Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

More info comes out on Palin and dominionism, Armageddon, and book bans

dogemperor's picture

[Do read the comments. --lambert]

Over the past few days, I've been one of those Damned Annoying Palin Diarists--though not on BabyGate or some of the other stuff, but more on the fact she was originally put in as a dominionist "stealth candidate", that she has extensive and ongoing connections with "Joel's Army" neopente dominionists including providing tax dollars to them. Most disturbingly, more than a few of us have raised serious questions on how Palin's connections with these groups may have literally thermonuclear consequences and how much her dominionist connections would affect her public policy.

We may very well have reason to worry. Two new recent updates have given call for alarm--one being a disturbing call for war with Russia, and the second being new revelations re the attempted Wasilla book-ban that indicate it may have been a preemptive attempt.

And in both cases, her "Joel's Army" sympathies may be closely linked.

Palin conveniently answers the "Does being a 'Joel's Army' member mean I want to nuke Moscow?" question

A few days back, I wrote an article on the implications of "Joel's Army" endtime theology regarding Russia in relation to Sarah Palin--an article that has apparently made it all the way to none other than fark.com and which I wrote, in part, based on my own observations as a walkaway from a "Joel's Army" church and my own post-walking-away research.

Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world, Palin may have just answered that question.

The definitive DailyKos diary on this subject was written a few days ago by Rock Strango, but it's also worth looking at the original quote as well. After a fair amount of backpedaling on her commentary re Gulf War II being essentially a holy crusade (an idea that is actively promoted in "Joel's Army" circles, incidentially--including the very Assemblies of God church she claims to no longer be a member of but did guest preaching at as recently as June 2008, as we'll see below), she let slip that she'd be quite willing to go to war with the Russians--and furthermore promoted the concept of first strikes against any country that is seen as a potential threat:

* Gibson then brought up Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, an act roundly condemned by the Bush administration and by McCain himself. He asked Gibson if the US would be compelled to answer militarily under the NATO treaty if Russia again invaded Georgia. Palin answered, "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

* Expanding on her answer, Palin said, "[W]e've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable."
. . .
ABC's Charlie Gibson asked Sarah Palin if she believed that the Iraq war was part of God's plan.

GIBSON: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

PALIN: "In what respect, Charlie?"

GIBSON: "The Bush ... Well, what do you interpret it to be?"

PALIN: "His world view."

GIBSON: "No. The Bush doctrine. Annunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war."

PALIN: "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership -- and that's the beauty of American elections of course, and democracy -- is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."

GIBSON: "The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is we have the right of anticipatory self defense. We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

PALIN: "Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country."

This is quite a bit disturbing, seeing as:

a) As we went over in our last post, an end-time nuclear war has been a big part of end-time theology in Assemblies churches (and particularly those at the heart of the "Joel's Army" movement) pretty much since the time that nuclear weapons have been around.

b) Russia and the US still have enough nukes, between the two of them, to pretty much send the planet back to the Permian/Triassic boundary as far as the planetary ecosystem goes. (For those unaware, the P/T boundary is an event known by paleontologists as the Great Dying--the end-of-Permian extinction is the largest ever recorded, so thorough that only thirty percent of land vertebrates and only four percent of all sea-dwelling life survived; it is estimated that at least 90% of all species on the planet at the time went extinct. For fully twenty to thirty million years into the Triassic, life was dominated by a handful of "disaster taxa" in the closest thing this planet has known to a truly apocalyptic event.)

c) At least some stumpers for Palin have tried to claim her supposed "leadership of the Alaskan National Guard" (debunked by its actual general, by the way) qualifies her re foreign policy because "Alaska is right next door to the Russians".

. . .

If this were a case of severe foot-in-mouth disease (akin to Ronald Reagan's infamous accidentially-broadcast mike-test quip about "signing legislation outlawing Russia: we begin the bombing in five minutes"), it'd be bad enough.

Unfortunately, tied into apocalyptic imagery we know that her churches have supported, it becomes (as tvtropes.com playfully puts it) "Unleaded Nightmare Fuel".

Palin's official handlers have claimed she hasn't attended a neopente dominionist church since 2002. Despite this, however--and in an indication she may well have started attending Wasilla Bible Church (a still very dominionist, if not overtly neopente, church--but still (outwardly) "God Warrior Lite" compared to her previous congregations) as an attempt to cloak her true denominational allegiances--Palin has attended both Juneau Christian Center and has done official speeches for both Wasilla A/G's "teen ministerial Jesus Camp" (Master's Commission) and for the Alaska District of the Assemblies of God as recently as June 2008--fully six years after she claims she up and quit.

In fact, there are strong indications that Palin's relationship with the Assemblies--and misuse of Alaskan state funds to pay for trips to "revivals"--went on close to the date that McCain picked her as his choice for VP. Bruce Wilson, a noted co-researcher on neopente dominionism, has noted:

Along with her entire family, Sarah Palin was re-baptized at twelve at the Wasilla Assembly of God in Wasilla, Alaska and she attended the church from the time she was ten until 2002: over two and 1/2 decades. Sarah Palin's extensive pattern of association with the Wasilla Assembly of God has continued nearly up to the day she was picked by Senator John McCain as a vice-presidential running mate.

Palin's dedication to the Wasilla church is indicated by a Saturday, September 7, 2008, McClatchy news service story detailing possibly improper use of state travel funds by Palin for a trip she made to Wasilla, Alaska to attend, on June 8, 2008, both a Wasilla Assembly of God "Masters Commission" graduation ceremony and also a multi-church Wasilla area event known as "One Lord Sunday."

At the latter event, Palin and Alaska LT Governor Scott Parnell were publicly blessed, onstage before an estimated crowd of 6,000, through the "laying on of hands" by Wasilla Assembly of God's Head Pastor Ed Kalnins whose sermons espouse such theological concepts as the possession of geographic territories by demonic spirits and the inter-generational transmission of family "curses". Palin has also been blessed, or "anointed", by an African cleric, prominent in the Third Wave movement, who has repeatedly visited the Wasilla Assembly of God and claims to have effected positive, dramatic social change in a Kenyan town by driving out a "spirit of witchcraft."

