry there's nothing left. You can't stop three men from getting married. You could not stop Sam and Sally for that matter if they wanted to have an incestuous relationship granted by the state."
• The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission warns that hate crimes legislation is on its way, saying that "if this bill passes it lays the foundation for censoring Christians."
• The Judicial Confirmation Network's Wendy Long pens an attack piece on judicial nominee David Hamilton in which she repeats the discredited claims about his ties to ACORN.
• The Susan B. Anthony List declares that Gov. Sarah Palin's decision to speak at the Vanderburgh County Right to Life Banquet in Indiana tonight proves that she is "authentic" and reflection of "her values and true persona." I'd argue that her refusal to follow to state law in filling an empty Democratic seat in the state Senate is a better reflection of her values and persona.

The New York Times has a good article on how Bill O'Reilly and his staff have made stalking and ambushing on camera those with whom O'Reilly disagrees a staple of the show and that the person behind most of these missions is Fox News Producer Jesse Watters:

Mr. Watters, a 30-year-old who worked for a Republican candidate for New York attorney general, Dora Irizarry, before joining Fox in 2003, has approached high school principals, lawmakers, journalists and celebrities whom Mr. O’Reilly has accused of being dishonest. He conducts background checks, uses Google Earth’s mapping software to scout the locations and tries to identify a public place where he can surprise the person. Some interviews require days of waiting in trucks and hotels.

When the subjects don’t answer — at least not to the satisfaction of Mr. Watters — the questions become more provocative and emotional. Last summer Mr. Watters asked Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont about that state’s criminal statutes and asked, “About how many dead girls are we going to tolerate here?”

Sometimes the questions are statements. While trying to provoke a Florida judge last month Mr. Watters seemed to speak on behalf of the victims of a sexual molester, saying, “You owe that family an apology.”

The most hilariously ironic thing about this is the fact that, according to the article, Watters "refused repeated interview requests" for the piece.

Of course, had someone refused such requests from O'Reilly, they would have inevitably found themselves confronted by Watters, demanding to know why they wouldn't answer his questions because, as Watters says, it is his mission to get answers and "if they don’t come to us, we’ll go to them.”

Frankly, if I were the author of this NYT article, I'd fully be expecting Mr. Watters to show up on my doorstep any day now, camera in tow and barking questions about why I'm trying to make Bill O'Reilly look bad.

Back in February and March, we wrote a series of posts about how the Religious Right was trying to get a supposedly "anti-Christian" provision stripped from the stimulus legislation, screaming and yelling about discrimination and threatening lawsuits only to utterly fall silent about it after the legislation containing the provision at issue was signed into law.

The over-arching theme of those posts was a sense of amazement that the Right fully knew that everything they were saying about this provision was blatantly untrue yet they continued to repeat it regardless.  In fact, it seemed as if most of those screeching about it didn't even bother to read the provision itself or do any basic research ... presumably because doing so would have only undermined their ability to keep lying about it.

I am getting the same impression regarding the Department of Homeland Security report that has become the focus of the Right's outrage over the last few days. The fact that DHS has issued a statement explaining that the report is part of "an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States" doesn't matter. The fact that it was commissioned under the Bush administration and overseen by a Bush appointee does not matter either.  Nor does the fact that the report obviously is not an attack on conservatives, veterans, or Christians, as they are claiming, which is something they would know if they bothered to actually read it [PDF].

But they don't care:

Call Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to demand an apology for the outrageous DHS memo disparaging America's veterans and pro-lifers

Barack Obama's Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is stubbornly refusing to apologize to our nation's veterans for issuing a DHS intelligence assessment which disparages veterans as possible terrorist threats. The report also defamed peaceful pro-lifers.

Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America said: "I agree with the Democrat chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson, when he said he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued. Veterans and pro-lifers should not be targeted as terrorist threats by the Obama administration. This partisanship must stop."

