Posts on Concerned Women for America

I've always wanted to launch my own grassroots political organization dedicated to protecting our Third Amendment rights, collecting donations, and then just sitting back while turning out glowing annual reports about how, thanks to our tireless efforts, no citizen was compelled to house soldiers in their place of residence during times of peace for 217 consecutive years.

While it is not quite as ingenious as my idea, it looks like the Media Research Center is launching it's own version of this sort of can't-possibly-fail initiative, as Alex Koppelman points out:

Whether they know it or not, the staff at the Media Research Center -- a conservative press watchdog -- seems to have hit upon an ingenious new strategy: make a big deal about getting involved in fights in which your enemy is nonexistent. You can't possibly lose!

Monday, the MRC announced the formation of the Free Speech Alliance, a group dedicated to fighting against the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, an old FCC regulation that mandated equal time for opposing viewpoints in opinion programming. The move was announced in a post on MRC's blog, Newsbusters, that was titled "The Free Speech Alliance Declares War on the 'Censorship Doctrine.'"

The MRC is also asking people to sign a petition against revival of the regulation. "In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can't stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day ... and would essentially take control of all forms of media," the group says in an introduction on the Web page that hosts the petition. On the same page, the MRC warns, "In recent months, the groundswell for reinstatement is intensifying. In fact, a growing number of liberal leaders in Washington, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have openly stated their intent to do so."

...

According to the MRC, Fairness Alliance member organizations include Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, Concerned Women for America and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

Of course this sort of right-wing effort to save America from the return of the Fairness Doctrine is almost guarantee to succeed without those involved having to do anything at al since, as Marin Cogan explains, there is no effort underway or desire whatsoever to actually reinstate it:

Today, the doctrine has almost no support from media-reform advocates. According to Mark Lloyd, co-author of the CAP report, "I don't think there's any movement [to restore the fairness doctrine] at all. ... We don't support it. " Craig Aaron of the media-reform group FreePress says, "[I]n reality, the fairness doctrine as it existed is never ever coming back."

Responses from the offices of most of the Democrats who have been pegged as fairness-doctrine proponents--Schumer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and others--have ranged from a firm denial that the issue is a priority at all to disbelief at finding themselves at the center of a manufactured controversy. "Somebody plucked this out of the clear blue sky," says the press secretary for New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat who was questioned about the issue by a conservative radio-show host a few weeks ago. "This is a completely made- up issue." Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has "no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view"--that the American people were served well under the doctrine--"and it's all been blown out of proportion." In fact, as recently as last year, the House voted by an overwhelming three-to-one margin to temporarily prohibit the FCC from imposing the dead policy; 113 Democrats voted to support the move.

Meanwhile, the president-elect himself has said in no uncertain terms that he does "not support reimposing the fairness doctrine on broadcasters." Republican paranoia is nothing more than that.

If anyone thought that right-wing anti-choice groups were going to spend any time licking the wound inflicted by the last election in which they saw several states reject their efforts to restrict the right to chose, think again:

"The election forces the pro-life movement to go back to what we do best — local grass-roots organizing," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. "We will not go silently into the night."

…

The overall outcome "brings about feelings of great disappointment, of anger," said the Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life. "But that disappointment and anger are forms of energy. ...I believe a lot of people on the sidelines for last eight years will now get engaged."

Pavone predicted that activists would stage more mass demonstrations and abortion-clinic vigils. He also said the election results shed light on the movement's weak points, and would prompt new efforts to register anti-abortion voters and mobilize clergy to be more outspoken in future campaigns … "We will do everything to be sure [the Freedom of Choice Act] fails — the damage it would do to the pro-life movement would be immeasurable," said Mahoney. "On the scale of 1 to 10, that's No. 11 of what our job is."

…

"Any time you have a loss like that, you have an opportunity to reassess and come back stronger," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. "If they want to see this as a big loss that will set us back, that's OK. Our people are very energized, and ready for Round Two."

