Thursday, October 21, 2010

More Dominionism

Just in case you were thinking they went away.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2456/the_endurance_of_christian_reconstructionism/

Have fun!

Want Some Racism with Your Tea?

http://www.alternet.org/rights/148569/the_naacp_exposes_ties_between_tea_party_and_racist_extremist_groups/

The NAACP Exposes Ties Between Tea Party and Racist Extremist Groups

The Tea Party movement has links to white supremacists, anti-immigration groups, "birthers" and other "extremists," according to new report.

October 21, 2010 |

LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?

Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

The Tea Party movement has links to white supremacists, anti-immigration groups, "birthers" and other "extremists," according to a report released by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

The 94 page report, entitled Tea Party Nationalism (.pdf), investigates six national organizations "at the core" of the Tea Party: FreedomWorks Tea Party, 1776 Tea Party, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Patriots, ResistNet, and the Tea Party Express.

"Based on their past allegations about the Tea Parties, I expect the NAACP's newest attack will once again be riddled with stupid and baseless accusations," said Project 21's Emery McClendon. "They are continuing to be the 'squeaky wheel' that demands attention and hopes that enough screaming will make their myths into fact. I hope the NAACP's 'research' receives the scrutiny it deserves."

"Here we go again," Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, told the Kansas City Star. "This is typical of this liberal group’s smear tactics."

Although members of the Tea Party claim the movement is focused on dismantling an out of control federal government, reducing taxes, and balancing the budget, the report claims that the movement is permeated with concerns about national identity and race.

************************************************************************************

NICE: If your the one making up facts just accuse your opponent of doing it!

Friday, October 15, 2010

Christian Taliban on K Street, GOP your Crazy is showing!!

I have No Words!

Although I beg you to please spread the word about this craziness!!

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/15/should-female-lobbyists-wear-burqa

Have fun reading, here's your teaser!!

Should Female Lobbyists Wear The Burqa?

By Jodi Jacobson, Editor-in-Chief, RH Reality Check

October 15, 2010 - 11:22am

Jodi Jacobson's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments |

Will we soon see the enforcement of a burqa law on K Street?

Apparently not only is the far right group now commonly known as the Republican Party trying to impose Taliban-like laws and policies on women in the United States (limiting access to contraception and abortion, opposing paid sick leave, maternity leave, and fair pay, promising to repeal minimum wage laws and gut social security, questioning the need for insurance coverage of breast exams, maternity care and other women's health concerns, for example) they are now acting more and more like the men in ultra-orthodox religious societies. They've decided women are so dangerous and tempting to men that House Minority Leader John Boehner has, according to Erin Bradford writing in The Hill, "instructed male Republicans to avoid getting drunk and partying with female lobbyists or even meeting privately with them."

Friday, October 8, 2010

Anti-choicers are attacking antichoice candidates for their votes on Obamacare

And they are lying when they say Obamacare expanded abortion coverage when in fact Obama capitulated to Bart Stupak last spring.

Why? Because the anti-choicers they are attacking just happen to be Democrats!!

First, the lies and the truth.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/07/misleads-catholic-hospitals-abortion-care

Note especially what I have bolded and boosted text size on.

FRC Misleads on Catholic Hospitals, Abortion Care

By Amie Newman, Managing Editor

October 8, 2010 - 9:05am

Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments |

Three Catholic hospitals in Pennsylvania, all run by Mercy Partners, will likely be sold by the end of the year.

Kevin Cook, Mercy Health Partners president and chief executive officer, said the decision to find a buyer was made after it became increasingly clear that "we weren't going to generate the investment needed" to remain competitive in the local market.

And while anti-choice organizations like the Family Research Council are blaming the development on "Obamacare," and more specifically on what they say is the potential for taxpayer-funded abortion care to be forced upon the facilities, this could not be farther from the truth.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) enacted more restrictions on abortion services than ever previously existed - not less. Federal law prohibits federal funding of abortion care (except ostensibly in cases of rape, incest and threats to the life of a woman) under the Hyde Amendment - and that hasn't changed. Under the so-called "Nelson compromise," the soon-to-be created government run health exchanges can restrict insurance coverage of abortion care. In addition, states are allowed to ban insurance coverage of abortion care outright even when premiums are paid with your own, private money. Moreover, the administration banned coverage of abortion in temporary high-risk pools meant to cover people at high risk of health problems who might not otherwise be able to secure insurance until PPACA goes fully into effect.

