Concerned Women for America

Right Wing Leftovers - 6/10/13

  • Turns out the IRS manager who initiated the alleged targeting of conservative groups is a conservative Republican
  • Fox News’ coverage of the George Zimmerman trial is journalism at its worst
  • The Washington Times editorial board wants to revive the $500 bill and replace William McKinley with Ronald Reagan because “putting the Gipper on the $100 would require ‘the street’ to no longer conduct its business in ‘Benjamins,’ but deal out ‘Ronalds.’” 
  • Phyllis Schlafly claims Kelly Ayotte “betrayed every conservative who supported her” by backing the Senate’s immigration reform bill.” 
  • The virulently anti-Muslim group Concerned Women for America will now be fighting “increased anti-Israel sentiment within our government” as part of its mission. 
  • Charisma editor Steve Strang says gay rights threaten the freedoms of speech, religion and the press, and that the Obama administration has given the “homosexual agenda” the “red-carpet treatment.”
  • Southern Baptist Convention vice president Roger Oldham maintains the Boy Scouts “planted the seed of their eventual destruction” by including openly gay youth.
  • Linda Harvey believes “our children all deserve kindness and civility, and that can happen even if they are learning homosexuality is wrong.” 

Crouse Warns Sexual Revolution and No-Fault Divorce Creating 'Boyz N The Hood' Dystopia

In a Washington Times column today, Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse repeats her frequent claim that progressive social policies are to blame for what she once called “realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities.”

Crouse writes that the results of “taxpayer-funded contraceptives, abortions and expanding government welfare” and “the decline of marriage, including no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution” are “there for all to see – at least on TV— in areas where married-couple families are already too scarce to provide the necessary critical mass for a healthy environment.”

In particular, Crouse cites the 1991 classic “Boyz N The Hood" as an illustration of the results of liberal social policies.

Participants at the Sydney congress were reminded that throughout history and across all cultures, marriage has been the foundation of families and the bedrock of civilized nations. Married moms and dads having babies and raising the next generation of children have been so much the norm of personal experience in every nation that now with birthrates sinking below replacement levels, it is hard to imagine the long-term impact of their absence. The result is there for all to see — at least on TV — in areas where married-couple families are already too scarce to provide the necessary critical mass for a healthy environment. Without strong families to exert moral authority, neighborhoods echo scenes from the classic 1991 movie “Boyz N The Hood” that take the viewer inside the gang-infested communities of South Central Los Angeles, where marauding gangs, constantly at war with each other, illustrated what happens when there are not enough strong fathers to control and civilize the young males.



For decades, liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates have tried to find solutions to the problems associated with out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood and child poverty — without advocating marriage in public policy. Their solutions? Taxpayer-funded contraceptives, abortions and expanding government welfare. We don’t need to ask how that has worked out. The answer is obvious. The decline of marriage, including no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution, is a luxury popularized by celebrities but it is a dead-end trap for the poor that exacts a price from their children.

Kids that come from healthy marriages are vital to the future of society, but the contributions of good marriages do not end there. By building strong, healthy families, married couples create virtue. In some immeasurable way, the goodness they create — simply by living according to the natural order and moral law designed by the Creator — is of benefit not just for the couple, but their success also contributes vitality to the whole. Anytime a marriage nurtures, shelters and protects, it becomes a stage for all to see where scenes of love and joyful celebration are played out again and again. Equally important, both communities and nations also benefit.
 

AUL Report Highlights Rift in Anti-Choice Movement

The anti-choice movement has for several years been experiencing a quiet rift over extreme state-level measures would ban all abortions – and in some cases, in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control – in a head-on challenge to Roe v. Wade. As Personhood USA and Janet Porter gain more and more success in pushing “personhood” and “heartbeat” bills at the state level, national pro-life groups who oppose the laws for strategic reasons find themselves in a bind.

In March, when North Dakota passed a “heartbeat” bill which would ban nearly all abortions in the state and strike directly at Roe v. Wade, it also passed two narrower measures banning abortion based on genetic abnormalities or the sex of the fetus. The national anti-choice group Concerned Women for America praised heartbeat the bill,  while Americans United For Life issued press releases that ignored the bill and praised the narrower measures. National Right to Life went even further, actively speaking out against the North Dakota bill and similar “heartbeat” measures in other states.

In an article for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly this week, Americans United For Life’s senior counsel, William Saunders, lays out his fears of what would happen if the Supreme Court were given the opportunity to reconsider Roe v. Wade. While he praises the “admirable and inspiring” efforts behind the trio of new abortion restrictions in North Dakota, Saunders warns that a direct challenge to Roe will give the Supreme Court a chance to rewrite their 1973 decision on more solid “equal protection” footing.

Instead, he argues, anti-choice activists should target incremental measures at wearing away the opposition of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to uphold the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart. “Can the statute be fashioned so as to make it as easy as possible for him (and the others) to go the one step (or two or ten) further than Gonzales in restricting abortion?,” he asks.

Taken together, these three laws provide significant food for thought.

While the persistent efforts of pro-life Americans at the state level are admirable and inspiring and must be encouraged, how does one evaluate the wisdom of any particular proposed (or enacted) law? First, I suggest, one must recognize the legal realities—what kinds of statutes will the courts certainly overturn? Of course, this is not to say that the courts should govern this matter. In fact, the usurpation of the political process by courts is, in my view, unconstitutional itself and should be resisted. However, if we know a law will be overturned by a court, we should consider the risk of such a decision. At least one significant risk is that the Supreme Court, in overturning a law, will entrench “abortion rights” more firmly in constitutional jurisprudence, perhaps under an “equal-protection”-based right, as Justice Ginsburg and three colleagues wanted to do in the Gonzales dissent.

