senate

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Rick Santorum defends his comment about Obama and abortion.
  • Ron Paul mulls running for the Senate.
  • Once again GOProud makes itself a laughingstock. 
  • Quote of the day from Bryan Fischer: "I submit that the president of the United States shares moral culpability for creating a climate in which this kind of Mayan-era butchery could take place. He too, just like Dr. Gosnell, has shown a 'disdain for the lives and health of ... infants.'"
  • Finally, Glenn Beck:

Iowa GOP Hopes to Ban Gay Marriage and Civil Unions as Vander Plaats Mobilizes Pastors

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.

Iowa GOP Hopes to Ban Gay Marriage and Civil Unions as Vander Plaats Mobilizes Pastors

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.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Gary Bauer says Sarah Palin's "blood libel" speech "very Reaganesque."
  • Bryan Fischer praises Tim Pawlenty for vowing to reinstate DADT.
  • John Thune is unmoved by the CPAC boycott and will still attend.
  • Kay Bailey Hutchison will not seek re-election ... and based on no evidence whatsoever, I am going to predict that Rick Green of Wallbuilders decides to make a run for her Senate seat.
  • I have to say that the people paying Harry Jackson to shill for energy interests are getting ripped off.
  • Norm Coleman, Jeb Bush and other Republicans launch the Hispanic Action Network to try and woo Hispanics over to the GOP.
  • Charisma offers a "Prophetic Look at the Tucson Tragedy" that you really need to read.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from David Boaz of the Cato Institute: "Twenty years from now, conservatives will deny they were ever anti-gay, just as they now have no memory of ever supporting discrimination against African-Americans or women."

NOM To Spend $100K Opposing Marriage in Rhode Island

In his inaugural address last week, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee declared his support for marriage equality in the state.

In response, the National Organization for Marriage's state affiliate has decided to launch a $100,000 ad campaign against him, claiming that Chafee is an "accidental governor" who has no mandate to "impose" marriage equality on the state:

“Lincoln Chafee got just 36% of the vote in the recent election, and fewer popular votes than the Cool Moose Party’s candidate for Lieutenant Governor,” said Christopher Plante, Executive Director of NOM-RI. “Our message is that getting 36% of the vote is no mandate to redefine the institution of marriage for all of Rhode Island society.”

Chafee signaled in his inaugural address last week that imposing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island is a top priority, and called on the legislature to move quickly to enact it. He opposes giving Rhode Islanders the right to vote on marriage, even though public opinion polls show that 80% of voters want the right to decide this issue themselves.

“80% of Rhode Islanders want the chance to vote on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have done,” the ad states. It calls on Rhode Islanders to call Chafee’s office, and that of House Speaker Fox and Senate President Paiva-Weed to express their views.

“In some ways, Lincoln Chafee is an accidental governor for Rhode Island, elected in the most unusual of circumstances,” Plante said. “Yet he expects legislators to follow him off the cliff in pursuit of same-sex marriage. This is what happened in neighboring New Hampshire and before that in Maine. In both those states, politicians who followed their so-called leaders have been replaced with pro-marriage legislators and same-sex marriage has been repealed, or is on its way to being repealed. In Iowa, three judges who voted to impose same-sex marriage were summarily thrown out of office by voters. If legislators in Rhode Island wish to redefine marriage, they should put this issue on the ballot where the people themselves can decide if they wish to abandon one of the most fundamental institutions of society.”

Potential Bachmann Presidential Bid Makes the Religious Right Giddy, Elicits Reagan Comparisons

After the news broke that Rep. Michele Bachmann was considering a bid for the Presidency, the Minnesota Congresswoman immediately found strong support in the GOP’s far-right base. While much attention has been paid to her leadership role in the Tea Party, as she chairs both the Tea Party and the Constitutional Conservative Caucuses, Bachmann is also one of the Religious Right’s most beloved members of Congress. She built her political career in Minnesota as a fierce opponent of the teaching of evolution, reproductive rights, and LGBT equality. Once elected to the House of Representatives, she became a Religious Right leader on a national level, finding favor with figures like David Barton, Rick Scarborough, Tony Perkins, and Lou Engle, along with a whole litany of far-right organizations and radical religious groups. Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones details the Congresswoman’s close ties to the Dominionist movement, which believes that fundamentalist Christians must run the government to hasten the end-times, most notably Coral Ridge Ministries.

Today, Bachmann received a ringing endorsement from Matt Barber, the Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs and a ferociously anti-gay leader, who calls her “Reagan in pumps.” Barber praises Bachmann for being the most conservative member of the House, and believes her mix of Tea Party bravado and Religious Right fundamentalism makes her the perfect presidential contender that would “mop the floor” with Obama:

From the instant his fruitful eight-year reign ended, Republicans have pined for the next Ronald Reagan. To date, no man has succeeded in filling the conservative standard-bearer's legendary boots. Well, maybe it's time to swap boots for pumps. Could he be a she?

Sarah Palin, you say? Perhaps, but there's actually another outspoken, attractive, fearlessly conservative Tea Party favorite firing up the center-right grass roots: Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican.

