“The absurdity of this entire affair was best illustrated when John McCain called for coastal oil-drilling and was cheered for it by his Christian-conservative audience. For the most part, this is an audience which believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, yet it applauded plans to look for resources that exist due to the organic remnants of prehistoric organisms that took millions of years to accrue … The fact that a future U.S. President has to suck up at this kind of a forum really gives global politics a surrealistic undertone.”
First, a question: Why did the representative of a church—and one specific sort of Christian church at that—moderate a debate between political candidates for the highest office in the land? What on earth is the underlying message of holding such a forum, if not to establish that the American people hold in common a particular set of religious/ethical beliefs which ought to be reflected in the president?
As a religious person—a Christian, in fact, though of the left-tilting variety—I am extremely worried about the implications and assumptions underlying the whole ridiculous discussion. And I am afraid that I did find it ridiculous.
August 17th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
So how did presumptive party nominees Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain fare at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church faith forum? The answer is in the eye — and active political agenda — of the beholder but there seems to be an emerging consensus in the media and in the blogosphere:
Once again, McCain has proven to be far stronger than some predicted he would be, exceeding expectations. And Obama has proven to be a tad less dynamic and overpowering than earlier hype suggested, not meeting some expectations.
The issue at hand is who can leverage the Evangelical vote for victory in November. But the larger, broader issue is becoming which of the two have the political skills to communicate and persuade in the 21st century — and do it on the 21st century’s political terms, and benefit from it.
The emerging unmentionable seems to be whether Obama is a latter-day John F. Kennedy, reflecting Kennedy’s charisma and hope-creating dynamism, or a mix of JFK with a large chunk of the cerebral Adlai Stevenson — a smart guy who never connected as well with the public and didn’t make it to the White House. Obama has proven dynamic in live events and speeches, but less-effective in debate or TV performances. Or, is he more like William Jennings Bryan, the great early orator and Democratic Party nominee in 1896, 1900 and 1908 and who, despite his skills before huge crowds, never won a national election?
Obama’s performance has not been judged bad (except by some GOP partisan writers who likely would have proclaimed it bad no matter how well he did because that’s how the spin game is played). But it was NOT a buzz-creating home run or or game-changer. And McCain — once again — came across as highly-likable, sincere and decisive. Will the word “nuance” — once considered a plus — again become a dirty word in campaign 2008?
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd, one of the most perceptive observers on the political scene, writes:
Quick first impressions: Obama spent more time trying to impress Warren (or to put another away) not offend Warren while McCain seemingly ignored Warren and decided he was talking to folks watching on TV. The McCain way of handling this forum is usually the winning way. Obama may have had more authentic moments but McCain was impressively on message.
This was a mistake Obama made a few times during the primary season. On one hand, it can make a moderator feel good when their subject actually tries to answer every question and take into account their opinions on a particular topic. And Obama’s supporters will email me tonight and say this is what they love about him.
And yet, this reminded me of the many comparisons we made between Obama and Hillary Clinton. She was much more effective at answering questions in 90 seconds and always staying on message while Obama too easily allowed himself to get knocked off his talking points. Remember, Obama doesn’t need to win over his supporters, he needs folks who are just now tuning in.
Todd said Obama may have made Warren like him a lot more but that if a focus group were surveyed he bets McCain would come out ahead.
Obama better be thankful for the timing of this; he seemed a little rusty and clearly has some work to do before he meets McCain face-to-face on Sept. 26, the night of the first presidential debate in Oxford, MS.
On the other hand, some think Obama could have gained given his long term goals. The New Republic:
The audience, after all, was primarily evangelical Christians–a group among whom McCain leads by better than 2 to 1, according to recent polls. That means that if McCain did any worse than twice as well as Obama, it counts as a win for Obama. And, from where I sit, McCain didn’t come close to doing twice as well. My sense is that Obama struck a lot of previously skeptical evangelicals as a reasonable and God-fearing man (a real achievement given that so many of the questions touched on issues that favor Republicans among these voters–abortion, judges, stem cell research, etc.). That’s a big improvement in light of where Obama started.
