Unfortunately, I don’t have a good explanation for why this video “took off” like it did today. It’s one of many I’ve collected in which Maddow covers the ongoing political scandal around the sect “The Family” and the “church” located on “C Street” in Washington DC.
I have a similar problem with the ongoing popularity of a post about an “out and proud” neocon I ran into “in the wild.” The traffic it generates from all over the world is not explained by any search terms or referring web sites.
After the White House gate crashers segment, Maddow airs audio from Nevada Sen. Ensign’s appearance on a Las Vegas radio program. Hal Turner caps the segment.
Follow-ups to this story are ongoing, and include the Stupak/Pitts anti-abortion amendment to thecongressional “health care bill” and the proposed “Kill The Gays” legislation in Uganda.
UPDATE: 20090823:
Apparently MSNBC has been issuing lots of takedowns over on YouTube, so I’ve gone back to the inferior MSNBC video embeds which don’t survive RSS syndication. I’d like to know if this is their answer to low viewership numbers — penalize those who don’t own televisions?
What I know about “The Family” does not describe a “religious sect” as much as it describes a power and influence cabal that hijacks Christianity and persons of influence the world over for its own arrogant, selfish and political ends. However, since members believe they are “chosen by God,” that certainly makes it a cult. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have to comply with regulations as do for-profit corporations, lobbyists, and political action committees.
UPDATE: 20090730:
Reviewed and replaced all the Maddow videos with YouTube versions as the others won’t play when embedded in a feed. Also, each show’s transcript is quoted from and linked to here. The single media enclosure is the July 9 piece, the first in this remarkable series.
The big summer 2009 blockbuster political scandal has everything:
Senators
Congressmen
mistresses
a secretive religious sect; “The Family”
a church you can live in for cheap; “C Street House”
a fascist / mobbed-up rendering of Christianity
“man-to-man” cash transactions
junkets paid for by The Family
spurious hirings, firings, and cash gifts galore
secret trips to Buenos Aires
prayer breakfasts
”Family “ members sometimes go by “The Christian Mafia”
Hitler, Hitler, Hitler!
Kill the Gays bill in Uganda (new!)
Rachel Maddowhas been reporting on this regularly, and aside from a few other resources mentioned below is the single source for this post. She talked to Jeff Sharlet several times about “The Family,” which Sharlet infiltrated and wrote about in his book
But Tom Coburn is now famous as the other senator in the still unfolding John Ensign sex scandal. Doug Hampton, the husband of the woman Senator Ensign admits to sleeping with claims that Senator Coburn tried to negotiate an end to the affair, and that—as part of those negotiations - Senator Coburn encouraged Senator Ensign to write that now public handwritten apology letter to his mistress and to pay her family restitution.
Now, Mr. Coburn—excuse me, Dr. Coburn issued a statement today denying all of those allegations, saying, quote, “I was never present when the letter was written, never made any assessment of paying anybody anything. Those are untruths.”
But Dr. Coburn won‘t give any details on what he did say to Senator Ensign about the affair because he says, quote, “I was counseling him as physician and as an ordained deacon. That is privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody, not to the ethics committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody.”
Given that Tom Coburn is an OB-GYN, it‘s not exactly clear in what capacity he might have been treating Senator Ensign. It‘s also not clear why his doctor/patient confidentiality would preclude him from answering question about the Ensign affair but would allow him to make lots of statements about the affair that portray himself in a really good light.
And about the other half that the Dr. Coburn says he was wearing when he counseled Senator Ensign, that of a deacon, well, that brings into focus a religious group that appears to be the connective tissue linking key players in this scandal. It‘s a secretive Christian organization known ultimately as the Fellowship or the Family. They run a house known as C Street, where senators Coburn and Ensign live together with other lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
Doug Hampton talked about C Street and its members‘ role in the sex scandal between his wife and Senator Ensign in an interview yesterday with our previous guest Jon Ralston of “The Las Vegas Sun.”
Andrea Mitchell got footage of sermons by The Family’s long-time leader Doug Coe, who cites Hitler a lot, and has done favors for many dictators. See the above video clip (5:00)
Governor Sanford said he was working with C Street somehow about his affair for months—while the affair was ongoing, while it was still secret, and while Governor Sanford continued to lie about it publicly.
This is the first point about C Street and the Family that makes the group more than just a cameo appearance in both of these sex scandals. In both instances, these powerful family values preaching, conservative politicians who were themselves having adulterous affairs say now that they disclosed those affairs to other members of Congress and other people affiliated with the secretive religious group for a long time while the affairs continued and while they were kept secret from the world at large. This organization was allowed to know but nobody else was.
Zack Wamp of Tennessee is a Republican member of Congress who says he has lived in the C Street house for 12 years. Today, he told “The Knoxville News Sentinel” that the members of Congress who live there are sworn to secrecy.
