Tony Perkins

Will FRC Take Over The "Day of Truth"?

Earlier this week, CNN's Dan Gilgoff reported that Exodus International was shutting down it annual "Day of Truth":

A national Christian organization will stop sponsoring an annual event that encourages school students to "counter the promotion of homosexual behavior" because the event has become too divisive and confrontational, the group's president told CNN on Wednesday.

"All the recent attention to bullying helped us realize that we need to equip kids to live out biblical tolerance and grace while treating their neighbors as they'd like to be treated, whether they agree with them or not," said Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, the group that sponsored the event this year.

Called the Day of Truth, the annual April event has been pushed by influential conservative Christian groups as a way to counter to the annual Day of Silence, an event promoted by gay rights advocates to highlight threats against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.

In was just last year that Exodus took over running the Day of Truth from the creators at the Alliance Defense Fund, so it'll be interesting to see if ADF will be willing to retake control over the effort.

If they do, they can probably expect the support of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who tells Gilgoff that he is eager to see this sort of effort continue:

We stand ready to work with all pro-family groups to ensure that students continue to hear an alternative to the ideological indoctrination in support of the homosexual movement which has become all too prevalent in our public schools.

As we have repeatedly stated, we unequivocally condemn verbal or physical harassment or violence directed at any person, particularly a child, because of sexuality, religious beliefs, or for any other reason. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest any connection between those kinds of acts and the loving witness of Christian believers or the reasoned dialogue of pro-family activists.

We will never allow the slanders of activist groups that promote homosexual behavior to deter us from speaking the truth in love, and that includes the message that the choice to engage in homosexual conduct is a destructive one and that change is possible for those who experience same-sex attractions.

If FRC refuses to stop "speaking the truth in love" and wants to make sure that students continue to hear the Day of Truth's message, it only makes sense for FRC to take over the organizing of this annual event, does it not?

Obama Speaks About His Faith, Gets Accued of Being An Ignorant, Lying "Limousine Marxist Hypocrite"

You have to wonder why President Obama even bothers to talk about his Christian faith because nothing he says will ever be good enough for the "real" Christians in the Religious Right.

Earlier this week, Obama was asked about his faith and responded:

"I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead," Obama said. "Being my brothers' and sisters' keeper. Treating others as they would treat me. And I think also understanding that, you know, that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility that we all have to have as human beings."

But of course, that just opens him up to attacks from the likes of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:

The man we know as President may be a Christian by choice--but he's far better known as the leader of a movement about "choice." And while his salvation may be deeply private, his agenda to advance abortion has been anything but. He told the crowd in New Mexico that his "public service" is an "effort to express his Christian faith." If so, then he has a vastly different understanding of biblical truth than I do. Funneling billions of American dollars to the killers of innocent unborn life--life created by God and in His image--is not an "expression" of the Christian faith, or most other faiths for that matter. It's a horrifying government-funded massacre.

And Bryan Fischer, who attacked him for being totally ignorant:

According to Obama, his understanding of the story of Cain and Abel is 180 degrees out from reality, and his understanding of the Golden Rule is that he gets to be as mean to others as he thinks they are to him ... the phrase “brother’s keeper” was not found on the lips of Jesus but on the lips of a murderer who was trying to dodge a felony charge from God himself. In other words, the phrase “brother’s keeper” meant the exact opposite of what the president thinks it means.

Then The One compounded his theological error by turning the Golden Rule on its head, and verbalizing a version that gives him permission to be as malicious and cruel as he perceives his political opponents to be, which could explain a lot.

...

Obama also exposed his anti-Christian mindset when he said, regarding other people, that it was his task “to help them find their own grace.” This “all roads lead to heaven” nonsense is about as far from the “precepts of Jesus Christ” as you can get. For Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).”

Of course, the president has the right to hold and promote a view of salvation that is different than the view of Christ. What he is not entitled to do is to call himself a Christian while doing it.

And finally from Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, who used it as an excuse to attack Obama as a "typical, limousine Marxist hypocrite":

What Obama really means by being his "brother's keeper" is what he always means: the theft and redistribution of your money through the coercive powers of the government. You'll have a very difficult time justifying that on biblical grounds. Even Marx admitted that the Bible did not teach collectivism. But, Obama either doesn't care or seem bound by the need to be consistent.

If you read other accounts of Obama's conversion it sounds very much like he choose to be a Christian because, with a selective reading of a few biblical texts, he could justify to his Marxist / Socialist / Jeremiah Wright / Black Liberation political ideology. Obama has created Christ in his own image with a communist beret. No wonder he finds Christ appealing.

But, Obama is a typical, limousine Marxist hypocrite. Although he makes millions of dollars every year, his concern for his real biological family is completely lacking. Otherwise, his aunt would not have been living on government assistance in government subsidized housing.

Why The Religious Right Never Talks About Divorce

Via Al Mohler we get this fascinating study by Mark A. Smith of the University of Washington in "Political Science Quarterly" entitled "Religion, Divorce, and the Missing Culture War in America" [PDF].

