Onward Christian Voters

The church as political pulpit, yet again:

A nonprofit group has filed a complaint asking the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the role that two churches may have played in the re-election campaign of Kansas’ attorney general.

The complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan legal watchdog organization, cited a memorandum from the attorney general, Phill Kline, a Republican, directing members of his campaign staff to recruit churches to distribute campaign literature and serve as the sites for events.

“This is the top law enforcement official in the state who is encouraging everyone to break the law,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group. “He’s either abysmally unfamiliar with the law, or he’s deliberately violating it.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Kline, Sherriene Jones, did not return calls to her office.

In his memorandum, Mr. Kline identified two Topeka churches, the Light of the World Christian Center and the Wanamaker Woods Church of the Nazarene, which he said had participated in “lit drops” by handing out campaign literature. A woman who answered the telephone at Wanamaker Woods Church said the church had no comment.

Who exactly is Phill Kline? This fellow:

Phill Kline, Republican attorney general of Kansas, is determined not to be defensive. Making headlines with his subpoena of abortion records and his closed-door discussions of evolution with State Board of Education members, the former scholarship wrestler comes across as well satisfied with what he has wrought.

He has a job to do, Kline explained during a break at a meeting of attorneys general in Washington. Principles are at stake, he said, and liberals who dismiss the conservative values agenda as a political stratagem really do not know what they are talking about.

Kline is the man who wanted to fish through abortion records to find evidence ofcrimes. Fortunately, the courts (damned activist judges) told him to go pound salt. Modern Republicans don’t want a society in which they are free to worship as they choose- they want a society in which you are free to worship as they choose. They wish to replace the laws of man with the laws of God, and then enforce those laws with the full power of the state. And they intend to do whatever they can to make sure that happens, laws and the Constitution be damned.

96 replies
  1. 1
    foolishmortal says:

    Just waking up and I misread ‘laws’ in your last sentence as ‘jews’. Still makes sense.

  2. 2
    Andrei says:

    Wow… with all these mea culpas and frontal attacks on the GOP, who knows… maybe next you’ll be moving to the Bay Area to live amoungst the freaks who also happen to keep the country’s economy humming.

    Then before too long, you’ll go back and read Fuck the South, finding yourself nodding your head up and down thinking that that diatribe maybe isn’t so radical or ill-conceived after all.

    One thing’s for sure… looks like you finally scared off Darrell, MacBuckets, scs and lost Stormy a long time ago. I guess I now owe you an apology!

  3. 3
    Mike says:

    The Christian Right is neither.

  4. 4
    craigie says:

    You know, when us out of touch liberals say things like that, people say we’re crazy.

  5. 5
    Paul L. says:

    This might outrage me. If I did not see Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry pandering in Black Churches.

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW.
    Isn’t this the bunch who started the Mark Foley scandal?

  6. 6
    Punchy says:

    Hey, I live in KS. Trust me, Phill Klown is everything Commander Cole says he is, but worse.

    He was front-and-center in the Evolution/ID debate, completely unprofessionally. I hope Morrison kicks his cracker ass. However, the day I see an R lose outside of Larry or KC is the day I win the lottery.

  7. 7
    Pb says:

    This might outrage me. If I did not see Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry pandering in Black Churches.

    Yes, because a political figure addressing a church is exactly the same as a church actively working for a specific political candidate’s re-election campaign. Oh wait, no it isn’t, the former is perfectly fine, while the latter is flagrantly illegal. Rule of law, baby–learn it, live it, love it.

    Isn’t this the bunch who started the Mark Foley scandal?

    No, that was Mark Foley.

  8. 8
    Punchy says:

    Isn’t this the bunch who started the Mark Foley scandal?

    Yes, they started Foley. It wasn’t his emails, it wasn’t his IMs, it wasn’t his late-niters to the dorms, nor his drinking, but some group in D.C. that started it. And nice Clinton ref–what’s a good righty blast without a Clinton ref?

    Can anyone explain why the ostensibly “personal responsibility” party is suddenly no longer ever personally responsible for anything? Any ideas?

  9. 9
    Paul L. says:

    Oh wait, no it isn’t, the former is perfectly fine, while the latter is flagrantly illegal. Rule of law, baby—learn it, live it, love i

  10. 10
    Paul L. says:

    Oh wait, no it isn’t, the former is perfectly fine, while the latter is flagrantly illegal. Rule of law, baby—learn it, live it, love it.

    So if George W. Bush or Rick Santorum addressed a church congregation from the pulpit, you and the separation of church and state bunch would say that is just fine.

    And just pointing out that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington CREW may call themselves a “nonpartisan” legal watchdog organization. But some does Judicial Watch.

  11. 11
    Davebo says:

    So if George W. Bush or Rick Santorum addressed a church congregation from the pulpit, you and the separation of church and state bunch would say that is just fine.

    Of course it would be just fine. It’s happened dozens and dozens of times and I don’t recall anyone raising a stink about it in the past.

  12. 12
    Andrew says:

    Can anyone explain why the ostensibly “personal responsibility” party is suddenly no longer ever personally responsible for anything? Any ideas?

    Not only did gay marriage destroy the sanctity of conventional marriage, it completely wiped out personal responsibility, in addition to destroying the furniture industry of central North Carolina. It was more powerful than anyone could have imagined.

