Month Archives: September 2010

Is There a War Between Social and Economic Conservatives?

by Jared Bridges

September 24, 2010

Below is video for panel held today at FRC headquarters with Ross Douthat, Lawrence Reed, and Bob Patterson:

Below is the lowdown, and you can find embed code for the video and an audio download here:

Are social and economic conservatism at odds? According to political journalists Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith, … the battles over morality-based cultural issues such as gay rights, abortion and illegal drugs that did so much to drive the conservative movement and dominated the political conversation for more than 30 years have abated, giving way not just to broad economic anxiety but to a new set of emotionally charged issues. (Politico, August 20, 2010 )

Are they right? To answer that question, Family Research Council is hosting an important symposium on the relationship between economic and social conservatism featuring three of the nation’s leading observers of the political scene.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, formerly a senior editor at The Atlantic, has written extensively about religion, family, and public life. Douthat is the co-author, with Reihan Salam, of Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream (Doubleday, 2008).

Lawrence Reed is president of the Foundation for Economic Education and formerly led the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Under his leadership, the Mackinac Center emerged as the largest and one of the most effective and prolific of over 40 state-based free market-oriented think tanks in the country.

Bob Patterson is a adjunct research fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society of Rockford, Ill. and editor of The Family in America, which recently published his important article, “Fiscal Conservatism is Not Enough: What Social Conservatives Offer the Party of Lincoln.”

Cost of Abortion

by Family Research Council

September 24, 2010

The integral relationship between social and economic conservatism is a critical topic that until recently has not received its due attention. But today at FRC we are hosting a lecture on this very issue. If you aren’t in DC or able to attend, you can view via webcast during a more convenient time.

Also, Tom Glessner, President of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), wrote an excellent piece on the financial impact of abortion in the United States.

Included below are a few quotes from his article:

What impact has this massive destruction of human life had on our current economic situation? A very interesting study called The Cost of Abortion

() gives some insight to this question. The conclusions of this study are staggering and should be taken into consideration by all political leaders who see the state of the economy as the primary issue motivating voters in the upcoming election.

This study begins with the figures for the total numbers of surgical abortions carried out in the United States from 1973 to 2007. An assumption is made that one-half of these aborted children would be female and, based upon figures from the Centers for Disease Control, each female at age 25 would have an average of a single child.

The study then combines these calculations to generate a number of missing persons from the USA from 1973 to 2007. The Gross Domestic Product per capita for each year is then multiplied by the number of missing persons. Accordingly, the sum of lost GDP from 1973 to 2007 due to surgical abortion is nearly $37 trillion.”

How Ella Causes Abortions

by Family Research Council

September 24, 2010

Dr. Donna Harrison, OBGYN, and president of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) has recorded a series of YouTube clips explaining the medical perspective and science behind ella, the abortion drug.

Ella, misleadingly labeled as an Emergency Contraceptive (EC), was quietly approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on August 13th. Watson Pharmaceuticals, the drug company manufacturing ella, will distribute the drug as early as October, 2010.

In this two minute clip, Dr. Harrison explains from a medical perspective how ella can cause an abortion in a pregnant woman. She also discusses studies of ella on pregnant animals on mice, monkeys and rats.

Concerned Parent and Former Girl Scout Leader Explores GSA Relationship with Planned Parenthood and other Pro-abortion Groups

by Family Research Council

September 23, 2010

Back in March C-FAM broke the news that the Girl Scouts of America (GSA) and their parent organization, World Association of Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), distributed Planned Parenthood sex education brochures — for HIV positive youth — during a meeting for young people at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Soon after, C-FAM documented the well-established relationship between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood.

Mariellen Rechtin is a concerned parent and former Girl Scout leader from Ohio who, deeply troubled by the C-FAM reports, began to conduct her own research into the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the Girl Scouts.

Below are clips from Mariellen Rechtins research on the Girl Scouts, as well as links to the sources:

Since the 1990s the Girl Scouts organization (both GSUSA WAGGGS) has migrated in a more radical, feminist, new age direction. Consider: 1) God being made optional in the Oath; 2) various cases of Planned Parenthood invited to do badge work in councils around the U.S. 3) Radical Feminist, pro-abortion, and lesbian speakers such as Charlotte Bunch, Kavita Ramdas, and Dr. Johnetta Cole receiving awards or speaking at conferences 4) the activist involvement by the World Association of Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) at the United Nations.

