Civil Rights

Right Wing Leftovers

  • The following sentence appeared in an FRC fundraising email opposing the DISCLOSE Act and I have no idea what it is supposed to mean: "Too often, such tactics are used to intimidate donors. We saw this in the sixties during the civil rights struggles." 
  • Mike Huckabee is now a daily talk show host.
  • Tom Tancredo and his massive ego have decided to run for Governor in Colorado.
  • Newt Gingrich will decide by early next year whether he is going to run for president. I can hardly wait.
  • Joseph Farah says Tea Party activists cannot listen to those who advocate focusing the movement solely on economic issues.
  • Peter LaBarbera appears to be launching a one-man boycott of McDonalds.
  • Chuck Norris has written part one of series on Obama's U.S. assassination program. I guarantee you that part two will claim Obama is going to start killing conservatives.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Al Mohler, via Twitter: "In recent days I have seen evidence of tremendous activity among Jehovah's Witnesses & Mormons in our area. Are we as committed as they are?"

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Ralph Reed says reports of the Religious Right's death are greatly exaggerated. Uh ... duh.
  • Tom Tancredo issues a rather amazing threat.
  • Norm Coleman for RNC Chair?
  • Hooray, the anti-choice "Freedom Ride for the Unborn" gets underway this weekend.
  • There is so much to mock in this OneNewsNow article that I don't even know where to start.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Gary Bauer: "Sherrod’s speech is a perfect example of the corrupting influence of so-called 'social justice' that demonizes wealth and promotes socialism under the guise of civil rights. Worse, her speech is another example of left-wing activists attributing political differences to racism."

Kagan: A Fake John Roberts, A Radical Homosexualist, and a Sign of The End Times

As the questioning in Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing finally gets underway, right-wing groups are busy releasing statements and reports claiming she is everything from a "clear and present danger to the Constitution" to a sign of the end times.

The Judicial Crisis Network's first day write-up is particularly confusing, as they seem convinced that Kagan is trying to "disguise herself as the next John Roberts" 

The Senate Judiciary Committee just concluded the first day of Elena Kagan's hearings to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. Our summary of Day 1: She may not be a Constitutionalist, but she sure plays one on TV.

As we expected, Kagan followed in Justice Sotomayor's footsteps and disguised herself as the next John Roberts, and Democratic Senators did their best to help her hide from her record of extreme activism on abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, and the scope of government power. According to Kagan, "what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint." In the immortal words of The Who, "Don't get fooled again."

Seeing as it was John Roberts who "disguised" himself as a umpire who would just call balls and strikes and then, once confirmed, revealed himself to be a blatant judicial activist, that is a pretty ironic criticism for JCN to level.

But at least the JCN's complaints are at least coherent, unlike those of Gordon Klingenschmitt:

Chaplain Klingenschmitt has contracted with a team of investigative journalists including Brian Camenker, Amy Contrada and Peter LaBarbera to investigate and report breaking news about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

While serving as Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan's administration demanded and forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to cover sex-change operations as an "equal right" paid benefit, harming gender-confused students, as confirmed in 2006 and 2008 by Harvard Crimson newspaper articles.

Kagan also offered sympathetic ear to lesbian group Lambda's Transgender Task Force demand to force all women to share public bathrooms and locker-rooms with cross-dressing men, which is now part of Harvard's dormitory policy, according to the report.

"This is further proof Elena Kagan cannot be trusted to impartially rule on Obamacare or bathroom bills like ENDA, since she believes sin is a Constitutional right," said Chaplain Klingenschmitt, "but rights come from God, who never grants the right to sin."

Because if anything is going to clarify these confirmation hearings, is a report written by a bunch of militantly anti-gay activists like Klingenschmitt, Camenker, and LaBarbera ... and now that is exactly what we have:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights." Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.

Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.

Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.

There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.

But that is actually quite reasonable compared to this statement from Tim LaHaye and Craig Parshall claiming that Kagan "presents a danger as old as the book of Genesis" and that her confirmation could be a sign of the End Times:

First, if she becomes a Supreme Court justice, she could be the all-important fifth vote in favor of interpreting our Constitution, not according to the vision of our Founding Fathers, but from an international law standpoint, a concept that would have seemed treasonous to our Founders. Three justices on the Court have already relied on foreign law in their opinions: Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg. Recently-installed justice Sotomayor has praised Ruth Bader Ginsberg's penchant for international law, so we can assume she will be a legal globalist as well. Five justices create a majority and with Kagan on board they could begin radically steering us away from view of the Constitution that honors our Judeo-Christian heritage and founding.

Second, if this happens, it will usher America into a new age of global law. With Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, international legal standards could well be imposed on Americans by the High Court's legal globalists, even without the Senate approving a specific international treaty. In our new novel, Edge of Apocalypse, we show how this trend might create a modern-day legal nightmare for conscientious Christians. We need only to turn to Genesis chapter 11 to see how God opposed the ancient attempt at global unification: the Lord declared the tragic result that would follow if a centralized group of fallen men were to consolidate an unlimited, unrestrained power over the planet.

Keep your eyes on the Supreme Court's view of global law. It could be one of the most telling 'signs of the times.'

The Company That FRC Keeps

A few months back, retired General John Sheehan generated outrage when he blamed the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica on gay Dutch troops

In July 1995 Bosnian Serb forces overran the Bosnian Muslim enclave under the protection of Dutch UN peacekeepers and killed 8,000 Muslim males, making the event a traumatic national disgrace for the Dutch.

Following recent remarks from Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, that Europeans had gone soft, Sheehan argued that changes after the end of the cold war had reduced Europe's appetite for combat.

"They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military – that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war," he said.

"The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since world war two."

He added that the Dutch chief of staff had told him that having gay soldiers at Srebrenica had sapped morale and contributed to the disaster.

So what does he do for a follow-up?  Pen a joint op-ed with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins opposing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, of course:

Men and women should be allowed to serve in the military only if their character and conduct can help the U.S. armed forces achieve its mission. In multiple studies over the past 16 years, the addition of open homosexuality into the close quarters and tightly knit units of our military was predicted to add tension, not build unit cohesion.

