November 2009

• Over 150,000 people have reportedly signed on to the Manhattan Declaration in the first week.
• Right-wing groups played a big role in the losing fight against gambling in Ohio.
• Catholic bishops are just like Martin Luther King.
• This is not the sort of thing you'd expect from someone who worked for Ralph Reed.
• Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller says that Rifqa Bary is under "house arrest" and that "Ohio is effectively practicing Sharia law."
• Finally, a game that is fun for the entire right-wing family: "OBOZO’S AMERICA: Why Bother Working for a Living? is a fun fantasy board game based on the preposterous notion that a Marxist clown, running on the vague and shaky platform of hope and change, could become President of The United States."

Back in 2005, when the Gang of 14 came together to thwart the Senate Republican majority's efforts to end the use of the filibuster against President Bush's judicial nominees, Sen. Jeff Sessions could barely hide his disappointment that he and his Republican colleagues did not get the chance to deploy the "nuclear option":

I am disappointed that this agreement did not provide the other nominees the right to a vote. I was prepared to support the Constitutional option, because these systematic filibusters amounted to an affront to the Constitution and could not be allowed to stand. I hope that all nominees will now receive fair treatment in this body and that the character assassinations and filibusters will disappear.

But now times have changed and Sessions is writing op-eds in the Washington Post saying that for Republicans not to filibuster President Obama's nominees would amount to "unilateral disarmament":

To be clear, I believe that the president is entitled to a reasonable degree of deference on his judicial nominations. I supported more than 90 percent of President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees, and I hope I am able to do the same for President Obama, even if they would not be my top choices.

But I take seriously the Senate's constitutionally mandated role to "advise and consent," and I am obligated to oppose nominees who have demonstrated either an unwillingness to subordinate themselves to the Constitution or a desire to advance a political, social or economic agenda from the bench.

This year, a number of my colleagues and I have voted against just three judicial nominees, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Only in the case of Judge Hamilton have we raised a procedural objection to Majority Leader Harry Reid's desire to proceed to a vote.

For Republicans to ignore the changed rules would be to acquiesce in a system where 60 votes are needed to confirm judges nominated by Republicans, but only 51 are required to confirm judges nominated by Democrats. To allow such a double standard would be akin to unilateral disarmament.

So Sessions hated the filibuster when it was being used against President Bush's nominees and wanted to get rid of it entirely, but was unable to do so due to an agreement among a handful of Senators, and now he is that it would be irresponsible for him not to launch filibusters against President Obama's nominees, despite saying just a few years back that he hoped that "filibusters will disappear"?

And for the record, Sessions' claim that he's "voted against just three" of Obama's judicial nominees means that he's voted against fully 30% of Obama nominees ... that would be akin a Democratic  senator having voted against nearly 100 [PDF] of President Bush's judicial nominees.

According to this profile of Concerned Women for America founder Beverly LaHaye, we have her to thank for motiviating Michele Bachmann to become involved in politics and eventually run for Congress ... and LaHaye is overjoyed that God is using Bachmann to do his work in America:

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, R- Minn., an emerging leader in the conservative movement, attributes much of her background knowledge to materials provided by LaHaye and CWA.

Bachmann said she first heard of CWA in its infancy when, as a new bride, she received a cassette tape featuring LaHaye’s views on the feminist movement and other social issues of that era.

“I was highly motivated by what I heard Mrs. LaHaye say,” the Republican offered before casting a vote at the U.S. Capitol. “Something got ahold of me about the course of where our country was heading.”

In 1998, while caring for some of their 27 foster children, Bachmann said she became more involved in the process by addressing concerns she had with public schools and with the “political correctness” movement that threatened her values, attitudes and beliefs.

In 2000 she was elected to the Minnesota state senate until six years later when voters sent her on to Washington as a U.S. Congresswoman. Bachmann said she found LaHaye to be an authoritative and credible voice to listen to, primarily because of LaHaye’s commitment to research, skills she is finding useful as she now represents her own constituents.

“She (LaHaye) doesn’t see herself as extraordinary, but we see her as an extraordinary woman of God who has completely abandoned herself to the will of God,” the congresswoman said. “I consider myself extremely fortunate to be her friend and to have benefited from the sacrifices she made early on in this effort. And she did sacrifice by holding on to what works, what matters and what’s right for our society.”

LaHaye is equally enamored with Bachmann and her pro-family tenacity.

“I thought, ‘Praise God,’” the CWA founder said. “This young woman had a lot of capabilities. She was a farm wife, a lawyer, she’s now a congresswoman, and she is standing up for our values in Washington D.C. I’m so proud of her, and there are others, too, who just come to the top. God is using them in a mighty way. These are the women that I think of when the Bible talks about ministers of God. These women are truly ministers of God.”

I wonder what it was that LaHaye said that so moved Bachmann to action?  Maybe this:

"Christian values should dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office."

• An interesting interview with Jeff Sharlet about "The Family" on Fresh Air.
• Did Dana Perino forget all about 9/11?  Apparently.
• Rep. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are confirmed for the First Annual National Tea Party Convention.
• At least 40 Republican members of Congress would fail the RNC's purity test.
• This is why Glenn Beck should not be in charge of anything, ever.
• Scare quotes are back at the Washington Times.
• Finally, next time you see me, be sure to gimme dat Christian side hug.

For the last several week, Janet Porter and Joseph Farah have been urging activists to spend $30 to send members of Congress a "pink slip" warning them that if they vote to support "government health care, cap and trade, 'hate crimes,' or any more spending" they'll be voted out of office in their next election.

They've recently been highlighting their "success" in all sorts of ways ... some more realistic than others:

If you stacked the 7.8 million pink slips Congress has received warning members away from support of the health-care bill, big spending, hate-crimes legislation and energy taxes, the pile would tower over the tallest buildings in the world.

