Concerned Women for America

• I assume that if Tim Pawlenty becomes president, he'll move immediately to defund Minnesota Public Radio.
• Is Suffolk University really going to require all freshmen in the College of Arts and Sciences to take a class called "Boiling Mad: the Tea Party" that will use Joseph Farah's as part of the curriculum?
• It is good to see House Republicans are tackling the important issues facing this nation.
• Be sure to sign up to join Concerned Women for America's vitrual prayer chapters.
• Finally, it seems that Bryan Fischer is now just turning his Twitter feed into columns.  When is he going to get back to writing long, rambling bigoted posts that cause nothing but embarrassment for the AFA?

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute is outraged that the government is studying sexual behavior and the rate of sexually transmitted infections. In fact, Crouse is upset that the government is using the term “sexually transmitted infection (STI),” which the health community believes is the most accurate term since sexually transmitted diseases are infections that show symptoms. She is also upset that the terms “straight,” “gay,” and “lesbian” were included in the study.

Crouse is even angered that the survey found that, indeed, straight people contract STI’s and HIV. According to Crouse, any study of STI’s is part of a twisted plan concocted by the Obama Administration and the “homosexual lobby” to promote the “homosexual agenda”:

Note that, under the Obama administration, statisticians have adopted the use of STIs instead of STDs (sexually transmitted infections rather than sexually transmitted diseases). Representatives of Planned Parenthood and SEICUS told me, when I asked at a meeting about the difference between the two terms, that “infections” carry less of a stigma than a “disease,” because “anybody can get an infection, but a disease is more serious and carries a connotation of blame.”

While the focus ostensibly is on STIs, there are 10 graphs of same-sex attraction, sexual identity, sexual behavior, and sexual activity. All this attention produced evidence, not surprisingly, that 86 percent of HIV cases are acquired through sexual behavior (others acquire HIV through transmission from an infected spouse or partner, or from a pregnant mother to her baby) and that the cost of the 50,000 new cases of HIV each year is approximately $20,000 per person. Amazingly, (is this really necessary?) the study noted that, in addition to terms such as “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” they used the terms, “straight,” “gay” and “lesbian” so that respondents could easily “recognize” the meaning.

…

Clearly, the intent of this report is to document same-sex attraction, identification, behavior, and activity, rather than to report on sexually-transmitted diseases. Is this a sign of the times, or a calculated effort of the Obama administration to continue pushing the homosexual agenda? Or both? Is it really the federal government’s responsibility, and a good use of taxpayer money, to mine survey data to try to support the homosexual lobby’s claim that “we are everywhere” and “anybody can get HIV?”

Apparently Crouse has a problem with science: as this study documents, straight people are able to contract HIV, along with all other STI’s. While she says that the government should instead “report on sexually-transmitted diseases” (which it does), one of the best ways to learn about the transmission of STI’s is to learn about sexual behavior. Crouse could have learned this by reading the second sentence of the first paragraph of the study: “These behaviors and characteristics are relevant to birth and pregnancy rates, as well as the incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).”

Moreover, she believes the Obama Administration is responsible for this outrageous research, but the National Survey of Family Growth conducted it from 2006-2008, under the Bush Administration.

This demonstrates another example of shoddy reporting from CWA’s “resident expert.”

There are few "mainstream" anti-gay activists operating today that can match Matt Barber for shear anti-gay vitriol.  In fact, it was his attacks on gays that turned Barber into a Religious Right celebrity in the first place, eventually landing him a job with Concerned Women for America before Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel lured him away and gave him a position as Associate Dean at Liberty University and Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel.

And Staver snapped up Barber because he shares his anti-gay views and because of their endless anti-gay attacks, Liberty Counsel found itself on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of anti-gay groups.

So, of course, Rep. Michele Bachmann has tapped Staver to come and teach her Tea Party class to members of Congress ... after, of course, she joins him for the upcoming Awakening 2011 conference, along with Newt Gingrich:

Staver joins David Barton and Jay Sekulow as anti-gay Religious Right activists that Bachmann has sought out to teach her Tea Party class on the Constitution. 

Legal scholar Goodwin Liu, President Obama’s nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is receiving a second hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Liu, who is an Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the Berkeley School of Law and a renowned legal scholar, has unsurprisingly found himself to be a top target of right-wing activists.

Ed Whalen of the Nation Review accuses Liu of “trying to fool senators and get himself appointed to the Ninth Circuit, where he would (among countless opportunities for mischief)” overrule California’s Proposition 8. In addition, a coalition of right-wing groups including the Judicial Crisis Network, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, American Values, the Center for Military Readiness, the Media Research Center, the Traditional Values Coalition, Americans for Limited Government, and Citizens United have signed on to a memo condemning Liu for representing the “extreme liberal agenda of judicial activism.”

