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."

Via Think Progress we see that Media Matters has caught Pat Robertson blaming the Fort Hood shooting on "political correctness" and declaring that Islam is “not a religion,” but “a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination”:

ROBERTSON: That is the ultimate aim. And they talk about infidels and all this, but the truth is that’s what the game is. So you are dealing with not a religion. You’re dealing with a political system. And I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherences as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group. Well, it’s a tragedy. Our hearts go out to the families who suffered. But those in the Army should be held on account for the fact they let this man loose.

While scrolling through my RSS feeds this morning, I noticed a trend developing in that just about every right-wing column on the tragic killings at Fort Hood seemed to lay the ultimate blame on "political correctness."

Martha Zoeller - Human Events:

Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military analyst, said, “It's not a question of security per se, but of political correctness gone haywire. Had Major Hasan been a white Christian or Jew, his butt would've been out on the street years ago. But Muslims are a protected species in our military.” Peters went on to say, “Radical Muslim chaplains? Still on duty. Muslim psychiatrist (of all things) praises suicide bombers on the web and tries to convert his patients to Islam? Hush-hush. And so we have 51 patriots (not merely 44, as previously reported) gunned down, with 13 dead. And our president and his generals won't even use the word "terror," let alone the phrase "Islamist terror." Political correctness killed those Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as did the Muslim fanatic who pulled the trigger.”

Rowan Scarborough - Human Events:

The FBI failed to intercede against Fort Hood terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a result of its politically correct strategy of reaching out to suspect Islamic groups and clerics instead of combating head-on the Muslim radicalization movement in the United States.

Cal Thomas - World Magazine:

If you were an enemy of America, not only would you fight overseas and develop nuclear weapons (Iran), you would also engage in an even more effective strategy by striking at America’s underbelly. This is our most vulnerable region because we now tolerate virtually everything, indulge in political correctness, and subscribe to a bogus belief that if radical Islamists can see we mean them no harm, they will mean us no harm.

National Review Symposium:

Is the Fort Hood massacre a deadly example of political correctness run amok? National Review Online asked a few of our experts for their observations on how the shooting happened and what we can do to prevent similar incidents in the future.

National Review Editorial:

We see the operation of the same political correctness that cocooned Major Hasan in his Army career. Fellow soldiers noticed his strident and unbalanced behavior, but did not report him, lest they discriminate against him (or — their more likely fear — be rebuked for discrimination). He was invited to attend a conference of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University in 2008. (Major Hasan, as it turned out, had a lot to say — not that he would have said it all, or that his plump-minded peers would have listened, even if he had.) We should not be surprised that journalists and pundits are no smarter than our defense and security bureaucracies.

David Limbaugh - WorldNetDaily:

Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can't criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities' first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter – Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – rather than to protect our soldiers.

The military is the last place we should expect political correctness to flourish. We recognize, after all, that our armed forces exist primarily to safeguard our national security, not as a laboratory for social experimentation. Or do we?

Dennis Prager - WorldNetDaily:

Another classmate told the AP that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He also wrote to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an "intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology" in the ranks.

David Kupelian - WorldNetDaily:

"Political correctness" – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled "Thought Police") conceded this truth when it reported: "PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy."

...

This inordinate fear, implanted in us by the lords of politically correct attitude, the subtle brainwashers of modern, secular society, is to blame. ... The evil of "political correctness" – the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitist sociopaths who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for – has to end. Now. It's over. This nation must rise up and defy the insane thought control that is destroying our country right before our eyes.

Chuck Norris - Town Hall:

And the questions that keep coming to my mind are: Have we become so tolerant and politically correct that we can't see or confront a rotten apple when it's right in front of our eyes? When our fear of discrimination enables our enemies, can't we see something is grimly amiss? ... Why would the commander in chief even take up his precious media time immediately after this brutal rampage to encourage tolerance and political correctness concerning this psychotic killer? As a veteran of the Air Force and honorary Marine, I am appalled.

• Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews NOM's Brian Brown and Frank Schubert says he hopes he's remembered for more than being the PR mastermind behind the Right's anti-gay initiatives.
• The American Family Association is now boycotting the Gap.
• The Club for Growth has endorsed Marco Rubio.
• The CADC pleads for donations so they can pay for their anti-hate crimes protest.
• Sen. John Ensign has moved out of the house on C Street.
• The Family Research Council is launching a campaign called "Adult Stem Cells Saved My Life."
• Islam is God's reality check for America?
• Finally, Don Feder writes that it is time for the GOP to "purge the party."

