March, 2007

Wisconsin: Feds “made it very clear to the states they wanted abstinence-only education.”

Eli Lilly concerned Indiana would be seen as intolerant; Focus calls this a “smoke screen.”

To “offset” social positions (temp link). E.g.: Steve Forbes endorses Giuliani.

Would “open the door” for “pro-homosexual organizations” in schools. Meanwhile: “Ex-gay” Stephen Bennett calls for mass hooky on “Day of Silence.”

Linked to Planned Parenthood, warns Pro-Life Waco.

Scarborough, Keyes plan road trip.

Group turns 20; ceremony redefines “roast.”

Federal Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a far-right nominee who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005, recently spoke to students at Harding University in Arkansas. Brown, known for her strident legal views on the “socialist revolution” of Social Security and other topics, set her sights on critics of the Religious Right and our supposed “demands”:

Brown said those who attack the religious right “essentially argue (that) the true American religion demands acceptance of, indeed submission to, a common political vision — their vision.”

In the 20th century, secular humanism crept into American and Western governments, promising openness and tolerance for diverse groups, religions and philosophies, she said.

“What we got was narrow positivism, moral relativism and the totalitarian reign of the radical multiculturalist,” Brown said. “It promised peace. What we got was a process of permanent revolution, tumult, strife and a ceaseless assault upon the foundations of faith, family and civil society. It promised if not the pursuit of truth, at least rationality and acknowledgment of objective reality. What we got was postmodernism.” The battle, in her view, is not political but theological: “Contrary to the prevailing secularist dogma ... a society cannot exist without a fighting faith. Where society has nothing to die for, it has nothing to live for and cannot long survive.”

Brown is occasionally touted by the far Right as a future Supreme Court nominee.

It looks as if James Dobson is trying to back away from his attack on possible GOP presidential nominee Fred Thompson. 

In an interview with US News and World Report’s Dan Gilgoff, Dobson recently attempted to throw cold water on Thompson's candidacy because, in Dobson words, he doesn't "think [Thompson is] a Christian."  Since then, the people at Focus on the Family have apparently realized that it is just this sort of thing that lends credence to Dick Armey’s accusation that “Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies” and thus have decided to fight back the only way they know how: by blaming the media

In conclusion, we would caution friends of our ministry not to believe what they read about Dr. Dobson in the secular media today. Never in the 30-year history of this ministry has there been more reporting and outright distortion of his beliefs and teachings. It is apparent that those who represent a liberal worldview seek to marginalize him and confuse our friends. Anyone who ever has a question concerning what they read about Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family is encouraged to contact us for clarification. The chances are they have been misinformed.

Gilgoff did not solicit Dobson’s view on this issue -- Dobson sought him out in order to undermine Thompson and praise Newt Gingrich. But now he isn’t happy with the results.

It should be noted that this is not the first time Dobson has been angry with the coverage he received in US News and World Report.  As Gilgoff explained in the introduction to his book - “The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War” – he first interviewed Dobson following the 2004 election for an article about the influence of so-called “values voters.” A few weeks later, when Gilgoff was working on a follow-up piece, he tried to contact Dobson again only to be denied an interview request because Dobson was upset that he had only received one quote in Gilgoff’s previous article.  

But Gilgoff went to Focus on the Family headquarters anyway and eventually scored a second interview with Dobson:

At the end of my second day in Colorado Springs, however, Dobson’s aide told me that he might grant an interview the following morning, my last at Focus headquarters. Representatives from Focus’s media relations department had been sitting in on all of my interviews with Focus staff, and thought my questions were well informed, and, more important, unbiased. I had passed a crucial test.

Gilgoff then went on to write an entire book about Dobson and his empire -  a book which must not have displeased Dobson too greatly, considering that he hand-picked Gilgoff as his outlet for getting the word out about Thompson.  Yet once Gilgoff reported that Dobson had questioned the faith of a potential Republican presidential candidate while praising a thrice-married adulterer, FOF responded by alleging a grand conspiracy by which the “secular media” seeks to “marginalize [Dobson] and confuse our friends.” 