Needless to say, it is extremely unusual, if you are truly switching denominations, to attend two churches like this--much less do the majority of your public speaking to congregations at the church you supposedly left. And it is still more unusual *yet* to have the pastor of your supposed "former" church doing a very specific type of blessing which is only conducted in neopentecostal churches--which includes, of note, imprecatory prayers against enemies and much nattering in tongues. (This, of note, is why I take Palin's claims of no longer being Assemblies with a grain of salt the size of a Taurus. Whether the Taurus in question is a bull, a Ford, a giant robot, or the actual constellation is up to the reader.)

This is especially true if you left the group because you claimed they were becoming "too extreme" (as some spin-doctoring for Palin has alleged)--most people I know who are walkaways from the Assemblies (and from "Joel's Army" groups in particular, and yes, this specifically includes people I know who are attending non-dominionist evangelical churches) tend to avoid their former congregations like the plague. (And yes, this is one of those areas where *being* a walkaway is uniquely enlightening.)

Palin's ongoing relationship with Wasilla A/G becomes especially worrisome in this light--her little speech to their missionary training camp in June 2008 is worrying enough, but it appears the pastor has also done quite a bit of promotion of Perpetual Spiritual Warfare With Actual Military Armament, based on several videos and reports:

The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

At one point, Pastor Kalinin actually makes a call remarkably similar to the calls made by the Taliban for people to sacrifice themselves for God, and further confuses Jesus Christ for John Rambo rather than the ultimate pacifist:

What you see in a terrorist -- that's called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. ... We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. We need to develop that instinct. We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith. ... Jesus called us to die. You're worried about getting hurt? He's called us to die. Listen, you know we can't even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life. ... I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say "war mode." Now you say, wait a minute Ed, he's like the good shepherd, he's loving all the time and he's kind all the time. Oh yes he is -- but I also believe that he had a part of his thoughts that knew that he was in a war.

(Of course, if you want the unleaded version of the madness, the sermons have remarkably not been scrubbed yet. I recommend archival before they catch on.)

More indications of theology influencing policy--this time with censorship

In one of my earlier reports, I had noted Palin's links to book censorship--namely, the attempts to remove several books from the Wasilla Public Library system (despite fake lists floating around based on the American Library Association's lists of most frequently challenged and banned books, we still do not know specifically what books were targeted) and an attempt to sack the librarian who refused to play along.

We now have a documented effort at both spin control and evidence that there seems to have been definitely something amiss with how the situation went with the attempted book ban.

One of the claims going around in GOP circles is a claim that no list exists of books Palin attempted to ban, but this doesn't mesh with both the report from the librarian and reports on librarian sites. There's also been evidence that one challenge was found--but only one: an attempt to remove the book "Heather Has Two Mommies" (frequently challenged by dominionist groups due to positive portrayal of lesbian parents).

This leads to two separate, but equally disturbing possibilities: that records have not been kept properly in the Wasilla library system (or may have been scrubbed) re book challenges, or that Palin herself may have been attempting more direct censorship or at least probing for vulnerabilities.

To recognise why this is a possibility, it's important to know how most public library systems handle things like book challenges. Typically, a formal complaint must be filed with the library and investigations conducted as to whether the book should be kept, moved to a different section of the library (reference or adult sections) or removed entirely. The library system the Wasilla Public Library is a part of does in fact follow these procedures.

There are indications from the very article mentioning the ongoing attempts at spin control by the GOP that Palin herself was considering banning books at first--preemptively, without benefit of library patrons filing complaints:

According to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman newspaper, Emmons did not mince words when Palin asked her "how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library" on Oct. 28, 1996, in a week when the mayor had asked department heads for letters of resignation.

"She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied 'Yup'," Emmons told a reporter. "And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too."

A look at the article in question--which dates from 1996--gives more details, including indications that Palin specifically instructed the librarian to go outside of normal policy regarding book challenges:

“This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy,” Emmons stressed Saturday. “She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library.”
. . .
“I'm hoping it was just a trial balloon,” Emmons said, “because the free exchange of information is my main job, and I'll fight anyone who tries to interfere with that.”

Interestingly, this matter came up with a call for revision of Wasilla Public Library's book challenge policy at the time:

The timing of the issue comes at a time when Emmons is trying to get the book-challenge policies of the Wasilla Library and of the Palmer City Library in line with the Mat-Su Borough policy, revised in December of last year.

Emmons described the new borough policy as “a very good one.”

It is a step-by-step blueprint of procedures for anyone wanting to challenge the selection and availability of library material, Emmons explained. “it is a good process, and almost all public libraries have one.”

The borough's policy was revised mainly to replace the borough manager as the final decision maker with a formal Reconsideration Committee Mat-Su Borough Manager Don Moore said Saturday that changes were made, with the blessings, after a dispute that was resolved about two years ago involving a challenged book at the Big Lake Library.

Emmons said the current Wasilla policy, which she described as written in more general terms than the borough's, also worked procedurally in a book-challenge case last year. Emmons said then-council-woman Palin was distressed about the issue when it came up, indicating she was aware of the city's book-challenge policy.

And there is some disturbing evidence to suggest that, again, "Joel's Army" theology may have directly influenced Palin's probing and ultimately her attempt to sack the librarian in question.

It appears that the Assemblies shows up yet again--this time, as one of the major proponents of book-banning in the area. In fact, it appears local Assemblies churches were trying to get not only books challenged but banned from bookstores around the time Palin became mayor--and Palin herself was working to get the book in question banned:

Gay book raises flap
ABCNews.com reported that the church Palin then attended, the Assembly of God, had tried to get a book called Pastor, I Am Gay out of local bookstores, according to author Howard Bess, a pastor of the Church of the Covenant in the nearby town of Palmer. "And she was one of them," Bess said. The book argues for churches to be tolerant of gays and lesbians.

Was that one of the books? While two copies donated by Bess to the Wasilla Library disappeared, leading him to donate more copies, Bess told PolitiFact that he “would be surprised if my book was not one of those at issue,” but he couldn’t be sure.