Most telling about the Girl Scouts position on the issues of sexual education, contraception distribution to adolescents and abortion are the words posted on the WAGGGS website for the Commission on the Status of Women conference. It states:

We demand access to comprehensive sexuality information, services and supplies for all young people. We need it today and today needed to be yesterday. The young people from more than 20 countries and every continent collectively demand their sexual and reproductive rights:

  • All young people must have access to comprehensive sexuality education and sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception and emergency contraception….
  • Accessible, affordable and safe abortion should be made part of the minimum package of sexual and reproductive services.

When this page is compared to the same coverage of the same day at the conference on International Planned Parenthood Federations webpage, one will note that the text and photograph are identical.

In some of its badge requirements, WAGGGS clearly is encouraging a permissive sexuality protected by condoms. Consider the AIDS badge which lists as requirements drawing male and female bodies and identifying the body fluids capable of carrying HIV, visiting a Family Planning Clinic, demonstrate putting a condom on a finger or other suitable device, etc. An Adolescent Health Badge was developed by WAGGGS and Family Health International as a two year pilot program for eventual availability around the world.

On the GSA website, there is also the Our Rights, Our Responsibilities Patch . Under Section 1, The Right to be Me, there is a link to the UK Childrens Rights Web site which encourages a Red Ribbon Party for AIDS. One of the suggestions for the party is cake sale, and it even encourages the making of a condom cake (NOTE: the link worked in April, but was removed a few months later).

A reasonable person could conclude that while WAGGGS/GSUSA may not force its position on any individual troop or Girl Scout in the U.S., it has clearly chosen to take a stance on the issues of sex education, contraception and abortion.

WAGGGS as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) partnered with the UNFPA, which has a mission to make contraception and abortion available to young people world wide in order to prevent HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancy, the goal being to improve health and reduce poverty.

More recently, WAGGS endorsed and helped to develop the Guantajuato Statement (NGO Position Statement) that emerged from the World Conference on Youth, in Mexico City in August, 2010. The statement included the following: (entire document can be found here)

We demand governments…guarantee the rights of young people including…the right to health, including sexual and reproductive health and rights

We commit…to continue working to achieve development through…evidence based comprehensive sexuality education to achieve Millenium Development Goals (MDG) 5 and 6 Note: Evidence based comprehensive sexuality education is sex education that understands that there is no such thing as telling a teen not to have sex and then thinking that they are actually going to listen to you.

We commit…to continue working to achieve development through…Guarantee the full realization of the highest level of physical mental and social health for young people…above all the target lagging farthest behind, MDG 5b Universal Access to Reproductive Health by 2015. Note: MDG5b is all about contraception access for all young people, safe abortion and comprehensive sexuality education.

We commit…to continue working to achieve development through…Fully recognize young peoples sexual and reproductive rights, particularly the right to choose, through achieving universal access to confidential, youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services including access to evidence-based comprehensive sexuality education, in informal and non-formal settings. Implement key effective interventions in the continuum of care for maternal health, including access to a full range of contraceptives and safe abortion. (emphasis mine)

We commit…to continue working to achieve development through…that Governments recognize LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transsexual) as part of the spectrum of gender identities and ensure that young people that identify themselves as such have their Human Rights upheld.

Mariellen ultimately came to the conclusion that her family could no longer be involved with the Girl Scouts. Moreover, she now believes that some agendas promoted within the GSA are incompatible with a Christian worldview.

Register Today for our Upcoming Family Policy Lecture

by Krystle Gabele

September 23, 2010

Tomorrow, FRC will be holding a panel lecture examining whether or not there is a war between social and economic lectures. This panel features New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, Lawrence Reed, President of the Foundation for Economic Education, and Bob Patterson, adjunct research fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society.

You can register for the event by clicking here.

The Social Conservative Review: The Insider’s Guide to Pro-Family News: September 23, 2010

by Krystle Gabele

September 23, 2010

If you are interested in subscribing to The Social Conservative Review, click here.

**Read FRC Action Board Member Rick Santorum’s remarks at the University of St. Thomas, “A Charge to Revive the Role of Faith in the Public Square.”