This sentiment seems to be sweeping the Religious Right, with Students for Life of America pledging to be unstintingly vigilant and Deacon Keith Fournier vowing to be a part of a “massive resistance” that will not only fight reproductive choice but will end the “culture war” through mass conversion:

We seem to be at war within when we need to join together as one strong voice for life. The real source of the hatred of life is the Devil Himself. The challenge which those whom the late Servant of God John Paul II called “the people of life” face at this crucial time in the history of the West is nothing new. We have been here before in our 2000 year history. The Christian Church goes into Cultures of death and transforms them from within. We can – and we must – do it again in the Third Millennium. Ours is not really a call to a “Culture War” but rather a call to the Conversion of Culture through the conversion of minds, hearts, and lifestyles which will then lead to a transformation of the social structures of governance and way we live our lives together.

In fact, it looks as if the Right is almost welcoming the new Obama administration, sensing it will provide an opportunity for them to mobilize and energize their base as part of new “resistance movement”:

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said, "I knew, moments after the election results came in, that I was now part of the resistance movement." As part of its "movement," CWA has launched a nationwide telemarketing advertising campaign. In the ad, Wright says, "We face a president and Congress more hostile to unborn children, to marriage, to religious freedom, to free speech, to protecting our country than has ever existed in our history." According to Wright, the ad generated an immediate response of calls from religious conservatives asking "what they could do" to help, NPR reports.

Religious conservative leaders also have been scrutinizing Obama's speeches from the campaign trail for messages they can use to rally their base, NPR reports. In particular, they have publicized a speech Obama made last year to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in which he said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." The act -- which would need congressional approval before Obama could sign it -- would eliminate most federal and state restrictions on abortion. Gary Bauer, president of American Values, said of the speech, "I found myself thinking, 'My goodness, I can't believe he's going to make it this easy for us to rally our troops to get off the mat and get back to work.'"

And Clenard Childress, founder of BlackGenocide.Org, goes so far as to declare that the election of Barack Obama was the best thing to ever happen to the anti-choice movement:

With the election of Barack Obama, we now have a face to put on the abortion plague and a link to the leader of the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood. Despite our efforts, in reality, the time to make this connection was clouded by the notoriety of the first black president and a failing economy. The result is: people still don't know who Barack Obama is and many are now looking deeper into the president elect's life and associations. The truth is: knowing his defeat would only minimize this exposure to America, God has now set it up for a global impact of astronomical proportions.

I really need to stop taking vacations, because I end up missing out on entertaining arguments/easy blog fodder such as this absurd quote Michael Barone saying the “liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby” or this press release from Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America warning the media not to “dare [to] try to destroy Sarah Palin”  … because if they do, Crouse explains, they’ll all end up losing their jobs: 

Crouse concluded, "Sarah Palin, the newest star on the political horizon and the most natural campaigner since Ronald Reagan, is not only a Republican, she is also a woman.  She is not only a woman, she is a conservative woman.  She is not only a conservative woman, she is a Christian conservative woman.  It is entirely predictable, but unconscionable, that the media would consider her fair game for personal destruction.  They must realize, however, that their bias and distortions all but destroyed their credibility during the 2008 presidential campaign.  Now, major newspapers are cutting staff, network viewership is declining, and more and more people are bypassing the mainstream media in an effort to find the truth.  If the mainstream media continues with their politics of personal destruction, they are earning their own destruction."

It seems like jus a few weeks ago Crouse was offering unsolicited advice to Palin, telling her that her “life experiences and intuition” equipped her “just fine for the job” of Vice President and explaining that all she had to do was convince America that “you can be trusted, that you are honest, and that you are authentic.”

As I recall, all she ended up managing to do was convince America that she was not qualified to be president if necessary.

If you thought that Rod Parsley was going to drop out of politics after being humiliated by John McCain, think again.  Earlier this week, Parsley aired a special “election edition” of his program “Breakthrough” with special guests Janet Parshall and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.

Parsley opened the broadcast recounting fond memories of how “values voters” saved America during the 2004 election and declared that that was “only the beginning.”  He then turned the discussion over to Wright and Parshall to explain to his viewers why this upcoming election was even more important than the last.

