The NRA has, so far, sat out the Elena Kagan nomination and the Right is miffed.
The US Attorney failed to appear and file formal charges against Rev. Mahoney for his June 8 arrest on a public sidewalk in front of a Planned Parenthood in Washington, D.C.
Robert George wants to know if President Obama is a liar or a bigot, 'cause he is one or the other.
OneNewsNow warns that atheists are "on a search-and-destroy mission against any vestige of religion in public life" ... via billboards.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 30, 2010 - 3:32pm
Last week we noted that Senate Republicans had put Gen. Jerry Boykin on their list of witnesses to testify against Elena Kagan during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, seemingly unaware of just how radically right-wing his views were.
Sadly, they quickly wised up and dropped him from the list but, in a serendipitous turn of events, the AFA's Bryan Fischer had Boykin on his radio program today to discuss the entire issue.
In this clip, Fischer calls out Senate Republicans to caving to a bunch of bloggers sitting around in the pajamas and clicking away on their laptops, and Boykin agrees, saying that Sen. Sessions called him to apologize but that doesn't change the fact that there are no good Christian men in Congress who are willing to stand up for the truth. Boykin then goes on to give a quick synopsis of what he would have said, had his invitation not been rescinded, eventually getting into Sen. Inhofe territory suggesting that the troops will be unwilling to die for their fellow gay soldiers:
Now, that sort of testimony might be relevant to a hearing about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but that Boykin intended to deliver it during a confirmation hearing for Kagan seems rather odd, to put it mildly.
So it seems pretty clear that Senate Republicans made a smart move by dropping Boykin ... after all, I am sure that the last thing they wanted was to watch Boykin go off about how Islam is not a religion and should not be protected by the First Amendment:
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 30, 2010 - 2:10pm
Every once in a while it is important to remind ourselves that the Religious Right doesn't want our nation's laws to reflect Biblical principles only on issues like abortion or gay marriage, but on all laws.
And though we tend to forget that from time to time, fortunately they are willing to remind us, which is what David Barton and Rick Green of Wallbuilders did today, laying out the case for complete economic deregulation on the grounds that that is what the Bible says that Christians should be free to do as they please, while laws and regulations should only be targeted at "the bad people."
As an added bonus, the guest on today's radio program was Rep. Randy Neugebauer, whom you may remember as the man who screamed "baby killer" at Rep. Bart Stupak during the health care debate, who slammed the idea of bailing out companies because they will never learn their lesson if we don't let them go out of business:
Barton: There is a great Bible verse, 1 Timothy 1, 8-10 where God tells us why he gives us laws. And we should use this as the standard by which we judge laws in a city, or in a county, or in a state, or anything else. Here's was Scripture says, God says "we know that the law is good if one uses it properly." So what is the proper use of the law? It says that "we also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels." So the first point of law is you don't make laws to regulate the good people, you make laws to regulate the bad people. You want to restrain the bad, not restrain the good. So it says "we know the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, and homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine."
The purpose we have laws is to restrain the bad, that is the purpose of government, that is the purpose of law. We obviously have gotten away from that. We have so many laws now that restrain the good folks and regulate the good folks ... if you look at all the bailouts that have happened over the last two years, the only divisions of the economy that needed bailouts were the most heavily regulated divisions, the ones with the most government, and that's insurance, that's real estate, that's banking, you had regulations through the unions on the car dealers that went out of business. The guys that had competitive market stuff, we had a lot of car dealers that didn't go under.
Green: The power of government was coming in to those that did go under controlling it.
Barton: And there is was.
Green: And so the excuse, typically, for these regulations is to keep from having the problems but you the result is ...
Barton: You have more problems every time, because you're violating the Biblical principle that laws are made to restrain the bad, not the good. You cannot violate God's principles and have it work.
[EDIT - Green reiterates this argument to Rep. Neugebauer]
Neugebauer: We should have let those companies fails. You talk about learning a lesson, companies don't learn a lesson when the government and the tax payers bail 'em out. Companies learn lessons when they fail and that makes the market then pay better attention to some of these entities and whether they are providing 'em credit or buying stock in those companies. But if there is this implied guarantee that somehow, don't worry, the taxpayers will swoop in and pick up the tab then there is no encouraging the market to be a little careful in their selection and really no pressure on management to manage their balance sheets better.
Behold the economic ideology driving the Religious Right: Christians don't need regulation because they are good people, and trying to regulate Christians violates God's will, which in turns caused our economy to nearly collapse ... and we should have let it collapse, because that is the only way that business would learn its lesson.
[And, as an interesting side note, when Barton quotes from 1 Timothy, he seems to be reading from the New International Version, as that appears to be the only version that uses the word "properly" while the others use the word "lawfully." And the NIV version of that passage does not mention "homosexuals" .. but apparently Barton thought it important to add that.]
You really need to read the piece to get a proper sense of what took place - like Engle revealing that he had been sent by God to warn San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom that he would be judged for promoting homosexuality - but I want to highlight a few choice quotes that Hurst captured that show just how political all of Engle's efforts truly are:
“You weigh every decision, say, for instance, the way you vote — OH, we’re getting political, Lou — God never abdicated one sphere of society to the Devil! It’s all his! Let me tell you, there’s gonna be…anyway."
...
“Voting is not just a political act! It is not just a choice that you make. It’s not some kind of decision. I’m shouting it. The Bible says that God gave Adam the responsibility to govern! From the beginning, man was given the government of the earth! Romans 13 says all government is derived from God’s government. It’s all delegated authority, and that those governors are to rule in such a way, in the fear of the Lord, Psalms chapter 2. So, if all government comes from God, then THE GOVERNMENT WE HAVE IN AMERICA IS FROM GOD! So, who is the government? Not Barack Obama! It’s a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Therefore, when you vote for those who shed innocent blood, you are making a governmental decision under the government of God! You are actually in the rebellion of Psalms 2! You will actually be held accountable for how you govern! We have to tremble in the voting booth. We should tremble in voting booths! You don’t choose a person because you feel good about him, or he feels like maybe he’s going to change the world, YOU VOTE ON THEIR STAND ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF BIBLICAL TRUTH! Because if you don’t, you’re actually handing the keys to people who have anti-Christ spirits! You are actually giving authority to someone who is in rebellion to God! … There is a higher government than the governments of men. We are a citizenship of heaven, and that citizenship of heaven influences everything we do, every decision in our lives. I want to stand before the Lord and say ‘When you gave me the government in America, I did what you wanted me to do.’ Because if I don’t, then we’ll hear those same words of Psalms 2, Therefore you kings be warned, Tremble you judges of the earth. Who are the kings?”
Perhaps the most telling moment occurs when Engle begins to rail against President Obama for recognizing families with "two fathers" on Father's Day, saying that such proclimations unleash demons from the spirit realm on our world and then stops and asks if that can be erased because he doesn't want it ending up on YouTube:
“Our president two days ago came out and said ‘We bless the fathers of families that have two fathers’! This is a decree, a blessing, called this month, LGBT pride month. When decrees come from high places, it actually opens doors! It is a key! It unlocks the spiritual realm for the fueling of the demonization of culture! Is this being taped?” [voice from bouncer/heavy off to the side interjects “We can erase it.”]
It seems the Engle is becoming aware of just how radical his views appear and is taking steps to censor himself and his record. Of course, that was just one of the crazy things Engle said during the evening, so he has a long, long way to go.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 30, 2010 - 10:13am
It seems that the Right is all agog over this article in the "National Review" by Shannen Coffin, claiming that Elena Kagan "manipulated the statement of a medical organization to protect partial-birth abortion" while working in the Clinton White House.
Here is the gist of Coffin's "bombshell":
There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.
Coffin points to this draft copy [PDF] of the ACOG statement which does not include the phrase “[An intact D & X] may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." Instead, that phrase was handwritten in as a suggestion from Kagan.
The phrase was included in the final version and has apparently been cited by judges in cases involving the prodecure ... and this is somehow proof that Kagan is willing to "override a scientific finding with her own calculated distortion in order to protect access to the most despicable of abortion procedures seriously twisted the judicial process" and therefore is unfit for the Supreme Court.
Of course, if you bother to actually read the document Coffin cites, or the final ACOG statement itself, it is abundantly clear that this one sentence fits with the overall position being advocated by ACOG, which was that any "legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.."
Here is the entire ACOG statement, so you can judge for youself wheter the inclusion of this one sentence in any way changes ACOG's fundamental point or distorts science:
THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS,
Washington, DC.
ACOG Statement of Policy
STATEMENT ON INTACT DILATATION AND EXTRACTION
The debate regarding legislation to prohibit a method of abortion, such as the legislation banning ``partial birth abortion,'' and ``brain sucking abortions,'' has prompted questions regarding these procedures. It is difficult to respond to these questions because the descriptions are vague and do not delineate a specific procedure recognized in the medical literature. Moreover, the definitions could be interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion and operative obstetric techniques.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) believes the intent of such legislative proposals is to prohibit a procedure referred to as ``Intact Dilatation and Extraction'' (Intact D & X). This procedure has been described as containing all of the following four elements:
1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days;
2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech;
3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and
4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.
Because these elements are part of established obstetric techniques, it must be emphasized that unless all four elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an intact D & X.
Abortion intends to terminate a pregnancy while preserving the life and health of the mother. When abortion is performed after 16 weeks, intact D & X is one method of terminating a pregnancy. The physician, in consultation with the patient, must choose the most appropriate method based upon the patient's individual circumstances.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 5.3% of abortions performed in the United States in 1993, the most recent data available, were performed after the 16th week of pregnancy. A preliminary figure published by the CDC for 1994 is 5.6%. The CDC does not collect data on the specific method of abortion, so it is unknown how many of these were performed using intact D & X. Other data show that second trimester transvaginal instrumental abortion is a safe procedure.
Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D & X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D & X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.
Approved by the Executive Board, January 12, 1997.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 30, 2010 - 9:09am
Given that we are in the middle of Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearing and keep hearing all sorts of complaints from the Right about "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" and whatever, I just wanted to highlight this article from Focus on the Family because it perfectly demonstrates just how bogus this entire talking point really is:
A new front just opened Monday in the political tug-of-war over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" – a Clinton-era policy prohibiting people who are openly gay or lesbian from serving in the military.
U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips in Riverside, Calif., agreed to hear a case that challenges the military policy. The lawsuit was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, a fiscally conservative, gay-activist group within the Republican Party.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for CitizenLink, is concerned the proceedings could become a show trial – with the underlying intent to solidifying the concept that gay members of the military are a victimized class and in need of special protections.
"Once again, gay activists want to use the courts to impose social change rather than leaving this issue to the democratic process," said Hausknecht. "There never seems a lack of judges who will jump at the chance to legislate from the bench."
Hausknecht is angry that the Log Cabin Republicans are trying to use to the courts to impose this change instead of allowing the democratic process to take care of it. At the same time, Focus on the Family is vehemently opposing efforts in Congress to repeal DADT, which is the very "democratic process" they say should be used.
So what happens if Congress does manage to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
Robert Maginnis, senior fellow for national security with the Family Research Council, doesn't make much out of this case, as he believes Congress will succeed in repealing the policy well before the November election – and before the court can rule.
"The real decision's going to be made by the Congress," said Maginnis, "and then we have a fight after that – if, in fact, they do repeal."
Hmmm .... is FRC suggesting that they will go to court to fight the repeal of DADT?
But what about the sanctity of the "democratic process"? What about using judges to impose decisions contrary to the will of the people? What about legislating from the bench?
So apparently the Religious Right is opposed to using the courts to try and repeal DADT ... but entirely willing to use the courts to try and repeal any repeal of DADT.
Finally, the quote of the day from Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: "There's really nothing conservative -- and certainly nothing evangelical -- about a laissez-faire view of a lack of government regulation, because we, as Christians, believe in sin. That means if people are sinful, if all of us are sinful, then all of us have to have accountability -- and that includes corporations. Simply trusting corporations to go about their business without polluting the water streams and without destroying ecosystems is really a naive and utopian view of human nature. It's not a Christian view of human nature."
