Franklin Graham’s non-profit organizations, Samaritan’s Purse and Operation Christmas Child, will no longer use Relevant magazine for advertising.
What was Relevant’s crime? They printed Franklin Graham’s own words!
On September 19, 2018, Relevant magazine reported a quote from Franklin Graham which were originally said during a CBN news interview. Here are Relevant’s two paragraphs.
When asked about the allegations, Graham, the son of the late evangelist Billy Graham, said: “It’s just a shame that a person like Judge Kavanaugh who has a stellar record—that somebody can bring something up that he did as a teenager close to 40 years ago. That’s not relevant. We’ve got to look at a person’s life and what they’ve done as an adult and are they qualified for this position so this is just an attempt to smear him.”
Graham was then asked about what kind of message his comments would send to victims of sexual assault who are afraid to speak out. “Well, there wasn’t a crime committed,” Graham said. “These are two teenagers and it’s obvious that she said no and he respected it and walked away … He just flat out says that’s not true. Regardless if it was true, these are two teenagers and she said no and he respected that so I don’t know what the issue is.”
And then the Relevant article quoted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s words. That’s it!! That’s the whole article.
Wow!! Sensitive much?!
Here is Revelant founder, Cameron Strang’s Instagram post today:
Later today, a spokesperson from Samaritan Purse told Faithwire:
“Every year, Samaritan’s Purse makes decisions about how to best use our advertising budget when faced with many options,” the spokesperson said. “This year, we determined it would be more strategic to invest those resources elsewhere.”
90 thoughts on “Franklin Graham’s Nonprofit Charities, Samaritan Purse and Operation Christmas Child, Cancel Advertisement Account with Relevant Magazine after Quoting Graham’s Own Words”
FWIW, I don’t care either way very much if Kavanaugh gets the nomination or not.
(Disclosure: I am a conservative. I am a former Republican but am not a Democrat.)
What concerns me the most in all this Kavanaugh bru-ha-ha that has been going on the last few weeks is the politicization of sexism and sexual assault by both political parties.
I am also concerned about the awful, sexist justifications and excuses some conservatives have made in their defense of Kavanaugh.
It’s fine to a point with me, and it’s understandable, if other conservatives want to ponder and investigate if the specific accusations against Kavanaugh by Ford are true or not, but they seem to be going too far in that they are tarring and feathering all sexual assault victims and women as a group in the process.
I have also seen various conservatives on social media and in quotes in news sources as dismissing sexual assault of girls by boys as being no big deal, if one or both are teen-agers, if the girl was drinking, and so on.
Franklin Graham seems to be indulging in some of that behavior.
I think sexual assault is relevant if it happened happened 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago, and what is wrong with Graham that he does not?
How about if one of Graham’s 40 or 50 year old cousins or sisters were to divulge to him that she was raped at age 15 and still deals with the ramifications of that to this day, would he just tell her to stuff it down, because it happened decades ago? Probably not, so why is he doing that to Ford?
Democrat Bill Clinton’s “nudge nudge, wink wink” with Lewinksy was about, what 20 years ago?, and his rapes of other women was also 20+ years ago, but Republicans don’t tire of bringing that up in 2016 (and beyond) to score brownie points in any “Trump molested a woman or bragged about grabbing their hoo-hahs” type stories.
Suddenly, in cases like that, number of years passed since a sexual assault happened becomes incredibly important and relevant when Republicans or conservatives want to toss charges of sexual assault, Me- Too- ism, or sexism at liberals and Democrats.
Based on what I heard, there may or may not have been a “crime” committed, but I do believe that Kavanaugh, probably inebriated at the time, did a dry hump on a pinned down, non-consenting Ford at some teeny party.
That is immoral. Christians are supposed to stand in opposition to things like drunk teen boys pinning teen girls to beds and grinding against them.
I can see how Franklin Graham’s highly dismissive attitude on this matter (‘hey sexual abuse is no big deal if it was 30 years ago and both participants were teens’), giving all benefit of doubt to Kavanaugh and none to Ford, can come across as hurtful, offensive, or insensitive to sexual assault victims.
Graham completely mishandled and misspoke.
Even if one supposes that Ford was lying or mistaken, SHE believes that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and was possibly going to rape her – that is a very big issue to her.
And Graham is just very cavalier in waving it away as though it means nothing.
But he even grants that it may be true, but says “so what, it was so long ago.”
This is what hyper-partianship gets you, more a concern for supporting your political agenda and party or getting a nominee confirmed (or rejected, depending on which side you are on) than it does in actually caring about people, regardless of their political party.
No wonder Jesus of Nazareth didn’t interject himself in the politics of his time.
Secular (and some religious) people will place political affiliations ahead of people’s welfare, the way some Christians will place defense of correct doctrine ahead of people’s welfare and safety.
Maybe he justifies it because he has some stories of his own. I’m around the same age as Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. I, too, went to a Catholic high school, except mine was co-ed. All of the local Catholic schools had a reputation for partying, and drugs/alcohol were prevalent. I think it was pretty common for guys to take advantage of girls sexually. I think people would have laughed at consent back then.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I think people would have laughed at consent ”
In my experience with sexual abusers they immediately start telling themselves it wasn’t that bad, the victim liked it, and wanted it. They start lying to themselves that they did not just do something wrong.
The person who hurt me mocked me. He was so confident and proud of himself. He knew he was important. He thought that is what females were created for and any that gave men a hard time about it are rebellious women.
People do not really think about what sexual abuse is. It is degrading, demeaning, traumatizing, embarrassing, and GROSS.
My father told me when I was thirteen that rape is not that big of a deal.
When I told my mother at 19 I was sexually abused as a child; she got mad at me. She told me it happened a long time ago, and basically to get over it and not mention it to anyone. And she still had the person over at her house.
Sexual abuse was rampant in my mother massive family for decades and no one called the police, no one told off the sexual abusers or tried to keep their children away from them.
I believe men who mock, belittle, and dismiss sexual abuse have done it themselves or have fantasized about doing it.
The message that is sent to sexually abused children all over America is rape should not be against the law. If you tell anyone we will make you pay. Men always come first. Men are entitled people and women and children are not.
Starting when I was a toddler I was sexually abused until age ten and did not tell my conservative comp homeschooling parents because I knew they would get mad at me. I did not trust them or respect them. They were stupid and they were evil, because of their ideology. In public, my parents would say they detest rape and rapist should go to prison.
I say all of this hoping people will care about the children who are living this miserable life. Most will never tell anyone because they know if they do they will pay. And that men’s wants, needs, rights, and feelings always trump women and children.
