Family Research Council

FRC's GOTV Efforts Get Under Way

I can always tell when election season is approaching because the Family Research Council releases a series of web ads featuring a very serious Tony Perkins explaining why it is imperative for Christians to vote.

And FRC has now released its latest batch, which I will sum up for you so that you don't have to waste your time watching them:

Thomas Jefferson thought life was important, which means you should vote against abortion:

You've never heard of John Witherspoon, but he'd want you to vote only for Christians:

I've taken a knee outside the Washington Monument to tell you that George Washington supports our agenda:

Our fight against abortion and gays makes us just like Abraham Lincoln:

If you don't vote and vote properly, then our Founding Fathers all died in vain:

FRC Again Asks MA Residents to Contact "Senator Kirk"

Does anyone at the Family Research Council actually know who the two US Senators are who represent Massachusetts? 

They are Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Scott Brown.

And the reason I ask is because for the second time in a month, FRC is asking Massachusetts residents to contact "Sen. Kirk" ... this time to "take a firm and principled stand against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act":

Does FRC really not know that Paul Kirk was just the interim Senator tapped to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat and that he was replaced by Scott Brown earlier this year?  You'd think they would considering that they hailed Brown's election as "the culmination of thousands of townhalls, tea parties, and angry voters" a mere six months ago.

Fischer: "No More Mosques, Period"

The AFA 's Bryan Fischer was hating Muslims long before it was the cool conservative thing to do and has been calling for their mass deportation from the US for some time now.

So it was no surprise when he weighed in against the "Ground Zero Mosque" by calling for the blacklisting of any company that dares to work on its construction.

But of course that is not enough to Fischer, so he is now demanding an end to the construction of any mosque anywhere in America:

Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.

Each one is a potential jihadist recruitment and training center, and determined to implement the “Grand Jihad” ...

Because of this subversive ideology, Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. They are currently using First Amendment freedoms to make plans to destroy the First Amendment altogether. There is no such thing as freedom of religion in Islam, and it is sheer and utter folly for Americans to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

...

American Muslims are being radicalized every single day in American mosques. We are sowing the seeds of our own destruction by allowing these improvised explosive devices to be established in community after community.

If a mosque was willing to publicly renounce the Koran and its 109 verses that call for the death of infidels, renounce Allah and his messenger Mohammed, publicly condemn Osama bin Laden, Hamas, and Abdelbaset al Megrahi (the Lockerbie bomber), maybe then they could be allowed to build their buildings. But then they wouldn’t be Muslims at that point, now would they?

So how long before Fischer takes this to its logical conclusion and starts calling for all Muslims who won't leave the country or convert to Christianity to be rounded up and put into internment camps? 

Also, have I mentioned that Fischer is listed as a "confirmed speaker" at the next Family Research Council Values Voter Summit, along with Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rep. Mike Pence, and Mike Huckabee?

Just want to keep pointing that out.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • An appeal has already been filed in the Prop 8 decision.
  • Charles Colson responds to the Prop 8 decision: "I have warned you for months that our religious freedoms are imperiled. Well, Armageddon may be close at hand if a new court decision holds up."
  • Mike Huckabee says the decision shows the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment.
  • The director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council says in vitro fertilization is dangerous because it "not only takes the Creator out of the equation, but it makes creation of life superficial, and she believes the consequences will be evident in America's culture."
  • Concerned Women for America, Americans for Prosperity, Citizens Against Public Waste and 60 Plus are out on a "Spending Revolt" bus tour.
  • And speaking of Concerned Women for America, the group reacts to the confirmation of Elena Kagan with news that it will "pray that God will inspire Justice Kagan to be an impartial and just justice."

Fischer: Prop 8 Ruling Proof That "Homosexuals Should be Disqualified From Public Office"

When Elena Kagan was first nominated to the Supreme Court, rumors swirled that she was a lesbian, which was more than enough evidence for Byran Fischer, who declared that all gays are biased, deviant borderline pedophiles who do not belong in public office.

So take just one guess how he is responding to the Prop 8 ruling:

Although almost no other organizations other than the American Family Association are making an issue of this, Judge Walker should have recused himself from this case since he is a practicing homosexual. This created a clear conflict of interest, and he had no business issuing a ruling on a matter on which he had such a huge personal and private interest.

His own personal sexual proclitivies utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling in this case. After all, the bottom line issue is whether homosexual behavior, with all its threats to psychological and physical health, is behavior that should be promoted in any rational society.

Judge Walker has already decided this issue for himself, and has no business putting himself in a place where his own personal value judgments could be substituted for the express will of the people of California.

He is Exhibit A as to why homosexuals should be disqualified from public office. Character is an important qualification for public service, and what an individual does in his private sexual life is a critical component of character. A man who ignores time-honored standards of sexual behavior simply cannot be trusted with the power of public office.

This, by the way, is why Elana Kagan should not be elevated to the Supreme Court. Although she has not come out of the closet herself, her lesbian partner has, and Ms. Kagan’s sexual preference is an open secret in Washington circles. Her indulgence in sexually aberrant behavior should make her ineligible to serve on the highest court in the land.

Fischer goes on to demand Walker's impeachment, saying that if conservative leaders in Congress do not take action to remove him from the bench, Religious Right voters will stop voting for them. 

And less you think this is just typical Religious Right hyperbole, rest assured that Fischer and the American Family Association are entirely serious, as they have now launched a campaign to get Walker impeached:

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

I am going to mention just one more time that Fischer is listed as a "confirmed speaker" at the next Family Research Council Values Voter Summit as are, as of today, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Mike Pence, and Mike Huckabee.

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Reactions to Prop 8 Decision

I'll be updating this post as more statements are released reacting to the decision to oveturn Prop 8, but Focus on the Family is out with the first statement blasting the ruling (if you don't count Harry Jackson, who Tweeted a statement hours ago):

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.

“During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008.

“Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word.

“We fully expect the judge’s decision to be overturned upon appeal. The redeeming feature of our judicial system is that one judge who ignores the law and the evidence must ultimately endure the review and reversal of his actions from the appellate courts.

“We do want Americans to understand the seriousness of this decision, however. If this judge’s decision is not overturned, it will most likely force all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage. This would be a profound and fundamental change to the social and legal fabric of this country.