Forget a Senate run. The buzz inside the Beltway is that Mrs. Bachmann may be looking to add a woman's touch to the Oval Office (beyond just sprucing up its temporary occupant's eyesore decor). Her spokesman, Doug Sachtleben, has confirmed to media that the congresswoman is considering a potential presidential run, saying: "Nothing's off the table."



Mrs. Bachmann has been a stalwart in advocating on behalf of constitutional conservatism. She's chairman of the HouseTea Party Caucus and has put her money where her mouth is, voting consistently in Congress to limit the size and scope of government, fortify national security and protect life, liberty and the natural family. National Journal rated Mrs. Bachmann among the most conservative members of Congress in 2009.

Moreover, as with Reagan, it's principle over popularity with the feminine firebrand. She's evidently indifferent to what the moonbat media and the larger loony left think about her. This is an indispensable quality in a leader "We the People" can get behind. She's a maverick's maverick, not the media's.

Still, Mrs. Bachmann is not afraid to shake things up in her own Republican Party. What she lacks in physical stature, she makes up for in - to borrow one of the mainstream media's favorite terms - gravitas. If it takes a step stool to kick a moderate Republican in name only's tail into line, the counterestablishment lawmaker will climb it and kick it.

True, a House member hasn't been elected president since James Garfield, and a woman never has. But as Barack Obama, our first black president, might tell you: We live in an age of firsts.

And speaking of Mr. Obama: In the unlikely event that you could untether him from his tele-prompter binky long enough to debate Mrs. Bachmann, I'd bet my share of the stimulus money that she'd mop the floor with him.

Will she run? Could she win? It remains to be seen. But one thing's for sure: The fireworks leading up to the 2012 presidential election will be something to behold. Based on her penchant for telling it like it is, her existing widespread Tea Party support and her fast-growing national popularity, if this intelligent, principled, bomb-dropping bombshell were to run, I suspect her campaign might just catch fire.

In addition, Larry Klayman, the former founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is also excited about a Bachmann presidential bid. Writing for WorldNetDaily, Klayman believes that Bachmann is the best Republican suited to take on Obama’s “socialist, anti-white and anti-Judeo-Christian policies” and is “the next Ronald Reagan”:

Still smug that it can retain the White House in 2012, even after President Obama has alienated most of the nation with his socialist, anti-white and anti-Judeo-Christian policies, the left has set out to destroy the one truly principled politician who can unite conservatives, libertarians, independents, tea partiers, people of faith and any American who truly believes in constrained government, fiscal and individual responsibility, a strong national defense, life, and yes, freedom under God! Her name is Michele Bachmann, and she is a congresswoman from Minnesota.



Last Thursday, as I was flying to New York City on Virgin America (it would be nice if the nation and the media were still "Virgin America" and not run by whores) to attend a proceeding before the New York Supreme Court in my case against the Ground Zero mosque and its terrorist-connected Imam Rauf, I tuned in Matthews, Obermann, Maddow and O'Donnell on the airline's in-flight television system. Not surprisingly, Matthews, with his characteristic nasty sneer, immediately mocked Michele's having been recently appointed to the House Intelligence Committee, implying that she is stupid and has no "intelligence." Then, as he did in a low-class way on election night 2010, Matthews mocked her again for having previously challenged the media to discuss the anti-American rhetoric that spews from many Democratic members of Congress, not to mention the Mullah in Chief himself, Barack Hussein Obama. To add insult to injury, Matthews then also insinuated that Michele is mentally ill, saying that she always has that weird gaze when she comes on camera. And, if this were not enough, Matthews and his leftist media guests boasted that Michele cannot be trusted and, with the age-old stereotype for "chatty women," would surely reveal national security secrets once on the House Intelligence Committee. They also made fun of her Christian beliefs. All in all, it was a disgusting display.



The lesson is simple. Michele Bachmann, because she is a principled anti-establishment conservative who not only talks the talk but walks the walk, is a real threat to the establishment left in particular. An attractive anti-feminist woman who is a Christian and is not afraid to be part of our revolution to take Washington apart at the seams, she could well be the next president of the United States. And, not only is the left scared, so much so that it will disgrace itself by mocking a highly intelligent, well-educated and experienced straight female who believes in individual freedom and the vision of our Founding Fathers, it is catatonic. This in and of itself tells us who the next Ronald Reagan could well be.

FRC Seeks Supernatural Intervention To Reverse America's Embrace of "Perverted Sexual Practices"

The Family Research Council's most recent prayer team update declares that America is under God's judgment because of its embrace of "perverted sexual practices" and urges members to ask God to "supernaturally intervene" to reverse steps toward gay equality:

America's moral decline is directly related to His people's public and private acts of disobedience that dishonor God and His eternal laws. Scripture warns that the shedding of innocent blood (e.g., abortion) and perverted sexual practices are abominations that call for Biblical judgment. America is now under such judgment. Can we find our way back? God has only one prescription.

...

