Today's Cultural Warfare Update
May. 20th, 2005 12:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdFocus on the Family action item to support an anti-marriage amendment to the Texas state Constitution;
FotF article news article criticising ACLU for opposing anti-gay law in Wisconson - Republicans hire "Christian legal firm" to fight the action;
FotF article - Sen. Brownback demanding action on Federal anti-marriage act;
Bill Moyers speech about Republican pressure against PBS and NPR's news coverage;
James Dobson whines about being picked on again; Your Editor plays the world's tiniest violin, and reminds her readers again about the DECADES of blood libel his group has propagated against queers;
FotF action item and article: the showdown as begun; tells its readership to call your senators now;
FotF article; House to consider removing Pledge of Allegiance cases from court purview;
Concerned Women for America article against women in combat-support positions;
CWA launches Arizona anti-marriage amendment petition drive for 2006 elections;
CWA attacks attempts at Judicial filibuster compromise, comparing Senator Nelson (R-SC) to British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his compromise to agreements with Hitler over Austria and Czechoslovakia;
Very frothy and rather confusion CWA attack on Democratic senators and Republicans who would build a compromise solution, alleging they want judges who will reward arsonists(?);
CWA rails against hate crimes - talks about how violent reactions to interest from gayfolk shouldn't, for example, be considered a hate crime; this goes back to their longstanding position that violent reactions against queers shouldn't be officially tolerated but are understandable, "natural" reactions to the "revulsion" to gayfolk (latter quotes are terms from older broadcasts, not this one);
Traditional Values Coalition gets their two cents in, demanding a change in filibuster rules;
TVC pushing anti-marriage state constitutional amendment in California.
----- 1 -----
Calls Needed to Save the Texas Marriage Amendment
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Urgent action is needed to see that traditional marriage is protected.
Homosexual activists have ratcheted up the pressure on state senators to see that Texans do not get the opportunity to vote on a marriage amendment in November -- and without your help, they may succeed.
Although Texas has a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the books, the law is vulnerable to rogue judges who may undermine the will of the people, as happened in Massachusetts last year. The only protection to this threat at the state level is to define marriage as between one man and one woman in the state's constitution.
In a 101-29 vote, the Texas House passed the marriage amendment, but it is now stuck in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Houston Sen. Rodney Ellis successfully stalled a hearing in this committee by "tagging" the bill, which keeps anything from happening for 48 hours. So the hearing is now scheduled for 5 p.m. Friday.
In every state where the people have been given the opportunity to vote on this issue, marriage amendments have been overwhelmingly approved – and the citizens of Texas deserve the right to vote to protect marriage as well.
TAKE ACTION
If you live in Texas, please contact your senator and let him or her know that you support a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And that Texans deserve the right to vote on this important issue. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst also needs to hear from you on this issue as well.
For contact information, visit the Free Market Foundation's Web site:
http://www.freemarket.org
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
----- 2 -----
Badger State Legislature to Fight Gay Benefits Issue
Focus on the Family
News Briefs - May 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
A lawsuit filed by six lesbian state workers in Wisconsin prompted Republican lawmakers to look to an Arizona-based Christian legal firm to represent the Legislature, The Associated Press reported.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) will argue for the state in the lawsuit which alleges a state law that prevents homosexual partners from obtaining health benefits violates Wisconsin's Constitution.
Though the state Department of Justice, under most circumstances, argues state cases, the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization felt is was necessary to look for outside help, because both Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and Gov. Jim Doyle support the idea of domestic partner benefits.
ADF will face the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought in by the women, who work in both the University of Wisconsin System and the Corrections and Transportation Department.
----- 3 -----
Brownback Restates Need for Federal Marriage Amendment
Focus on the Family
News Briefs - May 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Sen. Sam Brownback, an outspoken proponent of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, said Thursday that recent events in the Midwest serve to emphasize the need for a federal marriage amendment.
"Just last week, a federal court in Nebraska struck down that state's popularly enacted constitutional amendment designed to protect traditional marriage," Brownback said. "The Nebraska amendment passed in 2000 with a 70 percent majority vote. Now, for the first time, a federal court took this matter out of the hands of the people, explicitly rejecting the popular will."
Brownback added that it is clear the courts are moving in the direction of mandating same-sex marriage for every state, in spite of state amendments passed by large majorities and regardless of the Defense of Marriage Act passed under the Clinton administration.
"The Nebraska decision is Exhibit A of why we need a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage," he added, "and to protect the people's right to define the institution of marriage."
----- 4 -----
Moyers Addresses PBS Coup
By Bill Moyers, AlterNet. Posted May 17, 2005.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22021/
I can't imagine better company on this beautiful Sunday morning in St. Louis. You're church for me today, and there's no congregation in the country where I would be more likely to find more kindred souls than are gathered here.
There are so many different vocations and callings in this room -- so many different interests and aspirations of people who want to reform the media -- that only a presiding bishop like Bob McChesney with his great ecumenical heart could bring us together for a weekend like this.
What joins us all under Bob's embracing welcome is our commitment to public media. Pat Aufderheide got it right, I think, in the recent issue of In These Times when she wrote: "This is a moment when public media outlets can make a powerful case for themselves. Public radio, public TV, cable access, public DBS channels, media arts centers, youth media projects, nonprofit Internet news services ... low-power radio and webcasting are all part of a nearly invisible feature of today's media map: the public media sector. They exist not to make a profit, not to push an ideology, not to serve customers, but to create a public -- a group of people who can talk productively with those who don't share their views, and defend the interests of the people who have to live with the consequences of corporate and governmental power."
She gives examples of the possibilities. "Look at what happened," she said, "when thousands of people who watched Stanley Nelson's The Murder of Emmett Till on their public television channels joined a postcard campaign that re-opened the murder case after more than half a century. Look at NPR's courageous coverage of the Iraq war, an expensive endeavor that wins no points from this administration. Look at Chicago Access Network's Community Forum, where nonprofits throughout the region can showcase their issues and find volunteers."
The public media, she argues, for all our flaws, are a very important resource in a noisy and polluted information environment.
You can also take wings reading Jason Miller's May 4 article on Z Net about the mainstream media. While it is true that much of the mainstream media is corrupted by the influence of government and corporate interests, Miller writes, there are still men and women in the mainstream who practice a high degree of journalistic integrity and who do challenge us with their stories and analysis.
But the real hope "lies within the internet with its 2 billion or more Web sites providing a wealth of information drawn from almost unlimited resources that span the globe. ... If knowledge is power, one's capacity to increase that power increases exponentially through navigation of the Internet for news and information."
Surely this is one issue that unites us as we leave here today. The fight to preserve the web from corporate gatekeepers joins media, reformers, producers and educators -- and it's a fight that has only just begun.
I want to tell you about another fight we're in today. The story I've come to share with you goes to the core of our belief that the quality of democracy and the quality of journalism are deeply entwined. I can tell this story because I've been living it. It's been in the news this week, including reports of more attacks on a single journalist -- yours truly -- by the right-wing media and their allies at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
As some of you know, CPB was established almost 40 years ago to set broad policy for public broadcasting and to be a firewall between political influence and program content. What some on this board are now doing today -- led by its chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson -- is too important, too disturbing and yes, even too dangerous for a gathering like this not to address.
