I've Been Censored by the ACLJ

An odd thing happened this week.

I stopped receiving e-mail updates from the conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

I've had quite a bit to say about them, after all, and none of it nice.

Coincidence?

I have at least five other ways and means of accessing their blast e-mails, though, so my commentary about the perfidy of the ACLJ will not cease. (I wanted to say "perfidity"... it rolls off the tongue so nicely... but that's not actually a word! LOL.)

Does the ACLJ actually pay people to troll the blogosphere looking for negative mentions of themselves? That's interesting.

I also think it's very interesting and terrific that I have caught their notice! My comments must be hitting some sensitive spots.

I will wear the ACLJ's attempt to censor me as a badge of honor.

Update 10/13/06: I have since received another email update from the ACLJ... it appears they just don't have much news to share lately. Just wanted to set the record straight.

Greenville News Obscures BJU Connection

Does anyone wonder why Bob Jones University chose to get involved in the dedication of Greenville County's new Herdklotz Park? It's because the late Mr. Herdklotz was one of their own--a fact Ms. Davis failed to mention in this article.

This is not the first time the Greenville News has obscured the BJU connections in their articles.

In another fairly blatant example, recall last year's terrible ice storm. Reporter Ben Szobody (himself a BJU grad, if I have been correctly informed) secured a quote for one of the many article about the storm from a Mrs. Ruth Mulfinger, wherein Mrs. Mulfinger said "we're being so selfish" for being noisy about getting our lights and heat back on ASAP. What Szobody didn't say was that Mrs. Mulfinger, a retired BJU faculty member, lives on the BJU campus and had electricity the whole time because the campus has its own cogeneration plant. Mrs. Mulfinger wasn't rebuking herself in the remark, just the rest of us "reprobates" who dared to question authority. (That is how authoritarians stay "in business," after all--by quashing dissent.)

Conservatives love to repeat the myth of the "liberal media" while continually printing content in papers like The Greenville News that suggests otherwise.

I Found a Pill in All That Jam

The title of this entry is a reference to this blog entry from a few days ago, when I was wondering why The Rabid Right was suddenly so righteously pushing for vote verification.

I think I've got it figured out: BAIT AND SWITCH. What's the difference between "vote" verification and "votER verification"? Not much, I believe, if you are a Republican fomenting strategy for the next election.

Of course everyone wants every *vote* counted, and a paper trail for every vote--that's VOTE verification.

What I am less certain about is who the Rabid Right thinks is voting illegally, so as to also be wanting votER verification.

I hope the two issues will not become confused in peoples' minds, but I fear they will.

Personally, I am of the opinion that these days, Republicans will have a *harder* time winning elections that are absolutely free, fair and verifiable. For that reason, I am *theoretically* in favor of votER verification WITH a couple caveats: the IDs must be free of charge (or the government pays to get them for those under a certain income level), and *every effort* must be made to ensure that the elderly, and those who otherwise might be disenfranchised, have an opportunity to *easily* secure the required ID.

The problem is, I don't think that is going to happen; the GOP has some history of issuing mandates that they aren't willing to fund. Maybe they'd go back later and fund it, maybe not--but the question itself is troubling.

I have a personal example to share.

My maternal grandmother will be 100 years old next month. She DOES NOT HAVE a photo ID.

In fact, she doesn't even have a birth certificate.

The only record we've (the family) has *ever* had of Grandmother's birth is a notation in an old family Bible (and her word on it, of course. ;>). But it has, until now, always been good enough to get her a driver's license, a social security card, a voter registration card, etc.

She also uses a walker (or a cane, depending on circumstances) to get around.

Should my grandmother be denied the opportunity to vote, if she so chooses, just because she can't produce a *photo* ID???

Local Developer Tells Lie That Will Help Line His Own Pockets

This week, a blatant example of a local Greenville resident using conservative propaganda to further his own self-interest came to my attention.

Greenville developer Keith Schemm was given some editorial space in The Greenville News this week, which he used to post a sly editorial concerning a local development controversy concerning the fate of a parcel of land attached to the Graceland East cemetery at the corner of Woodruff Rd. and Hwy. 14 in Greenville County. Schemm's development plan has drawn some well organized opposition from a group which has been formed to give citizens a voice in area development plans, calling themselves the Greenville Residents Coalition.

