January 2010

The newly mustache-less Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has taken up the case of Larry Grard, who claims he lost his job due to anti-Christian bigotry (though that is disputed by his former employer,) and immediately needs $5,000 to launch a campaign to get Grard his job back, according to a recent CADC email alert:

Radical homosexual activists are not playing games. They will destroy anyone that comes between them and their agenda. But the time has come for Christians to fight back and support those who courageously take a stand for righteousness.

Help us defend Christians like Larry from the attacks of radical homosexual activists. Click below to donate!

Please help me fight and win this battle. Maine Today must reinstate Larry and Lisa. We must defend Larry's right to free speech and his right to express his religious point of view. It is vital that we not neglect our wounded in the battle for the soul of America.

Help CADC stand up for Larry. I need at least $5,000.00 by February 15th to cover all the expenses of this campaign. Can you please help?

Imagine what it would be like to have your career unjustly destroyed at age 59 after 19 years of hard work for simply defending God's institution of marriage. Wouldn't you want someone to help fight to get your job back?

Let's be there for Larry and his family! Please send you best gift today!

We must expose the unfruitful deeds of wickedness! (Eph. 5:11)

Here's how:

First, we need to let Maine Today know that Christians will not stand by while our brother and sister are unjustly defamed, discriminated against, and persecuted for merely expressing their support of biblical family values.

We will demand that the newspaper re-instate Larry and his wife and reimburse them for all their unpaid wages. If they will not, I will encourage other pro-family leaders to join me in this stand for Larry. It's the least we can do for someone who stood up for what's right.

In addition, if Maine Today refuses to do the right thing, we will contact their advertisers. We will let them know that we intend to work with local churches to organize a boycott against any business that continues to support Maine Today with their advertising dollars (a strategy we have used successfully in other communities).

Maine Today caved into pressure from homosexual activists and fired Larry and Lisa. Now it's time for them to correct their persecution of this couple. If they refuse, we will make sure they don't get rewarded with adverting from local businesses. I assure you ... that will get their attention.

It's time to draw a line in the sand. We cannot allow radical homosexual activists to continue to destroy people who stand against their ungodly agenda. If we don't stop them now, it won't be long before no one will be able to resist them.

Phyllis Schlafly went down to Furman University in South Carolina last week to spread her unique brand of militant anti-feminism and reiterate her belief that married women cannot be raped by their husbands while warning that feminism leaves women childless, bitter, and lonely: 

Feminists are "bitter, unhappy and not successful women."

These words were spoken to a packed house in the Watkins Room in the University Center on Wednesday, Jan. 20, as the Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow hosted 85-year-old conservative activist and author Phyllis Schlafly ... Schlafly made two main points in her lecture. First, that feminism is unnecessary and there is no such thing as a glass ceiling for American women. Secondly, women who are feminists will end up unhappy and alone.

In discussing the radical and superfluous nature of feminism, Schlafly argued that American women are the most fortunate class in history.

"The number one problem with feminism is it teaches women to be the victim," Schlafly said. She continued that there was no need for further feminist legislation or movements due to the ability for women in current times to receive an education and work in whatever field they wish, adding that feminism was never really necessary because her mother was able to receive an education from Washington University in 1920.

Many in the audience laughed when Schlafly proposed that women couldn't possibly be oppressed because they lived, on average, eight years longer than men, and again when she offered the success of Sarah Palin as proof that there was no limit for women.

Schlafly challenged the legitimacy of a variety of social programs and legislation put in place by feminist agenda, including abortion, shelters for battered women and sexual harassment counseling. She also said that welfare was a financial incentive for women to have children out of wedlock.

Other controversial comments included Schlafly's denial of the existence of spousal rape, as well as her statement that individuals shouldn't be able to "check out" of marriage.

Schlafly ended by discussing a women's biological clock and need for children. Her argument was that if women focus on careers first, they will end up forty, single and desperately wanting a child they can no longer produce.

As we noted yesterday, the Janet Jenkins/Lisa Miller story was featured on "Nightline" last night, and while Liberty Counsel still refuses to comment, "Nightline" did manage to get Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, to go on the record about it, though he did so in his capacity as a spokesperson for PFOX:

• Politico has an excellent piece on the right-wing groups who have been funding and training activists like James O'Keefe.
• The Washington Times reports that Janet Parshall is leaving Salem Radio Network to start up a new show with the Moody Broadcasting Network: "Some cited budget reasons on the part of Salem; others said it involved personality clashes and that Mrs. Parshall had gone through a string of producers during her 15 years with the network."
• The ACLJ has opened yet another foreign office, this one in Kenya.
• Focus on the Family is intent on wooing "millennials" at the upcoming CPAC conference.
• Now that Liberty University students seemingly dominate their voting district, it only stands to reason that university officials are trying to get the place their polling place right on campus.
• Finally, it must be nice to be a conservative activist who can rely on clueless talking points instead of having to worry about facts or having any idea what you are talking about.

As we noted earlier this week, Lisa Miller has been missing for more than three weeks after having disappeared with her daughter rather than hand over custody to her former partner.  But according to this ABC News article , Miller has apparently been missing since September:

Neighbors of Miller's last known residence, in Forest, Va., told sheriff's deputies the mother and daughter left last September and haven't been seen since.

"Honestly, I think the church is involved in hiding her," said Jenkins.

Miller's legal team, Liberty Counsel, deny knowing Miller and Isabella's whereabouts and refused a request for an interview.

Jenkins said she's concerned about Miller's mental state.

"I think she's dangerous, and I think she's very vulnerable and I think she's capable of anything," said Jenkins. "I think she's very desperate. I think the people and the places that she is exposing herself to and my child to -- our child to -- it's just frightening for me to even think about."

Jenkins said she also fears for the child.

"I can't even imagine what life is like for her right now," Jenkins said. "Not knowing where she is, not knowing if she's got any -- I know how important structure is for children. I work with children and I know how important the structure is. Well, honestly I don't know what her life is like right now. ...I know the last few times I had her, it sounded like her world was getting smaller and smaller and smaller. ... Church and Lisa."

I can't say that I am surprised that Liberty Counsel is still refusing to comment, given that it is feverishly trying to wash its hands of Miller.

"Nightline" will be running a segment on this case on tonight's program.

Yesterday we noted that Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Michele Bachmann seemed to be getting cold feet about speaking at the National Tea Party Convention amid complaints from activists and sponsors that its too expensive and something of a scam.