Former Frontiersman reporter Paul Stuart told PolitiFact that Emmons cited three titles Palin wanted removed. However, he could remember only two—and he got the names wrong, first suggesting I Told My Parents I’m Gay, later agreeing it was Pastor, I Am Gay.

Baker told ABCNews.com she “couldn’t dispute or substantiate” Stuart’s information, but Stuart said he was confident about the conversation. Friends and colleagues have said that Baker felt she was treated harshly by Palin.

This apparently was an organised attempt at book censorship by the Assemblies locally:

Palin's church at the time, the Assembly of God, had been pushing for the removal a book called "Pastor I Am Gay" from local bookstores, according to the book's author Pastor Howard Bess, of the Church of the Covenant in nearby Palmer, Alaska.

"And she was one of them," said Bess, "this whole thing of controlling information, censorship, that's part of the scene," said Bess.

Palin even asked at one point if the librarian at the center of the controversy would be willing to brave a picket by angry dominionists to preserve books:

According to coverage in the local newspaper, the Frontiersman, Palin asked the librarian at a meeting "if she would object to censorship even if people were circling the library in protest about a book."

And very interestingly, the very article noting GOP spin control has noted Wasilla A/G's central role:

The Rev. Howard Bess, a liberal Christian preacher in the nearby town of Palmer, said the church Palin and her family attended until 2002, the Wasilla Assembly of God, was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores.
. . .
"Sarah brought pressure on the library about things she didn't like," Bess said. "To believe that my book was not targeted in this is a joke."

Of note, the disappearance of the copies of "Pastor, I Am Gay" from the library (at the same time that "Heather Has Two Mommies" was also apparently challenged) points to a method of book censorship that is becoming more popular in dominionist circles--so-called "censorship by theft", where books are checked out and never returned (despite library fines) as a method of keeping them out of circulation.

And, as we'll see, book censorship--and worse things done to books--are a regular feature of "Joel's Army" and Assemblies "spiritual warfare".

. . .

As it turns out, the Assemblies has a long and ignominious history of not only book-ban attempts but literal book burnings (and you thought this just happened in "Farenheit 451" or at times of history that risk invocation of Godwin's Law!).

As I've noted previously in this series, the Assemblies--and especially the "Joel's Army" folks--are big, big believers in "deliverance ministry"--the concept that pretty much anything can be possessed by demons, can cause one to be possessed or "oppressed" yourself, and can only be cured by exorcism and removal of the offending item. (Why, yes, you have heard of this concept before--it's pretty much identical to a lot of the same harmful concepts as exist in Scientology. And yes, it does tend to mess people up just as badly mentally. Seriously--replace "enturbulation" with "demonic oppression", "Suppressive Persons" with the "Serpent Seed", "Sea Orgs" with "Joel's Army" (or "Children of Destiny" or "Elijah's Army" or whatever they're calling it this month), "introspection rundowns" with "deliverance services", "body thetans" with "demons", and "Xenu" with "Satan" and it's pretty much the same bucket of toxic stew.)

And in their own version of "mocking up their reactive mind", erm, "conducting spiritual warfare"...books and other media are very, very frequently targeted. The works of J.R.R. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling are a favourite target of censorship, due to their magical references (and despite the fact that both authors were Christians); C. S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle (who in part incorporated Christian apologetics explicitly in their works, especially Lewis) are also frequent targets for similar reasons. (Yes, it may surprise you to realise that the Narnia Chronicles have been challenged and even burned in pyres by Assemblies-linked groups; it happens, though.)

A brief list (and this actually is a brief list) of Assemblies and "Assemblies daughter" book-burnings (as in the literal kind, not the metaphorical kind) are as follows:

First Assembly of God (Minot, ND) book-burning, September 2006
Harvest Assembly of God (Butler, PA) bookburning, March 2001 (also noted here)
Jesus Party (Lewiston, ME) planned book-burning, later turned to "book cutting" after burning permit denied by fire dept., Nov. 2001
Second protest from Jesus Party including destruction of Harry Potter books, Nov. 2002 (Jesus Party is a neopente group that is known to target kids for recruitment via "bait and switch" ice-cream socials)
Christ Community Church (Alamogordo, NM) book-burning, Dec. 2001 (Christ Community Church is a neopentecostal church of uncertain denominational affiliation, though it is likely either a "stealth Assemblies" or "Assemblies daughter" congregation; of note, at least one other source reports that Pokemon and an image of the Holy Buddha were also burned (Pokemon are often claimed to be Satanic by neopente churches) as well as "personal problems" written on paper (in typical neopente magicking similar to "naming and claiming" objects and people); was subject of large and organised counterprotest)
Full Gospel Assembly (Grande Cache, AB), 1990s (noted in Wikipedia article on book-burning; church is member of Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, which is the name under which the Assemblies of God operates in the Great White North)
Jesus Non-Denominational Church (Greeneville, MI), August 2003 (JNDC is a neopente church that is in the "Assemblies family" of dominionist churches and is heavily into "name it and claim it" and is KJV-only; another media report notes Catholic rosaries and non-KJV Bibles were also burned)
Dominionist neopente churches in general, spreading to the larger dominionist movement (article re book challenges and book-burnings targeting Harry Potter in particular, notes involvement of Focus on the Family in challenges)
Multiple neopente churches (Forbes.com article on phenomenon of "book burning" parties in Assemblies and "Assemblies daughter" congregations)
Multiple neopente churches (from a "Christian blog" entry on the morality of book-burning--includes, notably, discussion from dominionists who justify the burning of books and records)
Dominionist groups in general (PFAW article on book censorship efforts by dominionist groups, noting how deliverance ministry is often used as an explicit justification)

I should note that the practice of book-burning (and record-burning) is nothing new at all among the Assemblies or its daughters. Other incidents not related to Harry Potter:

