Fighting the Right

Appearing on Trinity Broadcasting Network’s flagship show Praise the Lord yesterday, Bishop Harry Jackson, the anti-gay activist who led unsuccessful efforts to defeat marriage equality legislation in Washington D.C. and Maryland, said that ministers who refused to work on his campaigns did so because they “envied” his success and were resentful that he had God’s favor. Speaking with Perry Stone, Jr., Jackson explained that “enemies, when vanquished, are simply stepping stones to victory, to accomplishment and to notoriety.”

Previously, Jackson blamed the “Queen of Heaven,” a demonic power, for the success of marriage equality bills.

Jackson: Sometimes envy takes hold of people, and they see you prospering and they see something that they don’t like, sometimes there are other dynamics that begin to cause them to really want to see you fail.

Stone: It’s amazing.

Jackson: It’s crazy. Not too long ago we were in a major, ground level battle, it was over the issue of marriage in the state of Maryland and Washington D.C., without getting into all those details there were people who said, ‘well if Jackson was leading it I don’t want anything to do with it.’

Stone: Were they ministers?

Jackson: They were ministers, and you’re saying, ‘wait a minute, I thought we were for the Word, I thought we were working together,’ but because there was an issue of envy that was stuck way down in their craw, so sometimes when these open doors open then enemies are revealed.

…

Jackson: When you go through the door, when you rise up, God has got a unique group of people who will be there for you. But you got to discern who they are. Secret enemies will come forward, I thank God every time I see an enemy, and I believe then God will also give His people who will help us.

Stone: What’s the purpose of an enemy? Is there ever a positive purpose for an enemy?

Jackson: Goliath was a great example, in that enemies, when vanquished, are simply stepping stones to victory, to accomplishment and to notoriety.

Stone: Praise God!

As Brian noted in his last post, Religious Right leaders are starting to grudgingly coalesce behind Mitt Romney not that it appears all but certain that he is going to be the Republican presidential nominee.

But Bryan Fischer is not necessarily among them. 

Fischer has made no secret of his anti-Mormon views, saying that the First Amendment does not apply to Mormons and warning that electing a Mormon president is a threat to the "spiritual health" of the nation.

Romney, for his part, actually called out Fischer for his bigotry during last year's Values Voter Summit, which only solidified Fischer's distrust and dislike of him.

So when Rick Santorum announced yesterday that he was finally dropping out of the race, Fischer dedicated much of his program to discussing developments and declaring that many Religious Right voters will not be able to support a "spiritually compromised candidate" like Romney ... and that this "is perfectly understandable" because worshiping false gods will weaken the nation:

The reality is that there are just a number of Evangelicals that just will not vote for Romney because they do not want to put somebody who believes in a different god in the White House, which is perfectly understandable. He's a spiritually compromised candidate; that's the only way to put it. If he goes into the Oval Office, he will be the first polytheist that we've ever had as a president. Mitt Romney would be the first non-Christian president that we've ever had; the first president that we've ever had that did not emerge from a stream of historic Christian orthodoxy.

So this would be unprecedented, and it would be unprecedented spiritually. You remember the prophets, this is one of the things that they were toughest on the kings about is departing the worship of the true and living God for alternative gods. This was something that weakened a nation and so we're looking at that, if Mitt Romney becomes the president, we have a spiritually-compromised president who will be the first polytheist to ever hold the Oval Office, the first president who has ever believed in a multiplicity of gods, the first president who has ever believe that man can become a god, and that God didn't used to be God, he used to be a man who progressed to godhood. So this would be completely uncharted waters for America.

Religious Right activists try to play the victim in their campaign against anti-bullying measures, warning that efforts to prevent bullying will somehow limit the rights of Christians. Of course, when a public school initially stopped a student from wearing a t-shirt that says, “Jesus is Not a Homophobe,” these so-called “free speech” activists not only were silent but some even attacked the 17 year old student. Talk show host Janet Mefferd called the t-shirt “disgusting” and Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values blamed the “homosexual agenda” for trying to make the school allow him to wear a shirt with a “sexual connotation.” 

Today, Mission America president Linda Harvey also attacked the student, Maverick Couch, for using the word “homophobe,” saying that the real problem in not anti-gay bias but the use of the word “homophobia,” which she called a “mean, hateful term, intended to put anyone with traditional values on the defensive.” She said that “objecting to homosexuality” is not a phobia but “reflects common sense, good judgment, sound health and strong morality.” Harvey maintained that the t-shirt is part of the “false faith of liberal churches” and represents “uninformed Christianity at best, and deliberately falsified at worst.”