Now it is being reported that Bachmann and Blackburn have both dropped out:

Rep. Michele Bachmann has become the latest high-profile conservative to bag the rapidly unraveling Tea Party Convention in Nashville next week ... Bachmann’s office cited the same concerns that other Tea Party activists have voiced about the first-of-its-kind national gathering: namely, the for-profit model of organizer Judson Phillips, a self-described “small town lawyer” with a history of financial problems.

Phillips has announced that the $549-a-head convention featuring Sarah Palin is sold out. But Tea Party critics and allies alike have been asking questions about what Phillips plans to do with the money. Concrete answers have been in short supply, and in the end it looked like too big a risk for any public office holder.

“We’re out,” said Bachmann spokesman Dave Dziok. “It comes down to conflicting advice as to how these profits are going to be used after the fact. We’d rather err on the side of caution than do it and find out it’s improper... with somebody saying ‘they’re using the money from an event you were at to support this and this,’ which comes as a direct conflict with what you’re doing as a member of Congress.”

One of the only other elected officials scheduled to appear, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., also has backed out, citing similar concerns.

Both Blackburn and Bachmann sought legal guidance in recent days from lawyers in the House Ethics Committee. According to Dziok, they got “conflicting advice.”

That was enough to put on the brakes.

There is no word yet on whether Sarah Palin will still be speaking.

In his State of the Union Address last night, President Obama pledged to "work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are" and Religious Right groups wasted no time in pledging to fight his "sexualize the military":

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to President Obama's first State of the Union Address:

"At a time of enormous economic challenge, two on-going wars in which Americans are fighting and increased terrorist threats to Americans at home, President Obama seems untethered from that reality as he called on Congress to force the military to allow open homosexuality. As a veteran of the Marine Corps, the timing of the President's call in the midst of two wars shows that he is willing to jeopardize our nation's security to advance the agenda of the radical homosexual lobby.

"The military is a warrior culture for a reason: Our service members wear the uniform to fight and win wars, not serve as liberal social policy guinea pigs. The sexual environment the President is seeking to impose upon the young men and women who serve this country is the antithesis of the successful warfighting culture and as such should be rejected.

While Rob Schenck doesn't seem to realize that gays are already serving in the military

Come ‘on, let’s be grown ups. There’s a reason the military doesn’t have men and women showering together. Please don’t dismiss this one as a childish vestige of a now distant Victorian past. The fact is you don’t want people around you in a shower that are erotically stimulated by your naked body. Now, I may be betraying my naïve ignorance here about how gay people get excited, but none of my gay acquaintances have ever said it works terribly different for them then it does for straights. The site of an attractive nude body probably does for gays what it does for straights. (Unless, of course, you are gifted with a disinterest in sex, period. That’s another matter.) For most of us, testosterone, estrogen and libido are forward moving forces that need at least a modicum of external controls, including segregated showering and dressing spaces.

I’ve purposely left until last the most incendiary element of this State of the Union attack on personal, moral, social and religious sensibilities—its affect on our relations with the Muslim world. When I participated in my first face-to-face formal dialogue between Christian and Muslim leaders in an Islamic country, I was asked at the start, “Do you accept homosexuality?” Homosexuality is a deal-breaker for the vast majority of Muslims. I know, we don’t want to kowtow to oppressive religions, no matter how many adherents they have, but, again, if we’re looking to solve problems, this is not the way to do it.

• Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz has submitted legislation in the House of Representatives that would overturn D.C.'s marriage equality bill
• Joseph Farah gets profiled in the LA Times and is not happy with the article.
• I really wish conservatives would stop comparing everything they do to the Founding Fathers.
• Finally, it seems as if just about every right-wing group is weighing in with support for Focus on the Family's anti-choice Super Bowl ad.

I have to admit that I am having some trouble understanding just what Randall Terry's position is regarding acts of violence against reproductive health providers.  When Dr. George Tiller was killed last year, Terry immediately weighed in, calling Tiller a "mass-murderer" who "reaped what he sowed" while simultaneously claiming that he did not advocate or support such acts of violence.

But now that the trial of Scott Roeder is underway, Terry seems to have concluded that that actions taken were entirely justified:

After three days of a relatively quiet trial, Randall Terry and three of his supporters showed up with signs in front of the courthouse this morning, as prosecutors prepared to wrap up their case for murder against Scott Roeder.

Signs reading “Tiller killed 60,000 children, Roeder’s reason, The Babies” and “Give Roeder a fair trial” greeted people arriving to the Sedgwick County Courthouse this morning.

Apparently, Terry and company believe that it was Tiller who "drove Scott Roeder to such extremity" and that his actions were not only justified, but inevitable: 

"Precious unborn babies -- like the 60,000 slain by Mr. Tiller -- have their tortured bodies thrown into dumpsters where rats and dogs devour their bodies and blood; others are strewn in landfills to decay while vermin and maggots claim their earthly remains; others are flushed into sewers where their innocent blood flows to... the devil knows where.

"Their innocent blood cries to God -- as did the blood of slaves -- for vengeance. Will God ignore this deafening cry? Will we pretend their blood has no place in this trial? This trial is the place where the rule of law and the "law of blood" meet.

"This jury has the right and duty to hear what drove Scott Roeder to such extremity. For the rule of law to prevail in court, Mr. Roeder must be able to tell the jury why he killed George Tiller. Otherwise, this trial is a farce, and both the rule of law and the law of blood are thrown aside. And as our nation's history proves, such contempt for law and blood has horrific consequences."

Terry likes to claim that he will neither "condone or condemn Scott Roeder's actions" ... but it's becoming quite clear that what he will do is defend and justify them. 

• Think Progress: Fox News Devastated Over Arrest Of ACORN Pimp, Says The Story Probably Needs ‘A Lot Of Context’.
• Raw Story: GOP sends fundraising letter disguised as ‘Census’ form.
• Media Matters: History profs: Beck's documentary smearing progressives is a "complete lie"; Beck's living in "alternative universe."
• Bilerico: Uganda's 'Kill The Gays' Bill Goes XXX??
• Box Turtle Bulletin: Pugno’s illogical complaint about documents.
• Finally, what kind of parent complains about a dictionary ... and what kind of school agrees to pull all dictionaries from its shelves as a result? 

MassResistance will be hosting a fundraising banquet in early March where right-wing "journalist" James O'Keefe is scheduled to be a featured guest speaker:

James O'Keefe is an investigative journalist and filmmaker. He came to national prominence in 2009 when he filmed and produced an investigative report that helped expose corruption within ACORN -- including ACORN employees providing individuals they believed to be involved in an international under-age prostitution scheme with advice on how to break the law. Congress voted to defund ACORN shortly after the videos were released.

