GOProud

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his Republican Study Committee, the ultraconservative group that counts a majority of the GOP caucus as its members, told The Hill that he supports congressional action to reverse Washington DC’s marriage equality law. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it,” the Ohio Republican said, “I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it.” Jordan voted against every major piece of gay-rights legislation and recently announced his boycott of CPAC over the conference’s inclusion of GOProud.

Even though the Republican Study Committee claims to be committed to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government” and reducing “government regulations [and the] size of government,” anti-gay attacks apparently take priority over its dedication to federalism and small-government.

The DC Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality in 2009, and marriage rights for gays and lesbians went into effect in early 2010. National and local Religious Right groups, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, just last week lost a lawsuit challenging the law.

Bishop Jackson has unsuccessfully demanded a popular referendum to decide the fate of marriage equality in the District, saying that the issue should be left up to DC voters rather than their elected representatives in the Council and going so far as writing to Congress to demand a popular vote on the issue. In Congress, however, DC’s Delegate does not have the right to vote on legislation and was stripped by Republicans of her limited voting powers.

Clearly, given his aggressive stance in support of DC’s voters’ ability to have a say in the matter, Bishop Jackson will come out strongly against Congressman Jordan’s proposal any minute now…

• On his program tomorrow, Glenn Beck will feature the founders of the Wilmington House of Prayer.
• FRC says there are "three kinds of politicians in Washington we must oppose": liberals, moderates, and everyone associated with the Obama administration.
• Andrew Breitbart has joined the board of GOProud.
• Shockingly, Randy Thomasson does not like San Francisco's GLBT History Museum.
• Randall Terry has received the coveted endorsement of crackpot Rabbi Yehuda Levin.
• Finally, Gabrielle Giffords is expected to be released from a Tucson, Ariz., hospital Friday. Amazing.

• Ian Millhiser @ Think Progress: Sen. Mike Lee Calls Child Labor Laws Unconstitutional.
• Joe.My.God: GOProud Pleads Its CPAC Case To Fox.
• Jillian Rayfield @ TPM: Birther Texas Rep. Pushes 'Religious Or Cultural Law' (Read: Sharia) Ban.
• Robert Steinback @ Hatewatch: AIM’s Kincaid Takes Up Banner for Racist Organization.
• Sahil Kapur @ Raw Story: Tea partiers push to remove criticisms of Founding Fathers from textbooks.
• Towleroad: GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter to Introduce Legislation Attempting to Impede Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

• Michael Steele's reign as Chair of the RNC has sadly come to an end.
• Elaine Donnelly is pleased that Tim Pawlenty wants to reinstate DADT.
• CNS appears utterly baffled by the Native American prayer delivered at the Tucson Memorial.
• Apparently, Ronald Reagan supports the Personhood effort.
• GOProud releases its agenda for 2011.
• Finally, the right wing Mt. Soledad Cross protest taking place this weekend is not just a rally, it's a "mega rally."

There are few Religious Right leaders active today who can compete with the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer in terms of openly hostile bigotry against gays, Muslims, and all those who do not share his radical worldview:

So it is bound to raise a few eyebrows that former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty went on Fischer's radio program yesterday to promote his new book ... but it won't raise any eyebrows that Fischer used the opportunity to grill Pawlenty on social issues or that Pawlenty largely shared Fischer's right-wing concerns:

Fischer: If you are asked the question "should CPAC provide a place at the table for an organization like GOProud," what will you say?

Pawlenty: You know, I am not familiar with that dispute, I have heard it referenced ... but I'm not just a fiscal conservative, I'm a social conservative so I can't speak for CPAC but I can speak for myself and what I believe and I've been a strong supporter of the family, pro-life positions, traditional marriage positions - so I'm not sure what that dispute all involves. But whatever it is, I don't think we should be afraid of telling what I believe and what we believe to whatever audience. We're trying to make sure we stand what what we believe in and we share it in a way that will hopefully bring more people to our side.

Fischer: Now the Left, and homosexual activists and organizations like GOProud, one of their stated agendas is to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that defines marriage in federal law and for federal purposes as a union of one man and one woman. The Obama administration has made a tepid and pretty ineffective defense of that law - if you become president and that law faces a challenge under your administration, how vigorously will you defend DOMA? What will you do to make sure it's defended?

Pawlenty: I believe strongly in traditional marriage. I was co-author of the law in Minnesota that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I've been a vocal supporter of an amendment in Minnesota that would put that into our constitution. I hope that the day comes when it is put before the voters of Minnesota. And it's not just a legal issue; it's also an important cornerstone for our society and our culture. I mean, families and traditional marriage is so important to that and I don't believe all other domestic relations should be on the same platform as traditional marriage, I just don't buy and so I've been a strong supporter of traditional marriage. I also think who you appoint to courts in this regard is important and we don't have litmus tests, so to speak, but we want strict constructionists and people who take a conservative view toward the interpretation of our laws.

