Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

[This piece was originally published in The Washington Spectator.]

These people are, in a word, afraid. And their candidates have mastered the exploitation of their fears.

American politics is not easy for believers.

“This is a forum where our candidates can share their faith and testimony and not feel ostracized. Except maybe by the press,” Mary Frances Forrester told me. “Here, we can ask questions and candidates can include their faith when they’re talking about important social issues.”

Forrester—a state director of Concerned Women for America and the widow of James Forrester, a North Carolina state senator who led a successful campaign to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage—was one of 1,500-plus Christians (and an inconsequential scattering of Jews) attending Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Coalition national conference in late June. The event was co-sponsored by Concerned Women, a national organization that promotes “Biblical values among all citizens.”

Since the Spectator’s coverage of the first Faith & Freedom Coalition conference nearly five years ago, the annual event has moved from the basement of a smaller hotel in downtown Washington to the Shoreham, one of the larger conference venues in the city.

Reed earned his chops with Jerry Falwell’s Christian Coalition of America in the 1980s, escaped indictment despite billing tribes more than $1 million in the Indian-casino lobbying shakedown that landed Jack Abramoff in a federal penitentiary in 2006, then lost a race for lieutenant governor of Georgia. He is well into his fourth act, as the founding director of an organization that claims more than 700,000 members.

This year, 13 of the Republicans chasing the party’s 2016 presidential nomination pitched their candidacies at his event. The only no-shows were Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump.

Reed has created a forum in which candidates can speak freely about the intersection of religious belief and public policy.

To Out-Herod Herod

Yet something is happening here that is larger than that. At events such as this one—and this has become an A-List conference—Republican candidates meet “the base” whose support they must have to win a primary.

The conference is four days of dialogue between candidates and their supporters. Posturing is predictable: Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s three-minute prayer after other speakers had observed only a moment of silence was followed by public testimony that he gave himself over to Christ at six years of age.

But there’s also a dynamic in which each candidate is compelled to out-Herod Herod. To be outflanked on the right is to lose ground.

Chris Christie promised a plan to deal with ISIS. Rick Santorum said that if elected he will be a wartime president.

“Last month, I was in Israel,” Santorum said. “And one of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advisors told me, ‘Senator, you need to tell the American people that the next president the country elects will have to be a wartime president.’”

Rand Paul promised to defend the “sanctity of life in the womb.”

Rick Perry said he’s the candidate with a record on abortion: “You know, a lot of candidates say—they say the right things about protecting life. But no candidate’s done more to protect unborn life. I helped pass a parental-consent law. I signed a sonogram law so mothers facing an agonizing choice could witness that beating heart within them. I signed a law outlawing abortion at 20 weeks.”

Issue by issue, policy position by policy position, the candidates drag their party to the right.

These People Are Afraid

Faith & Freedom congregants are more reserved than the angry political activists who turn out for hard-right ideological gatherings like the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Earnest men and women from their 50s through retirement age, most married couples. In 20 interviews that I did over three days, I spoke to one unattached male.

There’s a small 30-and-younger cohort, many with expenses covered by scholarships. The youngest are homeschooled. (I talked to a father of seven with two thoughtful and devout adolescents in tow.) Or they attend private Christian academies.

This event is also overwhelmingly white. During a morning session of speeches by presidential candidates, I counted 12 African-Americans in a packed hotel ballroom.

Everyone here seems to feel flown-over and disrespected. Their religious values are under attack by their government and by business forces they cannot control. They are misrepresented by the liberal news media and mocked by the liberal entertainment industry.

The single issue that dominated every interview I did was same-sex marriage, which all described as a threat to their way of life.

Another persistent preoccupation was radical Islam. A close third was threats confronting Israel, a place central to evangelical Christian faith.

These people are, in a word, afraid. And their candidates have mastered the exploitation of their fears.

The IRS Is Coming

Consider one passage in Texas senator Ted Cruz’s riveting 20-minute speech on the first day of the conference. Cruz is a brilliant and impassioned extemporaneous speaker.

