Concerned Women for America

Better Luck Next Time, Anti-Kagan Activists

Earlier today, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the Judicial Crisis Network, and Students for Life of America held a joint press conference to announce their opposition to Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

The only problem was, as the CQ-Roll Call blog Congress.org explained, that the groups held their conference outside the Supreme Court, where reporters were awaiting today's rulings, rather than where the reporters covering it were actually stationed:

Activists against Elena Kagan gathered on Capitol Hill Monday but outside the wrong building.

An hour before the Supreme Court nominee faced questions from senators, the leaders of four conservative groups stood outside the high court in protest.

"We're calling on the senate today," Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition began. "They are going to be accountable for the questions they ask or don't ask."

One problem: The backdrop Lafferty and the others chose was the court, not the Capitol. The court reporters who were around focused on a competing press conference about the morning's court rulings .

Most of the cameras focused on Lafferty's group were those of tourists -- not the press.

"Why are they protesting here?" one passerby asked a friend. "She's not on the court yet. She doesn't work here."

Had the reps from the Judicial Crisis Network, Students for Life, and Concerned Women for America stood outside the Hart Building, they would have had better luck getting attention from reporters actually covering Kagan.

I guess I should also point out that TVC is considered an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, so you have to question the judgment of CWA and JCN for partnering with them for this event.

The Religious Right and Six Degrees of Dominionism

One of the things I quickly discovered when I started reading up on the whole Dominionism and New Apostolic Reformation movements was just how quickly you could slide into "Six Degrees of Separation" talk when covering those involved in these movements. 

Obviously, not every person who shares a stage with someone like Cindy Jacobs or Lou Engle shares their views, though it is harder for organizers who include activists of this type in their events to make such arguments.

That is what got Janet Porter in trouble and that is why the Freedom Federation, the right-wing supergroup that includes groups like the Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel, Traditional Values Coalition, Wallbuilders and dozens of others, has to take responsibility for the decision to include groups like Generals International, Lou Engle and The Call, and Morning Star Ministries among the coalition members.

We haven't written much about Rick Joyner of Morning Star Ministries, but he runs a distinctly political organization called "The Oak Initiative," which is also a member of the Freedom Federation, and which has a mission to "find and help develop principled and effective Christian leaders who can mobilize and organize a cohesive force of activated Christians" and place them "on every level where government is found, from the most local to state and national levels."

The Oak Initiative has a distinctly Dominionist/7 Mountains agenda "to raise up effective leaders for all of the dominant areas of influence in the culture, including: government, business, education, arts and entertainment, family services, media, and the church."  And it also has a Board full of Religious Right activists including Janet Porter, Lou Sheldon, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, Cindy Jacobs, Lt.Gen. W.G. "Jerry" Boykin, and Marc Nuttle:

Mr. Nuttle has represented as legal counsel and political counsel, numerous United States House of Representative campaigns, United States Senate campaigns, gubernatorial campaigns, and state House and state Senate campaigns encompassing all states in the continental U.S. He served on Senator Dewey Bartlett’s staff and on Governor Henry Bellmon’s senatorial campaign staff. He has served as counselor to Senator Don Nickles and as advisor to Senator Jim Inhofe. Mr. Nuttle served as field counsel for the 1984 Reagan-Bush Reelect Campaign. In the early 1988 presidential election cycle, he was National Campaign Manager for Pat Robertson's presidential campaign. He was a senior advisor to George Bush's presidential campaigns in 1988 and 1992. From 1989 to 1991, he was Executive Director of the National Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, DC. He was a legal advisor in the Bush-Gore re-count effort in Florida in 2000.

Starting next week, Joyner's Morning Star Ministries is hosting an event called "The Great Awakening Conference" in South Carolina that includes, among others, Todd Bentley, the founder of Joel's Army:

Todd Bentley has a long night ahead of him, resurrecting the dead, healing the blind, and exploding cancerous tumors. Since April 3, the 32-year-old, heavily tattooed, body-pierced, shaved-head Canadian preacher has been leading a continuous "supernatural healing revival" in central Florida. To contain the 10,000-plus crowds flocking from around the globe, Bentley has rented baseball stadiums, arenas and airport hangars at a cost of up to $15,000 a day. Many in attendance are church pastors themselves who believe Bentley to be a prophet and don't bat an eye when he tells them he's seen King David and spoken with the Apostle Paul in heaven. "He was looking very Jewish," Bentley notes.

Tattooed across his sternum are military dog tags that read "Joel's Army." They're evidence of Bentley's generalship in a rapidly growing apocalyptic movement that's gone largely unnoticed by watchdogs of the theocratic right. According to Bentley and a handful of other "hyper-charismatic" preachers advancing the same agenda, Joel's Army is prophesied to become an Armageddon-ready military force of young people with a divine mandate to physically impose Christian "dominion" on non-believers.

Back in 2008, Bentley became a superstar hosting these massive rallies that often featured violent acts of "healing": 

He was known to boast about healing through violence. He had been videotaped telling stories about kicking a woman in the face, slamming a crippled woman's legs against the stage and knocking out a man's tooth. This was done, he claimed, on behalf of the Holy Spirit.

Around that time, Bentley was welcomed into C. Peter Wagner's sphere of "apostles" and "prophets" in a ceremony featuring fellow leaders, including Rick Joyner and Stacey Campbell:

Bentley's credibility suffered badly when it was announced that he was divorcing his wife, but Joyner has been steadfastly working on "restoring" Bentley and Bentley even relocated his ministry to operate directly out of Joyner's Morning Fellowship Church.

As I said earlier, there is a danger in playing "six degrees" with some of these connections ... but in this case it seems entire fair to wonder just how extensive the Dominionism/NAR influence is becoming within the contemporary Religious Right movement when groups like Morning Star, Oak Initiative, Generals International, and The Call are being openly welcomed into their political coalitions.

Generals International on Israel, The Oil Spill, And Demonic Vortexes

Yesterday, Cindy and Mike Jacobs of Generals International hosted a special webcast with Chuck Pierce on their website that focused primarily on explaining how the BP oil spill in the Gulf is due to President Obama's poor treatment of Israel. 

