July 2010

• The ACLJ isn't just opposing Islam at home, they are opposing it abroad as well.
• The Washington Post has a long profile of Ken Cuccinelli.
• Peter LaBarbera is still complaining that I accused him and his allies of hating gays ... and then turns right around and calls the Gay Liberation Network a "radical homosexual hate group."
• Randall Terry blasts Priests for Life and Americans United for Life as "useless; they are collaborators with the baby killers themselves."
• I will never understand why people who get caught saying something stupid try to claim that they never said exactly what they were caught saying.
• Larry Klayman has absolutely no reason to believe that the judge in the Arizona immigration case was pressured by the Obama administration, but that is not going to stop him from launching a fishing expedition.
• Finally, the Liberty Counsel continues to serve as the law firm of choice for woman seeking to keep their former partners away from their children because "Ohio law, like nature, makes no provision for a child to have two mothers."

On September 11, the folks at Dove World Church in Gainesville, Florida (perhaps best known for their "No Homo Mayor" signs a few months back) will be hosting "International Burn A Quran Day."

And this move it apparently so extreme that even some Religious Right leaders are denouncing it:

"Dove World Outreach Center, shame on you," responded Angel Nuñez, vice president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

"If I want to win a Muslim to Christ, I surely won't do it by burning the Qur'an in public and provoking them to hate us more," said Nuñez. "The greatest weapon a Christian has is godly love."

The National Association for Evangelicals released a statement Thursday urging the church, which averages 50 attendees each Sunday, to call off the event.

"It sounds like the proposed Qu'ran burning is rooted in revenge," said NAE president Leith Anderson. "The most powerful statement by the organizers of the planned September 11th bonfire would be to call it off in the name and love of Jesus Christ."

"I think it is appalling, disgusting, and brainless," said Richard Land, director of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "I think that those of us who find what they are doing abhorrent should say so, and say so publicly and often."

Land added that the church's actions "besmirch the reputation of our Savior, and that makes it blasphemy."

Of course, it should also be noted that while Land thinks burning the Koran is blasphemous, he's not exactly defender of Muslims or their rights, as he's also vehemently opposed to the proposed "Ground Zero Mosque": 

As a Baptist who believes in religious freedom and separation of church and state, I strongly support religious communities' right to have places of worship within reasonable distance of where they live. However, no religious community has an absolute right to have a place of worship wherever they choose, regardless of the community's objections.

I believe that putting a mosque at Ground Zero, or very close to Ground Zero, is unacceptable ... Having a mosque at Ground Zero would be the equivalent of having a Japanese Shinto shrine built next to the USS Arizona.

Via Joe.My.God it looks like we can expect yet another round of layoffs at Focus on the Family:

I’ve gotten a few calls from people saying Focus on the Family is planning to announce layoffs, more than 100, on Friday.

I called Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger on Monday. He did not confirm or deny the rumors. Later he sent me a statement, which you can read below.

“We are still working out the details of fitting our FY ‘11 budget to the figure our board of directors established,” Schneeberger wrote. “As soon as those decisions are final — we’re aiming for next week — we’ll share them with our ministry family first and then with our constituents and friends in the media.”

Focus has laid off hundreds of employees since 2002, when its workforce was about 1,400. Currently Focus has 860 employees. It’s latest round of layoffs was in September 2009, when 75 employees were let go.

Let's all hope that Adam Holz of Plugged In survives the cut so that he can continue his important work exposing how the new movie "The Kids Are Alight" is "even more subversive than Brokeback Mountain":

Focus on the Family's Plugged In is raising a warning flag about a movie called The Kids Are All Right, which is making its way into American theaters ... Plugged In spokesman Adam Holz tells OneNewsNow the comedy paints the idea of a "modern family" -- one stemmed from a same-sex couple -- in a positive light.

"The upshot of it all is not only does that cause some conflict in the family, but the man that they discover is their father, a man named Paul, ends up having an affair with one of the women in the couple," Holz reports.

Holz explains the film is a story about how infidelity can devastate a family -- but certainly not a family that viewers are used to seeing on screen by any way, shape, or form. So the conservative spokesman feels those are among several reasons why Christians should object.

"Not the least of which are several really explicit sex scenes -- one between two women and several between a man and a woman," the Plugged In spokesman gives as an example. "And so there's all kind of content here on top of the philosophical problems."

Holz rates the movie as a "hard R" and adds that the film is even more subversive than Brokeback Mountain.

• Miranda @ PFAW Blog: GOP Blocks 20 Judicial Nominees, Rebuffs Goodwin Liu Again
• Evan McMorris-Santoro @ TPM: Anti-Mosque Protester To TPM: Muslims Hate Dogs And America Too.
• Bartholomew's Notes On Religion: Karl Rove at Apocalyptic Christian Right Rally in Canada.
• Towleroad: Ruben Diaz Sr. Calls on Biblical Warriors to Fight Gay Marriage.
• Good As You: NOM featured speaker Brad Brandon's extremist quips.
• Tanya Somanader @ Think Progress: Iowa GOP Supports Amendment To Strip Obama’s Citizenship Because He Won The Nobel Peace Prize.
• Joe.My.God: Jerusalem's Deputy Mayor Plans Donkey Parade To Counter Gay Pride.
• Jim Burroway @ Box Turtle Bulletin: Scott Lively on the Daily Show.
• Jillian Rayfield @ TPM: TPM Braves Week Four Of Beck University.

Why does it seem that every time something happens that doesn't fit with Bryan Fischer's political agenda, his response is to warn that said development will lead to violence? 

For instance, he has insisted that the country must deport entire families because it "makes vigilante justice unnecessary." Similarly, when Congress passed health care reform, he responded by comparing the federal government to trespassers and squatters who should be shot, while warning that only representative who take seriously the 10th Amendment can save this nation from impending bloodshed.  Shortly thereafter, he followed that up with another warning that citizens will "use all the morally and constitutionally justified means at their disposal to defend their inalienable rights to life, liberty and property" and "resist the tyranny imposed on us by the Intolerable Act of 2010."

And now is he issuing similar warnings in response to the court decision striking down Arizona's immigration law:

We have reached a point now where as a culture we are on the verge of civil unrest for one reason: the ruling class is determined not to let us govern ourselves.

We are on the verge of collapsing into violence and vigilante justice, as more and more Americans come to realize that the ruling class is their enemy and not their friend. More and more of them are becoming convinced that their government will not protect them and will not punish the guilty, and they will conclude that they must now protect themselves not only from criminals but from their own government.

...