*****

Now, with that explained we can look at what has happened to some anti-choice democrats because they voted for Obamacare.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/08/roundup-antichoice-political-under-fire-lies

Roundup: Anti-Choice Political Ads Under Fire for Lies

By Robin Marty, RH Reality Check

October 8, 2010 - 11:05am

Robin Marty's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments |

Multiple anti-choice groups are launching campaign arms to attack anti-abortion Democrats across the country. And those attacks are quickly resulting in lawsuits over false and misleading advertising.

False advertising charges are being leveled against Americans United for Life in anti-choice Democratic Representative Kathy Dahlkemper's Pennsylvania race.

From the Associated Press:

Attorneys for Democrat U.S. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper's campaign want four Erie radio stations to pull an ad by an anti-abortion group that contends her vote for health care reform resulted in "the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions ever."
Americans United for Life stands by the ad, saying the freshman lawmaker voted to pass a final version of the bill that omitted key safeguards to prevent federal funding of abortions.

But the campaign's lawyers said in a letter to the stations on Wednesday that the ad is "slanderous, inaccurate and falsifies ... Dahlkemper's stance on abortion."

"We're hopeful that the radio stations won't air the ads and be responsible and honor their (Federal Communications Commission) licenses," Erie attorney Philip Friedman told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The Erie Times-News first reported the letter sent to three FM stations owned by Connoisseur Media, of Westport, Conn. and a fourth owned by Citadel Broadcasting, based in Las Vegas and New York City.

In Ohio, Rep. Steve Driehaus is the subject of attack ads by Susan B. Anthony List, and he's responding with a criminal lawsuit. Via Politico:

On Tuesday, Driehaus filed a complaint alleging that billboards from the Susan B. Anthony List, a Washington-based group that advocates on behalf of anti-abortion women candidates, are illegal under Ohio law because they feature a photo of Driehaus and say: “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.”

“Despite the fact that [health reform] does not permit and in fact prohibits taxpayer-funded abortions, the SBA List and other groups opposed to Congressman Driehaus’ reelection have published and disseminated the false statement,” the campaign’s complaint reads.

“This is the latest volley in a smear campaign that SBA List and its Republican allies have been running since the time the health care vote was passed. We have repeatedly put out information demonstrating that there is no federal funding for abortion in the health care law,” said Tim Mulvey, a Driehaus spokesman. “We have repeatedly challenged Susan B. Anthony List and their allies to identify a single taxpayer dollar going to pay for abortion services; they can’t do it because it’s not there.”

Driehaus, a freshman, is in a tight race to keep his 1st District seat away from former GOP Rep. Steve Chabot, whom he beat in 2008.

The billboards were supposed to go up in Driehaus’s heavily anti-abortion Cincinnati district earlier this week. But the company tasked with erecting the billboards, Lamar Advertising, has agreed to hold off on putting them up until the commission rules on whether the billboards are legal.

The law makes it illegal to “post, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Now, Susan B. Anthony List has decided to embark on a campaign against Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who is running a write-in campaign against Tea Party candidate Joe Miller in an attempt to retain her senate seat after a primary loss. The Hill reports:

The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) announced Friday that it is endorsing Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) and releasing a radio ad targeting Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

"Joe Miller's unique experience and commitment to rescind taxpayer funding of abortion in the federal healthcare legislation is urgently needed in the coming Congress," Marjorie Dannenfelser, the anti-abortion-rights group's president, said in a statement.

...

SBA spent $10,000 on the radio spot, a significant buy in the state. The ad features the voice of an "ear doctor" showing up at Murkowski’s office “for the hearing test.”

"Alaska voters sent me, afraid she didn't hear them during the primary," he says.

*****
So, they seem to be very willing to lie to get elected! It's not about Choice anymore, it's about truth! If they lie about this, what else are they going to lie about? Can you risk voting for a candidate who's willing to say anything to get your vote, even if it's a bald faced lie??

