January 2009

In that last month, I've written a couple of posts about the Alliance For Marriage's "Protect DOMA" efforts and now, via Americablog, we see that the National Organization for Marriage has launched their own DOMA Defense Fund:

We invite you to stand with millions of Americans in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is under attack from gay marriage activists. In the wake of repeated setbacks at the ballot box, and with an increasingly receptive audience in Washington, gay marriage advocates are now seeking to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation with a single stroke of the pen.

Last September, President Barack Obama told the Washington Blade: "I have long been on record opposing DOMA, and an Obama-Biden administration will work hard to ensure that we can pass a repeal of that law as soon as possible." And within minutes of his inauguration, the White House website had been updated to reflect President Obama's radical agenda regarding DOMA.

It's DOMA that prevents four judges in Massachusetts from imposing same-sex marriage on the entire nation. It's DOMA that protects the right of 45 states to enforce their own marriage laws instead of the law handed down by a narrow majority of the Connecticut court. And it's DOMA on which gay marriage activists have now set their sights -- seeking to turn back our legislative victories over the past decade in one fell swoop.

If we don't act now, DOMA will soon be repealed -- quickly, quietly and with little fanfare. It's up to us -- you and me -- to make sure the American people know that DOMA is under attack, and that our elected officials know how deeply we believe in marriage. Together we can make a difference even in Washington!

John Aravosis asserts that "this is indicative of the difference between conservatives and liberals: The right organizes years on an issue years in advance, the left organizes after we've lost." But that is not the case here and now seems like a good time to remind you about People For the American Way’s Dump DOMA petition - please add your name to the effort today.

If history is any guide, any time there has been any criticism of the Catholic Church, you could count on Bill Donohue to come riding in to defend the church and attack all those leveling the criticism - just as he did when former Rep. Mark Foley claimed he had been molested as a teenager and Donohue responded by blaming Foley for being so weak.

So the only surprise involved in this latest statement from Donohue on the controversy stemming from the fact that Pope Benedict recently lifted the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying priest is that it took him as long as it did to weigh in. Donohue dismisses the entire thing as "nonsense" and then proceeds to criticize all the Jews who dared to voice outrage at the move:

"None of the media distortions of this issue excuses those in the Jewish community who have lashed out at the pope. They should know better. Is their commitment to good relations with Catholics so thin that it can wither because of something like this? We certainly hope not."

You know who should know better?  Bill Donohue.  After all, he's not exactly the poster boy for maintaining "good relations" between Catholics and Jews, considering that he's prone to making statements such as this:

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it.

Despite the fact that the economy is going from bad to worse, Republicans are quite pleased with their unanimous opposition to the stimulus package and are planning on continuing it when the legislation heads to the Senate.

After being crushed at the polls for the last two elections by voters fed up with their inability to govern, those on the right side of the aisle have apparently decided that the best course of action is to simply obstruct President Obama and the Democratic Congress as they attempt to repair the damage the Republicans have done to the country over the last eight years .... and for that they are being hailed as heroes by the likes of the Family Research Council:

In the face of the most popular incoming President since JFK, Republicans stood together in statement of solidarity. We applaud them for showing real backbone against unprecedented government expansion ... Swimming against the liberal tide isn't easy, and House Republicans need your encouragement to stay motivated for the work ahead. Please call the leader in your district today and thank them for refusing to back down on H.R. 1.

And here is Tony Perkins saying that the stimulus bill is "more about pork and political payoffs than economic recovery" and calling on Congress to enact more tax cuts instead of "abortion promotion":

Apparently, Republicans and their allies on the right believe that they have "better" ideas for dealing with our myriad problems ... and just because those "ideas" have failed to work, damaged the nation, and caused the party's prospects to utterly collapse, it doesn't mean that they aren't going to press ahead with their obstructionism. 

Just check out this email from Vision America:

Stop Taxpayer Funded So-Called "Recovery!!"

"Tell Congress to STOP the So-Called Taxpayer-Funded "Recovery" TODAY!!" – Pastor Rick Scarborough

Friends of Vision America,

In the revised edition of my newest book, Enough is Enough, I wrote the following:

Jonah Goldberg documents in his best-selling book, Liberal Fascism, how liberals need a crisis to in order to push their agenda forward, whether it's a declared war on poverty or a real war. During a perceived or real crisis people make decisions that reflect the seriousness of their situation. Christians have the wonderful advantage of calling on an all-sufficient Creator to provide guidance through the crisis. Crisis can force us to a place of fully placing all of our trust in God and God alone.

Unfortunately, most people in America no longer turn to God first but rather government as their source and provider which makes them vulnerable to exploitation.

Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was given god-like powers to dispense the first Federal bailout which we now know did not work, made a dire prediction that the current financial meltdown could become "so extreme that martial law may have to be imposed on the American people." This was an ominous warning granting the government almost unlimited power to impose the will of those in charge.

This week the House of Representatives presented its version of the major economic stimulus bill, H.R.1, otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Senate is considering its own version (S.1), expecting the completed bill to be signed by Obama by mid-February. One version of the bill contains over six hundred pages of promises to preserve and create jobs; invest in our national infrastructure, decrease unemployment; and stabilize our local and state economies. But as always, the devil is in the details and the more we learn of what's in the fine print, the more convinced I become that WE THE PEOPLE MUST SEE THAT THIS BILL NEVER BECOMES LAW!!!

That's right - according to the Religious Right, the biggest problem at the moment is that "people in America no longer turn to God" and the stimulus bill will only exacerbate that, so it must be defeated.

Chip Saltsman was always a long-shot for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee and probably didn't help himself much by trying to woo RNC members by distributing a CD featuring the offensive "Barack the Magic Negro" song and then blaming the whole thing on the media.

But, as it turns out, there might have been other factors at work - namely, the support of Mike Huckabee, who came out with an early and strong endorsement of his former campaign manager and, in doing so, quite possibly doomed his hopes, as Marc Ambinder explains:

Tennessean Chip Saltsman's bid was clipped early on when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee began to make calls on his behalf. As there is no frontrunner for the 2012 nomination - not even Sarah Palin merits that designation - the committee doesn't want to endorse a chairman who is beholden to a particular candidate.

And now that the election is coming down to the wire, Hotline On Call is reporting that Saltsman might not even manage to make it onto the ballot and appears to have all but given up:

Sources say Chip Saltsman, former chairman of Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign, is unlikely to meet the threshold to get on the ballot for Republican National Committee chairman. Rules require each candidate to be endorsed by the majority, or two of three members, of three state delegations. He hasn't been spotted at the committee meeting at the Capital Hilton either.

On Call also reports that supporters of Ken Blackwell, the designated choice of the Religious Right, are already being approached by different candidates' campaigns seeking their support on the assumption that Blackwell will go down early once the voting begins, with one insider saying "He's roadkill."

Last month the West Virginia Supreme Court agreed to hear a case stemming from a judge's order that an infant be removed from the same-sex foster parents who had cared for her since birth and placed with "traditional" family:

In a 4-1 vote Wednesday, the court agreed to hear the appeal of Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess to a November ruling by Fayette County Circuit Judge Paul Blake ... Blake issued his ruling after Kutil and Hess sought to adopt a 2-year-old girl who had been in their foster care since she was born in December 2007.

The Department of Health and Human Resources placed the girl, who was born to a drug-addicted mother and was suffering from withdrawal, with the Oak Hill couple on Christmas Eve that year.

...

After Blake terminated the mother's parental rights last month and the father could not be located, the DHHR moved to permanently place the girl and allow Kutil and Hess adopt her.