Unknown Assemblies of God church, presumably 1950s-1960s (noted in review of Cal Thomas book on how Assemblies churches would burn Elvis albums; this is especially hilarious as apparently Elvis Presley was known to have grown up in the Assemblies)
Attempted destruction of pre-Columbian Mayan relics (documented in "Accounting for Fundamentalisms", chapter 5; El Shaddai church is neopente church in El Verbo Ministries, an "Assemblies daughter" heavily connected with genocidal regimes in Guatemala including (during the regime of Gen. Rios Montt) the genocide of at least 200,000 Mayans and displacement of upwards of a million more including as refugees worldwide)
Disruption of White Deer Ceremony (ongoing), Yurok Nation (documented at Museum of the American Indian, Washington, DC; traditional religious practices have been targeted by neopentecostal church conducting "spiritual warfare" against this yearly renewal ceremony)
Unknown dominionist church, Monticello MN, 1982 (book and record burning photo from exhibition "Bonfire of the Liberties")
Numerous neopente churches (experiencefestival.com noting history of book-burnings, notes history of Assemblies record-burnings including those of Elvis (ironically, later an Assemblies member himself during his "gospel album" period), Ozzy Osbourne, and Iron Maiden)
Attempted destruction of tribal relics, Nigeria, 2007 (almost entirety of non-Catholic, non-Anglican Christianity in Nigeria is of neopentecostal bent and consists of Assemblies and "Assemblies daughters")

Of note, in the case where Harvest Assembly of God went on its book-burning spree, "deliverance ministry" was specifically invoked:

"It’s just something a little different. We’re not trying to create a riot or anything. Cleanse your house from ungodly items and idols. It’s time to deal with ungodly and demonic books, tapes, videos, statues and any other thing that gives demons the opportunity to traffic into your life."

Some of the calls for the destruction of books go right to the point of calling for the neopentecostal equivalents of fatwas against fictional characters. One of the more infamous examples of this occuring in an Assemblies-linked group was in the movie "Jesus Camp"; a scene occurs where a pastor is calling for Harry Potter to be put to death (of note, whilst not well documented in most media, the "Jesus Camp" of motion picture infamy was run out of an Assemblies of God church).

For similar reasons to why Harry Potter et al are targeted, books giving non-condemnatory views of LGBT people are also targeted explicitly. The official viewpoint of the Assemblies (and yes, this is in fact an official position paper, one of two separate ones) is that LGBT people are going to hell, should be "degayed", and are a part of a vast conspiracy to convert everyone to being gay (no, I'm not making this up: the second link actually all but comes out and says this).

And this is actually understated, compared to what often goes on in Assemblies megachurches. Assemblies megachurches are often horrifically anti-LGBT both officially and politically, to the point of dead-agenting of LGBT groups in attempts to smear them, involuntary outings and "exorcisms" of LGBT youth and shipment to abusive facilities for "degaying", denomination-wide support of vicious anti-LGBT hate groups including endorsements from denominational leaders, and even the use of literal Holocaust denial in regards to LGBT folks to excuse promotion of hate (specifically via the promotion in many Assemblies churches of an execrable work called The Pink Swastika as true history; the book claims that not only were LGBT people not killed in the Holocaust but were its primary architects and are ringleaders in a worldwide Satanic conspiracy).

Small wonder in this, then, why books on LGBT issues are among the most frequently targeted for book bans.

And in cases where book bans are not successful--such as, thankfully, what seems to have been the case in Wasilla--neopente dominionists in particular are resorting to decidedly more direct methods of censorship. A recent report from the Kennebec Journal notes the increasing problem with dominionists all too willing to violate the Eighth Commandment in the name of censorship:

At the public library in Mount Vernon, someone waltzed off with the "Kama Sutra."

Copies of "What's Happening to my Body?" have vanished from Penquis Valley Middle and High School library in Milo.

Missing from the Lincoln Middle School library in Portland is a copy of "It's Perfectly Normal."

All three books deal with the subject of human sexuality, and all are sharing the spotlight with works on other controversial subjects this week during Banned Books Week.

Sponsored by the American Library Association and other groups, the annual event is designed to raise awareness of efforts to restrict access to books through censorship or other challenges. Libraries across the country will mark the week with special displays, public readings and other activities.

In Maine, there's a heightened awareness this year, at least among the state's librarians after a Lewiston woman checked out copies of "It's Perfectly Normal," a popular sex education book for young adolescents, from the Lewiston and Auburn public libraries.

JoAn Karkos refused to return the book, which she described as pornographic, and sent each library a $20 check to cover the cost of the loss. She faces a court fine in Lewiston and the loss of library privileges in Auburn.

Although Karkos wanted to limit access to the book, Lewiston library director Rick Speer said her action had precisely the opposite effect. Supporters of the library have donated new copies, more readers are checking out the book, and community reaction has been overwhelmingly in the library's favor, he said.

This is by far not the only case of "censorship via theft"; a book about two male penguins raising a baby penguin has also been the target of "censor-theft" due to people objecting to the idea of homosexual penguins, the book Sandpiper has been the target of censor-theft, Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate have also been victims of censor-theft (targeted because they are books concerning same-sex relationships aimed at younger kids), books supporting decriminalisation of marijuana have been targeted for censor-theft, a book discussing children around the world--including Cuban kids--in a positive light was targeted, and so on and so on. (Sadly, the disappearance of "Pastor, I Am Gay" from Wasilla-area libraries would also fit the pattern of "censorship by theft"--especially as there was an organised effort by Wasilla A/G to have the book removed from bookstores as well as libraries.)

It's in fact a severe enough problem that librarians are now having to address the specific issue of book theft as a form of attempted censorship and libraries nationwide are starting to compile most frequently stolen books lists--among other things, to track an increasing epidemic of "censorship via theft" in public libraries.

Disturbingly, dominionist groups are also increasingly embracing the concept of "censor-theft". Family Friendly Libraries, a dominionist pro-censorship group that has had a history of pushing for censorship of Harry Potter books and which has promoted "reparative therapy", has also promoted the tactic of deliberately misfiling library material.

So between her "Let's go to war with the Russies" comment and her documented attempt (fortunately, one which met with epic fail) to backdoor book censorship in Wasilla (at the same time what is likely her real church attempted an organised book-ban campaign against a book on LGBT folks and faith issues!), we already have answers to one of the big questions:

Yes, unfortunately, Sarah Palin is likely to let her "Joel's Army" convictions override the rule of law. :(

All the more reason never to let her near the Presidency...or a heartbeat away from it.