What I am saying is that it is inevitable that people, whether rightly or wrongly, will begin taking the law into their own hands if their own government will not protect them from the bad guys and “punish those who do evil" ... We are already at a place where more Americans are afraid of their government than they are of criminals. Our government in many ways is now a terror to those who do good and a protector of those who do evil. This state of affairs cannot long endure.

Notice how Fischer always frames these warnings so that, if violence does happen, it will be the government's fault because it has pushed the citizens too far?  

Fischer is always quick to assert that he does not support such violence ... but he sure does seem to think that violence would not only be an understandable response, but actually a justified response to the increasing "tyranny" of the federal government. 

The Family Research Council has recently been uploading selected clips from the anti-DADT repeal webcast it hosted last week ... and they are selecting which videos to highlight very carefully.

For some reason, they haven't chosen to highlight Oliver North claiming that repealing DADT will lead to NAMBLA members being welcomed into the military or Perkins and Sergeant First Class Benjamin Ratcliff warning that soldiers might be reluctant to "spoon" in a life-threatening situation because they might have concerns about the guy next to them.

Instead, they are highlighting things like this clip of Ratcliff saying that the military should not be used to advance a social agenda and that if DADT is repealed, it'll make it much harder to fill recruitment goals:

The interesting thing is that in between these statements that FRC edited together, Ratcliff stated that even if DADT was repealed, he would continue to serve in the military and that he would urge others to do so as well because even though he would disagree with the policy, he loves his country more. I even made a video of it, juxtaposing Ratcliff's statement with the Bryan Fischer parroting this standard right-wing talking point during the webcast:

But FRC completely edited out Ratcliff's statement - in fact, the statement they did include from Ratcliff saying recruitment would be made harder came about because Tony Perkins was trying to get Ratcliff back on message.  Here is the transcript of the entire exchange:

MR. PERKINS: I’m sure this thought has come to you and you may have even been asked about it. If someone considering getting into the military were to ask you if this policy changes, what are you going to say to them?

BENJAMIN RATCLIFF: I would tell them to serve anyway. If all men of courage and men that had a moral compass were to leave the military, then we wouldn’t have a military. There’d be nobody left to serve and protect. So I don’t really – I would serve regardless of what comes out of Washington. Even though I disagree with it strongly, I love my country more. So I would understand if parents had concerns. I was recruited for several years and I sat and listened to parents’ concerns, talked with them. They asked me a lot of questions about the wars and a lot about the liberal agenda. But I would tell them, serve anyway, absolutely.

MR. PERKINS: But you bring up an important point, and I do think as long as there’s a country here and there are those who love this country, there are going to be those who are willing to serve. But as a recruiter, you know that in an all-volunteer force, it’s very difficult to meet those quotas to keep the ranks filled with the young men and women who are willing to serve. Is this going to make it easier or is it going to make it harder?

MR. RATCLIFF: Absolutely not. It’s going to make it very much harder; very much harder.

MR. PERKINS: And this is going to be at the forefront of many of those parents’ minds.

MR. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And recruiting and retention is at the top of all the commanders’ lists. Every commander across all the armed forces, recruiting is a top priority for all of them, so this would definitely degrade that fight.

Ratcliff clearly asserted that he and others like him who love their country would serve in the military regardless of the status of DADT, but FRC selectively edited that bit out because it undermined their agenda.

Earlier this week we noted that Personhood Colorado had brought Alan Keyes into the state for a press conference at which it unveiled its new ad campaign featuring a fictitious slave speaking out against the evils of abortion.

Well, we've finally managed to track down the audio of the ad:

I'm George Stevens and I'm a person. I was held as property as a child. Even before my birth I was called a slave in an America you wouldn't recognize. But folks like you helped me escape North to freedom and in 1864, I joined the infantry to fight for my country. I fought so all slaves would be recognized as persons, not property. And we won.

But today in Colorado, there are still people called property - children - just like I was. And that America you thought you wouldn't recognize is all around you and these children are being killed.

This November, vote "yes" on Amendment 62. Amendment 62 declares unborn children persons, not property. And that's the America I fought for.

So visit PersonhoodColorado.com and in November, vote "yes" on 62. It's the right thing to do.

When this measure was on the ballot back in 2008, it lost by a 3 to 1 margin - it even lost in El Paso County, which is the home of Colorado Springs, Focus on the Family, and Dr. James Dobson, 65% to 35%.

But apparently Personhood Colorado organizers think that running ads with fake slaves comparing the measure to the Civil War is a winning strategy this time around. 

• Randall Terry is bringing his "lets burn and beat Sen. Graham in effigy" antics to Washington, DC tomorrow.
• Speaking of crazy right-wing anti-Kagan stuff, Larry Klayman wants to see her disbarred, criminally investigated, and prosecuted.
• Bryan Fischer comes to Brian Camenker's defense, says the Tea Party cannot survive without social conservatives.
• Gary Bauer endorses Bill McCollum.
• Al Mohler warns people not to marry anyone who don't share their religious faith.
• Finally, Jesus is coming back on May 21, 2011, so you'd better get your act together.

Lou Engle recently spoke at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City about the importance of the upcoming 10th anniversary TheCall rally to be held in Sacramento, CA over Labor Day weekend to fight, in part, the "Antichrist ideologies [that are] pervading our universities and campuses":

Christians must stand on the truth of God's Word and not bow down to intimidating forces that would cause them to compromise for the sake of political and cultural expediency. We believe that this ruling is an invitation for true believers to stand for truth, pray like never before, and proclaim boldly the name of Jesus on their campuses. To simply wilt in the face of this ruling or to surrender when campuses try to misuse it to take away your rights is to give away more ground to the Antichrist ideologies pervading our universities and campuses.

When judicial and governmental rulings threaten to silence the voice of the Church, she only has one great recourse; united fasting and prayer as an appeal to heaven. ... The stakes are higher now than they were ten years ago. It is time for a spiritual revolution on the campuses of America.

But it not just about universities, it is about America ... and most importantly, political action:

I still believe in the greater revival for America. I still believe that abortion can end in America. I still believe that our education systems won't have to be taught homosexual ideologies and little Hispanic kids who can't afford to go to private education will not have to be taught the sexual immorality of the so-called false prophets of our education systems. I've got to believe that sex trafficking back be driven back and drug lords can be arrested because the praying church bound principalities and powers.

I still believe that righteous men and woman can arise in places like Hollywood and tell the stories of the fame of God. I still believe that men and women can arise into the high places of government in our nation, like Daniel.

