Dr. Dobson's Response to the DefCon Attack

April 2006

Dear Friends,

'Tis April, and many interesting things are happening, both here at Focus on the Family Action and Focus on the Family, and in the world around us. Let me share two developments with you that are of special significance.

First, for those of you who are not aware of the vicious attack launched on Focus on the Family and me in March, here is the essence of it: A radical leftist organization called DefCon, (for Campaign to Defend the Constitution,) placed a full-page ad in The New York Times on March 8, claiming Ralph Reed, Louis Sheldon and I have a "serious gambling problem."1 Their intention was to link us with Jack Abramoff, the "sleazy"2 character who was reportedly given $80 million by Indian casino interests to use for what turned out to be illegal lobbying activity in the U.S. House and Senate.3

Mr. Abramoff, who was sentenced in late March to nearly six years in prison for unrelated charges, has already pleaded guilty to these felonies and is awaiting sentencing in Washington, D.C.4 Both Democrats and Republicans will be severely embarrassed when the rest of this story comes out, and anyone associated with Abramoff will have a lot of explaining to do. I can’t speak for Ralph Reed and Lou Sheldon, but I can tell you categorically that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the scandal. Here are the facts:

DefCon’s ad in The New York Times featured a picture of the "disgraced powerbroker,"5 Jack Abramoff, shown here, beside this text:

Jack Abramoff

For years they’ve stood at the pinnacle of power in this country, spouting pieties while delivering to the Bush-Cheney White House and its corporate friends, the votes of millions of their followers. Now, James Dobson, Lou Sheldon and Ralph Reed find themselves exposed as base hypocrites, knee-deep in the muck of the Jack Abramoff scandal."

The final paragraph of the ad reads: "All the time, they must have been betting they wouldn’t get caught taking their 30 pieces of silver and selling out the millions who believed in them. They were wrong."6

That was not the worst of it. For the following week, the DefCon people (whom I’ll identify in a moment,) ran a slick television ad showing people sitting in church pews holding a bulletin that features pictures of Reed, Sheldon and me. A gold collection plate filled with cash is passed from person to person as organ music plays in the background. Then the ad cuts away to a casino where actors depicting the three of us are seated around a blackjack table waiting to be dealt a hand. The same gold collection plate from the church rests in the middle of the table and the cash from church has been changed into gambling chips. Note that our names are on the table so the viewer would not miss the message. (See image below.) An announcer read this script:

"Ralph Reed, Louis Sheldon, James Dobson. Millions of Americans gave them their trust and their money, and they turned that into political power and glory. Now they have been exposed, caught supporting gambling interests and casinos. That’s right. They are knee-deep in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Will decent people ever trust them again? Don’t bet on it. We are DefCon, defending the Constitution from people like them. Join us."7

How is that for viciousness from the far end of the universe? I had never even heard of Jack Abramoff until his name began to appear in the news. I’ve never taken one red cent from him or anyone else trying to purchase my influence. This issue of gambling has been on my radar screen for more than 15 years. After Sen. Trent Lott appointed me to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1996,8 we intensified our efforts to expose gambling in all its ugliness. I have done everything possible to fight this industry — which is a cancer on the soul of the family. It preys on the desperation of the poor and is rife with corruption. I could tell you true accounts for the next week about those whose lives and children have been destroyed by this form of wickedness, some of it involving bankruptcy, physical abuse, marital failure and even suicide.

Indeed, I went nose to nose with Republican leaders in the Congress several years ago for taking contributions and being bought off by the likes of Abramoff, even though I didn’t know who he was.9 I did know that millions of dollars were flowing into their campaign coffers from Nevada and numerous Indian tribes. It was clear that the gambling tycoons "owned" many of our legislators in both parties. Sadly, they still do!

How strange it is now, given that history, that those who want to discredit and marginalize me have chosen this issue on which to fight. I have never put so much as a nickel into a slot machine in my life, and yet, the DefCon people, who will stop at nothing, have spent an untold amount of money telling the American people that I have "a serious gambling problem,"10 and that I’ve squandered precious contributions to our ministry at a blackjack table. How outrageous! I have never even taken a salary from Focus in 29 years!

