Family Research Council

FRC Outraged That US Opposes The Criminalization Of Homosexuality

On Monday, the State Department issued a joint statement in the UN’s Human Rights Council opposing the criminalization of homosexuality. Currently, well over 70 countries impose criminal penalties for gays and lesbians, and the statement has the support of 84 countries. According to the Family Research Council, however, the US is committing a great injustice by condemning the criminalization of people because of their sexual orientation. The FRC dubs it “Operation International Tolerance,” complete with a picture of Obama wearing a rainbow helmet:

The FRC claims that the resolution will “force acceptance of the world’s gays and lesbians,” and defended countries that criminalize homosexuality or “any behavior they think is harmful to society”:

While American forces bomb away at Libya, the Obama administration is launching another global offensive: Operation International Tolerance. As he looks on from South America, the President put troops on the ground today for a meeting of the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, where his diplomats plan to strong-arm other countries into embracing homosexuality. In a major U-turn from the Bush years, the Obama administration is actually initiating an "anti-discrimination" resolution to force acceptance of the world's gays and lesbians. As recently as 2008, the United States refused to sign a similar declaration because President Bush thought it conflicted with the states' rights to pass things like marriage amendments.



Obviously, FRC believes that homosexuals and transgenders shouldn't be subjected to violence. But this resolution goes well beyond that to endorsing a behavior that dozens of member nations oppose. No binding document of international law has ever recognized a universal "human right" to engage in sex with a person of the same gender. And although even the U.N. admits that "resolutions" like this one "aren't legally binding," they do help to create a legal norm. We've seen this similar approach with respect to abortion, where countries like the U.S. have tried to insinuate a "right" under international law where there is none. Our global neighbors have the freedom to believe that homosexuality is wrong--just as they have the freedom to legislate against any behavior they think is harmful to society. That freedom--and their very sovereignty--would be threatened by this effort.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Susan B. Anthony List, Family Research Council Action, 40 Days for Life, Students for Life of America, Concerned Women for America, Catholic Vote, LifeNews.com, American Values and Catholic Advocate have all teamed up to inundate Congress with phone calls demanding the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
  • Is Japan Disaster Another Apocalyptic Sign? Yes.
  • Herman Cain sees signs everywhere that God has big plans for him.
  • Peter LaBarbera is unveiling the line-up for his next anti-gay "Truth Academy."
  • Can somebody explain to me when Christians are to be counted as Christians and when they are not to be considered "real" Christians.
  • Newt Gingrich is doing all he can to endear himself to the Religious Right. Good luck with that.

The Founding Fathers Had a National Motto: E Pluribus Unum

Rep. Randy Forbes is on a mission to pass a resolution affirming that the national motto "In God We Trust" and House Republicans are playing right along, so it is no surprise that Religious Right activists like the Family Research Council's Ken Klukowski are stepping up to make their contribution to this important effort as well:

Odds are good the Founding Fathers would be astounded by the religious controversies of this past week.

First, Rep. Randy Forbes, R-VA, introduced a resolution reaffirming “In God We Trust” as our national motto. He did so in part after President Obama wrongly claimed the national motto is “E Pluribus Unum.”

Forbes’s resolution failed last year when he introduced it under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic majority. Now under Republicans, the resolution is headed to a floor vote after being approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

Even so, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, claimed the words “In God We Trust” are unconstitutional, an assertion that would likely stun James Madison and members of the first Congress who approved the First Amendment.

Can I just point out that "In God We Trust" did not become our national motto until the 1950s, as John Fea explained in "Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction":

In 1954 Congress approved an act to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance ... In 1955 this connection between God and the United States was further strengthened when Congress opted to put the words "In God We Trust" on all United States coins and currency. The following years it changed the national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust."

Allow me also to point out that in 1776, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were tasked with designing Great Seal of the United States, which they did - and it carried the phrase "E Pluribus Unum."

In fact, "E Pluribus Unum" was considered the de facto motto of the United States for nearly two hundred years ... until it was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1955.