“Our Founders intended such radical changes to come from the people, not from activist judges. Alexander Hamilton, in advocating for the ratification of our Constitution in 1788, argued that the judiciary would be ‘the least dangerous’ branch of government. Today’s decision shows how far we have come from that original understanding.”

Randy Thomasson and Save California:

"Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California. This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn't in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states' rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction. It is high time for the oath of office to be updated to require judicial nominees to swear to judge only according to the written words of the Constitution and the original, documented intent of its framers. As a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority, and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect."

Concerned Women for America:

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said:

“Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately.

“Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement.

“Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.

“CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”

CWA of California State Director Phyllis Nemeth said:

“Today Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen to side with political activism over the will of the people. His ruling is slap in the face to the more than seven million Californians who voted to uphold the definition of marriage as it has been understood for millennia.

“While Judge Walker’s decision is disappointing it is not the end of this battle. Far from it. The broad coalition of support for Proposition 8 remains strong, and we will support the appeal by ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent of Proposition 8.

“We are confident that Judge Walker’s decision will ultimately be reversed. No combination of judicial gymnastics can negate the basic truth that marriage unites the complementary physical and emotional characteristics of a man and a woman to create a oneness that forms the basis for the family unit allowing a child to be raised by his or her father and mother. Any other combination is a counterfeit that fails to provide the best environment for healthy child rearing and a secure foundation for the family. It is this foundation upon which society is – and must be – built for a healthy and sustained existence.”

Family Research Council:

FRC President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

"Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is.

"Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America's founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.

"FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. Even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the most liberal appeals court in America-Family Research Council is confident that we can help win this case before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Liberty Counsel:

Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” Moreover, the U.S. Constitution cannot be stretched to include a right to same-sex marriage.

Except for this case, since Liberty Counsel was excluded by ADF, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”

Alliance Defense Fund:

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

...

“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”

“What’s at stake here is bigger than California,” Pugno added. “Americans in numerous states have affirmed--and should be allowed to continue to affirm--a natural and historic public policy position like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”

Capitol Resource Institute:

"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."

American Family Association:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior - in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior - and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Traditional Values Coalition:

"It is an outrage that one arrogant and rogue federal judge can take it upon himself to overturn a centuries old definition of marriage and family," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman and founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). "On November 4, 2008, 7 million voters of California cemented into the state constitution a definition of marriage for one man and one woman only. Now with US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling today he has completely undermined the expressed will of voters at the ballot box. Direct Democracy has been blatantly attacked today."

"First it was the California Supreme Court's decision in 2008 to overturn Prop 22 and force the people of California to accept homosexual marriages. Well, the people adamantly rejected their ruling and homosexual marriages and they passed Prop 8, which was designed to forever tie the hands of judges from redefining marriage. Now one judge has yet again slapped the people in the face, even though the state constitution now clearly tells them what marriage means; we spelled it out for them in black and white," Sheldon added. "This is a blatant sign of judicial activism and lack of judicial restraint."

Sheldon added: "There is more at stake than just traditional marriage and the centuries long definition of the family. This ruling seriously undermines the expressed vote and will of the people on initiatives and proposed amendments they approve at the ballot box. This judge's ruling says that any vote of the people will have no weight, credence, sovereignty, value or worth at all. On appeal, the courts will either realize their limits and not undermine the constitutional power of the vote, or they will continue to demonstrate the most blatant arrogance and impose judicial tyranny by declaring that they alone, and not the people, have the ultimate final say on all matters of the state. Democracy, the constitution and the people would be beneath them."

TVC state lobbyist Benjamin Lopez, who was publicly credited by homosexual State Senator Mark Leno for the defeat of his proposed homosexual marriage bill in 2005, echoed Sheldon's statements:

"The issue at hand now is whether the will of 7 million voters outweighs that of either 7 Supreme Court justices or any one judge anywhere in the state. Homosexual marriage advocates may kick and scream the loudest demanding that Prop 8 be struck down, but they should be drowned out by the deafening voice of 7 million Californians who settled this issue not once, but twice already. We are hear because homosexual radicals continue to act like immature children who throw tantrums when they do not get their way."

"Same-sex marriage supporters repeatedly beat the drum of civil rights to equate their cause to the legitimate struggles of minority groups and say the public is on their side. Yet not even in 'liberal' California have they won over the people so they must resort to sympathetic, liberal black-robed activists who sit on the bench to force same-sex marriage on the people.

"If folks think that the Tea Party movement is a force to be reckoned with now, wait until the silent majority of pro-family voters flex their political muscle once again. Judges beware, you will go the way of Rose Bird, stripped of their robes and kicked off the bench," Lopez added.

The battle of same-sex marriage began in March 2000 when California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22. It stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Homosexual marriage advocates challenged Prop 22 in court and in March 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer struck it down ruling it in violation of the equal protection clause. Kramer's ruling was then challenged all the way to the California Supreme Court. In early 2008 the high court upheld Kramer's ruling allowing homosexual marriages to take place. Voters passed Prop 8 in November 2008 cementing Prop 22's language into the state constitution. After challenges to Prop 8 reached the state supreme court, the justices upheld Prop 8 and allowed for some 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand. The current ruling by Judge Walker was the result of a challenge to the California Supreme Court's ruling.

Richard Land:

 “This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed. The people of our most populous state—a state broadly indicative of the nation at large demographically—voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thus excluding same-sex and polygamous relationships from being defined as marriage. 

“Now, an unelected federal judge has chosen to override the will of the people of California and to redefine an institution the federal government did not create and that predates the founding of America. Indeed, ‘marriage’ goes back to the Garden of Eden, where God defined His institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“This case will clearly make its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, where unfortunately, the outcome is far from certain. There are clearly four votes who will disagree with this judge—Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. The supreme question is: Will there be a fifth? Having surveyed Justice Kennedy’s record on this issue, I have no confidence that he will uphold the will of the people of California.

“If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges. Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It’s called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California—if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat—then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state’s right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote.

“Despite egregious court rulings like this one, there is nonetheless an unprecedented effort going on across the nation of Christians uniting for sustained prayer, for revival, awakening and deliverance. I encourage everyone to join me in this effort and go to 4040prayer.com for more information.” 

National Organization for Marriage:

"Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman."

"Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple - there isn't!" added Brown.