In it, Smith examines why Religious Right groups who spend all of their time talking about family values and the sanctity of marriage seem to give only lip-service, at best, to fighting divorce, despite the fact that it is repeatedly mentioned in the Bible. The Right may mentione it, generally when bemoaning the deteriorating culture, but they invest little to no effort in actually trying to change the laws to make it more difficult to obtain a divorce.

Smith notes that neither Jerry Falwell with his Moral Majority nor Pat Robertson with his Christian Coalition paid much attention to the issue; a trend which continues today with the Family Research Council: 

The FRC regularly sends email alerts to its members and supporters in an attempt to inform, persuade, and reinforce their attitudes and beliefs about matters of interest to the group. In 2006 and 2007, the FRC dispatched hundreds of these, most of which contained three paragraph-length items. Surprisingly for an organization that structures its activities around marriage and the family, only 8 of the 1,366 items centered on divorce. In the context of its total volume of communication with members and supporters, the FRC rarely broached the topic of divorce. The organization has stated that “we will not relent in our insistence to reform divorce laws,” but that abstract support has
not been matched by a sustained commitment to spending time or resources on the issue.

Perhaps the FRCʼs emails do not accurately reflect its priorities, meaning that analyzing a different facet of the groupʼs activities would yield a different answer. Accordingly, it will be useful to examine the messages the FRC expresses when it broadcasts its views through the mass media. As part of a larger strategy to influence both the mass public and political leaders, the FRCʼs staff regularly write editorials and attempt to publish them in leading news outlets. During 2006 and 2007, the staff succeeded in placing editorials on topics falling within the organizationʼs mission, including abstinence programs in schools, gay rights and hate crimes, abortion laws in the states, and judicial activism regarding online pornography. Yet FRC staff also published editorials that criticized wasteful government spending, warned against universal health care, and challenged the science behind global warming. Certainly no one could deny that government spending, health care, and global warming are important subjects for American citizens and political leaders to consider. For an organization whose self-definition holds that it “champions marriage and the family,” however,
these issues are considerably removed from its core mission.

The FRC has stated that constraints of budget, time, and staff prevent it from engaging questions surrounding same-sex marriage and heterosexual divorce at the same time, but it managed to allocate its scarce resources to addressing many other issues of current interest. Even if one could justify on practical or biblical grounds prioritizing gay marriage over divorce, such a view could hardly justify pushing divorce all the way to the bottom of the pecking order, below issues with only a tenuous connection to marriage and the family. Of course, a comprehensive search of all of the FRCʼs communications with members, the media, and government officials from 1983 to the present would probably uncover sporadic advocacy for changing public policy regarding divorce. Such a finding would not undermine the conclusion drawn here, namely that the subject occupies a low spot on the groupʼs priority list. Indeed, in the statement from its Web site quoted above, the FRC conceded that it spends little time on divorce.

Smith notes that FRC's lack of focus on divorce is especially odd given that FRC President Tony Perkins authored the nationʼs first covenant marriage bill back when he was a state legislator in Louisiana. 

But Smith also notes that there is very little chance that FRC or any other Religious Right group is going to "move beyond just saying that they endorse divorce reform and actually turn that abstract support into concrete action" because Americans so widely accept divorce to such an extent that even a significant portion of the Religious Right's base would oppose such efforts:

Needless to say, it is not a winning strategy for mobilization to tell your potential constituents that they have committed immoral acts that you are attempting to restrict through governmental regulations. Without an organized and vocal constituency making positions on divorce a litmus test for political support, it is difficult to imagine how the issue could join the ongoing culture war.

Right Wing Round-Up

2012 Candidates Weekly Update 9/21/10

Your update on the potential 2012 Presidential candidates for 9/14-9/21:

Mitch Daniels

2012: Newt Gingrich says Daniels should run for President (Courier & Press, 9/21).

Economy: Attends Chamber of Commerce event in Indianapolis (WIBC, 9/20).

PAC: Leadership PAC runs ads encouraging IN voters to support Republicans (Politico, 9/19).

Newt Gingrich

Religious Right: Demands ban on Sharia Law’s use in US Courts (TPM, 9/18).

Health Care: Calls for HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius’ resignation, compares her service to “Soviet tyranny” (Politico, 9/18).

GOP: Headlines fundraiser for the Minnesota GOP (Star Tribune, 9/17).

Obama: Gingrich attacked by critics for pushing over the top anti-Obama rhetoric (NY Daily News, 9/20).

Mike Huckabee

Obama: Criticizes President’s treatment of Christians (Newsmax, 9/17).

GOP: “Thrilled” about the defeat of “establishment” candidate in primaries (Huffington Post, 9/20).

2010: Expects a Republican wave in home state of Arkansas (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 9/20).

Sarah Palin

Iowa: Speaks at Iowa’s Ronald Reagan Dinner, tells Fox News she may “give it a shot” to Presidential run (NY Daily News, 9/18).

2012: Wins straw poll of presidential prospects at RightNation convention (Chicago Sun-Times, 9/20).

