Home ›

Lou Sheldon

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

At End of Supreme Court Term, Right Wing Points to November

Submitted by Anonymous on July 1, 2008 - 4:42pm

According to Politico, the Right is warming to John McCain’s far-right stance on judicial appointments, and with the 5-4 decisions that closed out the Supreme Court’s term, we can see the outline of McCain’s and the Right’s campaign to get the base to turn out in November on the issue of judges.

Last month’s Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus was likened by the Right a “white flag of surrender” that would cause “more Americans to be killed”; Fred Thompson, a judicial advisor to John McCain, wrote that the “remedy” was for “concerned citizens to turn out on Election Day to elect a new president.”

The more recent decision overturning D.C.’s gun ban inspired Ted Nugent to write in Human Events that “the 5-4 ruling is another painful example” of “a divisive culture war raging on, and four supreme justices frighteningly disconnected from the heart and soul of America.” Michael Reagan warned that the majority “will vanish if the liberals manage to elect Barack Obama and give his party sufficient control of Congress to guarantee that future Court vacancies will be filled with activist liberal justices who will turn the Constitution upside down.”

The Family Research Council called the Second Amendment case “a reminder for voters of just how important the elections are this fall.”

The next President is likely to name 2-3 Supreme Court justices, who will be examining the constitutionality of a variety of laws for the next few decades. Life, marriage, and religious freedom are all issues that are likely to land in front of the Supreme Court. … For fiscal, social, and national defense conservatives, judges are one issue that brings all conservatives together.

According to the Weekly Standard, a case restricting capital punishment to murderers and not rapists of children demonstrated “that the fight to turn the Court from a capricious and imperious vanguard of liberalism into an impassive umpire is far from over.” The Standard’s Matthew Continetti advised McCain to “take this opportunity to explain how his judicial philosophy differs from Obama's, and why it matters.” A National Review editorial similarly responded, “Too many of our justices are evolving away from democracy. Let’s not elect a president who will encourage them — and appoint more of them.”

Traditional Values Coalition’s Lou Sheldon wrote that the death penalty case and the habeas corpus decision “are perfect examples showing why it’s important that Americans choose the right person to assume the Presidency in January 2009.”

The person who becomes President and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces will likely have to replace Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter – all liberals who use their power to impose their leftist ideology upon all Americans. …

If we fail to put a man into the Oval Office who understands judicial restraint and the rule of law, our legal system will be set back 30 years. This is especially true if a liberal President appoints young liberals to the Court and fills up the federal judiciary with more radical leftist judges.

Finally, there’s the 5-4 decision overturning the “Millionaire’s Amendment,” a part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that lifted contribution limits for politicians facing self-funded opponents. Despite McCain’s role in originally passing the law, McCain supporter Hans von Spakovsky wrote that the narrow ruling “graphically illustrates just how important the next president's appointments to the Supreme Court will be to preserving our First Amendment rights in the political arena.”

“[G]iven the number of Supreme Court appointments a Democratic president will be able to make, an Obama victory will move America more radically leftward than ever in its history,” Dennis Prager summarized.

All these cases will continue to be cited by the Right in pushing its unmotivated constituency to the polls, as “are reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a few years,” as Thomas Sowell put it to those “who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected. There will be a president chosen this November, and he will appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, regardless of whether you stay home or go to the polls.”

PFAW
Filed under:

Bush Blasted Over Ramos and Compean

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on November 26, 2007 - 2:30pm

Right-wing activists are livid that President Bush did not pardon convicted Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean over Thanksgiving: "A group of Christian and evangelical leaders -- including Paul M. Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition and David A. Keene of the American Conservative Union -- excoriated Bush, saying his inaction ran counter to compassionate conservatism and Christian values. 'It's unfortunate that the president missed the opportunity to demonstrate his compassion,' the group said Friday. 'Such an act would have exemplified the fellowship and spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday and put to rest heartfelt concerns over the inhumane treatment of these two agents.'"

PFAW
Filed under:

GOP Only Party With a "Truly Biblical Worldview"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on November 7, 2007 - 3:21pm

So says Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition: “Americans need to understand that these pseudo-evangelicals are nothing more than shills for the Democrat (sic) Party and (are) trying to use whatever credibility they think they have to draw Christians away from the Republican Party and a truly biblical worldview.”

PFAW
Filed under:

Dobson Claims Unity

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on October 4, 2007 - 11:16am

James Dobson has decided to publicly weigh in on the reports that various right-wing leaders are considering abandoning the Republican Party should Rudy Giuliani win the presidential nomination with an op-ed in the New York Times:

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

Dobson goes on to explain that they are not willing to compromise their anti-choice, anti-gay principles in order to ensure electoral success for the Republican Party and that “winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.”

But the main reason Dobson penned this op-ed was to dampen reports that the Right is in disarray leading into the 2008 election:

One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.

