As we have noted several times in the past, David Barton of Wallbuilders likes to pass himself off as a historian committed to uncovering “America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built.” In reality, he is a Religious Right activist committed to spreading biased “history” for the benefit for the Republican Party – that is, after all, what they regularly pay him to do.
And so it is no surprise that he is out with a new document [PDF] just before the election designed to “help [Biblical voters] evaluate the candidates”:
According to the Bible (c.f., Deuteronomy 28; 1 Chronicles 21; 1 Kings 18), a nation’s righteousness is determined by its public policies and how well those policies conform to God’s standards …In America, the only way there will be God-honoring leaders is if God-honoring citizens elect them; so the first and foremost consideration in any election is whether the candidate will advance policies that promote Biblical standards of righteousness.
Barton asserts that while the Bible contains a “comprehensive system of 613 laws delivered through Moses in the Old Testament,” God prioritized what was most important by issuing his “Top Ten” list and that, while things like poverty, environment, health care, immigration, taxation might be important, they were not important enough to crack the top ten and are thus of lesser importance.
So what exactly does God consider the “highest ranking issues directly affecting national righteousness”? According to Barton, He cares primarily about judges, abortion, gays, and the public posting of the Ten Commandments:
This election will likely have a greater impact on the nation through the judiciary than any presidential election for the past three decades, for when the next President takes office in January 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be at least 70 years old – and five of those six Justices have repeatedly struck down public policies friendly to Biblical values. Therefore, Biblical voters should make their selection for President based first and foremost on the type of judges he will appoint.
Defending the unborn must continue to remain a priority for Biblical voters. The right to life is the first of the three specifically enumerated inalienable rights set forth in our founding documents, and American government was established on the thesis that certain rights come from God and that government must protect those rights inviolable. Significantly, if a leader does not protect the inalienable right to life, then all other inalienable rights are likewise in jeopardy … where a candidate stands on the issue of abortion is of paramount importance not only for the sake of the unborn but also for the preservation of our other inalienable rights.
If a candidate is willing to accept, empower, and advance homosexuality, it is a clear indication that he does not embrace the moral absolutes of the Bible … While there are many areas specifically addressed by God’s moral law (e.g., adultery, pre-marital sex, etc.), only homosexuality is currently the focus of favorable political action. Therefore, where a candidate stands on that issue is one of the best indicators of whether he recognizes and embraces God’s moral absolutes.
Today, secularists have convinced many Americans to accept a compartmentalization of their faith, telling them that it is appropriate to acknowledge God at church, home, or in other private settings but not in public venues. If a candidate holds this position, it means that he is willing to disconnect God from what he does, and the entire nation is put at risk by leaders who compartmentalize faith. Biblical voters should select leaders who will seek to protect and expand rather than restrict or weaken the opportunity for the public acknowledgment of God and the inclusion of His principles in public venues.
It’s amazing how frequently God’s principles perfectly line up with the Religious Right’s political agenda.
The conventional wisdom is that John McCain and his campaign are exceedingly reluctant to discuss McCain’s experiences in Vietnam when, in reality, they cite it repeatedly – even in cases where it has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand.
On the same note, it is widely accepted that McCain is equally reluctant to discuss his personal faith yet, whenever the topic arises, he inevitably relates the story about the kindly Vietnamese prison guard who loosened his ropes and sketched a cross in the dirt.
While McCain may very well have been hesitant early on to discuss his faith, it doesn’t seem as if that is any longer the case – his appearance at Rick Warren’s faith forum is evidence of that. In fact, his appearance at the forum was really the culmination of an effort that had been underway for several weeks.
For example, a few weeks ago, David Brody posted an email distributed by McCain’s Americans of Faith team that was designed to “explain the shaping and content of John McCain's faith.” Around the same time, the candidate had an essay in Time magazine on his faith and then, just last week, McCain sat down for an interview with the Chicago Tribune to discuss “how his faith was tested during his years as a prisoner of war.”