Read the editorial here, then use your back button to return here.

I wanted to confirm whether or not Schemm's statement about the ACLU was correct, so I emailed the GRC to ask for a statement about Schemm's editorial. I received the following prompt reply from the GRC:

{Truthsmack) -

The ACLU has no involvement in the Greenville Residents Coalition.

One of our members also has an affiliation with the ACLU but his membership and involvement with our organization is strictly on a personal basis. I cannot guess at Mr.. Shemm's [sic] motivation for implying otherwise.

Many of our members have personal affiliations with other social, religeous or fraternal groups without those groups having any involvement with the Greenville Residents Coalition.

Jerry Wallens

Let me state for the record: I have no intrinsic quarrel with the idea of "development." What I *do* think is that there should be some community-based standards for *how* we develop. Having a wonderful, livable, community is not going to happen by itself. It will only happen if "we the people" lend our voices to the process. It is not only our right--it is our RESPONSIBILITY.

HOW DARE someone like Schemm suggest that we who live here and pay taxes here should have no say in what happens here.

The problem with this editorial is that Keith Schemm has put out a propagandistic call to conservatives to help him get his own way. In referencing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), he is trying to provoke conservatives by using what's called "loaded language" (a hallmark of cults), deceitfully suggesting that "liberals" are to blame for the fact that he can't do as he pleases.

The ACLU has long been a target for conservatives to demonize. But does being a member of the ACLU mean you forfeit your rights as a private citizen to have a say about what happens in your own community? Of course not!! What happens if the GRC member in question belongs to the (so-called) Traditional Values Coalition instead of the ACLU? Should I then assume that the Christian Right, or all conservatives, are behind "it" (whatever the issue at hand may be)?

The fact that fundamentalist Southside Fellowship (used to be Southside Baptist Church, formerly located on Augusta Rd.) is right across the street from the parcel in question might influence my thinking on this particular controversy--but since I haven't investigated this angle at all, it would be silly for me to make any assumptions about it. My point is, why assume, why write nasty editorials about it, when you can uncover the facts for yourself? Schemm, it appears, preferred to get nasty because the truth didn't serve his self-interest.

Mike Cubelo (whom I have never met or communicated with, as of today's date) is simply a private citizen working with other private citizens--no harm, no foul. If Cubelo or anyone else has done a good job organizing the opposition to disrespectful, greedy developers, he should be commended for that, not castigated.

Schemm apparently has a bad case of "sour grapes." He also seems to consider conservatives to be zombies who can be manipulated by cult fear words and tactics (and if they actually are, they shouldn't be in positions of power where their insanity might infect others). If I was still a Christian and a conservative, I would, frankly, be insulted by Schemm's approach.

If you visit the GRC's website, they specify that the organizations involved with them, beyond individual private citizens, are "grass roots smart growth" organizations (i.e., NOT the ACLU). If anyone would like to know the names of the groups that *are* involved in the GRC's efforts, I suggest you get off your lazy, ignorant asses, contact the GRC directly, and ASK.

Cubelo, the GRC member that is also associated with the ACLU and was singled out in Schemm's editorial, was given space to write a rebuttal. You can read Cubelo's rebuttal here.

Cubelo is apparently more polite than I am.

A Different Angle on Tax Vouchers for Education

This is a slight departure from my raison d'etre, but it is worth a look:

Doug Wrenn of the Magic City Morning Star offers an intelligent conservative critique of the "School Choice" tax voucher scheme.

I've actually used this exact same argument myself--i.e., that vouchers are an "entitlement"--in correspondence with one of our supposedly conservative local government officials who shot off his big mouth with an opinion piece written for GSA Business about the issue.

And be sure to check out The Beat this week--it will feature an investigative piece by James Shannon about Republican candidate for SC state Superintendent of Education, Karen Floyd.

Snippy Christians Peeved at Loudmouth Dyke

This interesting item came through today courtesy of the American Family Association (AFA) concerning actress Rosie O'Donnell:

ABC's Rosie O'Donnell told a nationwide audience this week that "radical Christians" are the same as radical Muslims who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York's Twin Towers, who chop off the heads of individuals and who bomb innocent children in suicide attacks. O'Donnell made her comments as host of ABC's "The View."

