October 2007

Liberty Counsel announces that is has launched its "Fifth Annual Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign."

Over the weekend, the New York Times published two pieces – one by David Kirkpatrick, the other by Frank Rich - suggesting that the Religious Right’s long political relationship with the Republican Party is unraveling and that the movement is facing the possibility of complete destruction heading into the 2008 election.  

If that prediction sounds familiar, it is probably because the media wrote wove exactly the same narrative a little over a decade ago heading into the 1996 election.  

Back in 1995, Ralph Reed graced the cover of Time Magazine where he was declared “The Right Hand of God” for his role in helping Republican capture control of Congress the previous year from his position as the head of the Christian Coalition.   

The Religious Right, it seemed at the time, were the new political powerbrokers in Washington, DC; a movement that had fundamentally altered the balance of power and was set to dominate the scene for the foreseeable future. 

But then, just one year later, the press was reporting that they were in complete disarray and on the verge of imploding.   

Just a sampling of articles from that period demonstrate how little has changed since then, with GOP candidates pandering to James Dobson and the Right split over which candidate, if any, to back:   

While many on the Right are busy telling everyone to go see the new film “Bella,” a God-friendly “moral masterpiece” said to be the “next Passion of the Christ," others are busy attacking the forthcoming film “The Golden Compass” because the author of the series of books upon which it is based is reportedly an outspoken atheist:

[Sophia] Sproule sees "The Golden Compass" and the other books in Mr. Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy as a source of concern for Catholic parents, describing the books' negative portrayal of God and the church as potentially damaging to the spiritual well-being of young readers.

"[Philip] Pullman, an outspoken atheist and critic of religion, offers in these novels a vitriolic denunciation of religious faith in general, especially of Christianity and most pointedly of the Catholic Church (a version of it, anyway)," Miss Sproule said.

"Whether or not one believes that 'mere fiction' should be cause for alarm, the simple truth is that to enter into a fantasy realm is to accept the world presented on its own terms," she said, adding that the Pullman books represent "not merely a wholesale rejection of religion — it is an invitation to reject God."

In what comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody, the opposition is being driven mainly by Bill Donohue:

Pullman's work, says William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, promotes an atheist agenda that is profoundly anti-Church.

True, he hasn't seen the movie, which comes out Dec. 7, and he has little reason to doubt the filmmakers' claims that it considerably waters down the book's more controversial aspects. But the possibility that the movie could persuade some unsuspecting parents to buy the book for their children makes him furious.

"It's selling the virtues of atheism," Donohue says over the phone from the league's New York office. "The real person we want to get on this is Pullman. I don't want to see these books flying off the shelves at Christmas. I want them to be collecting dust."

And, as if to demonstrate that there is just no pleasing him, Donohue is even upset that the studio has reportedly watered down some of the book’s atheist themes:  

But the removal of the Godless themes from the movie has some Christian organizations seething.

"They’re intentionally watering down the most offensive element,” Donohue said. “I'm not really concerned about the movie, [which] looks fairly innocuous. The movie is made for the books. ... It's a deceitful, stealth campaign. Pullman is hoping his books will fly off the shelves at Christmastime."

Since Donohue’s entire career is based on intimidating those with whom he disagrees, it is entirely predictable that he would go after someone like Pullman for daring to produce something that does not reflect his own views on religion and the Catholic Church.  

But if you thought that efforts to “water down” the “offensive” elements would at least please him, you don’t know much about Bill Donohue.  

It’s not a good month for Mothers Against Illegal Aliens, a virulent anti-immigrant group we first noticed last year when they targeted the undocumented mother of a 7-year-old U.S. citizen for deportation. “Our beautiful Nation has been turned into a jungle by the mass invasion of illegal aliens,” warned the group’s mission statement at the time, although it has been updated to dial-down the hate speech (while keeping the references to “Aztlan”—“We are not only at war with Iraq, but we ARE at WAR with MEXICO”).

Last week, the Anti-Defamation League released a report, titled “Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream,” which describes how anti-immigrant groups “borrow from the playbook of hate groups” in their quest to demonize Hispanics. ADL’s first example is Mothers Against Illegal Aliens.

At the same time, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the large grassroots advocacy group that changed attitudes about drinking and driving in the 1980s, sent a letter demanding that MAIA cease and desist from exploiting the “Mothers Against” reputation. According to MAIA founder Michelle Dallacroce, “You've got La Raza infiltrating MADD. MADD's now into seatbelt safety instead of deporting illegal drunk drivers.”