Despite Dobson’s accusations, US News is standing by its initial report, saying the “piece was accurate and representative of the spirit of Dobson's comments.”

With the reintroduction of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the House and the prospect that it may pass in a Democratic Congress, religious-right groups are waging a sizeable campaign to portray the bill as part of a mythical persecution of Christians. Although hate-crimes laws expand penalties for violent crimes causing bodily injury or death (as well as attempts through firearms and explosives), the Religious Right is labeling them “thought crimes” laws the “only effect” of which “is to gag people of faith.” Although federal law has punished hate crimes based on race for more than a decade, the Religious Right is incensed at the prospect of using the law to protect gays as well.

This reaction follows a pattern of asserting that gay rights – or a so-called “homosexual agenda” – will lead to the “repression” of religion in America, an anti-gay marketing effort typified by last year’s “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, where speakers from Mitt Romney to Tony Perkins claimed that, in the words of Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, “The homosexual agenda and [freedom of] religion are on a collision course.” “They know they must silence the church,” warned Perkins. At that time, the issue was same-sex marriage; the co-sponsor of the federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), said that “"If we have gay marriage, our religious liberties are gone!”

As the Washington Post reported yesterday, there is a new push afoot to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which “faltered a quarter-century ago when the measure did not gain the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures.” 

That being the case, we will probably start hearing a lot from the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, who ironically established her reputation and career as a right-wing powerhouse by single-mindedly setting out to fight the ERA.

And judging by her appearance at Bates College yesterday, it appears as if Schlafly is already in full anti-feminism battle mode:   

For nearly two hours, she belittled the feminist movement as "teaching women to be victims," decried intellectual men as "liberal slobs" and argued that feminism "is incompatible with marriage and motherhood."

…

One came when Schlafly asserted women should not be permitted to do jobs traditionally held by men, such as firefighter, soldier or construction worker, because of their "inherent physical inferiority."

"Women in combat are a hazard to other people around them," she said. "They aren't tall enough to see out of the trucks, they're not strong enough to carry their buddy off the battlefield if he's wounded, and they can't bark out orders loudly enough for everyone to hear."

At one point, Schlafly also contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands.

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.

As we noted the other day, James Dobson is a member of The Arlington Group, a secretive coalition of right-wing powerhouses that is throwing around its political power by interviewing presidential candidates in an attempt to anoint the eventual GOP nominee by granting said nominee its seal-of-approval.

At the same time, various polls show TV star and former Senator Fred Thompson doing quite well among Republican voters despite the fact that he is not even officially running. That apparently was frightening enough to James Dobson to compel him to make an unsolicited phone call to Dan Gilgoff, author of "The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War," in order to decree that Thompson's candidacy is unacceptable because Dobson doesn't "think he's a Christian":

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ."

In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."

"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility."

Dobson went on to say that Gov. Mitt Romney can't win because "there are conservative Christians who will not vote for him because of his Mormon faith," and that "the current excitement over Giuliani" will soon fade.

The only potential nominee for whom Dobson had any praise was Newt Gingrich, who just so happened to appear on Dobson's radio program a few weeks ago where he confessed to having cheated on his wife during the impeachment of President Clinton and claimed to have sought forgiveness.

While stating that he wasn't endorsing anyone, Dobson praised Gingrich as the "brightest guy out there" and "the most articulate politician on the scene today."

Despite Dobson's claims to the contrary, it is hard to see how this unsolicited call to Gilgoff could be considered anything but an open declaration of support for Gingrich.

Dobson has already said that he will not vote for Sen. John McCain, accused Thompson of not being a Christian, made clear that he doesn't think Romney can win, and declared that Giuliani's campaign is doomed. And since he is not out there praising third-tier candidates such as Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee, that pretty much leaves Gingrich as Dobson's only choice.

Although he had never held office before, when Bill Greene decided to run to replace Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia), who died last month, he knew he would have at least two advantages: a ready audience of activists and donors from the mailing list of RightMarch.com, the Internet marketing tool he built, and support from some of the right-wing leaders whose missives he has enthusiastically distributed. And so in February Greene announced his candidacy to his “over one million supporters nationally” as an extension of the grassroots activism he has encouraged in the past:

Now, we have the chance to make YOUR voice -- the voice of grassroots, hard-working patriotic Americans -- heard even LOUDER...

