July 2009

• Our latest Right Wing Watch In Focus is now available: "To Hell with Health Care Reform: Religious Right Leaders Attack Obama, Spout GOP Dogma about 'Socialism' While Fanning Flames on Abortion."
• D.C. lobbying firm Bonner and Associates has been busted sending forged letters opposing climate change legislation to members of Congress and blames it on a "temp" who has been fired, though they seem to have a history of pulling these sorts of astroturf stunts.
• Dick Armey explains why he doesn't believe in global warming: "[T]he lord God almighty made the heavens and the Earth, and he made them to his satisfaction and it is quite pretentious of we little weaklings here on earth to think that, that we are going to destroy God’s creation."
• Matthew Yglesias: Just When You Thought the “Beer Summit” Story Couldn’t Get Any More Ridiculous…
• Jim Burroway takes an in-depth look at NARTH's new "peer reviewed" study proving that sexual orientation can be changed.
• Finally, Steve Benen takes a look at the fascinating new Daily Kos poll showing who does and who does not believe that President Obama was born in the United States.

I offer these two videos recently uploaded by Randall Terry without comment because, frankly, I'm at a loss for words:

Are We Slaves On Obama's Plantation?

KKK Endorses Obamacare: YOU Are A Racist

Mike Huckabee might currently be sitting atop the polls of potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates but, just as happened during his 2008 run, his support among grassroots activists is not translating into fund-raising:

Recent polls show he is among the early frontrunners for the 2012 GOP presidential bid, but when it comes to fundraising this year, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee trails well behind his chief rivals.

The former Republican presidential candidate e-mailed supporters Thursday night announcing he has raised a little over $300,000 in the first six months of the year, a cash haul that is only about 20 percent of the $1.6 million former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took in the same period.

It's also about a third of what former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has raised since January. Her political action committee, SarahPAC, reported raising $730,000 through July 1, but a spokeswoman for Palin said the Alaska Republican took in an additional $200,000 in the early days of July after announcing she was stepping down as governor.

In addition, Newt Gingrich’s PAC, American Solutions for Winning the Future, took in more than $8 million in the first half of the year.

Perhaps these low fund-raising numbers for Huckabee explain why the PAC recently had to undergo a "restructuring" and why Huckabee is charging candidates his PAC has endorsed more than $30,000 to speak at their fund-raisers.

• Nobody, it seems, wants to see Sarah Palin become President: About a third of Americans think the best job for Palin is homemaker (32 percent), while nearly one in five see her as a television talk show host (17 percent). Vice president of the United States comes in third (14 percent), followed closely by college professor (10 percent), with president coming last (6 percent).
• No surprise here: Mitt Romney has been confirmed for the Values Voter Summit.
• If you are interested, you can read the opening prayer that Jerry Falwell Jr. delivered in the House of Representatives yesterday here.
• Rep. Michele Bachmann has received a “Defender of Economic Freedom Award” from the Club for Growth.
• Finally, Concerned Roman Catholics of America is condemning the Knights of Columbus "for their continuing failure to expel pro-abortion and pro-homosexual politicians."

We already knew that Phyllis Schlafly would be receiving the "James C. Dobson Vision & Leadership Award" at this year's Values Voter Summit, but now we find out that the Family Research Council has decided to award Bill O'Reilly its first annual "Media Courage Award":

Today, FRC Action, the legislative lobbying arm of Family Research Council, announced that Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," will address FRC's fourth annual Values Voter Summit that will take place September 18-20 in Washington, D.C. O'Reilly is the author of eight best-selling books including Culture Warrior, Those Who Trespass and his most recent A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity: A Memoir.

For being a voice of virtue in a culture of death, FRC Action will honor him with the first ever Media Courage Award. In the face of intense pressure, Bill O'Reilly has stood for truth during a tumultuous time in the pro-life debate. Despite a firestorm of unfair allegations, he has defended his position against late-term abortions and brought new light to a gruesome procedure. He has used a national platform to promote the dignity of life - no matter what the personal or professional risk.

O'Reilly has never attended this event in the past, as far as I know - he's not listed among those who spoke at the events in 2007 or 2008 and I don't recall him attending back at the first one in 2006.  Nor, for that matter, has FRC ever handed out this type of award at the event before. 

Did they just create this award in order to bribe O'Reilly into attending this year?

It looks like the Birther conspiracy theory might be turning a corner.  No, it is not going away but rather the entire issue is now being held up by people on the Right as evidence of a plot by the media and President Obama to marginalize conservatives.

Earlier this week, Bill Pascoe, the man "whose idea it was to recruit Alan Keyes to run" against Barack Obama in Illinois, wrote in CQ that all the attention suddenly being paid to the Birthers was part of a media ploy to discredit the conservative movement:

Is this anything but a gift to the Democrats?

Am I the only one to notice that mainstream media attention to the "Birthers" has picked up in recent weeks -- and that this increased attention is coincident to the turn in Obama's approval ratings?

A search of The Washington Post web site, for instance, on the term "Birther" yields as its oldest hit this one from July 6; a search of The New York Times, though, shows one June reference in passing and then the first real mention of the term on July 22.

Far be it from me to assume one is the cause of the other -- as faithful readers know, I do my best to avoid falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap -- but, still, it is an interesting coincidence.

Coincident or not, it is eating up valuable air time and gobbling up precious inches of type that could, and should, be devoted to other, more pressing, matters -- like the self-immolation of the Democratic Party, as it struggles to find a way to reform the health care delivery system without destroying it.

Reasonable and responsible conservatives, thus, are stuck. We are being lumped in with irresponsible and unreasonable conspiracy theorists.

But to others, like Bernard Goldberg and Bill O'Reilly, the Birthers' prominence is not just the work of the media, but rather is something that is being orchestrated directly out of the White House:

Goldberg: I have a theory. And the theory is this: That the Chicago Mafia inside the White House want to keep this crazy controversy going. Because the longer it goes, the better the chance that they will conflate the crazy right-wing fringe with regular conservatives and regular Republicans.

O'Reilly: That's not a bad theory.

A word of advice to Golberg and Pascoe:  if you want to avoid being conflated with the crazy right-wing fringe and being lumped in with irresponsible and unreasonable conspiracy theorists, then it is probably best not start spewing crazy theories about how the media and the White House are engaged in a massive conspiracy to paint you as crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists.

• You know what Religious Right groups should do more often?  Force their political agenda into domestic disputes and divorce proceedings.
• Now that she no longer has to deal with the hassle of being a governor, Sarah Palin is looking to get into talk radio. A word of warning to anyone who gives her a show: she'll probably quit before her contract expires.
• The D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics has ruled that Harry Jackson legally resides in the District.
• I have no idea who Jason Hommel is, but he's promising to "give $100,000 to the first person who can prove to my satisfaction that Barack Obama, acting as president of the United States, is a 'natural born' citizen of the USA, which is a qualification to hold the office as indicated in the U.S. Constitution."
• Finally, Steve Ensley of American Family Online is calling for a boycott of Google. Good luck with that.

Wiley Drake has played a central role in keeping the Birther conspiracy alive, as he and his running mate, Alan Keyes, are among the few members of the movement who can claim "standing" in the various lawsuits filed by Orly Taitz by alleging that they were directly harmed by the fact that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States.

So despite the fact that Hawaii's health director released a statement yesterday attesting that she has personally seen President Obama's birth certificate in the Health Department's archives, it comes as no surprise that Drake remains unmoved:

Hawaiian officials have again attested to the veracity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, but Pastor Wiley Drake of the Buena Park Southern Baptist Church is not convinced.

Nor does he believe it will affect the lawsuit he is a party to in Orange County Superior Court, challenging Obama's eligibility to hold the nation's highest office.

"We've been there, done that before," Drake said of Hawaiian authorities. "They've sworn to the validity of it before, then they've backed off, so we don't know what they're doing."

You know else is unsurprising?  That fact that Drake insists that he is not, in fact, "a nut": 

Obama's supporters "want to brand anyone who questions him as a nut, and they're not. Alan Keyes is not a nut. I'm not," Drake said.

If praying to God to kill Barack Obama does not qualify someone as a "nut" then I don't know what does.

Back in April, it was reported that David Barton had been appointed to serve on the Texas State Board of Education's "panel of experts" tasked with examining the state's social studies curriculum.

At the time, Barton made is clear that his goal was to ensure that the standards better reflected his right-wing views regarding our nation's history, especially as it pertained to the issue of religion, but vowed to be so thoroughly accurate that nobody would be able to question his biased recommendations:

Barton expects outside groups to "holler and scream" about his recommendations to fix those errors due to the fact that he is a Christian and a conservative. But he adds that he and other members of the panel will give recommendations that are so historically accurate that board members will have a hard time refuting them.

Needless to say, it came as no surprise that when Barton unveiled his recommended changes [PDF], it contained a heavy focus on the need to teach students about the religious aspects of the nation's history:

Understanding American Government. Students [Grade 5 (a)(1), (b)(16)] are told to “identify the roots of representative government in this nation as well as the important ideas in the Declaration of Independence,” but nowhere are those ideas specifically identified. Students should be familiar with the fundamental principles of America government set forth in the 126 words in the first three sentences at the beginning of the Declaration and those principles should be regularly reviewed throughout their tenure as a student:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

(It is from this section that students are to recite by memory under state law.)

The principles set forth here and subsequently secured in the Constitution and Bill of Rights include:

1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature
2. There is a Creator
3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights
4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual
5. Below God-given rights and moral law, government is directed by the consent of the governed

Students must also understand the Framers’ very explicit (and very frequent) definition of inalienable rights as being those rights given by God to every individual, independent of any government anywhere (as John Adams explained, inalienable rights are those rights that are “antecedent to all earthly government; rights [that] cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights [that are] derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe”). The inalienable rights specifically listed in the Declaration include those of life, liberty, and property, and the Bill of Rights subsequently identified other inalienable rights, including freedoms of religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition; the right of self-defense; the sanctity of the home; and due process. Each of these rights is to remain beyond the scope of government and is to be protected inviolable by government. These fundamental five precepts of American government must be thoroughly understood by students, but they are not currently addressed in the TEKS.

This is standard procedure for Barton: claiming that he is merely explaining history while focusing entirely on promoting his claims that American was fundamentally designed to be a Christian nation. 

In fact, he has more or less admitted that to ABC News: 

David Barton, president of the Texas-based Christian heritage advocacy group WallBuilders, is another expert on the panel who would like to see changes made to the school curriculum.

"I think there should be more of an emphasis on history in the social studies curriculum," Barton said. "If there is an emphasis on history, there will be a demonstration of religion."

...

Barton told ABCNews.com that he believes Texas' public school curriculum should "reflect the fact that the U.S. Constitution was written with God in mind."

And this is exactly the sort of result one would expect when a biased pseudo-historian like Barton is appointed to a "panel of experts" tasked with evaluating public school curriculum.

Last night, in conjunction with its healthcare webcast, the Family Research Council  announced the release of this new ad in which a couple complains that the man cannot get the life-saving surgery he needs while taxpayer dollars are being used for abortion:

Tonight, during a live webcast joined by more than 49,000 viewers, Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins unveiled a new TV ad which will initially run in five key states including Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, and Nebraska. The hard hitting ad lays out two key threats should President Obama's plan become reality - rationing and taxpayer funded abortions. Patients, particularly the elderly, will face denial of vital treatments while at the same time be forced to pay for abortions.

The ad urges viewers to tell Congress to oppose the government takeover of health care. The ad also urges opposition to a health care plan that will deny care to 'our greatest generation' and deny life to 'our future generation.'

FRC Action President Tony Perkins had this to say:

"In a world of health care rationing, the elderly, the handicapped and the frail are the most likely to lose their lives because care was delayed or denied. Under the government-run plans in England and Canada, the countries' sick and elderly aren't getting the care they need. As a result, their system isn't improving lives but prematurely taking them. Here in the United States, President Obama's rationing would mean that you and I could be denied basic care while our tax dollars are used to underwrite a mother choosing to end the life of her unborn child.

"On the other key life-and-death decisions there is an active commitment on the part of Senate Democratic Leadership to allow the rationing of health care. This is what the White House and Congress mean when they say they will cut costs. It means cutting off your access to health care services by creating the legal authority to do so, while stopping any provision becoming law that would prevent rationing.

"FRC Action will continue to work to mobilize a coalition in opposition to the health care plan in its current form which will force taxpayers to fund abortions, violate the conscience rights of medical workers, and impose a massive tax and debt burden on American families."

