Heritage Foundation

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:12:42 +0000

The best-known and most influential right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation owes much of its success to savvy marketing and PR and the generous donations of right-wing benefactors, foundations and wealthy corporations. The foundation boasts about its influence on Capitol Hill yet insists that it does not "lobby."

Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20002
Website: www.heritage.org

President/Executive Director: Dr. Edwin Feulner
Established: In 1973 by Joseph Coors (of Coors Beer) and Paul Weyrich.
Finances: $52,292,374 revenue (2004); $123 million in assets (2004) (2004 990)
Officers: Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., President; Phillip N. Truluck, Executive Vice President; Stuart M. Butler, Vice President; Becky Norton Dunlop, Vice President; Michael G. Franc, Vice President; Rebecca Hagelin, Vice President; Kim R. Holmes, Vice President; John Von Kannon, Vice President & Treasurer; Edwin Meese III, Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy; Robert E. Russell, Jr., Counselor and others.
Board of Trustees: David R. Brown, M.D., Chairman; Richard M. Scaife, Vice Chairman; J. Frederic Rench; Douglas F. Allison; Holland H. Coors; Midge Decter; Edwin J. Feulner, Jr.; Jerry Hume; Kay Cole James; Hon. J. William Middendorf, II; Barb Van Andel-Gaby; and others.
Employees: 173 excluding fellows
Membership: 275,000
Publications: annual report, monthly newsletter "Insider," publishes numerous detailed public policy papers for Congress, average of 10 or more a month.

Read the latest news on the Heritage Foundation on the group's Right Wing Watch index page

Principal Issues

Heritage Foundation's mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
Heritage is the largest conservative think tank in Washington, DC.
It researches, publishes, lectures on, and markets right-wing public policy.
It organizes right-wing activists on domestic and foreign policy issues.
Heritage's publications are distributed to many thousands of people, including Members of Congress, congressional aides and staff, journalists, and major donors.
It takes credit for much of President Bush's policy, both domestic and foreign, referring to Bush's policies as "straight out of the Heritage play book."
Heritage supports faith-based initiatives, school vouchers, ban on abortion, overturning affirmative action programs.

Recent Activities

The Heritage Foundation (HF) suggested that Bush open up an "Office of Marriage Initiatives" to promote marriage, but instead Bush folded HF's "pro-marriage" proposals into his welfare reform package, setting aside $300 million dollars for states and local communities to "promote marriage."
Heritage's new office space, renovated in 2002, includes intern and fellow apartments, a 200-seat auditorium, a private fitness center, and two floors dedicated to expanding the research department.
Published "Priorities for the President," written for President Bush. Heritage also wrote "A Budget for America," a companion volume written for the Bush administration.
Internet activities: in 2001, Heritage reported 4.8 million visitors to their homepage, and 14.4 million visitors to their conservative Internet portal, Townhall.com.

Funding

According to Media Transparency, the Heritage Foundation received $61,944,537 in foundation grants from organizations such as: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Castle Rock Foundation, JM Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Heritage has received donations from the East Asian nations of South Korea and Taiwan; SourceWatch reports that in 1988 Korean intelligence discovered that Heritage received $2.2 million from the South Korean National Assembly during the 1980's. Although Heritage denies this claim, they do admit to receiving a $400,000 grant from the Korean conglomerate Samsung.
The Korea Foundation, a conduit of the Korean government, has also donated almost $1 million to Heritage in the past three years.

Former Heritage Foundation employees who have served in the Bush Administration

Elaine Chao: Department of Labor Secretary; formerly a Heritage Distinguished Fellow
Kay Coles James: Director of the Office of Personnel Management; formerly Heritage's Citizenship Project director
Angela Antonelli: Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; formerly Heritage's director for Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
Mark Wilson: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor; formerly Heritage Foundation's Research Fellow
Alvin Felzenberg: a member of Rumsfeld's "team" at the Department of Defense; formerly Heritage Foundation's Visiting Fellow
Gale Norton: Secretary of the Interior; Founder of the National Chair of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (heavily funded by Heritage Foundation).