Well. The fact is, radical extremist groups of all types *do* share some common characteristics:

* They are authoritarian, with leadership at the top of a pyramid-like
organizational structure.
* They follow a charismatic leader (or leaders, within the pyramid).
* They deceive people as they are recruiting them or trying to raise funds from them.
* They isolate their followers psychologically (and sometimes physically).
* They use coercive techniques to maintain control over others, such as:
--milieu control (e.g., communication and physical environment)
--mystical manipulation (e.g., "God is in control," "God allowed
it to happen").
--Demand for purity--the long skirts, pantyhose and loose clothing I was required to wear as a Bob Jones student are just a milder version of the burqa. Many Muslim women wear the hejab (head scarf/covering); so do the Amish and the Mennonites. When I was a student at Bob Jones, we women were required to wear hats to attend the Sunday service.
--Confession (true of Christianity--see James 5:16, among others; I don't know enough about radical Islam to say whether this is a component of their teachings).
--Sacred science--the group believes that *their* ideology--and ONLY their idology--is "the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence"
--Loading the language: Here is one page of a glossary of "loaded language" specific to the last church I belonged to. It was compiled by other former members of the same group.
--Doctrine over person--rules are rules, no exceptions.
--Dispensing of existence--"if you leave the [our] church, you're leaving God." "They're just sinners going to hell anyway."

(Source: REFOCUS website, http://www.refocus.org )

But I guess the AFA was afraid too many people would agree with Rosie. They wouldn't leave Rosie's words to stand on their own, for the hearer or reader to decide for him/herself about. They felt compelled to twist Rosie's words, by stating later in the e-alert:

O'Donnell was saying there is no difference between the radical Muslims who kill in the name of Allah and Bible-believing Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus.

Uhhhh... that's NOT what Rosie said. Note the false premise the AFA tries to pass off as truth in their twisted version of reality:

Muslims KILL... Christians FOLLOW.

It is true that Muslims have "killed"--but so have Christians. It is true that Christians "follow"--but so do Muslims.

Some Christians, as well as some Muslims, clearly believe it is a sacred duty to "kill the infidel."

I don't have a particular bias either toward or against Rosie. I don't care if she's gay--what consenting adults do with each other in their bedrooms is not my business. I work for a living, so I haven't usually been home to tune in to any of the programs she's been on. But the fact is, Rosie is correct.

In addition to the linked information above regarding Christian violence perpetrated upon pro-choice workers, I also think of the Spanish Inquisition (though Protestants blame Catholics for this). So-called "witches" burned at the stake--not to mention, under the most flimsy of pretenses. The Crusades. Chapter upon chapter of the Old Testament (I've read it, you see... many, many times over the years). In one of the most disturbing of these Old Testament stories, a man allows his concubine to be raped unto death, then cuts up her body sends the 12 dismembered pieces of it around to the 12 tribes of Israel (Book of Judges, chapters 19-20).

How about televangelist Jerry Falwell blaming a broad swath of non-Christians for the 9/11 attacks. Or televangelist Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela. Conservative "talking head" Ann Coulter calling for the death of pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with her (most lately, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island). Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" group protesting military funerals, approving the deaths of American soldiers. I could go on and on.

PLEASE, fundies--STOP trying to convince the rest of us that your shit don't stink.

I know better.

RightMarch.com Pushes for Vote Verification

Hey, wait a minute! I thought that was one of "our" issues! Count every vote!! A position now being encouraged by Christian Rightists:

(Item received today from Christian Response [CR]):

This "Christian Response" e-Alert is a special message from RightMarch.com:

ALERT: You know how you hate it when liberals claim the election was stolen? The fact is, if we had paper trails, we wouldn't have to deal with that incessant whining any more.

Hah. If we had paper trails, John Kerry might be president today... and it would be conservatives doing the "incessant whining." And I wouldn't feel a whit sorry for them, either.

Isn't the integrity of the vote one of the foundations of democracy? I can only gather that some on the Rabid Right have seen something within their ranks that has deeply troubled them, and only NOW do they jump on the bandwagon for clean elections. Well. Better late than never.

