Elections

• Lynda Waddington @ Iowa Independent: Vander Plaats denies involvement in anti-gay seminars.
• Scott Keyes @ Think Progress: Tim Pawlenty Refuses To Say Whether Gays Should Be Allowed To Serve In The Military At All.
• Americablog: Gay CPAC attendee GOProud belittles Pawlenty over DADT stance.
• Julie Ingersoll @ Religion Dispatches: Barton: Founders Intended to Ban Abortion.
• Amanda Marcotte @ RH Reality Check: Why Give Lila Rose's Dishonesty Mainstream Media Attention?
• Ryan J. Reilly @ TPM: Peter King To Critics: 'Political Correctness' Won't Stop Muslim Radicalization Hearings.
• County Fair: O'Reilly's Obama Interview Just 53 Million Viewers Short Of TV Record.

The feud between Glenn Beck and William Kristol over Beck’s bizarre and paranoid ranting about the crisis in Egypt has become increasingly bitter. Beck prophesizes an alliance between the political left and an Islamic caliphate that he claims will takes over Europe and the Middle East. Beck believes that progressives and Islamists “stand together” as “one nation” and predicts that the anti-Mubarak uprising will engender a pernicious socialist-Islamist-Chinese union will try to takeover the world. Conservative writer William Kristol responded in his Weekly Standard column that as Beck “lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.”

Beck, in his own signature obsessive way, has struck back at Kristol, earning further criticism from conservative writers including the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. But not all neoconservatives are defending Kristol, who unlike Beck supports Egypt’s democracy movement. One major backer of Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy is rushing to Beck’s defense. David Horowitz has a long-held belief that an axis between radical Islamists and progressive activists and university professors will attempt to topple the US government (among others), a claim embraced by other right-wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Cliff Kincaid, and Robert Spencer. Even Gateway Pundit is trying to use Code Pink’s support for the anti-Mubarak protests to tie the group to the Muslim Brotherhood.

On his blog, Horowitz writes that Kristol should immediately apologize to Beck and “should be embarrassed by his own ignorance of the agendas of both American radicals and their jihadist allies.” He continues:

Bill Kristol is entitled to his optimism about democratic revolutions in the Islamic world. Perhaps the elections in Egypt will turn out better than those in Gaza where Hamas now rules a terrorist state; Iraq, which has instituted an Islamic Republic; Lebanon, where Hezbollah now rules a terrorist state; and Afghanistan, which is a kleptocracy wooing the terrorist theocracy in Iran. What he should not be doing as a conservative leader is demonizing Glenn Beck, who has done more to educate Americans about the unholy alliance between the secular left and the Islamic jihadists than anyone else. Kristol needs to apologize to Beck for comparing him — outrageously — to the conspiracist Robert Welch, and should be embarrassed by his own ignorance of the agendas of both American radicals and their jihadist allies. At this point in time, such ignorance is not only inexcusable but dangerous.

Previously, Horowitz even tried to link right-wing boogeyman Bill Ayres to the Muslim Brothers:

We saw the unholy alliance at work in the Hamas inspired campaign to break the Gaza blockade. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were leaders of the American wing of the Hamas coalition against the blockade and went to Gaza to meet with Hamas shortly before the terrorist Flotilla was intercepted by Israeli forces. The Gaza blockade was jointly instituted by Israel and Egypt – by the Mubarak regime in Egypt. Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood’s army. If the Muslim Brotherhood topples the Mubarak regime, Hamas’s war against the Jews will be immeasureably [sic] strengthened. The radical left in America and internationally is committed to Hamas and its genocidal campaign against the Jews and its general war against the United States. That is why the fate of Egypt in this crisis resonates for all of us.

In another sign that Rick Santorum is gearing up for a presidential bid, the former Pennsylvania Senator hired two top Republican strategists from Iowa. CNN reports that Nick Ryan and Jill Latham “will serve as advisers to his political action committee, America's Foundation.” Ryan and Latham both originally worked at the Concordia Group, a lobbyist firm that primarily worked to help the ethanol industry. Ryan is also a founder of the American Future Fund (AFF), a shadowy political group that was accused of violating campaign finance law.