"The 'trial' in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people's right to vote for marriage," stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

"Gay marriage groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, and Equality California will, no doubt, be congratulating themselves over this "victory" today in San Francisco. However, even they know that Judge Walker's decision is only temporary. For the past 20 years, gay marriage groups have fought to avoid cases filed in federal court for one good reason - they will eventually lose. But these groups do not have control of the Schwarzenegger v. Perry case, which is being litigated by two egomaniacal lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies). So while they congratulate themselves over their victory before their home-town judge today, let's not lose sight of the fact that this case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed--and if the Supreme Court fails, Congress has the final say. The rights of millions of voters in states from Wisconsin to Florida, from Maine to California, are at stake in this ruling; NOM is confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the basic civil rights of millions of American voters to define marriage as one man and one woman," noted Gallagher.

Robert George - American Principles Project:

“Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. “In striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance—the definition and meaning of marriage itself—that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.”

“As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand.”

Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to invalidate California Proposition 8, which by vote of the people of California restored the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife after California courts had re-defined marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

“The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,” George said. “It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children—and society as a whole—by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.

“We are talking about the right to define what marriage is, not about who can or cannot take part. Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges.”

“Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,” concluded Dr. George.

Newt Gingrich:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Where Does Focus On The Family Stand On The "Ground Zero Mosque"?

While some Religious Right groups have made it very clear that they oppose the construction of an Islamic Center near Ground Zero in New York City despite their so-called commitments to religious freedom, other groups have remained rather silent. 

As far as I can tell, the only comment the Family Research Council has made on this issue came in the form of this radio commentary back in June:

Muslims are gaining ground all right--Ground Zero. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Nine years after terrorists forever altered the New York City skyline, an Islamic leader is threatening to do it again--this time, by building a mosque three blocks from where the twin towers collapsed. To the families of 9-11, this 13-story project is the ultimate insult. "This is a burial ground," said a dad who lost his son in the attack. The man who bought the land said his people's only goal was peace. But that'll be a tough sell in a city that lost 3,000 to his religion's extremists. Besides, if he really cared about harmony, he'd have picked a less offensive location. Instead, he's building a monument to Islam on a site where terrorists committed mass-murder in Allah's name. For years, Muslims have said we need to be sensitive to their needs, their customs, their rights. But is there anything more insensitive than creating a foundation for shar'iah law on the graves that its fanatics killed?

Other Religious Right groups don't appear particularly eager to take a position on the issue either:

The Becket Fund, which describes itself as a "public interest law firm protecting the free expression of all religious traditions," has been notably silent considering how outspoken it has been in the past. In addition to helping the Third Church of Christ, Scientist in Washington, DC sue the city using RLUIPA in 2008, the fund represented a New Jersey mosque in 2006 in a RLIUPA case claiming that the city of Wayne, N.J., was "improperly and arbitrarily delaying the mosque's land development application" due to "community anti-Moslem hostility." The group is normally not shy about wading into public debates, and recently caused a minor furor by reading nefarious intent into President Obama's use of the phrase "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion." Its silence may be related to its conservative political backers. For instance, Newt Gingrich, who has loudly opposed Cordoba House, served as honorary vice chair of one of its annual black-tie dinners.

The Alliance Defense Fund, another conservative religious rights group that has made frequent use of RLUIPA cases, has also stayed out of the debate. "We've been asked by a few outlets," a spokesperson told The Upshot. "We're not commenting."

The Upshot spoke with just one person within this ecosystem of religious rights organizations who was neither silent nor contradicting past actions: Matthew Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a religious rights law firm associated with Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

"The Constitution cuts both ways," Staver said. "I think you have to be principled from a legal perspective, because the First Amendment is a double-edged sword."

Which brings us to this new report from Stuart Shepard and Bruce Hausknecht of Focus on the Family's Citizenlink voicing their outrage over a church being shut down in Georgia for violating zoning regulations:

Hausknecht: Well here's the problem: for some reason, around the country cities and counties and other municipalities are hostile to churches, they don't want them for some reason or another. Usually its taxes ...

Shepard: The fact that they don't pay property taxes.

Hausknecht: They're usually exempt and so they try to zone them away or discourage them away. And by creating zoning laws the discriminate against churches, they're violating federal law and the First Amendment.

Shepard: What does this tell us about the state of religious freedom in the United States?

Hausknecht: Well, we're seeing first a hostility toward religion. You would think in this day and age of tolerance that there would be tolerance for religious views, religious people. There is not. We're seeing it in the zoning cases, we're seeing it in the schools. That is a definite wake-up call for people of all faiths to stand up and protect their rights.

So, does that mean that Focus on the Family supports the right to build this Islamic Center or does the organization, like seemingly so many others on the Right, really only believe in protecting and defending "religious freedom" when it involves Christians? 

The Right Loses It As Kagan's Confirmation Nears

It seems that the closer Elena Kagan gets to being confirmed to the Supreme Court, the weaker the Right's case for opposing her becomes and, as such, the more desperate their campaign becomes.

While Phyllis Schlafly is warning that Kagan is part of President Obama's plan to "break free from our Constitution" and "fundamentally transform America," others, like Robert Knight, are going completely off the rails:

As we watch in disbelief, the United States Senate is about to take the Fifth on a Supreme Court nominee who has no business being near a courtroom except as a defendant.

The word from Capitol Hill is that the GOP won’t even bother with a filibuster despite evidence from Elena Kagan’s Judiciary Committee hearing that she falsified evidence used in a Supreme Court case and committed what might be perjury before that committee.

One wonders what it would take for the Senate to deny this nomination? A daytime bank robbery, guns drawn? No, that could be chalked up to youthful exuberance or perhaps research in pursuit of insight into the criminal mind. When the Gang of 14 Democrats and Republicans agreed to clear the path for some Bush Administration nominees, that arrogant group’s presumption was that a president is entitled to his pick unless there are “exceptional circumstances.”

If Elena Kagan’s malfeasance does not fit “exceptional circumstances,” the term has no meaning.

For the record, the phrase used by the Gang of 14 was "extraordinary circumstances," not "exceptional circumstances."