Fischer: Now Roe v. Wade is obviously the critical court ruling on the abortion issue - that is a ruling that was issued in 1973 so it seems to me that candidates would have the freedom to comment on whether they thought potential nominees to the Supreme Court, would have the freedom to comment on whether they thought Roe v. Wade was properly decided from a constitutional perspective. A number of sitting Supreme Court justices have commented on the fact that they believe it was poorly decided. So that's going to be a critical issue, if you have the opportunity to appoint nominees to the federal bench - will you talk explicitly with a nominee to the federal bench about his or her view about whether they think Roe v Wade was properly decided from a constitutional basis, will that be in the nature of a litmus test for you, that question, will you bring it up, will you look for an answer?

Pawlenty: Well, I've appointed a lot of judges as the Governor of Minnesota, including at our Supreme Court, appellate court and district court level. For the first time, at least in the modern history and maybe in a long time we now have a small majority of people on our Minnesota Supreme Court we are conservative and strict constructionist. I have confidence in them and how they would approach these issues of how you interpret the law. On the specific issue of Roe. v Wade, when you tell people or ask people to be strict constructionist and you look at the Constitution, to have people say "I'm a strict constructionist" would somehow lead to a decision or a conclusion like Roe v. Wade, I think it was wrongly decided. And if you look at the reasoning behind it and the strict interpretation approach to interpreting the Constitution, I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by the Court. But I have been careful that I appoint people, particularly at the appellate level, that share this strict constructionist philosophy - that at least says to me directly - I didn't have litmus test - but I do want to know that they share my view and values about the proper role of the court and the interpretation of the law, so we try to get to the bottom of that.

Fischer: One last question, got about forty five seconds left, put you on the hot seat one more time: we just saw the ban on homosexual service in the military repealed, overturned. Conservatives will be working over the next couple of years to see that that ban is reinstated. If you become president in 2012, will you work to reinstate the prohibition on open homosexual service in the military? Would you sign such a prohibition if it got to your desk?

Pawlenty: Bryan, I have been a public and repeat supporter of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There's a lot of reasons for that, but if you look at how the combat commanders and the combat units feel about it, the results of those kinds of surveys were different than the ones that were mostly reported in the newspaper and that is something I think we need to pay attention to. But I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell and I would support reinstating it as well.

Last year, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli joined dozens of Religious Right leaders for an event called "Awakening 2010," organized by the Freedom Federation and hosted at Liberty University, where Cindy Jacobs declared that "the Bible is the government of the people, by the people, for the people," while Matt Barber and Andrea Lafferty claimed that passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would allow those working at the Veteran's Administration to freely molest disable veterans.

In April, the Freedom Federation will host its second annual "Awakening" conference entitled "Raising Our Voices: Equipping and Empowering a New Revolution" which organizer hope will feature a mix of right-wing activists like Lou Engle, Tony Perkins, Mat Staver, Frank Gaffney, Wendy Wright, David Barton, and Gary Bauer with Republican leaders like Cuccinelli, Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio, Alan West, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee:

Notice also the proposed inclusion of Ryan Sorba, whose made a name for himself as last year's CPAC by blasting organizers for allowing the participation of GOProud.

Last February the Media Research Center’s director of media analysis Tim Graham defended the American Conservative Union’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) from a charge that the event was “once a venue for the radical fringe.” Today, the Media Research Center joined other groups in boycotting the conference because it isn’t conservative enough. While the Heritage Foundation announced on Wednesday that it would be boycotting CPAC, the Media Research Center, led by notable right-wing activist Brent Bozell, is both the latest and one of the best-known organizations to join the boycott movement.

Back in November, the far-right American Principles Project declared that it would not take part in CPAC as long as GOProud, a conservative group that supports some gay-rights initiatives, remains a participating organization. GOProud’s status as a “participating” organization prompted many Religious Right groups to boycott CPAC, including: American Values; American Vision; the Capital Research Center; the Center for Military Readiness; Concerned Women For America; the Family Research Council; Liberty Counsel; Liberty University, and the National Organization for Marriage. The American Family Association, which boycotted CPAC last year over GOProud’s more limited involvement, has decided to sit out this year’s conference as well.

The decision by the Media Research Center and the Heritage Foundation to leave CPAC represents the most noteworthy achievement for the boycott movement since Concerned Women For America and the Family Research Center joined the cause. Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink remains a chief sponsor of the event, however, CitizenLink’s head Tom Minnery said that his group will only remain in CPAC to limit GOProud’s influence and may boycott next year’s conference. Minnery told The Washington Times that “the influence of social conservatives has been missing and there needs to be more of it,” but “if the ACU can't manage this problem that they’ve brought upon themselves, we’ll have to make another decision.”