And now Beliefnet is reporting that the campaign has been busy screening a video of a “faith interview" that McCain originally conducted with the religious Trinity Broadcasting Network for right-wing leaders:
[S]ome of the nation's top conservative Christian activists have already seen a glimpse of McCain discussing the influence of his religion in his life in deeply personal terms, in the form of a Christian television interview with McCain that his campaign has been screening for religious audiences.
McCain's "faith interview" originally ran on "First to Know," a program on TBN, which describes itself as "the world's largest religious network and America's most watched faith channel." TBN does not offer a video or DVD versions of its programs for purchase, and the full video is not available online. A McCain aide says it will likely to be posted to a new evangelical section of the campaign's web site that is scheduled to launch in the next week or two.
A McCain aide says the campaign began screening the video for Christian audiences in Iowa in advance of this year's caucuses there, and that it had begun showing it to national evangelical leaders in late spring or early summer. "The exciting thing about the piece is that it wasn't generated after Obama started talking about faith--it was a piece that showed he was engaged [on faith issues] before the Iowa caucuses," the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said. "It will be used more often... we have plans for using it in a larger arena."
On top of that, as the Boston Globe reports, McCain has developed a tendency to start discussing every issue in terms to “Judeo-Christian values”:
On a frozen winter evening at a Town Hall meeting in a school in the Manchester, N.H., suburbs, John McCain expressed surprise and irritation with an intelligence report downplaying the threat of Iran's nuclear program.
At the end of a long list of reasons to be suspicious of the Iranians, McCain declared: "And they sure don't share our Judeo-Christian values."
It seemed at the time to be an odd thing to say about a Muslim country. After all, even if there were no nuclear program, no oil, and no rabble-rousing president, Iran still wouldn't have Judeo-Christian values. And it's troubling to wonder if that alone would be a reason for suspicion.
Even President Bush has resisted framing the war on terrorism as a clash of religions; his inexpert use of the word "crusade" early in the conflict set off a wave of criticism and backtracking. He's never repeated it.
Perhaps McCain's comment was a similar mistake.
But on Saturday, at the nationally televised forum at evangelist Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California, McCain declared: "Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world."
And a review of online records by the Globe library shows that McCain uses the term "Judeo-Christian values" quite often, and in varying contexts. For example, last week in York, Pa., he praised small-town Americans by saying, "The Judeo-Christian values that they hold are the strength of America."
He has also repeatedly urged that illegal immigrants be treated in a manner "consistent with Judeo-Christian values." In February, he declared that job training was a Judeo-Christian imperative.
"We've got to educate and train these people," he said, referring to laid-off workers. "It is a Judeo-Christian values nation and it's an obligation we have and we are not doing it."
Last year, when he was criticized for telling the website Beliefnet that America was founded on Christian principles, McCain's defense was that he meant to say "Judeo-Christian." (When pressed, he said he believes a Muslim could serve as president.)
If McCain really is reluctant to discuss his faith, he sure is doing a good job of hiding it.
While Mike Huckabee’s supporters are busy threatening mutiny unless their candidate gets the nod as John McCain’s running mate and launching a seemingly endless parade of anti-Mitt Romney efforts, Huckabee himself as been a most loyal of soldiers, saying that his sole goal is to do whatever is most helpful to McCain and that “this isn't about me anymore. It's really about John McCain and winning.”
And if what McCain decides is most helpful to him would be to name him as his vice presidential candidate, then that would be just swell with Huckabee:
Mike Huckabee on Tuesday said he has not been approached by John McCain about being the U.S. presidential candidate's running mate. But he'd certainly consider the offer.
Huckabee said he didn't think anyone who has run for the U.S. presidency would turn down a chance to be vice president. The former Arkansas governor dropped out of the presidential race last March after McCain clinched the Republican nomination.
Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem, Huckabee said he has received "no indication" that McCain is considering him as a running mate. But if asked, Huckabee said it would be hard to resist.
"I don't think anybody that runs for president turns around and says no," he said.
Of course, just last week, Huckabee told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that he had zero interest in serving in McCain’s administration because he can make more money and have more influence in the private sector:
If McCain wins and offers you a position in his administration, would you consider it ?
No. No way.