Laying them end to end would result in a trail that would stretch across two-thirds of the United States from East to West.

And there's no sign the "Send Congress a Pink Slip" campaign is tailing off after two months.

In fact, says Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, who organized the campaign with WND columnist Janet Porter, it seems to be picking up since a half-dozen members of Congress held a press conference last week to announce their support of the effort – an event that was covered widely by television and print reporters.

Farah said over the weekend the total of pink slips sent to Congress has reached 7.8 million.

Now, 7.8 million pink slips sounds like a lot, but remember that one order through WND sends 535 individual pink slips to Congress.

As such, the 7.8 million individual pink slips represent less than 15,000 individual people.

15,000 people is not insignificant ... but it certainly isn't enough to toss too many members out of Congress for ignoring the campaign's demands.

As something of a follow-up to the last post on the never-ending "war on Christmas," I just wanted to highlight this press release:

Over 200,000 shoppers are wearing buttons this Christmas season that proclaim a straightforward message to retailers: "It's OK, Wish Me A Merry Christmas(tm)." Individuals and churches around the country are partnering with the Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign mobilizing advocates energized for a return to the traditional, convivial greeting, bearing buttons that make a clear statement - "It's OK, Wish Me A Merry Christmas(tm) (www.wmamc.com)". Over 200,000 of these buttons have been distributed nationally.

As we've noted before, this whole victimization ploy has been exceedingly profitable for right-wing groups and it looks like it still is:  the buttons mentioned above are priced at $25 for 10, meaning that if the producers have sold 200,000, they have banked somewhere in the ballpark of $500,000.

Rick Scarborough of Vision America has sent out an urgent fundraising email seeking to capitalize on the anti-climatic anti-hate crimes legislation rally held week, warning that he still expects to be arrested and saying that even though they were ridiculed in the press, God was quite pleased:  

Vision America needs your generous support NOW to stay in this battle.we need partners NOW to stand with us in prayer and financial support if we are to continue this battle. Please select here to make the largest tax deductible gift you can to this effort NOW. I believe our right to hold our deeply held religious beliefs as well as freedom of speech is at stake and therefore the soul of our nation. You can select here to make a donation. For more than 10 years I have stated that if and when speaking out against sexual deviancy was declared to be illegal by federal law, I would defy that law and obey God. I have followed through with that promise. Our legal team believes this law can be overturned in Federal Court, but

A number of Christian news agencies and talk programs covered our event, but the secular press was strangely silent, even though they covered the event, or worse, as in the case of the Washington Post, they chose to ridicule us.

...

No one was arrested. (Our lawyers tell us that will come later!) .. From the world's perspective, nothing noteworthy took place, but in Heaven, I believe God looked down and said, "Well done!" to those who stood for traditional values and on the truth of God's Word. He was able to say on that day that in Washington, D.C. there was a remnant that said, "We stand with God."

• The RNC's communications director abruptly resigned because Michael Steele didn’t feel he was getting enough credit for the GOP’s electoral success earlier this month. He's being replaced by Alex Castellanos, who will apparently be able to maintain his seat at CNN.
• Lilly Folwer has a good piece in Salon on Wiley Drake and the whole Psalm 109 effort.
• Doug Hoffman un-un-concedes.
• Wendy Wright was apparently doing a little more than "simply praying" when she was arrested back in the early 1990's.
• TPM exlains to Rep. Michele Bachmann why Democrats oppose her, since she apparently doesn't understand.
• Finally, the Texas Freedom Network points out that United States Justice Foundation wants people to protest healthcare legislation by refusing to buy health insurance and is offering to represent anyone in court who does so.  As Dan says: "Oh, goodie. But will the USFJ also pay for treatment if that uninsured patriot gets cancer or is crippled in an auto accident?"

Earlier this year, we wrote a post about Lou Engle and the International House of Prayer located in Kansas City, MO, noting that it is essentially a 24/7 version of Engle's massive "The Call" prayer rallies.

Next month, IHOP is hosting a 4-day event called onething'09 that, like all other Engle-affiliated events, will focus on praying away abortion and marriage equality and the "spiritual darkness" that is engulfing this nation:

The crisis in our nation is real. The serpentine stranglehold of abortion continues to squeeze the life out of over 4,000 wombs daily. Sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, are reaching epic heights of perversity. The number of women and children being trafficked into the dark underbelly of the sex industry in our cities is growing at an alarming rate. Entire school systems are giving way to darkness. The sanctity of marriage is under siege, threatening to destroy the moral foundations of our nation.

We will also address the growing crisis that is emerging in many churches across America. A new wave of confusion is systematically seducing many young adults into deception. Sincere young people whose hearts were once ablaze for Jesus are being allured into compromise on foundational biblical truths and practices, while at the same time they are increasing in works of compassion and justice. No amount of increased ministry activity can “balance out” their profound spiritual compromises. In the name of tolerance, they are settling for a humanistic and "politically correct" theology that trivializes the glory of Jesus. Many young adult ministries are falling prey to this as they are seeking “relevance” that dulls the razor’s edge of truth for the sake of man’s approval. It is not enough to mention Jesus’ name if they deny foundational truths about Him. Our works of justice must flow from deep allegiance to Jesus and the Scripture.

Our nation has never stood on such a precarious footing as today. The onslaught of spiritual darkness is increasing in our classrooms, boardrooms, courtrooms, and bedrooms. We must confront the confusion that is pouring forth from many pulpits as well as from the halls of Washington. It is time to draw a line in the sand. We must hear what the Spirit is saying and we must act on it. The Spirit will confirm the truth with demonstrations of power.