Other Employees and Board Members of Note

Famous Heritage staffers include: Ed Meese (President Ronald Reagan's Attorney General), William Bennett (Reagan's Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Secretary of Education, and President Bush Sr.'s "drug czar"). Virginia Thomas (wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) Heritage President Edward J. Feulner was a consultant for the Reagan administration, serving as chairman of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
High profile right wing Heritage board members have included: Richard Scaife, Joseph Coors, Holland "Holly" Coors, Steve Forbes, Jay Van Andel (co-founder and senior chairman for Amway Corporation), and Barb Van Andel-Gaby (the vice president of corporate affairs for Amway Corporation), among others.

History and Background

Prominent right-wing figure Paul Weyrich was Heritage's first president. Heritage's start was financially supported by co-founder Joseph Coors, of Colorado's Coors Brewing Company.
Right-wing financier Richard Scaife became a major funder of the Heritage Foundation after its first year, donating millions of dollars through the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
Corporate sponsors of the organization have included: General Motors, Ford Motors, Proctor and Gamble, Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical, the Reader's Digest Association, Mobil Oil, and Smith Kline Corporation.
In 1980, Heritage published a 1,077-page book called Mandate for Leadership, which contained 2000 policy recommendations. It was presented to Attorney General Ed Meese a week after Reagan's election. Meese was quoted as saying that "the Reagan Administration will rely heavily on the Heritage Foundation." These recommendations included: rollback of minority programs, dramatic increase in military spending, and cutting taxes. In 1985 Heritage claimed that the Reagan administration's policy reflected 60 to 65 percent of their policy measures. Heritage publishes a new edition every four years for subsequent administrations.

Quotes about the Heritage Foundation

The Wall Street Journal says, "No policy shop has more clout than the conservative Heritage Foundation."

"Keep up the wonderful work of truth which emanates from Heritage."
– John Ashcroft in praise of Heritage

"Some of the finest conservatives in America today do their work in The Heritage Foundation. For those of you new to all this, The Heritage Foundation is America's leading conservative think tank."
– Rush Limbaugh, November 10, 2000. Read

The Democratic Policy Committee Annual Report says, "It is hard to overstate the impact The Heritage Foundation has had on the direction of U.S. policy since the late 1970's." Read.

"The Heritage Foundation will continue to be a key element in the phalanx of rightist groups with an agenda of austerity for the poor, hostility to minorities and women, upward distribution of wealth for the rich, economic domination of the Third World, with repression and bloodletting for those who rebel."
– Russ Bellant, The Coors Connection, 1991

Updated: December 2006

Obama's "Unconstitutional" Nobel Prize

Kyle — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:40:39 +0000

If you were worrying that the Right might be running out of subjects from which it could gin up phony controversies, rest assured that they are always hard at work coming up with new, innovative, and ridiculous scandals ... like the idea that in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama violated the Constitution:

Last Thursday, Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize Oslo, Norway. He is the third sitting president, after Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, to win the award. While controversy swirled around the award being granted to a wartime president, Matthew Spalding with The Heritage Foundation is concerned about the constitutionality of Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Prize.

A clause in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state." That raises a question: Is the Nobel Peace Prize an "Emolument" -- a gift arising from one's office which includes some sort of monetary award with it?

Spalding, director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, says since the award is technically the property of the United States, Obama has under 60 days to turn the award over to the appropriate authorities for proper disposal.

"The Commission, the group that gives out the Nobel Prize, is actually appointed by the Parliament of Norway, which is [to] say that it's connected with a foreign state. This makes it very interesting," the Heritage scholar notes. "In 1993, President Clinton's own Office of Legal Counsel said that it didn't have to be a foreign state acting in a formal way, but could be, rather, indirect. [This] seems to be a perfect example of what the Nobel Prize is -- and the Founders put this clause in the Constitution precisely to make sure that foreign states didn't unwarrantedly influence American domestic politics."

Spalding believes the Nobel Prize Commission intended to give the award to a president who had not yet accomplished anything, in hopes of encouraging him to do certain things in the future.

And for the record, "emolument" means "salary, wages and benefits paid for employment or an office held," not "gift".