Earlier in the day, Tony Perkins joined Reps. Joe Pitts, Mike Pence, Chris Smith, Jeff Fortenberry, Trent Franks, Doug Lamborn, as well as Harry Jackson, Wendy Wright, and Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee for a press conference "to discuss how President Obama's health care takeover plan contains hidden abortion mandates."

We were on hand as well and have put together this highlights reel featuring Franks calling abortion the greatest genocide in human history and asserting that this nation's abortion policies came out of slavery, a point that was echoed by Harry Jackson, while Tony Perkins decried healthcare reform as a "bailout" of Planned Parenthood and Wendy Wright asserted that women would be forced by government bureaucrats into having abortions:

• Rick Santorum teams up with the National Organization for Marriage.
• The Parental Rights Amendment now has 110 co-sponsors.
• The Apostolic and Prophetic Conference is scheduled for Oct. 8 to 10 at the American Airlines Arena in Miami. Rod Parsley will be there.
• The Christian Defense Coalition congratulates itself for forcing a ribbon-cutting ceremony featuring First Lady Michelle Obama to move indoors after it showed up with a bullhorn.
• Colleen Raezler of the Culture and Media Institute is not happy with all the gays on TV, saying it is part of an effort "to sell viewers on the idea of accepting homosexuality ... They don't talk about the high rates of sexually transmitted diseases within the gay community ... They don't talk about the fact that their lifestyles are much more unstable; ...they don't have the commitment that married couples have or anything like that. Nor do the programs acknowledge that homosexuals tend to live shorter lives, as statistics point out."

In yet another attempt to put an end to the absurd Birther conspiracy theories, Hawaii's health director released a statement attesting that she has personally seen President Obama's birth certificate in the Health Department's archives:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called "birthers" that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.

Despite Fukino's statement today, the issue continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the national airwaves to the blogosphere.

So how is this playing over at WorldNetDaily (aka "Birther Central"), you ask?  Shockingly, they have dismissed it entirely and responded by accusing Fukino of breaking the law.

Frankly, nothing is ever going to satisfy them because, at this point, they have way too much invested in it:

Just as Barack Obama's Aug. 4 birthday is approaching, a law firm handling one of the legal challenges to his eligibility to be president is arranging for a fax blast to attorneys general in all 50 states pointing out their obligation to investigate possible perjury during the 2008 election.

The campaign is being run by Gary Kreep and the United States Justice Foundation, which is handling a lawsuit against Obama on behalf of former Ambassador Alan Keyes.

The fax messages cite evidence that suggests Obama may have been born in what now is Kenya.

"But the United States Constitution clearly says only a 'natural born citizen' may be elected president," the message states. "I hope and pray that you will do your duty by fully investigating whether Barack Obama committed perjury, or violated another state law … by falsely claiming that he was constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States!"

The message to attorneys general says, "It is critical that your office fully investigate whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, for the answer to this question is the crux of the matter, and is of the utmost importance for the resolution of this extremely important constitutional issue.

WND is also encouraging its readers to send this postcard to President Obama on his birthday:

And if you want to know just how far gone they are, Joseph Farah is already laying out the line of succession for when Obama is removed from office (Hillary becomes President because everyone else was complict in Obama's fraud):

I think it's safe to say I have been ahead of the curve on the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility.

In the interests of staying there, I think it's time to talk about what happens if Obama continues to refuse the rising chorus of calls for him to prove his eligibility – or, if he is found to be outright ineligible.

As usual, the geniuses who crafted our Constitution have already thought this through and made provisions for a time such as this.

The August 3 issue of the New Yorker includes an only-in-the-New-Yorker-length profile (seven full pages) of right-wing radio host Michael Savage. Savage’s fiercely ugly anti-gay and other extremist rhetoric has often been spotlighted by Media Matters, earning the group a special place in the pantheon of things Savage hates. Savage has called Media Matters “evil” and “Stalinists” and is currently engaged in a ludicrous campaign to challenge the group’s nonprofit status.

While Savage loves to hate the media and Media Matters, he’s found a friend in Kelefa Sanneh, author of the New Yorker profile (subscription required), which feels like a many-thousand word promo for Savage’s radio show. Sanneh is smitten with Savage, “more days than not, a marvelous storyteller, a quirky thinker, and an incorrigible free-associator.” He calls Savage’s show “one of the most addictive programs on radio, and one of the least predictable.”

Sanneh doesn’t ignore that Savage has a well-documented hatred of gays and that his central thesis is “that lefties are ruining the world, or trying to,” and quotes some of Savage’s memorable moments, such as the one that got him thrown off MSNBC, when he told a caller “Oh, you’re one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig.”

But Sanneh finds Savage so weirdly charming and entertaining (he ruminates about death!) that he is quick to dismiss the host’s virulent rhetoric. Here’s Sanneh:

“The immoderate quotes meticulously catalogued by the liberal media-watchdog site mediamatters.org are accurate but misleading, insofar as they reduce a willfully erratic broadcast to a series of political brickbats.”

“Immoderate” is an extraordinarily moderate word to apply to Savage’s serial attacks on gay people, which includes such charges as "[t]he radical homosexual agenda will not stop until religion is outlawed in this county," and that gay people "threaten your very survival." Gays, he says, “want full and total subjugation of this society to their agenda.” Savage has also promoted right-wing lies about Obama being born in Kenya and being a Muslim, and said during the campaign:

"I think he was hand-picked by some very powerful forces both within and outside the United State of America to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War of the middle of the 19th century.”

In a podcast interview posted on the New Yorker site, Sanneh said that people from the left and right do “a pretty good job of getting offended at the other people’s pundits.” Sanneh draws a stunning sort of moral equivalence between Savage, the kind of guy liberals “get all worked up about,” and Al Franken , who some conservatives would consider “an angry, hateful guy.”

Sanneh seems uninterested in considering whether the kind of political rhetoric Savage specializes in has the potential to fuel hatred and violence. Savage’s liberal-hating books were among those found on the shelves of the Tennessee man who opened fire in a Unitarian Universalist church last year to vent his hatred of liberals who he said were destroying the country. Sanneh says that Savage’s best-selling books are “political polemics” but says “none capture the freewheeling sensibility of the show or the complicated personality of the man.”

Last year, I wrote a post about Gerald Marszalek, a high school wrestling coach in Dearborn, Michigan who was let go due to concerns that he had been allowing an assistant coach, a local clergyman, to try to convert Muslim students to Christianity.  In that post I excerpted an article from the Detroit Free Press which is no longer available on-line: 

According to Marszalek, parents and community leaders, [Principal Imad] Fadlallah and other parents have long been concerned about contacts between the wrestling team and a local clergyman, the Rev. Trey Hancock of the Dearborn Assembly of God.

Hancock, who helped Marszalek with the team for 10 years, and whose son, Paul, is now a member, confirmed that he attempts to convert Muslim youths to Christianity and that he baptized a 15-year-old Muslim student in Port Huron a few years ago.

…

Hancock insisted that he never attempted a conversion as part of his work with the wrestling team, or on school grounds. But when asked if he understood the concerns of Muslim parents, he said, "I consider it my work to pastor to anyone who is within my reach. So I can imagine they would be concerned. But is the Dearborn Public Schools going to be dictating what every pastor can or cannot do within his congregation?"

As I said at the time, the problem was not what Hancock was doing “within his congregation” but rather what he was doing in his capacity as a coach. If the roles here had been reversed and a Muslim coach had been trying to convert Christian students, you can rest assured that the Right would have gone absolutely ballistic.

That was the last we had heard of it, until today when we learned that Marszalek is now suing to get his job back:

Marszalek's attorney, Brandon Bolling, said his client coached at the school for 35 years and wants his job back.

"He was going to complete one last season to try to get to 500 wins," Bolling said.

For the record, Bolling just so happens to be an attorney for the Thomas Moore Law Center, which is a right-wing legal organization "dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians ... [by] providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square."

In the organization's press release announcing the suit, they say that the case is not about a coach using his position to proselytize and convert Muslim students but rather about what happens when Muslims get all uppity:

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “We are getting a glimpse of what happens when Muslims who refuse to accept American values and principles gain political power in an American community. Failure to renew coach Marszalek’s contract had nothing to do with wrestling and everything to do with religion.”

The release also claims that "Principal Fadlallah was so upset by the conversion that he punched the student and informed him he had disgraced his family."  I have been unable to find any articles that independently verify this allegation and frankly find it a little hard to believe that Fadlallah would still be Principal if he had punched a student.

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tells The Daily Beast she has secured the commitment of Senate Armed Services Committee to hold hearings on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” this fall.
• Box Turtle Bulletin: An estimated 10,000 people turned out to celebrate Charlotte Pride yesterday, while an anti-gay protest organized by local evangelist Michael Brown and TheCall’s Lou Engle attracted about 500 participants. While the Charlotte Observer reports that the number of protesters this year was a significant over previous years, it appears to have fallen short of the thousand that the organizers had hoped for ... Charlotte police report no problems and no arrests.
• Steve Benen notes that the people at Fox News apparently do not take criticism or mockery particularly well.
• Think Progress: Sen. Hutchison attacks Gov. Perry for turning down stimulus funds that she voted against.
• I feel like I say this just about every day, but Glenn Beck gets more ridiculous by the day.
• Finally, in today's Birther news: Joe.My.God points out that the woman who hijacked Rep. Mike Castle's town hall meeting is known around Delaware as "Crazy Eileen" and posts audio in which she claims to have talked to an angel who came down in human form; even Ann Coulter says that the Birthers are crazy; Greg Sargent reports that Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii is going to put GOP members on the record by introducing a resolution on the House floor commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood which describes the state as Barack Obama’s birthplace; and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs concisely explained why this issue won't go away: "Because for $15, you can get an Internet address and say whatever you want."

Last week I wrote a post based on a revelation from Ted Pike that he apparently has regular contact with Janet Porter, but that Porter had been "reamed out" by Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition for associating with Pike and that, in response, Porter told Pike that if he ever publicly revealed that they spoke to one another, she would stop talking to him entirely.

Porter has had Pike on her radio program at least twice in recent months to discuss hates crimes legislation and apparently they have been working together in fighting the legislation ever since, which Pike opposes because he sees it as part of the plot by Jews to destroy and enslave Christian, which is why the Anti-Defamation League lists Pike in its Extremism in America database:

To promote his virulent anti-Semitic ideology, Pike often works under the guise of opposing federal hate crimes legislation and upholding free speech and Christian values. He gives interviews to extremist cable TV and Internet radio shows to further disseminate his anti-Semitic views and also links from his organization's Website to various anti-Semitic sites. Similarly, a variety of extremists, including neo-Nazis, post Pike's columns to their own hate sites, where they praise Pike's anti-Semitic invective.

If you want to know what ADL means when it says that Pike uses hate crimes legislation to spread his virulent anti-Semitic ideology, you need look no further than this new piece he just published on his website in which he calls Israel "the Great Harlot" and claims that the legislation is key part of the effort by "organized world Jewry" to gain "world dominion," funnel Christians into concentration camps and bring about the Anti-Christ:

We need to help make the hate law unenforceable by resisting and disobeying inevitable government edicts (particularly as precedents from liberal courts) to limit free speech. This will require willingness to suffer for the cause of truth and freedom. To help empower such courage we must continue widespread education against hate laws (such as exists at www.truthtellers.org). We must publicize as widely as possible the fact that a cabal of liberal Jewish supremacists is behind all hate laws worldwide. These, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, says are in “relentless attack on evangelical Christians.” Only through encountering massive public resistance and exposure will ADL/B’nai B’rith (organized world Jewry) be slowed on their fast track to world dominion.

The epicenter of such liberal Jewish attack on Christian civilization is the state of Israel. Israel is a nation founded on theft, repression, and terror (See, Israel: Founded on Terror). Despite its claim to democracy, it is one of the most repressive speech crime regimes in the world. In 1920 Christians constituted 20% of the inhabitants of Palestine. Now, as a result of decades of official harassment and discrimination as well as “anti-missionary” laws criminalizing even casual conversations about Christ with Jews, only 2% of Israelis are Christians. The Israeli government continues to look the other way as Messianic Christian Jews in Israel suffer constant harassment, discrimination and even violence, especially from ultra-Orthodox zealots (See website of Lura Maimon Beckford). Knesset continues to propose even stricter speech crime laws against Christians.

...