But Richard Painter, the Associate Counsel to the President during the Bush Administration, points out that while many ideological right-wing activists oppose Liu, prominent conservative legal minds like John Yoo, Ken Starr, and Clint Bolick endorse his confirmation and corroborate Liu’s qualifications. “The attacks are rife with extravagant and tendentious readings of Liu’s record,” Painter writes, “and they are based on selective quotations of Liu's writings that even then don’t prove the point”:

Liu's opponents have sought to demonize him as a "radical," "extremist," and worse. National Review Online's Ed Whelan has led the charge with a "one-stop repository" of attacks on Liu. However, for anyone who has actually read Liu's writings or watched his testimony, it's clear that the attacks--filled with polemic, caricature, and hyperbole--reveal very little about this exceptionally qualified, measured, and mainstream nominee.

…

Far from being radical, Liu's view probably comports with the intent of the framers who bequeathed the Constitution to their descendants with the intent that it be a useful document. Few if any of our ancestors would have intended that we run our businesses, farm our land, educate our children, or live our lives exactly the way they did, even if they did intend that the Constitution give us principles of self-government that would last for generations. Liu's perspective may be more realistic than that of some of his opponents; his view is certainly not radical.

…

In sum, Liu is eminently qualified. He has support from prominent conservatives. He would fill a judicial emergency vacancy, and he would add important diversity to the bench. He is pragmatic and open-minded, not dogmatic or ideological, as his support for school vouchers shows.

Many, though by no means all, of his scholarly views do not align with conservative ideology or with the policy positions of many elected officials in the Republican Party. (This might not have been the case thirty years ago, but many moderates have since left the Republican Party.) Nevertheless, his views are part of the American legal mainstream. The independence, rigor, and fair-mindedness of his writings support a confident prediction that he will be a dutiful and impartial judge.

After the Obama administration announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the law is unconstitutional, groups opposed to marriage equality immediately sprung into action. The Family Research Center, Concerned Women For America, and Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink swiftly demanded that Congress pass a resolution to takeover the legal defense of DOMA. “Marriage advocates are ready to defend God’s design,” said Jennifer Mesko of CitizenLink, “They are calling on Congress to intervene and defend DOMA.”

According to the Washington Times, Religious Right leaders are now plotting with Republicans in Congress to do just that:

House Republicans and conservative groups are working together behind the scenes to fill the legal void created Wednesday when the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend the federal law banning gay marriage.

The House leadership likely will introduce a resolution early next week to intervene in the four lawsuits pending against the Defense of Marriage Act, better known as DOMA, the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, conservative leaders say.

“I know there have been discussions. I’ve been part of the discussions,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The question is how to handle this hot potato. The president is trying to throw a monkey wrench into what’s been a very unified majority.”

Jordan Sekulow, policy director for the American Center for Law and Justice, said that although individual members could introduce their own measures in support of the law, he expects Republicans to present a united front with one resolution.

“We’re already in private discussions with members of Congress about defending DOMA,” said Mr. Sekulow. “A unified voice coming from the House would be more powerful.”

The consensus was that such a resolution would pass easily and with bipartisan support. “I don’t think there’s any question that this would pass,” Mr. Perkins said.

…

The decision effectively leaves the law defenseless in the face of four lawsuits, two filed in federal court in Massachusetts and two filed in federal court in New York. The Massachusetts cases are now at the appellate level.

“That’s a huge-level disadvantage for whoever takes this up,” said Mr. Sekulow. “Briefs are due soon in the 1st Circuit [Court of Appeals]. Congress is out of session this week. As of now, there’s no one defending DOMA.”

Ben Dimiero reports that tonight's episode of Glenn Beck will feature the End Times-obsessed Joel Richardson, author of "The Islamic Antichrist," who claims that "Islam is indeed the primary vehicle that will be used by Satan to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible about the future political/religious/military system of the Antichrist that will overwhelm the entire world just prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ."

So I guess it should come as no surprise that Concerned Women for America, founded by Beverly LaHaye, is reporting that her husband, Tim LaHaye, will also be featured on the program:

If today’s headlines are renewing your interest in the end times, you’re not alone! Don’t miss Dr. Tim LaHaye this Thursday, February 24, as he discusses this hot topic on the Glenn Beck Show, which airs from 5-6 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel.

Dr. Tim LaHaye holds a Doctor of Ministry degree from Western Theological Seminary, a Doctor of Literature degree from Liberty University, and is a leading expert on pretribulation thought.

So this seems like as good a time as any to repost this clip of Tim and Beverly on Mike Huckabee's TV show explaining that President Obama is bringing about the End Times:

While the Conservative Political Action Conference may be over, the controversy over the gathering’s handling continues. RedState Editor-in-Chief and CNN commentator Erick Erickson first criticized GOProud, the gay conservative group whose involvement in CPAC sparked a Religious Right boycott, for attacking prominent right-wing leaders. Now, Erickson is going after Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform and a GOProud adviser who knocked CPAC boycotters as “loser organizations.”

