FRC President Tony Perkins was interviewed via Skype yesterday on Tom Trento’s show regarding the rise of the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center — a group that has been linked with terrorism in federal court. The audio is a little rough in places, but this is the first part in a series by Trento exposing the SPLC:
With the recent news of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s death, we are mourning the loss of a great leader, whose legacy will rest on her relentless strength. She was truly the Iron Lady.
While I didn’t agree with some of her stances, she was an inspiration to women who sought to climb the corporate ladder, as well as those seeking to serve in a public office. I can think of few (outside my Mother and Great-Grandmother) who better exemplifies what is to be strong and lead a moral life. For both the non-feminist and feminist alike, she paved the way by showing that hard work is essential to success.
However, Thatcher’s legacy has been downtrodden by feminists, the ones who should be admiring her for being in a role of leadership and shattering the so-called “glass ceiling.” Yes, Thatcher may have made some bad policy decisions over time, just as all of us have made some erroneous choices.
Shouldn’t we be looking back on Thatcher’s ascendancy to power as something all females should admire and seek out, if it is their calling? Rest in peace, Margaret Thatcher! Your legacy has proven that with a hard work ethic and strength that women can do anything.
The Financial Times has been doing excellent reporting related to Chinese demographics problems. Of particular interest is China’s aging population which has been brought about in large measure to its zero-growth population policies that have been in place since the 1970s. The most important aspect of these policies is the “one-child policy” which mandates forced abortions and sterilizations.
In a front-page article in the FT’s weekend edition Simon Rabinovitch, a reporter in the paper’s Beijing bureau, presented population data obtained from the Chinese health ministry:
China’s one-child policy has been the subject of a heated debate about its economic consequences as the population ages. Forced abortions and sterilisations have also been criticised by human rights campaigners such as Chen Guangcheng, the blind legal activist who sought refuge at the US embassy in Beijing last year.
China first introduced measures to limit the size of the population in 1971, encouraging couples to have fewer children. The one-child rule, with exceptions for ethnic minorities and some rural families, was implemented at the end of the decade.
Since 1971, doctors have performed 336m abortions and 196m sterilisations, the data reveal. They have also inserted 403m intrauterine devices, a normal birth control procedure in the west but one that local officials often force on women in China. (my emphasis).
The magnitude of these figures is staggering. By comparison, at present there are 315 million people living in the United States. Rabinovitch does not really tell where the data came from within the Chinese government, but these are pretty specific numbers that make sense. In short, we are talking about a maximum of 336 million Chinese who would be under the age of 42 – the peak working years.
Tony Perkins: Fiscal matters are front and center here in Washington, at least recently. And a few seem to be on the same page. Now last week House Representatives passed a Continuing Resolution, which the Senate is now considering, and Paul Ryan released his budget proposal yesterday, as we talked about just a few moments ago. The White House and its allies in Congress clearly refused to take the fiscal state of the nation seriously. But there is a growing number of conservatives in the House who are saying “enough is enough!” And one of those leaders is Congressman Matt Salmon. Congressman Salmon was elected to represent Arizona’s 5th district in November. But, it isn’t his first time here inWashington. It’s not his first rodeo. He previously served 3 terms and left Congress in 2000, honored a self-imposed term limit. After the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act and the expansion of government regulation during an economic crisis, Congressman Salmon answered the call to serve and we’re grateful that he did because he’s stirring things up and he’s joining me now to talk about that right here on Washington Watch. Congressman, welcome to the program.
Rep. Matt Salmon: Tony, it’s an honor beyond measure to be on your show, thank you.
Tony Perkins: Well, thank you and let me tell you what a breath of fresh air you are and you’ve given your experience, I’ve just seen it as I’ve talked to other freshman and even sophomore members who, you know, kind of kept at bay by not knowing the system. You’ve come in and you’ve provided a little context and experience and I’m beginning to see some stuff gel…
Rep. Matt Salmon: Oh, you will…
Tony Perkins: And I think, I think folks need to hear this because to me it’s encouraging. Tell us what’s happening.