In this letter, Engle and IHOP founder Mike Bickle also urge people to drop everything in order to attend this event because currently "the Holy Spirit is visiting His people with power" at IHOP ... so much so that they had to cancel classes for an entire week:

Many of you will have heard of the spiritual awakening at our Bible school. On Wednesday, November 11, the Spirit fell on a class for more than 15 hours. The word spread quickly and over 2,000 people spontaneously gathered in the auditorium from all over Kansas City, as deliverance and physical healings continued to increase. We canceled our classes for the next week so that each one of our 1,000 students and interns could receive from the Spirit in an extended way.

We decided to meet nightly from 6:00pm to midnight because His manifest presence continues to increase. Visitors are pouring in from many places across America to partake of this spiritual awakening.

As we mentioned yesterday, Randall Terry and crew are back out on tour protesting health care reform.  The first stop of Fort Wayne, IN:

Conservative political and religious activist Randall Terry ran into a wall in Fort Wayne, the first stop of his 13-city, seven-state protest tour to denounce proposed health care reform. No one showed.

A few reporters and photographers, Terry and two passersby were the whole rally.

Normally, when nobody show up to a protest, you're inclined to call it failure ... but since Terry cares more about press than attendance, by that measure this "protest" was a flying success.

When it comes to fighting marriage equality, seemingly no organization has deeper pockets than the National Organization for Marriage, which has announced that is now dumping a half-million dollars into its home state of New Jersey:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announces a new $500,000 voter outreach campaign in New Jersey highlighted by the release of a new radio ad, “Give Me a Break,” which will begin running on targeted New Jersey radio stations today and will continue for at least two weeks.

“NOM's voter outreach will include telephone calling, direct mailers, and online advertising to let voters know that Democrats are considering following Jon Corzine over a political cliff by pushing gay marriage in the lame duck," said Brian Brown, executive director of NOM.

The ad, "Give Me a Break," underscores that Gov. Jon Corzine had four years to push a gay marriage bill, and the losing governor should not waste legislators’ valuable time by pushing a gay marriage bill in the lame duck session when New Jersey voters expect elected officials to focus on far more urgent priorities, like jobs, the economy and the budget.

“In the next two weeks NOM will spend $300,000 in voter outreach on the theme of this ad, including radio ad buys, direct mail, and online advertising,” said Brian Brown. “We have reserved an additional $200,000 for advertising and direct mail outreach if the legislature continues to spend more and more of its time into December fooling around with a vote for gay marriage that New Jersey voters do not want.”

The latest installment in NOM's New Jersey campaign will bring the total NOM has spent in New Jersey in 2009 in automated calling, radio and television ads, and direct mail voter outreach to more than $1 million.

• Sarah Palin says she's qualified to be President because she has "common sense" and "American values."  By that logic, isn't pretty much anyone qualified to be President?
• Lou Dobbs for President? Are you kidding me?
• Gov. Mark Sanford faces 37 charges of violating state ethics laws.
• I have to admit that the absurd editing in this Newsmax interview with Richard Land just cracked me up.
• Ralph Reed and Mike Huckabee: together at last.
• Joseph Farah warns that "America is being judged by God."
• Janet Jenkins has been granted custody of her daughter due to Lisa Miller's repeated refusal to provide her access.
• Randall Terry is heading out on tour ... again.
• Finally, I though the Manhattan Declaration was a vow by the Right to never give up in the culture war, but Jim Daly sees it differently: "What this declaration is saying is, if you want a fulfilling, rewarding, joyful, peaceful life then embrace Jesus Christ as your Savior."

Star Paker writes that the last thing Washington DC needs is marriage equality ... because it'll only lead to more HIV infections: 

According to DC's HIV/AIDS office, three percent of the local population has HIV or AIDS. The Administrator of this office notes that this HIV/AIDS incidence is "...higher than West Africa...on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." And the principal way that HIV is transmitted continues to be through male homosexual activity.

Amidst this dismal picture, the DC City Council, perhaps on the theory that serving up another glass of wine is the way to help a drunk, is scheduled to vote on December 1 to legalize same sex marriage in America's capital city ... It should concern every American as we watch our nation's capital city transform officially into Sodom.

Last week, nearly 150 Religious Right leaders and activists signed on to the Manhattan Declaration, vowing to join together in an effort to stop America's descent into a totalitarianism, and not surprisingly signers are comparing themselves to Martin Luther and those who resisted the Nazi's

[Richard] Land said, "It was an honor and a privilege to be a part of the process that produced the document. It is a sterling and forthright declaration of first principles. To paraphrase Martin Luther: Here we stand; we can do no other."

...

[David] Dockery said, "Not unlike the 1934 Barmen Declaration [the statement of the confessing church in Nazi Germany], the Manhattan Declaration is a clarion call for Christians of every tradition to stand together in biblical faithfulness for foundational matters of society and culture like commitments to life, marriage and family.... I pray that God will use this declaration among leaders and laity in churches, the academy and parachurch organizations to join hands together for the sake of the kingdom of God."

On today's radio program, James Dobson hosted Chuck Colson and Robert George to discuss the manifesto during which Dobson explained that if their values are "not preserved at this moment of destiny, this nation and most others in the Western world will fold and freedom itself will go down with it." Saying we are facing a "defining moment in America and the Christian Church," Dobson declared that the statement "deserves our most careful attention, I just want to emphasize that in every way that I can," before asking George just what precipitated this document, to which George explained that it was basically the election of Barack Obama and Democratic majorities in Congress who are out to destroy traditional marriage and basic Christian values. Finally, Dobson stated that with the passage of hate crimes legislation, "it could get very costly to follow this Christ," meaning that pastors and Christians are about the come under direct attack from the government, to which George responded that Christian "martyrs have [always] been called on to pay the ultimate price rather than to deny the Lord or to do what is evil in his sight": 

Eventually, Dobson turned to the supposed "monthly abortion premium" that Rep. John Boehner has been claiming is included in health care reform legislation, which Dobson vowed he would never accept, saying he and his wife Shirley would pay ruinous fines, go to prison, or even "leave this beloved country and spend the rest of our lives in exile": 

• I, for one, can't wait for Ken Hutcherson's follow-up column: "I think Christians are the new Negro – but that's an issue for a follow-up column."
• CafePress has decided to remove all Psalms 109:8 designs for its website.
• The full text of Rick Scarborough's remarks at the anti-hate crimes legislation rally has been posted on his website.
• You want a fight? Bill Donohue will give you a fight! 
• Finally, this, amazingly, is not a joke:

Were you disappointed that you were unable to add your name to the newest Religious Right manifesto so that you could do your part to save America from its descent into Nazi-like totalitarianism?

