Barack Obama

Right-Wing Commentator: Obama Wants Black Children “Eliminated”

When the state of New Jersey ordered the closure of a school named after President Barack Obama over waning enrollment numbers, right-wing commentator Jeannie DeAngelis knew who was responsible: President Obama. Not because of the President’s education policies, but for his support of a woman’s right to choose. DeAngelis, like many others in the anti-choice movement, espouse the erroneous conspiracy theory that abortion providers are targeting the African-American community. Writing for RenewAmerica, the conservative blogger blames Obama’s advocacy of abortion-rights for having black children “eliminated long before they could register for kindergarten”:

Sad to say, but Barack H. Obama Elementary School in Asbury Park, New Jersey, a school whose student body is 94% black, is being forced to close its doors. Due to a "steep decline in total enrollment" this summer, the school will shut off the loudspeaker and ring the dismissal bell for the very last time.

"Bruce N. Rodman, the state-appointed official who manages the school district's finances, said enrollment at the Obama school had seen a 35 percent drop over the past ten years."

How ironic, an institution named after a President who is a champion of Planned Parenthood, an organization that prides itself on providing accessible "reproductive services" to black women, is being forced to close because potential students were eliminated long before they could register for kindergarten.

The empty seats at Barack H. Obama Elementary School, formerly known as Bangs Elementary, are a visible testimony to the success of the abortion policies America's first black president proudly supports. If the school's namesake were invited to speak at a school assembly, thanks to the type of pro-abortion policy he promotes the guest of honor would find the auditorium filled with a small cluster of children and only hear a faint echo of clapping from somewhere in the last row.



Instead the school is closing, and when it does, the unintentional message is that the students emerging through those double doors are a but a small percentage of living, breathing survivors who, despite Planned Parenthood's efforts, miraculously managed to escape being victims of an abortion policy the "Barack H. Obama" brand continues to endorse.

Our Country Deserves Better PAC Launches “The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama”

The right-wing California political action committee which runs the Tea Party Express and is closely tied to Move America Forward is launching yet another group: the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama. Both the Tea Party Express and Move America Forward are managed by Sal Russo of Our Country Deserves Better PAC, and the New York Times found that the majority of the Tea Party Express’s funds were “paid to Mr. Russo’s political consulting firm or to one controlled by his wife.”

Seeing that running a political front group is a profitable enterprise, Our Country Deserves Better PAC is kicking off The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama with the “Political Event of the Year,” a fundraiser featuring failed Alaska senate candidate Joe Miller, notorious Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber. Another unsuccessful tea party senate candidate, Sharron Angle, who recently announced her campaign for an open House seat, is also scheduled to attend. Apparently, the fundraiser is celebrating two of 2010’s most radical candidates who went down to embarrassing defeats.

The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama is now on the air in Wisconsin with an ad bashing “union thugs” and “Obama’s union goons,” sending a “thank you” to Governor Scott Walker and Republican state legislators for passing union-busting legislation.

Random Book Blogging: The Faith of the Founding Fathers

In the final episode of "Random Book Blogging" based on John Fea's "Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction," I want to highlight two passages that relate to the Religious Right's insistence that the Founding Fathers were ultra-religious Christians who intended to create a Christian nation.

From the moment he began running for president, Barack Obama has been relentlessly criticized by the Religious Right whenever he speaks about his faith.  In fact, for years now, we have been hearing how Obama is not actually a Christian and that his understanding of the Christian faith is woefully inadequate.

John Adams, on the other hand, is held up as a paragon of what it means to be a true Christian and a statesmen.  But, for some reason, the Religious Right never bothers to mention that, like Thomas Jefferson, Adams did not believe that Jesus was God or that he died for the sins of mankind and actually mocked the idea:

[Adams] could not accept the historic Christian belief that Jesus Christ was God or that his death atoned for the sins of the world: "An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent omnipresent Author of this stupendous Universe suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea." Adams thought the notion of "a mere creature, or finite Being," making "Satisfaction to the infinite justice for the sins of the world" was a "convenient Cover for absurdity." These doctrines were not part of the pure and undefiled teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels, but were rather created by the leaders of the early Christian church who "misunderstood" Jesus' message and thus presented it in "very paradoxical Shapes."

Can you imagine the reaction of the Religious Right today if President Obama were to make such a claim?

But perhaps nothing better sums up the misrepresentation and pseudo-history peddled by the likes of David Barton than this:

That is the cover of Barton's "America's Godly Heritage" and it is a famous painting of George Washington kneeling in prayer while his troops were camped at Valley Forge.  As the story goes, a man named Issac Potts owned the home where Washington was staying at the time and stumbled upon him making supplication to God on behalf of his army and the American cause, and Potts rushed home to tell his wife Sarah what he had seen.

There is only one problem:

There is one major problem with Potts's story of Washington praying at Valley Forge - it probably did not happen. While it is likely that Washington prayed while he was with the army at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-1778, it is unlikely that the story reported by Potts, memorialized in paintings and read to millions of schoolchildren, is anything more than legend. It was first told in the seventeenth edition (1816) of Mason Lock Weem's Life of Washington. Weems claimed to have heard it directly from Potts, his "good old FRIEND." Potts may have owned the house where Washington stayed at Valley Forge, but his aunt Deborah Potts Hewes was living there alone at the time. Indeed, Potts was probably not even residing in Valley Forge during the encampment. And he was definitely not married.  It would be another twenty-five years before he wed Sarah, making a conversation with her in the wake of the supposed Washington prayer impossible. Another version of the story, which appeared in the diary of Reverend Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, claims that it was John Potts, Issac's brother, who heard Washington praying. These discrepancies, coupled with the fact that Weems was known for writing stories about Washington based upon scanty evidence, have led historians to discredit it.

So while actual historian discredit the legend about Washington praying in the woods at Valley Forge, a psuedo-historian like David Barton plops a painting of it on the cover of his book and DVD about "America's godly heritage."

And that should pretty much tell you all you need to know.

Kansas Conservatives Tear Into Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

At the end of 2010, the city commission of Manhattan, Kansas, passed an ordinance that adds sexual orientation and gender identity protections to anti-discrimination law, as neither category is protected under the statewide law against discrimination in housing and employment. Naturally, Religious Right groups were enraged and now are moving to repeal the ordinance. A new group called Awaken Manhattan accuses the commission of creating “special rights,” “exalting a lifestyle that is morally wrong,” and legalizing gay sex in the workplace. The group also features video of a self-proclaimed “ex-gay” who “declared war” on homosexuality and called on people to “point the LGBT community to Christ.”

Kansas radio host and author Paul A. Ibbetson writes that the ordinance in Manhattan goes all the way up to President Obama, who he believes is acting like “a tyrannical third-world dictator.” Ibbetson says “liberals have been working to destroy Christian values” through the “infiltration of homosexual ideology,” and that in Manhattan “‘Main Street’ is being transformed into ‘Gay Street’” by gay-rights activists:

If one looks closely, a repetitious pattern of presentation and action is observable from the liberal left. To start with, some radical change in traditional culture for the greater good is always forwarded, while at the same time the public at large is denied an opportunity to exercise their voices through a vote on the issue. When a people's vote does slip by the liberal machine, it is later circumvented by a governmental fiat. To liberals, the best societal decisions are best made without society. The issue of how we recognize traditional marriage, the law that Barack Obama is now declaring void without the authority of the courts, as a tyrannical third-world dictator might do, is an issue that has already been decided by the voters. The overwhelming majority of Americans have already voted for traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Once again, it would take a complete subversion of the voting majority to attack this Judeo-Christian pillar of American society. Unfortunately, this is not just a Barack Obama problem. The actions of this President are simply a byproduct of a growing problem that has been taking place for some time in this country. In reality, Barack Obama is nothing more than the predictable fruit of the loins of modern-day liberalism, and that fruity fruit has been very fruitful.