Rep. Matt Salmon: Well, what’s happening is for the last couple of years I think that the cadre of new recruits that came into Washington D.C., most of them via the Tea Party, came in ready to change the world and stand up for conservative principles across the board. And what they quickly found was that many times they would vote by their own Republican leadership on a lot of things but, more particularly on fiscal issues, and I’ve just kind of tried to let them know unequivocally that it doesn’t have to be that way. When I was in Congress before, we were very vocal about fighting for Conservative principles and when our leadership strayed, we did everything that we could to pull them back into the fray and that included sometimes voting against bad rules. Let me explain that, Tony, because what most Americans don’t understand, it becomes very much an inside the insider’s game or inside the beltway dialogue. But I want people to understand that every bill that comes to the U.S. House floor has to first have a rule passed by the Rules Committee when the bill can come to the floor. The rule determines what amendments can be available or allowed, if any. It determines the length of debate, determines the rules of engagement. And what happens all too often is that a rule has passed that basically ensures that the bill is going to stay a certain way and so what members will do because it’s kind of sacrosanct almost that you just don’t vote against Republican rules, that you just don’t do that. And so they vote for the rule and then vote against the bill. Well, why do that? We should, if we have an opportunity to kill the bill by voting against the rule and it’s a bad bill, then let’s use every tool in the tool box to stop bad legislation from happening. Last week, an example was the Continuing Resolution. There were a lot of good things about the Continuing Resolution, but one of the things we conservatives wanted to offer was an amendment to that Continuing Resolution which would have defunded ObamaCare. And that was disallowed. In fact, the rule that was passed in the Rules Committee basically was a closed rule which disallowed any amendments and so now Ted Cruz on the Senate side is picking up the fight and trying to fight against funding ObamaCare in the Continuing Resolution, but we conservatives in the House never even got an opportunity to vote. Now I’m going to tell you, Tony, had we got a chance to vote for that amendment it would have passed overwhelmingly and we would have sent to the Senate a bill that defunded Obamacare and we would have, I think, advanced the debate that all, pretty much all of our congress believes in and if we’re going to win, you have to be on the offense, you can’t play defense and win a basketball game or a football game or anything. It’s the same in Congress, if you’re not on the offense, you can’t win and we’ve got to show the American people that we’ve got heart, we’ve got backbone, and that we stand for what we believe in.
Tony Perkins: You’re absolutely right and you wrote about that in an op-ed that was published this past Monday in Washington Times. I thought it was great. I thought it was a bold declaration long-overdue to get this out there. Most people don’t, as you said it’s kind of inside baseball. There’s so many instances like that that have occurred. There was previously…well let me stop for a minute. I want to get your take on this because I often say this on this program because many of your colleagues up there have been good friends of mine over the last 10 years and I think we have, in terms of the membership, we have one of the most conservative Congresses…
Rep. Matt Salmon: We do!
Tony Perkins: In our history…
Rep. Matt Salmon: We do. In fact, it’s far more conservative than the Republican House that I served in back in the 90’s and even with that Congress we balanced the budget for the first time in 40 years. We were able to pass meaningful welfare reform that has cut the roles of welfare by over 50 percent. I mean, good things were accomplished, but by and large I think that the Congress now is far more conservative and that’s why it’s so quizzical to me that they’re not willing to fight on some of these rules. Because, we’re going to keep getting bad stuff if we don’t stand up and tell the leadership unequivocally “We are going to stand for limited government. We are going to stand for Republican conservative principles and if you’re not going to adhere to that, then we’re going to take the rules down.” And that’s the op-ed that I penned on Monday with the Washington Times and I’ll tell you, Tony, it’s gone viral. I mean, all these different conservative groups acrossAmerica said, “Finally, you know, we’ve got an idea that we can all get behind.” So, in fact, several groups have said “In our endorsement process, we’re going to ask them: Do you support that concept?” They’re now calling it the “Salmon Rule.” I don’t care what it’s called, but the idea is: “Are you willing to have a backbone and stand up for conservative principles?” Because the American people that got us here, they’re not partial to the elephant over donkey, they are partial to what we stand for and if we don’t stand for that, they’re not going to put us back in office again.