Educational Freedom and Reform

Environmental Issues

Faith and Policy

Health Care

Homosexuals in the Military

Judiciary

Marriage and Family

Family Economics

Marriage

Pornography

Religious Liberty

Sanctity of Life

Abortion

Adoption

Bioethics

Cloning

Stem Cell Research

Other News for Social Conservatives

Life and Liberty

by Robert Morrison

September 23, 2010

[The following is a speech I delivered on September 11 & 12 at Lutherans for Life conferences in Iowa.]

The date was January 23, 1973. I was in Washington, D.C., walking the corridors of Congress, hunting for a job. I had my resume in hand and my list of contacts to see. I was having no success.

And I had just been crushingly defeated the previous November in my race for the state legislature in New York. It was a race everyone said I could not lose. But when Democratic Party fundraisers in Albany learned I was anti-abortion, they pulled back the $25,000 they had promised me, and my sure-thing became a sure-loss.

My spirits could hardly have been lower. I was not a Christian believer in those days. So I didnt cry out to the Lord to sustain me.

Then, I picked up that Tuesday mornings edition of the Washington Post. The big, stunning news of the day was that former President Lyndon B. Johnson had died of a heart attack. And the end of the Vietnam Warcoming just days after President Nixons second inaugurationdominated the capitals attention.

Then, lower down in the Post on that gray and grim January day, was the news of Roe v. Wade. Abortion laws throughout the nation had been overturned by the Supreme Court, the story read. The long fight over liberalized abortion was over. All the editorials in the Eastern press said the Court had the final say and that it had done the right thing.

I thought it was over, too, and I was miserable about it. On top of my own defeat, on top of my struggle to get a job, now came this.

I finally landed a job. The Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party hired me as a fundraiser. I drove all over Northern Minnesota for a year. There, I met folks at the grassroots of politics. In the agricultural western part of the state, up north on the Iron Range, in the lake city of Duluth, people told me over and over they were against this abortion ruling. Couldnt the Minnesota DFL do something about it?

No, the DFL could not, would not. But Minnesotans in both parties organized to work against liberal abortion. They are organizing to this day.

I offer that story to thank you folks here. Not until I came to the Midwest as a young man did I realize that it was actually possible to resist a Supreme Court ruling so obviously unjust, so obviously wrong. Not everyone here reads the editorial pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times. And if you do, that doesnt mean you have to obey what they say.

In those days, 1973 and 1974, those newspapers wielded great power. They were the ones who essentially drove President Nixon from officejust a year and a half after he had won forty-nine states.

They have many thousands fewer readers today. People get their news from many different sources now. We Americans are much freer today than we were then.

As we sweep forward through the years, I recall that Charles Krauthammer, resident really smart guy at the Washington Post, and a pretty conservative columnist, proclaimed the end of the pro-life movement. That was back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president with a pro-abortion Congress. Despite Clintons early popularity, pro-lifers battled back in 1993 and 1994. The Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortions, was thought certain to be repealed. It was not. The so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)which would overturn every restriction on abortions seemed sure to pass Bill Clintons Congress. It did not pass.

Now, we come to 2008. Barack Obama won the strongest victory of any Democratic candidate for President since Lyndon Johnson in1964. He brought in strong, pro-abortion majorities with him in both houses of Congress.

He began his new administration by revoking President Reagans Mexico City policy. That meant that U.S. tax dollars could once again flow to Planned Parenthood around the world. U.S. funds could once again support abortion-on-demand in Third World countries and we could even find ourselves paying indirectly for Chinas forced abortion policies through the UN.

Then we came to health care. As a candidate, Barack Obama went before the Planned Parenthood convention and told them he thought reproductive health care must be a part of any national health care legislation before he would support it. We who have been laboring in these vineyards for thirty-seven years knew what that meant: abortion-on-demand subsidized with federal tax dollars. The Hyde Amendment, in effect, would be repealed.

But a strange thing happened in the year it took to pass ObamaCare. Pro-lifers kept pointing out that if it did not explicitly ban abortion funding, then abortion funding would be in there.

President Obamas White House team kept denying that it was in there. Americans would not be forced to pay directly for abortions, they countered. Right. Not directly, but indirectly. Taxpayers would pay for the coverage and the coverage would include abortion. Without a sentence in the bill that said no funds appropriated under this legislation may be used for abortions…. bureaucrats from HHS and liberal judges in the courts will force the plans to pay for abortions.