Why would I want to do that? What possible reason? I’m gonna have a good life out here in the private sector. Why would I go back to telling everybody in the world how much money I make and being limited to what I can make and living in a very expensive city and barely surviving to have some obscure Cabinet post and have some 20-year-old from the White House telling me what I’m gonna do ? Thanks but no thanks. I have better things to do with my life.
According to Huckabee, if someone running for president asks you to run with them, you say “I’d be honored,” but if that person actually becomes president and asks you to serve in their administration, you say “I have better things to do with my life.”
The emerging right-wing narrative coming out of Saturday’s faith forum at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church is John McCain won in a landslide. That is not particularly surprising – and neither is the fact that Religious Right leaders are now smitten with Rick Warren himself. As Catholic Online put it, “at the Saddleback Forum, Pastor Rick Warren and Senator John McCain both took the Gold” and that seems to be a view widely shared by others on the right as well, such as FRC’s Tony Perkins:
Warren, who was urged to ask some weighty values questions, did not disappoint and drew some stark contrasts between the candidates on key issues …After the forum, I gave some of my perspective as part of CNN's pre- and post-panel discussion from Washington. As I saw it, there were two winners-Sen. John McCain and Pastor Rick Warren …As for Pastor Warren, who has been called the Billy Graham of this generation, he asked the right questions. Some have implied that Pastor Warren with his non-confrontational style is evidence that Evangelicals are moving to the Left. I would suggest he is evidence that Evangelicals are more involved and more committed than they were 25 or 30 years ago. If he is the new Billy Graham, and he certainly has similar favor with elected leaders of all political persuasions, there is a big contrast. Pastor Warren showed Saturday night that you can have a personal relationship with those in positions of power and still ask the hard questions.
While the Right was initially nervous that Warren and his forum were being “influenced by some socialist-minded people who claim to be evangelicals,” it turned out that they had nothing to worry about since Warren focused on all the social issues that they care about. And that was to be expected considering that Warren clearly shares their concerns as demonstrated by this email he sent out to his congregation just before the 2004 election - an email that, if you didn’t know better, you’d assume was sent out by someone like James Dobson or Jerry Falwell:
Dear Saddleback Church family,
Tuesday, November 2nd, will be one of the most important elections Americans have had in 50 years. How could that be?
Because up to four of the Supreme Court Justices will likely retire during the next presidential term and their replacements will be selected by whomever is the next president. These new judges will affect the future of America for at least the next 40 years. It would be difficult to overestimate the impact that these judges will have on our lives, our families, our culture, and the direction of this nation.
Presidents serve for only 4 years, so they can only make a limited impact. But Supreme Court Justices serve for life, and they are the ones who decide on issues like abortion, gay marriages, human cloning, harvesting babies for stem-cell research, revoking the tax exemption of churches, removing "under God" from the flag pledge, and "in God we trust" from our money. In most ways, the Supreme Court has far more influence and impact on our day-to-day lives. This extremely important fact has been overlooked in most of the campaigning.
President Bush and Senator Kerry have VERY different opinions about the type of people who should become Supreme Court Justices. They could not have more opposite views about these matters. Either man will shape the court in very different ways.
If the members of our congregation fail to vote on Tuesday, we are actually surrendering our responsibility to choose the direction of our country for the next 40 years. If we do not vote, we have no right to criticize or complain when unbiblical decisions are made by the court in the decades ahead.
Over the past several months at Saddleback, we've been urging our members each week to register to vote. We even arranged to have a voter registration booth set up on our church patio because we believe it's that important that every Christian citizen exercises his or her right to vote for those who will govern us.
During the last presidential election in the United States, there were about 4 million Christians who weren't even registered to vote! To me, that is inexcusable when you consider what the Bible says about our responsibility as citizens and when you consider the many, many men and women who've given their lives to provide and protect our freedom to vote.
The U.S. election of 2000 was a clear reminder that every vote counts and that every voter has a duty to be involved. As church leaders, we know our congregations are not allowed to endorse specific candidates, and it's important for us to recognize that there can be multiple opinions among Bible-believing Christians when it comes to debatable issues such as the economy, social programs, social security, and the war in Iraq.