"Elena Kagan has revealed herself as the pro-abortion activist she is. The 'health of the mother' exception has long been code for abortion on demand for any reason under the sun - including financial 'health.'
"Kagan's position is clearly opposed by the majority of Americans who self-identify as pro-life. While we are not shocked that an Obama nominee would be anything but rabidly pro-death, we are compelled to demand representation from our elected leaders: this pro-abortion ideologue is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.
While poll results may show that a bare plurality of Americans consider themselves "pro-life," a whopping 80% believe that the option should be available in certain circumstances ... like for "the health of the mother":
Only 15% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, which is the position held by the American Life League .. and yet ALL claims that it is Kagan who is the extremist ideologue.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 29, 2010 - 2:00pm
It was just last week that we reported that following the departure of Mike Heath from the Maine Family Policy Council, the organization had announced a new interim president and executive director who had as his mission undoing all of the embarrassment Heath had caused the organization with his ridiculous statements.
Those who viewed the environmental damage — Christians and non-believers alike — called the damage “apocalyptic.” Our culture is awash in a flood of impurity of another kind, and that is the loosening of the rules intended to conserve and perpetuate life.
The shining whiteness of the bridal gown, symbolizing purity and the power that purity conveys, has been stained — or smudged, if you will — by pornography, sex before marriage, marital infidelity, divorce, abortion and, now, so-called marriages between people of the same sex.
...
We here in Maine have been spared the effects of many recent natural or man-made calamities. But we should not allow our presumed immunity from disaster to divert our attention from the many moral problems that confront us. If these problems are not cured, they will prove worse than any catastrophic oil spill.
We count among these problems the indecent march in Farmington, the increasing number of so-called Gentlemen’s Clubs, the dangerous disrespect for women in the media and the incessant attacks on the natural family by government and advocates of same-sex marriage.
All these are violations of natural law, and as result, poison the life of society at its root. Much good can come of the oil spill in the Gulf, if the natural calamity reminds us to restore purity and innocence to America. Those in positions of authority, especially those who instruct the next generation, must work to preserve morality and right order in society.
They must stop justifying harmful and immoral actions by a specious appeal to freedom. If they do not, our continued existence as a nation will be imperiled, just as surely as the growing tide of oil imperils life in the Gulf.
The group claimed the show, which is still only in the development stage, was blasphemous and bigoted and so they set about targeting potential advertisers by warning them not to even think about supporting the show.
Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB) today announced victory in convincing advertisers not to sponsor the anti-Christian “JC” comedy that Comedy Central announced was in development.
Members of the coalition wrote to more than 300 corporations that had sponsored Comedy Central programming in the past. The letters explained the nature of the program and stated how offensive the “JC” project would be, not only to the 83 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Christians, but also to many non-Christians including those who signed the petition. Coalition members then followed up with phone calls to the advertisers, speaking directly with representatives from most of the corporations that received the original letter.
Not one single sponsor indicated their intention to buy advertising time on the “JC” program if the program ever made it to Comedy Central’s air.
Due to the success, the outreach effort has been suspended effective the close of business this past Friday, June 18th.
“After an intense period of writing and then calling hundreds of sponsors, the results are clear. In fact the verdict is unanimous: There is no advertiser support for anti-Christian bigotry such as that embraced in Comedy Central’s ‘JC’ project. The sponsors understand what the programming department at Comedy Central does not: Religious bigotry is bad business,” said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center and the founder of CARB.
“With literally zero advertiser support for this program, the only reason Comedy Central would put it on their broadcast schedule is in an effort to offend Christianity and Christians. There is no valid business reason for airing ‘JC.’
“In light of this demonstration of overwhelming success, the Coalition’s advertiser outreach will stand down. In the event that any advertiser changes its mind, that advertiser and its executives will be publicly called to account for supporting anti-Christian bigotry,” concluded Bozell.
So, has Citizens Against Religious Bigotry really managed to kill off "JC"?
I guess that remains to be seen ... as does the effectiveness of their threats should Comedy Central ultimately decide to put the show on the air.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 29, 2010 - 11:12am
Yesterday I wrote about the fact that Rep. Michele Bachmann had signed on to speak at Joseph Farah's "Take Back America Conferece" with a bunch of Birthers, fake prostitutes, anti-gay militants, and Christian Reconstructionists.
Today Andy Birkey posted a link to Bachmann's financial disclosure form [PDF] and noted that she reported having accepted seven trips paid for by right-wing groups - Young America's Foundation, American Israel Education Foundation, Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, National Home Education Legal Defense, Council of Graduate Students at Regent University, and David Horowitz's Freedom Center:
If Bachamann is being flown around the country by YAF, Phyllis Schlafly, CWA, and David Horowitz, I guess that is shouldn't come as much of a surprise that she'd be more than willing to associate with the likes of Joseph Farah, Alan Keyes, and Matt Barber.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 29, 2010 - 10:24am
Several weeks ago, Gov. Mitch Daniels set off a firestorm when he suggested calling a truce in the culture wars in order to focus the nation on addressing economic and security issues.
Needless to say, that suggestion didnotsitwell with the Religious Right, since fighting culture war issues is their main priority. But eventually the story ran its course and the attacks on Daniels subsided as everyone involved moved on to other issues.
Daniels' supporters had been defending him on the grounds that he has a solid pro-life conservative record and thus he could get away with calling for a truce because nobody could question his credentials. But it looks like that is not the case, as Morrison slams Daniels for allowing Planned Parenthood to host a fundraiser in the Governor's mansion and slams his "blinkered view [of] prosperity [with] no moral foundation":
What Mitch Daniels missed in his call for a "truce" in the culture clash -- a call he has adamantly repeated in recent days -- is that we can no more be quiet about the slaughter of innocents than we can about the plundering of the next generation's hopes for prosperity.
Planned Parenthood hosted a fundraiser in the Indiana governor's residence. No pro-life governor would allow that. If we accept that, how can we complain when Gov. Kathleen Sebelius invites the grisliest of partial-birth abortionists to her governor's mansion? Is it somehow OK because Daniels is a Republican?
...
The Republicans have ever been a party of enterprise. This is not wrong. Abraham Lincoln believed passionately in "the right to rise." He unleashed great engines of wealth production in the form of new inventions and a trans-continental railroad. Even with the tragedy and destruction of the Civil War, American industry and agriculture prospered.
But what saved Lincoln's new Republican Party from being dismissed as advocates only for "Golden Calf" politics -- a soulless worship of great wealth -- was its basic commitment to human dignity, to the right of every man to eat the bread his own hands had earned.
Daniels misses all this. He does not understand that human life is the basis for all wealth. President Reagan's Mexico City Doctrine was not just a cutoff of federal funds from the death-dealing minions of Planned Parenthood. It was importantly that, but much, much more.
Reagan's Mexico City Doctrine boldly declared that human creativity and human procreativity were the indispensable sources of all wealth. Every farmer knows you cannot prosper if you eat the seed corn ... We know that where there is no vision the people perish. With Mitch Daniels' blinkered view, the perishing will continue apace, and prosperity will have no moral foundation.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 29, 2010 - 8:58am
As the questioning in Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing finally gets underway, right-wing groups are busy releasing statements and reports claiming she is everything from a "clear and present danger to the Constitution" to a sign of the end times.
The Senate Judiciary Committee just concluded the first day of Elena Kagan's hearings to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. Our summary of Day 1: She may not be a Constitutionalist, but she sure plays one on TV.
As we expected, Kagan followed in Justice Sotomayor's footsteps and disguised herself as the next John Roberts, and Democratic Senators did their best to help her hide from her record of extreme activism on abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, and the scope of government power. According to Kagan, "what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint." In the immortal words of The Who, "Don't get fooled again."
Seeing as it was John Roberts who "disguised" himself as a umpire who would just call balls and strikes and then, once confirmed, revealed himself to be a blatant judicial activist, that is a pretty ironic criticism for JCN to level.
Chaplain Klingenschmitt has contracted with a team of investigative journalists including Brian Camenker, Amy Contrada and Peter LaBarbera to investigate and report breaking news about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
While serving as Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan's administration demanded and forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to cover sex-change operations as an "equal right" paid benefit, harming gender-confused students, as confirmed in 2006 and 2008 by Harvard Crimson newspaper articles.
Kagan also offered sympathetic ear to lesbian group Lambda's Transgender Task Force demand to force all women to share public bathrooms and locker-rooms with cross-dressing men, which is now part of Harvard's dormitory policy, according to the report.
"This is further proof Elena Kagan cannot be trusted to impartially rule on Obamacare or bathroom bills like ENDA, since she believes sin is a Constitutional right," said Chaplain Klingenschmitt, "but rights come from God, who never grants the right to sin."
Because if anything is going to clarify these confirmation hearings, is a report written by a bunch of militantly anti-gay activists like Klingenschmitt, Camenker, and LaBarbera ... and now that is exactly what we have:
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights." Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.
Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.
Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.
There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.
But that is actually quite reasonable compared to this statement from Tim LaHaye and Craig Parshall claiming that Kagan "presents a danger as old as the book of Genesis" and that her confirmation could be a sign of the End Times:
First, if she becomes a Supreme Court justice, she could be the all-important fifth vote in favor of interpreting our Constitution, not according to the vision of our Founding Fathers, but from an international law standpoint, a concept that would have seemed treasonous to our Founders. Three justices on the Court have already relied on foreign law in their opinions: Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg. Recently-installed justice Sotomayor has praised Ruth Bader Ginsberg's penchant for international law, so we can assume she will be a legal globalist as well. Five justices create a majority and with Kagan on board they could begin radically steering us away from view of the Constitution that honors our Judeo-Christian heritage and founding.
Second, if this happens, it will usher America into a new age of global law. With Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, international legal standards could well be imposed on Americans by the High Court's legal globalists, even without the Senate approving a specific international treaty. In our new novel, Edge of Apocalypse, we show how this trend might create a modern-day legal nightmare for conscientious Christians. We need only to turn to Genesis chapter 11 to see how God opposed the ancient attempt at global unification: the Lord declared the tragic result that would follow if a centralized group of fallen men were to consolidate an unlimited, unrestrained power over the planet.
Keep your eyes on the Supreme Court's view of global law. It could be one of the most telling 'signs of the times.'
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 28, 2010 - 4:32pm
Sen. Robert Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.
Despite the fact that she is appearing at a conference organized by and featuring a bunch of Birthers, Rep. Michele Bachmann insists that she does not share that view.
The Religious Right wants to know how much money Comcast makes from its pornographic and adult entertainment programming as it seeks to merge with NBC.
The Family Research Council has announced two new experts who will work for them part time: Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis will be FRC's new Senior Fellow for National Security, and attorney and journalist Ken Klukowski will be FRC's Director of the Center for Religious Liberty.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 28, 2010 - 3:25pm
In my last post, I noted that it was rather odd that a group like the Judicial Crisis Network would team up with a rabidly anti-gay Religious Right group like the Traditional Values Coalition ... but apparently right-wing judicial groups are not particularly choosy about the sorts of groups with whom align themselves, which explains why Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice was a guest on Bryan Fischer's radio program last Friday:
As it turned out, the discussion was not all the interesting, as Levey rattled off the standard right-wing anti-Kagan talking points while calling Justice Thurgood Marshall the biggest judicial activist in American history.
So instead of recording that rather boring exchange, I recorded this rambling anti-gay rant from Fischer instead in which he tries to explain that because gays can't have children, they have more free time to engage in political activism and press their agenda ... of course, he also argues that gays, and single people, shouldn't be allowed to adopt children either, and that gays should just keep sexuality in the bedroom and stop "sticking it in our faces":
You think about the typical conservative, probably you, and most of the people listening to me right now, and me in this camp, the conventional conservative. We care about God, we care about the faith community, we're committed to our families - what we're involved in is were involved in nurturing our marriages, we're involved in helping our kids with their homework, we're involved in coaching our kids in soccer and Little League, we're involved in parent-teacher meetings, we're involved in going to school concerts and tracking them around watching them play their games, going to their recitals and all that. And then we're involved in going to choir practice, or our cell group, or our Bible study, and to church on Sunday, and to taking care of our homes and our laws. That's what occupies our time and attention.