Jacobs explained that years ago Bob Jones prophesied that following the death of Oral Roberts, the Gulf Coast would be hit with an oil spill and two hurricanes.  Apparently that prophecy is now coming true and it is because God is angry with Obama's attitude toward Israel.  Chuck Piece agreed, but also noted that God had sent Hurricane Katrina because He was upset about the United States' treatment of Israel and He intended Katrina to be a "purifying wind," but the US failed to get the message "so now look at the gunk that's coming up on top of us":  

I should also point out that both Cindy Jacobs and Chuck Pierce sponsored and participated in Janet Porter's May Day 2010 prayer rally.

Frankly, I have no idea what they are talking about in that above clip, but apparently the idea that the BP oil spill is God's punishment for our failure to properly support Israel is becoming an increasingly accepted explanation.

But, it turned out, the real purpose of the webcast was for Cindy and Mike Jacobs to ask for money.  Generals International has been having financial trouble lately but had recently been offered a $15,000 matching grant and desperately needs donors to give money so that they can take full advantage of it.  The only problem is that GI has been under attack from four vortexes of demons which have been preventing the financial resources they need from getting through to them:

Cindy Jacobs went on to recount a recent instance in which God knocked her out cold while she was on stage preaching so that he could give her a vision of armies to angels descending to earth on horseback, but I didn't record that because she said they would be putting the footage up on their website soon and I didn't want to ruin the surprise.  

Have I mentioned that Generals International is not some fringe group, but is actually a member of the Freedom Federation, the right-wing super-coalition that includes the Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel, Traditional Values Coalition, Wallbuilders and dozens of others? 

Huckabee Joins The Fray, Saying He "Cannot" and "Will Not" Accept a Truce In the Culture Wars

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is, predictably, getting hammered from social conservatives for his statement that the next president will have to call a "truce" in the culture war in order to focus on economic issues.

He has already been blasted by Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council and right-wing activists continue to pile on:

Others, like Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute and an early supporter of 2008 presidential hopeful John McCain, says Daniels will have a hard time winning the GOP nomination if he demurs on pro-life issues.

“Something like this will cost him any consideration from one of the key constituencies of the Republican Party," he told LifeNews.com.

...

Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America -- a group that has spearheaded efforts to oppose Elena Kagan and the pro-abortion health care bill -- didn't mince words either.

"When it involves life, no one can make no a truce. There is no room for gray area, no time to play dead, and no time to stick out head in the sand. When you realize that 1.3 million babies are aborted every year, Governor Mitch Daniels’ words show a level of cowardice that is not expected from a presidential hopeful," she told LifeNews.com.

Even Mike Huckabee, who has steadily been working to establish himself as the champion of the socially conservative wing of the party, is getting in on the action ... and using it to raise donations for his HuckPAC:

I received an astonishing email today from a concerned friend who has been very influential in the fight to end the scourge of abortion.

Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a “truce” on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems.

In other words, stop fighting to end abortion and don’t make protecting traditional marriage a priority.

Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn’t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization.

For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking. And that one of our Republican “leaders” would suggest this truce, even more so. Governor Daniels is a personal friend and a terrific Governor, and I’m very disappointed that he would think that pro-life and pro-family activists would just lie down.

Are you ready to stop fighting for traditional marriage? I cannot. I will not.

Can you let the tragedy of abortion go unchecked while we get our financial house in order? I cannot. I will not.


A strong leader doesn’t need to focus myopically on one or two issues – but a strong leader is willing to fight for and defend their principles while rising to meet new challenges and solve all of the existing systemic problems confronting us.

For me these issues are critical. Indeed they are founding principles of my personal conservatism and part of the ideological foundation of the Republican Party. If you agree, I am asking you to help me send a signal.

...

Help me raise 2,012 new donations within the next 7 days for Huck PAC. That will help me show the importance of these issues to our Party and give us the financial resources we need to support strong conservatives who are fighting for life, traditional marriage, lower taxes, lower spending, secure borders and a strong national defense.

Help me send a strong signal – life and traditional marriage are NOT bargaining chips. Make a donation today.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Apparently Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell got "'many good ideas" from his official state visit to Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado.
  • Someone should ask Gov. Bob McDonnell if Pat Robertson will be attending his "thank you retreat".
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee voted out Robert Chatigny’s nomination today - Concerned Women for America responded by saying "Senators Should Reject Obama's 'Empathy for Sadists' Judge".
  • Speaking of CWA, they are very upset about President Obama's salty language.
  • For all their screaming and yelling, Religious Right groups don't appear to have generated much opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  • Bryan Fischer bravely attacks the National Association of Evangelicals for supporting immigration reform while conveniently failing to attack right-wing leaders like Mat Staver, Richard Land, and Ken Blackwell, who also support it.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Michael Pakaluk explaining why he doesn't want the children of gay couples attending Catholic school with his children: "The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic, or refer to such things in conversation, as they go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which--as not being related to procreation-- is inherently eroticized and pornographic. He might expose other children to such things, as he might easily have encountered them in his household."

Tony Perkins Piles On Daniels For Calling For a "Truce" In The Culture War

Following up on my last post about Concerned Women for America responding "Never!" to Gov. Mitch Daniels statement that there needs to be a truce in the culture war so that the nation can focus on more important economic issues, now comes the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins voicing his own outrage at the suggestion:

In most parts of the country, sitting politicians aren't enjoying much popularity these days. Hoosier Governor Mitch Daniels (R) has been one exception. Some 590 miles away from the eye of Washington's storm, the Indiana leader is about as beloved as an elected official can be in this climate. His approval rating is consistently above 60%, prompting whispers that he might be "the man" for Republicans in 2012. Unfortunately, comments he made this week raise serious questions about his level of commitment to fundamental issues like life-leading many of us to wonder if he has the ability to lead a unified conservative movement.

...