2010: Tweets to Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell with a warning against “appeasing nat'l media” that’s “seeking ur destruction” (The Hill, 9/19).

Religious Right: FRC head Tony Perkins suggests that Palin is a “cheerleader” rather than a presidential candidate (Politico, 9/18).

Media: Claims that journalists disrespect fallen troops when they “tell lies” about her (Des Moines Register, 9/17).

Poll: Rasmussen survey says slight majority of Americans identify more with Palin’s views than Obama’s (Rasmussen Reports, 9/20).

Tim Pawlenty

2010: Fundraising for GOP gubernatorial nominee Scott Walker in Wisconsin (AP, 9/20).

Economy: WSJ profiles Governors like Pawlenty and others who visited China (WSJ, 9/20).

Mike Pence

Religious Right: Indiana Congressman wins a plurality of votes at Values Voter Summit’s 2012 straw poll (MSNBC, 9/18).

2012: Speaks to conservative Hillsdale College about the Presidency (EducationNews, 9/21).

2010: Defends Christine O’Donnell in Delaware from attacks (CNN, 9/20).

Mitt Romney

New Hampshire: Romney’s Leadership PAC endorses and donates to victors of GOP primaries (Politics Daily, 9/18).

Religious Right: Lashes out at Obama’s economic and social policies, “counterfeit” values at Values Voter Summit (Religion Dispatches, 9/20).

Poll: Leads 2012 pack with 22% support from Republicans (Public Policy Polling, 9/12).

2010: Going to Florida to stump for Gov hopeful Rick Scott (Daily Sun, 9/20).

Rick Santorum

South Carolina: Tests message in early primary state (Daily Caller, 9/16).

Religious Right: Says that families don’t exist in poor neighborhoods (CBS News, 9/17).

Sen. Cornyn To Receive Award From Log Cabin Republicans

Last week we noted that FRC's Tony Perkins had written a letter to Sen. John Cornyn asking him to withdraw from an upcoming fundraising event for the Log Cabin Republicans. 

Perkins said he could understand going to a LCR event in order to have a debate, but never "to a fundraiser to help them raise money to elect candidates who undermine everything we stand for."  But Cornyn is standing by his decision, saying while he doesn't share the group's views on gay issues, he does shares their views on economic issues and it is his job is to work with any group that is willing to play a role in defeating Democrats.

The Religious Right wasn't buying that explanation ... and I assume they will be even more displeased with Cornyn once they realize that, in addition to rasising money for LCR, he will also be receiving an award from them

Log Cabin Republicans will present the Barry Goldwater Award, which recognizes leaders in the Republican Party who have served their nation with distinction in the model of the late Senator Barry Goldwater to:

* Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Chairman National Republican Senatorial Committee

Perkins, Jackson, Engle Team Up to Oppose DADT Repeal

In about one hour, Tony Perkins, Harry Jackson, Lou Engle and others are joining forces for a webcast opposing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Family Research Council President and Marine veteran Tony Perkins will join Bishop Harry Jackson, Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Austin Nimocks and African American pastors from five states at a news conference Monday at 2 p.m. ET in Washington, D.C. The speakers will address religious liberty concerns on the eve of the U.S. Senate vote to overturn the law against the practice of open homosexual behavior in the military.

WHO: Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Bishop Harry Jackson, Chairman, High Impact Leadership Coalition

Pastor Aubrey Shines, Tampa, FL

Pastor Christopher Brooks, Detroit, MI

Bishop Leon Benjamin, Richmond, VA

Reverend Dean Nelson, Washington, DC

Reverend Lou Engle, President, The Call

Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund

WHERE: Watch Online: www.frc.org

Or in-person: FRC Media Center, 801 G. Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001

WHEN: Monday, September 20, 2010, 2 PM ET

VVS Double Whammy: Smearing Gay Soldiers and US Allies

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis warned Americans that the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will make the military weaker, understaffed and morally corrupt. They went on to say that military forces which allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly no longer participate in wars, only parades. However, Great Britain and Australia, two countries that have contributed significant numbers of soldiers to the war in Iraq and are close allies of the US, both allow gays to serve openly. Israel's military also permits gay and lesbian troops in its ranks, as do NATO countries including Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain and France, all of which have forces in Afghanistan. Because at the Values Voter Summit, maligning the military forces of key American allies like Israel, Great Britain, and Australia is acceptable as long as it serves the greater goal of denigrating gays and lesbians.

Maginnis: That's why countries like the ten largest militaries in the world, that have the ten largest militaries in the world say 'no, this isn't the thing to do.' They spin this as if Great Britain and we ought to copy them and the Dutch. Well the fact is that 80 percent of the militaries in the world don't embrace this particular view. 

Perkins: Well, those that do, they're the ones that participate in parades, they don't fight wars to keep the nation and the world free. So there's a big difference.

O'Donnell To Speak At Values Voter Summit, Will She Denounce Fischer's Bigotry?