Quoting from the “News Sentinel,” “The C Street residents have all agreed they won‘t talk about their private living arrangements, Wamp said and he intends to honor that pact. ‘I hate it that John Ensign lives in the house and this happened because it opens up all of these kinds of questions,‘ Wamp said. But, he said, ‘I‘m not going to be the guy who goes out and talks.‘”
SHARLET: That‘s exactly it. When they talk about accountability they‘re referring to accountability to your fellow brothers in this fellowship. Zach Wamp, himself, in fact, has cited a scripture verse that says “when you walk in a special fellowship together, you are purified of all sin.” But only when you‘re in that fellowship, only when you‘re in this Family.
If you‘re outside of the Family, well then you‘re accountable to the public. But inside the Family, you are accountable to a higher calling which is this idea that the Family teaches the politicians involved that they‘ve been chosen for their leadership positions not by the people who elected them but by God who they believe put them in power.
MADDOW: That‘s why the secretive nature of this group I think has anti-democratic, small d, democratic implications. I think that‘s why C Street and the Family has turned out to be the much larger story than these two individual affairs.
Jeff, Congressman Largent said that those who live in the house give each other license to intervene in each other‘s affairs. What do you know about? How does that work?
SHARLET: Yes. That reflects a document that you‘re given as you sort of move up into positions of authority within the group. You‘re assigned to a sort of core group. And that‘s what Ensign and Coburn and Largent were in, along with Senator Sam Brownback was involved to that group as well.
Do you feel like, from what you know about this group, that there is something going on about internal accountability to the members of the Family replacing accountability to anybody else?
And when you—when you join this group, which they describe as a publicly invisible but privately identifiable group of companions or an invisible believing group—when you join this group, you agree to give the other men in your prayer cell—now it‘s called a prayer cell—you agree to give them veto rights over your life. And we‘ve seen that with Senator Ensign and the way in which the affair was handled and these questions around whether who—who directed him to give money to his mistress. It seems like he‘s getting instruction from the group.
JEFF SHARLET, HARPER’S MAGAZINE CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: They just won’t stop, will they? They’re not going to let us take a break.
MADDOW: It’s amazing.
All right. This lawsuit filed today. It alleges that Congressman Pickering and his mistress had an extramarital affair while living in C Street. From what you know about C Street and the living arrangements there, could people be secretly carrying on an affair actually in the house?
SHARLET: Absolutely. They speak of the 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.
MASCARO: Well, you know, right when the, when the gift was announced or payment was announced last week, the senator’s attorney did put out a statement where he said very clearly that the $96,000, according to the senator’s office, according to the senator’s attorney, was a gift. And he said it was made as a gift and accepted as a gift.
Now, in our course of reporting, you know, we’ve asked, how do you know if something was a gift? How is this determined if Mr. Hampton says it is a severance and Mr. Ensign’s office - or attorney’s office says it’s a gift? How do we know?
And you know, the folks that - we’re talking to the tax experts who tell us, you know, this is really what an investigation would have to determine. Just because something is called a gift now doesn’t mean that it necessarily was a gift at the time.
There would need to be some contemporaneous evidence explaining what was said at the time, how the gift was given and how it was received, maybe documents, maybe a verbal conversation, maybe a witness, a third-party witness who was aware of these discussions, who could say, you know, what exactly happened at the time.
MADDOW: While you were undercover in the family doing the reporting for “Harper‘s” and for your book, you actually attended a meeting between Congressman Tiahrt and Doug Coe, who is the long-time leader of the family. What happened at that meeting and what impression did you get of Mr.
Tiahrt‘s position in the family?
SHARLET: Yes. It was a spiritual counseling session, precisely the sort that Ensign and Sanford were having. And Tiahrt also sort of had sex in the brain but of a different sort. He was very concerned with the number of babies Muslims are having.
And he said Americans are killing too many of their babies while Muslims are having too many. And we need to have more babies and outlaw abortion so that we can win the race with the Muslims. And what happened was that Doug Coe, the leader of the family, said that‘s fine as far as it goes but doesn‘t go far enough.
He said to Congressman Tiahrt, “I want you to think bigger. I want you to think of Jesus plus nothing,” that‘s what he said. It‘s a phrase they mean to suggest something they call the totalitarianism of Christ. And I think he was introducing Tiahrt into the sort of the advanced lessons of the family.
MADDOW: What‘s the totalitarianism of Christ?
SHARLET: The totalitarianism of Christ - by that, he meant - he said to Tiahrt, think about - what you need to do is form a covenant, a private covenant with your brothers in Christ. Men like Ensign and Coburn and Sanford.
He says when you do this, when you commit total loyalty to each other and you vow to keep each other‘s secrets, you can accomplish much more. He gave to Congressman Tiahrt examples of guys who had done this very well he thought, Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, and Lennon. And you know, it just makes your jaw drop. But Congressman Tiahrt thought this was very wise advice.
MADDOW: His invocation of the abortion of President Obama as a fetus on the floor of the House was such a shock it even earned him some immediate booing in the House which - the House doesn‘t usually do that.