We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable.
Let me assure you that I take in stride attacks by the radical right-wingers who have not given up demonizing me although I retired over six months ago. They've been after me for years now, and I suspect they will be stomping on my grave to make sure I don't come back from the dead.
I should remind them, however, that one of our boys pulled it off some 2,000 years ago -- after the Pharisees, Sadducees and Caesar's surrogates thought they had shut him up for good. Of course I won't be expecting that kind of miracle, but I should put my detractors on notice: They might just compel me out of the rocking chair and back into the anchor chair.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
The Liberal Strategy: Sticks and Stones But No Substance
by James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Focus on the Family
May 18, 2004
In the absence of intellectual arguments, liberals in the media and in politics have increasingly reverted to name calling.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0036581.cfm
When I was a boy, school children would inevitably begin calling each other names when frustrated or angry.
"You're stupid," one would shout.
"You're dumb," came the reply.
"Well, well, you're so ugly your mother doesn't even love you."
"She does too—and you don't even have a mother."
As tempers flared, the kids searched for even more hurtful names, eventually stumbling into the aura of World War II which had engulfed the globe.
"You're Hitler," was the "baddest" insult one could hurl.
"Well, you're Mussolini." (Italy's Dictator)
"I am not. You're Tojo." (Japan's Prime Minister)
With that, the interchange ended. No one knew any more war criminals. There was nothing to do but fight.
I can't help but remember this foray into childhood when I hear today's rhetoric from liberals in the media and in politics. In the absence of intellectual arguments with which to counter the rational positions put forward by thoughtful conservatives, they have increasingly reverted to name calling. I have good reason to understand how those verbal assaults play out. Never in my 30 years as an author and broadcaster have I been subjected to such viciousness.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
CITIZENLINK BREAKING NEWS:
Senate Showdown on Judicial Nominations Begins
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Debate begins the process which will lead to the implementation of the constitutional option.
[Received in email: no URL]
The U.S. Senate began debate today on Justice Priscilla Owen, one of President Bush's judicial nominees -- a move experts say is just the beginning of what promises to be a lengthy showdown.
The question is whether seven nominees can get an up-or-down vote, or if the minority Democrats can continue to block them with a parliamentary procedure called the filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is reportedly ready to invoke the "constitutional option" to overcome a two-year long Democratic blockade of nominees to the federal appeals courts.
Debate is expected to continue over several days before a "test vote" is called on Owen's nomination -- at which time Frist is expected to turn to the Senate's president, Vice President Dick Cheney, for a ruling that filibustering of judicial nominations is unconstitutional.
Characterizing the Democrats' filibuster of Owen and her fellow nominees as "radical," Frist kicked off debate this morning by calling on the Senate to approve the Texas Supreme Court justice to a position on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democrats, largely liberal and pro-abortion, have accused Owen of being a "judicial activist" who pursues an ideological agenda.
Frist appealed to his colleagues to return to the past tradition of the Senate, but he argued it isn't necessary to go all the way back to the 1830s and the days of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun to look for precedent, but to the last 30 years -- an era in which Republican Howard Baker, Democrat Robert Byrd and Republican Bob Dole led the Senate.
"For 70 percent of the 20th century, the same party controlled the White House and the Senate," Frist said, "yet no minority denied a judicial nominee with majority support an up-or-down vote on this floor.
"Howard Baker's Republican minority didn't deny Democrat Jimmy Carter's nominees. Robert Byrd's Democratic minority didn't deny Republican Ronald Reagan's nominees. Bob Dole's Republican minority didn't deny Democrat Bill Clinton's nominees.
"Let the Senate decide," Frist said. "Let this body rise on principle and do its duty and vote. Vote for the nominee. Vote against the nominee. Confirm the nominee. Reject the nominee. But, in the end, vote."
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., led the Democrats' attack. Leahy talked about elevating the "level" of the debate, but then engaged in name-calling.
Leahy indiscriminately accused President Bush and Senate Republicans of "injecting religion into politics to claim a monopoly in piety and political truth."
But the Vermont Democrat did not stop there. He also publicly attacked -- by name -- pro-family conservative spokesmen like Focus on the Family Founder Dr. James Dobson and Christian Broadcasting Network Founder Pat Robertson.
Leahy referred to Robertson, the former presidential candidate and attorney whose "700 Club" revolutionized Christian television, as "a Republican clergyman" -- and derided Robertson's previous statement that judicial activism was as dangerous a threat as the United States had ever faced.
Referring to Dobson, Leahy said: "You know, I wonder every Sunday when I'm at Mass, what planet is this person from? This is religious McCarthyism. It is fraudulent on its face. It's contemptible. It's contemptible."
Dr. Dobson responded to Leahy's charges by labeling them as "bluster" which was truly "contemptible."
"It is just another attempt to obscure the real issue here," he said, "that every judicial nominee with clear majority support is entitled to an up-or-down vote."
Dobson said similarly vitriolic comments had been leveled against him recently by another Senate Democrat -- Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. -- over the issue of judicial nominations, because Senate Democrats are afraid to admit that approving the president's nominees "would jeopardize their efforts to hang on to the last bastion of liberal power: the courts."
But, he added: "Their smokescreens must be seen through, and the constitutional option must be approved at the conclusion of this debate."
Speaking after Leahy, Texas Republican John Cornyn lashed out against the harsh rhetoric.
"I worry when I hear senators use words like 'despicable,' 'Neanderthal,' 'scary,' (and) 'kook,' in describing nominees by this president to the federal bench," said Cornyn, a former Texas attorney general. "I would have thought that kind of rhetoric was unbecoming to a body like the United States Senate."
Later in the debate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said never had the role of the federal courts been more important -- and never have American ideals been more threatened.
"We've seen the Pledge of Allegiance struck down by federal courts," he said. "We've had courts redefine the meaning of marriage under the guise of interpreting a constitutional phrase that absolutely was never, ever considered to have been affecting the definition of marriage. It was the last thing in their minds."
Sessions said many of the issues that have been decided by courts and judges would never, ever prevail at the ballot box.
He also decried the influence of what he called "outside hard-left activist groups that have a clear agenda with regard to the judiciary" -- and their influence on the confirmation process.
"They have banded together," Sessions said. "They build dossiers on nominees, they systematically take out of context their comments and their statements and their positions. They should not be calling the shots here, and frankly, my view is too often they have."
Senate observers reported last-minute deals were being negotiated in the halls of Congress as debate began. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., a conservative, confirmed reports the talks are continuing between centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats.
"My view is that when you start picking and choosing and saying, 'Well, we’ll accept this one if you’ll give us this one . . . then you really undermine the whole principle at stake here," Thune said. "I think that people who are trying to strike these deals . . . fail to understand what this is about."