But I can't help but be suspicious. They go on to say that Bob Barr is involved in the effort... though Big Bob and I are miles apart on some of our ideas, I appreciate that he seems to value democracy above theocracy. So kudos, Bob.

Other snippets from the email...

Unfortunately, this [America's] well-funded fascination with electronic voting machines has proceeded with virtually NO comprehensive study or development of national standards to ensure the integrity of the machines and how they're utilized. Each state sets its own standards -- or doesn't -- and follows its own rules in letting contracts for the machines.

Wow, they must really mean it... they even "talk dirty" to business conservatives in an attempt to get them on board!

As anyone in the business world knows, anything of value should be auditable. Votes are valuable, and each voter should have the knowledge -- and the confidence -- that his or her vote was recorded and counted as intended. Now we can work to make that happen.

The two bills referenced in the email are the previous incarnation (H.R. 2229) and H.R. 550 (the current favored version). CR notes that there is solid bipartisan response for the bill.

Wow. Now, where is the pill in all this jam?

ACLJ: Requests Mo' Money for "Cross" Fight

In a email newsflash dated 9/12/06, the ACLJ opined that ..."The ACLU winning this case [concerning the memorial cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego] could mean that no war memorials across our country would be safe from their grip - not even Arlington Cemetery in Washington, D.C."

Hmmmmmmm. Interesting that they should allude to dead soldiers.

ACLJ--meet Roberta Stewart.

Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart (deceased) and his wife, Roberta Stewart, are of the Wiccan faith. Patrick, a decorated veteran who served in Korea and Operation Desert Storm, died in Afghanistan in 2005 when his helicopter was shot down by unfriendlies.

The problem: the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs refuses to put a pentacle, one of the symbols of their faith, on Sgt. Stewart's tombstone in Nevada.

Now, that sounds like religious discrimination to me. (The Lady Liberty League is supporting and providing a great deal of news about Roberta Stewart's plight.)

And where is the ACLJ? Pimping dire threats around the fundamentalist Christian community to try to scare them into sending Jay Sekulow some more money.

Lord have mercy.

I do understand where some Christians might be coming from re. the Mount Soledad Cross. To many of them, I think a cross is just the most solemn and reverent symbol they can think of, so that is why it is used to mark occasions and ideas that are solemn and reverent. But America just *isn't* a Christian nation. Sorry. I learned that it is incorrect to conflate the "Founding Fathers" with the "Puritan Fathers." Charles II rescinded the Massachusetts Bay Colony's original charter in 1684. The Puritans' "City on a Hill" experiment failed. Sorry (again). This is a very interesting subject of study for those who are interested. I recommend The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert. It's worth every penny, IMO.

But what the "Founding Fathers" set up still works today--that is, when the Christian fundamentalists (and self-interested parties like the ACLJ) aren't trying to steal away everyone else's rights.

Meanwhile, Roberta Stewart can't get justice on behalf of her dead husband, who served his country honorably, here in these United States of America. Shameful.

[Technorati Profile]

Technorati Profile

Some Say ACLJ's Sekulow Lives "like Louis XIV."

Here is some interesting background information on the ACLJ's Jay Sekulow, courtesy of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

To David Brock - Thanks for the Inspiration

A "comment" that I submitted to Media Matters today.

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

"Hey, y'all!" from Greenville, SC!

I'm a former conservative (a "Bob Jones conservative," no less) who, like David Brock, saw the light about the Right. Thought you would like to know that due to David's inspiring example (I've also read his autobiography, a fascinating read!) I've recently begun blogging to shine a light on conservative propaganda myself.

I became aware of the content of some of the email news flashes being sent out from conservative organizations, items that keep some of my coworkers riled up about various conservative talking points. So I signed up for some of these newsletters myself and my new blog focuses on commenting about the items.

I'm specifically addressing propaganda items coming out of organizations such as Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, the American Family Association (AFA), Alain's List, and others. Keep up the good work! I hope you'll come to South Carolina soon, similarly as you've done in Colorado. I continue to live in Greenville, SC, where I am discovering we actually have a vibrant liberal community!

Best regards,
[Truthsmack]
http://truthsmack.blogspot.com

ACLJ Lies by Omission re. the "God Hates Fags" Group

The ACLJ sent out an email (9/6/06), bragging about how they recently put the smackdown on some "antiwar" protestors who had plans to disrupt the funeral of a Navy SEAL in Oregon.