Sad as it is to consider, Gonzales was decided by only one vote, that of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion he wrote for the majority, while speaking of the right of the legislature to choose among divided experts in fashioning law and while recognizing that abortion harms at least some women, did no more than uphold the outlawing of one abortion procedure when others were available. Is such a person likely to uphold a ban on all abortions at any point in pregnancy? If so, what rationale for doing so (what basis) is likely to appeal to him? Can the statute be fashioned so as to make it as easy as possible for him (and the others) to go the one step (or two or ten) further than Gonzales in restricting abortion? Might a statute with a ban (or limit) early in pregnancy lead him to “protect” the “abortion right” and vote with Ginsburg and her colleagues in favor of a firm affirmation of a “constitutional” right to abortion? Is it better to move the ball gently, seeking to build momentum for the ultimate reversal of Roe/Doe, or to force the issue with a broad and early ban? While reasonable people can differ on the answers to these questions, the consequences of a possible forty more years of unlimited abortion due to another Casey-like decision by the Supreme Court counsels for very careful consideration of what prudence requires.

Crouse Sees Left's Failures in 'Risky Drive Into Certain Neighborhoods'

Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse is very concerned about a new Census Bureau report finding a spike in births to unmarried mothers. In an American Thinker column today, Crouse accuses “liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates” of responding to “problems associated by the triad of out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood, and child poverty” by promoting “abortion and increased welfare dependency.” The failure of these policies, she claims, “is obvious to anyone who will face the realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities.”

The founding fathers, she continues, “would roll over in their graves” to see that the country has become “mired in reckless self-indulgence and thus regressed in terms of people's well being.”

For decades, liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates have tried to get to the bottom of the problems associated by the triad of out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood, and child poverty.  Heretofore, the solutions have been abortion and increased welfare dependency. I don't need to ask, "How is that working for us?" The answer is obvious to anyone who will face the realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities or choose the safer route of reading about the dramatic increases in non-marital births documented in the SECCUM report.

The nation's founding fathers first instituted a national census so that the nation could "mark the progress of society."  They would roll over in their graves to see that the nation they founded with great hope and based on principles of personal and civic responsibility, instead of progressing, has instead become mired in reckless self-indulgence and thus regressed in terms of people's well being.  We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the past four decades trying to alleviate the consequences of poor and irresponsible choices only to reap a harvest of greater dependency than ever before and several generations of children at risk for all the negative outcomes that parents hope to avoid (truancy, delinquency, substance abuse, etc). It is not merely the demographics of non-marital child bearing that need to be publicized but an honest, extensive reporting of the damages as well.

When the sum total of our morality, both personal and public, consists of not being judgmental, we should not be surprised to find that there is little will to be concerned with more than the pursuit of whatever brings a moment of pleasure today with no regard for the effects this will have for anyone's well-being tomorrow.

CWA's Crouse : Women's Rights Advocates are Waging the 'Real War on Women'

The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, an Illinois-based conservative group, convened a symposium in Washington earlier this month to discuss topics including “Defending Faith in an Age of Christophobia,” “The Pornography Industry,” and “Economic and Social Costs of Abortion.” 

At a panel titled “The ‘War on Women’: Myth or Reality?,” Concerned Women for America senior fellow Janice Shaw Crouse argued that it is in fact “those who present themselves as champions of women’s rights” who “constitute a very real war on women.” This “war,” Crouse declares, began in the 1960s and has “undermined and torn apart the faith, values and morality that have held together a diverse and multicultural people.”

Why, then, do we even have to ask, ‘Is there a war on women?’ The war began as early as 1960. Since then, our nation has been experiencing a harsh cultural winter. Howling winds of change, insidious myths and outright falsehoods have undermined and torn apart the faith, values and morality that have held together a diverse and multicultural people.

These myths and those attacks, those falsehoods by those who present themselves as champions of women’s rights constitute a very real war on women. It’s a senseless war, promoting casual sex, spreading the myth that women don’t need marriage, and pushing the cultural and public policies that inevitably lead women to be the majority of those in poverty. That war against women has loosened and upended many of the foundation stones of the Judeo-Christian principles.

Harvey: Day of Silence 'Manipulating' Kids to 'Enter A Lifestyle Which Itself Will Be Incredibly Harmful To Them'

The Religious Right’s anti-anti-bullying efforts are beginning to swing into high gear as the Day of Silence, which is run by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and centers on making schools safer for LGBT students, approaches on April 19.

Mission America’s Linda Harvey in her radio bulletin today once again criticized the day of action and called on families to keep their kids away from school that day.

The boycott campaign is backed by anti-gay groups such as Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America and Faith2Action, which urge public schools to resist “GLSEN's socio-political goals and its controversial, unproven, and destructive theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality.”

Harvey warns that the Day of Silence “has become a central showpiece in this homosexual agenda in our schools” and offers “inaccurate and harmful information in schools about homosexuality.”

Rather than “preventing harm to kids,” Harvey warns the Day of Silence “encourages more kids to approve of or enter a lifestyle which itself will be incredibly harmful to them. So instead of allowing kids to be manipulated, it’s a good idea to keep your kids at home that day.”

“The compassionate hearts of kids are manipulated into approving of deviant lifestyles and practices,” Harvey states, maintaining that gays and lesbians do “not need to be involved in such behavior and God can rescue anyone who wants a different life.”

We’ve been telling you for several weeks about the pro-homosexual Day of Silence and why Christian families are staying home from school that day. Here’s a little more background: for a number of years Christian groups and parents nationwide have increasingly become concerned about the growth of inaccurate and harmful information in schools about homosexuality. The Day of Silence, coming up on or around Friday, April 19, has become a central showpiece in this homosexual agenda in our schools.

My overwhelming concern about this day centers around three things: 1) It encourages sympathy for homosexuality, which is wrong; 2) it implies that no one can object to homosexuality without being hateful and that’s also incorrect; 3) it does all this while pretending to be about justice and preventing harm to kids. The truth is that this is victim posturing that encourages more kids to approve of or enter a lifestyle which itself will be incredibly harmful to them. So instead of allowing kids to be manipulated, it’s a good idea to keep your kids at home that day.