(Citizen magazine Associate Editor Candi Cushman contributed to this report.)
TAKE ACTION: Please contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to support the effort to give every judicial nomination an up-or-down vote. For help in contacting your lawmakers, please see the CitizenLink Action Center: http://www.family.org/cforum/action_center.cfm?capwizurl=http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
----- 7 -----
House Considers Protecting the Pledge
by Bill Wilson, Washington, D.C. correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Congress moves to insulate "under God" in the pledge of allegiance from activist judges.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036580.cfm
A member of the House has introduced legislation that would take away from the nation's courts the power to rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to place certain limits on the courts. And that's just what Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri intends to do.
"You can say the pledge if you want to," he said. "But obviously, I think we've gone too far if the court starts to use the First Amendment to say that kids cannot say something… instead of to protect free speech. That's why we're taking this action."
Last year, the Supreme Court considered whether schoolchildren should be allowed to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the end, the high court dodged the issue, declaring that the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, did not have standing. That effectively left "under God" in the pledge.
There is bi-partisan support for Akin's bill and North Carolina Congressman Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., said it's time the courts are prevented from excising God from the pledge.
"The appellate courts," he said, "should not -- and will not under this law -- get away with removing Him from our most sacred, patriotic vow, the Pledge of Allegiance."
Akin believes his legislation can stand up to challenges by those who want to remove God from the public square.
"First of all, they have to overthrow that entire current practice and ignore the Constitution," he said, "But when they get done doing those two things, they run smack dab into the pledge. And do you really want to be out in front on the Pledge of Allegiance?"
Both Congressmen see strong House support for the bill, which already has about 150 cosponsors.
The Senate will be more challenging, but Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has agreed to champion the bill.
----- 8 -----
Congress Moves to Halt Army Assignment of Women to Combat
Concerned Women for America
5/20/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8199/CWA/nation/index.htm
You can’t pick up a newspaper without seeing articles about our brave women soldiers in combat. In some, like a recent Washington Post article, commanders openly admit sending women on combat missions, in direct violation of the law barring women from such missions. In January, the Army deployed its first reorganized combat unit, the 3rd Infantry, in a way that "collocates" female support personnel with combat troops, in violation of the law banning women from ground combat.
Now Congress is stepping in. As a part of the Defense Authorization Bill, members of the House Armed Services Committee have voted to freeze the positions open to women until the matter can be examined more closely. Martha Kleder spoke with Elaine Donnelly, president of The Center for Military Readiness.
Chairman Duncan Hunter on Women in Combat (2:10) [AUDIO LINK]
Addressing the mark-up session of the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, (R-California) says confusing data from the Department of the Army and e-mails from service members on the matter of the assignment of women to combat units prompted an amendment. Click here to listen.
Congress Sees Need to Intervene in the Army’s Plans for Women (6:51) [AUDIO LINK]
A great ally of Concerned Women for America on this issue is Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness. Martha Kleder, CWA policy analyst attended the hearing with Elaine. Through the day, different amendment language was proposed; some good, some terrible. Elaine has more on the day’s developments. Click here to listen.
*For more information on the women in combat issue and a strong critique of the article in The Washington Post, see this commentary by Charmaine Yoest, a friend of CWA and the daughter of our own Dr. Janice Crouse.
----- 9 -----
Arizona Citizens Launch Drive to Protect Marriage
Concerned Women for America
5/19/2005
By Meghan Kleppinger
CWA of Arizona plays key role.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8193/CWA/family/index.htm
Concerned Women for America (CWA) of Arizona joined the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition in a Tuesday event in Phoenix to launch a grassroots initiative to get the marriage amendment on the November 2006 ballot. The effort needs to gather nearly 184,000 signatures.
The kick-off event included the signing of petitions, a press conference and fundraising. Some 20 reporters covered it, and more than 200 citizens attended the event, which was duplicated at locations statewide.
“It was not surprising to see the overwhelming support for marriage in Arizona. It's about letting the people decide in 2006,” said State Director for CWA of Arizona Tammy Bellinger, who played an active role at the Phoenix event. “After seeing 18 other states support marriage by, on average, over 70 percent, we are encouraged that our state will be next in line.”
Protect Marriage Arizona, filed with the Secretary of State on Wednesday, is a proposed state constitutional amendment that will establish, once and for all, that marriage in Arizona is limited to a union between one man and one woman. The Coalition’s goal is to gather double the required valid signatures and with 18 months to go, they are confident they will reach it.
Members of CWA of Arizona will focus on publicizing the petition drive in their communities and churches, and through chapter publications.
Arizona residents: For information about how you can become involved in CWA of Arizona, click here. For other states, click here, or call 1-800-964-2203.
----- 10 -----
CWA: Chris Matthews Gets It—What’s Up With Squishy Republicans?
Concerned Women for America
5/20/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8198/MEDIA/nation/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – In an interview with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) on his “Hardball” TV program last night, Chris Matthews questioned Nelson about the so-called compromise he and fellow Democrats and several Republican senators are trying to broker. The compromise is an attempt to prevent Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) from using the constitutional option of cutting off a filibuster with 51 votes. It would take six Democrats and six Republicans to agree that the Democrats would not filibuster some of the nominees, but Republicans would not oppose Democrats filibustering nominees that are “extreme” or “extraordinary,” which leaves the Democrats free to filibuster, including Supreme Court nominees.
“Chris Matthews is a Democrat and he can’t seem to fathom why any Republicans would agree to a deal only a bumpkin would fall for,” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America’s chief counsel.
MATTHEWS: “Here’s what I don’t understand. Why should the Republicans trust Democrats to discriminate in cases of, only extraordinary cases, and you believe they would be quite willing to push through some terrible appointment with 51 votes. Why do you think they wouldn’t reject a candidate who is extraordinarily bad?
SEN. NELSON: They’re likely to.
MATTHEWS: Why are you worried about it? Why do you need to filibuster?
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you to speak for the six moderate sides of the party. Doubt any of your six members would vote to declare Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, any one of them extraordinary—what does extraordinary mean?
SEN. NELSON: It means whatever people want. We haven’t talked about any of those individuals. I haven’t even thought about what I would do in each of those cases. But I would have to take them one at a time.
“‘It means whatever people want’? You’d think they’d be insulted that anybody thinks they’re so weak and willing. This is a deal Chamberlain would have fallen for. Churchill would have torched it with his cigar,” LaRue concluded.
----- 11 -----
CWA: Democrats Think ‘Mainstream’ Judges Reward Arsonists?
Concerned Women for America
5/19/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8185/MEDIA/family/index.htm
Washington, D.C. -- Yesterday the debates began on the Senate floor and, as we predicted, the Democrats are continuing to use distortion and deception in their attacks on Priscilla Owen, President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Janice Rogers Brown, his nominee to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) tried to back his claim that Justice Owen is “out-of-the mainstream” by citing Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. Murphy (Tex. 1999). Truthfully, Justice Owen ruled that neither an arsonist nor his spouse should benefit from his crime by recovering insurance proceeds. She followed two unanimous rulings of the Fifth Circuit, the very court to which she has been nominated.