With the traditional American family in near statistical free fall, homosexual activists persist in their destructive agenda. Backslapping and self congratulation at President Obama's signing of the law to overturn DADT left Biblically informed onlookers aghast. Obama and Vice President Biden say they are rethinking their position on homosexual "marriage." Yet God's plan for marriage, family, and natural sexuality is essential to the survival of our nation. Dr. Pat Fagan's groundbreaking research not only shows that God's way works best, but it also shows the precipitous decline of the America family (thus its ability to support the nation) as nearing the point of no return.

The Senate not only used the lame duck session to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell (65-31 vote), it also confirmed Chai Feldblum by "unanimous consent" to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during Christmas week. Feldblum, an open lesbian, is infamous for her view that homosexual rights trump religious liberty.

Meanwhile attacks charging FRC and other Christian groups with "hate" for holding to a Biblical view of marriage and sexuality, continues.

  • May God's people have faith to believe that laws giving those who practice homosexuality special rights, protections and privileges can be reversed! May the Lord supernaturally intervene to do so.

Religious Right Tells GOP Not To Ignore Social Issues

Back around the election, a group of Religious Right leaders sent a letter to top Republicans urging them to cut taxes, shrink the government, build up the military and restore "traditional moral values."

Apparently concerned that the "restoring traditional moral issues" part might get left out of the mix, many of those same leader have signed on to a new letter to these same top Republicans warning them not to ignore social issues like abortion and marriage:

"When considering America's fiscal and national defense policies, which are critically important, we believe that social issues, including, but not limited to, the sanctity of human life and the preservation of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, are indispensable," the Dec. 20 letter said.

The signers said they believe focusing on all three issues is "essential for America and our future."

"A stool with only one or two legs is unstable," they said. "All three legs are necessary. We believe it is critically important that the leadership, and those appointed or elected to lead, embrace all three legs of the stool. A broad-based and sustainable movement requires all three core values."

...

The letter went to Boehner and Cantor, as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona.

In addition to [Richard] Land, other signers were Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Gary Bauer, president of American Values; Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, and Jim Garlow, chairman of Renewing American Leadership.

Religious Right Preparing to Fight For Repeal of Gay Marriage in New Hampshire

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.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Colorado right wing activist Douglas Bruce faces stiff fines for running a “secret campaign.”
  • Speaking of campaign problems, federal officials are investigating Christine O’Donnell for using campaign finances on personal expenses.
  • A third court has ruled against Joe Miller, but he still refuses to concede!
  • New York’s Conservative Party now number three on the state ballot, while The Rent Is Too Damn High Party falls around 9,000 votes short of receiving an automatic spot.

FRC’s Maginnis Blasts Obama’s “Corrupt Regime,” Wants GOP to Block DADT Repeal

Bob Maginnis, the Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for National Security, is the latest Religious Right activist to outline a strategy on how to stop the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell from coming into effect. Maginnis previously predicted that over half a million service members would quit as a result of repeal and maintained that “America is now no better than Sodom and Gomorrah.” Now, he is joining other anti-gay leaders to push House Republicans to obstruct the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Maginnis spoke to the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, which claimed that Obama “sodomized” the military by ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

Many pro-military pundits said they were sickened and angered last week when President Barack Obama ended 235 years of wholesome tradition by signing the bill that will effectively sodomize the U.S. military. One of those specialists is Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.), who was part of the military working group that helped craft the 1993 homosexual service ban that the lame-duck Congress and President Obama have now overturned.

"You have a very corrupt regime running the country," he laments. But he expects there to be a backlash when the 112th Congress replaces the lame-duck body that was repudiated by the American people last month.

"Given that [Republicans] don't have the majority in the Senate, all they can do is drastically slow down the process. And they can always withhold funding through appropriations because the House is the one that has the purse strings," Maginnis explains. "So they can make it very uncomfortable for [Democrats] to spend the money to change the personnel systems, to draft new policies [and] to put together new 'sensitivity' [training] programs."

The defense analyst adds that the new, more conservative Congress has every right to do whatever it takes to reverse what the president has done.

He is not alone in the Religious Right in calling for action to thwart the recently-signed repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media suggested that the incoming House Republican majority could block the repeal, Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver demanded that the House GOP “defund any implementation of this law” and states pass laws banning gays from serving openly in their state’s National Guard, and Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily called for service members to leave over the policy and “let the politicians cobble together a military of social deviants if they think they can.”

Tea Party Leaders Preparing for Primary Fights to Bolster GOP's Ideological Purity

Back in January the Christian Science Monitor declared “Scott Brown: the tea party’s first electoral victory,” following his surprise win in the special election to fill the Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy. But now the Boston Globe reports that conservatives and Tea Party activists are mulling over a primary challenge to the Massachusetts Republican. According to the Globe, Brown’s votes in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, ratifying the START Treaty, and reforming Wall Street (but only after it was watered down to win his support) made him toxic to many Tea Party members and other movement conservatives. The Family Research Council has pledged to back a primary challenger to any Senator who voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the National Republican Trust PAC promised to do the same to any Republican who supported START.

