FRCAction

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Tony Perkins says the "essential issue" of efforts to the overhaul the nation's health care system is "will health care reform force taxpayers to pay for abortions for the first time in 30 years?"
  • On a related note, FRC also produced these fliers [PDF] to be handed out at the July 4th TEA Party rallies promoting their Clear Conscience Health Care site.
  • Alan Keyes explains why, of all the TEA Parties he could have attended, he chose the one in Boiling Springs, S.C: it was the only one that would allow him to talk about God.
  • Speaking of which, at the event at which Keyes spoke, attendees were reportedly handing out fliers reading "Zelaya today, Obama tomorrow."
  • Did you know that Sen. Jim DeMint has a new book out called "Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America's Slide into Socialism"? It was released July 4th.
  • LifeNews reports that President Obama has chosen "'Pro-Life' Catholic Sellout Douglas Kmiec for Malta Ambassador." I wasn't aware that "news" outlets were allowed to call their opponents "sell-outs."
  • Finally, later this month American Vision will be hosting its "Worldview Super Conference III" in Georgia. According to WorldNetDaily, whose own Joseph Farah will be speaking at the event, ""the conference's theme, 'The Great Reversal: How Christians Will Change the Future,' reflects the mission of the organization planning the event, American Vision, which states its purpose is to 'restore America to its biblical foundation.'"

Can the Right Complain Its Way To Relevance?

Over the last few weeks, we've been chronicling the Religious Right's growing resentment toward the Republican establishment as it seeks a path back to electoral success that appears to be trying to push social conservatives aside.

The Family Research Council has been particularly vocal in its criticism of the Republican Party ... and it continues to hammer away today in response to the news that the National Republican Senatorial Committee endorsed Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's Senate bid and might even be looking about for someone to challenge Pat Toomey's Senate bid in Pennsylvania:

Considering his unpredictability on key party issues, the departure of Sen. Arlen Specter should have come as a relief to the Senate GOP. But now, less than a month later, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) seems to be hunting for the moderate's replacement. Yesterday, the Committee finally found the centrist it was seeking, throwing its support behind Gov. Charlie Crist's (R-Fla.) Senate candidacy minutes after it was announced.

While he continues to be popular among Floridians, Crist is known for bucking the conservative platform--even going so far as to hit the road with President Obama in support of his controversial stimulus package. Despite promises to the contrary, the National Republican Senatorial Committee jumped into the Florida primary and picked moderate Crist over other qualified candidates who have proven their conservative mettle through support for the core issues of life, marriage, faith, and family. There are even rumblings that the NRSC is looking for a candidate to challenge conservative Pat Toomey in his bid to take defector Specter's seat.

Unfortunately, this is vintage GOP Establishment. For years, the Republican Party gravitated toward moderates over fidelity to the GOP's core principles. It's a longstanding pattern that I've seen up close. The Republican leadership in Washington appears to be on a path that will turn what could have been two or three terms in the minority into a lengthy sojourn in the political wilderness.

The sad thing about this is the assertion that the GOP does this sort of thing to the Right all the time ... and yet the Right remains doggedly committed to the Republican Party nontheless. 

Maybe it is time for the Right to start considering the possibility that this "longstanding pattern" exists in large part due to the fact that the "GOP Establishment" knows full well that, while the Right complains about it a lot, they never seem to actually do anything about it.

The GOP may very well spend two or three more terms wandering around in the political wilderness ... and the Religious Right will still be following right along, complaining the whole time.

A Lesson In Senate Procedure for FRC

We have known for some time now that the Right was targeting Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, for defeat.  But what we weren't aware of, until reading this post from the Family Research Council's Tom McClusky, was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't have the votes to get her confirmed:

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is now telling reporters he does not have the votes to confirm Dawn Johnsen for Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department. Ms. Johnsen has been a long time advocate for abortion rights groups, comparing pregnancy to slavery. She has also been outspoken on counterterrorism measures.

Of course, if you read the article he links to, you find out that Reid didn't say he doesn't have the votes to confirm Johnsen - what he actually said was that he doesn't have the votes to prevent a Republican-led filibuster of her nomination:

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moves to ease a backlog of executive branch nominations, he suggested on Tuesday that he does not have the votes to bring up President Barack Obama’s pick to run the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

“Right now we’re finding out when to do that,” Reid said, responding to a question about the status of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to the Justice post. “We need a couple Republican votes until we can get to 60.”

As Reid explained elsewhere:

“We need a couple Republican votes until we can get to 60," Reid added. And it's just a small number, maybe two or three. But at this stage, I don't have all the Democrats. I have virtually all, but not all. And remember, we have 59 Democrats, and that's not enough to do it."

Reid has more than enough votes to confirm Johnsen if she can get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, which is exactly what Republicans are trying to prevent with a filibuster. 

According to his bio, McClusky has a long history of working in politics, including a stint as a political analyst for the Republican National Committee, so presumably he knows about Senate procedure and the difference between a confirmation vote and a cloture vote.

In fact, I 'm pretty sure that he does, because just a few years ago, he signed onto a letter calling on Senators to ensure that Bush administration nominees received an up-or-down vote on the floor:

If you cannot support a particular nominee, vote him or her out of committee without a positive recommendation, or vote against confirmation. But please do not deny the nominee a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. In other words, we ask only that you do your job by putting statesmanship above politics and special interests.

Is it too much to ask that the Vice President for Government Affairs at the Family Research Council not hypocritically and purposely mischaracterize what is going on regarding Johnsen's nomination and the GOP's obstruction efforts?

Apparently it is.

Let the Hate Crimes Freak-Out Begin

I’ve been away for the last several days and am trying to catch up on what has been going on.  And, judging by the dozens of right-wing statements that are clogging my reader and inbox, it seems as if the end of the world is at hand because the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up H.R. 1913, otherwise known as the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.”