The ACLJ provided many details in their missive about this incident... except the actual identity of the "antiwar group" they were opposing. Well, that group turned out to be the notorious Christian Fundamentalist Fred Phelps group, the "God Hates Fags" folks from Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas.

Here's a brief article that identifies Fred Phelps' people as being the ones who planned to disrupt the funeral of Navy SEAL Marc Lee.

(One of my cousins is a Navy SEAL, btw. We joke within the family that he became a SEAL because he "likes to blow things up.")

I find it very strange that the ACLJ would not identify the group actually protesting the funerals.

My take: I believe the ACLJ's operatives assumed their readers would believe the protesters were of the liberal persuasion, and that the ACLJ is also aware that there might be some mixed emotions in the conservative community about directing criticism toward the Westboro Baptist group.

Sekulow's ACLJ appears to have "lied by omission," hoping to foment anger toward liberals, when liberals have nothing to do with this at all--indeed, I don't know of even one liberal who doesn't *despise* the Westboro Baptist group. Let's just make that clear for anyone who's been living under a rock these past 5-6 years.

"Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."--Matthew 12:25

Clearly, intellectually dishonesty is what passes for "truth" these days on the Right.

The ACLJ organization seems to harbor a special hatred toward the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). But I also feel fairly confident that Sekulow and his conservative gang-bangers had no problem whatsoever with the ACLU when it went to bat for obnoxious conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh.

Sekulow's ACLJ has got Christian fundamentalists and conservatives all over America getting their panties in a wad about "antiwar protesters," when the protesters referenced by the ACLJ are actually conservatives themselves!! How long will it take these folks (at least a few of whom, I think, must surely be committed to the actual principles taught by Jesus Christ) to realize they are just being used, as a group, for the most craven and worldly political gain.

ACTION:
I called the ACLJ's petition line to ask why the email request to sign the petition calling for action against "antiwar protesters" failed to specifically identify the "God Hates Fags" group as the target of their ire. A very nice lady answered, and said she had no idea why the group wasn't identified. She gave me a phone number to call about it, which I will do next week.

Has the AFA brought down the Ford Motor Company?

I received a news item today from the American Family Association (AFA) suggesting that their boycott of Ford vehicles is the reason Ford is floundering in the marketplace.

My goodness, I've known that F-O-R-D means "Fix Or Repair Daily" for *at least* 20 years.

That's all the AFA can manage, a 10-11% drop in Ford sales? They are clearly not as powerful a consumer bloc as they would have the rest of us think. ;-}

My take on this is that gay folks (and indeed, Americans in general) are savvy consumers. Americans want to buy a great product at a great price, and frankly, Ford is not good at producing great, innovative products, IMO.

You say "Taurus," I say "Bore-us."

They are a venerable company at a crucial point in their history. I think Ford is now in much the same position as Chrysler was back in the 1980's: the stodginess and unreliability of the product itself are what's causing the company's problems. (But LOL, undoubtedly the Christian Right's sense of self-importance is bruised by the fact that Ford refuses to kiss *their* ass, GO FORD!!!)

But seriously--Ford simply needs to be producing better, more innovative designs--and hire the same ad agency that's been doing the Cadillac commercials over the past 4-5 years. The Detroit News posted an informative article (9/1/06) about Ford's current woes. (No mention of the AFA, LOL.)

I was a little disappointed today to hear that Bill Ford is stepping down. Under him, the company had at least made some small moves toward sustainability and "green" practices and I hope the new management will carry on with that. This article at Bloomberg Financial News talks briefly about the resignation.

Land for Katrina Cross - Public or Private?

The conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), headed by Jay Sekulow, reported last week (8-30-06) on its activities to counter the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)'s objection to placing a cross on a certain piece of land in St. Bernard's parish, Louisiana, as a Hurricane Katrina memorial.

The ACLJ frames its argument in a way that impugns the ACLU for attempting to prohibit this activity from taking place on private property, calling the ACLU's actions "censorship" and suggesting a violation of the First Amendment. However, I was able to find a copy of the ACLU's open letter to St. Bernard Parish clearly expresses a concern ONLY that the land in question is actually public property.