But for those of us who accept the Bible as God's Word and know that God has a unique, sovereign purpose for every life, I believe there are 5 issues that are non-negotiable. To me, they're not even debatable because God's Word is clear on these issues. In order to live a purpose-driven life - to affirm what God has clearly stated about his purpose for every person he creates - we must take a stand by finding out what the candidates believe about these five issues, and then vote accordingly.
Here are five questions to ask when considering who to vote for in this election:
1. What does each candidate believe about abortion and protecting the lives of unborn children?
2. What does each candidate believe about using unborn babies for stem-cell harvesting?
3. What does each candidate believe about homosexual marriage?
4. What does each candidate believe about human cloning?
5. What does each candidate believe about euthanasia - the killing of elderly and invalids?
Please, please do not forfeit your responsibility on these crucial issues! This election REALLY counts more than most others have.
Be sure to vote, and be sure to encourage every Christian you know to vote on Tuesday. If you are able to vote early, do so. Then ask all your Christian friends on Tuesday "Have you voted yet?" and pray for godly leaders to be elected.
Pastor Rick Warren
After all the controversy provoked by the fact that John McCain was set to attend a fundraiser with Jack Abramoff crony Ralph Reed, it looks like the McCain campaign and Reed both wised up and decided not to be seen together at last night’s fundraiser in Atlanta:
John McCain raised more than $1.75 million for Republicans Monday at a fundraiser clouded by confusion over the role of a political operative connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The downtown event was promoted by Ralph Reed, a former head of the Christian Coalition. McCain's campaign said the event was organized by the Republican National Committee , not Reed, who was linked to the Abramoff scandal that McCain investigated in the Senate.
McCain didn't raise the issue during his 22-minute appearance. Instead, he thanked donors to the Republicans' umbrella campaign fund.
"Everybody in this room could be someplace else," the Arizona senator told the crowd of several hundred. "Everybody in this room could be donating to some other cause or to their own well-being. But I want to thank you."
Reed was not seen inside the hotel ballroom; a McCain campaign spokeswoman said he did not attend.
When CNN ran its series “God’s Warriors” last year, one of the people featured prominently was Vision America’s Rick Scarborough. Since then, Scarborough has been struggling mightily to turn his 15 minutes of fame into a full on electoral movement via his “70 Weeks To Save America” campaign.
Despite the various setbacks Scarborough has encountered so far, he continues to plug along with his One Day Crusades and now is bringing in the big guns:
For those who might not remember, this is General William G. “Jerry” Boykin:
This June, for instance, at the pulpit of the Good Shepherd Community Church in Sandy, Ore., [Boykin ] displayed slides of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and North Korea’s Kim Jung Il. “Why do they hate us?” Boykin asked. “The answer to that is because we’re a Christian nation
Our “spiritual enemy,” Boykin continued, “will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.”
Who is Jerry Boykin? He is Army Lt. General William G. “Jerry” Boykin. The day before Boykin appeared at the pulpit in Oregon, the Pentagon announced that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had nominated the general for a third star and named him to a new position as deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence.
In a speech at a church in Daytona, Fla., in January, Boykin told the following story:
“There was a man in Mogadishu named Osman Atto,” whom Boykin described as a top lieutenant of Mohammed Farah Aidid.
When Boykin’s Delta Force commandos went after Atto, they missed him by seconds, he said. “He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, ‘They’ll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.’
“Well, you know what?” Boykin continued. “I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.” Atto later was captured.
Other countries, Boykin said last year, “have lost their morals, lost their values. But America is still a Christian nation.”
Back during the heyday of Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign, the candidate was being hailed as a “new breed” of evangelical, one who cared about issues like poverty and the environment in addition to traditional right-wing opposition to gays and abortion. As we have noted before, one of the key mis-perceptions about this so-called new movement is that its purported concern about issues beyond the standard Religious Right agenda does not mean that they are any more moderate on the core anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda that has driven the movement for the last several decades.