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of this story is that one of the largest and most respected Christian publications, World Magazine, chose to believe there was a connection between us and Abramoff, and even printed an early "expose" implying such.11 The story was written by a reporter, Jamie Dean, who thought she was on to something hot. While interviewing him for the initial story, Dean peppered Tom Minnery, our senior vice president of Government and Public Policy, for the "goods" on Mr. Reed. Tom told the reporter what he knew, but Ms. Dean’s article suggested that he was concealing something. She seemed to be itching to find a link between us and the scandal. If you doubt that motive, look again at the headline World used for the article: "Focus on the Finances."12 This added fuel to the fire of those on the left who welcomed any hint, however contrived, of impropriety at Focus on the Family. A later article was entitled "Tough Questions"13 and was accompanied by a photograph of me with my right hand in the air.

After the initial hit piece was published, Tom Minnery immediately wrote a letter to the editor, Marvin Olasky, protesting the suggestion of a connection to us and asked to write a response. Mr. Olasky, a man I admire and respect, wrote back saying his reporter "has done excellent work" and that her article would stand as published. He refused to print Tom’s protestation except for three lines, leaving the allegations largely unchallenged in the record.14

As could have been expected, the DefCon people seized on World's comments and ran with them. This is what Max Blumenthal, spokesman for DefCon, said on his Web site:

"While I wrote about this for Nation and Media Matters, there has been very little mainstream press interest on Dobson’s role in Abramoff’s schemes. So far, some of the best — and most adversarial — reporting on the Abramoff/Reed/Dobson saga is coming from the Christian media, namely Marvin Olasky’s World Magazine."15

To this day, World is the only Christian magazine that has jumped on us. The mainstream media ignored the matter, Blumenthal admitted. It is interesting that the liberal newspapers The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the totality of televised news services recognized that the ad was bogus. Their coverage was a "one-day story" which then disappeared — everywhere but in World Magazine.

Whatever happened to expressions of civility between fellow Christians? Verbal disagreements over issues are appropriate and healthy, but common courtesy implies adherence to certain rules of engagement. Spreading and giving credence to the hateful attacks of dishonest people hardly conform to that standard.

It wasn’t until the March 25 issue that Jamie Dean and the editors at World finally acknowledged that the charges levied against me and Focus on the Family were simply not true. Ms. Dean quoted DefCon’s Jessica Smith, who said with a straight face, "We don’t accuse James Dobson of taking any money."16

To illustrate the duplicity of the DefCon attack, consider again Blumenthal’s statement about my not taking money. On the very day the ad in The New York Times ran, a press conference was held during which a reporter for the The Denver Post, Mike Soraghan, asked Blumenthal: "I’m not entirely clear on what the, I guess, proof or allegation is against Dobson. Is there anything that really concretely shows that Dobson acted to help Abramoff?" Blumenthal replied, "Um, well I, as I said, there is no proof, and I doubt there will ever be any proof that Dobson consciously colluded with Abramoff."17 That should have ended it, but at the same time, their expensive ad campaign was getting underway saying the opposite. DefCon appears to be a bumbling bunch of trouble-makers who can’t get their story straight.

DefCon obviously knows they made up the charge. Ms. Smith was scheduled to appear as a guest on the Bill O’Reilly show the night after I was interviewed, but she bailed out a few hours before the taping. She was in a bind. What could she have said except, "there is no evidence against Dobson and our ads are totally dishonest?" O’Reilly figured it out. He said on his show, " . . . it looks like Dr. Dobson was smeared and if he takes legal action against [DefCon], they deserve it."18

Well, that’s enough of that. Before I hurry to the remaining item, however, I want everyone to know who is behind DefCon. As the Sundance Kid said to Butch Cassidy when they were being tracked by the law, "Who ARE these guys?" Let me tell you who these guys are. First, the money behind DefCon came from the liberal Tides Center in San Francisco.19 The Center is funded, in part, by George Soros — the radical liberal who reportedly donates $450 million a year, much of it to left-wing causes.20 It should not surprise us that he and his cronies have come after me.