Parshall, after calling Washington, DC “Babylon,” decried the “spiritual warfare” being waged against Sarah Palin, saying that if you “dare to proclaim to a watching world that you follow Christ Jesus, you have opened the gates of Hell” and suggesting that she is actually being attacked by Satan.  When Parsley asked her what the big issues of the election are, Parshall said the question is really “what are the big issues to God?”  As it turns out, the big issues to God just happen to be the same as the big issues to the Religious Right: abortion and gays.  

For her part, Wright urged Parsley’s viewers to elect candidates who will “follow the Biblical principles of how a nation should be governed.”  And, of course, the primary principle was abortion, which Wright compared to the Holocaust, as well as the future of the Supreme Court.

Parsley concluded the program by telling his viewers that it is their votes that will determine if this country will continue to allow the “unconscionable murder of unborn babies, whether it will “stand up for marriage as God intended and his Word declares,”  and whether it will continue to drift toward “silencing the voice of every single Christian.”

In short, it was “values voters” who saved the day in 2004 and it will be “values voters” again in 2008 who will “stop the downward spiral of decadence and immorality in our nation once and for all.”

David Brody reports that Religious Right activists are descending on St. Louis in order to offer their prayers and support to Sarah Palin before her big debate:

Starting tonight, Palin supporters will gather at the vice-presidential debate site in St. Louis and hold prayer rallies for her.

This effort is being put together by The Christian Defense Coalition. They have a track record of holding prayer vigils and pro-life demonstrations on the big political and religious issues of the day. The Brody File has been told that big time Evangelical heavyweight Phyllis Schlafly will be there along with some members of Concerned Women for America, the Defense of Life group, homeschool groups and many more. In addition a co-chair from the Republican Party of Missouri will be there though I am told these events are not officially sanctioned by the GOP.

Organizer Reverend Patrick Mahoney tells me that if Palin wasn't on the ticket they would not be holding rallies. But he says they want to make a loud and clear statement that she has energized the faith community in a real and tangible way. So they'll be specifically praying for her and the issues that they believe she is passionate about like the life issue, traditional marriage, etc.

The inclination here by the media may be to dismiss these pro-life people of faith as a sideshow. Or to simply say that they are just craving media attention. Not so fast.

What they will be doing the next two days is simply a microcosm of what will be taking place by many Evangelicals across the country. They are praying for Palin. Why? Because first of all, her faith journey resonates with them and additionally it is important to remember that these folks understand that for the first time in national politics they have a pro-life Christian woman who they believe represents their faith and values.

That is one way of putting it.  Another, more accurate, way of putting it would be to say that anti-abortion activists are descending on St. Louis to protest Joe Biden which is, after all, how they described it last week:

Operation Rescue and the Christian Defense Coalition have announced plans for demonstrations surrounding the Vice-Presidential debate to be held in St. Louis on October 2.

The groups, which are coordinating with Defenders of the Unborn, Concerned Women for America, and other pro-life groups, have planned events that will both support pro-life Republican vice presidential nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin, and stand in opposition to the pro-abortion Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden.

It’s kind of like how, back in January, the CDC announced it was hosting a “non-partisan prayer vigil” for all the presidential candidates in New Hampshire that was, in reality, an anti-abortion protest aimed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America is quite proud of her PhD, proclaiming herself “a recognized authority on sex trafficking, the United Nations, U.S. domestic issues, as well as national and international cultural, children's and women's concerns.”  Of course, it turns out that her PhD is actually in Communication Theory from the State University of New York at Buffalo, so how that makes her an expert on sex trafficking is hard to understand.

But now comes a situation in which her PhD is actually relevant and so she is offering debate advice to Sarah Palin:

Dr. Janice Crouse, political commentator for Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, is an expert on presidential communication.  The former presidential speechwriter (Bush 41) said, “In a move distinctly different from Eisenhower’s abandonment of Richard Nixon when he got in trouble with the press, John McCain (R-Arizona) invited Palin to his ranch in Sedona, Arizona, where she will spend two days preparing for the debate — thus sending a signal of his continued support for his veep pick and providing a haven where she will be able to regroup from the vicious attacks and regain her confidence before she faces the ultimate test of her candidacy.”