[B]ecause Jewish supremacism wants to destroy and enslave Christian/conservatives, the present “turn to the left” to which Dobson referred is actually a left turn into the steel gates of an international concentration camp with the clink of its padlock fastened behind us. The direction to the left in which we are now hurtling is part of the same Talmudic/Kabbalistic conspiracy that incited Jewish takeover of Russia in 1917. (See, Jewish Activists Created Communism ) In all its forms, Jewish-inspired Communism has killed more than 100 million, including millions of Christians. If ADL/B’nai B’rith and organized world Jewry are successful in uniting the world under its control, such atrocities will be repeated and probably even exceeded across a blood-stained planet. (Watch, Ted Pike's Zionism and Christianity: Unholy Alliance) Revelation 18:2 tells us that the garments of the Great Harlot, Israel, are drenched with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. (See, Israel: On the Way to Empire in the Mideast ) ADL/B’nai B’rith represents an unbroken chain of anti-Christian/Gentile hatred and desire for revenge going back to those who crucified Jesus, the Pharisees. As the Book of Acts relates, ADL’s forefathers did their best to destroy the infant church in the first century AD. ADL wants to finish the job tomorrow, under its false messiah, the one-world ruler, Anti-Christ.

So just let me reiterate that this man has been on Janet Porter's radio program twice so far this year and that Porter co-chaired Mike Hucakbee's Faith and Family Values Coalition during his presidential campaign and will be co-hosting the How To Take Back America Conference at which Huckabee will speak in September.

• Our latest Right Wing Watch In Focus is now on-line: "Right Wing Attacks on Sotomayor Gain Little Traction."
• Alvin McEwen explains why people should care about Paul Cameron's shoddy research and his influence on the Religious Right.
• Good As You points out that Maggie Gallagher seems to have a history of inaccuracy.
• Glen Beck gets more ridiculous by the day.
• The Texas Freedom Network reports that FOX News aired a piece on the growing controversy over revising social studies curriculum standards in Texas and, of course, got it wrong.
• Finally, in today's Birther news: G. Gordon Liddy says that not only was President Obama not born in America, he's actually an "illegal alien" while Alex Koppleman thoroughly debunks the central premise of Liddy's argument. Elsewhere, David Weigel reports that John McCain's presidential campaign looked into the allegations and dismissed them as baseless, while Lou Dobbs continues to discuss the issue despite the fact that CNN President Jon Klein has been telling Dobbs' staff to knock it off and now the Southern Poverty Law Center is calling on CNN to remove him from that air.

Last month I wrote a post regrading a group of people in West Bend, WI who are trying to get books that they considers to be obscene moved from the section of the library designated "Young Adults."

That fight caught the attention of Robert Braun, head of something he calls the Christian Civil Liberties Union, who then filed a lawsuit seeking $120,000 in damage for having been allegedly caused emotional distress by the book being in the library and the right to publicly burn the library’s copy of the book "Baby Be-Bop"

The entire bizarre battle was picked-up by CNN the other day and so Alan Colmes invited Braun onto his radio program to discuss his lawsuit.

It was, needless to say, highly entertaining.

Braun apparently doesn't understand the difference between racism and censorship, because when Colmes accused him of engaging in the latter, Braun's response was, and I quote:  

Let me tell you who's involved in this suit.  One of the gentleman with me is Black, his wife is Indian, she's a Comanche, the other one is ... I have Jewish blood in me.

And it just went downhill from there, with Braun declaring that he's going to burn a copy of "Baby Be-Bop" no matter what - not the library's copy, because that would be illegal, but the copy which, for some reason, he apparently owns.  Considering that he is suing the library for causing him emotional damage by simply having it in the stacks, it seems odd that Braun would have a copy of the very same book in his own house. Braun went on to admit that he doesn't even live in West Bend and that his Christians Civil Liberties Union has a grand total of zero members.

At one point, Braun accused Colmes of not being a good Christian, which Colmes readily admitted (he's Jewish,) and claimed that Colmes was now causing him emotional distress as well.  When Colmes asked him to explain how anyone has been "damaged" by this book's inclusion in the library, Barun responded that he and the other plantiffs "are elderly and it has damaged our moral views."

Frankly, I think the entire thing can be summed up by simply noting that this interview might just contain a world record for the greatest number of mispronunciations of the word "library" in any seven minute interval:

• Media Matters: Meet The Birthers
• David Weigel: Maj. Stefan F. Cook, the reservist whose clever scheme to back out of his voluntary deployment by suing for proof of President Obama’s citizenship ended with him getting fired from his defense industry job, is suing again. He wants his old job back.
• Joe.My.God: The Alliance Defense Fund claims to have guided Romania's parliament to a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions.
• Alvin McEwen debunks the relentless stream of lies continually being spread by Paul Cameron.
• The Minnesota Independent reports that The National Republican Congressional Committee has added Rep. Michele Bachmann to its list of most vulnerable incumbents.
• As Talking Points Memo says, you know times are tough when members of Congress are refusing to say whether they live at the House on C Street.

Last year, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins and his daughter traveled to Honduras to do missionary/humanitarian work and they returned again in April of this year to do more of the same.

And apparently Perkins had plans to return once again, at least until the recent coup destabilized the nation and understandably put the trip on hold. 

But you know who is really to blame for his trip getting ruined?  President Obama:

Honduras's political instability and warnings from our in-country contacts about growing hostility toward Americans because of the Obama Administration's support of ousted leftist President Manuel Zelaya, have placed the trip on hold ... the political stalemate that has been created in part by the Obama Administration supporting the constitutionally ousted president has to be resolved first. The U.S. media has not been very helpful. From the beginning, the coverage has been slanted as evidenced by calling the military's execution of a court order a military coup.

I'm sure that President Obama will get his act together now that he knows that Perkins is being inconvenienced and his summer vacation has been ruined because the administration has failed to solve the political turmoil roiling Honduras.

• HuckPAC is undergoing a "restructuring" and its Vertical Politics Institute is no more.
• The ACU's David Keene participated in a conference call in which he disputed the recent Politico story as false and "absurd."
• He's not a Senator, but he'd like to be ... and if he were one, Charlie Crist says he'd vote against Sonia Sotomayor.
• If you've always wanted to meet Roy Moore, here is your chance.
• If you are concerned that Craig's List just isn't Christian enough, you can always switch to CHRISTools.com.
• Stephen Baldwin has filed for bankruptcy.
• Rep. Tim Ryan says he has been "booted" from the national advisory board of Democrats For Life of America for taking the position that use of contraception is needed as part of any plan to reduce unintended pregnancies.
• Finally, CBN covers the Christians United for Israel Conference:

Via Americans United, we learn that the Community Issues Council spent $50,000 to rent billboards in Florida proclaiming there is no such thing as the separation of church and state:

That’s what Floridians will see as they drive through Pinellas and Hillsborough counties near Tampa Bay, Fla., during the next six months.

A local fundamentalist group has decided to wage war on church-state separation by posting ten billboard advertisements that send the message that “America’s government was made only for people who are moral and religious.”

The billboards highlight quotes from our Founding Fathers that are misleading, false or taken out of context.

AU points to this billboard in particular:

They point out that there is no evidence that Washington ever said this, but the CIC's president, Terry Kemple, doesn't really care:

Others carry the same message but with fictional attribution, as with one billboard citing George Washington for the quote, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

"I don't believe there's a document in Washington's handwriting that has those words in that specific form," Kemple said. "However, if you look at Washington's quotes, including his farewell address, about the place of religion in the political sphere, there's no question he could have said those exact words."

A look at the CIC's "No Separation" website shows that they are apparently relying heavily on the "scholarship" of David Barton ... but even Barton admits that this quote cannot be attributed to Washington.

But apparently the fact that Washington never said it isn't going to stop the CIC from claiming that he did, because it's something that he "could have said."

Of course, George Washington could have said a lot of things:

Just yesterday I wrote a post explaining that, thanks to the recent announcement that he was heading a new Religious Right organization known as the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Ralph Reed appeared to be "succeeding in resurrecting his reputation and re-establishing himself as a bona fide leader of the Religious Right."

And, despite the fact that this new effort currently consists entirely of Reed, one adviser, one actual employee, and a bare-bones website, I think it is safe to say that the "Ralph Reed Redemption Tour" is officially underway now that he is getting long profiles written up by the Associated Press:

Ralph Reed was once a powerful force in Republican politics, able to marshal millions of religious conservatives to the polls while leading the Christian Coalition.

Then his political career took a tumble in 2006 when he was clobbered by a lesser-known opponent in the Republican primary for Georgia lieutenant governor, leading some to conclude Reed's days as an influential GOP figure were over.

But Reed is searching for a dose of redemption. He's launched a new venture that supporters hope will bolster a Republican Party struggling to find its footing after the 2008 election and a recent string of embarrassing scandals.

"I don't view it as a comeback," Reed said in a recent interview. "I view it as something I've always done — trying to be part of the solution and trying to build at the grass roots (level)."

The startup, known as the Faith and Freedom Coalition, is little more than a Web site, but Reed hopes to turn it into a strident new force that uses social media to capture a broader, younger and more diverse audience.

Perhaps most telling, the man who helped cement religious conservatives into a solid GOP voting bloc said he won't focus his group on social issues, but rather the economic crisis.

"This is not the Christian Coalition redux," Reed said. "It's a much broader attempt. Our primary focus is jobs, the economy, taxes, creating economic opportunity. That's the number one issue in the country right now."

Other than a lukewarm statement from Roberta Combs, current president of the Christian Coalition, saying "there is always room for more people who want to start organizations," the article doesn't really contain any particularly new or revealing information, with the exception of this key quote:

Reed said his organization is looking to be more inclusive by reaching out to Jews, Hispanics, blacks and any other group receptive to a fiscal conservative message.

"It's going to look different from the vehicles we have now. It's going to be younger, it's going to be more strident," he said. "It's going to be principled but less ideologically reflexive. And it's going to have a broader issues agenda."

How exciting. A “broader” and "more strident" version of the Christian Coalition? I can't wait to see how that turns out.

• Haaretz: "Mike Huckabee plans to broadcast his weekend show on Fox News from the site of a disputed Israeli construction project in East Jerusalem, a New York politician has told Haaretz. New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind said Huckabee will air the talkshow during a solidarity visit to the site of the project, which is in the Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah."
• Associated Press: "An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by accepting private donations to pay her legal debts."
• In other Palin news, Vanity Fair provides her with the copy editor she so badly needs.
• Focus on the Family has a new blog.
• Finally, Carrie Prejean will be speaking at the Republican Party of Florida's "Drive the Discussion" event next month where she'll be sharing the stage with Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Krohn.

At a typical Randall Terry press conference one can expect to hear all sorts of overheated rhetoric about abortion – that it’s murder, that abortion clinics are places of "mass genocide," and so forth. But in recent weeks, he has amped up his rhetoric to insane new heights over the healthcare legislation before Congress, which he claims would pay for “child-killing.”

Earlier this week Terry called for the rejection of the bill and warned of "violent convulsions" of a level that hasn't been seen since the Civil War if the bill is passed

At today’s press conference, however, Terry was quick to point out that he has supposedly been a "non-violent" leader for 25 years, and he ridiculed those who accuse him and other right-wing leaders of "stirring up domestic terrorism”:

But when Terry predicted the consequences of passing the bill, he seemed to exalt in warning of “random acts of violence” and violent "reprisals against those deemed guilty":

We, for one, think it’s absolutely right to connect the dots between violent rhetoric and violent acts. 

To end on a lighter vote, if that’s possible, here is a clip of Terry doing his best impersonation of what I assume he would call a "whiny liberal": 

Last month, Mike Huckabee and his HuckPAC endorsed Les Phillip who is running for a seat in Congress representing District 5 in Alabama. Huckabee called him "a true American success story" and "an outstanding Conservative Republican who fully understands the important issues facing his district, his state and his country. His principles are the same as those of Huck PAC and me." As such, Huckabee was "pleased to endorse Les Phillip and urge you to support him and his campaign."

When Huckabee headlined an event for Phillips a short time later, Phillips glowed that it was a "complete success" ... but that was presumably before he realized that it had just cost him tens of thousands of dollars:

One of the most curious fundraising reports of the second quarter came from Republican Les Phillip, who is looking to challenge Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) in a top national race.

If you've heard of Phillip, it's probably because he welcomed former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to his district for a fundraiser during the second quarter, and Huckabee endorsed him.

It was an expensive endorsement.

According to his Federal Election Commission report, Phillip raised just $17,000 and spent more than $56,000 during the second quarter.

His disbursements include a $33,990 speaking fee for Huckabee, $600 for photography for the Huckabee event, $438 for a lunch with Huckabee, $6,233 for a stage rental and equipment (presumably for the Huckabee event), and a $2,350 facility rental fee (also presumably for the Huckabee event).