A week and a day before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its historic Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Cruz was praying that the Court would avoid “an act of naked and lawless judicial activism, tearing down the marriage laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution.”

Any ruling upholding same-sex marriage, he warned, would be the beginning of a broad assault on the Christian faith.

Cruz quoted from the oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges to warn people of faith what will follow an adverse ruling on marriage:

“Justice [Samuel] Alito asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: ‘If the Obama administration prevails and you convince this court to strike down the marriage laws of every state, would the next step be that the IRS would start going after Christian schools, Christian charities, and next after that Christian churches? Any institutions that follow a Biblical teaching of marriage? Or for that matter, Jewish schools? Mormon schools? Any institution that follows religious teaching?’

“And the answer from the Obama administration was: ‘Yes, that is a very real possibility. That the next step is the IRS coming after schools, universities and charities.’”

It was an effective rhetorical device. Cruz had already described three “religious freedom” cases he had litigated at the Supreme Court before he was elected to the Senate. With his stark warnings about same-sex marriage, he was framing the fight he would undertake as president.

But that question was not asked during the Obergefell v. Hodges oral argument.

Here, from the official transcript, is the exchange the senator “quoted”:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. Should the same apply to a university or college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.

Cruz’s warnings about same-sex marriage (which were echoed by Rand Paul, who followed him), and the broader assault on the Christian faith resonated with one woman I interviewed in the hotel lobby. With her husband, she had traveled from Collegeville, Pennsylvania.

“My husband pastors a church,” she said.

“A lot of these issues involving same-sex marriage are going to affect our church in a huge way. We worry about the repercussions. Are they going to make my husband perform same-sex marriages? When he refuses, is that going to affect our IRS tax-exempt status?”

She had listened to the candidates’ speeches and was impressed by what Cruz had said about religious freedom. While he seems an unlikely nominee, the Texas senator was the overwhelming favorite in my random sampling of those attending the conference. And the extreme positions he articulates are shaping the debate.

No candidate—except Ohio governor John Kasich, who, in a quiet conversation with an audience of 1,000, explained that his faith requires that he care for those who can’t care for themselves—deviated from a requisite litany of topics: same-sex marriage, abortion, ISIS and Islamic terror in general, Obama’s “abandonment” of Israel and engagement with Iran, and the government’s encroachment on religious freedom.

These 13 candidates, declared and undeclared, competing for the support of evangelical Christians who make up 25 percent of Republican primary voters, are resuming the culture wars that began with Pat Buchanan’s speech at the party’s 1992 national convention in Houston.

“For Moses. For God. For Jesus”

With the Supreme Court poised to hand down its Obergefell decision, one topic dominated interviews and sidebar conversations.

“Do you know that two justices have already performed same-sex marriages?” Forrester asked me, referring to Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“They have disqualified themselves and can’t vote on the issue.”

Louie Gohmert, the shrill and frequently unhinged congressman from Texas, described his legal bona fides (attorney, judge, chief justice in state courts), cited the U.S. Code, the law God conveyed to Moses as “restated by Jesus,” and expanded on the meme Forrester was working, though as a former judge he should have known better.

Any decision on same sex-marriage in which Kagan and Ginsburg participated would be, Gohmert said, “an illegal law … and not something we would have to follow.”

“America is going to have to stand up and say you were disqualified. And now you have tried to substitute your opinion for Moses. For God. For Jesus. For most states’ marriage laws.

“And we just may get you impeached.”

Gohmert has said he’s considering joining the pack of 15 Republicans (as of this writing*) pursuing the party’s presidential nomination.

It’s unlikely.

Yet as the primary begins in earnest, there’s not, as George Wallace used to say, “a dime’s worth of difference” between this member of the U.S. House who has turned himself into a cable-news curiosity and all but two or three “moderates” in the Republican class of 2016.

This article will appear in the August 2015 issue of The Washington Spectator.

Photo: Ted Cruz, via Facebook.