How chivalrous of McCain to protect Palin from the mean old press so that she can cram for a few days before her big test.  And what expert advice does Crouse have for her?

(1)   First and foremost, be yourself, and remember — as Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense — we are endowed with the intelligence to equip us for self-governance: the colonists didn’t need a monarch to rule them, Reagan didn’t need State Department geeks to tell him how to win the Cold War, and you don’t need inside-the-beltway pundits to tell you how to be Vice President.  Your life experiences and intuition equip you just fine for the job.

(2)   You don’t have to know everything or be an expert in foreign affairs; you are training for a debate, not a television quiz show like Jeopardy.  If you duck and dodge like the vast majority of Washington pols, you will not retain the public’s admiration (52 percent favorability rating even after all the attacks).

(3)   Counter Sen. Joe Biden’s (D-Delaware) phony talk about his blue-collar background with the facts regarding the elitism of the leftist ticket, focusing on Sen. Obama’s (D-Illinois) extreme voting record, his radical friends and associates, and the extraordinary number of Obama earmarks in his short Senate tenure.

(4)   Push your actual executive decision-making experience in contrast to Obama’s appalling number of “present” votes during his Senate tenure.

(5)   Emphasize the role of Frank Raines (Obama’s financial advisor) and the leftist Congress in the current financial crisis.

(6)   Last, your primary job is to convince the public that you can be trusted, that you are honest, and that you are authentic.  The election, ultimately, will depend on the public’s assessment of the candidates’ trustworthiness — especially in this time of national upheaval over the national financial crisis.

Because nothing will demonstrate Palin’s honesty and authenticity and show that she can be trusted quite like engaging in thoroughly bogus attacks about earmarks and Obama’s advisors.

Concerned Women for America recently released its "Election Sunday Package," a webpage full of audio and video resources to help mobilize right-wing voters for November.  Among those resources is this video called "Operation: Rally The Church" in which CWA President Wendy Wright explains that if Christians don't vote, "liberals who mock Christians, support abortion on demand and same-sex marriage, and would prefer that America be weak in the world community" will ruin this country.  She warns that if "citizens ... who love God don't vote, then the people who will be ruling over us in government will continue the slaughter of unborn babies, weaken marriage, and silence those who love God" and thus it is imperative that Christians do vote because all those who have died defending this country are putting "their hope in you ... to keep this a country worth living and dying for":

As we reported last year, San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair became the subject of a controversy that began when Concerned Women for America took umbrage at this provocative flyer, which they deemed “open ridicule of Christianity.”

Matt Barber urged that “the mainstream media…cover this event with cameras in hand. There's an unbelievable news story here. The Folsom Street Fair is reminiscent of Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, and the media should document exactly what the city of San Francisco is allowing to occur - in public - in the name of 'tolerance.”

That the media did…or, at least, the story landed on Fox News.

But it doesn’t end there.  Because of the California gay marriage decision, the Right thinks there may be more material to be drawn from the Folsom Street Fair.  As Linda Harvey of Mission America explains, the event is symptomatic of a larger corrupting influence, the “polluting effects of California’s moral decay”:

California’s sexual license is not something we welcome in Middle America.  We don't want same sex 'marriage' legalized, nor to have our children taught to praise homosexuality, as California children now must do after the passage of SB 777 and AB 394. And we don't want naked people having sex in our streets.

Of course, the only way to keep this “corruption footprint” from infecting Middle America is for a few brave souls like Harvey and her allies to wade right into the middle of San Francisco, where they will “protest and expose” the Folsom Street Fair.  For its part, CWA announces that “Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality will return to document the street fair's activities.”

It would be amazing if LaBarbera weren’t there, because his entire career seems to consist of attending these types of events.  Nevertheless, he is already at work attacking Joan Rivers for making an appearance, exposing Gavin Newsom’s cheery letter of greeting to fairgoers, and even imagining “the conversation between leather partners Stephane and Jahn before the big event”:

Jahn: “Oh, I wouldn’t live anywhere else. Who wants to live in one of those prudish cities where you they make you wear clothes in public and where you can’t have sex in the streets?”