And, just as with the stimulus provision," the ACLJ is among those taking the lead in generating faux outrage once again, sending out an email to supporters blasting this "unconstitutional report":

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has labeled you, a member of the pro-life community, THE MOST DANGEROUS DOMESTIC TERRORIST.

The DHS warning entitled: ''Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment'' is so troubling that at first, I actually didn't believe that Homeland Security could issue such a document.

But it's true. We've verified it. And make no mistake, this unconstitutional report raises serious questions about the leadership and direction of the agency charged with protecting Americans in the ongoing battle against terrorism.

And why don't they care?  Because they can use as part of their fundraising efforts:

Today, federal employees whose salaries we pay are issuing reports from the Department of Homeland Security that say some conservatives are a grave threat to America. Why? Because we oppose abortion and the massive growth of the federal government. Do they no longer see Al Qaeda or the Taliban as the greatest threat to Americans' liberty? Apparently they are now targeting us. I remind DHS and all who read this that we oppose all violence or lawbreaking. But speaking out is an American right we will not give up!

Parents with children are bearing the brunt of this administration's drive for ever greater control--control of our checkbooks, control of the schools, control of our communities, control of our churches, population control, gun control, environmental control. Control is the common thread.

...

Will you help Family Research Council (FRC) fight excessive government and defend your rights with a donation today?

...

What's their strategy in this new campaign to undermine America 's Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation?

* Money to silence your voice. Billions set aside for ACORN and other radical coalitions committed to creating a permanently left-wing government by whatever means necessary--including voter fraud which ACORN has committed.

* Money to teach immoral behavior in schools. New spending means more federal interference in local schools, loss of parental rights, and forcing our children to learn about immoral behavior.

* Money for abortion and a culture of death. Top abortion advocates get hundreds of millions of new federal subsidies from their liberal allies in Washington.

The one common thread to all of this "outrage" from the Christian Coalition, the Family Reserach Council, and others (aside from the lying) is that they don't provide a link to the actual DHS report itself, despite the fact that it is widely available.

If this report is so outrageous and offensive, why aren't these right-wing groups providing links to it so that their activists can read it for themselves?

Maybe because a) they haven't read it themselves or b) they have read it and know that it doesn't say what they are claiming it says and are hoping that their activists will just take their word for it and start sending in the checks.

• As Good as You says, you don't get to call your ad campaign a rousing success when all of the coverage of it has come in the form of mockery.
• Texas Governor Rick Perry really seems to be going off the deep end, as Daily Kos explains.
• He's also being, as Steve Benen notes, something of a hypocrite.
• On top of that, Perry also appeared on Michael Savage's radio program which, given Savage's long history of offensive statements, is truly remarkable.
• Box Turtle Bulletin http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/15/10686 ">highlights a truly bizarre bill introduced in response to the Iowa marriage ruling that states "a person shall not be compelled to recognize a marriage solemnized in this state if such recognition conflicts with the person’s religious beliefs or moral convictions."
• The ACLU says that two Tennessee public school districts are preventing students from accessing online information about LGBT issues while allowing them to access information from anti-gay groups.
• Greg Sargent reports that DHS did, in fact, release a report on "left wing extremists," while Media Matters chronicles the continuing freak out by conservatives about the report on right wing extremists.
• Finally AU's Rob Boston weighs in on the premature obituary being written about the Religious Right yet again, noting smartly that "the Religious Right is so closely identified with the Republican Party that its fortunes are now tied to that political unit. You might have noticed that the Republicans aren’t doing so well right now. That means the Religious Right isn’t doing so well either."

When it was announced that a new conservative gay organization was coming into existence to challenge the Log Cabin Republicans and give gay conservatives a new voice, it wasn’t really clear exactly what its mission was going to entail, other than trying to sell standard conservative policies from a gay perspective while avoiding the issues that deal directly with gay concerns: 

Mr. LaSalvia, the new group's executive director, points to the arithmetic. In the 2008 presidential election, between 4% and 5% of voters self-identified as gay. Of these, 27% went for John McCain. That works out to 1.4 to 1.8 million gay Republican votes.