Years ago I talked to a man online who said he was gang-raped by three teenage boys when he was a little boy and when he told the police they blew up at him. They went ballistic and told him he was lying. We agreed that most people hate rape victims and rally around the rapist.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“…she said no and he respected that…”
My God! She says she was crying and yelling out, had her mouth covered with his hand, feared he may actually kill her, and escaped only after his friend (who’d been watching the assault) decided to join in on the act. If Graham thinks that is “respect”, God help any woman he comes in contact with. (Maybe he really does have some stories of his own, Julie Anne!)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good for Relevant.
(Is this a good time to mention Frankyn Graham’s salaries from his positions? Samaritan’s Purse – $582,000, BGEA – $669,000 per annum. Je$u$ $ell$)
LikeLiked by 4 people
I can’t trust anyone who talks like graham does on this topic at this point. And I’ve seen it all over Facebook too. Im pretty over dudes hot takes on how a little rapeyness in youth is a ok and women only ever lie.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I always I go with Anne Lamont on this: if people wanted you to speak warmly about them they should ha s behaved better. Truth is truth, no matter how old it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I want to say, I think referring to this incident as groping or dry humping misses the mark. I’ve had dudes get handsy like that. I’ve never had someone lock the door and put their hand over my mouth so I couldn’t scream. That’s the part that got me out of dr fords story. That would be terrifying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lea, I take it you are referring to my top comment?
Here is what I said earlier:
No, my comment did not miss the mark.
Notice I put the word “non-consenting” in there.
What Ford described was Kavanaugh grinding against her with full clothing on, which some Kavanaugh defenders are dismissing as not being a big deal because there was no actual penetration.
I disagree with their defense or minimization of what she said happened.
I believe a guy grinding on/ against a woman is reprehensible, and I believe she feared the next step would be him yanking down her pants and going full on penetration.
Are you disputing Ford’s account that he mounted her against her will while both were fully clothed?
Because that is how I understood her recollection.
I’ve never had a dude lock the door on me, but I’ve had guys my age and older (when I was a teen and 20-something) get “handsy” and/or make unwanted, unprompted sexually suggestive comments to me…
And I found it just as frightening as getting a door locked, because I did not know if these guys were going to drag me behind a bush down an alley and rape me later.
One guy, for instance, got sexually suggestive with me (via comments) and he tried to look down my blouse when I was a teen working in a store.
That intimidated me enough as it was, with no door being locked, plus, I was slightly afraid of “what if he waits for my store shift to end so he can follow me to the parking lot to rape me later, or maybe he wants to follow me on break, if I go to the food court or restroom so he can corner me there.”
I did not want to be totally blunt about this in my initial posts because my aim is not to start any political fights with whomever is visiting this blog, but though I am a conservative, I side more with Ford than with the nominee.
Even though I don’t think Kavanaugh penetrated her, I do believe he was inappropriate with her, and she was afraid more would happen.
I believe that he sexually humiliated her and put her in a scary position because he was trying to look cool to his male friend (he thought his friend would find it amusing or cool if he sexually dominated a woman).
He was also apparently drunk at the time, which may have played a role in his behavior.
I wonder if Franklin has any respect for his nephew, Boz, who speaks out to the religious community about a godly response to abuse (in the Christian environment). I think a catholic school could fit in that category. (GRACE)
He certainly doesn’t speak with a voice that advocates for protection for teenage girls/young women.
Ok, I can understand how the past is the past. I remember being encouraged by a saying about how we’re older and wiser by having been younger and stupider. As for Kavanaugh, I’ll have to look all that up. I don’t know what kind of reflections he has about that. But hopefully he’s made things right with the victim however he can, and learned how not to do that again.
But yes, we know sexual abuse is a big deal. As for Franklin, his mother Ruth wrote some books on being the mother of a prodigal, and some relevant stories may be part of it. If sexual abusers can become not that anymore, please help us all know what the process was, and how to tell the difference between that and someone who “fakes” repentance. Isn’t this what trust issues are made of?
JA – well, well. Is HuffPost reading Spiritual Sounding Board? 😉
She said he tried to take her clothes off, not just that he groped her. She said she thought he might kill her accidentally. I’m saying that is far more than groping not that groping is ok.
Graham is wrong in at least two ways. It is wrong to minimize sexual assault. It is also wrong to assume Kavanaugh is guilty. This current case is extremely loaded. Politics, abortion, and ideological control of the supreme court are huge issues, issues that will make bad people do awful things. The accusation was made against Kavanaugh, witnesses were named by the accuser, said witnesses all back up Kavanaugh. The evil here seems to be the willful destruction of what appears to be a good man for political gain.
narcissism vs. psychosis.
I have a hard time understanding why she didn’t bring these things up earlier, when these things have been in the “news” about variant forms of rape for many years.
Because she had no problem with bringing these things up 20 plus years after the fact, it can and does turn into a sort of psychosis.
20 years ago I went to this or that event in my child-hood years (under age 20). Getting ghosts out of the closet if they are not going to personally attack me, seems to be a sort of way to not allow wicked old Saul…….become the man Paul that Jesus wanted him to be…… just saying these political games are about enough to show forth the reality of who people truly are inside…..unrepentant and/or unforgiving.
Personally, it is truly an insult to men (and their family….not just wife and daughter….but other immediate and extended family as well) who have a decent reputation to call them out for this and that, when the evidence simply isn’t even there, despite various character flaws. Especially if the intention is to remove them from “professional positions.” Reread the account of Joseph. Potiphar’s wife would NEVER support an actual female rape victim. I am sure of it. She was in it for the “money” and the “fame”…..not for the life of actual victims of such.
It’s really all about the menz, we get it anongrace.
There are few judges who are given opportunity to make decisions for all people in the country, for the rest of their life. I am thankful for her courage to speak up. It is interesting to see his demeanor and hear his refusal to give a simple answer to questions. We observed him turn the question on the questioner.
He and Franklin, perhaps, appear to be in the good ole boy club together.
Brett seems to see himself above answering, entitled. Franklin sees a different standard for adult men than teen age young men.
This appointment appears to be life or death for Brett.
Losing her life through near suffocation appears to be life or death for Ms.Ford.
So what is really important in life?
Carmen gets it but I wanted to address this.
Aside from the fact that testimony is evidence, and that K’s BFF wrote a whole book about how they were drunken louts back in the day, which certainly lends credence to this accusation, Lack of evidence has nothing to do with TRUTH. All sorts of things happened in the past that no one can prove. Can you prove you had a sandwich yesterday? Maybe. Can you prove you had one 2 years ago? Probably not.
Is a thing true, or is it not? This is the only question.