Tony Perkins: I agree 100 percent with you. Let me ask you though, what’s been the response on the Hill from your colleagues a, and b, the leadership?
Rep. Matt Salmon: Well, the leadership, predictably, is not too excited about it.
Tony Perkins: (laughing)
Rep. Matt Salmon: You know, [they] don’t like to have to take their medicine. We’re practicing a little bit of “tough love” here. But the rank in file, I’ve gotten extremely positive comments. In fact, on the Continuing Resolution last week with a very minimal effort we were able to get sixteen “no” votes on the rule. One more vote, 17, and we[’d] beat the rule. And so I think this is going to reach a critical mass. I think, Tony, if groups like Family Research Council and other conservative groups out there start telling the members of Congress: “Get behind this idea. We need to change the way things are inWashingtonD.C. We cannot let President Obama keep advancing his agenda. We’ve got to stop it at every turn. You are the last bastion of freedom for this country and we’re counting on you, so use every tool in your toolbox.”
Tony Perkins: Yeah, what I have seen is that the Republicans seem to be too concerned about keeping the majority than using it.
Rep. Matt Salmon: And you know, if that’s where we’re at, then you will lose it. And the Parable of the 10 Talents in the Bible, the one that buried up his talents and was afraid, you know, that he would lose them, you know, lost everything in the end. And that’s the way we do anything in life. If we’re not willing to be bold and stand on correct principles and do whatever it takes, then we lose. And if we’re not willing to risk… You think about what the founding fathers risked when they started… There are a lot of examples, but the founding fathers, when they went in and signed the Declaration of Independence, they risked everything that they had. They risked their life, their liberty, their families, their possessions, everything that they had for what they believed in. If all that I have to risk is losing an election, that’s nothing compared to what they had to risk. And the last thing that I’d like to say is that you never win when you play “just to not lose.”
Yesterday (Thursday, March 14), Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) joined FRC President Tony Perkins for the Washington Watch with Tony Perkins radio show. Below is a transcript of the interview.
Tony Perkins: Absolutely, I’ve said that so many times. What I see in Congress right now, going back to what we talked about a few moments ago, about how this is the most conservative Congress, in terms of the membership-House in modern time. It’s like there’s been new wine put into old wineskins, and there needs to be a change and I think what you’re doing is sparking either a course correction from the leadership or possibly a change of leadership. And I just, I think that people are frustrated all across the country and when they hear folks like you, and I can tell you our phone lines are lit up because when they hear folks like you they get encouraged and it gives them a reason to stay engaged and stay involved so I want to send you kudos from all of our folks across the country.
Rep. Matt Salmon: Tony, it’s their prayers and their goodness and their kindness that keep us going here in Congress more than they know and I’ve been approached many times at conferences and speeches and people set in place, and I want them to know that there’s nothing more powerful in the entire universe than the power of prayer and we appreciate it.
Tony Perkins: Let me, speaking of speeches, let me extend to you an invitation to join us in October at the Values Voter Summit here in Washington where we’ll have a few thousand conservatives from across the country gathered here and I think they need to hear your message because I think they will be energized and it will cause them to get more engaged.
Rep. Matt Salmon: I will be honored to do that. You can count on me.
Tony Perkins: Alright. Matt, thank you so much for being with us and, again, thanks for your leadership on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Matt Salmon: Thank you.
In a recent column, my colleague Ken Blackwell and I raised an alarm about the appointment of John Brennan to head the CIA. We are deeply concerned when a top American intelligence official sends a signal to the entire Arabic-speaking world that the city he loves most is al Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem.