Well, have we got good news for you - now you can:

This Friday, November 20, 2009, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., a seminal statement signed by over 125 Evangelical, Orthodox, and Catholic leaders will be released. Known as the Manhattan Declaration, this document addresses the necessity of defending and advancing the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty.

Click here after noon on Friday, November 20. There you can read the Declaration and sign on in support of the statement. The goal is to have one million signatures by December 1.

FRC President, Tony Perkins, is a part of the core group which formulated the Manhattan Declaration and he is encouraging every pastor and church member in our network to sign it as well. Our friend Chuck Colson declares that this historic declaration of religious conscience is "probably the most important document I've ever signed."

We trust that you and your church members will join this movement to declare our absolute commitment to the defense of life, marriage, and religious liberty. Again, visit our website to sign the Declaration and please forward this message to your friends in ministry.

So if, like the original signers of this Declaration, you think that reproductive choice has lead to things like genocide and AIDS, then be sure to add your name: 

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research.

Or if, like the original signers of this Declaration, you feel you must oppose marriage equality because otherwise it'll lead to incest, polygamy, and the destruction of your religious liberty, then be sure to add your name:

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

And most importantly, if, like the original signers of this Declaration, you will never, ever surrender in your opposition to America's descent into Godless-immorality, then by all means be sure to add your name:

Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.

Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.

Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Alan Keyes has reached the outer limits of the right-wing fringe movement, which is saying something considering that he had always pretty resided on the fringes to begin with and has only been heading further out  since the election of Barack Obama.

But his latest WorldNetDaily column defending Rev. James David Manning, pastor of Atlah World Missionary Church, really is remarkable, even for him.

Normally, I'd post some of Manning's bizarre rantings here to give you a sense of who he is, but his account has been suspended from YouTube, so I'll simply point you to Wikipedia:

Manning came to public attention in the 2008 presidential election after ATLAH posted several sermons of his that were harshly critical of Democratic candidate Barack Obama on the website YouTube. Among other accusations, he called Obama a "good House Negro" in one sermon while in another he referred to Obama as "trash" due to circumstances surrounding his mixed race heritage and accused him of being a "pimp" (pimping "white women and black women") and "long-legged mack daddy," and an "emissary of the devil", citing the viral video "I Got a Crush... on Obama". He stated that Obama "has the cadence of an Islamic person,"and he called Obama's mother "trash" for becoming pregnant by a black man out of wedlock. Manning revisited this latter issue during a press conference at the National Press Club on 8 December 2008: "Generally the most noble of white society choose not to intercourse sexually with African men. So it's usually the trashier ones who make their determinations that they're going to have sex."

Manning defended his sermons in an interview on Fox News, saying that "we also have to talk about his character."He compared TV personality Oprah Winfrey, who supported Obama's campaign, to the Whore of Babylon, the "Queen of the Universe", and an Antichrist.

According to Manning, one of his recent video postings prompted a visit from the Department of Homeland Security ... and it is not hard to see why, considering that somewhere around the five minute mark, Manning begins screaming:

You gotta clean house. You got to take Obama to trial, put him in jail for the rest of his life, or hang him.  Shoot him on the Washington ... first try him, find him guilty, and the punishment for treason is a death sentence. And then clean the rest out, go get Hillary, go get John McCain, go get George Bush, got get Dick Cheney too, get 'em all.  And then we can start over again.

So what does Keyes' have to say about Manning, who is seemingly calling for the execution of several current and former high-ranking government officials? That he's right:

I have followed Rev. Manning's broadcasts and statements for some time. He is forthright and outspoken in his religious and political views. He speaks with a boldness that is surely offensive to people who believe that civility requires silence even in the face of the stratagems of deception now being perpetrated against the American people. But I see nothing that he has said or done that warrants interference with his freedom of speech. Both YouTube's actions and those of the federal and New York City officials who visited his church appear to be in clear violation of his constitutional rights and part of an effort to intimidate him and others who are outspoken critics of the coup d'état being perpetrated by the Obama faction and its fellow travelers among the elites, who are working to accomplish the overthrow of our constitutional republic.

The repression of Rev. Manning's views is an intolerable assault on the constitutional freedom of every American. However disagreeable his voice may be to others, including the present occupant of the White House, his right to voice his criticisms is clear and undeniable. So is his right to seek redress of grievances that threaten the sovereignty of the American people and of every American as a member of the sovereign body of the people. Respect for these rights is one of the bedrock prerequisites of government of, by and for the people. Efforts to thwart and repress their exercise constitute a clear and present danger to the liberty of all Americans. Like the darkening skies and rising winds that announce the landfall of a hurricane, this move to silence Rev. Manning ominously foreshadows the next phase of the elite assault against the Constitution and people of the United States.

