Corrente

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

New revelations re Palin and dominionists

dogemperor's picture

[Welcome, Digby readers! I'm really not sure this series of posts has stood the test of time. The basic problem is that information on Palin was so polluted by her detractors in 2008 that it's almost impossible to assess accurately, and much of this series is self-referential. --lambert]

Much like the US Postal Service, neither rain nor snow nor 70% of my hometown's power infrastructure being eaten by Ike will stop me from posting the latest on Palin's connections with dominionists.

We've posted before on her initial outing as a dominionist stealth candidate, her links to "Joel's Army" including Alaskan state funds being used for groups promoting apocalyptic theology, and her attempt at a back-door book ban in conjunction with a crusade by one of her home churches.

Today, we find out even more info on the book-ban attempt giving further proof that Palin has *not* dropped her links with Joel's Army--and if that weren't enough, there's some very telling evidence from the horse's mouth.

More info on the attempted book-ban--and its theological connections

Recently, a new article in Salon gives more disturbing info regarding Palin's attempt at an end-run against Wasilla Public Library's book-challenge policy--and more evidence that this was part of an attempt by several dominionist churches, with Wasilla A/G at the front, to purge LGBT-supportive books from both libraries and bookstores.

Since the initial links between Palin and neopente dominionist groups (including two separate Assemblies congregations linked to the "Joel's Army" movement as well as a third "independent" neopente denomination also promoting Joel's Army theology) have come out, there's been quite a lot of spin control--including claims that she left Wasilla A/G because it was "too extreme" (despite apparently having appeared regularly at Assemblies churches, including Wasilla A/G and at the district H/Q even as late as June 2008--four years after she claims to have left; not in a pattern fitting with someone leaving a church because of claims of being "too extreme").

Unfortunately, the Salon article would seem to prove the lie to this--with info indicating Wasilla A/G not only supported her but actually proclaimed her as the chosen candidate of "Joel's Army"--whilst carefully warning their parishoners to keep mum to the press:

WASILLA, Alaska -- The Wasilla Assembly of God, the evangelical church where Sarah Palin came of age, was still charged with excitement on Sunday over Palin's sudden ascendance. Pastor Ed Kalnins warned his congregation not to talk with any journalists who might have been lurking in the pews -- and directly warned this reporter not to interview any of his flock. But Kalnins and other speakers at the service reveled in Palin's rise to global stardom.

It confirmed, they said, that God was making use of Wasilla. "She will take our message to the world!" rejoiced an Assembly of God youth ministry leader, as the church band rocked the high-vaulted wooden building with its electric gospel.

The article gives some very revealing information regarding the hostile environment that Wasilla A/G tried to create:

When it was published in 1995, Bess' book caused an immediate storm in the Mat-Su Valley, an evangelical stronghold dotted with storefront churches. Conservative ministers targeted the book, and the only bookstore in the valley that dared to stock it -- Shalom Christian Books and Gifts – soon dropped it after the owner was barraged with angry phone calls. The Frontiersman, the local newspaper that ran a column by Bess for seven years, fired him and ran a vicious cartoon that suggested even drooling child molesters would be welcomed by Bess' church.

(Of note, the equation of paedophiles and LGBT people tends to be all too common in Assemblies churches--here's an example from my own hometown.)

There's also some info indicating that the attempt to go around the Wasilla Public Library's book-challenge policy was in fact inspired by the ongoing Joel's Army fatwa against "Pastor, I Am Gay" (which even extended to the point of literal pickets against bookstores daring to carry the book):

And after she became mayor of Wasilla, according to Bess, Sarah Palin tried to get rid of his book from the local library. Palin now denies that she wanted to censor library books, but Bess insists that his book was on a "hit list" targeted by Palin. "I'm as certain of that as I am that I'm sitting here. This is a small town, we all know each other. People in city government have confirmed to me what Sarah was trying to do."

And--as it turns out--her reported membership in "Feminists For Life" and statements on being virulently anti-abortion also directly influenced her policies in Wasilla--and in a different way than the infamous "make them pay for their own rape kits" way.