The New York Times found the AFF targeted Democrats that were involved in setting federal agriculture policy, a key concern of Ryan’s Concordia Groups clients. The AFF’s political director also worked in the Concordia Group, and the AFF paid Ryan’s firm $300,000 for consulting fees.

But the AFF’s ads were not focused on agriculture, and instead chastised Democrats for their votes for health care reform, clean energy legislation, or for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House.

In one of the most shameless ads of the election, the AFF attacked Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) for saying that New York’s zoning officials should decide the fate of the planned Park51 Islamic community center as part of its smear against the First Amendment rights of Muslims.

Watch:

• PFAW: Americans Unite Against Corporate Influence in Elections on Anniversary of Supreme Court Decision.
   
• Julie Ingersoll @ Religion Dispatches: Theocracy: “What Would Be So Bad About It?”
   
• Sam Stein @ Huffington Post: Bachmann To Give Her Own State Of The Union Rebuttal.
   
• Good As You: A first look at Maryland's 'protect marriage' team: Gays 'hate the Lord', 'defy God'.
   
• Jillian Rayfield @ TPM: Louisiana Locals Train To Protect Their Churches With Guns.
   
• Sarah Pavlus @ County Fair: Caller: Dr. Laura Is Lying About Me.

The battle over marriage equality in Iowa is heating up as Republicans in the State House are moving forward with plans to ban gay marriage and civil unions, an attempt to reverse a unanimous 2009 State Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality. To amend the constitution, “an amendment would require approval by state lawmakers during two legislative sessions, and then approval by voters at the ballot box.” Encouraged by major Republican gains in the midterm elections and the removal of three pro-equality Justices through retention votes, Iowa Republicans have emphasized restrictions on gay-rights and reproductive-rights in their legislative agenda, and Religious Right leader Bob Vander Plaats is pressing for the removal of the entire Supreme Court.

Vander Plaats’s new organization, The Family Leader, recently blasted pro-equality faith leaders in an alert message that questions their faith, stating: “167 ‘religious’ leaders signed a letter delivered to the Iowa Legislature saying that people of faith support homosexual ‘marriage.’ Don’t stay silent while others speak for you and misrepresnt [sic] God.” The group calls on pastors to sign an alternative petition which describes “homosexual behavior” as “immoral and sinful” and “harmful both to the individuals who choose to participate in it and the society that chooses to accept it.”

The mobilization of pastors by The Family Leader comes at a time when, according to the Des Moines Register, Republican leaders are trying to prohibit not only gay marriage but also other forms of legal rights for gay couples such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Register reports:

House Republicans will introduce legislation this week to begin the process to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.

That prospect raised alarm with civil rights advocates, who said it would legalize discrimination.

Republicans, who took control of the House in the Nov. 2 elections, had pledged to pass a measure this legislative session that would eventually allow Iowans a vote on same-sex marriage. But the resolution they've prepared is more sweeping than that, a move intended to help place finality on the issue of the legality of same-sex unions, said Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, who is the lead sponsor of House Joint Resolution 6.

"I think the biggest issue is that if that (a same-sex marriage ban) is carried forward, and then Iowa does civil unions and recognizes that as a substitute status, then, from what I've seen in other states," people would come to consider same-sex civil unions as equal to marriage, Alons said.

As of late Wednesday, no Democrats had signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. Fifty-six of the 60 House Republicans are listed as co-sponsors. The measure is expected to easily pass the House, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to block consideration of a same-sex marriage amendment in that chamber.

The resolution says: "Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state."

Des Moines attorney James Benzoni said such an amendment would run counter to the intent of Iowa laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"The problem you're going to have is that it allows prejudice," Benzoni said. "It's going to open the door now for discrimination, for bullying, for treating people as second-class citizens."

The wording raised questions about whether private companies and governments in Iowa could still extend benefits to domestic partners. State government, for example, provides domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples.