• Think Progress: Time to Stop the Lies - Countering Bishop Harry Jackson’s Gay Marriage Distortions.
• Towelroad: Houston Mayoral Candidate Annise Parker Attacked with Anti-Gay Flyer; Warns of City Run by Someone 'Trapped in Homosexual Behavior' and Utah Homophobe Senator Chris Buttars Doesn't Want Gays 'Stuffin' It Down His Throat All The Time'.
• TPM: Doug Hoffman: ACORN Has Stolen NY-23 Election!
• Joe.My.God: AFA: Gap Stores Support Witchcraft!!!
• What do you know? Fox News apologizes again.
• Bonus what do you know? Mike Huckabee slams knee-jerk attacks on Obama.
• Finally, Kevin Drum explains Sarah Plain via Jon Stewart.

For the last several years, we've been chronicling efforts by far-right activists like David Barton and the National Black Republican Association to claim that throughout American history it has been Republicans who have been the champions of civil rights while Democrats were the party of racists and it seems that this idea has now worked its way into the House of Representatives thanks to Rep. Virginia Foxx:

During a debate on the House floor today over designating 21 miles of the Molalla River as “wild and scenic,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who opposes the legislation, tried to claim a progressive environmental record for her party. “Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country,” said Foxx.

Foxx then extended her claims of the GOP’s progressive history to the issue of civil rights. “Just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the ’60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle,” said Fox. “They love to engage in revisionist history.”

A few years back, Barton produced an entire video pushing this idea.  Entitled "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White," Barton's presentation chronicled the decades of oppression and discrimination against Blacks for which Barton claimed the Democrats were entirely responsible, only to suddenly stop with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, completely ignoring the political transformation that overtook the country in its wake and the rise of the Republican Party’s "Southern Strategy" as we explained in our report:

Having been so eager to recount every historical Democratic disgrace, Barton falls silent when it comes to mentioning the split that emerged within the Democratic Party in the 1960s between the growing number who embraced the civil rights movement and those who continued to oppose it. Barton does not mention that President Johnson risked his career and his party’s future to do the right thing, nor does he mention that racist and segregationist southern Democrats left the party and were welcomed by the national Republican Party as part of its “Southern Strategy” to building power. Nor, of course, does he mention a particularly shameful modern-era example of that strategy – presidential candidate Ronald Reagan launching his 1980 bid for the presidency with a visit to Philadelphia, Mississippi to declare his support for states’ rights – with no mention of the town’s notoriety as the place where civil rights workers were murdered and townspeople jeered federal investigators.

Even an amateur historian like Barton shouldn’t be able to ignore that sordid history. In fact it’s so well documented that even RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman once openly acknowledged it in the context of his efforts to recruit African Americans into the Party. Mehlman gave an apology of sorts, saying "By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

…

Even President Bush acknowledged that whatever prestige the Republican Party once had with African Americans has been squandered, telling the NAACP on July 20, 2006 that he understands why “many African Americans distrust my political party” and that he considers it “a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African American community. For too long my party wrote off the African American vote, and many African Americans wrote off the Republican Party” – admissions which were met with rousing applause from the audience.

But that is nothing compared to the efforts of Frances Rice of the National Black Republican Association, who prefers flat out lying about it:

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black.

As we asked once before:

The obvious question raised by all of this is not why the Democrats are reluctant to discuss it, but why right-wingers who are obsessed with it never manage to explain the so-called “Southern Strategy” employed by Richard Nixon to win over traditional Southern Democrats who were angry by the party’s emerging pro-civil rights positions. As Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips explained it:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

Ronald Regan’s strategist Lee Atwater was even more blunt about the reasoning behind the strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

It's amazing to see this sort of right-wing propaganda being spread on the floor of the House of Representatives. 

Amazing, but sadly not surprising.

As we noted yesterday, the Washington D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has ruled that the ballot initiative being pushed by Harry Jackson and company seeking to prevent marriage equality in the district would not be placed on the ballot.

Not surprisingly, Religious Right groups are not happy and are saying that the decision only proves that the District doesn't deserve voting representation in Congress:

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, said, "The D.C. Council reeks of rank hypocrisy. For years they have demanded that D.C. citizens should have the right to vote for congressional representation, which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Yet now they are denying D.C. citizens the right to vote on marriage, an institution so fundamental to America's well-being that territories were not allowed to become states unless they kept marriage between one man and one woman.

"D.C. officials are proving, once again, why they need congressional oversight. They need to be reminded that citizens are not serfs."

The Family Research Council made the same point:

While the House is deciding whether or not to give the District of Columbia more autonomy, the city is bent on denying the same freedom to residents. Yesterday, the D.C. Board of Elections refused to let voters decide the fate of same-sex "marriage" by denying the petition of Stand4MarriageDC to put an initiative on the ballot. The Board, which has just two members, said that Bishop Harry Jackson's Marriage Initiative "authorizes discrimination." In the end, the only real discrimination is what this Board is practicing against 399,127 registered voters who have a fundamental right to decide this issue. If the District can't be trusted to enforce the U.S. Constitution--housed within its own city limits--then Congress should be suspicious of the authority D.C. already has- not consider offering it more.

Do you suppose that if the D.C. Board of Elections had put the initiative on the ballot, these groups would suddenly support efforts to implement congressional representation for the District?  Not likely.

Furthermore, aren't they basically saying that because D.C. voters won't be allowed to vote on this issue, then they shouldn't be allowed to have votes in Congress? If they are so concerned about giving D.C. voters the power to decide issues for themselves, then why are they saying that those same voters shouldn't have a right to representation in Congress, considering that the current lack of representation means that D.C. voters are essentially being treated like "serfs"?    

