Janice Crouse

Back in 2007, the D. James Kennedy's Center for Reclaiming America for Christ shut down, as Coral Ridge Ministries announced that it would focus on expanding its media operations.  

Since then, Coral Ridge has produced several DVD programs like "10 Truths About Hate Crime Laws Book and Hate Crime Laws" and "Pastors, Pulpits, And Politics" ... and now, via Good As You, we see that they are back with their latest production "Radical Rulers And The Obama White House Radicals": 

America has come under the rule of the most radical administration in our nation’s history. In this explosive new book, journalist Robert Knight identifies more than a dozen White House appointees (plus President Obama) who are all working to bring extreme change to America. The Obama team’s far left ideology means a government takeover of healthcare, soaring budget deficits, redistribution of wealth, forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortions, punitive energy and environmental rules, restrictions on free speech, a push to mainstream homosexuality, and much more.

Along with the book, the DVD, The Obama White House Radicals, uncovers the backgrounds of several Obama Administration appointees—from a self-avowed Communist to a member of the Socialist International. The DVD also examines the influence of Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky on President Obama’s political education. Experts appearing on the program include Janice Shaw Crouse, political commentator for Concerned Women for America; William Federer, a nationally known speaker and host of the American Minute radio broadcast; and Gary Cass, president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.

In case you missed it, the point is that President Obama's administration is extremely "radical" ... at least, according to far-right radicals.

And for a mere $40, this insightful DVD exposé and accompanying book explaining that can be yours.

The emerging convention wisdom among the Religious Right and conservative commentators regarding Sarah Palin's abrupt decision to resign before the end of her sole term as Governor seems to be that she was hounded out of office by Democrats, bloggers, and mean people who criticized her.

Gary Bauer says "she was tired of being harassed" but that her decision is "a move that could end up serving her very well."

Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America decried the "dirty politics" that forced Palin out, saying no other politician in "public life has ever had her children and family so maligned and attacked so brutally, explicitly, and disrespectfully" but likewise believes that Palin will "find a way back into national politics, and she'll be a formidable force when she does."

Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard, who has a book called "The Persecution of Sarah Palin" coming out next year, just wrote an article for the next issue in which he explains that she has been "trapped" in the Governor's office and has now been set free. Continetti explains that, in her short time in office, Palin has been so successful that not only did not need to run again, but that she didn't even have to finish out her first term and that she had finally become fed-up with the incessant attacks:

As the months passed, Palin arrived at the conclusion that she didn't want a second term as Alaska's governor. She had achieved what she had set out to do, so why bother with one more lame-duck legislative session in 2010? "I know that we've accomplished more in our two years in office than most governors could hope to accomplish in two terms," Palin said. "And that's because I hired the right people." For Palin to remain shuttling between Juneau, Anchorage, and Wasilla would waste both her and her constituents' time. And "I cannot waste time," she said. "I cannot waste resources."

...

Why is Palin leaving? At this writing, there is no reason to doubt her stated position: Her enemies' concerted efforts to tear her down have caused her family financial stress and distracted her from her duties as governor. Since she returned to Alaska in November 2008, she has been hemmed in. Ethics complaints, insults, invective, undue attention, and legal bills have been all-consuming. "I can't fight for what's right when I'm shackled to the governor's seat," Palin said. For the last seven months the governor's office has been a ward. A trap. She is breaking free.

...

Unable or unwilling to grasp her true accomplishments and character, the media shoehorned Palin into a ready-made caricature of the know-nothing Christian PTA mom who enters politics because of "those damned lib'ruls." The reality is far different. Palin is a savvy and charismatic politician whose career has been filled with courageous stands against entrenched authority. Ideological or partisan attachments do not concern her. She has her flaws--who doesn't?--but they should be measured against her strengths. Instead the media ignored the positives and colluded with Palin's adversaries to reduce her to a cartoon.

Oddly, the only one who doesn't seem to be buying into the "Palin-as-vicitm" explanation is Alan Keyes, who accuses her of dereliction of duty and "bad statesmanship":

In her speech, Sarah Palin refers to a "recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas" and "what we can all learn from our selfless troops ... they're bold, they don't give up and they take a stand …" Here words are an apt reminder of what the faithful performance of duty requires. Soldiers take a stand in the very teeth of enemy fire, even though it means certain death or grievous wounds. There is a word for soldiers who quit their posts because the enemy is shooting at them. It is not intended as a compliment, especially when it's their own bad judgment that has put them in the way of enemy fire in the first place.

Sarah Palin calls to mind our wounded soldiers in the very moment when she fails to follow their heroic example. In the process, she acknowledges that, thanks to the provision of Alaska's taxpayers, she has successfully evaded the cost-free political attacks allowed by "the ethics law I championed." She won! Had Custer won the battle at Little Big Horn, I doubt that anyone would have questioned the money expended for the guns and bullets required to do so. He had a duty to defend his command, especially after his own mistakes exposed it to danger.