*There are now 16 Republicans vying for the nomination.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The National Memo
  • Dominick Vila

    Pretending that the influence of religion – or more accurately, the use of distorted Christian values – on policy making can only be whispered in private gatherings is nothing short of laughable. Religion has been an integral component of policy making and U.S. government actions since we became a nation. In fact, the attempt to separate Church from State by the Framers was an aberration, usually ignored by those who use alleged persecution to advance their agenda and impose their will on others. The Republican party is well aware of the power of religion on a large segment of our population, and use it as an effective tool to buy votes and win elections.

    • angelsinca

      You buy more votes and win more elections with welfare, and promises of free goods and services.

      • Dominick Vila

        Considering that there are more people living in poverty – and reliant on welfare – in red than in blue states, proportionally, that may be a tactic that is being used more effectively by Republicans than Democrats to get votes.

        • CPAinNewYork

          The illegals are a plague. Send them back to their hellholes or incarcerate them until they beg to be deported.

          • Paul Bass

            Along with your mother, who also was illegal.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Is “Bass” short for “Basstard”?

          • Paul Bass

            Wow, so original, I’ve never heard that before. (also spell check…)

        • angelsinca

          “Considering that there are more people living in poverty and reliant on welfare…” under Obama than any other president for 50 years. The promise of free health care won the last election. Free benefits for illegals and reparations for ancestral slavery will guarantee a win in 2016.

          The article doesn’t discuss the ‘psuedo Christians’ you want to label as uncharitable, as much as it mocks conservatives for not wanting their values redefined. I am reminded of the schooling given Obama by Pres Kenyatta to not redefine Kenya’s values.

          • Dominick Vila

            President Obama did not redefine Kenya’s values. He called for acceptance of human rights involving gay rights and the rights of women. Of President Kenyatta has a problem with that, or if he is so dependent on the support of radicals to stay in power, he has a problem, not President Obama or the United States. By the way, other than the call for respect for the rights of all citizens, President Obama got huge enthusiastic welcomes, and standing ovations, in every African country he visited.

          • angelsinca

            America has its own radicals in power to worry about. Foreign visitors that bring huge sums of money to poorer countries and claim to be a son of that nation are bound to be welcomed with smiles and applause. Kenyatta seems capable of understanding the difference between human rights and moral bearing without the coaching of an exiting politician.

          • Dominick Vila

            We have, indeed, meddled in the internal affairs of other nations for far too long, but considering the level of interference we have exerted in the past, reminding another country of the importance of human rights is probably among the most benign things we do. People in Kenya, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and so many other countries have not been welcoming President Obama as a hero because we are giving them money. I doubt the Israelis, the main recipients of U.S. foreign and military aid will be as enthusiastic, and countries such as Egypt and Pakistan, who have also been getting large amounts of money from us for decades in what is nothing short of bribes, are not as impressed either.

          • angelsinca

            I agree that the sins of the past were practiced on other nations. But they in no way should be used to justify Obama’s intervention in another culture today. Especially when he can’t even rally his own people in the US with cultural transformations that have only succeeded in dividing the nation on multiple fronts.

          • Dominick Vila
          • angelsinca

            Thank you for posting the link about Bush being “the welfare president”. It makes it clearer that Obama has not only reached an historic higher level of welfare spending, but has maintained that level for a longer period. If you are going to kick at an ex-president, at least make sure the current one isn’t hit on the back swing.

          • Dominick Vila

            You may want to analyze the data in that link a little closer, and while you are at it, you may also want to consider the circumstances. W inherited a budget surplus, Obama inherited an economy on the verge of collapse.

          • angelsinca

            You too may want to consider the circumstances that caused the Clinton surplus to flip into the red, such as 9/11 and war and the mortgage collapse. No party is immune to culpability in driving the debt, yet Democrats deny all responsibility. Especially the master blamer in the white house.

          • Dominick Vila

            9/11 did have a negative impact on our fiscal status, but so did the irresponsible tax breaks that were put in place as soon as W was inaugurated. Not paying for what we need and benefit from is not a sign of conservatism, it is evidence of irresponsibility.