• Rep. Michele Bachmann, Janet Porter, and WorldNetDaily together again at last.
• Speaking of Bachmann, CREW has requested an investigation of her recent anti-healthcare rally.
• Rep. Louie Gohmert says Democrats want America to be attacked by terrorists because the rebuilding would create jobs. Seriously.
• Think Progress: ‘Tenther’ Oklahoma Lawmaker Considering Bill To Opt Out Of Hate Crimes Act.
• Dan Gilgoff: Sarah Palin's 'Going Rogue' as Christian Literature.
• Sen. David Vitter says he doesn't know anything about the Loving v. Virginia case and so can't say if it was decided correctly.
• TFN: The Religious Right Targets Houston Election and Internment Camps — Bring ‘Em On?
• Finally, a good piece by David Weigel: Conservatives Say Obama Efforts on Nominees Fall Short.

Tomorrow, there will be a hearing on Chai Feldblum's nomination to serve as Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, as such, the Religious Right is gearing up for “Armageddon.”

The American Principles in Action, an arm of the American Principles Project, founded by National Organization for Marriage Chairman Robert P. George, has issued a call to action:

Feldblum intends to use her position of influence as EEOC commissioner to force private institutions to follow her radical vision of society, through the enforcement of aggressive and intrusive employment non-discrimination laws.

She is a master at using the language of moral imperatives to further her agenda.

Feldblum is a lesbian activist who supports government recognition of gay marriage as a way to convey approval of gay relationships and homosexuality in general. She has also argued for the equality of "polyamorous" relationships and almost any conceivable sexual relationship to traditional marriage--a position squarely out of line with American tradition, principles, and the mainstream of public opinion.

Far from believing that government should not be involved in private relationships, she is a champion of government interference in moral and religious traditions where they intersect with her personal crusade ... In other words, Feldblum believes that every organization must ascribe to her vision of society or else face penalties from the EEOC.

Worse than this, the potential damage from Feldblum's nomination is not limited to her use of the EEOC as a weapon against traditional marriage and private institutions. It is even possible to imagine Chai Feldblum as a future nominee for the United States Supreme Court, should she be successfully appointed as EEOC commissioner.

That means it is urgent to defeat her Senate confirmation now, while Americans still have a say. Send a message to your Senator (and the Committee hearing her nomination) today and let them know that Feldblum should not be confirmed.

The idea that Feldblum must be stopped now in order to keep her off the Supreme Court seems to be an emerging right-wing talking point, as it was also made by the Traditional Values Coalition:

Feldblum would impose the LGBT agenda on all of our nation’s public and private schools – and our children would be forced to affirm gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals as both teachers and as students.

Feldblum also rejects the concept of traditional marriage in favor of polyamory – where three or more men and women engaged in sex acts is considered a “marriage.” Traditional marriage will become meaningless if Feldblum achieves her goals.

Feldblum’s position on the EEOC is a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she could end up with a lifetime appointment to push the LGBT agenda on all Americans.

The Family Research Council has also gotten involved, releasing a heavily edited video of Feldblum speaking at an FRC event, full of ominous quotes seeking to portray her as radical ... but apparently not so radical that FRC refused to invite her to participate in the event or for Tony Perkins to deliver a gracious introduction.

According to FRC, this is all part of a nefarious plan by gays to destroy religious liberty:

Their plan is clear and logical. Play the victim and pass hate crimes giving sanctioned and special protected status to those who engage in homosexual behavior ... [T]hey will continue the victim routine and take this special status into the private workforce and use the weight of the EEOC to force acceptance of not only homosexuality, but cross dressing and other forms of sexual deviancy through the passage of the so-called employment non-discrimination act. What is interesting is there is no evidence that suggests what is called the GLBTQ community is economically disadvantaged, in fact, they enjoy a higher standard of living than heterosexuals. Once private businesses are forced to hire cross dressers and homosexuals the next target is the military. If private employers can’t discriminate then neither should our nation’s military. And once our nation’s military falls – the defense of marriage Act will be utterly defenseless, leaving rouge judges and liberal legislators to impose their radical views on the entire nation.

Don’t doubt for a minute that they have a plan and they are working their plan.

Last month, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League appeared on The 700 Club to promote his new book, "Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America."

During the interview, the question of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church came up when Robertson asked if "all these scandals in the Catholic Church [were] part of this secular agenda to undermine to undermine the moral fabric of the church."  Donohue replied that indeed they were [the section begins around the 3:45 mark]:

There's no question that within the Catholic Church you have a you a left element ... I regard them as termites sitting within, trying to eat away the fabric of the Catholic Church.  So they lie about it in the Catholic Church, they say "oh, we had a pedophilia problem." It's been a homosexual problem all along. It's not my opinion, it's the actual data from the John Jay Criminal Justice System College [sic] here in New York City which looked at the data. I'm not saying homosexuality causes predatory behavior; I'm saying that most of the priests who have been predators have been homosexuals.

What do you supposed Donohue has to say about this?

A preliminary report commissioned by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops to investigate the clergy sex abuse scandal has found no evidence that gay priests are more likely than heterosexual clergy to molest children, the lead authors of the study said Tuesday.

The full report by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice won't be completed until the end of next year. But the authors said their evidence to date found no data indicating that homosexuality was a predictor of abuse.

"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse," said Margaret Smith of John Jay College, in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now."

...

The bishops commissioned the $2 million study as part of widespread reforms they enacted at the height of the abuse crisis. The scandal erupted in 2002 with the case of one predator priest in the Archdiocese of Boston, then spread to every U.S. diocese and beyond.

Almost 14,000 molestation claims have been filed against Catholic clergy since 1950, according to tallies the bishops have released in recent years. Abuse-related costs have reached at least $2.3 billion in the same period.

At the meeting Tuesday, Bishop Edward Braxton of the Diocese of Belleville, Ill., asked the researchers whether their study indicated that homosexuality should be considered when evaluating a candidate for the priesthood. In 2005, the Vatican issued a policy statement that men with "deep-seated" attraction to other men should be barred from the priesthood.

Smith said: "If that exclusion were based on the fact that that person would be more probable than any other candidate to abuse, we do not find that at this time."