Of course, resignation would have been in order once he acknowledged and took responsibility for those mistakes. But Sarah Palin has done no such thing. She claims Alaska is being damaged by the attacks against her, but that the fault lies entirely with the bad motives and actions of others. She says her tenure as governor has been successful; her judgments and actions sound; her record all for the good of the state and its people. But if this is true, it makes no sense to deprive the state of the governor duly elected by the people simply because bad folks attack her. In that case, resigning simply lets the (political) assassins finish their work. How can letting the duly elected governor be taken out in this way be consistent with her sworn duty to defend the state?

If she is without fault or blame, then Palin's explanation makes no sense except as a clear dereliction of duty. She swore faithfully to perform the duties of her office. She claims to have done so. Others have abused the law to attack her. She successfully defended against them. If, as she contends, she has simply been performing her duties, her defense of herself is in fact simply a defense of her office, in the literal sense. To preserve that office with integrity is one of her duties as governor. By resigning, she fails in the performance of that duty. She encourages the "politics of personal destruction" in much the same way that allowing terrorists to succeed encourages further acts of terrorism. This cannot be good for Alaska, and it does not keep faith with the people who elected her. They rightly expected her to defend the integrity of the office, which obviously means standing firm against those who attack its occupant without good reason.

If her stated explanation makes no sense, we are forced to look for an alternative that does. Absent that, we are forced to conclude that her decision to resign is, like championing the law used to harass her, just another example of her bad statesmanship.

You know something bizarre is underway when the only person on the Right who is making any sort of sense is Alan Keyes.

I honestly can’t believe that I am still writing about this phony “controversy” over the recent DHS report but, just as with the similarly phony controversy over the stimulus legislation, with every passing day the Right continues to twist this innocuous report into evidence that the government intends to round-up conservatives and toss them into prison and use the “outrage” to seek the removal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano:  

A non-profit organization devoted to national security is demanding the resignation of the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, or that President Obama fire her immediately.

The Internet-based Move America Forward is using their web site, email, and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter to push for the removal of Secretary Napolitano.

Napolitano noticeably demonstrates that she is incapable of protecting America from the threat of Islamic terrorism. She must be fired immediately if our country is going to be safe in the coming years, according to Move Forward America, an organization that supports the US military as well as federal, state and local law enforcement officials.

Just about every right-wing groups is getting in on the act, with Focus on the Family adding its voice with this article:

Conservatives and religious groups across the nation are outraged by a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security that labeled them as right-wing extremists and terrorists. Republican members of the House Committee on Homeland Security have requested a committee hearing and investigation on the report. Some are calling for the resignation of Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, said an investigation is unlikely to go very far with Democrats in charge.

“It’s going to be very difficult to get anything done about this outrage," he said, "or about any other issue, unless some of the members of President Obama’s party begin to step up and hold his feet to the fire.”

…

Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, said the department is on a rampage against people with biblical views.

She said: “It’s astounding to me in a world where we are fighting extremism of all sorts from terrorists around the nation — including pirates in the seas — that Homeland Security would be concerned about people who are pro-life.”  

And this video :

And here is FRC Action’s Tom McClusky complaining that the government is watching him instead of watching the real terrorists:

The report, which has been rightfully maligned to death on the right, was poorly written and even more poorly defended by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. While worrying about TEA party protests and pro-life veterans who supported Ron Paul for President DHS seems to have no problem (or at least they don't warrant their own separate reports) with groups and individuals who actually perform acts of terrorism. The same week the DHS report was released the FBI declared, for the first time ever, an American grown terrorist Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old animal rights activist. Meanwhile over the weekend, in the same city that DHS is located, a group of liberal protestors caused more than $110,000 in damage to two bank branches in the Logan Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C. when at least 15 people dressed in black used bricks, hammers and sticks to smash windows, smearing red paint symbols that denounced the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

But I'm the one DHS deems a potential terrorist?

Of course, DHS never deemed groups like FRC potential terrorist, despite their incessant cries of victimization.  And, as a matter of fact, DHS also released a report on left-wing extremists that Greg Sargent posted several weeks ago and guess who it focused on? That’s right, radical animal rights activists and anarchists:  

It focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities. This assessment is intended to alert DHS policymakers, state and local officials, and intelligence analysts monitoring the subject so they can better focus their collection requirements and analysis … Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable. Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks—all of which extremists regard as nonviolent—to bombings and arson.

Never to be outdone when it comes to crying “victimization” or general right-wing lunacy, Janet Porter and a handful of allied organizations are placing an ad in various news outlets demanding Napolitano’s resignation:

The No Political Profiling Coalition (www.NoPoliticalProfiling.com) has begun placing full-page ads, the first in this week's Washington Times Weekly edition and the Times' Wednesday daily edition, demanding the removal of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for the DHS report "Rightwing Extremism."
 
…

"Every day Janet Napolitano remains Secretary of Homeland Security is further proof of this administration's disdain for the Constitution and willingness stigmatize its opponents to advance a partisan agenda."
 
The ad includes pictures of George Washington, Mother Teresa, Ronald Reagan and Pope Benedict XVI – all "right-wing extremists," according to Napolitano's Department of Home Land Security.
 