But Andy's point was, look, you've got homosexuals who, by nature, cannot reproduce; it's impossible for them to reproduce, which is one of the reasons why we shouldn't have same sex marriage. Marriage really ultimately is about the right place for sexual expression to take place where procreation of children can take place, where children can conceived, they can be born, and they can be raised. That is what marriage is about. It's about a legitimate moral place for sexual expression to occur that occurs in conjunction with the procreative act that brings children into the world so they can be raised. Marriage ought to be reserved for those kinds of relationships, where they is a natural kind of sexual interaction, sexual capacity.
But homosexuals cannot reproduce, so the great majority of them don't have children. They are allowed to adopt in some places, which I think ought to be contrary to public policy. We should not have same-sex couples adopting children - you're deliberately placing kids in a home with a missing parent. This is a terrible thing to do to a child. It's a travesty to do to a child. If that child's up for adoption, they've already undergone, they've already experienced some kind of trauma already, which is the reason they're in a position where they need to be adopted into a home. The last thing in the world that you want to do is inflict an additional trauma on these children by deliberately choosing to put them in a home with a missing parent. I think our public policy should not be to adopt children into single parent households; that's a mistake, that's a tragedy, that's a disservice to those children. So they shouldn't go into single-parent homes as adoptive children and they shouldn't go into same sex homes.
But the point is, and I keep getting myself off track here, the point is that we know from studies that have been done that homosexuals have a higher per capita income than the rest of the population; they have time on their hands because they do not have children to tuck into bed at night, they do not have children to feed in the morning, they do not have children to take to school, they do not have children to take to soccer and Little League practice - so that time is available to them to put into political activism. And he's exactly right - they've just go time on their hands and that's where they put it; they put it into pressing their political agenda.
Homosexuals are the ones who are bringing their behavior out of the bedroom. You know, they always say "why do conservatives want to invade people's bedrooms?" The answer is "we don't." You can do whatever you want in your bedroom, nobody is going to barge in, nobody is going to break down your door and arrest you in your bedroom. You're the ones who are bringing it out of the bedroom and into the streets, You're sticking it in our faces, you're telling us we have to accept this, we have to normalize this, we have to sanction this, we have to promote it, we have to endorse it. If you would take your sexual behavior back in the bedroom, nobody would be bothering you.
As I said before, you really have to marvel at the groups with whom these right-wing judicial organizations like CJF and JCN are willing to associate themselves.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 28, 2010 - 12:57pm
Earlier today, Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the Judicial Crisis Network, and Students for Life of America held a joint press conference to announce their opposition to Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Supreme Court.
The only problem was, as the CQ-Roll Call blog Congress.org explained, that the groups held their conference outside the Supreme Court, where reporters were awaiting today's rulings, rather than where the reporters covering it were actually stationed:
Activists against Elena Kagan gathered on Capitol Hill Monday but outside the wrong building.
An hour before the Supreme Court nominee faced questions from senators, the leaders of four conservative groups stood outside the high court in protest.
"We're calling on the senate today," Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition began. "They are going to be accountable for the questions they ask or don't ask."
One problem: The backdrop Lafferty and the others chose was the court, not the Capitol. The court reporters who were around focused on a competing press conference about the morning's court rulings .
Most of the cameras focused on Lafferty's group were those of tourists -- not the press.
"Why are they protesting here?" one passerby asked a friend. "She's not on the court yet. She doesn't work here."
Had the reps from the Judicial Crisis Network, Students for Life, and Concerned Women for America stood outside the Hart Building, they would have had better luck getting attention from reporters actually covering Kagan.
I guess I should also point out that TVC is considered an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, so you have to question the judgment of CWA and JCN for partnering with them for this event.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 28, 2010 - 11:37am
The confirmation hearing for Elena Kagan is just getting under way and so I am going to start collecting statements and reactions and posting them both on the RightWingWatch and PFAW blogs ... and we are already off to a good start, as Liberty Counsel is liveblogging the event and, before it even began, accused Kagan of being unfit for the Supreme Court because she is a liar:
There have been many comments in the media that this appointment will not change the dynamic of the court because Justice Souter's opinions were very much on the left side of the political spectrum. Kagan's confirmation would do more than keep a politically left justice on the bench. As apparent in her time at Harvard Law School, Kagan's ability to change the curriculum shows her ability to influence. A person with Kagan's radical ideology and means of influence could be dangerous on the Supreme Court. In addition, ethically Kagan has shown that she is not afraid to lie in a confirmation hearing, which brings into serious question her ability and fitness in the practice of law.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 28, 2010 - 10:10am
The AFA's Bryan Fischer points to an article reporting on a study that has found that more American women are choosing not to have children and sees in it an opportunity for Christians to ultimately gain complete social, cultural, and political dominance by simply breeding more:
What this means quite simply is that liberals are breeding themselves out of existence ... All this represents a marvelous opportunity for conservatives. We can regain political control of this country by simply following the biblical mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” This cultural mandate from God, as recorded in Genesis 1:28, has never been rescinded. It is as much in effect today as the moment it was first uttered.
...
Since we need to make up for the childbearing aversion of our secular fundamentalist friends, perhaps each conservative family can set out to have at least four children. It won’t be too long before our poor, outflanked elites will be so badly outnumbered by a new generation imbued with the values of the Judeo-Christian tradition they may have to start having children of their own just to fight back and retain a sliver of cultural influence ... Let the left rant and hyperventilate and blow up like puffer fish responding to these notions. While they erupt and steam, we will quietly go about the task of building our families and training up cultural warriors for the next generation. Let them fume in their childless rage while we celebrate the joys of parenthood and along the way implement a sure-fire long range strategy for taking our country back.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 28, 2010 - 9:26am
Last year, we wrote a series of posts about the How To Take Back America Conference which was hosted by Janet Porter and Phyllis Schlafly and several other Religious Right groups and featured as speakers everyone from Mike Huckabee to Michele Bachmann to Trent Franks.
But recently, Farah announced a few new big-name attendees, including Ann Coulter and now Rep. Michele Bachmann:
Rep. Michele Bachmann, the red-hot rising star of the Republican Party, has joined an all-star lineup of speakers, debaters and presenters, including Ann Coulter, Alan Keyes, Victoria Jackson, Hannah Giles, Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi, at WND's "Taking America Back" national conference in Miami Sept. 16-18.
"Michele Bachmann is one of the leaders in calling for a repeal of Obamacare," said Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND. "She's a rock star, a principled, liberty-loving woman of conviction. It will be a treat to see her and hear her and interact with her in Miami."
Other speakers include Gary North, son-in-law of Christian Reconstructionist guru R.J. Rushdoony and an open Reconstructionist himself:
While many Christians believe that biblical law is a guide to morality and public ethics, when interpreted in faith, Reconstructionism is unique in advocating that civil law should be derived from and limited by biblical law. For example, they support the recriminalization of acts of abortion and homosexuality, but also oppose confiscatory taxation, conscription, and most aspects of the welfare state. Protection of property and life needs grounding in biblical law, according to Reconstructionism, or the state set free from the restraint of God's law will take what it wishes at a whim. Accordingly, Reconstructionists advocate biblically derived measures of restitution, a definite limit upon the powers of taxation, and a gold standard or equivalent fixed unit for currency.
Another Reconstructionist also scheduled to speak is Gary DeMar of American Vision, whose mission is to see "an America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life, where Christians apply a Biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be again a 'city on a hill' drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to subdue the earth for the advancement of His Kingdom."
So that is whom Bachmann has signed on with - a bunch of Birthers, fake prostitutes, anti-gay militants, rhetorical bomb-throwers, and Christian Reconstructionists.
The Bible tells us in Genesis 1:28 that God created us to multiply, fill the earth, and take dominion of His creation for His Glory. When Jesus came to earth, He gave his disciples the Great Commission and told them to make disciples of all nations, Baptize them, and teach them to obey all that he had commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). These two mandates form the basis for why Christ’s Church exists on this planet. Every square inch of this world belongs to King Jesus. It is our privilege to serve Him by exercising servanthood dominion in every area of life.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 26, 2010 - 10:15am
Last month, PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery wrote a piece for AlterNet examining the allegations that Ergun Caner, head of Liberty University's Baptist Theological Seminary, had exaggerated about about his Muslim past.
After 9/11, Caner became a popular Religious Right speaker, telling audiences how he had been raised in Turkey to wage jihad against America before converting to Christianity and presenting himself as an expert on both Islam and Islamic terrorism.
Much of that, as it turned out, was false .. and now Liberty University has announced that when Caner's contract is up at the end of this month, it will not be renewed and Caner will no longer be head of the Seminary, though he will remain at LU as a professor:
Liberty University said Friday that Ergun Caner would no longer be dean of its seminary, following an investigation into some of his claims about being raised as a Muslim.
Caner has signed a contract to be a member of the seminary’s faculty next year, the university said in a statement Friday afternoon.
Four members of Liberty’s Board of Trustees who conducted the investigation found that “Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory,” the university said.
The panel, however, basically supported Caner’s testimony of being a former Muslim who converted to Christianity.
The contradictions came in “matters such as dates, names and places of residence,” the LU statement said.
Although LU didn’t provide any more details about the discrepancies, Caner said in several speaking engagements in 2001 and later that he was raised in Turkey before coming to the United States as a teenager.
He also said he was trained in Islamic jihad, a term associated with terrorist activity, according to recordings made in 2001 of his comments at First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla., and Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas.
However, his parents’ divorce papers, on file in a Columbus, Ohio, courthouse, indicated the family moved from Stockholm, Sweden, to the U.S. when Caner was about 4 years old, and continued to live in the Columbus area.
Caner’s father was a Muslim who sought to raise his children in the Islamic faith, although he had only part-time custody after the divorce, the documents indicate.
“Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review,” the LU statement said.
The investigating committee “found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager,” the statement said.
LU spokesman Johnnie Moore responded to requests for further comment by saying, “Liberty will not be making any additional comments or giving any interviews at this time.”
Here is the full statement issued by Liberty:
“After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caner’s public statements, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory.
“However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence.
“Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.
“Dr. Caner’s current contractual term as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary expires on June, 30, 2010.
“Dr. Caner will no longer serve as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.
“The university has offered, and Dr. Caner has accepted, an employment contract for the 2010-2011 academic year. Dr. Caner will remain on the faculty of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary as a professor.”
TPM's Justin Elliot: Sharron Angle's Fringe Third Party Sponsored Virulently Anti-Gay Flier In '90s.
Finally, have I mentioned that I'm now writing our Twitter updates? Because I am. And have I mentioned that you should follow them? Because you should.
Star Parker explains why she should be elected to Congress with typical humility.
Finally, the quote of the day from Burt Prelutsky:"With the 24/7 media attention that's been devoted to the ecological disaster, it is easy to regard the leak as the worst thing that's ever happened to the environment. But even now it only ranks as about the 35th worst oil spill in the past hundred years. Something else that we should not lose sight of is that the Gulf is a magnet for hurricanes, just as California is one for earthquakes and New York City is one for Islamic terrorists. That means that bad stuff is always going to be happening – and if people are going to live in such places, they have to accept the risks."
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 25, 2010 - 4:10pm
Yesterday I posted a press release from Rabbi Yehuda Levin claiming that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, she will issue "extremist decisions" from the bench that will, in turn, unleash a "backlash" of anti-Semitic violence across the nation to sweep the nation. As such, Kagan's confirmation represents an "existential threat" to Jews in America and she therefore must be defeated.
