military

The other day we noted how Lt. General Jerry Boykin has become the right-wing's expert of choice on all things Islam despite the fact that he believes that there is a plot underway by President Obama to take over America by creating an army of Brownshirts loyal only to him via passage of Health Care Reform:

So I guess it is no surprise that Boykin would show up on James Dobson's radio program today to give his expert opinion on "The Threat of Islamic Terrorism" where he asserted that Islam is not a religion and does not deserve First Amendment protections and that the Muslim Brotherhood is currently entering "phase four" of a five-phase plan to take over America:

Boykin: Islam is not a religion. Islam is a totalitarian way of life and it starts with a legal system call sharia law. It is then a financial system, it is a military system, it is a government system, I mean it's a geo-political system and that is hard for us to deal with, the fact that Islam is not a religion and does not deserve First Amendment protections.

In 2004, in Annandale, Virginia we discovered a false basement in a man's home there. It turns out he was the operations officer for the Muslim Brotherhood in America. They went through all of the things in this false basement and they discovered a five-phase plan to take over America. And as you look at the plan, and it's on the web, you'll see that they are in the latter stages of phase three and moving into phase four very quickly. And they've done this just since the early Sixties when they came to this country and it is difficult for Americans, for Westerners as a whole, to understand that Islam is not a religion.

The Muslim Brotherhood was started in 1928 in Cairo. They didn't do very well in the first decade, they only had about 800 members but then along came a guy named Adolf Hitler and Adolf Hitler began to fund the Muslim Brotherhood. That's when he made the arrangements with the Mufti in Jerusalem and that's why, during World War II, the Jews couldn't return to that area because Hitler was funding the Muslim Brotherhood to keep the Jews from coming back.

Dobson: So it's rooted in hatred for the Jews and for Israel and we have now our president and his administration dealing with, in some ways, surreptitiously with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and that works counter too our interests in Israel.

Boykin: That's right. And when you say you are going to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, you're saying I'm going to deal with al Qaeda, I'm going to deal with Hamas - these are spin-off terrorist organizations that are part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now I think as we look at the situation in Egypt today we need to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood is very much at the root of this thing.

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

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

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

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

Patrick Vaughn
General Counsel
American Family Association, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the CPAC panel on “How Political Correctness is Harming America’s Military,” Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness continued her campaign against gay and lesbian members of the armed forces serving openly and honorably, but she was upstaged by GOP congressional candidate Ilario Pantano, who insisted that America is meant to be a Christian nation and that the military must reflect biblical values.

Family Research Council head Tony Perkins has taken to the right wing website The Daily Caller for one last dig at CPAC for including GOProud in the gathering, claiming that GOProud’s support for marriage equality (on a state level) “is intrinsically illogical and defiant of rudimentary biology.” Perkins said that GOProud and “other homosexual activists” want “their sexual behavior to be actively affirmed in every sphere of the American experience,” and will ultimately “destroy the foundations of conservatism itself.” Perkins writes:

Finally, and most illustrative of our concerns, is the inclusion of organizations in the drafting of the CPAC agenda whose stated objective is to impose a radical redefinition of marriage on America. A few years ago it was the ACLU, and today it is a group that defines itself by its sexual affinity. Sadly, this makes it clear that CPAC has lost its way.

The inclusion of GOProud as not only an exhibitor but as a member of the planning committee indicates a fairly obvious effort to “mainstream” an organization whose commitment to overturning the historic prohibition on homosexuals in the military, the Defense of Marriage Act, and state laws against same-sex marriage is the reason for its existence.

…

The demand by GOProud and other homosexual activists to legalize homosexual marriage undermines the institution of marriage, in that it insists that consent and affection are the only two criteria for marriage. In doing so, GOProud joins with its liberal homosexual allies in opening the door for all manner of unions (polyamory and polygamy, for example) premised on the same criteria, and calls on conservatives to accept a definition of marriage that is intrinsically illogical and defiant of rudimentary biology.

…

Similarly, despite clear evidence confirming that homosexuality will erode unit cohesion and military readiness and repeated warnings by current members of the Joint Chiefs, respected retired military leaders, and — most importantly — service personnel serving in the field, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democratic leadership eked out legislation in the final days of the last Congress that repealed the prohibition on open homosexuality in the military.

This repeal was not based on the security needs of the nation but on a political agenda pursued aggressively by one of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party, and a sponsor of CPAC — homosexual activists who want their sexual behavior to be actively affirmed in every sphere of the American experience.

…

Any group that purports to be conservative should not attempt to destroy the foundations of conservatism itself, and we will not aid and abet such groups by partnering with them.

Attacking both marriage and the military is a blunt-edged assault on the two institutions that, with churches and synagogues, compose the superstructure of our national life. On them hang the future of our children, our economy, and our security. On these things, true conservatives must never waver nor compromise.