          • angelsinca

            There you go again, making excuses for the current expanding debt crisis by avoiding all responsibility and blaming conservatives. This slippery brand of avoidance and deflection is why I probably won’t vote Democrat, ever.

          • pisces63

            As a 66 year old black woman, I am sick to death of the right giving piece meal information. For every cause there is an
            affect. Yes, more people applied for food stamps in 2009. President Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009. CAUSE: In 2008, between the bank failures to December, 2008, 2.6 million people lost their jobs. The biggest lost since WWII. More than 1.9 million in the last four months of 2008. November saw 584,000 losses and December, 524,000. The first time in 70
            years that this country saw two consecutive months of 500,000+ job losses. Work week hours were also cut to 33.3 hours which is the lowest in the history of the country. Part time and people whose hours were cut rose to 8 million, the highest since 1955. Now, I don’t know about you but the AFFECT
            seems to be they had to eat. They needed to feed their families. Maybe you don’t think so but since you seem a typical right winger it tells me you would care more about the fetus than the newborn at any rate. I am also tired of the reparations talk. Look up reparations and see who has gotten them. The Japanese did from the United States because of what was done to them and taken from them what was done to
            them during WWII. Jews from the world for the heinous crimes committed against them and the return of their stolen
            property. Some of you idiots call welfare ‘reparations’ which is mind boggling, since more whites get welfare than minorities and my family, personally has never used it. So, enlighten me, what are you getting reparations for????

          • angelsinca

            As a rule, I try not not inject race into a discussion. It only clouds most issues with unnecessary emotion. Mention of reparations was used to support the topic of Things That Lure Voters. Not minority voters, just voters. Your comment, “since more whites get welfare than minorities” only redirects the discussion toward Reasons You Don’t Like White People.

            But since you had to bring it up, according to one survey, the breakdown of those that receive food stamps (by race): white…15%, black…31%, hispanic…22%, other non hispanic…18%. Other surveys probably produce different results.

            Of course we are all free to believe whatever we want, but in case the truth matters, here are more welfare demographics that may clear up further misunderstandings:

          • pisces63

            Your demographics are wrong and apparently came from the biased. Welfare came about due to the social Security Act of the 30’s. Blacks were not allowed to receive the benefits. Only
            whites. So, until the late 60’s, only whites received these benefits. As for your percentages, per the government stats reads 38% black, 37% white and the rest Hispanics and others. Per government stats, it’s equal. I prefer actual head counts. Percentages can be skewed, For instance you could
            say there are 25% whites for something and 50% blacks when the actual numbers are for 100(25%=25) whites and 2(50%=1) blacks. You made it racial with the reparations crap white bigots keep trotting out. It does not fit my black family. My parents were sharecroppers kids from Louisiana. Yet, they put their
            five daughters through college, no debt and two have masters. Now we have put 5 of our 7 through college, no debt and number six graduates this fall, no debt with her sister graduating in two years. 12/12 Cleveland Public school
            grads(another white lie about our schools).
            All born in two parent families.
            In fact, through Ancestry, I have documented both sides of my family
            back to slavery were two parent homes. Now our grandchildren. I have three granddaughters in CMSD. One was published at 6 and tested to read on
            a 5th/6th grade level in kindergarten. She is now 9 and reads Poe, Robert Louis
            Stevenson, etc. The younger two are avid
            readers, also. Their brother, 13 next
            month, read Harry Potter at 3, is a gamer, upgrades Mindcraft on line and is
            trying to design his own game, already. I
            have been told by experts he is ahead of millennials in his ability. Runs in the family, my son, his uncle, is a
            computer graphics engineer. No welfare. No handouts.
            We take care of our own and teach our children the same. When my 7 year old granddaughter asked her
            parents if she could work at McDonalds when she is older, her 9 year old sister did not miss a beat. She said yes, if you are working your way through college. Other than that do something better. I used to vote bipartisan. I no longer will. With the hate, intolerance, lies told against me and the black president, I will never vote for another republican, again in my life. Coming from a point of view of strength, if I saw one in the gutter on fire, I’d throw a barbecue.