Fayetteville lawyer Thomas Fast filed a motion Jan. 24 to remove the child because it had been placed in a "homosexual household," according to documents filed with the Supreme Court. In a Nov. 12 order, the judge ruled the DHHR had failed to seek a "traditional most family-like setting with a mother and father" after placement with the birth family failed ... Blake ordered the child removed, and the DHHR placed her in a second foster home. The Supreme Court ordered her returned to Kutil and Hess.

And, of course, Religious Right groups have gotten involved ... and guess which side they are on:

A family rights group wants to stop a same-sex couple from adopting a child they have kept in foster care since birth ... The Family Policy Council of West Virginia filed an amicus curiae Jan. 20 that argues abused and neglected children should be placed "on a par with natural children."

...

An adoption plan forwarded by the DHHR suggested both Kutil and Hess, as an unmarried cohabiting couple, would be preferred as adoptive parents.

That is contrary to state code, which allows for adoption by a married couple or a single person, according to a brief submitted by Thomas K. Fast, an attorney representing the child in this litigation.

...

"There's no legitimate reason to invent exceptions to this law," said Alliance Defense Fund senior legal counsel Brian Raum. That group works in tandum with the Family Policy Council on legal and public policy issues.

The Family Policy Council advocates public policy that continues the tradition of married mother-father adoption.

According to Jeremiah Dys, president and general counsel for the group, the group agrees with both sides' experts that the "ideal situation is to put the child in a home with a mom and a dad."

So apparently, were either Kutil or Hess single, they would have been allowed to adopt this child, but since they are a couple, they can't and so right-wing groups have decided to weigh in and try to get the child removed from their home altogether.

I see this sort of thing all the time, but it never fails to amaze me how willing right-wing advocates are to destroy families in the name of protecting "family values."

Ralph Z. Hallow reports that, according to insiders involved in the race to become the next chairman of the Republican National Committee, the current campaign, which is to be decided tomorrow, has become the "dirtiest ever":

From anonymous charges of racism, old-fashioned graft and outright incompetence, the six-man race for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee has devolved into the dirtiest - and most closely watched - in recent history.

The 168 members who Friday will elect the next chairman have been inundated with anonymous e-mails attacking the characters and capabilities of the various candidates and, in at least one case, accusing a candidate of conspiring with political consultants to cash in on the millions of dollars in future advertising by the party.

"This is dirtiest ever - and remember, I was the longest-serving state party chairman in the history of this committee," said RNC member and former Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett, a supporter of Mike Duncan, the incumbent national chairman who is seeking a second two-year term.

One candidate, South Carolina Republican Chairman Katon Dawson, is the subject this week of an unsigned e-mail to RNC members that bore a hypothetical USA Today front page with the banner headline, "RNC members choose 'whites only' chairman," as a warning of how a Dawson win would be spun.

...

On Monday, Indiana RNC member James Bopp Jr., who formed a self-described conservative rump group of RNC members to fight the [Michael] Steele candidacy, sent members a signed e-mail basically accusing Mr. Steele of lying about his casual relationship with the RLC.

It quoted Mrs. Whitman as saying that she was proud to join with "Michael Steele in creating a powerful and influential group that can bring our party back to its roots while promoting the common-sense centrist values we all hold so dear." The word "centrist" among members of the dominant strain of the Republican Party is an epithet.

...

Another anonymous e-mail to members noted that Saul Anuzis does not have a formal education beyond high school - he attended college for four years but did not finish his degree - and called the salaried Michigan Republican chairman "a paid political hack whose greed and misconduct lost him his job in government. After fifteen years of trying to make it in business, he came back to what he knew best: politics for pay."

A particularly vicious whack at Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state and the other black man chasing the chairman's post, appeared in a Jan. 6 anonymous e-mail claiming he was "dangerously incompetent" as secretary of state and accusing him of using taxpayer money to finance TV ads to "boost his own name recognition" in preparation for his failed run for governor.

As entertaining as it has been to watch them tear each other apart, Hallow reports that the viciousness stems from the fact that, in terms of actual substance, there doesn't appear to be any actual differences among the candidate's stances on the hot-button issues of the day:

However, when The Times submitted three questions on the biggest hot-button issues - gay marriage, immigration and federal bailouts - little substantive difference emerged among the six men.

Mr. Duncan was the lone candidate who did not respond initially to the questions, instead sending a single response attacking President Obama and not even doing so on the issues in question. All six men support a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and doubt the government's competence to bail out industries failing in the marketplace.

So no matter who wins, it looks like we'll have yet another anti-gay, anti-immigrant, obstructionist chairman at the RNC. 

How has that been working out for them lately?  

NPR ran a piece earlier this week about how Sen. John Cornyn has quickly established himself as “a thorn in the [Obama] administration's side." It explains that Cornyn's efforts may be part of a larger plans since, as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, he needs to figure out how to “rouse a demoralized base.” The piece also contained this quote:

"There's such a Barack Obama love fest going on that I don't interpret his moves as partisan," says Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network, which works to get conservatives named to the judiciary. "[Cornyn is] concerned with process, fairness and the Constitution."

Considering that Long runs the Judicial Confirmation Network and is therefore obviously concerned primarily with the issue of judicial nominations, this statement suggests that she is quite pleased with Cornyn’s early obstructionism, primarily in terms of setting the groundwork for eventual opposition to President Obama’s judicial nominations. 

In fact, this sort of preliminary obstructionism might be designed specifically with that purpose in mind, as Byron York explained in a recent blog post on why Senate Republicans didn’t put up more of a fight over the nomination of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner:

The reason is, Republicans have decided not to fight.  One key Senate Republican told me last week that members of the minority party have just so much ammunition, and using it against a cabinet official who serves at the pleasure of the president is not as wise as saving it to use against, say, a judicial nominee seeking a lifetime appointment to the bench. 

York notes that this might be “good news for conservatives who hope Republicans will fight if Barack Obama nominates a series of liberals to the federal courts of appeals” and the Committee for Justice agrees, saying of York’s explanation, “We hope this is true”:

Obama has a chance to pull the judiciary sharply to the left even if he does not greatly change the make up of its highest court.  With Obama enjoying approval ratings in the 60's and the media, along with the Democratic majority, trumpeting any dissenting voice as divisive, the GOP is going to need every bit of political ammunition it can muster to combat Obama's nominees that are seen as activists and out of touch with American values.

Last month, Richard Cizik, Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, resigned from his position after telling NPR, among other things, that his views regarding marriage equality were shifting.  That interview led to an outcry from NAE members and other Religious Right leaders that eventually forced him from the organization.

Now the NAE has begun the search for his replacement:

America’s largest evangelical body launched a search for a new director of government affairs on Tuesday to replace Richard Cizik who was forced to resign in December over controversial remarks he made about same-sex civil unions and abortion.

The National Association of Evangelicals, which claims to represent 30 million evangelicals, is considering candidates who can represent the organization before Congress, the White House and the Courts based on the principles found in the NAE document “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.”

...

Required qualifications include, among others, personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, agreement to and affirmation of the NAE Statement of Faith, and participation in an NAE affiliated congregation.

It looks like the NAE is taking no chances this time around because, as the article points out, the job description says that candidates must be willing and able to affirm and articulate “NAE policies, priorities and positions in writing and speech (including but not limited to For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility).”  That policy paper makes it abundantly clear that the organization has no intention of moderating its position when it comes to opposing any effort to achieve equality in marriage:

The Bible makes it clear that God cares a great deal about the well-being of marriage, the family, the sanctity of human life, justice for the poor, care for creation, peace, freedom, and racial justice. While individual persons and organizations are at times called by God to concentrate on one or two issues, faithful evangelical civic engagement must champion a biblically balanced agenda … We commit ourselves to work for laws that protect and foster family life, and against government attempts to interfere with the integrity of the family. We also oppose innovations such as same-sex “marriage” … We also oppose the expansion of “rights talk” to encompass so-called rights such as “same-sex marriage.”