Thursday, October 7, 2010

You can't have it both ways!

The thing that upsets me the most about many anti-choicers is that they don't want to help the pregnant women, the children that come into the world as a result or really, the whole rest of society.

Rand Paul seems to think women are "milking the system" when they get prenatal care on Medicaid. #1 Talk to your old man about what prenatal care does, #2 know without access to medicaid funded prenatal care, many of these women will not get any prenatal care...at all.

The stupid selfishness astounds me over and over again.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/06/rand-paul-rails-against-pregnant-women-medicaid

Rand Paul Rails Against Pregnant Women and Medicaid

By Amie Newman, Managing Editor

October 6, 2010 - 5:46pm

Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments |

I'm not sure what planet Rand Paul is living on but in his world, pregnant women in Kentucky who make 185 percent of the federal poverty level are taking advantage of Medicaid funded prenatal care.

Republican GOP candidate for U.S. Senate, told a group of business leaders on Monday that "we've made it too easy" for many of the lower income residents in his state to access Medicaid:

"Half of the people in Kentucky are not poor," he said. "We've made it too easy. And people are going to say, 'Oh, that's harsh, you can't say that.' Well, let's take care of those who are truly in need, which would be a small percentage of the public. Let's take care of them until they can take care of themselves.

Almost half of the 57,000 births in Kentucky are covered through Medicaid funding, notes the article. But it's not only pregnant women whom Rand targets - it's children, and senior citizens as well. Basically he's referring to all of those crooks who take advantage of a state's public health funding, who should apparently be able to "take care of themselves" when it comes to paying for health care.

**************

Does he live in a tree? has he tried to get seen for prenatal care w/o insurance?? Has he treid to get seen for anything w/o insurance? I do know the answer. It just makes me madder!!

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

More about Dominionism

Because it's what to watch and stop...

I also wanted to mention an important little book.

Don't Think of an Elephant, Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, By George Lakoff,

Here's the link on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate---Progressives/dp/1931498717/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286413574&sr=1-1

This book explains how the GOP has been framing the debate for the last 25 years and how progressives could turn the tide, that is if we figure out how to heard our cats!!

Yes, Dominionists play the game too.

Now here's the link with more about Dominionism and Sarah Palin.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Libertarian my left foot

True libertarians don't care about abortion as long as it's not on their dime, nor do they care about gay marriage. If I have any problem with them it would have to be the simplistic selfishness of most of the libertarians I've come across.

However I've long doubted the Tea Party's identity as a libertarian movement. Come to find out. I'm right!!

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/10/6/11271/5157/Front_Page/It_s_Their_Tea_Party_And_The_Religious_Right_Is_Invited_Poll_Shows_Movements_Closely_Linked

It's Their (Tea) Party - And The Religious Right Is Invited: Poll Shows Movements Closely Linked

Rob Boston	print page
Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 11:27:01 AM EST

A new poll confirms what a lot of us have suspected for a while now: The Tea Party and the Religious Right are more or less in sync.

The poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, found that nearly half (47 percent) of Tea Party activists consider themselves part of the Religious Right. They are also overwhelming Christian, with 81 percent identifying with that faith.

And what about all of that talk about the Tea Party being heavily libertarian and composed mainly of secular conservatives who just want low taxes and less government spending? This survey casts doubt on that. Sixty-three percent say abortion should be illegal, and only 18 percent favor same-sex marriage.

Finally, like the Religious Right, the Tea Party is quite partisan, leaning heavily Republican. Seventy-six percent say they belong to the GOP.

Last month I attended the Family Research Council's "Values Voter Summit" here in Washington, D.C. It was essentially a Tea Party/Religious Right love fest. It's clear that Religious Right leaders hope to harness the energy of the Tea Party movement and use it to help elect favored candidates and push its theocratic agenda.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Talk To Action | "Shadow War" : mainstream Protestant denominations under seige

Talk To Action | "Shadow War" : mainstream Protestant denominations under seige

More lovely stuff you should be aware of!

This website is full of good stuff on the Dominionist issue.

To be completely honest this freaks me the hell out, it freaks me out as a woman, as a witch/pagan and as one of the much hated secular humanists...