  13. 13
    capelza says:

    I am going to get a petition drive going to introduce a measure on the next ballot for Oregon…no mixing cotton and wool…it’s an abomination, says so right in the Bible!!!!

    Kline is scary…when the term (overblown to be sure) “American Taliban” is used, it is for people like him.

  14. 14
    Krista says:

    Paul – When did it become partisan to be disgusted by grown Congressmen hitting on the underage pages who work for them?

    My heavens, sometimes I think that a Republican could be caught with a smoking gun in one hand, a fresh corpse on the floor, and his dick in the mouth of a 10-year old boy, and there would STILL be right-wingers who would accuse anybody who reported it of being partisan. It seems that the only way that the right wing would ever consider the media to be “fair” would be for the media to never report on any Republican wrongdoing.

  15. 15
    Andrew says:

    a fresh corpse on the floor

    My, such language!

  16. 16
    JoeTx says:

    And just pointing out that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington CREW may call themselves a “nonpartisan” legal watchdog organization. But some does Judicial Watch.

    There is just such a backlog of republican corruption cases, they haven’t had time to deal with any democrats. And besides, the republicans are the ones in power and control the purse strings, those cases SHOULD have priority.

    I hope and expect them to be just as deligent when the Dems take control, and if not, we’ll keep them honest and make sure they do…

  17. 17
    tBone says:

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW.
    Isn’t this the bunch who started the Mark Foley scandal?

    Yep, that’s right. CREW plied Foley with liquor and then supplied him with a stash of NAMBLA-approved porn and an IM account. Those bastards! No one could possibly resist such devious machinations. Melanie Sloan deserves a one-way ticket to Gitmo.

    Christ, the quality of our deadenders has really gone downhill lately. How hard do you have to work to make Darrell look good by comparison?

  18. 18

    This might outrage me. If I did not see Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry pandering in Black Churches.

    Yeah, but that’s because you are a partisan whiney ass titty baby.

  19. 19
    Paul L. says:

    Of course it would be just fine. It’s happened dozens and dozens of times and I don’t recall anyone raising a stink about it in the past.

    Where can I find any reference to Republicans addressing a church congregation. I also believe that the separation of church and state bunch would not find it fine.

    As for Democrats. I noticed this seems to only occur in Black Churches.
    Kerry Seeks Support in Black Churches
    Ehrlich visits city church, talks state’s role in leadership but not election

  20. 20
    JoeTx says:

    My heavens, sometimes I think that a Republican could be caught with a smoking gun in one hand, a fresh corpse on the floor, and his dick in the mouth of a 10-year old boy, and there would STILL be right-wingers who would accuse anybody who reported it of being partisan. It seems that the only way that the right wing would ever consider the media to be “fair” would be for the media to never report on any Republican wrongdoing.

    Krista, it might take Rove and Faux News a day or two, but I bet they could come up with something… Those lemings would believe anything said on Fox…

  21. 21
    capelza says:

    Paul L…”Justice Sundays” ring a bell?

  22. 22
    tBone says:

    My heavens, sometimes I think that a Republican could be caught with a smoking gun in one hand, a fresh corpse on the floor, and his dick in the mouth of a 10-year old boy, and there would STILL be right-wingers who would accuse anybody who reported it of being partisan.

    Look, moonbat, you may not like it but last time I checked the 2nd amendment hadn’t been repealed. CREW probably planted that fresh corpse there anyway. In fact, the congressman was so startled by it that he stumbled and his penis accidentally got lodged in that boy’s mouth. Typical liberal dishonesty, trying to smear Republicans over a simple misunderstanding.

  23. 23
    t. jasper parnell says:

    Isn’t go pound sand?

  24. 24
    Paul L. says:

    Black Churches Always At Center Of Politics

    When a group of Columbus ministers complained to the Internal Revenue Service that two central Ohio evangelical megachurches were engaged in unlawful political activity, the pastors of those churches countered with a simple question:

    What’s the difference between what we’re doing and what black churches across America have done for decades?

    “The short answer is that there’s not much of a difference,” said John Green, a nationally recognized expert in religion and politics at the University of Akron. “The black churches have been very political places. They routinely have invited candidates to speak from their pulpits, and there’s a long tradition of political activity.”

  25. 25
    Todd says:

    Ah, Kansas! The state that makes Fred Phelps quasi-mainstream.

    Some quick info for all watchers of The Holy Tabernacle and Mission Church of Perpetual Tax Relief Harvesting –> Many newly formed (since early ’70’s), independent, evangelical outposts routinely pass out political literature before elections — usually in tablet form with a slate of pictures of preferred candidates presented in a way that helps burn their graven images into thy rods and cones of the gathered righteous’ retinae.

    For they will be comforted by thine images. Amen.

  26. 26
    t. jasper parnell says:

    Krista,
    Are you Canadian? What does it mean in your adverts “visible minority”?

  27. 27
    capelza says:

    I keep forgeting that my husband is a Reverand (in the Universal Life Church…10 bucks through Rolling Stone’s classifieds)…I gotta figure out a way to work this!

  28. 28
    Punchy says:

    As for Democrats. I noticed this seems to only occur in Black Churches.