Mitt Romney may have officially “won” the straw poll at the Values Voter Summit; Mike Huckabee may have been the crowd favorite; and what to do about Rudy Giuliani may have been the biggest question mark; but of all the presidential candidates, the one most talked about at the right-wing conference was Hillary Clinton. “Bill Clinton,” Tom Tancredo warned, is “now measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.” Rep. Jean Schmidt urged Giuliani rejectionists to realize “how important it is that we stand behind whatever candidate comes out that will be her rival, and stand behind that person, whether we agree with all their opinions and values or not. Because if we don’t, you will have that woman in power.”

Libertarian journalism David Weigel, moonlighting at the paleoconservative American Conservative magazine, notes that the visceral hatred many on the Right have for Sen. Clinton could be the only thing that holds the movement and the GOP together, at least in the hopes of Republican strategists:

It’s a balmy, beer-drinking evening in the middle of August, and the conservatives trickling in to a meeting of the Robert A. Taft Club can’t enjoy it. They’re mostly under-30 Washington professionals, and they’re fed up with the Republican Party. They think George W. Bush’s bumbling and ideological hat-trading have reduced the conservative movement to a pitiable, piddling state. If Karl Rove stepped inside, he’d come out looking like Oscar de la Hoya after a bout gone wrong.

They settle into a debate about the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Panelists take turns whipping the party for its sins. “We beat them on immigration,” says Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer, “but right now, we just don’t have the strength or the resources to affect public policy the way we want to.” He beseeches the crowd to help save the movement, but that gets a muted reaction. So he steps it up: “I still think that in the short term, as many problems as we have right now, Hillary Clinton can bring conservatives back together.”

The name does the trick: soft laughter moves around the room. Keeping Hillary out of the White House is literally the only motivation some conservatives have to pull the Republican lever in 2008, especially if their party nominates a pro-choice candidate for the first time since 1976.

While many Republicans are crossing their fingers that a Clinton nomination will stir up the right-wing id into a frenzy of resentment, bringing back the anti-Clinton rhetoric of the 1990s—whether about Vince Foster or strong women—is not necessarily a recipe for victory. There will always be a core group that feeds off of even the most disgusting anti-Hillary marketing, but as Weigel points out, translating that into broader political success is another matter. GOP hatchet men started Stop Her Now and the Stop Hillary PAC to raise millions to prevent Clinton’s reelection to the Senate in 2006, but they hardly raised thousands. Even the steady stream of anti-Clinton books have fallen flat in sales.

That doesn’t mean it will stop. The Republican National Committee is already running against Clinton. We can probably expect Republican candidates, especially Giuliani, to keep taking Clinton as their de facto running mate unless and until the primaries prove otherwise, providing a foil always good for applause lines.

The speculations swirling around which Republican candidate would win the favors of the religious-right activists gathered at the Values Voter Summit last weekend obscured what was the ceremonial centerpiece of the event, a “Faith, Family & Freedom Gala Dinner” honoring James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and perhaps the most influential leader on the Right. Featuring a serenade from Lee Greenwood, the singer most famous for “God Bless the USA” (which he called “the nation’s anthem”), the tribute was rounded out by speakers attesting to Dobson’s personal qualities and thanking him for his leadership in political fights, and if anything, it certainly sounded like a fond farewell to the 71-year-old activist.

The AP reports that

out of public view, a new generation of executives is laying the groundwork for sustaining the conservative Christian group as a cultural and political force once the 71-year-old Dobson has left the scene. Most of their efforts are concentrated not in the political realm, but on finding new ways to deliver marriage and parenting advice to a younger generation of families, many of whom distrust institutions or dislike evangelical engagement in politics.

When WorldNetDaily decides to write about a book by right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton, you just know the results are not going to be pretty – or accurate:  

KKK's 1st targets were Republicans: Dems credited with starting group that attacked both blacks and whites

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

And on and on is goes about how “the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party” until Barton finally gets around to accusing the Democrats of hiding from their own history:

"Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?" Barton asked. "Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about – perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website."

That is a good question - almost as good as the question we raised in our report on Barton asking why his “history” of the Democratic Party’s animosity toward African Americans suddenly stops after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and makes absolutely no mention of the political transformation that overtook the country in its wake and the rise of the Republican Party’s “Southern Strategy”:

If the Family Research Council intended its Values Voter Summit to be a demonstration of the persevering influence of the Religious Right on the Republican Party, the group can claim some success: “all 9 major Republican candidates” came to pander to the activists, as they have for most of the past year. And, despite the best efforts of Gary Bauer to cool the waters, some leaders still hold out their threat to bolt the party—and, we are to presume, sabotage the election—if fellow Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani. “[T]his is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee there will be a third party,” Richard Land told Newsweek this week.

So what in the world is an FRC senior fellow doing claiming that a totally different right-wing faction will “decide” the 2008 election?