In other words, Phillip spent nearly $45,000 to raise less than $20,000 and took a major financial hit for the Huckabee event.

Perhaps the most painful part is the fact that he was forced to loan his campaign $50,000 in four installments after the event.

The purpose listed? A "Personal Loan from Les Phillip to cover general campaign expenses and Mike Huckabee event expenses."

Apparently, not all Republicans in Oklahoma are pleased with the spectacle that Rep. Sally Kern has been making of herself over the last year, at least according to an email that Brenda Jones, an active Republican in the state and owner of Jones PR, which describes itself as "Oklahoma's most senior-level team of experts accredited in national public relations," sent to Gary Jones, the Chairman and Executive Director of the Oklahoma Republican Party.

The email found its way into the hands of the Oklahoma Journal Record, which has posted it on line:

The Republican Party needs to do something about this.

About a year ago when you and I talked about the future direction of the Party, I stated that the Party needs to stay focused on economic growth, jobs, jobs, jobs, stay true to our anti-tax and pro-business platform. No Party, no group, no any person can ever win new members and sustain its base when the public image is single focused on legislating morality. Especially in these difficult times when people are losing jobs and retirement funds are vanishing, economic growth and a vision for a prosperous future is what will attract young people. This judgmental rhetoric on morality is exactly what repels people away from the Republican Party; and frankly, contracts our core principles for less government and liberty.

A year ago after Sally Kerns [sic] received national coverage on her “terrorist” comment, Oklahoma immediately lost 2 companies who were a week or two away from announcing they were moving to Oklahoma and bringing high-paying engineering and technology jobs.

I was horrified at the Republican National Convention when I personally witnessed her seeking CNN, FOX News and other national media cameras on the convention floor because I knew she would embarrass not only Oklahoma but the entire Republican Party with her inflammatory decisive rhetoric.

My great aunt and uncle built Olivet Baptist Church as members since the late 1930s. Now they are 90 years old and were forced to leave Olivet a couple years ago because they were made to feel that they were going to hell because they are registered Democrats, although they are strong conservatives who voted for Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. She and her husband are politicizing God’s pulpit. It is starting to look scary and a bit like that crazy church in Kansas. They are up to something, and it’s not good.

Gary, we can never build Oklahoma’s Republican Party as long as Sally is the face of our Party. Everyone keeps touting “Ronald Reagan.” As someone who worked for him very closely for 9 years and in The White House West Wing, he rebuilt and grew our Party by attracting Independents and Democrats by standing strong on economic issues and national security. Of course, he strongly opposed abortion and supported many family value issues, but he advocated for these issues from the heart and not a bully pulpit. For example, he strongly opposed the gay agenda. But from concern and compassion about the gay community’s health, he started a Presidential Commission on AIDS to bring healthcare and other leaders to the table to discuss how to stop the spread of AIDS and HIV for the common good of the country. President Reagan understood that his duty was to protect ALL Americans, although he may disagree with their life choices, which is their liberty that does not need government intrusion.

This is very damaging to Oklahomans, Oklahoma Republican growth, and the Republican Party at the national level. 

It's odd that Jones seems to rely so heavily on the memory of Ronald Reagan in criticizing Kern as the sort of thing that is keeping the state party from moving forward considering that one of Reagan's most famous axioms came to be known as the "Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

As Kyle and I have both previously noted, the Religious Right seems to be conveying the same message over and over through a series of redundant organizations that all speak to the same tired language. Maybe that's why the American Society in the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) has decided to broaden their message of intolerance to include not only gay couples, but some straight ones too.

Usually, the brunt of the Religious Right's anti-gay movement hits those in the gay community; gay individuals for simply being gay, and gay couples for "destroying the meaning of marriage" by choosing to be with someone they love.

However, via Americablog, we see that the American TFP recently begun their three-state "marriage crusade" in Maine, and, along with the usual anti-gay rhetoric, have started attacking a somewhat unconventional target: straight marriage.

That's right, along with claiming that gay marriage is harmful because a child wouldn't have a mother and father, the organization is arguing that any marriage performed at City Hall isn't a real marriage, either:

The group says gay marriage is harmful to society because children do not have a mother and father. They also claim that marriages performed at City Hall, without God present, are not really marriages.

For convenience sake, they are leaving the last part out during their "marriage crusade" in Maine. After all, they wouldn't want to upset a straight couple who got married in City Hall; their signature might be needed by Stand4Marriage Maine.

• Carrie Prejean joins the pantheon of right-wing authors who have secured book deals with Regnery Publishing.
• Richard Land disputes the notion that the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has lost influence with Senator Lindsey Graham due to the fact that he appears to be leaning toward supporting Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation.
• Focus on the Family's Jim Daly appears to be a big fan of The Civility Project.
• Brian Kilmeade has apologized for claiming that Americans don't have "pure genes" because "we keep marrying other species and other ethnics."
• Sen. Jim DeMint is getting a lot of attention for his "Waterloo" comment and I wonder if he took it from this column by Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center from earlier this month.
• Slavery = Abortion = Genocide - that seems to be the message of this Life Dynamics documentary called "Maafa 21":

As far back as 2007, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League had been calling John Hagee a "veteran bigot" for statements he had made about the Catholic Church, calling it, among other things ""The Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system."

When John McCain received Hagee's endorsement last year, Donohue was livid and demanded that McCain reject the endorsement, which McCain eventually did. But in the months in between, something odd happened: Hagee and Donohue became friends.

Hagee apologized to Donohue and Donohue was quite pleased with himself with how he had managed to make Hagee grovel:

It’s been going on for weeks. A lot of Catholic activist friends of mine and some evangelicals have been powwowing with [Hagee] in Washington. They asked me to meet with Hagee and I said no several times. I’m not interested in meeting with him until I get what I want, a public statement and apology that’s complete and speaks specifically to these black legends about Catholics-Jewish relations, and the Holocaust in particular. And once that’s accomplished, I’ll be glad to meet with him. Now that’s going to happen on Thursday.

Quite frankly, I didn’t think that I would get something this complete. What I did not want to get was this “If you’ve been offended, I’m sorry.” I wanted something more specific. There’s no substitute for personal interaction, when you have people sitting down with you and explaining how you’ve been hurtful. Now we can bury this hatchet. It’s rather dramatic….

What really got me offended was the idea of “I’m the purist Christian on the block” when he’s talking to Jews—“I’m not out there persecuting the Jews like all these Catholics.” I’m sure we’ve seen the last of that.

But once Donohue had been placated, the two became fast friends and alies.  And now Dan Gilgoff reports that Hagee is working closely with Donohue to expand the scope of his Christians United for Israel:

CUFI has recently stepped up outreach to Catholics. What precipitated that , and how is the effort going so far? What are your goals for that outreach?

Yes, we are reaching out to Catholics. These efforts started last year, during the presidential campaign, when Bill Donahue of the Catholic League claimed that I had slighted the Catholic Church while teaching from the Book of Revelation. He was mistaken on this point. But he and I handled this disagreement the way that Christians should. We met. We had fellowship. We learned from one another. A few months after the controversy, he came to our Washington, D.C., Summit as my guest. When I recognized him during my keynote address, he received a rousing ovation from our CUFI audience. I consider him a friend.

Bill and I decided that we should turn our personal reconciliation into a broader reconciliation. We decided to try to bring Catholics and Protestants together on behalf of Israel. Some of Israel's best friends and strongest defenders are devout Catholics. They should be a part of this movement.

Interestingly, Hagee insists that he and Donohue buried the hatchet after he explained that Donohue was "mistaken" about what he had said about the Catholic Church, whereas Donohue insisted that they did so after Hagee had abjectly apologized for his past statements. 

So which was it?  I'd like to know.

Not that I'll ever find out, mind you, because I am undoubtedly among those whom Hagee insists "believe some of the lies that were told about me during the campaign [who were] probably not my friends to begin with."

With only five days until the deadline for Protect Marriage Washington to turn in the 120,577 signatures needed to get Referendum 71 on the November ballot, it looks like they have a long way to go. If the organization obtains enough signatures, however, Referendum 71 would give voters the option of repealing Washington's "everything but marriage" law, which gives domestic partners full marriage benefits without the title of "marriage."

In a blog post last week, however, Gary Randall, the lead organizer of Protect Marriage Washington, noted that they would need roughly 150,000 signatures by the deadline, due to the fact that with any petition drive a substantial amount of signatures will be ineligible:

Organizers have until July 25 to turn 120,577 valid signatures in to the Secretary of State's office. Lead organizer Gary Randall reports that more than 75,000 signatures have been received so far. "We think this is good news. However, it points out exactly how much work is left to do in just two weeks," Randall announced on his "Faith & Freedom PAC" blog last week. "We need at least 150,000 signatures to ensure that we have the 120,577 necessary. There are always some signatures that are disqualified for various reasons."

With so many signatures left to obtain, it is surprising that Randall didn't pay closer attention to two polls that he commissioned. They actually show that voter support for gay marriage is on the rise in Washington:

The survey asks, “In your opinion, should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry?” Here is how the 405 Washington voters answered:

Yes — 43%
No — 50%
Didn’t know or no answer — 7%

Conducted by Elway Research, the poll shows an unmistakable trend of growing support for marriage equality. Another poll paid for by Faith and Freedom and conducted by Elway Research in 2005 found that only 35 percent of voters supported allowing gays and lesbians to marry (.pdf).

More important, however, is the fact that Protect Marriage Washington isn't even fighting a marriage equality law―the law simply extended marriage benefits to those in domestic partnerships. That hasn't stopped the group from falsely claiming that the law will give Washington same-sex couples the right to marry. Here's an ad, now posted on their website, that ran in opposition to the law last year:

Religious Right legal groups seem to have developed quite a little niche for themselves in representing former lesbians who decide that their former partners ought to have no access to the children they had raised together.

The Liberty Counsel has been involved in at least three such cases in recent months and now it looks like the Alliance Defense Fund is getting into the act as well:

A Utah court has ruled that a 2-year-old child’s right to his mother outweighs the demands of a woman unrelated to the boy who sought parental rights. ADF-allied attorney Frank D. Mylar represented the boy and his mother, a woman who ended her relationship with the other woman and is now married.

“The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger,” said Mylar. “The court correctly ruled that this little boy’s right to his mother under state law is of far greater value than the wishes of someone who has no legal relationship to the child.”

The Salt Lake Tribune provides the necessary details on this case:

Gena Edvalson tried for years to be a mom. So when her partner of six years, Jana Dickson, became pregnant through artificial insemination and gave birth to a boy in March 2006, nothing brought her "instantly more joy."

And nothing brought Edvalson more pain than a recent court ruling depriving her of a chance to even visit the child.

After all, she had eyed every ultrasound. She had read Little Quack to "the little guy" when he was inside Dickson's womb. She had clicked on a flashlight throughout his first night home from the hospital to check on the sleeping babe.

Both Salt Lake City women, were "mama" and -- with the help of lactation medication for Edvalson -- both breast-fed the newborn.

But the two split up when the boy was 17 months old and last week, after a yearlong legal fight, Edvalson was cut off from any contact with the 3-year-old she loves as a son. A 3rd District judge, citing a 2008 Utah law, upheld Dickson's "fundamental" right, as the biological parent, to refuse visitation.

...

There is no next step in getting to see her boy again, Edvalson said. "The next step is [Dickson] doing the right thing. I have no legal recourse."

What is remarkable about this particular case is that Dickson doesn't appear to have become a born-again Christian, as has been central to most of the other cases we have read about, though her ADF attorney insists that she has. For her part, Dickson claims she is a "stronger believer than ever" in the right of lesbians to marry and adopt and the dispute appears to have stemmed mainly from hostility between the two women due to the break-up, at least judging by the press coverage.

Regardless, it is safe to assume that there is absolutely no way that ADF would have gotten involved in a similar visitation dispute between a former straight couple, and since the organization seemingly had no reason step in to this case on religious grounds, it seems that, in essence, ADF got involved simply to further its own anti-gay agenda.

I know I shouldn't be shocked buy this sort of thing - especially since ADF was recently involved in the (unsuccessful) effort to get a foster child removed from her lesbian parents in West Virginia - but I still find the Religions Right's willingness to destroy family relationships in the name of "protecting family values" utterly repulsive.