James began his career as a journalist as the founder and editor-in-chief of The Centurion at Rutgers University. He has helped start over a dozen campus newspapers nationwide. His past projects include an investigation of Planned Parenthood, where his reporting exposed the organization's willingness to ignore apparent instances of statutory rape and eugenics-based racism. He currently posts as VeritasVisuals (on YouTube), and blogs at BigGovernment.com.

Whether or not O'Keffe actually manages to make this engagement remains to be seen, because it looks like he just got himself in a lot of trouble:

The FBI, alleging a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in downtown New Orleans, arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.

FBI Special Agent Steven Rayes alleges that O'Keefe aided and abetted two others, Joseph Basel and Robert Flanagan, who dressed up as employees of a telephone company and attempted to interfere with the office's telephone system.

A fourth person, Stan Dai, was accused of aiding and abetting Basel and Flanagan. All four were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

It seems that Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts has turned Mike Huckabee into a Tea Party true believer. 

A few months back, when tea party activists were making the Doug Hoffman/Dede Scozzafava the proving ground for ideological loyalty, Huckabee was conspicuously absent until the very last minute when he jumped in over after Scozzafava had dropped out.

Similarly, in the Brown race, Huckabee basically sat on the sidelines, but in the wake of his win, Huckabee is suddenly climbing aboard the tea party bandwagon, first claiming that members of Congress "should be tarred and feathered as the original tea partiers would have done" and now declaring that "The Tea Party Movement is Changing America" and that he is thrilled to be a part of it:

The 21st century Tea Party movement is changing America. That’s not an overstatement, it is a fact.

The original Tea Party happened on December 16, 1773, when 5,000 patriots gathered at the Old South Meeting House, a site used for both worship and politics. Our Tea Party ancestors tossed the tea overboard to protest “taxation without representation” because they weren’t permitted to elect a member to the British parliament.

Today we have seen our government turn a deaf ear to the people, pushing through bailouts and stimulus spending without representation. For months they’ve tried their best to push through a health care bill that few wanted, only to be stopped again this time by the Massachusetts Tea Party and the election of Scott Brown on January 19.

But mark my words: Congressional Democrats and President Obama haven’t given up.
Now we are hearing rumors that the Senate may try to use reconciliation to get around the filibuster. Just another procedural maneuver to thwart the will of the people. Every member of Congress knows in their heart that the American people don’t want the health care bill that Congress has before it and yet they continue to push for it out of arrogance.

The Tea Party movement was started by Americans insisting on fiscal responsibility in government, limited government based on the Constitution, and the free market system. They played a large role in the town hall meetings in August, at which lawmakers got an earful, they helped propel Republicans to victory in Virginia and New Jersey in November and again this month in Massachusetts. Now it’s time for the Tea Party patriots to step up again and help raise the pressure on Congress to bury Obama-care once and for all. I know they will. And I will step up with them.

The most amazing thing about Scott Brown's Senate campaign is that his victory last week has seemingly become all things to all people and giving right-wing pundits an opportunity to portray their own narrow agenda as central to his win. 

For some, Brown's win was a sign that voters don't like President Obama or Nancy Pelosi, for others it was proof that people oppose health care reform, or abortion, or immigration. 

But Phyllis Schlafly offers a different take, claiming that what voters were really doing in this election was rejecting Martha Coakley because of her feminism: 

Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after they had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama's stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.

It's no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Brown.

Brown's driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.

Commentary about Brown's appeal to women is diversionary -- it was male voters who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for him. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and independent to elect a Republican.

• The New York Times profiles right-wing legal warrior James Bopp.
• Jim DeMint has hired right-wing columnist Amanda Carpenter to be his senior communications advisor and speechwriter.
• Randy Travis will be headlining the first annual Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Concert.
• And James O'Keefe will be featured at the MassResistance Banquet.
• A group of Texas legislators are demanding [PDF] that "additional charge be brought [against Major Nidal Malik Hasan] under Article 119(a) of UCMJ if it is finally determined that one of the victims, Private Francheska Velez, was pregnant at the time of the shootings."
• Finally, Bishop Harry Jackson apparently blames the two abortions his wife had prior to their marriage for the fact that he doesn't have a son.

As a follow-up to our earlier post on Liberty Counsel quitely trying to wash its hands of Lisa Miller, it looks like they are not alone.

Last year, we wrote a post about something called the Protect Isabella Coalition which was founded by Liberty Counsel in conjunction with Concerned Women for America, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), and the Thomas Road Baptist Church and sought to pressure Virginia legislators to prevent Miller from having to grant access to her daughter to her former partner.

They even produced this TV ad:

Well, guess what?  The Protect Isabella Coalition's website seems to have completely disappeared:

I don't really know why I am even posting this, other than to marvel at what passes for punditry at the American Family Association as Bryan Fischer, AFA's Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy, explains in hilariously overwrought terms how President Obama's first year in office has been such a dismal failure that he might not even get a chance to finish out his term: 

There is virtually unanimous agreement that President Obama is toast ... If the Democrats do not insist that Obama resign from office - politically unlikely to be sure - they are liable to be dessicated, withered and powerless by 2012. His coattails are just long enough to drag them all under unless they detach themselves immediately if not sooner.

...

The president is now dead weight, an albatross around the neck of every Democrat member of the House and the Senate. They simply cannot afford to be linked to him anymore. He is blindly pursuing policies that the great majority of Americans flatly reject, and yet he soldiers on, oblivious, perhaps through sheer hubris, to the fact that voters aren't buying the swill he is trying to sell as champagne ... Few in political history, apart from appalling scandal, have fallen so far so fast. He is the Tiger Woods of the political world ... Congressional Democrats now can safely ignore their own president, and in fact must do so to preserve any chance of survival ... He has grossly misread the American public, perhaps again because in his insular and self-adulating world he believes he is the smartest person in the room and is sure that his brilliance will inevitably be recognized by the great unwashed. Ain't gonna happen. The American people are a lot smarter than he thinks, maybe even smarter than he is, and surely wiser when it comes to politics. They will never trust him again about anything.

The president is catastrophically weak and naive when it comes to our war against Islamofascism. He is indifferent, desultory, casual, and lacking in seriousness regarding the threat. The American people know this ... Surely the Democrats in the party will see the same thing, and know that if they back Obama in 2012 they will be backing a loser. Believe me, there will be an underground movement among Democrats to plead with Hillary (or somebody) to save what shreds will remain of their party from The One in the next presidential election.

President Obama has no chance at a second term. And eroding chances of completing his first one.

If this doesn't qualify for one of Andew Sullivan's "Hewitt Awards," I don't know what does.