Stephane: “What’s extra special is that we’re even allowed to bring Thad and Chad, our three-year-old adopted twins, to come on Sunday to join in the fun! They just love to watch.”

Jahn: “Thank the gods for the California Supreme Court and our new right to marriage equality. Now that we’re married it will be so much easier to adopt our next child!”

Following up on our earlier post about the release of a line of Hallmark cards for same-sex weddings, Concerned Women for America is out with a release of its own – one decrying Hallmark’s efforts to endanger children and destroy the family:  

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, "Hallmark is jeopardizing its brand as a family-friendly company.  Customers used to be able to trust Hallmark to produce quality products that were safe for all ages.  Now parents will need to steer their kids from Hallmark's section of the greeting card aisle and away from its previously heartwarming movies for fear that they too will push homosexual messages."

Janice Crouse, Director and Senior Fellow of CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, "By latching onto the latest fad generated by the homosexual special interest groups, Hallmark is negating its image as a wholesome company that promotes American values and pro-family principles in its products.  American businesses have a corporate responsibility to the public that buys their products.  Instead of bolstering campaigns by special interest groups like the homosexual activists, corporations like Hallmark should be protecting American culture from those forces that would destroy the family and create a public environment that is detrimental to general well-being, especially children's well-being."

Last month, it was reported that the Bush administration was pushing a change in regulations that is says would protect the conscience of “health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion” by essentially redefining abortion to include “birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.” 

The regulation would require any entity receiving HHS funding to certify that it does not discriminate against organizations or individuals who do not want to provide services they consider objectionable.

The most controversial section defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

That definition would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD, which most major medical groups believe do not constitute abortion because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo once it has implanted in the womb.

The regulation would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity."

Not surprisingly, right-wing groups loved the proposed change and pro-choice groups didn’t.  Then, a few days later, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt wrote a blog post about the controversy, saying “The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience.”  His post generated more than 1100 comments

Leavitt then returned to his blog a few days later to weigh in on the discussion generated by his first post in which he made it clear that he was not particularly moved by opposition to the change: 

This is not a discussion about the rights of a woman to get an abortion. The courts have long ago identified that right and continue to define its limits. This regulation would not be aimed at changing or redefining any of that. This is about the right of a doctor to not participate if he or she chooses for reasons they consider a matter of conscience. Does the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association believe we can protect by Constitution, statute and practice rights of free speech, race, religion, and abortion—but not conscience?

Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?

I want to reiterate. If the Department of Health and Human Services issues a regulation on this matter, it will aim at one thing, protecting the right of conscience of those who practice medicine. From what I’ve read the last few days, there’s a serious need for it.

When that post generated more than 300 comments, Concerned Women for America took notice, alerting its activists that the post had been “flooded with negative comments from abortion advocates” and urging them to head over and leave comments of their own:

CWA has asked members to protect their rights as patients and show their support for the regulations by adding comments to Secretary Leavitt’s blog.

Every few years, right-wingers from all over the globe gather for the World Congress of Families in order to “affirm that the natural human family is established by the Creator and essential to good society,” share strategy, and urge their governments to adopt policies that “protect and support the family, and not usurp the vital roles it plays in society.”  Not surprisingly, high on their list of priorities is the protection of marriage and families against “pornography, promiscuity, incest or homosexuality”: 

The complementary natures of men and women are physically and psychologically self-evident. These differences are created and natural, not primarily socially constructed. Sexuality is ordered for the procreation of children and the expression of love between husband and wife in the covenant of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman forms the sole moral context for natural sexual union. Whether through pornography, promiscuity, incest or homosexuality, deviations from these created sexual norms cannot truly satisfy the human spirit. They lead to obsession, remorse, alienation, and disease. Child molesters harm children and no valid legal, psychological or moral justification can be offered for the odious crime of pedophilia. Culture and society should encourage standards of sexual morality that support and enhance family life.

So where is the next World Congress of Families going to be held, you ask?  Of all places, Amsterdam:

Last week, the Selection Committee for World Congress of Families V met in Washington, D.C. and unanimously recommended Amsterdam as the site for the next Congress. Their recommendation was accepted by the WCF Management Committee.