It looks like the annual "War on Christmas" has officially started:

Liberty Counsel has launched its seventh annual "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," pledging to be a "Friend" to those who recognize Christmas and a "Foe" to those who censor it ... On its web site, www.LC.org, Liberty Counsel offers a Help Save Christmas(tm) action pack, which includes educational legal memoranda to educate government officials, teachers, parents, students, private businesses, employees, and others that it is legal to celebrate Christmas. The action pack also includes an "I ♥ CHRISTmas(tm)" button, an "I Helped Save Christmas" bumper sticker and button, and sample ads for use in local newspapers. The ads point out that celebrating Christmas is perfectly legal in schools, on public property and in private businesses and offer Liberty Counsel's free assistance to those facing criticism for celebrating Christmas. Many churches have placed these ads in local newspapers. Thousands of public school teachers and administrators, who are members of Christian Educators Association International, have joined Liberty Counsel's Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign.

For a mere $25, Liberty Counsel will sell you its "Help Save Christmas Action Pack," which includes:

* "I Helped Save Christmas" button
* "I Helped Save Christmas" bumper sticker
* "I Love CHRISTmas"® button
* "I Love CHRISTmas"® bumper sticker
* Full-Page Christmas Ad to print in your local newspaper
* "The Memo that Saved Christmas" - two legal memoranda about Christmas in public and in the workplace.

Let's see:  two buttons, two bumper stickers, two memos, and an ad ... for $25.

What a deal!

So this seems like a good time to dust off this post from a few years ago noting just how lucrative this annual event had become for right-wing groups:

Basic math says the Liberty Counsel has pulled in an estimated $300,000+, the Alliance Defense Fund an estimated $500,000+, and the American Family Association an estimated $600,000+ from selling their “War on Christmas” wares.

As we noted last week, various Religious Right groups will be holding an event next Monday designed to challenge the expansion of hate crimes laws to include protections for sexual orientation.   At the moment, it is unknown just how they intend to go about challenging this, though openly calling for violence against gays seems to be pretty much their only option.

Now organizers have unveiled a website:

The intention of the rally the group is to assert the freedom of speech of ministers and Christians in general to declare biblical truth in the public square. The Rally will also expose the unconstitutional nature of the hate law.

Ministers from various denominations will preach from the Bible, especially those parts that speak to the sin of homosexuality. This will serve to reassure ministers and Christians that they are free to do the same.

According to the website, participants are set to include the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Liberty Counsel, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, S.T.A.N.D., Vision America, and Jim Garlow.

The militantly anti-gay views of CADC and Vision America are already relatively well-known to readers of this blog, as is Mat Staver and his Liberty Counsel.  But S.T.A.N.D is a relatively new organization and Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ is a recent resurrection of the defunct Center for Reclaiming America for Christ effort founded by the late D. James Kennedy, while Garlow was a leader in the right-wing campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California.

Gossip Boy has a good run down of all the participating organizations and individuals, and we are going to keep tracking these developments to try and get a sense of just what they intend to do in order to "challenge" this legislation and what, if any, "specific legal challenges" they intend to bring.

To say that the Religious Right is overjoyed by the passage of the Stupak Amendment, which makes it "virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women," would be a massive understatement.

The Right hasn't had much to cheer about lately, but a quick look at the statements released shows that while they are still militantly opposed to healthcare reform, anti-choice activists are downright giddy with this victory, with the Christian Defense Coalition proclaiming that it "pounds a nail in the eventual coffin of 'Roe v. Wade'":

"This historic vote in the United States House of Representatives signals the beginning of the end for 'Roe v. Wade.' President Obama made taxpayer funded abortions a key part of his presidential campaign and it was strongly supported by Speaker Pelosi and House leadership.

"Pro-choice groups spent millions of dollars to have taxpayer funded abortions included in healthcare legislation to no avail.

"It is important to note that taxpayer funded abortions were excluded from the healthcare bill because of the votes of Democrats in the House, not conservative Republicans. This vote shows what recent national polls have demonstrated, and that is -- America is turning away from abortion and embracing human rights and a culture of life.

Randall Terry:

Mr. Terry states: "This is a great first step to victory - a touchdown in the first quarter - but we have a lot of fighting ahead of us. Our rejoicing must be tempered by reality. The Senate Bill must also prohibit any money from going to child-killing; and then we must insure that the conference committee does not include child-killing in the final bill, should it pass both houses. We have many hurdles left.