There are certain articles that seem to pop up on a semi-regular basis that I just can never understand. The first are the obligatory "The Religious Right is Dead" articles that get written every time the GOP loses an election ... and they are inevitable followed a few years later by articles marveling at the Right's miraculous resurrection.

The other articles I don't understand are more recent, beginning back when Mike Huckabee was running for president, in which it is asserted that the Religious Right is getting toning down its rhetoric and somehow broadening its agenda.

Articles like this:

Fire and brimstone evangelicalism has simmered down into a broader movement of cooler approaches.

Yet much of what has been said about the expanded political agenda and softer tone of evangelical Christians has missed the point, say observers of the Christian right.

"Every time a Democrat gets elected they say: 'That's the end of the Christian conservatives. They're gone,' " said D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center vice president Michael Cromartie. "But they're not. Broadening their agenda doesn't mean they are suddenly liberal Democrats."

And evangelicals, Cromartie said, are not abandoning their core issues: traditional marriage and sanctity of life. "Climate change does not trump pro-life issues."

Although the rhetoric is gentler, the politics are the same. The money is going to lobby for the same things. The basic voting structure was largely unchanged in 2008, pollsters say.

"We want to be relevant to a new generation, but we plan to stay strong on the pillars Dr. James Dobson built at Focus on the Family," said Tom Minnery, the ministry's senior vice president of government and public policy.

...

Jim Daly, the 48-year-old head of Focus on the Family media ministry, is seen inside the conservative Christian organization as less authoritarian and more approachable than his predecessor, the 73-year- old Dobson.

Outside the organization, Cromartie said, Daly is seen as more affable and willing to seek common ground.

"As (Focus on the Family) tries to reach the next generation of young families, we're trying to use words that work," Minnery said.

What evidence is there that "fire and brimstone evangelicalism has simmered down"?  The article provides none.  

Have they even been paying attention to anything the Religious Right has been saying lately? 

As for the idea that Focus on the Family is moderating its tone, that remains to be seen.  James Dobson is still, for all intents and purposes, the voice of the organization and will remain so until he finally leaves next month.  If the organization does become more willing to seek common ground and less confrontational under Daly, that will certainly be newsworthy, but for now it is impossible to say.

If journalists want to declare that the Religious Right is moderating its tone and broadening its agenda, they ought to at least provide some evidence, because I haven't seen any.  If anything, the Right is getting more radical and its language more strident under Obama than it has ever been in recent years.

• A new low for Rush Limbaugh? That hardly seems possible.
• You know what Haiti's problem is?  It wasn't colonized long enough.
• US soldiers need bible verses on their scopes because the Muslims started it.
• This is probably not the sort of testimony the Prop 8 supporters were hoping for.
• Finally, Glenn Beck's descent into full-blown McCarthyism continues unabated:

Lisa Miller has already been missing for at least three weeks with her daughter, having disappeared before being required to transfer custody to her former partner due to her consistent refusal to abide by court-ordered custody arrangements.

Today, a hearing was held in Vermont on whether Miller should be held in contempt of court for going missing with her daughter and for some reason the judge decided to give her another 30 days to show up:

A judge is giving a Virginia woman at the center of a lesbian custody dispute 30 days to appear in court with her 7-year-old child or face a contempt of court finding and possible arrest.

Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen made that ruling Friday in the long-running custody dispute between two women who were once joined in a civil union.

Janet Jenkins, of Fair Haven, had asked Cohen to hold in contempt Lisa Miller, of Forest, Va., her former partner, for not turning over the child, Isabella, to her on Jan. 1, as she had been ordered.

The couple broke up in 2003, and Miller moved to Virginia, renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian.

Miller's lawyer says she doesn't know where Miller and Isabella are.

Tony Perkins responds to the news that Cindy McCain posed for the NOH8 Campaign by suggesting that her husband lost his race for the White House because people did like her views: 

[C]onservatives shrug at the suggestion that Cindy McCain is influencing the public.

“The people of California have been very clear on this issue,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, one of the groups that supported the Proposition 8 campaign in California. “They’ve voted twice to preserve the definition of marriage.”

...

“There’s probably a reason she’s not first lady,” Perkins said. “People were worried about the influence she would have on social issues such as this.”

Oddly, when just about every Religious Right group in existence was ardently backing McCain during the election, nobody was raising concerns about his wife's views.  But since that he lost, it's because people were worried that she might support for marriage equality?

It seems that while the pundits and prognosticators are mulling over just what Scott Brown's victory means for President Obama, the Democratic agenda in Congress, and the future of the Republican Party, a theme is starting to emerge among the Religious Right that as exciting as Brown's win may have been, he's really just another RINO.

Randall Terry was first out of the box, saying that Brown's win was better than a Coakley win, but "we must not deceive ourselves or our supporters about Scott Brown, and his true position on child killing. We need to replace Scott Brown as soon as we can with a true defender of babies' lives, not a phony who supports their murder." 

Alan Keyes has made a similar point:

Conservatives working to restore constitution freedom can cheer for Obama's defeat, but take no cheer from Brown's victory because he is a typical RINO (Republican-in-name-only) who:

* has no differences in principle with the socialist-minded Democrats;

* embraces the substance of Obama's socialist agenda, but "opposes" Obama by criticizing his implementation of socialism, especially when it comes to fiscal matters;

* agrees in principle with the Democrats on the fundamental issues of justice and morality but employs the deceptive rhetoric of personal opinion to evade the questions of public law and policy they involve. Such issues include child-murder and other abrogations of the unalienable right to life, as well as the rejection of the God-endowed rights of the natural family.

Matt Barber is likewise of the view that Brown is little more than a "tourniquet": 

Many social conservatives (of which I’m one) have complained that the senator-elect is woefully flawed on social issues – particularly abortion. This is true.

Still, to my pro-life, pro-family compatriots, I offer this: While bleeding to death, one may be left no choice but to apply a tourniquet. A tourniquet is less than ideal. It may even cost a limb; however, it’s also likely to save one’s life. Obama has sliced open America’s wrists with his cutting political agenda. Time is of the essence. By providing Senate Republicans the crucial 41st vote needed to filibuster, Scott Brown supplies the tourniquet.

...

Of course, none of this justifies Brown’s indefensible position on abortion, “civil unions” and other social issues. I and others will not rest until he, and all who have been so deceived by the euphemistic language of “choice” and “reproductive freedom,” likewise recognize that all persons – whether born or pre-born – share an “inalienable right to life” that in every instance trumps another’s phantom “right to choose” premeditated murder.