For the Religious Right, issuing dire warnings about hate crimes legislation has been a standard practice for years and this time around is no different, which is why we have made it the focus of our current Right Wing Watch In Focus:

Hate crimes are violent attacks on people who are targeted because of who they are.   Thousands of Americans are physically attacked every year because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, or disability.  These crimes are meant to intimidate entire communities.   The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act – also known as the federal hate crimes bill – would direct federal resources to help local law enforcement fight violent hate crimes, and would let federal law enforcement step in when locals don’t.   Similar legislation passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support during the last session, but never made it to the president’s desk.

Religious Right leaders are vehemently opposed to federal hate crimes laws in large measure because they resist any legal recognition of LGBT people (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender).   They know that most Americans support hate-crimes legislation, anti-discrimination laws, and legal protection for gay couples.  So they create confusion by portraying these steps toward equality as dire threats to religious liberty.   This is part of a larger political strategy by Religious Right leaders to advance their policy goals and mobilize supporters with alarmist claims that Christians in America are on the verge of being jailed for their religious beliefs.

As we have noted before, there’s a dangerously cynical motive at the core of this strategy.  It is easier to convince Americans to support discrimination – even to oppose laws designed to discourage violent hate crimes – if you have first convinced them that their gay neighbors want to shut down their church and throw their pastor in jail for reading the Bible.

One of the Right’s favorite tropes is that, if such legislation passes, it will silence Christians and all those who speak out in opposition to homosexuality and will lead to pastors getting tossed in prison and churches getting shut down by the government.  Of course, none of that is true:

The federal hate crimes law doesn’t create something called a “thought” crime or somehow create “special rights” for a particular group of people.  It strengthens law enforcement’s ability to fight violent crime – not vigorous debate, not sermons against homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the infamous “God hates fags” protesters, not the spreading of misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere. 

Conservatives often say they want judges to focus on exactly what a law says.  Well, here’s exactly what the law says:

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Another section of the law makes it clear that federal courts could not rely on evidence of a person’s outlook or statements to convict someone of a hate crime unless those expressions were directly related to the commission of the violent crime in question:

“In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness."

Could it be any clearer that this has nothing to do with silencing preachers or punishing thoughts, and everything to do with discouraging and prosecuting violent hate crimes? 

But just because the Right’s claims are wildly untrue doesn’t mean they are going to stop making them, as evidenced by the fact that that they are making them once again.

Vision America:

It is imperative that we contact all members of the House and demand that they vote against this bill as it will not protect a pastor, Bible teacher, Sunday School teacher, youth leader or anyone else from prosecution if he or she teaches against homosexuality if an individual who hears their message then goes out and commits a crime against a homosexual.. The pastor or teacher could face prosecution for using "hate speech" and "conspiracy to commit a hate crime."

Focus on the Family:

Under "hate-crimes" laws like H.R. 1913, pastors could be prosecuted for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad.

"The homosexual activists' mantra is no longer tolerance — it's embrace and promote," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action. "Anything less will be silenced. Christians must speak up."

Family Research Council:

The act would establish a new FEDERAL offense for so-called "hate crimes" and add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes.  It will mandate a separate federal criminal prosecution for state offenses.

Adding "sexual orientation" to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to people like you and me.

Concerned Women for America:

[E]xpanding "hate crimes" to include "sexual orientation" and gender identity could put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.  "Hate crimes" laws place us on a slippery slope toward religious persecution. These laws are already being employed as a tool in Brazil, Europe, Canada -- and even right here in America -- to intimidate and silence people who honor natural human sexuality and who value the sanctity of marriage as between one man and one woman.  If a person speaks out against various sexual behaviors, that person may be accused of "hate speech," which could lead to an accusation of associations with "hate crimes."

Liberty Counsel:

H.R. 1913 is not about stopping crime but is designed to give sexual preference the same legal status as race. This legislation is just a stepping stone to regulate the speech of people who support family values.

Matt Barber:

[I]f H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a “hate crime” to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a “gay pride” parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual’s shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony “hate crime.”

But the Christian needn’t even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in “apprehension of bodily injury” by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony “hate crime.”

And, never to be outdone when it comes to issuing over the top warnings about the dangers posed by the “homosexual agenda,” the Traditional Values Coalition has gone into overdrive, releasing various pieces that declare that Christians are going to get tossed into jail by legislation is designed to protect pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and those who engage in bestiality:

HR 1913 targets mainstream religious people for prosecution because their sincerely-held religious beliefs and centuries of theology inform them that homosexuality is a disordered behavior and a sin.  Just expressing that belief will amount to a crime under this bill and pastors across America will be risking their freedom to quote certain passages of the Bible from their pulpits.

This hate crimes bill creates that climate with its chilling effect on the First Amendment’s “free exercise” of  religion, taking rights away from one group of citizens in a phony ploy to protect another group of citizens from a contrived threat.

The main purpose of this legislation is to elevate homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender identity to race. H.R. 1913 will add the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “either actual or perceived,” as new classes of individuals receiving special protection by federal law. Sexual orientation includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. Gender identity includes such gender confused behaviors as cross-dressing, transvestism and such conditions as transsexualism.

The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible.

H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation. A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

The main purpose of this “hate crime” legislation is to add the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” “either actual or perceived,” as new classes of individuals receiving special protection by federal law. Sexual orientation includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality on an ever-expanding continuum. Will Congress also protect these sexual orientations-zoophiles, pedophiles or polygamists?

Gender identity includes such gender confused behaviors as cross-dressing, she-male, drag queen, transvestite, transsexual or transgender. Under the Act, neither “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are really defined. How can a law be enforced if the new classes receiving special protection remain undefined?

The sexual behaviors considered sinful and immoral by most major religions will be elevated to a protected “minority” class under federal law.

Once “sexual orientation” is added to federal law, anyone with a bizarre sexual orientation will have total protection for his or her activities by claiming that Congress sanctions their appearance, behavior or attitudes.

Inevitably this will negatively affect the performance of co-workers who are forced to work alongside of individuals with bizarre sex habits. Imagine working next to a person who gets sexual pleasure from rubbing up against a woman (Fronteurism) or enjoys wearing opposite sex clothing. These are “sexual orientations.”