More evidence of theology and policy mixing

The article also notes an attempt to steeplejack community hospital boards, combined with an attempt to effectively ban abortion in the borough--one which led to the state of Alaska stepping in and ruling it unconstitutional:

Soon after the book controversy, Bess found himself again at odds with Palin and her fellow evangelicals. In 1996, evangelical churches mounted a vigorous campaign to take over the local hospital's community board and ban abortion from the valley. When they succeeded, Bess and Dr. Susan Lemagie, a Palmer OB-GYN, fought back, filing suit on behalf of a local woman who had been forced to travel to Seattle for an abortion. The case was finally decided by the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that the hospital must provide valley women with the abortion option.

At one point during the hospital battle, passions ran so hot that local antiabortion activists organized a boisterous picket line outside Dr. Lemagie's office, in an unassuming professional building across from Palmer's Little League field. According to Bess and another community activist, among the protesters trying to disrupt the physician's practice that day was Sarah Palin.

Another attempt at governmental steeplejacking firmly linked to Palin was what may well have been the very model for her attempted run as a dominionist stealth VP--namely school boards, a target for dominionist steeplejacks-by-stealth since the Christian Coalition's early organisational days in the early 80s.

Even worse, there are indications she has answered the question on whether or not she followed dominionist--and specifically neopentecostal dominionist--theology in governmental decision-making:

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"

As bad as this is, there is still far worse.

Palin's connections with Gothard--and queenmaking by the heart of the "Joel's Army" movement

Recently, links have been found between Sarah Palin and one of the more distinctly coercive "Joel's Army" groups out there--namely, Bill Gothard's "International Association of Character Cities", one of a veritable hive of frontgroups run by Gothard:

According to articles in today’s Daily Oklahoman and Washington Post, when she was mayor of Wasilla AK, Sarah Palin “spearheaded” efforts to establish the town as as “a community of character” via the International Association of Character Cities (IACC). What these stories don’t mention is that the Oklahoma City-based IACC is a secular front for Chicago millionaire evangelist Bill Gothard.
. . .
1) When she introduced the "Character Cities" program in Wasilla, did then-Mayor Palin inform other council members that it was a front for Bill Gothard?

In 2006, Arizona State Treasurer David Petersen was forced to resign after getting busted for accepting commissions for implementing Gothard’s Character Training programs in the Grand Canyon state.

2) Has Sarah Palin received any income from the IACC or other organizations affiliated with Bill Gothard? Are she and "First Dude" Todd Palin going to release their tax returns as Joe and Jill Biden have done?

As The Beacon and others seek answers to these and other questions, we respectfully urge Governor Palin, good Christian that she is, to seek guidance from the Character Council of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky’s "Character Quality of the Month" for September 2008: TRUTHFULNESS.

The links with Gothard are particularly disturbing. Gothard's nest of fronts are among those directly provable to be running training camps for "God Warriors With Guns" and also have a history of links with "Christian nationalist" secessionists and racists. This is, of course, on top of actively infiltrating police and other public safety agencies to convert those to wings of "Joel's Army", and the promotion of religiously motivated child abuse so extreme that it's been linked to murder-suicides due to those being tortured finally snapping.

And...disturbingly..."Joel's Army" certainly seems to be getting the signal on their own end, as she is explicitly being promoted even more on their ends.

One example comes from Fire In My Bones (yes, "Joel's Army" groups love fire imagery) literally comparing Sarah Palin to the Biblical prophet Deborah. The original post seems to have been pulled, but the article was reportedly published in Charisma Magazine, and what is available is disturbing indeed:

A prominent evangelical figure in the U.S. this week said Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a modern-day incarnation of the Biblical prophet, Deborah - primed to miraculously slay her nation's enemies on the battlefield.

Writing in his influential magazine, Charisma, editor J. Lee Grady likened the 44-year-old Alaskan governor to Deborah, the Old Testament prophet "who rallied God’s people to victory at a time when ancient Israel was being terrorized by foreign invaders."

Evangelicals who don't support Charisma worry that J. Lee Grady has not only embraced Sarah Palin as a prophet, but in 2005 heartily endorsed Todd Bentley, the disgraced B.C-based faith healer.

Yes, you're reading this right; Palin is now being actively promoted within Joel's Army circles as being one of the very generals of their holy war.

