David Neiwert is reporting at Crooks & Liars on Sarah Palin's speech, given on April 16th, to the evangelical women's group, Women of Joy. In her long, rambling speech, Palin states:[I]t is our solemn duty. Praying for true spiritual awakening to overcome deterioration. That is where God wants us to be. Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers.
Palin goes on to, possibly for the first time, give an open acknowledgement to a group she has been tied to in the past, but has been careful to not publicly acknowledge, the Prayer Warriors of the New Apostolic Reformation:
Prayer Warriors all across the country -- and I know some of you are here tonight -- your prayer shield allows me and others to go forth. You give out strength, providing a prayer shield. That is the only way to put one foot in front of the other, and get through some of these days with joy. I don't know how any politician could, or would want to do this, without knowing that there were prayer warriors out there, holding you up and seeking strength and wisdom for you. ... I am so appreciative of their efforts.
Palin, by openly acknowledging what some of us have been writing of for years, is tying herself directly to the policies this set of hate groups are practicing or attempting to practice in their international network in countries outside of the United States - destruction of people accused of witchcraft and the execution of homosexuals, and sometimes violent takeovers of governments.
Once again, the Alaska media will not even give her a gram of scrutiny on this, maybe finding an excuse to soon give her another "Thumbs Up!"
Here's Part One of her rant:
37 comments:
Ah, I just can't watch nor listen.
But I know she's unleashing the other extremist beasts. : )
Sadly those prayer warriors are falling down on their "praying for wisdom" duties.
I can't listen without throwing up a little.
Well, it's nothing new that Palin, and many other so-called 'Christians', seek to gain control over government and turn that control over to their own brand of dogmatic religious ideology.
That is the goal of dominionist churches and they don't hide the fact, ....most people just ignore the fact that those dominionists are quite prevalent, and are represented by any number of right wing conservatives, and have been for many years.
It's nothing new.
There are any number dominionist churches, firmly established in towns and cities across the nation.
Probably on offshoot can be found in any particular neighborhood, if you merely take the time to look.
This kind of thing isn't limited to Palin, even though Palin represents one of the wackier and extreme offshoots of dominionism.
The evangelical Christian right is predominantly dominionist.
Ron Paul is a dominionist.
GW Bush and his followers in the Repugnant party push a dominionist ideology.
If you don't see much notice or attention paid to these dominionists, it's because they're so well entrenched throughout conservative politics.
A goodly number of the mainstream media outlets in Alaska probably have reporters, editors, publishers or owners with long standing ties to at least one of the many branches of the dominionist churches.
There's really no surprise that not a lot of exposure is given to this issue.
Too many people support and agree with the position of the dominionists.
Too many people, despite their claim to cherish or protect the Constitution, don't .
They want to tear down the Constitution and what it stands for.
They want to destroy the Separation of Church and State.
Just ask any one of them. Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, GW Bush, Judge Roy Moore, Rod Parsley, Oliver North, Rick Santorum, Gary Bauer, Katherine Harris, Dr. James Dodson, Sam Brownback, Pat Roberson, Tim LaHaye, John Hagee.
They call themselves the Dominionists, the Reconstructionists, the Fundamentalists, Theonomists and more.
Other more recognizable entities are the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, the 700 Club, the American Center for Law and Justice, the Wallbuilders, Inc., the Family Values Coalition etc etc etc.
But here's what one needs for perspective.
These people are a minority,
....the vast majority of this nation doesn't support these fringe extremist views.
These fringe extremists have infiltrated and influenced the Republican party and the Republican Party's trend was rejected.
The Republican Party's adoption of the extremist theocratic crazies was one of the key factors for the downfall and failure of the Republican machine.
Very large majorities of American voters rejected the dogmatic religious message of the Republican Party faithful.
If the right wants to continue to push the craziness, we should all thank them for sticking to their road to failure.
As long as they advocate government controlled by only their brand of religion, the majority of Americans will continue to reject them.
..
It would be interesting to see if Palin could name a single founding father who wasn't a christian-- she may think they were all christians and stuff like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were generated at christian gatherings.
Palin likes Perry from Texas a lot (I predict she'll support him for President-- gee thanks; just what we need-- another President from Texas). He and his state have become christian history revisionists and they have already started manipulating their public education system.
Churches already have special protections. They are largely sheltered from audits:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/26usc7611.pdf
They can use tax exempt income to influence legislation (as apparently was done during the Anchorage Assembly's consideration of last fall's equal rights ordinance:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
(see pages 5-6. Notice it may be very difficult to prove if a church has spent too much of its money, or as they call it a "substantial" amount, to influence legislation).