The Confusing FRC

Yesterday, the Family Research Council released a petition aimed at "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to urge him to stop lying to himself and the American taxpayer" about his pro-life views, saying "he cannot claim to be pro-life and continue advocate for taxpayer funding of abortion."

FRC's action alert urging people to sign it begins thusly:

Senator Reid used to claim he was pro-life. Since he became Majority Leader in the Senate, however, he is sounding more and more like his pro-abortion colleagues Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy. Just recently he told reporters he would be perfectly fine with a health care bill that requires taxpayers to fund abortions.

Is he taking his talking points from the President of Planned Parenthood? Two weeks ago she said that she would pursue making abortion part of President Obama's health care plan.

I have to admit that I had to re-read this several times before I realized that the "she" to which FRC referred  was not a typo referencing Reid but was rather referring to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

While I am more that willing to chalk my confusion about this up to my own stupidity, I don't know that I can say the same for this recent op-ed FRC Senior Policy Analyst Robert Morrison in the Washington Examiner in which he complains about ... well, I'm not sure entirely:

With the talk of whether President Barack Obama is a Socialist, it’s no wonder the country is confused. Some ofthe confusion began when NBC’s late Tim Russert made the switch on national TV in advance of the 2000 election. Prior to that, Republican states had been shown on network election maps in blue, with Democratic states in red.

In 1980, CBS showed President Ronald Reagan’s states as deep a blue as a California swimming pool. Jimmy Carter’s small haul of states was an embarrassed red. When Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York went blue, Dan Rather went green. In 1984, the map went almost all blue again, as Reagan romped to a second landslide victory.

Beginning in 2000, the vision of red state Republicans and blue state Democrats was burned into our minds with the 34-day wait for resolution by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

It’s time to switch colors back. Around the world, conservative parties’ color is blue. And liberals—oh alright—call yourselves progressives if you insist— are red. It’s the color of Labour in Britain, Liberals in Canada, and the SPD in Germany. The Left is red for a very good reason. It represents revolution. Go see Les Mis if you doubt it.

President Obama should be saluted for reaching out to voters in red states and blue states. Not for him the vicious view of a Michael Moore, who wondered why terrorists would want to kill so many blue state voters on 9/11.

Let’s hope both parties will make their best cases to Americans as Americans. E Pluribus Unum should recognize no division. As the victory of Prop. 8 showed in California this time, and the marriage amendment in Ohio proved last time, voters are entirely capable of making differing judgments on men and measures. It’s time they were treated with more respect.

Apparently, Morrison doesn't like the use of red for Republicans and blue for Democrats and seems to believe that this has something to do with why people think President Obama is a socialist and it's all Tim Russert's fault ... plus, some reference to Michael Moore and gay marriage.

Seriously, this is the entire op-ed ... and I literally have no idea what it means.

Obama Speaks Out, Fairness Doctrine Paranoia to Continue Unabated

What is it about the Fairness Doctrine that is causing the Religious Right to lose their minds?  As Marin Cogan pointed out last year, the more she searched for actual evidence that anyone intended to bring it back, the more she had to conclude that it wasn’t going to happen.

But still the Right is up in arms and vowing to do all it can to prevent its return. Christian broadcasters are warning that their programs will be under attack and the word of God is being “opposed at every quarter.” The Family Research Council declares that it would “silence conservative and Christian broadcasters” while Concerned Women for America claims that it would “jeopardize our freedom to share the Gospel.” Focus on the Family says that liberals are trying “to take a huge bite out of the First Amendment” because they are “highly intolerant." The Traditional Values Coalition released a report [PDF] alleging that liberals “want to kick conservative and Christian talk show hosts off the air altogether in order to suppress what they view as ‘hate speech.’” The Media Research Center formed something called the “Free Speech Alliance” for the sole purpose of fighting the Fairness Doctrine and Republicans in Congress even went so far as to introduce legislation that would prevent its return, for which they were hailed as heroes by the Right. And, just in case that fails, the ACLJ announced that it is “formulating our litigation strategy in the event this discriminatory regulation is put in place.” 

As The Politico explained just last week, every time any Democrat so much as mentions the Fairness Doctrine, the Right completely flips out, despite the fact that even supposed supporters of the doctrine have “no plans to introduce any legislation on the issue, nor is it even on the radar”:

But for even the casual listener of conservative talk radio this past week, it would be assumed that federal agents were already en route, pulling radios out of cars or snapping antennas … The passionate reaction on talk radio on this topic, though, reflects a familiar dance between left-leaning politicians and right-leaning talkers.

Every few months, another Democratic leader praises the Fairness Doctrine or talks off the cuff in the Capitol hallway about the government needing to play a role in what’s heard on the public airwaves. Conservative talk show hosts then respond aggressively, rallying the troops from coast to coast with the idea that their favorite shows are about to be taken away by meddling Democrats in Washington.

The Right’s paranoia is so rampant and pervasive that it has now compelled the White House to declare that, even though there is no effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, President Obama would oppose it:

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

So congratulations to all of you on the Right who have managed to propel this issue all the way up to the highest levels of government and forced the President of the United States to state that he does not support the non-existent efforts to re-institute a doctrine that nobody has any intention of trying to re-introduce.  

I’d like to think that this will finally put an end to this nonsense, but knowing how the Right operates, the only thing that is certain is that they are not about to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their fear-mongering and fund-raising.  

The Right Places All Its Hopes in Blackwell

For the last several days we've been chronicling how various right-wing leaders have been rallying behind Ken Blackwell in his campaign to become the next head of the Republican National Committee - perhaps nobody more so than Tony Perkins, who has dedicated the lead article in his daily "Washington Update" to proclaiming Blackwell the "right man at the right time"

What the future holds for the Republican Party will be largely decided by the selection of the next Republican National Committee chairman. As you may have noticed, the list of potential suitors includes a familiar face to the FRC family, our own Ken Blackwell. After weighing the decision of whether or not to throw his hat in the ring, Ken ultimately decided that the opportunity to advance a pro-family agenda in the GOP was compelling. Although I have historically declined to endorse candidates in party elections, this is a tremendous opportunity for a proven public servant to re-interject traditional values into a party that has lost its way. For that reason, I support and encourage others to support Ken Blackwell for chairman of the RNC. His record of service to our nation and his commitment to core conservative issues make him the clear choice in this race.

