Monday, August 03, 2015
The respected and widely acclaimed pro-family leader Maggie Gallagher is out with her report card
on how the presidential candidates handled the gay marriage decision by the Supreme Court. You can check it out at "The Pulse 2016." The winners? Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz. Everybody else didn’t get a sticker. Read the report card here
. Below is how Gallagher came up with her criteria for presidential grades.
By the way: don’t dismiss what Gallagher has to say. If you want a pulse on the pro-family movement, Maggie Gallagher usually has her finger right on it. She co-found the National Organization for Marriage in 2007 and now works with the American Principles Project.
We used a similar metric in evaluating GOP candidates responded to the Supreme Court decision finding a right to gay marriage. We looked for the candidate to respond in three ways:
1. He or she would clearly and confidently explain that marriage, as the union of husband and wife, is not only “traditional,” it is rationally related to the welfare of children and the common good.
2. He or she would clearly state that this Supreme Court decision is not the end of the debate, but as in Roe v. Wade, it is the beginning of a long cultural and moral argument, one with political ramifications. In other words, he or she would not accept (as the Left doesn’t accept when it disagrees with the Court on cases like Citizens United) that the 5-vote majority Supreme Court has the last word in a democracy. Any suggestion that the proper response is merely to say “this is the law of the land and we need to move on” is an automatic F, in other words.
3. He or she would offer a specific legislative proposal that he or she could deliver on in the first 100 days of office to protect the civil rights of gay marriage dissenters. What could voters actually expect from the candidate if they give him or her their vote? We do not expect politicians to be magicians. But should the voters elect a Republican Congress and a Republican President, what can they expect to get in terms of concrete, practical protection?
A specific, concrete legislative measure that can be passed by Congress is important for another reason. For too long, I believe, social conservatives have done politics on the cheap, substituting 501(c)(3) activities for direct political engagement. If this continues, the Left will continue on its march to redefine classic Christian (and other believers’) views on sex and marriage as the equivalent of racism.
The precondition to political organizing, including donor organizing, will be a clear difference between the Democratic and the Republican nominee not just on rhetoric or values, but on a concrete goal that can be delivered if a candidate is elected and that will make a real, practical difference. Such a successful victory can be a foundation for a genuine and new political movement to defend Christians (and other gay marriage dissenters), civil rights and equal participation in the public square.
For me that means, ideally, a clear and explicit promise to pass the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) in the public square.
Let me note here a conundrum for a report card like this: four GOP candidates for office (Cruz, Rubio, Graham and Paul) are all cosponsors of the First Amendment Defense Act in the Senate. And yet none of them have advocated for FADA in the wake of Obergefell. Would these four candidates prioritize and pass it if elected president? We just do not know, because they have not told us. Given the history of backburnering so-called “social issues,” I have elected here to focus on what the candidates have promised about what they will do, rather than create a legislative scorecard that is only relevant to the senators in the race.
To all of this I added a fourth criteria:
A willingness to fight for these ideas, within the limits of his or her access to media. My rationale? There is no way a president is going to be able to pass civil rights protection like FADA secretly. If he or she is unwilling to take the heat while running for office, he or she is going to be easily deterred by media pressure once in office. The lessons of history for Republicans must not be forgotten.
Senator Joe Manchin has bucked the Democrat Party on the abortion issue. He’s voting to defund Planned Parenthood when the vote comes up Monday night.
His statement below.
“Like many West Virginians, I am very troubled by the callous behavior of Planned Parenthood staff in recently released videos, which casually discuss the sale, possibly for profit, of fetal tissue after an abortion. Until these allegations have been answered and resolved, I do not believe that taxpayer money should be used to fund this organization; instead those funds should be sent to other health care providers, including community health centers, which provide important women’s healthcare services. While my vote is one that will prevent taxpayers dollars from going to Planned Parenthood, I will remain committed to ensuring that all women in West Virginia and America receive the health care services they need.”
Let’s be clear here: this is a bold and courageous move by Manchin. That happens anytime you stand up to your party and an influential lobbying group.
It’s still an uphill battle going into the vote. The GOP needs 60 votes to get it done. Right now, it doesn’t look like they’ll get there but we’re about to find out. The key senators to watch:
On the republican side: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
On the democrat side: Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)
Friday, July 31, 2015
GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul tells The Brody File that the media will eventually correct themselves after giving Donald Trump plenty of attention in the presidential race.
“I think eventually the media will come back to covering some of the issues of the day and if people want to complain that it’s not serious and we are not having a serious debate, then the media needs to be out there asking serious questions and talking about serious issues," he said. "I think the debates will help to focus that.”
Watch the answer below.
MANDATORY COURTESY: CBN NEWS/ THE BRODY FILE
It’s Cecil vs. Cecile. Cecil, the African lion vs Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.
Surely these horrifying undercover videos of Planned Parenthood doctors discussing the sale of fetal body parts from aborted babies would receive more media coverage than a famed lion right?
Yea, right. The lion wins and isn't Cecile Richards jumping for joy? Read below from the Media Research Center. The headline of the article is titled:
Nets Covered Cecil the Lion More in 1 Day Than Abortion Videos in 2 Weeks
America’s anchors have spoken: the shooting of one lion vastly outweighs the trafficking of baby parts by a taxpayer-funded abortion giant.
In other words, the broadcast news shows spent more time in one day on Cecil the Lion than they did on the Planned Parenthood videos in two weeks.