If a thing is true it is true. It is not an insult to ‘men’ what nonsense. If it is a lie, it is a lie and if it were a lie that would not be an ‘insult’ to his family in any way. (I do not believe it is a lie, though.)
I DESPISE this attempt to use a man’s current family as an excuse for shutting people about terrible things he did. No. If he did not want them mentioned, he should have behaved better. Period.
anongrace, “Because she had no problem with bringing these things up 20 plus years after the fact, it can and does turn into a sort of psychosis.”
You need help.
I was abused by someone. Decades later, he was elected to be a church leader and it hit me like a ton of bricks that this person who abused me was going to be in a position of authority and trust, and no one probably had a clue that he was abusive. Prior to that, it was kind of like a bad dream, but when I realized I was one of the few people that probably had something against his reputation, it became a moral dilemma. For the same reasons as have been brought up here, I decided that it was not worth my time or my own reputation to bring the abuse to light.
The Republicans assaulted her character and the church had it’s “me too” moment – not in the sense trusting and advocating for victims, but in the sense of riling up the flock and furthering the butt kissing for more political clout. Not surprising that Franklin Graham, (R) brown noser extraordinaire is leading the charge in dragging victims through the fire.
Incidentally, my church participates in Operation Christmas Child. One year, we joined in and sent packages (requiring a donation to “offset postage”), after which we got the barrage of Samaritan’s Purse mailers. I think virtually all of their media has a picture of Franklin Graham on the front page – as soon as you open the envelope, and I think about half of those images are Graham photoshopped onto some image of devastation around the world. I think that’s pretty good evidence that Samaritan’s Purse is all about crafting an image of Franklin Graham as someone who instantly goes to help the worst off around the world, but instead is probably more about financing a private jet so that he can feel self-important.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the problem. Women who are in a state of “psychosis” (look up information given in a basic Wikipedia article) do not actually CARE about ACTUAL rape victims. They create a tale to recount information in their own fabricated way in order to promote their own agendas, rather than recall an ACTUAL event in their life.
There are various videos on the internet that are showing and studying the body language of Ms. Ford, which many are showing indicative of a “tall tale.”
Unfortunately, actual victims are ALWAYS ignored by people who give in to those who tell tales in the state of psychosis….. minorities, children in “different” parental relationship sort of households, disabled youth and adults etc.
If the law of God applies to men only in “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”…….humanity is in trouble. There are plenty of cases where WOMEN have been perpetrators of evil in unjust societies merely by their recollection of false stories about others (genocide studies would reveal this).
All in all, if it is true that this event did occur, then let it be, but if is a fabricated story, shame on those who fail to recognize the signs of “psychosis” in order to fail to properly protect TRUTH TELLING rape victims. Imprisonment belongs to those who are out to ruin other people’s reputation. That is called “defamation of character.”
PS. A person with over 5 family members of “Levant” heritage (that is inclusive of Jewish heritage by the way….for those who believe it just isn’t) and has encountered various domestic this and that events in life with the male family members would be giving a “false testimony,” if they never actually interacted that heavily with some of the family members, but yet were FORCED to give a story about actually having gone through something like that. (This is called -Subornation of perjury- in legal terms per say)
Yes, most rape cases are by those who ACTUALLY KNOW their victim. In the stories recalled, it seems that Mr. Klav. never ACTUALLY KNEW Ms. Ford…..
To me it is heartbreaking to even lie towards one’s own family, when the events never took place….. Biblical terms this is called -false accusation of the brethren-
Why would it be any different in this case? It surely must be a case of psychosis and/or political motivation……else this motive wouldn’t be there in the first place.
Yes, on many of the articles on this website it appears that the VICTIM is KNOWN by the perpetrator. In this case, it simply doesn’t appear to be the case.
Those who encourage -Subordination of perjury,- -bearing false witness against thy neighbor,- -false accusation of the brethren,- -dismissing cases in events of psychosis- etc etc. and do so with a vice, will only find out that they are not helping or healing the cases for actual victims, but are increasing the chances for the victims to live in their own state of terror for the events that they encountered in their lifetime.
If the law of God applies to men only in “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”…….humanity is in trouble.
Apparently it doesn’t, since you just did that. Do you KNOW that Ms. Ford is lying or are you just speculating, and if you’re just speculating, then how dare you rant about women giving false witness?!?
“Yes, most rape cases are by those who ACTUALLY KNOW their victim. In the stories recalled, it seems that Mr. Klav. never ACTUALLY KNEW Ms. Ford…..”
And… the Stanford rapist did not know his victim either.
In court, this is called “speculation” you are here speculating and talking about “most” and people don’t do this or that. There are just as many pieces of evidence that say that she is telling the truth. For example, she did not claim that he actually RAPED her. Another example, she does not have a history of false accusations. People who make false accusations, for example, in the Duke Lacrosse case, the alleged victim had made multiple accusations and had retracted them, which is an actual sign of falsehood. People who make false accusations also typically make them more heinous – this same woman accused three men of gang rape, then accused the entire lacrosse team of gang rape.
How many women accused Larry Nasser before the first one was “believed”?
You’re just arguing for the status quo. You have no idea whether she is telling the truth or lying, but you assume that because he’s a good ole’ boy Republican and she’s a raving liberal, that she must have fabricated the story to prevent him from getting to the Supreme Court.
And this is EXACTLY WHY RAPE VICTIMS ARE NOT BELIEVED!!!!
Larry Nasser – he’s a well-respected doctor. He would never do anything like that
Jerry Sandusky – well respected man who ran a charity for disadvantaged boys
Catholic Priests – well respected church leaders
John Hinton – well respected church leader
Tullian Tchvidijian – well respected church leader
So, here you go, throwing a bunch of half-baked crap at us, while, all the time making the exact case that has been made for centuries – that the man must be telling the truth and the woman is lying. I guess Satan doesn’t have to change his tactics if there are enough dupes to do his bidding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It sure sounds familiar, Carmen!
That’s just the problem Mark,
A white woman looks at an immigrant and the first thing that comes out of their mouth…….”rapeugee”……or a middle-eastern doctor walks into the room, when they are not even going to be physically handling the patient…..the first thing she thinks even in her mind, “.this doctor is going to act exactly like “Larry Nadar” “…..when there WILL be other nurses present in the room and there is absolutely no other doctor available after that woman was drunk and ended up in a car-accident.
Due to excessive “false witness cases”…….men are given the thought of thinking ill-well of their professional position. As a result, every single male person in USA or other country needs to go to the “firing squad” and end up in a prison especially for having “Levant Heritage.”