…

Those who agree with the Iowa Supreme Court ruling have noted that same-sex couples have in previous years been shut out from hospital visitation and inheritance rights. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has listed more than 1,100 benefits the government provides to married couples.

The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of Des Moines, president of the NAACP State Conference for Iowa and Nebraska, has helped lead protests against same-sex marriage. He said Wednesday he agrees with the attempt to also keep domestic partnership or civil unions from gaining legal status.

Ratliff said he believes same-sex marriage further erodes the family, similar to the way that two-income families have eroded traditional nuclear families.

"I think there is an immediate consequence to gay marriage because people let their guard down in relation to what the word of God says," Ratliff said.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to Washington, DC's marriage equality law, much to the dismay of the Religious Right.

But if you thought that was going to be the end of the challenge, think again, as the National Organization for Marriage today announced that it will continue to fight it and expects the new GOP majority in the House to help them:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied an appeal by marriage defenders to the DC City Council’s implementation of same-sex marriage.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledged to continue to push for the right of District residents to vote on marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

“While we are disappointed that the US Supreme Court did not decide to take the case challenging the denial of the civil rights of District residents to vote on the definition of marriage, we are by no means done pressing this issue. With a pro-marriage majority in the new Congress we will explore a number of avenues to force the District to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to voters. As the four Court of Appeal justices who dissented in this case made clear, the District of Columbia owes it to the voters to allow them to decide the critical issue of marriage which has existed since before there was a District of Columbia. In order to curry favor with the same-sex marriage special interest group, members of the City Council have turned their backs on their own constituents. It is ironic that these same council members champion the right of District votes to be heard in national elections but then deny those same residents the right to vote on the definition of marriage. We will press our belief with Congress that the constitution of the District requires that voters be allowed to decide this important issue.”

While New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor John Lynch survived his reelection race despite a barrage of attack ads from anti-equality groups like the National Organization for Marriage, Republicans won veto-proof majorities in both the State House and Senate. As a result, Religious Right groups such as the Family Research Council have committed to do “whatever it takes” to repeal New Hampshire’s law legalizing gay marriage, which passed in 2009 and went into effect last year. In 2009, Religious Right groups succeeded in overturning a Maine law legalizing gay marriage that was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor by flooding the state with anti-gay activists and misleading ads, and now they have set their sights on New Hampshire. While the Republican majorities in both chambers have the votes to pass a repeal bill, it will require 2/3 majorities to override the governor’s veto. The Concord Monitor reports on how organizations are gearing-up for a major battle over the future of marriage equality in the Granite State:

The lead organizations in the fight are likely to be Cornerstone Action and New Hampshire Freedom to Marry. Cornerstone is affiliated with a national organization - CitizenLink (formerly Focus on the Family) - which could support state efforts. But both sides are also attracting attention from other groups.

On the side of repealing gay marriage, the National Organization for Marriage spent nearly $1.5 million on campaign ads against Lynch. The day after the November election, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown said in a press release that the organization is "poised to start taking back territory where (gay marriage) was wrongly enacted in places like New Hampshire and Iowa. That will be the next battleground, and we are confident of victory."

Brown said last week that the organization will continue to work closely with Cornerstone "to make sure that the wrong of forcing same-sex marriage on New Hampshire is corrected."

The Family Research Council also has a presence in New Hampshire, which it plans to continue. It contributed the legal maximum donation of $5,000 to Cornerstone's PAC during the elections. Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the group's policy wing, said the group has invested in making New Hampshire's Legislature more friendly to traditional marriage. "We don't want to see that go to waste," McClusky said.

…

How much money and effort will be poured into the New Hampshire campaign depends on what type of bill is ultimately proposed. In Maine, which held a statewide referendum that ultimately vetoed the state's gay marriage bill, local and national activists spent more than $6 million to sway public opinion.