... From the INSIDE of Congress!

Yesterday, I announced my candidacy as a Republican Candidate for Georgia's 10th Congressional District.

And this week, Greene passed along an endorsement from Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, who wrote that electing Greene is “a chance to finally make progress” on “keep[ing] our neighborhoods safe from drug dealers, rapists and potential terrorists.”

·  Bill has been a leader in the fight against illegal immigration as a grassroots activist, delivering millions of messages to Capitol Hill from constituents, demanding NO AMNESTY for illegals;

·  He has personally mustered with us on the U.S.-Mexican border as a volunteer with the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, standing watch to report the illegals streaming unhindered across our officially undefended Arizona border;

Most importantly, given Simcox’s many problems with finances,

· Bill has helped us to raise tens of thousands of dollars for MCDC operations and projects, such as the Border Fence Project;

According to Simcox, Greene, who cut his political teeth working for GOP direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie, “has to have the financial firepower to blanket the local radio and television markets with a barrage of ads, as well as the ability to field an army of volunteers led by experienced staffers who know how to get out the vote. Add in the print ads and direct mail efforts to communicate with every likely voter in one of the largest districts in Georgia, and you’ll see why the Bill Greene campaign is facing HUGE expenses.”

Next month, GLSEN’s annual “Day of Silence” will be held with students from around the country pledging to “be quiet all day to protest the discrimination, harassment and abuse—in effect, the silencing—faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students and their allies in schools.”

Unsurprisingly, the anti-gay Right is not about to let this silent protest go by without comment.  

The Alliance Defense Fund is promoting its own trademarked “Day of Truth” to counter the “Day of Silence,” which it claims is “part of their overall strategy to change how our society perceives homosexual behavior … the Day of Silence is a misnomer, because what is truly being silenced is the Truth.” 

Scheduled for the day after the GLSEN event, the “Day of Truth” is designed to give anti-gay students an opportunity to “stand up for their First Amendment right to hear and speak the Truth about human sexuality in order to protect that freedom for future generations.”

As ADF’s 14-page instruction manual [PDF] states:

It is our responsibility to point the hurting person tempted by or even trapped in homosexual behavior to this healing love and merciful grace. Love does not mean condoning or ignoring things that are wrong or that cause harm. When Christ loved someone, like the woman caught in adultery (John 8:11), he expressed compassion for her. He also gave her the loving direction to “go now and leave your life of sin.” As followers of Christ, we must take action when someone is trapped in sinful behavior that separates them from God (John 8:24). We must be able to speak the Truth and direct people to their need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and to find the all forgiving love of God.    

In order to accomplish this, ADF recommends that students wear T-shirts and pass out cards with the following message:

I am speaking the Truth to break the silence.

Silence isn’t freedom. It’s a constraint.

Truth tolerates open discussion, because the Truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed.

By proclaiming the Truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.

But for a coalition of right-wing groups - including Concerned Women for America, Peter LaBarbera’s Americans For Truth, Massachusetts Resistance, and the ex-gay Stephen Bennett Ministries - counter-protesting just isn’t enough. Apparently, the idea of having students even witnessing the “Day of Silence” is far too dangerous and it is better if parents just keep their children home from school altogether:   

A national pro-family coalition, www.NotOurKids.com, is calling upon parents to keep their children home from school on April 18 -- to avoid GLSEN's homosexual "Day of Silence," in which students and some supportive faculty intentionally remain silent throughout the school day to protest alleged oppression of homosexuals.

…

"Teenagers deserve an opportunity to study English, history, math, and science -- without being subjected to pro-homosexual proselytizing sanctioned by school authorities. Students shouldn't be forced to self-censor or adopt beliefs contrary to those of their parents and places of worship," said Linda Harvey of Mission America, a coalition member.  "Even the strongest of our junior high and high school children are not equipped to serve as frontline soldiers in this culture war."