• Steve Benen takes a look at how the American Conservative Union sells its principles to the highest bidder.
• On a semi-related note, Conor Friedersdorf has a good post on how Human Events shills for obvious scams.
• TPM reports that infidelity seems rampant among those who inhabit the house on C Street, this time involving former Rep. Chip Pickering who, by the way, was recognized as a "True Blue" member of Congress "for supporting public policy that values human life, protects our religious liberties, and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family" by the Family Research Council Action and Focus on the Family Action last year.
• Alan Colmes provides a handy chart demonstrating how Frank Lutz controls Republican messaging.
• Box Turtle Bulletin: "Lying About The Hate Crime Bill, #2."
• On a related note, we released out latest Right Wing Watch In Focus yesterday entitled "As Senate Prepares to Take Up Hate Crimes Bill, Far Right’s Inflammatory Claims Should Not Be Taken Seriously":

Anti-gay organizations have been fighting the steady advance of federal hate crimes legislation with rhetoric that is increasingly unhinged from reality. When the U.S. House of Representatives passed a hate crimes bill on April 29 with a bipartisan 74-vote margin, Religious Right leaders and some of their congressional allies were inspired to new heights (or depths) of literally incredible accusations.

One of the points I have tried to drive home regarding the Religious Right's purported opposition to the current hates crimes legislation is that they don't actually oppose hate crimes in general, they just oppose offering protection to gays. 

They claim that hate crimes laws give certain groups "special rights" and are therefore discriminatory.  If that is indeed what they believe, then the logical position for them to take would be to call for the complete repeal of all existing hate crimes laws, such as the federal law that provides protections for things like race and religion. 

But they haven't offered to forgo the "special rights" they receive as Christians or even bothered to acknowledge this basic fact, choosing instead to harp on the addition of "sexual orientation" to the existing law as somehow a threat to their religious liberty.

Well, Dan Gilgoff has written a piece taking a look at the Right's scare-tactics about this legislation and points out that they are all completely unfounded:

Legal experts note that under the hate crimes bill, a person's religious beliefs about homosexuality become relevant only once he or she is accused of a violent crime against someone from the LGBT community. The bill prohibits a defendant's religious expressions and associations from being introduced as substantive evidence at trial, though the information can be used to help determine whether the defendant was motivated by bias. "Your penalty is being enhanced because of your religious beliefs," says Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School. "But you're being prosecuted for the crime."

Proponents of an expanded hate crimes law say religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny if they lead to violence. "Even the strongest proponents of religious freedom do not claim that religious liberty means the right to beat people up," says Prof. Andrew Koppelman of the Northwestern University School of Law.

Conservative religious activists, meanwhile, point to recent developments in Australia, Canada, and Sweden, where religious conservatives have been penalized for so-called hate speech, even where such speech did not lead to violence. But legal scholars note that those countries lack the robust free speech protections of the First Amendment. And even opponents of expanding the hate crimes law acknowledge that statutes widely adopted by individual states have not resulted in litigation over religious liberty or free speech violations—though many cover the LGBT community. "If somebody had been prosecuted simply for speech, we would have heard about it by now," says Laycock.

So why has the Right been so vehemently opposed to this legislation?  Mainly because, as Tony Perkins admitted last month, their real fear is that if protection for gays are added, it would make gays "equivalent to other categories of protection" and, if that happens, the Religious Right's anti-gays views will be seen as "equivalent to racial bigotry."

And Erik Stanley of the Alliance Defense Fund basically admitted it to Gilgoff as well: 

As religious conservatives mount a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, however, legal experts say the legislation narrowly focuses on violent acts and that pastors' speech remains protected by the First Amendment. And some religious activists acknowledge that they're less concerned about the immediate effects of expanding hate crimes protections than about the broader message it sends. "This is the first time you would have written into law a government disapproval of a religious belief held by the majority of Americans—that homosexuality is sinful," says Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "It's more of a slippery slope argument than about the law itself."

They are afraid that as society progresses and being gay become increasingly acceptable, their right-wing views are going to become less acceptable.

In short: the more mainstream gays become, the less mainstream the Religious Right becomes ... and that is what they fear more than anything.

• Exodus International has announced a merger with Transforming Congregations, an ex-gay ministry affiliated with the United Methodist Church, and OneByOne, a similar ministry affiliated with the Presbyterian Church.
• Jane Chastain: "Sarah Palin is not a politician. She is a statesman."
• Gary Bauer's Campaign for Working Families has made a $5,000 donation to Virginia gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell's campaign.
• To the surprise of exactly nobody, the NRA has announced its opposition to Sonia Sotomayor.
• On a related note, Manuel Miranda is going to be so angry.
• Finally, Wiley Drake is overjoyed about being named the "World's Worst Person" by Keith Olbermann.

Yesterday, Joe Sudbay took a look at the first campaign finance report in the Maine marriage campaign that was released yesterday and found out that national Religious Right groups were dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the fight.

Today, the Lewiston Sun Journal took a look as well and concluded that "the group hoping to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law has out-raised the measure's proponents by more than two to one":

Stand for Maine Marriage, the group leading the effort for repeal, raised a total of about $343,000 from nine donors as of July 5, the end of the reporting period.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland contributed $100,000, the Knights of Columbus of Washington, D.C., chipped in $50,000 and Focus on the Family, a Christian group based in Colorado Springs, Colo., donated $31,000 to the political action committee seeking to repeal the gay marriage law.

Nearly half of the group's fundraising, $160,000, came from the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey-based group established in 2007 "in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures," according to its Web site.

While Stand for Marriage raised more than $340,000, Maine Freedom to Marry raised about $138,000 - but the amazing thing is that of the donations brought in by Freedom to Marry, $80,000 came from residents of Maine. 

Guess how much of the money raised by Stand for Marriage came from Maine residents?

The campaign finance report also shows four Maine citizens contributed a total of $400 to the cause.

$400?  That means that, out of the total amount raised, the amount donated by actual residents of Maine to the effort constituted a whopping .1%, whereas the amount donated by Religious Right groups like NOM and FOF made up the other 99.9%.

I can't wait to see how this right-wing effort manages to spin this and produce ad claiming to speak on behalf of Mainers who want to protect "traditional marriage" considering that actual residents of the state don't seem to support the effort at all.

It looks like yet another group from the religious right plans to take their show on the road. The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) will be launching what they call a "traditional marriage crusade" in three states: New York, Maine, and Rhode Island.

The American TFP is a standard right-wing organization and plans to use the same tired right-wing tactics in their "crusade." It will be filled with the usual anti-gay rhetoric, along with a handout that "offers 'Ten reasons why homosexual 'marriage' is harmful and must be opposed."

"Like counterfeit currency, homosexual 'marriage' is not true marriage. It is morally wrong, sinful, offensive to God and a violation of natural law,"

"Parents don't want their children in grade school to be told that the homosexual lifestyle is fine, but that's already happening," said Ritchie. "It's part of the homosexual movement's concerted effort to force the sexual revolution into the mainstream culture and banish God and His law from the public square."

Be sure to find a "crusade" near you.

• The American Center for Law and Justice has managed to pressure the Connecticut Department of Children and Families into taking down part of its web site describing a program to train care givers on the needs of gay young people.
• Michael Steele knows what it takes to win more African American converts to the GOP: collard greens, fried chicken, and potato salad.
• The Washington Post profiles Randall Terry.  The article is pretty informative and entertaining so you should be sure to read it.
• For the record, I would just like to note that Janet Porter's Faith 2 Action website has an entire section dedicated to the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate and citizenship.
• MassResistance continues to allege that Google is "blocking" its blog.
• The Right keeps trotting out its standard hate crimes lies in order to oppose anti-bullying legislation.
• It is worth noting that Alveda King is asserting that her uncle, Martin Luther King Jr., was not a Republican, in contrast to various right-wing claims that he was:

“Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican or Democrat,” said Alveda King, who was previously elected to the Georgia House as a Democrat, but later appointed to state and federal commissions by Republicans. “But everybody uses Martin Luther King Jr.’s name for their own benefit.”

Interestingly, there had been next to no media coverage of the new Committee for Justice ad likening Sonia Sotomayor to William Ayres and claiming that she supports terrorists until Charlie Savage finally wrote about it on the NYT's "The Caucus".

Savage got CFJ's executive director Curt Levey on the record defending the ad and revealing that it "was written by Chris LaCivita, who also helped create the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ads against Senator John F. Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee."

What am I not surprised? As Savage noted:

The Swift Boat ads were riddled with unsubstantiated charges and led to a new political term for smearing a political opponent with lies: “swift-boating.”

But Levey makes no apologies for the ad or for trying to swift-boat Sotomayor while Savage does a good job of explaining the incident on which CFJ hangs its allegation that she "supports" terrorists: 

Mr. Levey acknowledged that the ad presented a “caricature,” but it defended it as “factually true.” He said it was a reference to a 1990 controversy in New York City surrounding a visit by Nelson Mandela, shortly after the South African leader’s release from nearly three decades in prison under white Apartheid rule.

As he prepared for Mr. Mandela’s visit, then-New York City Mayor David Dinkins made headlines when he spoke critically of Puerto Rican separatists who, in 1954, had stormed the United States House of Representatives and opened fire, wounding five Congressmen.

Three of those men, who were later pardoned by President Jimmy Carter, were scheduled to appear alongside Mr. Mandela at a rally in Harlem. But Mr. Dinkins called them “assassins” and said they should not be conflated with Mr. Mandela’s cause.

In response, the then-president of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Ruben Franco, said Mr. Dinkins’ comments lacked sensitivity and a sense of history, according to a June 16, 1990, New York Times article about the incident.

“He doesn’t recognize that to many people in Puerto Rico, these are fighters for freedom and justice, for liberation, just as is Nelson Mandela, who himself advocated bearing arms,” Mr. Franco was quoted as saying.

Mr. Levey argued that it was accurate to accuse Judge Sonia Sotomayor of “supporting violent terrorists” because she was a member of the board of the legal defense fund at the time that Mr. Franco made that remark.

Mr. Levey said he had toned down the Sotomayor ad from the original proposed version, which said “defended’ instead of “supported,” because he thought that the word “defended” would misleadingly suggested that the fund represented the terrorists in court.

Mr. Levey said the goal of the ad was to be provocative in order to draw more attention to Judge Sotomayor’s ties to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, where she was a board member from 1980 until she resigned to become a federal judge in 1992. He said the group had taken “radical” positions on issues like affirmative action, the death penalty, and abortion.

You know, it takes an amazing level of cluelessness to try and take credit for having "toned down" an ad which accuses a sitting federal judge and Supreme Court nominee of supporting terrorists. 

In honor of the Committee for Justice's most recent ad basically accusing Sonia Sotomayor of being a terrorist, I thought I'd dust off the ol' archives and take a look back at the ads CFJ put together during the Bush administration.

Like these newspaper ads they ran accusing Democrats of blocking Bill Pryor for religious reasons:

And the accompanying radio ad:

Why are some in the U.S. Senate playing politics with religion?

As Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor regularly upheld the law even when it was at odds with his personal beliefs. Raised a Catholic, those personal beliefs are shared by Rhode Islanders all across the Ocean State.

But some in the U.S. Senate are attacking Bill Pryor for having “deeply held” Catholic beliefs to prevent him from becoming a federal judge. Don’t they know the Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for public office?

Bill Pryor is a loving father, a devout Catholic, and an elected Attorney General who understands the job of a judge is to uphold the law – not legislate from the bench. It’s time for his political opponents to put his religion aside and give him an up or down vote. It’s the right thing to do.

Thank Senators Chafee and Reed for making sure that the Senate stops playing politics with religion.

Paid for by the Committee for Justice and the Ave Maria List

And who can forget this great ad in support of Miguel Estrada:

America is a monument to the willing, where we can dream and build, despite race creed or color. But there's still intolerance.

President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to be the first Hispanic ever to serve on the Federal Appeals Court in Washington. But the radical left says he's not liberal enough. For the first time in history they're blocking his nomination with a filibuster.

Call your senators. Tell them it's time for intolerance to end. Anything less is offensive, unfair and not the American way.

Or this one in support of Janice Rogers Brown:

When Janice Rogers Brown, the daughter of a sharecropper, said she'd become an honor student and finish high school, some people said no way.

When Janice went to college and said she'd work her way through law school as a single mother, again they said no way.

Today President Bush wants this highly qualified Judge on the DC Federal Court of Appeals, the second highest court in America, and now John Edwards says no way.

Shame on you, Sen. Edwards.

Support the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown.

So, in summary, the Committee for Justice's positions seems to be:

Bill Pryor - loving father, devout Catholic, terrific judicial nominee.

Miguel Estrada - conservative, Hispanic, epitome of the American dream, terrific judicial nominee.