I don't know what's going to happen, but I do know this: I've been called to stand in such a time as this. And if The Call was raised up with hundreds of thousands over the last ten years, I've still got to believe the promise He gave to me ten years ago when He spoke to me that what I am pouring out is stronger than the rebellion. This Sixties forty-year cycle is up and the Seventies forty-year cycle is ready to release another Jesus Movement. Can you believe with me for that.

Just begin to pray right now, pray for America. Pray. Just begin to pray for America. Pray God, in our darkest hour, when we don't even know right from wrong any more, nobody can even say a word publicly without being vilified, political correctness is killing our prophets, silencing the voice of truth. We have to have miracles again. Who will live for the miracle-working power of God to be displayed? I believe the days of solemn assembly are just ready to break out, that stadiums will be filled in the days of Obama.

You know, it is not everyday that I get to write a post that includes the words "Bill Donohue" and "dildo,"  so when the opportunity presents itself, there is now way that going to pass it up the opportunity.

It seems that Donoue and others are outraged that 17 year old actress Taylor Momsen admitted to masturbating: 

Dr. Bill Donohue, President of The Catholic League, concurred.

“Our society was a much happier place when Annette Funicello pranced around as a ‘Mickey Mouse Mouseketeer,’ and now we have Taylor Momsen prancing around with a dildo in hand," he said. Looks like this gal's got lots of issues. No wonder she voiced her insanity in a magazine called Disorder.”

Dr. Scott Turansky of the National Center for Biblical Parenting echoed similar sentiments.

“Taylor Momsen is projecting a negative image that will result in failure in her life," he told FOX411.com. "Sadly, she is influencing other young women to follow in her steps. Unfortunately the fame and fortune of Miss Momsen is misleading and many of these girls will find out only too late that they're following the wrong model.”

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the sex habits of a 17 year-old girl have to do with the Catholic League's mission to defend "the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination" or why Donohue felt compelled to speak out on this issue. 

Last week, when Newt Gingrich came out in opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque," I noted that his position seemed rather hypocritical considering that he had recently founded an organization called Renewing American Leadership that has, as its mission, the protection and encouragement of the free exercise of religion in America.

But the hypocrisy at the root of that piece pales in comparison to the hypocrisy at the root of his latest piece:

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia—Islamic law—upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence.

Does Gingrich not realize that the man he hired to run Renewing American Leadership, Jim Garlow, is a full-bore advocate of the 7 Mountains Mandate, which is a Dominionist theology that seeks get Christians in control of the levers of power and influence the world over so as to create God's kingdom on Earth and bring about the return of Jesus Christ?

Taking control of the 7 Mountians is the foundational principal of Garlow's new Pray and ACT political organization, which is being prominently featured by Gingrinch's own ReAL website and has the support of a who's who of Religious Right leaders:

Jim Garlow, Skyline Church & Renewing American Leadership
Chuck Colson, Founder Prison Fellowship & BreakPoint
Che Ahn, Harvest International Ministry
Vonette Bright, Co-Founder, Campus Crusade for Christ, International
Bishop Keith Butler, Founding Pastor, Word of Faith International Christian Center
Jim Daly, President & CEO, Focus on the Family
Lou Engle, TheCall to Conscience, TheCall
Father Joseph Fessio, Editor in Chief, Ignatius Press, San Francisco
Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage
Professor Robert George, Princeton University
Professor Timothy George, Dean, Beeson Divinity School
Jack Hayford, Founder and Chancellor, The King's College and Seminary
Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas & Host, The Mike Huckabee Show
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., High Impact Church Coalition
Alveda King, Silent No More Awareness Campaign
Richard Land, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Ron Luce, Founder, Teen Mania & Battle Cry
Bishop Richard Malone, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (Maine)
Eva Muntean & Dolores Meehan, Co-Founders, West Coast Walk for Life, San Francisco
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
James Robison, Life Outreach, International
Samuel Rodriguez, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund
Chuck Stetson, Let’s Strengthen Marriage Campaign

Obviously, these leaders and this Dominionist theology do not advocate the use of violence to achieve their goals, but you have to marvel at Gingrich's willingness to warn that "Islamists" are seeking to impose their religious views on all cultural, political, and legal matters while his very own organization is seeking to do the exact same thing.

• Rick Santorum is seriously considering running for President in 2012.  Awesome.  He and Newt Gingrich can battle it out for those voters looking to support failed former politicians.
• Joseph Farah pretty much loses it over the fact that Lindsey Graham and Richard Lugar are supporting Elena Kagan.
• The Susan B. Anthony is launching a $100,000 campaign to get Hispanic voters to support Carly Fiorina.
• Peter LaBarbera declares the Gay Liberation Network to be a "homosexual hate organization."
• Cindy Jacobs is launching her own 40-day fast before the election that will overlap with the one being launched by Pray and ACT.
• Finally, religious families raise better children. So now you know.

The Islamic Center of Temecula, California has been seeking permits to build a mosque for over a year and a half and its proposal is scheduled to come before the Temecula planning commissioners on Aug. 18.

And so Tea Party activists are planning to protest outside of the Islamic Center's existing facility and urging participants to bring dogs in order to intimidate worshipers because "Muslims hate dogs": 

An e-mail alert sent to area newspapers last week announced that a one-hour "singing – praying – patriotic rally" will begin at 12:30 p.m. July 30 at the Islamic Center’s existing facility. The advisory – sent by a leader of a conservative coalition that has been active with Republican and Tea Party functions – recommended participants "bring your Bibles, flags, signs, dogs and singing voices."

"We will not be submissive," the notice proclaimed. "Our voices are going to be heard!" The alert went on to question what its authors described as Islamic beliefs. It suggested that participants sing during the rally because Muslim "women are forbidden to sing." It suggested that rally participants bring dogs because Muslims "hate dogs."

Yesterday, Jim Garlow, Chairman of Newt Gingrich's Renewing American Leadership and founder of Pray and ACT, was on "Life Today" with James Robsion where he discussed his efforts to mobilize Religious Right activists heading into the election.

