Posts on Jane Chastain

Last week Gary Bauer warned that at some point down the line, God will "take his hand of protection off of America" if the country doesn't get its act together and stop coddling gays, finally outlaw abortion, and elect John McCain.

And it looks as if that GOTV strategy is being picked up by others on the Right, judging by Jane Chastain's latest column in WorldNetDaily.

Chastain admits that many Christian voters might be confused about things like the economy, healthcare, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so they should just get "back to basics"

Examine the stands of these two candidates —and more important, their records – on the moral issues, and vote accordingly. Then, you can rest assured that this country will be in good hands.

The Ten Commandments given to Moses are not suggestions. They represent God's moral law – and it has never changed. The first commandments are about honoring God and your earthly parents. Next comes God's law against murder. God leaves us no wiggle room when it comes to the shedding of the innocent blood of another human being.

It is no accident that abortion is the most divisive moral issue in America today. God's law may be inconvenient at times, but it is still God's law.

But just in case they are still confused over how to vote, Chastian concludes with a pretty straight-forward argument that God will destory America if Obama is elected:

If you call yourself a Christian and you are still flirting with abortion, or flirting with voting for a candidate who condones the taking of an innocent life, no matter how small, sick or vulnerable, you are only fooling yourself about your Christian commitment – but you will not fool God!

...

If 9/11 wasn't a wake-up call for America, then the financial meltdown of 2008 should be. How many more warnings will God give us before he lifts his hand of protection that has been over this country for more than 200 years? He did not spare the children of Israel. He will not spare the United States of America!

"[B]uying that box of cookies now presents a moral dilemma, as the Girl Scouts have become a training ground for the left-wing feminist agenda," warns Jane Chastain. See also: Boy Scouts.

The Family Research Council is launching a project aimed at convincing its supporters before the 2008 election that liberal politicians “are spouting God-talk” in order to “confuse people of faith” and hide their “true agenda.” Invoking the Religious Right’s recent favored phrase for its imagined constituency – as well as the “Swift Boat” campaign of 2004 – the so-called “Values Voters for Truth” campaign is an attempt to vilify liberals – and, obviously, Democratic candidates – as enemies of Christianity who are undertaking a conspiracy to “deceive and split values voters.” From a recent fundraising letter from FRC Action:

Our relentless effort to reveal the facts about the Left’s true agenda is already under way. It will not stop until the last vote of the 2008 election has been cast. The Values Voters for Truth campaign will partner with organizations in all 50 states—and at the national level. We will mobilize values voters, engage them in the war of ideas, and keep them informed and involved.

We will rally churches to the cause. And by God’s grace, we will neutralize our opponents’ deceptive tactics.

As an example of this supposed “fraud,” the letter cites a Democratic presidential candidate who spoke of his “belief in Christ” and also supports civil unions for gay couples. Similarly, the letter warns that a candidate noting a “biblical call to feed the hungry” also voted against an anti-abortion bill. A third candidate is denounced for the “hypocrisy” of wanting to let gay couples adopt children. According to FRC, these supposed contradictions indicate that Democrats discussing their faith and values is merely “lip service,” part of a “campaign of deception” that led directly to the Democrats winning control of Congress in the 2006 elections.

State AG: “It's not a German shepherd, is it?" Jane Chastain: Planned Parenthood opposes because of “bottom line.”

Earlier this week a coalition of Religious Right leaders emerged with the goal of influencing immigration policymaking. The organizer of this coalition, Manuel Miranda, is a former member of Sen. Bill Frist’s staff who lost his position after accessing and reading internal Democratic staff documents and went on to become a one-man army fighting for confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Now that President Bush appears reluctant to keep sending controversial nominees to Congress, Miranda undoubtedly has a lot of time on his hands and has decided to branch out into immigration.  He claims that his new Families First on Immigration coalition is offering “real compromise” on the issue that should appeal to all sides by proposing a combination of increased border security, legalization for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country and, most importantly, an end to birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  

Judging by this WorldNetDaily column by Jane Chastain, the Families First on Immigration’s “compromise” proposal looks as if it is appealing to some on the Right who have traditionally been among the most militantly anti-immigration. Why the change of heart?  Even the most extreme anti-immigrant advocates understand the message voters sent to Congress – by not electing or in some cases not re-electing many GOPers who had strong anti-immigrant positions. They see the writing on the wall and from their weakened position are now cynically attempting to leverage their “support”  for something that already has strong bi-artisan support and is likely to happen anyway, in order to get something else extreme that they have always wanted – doing away with birthright citizenship.

In one fell swoop Chastain impugns the motives of all who support comprehensive immigration reform while simultaneously insulting hard-working immigrants:  

The motives of Democrats and President Bush are clear: The former expects to lead these new, largely impoverished, uneducated voters around by the nose; the latter wants to satisfy his business supporters who feel they are "entitled" to cheap labor to manufacture their products, mow their lawns and clean their toilets.

Chastain’s primary reason for “hope” is that this proposal pushes to eliminate so-called “anchor babies.”  Chastain’s animosity to “anchor babies” is long-standing and so it should come as no surprise that she would support the Families First plan to change the Constitution to eliminate this provision.  In 2004, Chastain suggested that any temporary guest-worker program should also require sterilization of applicants:  

Therefore, the only way to assure the American people that this "temporary" status truly is temporary is to seal up the wombs – sterilize – those who apply for guest-worker status. Or else change the law that grants citizenship to anyone who is born here regardless of the status of his or her parents.