    Quite possibly–call me CRAZY–it’s because your party has a fair number of racist fucks. See: Corker, Bob with ref to his TN ads. Although it would be grand comedy to see a R walk into a Black church and try and win them over with Katrina anecdotes.

  29. 29
    Krista says:

    Krista,
    Are you Canadian? What does it mean in your adverts “visible minority”?

    Yes I am, and to which adverts are you referring?

  30. 30
    Andrew says:

    Quite possibly—call me CRAZY—it’s because your party has a fair number of racist fucks. See: Corker, Bob with ref to his TN ads. Although it would be grand comedy to see a R walk into a Black church and try and win them over with Katrina anecdotes.

    I heard tom-tom drums while I was reading your post.

  31. 31
    Cassidy says:

    “A lot of people want to know what they can do to help the cause of whites and spread the message of American Renaissance.” http://www.amren.com/activists/activists.html

    Paul L., please don’t link to racist propaganda. It makes the rest of us white people look bad.

  32. 32
    t. jasper parnell says:

    first it is go pound sand, a correction is called for.

    The advert was for an academic job. In the space where the US has “minorities encouraged” the Canada had “visible minorities.” This prompted a long a more or less fact free discussion about what it could mean. My question is, essentially, is this a “normal” phrase or some odd sort of aca-speak?

  33. 33
    Bombadil says:

    Isn’t go pound sand?

    I was wondering about that, too. I’ve always heard it as “pound sand”; is “pound salt” a regional variation?

  34. 34
    Todd says:

    Paul L.:

    Yeah, it was funny watching John Kerry sit his bony, white butt down in a Cleveland, OH A.M.E. church trying to get a tan last time around.

  35. 35
    JoeTx says:

    after a couple of pounds, the salt would be alot more painful!

  36. 36
    Krista says:

    The advert was for an academic job. In the space where the US has “minorities encouraged” the Canada had “visible minorities.” This prompted a long a more or less fact free discussion about what it could mean. My question is, essentially, is this a “normal” phrase or some odd sort of aca-speak?

    This is what the Feds say it is:

    A person in a visible minority group is someone (other than an Aboriginal person as defined above) who is non-white in colour/race, regardless of place of birth and is from one of the following groups: Black, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South Asian-East Indian (including Indian from India; Bangladeshi; Pakistani; East Indian from Guyana, Trinidad, East Africa; etc.), Southeast Asian (including Burmese; Cambodian; Laotian; Thai; Vietnamese; etc.) non-white West Asian, North African or Arab (including Egyptian; Libyan; Lebanese; etc.), non-white Latin American (including indigenous persons from Central and South America, etc.), person of mixed origin (with one parent in one of the visible minority groups listed above), other visible minority group.

    Basically, it means that you can’t call yourself a minority for employment purposes if three out of four of your grandparents are/were Caucasian.

  37. 37
    Punchy says:

    My question is, essentially, is this a “normal” phrase or some odd sort of aca-speak?

    Jasper, we’ve been trying to decipher Kris’s language for awhile (and I’m rather new). It’s very colourfull. Indeeud, a launguague aull iut’s ouwn.

    I chalk it up the a strange combination brought on by a lack of Blackberrys, areas of warmth, indoor plumbing, and decent baseball teams. Not to mention, the plethora of Frenchophiles, Eskimos, and permafrost they must live with….

  38. 38
    Zifnab says:

    This might outrage me. If I did not see Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry pandering in Black Churches.

    Sure. Just pick on old GW because he’s allergic to black people.

    And how dare Democrats pander to that vile little special interest group, the NAACP? Why, if they were good upstanding rightous politicians they’d be giving Jerry Falwell a hug on the steps of the Bob Jones University. But visiting black churches? Not even a Republican would stoop that low.

  39. 39
    t. jasper parnell says:

    So, is the intent here to disaggragate (if that is a word or how it ought be spelt) those of a specific ethinc/racial/phenotypical heritiage from those of the same who, however, look like they are from that ethnic etc? A sort of “objective” standard which requires a visual cue?

    Salt or sand would be more than painful enough.

  40. 40
    t. jasper parnell says:

    Krista,

    Also, thanks very much indeed,

  41. 41
    Krista says:

    t.jasper – It’s the government. I haven’t the foggiest idea what their intentions are. But yes, my guess is that they’re trying to create some sort of objective measurement of ethnicity, for the purpose of employment equity.

    And Punchy-

    chalk it up the a strange combination brought on by a lack of Blackberrys, areas of warmth, indoor plumbing, and decent baseball teams. Not to mention, the plethora of Frenchophiles, Eskimos, and permafrost they must live with….

    The BlackBerry was invented by Canadians. The rest of your cute little rant isn’t even worth a response.

    Why must you torment me so? Does it really bring you that much joy?

  42. 42
    t. jasper parnell says:

    Again,thanks.

    Also as a long-time American, my whole life yet and even, I really like Canada. Never yet been to a part that was upleasant, with the exception of one gas station just over the Alaska border where the proprietor was a real lout. Also Manhattan BC where the the burger with the same name had a fried egg on it.

  43. 43
    Krista says:

    A fried egg on a burger? Huh. Well, whatever floats their proverbial boats. Have you ever been to the Maritimes??