Christopher Gacek, writing in the Politico, identifies “Lou Dobbs voters” as the critical bloc, the politics of whom

are still fluid, because neither party has moved to gain their support. The Democrats are too busy kowtowing to immigration interest groups as they look to import future voting blocs, and the Republicans are too beholden to big business globalists, trade ideologues and open-border libertarians.

If the CNN host is indeed their spokesman, we can probably pin them down as people worried about immigrants starting a leprosy epidemic, immigrants attempting to “reconquer” western states for Mexico, and of course, the secret plan to create a North American Union.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays pleads for tolerance of anti-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin: "'Ex-gays have the same right to participate in the political process as other Americans and should not have to endure this type of abuse because they chose to leave homosexuality,' said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director. 'Gay rights groups demand hate crimes laws and sexual orientation non-discrimination legislation, but would deny the same protection to ex-gays who want full inclusion in society at the same level that gays currently enjoy.'"

Media Research Center activist accusing "Harry Potter" author of pushing "hip, kaleidoscopic sexual deviancy that is engulfing us from every which way" in revealing gay wizard.

Heading into the recent Values Voter Summit, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins was careful to make clear that it was unlikely that any one candidate would emerge from the event as the Right’s candidate of choice, thus rescuing them from their current dilemma and confusion.   But he also predicted that the event would at least help narrow down the field a bit:  

“These are the influencers, these are the talkers,” Perkins said of the attendees that will take over the Washington Hilton hotel. “This could be when things start to shake out and a candidate begins to emerge with a certain level of support. I don’t think anybody’s going to walk away with a lock, but maybe one or two candidates, maybe three, will begin to take off with strong support from the base.”

The one candidate who got the biggest boost from the Summit was Mike Huckabee, who came in second place in the straw poll and was the overwhelming favorite among those in attendance – something which, oddly enough, only seems to have confused things further:

The influential social conservatives who comprise the Arlington Group met over the weekend to discuss the possibility of endorsing a presidential candidate and could not reach a consensus, according to a source familiar with the process.

Though leaders of the individual organizations may make their own endorsements, those selections "cannot be considered a blanket endorsement by the 'Religious Right,'" according to the source.

While many leaders want to endorse fan favorite Mike Huckabee, others are more hesitant. The source informed me that "the dilemma is over whether to choose the preferred candidate of their constituents or go with the pragmatic choice and risk offending our base."

According to the source, James Dobson of Focus on the Family likes Mitt Romney, Gary Bauer of American Values prefers Fred Thompson, and Don Wildmon of the American Family Association likes Huckabee. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is still on the fence, but nearing a decision.

In fact, very little has changed:  Supporting McCain or Giuliani was never much of a possibility and the right-wing leadership has always been torn between Romney, Thompson, and, to a lesser extent, Huckabee.  The only new development is that some are becoming more willing to openly back Huckabee:

No doubt there were a handful of people scattered among the audience at the Values Voter Summit who supported Alan Keyes for president, or were at least aware that he is a candidate, so it must have ruffled one or two feathers when the M.C. boasted several times that “all 9 major Republican candidates” were speaking. Third-time GOP presidential candidate Keyes, who has appeared at two debates which the frontrunners skipped, was not invited.

Most of Keyes’s erstwhile friends have been silent, but one man has spoken out: Gordon Klingenschmitt, a.k.a. “Chaps,” the discharged Navy chaplain who has gone on tour with Keyes on Rick Scarborough’s “70 Weeks to Save America,” claiming that he was prohibited him from praying in the name of Jesus (though in reality he was discharged for violating rules against wearing his uniform at political or partisan events). “Some of you know I've endorsed Ambassador Alan Keyes for president, because I believe he's the most Christ-like candidate we have in the Republican primary,” Klingenschmitt writes.

Alan bears the political scars to prove his deep commitment to the cause of righteousness and freedom in America. Nobody can dispute his decades-long sacrifice of personal fortune and reputation to fight tirelessly beside pro-life protestors, pro-marriage families, Minutemen border guards, Ten-Commandments judges, tax-cut conservatives, strict Constitutionalists and, yes, chaplains who pray in Jesus' name.

So why did the Family Research Council, or FRC, intentionally exclude Alan Keyes from their "open invitation to all candidates, even Democrats" event this weekend in Washington, D.C.? While giving the prime-time speaking slot to Mitt Romney, FRC not only excluded Alan Keyes from the speaker's podium, even after repeated requests to include him, they didn't even list him as a choice in their straw poll. …

Was Alan's schedule already booked? No, he flew across the country from California to Washington ready to speak at FRC anytime this weekend.