Janice Rogers Brown - daughter of a sharecropper, honor student, single mother, terrific judicial nominee.

Sonia Sotomayor - terrorist. 

I have to say that Alan Colmes’ decision to leave his position on “Hannity and Colmes” is just about the best thing to ever happen … at least for me personally. And the reason is because he now has time to dedicate to interviewing fringe right wing figures on his radio program, much to my delight.

Take, for instance, this two-fer he pulled off yesterday where he interviewed Norma McCorvey (AKA, Jane Roe) to discuss her arrest during Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing and Orly Taitz to discuss her representation of U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, who is contesting his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President.

The Taitz interview is pretty much what you would expect: an exercise in insanity. Taitz flat-out dismissed Colmes' attempts to explain that Obama’s birth certificate has been made public and calls the people at Factcheck.org a “bunch of yahoos” for trying to explain as much.  Then, when Colmes asked her why she disliked the term “birther,” she replied by asking him if he likes the term “moron” because that is what she calls those who buy into Obama’s lies about his eligibility. She then said that all the name-calling is “retarded” … and that the judges who have thrown out her cases are “idiots" before alleging that there has been “one hundred times more fraud committed by Obama than [Richard] Nixon”:

That was crazy enough, but Colmes’ interview with McCorvey is unlike anything I have ever heard.

In it, she explained that she fell asleep during Sen. Al Franken’s remarks (because he was soooooo boooooring) during the opening of Sotomayor’s hearings and then work up and decided to just disrupt the proceedings so she could get her point across. Amazingly, McCorvey doesn’t even seem to know what state Franken represents (she says he’s from Michigan and calls him a “pirate” for stealing all those votes from poor Norm Coleman) and, more amazingly, doesn’t even seem to know Sotomayor’s name, calling her “Sotomotor” even after Colmes’ properly pronounced her name.

She then went on to assert that she had to protest because Sotomayor supports reproductive choice and when Colmes pointed out that very little is actually known about Sotomayor’s views on the issue and cites a case in which she ruled on procedural grounds against a challenge to President Bush’s Mexico City Policy, McCorvey said that was several years ago and that “she’s changed” since then. When Colmes asked her what evidence she has that Sotomayor has “changed,” she asserted that it’s obvious that she has changed because “she’s lived in liberal New York for all these years.”

Eventually, she admitted that she would oppose anyone that Obama nominated and, as Colmes valiantly tried to get her to provide some evidence that Sotomayor had “changed,” McCorvey just continued to insist that she had … until she reached the point where she was proclaiming that she wouldn’t be surprised if Sotomayor had Obama’s blood running through her veins – literally.

You absolutely have to listen to this:

God bless you, Alan Colmes.

• Want to watch a live 36 minute conversation between Carrie Prejean and Miles McPherson regarding Prejean's downfall? You're in luck.
• Sen. John Ensign says that not only will he not resign in light of his affair and his parents’ payout to the woman’s family, but he plans to seek reelection when his term is up in 2012.
• Sen. Jim DeMint believes that only he can save the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
• Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele addressed the NAACP’s centennial convention, explaining the move was the first of his “baby steps” in his effort rebuilding the GOP’s relationship with black America.
• Finally, Birther Queen Orly Taitz claims that her efforts are gaining traction, though they really aren't and has expanded her efforts to include representing an Army Major who says Obama cannot deploy him to Afghanistan because he's ineligible to be president.

Last week I mentioned that the National Taxpayer Protest is scheduled for September 12.  Hosted by a variety of right-wing and anti-tax groups like the National Taxpayers Union, Americans For Tax Reform, Young America’s Foundation, The Club for Growth and many others, the effort seeks to bring millions of Americans to Washington D.C. for an organized and centralized TEA party-like protest:

It’s time to take the tea party movement directly to Washington, D.C. Please join thousands of local organizers and grassroots Americans from across the country as we gather in our nation’s capital to deliver a message to the politicians: Enough!

We’ve had enough of the out of control spending, the bailouts, the growth of big government and the soaring deficits. And we reject the future tax increases to pay for all of this spending and debt down the road. We are gathering on 9-12-2009 to deliver our message in person that we’ve had enough!

And they have some pretty big plans:

"Our mission is to present a unified voice of concern over the current administration's policies regarding taxation, our economy, foreign and domestic policy, as well as our individual constitutional rights as American citizens," said Grassfire national coordinator Darla Dawald in an open invitation to the public to join the Sept. 12 taxpayer march in Washington, D.C. "America is in trouble, the problems and issues are broad and complex and it will take a monumental effort to stop, change and reverse the destructive course that this administration and Congress has put us on. Together, We the People can effect that change!"

On Sept. 10 and 11, the groups will host grassroots training seminars and Sept. 11 "We'll Never Forget" memorial. The taxpayer march is scheduled to begin at the Lincoln Memorial at 10 a.m. Sept. 12 and culminate with a rally at 1 p.m. in front of the Capitol.

The National Taxpayer Protest website offers detailed information on travel and hotel accommodations, including directions to the event. Tea party attendees may RSVP there as well.

More than 9,000 people have already registered through the protest website, and the number is growing rapidly.

"Obama managed to have 4 million show up at the Capitol grounds," Dawald told WND. "We need to do the same if not more. The financial situation is dire, but as one gentleman said, 'If I have to sell my belongings and crawl there, I will – because it's that important!'"

I assume that when Dawald says Obama had 4 million show up at the Capitol, she's referring to the crowd that attended his inauguration, although the estimated size for that event was actually only 1.8 million.

But heck, if they want to set 4 million attendees as their goal, who am I to complain?

And frankly, with a thrilling proposedl line-up like this, I can't see how they could possibly fail to reach that lofty goal:

Invited Speakers and Guests (for the 3 day event) Include:

Dick Armey - FreedomWorks (CONFIRMED)
C. Boyden Gray - FreedomWorks (CONFIRMED)
Steve Forbes - FreedomWorks Foundation
Yaron Brook - Ayn Rand Center for Individual Liberty
Chris Chocola - Club for Growth
Grover Norquist - Americans for Tax Reform
John Tate - Campaign for Liberty
Mike Tanner - Cato Institute
Dan Mitchell - Cato Institute

John Stossel
George Will
Tucker Carlson
Michael Barone
M. Stanton Evans
Thomas Sowell
Andrew Napolitano
Thomas Woods
Peter Schiff
Michelle Malkin
Glenn Reynolds
P.J. O’Rourke
Drew Carey
Andrew Breitbart
Jonah Goldberg
Penn & Teller
John Allison
John Mackey
Dennis Miller
Rick Scott

Sen. Jim DeMint
Rep. Ron Paul
Rep. Jeb Hensarling
Rep. Jeff Flake
Rep. Doug Lamborn
Rep. Virginia Foxx
Rep. Marsha Blackburn
Rep. Tom Price
Rep. Scott Garrett
Rep. Mike Pence
Rep. Michele Bachmann
Rep. Paul Broun
Rep. Todd Tiahrt
Rep. Tom McClintock

Glenn Beck - Fox News
Neil Cavuto - Fox News
Laura Ingraham
Mark Levin

Is it just me or does it seem like every other week there is a new Religious Right organization launched in order to save America from its descent into godlessly immoral socialism?

In March we saw that birth of The Faith and Freedom Institute, founded to "lead America back to the knowledge of God in order to save the nation from the judgment of God."

That was followed by Newt Gingrich's Renewing American Leadership effort, which has ties to David Barton and Don Wildmon, and is designed to bring together economic conservatives and social conservatives for the common good.

Those were followed by the creation of the American Principles Project, led by Robert P. George, the Princeton professor who is also Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, which proclaimed itself the vehicle through which "millions of American voices raised in unison in defense of political liberty and economic freedom, the sanctity of human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, and the sovereignty and security of our nation" would be turned into political action.

These efforts continued in June, with Lou Engle's Call to Action, which aims to "redefine voting" for the next generation as a "prophetic act" and train them that they don't vote Democrat or Republican but vote "moral absolute truths," creating a mass army of young, motivated Christian voters who will pledge never to vote for a candidate who is not anti-choice, thereby creating a "spiritual revolution [and] training a generation to seize technology and turn the tide."

That was then followed by The Faith and Freedom Coalition, through which Ralph Reed aims to reclaim the Religious Right's former glory by starting launching an organization "committed to educating, equipping, and mobilizing people of faith and like-minded individuals to be effective citizens. Together we will influence public policy and enact legislation that strengthens families, promotes time-honored values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, lowers the tax burden on small business and families, and requires government to tighten its belt and live within its means."

Just a week after Reed's effort was made public, a coalition of Religious Right groups announced the formation of The Freedom Federation, an effort to re-brand the movement and over its "image problem"  while remaining "committed to defending and extending core values expressed in the Declaration of American Values, the organization's founding document. These include the right to life, the institution of marriage, parental rights, religious liberty, an environment free of pornography and indecency, the right to property, freedom from excessive taxation, and national sovereignty."

With six news Religious Right groups formed in the last several months, all with very similar missions, you'd think there wouldn't really be much room left for any more new groups to form ... but you'd be wrong:

Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., former spokesperson and a top leader for the Christian Coalition, has launched a new organization -- S.T.A.N.D. [Staying True to America's National Destiny] -- to unify Christians and other conservatives around social and economic issues. However, Bishop Jackson is taking a different approach. "We are mainly interested in impacting the culture," says the Bishop. "Political victories can be reversed, but cultural change is lasting."

Their first major initiative is to make January "AMERICAN HISTORY MONTH". Says Bishop Jackson, "One of the reasons we lack unity in America is that the Judeo-Christian heritage and values which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us are under attack. Our heritage is lied about, suppressed and ignored in the push toward secularism and relativism. It is being done in Universities, public schools and even by President Obama."

STAND's American History Month will celebrate the nobility of American history and our Founders and rebut the lie that America is born of racism, exploitation and capitalistic greed. American History Month will highlight the heroic sacrifice, bold initiative, pioneering spirit, selfless cooperation and faith in God that made America possible. STAND believes that this President is denigrating America's contribution to the world, denying the role of Christianity in our country, and falsely claiming that Islam is a major contributor to America's success. "What history books is the President reading?" asks Jackson.

STAND considers Obama to be symptomatic of the ideological and anti-Christian bias in the teaching of American history. Bishop Jackson asks, "How many people know that one of our war cries during the Revolutionary War was 'No King but Jesus'? Precious few, and apparently not the President."

STAND is also opposing Obama's healthcare reform, which it calls "a veiled government takeover of healthcare." Bishop Jackson argues, "If the government takes over healthcare, everything will be rationed except abortion. The conscience objection will be eliminated, and abortion will increase like a plague upon the land." STAND wants to end abortion in America. It is also against Cap & Trade as "an insane burden" on an already crippled economy. Its members are contacting their Senators to make their sentiments known on these issues.

Interestingly, the need to unite the Right has been the one constant theme of every new group that has emerged and, for several of them, it is their central mission and reason for existing.

But the fact that different people keep launching entirely separate groups - all with the same purpose - suggests that their individual efforts to bring unity to the movement do not seem to be working particularly well.

After disrupting yesterday's hearing, anti-choice protesters affiliated with Randall Terry are vowing more action:

Next on the agenda:

"Desecrate Roe" Event Details---

Where: Corner of 1st and C St., near Dirksen Senate Building entrance, Washington D.C.

When: 9:00 A.M., Tuesday, July 14

Who: Norma McCorvey, Randall Terry and other DC area leaders and pro-lifers

Pro-life advocates will gather at the Dirksen building at the corner of 1st and C St., to publicly desecrate the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision. Joining her will be Randall Terry, Missy Smith, and other local pro-life leaders.

Randall Terry states, "Victory over child-killing requires courage and leadership from 'pro-life' Senators from both parties. It is long overdue for so called 'pro-life' Senators to fulfill their campaign promises. They claim they want to overturn Roe; well, now is the time to see if they will defend the babies, or submit like cowards to Obama.

"Republican 'Pro-life' Senators bear special responsibility in this; they shamelessly prostitute Roe vs. Wade and babies lives. Does 'GOP' stand for 'Good Ol' Pimps'? Or will GOP Senators actually fight in this life and death struggle? They need to filibuster Sotomayor."

Will there be more arrests? To be seen...

Not to be outdone, Eugene Delgaudio and Public Advocate plan to be descend on Capitol Hill to create their own scene:

"Public Advocate's Sotomayor's UnReality Tour" arrives in Washington Tuesday to show what a world according to Judge Sonia Sotomayer would look like if she were a Supreme Court judge.