“The Democrats’ nuclear meltdown is under way and apparently it starts in the head,” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America’s chief counsel. “They think that they can continue making preposterous charges and get away with it. This buffoon boomerang proves how desperate they are.”
Not to be outdone, an even more scurrilous charge comes from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) who has described Justice Brown, an African-American, as “a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days.” One can only imagine a backlash of Biblical proportions if a Republican said this about a Democrat nominee.
“Democrats held up signs yesterday bragging that they have approved 208 of the president’s nominees, including 35 appeals court judges,” LaRue added. “Does that mean they’ve confirmed 208 ‘mainstream’ people, which undercuts their attack on the president, or 208 ‘extremists,’ which undercuts their credibility? Go figure.
“Meanwhile, it’s still being reported that several Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), John McCain (Arizona), and others are trying to cut a deal with these desperate losers. It would result in dumping some of the nominees and allowing the Democrats to hold on to their obstructionist filibuster to use against future Supreme Court nominees. Again, why are Democrats willing to confirm seven ‘extremists’ and why are Republicans willing to cut a bad deal with deceivers?” LaRue concluded.
For Information Contact:
Rebecca Jones
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 12 -----
The Truth About ‘Hate Crimes’
Concerned Women for America
5/19/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8190/CWA//index.htm
If you go by reports in the regular media, you may think that the number of hate crimes is increasing. However, the stories behind those reports shed a different light on those statistics. Bob Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute sits down with famed Christian civil liberties attorney Leah Farish and discusses the incidents that make up this FBI report. Click here to listen.
Robert Knight (CWA Culture an Family Institute) with Leah Farish; "an authority on hate crimes laws and hate crimes incidents." Talks about attempt to include Federal hate-crimes law to include gayfolk; "present a threat to freedom because of that addition of sexual orientation." Biggest "myth": "One is that hate crimes are increasing... in fact, reporting agencies... have increased, but the number of incidents has not kept up with the rate of increase in reporting agencies." "Advocacy groups which get their funding from a sense of hysteria or victimisation will often emphasise or overemphasise the extent of a problem in order to increase hysteria." Claims that they wouldn't ever justify even insults against people (ed note: a lie, as they routinely do so). "I've seen homosexual activist groups saying ... year after year, these things are growing..." Talks about "simple intimidation" and downplays it. Claims gayfolk report a lot of things that "aren't crimes" as "crimes."
"Is there any evidence you know of of these kinds of crimes against homosexuals ... aren't being prosecuted?" "No. ... a lot of police departments even hate monthly meetings with the gay community... over 90% of departments have received funding like that... there is no other demographic group that has equivalant influence in expressing victimisation with... social and legal agencies that the homosexual activists [have]."
"That's part of their strategy, portraying themselves as victims... really aids the rest of their agenda. Sometimes this is aided in unscrupulant ways... fake hate crimes..." Points to a couple of conservative columnists who have "make a point" of tracking "fake" hate crimes. "Another reason that hate crimes are being overreported... people don't understand that gay on gay violence can be a hate crime... a sexual overture gone wrong could turn into a hate crime... criminals view homosexuals as people who carry a lot of cash, and they're targets for assault, murder even, because they're seen as ... particularly rich targets... thugs should not determine our public policy."
"Hate crimes against religious people often occur in terms of property damage... reported as one incident, even though their intended victims could be numbered in thousands." Claims sexual orientation-based hate crimes are "over-reported as part of a political agenda," and that religious-based hate-crimes are under-reported.
----- 13 -----
Senate Leaders Confront Democrat Filibusters Of Judges
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2287
May 19, 2005 – The U.S. Senate began debate over the nominations of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown on May 18th.
Both nominees had been previously blocked by liberals from receiving a fair up or down vote in the full Senate. Both Bush nominees are highly qualified jurists who would make excellent federal judges.
Liberal Senators and their leftist allies with People for the American Way and other radical groups have smeared Owen and Brown, claiming they are “judicial activists.” Liberals are also falsely claiming that any effort to stop the filibustering of judges is an attack on the independence of the judiciary and an assault on the co-equal branches of government.
Just the opposite is true as in most liberal claims. Liberals want leftist judges to impose their own political agendas in court rulings and to ignore the Constitution or the clear meaning of laws that are passed by legislatures. The most recent example of this is the Clinton-appointed judge in Nebraska who overturned a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The amendment was passed by 70% of the voters in 2000, but this one liberal judge claims that the amendment indicates “animus” against homosexuals and is illegal.
The Senate leadership is working this week to restore Senate tradition on filibusters to allow a simple majority in the Senate to determine what candidates are confirmed or rejected for federal judgeships. The filibustering of judges is a relatively recent problem and must be defeated.
The Washington Times (May 18, 2005) published details about the Democratic strategy to block President Bush’s nominees: Memos reveal strategy behind judge filibusters. Read more about these memos here: Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Assemblyman Bill Maze & TVC Chairman to Rally in Support of Traditional Marriage
Need for Marriage Amendment to be Expressed.
Traditional Values Coalition
For Immediate Release May 19, 2005
Contact: Benjamin Lopez
(714) 520-0300
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2288
Anaheim, California — “The State Legislature is determined to undermine the traditional family by forcing same-sex marriages upon the people of California” said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, Chairman and Founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). “With their rejection of two marriage amendments to the state constitution last week, they give us no choice but to go directly to the people to pass a marriage amendment preserving marriage for one man and one woman.”
On Saturday, May 21, 2005, Rev. Sheldon, along with TVC’s Central Valley Coordinator Jody Hutchens will join State Assemblyman Bill Maze in a rally in support of traditional marriage. The rally, hosted by Assemblyman Maze, will begin at 10:00 AM and will be held at Constitution Park located at the intersection of Tulare Avenue & Crenshaw Court located in Visalia, California.
On May 10, 2005 the Assembly Judiciary and Senate Judiciary Committees rejected ACA 3 and SCA 1 respectively on party line votes. TVC sponsored ACA 3 by Assemblyman Ray Haynes, along with SCA 1 authored by Senator Bill Morrow. Both ACA 3 and SCA 1 would have codified into the California Constitution language from Proposition 22, which was approved by voters in March 2000 with over 61% of the vote. The amendments also stated: “The rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations of a marriage shall only be granted, bestowed, and conferred upon a man and a woman joined in a valid marriage, and may not be conferred upon any other union or partnership.”
A competing bill in the legislature, AB 19 by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would strike all references to “male”, “female”, “husband” & “wife” in the current law and replace it with the phrase “two persons” thereby allowing same-sex marriages. The bill is now before the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is expected to reach the floor of the State Assembly before June 3 rd.
“It is clear the Legislature is catering to the demands of the homosexual community by advancing homosexual marriage (AB 19) and rejecting ACA 3 and SCA 1,” Sheldon said. “Therefore, we have no other choice but to rally the public and prepare them for a campaign to pass a marriage amendment ourselves.”