At a debate yesterday hosted by Americans for Tax Reform, Ken called for a renewal of the Republican Party. He understands that any successful movement must embody a strong grassroots effort that empowers state and local communities. The RNC will make a very critical decision when it meets at the end of January to select the party's new chairman. If they choose a moderate, it could mean a continued drift from core conservative principles. On the other hand, the selection of Ken Blackwell would assure conservatives that they finally have a true advocate in a party that has increasingly attempted to marginalize them.

It is clear that Blackwell's supporters see him as their best hope for making their right-wing agenda the centerpiece of the GOP's politics moving forward and are doing everything in their power to ensure his election ... even going so far as to shut down an RNC straw poll that Blackwell appeared poised to lose:

A straw poll that could have influenced the outcome of an upcoming election for Republican National Committee chairman slammed into a wall of unexpected opposition Monday, largely with the help of supporters of former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, several participants in a meeting of a rump group of RNC members said.

The planned poll was supposed to rank how conservative Mr. Blackwell, Mr. Steele and four other Republican national chairman hopefuls are -- at least in the estimation of the rump group.

But some members told The Washington Times that Robert M. "Mike" Duncan, the incumbent chairman seeking re-election, probably would have won a plurality in such a poll, weakening both Mr. Blackwell, who has strong outside backing from prominent conservatives, and Mr. Steele, who some on the national committee regard with suspicion for consorting with the handful of prominent liberals in the Republican Party.

The 28-17 vote to cancel the poll came during an extraordinary meeting -- 37 who showed up in person and others who participated by phone -- of an ad hoc group calling itself the Conservative Steering Committee, an exclusive assemblage of self-identified conservatives who are part of the 168-member RNC and who formed to try to ensure a conservative is elected as the next national party chairman at the end of this month.

Right Beseeches Schieffer to Help McCain

For the last week or so, as the economy continues to dominate the news cycle and presidential election, the Right has been lamenting that their anti-abortion, anti-gay agenda has been relegated to the back burner and wishing that they could choose right-wing moderators to run the debates.  

But since they can’t do that, they’ve decided to do the next best thing and petition Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the final debate, to make sure their issues play prominent in tonight’s debate.  Earlier this week, Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, wrote an "open letter" to Schieffer decrying Tom Brokaw's failure to work their agenda into the last debate:

Mr. Brokaw’s choice of topics for the second debate robbed the American people of what was intended to be a look into the more personal and controversial aspects of the candidates. In that debate focusing on domestic policy, there was not a single question about the Supreme Court, gun control, abortion, gay marriage or immigration. It strains credulity to assert that of the more than 1,000 questions offered to Mr. Brokaw, he could not find any that spoke to these issues.

And now the FRC has followed suit. Declaring that “no issue our nation faces is more important than the protection of innocent unborn life,” the FRC has launched a petition to try and pressure Schieffer into asking questions designed to rally so-called “values voters” behind John McCain:

The American people face many crucial issues in this year's elections, including the state of the economy, immigration, health care, the environment, and foreign policy.  The first two presidential debates this year, however, have failed to include the most pressing social issues on the minds of values voters.  We the undersigned urge you to ask questions along the lines of those listed below, which discuss the future of marriage and the sanctity of human life.  These are questions that matter to all Americans, and you have the last remaining opportunity for the American people to compare the candidates' answers as they appear together for the final presidential debate of 2008.

* Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution contains a right for homosexuals to marry?
* Would you change the traditional definition of marriage contained in the federal Defense of Marriage Act?
* Do you support the Defense of Marriage Act's provision allowing states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?
* Have you ever opposed any ballot initiative seeking to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?
* Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision allowing the government to ban abortions that kill a partially born baby?
* Have you ever supported or opposed any law designed to protect the lives of babies that have survived an attempted abortion?

Moderating a debate is a great responsibility that rests on your shoulders.  We ask that you exercise that responsibility with great care to ensure that the American people have the chance to know where the candidates stand on every pressing issue. 

And just in case this effort doesn’t work out, FRC Action is doing its own part to support McCain by running anti-Obama ads in several battleground states:

Today, FRC Action PAC announced an initial $100,000 TV and radio ad campaign in key battleground states aimed at educating voters on Senator Barack Obama's promise to make the radical "Freedom of Choice Act" his top priority as President. The "Freedom of Choice Act" will overturn virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion. The ad campaign is a response to the Matthew 25 initiative, which sought to mislead voters and downplay Obama's extreme pro-abortion views. The initial TV and radio ad buy will run this week in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Michigan, with additional television commercials airing in the Washington, D.C. market. The radio ads will target Christian radio stations that earlier this year carried the Matthew 25 campaign.

Right Begs McCain to Talk Social Issues

Yesterday we noted Fred Barnes fantasizing over the idea of having Rick Warren moderate more presidential debates so as to ensure that right-wing social and wedge issues could dominate the agenda.  It seems that he is not alone on the Right in wishing that their issues were playing a bigger role during this election cycle, because now the Family Research Council is weighing in, practically begging John McCain to start talking about abortion, marriage, and religion so that they have something to get excited about:

With the economy on the mind of almost every American it was no surprise that last night's presidential debate, the second of three, was again dominated by economic issues. However, Americans should be given credit for being able to focus on several important issues at once. While the economy is of paramount importance it does not exclude concern about and interest in core issues like life, marriage and family. This is especially true for values voters ... With just one debate left, millions of values voters are still anxiously waiting for an honest exchange on the fundamental issues of life, marriage, and religion.