  44. 44
    Bombadil says:

    I chalk it up the a strange combination brought on by a lack of Blackberrys, areas of warmth, indoor plumbing, and decent baseball teams. Not to mention, the plethora of Frenchophiles, Eskimos, and permafrost they must live with….

    It’s “Francophiles”, Punchy. “Frenchophiles” are people who like bland yellow mustard.

  45. 45
    John S. says:

    I can’t wait to see Paul L.’s comments in the coming months. I predict the ludicrousness of them to increase in direct proportion to the waning of GOP power an influence.

    Can any of you even imagine what his comments will be like in the next few years?

    I’m sensing some serious “NANCY PELOSI HAD A WHITE HOUSE SECURITY GUARD MURDERED!” type activity coming from him.

  46. 46
    Bombadil says:

    I’m sensing some serious “NANCY PELOSI HAD A WHITE HOUSE SECURITY GUARD MURDERED!” type activity coming from him.

    What? That’s horrible!

    Because of the doctrine of separation of powers, she has no authority to interfere with the Executive Branch! Murdering White House security guards comes under Dick Cheney’s purview!

  47. 47
    Pb says:

    Paul L.,

    Look, man, you’re just embarrassing yourself here. I mean, as usual, but your ignorance and laziness is really showing today.

    Where can I find any reference to Republicans addressing a church congregation.

    On the internets? In newspapers? On TV broadcasts? You might have to look first, of course.

    As for Democrats. I noticed this seems to only occur in Black Churches.

    Does the name Herbert Lusk ring any bells? No?

    First I want to thank my friend, Herb Lusk, for inviting me back to the Greater Exodus Baptist Church. I’ve been here before, the 4th of July. (Applause.) And I don’t remember this building being here. At the time I said, Herb is a social entrepreneur who can make things happen. We’re in this beautiful building because he made things happen. (Applause.) He believes, as I do, in the power of faith to touch every heart and to change every life.

    That’s kind of the motto or the philosophy of the programs that emanate from this church. He is a — he takes his admonition to love a neighbor just like you’d like to be loved yourself seriously. And so do the people who attend this church.

    Any guesses as to which politician said that? Here’s a hint, it wasn’t Kerry…

  48. 48
    Punchy says:

    Why must you torment me so? Does it really bring you that much joy?

    Sorry, not trying to torment. Research in Motion is Canadian? I did not know that. My bad…I love Canada. And Quebec, too.

    Uh…

    It’s “Francophiles”, Punchy. “Frenchophiles” are people who like bland yellow mustard.

    Did I just set a record for the most uninformed, ignorant post not authored by Darrell ever? Me thinks so. By the way, I’m thinking a Francophile could just be those Steelers fans still enamoured with Mr. Harris, running back?

  49. 49
    Area Man says:

    Paul L.’s front page:

    Wednesday, October 25, 2006 […] 0 comments

    Monday, October 23, 2006 [hey] 0 comments

    Friday, October 20, 2006 [I] 0 comments

    Thursday, October 19, 2006 [detect] 0 comments

    Wednesday, October 18, 2006 [a] 0 comments

    Sunday, October 15, 2006 [pattern] 0 comments

    Thursday, October 12, 2006 [here] 0 comments

    Hey Paul – Flukers makes some great cricket food. And say goodbye to Rick “best google bomb ever” Santorum for me.

  50. 50
    Thomas says:

    John, this is ridiculously laughable stuff.

    Start with the nice bit from the Times: “nonpartisan legal watchdog organization”! That’s nice writing. And true, even though misleading. (I think that’s the sort of standard you routinely try for and fail to reach, so I shouldn’t criticize the Times too much.)

    And then there’s the Times’ uncritical repetition of a simple falsehood–that the participation by a church in a political campaign (an unfounded accusation, but let’s assume arguendo that it’s true) would violate the law. It wouldn’t, because we have something called the first amendment. Liberals and conservatives are typically aware of it, but you’re so far gone you’ve apparently forgotten it, as has the Times and the folks at CREW. (The CREW folks are in a particuarly bad way, because they think that Kline himself might have violated the law, which is a particularly funny kind of misunderstanding of, well, almost every bit of relevant law.)

    No, what I really like is the non sequiturs at the end. We’re told that Kline wanted to involve churches in his campaign, and that he wanted to enforce Kansas’ abortion laws. And you follow that up with this “Modern Republicans” bit that is completely disconnected from anything that came before. Nothing that came before gives anyone any reason to think that Phill Kline (or any other modern Republican for that matter) cares where or how or whether I worship. There isn’t anything to your statement at all. The idea that an AG interested in enforcing the laws of the state is somehow demonstrating that he wants to “replace the laws of man with the laws of God” is similarly ridiculous and unsupported.

  51. 51
    Area Man says:

    Thomas, I couldn’t help but notice you seem to post more here than you do at RS. Everything OK with the family?

  52. 52
    Rudi says:

    I’ll have to Google, but I think even Judicial Watch is going after Bush and the Sanctorum Bunch for ignoring the Constitution and stuff.

  53. 53
    Zifnab says:

    That’s all very well and good Thomas, so long as the church in question pays taxes. However, in order to qualify as a tax-exempt entity, you also have to qualify as non-partisan. Thankfully, Washington has been retardedly lax in enforcing this provision, or Lord knows how many churches would have been stripped of their tax except status long ago.