But it does seem to me like that there‘s a political liability to admit that you‘re a part of a group through which you learn about some other official members of Congress‘ misconduct, but you‘re bound by the secrecy of this group and by the loyalty you have to this group to not tell the public. It seems like there may be an extent as to which people associated with this group are compromised by that affiliation.
ROBINSON: Well, exactly. And the problem, really, is the group aspect of it.
And, again, you can understand a friend not wanting to talk about private conversations he might have had, you know, with a good friend about marital troubles. And now, whether or not it‘s legitimate for a congressman to fail to disclose that sort of stuff, it depends on the circumstances, but at least you can kind of understand it.
When the answer, on the other hand, is that, “Well, I‘m not going to tell you because I don‘t want to rat out the other members of my group and, you know, I don‘t want to be the guy who goes out and talks,” that sort of thing—then it certainly raises the issue of divided loyalties and, you know, we sent you to Congress to represent us, we didn‘t send you to represent whatever this group is.
I think that‘s a problem. And I think it will be a problem even in a Bible belt state like Tennessee. I think that‘s a problem.
MADDOW: One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you about this, Gene, is I feel like you have a—you have a much better beltway antenna than I do. You‘re sort of not a creature of the beltway, but understand it very well.
And one of the things I don‘t get about this is that Republican Party still hasn‘t commented on the fact that Senator Ensign put the teenage son of his mistress on the party‘s payroll last year, and then he apparently fired the kid once he stopped sleeping with the kid‘s mom. It seems to me like that‘s the sort of thing the Republican Party would have to comment on. But, yet, they haven‘t.
Why is that?
ROBINSON: It‘s not your antenna, Rachel, because I don‘t get it either.
I mean, look—look, Ensign lost me at the $96,000 in hush money, OK? That—that is where I got off that train. I mean, I—and I don‘t understand why that‘s not in the headlines and being commented on by Republicans and Democrats every day. That seems like an outrageous thing to me. I don‘t know if any specific law was broken, but I would sure like to find out.
And I—you know, I suppose the son on the—on the payroll, well, you know, it‘s not a governmental organization, per se, but you would think that Republicans—Republican donors who gave to the committee would be concerned about that, would want to know that their money was being used not to employ the offspring of mistresses.
MADDOW: Shocking—that could be a new rule, maybe.
.MADDOW: With Congressman Wamp, we now have a member of Congress who‘s very ambitious, who‘s running for governor in Tennessee. He wants to be a rising star in the Republican Party. And he told the local press in Tennessee that he doesn‘t think that belonging to this group will be a problem for him, because it‘s a Christian group—and having a religious affiliation, a Christian religious affiliation, for Tennessee voters isn‘t going to be an issue.
MADDOW: What does C Street, the D.C. home of a number of congressmen, operated by a secretive religious organization, have in common with the cult crossover homoerotic hit movie “Fight Club?” I mean, aside from the obvious?
Apparently, the first rule of C Street is you do not talk about C Street. The second rule of C Street is you do not talk about C Street. I can‘t really do that justice because I‘m no Brad Pitt. But then again, neither is Michigan conservative Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak.
Congressman Stupak lives in the C Street house. We found a 7-year-old “Los Angeles Times” article which says he lived in the C Street house back then, too. So it appears he‘s been at C Street at least since 2002.
But as reporters on a conference call with Congressman Stupak found out yesterday when they asked him about his ties to C Street and The Family, the organization that runs it, if there is one thing a guy can get down pat after minimum seven years living at C Street, it is rule number one.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will not discuss what goes on there because I‘m not there. Are there other activities going on there? Yes. But what goes on and things like that, I don‘t know. I have my room there. I have a room there. And I participate in a Tuesday night dinner once in a while there. So there is no regimen. There is no group stuff I have to do. I rent a room there.
I rent a room at a house on C Street. I do not belong to any such group. I don‘t know what you are talking about. I have no affiliation. I rent a room at C Street. I pay rent for a room. I sleep there. I rent a room.
MADDOW: Why is The Family sending members of Congress to foreign countries?
SHARLET: Well, as I first reported in “Harper‘s” magazine, their local, their long-term goal is 200 world leaders that are God-led and united to The Family. They‘re not like the rapture Christians you might be familiar with.
They have this idea that Christ can‘t come back so they can build a worldwide movement that they call “invisible” - that‘s their word - of strong men, authoritarian leaders on that Hitler/Stalin/Mao model that they are linking together and that they have access, the leader says, with Washington as the capital of a worldwide spiritual offensive.
MADDOW: So what kind of places then do they dispatch members of The Family to? And what do those Family members do once they get there?
SHARLET: Well, some real bastions of democracy. Sen. Inhofe has traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan. Other members have gone to Serbia, Sudan, Belarus, Albania. Sen. Coburn, who has been in the news for his role in the C Street house, was actually very clear what he was doing in Lebanon.
He was trying to set up Christian prayer cells in the government of Lebanon - prayer cells just like the one that helped cover up his pal Sen. Ensign‘s scandal, and this in a country that‘s long been torn by Christian-Muslim tensions. Everywhere they go, as he said, it‘s the political philosophy of Jesus, but what they understand that to mean is not democracy, but rule through an iron fist.