That's astonishing. Not only is he noncommittal about his role as a pro-life leader, but the Governor wouldn't even agree to a modest step like banning taxpayer-funded promotion of abortion overseas-which President Bush did on his first day in office with 65% of the country's support. Let's face it. These aren't fringe issues that stretch moderate America. They're mainstream ideals that an overwhelming majority of the nation espouses. I support the Governor 100% on the call for fiscal responsibility, but nothing is more fiscally responsible than ending the taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion promotion. More than 70% of our nation agrees that killing innocent unborn children with federal dollars is wrong. Yet stopping government-funded murder isn't a "genuine national emergency?" We cannot "save the republic," in Gov. Daniels' words, by killing the next generation. Regardless of what the Establishment believes, fiscal and social conservatism have never been mutually exclusive. Without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers were not timid in their leadership; they understood that "truce" was nothing more than surrender.

Anyone want to place a bet on how long it'll be before Daniels issues a "clarification," claiming that his statement was either taken out of context or is being misinterpreted?  I give it a day.

A Truce In The Culture War? CWA Says "Never!"

Just yesterday I was wondering how the Religious Right would react to Gov. Mitch Daniels' statement that a "truce" needs to be called in the culture wars so that our nation can focus on more important economic issues.

Well, today we are starting to get an answer to that question as Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America tells Daniels that is never going to happen:

Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana basically raised the white flag on social issues when, in an interview with the Weekly Standard yesterday, he said that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until economic issues are resolved.

So we’re just going to give up the fight on abortion, on euthanasia, on “gay marriage,” on all of our most sacred traditional values and morals that are just “too tough” to focus on right now? I don’t think so.

Conservatives are more revved up than ever before, having come together to fight the health care reform bill and taxpayer-funded abortion. Pro-life leaders are rising up out of college campuses and at the ballot box. Polling shows that more Americans are pro-life than pro-abortion, and pro-lifers are younger and more energetic than the aging pro-abortion feminists.

Why would we ever call a truce now? Why ever actually? Life is something we will never compromise and stop fighting for.

CWA: Study That Doesn't Reinforce Our Biases Must Be Biased

A new study, published in the Journal Pediatrics, followed the children of 78 lesbian couples for 25 years and found that these children "were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers."

So, of course, the study simply must be biased, bogus, and false

Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.

"That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."

...

Wright questioned the objectivity of Gartrell's research, saying the author can "cherry pick people who are involved and the info they release."

"In essence, this study claims to purport that children do better when raised by lesbians," she said.

Studies have shown that children thrive having both a mother and a father, Wright said.

"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."

This coming from an organization that has repeatedly cited the "research" of Paul Cameron.

Has Lisa Miller Fled The Country?

As we noted yesterday, Lisa Miller's attorneys at Liberty Counsel are continuing to work on her behalf even though she kidnapped her daughter and disappeared six months ago.  Liberty Counsel continues to insist that it does not know where Miller is ... but now it is being reported that she may have fled the country entirely:

An 8-year-old girl at the heart of a long-running child custody fight between former lesbian partners may be in Central America with her birth mother, a lawyer for one of the women said.

The girl, Isabella Miller-Jenkins, and her birth mother, Lisa Miller, failed to appear for a court-ordered custody swap in January and are believed to have flown to El Salvador last September, said attorney Sarah Star, who represents ex-partner Janet Jenkins.

Star said a Virginia police officer told her that Miller and the girl flew to El Salvador’s capital, San Salvador, from Juarez, Mexico, which is across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas.

“This is obviously horrifying,“ Star said yesterday. “Isabella’s not in school. She’s most likely in a country that is not as developed as the U.S., and [Jenkins is] worried about her. She’s worried she’s not in a safe environment. As far as we know, Lisa Miller doesn’t even speak Spanish.“

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has turned its attention to Central America, distributing photos and information about Isabella to news outlets throughout the region, apparently believing she and her birth mother moved there, Star said yesterday.

Since her disappearance, Miller has received praise from a wide-variety of right-wing groups for her actions ... including members of Concerned Women for America of Virginia who, as I noted back in February, seemingly admitted that they know where Miller is.

Miller had a significant support system when she was attending Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Church, which is how she came to be represented by the Falwell-founded Liberty Counsel, and has been a cause célèbre of the Religious Right for several years ... all of which is making it increasingly difficult to believe that, as this saga wears on, this Religious Right network have not been deeply involved in hiding Miller and her daughter. 

Who Are The New Sons of Liberty?

A mysterious group is poised to spend a $1 million on anti-gambling ads in Alabama's primary election and nobody seems to have any idea who is behind the group, where the money is coming from, or what they want: 

Something subversive is afoot in Alabama's Republican primary.

A shadowy outfit called the New Sons of Liberty Inc. is poised to launch a major, statewide advertising campaign in connection with the race. The group has committed more than $1 million toward the purchase television air time on networks in the state's five largest media markets, beginning May 21.

The Mobile Press-Register's George Talbot says "the group apparently is related to a grass roots organization called New Sons of Liberty Society," which is a Birther group formed recently in Illinois, but the organization's website provides no information at all, consisting solely of the ad, links to email various candidates running for Governor (except Roy Moore because, as the site says, he "opposes all forms of gambling,") and this message: 

Only when the true corrupting effects of gambling, alcohol, and drug use are widely known will the children of our nation be free to turn away from their lure. Our elected officials hear from those who promote and profit from these so-called industries. Our courts are full of lawyers who are hired to do their bidding.

But when do the people get heard?

Before you support a candidate for governor, make sure you know where he stands. Take just a minute to send an e-mail asking for a clear statement from each candidate. Make them know you are paying attention. Put them on the record.

If you don’t, we all must live with the consequences.

Randy Brinson of the Christian Coalition of Alabama says their research shows that the money is coming from out of state interests though Connecticut, but wouldn't say more, while press investigations have turned up only bits and pieces:

The Associated Press has reported that the New Sons of Liberty was organized April 29 in Washington as a charitable group that can engage in political activity. Listed as directors were Jenny Ann Hunter of Arlington, Va.; Emily Kay Stephenson of Bentonville, Ark.; and Robert Price of Tallahassee, Fla.

Hunter and Stephenson told the Press-Register that the group is a "health care organization." They declined further comment.