WorldNetDaily, the right-wing publication which has been attacking CPAC since the conference refused to hold a WND-sponsored panel that would showcase “birther” conspiracy theories about President Obama’s birth certificate, has been rallying behind the boycott movement. Joseph Farah, the editor-in-chief of WND, called for a “purge of the conservative movement” that would begin with CPAC’s organizers since “conservatives need God’s help, not GOProud’s.” Today, WorldNetDaily broke the story about the MRC’s decision to pull out of CPAC:

Two more big guns of the conservative movement confirmed today they are not participating in the Conservative Political Action Conference next month because of the continued participation of the homosexual activist organization GOProud.

The Heritage Foundation, the largest think tank in Washington and not known as part of the religious right, confirmed that it is not taking part in what has been the largest annual gathering of conservatives in the country. Heritage has been an active participant in CPAC every year for the last 10.

"We have withdrawn," said Mike Gonzalez, vice president of communications for the Heritage Foundation.

"We have been there for many, many years at the highest level of participation. "We believe in the traditional definition of the family,"

Gonzalez explained. "We believe in defending the family against any threats that come against it. We're not for gay marriage. We don't think institutions that have existed for millennia can be done away with at the drop of a hat." Gonzalez emphasized that the "three pillars" of conservatism, economic liberty, national defense and social conservatism, are "indivisible."

In addition, the Media Research Center, led by Brent Bozell, a longtime associate of the hosting organization, the American Conservative Union, announced it was dropping out.

"We've been there 25 years, since our inception," said Bozell. "To bring in a 'gay' group is a direct attack on social conservatives, and I can't participate in that."

…

The Christian ministry American Vision and related businesses Vision for America and Patriot Depot also said they have dropped out of CPAC because of GOProud.

"Homosexuals can get involved in the conservative movement any way they want, but to come in and push an agenda that's contrary to biblical values, traditional values and rational moral values, that's another thing," said Gary DeMar, president of American Vision and Vision for America. "We wouldn't exclude adulterers from participating, but if there were a group of adulterers who said 'we want adulterers' rights,' we're going to say no."

Bozell said GOProud is not a genuine conservative organization, and suggested inviting homosexual activist groups into the conservative movement could drive social conservative activists to the political sidelines.

"They attack the Family Research Council, they attack Concerned Women for America, they are proponents of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell," he said of GOProud. "If you don't believe in the traditional family, you're not a conservative."

Incensed over the participation of the conservative gay-rights group GOProud in the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, far-right activists are now trying to connect the major conservative event to the Muslim Brotherhood. The American Conservative Union (ACU), which hosts CPAC, has been the target of Religious Right groups and leaders over their handling of GOProud’s involvement, with Joseph Farah even calling for conservatives to “purge” the ACU from the movement. Already, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women For America, American Values, the American Principles Project, the Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, Liberty University, and the National Organization for Marriage have announced their boycott of CPAC.

Now, the conservative news site WorldNetDaily, a major cheerleader for the groups boycotting CPAC, is giving right wing activist Frank Gaffney a platform to charge the ACU with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist group. Gaffney is no stranger to conspiracy theories, as he previously claimed that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “amounts to a vote for reinstating the draft,” maintained that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is tied to an “ominous campaign” to “bring Shariah to America,” and said that Barack Obama is “America’s first Muslim president.” He is joined by WorldNetDaily’s Paul Sperry, who wrote a book asserting that radical Muslims were infiltrating the government through the congressional internship program.

Gaffney outlines a theory that since the ACU is allowing the leader of an organization known as Muslims for America, a conservative group with ties to the GOP, to participate in CPAC, the ACU is supporting a “stealthy effort to bring Shariah” to America. He is also outraged that Grover Norquist, the head of the highly influential Americans for Tax Reform and a GOProud board member, is involved in CPAC as well. But mostly, Gaffney directs his vitriol at Suhail Khan, the chairman of the Conservative Inclusion Coalition. Both Khan and Norquist are ACU board members, and in 2009 Khan received the Young Conservatives Coalition’s Buckley Award at CPAC. But according to Gaffney, Khan has ties to radical Islamists and, along with Norquist, wants to promote a “seditious totalitarian political program” in the U.S.:

With the Conservative Political Action Conference under fire for allowing participation by a homosexual activist group called GOProud and for a financial scandal in which some $400,000 was misappropriated under the watch of current leadership, Frank Gaffney, a leader of the conservative movement for the last 30 years, charges that CPAC has come under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is working to bring America under Saudi-style Shariah law.