It came as no surprise when Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday considering that Sen. Jeff Sessions announced weeks ago that he intended to do so, depsite having opposed the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees when President Bush was in office. Sessions' effort was supported by a gaggle of right-wing activists who likewise opposed the filibuster when it was used against Bush's nominees, but suddenly abandoned their supposedly deeply-help and principled opposition to this sort of "unconstitutional" use of the filibuster. 

But most surprisingly about the vote, which failed 70-29, was that two Republican members of the so-called "Gang of 14" which worked out an agreement to prevent Senate Republicans from deploying the "nuclear option" back in 2005 joined Sessions and other Republicans in trying to filibuster Hamilton: John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

The Gang of 14 agreement stated:

Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

And when it was announced, Graham hailed it as a significant step in ending the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees:

"The American people won tonight. The Senate is back in business. And I truly believe future judicial nominees will be treated better because of this agreement."

"The agreement allows up or down votes on deserving nominees and gives the Senate a chance to start over regarding future nominees. It's my hope both sides have learned from their mistakes and we can get back to the traditional way of doing business when it comes to judges.

"One of the major elements of the deal makes clear that if one of my seven Democratic colleagues decides to filibuster in the future because of an "extraordinary circumstance," I retain the right to vote for a rules change. It's my hope we never get to that point.

"With better communication and a spirit of putting the country ahead of ourselves, I believe we can avoid future filibusters.

McCain likewise praised the agreement:

I feel the long-term implications are that if this succeeds, then perhaps we will see other coalitions, not necessarily this one but other coalitions, that will join together and try to work for the good of the country. I don't believe that of the 14 of us that any of us had any other ambition than to try to prevent the Senate from going over a precipice.

Apparently McCain and Graham joined the Gang of 14 in order to prevent Senate Republicans from nuking the filibuster while ensuring the confirmation of several of President Bush's most controversial nominees ... just so they could try to use the filibuster against President Obama's very first Circuit Court nominee.

What exactly were the "extraordinary circumstances" in the Hamilton nomination that compelled Graham and McCain to attempt a filibuster after participating in and praising the Gang of 14 agreement as a way for the Senate to "avoid future filibusters"?

For weeks, the most anti-gay fringe of the Religious Right has been building up Monday's "rally” in front of the U.S. Department of Justice as an in-your-face challenge to the hate crimes law and the Obama administration.  Organizers like Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission promised some fire and brimstone in order to see whether the DOJ would have the cojones to arrest them: 

We'll have some video posted soon.

• Marco Rubio will be a keynote speaker at the next CPAC.
• Tim LaHaye has now teamed up with Craig Parshall for a new series of apocalyptic novels.
• Tom Tancredo says he is going to run for Governor in Colorado.
• Gordon Klingenschmitt wants you to pay $17 to urge Senators to filibuster David Hamilton.
• The perfect storm: Carrie Prejean interviewed by the co-author of Sarah Palin's new book.
• Patrick Mahoney: Why is the FBI harassing me instead of Nidal Malik Hasan?
• Next Monday, anti-Islam activists plan to rally for Rifqa.
• Finally, FRC says Washington DC can't afford to not let religious groups discriminate because the city "will quickly find [that] without faith there is little good works."

I guess it should come as no surprise that Erick Erickson of Red State is leading the crusade urging Senate Republicans to filibuster David Hamilton's nomination:

Senator Jeff Sessions is calling on his colleagues to filibuster Judge David Hamilton. Go here and call your Senator. Tell your Senator to oppose cloture on David Hamilton and filibuster his nomination to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

At this point, seemingly everyone on the Right who, just a few years ago, was railing against the "unconstitutional" filibuster of judicial nominees has suddenly changed their tune now that President Obama is in office.

But it is especially interesting to note that Erickson is on board, considering that back in 2005 or so, Erickson's Red State spun off a website dedicated entirely to defending President Bush's judicial nominees.

Its name? Confirm Them.

Not surprisingly, the site is now dead ... just like their principled opposition to the use of the filibuster.

Sen. Jim DeMint appeared on Janet Porter's radio program yesterday where, in response to a caller's request for a comment from him on the issue of marriage equality in Wisconsin, he stated that the government has no power to change the definition of marriage because it is strictly a religious institution:

Anytime the people get a chance to vote on it, even if it is in California or Maine, they want to maintain traditional marriage because people realize how foundational it is to our country, our freedoms, our prosperity and the government has no business redefining marriage.  It's a religious institution.  I think we need to make a constitutional case of it. The federal government and our courts have no business redefining marriage and even at the state level, the courts have no business  telling us what marriage means. So we need to fight this, because this is not about equal rights. This is about the government legitimizing and promoting behavior that culturally we have always considered wrong.  And this is not something that we should give up on.

If marriage is strictly a "religious institution," then what business do governments have in creating policies designed to encourage marriage or in passing constitutional amendments denying marriage equality or in refusing to recognize those marriages conducted by religious groups that do recognize marriage equality?

In fact, what business does the government have at all in protecting "traditional marriage" if that concept is purely a "religious institution"?  Should the government get involved in protecting "traditional baptism" or "traditional communion" as well? 

And where exactly does DeMint plan on fighting this by making a "constitutional case of it"?  In the courts?  Via a constitutional amendment? Wouldn't that require involving the "government," which DeMint says has no business interfering with this religious institution in the first place?

The Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina grabbed headlines in mid-October when it announced a "Halloween Book Burning." It was going to be anything but your typical book burning, assuming there is such a thing.

To be sure, they planned to burn heavy metal music and smutty movies. But they also had country, gospel, and Christian contemporary music and videos about Jesus in their crosshairs. Most shockingly, they said that they would burn all non-King James versions of the Bible -- aka "Satan's bibles."