Strangely, the address used on the website registration is the same as the headquarters of Concerned Women for America:

The website is registered to a Robert Adams of Washington, D.C., and lists the same address as the Conservative Women of America, which supported Moore's efforts to display a 10 Commandments monument in the lobby of the Alabama Judicial Building.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Rand Paul won Republican Senate nomination in Kentucky last night.
  • Richard Viguerie calls Paul's win a "major vote of no confidence in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell."
  • Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice suggests that Arlen Specter's loss will make him more likely to vote against Elena Kagan.
  • Isn't it amazing how the views of all women seem to so closely mirror the views of Concerned Women for America?
  • Guess what? Conservative leaders now say they never really trusted Charlie Crist.
  • Last night, Ken Cuccinelli spoke at a fundraiser for a Virginia abstinence education group.
  • Sitting through this could quite possibly be the most unpleasant experience imaginable.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Alan Keyes on why gays shouldn't be able to get married: "Why are parents and their children forbidden to marry one another? Cut to the chase and the answer is simple. The right to marry includes legal recognition (legitimization) of the married couple’s right to have sexual relations with one another. But it is wrong for parents to have sexual relations with their children. It’s wrong for siblings to have sexual relations with each other. It’s wrong for adults to have sexual relations with underage children. Obviously, unless Mrs. Bush means to argue that these restrictions are unjustified, a committed loving relationship is not enough to establish that people “ought to have” the right to marry."

Right Wing Round-Up

  • Texas Freedom Network: Fox News: ‘Fair and Balanced’?
  • Kevin Drum: Birthers and Truthers.
  • Think Progress: After Serving More Than 30 Years In The Senate, Hatch Says ‘Hell No’ He’s Not ‘Part Of Washington’.
  • Joe.My.God: Conservative GOP Transgender Woman Running For Congress.
  • Bill Berkowitz: John Hagee Said God Sent Hitler to Hunt the Jews. Now He Wants to Be the Comeback Kid.
  • Good As You: It's official: NOM's bombing North Star State equality.
  • Will Bunch: Beck's city of gold continues to unravel.
  • David Weigel: Concerned Women for America: Souder was felled by 'frat house environment on Capitol Hill'.

Right Wing Responses to Kagan for SCOTUS

A collection of early responses from the Right to the news that President Obama intends to nominate Elena Kagan to a seat on the Supreme Court (I will continue to update this post throughout the day as more statements are released).

Catholic Families for America:

Today Catholic Families for America, one of the largest groups of lay Catholics in the country, announced its opposition to the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing "grave concerns" about her promotion of same-sex "marriage" and abortion, as well as a "dangerous internationalism" that has become fashionable among leftist jurists.

To galvanize citizens' concerns, particularly those of Catholic voters, CFA has initiated a nationwide petition that it will forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The petition can be signed.

"By nominating Miss Kagan to the Supreme Court, the president continues to demonstrate a brass-knuckles, Chicago-mobster mentality toward unifying our nation," said Dr. Kevin Roberts, executive director of CFA. "Naming someone who has been so actively hostile to traditional marriage and to the unborn lays bare the president's pro-abortion, anti-family agenda, in spite of what he says to the contrary."

Americans United for Life

Elena Kagan has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law. Americans United for Life will oppose President Obama's attempt to reshape the Court as an activist, pro-abortion institution through which unelected judges will work to impose an out-of-the-mainstream social agenda upon the American people."

Ed Whelan:

2. Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any justice in the last five decades or more. In addition to zero judicial experience, she has only a few years of real-world legal experience. Further, notwithstanding all her years in academia, she has only a scant record of legal scholarship. Kagan flunks her own “threshold” test of the minimal qualifications needed for a Supreme Court nominee.

3. There is a striking mismatch between the White House’s populist rhetoric about seeking a justice with a “keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people” and the reality of the Kagan pick. Kagan is the consummate Obama insider, and her meteoric rise over the last 15 years—from obscure academic and Clinton White House staffer to Harvard law school dean to Supreme Court nominee—would seem to reflect what writer Christopher Caldwell describes as the “intermarriage of financial and executive branch elites [that] could only have happened in the Clinton years” and that has fostered the dominant financial-political oligarchy in America. In this regard, Kagan’s paid role as a Goldman Sachs adviser is the perfect marker of her status in the oligarchy—and of her unfathomable remoteness from ordinary Americans.

4. Kagan’s record thus manages to replicate the primary supposed defect of the judicial monastery—isolation from the real-world lives of ordinary Americans—without conferring the broader benefits of judicial experience.

Bill Kristol:

For me, the key obstacle to Elena Kagan's confirmation is ... [h]er hostility to the U.S. military.

Hostility? Isn't that harsh? Kagan has professed at times her admiration for those who serve in the military, even as she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard Law School. But how does one square her professed admiration with her actions--embracing an attempt to overturn the Solomon Amendment that was rejected 8-0 by the Supreme Court--and her words?

Priests for Life:

"Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to shape public policy, and their nomination and confirmation should be based on their qualifications, not their views on specific issues.

"But there are certain issues so central to the very nature and purpose of government that one's position on those issues is tantamount to a qualification for the job. The very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. No court can legitimize an act of violence, such as abortion, or take away human rights. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court."

Ed Meese:

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law—is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

Chuck Norris:

It's that "unknown" Elena Kagan who has gun owners particularly concerned at the moment, not only because she's Obama's favored choice but because evidence for her beliefs on gun control is extremely scarce.

David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society:

I'm deeply disappointed that President Obama has chosen to nominate an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering. Solicitor General Kagan has been nominated with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, and only a year as Solicitor General of the United States. She is one of the most inexperienced nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory.

Susan B. Anthony List:

"Elena Kagan has no judicial record from which to determine her position on Roe v. Wade, but she has publicly criticized the 1991 Supreme Court ruling to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion, and has also criticized crisis pregnancy centers. Additionally, President Obama has said he prefers a Supreme Court nominee who would take a special interest in 'women's rights'--a barely masked euphemism for abortion rights. Through the judicial confirmation process the American people must know where Elena Kagan stands on the abortion issue, and it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to find out.