Gaffney, deputy assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, is founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and co-author of the new book "Shariah: The Threat to America." He told WND that Islamism has infiltrated the American Conservative Union, the host of CPAC, in the person of Washington attorney and political activist Suhail Khan and a group called Muslims for America.

Khan is a member of the ACU board and, according to Muslims for America, will assist the group's presence at CPAC during the 2011 meeting Feb. 10-12.

Gaffney also accuses another ACU board member, leading conservative political organizer Grover Norquist, of helping the Muslim Brotherhood spread its influence in the nation's capital.

…

Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington" and "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," says Khan is running "an influence operation on Capitol Hill that's quite sophisticated and slick."

"Suhail is the firstborn son of the late Mahboob Khan, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in America," said Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow. "Suhail has been a consultant to CAIR [The Council on American-Islamic Relations] and served on committees at ISNA [the Islamic Society of North America], both of which the government says are fronts for Hamas and its parent the Muslim Brotherhood."

…

Gaffney describes Norquist, who, ironically also serves on the board of the controversial GOProud, as the enabler for Muslim Brotherhood associates, providing them with access into the highest reaches of the conservative movement and the Republican Party through his many contacts. Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, hosts a weekly political organizing meeting attended by many of the leading conservatives in Washington.

"This is a ticking time bomb for the conservative community," said Gaffney. Using language reminiscent of the Cold War, Gaffney declared, "An influence operation is contributing materially to the defeat of our country, supporting a stealthy effort to bring Shariah here.

"Grover Norquist is credentialing the perpetrators of this Muslim Brotherood influence operation," he adds. "This is part of tradecraft, to get people who have standing in a community to give it to people who lack it, so they can do what they're assigned to do in terms of subversion. We are in a war, and he has been working with the enemy for over a decade."

Norquist declined to respond to WND requests for comment.

Said Gaffney, "What's going on in conservative circles should give everyone real cause for concern. What it bespeaks is an effort to penetrate and influence conservatives, who are the most likely and perhaps only community in America who will stand up to and ultimately help ensure the defeat of this seditious totalitarian political program."

The Family Research Council's Tom McClusky explains why FRC will not participate in this year's CPAC, saying they decided end the relationship years ago because they were tired of having to battle to get their issues included and that the move to allow GOProud to sponsor the event "only cemented our decision":

We left CPAC a couple of years ago (before GOProud was a twinkle in anyone’s eye) in part because we saw they were moving away from conservative principles and also because of a growing concern over the management of CPAC. We know many friends as well as former CPAC employees over the years and know how the place operates. I didn’t hear anyone here at FRC voicing surprise when a leading ACU official was caught embezzling a few weeks ago. GOProud only cemented our decision that we should continue to stay away – just as the inclusion of other non- and anti -conservative groups have done in prior years.

...

When CPAC first launched in 1973, it was a small gathering of dedicated conservatives. The conference was an example of the coalition that elected President Ronald Reagan as our 40th President. The conference embodied what is called the three-legged stool of traditional social values, economic conservatism, and a strong national defense. Traditional moral values, such as marriage between a man and a woman, are a part of longstanding, conservative philosophy. The importance of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman cannot be separated from the discussion of limited government and fiscal conservatism.

Family Research Council has had a long history with CPAC, the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the American Conservative Union Foundation (ACUF). For over a decade, FRC was a cosponsor of CPAC, sponsoring popular panels on marriage and life. Every year, (at least in the eight I have been with FRC,) we have had to push a reluctant ACU to continue these panel discussions. A few years ago, we finally opted out of the event after deciding that the annual fight over conservatism with CPAC officials was a waste of energy and time ..

McClusky also takes issue with claims that GOProud is a gay conservative group, saying that they are, in fact, "a homosexual organization that is marginally conservative":

As for the separate issue of GOProud, they are an organization that opposes basic conservative principles. It’s not a conservative organization that happens to be gay; it is a homosexual organization that is marginally conservative.

GOProud’s website explains just how radical its priorities are. This is a group that opposed the death tax and ObamaCare — not because they aren’t sound economic policies — but because they “discriminate” against “gay families.” Its platform doesn’t end there. One of the group’s top 10 “principles” is to create “enterprise zones” for homosexuals, despite the fact that the average income for gays and lesbians is higher than most everyone else. At least two more of its “principles” call for the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act. Additional priorities include allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military and defeating any attempt to protect one-man, one-woman marriage. The group even ran ads criticizing President Obama for not doing enough for the homosexual community.

...

[A]fter the elections GOProud further tried to divide conservatives by releasing a letter demanding that the Republican Party stay away from social issues. Ignoring their own demand, they continued pushing to overturn the law on homosexuals serving openly in the military. Hypocritical much?

You will be hard pressed to find anyone here looking to back down from a debate on the issues but it also isn’t our job to legitimize CPAC or GOProud as if they represent conservative goals and principles.