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
Obviously Mr. Klav is not a foreign looking stud, and more than likely doesn’t have this hare-it-age. He was just another stud of 100% white hare-it-age, who knew nothing in his younger years (except how to be a hare) and now all his “prodigal son story” lifestyle comes out, but we can’t really determine if the media is telling the truth or if the duck with the wobbling walk is telling the truth.
Having a “levant heritage” family member here and there…..some who look more like Moses and some who look more like Buddy Holly…..would make a person think more wisely about these things before making false claims, or the whole town would fall to parts and pieces. That one Levant dude who had a carpenter as a father and lived in small town Nazareth……you know for sure the gossip definitely got around fast in that neck of the woods. Gossip (false witness junk) would ruin the town in one day….and the children would get nothing to eat.
I happened to look up the name Larry Nadar to make sure I got the right name. Turns out I was right all along. I mean his name sounds soooo familiar to that one guy I met at the party named Kloe Kardashian….. I just happened to misinterpret the media head lines or something.
Takes a little bit of “thinking,” not just wild guessing in all of this.
The gossip train, simply won’t help actual victims…….just letting ya know that.
When women took power in “Germany” and believed Hitler would give them proper empowerment standards……something unusual happened…….just saying not all women empowerment causes are worth it. Do more research.
Mark, thank you for this explanation. I think it explains very well why a person might speak out many years later, or at the very least have, as you said, a ‘moral dilemma’ about it. Deciding whether or not to expose someone who has wronged you is a very personal decision. I don’t believe in making it any more difficult.
anongrace has problems.
I’m not sure what anongrace is trying to say here…yes most rape victims know their perpetrator, but that doesn’t mean they are all best friends and that doesn’t mean that stranger rapes don’t happen. I’m sure being in similar circles in high school counts as knowing someone.
Right? You are dx’ing a professional with psychosis based on nothing but your own disbelief. The people who go on and on about how we need evidence to believe a person who says a thing happened seem to have no problems believing another who says it didn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MODERATOR NOTE: Please stay on the topic of Dr. Graham and his comment, and how the contract with Relevant was canceled shortly after they posted his comments (without even posting their opinion). This post is not to discuss whether Dr. Ford or Kavanaugh is telling the truth or lying.
Will do, Julie Anne.
Franklin Graham by saying “Regardless if it was true, these are two teenagers and she said no and he respected that so I don’t know what the issue is.” was minimizing what happened. I have listened to a bunch of true crime and one maddening thing is how attempted murder that doesn’t succeed gets lower sentences…I feel similarly about. Not succeeding at murdering or raping a person is not laudable, Graham!
I read a person on twitter that said as a teenage girl this thought process is terrifying and I completely agree (as an adult, though).
Celeste said: I wonder if Franklin has a
any respect for his nephew, Boz …
Celeste, I wonder if Franklin has called out his nephew, Tullian.
If he has called him out, it is the one boys club that Franklin’s authority is muted. Tullian grooms and uses up women, at the same time as he is publishing books and claiming to be worthy of a ministerial job.
I imagine Franklin sees Tullian as the black sheep in the family, and Franklin sees himself as the white male authority carrying on his father’s place. Unfortunately, he hands out far too many opinions that don’t resonate with anything but political power.
I am amazed how easily conservative religious people fall in under his words. Don’t seem to be able to use critical thinking when it comes to him.
I’ve never seen Franklin say a thing about Tullian.
I didn’t think you were defending groping. That wasn’t my point.
I think you were nit-picking over the wording of my posts, or maybe you felt I was not wording things to your satisfaction, or I was not being condemning enough.
Whatever he did to her, it was wrong and immoral. I think I made my views on that pretty clear even in the first post or two, though I’m trying not to agitate any conservative, pro-Kavanaugh supporters, because I don’t really like to argue politics on blogs like this.
I haven’t even read down all the posts yet, but when I glanced on the home page and saw “anongrace” posting to this thread, I knew, I just knew, that he (she? but I think he is a he) would be here to say,
“But women are bad too! Men are angelic and need defending!!”
Remember the screen name “anongrace.”
Remember that name and take notice, any and every time Julie Anne posts a blog post having anything to do about a man (or men generally) sexually harassing or exploiting women, or churches being sexist against women, you can almost always count on “anongrace” to chime in to defend men and criticize women on those threads.
He’s kind of like another KAS or D.
Even though American culture is largely stacked in favor of men, and consists of male dominance of women (sexism against women), these types of guys always like to assume men are victims, women are bullies, and that we all need to be reminded that some women can be bad sometimes.
They feel it’s their duty to come on to threads like this one to point a finger of blame at all women.
Ford named friends of Kavanaugh’s. And they claim they don’t remember what happened.
Of course they are going to say Kavanaugh was innocent, or they don’t recall what happened. I’m not surprised.
If Ford was just out – and – out – lying, she could’ve said her good friend “Mr. So and So” was also there that evening, and she could’ve had her pal “Mr. So and So” step forward to manufacture a bit of corroborated evidence to support her side, but she did not.
If you are going to lie about something like this, are you really going to leave gaps in your story and say you cannot remember the street name, the house address, etc? I don’t think so.
If you’re going to lie, it would be easier to lie all the way to fill up any and all details the committee wanted.
The fact that Ford named friends of Kavanaugh’s speaks more towards her honesty, I believe.
I do think the Democrats are playing politics, some of them were with-holding Ford’s story until the last minute (they’ve known since what June/July),
Ford wanted to stay anonymous, yet some Democrat (apparently from Feinstein’s office) leaked her story, so shame on the Democrats for all that…
And in spite of all the other little details Republicans are spazzing out about (is or is not Ford afraid to fly on planes?, etc)…
…there are too many other little details in Ford’s testimony,
and in Kavanaugh’s recent behavior (of flipping his lid and getting too emotional(*) in front of the Senate hearing),
that lead me to believe that Kavanaugh was in fact a spoiled, drunken frat boy back in his high school / college days who believed it was okay for him to do things like pin teen girls or women down to beds without their consent.
And he’s minimizing and/or lying about that stuff now because he wants the job so badly.
I don’t think Kavanaugh has the character or morals to be considered qualified to be a Justice.
I don’t think Kavanaugh’s “life will be ruined” if he doesn’t get the nomination – framing the situation in that way that is hyberbole from Republicans and anti-Me-Too-ists.
Trump should forget about Kavanaugh and just pick another nominee.
Neil Gorsuch, his other nominee, got in okay.
(*) And no, contra the usual conservative talking points on Kavanaugh’s behavior, I do not think it’s “understandable” that on national television, in front of senators, that a man, even one allegedly “wrongly” accused, would behave in such an unprofessional manner by yelling, screaming, and getting sarcastic with the senators, as he was doing.