Most importantly, even the Family Research Council admits that they are not happy with many of Brown's views but withheld criticism in pursuit of short term goals: 

Social conservatives held back criticism of Brown's social views--and, in some cases, openly supported him--because they believe a Brown win fulfills a short term goal of blocking President Obama's abominable health bill. Of course, the Republican Establishment would like us to believe that Scott Brown's moderate platform on life and marriage is a recipe for conservative success in 2010.

So it remains to be seen just how long the current infatuation with Brown lasts and if, when he comes up for re-election down the road, right-wing groups who are happy with his election now will be change their tune and end up backing a "true conservative" primary challenger later.

Obviously, that is a long way away ... but given that the Right doesn't really support Brown now, it is entirely possible that he might eventually find himself the next Dede Scozzafava or Charlie Crist.

Yesterday's Citizens United ruling [PDF] by the Supreme Court has has now made it possible for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates ... and to hear the Religious Right tell it, it's a victory for the little guy:

Kelly Shackelford, president of the Free Market Foundation, tells OneNewsNow the decision is a great victory for freedom for every citizen.

"The government has no right to control the speech of citizens speaking out as a group during elections -- and these types of campaign finance laws are pure evil and destructive to any free society," he comments.

Shackelford notes that wealthy individuals such as George Soros are having a huge impact on elections, and he adds, "The idea that a group of citizens can't come together in some sort of corporate entity and speak their mind is really discrimination against the regular guy in this country" and against smaller businesses that want to take part in the election process.

The Family Research Council hails it as a victory for all of those oppressed "corporate citizens":

"Under the principles established by the First Amendment, nothing is more foundational than free speech. This is a win for free political speech and the right of corporate citizens to join the political process.

"The court's decision is a step toward restoring open political discourse in this country. Speech should not be truncated by government regulation; rather, transparency should be pursued. The standard of accountability must be full and prompt disclosure, not unconstitutional prohibitions on financial contributions.

While Focus on the Family rejoices, because apparently up until now, they too were having their voices silenced:

Tim Goeglein, vice president of external relations for Focus on the Family Action, said the pro-family movement will benefit.

"Organizations like Focus on the Family Action, the family policy councils, all of our allies," he said, "this will give us an incredible voice in the great issues of our time."

And Concerned Women for America declares that "Americans are the real winners today" and says the decision is the first step toward reclaiming "the ideals our Founders believed in when they fought and died to establish a country where we can be truly free to speak and worship our God without government interference":

Penny Young Nance, Concerned Women for America's (CWA) Chief Executive Officer, said, "The Court correctly concluded that judges should stop playing semantics with our Constitution and read the text as it is written. The government should not be limiting political speech because someone is rich or poor, or because they disagree with a particular point of view. Americans are the real winners today. Further, I recall upon the passage of the legislation that Members of Congress openly admitted voting in favor of the McCain-Feingold knowing it was unconstitutional. Those days have to end."

CWA President Wendy Wright said, "CWA joined an Amicus brief asking the Court to overrule these laws that serve only to chill political speech and open the door for those in power to choose favorites. We applaud the Court for listening to the voices of millions of Americans who believe in those foundational principles embodied by the First Amendment.

"We hope this is just the first in a series of steps to reclaim the ideals our Founders believed in when they fought and died to establish a country where we can be truly free to speak and worship our God without government interference."

You know, I wonder what these groups will be saying if the makers of Plan B were to now start pumping their $11 Billion into taking out conservative candidates who oppose their product.

• Statement: People For the American Way Calls for Constitutional Amendment to Undo Supreme Court Decision.
• Yes, we should all be focusing on slavery's good old days.
• Here's something you don't hear everyday:  a Senator boldly declaring "I believe in racial and ethnic profiling."
• Did Prop 8 supporters drop two witnesses because said witnessed feared the repercussion of testifying, as they claimed?  Doesn't look like it.
• Finally, did newly minted Senator Scott Brown endorse a Birther candidate for Congress or did said candidate go rogue?

Apparently, the right-wing talking point of the day is that the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 is really an attempt to put Christianity on trial.

So says Maggie Gallagher:

What do Olson and Boies think they are doing? Watching accounts of this trial unfold this week I had a big “aha” moment. It’s now clear: Ted and David think they are conducting the Scopes trial!

When this trial began I told you: gay marriage activists were putting 7 million Californians on trial. (Ed Whelan over at National Review has a brilliant series “Judge Walker’s Witch Hunt“ . . . explaining how intellectually absurd it is to conduct a “trial” into the subjective motivations of 7 million voters, constitutionally speaking.). But this week it got worse: They are clearly putting Christianity itself on trial. Why else have an expert read statements of Catholic and Southern Baptist doctrines into the record?

And why put a Stanford Prof. named Gary Segura on the stand to testify “”religion is the chief obstacle for gays’ and lesbians’ political progress.”

Could the zero-sum nature of the game be any clear? Rights for gays and lesbians, in their minds, depends on invalidating the voting rights of religious people when it comes to gay marriage, because their votes are influenced by their religion–i.e. bigotry.

Here’s their brilliant legal strategy: Ted and David want the Supreme Court to rule that Catholicism and Southern Baptism and related Christian denominations are bigotry.

So does Bill Donohue:

Yesterday, the judge allowed Boies and Olsen to submit e-mails they obtained between the director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the bishops. Allowing such communication in a trial is unusual enough, but the purpose was even more invidious: to show that Catholics played a major role in passing Proposition 8. The lawyers did the same thing to Mormons, offering more e-mail “proof” of their involvement.

...

Their goal is not to contest the First Amendment rights of Catholics and others—their goal is to put religion on trial. What they are saying is that religious-based reasons for rejecting gay marriage are irrational, and thus do not meet the test of promoting a legitimate state interest. That is why they have trotted out professors like Gary Segura of Stanford and George Chauncey of Yale to testify to the irrationality of the pro-Proposition 8 side. Chauncey was even given the opportunity to read from a Vatican document that rejects homosexual marriage.

Society cannot exist without families; families cannot exist without reproduction; reproduction cannot exist without a sexual union between a man and a woman; and every society in the history of the world has created an institution called marriage to provide for this end. In short, it is nothing but irrational to challenge such a timeless verity. No matter, what is going on in the courtroom smacks of an animus against religion.

Nothing says "welcome to Washington, Senator Brown" like arriving in town only to be met by Religious Right activists such as Rev. Rob Schenck who will inform you are not a very good Christian:

In the hours since Mr. Brown won the Super Bowl of special elections, a lot about him has come to light. In yesterday’s post I told you about the Senator-elect’s family church. Well, it looks like it may indeed be more of his family’s church than his own. A source that once worked for Mr. Brown in the state legislature described him as a “non-church-going Protestant.” Apparently, Mr. Brown has the reputation of doing something other than worship on Sunday mornings.