"Those of us who despise Socialism must now broaden our battle to kill the bill entirely. Our biggest battle is to stop the slaughter of children. The next battle is to keep our children from being saddled with trillions of dollars of debt.

"Many of us would rather die half-starved free men than be well fed slaves on Uncle Sam's plantation."

Susan B. Anthony List:

“Tonight the House of Representatives made a principled and politically sound decision to continue our nation’s longstanding policy of protecting taxpayers’ conscience in the area of abortion funding. We urge the Senate to follow suit. We will remain vigilant, and shift our efforts to the Senate to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill.

“On behalf of the 280,000 members and activists of the Susan B. Anthony List who contacted Congress on this issue, I applaud all those who voted to honor the American legacy of protecting citizens’ conscience from conscription into activity to which most are morally opposed. Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion. Supporters of government-funded abortion will now have some explaining to do back home, before voters head to the ballot box in 2010.

“If there’s one thing many members of Congress learned from Tuesday’s elections, it’s the danger of being out of step with your constituents. Votes do have consequences, and the recent tensions over health care reform should drive that message home. We will use every tool in our arsenal to ensure the folks back home know the truth about their legislator’s record."

Family Research Council:

"This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families. We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion. I congratulate the bipartisan coalition that for months has worked to ensure that abortion is not covered in the bill.

"Since prior to last year's election Family Research Council has been working towards true health care reform that protects life, freedom and families. We supported efforts to ensure the legislation will not be paid for by the lives of future generations. We thank Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) for standing with more than 70% of Americans who morally object to funding abortion with their hard earned dollars.

Operation Rescue:

"Today, the voices of 71% of the American people who oppose taxpayer funded abortions were heard loud and clear. We thank each one who took the time to raise their voices in opposition to the Obama-Pelosi-Carhart effort to force taxpayers to fund the shedding of innocent blood through abortion.

"There is still a long way to go to prevent government subsidized health care from paying for abortions. Now the ball is in the Senate's court, and we pray that the common sense displayed in the House on the matter of abortion funding will also prevail in the Senate.

"We will continue to stand on behalf of the voiceless and oppose any efforts to restore abortion funding in any future version of health care legislation. But for tonight, we celebrate this day's pro-life victory defunding abortion, which will save lives and prevent the immoral and fiscally irresponsible bailout of the abortion cartel."

Concerned Women for America:

"Democrats and Republicans came together to ensure federal funds would not pay for elective abortions. They corrected a terrible provision in the bill that would force Americans to subsidize abortion, an act that kills unborn children and harms women. Pro-life congressmen - Democrat and Republican - worked tirelessly to strip an incentive from the bill that would increase abortions by paying for them with government money," stated Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.

National Right to Life Committee:

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said: "The Obama White House and top congressional Democratic leaders spent months concealing and misrepresenting provisions that would directly fund abortions through a government plan, and subsidize premiums for private abortion plans. Today's bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation. But we know that the White House and pro-abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion, and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."

Americans United for Life:

Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, "The passage of this amendment is a victory for the pro-life Americans across this country who have flooded Congress this week with the message that abortion does not belong in health care. The bipartisan effort that led to its passage, under the leadership of Congressmen Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts, is a step toward a future where both political parties defend Life."

American Center for Law and Justice:

The passage of this pro-life Amendment represents the only bright spot in an otherwise troubling government-run health care package put forth by House Speaker Pelosi. The American people understand that health care should not include federal funding for abortion and we’re grateful to Democrat Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-Mich) and Joseph Pitts (R-Penn) for their unrelenting efforts in protecting the unborn.

The 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats who stood together in a bipartisan defense of life deserve our sincere gratitude. For many of these Members, this vote was cast in the face of serious pressure to oppose the amendment. While there is work yet to do on this issue, this vote represents an extremely significant victory for life.

• Did the alleged Fort Hood shooter advise the Obama transition? Ummm, no ... but that hasn't stopped WorldNetDaily from trying to cash in on it.
• Adele Stan: Thousands of Right-Wingers Rally at Capitol to Hear Lies About Health-Care Reform, Courtesy of Bachmann and GOP Leaders.
• Speaking of which, at least some in the crowd ought to now be very thankful for government-run healthcare.
• And apparently the event was such a smashing success that they are organizing yet another one  ... for tomorrow.
• Not surprisingly, Joel Osteen shares the Religious Right's views about gays.
• Finally, Jon Stewart sure does care deeply about Glenn Beck's appendix  ... and America:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Once again Religious Right leaders are linking up with Lou Engle and The Call for prayer and fasting, this time in an effort to stop healthcare reform. 