So that's why this blog exists...so I can vent my rage and fear, and have it all be out there, somewhere...

What's got me upset about Fundementalist Christians

There are four parts to the article and you should read them all... The bolding in the snippet is mine.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/11/28/172929/14
*******************************************************

The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy - Part One

Chip Berlet	print page
Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 05:29:29 PM EST

In a September 1994 plenary speech to the Christian Coalition national convention, Rev. D. James Kennedy said that "true Christian citizenship" involves an active engagement in society to "take dominion over all things as vice-regents of God."

Kennedy's remarks were reported in February 1995 by sociologist and journalist Sara Diamond, who wrote that Kennedy had "echoed the Reconstructionist line."

More than anyone else, it was Sara Diamond who popularized the use of the term "dominionism" to describe a growing political tendency in the Christian Right. It is a useful term that has, unfortunately, been used in a variety of ways that are neither accurate nor useful. Diamond was careful to discuss how the small Christian Reconstructionist theological movement had helped introduce "dominionism" as a concept into the larger and more diverse social/political movements called the Christian Right.

Dominionism is therefore a tendency among Protestant Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists that encourages them to not only be active political participants in civic society, but also seek to dominate the political process as part of a mandate from God.

This highly politicized concept of dominionism is based on the Bible's text in Genesis 1:26:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Version).

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (New International Version).

**********************

So there in the bolded text is my biggest issue with Fundamentalist Christians!! Please do read all four parts of the article.

So what's it got to do with straight people anyhow?

Gay marriage...a hot potato for sure. The one thing that's always driven me up the wall is the argument that letting two men or two women marry one another will somehow weaken MY marriage and/or the institution of marriage. Umm How??

There are many financial reasons to get married, there are many practical reasons to get married. Marriage is supposed to be forever and when it's not, walking away is not a decicion to be made lightly. OK that's all said...now explain how letting "Adam and Steve" get married has anything to do with MY marriage.

Here's the link http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/10/4/133618/424

Here's the snippet

Another National Organization for Marriage Ill-Fated Bus Tour

Bill Berkowitz	print page
Mon Oct 04, 2010 at 01:36:18 PM EST

The anti-gay organization founded by Maggie Gallagher has been on a bus-tour across California this past week, stumping for the GOP's Senate Candidate, Carly Fiorina. Similar to its nationwide anti-same-sex marriage bus tour last summer, this one is also drawing tens of people!

There is one thing you can say for certain about the National Organization for Marriage; it's always up to something ... and that something invariably has to do with The Gay.

If it isn't sponsoring state-wide initiatives banning same-sex marriage, it's intervening in electoral campaigns around the country. If it isn't briefs in support of California's Proposition 8, it's filing a suit against the state of Rhode Island so it won't have to reveal the names of its donors. If it isn't bringing other anti-gay organizations - including the San Marcos, California-based Ruth Institute -- under its wing, then it's joining a coalition called the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. If it isn't in the process of creating some very weird anti-gay television advertising spots, it's launching another cockamamie bus tour.

And sometimes it seems, given its apparent trunk full of treasure, NOM is doing all of the above at just about the same time.

Go to the link to read more. And notice how they're trying to protect the identity of their donors and wonder why...

Where's the line? Here, or over there...wait, it moved again!

I'm firmly opposed to legislating restrictions on abortions...because there are so very many exceptions and reasons for them...

So just now the grey area on viability for a micropremie is 22-24 weeks and the deck is stacked until after 30 weeks. On the one hand I get twitchy about abortion after that point, on the other hand...Women wait so long for reasons imposed by the system, It seems like some women probably just go ahead and have an unwanted baby because the deck is stacked against them dealing with the problem prior to that point. Here are two examples of this.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/09/20/wait-long-impact-nebraska-abortion

Why Did She Wait So Long? Later Abortions and the Implications of the New Nebraska Ban

By Susan Yanow and Kimberley Bullard

September 23, 2010 - 7:00am

Susan Yanow and Kimberley Bullard's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments | ShareThis

Susan Yanow and Kimberley Bullard's picture

*The stories in this article are true summaries of women who presented for services at the ParkMed Physicians clinic in New York during 2009. Details have been changed to protect the anonymity of the women.