Then there is the board of advisors of DefCon. In addition to Blumenthal, their ranks include the following list of influential people who would not want you to know that they are associated with "the gang that can’t shoot straight."

Mel White is one of them. He is an angry homosexual activist who regularly comes to Colorado Springs to picket Focus on the Family and me. The first time he appeared in our city, he camped across from our property for a week. Prior to his arrival, he sent out a press release claiming that he had ghostwritten my books.21 The claim was entirely untrue, as were many of his other accusations. I’ve met White only once in a two-minute conversation before he "came out" as a homosexual. I assure you that neither he nor anyone else has ghosted my books. White’s distortion was exposed and he had to issue an embarrassing retraction. But the beat goes on. Here are several other advisors for DefCon, some of them being among the most liberal people in the nation. Others listed are scientists and professors who know full-well that conclusions should be documented by credible data, which in this case does not exist.

I’ll just offer one final word of interpretation about this episode. Despite the viciousness of the DefCon attack, we are not vengeful or vindictive about it. Nor are we discouraged or depressed. It goes with the territory. Everyone who tries to defend righteousness in the culture is treated to something similar. Jesus told His followers to expect persecution, and therefore, it comes as no surprise that we have been subjected to it.22 What is actually going on here is a profound spiritual battle for the soul of this nation. At stake are millions of preborn babies, the future of the institution of the family, religious freedom in the marketplace of ideas, the spread of obscenity and every form of crudity and wickedness in the culture, the protection of children from exploitation, and ultimately, the unedited gospel of Jesus Christ.

All of that and more are suspended in the balance at this time in our history. This is the source of the attack on me. It has been motivated not by gambling interests or by its linkage to Jack Abramoff or any other distortion. That is not the primary focal point of our accusers. Ultimately, it comes down to this: I am being vilified because people in high places on the left have identified me as a person who might help influence some of the critical cultural decisions being made in this election year, not the least of which is a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. I am also being punished for my role in helping to get two seemingly conservative Supreme Court justices confirmed. The assault is intended to weaken my ability and resolve to do that again if another opening arises.

I have no illusions about all of this. Nor do I overestimate my limited role. I am just one man who is trying to do what he thinks is right. But that brings opposition. It’s like a soldier standing up and waving his arms in mortal combat. But I’ll tell you this: I will not compromise what I see as my mission to help preserve the family and defend morality in the public square. Never! The effort to marginalize me will not succeed until the Lord is through with me. When that day comes, I’ll fade from the scene and others will continue the battle. Until then, I will keep plugging away, and ask that you uphold us in prayer.

We know you are out there. We hear from more than 200,000 of you every month. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your encouragement and support. It is uplifting for me to meet you on the street or in restaurants, and have you tell me you are praying for us, listening to our programs and reading our materials. That is what keeps us going. I especially appreciate it when you write to us and let us sense the camaraderie that binds us together. That, as the saying goes, is the wind beneath our wings.

Now, before I let you go, I have to mention an issue that is even more important than the one described above. I referred to it earlier, but it has to do with the Marriage Protection Amendment, which will define marriage exclusively as the union of a man and a woman.23 Again, we must fight this ultimate battle to protect the institution of the family. It is scheduled to be voted on in the U.S. Senate the week of June 5, and it will only pass if millions of Americans make it clear that they are paying attention. As of this moment, there are far too many senators who hope to avoid taking a stand on this effort to change our Constitution. They must hear from you, and the sooner the better.