Advantage Obama.
Some news accounts of the event can be found here and here.
Mr. McCain received the more rousing response from the audience, made up largely of church members here in Orange County, one of the most conservative areas in the country. He told more anecdotes but also filibustered more. One of the few points when Mr. McCain left the audience silent was when he said he favored stem-cell research.
Mr. Obama skirted a question about when life begins, saying that determining such a thing was above his pay grade and sending murmurs throughout the audience. Mr. McCain said simply, “At the moment of conception.”
Asked to define marriage, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain gave the same answer: that it is the union between a man and a woman.
But Mr. Obama also said he opposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage that narrowly and said he supported same-sex civil unions. “For gay partners to visit each other in the hospital, I don’t think limits my core beliefs about what marriage is,” he said.
August 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Keep your eye on a perhaps politically-pivotal, highly-publicized event tonight that could potentially make a tight Presidential race a bit less-tight: presumptive party nominees Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Senator Barack Obama will be wooing the religious vote in a major, televised joint appearance at a well-respected pastor’s church. Will one stumble? Will one hit a home run?
Just look at the media hype, only this time it apparently is not hype. The AP:
The Rev. Rick Warren is so prominent and respected that just being seen with him is a boon for any presidential candidate.
For Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, their appearances at a forum Saturday night at Warren’s evangelical California megachurch bring risks along with rewards.
The event will play to one of Obama’s strengths, talking about his Christian faith, but it will also underscore the gulf between his views and those of the most conservative Christian voters.
Many of McCain’s positions are more in line with the evangelical worldview, but he is uncomfortable — and some critics say unconvincing — while talking about his personal beliefs.
It isn’t really a debate, since each candidate will appear separately and come shake hands at the end. But Warren will be the only one asking the questions and he is unlikely be accused later by partisans of each side as playing political games, as several members of the mainstream media have been in earlier primary debates.
Popular and influential pastor Rick Warren told me that in today’s forum at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forrest, Calif., with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., “we’re going to look at four different things. Were going to look at leadership, specifically their character, their competence, their experience. We’re going to look at stewardship, which is the role of the president, the role of America, the role of government. We’re going to look at worldview, which are some faith issues and some moral issues. And were going to look at America’s role international, what is their vision for America into the future.
It already sounds like a more serious debate than the GOTCHA!!! ones held in most primaries by the mainstream news media…
“A lot of people expect me to ask softball questions,” Warren said. “They will not be softball, they will be fair. In fact, I’m going to ask the identical questions to both candidates. We flipped a coin and Obama goes first for one hour, and then John McCain will be in a cone of silence for an hour.”
But what is this “cone of silence?” Does this mean McCain can’t be sitting there figuring out how to adjust his answers to Obama’s, counter them, and go on the attack? Exactly — and here’s Warren’s near-genius set up:
“It absolutely floored me,” said Phil Burress, head of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values. “It would doom him in Ohio.”
Burress e-mailed about a dozen “pro-family leaders” he knows outside Ohio and forwarded it to three McCain aides tasked with Christian conservative outreach.
“That choice will end his bid for the presidency and spell defeat for other Republican candidates,” Burress wrote in the message.
He and other Ohio conservatives met privately with McCain in June, and while the nominee didn’t promise them an anti-abortion rights running mate, his staff said they could “almost guarantee” that would be the case, Burress recalled. […]
James Muffett, head of Michigan’s Citizens for Traditional Values, met with McCain along with a handful of other Michigan-based social conservatives Wednesday night.
“A good portion of us were urging him to pick a pro-life running mate,” Muffett said, noting that they were doing so before even getting wind of the Standard story. “That choice would go a long way to solidify his credentials.” […]
McCain’s campaign sought to tamp down the uproar, suggesting the candidate had merely been overly expansive about a sensitive topic and hadn’t intended to float a trial balloon.