Via the Colorado Independent, we find out that Timothy Goeglein, the Bush Administration’s liason to the Religious Right, has landed a new gig as chief lobbyist for Focus on the Family Action:

Fort Wayne native Tim Goeglein has been named the top Washington lobbyist and spokesman for Focus on the Family Action, the lobbying arm of Focus on the Family.

Goeglein worked in the Bush White House as the administration’s chief liaison to conservative religious groups until he resigned a year ago after admitting he plagiarized numerous columns that appeared in The News-Sentinel.

The Colorado-based organization said Goeglein will be its “eyes and ears in Washington” as the group lobbies on issues such as blocking marriage of gay couples and banning abortion.

Goeglein is perhaps best remembered for having to resign from his White House position after it was discovered that he had regularly plagiarized material when he was writing for the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel:

A White House official who serves as President Bush's middleman with conservatives and Christian groups has resigned after admitting to plagiarism. Twenty columns he wrote for an Indiana newspaper were determined to have material copied from other sources without attribution.

Timothy Goeglein, who has worked for Bush since 2001, acknowledged that he lifted material from a Dartmouth College publication and presented it as his own work in a column about education for The News-Sentinel in Fort Wayne, Ind.

The White House said Goeglein has apologized for not upholding the standards expected by the president. A White House statement says the president was disappointed to learn of the matter and was saddened for Goeglein and his family. It said Bush has long appreciated his service and knows him to be a good person who is committed to his country.

LifeNews reports that the proposed stimulus plan includes a provision allocating money to Planned Parenthood for its contraceptive services ... and predictably anti-choice activists are voicing concerns:

A Clinton-era program allows states to seek a waiver to offer Medicaid “family planning” services -- including people who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. If they seek the waiver, the federal government matches the state funding with $9 for every $1.

On Friday, when the House Energy & Commerce Committee considered the congressional Democrats’ spending bill, the committee eliminated the waiver requirement.

As a result, all 50 states will now offer Medicaid “family planning” services (including contraception) with the federal government offering the same $9 to $1 match. Although the money doesn't fund abortions directly, it goes to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business, which would otherwise have to spend its own money on contraception.

Pro-life advocates say the governmental funds frees up Planned Parenthood dollars to promote and perform abortions that it would otherwise have to spend on family planning.

This does not seem all that remarkable, and when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi about it yesterday, she provided a rather coherent explanation:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

Now, people can differ about whether or not this sort of thing counts as “stimulus” but the fact that the federal government is giving money to states to help cover the costs of their programs at a time when they are facing massive budget shortfalls seems pretty self-explanatory, as does the idea that allowing families to make informed decisions about having children (and avoid unexpected pregnancies) ultimately ends up saving money for both states and the federal government. 

But then again, I’m not Bill Donohue, who sees this as proof that Pelosi, Obama, and the Democrats hate children:

“Looks like the Democrats have abortion and contraception on the brain. Last week, President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on federal funds being used to promote and perform abortions overseas. Now we have Pelosi arguing that the way to balance the budget is not by cutting expenditures, but by cutting kids. Her comment matches up well with what Obama said during the presidential campaign about comprehensive sex education: speaking of his own daughters, he said that ‘if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.’

“We have reached a new low when high-ranking public office holders in the federal government cast children as the enemy. But at least it explains their enthusiasm for abortion-on-demand.”

Over at TPM, Elana Schor explains that, once again, this is much ado about nothing.

UPDATE: The Christian Defense Coalition likewise weighs in:

Christian Defense Coalition calls Speaker Pelosi's decision to add contraceptives to the economic stimulus package bigoted, racist, elitist and anti-child.

...

This policy would lay the foundation for racism and eugenics because it would seek to reduce the number of children to the nation's poorest economic groups, which tend to be persons of color and other minorities.

...

Speaker Pelosi's actions are even more troubling and hypocritical when one realizes she herself has five children. Perhaps she thinks they have more value because they are white European children.

Last week we noted that Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church had tapped a new pastor to replace the late D. James Kennedy who appeared intent on modernizing the church and removing it from the political and culture wars.  

But just because change might be coming to the church doesn’t seem to mean that any sort of similar change will be coming to its political arm, Coral Ridge Ministries:  

Many traditional marriage supporters have been taken aback by the pro-gay rights tone the Whitehouse.gov website has taken for its "Civil Rights" agenda, which supports the expansion of hate crimes statutes, discrimination employment laws that would grant special protections to the LBGT community, gay civil unions, gay couples' adoption rights and the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" policy.

Coral Ridge Ministries, a Christian media organization, also sent out an e-mail alert over the weekend stating, "Our new president wants to force Americans to accept homosexuality in the workplace and in the military."

"Right now, the President has the political wind at his back. Most in the media and Congress are cheering for him and his agenda to succeed," the ministry added. "That means he most likely will unless men and women of moral conviction and courage stand up and say 'No!'"

The email from Coral Ridge Ministries can be found here:

“It’s only the third day of Barack Obama’s presidency, but he just announced his aggressive plan to force Americans to accept homosexuality.

His just-revealed gay rights agenda, posted on the http://whitehouse.gov website, is a dream come true for the homosexual lobby. Our new president wants to force Americans to accept homosexuality in the workplace and in the military. Plus, he will push hard to pass hate crimes legislation and give marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

Here’s a short list of what our new president wants to do:

- Pass hate crimes legislation that will criminalize opposition to homosexuality.
- Allow homosexuals to enter into civil unions, which will 'give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.'
- Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
- Oppose a federal constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
- Repeal federal law to allow open homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military.
- Give homosexual couples the right to adopt young children.
- Fight AIDS with sex education, condoms, and needle-exchange programs.

Right now, the President has the political wind at his back. Most in the media and Congress are cheering for him and his agenda to succeed. That means he most likely will unless men and women of moral conviction and courage stand up and say 'No!'..."

• After Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation last year creating "Harvey Milk Day," a California legislator is hoping that publicity from the movie "Milk" will help get it passed and enacted this year.
• Ted Baehr, founder of Christian-oriented MovieGuide, says the list of current Oscar nominees proves that Hollywood is "the cultural pigsty of the world" and made up of "elite snobs" who "don't like anything that extols great virtues and institutions like heroism, purity, sacrifice, the military, the traditional family, honesty, liberty above lawlessness and licentiousness, anti-Communism and Christianity."
• Alan Keyes pens a typically rambling attack on Obama, claiming "Obama uses the name of God, but in his views and politics he stubbornly denies, disregards and rejects God's authority."
• Among the signs seen at yesterday's March for Life: "Impeach Adolf Obama."
• Another day, another rabid statement from Matt Barber:

"I certainly cannot judge whether or not Barack Obama has a relationship with Christ. That's between him and God, and only they know that. However, scripture tells us that you will be known by your fruits, and here Barack Obama is promoting counter-biblical, anti-Christian policies. [These are] policies that elevate deviant sexual behaviors and dangerous sexual behaviors that are destructive spiritually, physically and emotionally, and certainly -- when embraced as Barack Obama has embraced them -- are destructive societally."

According to news reports, both Club for Growth President Pat Toomey and disgraced “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore are signaling that they might run for Governor of their respective states of Pennsylvania and Alabama.

From the Morning Call:

Former Lehigh Valley Congressman Pat Toomey has begun formally exploring a run for governor, setting up a meeting with area GOP donors as he assesses his potential candidacy in 2010.