Washington Times Teams Up With the Heritage Foundation to Save the Conservative Movement

Kyle — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:27:01 +0000

I'm guessing that if, say, the Washington Post teamed up with a progressive group to create a new website called TheLiberals.com, right-wing activists and media critics would have a complete meltdown.

I'm likewise guessing that we will see no such meltdown about this:

Conservatives and citizen journalists have a new interactive community destination that showcases breaking news, opinion and culture with stunning technology, patriotic layout and ideological muscle.

TheConservatives.com -- a joint online media venture from The Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation -- is a tool to "reinvent the right" and steer the public discourse. It is up and running as of Tuesday and geared to those who are not content to sit on the sidelines.

"TheConservatives.com creates a cutting-edge new marriage between the social publishing world of bloggers and the social networking world of Twitter, Facebook and the like. Most opinion sites today enable thought-leaders to talk down to the masses. But TheConservatives.com empowers users to change the direction of that dialogue, allowing the Joe the Plumbers of the world to speak up to major thinkers, like Newt Gingrich," said John Solomon, executive editor and vice president for content of The Times.

"It is convenient. It is groundbreaking. And we believe it will transform grass-roots communications, enabling a two-way dialogue. The best ideas can grow up from the netroots, reaching like-minded opinion leaders. It is a technology and a concept that can be adapted by thinkers on the right, the left and the center," Mr. Solomon said.

Roberts and Alito: Good for Women, Sotomayor: Bad

Kyle — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:06:12 +0000

Apparently the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito were great things for women in this country whereas the possible confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, an actual woman, would be a bad thing - at least that seems to be the message of the Women's Coalition for Justice:

Members of the Women's Coalition for Justice released the following statements in advance of the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor beginning next Monday.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, stated, "Women are best protected by the rule of law -- and blind justice. Their rights are most endangered when personal preference, ideology or painful personal history inform judgment ... Given what we know about Sonia Sotomayor's own judicial philosophy, including her support of policymaking from the bench, senators have just cause to reject her appointment to the United States Supreme Court."

Genevieve Wood, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives, The Heritage Foundation ..."[Sonia Sotomayor's] statements raise grave concerns about whether she can truly be impartial and the current defense that she simply endorses including different perspectives doesn't hold water. The Senators must ask challenging questions to determine whether she believes that a wise woman can reach the same conclusion as a wise man, or whether she intends to bring bias, as she has suggested, even to most cases."

Connie Mackey, Senior Vice President for FRCAction ... Women think independently and most women will see that Sonia Sotomayor is a judicial activist who will use the courts to make policy reflective of her own personal judgments as opposed to ruling based upon the tenets put forth by the Constitution.

Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life remarked ... "Her record of activism in support of a radical pro-abortion agenda is clear and documented. This is a judge with a record significantly worse than Judge Souter's. We are asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to seriously consider the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court justice whose radical record shows she would rule against all common-sense legal protections for the unborn, including parental notification, informed consent and bans on partial-birth abortion. The American people will not tolerate a nominee who is outside the mainstream of American public opinion."

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee stated, "Sonia Sotomayor's record reveals she lacks the primary characteristic required of a judge -- impartiality ... After giving her the benefit of the doubt, her record of giving preferences to certain classes of people and denying equal justice to others obliges Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee to oppose her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor has disqualified herself from the U.S. Supreme Court. Senators need to set aside their party loyalty and do their Constitutional duty to uphold equal justice for all by opposing Sonia Sotomayor's nomination."

Not surprisingly, many of these same conservative women also participated in the "Women For Roberts" coalition which held a press conference at which they praised the fact that John Roberts "doesn't have a sexist bone in his body" as well as a “Women for Alito” press conference to make the case that "Samuel Alito possesses the capability, character and commitment to the law America needs in a Supreme Court justice, and he deserves a swift and fair confirmation."

So there you have it: the appointment of ultra-conservative men to the Supreme Court by President Bush greatly advances the interests of women, whereas the appointment of an actual woman by President Obama greatly undermines those interests and Senators have an obligation to uphold the rights of all women by rejecting the nomination of this particular woman.

Whither the Four Horsemen?

