8 Comments

1. 

   StanGreen on December 10, 2009 at 1:15 pm

   I’m new to this blog, and got a forwarded email about this issue from ChristianNewsWire. And I must say that while I agree with much of what I’ve read on this blog in the quite perusal I’ve done, this article dumbfounds me.

   First, it looks like this is a disagreement over policy perception, not “deceit.” And frankly, the amendment language looks fairly tight to me; not absolutely watertight, but tight enough. The real problem is that this probably won’t survive in the final negotiated draft of the bill, just as the Stupak amendment in the House bill won’t. I’m a veteran prolife activist (started a Crisis Pregnancy Center back in ’83 when even that wasn’t cool with most Christians), so I pay attention to such things, and I think you are overdoing it.

   Second, the caricaturing of Tony Perkins and FRC is quite ridiculous and undercuts your credibility. Both the photo and the over-the-top language (“a deceitful and dishonest man and you are no friend of Christian families”). Good grief. If you can’t back up every word of that statement with some pretty specific facts, you owe an apology to Perkins and everyone you emailed, as this would be a false witness against a brother in Christ.

   So I guess my bottom line is: either document and lay out your facts (NOT differences of opinion, but cold, irrefutable facts) . . . or repent.

   Like you, I’m furious over abortion, RINOs, doctrinal compromise, etc. But a common artiface of the enemy is to get us so worked up that we senselessly make false accusations against those on our side. Without seeing some facts (again, not differences of opinion of disagreements over strategy), I must tentatively conclude that you have fallen into this trap.

2. 

   Dave on December 11, 2009 at 1:04 am

   Stan, you wrote:

   “And frankly, the amendment language looks fairly tight to me; not absolutely watertight, but tight enough.”

   Tight enough…really?

   EXCEPT IN THE CASE WHERE A WOMAN SUFFERS FROM A PHYSICAL DISORDER, PHYSICAL INJURY, OR PHYSICAL ILLNESS THAT WOULD, AS CERTIFIED BY A PHYSICIAN, OF DEATH UNLESS AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED, INCLUDING A LIFE-ENDANGERING PHYSICAL CONDITION CAUSED BY OR ARISING FROM THE PREGNANCY ITSELF, OR UNLESS THE PREGNANCY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACT OF RAPE OR INCEST.

   “Doctor, I am suffering migraines from the thought of having this baby and the responsibilities, both financial and personal a child will bring upon. I can’t go on like this; I must end this pregnancy or end my life.”

   Is that a far-fetched scenario?

   And even in the rare cases of rape and incest, is it being pro-life supporting abortion in these two cases? I don’t see that as policy perception, I see that as killing an innocent baby because the father is a criminal, and using tax payer dollars to do that.

   As for the evidence on Tony Perkins, try this site:

   http://RushTellTheTruth.blogspot.com

   After you read the information at the above website, please understand that Tony Perkins has all of this information; I’ve seen the numerous emails sent to him, for the past three years as stated in the press release, informing Mr. Perkins of the fact that Mitt Romney is no friend of Christian families. And yet, after all this information was sent to Mr. Perkins from numerous people, he still describes Mitt Romney as a friend of the pro-family movement.

   Here’s more information on Romney, all of which has been provided to Mr. Perkins over the past three years.

   http://laiglesforum.com/2009/04/14/tony-perkins-a-tarnished-icon/

3. 

   Dave on December 11, 2009 at 1:08 am

   Why did I write:

   “Tony, you are deceitful and dishonest man and you are no friend of Christian families.”

   I did so because:

   “You know very well that this will not stop government funded abortions.”

   Would the amendment, as written, stop government funded abortions, yes or no? This is not a matter of a “difference of opinion” or “a disagreement over policy perception”, it is a matter of fact.

   With the Nelson Amendment government funded abortions would not be stopped.

   Is that true, yes or no?

4. 

   StanGreen on December 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm

   First, Perkins is obviously talking in general terms, not perfect absolutes. This is the normal way language is used. The Nelson Amendment would stop virtually all government funded abortions related to the health care takeover. Sure, there may be some women who slip through by claiming to be suicidal or claiming rape or incest, but not many. I would have preferred him to say “virtually all” or “almost all”, but to say that he is a deliberate, calculating liar and charlaten who deserves to resign because he uses language in a normal way is simply unfair.