President Obama started out in the high 60%, low 70% approval ratings. It seemed anything he wanted, he would get. Over the course of the year and a half, however, his approval ratings slid to the low 40% range. And he is having a harder time getting what he wants.

He was able to get Congress to pass his signature health care legislationonly by assuring his own team members that the bill would get more popular after it was passed, that voters would warm to the plan once they learned all the good things it promised them.

None of that has happened. Now, the Presidents team members are running for re-election and running scared. They dont even talk about the health care bill they passed. They try to change the subject. The already-passed health care legislation is more unpopular now than when it was passed in March.

And most Americans know that it will force them to subsidize abortions. This, in a country the Gallup Poll tells us is 51% pro-life. This, at a time when 71% of Americans told pollsters they did not want to be forced to pay for abortions.

Pat Cadell was President Jimmy Carters public opinion pollster. He had the sad duty of bringing the embattled Carter the news thirty years ago that Ronald Reagan was going to beat him and beat him badly. Cadells reputation is that of a straight shooter, good news or bad.

Pat Cadell thinks President Obama is in deep trouble with the American people. You cant get this far from what you promised, especially when people invest in hope. You must understand that obligation. When you are elected on expectations, and you fail to meet them, your decline steepens. Cadell refers to the Presidents biggest problem: He calls it disingenuousness.

What a fine Washington Beltway word. The dictionary says it means: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

I doubt any of us here have ever used disingenuousness to describe what a child tells us about the mess left on their bedroom floor, or that dented fender on the new car.

Pat Cadell meant that President Obama sold himself to the American voters as a post-partisan, post-racial, uniting, not dividing, reasonable and reliable leader.

I suggest to you that at the heart of what Cadell calls disingenuousness is this whole matter of this administrations stealth support for abortion funding.

President Obama says theres a tradition in Washington that we dont pay for abortions.

Well, who campaigned against staid tradition and as the one who would bring fundamental change?

He says he wont put a requirement for abortion funding in his legislation.

No, the bill says that decision will be made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The bill says in hundreds of places as the Secretary shall decide…

Who is the one whom Barack Obama named as his Secretary of HHS? Why, its Kathleen Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas, the most pro-abortion governor in U.S. history.

When she was governor, she invited two of the most notorious of late-term abortionistsLeroy Carhart and George Tillerto have dinner at the Kansas Governors Mansion. Most governorseven ardent pro-choicershave the good sense not to be seen breaking bread with these men who break heads.

So, we would not be cynical. We would not tell the President of the United States he is lying. But we would tell him we have trouble believing that abortion funding is not in his bill.

He has said to Planned Parenthood and others that the right to choosehis euphemism for abortionis a fundamental human right.

If you believe that, how could you possibly approve a health care bill that excludes the choice of abortion?

If the President really wanted to exclude abortion coverage, then why did the White House firmly reject the Stupak Amendment. That amendment passed the House with 240 votes, the most bi-partisan vote ever achieved by health care legislation.

We now know, tragically, that Congressman Stupak flinched when crunch time came. But the whole sad episode proves once again: If there is nothing in the bill that says abortions cannot be fundedthey will be funded.

Barack Obama says hed like to see fewer abortions.

Why? Is there any other right that is a fundamental right that you want to see less of?

You say you want fewer abortions, Mr. President, but your health care plan would make them free. We have suffered 52 million abortions without federal payments. How many will we have to suffer when it is free?

The good news is that hundreds of candidates are running for Congress and the state legislatures this year pledged to repeal the Presidents health care legislation. And those provisions that subsidize abortion would be one of the first items to go if these candidates are successful.

Pat Cadell points to some more disturbing poll numbers out this fall. He notes a Rasmussen poll that says just 21 percent of voters believe our federal government rules with the consent of the governed. And equally disturbing, he cites a CNN poll in which 56% of Americans say the federal government is a direct threat to their freedom.

These are troubling numbers. They suggest dissatisfaction with both parties, with all our institutions, with American government in general.

Pat Cadell should recognize this glum mood among Americans. Its the very one he and President Carter faced thirty years ago this fall. Carter said Americans were suffering from a crisis of confidence. Even liberal reporters lampooned his address as his malaise speech.