            In a country, which until the late 60’s-70’s denied blacks jobs for which they were qualified, schools, places to live due to jim crow and bigotry, it rritates me when fingers are pointed our way when it comes to welfare/poverty. We had no
            recourse. My grandparents had no elfare. They lived off the land for the most part. I could not attend a lot of
            colleges due to race when I graduated in 1967.
            Neither could two of my sisters, 1968 and 1971. I was told by a white man recently, most immigrants made it in two generations. I told him and he walked away from me, our generation starts with our children. He asked why. I told him jim crow was around for me, denial of equal rights, denial of education by law in many parts of this country. Immigrants never had that, did they? Oh, yes, my children are third generation college graduates and my mother’s first cousin was on Johnson’s legal staff. We did it in SPITE of you.

          • angelsinca

            You did it in spite of “me”? Seriously. Your race has no bearing on how I feel about you. Yet, you feel qualified to judge me as a bigot because you believe I am white? Racist minds are only dragging the nation backward away from racial equality, by blaming racism for failure or success. Surely you are better and smarter than that.

          • pisces63

            Yes, I had the temerity to write, ‘in spite of you’ which was a euphemism. Get it? Why? My dad served in the navy
            during WWII but was denied a mortgage because he was black for which he was qualified under the GI bill. The government told banks and I have his letter, still, to not sell mortgages to ‘negroes’. By that same token, when he and my mom tried for a small business loan, they were denied for the same reason. Yet, they got their home on a land grant and still own it over 50 years later and a local businessman who knew my parents loaned them their start up money. They built that business which put their daughters through college even though ‘you’ tried to prevent that in any number of schools due to race. When my sister, #4 entered college, she wanted to become an accountant. ‘YOU’ told her she wasn’t qualified and become a bookkeeper. This in the late ‘70’s, really???? After black people had had enough and raised hell by picketing, this type of racial gerrymandering stopped. She is a licensed CPA with an
            MBA. It’s like the Hebrew slaves in Egpyt when Moses came to free them. Pharaoh made it harder for them to make bricks by denying them straw which they had to get for themselves. ‘You’ denied us education. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The right to make an honest living where we were qualified. In Dr. Carson’s autobiography, he writes of this teacher who ranted because he was better than the white kids on a panel. A white doctor who denigrated him at every turn during his internship. He succeeded
            in spite of those idiots. Yes,
            everything my family has accomplished came in spite of what ‘you’ threw in front of us. We weren’t qualified. Affirmative action which really gets my goat. This country has always had affirmative action. It was affirmative we could not go to certain schools. Live in certain neighborhoods. Get certain jobs. When Supreme court justice Ginsberg attended Princeton, I believe, it was affirmative only 10% of the students admitted could be Jews. They were separated from the rest on campus,
            also. It was affirmative only so many could be Catholic and affirmative no blacks allowed. Many of the protestant based universities and colleges restricted Catholics, too. You put
            it out there with the race baiting. Reparations
            was the word which I am sick to death of hearing about. The descendants of Tulsa’s Black Wall Street need and deserve reparations.

          • angelsinca

            As you try to hang life’s difficulties on white people, with your own brand of racism, both of my parents served as well; my mother in the Navy and father in the USMC. Semper fi.

          • pisces63

            Good for them. Now, did the government tell them they could not get a mortgage as was told to my parents? What do you call that? Black people did not issue the stipulation, did they? They did not tell my parents they could not have a small business
            loan due to race, did they? Then, who was it? I know, little green men from mars. My bad. I have both my grandfather’s WW I draft cards. Most of my male first cousins served in Vietnam. ALL forces, including Marines and Air Force and they are all gorgeous in the dress uniforms, too. One cousin served 4 tours there and his brother died while serving. My brother-in-laws served, also. One, now a cop, in the navy and naval reserves until retirement and his unit was the last
            called up for Operation Desert Storm just when it ended, right after his and my sister’s wedding in 1993 and my husband’s brother still in the army as a lifer. Has seen battle in all from Operation Desert Storm to Afghanistan and Iraq. He has four purple hearts to show for it. Four of my uncles served in
            Korea. I am continuing the search on Ancestry to determine if any served during the Civil War.