Ambassador Ken Blackwell served at the highest levels in America’s diplomatic corps, working with the legendary Max Kampelman on human rights, negotiating with the Soviets in Moscow.
I served at the lowest levels of negotiation—with the Soviets on their fishing trawlers in the Bering Sea. But Ken and my perceptions of the Soviet Union and of today’s threats to religious liberty are remarkably congruent.
My service in the 1970s was as a Russian language interpreter. My skills have become as rusty as those rusting hulks I used to board, but I remember some essentials about language interpretation.
One of Ronald Reagan’s very skilled Russian language experts told me before I ever set foot on board a Soviet ship never to let the other side drive the conversation. When you let our adversaries do the translation—even if they are more skilled in English than you are in Russian—you surrender the initiative. It’s the reason Americans don’t want the football to be intercepted.
Reagan’s adviser told me that Sec. of State Henry Kissinger made it his practice to enter into high stakes negotiation with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko attended by only one interpreter—a Russian. The Reagan man taught me what a disastrous idea that was. Gromyko, who understood English very well, had plenty of time to calculate his answers while his interpreter was taking notes on the translation.
When everything hinges on the meaning of a single word, a single foreign language phrase, you want Americans doing that translation.
Which is what makes John Brennan’s statement that the city he “loves most in the world is al Quds” so alarming. How many Americans would choose a foreign city, even one so beloved as Jerusalem, as their favorite city? But if they chose Jerusalem it would be because it’s the city where the Temple was built or the city where Jesus walked and rose from the dead. Then, would they call it al Quds?
John Brennan in his very convincing Arabic-language address to an appreciative audience said “don’t tell the non-Arab speakers what I said.” It was said in a humorous vein, obviously, but it still gives us a chill—or should.
I would sometimes go off script. To ease tensions as we set foot on what was legally Soviet territory, I would cheerily call out “Ribaki fsyeck stranh soyedyenyeetyes!.” It was a joke: “Fisherman of the world unite!.” It was a play on “Workers of the World Unite!” That was the first line in the Communist Manifesto and the banner of the Communist Party newspaper, Pravda. (It was also a nod to Scripture, where Jesus calls us to be “fishers of men.”)
During my time as translator, I spent hours faithfully interpreting what my Coast Guard seniors wanted translated to the Soviets. And I was always careful to keep my senior officers informed of whatever the Soviets were saying to me—or to each other.
The idea of using my skills to keep a secret between those Russian speakers and me is repugnant. I cannot dream of saying—even in jest—don’t tell the non-Russian speakers what we’re saying.
To be able to speak a foreign language is a great gift, especially helpful in ministry. Americans would be helped if we spoke more foreign languages. But we must never use this strength to talk behind our countrymen’s backs.
We are seeing the unraveling of America’s national security. Barack Obama was close friends with Frank Marshall Davis, a lifelong Communist. This Grove City College professor Paul Kengor has admirably shown. John Kerry negotiated—in violation of the Logan Act—with Vietnamese Communists in Paris.
With known associations like that, these men could have been banned from setting foot on my cutter. And those were not Ronald Reagan rules, or even Eisenhower rules. The security regulations that governed these matters were set in place by liberal Democrat Harry Truman.
Let us pray the Senate will follow the brave lead of Sen. Rand Paul and reject this dangerous nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA.
This morning, FRC President Tony Perkins guest hosted for Sandy Rios in the Morning on the AFR radio network. Tony spoke with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) about the “sequestration” and continuing resolution (CR) facing Congress this week. Tony and his guests examined the myths, facts, and any likely resolution.