Prepare the hero's welcome, because Christine O'Donnell is coming to the Values Voter Summit:

FRC Action PAC-endorsed candidate Christine O'Donnell is confirmed to speak Friday afternoon, September 17 at FRC Action's fifth annual Values Voter Summit. This will be the Delaware Republican Senate nominee's first address to a national gathering of conservative activists since defeating Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) on Tuesday.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA), Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Mitt Romney, Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN), David Limbaugh, Dr. Bill Bennett, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Phyllis Schalfly are among the confirmed speakers attending the Summit from September 17-18 at the Omni Shoreham in Washington, D.C.

Family Research Council Action PAC Chairman Tony Perkins made the following comments:

"We are pleased to announce that Christine O'Donnell will join us to speak at the Values Voter Summit. We applaud her for valiantly defending faith, family and freedom throughout this campaign.

"Christine O'Donnell has spoken out on behalf of the average person in her state who has been burdened by excessive tax and regulatory policies. She has tapped into the deep-seated mistrust that voters have toward big government. As in so many other states, the citizens are angered at the slow and steady loss of individual freedoms due to the massive overreach of government," concluded Perkins.

As such, we can now add O'Donnell to our list of conservative leaders - along with like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence, Bob McDonnell, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann - who are willing to share a stage with an anti-gay, anti-Muslim bigot like Byran Fischer and have no qualms about attending an event being co-sponsored by the American Family Association, the group that has given Fischer a national platform:

I've never called gay people terrorists although I've said that what they have done is like domestic terrorism. You've got these Mujaheddin on the battlefield setting out these syringes with the HIV virus in it as a way to carry out terrorism.

This is exactly what happens when two males have sex with one another. If one of them is HIV Positive, then it's just like injecting his partner with a needle with HIV.

That's domestic terrorism. I don't know what else you'd call it.

FRC Begs Sen. Cornyn Not To Attend Log Cabin Fundraiser

Peter LaBarbera makes no secret of his views that gays have no place in the conservative movement and the Republican Party and has long waged a campaign against the Log Cabin Republicans and any GOP leader who might even consider meeting with the group - a campaign which continues to this day, as he's currently mad at Sen. John Cornyn for agreeing to attend a fundraiser for the group.

But LaBarbera is not alone, as Ben Smith reports that Tony Perkins has written his own letter [PDF] to Cornyn espressing his "profound disappointment" and asking him to withdraw from the event:

I do, however, want to express my profound disappointment in the fact that you are assisting the very organization that sought this decision from Judge Phillips. You are participating in a fundraiser for the Log Cabin Republican (LCR) organization, the lead group in the law suit (Log Cabin Republicans vs. the United States of America).

How can a group that professes allegiance to the GOP at the same time be committed to using judicial activism to advance its radical social policies even at the risk of undermining the U.S. military and, as a result, national security?

...

In light of all this activity against both Republicans and conservatives, it is deeply troubling to me that you would lend your credibility to this organization. Your work in the U.S. Senate on issues important to the family is well known, as is your close association with Family Research Council and the work we do, which makes the association all the more distressing.

In deference to the work you have done against the debasement of our culture, I would ask respectfully that you withdraw from attending the event. Additionally, I would also like to arrange a meeting so we can both discuss this matter and will have my staff contact yours to do so.

As we've noted before, the Religious Right is losing its fight against gay equality ... and nothing better exemplifies this than the fact that a leading conservative group like FRC has to more or less beg a leading conservative Senator like Cornyn not to "lend your credibility" to a gay conservative group.

Dick Armey Sees The Light On Social Issues?

Most of the posts I have written in the past about Dick Armey have revolved around his attacks on the social conservatives in the movement, starting back in 2006 when he blasted the Religious Right for trying to make things like the Ten Commandments and Terry Schiavo issues on which the GOP was expected to take a stand, with Armey lashing out at "[James] Dobson and his gang of thugs," calling them demagogues and "real nasty bullies" and saying that "being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid."

Needless to say, the attack did not sit well with the Religious Right, which lashed back at Armey and set off a fued that continued for years ... until President Obama was elected and then the Tea Party leaders like Armey and social conservative leaders like Tony Perkins decided that they should all try to work together. But that truce tended to focus mostly on letting social conservatives sign on to Tea Party activism, and not with Tea Party leaders adopting the issues that social conservatives care about. 

Given this history, you'll have to forgive my amazement at the fact that Dick Armey is now suddenly touting the importance of abortion at an issue for Tea Party candidates:

When asked Monday at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast for reporters about the possibility of a truce on social issues going into the presidential campaign, Mr. Armey said, “A truce? No. These are issues of the heart. People are not going to turn their hearts and minds away from things that they have so heartfelt.”

Armey, who served as House majority leader, added, “the fact of the matter is there is sort of a question of first things first priorities. If we lose this nation, if it falls into insolvency, then all of these issues pretty well fall by the wayside too, don’t they. So i think there is a setting of priorities.”

He specifically referred to the abortion issue. “Since President Obama has been elected, there has been extraordinarily high levels of funding for international abortions through what is called the Mexico City language. That fight hasn’t been had for a few years. Now that fight will be had with this majority," he said, referring to his stated expectation that Republicans will win control of the House, and perhaps the Senate. He added, “these issues are too important to be left behind and they won’t be left behind.”

