Focus on the Family Needs to go Back to the Future

Just prior to the recent presidential election, Focus on the Family Action, the lobbying arm of Focus on the Family, an organization founded by evangelical Christian Dr. James Dobson posted an imaginative letter entitled, “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America.”  In this hyperbolic letter, the fictional writer lays out a “possible” scenario of what the United States would look like if Senator Barak Obama was elected President of the United States and both houses of Congress were to be run by the Democrats.  Here are some of the proposed scenarios according to Christianity Today:

-The Supreme Court would lean liberal
-Churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages would lose their tax-exempt status
-“under God” in the Pledge would be declared unconstitutional
-Doctors and nurses who won’t perform abortions will no longer be able to deliver babies
-Pornography would be openly displayed on newsstands
-Inner-city crime increases when gun ownership is restricted
-Homeschooling would become restricted, so thousands of homeschooling parents emigrate to other countries such as Australia and New Zealand.
– “Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing
hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe.”
-Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.
-New carbon emission standards drive many coal-powered electric plants out of business. “The country has less total electric power available than in 2008, and periodic blackouts to conserve energy occur on a regular schedule throughout the nation.”

“After many of these decisions, especially those that restricted religious speech in public places, President Obama publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond what he ever expected,” the letter reads.

It suggests that younger evangelicals were the tipping point for Obama’s pretend victory.

“Many Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the far-Left policies that had marked his career. They were wrong,” the letter says.

The author also proposes that every conservative talk show would have to be followed by an instant rebuttal to the program by a liberal “watchdog” group and eventually shut down by 2010. Another hypothetical scenario is that because no Christian is willing to write books critical of homosexuality, many Christian publishers go out of business.

The author suggests that Bush administration officials who had involvement with the Iraq war would be put in jail.

The author writes, “Many brave Christian men and women tried to resist these laws, and some Christian legal agencies tried to defend them, but they couldn’t resist the power of a 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court. It seems many of the bravest ones went to jail or were driven to bankruptcy. And many of their reputations have been destroyed by a relentless press and the endless repetition of false accusations.”

Upon reading this apocalyptic, I thought it might be good to consider another scenario, based in the same factitious quality and tone.  Using another time machine, I chose to take us back to the year 2000,  specifically on November 6th, the day before the election that saw Texas governor George Bush running against Vice-President Al Gore.  Keeping with the spirit of the recent Focus on the Family letter, just imagine if someone, possibly one of those Democratic operatives, were to have written another pretend letter called, “Letter from 2008 in Bush’s America.”  How would those supporting George Bush have reacted?

Perhaps, the 2000 letter would suggest some crazy scenarios like the following.  Just imagine.

If Republian George W. Bush is elected, America will begin a dramatic decline toward chaos not seen since the Great Depression and an obvious manifestation of God withdrawing His hand of protection and favor from this country.  During the next eight years, if George Bush is elected and reelected, the following conditions will occur:

Within a year of his election, the United States will experience the greatest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.  This terrorist attack will be against the symbols of US economic and military might, in New York and in Washington, DC.    In response to these attacks, President Bush will launch a massive propaganda campaign that will propel the nation into two wars resulting in the deaths of over 4,500 troops and over 30,000 wounded service personnel.  Aside from these physical casualties to our men and women in uniform, the US taxpayer will foot the bill to the tune of about $600 Billion directly and by extension, about $3 Trillion. This war will become the longest in US history and least supported since the Vietnam War.

In an attempt to keep their eye on terrorists, the Bush administration will move to allow domestic espionage, opening all kinds of opportunities for spying on citizens, some for their religious affiliations.  This action will allow the National Security Agency and others to conduct secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States all in the name of national security.

On the economic front, the Bush administration will pass a tax cut that will favor the wealthiest taxpayers and at the same time increase spending at an alarming rate.  The surplus he inherited from President Bill Clinton will turn into the biggest deficit in national history and as a result, the national debt will rise dramatically.  During George W. Bush’s presidency, the national debt will grow by more than $4 trillion. It will be the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.  On the day President Bush takes office, the national debt will stand at $5.727 trillion. By his last year in office, the national debt will stand at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.

Toward the end of his second term, with two wars still being fought, the US housing and mortgage industry will suffer a huge deflation leading to millions of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and the collapse of many large institutional banks and brokerages.  This will require the US Congress to bailout the lending industry, adding about another trillion dollars of debt to the US Taxpayer. Other world economies will suffer equally. Also, during that time, even though George Bush is an oilman, his expertise will not prevent the cost of gasoline and other oil products from more than doubling in his final year.  George Bush’s friends in the petroleum industry will see record-setting profits, while hundreds of business fail due to the high price of energy.  His slogan, “Compassionate Conservatism” will sound quite hollow.

In the midst of Bush’s terms, natural disasters will occur, but due to the weakness of his government, many will suffer for lack of critical government services.  George Bush will be seen as a reactive president, not prepared for the future.