President Obama wants nearly 30 new government programs, but says they won’t cost anything. He wants to encumber businesses of all sizes with an unworkable health care plan whose thousands of pages are only now beginning to be fully understood, but says he wants to reduce health care costs. He calls for creating a stronger, more vibrant middle class, but wants to put four year-olds in pre-school. He calls for fatherhood as a moral imperative, but wants to redefine marriage. He applauds America for being a land of laws and justice, but his Cabinet officers ignore multiple Freedom of Information Act requests from around the nation.
I guess I’m kind of like the President. I’d like to eat prime rib and ice cream several times a day without gaining weight. I’d like to climb all of Colorado’s 14,000-foot peaks without cracking a sweat. I’d like to win an Olympic gold medal without having to train. And why doesn’t someone just give me a Ph.D. without my having to study or write dissertation? After all, I want it.
Mr. Obama lives in a twilight world of utopian dreams and impractical policies. His goals, his means, and his ideas are about as compatible as Mike Tyson and Tiny Tim.
Politics, like life, is about choices, often hard ones. Mr. Obama’s self-contradictory policy proposals collapse under the weight of incoherence. Our nation loses as a result.
I was fourteen when I attended a family wedding. The morning after, I snuck into the reception area and took a sip of the champagne from the previous night’s revelry. It was warm and flat. It almost ruined my taste for the bubbly for the rest of my life.
And that’s how I felt about President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address. The Washington Post trumpeted the hortatory line We Must Act as if it was holy writ. Well, they had to write something in that pompous headline.
I remember Lyndon B. Johnson’s three-worder addressing a joint session of Congress after JFK was assassinated: “Let us contin-ya.” OK. What did we expect him to say? “I’m going to abandon all of John Kennedy’s policies”?
President Obama’s First Inaugural Address was witnessed by 1.8 million people on the National Mall in 2009. It was doubtless an historic occasion. But what did he say then? We struggle to recall a single memorable line. I looked this one up:
Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
Is this what Chris Matthews considers Lincolnesque? Try this for Lincolnesque:
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
This was Lincoln’s State of the Union Message to Congress of December 1, 1862, now just 150 years past. Lincoln did not deliver this address in person; a clerk in Congress probably droned on.
But the words of President Lincoln have life, power, and purpose a century and a half later. Lincoln did not graduate from Columbia or Harvard Law School. Maybe that’s why he was such a powerful orator and rhetorician.
Also, Abraham Lincoln was an avid reader of Shakespeare. He knew long passages from the Bard by heart. We can hear echoes of Shakespeare’s mastery of language in many of Lincoln’s writings.
Yesterday was also the federal holiday dedicated to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
His famous 1963 “I have a dream” speech certainly inspired millions of Obama voters in 2008 and 2012. But that speech appealed to Americans of all races and political opinions when it was delivered. It reached out from “the red hills of Georgia” the mountaintops of New York, California and the Rockies. It was a generous, embracing speech, joining Americans together in a common affirmation of our founding ideals.
We are told over and over again that President Obama’s every act is historic. Well, yes.
We probably never had a president chew gum at his Inaugural Parade before (although I won’t vouch for Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson’s not chewing tobacco at his.)
Still, it’s hard to do something historic without saying something memorable. At Normandy in 2009, President Obama “hovered over the nations like a sort of god,” enthused Newsweek editor Evan Thomas. Okay, Mr. Thomas, so what did this sort of god say there? Even his most bedazzled admirers cannot tell you.
I remember Ronald Reagan’s 1984 “Boys of Pointe du Hoc” speech at Normandy as if it were yesterday. He pointed to the grizzled veterans seated before him and praised them for liberating a continent, for “leaving the vivid air signed with their honor.”
Presidents are judged by their words. We carve them in stone. We expect a president to offer us something better, finer, loftier than the humdrum of day-to-day utterance. This Inaugural Address sounded like a campaign potboiler, a harangue to gin up the base. There was not a word in it to appeal to me.
Mitt Romney was rightly criticized for referring to the “47-percenters”—those Americans he claimed were receiving or had received some form of payment from the federal government. It is hard to imagine how you could ever unite the country when you dismiss nearly one-half of it.