          • angelsinca

            Denying mortgages or housings or jobs based on race was a horrible practice and is illegal now. To follow your completely unrelated topic, my relatives have served in the US military since the American Revolution.

          • pisces63

            Are you delusional. You wrote about your parents. THAT took me to service in my family. We may have had someone in the colonial army or gone with the British. WE fought on both sides to get out of slavery one way or another. Freedom was a completely different dynamic for us at that time.

          • dpaano

            Thank you……I couldn’t have said it better!!!

      • The lucky one

        Then that must be what the GOP is doing since they are the congressional majority.

        • angelsinca

          The prevailing theory is that the GOP won the congressional majority because the left was too complacent to vote in the midterms.

          • The lucky one

            The “prevailing theory”? That’s like the infamous “they said”, meaningless. Given the right’s penchant for voter disenfranchisement and other Rove-like dirty tricks I don’t think anyone on the left is complacent.

          • angelsinca

            The actual cases of voter disenfranchisement by the GOP are about as infrequent as the actual cases of voter fraud by Democrats. Besides, people feel smart when they have five-syllable words in their vocabulary.

          • The lucky one

            Actually the cases of Democrat voter fraud are virtually non-existent whereas the instances of voters being improperly removed from the lists of eligible voters numbered in the 1000s in Florida alone in the last presidential election. If you doubt that check out Greg Palast’s reporting on the issue.

          • angelsinca

            Speaking of nefarious deeds that go unpunished, I am reminded of the delayed votes from military abroad that would have likely voted for the GOP.

          • The lucky one

            “The officers by and large are more conservative,” says an Army sergeant just back from Afghanistan. “But the enlisted tend to be more liberal.” Of course, with fewer than one in five of those in uniform an officer, there’s a lot more enlisted voters. – Time 11/12.
            There is no evidence to support the contention that military personnel tend to vote republican. Upper echelon officers maybe but they are only 17% of personnel.

          • angelsinca

            This study seems to contradict the army sergeant. In particu;art, look at the graph titled The Party Indentification, by Veteran Status.



          • The lucky one

            (It should be noted that normal survey procedures would not include active-duty military serving overseas or on ships at sea.) – from the Gallup poll cited. Even if we think that the numbers would be similar with those serving overseas it is only a 5% difference between those who would likely vote GOP opposed to Dem. Any voter being disenfranchised is a crime but I think if you look at all the info out there you will conclude that the GOP has played the anti-voter game far more than Dems.

          • dpaano

            I was an upper echelon officer…..I voted Democrat that year and will probably continue to do so.

          • dpaano

            Likely??? That makes no sense….you don’t know how the votes would have gone.

      • bobnstuff

        There is a lot of misinformation on how many people get welfare, Romneys 47% number is the classic. The real number is and costs are small and don’t really buy votes. Fear works much better, I watched an elderly woman give $2000 to Bush in the 2004 election because she believed John Kerry was a commie and she had been told that he would distroy the nation.

        • angelsinca

          Romney’s 47% was an estimate of those that wouldn’t vote for him.

          • The lucky one

            Yes, he said they wouldn’t vote for him because they were takers, not productive citizens. He should have said 48% because the 1% are the biggest takers on the planet.

          • bobnstuff

            wrong, go check your facts please.

          • angelsinca

            “Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. … I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” G. Romney

          • bobnstuff

            Read the whole statement. Forty-seven percent depends on the government.

          • angelsinca

            Yes, read the whole statement; 47% would have never been convinced by Romney (enough to vote for him). And he was right, in a fatalistic way.