We’ve called this the Day of Silence Walk Out and you can find out more at DOSWalkOut.net. Why did they start this Day of Silence protest to begin with? Students sometimes even have tape over their mouths and they pledge to remain silent all day. Why? Because they claim that homosexuals have been routinely silenced and victimized and don’t have a voice. You may be thinking, now hold on just a minute! Indeed, it’s a typical leftist victim strategy. Not that we don’t sympathize with any student who is bullied for any reason but this is pure political propaganda, manipulating a sensitive situation and we don’t have to allow our kids to sit there in class while sometimes even the teachers are going along with this.

Unlike the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) would have you believe, schools, parents and kids do not have to condone immoral and harmful behaviors like homosexuality and gender bending to prevent or stand up against bullying. This is a diversionary tactic. High moral sexuality standards are helpful, not hateful. The goal of these adult radicals though is to use vulnerable kids to carry this inaccurate message for them. Meanwhile, the compassionate hearts of kids are manipulated into approving of deviant lifestyles and practices.



So when you stand up against misinformation remember you are standing against behavior, not against the person. That person does not need to be involved in such behavior and God can rescue anyone who wants a different life.

Concerned Women for America Upset Jenna Wolfe Is Having a Baby

Concerned Women for America blogger Christian Shelby wants everyone to know that she is definitely not a bigot for being angry that Jenna Wolfe of The Today Show and her girlfriend Stephanie Gosk are expecting. She said it is “just sad” and “selfish, and supremely so,” for the two women to raise a child, which she claims is not “fair to the overall development of a child.”

In 2006, CWA also attacked Mary Cheney after she announced that she was pregnant and planned to raise the child with her partner.

They’ll call me a bigot, but I prefer to see myself as a realist. So let’s jump into it. The Today Show’s Jenna Wolfe dropped an unexpected bombshell into the national conversation over “gay marriage.” She announced on air (and in her blog) that, “My girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, and I are expecting a baby girl the end of August.”

First and foremost, I am pro-life. Let’s just put that up front. I love babies. Children are life changing, and I’m sure Miss Wolfe is already finding that out.

However, I’m also like that little kid who yelled, “The king has no clothes!” If there’s something to be said and no one wants to say it for fear of hurting the feelings of others, well, you’ll find me there. Sorry to rain on your parade, but truth is truth.

So here we go. The headline on the Today Show’s website starts out with the word “Surreal.” But, in truth, it should read “Unreal.” Jenna Wolfe and her girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, are most certainly not expecting a baby girl at the end of August, not in the biological sense, anyway.

When a man and a woman unite in a sexual union, the woman provides the unfertilized egg and the man provides the sperm. Those two things — biologically exclusive to members of the opposite sex — merge and the miracle of life begins.

So herein lies the crux of our dilemma: Miss Wolfe and Miss Gosk are both women. That’s not an anti-“gay” statement; that’s a true statement. Biologically speaking, they cannot, of their own volition, produce a child. I’m sure they’re both nice women, but they need a man in order to have a baby.

And if they need a man in order to have a baby, then who can honestly say that this is the only contribution a man can make? Who can honestly say that Miss Gosk can replace — truly and completely replace — the father who should be present in that child’s life? Consider, if you will, all the social science data to date that shows that children do better in a traditional mom-and-dad household. Which parent does the child not need? A young lady asked that very question to a state legislature recently — “Which parent do I not need?” — and no one could answer her.

It may be politically correct to celebrate the news of Miss Wolfe’s pregnancy. It may be politically correct to celebrate Miss Gosk’s role as the child’s “other parent.” But it is selfish, and supremely so, to deny the child — and others like her — the benefit of either a mother or a father. Two men cannot produce a child. Two women cannot produce a child. And neither of those familial arrangements is fair to the overall development of a child.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Miss Gosk will be supportive and loving and caring to Miss Wolfe’s child; but she will never be — can never be — the child’s father. And, to me, that’s just sad.

Concerned Women for America: Starbucks Discriminates Against Straight People by Supporting Gay Rights

Concerned Women for America’s Chelsen Vicari in a blog post yesterday attacked Starbucks for supporting marriage equality, which she argues will open the door to anti-straight discrimination. Vicari called Starbucks CEO and gay rights supporter Howard Schultz “prejudicial and bigoted” for telling Thomas Strobhar of the Corporate Morality Action Center that he should sell his shares in the company if he is so distraught over Starbucks’ endorsement of same-sex marriage legislation in Washington state.

Vicari claimed that Starbucks “refuses pro-marriage supporters service” and “is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles.”

She even said that the coffee company might as well have “two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or ‘now hiring’ signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply.’”

Goodbye pumpkin spice latte. Forever.

Last year during this exact week, I wrote a blog titled, “Starbucks Disrespects Values Voters,” calling out Starbucks’ CEO, Howard Schultz, for supporting a liberal political agenda that totally disregards the traditional values of many customers and staff members.

Another year gone by and Schultz has become even more extreme and intolerant. At Starbucks’ annual shareholders meeting, Schultz sent a clear message that he does not want the business of anyone who believes that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, pointedly telling one such shareholder, “You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” This outburst reportedly came right after Schultz stated he wanted to “embrace diversity of all kinds.”

He doesn’t want our business. Schultz statement isn’t tolerant. It is prejudicial and bigoted. So where are the newspaper headlines reading, “Starbucks CEO Refuses Pro-Marriage Supporters Service,” which is exactly the message his statement conveys?

What’s next, Starbucks? Two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or “now hiring” signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply”?

Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Schultz should have heeded my warning a year ago. In fact, during this year’s meeting, conservative shareholder Tom Strobhar admitted that after the company voiced its support for same-sex “marriage” in Washington state, the company saw a drop in profits.

So in the end, Schultz is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles. I do not hold an MBA, but I do remember that 4th grade arithmetic teaches us that the profits made from 2 percent are less than the profits from 98 percent.