Presumably, Armey is trying to reassure the Religious Right that they still have a place in the conservative movement in order to quell their fears that the GOP is ignoring their issues.

Religious Right Continues To Warn That They Will Not Be Ignored

We've noted over the last several days that the Religious Right is growing increasingly worried that GOP leaders are intentionally ignoring social issues as they lay out their agenda.  This fear was reinforced earlier this week when Haley Barbour, head of the Republican Governor's Association, said that the GOP wasn't going to use up valuable time and resources talking about issues like abortion and gay marriage because those are not things that voters care about.

Needless to say, that is not sitting well with the groups who care about abortion and gay marriage, with LifeNews responding that "if Barbour begins telling pro-life voters they need to take a back seat and that the issue of abortion won't determine how they vote, his potential campaign may be dead before it begins."

Likewise, Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council took Barbour to task in their most recent Washington Update:

On Wednesday Mississippi Governor Hailey Barber, who is also the chairman of the Republican Governors' Association, spoke to reporters here in Washington and cautioned Republican candidates against bringing social issues into their campaign. He said that if candidates go beyond economic issues, they "are using up valuable time and resources that can be used to talk to people about what they care about." My experience in the political arena is that politicians want to avoid issues that they are not very comfortable with. However, just because issues are not important to a candidate does not make them unimportant to voters.

I've repeatedly said that economic issues are currently at the forefront of the minds of most voters, but the electorate, especially social conservatives, have the ability to consider a candidate's view on more than one or two issues. Most self-identified, pro-life Americans, the number of which have been increasing over the last 30 years, will decide their vote not on where a candidate stands on a flat tax or a value added tax, but on where a candidate stands on the value of human life.

...

A nation's economy will never have greater stability than its core economic unit--the family, and the stability of the family is determined by more than money. Family matters and if the Republicans want to succeed where they failed last time, they had better remember that fact.

And Robert George, who has been raising his own alarms that conservative leaders are distancing themselves from social issues, echoes Perkins' argument that defending the family is the key to economic stability, which is the standard Religious Right response whenever this tension between economic and social conservatives flares up:

If our society goes down the tubes—and may God protect us from any such eventuality—but if we go down the tubes, if our cause is lost, it will not be in the end because of bad economic decisions (though bad economic decision cause tremendous harm and suffering). It will be because we let misguided but determined people undermine the institution of marriage and destroy the innocence of our children.

Now some will counsel that economic conservatives have no horse in this race. They will say that issues such as marriage and the sanctity of human life are moral, culture, and religious questions about which business people, and people concerned with economic freedom, need not concern themselves. That’s bad thinking! The reality is that the ideological movements today that seek to redefine marriage and abolish its normativity for romantic relations and the rearing of children, are the very same movements that seek to undermine the market system and replace it with statist control of vast areas of economic life.

Conservatives may be unified in opposing President Obama and the Democrats, but that doesn't mean that they actually have a unified agenda or even a coherent coalition, so we can expect this gulf between the economic and social conservatives to continue to widen as we approach the coming elections and their aftermath.

Right Wing Leftovers

It's a holiday weekend and I am pretty much at my wit's end dealing with right-wing nonsense, so I'm calling it a day a bit early:

  • No surprise here, Tony Perkins will be speaking at The Call.
  • Speaking of which, apparently Lou Engle emailed Sarah Palin before her debate with Joe Biden to tell her "this is an Esther moment in your life."
  • AZ Gov. Jan Brewer has decided she has had it with debates after her terrible performance in the first one.
  • Chuck Colson in not overly thrilled with the fact that Glenn Beck has become a religious leader.
  • Finally, I am getting really, really tired of Bryan Fischer.  The same can be said for Cliff Kincaid.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Gov. Bob McDonnell has now been confirmed as a speaker at the Values Voter Summit.
  • Tony Perkins again warns the GOP not to abandon social issues.
  • Shockingly, people on the Right are not happy about the revelation that Keh Mehlman is gay.
  • Bryan Fischer says ... well, it's Bryan Fischer, so you know what he says.
  • Mike Huckabee asks you to join him in thanking Ken Cuccinelli for fighting health care reform.
  • Newt Gingrich is listed on this new list of confirmed speakers for Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom conference.
  • You know what America needs?  A new documentary featuring Bryan Fischer, Janet Porter, Wendy Wright, Phyllis Schlafly, Cliff Kincaid and others explaining how Obama is turning this nation into a Communist state:

Huckabee Puts Out The Call for The Call

Last week we noted that the FRC's Tony Perkins has joined other Religious Right leaders ranging from Mat Staver and Tim Wildmon to Gordon and Pat Robertson who had recorded videos encouraging supporters to attend Lou Engle's 10th Anniversary The Call prayer rally in Sacramento over Labor Day weekend.