More surprisingly, movement conservatives in Virginia are hoping to block George Allen from running again for the seat he lost to Jim Webb in 2006. Allen, a former Senator and Governor best known for using a racial slur against his opponent’s campaign worker, is already finding himself in trouble with Tea Party groups even though he hasn’t even announced his candidacy yet. The Washington Post reports that Allen’s voting record in the Senate may sink his chances among Virginia Tea Partiers:

For months, it appeared that former U.S. senator George Allen would have a clear path to the Republican nomination if he chose to try to reclaim his old job.

But in the summer, grumbling about his past began, culminating in a Web site outlining the reasons some fellow Republicans oppose him: He's too moderate. He's part of the establishment. He's partly to blame for the record spending and ballooning deficit in Washington.

By this month, no fewer than four Republicans billing themselves as more conservative than Allen were considering challenging him for the right to run against Sen. James Webb, if the Virginia Democrat seeks reelection.

"There are some concerns based on his record and his rhetoric," said Mark Kevin Lloyd, chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party and vice chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation, a statewide umbrella group. "People are looking at things in a new light," he said.

Allen, who received a 92.3% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, was hardly considered a moderate in the Senate. But apparently 92% isn’t enough:

But during his one term in the U.S. Senate, some Republicans complain, he backed President George W. Bush's proposals to increase spending; supported No Child Left Behind, a costly program to create a national education report card; favored a federal program to subsidize the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries; and voted to expand the Hate Crimes Prevention Act to include crimes based on sexual orientation.

Jamie Ratdke, who recently stepped down as chairwoman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation in order to explore a Senate bid, said she began to consider a run for the Senate after attending a Tea Party convention that featured Rick Santorum, Lou Dobbs, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli as speakers:

Radtke said that she had considered running for the state Senate next year but that she began thinking about the U.S. Senate instead after Virginia's first tea party convention, which drew an estimated 2,800 people to Richmond in October.

Radtke, who worked for Allen for a year when he was governor and she was right out of college, said it's time for a new candidate. She said that Allen was part of "George Bush's expansion of government" when he was senator and that she was concerned about some of his stances on abortion.

Allen has said that abortions should be legal in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is endangered, and he owned stock in the manufacturer of the morning-after pill.

If George Allen is deemed not conservative enough for the Republican Party, then expect many more extremist candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell to win contested GOP primaries. Allen hurt his chances by supporting healthcare and education initiatives that were backed by President Bush and the Republican leadership, and is also deemed too moderate because he voted to include sexual orientation under hate crimes protections and believes in exceptions under a ban on abortion.

While running for reelection in 2006, Allen received wide praise at FRC’s Values Voter Summit for his staunch conservative beliefs, but now he is under attack from the Right for being “too moderate” even though he hasn’t served in public office since he lost the 2006 race. As Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County board of supervisors and a likely primary opponent, says, Allen’s “base has moved on.”

Media Research Center: Liberal Bias in Obituaries!

Just when you thought that the Media Research Center couldn’t get any lower in its constant digging to find “liberal bias” in journalism, the conservative group is now complaining that the Associated Press was biased in their brief, one-line obituaries of political leaders who passed away in 2010. Bernard McGhee’s “Notable deaths of 2010” featured succinct obituaries of people from author J.D. Salinger to Polish President Lech Kaczynski and businessman George Steinbrenner. But according to Tim Graham, the Media Research Center’s Director of Media Analysis, McGhee reported on the deaths of US political figures using a liberal bias:

AP's Notable Deaths of 2010 List Has Some Liberal Mini-Spins:

When the Associated Press put together a roll call of the notable deaths of 2010, some of them came with a little glitter in their brief descriptions from reporter Bernard McGhee. For example:

"Sen. Robert C. Byrd, 92. Rose from an impoverished childhood in West Virginia's coal country to become the longest-serving senator in U.S. history. June 28."

Or this one:

"U.S. Rep. John Murtha, 77. The tall, gruff-mannered former Marine who became the de facto voice of veterans on Capitol Hill and later an outspoken and influential critic of the Iraq War. Feb. 8. Complications from gallbladder surgery."

Both of these men were renowned as pork-barrel champions. But guess who was tagged with pork in their sentence? The Republican:

"Ted Stevens, 86. The longest serving Republican in the U.S. Senate; funneled billions of dollars to his remote state of Alaska. Aug. 9. Plane crash."

But in fairness to McGhee, Ted Stevens was extremely proud of his use of “pork” to fund projects throughout Alaska. The former Chair of the Appropriations Committee was simply best known in both Alaska and across the country for his ability to steer federal money to help his home state, and he made no apologies for it.

Graham also criticizes the obituaries of a Puerto Rican activist and a Soviet diplomat as too cordial, saying that they should have been portrayed more negatively. His bizarre blog post though didn’t find bias with McGhee’s description of Alexander Haig, the former Republican Secretary of State under Reagan, and White House Chief of Staff under Presidents Nixon and Ford, who McGhee referred to as a “statesmen.”