I’ve already dumped Starbucks. I prefer Dunkin’ Donuts, anyway.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/7/13

  • How sad: James O'Keefe is now $100,000 poorer.
  • Hey Todd Starnes, maybe we "claimed" and "alleged" all of these things because they are true.
  • Is anyone surprised that Samuel Rodriguez and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference are threatening to stop supporting immigration reform because they "refuse to budge on allowing visas for same-sex couples, due to their biblical view on marriage."
  • With the Supreme Court scheduled to heard Prop 8 and DOMA cases, now is the time to pray.
  • Finally, "CWA Celebrates Women's History Month" by lumping Rosa Parks in with Phyllis Schlafly:  

CWA: Violence Against Women Act Is Part of the War on Women

It was only last year that Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance criticized the term “war on women” as “phony, focus-grouped rhetoric” geared to “raise money and hackles” among Democrats. She predicted that women would turn on Obama and wouldn't vote on issues such as abortion rights or birth control access (unless they are anti-choice). Of course, exit polls showed that Obama carried women voters over Romney 55-44% and that 59% of voters said abortion should be legal either in all or most cases.

So it should come as no surprise that Nance is now using the “war” rhetoric in her latest Washington Times op-ed: “When high-sounding legislation becomes a war against women.” That’s right, she now believes that there is in fact a war on women, but that it comes from supporters of the Violence Against Women Act.

She claims that VAWA “hurts sex-trafficking victims,” even though 93 Senators voted for Sen. Patrick Leahy’s amendment focused on combating the trafficking of women and girls.

The Violence Against Women Act headed to the president’s desk lulls Americans into believing that actual violence was addressed Thursday when, in reality, Congress pushed through a bad bill that hurts sex-trafficking victims, seeks to legalize prostitution for minors and fails to protect the consciences of organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that oppose abortion but want to protect trafficking victims.
Within the Senate version of the act is an amendment by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, that decimates the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, seeks to change the Model State Law to promote the decriminalization of prostitution for minors, and assaults the conscience protections of groups that have a history of hands-on help for these victims.

The Violence Against Women Act also promotes the decriminalization of prostitution of minors for states, which is also dangerous for trafficking victims. Decriminalization provides a perfect opportunity for pimps, traffickers and gangs to exploit minors in the sex industry by telling the minors that it is not illegal and that they will not get arrested. In Germany, Australia and the Netherlands, child prostitution increased after prostitution was legalized. Why would the outcome be any different here if states decriminalize prostitution for minors? Section 1243 seeks to change the Model State Law to promote the decriminalization of prostitution for minors:
It prohibits the charging of a minor for a prostitution offense. This removes all judicial discretion from the process.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that there were only 895 arrests of minors for prostitution in 2010. In 2011, the number of arrests dropped to 763. Over the past seven years, arrests of minors for prostitution have averaged 1,067 annually.
Decriminalization provides a great recruiting tool for gangs, pimps and traffickers, who can say, “Don’t worry; it’s not illegal.”

The lesson Congress has learned from the “war on women” apparently is that as long as the title of the legislation sounds good, you must vote for it — even if it is bad policy.

CWA: Marriage Equality 'Will Mean the Destruction of Freedom and Liberty'

Mario Diaz of Concerned Women for America promoted the upcoming Marriage March by warning that gay rights advocates seek to “silence” opponents and that marriage equality “will mean the destruction of freedom and liberty.”

We want people who love God and His principles and who are aware of what the attack on traditional marriage will do to come out and stand up for marriage and for God’s principles and to send a message to the Supreme Court and to other people that we will not be silenced because that is the intent and the strategy of the other side to silence those of us who stand up for the traditional view of marriage.



With truth on our side we most definitely can make sure that our children’s future is protected, God can do it. I know that conventional wisdom says out there that we are losing this fight and there is no use in fighting anymore but we don’t have that luxury. We believe that the destruction of this institution established by God will mean the destruction of freedom and liberty. We must stand and we will on March 26, we hope you can be here with us.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/28/13

  • The House of Representatives today finally passed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. 
  • Naturally, Concerned Women for America is upset and calls VAWA “a slap in the face to sex trafficking victims.” 
  • Erik Rush laments that “Western liberal elites” pressured South Africa to abandon the Apartheid system. 
  • Confederate sympathizer Ted Nugent claims the Democratic Party “is the root cause of the violence in our inner cities” and pushing black “cultural suicide.”

Family Research Council Suggests Hagel Confirmation May Bring God's Judgment

When the U.S. Senate finally confirmed Chuck Hagel to head the Department of Defense yesterday, Religious Right leaders who actively campaigned and prayed against his nomination were sorely disappointed.

The Family Research Council’s prayer team today warned that Hagel, along with President Obama, have put America “on dangerous ground” as “those in power have forgotten God's covenant with Abraham: to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse her.”

Indeed, FRC suggests that Hagel’s confirmation may even bring about the judgment of God: “Students of Bible prophecy have said that amid America's declining American faith and morals, our support for Israel has slowed the advance of God's judgment since 2001. But each step we take farther away from Israel has repercussions with respect to that balance.”

Chuck Hagel Confirmed - Today, former Senator Chuck Hagel began his new job as Secretary of Defense.Senate Republicans had rightly criticized Hagel as unqualified based upon his historic disdain for Israel, support for the Palestinian cause, favor of negotiation with Hamas and Iran, lack of any managerial experience, and more, yet 18 Republicans chose not to use their cloture vote to prevent his confirmation. Four supported Hagel directly in the final vote: Thad Cochran (Miss.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Mike Johanns (Neb.) and Rand Paul (Ky.). With a President and Defense Secretary who have often shown hostility toward Israel and favor toward our mutual enemies, Bible believing Christians know the U.S. is on dangerous ground. Those in power have forgotten God's covenant with Abraham: to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse her. Christians must keep extra vigil, standing in the gap for Israel and America, that our leaders will keep faith with our historic friendship and alliance. Students of Bible prophecy have said that amid America's declining American faith and morals, our support for Israel has slowed the advance of God's judgment since 2001. But each step we take farther away from Israel has repercussions with respect to that balance.