As moral depravity is being pushed on America's defensive forces and the foundation of America in traditional marriage, liberals have been working to destroy Christian values in day-to-day business interactions. While an infiltration of homosexual ideology may have been brewing as far back as 2005, the actual blitzkrieg that struck Manhattan, Kansas, and turned the traditional town into the most liberal in the state happened within 11 short months. Within those months, the gay activist group LGBT became ensconced within Kansas State University, a month was designated by political decree for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender awareness complete with its own gay pride parade, and the passage of the most liberal anti-Christian discrimination law the state of Kansas has ever seen was passed by a 3-2 vote.

...

While the nation needs to push back the societal suicide being demanded by Barack Obama and liberal surrogates, the people of Manhattan, Kansas, are taking it upon themselves to stand up for their town's traditional values. They are doing this through a repeal petition on the anti-discrimination ordinance alteration that made lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people a protected class with the ability to bring preemptive charges against citizens of Kansas, thus beginning a process of mayor-appointed kangaroo courts with non-elected judges and business crushing fines. The same bill gives no protection to Christians outside their congregational buildings as "Main Street" is being transformed into "Gay Street" and all those who find themselves in violations will be severely punished. The citizens of Manhattan, Kansas, are pushing back against the gay agenda with the radical notion that they, of all things, should be able to vote on the laws that will affect their daily lives.

Religious Right Reactions to DOJ's DOMA Decision

Earlier today it was reported that President Obama had ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

So far, reactions from the Religious Right have been few and far between but we are going to post them here as they trickle in:

National Organization for Marriage:

“We have not yet begun to fight for marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

“The Democrats are responding to their election loss with a series of extraordinary, extra-constitutional end runs around democracy, whether it’s fleeing the state in Wisconsin and Indiana to prevent a vote, or unilaterally declaring homosexuals a protected class under our Constitution, as President Obama just did,” said Brown. “We call on the House to intervene to protect DOMA, and to tell the Obama administration they have to respect the limits on their power. This fight is not over, it has only begun!”

...

“On the one hand this is a truly shocking extra-constitutional power grab in declaring gay people are a protected class, and it’s also a defection of duty on the part of the President Obama,” said Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM, “On the other hand, the Obama administration was throwing this case in court anyway. The good news is this now clears the way for the House to intervene and to get lawyers in the court room who actually want to defend the law, and not please their powerful political special interests.”

FRC:

"It's a dereliction of duty,'' said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action. "Whether they agree with the law or not is irrelevant...The Obama administration has purposely dropped the ball here."

AFA:

"I think it's a clear sign that we simply cannot avoid engaging on the social issues," Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the group, told TPM. "Mitch Daniels has called for a truce on social issues and that would be fine if the homosexual lobby was willing to lay down arms, but they're obviously not and this proves it. A truce is nothing more than a surrender."

Fischer said he was not surprised by the president's decision.

"Frankly I was surprised that President Obama pretended to be a defender of natural marriage as long as he did," he said.

He said that the White House move should serve as "a wake-up call to all conservatives that fundamental American values regarding the family are under all-out assault by this administration. It ought to represent a clarion call to man the barricades before we lose what is left of the Judeo-Christian system of values in our public life."

Focus on the Family:

Tom Minnery, a vice president with Focus on the Family, said the Obama administration did not aggressively defend the Defense of Marriage Act in any case. "If the federal government will not defend federal laws, we're facing legal chaos," Minnery said. "If the administration can pick and choose what laws it defends, which law is next?"

"We would hope Congress uses the tools at its disposal to counter this decision and defend marriage," Minnery said.

ADF:

“Typically, when a law is challenged, the government has a duty to defend the law, and typically they do so with the most vigorous possible defense,” said Jim Campbell, attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “In this case, we’ve seen executive branch officials refuse to do so.”

Official FRC statement:

"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?

"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.

"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.

Liberty Counsel:

Today President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice to cease defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “This is outrageous and unthinkable that the President would abandon the defense of marriage,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “President Obama has betrayed the American people by his refusal to defend the federal law that affirms what many courts upheld as constitutional, namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Staver.

...

“Regardless of President Obama’s own ideological agenda, as President, he and his Attorney General have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts. Thirty states have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as one man and one woman. Today President Obama has abandoned his role as President of the United States and transformed his office into the President of the Divided States. He has been the most divisive president in American history. He has today declared war on the American people and the fundamental values that are shared by most Americans. His radicalism resulted in the historical push-back in the 2010 elections. His radicalism today will come back around when the people respond to this betrayal in 2012,” said Staver.

TVC:

“The Obama Administration has been sabotaging marriage in direct contradiction to his campaign promises. Today, President Obama takes his most unprecedented step yet, choosing to rule and reign through executive decree in what could only be called a supra-constitutional act. After massive defeats at the polls in November, a total repudiation on health care, and staring down a cost-cutting Congress, Obama is looking to secure what little base remains. Obama’s actions today are an unprecedented grab for power and perhaps the most audacious in the 235 year history of the American republic.

“President Obama believes he has “concluded” that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as passed along by Attorney General Eric Holder -- effectively asserting that Obama may rule by whim and decree.

“We are a nation of laws, not whims.

“Virtually every state in the country has overwhelmingly passed laws and state constitutional amendments protecting marriage. This unprecedented power grab demands the immediate reaction of the United States House of Representatives, who must do everything possible to fight back against what can only be described as a despotic and alarming attack on the rule of law.”

Catholic League:

Now Obama is officially on record as president opposing the defense of marriage. Thus does he pit himself against the 1996 law that was signed by President Bill Clinton, and opposed by only 15 percent in the House and 14 percent in the Senate. He also stands in opposition to the over 30 state initiatives affirming marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Now that Obama is totally out of the closet, it will spur a genuine effort to adopt a constitutional amendment affirming the integrity of marriage.

Gary Bauer:

The president is the chief law enforcement officer, not the chief justice! It is not up to Barack Obama to determine which laws he likes and which laws he doesn’t. It is his responsibility to enforce the law until the nation’s highest court decides the law does not pass constitutional analysis.

But this president sees things very differently — he’s here to fundamentally transform America, by, among other things, redefining marriage ...

Today’s news should put to rest any suggestion that Obama has moved to the center. He has just aligned himself with the most radical elements in the culture war who are trying to redefine normalcy.

I’ll have more on this tomorrow, but I have to be honest with you: I’m worried our side has gone back to sleep. Financial support for our work has dropped significantly. But the left is energized. Obama suddenly feels free to abandon the law and let the militant homosexual rights movement force same-sex “marriage” on every state in the nation. A liberal politician is urging the unions to “get a little bloody” in the streets.

The Tea Party protests have ebbed while the left-wing radicals are fired up. The momentum seems to have shifted back to the left. Men and women of faith must remain engaged in the public policy battles of the day. The culture war is real and only one side can prevail.