Karin Klein takes us behind the scenes at the LATimes editorial board meetings they had with opponents and supporters (separately) of Proposition 8 as they came up with last week’s editorial.
She tells us supporters were “careful to avoid appearing anti-gay.” Still:
At one point, the conversation turned to the “activist judges” whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.
In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would “recruit” their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments. Aside from this notion of a homosexual recruitment plot — making it understandable where the word “homophobia” came from — this made no logical sense at all.
If you are pro-choice, and wish to preserve reproductive rights for women, you need to take a closer look at McCain’s record on reproductive rights and other issues affecting women’s health.
Just finished watching “Countdown with Keith Obermann.” Keith brought up the Christian Science Monitor report on the $150,000 bonuses for Arabic linguists, and in his inimitable way blasted the Pentagon for firing the gay Arabic translators because of their sexual orientation.
If Keith is correct–and I have no doubt that he is–300 (not 58, as I reported as of a year ago) Arabic linguists have been fired because they are gay. Furthermore, according to Keith’s calculation, “it would cost $45 million just in bonuses” to replace these translators.
Thanks, Keith for the update and for putting this calamity in a dollars-and-cents perspective.
The Army may begin paying a retention bonus of as much as $150,000 to Arabic speaking soldiers in reflection of how critical it has become for the US military to retain native language and cultural know-how in its ranks. Only one other job in the Army, Special Forces, rates such a super-sized retention bonus. Now, as the military makes a fundamental shift toward rewarding the linguistic expertise it needs the most, it is expanding a program to train and retain native Arabic and other speakers from the same regions in which it is fighting.
Nowhere in the article is there mention of how the same U.S. Army has been discharging expensively trained Arabic linguists by the dozens…because they are gay.
As of May 2007, the military had kicked out at least 58 Arabic linguists because of their sexual orientation, and because of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell,” a policy that prohibits openly gay individuals from serving in the military.
A couple of weeks ago, on the occasion of the House of Representatives’ first hearing in 15 years on the policy, I commented on the absurdity, shame, and cost of this policy.
Specifically referring to the waste in skills, talent, money and, most importantly, human resources and dignity that this policy is costing our nation, I wrote:
Never mind that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy cost taxpayers nearly $191 million in lost training and personnel and skills replacement costs during the policy’s first 10 years, according to a GAO report.
Never mind that the policy has resulted in the release of 12,000 good troops for reasons of sexual orientation, including dozens of Arabic speakers whose skills are of immense value to the military in the war on terrorism.
Yes, we frivolously kicked out dozens of these “capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists…[a loss that] continues to compromise our national security during time of war,” as stated in a letter from the House of Representatives to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee after three more gay linguistic specialists were fired a year ago.
In continuing to stress the importance of having Arabic linguistic experts in the war on terror, the Christian Science Monitor shares with us:
After the invasion of Iraq and the insurgency that followed, the US military recognized its dearth of linguistic competence in the country it had just toppled, and it scrambled to identify Arabic and other linguists. The military’s conventional language training program, the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., could not churn out enough American soldiers proficient in Arabic, Kurdish, Dari, Pashtu, and Farsi, and the military quickly turned to private contractors to fill the gap.
Yet, not a word about those linguists the U.S. Army has shown the door because of their sexual orientation.
Why are we paying $150,000 bonuses when a little tolerance might have sufficed?
The White House’s silence on the Justice Department report should indicate, perhaps, at least a tacit endorsement of Goodling’s tactics, Turley says.
“The question really is why isn’t the president coming forward and saying there’s a shame factor here at what occurred at the Justice Department,” he said. “Alberto Gonzales picked this person, not because of the merits — she lacked anything on the merits. She was picked because she was an extremist, and this is the result.” ( The Raw Story discusses the segment in depth.)