  54. 54
    Chris says:

    ‘And then there’s the Times’ uncritical repetition of a simple falsehood—that the participation by a church in a political campaign (an unfounded accusation, but let’s assume arguendo that it’s true) would violate the law. It wouldn’t, because we have something called the first amendment.’

    It doesn’t violate the law, it violates the churches tax exempt status. If they are participating in partisan politics they should not be tax exempt.

    Kline wanted to enforce Kansas’ abortion laws by getting the medical records of all women who had an abortion and look through to find if any of them violated the law. Sort of the presumed guilty until proves not.

  55. 55
    Krista says:

    Research in Motion is Canadian?

    Yep. Based out of Waterloo, Ontario.

    And you’re not really tormenting me…I’m used to being teased about my superfluous “u”s. It’s a small price to pay if it means that Celine Dion stays on your side of the border.

  56. 56
    Area Man says:

    “That’s nice writing. And true, even though misleading”

    WTF Thomas? Hello?

  57. 57
    Punchy says:

    It’s a small price to pay if it means that Celine Dion stays on your side of the border.

    Wait, wait…wait a minute. I’m not OKing that deal. Of course, as long as she stays in Vegas, I’m OK with her border-jumping ways.

  58. 58
    Thomas says:

    Area Man, yes, thanks, the family is fine. But RS? What’s that? Is that redstate.com? I don’t think I’ve ever posted there, as I don’t usually read it. Maybe you’ve confused me with another “Thomas”. On your other “question”: describing CREW as a nonpartisan legal watchdog group is technically accurate, but it’s a bit like describing Heritage as a nonpartisan research organization. That is, it doesn’t tell you what you actually need to know. I’m not saying that CREW should be described as a left-wing Soros-funded front, but one could at least note that they are a liberal group (just as one should note that Heritage is a conservative group).

  59. 59
    Tsulagi says:

    Modern Republicans don’t want a society in which they are free to worship as they choose- they want a society in which you are free to worship as they choose.

    Exactly. Plus the Republican nanny-staters for Dobson’s God want the power to enforce it. I am so fed up with these assholes. They can hold congressional hearings less than 24 hours after a nipple is flashed, but if one of their own is caught twiddling his little dick while IMing underage boys, the evil is that someone reported it.

  60. 60
    JoeTx says:

    I’m not saying that CREW should be described as a left-wing Soros-funded front, but one could at least note that they are a liberal group

    I didn’t realize expecting ethics and accountabiltiy of our leaders was a liberal ideal? Thanks for clearing that up..

  61. 61
    Pb says:

    I’m not saying that CREW should be described as a left-wing Soros-funded front, but one could at least note that they are a liberal group (just as one should note that Heritage is a conservative group).

    But what if CREW is actually impartial and/or centrist (note that these terms are not equivalent), and Heritage is actually biased and/or far-right? Now, impartiality or bias can be tested to a certain extent with facts.

    However, left/centrist/right is a continuum–in the US, I guess you could center that based on, for example, the median political opinions in the country. However, this yields interesting results–you’d be a nominally anti gay marriage, pro choice, pro tort reform, pro universal health care, pro ten commandments, pro increased minimum wage, starve the beast deficit hawk.

  62. 62
    Fruitbat says:

    Regarding the whole “pound salt” term of art: given the context, It’s pretty obvious that this is meant to refer back to the story of Lot and his wife.

    And yes, that was the sexiest part of the Old Testament.

  63. 63
    Thomas says:

    JoeTX, I don’t think meritless charges of lawbreaking made against Republican state office holders have much to do with ethics and accountability. Do you?

    Pb, yes, it is entirely possible that a group might be centrist and it’s possible a group might be impartial, and I recognize those aren’t the same thing. As a matter of fact, CREW isn’t centrist and isn’t impartial, and, as a matter of fact, Heritage isn’t centrist and isn’t impartial. And you won’t seriously pretend to believe that they are.

  64. 64
    John S. says:

    As a matter of fact, CREW isn’t centrist and isn’t impartial, and, as a matter of fact, Heritage isn’t centrist and isn’t impartial.

    Based on WHAT exactly?

    Your thoughtful analysis consisting of what facts? A study conducted probing the political leanings of such organizations? Or perhaps this is just your opinion, hmmm? I mean, we can play this game all day…

    As a matter of fact, water isn’t wet and isn’t a liquid.

  65. 65
    les says:

    Well, Thomas, you skate a pretty fine edge. Partisan political work is illegal for a tax exempt church, with the possible results of monetary fines and/or loss of exempt status; and abetting/promoting it is pretty damn close for a sitting state attorney general. And the state supreme court slapped old Phill’s wrist pretty good for his illegal demands for medical records. And it certainly looks like he’s played pretty fast and loose with campaign finance, laundering church and other contributions through the company that rents the metal shed in his back yard to him for storage of campaign records. Who owns the company, you say? Oh, Phill and his wife. I could go one; but maybe knowing what the hell you’re talking about would cramp your style.

  66. 66
    les says:

    Oh, and Thomas? I do in fact think that fact based allegations of illegality by public officials has to do with ethics. Worth investigating, even. Shocker, huh?

  67. 67
    JoeTx says:

    JoeTX, I don’t think meritless charges of lawbreaking made against Republican state office holders have much to do with ethics and accountability. Do you?