The ad is sponsored by a coalition of more than a dozen conservative organizations, including the American Family Association, Religious Freedom Coalition, Let Freedom Ring, United States Justice Foundation, Vision America, and Faith2Action.

Everything about this ad is either misleading or outright false, especially this claim:

Ignoring the real threats to our security from known Islamic jihad terrorist cells currently training terrorists on American soil, DHS, instead, has declared law-abiding citizens who express their First Amendment Rights as: “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States” and has initiated domestic spying on them.

Here is what the DHS report actually says:

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.

Its not “law-abiding citizens who express their First Amendment Rights” that DHS says are  “the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States,” its “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology.” 

How completely unhinged has the Right become when they are now paraphrasing “small terrorist cells”  to mean “law-abiding citizens” and then using that false characterization in order to play the victim?

It is no secret that Religious Right leaders have had it out for Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals for some time now, starting back in 2007 when they tried to get him fired for branching out into the global warming debate because they feared it was undermining the focus on their traditional anti-choice, anti-gay agenda. 

He certainly didn’t make any friends before the election when he blasted John McCain for selling out to the Religious Right … and now he has even fewer friends among the old-guard right-wing leaders thanks to this recent interview with Terry Gross on NPR’s “Fresh Air” where he all but admitted that he voted for Barack Obama, said that Dick Armey had good reasons for calling people like James Dobson bullies and thugs, predicted that climate change is going to become an issue on which evangelicals become increasingly active, pledged to work with the Obama administration to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies in this country, and admitted that his opposition to marriage equality is “shifting”

GROSS: Let me ask you; you say that you really identify with the concerns and priorities of younger evangelical voters and one of those priorities is uh—it’s more of an acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage. A couple of years ago when you were on our show I asked you if you were changing your mind on that and two years ago you said that you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more and more with the younger voters and their priorities, have you changed on gay marriage?  

CIZIK:  I’m shifting; I have to admit. In other words, I would be willing to say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage, from its traditional definition, I don’t think. WE have this tension going on in our movement between what is church-building and what is nation-building, and I lean in this spectrum at times, maybe we should concentrate on building our values in our own movement. WE have become so absorbed in the question of gay rights and the rest, we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself—heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to re-evaluate this and look at it a little differently.

Not surprisingly, his statements have generated controversy in evangelical circles, forcing the NAE’s president to assure its board that the organization’s priorities remain the same:

The president of the National Association of Evangelicals reassured the organization’s Board of Directors as well as media outlets this past week that the group remains fully committed to its long-held stance on abortion, marriage and other biblical values after several controversial statements were made by the group’s vice president.

In a letter to the NAE’s Board of Directors, the Rev. Leith Anderson said that the wording of the Rev. Richard Cizik, NAE’s vice president for governmental affairs, during a recent interview with NPR (National Public Radio) “did not appropriately reflect the positions of the National Association of Evangelicals and its constituents.”

“Our NAE stand on marriage, abortion and other biblical values is long, clear and unchanged,” Anderson wrote in the letter to the directors, a portion of which he forwarded to several news agencies including The Christian Post, on Saturday.

He added, “Richard has strongly assured to me of his own support and agreement with our NAE values and positions. This was not understood by listeners from what he said.”

Tony Perkins, for one, isn’t buying it, saying that Cizik “left the reservation a long time ago” and wanting to know why he is still employed by the NAE:

How else can you explain enthusiastic support for what will probably be the nation's most pro-abortion, anti-family president in our nation's 232 year history?

The question, however, remains. If Cizik does not speak for the NAE, as the Rev. Anderson has said, why is he on Capitol Hill representing NAE and claiming to speak for Evangelicals? Is it possible for a human being to come with a disclaimer?

The Institute on Religion and Democracy wants to know the same thing:

"Is Richard Cizik representing typical members of the Assemblies of God, the Salvation Army, or the Presbyterian Church in America, along with millions of other evangelicals, when he suggests, even momentarily, support for liberal issues like civil unions? If not, then why is he NAE's chief spokesman? Should not that spokesman consistently espouse traditional evangelical beliefs?"

As do representatives of Concerned Women for America:

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, said, “Mr. Cizik claimed that his views are five years ahead of his constituency, but these views are not anywhere close to Biblical orthodoxy, traditional Christian theology nor the bulk of Evangelicals who ground their faith in the Bible. Perhaps this is why he espouses them in forums to which most of his supposed 'constituency' do not listen.”

Janice Shaw Crouse, Director and Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, “The NAE consists of 45,000 churches, 50 denominations and 30 million constituents. I cannot believe that they are happy to have a spokesperson, who supposedly represents them, expressing views that are contrary to Biblical authority and contradict theological orthodoxy. I think, perhaps, my dear friend Rich has been inside the Beltway for too long and has swallowed too much of the NPR and Vogue Magazine Kool-Aid.”

One has to wonder just how many more times Cizik can get away with repudiating and alienating the traditional Religious Right movement and its agenda before the powers-that-be at the NAE finally succumb to the pressure and fire him.