Tony Perkins, Mat Staver and others are scheduled to participate in another Engle-led prayer vigil/conference call tonight seeking God's intervention in order to stop this "unreighteous legislation":

This crisis demands divine intervention. We must pray and fast. Esther’s fast gave a king a sleepless night and the Persian death decree was changed in three days. People across America fasted in some measure for twenty-one (21) days for the vote in Maine. Was God involved in the victory in Maine? With all our hearts we believe the answer is yes. Some reporters in Maine were saying in the last moments that same-sex marriage was upheld, but a “sudden change” took place. If we pray, God could give wavering pro-life Democrats and Republicans a sleepless night or a dream and turn their hearts for LIFE.

The Bible shouts to us across the ages “we have not because we ask not”. Therefore, on November 6th, we are calling a Friday “Night of Petition” prior to the potential vote on Saturday November 7th. Join Mat Staver, Ron Luce, Tony Perkins, Lou Engle, and other key leaders at 8:00pm EST with thousands of concerned believing citizens for a national prayer conference call to cry out to God for mercy and ask for the restraining of this unrighteous legislation.

Conference Call Dial in number:

218-486-1400

Participant Pass code:
67107#

Earlier this week we noted that Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission was planning a rally to challenge the recently enacted hate crimes law expanding protections for sexual orientation.

It looks like Rick Scarborough of Vision America will be joining him and has decided to announce his participation via an incoherent press release linking the issue the shooting at Fort Hood:

Referring to the man being held in connection with the deaths of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas yesterday, Scarborough observed: "We know that Dr. Hasan is a devout Muslim who once told a fellow officer that 'Muslims have a right to stand up against the U.S. military.' Clearly, yesterday's rampage was not motivated by love. Given Hasan's worldview, it's probable that he was motivated in part by an animus toward Christians and Jews. Assuming that murder charges are brought against him, will Hasan also be charged with a hate crime?"

Scarborough said this highlights the absurdity of hate crimes laws. "If convicted, Hasan could face life in prison or the death penalty. Fanatics are not deterred by the prospect of an additional penalty for hating."

Scarborough predicted that the expansion of the federal Hate-Crimes statute, signed into law by President Obama recently, will not prevent crimes like the Fort Hood shootings, but will instead be used to silence dissent.

"Gay activists will use it against preachers who present the Biblical view of homosexuality. Muslim groups will use it against those who speak the verifiable truth about Islam. The federal Hate Crimes Law doesn't target crime, but free speech," Scarborough charged.

Scarborough said Hasan's case also illustrates an entrenched double standard, noting that the Army psychiatrist had received poor fitness reports for proselytizing his patients for Islam. "If a Christian doctor witnessed for Jesus to his patients, I can guarantee he would have been discharged from the United States Army in a New York minute," Scarborough stated.

Rev. Scarborough will lead a demonstration of pastors and other clergy in Washington, D.C., on November 16, where they will preach the Gospel and hold a press conference enumerating their objections to the recently passed Federal Hate Crimes Law. Will the U.S. Attorney General prosecute them for violating the expanded Hate Crimes law?

A few weeks ago, we noted that Liberty Counsel was trying to force its way into the lawsuit over Proposition 8 in California, while the Yes on 8 lawyers have been trying to keep them out.

While Yes on 8 welcomed Liberty Counsel and other radically anti-gay groups during the election, they have been trying to keep them at bay ever since so that they can portray their post-election efforts as mainstream and reasonable. 

But Liberty Counsel, representing the Campaign for California Families, isn't giving up and is essentially forcing the Yes on 8 lawyers to admit that their efforts are driven by anti-gay animus in order to prevent Liberty Counsel from having any grounds to intervene. 

Basically, Liberty Counsel is arguing that the Yes on 8 defense is not sufficiently anti-gay and therefore they should be allowed to intervene in the case so that the militantly anti-gay message is adequately represented, forcing Yes on 8 to argue that their efforts are already plenty anti-gay as it is and Liberty Counsel's involvement is not needed:

Try as they might, lawyers from one anti-gay rights organization just can't get any love from judges in California.

After being barred from intervening in the federal challenge to Proposition 8, the Campaign for California Families tried their luck Wednesday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But a conservative panel sitting at Stanford Law School didn't appear any more likely to let them into the case.

Matthew Staver, whose advocacy group Liberty Counsel represents the campaign, repeated arguments previously made to Northern District of California Chief Judge Vaughn Walker: that the official Prop 8 forces weren't adequately litigating the case and had stipulated away far too many facts.