This is a matter that could be easily solved by securing a survey of the parcel of land in question.

The ACLU's letter is polite and conciliatory, expressing the ACLU's desire to sit down with the parish officials to determine the status of the land in question.

On the other hand, Sekulow's ACLJ has sent the Parish a legal analysis, giving them guidance on how to defend themselves against the ACLU. Isn't this a little premature? I don't think it has yet been satisfactorily determined as of this date whether the land is public or private.

If the property is indeed private, I agree that the ACLU should back off (and I actually don't believe they'd have pursued the issue if the land had been private--and their letter supports my perception). However, if the land is public, Sekulow's ACLJ should back off.

Also problematic is that the ACLJ's news bulletin about this item contains statement I believe to be a lie: "Once again, the ACLU is attempting to sanitize America by embracing a perspective designed to intimidate local government officials into removing all [emphasis mine] religious symbols...."

Well, that's funny. Not funny "amusing"--funny "weird." To the best of my knowledge, the ACLU's goal is not to eliminate *all* religious symbols--only to have government remain neutral on the matter of religion. And again, the ACLU's open letter to St. Bernard Parish supports their righteousness concerning the matter.

As much as I dislike fundamentalist Christians, I do think they should be able to have their symbols on private property. And from what I can tell, the ACLU does, too. So basically, the ACLJ is getting their panties in a wad for nothing. Just trying to rile people up for their own benefit.

(I found this item on the St. Bernard's parish website, where they have gone ahead and put up the cross. I'm still looking for a news item or other verification stating the status of the land. In this picture, dated 8/29, the cross is covered with a blue tarp.)

A Libertarian Democrat Manifesto

An interesting piece I discovered today by Terry Michael.

A Libertarian Democrat Manifesto.

CBS 9/11 Documentary

Today's Offender: The American Family Association

The AFA is threatening to sicc the FCC on CBS for airing a 9/11 documentary during prime time (September 10th, 8:00-10:00pm) which contains profanity. The documentary has already been aired twice with no objections.

ACTION:

I used the AFA's boilerplate form letter (with a few key changes) to send the FCC a missive in support of CBS's airing of the 9/11 documetary in its entirety. I'm sure they will be quite surprised to receive an item from the AFA in support of airing the documentary.

Subject: In Support of Airing the 9/11 Documentary Intact

Dear FCC,

I ask that you support CBS's airing of the documentary "9/11" on September 10. I urge both you and CBS to stand strong and show the program with "reality intact."

The attitude of the American Family Association (AFA) seems to be that the airways belong to them, not to the people. They feel they should be able to impose their own subjective standard of decency onto the public whenever they desire. Congress has spoken on this issue under politically correct duress from groups like the AFA, afraid of losing their jobs during the next election cycle.

The Associated Press reports that the FCC has received "nearly 198,000" complaints about the documentary. The population of the United States is 281,421,906 (source: uscensus.gov). I do not think the FCC or CBS should be making programming decisions based on the opinions of fewer than 0.007% of the U.S. population.

The FCC and CBS should as a matter of principle override the AFA and air the documentary "as is," without concern about the threat of repercussions from the Christian Right. The AFA is merely a power-hungry, self-interested group that continually manipulates their elected representatives in the name of political correctness.

Sincerely,
Truthsmack
http://truthsmack.blogspot.com

ACTION:
I called WSPA (our local CBS affiliate) on Friday 9/8 to inquire about the program. The lady I spoke to in programming said that, as far as she knew, they planned to show the documentary in its entirety, sans bleeps. I thanked the station for taking a "brave and courageous" stand and showing the documentary as is.

My First Clue... Really!

I am a relatively new convert to thinking for oneself. My first clue that something wasn't right on the Right was the way John McCain was treated by Republicans in the 2000 primaries. I was already aware that McCain and his wife had adopted a little girl, Bridget, from Bangladesh... but then I heard it rumored that this child was his own biological child, mothered by a black prostitute. I wondered why people were saying that, when it was so easy to verify the truth.

Then it occurred to me to wonder, "what else are they (my fellow conservative fundamentalist Republicans) lying about?"

I was to find out, far more than I ever wanted to know.