Religious Right Reactions to DOJ's DOMA Decision

Earlier today it was reported that President Obama had ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

So far, reactions from the Religious Right have been few and far between but we are going to post them here as they trickle in:

National Organization for Marriage:

“We have not yet begun to fight for marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

“The Democrats are responding to their election loss with a series of extraordinary, extra-constitutional end runs around democracy, whether it’s fleeing the state in Wisconsin and Indiana to prevent a vote, or unilaterally declaring homosexuals a protected class under our Constitution, as President Obama just did,” said Brown. “We call on the House to intervene to protect DOMA, and to tell the Obama administration they have to respect the limits on their power. This fight is not over, it has only begun!”

...

“On the one hand this is a truly shocking extra-constitutional power grab in declaring gay people are a protected class, and it’s also a defection of duty on the part of the President Obama,” said Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM, “On the other hand, the Obama administration was throwing this case in court anyway. The good news is this now clears the way for the House to intervene and to get lawyers in the court room who actually want to defend the law, and not please their powerful political special interests.”

FRC:

"It's a dereliction of duty,'' said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action. "Whether they agree with the law or not is irrelevant...The Obama administration has purposely dropped the ball here."

AFA:

"I think it's a clear sign that we simply cannot avoid engaging on the social issues," Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the group, told TPM. "Mitch Daniels has called for a truce on social issues and that would be fine if the homosexual lobby was willing to lay down arms, but they're obviously not and this proves it. A truce is nothing more than a surrender."

Fischer said he was not surprised by the president's decision.

"Frankly I was surprised that President Obama pretended to be a defender of natural marriage as long as he did," he said.

He said that the White House move should serve as "a wake-up call to all conservatives that fundamental American values regarding the family are under all-out assault by this administration. It ought to represent a clarion call to man the barricades before we lose what is left of the Judeo-Christian system of values in our public life."

Focus on the Family:

Tom Minnery, a vice president with Focus on the Family, said the Obama administration did not aggressively defend the Defense of Marriage Act in any case. "If the federal government will not defend federal laws, we're facing legal chaos," Minnery said. "If the administration can pick and choose what laws it defends, which law is next?"

"We would hope Congress uses the tools at its disposal to counter this decision and defend marriage," Minnery said.

ADF:

“Typically, when a law is challenged, the government has a duty to defend the law, and typically they do so with the most vigorous possible defense,” said Jim Campbell, attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “In this case, we’ve seen executive branch officials refuse to do so.”

Official FRC statement:

"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?

"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.

"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.

Liberty Counsel:

Today President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice to cease defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “This is outrageous and unthinkable that the President would abandon the defense of marriage,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “President Obama has betrayed the American people by his refusal to defend the federal law that affirms what many courts upheld as constitutional, namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Staver.

...

“Regardless of President Obama’s own ideological agenda, as President, he and his Attorney General have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts. Thirty states have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as one man and one woman. Today President Obama has abandoned his role as President of the United States and transformed his office into the President of the Divided States. He has been the most divisive president in American history. He has today declared war on the American people and the fundamental values that are shared by most Americans. His radicalism resulted in the historical push-back in the 2010 elections. His radicalism today will come back around when the people respond to this betrayal in 2012,” said Staver.

TVC:

“The Obama Administration has been sabotaging marriage in direct contradiction to his campaign promises. Today, President Obama takes his most unprecedented step yet, choosing to rule and reign through executive decree in what could only be called a supra-constitutional act. After massive defeats at the polls in November, a total repudiation on health care, and staring down a cost-cutting Congress, Obama is looking to secure what little base remains. Obama’s actions today are an unprecedented grab for power and perhaps the most audacious in the 235 year history of the American republic.

“President Obama believes he has “concluded” that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as passed along by Attorney General Eric Holder -- effectively asserting that Obama may rule by whim and decree.

“We are a nation of laws, not whims.

“Virtually every state in the country has overwhelmingly passed laws and state constitutional amendments protecting marriage. This unprecedented power grab demands the immediate reaction of the United States House of Representatives, who must do everything possible to fight back against what can only be described as a despotic and alarming attack on the rule of law.”

Catholic League:

Now Obama is officially on record as president opposing the defense of marriage. Thus does he pit himself against the 1996 law that was signed by President Bill Clinton, and opposed by only 15 percent in the House and 14 percent in the Senate. He also stands in opposition to the over 30 state initiatives affirming marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Now that Obama is totally out of the closet, it will spur a genuine effort to adopt a constitutional amendment affirming the integrity of marriage.

Gary Bauer:

The president is the chief law enforcement officer, not the chief justice! It is not up to Barack Obama to determine which laws he likes and which laws he doesn’t. It is his responsibility to enforce the law until the nation’s highest court decides the law does not pass constitutional analysis.

But this president sees things very differently — he’s here to fundamentally transform America, by, among other things, redefining marriage ...

Today’s news should put to rest any suggestion that Obama has moved to the center. He has just aligned himself with the most radical elements in the culture war who are trying to redefine normalcy.

I’ll have more on this tomorrow, but I have to be honest with you: I’m worried our side has gone back to sleep. Financial support for our work has dropped significantly. But the left is energized. Obama suddenly feels free to abandon the law and let the militant homosexual rights movement force same-sex “marriage” on every state in the nation. A liberal politician is urging the unions to “get a little bloody” in the streets.

The Tea Party protests have ebbed while the left-wing radicals are fired up. The momentum seems to have shifted back to the left. Men and women of faith must remain engaged in the public policy battles of the day. The culture war is real and only one side can prevail.

Molotov Mitchell Blames Obama for Christina Aguilera and Destroying America

Molotov Mitchell, a WorldNetDaily darling and champion of Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill, has only one person to blame for Christina Aguilera forgetting the words to the Star-Spangled Banner during the Super Bowl: President Barack Obama. According to Mitchell, Obama is trying to create “Obamaland” and a “culture of effete snobs” by allegedly effacing religion, chipping away at the Constitution, and concealing records of his birth certificate.

“Obamaland is not America,” says Mitchell, “Obamaland is an intellectual invasion, it is a zombie apocalypse, and it is the duty of every learned American to repel it.”

Ironically, while Mitchell is busying railing against those who know nothing about the anthem because it means nothing to them, he asserts that the song contains “Francis Scott Key’s bloody vision of America’s War for Independence.” In fact, the anthem was composed during the War of 1812, not the War of Independence.

Molotov Mitchell Blames Obama for Christina Aguilera and Destroying America

Molotov Mitchell, a WorldNetDaily darling and champion of Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill, has only one person to blame for Christina Aguilera forgetting the words to the Star-Spangled Banner during the Super Bowl: President Barack Obama. According to Mitchell, Obama is trying to create “Obamaland” and a “culture of effete snobs” by allegedly effacing religion, chipping away at the Constitution, and concealing records of his birth certificate.

“Obamaland is not America,” says Mitchell, “Obamaland is an intellectual invasion, it is a zombie apocalypse, and it is the duty of every learned American to repel it.”

Ironically, while Mitchell is busying railing against those who know nothing about the anthem because it means nothing to them, he asserts that the song contains “Francis Scott Key’s bloody vision of America’s War for Independence.” In fact, the anthem was composed during the War of 1812, not the War of Independence.