Ninth Circuit Judge Pamela Rymer had a hard time understanding how Staver's goals conflict with those already advanced by the Yes on 8 campaign, which Walker allowed to be the primary defendant in the case.

"How is your, your interest -- your particular interest -- affected?" she asked Staver.

If Prop 8 is upheld on some narrow ground, the stipulated facts still make it harder to prevent homosexuals from becoming a suspect class, Staver said. The Yes on 8 forces won't fight the idea that homosexuality is immutable, he said.

Judge M. Margaret McKeown pounced on this point, and began to read from one of the Yes on 8 filings. "'We will dispute plaintiffs' claim that homosexuality is immutable,'" McKeown intoned, whereupon Rymer started shaking her head.

...

Staver's appeal put the official Yes on 8 campaign in a bit of an awkward position, since it has tried to position itself as a defender of traditional marriage -- but not hateful or insensitive. But for purposes of defending against Staver's appeal, it had to show how many facts it was ready to contest, some of which are deeply offensive to same-sex marriage advocates.

Howard Nielson Jr. of Cooper & Kirk said his side hadn't actually agreed to stipulations, only that they were open to a discussion. They may still argue, for instance, that sexual orientation is amorphous.

"We are simply not giving away the store on that," Nielson said. 

• Our latest Right Wing Watch In Focus is now available: Right Wing Leaders Foment Racial Resentment and Point Fingers to Avoid Accountability.
• Everything you need to know about today's Tea Party rally on The Hill.
• Alan Colmes: Right Wing jumps the shark.
• Kathyrn Joyce on the rise of the "men's rights movement."
• Somebody should tell Bill Donohue that the Colbert Report is satire.
• Americans United: California Teacher Wants To Require Christmas Carols In School.
• Finally, I am guessing that this is going to be extremely awkward for everyone involved.

Back when President Bush was in office, one of the standard right-wing tactics for putting pressure on Democratic Senators to confirm his nominees was to accuse them of being anti-whatever the specific nominee happened to be.

When they opposed Bill Pryor, it was because they were anti-Catholic; when they opposed Miguel Estrada, it was because they were anti-Hispanic; when they opposed Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown, it was because they were anti-women; and when they opposed Leslie Southwick, it was because they were anti-southern white male.

Now President Obama is in office and making his own nominations ... but nothing has changed, as Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice is now accusing him discrimination because Obama has made a handful of nominations and not one has been a white southern male:

Yesterday, President Obama nominated Albert Diaz and James A. Wynn of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit of the second highest court in the land, the United States Court of Appeals ...Their nominations bring to six the number of U.S. Court of Appeals nominees President Obama has named to the southern circuits – the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh – and to the handful of southern seats outside those circuits (note that circuit nominees virtually always hail from the state to which the corresponding circuit seat is informally assigned). None of these six southerners is a white male. So once again we have to wonder whether a Democratic bias against southern white men serving on the federal appeals courts is at work. (In addition to Diaz and Wynn, the six include Andre M. Davis, Barbara Milano Keenan, Beverly Baldwin Martin, and Jane Branstetter Stranch).

Does President Obama or his advisors believe that southern white men are likely to be bigoted, making them unfit to serve on the second most powerful court in the land? We hope not and readily concede that it is difficult to know if any such stereotype lurks in the White House. The absence of southern white male circuit nominees could, instead, be an innocent coincidence or the not-so-innocent byproduct of a judicial selection process dominated by racial and gender preferences.

But regardless of the reason for the pattern we noted in 2007 and again now, even the appearance that Democrats are biased against southern white men is a potential problem for the party generally, and for President Obama’s goal of transcending old racial divisions. At the very least, the pattern merits further thought and discussion, both outside and inside the White House.

White male judges currently hold 20 of the occupied 37 seats on the three southern circuits that Levey cites, and hold 95 of 157 of all the circuit court seats.

TPM reports that a few thousand Tea Party activists have gathered on Capitol Hill today ... all thanks to the efforts of Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Absolutely amazing.

By the way, do you think it is just a coincidence that this is happening today?

Appearing on MSNBC, Bishop Harry Jackson insists that the Religious Right's fight against marriage equality is really part of a two-pronged effort to protect marriage as an institution, with the second prong being the fight against divorce. 

I don't know about you, but I don't recall having seen them dump millions of dollars into the latter.