Now obviously, that is insane. But, as Media Matters notes, apparently not too insane for CNSNews to pick it up and turn it into an article. And not just an old article that regurgitates Levin's absurd release, but one that actually contacted him for further comment:
Levin told CNSNews.com that his fellow rabbis--and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and traditional Jews--are puzzled at the president’s choice of Kagan.
“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”
Barring a rebuff from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Levin told CNSNews.com that the rabbis want someone in the Senate to launch a filibuster to stop Kagan's nomination from coming to a vote.
"We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators--whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)--we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said.
- Robert Alt, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
- Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, US Army (ret.)
- Capt. Pete Hegseth, Army National Guard
- Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, Benesch
- David Kopel, Esq., Independence Institute
- Colonel Thomas N. Moe, USAF (ret.)
- David Norcross, Esq., Blank Rome
- William J. Olson, Esq., William J. Olson, P.C.
- Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
- Steven Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law
- Ronald Rotunda, The Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University School of Law
- Ed Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
- Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life
- Capt. Flagg Youngblood, USAF
Most of the witness are to be expected, but some -like Tony Perkins and Charmaine Yoest - are rather surprising.
And then there is Jerry Boykin. Really? That guy is completely off the rails.
He's the one who was forced to retire after declaring that we were engaged in a spiritual war with Islam that "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus," saying that knows we will eventually win because our God is bigger than theirs.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 25, 2010 - 1:49pm
Rick Santorum, making his gazillionth visit to Iowa this year as he plots a 2012 run for the White House (because that really is the next logical step after being losing his Senate seat in 2006) took some time out to talk with Craig Robinson of "The Iowa Republican" and explain why President Obama is not a real American:
“Obama is detached form the American experience. He just doesn’t identify with the average American because of his own background. Indonesia and Hawaii. His view is from the viewpoint of academics and the halls of the Ivy league schools that he went to and it’s not a love of this country and an understanding of the basic values and wants and desires of it’s people. And as a result of that, he doesn’t connect with people at that level.
He connects with the soaring rhetoric, and the great promises and this ideological utopian vision. He didn’t connect with people because he felt their pain or he cared about them or he understands them. It’s been, to me, a very important understanding of who this guy is, and I think that’s become evident through this crisis.”
And then, just for good measure, Santorum also weighed in on the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, saying that the only mistake McChrystal made is "that is he criticized Obama" and Oamba "just simply cannot stand criticism."
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 25, 2010 - 11:09am
One of the things I quickly discovered when I started reading up on the whole Dominionism and New Apostolic Reformation movements was just how quickly you could slide into "Six Degrees of Separation" talk when covering those involved in these movements.
Obviously, not every person who shares a stage with someone like Cindy Jacobs or Lou Engle shares their views, though it is harder for organizers who include activists of this type in their events to make such arguments.
That is what got Janet Porter in trouble and that is why the Freedom Federation, the right-wing supergroup that includes groups like the Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel, Traditional Values Coalition, Wallbuilders and dozens of others, has to take responsibility for the decision to include groups like Generals International, Lou Engle and The Call, and Morning Star Ministries among the coalition members.
We haven't written much about Rick Joyner of Morning Star Ministries, but he runs a distinctly political organization called "The Oak Initiative," which is also a member of the Freedom Federation, and which has a mission to "find and help develop principled and effective Christian leaders who can mobilize and organize a cohesive force of activated Christians" and place them "on every level where government is found, from the most local to state and national levels."
The Oak Initiative has a distinctly Dominionist/7 Mountains agenda "to raise up effective leaders for all of the dominant areas of influence in the culture, including: government, business, education, arts and entertainment, family services, media, and the church." And it also has a Board full of Religious Right activists including Janet Porter, Lou Sheldon, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, Cindy Jacobs, Lt.Gen. W.G. "Jerry" Boykin, and Marc Nuttle:
Mr. Nuttle has represented as legal counsel and political counsel, numerous United States House of Representative campaigns, United States Senate campaigns, gubernatorial campaigns, and state House and state Senate campaigns encompassing all states in the continental U.S. He served on Senator Dewey Bartlett’s staff and on Governor Henry Bellmon’s senatorial campaign staff. He has served as counselor to Senator Don Nickles and as advisor to Senator Jim Inhofe. Mr. Nuttle served as field counsel for the 1984 Reagan-Bush Reelect Campaign. In the early 1988 presidential election cycle, he was National Campaign Manager for Pat Robertson's presidential campaign. He was a senior advisor to George Bush's presidential campaigns in 1988 and 1992. From 1989 to 1991, he was Executive Director of the National Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, DC. He was a legal advisor in the Bush-Gore re-count effort in Florida in 2000.
Starting next week, Joyner's Morning Star Ministries is hosting an event called "The Great Awakening Conference" in South Carolina that includes, among others, Todd Bentley, the founder of Joel's Army:
Todd Bentley has a long night ahead of him, resurrecting the dead, healing the blind, and exploding cancerous tumors. Since April 3, the 32-year-old, heavily tattooed, body-pierced, shaved-head Canadian preacher has been leading a continuous "supernatural healing revival" in central Florida. To contain the 10,000-plus crowds flocking from around the globe, Bentley has rented baseball stadiums, arenas and airport hangars at a cost of up to $15,000 a day. Many in attendance are church pastors themselves who believe Bentley to be a prophet and don't bat an eye when he tells them he's seen King David and spoken with the Apostle Paul in heaven. "He was looking very Jewish," Bentley notes.
Tattooed across his sternum are military dog tags that read "Joel's Army." They're evidence of Bentley's generalship in a rapidly growing apocalyptic movement that's gone largely unnoticed by watchdogs of the theocratic right. According to Bentley and a handful of other "hyper-charismatic" preachers advancing the same agenda, Joel's Army is prophesied to become an Armageddon-ready military force of young people with a divine mandate to physically impose Christian "dominion" on non-believers.
Back in 2008, Bentley became a superstar hosting these massive rallies that often featured violent acts of "healing":
He was known to boast about healing through violence. He had been videotaped telling stories about kicking a woman in the face, slamming a crippled woman's legs against the stage and knocking out a man's tooth. This was done, he claimed, on behalf of the Holy Spirit.
Around that time, Bentley was welcomed into C. Peter Wagner's sphere of "apostles" and "prophets" in a ceremony featuring fellow leaders, including Rick Joyner and Stacey Campbell:
Bentley's credibility suffered badly when it was announced that he was divorcing his wife, but Joyner has been steadfastly working on "restoring" Bentley and Bentley even relocated his ministry to operate directly out of Joyner's Morning Fellowship Church.
As I said earlier, there is a danger in playing "six degrees" with some of these connections ... but in this case it seems entire fair to wonder just how extensive the Dominionism/NAR influence is becoming within the contemporary Religious Right movement when groups like Morning Star, Oak Initiative, Generals International, and The Call are being openly welcomed into their political coalitions.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 25, 2010 - 9:16am
I guess that it if the BP oil spill in the Gulf is due to God's anger over President Obama's treatment of Israel, then it only stands to reason that the best way to end the crisis is prayer.
And that is exactly the solution that four Southern Republican governors appear to be banking on:
Four Gulf Coast governors are calling on residents to set aside Sunday as a Day of Prayer to pray for a solution to the oil spill and for citizens impacted by the disaster.
Alabama's Bob Riley, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Mississippi's Haley Barbour and Texas' Rick Perry all issued proclamations calling on prayer for the spill, which entered its 66th day Thursday.
"Throughout our history, Alabamians have humbly turned to God to ask for His blessings and to hold us steady during times of struggle. This is certainly one of those times," Riley said in a statement.
Riley's proclamation reads in part, "Citizens of Alabama are urged to pray for the well-being of our fellow citizens and our State, to pray for all those in other states who are hurt by this disaster, to pray for those who are working to respond to this crisis, and to pray that a solution that stops the oil leak is completed soon."
Perry's proclamation says it "seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join with their fellow Gulf Coast residents" and others across the country and around the world "to thank God, seek his wisdom for ourselves and our leaders, and ask him for his merciful intervention and healing in this time of crisis."
Barbour's notes that the spill threatens the "livelihoods of our fellow citizens, the environmental beauty of our coast, and our quality of life." Jindals's says "Louisianians all across the world are united in hope for an end to this catastrophic event and pray for" the coast's recovery.
Jindal, in fact, participated in a prayer vigil earlier this week where, according to the Louisiana Famly Forum (Tony Perkins old haunt,) "intercessors" laid hands upon him:
Pastors Dino Rizzo, Apostle Lloyd Benson, Bishop Ricky Sinclair, Bishop Raymond Johnson, and Pastor Dennis Blackwell led in prayers for the bereaved families, for our government officials, for the environment, for the people and businesses of the Gulf Coast, and for solutions to this economic and environmental crisis.
And they were not alone, as Southern Baptist Convention is calling on churches and Christians "to pray for the end of this catastrophe and for the homes, lives, cultures, and livelihoods of those in the Gulf Coast region" while John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council "is working on a coordinated effort, and is asking believers and churches across America to unite in prayer for the Gulf this Sunday" and even Wallbuilders is "urging everyone across the nation to join with these states, asking for God's hand to be on all the decision-makers and lawmakers, that He would give them discernment and guidance, and that a solution would be forthcoming."
Bryan Fischer continues his "all public policy should be based on the Bible" agenda by explaining that it is okay to make immigrants show their papers because Nehemiah had papers.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 24, 2010 - 4:04pm
Last year, we wrote about Will Phillips, a 10 year old boy in Arkansas who was refusing to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance until gays can get married and achieve full equality.
Phillips has been tapped to serve as Grand Marshall of the Northwest Arkansas Pride Parade in Fayetteville on Saturday and the American Family Association is freaking out, sending out an action alert targeting the mayor and calling it a "form of child abuse":
I am shocked to learn that the city of Fayetteville is issuing a proclamation in support of the homosexual activist group, Northwest Arkansas Pride.
It’s offensive enough to sensibilities that they are going to parade their deviant lifestyle on the streets of the city.
It’s even more abhorrent that the city is supporting it, knowing very well that the organizers of this event are exploiting children to push their radical sexualizing event.
I implore you to withdraw the proclamation and focus on issues that promote a healthy and safe lifestyle, rather than one that is risky and dangerous.
...
AFA President Tim Wildmon says, “It’s shameful that adults would abuse a brain-washed child in this way. He’s obviously just parroting the nonsense he’s been told by manipulative adults. For gay activists to trot out this child and make him the poster child for promoting unnatural sexual expression is a form of child abuse."
So of course Fox News picked up the story and just take one guess who they quoted:
“We believe that it goes beyond the pale for adults to exploit a 10-year-old child for dark political purposes,” said Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis at AFA. “He is too young to understand. There is nothing about homosexual conduct to be proud of and much to be ashamed of.”
The AFA, according to Fischer, has sent an “action alert” to its members in Arkansas, and he says they have deluged the mayor’s and city council’s office with e-mails “asking him to stop this charade.” Though there are no plans to actively protest at the parade, Fischer said, “as of noon Thursday our records show that the mayor and city council had received 12,300 e-mails asking them to stop the parade.”
I've often wondered what media outlet would be the first to quote Fischer in a story like this and if they'd even bother to mention his long history of viciously anti-gay and all around crazy statements.
I guess it should come as no surprise that the answers were: Fox News ,and No.
But in good news, Fayetteville's Mayor is refusing to bow to the AFA's pressure and Saturday’s parade will go on as scheduled.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 24, 2010 - 1:58pm
Yesterday, Cindy and Mike Jacobs of Generals International hosted a special webcast with Chuck Pierce on their website that focused primarily on explaining how the BP oil spill in the Gulf is due to President Obama's poor treatment of Israel.
Jacobs explained that years ago Bob Jones prophesied that following the death of Oral Roberts, the Gulf Coast would be hit with an oil spill and two hurricanes. Apparently that prophecy is now coming true and it is because God is angry with Obama's attitude toward Israel. Chuck Piece agreed, but also noted that God had sent Hurricane Katrina because He was upset about the United States' treatment of Israel and He intended Katrina to be a "purifying wind," but the US failed to get the message "so now look at the gunk that's coming up on top of us":
I should also point out that both Cindy Jacobs and Chuck Pierce sponsored and participated in Janet Porter's May Day 2010 prayer rally.