Toomey, president of the anti-tax group The Club for Growth, is scheduled to sit down with several influential and deep-pocketed Lehigh Valley Republicans in early February to “discuss his thinking of a possible gubernatorial run,” according to an e-mail invitation sent out Friday on behalf of Arcadia Properties founder Richard Thulin.

He has also put calls out statewide to supporters this week with the aim of raising $50,000 to do some preliminary polling, said a GOP source who was briefed on his plans this week.

Toomey, in a statement released today, said he has had “several preliminary conversations with supporters of mine regarding a possible run for governor in 2010.”

“Given the state of Pennsylvania’s economy and the disastrous state budget deficits we face, there certainly is a need for major changes in Harrisburg,” Toomey said. “It is still very early in my exploration of a possible run but it is something I will consider.”

From the AP:

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says he is seriously considering making another race for governor in 2010.

Moore has been running a legal organization, the Foundation for Moral Law, since losing the Republican primary to incumbent Gov. Bob Riley in 2006. But in recent weeks, a growing number of supporters has been calling and visiting Moore, encouraging him to run again.

Moore says that if he runs, it will be as a Republican. He expects to make a decision in the spring.

It’s not every day that you wander over to Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink website and see a headline blaring “[Ted] Bundy Was Right,” but that is exactly what you’ll find there today as Focus marks the 20th anniversary of James Dobson’s infamous interview with one of America’s most notorious serial killers:

Twenty years ago, Dr. James Dobson sat down with Ted Bundy, one of the most notorious serial killers in American history. The interview took place on the eve of Bundy’s execution in a Florida state prison.

Dr. Dobson is scheduled to appear Friday on Glenn Beck's program on Fox News to discuss the historic interview.

“My purpose in going on Glenn’s show is to discuss the reason why Bundy chose me for his final interview when every major news anchor at every TV network was jostling for an exclusive with him,” Dr. Dobson said. “Bundy wanted to talk about the role media violence and particularly violent, hard-core pornography had played in his years-long killing spree, and he knew the mainstream media wouldn’t report that story.”

Of course, Bundy was also a remorseless, manipulative psychopath … so perhaps his outreach to Dobson and his efforts to blame his 30-plus murders on pornography ought not to be taken at face value.  But Focus apparently has no such reservations:

Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality at Focus on the Family Action, said Bundy's predictions have come true.

"Porn has moved from the hidden vice of a few to the entertainment of the masses," he said, "leaving in its wake countless addicted individuals, broken homes, sexual crimes and a nation desensitized.

"As a nation, we can’t seem to give this material up. We defend it as free speech, which it is not. We ignore its connections to crime and politics and human trafficking, and accept at face value the notion put forth by the porn industry — that it is nothing more than harmless adult entertainment."

And then, just for good measure, they throw in this less-than-veiled slap at homosexuals and “our sexually licentious culture”: 

Weiss said he hopes that the heartaches that come from our sexually licentious culture will make people hungry for God's vision for sex and relationships.

"We hold an authentic countervision that is vibrant, dignifying and compelling," he said. "God created us female and male —distinct, but complementary beings — and called us into oneness in marriage.

"The sexual union in marriage is the most intimate and personal relationship, and more holy than most of us have imagined."

In his Inauguration Address, President Obama acknowledged that "we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers."  I didn't think much of it at the time, but apparently it was the first time that atheists had been explicitly acknowledged in an Inauguration speech.

And it has seemingly spooked the Religious Right, or at least its media arms, so much so that they felt it necessary to seek out quotes from movement leaders that would remind everyone that, though nonbelievers exist, they are a small minority and that this is still a Christian nation.

As OneNewsNow put it, "America's 'melting pot' dominated by Christians"::

[Al] Mohler says while the nation has diverse religious beliefs, Christianity is by far the most popular.

"I just found it also interesting that in that representation, you have Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus -- and the reality is that Christians vastly outnumber [other religious adherents], beyond almost mathematical focus what you're talking about," he points out. "But we do believe in religious liberty. This is the land where this can be said in a way that is different than can be said in most nations of the world throughout human history."

And OneNewsNow was not alone in feeling it necessary to make this point clear:

“It struck me as accurate,” [Richard] Land told CNSNews.com. “We are a nation of Christians and Jews, and Muslims and Hindus, and Baha’i and agnostics and atheists – although proportionally the vast majority of Americans claim some kind of affiliation with a Christian faith.”

...

Dr. Elmer Towns, dean of the Liberty University School of Religion ... added: “If Obama is setting an agenda of tolerance, let’s make sure that the tolerance extends to the majority as well as the minority.

“The Baptists have an old saying – “Let the minority have their say, let the majority have their way.’”

I don't really have anything insightful to add to this, other than to note that just seems rather odd that because of the mere mention of non-believers, right-wing media outlets like OneNewsNow and CNS thought it necessary to produce articles reminding everyone that the majority of Americans consider themselves to be Christians.

We've written about the Day of Truth, an annual event dreamed-up by the Alliance Defense Fund in order to counter GLSEN's annual “Day of Silence," a number of times before.  ADF has always claimed that the "Day of Silence" was “part of [an] overall strategy to change how our society perceives homosexual behavior" and thus a "Day of Truth" was needed in order 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 such, the event was initially conceived as a way to protect the free speech rights and religious freedoms of anti-gay students, but not necessarily as a day to try and convert gay students.  But now, via the Box Turtle Bulletin, it looks like that is about to change, because ADF has handed over control of the nationwide event over to the "ex-gay" organization Exodus International, whose mission is to offer "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."

As the ADF explained in a press release:

As the movement has grown, the focus has continued to broaden…providing students not only with legal assistance when their free speech rights are challenged, but also providing them with information on how to minister and witness to individuals struggling with homosexual behavior.

It's because of growth in this latter area that this transition is occurring. For more than thirty years, Exodus International has provided thoughtful care to individuals wishing to leave homosexuality and offered support for related families, friends and churches. With 230 member organizations, the Exodus network is mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality…perfectly positioning them to lead the Day of Truth into the future.

ADF will continue to serve as the legal support arm for this project and represent any student who is silenced or punished for speaking the Truth.

So, what began as an effort designed merely to protect the free speech rights of anti-gay students has officially become a full-blown effort to convert gay students in schools throughout the nation.

You can consider us less than shocked by this entirely predictable development. 

Today is the annual March for Life, held every year on January 22 to protest abortion and press for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

As such, Religious Right groups are doing what they do every year, with the Family Research Council  hosting its Blogs for Life Conference and March for Life organizers and activists complaining that the media isn't paying attention to them and nobody takes them seriously:

Still, Nellie Gray — who founded the March for Life 36 years ago — pines for some meaningful attention from the press. Her marchers hit the streets near the Capitol on Thursday, virtually retracing the steps of an estimated 1.8 million inaugural revelers whose every move was chronicled by a crush of media just two days earlier.

...

"Anyone climbing on a bus from somewhere else, thinking they're going to wave into a network news camera, is going to be very disappointed. In the last 20 years, despite large annual crowds, the liberal manufacturers of TV have simply never found the March for Life to be the slightest bit newsworthy," said Tim Graham of the Media Research Center, drawing a comparison to a liberal antiwar activist.

"Everyone knows that a single Cindy Sheehan in the summer seems to be worth more than 20,000 pro-lifers in January."

For his part, Gary Bauer has seemingly decided to dedicate this day to getting his name in print - first with an op-ed with Star Parker in The Weekly Standard:

A century and a half ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that African Americans have no rights under the Constitution. Barack Obama's election would seem to put the final nail in the coffin of that evil philosophy. With its Roe decision, however, the court again wrongly declared that some Americans are entitled to no constitutional rights and can be destroyed at the discretion of others. Sadly, that evil philosophy will be given new hope under President Obama.