So I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers would be stunned to learn that the national motto is "In God We Trust," given that Congress adopted the Great Seal with its motto of "E Pluribus Unum" in  1782.

FRC: Obama Pushing Gay-Rights Opponents “In The Closet” Through Anti-Bullying Programs

Tom McClusky, the Vice President of Government Affairs for the Family Research Council, joined in on the chorus of unrelenting right-wing attacks against anti-bullying programs. According to McClusky, the problem isn’t that gay and gay-perceived students encounter widespread bullying, but the way the White House and progressive groups are trying to tackle the problem. McClusky accuses Obama and others of “bullying” students by supporting efforts to combat anti-gay bullying, and even says that they are trying to force anti-gay students “in the closet.”

Listen:

It’s ironic that when the President was trying to push this bullying program that he cited that he was once bullied as a child, because that’s exactly what his policies are leading to, is bullying by the federal government and by a homosexual agenda that seeks to make children hide their Christianity and their religion in the closet and to silence those who would speak out against what they don’t believe.

Right Wing Round-Up

Joyner: Japan Earthquake Will Unleash Demonic Nazism on America

Last week we noted that the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins had teamed up with Jerry Boykin and Rick Joyner to form some Spatran-like army of activists called 300 that is going to rise up and save America from the forces of evil bent on its destruction.

Today, Sarah Posner alerted us to a new video from Joyner discussing the significance of the earthquake in Japan.  Whereas the other self-proclaimed prophets in the movement like Cindy Jacobs and Chuck Pierce have said the tragedy was God's effort to shake the nation free of its pagan religious idolatry, Joyner sees something much more dire.

As he explains it, the demonic principalities responsible for Nazism in Germany were going to attempt to take over the United States and, according to the prophetic visions of Joyner and others, it would happen amid a massive economic collapse that would start with an earthquake in Japan. As such, given the devastation caused by this earthquake, Japan will need to call in the American debt to rebuild their nation, unleashing an economic catastrophe in the US and thereby opening the door for this demonic Nazi force to take root:

Gingrich Group Funneled $125K To AFA To Remove Iowa Judges

Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times reported that Newt Gingrich had quietly help raise $200,000 for the right-wing effort to remove three sitting Supreme Court justices in Iowa over their ruling in favor of marriage equality.

The Times article didn't provide many details about the effort, but today the AP fills them and reveals that Gingrich's group, Renewing American Leadership, funneled the bulk of the money to the American Family Association:

Potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich quietly lined up $150,000 to help defeat Iowa justices who threw out a ban on same-sex marriage, routing the money to conservative groups through an aide's political committee.

Gingrich, the former U.S. House speaker who has aggressively courted the conservatives who dominate Iowa's lead-off presidential caucuses, raised the money for the political arm of Restoring American Leadership, also known as ReAL.

That group then passed $125,000 to American Family Association Action and an additional $25,000 to the Iowa Christian Alliance — two of the groups that spent millions before last November's elections that removed three of the state's seven state Supreme Court justices. The court had unanimously decided a state law restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated Iowa's constitution.

The financial transfers, which appear to comply with campaign finance laws, were part of a steady flow of cash into Iowa from conservative groups such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council.

During the campaign, the AFA's resident spokesbigot Bryan Fischer regularly bragged that his group was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the effort in Iowa.  Now we know that a significant portion of that money came from Newt Gingrich's organization.

Religious Right Rebels Against Latest GOP Budget Proposal

It looks like it barely took two months for major Religious Right groups to panic over the GOP leadership’s agenda. Speaker John Boehner decided to pass another temporary continuing resolution that includes funding towards family planning and health services groups like Planned Parenthood, which anti-choice organizations fiercely opposed. With Republican leaders ready to ignore their pleas, many are now on the attack.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association did not mince words in his attack on Republican leaders:

The new temporary Continuing Resolution, which will be voted on in the House tomorrow, is perfectly terrible. It does not defund Planned Parenthood, abortions in D.C., ObamaCare, NPR or the EPA. The GOP leadership right now is only agreeing to stuff that Obama said he didn't want anyway. This is an inkling that there may an alarming lack of spine in House GOP leadership. This is the optimum time to strike down funding for Planned Parenthood, after Lila Rose's undercover investigation exposed its willingness to aid and abet those who traffic in child prostitution by arranging for underage girls to get flatly illegal abortions. The question on defunding is simple: if not now, when?