Kyle — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:47:11 +0000

Back when George W. Bush was seeking confirmation for his Supreme Court nominees, there was a group of right-wing Washington insiders known as the "four horsemen" who were at the center of this effort:

The calls start just after 8 every morning, and the participants phone in from just about anywhere. A lawyer speed dials the teleconference line from a taxi as he dashes to a breakfast meeting. A radio evangelist checks in before heading to Atlanta. An old Reagan hand punches in the password from a hotel room while a federalist movement leader calls from his office near the White House.

The daily conference call, in many ways, is indistinguishable from thousands of others occurring inside Washington's beltway, but with one big difference: This one is shaping the Republicans' nomination strategy for the Supreme Court and, in consultation with the White House, scripting party-line talking points. The daily call is also the glue for a fragile conservative coalition, from the religious right to the business lobby, that's smoothing the way for President Bush's nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The men, who have been dialing in since 2003, have come to be known as the "Four Horsemen": C. Boyden Gray, Edwin Meese III, Jay Sekulow, and Leonard Leo. Hand-picked by the White House for their ties to disparate conservative groups, they have been instrumental in helping the president name strict constitutionalists to the federal bench--and now they hope to do the same on the nation's highest court. "We've been waiting for this for four years," says Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. And so the Four Horsemen are galloping into this confirmation fight.

This time around, with a Democrat in the White House and Sonia Sotomayor nominated to the Supreme Court, most of these horsemen have been nowhere to be seen. While Sekulow remains engaged in the process, both Leo and Gray have been relatively absent, though they have spoken out on occasion, while Meese had been seemingly AWOL entirely.

Or so we thought until we saw this:

Ed Meese is at it again.

The Reagan-era attorney general, beloved by conservatives but long reviled by many liberals, is playing an important behind-the-scenes role in coordinating opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

From his perch at the conservative Heritage Foundation, the 77-year-old Edwin Meese III has been meeting with a network of right-of-center lawyers, buttonholing Republican senators and preaching the same message he’s been delivering since the 1980s: judges should follow the Constitution and not push a liberal agenda from the bench.

“He’s been very influential in his meetings on Capitol Hill and behind-the-scenes working with leading legal lights,’’ said Gary Marx, executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network, which has been echoing Meese’s message with regular public blasts against Sotomayor.

“All of us feel like we stand on the shoulders of giants who have come before us, and clearly Meese is one of those giants and a conservative icon,’’ Marx added.

Interestingly, we've read lots of coverage about the Right's efforts to coordinate its opposition to Sotomayor but have never even so much as seen Meese's name mentioned very often. Frankly, that is not surprising because presumably the Right doesn't really want its anti-Sotomayor efforts to be too compromised by knowledge that the man who played in central role in nominating Robert Bork to the Supreme Court is now playing a similar role in opposing Sotomayor.

SCOTUS Round-Up

Kyle — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:36:37 +0000

In its Washington Update, the Family Research Council reacts with joy to the news that Sen. Jeff Session has been chosen to become ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee:

Sessions has proven to be a strict constructionist who is unapologetically pro-family on policy matters. One of FRC Action's "True Blue" awardees, Sessions has a track record of voting for traditional values 100% of the time on key legislative issues … For conservatives, his promotion could not have come at a better time. As Republicans brace for a party showdown over the replacement for retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Sessions--an uncompromising voice for faith and family--will be just the man to lead them into battle.

Andrew Grossman is Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation writes that while David Souter was “certainly no originalist, in numerous cases [he wrote] opinions that are in accord with the demands of the Constitution and the rule of law.” After citing several such cases, Grossman declares:

In nearly all of these cases, more liberal members of the Supreme Court sought outcomes inconsistent with the Constitution and the rule of law. That block would find additional strength if President Obama appoints a liberal activist to the Court to replace Justice Souter, a center-left moderate, and many cases like those listed above would have had different outcomes. As a result:

    * Violent criminals would be freed for minor blunders by police,
    * Tough sentences for violent crimes would be struck down,
    * Trial lawyers would have more opportunities than ever to launch frivolous, but expensive lawsuits, and
    * Victims of crimes would be denied a role in the criminal justice system.