That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.

It is true that many - but not all - “supporters of traditional family values,” as Dobson refers to his right-wing allies, are of the same mind when it comes to opposition to a Giuliani nomination, but beyond that, they are all over the place. 

PFAW
Filed under:

The Right Weighs In On Iraq

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on September 10, 2007 - 4:00pm

It looks as if the Right has taken some time out of its never-ending war against gays, abortion, and the secular culture to issue a “Declaration” calling on the US to stay in Iraq and warning of “catastrophic consequences” should US forces withdraw.   

Operating under the name The Forgotten American Coalition, Gary Bauer, Don Wildmon, Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich, John Hagee, Lou Sheldon, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Janet Folger, Rick Scarborough, Wendy Wright, Morton Blackwell, Gary Cass, Star Parker, Mathew Staver and other have issued the following Declaration:

PFAW
Filed under:

Theologian-in-Chief

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 18, 2007 - 4:10pm

One of the key issues facing GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney in the primary is whether evangelical Republican grassroots voters will be willing to cast a vote for a Mormon:

Here's the problem with electing a Mormon president, as Jason Thurman sees it: "I don't believe he would be guided by God."

Thurman, 26, is tidying the annotated Bibles in the Shepherd's Fold bookstore. Over by the rack of Christian CDs, his co-worker Marty Thomas raises a similar concern.

"When it comes right down to it," says Thomas, 40, "a Mormon's strength is human. A Christian person's strength is superhuman. I want [a president] who has that extra on his side."

In an attempt to counter this problem, Romney met with various right-wing leaders last year in an attempt to ease their concerns about his religion:

Romney, who is ramping up preparations for a 2008 campaign, huddled privately at his Belmont home last Thursday with about a dozen evangelicals, including conservative activist Gary Bauer, president of the group American Values, and Richard Land, a prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention.

The meetings have touched on several themes, participants say, but two topics being discussed are Romney's religious beliefs and how he should address his faith as the campaign progresses.

…

At last week's meeting at Romney's home, Land said, he told the governor that voters want "a commander in chief, not a theologian in chief."

Romney has continued to emphasize the idea that the President is "commander in chief, not a theologian in chief" and it has obviously paid off to the extent that last week he announced the backing of several high-profile right-wing leaders such as James Bopp, Jay Sekulow, and Lou Sheldon who have quickly begun parroting  this talking point:

Sheldon says Romney has "an across the board appeal" to evangelical conservatives, business, and the average American worker. "He's not running for the head of any ministeriam or denomination or the pope -- he's running for a secular office that is called for secular issues," explains Sheldon. "And he has, I think, the moral and ethical basis to be a strong conservative in that office."

So Romney’s Mormon faith shouldn’t be a problem for evangelical voters, or any other voter for that matter, because he’s running for a secular position.  Of course, these right-wing leaders only seem to feel comfortable saying this after they’d had a chance to personally grill Romney about his faith:    

"He reads the Bible regularly. He has said -- and I asked him -- that he has received Jesus Christ as his personal Savior," [Sheldon] declares. "He believes that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, only Son of God divine, and was crucified, buried and raised from the dead for our behalf. So, I think as he addresses those issues, that's certainly going to ignite good feeling [among Christians]."

Or as CBN’s David Brody reported:

Reverend Lou Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition and one of the members of Mitt Romney's Faith and Values Steering Committee, told The Brody File that he asked Mitt Romney point blank whether he would put his hand on the Bible or the Book of Mormon if he is ever sworn in as President of the United States.

His answer? The Bible.

Sheldon told me he spent nearly five hours with Mitt and Anne Romney and came away very impressed.

After all that time grilling Romney about his religious beliefs, it seems a little odd for Sheldon to turn around and dismiss others’ concerns about the candidate’s faith as irrelevant, especially since Sheldon described the presidency as a “secular office” only after having intensely questioned Romney about the tenets of his faith and determining that they meet Sheldon’s approval.

PFAW
Filed under:

The Sudden Emergence and Disappearance of Families First on Immigration

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on May 22, 2007 - 3:54pm

In early January, the Washington Times reported on the emergence of a new immigration coalition, Families First on Immigration - headed by Manuel Miranda and consisting of such right-wing stalwarts as Paul Weyrich, Don Wildmon, Gary Bauer, and Lou Sheldon - that was promoting what it called the “holy grail” of compromise on immigration reform.  

Families First on Immigration’s proposed “holy grail” compromise consisted of granting citizenship to those already in the country illegally who were related to U.S. citizens while simultaneously amending the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision.  Miranda hailed the concept as “a real compromise" that was both “consistent with Christian teachings and with the rule of law.”  

Since then, Families First on Immigration hasn’t been heard from, with searches of the Lexis and Factiva databases returning a grand total of one mention of the group since late January.    

