Thursday, July 16, 2009

Irony in Maine

Same-sex marriages are legal in the state of Maine, and the nuts are doing all they can to put together a referendum to stop it. They say they've got enough signatures on the petitions, though we saw what happened in our county when most of the signatures had to be thrown out because of forgeries and irregularities.

Bill Nemitz at the Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram has a well-written and weird article about what's going on up there right now.
File this one under "supreme irony."

Twenty-five years ago last week, a trio of young thugs beat up Charles Howard and tossed him off a bridge to his death in the Kenduskeag Stream in Bangor – all because he was homosexual. If you were gay or lesbian in Maine back in those days, you had good reason to be afraid.

Now, as the campaign to repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law shifts into high gear, fear is once again in the air. Only this time it's not the homosexual community that's quaking.

It's their opponents.

"I know what you're saying – there is some irony there," agreed Marc Mutty, now on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland to run Stand for Marriage Maine.

Still, Mutty said, "We feel like the minority that's being discriminated against. We are being treated like pariahs everywhere we go."

Some might hope that's a harbinger of how many Mainers will vote this November, when a people's veto of the same-sex marriage law is all but certain to be on the statewide ballot. (Polling that consistently shows the question too close to call, however, suggests the referendum will be far from a landslide in either direction.)

Others might look to the complaints coming from Mutty & Co. and observe that victimization sells – especially in politics.

In a recent interview with Susan Cover of the Kennebec Journal, Stand for Marriage Maine's leader, Bob Emrich, complained that he and his wife have been getting rude phone calls at their home in Plymouth. People also drive by and holler insults, he said, and on a recent night at 12:30 a.m., someone "banged real hard on our door and ran off." This time, gays are not the target

This is horrible. A group formed to destroy people's marriages and -- gasp! I can hardly say it -- somebody played ding-dong-ditch with one of them? In the middle of the night? Why, that's horrible!

One guy beat up, thrown off the bridge, dead. One guy's door gets knocked on and somebody runs off. "There is some irony here," agreed Marc Mutty, whose name rhymes with ... never mind.
"I expected people to be emotional, but I really didn't expect not to feel safe in the little town of Plymouth," Emrich, a Baptist pastor, told the KJ.

Apparently he's not alone.

A recent e-mail to the staff at the Portland diocese, forwarded to me this week by someone using the pseudonym "M. Luther," offers this advice to the diocesan staff:

"For security reasons, please do not give the physical location of the SFMM (Stand for Marriage Maine) office to anyone. It's imperative that no one else know the location."

The e-mail also instructed staff members, should they receive any "marriage" calls, to "direct the angry mobs to the toll-free number or invite them to visit the SFMM website."

Sitting Monday afternoon inside Stand for Marriage Maine's headquarters, an unmarked office in Yarmouth, Mutty said he authorized the e-mail. The "angry mobs" reference, he said, was tongue-in-cheek and not meant for public consumption.

Asked why repeal proponents are so worried about their safety, Mutty cited "what happened in California."

During last fall's successful campaign to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in California, Mutty said, "Churches were desecrated, donors were identified and harassed by the other side, and businesses (that supported the repeal) were blackballed."

You remember what happened in California? People who contribute money to a campaign, in that case Proposition 8, are listed in a database, it's public record. "What happened in California" was that some people looked up the names in that database and put them online, including anti-gay business owners and community leaders, and held them accountable. There was no "angry mob." You can say "businesses were blackballed," or you could say businesses were boycotted, or you could say people did not spend their money at businesses that donated money to destroy their lives.

Skipping down ...
But by complaining loudly and often that they've been called names and heard things go bump in the night since they launched their campaign, might Stand for Marriage Maine's organizers also be portraying themselves as an oppressed "minority" (Mutty's word, not mine) in the hope that they will be perceived as the victims this time around?

"No," Mutty replied flatly. "I don't think that's the way to operate. That's not the point we're trying to make."

Maybe not, but Stand for Marriage Maine's secretive ways contrast sharply with the see-through strategy of the Maine Freedom to Marry coalition.

Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for Maine Freedom to Marry, said his group plans a grand opening of its headquarters on outer Forest Avenue in Portland in the next week or two – and the public is invited.

"Our whole effort is volunteer-driven," Connolly said. "And our volunteers need to know where we are – so we'll be publicizing that throughout the state."

Beyond the logistical advantages to having an actual address, Connolly said his organization is "totally transparent" and looks forward to operating a "very welcoming and open office."

Strange tactic those gays are using, doing everything out in the open so people think there's nothing wrong with it. Very devious.

Here's the stinger.
"Maine is a much different place from California," Connolly said, adding, "I'm not sure where (the opposition's) fears are coming from."

Here's a theory:

Those who are trying to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law are learning – many for the first time – how frightening it can be when someone gets in your face or dials your home phone out of the blue and calls you a nasty name.

At the same time, those who are defending the law are learning – many for the first time – that the more the social pendulum swings their way here in Maine and beyond, the less they need to live in fear.

What a difference a quarter-century makes.