The Family Research Council will score the vote on the continuing resolution in its ratings of members, and Tony Perkins called on the group’s allies in Congress to vote against it:

Much to the displeasure of voters and dozens of organizations like FRC, the proposal sidelines every pro-life provision for which we fought. Apparently, some Republicans are worried that the bill will get hung up by the language to defund Planned Parenthood and D.C. abortions. All the more reason to have this battle now and move on.

Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List said the defunding of Planned Parenthood was a “non-negotiable” issue:

If Congress can’t cut off taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, a willing partner of the exploitation of women and young girls, how can it be serious about cutting spending anywhere else? The time to end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood is not next week, or in three weeks, or in a month, it’s now. Ending taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood in both short-term and long-term Continuing Resolution bills is a non-negotiable.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Heritage Action, Family Research Council and Club for Growth have jointly announced "their opposition to any additional short-term continuing resolutions."
  • Glenn Beck's The Blaze, of all places, exposes the dishonesty behind James O'Keef's NPR sting video.
  • Could we really be so lucky as to see a Michele Bachmann presidential campaign?
  • Gary Bauer says that "If, God forbid, one of the conservative legislators is harmed in any way by a protestor, the blame will rest squarely with the unions and indirectly with President Obama for failing to condemn the climate of hate that the left has been encouraging for weeks."
  • Just let me say to John R. Guardiano that if it were Religious Right anti-choice activists protesting in Wisconsin, the entire right-wing echo chamber would be lauding them as heroes and true American patriots.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Bryan Fischer: "If you want to trace the recognition of gay marriage in the U.S. to its source, Mitt Romney is it, the man who kick-started the push to legalize sexually abnormal relationships at the state level. The man would be a disaster in the White House on social issues."

Family Research Council's "The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex 'Marriage'" Defies Logic

The Family Research Council released a pamphlet authored by senior fellow Peter Sprigg about the purported “harm” of marriage equality to American society. Sprigg, who previously said that he wants to “export homosexuals from the United States” because “homosexuality is destructive to society,” discusses the ten reasons he believes that equal rights for gays and lesbians are dangerous, ranging from a “diversity bag” in a Massachusetts school (Reason #2) to the predicted rise of adultery if gays were allowed to marry (Reason #5) and the legalization of polygamy (Reason #10).

First, Sprigg argues that if married gay couples receive health benefits for their families, their relationships would be “subsidized” by the public through entitlement programs. Sprigg finds it deplorable that people would like their spouse or child to receive benefits after they pass away:

Reason #1: Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.

One of the key arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil “marriage” revolves around all the government “benefits” that homosexu¬als claim they are denied. Many of these “benefits” involve one thing—taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals of homosexu¬al activists is to take part in the biggest government entitlement program of all—Social Security. Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits when one partner dies.

The fact that Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer has not kept homosexuals from de¬manding the benefit.1 Homosexual activists are also demanding that children raised by a homo¬sexual couple be eligible for benefits when one of the partners dies—even if the deceased partner was not the child’s biological or adoptive parent.

Later, Sprigg claims that if gays and lesbians have equal marriage rights, then straight people would be less likely to marry. Why? According to Sprigg, few gay couples would get married if they had the right to, and straight couples would naturally follow their “poor example” and not get married:

Reason #4: Fewer people would marry.

Even where legal recognition and marital rights and benefits are available to same-sex couples (whether through same-sex civil “marriages,” “civil unions,” or “domestic partnerships”), relatively few same-sex couples even bother to seek such recognition or claim such benefits.