Frankly, I have no idea what they are talking about in that above clip, but apparently the idea that the BP oil spill is God's punishment for our failure to properly support Israel is becoming an increasinglyaccepted explanation.
But, it turned out, the real purpose of the webcast was for Cindy and Mike Jacobs to ask for money. Generals International has been having financial trouble lately but had recently been offered a $15,000 matching grant and desperately needs donors to give money so that they can take full advantage of it. The only problem is that GI has been under attack from four vortexes of demons which have been preventing the financial resources they need from getting through to them:
Cindy Jacobs went on to recount a recent instance in which God knocked her out cold while she was on stage preaching so that he could give her a vision of armies to angels descending to earth on horseback, but I didn't record that because she said they would be putting the footage up on their website soon and I didn't want to ruin the surprise.
Have I mentioned that Generals International is not some fringe group, but is actually a member of the Freedom Federation, the right-wing super-coalition that includes the Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel, Traditional Values Coalition, Wallbuilders and dozens of others?
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 24, 2010 - 12:25pm
Back in April, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly was saying that he did not see much value in continuing to fight the culture war on gay issues because he more or less expected to eventually lose the battle over marriage:
"I'm not fearful that change will happen in America. It will happen. ... I don't know what will happen with same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to be discouraged if we lose some of those battles," he said, noting that for "98 percent" of people, traditional marriage will remain relevant.
"It's going to be difficult in this culture and the way the demographics are going right now," he went on. "You look at the under-35 age group. I think it's splitting 60-40 support for same-sex marriage. There's a lot of people in the U.S. [who] basically come to the conclusion that this is something between two adults. I will continue to defend traditional marriage, but I'm not going to demean human beings for the process."
But, since Focus has become entirely schizophrenic since Daly took over, it doesn't come as a surprise that Daly has now penned a piece criticizing President Obama for daring to recognize families with "two fathers" on Father's Day:
President Obama is very carefully and quietly transforming homosexual politics and policy on the federal level. With the use of his executive authority he is actively engaged in an attempt to normalize the public's perception of homosexuality, from supporting the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to extending and expanding health care coverage for homosexual partners of federal employees.
...
In elevating and equating the influence of a two-father family to that of all other traditional forms, the administration is, perhaps unknowingly, depriving children of the opportunity to have the very thing the president has so strongly and eloquently suggested they need most: A mom and a dad.
As the product of a fatherless home myself, I am keenly aware and extremely sensitive to the harsh realities of a life that is less than ideal. In fact, the president and I share this common background, and so I immediately identify with his compassion and his desire to use the bully pulpit to ease suffering and meet the needs of the neediest among us.
But the fatherhood "effect" is not cumulative - two daddies are not better than one -- nor is a mother dispensable or replaceable. Instead of expending precious (and finite) energy and resources on selling the merits of two- father or two-mother families, the administration would be wise to invest and encourage the loving presence of both a mom and a dad.
It really is amazing how the mere admission and recognition that some families do in fact have two mothers or fathers drives the Religious Right absolutely insane.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 24, 2010 - 10:23am
You really have to marvel at the anti-gay animus that is driving the Liberty Counsel as it continues to argue on behalf of Lisa Miller in court despite that fact that she has kidnapped her daughter and reportedly fled the country so as to avoid complying by court orders.
Yesterday, Miller's case was back in court, this time in front of the Vermont Supreme Court, where LC attorneys continue to argue that Janet Jenkins should have absolutely no access to her daughter:
Miller's lawyers told the Vermont Supreme Court a lower court judge was wrong to have given Jenkins custody of Miller's biological daughter.
"Hoping that they'll reverse that of the trial court withholding that before you take custody away from a biological parent you're required to perform some constitutional analysis," said Rena Lindevaldsen, Miller's lawyer.
The lower court gave Jenkins custody after Miller refused to give Jenkins visitation rights. Miller's lawyers from the Liberty Counsel-- a public interest law firm-- say Jenkins should not have standing as a parent.
"If it were to go to the United States Supreme Court, I would like them to revisit the whole thing, and ultimately protect Lisa's fundamental rights, and indicate that even visitation is an err," Lindevaldsen said.
And I have a feeling that Lindevaldsen just might get her wish to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court, because it doesn't look like the judges in Vermont are buying her arguments:
Miller's lawyer is Rena Lindevaldsen. She says she hasn't heard from her client in months and doesn't know where she is. And she told the state Supreme Court that a Vermont trial judge was wrong to award custody to Miller's former partner.
(Lindevaldsen) You're switching from the first time anywhere in this nation from a fit biological parent that individual's child and switching to somebody who has been declared to be a parent who is not that child's biological or adoptive parent.
But associate Justice John Dooley challenged the lawyer on a number of points. First, Dooley asked: what about men whose children were conceived through reproductive technologies."
(Dooley) "So I take it your position would be the same to a father, to a husband, for whose spouse was impregnated by artificial insemination - he could not ask for custody in a proceeding if they went through a divorce? Is that right?"
(Lindevaldsen) "Unless of course he adopted the child in the meantime."
But Dooley said because the couple had been joined in a Vermont civil union the child did not have to be adopted in order for Jenkins to be considered a legal parent.
Then Chief Justice Paul Reiber weighed in. Reiber brought up the issue of Lisa Miller's contempt of court citations. The Virginia woman faces arrest because she defied a court order and disappeared with the child.
(Reiber) "You said a few moments ago that your client, your referred to her as a ‘fit parent." Hasn't she had seven or eight contempt orders issued against her?"
Even though Miller has been cited for contempt multiple times and ultimately kidnapped her daughter and fled the country, Lindevaldsen and the Liberty Counsel think she is the "fit parent" who deserves sole custody ... simply because Janet Jenkins is gay.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 24, 2010 - 8:53am
Normally, when we post a release from Rabbi Yehuda Levin it is about how allowing gays to serve in the military will cause natural disasters or cause God to repeal his "Divine Grace from our military's struggles" which will thus make us lose wars.
But in an apparent effort not to be typecast as merely an anti-gay loon, Levin is branching out, today releasing a statement opposing the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on the grounds that she is Jewish and that she will issue "extremist decisions" from the bench - the combination of the two, you see, will inevitably cause a "backlash" of anti-Semitic violence to sweep the nation, representing an "existential threat" to Jews in America:
It is clear from Ms. Kagan's record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, Partial-Birth-Abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the "supremacy" of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of Biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society's already steep decline into Sodom and Gommorah.
It should be clear that Ms. Kagan's long line of forebearers, presumably tracing back to Sinai, would have sacrificed their lives rather than embrace the anti-G-d, counter-sanctity agenda that she has lived and promoted.
We are puzzled as to why President Obama would not honor a different minority with this nomination. We fear a backlash, fed by pent up grass-roots resentment over extremist decisions Ms. Kagan is bound to issue.
In these socially and economically trying times, we are most concerned about being scapegoated and targeted by even a tiny subset of the tens of millions of citizens simply fed up with an imperial anti-family, anti-Biblical Judiciary (an example being Judge Walker, now addressing California's Prop. 8). We wonder: exactly what was the President thinking?
For the record, let this statement serve as an unequivocal protest, establishing that Ms. Kagan's philosophy and approach are antithetical to traditional Judaism. We emphatically reject her ascendancy to the Court!
We urge decent Senators of both parties to have mercy on the nation, in light of the direction we are heading. This nomination must be delayed in committee for as long as possible, and then either voted down or filibustered. We family and religious people will surely employ our last weapon - the ballot box - to respond to those who ignore this existential threat, and insist on contaminating the cultural wellsprings from which we and our children are forced to drink.
It is late in the game. We implore voters to convey these concerns to their Senators - feckless and otherwise.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 23, 2010 - 4:24pm
The Glenn Beck camp is apparently none-too-pleased with "The Weekly Standard" that cast him as a conspiracy theory-loving nut. Go figure.
Richard Viguerie declares last night's election results as proof that "the Tea Party steamroller is rolling big government Republicans right of town."
Cliff Kincaid goes after those who dare to call themselves "conservatives" while eschewing the mandatory hating of gays.
I didn't even know the D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship was still around, but apparently it is giving its annual Distinguished Christian Statesman Award to Congressman Robert Aderholt.
Mike Huckabee is outraged that people are trying to use his "ick factor" remark to raise money and decides to fight back ... by using it to raise money.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 23, 2010 - 1:30pm
Earlier today we noted how Grover Norquist is continuing to come under attack from Religious Right leaders for having signed on to serve on the board of GOProud, the conservative gay organization.
While Norquist has yet to fight back, GOProud is not being so cautious, blasting the Family Research Council as a bunch of phony conservatives and calling them (and Mike Huckabee) "dinosaurs headed to political extinction":
Today, GOProud, the only national organization of gay conservatives and their allies, responded to attacks from the anti-gay Family Research Council. "Over the last week, the Family Research Council has shown its true colors - attacking GOProud for working with the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America to protect 2nd Amendment rights, attacking GOProud for supporting cutting taxes on American families, and for supporting the free market healthcare reform proposal offered by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK)," said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director. "These attacks make it clear the Family Research Council doesn't care one iota about the conservative agenda."
GOProud isn't the only organization that has come under fire from Tony Perkins and company. In March, Perkins attacked tea party organizations, Freedom Works, and the Contract from America. Perkins' attacks followed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's criticism of the Conservative Political Action Conference, an event GOProud sponsored. "We wear attacks from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council as badges of honor," said Christopher Barron, Chairman of GOProud's Board. "The rise of the new right and the tea party movement in this country is a total reputation of their ‘big government conservatism."
"Tony Perkins and his cronies at the Family Research Council aren't for limited government," continued Barron. "They support policies, like the federalization of marriage and family laws, which would represent one of the greatest usurpation of state's rights in the history of this country."
"Tony Perkins referred to GOProud's opposition to the death tax and Obamacare as ‘radical' and has singled out our organization's support for urban economic empowerment zones first championed by conservative icon Jack Kemp," said LaSalvia. "Maybe Tony Perkins could explain to conservatives everywhere exactly what is so radical about supporting these conservative policies?"
"Big government conservatives like Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee are dinosaurs, headed to political extinction. The truth is that the conservative movement has moved on, and has done so without them," concluded LaSalvia.
Pretty much what you would expect, with Parsley telling anyone who doesn't like his use of "militaristic terminology" that they don't like the Bible because Christians are not called to debate, concede, or compromise, but to fight while Engle says that God is causing volcanoes and oil spills in order to call us to repentance:
In this second clip, Engle laments the rampant "sexual immorality" in our culture, saying the "Book of Revelation Jesus, with his blazing eyes of fire" is coming to fight the Church's toleration of the Jezebel Spirit while Parsley says we have "accepted secular humanism" by telling people they should feel good about themselves instead of standing by the Biblical command to crucify the flesh:
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 23, 2010 - 10:54am
Last year, Mike Heath of the Maine Family Policy Council found himself being sidelined in the Religious Right's battle against gay marriage in the state due to his penchant for saying ridiculous things.
And now that Heath has moved on, so too can the Maine Family Policy Council, which has announced a new interim president and executive director who sees his mission as undoing all of the embarrassment Heath caused the organization and changing its reputation:
The Christian Civic League of Maine, recently renamed the Maine Family Policy Council, has announced a new interim president and executive director. Long affiliated with the Bangor Christian School, Carroll Conley of Glenburn will succeed Michael Heath of China, who stepped down last fall after nearly 20 years with the League. Conley believes it's time the organization changed its tone.
...
"I've had a long interest and connection with the Christian Civic League and the League having a need for leadership," Conley says. He says he'd like to change the reputation of the organization, which, under Michael Heath, has been a strong, and often controversial voice in state politics, working hard to ban same-sex marriage in Maine.