But Knight has nothing on the Family Research Council, which appears to be on the verge of losing its mind at the prospect of seeing Kagan on the Supreme Court:

In all of American history, only 111 justices have had the privilege of serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. By the end of this week, members of the Senate will have made their decision on the 112th. If it is Elena Kagan, the President's controversial Solicitor General, she will most likely join this elite club with the third fewest confirmation votes of any nominee in history. Outside the Beltway, she is unpopular even with everyday Americans, who are "more convinced than ever" that she is an ideological liberal one goal: to supplant the Constitution with a permanent Obama agenda. "It is all but certain," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said, "that, if confirmed, Ms. Kagan will bring to the [Court] a progressive activist judicial philosophy which holds that unelected judges are empowered to set national policy from the bench." Her entire career--from the Clinton administration to Harvard Law School and the Solicitor General's office--is marred by a trail of unprincipled decisions.

Whether it was rewriting a medical group's opinion to promote infanticide or intentionally fixing a case to sink marriage, Kagan has proven that she will always ignore the law if it conflicts with her ultra-Left philosophy (or career goals). She may have zero experience as a judge, but the White House believes that she has plenty where it matters most: in years of pro-abortion, anti-American activism. Like the liberals in Congress, she is on the wrong side of the American people (and the Constitution) on every value we hold dear: the promise of new life, the stability of the family, the valor of our troops, the power of faith, and the significance of speech.

Conservatives Issue Declaration of Tea Party Solidarity

Given that Tea Party activists are, by and large, conservative Republicans, it doesn't come as much of a surprise that conservative Republicans support the Tea Party.

Which is now giving rise to pointlessly absurd things like this declaration of Tea Party solidarity:

Save America...STOP Obama Tyranny National Coalition Chairman Dr. Rick Scarborough announced the successful conclusion of a petition drive: "In Support of The Tea Parties And Against Defamation."

Signers include such notable conservative leaders as Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Gary Bauer (American Values), Brent Bozell (Media Research Center), Wendy Wright (Concerned Women for America), Richard A. Viguerie (ConservativeHQ.com), Morton Blackwell (Leadership Institute), Alfred S. Regnery (The American Spectator), Gov. Mike Huckabee, Judge Roy Moore, Don Irvine (Accuracy In Media), Tom McClusky (Family Research Council), Herbert I. London (Hudson Institute), Rev. Louis Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition) and Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum). Organizations listed for identification purposes only.

Scarborough observed: "Conservative leaders lining up behind the Tea Parties -- representing every segment of the movement -- include five rabbis, the Executive Director of Faithful Catholic Citizens and a number of well-respected pastors -- as well as the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America and the Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Economic conservatives are represented by Seton Motley (Less Government), Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform), Dick Patten (American Family Business Institute) and Jim Martin (60 Plus Association). Leaders working on defense and foreign policy include Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs), Elaine Donnelly (Center for Military Readiness) and Herb Zweibon (Americans for A Safe Israel). Jordan Marks (Young Americans for Freedom) is the executive director of the nation's oldest conservative youth group."

The petition calls the Tea Parties "one of the best hopes for restoring constitutional government," but notes they have been "subjected to an unprecedented campaign of lies, distortion and vitriol, most recently by the NAACP which called on them to 'expel the bigots and racists in your ranks.'"

Scarborough noted these attacks, "magnified by a compliant media," are part of an overall strategy: "The left is running scared. Its president is wildly unpopular. It is now looking at huge loses in the mid-term elections. It hopes that by stigmatizing and marginalizing the Tea Parties -- the most visible symbol of opposition to big government -- it will thereby discredit all opposition to this administration."

The Petition charges that the anti-Tea Party campaign also "represents a cynical attempt to manipulate minority voters and exploit their fear in the upcoming election."

Wow, right-wing activists support right-wing activism? Who would ever have guessed? 

But apparently this was such an important statement that Scarborough managed to get a who's who of right-wing activists to sign on [PDF]. 

Right Wing Round-Up

Why Is FRC Selectively Editing Sgt. Ratcliff's DADT Views?

The Family Research Council has recently been uploading selected clips from the anti-DADT repeal webcast it hosted last week ... and they are selecting which videos to highlight very carefully.

For some reason, they haven't chosen to highlight Oliver North claiming that repealing DADT will lead to NAMBLA members being welcomed into the military or Perkins and Sergeant First Class Benjamin Ratcliff warning that soldiers might be reluctant to "spoon" in a life-threatening situation because they might have concerns about the guy next to them.

Instead, they are highlighting things like this clip of Ratcliff saying that the military should not be used to advance a social agenda and that if DADT is repealed, it'll make it much harder to fill recruitment goals:

The interesting thing is that in between these statements that FRC edited together, Ratcliff stated that even if DADT was repealed, he would continue to serve in the military and that he would urge others to do so as well because even though he would disagree with the policy, he loves his country more. I even made a video of it, juxtaposing Ratcliff's statement with the Bryan Fischer parroting this standard right-wing talking point during the webcast:

But FRC completely edited out Ratcliff's statement - in fact, the statement they did include from Ratcliff saying recruitment would be made harder came about because Tony Perkins was trying to get Ratcliff back on message.  Here is the transcript of the entire exchange:

MR. PERKINS: I’m sure this thought has come to you and you may have even been asked about it. If someone considering getting into the military were to ask you if this policy changes, what are you going to say to them?

BENJAMIN RATCLIFF: I would tell them to serve anyway. If all men of courage and men that had a moral compass were to leave the military, then we wouldn’t have a military. There’d be nobody left to serve and protect. So I don’t really – I would serve regardless of what comes out of Washington. Even though I disagree with it strongly, I love my country more. So I would understand if parents had concerns. I was recruited for several years and I sat and listened to parents’ concerns, talked with them. They asked me a lot of questions about the wars and a lot about the liberal agenda. But I would tell them, serve anyway, absolutely.

MR. PERKINS: But you bring up an important point, and I do think as long as there’s a country here and there are those who love this country, there are going to be those who are willing to serve. But as a recruiter, you know that in an all-volunteer force, it’s very difficult to meet those quotas to keep the ranks filled with the young men and women who are willing to serve. Is this going to make it easier or is it going to make it harder?

MR. RATCLIFF: Absolutely not. It’s going to make it very much harder; very much harder.

MR. PERKINS: And this is going to be at the forefront of many of those parents’ minds.

MR. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And recruiting and retention is at the top of all the commanders’ lists. Every commander across all the armed forces, recruiting is a top priority for all of them, so this would definitely degrade that fight.