In this frist clip, Garlow explains that the core of his "Pray and ACT" effort is to get Christians to fast for forty days heading into the election and to sign onto the Manhattan Declaration, which Robison declares is "as close to being inspired as anything outside the Bible and similar to the Constitution in its authenticity and its authority." But, Garlow explained, praying, fasting, and declaring ones values alone are not enough, as that commitment then has to be transformed into political action:

In this second clip, Garlow explains how the battle for marriage is the single most important battle taking place today because if Christians lose, the Gospel will be silenced and "the enemy" will have succeeded in destroying "the image of God on Earth" because marriage is a terrestrial representation of mankind's ultimate marriage between Jesus and the Church:

• Matt Baume @ SFist: Target's Financial Backing of Anti-Gay Politician.
• Ken Avidor @ Dump Michele Bachmann: Bachmann Fellow Traveller Bradlee Dean Interviews Peter LaBarbara.
• Eric Kleefeld @ TPM: Steele To Hold RNC Event -- Co-Starring Andrew Breitbart.
• Joanthan Chait: John Hagee, Pillar Of Tolerance.
• Matthew Yglesias: The Lynching of Bobby Hall.
• No More Mister Nice Blog: So What Does Fit The American Spectator's Definition of "Lynching"?
• Towleroad: Hypocrite Maggie Gallagher Tells Sparse Crowd of 'Traditional Marriage' Supporters that 'Hate is Not a Family Value'.
• Candace Chellew-Hodge @ Religion Dispatches: Gay Marriage Opponents Running on Empty.
• Alvin McEwen: Phony disclaimer won't help National Organization for Marriage.
• Steve Benen: Coming Soon, To A Terrorist Recruiting Video Near You.
• Adele Stan: Tea Party, Meet Religious Right. Everybody Meet Ayn Rand.
• Ian Millhiser @ Wonk Room: Studies: Roberts Court Most Conservative In Over Seventy Years.

It looks like we can now add David Barton and Rick Green of WallBuilders to the list of Religious Right activists who are opposing the effort by a handful of right-wing leaders to get conservatives to support immigration reform. 

And they are apparently taking a hard-line stance, as evidence by the fact that the guest on today's episode of "WallBuilders Live" was William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, the viciously anti-immigrant activist who made news a few months back when he demanded that Sen. Lindsey Graham admit that he is gay, saying that his refusal to do so was allowing President Obama and others to blackmail him into supporting immigration reform.

Barton started off by saying that it was God who set the boundaries of all nations and so any violation of national borders is, in reality, a violation against God.  Then Rick Green talked with Gheen about how everyday thousands of American citizens are calling the Department of Homeland Security to report that they are being harmed by illegal immigrations while Obama administration refuses to respond because they are intent on "replacing us in our own country, [which is a] much smarter thing to do than fighting us in a war":

Barton: I think the first thing they have to understand, it is God and not man who establishes the borders of nations. National boundaries are set by God. If God didn't want boundaries, he would have put everyone in the same world and there would have been no nations; we would have all been living together as one group and one people. That didn't happen. From the Tower of Babel, he sent them out with different languages, different cultures. God's the one who drew up the lines for the nations, so to say open borders is to say "God, you goofed it all up and when you had borders, you shouldn't have done it ..."

Rick Green: We know better than you ...

Barton: And so, from a Christian standpoint, you cannot do that. God's the one who establishes the boundaries of nations.

...

William Gheen: All across America today, people are calling and saying "hey, illegal aliens are taking my job; hey, illegal aliens are hurting my wages; hey, illegal aliens stole my wife, stole my property, hey, illegal aliens are menacing my children in school with physical violence and I know they're illegal and come do your job."

And these call, probably hundreds, if not thousands, per day are going right to where they're suppose to be - Department of Homeland Security - and nothing is ever happening, they're not listening, they don't care about the death and suffering illegal immigration is causing the American public.

And when you look closer at who is up there and who's around them, you find power groups that actually advocate for this kind of stuff - they are protecting illegal aliens, they facilitated their importation into the United States and they seem to have some broader political/economic agenda of replacing many core Americans and American values and our jobs and our schools and everything else. That's what they're doing. They don't like Americans so they're replacing us in our own country. It's a much smarter thing to do if you're our enemies than fighting us in a war.

Last week we noted that, since losing her radio show due to her growing involvement with Dominion theology, Janet Porter appears to have decided to double down by further aligning herself with those who advocate this theology.

Her initial reaction upon losing her show was to lash out at those who accused her of embracing Dominionism, though without much success as her own words and history undermined her defense.   But months have passed since then and Porter is now seemingly aware that any future she hopes to have in Religious Right activism is going to involve a full-embrace of both Dominionism and its most ardent supporters, which helps explain this:

Just take one guess what the focus of this Worldview Super Conference was:

Sovereignty & Dominion: Biblical Blueprints for Victory!

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.

And this was not a conference that just happened to have a few Dominionists as speakers, but was rather organized by full-blown Christian Reconstructionists like Gary DeMar of American Vision and Gray North. 

DeMar's 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," while North is the son-in-law of Christian Reconstructionist guru R.J. Rushdoony and likewise 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.

While Porter's radio program has gone off the air, her WorldNetDaily column seems to have ben abandoned, and even her Faith2Action website is rarely updated, that doesn't mean Porter has disappeared - she's just abandoned her traditional Religious Right activism in favor of linking up with those openly seeking the creation of a theocracy. 

Last week we noted that a Tea Party rally scheduled for this weekend in Massachusetts collapsed after several speakers dropped out due to MassResistance's Brian Camenker scheduled participation.

Needless to say, Camenker is absolutely outraged, noting that he has been a speaker at several Tea Parties rallies before and was even invited "to an exclusive Tea Party breakfast with Sen. Scott Brown."

Camenker partially blames the Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of MassResistance as a hate group for the debacle, but reserves most of the blame for Christen Varley, a rival Tea Party leader: 

MassResistance has talked to several people and gotten first-hand accounts of what happened.

It apparently started with Christen Varley, head of the "Greater Boston Tea Party", a different Tea Party organization than the Lexington group. Varley is also an employee of Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), a "moderate" pro-family group, through an MFI affiliate that consults with political candidates. (Some would say that is a conflict of interest.) She also has strong ties to the state Republican establishment.

This week Varley contacted the Lexington Tea Party's speakers and advised them -- in fairly strong terms -- not to appear if Camenker was included ... Unlike other Tea Party leaders around the country, Varley is well-liked by the mainstream media. She's considered sensible and moderate by the establishment press. (Not like the other Tea Party "rabble" which the media have only contempt for.) As head of the Greater Boston Tea Party she's had numerous friendly articles published about her in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and even the Wall Street Journal, as well as many "softball" local radio interviews.

By her own admission, Varley tries to exclude discussion of "social issues" from all of her Tea Party events. It's all about fiscal issues, she says.

Hostility to the parents' rights movement. Last year Varley invited MassResistance to speak at one of her Tea Party events, but under the condition that we did not talk about the homosexual agenda in schools. After we refused and told others about her restriction, Varley left several angry phone messages at our office, referring to parents who were battling the gay agenda in the schools as "nut jobs."