In essence, FRC is saying that while "values voters" care about our tanking economy and various wars and all that, what they really care about are gays and fetuses and if McCain doesn't start talking about those things, he'll only have himself to blame if he fails to rally them and ultimately loses the election.

Oddly, I was fully expecting this to be the spin they trotted out should McCain be defeated next month. Looks like they are just getting an early start.

Who Is Snubbing Evangelicals?

Earlier this week, we noted that Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals wasn’t making any friends on the Right by blasting John McCain for completely selling out to them.  It looks like Cizik has no fear of rubbing salt in the wound, telling Dan Gilgoff that the Religious Right’s party-line commitment to the GOP is “unbiblical. It says you don't think. If you're simply voting on same sex marriage and abortion, you're not thinking. What I'm saying is that a lot of evangelicals don't think, sad to say.”

But more interesting, especially in light of the fact that Rob Schenck and the Family Research Council are accusing Barack Obama of snubbing evangelicals, is the fact that, according to Cizik, the McCain campaign is completely snubbing the NAE and other leaders:

The McCain campaign has beefed up its religious outreach efforts recently. How is their evangelical outreach going?

We put in a request with the McCain campaign and it was never responded to. Many figures in the Republican Party have reached out to the campaign stating their concern that the candidate has not reached out to evangelical leaders, but it went nowhere. And since we're so deep into the campaign, we can only assume that we're not going to get an answer. We had some people, including a governor and a major party official, who said to the campaign, "I think you should meet with some of these evangelicals." I have subsequently interpreted that they didn't think they needed to because they had an idea of their own and that maybe that was Sarah Palin.

Has the Obama campaign reached out to the National Association of Evangelicals?

We put in a request and an answer came back rather quickly: They wanted us to come to a meeting in Chicago with some 25 other leaders. And I went. One is left to conclude that the McCain people have concluded that they don't need such a meeting.

FRC Uses the 9/11 Mastermind to Try to Score Political Points

I saw this article in the Washington Post yesterday about the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed at Guantanamo Bay in which he attempted to find out if the judges were fans of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson because he felt that, if they were, he could not get a fair trial:

Invoking names such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the admitted organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, probed the private opinions of the military judge who is overseeing his case Tuesday in a series of sometimes testy exchanges during a hearing on the judge's impartiality.

Mohammed, wearing a black turban, began by asking Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann about his religious beliefs and whether he had any association with the religious organizations of Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell.

"If you are in one of those denominations, you are not going to be fair," said Mohammed, who switched between Arabic and English when he spoke to the judge. The judge said he had not belonged to any congregation for some time but had attended Lutheran and Episcopal churches.

I didn't write about it because I felt it was crass to try and score political points off the ramblings of a man responsible for thousands of American deaths ... but then again, I don't work for the Family Research Council:

What was most offensive was the subject matter of this interrogation-namely, the judge's personal religious views. "We are well-known as extremists and fanatics, and there are also Christians and Jews that are very extremist," Mohammed said. "If you, for example, were part of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson's groups, then you would not at all be impartial towards us." He also asked if the judge read books by Billy Graham or Pat Buchanan and wanted to know what movies he has watched. Col. Kohlmann rightly declined to answer. But this line of questioning seemed to ring a bell. It is reminiscent of the questioning, now abandoned, of judicial nominees about their religious beliefs by liberal senators during their confirmation hearings. But the Constitution is clear-"no religious test shall ever be required" for public office. The charge that only a radical secularist can be impartial on the bench, or that conservatives and evangelical Christians can never be, must be rejected from any source.

What Makes a Maverick?

I know I have written about this before and that there are bigger issues facing this nation at the moment, but it is driving me nuts, so I am writing about it again.

As I marveled at last time, the conventional media wisdom that John McCain's decision to tap Sarah Palin as his running mate was a sign that he was reclaiming his reputation as a "maverick" despite the fact that the choice was a complete and utter capitulation to the Religious Right.

I'm fully aware that trotting out definitions of words is a hackneyed device, but in this case, it seems kind of relevant - Maverick: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.

Back in 2000, McCain established his reputation as a "maverick" by bucking his "party" and especially the "group" of Religious Right activists who constitute that party's base with his infamous declaration that they were "agents of intolerance" and a "corrupting influences on religion and politics." So at least in that context, his reputation as a maverick was not completely underserved. 

But since then, he has completely caved to the realities of Republican politics, fallen back in line, and cravenly sublimated himself to the Right's demands.  Yet, for some reason, the media fails to recognize this glaringly obvious fact. 

But even more amazing is the fact that, ever since he named Palin to his ticket, the Religious Right has begun praising McCain's "maverickness."

Shortly after McCain made the announcement, the Family Research Council hailed Palin as "McCain's Co-Maverick." Earlier this month Gary Bauer declared that his "maverick reputation" would "appeal to swing voters." And now, buried in this long US News article, we get Michael Medved saying "Both Palin and McCain are mavericks, authentic, and original."

What group or party does the Right think McCain thwarted in picking Palin, other than his own VP short list of Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge?  The media and the pundits?  Whoever it was, it certainly wasn't the GOP or the Religious Right.  

For the media, McCain initially established his "maverick" reputation by exhibiting independence from the Republican Party and the Religious Right.  He has since negated that persona in a multitude of ways, much to the delight of the Republican Party and the Religious Right, who are now inexplicably crowing that McCain's "maverick" reputation will be advantageous in November.    

It seems that the media considering McCain a "maverick" because he once parted ways with the Republican Party and its right-wing base, and the Republican Party and its right-wing base thinks he's a "maverick" because he picked a running mate that confounded the media.

Needless to say, both cannot be true.  And, in fact, neither is.

Frankly, the fact that the Religious Right is now hailing McCain for his "maverick" reputation shows just how undeserved that reputation really is.  

Perkins’ Plans Have Suddenly Changed

Back when the Republican primary was still hot-and-heavy, there was some speculation that the Religious Right was not-so-subtly lining up behind Mitt Romney because when a group of heavyweights teamed up with Focus on the Family Action to analyze the South Carolina primary, every candidate was criticized except Mitt Romney.  