The three broadcast networks, ABC, NBC and CBS censored the third video released Tuesday by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) exposing Planned Parenthood’s practice of harvesting aborted baby parts -- censored it at Planned Parenthood’s urging. But the news shows did find more than 14 minutes for a more important story: the “outrage” over the shooting of Cecil, a famed African lion, by an American dentist.
Tuesday, the networks spent 5 minutes, 44 seconds during their evening news shows on Cecil -- and that’s not even counting the teasers. Wednesday morning, ABC, NBC and CBS lamented over the lion for 8 minutes, 17 seconds.
But they couldn’t do the same for a story of babies “picked” apart by tweezers.
Since the release of CMP’s first video, the three broadcast news shows have spent a total of 11 minutes and 13 seconds on the story exposing the horrific practices by taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood.
The whole article is here.
What is this world coming to? Should we be outraged at what this American dentist did to poor Cecil? Of Course! But someone needs to explain to me how abortion politics and a "women's right to choose" has anything to do with the grotesque practice of Planned Parenthood doctors caught on tape?
Are we that desensitized as a society? Has it really come to that? Can we not just leave politics out of this equation and see this for what it is? The mainstream media should be ashamed of themselves.
And then there were four….
Yet another undercover video exposing Planned Parenthood doctors discussing the sale of fetal body parts from aborted babies. Watch below.
You would think the bill to defund Planned Parenthood coming up for a vote in the Senate this Monday would have the support of EVERY Senate Republican.
Not so. Susan Collins and Mark Kirk will vote no. Why you ask? Here is Kirk’s explanation:
“I do not plan to cut access to basic health care and contraception for women, the majority of whom have no other resources.”
Here’s the problem with that theory: the bill in front of the Senate not only defunds Planned Parenthood but it takes that $500 billion and disperses it to more reputable women’s health clinics. So out with that argument.
Here’s another question: How long will it take for pro-life Senate Democrats like Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, and Bob Casey to get on board with this?
For that matter, why isn’t this a no-brainer for every senator?
Wait! Don’t tell me! Party over principle? Lobbying and cash donations to their campaign? Goodness gracious.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
The Brody File goes inside Iowa’s famous Machine Shed Restaurant. We also catch up with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on the campaign trail in Iowa.
The Brody File goes inside Iowa’s famous Machine Shed Restaurant. We also go one-on-one with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, at the Family Leadership Summit.
The Brody File goes inside Iowa’s famous Machine Shed Restaurant. We also go one-on-one with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at the Family Leadership Summit.
The Brody File goes inside Iowa’s famous Machine Shed Restaurant. We also go one-on-one with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker from inside his campaign Winnebago.
Sen. Rand Paul is taking the fight to Planned Parenthood. Many of the GOP presidential candidates have been outspoken on this issue but Rand Paul has been a pro-life leader for decades.
Watch our interview in the piece below as he tries to defund Planned Parenthood. He has a few choice words for Hillary Clinton, too.
WASHINGTON -- The push to stop using taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill. The Senate is scheduled to vote Monday to permanently defund the abortion provider.
It's a move that could cost the organization more than $500 million a year.
The push follows the release of a third undercover video showing Planned Parenthood doctors arranging the sale of fetal body parts from aborted babies.
The footage is hard to watch: It shows Planned Parenthood doctors discussing how much aborted baby body parts would sell for on the fetal tissue market.
"There were three or four samples we could have taken out of the 11.6," an actor posing as a buyer says in the video. "If we were doing like 50 to 75 per specimen. That'd be like 200 to 300 and we'd be comfortable with that."
While Planned Parenthood claims it does not sell fetal tissue for profit, Republican lawmakers have seen enough and are calling for the federal funding of the group to stop –immediately.
Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Rand Paul, R-Ky., put forth the bill.
"Our legislation ensures that federal funding taken from Planned Parenthood will be made available to other entities that provide health services for women," Sen. Ernst said.
"The calloused harvesting of body parts by Planned Parenthood shows a complete disregard for human dignity," Sen. Lankford said. "It is self-evident that we should honor life and stand against the harvest of human organs."
Sen. Rand Paul is one of the leaders in this fight and for him, this issue goes back a long time."
"Probably my very first public speech I spoke out against abortion," Rand told CBN News. "I gave a speech in my church when I was 17 years old."
"My hands were shaking," he recalled. "It was the first time I ever spoke in public really because I felt strongly that we should make a statement on this."
"All the rest of our rights, everything else that I argue for all stems from the right to life and if you don't defend the right to life how can you be for any other sort of lesser right or secondary rights?" he asked.
While Republicans like Paul are taking action, Democrats refuse to rush to judgment.
Although presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called the videos "disturbing," she's still defending the controversial organization.
"For more than a century, Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women," she said. "I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood had been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years."
Sen. Paul, who's also running for president, says Clinton is on the wrong side of this debate.
"She's also taking money from Planned Parenthood," Paul noted. "She's taken at least $10,000 that we can find in contributions from Planned Parenthood officials and I've called for her to return that."
"I think she should send the money back," he continued. "I think the money is tainted. I think the money comes from - indirectly at least - from people who are selling babies' organs."
Presidential politics aside, this is now a numbers game. Senate Republicans need 60 votes to push this bill through, which means some Democrats will have to join them – an uphill battle for sure.
Meanwhile, the lack of attention to the videos from the mainstream media coverage hasn't helped.
A new Media Research Center report shows the big three networks spent just 11 minutes on this story in the last two weeks. Compare that to the 14 minutes spent in just one day by the networks on Cecil, the famous African lion shot to death by an American dentist.