Actor and fighting machine Chuck Norris compares him to King David.

That is what some participants at the Values Voter Summit fear, according to the Washington Post: "'Ooooh,' 20-year-old journalism major Emily Espinola groaned. 'What do you want? She wants to be a dictator. I really think she wants to be a dictator, because she's a socialist. She wants to socialize medicine and she presents it in this beautiful wonderful way but she doesn't talk about the consequences, which are more taxes, bigger government.' 'What will end up happening with her health plan is making rationing by wait lists,' Novick said. 'The elderly or anybody who has any kind of really kind of life-threatening illness will end up being euthanized by wait lists.' 'It happens in Canada all the time,' Espinola said. 'I have friends in Canada who can vouch for it.'"

Immediately after Tony Perkins announced the result of the FRC Action straw poll, in which Mitt Romney edged Mike Huckabee by 30 votes out of 5,775 cast, Huckabee boosters cried foul – and reporters peppered Perkins with questions about the legitimacy of the poll.

Turns out that Huckabee won a majority of the votes cast in person at the Values Voter Summit, 51 percent, and Romney only took 10 percent. Some unknown number of votes were cast online by people who also attended. But other votes were cast anytime online between August and Saturday. That’s how Ron Paul showed up in third place with 865 votes even though he was picked by only 25 in-person voters.

Huckabee’s clear victory in the in-person vote wasn’t much of a surprise if you experienced the rapturous reception Huckabee received on Saturday morning. Huckabee’s speech was non-stop Religious Right prime red meat and he had people cheering and hollering throughout.

The spirit of Ronald Reagan was invoked as a cadence on Saturday morning at the Values Voter Summit, first by Bill Bennett—Reagan’s Secretary of Education, who emphasized the need to nominate a candidate who understands the need to prevent a “preemptive cultural surrender” in the war on terrorism—and then by Rudy Giuliani, who was working hard to make the skeptical audience think of his “leadership” rather than his position on social wedge issues.

Phyllis Schlafly, who has been fighting feminism and liberalism for decades, still appears on 460 radio stations daily. She said she is “still shopping” for a candidate and she made it clear it wouldn’t be easy to win her vote. She had a very long list of demands for any presidential candidate – not only prolife but willing to make a series of pledges (veto Freedom of choice act, veto stem cell research, ban cloning, keep GOP anti-choid plank); not just pro-traditional marriage, but promising to sign legislation banning judges from finding the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Among the many other topics to which she would demand purity from candidates: The rights of parents in public school to keep their kids from learning about homosexuality or Islam. Judges who will stand up against the organized campaign to banish God, the Ten Commandments, and the Pledge of Allegiance from public schools. Reject the kind of comprehensive immigration reform George W. Bush advocated – what she called the Bush-Kennedy amnesty. Back English as our official language.

At a mid-day press conference called to discuss the Employment Non Discrimination Act about to come before the House, FRC’s Tony Perkins joined Bishop Harry Jackson, Rick Scarborough, and others to denounce the bill as a threat to religious liberty and as bad law generally. The strangest moment of the press conference was when an “ex-gay” spokesman gave his testimonial about having experienced workplace discrimination back when he was out and proud – and how he had gone to his boss’s boss and it was resolved (Confusion in the room – is that a good thing? should we applaud or not?) His point seemed to be that we shouldn’t make a law when people can take care of any workplace problems on their own – and oh, by the way, I am SO not homosexual any more.

The reporters didn’t really care – after all, it’s not exactly a news flash that people like Perkins and Jackson are opposed to legal protections for gay people. The press corps wanted to talk presidential politics.

Regarding the much-discussed threat by Religious Right leaders to form a third party if Giuliani is nominated, Perkins said that was a statement of principle, not a declaration of intent – BUT he insisted that the social conservative movement had drawn a line. Asked later what “lines” were uncrossable in the movement’s minds, Perkins said “life and marriage.”

With Religious Right leaders and activists wondering if and when they’ll coalesce around a GOP presidential nominee, Fred Thompson’s campaign was playing a little early morning hardball before the straw poll which begins today. Attendees arriving at the Values Voter summit for morning registration and breakfast meetings were greeted by Thompson staffers handing out flyers titled “Where Are They on The Issues That Matter Most To Your Family?” and slamming the records of Giuliani and Romney on abortion and gay rights issues relative to Thompson’s.

Richard Viguerie puts the kibosh on Huckabee, saying that while he "stands strong on some issues like abortion that are important to social conservatives, a careful examination of his record as governor reveals that he is just another wishy-washy Republican who enthusiastically promotes big government."