I'm not making any predictions about how Maine's debate will turn out. We'll see if the anti-marriage groups are able to actually get people to feel sorry for them. You know they've got big funding come in from out of state Family Blah Blah associations, so they don't really need a store-front where the citizens of Maine can volunteer and contribute. Their best bet is probably to hide out, work incognito, use the old techniques of misconstrual and lies, and see if they can get a referendum passed so the state government will step in and tell people they can't marry the one they love.

35 Comments:

Anonymous Robert said...

I read the scene of that murder in Stephen King's "It" years ago. Only last year did I learn it was a real incident.

July 16, 2009 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Their best bet is probably to hide out, work incognito, use the old techniques of misconstrual and lies, and see if they can get a referendum passed so the state government will step in and tell people they can't marry the one they love.

The concept of gaining influence by hiding out and working behind the scenes is in absolute agreement with the philosophy of Doug Coe, the leader of "The Family" or "The Fellowship," the group that runs the C Street house where Senators Ensign and Coburn discussed mistress payoff schemes.

Here's what Doug Coe had to say about hiding organizations:

VIDEO: "Jesus says, 'You have to put me before other people, and you have to put me before yourself.' Hitler, that was the demand of the Nazi Party. You have to put the Nazi Party and its objectives in front of your own life and head of other people!"

"I've seen pictures of young men in the Red Guard of China, a table laid out like a butcher table, they would bring in this young man's mother and father, lay he on the table with a basket on the end, he would take an axe and cut her head off."

"They have to put the purposes of the Red Guard ahead of the mother-father-brother-sister -- their own life!"

"That was a covenant. A pledge. That was what Jesus said."


AUDIO: "You say the mafia. I was telling you last night how they've taken these passages and used them for their own purposes."

"They also use the same type of organization. They keep their organization invisible."

"Everything visible (cough) is transitory, everything invisible is permanent and lasts forever."

"The more you can make your organization invisible, the more influence it will have."

"And as they're walking along, you're walking along you say, "Hey you know, Jesus said 'you've got to put him before father-mother-brother-sister.'"

"Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that's what they taught the kids. Put communism ahead of your father, mother, brother, and sister, and he even had the kids killing their own mothers and fathers, but it wasn't murder, it was for building the new nation, the new state, the new kingdom. They took the very ideas of Jesus and perverted it, and he made these people the disciples of Mao. And they had the little red book, two hours a day."

"We need to teach our children like Mao did, but we need to teach, not what Mao said, but what Jesus said."


You can hear Doug Coe say these things yourself, here. The link takes you to a youtube.com video produced by Bruce Wilson, posted in March 2008, ironically called "Hillary's Nasty Pastor Problem."

I guess Hillary's not the one having a problem with the The Family's Doug Coe these days.

July 16, 2009 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doug Coe's "organization" is a ministry to those involved not a political group. He works in a discreet way with influential people and the secresy is necessary to protect them from those they regularly encounter with ulterior motives.

The problem with Nazis, Communists, et al is not that they were fanatically devoted to something. It's that the object of their devotion was evil.

Absolute devotion to a just and merciful God tends to make one just and merciful.

July 16, 2009 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Keeping elected office holders' extramarital affairs secret, advising and helping members pay hush money to keep the secrets... you'll have to explain how that shows justice to Ensign's family and constituents and mercy to anyone but the lout himself.

Where did Jesus say that he needed the Doug Coes of the world to keep elite and powerful men's sins hidden in secret to show "absolute devotion to [His] just and merciful [Father]?" I don't find that part in my NT.

July 16, 2009 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Keeping elected office holders' extramarital affairs secret, advising and helping members pay hush money to keep the secrets... you'll have to explain how that shows justice to Ensign's family and constituents and mercy to anyone but the lout himself."

Actually, I don't think I need to. The people in the fellowship group were ministering to the individual. You have no idea what counsel they were giving him.

"Where did Jesus say that he needed the Doug Coes of the world to keep elite and powerful men's sins hidden in secret to show "absolute devotion to [His] just and merciful [Father]?" I don't find that part in my NT."

Jesus doesn't see much difference between elite and powerful men and everyone else.

I don't remember saying "he needed the Doug Coes of the world to keep elite and powerful men's sins hidden in secret to show "absolute devotion to [His] just and merciful [Father]?"".

I remember you saying you were involved in Young Life in high school. Doug Coe was too.

Tell us, what does your NT say you should do if someone you are discipling confesses a sin to you?

July 16, 2009 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

You have no idea what counsel they were giving him.

Well, I heard they got Ensign to write the handwritten letter of apology to his mistress and urged him to pay restitution to her, but you're right we don't know because for example, Senator Tom Coburn has claimed doctor/patient privilege as well as that of a man of the cloth.

Coburn said "I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the (Senate) Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody."

Funny that a man would need to consult with an OB/GYN. It boggles the mind to think what obstetrical or gynecological problems they might have discussed.

Even funnier was Representative Wamp's pirouette between Maddow and his hometown “Knoxville News Sentinel.” The paper reported something he said and got no complaint. Maddow read on air the exact same words and Wamp went nuts, complaining to her about her report. Maddow checked with “Knoxville News Sentinel” later and they told her they still had not heard a word of complaint from Wamp. Read it here if you're interested. It's the top story.