Georgia’s 10th Congressional District is among the most conservative in the state. Just a year after being elected to fill the unexpired term of the late Rep. Charlie Norwood, freshman Paul Broun faces a challenge Tuesday from State Rep. Barry Fleming. The winner will take the House seat in November.
U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Athens) is questioning the religious convictions of his opponent in the Republican primary for the 10th congressional district seat as the election on Tuesday approaches.
“It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t understand redemption and salvation and a changed life in accepting Jesus as lord and savior,” Broun says of state Rep. Barry Fleming (R-Harlem) in an interview which aired Thursday on Georgia Public Broadcasting’s WACG 90.7 FM in Augusta. “It’s not about religion but about a relationship with Jesus.”
But Fleming is a Christian, and according to his website, is an active member of Harlem Baptist Church. He has served as chairman of the board of deacons there, among other duties, the website says.
“Paul is wrong on that,” Fleming says of Broun’s remarks in an interview scheduled to air on Friday. “My Christian faith is the center of my life and I’ve tried not only to witness to other people in my life but I’ve tried to live a life as an example for others, and I’ll continue to do that.”
Broun, meanwhile, repeatedly accuses Fleming of “bearing false witness,” as he put it, by distorting votes he’s made in Congress, adding that lying violates the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments. Fleming denies he has lied and invites doubters to check the Congressional Record.
The candidates, who have similar positions on social and fiscal issues, have been distinguishing themselves by questioning each other’s integrity in a negative campaign spiral.
Condi Rice is proud —PROUD, I TELL YOU — that the US went to war in Iraq. And she’s sure that the world isn’t more dangerous as a consequence. Meanwhile, some Republicans are apparently in a state of alarm and despondency over the President’s current activities. They’re worried about the President, already sufficiently unpopular, is being shown fiddling about while the economy goes up in flames.
In his hilarious post Monday noting that the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow website auto-replaces the word “gay” with the word “homosexual” — which led to some blogger fun when a sprinter named Tyson Gay won the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials — Jazz asks:
Is the word “homosexual” somehow perceived to be more pejorative than “gay” these days?
The answer, Jazz, is YES! There is a linguistic battle going on. And in my circles it’s got a long and contentious lineage.
While, as gays and lesbians, we seek to expand ourselves and our relationships to become whole people and full participants in broad communities, the Religious Right seeks to reduce us to nothing more than a sex act.
It’s as if we reduced every heterosexual to that too explicit coupled moment we all wish we hadn’t been forced to watch taking place on the park bench or at the beach or in the movie theater or any place else in public! Only with the gay person, the Religious Right hopes to evoke that moment — to force us to witness it — with just that one little word…
H o m o S E X u a l
For that — or whatever reason — the Religious Right has fought to keep the word homosexual in use in newsrooms across the country. And I have been following their fight for decades. In February The Washington Times, pretty much the last big hold out, tossed ‘homosexual’ out and approved the use of the word ‘gay’ instead.
Most everywhere else long ago accepted the use of ‘gay’ and/or ‘lesbian.’ In 2006 the AP updated its stylebook. Here is a history of LGBT-related Stylebook entries. Here the New York Times, Washington Post LGBT-Related Style Guidelines.
In 1982 I wrote a paper on the etymology of the word gay. I’ve excerpted a good bit of it again below…
Yet another point in Obama’s favor: the Christian Conservatives and evangelicals have decided that McCain is, after all, God’s candidate. That is to say, while many of them feel that McCain was most definitely not God’s first choice, God most definitely prefers him to Barack Obama.
So even though they — meaning the lead mouthpieces of the Christian Right — said they would never, ever do it, Senator McBack ‘n Fill carefully repudiated his every principled stand during the primaries. Besides: he’s incontrovertibly not Obama. They’ve evidently decided on these grounds that they have to support him for not being Obama, whether they like it or not. I get the impression that they don’t much, even now, but are trying to make the best of him. That’s so sweet.