"Ms. Kagan's publicly demonstrated prejudices do not lend themselves well to blind justice. Susan B. Anthony and her early feminist compatriots fought for a human rights standard sustained only through blind justice--and they knew that one group is never served by undermining the rights of another. Women will never be served by ignoring the rights of unborn children. When evidence of personal preference appears in any Supreme Court nominee's judgment, it should give all women pause."

Judicial Crisis Network:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan is out of step with main street Americans, her limited record is outside the mainstream of American legal thought, and she lacks any substantial qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

Elena Kagan has no prior experience that qualifies her for the Supreme Court.

...

Ultimately, it is difficult to see how Kagan’s extreme left wing views and lack of relevant experience qualify her for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Gary Bauer:

"Sadly, President Obama, while saying repeatedly that he wants to bring people together, does something to tear people apart by choosing another liberal activist and long-time abortion advocate to have long-term power over the fabric of American life. Equally troubling at this time of terrorist activity and international unrest is the fact that while she was dean of the Harvard Law school, Kagan opposed military recruiting. Our Armed Forces who protect and defend our freedom deserve better.

"Obama has become the 'Divider in Chief,' choosing racial identity politics, socialist economics and extreme liberal activists who would tear the fabric of American society. Whether you look at his appointments or his policies, Obama goes out of his way to repudiate the values and desires of the American people.

"This is an opportunity for Republicans to represent the values of millions of Americans who are counting on them to defend the rule of law. Republicans in the Senate need to use every tool available to determine the nominee's views on such pivotal issues as whether terrorists deserve the same rights as Americans, whether the U.S. Constitution has hidden code in it supporting radical social change, and whether the Constitution requires that the public square be purged of Judeo-Christian values.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel:

Judges should interpret, not make the law. The Senate should press hard to question Elena Kagan on her judicial philosophy. The public deserves to know whether Kagan will use her transnational law philosophy as a lens through which she views the Constitution. And the public needs to know whether her personal views will trump the Constitution, as they appeared to do when she banned military recruiters from campus.

American Center for Law and Justice:

This is the beginning of an important, deliberative process in which the American people deserve to know where Elena Kagan stands on the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “The fact that Elena Kagan has no previous judicial experience underscores the importance of closely examining her judicial philosophy - will she abide by the Constitution, or will she take an activist view? With the Senate’s constitutional role of providing ‘advice and consent’ regarding nominees, we call on the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide full and thorough hearings and ask the tough questions about how Kagan views the role of Justices, the Constitution, and the rule of law. While no nominee should express legal opinions concerning specific issues, the American people deserve to know whether this nominee – which could serve for many decades – embraces the philosophy of judicial activism.

American Life League:

"Clearly, Kagan has demonstrated a record of interpreting the law in the light of homosexual, pro-abortion activism.

"What's at stake here is the core constitutional question that passionately divides the country – does our Constitution seek human rights for all human beings or merely some human beings? Kagan's answers to her 2009 confirmation hearings provide clear insight into her future judicial philosophy.

"Will President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Kagan be another example of his continued disregard for human rights in favor of advancing his favorite pet political agenda – abortion on demand courtesy of the American tax dollar?

"With the nomination of 50-year-old Kagan, will President Obama assure his long-lasting assault on the most fundamental human right of personhood?

"As President Obama races against the election clock, he has worked to undermine many of the American values and principles that make this nation the greatest on Earth.

Life Issues Institute:

"Mr. Obama has once again made it clear that he strictly follows a pro-abortion litmus test for anyone he nominates to the Supreme Court," said Bradley Mattes, executive director of Life Issues Institute. "We should not be surprised that his legacy will be the intentional killing of our nation's most vulnerable citizens--unborn babies. This nomination is a tragedy for America's women and their unborn children."

Concerned Women for America:

“In her disdain for the military, Elena Kagan considers her own views and opinions as more important than obeying the law and equipping the country with the best fighting force in the world. We need justices who put national security over the feelings or demands of special interest groups.

“We urge the US Senate to oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan. We want a justice who will defend the Constitution, support our families and uphold the right to life and traditional marriage.”

Operation Rescue:

Elena Kagan's support for abortion and her predisposition for judicial activism makes her a poor selection. We need a justice that will uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it though judicial activism. It is clear that as long as Obama is president, we cannot expect anything other than the nomination of radical liberal pro-aborts, even though those with that political philosophy and agenda are opposed by the majority of the American people.

Family Research Council:

"Elena Kagan's lack of legal experience will be discussed by both sides of the aisle but her record of liberal activism should not be overlooked.

"As the Harvard Law School Dean, Elena Kagan tried to bar the military from recruiting on her law school's campus during the height of the Iraq War based on her opposition to the federal law restricting homosexuals in the military. She fought the issue all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled unanimously against her, an extraordinary rebuke to her legal and substantive reasoning.

"Ms. Kagan's incredibly hostile view of the military suggests she is out of touch with mainstream sensibilities and obedience to the rule of law. President Obama promised a nominee committed to the 'rule of law,' but, instead, he appears to have nominated a hard-left activist to the Supreme Court.

Traditional Values Coalition:

“President Obama’s pick of Elena Kagan demonstrates his willingness to subvert the Constitution for his personal agenda and impose his leftist ideology on our nation for the next 30 to 40 years,” continued Lafferty. “The Obama Administration has already saddled the next two generations of Americans with a mountain of debt, and the lifetime appointment of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court will extend the radical Obama agenda over them.”

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness:

“It is unfortunate that President Barack Obama has chosen to replace the only military veteran on the Supreme Court with a nominee whose only significant record indicates deliberate hostility and opposition to laws protecting the culture and best interests of the American military.”

Donnelly continued, “Senators considering this nomination should question Elena Kagan’s flawed logic and anti-military attitude that she expressed by signing an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment in Rumsfeld v. Fair. It is significant that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that legislation, which protects equal access for military recruiters on college campuses, with a unanimous (8-0) vote. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not agree with Kagan’s anti-military views.”

National Organization for Marriage:

Don’t be fooled, Pres. Obama today has nominated a radical justice who will vote to overturn Prop 8 in California, the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the laws protecting marriage in all 50 states.