Celebrating Jefferson Davis's Inauguration, Youth for Western Civilization Links Obama to "Oppressive" Union Government

The far-right student group Youth for Western Civilization, which hosted a panel at CPAC on immigration featuring Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) and former Reps. Tom Tancredo and Virgil Goode, is now promoting the Confederacy’s 150th Anniversary and “Anglo-Celtic” pride. William L. Houston of YWC attended a ceremony commemorating Jefferson Davis’s inauguration, and discussed the need for ethnic and historical pride among the “native Anglo-Celtic population of the American South.” He went on to say that the federal government both under Lincoln and Obama are rightly “perceived as being out of control, hostile toward, and oppressive of the people of the states,” and concludes that the “common soldier of the Union Army could have only seen what has become of the Union in our own times, quite assuredly he would have laid down his arms and deserted to the other side.” Houston writes:

As far as heritage and ethnic pride events tend to go, they don't come more politically incorrect than the Southern Rights parade held by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Montgomery on Saturday.

Before a cheering throng of hundreds of Anglo-Celtic Southerners, an actor portraying Jefferson Davis was sworn in as President of the Confederate States of America on the grounds of the Alabama State Capitol.

Confederate flags flapped in the Southern breeze. Dixie was played. Cannons were fired. There were speeches of defiance and rebellion - about events both historical and modern.

The purpose of this event was to remember and celebrate the birth of the Confederacy a hundred and fifty years ago. Yet everyone who gathered there left with the sense that there was more to the story.

This was a direct assault on the double standard of multiculturalism by "the wrong sort" of people - the only people in the United States who are denied a sense of pride and identity in their heritage - the native Anglo-Celtic population of the American South - who are told that every group in the world can come to the South and celebrate their heritage but the people who were born and raised here.

"What is it in a man that would cause him to deny his fellow man the pride and dignity of his heritage," said Chuck Rand, an adjutant in chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.



The crowd in attendence [sic] in Montgomery didn't hesitate to draw parallels between the Confederacy and contemporary America. Then as now, the federal government was perceived as being out of control, hostile toward, and oppressive of the people of the states.

In 1861, it was Southerners who felt this way. In 2011, it is the majority of Americans who live in the South, West, and Midwest.

In their worst nightmare scenarios, even the secessionists couldn't have imagined anything like the President of the United States attacking the State of Arizona for defending itself from a Mexican invasion, celebrating Kwanzaa and Cinco de Mayo in the White House, Obamacare, affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, or Barack Obama's $3.7 trillion dollar proposed federal budget.

Even Abraham Lincoln would be flabbergasted at his modern heirs who have declared war on traditional marriage and Christmas celebrations. Nothing is more pointless than arguing over the causes of the Civil War.

If the common soldier of the Union Army could have only seen what has become of the Union in our own times, quite assuredly he would have laid down his arms and deserted to the other side.

Celebrating Jefferson Davis's Inauguration, Youth for Western Civilization Links Obama to "Oppressive" Union Government

The far-right student group Youth for Western Civilization, which hosted a panel at CPAC on immigration featuring Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) and former Reps. Tom Tancredo and Virgil Goode, is now promoting the Confederacy’s 150th Anniversary and “Anglo-Celtic” pride. William L. Houston of YWC attended a ceremony commemorating Jefferson Davis’s inauguration, and discussed the need for ethnic and historical pride among the “native Anglo-Celtic population of the American South.” He went on to say that the federal government both under Lincoln and Obama are rightly “perceived as being out of control, hostile toward, and oppressive of the people of the states,” and concludes that the “common soldier of the Union Army could have only seen what has become of the Union in our own times, quite assuredly he would have laid down his arms and deserted to the other side.” Houston writes:

As far as heritage and ethnic pride events tend to go, they don't come more politically incorrect than the Southern Rights parade held by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Montgomery on Saturday.

Before a cheering throng of hundreds of Anglo-Celtic Southerners, an actor portraying Jefferson Davis was sworn in as President of the Confederate States of America on the grounds of the Alabama State Capitol.

Confederate flags flapped in the Southern breeze. Dixie was played. Cannons were fired. There were speeches of defiance and rebellion - about events both historical and modern.

The purpose of this event was to remember and celebrate the birth of the Confederacy a hundred and fifty years ago. Yet everyone who gathered there left with the sense that there was more to the story.

This was a direct assault on the double standard of multiculturalism by "the wrong sort" of people - the only people in the United States who are denied a sense of pride and identity in their heritage - the native Anglo-Celtic population of the American South - who are told that every group in the world can come to the South and celebrate their heritage but the people who were born and raised here.

"What is it in a man that would cause him to deny his fellow man the pride and dignity of his heritage," said Chuck Rand, an adjutant in chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.



The crowd in attendence [sic] in Montgomery didn't hesitate to draw parallels between the Confederacy and contemporary America. Then as now, the federal government was perceived as being out of control, hostile toward, and oppressive of the people of the states.

In 1861, it was Southerners who felt this way. In 2011, it is the majority of Americans who live in the South, West, and Midwest.

In their worst nightmare scenarios, even the secessionists couldn't have imagined anything like the President of the United States attacking the State of Arizona for defending itself from a Mexican invasion, celebrating Kwanzaa and Cinco de Mayo in the White House, Obamacare, affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, or Barack Obama's $3.7 trillion dollar proposed federal budget.

Even Abraham Lincoln would be flabbergasted at his modern heirs who have declared war on traditional marriage and Christmas celebrations. Nothing is more pointless than arguing over the causes of the Civil War.

If the common soldier of the Union Army could have only seen what has become of the Union in our own times, quite assuredly he would have laid down his arms and deserted to the other side.

CPAC Leftovers - Peacemaking Pleas and Tea Party Coffee Table Books

A few tidbits from the piles of stuff picked up at CPAC 2011:

The CPAC “Resource Guide,” a spiral-bound booklet with info about sponsors and participating organizations, included several essays, some of which were pleas for peace between libertarian-leaning economic conservatives and social conservatives. Some of the latter, of course, dropped their sponsorships and trashed CPAC leaders over the participation of GOProud, whose leader in turn derided the Religious Right groups as “loser” organizations. Former Reagan official Donald Devine contributed “Why We are Conservatives,” which includes:
 
Western civilization has been a harmony of both. Not a simple uniform tune, but a harmonic masterpiece, not simple libertarianism nor univocal traditionalism but both…The price of a successful conservatism must be a gracious acceptance of the traditional live and let live formula. If the modern scourges of brutal egalitarianism, debilitating fatalism and feckless progressivism are to be transcended, traditionalist and libertarian conservatives must learn again to work together in bold harmony.
 
Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery contributed “Social and Economic Conservatives Have Much in Common,” which notes (correctly) that there is much overlap between the Tea Party and Religious Right movements. And he warned libertarians that they should embrace the social conservatives’ morals-based policies as the only bulwark against chaos:
 
In the West, these principles find their source in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, and if we lose that collective sense of “oughtness” then individual liberty degenerates into selfishness, and eventually into social chaos. And at that point it is only the loaded gun and the barbed wire fence that can preserve order.
 
