The Family

"Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came to take over." - member of the Family and US congressman

"We desire to see a leadership led by God," reads a confidential mission statement. "Leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." Another principle expanded upon is stealthiness; members are instructed to pursue political jujitsu by making use of secular leaders "in the work of advancing His kingdom," and to avoid whenever possible the label Christian itself, lest they alert enemies to that advance.

--------

No, this is not about the mafia, but it's not that far off either. There is a secretive fundamentalist Christian group headed by Doug Coe named "The Fellowship" or "The Family", founded in the 1935, which makes Scientology or the K Street Gang look like Boy Scouts. Members of the Family include US senators, cabinet members, and state governors, and they seek to use their business/political connections to advance their views. They help organize the Congressional National Prayer Breakfast in Washington that sitting presidents also attend.

Their agenda is quite bizarre and hard to even call Christian. They believe that the New Testament's emphasis on helping the poor, humility, love, and compassion is all wrong. In fact, the Bible's secret message is all about worldly power, and they use free market capitalism, anti-gay, and anti-abortion issues to rally support. Yes, I know, Dan Brown is taking notes as we speak. Ironically for US lawmakers, they believe that American democracy is doomed to fail and totalitarianism is the way to go - the way Christ intended for us. Like many US elites, they were enamored with the European fascists (rising from nothing, their manipulation of the masses, uniformity of thought, and rapid industrialization/militarization), but after WWII they had to tone it down of course. Though even today, their leaders including Coe have used the examples of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot to instruct and describe how the Family seeks to embody and propagate total fanatical commitment to absolute power for Christ and his "true message".

They could be described as "elite fundamentalism". They also believe that Jesus has a special message for the chosen few, and his parables for the masses were just Spam, because we can't really handle the truth of his grand plan. Of course the high-ranking members of the family are the chosen. Strangely, the Family has both Catholic and Evangelical members. I suppose they put their dogmatic differences aside to join forces for the Culture War.

Their prominent members:
- Congressmen (some potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees, and some Dems too): Coburn, Prior, Grassley, Pitts, Stupak, Wolf, Ensign, Shuler, Nelson, Enzi, Thune, Inhofe, Wamp, McIntyre, Clinton (while she may not be an official member, Family head Doug Coe is an intimate spiritual advisor to her since her husband was president).
- Governor: Mark Sanford (yes, the guy who was caught using state resources to go to Argentina for a booty call).
- Other notable alums: Strom Thurmond, Charles Colson (Nixon's hatchet-man who went to jail for Watergate but after became CEO of big defense contractor Raytheon), Pat Robinson's father, David Kuo (Dubya's head of Faith-Based Initiatives).

Maybe leftist journalists are just trying to tar these conservative politicians with shady, unproven connections to a religious cult (like how douchebag Glen Beck tries to connect Obama to ACORN to the end of the world). But many of the Congressmen listed above live at C Street residences while in Washington owned by the Family, and rented to them at below-market rates. Probably the only reason the mainstream knows of the Family is some of their members were caught in embarrassing affairs (Ensign, Sanford, Pickering). I guess sometimes God wants you to break one of his commandments in service to the greater good.

Maybe you think that this is just tabloid and doesn't really affect our lives, but look at some of the Family politicians' recent actions. The last-minute abortion amendment to the House health bill was called the Pitts-Stupak amendment. Mother Teresa was not an outspoken critic of abortion until she met Pitts in the 1970s. Family members have used government funds to go on overseas missions in support of cruel dictators and corrupt regimes who happen to endorse pro-Family policies. They helped get weapons and money to Indonesian dictator Suharto, supported Christian militias in Lebanon, and currently back Yoweri Museveni, the despotic leader of post-Idi Amin Uganda (a nation with some of the most draconian anti-gay laws in the world). Before Museveni, they also armed Somali strongman Siad Barre during the Reagan-Bush years, who contributed to thousands of deaths. I have no idea how those Third World, war-torn nations and their pathetic leaders factor into God's plan for the world, but apparently the Family does. But what's the big deal, since other politicians take trips sponsored by companies or special-interest groups all the time? Well, it undermines US foreign policy and credibility when US legislators travel to speak with foreign leaders, advancing a private agenda that may or may not be aligned with official Washington policy (I would hope it isn't). One thing we have to thank Abramoff for are 2007 Congressional reforms that allow these trips and their funding to become public knowledge.