“Unit cohesion” is essential to the success of the U.S. military. Respect for and loyalty and commitment to one another, to the point of a willingness to die for your buddy, is the single greatest imperative in any military force.

Yet homosexuality carries with it profound behavioral implications. Sexual attraction among members of the same sex — living, exercising, fighting and training alongside one another in the closest of quarters — could devastate morale, foster heightened interpersonal tension and lead to division among those who, more than virtually any other group in society, need to act as one.

...

In addition, the medical implications of Obama’s proposal are compelling. According to data released last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gay and bisexual men are 50 times more likely to have HIV than heterosexual men.

This would be devastating for military resources already stretched thin, and it has pronounced implications for battlefield blood transfusions.

This proposal is not about bigotry. Race is a superficial and benign element of one’s humanness, while homosexuality is a matter of behavior.

Homosexuality is not about civil rights but conduct detrimental to the discipline, trust and combat readiness of what has been — and still is — the world’s finest military.

If we want to keep it that way, we should not permit openly practicing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military.

David Barton Should Start Taking His Own Advice

Not too long ago, I received an email from someone demanding to know why I constantly referred to David Barton of WallBuilders as a "pseudo-historian" instead of a "historian," given that he has copious original documents to back of his assertions. 

I wrote back to explain that I call Barton a "pseudo-historian" not because he gets his history factually wrong (though he does that, too) but because he uses his history selectively to present a warped and biased view designed specifically to bolster his right-wing political agenda.

Whereas historians examine past events in order to present a coherent and comprehensive explanation of those event, Barton filters history through his own narrow ideology and highlights only those things that support his overall conservative political agenda.

I actually wrote a report about this tactic several years back that examined Barton's "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White" DVD, in which he recounted the Democratic Party's historical hostility to African Americans and insinuated throughout that similarly racist views are still held by the party today. Barton ran through a litany of Democratic sins - ranging from slavery to Jim Crow to segregation to the Ku Klux Klan - while praising the Republican Party as the party of abolition and civil rights ... until his history lesson suddenly ended after the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

Barton made absolutely no mention of the political transformation that overtook the country following the passage of this legislation or the rise of the Republican Party’s “Southern Strategy.” Instead, it simply concluded with Barton telling his audience that African Americans cannot be bound blindly to one party or the other, but must cast their votes based on the “standard of biblical righteousness … the principles of Christianity … and an awareness that voters will answer to God for their vote."

I also posted a video containing excerpts from the DVD to demonstrate exactly how Barton misleadingly uses this history to support the Republican Party:

So imagine my surprise when I saw this quote from Barton praising the new textbook standards in Texas (which, not insignificantly, he helped to draft):

Defenders of the new social studies standards just passed by the Texas SBOE say it will encourage students to go back to the Constitution and First Amendment to learn about religious freedom. WallBuilders founder and president David Barton was among the six advisers the Board brought in to help rewrite the standards.

"You should present history has it happened -- the good, the bad, the ugly; the right, the left, the center; the anything else that is out there," argues the Christian historian. "And I think that's the final product that we got, despite all the media clamor to the otherwise. When you just read the standards, they're extremely balanced, extremely fair, and extremely thorough."

Presenting a balanced, fair, and thorough look at history is exactly the opposite of what Barton does, which is precisely why he has recently become Glenn Beck's go-to historian.  Incidentially, Chris Rodda has a great new piece up debunking Barton's favorite shtick of pulling out a rare Bible printed in 1782 by Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken and claiming that it was printed by Congress for the use of schools.  Among all the other useful information the piece contains is evidence Barton's ties to Beck are really starting to pay off, at least in terms of book sales:

Needless to say, Beck and his audience are just eating this stuff up. Barton's appearances on Beck's show have propelled his fifteen-year-old book of historical hogwash, Original Intent, to bestseller status, reaching as high as #6 on Amazon. Right now, as I sit here writing this post, this masterpiece of historical revisionism is ludicrously, and alarmingly, holding the #1 spot in the category of "Constitutional Law."

Backwell: Paul a Victim of a "High Tech Lynching"

Ken Blackwell has come running to Rand Paul's defense, desperately trying to explain away Paul's post-primary claims that he didn't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the idea of the government combating discrimination in private enterprises in general.

Or at least that seems to be Blackwell's goal, though it is hard to say as his "defense" is utterly incoherent:

[Rand Paul] a grilling from one end of the chattering class to the other about his supposed opposition to the great Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is a fact that he stumbled in some of his answers to questions about individual titles of that act. Dr. Paul was not alive when the act was debated in front of the whole country in 1964. He needs to bone up on his history.

But the high tech lynching that is taking place now is of a piece with what the liberal media put Clarence Thomas through in 1991. Because Judge Thomas is an original construction jurist, he was seen as a threat by liberal activists. Because Justice Thomas is black, he is vilified by leftists who believe that all minorities must support their left wing causes.

I have literally no idea what that is supposed to mean ... and it only gets worse, as this is the best "defense" of Paul that Blackwell was able to come up with:

Dr. Paul is an opthalmologist. He is expert on astigmatism. What we can clearly see is the moral astigmatism of the left. For example: As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted not once but repeatedly against giving civil rights protection to newborns who survived abortion attempts. Many of these newborns were black. We know that the abortion license has produced a shockingly disparate impact in the black community. The rate of abortion is 3:1, black-to-white.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the three post-Civil War amendments (along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth) that deserve to be regarded as a Magna Carta for black Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment says that all persons “born in the United States” are citizens of the United States and of the states in which they reside.

This clear intent of the framers did not matter to state senator Obama. He voted against his state’s version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Was Obama hauled before media tribunals to explain his radical position? Not in the least. The liberal media--which views Obama as “a sort of God” (in the words of Newsweek’s Evan Thomas)--not only did not grill him on this shockingly radical position, they actively covered up his voting record.