But yesterday’s Inaugural Address was just as narrowly partisan, just as dismissive. President Obama was saying: We won, you 48-percenters, so stand by for another round of liberal hope and change that will leave you gasping for air. We must act; you will be acted upon.
May I offer a suggestion to President Obama with all respect? Read Abraham Lincoln’s Bible. Read it daily. Millions of us revere the Bible as the Word of God, but even if you don’t believe that, the King James Version of the Bible gives us a style and a resonance that has never been equaled. In it, you might even read about what pride goeth before.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 10, 2013
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866) 372-6397
Pastor Giglio Disinvitation Signals Inauguration of a New Era of Religious Intolerance
January 10, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C.- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins offered the following comments in reaction to the news that Pastor Louis Giglio has been “kicked out” of the inauguration program because he has expressed his biblical views of sexuality:
“This is another example of intolerance from the Obama administration toward those who hold to biblical views on sexuality. Why is the president surprised that an evangelical pastor would teach from Scripture on homosexuality? One would be hard pressed to find an Evangelical pastor who hasn’t preached on what the Bible teaches about human sexuality.
“Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, and Orthodox churches all actively proclaim that sexual intimacy within the marriage of one man and one woman is the only biblically-sanctioned human sexual behavior. Are the scores of millions of Americans who affirm these teachings no longer welcome at the inauguration of our president?
“What is shocking is the intolerance of the Obama team that put such a high priority on forced acceptance of homosexuality that they totally disregard Pastor Giglio’s life work combating human trafficking. What we are seeing is the inauguration of a new era of religious intolerance in America.
“However, I would remind the president that the Constitution does not guarantee us only freedom of worship but also the freedom of religion. The two are very different. Freedom of religion goes further by guaranteeing the right to live out one’s faith not only in the privacy of their home but in the public square as well.
“This president appears determined to stir division and create two Americas: One America that holds to a biblical view of sexuality and another that offers tolerance so long as you embrace its redefined view of sexuality,” concluded Perkins.
-30-
Of all the onerous provisions of the just-passed “fiscal cliff” legislation, one of the most aggravating is the lifting of the “tax holiday” on the payroll tax. This tax is used to supply daily infusions of cash into the Social Security system.
The Social Security program is badly broken. Instead of even discussing how to remedy the program’s devastating fiscal maladies, Congress and the Administration instead have given it another emergency transfusion that briefly forestalls urgently needed change.
As of October 2012, median household income in the United States was $51,378. Households with this income will be paying more than $1,000 in new taxes as the payroll tax. Whatever your income is, the payroll tax hike means you will realize two percent less of it in the coming year (find your own payroll tax hit courtesy of the Wall Street Journal here.
Additionally, the new law will result in a severe penalty on marriage and massively higher deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It will impose new burdens on families and businesses of all types.
America’s political leaders did not punt on the economy – they drop-kicked fiscal integrity, sustained economic growth, and fairness to taxpayers far out of sight, employing their legislative might not to fix problems but to propel them down the road. They did not address how to improve our collapsing entitlement programs or even breathe a word about a question that requires true political courage: What should the federal government be doing, according to the U.S. Constitution?
Until this is answered definitively, we will continue to tax and spend our way into oblivion. If we cannot have an honest national debate about government’s role and what it should fund, how can we determine what revenues are needed?
As FRC President Tony Perkins put it, “President Obama and Congress have had months to take care of what has been dubbed the fiscal cliff of massive tax increases, the looming debt crisis and devastating cuts to our U.S. military. This dysfunctional Congress literally waited until the last minutes of 2012 to propose a deal that fails to address these real concerns.”
For a brief but thorough review of the whole “American Taxpayer Relief Act” – who needs George Orwell when you have the U.S. Congress, right? – read my colleague Tom McClusky’s assessment here.