Wamp said “I hate it that John Ensign lives in the house and this happened because it opens up all these kinds of questions...I‘m not going to be the guy who goes out and talks.”

Maybe we need a Ken Starr to report the secrets no one wants to tell.

Tell us, what does your NT say you should do if someone you are discipling confesses a sin to you?

I have no idea. What is "discipling?"

July 16, 2009 5:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Read it here if you're interested."

I don't think anyone is.

July 16, 2009 8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Maybe we need a Ken Starr to report the secrets no one wants to tell."

I'm sure you'll find who agree with your faith-o-phobia.

You're really just a nut.

In case you don't remember, Ken Starr was investigating certain serious allegations involving corruption in the Oval Office.

During the course of the investigation, it turned out that the President abused the privileges afforded his office to take advantage of an entry-level subordinate.

Of course, Clinton's wife has attended fellowship activities with Coe's group as has President Obama.

Considering the non-partisan nature of the group, its hard to see what your gripe is.

July 16, 2009 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I'm sure you'll find [] who agree with your faith-o-phobia.

Oh brother. It's another day and here we have another set of words Anon is trying to claim are mine. As usual, the words, words about phobia no less, are Anons. Go ahead, try to find a quote in this thread or anywhere else for that matter since my posts are easily identifiable, where I said anything about fearing religion. Good luck with that. You don't scare me no matter how much you act like a bully and launch personal attacks against me and other commenters on this blog.

Spin your little heart out, Sybil et al, but the fearful ones would be those who hide in the shadows and shun the disinfecting action of daylight, e.g., members of The Family and "that was a different anon" internet trolls.

FYI, my gripe with The Family is its hypocrisy. They claim a religious, pro-family mantle and then circle the wagons to hide the family-wrecking adultery of its own elite Family members. From what the public sees, The Family does not so much appear to care about actual families. It does appear to be highly concerned with preserving its own access to powerful people by requiring its members to swear to secrecy.

July 17, 2009 10:03 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

In case you don't remember, Ken Starr was investigating certain serious allegations involving corruption in the Oval Office.

And in this C Street case, a special prosecutor would be investigating "serious allegations" of adultery, blackmail, conspiracy to encourage payments of hush money, secret negotiations about admissions of criminal/immoral conduct, finances that fund this secret society to subsidize housing costs for select members of Congress, and cover ups, to name a few.

Put the name Clinton on these allegations and watch your own tides turn.

July 17, 2009 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I've been reading some about the C Str. "Family." Allegations include not simply support for wayward lawmakers, but secret diplomacy and an effort to control international policy and the expenditure of government funds.

Besides which, it is a horribly poor choice of names. When I hear the name "The Family," I think of Manson, or the free-love with children cult by that name. It's just as bad as NARTH calling their new magazine the "Journal of Human Sexuality", with its connection with hate publications, and worse than the ill-starred 'tea-bagging.' Don't these people think or read. Next we'll have a newspaper called the 'Volkischer Beobachter' or something. Geez, people, think about these things, please.

July 17, 2009 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Hey, Anon, you missed one! Even the World Net Daily is onto the C Street Gang and Ensign's hypocrisy.

...Sen. Ensign could have – and should have – said at his press "conference":

"In 1998, I called on President Bill Clinton to resign as president after his lying was exposed concerning his under-the-desk oral sex with a White House intern named Monica. I said that Clinton sent taxpayer-paid staff out to lie for him about the misuse of public office. The president had no credibility left.

"Now it has become nationally known that I have also committed adultery with a staffer.

"I am therefore resigning from the United States Senate – as I once called President Clinton to do – because if I did not resign, I would be a notorious hypocrite as well as an adulterer."

But Sen. Ensign did NOT say this truth about himself – as he once enunciated the truth about Clinton, a massively adulterous carnal misuser of this White House intern.

Sen. Ensign might also have said: "I am resigning from the Senate also because I played the leading role in an effort to try to force my fellow Republican senator, Larry Craig of Idaho, to resign after he was caught in an airport men's room by a male police officer in a sex sting."

But Sen. Ensign did NOT apply his Clinton-Craig Resignation Standard to himself.

Instead, from Kevin Madden, Republican consultant and senior adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, there came the following notable morality for high office:

"This news is a personal issue affecting John Ensign, his family and their privacy. I'd argue that it's an analytical research for opponents to try to assign a negative political impact on the fortunes of the national party because of this revelation."

TRANSLATION: "So what the hell is wrong with nine months of adultery with the wife of a staffer? Surely, public figures are entitled to orgasmic relief with the help – considering the tremendous pressures of their job! … ...


The actions of The Family make it seem they really do believe Ensign was entitled to orgasmic relief with the help. After all, the C Street Gang freely gave him their advice and now they are freely and diligently giving him their protection.

July 17, 2009 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101813

July 17, 2009 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Uh oh! And then there were three adulterous GOPers hiding out at C Street with The Family!