May God's people, who understand God's severe warnings against nations that oppose His plan for Israel, pray, stand boldly and speak out to preserve our nation's commitment to God's covenant people and land! (Gen 12:3; Ps 137: all, Is 40:1-2; 59:15-16; 62:6; Zech 12:3-9; Eze 36:24, 35; 37:11-12, 21, 25; 38:8; Hos 3:4-5; Joel 3:1-2; Amos 9:15; Zech 2:12; 8:7-8; Lk 21:24; Rom 1:16; Eph 6:10 ff)

Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance also chided Hagel for allegedly supporting the disarmament of the US.

The confirmation of former-Sen. Chuck Hagel to be the next civilian head of the United States Military doesn't make American families feel safer, because we as a nation are more vulnerable under his leadership. Hagel does not have a sound understanding of the global threats facing America, nor does he have the discernment needed for a workable defense policy.

The Senate has failed to properly vet this candidate. As if his shaky, inconsistent committee hearing wasn't enough to show his lack of qualifications, we can also add his failure to submit critical documents. Motives follow money, and Hagel's refusal to submit financial documents, as well as his omission of funding sources, reiterates his real motives.

Our national security interests stand at a threatening juncture. Hagel's record shows his lack of knowledge when it comes to nuclear disarmament, and his vision for how to deal with these issues is dangerous to American families. While in the Senate, he voted to adopt Global Zero and reconfirmed his opinion by saying, "How can we preach to other countries that you can't have nuclear weapons but we can and our allies can?" Countries like North Korea and Iran are on the verge of nuclear power; it's naive to put false hope in the fact that anti-American countries would cease their pursuit of nuclear capability if we disarm ourselves.

By confirming Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, the Senate has catered, once again, to the president's wants and overlooked the needs of the American people.

Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families and the Emergency Committee for Israel, who earlier claimed that Hagel will “invite acts of aggression and terrorism” against the US, said he can no longer trust Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) after he voted in favor of Hagel’s confirmation.

Sadly, the Senate voted yesterday 58-to-41 to confirm Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. I say sadly because I never thought I would see the day when a nominee for Secretary of Defense endorsed by Louis Farrakhan would be confirmed! But that day has arrived.

Every Senate Democrat voted for Hagel. They were joined by four Republicans -- Thad Cochran (MS), Mike Johanns (NE), Rand Paul (KY) and Richard Shelby (AL). All four votes are depressing, but I want to comment on Senator Paul's vote.

When Rand Paul ran for the Senate three years ago, there were concerns about his views on Israel and the Middle East. He has tried to dispel the doubts.

In January, Paul traveled to Israel and said, "I came here to show that I am supportive of the relationship between Israel and America." He later said, "I think we should … announce to the world … that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States." That is why his vote for Hagel yesterday was so disappointing.

And it is disappointing for another reason too. Paul explained his vote for Hagel by saying, "The president gets to choose political appointees." That's true to a point, but Paul is under no obligation to vote for them.

Rand Paul's claim to conservative support is that he is a champion of constitutional government. The Founding Fathers could have easily said that the president gets to appoint his cabinet and left it at that. But after a protracted debate, they decided that the president's nominees must receive the consent of the Senate.

Paul's explanation implies he is ignoring the clear words of the Constitution in exchange for a formulation that suggests presidential appointments are essentially guaranteed. That doesn't pass the straight face test.

I don't see how anyone who claims to support a strong national defense, who wants to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and who believes that Israel is our best ally could vote to confirm Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. If Rand Paul wants to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2016, he has some explaining to do.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/20/13

Ever Classy, FRC Says VAWA's Cost to Taxpayers Is the 'Real Abuse'

Last night, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to proceed on a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, despite strong opposition from the Religious Right. But as the legislation moves to the House, the fight is far from over. The Family Research Council has joined Religious Right activists and organizations including Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer, Concerned Women For America, the Southern Baptist Convention, in opposing the reauthorization because it includes new provisions protecting LGBT people, immigrants and Native Americans. In an email alert last night, the FRC denied the positive impact of VAWA, which has contributed to a dramatic decrease in intimate partner violence, and said that the “real abuse” is VAWA’s cost to taxpayers.

Last year, when it first came up for reauthorization, Democrats intentionally loaded the bill with provisions the GOP cannot support--like millions more in spending and special rights based on certain sexual behavior. Their goal was to make the legislation so objectionable that Republicans would be forced to oppose it and fuel the lie that the GOP is anti-woman. Sen. Pat Leahy's (D-Vt.) version, which leaders will vote on this week, is a five-year extension of the Act. Among the bill's most egregious parts is a provision that would ban funds to grantees who may have religious objections to homosexuality--even if no documented case of refused services has been found. It also includes special assistance for homosexual victims.

Although Sen. Leahy promises to have a 60-vote block of support, FRC has warned the Senate that we will be scoring the vote. You can help by contacting your Senators and urging them to vote against VAWA and end the real abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Religious Right Activists Fear Boy Scouts Will Soon Face 'Homosexual Indoctrination'

Conservative leaders are continuing to rally opposition to a proposed plan to end the national ban on gay members in the Boy Scouts of America with warnings about pedophilia and “indoctrination.”

Family Research Council vice president Rob Schwarzwalder told Janet Mefferd yesterday that fathers cannot trust their sons to be around gay people.

Mefferd called gay rights advocates “totalitarian” for opposing the ban and lamented that the “violins are playing full blast” in the media when they cover stories about gay youths kicked out of the Boy Scouts.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said in a statement that “people like Jerry Sandusky” would be “permitted to be Scoutmasters” if the policy changes, adding, “To allow homosexual Scoutmasters or homosexual Scouts will put young boys at risk.”

Concerned Women for America started a letter-writing campaign against the move before gays attempt “to infiltrate the next generation.” The group even claimed that if gays are allowed to join the Boy Scouts, it would mean that “our religious liberties are being taken away”…somehow.