Heading into his faith forum over the weekend, Rick Warren was poised to emerge as the poster boy for this “new evangelical” movement – as Time Magazine put it:
A shift away from "sin issues" — like abortion and gay marriage — is reflected in Warren's approach to his coming sit-downs with the candidates. He says he is more interested in questions that he feels are "uniting," such as "poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights," and still more in civics-class topics like the candidates' understanding of the role of the Constitution. There will be no "Christian religion test," Warren insists. "I want what's good for everybody, not just what's good for me. Who's the best for the nation right now?"
So that is the emerging narrative about Warren and the new movement he claims to represent. Yet, in the same Time Magazine article it is reported that, back in 2004, Warren was poised to “become the next Jerry Falwell or James Dobson” but decided against it because he realized that he could have a bigger impact if he appeared to remain neutral:
During the 2004 presidential election, he seemed to toy with using his new influence to become the next Jerry Falwell or James Dobson. Although he did not officially endorse George W. Bush, the mega-author made no secret of his preference. Two weeks before the election, he sent an e-mail to the several hundred thousand pastors on his mailing list, enumerating "non-negotiable" issues for Christians to consider when casting their votes: abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, euthanasia and human cloning. Shortly after the election, two attendees of a Washington meeting of conservative religious and political heavyweights remember Warren's actively soliciting advice on how he might increase his clout with GOP politicians.
But upon exploring the role, Warren grew uncomfortable with it. "I have never been considered a part of the religious right, because I don't believe politics is the most effective way to change the world," he says now. "Although public service can be a noble profession, and I believe it is our responsibility to vote, I don't have much faith in government solutions, given the track record. It's why I am a pastor, not a politician. None of my values have changed from four years ago, but my agenda has definitely expanded."
This is a vital point: In 2004, he listed as "non-negotiable" issues including abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, euthanasia and human cloning. Four years later, Warren says “none of my values have changed from four years ago, but my agenda has definitely expanded.” The issues of gay marriage and abortion are not any less important to the “new evangelical” movement – in fact, they remain at the center of its agenda – it is just that these issues are getting glossed over by a media enthralled with the spectacle of conservative Christians who talk about things like poverty and climate change.
Heading into the event, Warren was declaring that, since it is his job as a pastor to shepherd “Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives and moderates” he wasn’t going to ask “gotcha questions” but instead as “heartland questions” whatever that means. In fact, all this moderate sounding talk was terrifying the Right – so much so that some of them had to organize a late-night conference call with reporters in order to offer up the right-wing perspective on the event. But, as it turned out, Warren’s questions were so in-line with their own agenda that they could barely contain their glee – in fact, one pre-conference critic went so far as to issue a press release saying the event was even “better than I had prayed it would be.”
And why was that? Because, for all of Warren and the “new evangelical’s” talk of issues beyond the standard right-wing agenda, when given the opportunity to press his issues with the candidates, Warren reverted to type, asking John McCain questions about same-sex marriage, abortion, judges, faith, evil, adoption, faith-based organizations, and religious persecution while asking next to nothing about poverty or climate change or any of the other issues that are said to make up this new movement’s expanded agenda.
To see this dynamic at work, just take a look at this interview Warren did with Dan Gilgoff of Beliefnet in which he criticizes Barack Obama for his answer on when life begins and again asserts that, while he is trying to expand the agenda, the members of this new evangelical movement are “not leaving [the] pro-life [position]” and asserts that Democrats are “simply talking the lingo" and can't win them over if they don't have the correct "worldview"
When you asked Obama about when life begins, he punted, saying 'it's above my pay grade.' Should someone running for the highest office in the land have a clear answer to that, or is that kind of ambivalence acceptable?
No. I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that. Like I said, he's a friend. But to me, I would not want to die and get before God one day and go, 'Oh, sorry, I didn't take the time to figure out' because if I was wrong then it had severe implications to my leadership if I had the ability to do something about it. He should either say, 'No scientifically, I do not believe it's a human being until X' or whatever it is or to say, 'Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,' whether it's conception or anything else. But to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.