Pickering Affair Raises New Questions About ‘Revolving Door’ Of Secretive Fellowship Group

Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow reported the story that former Rep. Chip Pickering’s (R-MS) wife has filed a lawsuit against Pickering’s mistress Elizabeth Creekmore Byrd, exposing a long-running affair. Pickering, now a lobbyist for Capitol Resources LLC, campaigned on a platform of promising to bring family values to Washington. Pickering tried to force his own views on marriage upon the country by pushing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and using marriage as a cudgel to demand that President Bill Clinton resign:

– While engaged in the affair with Creekore Byrd, Pickering said of President Bill Clinton: “I think for the good of the country and the good of his own family it would be better for him to resign. When someone puts himself forward for public office, then his personal conduct does become relevant.” [Washington Times, 8/20/98]

– Pickering explained his support of a constitutional gay marriage ban, stating: “Marriage as an institution between one man and one woman promotes the best interest of the husband and wife, and the best interests of children.” [Mississippi Link, 7/20/06]

The suit filed by Pickering’s wife also alleges that Pickering pursued the affair while living in the “C Street Complex,” the boarding house for the secretive right-wing Christian group known as “the Fellowship.” Pickering’s former colleagues embroiled in similar scandals, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), were also members of the Fellowship.

Doug Coe, the group’s spiritual leader, once preached that the willingness to behead one’s own mother was a “covenant” tantamount to what “Jesus said.” The organization “Youth with a Mission” owns the C Street boarding house, which is registered tax-exempt as a church, advocates seizing the “mountain of government” as part of an evangelical crusade to advance the “kingdom of God.” Coe, who holds misogynist beliefs, once counseled a lawmaker that his wife — who complained of not being sexually satisfied — might be possessed by demons.

Speaking with Maddow about the influence of the Fellowship, author Jeff Sharlet noted that the complex operates as a “fundamentalist frat house” where “if you’re part of God’s chosen…morality, ethics, these things don’t apply to them.” He also noted Steve Largent, a former Oklahoma congressman and former resident of the C Street house, now president of a telecom trade group, arranged lobbyist-funded trips for other members in the group, including both Pickering and Ensign. Sharlet questioned the lawmaker-to-lobbyist “revolving door” that “seems to be facilitated by the family.”

Watch it here: Hypocri-C Street

Read it here: Transcript

Excerpt:

...The bottom line that we see in that is whether it's personal infidelity or any other issue, the Family sees their oath to one another as more important than their accountability to the public...

July 18, 2009 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what, pray tell, would the Family be accountable to the public for?

July 18, 2009 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I'm surprised you're asking more questions. Apparently you are *not* one of "The Chosen" and didn't get the memo telling everyone to zip shut the cloak of secrecy.

Of course you don't get it. Hypocrites rarely see hypocrisy.

On July 8, 2009, before The Family realized it needed to enforce its secrecy rules, Senator Tom Coburn's communications director made a statement about The Family and C Street, which the Las Vegas Sun published:

...John Hart, Coburn's communications director, released a statement Wednesday afternoon saying Ensign should have ended the affair.

"Dr. Coburn did everything he could to encourage Senator Ensign to end his affair and to persuade Senator Ensign to repair the damage he had caused to his own marriage and the Hampton’s marriage," according to the statement. "Had Senator Ensign followed Dr. Coburn’s advice, this episode would have ended, and been made public, long ago."...


How long ago? Well, Cynthia Hampton's husband says since February 2008. That's 18 months Senator Coburn, and most likely other residents at C Street, knew of this affair and kept mum.

This Ensign/Hampton affair involved two people who were each in intact marriages with children. In contrast, Monica was a free, unattached single who flashed her thong, that is, she admitted she was the pursuer. According to Cynthia's husband, Doug Hampton, John Ensign was the relentless pursuer, who continued his pursuit even after intermediaries tried to get him to stop..

In addition, John Ensign's parents paid $96,000.00 to the Hamptons. Again, the Las Vegas Sun reports in Ethics group amends Ensign complaint over $96,000 payment:

...Ensign’s parents were added Friday to a complaint before the Federal Election Commission suggesting they violated campaign finance law by paying $96,000 to the family of the woman with whom he was having an affair.

The latest filing by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington comes as the senator’s office continues to insist the payments to the family of Cynthia Hampton were gifts, not severance to the former campaign aide, as the woman’s husband claims.

The distinction is important...

If the payments were severance, the senator may have committed a felony violation of campaign finance law by failing to disclose them as required.

...The Washington Post issued a correction that said the senator’s office “says that the alleged $25,000-plus severance payment to the Hamptons that some critics had questioned is part of the generous $96,000 gift Ensign’s parents decided to give the Hamptons.”


I don't recall there ever being any allegations of hush money, severance pay, or gifts being paid to Lewinsky.

OK, so try this to see if you can "get it."

Keep Coburn's name the same, but change "John Ensign" to "Bill Clinton" and "Cynthia Hampton" to "Monica Lewinsky" and pray tell us what you'd be saying about Coburn and the other members of The Family at C Street and their cover up right now.