Here’s where things stand. There is a groundswell of popular support for traditional marriage in the country today. Thirty-nine states have acted to protect traditional marriage, either by constitutional amendment or legislative statute. In 20 of them, the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman has been put directly before the people. Traditional marriage has been affirmed overwhelmingly in every one of them. This stunning success has occurred despite a barrage of propaganda in the media and from gay and lesbian activists. The other good news is that as of now, seven additional states will have constitutional amendments on the ballot in the November elections. It is likely that all of them will affirm traditional marriage. THIS is what the American people want, and they should have the right to make their own decisions. That is the way democracy is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, a handful of imperious federal judges is determined to override the will of the people and impose its own liberal agenda on society. More than 50 cases have been brought to the courts by activists seeking to redefine marriage, and several of them may be decided in the near future. The odds are that many of these suits will result in overrides or nullification of the decisions made at the ballot box. This is precisely what an arrogant federal judge, Joseph Bataillon, did in Nebraska. [To comment on his decision, you can call the judge at: (402) 661-7302, or e-mail him at: joseph_bataillon@ned.uscourts.gov.] Seventy percent of Nebraskans had voted for the exclusivity of man-woman marriage, but Bataillon had a better idea. He simply declared their wishes unconstitutional.24 That is what we have to stop, not only in Nebraska but everywhere else. The institution of the family will never be safe until there is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that says, in essence, "Keep your hands off of marriage."

To help achieve passage of the amendment, we are launching a campaign this spring in support of traditional marriage. We need your help to flood the offices of each U.S. senator with phone calls, letters and postcards that demonstrate the importance of preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman and urge the senators to support the amendment. We’ll be partnering with the Family Research Council, the Arlington Group, the Southern Baptist Convention, Anglican and Lutheran churches and many Catholic Bishops with assistance from the Knights of Columbus to send more than a million postcards to the Senate.

Despite the fact that many states have already voted to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions, our senators need to hear from every American who cares about families. We’re asking you to alert your pastor to this effort and urge him or her to order enough postcards for every member of your congregation. Enclosed you’ll find a sample of the postcard to show your pastor and to mail yourself. Each postcard sheet includes all the instructions your pastor and fellow church members need to make an impact. Additional copies can be ordered by calling Focus on the Family Action at (866) 655-4545.

Your senators need to know your wishes immediately. Tell them, in your own words, that you support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and that you will be watching closely to see how they will vote on it. You might let them know that this is a matter you will remember, and you insist that they vote to protect the family. Call or visit senatorial offices at your earliest convenience. For this particular campaign, please DO NOT just e-mail, which is too easily deleted. Further, please do not write a senator in Washington. The screening process necessary to protect against anthrax and other toxic substances takes too long. Instead, send your mail to local state offices. Staff members will get the information through to their respective senators.

The Senate is scheduled to be out of session, and presumably at home campaigning for several weeks in April and again in May. This would be an excellent time to besiege their local offices. Visit their town hall meetings, and ask if they are planning to vote for the amendment. Bags of mail should be carried into local offices day by day. Churches should organize members to write or call.

Clearly, YOU can make a difference in this issue. We need a hefty 67 senators out of 100 to vote for the amendment, which is an enormous mountain to climb. But one thing is certain. Elected officials are very sensitive, especially during an election year, to the popular desires of their constituencies. They have good reason to care about what you think. Let them know exactly how you feel. If you talk to staffers on the phone, remind them that this is a nation, as Lincoln said, "Of the people, by the people and for the people." It is not a government of, by and for the judges. Tell them the future of the family is hanging in the balance, because it is.

The U.S. Supreme Court is certain to get this issue soon, and as it stands now, the outcome appears ominous. Justice Kennedy, one of five who believes the Court should interpret the Constitution by looking to liberal rulings in Western Europe and elsewhere, has implied that he and other justices want to redefine marriage.25 That is judicial tyranny at its worst. Stop them cold in their tracks. Thirty-nine states have spoken eloquently about the will of the people. It is time for them, YOU, to be heard in defense of traditional marriage.

I BEG you to weigh-in on this critical issue. The time is now — right now.