    Meritless according to whom? You? You aught to check out http://www.tpmmuckraker.com or http://www.thinkprogress.org once in awhile. At some point, your going to have to pull your head out of the ground and take those fingers out of your ears and see what this administration is all about. I woke up on 2003, and its enlightening to see John Cole and many others come to the same conclusions I have.

    Its amazing what a mind fuck Faux News and Rove has pulled on you. The truth has trickled out since 2001 about how bad and corrupt these guys are, yet every whistleblower has been demonized, every negative news report blamed on “liberal bias” and on and on and on. At some point, you need to realize that the true demons, are those warning you and not those telling you the truth….

  68. 68
    TenguPhule says:

    I can’t tell Thomas from satire.

    It’s not that hard.

    You can’t get involved in political campaining if you’re a tax exempt entity, specifically a church in this case.

    http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

    Read it, learn it and then go home crying to RS about the bad old independent who spanked you.

  69. 69
    jcricket says:

    But what if CREW is actually impartial and/or centrist (note that these terms are not equivalent), and Heritage is actually biased and/or far-right? Now, impartiality or bias can be tested to a certain extent with facts.

    Not the way the media and Republicans act these days. You have 100 non-biologists and some lay-people say evolution is a hoax or that ID is science, and that’s “equal” to every other scientist and 100+ years of research and published papers. So the only way to be neutral is if you report each side’s arguments and draw no conclusions or draw the conclusion that they’re both equally right.

    And it’s part and parcel of why Republicans work so hard to claim the media has a liberal bias. That way they always have an “out” whenever facts are reported that don’t line up with what they’ve said or claimed (it’s the liberal bias at works, not that I’m wrong).

    Unfortunately, an overwhelming tidal wave of facts are lining up against Republicans on nearly every issue, so you now have people like Hugh Hewitt resorting to the claim that the entire notion of polling people is biased towards liberals. So, there’s literally no way that facts can be gathered that would convince a partisan Republican that she or he is wrong.

  70. 70
    Fledermaus says:

    Based on WHAT exactly?

    Silly John, of course they are partisan. Just look, they are holding the GOP and their chruch allies accountable to the law. That’s something only liberals do.

    In a non-snarky vein I can’t help but notice how much the “party of personal responsibility” screams everytime there’s an investigation or probe. If the dems actually win back at least one house of congress they are likely to crul up in a little ball on the floor and cry.

    Either that or throw a temper tantrum.

  71. 71

    […] Onward Christian Voters […]

  72. 72
    Thomas says:

    John S, go ahead and say what you mean. Do you mean that you believe that CREW is impartial? Go ahead and say it–it’s self-discrediting.

    les, can you give me an example of liability for “abetting/promoting” in this context? I am passing familiar with the area, and have never heard even a suggestion of such a thing. Is this a blog innovation? A bit like saying that the district court’s subpoena was illegal, I guess.

    I think allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated. But if the theory behind the allegations is obviously meritless and the motivation for the allegations is transparently partisan, there’s no need to continue. That’s true in this case.

    JoeTX, when Phill Kline joins “this administration” you let me know, OK? For that matter, when Kline is discussed on Fox, …

  73. 73
    les says:

    Well, Thomas, I don’t know what you mean by “passing familiar;” ships in the night kinda thing? I would suggest that promoting the violation of tax laws by churches to benefit one’s political campaign may well touch on ethics; and likely is illegal, in that nasty technical sense of “violating state or federal law.” The little matter of having churches give “love donations” to one’s own company, which then filter into one’s pocket and/or campaign may not be absolutely, squeaky clean either. But keep your head up your ass; it’s warmer there. “Obviously meritless”–to the intentionally blind.

  74. 74
    Thomas says:

    les, Phill Kline doesn’t have any legal responsibility for the tax status of any church he speaks to, but you want to say he does. A cite please. There isn’t a single one, is there? Not one, right? You’re just making shit up, right? You don’t have any clue what you’re talking about, right? But you like to charge people with “violating state or federal law”, even when there’s no foundation for it. Does that perhaps “touch on ethics”?

    The allegation made in the Times doesn’t speak to Kline’s practice of accepting gratuities, and I haven’t addressed it.

  75. 75
    tBone says:

    John S, go ahead and say what you mean. Do you mean that you believe that CREW is impartial? Go ahead and say it—it’s self-discrediting.

    CREW has gone after William Jefferson and Jack Murtha, to name two Dems.

    Melanie Sloan comes off as someone who gets genuinely pissed when elected officials abuse their position, regardless of party. I really don’t think she’s going to suddenly fold up shop and go home if the Democrats win in November.

  76. 76
    TenguPhule says:

    [blockquote]I think allegations of wrongdoing should be investigated. But if the theory behind the allegations is obviously meritless and the motivation for the allegations is transparently partisan, there’s no need to continue. That’s true in this case.[/blockquote]

    http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

    [b]Once more, Thomas is full of merde[/b]

  77. 77
    Thomas says:

    tbone, Melanie Sloan comes off as a partisan who is willing on occasion to criticize Democrats to further her partisan cause. Similarly, Larry Klayman sued and sues Republicans, but his litigation against the Clinton administration was partisan in every way.

    tengu, you’ve given us a link, not an argument. Where did I go wrong? We know you disagree, but we don’t know why. That kind of emoting is communication of a certain sort, but it doesn’t give me anything to say in response.