July 19, 2009 1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, I really don't get it

the Family was a religious fellowship group that worked with people in a certain field

there are similar groups in all kinds of fields

I still don't understand why or what you believe they are "accountable" to the "public" for

you did bring up the issue of payments from Ensign's parents to the family of the woman

unless it is alleged that these funds came from campaign contributions, I don't see the problem

btw, the "secrecy" of the Family is overbown

while they did keep personal information about people in the group confidential, they weren't really hiding the existence of the group

I'd heard about them years ago, although not much lately

while they don't publicize their activities, people in evangelical circles in the D.C. area have been aware of the group

nothing clandestine going on

July 19, 2009 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

nothing clandestine going on

You are obviously not a member of "The Family." Actual members of The Family who live or have lived at the C Street house, for example, Senator Coburn and Congressman Wamp, have said publicly and repeatedly they will not say what goes on inside C Street, and Wamp said there's an oath of secrecy. "Clandestine" means "marked by, held in, or conducted with secrecy." Sorry, Anon, but The Family, who swears its members to secrecy, by definition engages in clandestine activities.

The Family is modeled after the mafia and uses small individual cells all serving "The Chosen." They raise money privately, "man to man," so there's no money trial. And they share their secrets, only with each other, so there's no evidence of immorality or crimes outside the individual cell.

Now some of their secrets are coming out because not all of their wives or members subscribe to The Family's misogynist viewpoint of male leadership, secrecy, and cover ups.

The Family's C Street cell provides subsidized housing on Capital Hill for millionaires like Senator Ensign, who surely can afford full DC rent, especially given that his parents were able to write a check for $96,000 to pay off his mistress. What do they expect in return?

And while I'm not sure, something tell me they didn't offer a lovely subsidized room in the C Street house to Barney Frank.

Here's what Jeff Sharlet, who lived with and researched The Family in their Arlington Virginia cell and wrote the book, "The Family" about what he learned, told Rachel Maddow about how The Family operates:

SHARLET: Absolutely. They speak of the [C Street]♦ house as a-as a refuge, a place that they can go to in Washington where they can have the kind of privacy that they don't have anywhere else in their lives. And at the same time, they combine that with an oath to protect each others secrecy as fellow C Streeter Zach Wamp, we were talking about the other night, has said, "We take an oath of secrecy."

In fact, one article by a former member of the Family talked about the wives of C Streeters and the wives of members of the Family, and one of the wives describes it like this. She says, "You know, I'm very comfortable with the idea that in my husband's life, first come his brothers and the Family and then come me."

So these, you know, the Family calls itself a Christian mafia, but there's a level in which when you're at the C Street house, it's almost like a fundamentalist frat house.

MADDOW: Well, yes, in more ways than one, at this point, if the allegations in this lawsuit are true.

When we talked last about the enthusiastic secrecy of the Family, how that's part not only of the sort of operating philosophy that they have about power but also about their theology, these members of Congress living together, swearing to tell one another their secrets but not to tell anybody outside the group, you and I talk last night about whether, hypothetically, members of this group would feel obliged to report it if one of them confessed to a crime.

Now, I want to know if it's possible that this group and this physical house operating under the secrecy rules could be something like a safe house for things that members of Congress wanted to get away with-whether it was a crime or an affair or something else that they knew was going to be trouble for them?

SHARLET: Well, it's something else that I think we need to be looking at. And yes, I think you're absolutely right.

And, you know, you mentioned that former Congressman Pickering is now a lobbyist for Cellular South, the company of his mistress.

July 20, 2009 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

SHARLET (Continued): Another C Streeter, Representative Steve Largent, we are talking about the other day, is in the meantime left Congress to become the head of the big lobbying association for that industry. And in that capacity, he's been inviting and paying for Congressman Pickering and Senator Ensign as well to go on trips.

We want to know if these are trips related to their issues so is the mistress going along with this. The bottom line that we see in that is whether it's personal infidelity or any other issue, the Family sees their oath to one another as more important than their accountability to the public.

MADDOW: Yes. Lots of question for you, Jeff, and again, I really didn't expect to call you again, but this is now-this summer's alleged adulterous affair by C Street politician number three.

So-when you were in the Family, when you infiltrated the group in the research for your book, what was the professed attitude towards adultery? Sex is, I think, probably not the most important thing to understand about this group, but it keeps coming up over and over again. And I wonder if they have a professed morality around issues of sexual morality-about sexual fidelity?

SHARLET: No. The Family-and the core of the Family, they actually reject the idea of morality for their members. They believe that morality is a secular construct, that morality is something made by man for little people like us, and that if you're part of God's chosen-as we've been talking about-what the Family believes that they're sort of a new chosen of God, morality, ethics, these things don't apply to you.

That doesn't mean they endorse adultery, it just means that they're just not paying attention as much to it.

And then, you combine that with a-frankly, a fairly misogynist viewpoint; they subscribe to an idea of male headship.

In some of the documents, Doug Coe, the leader of the group was actually advising another member on what to do with his wife who the member felt was demonically-possessed and Doug Coe said that's quite possible. The symptoms were-and there's just no way to make this sound, you know, respectable-the symptoms were that the woman was complaining that she wasn't sexually satisfied by her husband, that was-to them-a symptom of demonic possession.

I mean, it sounds crazy and it would be silly if it weren't happening right in the middle of Washington, with these men who are so powerful, who are congressmen and then lobbyists, and its revolving door that seems to be facilitated by the Family.


Anon said yes, I really don't get it

"Of course you don't get it. Hypocrites rarely see hypocrisy."