Lifeguards who can't swim. A doctor who flunked med school. A 3rd grade university president. Blind train conductors. Cooks who can't boil water. Lawyers who did not pass the bar exam but who are now judges.

Demonstrators will hold a sign "Sonia Sotomayor, Wrong on the firemen, wrong for America." Another member of Public Advocate will hold a sign with the words "Thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, I flunked med school and am now a doctor."

In related news, Randall Terry continues his broadsides against Republican senators:

"Does the 'GOP' stand for 'Good Ol' Pimps'? Republican Senators like Graham, Brownback, McCain, etc., have seduced the pro-life movement, made her their mistress, and then a prostitute. She gives them her 'favors' in exchange for empty promises.

"They pimp the pro-life cause, raising millions of dollars with promises to 'overturn Roe' and protect the unborn. The party platform - their false vows - calls for the overturn of Roe, and legal protection of unborn babies.

"But alas, we again see that these are seductive lies; and like any good pimp, they tell us that they love us, while they sell us out; they feign pain as we are abused and babies are murdered, while they prepare to get in bed with those who despise us, and slay the innocent.

"Our protests and rallies over the coming weeks will focus on GOP Senators who claim to be pro-life. We will call on them to stop pimping the babies, but rather to fight for them by filibustering Sotomayor."

Richard Viguerie claims that "Sotomayor's opening statement reflects she is already being defensive about the judicial philosophy she shares with President Obama."

Richard Land and the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission come out against Sotomayor:

Sonia Sotomayor’s record reveals that she is perfectly willing to lift the blindfold of justice to achieve her desired result. She is a judge with a terribly flawed view of the judicial system at best or a judge who simply doesn’t care what the law says at worst. She has constantly shown her lack of deference to the Constitution. She is the type of justice who instead of applying the law neutrally will redefine the law to conform to her policy preferences.

The bottom line is that Sonia Sotomayor is an unpredictable wildcard. Across the issues her record is either far too thin or hidden behind non-published orders and per curium opinions. Simply put, placing Sonia Sotomayor on the highest court in the land jeopardizes our nation’s commitment to equal treatment under the law.

The Family Research Council posts the Senate Policy Committee talking points in opposing Sotomayor while releasing its own list of questions it wants asked during the hearing:

Abortion and the Supreme Court

* Judge Sotomayor, while you were associated with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, it filed six briefs in five abortion-related cases before the United States Supreme Court. In every case, those briefs asserted that the Court should adopt an uncompromising, pro-abortion position. Do you now wish to express any disagreement with the content of the briefs that were filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund?

The Abortion Industry as Litigants

* Judge Sotomayor, do you believe abortion providers should be required to prove factual assertions they make in court when challenging abortion regulations?

* Judge Sotomayor, should redacted medical records be admissible, if needed by the court, to examine general medical claims about abortion?When should such records not be made available to the court?

* Judge Sotomayor, should prosecutors be permitted to subpoena and examine abortion facility records to determine whether state statutory rape laws have been violated or whether the facility is reporting potential crimes to the appropriate legal authorities?

Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life tells Lifenews that she is looking forward to testifying in opposition to Sotomayor:

“We are honored to have the opportunity to testify before the Judiciary Committee about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the highest court in the land," Yoest told LifeNews.com about her invitation.

"I am looking forward to sharing AUL’s extensive legal research about Judge Sotomayor’s record. In particular, her radical associations and judicial philosophy raises serious concerns in the pro-life community," she said.

Yoest is referring to Sotomayor's tenure with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, a group that has submitted numerous Supreme Court briefs arguing for an unrestricted right to abortion and claiming any pro-life limits are racist.

Although leaders with the group argue Sotomayor had no involvement in writing or approving the briefs, her longtime position as a member of its board of directors points to her support for the pro-abortion position the group took, Yoest maintains.

Yoest told LifeNews.com she plans to focus her testimony on making the connection for the senators and the American public between the positions taken by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund during her tenure on the Board and her judicial interventionist approach to the bench.

“Her PRLDEF record proves that she is an abortion advocate," Yoest says.

"That record includes opposition to parental notification, opposition to informed consent, opposition to bans on partial-birth abortion and support for taxpayer-funded abortions. These positions are far outside the mainstream of American public opinion," she explained.

And finally, Pat Buchanan continues to be ... well, Pat Buchanan:

The chutzpah of this Beltway crowd does not cease to amaze.

They archly demand that conservatives accord a self-described “affirmative action baby” from Princeton a respect they never for a moment accorded a pro-life conservative mother of five from Idaho State, Sarah Palin.

...

Sonia is, first and foremost, a Latina. She has not hesitated to demand, even in college and law school, ethnic and gender preferences for her own. Her concept of justice is race-based.

...

Even if Sotomayor is confirmed, making the nation aware she is a militant supporter since college days of ethnic and gender preferences is an assignment worth pursuing. For America does not believe in preferences. Even in the blue states of California, Washington and Michigan, voters have tossed them out as naked discrimination against white males.

• Media Matters catches Rush Limbaugh declaring that Sotomayor's "wise latina" remarks are "much worse" than George Allen's "macaca" comment.
• Is Kansas Secretary of State candidate Kris Kobach a birther?
• Get to know Audra Shay, the new Chairman of the Young Republicans.
• Pat Buchanan suggests that Todd Palin ought to drown Levi Johnston.
• Jed Lewison points out the Gov. Mark Sanford might lose his top-secret security status due to the fact that relationships with foreigners must be revealed. Needless to say, he did not reveal his.
• On a related note, Rachel Maddow continues her reporting on the secretive house on C Street.
• Finally, Pam Spaulding notes that The Southern Christian Leadership Conference is seeking to remove the president of its Los Angeles chapter due to his support for marriage equality.

When it was first reported last month that Ralph Reed was forming a new organization called The Faith and Freedom Coalition, Reed wanted it made clear that "this is not your daddy's Christian Coalition."

He vowed that this effort would be "more brown, more black, more female, and younger" and all-around hipper with a greater focus on using "third wave" technology to mobilize activists.

In shot, Reed sees himself as the Steve Jobs of the Religious Right, called in to turn around the movement that floundered after he left:

The party needs what he delivered in the 1990s, but with a 21st century update.

“Even though I’ve been doing other things, this is kind of like Steve Jobs returning to Apple,” Reed said.

When Jobs left the company he founded, Apple foundered. After he returned, Apple grew into an iconic firm that has captured the public’s attention in ways that all other tech firms wish to emulate.

“You have to reinvent it,” Reed said. “It’s the political analogue to the iPod and the iPhone. It would be cool. It would be transformative. It would transform our politics and bring younger people to our ranks. All of those are critical imperatives.”

...

[T]he Faith and Freedom Coalition was not, he said, his idea. After John McCain was beaten in 2008, Reed said, he started getting phone calls from close friends, “saying we really haven’t had anything that in an effective, focused way was energizing and turning out to the polls in large numbers conservatives and people of faith since you left" ... Still, Reed said, he wasn’t terribly interested.

“That was not on my list of things to do,” he said. “I’d been there, done that, got the T-shirt.”

But the more he thought about it, the more he agreed that “something needed to be done.”

Where the old Christian Coalition’s greatest asset was arguably the millions of voter guides handed out in churches across the country, the new Coalition will use the Internet as its information dissemination tool.

Attracting younger voters and activists, Reed knows, takes a robust Web-based campaign that uses the new gadgets and social networks that dominate young people’s lives.

But it also takes a hook, a rallying cry, a reason for being. In the 1990s, the Christian Coalition had that and more in the persona and presidency of Bill Clinton.

While Obama has not offered the same wedge that Clinton did —- no sex scandals, for example —- Reed is confident the lightning rod is there.

“This is the most far-reaching and extremist agenda being advanced across multiple fronts in a smaller amount of time than I’ve seen in my career,” Reed said.

From the very moment this effort was announced, it was Reed's name that made it news ... but now Reed is insisting that it is really not about him at all: 

Still, Reed said, this is not about him. And it’s not a comeback or a return to prominence.

“I don’t think it signifies anything for me,” Reed said. “I’ve become an elder statesman at 48, but I’m still doing what I was doing at 20.”

Reed said he’s less interested in being “the face of the movement,” and more in finding and training the next generation of conservative leaders, volunteers and activists.

Of course, if Reed is trying to stay out of the limelight, it might be helpful is he wasn't granting interviews in which he compares himself to Steve Jobs and declares that he is the only one capable of rebuilding the movement.

But it makes sense that Reed would not want to be "the face of the movement" given that he is inextricably linked [PDF] to imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  

It's going to take some deft maneuvering for the man who exploited the Religious Right movement he helped to create for the benefit of Abramoff's client's gambling interests to now resurrect that very movement.

Some people just can't keep their mouths shut. Less than two hours into Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, an onlooker can be heard shouting during Sen. Dianne Feinstein's opening remarks. The event was so disruptive that it resulted in Sen. Leahy calling for the police to remove the man, not before he can be heard slamming his gavel and issuing a stern warning for any others looking to mimick the disruption.

While it is difficult to make out, it seems the person yelled "Her record--What about the unborn. Abortion is murder! Stop the genocide of unborn Latinos", which came as Sen. Feinstein praised Sotomayor's judicial record.

Here's the video:

And, as I write this post, yet another person was removed from the hearings for yelling during Sen. Dick Durbin's opening remarks. Maybe this is the "new" Republican filibuster?

With Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing getting underway, the Right readies its attacks.

Manuel Miranda says "the Sotomayor hearings are a spotlight on the president who nominated her, and if the Republicans don't use it that way they are fools."

Yesterday, the Christian Defense Coalition held a prayer vigil outside the Supreme Court  while Randall Terry is planning more protests:

On Monday, a Sotomayor look alike will parade around with a "Sickle of Death," showing Sotomayor's support of the slaughter of unborn children. There will also be child coffins holding "dead babies."

Randall Terry States:

"We are tired of Senators using unborn babies to seduce pro-lifers before elections - taking pro-lifers' volunteer labor, money, and votes - only to cast us and the babies aside like an embarrassing mistress after an election. It is disgusting.

"Any pro-life Senator who votes for Sotomayor is turning their back on unborn children and continuing this holocaust. They can't say, 'I want to overturn Roe,' and then confirm a Supreme Court Judge who will uphold Roe. To do so is hypocrisy, cowardice, and treachery of the first order.

Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network lists some questions she want to see asked:

Does Judge Sotomayor believe the abortion industry should be excused from having to prove its case in court when it sues to strike down a duly-enacted abortion regulation?

Does she believe medical records are relevant and admissible as a general matter but not if they involve abortion?

Does Sotomayor have such great faith in abortion providers that she is willing to accept their verbal claims as fact and impose them as a matter of law?

The American Center for Law and Justice likewise wants to see "tough questions" asked:

“The Senate must fulfill its constitutional role in providing advice and consent and that means asking the tough, in-depth questions about Judge Sotomayor’s view of the Constitution and her judicial philosophy,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “What does Judge Sotomayor believe is the proper role of judges? How does she view her role as a judge? These are important questions that deserve straight-forward answers. A Supreme Court appointment is the lasting legacy of a President. And, as President Obama moves to reshape the federal judiciary, it’s critical that the American people understand the judicial philosophy and temperament of Judge Sotomayor. Let’s not forget the scope and intensity of questions posed to President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees – John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The questioning of Judge Sotomayor must be direct, focused and in-depth. The nominee must answer the questions clearly and without reservation. The American people deserve nothing less.”

Concerned Women for America is sending a letter to Senators asking them to oppose her nomination:

CWALAC President Wendy Wright said, "Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Rising from a poor childhood to being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor is a testimony to the opportunities and blessings of America. But as we investigate her record, we are struck by her unwillingness to allow others to have the same opportunities as she has had. Her record reveals she lacks the primary characteristic required of a judge: impartiality. She has used her position as a judge to deny equal opportunity to people based on their ethnicity. She worked with organizations that aggressively fought against basic human rights for preborn children and ethical rights to ensure women and girls are not coerced into abortion. After giving her the benefit of the doubt, her record of giving preferences to certain classes of people and denying equal justice to others obliges Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee to oppose her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. We urge senators to vote against her nomination.

The Traditional Values Coalition has released a "scorecard" containing "16 questions Americans must demand U.S. Senators ask Judge Sonia Sotomayor before approving her lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land."  The questions include [PDF]:

How can we expect her to rule impartially on the law and the Constitution when she considers herself a world citizen – and openly supports Obama’s political agenda? She has violated the code of conduct for judges and should be disqualified.

Does Judge Sotomayor still believe in the superiority of female Hispanic justices over justices of other races and sex?