You can see the moral astigmatism in the premises of all these liberal interrogators of Rand Paul.

Again, what relevance this is supposed to have to the statements made by Paul is utterly beyond me. As is Blackwell's conclusion that "Paul needs to learn history" simply so he can "avoid 'gotcha' journalists like Rachel Maddow" but that he doesn't need to do that by "reading most U.S. history textbooks" which take a "grim and oppressive view" of America's past.

Blackwell then claims that is was "conservative Republicans [who] joined with liberal Democrats to pass the great Civil Rights Act of 1964" (huh?) and that "the liberal media is trying to sandblast Ev Dirksen’s name from the Senate Office Building named for him" (double huh?):

We can’t let them do it. And helping Rand Paul is one way to stop the left from re-writing history.

Normally, when faced with a column full of falsehoods like this, I'd attempt to set the record straight ... but in this case, Blackwell has written a piece so fundamentally incoherent as to make any such effort absolutely impossible.

Right Wing Round-Up

  • David Weigel: From the 'N-word' to the Washington Times.
  • TPM: Libertarians On Paul's Civil Rights Stance: 'Very Reasonable'.
  • Adam Serwer: The Hard Part Of Freedom.
  • Michael Gerson: Palin, Dobson must repudiate Rand Paul or accept his extremism.
  • Think Progress: Paul Calls White House Pressure On BP ‘Un-American,’ Says That ‘Sometimes Accidents Happen’.
  • Evan Hurst: Fundies Wigging Out Over Ellen DeGeneres Picking “Man’s Song” For “Girl Contestant” on Idol.
  • Steve Benen: When Newt Compares Americans to Nazis.
  • Wonk Room: Even Rep. Mike Pence Didn’t Know Why Conservative Latino Group Honored Him With An Award.
  • Finally, just remember that if you ever start to think Glenn Beck just can't get any crazier, he'll inevitably prove you wrong:

Rand Paul, The Right Wing, and the Republican Establishment

On Tuesday, Rand Paul shocked the Republican establishment by winning the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky.

On Wednesday, Paul shocked everybody by suggesting that he doesn't really like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and thinks that the government has no business fighting discrimination in private enterprises.

Not surprisingly, Republican Senators are not particularly eager to come rushing to Paul's defense, for which they are being criticized by right-wing activists like the Family Research Council's Tom McClusky:

Where the NRSC comes back into play is in how quickly its chairman, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), threw Rand Paul under the bus. Instead of talking to the candidate directly, or not commenting at all until he did, the Texas Senator told Politico “I don’t know what he means by that. I support non-discrimination of people, so I would need to talk to him to see what precisely his concerns were.” Translation: “I’m not a racist, but Rand Paul might be.” Not exactly strong support for a candidate you are supposed to be supporting now that he has won his primary. It is very likely the Republicans will pick up a few Senate seats this year, and even more likely two of those seats will be candidates the NRSC did not initially support, Mr. Paul and Mr. Rubio. Despite any victories the Senate Republicans might see it will definitely be time for new leadership at the NRSC prior to the 2012 elections. In that year Senate Republicans have an even larger chance of gaining the majority – but only if they play it smarter than they have been so far.

Interestingly, Paul doesn't seem to consider himself a Republican candidate so much as he does a Tea Party candidate, telling CBN's David Brody that he has no intention of blindly supporting the GOP and is instead focused on representing and unifying the Tea Party movement so that it can change the Republican Party:

Many people can be a Tea Party candidate but I think in my case it sort of fits the bill very well. I’ve never run for office, never been elected to office and I really and part of the movement in the sense that from the very beginning I went to all their meetings and many people thought that I just had the vote from the beginning. You have to earn the Tea Party vote. I interviewed with every one of the different committees in the Tea Party and they will ask you: will you be a rubber stamp for the Republican Party and that’s not a good thing because they say sometimes the Republican Party is wrong.

...

They do need a Tea Party platform and so I say lets coalesce it into some specific things and these are things I want to run on so when the primary is over and we run in the fall I don’t want to run away from the Tea Party I want to define what the tea party is.

If you go around Kentucky every tea party is by city and sometimes by county and sometimes counties have two of them and sometimes they’re not talking so it will be a job and I’m hoping since I’ve been all around the state and met everyone that I can be a conduit for bringing some of them together and I’ve been suggesting for weeks now lets have a Kentucky Tea Party Convention and try to join together and talk about a platform and I don’t see this as outside the Republican Party. I see this as an influence that can be influential within the Republican Party.

You know, it's hard to see why the Republican establishment should come rushing to defend Paul when Paul considers himself to be a Tea Party candidate on a mission to do away with the Republican establishment.

Religifying The Tea Party Movement

We've noted before how, on a national level, the Tea Party movement has been more than happy to allow the Religious Right to participate while openly rejecting their social agenda. In essence, the Tea Party movement's position has been that if the Religious Right wants to sign on to their smaller government/fiscal responsibility agenda, they are welcome to do so, but shouldn't expect Tea Party activists to return the favor.

But on a local level, it has been someone of a different story, as Religious Right activists have been regularly participating in Tea Party rallies, which is creating a weird dynamic whereby Tea Party rallies are starting to look more and more like Religious Right rallies:

It was a different kind of venue for the South Atlanta Tea Party. The grassroots group sponsored its first pastors breakfast May 12 at the Tyrone Depot. Speakers at the breakfast included Ken Fletcher of the Alliance Defense Fund and Gary DeMar of American Vision.

Topics at the prayer breakfast included the threats to religious freedom and the persecution of the church, restoring the church to its Biblical foundations and America’s Christian heritage.

“We felt like we should do a breakfast, though we didn’t know what would come of it,” organizer Claudia Eisenberg said. “But it was a great thing and it was successful. We invited 100 pastors and 54 showed up.”

Eisenberg commenting later said she felt such a venue was appropriate for the pro-American, pro-freedom, pro-Constitution tea party movement.