"There definitely needs to be a change of tone with the League," Conley says. "What we've got to make sure that we do as folks that have anything attached 'Christian' to it, no matter how controversial it gets or no matter how passionate people may feel about something, that you have that weight and that responsibility to do it in a way that's consistent with those values -- not just the morality of the issue but in areas of respect and dissent."
...
Conley says he hopes to strike a balance between the Council's Christian social policies and a tolerance for opposing ideas, especially on the issue of abortion. He says the organization must show compassion toward those who are pro-choice.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 23, 2010 - 9:55am
When the news broke that Grover Norquist had agreed to join the board of GOProud, the conservative gay group, the reaction from the Religious Right was disappointment mixed with an attempt to edify Norquist about supposedly radical nature of the group in order to get him to see the error of his ways.
When that didn't work, they tried convincing him that his willingness to work with GOProud was going to undermine his "prestige" and effectiveness as social conservatives wondered if they could trust him.
Comes now the news that fiscal conservative leader Grover Norquist, a man who prides himself on forming grand working coalitions, has joined the board of a group called GOProud, calling the group “an important part of the conservative movement” with a commitment to “core conservative values.”
It’s a gay group. And Norquist thinks social conservatives are going to accept this absolute abandonment?
Traditional marriage and the right of religious people to speak out against homosexuality as a sin are “core conservative values.” Proposition 8 in California – defending the institution of marriage, the only thing the GOP won in 2008 -- was victorious because culturally conservative blacks and Hispanics joined the GOP coalition.
Norquist wants to take the GOP in the exact opposite direction now, full speed ahead, the consequences be damned ... Norquist has declared open war on social conservatives. Note to Chairman Steele: If he succeeds, and they leave the party, the GOP is ruined.
I’ve got to say, many in the conservative movement — especially among social conservatives — saw Grover Norquist’s, the president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), move to join the advisory council of the homosexual advocacy group GOProud as “Grover being Grover.” The phrase meaning that he is well known for his questionable affiliations (from being a middle man for convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, profiting from the oppressed Northern Mariana Islands to partnering with Poker Players Alliance to advocate for legislation that ultimately taxes the Internet) and also for his disdain of social conservative issues like life and marriage (once deriding pro-lifers as “pontificators” and on marriage that he doesn’t “focus on it.”) Yet in this case he is actually going beyond his normal “profit and party before principles” motto.
...
The argument I have heard from Grover’s supporters is that he is willing to work with anyone who fights for lower taxes. However, even here GOProud fails to live up to those standards — unless you define “fighting for lower taxes” to be limited to “fighting for lower taxes for gay families” (as opposed to for everyone). In fact, most of their “conservative” positions are centered and conditional on that the “gay community” gets special carve-outs. They oppose the Death Tax, but according to their own website they oppose it because it “discriminates against gay and lesbian couples for whom there is no marital exemption.” They opposed the health care bill, and again according to their own website, because it “does indeed discriminate against gay families”
Grover of course has every right to associate himself with whomever he wants, but he shouldn’t call himself conservative if he is willing to disregard even ATR principles. By joining GOProud’s board he is not saying “I agree with you 80 percent of the time” but is instead fully embracing their agenda.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 23, 2010 - 8:44am
Because the Right has very little ammunition against Elena Kagan heading into her confirmation hearings next week, they have been desperately trying to make up "controversies" that they can try to use against her.
Which is why a donation made by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal to Harvard University to establish an Islamic Studies program at the time that Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law School has been transformed into a right-wing claim that Kagan supports Sharia Law and "the enemy" while hating our troops.
Hats off to Sen. Jeff Sessions. The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has opened up an important new front in the debate over Solicitor General Elena Kagan's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court: her attitude toward the repressive legal code authoritative Islam calls Shariah and her enabling of efforts to insinuate it into this country.
By so doing, the Alabama legislator has given his colleagues and the country an opportunity not only to flesh out and evaluate the thin public record of President Obama's second nominee to a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court but also afforded us all what Mr. Obama might call a "teachable moment."
Specifically, this Supreme Court nomination offers a prism for examining the concerted and ominous campaign under way to bring Shariah to America, thanks to the troubling role Ms. Kagan played during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School.
I frankly doubt that Bill Keller even has $10,000.
Pat Robertson sure does seem to get involved in a lot of lawsuits.
Finally, the quote of the day from Matthew Continetti, associate editor of The Weekly Standard and author of The Persecution of Sarah Palin: "For [Glenn] Beck, conspiracy theories are not aberrations. They are central to his worldview. They are the natural consequence of assuming that the world hangs by a thread, and that everyone is out to get you. On his television program, Beck promised to 'find out what’s true and what’s not with the FEMA concentration camps'—referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a federal bureaucracy that chiefly funnels relief funds to victims of natural disasters, and is more commonly (and accurately) thought of as punchless. Beck later acknowledged that his staff could not find any evidence for such camps."
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 22, 2010 - 4:08pm
Today I tuned in to listen to the radio program hosted by Vision America's Rick Scarborough because the scheduled guest was to be Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
The title of Scarbrough's show is "Mixing Church and State, God's Way." Seriously.
Unfortunately Perkins didn't appear on the program and was replaced by Shawn Akers from Liberty Law School, but I did manage to record the beginning of the broadcast where Scarborough weighed in on the big story regarding the controversy stemming from statements Gen. Stanley McChrystal made in an article in Rolling Stone.
In Scarborough's view, McChrystal should be hailed because he "has enough courage to sacrifice himself for his soldiers" by standing up to the Obama administration which hates the military and is bringing God's judgment upon America ... even though he did so in that "filthy magazine" Rolling Stone:
General McChrystal spoke to one of the writers for one of the most liberal magazines in the country, Rolling Stone magazine. No, I won't be purchasing that copy, I wouldn't give my money to that kind of a magazine.
The Washington Post carries an article from the parts released by this filthy magazine - one of the leading magazines in the rock and roll world and in its own right has become a source for a lot of people's news. But all of us ought to be asking why would a general of this caliber who has a stellar career - came up through special ops, is a real hero of heroes, a soldier's soldier - why would he put in jeopardy a stellar career to give such open condemnation for the way the war is run, for what he calls the greatest enemy "the wimps in the White House." Why in the world would he put so much at stake? Is it because he has enough courage to sacrifice himself for his soldiers?
General McChrystal has created quite an overnight firestorm with his comments about the way the war is being run, about the people in charge. Folks, there is no secret the people in charge of our military, the civilians in charge, in large measure have a disdain for the military.
Our government, since the current administration has taken over, has been more courteous and kind to our enemies in the Middle East than they have to our allies. They way they've treated Israel has been shameful and I think a lot of the tragedy we're facing right now could be attributed to that, if in fact you believe there is a God in Heaven, and you believe that the Bible is true, and you believe that God keeps his promises and also holds forth the judgment the he promises to those that transgress his law.
Didymus Mutasa, a powerful figure in President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF political party, said his party will see to it that homosexuality is outlawed in the new constitution and that stiff penalties will be put in place for those who engage in the practice.
Mutasa, Minister of Presidential Affairs and Zanu (PF) politburo Secretary for administration, told villagers that his party had already taken a position on what should be included or excluded in the new constitution.
"As a party, we now have our positions for inclusion in the new constitution and we hope these will be captured accurately,” Mutasa said.
“Practices such as homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia which offend human and public morality should be outlawed.”
Mutasa said the new document should contain stiff penalties to ensure those who indulged in homosexuality were dealt with severely.
He said he had been angered by some Christian organisations, which were lobbying for the inclusion of gay rights in the new document.
Mutasa said foreign interference on such matters was unacceptable.
"We are surprised that some Christian organisations are advocating for gay rights to be included in the constitution, yet we know that gay marriages are even forbidden in the Bible,” Mutasa said.
Given the ACLJ's deep involvement in this process, it is not unreasonable to ask if the organization had anything to do language to criminalize homosexuality in Zimbabwe and, if they didn't, whether they support such efforts.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 22, 2010 - 11:13am
A few weeks back, Janet Porter asked her supporters what would cause them to visit her Faith 2 Action website more frequently and among the top responses was "regular updates or blog postings by Janet."
Of course, that choice only received 8 votes, but since only 44 votes were cast in total, that was enough to put it among the leading suggestions.
As such, Porter has responded by launching a new blog and using her very first post to announce that while her radio program is off the air indefinitely, she'll be contributing daily commentaries to American Family Association Radio, and still trying to defend her May Day prayer rally (which cost her her own radio program in the fist place) by claiming attendance was "in the thousands" with "viewership in the millions":
Let me start by thanking all those who have prayed for and supported Faith2Action. You have helped make possible many of the things we have done together over the years, including the Presidential debate in 2007, the How to Take Back America conference last fall, and the Israel Friendship Project this spring, in which 30,000 yellow roses were sent to encourage Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the people of Israel.
Thanks also to all those who have contributed through your time, prayer, and financial support to May Day. God was honored that day. We were blessed with a beautiful, warm day, safety in travel, and no major technical or security problems. All of these things were answers to prayer. There were also scores of people (that we know about) who humbly prayed for Jesus to become their Savior and Lord that day. Praise God! The overall attendance was in the thousands, and viewership in the millions, but whether it was enough to withhold God’s judgment and give our nation another chance remains to be seen. We obeyed God and stood in the gap, the results are up to Him.
While we are no longer airing our daily radio program, the good news is that the 60-second daily Faith2Action commentaries will be back up and running this month, thanks to our partners at the American Family Association. They have agreed to produce and air them on their American Family Radio (AFR) network at 1:15 p.m. Eastern (12:15 p.m. Central), along with the Bott Radio Network, and others.
We are also in pre-production of “True 2 Life the Movie.” It’s a true romantic comedy that includes my work in Ohio to pass the nation’s first ban on partial-birth abortion. You’ll hear more about that in upcoming entries!
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 22, 2010 - 9:44am
Last week we noted that Grover Norquist had joined the advisory council of GOProud, a gay conservative organization, and that Religious Right groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council were outraged.
I have to say that Norquist doesn't seem overly concerned, telling Focus on the Family's CitizenLink that he is willing to work with anyone who shares his agenda:
Norquist says he agrees with GOProud on some issues that are important to him.
"When people are willing to fight for limited government and lower taxes," he said, "I'm willing to work with them."
Norquist said he's not worried that his appointment will hurt the conservative cause in November.
"One fish, one hook," he said. "Every voter only needs one reason to vote for a congressman and a senator who will stop the Obama nonsense in Washington, DC."
Of course, that is just upsetting Focus even more:
Tom Minnery, senior vice president for CitizenLink, disagreed the Norquist's summation.
Minnery said that by lending his name and prestige to the minuscule number of homosexuals who are conservative, he is more likely to earn the distrust of the far larger numbers of grassroots social conservatives with whom he should be in coalition.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 22, 2010 - 9:00am
It was just yesterday that I wrote a post about Mike Huckabee's ties to James Robison, a now rather obscure figure who, back in the 1980s, was a powerful Religious Right leader.
In that post, I noted that Robison was still active and had recently had Jim Garlow on his program. Shortly after that post went up, some glitch on Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition website caused an old post to show up in my RSS reader and lo and behold it was video from last year of Reed appearing on Robison's show to pitch the need for his new organization on the grounds that "democracy doesn't really work at all unless there's a citizenry animated by a moral code that derives from their faith in God."
For his part, Robison stated his conviction that the Constitution was written so as to be in "harmony with Biblical truth" and Judeo-Christian ethic, while warning that the country was "racing toward Marxism" and complaining that "the most discriminated against people on the planet are Christians today."
The clip below is the second part of the interview - you can see Part I here:
I realize that I can't declare that James Robison is attempting making a return to prominence among the Religious Right based on three pretty random appearances by him on this blog in the last week ... but it is still kind of odd that I'm mentioning him for the third time in one week after having written about him only one time in the last four years.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 21, 2010 - 4:30pm
Joe.My.God: Texas GOP Platform Calls For Making It A Felony To Perform Gay Marriages.
