Bryan Fischer

• PFAW - Right Wing Watch In Focus: Citizenship in the Balance: How Anti-Immigrant Activists Twist the Facts, Ignore History, and Flout the Constitution. 
   
• Steve Benen: How The Media Covers Health Care Rulings, Cont'd. 
   
• Jim Burroway @ Box Turtle Bulletin: Tennessee Lawmakers Propose Ban on Mentioning LGBT People in Schools. 
   
• Nick @ Bold Faith Type: Fact-check: Religious Right Overstates Opposition to Expanding Marriage. 
   
• HRC Back Story: Hawaii Governor Signs Civil Unions into Law. 
   
• Andrea Nill @ Think Progress: TX Rep Introduces Bill To Allow Police To Leave Undocumented Immigrants At Lawmakers’ Doorsteps. 
   
• Warren Throckmorton: Native American columnist blasts Bryan Fischer’s “ugly article.” 
   
• County Fair: Jewish Funds For Justice: Glenn Beck's Apology Is "Not Enough." 
   
• Jillian Rayfield @ TPM: ADL: Beck Comparing Reform Judaism To 'Radicalized Islam' Is 'Bigoted Ignorance.'

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.

• Alex Alvarez @ Mediaite: Anonymous Claims Westboro Baptist Church Initiated Feud For Attention, IP Addresses.
• Andy Birkey @ Minnesota Independent: Bachmann: Glenn Beck can solve the budget deficit.
• Michael Cole-Schwartz @ HRC Back Story: HRC & Soulforce Present 70K Petitions To Lou Engle.
• Joe.My.God: GEORGIA: Wingnut GOP Rep Wants Police To Investigate All Miscarriages.
• Media Matters: Huckabee Upset That Christians Are Sharing Their Buildings With Muslims.
• Dump Bachmann: Will Michele Bachmann & Tim Pawlenty Be Hanging Out With Bradlee Dean at Freedom Fest 2011?
• Warren Throckmorton @ Crosswalk: Bryan Fischer speaks with forked tongue.

• Mike Huckabee sounds like a man who loves his millionaire lifestyle more than he does the prospect of a grueling presidential run.
• On a related note, John Thune says he is not going to run for president.
• But Gov. Bob McDonnell is very open to the idea of being someone's VP.
• Benny Hinn is being sued by his Christian book publisher for violating a morality clause in his book contract.
• John Stemberger's hearing on his misconduct complaint will be in June.
• Phill Kline stands by his witch-hunt against Planned Parenthood.
• Finally, the quote of the day from Bryan Fischer: "We will fight to the last ditch, to the last barricade, on the last hill, to defend the institution that is the cornerstone of a healthy society. We will resist to the last ditch, the last barricade, the last hill, the effort to normalize sexual deviancy in our culture."

A few weeks ago, Newsweek ran a profile of Bryan Fischer that suggested that he was being "controversial on purpose" and might be saying outrageous things in order to raise his profile and generate donations for the American Family Association.

Of course, the only people who think that Fischer doesn't truly believe all of the vile things that he says are people who don't actually pay attention to all of the vile things that he says because, as Fischer himself admits, he absolutely believes every vile thing that he says:

Say what you will about Bryan Fischer, but the man just refuses to give up or ever back down. 

Case in point: after his blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force was taken down by the AFA, Fischer has continued to defend it, claiming that people were just too immature and dim-witted to deal with this truth.

But that wasn't enough, so Fischer penned a new column explaining if all Native Americans had just been as deferential as Pocahontas and converted to Christianity, the European settlers wouldn't have had to resort to all that "bloodshed and violence" ... a point he made again on his radio program yesterday:

But you think about how different American history would have been if every member of the indigenous tribes had followed Pocahontas' example. She not only converted, she assimilated. She did not just convert to Christianity and then try to maintain some separate tribal identity, some segregated style of life. She converted, she recognized the superiority of the spiritual convictions of the colonists, of the Englishmen, she embraced their religion, she embraced their faith, she embraced their god, she embraced their savior because she recognized that the god that the English served was superior to the gods that the Indian people served. So she identified herself no longer as an Algonquin Indian but as an Englishman. So she melded into the culture that she recognized was superior to her own. If the example of Pocahontas had been followed, things could have been much, much different - we would have had a seamless and bloodless assimilation, integration, of the indigenous peoples into the melting pot which became America.

Let's take a step back for a moment. 

Fischer asserts that Native American were "steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality" and that, for those reasons, European Christians had been tasked by God with emptying out the "slop bucket" and taking control of the nation.

And the reason that these European Christians had to resort to "bloodshed and violence" was because the Native Americans refused to submit to the "laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations" that says Europeans had the right to take the continent and likewise refused to convert to Christianity and assimilate.

Now, keep in mind that Fischer makes similar claims about Muslims today.

He says "Islam is an evil and wicked religion, and unworthy of a Christian nation." 

He says that Muslims "are engaged in subversive activity, treasonous activity, against the United States."

He says that lands dominated by Islam are filled with nothing but darkness, tyranny, repression, poverty, disease, and emptiness.

He says that Muslims are dangerous, violent, and stupid because of rampant inbreeding and that the world must fight the "ravages of Islam" and oppose "the spread of this dark and dangerous religion."