Camenker then lists the participants who dropped out by name in a "Hall of shame" before concluding that the entire thing is "an absolute disgrace, and represents the worst kind of anti-family RINO sleaziness": 

We have never seen anything like this deliberately done to a Tea Party anywhere in America. It's an absolute disgrace, and represents the worst kind of anti-family RINO sleaziness. There are hundreds of thousands (and this year possibly millions) of taxpayer dollars going directly to the radical homosexual / transgender agenda in our schools to target children in Massachusetts. The idea that this should not be challenged at Tea Parties -- and that those who do speak out should be demonized -- is beyond offensive.

• Justin Elliot @ Salon: "Grassroots" Rove-linked group funded almost entirely by billionaires.
• Ezra Klein: When Tucker Carlson asked to join Journolist.
• Eric Kleefeld @ TPM: Bachmann: 'All We Should Do Is Issue Subpoenas' If GOP Wins House.
• Steve Benen: Steve King's 'Default Mechanism'.
• Jim Burroway @ Box Turtle Bulletin: Gay Marriage Killed The Penguins.
• Think Progress: Far-Right Activist Launches Tour To Burn Lindsey Graham In Effigy.
• Hey, sign up to follow our Twitter feed. You'd be amazed at how much sarcasm I can cram into 140 characters.

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer interviewed David Barton about this op-ed he recently wrote explaining how today's Tea Party activists are the "represent much of what is right in America" because they are committed to the Constitution and  to "holding their elected officials accountable to its standards."

But not only are the Tea Party activist just like the Founding Fathers, they are also just like Jesus:

The Tea Party platform, despite all the negative ... the media has decided to take on the Tea Party and whack 'em because really, the Tea Party, if they have their way, the liberal left is going to be on the outside in this thing.

So the best you can do is try to villainize these guys. You know, when Jesus got a really big following, they started saying "oh, he's a wine-bibber, he's a glutton," they started all the name-calling and finger-pointing; you know, he's trying to install himself as king and he's going to kick out Caesar, trying to get the Romans stirred up.

So they used all these ridiculous charges and so this is nothing new.

The AFA's Bryan Fischer has taken a leading role in pushing back against the handful of Religious Right leaders who have come out in support of immigration reform.  One of the claims being made, especially by Richard Land, in favor of reform is that Hispanics are "tailor-made to be social conservatives," so the GOP and Religious Right should support opportunities for them to gain citizenship.

Not surprisingly, Fischer isn't buying it, responding that Hispanics have a high rate of illegitimacy, which proves that their values are rather questionable: 

Richard Land, in arguing for a guaranteed path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the country, repeatedly stresses how pro-family the Hispanic community is, and assures us they will be the natural allies of the conservative movement.

Not so fast. According to the Christian Post, 57% of Latino Catholics in California support homosexual marriage. Let’s not forget that Latinos make up 36.6 percent of California’s population.

The good news, if you happen to be an evangelical, is that just 22 percent of Latino Protestants support gay marriage.

If getting pro-family illegals legalized is the goal, perhaps Dr. Land can be persuaded to amend his recommendation and give preference to Protestant illegal aliens.

Also, the illegitimacy rate among Hispanic women is over 50%. I’m not sure pro-family values are as strong in the Hispanic community as Dr. Land wants to believe.

Now that is more like what we have come to expect from Fischer.

Yesterday I noted that the explanation for why Texas bus driver Edwin Graning refused to transport a woman to Planned Parenthood keeps changing.

First he said that his wife called the facility and heard a message directing callers to call 911 in case of abortion complications and so he refused to go.  Then he said that he called the facility and heard abortion listed among the services they provide, so he refused to go.  Both of those claims turned out to be demonstrably false, as no such messages exist.

So that left Graning's ACLJ attorney with no choice but to admit that his client really had no idea what reason this woman may have had for wanting to go to Planned Parenthood, but he assumed it was for an abortion, so he was justified in refusing to transport her. 

And that seems to be where we stand today:

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) represents Edwin Graning, a former driver for the Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS), which is a nine-county transit service that often provides transportation in rural areas surrounding Austin, Texas. Senior attorney Edward White tells OneNewsNow the driver was dispatched in January to transport two women to a Planned Parenthood clinic.

"He called up his supervisor and said, 'You know, I'm an ordained minister...and Planned Parenthood does abortions. And I don't know if this lady's going there for an abortion. However, if she is, I want nothing to do with that,'" White accounts. "And so in effect, he was asking for his supervisor to just get one of the other CARTS drivers to pick up this woman."

Graning's own attorney admits that he had no idea why the woman was going to the facility, but he decided not to take her because she might be going to have an abortion.  Of course, she might have been going to get a pregnancy test or abstinence education - the point is that Graning had no way of knowing, as his attorney freely admits.

Frankly, Graning has no way of knowing what any of his riders intend to do at their destinations. 

Can he refuse to transport someone he thinks might be going off to have an affair? Could he deny service to someone he thinks might be going to a gay rights rally?  Could he refuse to take someone to the airport because he thought they might be flying to Las Vegas to engage in gambling and prostitution? Where does it end?

Does the ACLJ really believe that Graning ought to be able to refuse service to anyone based entirely on his own speculation about the intentions of his riders?

• Focus on the Family is becoming Focus on Facebook.
• Herman Cain: Barack Obama's worst nightmare.
• Randall Terry and company continue to protest Elena Kagan ... dressed as chickens.
• Check out how fancy the ACLJ is getting!
• Peter Sprigg ... writes in WorldNetDaily ... about Elena Kagan's intolerance.  Are you choking on the irony?
• Speaking for FRC, they are acussing the Obama Administration of not fighting hard enough in defending the National Day of Prayer.

It seems that Peter LaBarbera is rather upset with me for saying that his upcoming "truth academy" was going to be "the gay-hatingest thing you have ever seen":

Oftentimes when activists on the Left have no evidence that something they disagree with is actually ”hateful,” they just label as such anyway, and then repeat themselves ad nauseam so that we’ll all get the message that said conservative activity is, well, “hateful.” Here is People for the American Way (PFAW) “Senior Fellow” Kyle Mantyla’s trenchant analysis of AFTAH’s Truth Academy curriculum:

“Peter LaBarbera has unveiled the instructor list and official curriculum for his upcoming three day anti-gay hatefest/”truth academy” … and it is pretty much going to be the gay-hatingest thing you have ever seen.”