“I feel like there is a sleeping giant in our country. And it’s the church. The church was silent when prayer was removed from our schools. The white churches were silent during the civil rights movement. And the church has been largely silent for much of the time on abortion and gay marriage. I think the government has silenced the churches by making them file as tax-exempt organizations,” Eisenberg said.

“So today, either the churches don’t want to speak out or can’t speak out. My hope was that the speakers could help awaken the sleeping giant. (Fletcher and DeMar) let us know that you don’t have to live in fear when speaking out,” Eisenberg said.

Fellow South Atlanta Tea Party organizer Cindy Fallon after the meeting agreed that inviting Fletcher and DeMar to speak to ministers was appropriate for the grassroots organization.

“We wanted to alert churches and pastors about the slide to socialism,” said Fallon. “The speeches were informative and the feedback was positive. Hopefully, events like this will get people in churches more involved so they can be more knowledgeable. We need to promote churches and the Bible in the affairs of this nation.”

We are very familiar with this sort of talk ... just not coming from so-called Tea Party activists.

Harry Jackson's Religious Test: Kagan Must Be Defeated Because She Is Not a Protestant

We are not supposed to have religious tests for public office in the United States, but apparently reverse religious test are okay.  How else do you explain Harry Jackson declaring that Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court must be defeated specifically because she is not a Protestant, claiming that a Court made up only of Catholics and Jews is fundamentally unable to "create an atmosphere for true justice": 

The nomination of Elena Kagan for Supreme Court should outrage evangelical Protestants. The reason is not simply her legal perspective, her lack of judicial experience, or her personal view of faith and religious liberties. Devout Christians of all denominations and races are in danger of experiencing what blacks in the late 1960s and early 1970s called “institutional racism” or “institutional discrimination.” Blacks of that era saw that there was a pervasive attitude that prevented black achievement among the national leadership, who ran many of our nation’s most influential institutions. Civil rights laws had been enacted but the effect of those laws was nullified by the personal prejudices of high-ranking gatekeepers - everyone from judges to CEOs, policeman to professors, and other individuals who exercised personal power over our lives.

Many evangelicals and other Protestants felt like they woke up and discovered they were suddenly deemed the “bad guys” by many segments of our society. The cultural swing by a militant anti-faith minority is certainly not Elena Kagan or President Obama’s fault. Nonetheless, the composition of America’s highest court will determine our national spirit, values, and destiny. Therefore, the faith of the prospective judicial candidate matters.

...

Although Catholics are well represented on the Supreme Court, there will likely be important cases that will need the insight of unbiased evangelicals to create an atmosphere for true justice. Failure of the faith community to engage in the world of politics and processes like the selection of judges could hurt the Christian community decades from now.

Protestants must take action today! We should return to the foundations that have made the US great. Further, we must not just act on behalf of our needs, alone. We must lead the country back to the safety of its guiding principles. At the same time, despite our personal views, we must act on behalf of the entire American family – religious and secular alike. Further, we must continue to encourage religious diversity and even atheists to remain true to their beliefs as it relates to the political process. The repression of minority points of view is un-American and petty.

Therefore, let your senators know that you want them to stand up for the rights of the American faith community. Specifically, your senators must be urged to stand against the appointment of Elena Kagan. A failure to act at this critical juncture will be tantamount to surrendering to the enemies of faith and personal freedom.

 

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has been forced to issue a statement trying to explain why his office paid George Rekers $120,000 for his anti-gay testimony.
  • Marco Rubio sits down for an interview with Human Events.
  • Frank Pavone says his "pro-life freedom rides" are just like the civil rights movement: "In that case, it was skin color. Today, it's the age of the child -- the fact that the child is still in the womb. But it's the same fundamental mistake that we think that we can exclude some human beings."
  • I'm starting to think that the GOP is being run by Bartleby, the Scrivener.
  • You know, if the National Day of Prayer is going to go on again next year even with government recognition, then why is the Right so miffed? Nobody is trying to stop them from holding events.
  • Finally, don't let the United Nations destroy Mother's Day.

NOM, FRC, Harry Jackson Continue to Fight Against Marriage In DC

The Family Research Council has sent out an action alert announcing an anti-marriage equality rally tomorrow ahead of oral arguments at the D.C. Court of Appeals:

The battle for marriage in D.C. and America rages, and God's people have a voice in the outcome. As participating members of the Stand4MarriageDC executive committee I would like to ask you to join the citizens of the District of Columbia and our nation's capital to rally and show your support for marriage between one man and one woman.

Here are the details:

WHAT: "Let the People Vote" Marriage Hearing/Rally and Press Event

WHEN: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM

WHERE: District of Columbia Court of Appeals (430 E St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001)

WHO: Stand4MarriageDC Coalition

Did you know that the citizens of D.C. have the same authority as the D.C. City Council to create a law? Well that's what the court hearing on the "Marriage Initiative of 2009" and rally is about!

Once again, thank you for your continued concern and engagement on the D.C. Marriage issue. We need your help in showing support and shining the spotlight on same-sex "marriage" in the District of Columbia. Please join me, members of The Stand4MarriageDC Coalition (Bishop Harry Jackson), and local pastors for a rally and press event on this important issue. While some will fill the seats of the courtroom, others will fill the sidewalks to show support of marriage!

Your participation in this rally is important as we join to defend marriage. You can help reverse the course of marriage re-definition in our nation's capital and America by coming out and supporting the effort. A little bit of effort will go a long way in defending marriage.

We need you there! Wear white to show unity! Join us tomorrow -- Tuesday May 4th, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. for the D.C. Court's hearing on the "Marriage Initiative of 2009" to determine if the people have a right to vote on Marriage in D.C. The en banc oral arguments will be heard in the ceremonial courtroom of the D.C. Court of Appeals. So all nine judges will be present to hear the case and plea to "Let the People Vote"!

If you believe the citizens of D.C. should be allowed to vote on the redefinition of marriage, then we need you there!

The National Organization for Marriage will be joining them:

Join us Tuesday at 9am in front of the DC Court of Appeals as we rally for marriage!

