Connect with us

E.W. Jackson: The People Of Virginia Don’t Have The Right To Use My Words To Decide Their Vote

Published

on

Bishop E.W. Jackson, the GOP nominee for Lt. Governor of Virginia, sat down with Bryan Fischer yesterday and shared his concerns about how he is being “marginalized” and “persecuted” for his “biblical world view.” Jackson, who has said gays and lesbians are “perverted,” “degenerate,” “spiritually darkened” and “frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally,” now believes the Constitution does not allow for a “religious test” for office, and therefore his comments made as a religious figure should not be used by the people of Virginia when deciding how to vote.

“But look, it’s an attack ultimately on every church-going, Bible-believing Christian out there who holds to a traditional worldview,” Bishop Jackson told Fischer, the voice and face of the anti-gay hate group, American Family Association. Jackson added, “frankly, I think one of my goals is to champion their right to hold their views without being persecuted for it.”

“Our Founding Fathers believed that there should never be a religious test and yet that’s what we’re seeing today,” Jackson, misinterpreting the Constitution, complained. “We’re seeing people apply a religious test and they’re saying anything you believed or said as a minister disqualifies you from serving as Lt. Governor because you hold to these Biblical views.”

Of course, Jackson is plain wrong. No one is saying he is “disqualified” from serving as Lt. Governor. But what the majority of good Americans believe is persecuting a population, like the LGBT community, or African-Americans, or, other protected classes, is wrong. The people have every right — in fact, every responsibility — to vet their candidates for elected office and take the person’s views into account. It’s called making an informed decision.

Others agree.

“For some reason,” Kyle Mantyla at Right Wing Watch writes, “Fischer did not disabuse Jackson of this notion.”

Mantyla then (brilliantly) quotes Fischer back to Jackson, from a World Net Daiy op-ed Fischer wrote in 2011, “Voters: Use Any Religious Test You Want To.” Here’s an excerpt from Fischer’s op-ed:

While the federal government cannot use a religious test to screen candidates for public office, the people who go to the polls certainly can. The federal government cannot use a religious test, but voters can – and they should.

Let’s be done with the nonsense that asking questions about a candidate’s faith is inappropriate. It certainly is not. In fact, in some ways, the faith questions are the most important, because they go right to the issue of a man’s most deeply held convictions and values.

We need to know what those values are, because we are prepared to hand over to him enormous power to implement policies that will impact virtually every detail of of our lives, including policies on abortion, marriage and sexuality in the military. We need to know what value system is driving him at the deepest level. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to seek to know all we can about a candidate’s moral and religious values.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

GOP ‘Voucher Scheme for the Wealthy’ Would Hand $5 Billion to Religious, Private Schools

Published

on

Speaker Mike Johnson’s House Republicans want to insert a provision into their massive tax cuts bill that would create a system to hand private and religious schools $5 billion annually and wealthy donors yet another tax break.

Calling it an “unprecedented effort to use public money to pay for private education,” the Associated Press reports that it “would advance President Donald Trump’s agenda of establishing ‘universal school choice’ by providing families nationwide the option to give their children an education different from the one offered in their local public school.”

If enacted, the system would provide a vehicle for donors to donate cash or stocks, then receive full value via a tax credit —”100% of the contribution back in the form of a discount on their tax bills,” according to the AP. “It would allow stock holders to avoid paying taxes that would be levied if they donated or transferred the stock.”

READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Samantha Jacoby, Deputy Director of Federal Tax Policy with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities described it as “a new federal tax credit to subsidize private school vouchers — effectively the first nationwide voucher program.” She called it “a costly tax break for the wealthy [with] an egregious capital gains tax loophole.”

Jacoby added, “this is a much more generous tax break than the existing charitable deduction. The max benefit from the deduction is 37 cents per $ donated, but the voucher credit would make taxpayers fully whole; i.e., the federal government pays the full cost of the vouchers.”

Critics are blasting the proposal.

“Voters have never approved vouchers in any state,” noted public education advocate Mike DeGuire, Ph.D. “Now the Republican-led Congress wants to spend billions to gut public education with their voucher scheme for the wealthy.”

“Trump and his cronies want [to] kick 9 million vulnerable people off Medicaid to pay for (1) tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and (2) $5 BILLION to send to religious schools that are unaccountable to taxpayers,” observed constitutional attorney Andrew L. Seidel, a vice president at Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In 2019, then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposed a similar program, Education Freedom Scholarships, which was met with opposition by Democrats.