Wonk Room: Texas Can’t Afford To Buy New Far-Right Textbooks, But Rick Perry Still Resists Federal Aid.
Alvin McEwen: Is the LGBT Community Plotting to Make Children 'Crossdress?' Of Course Not.
William Saletan: If it's OK to Reject Blood from Gay Men, What About Blacks?
Bruce Wilson: Leading Biblical Law Advocate "Jubilant" To Endorse Angle For Senate.
Iowa Independent: National Organization for Marriage heading to Iowa.
Finally, the quote of the day from Janet Jenkins' attorney Jennifer Levi regarding the Liberty Counsel's continuing efforts to represent Lisa Miller in court despite the fact that she reportedly fled the country in order to avoid court orders: "It doesn’t make sense for a lawyer unable to communicate with a client to pursue very important issues at the appellate level. Clearly, they have a broader legal agenda in continuing this legal fight, which is all but dead."
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 21, 2010 - 4:25pm
If you need a simple reason to support Elena Kagan, they fact that Robert Bork opposes her seems like a pretty good one.
The National Organization for Marriage is asking the Maine ethics commission to dismiss the investigation into its fundraising during last year's gay-marriage vote.
Ted Haggard uses Twitter to predict the end of the Religious Right.
Speaking of Twitter, why is Matt Barber's Twitter feed made up of nothing but WorldNetDaily and OneNewsNow articles?
Tom Tancredo lashes out at those who are trying to keep immigration off the Tea Party's agenda.
Finally, I am very much looking forward to hearing J.D. Hayworth's explanation for why he was pitching "get free money from the government" seminars in 2007.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 21, 2010 - 3:35pm
The last time we wrote about Dave Welch, executive director of the US Pastor Council, he was apologizing for having let the "enemy" triumph in Houston when openly gay candidate Annise Parker was elected mayor and warning that Parker's election was a evidence of the "cancer of the soul" of America.
Now Welch is back to dispute the idea that one can be a Christian and vote for Democrats and to offer up a plan for defeating the "Fourth Reich of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid":
The political awakening birthed by the Fourth Reich of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime has inspired tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of Americans to step up and get involved. That is a good thing and may result in a major political shift in one branch of Congress as well as state legislatures and more governors – again.
The bottom line is that the pulpits of this nation had better get back to the business of preaching the undiluted, uncompromised word of God as applied to all vital current issues and then demand that Christians vote those principles.
If just 10 percent of our moderate- to large-size churches will effectively execute the AMERICA Plan in their churches, we not only will make temporary political changes, but will have pumped the bilgewater out of the hold and set the ship back on the right course.
Don't get mad at politicians for failing on border security, immigration, fiscal responsibility, sanctity of life, defense of marriage and family, etc., if you don't vote in every election and vote God's values, not yours.
In addition to his AMERICA Plan, Welch has unveiled a Pastors’ Declaration of Godly Citizenship [PDF] through which religious leaders vow to get every member of their church to vote and to do so in accordance with the values set out in the declaration:
We believe that the Holy Bible is inerrant, infallible and inspired by God; it is the only revealed source of all truth relevant to the governing of the person and of nations.
We believe that all authorities are subordinate to God, including family, church and government authorities, therefore the actions and decisions of each will be accountable to Him.
We believe that the primary agent for transforming personal lives, society and culture is a clear presentation and acceptance of the hope found exclusively in a relationship with Jesus Christ.
We believe that Jesus’ prayer to the Father for oneness within the body is an absolute necessity for us to endeavor to fulfill, transcending all racial, cultural and ethnic barriers in order to receive His on-going presence and guidance.
We believe that the church has a unique and sacred role in proclaiming God's principles to leaders of a city, state and nation, with government limited to its Biblical and Constitutional purpose as protector of the innocent, punisher of the evildoer and NOT provider of our wants or needs.
We believe that all innocent life from conception to natural death must be protected and valued by the people and our government to the fullest extent of the law as the highest priority of government.
We believe that marriage is a God-created relationship as the lifetime union of one natural man and one natural woman for the blessing of both, the good of the people and the foundation of the family for legitimate procreation.
We believe that the traditional, nuclear family of a married father and mother raising their biological and/or adopted children in a nurturing and protective environment is the essential building block of a stable community and a nation; it therefore must be promoted and protected by both church and state.
We believe that equal justice based on God's eternal standards - not the 'will of the majority' - to punish evil and protect the innocent regardless of color, gender or creed is fundamental to legitimate government.
Accordingly, I commit my role as Senior Pastor to lead my congregation by training them in these principles to apply them in their homes, workplaces and voting decisions at all levels; to actively seek 100% levels of voter registration and turnout, and finally to stand with all other pastors in my community who join me in this declaration.
Anyway, I want to focus on some of the other interesting nuggest contained in the piece, like this:
In her kitchen is a watercolor painting of a house surrounded by trees, with the words “To Janet Huckabee, 1995 full-time homemaker of the year, presented by the Eagle Forum and Phyllis Schlafly.”
The profile also looks at how Huckabee got his start back in 1970s working for right-wing evangelist James Robison:
In 1976, after college, Huckabee was enrolled at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Texas, when he came into contact with the televangelist James Robison. It was Robison who famously declared that he was “sick and tired of hearing about all of the radicals and the perverts and the liberals and the leftists and the Communists coming out of the closet,” and was ready “for God’s people to come out of the closet” and take back the nation. Despite Huckabee’s inclination toward a forgiving Christianity, Robison’s passion drew him in. He dropped out of seminary after one year to take a job as Robison’s director of communications.
“The way the Moral Majority movement was actually started was there was a rally that James Robison did in 1979 that I helped coördinate,” Huckabee said. “It was all because of the local television station in Dallas throwing him off the air, because, in a sermon that he preached on television, Robison said homosexuality is a sin. Think: 1979, it wasn’t really an outrageous statement. Anyway, they got some complaints and they told him he couldn’t be on television. Well, Texas? Are you kidding me?” More than ten thousand Christians came to a “Freedom Rally” at the Reunion Arena, in Dallas, to protest Robison’s expulsion. “There was this amazing energy coming up from these evangelical Christians,” Huckabee said. “I remember almost being frightened by it. If someone had gotten to the microphone and said, ‘Let’s go four blocks from here and take Channel 8 apart,’ that audience would’ve taken the last brick off the building.”
Today, the name Robison is almost unknown, but he is still around and active - in fact, the video I posted of Jim Garlow just last week was taken from an interview he did with Robison earlier this year.
Back in the Religious Right's heyday in the 1980s, Robison was a key leader and so this seems like a good time to repost this video we put together back in 2007 to provide a sense of just who Huckabee dropped out of seminary to follow:
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 21, 2010 - 12:28pm
You know, if David Brody had just waited a few hours, he would have actually had a few instances of Religious Right leaders voicing their outrage over the White House Father's Day proclamation that he could cite instead of having to pass off his own outrage as analysis.
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for “gaying down” the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling “nurturing families” with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation yesterday.
Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law ... [E]ven if two homosexual men keep their disordered relationship “faithful,” homosexual parenting would not be worthy of celebration, LaBarbera said: “It is wrong to force children into a situation where they have two men modeling immoral behavior — condemned by God and all major religions — as the most important role models in their lives.”
“Gay parenting is a selfish social experiment whose long-term effect on children has not yet been determined — biased homosexual-authored studies notwithstanding,” he said. “We know that dad-and-mom-led homes are the best for children. That is the timeless brand of fatherhood that Obama should be promoting.”
"This is the first time in our nation's history that a president has used Father's Day as an excuse to promote the radical homosexual agenda and completely redefine the word 'family,'" said AFA president Tim Wildmon. "Virtually all Americans have the common sense to recognize that children need both a mother and a father. Rudimentary biology tells us it's impossible for a child to have two fathers. But here we have the leader of our nation and the Democrat Party celebrating sexual behavior which is contrary to nature and pushing a household structure that we know is harmful to children. This is a sad day for the American family.
Added Wildmon, "This again shows how out-of-step the president is with most Americans. Same-sex parenting is not in any way the moral or functional equivalent of the parenting done by a mom and a dad. Yet our President is so committed to normalizing homosexual conduct that he is putting the twisted sexual desires of adults ahead of the needs of children.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 21, 2010 - 12:12pm
Sarah Posner interviewed Lou Engle in an effort to try and understand's Engle's claims that he doesn't support Uganda's legislation that carries the death penalty for gays while supporting Uganda's effort to take a "principled stand" against the homosexual agenda.
And what she found out is that while Engle might not support the death penalty for gays, he certainly does support their criminialization:
[Engle] made absolutely clear that he supports the criminalization of homosexuality, believes there could be a biblical basis for a death penalty, that the United Nations has promoted the "homosexual agenda" to Uganda's detriment, and he lauded the bill's promoters' efforts to take a "principled stand" against that.
...
I pressed Engle to explain what he meant by a "principled stand" and a "principled bill." I asked him whether he supported a law that dealt with homosexuality in some way, and he stated that there needs to be "some kind of restraint from the homosexual agenda:"
Most definitely. For instance, the court case Lawrence v. Texas, is the court case that basically decriminalized homosexuality in the U.S. Everybody knew that when that bill passed, or when that court case shifted, then it opened the door for the legalization, for the definition, or the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is now rolling into America. We knew that. So I’ve always had -- yes, there needs to be a principled stand. There needs to be some kind of restraint from the homosexual agenda being able to roll over this, a nation that does not want it.
...
I pressed him about which penalties in the bill he didn't support -- and he did say that although he could see someone supporting the death penalty, he did not, and he did not support "hard labor" as punishment or the requirement that churches report LGBT people to the authorities. But when I asked him if he would support a bill with less harsh penalties, he added:
My main thing is to keep -- is to not allow it to be legalized, so to speak, so then it just spreads through the legal system of the nation. So I’m not -- I’m not making a statement as to what I think the penalties should be. It’s not my job to do that. I do think, I do think that these leaders are trying to make at least some kind of statement that you’re not just going to spread the agenda without some kind of restraint, a legal restraint and punishment. And I don’t know what the line is on those, but I can’t go that far as I understand that bill already said. [emphasis mine]
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 21, 2010 - 11:28am
Last week, researchers at Yellowstone National Park trapped a Grizzly Bear, tranquilized it and fitted it with a radio collar. Shortly after the bear awoke, it attacked and killed a man who had apparently "ignored warning signs posted advising hikers to avoid the area because of the likelihood of a dangerous bear encounter."
So you know that means - Bryan Fischer is back with a new post about how this tragic death is proof that God is cursing us for failing to abide by his Biblical rules:
History reveals that God’s covenant with an ancient nation suggests that one of the consequences for a nation which walks in his statues is that it will have nothing to fear from wild animals. “If you walk in my statutes...I will remove harmful beasts from the land” (Lev. 26:3,6).
On the other hand, “[I]f you will not listen to me and will not do all these commandments...I will let loose the wild beasts against you” (Lev. 26:14,22).
A wholly preventable tragedy occurred outside Yellowstone National Park last week as a bear that only hours before had been trapped and tranquilized by researchers woke up from his induced slumber just in time to maul a 70-year old man who was out for a stroll.
The man was, according to the AP, mauled at almost exactly the same site where the researchers had left the bear after he’d been tranquilized.
The grizzly is a predator, a fierce, savage unstoppable killing machine. Lewis and Clark did not believe the stories they’d been told by Indian peoples about grizzlies until they started running into them. It was not long before their “curiosity” was “quite satisfied” about the grizzly.
Because these researchers were intent on studying the grizzly rather than killing him to protect innocent human life, a husband, father and grandfather is dead today. This was an utterly unnecessary death which could have happened only because our culture has jettisoned a biblical view of the relative value of human life compared to animal life.
Because this animal was given a nap instead of a bullet, a human being is dead, and a savage animal is alive, on the prowl, and ready to kill again.