That's why to say that evangelicals are a monolith is a myth, but the other thing is that you've been hearing a lot of the press talk about 'Well, evangelicals are changing, they're now interested in poverty and disease and illiteracy, and all the stuff I've been talking about for five years now. And I have been seeding that into the evangelical movement and it's getting picked up and a lot of people are talking about doing humanitarian efforts. But I really think it's wishful thinking on a lot of people who think they're going to drop the other issues. They're not leaving pro-life, I'm just trying to expand the agenda....
If an evangelical really believes that the Bible is literal--in other word in Psalm 139 God says 'I formed you in your mother's womb and before you were born I planned every day of your life,' if they believe that's literally true, then they can't just walk away from that. They can add other issues, but they can't walk away from the belief that at conception God planned that child and to abort it would be to short circuit the purpose.
Then it sounds like it would be unconscionable for an evangelical to vote for a pro-choice candidate like Obama.
Well, we're going to see what happens. All I can say is you'll see what happens. This is why there's a difference between simply talking the lingo... after the 2004 election the Democratic pundits were saying 'The Democrats lost in '04 because they didn't talk the language of faith.' And actually that's kind of, not paternalistic, but it's talking down. It's basically saying 'If you just get the right words, then they'll think you've got the lingo.' And just because a person can say 'God' and 'Jesus' and 'salvation' and whatever doesn't mean they have a worldview.
CBN’s David Brody accurately captured this dynamic in his preview of the forum last week. In sitting down with Warren and asking him about criticism he had been receiving from the traditional right-wing leaders who were afraid that he was watering down their traditional agenda with talk of issues beyond gays and abortion, Warren responded that even though he was trying to “expand the agenda,” he had by no means left the traditional agenda behind:
“I’m going to ask them about abortion. I am going to ask them about the definition of marriage, but I’m also going to ask them about more than that … many people think because I’m trying to expand the agenda that I’ve left the prior agenda. I have not.”
Undoubtedly, there are benefits to the broadening the discussion regarding the role of faith in public life and fighting the traditional right-wing narrative that ,if you're a Christian, you can only care about issues like abortion and gay rights and have to vote Republican. But, as Sarah Posner points out, Democratic effort to discuss religion on the Right’s terms end up running the risk of “setting a bar for future candidates -- that they prove their faith in Jesus.”
For progressives who see choice and gay equality as core values, there is reason to be concerned about moves to enthusiastically court and embrace people such as Warren for whom those issues are “non-negotiable,” even if they do share a concern about a wider array of issues such as the environment and poverty.
Back when the issue of judicial confirmations was heating up in the Senate, at the center of the Republican efforts to confirm controversial nominees was Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Justice. As a member of the “Four Horsemen” along with C. Boyden Gray, Edwin Meese III, and Leonard Leo, Sekulow was a inside player in the battle over the “nuclear option” and the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Along the way, Sekulow created a new group called The Judicial Confirmation Network that was designed to give the appearance of grassroots support for the efforts:
It was a subtle bit of targeting that dovetailed with another project under way in an office just above the radio studio. That's where Gary A. Marx, head of the grass-roots arm of Mr. Sekulow's campaign, was meeting with a Maine activist ginning up telephone calls, letters and editorials aimed at pushing Ms. Collins into the antifilibuster camp.
In the 2004 campaign, Mr. Marx, 29, was the Bush-Cheney national conservative coalition director who helped organize church-sponsored voter drives in Ohio. In January, Mr. Sekulow invited Mr. Marx to set up the Judicial Confirmation Network in his offices so they could combine forces.
Mr. Sekulow uses his Senate contacts to track the status of the debate and identify wavering lawmakers. While he targets them on the radio or through his regular emails, Mr. Marx follows up with state-based groups that can be important to a senator's political career.
The JCN quickly made a name for itself, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the efforts only to become little more than a shell once the battles were over. Little was heard from its two employees, Gary Marx and Wendy Long, until both showed up on Mitt Romney’s National Faith and Values Steering Committee and, in the meantime, the JCN essentially went dark, having not even issued a press release since July of 2007. Until today, that is, when Long resurfaced to attack Barack Obama for his answer during a question at Rick Warren’s faith forum about which Supreme Court judges he would not have nominated:
All this speaks volumes about the kind of judges Obama would appoint, and the way he would fill several potential vacancies at the Supreme Court that could arise during the next President's term in office. Obama wants Justices who will do his bidding, who will implement the preferred policies of the liberal establishment - not Justices like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, who understand that the role of a judge is not to legislate from the bench.