Couples who could marry, but choose instead to cohabit without the benefit of marriage, harm the institution of marriage by setting an example for other couples, making non-marital cohabitation seem more acceptable as well. If same-sex “marriage” were legalized, the evidence suggests that the percentage of homosexual couples who would choose cohabitation over “marriage” would be much larger than the current percentage of heterosexual couples who choose cohabitation over marriage. It is likely that the poor example set by homosexual couples would, over time, lead to lower marriage rates among heterosexuals as well.

Sprigg also blames marriage equality laws for a fall in the birthrate in certain states, arguing that people would have fewer children if gay couples are allowed to wed. Of course, he uses absolutely no evidence to back up this assertion:

Reason #9: Birthrates would fall.

There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” At this writing, five U.S. states grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As of 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, four of those five states ranked within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate (measured in relation to the total population) and fertility rate (measured in rela¬tion to the population of women of childbearing age).



The contribution of same-sex “marriage” to de¬clining birth rates would clearly lead to significant harm for society.

Gohmert: Terror Babies and Islamist-Progressive Axis Are Plotting to Destroy America

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) believes that radical Islamic terrorists and progressives are working together to bring down America out of their shared “hatred” for conservatives and Christians, and intend to use “terror babies” as part of their plan. Speaking with a receptive audience of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association, Gohmert explained his allegation that terrorists are plotting to come into the United States in order to gain citizenship for their children. After Gohmert first floated his conspiracy theory on the House floor in June, he was later unable to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim and a former FBI official maintained that “there was never a credible report — or any report, for that matter — coming across through all the various mechanisms of communication to indicate that there was such a plan for these terror babies to be born.”

Wildmon: Somebody’s gotta get strong here, and say listen, no more 20-40 year olds from Saudi Arabia are allowed into America until you all get this cleaned up.

Gohmert: I’ve been beat up pretty badly over an issue of women coming into US, having babies here, and returning where they came from with an American citizen and an American passport for that child. But if people will do the homework, as I’ve been doing, they will find out that there are people who are known associates of groups we call terrorist groups whose wives have come and have children here and go back with American passports. I don’t use the term terrorist babies that’s an oxymoron, but others have, or terror babies, I mean a baby is a gift from God, it’s not a terror.

After discussing “terror babies” with Perkins and Wildmon, he went on to suggest that Muslim terrorists and progressives have “thrown in together” because “they hate conservatives and they don’t care that much for Christianity.” Gohmert adds that “if the radical Jihadists took over, the first people they kill are the extreme leftists that have thrown in with them right now”:

You know the great irony, the extreme leftist media that is throwing in with the radical Jihadists, the great irony is, if the radical Jihadists took over, the first people they kill are the extreme leftists that have thrown in with them right now. They would not have the freedom of press to say the things that they want or disagree with the government, all of those things would go by the wayside. It is ironic that the two groups throw in together. In fact, my friend Andy McCarthy had a great article about how leftists and jihadists have thrown in together in this effort, not because they have anything at all in common other than that they hate conservatives and they don’t care that much for Christianity.

Religious Right Group Says Anti-Bullying Programs Will "Homosexualize" Children

Rick Green of WallBuilders hosted Elizabeth Swanson of the Protect Kids Foundation, a virulently anti-gay group that opposes programs to protect children from bullying and harassment in schools. Like other groups such as Focus on the Family, the California Family Council, Mission America, and the Family Research Council, the so-called Protect Kids Foundation claims that gay-rights proponents “indoctrinating kids to accept and adopt LGBT lifestyles, starting in kindergarten.” David Barton, the head of WallBuilders, himself said that public school students “are getting homosexual indoctrination” and manufacturing the bullying problem.