On the lighter side, among the countless books available to CPAC participants were “Grandma’s Not Shovel-Ready,” a picture book of signs from 9-12 and Tea Party protests in 2009, and “The New Democrat,” a Dr. Seuss-style parody of “The Cat in the Hat” starring a Marxist-insignia-wearing Barack Obama as the chaos-provoking interloper. The editors of the picture book were clearly not worried about soft-peddling the movement’s message: the book is replete with signs depicting Obama as a Communist thug bent on destroying America and killing off the elderly.  Other signs attack the patriotism of the movement’s targets (“Beware of liberals posing as Americans”) or threaten violent revolution (“A Revolution is brewing. We will not subsidize tyranny. Violate our Liberty at Your Peril.” and “Now Look!! Nice people forced to protest!! This must be serious we came unarmed…this time”). There are a few signs joking about anal sex (“Obamacare. Bend Over. This is gonna hurt.” and “Taxation without lubrication!!!”). The “Cat in the Hat” parody includes explanatory information that Dr. Seuss – Theodor Geisel – was a leftist who injected his progressive polemics into the books on which our current leaders were raised.
 
I haven’t yet had the time (or stomach) to read Phyllis Schlafly’s latest attack on feminism (The Flip Side of Feminism: what conservative women know – and men can’t say written with Suzanne Venker, a columnist for David Horowitz). Not helping is the list of people blurbing the book, which includes Horowitz, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and the shouldn’t-be-treated-seriously-ever-again-after-his-latest-book Dinesh D’Souza.

CPAC Leftovers - Peacemaking Pleas and Tea Party Coffee Table Books

A few tidbits from the piles of stuff picked up at CPAC 2011:

The CPAC “Resource Guide,” a spiral-bound booklet with info about sponsors and participating organizations, included several essays, some of which were pleas for peace between libertarian-leaning economic conservatives and social conservatives. Some of the latter, of course, dropped their sponsorships and trashed CPAC leaders over the participation of GOProud, whose leader in turn derided the Religious Right groups as “loser” organizations. Former Reagan official Donald Devine contributed “Why We are Conservatives,” which includes:
 
Western civilization has been a harmony of both. Not a simple uniform tune, but a harmonic masterpiece, not simple libertarianism nor univocal traditionalism but both…The price of a successful conservatism must be a gracious acceptance of the traditional live and let live formula. If the modern scourges of brutal egalitarianism, debilitating fatalism and feckless progressivism are to be transcended, traditionalist and libertarian conservatives must learn again to work together in bold harmony.
 
Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery contributed “Social and Economic Conservatives Have Much in Common,” which notes (correctly) that there is much overlap between the Tea Party and Religious Right movements. And he warned libertarians that they should embrace the social conservatives’ morals-based policies as the only bulwark against chaos:
 
In the West, these principles find their source in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, and if we lose that collective sense of “oughtness” then individual liberty degenerates into selfishness, and eventually into social chaos. And at that point it is only the loaded gun and the barbed wire fence that can preserve order.
 
On the lighter side, among the countless books available to CPAC participants were “Grandma’s Not Shovel-Ready,” a picture book of signs from 9-12 and Tea Party protests in 2009, and “The New Democrat,” a Dr. Seuss-style parody of “The Cat in the Hat” starring a Marxist-insignia-wearing Barack Obama as the chaos-provoking interloper. The editors of the picture book were clearly not worried about soft-peddling the movement’s message: the book is replete with signs depicting Obama as a Communist thug bent on destroying America and killing off the elderly.  Other signs attack the patriotism of the movement’s targets (“Beware of liberals posing as Americans”) or threaten violent revolution (“A Revolution is brewing. We will not subsidize tyranny. Violate our Liberty at Your Peril.” and “Now Look!! Nice people forced to protest!! This must be serious we came unarmed…this time”). There are a few signs joking about anal sex (“Obamacare. Bend Over. This is gonna hurt.” and “Taxation without lubrication!!!”). The “Cat in the Hat” parody includes explanatory information that Dr. Seuss – Theodor Geisel – was a leftist who injected his progressive polemics into the books on which our current leaders were raised.
 
I haven’t yet had the time (or stomach) to read Phyllis Schlafly’s latest attack on feminism (The Flip Side of Feminism: what conservative women know – and men can’t say written with Suzanne Venker, a columnist for David Horowitz). Not helping is the list of people blurbing the book, which includes Horowitz, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and the shouldn’t-be-treated-seriously-ever-again-after-his-latest-book Dinesh D’Souza.

Heck: Obama's Support For Reproductive Choice Makes Him a Disgrace To His Ancestors

A few weeks back, Rick Santorum made news when he declared it "almost remarkable for a black man" like President Obama to be in favor of reproductive choice because, in the Religious Right worldview, abortion is just like slavery.

But in case that tortured analogy was not clear enough, right-wing Indiana talk show host Peter Heck has penned a column that has been posted on the AFA's OneNewsNow claiming that Obama's support for reproductive choice means he is an enemy of the likes of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Abraham Lincoln and is therefore a disgrace to "his ancestors":

Only a man terrifyingly unmoved by the injustices perpetrated against his own ancestors could, just a century and a half later, facilitate even worse atrocities without a hint of remorse.

Intellectual honesty demands that we face a harsh and uncomfortable reality: Barack Obama -- our first black president -- has chosen to take up the whip against his fellow man. By doing so, he carves out an eternal legacy for himself far removed from the dignified halls of honor reserved for those with the moral courage to defend the defenseless. By instead regarding them as subhuman, Obama wars against the life work of [Frederick] Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Abraham Lincoln.

Imagine how history would regard Lincoln had he chosen to respond to the great moral evil of his day as Barack Obama has chosen to respond to the holocaust of child sacrifice that has occurred with impunity since 1973. Imagine Lincoln proclaiming that determining whether blacks were entitled to human rights was "above his pay grade." Imagine Lincoln pledging to "protect this constitutional right" of slavery, while calling the brutality of plantation masters a "legitimate disciplinary procedure."

How would history have judged such a small man if not for the same way it will soon regard Mr. Obama: an utter coward. When given the incredible opportunity to stand on the shoulders of the Great Emancipator -- an opportunity generations of slaves labored to make possible -- Barack Obama chose not to use it to defend the inalienable rights of all, but to undermine them.

In the final analysis, such an incomprehensible betrayal of human rights for the sake of convenience and political expediency far outweighs any contributions his electoral success has brought to "black America." For what Douglass, Tubman, Truth and so many other courageous black abolitionists fought for was not the day when they would see a man with dark skin pigmentation sitting in the White House. They fought for the day when all men -- black and white, large and small -- would see their inalienable rights protected from those who would callously demean them as less than human.

Obama has failed miserably in living up to their vision, and shamefully discredits their efforts. As he commits himself to what Douglass called the denial of justice, the perpetuation of ignorance, and the organized conspiracy to degrade his fellow countrymen, it can rightly be concluded that Barack Obama disgraces his office, his ancestors, and his place in the eternal struggle for the rights of man.

Heck: Obama's Support For Reproductive Choice Makes Him a Disgrace To His Ancestors

A few weeks back, Rick Santorum made news when he declared it "almost remarkable for a black man" like President Obama to be in favor of reproductive choice because, in the Religious Right worldview, abortion is just like slavery.

But in case that tortured analogy was not clear enough, right-wing Indiana talk show host Peter Heck has penned a column that has been posted on the AFA's OneNewsNow claiming that Obama's support for reproductive choice means he is an enemy of the likes of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Abraham Lincoln and is therefore a disgrace to "his ancestors":

Only a man terrifyingly unmoved by the injustices perpetrated against his own ancestors could, just a century and a half later, facilitate even worse atrocities without a hint of remorse.