On Tuesday morning, the Court of Appeals will be hearing the appeal in the DC Marriage Initiative case. As the media covers the arguments inside, NOM is joining Bishop Harry Jackson (also lead plaintiff in the case) and the Stand4Marriage DC team in calling on all marriage supporters to come together in a public display of support for marriage and for the rights of DC voters.

Join us for this historic event, as our coalition comes together across all racial, religious, and party lines to affirm the importance of marriage. Help support the African-American pastors and voters who have taken the lead in this important civil rights struggle to protect marriage and the voting rights of DC citizens. Over the past months, NOM has been contributing to Democratic city council candidates willing to stand for marriage, and on Tuesday Democrats and Republicans alike will come together in common cause to protect marriage.

Please join us!

We will gather at 9am outside the DC Court of Appeals (430 E St. NW), just four blocks west of Union Station and around the corner from the Judiciary Square Metro station. I will be joining Bishop Jackson and others in speaking at the event, as we fight to protect marriage in our nation's capital.

DC Mayor's Office Blames Ex-Gay Certificate of Appreciation On "Staff-Level Error"

Yesterday, Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, was bragging that she had been awarded a certificate of appreciation from Washington D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty:

The government of the District of Columbia has awarded a certificate of appreciation to Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX). The certificate, signed by D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty, recognizes Griggs for her "dedication, commitment, and outstanding contributions as Executive Director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays."

...

PFOX has been instrumental in ensuring civil rights to all District of Columbia residents. PFOX's lawsuit against the D.C. Office of Human Rights last year resulted in ex-gays being recognized as a protected class under D.C.'s Human Rights Act. The Office of Human Rights had refused to extend the sexual orientation non-discrimination law to former homosexuals. The court held that the Human Rights Act does not require immutable characteristics for sexual orientation status so that ex-gays are entitled to the same legal protections that gays currently enjoy.

Obviously, that announcement was rather confusing, given Fenty's support for marriage equality and the LGBT community in general.  And today his office has disavowed the certificate, calling it a mistake which can be attributed to a "staff-level error":

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty apologized Thursday over his decision to issue a certificate of appreciation honoring the leader of the ex-gay movement, which believes homosexuals can be rehabilitated.

Fenty’s statement comes one day after local and national gay-rights leaders demanded to know why Fenty honored Regina Griggs, executive director of the Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays.

Mafara Hobson, a Fenty spokeswoman, called Griggs’ award a “staff-level error.”

“We apologize for the error as it runs contrary to the mayor’s vision of a more open and inclusive city,” Hobson said. “The mayor is proud of his ardent support of the LGBT community.”

The Newest Right Wing Crusade: Defund the SPLC!

It is no secret that Religious Right groups do not particularly like the Southern Poverty Law Center, especially ever since it started keeping a list of "Active Anti-Gay Groups" that includes groups like the Family Research Institute, Watchmen on the Walls, and Traditional Values Coalition. 

MassResistance is also featured on the list, and is now fighting back, claiming that the SPLC secretly wrote the Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism that was released last year: 

So now we find out that the Southern Poverty Law Center, the leftist front group that has called so many good Americans "haters", authored the infamous Dept. of Homeland Security report last year (“Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”).

MassResistance links to this article by Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, who asserts that this is the case: 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) hates us. Who? According to several reports they have released over the past year, “us” is the following: One concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; antagonism toward the Obama Administration (that it’s racist); criticism of free trade programs like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership; anti-abortion; oppose same-sex marriage; believe in the “end times;” stock pile food, ammunition and weapons; oppose illegal immigration; opposition to the new world order; opposition to the United Nations; opposition to global governance; fear of Communist regimes; opposition to loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations; opposition to loss of US prestige; use of the Internet (or alternative media) to express these ideas. Did this list miss anyone reading it? You are all haters and potential terrorists.

The above list was published in a report issued last year by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entitled, “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The report, while issued by the DHS, was in fact, written by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which labels itself as a civil rights organization which “tracks the hate movement.” Ironically, SPLC is becoming one of the biggest purveyors of hate and discord in the nation. Worse, SPLC’s reports are often so inaccurate and misleading that they would be simply laughable if they didn’t have the support of the Federal government.

DeWeese provides no evidence or documentation for the allegation that the SPLC drafted the DHS report ... but that doesn't matter, as the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is already accepting it as truth and is therefore demanding that Congress must "defund the Southern Poverty Law Center":

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an extremely liberal group that compiles a list of hate groups in America. But according to their latest list, if you advocate for traditional biblical values, you are lumped together with violent neo-Nazis and skinheads.

The Law Center just named forty leaders of the conservative movements as extremists including pastors and elected members of Congress. This is slanderous and outrageous, yet many people take this unscientific, biased list seriously.

Even the Federal Government, that gives the Law Center millions of your tax dollars, uses the biased information to shape national policy. Last year’s discredited report from the Department of Homeland Security on Right-Wing Extremism was actually written by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

We must stop the biased practices and the hateful campaign against Christians and urge Congress to defund the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Where the CADC got the idea that the Federal Government "gives the [SPLC] millions of your tax dollars" is anybody's guess, since they cite absolutely nothing to support the claim.

Bishop E.W. Jackson Vows To Rescue Black Americans From the "Coalition of the Godless"

Bishop E.W. Jackson is, even by right-wing standards, something of a fringe figure. He seems to have some ties to Rick Scarborough and appeared on Janet Porter's radio program not too long ago.

He is also Founder of Exodus Faith Ministries and last year founded something called Staying True to America's National Destiny [S.T.A.N.D] and was among the participants at the right-wing anti-hate crimes rally last year, where he railed against the legislation as the result of a "virulent strain of anti-Christian bigotry and hatred."