The battle for equal rights has reached a major milestone. But Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream of full equality will remain just a dream as long as unborn children are denied the right to life, the most fundamental right of all.

And secondly with a solo op-ed in the Politico debunking the "myths" of Roe:

Another misconception concerns what would happen if Roe were overturned. The day after Roe’s reversal, abortion policy would revert back to the states. Some states would severely restrict abortion, while a bigger group of more populous states would likely pass laws guaranteeing the same access to abortion they have now. So, far from ending the abortion battle, Roe’s reversal would mark the beginning of a battle to which the past 35 years have been a prelude.

A post-Roe America would look like the America of today in terms of the sheer volume of abortions. The major difference would be an anti-abortion movement toiling to tackle 50 separate abortion policies simultaneously. Another important difference is that we would no longer teach young Americans the lie that — among their cherished constitutional rights of free speech, religion and assembly — there is also a right to take the life of an unborn baby.

A final misconception about Roe is one too often held by its opponents: that Roe’s reversal is the ultimate anti-abortion goal and that support for constitutional protections for the unborn betrays the federalist principles of conservatism. But by asserting states’ rights, Roe’s anti-abortion opposition effectively (if unwittingly) accepts Roe’s reasoning that prenatal life is not a due process right within the constitutional framework and, therefore, that the unborn child is not a constitutional “person.”

Moreover, in our system of government, certain issues are left to the states while others are deemed so essential to our understanding of democracy that they must be taken up nationally. We fought a civil war over the conviction that some issues are too fundamental to be decided state by state. Just as slavery was an assault on human dignity, the slaughter of millions of unborn children is an assault on a natural human right that exists prior to, and regardless of, the whims of a majority.

So you see there really is nothing to worry about - anti-choice activists merely want to overturn Roe so that the issue can be decided by the states ... and then they can eliminate the right to reproductive choice in all fifty of them by passing a constitutional amendment making it illegal. 

• Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, formerly the home church of the late D. James Kennedy, has chosen a new pastor to replace its founder: Rev. Tullian Tchividjian, who just so happens to be the grandson of Billy Graham.
• Sen. Orrin Hatch stepped in at the last minute and saved Rob Schenck’s annual National Service for the Pre-born by signing on as an official sponsor so that the event could take place in the US Capitol Visitor Center.
• Sean Hannity has thrown his support to Michael Steele for Republican National Committee Chairman.
• Connecticut Democrats are calling on Sen. Joe Lieberman to apologize for a litany of things, including his support of John Hagee.
• Ralph Reed stayed away from Barack Obama’s Inauguration yesterday, but still couldn’t help but get overwhelmed by the emotions of the day – not because of our historic new president but because “it was a lot more emotional to watch George W. Bush depart the capital than I thought it would be.”
• Finally, Matt Barber is not happy with the new White House’s proclamation of “support for the LGBT community,” seeing it as evidence that “Barack Obama’s administration will likely be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory”:

The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated.  Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.  The radical homosexual agenda and religious and free speech liberties cannot occupy the same space.  It’s a zero-sum game.  When 1 - 2 percent of the population is granted special rights based on deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors, to the detriment of everyone else, that’s called tyranny of the minority.  People of faith and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it’s going to be a bumpy four years.

For those tempted to write off the Religious Right as moribund in light of back-to-back devastating defeats of Republicans in the last two elections and the rise of Barack Obama, keep in mind that such proclamations seem to be issued after every Republican defeat, only to be followed a few years later by a spate of articles proclaiming the surprising re-birth and influence of the movement.

But you don’t just have to take our word for it – here’s Jerry Falwell Jr. declaring that the Religious Right has no intention of ceding its hard-earned place in contemporary politics or laying down to die:

This isn't the first time conservative Christians have been dismissed as dearly departed. Yet we continue to resurface as a political force because God is still at work in the hearts of His people.

…

Conservative people of faith who were at the fore of the elections in 1980, 1994 and even 2004 are still around, and they remain equipped for battle. But there have not been enough people on Capitol Hill for us to rally around in recent years. We are hungry for a Ronald Reagan to lead us.

We need in the White House a protector of our historic religious freedoms, an advocate for the unborn, a defender of the traditional American family and a guardian of constitutional principles of law. Some may say that these are old-fashioned ideals that no longer resonate with Americans, particularly young people.

However, such critics need look only as far as Liberty University to see that throngs of young people still live by the ideals Christians have long held dear. Liberty is rebuilding the conservative movement by training these future conservative leaders.

…

[W]e must ensure that our government does not make us unwelcome in our own country.

Conservative Christians were largely responsible for Reagan's winning the presidency and changing the course of our nation three decades ago. We must change the political climate again, no matter how many critics are ready to erect our tombstones.

Falwell is scheduled to be on Liberty Live with host Mat Staver and co-host Matt Barber along with Don Wildmon of the American Family Association where they will discuss their confidence that they will soon be able to reverse their current situation and their plans for doing just that:  

Today on Liberty Live, Liberty University Chancellor and CEO, Jerry Falwell Jr., will talk about the conservative movement. His article, "Don't Play Dead," appears in this month's edition of Charisma Magazine. Don Wildmon, the Founder of the American Family Association (AFA), will also join Falwell to discuss rebuilding the conservative movement.

…

Like Falwell, Don Wildmon, Founder of AFA, is focused on building the conservative movement. AFA and Liberty are partnering together to organize and train a new generation of world leaders. AFA has the largest grassroots conservative email list in the world. AFA.net, AFR.net, and OneNewsNow.net are some of the most frequently visited web sites in the world.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented, "The future of the conservative movement is brighter than ever. If anyone thinks for a moment that the conservative movement is dead, they must not be living on this planet."

I don’t know that I’d go so far as Staver to declare that their movement’s future is “brighter than ever” … but then again, their current situation is rather grim, so the “future” probably does seem pretty bright in comparison to the gloom that is enveloping the movement at this point in time.  

Now that Barack Obama is officially the President of the United States, the right-wing columnists at WorldNetDaily are struggling to figure out the best way to cope with the new president and Democratic Congress.  So far, all they’ve been able to come up with is hoping that he fails. 

Phyllis Schlafly writes that Obama’s presidency will be just like Bill Clinton’s and that he and Congress will repeat the “mistakes” of 1993 and soon find themselves voted out of office.  Ben Shapiro predicts that it will soon “become obvious that Obama's election was Americans' superfluous attempt to move beyond race, not a broad mandate to remold the country” and that “Obama will learn the hard way that while Americans will never fail, presidents can.”

While most WND columnists seem content to let Obama to shoot himself in the foot and destroy his own presidency, WND founder Joseph Farah has decided on a more pro-active response by praying that Obama will fail miserably:

Many a coward has been bolstered in his conviction against challenging tyranny by not reading too deeply into the Scriptures. Yet, nowhere does the Bible ever suggest evil rulers are to be obeyed. When the rule of men conflicts with the commands of God, the Bible leaves no doubt about where we should stand.

That's why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state.

It would be folly to pray for his success in such an evil campaign.

I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God's straightforward Commandments.  

But just in case that doesn’t work, Burt Prelutsky has a back-up plan:

I know that armed insurrection is a notion that has occurred to quite a number of right-wingers, and while I admit that popping off a round or two in the general direction of Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell and any number of left-wing politicians is undeniably appealing, I really wouldn't want to promote a second war between the states. At least not so long as there was a viable option. And, fortunately, there is. There's Canada!

During the American Revolution, Americans who were loyal to England crossed the border. I suggest that we conservatives who are loyal to the America conceived by our forefathers pack up our principles, our values and our Constitution, and move north.