To that ever-growing list we can now add Mike Huckabee as well, who explains that "with Judge Walker reversing the votes of millions of people concerning traditional marriage, this is a perfect time to gather for a solemn assembly to fast and pray and stand for the most critical issues of our day."  Christians must gather, Huckabee says, to "cry out for mercy" and "turn this nation back to God as Jesus is our only hope":

Perkins Pitches The Call Because Only Christians Can Save America

Last month we noted that Lou Engle had gotten a bevy of Religious Right leaders ranging from Mat Staver and Tim Wildmon to Gordon and Pat Robertson to record videos encouraging people to attend Lou Engle's 10th Anniversary The Call prayer rally in Sacramento over Labor Day weekend.

We can now add FRC's Tony Perkins to that list, as he has recorded his own video warning that "the future of our nation literally hangs in the balance" and that only Christians can save it:

The Religious Right's Exclusive Claim to Religious Freedom

It seems as day after day the Religious Right is intent on making clear their belief that the First Amendment's freedom of religion applies only to Christians. 

Take, for instance, this piece by FRC's Tony Perkins on CNN's Belief Blog in which he lays out the ways in which President Obama is destroying freedom of religion in America though his language, laws, and appointments:

America's First Freedom–freedom of religion–is in danger of being hounded out of public life, expelled from the public square. The word to millions of believers–Evangelicals, Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox Jews–is this: Be Amish or be quiet. Keep your quaint religious practices, mumble your odd prayers, but do so in private.

...

For people of faith, these matters of faith and family go deeper. They are "bridge issues" that unite races and ethnicities, men and women, education and income groups.

The radical changes President Obama and his allies advocate threaten the America we love and the way we express our most deeply held moral and religious convictions. We will be neither silent nor inactive in the face of these challenges. With courtesy and civility but with unflinching determination, we will oppose them.

Isn't it ironic that at a time when the Right is engaged in a campaign to restrict the religious freedom of Muslims in America, Perkins lists only Christians and Jews as those who are in danger of seeing their freedom of religion "hounded out of public life." 

On a related note, the AFA's Bryan Fischer continues his crusade against all things Islam, saying that "only a willfully stupid nation" would allow Muslims to practice their religion here ... but he's willing to compromise:

But I’m an open-minded guy, and open to reasonable compromise. I will happily join with Mr. Gingrich in the one-of-ours-for-one-of-yours approach. It’s a solution that expresses classic American values such as equal opportunity, fairness, and reciprocity.

As soon as we get a church in Mecca, they get a mosque in New York.

If Saudi Arabia won’t take us up on it, fine. It’s their call. One of ours for one of theirs. Can’t get any more fair, even-handed, and American than that.

What does he mean by "ours"?  The entire point of the Frist Amendment is that there is no "ours" because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

But for Fischer and the rest of the Religious Right, First Amendment free exercise rights are exclusively "ours," meaning Christians and Jews, and don't apply to Muslims at all. 

FRC's GOTV Efforts Get Under Way

I can always tell when election season is approaching because the Family Research Council releases a series of web ads featuring a very serious Tony Perkins explaining why it is imperative for Christians to vote.

And FRC has now released its latest batch, which I will sum up for you so that you don't have to waste your time watching them:

Thomas Jefferson thought life was important, which means you should vote against abortion:

You've never heard of John Witherspoon, but he'd want you to vote only for Christians:

I've taken a knee outside the Washington Monument to tell you that George Washington supports our agenda:

Our fight against abortion and gays makes us just like Abraham Lincoln:

If you don't vote and vote properly, then our Founding Fathers all died in vain:

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Reactions to Prop 8 Decision

I'll be updating this post as more statements are released reacting to the decision to oveturn Prop 8, but Focus on the Family is out with the first statement blasting the ruling (if you don't count Harry Jackson, who Tweeted a statement hours ago):

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.

“During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008.

“Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word.

“We fully expect the judge’s decision to be overturned upon appeal. The redeeming feature of our judicial system is that one judge who ignores the law and the evidence must ultimately endure the review and reversal of his actions from the appellate courts.

“We do want Americans to understand the seriousness of this decision, however. If this judge’s decision is not overturned, it will most likely force all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage. This would be a profound and fundamental change to the social and legal fabric of this country.

“Our Founders intended such radical changes to come from the people, not from activist judges. Alexander Hamilton, in advocating for the ratification of our Constitution in 1788, argued that the judiciary would be ‘the least dangerous’ branch of government. Today’s decision shows how far we have come from that original understanding.”

Randy Thomasson and Save California:

"Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California. This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn't in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states' rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction. It is high time for the oath of office to be updated to require judicial nominees to swear to judge only according to the written words of the Constitution and the original, documented intent of its framers. As a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority, and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect."

Concerned Women for America:

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said:

“Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately.

“Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement.

“Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.

“CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”

CWA of California State Director Phyllis Nemeth said:

“Today Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen to side with political activism over the will of the people. His ruling is slap in the face to the more than seven million Californians who voted to uphold the definition of marriage as it has been understood for millennia.

“While Judge Walker’s decision is disappointing it is not the end of this battle. Far from it. The broad coalition of support for Proposition 8 remains strong, and we will support the appeal by ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent of Proposition 8.