If the World Congress of Families sounds like some sort of international version of the sorts of “values voters” events put on in this country by right-wing political groups, that probably has something to do with the fact that many of those same groups are members of the WCF’s various steering committees, with groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America all playing a role:

The 16-member Selection Committee was composed of: Ignacio Arsuaga (HazteOir.org, Spain), Chuck Donovan (Family Research Council), Don Feder (World Congress of Families), Farooq Hassan (Pakistan Family Forum), Jesus Hernandez (The Family Network, Mexico), Marie-Claire Hernandez (Family & Society, Mexico), Randy Hicks (Georgia Family Council), Robert Knight (Culture and Media Institute, Media Research Center), Ewa Kowalewska (Human Life International,  Europe), Gwendolyn Landolt (REAL Women of Canada), Yuri Mantilla (Focus on the Family), Dorothy Patterson (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), Austin Ruse (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), Mary Ellen Smoot, Jennifer Swim (GFC Foundation) and Father Jaroslaw Szymczak (Institute of Family Studies, Poland). The meeting was chaired by Gwen Landolt (Real Women of Canada).

...

The Management Committee, which has ultimate oversight of the Congress, consists of Carlson, Janice Crouse (Senior Fellow, Beverly LaHaye Institute, Concerned Women for America), Paul Mero (President, Sutherland Institute), William Saunders (Senior Fellow & Human Rights Counsel, Family Research Council) and Christine Vollmer (President, Latin American Alliance for Families).

When the event was held last year in Poland, members of the European Parliamentary Working Group on Separation of Religion and Politics were not particularly jazzed that right-wing advocates were preparing to use the nation as a staging ground for saving Europe and the rest of the world from the “demographic winter and … the secularists.”

But the group soldiered on, despite the opposition. As Robert Knight of the Media Research Center put it: 

This is a nation that has suffered enormously over many decades. First from Nazism and then communism. They're a tough bunch of people who appear to have the strength to resist especially the homosexual agenda. If you've been victim of communists and Nazis, you're not going to run in fright from the forces from San Francisco.

As we wrote about last week, The Call is a kind of youth-oriented spin-off of the Promise Keepers 1997’s rally on the National Mall that claims to be less about politics and more about “fasting and prayer for the benefit of the nation.” Of course, that claim is somewhat undermined by the fact that The Call first came to DC just before the presidential election in 2000 because, according to their own video, “the crisis was so real [and] we knew that the nation was a stake and the only hope was massive fasting and prayer.” And wouldn’t you know it, eight years later, just before another presidential election, The Call is coming back to DC:

Obviously, The Call is predominantly focused on fighting abortion and, as we noted last time, founder Lou Engle seems pretty intent on making the issue of judicial appointments a key messaging point.  In this video posted on his blog, he stands with activists outside the Supreme Court and says they must all work to make sure that “the issue of abortion will not be a secondary issue in these elections and that God will drive it like a wedge [into the campaign]”:

In the video posted on his blog awhile back, Engel notes that they has just met with Concerned Women for America and now comes word that Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee will be joining Engel and others for a “pre-Call Conference” in Maryland just days before the event.  

The Call may not bill itself as a political event, but coming just three months before the election, focusing on issues like abortion and judges, and being supported by the likes of CWA, FRC, and Mike Huckabee, it certainly has many of the characteristics of a political rally.

Last month, when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage rights for gays and lesbians, the Right was typically apoplectic, unleashing everything from Nazi metaphors to warnings that the end of the world was near.   In the weeks since, it doesn’t seem as if the Right has calmed down much and now that marriages have begun in the state, they have come out in force to rail against it and warn of dire consequences to come. 

While Concerned Women for America announced a Day of Prayer and Fasting in hopes that “our nation will return to the Biblical values on which she was founded,” others such as Biblical Family Advocates screeched that “California has slid off of its foundations into moral anarchy” and accused the court of mandating sin by allowing gays to “sodomize the entire culture”:  

"It is truly amazing that the homosexual community desired the government to get out of their bedroom and now they use the government to force their bedroom upon the general populace. They will not be satisfied until they have sodomized the entire culture, including the family, schools and even the church which should be a safe haven for children, not hedonistic indoctrination camps."