And you obviously don't get "The Family" either. That's why when Doug Coe has ordered his local DC members to be "Silent!" you keep talking.

July 20, 2009 10:01 AM  
Anonymous at the well said...

You know, Anon-B, people write books to make money and if there is some kind of intrigue going on, they sell more of them. So, exaggeration is not unusual. Writers get on talk shows and say all kinds of things.

"The Family-and the core of the Family, they actually reject the idea of morality for their members. They believe that morality is a secular construct, that morality is something made by man for little people like us, and that if you're part of God's chosen-as we've been talking about-what the Family believes that they're sort of a new chosen of God, morality, ethics, these things don't apply to you."

this is a preposterous statement, and unsubstantiated by any quotes, much less documented quotes, or examples.

Truth is, you know little about this group and there is little to base any suspicions on.

People in a religious fellowship have a right to confidentiality.

Just like Anon-B's on blog sites.

July 20, 2009 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

shockingtruths posted a little video/power point presentation on YouTube called Hillary's Prayer Circle: The Fellowship, AKA "The Family"

I think the Anons will enjoy it. Here's what it shows and says:

Title Frame: Hillary's Prayer Circle: The Fellowship, AKA "The Family"

Frame 1 "The Fellowship has operated in the Washington shadows since the 1930's."

Frame 2 [Photo] "That's Poppa Bush with Doug Coe, The Family's leader."

Frame 3 "'In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs.' --Barbra Ehrenreich"

Frame 4 Photo of Nazi youth giving the Nazi salute

Frame 5 Photo of Hillary Clinton bowed in prayer "Doug Coe, has ministered to Hillary since 1993."

Frame 6 "Today, The Family's members include dictators from around the world. One Honduran death squad organizer, Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, was convicted in a Miami Federal court of torturing over 1000 Hondurans."

Frame 7 Photo of Hillary Clinton looking down

Frame 8 "Other members include General Suharto of Indonesia; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; King Abdullah of Jordan, and dictator Said Barre of Somalia."

Frame 8 Photo of Hillary Clinton and several African Americans smiling, clapping, maybe even laughing.

Frame 9 Photo of man in devil costume with pitchfork, laughing, maybe even laughing

Frame 10 "others include Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; and Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement."

Frame 11 Hillary Clinton smiling in church with African Americans

Frame 12 "When author Jeff Sharlet went undercover to live in a Fellowship group house, he was told, "You guys are here to learn how to rule the world."

Frame 13 Picture of Hillary Clinton with a huge smile on her face, hands clasped as if she's clapping or praying

July 20, 2009 6:09 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Frame 14 "The group has 'made a fetish of being invisible,' former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said."

Frame 15 Photo of Hillary Clinton smiling, hands clasped as if she's clapping or praying

Frame 16 "The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes."

Frame 17 Photo of Hillary Clinton holding a book and looking upward, surrounded by African Americans.

Frame 18 "In 1960s Indonesia, member General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand 'Communists' killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was prsiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. --Jeff Sharlet, Harper's 2003"

Frame 19 Same photo as Frame 15, Hillary smiling with hands clasped

Frame 20 "Hillary attends The Family's 'most elite cell,' the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen."

Frame 21 George W. Bush smiling behind Hillary Clinton, who's laughing

Frame 22 "The Family takes credit for some of Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her suport for a law guaranteeing 'religious freedom' in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions."

Frame 23 Grainy video of Hillary talking as close captioning goes by. "Leaders of Hamas" and "Reverend Farrakhan" are repeated several times.

Frame 24 Photo of Hillary looking over Bill Clinton's shoulder "to be continued..."


Use the link above to go see this 2 minute and 38 second video for yourself. Note that shockingtruths posted this little gem on April 27, 2008, apparently intending to tar Hillary with her association with The Family. In fact, here's shockingtruths's youtube.com page. Check out what else he posts and see what you think about him and his material, now that the shoe's another foot.

July 20, 2009 6:10 PM  
Anonymous at the well said...

The Family is a very benign fellowship, doing spiritual outreach to a specific group.

Anon-B's link to a video from some place which does a Michael Moore number on Hillary and her association with the fellowship is just pointless.

There is just no scandal here, involving this fellowship group.

We're still waiting for Anon-B to tell us what she thinks is the problem.

The secresy charge is bogus. If those who are constantly in the spotlight want a place of refuge where they can seek spiritual guidance, that's great.

As far as those who have gotten into some type of trouble, if they had gone to professional counselors, it would be illegal under HIPPA to disclose what was going on.

Why should it be different if the counselors take a religious approach?

July 20, 2009 9:40 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

You don't like that youtube.com source? How about a more mainstream, reputable source, like NBC news' 2008 story about Hillary, Doug Coe, and The Family.

if they had gone to professional counselors, it would be illegal under HIPPA [sic] to disclose what was going on.

HIPAA protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information, and the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety Rule, which protect identifiable information being used to analyze patient safety events and improve patient safety.

It protects medical information from disclosure, not information about crimes like blackmail and adultery. HIPAA specifically states:

The Privacy Rule is balanced to protect an individual’s privacy while allowing important law enforcement functions to continue.