MADDOW: So when Sen. Inhofe used that phrase, “the political philosophy of Jesus,” something put together by Doug, what he‘s talking about there is The Family‘s essentially foreign policy as driven by this sort of theocracy of power that we talked about so much in learning about C Street?
SHARLET: It really is. It‘s a faith-based foreign policy. It‘s not a faith I think any Christians out there would be comfortable with. This goes back to the beginning of this group and how they‘re so much different than other Christian groups. They‘re concerned at what they call biblical capitalism, and their model many years is worldwide spiritual offensive, working with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
I was able to discover that they have taken that spiritual offensive to countries like Poland, Czech Republic, really, all over the world, every country in the world.
MADDOW: When these trips are paid for by Senate committees, when they‘re taxpayer-funded, there‘s obviously a concern as to whether or not that‘s legal. As I understand it, the legality of groups like this funding foreign trips for members of Congress has changed in the past few years, hasn‘t it?
SHARLET: Yes, there was. There was an open government act in 2007, following the Jack Abramoff scandals, designed to prevent just the kind of travel that The Family was funding. That travel may even have been illegal even under the old rules, because some of these groups were saying that they were going for one Christian right group, the Christian embassy, but it was actually being financed by this other group, The Family.
More recently, as you mentioned, Inhofe, Congressman McIntyre, Congressman Crenshaw - these guys have been traveling, using money from the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. Two of them were actually using American military transport planes.
They are diverting their planes from the proper missions to go and spread their very unorthodox political philosophy of Jesus to foreign leaders who might not think that that‘s a real solid basis for foreign policy.
MADDOW: Jeff, sometimes these trips are initiated by The Family but paid for by taxpayers as you described. But sometimes The Family pays for them directly. You‘ve reported that The Family spent more than $95,000 on foreign travel for 20 lawmakers since the year 2000.
Who are they sending on these trips? And when The Family funds stuff directly, how do members of Congress explain who it is that dispatching them to these other countries?
SHARLET: Well, what was fascinating, Sen. Ensign was one of them. And Sen. Ensign, when challenged by the “Las Vegas Sun” to explain this, said he had no idea. He just took - you know, can you imagine, Rachel, someone says, “Here‘s $10,000, why don‘t you take a trip to the Middle East,” and you say, “Sure. I‘m not going to ask who‘s sending me.”
Of course he understood what he was doing. He‘s been a part of the group for a long time. Congressman Frank Wolf, Congressman John Carter - all of these guys have been traveling on the International Foundation, which is one of The Family‘s nonprofits.
They had been traveling on the dime of that organization and yet, not really being very forthright with us about what they‘re doing.
MADDOW: The International Foundation is the name of the one that usually - is that what you said, the International Foundation?
SHARLET: Yes. The Family believes, as David Coe, one of the leaders, the son of Doug Coe, once explained - he says, “We operate like the Mafia.” And one of the ways they do that is, just like the Mafia has shell companies, the family has multiple nonprofits, the International Foundation, the Fellowship Foundation, the C Street foundation.
And they use these to sort of move money around and to support projects that they‘re interested in without building a big institutional image. And I think that‘s why they‘re actually teaming up with other Christian right organizations, like Christian Embassy, Youth with a Mission - these kind of organizations to use congressmen essentially as their missionaries to and for the powerful.
Rachel is joined by Jon Ralston, a reporter from the Las Vegas Sun to discuss emails that show several higher-ups in the Republican Party knew about the affair before Ensign’s public admission. Also, Ensign was willing to sacrifice several colleagues to save his own skin.
JON RALSTON, HOST, “FACE TO FACE WITH JON RALSTON”: Thanks for having me, Rachel.
MADDOW: What do these E-mails tell us about the Republican Party’s role in the Ensign affair that we didn’t know before?
RALSTON: Well, as you said, I think the implication was from Mike Slanker’s original statement was that he didn’t find out about this until June 16th when Ensign disclosed it. Now, it’s clear that he and his wife, two top officials of the senatorial committee, knew about it….
…MADDOW: Has the Republican Party ever explained why they had this teenager on the payroll?
RALSTON: Well, Mike Slanker, when I talked to him several weeks ago, Rachel, said he hired the Doug Hampton son as he would any other intern, that it was no big deal. But again, this revelation, you know, raises all kinds of other questions.
…Think about how sordid and tawdry that is. And think about this, too, Rachel - this is the most important point that comes out of these E-mails. John Ensign was willing to sell his top finance and political person at the NRSC down the river to cover up this affair to use them, to use them without telling them the full truth, to take on this man that he wanted out of his office and he wanted to continue to pursue his wife. That’s what those E-mails really reveal to me.
It seems some on the “religious right” have the same concerns I do about The Family. Namely, the collision of politics and religion, in violation of the separation of Church and State.
But adultery is not new in Congress or in the church, and aside from three men shattering their families’ lives, a larger story emerged of the group behind the C Street row house: a 60-year-old, globally reaching organization that has muddy theology and a disdain for the established church.