According to the Protect Kids Foundation, gay-rights advocates are “obsessed with power” and “are determined to transform schools, kids, and culture into their hedonistic vision of a new utopian America…radically transforming society by using our children as pawns for social change.” The organization believes that the immense bullying faced by students who are gay or perceived as gay in schools is not a significant issue, accusing supporters of anti-bullying policies of “fabricating an issue and claiming victim status to gain power” and “indoctrinating impressionable school children.” In their words, the establishment of anti-bullying programs “stigmatizes the normal and normalizes what has for centuries been deemed deviant” and somehow takes away the rights of heterosexuals who don’t support attempts to “homosexualize their children”:

The civil rights issue actually runs in favor of the estimated 96% of the population who are not homosexual. Having LGBT activists homosexualize their children will trample upon their civil rights. For the first time in our history, America is faced with a powerful movement that defines its alleged “rights” in terms of the deprivation of the fundamental rights of others. As a result, the homosexual movement is depriving other Americans of civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Swanson told Green on WallBuilders Live that people should “reclaim” the word 'homophobic,' which she believes, has unfairly become a “pejorative” and a “racial epithet.”

Rick, you said a very key word, 'tolerance,' that we're going to teach tolerance. But the redefinitions of the words go even further. So when you look at the definitions that GLSEN has put forward, there’s a document called Tackling LGBT Issues in the Schools, and it’s a document prepared jointly by GLSEN and Planned Parenthood. And interestingly, the definition that they use of the word “homophobe,” “homophobia” or a “homophobic level of attitude,” which is a word I do not normally use because that word in itself was created by an activist who wanted to get back at people that were disagreeing with homosexuality as a moral good. So to me the term is a pejorative term, a racial epithet if you would, that should not be used because you’re basically name calling people right there if you say ‘Oh, they’re homophobic,’ so that’s a word that needs to be reclaimed and not used in our every day vernacular when talking about this issue.

300: Religious Right Forming It Own Spartan Army

For months now, we have been chronicling how self-described prophets and apostles have been merging 7 Mountains/Dominionism with "mainstream" Religious Right activism ... and increasingly the man at the center of this appears to be the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins.

Perkins was among the first to embrace Lou Engle and transform him into a Religious Right leader and now he seems to be doing the same with Rick Joyner of The Oak Initiative.

Just today we noted that Joyner, Jerry Boykin, and Janet Porter were gathering for a conference next month and as I was looking for more information about that, I stumbled across this video of Perkins, Joyner, Boykin and Frank Turek discussing the importance of Christians getting deeply involved in politics. 

Perkins explains the absolute necessity of getting Christians into all levels of government while Boykin compared Christians today to the Spartan army and quoted King Leonidas by declaring "molon labe" ["come and get them"] when he and his army were told to lay down their weapons. 

Likewise, Boykin declared "molon labe," stating that he will not be silenced and challenged those in Washington who are out to take his liberties, rob his grandchildren, and destroy America to just try to take them from him.

Finally, Joyner announced that Christians have more than enough people to take control, but they need to bind together and, as such, would soon be unveiling coalition called "300":

Right Wing Leftovers

  • The Family Research Council is overjoyed that House Republicans will step up to defend DOMA.
  • Lila Rose and the Susan B. Anthony List are touring the country in their effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
  • I am genuinely confused by Alan Keyes' latest WND column.
  • Trent Franks for Senate?
  • I guess the Christian Anti-Defamation's Boycott didn't work so well, which is why Larry Grard had to sue.
  • Finally, Concerned Women For America's concern for child prostitutes means they should be arrested and jailed by the police.

CWA: Obama the "Despot" is Discriminating Against Americans by Not Defending DOMA

When the Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice will end its defense of the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Religious Right groups were naturally apoplectic. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council likened President Obama to a Middle East dictator, the Traditional Values Coalition blasted the “unprecedented power grab,” and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said Obama “betrayed the American people.” However, the government will continue to enforce DOMA and the move by the Department of Justice was not without precedent, as the Bush and Clinton administrations both refused to defend laws that they found to be unconstitutional. Even David Barton agrees that the Obama administration has the right to drop its defense of DOMA.

Concerned Women for America’s Mario Diaz believes that the DOMA decision represents a grave turning point in American history as a “tyrannical move” by President Obama, who he accuses of lying about “his putative Christian faith.”