"If you pulled the lever for John McCain in 2008, then passing hate-crimes legislation or ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] is probably not your priority," says Mr. LaSalvia. "Most issues that are defined as 'gay' issues have been defined by the left. We take a different approach."

Health care is one example. Mr. LaSalvia points out that many gays do not believe their best interests are served by government-run health care. To the contrary, he says, they believe they would be better served by private-run individual accounts that are portable, that put them in charge of their own health care, and that would allow them to designate their own beneficiaries.

Why exactly gays as a group should prefer individual health insurance accounts LaSalvia doesn’t say, but apparently this is his group’s strategy – to paint traditional conservative policies as gay-friendly policies:

Mr. LaSalvia said GOProud will fill an important niche by addressing policies typically ignored by gay liberal activists, such as moves by the Democrat-led Congress to let President George W. Bush's cuts to the inheritance tax expire.

"The inheritance tax is really a gay tax," said Mr. LaSalvia, noting that without same-sex marriage, there is no tax exemption for inheritance from a gay partner. That's the type of policy the traditional gay lobby isn't going to touch.

Of course, the central issue here is not so much the supposed unfairness of the estate tax as it is the discrimination in the law.  If GOProud was really interested in fighting this unfairness, it would be pressing to get an exemption for gay couples and addressing the underlying discrimination at work that refuses to recognize such relationships.

That, at least, seems to be the most logical way to go about it, but since GOProud isn’t interested in taking on the “gay issues,” it is focusing on eliminating the estate tax instead of eliminating the discrimination.

I have to admit that after I first read the Department of Homeland Security’s report “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” [PDF] on Monday, I immediately forgot about it because it was of no use to me.  

While I am always on the look-out for things demonstrating the extremism of the Religious Right, this report focused solely on violent racist and anti-government groups and since we tend not to cover such groups here, the report had little to offer.  

Or so I thought.  As it turns out, the report was apparently exactly about the Religious Right groups we follow here … or at least that is what Religious Right groups are insisting, based entirely on a single footnote that says:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Presumably this was a reference to murderous anti-abortion activists like Eric Rudolph, but the Right doesn’t see it that way:

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, said today a new warning issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that labels pro-life supporters as ‘extremists’ is outrageous and raises serious questions about the leadership and direction of an agency that’s goal is to protect Americans against a very real terrorist threat.

“This is an outrageous characterization that raises serious questions about the leadership and direction of the agency charged with protecting Americans in the ongoing battle against terrorism,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “Why would the Department of Homeland Security single out groups like pro-life supporters when they should be focusing on identifying and apprehending the real terrorists – like al-Qaeda – groups that have vowed to destroy America? This characterization is not only offensive to millions of Americans who hold constitutionally-protected views opposing abortion – but also raises serious concerns about the political agenda of an agency with a mandate to protect America.”

The AFA’s Don Wildmon is outraged about the whole thing, but particularly upset about the reports supposed attacks on veterans:

"They say [to] watch these soldiers coming home from Iraq because they could turn out to be terrorists in our own country," Wildmon notes. "These are kids basically who have gone over there and risked their lives -- and many of them have given their lives -- and here we put out a nine-page report from Homeland Security saying, 'Watch these soldiers that come home because they could be possible terrorists in their own country.'

Of course, the report specifically references Timothy McVeigh, a Gulf War veteran, but apparently it's really an attack on all members of our armed services.

But in terms of sheer inanity and hyperbole, I doubt that anything can top this statement from Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America:

"Here you have a group of people who are in charge of Homeland Security portraying conservative Christian people as people the nation really needs to be afraid of," notes Crouse. "It's so alarmist. It's spreading fear and suspicion, and it's demonizing those of us who hold true traditional values."
 
According to Crouse, those are the values held by mainstream America and that are at the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. The report places opponents of abortion and homosexual "marriage" at the same level as inter-racial crimes.
 