But today, Jackson announced his most grandiose plan yet with the formation of the STAND AMERICA PAC though which he is "declaring political war on the Democrat Party and the liberal Congressional Black Caucus" as part of an effort to end the deception that is causing the black community to support the "Coalition of the godless": 

Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., retired attorney and Harvard Law graduate, is declaring political war on the Democrat Party and the liberal Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Bishop Jackson, having fought for pro-life and pro-family causes for 25 years, has entered fully into the political arena by forming a political action committee. The top priority of STAND AMERICA PAC, formed on April 1, 2010, is to recruit and support conservative black candidates to run against liberals in Congressional Black Caucus districts.

Says Bishop Jackson, "The black community has been deceived into voting for liberal black leadership which does not reflect their values." Jackson's strategy is to have black voters register as independents and vote their Christian values. He argues that the black voter is a conservative church going person. "This was shown by the large black vote for Proposition 8 to ban homosexual marriage in California. The black legislative leaders supported it, but the black voters did not. What does that tell us? These leaders are out of touch with the people. It is time to vote them out."

According to Bishop Jackson, CBC members insult the black community by "conflating the black struggle for civil rights with the demands of radical homosexuals for marriage and other special rights." He calls it "one of the most preposterous frauds ever perpetrated on a people." In a recent speech before a black Christian men's group in Williamsburg, Virginia, Bishop Jackson said, "Homosexuals have no history of slavery, Jim Crow, lynching or being legally defined as 2/3 of a person. I have known people who have been delivered from homosexuality. I have never known anyone to be delivered from being black. The Democrat Party's commitment to abortion, homosexuality and moral relativism is an affront to the values of the black Christian community. It is a 'Coalition of the godless.' Black Christians do not belong in a 'coalition of the godless,' and should not vote for those who are."

Bishop Jackson says the time has ended when getting elected to Congress in the black community requires no more than being a Democrat and play the race card. He says, "We must demand that representatives of the black community start respecting the values of the people who elect them. STAND AMERICA PAC has been formed to make sure that happens."

The Three Faces Of Andrea Lafferty

You have to marvel at the noticeable difference in content and tone that Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition adopts depending upon her audience.

Take, for instance, this op-ed she has in Roll Call opposing ENDA

Among other things, ENDA will make “gender identity” a protected minority, and states, local governments and businesses with more than 15 employees will be forced to recognize it as such.

Most importantly, every public school in America will not be able to discriminate in hiring transgender teachers, and it will be illegal to reassign them from the classroom.

Written by Chai Feldblum, an Obama recess appointee to the body that will enforce ENDA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the law will allow for all kinds of unwanted, though perhaps not unintended, consequences. Under ENDA, state and local governments will be forced to recognize gender identity as a protected minority status. Section 3 of the bill defines the status as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics or an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” Cross-dressers and those who have had surgical operations to alter their gender would then share the same protections as minorities. Expanding the scope of traditionally protected minorities to these groups will engender all sorts of problems.

By TVC's standards, this language is downright reasonable - I mean, there is not even one mention of "she-males" or even any sort of attack on transgendered women as a "surgically mutilated man who is pretending to be a woman and pushing a political agenda."

Now, compare that to this letter [PDF] TVC sent opposing Marisa Demeo's nomination to the DC Superior Court:

Marisa Demeo is far out of the mainstream in her beliefs, statements and activism. Her role as an activist with the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund is troublesome to say the least.

...

As an open, radical lesbian, Demeo has openly condemned the effort to amend our Constitution to protect marriage as a one-man, one-woman union. Demeo supports gay marriage, claiming it is a constitutional right. She also claims that LGBT individuals are equal to racial minorities and can claim protection as minorities under our civil rights laws ... Demeo's views are out of step with the beliefs of most Americans on the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

As a DC Superior Court Judge, Demeo would be in a key position to undermine our national
security and destroy traditional marriage through her edicts ... Demeo's radical lesbianism, anti-marriage, anti-national security views are dangerous to our nation.

In this case, the letter was sent to Senators so Lafferty didn't have to worry too much about appearing to be offensively hostile to gays to a general audience, so the tone was more in line with what one would expect from her regarding fearmongering about how Demeo's "radical lesbianism" is a threat to our national security.

Finally, compare all of that to what Lafferty is like when she's speaking to a right-wing audience and doesn't have to worry about presenting herself as reasonable:

What are those "isms" and "philias"? You can be aroused by stumps of amputees. And we brought that up during the hate crimes thing because what if you have an employee working at the VA and someone has just come back from Iraq and they have this orientation. You can't fire them. What about the family that's upset that they've been aroused by their family member? It's disgusting. And it's tragic for the victim.

Um, men that want to rub their bodies up and down women. That's on the list, that might become a protected class.

Fecal matter. Their involvement with fecal matter. Or urine. Transvestism. The list goes on, I'm not naming all of them. Children. Animals. And so we really need to draw a line in the sand.

This is the real Lafferty and the root of her real opposition to ENDA ... and for some reason, Roll Call thought it made sense to give her op-ed space to try and present it in a more reasonable-sounding manner.

Freedom Rides for the Unborn

Whenever the issue of achieving full equality for gays and lesbians in America comes up, especially as it relates to marriage equality, someone from the Right inevitably plays the "Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue" card:

Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.

But you know what is apparently so much like the civil rights movement that is warrants it own reenactment?  Abortion:

The pro-life movement is all about freedom. That’s why Priests for Life, with the leadership of our Pastoral Associate Dr. Alveda King, is launching “Freedom Rides” for the unborn to galvanize pro-life activity across the country.

During the Civil Rights movement, the “Freedom Rides” constituted a distinctive moment of resolve and unity. The Supreme Court, in its 1960 decision Boynton vs. Virginia, had outlawed segregation in bus terminals and restaurants serving interstate travelers. So the following spring, thirteen people – seven African-Americans and six whites – decided to travel by bus from Washington DC to New Orleans to test the enforcement of that Supreme Court decision.

Along the way, particularly in Alabama, they encountered opposition and violence from those who did not want desegregation. But having been brutally attacked, and some lying with wounds in hospital beds, the “Freedom Riders” vowed that the journey would continue. That’s when others joined in, and the initial Freedom Ride became 60 rides across Southern states in the summer of 1961, with some 450 riders participating. And by the fall of that same year, the government issued orders for the enforcement of desegregation at the bus terminals.