I didn’t think Kavanaugh’s anger was sincere, anyway. His emotional outbursts struck me as an emotional show he was putting on.
If Kavanaugh’s is truly angry at all, my take is that it is only in that he is an entitled Frat Boy who is angry that anyone is taking a woman’s accusations against him seriously and holding up what he believes is his rightful place on the Supreme Court.
I don’t think Brett Kavanaugh has a decent reputation.
Not only via Ford’s testimony and from others who knew him when, but his behavior in front of the Senate panel was very unprofessional.
(BTW Ford told her husband and a therapist years ago about the alleged attack against her by Kavanaugh. This was before anyone knew that he’d ever be a supreme court nominee.)
I’m not a big fan of liberal actors (many of them ignored Weinstein for decades and so on),
but never- the- less,
this SNL skit about Kavanaugh’s appearance nailed it so far as I am concerned (this is how I saw him):
_Kavanaugh Hearing Cold Open – SNL_
(video on You Tube)
As I was saying above, we can always count on Anongrace to show up to any thread almost any thread pertaining to some gender dynamic to denigrate women and depict all women as liars, schemers, Jezebels, and to toss in a few seemingly unrelated Bible verses or principles to the topic at hand.
I just saw a paper about this not too long ago…
_What kind of person makes false rape accusations?_
I’m not a Democrat, but I used to be a Republican (for a very long time).
One reason I cannot stay in the GOP is due to stuff like this (not that Democrats are champions of women, or dealing properly with sexual assault / harassment, either):
_Poll: 48% of white evangelicals would support Kavanaugh even if the allegations against him were true_
That is twisted. Even if Kavanaugh sexually assaulted teens / women, these Republicans are saying they don’t care. They still think the guy should be confirmed.
So in a way all the people online and on TV news arguing about whether the allegations are true or not – it all seems a little beside the point when a portion of people do not even care anyhow – they don’t think a man sexually abusing a teen or woman even matters in the first place.
And don’t forget actor Bill Cosby, aka “America’s Dad.”
Cosby drugged then sexually assaulted 60 or more women, and after the women began publicly coming forward several years back, nobody cared.
Not until a male stand-up comic, in one of his stand up routines, called out Cosby for his hypocrisy, then the rape allegations were looked at seriously.
Cosby was finally sentenced to jail a few days ago, 3 to 10 years.
I actually have no idea what Larry Nassar is – he looked to me like a dorky white guy, not someone of Middle Eastern descent.
As someone who is partially white, (though I’m also of Native American lineage), I’ve never had that issue, anongrace – I don’t look at a guy’s skin color and automatically assume he’s a pervert of rapist.
So no, the first thing out of my mouth is not ”rapeugee.”
As a matter of fact, I shared on this blog twice before that when I was 15 or 16 years old, and a smarmy doctor my mother dragged me to who was going to touch me inappropriately, and I was upset by that experience-
That doctor happened to be a white guy.
He was not a black guy, not a middle eastern guy.
I knew at a young age that any man of any skin color or ethnic background can be capable of sexual harassment / abuse, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
All men of all skin colors and ethnicities in most cultures get sexist messages from their religions and cultures that they are entitled to women – they are entitled to touch us women without our consent.
Some of America’s most famous serial killers are white men. (Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy.)
It is a fact that European nations (such as Germany and Sweden) that have many Islamic refugees have seen an increase in rapes of native women by those same immigrants / refugee populations (i.e., _link from BBC_ as one example).
But I do not deduce from this that any and all darker – skinned or ethnic – appearing persons are rapists.
So I have no idea what you are going on about.
You acknowledge here that Kavanaugh appears like a white boy, so why bring up all the other stuff about looking middle eastern people?
Your contention is that, what, if Kavanaugh was of obvious Mid-East origins, physical appearance-wise, he’d automatically be assumed to be guilty by everyone or by most Americans, but because he looks white, the public is more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?
I don’t think anyone on this thread was mentioning “women empowerment,” so why are you bringing that issue up?
Women weren’t the problem in Nazi Germany – Nazism was the problem.
Most cultures are and have been patriarchal. Women seldom get control or leadership.
Men have been in charge of many nations and cultures for centuries, and it’s done nothing to stop sexual assault or rape or to make culture safer.
Sometimes men rape other men – I don’t see how one can blame women for male on male violence.
Christianity has not wiped out all sexual abuse, rape, or sexual harassment in America (or other nations) either, so I don’t think “Jesus” is necessarily the answer, but I suppose it’s fair to debate if women have life safer under mostly Christian dominated culture vs. Islamic ones. But that isn’t the topic of this thread.
Some white Christians used the Bible to justify white ownership and mistreatment of black people in the United States for years…
so Christianity sort of contributed to the on-going racism and slavery problem in the United States, it didn’t fix it (though there were some Christian slavery abolitionists). But that isn’t the subject of this thread, either.
Re: Anongrace’s post of -OCTOBER 1, 2018 @ 7:40 AM, snippets:
That was a lot of gibberish.
I have no idea what you were trying to convey with that post.
Every time I read a post by anongrace I wonder if she got lost on her way to Alex Jones Infowars.com.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Getting back to the topic of Franklin Graham.
So, F. Graham is showing no sensitivity to sexual assault victims, but remember a few years ago, he showed far more concern over Target stores removing “boy” and “girl” signs from the toy aisles.
(I refer to this:
_Rev. Franklin Graham Slams Target for Removing Gender-Based Signs from Stores_ – August 2015 news story)
Seriously, this guy’s priorities are out of serious whack.
He cares more about stores keeping rigid gender stereotypes in place for kid’s toys more so than the sexual assault of women.
I read that Franklin arrives places with an entourage.
Franklin Graham is polar opposite of his father. I grew up watching Billy Graham with my grandparents and always liked and respected him. I wonder why Franklin is nothing like him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another weird comment by anongrace implying that if you aren’t in the ‘most likely’ group, you can’t have been raped?
Because of how math works, there are more in total numbers white men (58%) who are perpetrators and white women who are victims. [per Rainn]
Nobody wants to believe women about this, just in general, which is the problem. And if they believe they don’t act. And if they act, they give light sentences, like Brock Turner and like the terrible case recently in Alaska where the guy got probation. [they often don’t want to believe children either.]
Daisy, I don’t consider this a political issue and the reason I was ‘nit picking’ was because I’ve heard the situation minimized all over the internet and I wanted to point out how serious this actually was. Please don’t take it personally.