And then there is the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. I think this decision will probably help churches influence legislation AND candidates. I'm concerned that a possible consequence of this decision could be that churches will gain the right to endorse candidates.
I think our government may be headed towards a "theocratic democracy" where voters will select which christian candidates they prefer in elections. Attending church is becoming more and more mandatory if you want to hold public office. Churches are gaining more and more influence over government in America.
Ben Franklin was a Quaker.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Anybody else here seen the breakdown of how SarahPAC has spent other peoples' money?
Phil - Thank you so much for this post!
Anonymous 12:12 -
A Benjamin Franklin quote:
"Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist."
Anon 2:12:
I was a catholic.
jim, you say churches are gaining more and more influence over government in America.
You say we're headed towards a theocratic democracy,
(which I should point out is any oxymoron.)
Could you cite any evidence that proves your assumptions are based on any actual trend ?
All the evidence points just the opposite way, why would you be saying the opposite ?
Let's review.
Article six, clause 3 of our Constitution states
Clause 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
What this meant was that for the first time in the history of the world, religious orientation would not be a consideration as to one's qualifications for office.
This clause, effectively disestablished the churches, by making religious equality the law of the land. It was a radical idea, but it passed overwhelmingly and with little debate.
The Christian right has been trying to maintain the opposite ever since.
The Christian Right of the 18th Century didn't like article six and unsuccessfully fought ratification in the state legislatures. And failed.
The Christian Right spent much of the 19th Century unsuccessfully trying to amend the Constitution to acknowledge God or Christianity in some way.
And failed.
In the latter part of the 20th Century (right through to the present) the Christian right has tried to revise history to say that the U.S. really was a Christian Nation after all.
And failed.
continues...
No one can get around the simple fact that there is no mention of God or Christianity anywhere in the Constitution.
This was not because the Framers were irreligious. It was because they believed in religious freedom and did not want the government to interfere in religious affairs.
As do the majority of Americans today.
The only folks who really say otherwise or that we're headed in that direction are the members of the Christian right who hope to revise history and revise present day reality to reflect something that reality does not support.
So, why would you advance the same effort as the Christian right, jim ?
Consistent research in study after study shows that the percentage of self-identified Christians in America has fallen 10 points in the past two decades.
The number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990.
Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009.
The latest polling data from Newsweek determined that two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is "losing influence" in American society.
While one can find numbers that purport to say there are more 'born again' folks, and more folks who say they are 'religious', those same folks aren't aligning themselves with established churches or the doctrines of the churches.
There's more jews, protestants, catholics, hindus, muslims, etc. but that doesn't translate into more dominionists or people who prefer theocratic governance.
The Republicans, despite all the hoopla, couldn't deliver on the promises they made to the dominionists.
America's majority rejected that theocratic nonsense.
Those pet issues have been either roundly ignored, or the laws, on the main, have been changed in a manner which leads to direct opposition to the dominionist's desire.
If the so-called Christian right won any victory, it was blown all out of proportion by the mainstream media with an assist from the right wing pr machine. That doesn't mean it represented any larger reality.
The American people have seen through the hypocrisy and corruption rampant within the 'Christian movement'.
They aren't buying into it.
There's no evidence that we're 'moving towards a theocratic anything.
Why would you be advancing a notion that only the rabid, frantic few preachers of the declining 'Christian movement' still hope to con the public with ?
jim@11:57
Palin did a rally for Perry. His numbers have dropped since. He is only 4 pts ahead of Bill White(D) for Gov. A commercial was made of how Texas taxpayers are paying $9000.+ per month for his rental and comparing himself to a Katrina survivor who wants to go home to his gov mansion like they want to go home to New Orleans. He isn't looking good---appears to like the money just like his endorser Palin
Thanks Sally. I hope you are correct. Thanks for the information.
Many of our founding fathers held personal religious beliefs, and some did not. They carried their beliefs close to their chest, and did not want government intruding into these matters. They believed in personal freedom, including the choice of religion.
Many of our founding fathers were of Scots-Irish descent. Their families had fled religious and political persecution in Northern Ireland. They found personal freedom in the colonies. They were very independent of belief and action.
As usual, Palin tries to twist history to suit her own extreme religious convictions. If allowed to govern, I have no doubt Palin would attempt to use the law to force her own religious beliefs on others.