Ratcliff clearly asserted that he and others like him who love their country would serve in the military regardless of the status of DADT, but FRC selectively edited that bit out because it undermined their agenda.

Gingrich Warns of Sharia While Seeking Dominion

Last week, when Newt Gingrich came out in opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque," I noted that his position seemed rather hypocritical considering that he had recently founded an organization called Renewing American Leadership that has, as its mission, the protection and encouragement of the free exercise of religion in America.

But the hypocrisy at the root of that piece pales in comparison to the hypocrisy at the root of his latest piece:

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia—Islamic law—upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence.

Does Gingrich not realize that the man he hired to run Renewing American Leadership, Jim Garlow, is a full-bore advocate of the 7 Mountains Mandate, which is a Dominionist theology that seeks get Christians in control of the levers of power and influence the world over so as to create God's kingdom on Earth and bring about the return of Jesus Christ?

Taking control of the 7 Mountians is the foundational principal of Garlow's new Pray and ACT political organization, which is being prominently featured by Gingrinch's own ReAL website and has the support of a who's who of Religious Right leaders:

Jim Garlow, Skyline Church & Renewing American Leadership
Chuck Colson, Founder Prison Fellowship & BreakPoint
Che Ahn, Harvest International Ministry
Vonette Bright, Co-Founder, Campus Crusade for Christ, International
Bishop Keith Butler, Founding Pastor, Word of Faith International Christian Center
Jim Daly, President & CEO, Focus on the Family
Lou Engle, TheCall to Conscience, TheCall
Father Joseph Fessio, Editor in Chief, Ignatius Press, San Francisco
Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage
Professor Robert George, Princeton University
Professor Timothy George, Dean, Beeson Divinity School
Jack Hayford, Founder and Chancellor, The King's College and Seminary
Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas & Host, The Mike Huckabee Show
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., High Impact Church Coalition
Alveda King, Silent No More Awareness Campaign
Richard Land, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Ron Luce, Founder, Teen Mania & Battle Cry
Bishop Richard Malone, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (Maine)
Eva Muntean & Dolores Meehan, Co-Founders, West Coast Walk for Life, San Francisco
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
James Robison, Life Outreach, International
Samuel Rodriguez, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund
Chuck Stetson, Let’s Strengthen Marriage Campaign

Obviously, these leaders and this Dominionist theology do not advocate the use of violence to achieve their goals, but you have to marvel at Gingrich's willingness to warn that "Islamists" are seeking to impose their religious views on all cultural, political, and legal matters while his very own organization is seeking to do the exact same thing.

FRC's Webcast Exposes The Fatuous Fraudulence of Their DADT Campaign

Last night the Family Research Council hosted a webcast entitled "Mission Compromised: How the military is being used to advance a radical agenda" which featured several members of Congress along with Religious Right activists discussing both efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and efforts to allow abortion at military facilities. 

In this first clip, Oliver North tells Tony Perkins that conservative, home-schooled kids who read the Bible instead of looking at porn will stop joining the military if DADT is repealed because it will eventually lead to NAMBLA members being allowed to serve:

Next up is Rep. Todd Akin who tells Perkins that our military actions have always been just, but that if we allow abortions to take place at military facilities and gays to serve openly, the fundamental justice of our military will be lost:

In this next clip, Perkins and Army Sgt. Benjamin Ratliff claim that letting gays serve would cause real problems for soldiers because they might be reluctant to "spoon" in a life-threatening situation because they might have concerns about the guy next to them:

But no clip better exposes the utter fradulence and fatuousness of the right-wing campaign against DADT's repeal than this. First you have the AFA's Bryan Fischer claiming that allowing gays to serve would cause all those with good, conservative Christian values to leave the military; this has been a favorite right-wing talking point, but it is entire undermined by Sgt. Ratliff himself, who states that even if DADT was repealed, he would continue to serve and would urge others to do so as well because even though he would disagree with it, he loves his country more:

How President Obama Is Destroying Our "Freedom of Religion"

Do you ever get the impression that the Religious Right is just making up "controversies" that they can pretend to get upset about?  Or do you get the impression that they just don't even bother to do so much as a minute of research before voicing their outrage about some nonexistent threat? 

Behold the latest such incident, courtesy of the Family Research Council:

Can one word change the world? President Obama certainly hopes so. Since last year's speech in Cairo, one phrase is subtly worming its way into speeches with high level White House officials. With incredible precision, the President is abandoning the term "freedom of religion" in favor of what he calls the "freedom of worship." Now to most people, that rhetoric is nothing to write home about. But to those of us standing guard for our faith in Washington, the shift is ominous. As Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom said, "[Freedom of worship] excludes the right to raise your children in your faith; the right to have religious literature; the right to meet with co-religionists; the right to raise funds; the right to appoint your religious leaders, and to carry out charitable activities, to evangelize," and perhaps the most troubling, to engage in the public square.

This is the culmination of a 40-year process to expel God from America. First it was taking prayer and the Bible from public schools; then it was driving out the 10 Commandments from courthouses and nativities from town squares. Now religion would be squeezed out of every pocket of society until it exists only within the four walls of the church. This is more than semantics; it's a bold leap forward to completely secularize America. We've already witnessed what the courts and culture have done to alienate faith. President Obama's vision is to codify those decisions in policy--making it virtually impossible for men and women to exercise their religion in public. And that includes any church outreach like homeless shelters or orphanages. If we pursue this to its logical conclusion, America would eventually shut out or constrict anything having to do with Christ. President Obama says plenty of things he doesn't mean. But in this, his pursuit of wiping religion off the map, we should take him at his word.

Really? This is what it has come to?  President Obama doesn't use the phrase "freedom of religion" and it is proof that he is out to "completely secularize America"?  Even by the Religious Right's standard, this is laughably pathetic.

Hey, take a look at this procilmation that President Obama issued just four days ago:

The journey towards worldwide freedom and democracy sought in 1959 remains unfinished. Today, we still observe the profound differences between governments that reflect the will of their people, and those that sustain power by force; between nations striving for equal justice and rule of law, and those that deny their citizens freedom of religion, expression, and peaceful assembly; and between states that are open and accountable, and those that restrict the flow of ideas and information. The United States has a special responsibility to bear witness to those whose voices are silenced, and to stand alongside those who yearn to exercise their universal human rights.

In fact, a search of the White House website returns 124 uses of the phrase "freedom of religion" compared to just 9 uses of "freedom of worship."