CitizenLink, the policy and advocacy arm of Focus on the Family, is calling on members to put pressure on the House GOP to implement their far-right goals. Despite the initial claims of House Republican leaders that they would concentrate their work on economic issues, the GOP leadership has embraced a litany of anti-choice bills along with legislation that aims to block the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and revoke marriage equality in Washington DC.

The group is now demanding Republicans pass harsh anti-choice bills that would cripple women’s health services, and also wants the GOP to rollback the rights of gays and lesbian: asking Republicans to repeal the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, block the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and protect the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Tom Minnery, the head of CitizenLink, previously called on the House Oversight Committee led by Darrell Issa (R-CA) to investigate the Department of Justice over their handling of successful challenges to DOMA.

According to CitizenLink’s petition, Republican leaders should:

1.) Eliminate government support and funding of abortion in any federal health care program, particularly the new health care law.

2.) Eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion seller, which received $363 million in government funding during fiscal year 2008.

3.) No new taxes or fees imposed on American families.

4.) Defend the free exercise of religion and speech by rejecting the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and repealing the Hate Crimes bill passed in 2009.

5.) Support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and demand that the Obama Administration uphold and defend DOMA.

6.) Reinstate the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and underlying federal law that affirms homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

With CPAC beginning tomorrow with the inclusion of GOProud, a group which represents gay conservatives, the American Principles Project is launching a last-ditch effort to discredit the conference and express their outrage over the participation of a group with gay and lesbian members. Even some conservatives planning to address CPAC, such as Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, and Colin Hanna of Let Freedom Ring, signed on to a “Conservatives for Unity” letter condemning GOProud’s involvement in CPAC. The letter “was signed by about two dozen leaders,” including Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council and Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, who both represent groups boycotting CPAC, and “argued that there can be no common ground between gay rights conservative activists and social-issues conservatives.”

The APP, which was founded by anti-gay marriage activist Robert George, was the first to demand a boycott of the American Conservative Union’s CPAC over GOProud’s inclusion, launched a new website, GetConservative.com.

The mission of GetConservative is to create a “unified” and “full power conservativism” that would leave out groups sympathetic to LGBT rights like GOProud. Religious Right organizations like the APP have also been angered by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’s call for a social issues “truce,” which they see as part of “an increasing trend among GOP elites to try to undermine social issues.”

For the APP, CPAC’s inclusion of GOProud was “slap in the face to social conservatives and an injury to conservatism as a whole,” and giving Daniels a speaking spot made matters even worse. According to their mission statement:

Get Conservative is an initiative of the American Principles Project (APP), an organization dedicated to upholding the fundamental principles on which this country was founded. During the 2010 election cycle, APP noticed an increasing trend among GOP elites to try to undermine social issues like traditional marriage, the right to life, and religious liberty and thereby quiet the voice (and influence) of social conservatives. In response to these efforts, the American Principles Project found itself with a new mission–to defend and promote social conservatism and be sure that it remains a vibrant part of the conservative movement.

When it became clear that the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) had joined the effort to marginalize social conservatives by allowing GOProud to be a prominent part of their 2011 event, APP led a boycott of CPAC to protest the inclusion of a group that actively opposes fundamental conservative principles (like the defense of traditional marriage). The point of the CPAC boycott was not to urge others not to attend, nor was it an effort to dictate who should be permitted to be part of the conference. The point of the boycott was to state unequivocally that for conservatism to have meaning, the fundamental principles of it (including the defense of traditional values) must be respected, and that to invite an organization that actively worked against one of those principles was a slap in the face to social conservatives and an injury to conservatism as a whole. The problem was then compounded when CPAC invited Mitch Daniels (who in 2010 famously called for a “truce” on social issues) to be the speaker at the Reagan dinner. This was an invitation that underscored the second-class status to which CPAC was assigning social issues and social conservatives.

But despite the furor that arose from the CPAC boycott, the American Principles Project remains committed to being part of a strong and vibrant conservative movement. This site challenges all conservatives to stand together and speak out in defense of social issues.

• 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.

CPAC boycotters, angered over the upcoming event’s inclusion of the gay conservative group GOProud, have taken out a full page ad in the right-wing Washington Times to ask, “What would Ronald Reagan think of CPAC today?”

Rick Scarborough’s Vision America was behind the ad which accused CPAC of “betraying conservative principles and threatening conservative unity by creating the false impression that gay activism is somehow compatible with conservativism” by allowing GOProud to be a participating organization:

The self-proclaimed gay Republicans support hate crime laws (which will be used to bludgeon the church) and oppose the Federal Defense of Marriage Amendment, without which judges will ultimately legislate homosexual “marriage”—making the natural family an endangered species.

Last year, GOProud advocated for homosexuals serving openly in the military, which will devastate our armed forced and sacrifice unit cohesion on the altar of “inclusiveness.”