He goes on to allege that the obituary for Elizabeth Edwards contained liberal bias because they didn’t mention her husband’s affair:

The adulteries of John Edwards were papered over a bit, too:

"Elizabeth Edwards, 61. Closely advised her husband John Edwards in two bids for the presidency and advocated for health care even as her marriage publicly crumbled. Dec. 7. Cancer."

Graham's final bizarre claim of “liberal bias” is his offense at the description of the late actress Rue McClanahan:

PS: On a cultural note, Rue McClanahan was remembered for playing “sexually liberated Southern belle Blanche Devereaux” on “The Golden Girls.” This is nicer than her character being a “slutty senior citizen.”

The Media Research Center has really hit a new low by trying to find bias in a list of extremely brief obituaries, maintaining that any kind words about Democrats show bias and any description of a Republican must therefore be negative.

Concerned Women For America’s Twisted Attack on Goodwin Liu and Obama’s “Poisoned Apples”

The Senate battle over the confirmation of judicial nominees reflected the epitome of Republican obstructionism, with nominees who won significant if not unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee failing to receive up-or-down votes on their confirmation. Of the 38 pending judicial nominees the Senate was only able to confirm 19 of them before adjourning for the year, exacerbating the country’s judicial vacancy crisis that is growing so badly that even GOP-appointed judges have called on Senate Republicans to end the blockade.

Mario Diaz, the Policy Director for Legal Issues at Concerned Women for America, believes though that Republicans should oppose Obama’s judicial nominees just like starving children should avoid eating “poisoned apples.” He resurrects the same tired arguments used to oppose the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan when he takes direct aim at Goodwin Liu, suggesting that he should not be appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court because he views the Constitution as a living document and “has no judicial experience and almost no legal experience.” Diaz writes:

The liberal cry for more judges has reached an all-time high. Their media cohorts have been banging the drums with the numbers game and the judicial emergency cry in perfect sync. They have become masters of smokescreens and shadows while ignoring the essence.

The nomination of judges is about substance.

If children are starving and you give them poisoned apples, have you really helped them? Hardly! Oh sure, you can say they have more than they had before, but they can’t eat it. It would kill them.

In the same way, assuming you can successfully argue that the country is “starving” for judges (others might argue that what we need are fewer lawsuits, not more judges), President Obama seems to think that by nominating extreme liberal political operatives like Goodwin Liu he is somehow meeting that need. But like the poisoned apples, such nominees would pervert justice, not promote it. And we must be willing to go to great lengths to oppose them.

Aside from the fact that Liu has no judicial experience and almost no legal experience, his view of the role of a judge and the Constitution cannot be more warped. He has made clear he sees the Constitution as a living, breathing document that changes with the times and that judges get to decide what those changes are.

In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, he argued that judges should use “socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal ... to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society” and that they should “determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine.” He was apparently arguing for a new constitutional right to welfare.

Liu is such a political operative that he actually testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, attacking him viciously. He was also an outspoken opponent of Chief Justice Roberts’ nomination. They were, of course, too far to the right for him. Can you imagine, they actually said they will take the Constitution only for what it says?



And he is not alone. President Obama has been consistent in nominating radicals (see David Hamilton, Louis Butler, Edward Chen, and Robert Chatigny).

So the liberal elite and their media can keep playing their sad tune about judges. It doesn’t really matter how hungry you are if a person keeps giving you poisoned apples. In fact, can you even trust when they offer one that looks okay?

According to Diaz, Justices Roberts and Alito are model justices who “take the Constitution only for what it says.” Of course, Roberts and Alito have been exposed for their pro-corporate agenda, as Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker writes, “the rule in the current Supreme Court” is that if “there is a human being on one side of the ‘v.’ and a corporation on the other, the corporation wins.” A New York Times analysis found that the Roberts Court is far more sympathetic to corporations than even the conservative Rehnquist Court. As Arlen Specter recently claimed, “Chief Roberts promised to just ‘call balls and strikes,’ and then he moved the bases.”

Diaz’s misguided praise for Roberts and Alito is only matched in its absurdity to his opposing Liu, the Associate Dean of the Berkeley School of Law, on the grounds that he “has no judicial experience.” If Diaz believes that Republicans should block Liu’s confirmation to the Ninth Circuit because Liu is not a judge, then by the same logic he should have opposed confirming Roberts to the DC Circuit since he never served as a judge prior to his nomination.

He also badly misconstrues Goodwin Liu’s legal experience. Liu served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and a DC Circuit court judge, in addition to working as an appellate litigator. As Associate Dean of the Berkeley School of Law, Liu has received wide praise from both progressive and conservative legal scholars, and conservatives John Yoo and Ken Starr said “Goodwin is an outstanding nominee.” While Diaz believes that Liu’s criticism of Roberts and Alito disqualifies him from serving, The New York Times notes that “Liu’s warnings that the two men would be extremely conservative justices have turned out to be completely on target,” while Liu’s “views fall within the mainstream of legal scholarship and American politics.”