Wow. “Gay-hatingest.” Reactionary liberals are expanding their smear-term lexicon. Seriously, though, most people on the Left are not quite willing, yet, to define anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as “hateful” — although they might call them “homophobic” (an artificial construct whose elastic definition has evolved to meet the needs of pro-”gay” liberals). I’m sure there are exceptions, but I suspect that most “gay”-affirming people would not automatically label anyone who believes that homosexuality is immoral — or that homosexual sex is unnatural – as “haters.”

LaBarbera apparently operates under the belief that opposition to all things gay which claims to be rooted in Judeo-Christian morality cannot possibly be considered hateful:

Morality is not “hate” and defending the historic Judeo-Christian sexual ethic is not “bigotry.” Homosexuality is wrong, and a controversial moral and religious issue involving behavior ... In a free society, we debate moral issues, and we discuss public health issues arising from dangerous behaviors. Does PFAW hold that it is OK to crusade for acceptance of homosexuality, but “un-American” and ”hateful” to oppose it civilly?

Maybe “Senior Fellow” Kyle, who edits PFAW’s “Right-Wing Watch” blog, and his pro-homosexual allies can explain it for us: Is every American who opposes homosexuality hateful — or just those who defend that position in public? When does moral disagreement become “hate”?

Civilly?  Is that how LaBarbera thinks his hand-picked line-up of "instructors" has engaged in the public debate? 

- Cliff Kincaid claims that gays are out to destory our military with disease-tainted blood.

- Laurie Higgins says Christians have to fight gays just like they fought Nazis.

- Rena Lindevaldsen has worked tirelessly representing a woman who fled the country rather than allow her former lesbian partner to see their daughter.

- Robert Knight comared gay marriage to Pearl Harbor.

- The only reason anyone even knows the name Ryan Sorba is because he launched into an anti-gay rant at CPAC.

- And Matt Barber is the sort of person who says there is nothing acceptable about "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it 'love'" and whose career, from day one, has been rooted in his virulent animosity toward gays.

And Peter LaBarber is the man who personally invited all of these activists to come a "teach" at his conference - and he chose them specifically because of their unabashed militant hostility toward gays.

I want to follow up on my last post about bus driver Edwin Graning to note that his explanation of why he refused to transport of woman to a Planned Parenthood facility doesn't make a lot of sense.

His initial claim was that he had been assigned to drive a woman to Planned Parenthood's South Austin facility:

Graning had asked his wife to call the facility; she heard a recording directing callers to call 911 in case of abortion complications. "I said, dear God in heaven, this woman's gonna have an abortion," he said.

But that is different from what he told Focus on the Family:

Before picking her up, Graning called the clinic in advance to confirm someone would be there on her arrival. As he was waiting to leave a message, he listened to a list of the clinic’s services.

Graning – an ordained Christian minister – could not go against his religious beliefs.

“Dear God, this woman’s going to have an abortion,” he said. “I went ahead and called my supervisor at home and told her, ‘I can’t be a part of this.’”

So at first Graning was saying that his wife called the facility and heard a recording about abortion, and so he refused to transport the woman ... but then claimed that he called the facility himself and heard a list of services offered by the clinic which included abortion, so he refused to take the woman.

Now that discrepancy might not be particularly significant ... especially when compared to the fact that the clinic's recorded message makes absolutely no mention of abortion at all.  I know because I called the clinic and recorded it:

Thank you for calling Planned Parenthood, the most trusted name in reproductive health care.

You have reached the South Austin clinic at 201 East Ben White Blvd. Our business hours are Monday-Friday, 9 am to 6:30 pm and Saturday, 9 am to 3 pm.

For more information about our services, to make a donation, or to join our email activist network, please visit us on the web at www.ppaustin.org.

Please select from the following options: for clinic directions or other clinic locations,press 1. To schedule an appointment or to speak with a staff member, please press 0 or stay on the line.

Now where exactly in the message do you hear anything about performing abortions? Nowhere - which is probably why Graning's attorney, Edward White III of the American Center for Law and Justice, is now claiming that Graning "just figured that that clinic did abortions and because it was so early in the morning, he was assuming that she was probably going there for an abortion."

Of course, as I pointed out before, that facility offers a whole range of services from pregnancy and HIV tests to abstinence education.  So not only did Graning have absolutely no way of know why this woman wanted to go to this facility, his claim that the facility's message alerted him that abortions were performed there is flagrantly false.

Graning just assumed that this woman was going to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion and refused to take her.  For that, he was fired ... and became a Religious Right hero.

Wasn't it just the other day that I was writing about the Religious Right warning Christians that the Obama administration was out to destroy their "freedom of religion" by referring to it merely as "freedom of worship"?  

So how do they justify this bigoted rant from Newt Gingrich arguing for the need to limit the religious rights of Muslims in America?

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

...

America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

No mosque.

No self deception.

No surrender.

The time to take a stand is now - at this site on this issue.

As Steve Benen points out, Gingirch's suggestion doesn't even make any sense: 

So, by Newt Gingrich's estimation, Saudi Arabian officials are wrong to squelch religious liberty in their country -- so we should be equally wrong in ours. Gingrich sees Saudi Arabia discriminating and showing a lack of tolerance for spiritual diversity and, in effect, concludes, "Let's follow their lead."

But in addition, how exactly does does Gingrich plan on going about preventing this Mosque from being built considering that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? 

I thought the Religious Right was willing to lay down their lives to defend religious liberty? 

And doesn't limiting free exercise of religion in America directly contradict the mission of Gingrich's own organization, Renewing American Leadership?

How To Renew American Leadership

So what should Americans who love their country, and believe in its ideals, do to reclaim the vision so ably constructed for us by the founding fathers and every legal immigrant who has come here to achieve the American Dream? Our initial prescription for Renewing American Leadership can be summarized in four points.

1. It is imperative to teach Americans the truth about the greatness of their country.

2. It is imperative to return to limited government by restoring our system of constitutional checks and balances.

3. It is imperative to protect and encourage the free exercise of religion in America.

4. It is imperative to take control of our borders, and reform our immigration system to admit people able to contribute the skills and the values we need for America’s future.

• The AFA is now boycotting Home Depot ... or, as they refer to it, "Homosexual Depot."
• Leave it to Alan Keyes to make the Shirley Sherrod saga even more ridiculous than it already was.
• Think of it as Vacation Bible School, as run by Glenn Beck.
• Texas Lawyer has named Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Institute as one of the state’s greatest attorneys in the past quarter-century. That doesn't reflect too highly on TX lawyers, now does it?
• You know AZ's draconian immigration law is good because it is supported both by the Constitution and the Bible.
• Finally, quote of the day from Bryan Fischer, responding to the settlement in the Constance McMillen case: "This is how evil advances in America - one weak-kneed group of kind-hearted, wimpish people at a time ... what this situation called for was not niceness but goodness, not capitulation but courage."