Ironically, Diaz argues that Obama and Holder are “suppress[ing] the rights of the majority of Americans” and don’t think certain people “deserve the same protections other Americans enjoy” by dropping the defense of a law which singles out gays and lesbians for discrimination. In fact, CWA finds the decision so scary that it believes that the future of marriage in America will entail a man leaving his bride at the altar for another man:

Wednesday, February 23, 2011, should be a day all Americans remember. It was the day when President Obama betrayed the majority of Americans by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in fact ordering the Department of Justice (DOJ) to abandon the protection of the federal law preserving marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

This decision – just like his pretended support for traditional marriage during the presidential campaign – was purely political for the President whose radical liberalism grows starker by the day. Obama is counting on the powerful homosexual lobby to come out in full force for him, but Americans must not forget this tyrannical move by the president. Even as we focus on issues of the economy, jobs, and spending, we must remember that a morally bankrupt nation can never flourish. All the tax cuts in the world can never repair a nation’s broken spirit.



So, just like any other despot, Obama decided unilaterally to make the decision for all of us ignorant Americans who support DOMA, and we should be grateful.

Shame on him. And shame on us if we just stand by silently and take it. We should not! We must speak out.

Truthfully, we have been too silent for far too long. President Obama and Mr. Holder have been actively working against DOMA and, therefore, against all Americans ever since they took office. Even on the cases where they decided to “defend” DOMA, they were actually undermining its reasoning by abandoning the most effective arguments.

DOJ’s mission statement says it is “...to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” But President Obama and the attorney general have made a mockery of impartiality. They have chosen to side with an extreme, liberal minority and chose to suppress the rights of the majority of Americans.

Simply put, if you support DOMA, this president and his administration view you as the enemy who does not deserve the same protections other Americans enjoy. We are on our own.

Land Takes Preemptive Shot At Daniels Presidential Bid, Calls Truce "Political Suicide"

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Richard Land took a preemptive strike against Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who raised eyebrows after calling for a “truce” on social issues and is considering a run for president. Land writes just one day after a WSJ poll found that the majority of GOP primary voters would be sympathetic to the “truce” offered by Daniels, who believes that the nation should be focusing on economic issues instead of fighting the “culture war.” Land, like many other Religious Right leaders, has come out swinging against Daniels’s proposal and dubbed the truce “political suicide.” The influential head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission said that if Daniels continues to pursue the truce, he would go the way of former Sen. Phil Gramm, who lost many socially conservative supporters in his failed 1996 campaign for president. Land writes:

Indiana governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Mitch Daniels has suggested that Americans call a "truce" on divisive social issues until our precarious financial house is back in order. Many pundits have praised the idea, typically thrilled that a Republican leader seems willing to jettison, even temporarily, strong positions on abortion or gay marriage. But social conservatives are mad, and rightly so.

Throughout the 1980s and '90s, social conservatives were the foot soldiers for Republican victories—only to see their issues bargained away or shoved to the bottom of the GOP agenda, beneath issues of fiscal and foreign policy. Reacting to Gov. Daniels, former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently said: "For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking."

Perhaps Gov. Daniels interprets the emergence of the tea party as a sign that GOP candidates don't have to depend on social-issues voters as they once did. That seems unlikely. As Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has said, "Calling for a truce on core conservative principles might get you some high profile media sound bites, but it won't win you the Republican presidential nomination."



For Republicans to do anything to de-energize this voting bloc would amount to political suicide.

Most social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. They recognize that a federal government that borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends is committing generational theft, spending our grandchildren's money and impoverishing their future. Social conservatives also argue that government has such high costs partly because of the broken families, broken communities and broken ethics generated by moral relativism.