Even if Mr. Brown taught Sunday school every week, it wouldn’t necessarily mean he’s a “good Christian,” nor that he understands Christian doctrine or moral instruction–and it appears he’s quite deficient on at least the latter. He explicitly recognizes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision de-criminalizing the killing of pre-born children, as “the law of the land.” (Before coming down too heavily on him for that, though, remember “pro-life” Chief Justice John Roberts said the same thing during his confirmation hearing.) What betrays even more his lack of good Christian moral formation is Mr. Brown’s support of so-called “civil unions,” which has as a consequence, whether intended or unintended, of granting social sanction to immoral behavior.

A few of my readers have concluded that because of these serious deficiencies, Mr. Brown is either a fake or a uselessly flawed individual that shouldn’t occupy this seat any longer than necessary. Well, I’m not quite so condemnatory or dismissive. What Mr. Brown appears to me to be is a Massachusetts politician. He may or may not be a Christian, but that doesn’t change his profession.

Elsewhere, Schenck reports on his meeting with Brown and his own vow to help him develop a conscience:

"He comes off as humble, genuinely interested in what he is doing and the people he will serve. My concern is for his interior moral formation. I told him he can count on our prayers and our pastoral advice. My first impression is that there's nothing guaranteed with Scott Brown, but it seems he has a conscience, and I intend to work on developing that conscience."

I just wrote a post noting that Joseph Farah had been invited to speak at the Family Research Coucil's "Blogs For Life" conference tomorrow, but now FRC has released its schedule and Farah is nowhere to be seen:

8:30 – 8:35a Jill Stanek, emcee introduction

8:35 – 8:45a Kristen Day, Democrats for Life

9:05 – 9:20a PANEL: “Hosting a winning pro-life blog,” American Life League’s Katie Walker and ALL’s Pro-life Blog Contest winners

9:20 – 9:33a Carol Clews, Executive Director, Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Baltimore, Md.

9:33 – 9:35a Kristin Hansen, VP of Communications, Care Net

9:35 – 9:45a Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List

9:45 – 10:05a Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo.

10:05 – 10:15a Break

10:15 – 10:25a Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D, President and CEO, Americans United for Life

10:25 – 10:45a Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio

10:45 – 11:05a PANEL: Emerging Online Technologies, Molotov Mitchell,Illuminati Pictures; Peter Shinn, President, Pro-Life Unity; Founder, Blogs for Life; Krystle Weeks, Web Editor, Family Research Council

11:05 – 11:15a David Prentice, Ph.D, Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, FRC, StemCellResearchFacts.org

11:15 – 11:30a Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Notice the gap between 8:45 and 9:05?  That what where Farah was scheduled to speak.

The FRC's new press release still lists Farah as a participant, so why is he not included on the schedule? 

Last August, we wrote a post about a piece penned by Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute entitled "Christians Should Fight Homosexuality Like It Did Nazism" in which Higgins argued exactly what the title stated: 

We reassure ourselves that if we had lived during the age of slavery or in Germany during the rise of Nazism or during the post-Civil War era when virulent racism still poisoned American life, we would never have stood idly by and done nothing, but I'm not so sure. Look at the church's actions today when homosexuality and gender confusion are affirmed to and in our nation's children through our public schools using our hard-earned money. Where is the church? Where is the outrage? Where are the church leaders who rejoice in being persecuted?

I've asked this question before and I will ask it again: How depraved does the behavior have to be and how young the victims before the church, starting with those who have freely chosen to assume the mantle of pastor or priest, will both feel and express outrage at the indecent, cruel, and evil practice of using public money to affirm body and soul-destroying ideas to children?

Will the contemporary American church rise to this occasion to defend children and biblical truth, or will we become like the acquiescent church that failed to help William Wilberforce battle slavery, or the atrophied "moderate white church" that failed to help Martin Luther King Jr. battle racism, or the apostate Protestant church in Nazi Germany that failed to help Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer battle Nazism?

Now, Higgins has contacted us saying she never wrote a piece with such a title and demanding that we correct our "error":

You have stated that I wrote an article entitled "Christians Should Fight Homosexuality Like It Did Nazism." I have never written any article with that title. The title is now and always has been "Anger and the Church." Please correct your error.

Of course, when I wrote the initial post, I put the title of Higgins' piece in quotes because that was its title, and the URL we provided in the post proves it:

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-church-should-fight-homosexuality-like-it-did-nazism-r-1248637577

That link now redirects to the same piece, though it now carries the new title "Anger and the Church." 

If that has "always been" its title, then maybe Higgins can explain to us how the original URL we used ended up with "church-should-fight-homosexuality-like-it-did-nazism" in it. 

UPDATE: Higgins wants it made clear that her article was originally entitled "Anger and the Church," and that it was Opposing Views which picked up and retitled it without her permission until she contacted them and asked them to use the original title.

• Joe.My.God: Pastor Launches Boycott Of Houston Over Lesbian Mayor Annise Parker.
• David Weigel: National Organization for Marriage, Taking Credit for Brown.
• Matthew Yglesias: Tebow to Alienate Pro Football Fans During Super Bowl.
• Speaking of which, what exactly is CBS's policy regarding "advocacy advertising"?
• It looks like the American Family Association is going to war with "The Simpsons" again.
• Finally, you know what America needs now?  A whites-only basketball league.

I'll admit that the inner workings of Congress can be rather confusing, but I didn't realize that every piece of legislation that had been passed by the Senate had to be revisited so that a newly elected member could vote on it, which is pretty much what the American Center for Law and Justice is demanding in this email they just sent out:

With Sen. Brown's victory, it's reported that the Senate may not vote on the health care bill, and instead have the House approve the measure - leaving incoming Sen. Brown without an opportunity to vote on health care reform.

But any attempt to shut out Sen. Brown from the legislative process circumvents this election and clearly denies the will of the people.

It's time to put a stop to the flawed government-run, pro-abortion health care program that's been on a fast-track since Day One. Congress must respect the outcome of this pivotal election and let incoming Sen. Brown vote on health care ... NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Really?  Is that how things work?  Newly elected candidate must be given an opportunity to vote on things that happened before that person was even elected or else it "denies the will of the people"? 

If that is the case, can we go back and vote on the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito now that Democrats have a sizable majority in the Senate? 

And, for what it is worth, the ACLJ is also warning that it has a "team of lawyers" ready to pounce  should their be any delay in seating Brown: 

We’ve assembled a team of lawyers to determine what legal action could be taken should Democrats refuse to recognize or delay the outcome of this election. We have produced a legal memorandum that focuses on election law in Massachusetts for the special Senate election.