  78. 78
    John S. says:

    John S, go ahead and say what you mean.

    You are entirely full of shit and state “facts” that are not in evidence.

  79. 79
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Regardless of whether Phill Kline has engaged in illegitimate activities in connection with those churches, we already have his other offenses as listed by John. In fact — as pointed out by the Washington Post on Oct. 19 — his Dem opponent this year is a Republican prosecutor who switched parties (along with eight other prominent Kansas Republicans, one of them the former chairman of the Kansas GOP, who is now the Dem nominee for Lt. Gov.) after concluding that the Kansas GOP had been taken over by the lunatic fringe — and who is getting more campaign contributions from Republicans than from Democrats. So, John, you’re being accused of moonbattery by the moonbats (in the unlikely event that you weren’t aware of it previously).

    What’s happened is simply that the national GOP has been taken over politically by the spirit of the Old South — which was always radically anti-democratic (with a small “d”), and which, left to its own devices, would definitely have turned into an economy-size version of Nazi Germany. And while the GOP isn’t Nazi (at least, not yet), it now consists of the same general type of political alliance that backed Hitler: a combination of ignorant, bigoted plebians with right-wing businessmen who are ready to make a deal with the Devil to hold onto their fortunes. (Had not pure historical luck long delayed the Old South allying with the GOP, we would have seen this alliance controlling US politics as much as a century earlier — and being far, far more vicious than it is at this point.)

  80. 80
    Thomas says:

    John S, I take it you’re ducking. Fair enough, I suppose.

    Bruce, thanks for clearing that up. Apparently the trouble with Kansas is that Republicans in Kansas are cryto-Nazis.

  81. 81
    Beej says:

    Thomas,

    Ok, you want it said clearly and succinctly: It is not strictly illegal for a political candidate to encourage a tax exempt organization to campaign for him. It will, however, cost the tax exempt organization to lose its tax exempt status if it does actively campaign and raise funds for one candidate and/or party and IRS rules are enforced to the letter. It may also be a violation of legal ethics, punishable by losing one’s license to practice law or a lesser penalty, depending on the state’s code of ethics and its enforcement.

    Asking to open the records of those who received abortions in the state of Kansas in order to look for lawbreakers would be akin to asking to open the confession records (if any such were kept) of the Catholic Church to see if anyone confessed to a crime. The former violates doctor-patient privilege, the latter violates priest-penitent privilege, both recognized in the laws of many states. You might want to check out the Kansas Revised Statutes on this. Over and above that, I can think of some thorny Constitutional issues which would be raised by this, including: equal protection, warrantless search, and right to privacy (I know, I know, that’s a product of “activist judges”. Isn’t it interesting that modern “conservatives” have no objections to “activist judges” so long as their activism meets with the approval of the “conservatives”. See for example the recent SCOTUS decisions on the rights of enemy detainees.).

    In any case, a public official who engages in such actions as those cited above is not much concerned with the best interests of the people he represents and is supposed to be protecting. He seems, rather, to be mostly concerned with furthering an agenda and his own reelection. Can you imagine the field day the Republican spin machine would have with a Democratic AG who engaged in similar behavior by, say, trying to subpoena the records of all churches who profess right-to-life beliefs in order to see if any crimes had been committed? And, incidentally, anyone who did that ought to be removed from office and villified, no matter which party he represented. Wrong is wrong. Why do Republicans have so much trouble saying that?

  82. 82
    John S. says:

    John S, I take it you’re ducking.

    I take it you are projecting, Thomas. Because ducking is when you utter statements like:

    As a matter of fact, CREW isn’t centrist and isn’t impartial

    And then fail to back up the statement with anything substanitive. So far, you’ve only provided incredulity and your psycholgical profile of Melanie Sloan as the basis of your “fact”. Try offering something a little more compelling next time.

  83. 83
    les says:

    Let me help you descend further into idiocy, Thomas. Kline promotes and aids churches to: have parishoners write checks to the church, followed by church checks to his “company”, followed by personal and campaign expenditures by his company. Lessee–violation of campaign finance laws, conspiracy to give parishoners illegal tax deductions, at least unethical action in abetting violation of tax laws by the churches. You could be right though; by Repub standards, a pretty straight up guy.

    Move along folks, nothing to investigate here.

  84. 84
    Thomas says:

    beej, well, that’s a substantive response. We first get the concession that there’s nothing “strictly illegal” here, so I think the legal question is settled, right? Your assertion that Kline might be violating his professional responsibilities is a new one, and it is, like the original assertion of illegality, completely unfounded. Apparently some people think these sort of charges are like a game of whack-a-mole, where you pop up a new charge when the old when is swatted away.

    The privilege between doctors and patients doesn’t protect the commission of a crime by the doctor. For example, if the doctor has evidence that a girl was sexually abused and the doctor, contrary to his obligations to report that under state law (you are aware of that responsibility in the state of Kansas, aren’t you?) refused to report it, then the doctor has violated the law, and has cooperated, if not criminally then morally, in the crime of the original abuser. An AG who insists on protecting these girls and on enforcing the law doesn’t seem problematic to me.