You have probably already heard about the 17 year old boy in Waynesville, Ohio, who is suing his school because they asked him not to wear a controversial t-shirt. Maverick Couch has a t-shirt featuring a rainbow-colored, Christian fish and the words, ‘Jesus is Not a Homophobe.’ Yes you heard that right. And it all revolves around the upcoming pro-homosexual Day of Silence observed in most schools on Friday, April 20th.

…

Not that I disbelieve that Maverick, who is openly homosexual in his behavior and identity, isn’t very sincere in what he’s doing, he is quoted as saying that he has been bullied and called names and he is wearing this t-shirt to encourage respect. While I agree that he should not be bullied and neither should other students, but schools don’t have to embrace homosexuality to prevent bullying, and the even bigger issue here is the t-shirt is tragically and profoundly misleading. The assumptions are wrong, so you can’t even talk about it until we deconstruct its false implications. Homophobia is a mean, hateful term, intended to put anyone with traditional values on the defensive, as if objecting to homosexuality is a phobia, it’s not! It reflects common sense, good judgment, sound health and strong morality.

…

Which Jesus is this young man talking about? He’s implying the same false faith of liberal churches today that rely on only a carefully chosen, few passages from the New Testament and ignore everything else. Its uninformed Christianity at best, and deliberately falsified at worst.

With Rick Santorum suspending his presidential campaign, far-right activists lauded Santorum for pushing his fellow Republicans to the right, particularly on social issues.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, who did not officially endorse Santorum but clearly favored his candidacy, applauded Santorum’s “message of faith, family and freedom”:

"Rick Santorum's historic run for president achieved remarkable success because his campaign was based not on money spent but on the message of faith, family and freedom that he carried. I commend his courage, boldness and tenacity in fighting for the values that made America great, and are fundamental to returning America to greatness.

"Millions of voters flocked to Rick not because he was a Republican, but because he passionately articulated the connection between America 's financial greatness and its moral and cultural wholeness. He realizes that real problem-solving starts with an understanding that the economy and the family are indivisible.

"This values message generated enthusiasm and drew many new voters into the process. If the Republican establishment hopes to generate this same voter intensity in the fall elections, Santorum voters must see it demonstrate a genuine and solid commitment to the core values issues," concluded Perkins.

Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List, who organized a bus tour on Santorum’s behalf, said:

“With great vision and passion, Rick Santorum reached the hearts of pro-life voters and allowed them to show the strength of their voting bloc,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List. “The Susan B. Anthony List is proud to have mobilized those key voters.”

“Pro-life voters are a consistent and growing constituency, who proved invaluable to Senator Santorum in state after state throughout the primary elections. We will continue to reach out and mobilize those voters and millions more like them across the country. The political muscle of the pro-life movement will be critical to defeating President Obama in November.” Others were more plain in their disappointment.

Right-wing radio host Steve Deace tweeted that it is “time for a slate of new blood after Obamney loses in November,” and anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera lamented that the Republican Party is “stuck” with the “pro-homosexual” Mitt Romney.

Conservative luminary Richard Viguerie, who yesterday made clear that he will never consider Romney a bona fide conservative, today urged Romney to pick a conservative running mate, but is disappointed in the current crop of potential candidates:

The demand that there must be some conservative vs. moderate balance on the Republican ticket is already starting to lead the media to engage in some comical contortions as various establishment commentators try to bend their favorite Republican elected official’s record and views to be conservative enough to place a Romney led ticket in the conservative camp if their favored candidate is picked.

The problem with this exercise is that by-and-large the names offered are either not movement conservatives or they are not yet power players in national politics with a strong movement conservative constituency of their own.

Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Bob McDonnell, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez and the rest of the names floated by the inside-the-Beltway pundits all have their good qualities – but none has established their conservative bona fides by being tested on the national scene and none brings a strong base in the conservative movement to add real grassroots conservative credibility to a Romney led ticket.

Viguerie also warned that Romney’s attacks on Santorum may hurt him with the conservative base:

To date Mitt Romney has spent some $100 million to drive the conservative candidates from the field, in some case through vicious personal attacks. However, he has spent little effort making the case for his own candidacy to grassroots movement conservatives.

The first great challenge facing Republicans is whether or not Mitt Romney can heal the wounds created by his negative campaigning.