Interestingly, a search of the George W. Bush White House website archive also returns exactly 124 mentions of "freedom of religion" versus 33 uses of "freedom of worship."

Do you remember the Religious Right freaking out when Bush used the phrase several times in proclaiming Religious Freedom Day 2008?  Me neither:

Thomas Jefferson counted the freedom of worship as one of America's greatest blessings. He said it was "a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government, and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." On Religious Freedom Day, we celebrate the 1786 passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

The freedom to worship according to one's conscience is one of our Nation's most cherished values. It is the first protection offered in the Bill of Rights: that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In America, people of different faiths can live together united in peace, tolerance, and humility. We are committed to the proposition that as equal citizens of the United States of America, all are free to worship as they choose.

The Religious Right's Bizarre Understanding of the Establishment Clause

Every once in a while we get an insight into the rather unique views that drive the Religious Right agenda and realize that they tend to inhabit a world of their own.

Take, for instance, this brief filed by the Liberty Institute on behalf to James Dobson, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family Action, Liberty Counsel and nearly thirty other Religious Right groups in support of the National Day of Prayer in the case of Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Obama.

The Religious Right has been up-in-arms for months ever since a judge ruled that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional and so these groups have decided to lay out their arguments as to why that ruling was wrong. 

Most of the brief [PDF] focuses on the question of standing and claims that the "history and tradition" of events like the National Day of Prayer prove that it is constitutional. 

But it is this final line of argument that really demonstrates the Religious Right's fundamentally skewed view, which is that not having a National Day of Prayer is an act of hostility toward religion:

The National Day of Prayer is a benign acknowledgement of the religious nature of the American people. Moreover, participation in this acknowledgement is entirely voluntary, and does not entail any person’s being subjected to unwelcome assertions of religious faith.

Congress amended the National Day of Prayer statute in 1988 to specify the calendar day upon which the observance is proclaimed. This amendment, too, was an accommodation of religion consistent with Supreme Court precedent, as well as the precedent of this Court.

Invalidating the National Day of Prayer would be an act of hostility to religion, not the accommodating neutrality required by the Establishment Clause.

Apparently, the First Amendment means that the US government is obligated to declare a National Day of Prayer because failure to do so would be "an act of hostility to religion" and therefore a violation of the Establishment Clause.

That's right - to the Religious Right, the "neutrality" required by the Establishment Clause actually requires Congress to promote religion. 

The Worst Saturday Activity Imaginable

Starting on Friday, I will be on vacation for a week ... and I have to say that it couldn't have come at a better time because the idea of spending ten hours of my Saturday watching an "Ending Abortion" webcast might have driven me over the edge:

Leaders representing more than 30 national and regional pro-life organizations will be part of an unprecedented 10-hour webcast conference this Saturday, July 10, from 10 am to 8 pm EDT ... The event will break the pro-life message up into ten different hour-long focused topics. Confirmed speakers include:

• CHARMAINE YOEST, Americans United for Life

• MARJORIE DANNENFELSER, Susan B. Anthony List

• KRISTAN HAWKINS, Students for Life

• TOM MCCLUSKY, Family Research Council

• WENDY WRIGHT, Concerned Women for America

• LOU ENGLE, The Call

• MARK CRUTCHER, Life Dynamics

• ABBY JOHNSON, former Planned Parenthood abortion center director

• ALVEDA KING, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

• DR. TONY LEVATINO, former abortionist

• PEGGY HARTSHORN, Heartbeat International

• THERESA and KEVIN BURKE, Rachel's Vineyard

"The goal is to educate, equip, and empower pro-lifers to have a greater life-saving impact right where they live," said Bereit, adding that this first-ever event is designed to set the stage for greater involvement in local pro-life efforts this fall, including the next 40 Days for Life campaign, which runs from September 22 to October 31.

"A renewed groundswell of grassroots interest can also help make the pro-life issue of primary importance prior to this fall's elections," Bereit said.

For those gluttons for punishment out there, you can register to watch the event here.

Jim and David's Excellent Right-Wing Adventure

Several months ago, we noted that Jim Garlow and David Barton were leading a 12 day tour of the East Coast where participants would learn all about the Christian history of our nation and its founder and visit "the sites of the 1st and 2nd Great Awakening, while praying for the 3rd."

This "Next Great Awakening Tour" wrapped up in Washington, DC on July 4th and, as we noted last week, it was during this tour that both Barton and Garlow were featured on Glenn Beck's television program.  As it turns out, participants in this tour also got to participate in a taping of Beck's program and met with several Republican and Religious Right leaders, according to updates from Garlow's Skyline Church blog:

Day 2 ... we went on to New York City that night, where we were met by Mike Huckabee. He shared with our group for over an hour.

Day 4 ... [W]e went back to New York City [and] the women of our group went to the Glenn Beck Show for the taping of the Friday broadcast entitled, “Women of the Revolutionary War.”

Day 5 ... David Barton and I and our wives left Ocean Grove and were driven back to New York City to go to the taping of the Glenn Beck Show, along with a number of other pastors. Then we met with Glenn Beck for three hours after that taping.

Day 6 ... David and I flew back to New York City to be on the Glenn Beck Show with a group of about 7-8 pastors / Christian Leaders. Lance Wallnau flew in from Dallas to speak to the group in Philadelphia. Lance Wallnau was, as usual, exceptional in his laying out of how to see the culture transformed.

Day 7 ... we traveled to Washington, DC, where we met with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Immediately following that we went to the Fairmont Hotel where Senator Rick Santorum gave one of the most impassioned speeches I have ever heard.

Day 8 – Saturday, July 3 – began with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich addressing our group. He was profound. Newt has the capacity to focus on macro-ideas in a way like no other. From there we made our way to Mt. Vernon, beloved home of George Washington. Rick Tyler, spokesman for Newt Gingrich and Founding Director of Renewing American Leadership, spoke to the group via the intercom on the way to/from Mt. Vernon, clarifying the nature of participation in civil governance.

We then went back to the Capital and met in the Longworth Congressional Building (home of the offices of the House of Representatives) for a talk by Congressman Bob McEwen entitled, “Politics: As Easy as PIE.”