Intellectual honesty demands that we face a harsh and uncomfortable reality: Barack Obama -- our first black president -- has chosen to take up the whip against his fellow man. By doing so, he carves out an eternal legacy for himself far removed from the dignified halls of honor reserved for those with the moral courage to defend the defenseless. By instead regarding them as subhuman, Obama wars against the life work of [Frederick] Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Abraham Lincoln.

Imagine how history would regard Lincoln had he chosen to respond to the great moral evil of his day as Barack Obama has chosen to respond to the holocaust of child sacrifice that has occurred with impunity since 1973. Imagine Lincoln proclaiming that determining whether blacks were entitled to human rights was "above his pay grade." Imagine Lincoln pledging to "protect this constitutional right" of slavery, while calling the brutality of plantation masters a "legitimate disciplinary procedure."

How would history have judged such a small man if not for the same way it will soon regard Mr. Obama: an utter coward. When given the incredible opportunity to stand on the shoulders of the Great Emancipator -- an opportunity generations of slaves labored to make possible -- Barack Obama chose not to use it to defend the inalienable rights of all, but to undermine them.

In the final analysis, such an incomprehensible betrayal of human rights for the sake of convenience and political expediency far outweighs any contributions his electoral success has brought to "black America." For what Douglass, Tubman, Truth and so many other courageous black abolitionists fought for was not the day when they would see a man with dark skin pigmentation sitting in the White House. They fought for the day when all men -- black and white, large and small -- would see their inalienable rights protected from those who would callously demean them as less than human.

Obama has failed miserably in living up to their vision, and shamefully discredits their efforts. As he commits himself to what Douglass called the denial of justice, the perpetuation of ignorance, and the organized conspiracy to degrade his fellow countrymen, it can rightly be concluded that Barack Obama disgraces his office, his ancestors, and his place in the eternal struggle for the rights of man.

Bill Donohue’s Lesson from Tucson: More Censorship, More Smears

Catholic League President Bill Donohue’s time in public life has been centered on pushing anti-gay bigotry, ridiculing progressive Christians, and promoting censorship and boycott campaigns. He most recently won a notable victory when, with the help of GOP leaders and other social conservatives, he convinced the Smithsonian to censor an exhibit on the marginalization of gays and lesbians in America. The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery removed a film by the late artist David Wojnarowicz exploring the suffering of people with HIV-AIDS because the video, which included a short clip of ants crawling on a crucifix, might “spoil the Christmas season.”

Rattled by the Smithsonian’s decision to censor its exhibit, other museums began screening the film. Today, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) announced that it has acquired Wojnarowicz’s banned film, A Fire In My Belly, leading to a swift and ugly response from Donohue and the Catholic League.

In a statement released today, Donohue tried to use President Obama’s speech in Tucson, which called for greater civility and dialogue in American politics, as a reason for the MoMA to keep challenging and provocative artwork such as Wojnarowicz’s film out of the public eye. (Of course, there is a very significant difference between the violent imagery and incendiary rhetoric that the President criticized and the intense, but nonviolent, debate that the artwork in question might engender.) And then, after misusing the President's call for civility, Donohue switched gears and engaged in the same gutter politics and hate mongering, even calling MoMA director Glenn D. Lowry a “corporate welfare queen,” that have long-defined his career:

In Tucson, President Barack Obama correctly noted that "our discourse has become so sharply polarized" that it has disfigured our society. He made note of the "lack of civility" which marks our culture, beckoning us to "sharpen our instincts for empathy." And just one day later, MoMA announced that he was wrong. It wants a sharply polarized society; it delights in incivility; and it abhors empathy. That is why it has decided to assault Christian sensibilities by hosting the vile video.

"We really do live in a time when anything can be hailed as a work of art. This has naturally led to a proliferation of pretentious and often pathological nonsense in the art world." Those words were penned ten years ago by noted art critic Roger Kimball. As evidenced by the reaction to this "artwork" by the artistic community, nothing has changed.

Unlike the Smithsonian, which is federally funded, MoMA is largely supported by fat cats like Glenn D. Lowry, the museum's director, thus alleviating some of our objections. Lowry makes over $2 million a year and lives for free in a $6 million condo atop the museum. Unlike the rest of us, he pays no income tax on his housing.

Looks like the artistic community got fleeced twice: once by embracing the "pathological nonsense" of this masterpiece, and once by the corporate welfare queen who runs—and lives in—the joint.

Bill Donohue’s Lesson from Tucson: More Censorship, More Smears

Catholic League President Bill Donohue’s time in public life has been centered on pushing anti-gay bigotry, ridiculing progressive Christians, and promoting censorship and boycott campaigns. He most recently won a notable victory when, with the help of GOP leaders and other social conservatives, he convinced the Smithsonian to censor an exhibit on the marginalization of gays and lesbians in America. The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery removed a film by the late artist David Wojnarowicz exploring the suffering of people with HIV-AIDS because the video, which included a short clip of ants crawling on a crucifix, might “spoil the Christmas season.”

Rattled by the Smithsonian’s decision to censor its exhibit, other museums began screening the film. Today, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) announced that it has acquired Wojnarowicz’s banned film, A Fire In My Belly, leading to a swift and ugly response from Donohue and the Catholic League.

In a statement released today, Donohue tried to use President Obama’s speech in Tucson, which called for greater civility and dialogue in American politics, as a reason for the MoMA to keep challenging and provocative artwork such as Wojnarowicz’s film out of the public eye. (Of course, there is a very significant difference between the violent imagery and incendiary rhetoric that the President criticized and the intense, but nonviolent, debate that the artwork in question might engender.) And then, after misusing the President's call for civility, Donohue switched gears and engaged in the same gutter politics and hate mongering, even calling MoMA director Glenn D. Lowry a “corporate welfare queen,” that have long-defined his career:

In Tucson, President Barack Obama correctly noted that "our discourse has become so sharply polarized" that it has disfigured our society. He made note of the "lack of civility" which marks our culture, beckoning us to "sharpen our instincts for empathy." And just one day later, MoMA announced that he was wrong. It wants a sharply polarized society; it delights in incivility; and it abhors empathy. That is why it has decided to assault Christian sensibilities by hosting the vile video.

"We really do live in a time when anything can be hailed as a work of art. This has naturally led to a proliferation of pretentious and often pathological nonsense in the art world." Those words were penned ten years ago by noted art critic Roger Kimball. As evidenced by the reaction to this "artwork" by the artistic community, nothing has changed.

Unlike the Smithsonian, which is federally funded, MoMA is largely supported by fat cats like Glenn D. Lowry, the museum's director, thus alleviating some of our objections. Lowry makes over $2 million a year and lives for free in a $6 million condo atop the museum. Unlike the rest of us, he pays no income tax on his housing.

Looks like the artistic community got fleeced twice: once by embracing the "pathological nonsense" of this masterpiece, and once by the corporate welfare queen who runs—and lives in—the joint.

Conservative Blogs Unleash More Animosity in Reaction to Obama’s Speech

After President Obama called for more civility and reconciliation in politics and asked Americans to remember the late Christina Taylor Green, saying, “I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it,” right-wing blogs came out swinging and swiftly responded with their predictable enmity.