They also announced a long list of "Satan's popular books written by heretics" which would be burned. And to top it all off, they offered "fried chicken, and all the sides."

But when the big day came around, a combination of rain, protesters, and a state law against burning paper all conspired against them. Here's what happened:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment ... and FRC is angry.
• Sen. Lindsey Graham has been censured by the Charleston County Republican Party for being insufficiently conservative.
• In related South Carolina news, a federal district court ruled Tuesday that the "I Believe" license plate approved by the South Carolina Legislature violates the constitutional separation of church and state and cannot be issued.
• The annual Federalist Society conference is underway.
• The George W. Bush Oral History Project?
• Did you know that President Obama despises America? Well, he does.
• Amazingly, there are people running for office who still seek Alan Keyes' endorsement.

It looks like the fringe right-wing press conference to challenge hate crimes legislation keeps picking up more support, as Rick Scarborough went on Janet Porter's radio program yesterday to discuss it and Porter pledged to join them in standing outside of the Department of Justice as they seek to get arrested for preaching the Bible. 

According to the program, Porter, Scarborough and the others will also be joined by Matt Barber and Gordon Klingenschmitt (as well as Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance.)

In the audio clip below, Scarborough explains that he was the one who initiated this plan to challenge the recent expansion of hate crimes laws to cover sexual orientation was , saying they seek to "force the hand of the Department of Justice" by defying this law, which is "designed to silence preachers from preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality." As such they are going to challenge the DOJ to arrest them, though Scarborough admits that he doesn't expect to be arrested on Monday ... instead, he expects to be arrested "in the dead of night," hauled away when nobody is around to see.

Scarborough explains that the effort is urgent because they need to challenge this law in the courts and get the case before the Supreme Court which, Scarborough says, has a majority that will side with them ... but they can't do that unless they get arrested first:

Last month, a coalition of clergy formed to support marriage equality in Washington, DC.  Calling itself Clergy United for Marriage Equality, the coalition issued the following declaration:

We are District of Columbia clergy and religious leaders of many faiths, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations. We represent religious institutions in every ward in the District. We have worked together over many years for peace and justice and now join our voices again to speak a faithful word for freedom and equality.

We declare that our faith calls us to affirm marriage equality for loving same-sex couples.

The declaration was signed by approximately 200 representing nearly every faith, but Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, who is not a minister, isn't fooled and declares that every person who signed this declaration is not a real Christian:

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, hopes the faith community is not fooled by the coalition known as D.C. Clergy United For Marriage Equality.

"Well, this is just a cheap political stunt," he responds. "These are a group of leftist secularists essentially dressed up in the garb of clergy....[W]hat do you do call clergy who abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith and adopt instead the lies of the world? I call them counterfeit clergy."

Barber adds that "they want to have their religion cake and eat it too." He explains.

"They are going to push a leftist political agenda that runs completely counter to biblical principles," he asserts. "The ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of same-sex marriage flies in the face of every major world religion."

• Pat Buchanan longs for the days when "Eisenhower's America [which] was a nation of 160 million with a Euro-Christian core and a culture all its own."
• I am fascinated by how Carrie Prejean has managed to turn her egomania and victimization into a career.
• Gary Bauer says nothing can stop President Obama from "making fundamental, unchangeable alterations in American society."
• Newt Gingrich is no longer conservative about his religion.
• Finally, Bill Donohue blasts President Obama for supposedly betraying Catholic Bishops. Apparently, Donohue thinks that even non-Catholics are obligated to do the Church's bidding.

John Stemberger, who represented Rifqa Bary in her Florida dependency case, has been given space in the Orlando Sentinel to complain that the paper never took any of his wild allegations seriously, saying the paper's coverage was "consistently biased and disingenuous" and accusing the paper of having a "religious-like commitment to protect Islam from any and all examination or criticism." 

Of course, one reason for the Sentinel's failure to take Stemberger's allegations seriously might have something to do with the fact there was essentialy no evidence to support any thing he said.  But Stemberger doesn't see it that way:

[T]he Sentinel never quoted directly from the Koran or other Muslim holy books, stating what Islam clearly teaches about punishment of apostate believers, or that the United Nations reports 5,000 Islamic honor killings each year. The Sentinel also ignored the Facebook page with Rifqa's photo that included 120 members from Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia and Columbus and listed its purpose as: "We need to kill her."

There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. who are peaceful and law-abiding citizens who should be fully embraced as fellow Americans. However, there is a growing minority of Muslims in our country who are radical and dangerous. We need to protect the former and expose the later. The Sentinel, in caving to political correctness, has refused to make this critical distinction.

"Political correctness"?  That sure does seem to be the word of the day when it comes to right-wingers complaining about Islam.

You know what else the Sentinel never reported?  This:

An attorney suing Dollar Rent-A-Car has apologized for filing a lawsuit that characterized the Irish as hopelessly tethered to pubs and pints and unfit to drive the highways of America.

John Stemberger admitted he made a mistake and promised Wednesday to rewrite the negligence lawsuit he filed in March.

The suit was filed on behalf of the family of Carmel Elizabeth Cunningham, an Irish woman who was killed last year when her boyfriend, Sean McGrath, crashed their rental car. He is also Irish.

Prosecutors say McGrath, 33, was drunk at the time of the crash and have charged him with manslaughter. A warrant has been issued for his arrest.

In the suit, Stemberger claimed Dollar "knew or should have known about the unique cultural and ethnic customs existing in Ireland which involve the regular consumption of alcohol at `Pubs' as a major component to Irish social life.''

He went on to charge that Dollar "knew or should have known that Sean McGrath would have a high propensity to drink alcohol.''

All I can conclude from this is that the Sentinel's commitment to protect Stemberger "from any and all examination or criticism has compromised its ability to objectively understand and report the news in this case."