Randall Terry announces a press conference to discuss efforts to derail a potential Giuliani nomination and blasts supposed "pro-life" politicians who have endorsed him as "typical treacherous politicians. They have betrayed innocent blood to support a child-killer; we can only wonder what '30 pieces of silver' they are seeking."

It looks as if Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress isn’t about to be won over by Religious Right efforts to rally behind Mitt Romney, at least according to the Dallas Morning News:

A prominent Dallas minister told his congregation that if they wanted to elect a Christian to the White House, Republican Mitt Romney wasn't qualified.

Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, said that Mormonism is a false religion and that Mr. Romney was not a Christian.

"Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise," Dr. Jeffress said in a sermon Sept. 30. "Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult."

…

But Dr. Jeffress said colleagues who support Mr. Romney should not confuse morality with Christianity.

"I have conservative friends who are saying, well, he believes in Jesus, we believe in Jesus, let's just hold hands and sing kumbaya," he said. "It doesn't work that way. If a person is supporting Romney, that's fine. But don't confuse him with being a Christian."

Dr. Jeffress also said Christian conservatives were compromising the values used to back presidential candidates over the past decade.

"It's a little hypocritical for the last eight years to be talking about how important it is for us to elect a Christian president and then turn around and endorse a non-Christian," he said. "Christian conservatives are going to have to decide whether having a Christian president is really important or not." 

Salon reports that "Key conservative and religious leaders will continue discussing a mass defection from the Republican Party in a private meeting at a Washington hotel Saturday afternoon, just hours after the pro-choice presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani speaks before thousands of pro-life voters."

Cloistered away in a not-so-secret meeting during the Council for National Policy conference in Utah last month, a who’s who of right-wing leaders, led by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, emerged to issue a not-so-subtle message to the Republican Party:  if frontrunner Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination, we’re gone.  The threat alone was enough to prompt Giuliani to rethink his plans and suddenly decide to appear at this weekend’s “Values Voter Summit,” convened by Dobson’s allies at the Family Research Council.

With just over a year to go before the next presidential election, the Republican Party faithful are in some disarray, with wails of discontent over the field of primary contenders deemed insufficiently committed to advancing the “social conservative” agenda, or insufficiently willing to talk about their faith, or insufficiently likely to make it through the primaries.  While the campaigns of Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee have managed to pick off a few leaders and activists here and there, the only thing keeping the Right even somewhat unified at this point is Rudy Giuliani’s lack of anti-gay, anti-choice credentials and the threat of what his candidacy would mean for their influence within the party.  

The resolution drafted in Salt Lake City says that if “the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate” – but who exactly is “the Republican Party”?  It’s not as if RNC strategists pick the nominee.  That’s up to the voters who participate in GOP primaries and caucuses.

So in essence, the Right is not so much threatening “the Republican Party” as it is Republican Party voters and trying to blackmail them by saying that if they think Giuliani, as his campaign likes to point out, is “the only Republican candidate that can beat” Hillary Clinton, they had better think again -- because he can’t do that if anywhere from a quarter to a half of their activists refuse to vote for him.     

From the AP: "He that touches Jerusalem touches the apple of God's eye. And if we decide we're going to wrest East Jerusalem away from the Jews and give it over to the Palestinians, we're risking the wrath of God on this nation, and I think it's very dangerous."

There is an interesting story developing down at Pat Robertson’s Regent University.  It seems as if one of the students, Adam M. Key, doesn’t seem to like Robertson much and doesn’t really fit the stereotype of the typical Regent student:

Key, a bearded 23-year-old with a tableau of tattoos, would seem an odd fit at the evangelical Christian institution Robertson founded in 1978.

Key, a Lutheran, describes himself as a “liberal Christian” who heads the campus’ small “Christian Left” organization.

The tattoos reflect his passion for justice and the legal system. The colorful jumble of images features the U.S. Constitution written on a scroll, the Magna Carta, the Torah, phrases such as “due process,” and men of principle such as Martin Luther, Sir Thomas More and former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

One startling image shows Osama bin Laden juxtaposed with Robertson.

“I believe they’re both reprehensible people,” Key said, “but I defend their right to believe whatever they want.”

Key, who is from Texas, said he had wanted to attend a Christian institution with a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, such as Regent. One motivating factor, he said, was “the opportunity to show people that liberalism isn’t a sin.”

Key said he has a grade-point average close to 3.0 and that he’s on track to graduate from the three-year program in 2½ years. He said he was only vaguely familiar with Robertson and his political views when he applied to Regent.

Key reportedly posted a photo of Robertson appearing to make an obscene hand gesture on his Facebook page, which he took from a freeze-frame of a YouTube video of Robertson scratching his face on “The 700 Club” - and apparently the folks at Regent didn’t find it funny:

Regent officials gave Key two choices: publicly apologize for posting the picture and refrain from commenting about the matter in a “public medium,” or write a brief defending the posting. He faces punishment that could include expulsion.