And that one mention was this recent Washington Monthly profile of Miranda, which helpfully explains why there probably haven’t been any other mentions of his stillborn coalition:

For one thing, it has no full-time staff—in fact, there don’t appear to be any staffers at all besides Miranda. It also seemingly has no mailing address, Web site, official phone number, or public e-mail address …This time, Miranda is attempting an intervention rather than an attack, and already there are signs that his proposed compromise may be too clever by half. Richard Viguerie, for instance, objected to the limited legalization Miranda proposed in his January letter, stating that any Republican seeking the presidential nomination must hold a firm line on immigration. “I know what Manny’s trying to do; that’s why I signed on to begin with. But there’s a line here,” Viguerie says. “Any Republican candidate who tries to compromise on [amnesty] will lose in 2008, and I and a lot of others will work very hard to make that happen.” And last month, when Miranda told the news organization Inter Press Service that if the Minutemen, the anti-immigration volunteer border patrol, “agreed to our fundamental principles, they could join on,” he was swiftly criticized by Hispanic evangelical leaders, who represent the fastest-growing segment of the evangelical population. “It’s great that white evangelicals are finally speaking out on this issue,” says Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr. of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. “But so far, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with what we’re hearing.” Miranda, who has never found a political dustup he couldn’t win, may finally have met his match.

PFAW
Filed under:

TVC: Anti-Discrimination Bill 'Crazy'

Submitted by Anonymous on April 25, 2007 - 6:16pm

“"What are they trying to prove? There's no level of discrimination,” says Sheldon of effort to protect gays in the workplace:

PFAW
Filed under:

More Right-Wing Comments on Pace

Submitted by Anonymous on March 15, 2007 - 4:47pm

Religious-right activists continue to voice their enthusiastic support for recent comments by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military because homosexuality is “immoral.” While some make specious arguments about the military value of a ban on gays in the armed forces, most of these activists incorporate Gen. Peter Pace’s remarks into their larger “culture war” against gays in all walks of life.

Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition asserts that being gay is “incompatible with effective military service,” writing that “Sodomy is one of those behaviors that has been considered dissolute and a danger to military cohesiveness and readiness. … we do not want a ‘Brokeback Mountain’ military.” A form letter from Vision America argues that allowing gays to serve openly would weaken the military because “Ultimately our security is in God's hands. To ensure his aid, we must remain obedient to his law.” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins warns that backers of letting gays serve want to "turn the military into a laboratory for their liberal social ideas."

PFAW
Filed under:

Anti-Gay Marriage Movement Fractures

Submitted by Anonymous on March 8, 2007 - 10:12am

When the Alliance for Marriage, a group behind the proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, announced last week that it was changing its tactics from lobbying Congress to a “50-state strategy,” it appeared that other religious-right groups were pleased that AFM would be pushing for states to amend their own constitutions. Now, it looks like the Alliance is running out of allies.

In an article published by Focus on the Family, Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky initially said, “We’re glad that [AFM President] Matt [Daniel]’s group is joining the fight, and we look forward to working together on the state level, just as we have on the federal level.” Focus’s Carrie Gordon Earll “also welcomed AFM’s efforts,” according to the article.

However, Focus on the Family appears to have removed the article from their Citizenlink website, and a similar article leaves out the positive comments, only keeping the quote from Earll that the “next phase” of their fight against same-sex marriage is to prevent “counterfeit marriage efforts through domestic partnership and civil union legislation.”  While this missing article may simply reflect a technical glitch, a clue suggesting otherwise is the harsh reaction from the virulently anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition.

“The Alliance for Marriage should either renounce its past support for civil unions or stay in Washington where its amendment has always been and will continue to be a non-starter,” declared TVC Chairman Lou Sheldon. Citing quotes from AFM’s Daniels that his proposed federal amendment would not bar civil unions, Sheldon said, “Civil unions are synonymous with homosexual marriage and to see them as some sort of compromise is delusional and naive.”

True grassroots religious conservative activists are battle-tested and they know that throwing homosexual marriage extremists a bone like civil unions does not keep them from attacking marriage.

Most reasonable people realize that the battle against homosexual marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships et al are one and the same fight. A superficial marriage victory which also established a right in the U.S. Constitution to civil unions, as AFM proposes, would, in fact, be a defeat for religious conservatives. …

I am encouraging our allies in the states to be wary of AFM. If there was a ‘truth in labeling’ requirement for political groups, AFM would be forced to change its name to Alliance for Marriage and Civil Unions.

Six years ago, TVC was one of the first major religious-right groups to voice support for AFM’s amendment, but, while most right-wing groups ended up backing the amendment (at least for its political value), TVC changed its mind, citing its concern that some states would still be able to allow gay couples to enter civil unions.

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content