“We are confident that Judge Walker’s decision will ultimately be reversed. No combination of judicial gymnastics can negate the basic truth that marriage unites the complementary physical and emotional characteristics of a man and a woman to create a oneness that forms the basis for the family unit allowing a child to be raised by his or her father and mother. Any other combination is a counterfeit that fails to provide the best environment for healthy child rearing and a secure foundation for the family. It is this foundation upon which society is – and must be – built for a healthy and sustained existence.”

Family Research Council:

FRC President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

"Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is.

"Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America's founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.

"FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. Even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the most liberal appeals court in America-Family Research Council is confident that we can help win this case before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Liberty Counsel:

Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” Moreover, the U.S. Constitution cannot be stretched to include a right to same-sex marriage.

Except for this case, since Liberty Counsel was excluded by ADF, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”

Alliance Defense Fund:

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

...

“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”

“What’s at stake here is bigger than California,” Pugno added. “Americans in numerous states have affirmed--and should be allowed to continue to affirm--a natural and historic public policy position like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”

Capitol Resource Institute:

"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."

American Family Association:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior - in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior - and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Traditional Values Coalition:

"It is an outrage that one arrogant and rogue federal judge can take it upon himself to overturn a centuries old definition of marriage and family," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman and founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). "On November 4, 2008, 7 million voters of California cemented into the state constitution a definition of marriage for one man and one woman only. Now with US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling today he has completely undermined the expressed will of voters at the ballot box. Direct Democracy has been blatantly attacked today."

"First it was the California Supreme Court's decision in 2008 to overturn Prop 22 and force the people of California to accept homosexual marriages. Well, the people adamantly rejected their ruling and homosexual marriages and they passed Prop 8, which was designed to forever tie the hands of judges from redefining marriage. Now one judge has yet again slapped the people in the face, even though the state constitution now clearly tells them what marriage means; we spelled it out for them in black and white," Sheldon added. "This is a blatant sign of judicial activism and lack of judicial restraint."

Sheldon added: "There is more at stake than just traditional marriage and the centuries long definition of the family. This ruling seriously undermines the expressed vote and will of the people on initiatives and proposed amendments they approve at the ballot box. This judge's ruling says that any vote of the people will have no weight, credence, sovereignty, value or worth at all. On appeal, the courts will either realize their limits and not undermine the constitutional power of the vote, or they will continue to demonstrate the most blatant arrogance and impose judicial tyranny by declaring that they alone, and not the people, have the ultimate final say on all matters of the state. Democracy, the constitution and the people would be beneath them."

TVC state lobbyist Benjamin Lopez, who was publicly credited by homosexual State Senator Mark Leno for the defeat of his proposed homosexual marriage bill in 2005, echoed Sheldon's statements:

"The issue at hand now is whether the will of 7 million voters outweighs that of either 7 Supreme Court justices or any one judge anywhere in the state. Homosexual marriage advocates may kick and scream the loudest demanding that Prop 8 be struck down, but they should be drowned out by the deafening voice of 7 million Californians who settled this issue not once, but twice already. We are hear because homosexual radicals continue to act like immature children who throw tantrums when they do not get their way."

"Same-sex marriage supporters repeatedly beat the drum of civil rights to equate their cause to the legitimate struggles of minority groups and say the public is on their side. Yet not even in 'liberal' California have they won over the people so they must resort to sympathetic, liberal black-robed activists who sit on the bench to force same-sex marriage on the people.

"If folks think that the Tea Party movement is a force to be reckoned with now, wait until the silent majority of pro-family voters flex their political muscle once again. Judges beware, you will go the way of Rose Bird, stripped of their robes and kicked off the bench," Lopez added.

The battle of same-sex marriage began in March 2000 when California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22. It stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Homosexual marriage advocates challenged Prop 22 in court and in March 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer struck it down ruling it in violation of the equal protection clause. Kramer's ruling was then challenged all the way to the California Supreme Court. In early 2008 the high court upheld Kramer's ruling allowing homosexual marriages to take place. Voters passed Prop 8 in November 2008 cementing Prop 22's language into the state constitution. After challenges to Prop 8 reached the state supreme court, the justices upheld Prop 8 and allowed for some 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand. The current ruling by Judge Walker was the result of a challenge to the California Supreme Court's ruling.

Richard Land:

 “This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed. The people of our most populous state—a state broadly indicative of the nation at large demographically—voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thus excluding same-sex and polygamous relationships from being defined as marriage. 

“Now, an unelected federal judge has chosen to override the will of the people of California and to redefine an institution the federal government did not create and that predates the founding of America. Indeed, ‘marriage’ goes back to the Garden of Eden, where God defined His institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“This case will clearly make its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, where unfortunately, the outcome is far from certain. There are clearly four votes who will disagree with this judge—Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. The supreme question is: Will there be a fifth? Having surveyed Justice Kennedy’s record on this issue, I have no confidence that he will uphold the will of the people of California.

“If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges. Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It’s called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California—if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat—then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state’s right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote.