So to close, I know the Family is probably less of a risk to global stability than Al Qaeda or H1N1, but the fact that they are out there, that they believe what they do, and occupy very high positions of US power is cause for concern. If they are doing God's work and mean no harm as they say, then why be so secretive? Level with us and lead the masses on the path of righteousness, like the dictators they admire. Hopefully government transparency and accountability will grow, and constituents may find out if their leaders are affiliated with and executing the agenda of private groups that don't have the people's or America's best interests in mind.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVrQkunIZXo&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15778 (a criticism of the Family from a Christian right source)
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet

Bush, signing statements, and separation of powers

This isn't a new story, but maybe you guys have heard that Bush has ruffled feathers with his presidential signing statements; I think he's surpassed 125 since 2001 (125 bills, over 750 specific statutes therein). Clinton wrote more (in most cases innocuous comments like, "This is a good bill"), but Bush's have been more controversial and defiant. Basically a signing statement can be a way for the president or his/her designees to circumvent, or skirt the consequences of, bills from Congress that he/she just signed into law. It's like, "I don't have the balls to veto this, so I just won't respect it." As you would expect, "national security" was a common Bush excuse.

However this problem extends beyond one ornery Texan. Government agencies (often led by Bush cronies) are refusing to heed laws flagged by Bush signing statement objections. He is undermining the authority of Congress, and giving certain people the "option" of ignoring laws that he himself signed! The GAO was not pleased, and I thought conservatives were all about respecting the rule of law! Well, of course the president has the right/obligation to fight any challenges to the executive authorities outlined by America's founders and Constitutional precedent, but I don't think he/she should be augmenting or inventing new powers on the fly.

On the campaign trail, McCain has vowed to abandon the practice if elected president. Clinton and Obama would continue to use it. I know Congress and the White House always jostle for superiority on various Washington issues, but not to the point where it compromises democracy and mocks the Constitution.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096616

Q: What is a Signing Statement?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

A: A "Signing Statement" is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to "faithfully execute" the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

Examples of the president's signing statements

April 30, 2006

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/signstateann.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
http://www.slate.com/id/2168718/fr/flyout

---------

Yeah, the problem here isn't so much the signing statements (in more benign
times, they'd just be a letter indicating what the president's interpretation of
the practical effects of the law would be when he signs it).

It's that Bush has used them to turn night into day; like after the law passed
saying it is illegal to torture in any circumstances, he wrote a signing
statement saying that basically he could ignore it whenever he felt national
security was at stake, despite their being no such provision in the law just
passed.

The issue is that even though Congress specifically and intentionally wrote the
law to preclude what he is trying to do, no one can do anything about it until
it is litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, which takes forever (and most
signing statements aren't even litigated in many cases), and even then it isn't
clear that Bush would really respect Supreme Court rulings (see Rumsfeld vs.
Hamdan). It's pretty damn infuriating that he's using the fact that the courts
are slow to do whatever the hell he pleases. Maybe we need some kind of special
presidental court that only rules on issues of presidential power and can be
done quickly?

---------

Now that is an excellent idea! We have plenty of secret terrorism courts, military tribunals, and in rowdy Philly they even used to have a court inside the football stadium to rapidly sentence misbehaving fans! http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/articles%201999/Eagles%20Court.htm

Why not have a court to scrutinize the actions of our president and his/her staff, in real time? I GUESS the 4th Estate was supposed to do that to some extent, but it seems they are too busy with bigger news (stars going to rehab).