NOM has reviewed her record, and today we told the press. “A vote for Elana Kagan will be a vote for imposing gay marriage on all 50 states.”

The Strange SCOTUS Demands of the Religious Right

I have to say that I am rather confused by the strange demands that Religious Right leaders are making of President Obama as he prepares to name his nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.

Concerned Women for America is demanding that Obama name a nominee that they supports their right wing views and Phyllis Schlafly is demanding that Obama name a military veteran ... and now a group of leaders are demanding that he name someone "who will support the right of the government to maintain a decent society and to protect children from indecent and other media content that is harmful to them":

In a letter sent yesterday to the president, the group said, "There are currently four cases pending in the lower federal courts in which the major broadcast TV networks are challenging FCC indecency rulings and the broadcast indecency law itself. What the networks ultimately want is an unrestricted 'right' to curse as much as they want and to depict as much nudity and sex as they want (presumably, short of obscenity), regardless of the impact of this programming on children, on unwilling adults who are assaulted by it in the privacy of their homes, and on the moral fabric of society."

...

The letter was signed by representatives of Morality in Media, Decent TV, Parents Television Council, American Family Association, OneMillionMoms.com, American Decency Association, Citizens for Community Values, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Christian Film & TV Commission, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, Family Research Council Action, Business & Athletes for Kids.

I have to say that when I frist saw this press release about a letter signed by FRC, CWA, AFA, and others making demands regarding a SCOTUS nominee, I certainly did not think it was going to be calling for one who will protect children from indecent media. 

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Rick Santorum has endorsed Jay Riemersma, warning that otherwise "our country could slip away under your watch."
  • Americans United for Life is giving Rep. John Boehner the 2010 Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award.
  • Fox News is refusing to run an ad on climate change on the grounds that it is "too confusing."
  • Tammy Bruce has joined GOProud's Advisory Council.
  • For some reason, Janice Shaw Crouse provided written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the hearing on the Violence Against Women Act.
  • Finally, Concerned Women for America does not approve of efforts to decriminalize marijuana in Washington DC: "Women and mothers have enough to worry about without the easy availability of marijuana added to the list."

CWA Pre-Emptively Declares They Cannot Support Obama's SCOTUS Nomination

Concerned Women for America has produced a memo explaining that, as much as they hope President Obama will nominate a Supreme Court justice whom "all Americans can support," they don't think he will and therefore they'll be obligated to oppose that nominee ... whomever it is:

Concerned Women for America (CWA) would love for President Obama to go beyond politics — as he promised during his campaign — and nominate a Supreme Court candidate that all Americans can support. After the health care debacle, with zero bipartisan support helping to further expand the chasm between citizens, nothing would be more welcome than for the President to nominate someone who could make us all feel proud. CWA wants a judge with an excellent record of judicial restraint, a commitment to following the Constitution as written, and an awareness of the fact that they are not supposed to substitute their own personal feelings or ideology for the law.

CWA says all of the names floated as possible nominees so far are unacceptable and has even sent President Obama a letter [PDF] asking him to "put aside partisanship and choose a nominee that makes all Americans feel proud": 

At a time when the political chasm between citizens seems to be expanding at an alarming rate, such an admirable move would certainly do a lot to bring us back together and rally for the common purpose of doing what is best for America.

But CWA wants to make clear that it is not holding its breath:

However, based on President Obama’s actions thus far, and on his statements back-to-back that he wouldn’t use a litmus test but wants his nominee to support a “woman’s right to choose,” CWA isn’t hopeful that he will choose a good nominee.

“I don’t see the President picking a nominee that is good for America,” said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America. “The President has shown a keen disregard for any notion of honoring the Constitution, but we are clinging to any last hope that he may break from the mold and nominate a worthy Justice.”

All very interesting.  But I wonder what CWA was saying just a few years ago when, for instance, President Bush was considering nominees for the Supreme Court:

“The President has the historic opportunity to keep faith with the promise he has repeated numerous times, which is to name justices who are like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel. “The Democrats have shown that their filibusters and condemnations of the President’s circuit court nominees were baseless. They will threaten more of the same unless he names a clone of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example.”

The President should not yield to the left’s demands to consult with the Senate before making a nomination. The Constitution is clear that it’s his right alone to make nominations and the Supreme Court agrees.

So CWA urged President Bush to ignore any requests that he consult with anyone before making any nomination, because they were just going to oppose the nominee anyway and the president has the constitutional power to name any candidate he chooses ... and now CWA is writing to President Obama, demanding that he listen to them and put forth a nominee that they can support, threatening that if he doesn't, they will be left with no option but to oppose his choice?

Funny how that works. 

May Day on the Mall: Lifting The Curse That Obama's Election Has Brought Upon America

 
On Saturday, May 1, Religious Right leaders and public officials will gather at the steps below the Lincoln Memorial to beg God to forgive America for having elected wicked leaders like President Obama. If you can’t make it to the national mall on Saturday morning, you can watch live on God TV or via webcast thanks to the American Family Association.
 
The "May Day - A Cry to God for a Nation in Distress" event is the brainchild of Janet Porter, a Religious Right activist/conspiracy theory-promoting radio host, and member of presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee’s inner circle. Porter believes America is under a curse for having “made the choice of death” by electing President Obama (even though God TV warned us not to). She announced the May Day event at last fall’s How to Take Back America conference.  
 
Since then, Porter has lined up support from a significant number of Religious Right heavy-hitters like former Focus on the Family head James Dobson, who recorded an audio message recruiting pastors to get involved, and at least five members of Congress, including  Randy “Pray Against Health Care” Forbes (Virginia), Trent “Obama is an enemy of humanity” Franks (Arizona), Louie “Hate Crimes Act is a Pedophile Protection Act” Gohmert (Texas), and Steve “Know Your Enemies” King (Iowa).  
 

SCOTUS Round-Up: Right Ready To Spend Millions Fighting Gay Nominee Women Don't Like

Remember last time around when various Religious Right groups were saying that they would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee just because said nominee was gay

In fact, Focus on the Family's Bruce Hausknecht went on record saying "the issue is not their sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not":

“Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” FOF spokesperson Hausknecht continued. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.” For example, he said, “If someone says, `I don’t care what the law says, on the next case involving sexual orientation, I’m going to decide the case in favor of the openly gay party,’ that would be a breach of judicial duty.”