Americans in 1980 concluded that Jimmy Carter was simply not up to his responsibilities. They decided to go strongly for Ronald Reagan.

Reagan ran as a pro-lifer. But mostly, he ran as one who could get the economy back on track, as one who would not back down before foreign dictatorswhether in Moscow, or whether they were holding Americans hostage in Iran.

Ronald Reagan was widely put down as not very smart. Democratic Party wise man Clark Clifford met Reagan and called him an amiable dunce.

No small part of the liberal intelligentsias opinion that Reagan was dumb was the fact that he was a Christian. According to a study done at the time, 91% of journalists never attend worship services of any kind.

Something else Reagan did that annoyed the liberal media. Reagan was forever quoting Americas Founding Fathers. A recent study by the Heritage Foundations Andrew BuschB-U-S-C-Hfound that Reagan cited the Founding Fathers more than any of the four Presidents who preceded him. Thats Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.

I have been in Washington since President Reagan was in office, and I can assure you that he quoted the Founders more than any of the four Presidents who succeeded him, too. Thats Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama.

What does this matter? Why should we care whether a President reaches back to study and quote the Founders?

Ted Kennedy was toasting another Democratic Party Wise Man, Averell Harriman on Harrimans 90th birthday. Now, Averell, you are actually very young. You are only half as old as Ronald Reagans ideas.

Informed of this jibe, President Reagan answered not in anger but with typical wit and grace. Why thank you, Senator Kennedy. Thats true. The Constitution is nearly two hundred years oldand thats where I get all my ideas.

Reagan did get his ideas from the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Reagan believed strongly in American institutions. Thats why he favored cutting back the federal government to what he regarded as its proper role.

On his many working vacations at Rancho del Cielo, Reagan would take chain saws to the thick undergrowth that was forever threatening to overrun the beautiful seaside mountaintop ranch. His vacations on the ranch were working vacations. He said he got practice there for hacking away at useless bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation.

What were some of those ideas that Reagan got from the Founders? Clearly, they did not have the contentious abortion question to face. But they did have a world view. They did express themselves on population and the future of free government.

  • It was young Thomas Jefferson who wrote The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time. That was two years before he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
  • In the Declaration, Jefferson wrote all men are created equal…they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  • He further stated that it was to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men.
  • As he left his second term in the White House, President Jefferson went further. He was not talking about abortion in this case, but about maintaining peace. But his words still apply:

The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.

How can President Obama say that the fate of millions yet unborna favorite phrase of George Washingtonis above his pay grade?

President Reagan looked to the Founders and to Abraham Lincoln when he wrote his 1984 book,

Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation. It was the only book written by a sitting President. Reagan spoke of abortion as a wound in the nations soul. He regularly described the attacks on the unborn as a slaughter of innocents.

Typically, President Obama, who has written not one, but two autobiographies, has not addressed the abortion question at length in his writings.

Reagan was not the only President who looked back to the Founding Fathers for inspiration. Abraham Lincoln praised the Declaration of Independence. He said we must interpret the Constitution in light of the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. Citing Proverbs, he said a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. So it is that the Declaration is the golden apple fitly framed by the silver of the Constitution. It was poetic, and it was right. Today, even some conservative judges dismiss the Declaration of Independence as mere fluff. They should not.

For Lincoln said all his political ideas come from the Declaration of Independence.

He once said the Declaration teaches us that Nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon.

We at Family Research Council welcomed President-elect Obama to Washington with a banner ad quoting President Lincolns words. Our ad respectfully asked the new President:

Are not unborn children so stamped? We have not gotten an answer yet. But every policy emanating from this administration and this Congress suggests the answer is NO.

This is tragicfor themas it is for us. No one wants another failed Presidency. But no one can pray for the success of an administration bound and determined to slaughter the innocent.

Ill close with a hopeful vision from one of my favorite Founding Fathers. When the first manned balloon flight went up over Paris in 1783, our elderly, gout-ridden ambassador to France, Benjamin Franklin, was driven in his coach to see it. As the Montgolfier Brothers beautifully decorated balloon ascended high above the 400,000 Parisians who came to marvel, one in the crowd was heard to ask a skeptical question: But of what practical use is manned flight?

Ben Franklin was the most practical man in the world. He smiled and asked: Of what practical use is a newborn baby?