The Texas Pastors Council called on parents to “defend our children” and not “allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender” and stop those who are bent on “forcing their immorality on society.”

Pastors, if the scouts fall, the church is next in the sights of the activists committed to forcing their immorality on society – WILL YOU COME?

Fathers, if we allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender – WHO WILL DEFEND OUR CHILDREN?

Mothers, your voice of courage and protection of the virtue of our children is desperately needed – WILL YOU STAND ALSO?

Florida Family Policy Council president John Stemberger went on another anti-gay rant, alleging that the BSA will “open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus” and “devastate the Boy Scouts permanently.”

If the BSA departs from its policies on allowing openly homosexual scoutmasters and boys in the program it could destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution.

As an Eagle Scout, former Scoutmaster and a Vigil Honor Member of the Order of the Arrow, I have a deep personal interest in passing on the rich experience of Scouting to my two sons and I pray that the BSA does not open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus from a program that America needs now more than ever to train boys to become responsible men. A change of this policy could transform and devastate the Boy Scouts permanently. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans do not support changing the policy to allow openly homosexual scout leaders, so this proposed change makes no sense on many levels.

2000 presidential candidate Alan Keyes in WorldNetDaily warned of “homosexual indoctrination” and “idolatry” in the Boy Scouts if they change the policy:

The simple words of the Scout Oath were meant to encourage boys in the habit of walking this straight path; hence the endeavor to be “morally straight.” But the oath first of all made it clear that the Scout looked first of all to God as the standard of moral rectitude. Try as they might, the present-day trustees of the Scouting movement will never fit the square peg of God’s standard into the round hole of homosexual sin. Moreover, though they begin by admitting practicing homosexuals into the ranks, they must end in acknowledging homosexual activity as morally correct, else they will involve the whole movement in the perjurious administration of an oath openly violated in practice. For in that moral sense, it is not possible to be gay and morally straight at the same time. Thus what the present trustees of the BSA reportedly may do involves rejecting God’s standard for male sexual behavior. And it involves doing so in a way that willfully abandons the straight path blazed by the footsteps of Christ.



By accepting a humanly fabricated redefinition of the moral standard, the BSA will fall prey to the inevitable logic of such idolatry. “Their idols are … the work of human hands … those who make them become like unto them; so do all who trust in them.” (Psalm 115:8) It will speedily become evident that what masquerades as tolerance is actually indoctrination, seeking to mold boys according to the standard the BSA trustees will have raised above God’s standard. For if homosexual activity is morally acceptable as an expression of love and good fellowship, then those who express their love accordingly do what is right.

But the aim of Scouting is to encourage young men to do what is right in various ways. Therefore, once the moral prejudice against homosexuality is regarded as a violation of right, doing things that habitually assault and break down this prejudice becomes part of “moral training.” Just as, on many campuses now, refusal to experiment with homosexuality is frowned upon as a sign of bigotry, so henceforth in Scouting braking down this prejudice would be recognized as a meritorious activity. Though camouflaged in different words there will be a merit badge for this experimentation as part of the regime of homosexual indoctrination. God knows what that will lead to; and given now widely publicized possibilities, so should the BSA Inc.

Right Wing Leftovers - 1/24/13

  • The Christian conservative magazine WORLD notes that while abortion is illegal in South Korea, abortion rates there are “double the U.S. rate.” As we’ve said before, abortion rates tend to be higher in countries where it is criminalized. 
  • Tomorrow, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul and Tony Perkins will speak at the March for Life [PDF], while Speaker John Boehner will send in a video message. 
  • New Mexico Republicans want to prosecute rape survivors who terminate the pregnancy with a felony charge of “tampering with evidence.” 
  • Concerned Women for America claims that feminism has left women “at the mercy of sexually liberated men.” 
  • A very delusional Joseph Farah maintains that Obama “got re-elected because there was virtually no opposition.” 
  • If you ever wanted to learn how to literally wrestle a demon and evade their “fiery darts,” here’s your chance.

Religious Right Angry over 'Dangerous' Decision to End Ban on Women in Combat

While the Religious Right reacted with apoplectic rage following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the lifting of the ban on women in combat has brought dejected but relatively subdued responses from conservatives.

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer, who in December spoke out in favor of the ban by lying about the Israeli military’s policy on women in combat, tweeted that the decision was part of Obama’s plan to “feminize and weaken the U.S. military.”

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said that “lives could be lost unnecessarily” by the new policy, which “will harm men and the mission of the infantry as a whole.” “The administration has a pattern of irresponsible actions like this using the military to advance a social agenda,” she said, “This kind of a social experiment is a dangerous one.”

Faith and Freedom Coalition head Ralph Reed maintained that the Obama administration is “putting women in combat situations is the latest in a series of moves where political correctness and liberal social policy have trumped sound military practice.”

Richard Viguerie’s group claimed that “Obama’s plan to introduce women into frontline combat roles in the U.S. military is a dangerous and irresponsible social experiment, not an opportunity for women to serve their country and advance in their chosen profession.”

Radio talk show host Janet Mefferd on her Facebook page wrote that the move is further proof that the Obama administration is “intent upon undoing this great country” and will “stop at nothing to achieve it.”

Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin, who was reprimanded by President Bush after he made anti-Muslim and political speeches while in uniform, called the decision “another social experiment”:

The people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment, and they have never lived nor fought with an infantry or Special Forces unit. These units have the mission of closing with and destroying the enemy, sometimes in close hand-to-hand combat. They are often in sustained operations for extended periods, during which they have no base of operations nor facilities. Their living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions. Commanders are burdened with a very heavy responsibility for succeeding in their mission and for protecting their troops.

This decision to integrate the genders in these units places additional and unnecessary burdens on leaders at all levels. While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations. Is the social experiment worth placing this burden on small unit leaders? I think not.

Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America said that the “majority of women” don’t care about the ban or want its elimination:

News of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's intent to lift the long-standing ban on women serving in direct combat is further proof that this administration simply does not care about the issues about which the majority of women care. Once again, their interest on women issues is driven by special interest groups. The point of the military is to protect our country. Anything that distracts from that is detrimental. Our military cannot continue to choose social experimentation and political correctness over combat readiness. While this decision is not unexpected from this administration, it is still disappointing. Concerned Women for America (CWA) and its more than half-a-million members around the country will continue to do all we can to see that our men and women in uniform are governed with the respect and resources needed to do the hard task of fighting for and protecting our freedoms.

“God help us,” lamented Denny Burk of the Southern Baptist Convention, who seemed to suggest that women shouldn’t be in the armed forces at all:

Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war? Is there a father in America who would under any circumstance risk having his daughter shot or killed in battle? Is there a single husband in this country who thinks it okay for his wife to risk being captured by our enemies? To risk becoming a prisoner of war? Is this the kind of people we want to be? Perhaps this is the kind of people we already are. I would sooner cut off my arm than allow such a thing with my own wife and daughters. Why would I ever support allowing someone else’s to do the same? Why would anyone?

What kind of a society puts its women on the front lines to risk what only men should be called on to risk? In countries ravaged by war, we consider it a tragedy when the battle comes to the backyards of women and children. Why would we thrust our own wives and daughters into that horror? My own instinct is to keep them as far from it as possible. Perhaps this move makes sense with an all volunteer force, but what if the draft is ever reinstituted? Are we really going to be the kind of people who press our wives and daughters to fight in combat?



Everyone in America ought to be scandalized by this news, but I’m wondering if it will even register on the radar of anyone’s conscience. To the extent that it doesn’t, we reveal just how far gone we are as a people. God help us.

Aaron Ahlert of FrontPageMag said the move is “sure to have deadly consequences” and represents the Obama administration “forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat.”

It didn’t take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military’s ban on women serving in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism has been shoved down the nation’s throat through executive fiat — and this one is sure to have deadly consequences.

...

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension, regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.

...

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America’s interests. Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome, irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless other Americans, it is anything but. “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman,” she contends.

More Conservative Groups Repeat Blatantly False Planned Parenthood Attack

As Kyle reported yesterday, right-wing activists are jumping on what they claim is definitive proof that Planned Parenthood is teaching young women to conceal bruises that result from domestic violence.

Of course the charge is completely bogus. Planned Parenthood posted a video entitled “How to look your best the morning after” on one of its Facebook pages. The video, and title, were created by the British domestic abuse prevention group “Refuge” to draw attention to the issue and tell views to not “cover it up.”

However, an anti-choice website LifeNews reported it as if Planned Parenthood came up with the video’s title and is using it to assist women in covering up abuse. But conservatives who either never bothered to watch the video or know that the charge is ludicrous but don’t care ran with the story.

Fox Nation posted the LifeNews story verbatim and Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance even released a statement demanding Congress defund the women’s health organization over the matter:

Why are we giving $1 million dollars per day to an organization that thinks a practical way to end domestic violence is to coach victims on makeup tips to hide their abuse? Once again Planned Parenthood gets it so wrong. Between coaching pimps on how to obtain free abortions for sex trafficking victims, to support for sex selection abortions, to targeting minority babies, this organization is a toxic waste of taxpayer funds and is damaging to American culture. They deceitfully wrap their radical ideology in terms like 'women's health,' but all they really care about is perpetuating their insidious goals of coarsening our culture and undermining American families.

Since Planned Parenthood seems to be in cahoots with pimps and traffickers (see Live Action's expose), this makes perfect sense. After all, they want those pimps happy and able to keep making money so they can pay for 'their girls' to have abortions. Some johns won't pay for a prostitute with bruises, so learning how to cover them up means they can go back out on the street sooner. Planned Parenthood may be a non-profit, but they sure know how to make money. Congress needs to defund this parasite immediately.

Along with Nance’s shamelessly dishonest statement, CWA blogger Christian Shelby claimed that while the video is actually meant to fight abuse Planned Parenthood “has turned it on its head, posting the video with the simple headline: ‘How to look your best the morning after.’”

Actually the British organization gave the video that title, but right-wing groups like CWA have no use for basic facts when trying to smear Planned Parenthood.

Enter Planned Parenthood, who recently posted a video on their Facebook page that instructs teenage girls on how to hide the evidence of abuse with makeup. After all, why report the scumbag? You deserved it, didn’t you? It’s not your boyfriend’s fault that he’s a pathetic excuse for a man who can only win an argument with his fists. This isn’t a problem for police. No. This is a job for Covergirl.

Actually, the video is from a legitimate organization in the U.K. that’s fighting domestic violence. But Planned Parenthood — ever the friend of pimps, statutory rapists, and sex traffickers — has turned it on its head, posting the video with the simple headline: “How to look your best the morning after.”

At least one anti-choice blogger, Ben Johnson, apparently decided that watching the video and reading the headline might be important before writing about it and concluded that the video is clearly “opposed to covering up domestic abuse.”

But is it any wonder that the same activists who either never found the time to watch or are misrepresenting the anti-violence PSA in question are the very same ones who praised Live Action’s deceptively edited videos that targeted Planned Parenthood?

UPDATE: Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has also joined the smear campaign:

UPDATE II: LifeNews has updated their article to claim that “Planned Parenthood’s presentation of the video is problematic, not the video itself,” arguing that it is “problematic” because Refuge titled the video, “How To Look Your Best The Morning After.”

Maybe LifeNews, Concerned Women for America and Tony Perkins should take their grudge up with Refuge, as Planned Parenthood does not have control over the names of other organization’s videos.

Penny Nance Likens Obama to Tarzan for Defending Susan Rice

Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance is getting herself in the involved debate over UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s potential nomination to be Secretary of State. Nance has attempted to paint President Obama as somehow anti-woman by claiming his campaign is “misogynistic” and views women as “a bunch of cheap floozies.” She even mocked Obama supporter Sandra Fluke by saying she and her colleagues couldn’t afford birth control because they spent too much money on beer, while refusing to defend her from Rush Limbaugh’s sexist attacks. Nance’s group launched the SheVotes campaign to energize conservative women and during an Election Day interview with VCY America’s Jim Schneider, she insisted that polling data shows Obama’s efforts to reach out to women voters were a “disaster.”