The bottom line: Justice Souter was no conservative and no originalist, but replacing him with a far-left activist would change the balance of the Court for the worse.

Ed Whelan continues to make his case against the possible nomination of Diane Wood, while the Judicial Confirmation Network released its own memo targeting Wood along with Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor:

While President Obama has said he intends to nominate a moderate or a pragmatist, not a liberal activist, it is advisable to take that statement with a grain of salt. Remember, he thinks that the current Supreme Court the majority of which is a liberal judicial activist Court is "right-wing" or "conservative." If that is his frame of reference ("liberal judicial activist" equals "right-wing"), then his definition of "moderate" may be equally skewed.

Moreover, with the vetting record of this White House and its willingness to appoint to high government posts nominees who have cheated on their taxes and have other ethical problems, any rush to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with lightning speed is all the more unseemly. And it certainly violates the Obama promises of transparency and accountability. We need a fair, orderly process to educate Americans about the potential nominees that the Obama-Leahy machine seems determined to rush through the confirmation process.

Here are three women widely thought to be front-runners for this Supreme Court seat. They are not moderates. They are not pragmatists. They are hard-left liberal judicial activists.

The Judicial Nominations Fight, Through the Eyes of the Right

Kyle — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:11:36 +0000

World Magazine has a good article on President Obama and the issue of judicial nominations ... and by "good" I mean an exhaustive listing of all of the complaints and concerns Republicans and right-wing judicial activists have about the process and the future of the judiciary:

Conservatives say Obama missed an opportunity to usher in a more conciliatory start to the often contentious judicial nominating process by naming [David] Hamilton ... In nominating Hamilton, Obama ignored a letter from all 42 Republican senators, asking the president to get the process off to a bipartisan start by renominating several of President George W. Bush's blocked nominees. Bush renominated two of President Bill Clinton's stalled choices soon after taking office ... GOP senators had also hoped to use the "blue slip" tradition, which holds that no judicial nominee can come before the Senate without agreement (in the form of a blue slip) from both senators representing that nominee's state. Republicans have at least one senator in 27 states. But the two GOP senators from Texas are already losing a battle to hold onto this privilege as the White House recently signaled its intention to include that state's 12 House Democrats in the screening process.

So it was Obama who missed the opportunity to be conciliatory by not nominating rather than, say, all the Republicans in the Senate who had pre-emptively threatened to filibuster all of Obama's judicial nominees? Nice try.

Furthermore, Obama did not "ignore" their letter - in fact, he obviously took into consideration their demand that the White House "consult with us as it considers possible nominations to the federal courts from our states" because he obviously did so with Republican Senator Richard Lugar, who immediately praised the nomination:

"I enthusiastically support the Senate confirmation of David Hamilton for U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton has served the Southern District of Indiana with distinction as U.S. District Court Judge," U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar said.

Thirdly, how exactly are the Republican Senators from Texas "losing the battle" to use the "blue slip"? As we pointed out before, in situations where the President is of one party and both of a state's Senators are from the other, tradition has generally dictated that opposing party Senators play a secondary role in the judicial nomination selection process - and that is what is happening in Texas. If they don't like Obama's nominees, they are still free to refuse to return their blue slips, so in no way can it be said that they at risk of losing this privilege.

In essence, as the article explains, all of these sorts of gripes are aimed primarily at ginning up opposition to Obama's judicial nominees in order to set the stage for a Supreme Court battle and rally Republican forces leading into the mid-term elections:

The ultimate hope among conservative lawmakers is that if Obama overreaches in his judicial picks, then Democrats may face a backlash in the polls during the 2010 Senate races. Such political costs could force Obama to make marginally more moderate picks in future openings, says Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The article features quotes from a variety of right-wing groups that work on the issue, including Whelan, as well as representatives of the Alliance Defense Fund, Judicial Watch, the Committee for Justice, and the Heritage Foundation ... so if you are looking for a good run-down of just about every right-wing talking point on the judiciary and judicial nominees, this article offers one-stop shopping.