Then-U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) called it “a shell game to fund private and religious schools and their providers using taxpayers as the middleman.”

READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

NCRM

Two-Thirds of Americans Say Economy is Keeping Them From Having Babies

Published

on

Nearly two-thirds of Americans aren’t having babies due to the economy, according to a new poll.

According to a Harris-Guardian poll, many Americans are deciding against having children, with 65% saying that they’ve decided against having children because they’re worried about the economy and doubt they could afford it.

The poll also asked about other regular life milestones. Americans are also holding off on getting married (60%), buying a house (75%) or pursuing higher education (61%). It’s not just major events, either—65% said the cost of living had only gotten higher since January, and half said they were having difficulty paying for regular living expenses.

READ MORE: Nikki Haley: Frozen Embryos Are ‘Babies’

A majority of adults, 52%, blamed either tariffs (29%) or other government policies (23%) for causing their household economic woes. Only 4% blamed themselves, with another 6% blaming employers; 16% blamed something altogether different. The only group that largely felt the economy was getting better was Republicans; 33% said it was getting worse, compared to 73% of Democrats and 64% of independents.

The survey of 2,102 adult Americans was conducted between April 24-26. The margin of error is 2.5%.

America’s birth rate has been declining since the 1950s, barring a small bump between 1978 and 1988, according to Macrotrends. In the last 40 years, the number of live births has fallen from a peak of 15.5 live births per 1,000 people in 1988 to 12.01 births in 2024.

The Trump administration has urged Americans to have more children. In April, President Donald Trump floated the idea of giving out a “baby bonus” of $5,000 to new parents, according to CBS News.

While not as generous, the House GOP’s first draft of the budget includes $1,000 to be placed in “MAGA accounts” for new babies, according to Raw Story. The $1,000 could come in handy for new parents—but a May 9 report from CBS estimates Trump’s tariffs have added $1,000 to the cost of raising a child. (This does not take into account Monday’s announcement of reduced tariffs on Chinese goods.)

Declining birth rates could lead to an imbalance of demographics. As Americans get older, there are fewer young people to fill their shoes in the workplace. Fewer workers means lower tax revenue, and aging typically means an increase in health care costs, as Mike Walden, Reynolds Distinguished Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University, points out.

It’s not all downsides, however. Walden says lower birth rates could also lessen competition for good housing. It could also lead to less traffic congestion, less waste and more land for food production.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

NCRM

Trump Promises to Lower Drug Costs as House GOP Tries to Cut $880B From Medicaid

Published

on

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday aimed at cutting drug costs. Meanwhile, his fellow Republicans in the House are trying to gut Medicaid.

Trump’s executive order, “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients,” is an attempt to “equalize evident price discrimination,” allowing Americans to pay the same price as other “comparably developed nations.”

“This abuse of Americans’ generosity, who deserve low-cost pharmaceuticals on the same terms as other developed nations, must end.  Americans will no longer be forced to pay almost three times more for the exact same medicines, often made in the exact same factories.  As the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, Americans should get the best deal,” the EO reads in part.

READ MORE: ‘Pushed Up to the Edge of the Cliff’: GOP Proposals Would Kick Millions Off Health Care

Prior to the announcement, Trump posted to Truth Social that “DRUG PRICES TO BE CUT BY 59%,” but did not provide details on where that figure came from. It is also unclear if the White House has the authority to enforce this order, according to NPR.

PhRMA President and CEO Steve Ubl dismissed the executive order, saying that it was other countries paying such low prices that drives up costs for Americans. Ubl implied that the executive order may require those countries to pay more.

“The Administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines. U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation,” Ubl said. “Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers. It would mean less treatments and cures and would jeopardize the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America – threatening jobs, hurting our economy and making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines.”

While Trump was promising to help American health care consumers on Monday, the night before, his colleagues in the House revealed legislation that would cut over $880 billion in Medicaid funding. Republicans say that the cuts will result in savings to the average American, but Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said “millions of Americans will lose their health care coverage,” according to the AP.

“Hospitals will close, seniors will not be able to access the care they need, and premiums will rise for millions of people if this bill passes,” Pallone continued.

Not all Republicans are on board with this bill. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri wrote a guest essay for The New York Times condemning the legislation. He called the bill “both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.