On Day 9 – Sunday, July 4 – we attended Hope Christian Fellowship (Beltsville, MD), where we had arranged for Maggie Gallagher, the articulate founder of the National Organization for Marriage, to speak to our group, followed by the morning service, for which Bishop Harry Jackson – one of America’s most courageous pastors – had prepared a sermon appropriately entitled “The Next Great Awakening.”

At one point, Garlow and his wife were allowed to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier ... which, of course, made him realize that Elena Kagan should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court:

Later I found myself inwardly agitated as I began to reflect on the tragedy of Elena Kagan – an outspoken critic of the military [in spite of her attempts to deny it now] – being considered for a position on the Supreme Court. How unfortunate for our nation.

Dominionism and The Religious Right: The Merger Is Complete

For weeks now I have been writing regular posts on the increasing intersection between the "mainstream" Religious Right and Dominionist prophetic intercessors like Lou Engle, Cindy Jacobs, Rick Joyner and others.

But I have always been careful to note that just because the more "mainstream" leaders have been joining forces with these self-proclaims prophets and apostles, it didn't mean that they necessarily shared their Dominionist agenda. 

But I think it is fair to say that I no longer need to be so careful, as the leaders of the Religious Right have now openly embraced Seven Mountains Dominionist theology, which is described thusly:

First, human beings are blessed by God. Secondly, these blessed human beings are given a mandate to take dominion of the earth for the purpose of blessing it. ... The first advent of Christ was for the purpose of creating a blessed seed upon the earth - the church. The second coming of Jesus will take place after this blessed seed has completed the Dominion Process upon the earth by making disciples of all nations.

In short, Dominionist theology believes that Christians are called to take "dominion" over every aspect of our culture and use them to create God's kingdom on Earth in order to bring about the return of Jesus Christ. And their method for gaining "dominion" is through something called the "Seven Mountains Mandate," which seeks to place Christians at the top of seven distinct spheres that shape our culture: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion.

One of the leading authorities on the Seven Mountains Mandate among the new apostles and prophets is a man named Lance Wallnau, and here is a video of him explicitly explaining how it is to work:

Most believers on the Earth are more frightened at the prospect of taking on the insurmountable giants represented by the mountains near them in their nations. They're more intimidated by trying to take possession of what is an opposition that has strength and fortification in the natural, from the IRS, to Hollywood, to whatever. Most believers are afraid, so they create a theology that eliminates the responsibility for having to take territory and rather focuses on just getting people saved so that when Jesus comes back he can repopulate the Earth with people that are followers and let him take over the planet.

There is just a little problem with that: the little problem is Heaven is his throne and the Earth is the footstool of his feet and he was told that he was to sit at the Father's right hand until God made his enemies a footstool for his feet, which means He doesn't come back until He's accomplished the dominion of nations.

The point is this: God wants to have the tabernacle at the top of every one of these spheres. You want to know what the spheres are that shape a nation? This is how you take a nation: you have to get into the family - that is why same-sex marriage such a demonic agenda ... because who ever shapes the family mountain shapes the idea of what culture is for a man and wife. You got to get into the education mountain, you know why? Because whoever's ideology is shaping that little kid when he's a child, by the time he's 19, hey for all you know he could become part of the Hitler Youth movement and die for the Fuhrer. Hitler basically knew that if he educated them as kids, he'd have them as sons to go fight for him. Government mountain where your laws get legislated. Media mountain where the truth is debated. And the arts mountain which is where sports and creativity come along, and we've got business and finance. Is it possible that there are seven sovereign spheres of authority?

By the way, that's how you take nations. It's the only way you take nations. There has never been a nation taken as the result of an evangelism harvest. Shocking but true. Believers don't know these things, which is why we get in trouble.

You realize that when you have 8% of a population, that's the key. 8%, that's all it takes. 8%, according to the Center for Religious and Diplomacy, practice Jihad. 8%, according to the research of James Davidson Hunter, are doing the same sex marriage initiative, You've got 80% Jews, Catholics, Protestants, 35% of Evangelicals, even Mormons - you have a very broad constituency of 85-90% of the American population is not for same-sex marriage. How is it that 7% can impose their agenda on the other 90%? It's not because we don't have enough converts to an idea - it's because when Satan is shrewder in his own generation than the Sons of Light, he makes sure that he has his prophets of Baal at the high places. So what you have is a well-positioned 8% whose agenda is working with the will of Principalities and Powers while Christians are in pursuit of the supernatural or glory or prosperity, but they're missing the apostolic assignment. They're to take over spheres and administer them for the glory of God.

It is exceedingly clear that the Seven Mountains is a Dominionist theology that carries with it the ultimate goal of creating God's kingdom on Earth so as to create the conditions needed to bring about Christ's return.

And amazing, it is something that just about every Religious Right leader has now officially embraced.

Last week, Lou Engle was featured on Focus on the Family's "Friday Five" where he announced his latest political endeavor: a groups called Pray and A.C.T.  The acronym A.C.T stands for "Affirming the Basics, Conforming our Lives, and Transforming the Culture," and the "basics" which they are affirming are those values set out in The Manhattan Declaration, the document produced by the Religious Right earlier this year vowing to give their lives to withstand President Obama's attempts to set himself up as a Nazi-like dictator. 

"Transforming the Culture" is a idea rooted in the "spiritual warfare" practiced by the self-styled apostles and prophets, but that pales in comparison to Pray and A.C.T's explicit reliance upon Seven Mountains theology:

For these reasons, we call on all faithful Christians to join us in the fight to defend life, protect and revitalize marriage, and preserve religious liberty and the rights of conscience. We must work tirelessly in all the “seven spheres of cultural influence:” (1) the home, (2) the church, (3) civil government / law / military, (4) business / technology, (5) education, (6) media, and finally (7) arts / entertainment / professional sports.