But if I didn’t already know how I am going to vote, I’d take their decision to unite behind McCain as a sign. As a small-C christian small-L liberal of the Quaker, or Friendly, Persuasion — if of any persuasion — I view the stance of the opposite sort of Christian as a fairly reliable indicator of on which side of the line I should not plant my banner.
They may mean well. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot agree with their objectives.
As lgbt pride marches step off in big cities across the country, it’s important to note what takes place at some of the smaller ones.Central Pennsylvania was a focal point in the Democratic primary for its white working class voters. Those same voters are made uncomfortable by gays on the march.While this year marks the 38th pride march in San Francisco and New York, it will be only the third time that gays march in Pennsylvania’s state capital, Harrisburg.
When marchers there were greeted that first year by a strong chorus of opposition, a husband and wife team spontaneously set up a program rooted in their church’s teachings. [See clarification below.]
Silent Witness PA (SWPA) is an organization of gay and straight allies dedicated to providing a non-confrontational buffer between those who condemn others based on their sexual orientation or identity and those they condemn. We provide visual protection from “street preachers” and protesters at events such as Pridefests…using our bodies and rainbow umbrellas as shields. In times of need, we intervene to prevent confrontations between protesters and event participants, often acting as escorts for those who would like to attend such events. Where there are those who publicly promote hate, we will be there to help provide a loving, supportive front opposing them. We are not counter-protesters. Instead, we provide a visual representation of support for those in our society who may feel marginalized… Our purpose is to act as a “human spiritual firewall” between GLBT folks and those individuals who believe GLBT’s are an abomination on the face of the earth.
They travel to pride events throughout PA. Their event schedule is here. Their training schedule is here.
RELATED: Those Pennsylvania protesters hit the big cities too. They lost a court battle in Philadelphia in January 2007. Said the judge, “There is no constitutional right to drown out the speech of another person.”
UPDATE: Alanna Berger emails a clarification:
We did not spontaneously set up a program rooted in our church’s teachings. Originally, Silent Witnesses, organized by MCC of the Spirit in Harrisburg, held up signs welcoming the GLBT community to the PrideFest. In 2005, this tactic no longer proved adequate in preventing angry and violent responses to the protesters, so Blaise and I worked with one of the original Silent Witnesses and brainstormed new tactics. We came up with ideas in the spring of 2006, purchased safety vests that we modified to be easily identified as Silent Witnesses, found a donor of 24 rainbow umbrellas and trained more than 70 additional people from four Unitarian Universalist churches as well as members of the Greater Harrisburg Area in responding to spiritual violence with non-violence. The teachings are similar to Gandhi’s and Dr. Martin Luther King’s and not exclusive to Unitarian Universalism. We were asked by the Harrisburg Parade organizer to lead the parade, so this was not spontaneous – we knew months in advance.
The original founder is Yvonne Wilson from MCC of the Spirit in Harrisburg, and we refer to that group she started as the Original Silent Witnesses. Blaise and I – along with Rosemary Mirocco from MCC – came up with the ideas to use the safety vests and umbrellas. We consider this the second generation of silent witnesses, which we refer to as Silent Witness PA.
My mind started thinking of the infamous Senator Larry Craig, then of Conservatives, then of hypocrisy, and then of “family values and moral values”–perhaps not in that exact order.
Then, my mind somehow wandered back to the 2,000 and 2004 elections, and how, during those elections, Conservatives blanketed the electronic and printed media with messages of how our country had lost its moral compass; how Americans had lost their family and moral values; how Republicans and Conservatives–if elected–were going to re-instill those values in government, in society and anywhere else they could; how our new president would “restore honor and dignity to the White House.”
As a matter of fact, just prior to the 2004 elections a whole new class of voters was created, the “values voters,” and political analysts claim that moral values and family values trounced every other value or issue in the 2004 elections–even the economy, the Iraq war, and terrorism–and were responsible for the Republican victories that year.