At 17, Rachel* was a high school senior when her steady boyfriend forced her to have sex. Rachel’s period was not regular, and like her family, Rachel had always considered herself pro-life. When she finally realized that she was pregnant and thought about her strong desire to go to college and her life goals, she realized that for her, abortion was the right decision.

Rachel called the nearest clinic and was informed that her state had a parental consent law, requiring her to get the consent of a parent or a judge because she was under 18. For the next three weeks Rachel feared telling anyone, especially family, but after much deliberation and anxiety she finally told her mother. While her mother was initially angry, within a few days she agreed to help Rachel get an abortion. They called the nearest clinic and got the first available appointment, one week away. At the appointment, Rachel and her mother were shocked when the ultrasound showed that Rachel was already five months (20 weeks) pregnant. The clinic did not offer abortions past 14 weeks. They referred her to a clinic five hours away, but because of limited physician availability that facility had no appointments for three weeks. They also learned that the clinic could not accept the health insurance that Rachel’s family had. Since Rachel’s procedure would take two days to perform, they would also need to make arrangements to stay in a hotel. Rachel and her mother spent the next three weeks borrowing $2,500 to pay for the travel, hotel, and abortion. On the day that Rachel finally had her abortion, she was 2 days shy of 24 weeks pregnant.

*****

So it isn't simple, it isn't cut and dried. How can we legislate something that has no absolutes?

Why in hell does it have to be so hard??

Monday, October 4, 2010

The Lies they tell.

So The Right tells people a prettied up story while they hid their real motive. I'm not surprised, I am angry though.

Some Examples:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/09/29/tall-tales-antichoicers-tell

The (Tall) Tales Anti-Choicers Tell

By Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check

September 29, 2010 - 7:00am

Amanda Marcotte's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments |

There are two major stories anti-choicers/abstinence-only folks tell. There’s the one they tell when the audience is one perceived to be both powerful and somewhat reasonable and non-misogynist. In this story, they oppose reproductive rights and education, not because they are anti-sex and anti-woman, oh no! They claim it’s because they support health! They don’t think women are smart enough to handle reproductive rights, and so they want to take them away for their own good! They don’t promote these things because they think sexual women are evil and should be punished. They’re skeptical women really like sex anyway, and argue women only see sex as a means to the motherhood and marriage ends. And if women themselves disagree, well, a little force is for their own good. Feminist even!

Follow the links...

Now we have some pretty stuff from the Gothardites to horrify and amuse.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/10/3/162448/231/Front_Page/Dan_Webster_s_Religious_Guru_s_Advice_For_Women_quot_Like_Sharia_Law_quot_Says_Noted_Author

A snippet

Bill Gothard and "Biblical Stoning"

As I describe in my Alternet story, Alan Grayson's GOP Opponent Directly Tied to Christian Group That Wants Permanent Subordination of Women, according to the Vice President of the Chalcedon Institute, before the institute's founder, father of Christian Reconstructionism R.J. Rushdoony, died, Rushdoony nearly struck a deal with Gothard that would have allowed him to distribute Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law book, a template for implementing Biblical law in government.

Rushdoony was a virulently racist Holocaust denier who believed in Geocentrism, the proposition that the Sun, and all the heavens, rotate around the Earth, which is the center of creation.

Although the deal fell through because the two men held clashing positions about divorce (Gothard wanted to ban it altogether) they otherwise were in agreement including, apparently, on R.J. Rushdoony's vision of instituting stoning as a form of capital punishment for murder, adultery, homosexuality, idolatry, apostasy, and witchcraft.

Asked about his 1996 trip to Korea with Bill Gothard, Daniel Webster told the Florida Gainesville Sin, for an August 5th, 1996 story, "I respect (Gothard) as much as anybody. I wouldn't have gone [with Gothard to Korea] but he wanted me there."

Interviewed for a February 16, 1997 story from the Florida newspaper the St. Petersburg Times, Webster stated, on Gothard, "I enjoy the advice he's given. I think it's been a major part of my life. I'm not ashamed of that. What he has said I believe to be the truth."

SAY WHAT??

Please please please think twice about that GOP Tea Party candidate!!! The freedom you save may be your own!!