Speaking of the vote in Maine, Jackson said "the church was the engine behind the [GOTV] machine, but the argument was sociological in that people really believe that the society would be tampered with, that this is an experiment that we can't afford to have at the expense of children at schools around the country":

Via Joe.My.God.

• Alan Colmes: Louisiana Justice Of The Peace Who Wouldn’t Marry Interracial Couple Resigns.
• Sarah Posner: How not talking culture war turned yesterday’s elections.
• Could Michael Steele be a bigger embarrassment?
• Sarah Palin sure does have an odd sense of what constitutes "variety."
• Wendy Norris: Extremists Turn Focus to Carhart.
• The New York Times Magazine profiles Dick Armey and his FreedomWorks activism.
• Finally, Americans United says that it will be looking into Liberty University's use of official resources for seemingly partisan political purposes.

It seemed like lately, whenever Gary Bauer issued a press release, he made sure to note that he "was one of the first conservatives to endorse Doug Hoffman in his bid to take the New York house seat" and that his Campaign for Working Families had "committed tens of thousands of dollars in contributions and independent expenditures ... to promote conservative candidates and mobilize conservative voters."

Bauer was obviously counting on a Hoffman win to boost his own profile, but that didn't happen ... and Bauer has an explanation:

Hoffman ran a simple campaign with a single message, 'I will not be a vote for Nancy Pelosi.' With the Republican establishment against him, with the media against him, with the Democratic establishment against him, Hoffman pulled in 46 percent of the vote on a confusing ballot on which he was not listed at the GOP's candidate. If Hoffman's performance is combined with the numbers of failed Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, who was listed as the GOP's candidate, he would have carried the day.

Hoffman would have won if a) he had been the Republican candidate because b) then the ballot wouldn't have been so confusing and thus c) the people who voted for the actual GOP candidate, Dede Scozzafava, would have voted for him.  

In Bauer's fantasy world, "the fact that a district which went so solidly for Obama came so close to electing an unknown third party candidate shows the power of [conservative] ideas."  

It should be pointed out that this congressional seat had been held by a Republican for the last 138 years.

It is now held by a Democrat.

And somehow that is a victory for conservatives.

Last week, when President Obama signed the legislation expanding hate crimes protections, various fringe activists vowed to challenge it by engaging in some pointless grandstanding.  And, by gum, that is exactly what they are going to do:

A rally is being planned in Washington to raise the alarm over the nation's new "hate crimes" law and to force Attorney General Eric Holder to confront the unconstitutionality of the measure's "thought" penalties, according to a Christian leader working on the event.

Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission told WND there are a series of approaches being considered to challenge the restrictions on expression of religion and speech contained in the law signed last week by President Obama.

At the rally, set for 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 16, ministers will preach from the Bible on the prohibition against homosexuality, then will present a letter to Holder demanding that the religious liberty of all Americans be respected.

Specific legal challenges to the restrictions of the "hate crimes" plan also may be announced then, Cass said.

The "Rally for Religious Freedom" in front of the Department of Justice in Washington is intended to force Holder either to address the issues or be put in a position of ignoring those who say they are violating the provisions of the federal law, Cass said.

"We're basically going to defy the law, and challenge it," Cass told WND. "We're going to declare the whole counsel of God, including those parts that some may consider 'inciting a hate crime' to see if the attorney general is going to come down and arrest a group of peaceful clergy exercising their First Amendment rights."

Of course, as we pointed out last time, the legislation contained explicit free speech and religious liberty protections, so they run no risk of prosecution and they know it.  Unless, that is, they intend to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."

So is that was Cass and company are planning to do?  "Defy" the hate crimes law by calling for acts of physical violence against gays? 

The results from yesterday's various elections are rather a mixed bag: Republican gubernatorial candidates won in New Jersey and Virginia, while right-wing darling Doug Hoffman lost in New York. The anti-discrimination ordinance passed in Kalamazoo and the domestic partnership law in Washington appears to be winning as well, while the right-wing effort to repeal marriage equality in Maine was victorious.

And to make that loss even more bitter, we are now going to be subject to a bevy of hateful press releases like this typically classless one from Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber:

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% - 47%:

“There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ‘same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage.

"A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1’ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner".

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow 'gay' duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation.

"This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law.

"Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed."

Even in victory, Barber is simply incapable of demonstrating even an iota of class or respect.