The Civil Rights movement and the Pro-Life movement have the same heart and soul: a longing for equal justice for everyone, based on the inherent dignity of every human life. That’s why, when Dr. Alveda King first walked with me at the annual March for Life and I asked her, “Does this remind you of the marches in the civil rights movement?” she declared, “Fr. Frank, this is the civil rights movement!” Both movements are movements of freedom.

It is therefore time for Freedom Rides for the unborn. The pro-life movement is more ready than ever to proclaim freedom…

Freedom from the lies and the deceit that allow abortion to continue…
Freedom from the fear of speaking up and taking action for the unborn…
Freedom from the shame and guilt of past involvement in abortion, so that those called to speak up and share their testimonies may do so as people who are “Silent No More”…
Freedom from the political oppression that tramples on human rights and denies equality before the law…
Freedom from violence and death itself.

People will be invited to participate in the Freedom Rides themselves. The bus rides are a symbol of the journey we are on, of the fellowship we share with each other, and of the fact that we are a movement. Major events in cities along the bus routes will be held, in which all the different facets of the pro-life movement will be invited to participate.

Among the scheduled participants are Alveda King, Frank Pavone, Clennard Childress, and Day Gardner.

Way To Go, Focus: You've Made LaBarbera Proud

Last month, the Southern Poverty Law Center placed Peter LaBarbera's Americans for Truth About Homosexuality on its list of anti-gay hate sites.

Yesterday, Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery personally assured AFT's LaBarbera that Focus would absolutely oppose any gay Supreme Court nominee, an abrupt about-face after Focus said last year that a nominee's orientation was "not even pertinent."

And for that, Focus on the Family is now being praised by LaBarbera for siding with all those good Christians who know that gays are "driven to justify their errant lifestyle" and therefore "have a mark against their character that absolutely should be considered as a potential source of bias, and even anti-religious animus":

Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), issued the following statement in response to Focus on the Family’s clarification that it would not support a homosexual nominee to the Supreme Court:

Focus on the Family has wisely corrected statements by two of its staffers who stated last year that the “sexual orientation” of judicial nominees – i.e., their homosexuality – would not disqualify them to sit on the nation’s highest court.

...

Americans For Truth, like other pro-family groups that honor the authority of Scripture, believes that homosexuality is best understood not as an “identity” but as a behavior – one that is wrong, destructive, and unnatural. Thankfully, homosexual conduct also is changeable (2 Corinthians 5:17), as evinced by the lives of countless former homosexual men and ex-lesbians living happy lives.

Supposed “gay” identity is a modern construct that undermines moral truth and people’s responsibility for their own conduct. Men and women (proudly) practicing homosexuality often are driven to justify their errant lifestyle. Even those practicing homosexuality in secret often work to promote its acceptance.

This is why people practicing homosexuality often make bad judges: even if they don’t admit it, due to their sexual self-interest, they will have a hard time fairly adjudicating cases involving homosexuality. If a judge personally views opponents of homosexuality as bigots, haters, or “homophobes” – the former terms falsely equate the outworking of faith with prejudice and malice; the latter cynically equates morality with irrational fear – will he or she be able to deal with them justly? Will homosexual judges be diligent in protecting Americans’ constitutional religious liberties – i.e., to disagree with homosexuality? Or will they – like lesbian law professor and newly-appointed EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum – decide that, in most cases, “gay rights” considerations should supersede the freedom of people to act based on their moral opposition to homosexuality?

Homosexuality is not special and it should be treated like any other sexual sin. Homosexuality (like gender confusion) does not deserve “civil rights” status. Judicial nominees who practice it – or worse, practice it proudly – have a mark against their character that absolutely should be considered as a potential source of bias, and even anti-religious animus, in their future rulings.

So congratulations to Focus on receiving the accolades from a SPLC-designated hate site. 

Remember not too long ago how we were being told that Focus under new president Jim Daly was going to have a different, more conciliatory tone? When is that supposed to start?

AFA's Fischer Calls For An End to Muslim Immigration And The Deportation of All Muslims In the US

A few months ago, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer declared that the time had come to throw all Muslims out of the US military and prevent any others from every serving again.

So I guess it should not come as a surprise that Fisher is now calling for the deportation of all Muslims in the US along with a blanket ban on the immigration of Muslims into this country:

[T]he most compassionate thing we can do for Americans is to bring a halt to the immigration of Muslims into the U.S. This will protect our national security and preserve our national identity, culture, ideals and values. Muslims, by custom and religion, are simply unwilling to integrate into cultures with Western values and it is folly to pretend otherwise. In fact, they remain dedicated to subjecting all of America to sharia law and are working ceaselessly until that day of Islamic imposition comes.

The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?

In other words, simple Judeo-Christian compassion dictates a restriction and repatriation policy with regard to Muslim immigration into the U.S.

I guess that I should point out that Fischer is listed as a confirmed speaker [PDF] at next week's "Awakening 2010" Freedom Federation summit where VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will be delivering a keynote address.

The ENDA Is Near!

One of the points we made repeatedly in the posts we wrote on the Religious Right's militant opposition to expanding hate crimes legislation to include "sexual orientation" was that the Right never once complained during the decade when "religion" and "race" received federal protections.  It wasn't until protections for sexual orientation were added that they started screaming about supposed "special rights" and claiming that the legislation amounted to an unconstitutional threat to their religious liberty that would lead to pastors being tossed into jail. 

Of course, it has now been more than five months since this legislation was signed into a law and not a single pastor or religious leader has seen their religious freedom impacted in any way. 

Everything the Right said about expanding hate crimes protections was false and designed to scare people into opposing it ... and now groups like the Family Research Council are putting the same strategy to work in generating opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and raise money:

Do you think it's right for liberals running the government to ... 