Last night the Family Research Council hosted a webcast entitled "Mission Compromised: How the military is being used to advance a radical agenda" which featured several members of Congress along with Religious Right activists discussing both efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and efforts to allow abortion at military facilities. 

In this first clip, Oliver North tells Tony Perkins that conservative, home-schooled kids who read the Bible instead of looking at porn will stop joining the military if DADT is repealed because it will eventually lead to NAMBLA members being allowed to serve:

Next up is Rep. Todd Akin who tells Perkins that our military actions have always been just, but that if we allow abortions to take place at military facilities and gays to serve openly, the fundamental justice of our military will be lost:

In this next clip, Perkins and Army Sgt. Benjamin Ratliff claim that letting gays serve would cause real problems for soldiers because they might be reluctant to "spoon" in a life-threatening situation because they might have concerns about the guy next to them:

But no clip better exposes the utter fradulence and fatuousness of the right-wing campaign against DADT's repeal than this. First you have the AFA's Bryan Fischer claiming that allowing gays to serve would cause all those with good, conservative Christian values to leave the military; this has been a favorite right-wing talking point, but it is entire undermined by Sgt. Ratliff himself, who states that even if DADT was repealed, he would continue to serve and would urge others to do so as well because even though he would disagree with it, he loves his country more:

If you thought the Manhattan Declaration was mainly an opportunity for the Religious Right to declare themselves heroes of the Christian faith ... well, you were correct.  But that doesn't mean that organizers were not entirely serious about their pledge to be ready to give their lives to fight Obama's looming Nazi-like dictatorship.

That is a point that Manhattan Declaration founders Chuck Colson and Timothy George make in his new video, as George compares those who sign this document to both Martin Luther and Martin Luther King while Colson begs people to "understand the severity of the threats to our first freedom" which are coming from all sides and "realize the kind of fight we're in and be prepared for what we may face in the coming months":

Here is the video from a few weeks ago that Colson references in this new video, in which he takes up the claim which we addressed yesterday that the Obama administration is systematically out to destroy "freedom of religion" in order to promote the gay agenda and destroy Christianity:

• PFAW: People For the American Way, Public Citizen Launch Constitutional Amendment Pledge Campaign to Undo Citizens United.
• Steve Benen: Meet Shirley Sherrod.
• Jonathan Chait: The Journolist Conspiracy Continues.
• Evan McMorris-Santoro: Mosque Ado About Fear-Mongering: Right Wing Takes On Muslim Worship Anywhere And Everywhere.
• John Aravosis: I just took DOD's confidential DADT survey of the troops - three times!
• Think Progress: Washington Times Runs Another Picture Of Kagan In A Turban To Claim She Will Impose Shariah Law On America.
• Andy Kroll: Sharron Angle's Racist Tea Partier Problem.
• Media Matters: The right wing's convenient Mark Williams amnesia.
• Jim Burroway: Mississippi School District Settles With Lesbian Student Over Canceled Prom.
• Jillian Rayfield: Good As Goldline: Congress And CA Law Enforcement Probing Glenn Beck's Favorite Gold Seller.
• Justin Elliot: Vitter opponent sleeping with stepson's wife.

Cindy Jacobs reports that on July 17, God spoke to her and warned that America was on the verge of slipping into "another Great Depression" and the only hope of stopping it was for massive prayer, fasting, revival, support for Israel ... and, of course, proper voting: 

A few days ago as I watched the financial news, the Lord clearly spoke these words to me, "The nation is teetering!" I then had a vision of the economy of the United States, on what looked like a "scale of justice." He then went on to show me that we must fast, pray and cry out to the Lord for mercy and solutions that will balance righteousness and justice.

In praying to the Lord for wisdom about this word, I realized what must be done—it is time for the Church in America to stand up and take her place once again in the nation. I mulled over the fact that we have already lost so many of our liberties and this is what I heard, "If the Church doesn't fast and pray for a faster acceleration of revival and awakening, the iniquitous sin structures in the nation will tip the scale that is teetering and there will be another great depression."

Of course, this word shook me to the core of my being. Many of you may be aware that the Holy Spirit spoke to me almost a year before the September 2008 economic melt down, that there would be "no more business as usual."

The balance of the economy is fragile and depending on the way we fast, pray, and how we cast our votes in the next election will depend on which way the scale tips. We must pray and do. We must pray and act. We must awaken the Church to the state of the nation without fear of pleasing man or fear for our reputation.

God is watching to see which way the die will be cast. If we shift the nation to Biblical values in the arenas of righteousness and justice, the economy will follow. If we continue in our stance of support for Israel, the Stock Market will stabilize and prosper, and that which is fragile will become strong. Supernatural solutions will be sent from Heaven that our natural minds could never reason, nor grasp and they will heal the land.

If we do not heed in this hour there will be a tumbling of our economy and dark days will be ahead to such a degree that our nation will possibly never fully recover from and have the greatness as a nation that God has favored us with for generations.

God have mercy. God send an awakening. God send salvation.

I have to say that this op-ed from Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition alleging that there has been some sort of double-standard in the treatment of Elena Kagan and Harriet Miers might just be the dumbest thing that anyone has written during this entire confirmation process: 

The parallels between the nominations of Kagan and Miers — their similar legal background and connection to the presidents who nominated them — makes the various reactions from the right and the left stand in stark contrast. While Miers was harassed and criticized by both sides of the aisle until she withdrew her name from consideration, Kagan has faced relatively mild opposition, and this coming almost exclusively from the right.

Why the deferential treatment for the current nominee? It seems as though Kagan’s friends in the executive and legislative branches have no problem with her aforementioned disqualifications. Harriet Miers’s close connection to President Bush was unacceptable to many, but Elena Kagan’s connection to President Obama and her political ties to many left-wing causes is permissible, according to those who would like to give her activist tendencies new life with this increased power.

What on earth is Lafferty talking about? As she freely admits, it was the opposition of conservatives that caused Miers' nomination to be withdrawn by President Bush.  It was right-wing leaders who screamed and yelled that Miers was insufficiently conservative, which made her unqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. 