• FRC has sent a letter to Senators warning them that the organization will be scoring the vote on David Hamilton's nomination to the 7th Circuit.
• Bill Donohue says the "War on Christmas" has already begun: "The declared enemy of these cultural fascists is religious speech, and they will stop at nothing to censor it."
• Phyllis Schlafly says the nominations of Chai Feldblum and Cass Sunstein proves that President Obama supports polygamy.
• Ed Rollins, who ran Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign, owes more than $1.33 million in state and federal taxes.
• Finally, Al Mohler: "The resurgence of paganism in our times is not the recovery of ancient traditions simply reasserted in a new age, but a selective New Age embrace of pagan symbols, themes, and practices in order to add "spirituality" to ideological movements such as feminism and the radical ecologists. The gynecological and pantheistic focus of ancient paganism is exactly what Judaism and Christianity rejected in full -- and the embrace of these ancient heresies is further evidence of the widespread rejection of Christianity."

One of the questions regarding the whole Rifqa Bary saga that has been lingering is how exactly she ever ended up becoming involved with Lou Engle and appearing on the prayer call he organized a few weeks back.

As it turns out, Bary had been involved with Engle's efforts back in Ohio before she even ran away, though her connection to Brian Williams, who not only baptized her but also drove her to the bus station when she ran away. 

As Bary explained during her interview with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement [PDF], she had met Williams through her activism with Engle's "Bound for Life" in Ohio. Eventually, Williams moved to Kansas City to go to work for Engle's International House of Prayer.

Below is a shortened version of the exchange during the FDLE interview in which Bary explains her ties to Williams and to Engle's right wing activism ["DL" is Daivd Lee, an FDLE agent and "FB" is Rifqa Bary]: 

DL: Who baptized you?

FB: Brian Williams

DL: Was he your minister?

FB: Yeah, basically. Yeah, well he's a good friend, Ohio State friend and is basically going into ministry ...

DL: Ohio State friend, so he's a student at Ohio State?

FB: Um, graduated already.

DL: Okay.

FB: Lives in Kansas City now, but yeah he was the one that baptized me ...

FB: You know how I even met Brian? It was through, it was last winter, we met. I heard about I'm Pro Life, you know.

DL: Okay.

FB: And um there was something called, he did a chapter leader for Columbus for Bound for Life. Have you guys ever heard of it?

DL: Bound for Life? No, I haven't

FB: Bound for Life is basically through an organization by Lou Engle, who started The Call, if you guys know of Lou Engle.

DL: I've heard the name.

FB: Lou Engle, yes he's like my hero. He really is and basically we do is, there's red tape and you write "life" on it in black letters and we just stand outside with it and pray. It's not a protesting, it's a prayer movement if anything.

DL: Um-hum.

FB: And we just stand outside in a circle, outside these clinics, we don't say anything to anyone, you know we're not allowed to talk to them, we just pray outside there.

DL: Um-hum.

FB: And he was a chapter leader there so I met him there and actually I was sneaking out to go hear that I even met him. And every time I talked to him all we did talk about was like my parents. And he was really afraid for me as well ...

DL: And you said Brian was the only one who was willing to really baptize you?

FB: Yeah, 'cause I mean if my parents found out they would get in trouble and their would be at stake and all that sort of thing.

DL: You say he's in Kansas City now?

FB: Kansas City. International House of Prayer. IHOP.

A few months back I wrote a post about how when Bob McDonnell won a seat to the Virginia House of Delegates back back in 1991, Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition cited that victory as proof of the effectiveness of their "guerrilla warfare" election strategy.

So that explains why Reed has been so active in Virginia now that McDonnell is seeking to become Virginia's Governor ... and also why Pat Robertson and his family have dumped tens of thousands of dollars into his campaign:

Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell received a trio of last-minute donations totaling $40,000 from religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, his son and daughter-in-law.

Robertson contributed $25,000 on Oct. 20, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan tracker of money in politics. His son, Tim, donated $5,000 Friday for in-kind services (listed as catering) and his wife, Lisa, donated $10,000 to McDonnell today.

Yesterday we noted that Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition has been extremely active in mobilizing conservative voters ahead of Virginia's election and had even gotten Sarah Palin to record a robocall on its behalf.

Today, via the Brody File, we find out that Reed has also gotten Mike Huckabee to do the same:

We told you yesterday that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin recorded a phone message encouraging Virginians to get out and vote on Tuesday.

Now, we have learned that a conservative group affiliated with former Christian Coalition founder Ralph Reed asked both Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to make calls to nearly 700,000 voters in Virginia.

The Huckabee calls were made Saturday and the Palin calls were made Sunday and today.