   Second, to accuse Perkins of deliberate and craven lying you would have to know that he (a) understands your point, and (b) agrees with your point, yet (c) is knowingly betraying his own professed prolife beliefs for evil reasons. I submit that despite the emails you and “numerous people,” whoever they are, may have sent him, you can’t know all the three points above (I imagine he gets emails every day from “numerous people” that he doesn’t have time to read).

   Third, regarding the “death exception” clause, I believe this is pretty close to the standard “death exception” clause proposed and used in pro-life legislation in other cases. It’s different than a “health exception” clause, which is much, much more open to abuse. You are simply not going to get any tighter language than this unless you don’t have a “death exception” clause, in which case you will have no pro-life language in a bill at all. So since nothing at all will stop some women and abortionists from gaming the system (they did even before Roe), it is within the bounds of normal language to say that government funded abortions would be stopped by the Nelson amendment.

   Fourth, I went to the website you mentioned, as well as the parallel one attacking Perkins, and was unimpressed. The whole case rests on Tony Perkins referring to Romney as a friend of the pro-family movement. (Just so you’ll know, I’m no Romney fan–I was a Huck supporter in 08.) So is Perkins knowingly engaging in lying and deception calling Romney a friend of the pro-family movement? To say so, you would have to (a) know that Perkins knows Romney is anti-family, and (b) know that Perkins is stating what he knows and believes to be false. I submit that you do not and cannot know this about Perkins, and therefore are mischaracterizing him.

   How could Perkins plausibly call Romney a friend of the pro-family movement, despite Romney’s considerable baggage? Very easily. I know many people who likewise know Romney’s record as stated in the sites you link, yet who believe Romney, for whatever reasons — pragmatism, a true intellectual reversal, or a combination — has decisively shifted to the pro-family side of the culture wars. If records were absolutely the only criterion for evaluating a politician, then you would have to conclude that Al Gore is really pro-life, because he once was. You would also have to conclude that several fairly reliably pro-life legislators at the federal and state levels are anti-life, even though they have recently voted pro-life.

   So I conclude that Perkins could very plausibly think that Romney is currently on the pro-family side and may be working to pull him farther and more securely in that direction. That scenario is a lot more plausible than to believe that Tony Perkins is a cynical, soulless liar who is an enemy of Christian families.

   Again, I renew my plea not to jeopardize what otherwise seems to be a good contribution to the Christian conservative cause by intemperate accusations and over-the-top ridicule of a Christian brother.

5. 

   gregg jackson on December 11, 2009 at 10:05 pm

   Stan, Perkins claimed that the Nelson amendment would bar all tax payer funded abortions when in fact it actually subsidized abortions for “rape, incest, and life of mother” but also in all cases where a doctor may percieve some sort of risk to the mother (very ambiguous).

   Did Perkins tell the truth to his donors when he claimed the Nelson amendment would bar all tax payer funding for abortion when it actually subsidized abortion?

   Please cite anything that is not true in the press release.

   Thanks,

   Gregg Jackson

6. 

   J. Haskins on December 12, 2009 at 12:03 am

   Poor man. Poor Stan the Denial Man.

   It must be warm and cozy in Disneyland… I mean in Denial Land… in late 2009.

   Stan confidently submits that we cannot know what factual knowledge (and motivations) Perkins has.

   Hmmm. Is that so?

   Fair enough. So I reply to poor, gullible Stan that this is entirely true — unless, of course, it is not true.

   And it does happen that poor Stan’s blithe presumption is not true.

   You see, poor Stan apparently forgot that to check the lumber in his own eye before claiming loudly to find splinters somewhere in ours.

   HE, plainly enough, can only speculate about what we know and do not know (as he will hopefully be honest enough to recognize).

   I personally happen to have factual knowledge based, for example, on an actual in-person meeting of a colleague with Perkins. This knowledge that poor, presumptuous Stan in presumption and obfuscation happen not to have — and which, one has to conclude, he quite determinedly does not want to have.

   I also have irrefutable knowledge of major donations to FRC from sources carrying Mitt Zombie’s sewer water.

   I also have irrefutable knowledge of Perkins/FRC’s long track record of prostituting themselves out to Republican liars.

   I have first-hand knowledge of multiple people who have known Perkins and FRC over the long haul who each separately verify this sleazy habit of political prostitution by Perkins and FRC — and virtually all of the other “conservative” and “Christian” mercenaries who’ve joined them in enabling betrayals, lies and murderous abominations by Republicans and “conservative” elites over the last three decades.

   This is all far beyond the standard of reasonable doubt. Many a man has gone to the electric chair on far less evidence than is behind our accusations against Perkins and Romney.