Ask yourself: Would CPAC allow participation by the Democratic Socialists of America? Why is the free market an inviolable conservative principle, but not family values?

Would organizers invite George Soros to address the gathering? Then why associate with groups who share his worldview?

What does it profit us to gain tax cuts and lose the family—the foundation of a free society?

…

President Reagan used to say that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Sadly, that’s the way many conservatives increasingly feel about CPAC’s current direction.

…

In the war on the family, Judeo-Christian morality and authentic conservative principles, neutrality is impossible. We call for a return to first principles.

While the boycott movement has had some notable successes by pushing Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to decline to attend the conference, other Religious Right luminaries like Rick Santorum, Timothy Goeglein, Tom Minnery, and Phyllis Schlafly are still slated to address CPAC. In fact, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is giving the conference’s keynote address.

Notably, some of the most prominent groups boycotting CPAC have not signed on to Scarborough’s letter, including the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women For America, and the Media Research Center. The signatories include:

Mark Andrews, (Casino Watch)
Pastor Paul Blair, (Reclaiming America for Christ)
Susan Carleson, (American Civil Rights Union)
Brian Camenker, (MassResistance)
Mandi Campbell, (Liberty Center for Law and Policy)
Frank Cannon, (American Principles Project)
Chris Carmouche, (GrassTopsUSA)
Joseph Farah, (WorldNetDaily.com)
Don Feder, (Don Feder Associates)
Diane Gramley, (American Family Association of Pennsylvania)
Bishop EW Jackson Sr., (STAND America PAC)
Phillip Jauregui, (Judicial Action Group)
Gordon James Klingenschmitt, (Pray In Jesus Name)
Robert Knight, (American Civil Rights Union)
Mike and Cris Kurtz, (The USA Patriots)
Peter LaBarbera, (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality)
Shelli and David Manuel, (Resurrect America Project)
William J. Murray, (Religious Freedom Coalition)
Rev. Rick Scarborough, (Vision America)
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, (Traditional Values Coalition)
Sharon Slater, (Family Watch International)
Mat Staver, (Liberty Counsel)
Mike Valerio and Helen Valerio, Americans
Tim Wildmon, (American Family Association)

Elected to Congress last November, Missouri Republican Vicky Hartzler campaigned as both a Religious Right activist and as a Tea Party adherent. But while she literally wrote the book on how and why ultraconservative Christians should run for office, she has had trouble staying true to her anti-government Tea Party rhetoric— she has received hundreds of thousands of dollars of government farm subsidies and, during her campaign, couldn’t name any programs she would cut funding to other than “the Lady Bird Highway Beautification projects.”

In an interview on Sunday with The National Defense, Hartzler swore off any cuts to the Defense budget, denying that Defense costs have increased and claiming that Republicans in Congress already “passed $2.7 trillion in costs savings and cutting the budget.”

Spending on Defense actually outpaces all other discretionary spending programs combined, with estimated spending well over $708 billion in the 2011 fiscal year. In fact, defense spending is approaching 5% of US GDP and comprises about 44% of the global total of defense spending. And while Hartzler claims that “defense isn’t the area in our government where we have increased costs,” Laicie Olson of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation points out that in “inflation-adjusted dollars, the total U.S. defense budget has grown from $432 billion in fiscal 2001 to $720 billion in fiscal 2011, a real increase of approximately 67 percent.”

But perhaps even more outrageous is Hartzler’s that House have managed to cut $2.7 trillion from the budget since they took over as the majority in January. Her figure falls far short of the budget proposals by the GOP leadership, and the House Republicans’ Pledge to America is actually projected to significantly increase the deficit. While the congresswoman included the House’s symbolic vote to “repeal Obamacare” in her dramatic $2.7 trillion total, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing health care reform “would ratchet up the federal deficit by about $230 billion over the next decade.”

Listen to Hartzler laud the GOP’s budget policies while distorting defense spending and coming up with imaginary budget numbers:

Defense isn’t the area in our government where we have increased the costs; it’s in these other areas of government. So let’s look at those areas and cut there, and let’s keep a priority to our men and women who are fighting a war on two fronts. Now is not the time to even be talking about cuts in my view.

…

We’ve only had a limited amount of time to do things, but I feel good about the three weeks that we had what we’ve accomplished. We voted to change the way Washington works, or Congress works I should say, by first and foremost in the second or third day in session we voted to cut our own House budget by five percent, saving $35 million, as a sign to show the American people that we get it and we’re going to start with us. We know that families and businesses are having to tighten their belts, and we think Washington needs to as well.

And then we have passed $2.7 trillion in costs savings and cutting the budget. Every week we are going to be voting to cut government in some way so we have been doing that and we’re going to continue doing that. And so far, if you include repealing ‘Obamacare,’ that’s $2.7 trillion that we have saved. We are serious.