Literally nobody has said that. There was an entire (lovely) thread the other day on twitter about times when lovely men showed how they actually valued consent and treated women as people. It was fully of people thrilled to talk about the men who had been wonderful. I had a conversation with my boyfriend about consent this morning and how good and decent men understand it.
That is completely different from the men who aren’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…a Total Fraud.
Local morning drive-time radio mentioned the same thing earlier this week. That often a false accusation will be more embellished with over-the-top sensational details, and such tabloid embellishment is one of the signs to watch out for in an investigation.
Some time ago, I mentioned that the #MeToo movement had gone viral and gotten so widespread that we could expect to see false accusations start to filter in; disturbed people jumping on the bandwagon for their 15 minutes of fame, discrediting real victims in the process.
It’s called Righteous Moral Fury(TM).
(But don’t touch the Olive Oil and the Wine of those Righteous Moral Crusaders!)
Possibly. A couple years ago, Wartburg Watch had a troll called “call a ginger” that was presumed to be a bot.
That could be Troll or Bot.
But if it’s a Troll in Meatspace, ponder this:
HOW BIG A LOSER DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO FAIL A TURING TEST?
LikeLiked by 1 person
With flunkies in livery blowing long trumpets before him?
“SEE HOW IMPORTANT I AM? SEE? SEE? SEE?”
I was going to public high school and community/state college, and there was a “common knowledge” (i.e. widespread urban legend in the locker room scene) that Catholic School girls were easy.
Yes, that’s a great line to use about women who don’t do whatever men want, HUG.
It was also probably a lie.
Right up there with the whispering campaign that she’s Lez? That happened to my ex-girlfriend around the time I met her. Very sketchy artist type tried to put the make on her, she told him where to go, and he started the rumors.
Said scumbag artist got into real trouble a few years later when he tried the same shtick on a female pro comics artist. (I remember seeing her slamming him against a wall a couple times for that one when the two crossed paths at the next ComicCon.)
Sounds about the same. 😦
Definitely that was the stereotype of local catholic boys school (with ‘sluts!’ being the stereotype for the girls).
Catholic University students had a pretty raucous rep as well, to the point where a cab driver told me he preferred picking up students from my school instead, because they were better behaved, less drunk and better tippers.
I believe it, Lea!
FYI: My parents have been visiting this week, so I’ve been enjoying their company and relaxing a bit. I’ll get a blog post up hopefully tomorrow after a quick trip to Portland where I”ll be hanging with Ken Garrett and people who have been spiritually harmed. Tonight at McMenamins Kennedy school at 7pm. If you are in the area, please join!
What leaks are you referring to?
Who are the “false accusers” here you mention?
Still have no idea what the ‘psychosis’ babbling has to do with anything.
I can assure you that I am not one of the people online or in our nation who is minimizing it.
If anything I am seeing other people minimizing it, and it bugs me.
I believe Ford was telling the truth, for one thing, which is a rare thing, because 99% of conservatives (I’m a conservative) are playing partisan with this.
Many conservatives (and apparently posters such as “anongrace”) are choosing to defend Kavanaugh, doing things like braying about due process / innocent- until- proven guilty, arguing that men are victims now, complaining about the politicization of “MeToo,” — but…
These same people, at every opportunity, also trot out Juanita Broaddrick (who has _claimed for years_ that Democrat Bill Clinton raped her years ago – and yes, I think she is telling the truth on that), and they keep saying,
“What about (democrat) Keith Ellison’s accuser, who says he beat her?”
(Both sides do this. Both sides play partisan politics to protect any man in their camp who is accused of sexual abuse or domestic violence.)
Even putting that aside, whether Ford was telling the truth or not, notice the reactions of so many on this issue, especially conservatives, on how they are justifying and excusing sexual assault, they are victim-blaming, diminishing sexual abuse, rushing to defend the man and wanting to throw the woman under the bus. That is what really bothers me.
I just saw news reports a few days ago about _a survey_ where a large portion of conservatives questioned said EVEN IF it could be proven beyond a doubt that Kavanaugh was a sexual abuser, they would STILL want him confirmed.
Un-frikkin-believable to me.
I’m a conservative, and that really bothers me.
Then we have stuff like some conservative people saying,
“Well, EVEN IF Ford was honest about what happened, it doesn’t matter because they were both just teens, and Kavanaugh was drunk, so who cares!”
So, you have those types of people who are acting as sexual harassment / sexual abuser apologists, and it makes me want to vomit.
Can you explain what any of this has to do with the original post about Franklin Graham?
Please connect the dots for me.
I would think sexual assault, or attempted sexual assault, is far, far more common than being accused of witch craft, and then thrown into a lake to be drowned in a test to see if one truly is a witch.
It is my understanding most of those accused of witchcraft were women, not men.
Those women accused were tossed into lakes by their accusers. If they floated, they were assumed to be guilty.
If they drowned, they were assumed to have been innocent.
But please, connect the dots with me on how someone saying they were sexually violated by someone else is the same as being accused of witch craft.
Prior to Kavanaugh ever being a final selection for nominee, Ford had already told her husband about Kavanaugh pinning her down on the bed and trying to undress her and covering her mouth so she could not scream, and I think she also told a therapist and years prior one or two friends.
Ford also requested to be kept anonymous. Ford did not want to go public or be interviewed, but someone in Democrat Feinstein’s office leaked the info.
Ford had nothing to gain by submitting her account to Feinstein’s office. She had a lot to lose – she started getting death threats from Kavanaugh supporters and had to move to a new, undisclosed location.
None of that sounds like the actions of a false accuser.
The original thread heading:
Especially this line, which really minimizes male sexual assault of females:
Spoken like a guy who was never pinned down against his will by someone physically stronger and larger than he was in what would feel like an attempted rape scenario.
Would FG, if he has young nieces or grand-daughters, be so dismissive if some 15 year old guy pinned down, pawed at, and put his hand over the mouth of one of his teen-aged nieces / grand daughters?
Can you imagine being someone who was sexually violated, or almost was, in a situation like that, only to see a famous evangelical Christian act in such a cavalier fashion about it?
Lea (quoting anongrace, I presume):
I must have missed that my first skim-over of anongrace’s bizarro post that Lea is quoting there.
I come from a family where both sides (paternal and maternal) inter-married with people of 100% Native American identity (from more than one Indian nation) – in other words, on both sides of my family, some white people married natives.
Having grown up like this, I did not go to “pow-wows.”
I’m partly white and partly native – if either type of woman, 100% white or 100% native (or any other type of woman – Asian, Black, Hispanic, etc) were to say she had been sexually assaulted, my tendency would be, regardless of her skin color or ethnicity, to believe her, not doubt her, (unless someone or something could demonstrate otherwise).