The anti gay marriage group there, Stand for Marriage Maine, was led by a local pastor, Bob Emrich, and representatives from the Catholic Diocese in Maine and the National Organization for Marriage. It spent between $2 million and $3 million. The group hired the same public relations firm that worked on a California referendum and got help from the Family Research Council and Family Watch International. Emrich said the National Organization for Marriage was the largest financial contributor, donating around $1.5 million that helped with TV and radio ads, staff, mailings and public relations. The Family Research Council organized rallies and helped with communications and training activists.

…

For now, there are at least two proposed repeal bills in the Legislature and one constitutional amendment. Only the constitutional amendment has the potential to go on a statewide ballot, but not until 2012. Rep. David Bates, a Windham Republican who proposed two of the bills, said he anticipates moving forward with a repeal bill this session but perhaps not pursuing the constitutional amendment until 2012. A constitutional amendment would require a majority vote of 60 percent in the House and Senate, and a two-thirds' majority of the state's voters. The governor would not have a role.

Bates said it may not make sense to go ahead with a constitutional amendment this year, when it would not appear until 2012, and the goal of repealing gay marriage could be accomplished sooner by a law change. "This legislation is intended to restore the marriage law, to put it back where we were four years ago," Bates said.

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

Liberty University Law School Dean and Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver joined David Barton and Rick Green on WallBuilders Live to denounce Obama and the Justice Department for failing to win cases on Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), which a federal judge in Boston ruled unconstitutional in July. Staver believes that Obama’s record of supporting gay rights undermined government action to effectively defend DOMA, and Staver went on to attack Obama for extending a number of health benefits to same-sex partners of eligible federal employees. According to Staver, Obama’s support for such benefits displays his “radical, liberal policies” that he believes voters overwhelmingly oppose and rejected in the midterm election:

He’s writing these executive orders as though that is able to change law, it’s not able to change law. What Obama’s trying to do is use a sleight of hand, an under the table kind of approach, to in fact change the law through these executive orders. He’s acting as though the law’s on his side, that it would include benefits for homosexuality and transsexuals and others. So he is forcing that through the system even though the laws are to the contrary. This is exactly what ultimately resulted in this tidal wave against him on Tuesday during the midterm elections, his radicalism and his forced agenda on the American people despite the fact that the people of America reject those radical, liberal policies.

However, Staver would have difficulties reconciling his argument with polling: a September poll conducted by the Associated Press shows that 58% of Americans agree that “couples of the same sex [should] be entitled to the same government benefits as married couples of the opposite sex,” and 52% even support federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Staver may be using Barton’s tremendously flawed reading on how opposition to same-sex marriage impacted the midterm election, while in reality “only 1%” of voters said “same-sex marriage was the single most important issue.”

Barton’s co-host Rick Green goes on to laud Staver for his role in training Religious Right activists at the Law School of Liberty University, which was founded by the late Jerry Falwell, to use the “right Biblical worldview” to shape government, politics, and the courts:

What they’re doing in terms of raising up this next generation. Not only the lawyers graduating from Liberty Law School but think of how many more people with the right Biblical worldview coming through a school like that will want to go be the bureaucrats, and we always think of that word as a negative word but the Justice Department and all these places and all these folks that work there in the past mostly did not have that Biblical worldview because we discouraged young people from going into those arenas. But because of what Mat’s doing and other schools out there doing that kind of thing I think we’re gonna have a lot more people coming into government for good reasons.

Perhaps Green wants more appointees like Monica Goodling, the graduate of Rev. Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School, who drew attention for her Religious Right activism in the Bush Administration’s Justice Department. Goodling was implicated in the Bush White House’s drive to politicize the Justice Department and replace US Attorneys with partisan appointees. The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General “concluded that the evidence showed that Goodling violated both federal law and Department policy, and therefore committed misconduct, when she considered political or ideological affiliations in hiring decisions for candidates for career positions within the Department.” For example, Goodling fired a US Attorney as a result of rumors that she was a lesbian and denied a promotion to a prosecutor because his wife was a Democratic activist. While Goodling was not a graduate of Liberty, Regent University has the same goals of training young right wing activists for government roles to advance the Religious Right’s agenda.