So if Mrs. Pickering's attorney wants to take depositions or call for courtroom testimony from residents of The Family who resided at C Street during the times Pickering was carrying on his extra-marital affair there, or if the Hampton's attorney want to take depositions or call for courtroom testimony from The Family Members at C Street about alleged pay-off money, people like Senator Tom Coburn could be compelled to testify about criminal activities they witnessed, aided, or abetted.

July 21, 2009 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Recent articles about The Family and C Street for those who'd like to learn more:

Governor Sanford published an editorial, "Sanford: An apology, and a pledge" last weekend in his home state newspapers.

Jeffrey Sharlet, author of "The Family" has written a piece for Salon today, Sex and power inside "the C Street House:"
Sanford, Ensign, and other regulars receive guidance from the invisible fundamentalist group known as the Family

July 21, 2009 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It protects medical information from disclosure, not information about crimes like blackmail and adultery."

There are no serious and credible allegations of criminal activity among the C Street Fellowship.

Adultery is not illegal.

People should be free to get counseling without fear of disclosure of a personal nature.

Our society agreed on that long ago.

"You don't like that youtube.com source? How about a more mainstream, reputable source"

I could care less about the source.

There was no content, just a hollow implicating style of presentation without any substance.

July 21, 2009 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

GotItWrongAgainSybil said:

There are no serious and credible allegations of criminal activity among the C Street Fellowship.

Mrs. Pickering, a resident of Mississippi where it is allowed, is suing her husband's mistress for "Alienation of Affection" for activities that occurred at the C Street subsidized group home for Congressmen owned and operated by The Family.

GotItWrongAgainSybil continued:

Adultery is not illegal.

In 2004, the Washington Post reported:

...Like 23 other states, Virginia still might prosecute if a husband or wife has consensual sex outside the marriage. Ten states, including Virginia, have anti-fornication statutes as well, prohibiting sex before marriage. Like many fundamentalist Islamic states, the United States uses criminal penalties to police the morality of its citizens.

These morality laws go back to the church-based "bawdy courts" of 13th-century England. Yet, the Bushey case illustrates that there are prosecutors today who remain eager to perform this quasi-ecclesiastical role -- to publicly defend the institution of the monogamous marriage, and the unwed, from the ravages of lust and desire. Because these are often unrecorded misdemeanor cases, the specific number of prosecutions is impossible to determine. However, the Bushey case is far from unique. Since 1980, adultery cases have been recorded from Alabama to Massachusetts to Pennsylvania. And in 2003, Georgia prosecuted an anti-fornication case.

This latest adultery prosecution, in a county circuit court in Virginia...


SpinSybil continued:

People should be free to get counseling without fear of disclosure of a personal nature.

Our society agreed on that long ago.


We also agreed that counsel that uncovers criminal activity is not subject to nondisclosure.

SpinSybil continued:

There was no content, just a hollow implicating style of presentation without any substance.

I agree, this is a good description of Sybil's comments. They are primarily spin, opinion, and contain factual errors; they are hollow and without substance.

July 21, 2009 12:07 PM  
Anonymous anon-B, evolution's through, folks said...

Come on, Anon-B, you're just trying to make us laugh now.

If having a lawsuit filed against you was proof of criminal activity, MCPS would be a branch of the Mafia.

July 21, 2009 2:54 PM  
Anonymous where have all AB's brain cells gone? said...

Anon-B

If it doesn't gel, it ain't an aspic.

You keep ranting about this C Street fellowship but you haven't made a case that they've done anything wrong.

Similar to when the Pharisees were desperately trying to drum up a case against Jesus, uh?

Stop embarassing yourself and move on to something else.

July 21, 2009 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

If having a lawsuit filed against you was proof of criminal activity, MCPS would be a branch of the Mafia.

Oh Anon, you're such a "The Family at C Street" wannabee. Now you're just trying to impress Doug Coe by mentioning his favorite model for The Family structure, The Mafia.

If you think that's the only allegation of a crime in the Ensign affair, you are mistaken.
Fox News reports blackmail and extortion appear to have occurred:

"...An influential Republican senator went public Tuesday about an extramarital affair he had with a member of his campaign staff -- a decision that FOX News sources say was prompted by a blackmail threat.

Two Senate Republican sources close to Sen. John Ensign of Nevada told FOX News that a former employee had asked Ensign for money in what both sources described as a case of "extortion."..."


Hmmm, I wonder which "two Senate Republican sources...described...'extortion.'" Would those have been other residents of The Family owned Congressional subsidized housing unit on C Street? Senator Coburn has refused to talk about what he knows.

AOL NEWS reported

the National Republican Senatorial Committee made twice-monthly payments, generally $500 apiece, to Brandon Hampton, who Republican officials said was the couple's son. The payments began in March of last year and ended in August, when Ensign's office says the affair ended.

"This really doesn't help a Republican Party that has tried to run as a party of family values," said Chuck Muth, a self-described conservative-libertarian activist. "It absolutely makes the party look hugely hypocritical."


I couldn't agree more, Mr. Muth. Hmmm, what did The Family's connections have to do with securing this job for Ensign's lover's son? Senator Coburn has refused to talk about what he knows.

