Stang- The Religious Right: Dumb & Dumber
-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan15.htm
THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: DUMB AND DUMBER
by Alan Stang
November 17, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
The Christian “religious right” used to be a formidable force. At least, I
think they were. They said they were. Every four years, national politicos
running for President used to suck up to them, pleading for their votes. There
were supposed to be millions of them, despite which, after all this time, the
nation is still firmly on its way to Hell. In other pieces, I have explained
why, and this time it is worse.
Pat Robertson, who has run for President himself, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani,
who may be closer to Christianity than the late Chairman Mao, but not much
closer. Rudy loves to strut his stuff in women’s clothes, which my version of
scripture condemns. Maybe yours doesn’t. To see a picture of His Honor in
drag, go to my latest book, Not Holier Than Thou. I have publicly appealed to
his staff to reveal his bra and cup size, but so far they are not talking.
http://www.newswithviews.com/books/books1.htm#_ftn4
Rudy loves queers. He marches proudly in faggot parades and has lived with a
couple of them, but he isn’t queer himself. On the contrary, he strongly
supports marriage between himself and many women. Indeed, another problem is
that a President’s First Lady has become more and more important in recent
years, and Rudy has had so many wives we couldn’t be absolutely sure the wife
who may be nominated next summer would be the same wife who shows up in
January, 2009 as First Lady.
Rudy also opposes our unalienable right to keep and bear arms; he would do
everything he could to take our guns away. He staunchly supports baby killing,
which the baby killers call “a woman’s right to choose.” He is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations, founded by Marxist Edward M. House to destroy
the nation’s independence so it can be submerged in a Socialist world
government.
So Rudy Giuliani is a far left apparatchik. Why does Pat Robertson endorse
him? Some commentators literally wonder whether Pat has lost his mind. I have
never met the man and don’t know. Pat says Rudy is uniquely qualified to lead
the fight against Islamic terrorism, because he happened to be Mayor of New
York during Nine Eleven. Robertson’s endorsement tells me he has tossed the
battle to preserve the Christian foundations of our civilization into the
toilet. Did Rudy promise him something?
Now here comes Bob Jones III, of Bob Jones University, who endorses Mitt
Romney, despite the university’s staunch belief that Romney’s Mormon religion
is a cult. Need I add that Romney, like Rudy, is also a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations? Much more, in Not Holier Than Thou you will find fifteen
pages about Mitt Romney, plus an appendix, showing that, as Governor of
Massachusetts, he did everything he could for years to advance homosexuality.
http://www.newswithviews.com/books/books1.htm#_ftn4
There is a letter from Mitt to Log Cabin Republicans, expressing his support
for that organization, which is dedicated to homosexualizing the Republican
Party. Romney put two Log Cabin sodomites on his staff. His strong support for
“Gay Pride” Day in Boston included a Mitt Romney press release appropriately
printed in pink.
You will also find proof, including pictures, in Not Holier that, under Mitt
Romney, Massachusetts schools sponsored incredibly disgusting sodomite
materials and conferences, teaching school kids about extremely dangerous
buggery practices like “fisting,” which I shall not bother explaining again
here. All of which winds up beside Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy
Giuliani.
But my favorite endorsement comes to us from Faith 2 Action, run by Janet
Folger, who used to work for the late D. James Kennedy, pastor of the Coral
Ridge Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Dr. Kennedy used to quote me in his
sermons. Unfortunately, he is gone. A Christian couple wrote to her, endorsing
Ron Paul. Here is what they said:
Janet Folger,
We watched the Value Voters Debate and feel you really need
to read the attached articles. We really worry about Christians
being betrayed AGAIN by most of the Presidential candidates.
If Ron Paul becomes President, pastors will be able to preach
from the pulpit again, abortion will not be a federal issue any
more, activist federal judges will be reigned in, etc., etc.
Let's make the right choice this time. Ron Paul is 100%
pro-life, anti-abortion, pro-family and, most of all, 100% in
support of our Constitution. Please support Ron Paul for
President; there is no acceptable second choice.