0
No votes yet

Comments

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"a disturbing call for war with Russia"

She was asked if we'd have to defend Georgia against Russia if the former were in NATO (and were attacked by the latter), and she said "perhaps so." How is that "disturbing"?

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

as I think a number of others pointed out, Sarah Palin actually set a higher bar for war than John McCain does. She used imminent threat and not pre-emptive war. So I don't really understand how setting a higher bar than McCain and one that has been historically accepted as the right one, makes her long for the end of times (whether she knows what the hell she's talking about is another matter, although one that isn't necessarily a bad thing if you agree with Mike Gravel (not sure I do)). Now, I have no doubt that once the neocons get through with her, she'll be all about pre-emptive war, but that isn't what she said. And I'm open to believing an end of times theory about some fundamentalists, but I don't see evidence of it in her interview.

I would also note that Joe Biden hasn't exactly been reassuring on Russia. In fact, it's disturbing how similar Biden sounds to McCain on this issue. So while I believe McCain/Palin would be dangerous in terms of foreign policy, I'm not sure what they've said about Russia is the best evidence that they would be a lot worse than Obama/Biden since what they've said doesn't differ a whole helluva lot.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

and guilt by association. If we are going to get into guilt by association, I think Obama will lose.

Submitted by lambert on

A place where you could do original research. That's where dogemperor is coming from; and I welcome it. We need to understand this dominioninist stuff badly.

And if you'd like to take issue with particular instances, I'd like to see that discussion (it's no use saying that the library thing is debunked when new points are brought up!)

Although my understanding is that this post came from the midst of Ike's aftermath, so a response might not be as quick as otherwise might be.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

As a matter of principle I do not go there, just as I make decisions not to go to freerepublic. Put primary sources here and get the debate moving.

Submitted by lambert on

... is that, in fact, some of the material on Kos is original research. That's why "as it once was" is in the headline, eh? Let's not go all presentist, mkay?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I was hoping to get stuff published here to take a look at. I won't give money to certain organizations/candidates and to me, following a Kos link is like giving money to Kos.

Submitted by lambert on

Dogemperor has a good reputation on this stuff, others asked me to see if he/she would crosspost here, so I asked, and here is the post! Let us engage, please!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by hipparchia on

here

not as comprehensive as the one at dk, but covers a fair amount of material. but yeah, i don't visit dk either, except for an occasional browsing through dogemperor's archive.

i'll just point out just this one dk post, the one where i discovered dogemperor: Dominionist pharmacies: the newest front in the war on women's health.

wait, let me point out one non-dk post, because i know these people: An informal analysis of the "A Beka" dominionist curriculum.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

It's interesting to think about such strong reactions to books. But neither in the article linked to, nor in the TV coverage which I saw, was there any mention of Dominionists. Is there another story I missed?

Isn't there a difference between making an appearance or speech at an event and even being blessed--and belonging to a church?

Would it be possible to summarize your conclusions from this piece in, say, a paragraph?

Good luck with the weather and its big impacts!

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

and I wasn't going to reply except for this:

We now have a documented effort at both spin control and evidence that there seems to have been definitely something amiss with how the situation went with the attempted book ban.

One of the claims going around in GOP circles is a claim that no list exists of books Palin attempted to ban, but this doesn’t mesh with both the report from the librarian and reports on librarian sites. There’s also been evidence that one challenge was found—but only one: an attempt to remove the book “Heather Has Two Mommies” (frequently challenged by dominionist groups due to positive portrayal of lesbian parents).

So, logic 101: repudiating GOP claims that no list exists by assuming there is a list is assuming what you're trying to prove, a logical fallacy.

Your evidence that "one challenge was found" links to this quote, which states:

Only one complaint was raised during Palin's six years as mayor, in 1997, but the book "Heather Has Two Mommies" by Leslea Newman, remained on the shelf, the report states.

Emphasis mine

Do you see how the preposition 'during' means that it is NOT evidence that Palin banned books? Otherwise, the sentence would read "Palin banned the book ..."

Book banning debunked on factcheck.org and in the comments here, more than a week ago.

Also, the argument that the absence of evidence of a coverup on the book banning thing is evidence of book banning is quite unconvincing. Absence of evidence doesn't prove there was no book banning, but it certainly doesn't prove there was banning, either.

Also, no idea about the credibility of this Palin-smear-debunking site, but this guy's book banning correction reminded me an awful lot of your 'proof'.

# yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldn’t; yes, it was “rhetorical”, at least as was reported contemporaneously in 1996[1] ; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasn’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasn’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute
# No the list of books she wanted to ban that’s being passed around isn’t real; among other things, it includes a number of books published after her time in office there.
# No, that hasn’t actually deterred people from claiming it really is true even if the list isn’t correct. For example:
“This list might not in fact reflect the books Sarah Palin wanted banned. As more than one person in Comments has pointed out, some of them were not published when Palin was in office. It is my hope that the mainstream media will not let this story drop and that at some point an actual list will surface. The very thought of having someone who once advocated book-banning possibly occupying one of the highest offices of our land fills me with profound dread. It should fill you with dread too.”
# No, I don’t understand why a fake list is supposed to fill me with dread, either.

Emphasis mine, again.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

very reluctant to tolerate the idea of a Palin presidency. There's another such link at The Observer.

Hope to hell it's not an AP paper.

Comments by the governor of Alaska in her first television interview, in which she said Nato may have to go to war with Russia and took a tough line on Iran's nuclear programme, were the result of two weeks of briefings by neoconservatives.

It gets scarier from there....

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

which makes it worthy of a post of its own rather than an easily missed comment :o).

The first link goes back to Ariana Huffington. Sorry, no dice there. The second carries much more weight. However, this quote from Steven Clemons seems to summarize the substance of the entire article:

Steven Clemons, of the New American Foundation think tank in Washington, a chronicler of the ebb and flow of neocon power in the White House, bemoaned the appointment, saying Mr Biegun "will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney's view of national-security issues."

Is Palin not currently a neocon? That seems to be Clemons' premise. Why else would they have to turn her into one?