Elections have consequences and the Democrats must understand that the consequences of a Sen. Brown victory mean it’s time to put a stop to the flawed government-run, pro-abortion health care program that’s been on a fast-track.

Massachusetts was not the only place that held a special election last night, as Birmingham, Alabama held its own election to replace former mayor Larry Langford, who was convicted of bribery, money laundering, conspiracy and fraud last year.

The mayoral race pitted William Bell against Patrick Cooper and a few weeks back, flyers [PDF] began circulating attacking Cooper for having supported a gay school board member named Howard Bayless in 2007.

At first, nobody knew where the flyers came from because all they said were "Paid for by Faith in Birmingham," but over the weekend it was revealed that a man named Frank Matthews was responsible.

Matthews, as it turns out, had been appointed co-director of the Office of Citizens Assistance by Langford and was fired from that position in December after getting into a heated argument with supporters of Cooper's campaign during a city-wide Christmas party, for which he vowed revenge:

Matthews said his exit from City Hall now gives him more freedom to campaign against Cooper. "I'm one of the most ferocious anti-campaign operatives in America," he said. "I'm calling in all cards. This is a clarion call."

And that is apparently what Matthews was trying to do not only with his flyers, but also with this letter he wrote claiming Cooper's support for Bayless made him unfit for the office of mayor because he would destroy the city's moral fabric, indoctrinate children, and increase the county's syphilis rates: 

Dear Concerned Citizen,

My name is Frank Matthews. As most of you are aware, I am radio talk-show host and former co-director of the Mayor’s Office of Citizen’s Assistance. First, I want to thank you for your prayers and support during the past few weeks, then I want to thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Many in the media criticize my methods, but I have a great love for our city. With that being said, I felt compelled to write this personal letter to you giving you the facts about Patrick Cooper. While this letter is in no way intended to attack his character, as many people accuse me of doing, it is intended to expose how his values will affect our city’s moral fabric.

As a minister, I am compelled to reveal to you Mr. Cooper’s public position concerning a vital moral issue that impacts the foundation of our families, our churches, our schools, and all of society: the issue of homosexuality. It is true “all of us have sinned and fallen short of bringing God glory” as stated in Romans 3:23. It is also true that we must repent for known sins. The Word of God clearly states homosexuality is a sin according to Romans 1:24-32. God loves us as sinners, but He hates our sin. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of every civilized culture since the beginning of time. The citizens of Alabama understand this and showed their agreement by voting overwhelmingly in 2006 by an 81% to 19% margin in favor of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment Act defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In October 2007, Birmingham elected the first openly gay man to public office in Alabama as Howard Bayless won a seat on the Birmingham City School Board governing the affairs of almost 30,000 young hearts and minds in our city. He did this with the support of the largest Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender political action committee in the nation along with the very public endorsement of Patrick Cooper standing proudly at Mr. Bayless’ side. It is not my intention to disrespect either of these men, but it is my duty to remind God’s people that this is an abomination and unpleasing in the eyes of our Heavenly Father.

All across the nation, school boards for children at the elementary and kindergarten levels are approving curriculum that promotes the homosexual lifestyle. This is morally wrong, brings confusion about gender identity to our children, condones sexual perversion, and can ultimately have detrimental influence socially. Not only would Patrick Cooper seek to advance this radical agenda upon our matriculating school children, but he wants to eliminate the “Laptops for Kids” program altogether, and replace it with Pre-K programs. These programs would indoctrinate the acceptance of this lifestyle, by our children, at an even earlier age. Within the last two years, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that Jefferson County had the highest rate of syphilis per 100,000 residents of any county in the nation and warned our citizens about the “epidemic rate” of the growing number of cases. Of course, syphilis is spread through heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships, but we need a leader who will stand for purity and traditional family values.

In conclusion, Patrick Cooper’s anti-traditional family values can only be a detriment to the children of our city. This is not the kind of leadership, vision, and action we want and need in Birmingham. Please get out and vote January 19th for what’s best morally, for Birmingham now and for future generations. Vote William Bell to be the next mayor of our great city!

Brought to you, and paid for, by:
Frank Matthews

The mayoral election was held yesterday, and Cooper lost 54-46.

I have to say that the right-wing reaction to Scott Brown's victory is pretty remarkable, even for them.  Not only does Brown's victory signal an end to things like health care and immigration reform and Democratic dominance in Washington, but it is apparently the first shot in a "second American revolution," as the Christian Defense Coalition.

Indeed, the idea that Brown's win is the start of some sort of revolution seems to be the right-wing talking point of the day - from the Family Research Council:

"For a Senate seat considered to be in the left-hand column into eternity, the results of the Massachusetts race are nearly revolutionary. President Obama's desperate visit to the Bay State made it clear that this race was a referendum on his liberal agenda. While the individual candidates were important, it was the respective banners they marched under that were decisive. Martha Coakley marched under the banner of the President's big government agenda embroidered with healthcare reform. Sen.-elect Brown marched under the opposing standard - and won.

"President Obama's defeat yesterday is the culmination of the town halls, tea parties, and other efforts of the millions of Americans who continue speaking out against the takeover of our health care system. Many social conservatives held back criticism of Scott Brown's social views and in some cases openly supported him because they believe a Brown win fulfills a short term goal of blocking President Obama's abominable health bill.

"Family Research Council and the thousands of families we represent hope this repudiation of President Obama's Leftist policies will resonate in the halls of Congress. Liberals in Congress can no longer ignore the American people who are outraged by a health care bill that will force every American to support Planned Parenthood in the killing of unborn children, saddle families with higher insurance premiums, raise our taxes and deny our parents and grandparents the essential health care they need."

The point is echoed by Liberty Counsel:

A new revolution is unfolding in America

"The people of Massachusetts fired a shot heard ‘round the world,” said Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law. Staver continued, “We are witnessing a new revolution in America. It is a revolution of ideas and values. President Barack Obama misread his election victory to be a referendum on radical liberalism. It was not. The radical policies of Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been rejected. The tax and spend, big government, anti-life agenda has been pushed back. ObamaCare has been derailed. It is dead. If, after this election, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party tries to resurrect this Frankenstein called ‘healthcare’ and does not drastically change course, then the Massachusetts election will be a microcosm of November 2010.”

Republican Scott Brown won an historic election last night in Massachusetts by defeating Democrat Martha Coakley to fill the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy for 47 years. Brown becomes the first Republican elected to the United States Congress in Massachusetts since 1972. More importantly, this election breaks the Democratic stranglehold on the 60-vote majority in the Senate.