But that was apparently enough to get her quoted at length in an article on FoxNews.com:
“Apparently, Obama can do no better than to recycle discredited statements of Harry Reid when it comes to Justice Thomas. Like other liberal elites, Obama cannot stand it when a black man strays from the ideological plantation and refuses to implement liberal policies through the courts. But Obama will never point out any intellectual deficiencies in Justice Thomas’s work, because he can’t. Justice Thomas’s opinions consistently reveal faithfulness to the Constitution, judicial modesty and deference to the will of the people in our representative democracy. That is opposed to everything that Obama and the liberals are trying to do in grabbing power from the people and giving it to the courts,” she said.
The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, when he’s not busy suggesting that it’s their own fault when young boys are molested by priests, has a full time job safeguarding “both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened. “ Apparently, part of that mission includes defending teh internets from foul-mouthed lefty bloggers.
It started back in 2007 when he launched an ultimately successful crusade to get the John Edwards campaign to part ways with both Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister, whom he called “two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.” And now he has set his sites on purging the Democratic National Convention of bloggers who raise his ire:
Over 120 blogs have been credentialed as members of the media for the Democratic National Convention; those who have received credentials are allowed to cover the Convention at the Pepsi Center. While most of them offer legitimate commentary, some do not.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue is protesting two of the blogs:
“The list of credentialed blogs include radical sites like The Daily Kos. Worse are blogs that feature anti-Catholic and obscene material. The two most offensive are Bitch Ph.D. and Towleroad.
“On the home page of Bitch Ph.D. there is a picture of two children: one of them is shown flashing his middle finger. Today’s lead post, which was written August 17, is called ‘Jesus Christ.’ It begins with, ‘I’m a really crappy Catholic who hasn’t been to mass in ages because most parishes around here ‘will’ insist on being aggressively anti-abortion….’ The writer then objects to some children’s toys on the grounds that they are more offensive than desecrating the Eucharist. The toys are actually balloons that have been made to depict Jesus in various poses, including a crucified Christ; one of these images shows Jesus with a penis. Several who commented on this image made patently obscene comments.
“Towleroad describes itself as ‘A Site with Homosexual Tendencies.’ Accordingly, it shows men in jock straps and underwear. It also has a post on Pope Benedict XVI that takes him to task for wearing a cape with ermine. Some of those who commented on this described the pope in a vile and profane way.
“Both of these blogs should be cut immediately from the list of credentialed sites. Neither functions as a responsible media outlet and both offend Catholics, as well as others. To allow them access to the Democratic National Convention sends a message to Catholics they will not forget. We look for Leah Daughtry, CEO of the Convention, to nix them ASAP.”
Apparently, Donohue is so desperate for attention that he has been reduced to picking fights with bloggers over the type of cape that the Pope wears. In fact, this entire spectacle is vintage Donohue in that he scours the internet or televsion in order to find something that offends him and then declares that failure to kowtow to his personal whims, dislikes, and obsessions will “send a message to Catholics they will not forget” … based on nothing more than his say so. So this sort of bluster is nothing new for Donohue, who has a long history of attempting to intimidate his political enemies, as well as his own history of bigotry such as declaring that “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity."
Within 24 Hours, Glenn Beck Will Break News That Will Rock the Nation and Take Down The Entire Power Structure (UPDATED)
6/12/13 @ 2:03pm
What Happened to Glenn Beck's Scoop That Was Going to Rock the Nation?
6/13/13 @ 1:42pm
Swanson: Star Trek Promotes Bestiality, Children's Show Superhero 'Probably Fighting Christians'
6/7/13 @ 3:15pm
One Million Moms Protests 'The Fosters' For Trying to 'Desensitize America and Our Children by Promoting Inappropriate Behavior'
6/7/13 @ 12:30pm
Citing the Book of Mormon, Glenn Beck Warns That 'We Are at the End'
6/14/13 @ 4:41pm