The whole article does the same thing: Look at all these neocons who are hoping Palin becomes a neocon. That doesn't mean she isn't a neocon, she could be. But just as I think the evangelical-Palin line is overblown, I also see a faction with increasingly less relevance in the GOP (the neocons) trying desperately to hold onto their relevance. The fact that there are some appointed advisers (as opposed to bloviators like Kristol claiming their importance) is troubling. But the article is very unpersuasive.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

about foreign affairs to be a neo-con or a non-neocon. Her responses to Gibson, in fact, indicate that she's not likely even to become one, which would be consonant with her record in both Wasilla and Juneau of focusing exclusively on stuff that really makes a difference in people's lives, as she sees it.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The Russia "gotcha" is extraordinarily lame (she was just correctly describing the implication of a hypothetical entry of Georgia into NATO), and on both that and Iran she is in good company (if Obama, Biden, and McCain qualify as good company).

What was the uniquely scary stuff?

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

that while I don't find this post all that persuasive in its application to Palin (I find a lot of it to be overreaching, which doesn't mean it's wrong, just that the evidence isn't in the post or perhaps hasn't developed yet*), I am interested in learning more about dominionists and other fundamentalist Christian sects. One thing I think too many of us misunderstood about Bush was how he used religion and code words that mean one thing to most people and another to particular religious sects. So I hope you keep posting on this topic, even if I take issues with some of this post.

* What I mean by hasn't developed yet is that I have found that sometimes people of similar backgrounds or cultures get "reads" on people faster than others from outside the same culture get. Given your own history with religious groups like Palin's, you might very well be reading her right, it's just that right now that's kind of what it is, reading signs that can mean many things as if they only mean one thing. It doesn't mean your way will turn out to be wrong, it's just that those of us with a different background see more ambiguity. If that makes any sense.

Submitted by hipparchia on

i agree unequivocally with about 1/3 of dogemperor's conclusions, but am still skeptical of the rest. my city is one of their 'nerve centers' for the dominionists, so i recognize a lot of the dog whistles that good and sane and normal people might miss, but i've never been a member of any such church, nor has any of my near family, so i figure there are other dog whistles i'm missing.

also, they're not exactly forthcoming with their agenda, so those of us on the outside are only going to be able to make tenuous connections between data points a lot of times. any one post isn't going to have enough solid evidence, but browsing through the archive that dogemperor has amassed is useful.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

and I don't want some of my skeptical comments to be taken by dogemperor as a sign that I don't appreciate the work that goes into these posts or what he (he?) is trying to do. I'm sure that he sees things that I don't see and I'm sure he's right about a lot of it even if I find some of the evidence to be less than conclusive in any one post. There's a lot of scary things going on within the religious right and these kinds of posts are helpful, particularly as they start to add up.

And I do find Sarah Palin terrifying because she wraps so much right-wing wrongness into a package that has strong cultural appeal.

Submitted by hipparchia on

that's my reaction too. i'm almost convinced that sarah palin's a stealth dominionist, but not quite. she hasn't aggressively injected her religious beliefs into any of her governing, but she's certainly not been shy about t least getting them into the public sphere. otoh, since as mayor [and earlier in her career on the city council] she represented a town where a significant portion of the citizens have the same beliefs. in which case, the argument can just as easily be framed as her looking out for her constituents, and doing a damned fine job of it too.

fortunately, i don't have to care, and i don't have to attack her or her party over this one issue, because the republicans are so very bad for us in so many other ways.

but it's still a useful analytical tool to have, because these people run for school boards and local offices and state offices, and open their own pharmacies and clinics, and become ambulance drivers and ob/gyns, and generally quietly infiltrate the social fabric. they live here too, so i'm all for protecting their rights too, but not at the expense of losing any of mine.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

an all-purpose club to beat down the bigger, and true, story.

Palin's behavior, Palin's religiosity, Palin's willingness to misuse her position to foster her values and desires.

Cool.

Lick those cami-jackboots if you want.

Not me. Mkay? Just so we're clear, here.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

She's a Republican. The thing that I find so amusing is all the liberal bloggers who try to use her to say something bad about McCain as if McCain would be just fine if only he hadn't picked Palin for his VP. When the truth is that McCain is just as awful, maybe not as religious himself, but perfectly comfortable with authoritarianism and scarier on foreign policy (they may be turning Palin into a neocon, McCain's already there essentially).

The problem with both of them is that they are Republicans and both represent mainstream views within the GOP. Palin isn't extreme within the GOP, that's why she appeals to the "base." McCain's voting record also places him firmly within the norm for the GOP no matter how many times some lame ass reporter uses the word maverick. They are not radicals, they represent today's Republican party, which the Democrats and media treat as mainstream. That it's got to the point where McCain and Palin can be seen as being enough within the political mainstream to be the nominees of one of the major parties is why we're in the mess we're in. And why all that post-partisan bullshit is just that - bullshit.

Submitted by lambert on

If the argument is that Palin is a Manchurian Dominionist, then I'd like something simple enough to follow without making notes as I go along.

We're already down in the weeds on the library thing, with a lot of contradictory "facts" that boil down to how power structures in a small town work. (I'm remembering another "fact," which is that Palin gets a lot of her support from people who think the Alaska Republicans aren't nearly conservative enough!)

So, if Manchurian Dominionist is a narrative, and not a truthy one -- which seems more than plausible to me just because of the vibe she gives off and her CNP backing -- then let's get up to the 30,000 foot level and construct it.

I'm also with the commenter who was of the view that Palin seemed like she was going to go into the Village and dynamite it. I respond to that attitude, since the Village is the "real enemy" we keep hearing about... But that doesn't mean that what Palin would put in place of the Village would be better, and it might be worse. Like the horrible old sexist joke goes "Sure, rape is terrible, but what do you replace it with?" Things can always get worse...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Or more accurately, yeowoman work. :-)

People who were not raised in - and escaped from - a truly fundamentalist religious environment have a difficult time understanding either the depth and enduring nature of the indoctrination or the degree of stealth with which these cultists have enshrouded themselves.

Not meaning any negative, I truly think your work is genuine and wonderful, but it might help those unfamiliar with Dominionist end-of-times language and philosophy and subterfuge to have access to some sort of basic vocabulary list and conceptual synopsis. If you know of some good basic introductory materials, preferably on-line, that you could point us towards it would be very helpful for both the audience here at Corrente and elsewhere.