Diaz goes on to distort Liu’s legal writings, maintaining that he argued “for a new constitutional right to welfare.” The Alliance for Justice makes clear that Liu has ardently opposed an expansive role for the judicial branch:

[Liu] has argued for a model of judicial restraint, concluding that courts should not interpret the Constitution to create affirmative welfare rights, whether to education, health care, or minimal levels of subsistence. Liu has explained that “such rights cannot be reasoned into existence by courts on their own” and has explained that his understanding of the judicial role “does not license courts to declare rights to entirely new benefits or programs not yet in existence.”

Only a right wing hypocrite like Diaz could falsely represent Justices Roberts and Alito as archetypes of judicial restraint and claim that Obama’s urgently-needed judicial nominees as “radicals.” Diaz is forced to levy ridiculous and bogus arguments against Liu in order to backup his wildly inaccurate case opposing Obama’s nominees, however, Senate Republicans have largely followed his lead in their willingness “to go to great lengths to oppose them.”

Donnelly and Kincaid Keep Up “Draft” Drumbeat after Senate Passes DADT Repeal

After expressing hope that efforts to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would ultimately fail, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness (who, by the way, is not close to being an expert on the issue) told Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid that the draft is on its way once DADT is scrapped. According to Donnelly, the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “could put remaining troops in greater danger, and break the All-Volunteer Force.”

Donnelly joins other right wing activists like Tony Perkins, David Bossie, Frank Gaffney, and Bryan Fischer, in forecasting the return of conscription as a result of the repeal. In 2006, Donnelly also predicted that allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly will lead to “forcible sodomy,” “introducing erotic factors,” and the proliferation of “HIV positivity.”

Kincaid, though, held out hope that the incoming House Republican majority and Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), the designated Chair of the Armed Services Committee, would be able to block repeal:

McKeon had told reporters that he wanted to hold hearings that would include rank-and-file service members along with military leaders. “I would really like to hear from battlefield commanders,” McKeon said. “I would like to hear from battalion commanders, I would like to hear from company commanders on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq to see what their feelings are.”



So will Congress approve the changes, knowing that they could result in the return of the military draft?

As the Times indicates, the specific language of the bill is that the repeal must be “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.”

The burden is on the gay rights lobby to prove that the changes would have no negative effect on any of the above. How can they prove such a thing when the Pentagon has already concluded that the change is risky and faces opposition from as many as 60 percent of our combat troops?

But the Pentagon’s own “Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with the Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” found, “In the key areas of military readiness, unit effectiveness, and unit cohesion the risks were all deemed to be LOW” and that “the change in culture and environment in warfighting units will be minimal.” 69% of respondents already claimed to have knowingly served with a gay or lesbian soldier, and of them “92% stated that the unit’s ‘ability to work together’ was ‘very good,’ ‘good,’ or ‘neither good nor poor.’”

But Donnelly and Kincaid continue to discount and distort the clear evidence from the Pentagon's study that the repeal of DADT will have little effect at all on the military, and claim that unless Republicans belatedly block the repeal, a draft is imminent.

Staver Lays Out Religious Right's Plans for Fighting DADT Repeal

When the Senate voted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel promised the "full mobilization" of the Freedom Federation and "faith-based and policy organizations, veterans, and military families in the states of every Senator who voted for repeal of DADT against the advice of our service chiefs and during a time of war. Those Senators – and the Pentagon leaders responsible for this breach of trust – should understand that they will be the object of concerted political action against them."

Of course, that threat was pretty vague, but now Staver has begun to lay out his plans in an interview with Concerned Women for America,  explaining that they intend to push for state-based legislation barring gays from serving in the National Guard and pressuring House members to defund the implementation of the DADT repeal while seeking to elected members of Congress who vote to reinstate the law:

Staver: This is not the end of the line because there's two situations that are happening; first of all on the national guard - in fact, there is already a bill that is being put forward in Virginia by a Delegate in that state to say that the National Guard is under the individual states and the direction of the Governor, not the President of the United States and therefore the National Guard in Virginia will not abide by this repeal and other states, I'm sure, will follow.

Secondly, and more importantly, it's going to take a while for this law to actually be implemented and I believe that Congress can defund any implementation of this law when they take their seat in January.

And I believe that we can move forward to actually reinstate this law - I think we have enough votes in the House; we probably don't have enough votes in the Senate obviously, but we need to move forward in 2011 and 2012 to make sure that we do have enough votes so that we can protect our men and women and our national security, put that at highest regard and not the homosexual agenda as this Congress and this President has done.

Contact you members of the House, particularly the House, and ask them to defund the implementation of this repeal next year. You know, as part of repeal they're going to have to do training, they're going to have to spend money and the House holds the purse strings and the House can certainly withhold those purse strings from any kind of action to implement this repeal.

2012 Candidates Weekly Update 12/21/10

Haley Barbour

Civil Rights: In Weekly Standard profile, Barbour lauds racist, pro-segregation Council of Conservative Citizens, doesn’t remember Jim Crow era as “that bad” (TPM, The Hill; 12/20).