  • Force a Christian bookstore to hire a man . . . who dresses in women's clothing?
  • Force your child's religious school to hire homosexual instructors?
  • Force your employer to fire or censure you for what they call "anti-gay harassment" . . . for simply keeping a Bible on your desk?

That's the nightmare you could face if the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Congress passes the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

And that's why it must be exposed.  

... 

You are standing in the way of the Left's immoral vision for America. And laws like ENDA are intended for one thing-to silence your "obsolete" Christian morality and tear down all boundaries to unhealthy sexual behavior.

By sustaining your prayers and generous support of FRC, you're not only investing in the long-term health of faith, family, and freedom in America . . .

You're also strengthening the leading social conservative organization in Washington, D.C. Our respected team has decades of experience developing and blocking legislation, voicing the truth in and through the media, and mobilizing Americans.

Please join with other loyal FRC supporters in our campaign to expose ENDA by sending a generous, tax-deductible donation

 Of course, just as with hate crimes, the Right's claims are totally false:

What ENDA Does

  • Extends federal employment discrimination protections currently provided based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability to sexual orientation and gender identity
  • Prohibits public and private employers, employment agencies and labor unions from using an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation
  • Provides for the same procedures, and similar, but somewhat more limited, remedies as are permitted under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act
  • Applies to Congress and the federal government, as well as employees of state and local governments

What ENDA Does Not Do

  • Cover businesses with fewer than 15 employees
  • Apply to religious organizations
  • Apply to the uniformed members of the armed forces (the bill doesn't affect the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy)
  • Allow for quotas or preferential treatment based on sexual orientation or gender identity
  • Allow a "disparate impact" claim similar to the one available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, an employer is not required to justify a neutral practice that may have a statistically disparate impact on individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
  • Allow the imposition of affirmative action for a violation of ENDA
  • Allow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect statistics on sexual orientation or gender identity or compel employers to collect such statistics.
  • Apply retroactively

ENDA does not "force" anyone to hire or fire anyone, it simply extends anti-discrimination protections in the workplace to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Just as with hate crimes, anti-discrimination protections for things like religion have existed for decades and the Religious Right never once complained about the fact that Christians were receiving "special rights" ... but now that there are efforts to ensure that sexual orientation receives similar protections, it is proof that liberals are out to silence Christians.

Syndicate content

Civil Rights Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Monday 05/16/2011, 6:26pm
Mother Jones: The Man Behind Citizens United Is Just Getting Started. The Public Eye: Lively's Lies: A Profile of Scott Lively. Crooks & Liars: After Feigned Outrage Over 'Cop Killer' Rapper, Huckabee Brings in Ted Nugent Preceding His 'Big Announcement.' Alan Colmes: Ron Paul Echoes Rand: Would Have Voted Against 1964 Civil Rights Act. Igor Volsky @ Wonk Room: New York’s Anti-Gay Marriage Rally: 'Those Who Practice Such Things Are Worthy Of Death.' Good As You: NOM/Diaz Rally Speaker Says 'Breaking Traditional Marriage' Will Bring 'Judgement And... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 05/06/2011, 12:28pm
Clenard Childress Jr. is a fervent anti-choice leader who believes that legal abortion is intended to bring about black genocide and Obama wants to destroy the African American community. He founded BlackGenocide.org and is a leader in rabidly anti-choice groups like the Genocide Awareness Project and the Life Education And Resource Network, and helped organize Priests for Life’s “Freedom Rides” against reproductive rights. But Childress isn’t only a militant opponent of abortion-rights, as he penned a column today attacking gays and lesbians and gay rights. Childress... MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 05/05/2011, 12:14pm
  The Daily Show - David Barton Pt. 1 Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook With no academic credentials as a historian, David Barton toldThe Daily Show host Jon Stewart that his involvement in editing textbooks around the country was proof that he is a respected and esteemed historian. However, his work with textbooks if anything reveals his blatant partisanship and pseudo-scholarship. As Mariah Blake writes in The Washington Monthly, Barton’s Christian nation mythology was indeed just one aspect of his role shaping the... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 05/04/2011, 3:20pm
Religious Right and pro-corporate groups failed today to block President Obama’s nominee for U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, John McConnell, from receiving an up-or-down vote in the Senate. The Senate invoked cloture on McConnell’s nomination in a 63-33 vote, defeating the filibuster against McConnell. Filibusters against district court judges are extremely rare—only a handful of District Court nominees have ever faced cloture votes, and none have ever been blocked—and many Republicans previously vowed they would never filibuster a judicial nominee. Today’... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 04/26/2011, 9:28am
Michele Bachmann Media: Included in the Time 100 (Star Tribune, 4/21). 2012: Claims she will reach a decision on presidential bid by June (LA Times, 4/20).  Haley Barbour 2012: Decides against running for president (Politico, 4/25).  Newt Gingrich Energy: Received $300,000 from ethanol lobbying group (Des Moines Register, 4/25). Immigration: Balances outreach to Hispanic voters with GOP's increasing nativism (Politico, 4/22).  Mike Huckabee South Carolina: Leads other candidates among South Carolina Republicans in new poll (The Ticket, 4/25). Media: War of words with... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 04/11/2011, 1:10pm
At the Freedom Federation’s The Awakening 2011, right-wing activists unleashed their venom at the gay community and supporters of gay rights at the “Religious Liberty and the LGBT Agenda” panel. Robert Knight, a columnist for the Washington Times who is the executive director of the far-right American Civil Rights Union, maintained that gay congressional staffers represent one of the most difficult hurdles for opponents of LGBT equality. According to Knight, who has also worked for a wide range of conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council,... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 04/04/2011, 2:58pm
Newly elected Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is set to address the Faith & Freedom Conference and Strategy Briefing in June, the hallmark event of Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition. Sen. Paul and his father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, both appear to be testing the waters for a presidential bid. The younger Paul recently address the Iowa Republican Party’s “Night of the Rising Stars” and the Iowa Campaign for Freedom; he also told The Hill that he feels ready to run for president even though he has only held elected office since January. Paul has also helped... MORE