Of course, Obama carried women voters by eleven points, but being completely wrong about the women’s vote in the election hasn’t stopped Nance from claiming that women across the country are appalled by his purported sexism.

How is he acting like a sexist now? By defending Rice from baseless Republican attacks.

Nance writes that Obama is acting like Tarzan and even threw out the debunked claim that the White House practices paycheck discrimination. She says that instead of speaking out in favor of Rice, he should be defending people like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Michele Bachmann from “his own misogynistic attack dogs.” Speaking out against the attacks against Rice, Nance explains, is effectively “an admission that left-leaning women aren’t nearly as savvy and strong as conservative women and, therefore, need a little extra protection.”

Basically, if Obama doesn’t defend women like Palin, Coulter and Bachmann, it is sexist, and if he speaks out on behalf of a Democratic official like Rice, it is sexist and a sign that liberal women are weak. Get it?

It’s absurd to think Obama would similarly defend his male subordinates. Such statements made by the president would undermine their authority and insult their professional capabilities.

But maybe public displays of “Me Tarzan, You Jane” are just one of the perks you get when you’re part of an administration that pays its women an average of 18 percent less than their male counterparts.

Or maybe it’s finally an admission that left-leaning women aren’t nearly as savvy and strong as conservative women and, therefore, need a little extra protection. Heaven knows there were plenty of times (a la Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann, etc., etc., etc.) when the president could have — and should have — called off his own misogynistic attack dogs. Those were full-on, unbridled, unrestrained, vicious attacks on conservative women. But honest-to-goodness, hard-but-relevant questions pointed at a female, Obama administration mouthpiece is what finally gets the president in an uproar?
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

Miranda Blue, Tuesday 02/18/2014, 1:06pm
Two members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot, who in 2012 were sentenced to two years in a penal colony for staging a protest in a cathedral, were detained again in Sochi, Russia, today. The two were released after a few hours, during which they say that they were beaten by police . While people across the world have held up the Pussy Riot prosecution as an example of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s human rights abuses, the group has had some strong detractors in the American right. Just as with Russia’s recent crackdown on LGBT people, the ordeal of Pussy Riot has... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Thursday 02/06/2014, 1:50pm
The Religious Right has perhaps inevitably caught wind of the story of a Florida middle school teacher who was suspended for using explicit lyrics from a Lil Wayne song to teach her students about figurative language. The school district disciplined the teacher, who recognized that the lyrics to “6 Foot 7 Foot” were “totally inappropriate for a school assignment,” but that hasn’t stopped groups like the American Family Association and Concerned Women For America from latching onto the episode as evidence of the evils of rap, feminism, lesbians, and contemporary... MORE >
Peter Montgomery, Wednesday 02/05/2014, 6:54pm
Representatives of the World Congress of Families held a news conference at the National Press Club on Wednesday to talk about their 2014 summit, which will be held in Moscow in September.  The WCF and the Religious Right groups it partners with are ardent promoters of anti-gay legislation worldwide, and they love Russia's anti-gay President Vladimir Putin.  Earlier this week the WCF announced that the opening session would be held in the Congress Hall of the Kremlin Palace, that a special parliamentary session will also be held in the Russian Duma and a special scientific... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 02/04/2014, 1:43pm
It’s that time of year again: Girl Scout cookie boycott season! WorldNetDaily today reports on the right-wing organizations that are boycotting the Girl Scouts for such offenses as tweeting a HuffPost Live video in which someone mentioned Wendy Davis, promoting “ardent feminist” writers, marching in a gay pride parade, and incorporating “labyrinths, global warming, yoga, avatars, smudging incense, Zen gardens and lesbian role models into their teachings.” WND has reported on a variety of activities on the part of Girl Scouts that conservatives and religious... MORE >
Peter Montgomery, Friday 11/15/2013, 5:52pm
As Miranda reported earlier, House Speaker John Boehner’s office stepped in to provide space to the anti-gay Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society for its symposium on what Americans should learn from other countries when it comes to “family policy.” Sen. Mark Kirk, who had originally sponsored the group for a room, withdrew his support last night saying he doesn’t affiliate with groups that discriminate. The Howard Center’s Allan Carlson, who described himself as a historian by training, saw fascism at work: “The parallel I see here is what... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Friday 11/15/2013, 2:36pm
A Capitol Hill event featuring groups that push anti-gay laws abroad, which was scheduled to take place in a Senate office building today, developed a layer of unexpected intrigue last night when the event’s organizers sent out an email announcing that the meeting would be moved to a House building after the unnamed “senator who was sponsoring our room” canceled the room “due to media pressure.” It turned out that the senator in question was Illinois’ Mark Kirk (home-state senator of the event’s organizer the World Congress of Families), and that the... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 11/14/2013, 6:30pm
Several House Republicans have drafted articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder. Rick Santorum will be the keynote speaker at a Christian Women in Media Association event next week. Lucky them! We will never understand why groups like CWA claim that they have been designated a "hate group" by the SLPC when it is so demonstrably false. Ralph Reed says the GOP should try to model itself on Pope Francis. Finally, FRC prays against ENDA: "May God give House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Congress the moral strength to reject ENDA! (Ex 23:2;... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 10/29/2013, 12:00pm
Much of the success of the Affordable Care Act depends on enough young, healthy people signing up for health care coverage to offset the cost for insurance companies of covering a larger pool of older and less healthy people. That’s why ACA’s supporters are investing a lot of time and energy in signing these “young invincibles” up for coverage….and why the law’s opponents are determined to discourage young people from acquiring health insurance plans. (See the ridiculous, more than a little ironic, ad by the Koch-backed Generation Opportunity showing a... MORE >