Well, Focus received a lot of flack for that from professional anti-gay activists like Gary Glenn and Peter LaBarbera and now Focus' Tom Minnery has "clarified" their position to LaBarbera, stating that the organization would oppose a gay nominee because said nominee would be, by definition, sinful and immoral: 

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ’sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

In other news, right-wing groups are planning on raising and spending millions of dollars to fight Obama's nominee, without even knowing who it is:

Even without a nominee, some conservative organizations are bracing for a fight based on the ideological leanings of previous Obama judicial nominees.

Carrie Severino, the general counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, formerly called the Judicial Confirmation Network, said her group was prepared to launch a media campaign costing in the seven figures, similar to the one it waged against Sotomayor.

“I think we have funding in place. We are prepared to really fight,” she said.

Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, another conservative group, said that a judicial fight can boost fundraising and energize the base to get out and vote in the midterm elections.

Finally, Penny Young Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, has an op-ed on FoxNews.com explaining just "What Women Want In a Supreme Court Nominee" - remarkably, what all women want seems to be exactly the same as what CWA wants:

Just because Justice Stevens was a liberal on the Court, it does not mean that President Obama must nominate another liberal to replace him. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is already salivating at the possibility of a justice who will “stand equally strong for” abortion on demand.

Obama sailed into office as a man expected to heal the nation, unite the political parties, and bring warm fuzzies to a country divided. On the contrary, since entering the White House our president and his policies have driven the country into an unfathomable divide, even lending to the uprising of the Tea Party movement, which brought out everyone from retirees to soccer moms -- and professionals who never cared about politics -- because Obama introduced policies that would destroy the lives they had built.

Women want a Justice who will uphold the Constitution, the right to life, and will preserve the family as a foundational cornerstone of our society. They don’t want someone who will legislate from the bench and uphold abhorrent legislation like the health care bill.

Fighting For Their Right To Discriminate

A few weeks ago we noted that an organization called NotMyBathroom.com was formed in Missoula, Montana in order to oppose a proposed city ordinance that would protect people from discrimination in their jobs and homes based on "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity or expression."

The organization is associated with Concerned Women for America and the focus of its campaign is on the claim that the ordinance will make it legal for men to use women's restrooms, thereby leading to assaults on women and children.

While the group's effort is obviously aimed at stirring up fear in order to defeat the measure, CWA's Wendy Long admits that they have absolutely no evidence that anti-discrimination ordinances lead to such assaults and that their real mission is to fight the anti-discrimination out of fear that it'll eventually lead to marriage equality:

Even one of the most staunch opponents of those laws can't point to increases in frivolous lawsuits or sexual predation. Still, Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright said such ordinances lead the country down the wrong track.

"We have a constitutional protection for religious freedom in our First Amendment," Wright said. "There is not a constitutional protection for sexual orientation, and yet judges and city councils and others are acting as if sexual orientation trumps religious freedom."

The Concerned Women aim to bring biblical principles to public policy, and the Montana office opposes the Missoula ordinance. It's one member of Notmybathroom.com, a group that formed to defeat the local ordinance in large part because of fear sexual offenders will prey on women and children in bathrooms and locker rooms.

Wright couldn't point to places that have counted increases in sexual offenses because of such laws, but she said such data is beside the point.

"It doesn't go back to numbers," Wright said. "It goes back to the issue that people will have legal rights that will trump other people's rights. The right of a woman or a girl to feel safe in a fitting room, a locker, a restroom, their rights will be trumped by a person who is claiming their sexual orientation right has legal protection."

She noted as troubling a couple of specific examples where transgender women fought for access to dressing rooms. In one Philadelphia case in 2008, a woman denied access to a fitting room planned to file a complaint against the department store, whose manager agreed to train employees to grant equal access.

Wright said one big reason Concerned Women opposes such laws is because the group does not want local ordinances to be used as stepping stones toward making gay marriage legal and teaching it in the public schools.

In essence, the less society tolerates discrimination against gays, the more likely gay marriage becomes ... and so groups like CWA must fight to protect the right to discriminate.

With Stevens Retiring, Right Readies For a Fight

Today, Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he will retire from the Supreme Court after nearly 35 years of service ... and the Right has been quick to issue warnings to President Obama that they are ready to fight.

American Center for Law and Justice:

"The announcement of Justice Stevens' retirement underscores the reality that President Obama will make a second appointment to the nation's highest court that will impact generations to come," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ.

"While there's certain to be much debate about Justice Stevens' replacement, there is one thing that is clear - President Obama is likely to name a nominee who will embrace an extremely liberal judicial philosophy. Make no mistake about it - this appointment really represents more than just replacing one vote on the court. With a replacement who is likely to serve for 30 or 40 years, it's clear this replacement will have a long-term impact on judicial philosophy and likely play a determining factor in decisions for decades to come.

"Once a nominee is named and the confirmation process begins, it's important that the nominee face full and detailed hearings – with specific focus on the nominee's judicial philosophy including how the nominee views the Constitution, the role of judges, and the rule of law. That is what the American people expect and deserve."

Liberty Counsel:

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The Supreme Court should be about law, not politics. Beginning in the 1950s, the Supreme Court morphed into a political machine. When judges impose their political will rather than the rule of law, the rule of law is undermined and the people lose confidence in the system. As Chief Justice John Roberts said during his confirmation hearings, judges ought to be umpires who simply call the balls and strikes. They ought not play in the game or change the rules. The American people deserve a Supreme Court nominee who respects the rule of law and who will set aside personal bias in order to be faithful to the Constitution.”

Concerned Women for America:

Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, “The news is no shock for those of us who follow the issue. Justice Stevens has been sending all the signals for the White House to be prepared. Our hope is that President Obama has had time to reflect on the issue and will make a change in the way he has looked at nominations. Will he nominate a justice who will show respect for our laws and the Constitution or will he continue to put ideology over the will of the majority of Americans?