Staver continued, “Reality is stranger than fiction. How ironic it is that the person who replaced Ted Kennedy could be the deciding vote that kills government healthcare.” Staver concluded, “Democratic and liberal pundits are pointing fingers at Martha Coakley as the reason for this historic shift in the election. In Virginia they tried to explain the defeat of liberal policies to a lackluster candidate. In New Jersey, they said Jon Corzine had too much baggage. Liberal Democratic leaders suffer from the same disease as alcoholics. Until they admit that the problem is their radical policies, they will continue to self-destruct.”

April 7, 2010 may just be the day the universe collapses upon itself when the orbits of two massive right-wing stars finally converge:

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) announced today that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will come to Minnesota to assist Bachmann's re-election campaign on April 7, 2010.

"There is absolutely no one more in tune with the hearts and minds of everyday Americans than Governor Palin, and I'm excited to welcome her back to our beautiful state this spring," Bachmann said.

Both Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann are well-known and respected conservative leaders whose bold and unwavering stances in defending the U.S. Constitution and commonsense approaches to issues like health care, taxes and government bailouts have attracted millions to their message.

"It didn't take the American people long to see through the extreme liberal agenda of President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress," Bachmann said. "We saw American's frustration start in the form of tea party protests in states from coast to coast. It continued with the health care town halls throughout last summer. But we saw it come into full focus yesterday in conservative Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, taking back a Senate seat that was held by Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy for decades. The American people have spoken, and the momentum is clearly at the backs of conservatives heading into the 2010 elections."

• Is the author of Uganda's anti-gay bill going to be attending the National Prayer Breakfast? There are conflicting reports.
• Is there a political litmus test for football coaches now?
• Good As You: A vote for Scott Brown is a vote for the National Organization for Marriage.
• TPM: Conservative Vision Ascendant In Latest TX History Textbooks Draft.
• It looks like nearly 3 in 4 Americans don't want to see Sarah Palin run for President.
• Finally, check out Rick Scarborough on last week's "The Daily Show":

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
No Gay Out
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

In addition to Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission and Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, we can now add Wiley Drake to the list of those siding with Pat Robertson in the wake of his Haiti "swore a pact to the Devil" comments:

Evangelist broadcaster Pat Robertson attracted criticism last week when he said that Haiti was “cursed” because it made “a pact with the devil.” But that hasn’t stopped Buena Park Pastor Wiley Drake, a Southern Baptist, from saying he shares Robertson’s view.

“I don’t know that God brought that earthquake or not,” Drake said. However, the misfortunes of the country - including its extreme poverty, ongoing political turmoil and frequent natural disasters - could be repercussions of the alleged deal with Satan, he said.

...

“They said, ‘If you’ll help us, we’ll dedicated ourselves and our government to Satan,’” said Drake ... While the devil pact was set to expire in 2004, then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide approved Voodoo as an officially recognized religion, renewing the deal, according to Drake associate David Fox, a missionary in Haiti. However, the subsequent ouster of Aristide prevented that renewal from taking effect, Fox says.

I asked Drake how the current devastation could be attributed to an expired pact:

“The pact may not be there, but the results of it may be,” he said.

In related new, Raw Story catches Dr. Wesley Stafford, president and CEO of Compassion International, telling Focus on the Family that "Satan has had absolutely free reign" over Haiti, so much so that "you can literally feel the evil in it"::

Dr. Wesley Stafford, president and CEO of Compassion International, told Focus on the Family that Haiti was a disaster before the earthquake ever struck.

Haiti ... has been a disaster in almost every way long before this ever struck. And it is a nation, between you and me, I guess, that Satan has had absolutely free reign in that nation. And while the missionary effort and the church effort has been enormous, this is a nation that you can literally feel the evil in it.

But then as the church lives out its faith, having come through this deep, deep valley, my great prayer is that there will be a great wave of healing and change in the nation of Haiti ... that could only come about through an interruption like this and only happen through the glory of God.

I have to say that I have not been overly impressed with the efforts of the right-wing supergroup known as The Freedom Federation.  After making a big splash when it announced the formation of the coalition last summer, the group hasn't done very much outside of releasing a few statements opposing healthcare reform.

But that doesn't mean the group doesn't have big plans, but apparently they do, which is why it is hosting a two-day summit in April at Liberty University: 

The Freedom Federation announces its first annual Freedom Federation Summit to be held on April 15-16, 2010. The Freedom Federation is a federation of some of the nation’s largest multiracial, multiethnic, and multigenerational faith-based and policy organizations. The Summit will bring together national leaders and activists to address social, economic, domestic, and national defense concerns.

The Summit will be held on the beautiful campus of Liberty University, which is nestled in Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains. Liberty University is the world’s largest Christian university, with 12,000 students on the Virginia campus and more than 50,000 worldwide.

The Freedom Federation Summit will include plenary speakers and briefings on social, economic, national defense, and foreign policy issues facing our nation. Participants will be able to choose from several different tracks, including, but not limited to, training to run for public office, managing a campaign, and building a grassroots organization. Other tracks will focus on social, economic, and national defense topics.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, remarked: “There is a groundswell of concerned citizens rising up in America who are tired of government policies that disrespect human life, expand government, tax and spend, and undermine national security at home and abroad. The Freedom Federation is a unique federation of organizations and leaders, representing people of all races, ethnic origins, and generations. We are united by core values and are determined to work together to build a better America.”

Last week, Liberty University Law School announced that it was withdrawing its sponsorship of the upcoming CPAC conference because event organizers refused to cave to their demands that the conservative gay group GOProud be dropped from the list of co-sponsors.

So far, only Liberty Law School has backed out (even the affiliated Liberty Counsel, which is run by Liberty Law School's Dean, Mat Staver, is still participating) and LU doesn't seem to be picking up much support in its effort to boycott the event, with Focus on the Family announcing that it will remain a co-sponsor of the event, if only to counter GOProud's agenda: 

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Focus on the Family Action, says he has no problem with the fact that several of the other CPAC co-sponsors disagree with Focus on the Family, including GOProud.

"We think we've got to engage the broader conservative movement and to be salt and light in that environment," he explains. "We believe that social conservatism, biblical Christianity has a lot to say to the political culture -- and we want to be where the action is, so that's why we're engaging it."

Minnery believes boycotting the event is the wrong strategy for social conservatives.

"I dearly hope that Liberty University continues to have its booth and will rethink its co-sponsorship for next year because that group is very important -- and we need all the help we can get to inculcate that conference with conservative Christian values," says the Focus spokesman.

According to Minnery, if all social conservative groups "charge off in a huff, pick up our marbles and go home," there will be no one at CPAC to counter the agenda of GOProud.