And the article notes just how bluntly the point is being made:

As Grady wrote in this week's column, the gender of the Old Testament prophet Deborah "didn’t stop her from amassing an army; she inspired the people in a way no man could. She and her defense minister, Barak, headed to the front lines and watched God do a miracle on the battlefield."
Grady continues: "In her song in Judges 5:7, Deborah declares: 'The peasantry ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, until I arose, a mother in Israel'... Sometimes it takes a true mother to rally the troops."

Even worse, she's being promoted as a walking, talking prophecy-in-the-flesh by those promoting holy war with America by the same author:

Talk about a role model. Palin’s life is a prophecy to America. She doesn’t have to preach against abortion. She and her family, even with their flaws, are the embodiment of the compassionate pro-life values America desperately needs to adopt.

Even worse yet, there's reports that Joel's Army and other dominionists are literally making imprecatory prayers for McCain's death...so Palin can be president.

The explicit promotion of Palin as a latter-day end-times prophet is disturbing indeed--and a dangerous sign, a strong sign that Palin getting close to the Presidency could have the whole world's fate riding on it.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Violet Socks's picture
Submitted by Violet Socks on

I'm amazed that Corrente is publishing this crap. Even the grotesque rape kit smear, which has been pushed by His Hopiness and Changiness, Lord Unity Obama.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

you make Larry Johnson look good.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

This is tough stuff to talk about, because the language and the concepts are so very strange to non-believer's ears. (I'm assuming, you weren't raised AoG or that sort, were you?) Dogemperor does a great job of finding the threads and tying them together, but the language and the pattern of deliberate obfuscation by the Dominionists themselves does make for a story that tends to sound a bit loosey-goosey.

Not quite Larry Johnson loosey-goosey though; that boy is in a league of his own.

I do believe - carefully chosen word there - that Palin is everything we're reading about here; she's just been careful the last few years, especially since she hooked up with Walter Hickel, to mostly keep her mouth shut and started a practice of sowing confusion in the public record and talking in code. Makes pinning down a pattern of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt very difficult. Stay tuned, though; Palin can't stay hidden forever.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm seeing a lot of linky goodness on the dominionists. Anybody want to engage with that? At this point, even the rape kit stuff is irretrievably contaminated by partisans on both sides, all the way down to the conflicts from the small town itself. Seems to me the dominionist angle is the only one worth pursuing via Palin, because these people aren't shy about their intentions, and the record is pretty clear.

If this stuff is true, I don't want Palin anywhere near the Presidency, whether the rape kit thing is manufactured or not. That has no bearing.

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

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That Palin had called for a war with Russia. She was, in fact, responding accurately and rationally to a question about NATO.

No response when called out on that. My truthiness allergy thus flared up and hasn't found a reason to go into remission.

scoff's picture
Submitted by scoff on

From somone who appreciates the danger of ignoring the dominionists' expressly-stated purpose of imposing biblical law in place of our Constitution, your time, effort and insight is much appreciated.

splashy9's picture
Submitted by splashy9 on

I am not a walkaway, but have seen the actions of the Dominionists in my area and the results in the people. For instance, a local book store was pushed to take the Harry Potter books out of the window for fear of reprisals. The had to put them in the back out of sight, and people had to ask for them explicitly, so as not to invite trouble from the local religious groups. A local pool hall was burnt down - I'm sure because of those same people. The counties around me are all dry counties, because of these folks.

When Dobson gave his blessing to Palin so quickly, it cinched it for me. He would NOT have been so fast to support her if she were not Dominionist. Your information just reinforces that notion.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

as a political actor had every reason in the world to jump on board the McCain train at the slighest excuse.

Submitted by lambert on

The Council on National Policy is a bit more worrisome.

[ ] 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

The last part of this article, much like the telegraph link Sarah posted in one of yesterday's posts (I don't much care to look for the link, kick me out, I don't care anymore) seems to be a lot of guilt by people trying to latch onto Palin's star. Just look at some of the sentences used in the latter part of this post:

And…disturbingly…”Joel’s Army” certainly seems to be getting the signal on their own end, as she is explicitly being promoted even more on their ends.

..

One example comes from Fire In My Bones (yes, “Joel’s Army” groups love fire imagery) literally comparing Sarah Palin to the Biblical prophet Deborah.

...

Even worse, she’s being promoted as a walking, talking prophecy-in-the-flesh by those promoting holy war with America by the same author:

...