So it seems that, based on Fischer's logic, Muslims are likewise "morally disqualified" from controlling any land and therefore Christians are justified in taking control of any such areas.  And should the Muslim inhabitants of such lands refuse to embrace Christianity and assimilate, then the Christian conquerors are entirely within their rights to resort to "bloodshed and violence" in order to subdue them in accordance with the "laws of nature [and] nature's God."

I guess now we know why the AFA put that post up on its blog a few weeks ago claiming that it is okay to commit genocide so long as God tells you do it.

• Do you ever get the impression that Rep. Michele Bachmann just has no idea what she is talking about?
• Donald Trump loves marriage so much he has had three of them, but doesn't think gays deserve any.
• I don't think that David Brody really understands the Birthers or their demands.
• Harry Jackson does not appear too impressed by any of the possible GOP presidential candidates.
• Bryan Fischer explains that Europeans wouldn't have had to try and wipe out Native Americans if they had all been good Christians like Pocahontas.
• Finally, the ACLJ made a movie - I especially like the part where anti-mosque activist (and ACLJ client) Tim Brown says that if the "Ground Zero Mosque" is built "we might as well just throw the Constitution away":

The anti-choice campaign to pass “Personhood Amendments,” the radical plan once shunned by major Religious Right organizations, continues to gain prominent supporters within the conservative movement. Following in the footsteps of other right-wing leaders like Bryan Fischer, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has come out in favor of the Personhood Amendment, which would give legal rights to zygotes and criminalize abortion, stem-cell research, common forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization.

As voters consistently voted down Personhood Amendments by lopsided margins in Colorado, leading groups like National Right to Life and Americans United for Life refused to back the Amendment and the Colorado Eagle Forum warned allies in 2009 that the Personhood movement intends to “spread their disaster to key swing states like Florida, Missouri, Nevada and Montana.”

And now the Personhood movement is doing exactly that, but this time with the support of major Religious Right figures, and even Republican politicians.

Fischer, the American Family Association, and the Liberty Counsel have come out strongly in favor of the Personhood Amendment that will be on Mississippi’s November ballot, as have top Republicans like Senator Roger Wicker and Congressman Alan Nunnelee.

In Georgia, Perkins praised the Personhood Amendment introduced by state Sen. Barry Loudermilk, saying, “The Georgia Personhood Amendment is a reflection of a growing pro-life sentiment across the country.”

But in 2007, James Bopp, the General Counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, criticized the Personhood measure in Georgia, known as the Human Life Amendment (HLA), in a legal memo. Warning of “the inevitable striking down” of the amendment and that “significant damage would be done,” Bopp said that “the proposed HLA has serious flaws and is not a wise use of pro-life resources at this time.”

Georgia and Mississippi aren’t the only states where the Personhood movement is moving into high gear.

The State House in North Dakota just passed a personhood bill that one supporter said “should shut down” the state’s last clinic that provides abortion services, and a subcommittee in the Iowa State House also approved a personhood bill. Personhood USA, the leading advocacy organization, has pledged to mount fights in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Montana as well.

As we noted yesterday, the American Family Association has pulled Bryan Fischer's recent blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force.

So far, the AFA has not offered any statement on why it did so and all we have gotten is Fischer's side as he claims it was taken down because people are just "not mature" enough to handle the truth and was becoming a distraction because the Left was just too "dim-witted" to understand that Fischer was speaking only for himself and not for the organization.

Now, as Warren Throckmorton reports, a representative of the AFA showed up in the comments to a Throckmorton post on Crosswalk about Fischer's piece to reject Fischer's bigotry and claim that his views do not represent the AFA:

Bryan Fischer’s blog runs on the AFA website. His blog does not speak for AFA. His statements about Native Americans were wrong and disturbing. I am posting this as an individual, but provide my job description to illustrate that Bryan’s views were not those of AFA as a whole.

Patrick Vaughn
General Counsel
American Family Association, Inc.

This raises an interesting question: just when does Fischer speak for the AFA?

Fischer claims that when he writes on the blog, he is speaking only for himself.  Fine.  But what about when he shows up on the radio or in the press? Does he represent the AFA in those situations? 

What about when he is given a speaking slot at the Values Voter Summit where he attacks "the dark and dangerous and devious religion of Islam." Or when he appears in right-wing documentaries?

What about when he is hosting his radio program for the AFA on which he interviews Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls? Does he represent AFA then?  Does he represent the AFA when he uses his radio program to say that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism, when he says that Muslims should be banned from the military, or when he claims that Hitler filled the Nazi ranks with gays because they were the only ones capable of being savage and brutal enough to carry out his orders? Did he represent the AFA in any of those situations?

Or finally, what about when Fischer demands a ban on the construction of all mosques in America?  He first made the assertion on the AFA blog, which he claims does not represent the AFA.  He then made the same point on his AFA radio program. He then defended the statement on a program with Alan Colmes.  And then defended it again on CNN.

Did Fischer represent the AFA in any capacity in any of those venues, or was he simply representing himself? 

If Fischer doesn't represent the AFA when he writes on their blog, hosts their radio show, or appears in the press or at a public event as Director of Issue Analysis, just when does he represent the AFA? 

And if the AFA doesn't want to be associated with Fischer's unrelenting bigotry, why do they keep him on staff and continue to give him venues from which to spew his hatred?

It would be really helpful to the rest of us if the AFA could clarify just when Fischer is speaking on behalf of the organization and when he is spewing his bigotry as a private citizen so that we can know when to hold the AFA accountable for the outrageous and offensive things he says on their blog, radio network, or in public appearances as the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy for the American Family Association.