Post by sometimeman on Nov 18, 2007 1:54:42 GMT -4
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.
Rudy loves queers. He marches proudly in f*g**t 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.
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?
Advertisement
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 - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
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: stangfeedback@gmail.com
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.
Rudy loves queers. He marches proudly in f*g**t 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.
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?
Advertisement
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 - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
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: stangfeedback@gmail.com