Even worse yet, there’s reports that Joel’s Army and other dominionists are literally making imprecatory prayers for McCain’s death…so Palin can be president.

Because no one is making similar proclamations about Obama.

Oh well. PB2.0 is a nice concept in theory. But as Homer Simpson would say, "In theory Communism works...in theory." When you start out with a narrative you want to believe, you are going to find whatever information you can to justify your belief. Even Corrente is full of that. If PB2.0 is about finding data to justify our preconceptions, count me out.

Submitted by lambert on

... get that hair out of your ass, wouldja? Thanks.

It's one thing to snark that Obama uses Messianic imagery -- because he does.

It's another thing to talk about Dominionism, is it not?

So far as I can tell, the only thing you've got going for you in the post is "seems to be a lot of guilt by people".

And then PB 2.0 goes down because you think something "seems"? Huh?

UPDATE If you want to do a takedown, then do the work.

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

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Links are good, yes, but they can also be really misleading.

The book-banning crap and the rape-kit 'revelations' -- every day brings NEW PROOF which is just a rehash of the OLD proof, only citing to a new Tier II (I'm being generous) site.

Are the Dominionists scary and bad? Seems so. Let's assume they are. But Dogemperor intertwines their scary badness with an occasional indication that Palin might share their scariest, baddestnesses, which masks the fact that the connections just aren't that strong.

I can only offer up the types of things I find persuasive (others' mileage may vary). This end-of-world indoctrination-sounding thing just isn't it (not talking about the Dominionists there). Esp. not after spending a fair number of hours poking around myself trying to establish what is fear-mongering guilt-by-association versus actual fact on Palin. She's not anti-contraception, she's never forced schools to teach creationism and doesn't even seem to care all that much about it being taught in schools, she didn't ban any damn books, and there's no proof that she, particularly, created, implemented, or endorsed charging for the damn rape kits. Every one of those was thrown out there and half the internet is running around repeating all of them like she set fire to the town library and pried cold hard cash out of rape victims hands herself. It's all assumption by affiliation and assuming what the author's trying to prove.

For cryin' out loud, what's wrong with this paragraph:

And—as it turns out—her reported membership in “Feminists For Life” and statements on being virulently anti-abortion also directly influenced her policies in Wasilla—and in a different way than the infamous “make them pay for their own rape kits” way.

God damn America. I'm just sayin'.

I do appreciate your attempts to get us all some more information about Dominionists. But what I'd really like to hear is information, not apocalyptic spin (from either Dominionists or non).

Submitted by lambert on

Valhalla:

I have a lot on my plate right now. I don't have time to:

1. Consolidate the Palin smears (true or false) into a massive takedown post. If there's one somewhere, please link to it. If you want to write one, then please so. It would be a valuable resource, because all the argument is scattered through thread after thread.

2. Consolidate the Dominionist stuff into a scorecard/players post. It would be great if dogemperor did that. That stuff is nasty, and when one of 'em goes mainstream, they use dogwhistles, and "guilt by association" is not adequate riposte to that tactic. This story is critical to assessing Palin. The information needs to be out there so it can be assessed. So far as I can tell, we are not in LJ territory here. And so far, I "take what I like and leave the rest," in exchange for information from somebody who's worked on this stuff.

If somebody wants to show truthiness, they should do so. Granted, that takes a level of effort. And?

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

Submitted by lambert on

What negative is to be proved, here?

Some dogwhistles are, some aren't. And surely which is which is to be established through examination?

What I'm seeing here is a lot of unwillingness to actually engage with what is substantive about the post, the Dominionism stuff.

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

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

"every new takedown is a link to an old takedown"

... facts are damn inconvenient things, when they don't point the way you want.

Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla.
Sarah Palin fired the police chief who was chief when she took office.
After she fired him the new chief instituted a policy of charging rape victims for the rape kits.
Palin didn't stop him from doing this, didn't speak out against it.
The AK state lege and governor passed a law to stop it.

NONE of those facts have been debunked.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

efforts Obama made to stop the practice in Illinois?

It's a lousy practice, I agree, even though the intention is to get victims' health insurance to pay for it, not to soak the victims for it personally.

If Palin knew about it and approved it-- which I gather there's no real evidence of, but what the heck-- shame on her. Shame on Obama. Shame on every official everywhere this is done who doesn't try to change it.