That, my friends, is the welcoming spirit of our Founding Fathers. Their spirit of faith, optimism and practical invention was the spirit of `76. Their love of liberty was the original spirit of hope and change.

Women’s Health — At Peril in the Hands of Pharmaceutical Giants

by Family Research Council

September 23, 2010

In the wake of the controversy surrounding ella, the abortion drug produced by Watson Pharmaceuticals, MSNBC today is reporting new and serious allegations that another Pharmaceutical giant, Johnson and Johnson, has been withholding critical information about the health side effects of another reproductive medication, ortho evra, commonly called “the patch.”

The patch has reportedly caused at least 23 deaths in women who have taken it since FDA approval in 2003. This is in part likely due to the fact that the patch allows for a large amount of estrogen to enter a woman’s body (60% more than “the pill”). MSNBC is claiming that Johnson and Johnson have known about the deadly risks, but have hidden this information. Apparently the FDA has also been looking into these allegations for two years, but have not taken any action…

Why Would Republican Leaders Address the Lincoln Was Gay Crowd?

by Peter Sprigg

September 21, 2010

Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions have come under criticism recently (including from FRC President Tony Perkins) over their decision to help the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) raise money to elect pro-homosexual candidates by speaking at an LCR event on September 22. Those who bought tickets to the event were clearly told that the proceeds benefit LCR PAC.

The Log Cabin Republicans have been at the forefront of trying to mainstream radical homosexual activism within the Republican party. They have tried to perpetuate (and Cornyn and Sessions seem to have fallen for) a myth that they are faithful Republicans who only have a small quibble with conservatives on issues involving homosexuality. But LCRs refusal to even support George W. Bush for re-election in 2004 is but part of a large body of evidence that LCR is far out of the Republican mainstream.

In fact, this might be a good time to remind people why the group call themselves Log Cabin Republicans in the first place. The LCR website says, The name of the organization is a reference to the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who was born in a Log Cabin. President Lincoln built the Republican Party on the principles of liberty and equality.

However, there is a double entendre to the name. Homosexual activists also recognize it as an allusion to the fanciful but persistent theory that Abraham Lincoln himself was gay. For example, when presidential candidate Bob Dole returned a campaign contribution from the LCR in 1995, one prominent Log Cabin Republican, W. Scott Thompson, declared that homosexuals should be welcomed in the party, given that the founder was gay.

Supporters of the Lincoln was gay theory usually cite the well-documented fact that for several years, he shared a bed with a man named Joshua Speed. Anachronistically, they project 21st century concepts of gay life and behavior back into the 19th, ignoring the fact that sharing a bed with a same-sex roommate, with no sexual implication, was common at that time.

Proof that Lincolns relationship with Speed was innocent comes from Doris Kearns Goodwin’s excellent book, Team of Rivals.

Goodwin is a veritable Massachusetts liberal. She may even support Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court’s far-fetched ruling that permits men to marry men. But she draws the line at suggestions that Lincoln had homosexual feelings for Joshua Speed.

The proof? In December, 1864, President Lincoln nominated Joshua’s older brother James Speed for Attorney General of the U.S. In a letter to the Senate formally naming the elder Speed, Lincoln said he knew the Kentuckian, but not as well as Joshua Speed “with whom I shared a bed in Springfield for several years.”

If there were anything remotely sexual in that comment, Lincoln would hardly have been likely to tell all his fiercest political opponents about it. The Senate Judiciary Committee was then, as it is now, a hotbed of partisan rivalries.

Sen. John Cornyn should not have agreed to help the Log Cabiners with a fund-raiser in any event. But if he knew his Lincoln better, he would be offended at the group’s sly innuendo about the Great Emancipator.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Press Conference with Bishop Harry Jackson

by Jared Bridges

September 21, 2010

Below is video of Bishop Harry Jackson’s press conference hosted yesterday (September 20, 2010) at FRC Headquarters in Washington, D.C.:

Participants:

Bishop Harry Jackson, Chairman, High Impact Leadership Coalition

Pastor Aubrey Shines, Tampa, FL

Pastor Christopher Brooks, Detroit, MI

Bishop Leon Benjamin, Richmond, VA

Reverend Dean Nelson, Washington, DC

Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund

Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

August 2010 «

» October 2010

Archives