Norquist has long been a target of far-right groups for his outreach to Muslim Americans and gays and lesbians, and Erickson believes that his fellow conservatives should abandon and replace the Norquist-led ATR and Wednesday Meetings over his role in the CPAC controversy:

Are you a loser? If you are the Heritage Foundation, Media Research Center, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the American Principles Project, Jim DeMint, Jim Jordan, Rush Limbaugh (given his comments yesterday on CPAC), and others — you are losers.

Grover Norquist says so. Norquist, last week, called those who chose not to participate in CPAC and those who share those views “losers.”

…

The source of Grover Norquist’s power comes from two things: (1) Americans for Tax Reform’s Tax Pledge, which could easily be duplicated by an organization not headed by someone who picked up checks written by a man serving 23 years in jail for financing jihad activities; and (2) the Wednesday morning meeting in which tons of conservative groups participate.

(By the way, did Grover ever give that money back or send it to a charitable cause?)

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, Grover Norquist has an off the record meeting every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. in which candidates come to pitch themselves, conservative organizations come to promote their wares, and even Al Gore and George Soros have come to.

It’s become a “see and be seen” sort of meeting and information exchange. Mitch McConnell typically sends someone. The House Republicans send someone. Etc., Etc., Etc.

Grover Norquist’s latest remarks, both regarding principaled [sic] social conservatives and Congressman West, are deeply troubling. If you aren’t troubled yet, google Jack Abramoff Grover Norquist.

I suggest a new Wednesday morning meeting of conservatives — one that combines the fiscal conservative organizations that constantly see their legs cut out from under them when Grover sides with UPS and the unions against FedEx, the national security organizations that continue to be concerned about Grover Norquist’s ties to possible jihadists, and the social conservative organizations Grover Norquist would like to purge from the movement.

Make it the place to plan and strategize within the conservative movement — something that does not really happen any more at Grover’s place. Make it the first step to taking back the conservative movement and moving away from the pay to play concerns that have so plagued the few, but taint so many.

It is time. Losers Unite!

In an article last week about the conflict at CPAC over the inclusion of the gay conservative group GOProud and the subsequent boycott by various Religious Right leaders and organizations, GOProud's Chris Barron called ACU board member Cleta Mitchell "a nasty bigot" for opposing the organization's participation.

In a piece on FrumForum the very next day, Barron apologized for the remark, apparently in response to news that incoming ACU Chairman Al Cardenas was reconsidering GOProud's continued participation in the conference.

On Friday, Alan Colmes had Barron on his radio program to discuss the controversy and asked him why he had apologized to Mitchell but not Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, whom he called "a nasty, anti-gay bigot," or to Sen. Jim DeMint, Joseph Farah, or Concerned Women for America, whom he accused of living on "the Island of Political Misfit Toys. " And Barron made clear that he had no intention of apologizing to Perkins or anyone else who participated in the boycott, including DeMint, claiming they had all chosen to side with the crazy, conspiracy theorists over at WorldNetDaily rather than stand with the conservatives at CPAC:

Live Action’s ongoing smear campaign against Planned Parenthood, where actors playing a pimp and a prostitute used hidden cameras to try to dupe clinic staffers into a sex trafficking ring, has ran into numerous hurdles. The radical group’s videos have found to be heavily doctored and actually show clinic workers acting properly and lawfully. In fact, before Live Action even released the edited tapes, Planned Parenthood alerted the FBI about visitors who sought advice for “underage girls who were part of a sex trafficking ring.” Live Action is led by anti-choice radical Lila Rose, who previously collaborated with notorious trickster James O’Keefe and likes to compare herself to Martin Luther King Jr. Rose also has a long history of deceptively editing videos.

But the Religious Right and leading Republicans have increasingly embraced Rose and her hoax videos, and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) is using the discredited videos to promote his bill that would end federal funding of Planned Parenthood, imperiling women’s health services.

Tomorrow, leading GOP congressmen plan to join Rose and Pence to demand Congress strip Planned Parenthood of its funding. Congressmen Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Virginia Foxx (R-NC) , Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) , Renee Ellmers (R-NC), Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY), and Andy Harris (R-MD) will speak with Rose and Pence, along with Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List and Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America.

All of the Congressmen mentioned have a long history with extreme anti-choice activism:

Schmidt railed against reproductive rights in a speech to 1st graders in an elementary school; Buerkle served as the spokesperson for the extreme group Operation Rescue; Hartzler backed bills that would compel women seeking an abortion to view their sonograms and even supported legislation that would force the state to file murder charges against women and their doctors if they performed a late-term abortion; Foxx wants to ban emergency contraception like RU-486 and Ella; Harris wanted to allow pharmacists to refuse contraception to customers and challenged a moderate pro-choice Republican incumbent in 2008, and Ellmers is an avowed opponent of legal abortion who recently justified receiving taxpayer-subsidized health care by claiming that Washington DC is too expensive to live in with a $174,000 per year salary, while pushing to defund health services for low-income women.

But having such an extreme group of anti-choice congressmen standing with Rose is no surprise, as Rose herself has called for abortions to “be done in the public square.”