And?

She's a Republican, Sarah, a conservative Republican. Republicans do this kind of stuff. That's why I don't vote for them, never have and never will.

Submitted by lambert on

... the response I remember is that yes, the town billed the victims on the assumption that insurance companies would pay, and the money was a lot for a small town.

Frankly, all this Tier Two shit, some true, some false, some partially true is a complete mess in my mind, and I do try to keep track.

The fact that all parties on all sides have never managed to tie everything together in one place to refer to, and all refer to contradictory facts as true without links... Well, its frustrating.

In fact, the whole thing makes me think its Rashomon, since ultimately the facts come down to facts about small town politics, and I know what that's like.

So then, dogemperor gets caught up in that madness, which is used to take down everything else they wrote. Sweet Jeebus.

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

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

Yes, bad. I agree. Who could possibly disagree?

You appeared, however, to be demanding that those of us who aren't at all convinced by what's been posted here so far somehow provide proof that Palin isn't a dominionist or STFU. If that's not what you meant, I apologize for the misinterpretation.

I've not seen anything here beyond "six degrees of Sarah Palin" connections and assertions of "dogwhistles." There's no way I know of to "establish through examination" what's a dogwhistle and what isn't, and I would have thought that the endless cries of "racist dogwhistle" during the primaries would have made that more than clear.

Submitted by lambert on

Well, I can't answer for what I "appear to be demanding." I am saying that dogemperor is making a case that others have yet to confront or refute directly. farmer, of blessed memory, did a ton of work on these clowns back at the old site. Dogwhistles are their modus operandi. Of course you can make a good case for what's a dogwhistle and what's not. It's like an intelligence operation; you look for what they've done in the past, and see if similar things are happening. It's foolish, even derelict, not to take this into account.

No, grant, for the sake of the argument, that all the other Tier Two crap has been debunked (and see comment above on tying it together). That was done by research and sifting the evidence, yes? (Like no action taken on the librarian). So, surely the same method can be applied here?

Instead, all I'm getting, basically, is "I don't want to read about this" and "the blogger sucks" or "the blog sucks." Big yawn.

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

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

... this isn't about the Dominationists, its about supposed evidence of a vast conspiracy that Sarah Palin is a part of to impose Dominionism on the US.

And its pure, unadulterated bullshit.

If I felt like it, I could make a much better case linking Obama to advocates of violent overthrow of the US government than this crap. Heck, I could do a better job of 'proving' Obama is a muslim than this crap.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

what kind of research and sifting of evidence can be applied to statements that some phrase or other is a dogwhistle to some creepy secret group of nutcases and what's not.

When Bill Clinton was accused of dogwhistling about race when he said Obama was a "roll of the dice," to some of us it was obvious hooey because of his long background in anti-discrimination and just plain who he is. To others, his history and record didn't matter in the least because he was so obviously, to them, dogwhistling. In fact, many went on a mad search to dig up other suspect phrases he'd uttered over the years.

Who proved what? It's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Submitted by lambert on

Read the post. Then read the thread. I think it's evident. Gotta go.

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

peter's picture
Submitted by peter on

I got it on good authority that next Monday there's going to be some type of 'reception' for Iran's leader with Hillary Clinton as the keynote speaker. Sarah Palin will also be there and there might be a handshake or something.

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

A rally/protest isn't a "reception," as such.

Try this, for example, to flesh out your pitch.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I actually have a fair amount of stuff on the rape-kit thing, but it's unlikely I would be able to pull it together until at least the weekend, with links. Same with pulling together all the book links. Although, I've backed up my book ban comments with plenty o' links.

If you're sensing resistance to the Dominion stuff, here's some reasons why (imo):

1. Arguments made by partisans should be treated with skepticism, always. After racism fairy tales and assassination wish-fulfilment (plus a 1000 lesser lies) put forth by a particular group of partisans this year, most people's skepticism is on super overdrive. It should probably always be on overdrive.

2. In PB1.0, the burden of proof (as here, with Sarah) seems to be on the skeptic, not the desperate-to-believer. It should be the other way around. The person asserting monstrousness should have to build up from 0, not start at 100% conclusively true and dare everyone else to disprove what hasn't been proven.