Focus responded to the speculation by telling Marc Ambinder that they were not “endorsing any candidates, either ‘stealthily’ or otherwise” and then Tony Perkins weighed in as well, telling Michael Scherer that not only was he not endorsing anyone, but that he had no plans to do so in the future:

Last Saturday night, after the polls closed in South Carolina, I joined our friends at Focus on the Family Action in a live web cast discussion of the election returns. My comments about each of the presidential candidates were excerpted for home page clips on the Focus Action web site. The interpretation being given to those comments by some is just wrong. I have not endorsed any candidate for the White House and have no plans to do so. During the course of almost a year of speaking about this tense and competitive race, I have talked to thousands of reporters and offered reams of commentary. Despite the urgings of many close friends and allies in the social issue trenches, people who have been at my side for battle after battle, I have not chosen -- and have not plans -- to give an explicit or implied endorsement to any individual.

Well, it looks like that is about to change:

On Friday at 1 PM at the Values Voter Summit, Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins will announce the formation of a Political Action Committee and release candidate endorsements.

What: News Conference to announce formation of FRC Action Political Action Committee and Candidate Endorsements

Who: Tony Perkins, President of FRC Action
David Nammo, Executive Director of FRC Action

When: Friday, September 12, 2008
1 PM ET

Presumably, John McCain and Sarah Palin will be among those getting the new FRC PAC’s endorsement.

It’s amazing how, as the election gets closer, the Right seems to continually find ways to renege on their earlier pledges and support John McCain.

The Return of the "Deeply Held Beliefs" Defense

The Religious Right has spent the last several months savaging Barack Obama and his Christian faith, calling it everything from “deceitful,” to “woefully deficient,” to outright "phony." They have gone over the tenets of his faith with a fine-toothed comb and demanded that he sit down with them and explain, in depth, his Christian beliefs and how they influence his political positions. 

But now that Sarah Palin has emerged on the scene, they have suddenly dusted off their age-old complaint that questions about a candidate's faith and "deeply held beliefs" are off-limits and that any such inquiry is a sign of anti-Christian bigotry

Governor Sarah Palin is undergoing increasing scrutiny by those aiming to use her church and religious beliefs as a weapon against her. Over the weekend, a biased Associated Press article attacked her church for promoting Focus on the Family's "Love Won Out" conference which will be held this Saturday in Anchorage. The conference will teach a biblical message on sexuality and assist those seeking to overcome same-sex attractions. We can probably expect more attacks of this nature. How the McCain campaign responds is critical in maintaining the intensity and enthusiasm that swept through social conservatives after Gov. Palin's selection as the VP nominee. In the past, there has been an overwhelming public backlash against those seeking to impose a religious litmus test on candidates and judicial nominees. Several years ago, Senator Schumer (D-NY) experienced this backlash when he attacked judicial nominees for holding "deeply held personal beliefs." The McCain campaign must stand firmly against efforts to make Gov. Palin's faith a disqualifier. There should be no reluctance in any party to be identified as someone who holds "deeply held personal beliefs."

If FRC really is so upset about people trying to use a candidate's "church and religious beliefs as a weapon" against them, maybe they should take it up with James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

Are McCain-Palin Afraid to Be Seen With The Right?

John McCain had never, until recently, been the darling of the Religious Right.  Even while crafting a political record that furthered much of their agenda, McCain had never been particularly fond of the Right, a view that was on full display back in 2000 when he lashed out against the movement’s leaders as “corrupting influences on religion and politics” and “agents of intolerance.”

Because of this long-standing mutual animosity, McCain had never been invited to most of the annual right-wing gathering and presumably wouldn’t have attended if he had.  But that changed last year when he suddenly realized that he desperately needed their support if he was to win the Republican nomination, at which point he started showing up at their confabs, showing up at CPAC, addressing the secretive Council for National Policy and joining all the other GOP hopefuls at the FRC’s Values Voter Summit.  

At the time of the FRC summit, McCain’s campaign was thought to be dead in the water and the battle for right-wing hearts and minds was being waged between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.  But since then, McCain has managed to secure the nomination and, though his relationship with the Right remained strained, he began working hard to win the over; an effort that finally succeeded with his decision to name Sarah Palin as his running mate.    

But now the time is approaching for this year’s Values Voter Summit – The Battle for America’s Future:

And while the organizers are racking up big name speakers like Sean Hannity, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, two names are conspicuously absent from their list of confirmed speakers:  John McCain and Sarah Palin. According to the Summit website, both have been invited - yet with only a few days before its begins, neither has agreed to attend.

There appears to be a pattern developing here.  Just last week, Palin had been scheduled to address Phyllis Schlafly’s reception at the Republican Convention only to cancel at the last minute.  And now, with the biggest right-wing political conference of the year about to get underway - an event which McCain addressed just last year – both he and his running mate are nowhere to be seen.  

It seems as if the McCain campaign it trying to have it both ways; picking Palin specifically to appease the Right yet trying to avoid actually being seen in public with them out of fear of undermining the “maverick” image they are desperately trying to craft.

McCain's Capitulation to the Religious Right Now Complete

Back in 2000, John McCain solidified his "maverick" reputation by lambasting the Religious Right, labeling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" and decrying the Right's role within the Republican Party:

They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Since then, McCain has been working hard to get back in their good graces, though the Right has been openly skeptical and their support for him has been lukewarm at best.  But all of that changed with his decision to name relative-unknown Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I can say without exaggeration that, in all my years of watching the Right, I have never seen them as excited about anything as they are about the Palin nomination.  Nor, for that matter, have I ever seen a prominent politician more blatantly capitulate to their demands:

James Dobson, Focus on the Family:  "A lot of people were praying, and I believe Sarah Palin is God's answer.”

James Dobson: “[A]n outstanding choice that should be extremely reassuring to the conservative base of his party.”