(continued in part 2)….
Anongrace has apparently been trying to say above (I can only guess because his posts are so oddly worded)…
That white people get preferential treatment in our culture – that people want to assume all non-white men are all rapists and everyone wants to instantly believe all white women are being honest if they say they’ve been sexually harassed.
There could be some people like that, but I’m not one of them.
(And, by the way, Anongrace’s emphasis upon ethnicity or skin color in sexual assault allegations doesn’t line up with the Kavanaugh situation, because Kavanaugh is regarded as being a white guy. He’s not a black guy, nor is he a person of Middle Eastern descent.
Ford appears to be white, too.
Or, is Anongrace making the opposite, typical Social Justice Warrior argument, and saying white people have life tougher than non-whites?)
Most of the men exposed as being sexual predators or harassers via the MeToo movement so far have been white men.
Initially, most of those exposed via the “MeToo” movement are white men who work in the Hollywood motion picture industry, such as, but not limited to:
-and white men who work in journalism, such as….
(You also have “MeToo” accusations regarding male- on- male sexual abuse / harassment, such as against WHITE MEN actor Kevin Spacey and movie director Bryan Singer.)
A year into “Me Too,” and only a small number of non-white men (by comparison to the many white men accused) have been accused of being rapists, gropers, or sexual harassers, such as…
Actor Morgan Freeman, actor Bill Cosby, music producer Russell Simmons, Ben Vereen, and actor Aziz Ansari.
Interestingly, a few People of Color have come forward due to getting courage from the “MeToo” movement to say they were victims of sexual assault, such as black actor Terry Crews, who said a man groped him at a Hollywood-related social function.
(And I believe Crews. I do not think he is lying about having been groped.)
Several months ago, white actor Brendan Fraser said he dropped out of acting for years because he was sexually groped by a male in the movie business.
(I also believe Frasier. I do not think Fraser is lying or exaggerating.)
And I believe all those men, whether they are white, black, or of some other group. I don’t see anything by Crews, Fraser, and the rest to indicate they were lying about having been sexually attacked.
There have so far been about two men who have said they were sexually harassed or assaulted by women, and I believe both those men.
One of them said a woman (who was white) was in a political position tried to coerce him into sex – and I don’t think he was lying about that.
The “MeToo” movement has seen all sorts of people, of all sorts of skin colors and ethnicities, claim they were sexually abused, and the accused have been of all skin colors and some from differing ethnicities, too.
So I guess all the dozens of people now adults, some men, some women, who say they were raped or groped by adult men priests 30 or more years ago in Pennsylvania all have “Psychosis,” are lying, and/or are “false accusers”?
_“The response to the Kavanaugh allegations exposes what we failed to learn from the Catholic clergy’s abuse”_
-via TIME magazine
_Kavanaugh defender [who was a Republican politician] admits on CNN he would question his own daughter’s sexual assault claim if her friends didn’t back her up_
@Daisy – Another title for this article would be, “How to publicly proclaim you are an asshat”. (The Republican politician). 😦
One thing about anongrace posting here. It gives all readers a glimpse into the mind of those on the lunatic fringe. Read and weep, folks. They’re the ones who think tRump and his minions are real leaders. smh
I’m right. Old-woman in the shoe….she remembers things way back into the teenage years…..
Unfortunately Jack died…..before he could even give his account before the supreme court.
The MeToo movement was not begun by Asia Argento.
The MeToo Movement was begun by Tarana Burke.
Many women (most of them are non-celebrities) came forward under the MeToo hashtag to discuss their personal experiences with having been sexually harassed, groped, date raped, or raped by strangers.
I am a woman who has been sexually harassed by men, too, though I never used the MeToo hash to speak out about it.
I suppose you are saying that any and all women who spoke out about having been sexually abused or harassed by men are either abusers themselves, or you are suggesting they are liars.
You are a misogynist, anongrace.
You’ve made that very clear in your months of posting to this blog.
Almost any time Julie Anne or her co-bloggers post a topic related to gender on this blog, especially one pertaining to male mistreatment of women, you jump in to leave remarks insulting women – your sexism and misogyny does not surprise me.
Julie Anne, if you are reading this – I’ve sent you a small number of e-mails the last few months.
I am very concerned that your blog is being mis-used by guys with sexist agendas who make this blog an unfriendly place for victims of spiritual or sexual abuse to talk about their issues openly.
Sometimes posters KAS and D are guilty of this, but so too is anongrace.
It’s not my blog, but I am hoping you take a long, hard look at their months-long posting habits of showing no empathy to female victims of male abuse (spiritual and sexual) and strongly consider banning them or putting them on slow moderation.
Now anongrace is spamming your blog with more gibberish-filled posts (most of his comments make little to no sense), and, now he’s spamming your blog with many videos.
I know I can at times post here a lot, but the majority of the time, my posts make sense, they relate to the original post, and/or to what other commentators in the comment box is saying, and I don’t make several posts in a row containing videos in them.
_I Was Brett Kavanaugh’s College Roommate_
There is no proof that Ford lied about Kavanaugh.
The only outcome to the whole ordeal was that there was nobody who claimed they could remember what happened that evening he met her (these were friends of Kavanaugh’s) that would back-up her story, there was no DNA evidence, and there was no photographic evidence of Kavanaugh actually touching her – which doesn’t mean that Kavanaugh did not do what she claims he did.
_Media Reacts to Asia Argento Payout: ‘Two Things Can Be True at Once’_
_Tarana Burke Responds to Asia Argento Report: “There Is No Model Survivor”_
Information about the following song on _Wikipedia_
A song about victims of sexual assault:
(Song Title: “Til It Happens to You”)
To whom are you referring, specifically?
Who is supposedly being “falsely accused” and by whom?
BTW, if you are referring to Kavanaugh at all in your weird posts:
Kavanaugh was not on trial for his life: he was at a job interview, which he got – he was confirmed a day or two ago.
Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a teen girl when he was younger and got away with it, so I’ve no idea why you’re going on and on about false accusations, the innocent being condemned to death, etc.
I mean, hyperbole much?
You really do hate women, especially women who step forward to say they were sexually harassed or abused by men.
_What The Research Says About (The Very Rare Phenomenon Of) False Sexual Assault Allegations_
_#WhyIDidntReport: Beth Moore Tweets Her Sex Abuse Experience in 5 Words_
I notice SSB is becoming “The AnonGrace Show”.
Tip: “Grace” in the name of a church or commenter handle should be approached as “People’s Democratic” in the official name of a Third World country — the burden of proof should be on them.