We may not have the numbers to win a presidential election here in the United States, but our 58 million votes in Canada (current population: 33,500,000) would be more than enough to ensure a conservative plurality for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, having learned from experience, I propose that our first order of business should be to erect a large wall along our southern border in order to keep out the riff-raff.

You know, of all the suggestions posted on WND, this is the one we support most whole-heartedly.

MSNBC has a longish article on how Religious Right leaders are planning on dealing with soon-to-be President Barack Obama.  The article contains a claim from Richard Land that Barack Obama chose Rick Warren explicitly to appeal to evangelicals and that his religious affairs director even called Land personally to make that point clear:

Land says he received a call from Obama's religious affairs director, Joshua DuBois, after Warren had been chosen. "Dubois told me that this was very intentionally done and that he, the president-elect, was the originator of the idea. He wanted to send the signal that you can disagree with him on some issues but still have a place with him at the table and work together on other issues of agreement.”

Overall, the article reports, right-wing leaders are taking a "wait and see" attitude toward Obama, though they are fully prepared to swing into action the moment he tries to advance the progressive agenda, especially when it comes to reproductive choice:

John Hagee, the San Antonio based televangelist and founder of Christians United for Israel, says he is respecting the wishes of the American people and their choice of Obama. "Sen. Barack Obama is our president-elect, and we are commanded to pray for him. We must pray that God will give him the wisdom of Solomon to lead America through our present crisis," he said.

Hagee was last in the spotlight after the McCain campaign sought his endorsement, only to later publicly reject it after Catholic leaders, among others, expressed outrage and accused Hagee of waging a war against the Catholic church.

Yet even Hagee's own words hint at the prospect of a future showdown. "Our respect and prayers do not prevent us from continuing to speak out and speak out strongly when we disagree on Biblical issues with the president. Like all other Americans, we evangelicals must continue to be engaged in the democratic process even after Election Day."

Hagee isn’t alone in foreshadowing that the new president will encounter some rough stretches when it comes to social conservatives and evangelicals in the days ahead.

Jay Sekulow, a constitutional lawyer with the American Center for Law and Justice and ardent advocate of conservative and evangelical causes, puts it far more bluntly: "I wouldn't call it fear and loathing. I think it's a realization that things are going to be different and significantly different."

...

Obama’s pro-choice position remains a nearly insurmountable obstacle for some evangelicals, such as Chuck Colson who said he responded “with joy that we have elected our first African-American president.”

Colson, the former Nixon aide who went to prison for his role in Watergate, now leads Prison Fellowship, a Christian ministry that supports prisoners and their families. “I pray for him every day, ever since he was elected. I want him to succeed. I like a lot of his cabinet picks,” he said.

“But do I consider him an evangelical? No. If he's comfortable with his faith, I wouldn't challenge him on it. But I have reservations about how serious a Christian he is and not treat life as sacred. The Bible is unequivocal about it."

Jay Sekulow predicts that any forward movement on Obama’s part to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as he’s pledged to do will “cause a revolt in the evangelical community."

Bruce Wilson has uncovered audio of a speech Rick Warren delivered in 2005 to thirty thousand Saddleback Church members who had gathered in the Anaheim Angels sports stadium to celebrate the church's 25th anniversary, during which he implored his followers to dedicate themselves to Christ and create a movement akin to the Hitler Youth, the Bolshevik Revolutionaries, and the Chinese Red Guard:

Though Warren's speech was in the idiom of Christianity, he did not seek to inspire his Saddleback audience with examples of great religious leaders who have changed history through persuasion or other nonviolent approaches. Rick Warren looked to 20th century exemplars of vision and dedication but not to Mohatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or any other religious leaders.

With more than a hint of admiration in his voice, pastor Warren described how in 1939 in a packed Munich Stadium before the leader of the Third Reich, young brown-shirted men and women spelled out in formation, with their bodies, words in German which read "Hitler, we are yours."

"And they nearly took the world, " pastor Rick told the stadium crowd. He moved on to quote another inspirational example from the 20th Century, Lenin, who said 'give me 100 committed, totally committed men and I'll change the world.' Once again Warren observed, "They nearly did."

Having cited dedication and zeal of young Nazis and the efficacy of Bolshevik Revolutionaries, Warren moved on to describe how the sayings of Chairman Mao, printed up in the "Little Red Book", had helped propel the revolutionary fervor of the Chinese Red Guard who had carried out the violent, anarchic revolutionary spasm known as the Cultural Revolution.

With those examples fresh in his audiences mind, Rick Warren instructed the crowd of his thirty thousand to hold up pre-printed signs, within their programs, white letters against a red background, that said "Whatever it takes."

Looking out at the crowd Warren enthused, "I'm looking at a stadium full of people who are saying, 'whatever it takes, God'.

Partial transcript:

"In 1939, in a stadium much like this, in Munich Germany, they packed it out with young men and women in brown shirts, for a fanatical man standing behind a podium named Adolf Hitler, the personification of evil.

And in that stadium, those in brown shirts formed with their bodies a sign that said, in the whole stadium, "Hitler, we are yours."

And they nearly took the world.

Lenin once said, "give me 100 committed, totally committed men and I'll change the world." And, he nearly did.

A few years ago, they took the sayings of Chairman Mao, in China, put them in a little red book, and a group of young people committed them to memory and put it in their minds and they took that nation, the largest nation in the world by storm because they committed to memory the sayings of the Chairman Mao.

When I hear those kinds of stories, I think 'what would happen if American Christians, if world Christians, if just the Christians in this stadium, followers of Christ, would say 'Jesus, we are yours' ?

What kind of spiritual awakening would we have ? "

• Next week, the Family Research Council will host the 4th annual Blogs for Life conference which will feature the likes of Senator Sam Brownback, Amanda Carpenter, Jill Stanek, Michael New, and Charmaine Yoest.
• The Nation has an interesting article on just how much clout Rick Warren has. Several years ago, the IRS went after Warren, accusing him of exceeding the tax exemption members of the clergy receive for their housing and using that provision to avoid paying taxes on his salary, but before the court could rule, Congress stepped in and passed a law to protect him: 

But before the three-judge panel could rule, either on the IRS effort to collect back taxes from Warren or on [Erwin] Chemerinsky's broader argument for declaring the entire exemption unconstitutional, Congress stepped in--and acted with "almost miraculous" speed, as Richard Hammar, editor of the Church Law & Tax Report newsletter, explained to the New York Times. The new law granted Warren his deductions (along with any other clergy who had done the same--although Warren was the only one to end up in court). Congress also put into law, from that time forward, the IRS's "fair rental value" rule.

The Clergy Housing Allowance Clarification Act of 2002 was approved unanimously by Congress, then signed into law by George W. Bush on May 20, 2002, rendering the IRS case against Warren moot. "I have filed hundreds of briefs in federal courts," Chemerinsky told me, "and this is the only time that Congress passed a law to make a specific pending case moot." He added, "It is very rare for Congress to pass a law to make a pending case moot before there was a decision."

• Finally, if you have 13 minutes to waste, take a look at this interview with Alan Keyes as he explains the paramount importance of determining Barack Obama's citizenship in his typically rambling and long-winded manner.

Prior to the election, we spent a lot of time chronicling various right-wing figures who had, at one point, publicly declared their loathing of John McCain only to subsequently turn around as Election Day approached to admit that they would, after all, vote for him. 

High-profile leaders like James Dobson and Paul Weyrich were joined by the likes of Rick Santorum and Richard Viguerie in undergoing this transformation.  But now that the election is over and McCain is back to his job as a Senator, it seems that some of his one-time supporters have decided that it is now safe to revert back to form.