James Dobson:  I have only endorsed one presidential candidate in my life and that was George Bush in the second term after I had watched him for four years … So I’m very reluctant to do that … But I can tell you that if I had to go into the [voting booth today], I would pull that lever.

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: “Senator McCain made an outstanding pick.”

Connie Mackey, FRCAction:  “I am elated with Senator McCain's choice.”

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel: "Absolutely brilliant choice.”

Richard Land: “Governor Palin will delight the Republican base.”

Rick Scarborough, Vision America, “I’m elated. I think it’s a superb choice."

Ralph Reed: “They’re beyond ecstatic. This is a home run.”

Gary Bauer, American Values: "[A] grand slam home run."

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: “She is the best possible choice.”

Janet Folger, Faith2Action: “[T]he selection of Sarah Palin is more than ‘Brilliant!’ ‘Electrifying!’ and ‘Energizing!’ The selection of Sarah Palin will lead to words like: ‘Rejuvenating!’ ‘Victory!’ and ‘Landslide!’"

Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America: “Governor Palin will change the dynamics of the entire presidential race.”

Janice Shaw Crouse, CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute: “She is an outstanding woman who will be an excellent role model for the nation's young people.”

David Barton, Wallbuilders: "The talk won't be about, 'look at Sarah Palin' as much as 'look at what McCain's choice of Palin says about McCain's core beliefs.”

Jonathan Falwell: “John McCain made it very clear that his administration was going to be a pro-life administration, and he proved that’s his belief and his passion today with the choice of Sarah Palin.”

Jerry Falwell, Jr.: “I think it’s a brilliant choice.”

Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life: “And then when [Palin] was announced — it was like you couldn’t breathe. [We] were grabbing each other and jumping up and down.”

Gary Marx, Judicial Confirmation Network: "I can tell you that this pick tells millions in the base of the party that they can trust McCain. More specifically that they can trust him with Supreme Court picks and other key appointments’"

David Keene, American Conservative Union: “The selection of Governor Palin is great news for conservatives, for the party and for the country. I predict any conservatives who have been lukewarm thus far in their support of the McCain candidacy will work their hearts out between now and November for the McCain-Palin ticket."

In eight years, John McCain has gone from attacking the Right's "corrupting influences on religion and politics" to answering James Dobson's prayers. Absolutely remarkable.

Schlafly Threatens Walkout if Lieberman Named VP

As we noted several times recently, the Right has been anything but unclear that a pro-choice running mate for John McCain would be utterly unacceptable. But even worse than that would be a pro-choice, former Democrat like Joe Lieberman.

As we wrote earlier this week, picking Lieberman would be an unmistakable poke in the eye by McCain to the GOP's right-wing base - one that would not go unnoticed:

But Lieberman’s long history as a Democrat could make for a bizarre debate with Biden — with the two of them sharing long records supporting labor causes and abortion rights and a host of other issues that would infuriate McCain’s activist base.

In essence, said one insider, a Lieberman pick “means McCain would run a campaign without a core constituency of the Republican Party.”

Phyllis Schlafly, of the conservative Eagle Forum, was more blunt: “I think there would be a walkout on Lieberman at the convention. He’s not a Republican.”

For their part, the Family Research Council can't imagine what McCain could possibly be thinking either:

McCain would presumably pledge not to run again and Lieberman would never be the GOP nominee in 2012, thus it would be the swan song for them both. Joe Lieberman has a reasonable and thoughtful image, but his positions on abortion and homosexual marriage would mark a major break for the GOP. It's hard to imagine a more divisive step for McCain, but it would be odd at other levels. By acknowledging from day one that his administration is lame duck, by holding simultaneously the thought that he would remake American politics without touching the nature of his own party, by making his ticket focus solely on foreign policy when economic news dominates the headlines, McCain would be letting the air out of his own balloon.

The Right (Over)Reacts to Biden

Following the announcement that Barack Obama had chosen Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, the Right swung into action, with FRC Action quickly releasing a “fact sheet on [the] family record of Senator Joe Biden” while others carefully crafted statements of their own and began plotting strategy. 

Within hours, a new on-line movement touting itself “Catholics Against Joe Biden” appeared on the scene, brought to you by the same people behind the “Catholics Against Rudy” effort during the GOP primary.  Of course, that effort gained attention because the organizers were traditionally Republican supporters proclaiming a GOP candidate unacceptable whereas this new effort is standard partisan criticism cloaked in religious terms.

Apparently Catholics are not only universally opposed, but outright offended, by Obama’s decision to choose Biden - at least judging by the press release from Fidelis, another self-appointed political organization that claims to speak for Catholics:

Fidelis President Brian Burch commented, “Barack Obama has re-opened a wound among American Catholics by picking a pro-abortion Catholic politician. The American bishops have made clear that Catholic political leaders must defend the dignity of every human person, including the unborn.  Sadly, Joe Biden’s tenure in the United States Senate has been marked by steadfast support for legal abortion.”

“Now everywhere Biden campaigns, we’ll have this question of whether a pro-abortion Catholic can receive Communion. Senator Biden is an unrepentant supporter of abortion in direct opposition to the Church he claims as his own. Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters,” said Burch.

But both Fidelis and Catholics Against Joe Biden were outdone by Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission who made his displeasure known by blasting Obama as a “fake Christian” and Biden as a “fake Catholic”:  

"Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden sends a clear message, true Christians need not apply in the Democratic Party," said Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "Instead of picking a true Christian, Obama, a fake evangelical, has selected Biden, a fake Catholic.”

 The CADC proclaims its mission is to “advance religious liberty for Christians by protecting Christians from defamation, discrimination, and bigotry from any and all sources,” but that apparently doesn’t apply to those it considers “fake” Christians such as Obama and Biden.  It might seem odd that an organization founded to protect Christians from defamation would among the most frequently and vocally defaming Obama’s faith, but only if you don’t understand that Cass’s mission is reserved solely for those he deems “true Christians” who have proven their faith via “actions and [holding] the beliefs personified by all of us who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ as Savior: the need to be re-born in Christ and the affirmation of historic Christianity, having a demonstrable and proven record of support for traditional Christian morality.”