That’s it for this month. Thank you so much for all you do to keep this ministry afloat. From a financial perspective, we’ve had a very tough February and March has been worse at Focus on the Family. Any help you can give us to continue the effort to NURTURE the family, and then DEFEND the family, will give us a boost. Jim Daly and I — along with the entire ministry staff — remain devoted unswervingly to both objectives. If you are able to stand with us, we would be very grateful.

I appreciate you all. Pray for us when our names come to mind. It is a pleasure to help carry the banner for the cause of Christ.

Sincerely,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman

P.S. On an unrelated matter, I thought you would find interesting the results of a dubious research project released in March. A University of California at Berkeley professor drew the conclusion that "whiney" toddlers tend to grow up to be conservatives and "secure and confident" babies tend to become liberals. Do you believe that? I hope not, because this conclusion makes no sense, whatsoever. How utterly foolish it is to think that fussiness in nursery school is a precursor to political views in adulthood. Have we gone crazy!? This study reveals again that behavioral researchers often confirm precisely what they are hoping to find. Don’t believe everything they try to feed us. It just might be baloney.

ENDNOTES

1. See: http://www.defconamerica2.org/abramoff/printad.pdf.
2. Arnaud de Borchgrave, "Rumsfeld’s Complaint," The Washington Times, 23 Feb. 2006, p. A14.
3. "Six Degrees of Jack Abramoff," The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2005, p. A26.
4. Walter F. Roche Jr., "Two Senators Seek Special Prosecutor for Abramoff Ties," Los Angeles Times, 24 Feb. 2006, p. A26. Phillip Shenon, "Lobbyist in Congress Furor is Sentenced in Florida Case," The New York Times, 30 March 2006.
5. Jim Drinkard and Andrea Stone, "Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to More Charges," USA Today, 4 January 2006, p. A8.
6. See: http://www.defconamerica2.org/abramoff/printad.pdf.
7. See: http://www.defconamerica.org/abramoff/adspage.html.
8. James W. Brosnan, "Voice for Religious Right on Panel to Probe Gaming," The Commercial Appeal, 11 Sept. 1996, p. A1.
9. Rod Smith, "Lack of Senate Action on Web Gambling Spurs Outcry," Las Vegas Review Journal, 1 Nov. 2002.
10. See: http://www.defconamerica2.org/abramoff/printad.pdf.
11. Jamie Dean, "Focus on the Finances," WORLD Magazine online, 4 Feb. 2006, Vol. 21, No. 5, http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11489 (28 March 2006).
12. Ibid.
13. Jamie Dean, "Cousshatta Chronicle," WORLD Magazine online, 4 March 2006, Vol. 21, No. 5, http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11579 (28 March 2006).
14. Ibid.
15. Max Blumenthal, "Abramoff Splits the Christian Right," HuffingtonPost.com, LLC online, 7 March 2006, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/abramoff-splits-the-chris_b_16933.html (28 March 2006).
16. Jamie Dean, "Knee-Deep in Scandal?" WORLD Magazine online, 25 March 2006, Vol. 21, No. 12, http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11643 (28 March 2006).
17. Transcript of DefCon Press Conference, March 8, 2006.
18. "The O’Reilly Factor," "Talking Points Memo and Top Story," FOX News, 9 March 2006.
19. Bob Kemper, "Ad Campaign Chides Reed’s Gambling Ties," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9 March 2006.
20. Amy Westfeldt, "Billionare Soros Banking on a Bush Loss," Associated Press, 10 June 2004.
21. Ground Zero, "Newsletter Release," 14 June 1994.
22. John 15:20, NIV: "Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also."
23. Marriage Protection Amendment (S. J. RES. 1) states that: (SEC 2) Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. Find status and text at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.J.Res.1:
24. Leah Thorsen, "State’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Struck Down," Lincoln Journal Star, 13 May 2005, p. A1.
25. Anne Gearan, "High Court’s Colorful Dissenter Predicts Ruling Will Lead to Gay Marriage Laws," Associated Press, 26 June 2003.