Crouse tells OneNewsNow the report is a direct attack on the church. "[It's] a direct assault on the basic principles of religious beliefs that have been here since the time of Christ," she argues. "These are the things that Christ died on the cross for."

Did anyone on the Right even bother to read the report before spouting off about it?  It seems doubtful because presumably they wouldn’t be blasting a report aimed at violent racist extremists as an attack on “traditional values” and Christianity.  Do the basic tenets of Christianity and traditional values now incorporate ideologically driven terrorism and violence?

James Dobson appeared on “Hannity” last night to refute the notion that he had conceded defeat in the culture war, declaring that he had done nothing of the sort and that the “war is not lost.”

Dobson asserted that, while he had stepped down as Chairman of the Board at Focus on the Family, he has not retired and that he is working as hard as ever to press his agenda. He blasted the media for writing his movement off and for misrepresenting his original statement in order to marginalize them before vowing to keep up the fight:

The left wing media is itching for members of the pro family movement to put up white flag and declare the culture war over and to just hand the country to them and so they will take a statement like that, which was made to my staff - it was not a press release or anything like that - it was made the staff in reference to the election. And it is true that many of the battles that we have fought for many years were lost - at least the battles were lost, the war was not lost. And what the media, starting with The Telegraph, a British paper, had taken that and remove the last sentence … I mean they just flat out edited it which said, and you and I think you can quote a better than I because you have it in front of you, but it said “but we’re not going to give up, we're not going to stop, we’re going to continue to fight, right?" And the staff cheered. And that's what we're gonna do - we're not going anywhere.

Dobson insisted that his admission that “that we have lost all those battles” was in reference to his work in the 1980s fighting pornography and not necessarily to the culture war as a whole and that the “discouraging period” to which he was referring was in relation to the recent election but that they will make a comeback:

It would not be accurate not to admit that we lost the White House, we lost the House, and we lost the Senate, and we probably will loose in the courts, and we lost almost every department of government with this election. But the war is not over - pendulums swing and we'll come back. We're gonna hang in there and, you know, it's not going to be a surrender.

The belief that the Religious Right was going to regain its clout and prominence took up the remainder of the segment, with Dobson taking solace in the fact that 58 million Americans did not vote for Barack Obama and in signs that Obama’s approval rating is dropping, saying he did not believe that there had been a “been that great a shift among the American people”

Citing a variety of potential issues, such as the conscience clause and FOCA, Dobson admitted that “this is a discouraging time” and that some of the recent developments are “very, very troubling” but said that “we believe they’re temporary” and that “in tough times good people hang in there and wait for things to change and we pray a lot."

In the end, he declared that, as Christians, “we are not called to be successful; we're called to be faithful and that's what we plan to do."

• Dan Gilgoff reports that Rick Warren, despite bailing on his scheduled weekend interview, is "eager to schedule another high-profile TV interview to clarify his views on gay marriage and Proposition 8, California's recently adopted gay marriage ban."
• Ed Brayton goes after Jane Chastain for trying to pass off a fake quote from James Madison.
• Pam reports that openly gay Iowa state Senator Matt McCoy received death threats on the day that anti-marriage equality activists were scheduled to rally outside the Capitol.
• Like Andrew Sullivan, we find this ad to be incomprehensible.
• Good as You finds Concerned Women for America likening the Day of Silence to encouraging kids to drink or smoke crack.
• John Aravosis debated Dennis Prager on the issue of marriage equality, during which Prager repeatedly insisted that gay marriage was a more important issue than the economy.

Václav Havel was an anti-communist dissident who was repeatedly imprisoned for his efforts before eventually becoming the President of Czechoslovakia and being awarded the International Gandhi Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Maggie Gallagher is a right-wing activist who defends people like Dan Quayle for his attack on fictional television characters and secretly took tens of thousands of dollars from the Bush Administration to pimp its marriage initiative and eventually became the head of the National Organization for Marriage and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

What do the two have in common? According to Gallagher, quite a lot:

Rod Dreher: Maggie, you and I are on the same side of the gay marriage issue, but I am pessimistic about our chances for success. You, however, are optimistic. What am I missing?