For instance, Viguerie had never been much of a fan of McCain's and even mulled over the possibility to backing Ron Paul ... until McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate, at which point he became an ardent supporter.

But the support was short-lived, because earlier this month McCain rolled out a new PAC and Viguerie wasted no time in calling it a joke:

On Wednesday afternoon, Senator and former presidential hopeful, John McCain, announced the creation of his new grassroots organization named "Country First."

Commenting on the new organization, ConservativeHQ.com Chairman Richard Viguerie stated, "Senator John McCain is a General without an army. He's attempting to lead but he has no followers because his trumpet does not sound certain."

Like Viguerie, Santorum was also a last-minute supporter of McCain's, thanks in large part to Palin.  And now Santorum too has thrown his opportunistic support aside, penning a column predicting that McCain will become Barack Obama's "ace in the hole" in order to rescue his reputation:

In McCain's mind, however, losing the presidency will not be the final chapter of his life story. He knows the path to "Big Media" redemption. Working with the man who vanquished him in November will show them all the real McCain again.

Remember, it was this onetime prisoner of war who led the charge to open diplomatic relations with Vietnam. If that past is prologue, and McCain's legislative record is any guide, he will not just join with Obama but lead the charge in Congress on global warming, immigration "reform," the closing of Guantanamo, federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research, and importation of prescription drugs.

But McCain won't stop there in his effort to rehabilitate himself in the media's - or maybe his own - eyes. He will forge common ground on a long list of initiatives that go far beyond where he has gone before, including the stimulus package.

Alas, the two White House rivals now stand positioned to help secure each other's place in history.

There is a line from a "Simpsons" episode where Mr. Burns joins Homer's bowling team in a spirit of camaraderie and then steals the team's championship trophy for himself, to which Homer laments "I guess some people never change. Or, they quickly change and then quickly change back."

That pretty much sums it up.

A few weeks ago, Funny or Die released its "Prop 8 - The Musical" parody that did not go over well with the Religious Right. 

But now its parent company looks to have made a move that just might make it all up to them.  Among the various other new media sites it has been rolling out is one called Great Americans, which is "focused on the men and women who serve our nation in uniform" and celebrating "their lives, their service, their sacrifice, and their example to us all."

That, in itself, is not all that interesting.  But what is interesting, as uncovered by Andrew Wallenstein of the Hollywood Reporter, is that the site is being run by Matt Daniels, who just so happens to be the former head of the Alliance for Marriage and the man almost single-handedly responsible for the Federal Marriage Amendment:

But if GreatAmericans.com is an unlikely addition to the Or Die family, its charter member might strike an even odder presence. Creator and executive producer Matt Daniels introduces himself on the site's home page in a video in which he descends a subway escalator in a rough section of Harlem, where he grew up poor. He tells us he might never have survived were it not for role models in his life, thus inspiring a Web site that serves as a showcase for other heroes.

But what Daniels doesn't mention, nor does the news release that announced the site's launch, is his claim to fame: Five years ago, Daniels was a leading opponent of legalizing gay marriage and even authored a proposed constitutional amendment banning the practice. As founder of Alliance for Marriage, he emerged as a high-profile figure in the conservative movement one election cycle before the gay-marriage issue exploded in the form of California's Proposition 8.

Of course, both Daniels and Or Die Networks insist that his current venture has nothing to do with his past activities:

In an interview, Daniels indicates that he no longer is with AFM and his new enterprise is unrelated to his previous efforts.

"Anybody looking at the portal and what is actually being promoted, what is actually being celebrated, can make their own judgment on the face of what we represent, and we'll stand by that," he says. "This is an utterly and completely different venture."

...

Or Die Networks CEO Dick Glover does not see Daniels' background, of which he was aware, as relevant.

"One of the very big issues, and it was very extensively discussed, is that this site is not a political site," he says. "Political views don't matter if it's not a business issue."

But as Wallenstein notes, such disclaimers might not cut it with some of its other sites founders, stars, or customers:

As Daniels attests, there is nothing overtly ideological about GreatAmericans.com. Still, having Daniels in the Or Die camp is ironic given his new associates. Not only did Funny Or Die recently stage a star-studded mock musical salute to overturning Prop 8 featuring Jack Black, John C. Reilly and Neil Patrick Harris, but also the company's investors include HBO, long a bastion of gay-friendly programming.

Or Die Networks might not think its a big deal to partner with, and offer a platform to, the man responsible for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but we are guessing that there are a lot of other people out there who might disagree.

The Christian Coalition has sent an email to its few remaining supporters, letting them know that everything they hold dear is under attack and that they should, of course, donate money to the organization so that it can prevent Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress from ruining America:

As we begin a new year and a new congress comes into session, pro-family conservatives must face a stark reality: the liberal onslaught is coming.

It is coming because extreme liberals look at the election results as their opportunity to solidify domination of our government and our culture … [W]e know what they plan to do. It’s no secret. The only question is what will we do to stop them?

…

Liberals don’t want Christians like you and I to stand up and work together. They know how effective we can be when we speak with one voice. That’s why it is so vital that we work to educate and activate America’s Christian conservatives!

…

Stand with us as we work to prepare Christian conservatives to fight back against the assault on our values being waged in the halls of our government. But if you want to stand up for your beliefs, you simply must speak out … [N]ow is not the time for us to despair and give up. There is too much at stake for conservatives to be caught on the sidelines.

Please click here and make a contribution to the Christian Coalition today!

I don’t know about you, but when I think of an organization that can “educate and activate America’s Christian conservatives,” I immediately think of the Christian Coalition … after I’ve thought about the dozen or so other right-wing groups who actually still have some power and influence.

Earlier this week, Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee introduced H. R. 256, the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, and a piece of companion legislation in the House of Representatives and already the right is freaking out.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has launched a petition telling its activists that the legislation will “directly threaten your freedom of speech and religion" while Vision America, via Tips-Q, is proclaiming that, if passed, Christians are going to be rounded-up and tossed in prison:

This legislation will stifle Biblical preaching and thus prevent Pastors from sharing with their congregations and homosexuals that homosexuality is wrong and that those who practice such sin without repentance will not only suffer the consequences in this life, but in the life to come. 

The small print is clear – you could be indicted if someone simply overhears you speaking out against homosexuality, or any other group protected by the law, and commits an act of violence as a result.

Of course, if you actually bother to read the “small print” and look at the legislation, this is what you find:

      (2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person--

            `(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

            `(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

                  `(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or

                  `(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

      `(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

            `(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or

            `(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.'.

Now, unless the folks at Vision America and the CADC are planning on burning, shooting, or blowing up any person falling into the protect class, or the property of such a person, then they shouldn’t have anything to worry about.  

Do they really think that their freedom of speech or religion is threatened by legislation that makes it illegal to burn, shoot, or blow up gays?  

Last month, President Bush signed The Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA), legislation designed to clarify a provision in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), which, as the Human Right Campaign explained, "made it possible for employers to allow any nonspouse beneficiary of an employee’s retirement plan—including an employee’s same-sex partner—to roll inherited retirement benefits directly to an individual retirement account (IRA) and avoid immediate taxation."

Prior to passage of the PPA, same-sex partners who inherited retirement plan savings were forced to pay taxes on the amount while married spouses could roll the savings over with no tax penalty. Provisions in the PPA were designed to remedy this inequity but, after passage, such provisions were interpreted to be optional for employers and thus WRERA was passed to clarify that companies are required to offer this protection to all employees.

Of course, now the Right is mad about this because ... well, if we start treating gays equally, they'll demand that they be treated equally: 

Peter Sprigg is vice president for policy at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. He says the new law is an example of how homosexual activists have made many of their policy advances.