“All three of the nominees in the short list are not encouraging. Elena Kagan’s apparent willingness to look at international law when deciding domestic cases, Judge Merrick Garland’s support of granting constitutional rights to enemy combatants, and Diane Wood’s extremely radical pro-abortion activism should bring chills to every American. We know the President can do better than that.”

CWA President Wendy Wright said, “Coming off of a debate over health care that has deeply divided the country against Pres. Obama, in which he ignored the Constitution and foisted his contentious beliefs onto millions of Americans, President Obama desperately needs to choose a qualified and Constitutionally-sound nominee. It would be healing for the country for President Obama to change course and select a nominee that respects the Constitution more than their own –or foreign countries’ – ideology.

Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA’s Policy Director for Legal Issues, said, “The President has the opportunity to change the radically divisive image he has created in the minds of many Americans. If he decides to nominate someone who respects the Constitution as written, instead of someone who believes in a living Constitution that they can mold to say whatever they want, he can do a lot to repair his image.

“Last time, even his own nominee, Justice Sotomayor, rejected the President’s idea of the role of a judge, even though her own record lined right up with the President’s radical view. That is how radical the President’s view is in this area. So if experience tells us anything, it tells us he will go with ideology instead of what is best for the country, but we hope and pray that we can finally see a ‘change,’ like he promised us.”

Priests for Life:

"The opening of a Supreme Court seat will again open the ongoing debate in our nation over abortion -- and it well should, not because Justices are supposed to shape public policy, but because the very purpose of government is the protection of human rights, starting with life. Anyone who fails to affirm that does not belong in any public office, much less the US Supreme Court."

Judicial Crisis Network:

This vacancy will open a new dialogue about the role of courts in our society. The American people are fed up with President Obama’s left-wing agenda and will make their frustration known at the polls. But he still has one ace up his sleeve: packing the Supreme Court with rubber stamps instead of judges. To an activist judge, the constitution represents an inconvenient truth that they will distort, ignore, or defy to push their radical liberal agenda.

President Obama painted Justice Sotomayor as the epitome of moderation, but her record on the court has been anything but. In her first term she has yet to meet a left-wing position she didn’t like. When President Obama speaks about maintaining balance on the court, don’t believe it. If Justice Thomas were the one retiring, the word “balance” would have been already banned from the White House.

 Traditional Values Coalition:

The retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is good news and bad news. It’s good news that he will no longer be free to impose his liberal ideas on Americans through his Supreme Court edicts. But, the bad news is that President Obama will undoubtedly appoint someone equally liberal and far younger who will rewrite the Constitution according to his or her political purposes.

Ultimately, the retirement of Justice Stevens and appointment of a new Justice is an even trade.

If President Obama had any honor, he would pick a replacement for Stevens who respects the Constitution, but this is unlikely. He will choose a radical ideologue who will push the Court to the left for decades to come. Obama will replace an old judicial activist with a younger one.

Syndicate content

Concerned Women for America Top Posts

Founded by Beverly LaHaye, wife of Religious Right activist Tim LaHaye, as a counter to the progressive National Organization of Women, Concerned Women for America (CWA) describes itself as "the nation's largest public policy women's organization." CWA opposes gay rights, comprehensive sex education, drug and alcohol education, and feminism, while advocating what it calls "pro-life" and "pro-family" values. MORE >

Concerned Women for America Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Monday 03/05/2012, 12:45pm
The Media Research Center criticized everyone from Perez Hilton and Gossip Girl to the cast of Jersey Shore for using the word “slut,” but after right-wing talk show host tagged law student and women’s rights advocate Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute,” the group that claims to stand up for “people and institutions that hold traditional values” has repeatedly come to Limbaugh’s defense. MRC’s Scott Whitlock said NBC’s depiction of Limbaugh’s sexist remarks as “ugly” represented “a left-... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 03/02/2012, 3:55pm
We have documented the extreme reactions to the Obama administration’s decision to ensure that women can receive coverage for contraception in their insurance plans, ranging from comparisons of President Obama to King George III, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin to warnings that the United States is moving closer to Nazi Germany. Now, freshman Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD) in an interview with the right-wing group Concerned Women for America has likened the contraception mandate to the “religious persecution” found in “Communist countries.” Harris: What we need... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 03/02/2012, 11:20am
Yesterday the US Senate voted 51-48 to kill the Blunt Amendment to the transportation bill that would have given employers the right to deny insurance coverage for any treatment that they objected to for any reason, representing a major setback for Religious Right groups who urged passage of the extreme amendment. Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink called the vote an affront to the First Amendment, although it is hard to see how anyone’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is being violated: “Today the government, this time via Congress, again... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 02/14/2012, 3:35pm
During an appearance on Concerned Women for America’s radio program, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) admitted that his bill to ban abortions based on the race or sex of the fetus wasn’t so much about stopping race or sex-based abortions but a ploy to criminalize abortion overall. “The people on the pro-abortion side say, ‘Trent you have a much bigger issue and a much bigger agenda here than just sex-selection and race-selection abortion,’” Franks said, “and I think the honest thing for me to do is say yes that’s true.” Franks has long been a... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 02/07/2012, 3:10pm
The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco. The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 02/07/2012, 3:10pm
The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco. The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 02/06/2012, 4:30pm
Komen Crisis Reveals Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Anti-Choice Activists On Friday, we reported on how Religious Right groups reacted furiously to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s move to roll back their decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood under the excuse that they won’t work with groups under federal investigation — as Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) opened a politically charged investigation into the women’s health organization. Many Americans were perplexed by a move that would terminate potentially life-saving healthcare for tens of thousands of women in... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 01/06/2012, 3:22pm
Religious Right activists are positively giddy over the new momentum behind Rick Santorum’s candidacy for president, and Maggie Gallagher today praised the former Pennsylvania senator as “a latter-day Rudy suddenly lifted above his Notre Dame teammates in a fantastic photo finish.” Gallagher said that the left wants “to go after him with a hatred unlike anyone else has yet generated in this race,” writing that progressives “hate him with that special ire reserved for his virtues, not his vices.” On Tuesday night in Iowa, he stood before the cheering... MORE >