[More at URL]
FotF article news article criticising ACLU for opposing anti-gay law in Wisconson - Republicans hire "Christian legal firm" to fight the action;
FotF article - Sen. Brownback demanding action on Federal anti-marriage act;
Bill Moyers speech about Republican pressure against PBS and NPR's news coverage;
James Dobson whines about being picked on again; Your Editor plays the world's tiniest violin, and reminds her readers again about the DECADES of blood libel his group has propagated against queers;
FotF action item and article: the showdown as begun; tells its readership to call your senators now;
FotF article; House to consider removing Pledge of Allegiance cases from court purview;
Concerned Women for America article against women in combat-support positions;
CWA launches Arizona anti-marriage amendment petition drive for 2006 elections;
CWA attacks attempts at Judicial filibuster compromise, comparing Senator Nelson (R-SC) to British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his compromise to agreements with Hitler over Austria and Czechoslovakia;
Very frothy and rather confusion CWA attack on Democratic senators and Republicans who would build a compromise solution, alleging they want judges who will reward arsonists(?);
CWA rails against hate crimes - talks about how violent reactions to interest from gayfolk shouldn't, for example, be considered a hate crime; this goes back to their longstanding position that violent reactions against queers shouldn't be officially tolerated but are understandable, "natural" reactions to the "revulsion" to gayfolk (latter quotes are terms from older broadcasts, not this one);
Traditional Values Coalition gets their two cents in, demanding a change in filibuster rules;
TVC pushing anti-marriage state constitutional amendment in California.
----- 1 -----
Calls Needed to Save the Texas Marriage Amendment
by Mona Passignano, state issues analyst
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Urgent action is needed to see that traditional marriage is protected.
Homosexual activists have ratcheted up the pressure on state senators to see that Texans do not get the opportunity to vote on a marriage amendment in November -- and without your help, they may succeed.
Although Texas has a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the books, the law is vulnerable to rogue judges who may undermine the will of the people, as happened in Massachusetts last year. The only protection to this threat at the state level is to define marriage as between one man and one woman in the state's constitution.
In a 101-29 vote, the Texas House passed the marriage amendment, but it is now stuck in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Houston Sen. Rodney Ellis successfully stalled a hearing in this committee by "tagging" the bill, which keeps anything from happening for 48 hours. So the hearing is now scheduled for 5 p.m. Friday.
In every state where the people have been given the opportunity to vote on this issue, marriage amendments have been overwhelmingly approved – and the citizens of Texas deserve the right to vote to protect marriage as well.
TAKE ACTION
If you live in Texas, please contact your senator and let him or her know that you support a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And that Texans deserve the right to vote on this important issue. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst also needs to hear from you on this issue as well.
For contact information, visit the Free Market Foundation's Web site:
http://www.freemarket.org
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
----- 2 -----
Badger State Legislature to Fight Gay Benefits Issue
Focus on the Family
News Briefs - May 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
A lawsuit filed by six lesbian state workers in Wisconsin prompted Republican lawmakers to look to an Arizona-based Christian legal firm to represent the Legislature, The Associated Press reported.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) will argue for the state in the lawsuit which alleges a state law that prevents homosexual partners from obtaining health benefits violates Wisconsin's Constitution.
Though the state Department of Justice, under most circumstances, argues state cases, the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization felt is was necessary to look for outside help, because both Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and Gov. Jim Doyle support the idea of domestic partner benefits.
ADF will face the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought in by the women, who work in both the University of Wisconsin System and the Corrections and Transportation Department.
----- 3 -----
Brownback Restates Need for Federal Marriage Amendment
Focus on the Family
News Briefs - May 19, 2005
[Received in email; no URL]
Sen. Sam Brownback, an outspoken proponent of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, said Thursday that recent events in the Midwest serve to emphasize the need for a federal marriage amendment.
"Just last week, a federal court in Nebraska struck down that state's popularly enacted constitutional amendment designed to protect traditional marriage," Brownback said. "The Nebraska amendment passed in 2000 with a 70 percent majority vote. Now, for the first time, a federal court took this matter out of the hands of the people, explicitly rejecting the popular will."
Brownback added that it is clear the courts are moving in the direction of mandating same-sex marriage for every state, in spite of state amendments passed by large majorities and regardless of the Defense of Marriage Act passed under the Clinton administration.
"The Nebraska decision is Exhibit A of why we need a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage," he added, "and to protect the people's right to define the institution of marriage."
----- 4 -----
Moyers Addresses PBS Coup
By Bill Moyers, AlterNet. Posted May 17, 2005.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22021/
I can't imagine better company on this beautiful Sunday morning in St. Louis. You're church for me today, and there's no congregation in the country where I would be more likely to find more kindred souls than are gathered here.
There are so many different vocations and callings in this room -- so many different interests and aspirations of people who want to reform the media -- that only a presiding bishop like Bob McChesney with his great ecumenical heart could bring us together for a weekend like this.
What joins us all under Bob's embracing welcome is our commitment to public media. Pat Aufderheide got it right, I think, in the recent issue of In These Times when she wrote: "This is a moment when public media outlets can make a powerful case for themselves. Public radio, public TV, cable access, public DBS channels, media arts centers, youth media projects, nonprofit Internet news services ... low-power radio and webcasting are all part of a nearly invisible feature of today's media map: the public media sector. They exist not to make a profit, not to push an ideology, not to serve customers, but to create a public -- a group of people who can talk productively with those who don't share their views, and defend the interests of the people who have to live with the consequences of corporate and governmental power."
She gives examples of the possibilities. "Look at what happened," she said, "when thousands of people who watched Stanley Nelson's The Murder of Emmett Till on their public television channels joined a postcard campaign that re-opened the murder case after more than half a century. Look at NPR's courageous coverage of the Iraq war, an expensive endeavor that wins no points from this administration. Look at Chicago Access Network's Community Forum, where nonprofits throughout the region can showcase their issues and find volunteers."
The public media, she argues, for all our flaws, are a very important resource in a noisy and polluted information environment.
You can also take wings reading Jason Miller's May 4 article on Z Net about the mainstream media. While it is true that much of the mainstream media is corrupted by the influence of government and corporate interests, Miller writes, there are still men and women in the mainstream who practice a high degree of journalistic integrity and who do challenge us with their stories and analysis.
But the real hope "lies within the internet with its 2 billion or more Web sites providing a wealth of information drawn from almost unlimited resources that span the globe. ... If knowledge is power, one's capacity to increase that power increases exponentially through navigation of the Internet for news and information."
Surely this is one issue that unites us as we leave here today. The fight to preserve the web from corporate gatekeepers joins media, reformers, producers and educators -- and it's a fight that has only just begun.
I want to tell you about another fight we're in today. The story I've come to share with you goes to the core of our belief that the quality of democracy and the quality of journalism are deeply entwined. I can tell this story because I've been living it. It's been in the news this week, including reports of more attacks on a single journalist -- yours truly -- by the right-wing media and their allies at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
As some of you know, CPB was established almost 40 years ago to set broad policy for public broadcasting and to be a firewall between political influence and program content. What some on this board are now doing today -- led by its chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson -- is too important, too disturbing and yes, even too dangerous for a gathering like this not to address.