The C Street house is one of many properties in the greater Washington area owned by the Fellowship Foundation, which sponsors the annual National Prayer Breakfast, Bible studies, social gatherings, and private retreats, and funds international development.
“Associates” (employees) of the Fellowship say its mission is to show the love of Jesus to the world’s leaders. But it has no website to publicize that work, and those affiliated are extremely reluctant—if not prohibited, say some—to talk about it.
Former U.S. Senate chaplain Richard Halverson was one of the first to join the Fellowship under founder Abraham Vereide in the 1950s. Halverson, before joining the organization, had prayer groups of his own with movie stars in Hollywood.
RALSTON: Well, of course, as you pointed out, that‘s not what he said back then. And I find some of what he said today to be just remarkable. First of all, this is a guy who spent most of his career up on a high horse moralizing.
He gets knocked off that horse and so what does he do now? He gets back up on it and starts moralizing again and putting himself on a higher moral plane than Bill Clinton and whoever these other two people are. I assume Larry Craig is one of them even though he doesn‘t have his facts straight.
But what‘s most remarkable about this to me, Rachel, is by bringing up Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton and what he said about Bill Clinton makes the case for John Ensign to resign better than anybody else. You had the quote. He said that Bill Clinton had lost credibility and should resign.
How can John Ensign make the case if he hasn‘t lost credibility? Whatever you think of Bill Clinton, he wasn‘t out there moralizing and pointing his finger at people who had committed indiscretions. If that doesn‘t cause a loss of credibility on the guy who talks so much about the sanctity of marriage is found to have had an affair with a staffer who is the wife of his best friend who also worked for him and he still has credibility? I just find that astonishing he would bring up Bill Clinton.
WASHINGTON — Early last year, Senator John Ensign contacted a small circle of political and corporate supporters back home in Nevada — a casino designer, an airline executive, the head of a utility and several political consultants — seeking work for a close friend and top Washington aide, Douglas Hampton.
Maddow invited Jeff Sharlet back to discuss recent developments.
Mitch McConnell, the top senator in the God Only Party had no words of support for his colleague Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev). Sen. Tom Coburn, the prudish, hypocritical “Christian” that objected to TV airing of “Schindler’s List” because of nudity, has been caught lying about the scandal. Thou shalt not bear false witnesses to court via thy neighbor’s slave-driven carriages?
I’m quite curious how the sum of $2 million U.S. compares to inflation-adjusted prices for comparable Catholic Indulgences in Rome back in the day. That would probably require one indulgence for each (sex) act of adultery, so it could easily add up to such a large sum.
A preliminary investigation against Nevada Senator John Ensign has been opened. Sue Lowden (R-Nev), a senate hopeful for 2010, has hitched her wagon to Sen. John Ensign’s.
Maddow points out that Bob Ney is serving time in prison for doing exactly what it is alleged John Ensign did; the charge was “conspiracy” — and the allegations against Ensign are not hearsay. Far from it — they are made by Doug Hampton, the former top staffer who is married to the woman that Ensign had an affair with.
Maddow is joined by Las Vegas Sun columnist John Ralston once again, and he discusses interviewing Lowden on his TV program “Face to face with John Ralston”
A preliminary investigation against Nevada Senator John Ensign has been opened.
Melanie Sloan of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) joins Maddow.
Sloan goes into detail on Sen. Ensign’s alleged crimes, and their similarity to Bob Ney’s crimes, which Ney denied repeatedly until the day he pled guilty to conspiracy.
Are cracks appearing in the smooth veneer of Sen. Ensign’s public persona? He seems irritated when asked if he has plans to resign.
Reps. Stupak and Pitts are members of C street. At issue is the Stupak / Pitts anti-abortion amendment to the congressional “health care” bill.
Democratic Reps. Skelton, McIntyre, Tanner, Davis, Boren and Shuler are also reportedly members of The Family, reside at C street, and all voted for the Stupak / Pitts anti-abortion amendment.
The latest on the Stupak / Pitts anti-abortion amendment, and the link to “The Family” and the “C Street house”, which recently lost its tax-exempt status.
Jeff Sharlet joins Maddow to report that supporters of the Ugandan “kill the gays” bill are members of The Family and are supported by American evangelicals.
MADDOW: The government of Uganda is considering passing a law to execute gay people. Execute as in by hanging a, quote, “serial offender” or an HIV-positive person who commits same sex act. If enacted, this law would also impose a three-year prison sentence on anyone who knows of a gay person in the country but doesn‘t report that gay person to the government within 24 hours.
Who is supporting and promoting this legislation? Well, one of the proponents is a minister named Pastor Martin Ssempa. He was a familiar face to American conservative Evangelicals, because Mr. Ssempa has been a frequent guest of Pastor Rick Warren at One Saddleback Church in California.
Do you remember Rick Warren? Him being selected to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama‘s inauguration was the little black cloud that crawled inside the silver lining that day for a lot of Americans who support gay rights.