Key, a second-year law student, said he refused to apologize and “be muzzled” by the university, so he composed the document, which includes citations from noted First Amendment cases.

…

Key said that Jeffrey Brauch, dean of the law school, rejected his brief and that he now awaits disciplinary action under the university’s Standard of Personal Conduct. At one point during the controversy, Key said, he was escorted by three armed security guards from the university’s public relations office.

And now Robertson U. has gone a step further and ordered Key to submit to a Regent-approved mental health counselor:

Adam M. Key, 23, was ordered to undergo a mental-health evaluation before he can return to classes. He also was ordered to undergo counseling if a mental-health provider that is acceptable to the university deems it appropriate, and to provide a report showing that he has completed any treatment plan required.

Key also must agree to allow the mental-health provider to provide regular updates on his treatment to the school.

Presumably, Key’s case won’t be discussed when Regent Law School students gather for this:

LAW 774 First Amendment Law (3) Survey of the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Topics covered include freedom of religion, the establishment clause, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

It seems as if Gary Marx has managed to pull himself away from his $8,000-a-month position with Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to pen an action alert in his capacity as Executive Director of the Judicial Confirmation Network to urge supporters to contact their senators and demand a vote on the nomination of Leslie Southwick:

The Liberal Left led by Senator Ted Kennedy, Minority Leader Harry Reid, and People for the American Way will stop at nothing in order to keep common sense constitutionalist judges like Leslie Southwick off the bench. Ultimately, their unprecedented judicial filibusters are a backdoor political sabotage to manipulate the Senate rules. Their goal is to create a radical new precedent where for the first time in history a future Supreme Court nominee like Justice Roberts or Alito will be forced to receive 60 votes for confirmation rather than a simple and fair majority vote.

The vote on whether to filibuster Judge Southwick is likely to occur this week ... possibly as early as Wednesday. This is our last chance to make our voice heard. The time to call your Senators' offices is today!

Marx then encourages activists to take the time to read an op-ed penned by his partner at the JCN, Wendy Long - who, like Marx, serves on Romney’s National Faith and Values Steering Committee – in which she trots out the Right’s standard claim that those who raise concerns about Southwick’s judicial record and philosophy are really just calling Southwick a racist:

Just when you thought "white male in the South" didn't equal "presumptive racist," a disgusting spectacle with that familiar theme is unfolding in the United States Senate.

…

[Senator Richard] Durbin is doing essentially what [Duke Prosecutor Mike] Nifong and [Al] Sharpton did: attacking someone else as a racist in order to advance his own political agenda. Never mind the facts, never mind the law, just play the race card against a white man in the south and you know you have a good chance to bring him down.

It seems that whenever anyone dares to oppose any of President Bush’s judicial nominees, the Right sees some nefarious ulterior motive at work – and that is how they manage to convince themselves that opposition to Southwick stems not from concerns about his record but from some sort of deep-seeded hatred of Southern white males … the same way they said opposition to Miguel Estrada was really due to anti-Latino prejudice … and opposition to Priscilla Owen was the result of flagrant anti-woman bias … and opposition to William Pryor was actually due to anti-Catholic bigotry … and opposition to Janice Rogers Brown was in actuality rooted in racism.    

The Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas of Elijah Ministries passes on a warning from God to the people of San Francisco: "The tragedy of New York and the disaster of New Orleans are merely first fruits of the many woes that will devastate San Francisco and send shockwaves throughout California, America, and the world. God stands poised with his flaming sword ready to strike your city. He is prepared to exchange Sodom and Gomorrah with San Francisco to serve as a warning to all cities and nations of men 'do not follow in their pernicious ways.' Your city will be turned into a scarecrow and used by God as His enemy to warn future generations, lest you repent and turn from your wicked ways of child sacrifice, which is the shedding of innocent blood and homosexuality. You must stuff these abominations back in the closet of illegality and punish these criminal acts as God prescribes or your entire house (city) will collapse upon your wicked heads. With all diligence, take heed to this warning, repent or perish, Christ or chaos."

The Right’s rhetorical war on the judiciary reached its fever pitch in 2005, when Congress broke a vacation to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. To take one example from many, Rep. Tom DeLay, then House Majority Leader, declared that the judiciary had “run amok,” warned, “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.” He later added, “Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric.”

Since then, Congress has changed parties, and DeLay, tied to a corrupt lobbyist and indicted in Texas for laundering campaign money, is out of office, and so it feels like the pressure has been dialed down a notch. At least, that’s how it seems to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"Particularly since the 2006 election, I am pleased to relate, rapport between Congress and the federal courts has markedly improved," Ginsburg said at a meeting of American and Canadian judges in Vancouver.