Freeper:
The far right christian "minority" helped elect Bush and we were stuck with him for 8 years. It could happen again. Rick Perry could be formidable. If you don't think theocratic advocates have been, and will be, a tangible threat to democracy and our cherished separation of church and state, I'd encourage you to rethink.
Some of the stuff you say is insightful. For what it is worth, I respect you and I'd enjoy a civil discussion sometime.
Jim,
Here is the link to the video about the mansion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hub-GUE0kCc
If it doesn't work, it is on youtube under Rick Perry's mansion.
My gov is such a hypocrite, I hope it gets passed around.
Thanks Sally.
I'd rather camp in a tent on the ground in the Brooks Range than stay at his place any day.
He could very well become the republican nominee for President. Unfortunately he could also win-- In America, stuff happens. Bush won. Like Bush, I can see this guy coming like a boulder in a river.
jim, the far right christian minority can't do squat.
Yes, many so-called Christians voted for GW Bush.
But the only election the far right extremists really held sway with was Reagan's election.
It has to do with who got out and voted.
The voter breakdowns weren't supportive of the claims the Christian right made in GW's case, GW got a lot of 'christian' votes' but not a larger percentage of the far Right votes than they've been able to motivate in the past.
Their voting bloc is small, I'm not talking about christians in general, that voting bloc is large.
But all christians aren't the same as the far right.
The far right mobilized about the same percentage of the vote in the 2006 mid terms as they always have, but too many of the non-aligned christians voted for democrats. Hence in the 2006 mid terms, the conservatives lost ground and lost seats in Congress.
In Obama's election, the far right again mobilized about the same numbers of it's members, but again, too many of the non-aligned christians voted for Obama and voted for democratic candidates across the board.
Again, the far right lost ground.
The far right has crippled the Republican party.
The Republicans, for the most part, are fleeing from
trying to pose as far right christian supporters.
Sure, there are still some few zealots and batshit crazies left, but their power, their number, and the size of their support are dwindling.
Americans, and non-extremist christians have abandoned the alliance to the far right extremists and the dominionists.
The only people who believe otherwise are either deluded by the hype, or those who are creating the hype.
Reality doesn't support your assertion.
There's no evidence to support it.
.
Yea sure, dude, whatever you say. You're the Gateway to Reality! Ha!
As predictable, when you're unable to provide any evidence to bolster your false assertions, you revert to actions you claim no one else should be able to do.
The reality of your actions reveals only your hypocrisy and the reality of how utterly unsupportable is your moronic burbling.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192915/page/1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5136050/US-religious-Right-concedes-defeat.html
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n1/chamberlain_berlet_christian_right.html
..
By the way, please learn to write. My God you're inefficient. It takes you an hour even to make one or two incorrect points. Couldn't even spell Concord correctly but that didn't keep you from claiming you were an authority on the topic.
Next time you change your ID, I'd suggest blaablaablaa.
Same incorrect junk over and over again. You deny history and cite the news media like they have a crystal ball. And you try to spice you long winded garbage with repetitive and really boring personal attacks.
I figure you may be a short fat hot headed guy who may not get a lot of exercise, has a lot of time on his hands, and either lives with his parents, or is in some kind of facility that allows web access, or is retired.
Freeper/Jim
I've enjoyed the comments you both have made. You both make very good points.
Please let's be civil. We are on the same team.
The far right fringe wins when the sane are splintered.
Thanks.
Peace.
I've tried to hold back on this guy and I've also invited him to stick to the points and be civil. I'd encourage you to review our previous discussions as well as my own efforts to restore civility with this guy. However I figured it was time confront this person. Sorry if I was too frank.
In the future I'll either try to ignore this person or just respond to the issues. It's a shame-- sometimes he (I think he is a he) makes really good, intelligent, researched points.
ALSO . . .
Just to make his little point, this person has called me stupid, a moron (a bunch of times), an idiot, a hypocrite, a bullshitter, doltish, dimwitted, a swoon, unintelligent, ill-advidsed, thoughtless, short sighted, rash, unwise, asinine, tactless, disrespectful, impertinent, rude, a fool . . . (there's more).
Right now I'm laughing my head off-- I hadn't gone back and done an inventory of all this cumulative sheerly abusive crap--this guy projectile vomited all of these things and more-- what a uniquely disgusting person-- I'm happy I finally gave this little brat a piece of my mind. Also I think I may have hit the nail on its little bald head.