Our great, fair and balanced Fox News proudly proclaimed on November 4, 2004,
“Though the airwaves preceding the election were rife with talk of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the management of the war in Iraq, job creation and even the so-called legions of angry, young voters — it turns out good old ‘family values‘ may have been the key to President Bush’s successful Election Day strategy.”
The Democrats were “doomed” until they can woo the voters who belong to this new political force, the values voters.
But wait, it is now 2008 and the presidential campaign is in full swing. It is awfully quiet out there when it comes to “good old” family values and moral values. Where are the Republicans to once again tout their moral and family values superiority and to claim such values as Conservatives-only territory?
The last time I remember a Republican presidential candidate addressing that issue was Mitt Romney back in December of 2007.
… there are signs that family values have lost their punch as a campaign issue. Most voters say family values in general are important to them, but a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds they don’t care much about candidates’ personal lives. Political analysts say voters and candidates have broader, more immediate concerns: the ongoing U.S. action in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, the threat of terrorism and an economy that’s putting stress on low- and middle-income people.
And,
The “traditional” family — a married couple with kids — made up fewer than 22% of U.S. households last year, according to the Census, down from 40% in 1970. Roughly one-fifth of Americans have been divorced. Nearly two in five U.S. births last year were out of wedlock, more than twice as high as in 1980. More than half the country says same-sex partners should be able to marry or form civil unions.
It could also be that when comparing the major Republican presidential candidates against the major Democratic presidential candidates during this year’s elections in terms of “family values,” the Republicans do not fare as well as the Democrats. According to USA Today:
Among the Republicans, Giuliani is in his third marriage while McCain and Thompson are each in his second… Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee are married to their high school sweethearts. On the Democratic side…Dennis Kucinich, 61, is in his third marriage…Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina senator John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson are married to their original spouses. So is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite her husband’s affair while he was president…Overall, “the Democratic candidates actually have more stable family lives than the Republicans,” says Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster
On Giuliani, in particular, USA Today said:
The most surprising candidate this year has been Giuliani. He remains a top GOP contender despite his longstanding support for abortion rights and his widely publicized extramarital affair with Judith Nathan — to whom he is now married — during his previous marriage. He’s even been endorsed by Pat Robertson, a leading Christian conservative who says the key issue is who can best fight terrorism.
And finally,
Americans also have seen major cultural changes become woven into society. Divorce, blended families and women in the workforce are common, and polls show most people support gay civil rights. “First we had the feminist and the sexual revolutions, and then we went through a long period where so much of politics was a backlash against those movements,” says Frances Fox Piven, a sociologist and political scientist at the City University of New York Graduate Center. “That’s kind of been worked out now. People have adjusted.”
Yes, these are all plausible explanations as to why Democrats are not being lectured as much on “values” by Republicans. But on a lazy, summer Saturday afternoon in Texas, the mind does funny things, like recalling names such as:
David Vitter, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Bob Packwood, Bob Ney, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Ted Haggard, Rick Renzi, Bob Allen, and, yes, the one that got my mind wandering to begin with, the inimitable Larry Craig.
And the mind comes up with additional and interesting explanations.
A note to my gay friends and readers: This lazy afternoon’s epistle should in no way be viewed as critical of anyone’s sexual orientation. On the contrary, I find it distasteful when people cover-up their God-given sexual orientation for political purposes, and I find it morally unforgivable when people misuse their positions of power to legislate against, prosecute or punish the perfectly legal and human actions and behavior of those of their own sexual orientation.
It’s been tried before, in a variety of ways. Starting with the time of our American Revolution…and continuing through the War of 1812, the Mexican army attack on the Alamo, the Spanish American War, and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor – through two world wars – this country, when united, has never been defeated.
In fact, history will show that each time America has been attacked from without, she has grown notably stronger!…
The Communists took a different tack. … they devised a cunning plan to establish Communist cells in this country, made up almost totally of Americans…
By changing the moral compass of our country, especially in the young generation, they would literally take over our culture – and eventually our government – from within.