Warren Wows the Right His Faith Forum

The emerging right-wing narrative coming out of Saturday’s faith forum at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church is John McCain won in a landslide.   That is not particularly surprising – and neither is the fact that Religious Right leaders are now smitten with Rick Warren himself.  As Catholic Online put it, “at the Saddleback Forum, Pastor Rick Warren and Senator John McCain both took the Gold” and that seems to be a view widely shared by others on the right as well, such as FRC’s Tony Perkins:

Warren, who was urged to ask some weighty values questions, did not disappoint and drew some stark contrasts between the candidates on key issues …After the forum, I gave some of my perspective as part of CNN's pre- and post-panel discussion from Washington. As I saw it, there were two winners-Sen. John McCain and Pastor Rick Warren …As for Pastor Warren, who has been called the Billy Graham of this generation, he asked the right questions. Some have implied that Pastor Warren with his non-confrontational style is evidence that Evangelicals are moving to the Left. I would suggest he is evidence that Evangelicals are more involved and more committed than they were 25 or 30 years ago. If he is the new Billy Graham, and he certainly has similar favor with elected leaders of all political persuasions, there is a big contrast. Pastor Warren showed Saturday night that you can have a personal relationship with those in positions of power and still ask the hard questions.

McCain Wins Praise From FRC For Gay Adoption Stance

After getting blasted for backtracking on his opposition to gay adoption, FRC is now praising McCain's muddled commitment to family values: "We applaud the Arizona Senator for his support of traditional families, which study upon study affirms as the best environment for raising children. I hope this is only the beginning of a longer, more pointed dialogue about pro-family policies by the GOP's presidential nominee."
Syndicate content

FRCAction Posts Archive

Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 02/02/2011, 11:54am
Within hours of the release of Lila Rose's latest hoax video attack on Planned Parenthood, Religious Right anti-choice leaders had already lined-up in support and began using it to demand that the organization be de-funded. Taking down Planned Parenthood has been a primary goal of the Religious Right for years and it looks like plans have been in the works to exploiting this latest video for some time now, because these same leaders have already launched a new effort called Expose Planned Parenthood complete with its own website: Anti-abortion groups will launch today an aggressive campaign... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Monday 11/01/2010, 12:12pm
In 2008, the Family Research Council endorsed Joseph Cao for Congress: Today FRC Action PAC is endorsing Joseph Cao for Congress representing the second district of Louisiana. "Joseph Cao will be a true friend of the family. We need representatives who will fight to defend the family against the radical leadership in the House of Representatives," said Tony Perkins, President of FRC Action PAC. "I feel confident in Joseph Cao's ability to do just that. "Joseph Cao's amazing life story is a testament to the high-caliber Congressman he would be. The second district of... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 10/29/2010, 4:56pm
Everybody knows that the Religious Right was dead-set against abortion and fought tooth-and-nail against health care reform on the grounds that it provided for taxpayer funded abortions.  But it is also important to keep pointing out that it is not just abortion that FRC opposes, but birth control entirely: Is Fertility a "Pre-existing Condition?" Planned Parenthood certainly thinks so. That's why the country's biggest abortion provider is pushing to include free birth control as part of the new health care law. Making a change in the law would not only add billions... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 10/22/2010, 2:53pm
Earlier this week, the Family Research Council hosted a webcast entitled "Taxman Cometh: Stopping the Obama Tax Hikes" that featured various members of Congress and right-wing activists (as was supposed to co-sponsored by Virginia Thomas and Liberty Central, until she dropped out). During the broadcast, Harry Jackson made the case that raising taxes is really a moral issue and an attempt to limit the work that Christians can do through their charitable donations, for which they deserve to be applauded: Perkins: Let's talk about the moral aspects of taxes. Why should Christians... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Monday 09/27/2010, 5:35pm
The Freedom Federation has released a variety of voting guides and scorecards targeting specific Congressional races. The Family Research Council has also released its scorecard for the current Congress [PDF]. Does anybody else get the impression that this post was prompted primarily by the fact that Christine O'Donnell turned down an interview request from CBN's David Brody? Four Christian missionaries who were accused of inciting a crowd while videotaping themselves proselytizing to Muslims at the Dearborn Arab International Festival in June were acquitted on Friday... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 09/10/2010, 5:21pm
FRC, TVC, and CWA react to the DADT ruling. Shockingly, they disagree with it. It seems unclear whether Terry Jones has actually canceled his "Burn a Koran Day" tomorrow, though Rob Schenck met with him and says he doesn't think he'll go ahead with it. Sean Hannity has joined the Values Voter Summit. Rick Santorum set to deliver a big speech on faith in the public square on the 50th Anniversary of John F. Kennedy's famous speech addressing his faith and the need to separate church and state. Hey, guess what?  The World Trade Center had a... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 09/10/2010, 10:28am
We've noted over the last several days that the Religious Right is growing increasingly worried that GOP leaders are intentionally ignoring social issues as they lay out their agenda.  This fear was reinforced earlier this week when Haley Barbour, head of the Republican Governor's Association, said that the GOP wasn't going to use up valuable time and resources talking about issues like abortion and gay marriage because those are not things that voters care about. Needless to say, that is not sitting well with the groups who care about abortion and gay marriage, with LifeNews... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 07/29/2010, 5:38pm
FRC needs donations to fight ENDA, which is "the pot of gold at the end of the homosexual 'rights' rainbow ... the end of moral opposition to counterfeit marriage, homosexuals in the military, the indoctrination of school children, the rest of the homosexual rights agenda, and the lottery for trial lawyers." The Christian Coalition takes credit for stopping the DISCLOSE Act. Phyllis Schlafly has endorsed Todd Tiahrt. Benny Hinn needs $2 million and insists he's not in a relationship with fellow evangelist Paula White. The Liberty Counsel stands... MORE >