We noted a while ago that Jim Garlow, who serves as Chairman of Newt Gingrich's Renewing American Leadership is a Seven Mountains advocate and close friend of Lou Engle, so it is no surprise to see him featured on the front page of Pray and A.C.T's website ... but it is surprising to see Gingrich's organization openly aligning itself with Engle's new organization - and it is even more surprising to see all of the other Religious Right leaders who have also climbed on board:

Jim Garlow, Skyline Church & Renewing American Leadership
Chuck Colson, Founder Prison Fellowship & BreakPoint
Che Ahn, Harvest International Ministry
Vonette Bright, Co-Founder, Campus Crusade for Christ, International
Bishop Keith Butler, Founding Pastor, Word of Faith International Christian Center
Kristina Arriaga, Executive Director, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Jim Daly, President & CEO, Focus on the Family
Lou Engle, TheCall to Conscience, TheCall
Father Joseph Fessio, Editor in Chief, Ignatius Press, San Francisco
Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage
Professor Robert George, Princeton University
Professor Timothy George, Dean, Beeson Divinity School
Jack Hayford, Founder and Chancellor, The King's College and Seminary
Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas & Host, The Mike Huckabee Show
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., High Impact Church Coalition
Alveda King, Silent No More Awareness Campaign
Richard Land, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Ron Luce, Founder, Teen Mania & Battle Cry
Bishop Richard Malone, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (Maine)
Eva Muntean & Dolores Meehan, Co-Founders, West Coast Walk for Life, San Francisco
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
James Robison, Life Outreach, International
Samuel Rodriguez, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund
Chuck Stetson, Let’s Strengthen Marriage Campaign

Pray and A.C.T is planning a series of Call-like events leading up to the 2010 election; events that are explicitly rooted in a theology which seeks to place Christians in complete "dominion" over every aspect of this nation ... and this effort is now being supported by the heads of highly influential "mainstream" Religious Right groups like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage Concerned Women for America, the Southern Baptist Convention, and even a potential Republican presidential candidate in Mike Huckabee. 

A few months ago, Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action lost her radio program because of her growing support for this sort of Seven Mountains Dominionism, and today this very same theology is being embraced by the Religious Right as a whole ... and I don't think it is possible to overstate just what a radical transformation the movement appears to be undergoing.  

FRC Wants MA Residents to Call Upon "Senator Kirk" To Oppose Kagan

Last month is was reported that Religious Right groups were trying to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to launch campaigns against the confirmation of Elena Kagan and that the Family Research Council was planning on spending more than $100,000 on an ad campaign against her. 

Let me just say that, for their sake, I hope FRC's ad campaign is better organized than their current direct mail campaign in which they are asking activists in Massachusetts to contact Senators Kerry and Kirk and urge them to vote against Kagan's confirmation:

You'd think that FRC would know that Paul Kirk was just the interim Senator tapped to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat and that he was replaced by Scott Brown earlier this year, especially considering that FRC hailed Brown's election as "the culmination of thousands of townhalls, tea parties, and angry voters" a mere six months ago. 

Syndicate content

Family Research Council Top Posts

801 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 www.frc.org President: Tony Perkins Date of founding: 1983 Membership: 455,000 members. Finances: $10 million (2000 revenue)   MORE >

Family Research Council Posts Archive

Peter Montgomery, Friday 08/17/2012, 9:58am
Religious Right groups have publicly seethed at the Southern Poverty Law Center's decision a couple of years ago to designate several of them as hate groups for consistently spreading false, inflammatory, and defamatory propaganda about LGBT people.  It is now clear that Religious Right leaders are hoping to exploit this week's shooting at the Family Research Council to try to damage the SPLC.   FRC's Tony Perkins said this week that the SPLC gave the shooter "license" to attack the organization by calling it a hate group.  Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 08/16/2012, 4:46pm
Today, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins held a press conference to comment on the shooting that took place at the organization's Washington, DC headquarters yesterday. While Perkins put the blame for the attack on the shooter, he declared that the Southern Poverty Law Center was also responsible for the attack, saying the gunman "was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations 'hate groups' because they disagree with them on public policy." Perkins claims that SPLC labeled... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 08/16/2012, 3:19pm
Over the last year or so, we have been noting how the Family Research Council was slowly becoming more and more intertwined with various leaders within the New Apostolic Reformation movement, the collection of modern-day "prophets" and "apostles" who believe they posses the same miracle working abilities as Jesus.  NAR's public political activism has cooled since leaders had their coming-out at Rick Perry's massive prayer rally last summer, but obviously efforts to work its way into the larger Religious Right political movement continue.  Case in point, today we... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 08/14/2012, 3:50pm
Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association appeared on Today’s Issues with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and American Family Association head Tim Wildmon today to call on Religious Right activists to mobilize against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. After passing out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the treaty is up for a vote by the full Senate. But Farris warns that the treaty is too ambiguous and flexible and could mean that children who wear glasses or have ADHD could be placed “under control... MORE >
Josh Glasstetter, Monday 08/13/2012, 1:40pm
This, in a nutshell, is your modern Religious Right: The website for the upcoming Values Voter Summit in DC, hosted by the Family Research Council, features Mitt Romney’s running mate side-by-side with “former terrorist” Kamal Saleem, seen here:     I can’t imagine Ryan would appreciate being given equal billing with a “former terrorist,” but Saleem is a big deal to the Religious Right.   Saleem, whose real name is Khodor Shami, claims that he was Muslim Brotherhood operative who “came to the United States of America…to destroy... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 08/13/2012, 11:25am
Conservative leaders hailed Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan, the far-right congressman, to be his running mate, emphasizing his opposition to LGBT and reproductive rights. Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance said that besides his one-time vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, she is excited “to pull back out my t-shirt from 2008 that says ‘Our VP is hotter than your VP!’” Paul Ryan is a great choice. He has one little blip in that he voted for ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) a long time ago but voted right on the marriage... MORE >
, Friday 08/10/2012, 4:30pm
In an interview with Tony Perkins on Washington Watch Weekly, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell slammed the Obama campaign’s effort to expand early voting procedures in Ohio, saying that the President is running “probably the most bareknuckle campaign I’ve seen”. Blackwell also accused democrats of exploiting the “Voter ID controversy to gin up their base” and energize minority voters in their favor. The controversy surrounding early voting in Ohio centers on a new special exemption that the state extends to military voters. The Obama campaign... MORE >
Josh Glasstetter, Wednesday 08/08/2012, 2:22pm
On Friday, Mitt Romney declined to condemn Rep. Michele Bachmann’s witch hunt against Muslim Americans in the federal government, breaking with GOP leaders like Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner. He said that “those are not things that are part of my campaign.” If that’s the case, then why did Romney hold a closed-door meeting the evening before with high-profile supporters of Bachmann’s effort, including Jerry Boykin, a leading figure in the anti-Muslim movement?   As Politico reported, Romney met privately on Thursday evening in Denver with a... MORE >