"Sometimes they throw the long ball, so to speak, and have these big court cases that declare same-sex 'marriage' to be the law of the state, like we've seen in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut," says Sprigg. "And other times it's the ground game, so to speak -- just grinding it out with these short little plays that advance their agenda a yard at a time."

Sprigg says the practical impact of the new law benefiting same-sex couples will be minimal, but it will have a troubling cumulative effect. He believes the more such benefits are accrued by same-sex couples, the more plausible it appears for them to argue they should be treated just the same as married couples in everything.

If we don't keep discriminating, next thing you know gays will be saying that "they should be treated just the same." And we can't have that now, can we?

If you are anything like me, whenever you reach for your dictionary you think to yourself:  "You know what this reference book needs? More Bible verses." 

Fortunately, David Barton has taken time away from discovering America's forgotten ultra-religious history to create a computerized version of the God-filled dictionary that Noah Webster originally intended:

Today, Webster is primarily known for the massive dictionary that bears his name. He published a small dictionary in 1806, and in 1807 began work on his great dictionary ... Webster began that dictionary with a dedication to God, praying that it would be useful for "the moral and religious elevation of character and the glory of my country." For decades, it also contained Webster's personal testimony of his conversion to Christ. Additionally, after defining each word, he provided examples to clarify the meanings of the word, and a large percentage of his examples were Bible verses.

Since its original publication in 1828, Webster's dictionary has undergone extensive censorship to remove its Christian emphasis and examples. Although the most popular dictionary in America still bears his name, today it no longer reflects the spirit of the original. But now you can enjoy the Biblical worldview inculcated throughout his original dictionary, for we are now offering an electronic, searchable copy of Webster's dictionary on CD ROM.

You know, I never thought I'd see the day when the Right was complaining that our reference books were insufficiently inculcated with a Biblical worldview ... yet here we are.  Lesson learned.

A.J. Jacobs has a interesting profile of Mike Huckabee in Esquire on how this funny and seemingly nice former presidential candidate is, at heart, a militantly anti-gay culture warrior. 

Jacobs reports that Huckabee is utterly charming and the "most likable politician I've ever met" ... until he joins Huckabee for a book-signing and fundraiser for the right-wing New Jersey Family Policy Council where the theme is "no compromise on gay marriage" and Huckabee proclaims that gays getting married will lead to polygamy and bestiality and likens homosexuality to alcoholism:

We say the Pledge of Allegiance. We eat our chicken and baby carrots. We listen to a series of speeches with phrases like "swamp of moral decay" and "assault on the sacred institution of marriage." One man says that given the choice between winning the White House and winning the three anti-gay-marriage propositions, he'd choose to lose the White House ...

Later, I tell Huckabee that I once reported on a group of gay evangelical Christians — admittedly, a tiny group. They argue that homosexuality is not a biblical sin. Yes, Leviticus bans men lying down with other men, but that ban refers to pagan sex rituals. Jesus would not have a problem with committed, loving same-sex relationships.

Huckabee is not impressed. "How convenient. How very convenient to just put the Bible into a chronological time zone," he answers. Huckabee says gay people can do what they want in their private lives. But gay marriage?

"The problem with changing the definition of marriage is that once you cross that line, then there's no stopping," he explains. He tells me that when he spoke recently in Japan, there was an American student there who objected to his views on gay marriage. "This was right in the middle of what was going on in west Texas, and I thought, Okay, how can we say that what those polygamists in west Texas are doing is wrong if we allow same-sex marriage? Who are you to tell them that that man can't have fifteen wives? [The student said] 'Well, it's not the same!' And I said, 'Okay, well, here's another one: bestiality. Now I know you're going to have a problem,' and he just went berserk on that. But there was recently an actual news story where a man wanted to marry his animal. . . . I think it was a sheep."

Huckabee says he doesn't know if homosexuality is inborn, but he believes you can control the behavior. He compares homosexuality to obesity or alcoholism: "Some people have a predisposition to alcoholism. Does that mean they're not responsible for getting drunk? No."

I give him the liberal line: Being gay is so integral to a person's identity that it's not a choice, that it's like being African-American.

"I'm especially offended by that," he answers immediately. "Because blackness is an inescapable quality. Black is not a behavior. There's no behavior to black. What you can say is that whatever disposition, it's a choice. A lot of people are celibate. When people enter the priesthood, they make a choice to subjugate certain behaviors and/or feelings. It's not that they don't have them; it's that they choose not to act on them."

He talks about how he saw a news clip from a Palm Springs rally of a woman holding a cross, being accosted by gay-rights protesters who grabbed the cross out of her hands. "I watch these guys, and they're all about love and tolerance until they lose."

In Huckabee's world, gay people are the oppressors and conservative Christians are the victims.

The piece is full of interesting tidbits, like the fact that Huckabee was apparently unaware that this country has never had a Jewish president and makes a point of noting that Sarah Palin's disastrous interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were in no way "unfair," saying "Katie Couric was extraordinarily gentle, even helpful. [Palin] just . . . I don't know what happened. I can't explain it. It was not a good interview. I'm being charitable."

As they say, read the whole thing.

Until last week, we had never paid much attention to Rep. Paul Broun ... in fact, when he showed up last week with Rob Schenck and Patrick Mahoney for some pre-inaugural anointing, it was the first time we had ever written about him. 

But I am beginning to suspect that that is about to change:

Congressman Paul Broun has reintroduced legislation that he says would stop abortion and the "clone-and-kill" mentality in the U.S.

Representative Paul Broun (R-Georgia) believes the "greatest moral issue facing our nation" is the killing of unborn children, and that all Americans have a "moral and constitutional obligation" to protect every unborn child. That's why Broun, a medical doctor, has promised that the Sanctity of Human Life Act will be the very first bill he will introduce in every Congress until abortion is banned in the U.S. He notes the bill scientifically defines life as beginning at the point of fertilization with the creation of a human zygote.

"It gives the right of personhood to that one-celled human being," Broun explains. "If you look at Roe vs. Wade, the whole decision was predicated on no definition of the beginning of life being ever established legislatively." Roe v. Wade is the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in America.

"[But] this [bill] would define life beginning at fertilization," he continues. "It would give the right of personhood to that one-celled human being -- thus that person should be protected under the law as we are today."

We'll probably have to start trying to keep an eye on Tim Echols, one of Broun's former aides, as well, since he seems to have big plans to resurrect the Religious Right in Georgia:

One of U.S. Rep. Paul Broun's closest advisers is starting a consulting firm to bring religious conservatives back to political prominence and elect the first black Republican to statewide office in Georgia.

Winterville resident Tim Echols, a former spokesman for Mr. Broun, resigned Friday as his campaign treasurer to form Gold Dome Consulting.

One of the firm's goals will be to develop black candidates to run for state and federal office on the Republican ticket, Mr. Echols said. The GOP has neglected black voters, but they often share Republicans' conservative views on social and moral issues, he said.

"When it comes to issues of marriage and family, they're Republicans," he said. "But Republicans haven't reached out to them they way we should have."

Mr. Echols, 48, said he is talking with potential candidates but declined to identify them.

Gold Dome will be selective in choosing politicians to advise, and Mr. Echols will spend at least half his time on nonprofit clients, he said.

One of Gold Dome's first clients is the Christian Coalition of Georgia, which once dominated state politics. It lost influence after scandal-plagued Ralph Reed lost his 2006 bid for lieutenant governor and former head Sadie Fields left to start a rival group, the Georgia Christian Alliance.

"I'm going to come alongside them and bring them back to a place of strong stature," Mr. Echols said.