For his part, Vision America’s Rick Scarborough lambasted the “judicial autocrats” who have dealt “another body blow to the institutions of marriage and the family” and proclaimed that religious institutions and the family itself were now in danger:

"Those who think the judicial assault on marriage won't affect them had better think again. It will impact on everything from adoption to public-school curriculum. Church-based agencies will be forced to place children with same-sex couples or get out of the adoption business. The schools will be required to teach that there's absolutely no difference between a family with a mommy and a daddy and one with two mommies, or two daddies."  Scarborough urged the people of California and America to "resist this monumental evil."

The idea that faith-based organizations will come under attack was echoed by the Family Research Council, as was the idea that the traditional family was also in danger, with FRC going so far as to run ads bizarrely claiming that marriage equality was somehow going to destroy Father’s Day:

As we noted a few weeks ago, the Right did not react well to the California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, with people like Janet Folger going so far as to proclaim it signals the end of the world.

In the days since the ruling was handed down, the Right doesn’t appear to have mellowed … if anything, some of them seem to be getting more and more riled up by the day.  Take, for instance, this recent rant by Concerned Women for America’s Matt Barber:

So-called "same-sex marriage" is a counterfeit. It's a fraud and not even a good one at that. If marriage is a Rembrandt, then the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of "gay marriage" is a Rembrandt knock-off from the pages of Mad Magazine. It's a silly novelty.

I know. I'm "mean-spirited." But in light of the California Supreme Court's recent opinion - which enigmatically manufactured a "constitutional right" to "same-sex marriage" out of thin air - I think we need to come back to earth for a moment. Mind you, re-entry into reality's atmosphere will inevitably burn some folks.

When same-sex friendships (or more often, seconds-old acquaintances) are twisted and sexualized, practitioners of "the sin that dare not speak its name" are forced, at every level, to merely mimic the genuine article. They jump through a series of inelegant hoops to create a fantasy world wherein two people of the same gender clumsily imitate natural heterosexual pairings properly designed for procreation and the healthy rearing of children.

Even "gay sex" (male-male anal sodomy) is a crude, man-made imitation of the natural heterosexual reproductive process (only the fallen mind of man could concoct such depraved and foul behavior). Sadly, as millions of homosexuals have had to learn the hard way, this disordered, makeshift simulation of a natural biological process is coldly rejected by the very human biology it mocks.

…

Ellen [DeGeneres] compounds the sin of homosexuality by using the platform she's been given to lead others astray. She guides her many adoring housewife fans into rebellion against God's divine and explicit natural order by suggesting they celebrate sin and entertain, along with her, the "gay marriage" delusion.

Still, God will not be mocked. It's the height of humanist hubris to believe that man (including judges) can radically redefine that which God has created. We can never sanctify that which natural law rejects and God expressly condemns. Especially when God Himself, out of sheer love for each of us, offers us so much more.

I'm sorry (well not really) for my lack of contrived "sensitivity," but Ellen, sweetie (to borrow from a presidential candidate), no amount of wishful thinking or going through the motions will make your illicit same-sex "relationship" with Ms. DeRossi a "marriage." You may get a piece of paper that says it is, but, in the eyes of God and most of the world, your counterfeit "marriage" will never be worth the paper it's written on.

Before he was hired by CWA, Barber worked for Allstate Insurance until he was fired for penning anti-gay columns for right-wing websites – go figure.

Speaking of right-wing groups going completely over the top, the Traditional Values Coalition weighs in on the equality legislation in Colorado that we wrote about a few days ago … or, as TVC calls it, “The She-Male Restroom Bill”:

Not surprisingly, the Right’s reaction to last week’s ruling by the California Supreme Court in favor of equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians was swift and negative.

Former Rep. Ernest Istook, now of the Heritage Foundation, evoked Nazi metaphors to blame those who supported civil unions as a compromise: “By trying to appease homosexual rights activists, those w