No bills limiting judges' independence have been introduced in the current Congress and "one sees far fewer broadsides against 'activist judges' reported in the press," Ginsburg said. … She recounted with distaste comments about judges made in 2005 by two Texas Republicans, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Sen. John Cornyn.

Cornyn had expressed his “concern” that there might be “some connection” between “unaccountable” judges and violent attacks against members of the judiciary.

While far-right members of Congress like Todd Akin continue to introduce legislation to tamper with the courts—such as his bill to impeach judges when Congress disagrees with their opinions—Justice Ginsburg is right that, without right-wing leadership in Congress, such efforts will lead nowhere.

Unfortunately, while the days of the “nuclear option” and Tom DeLay are behind us, the current status may be the calm before the storm, when a future Supreme Court nominee or even just the politics of the presidential debate will likely cause tensions to flare again. GOP candidates have pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices in the Scalia-Thomas mold, and at the recent Values Voter Debate, second-tier candidates--including religious-right favorite Mike Huckabee--pledged support to a court-stripping measure.

“In ’08, it’s all about the judges,” as Rick Scarborough stated recently.

A few years ago, anti-gay activists found themselves having a rough time in their attempts to vilify the gay penguins of Central Park Zoo in New York, but it seems they are always looking for ever-more sympathetic targets.

“There’s good news and bad news in the world of children’s books,” writes Robert Knight, head of the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute, adding that the “good news” involves banning books—a book about penguins, no less:

First, the good news: And Tango Makes Three, a picture book for 4- to 8-year-olds about two penguins who are into homosexual “parenting,” is the “most challenged” book on the American Library Association’s (ALA) Banned Books Week list.

This means some parents are still on the job and are not turning their children over to the tender mercies of the Free Sex Lobby, which effectively runs the ALA.

So, what’s the “bad news,” you ask? According to Knight, formerly a spokesman for Concerned Women for America, it’s that fewer books are being banned, thanks to those (supposedly sex-crazed) librarians and their 25-year campaign against censorship.

Mark DeMoss, a conservative Christian publicist, is generating a lot of news with his open letter sent to some 150 right-wing leaders urging them to rally behind Mitt Romney for the sole purpose of denying Rudy Giuliani the Republican presidential nomination.  

DeMoss has been a supporter of Romney for months, organizing a meeting between the candidate and various right-wing leaders, and serving as a member of his Faith and Values Steering Committee.   Given all the talk lately of right-wing leaders and activists bolting the GOP should Giuliani win the nomination, DeMoss apparently sensed an opportunity to pitch his candidate to the disenchanted and urge them to back Romney not only because he shares their values but, most importantly, to prevent Giuliani from winning:  

As certain as it seems that Hillary will represent the Democratic Party, it now appears the GOP representative will be either Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Governor Mitt Romney (based on polls in early states, money raised and on hand, staff and organization, etc.). And, if it is not Mitt Romney, we would, for the first time in my memory, be faced with a general election contest between two “pro-choice” candidates.

And you don’t just have to take DeMoss’s word that Romney is the real deal – apparently even Jerry Falwell would have supported him, had he not died:

Just about six months before his death, Jerry accepted my invitation to a meeting with Gov. Romney at his home outside Boston. He joined me, and about 15 other evangelicals, for an intimate discussion with the Governor and his wife Ann. Jerry was one of several that day who said, “Governor, I don’t have a problem with your being Mormon, but I want to ask you how you would deal with Islamic jihadists…or with illegal immigration…or how you would choose justices for the Supreme Court…,” and so on.

While Jerry Falwell never told me how he intended to vote in the upcoming election, I think I know how he would not have voted. I also know he would not have “sat this one out” and given up on the Supreme Court for a generation.

Aside from assuring his right-wing allies that Romney is everything they are looking for, the focus of his the letter is on capitalizing on the Right’s antipathy toward, and fear of, Giuliani : 

Currently, conservatives (whether evangelical or not) are dividing their support among several candidates. In the long run, this only helps Rudy Giuliani, who clearly does not share our values on so many issues … Talk of a possible third party candidate draft movement only helps Giuliani (or, worse yet, Clinton), in my view. While I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. James Dobson that not having a pro-life nominee of either major party presents an unacceptable predicament, I would rather work hard to ensure we do nominate a pro-life candidate than to launch an 11th-hour third party campaign. Mike Huckabee affirmed this concern when he told the Washington Post last week, “I think a third party only helps elect Hillary Clinton.”