Given with Rick Warren‘s deep involvement with Pastor Ssempa on matters including gay rights and AIDS issues in Uganda, “Newsweek” magazine asked Pastor Rick Warren his opinion of this proposed “kill the gays” law in Uganda.
Mr. Warren responded by distancing himself from Martin Ssempa, but also by refusing to condemn the proposal saying, quote, “It is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.”
In a moment, we‘ll speak with Jeff Sharlet who has written extensively about the secret of Evangelical religious organization called The Family. We first started discussing The Family on this show when it emerged as a player in, not two, but three Republican sex scandals - those of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Nevada Senator John Ensign and the alleged sex scandal involving former Mississippi Congressman Chip Pickering.
The Family, among other things, provides well-below market rent housing for a select group of members of Congress at its, until recently, nearly tax-exempt church on Capitol Hill - a house called C Street.
Jeff Sharlet is now reporting that there aren‘t just ties between American Evangelical Rick Warren and the “kill the gays” bill in Uganda. He reports that, in fact, the president of Uganda and the legislator who introduced the “kill the gays” bill are more than just supported by American Evangelicals. They are both members of The Family.
Joining us now is Jeff Sharlet, author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” He is also a contributing editor to “Harper‘s” magazine. Jeff, it‘s nice to see you again. Thanks for joining us.
JEFF SHARLET, AUTHOR, “THE FAMILY”: Good to be back, Rachel. Thanks.
MADDOW: So who introduced the “kill the gays” bill and what‘s his connection to The Family?
SHARLET: It‘s a member of parliament named David Bahati who has been very involved with a sort of conservative Evangelical revival in Uganda, very involved with a lot of American Evangelical groups and has also taken a leadership role in The Family‘s Uganda operation through something called the African Student Leadership Program at the Uganda‘s National Prayer Breakfast, which is an offshoot of the prayer breakfast The Family hosts every year here in the United States.
So he‘s got this leadership role that puts him not just at the sort of the margin of things, but functioning as one of their key men on the ground in Uganda.
MADDOW: In the big picture, why is The Family interested in Uganda? Why are they interested in operating there? And what are their goals there?
SHARLET: Well, The Family has always viewed its religious outreach, its worldwide spiritual offensive, as they describe it, in very clear geopolitical terms. Uganda, right now, is an incredibly important country for world politics. It‘s functioning in many ways as a U.S. proxy with Sudan, with Congo, with Rwanda.
There‘s oil in that general region and The Family needs to have a presence out there. They‘ve had that presence in Uganda since 1986 when they sent over a man to recruit Museveni who was then the new leader. Didn‘t look like a bright Democratic spot in African leadership. And they recruited him to be one of their main brothers, as they put it, for the whole continent.
MADDOW: So President Museveni in Uganda - he‘s not explicitly backing this horrendous bill. But it is thought that he tacitly supports it, at least as far as I can tell, and that the ethics and integrity minister in his government is vocally in favor of this thing. You‘re saying he has Family connections that go back decades.
SHARLET: Yes, to 1986. And it‘s hard to call it passive support when he‘s coming out there and saying that homosexuality is a plot that‘s sort of being imposed on Africa by Europe and that this is a time for Africans to rally together against sort of the foreign influence of homosexuality.
Now, Museveni is - the thought in Ugandan politics is that he‘s sort of letting other guys take the lead on this. But through his ethics minister, who is the main organizer of the National Prayer Breakfast in Uganda and it‘s his right-hand man - he‘s got a direct involvement.
And just last week, in fact, Museveni responded to questions from Uganda‘s main newspaper, is he a part of The Family. And his press secretary said, “Well, I can‘t answer that.” But it certainly sounds like an organization the president would like to be a part of but only if they really, really hate homosexuals.
MADDOW: Wow. That bastardization of that Groucho Marx quote is running through my head right now. Back in July, Jeff, you uncovered a video and we played it on the show, of Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican senator in the United States. He‘s got admitted association with C Street and The Family.
We played video that you found of him talking about his trips taken to Africa on the urging of leaders of The Family. I just want a real quick clip to remind folks here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK): If you‘re a member of the United States Senate, in Africa, they think you are important, so you can always go to see the kings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: You always get in to see the kings. Is Sen. Inhofe or any other American politician powerful enough among Ugandan politicians that they could derail this legislation if they wanted to?
SHARLET: Well, working with colleagues, I‘ve reached out to Inhofe‘s office and he refuses to say a word about it despite the fact that he likes to boast of his incredibly close relationship with Ugandan politics.
He‘s attended the Uganda National Prayer Breakfast. He says, in fact, he has adopted the nation and he regularly travels over there in behalf of The Family. Yet, he‘s refused to condemn it.
Does he have the influence? We don‘t know because he‘s not exerting it. It‘s just like Rick Warren. Could Rick Warren, who has designated Uganda a purpose-driven nation, make a difference?
We don‘t know because they‘re not trying. And I think that‘s the kind of the bottom line with the American involvement. There‘s been a lot of American support for the guys who are promoting this bill and no pushback against this incredibly hateful piece of violence put in the legislation.