And AP reports:

"...Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on Friday filed a supplementary letter with the Federal Election Commission. The group says the payments from Ensign's parents to Cindy Hampton, a campaign aide and longtime friend, may have been severance payments. That would exceed the contribution limits for campaign and political action committees.

Earlier the liberal watchdog group sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for a criminal probe of the possible severance payment..."


So there are possible criminal violations of campaign finance laws as well. Senator Coburn has refused to talk about what he knows.

July 22, 2009 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anon-B is a religiophobic bigot said...

here's the "crimes" Anon-B has mentioned:

1. blackmail

an employee of Ensign was blackmailing him

the employee is not part of the C Street fellowship

2. payments to the son of the person Ensign was involved in an affair with

I guess it's possible some C Street member arranged this

of course, it's possible one of the Rolling Stones did

but there's no reason to think either did

3. Ensign's parents made payments to the individual he had an affair with

it's a real stretch to say that Ensign's parents were making a campaign contribution when they tried to keep his affair hidden

besides, what would the C Street fellowship have to do with it


thanks for letting us know what you were talking about, Anon-B

now we can see how ludicrous your charges are

July 22, 2009 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

now we can see how ludicrous your charges are

Except I didn't make the charges you find "ludicrous." They were made by

FOX NEWS (blackmail and extortion) FOX claimed "Two Senate Republicans" made allegations of these two crimes.

AOL NEWS (NRSC's questionable payments to the Hampton's son) AOL cited "Federal records" as the source of the questionable payments to the Hampton's son, as well as the doubling of the Hampton's salaries during the affair.

AP (severance payments vs. gifts) AP cited FEC documents and complaints filed by CREW.

it's a real stretch to say that Ensign's parents were making a campaign contribution when they tried to keep his affair hidden

What are you saying here Sybil? Are you saying the parents paid someone off for their silence, as in paying "extortion" because someone was "blackmailing" them, demanding payment to "keep his affair hidden?"

The Ensigns claim they gave $12,000 gifts to Doug Hampton, Cynthia Hampton, and two of the three Hampton children, although how $12,000 x 4 = $48,000 adds up to $96,000 still puzzles me. Did Ensign's parents give two $12,000 checks to each of these four Hampton family members for pay for their silence?

July 23, 2009 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're the implicator here Anon-B

take the blackmail

if it was a crime, it was against Ensign and he's not complaining

saying it has anything to do with the C St fellowship is one of your ludicrous charges

July 23, 2009 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

take the blackmail

if it was a crime, it was against Ensign and he's not complaining


You mean he's not complaining at the moment. Here's an interesting chronology:

On June 16, 2009, Senator Ensign read a statement, including these remarks, at the Lloyd George Federal Building in Las Vegas:

...The woman I was involved with and her husband were both close friends and they both worked for me. Our families were very close. That closeness put me into situations during a very difficult time in my marriage, which lead to my inappropriate behavior. We caused deep pain to both families. For that I'm truly sorry...

He was truly sorry and there was not a whisper of a claim of blackmail or extortion.

Oh, wait! Somebody mentioned it!

Also on June 16, FOX News, who had Hampton's letter before they said they did, reported claims of blackmail and extortion were made by "two Senate Republican sources close to Sen. John Ensign".

On June 18, 2009, the Las Vegas Sun reported:

Neither the FBI nor Metro Police in Las Vegas is investigating any claim that Sen. John Ensign’s former mistress or her husband tried to blackmail the senator for hush money about the affair, spokesmen for the agencies confirmed Wednesday.

The alleged blackmail is the only explanation so far for Ensign’s decision to volunteer that he engaged in an affair more than a year ago.

Ensign reportedly told his Senate colleagues that he publicly acknowledged the affair Tuesday because the couple had tried to extort money from him.


On June 19, 2009, Ensign's office released this statement:

“Within the past month, Doug Hampton's legal counsel made exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits on behalf of his client,” Ensign’s office said. "Doug Hampton’s outrageous demand was referred to Senator Ensign’s legal counsel, who is handling the matter going forward.”

Suddenly on July 9, 2009, John Ensign released this statement:

In April 2008, Senator John Ensign’s parents each made gifts to Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton, and two of their children in the form of a check totaling $96,000. Each gift was limited to $12,000. The payments were made as gifts, accepted as gifts and complied with tax rules governing gifts. After the Senator told his parents about the affair, his parents decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time. The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others. None of the gifts came from campaign or official funds nor were they related to any campaign or official duties. Senator Ensign has complied with all applicable laws and Senate ethics rules.

Oh! So the money wasn't paid for blackmail or extortion, it was given as a gift! Right!

And all the while, Ensign was visiting C Street and his counselor, Tom Coburn.

July 24, 2009 8:57 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The Las Vegas Sun, Ensign's hometown newspaper, has a whole section on Ensign's troubles here.

Yesterday's Las Vegas Sun installments in the continuing story were

Christian group paid for Ensign’s foreign travel: The Family-sponsored trips to Japan, Middle East legal , which reports "...the trips have come to light as questions have arisen about the secretive group and its work with elected officials. Ensign and Republican South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford ... "

and

Ensign loses another senior aide . Ensign's Chief of Staff and his Communications Director resigned in the last two days.

Glub glub glub

July 24, 2009 8:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home