That’s right folks! Like the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and the cunning communists, we’re sneaking into your towns to recruit the young!
And now, according to facts just revealed by Focus on the Family, a frightening new assault is well under way, on our very processes of government. Focus is the leading family advocacy outfit in the country and happens to be based in Colorado, where they’ve had a ringside seat for the activities of a multimillionaire named Tim Gill. This man and other extremely wealthy men who share his priorities have demonstrated that enough money can buy virtually anything … maybe even a country.
Tim Gill founded Quark, a very successful software company, and 14 years ago began pouring much of his massive wealth into the homosexual rights movement. Dozens of gay rights organizations owe their existence to Gill. That list includes the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN – the nation’s leading homosexual activist group in America’s schools). I’ve written here before about the goals GLSEN has for our schools and the minds of our young; they are determined to see that all teachers imbed acceptance, even admiration, for every kind of deviant behavior into the curricula and permanent perceptions of America’s students.
I’m sad to say how many people in my rural Georgia community agree with Pat Boone. We’ve got some real work to be done here.
RELATED: It was nice to see Peter Wehner write in the WaPo today that Christian conservative “critics of Obama have an obligation to provide a fair and honest critique, and the attacks leveled by Dobson fall terribly short of that standard.”Morbo has the entire James Dobson salvo against Barack Obama and detects an air of desperation. I certainly agree.
Scott at World o’Crap has some fun walking us through WorldNetDaily CEO Joseph Farah showing us how to sniff out the subversive elements infesting America’s vital news organs. He begins with a quote from a Dobson radio ad:
“Mom…”
If the Colorado legislature has its way…
“A man in a dress came into the girl’s restroom at school today.”
We could all be dealing with a new type of predator.
“Honey, there was a man in the women’s showers at the gym today, and the management said it was, it was Colorado law.”
And instead of our kids worrying about class work, they’ll be worrying about who might be in the restroom with them.
“No way I’m going in there (school bell), I’d rather wait all day if a guy’s in there.”
Our children must be protected from predators, but if Governor Ritter won’t veto Senate Bill 200, all public restrooms, including those in our public schools, will be open to anyone of any sex.
Have you ever opened up your local newspaper and wondered why there is so much coverage of homosexuals and issues of concern to homosexuals?
One of the more bemusing stories of the day involves a man from Texas named Robert Hurt. Hurt is a rancher (and father of 14) from Kerrville Texas. Over the years he has made several trips to Washington DC and he is not happy with what he has seen.
While visiting our nations capital he was appalled to find that many of the buildings have artwork that portrays women who are (hold on to your hats)…. NEKID !!!
I heard Mr. Hurt call in to a radio show this afternoon and discuss his shock upon entering a building near the US Capitol only to find what he called ‘naked women sculptors’. Now I will admit at this point I was curious to know why these women showed up to work without clothes. But after listening I realized he meant naked female sculptures.
It seems that every time Mr. Hunt turned around he found another appalling example of nekidness, which as he put it ‘is not what America is about’. He lays the blame with Lady Godiva and presumably evil Europeans.
At the Texas GOP convention recently he proposed they adopt a resolution calling for all of the naked statues to be removed from our sacred cities (though he did suggest that maybe it would be ok in San Francisco).
“Among the things of most concern to citizens, according to the polls, are the war in Iraq, education and public health. But it’s possible that the real challenge for Obama or McCain will have nothing to do with these. Rather, they’ll have to address an item that is directly responsible for the problems in public health, education, and Iraq: religion.”
“Never in the history of the United States has religion had such a definitive presence in the decision-making of government. North American believers like to think that their country was founded on religious principles (God is mentioned in many parts of the nation’s lore, from bank notes to the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag), but the truth is that not even the most notoriously evangelical presidents, from Lyndon Johnson to Ronald Reagan, have ever permitted the design of national policy on the basis of religious arguments. The Bush White House, however, is the closest things possible to a church.”