As Mark Twain reportedly observed, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." There once was a promising Republican presidential candidate known for being an economic guru and master of the numbers: Sen. Phil Gramm. At one point in 1996, he had raised more money than any other candidate. Like Gov. Daniels, Sen. Gramm had a sterling social conservative voting record and his lack of telegenic charisma was seen as an advantage, in contrast to President Clinton's slick persona. But Sen. Gramm's candidacy went down in flames after he dismissed a question about social issues by saying: "I'm not running for preacher, I'm running for president."



There is a deep longing in large segments of the American populace for a restoration of a morality that emphasizes personal obligations and responsibilities over rights and privileges. Such a society will have a restored moral symmetry in which exemplary personal and professional behavior is rewarded and less exemplary behavior is not. As Jesus reminded us, "Man shall not live on bread alone."

Santorum to Address New Hampshire Tea Party and Religious Right Gathering

In another sign that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is running for President, Fox News has suspended his contract as a commentator and he is scheduled to address the “Tax Payer Tea Party Rally” in Concord, New Hampshire on April 15th. John DiStaso of the Union Leader reports that Santorum is “is the first likely presidential candidate to confirm an appearance” to the event hosted by the pro-corporate group Americans for Prosperity and the far-right Cornerstone Action. “With all eyes once again focused on New Hampshire, Cornerstone Action is excited to co-sponsor the largest tea party rally in the state,” said Cornerstone’s Kevin Smith in a statement announcing the rally.

Cornerstone is an ultraconservative organization that flaunts its close relationship with national groups like the Alliance Defense Fund, the Family Research Council, CitizenLink, and the National Organization for Marriage. In fact, Cornerstone worked with NOM to run ads attacking the governor for signing the state's marriage equality law and is collaborating with NOM and the FRC to repeal the law. Good As You notes that Cornerstone also endorses the discredited "ex-gay" therapy groups such as Exodus International, Love Won Out, PFOX, and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). In addition, Cornerstone is a top sponsor of the Creationist movie “The Genesis Code.”

Roll Call also reports that “Cornerstone will ask each Republican presidential candidate to sign a pledge agreeing marriage should be between one man and one woman.”

While Rick Santorum has previously addressed Cornerstone events, it is very likely that more Republican candidates will seek the support of the militantly anti-gay group to bolster their New Hampshire campaigns.

Right-Wing Activists Malign Goodwin Liu Even As Conservative Legal Minds Support His Confirmation

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.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • The Family Research Council has filed a FIOA request because they are "deeply concerned that officials at the Department of Justice were collaborating with the litigants in the Proposition 8 case."
  • Speaker John Boehner says social issues will not be ignored.
  • Rep. Eric Cantor says the House will step up to defend DOMA.
  • Anti-Islam activist Robert Spencer wants to know why the US doesn't step up and outlaw Islam.
  • Remember Larry Grard? He's suing.
  • Finally, I am excited that thrice-married Newt Gingrich is forming a presidential exploratory committee and would like to announce my new policy that so long as he maintains this ridiculous charade, I intend to routinely refer to him as "thrice-married Newt Gingrich."

Perkins: Obama Acting like a Middle East Dictator over DOMA

Opponents of marriage equality continue to demand that Republicans put up a huge fight against the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending DOMA, and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is even threatening by tweet that “if President Obama won’t redirect Holder’s DOJ to aggressively defend U.S. DOMA law, I will move aggressively to cut their budget.”

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is meeting with congressional Republican leaders to plot strategy, and yesterday appeared on Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” to discuss why he believes the Department of Justice made the decision that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Perkins initially likened Obama to a Middle East dictator for his actions on DOMA:

Perkins: The fact that the president is taking this on and saying, ‘look I don’t care what the Congress said,’ really it’s a challenge to the Congress and their authority as to whether or not who’s going to make the laws of the land. This would be fitting if it were in the Middle East in one of these dictatorships that are falling right now, but this is the United States of America.