Maggie Gallagher: Vaclav Havel mostly. "Truth and love wlll prevail over lies and hate." On that basis Havel took on the Soviet empire. Where is that invincible empire now?

Same-sex marriage is founded on a lie about human nature: 'there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and you are a bigot if you disagree'.

Political movements can--sometimes at great human cost and with great output of energy--sustain a lie but eventually political regimes founded on lies collapse in on themselves.

Gallagher tells Dreher that people are flocking to her organization "not because we try to scare them about how bad things are going to be--but because we offer them a chance to come together with other people of all races, creeds and colors to stand up for a core and timeless good." But you don't get much of a sense from this interview that she has much to offer beyond scaring people:

[T]the redefinition of traditional religious faiths as the moral and legal equivalent of racists. The proposition on the table right now is that our faith itself is a form of bigotry.

...

I think civilizations that can't hang onto an idea as basic as to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife aren't going to make it in the long haul.

So I'm not worried about the progressive myth that 200 years from now gay marriage will be the new world norm. I'm somewhat more worried about the kind of cultures around the world that might survive.

...

Gay marriage is going to effect a lot of people besides Adam and Steve. Because if you disagree with the government's definition of marriage you can expect to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage.

...

The proposition on the table is your faith is a form of bigotry and Americans don't grant religious liberty protections to bigots. There is no offer on the table for compromise at this point.

Last week we posted a press release from Roberts Peters in which he linked gay marriage and the recent spate of mass shootings to a single cause - namely the decline in the influence of Christianity in our culture.

Sensing that such a claim was going to be meet a rather hostile reaction, Peters attempted to clarify his point by saying that "it most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement."

Of course, if you have to write something like that in that first place, it's a good sign that you know that you are making a rather controversial statement. And so it was no surprise that Peters' press release generated a lot of negative coverage.

And so he is back with a follow-up statement attempting to clarify his point once again:

In an MIM Release dated April 9, Morality in Media President Bob Peters commented on the above stating, among other things, that the push for "gay marriage" and the epidemic of mass murders had a common root -- namely, that "increasingly we live in a 'post-Christian' society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence." Mr. Peters' comments generated a number of negative responses from gays and others, which prompted the following additional comments:

"In retrospect, I should have included the other lead story that appeared on the front page of the NY Times on April 4. That story reported on our nation's rapidly growing unemployment problem, which can also be explained in good measure by the precipitous decline in morality. Among other things, the current economic crisis is a result of arrogance, blind ambition, deceit, dishonesty, envy, foolishness, greed, irresponsibility, lack of integrity, recklessness, etc.

Peters is intent on making his point clear and so he has also thrown in some twenty-plus year-old quotes from gay activists to bolster his point:

To put it another way, the success of the 'gay rights movement' is inversely proportional to the degree of influence that the historic Christian faith and morality have on American society. This is not to say that the 'gay rights movement' is the primary cause of our nation's moral decline. But if Christianity has been integral to the success of this nation, then the success of the 'gay rights movement' is not a good sign.

Of course, this only ends up reinforcing the very point he was trying to clarify since he is claiming that gay rights can only succeed by undermining the influence of the Christian faith ... and since the lessening of the influence of Christian faith in America is what Peters says is responsible for the recent shootings (and the economic crisis) all he has done is expand his original point to make is sound as if he is saying that gay marriage is responsible for mass murder and unemployment.

And then, for good measure, he throws in a comparison to Nazi Germany:

I do think that without the positive influence of Christianity we would not have become a great nation, and common sense ought to inform us that we will not remain the same nation without that influence ... I would also add that Nazi Germany was not a great nation because it was in no way good.

Perhaps he should have just quit while he was behind.