Mississippi: Tries to shape his legacy as governor (Clarion Ledger, 12/19).

CPAC: Set to address Conservative Political Action Committee conference in February (ACU, 12/16).

Mike Huckabee

Fox News: As a guest, Rep. Anthony Weiner asks Huckabee, “How Much Do You Make Over There At Fox?” (Mediaite, 12/18).

Health Care: Backs 9/11 First Responders care bill blocked by GOP (HuffPo, 12/17).

Religious Right: Signs letter defending SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups (RWW, 12/15).

Sarah Palin

Obama: Palin continues to knock Michelle Obama in her Reality TV show (LA Times, 12/20).

Poll: New ABC-WaPo poll shows that a majority of Americans would refuse to back Palin for President (The Fix, 12/17).

Foreign Policy: Pens National Review column against START Treaty (NRO, 12/17).

Tim Pawlenty

Labor: Claims about public sector workers receives “pants on fire” rating by PolitiFact (PolitiFact, 12/16).

Health Care: Compares health care reform law to “drug dealing” (Minnesota Independent, 12/15).

Religious Right: Signs letter defending SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups (RWW, 12/15).

Mike Pence

2012: Will decide in January whether to run for President or Governor of Indiana (Politico, 12/20).

Religious Right: Uses unemployment as a reason to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood; signs letter defending SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups (RWW, 12/20; 12/15).

Mitt Romney

Health Care: Romney “trying to have it both ways” on health insurance mandate (Boston Globe, 12/19).

GOP: Conservatives debate whether Romney has firm ideas or just panders to base (The Atlantic, 12/17).

Rick Santorum

Iowa: Meets with far-right American Principles Project, touts his socially conservative views (Caffeinated Thoughts, 12/18).

Taxes: Opposes tax compromise, says Republicans didn’t “keep their pledge” (CNN, 12/16).

Religious Right: Signs letter defending SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups (RWW, 12/15).

John Thune

Congress: Accuses Democrats of “flouting” midterm election by passing major bills during lame duck session (AP, 12/20).

New Hampshire: Says he is considering presidential run during interview on NH radio station (WMUR, 12/17).

Taxes: Criticizes Republican opponents of the tax compromise as “politically expedient” (HuffPo, 12/15).

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Bryan Fischer continues to rail against the DADT vote.
  • Matt Barber continues to rail against the SPLC.
  • NOM wants questions about marriage asked at the RNC debate.
  • Cliff Kincaid is set to become the director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, presumably so he can write long investigations about how gays plan to infect everyone with HIV-tainted blood.
  • I genuinely hope that Michele Bachmann decides to run for the Senate because I find it unlikely that the state the elected Paul Wellstone would ever elect someone like her.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Gary Bauer: "It would be wrong to suggest that by stirring up class resentment the Left caused any of these crimes. What seems fairly clear, however, is that the Left is turning the anger and frustration that many struggling Americans feel about the economy into resentment against those who have succeeded."

CADC on DADT: God About to Unleash "The Mighty Sickle of His Wrath" Upon America

In our post earlier today noting that many Religious Right groups had apparently decided not to issue any sort of statement in response to the Senate vote to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we cited the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission as one of the groups that had noticeably remained silent on the vote.

It seems that that was due not to the fact that the CADC had nothing to say, but rather because Gary Cass was working on a nearly two-thousand word opus explaining that God is preparing to unleash the "mighty sickle of His wrath" on America for "drinking the dregs of civic debauchery" as demonstrated by the fact that Ellen DeGeneres hosted a "Christmas In Washington" television special:

Homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful and we cannot renegotiate God’s moral law. No apologies are necessary for agreeing with Jesus, the Apostles, the Law and the Prophets. History, science, scripture and eternity concur.

Homosexual sin, like every other kind of sin, always results in some kind of death. But sexual sin in general, and homosexual sin in particular, is singled out in the Old and New Testament as particularly deadly. Because of this, the unrepentant person trapped in homosexuality, just like all other sinners, is to be pitied and the object of our compassion.

Spiritually, they are dead to God’s mercy and transforming grace in Christ. Sadly, it was unrepentant homosexual Ellen DeGeneres who emceed the "Christmas in Washington" TV Show this year with President Obama and family smiling as they blindly celebrated the birth of the Savior. They never saw the incongruence of it all.

...

This repeal is one more sign that we are drinking the dregs of civic debauchery. This illicit indulgence within the military will not be confined to homo-sex. If this can be tolerated, then all other sexual behaviors can and must be tolerated. Whatever arbitrary justification you can make for two men cavorting, you can make for whatever other illicit behaviors you can successfully demand ... Ultimately, we must resolve that Providence has ordained the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” for now. It could not have happened if God had willed otherwise. But why?

In times like these when our nation defies the moral law of the living God, we must ask, “Is God hardening our heart like he did the defiant Pharaoh?” God did it to show His mighty power in the outpouring of ten plagues on the gods of Egypt and by destroying Pharaoh and his army.

Is God letting America ripen in her rebellion before He wields the mighty sickle of His wrath? It’s worth considering as our nation’s military now serves under a shameful, pink flag.