3. Varying standards of what constitutes proof, with partisan based acceptance or rejection of the same types of 'evidence'. Dogemperor's entire piece assumes credibility of every person quoted -- but who are these people? Where's the commonsense evaluation of, say, a person's motivations for making a particular statement? A person shouldn't become credible just because they agree with you.

4. Lack of balance in summarizing and characterizing material facts. No, I don't mean the fakey kind of balance the MSM practices, where they think quoting dueling press releases from opposing sides = objectivity. But absolute refusal to consider plausible alternative interpretations of facts is an absence of balance. Or, in other words, treating interpretation as fact; refusing to admit interpretation.

On that last one, most bizarre to me, an inability to understand that offering a plausible alternative interpretation of fact is not a rejection or disproof of an initial plausible interpretation of fact.

5. Selective citation of facts. Eg, as gyrfalcon points out, charging victims for rape-kits is (was) apparently fairly widespread. How many PB1.0 sites mentioned that? Or even thought to check? Or posted on it once it had been pointed out?

For me, the massive effort to create facts or truth out of repetition makes me doubt negative statements the more I hear them. Now, people can repeat things that are true just as many times, of course, but you'll have to excuse my somewhat Pavlovian reaction to this past year where the more repeated, the more likely to be unfact or nontruth.

Submitted by lambert on

... and none applied to the particular post at hand.

Which is why you all are encountering resistance from me.

Take, in particular, your point #1 on partisanship. If dogemperor had suddenly started posting on Dominionism when Palin got nominated, I'd be suspicious. But it's not so, and on this issue he's been just as hard on Hillary (whose prayer circle was rather odd). Why do you assume that dogemperor is a partisan, then?

What I see is the presence of a subject matter expert on a hard subject to write about, and an absolute unwillingness from many to look at what is actually being written. To me, there is not a case that Palin is a Manchurian Dominionist, but there is a case for further research -- because if it's true, the downside is really, really bad.

Dogemperor's doing that work. So far as I can tell, you either want them to stop, or STFU about it.

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

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Some things can't be proven either way, but what is known and how it is known, versus what is assumed or interpreted, can be laid out, so people can judge for themselves.

Been years since I saw Rashomon, but iirc, something happened, there were just 4 (or 6?) differing interpretations. My objection to the book banning, rape-kit, and Dominionist stuff, inter alia, is picking one of the 4 and insisting it's true.

Submitted by lambert on

Now if only factcheck.org doesn't turn out out to be fucked too...

[ ] 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

they've made some mistakes [and/or bad interpretations] before.

palin is correct on the 20% figure, if she was talking about domestic crude oil and natural gas production [or maybe it was all fossil fuels, including coal; i forget]. i spent some time looking for actual [presumably] unedited videos of her saying: Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy" but all i've found so far is transcripts.

so, i can't tell if she slipped up and left off the modifier petroleum [or fossil fuel], or if she deliberately left it off, in order to make it look more impressive, or if she's being misquoted and the reporters, bloggers, and fact checkers aren't doing their jobs more carefully.

if she's being misquoted, either deliberately or inadvertently, liberals are -- yet again -- going to come off looking stooooopid if they press this issue.

apologies, no linky goodness on this, but it's out there [including correctly interpreting the facts that factcheck.org used. me, i'm working on collecting some dominionism for dummies linkiness tonight.

Submitted by lambert on

It does seem, at least, that the factcheck post is a starting point.

And "dominionism for dummies" (haw!) would be very helpful.

[ ] 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

but they seem to have hired interns to do a lot of their hunting down and interpretations of facts.

and i'm not going to get the dominionism for dummies post finished tonight. possibly tomorrow night though. and i'm not going to title it that either.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Dogemperor is female, she mentioned it once a long time ago. Certainly it doesn't matter in any other way, but the conventions of English grammar demand that we know. You'll need to ask her about the blogging name gender choice.

Submitted by hipparchia on

Dogemperor is female

thus my 'hi, lambert, neener neener' in my reply to you yesterday.

grapefruit and flamethrowers, now there's a combination i'm tempted to try [your recipe really does sound good though]

Submitted by lambert on

... as opposed to gendered pronounds. I grant I'm not consistent, and should do this more.