Heritage Foundation: Change We Can Obstruct

Peter — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:47:58 +0000

The Heritage Foundation, a behemoth of right-wing marketing muscle, wasted no time in pledging to stop the Obama administration from advancing progressive policies on health care, the environment, the courts. After eight years of backing the Bush administration, NOW they’re encouraging people to read the Constitution?

Click here to see more of Heritage's email.

Doing Away With VAWA

Kyle — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:46:22 +0000

Apparently, tomorrow the Eagle Forum and RADAR [Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting] are co-hosting an all-day event entitled “The Conflict between Federal Domestic Violence Policies and Traditional Family Values” [PDF] at The Heritage Foundation that will focus on how to do away with the Violence Against Women Act: .

The Violence Against Women Act, which now costs the federal government $1 billion a year, has spawned an industry that undermines Constitutional protections, thwarts welfare reform, weakens military readiness, fosters immigration fraud, and is harmful to families. This conference will probe how to rein in a federal law that increasingly encroaches on the personal lives of millions of Americans.

Just check out the forum’s agenda:

9:30
Feminist Fatherphobia and Domestic Violence
Phyllis Schlafly – Eagle Forum

10:00
How Marriage Protects Against Domestic Violence
Robert Rector – Heritage

10:45
How Domestic Violence Policies Weaken Families and Harm Children
Stephen Baskerville, PhD – Patrick Henry College
Foundation

11:15
VAWA: Victimizing All Taxpayers Act?
Benjamin Foster, PhD, CPA – University of Louisville College of Business

11:45
Impact on Military Readiness
Elaine Donnelly – Center for Military Readiness

It’s easy to understand that “marriage protects against domestic violence” provided that you share Schlafly’s view that wives cannot be raped by their husbands.

Right Attacks California Marriage Ruling

Ezra — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:21:39 +0000

Not surprisingly, the Right’s reaction to last week’s ruling by the California Supreme Court in favor of equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians was swift and negative.

Former Rep. Ernest Istook, now of the Heritage Foundation, evoked Nazi metaphors to blame those who supported civil unions as a compromise: “By trying to appease homosexual rights activists, those who have refused to stand up for traditional marriage helped to create this court ruling. They are the Neville Chamberlains of the cultural wars.”

Barrett Duke of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission said he was "saddened for the people of California" but "especially for the children of that state."

"The California Supreme Court ruling not only overruled the very clear will of the people, it also proposes to overrule God's design," Duke said. "These judges may think they know more about marriage than the rest of us, but I am confident they don't know more about marriage than God. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Children need that environment to give them their best chance to fulfill their great potential. That's not only my opinion and the opinion of most of the people in this country, it's God's opinion, and His opinion overrules the opinion of any judges.

Indeed, the Right emphasized this “activist judges” angle; Gary Bauer, attacking the “four unelected robed radicals,” wrote:

It was an egregious exercise in judicial activism – of judges wielding raw political power to redefine our most basic values. But that is how the Left has succeeded. It cannot achieve its goals through the democratic process via the elected legislatures, so it ignores the people and goes to the courts, where it relies on political activists cloaked in black who answer to no one. The Left succeeds by using the most undemocratic methods possible.

Of course, Bauer may not realize that, while appointed at first, justices on California’s Supreme Court face voters at the next general election; each of the justices in the majority for this case has been retained by voters at least once. Bauer is probably aware, though, that the “elected legislature” in California passed marriage equality in 2005 and 2007, only to have it vetoed both times by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Nevertheless, right-wing activists hoped the decision would energize opponents of gay rights into action. “The good news is that I believe this will re-ignite the debate over a federal constitutional amendment,” according to Concerned Women for America’s Matt Barber. Jan LaRue called on Californians to recall members of the state’s Supreme Court in the way they recalled the governor several years ago. “Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?”

Meanwhile, the effort to put on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the California ballot continues—now, apparently, with more funding.

And, in spite of a beleaguered GOP’s effort to keep a low profile on social wedge issues during this election cycle, the Right is hoping the decision will push John McCain to “speak out more strongly in support of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” as Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council put it.