          • bobnstuff

            Romney never should have gotten the nomination. The problem then as now is no one in their right mind would run or president in the republican party. They need the Tea Party for their get out the vote and their money but you have to say some stupid things to get it which means you lose the moderates and independents it takes to get elected. Personally I would have vote for Daffy Duck before Romney, I worked for a Bain Capital company.

  • stcroixcarp

    So Kagan and Ginsberg conducted same sex marriage ceremonies and should be disqualified. I would bet the farm that Kagan and Ginsberg have also, along with the other 7 justices have performed heterosexual marriage ceremonies. Doesn’t this show bias for heterosexual marriage and shouldn’t all of the justices then recused themselves?

    • johninPCFL

      That argument would have the court revisit Citizens United since Justice Thomas spoke often about the subject (and his wife was a lobbyist for the poor “unheard” billionaires) before he heard the particulars of the case. It seems that his mind was made up, irrespective of the facts.

  • docb

    The cites in this article prove that these are faux christian spewers and not the Humanitarians that Jebus preached in the 57th translation of the ‘bible’… BS to protect their greed and bigotry..Using fear and lies….are their only tactics

    • angelsinca

      If you can’t even say “Jesus” without mocking Him, you really don’t deserve much of any respect yourself.

  • 1standlastword

    A truly genuine EvilAngelical revival! LMAO loudly!!!

  • @HawaiianTater

    We’ll all be better off as a society when the stupid ancient myth believing troglodytes have died off to a point that they don’t have the numbers to drag the rest of us back to the caves with them.

    • angelsinca

      Sure, why not? The plan to make a ‘better society’ by hastening the demise of its opposition worked for Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis.

      • @HawaiianTater

        By your logic, because one person from a group is bad, all people from that group must be bad. I guess that means all Christians are murderous psychopaths because of the horrors of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch trials and George Dubya Bush. You don’t want to go down this road because I promise you there are a helluva lot more atrocities committed throughout history by theists than by atheists. Hitler was Christian, BTW. The idea that he was an atheist is just as mythical as your magic sky daddy.

        Every group has their demons and evil must be fought no matter where it comes from.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Here is why that southern and midwestern fearmongering does NOT work in the northeast…We’ve been through not one but 3 attacks on NY City. The worst was 9/11. Then, along came SuperStorm Sandy that devastated NJ, NY and CT with over $220 billion in damages, more even than Hurricane Katrina.

    So, when the going gets tough, the tough in the northeast get going as we always do. We do not need the tent revivalists and slimeball reverends, like Ralph Reed, busy chasing skirts while passing the plate or Joel Osteen another hot shot cutie pie reverend ready to charm the pants off his “congregation.”

    We don’t need men like Cruz telling us how to regroup, reunite and remain alert to terrorist attacks. Texas is a joke. They are now claiming like a bunch of Wild West idiot Cowboys that ISIS is training in El Paso. Well? Texas was in on $50 billion in the last 10 years for border protection. Where the hell is that money?

    • jam

      Eleanore Whitaker, you are one of my favorite posters. Reading your comments above, I envision your words coming out of Kathrine Hepburn’s mouth. From now on, when I read your posts, that’s how I will picture you. I hope you will take that as a complement, as it is meant to be. Thank you for your clear and direct observations.

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        jam…Dear NM friend…Thank you. I wish I was more like Katherine Hepburn. The only similarity is our mouthiness and lack of fear of telling it like it is.

        Otherwise, my home is littered with gifts from people who obviously believe I look more like Betty Boop…everything from Betty Boop candles, pillows and PJS to Betty Boop earrings..rofl.

        • jam

          🙂 and you are very witty!

  • dpaano

    I get so tired of the GOP nominees using their so-called “faith” to try to win a presidency. I believe in God, but I don’t believe he belongs in our presidential elections!! As usual, the GOP is using fear and lies, as well as God, to try to get nominated. I think Jesus would turn over in his grave today if he were around…..and he is!