The grassroots movement conservative voters who powered the Santorum campaign can not be taken for granted. During the 2006 congressional elections some 4 million conservative voters stayed home, producing one of the biggest defeats for the Republican Party in the modern era.

The next step is up to Mitt Romney. Romney is seriously behind with committed conservative voters, to catch up he must make the case that he merits the support of movement conservatives and that a Romney administration, if elected, can and will produce conservative government.

UPDATE: Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families and a prominent Santorum supporter said his candidacy “will contribute to the end of the Obama Administration this November,” and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention claimed Santorum successfully “resurrected himself once again as a major political figure in our nation” through his role “in the most important election in our nation since 1860.”

Another Santorum booster, Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance, urged Romney to “reach out to conservative women since they are the ones who get on the phones and do tons of volunteer work,” and on a similar note Liberty Counsel chairman Mathew Staver, who backed Newt Gingrich, said Romney has “to make some intentional steps to reach out to evangelicals and religious conservatives,” adding that “it would be a mistake to assume he has every vote from evangelicals and religious conservatives locked up.”

However, Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College, who signed a letter of far-right leaders who described a Romney nomination as a “disastrous mistake,” told CNN that he may not back Romney in the general election:

Evangelical activist Michael Farris was not exactly surprised that Rick Santorum suspended his campaign on Tuesday. But that doesn’t mean that Farris, a longtime political organizer, knows what he’s supposed to do now.

“Right now my choice is to sit on my hands and do nothing or to actively try to find some alternative” to Mitt Romney, Farris said in an interview shortly after Santorum's announcement.

“Some of us just have a hard time supporting a person who said he was going to be more liberal on gay rights than Ted Kennedy,” said Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, referring to remarks Romney made in a 1994 letter.

Farris’ reaction is a stark emblem of the disappointment among religious conservatives over Santorum's announcement, and a reminder that Romney’s enthusiasm deficit among the conservative evangelicals who form the GOP’s base hasn’t gone away.

With former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum suspending his campaign for president today, we decided to look back at some of our fondest memories of the Santorum campaign and the great material he provided us at Right Wing Watch over the years.

Like candidates before him from Gary Bauer to Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum was a candidate that not only directed his campaign to appeal to the Religious Right but was himself from the movement. But despite strong support from such voters in a divided field it was not enough for him to win.

One of Santorum’s greatest outbursts actually came well-before he entered the presidential race, while addressing students at Florida’s ultraconservative Ave Maria University he claimed that Satan is systematically attacking the U.S. by corrupting the culture, universities and mainline Protestants:

Santorum caused an international stir when he falsely maintained during a campaign event with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson that Dutch senior citizens live in fear of the country’s hospital system and that one in ten people in the Netherlands die as a result of euthanasia. He also spoke winsomely of a time when abortions were performed illegally “in the shadows.”

His opposition to abortion rights was a central part of his campaign, and he found it “almost remarkable for a black man” like President Obama to be pro-choice:

Towards the end of the campaign, Santorum decided to whip up excitement of his Religious Right base by appearing at a Louisiana megachurch, where the pastor, Dennis Terry, welcomed him with a sweltering speech telling non-Christians and liberals to “get out” of America, which Santorum applauded:

While we are sad to see Santorum go, at least Newt Gingrich is still staying in the race.

Over the weekend, National Review editor Rich Lowry ended the magazine’s long relationship with contributing editor John Derbyshire (“Derb”) over a racist article he wrote for another publication: 

His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise.

• (10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
• (10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
• (10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
• 10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
• (10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
• (10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
• (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

Imagine you are a member of a group that, in the generality, underachieves socially and economically: a black in the U.S.A., an Inuit in Canada, a Pacific Islander in New Zealand, even a Malay in Malaysia. If the Standard Model is true, the only possible explanation for your group's underachievement is malice on the part of other groups. Hence the rancor, resentment, rage, and division.

 

If, on the other hand, group underachievement is a consequence of the laws of biology working on human populations, there is no blame to assign. The fact of group inequalities, even in societies that have striven mightily to remove them, is as natural and inevitable as individual inequality, which nobody minds very much. The only proper object of blame is Mother Nature; and she is capable of inflicting far worse things on us than mere statistical disparities between ancient inbred populations.

 

Under a reigning philosophy of candor and realism, each of us can strive to be the best he can be, to play as best he can the hand he's been dealt, in liberty and equality under the law.