As a personal aside, my warm congratulations for the courage you have shown on your journey and my promise to you that, while the wounds never fully heal, they do eventually stop hurting quite so much. Even at a dull roar that residual pain is wonderfully better than the anguish of still being entrapped, and every day out of the nightmare is a day to rejoice in our freedom, in our sure and certain knowledge that we are good and decent people. There are more of us than you might know, and our fellowship is proof that fanaticism can be more than just survived - it can be transcended.

Submitted by hipparchia on

your congressperson is next on my list of people to write to about single payer. you got any suggestions on useful [or not-useful] tactics?

---------

also, o/t-- hi, lambert! i was right! neener neener!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Please specify who you're writing to - lest I lead you astray, adding to my already-impressive litany of sins.

Expect to meet with my guy again at the end of the week, before he gets into full-on campaigning.

Submitted by hipparchia on

[difficult to lead me astray]

i was under the impression that pete stark was your representative, but darned if i remember where i read that, so i could be wrong.

anyway, he's chair[?] of something [health subcommittee?] and every time i discover a committee or subcommittee i didn't know about that might be even remotely related to one of my pet interests, i start faxing, writing, emailing, calling, whatever i can.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I agree, half of what I object to is that their tone -- end of the world, blah blah blah, is being applied to Palin except with anti-Palin spin, and weak logical connections.

The evidence has to be more direct than 'she's a member of blah congregation', because the counterarguments on simple affiliation are all too obvious. Show, don't conclude for everyone, a connection specific to Palin between her and Dominionists, or else treat Dominionists as a separate evil about which more knowledge would be welcome.

For instance, this:

Unknown dominionist church, Monticello MN, 1982 (book and record burning photo from exhibition “Bonfire of the Liberties”)

really has a whole lot of nothing to do with Palin in Wasilla, and whether she banned books there in the late 1990s.

I was baptized Catholic and took Communion as recently as ... oh... 2 years ago, during a funeral service for a family member. It doesn't make me anti-gay, anti-contraception, anti-feminist and theologically hegemonistic. I'd even guess the CC has tried to ban a book or two in its time, and yet I never have.

And stop assuming what you're trying to prove and getting ticked because people are giving you pushback.

Unless you're assuming your audience is dim-witted or can't be persuaded on actual facts, there's no reason for the end-of-times tone. Frankly, Palin is scary enough without ruining one's credibility with exaggerations. Just because the media has abandoned fact-checking doesn't make ok for us to.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

the McCarthy era? Vast secret conspiracies, guilt by association, stealth candidates, secret oaths, etc.

Not buying it without at least minimal evidence of Palin involvement.

Submitted by hipparchia on

guilt by association, always gotta be on the lookout for that trap.

otoh, the christianists, dominionists, creationists, whatever they are, have a strong presence in my community, and this worries me. they don't want just their own kids to grow up in their tradition, they want everybody else's kids to do so too. they don't want just their own women to dress funny and keep popping out babies, they want the rest of us to do that too. and don't even get me started on spare the rod, spoil the child.

they sneak creationism into biology classes here. abortion is murder, and they've killed two doctors and a clinic volunteer in defense of the defenseless unborn babies here. i've been denied birth control pills at a pharmacy here. more stuff, but it's late and my thoughts are getting fuzzy.

it's true that sarah palin has so far not noticeably forced her religion onto the rest of us, which is why i think democrats should be attacking the republicans for their other [secular] faults --war, torture, looting the economy, etc, while keeping one eye open to the very real possibility that theocracy is one of the many egregious things they still mean to bring to the white house.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Blended flavoring, like salt in sugar, coffee in chocolate; a savory treat, not to everyone's taste.

Yeah, Pete Stark. Something very odd happening there, unless it isn't odd at all. He's got his constitutional amendment thing going and he doesn't want to let that go. Seems reasonable to me that single-pay UHC should be a right embedded in the constitution, but I'm not wild about waiting for that process to play out especially in light of what happened with ERA, another perfectly reasonable amendment that failed.

My argument was that since an amendment would need statutory enabling legislation anyway, why not work on both and if one gets there in advance of the other so what? Why not sign on to the Conyer legislation?

Got mumble mumble mumble in reply, pissed me off, known him for a long time and I'm too old for mumble mumble. Went downhill from there, rapidly; a cooling off period has been had and end of the week I'll get after him again. Just looking for a straight answer, shouldn't be that hard.

Unless, maybe, it is sausage time and Stark wants something from Conyers that he isn't getting. Wheel and deal is what they do so I wouldn't be all that shocked. If so, it had better be something damn worthwhile.

Have at him, take your best shot. Can't achieve less than I have so far.

Submitted by hipparchia on

mmmmm, coffee in chocolate. i don't like either my coffee or my chocolate adulterated with anything but i make an exception for combining the two [only sometimes though].

Unless, maybe, it is sausage time and Stark wants something from Conyers that he isn’t getting. Wheel and deal is what they do so I wouldn’t be all that shocked. If so, it had better be something damn worthwhile.

this was my thought too, wheeling and dealing time is here, or something along those lines, since i can't see how adding his name to this bill should stop him from working along other lines at the same time. and i was *blink blink* taken aback when conyers seemed to so readily endorse that rather measly wording change in the healthcare plank, so goodness knows what's going on.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Cut grapefruit in half, seed, pith and section. Spinkle generously with brown sugar and top with a pat of butter. Bake at 375F for 15-20 minutes, until they bubble, then finish under the broiler until the tops are sizzling and just carmelized. Serve warm.

You can do this in the micro, 4 minutes on High for two halves, 6 minutes for four halves, but the flavor is not quite the same.

Instead of the broiler, if you have a propane torch use that to finish the tops. Bring hot from the stove or micro to the table at each place, add a teaspoon of brandy or rum in sequence and then continue around with the torch to ignite and flambe. Then apply the torch directly to each serving in turn to barely carmelize the tops; better control and definitely a more impressive presentation. Nothing says Wake Up! in the morning like flames crackling inches from your nose.