Your inventory doesn't include any evidence to support your false assertions.
Laugh all you want, your actions (inaction to be exact), is the best evidence that you have nothing to offer, no substance, no evidence to back up your fallacious assertions or your moronic oxymoron theory that America is trending towards a 'theocratic democracy'.
In short, all you've got is you whining wheezing.
Run along.
Piece of your mind, ....must have been the last fragment remaining.
.
anon @ 11:12am wrote that the right wins when the sane are splintered.
Freeper has shown pretty clearly that jim is nothing if not already well splintered long before he ever met up with Freeper.
1:04:
Gee, I wonder who you are?
Have a nice day, blaablaablaa.
Blaablaablaa: Good luck with your vile dictionary of degrading characterizations. Every second word in your language is synonymous to crap. You're a brat.
What a shame. You're also thoughtful. Too bad you couldn't resolve your addiction to degrading other good human beings who you should have respected.
It's indicative that jim will go to great lengths to talk about anything and everything else but actually providing any substantive evidence to support his fallacious opinions.
Indicative, but not surprising, since there is no substantive evidence to lend any support to fallacious false assumptions.
To suggest there should be 'respect' for mendacious bombast and hyperbole, to suggest that 'equal time and consideration' should be granted to unsupported, dishonest and false assertions is simply preposterous and absurd.
Blaablaablaa- Get a life and shut up, spruce hen brain.
I have been reading Freeper's comments at various progressive sites for about three years.
I have come to the conclusion that he is either a ingenious blog hit man of sorts, or, he has mental issues?
I have to wonder if his true intention is to divide the progressive community through first presenting himself as a person with progressive values, then at the same time waiting to spring, unprovoked, on other progressives with his abusive and demeaning language. If this is the case, I think the tactic is actually a pretty effective deterrent in both posting and in following the comments section.
If this is not the case, well, we may have someone here who is obviously quite intelligent, but lacks certain social graces, or possibly has some sort of megalomaniac complex who likes refocus the comments to revolve around "his" understanding.
I noticed right off when his name first appeared on this blog. I was disappointed. It didn't take long to see him start insulting Phil personally. I noticed later that Phil just quit engaging with him...
It's too bad because Freeper in one way or another distracts and detracts from this otherwise excellent blog.
It's your Blog Phil...
You sure appear to spend a lot of time doing anything but providing any evidence to back up your false assertions and your imaginary assumptions.
You're incapable of addressing any context but your insecurity.
You're the one who says America is becoming a 'theocratic democracy',
Did you get stumped on your own senseless burbliings ? Did the fact that the mere phrase 'theocratic democracy' is self-defeating and a contradiction in terms cause you to become absorbed with your own self-defeat ?
Don't know how to extricate yourself from your own tangled senselessness ?
..
If you continue to base your decisions on false assumptions and imaginary assertions you're going to continue to have a tough time.
You might spend some of that time you're wasting now on doing a small bit of critical thinking about your false assertions and imaginary assumptions.
Let me know when you've found any evidence to back up any of your false assertions and your wrong assuptions.
I keep asking but you dance around and try to talk about anything but the subject you put forth.
...
Evidence?
I invite all who are not utterly tired of Freep's endless supply of insulting rants, or don't have dog shit to clean up... to sign up at Pricinct1080.com and go back and review his past postings. Exactly. the. same. as. here.
By the way hardly no one posts (or visits?)there anymore...
Either your blog asassignation game is exposed Freep, or it's really way past time to get the counseling you so SORELY have been needing.
Poor baja, he can't address any context of the thread either.
Maybe you could provide the evidence jim won't even try to look for ?
Give you something constructive to do, free you up from your navel gazing and your muttering.
Or maybe you could explain, like you failed to do over at 1080, how low voltage bulbs aren't green and can produce no tangible benefit by their use.
That was a false and erroneous assertion you made without being able to provide any evidence to support such nonsense, perhaps you've found your evidence by now ?
No, ....I didn't think so....
See ya around, boo hoo, you'll be back with nothing but your seeking for attention act soon, won't you....
..
Another with nothing but his own insecurity, too bad the form and the nomenclature suspends belief in the anonymity.
Theocratic democracy ring a bell ?
..
Beware of "Freeper" who has often posted here and is now posting anonymously:
From Wikipedia:
"Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum, activist, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[1] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers"
jim learned how to copy and paste,
isn't that amazing,
Too bad he can't address anything but his insecurity.
freeper,
..
Post a Comment