[ ] 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

i use "they" too or try to rearrange the sentence, which means that i sometimes end up with some really tortured grammar.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

As I pointed out, that's all he latter paragraphs of this post entail. So-and-so praises Palin or compares her to someone in the Bible. Therefore Palin is linked to so-and-so and shares all of their views. That's bogus. That may be all I have going for me, but in non horserace discussions that type of argument wouldn't be able to hold water.

Submitted by lambert on

... as those who will not look.

You need to put the words in the context of her church and the words and the church in the context of her political connections. That's what dogemperor i trying to do. That is what you resolutely refuse to do -- while vociferously expressing your concerns re: method. Feh.

Clue stick: Christianists communicate their political views with Bible quote all the time. They believe that shit -- and they believe plenty of whacked out interpretations, too.

[ ] 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

is a dandy in a number of ways, not the least of which in support of showing how she's moved around trying to hide her true affiliations. She's attended half a dozen churches in the last few years, all of which are related but only a few are overt Dominionist; the rest are low-key fronts, cash-gathering and recruitment sources for the hard-core ones like Wasilla AoG. She has deliberately tried to drag her scent trail back and forth, like a fox will do to throw off the hounds, but she couldn't ever bring herself to break completely from her comfort zone.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

She a constitutionalist. Not a dominionist.

Cherry picking then twisting her words to fit dogemperors paranoid theories when other words, and her ACTIONS, tell us something completely different is complete BS.

It didn't pass muster when it was done to Hillary Clinton by those with CDS, and it shouldn't pass muster here when its done to Sarah Palin by those with PDS.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Beliefs deeply held so often become intentions and then acts. Just because that tiger hasn't eaten you yet isn't proof positive that he never will. Ask Siegfried and Roy.

She's not a Constitutionalist. Her sympathies lie with those who want to seize the federal lands within Alaska's boundaries and then secede from the Union, as well as with those who believe that the End Is Near and Alaska will be the final refuge of the righteous while Armageddon rages over the rest of the planet. Those two groups go together like a hand and glove, and Palin is eyeball deep with both of them. Based on her pronouncements, her many, many long-standing associations and her actions, she is in my considered opinion a Dominionist and a secessionist.

This has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton; you know I've defended her too. A lot of what has been said about her, certainly all of the right-wing crap, is indeed false. Hell, a lot of false things have been said about me too, and I'll bet a few about you as well. So what? Talking here about Sarah Palin, who is I am certain very much a scary person with scary beliefs who will, given the opportunity, do terrible things. It would be wrong to not discuss these issues.

But if evidence of an act, an act done while an elected official that was driven purely by her own twisted religious beliefs, an act so heinous, so inhumane that any reasonable person - a person like you - would find it to be contemptible, can be proven, will you then step back and accept that maybe there is something seriously wrong with her? If so, I'll go to the trouble to put the evidence together step-by-step to demonstrate that Sarah Palin is not a feminist icon but exactly the opposite, an oppressor of women, an enemy of all that is decent, a repulsive disgusting creature that should be run out of town on a rail.

If, on the other hand, what is happening for you is still somehow about revenge for Hillary and no amount of evidence will convince you to consider Palin's dangerousness, then please just say so and I won't waste my time.

No anger, though, OK? We just disagree on this, and we can sort it out with facts and evidence and reason - or not. No need to get upset with or demean each other; nobody wins if that happens. If I'm wrong, you and others here can take me apart and set me straight, and you know you won't be alone - there'll be a line for that opportunity. What do you say? Shall we have that discussion?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

when has Palin ever taken steps as a government official to enact any of your paranoid fantasies?

Indeed, since she entered politics, when has she ever suggested succession?

Everything she has done and said as a public official tells us that she is not some kind of crazed Dominationist, or Successionist, or whatever.

To me, this is worse than those who try to tie Obama to the policies and ideas of Wright and Ayres. At least there is strong evidence with Obama --- with Palin, its based solely on rumor, conjecture, and extrapolation.

Here's a clue about "end times" Christians -- they don't think they'll be around for the tribulations that would make Alaska the final refuge against the forces of the Anti-Christ, because they'll all be raptured into heaven before the Anti-Christ appears. And if/when all the "true Christians" do suddenly disappear, I'll be with the Alaska successionists, hoping to stay alive against the forces of the evil locusts and the hoards of satanic horsemen who will dominate the earth for seven years until Jesus returns.

Pages

Turlock