Later, Bennett and Perkins agreed that the DOMA decision was a manufactured, “dangerous and destructive distraction” to stop Americans from thinking about Obama’s supposed failure to handle problems in the Middle East and at home:

Bennett: You’re analysis is great, you know I’m always very candid with you Tony, I’m just so baffled by this. I can’t recall a time when there’s been more news in a week, you know, to just list all the countries in the Middle East takes half a segment. Then look what’s going on in Wisconsin, and Ohio, and Indiana, and this situation in Libya where we’re trying to get American citizens on a ferry out of that country. I just am dumbfounded, why they picked this moment to do this.

Perkins: They can’t handle them.

Bennett: Part of leadership is priorities, to pick this moment to attack marriage? Go ahead, instruct me.

Perkins: Look, I mean if you can’t handle those problems and solve them then why not create a domestic distraction?

Bennett: I mean that’s the height of irresponsibility.

Perkins: But I think that’s exactly what it is.

Bennett: This is a distraction, and a dangerous and destructive distraction.
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

Brian Tashman, Wednesday 06/11/2014, 2:00pm
On his “Washington Watch” radio program yesterday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins read a letter from a listener, Todd, who warned that President Obama is attempting a “hostile government takeover” that would cancel the 2016 presidential election. “Well, Todd, good point,” Perkins responded. MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 06/11/2014, 12:50pm
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League released a statement yesterday condemning Family Research Council President Tony Perkins for warning that supporters of gay rights will soon “start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians” to camps, rebuking his remarks as “offensive and inappropriate.” Tony Perkins’ invocation of the Holocaust in his statement referring to a judge’s finding that a baker unlawfully discriminated against gay customers is offensive and inappropriate. There is no comparison between contemporary American... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 06/10/2014, 11:15am
In recent weeks, the Religious Right has caught wind of a “pastoral letter” from Planned Parenthood’s clergy advocacy group that has been posted on the organization’s website for several months and states, “The decision about abortion is a matter between a woman, her conscience, and/or her God, and that those close to her should offer support in any way they can.” Upon learning about the letter, the Alliance Defending Freedom offered to send a copy of the Bible to every Planned Parenthood clinic, Robert Jeffress called the letter “ridiculous”... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 06/06/2014, 1:30pm
Yesterday, after warning parents about the dangers of public schools and predicting that gay people are going to launch an anti-Christian Holocaust, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins mused that one really has to wonder whether President Obama is a terrorist. During his “Washington Watch” radio program, Perkins fielded a question from a caller, Daniel, who said that “President Obama and Eric Holder act like they are radical Muslims in the fact that everything they’ve done in not going after the people in Benghazi, releasing the five terrorists, on and on... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 06/06/2014, 12:05pm
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins is urging parents across the country to pull their children out of public schools in response to a Washington, D.C., principal’s decision to come out to his students and school staff. The principal of Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington D.C. publicly announced that he is gay at a Pride Day event yesterday, thanking students and community members for their support. Perkins was of course appalled, urging his Washington Watch listeners yesterday to pull their kids from public schools: “If you have your children in the public schools... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 06/06/2014, 11:15am
After Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission unanimously upheld a judge’s finding that a baker unlawfully discriminated against gay customers, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins invited the baker’s attorney, Nicolle Martin of Alliance Defending Freedom, to discuss the case yesterday on “Washington Watch.” Perkins reacted to the discrimination case by offering a comparison to the Holocaust: “I’m beginning to think, are re-education camps next? When are they going to start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians?” “I... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 06/04/2014, 10:40am
With right-wing opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) becoming increasingly unhinged, it was no surprise that Family Research Council president Tony Perkins warned members in an email today that ENDA would destroy businesses, entire communities, and the First Amendment. Perkins writes that ENDA, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to current non-discrimination protections such as race, religion, gender and disability, would “banish” Christians from society and have them “stripped of their livelihood” while turning America into... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 06/03/2014, 4:51pm
While good-government groups have been calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s dismantling of campaign finance laws since the day the Court handed down Citizens United in 2010, the issue has been largely off the radar of conservative activists – and has actually enjoyed broad bipartisan support in an array of polls and in state and municipal ballot measures. It was largely off their radar, that is, until this week. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a proposal by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to send a... MORE >