“The more adjectives about Democracy there are in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship it is.” — TV Tropes
I got lost at the apart titanic conspiracy theory…is he accusing the old lady of pushing Jack off the raft? Because that does sound like it would have been an entertaining twist to the movie.
Seeing the “nuclear option” invoked in the Gorsuch confirmation vote makes me believe his hearing would’ve been a circus, had he been nominated as the 5th Conservative Judge on the Supreme Court.
Listening to all the back and forth and then seeing Senator Collins give her testimony, exposed one undeniable fact, in that Kavanaugh was caught in the cross hairs of Pro-Choice leaning Dems and Pro-Life leaning Pubs.
On of the things I got out of Collins testimony was her exposing that any Conservative leaning Judge that would’ve been appointed as the 5th Conservative Justice, would’ve went through the same chaos as Kavanaugh from Senate Liberal Dems.
Not saying I believe one way or the other who was right and wrong. None of us were there and the mostly partisan witness’s account for both sides, seem pretty foggy.
Speaking of which.
Very funny scene from the movie “Bruce Almighty” below.
Bruce is a television reporter shooting on location, interviewing people on a “Maid of the Mist” boat tour by Niagara Falls when he finds out his competitor, Evan Baxter, gets the TV news job promotion that HE wanted.
He then goes into a very entertaining melt-down of epic proportions.
(Warning: clip contains some profanity, including a non-bleeped out “F” word at the end, but it’s funny and worth watching):
_Titanic Scene from Bruce Almighty movie – on You Tube_
Haven’t bothered to read a single post Anongrace made since I last left a post on here.
He is definitely trolling and spamming (he really likes to use embedded videos to spam, too), not adding anything of value or import to this thread or any other.
anongrace, “the MEDIA told you so…. so you believe it…..”
Unless I have a good reason not to… I don’t need to drive down to Tallahassee to believe that there is a hurricane on its way.
In 8th grade social studies we learned how to evaluate evidence and testimony. One question is… who stands to gain more? Does Dr. Ford stand to gain more by telling how she was sexually molested years ago, or does Brett Kavanaugh have more to gain by lying?
It’s not an absolute standard – obviously our savior was put to death on the basis of false testimony.
In the same way, journalistic integrity is a higher standard than political speech. Trump is not going to get fired or held accountable for saying whatever he wants about the situation, and neither is any Congressional member on the other side of the fence, but journalists get fired over knowingly publishing false stories. That’s because the integrity of the newspaper/news network is more important than the career of an individual journalist. And… that goes even for MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. Their biases are well known, but their interpretation of the facts does not mean that they are knowingly lying.
Putting this all together, Dr. Ford’s account is much more believable than Brett Kavanaugh’s. Especially since Kavanaugh has been shown to have lied under oath https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23545277/jeff-flake-brett-kavanaugh-lies-committee-fbi-investigation/
So, now, evidentially speaking, who do you believe – someone whose account stands up to scrutiny, or someone who has repeatedly been caught lying under oath?
So, it seems evidence points to you being a Republican shill. You repeatedly ignore and downplay evidence and testimony and facts because they don’t fit the line you’ve been sold by your party and the line you’ve been duped into believing.
To bring this back to Franklin Graham, this is the “Religious Right” model of Evangelical political activism. As an official “card-carrying Republican” (although it’s mainly because my state does not have open primaries) I’ve become increasingly dissolutioned with how Evangelicals have been manipulated and delivered as a voting bloc to advance corrupt Republican candidates. I could give you more history on that, but… this is the same way the African-American church has been delivered as a voting bloc for the Democratic Party, even though that party seems committed to maintaining a poverty-stricken class.
So, Franklin Graham on one hand lambasted Democrat Bill Clinton for his sexual escapades, “Clinton’s months-long extramarital sexual behavior in the Oval Office now concerns him and the rest of the world. If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?”
He was not only silent, but DEFENDED Trump from public scrutiny saying “I think this thing with Stormy Daniels and so forth is nobody’s business. … I think when the country went after President Clinton, the Republicans, that was a great mistake that should never have happened.”
So, Graham is singlehandedly attempting to destroy the political influence of Evangelicals. Why? Because political influence exists only when people choose to vote one way or another based on issues. If I’m always going to vote (R), then no Democrat will ever care about what I think. If I may vote R or vote D depending on issues, then no candidate can choose to ignore me because I may be a vote, and am not in their pocket.
That is why candidates are now manipulating referenda. For example, in Michigan, there is a referendum to legalize marijuana. Since a certain bloc cares about that, it will change the groups who vote, which is why Republicans were strongly considering preemptively legalizing it so that those specific voters, who lean strongly (D), would hopefully stay home. The same is true of pro-life ballot measures that, not surprisingly, show up every four years. Republicans know that putting those measures on the ballot (even though they have no legal force in light of Roe v. Wade) will attract a certain bloc, who will subsequently vote for (R) candidates.
Graham’s power base, then, is his ability to rile up a certain group of people (e.g. anongrace) when they need to be riled up to a religious fervor, and, on the other hand, distracting and distorting them from the truth when their righteous indignation might conflict with the desired direction. In this case, Graham wants Evangelicals to fully support the Republican agenda, even when integrity and truth need to be sacrificed in the short term. But, it’s troubling to me what extent Graham and other Evangelical political power brokers are willing to sacrifice their integrity in the name of political gain.
anongrace will no longer be posting here. I also deleted quite a few posts from anongrace. Sorry about the disruption!
Daisy just gave you a high-5. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
And with the cancellation of The Anongrace Show, Spiritual Sounding Board returns in its regular time slot.
Here’s an article from someone’s blog. An acquaintance of mine (a United Church minister) had it on his FB. Might have something to do with FG’s CEO dollars –
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, Carmen, that’s quite an article.
My church participates and after sending some boxes, I was upset that my donation to offset the box cost put me on the donor list for Samaritan’s Purse, meaning that about every month, I get a letter begging for money from “Samaritan’s Purse CEO Franklin Graham” with pictures of him on the front lines here, there and everywhere, whether real or photoshopped.
But, I think it is akin to false advertising for them to create ads for churches to show kids all over world RECEIVING their OCC boxes, when the $7 fee only gets the box to the country’s distribution center and not to the kids themselves. Would it not be preferable to charge $8 and make the distribution free?
And… it’s annoying because I would be very interested in supporting the sort of aid organization that Samaritan’s Purse purports to be, but how much would I be paying so that they can fly Franklin Graham and his film crew around the world on private jets? I don’t even know who the CEO of the Red Cross is… it’s obviously not that important to them to advertise.