Janet gave their letter to somebody named Ross Conley,
her Communication Director. He said this:
Are you aware that Ron Paul has received some rather high
ratings from liberal groups? Here's what he had compared
with liberal Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter and some of
the other candidates, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, and
Tom Tancredo. (Only members of Congress are rated, so there
aren't any numbers for Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani.)
NARAL Pro-Choice America 65% in 2006 and 75% in 2005 (Specter
had 50% and 20% for those two years; McCain, Hunter, and Tancredo
all had 0%s) ACLU 55% in 2005-2006. (Specter 58%, McCain 33%,
Hunter 5%, Tancredo 9%) Human Rights Campaign 38% in 2005-2006
(Specter 67%, McCain 33%, Hunter 0%, Tancredo 0%) National Council
of La Raza. 33% in 2005 (Specter 50%, McCain 0%, Hunter 0%,
Tancredo 0%) Americans for Democratic Action 45% in 2006
(Specter 30%, McCain 15%, Hunter 5%, Tancredo 10%)
Source: Interest Group Ratings for each candidate can be
found at www.vote-smart.org
Ross Conley
Communication Director
Faith2Action
Yes, believe it or not, that is his entire answer. According to this research
technique, you decide who and what someone is, and whether or not to support
him, not by consulting what he says and does, but rather by looking
exclusively at what others say and do about him.
I am sorely tempted here to wonder whether Ross is a young man who can’t find
his heinie with both hands. Of course, I won’t do that. Instead, let’s see
what his boss, Janet Folger, says about Dr. Paul: “In addition to being
against the Marriage Protection Act, Paul is an evolutionist who wouldn't
protect the Terri Schiavos of the world from a starvation death because our
Founding Fathers never thought to enumerate it in the Constitution. He also
wants to legalize drugs and prostitution but wouldn't enforce obscenity
violations. Don't believe me? See for yourself at ValuesVoterDebate.com.”
Good thinking, Janet. In fact, let’s go to the transcript of that debate, in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on September 17, 2007. That way you won’t have to
take anyone’s word, including mine, for what he said. Folger Charge One: Janet
says Dr. Paul is against the Marriage Protection Act. She insinuates that Dr.
Paul is against protecting marriage. Here is what he says (Transcript, p. 6):
“I think the best thing a president can do is set a good example, and I would
start with having been married fifty years and proud of it. I believe also
that I do not see any need for another constitutional amendment. I think we
have fallen into a trap that we have to redefine marriage. We are on the
defensive defining marriage. Why don’t you just tell them to look it up in a
dictionary to find out what a marriage says.
“For federal legal purposes, the Defense of Marriage Act is proper. It takes
care of all the problems. If you have to have rules and regulations, put it at
the state level, like the Constitution says. But, you know, marriage only came
about, and getting licenses only came about, in recent history for health
reasons. It has nothing to do with it. True Christians believe that marriage
is a church function. It’s not a state function. I don’t think you need a
license to get married. We should define it.”
In other words, Janet Folger is lying. As you can see, Dr. Paul is not against
protecting marriage, he is for it. He says the Defense of Marriage Act “is
proper. It takes care of all the problems.” What he sees no need for is
another constitutional amendment. Why? Because it is a state issue! Do you
really want the federal government in Washington messing with your marriage in
Albuquerque? Would that be conservative and Christian?
Folger Charge Two: Dr. Paul is an “evolutionist.” There is no text that goes
along with this, nothing to misinterpret. Again, read the entire transcript as
I did. It is available on the net. You will find no word, not a hint, that Dr.
Paul is an “evolutionist.” It is a complete fabrication. Janet Folger is lying
again. That’s twice.
By the way, some Christians do believe in a species of evolution, in which God
created the universe in six days that were much longer than 24 hours, which
could help explain why Ted Kennedy appears to be descended from a monkey. It
wouldn’t make a speck of difference if a President were to believe that,
because the President has no power to do anything about it. The power is what
counts.