Earlier this year, I reminded readers that if biblical precedent had been followed, the whale that killed SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau would have been euthanized in 1991 when it killed its first human victim. Ms. Brancheau would be alive today if the principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed.
God said a curse would fall on a land which turned its back on him, and one consequence would be more tragic deaths at the hands of predatory animals. The truly sad thing here is that we are bringing this curse upon ourselves.
Have I mentioned that Fischer is still listed as a "confirmed speaker" at the next Family Research Council Values Voter Summit along with Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Mike Pence, and Mike Huckabee? Just want to keep pointing that out.
Unless he knows something we don’t, using the word “truce” when family values are under increasing attack can only mean surrender. Does he have knowledge that the other side is going to stop performing abortions during this “truce”? Are homosexual activists going to stop promoting same-sex marriage during this “truce”? Is what Governor Daniels really wants is for the pro-family movement to stop talking about his record so he can run for President?
For his part, McClusky suggests that Daniels ought to be trying to address fiscal issues by defunding groups that support reproductive choice:
If a President Daniels were to cut funding to these organizations as long as they performed and promoted abortions he could save taxpayers millions of dollars, while also possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives every year. If he is serious about a “truce” on social issues he needs to make sure that he doesn’t continue taxpayer funding of one side during this so called “truce.” That is something nearly a decade of Republican rule in DC failed to do and would make him a hero of social and fiscal conservatives alike.
Meanwhile, Frank Cannon, who is the President of American Principles Project and Treasurer of the Susan B. Anthony List, calls Daniels' proposal a "profound insult to the public’s intelligence" and likens it to "asking the kid being pummeled by the schoolyard bully to stand down":
The Hoosier governor’s truce talk is wrong on so many levels. It needlessly demeans one portion of the conservative coalition – the “ethnic, Catholic (and, more recently, evangelical) blue collar” vote that Ronald Reagan led into fealty with the GOP’s traditional hawks and economic conservatives. And social conservatives are not just a portion of that coalition – they hold views on issues like federal abortion funding and protecting the definition of marriage that represent a significant majority.
Second, calling for a truce on social issues is a little like asking the kid being pummeled by the schoolyard bully to stand down. All the kid is doing is holding his hands in front of his face to ward off the blows. Social conservatives did not launch campaigns to exploit the definition of marriage for their own gain, whatever that would mean. Instead, they have only fought to preserve the natural and perennial status of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They have faced, and in most cases defeated, judicial elites who have sought to impose same-sex marriage on the populace.
...
At the end of the day, Mitch Daniels’ truce talk is a profound insult to the public’s intelligence. Defenders of life in the womb and the marital bond cannot sit back while yet another administration tells them to take a pounding because “bigger issues” like excess government spending deserve all the attention.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 21, 2010 - 9:32am
Everyone once in a while, CBN's David Brody likes to put on his analyst hat in order to explain how some outrageous thing the Democrats have done is going to outrage the Religious Right.
In reality, what Brody is explaining is how said thing has outraged him.
Since he is a professional journalist, Brody is not supposed to let his personal views on issues influence his reporting, so instead he "reports" on how these issue will play with the social conservatives ... and their views inevitably happen to perfectly mirror his own.
In his Father’s Day Proclamation, Barack Obama became the first President ever to use the occasion to say that “two fathers” are a nurturing family unit. Homosexual groups must be beaming with delight today but this is the type of line that can really come back to haunt him. Do NOT underestimate the power of those two words.
First of all, by putting “two fathers” in your proclamation you are really running the risk of alienating networks of pastors and church goers who may buy into the President’s overall but draw the line when it comes to traditional marriage. You put these normally supportive pastors in a tough situation because the fact of the matter is the whole ‘two fathers” scenario DOES NOT play well in most Churches in America. And that is completely understandable.
Secondly, what is the upside here? To let the homosexual community know that they are a priority? Or is to march the ball down the field with language like this so it becomes more accepting as time goes on? I don’t know the reason but regardless, the political downside is much larger here than the political upside. That’s for sure.
Finally, let me just say that the President has a pretty neat and important event today on his Father’s Day initiative. (coming in a separate blog post) So why dilute the impact of that with these words? Father’s Day should NOT be controversial. The “two fathers” scenario is a very divisive issue. Why bring it up and take away from the big event of the day?
Brody knows that recognizing that some families have "two fathers" at Father's Day is "divisive" and "controversial" and very, very upsetting to pastors and "most Churches in America."
And the reason he knows that is because is it very, very upsetting to him personally.
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 21, 2010 - 8:54am
Last week, Cindy and Mike Jacobs sent out an urgent email to their Generals International Reformation Prayer Network featuring updates on the Prop 8 court case from ProtectMarriage.com Executive Director Ron Prentice.
In addition to the updates, the Jacobs asked their "intercessors" to to "join with us in fervent intercession for the preservation of traditional marriage in the State of California and the nation" as they wage a "spiritual battle for the soul of the nation":
Why is this so important? For a variety of reasons not the least of which is that the overturning of the Marriage Amendment in California by a Federal Court will automatically overturn DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act on a Federal Level that declares marriage between a man and a woman.
God tells us in Genesis that His image is expressed through male and female and in Epheshians it tells us that marriage is to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and the Church. THIS IS MORE THAN JUST A COURT CASE THIS IS A SPIRITUAL BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF OUR NATION!
This is not a battle against flesh and blood as the word says and cannot be won with carnal weapons. It is a spiritual battle that must be won in prayer.
Please pray and fast through the day of the trial. Let us humble ourselves under the mighty hand of our God and repent and renounce all compromise, complacency and apathy within the church that has allowed us to come to this place at all. Let us cry out to God for mercy, for Him to take what the enemy has meant for evil and turn it to our good and His Glory!
Always seek God for His Direction in prayer and then as lead agree on these Prayer Points:
For God's wisdom, protection and direction for Andy Pugno and his team
Pray for all veils of deception to be loosed off of the eyes of the Judge and the prosecuting attorneys
That God's presence, life, love, wisdom and truth prevail in that courtroom.
That every rebellious, defiant, angry, violent spirit be bound and forbidden from manifesting.
Pray God's tangible presence of love be all that people experience when they encounter Christians
Pray for a pre-triggering of every trap and snare of the enemy on the enemy's head (Ps 141:9-10)
Pray for God's word to be fulfilled for the destruction of the works of the enemy and the open show of the triumph of God.
For the souls held in captivity to the homosexual lifestyle to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, that their eyes be enlightened to the truth of his love and saving power
Pray through the attached Questions for Closing Arguments submitted by Judge Vaughn Walker to the attorneys
Pray protection for all of the intercessors and their families on the ground at the Courthouse
GI's Reformation Prayer Network was created in order to ignite "a holy reformation in every sphere of society" in order to "legislate in the heavens through reformation intercession" and "turn the tide on unrighteousness in the nations of the earth."
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 18, 2010 - 4:26pm
I have no idea what "Freedom Fest 2010" is supposed to be, but it is sponsored by the ACLJ and being headlined by Sarah Palin.
Someone just gave Cindy Jacobs $15,000 to continue her prophetic intercession. Really?
It looks like Samuel Rodriquez has joined up with Harry Jackson and Niger Innis for their bogus Affordable Power Alliance.
The House's Office of Congressional Ethics says there is no "probable cause to believe the alleged violation occurred" by members of Congress getting cheap rent at The Family's house on C Street.
Keep in mind that Richard Land and the Southern Baptist Convention support immigration reform because they see it as an opportunity to grow their church.
Finally, Paul Blair of Reclaiming America for Christ is also a participant in the ADF's "Pulpit Initiative."
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on June 18, 2010 - 1:51pm
I'm starting to think that maybe we just out to change the name of this blog to "Bryan Fischer Watch" since it seems that so many of our posts lately are dedicated to nothing more than chronicling the endless stream of insanity spewed by the AFA's Bryan Fischer.
For instance, yesterday Fischer responded to news that BP is creating a $20 billion escrow account to cover damages from the Golf oil spill by attacking President Obama as a "fascist dictator":
Now ladies and gentleman, what you are about to hear are the words of a fascist. These are the words of a fascist dictator. That's the definition of fascism, and this is not even an American company. He is acting as as a fascist with companies that aren't even American companies.
Now what fascism is is when the government allows industry to stay in private hands, but tells it exactly how to run its business. And remember the President's been a fascist ... he says "I've been a fascist from day one. They can't blow their nose without asking permission from me, they can't clean the wax out of their ears unless they get a sign-off from me." That's what fascist dictators do!
Now what President Obama is going to say in this clip is the words of a fascist dictator. Let's listen.
[Clip of President Obama: Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.]
Now ladies and gentlemen, this, this is, this is, and I'm looking around for the right word here, this is completely unamerican. This is beyond the pale. I mean, this is fascism, this is a dictator in action.
Shortly after this, Sen. Jim Inhofe came on the program as Fischer's guest to continue discussing the BP oil spill.
And slowly Reed has been working to build it into a brand new right-wing powerhouse, teaming up with leaders like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee and Michele Bachmann and Richard Land and Rick Santorum while setting up affiliates in several states in order to train "Tea Partiers, home schoolers and other conservatives to give them the tools they need to identify, educate and turn out conservative voters in their area."
When Reed decided not to run for Congress earlier this year, he explained that it was because he believes that "electing 50 to 100 men and women of character and conservative beliefs to Congress and statewide office over the next two election cycles is a more efficacious way to advance the conservative agenda than seeking public office myself in 2010."
It is becoming increasingly clear that Reed is intent on recovering whatever influence and prestige he may have lost due to this close ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff [PDF] by turning his Faith and Freedom Coalition into a right-wing powerhouse and recapturing his glory days with the Christian Coalition ...and that is why the FFC will be hosting its very own right-wing conference in Washington DC this fall:
Your Faith & Freedom Coalition is growing by leaps and bounds. We now have more than 300,000 members within 50 states. We have state affiliates up and running in 20 states despite the fact that we have been in operation for only six months. And, just this last week we helped elect conservatives in New Jersey and California who are going to stand up to the liberal agenda. Conservatives across the country recognize that only a grassroots organization like FFC can harness the anti-Obama sentiment boiling in our country and channel it to stop this dangerous administration.
I’d like to invite you today to our first ever Citizen Action Leadership Summit being held in Washington, DC September 9-11 at the famed Mayflower Hotel. We’ll be bringing together activists, donors and famous conservative speakers for three days of training, networking and strategy sessions. We’ve invited a who’s who of special guest speakers, which includes:
Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Karl Rove
Jeb Bush
And many others.
Please visit our website today to make reservations for this historic conservative gathering.
Interestingly, this Citizen Action Leadership Summit is being just one week before the Values Voter Summit, the annual gathering of social conservatives hosted by FRC, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, American Values and others.
There is no official list of who is in attendance, but it is probably safe to assume that representatives of groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council regularly participate.
I was so disappointed to learn that Grover Norquist, the president of the conservative and influential Americans for Tax Reform, had joined the board of GOProud, a political advocacy group of “gay conservatives and their allies.”
Grover’s move to join the ranks of those who perpetuate the gay agenda, which has in its crosshairs the destruction of marriage, is as dishonoring to the movement he claims, as it is disheartening.
Historically, conservatism has been built on a 3-legged stool of traditional social values, economic conservatism, and a strong national defense. So when Grover said that he “shares GOProud’s commitment to ‘core’ conservative values,” he’s obviously leaving out a key component that many in his cause hold dear ... Grover’s decision to uphold one leg of the conservative stool while simultaneously working to destroy another is not doing his fellow conservatives any favors, and in the end may leave the movement he loves with one less leg to stand on. What’s that saying about a house divided against itself?
I was somewhat surprised to see that Americans for Tax Reform's president, Grover Norquist, has decided to join the Advisory Council of the homosexual group GOProud. Grover is usually a masterful Republican strategist and coalition builder -- but in this case, he seems prepared to compromise a unified conservative movement in order to appease a tiny minority of the overal
get the right wing watch feed