RedState’s Erick Erickson wrote that Obama was the one to atone for his ties to Bill Ayers, and also said that progressives were plotting Sarah Palin’s murder:

This is, after all, a man who got his political start in the home of a terrorist who’d dedicated a book to Robert F. Kennedy’s killer — a man who never repented but who Mr. Obama then gave grant money to.

Will the President live up to his own standard? Everyone can change. Everyone can repent. Let’s hope this President will.

But there is much that still must be done and much the left must still learn.



All week long, the left has said Jared Loughner was persuaded to try to kill Congresswoman Giffords because of right-wing hate. We know that was not true. But here is what else I am sure of.

Out there somewhere is someone who would love to kill Governor Palin. God forbid they do it. But you and I both know there is some crazy MSNBC watcher and Media Matters reader who even now is dreaming of doing so.

And should they try, we can be equally sure of something else. The left will be divided into two camps: (1) bitch deserved it and (2) not my fault.

It is unfortunate. I hope it never happens. But you and I both know the reality in which we live.

John Hayward of Human Events charged Obama and event organizers for putting on a political rally rather than a memorial service, and while Hayward said the President’s speech was “mostly excellent,” he then slammed him for being a “hard-core liberal” and for supporting Sheriff Dupnik’s earlier call for tolerance:

One of the most emotional moments came when President Obama departed from his script to announce that wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had opened her eyes… and he proceeded to work the line with hallelujah fervor, repeating it several times to juice up the crowd. There doesn’t seem to have been much effort to engineer an atmosphere of solemn dignity.



The most anticipated, and problematic, passage in the President’s speech was his call for a return to civility in politics. “What we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another,” he declared. Sorry, Mr. President, but a vast segment of your supporters has already done that. Admonishing every part of the political spectrum to avoid “pointing fingers and assigning blame” is horribly disingenuous. Barack Obama is not a centrist wandering into a partisan squabble, and offering a hand of peace to both sides. He’s a hard-core liberal, and the hard Left has been doing all of the finger-pointing during this drama, beginning within minutes of the shooting.

Remember, this is the same President Obama who recently called the vicious partisan gasbag sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, to congratulate him on a job well done. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama, or anyone from his Administration, told Dupnik to lay off his wacko theories about Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin inspiring Loughner to commit murder… theories he has loudly repeated in front of every television camera he can find.

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line was angry that despite numerous readings from the Bible from the President and other speakers, the service wasn’t 'Christian' or 'American' enough:

As for the "ugly," I'm afraid I must cite the opening "prayer" by Native American Carlos Gonzales. It was apparently was some sort of Yaqui Indian tribal thing, with lots of references to "the creator" but no mention of God. Several of the victims were, as I understand it, quite religious in that quaint Christian kind of way (none, to my knowledge, was a Yaqui). They (and their families) likely would have appreciated a prayer more closely aligned with their religious beliefs.

But it wasn't just Gonzales's prayer that was "ugly" under the circumstances. Before he ever got to the prayer, Gonzales provided us with a mini-auto biography and made several references to Mexico, the country from which (he informed us) his family came to Arizona in the mid 19th century. I'm not sure why Gonzales felt that Mexico needed to intrude into this service, but I have an idea.

In any event, the invocation could have used more God, less Mexico, and less Carlos Gonzales.

Conservative Blogs Unleash More Animosity in Reaction to Obama’s Speech

After President Obama called for more civility and reconciliation in politics and asked Americans to remember the late Christina Taylor Green, saying, “I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it,” right-wing blogs came out swinging and swiftly responded with their predictable enmity.

RedState’s Erick Erickson wrote that Obama was the one to atone for his ties to Bill Ayers, and also said that progressives were plotting Sarah Palin’s murder:

This is, after all, a man who got his political start in the home of a terrorist who’d dedicated a book to Robert F. Kennedy’s killer — a man who never repented but who Mr. Obama then gave grant money to.

Will the President live up to his own standard? Everyone can change. Everyone can repent. Let’s hope this President will.

But there is much that still must be done and much the left must still learn.



All week long, the left has said Jared Loughner was persuaded to try to kill Congresswoman Giffords because of right-wing hate. We know that was not true. But here is what else I am sure of.

Out there somewhere is someone who would love to kill Governor Palin. God forbid they do it. But you and I both know there is some crazy MSNBC watcher and Media Matters reader who even now is dreaming of doing so.

And should they try, we can be equally sure of something else. The left will be divided into two camps: (1) bitch deserved it and (2) not my fault.

It is unfortunate. I hope it never happens. But you and I both know the reality in which we live.

John Hayward of Human Events charged Obama and event organizers for putting on a political rally rather than a memorial service, and while Hayward said the President’s speech was “mostly excellent,” he then slammed him for being a “hard-core liberal” and for supporting Sheriff Dupnik’s earlier call for tolerance:

One of the most emotional moments came when President Obama departed from his script to announce that wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had opened her eyes… and he proceeded to work the line with hallelujah fervor, repeating it several times to juice up the crowd. There doesn’t seem to have been much effort to engineer an atmosphere of solemn dignity.



The most anticipated, and problematic, passage in the President’s speech was his call for a return to civility in politics. “What we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another,” he declared. Sorry, Mr. President, but a vast segment of your supporters has already done that. Admonishing every part of the political spectrum to avoid “pointing fingers and assigning blame” is horribly disingenuous. Barack Obama is not a centrist wandering into a partisan squabble, and offering a hand of peace to both sides. He’s a hard-core liberal, and the hard Left has been doing all of the finger-pointing during this drama, beginning within minutes of the shooting.

Remember, this is the same President Obama who recently called the vicious partisan gasbag sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, to congratulate him on a job well done. There is absolutely no evidence that Obama, or anyone from his Administration, told Dupnik to lay off his wacko theories about Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin inspiring Loughner to commit murder… theories he has loudly repeated in front of every television camera he can find.

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line was angry that despite numerous readings from the Bible from the President and other speakers, the service wasn’t 'Christian' or 'American' enough:

As for the "ugly," I'm afraid I must cite the opening "prayer" by Native American Carlos Gonzales. It was apparently was some sort of Yaqui Indian tribal thing, with lots of references to "the creator" but no mention of God. Several of the victims were, as I understand it, quite religious in that quaint Christian kind of way (none, to my knowledge, was a Yaqui). They (and their families) likely would have appreciated a prayer more closely aligned with their religious beliefs.

But it wasn't just Gonzales's prayer that was "ugly" under the circumstances. Before he ever got to the prayer, Gonzales provided us with a mini-auto biography and made several references to Mexico, the country from which (he informed us) his family came to Arizona in the mid 19th century. I'm not sure why Gonzales felt that Mexico needed to intrude into this service, but I have an idea.

In any event, the invocation could have used more God, less Mexico, and less Carlos Gonzales.

SBA List’s Marjorie Dannenfelser Claims Victory Over “Social Issues Truce”

Indiana Governor and potential presidential candidate Mitch Daniels has taken a pounding from the Religious Right, since June and even up to today, for suggesting that there should be a “truce” over social issues in order to increase attention to the country’s economic problems and debt. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of the fiercely anti-choice and poorly named group the Susan B. Anthony List, writes in the National Review that the debate over the next chairman of the Republican National Committee shows that GOP has decidedly rejected any moderation on social issues such as the right to choose and gay rights. She praises the conservative views of the RNC chair candidates and also points out that Daniels himself even backpedaled on his own call for a truce. But while Dannenfelser believes the GOP is united over the importance of social issues, CPAC’s growing crisis reflects otherwise.