Folger Charge Three: Dr. Paul “wouldn't protect the Terri Schiavos of the
world from a starvation death because our Founding Fathers never thought to
enumerate it in the Constitution.” If Janet is sincere, then we must
unavoidably wonder whether she is as dumb as her henchman, Ross Conley.
Does she happen to know that Dr. Paul is not running for dog catcher, even for
governor, he is running for President of the United States? If elected, he
will run the federal government and the federal government had no jurisdiction
in the Terri Schiavo case. Do you really want the federal government messing
with all the minutiae involved in that case? Would that be conservative and
Christian?
The fact that Dr. Paul would not involve himself as President does not at all
mean he doesn’t want Terri protected. He would not involve himself because to
do so would install a dangerous precedent. It is precisely because of a
century of such dangerous precedents that we are in so much trouble now. The
federal government purports to run everything today because of them.
Other people are supposed to do the job. That is why we have state and local
governments. It’s not Washington’s business. The problem could and should have
been solved by First Brother Jeb Bush. Why didn’t Jeb lead the Florida State
Police to prevent the crime? But Janet Folger has no respect for local
government. Would she rather it were abolished? Should Washington run
everything? And notice the cavalier contempt Janet expresses for the Founding
Fathers. Doesn’t she imply that they too, like Dr. Ron, would callously let a
helpless young woman be killed?
Folger Charge Four: Dr. Paul “wants to legalize drugs and prostitution but
wouldn't enforce obscenity violations.” Again from the transcript (p. 32) Dr.
Paul says that “marriage and prostitution and drugs, they never addressed it.
There is no federal government authority, no constitutional authority to deal
with those problems. There is no prohibition for the states to do it, so that
is perfectly all right. But what we as conservatives must remember, if you are
willing to use the strong arm of government to regulate things that are
negative that you don’t like and find abhorrent, you set the stage for
regulating your religion, your schools and everything else. Because that’s the
principle. The First Amendment wasn’t written to protect non-controversial
speech. It was written to protect controversial speech so that we don’t lose
our right to go to church and run our schools. This is key.”
So Dr. Paul does not advocate prostitution and drugs and obscenity. He opposes
them. He doesn’t employ prostitutes and doesn’t use drugs. He doesn’t spout
obscenities. I think I once overheard him say, “Gosh.” He doesn’t want to
legalize those things. He says those things are not federal issues. He’s
running for President, not mayor. Again, does Janet Folger know that? Almost
everything she has said is a lie. She’s a serial liar.
Now, what does Dr. No say about drugs? Remember, by the way, he is a
physician. “On the issue of drugs, we have spent nearly 500 billion in the war
on drugs since the 1970s. Total failure. Some day we have to admit it. Today,
we have the federal government going into states who have legal medical
marijuana arresting people, undermining state laws, arresting people who used
marijuana when they are dying with cancer and AIDS and it is done as a
compassionate conservative. It doesn’t work. What it does is remove the
ability of the states to do these things and also introduces the idea it is
the federal government that will rule whether you get to take vitamins and
alternative medical care and whatever. Most of our history, believe it or not,
had no drug laws. Prohibition has been an absolute failure for alcohol. Drug
addiction is a medical problem. It is not a problem of the law.”
Please let me know one thing Dr. Paul says here that is false. But notice that
Lying Eyes Janet does not honestly try to overcome these facts and arguments
with her own. She just tells you he wants to “legalize drugs,” as if he wants
to legalize them because every weekend he and Carol are snorting coke. With
breathtaking audacity, Janet tells you to read the transcript, knowing that
most of you won’t.
I am certainly grateful to Janet Folger for one important thing. For years,
many patriots and I have tried to work with the “religious right” on specific
issues they were claiming to promote. Time and again, they have rebuffed us.
Almost without exception, they will not even return telephone calls. And I
wind up scratching my head and wondering what is wrong.
Now, thanks to Janet, I know. Look at my recent piece entitled “Imperial
Religion.” These people have perverted Christianity. Because of that
perversion, they say they want liberty – maybe some even believe it – but they
don’t. They are totalitarian. They want to force themselves on you. Either do
it their way, totally their way, or hit the road. The more they “save souls,”
the more souls they alienate.