We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable.
Let me assure you that I take in stride attacks by the radical right-wingers who have not given up demonizing me although I retired over six months ago. They've been after me for years now, and I suspect they will be stomping on my grave to make sure I don't come back from the dead.
I should remind them, however, that one of our boys pulled it off some 2,000 years ago -- after the Pharisees, Sadducees and Caesar's surrogates thought they had shut him up for good. Of course I won't be expecting that kind of miracle, but I should put my detractors on notice: They might just compel me out of the rocking chair and back into the anchor chair.
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
The Liberal Strategy: Sticks and Stones But No Substance
by James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Focus on the Family
May 18, 2004
In the absence of intellectual arguments, liberals in the media and in politics have increasingly reverted to name calling.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0036581.cfm
When I was a boy, school children would inevitably begin calling each other names when frustrated or angry.
"You're stupid," one would shout.
"You're dumb," came the reply.
"Well, well, you're so ugly your mother doesn't even love you."
"She does too—and you don't even have a mother."
As tempers flared, the kids searched for even more hurtful names, eventually stumbling into the aura of World War II which had engulfed the globe.
"You're Hitler," was the "baddest" insult one could hurl.
"Well, you're Mussolini." (Italy's Dictator)
"I am not. You're Tojo." (Japan's Prime Minister)
With that, the interchange ended. No one knew any more war criminals. There was nothing to do but fight.
I can't help but remember this foray into childhood when I hear today's rhetoric from liberals in the media and in politics. In the absence of intellectual arguments with which to counter the rational positions put forward by thoughtful conservatives, they have increasingly reverted to name calling. I have good reason to understand how those verbal assaults play out. Never in my 30 years as an author and broadcaster have I been subjected to such viciousness.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
CITIZENLINK BREAKING NEWS:
Senate Showdown on Judicial Nominations Begins
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Debate begins the process which will lead to the implementation of the constitutional option.
[Received in email: no URL]
The U.S. Senate began debate today on Justice Priscilla Owen, one of President Bush's judicial nominees -- a move experts say is just the beginning of what promises to be a lengthy showdown.
The question is whether seven nominees can get an up-or-down vote, or if the minority Democrats can continue to block them with a parliamentary procedure called the filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is reportedly ready to invoke the "constitutional option" to overcome a two-year long Democratic blockade of nominees to the federal appeals courts.
Debate is expected to continue over several days before a "test vote" is called on Owen's nomination -- at which time Frist is expected to turn to the Senate's president, Vice President Dick Cheney, for a ruling that filibustering of judicial nominations is unconstitutional.
Characterizing the Democrats' filibuster of Owen and her fellow nominees as "radical," Frist kicked off debate this morning by calling on the Senate to approve the Texas Supreme Court justice to a position on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democrats, largely liberal and pro-abortion, have accused Owen of being a "judicial activist" who pursues an ideological agenda.
Frist appealed to his colleagues to return to the past tradition of the Senate, but he argued it isn't necessary to go all the way back to the 1830s and the days of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun to look for precedent, but to the last 30 years -- an era in which Republican Howard Baker, Democrat Robert Byrd and Republican Bob Dole led the Senate.
"For 70 percent of the 20th century, the same party controlled the White House and the Senate," Frist said, "yet no minority denied a judicial nominee with majority support an up-or-down vote on this floor.
"Howard Baker's Republican minority didn't deny Democrat Jimmy Carter's nominees. Robert Byrd's Democratic minority didn't deny Republican Ronald Reagan's nominees. Bob Dole's Republican minority didn't deny Democrat Bill Clinton's nominees.
"Let the Senate decide," Frist said. "Let this body rise on principle and do its duty and vote. Vote for the nominee. Vote against the nominee. Confirm the nominee. Reject the nominee. But, in the end, vote."
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., led the Democrats' attack. Leahy talked about elevating the "level" of the debate, but then engaged in name-calling.
Leahy indiscriminately accused President Bush and Senate Republicans of "injecting religion into politics to claim a monopoly in piety and political truth."
But the Vermont Democrat did not stop there. He also publicly attacked -- by name -- pro-family conservative spokesmen like Focus on the Family Founder Dr. James Dobson and Christian Broadcasting Network Founder Pat Robertson.
Leahy referred to Robertson, the former presidential candidate and attorney whose "700 Club" revolutionized Christian television, as "a Republican clergyman" -- and derided Robertson's previous statement that judicial activism was as dangerous a threat as the United States had ever faced.
Referring to Dobson, Leahy said: "You know, I wonder every Sunday when I'm at Mass, what planet is this person from? This is religious McCarthyism. It is fraudulent on its face. It's contemptible. It's contemptible."
Dr. Dobson responded to Leahy's charges by labeling them as "bluster" which was truly "contemptible."
"It is just another attempt to obscure the real issue here," he said, "that every judicial nominee with clear majority support is entitled to an up-or-down vote."
Dobson said similarly vitriolic comments had been leveled against him recently by another Senate Democrat -- Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo. -- over the issue of judicial nominations, because Senate Democrats are afraid to admit that approving the president's nominees "would jeopardize their efforts to hang on to the last bastion of liberal power: the courts."
But, he added: "Their smokescreens must be seen through, and the constitutional option must be approved at the conclusion of this debate."
Speaking after Leahy, Texas Republican John Cornyn lashed out against the harsh rhetoric.
"I worry when I hear senators use words like 'despicable,' 'Neanderthal,' 'scary,' (and) 'kook,' in describing nominees by this president to the federal bench," said Cornyn, a former Texas attorney general. "I would have thought that kind of rhetoric was unbecoming to a body like the United States Senate."
Later in the debate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said never had the role of the federal courts been more important -- and never have American ideals been more threatened.
"We've seen the Pledge of Allegiance struck down by federal courts," he said. "We've had courts redefine the meaning of marriage under the guise of interpreting a constitutional phrase that absolutely was never, ever considered to have been affecting the definition of marriage. It was the last thing in their minds."
Sessions said many of the issues that have been decided by courts and judges would never, ever prevail at the ballot box.
He also decried the influence of what he called "outside hard-left activist groups that have a clear agenda with regard to the judiciary" -- and their influence on the confirmation process.
"They have banded together," Sessions said. "They build dossiers on nominees, they systematically take out of context their comments and their statements and their positions. They should not be calling the shots here, and frankly, my view is too often they have."
Senate observers reported last-minute deals were being negotiated in the halls of Congress as debate began. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., a conservative, confirmed reports the talks are continuing between centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats.
"My view is that when you start picking and choosing and saying, 'Well, we’ll accept this one if you’ll give us this one . . . then you really undermine the whole principle at stake here," Thune said. "I think that people who are trying to strike these deals . . . fail to understand what this is about."
(Citizen magazine Associate Editor Candi Cushman contributed to this report.)