MADDOW: Jeff Sharlet is author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” Thanks, as always, for joining us, Jeff. I really appreciate it.
MADDOW: Bill number 18, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, Section 2, Subsection 2, “A person who commits the offense of homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.” Section 3, Subsection 2, “A person who commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.”
Section 4, Subsection 1, “A person who attempts to commit the offense of homosexuality commits a felony and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for seven years.” If you attempt to commit aggravated homosexuality, that’s life imprisonment.
And then section 13, Subsection 1-B, “A person who funds or sponsors homosexuality is liable on conviction to a minimum of five years and a maximum of seven years imprisonment.”
And then Section 14, where if you know of someone who’s gay, you can get three years in prison for not reporting that person to the authorities. And then there’s Section 16, where they will extradite their citizens from anywhere in the world back to this country for prosecution if that citizen commits any of these crimes of homosexuality somewhere else on God’s green earth.
This is Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. It was introduced this fall after three American Evangelical activists, who proclaimed that homosexuality can be cured, traveled to Uganda this spring to lead an anti-homosexuality inspirational seminar.
The more we investigate, the more Americans we turned up with links to this. So I will warn you that you can expect some continuing coverage from us on this issue. But tonight, we’ve obtained some reactions from the three anti-gay American activists whose travel to Uganda credited with inspiring the kill-the-gays legislation.
They are Don Schmierer of the group Exodus International, a group that claims that Christianity can cure you of being gay. Also Kayla Lee Brundage(ph) of the group, the International Healing Foundation, which also says that it tries to change gay people into straight people. And there’s Scott Lively, president of a group called Defend the Family and author of a book called “The Pink Swastika.”
Yes, these are the three American anti-gay, gay-people-can-be-cured speakers who traveled to Uganda earlier this year and who are credited with having inspired the kill-the-gays bill that is being considered in that country now.
Mr. Schmierer has said that he’s opposed to the kill-the-gays legislation and he says that he signed onto a letter to Uganda’s president against it. The group with which Mr. Brundage is associated first denied knowing anything about the bill’s existence and asked us for a copy of it.
After we E-mailed them the legislation, they issued a statement that, quote, “We condemn any harsh and extreme punishment of persons who identify as homosexual or engage in homosexual behavior. Instead, we advocate education and counseling for those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction.”
Education and counseling to cure you of the gay. And then, there’s the last one - Mr. Scott Lively, “The Pink Swastika” guy. He told “LifeSiteNews.com” that the law is too harsh but, quoting, “Dr. Lively explained that the impetus for the bill was a lot of external interference from European and American gay activists attempting to do in Uganda what they’ve done around the world, homosexualize that society.”
One of their main concerns, explains Mr. Lively, are the many male homosexuals coming into the country and abusing boys who are on the streets. So I mean can you really blame them?
Well, of course, Uganda wants to execute people for being gay. Maybe a little harsh but it’s a normal reaction to all this pressure they’ve been getting. Can you blame them?
We thank Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer and Mr. Brundage for giving us their reactions to the bill that they reportedly inspired to the extent they responded to our calls for comments.
If American anti-gay activists inspired this bill, are there other Americans who have the clout to stop it from passing? You bet there are. And it turns out a lot of them are household names.
And so far, as far as we can tell, they have done nothing. We continue to investigate this. Our next segment on the kill-the-gays bill tomorrow will familiarize you with some of the Americans who probably could stop this, who apparently don’t want to. That’s tomorrow.
MADDOW: Our guest now is author Jeff Sharlet. Jeff is a contributing editor to “Harper’s” magazine. He’s been a frequent guest on this show for his coverage of the Family, the secretive religious organization best known because it runs C Street, the infamous home for lawmakers in Washington, D.C., that’s been tied to a number of political sex scandals this year.
As Jeff has previously reported on this show, the Family is directly connected to the Uganda “kill the gays” legislation. And Jeff joins us now to bring us some new reporting on that subject tonight.
Jeff, thanks very much for your time.
JEFF SHARLET, HARPER’S MAGAZINE: Hey, Rachel. Good to be here.
MADDOW: Just for context and to reiterate here, the man who introduced the “kill the gays” bill in Uganda is a member of the Family, yes?
SHARLET: Yes, a young member of parliament, David Bahati, a rising star, who has been over to the United States for our National Prayer Breakfast and has taken something of an organizing role in the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and has been involved with the Family for some time.
MADDOW: Now, as I understand that you have some new reporting today about when and where Mr. Bahati first announced his intent to introduce the “kill the gays” bill.
SHARLET: Yes, exactly. I think a lot of us have focused on that March Kampala conference and the idea being that the Ugandans sort of got this idea from Scott Lively and Richard Cohen and so on. It seems David Bahati was thinking about this before that, as far back as the October 2008 Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast-where he floated the idea at a meeting.