Lafferty claims that Miers was forced to withdraw due to opposition from "both sides of the aisle," which is just laughably false, as it was the concerted efforts of conservative activists who organized opposition campaigns that took out Harriet Miers:

According to “WithdrawMiers.org,” a coalition formed by the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, Fidelis, and others for the sole purpose of opposing the nomination: “Miers’ … few published writings offer no real insight or assurance of a judicial philosophy that reflects a commitment to the Constitution.” And on issues where Miers had something of a record, WithdrawMiers.org was not impressed: “Ms. Miers fought to remove the pro-abortion plank in the American Bar Association platform, yet fought this Bush Administration in ending the ABA’s role in vetting judges which is known to be biased against judges whose judicial philosophies reflect a clear commitment to the Constitution. She donated money to a Texas pro-life group, yet helped establish an endowed lecture series at Southern Methodist University that brought pro-abortion icons Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi to campus.”

Like WithdrawMiers.org, Americans for Better Justice sprang up simply to oppose the Miers nomination. Founded by ultra-conservatives like David Frum, Linda Chavez, and Roger Clegg, ABJ was unconvinced that Miers shared its founders’ right-wing views and began gathering signatures on a petition demanding Miers’ withdrawal: “The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative judicial philosophy … The next justice should be someone who has demonstrated a deep engagement in the constitutional issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court — and an appreciation of the originalist perspective on those issues … For all Harriet Miers’ many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person.”

The right-wing magazine National Review had, in many ways, led the charge against the Miers nomination from the very beginning. Its writers called Miers “a very, very bad pick,” declared her nomination “the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency” and complained that the Right had been forced to endure “an embarrassingly lame campaign from the White House, the Republican National Committee, and their surrogates.”

What caused this gnashing of teeth was the fact that, according to the National Review’s editorial board, “There is very little evidence that Harriet Miers is a judicial conservative, and there are some warnings that she is not … neither being pro-life or an evangelical is a reliable guide to what kind of jurisprudence she would produce, even on Roe, let alone on other issues.”

Others on the Right were just as dismayed by the nomination. American Values’ Gary Bauer explained: “[Harriet Miers] has not written one word, said one word, given a speech, written a letter to the editor on any of the key constitutional issues that conservatives care about and are worried about and want to make sure the court does not go down the road on."

The Wall Street Journal called the nomination a “political blunder of the first order,” lamenting that “After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don't know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution.”

Stephen Crampton of the American Family Association said Miers is a “stealth candidate for a seat on the Supreme Court [and] is an unknown with no paper trail,” while the Christian Defense Coalition blasted the president, saying his supporters “did not stand out in the rain for 20 hours passing out literature or putting up signs for the President to have him turn around and nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. A nominee in which there is no record of their judicial philosophy or view of the Constitution.”

Back when John Roberts was preparing for his confirmation hearing, Concerned Women for America was praising him as a “highly qualified nominee with extraordinary personal integrity who has proven himself worthy to sit on our nation's highest court.” CWA said “Senators should ignore the ridiculously inappropriate litmus tests and document demands of the radical left” and that Roberts “should receive overwhelming bi-partisan support and confirmation.”

This is in stark contrast to the stand CWA took on Miers: “We believe that far better qualified candidates were overlooked and that Miss Miers’ record fails to answer our questions about her qualifications and constitutional philosophy … We do not believe that our concerns will be satisfied during her hearing." In calling for her withdrawal, CWA revealed their real objection: “Miers is not even close to being in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as the President promised the American people.” They demanded that the president give them a “nomination that we can whole-heartedly endorse.”

It was right-wing leaders who vehemently opposed Miers over concerns that she not conservative enough ... and now Lafferty is accusing the Left of being hypocritical for supporting Kagan? 

Nice try.

Do you ever get the impression that the Religious Right is just making up "controversies" that they can pretend to get upset about?  Or do you get the impression that they just don't even bother to do so much as a minute of research before voicing their outrage about some nonexistent threat? 

Behold the latest such incident, courtesy of the Family Research Council:

Can one word change the world? President Obama certainly hopes so. Since last year's speech in Cairo, one phrase is subtly worming its way into speeches with high level White House officials. With incredible precision, the President is abandoning the term "freedom of religion" in favor of what he calls the "freedom of worship." Now to most people, that rhetoric is nothing to write home about. But to those of us standing guard for our faith in Washington, the shift is ominous. As Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom said, "[Freedom of worship] excludes the right to raise your children in your faith; the right to have religious literature; the right to meet with co-religionists; the right to raise funds; the right to appoint your religious leaders, and to carry out charitable activities, to evangelize," and perhaps the most troubling, to engage in the public square.

This is the culmination of a 40-year process to expel God from America. First it was taking prayer and the Bible from public schools; then it was driving out the 10 Commandments from courthouses and nativities from town squares. Now religion would be squeezed out of every pocket of society until it exists only within the four walls of the church. This is more than semantics; it's a bold leap forward to completely secularize America. We've already witnessed what the courts and culture have done to alienate faith. President Obama's vision is to codify those decisions in policy--making it virtually impossible for men and women to exercise their religion in public. And that includes any church outreach like homeless shelters or orphanages. If we pursue this to its logical conclusion, America would eventually shut out or constrict anything having to do with Christ. President Obama says plenty of things he doesn't mean. But in this, his pursuit of wiping religion off the map, we should take him at his word.

Really? This is what it has come to?  President Obama doesn't use the phrase "freedom of religion" and it is proof that he is out to "completely secularize America"?  Even by the Religious Right's standard, this is laughably pathetic.

Hey, take a look at this procilmation that President Obama issued just four days ago:

The journey towards worldwide freedom and democracy sought in 1959 remains unfinished. Today, we still observe the profound differences between governments that reflect the will of their people, and those that sustain power by force; between nations striving for equal justice and rule of law, and those that deny their citizens freedom of religion, expression, and peaceful assembly; and between states that are open and accountable, and those that restrict the flow of ideas and information. The United States has a special responsibility to bear witness to those whose voices are silenced, and to stand alongside those who yearn to exercise their universal human rights.

In fact, a search of the White House website returns 124 uses of the phrase "freedom of religion" compared to just 9 uses of "freedom of worship."

Interestingly, a search of the George W. Bush White House website archive also returns exactly 124 mentions of "freedom of religion" versus 33 uses of "freedom of worship."

Do you remember the Religious Right freaking out when Bush used the phrase several times in proclaiming Religious Freedom Day 2008?  Me neither:

Thomas Jefferson counted the freedom of worship as one of America's greatest blessings. He said it was "a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government, and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." On Religious Freedom Day, we celebrate the 1786 passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

The freedom to worship according to one's conscience is one of our Nation's most cherished values. It is the first protection offered in the Bill of Rights: that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In America, people of different faiths can live together united in peace, tolerance, and humility. We are committed to the proposition that as equal citizens of the United States of America, all are free to worship as they choose.