You can hear the Huckabee calls here:

Hello, this is Mike Huckabee and I'm calling to urge you to go to the polls Tuesday and vote for the candidates who reflect your values. Virginia, and America, are at a crossroads. The future of our nation is at stake, and on the issue of taxes and spending, the sanctity of life, and marriage, there are very clear choices.  Be an informed and educated voter and be sure and vote your values this Tuesday.  Thank You. Paid for by the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition.

• Think Progress: Doug Hoffman Praises Glenn Beck As His ‘Mentor.’
• Speaking of Hoffman, it was just a month ago when the GOP was saying lots of not-so-nice things about him.
• Rep. Virginia Foxx declares that "we have more to fear from the potential of that [healthcare] bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."
• Sarah Posner: Religious Right Very Much Alive in Tomorrow's Elections.
• Nate Silver puts Yes on 1 in Maine at about a 5-to-2 underdog.
• Suzy Khimm: Is Bart Stupak Really Willing to Make an Abortion Compromise?
• Finally, take a look at TPM's slideshow of the items tried to auction on eBay to raise money for Scott Roeder.

Rifqa Bary has been sent back to Ohio, but that isn't stopping the Right's crusade to keep her away from her Muslim parents, which is why they are now claiming that authorities are trying to "cut her off from all Christian fellowship," by monitoring her phone and internet usage, as the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission alleges.

The Traditional Values Coalition takes it even further, claiming Bary has been put into "solitary confinement":

An Ohio judge agreed with Rifqa’s parents and her father’s Muslim attorney to put the girl into solitary confinement. She will have her phone calls monitored and her internet use monitored as well. Her parents have been working with attorneys with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with ties to Islamic extremist groups.

Bary’s father, Mohamed, has denied threatening to kill his daughter, but part of Islamic theology is lying to infidels. It is called “taqqiya.” This doctrine teaches Muslims to practice deception, fraud and double standards in defending Islam from infidels.

Bary’s parents are also in the U.S. illegally from Sri Lanka. In addition, Rifqa Bary’s parents attend the Noor Islamic Cultural Center, a hotbed of terrorist-related activities.

I fear that Bary’s parents will ship Rifqa off to a mental asylum in Sri Lanka where she will be browbeaten into denouncing Christianity. If this fails, she can be legally killed for apostacy. Or, her father may simply murder her in an Islam-sanctioned “honor killing.”

Rifqa Bary is facing a death penalty – thanks to courts in Florida and in Ohio.

Bary is scheduled for a hearing in a few weeks and, not surprisingly, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs and various other right-wing anti-Islam activists are organizing a rally on her behalf outside the courthouse, as Geller explained to Front Page Magazine:

Geller: I am organizing a “Rally for Rifqa” in co-operation with Robert Spencer, bestselling author and director of Jihadwatch, and Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Islamic Jihad. It will be held on November 16th, the day of Rifqa’s dependency hearing in support of the reinstatement of her rights and freedom of religion.

FP: This is, of course, about Rifqa. But it is also about much more right?

Geller: Yes Jamie. It’s not just Rifqa’s battle. She is our proxy in the battle for freedom of religion and individual rights. Rifqa Bary’s case is the landmark case in the civil rights battle of this new century.

...

FP: How is Rifqa doing?

Geller: Rifqa Bary’s civil rights are being violated. She is being held prisoner: no phone, no internet, no public school. Why? What is her crime? She is being held under house arrest in accord with Sharia law, which stipulates that female apostates are to be imprisoned until they recant. Ohio is effectively practicing Sharia law.

Where are Rifqa’s civil rights? Where is her freedom of religion? Barack Obama said in Cairo in June 2009 that he would fight for the right of Muslim women in the U.S. to wear the hijab. Why isn’t Obama fighting for their right NOT to wear the hijab? Why isn’t he taking a stand for Rifqa’s right not to be a Muslim at all?

Jim Zorn, a children’s services attorney, is the one who asked Franklin County Juvenile Magistrate Mary Goodrich to forbid Rifqa from using the Internet and her cell phone.

Zorn explained: “What we want to restrict is the other people, the other organizations, the other forces, that have interjected themselves into this case inappropriately, and have caused the additional problems that we’ve seen.”

Her father may have threatened to kill her, and Zorn and Goodrich are keeping her away from the people who saved her and took her in.

The isolation of Rifqa is an egregious crime. How will we know if she is not being psychologically or physically abused? How will we know if she is all right?

Rifqa Bary should be posting to a Facebook page every day. The Ohio authorities and the Islamic supremacists who are pulling their strings are not protecting this girl, but rather are endangering her life.