“Hey, you hate Giuliani and are unimpressed by everyone else, so why not back Romney?” seems to be DeMoss’s message – one that, for a lot of panicked right-wing leaders, just might be a lifesaver, since they have placed themselves in a situation where they are faced with the unpleasant prospect of having to abandon the GOP all together. 

In a press call this morning, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins downplayed recent talk about religious-right leaders threatening to bolt the GOP for a third-party presidential candidate. Perkins, promoting FRC’s Values Voter Summit in Washington next weekend, said he was “optimistic” that the GOP field would “solidify” and a candidate acceptable to the Right would emerge out of the conference’s straw poll.

Rudy Giuliani’s decision to participate in the FRC event threatens to deflate this optimism, however. If Giuliani gets significant support from among the FRC members participating in the straw poll—as he has from among the national constituency these leaders claims to represent—then the threats by James Dobson and others to spoil the election could fall flat. “I’m not saying he won’t get some social conservative support,” cautioned Perkins, “but some social conservative support is not enough to win.” Despite Perkins’ claim that Giuliani will receive a “cordial” reception, we can expect many speakers—not just other candidates—to directly or indirectly attack, in Perkins’ phrase, “the pro-abortion rights candidate.”

And while some right-wing activists are hoping that the Religious Right will coalesce around one of their second-tier favorites—such as Mike Huckabee—Perkins seemed to downplay that option, panning them as unacceptable to economic- and foreign policy-oriented Republicans. In fact, Perkins spoke glowingly of Mitt Romney, saying that “in my opinion, [he’s] the strongest on these core social issues”—and not only that, but his “conversion” on wedge issues has been “genuine.” In fact, Perkins said Romney is stronger than Huckabee and the others on such issues.

During the campaign cycle, he has made these issues more front-and-center in his message than I think other candidates who are social conservatives have, I mean that have a track record of social conservatism. I think he has staked out ground on these issues so much so that he would have a very difficult time ever backing away from them; he would lose all credibility. He has really brought emphasis to these issues. And I do think, yes, more than Mike Huckabee and some of the others.

Meanwhile, Alan Keyes can’t get no respect. Despite his wide-open schedule, he’s not on the list of speakers at the Values Voter Summit; nevertheless, FRC’s Charmaine Yoest declared that “we have all of the major GOP candidates.”

With some on the Religious Right threatening to divorce the GOP and support a third-party candidate—as a way to punish Republicans if they nominate Rudy Giuliani—one has to wonder who exactly they would be endorsing. Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan captured the far-right imagination in 1988 and 1992, respectively, but there don’t appear to be any big-name spoilers waiting in the wings this year. Even Alan Keyes, a perennial-favorite losing candidate, has thrown his lot in with the Republican field.

The third-party posturing has been led by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, and his own love-hate past with the GOP gives us a clue. In 1996, unwilling to support Bob Dole, Dobson cast a “protest vote” for Howard Phillips, the nominee of the extreme-right U.S. Taxpayer’s Party (a.k.a. the Constitution Party). Phillips was also present by telephone at the Council for National Policy meeting that discussed the third-party strategy.

Fresh of his "macaca" disgrace, former Senator George Allen has signed on to be a co-chair of Fred Thompson's presidential campaign.

It took awhile, but every one of the four leading Republican presidential hopefuls who skipped the “Values Voter Debate” in Florida have now agreed to attend the upcoming “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, DC being sponsored by the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Values, and others. 

In early September, Mitt Romney agreed to attend and, a short while later, so did John McCain.   Fred Thompson held off – at least until a message from James Dobson blasting him as unacceptable to the Religious Right made its way into the press, and then the Thompson campaign suddenly got the message and quickly agreed to attend as well.  

Still, a few weeks went by with Rudy Giuliani being the only candidate refusing to attend – until again Dobson and his right-wing allies lashed out, announcing that they would consider abandoning the Republican Party if Giuliani gets the nomination, with Dobson taking to the pages of the New York Times to explain that “If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.”

And guess what happened? 

Giuliani has now announced that he too will be attending the FRC/FOF event. 

It is quite a testament to the influence of James Dobson that despite having publicly savaged McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson, these candidates are tripping over themselves to attend an event that is scheduled to culminate with a “Family, Faith and Freedom Gala Dinner Honoring Dr. James Dobson.”   

The AP is reporting that Mike Huckabee is searching for chief fundraiser in hopes of becoming more competitive and that "his campaign is drawing more interest from donors, including a group of 100 pledging to raise $100,000 apiece, so it should be easier to find a top-notch national finance chairman."

Marc Ambinder reports that Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, and others plan to bring back the pre-Reagan era Citizens For The Republic in hopes of revitalizing the conservative movement.