How painful, now, to know that McCain has skulked to Liberty University with his tail between his legs, and to know that he is considering a visit to Bob Jones University at a later date. He is like a bull who has been given a nose ring that is now getting painfully jerked at every opportunity. Ouch.

While McCain may yet get to be President, it can't feel good to him to know that he had to sell his soul to the so-called "Christian Right" to do it. If he has a shred of integrity (and though he has disappointed me, I really believe he does), I hope this haunts him for the rest of his life. Perhaps I am naive, but I think McCain could have won in 2000 if he'd run as an independent. At the very least, he'd probably have pulled enough votes away from Bush to make Al Gore president.

I wouldn't have done it--kowtowed to the Rabid Right, I mean--and people like me would have more respect for McCain if he'd continued to tell them exactly where to get off.

There would be surely be baggage associated with an Al Gore presidency. But I doubt we'd be throwing our honorable servicemen-and -women's lives down the toilet like mere piss and s**t, as the Bush cabal is doing in Iraq.

I wrote a letter to Mr. McCain a couple years ago, asking him what good is it to gain the whole world if you have to sell your soul to get there? Yeah, I know, that's in the Bible somewhere. Just too lazy to look it up.

Why I Am Here

I'm fed up with all the nutty, weird, and bizarre information being pimped to a distracted, consumerist public by The Republican Party.

So I've subscribed to some of the most right-wing newsletters I can find, such as:

• American Family Foundation
• Alain's Newsletter
• ACLJ - American Center for Law and Justice

... and more to come. With the caveat that there are, after all, only so many hours in a day.

I will be commenting at least once or twice a week on the items I find in these newsletters--items which I believe reveal the American Right to be anti-democratic, anti-liberty, and anti-American.

Someone needs to be pointing this stuff out. The mainstream media isn't doing it, so I guess the job falls to us amateurs. Maybe that's how it should have been, all along.

My political and religious views don't fall easily into one neat category. I was reared in a conservative Catholic home and attended parochial schools through approx. 1/2 of 9th grade. When my father died, the remainder of our family moved to Greenville, SC (though not before an an ill-fated trip to Miami, Florida) and I was enrolled at Bob Jones Academy. I earned my high school diploma at BJA and attended Bob Jones University for a year. I attended another local Christian college for my sophomore year.

I was brought up to be a nice girl, to smile a lot, to obey God and the earthly authorities, to never complain about anything, and definitely never to question anything. (I'm lucky never to have encountered a child molester--I would have been a dream victim for any of these disgusting predators.)

Boy, have things changed. Boy, have *I* changed.

You know, in spite of this, I think the American Right is *occasionally* correct (in my estimation) about some things. Some of their thoughts on some issues deserve to be explored further. Occasionally. When I find that's true, I'll point that out and explain why I feel that way.

I'm fascinated by Pat Buchanan, as well as by the televangelists... in rather the same way that you're interested in a jellyfish that washes up on the beach. You just want to poke it with a sharp stick and see how it reacts.

I've mostly found conservative newsletters to be libertarian and democratic (small "l" and "d", please note) train wrecks. Thousands of Americans are reading these nutty newsletters and taking what's said therein as "gospel truth." We should ALL be concerned about THAT. These are the folks who currently hold power in the USA, after all.

I will explain my thoughts about these items, elucidating the underlying principles from the point of view of a "regular American." And I am definitely a regular American... not enough money, too many bills. Always worried about my job going away. I'm interested in frugality and simple living... by necessity, not by choice. I enjoy sipping lattes when my budget and my IBS allow, but I don't drive a Volvo. I guess I can't be a real GSL until I get a Volvo.

And I hate grits, unless they have cheese in them.

Speaking of grits... my mom is a Southerner born and bred, but I'm not. I was born overseas because my dad was in the Navy (enlisted man who became an officer... retired with 30 years of service). I am a U.S. citizen. I've been in the South for an awfully long time now... almost 30 years. I've had plenty of time to observe the idiosyncrasies of the area and its people. The South is a sociologist's wet dream.

At the end of the day, is it all really just about how much power you can amass for yourself, or your own ideological group? Or are there some universal truths, some shared values, around which we can all gather and make a last stand for America, the Beautiful?