“Despite egregious court rulings like this one, there is nonetheless an unprecedented effort going on across the nation of Christians uniting for sustained prayer, for revival, awakening and deliverance. I encourage everyone to join me in this effort and go to 4040prayer.com for more information.” 

National Organization for Marriage:

"Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman."

"Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple - there isn't!" added Brown.

"The 'trial' in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people's right to vote for marriage," stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

"Gay marriage groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, and Equality California will, no doubt, be congratulating themselves over this "victory" today in San Francisco. However, even they know that Judge Walker's decision is only temporary. For the past 20 years, gay marriage groups have fought to avoid cases filed in federal court for one good reason - they will eventually lose. But these groups do not have control of the Schwarzenegger v. Perry case, which is being litigated by two egomaniacal lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies). So while they congratulate themselves over their victory before their home-town judge today, let's not lose sight of the fact that this case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed--and if the Supreme Court fails, Congress has the final say. The rights of millions of voters in states from Wisconsin to Florida, from Maine to California, are at stake in this ruling; NOM is confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the basic civil rights of millions of American voters to define marriage as one man and one woman," noted Gallagher.

Robert George - American Principles Project:

“Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. “In striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance—the definition and meaning of marriage itself—that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.”

“As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand.”

Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to invalidate California Proposition 8, which by vote of the people of California restored the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife after California courts had re-defined marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

“The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,” George said. “It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children—and society as a whole—by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.

“We are talking about the right to define what marriage is, not about who can or cannot take part. Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges.”

“Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,” concluded Dr. George.

Newt Gingrich:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Syndicate content

Tony Perkins Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Friday 02/01/2013, 1:20pm
The Religious Right is mobilizing against Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Defense Secretary, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is saying exactly what they want to hear. In an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council yesterday, Rubio suggested that if Hagel is successfully confirmed then countries like Iran and Syria may consider going to war against Israel, which will “end up pulling us into an armed conflict in that region.” Rubio: Israel’s enemies look for daylight of any kind in order to move forward on actions. Just today we are reminded of that, there... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 01/31/2013, 4:20pm
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council once again warned that incidents of child abuse will rise if the Boy Scouts end their national prohibition on gay members. Yesterday on his radio show, Perkins said that people are gay as “the result of abuse” and “trauma” in their life. “With an open door policy,” Perkins said, child abuse “can only get worse. So that could lead to these experiences and trauma for young boys that could lead them into that lifestyle.” Listen: Perkins: I don’t think the vast majority of those who are involved... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 01/31/2013, 1:00pm
For decades, the Right has attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton with attacks ranging from the disturbing (killing people) to the bizarre (killing cats). But after serving four years as Secretary of State, Clinton is leaving office with sky-high approval ratings. Before she steps down on Friday, we decided to look back on some of the most extreme and befuddling accusations she has faced from the far-right during her term as the nation’s top diplomat. 1. Clinton Engineered Benghazi Cover-Up While the official report on the U.S. mission in Benghazi found multiple security and management... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 01/30/2013, 5:55pm
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has joined American Family Association’s Buster Wilson in linking the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to the military’s suicide rate. Discussing the Pentagon’s new policy on allowing women to serve in combat units yesterday on his radio program, Perkins said that the Obama administration’s work in “driving Christianity out [and] putting homosexuality in” are “adding additional stress” that leads to a higher rate of suicide. Perkins cited no evidence to back up his claim, but as with his... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 01/30/2013, 5:05pm
In an interview yesterday with John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins alleged that the Boy Scouts of America will “throw the door open” to “sexual predators” by lifting their national ban on gay members and will face more child molestation lawsuits as a result. Stemberger warned that Boy Scouts will now have members who “promote this behavior and promote their personal sexuality.” Perkins: The national board released about 15,000 pages of documentation on sexual predators and what had taken... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 01/29/2013, 2:12pm
On his radio program on Friday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins added his voice to the Religious Right’s collective outrage over the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to serve in combat positions. The move, Perkins warned, will decrease morale and deter volunteers to the point that “we will have to reinstate the draft.” I spoke with Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma earlier today about this. He is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he is probably going to be joining me next week on the program. We talked about it and he says... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 01/28/2013, 6:35pm
After news reports came out today that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may drop its national policy banning openly gay members in favor of “passing any decisions on gay membership to the local level,” outrage among Religious Right activists has just begun. For example, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer suggested the move would allow Jerry Sandusky-like pedophiles to become troop leaders: Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd followed suit. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which launched a boycott of UPS after the company stopped donating to the... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 01/24/2013, 6:50pm
The Christian conservative magazine WORLD notes that while abortion is illegal in South Korea, abortion rates there are “double the U.S. rate.” As we’ve said before, abortion rates tend to be higher in countries where it is criminalized.  Tomorrow, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul and Tony Perkins will speak at the March for Life [PDF], while Speaker John Boehner will send in a video message.  New Mexico Republicans want to prosecute rape survivors who terminate the pregnancy with a felony charge of “tampering with evidence.” ... MORE >