There was some pushback, I should-it’s important to acknowledge that members of the Family sort of expressed some disapproval of it, but in the balance, as one Family associate explained to me, there’s always a balance between access and accountability, access to power and holding power accountable.
In that instance, they seemed to prefer continuing the access to power of these Ugandan officials rather than stepping in and nipping that thing in the bud.
MADDOW: So, just to be clear, I mean, we have a National Prayer Breakfast here in the United States that is run by the Family. It’s become a very mainstream event, something that the president speaks at. The Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast is also a Family event. It’s run there the way it is here in America.
SHARLET: Yes. I spoke today actually with the Family member who helped set it up. This year was the 11th annual national Ugandan prayer breakfast, but he was working on it in the early ’90s.
I should say, he started with the best of intentions, but it’s, really, again, one of these illustrations of where things can go awry when someone like David Bahati or Buturo, or these politicians who are backing this, see this sort of American export and use it as a vehicle to take American culture war to extreme ends.
MADDOW: Do we know if there were any Americans present, any American Family members or any other American elected officials that were present at that National Prayer Breakfast in Uganda, where Mr. Bahati first floated this idea of executing gay people?
SHARLET: Yes, there were a number of American Family members, Family activists, who working in Uganda, who are at the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast. The keynote speaker of the event was an American Christian business consultant. He runs something called Jesus Christ Quality Management Consultants, and also, the Institute for National Transformation.
President Museveni of Uganda promptly signed Uganda up for one of these institutes after the event. But also possibly present, we haven’t been able to confirm this, is Senator James Inhofe, who’s been especially active with the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast. He goes there about twice a year. He’s gone to many of the breakfasts. The Ugandan Family associates thank Inhofe for his wisdom and insight in helping make the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast what it is.
MADDOW: It’s one thing, Jeff, just in the big picture, to think about something bad happening on a human rights issue in another country. The reason that this is a big story in the United States, or at least, I think it justifies all the time that we’ve given it on this show is because it does seem to have a real American inflection. And if Americans, as you say, do have a lot of access and influence, that comes with-that ought to-that ought to have accountability come with it.
And so, I have to ask, if the idea of executing gay people, executing people for being gay in this country, in Uganda, was floated at a Family event, this proposed legislation was introduced there, and this Ugandan legislator who proposed it is a member of the Family, and the Ugandan ethics minister who is supporting it on behalf of the Ugandan government and president is also a member of the Family-what’s been the reaction inside the Family here in the United States about this being proposed?
SHARLET: Well, that’s actually where the really big news is. I think there’s almost a schism within the Family. There’s-you know, there’s the Ugandan branch, which is actually promoting the bill.
And then there’s men, like Bob Hunter, who actually sort of helped build the Family relationship with President Museveni, but is very firmly against the bill, has been sort of quietly working against the bill and trying to reach out to the Family’s political allies, like Senator Inhofe, Senator Brownback and get them to step up. And they, unfortunately, have been resistant to do so. In fact, they have in influence in Ugandan government, but now they’re saying, we don’t want to interfere in Ugandan affairs.
That hasn’t stopped men like Senator Inhofe or Congressman Pitts from interfering with things like condom distribution in Uganda. They’ve been very active on the most intimate details of Ugandan life. But on this issue, they’re stepping back while some other members of the Family are really drawing the line here.
And I think that’s important to recognize that across a spectrum, there is a lot of opposition. And the Family could have a really great impact on this if they are able to marshal the influence and power they have there.
MADDOW: To be clear, just in terms of our reporting in trying to get to the bottom of this, we have spoken to a number of elected-the offices of a number of elected officials, conservative politicians here the U.S. associated with the Family, and while a number of them have told us they’re against this bill, not one of them said they would do anything publicly to stop it in Uganda.
Jeff, I have to ask you about one last thing. And I know you talked to our producers about this earlier today. And this may be the single most inflammatory thing we have reported to date. These Ugandan “kill the gays” guys, the guy who introduced the legislation, and the guy who’s mostly promoting it in the government, the minister-the ethics minister, they’re planning to come to the United States next year?
SHARLET: This February for the American National Prayer Breakfast. This will be-if it happens-it will be a repeat for David Bahati, the man who introduced the bill.
Now, here’s another interesting-some element of schism within the Family. Buturo and Bahati think they’re coming. Buturo told my researcher that he was coming. Bahati has a whole agenda laid out. When I spoke to Family associates today, they said, “Well, that may not happen.”
So, again, you know, you keep that pressure up, there’s a possibility that the Family might actually use the influence and not dis-invite those guys from coming to the American National Prayer Breakfast.
MADDOW: And if not, there’s the prospect of the American president speaking at an event before an invited audience that includes the guy who promoted, who introduced legislation to execute people for being gay in his country with the support and encouragement of American quacks like ex-gay fake therapists. Wow!
Jeff Sharlet, contributing editor to “Harper’s” magazine, author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power”-great reporting on this story. You’ve got amazing sourcing on this. As always, Jeff, thanks very much for sharing with us.
20091209 at 19:13 
They call this the “hockey stick”