Heritage/Cato Economist Comes to Defense of 'Ron Paul Dollars'

Ezra — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:22:07 +0000

Fed raid earlier this month just "validates" big-government paranoia, writes Richard Rahn of FreedomWorks, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Discovery Institute.

Heritage Foundation Official: Bin Laden 'Aping' Democrats

Ezra — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:33:04 +0000

Mike Franc, apparently forgeting Bin Laden's call for tax cuts. Meanwhile, Gary Bauer: "Victory is a values issue."

Right-Wing Think Tank Claims Credit for Immigration Crackdown

Ezra — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:48:42 +0000

The White House, in an apparent attempt to mollify right-wing critics of comprehensive immigration reform, announced last week that it would sharply step immigration enforcement—and at least one group that attacked reform is taking credit for this latest move. Matthew Spaulding of the Heritage Foundation writes:

The Border Security and Immigration Administrative Reform initiative is smart and sensible and deserves to be commended. Virtually all of the policies within it have been proposed by The Heritage Foundation's policy research and analysis.

GOP Finally Getting Hip to Blogs?

Kyle — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:24:00 +0000

The Washington Times reports that the Right and the GOP might have finally figured out that blogs and bloggers are valuable, noting that the Heritage Foundation's Robert Bluey has been hosting weekly "Conservative Bloggers Briefings" that have included people such as Robert Novak, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.

Right-Wing Coalition United against SCHIP (Mostly)

Ezra — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:15:47 +0000

While the conservative movement coalition of the economic right and social right has shown some small cracks in the last year, one bill in Congress has them singing the same tune: a proposal to expand the coverage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The Religious Right is complaining that the bill defines “children” beginning with birth, rather than conception. According to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, making “unborn children” ineligible to sign up for insurance “is a calculated move to open the door to federal taxpayer-funded abortions.” (FRC’s David Christiansen clarified: “The federal dollars wouldn't necessarily be used to do the abortion, but it's freeing up states to perform these other services, including abortion, with their own state money.”)

Meanwhile, National Right to Life Committee asserted that the bill would lead to Medicare “rationing” and thus “involuntary euthanasia.” “They have attacked the sanctity of life both at the beginning and the latter stages of life,” cried Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, speaking of “the Democratic leadership” in Congress.

In addition, the Religious Right warns that the bill renews funding for abstinence education, but doesn’t restrict it to abstinence-only programs. “They’re simply giving states more money to fund Planned Parenthood and the programs that teach our children to have sex,” complained Linda Klepacki of Focus on the Family. “Comprehensive sex education will once again have a monopoly on your school systems.”

Meanwhile, economic-right activists are warning that expanding SCHIP is “a step towards socialism.” In this, they find welcome support from Perkins, who – despite his warnings about abortion – wrote that the “[m]ost important” aspect of the bill is that “its expansion represents a direct attack on private insurance, pushing Americans closer to what many Democratic leaders have long advocated--government-run, taxpayer-funded, universal health care, managed with the same efficiency and customer care as your local DMV.”

Both the Heritage Foundation and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform have trashed the bill. But as Robert Novak reports, they are having some trouble on the details, arguing with each other over right-wing amendments offered by Republicans.

The 42 senators and 196 House members who have signed a no-tax-increase pledge received a stern warning Wednesday from Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform: If you vote for Amendment 2548 to the Democratic-sponsored expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), you will violate your solemn promise. However, Amendment 2548 is not the product of tax-and-spend liberals but of conservative lawmakers and policy experts.

Sen. Richard Burr, a first-term conservative Republican from North Carolina and principal sponsor of 2548, pulled it off the floor Thursday night as SCHIP expansion passed the Senate, 68 to 31. The conservative movement is split over Norquist's warning, with two right-wing think tanks at each other's throats. Sponsors of the Burr amendment are furious that they are being depicted as tax-increasers when they claim they are fighting a movement toward "socialized medicine" in America.

This disarray on the right is part of a broader conservative breakdown. SCHIP passage, with notable Republican support, means that the Democrats -- 12 years after the failure of "Hillary care" -- have figured out how to market a government-financed plan. The quarrel over the Burr amendment reflects not only a failed Republican reaction to big government but also a weakening of GOP resolve to hold down taxes.