Where was I? Oh yes, Pete Stark. I like Pete, I really do, and now I have to go to him to make an apology; hate it when that happens. Seems we've been talking at cross-purposes. Turns out he is still pursuing another bill of his own devising, HR1841, while I had somehow gotten it in my head that he abandoned the idea.

Not true, it turns out, which explains why he kept insisting "my bill" would do thus and so for UHC while I kept arguing it would not - me thinking he was talking about his constitutional amendment proposal. Teh Stupid, it burns, and now I have to go make nice and be forgiven for my impertinence - cannot tell you how much I am not looking forward to that.

Go read his other healthcare bill if you're interested, again HR1841. Stark's argument, delivered via email today from his office (in hopes, one supposes, of fending off another irrational verbal assault from that crazy old man over healthcare) is that it will be easier to sell UHC to the voters if those workers who have semi-decent employee healthcare insurance don't feel threatened about losing it. HR1841 allows an "opt-out" for those who can demonstrate that they have other coverage equivalent to MediCare. Employers, however, will find it cheaper by far to drop their private insurance and force employees into the Federal program, so in very short order employer-provided health care will simply disappear. A spoonful of sugar to help the grapefruit go down.

Bit of a deception but Stark is a practical politician and he won't lose much sleep over that white lie. Conyers is a cosponsor of Stark's bill, while Stark has not signed on to HR676 probably because he is a stubborn old fart - much like me.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

The dogwhistles are just that to me, things that are out of my hearing range. Being brought up in a very unreligious household with only an occasional venture into church when my parents felt guilty hasn't given me the background to really understand a lot of this. For which I am eternally grateful to my parents, btw.

I also second BIO's praise about your strength and desire to educate others. It's desperately needed, I think.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The right term, exactly, for what these people do, and if your ears are not attuned you cannot hear them. When I listen to Sarah Palin I don't hear whistles, I hear her shouting out her creed and her affiliation at the top of her lungs.

It isn't guilt by false association, any more than being a member of the Mafia leads to that; for those of us who have the background, the vocabulary, the exposure to the mindset that allows us to see her clearly, these calls from the doubters here for more proof are like hearing people call for more evidence that the very large lioness headed our way is indeed a lion, the already-abundant evidence that she looks like a lion and acts like a lion and just now released from a full pride of lions is not considered sufficient - "We don’t hear her growling!" they say; "Maybe she just wants to play!"

Sarah Palin is a full-blooded Dominionist, an end-of-times believer in the apocalypse and determined to do whatever she can to bring it about, a cultist fully committed to the belief that Armageddon is coming, that Alaska will be the last refuge of the righteous, and that it is her destiny to pave the way for the Second Coming and Judgment Day; there is no doubt about that in my mind. She may as well have DOMINIONIST tattooed across her forehead, it is that clear.

She is no more a well-meaning run-of-the-mill churchlady than Tony Soprano is a mid-level executive in waste management.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I've said all along that she's terrifying. But it would be helpful to be able to educate myself to hear the whistles nonetheless. I will probably never be able to fully hear them since I've (thankfully) been kept out of that world, but still teach a man to fish and all that.

Submitted by cg.eye on

Making Light noticed this:

In her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin said this: "A writer observed: 'We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.' I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman."

A nice line, except that the writer's name is strangely not cited, as is usual with such quotations. There's a reason for that. According to Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank, that anonymous quote comes from the writer Westbrook Pegler. Pegler was a far right-wing writer, known largely for his anti-Semitism and hatred of politicians such as FDR (according to Frank, in Pegler's obituary, the NY Times noted that Pegler once lamented that a would-be assassin "hit the wrong man" when gunning for Franklin Roosevelt. )

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr has this to say: "Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that 'some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies."

Small town values, indeed.

Now, mind you, since Sarah Palin didn't actually write her speech (which was reputedly created by Matthew Scully), I am not saying it was Palin's idea to use this quote from this writer. But it was somebody's choice -- who thought that using this particular's writer's words was a Good Idea. And I have to wonder what the code under that choice might be.

Even when she doesn't have to go to the Dominionist, proto-Fascist well, she does.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

but he managed to say some righteous stuff.

This is what I object to: reduction of discourse to who said it, rather than what was said.

Palin's quote is appealing, or not; correct, or not; debatable, or not. But unless it was part of her speech because Pegler is part of her bedtime reading, it doesn't matter who said it. It was one line in a speech. For all we know, Scully did a Google search on 'quotes small towns' until he came up with something decent. Or Palin did.

The rest of Frank's article, past the Pegler bit, is much more damning of Palin and McCain:

Leave the fantasy land of convention rhetoric, and you will find that small-town America, this legendary place of honesty and sincerity and dignity, is not doing very well.

(snip)

A few days ago I talked politics with Donn Teske, the president of the Kansas Farmers Union and a former Republican. Barack Obama may come from a big city, he admits, but the Farmers Union gives him a 100% rating for his votes in Congress. John McCain gets a 0%. "If any farmer in the Plains States looked at McCain's voting record on ag issues," Mr. Teske says, "no one would vote for him."

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

which is here.

From that link:

ominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism that suggests political participation in civic society should extend to attempts to take over and dominate the political process.

The concept of Dominionism is based on the Bible's text in Genesis 1:26. Most Christians interpret this verse as meaning that God gave humankind dominion over the Earth. Many consider this a mandate for stewardship rather than the assertion of total control. A more assertive interpretation of this verse is seen as a command that Christians bring all societies, around the world, under the rule of the Word of God, as they understand it. As Sara Diamond explains, in this view, Christians see themselves as "mandated to gradually occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns."

Critics often use the terms Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism almost interchangeably, but this collapses many distinctions. This chart shows the relationships:

A subset chart looks like this:

Triumphalism

Dominionism

Dominion Theology

Christian Reconstructionism

You don't have to have grown up in an Assembly of God church to have heard about this.
Apostolic churches have it.
Primitive Baptist churches have it.

It's the Christian extremist equivalent of a madrassah, and it's every bit as hell-bent on taking us back to the ways of (sic) forefathers BEFORE the Founding Fathers, in the name not of fairness or justice or freedom, but religion.

Turlock