Why did race disqualify Miguel Estrada from receiving Senate approval, but not Sonia Sotomayor?

Will Judge Sotomayor refrain from abusing her new power on the Supreme Court to bring about radical change in American society?

Finally, the Committee for Justice claims that Sotomayor is as unpopular as was Harriet Miers and unveils two ads calling for her defeat, with one contrasting her to Martin Luther King and another claiming she wants to "take away your guns":

• Kate Klonick explains that "more than one-third of the witnesses on the Republican’s list for Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing are lawyers and academics, who’ve based their careers on opposing affirmative action, and activists who have become symbols of the anti-affirmative action movement."
• The John Ensign saga keeps getting weirder and weirder.
• Jeremy wonders what anti-gay activists must say when they don't think anyone is listening.
• The Southern Poverty Law Center today urged Congress to investigate growing evidence that racial extremists are infiltrating the U.S. military and take steps to ensure that the armed forces are not inadvertently training future domestic terrorists.
• Think Progress reports that books written by President Obama are being banned from federal prisons on the grounds that they contain material “potentially detrimental to national security.”
• Media Matters: A day after Fox News host Greta Van Susteren debunked the "lying picture that's going around the Web" of President Obama purportedly "checking out" a young woman at a G8 photo shoot, Fox News continued to promote the insinuation that Obama had done so.
• Crooks and Liars: Bill O'Reilly vehemently insists "God and Country" rally "wasn't about religion," even though organizers admit that it most certainly was.

With hate crimes legislation scheduled to be voted on in the Senate next week, the Religious Right seems somewhat resigned to the fact that they do not have to votes to stop it or even slow it down, but that doesn't mean that they aren't trying.

Yesterday was apparently "National 'Stop S. 909' Day" during which "the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and other conservative activist groups [urged] their supporters to call, e-mail, fax, or visit their senators today to express their disapproval of S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Senate Bill 909)."

James Dobson and Tony Perkins discussed it on Dobson's radio program yesterday, with Dobson proclaiming that its passage would be used to silence pastors and Focus on the Family is calling on its activists to contact their senators and ""ask them to oppose S.909 or 'hate-crimes' legislation in any form."

Of course, as we've pointed out before, the Religious Right doesn't really oppose "hate crimes legislation in any form," they just oppose protection for gays.

But since it looks like they'll be unable to stop the legislation's passage, they appear to be turning their attention toward stopping efforts to amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to include bullying and harassment prevention program because it also provides protection based on sexual orientation ... and so they are trotting out the exact same bogus claims they used in opposing hate crimes legislation:

The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a so-called bullying bill that would require public schools to spell out special categories in their discipline policies, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."

Family advocates say it will pave the way for a pro-homosexual, adult-driven agenda in public schools.

The name of the bill is Safe Schools Improvement Act.

Focus on the Family's Education Analyst Candi Cushman explained that there is a way to deal with the issue in a fair and objective way, without sexualizing and politicizing the school environment.

"We recognize that bullying and the harm it causes in the lives of kids is tragic and shouldn't be allowed to happen," Cushman said. "We agree schools should be encouraged to have strong policies prohibiting bullying—applied equally and across the board, against any child for any reason."

She said parents need to keep a close watch on the progress of the bill, because if it passes, it could be used to undermine parental rights and local control.

"People need to realize that gay activists will use this federal mandate as the leverage they need to get promotion of homosexuality into public schools," Cushman cautioned.

Jeremiah Dys, president of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia, said the bill's language is taking the focus off of the real problem.

"A bully is a bully because he's a bully, not because of who he bullies," Dys said. "The rules ought to be enforced against the bullies regardless of who they're bullying or what actions he takes."

The Traditional Values Coalition has also come out against it by tying it into the Religious Right's crusade against Kevin Jennings, claiming it turn the nation's public schools into bastions of homosexuality:

If this legislation is passed, it will permit Jennings to spend millions of our tax dollars to push the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender agenda in schools under the guise of fighting “bullying” and allegedly promoting “school safety.”

...

Jennings will use millions of our tax dollars to push the promotion of lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgender behaviors upon hundreds of thousands of school districts throughout our nation.

Make no mistake: The Safe Schools Improvement Act is an ATM machine for the LGBT agenda. Issues about school safety and bullying are simply smokescreens to hide the real agenda.

Note the definitions of bullying and harassment. Under this bill, any gay or cross-dressing teen who is “bullied” or “harassed,” can claim protection. It includes a teen’s “actual or perceived” sexual orientation or gender identity (code for cross-dressers or transsexuals).

If a straight teen criticizes the sexual behavior of a gay or cross-dressing teen, he is guilty of bullying or harassment. This is a direct attack upon free speech.

Let's take a look at the definitions of bullying and harrassment, as TVC suggests, shall we:

(12) BULLYING- The term `bullying' means conduct that--

`(A) adversely affects the ability of one or more students to participate in or benefit from the school's educational programs or activities by placing the student (or students) in reasonable fear of physical harm; and

`(B) includes conduct that is based on--

`(i) a student's actual or perceived--

`(I) race;

`(II) color;

`(III) national origin;

`(IV) sex;

`(V) disability;

`(VI) sexual orientation;

`(VII) gender identity; or

`(VIII) religion;

`(ii) any other distinguishing characteristics that may be defined by a State or local educational agency; or

`(iii) association with a person or group with one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics listed in clause (i) or (ii).

`(13) HARASSMENT- The term `harassment' means conduct that--

`(A) adversely affects the ability of one or more students to participate in or benefit from the school's educational programs or activities because the conduct, as reasonably perceived by the student (or students), is so severe, persistent, or pervasive; and

`(B) includes conduct that is based on--

`(i) a student's actual or perceived--

`(I) race;

`(II) color;

`(III) national origin;

`(IV) sex;

`(V) disability;

`(VI) sexual orientation;

`(VII) gender identity; or

`(VIII) religion;

`(ii) any other distinguishing characteristics that may be defined by a State or local educational agency; or

`(iii) association with a person or group with one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics listed in clause (i) or (ii).

Bullying entails "reasonable fear of physical harm" and harassment must be "severe, persistent, or pervasive" but, just as they did with hate crimes, the Right is completely misrepresenting this legislation.

And notice also that they are not complaining about the protections included for religion or race - they are simply opposed to protections for gays.

It's becoming pretty clear that even after the hate crimes legislation is passed by Congress and signed into law, we can look forward to having the same exact fight over anti-bullying legislation, complete with the same exact right-wing scare-tactics and false claims.

• Mike Huckabee will be kicking off the Values Voter Summit.
• The GOP does not have a lot of celebrity supporters, so I really, really hope  that it makes good use of Victoria Jackson.
• I'm pretty sure that most of the Young Cons' "success" - as measured by YouTube views - has come from people who are mocking them.
• The Birther movement in Congress is picking up more supporters.
• Apparently, today was National "Stop S. 909" Day whereby the Religious Right mobilized to oppose hate crimes legislation. Strangely, outside of this one article, I could find no evidence that these groups were actually doing any mobilizing.
• Bishop Jackson says he'll soon be filing paperwork to launch a voter initiative, similar to California's Proposition 8, that would affirm marriage between a man and a woman in DC.
• Pat Mahoney and Rob Schenck delivered their official prayer ahead of Sonia Sotomayor's hearing.
• Charlie Crist has massively out-raised his primary rival, and darling of the social conservatives, Marco Rubio.
• Gary Bauer continues to insist that Sarah Palin's decision to suddenly resign was a brilliant move.
• The House of Representatives voted 399-1 for the Capitol Visitors Center to have a plaque acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol. The one "no" vote came from Rep. Steve King (R-IA) who insists he did so in order to protect America's Judeo-Christian heritage.
• Finally, who ever could have ever predicted that putting David Barton and other religious-right ideologues on the panel of experts responsible for setting Texas schools' social studies curriculum would lead to them asserting that civil rights leaders like César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall are given too much attention?

Last month, when the Department of Justice filed a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act in a California lawsuit, various gay rights groups and progressive bloggers were understandably outraged.

Now that the state of Massachusetts has filed its own lawsuit against DOMA, it is Mat Staver who is outraged ... not so much at Massachusetts, but with President Obama because Staver just knows that he is really the one behind the move:

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel believes that while yesterday's lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts, there are some political strings between there and Washington, DC.

"That's [Obama's] political preference [that DOMA be overturned]," Staver says. "There's no doubt in my mind, absolutely no question at all, that he and some of those in the Department of Justice are coordinating with individuals -- and perhaps even the attorney general in Massachusetts -- to literally bring these lawsuits and have a very weak defense so that the courts will ultimately overturn it without having the politicians and the president go on record showing that they are in favor of same-sex marriage."

Staver is apparently convinced that Obama and those in his administration put the Attorney General of Massachusetts up to filing a lawsuit against DOMA just so they could then throw the entire case by providing "a very weak defense" and thereby get DOMA overturned.

As such, Staver vows that he and Liberty Counsel are "not going to allow the Obama administration to tear down the nation's moral values" and announces that they "will vigorously fight this latest challenge to marriage."

Apparently the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito were great things for women in this country whereas the possible confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, an actual woman, would be a bad thing - at least that seems to be the message of the Women's Coalition for Justice:

Members of the Women's Coalition for Justice released the following statements in advance of the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor beginning next Monday.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, stated, "Women are best protected by the rule of law -- and blind justice. Their rights are most endangered when personal preference, ideology or painful personal history inform judgment ... Given what we know about Sonia Sotomayor's own judicial philosophy, including her support of policymaking from the bench, senators have just cause to reject her appointment to the United States Supreme Court."

Genevieve Wood, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, The Heritage Foundation ..."[Sonia Sotomayor's] statements raise grave concerns about whether she can truly be impartial and the current defense that she simply endorses including different perspectives doesn't hold water. The Senators must ask challenging questions to determine whether she believes that a wise woman can reach the same conclusion as a wise man, or whether she intends to bring bias, as she has suggested, even to most cases."

Connie Mackey, Senior Vice President for FRCAction ... Women think independently and most women will see that Sonia Sotomayor is a judicial activist who will use the courts to make policy reflective of her own personal judgments as opposed to ruling based upon the tenets put forth by the Constitution.

Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life remarked ... "Her record of activism in support of a radical pro-abortion agenda is clear and documented. This is a judge with a record significantly worse than Judge Souter's. We are asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to seriously consider the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court justice whose radical record shows she would rule against all common-sense legal protections for the unborn, including parental notification, informed consent and bans on partial-birth abortion. The American people will not tolerate a nominee who is outside the mainstream of American public opinion."

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee stated, "Sonia Sotomayor's record reveals she lacks the primary characteristic required of a judge -- impartiality ... After giving her the benefit of the doubt, her record of giving preferences to certain classes of people and denying equal justice to others obliges Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee to oppose her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor has disqualified herself from the U.S. Supreme Court. Senators need to set aside their party loyalty and do their Constitutional duty to uphold equal justice for all by opposing Sonia Sotomayor's nomination."

Not surprisingly, many of these same conservative women also participated in the "Women For Roberts" coalition which held a press conference at which they praised the fact that John Roberts "doesn't have a sexist bone in his body" as well as a “Women for Alito” press conference to make the case that "Samuel Alito possesses the capability, character and commitment to the law America needs in a Supreme Court justice, and he deserves a swift and fair confirmation."

So there you have it: the appointment of ultra-conservative men to the Supreme Court by President Bush greatly advances the interests of women, whereas the appointment of an actual woman by President Obama greatly undermines those interests and Senators have an obligation to uphold the rights of all women by rejecting the nomination of this particular woman.

• Michael Steele welcomes Sarah Palin to the national stage, saying "come on in. The water’s nice."
• South Carolina Mark Sanford has been censured by the South Carolina Republican Party while Media Research Center's Tim Graham complains that Sanford is being held to a double standard.
• Tucker Carlson says that, as a resident of the District of Columbia, he's perfectly "happy to have taxation without representation" because "let's be honest: The city's not ready for democracy, much less statehood." Apparently Tucker Carlson is now the arbiter on whether or not American citizens have right to democracy.
• Brian Camenker of MassResistance alleges that Google blocked his website during the same time frame as a recent gay pride parade in Chicago, which he calls a "suspicious coincidence."
• Randall Terry generates some coverage of the first stop on his "Filibuster Sotomayor" tour.
• Finally, Rev. Rob Schenck welcomed Sen. Al Franken to Washington today by asking him to "begin his tenure with an apology to the millions of Americans who self-identify as Christians."