    And, beej, while you’re indignant, look into something called the Task Force on the Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy, which was a federal task force which surveilled, among others, Cardinal John O’Connor of New York and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I look forward to your outrage.

    John S, you’re a coward, aren’t you? Say what you mean: you believe that CREW is impartial, don’t you? Which means you’re a moron, and that there’s no use discussing anything with you, except perhaps the weather. Nice weather, aint it?

    les, as I said before, I haven’t commented on the gratuities Kline (or his wife–I’m not sure which is the accurate statement) received from the churches he’s preached at. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume a violation of the campaign finance or tax laws though, because what Kline does at those churches is he preaches. The congressman in the district where I’m now sitting is a minister, and he has his own church. When he ran for office, was the salary he received for his preaching really a disguised campaign contribution? Did he violate the campaign finance laws while conspiring to violate the tax laws? He’s a Democrat, by the way, so I assume you’ll now be careful about drawing lines and making hasty accusations. You’re that kind of straight up guy, aren’t you–calling ’em just like you see ’em.

  85. 85
    John S. says:

    John S, you’re a coward, aren’t you?

    Thomas you’re an idiot, aren’t you?

    Say what you mean: You made a statement of FACT based on nothing more than your opinion. Which means you’re full of shit, and that there’s no use discussing anything with you, except perhaps the smell of shit. Your posts smell like shit, don’t they?

  86. 86
    Thomas says:

    John, it’s rainy here, kind of cool. But, you know, not bad for October. How is it where you are?

    A moronic coward is the worst kind.

  87. 87

    The privilege between doctors and patients doesn’t protect the commission of a crime by the doctor. For example, if the doctor has evidence that a girl was sexually abused and the doctor, contrary to his obligations to report that under state law (you are aware of that responsibility in the state of Kansas, aren’t you?) refused to report it, then the doctor has violated the law, and has cooperated, if not criminally then morally, in the crime of the original abuser. An AG who insists on protecting these girls and on enforcing the law doesn’t seem problematic to me.

    Wow now Thomas is a Concern Troll.

    Yeah, I’m sure Kline did what he did because he cared about the children.

  88. 88

    Thomas you’re an idiot, aren’t you?

    Thomas isn’t an idiot.

    He is simply afraid to be honest with us. So he hides his real viewpoint behind concern trolls and other nonsense.

  89. 89
    Thomas says:

    Other Steve, just because you don’t care about sexually abused kids doesn’t mean everyone feels the same way.

  90. 90
    John S. says:

    How is it where you are?

    Right now, where I am on this forum it smells like shit. Mostly because of your continued posting and complete inability to respond to simple requests.

    A useful idiot is the best kind. Keep up the good work.

  91. 91
    TenguPhule says:

    tengu, you’ve given us a link, not an argument. Where did I go wrong?

    That would be the link that totally debunks your lies about it not being ‘illegal’.

    There is no argument when you are completely wrong.

  92. 92
    Thomas says:

    Tengu, would you mind quoting from the linked piece? Particularly the bit which you believe establishes your point. I don’t see it.

  93. 93
    John S. says:

    Tengu, would you mind quoting from the linked piece? Particularly the bit which you believe establishes your point. I don’t see it.

    That’s rich coming from you, Tommy Boy.

    So in a similar vein, would you mind linking to anything that proves it is a FACT that CARE isn’t centrist and isn’t impartial? Particularly any bit which you believe establishes your point. Because thus far, nobody has seen it.

  94. 94
    Thomas says:

    John S, are you still going on about this? Let’s try an easy test–well, it’s easy for most of us, but you’re a knuckle dragging moron, so it may be tough for you: In 1984, of Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, which was the liberal and which was the conservative?

    Next, we’lll handle Brookings and Heritage. And we’ll keep working until you can handle reality, even if it’s only in spoonfed little bites.

  95. 95
    Beej says:

    Thomas,

    No the comments about legal ethics violations are not “whack-a-mole”. A lawyer who violates the law, by, for example, knowingly conducting a warrantless search or engaging in overt discrimination is subject to sanction under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by my home state and most other states. The specific rule is entitled “Crime or Fraud by an Attorney”. And no, doctor-patient privilege does not apply when a crime has been committed by the doctor, but in order to search for evidence of such crime, you first must have probable cause to believe that such a crime occurred. That is true even if the suspected crime is that a doctor did not report spousal or child abuse. You don’t get to acquire probable cause by conducting a warrantless search of all of a doctor’s records. You must first have probable cause in order to search the records. See how that works?

    And by the way, I am aware that doctors, teachers, social workers, and a host of other occupations and professions are obliged by statute to report suspected abuse. Most, if not all states have passed such a law. I am both a teacher and a lawyer and am subject to both my state’s code of legal ethics and the abuse reporting requirement.

  96. 96
    Thomas says:

    Beej, now you’re making up new stuff. Is that consistent with your professional responsibilities? I had always thought that conduct “involving dishonesty” violated the model rules.

    So, as to the new allegations you made about Kline: There was a subpoena issued by a Kansas district court judge. The judge specifically found that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. There was no warrantless search. It’s a lie to suggest otherwise. May I remind you of your professional responsibilities?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Onward Christian Voters […]

Comments are closed.