TAKE ACTION: Please contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to support the effort to give every judicial nomination an up-or-down vote. For help in contacting your lawmakers, please see the CitizenLink Action Center: http://www.family.org/cforum/action_center.cfm?capwizurl=http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
----- 7 -----
House Considers Protecting the Pledge
by Bill Wilson, Washington, D.C. correspondent
Focus on the Family
SUMMARY: Congress moves to insulate "under God" in the pledge of allegiance from activist judges.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0036580.cfm
A member of the House has introduced legislation that would take away from the nation's courts the power to rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to place certain limits on the courts. And that's just what Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri intends to do.
"You can say the pledge if you want to," he said. "But obviously, I think we've gone too far if the court starts to use the First Amendment to say that kids cannot say something… instead of to protect free speech. That's why we're taking this action."
Last year, the Supreme Court considered whether schoolchildren should be allowed to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the end, the high court dodged the issue, declaring that the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, did not have standing. That effectively left "under God" in the pledge.
There is bi-partisan support for Akin's bill and North Carolina Congressman Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., said it's time the courts are prevented from excising God from the pledge.
"The appellate courts," he said, "should not -- and will not under this law -- get away with removing Him from our most sacred, patriotic vow, the Pledge of Allegiance."
Akin believes his legislation can stand up to challenges by those who want to remove God from the public square.
"First of all, they have to overthrow that entire current practice and ignore the Constitution," he said, "But when they get done doing those two things, they run smack dab into the pledge. And do you really want to be out in front on the Pledge of Allegiance?"
Both Congressmen see strong House support for the bill, which already has about 150 cosponsors.
The Senate will be more challenging, but Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has agreed to champion the bill.
----- 8 -----
Congress Moves to Halt Army Assignment of Women to Combat
Concerned Women for America
5/20/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8199/CWA/nation/index.htm
You can’t pick up a newspaper without seeing articles about our brave women soldiers in combat. In some, like a recent Washington Post article, commanders openly admit sending women on combat missions, in direct violation of the law barring women from such missions. In January, the Army deployed its first reorganized combat unit, the 3rd Infantry, in a way that "collocates" female support personnel with combat troops, in violation of the law banning women from ground combat.
Now Congress is stepping in. As a part of the Defense Authorization Bill, members of the House Armed Services Committee have voted to freeze the positions open to women until the matter can be examined more closely. Martha Kleder spoke with Elaine Donnelly, president of The Center for Military Readiness.
Chairman Duncan Hunter on Women in Combat (2:10) [AUDIO LINK]
Addressing the mark-up session of the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, (R-California) says confusing data from the Department of the Army and e-mails from service members on the matter of the assignment of women to combat units prompted an amendment. Click here to listen.
Congress Sees Need to Intervene in the Army’s Plans for Women (6:51) [AUDIO LINK]
A great ally of Concerned Women for America on this issue is Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness. Martha Kleder, CWA policy analyst attended the hearing with Elaine. Through the day, different amendment language was proposed; some good, some terrible. Elaine has more on the day’s developments. Click here to listen.
*For more information on the women in combat issue and a strong critique of the article in The Washington Post, see this commentary by Charmaine Yoest, a friend of CWA and the daughter of our own Dr. Janice Crouse.
----- 9 -----
Arizona Citizens Launch Drive to Protect Marriage
Concerned Women for America
5/19/2005
By Meghan Kleppinger
CWA of Arizona plays key role.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8193/CWA/family/index.htm
Concerned Women for America (CWA) of Arizona joined the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition in a Tuesday event in Phoenix to launch a grassroots initiative to get the marriage amendment on the November 2006 ballot. The effort needs to gather nearly 184,000 signatures.
The kick-off event included the signing of petitions, a press conference and fundraising. Some 20 reporters covered it, and more than 200 citizens attended the event, which was duplicated at locations statewide.
“It was not surprising to see the overwhelming support for marriage in Arizona. It's about letting the people decide in 2006,” said State Director for CWA of Arizona Tammy Bellinger, who played an active role at the Phoenix event. “After seeing 18 other states support marriage by, on average, over 70 percent, we are encouraged that our state will be next in line.”
Protect Marriage Arizona, filed with the Secretary of State on Wednesday, is a proposed state constitutional amendment that will establish, once and for all, that marriage in Arizona is limited to a union between one man and one woman. The Coalition’s goal is to gather double the required valid signatures and with 18 months to go, they are confident they will reach it.
Members of CWA of Arizona will focus on publicizing the petition drive in their communities and churches, and through chapter publications.
Arizona residents: For information about how you can become involved in CWA of Arizona, click here. For other states, click here, or call 1-800-964-2203.
----- 10 -----
CWA: Chris Matthews Gets It—What’s Up With Squishy Republicans?
Concerned Women for America
5/20/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8198/MEDIA/nation/index.htm
Washington, D.C. – In an interview with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) on his “Hardball” TV program last night, Chris Matthews questioned Nelson about the so-called compromise he and fellow Democrats and several Republican senators are trying to broker. The compromise is an attempt to prevent Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) from using the constitutional option of cutting off a filibuster with 51 votes. It would take six Democrats and six Republicans to agree that the Democrats would not filibuster some of the nominees, but Republicans would not oppose Democrats filibustering nominees that are “extreme” or “extraordinary,” which leaves the Democrats free to filibuster, including Supreme Court nominees.
“Chris Matthews is a Democrat and he can’t seem to fathom why any Republicans would agree to a deal only a bumpkin would fall for,” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America’s chief counsel.
MATTHEWS: “Here’s what I don’t understand. Why should the Republicans trust Democrats to discriminate in cases of, only extraordinary cases, and you believe they would be quite willing to push through some terrible appointment with 51 votes. Why do you think they wouldn’t reject a candidate who is extraordinarily bad?
SEN. NELSON: They’re likely to.
MATTHEWS: Why are you worried about it? Why do you need to filibuster?
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you to speak for the six moderate sides of the party. Doubt any of your six members would vote to declare Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, any one of them extraordinary—what does extraordinary mean?
SEN. NELSON: It means whatever people want. We haven’t talked about any of those individuals. I haven’t even thought about what I would do in each of those cases. But I would have to take them one at a time.
“‘It means whatever people want’? You’d think they’d be insulted that anybody thinks they’re so weak and willing. This is a deal Chamberlain would have fallen for. Churchill would have torched it with his cigar,” LaRue concluded.
----- 11 -----
CWA: Democrats Think ‘Mainstream’ Judges Reward Arsonists?
Concerned Women for America
5/19/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8185/MEDIA/family/index.htm
Washington, D.C. -- Yesterday the debates began on the Senate floor and, as we predicted, the Democrats are continuing to use distortion and deception in their attacks on Priscilla Owen, President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Janice Rogers Brown, his nominee to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) tried to back his claim that Justice Owen is “out-of-the mainstream” by citing Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. Murphy (Tex. 1999). Truthfully, Justice Owen ruled that neither an arsonist nor his spouse should benefit from his crime by recovering insurance proceeds. She followed two unanimous rulings of the Fifth Circuit, the very court to which she has been nominated.