   The reason “conservatives” and “Christians” have lost my children’s civilization and their liberties is that most of them are spoiled babies who can’t handle the truth, and rise up in indignant fury when it is rubbed in their faces.

   The Obama and his communist troops are closing in on our children, but for the moment it’s warm and cozy in Denial Land in late 2009.

   Poor, poor, Stan. Poor Stan the Denial Man.

   I voted, gullibly enough, in 2002 for a pseudo-Mormon gubernatorial candidate affectionately known these days as Willard Mitt Zombie. I then watched in real time, incident by incident as my pseudo-Mormon candidate lied his way through a four-year term and cynically gave the abortion slaughterhouse industry and the anal-obsessive Sodomy Stalinists all what he had promised them in a secret meeting, including one in a fashionable, lovely sodomy bar in Boston during his 2002 campaign.

   I dunno, fella, maybe I’m all wet here. Do facts matter at all in Denial Land-2009?

   Or are self-described “conservatives” now so well trained by the militant left, so lobotomized and so brainless that they hold feverishly to an insane, childish egalitarianism that magically levels the playing field between those who:

   ~Have invested thousands of hours in careful research over several years

   ~Have had exhaustive consultations with the best constitutional scholars in the United States

   ~And who have direct access to conclusively damning unreported inside information, even directly from top-level Romney supporters…

   …with those who (in stark contrast, no?):

   ~Have lazily relied on Mickey Mouse media propaganda for the masses?

   Stan, can you read English? We’re not winging it.

   You are. You are in d. e. n. i. a . l.

   Stan be sure to check out Cinderella Conservative’s castle and do enjoy the rest of your extended stay at Denial Land.

   It may not last much longer. That smoke in the distance is the swath of destruction by the Democrat vampire who is now building on the ruthless, amoral policies of the Republican Zombie.

   Thanks, Tony Perkins & Co. It’s been real. Way too real.

   Except in Denial Land.

   John Haskins

7. 

   StanGreen on December 17, 2009 at 12:07 am

   To Greg Jackson:

   I’ve already answered your question in my post back to Dave. You should read it again.

   Re: your press release and blog, I was also struck how it appeared to tout a list of people calling on Tony Perkins to retract, resign, etc. But when the list is examined, it turns out it is merely people who you claim have evidence to back up your attacks against Romney. This is not the same thing. Further, it includes people like Hugh Hewitt who are shameless Romney boosters. I’m not sure if you did this on purpose or not, but it doesn’t look good.

   Regards,
   Stan Green

8. 

   StanGreen on December 17, 2009 at 12:54 am

   To John Haskins:

   First, let me say that I googled you. Anyone connected with MassResistance has my respect, even when we disagree. Hats off to you.

   Second, you write: “I have first-hand knowledge of multiple people who have known Perkins and FRC over the long haul who each separately verify this sleazy habit of political prostitution by Perkins and FRC — and virtually all of the other “conservative” and “Christian” mercenaries who’ve joined them in enabling betrayals, lies and murderous abominations by Republicans and “conservative” elites over the last three decades.”

   Response: I also have first-hand knowledge of mulitple people who have known Perkins and FRC (and some of the other “villains” you mention in your blog) and I’ve found just the opposite to be true. I’ve put in the hours, too. So you can stop playing the “insider resume” game. I’m not “winging it,” as you presume. And regarding FRC, ADF, and a few others, I disagree with the character aspersions you draw from the events you describe. Many of your facts are correct, but all of the conclusions you draw are not–and it’s important not to draw the wrong conclusions.

   Why are you drawing the wrong conclusions? I don’t know you, so I don’t know. Could be just a difference of perspective. But sometimes when you’ve been in the thick of the battle, you start shooting at anyone and anything, even your own allies. Friendly fire is real. And candidly, from the unfortunate tone you have adopted, I fear you are letting what may have begun as totally justifiable anger (which I share) over the homosexual and Leninist power-grab for our kids and families become so intense that it has affected your judgement. Which will, if continued, diminish your capacity to help win this war we are in.

   When you adopt the look and sound of a nut, hothead or an arrogant jerk, people will regard you as such, and then your credibility is toast. I’m rebuking you here as a friend, not an enemy.

   Again, just to clarify, I’m not a Romney supporter–indeed I strongly opposed him in 08 and supported Huckabee, for many of the reasons you cite (though not all). And I’m not a novice in this battle who is “winging it.” But I do understand that while your rhetorical tactics may win some battles, they will lose some important ones, too.

   Let’s win, not just feel good.

   Regards,
   Stan Green