O’Leary: Obama Wants to “Replace the Power of God with the Power of Government”

Conservative writer Brad O’Leary, who was last seen predicting that the government will try to shutdown Religious Right groups using hate crime laws, appeared on Phyllis Schlafly’s radio show to discuss his book America’s War on Christianity.

Schlafly: What inspired you to write this book, Brad?

O’Leary: The President. When he was in a Muslim country and made a public statement saying that America is not a Christian nation. I thought it was a ludicrous, un-inspirational statement to pander to the Muslim, Middle East. And, so I started putting together all the things that are happening around the country to justify what he wants to do. I guess his goal is to replace the power of God with the power of government.

O’Leary appears to be referring to Obama’s speech in Turkey, where he claimed that “one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

Naturally, this unleashed a firestorm in the conservative echo-chamber, and Religious Right groups have pointed to it as proof of Obama’s supposedly anti-Christian tack in government.

But O’Leary may just as easily have referred to the Treaty of Tripoli, the treated between the United States and Algiers negotiated under President George Washington, ratified unanimously by the Senate, and signed by President John Adams. Article XI of the Treaty reads:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Alternatively, O’Leary could have found George Washington’s letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, problematic too:

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support ... May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants -- while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.
Syndicate content

senate Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Tuesday 06/21/2011, 2:44pm
Lauding former New York Giant David Tyree’s strong criticism of a pending New York marriage equality bill, Janie Cheaney of the ultraconservative WORLD Magazine dubbed supporters of the legislation “forces of anarchy.” According to Cheaney, passing a bill allowing gay couples to marry will only help a “minuscule number of people” and will lead to the “undefining of the family.” Cheaney writes: The minuscule number of people who stand to directly benefit from such legislation suggests further that it’s not about marriage at all—it’s... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Monday 06/13/2011, 4:16pm
The San Antonio Express-News reports that "when it comes time to giving, [Governor Rick Perry] doesn't come close to the biblical guidance of tithing." CNN gives Tony Perkins space to explain what the Religious Right wants in a Republican presidential nominee. David Barton has endorsed Ted Cruz. Gary Cass claims that Prop 8 would have passed by even more but that "Attorney General Jerry Brown intentionally described Proposition 8 on the ballot in a misleading way." I am pretty sure that President Obama is going to refuse the offer to come... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Monday 06/13/2011, 10:31am
The topic of today's episode of Liberty Counsel's Faith and Freedom Radio program was "How Should Christians React To Rep. Weiner Twitter Scandal?" and Matt Barber and Deryl Edwards used it as an opportunity to comment on the "hypocrisy" of the left because, they asserted, Republican members of Congress who get caught in a scandal get run out of town on a rail by conservatives: Oh, I see ... just like Republicans and the Religious Right didn't do with either Senator David Vitter and Senator John Ensign? In fact, the last time I checked, Vitter was still sitting in... MORE
, Wednesday 06/08/2011, 11:07am
(cross posted to the People For Blog) Mat Staver of the ironically named Liberty Counsel has a new video up where he takes credit for the shameful filibuster of Goodwin Liu. That clears up so much. Was it Mat Staver who "exposed" the "extremism" of this extremely qualified nominee? Was it Mat Staver who convinced every Republican senator but one to ignore Liu's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his detailed written submissions, and his many articles, all of which disproved the lies being told about him? Was it Mat Staver whose keen legal arguments... MORE
Coral, Monday 06/06/2011, 3:39pm
Linda Harvey, founder of the fringe anti-gay group Mission: America, not only condemns the LGBT community but condemns anyone who isn’t condemning them. Harvey is also the host of the Mission: America Radio show, and last week she spoke out against pro-tolerance education: Sex Change Pushed on Children Recently, I read an outstanding article on the website American Thinker. It’s called The Left’s Dirty Little Secret. It exposed what has been obvious for a long time, that liberal values in schools and in our culture are leading to widespread sexual abuse of children. The... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 05/27/2011, 4:09pm
Apparently E.W. Jackson is running for the open US Senate seat in Virginia. Peter LaBarbera launches a new group. Matt Barber explains that conservatives are cool. From FRC's latest prayer update: "Pray that efforts to stop the homosexualization of the U.S. military will prevail and that this ugly social experiment at the expense of our national security will be reversed." Free Republic founder Jim Robinson has a message for his posters: "FR DOES NOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT ABORTIONIST, GAY RIGHTS PUSHING BIG GOVERNMENT STATISTS FOR PRESIDENT!!... MORE
Nichole, Friday 05/27/2011, 12:52pm
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the House Armed Services Committee Authorization bill, which included three amendments designed to delay the repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. With the Senate taking up the bill, Rep. Randy Forbes, along with Bishop Harry Jackson and a group of right-wing pastors, held a press conference to encourage the Senate to pass the pro-DADT amendments. Attempting to seem semi-reasonable, Jackson began the conference by claiming that amendments intending to make the repeal of DADT more difficult and time-... MORE