“The Democrats’ nuclear meltdown is under way and apparently it starts in the head,” said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America’s chief counsel. “They think that they can continue making preposterous charges and get away with it. This buffoon boomerang proves how desperate they are.”
Not to be outdone, an even more scurrilous charge comes from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) who has described Justice Brown, an African-American, as “a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days.” One can only imagine a backlash of Biblical proportions if a Republican said this about a Democrat nominee.
“Democrats held up signs yesterday bragging that they have approved 208 of the president’s nominees, including 35 appeals court judges,” LaRue added. “Does that mean they’ve confirmed 208 ‘mainstream’ people, which undercuts their attack on the president, or 208 ‘extremists,’ which undercuts their credibility? Go figure.
“Meanwhile, it’s still being reported that several Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), John McCain (Arizona), and others are trying to cut a deal with these desperate losers. It would result in dumping some of the nominees and allowing the Democrats to hold on to their obstructionist filibuster to use against future Supreme Court nominees. Again, why are Democrats willing to confirm seven ‘extremists’ and why are Republicans willing to cut a bad deal with deceivers?” LaRue concluded.
For Information Contact:
Rebecca Jones
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
----- 12 -----
The Truth About ‘Hate Crimes’
Concerned Women for America
5/19/2005
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8190/CWA//index.htm
If you go by reports in the regular media, you may think that the number of hate crimes is increasing. However, the stories behind those reports shed a different light on those statistics. Bob Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute sits down with famed Christian civil liberties attorney Leah Farish and discusses the incidents that make up this FBI report. Click here to listen.
Robert Knight (CWA Culture an Family Institute) with Leah Farish; "an authority on hate crimes laws and hate crimes incidents." Talks about attempt to include Federal hate-crimes law to include gayfolk; "present a threat to freedom because of that addition of sexual orientation." Biggest "myth": "One is that hate crimes are increasing... in fact, reporting agencies... have increased, but the number of incidents has not kept up with the rate of increase in reporting agencies." "Advocacy groups which get their funding from a sense of hysteria or victimisation will often emphasise or overemphasise the extent of a problem in order to increase hysteria." Claims that they wouldn't ever justify even insults against people (ed note: a lie, as they routinely do so). "I've seen homosexual activist groups saying ... year after year, these things are growing..." Talks about "simple intimidation" and downplays it. Claims gayfolk report a lot of things that "aren't crimes" as "crimes."
"Is there any evidence you know of of these kinds of crimes against homosexuals ... aren't being prosecuted?" "No. ... a lot of police departments even hate monthly meetings with the gay community... over 90% of departments have received funding like that... there is no other demographic group that has equivalant influence in expressing victimisation with... social and legal agencies that the homosexual activists [have]."
"That's part of their strategy, portraying themselves as victims... really aids the rest of their agenda. Sometimes this is aided in unscrupulant ways... fake hate crimes..." Points to a couple of conservative columnists who have "make a point" of tracking "fake" hate crimes. "Another reason that hate crimes are being overreported... people don't understand that gay on gay violence can be a hate crime... a sexual overture gone wrong could turn into a hate crime... criminals view homosexuals as people who carry a lot of cash, and they're targets for assault, murder even, because they're seen as ... particularly rich targets... thugs should not determine our public policy."
"Hate crimes against religious people often occur in terms of property damage... reported as one incident, even though their intended victims could be numbered in thousands." Claims sexual orientation-based hate crimes are "over-reported as part of a political agenda," and that religious-based hate-crimes are under-reported.
----- 13 -----
Senate Leaders Confront Democrat Filibusters Of Judges
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2287
May 19, 2005 – The U.S. Senate began debate over the nominations of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown on May 18th.
Both nominees had been previously blocked by liberals from receiving a fair up or down vote in the full Senate. Both Bush nominees are highly qualified jurists who would make excellent federal judges.
Liberal Senators and their leftist allies with People for the American Way and other radical groups have smeared Owen and Brown, claiming they are “judicial activists.” Liberals are also falsely claiming that any effort to stop the filibustering of judges is an attack on the independence of the judiciary and an assault on the co-equal branches of government.
Just the opposite is true as in most liberal claims. Liberals want leftist judges to impose their own political agendas in court rulings and to ignore the Constitution or the clear meaning of laws that are passed by legislatures. The most recent example of this is the Clinton-appointed judge in Nebraska who overturned a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The amendment was passed by 70% of the voters in 2000, but this one liberal judge claims that the amendment indicates “animus” against homosexuals and is illegal.
The Senate leadership is working this week to restore Senate tradition on filibusters to allow a simple majority in the Senate to determine what candidates are confirmed or rejected for federal judgeships. The filibustering of judges is a relatively recent problem and must be defeated.
The Washington Times (May 18, 2005) published details about the Democratic strategy to block President Bush’s nominees: Memos reveal strategy behind judge filibusters. Read more about these memos here: Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Assemblyman Bill Maze & TVC Chairman to Rally in Support of Traditional Marriage
Need for Marriage Amendment to be Expressed.
Traditional Values Coalition
For Immediate Release May 19, 2005
Contact: Benjamin Lopez
(714) 520-0300
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2288
Anaheim, California — “The State Legislature is determined to undermine the traditional family by forcing same-sex marriages upon the people of California” said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, Chairman and Founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). “With their rejection of two marriage amendments to the state constitution last week, they give us no choice but to go directly to the people to pass a marriage amendment preserving marriage for one man and one woman.”
On Saturday, May 21, 2005, Rev. Sheldon, along with TVC’s Central Valley Coordinator Jody Hutchens will join State Assemblyman Bill Maze in a rally in support of traditional marriage. The rally, hosted by Assemblyman Maze, will begin at 10:00 AM and will be held at Constitution Park located at the intersection of Tulare Avenue & Crenshaw Court located in Visalia, California.
On May 10, 2005 the Assembly Judiciary and Senate Judiciary Committees rejected ACA 3 and SCA 1 respectively on party line votes. TVC sponsored ACA 3 by Assemblyman Ray Haynes, along with SCA 1 authored by Senator Bill Morrow. Both ACA 3 and SCA 1 would have codified into the California Constitution language from Proposition 22, which was approved by voters in March 2000 with over 61% of the vote. The amendments also stated: “The rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations of a marriage shall only be granted, bestowed, and conferred upon a man and a woman joined in a valid marriage, and may not be conferred upon any other union or partnership.”
A competing bill in the legislature, AB 19 by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would strike all references to “male”, “female”, “husband” & “wife” in the current law and replace it with the phrase “two persons” thereby allowing same-sex marriages. The bill is now before the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is expected to reach the floor of the State Assembly before June 3 rd.
“It is clear the Legislature is catering to the demands of the homosexual community by advancing homosexual marriage (AB 19) and rejecting ACA 3 and SCA 1,” Sheldon said. “Therefore, we have no other choice but to rally the public and prepare them for a campaign to pass a marriage amendment ourselves.”
[More at URL]