The debate was completely devoid of the kind of fireworks that political commentators love. As SBA List and National Organization for Marriage Skype pre-interviews had suggested, each of the five candidates affirmed without hesitation their determination to support the Republican platform’s social-issue stands and to honor that support in the party’s programs, from recruiting candidates to buying ads to micro-targeting votes.

The aura of unity sorely exasperated professional cynics like the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who fumed for his readers, “The candidates were nearly dissent-free. Abortion? All opposed. Lower taxes? All in favor. Gay marriage? All opposed. Cutting spending? All in favor.” Jon Stewart found comedy in the comity.

Far from being a dull affair, however, the debate proved that the 2011 GOP has an unshakable core — and this core exercises real influence over the expressed convictions of the GOP’s national leaders. After all, only two short years ago, current RNC chairman Michael Steele — who was a board member of the pro-choice Republican Leadership Council — told GQ magazine that he believed abortion was an “individual choice.” Maria Cino, one of the four leading challengers he faced this week, served on the board of WISH List, a political action committee devoted solely to electing pro-choice Republican women.

At the debate, both Steele and Cino expressed profound pro-life conviction and commitment.



Governor Daniels, for his own part, made another attempt just after Christmas to explain away his “truce talk,” saying that his message was not directed at social conservatives but at the people “aggressively trying to change the definition of marriage.” His advice to the liberal activists: “Stand down for awhile” so the country can focus on its deepening fiscal crisis.

All of this is progress — and rapid progress at that. It’s also recognition that the conservative resurgence this past November involved a confluence, and not a divergence, of the social, fiscal, and national-security streams within the GOP. One week into the two-year cycle that leads to the reelection or defeat of Barack Obama, the GOP truce on internal disunity is turning out to be the one that really counts.

Jon Stewart Named 28th “Most Dangerous Liberal” in America

According to the popular conservative online news website Townhall, Comedy Central host Jon Stewart is the number 28 “most dangerous liberal” in the country. Written by Townhall’s Executive Editor Chris Field, Stewart is a “radical liberal” and part of George Soros’s progressive web. Stewart falls right below Rev. Jim Wallis, the leader of the Christian social justice group Sojourners, who placed #27, but he’s seen as far more “dangerous” than Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos (#40) and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC (#44). While Field didn’t have any problems with the Daily Show’s report by Aasif Mandvi on critics of the McDonald’s Happy Meals, Field slams Stewart for purportedly persuading young voters into becoming progressives:

Political satirist Jon Stewart's tongue is acid-tipped. His popular "Daily Show" program regularly slays elected officials for hypocrisy and self-importance, derides political buffoonery and skewers media excesses. More often than not, it's bitingly hilarious and decidedly Left-leaning: a potent combination.

A 2007 media survey revealed that more than one-in-10 young voters relied on Stewart's show as a primary source of political news -- a share that has undoubtedly swelled since. It's no small coincidence that voters aged 18-29 backed Barack Obama for president by a breathtaking 2-to-1 margin.

While acting as a formidable political opinion maker, Stewart inoculates himself against serious criticism by playing the "I'm just a comedian" card. This artifice has become known among conservatives as the Jon Stewart "clown nose on, clown nose off " routine.

Laugh all you want. It works.
Syndicate content

Barack Obama Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Thursday 10/06/2011, 10:21am
In response to Sarah Palin’s announcement yesterday that she would not seek the presidency, WorldNetDaily columnist and managing editor David Kupelian wrote that Palin’s decision was a result of massive demonization from the left in a literal “war between light and darkness.” According to Kupelian, “this growth of spiritual darkness in America is the result of decades of assault by the political and moral left,” inevitably breeding hatred for Palin as a result of her “noble character, common sense and natural grace.” Kupelian warns that once... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Wednesday 10/05/2011, 11:20am
This weekend, nearly every major GOP presidential candidate, along with the top two Republicans in the House of Representatives, will speak at the Values Voter Summit, an annual gathering of the leaders of the movement to integrate fundamentalist Christianity and American politics. The candidates – Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich – and the congressmen – House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor – will join a who’s who of the far Right at the event. The organizers of... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 10/05/2011, 11:04am
Yesterday on Eagle Forum Live, Phyllis Schlafly’s guest host Bill Borst and author J. R. Dunn discussed how liberalism is responsible for millions upon millions of deaths throughout the world and that because of the election of Barack Obama, the lethal ideology is going to take over America. Dunn was promoting his book “Death by Liberalism,” arguing that Rachel Carson, one of the forerunners of the modern environmental movement who has been demonized by the chemical industry, is “one of the few people along with Karl Marx who’s responsible for millions of deaths... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 09/27/2011, 10:56am
Lou Engle traveled to Columbus, Ohio last week to join Janet Porter, Wendy Wright, Jim Garlow, Bob McKeown, Dutch Sheets and other Religious Right leaders at Faith 2 Action’s rally promoting Porter’s Heartbeat Bill, which would criminalize abortion in the vast majority of cases. The legislation has passed the state House, but the Republican leadership in the Senate has been reluctant to hold a vote on the bill, which is so extreme and clearly unconstitutional that it’s even opposed by the Ohio Right to Life Society. In a speech at the rally, Engle repeated his... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 09/26/2011, 2:08pm
Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman took to Renew America to demand Americans “take matters into our own hands and wage a Second American Revolution” against President Barack Obama, who he calls “our mullah in chief.” The conservative activist focuses on the bid to recognize Palestinian statehood in the United Nations to attack Obama and the “self-hating ultra-leftist Jews Obama surrounds himself with.” Klayman writes: It always amazes me how naïve many in the conservative movement are. While optimism is generally a good thing, there is no cause for... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 09/19/2011, 12:17pm
Jim Bakker, following the collapse of The PTL Club and a stint in jail for twenty four counts of fraud, seems to be having something of a revival. He has launched a new television program and founded Morningside, a Christian community in Missouri modeled after his failed and fraudulent Heritage USA project (Heritage USA is now the home of Rick Joyner’s MorningStar Ministries). Now Bakker is out with a new book, “Big Book of History.” Promoting the book on his blog, Bakker explains that the courts and President Barack Obama “kicked God out of schools and eventually we... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 09/09/2011, 5:24pm
Bradlee Dean is apparently under the impression that President Obama cares what he thinks. I suspect that the fact that Rick Joyner used to own a charter jet company probably has a lot to do with this defense of corporate jets. Hey, Bryan Fischer still hates Muslims. FRC says that "until the crisis within the family is reversed, America's economic slowdown is only going to increase." NOM says it has launched a $75,000 independent expenditure campaign in the race to replace Anthony Weiner in New York's Congressional District 9." Finally, I... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 08/29/2011, 1:50pm
No matter how many times the deceitful claim that abortion providers are systematically targeting the black community for genocide is repudiated, new anti-choice groups can’t seem to stop running more ‘black genocide’ billboard campaigns. In March, a group called Life Always notoriously used images of President Barack Obama and a young black girl in their billboard campaign that abortion is black genocide. Earlier this summer the National Black Pro-Life Coalition put up billboards in Atlanta likening legal abortion to slavery and the Radiance Foundation and Issues4Life... MORE >