In a column mulling the role of Evangelicals in the 2008 election, Bishop Harry Jackson claims that in recent years, they “voted their values” based on “gay marriage and pro-life concerns” – an assumption contradicted by the Center for American Values poll – but that now the Evangelical movement is undergoing a “political makeover.” One might guess that Jackson was referring to the dispute between the National Association of Evangelicals and religious-right activists (including Jackson) led by James Dobson over whether talking about climate change and torture distracts from the core mission of Christians. Instead, Jackson – who is a frequent Religious Right spokesman – sees that debate as part of a liberal conspiracy to undermine “the historic passion that the ‘moral majority’ has had for the issues of protection of life and guarding the traditional family”:

During this transformation from caterpillar to butterfly, a host of enemies are attempting to prevent an evangelical resurrection. A sophisticated, pincer strategy is being waged against them by two groups--–liberal Christians and the liberal press. Both groups fear that the sleeping giant will awaken with an attitude.

Of course, this concern by the Dobson group that outreach on alternate issues would distract from gay marriage, abortion, and abstinence education was not voiced during and after the last election, as the Religious Right’s definition of core issues of so-called “values voters” rapidly expanded to encompass most of the Republican Party platform, from the War on Terror to tax cuts and Social Security to a fear of “socialized medicine.”

So it is that the religious-right activists most closely aligned with partisan campaigns have made discrediting the National Association of Evangelicals a priority. One more example comes from Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a group founded in the early 1980s to counter criticism of Reagan Administration policies in Central America by the National Council of Churches and to create an ideological “renewal” in mainline protestant churches by painting the NCC as Communist sympathizers. Tooley invokes the IRD’s defining campaign against the National Council of Churches in describing the National Association of Evangelicals:

It is no secret that the GOP’s right-wing base is unenthusiastic about the current crop of presidential frontrunners.  As the New York Times reported last month:

A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.

But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

Now, the Boston Globe is reporting that another secretive right-wing political organization is going beyond the Council for National Policy’s mere complaining and is actively interviewing candidates in order to determine which nominee meets its criteria:

Leaders of a secretive coalition that includes some of the most influential social conservatives in the nation are interviewing presidential candidates in hopes of flexing political muscle and reframing the Republican primaries in 2008.

Over the past few months, members of the executive committee of the so-called Arlington Group have questioned several declared and potential White House hopefuls with the intention of settling on a single candidate, according to Arlington Group members and Republican operatives familiar with the discussions.

…

Leaders of the group have interviewed Huckabee, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, US Representative Duncan Hunter of California, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who hasn't entered the race but may later this year. It's not clear which other candidates have been or will be interviewed. The group has not yet questioned Romney, Senator John McCain of Arizona, or former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, according to those campaigns.

While the Arlington Group cannot endorse candidates itself, its high-profile and influential members certainly can:

Conservative movement stalwart Phyllis Schlafly, scourge of the ERA and founder of the Eagle Forum, has made clear her dissatisfaction with the ideological performance of Republican presidential candidates. But Schafly apparently falls into the school of thought that the fierce competition among candidates for right-wing favor gives activists the opportunity to “get involved and try to change the candidates’ perspectives now,” as Richard Land put it. And so she told supporters in New Hampshire, the early primary state, “You have the opportunity here to work these guys over. … We’re trying to pin them down.”

And so the Eagle Forum published a list of questions for its supporters to ask candidates on the trail, ranging from Schlafly’s theory of “supremacist judges” to the John Birch-esque “North American Union.” She says her plan is working, according to “Swift Vet” co-author and fellow “North American Union” enthusiast Jerome Corsi:

Sen. John McCain's new attention to, and possibly new position on, illegal immigration is being credited to a grassroots program implemented by Phyllis Schlafly, who is training Eagle Forum leaders how to question presidential candidates on key national issues. …

In the 109th Congress, McCain co-sponsored with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, S.2611, a "comprehensive immigration reform" bill supported by the Bush administration that included provisions calling for "guest workers" and a "pathway to citizenship."

But after facing intensive questioning in Iowa about immigration issues, McCain is widely reporte