They reject Ron because, in the traditional American way, people of many
different kinds are behind him. They reject Ron precisely because he does not
flaunt his Christianity. He sweetly does not try to impose it. He does not
boast. He leads by example. Compare his way to theirs. He doesn’t try to
improve upon God. They do.
That is why they wind up lying. They talk about liberty, but they want the
federal government to run everything including the church because they want to
wield the religious power, “saving souls” or else. They don’t really believe
in American Bible Society Tom Jefferson’s “separation of church and state.”
Again, it’s about power. Together, each one corrupts the other.
Now, as I finish this piece, as if vindicating everything I have said here and
in “Imperial Religion,” John Hagee, who runs the huge Cornerstone Church in
San Antonio, hits the headlines with a new book, In Defense of Israel, in
which he says that Jesus is not the Messiah. I would not have believed it,
even on paper, had I not seen him say so in a video. Google him and see for
yourself. Hey, John, if Jesus is not the Messiah, why did He bother showing
up? Hagee has turned preaching into a multi-million dollar racket.
Say Yes to No!
2007 - Alan Stang
Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New
York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been
a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly
with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many
listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of
feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for
which he has won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House
of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés stopped
a criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court
house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to
success before Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms
in federal labor legislation.
His first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an
instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian
Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West
Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its
reviews.
Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has
guested on many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and his wife
had the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived
at the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in “Havana,” directed
by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever
made (at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt
with the pasted-down hair. He says they made him do it.
Website: AlanStang.com
E-Mail: stangf...@gmail.com
Wayne H. Wilhelm
As to Mitt Romney, I was curious about his stance on homosexuality. A brief
google for "Mitt Romney" & homosexuality led to this paragraph:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ which led to an
article on the top ten RINO's (Republican In Name Only) with Mitt Romney
being claimed to be position #8. Mitt Romney governor of Massachusetts (John
Kerry's home state?) Knowing Massachusetts led the nation on promoting gay
marriage, that was a negative until I found out Romney was elected as
governor in 2002 and didn't run for re-election. John Kerry and his
promotion of gay marriage didn't occur until 2004.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
8. Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.)
Has said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this
country." Supports civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting
Houston, he criticized the city's aesthetics, saying, "This is what happens
when you don't have zoning."
Although many republicans oppose abortion, they are virtually unanimous in
stating when abortions do occur, they should be safe and legal. Although a
vast majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, a large number of Americans
do support civil unions. As to stringent gun laws, how do you define
'stringent'?
If stringent means that you support gun laws which state that if you use a
gun to commit a crime, that it's a felony and ten years in prison is
mandated, then I strongly suspect most Americans would concur. If stringent
means requiring every gun owner must put their name in a national registry
and that they must be 25 years old, I would disagree. On that basis,
claiming Romney supports "stringent gun laws" is prone to merely be an
inflammatory statement without proper supporting data. Without more data,
the statement should be discarded.
As to zoning, I thought it was Democrats who were furious over zoning
changes by Republican majorities? Fact is, Democrats are furious over
zoning changes made by Republican majorities. How then is that to be
construed as a negative reflection on Mitt Romney (unless you're a liberal?)
On his stance on abortions being safe and legal in this country, as a
conservative, I applaud Mitt Romney.
On his stance on civil marriages, I applaud Mitt Romney.
On his stance on zoning, I applaud Mitt Romney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
Romney is a former bishop and stake president in his church, and he attends
a temple regularly. As a devout Mormon, he doesn't drink or smoke. He's also
a proponent of family values, saying that he abstained from sex until
marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years
Now that's what I call presidential material. Mitt Romney for President:
vote YES.
--Wayne H. Wilhelm
Personal Web: http://www.hiddenpolitics.com
"-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:473fe7ec....@news.isomedia.com...
> perversion, they say they want liberty - maybe some even believe it - but