By the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, he will have garnered the highest disapproval rating in modern history.  Due to that in part, a Democratic candidate will win the 2008 election and will be joined by a large majority of Democrats in the Congress and Senate.  States that are normally seen as safe Republican bets will reject the Republican Party, some for the first time in decades.

Although these predictions are only possible scenarios and may seem far-fetched to the rational mind, there is always the possibility, given the character of George Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney that such things could, in fact, occur on George Bush’s watch.  Therefore, be prayerful about your vote.

The sad thing is that there are those who would readily consider and actually believe the 2012 Focus letter, but if they were back in 2000 reading the letter above, would call it a hateful, liberal diatribe, or more directly, an absolute, groundless lie.  To them I would say, “Don’t drink the Koolaid.”

I know I shouldn’t have to say anything, but there are those folks who won’t see the obvious.  So let me clean it up.  In the 2012 letter, Focus on the Family Active is predicting some very dire circumstance to an Obama presidency.  All this without the benefit of God’s stamp of approval.  No one is saying, “Thus saith the Lord.”  Therefore, the predictions should be seen as merely the creation of a fearful mind, not one that relies on the scripture that declares that, “All things work together for good, to them who love God and are called to His purpose.”  Christian should fear not, but be courageous.  The 2012 letter on the other hand is a profession of fear, discord, and faithlessness.  Not one of a sound mind, unity, and faith in the living God.

It has become very clear to me that the actions of Focus on the Family Action is evidence of a para-church organization that is set adrift from the Living Word of God.  Winning the culture wars seem to be tactically, an anything-goes methodology instead of being tethered to the moral code of Christ’s example.  I think the 2012 letter is reprehensible and Focus on the Family should repent for its dissemination.

As for my personal prediction for 2012, I see more Christians relying less on the leadership of the likes of James Dobson, and more on the power of real prayer and love for enemies, real and perceived.

Related Articles”

James Dobson, you owe America an apology – Jim Wallis

Obama and McCain – Looking for the Christian’s Password

Observing Barak Obama and John McCain’s attempts to lure the American religious communities reminds me of a scene in the 1995 film Babe written by Dick King-Smith where Babe, the pig, seeks to find just the right words to be able to herd the sheep during the annual sheepdog competition. The problem for Babe was that he wasn’t a sheepdog at all, but a pig! Nevertheless, because of the confidence his owner, Farmer Hoggett had shown in him and the capability and competence he had previously demonstrated with the sheep back home, Farmer Hoggett believed that he had a chance to do well in the trials. The challenge for Babe was trying to work a herd of sheep that didn’t know him nor he them. He had to find the secret to connecting with the herd, and quick.

The reason Babe was in the trials in the first place was due to a series of strange circumstances and set of anomalies in his upbringing. Unlike other pigs, Babe had been adopted by a sheepdog. That unique factor created an opportunity for Babe to develop his skills to herding sheep. The name of his adoptive mother sheepdog was Fly, and soon thereafter, Fly begins to train the pig in the ways of a sheepdog. She explains to Babe that sheep are stupid animals and that dogs are smart animals. It’s the dog’s job to dominate the sheep in order to have them perform the farmer’s bidding. One day, however, a sheep named Ma takes sick and is kept in the barn for treatment. Babe meets her and becomes her friend and knows that she is not stupid and knows that he can treat her respectfully.

As time goes by, Farmer Hoggett begins to notice the strange behavior of this pig raised by a sheepdog. One day, Mr. Hoggett takes the pig out to the field in order to see if the pig can be a sheep-pig. Babe, though he is slow, follows orders perfectly. Also, since Babe is so polite and has made a friendship with Ma, the sheep are perfectly willing to obey his requests. They much prefer his manners to Fly’s barking and commands. The farmer continues using Babe to do much of the farm work. One day, though, two dogs attack the sheep. Babe hears their cries and races to the field to save them. Once Farmer Hoggett arrives at the field, he finds Babe with a bloody snout standing over a dead sheep that the dogs had killed. Farmer Hoggett thinks that Babe has attacked the sheep and decides to kill him. Babe is saved, however, when Mrs. Hoggett receives a call warning of two dangerous dogs in the area. Farmer Hoggett realizes then that Babe actually saved his sheep.

Farmer Hoggett then proceeds with his plan to enter Babe in the sheepdog trials. He trains his beloved pig how to guide the sheep quickly and accurately through a course. Fly watched Babe’s progress delightedly, but she worries that the sheep at the trials will not be able to communicate with Babe. Fly has learned some new respect for the sheep since she has witnessed Babe’s interactions with them. She asks them about this potential problem, and the sheep tell her a password that will help Babe to communicate with the sheep at the trials. The magic words that commanded the sheep’s obedience was,

“May be ewe, may be ram, may be mutton, may be lamb, but on the hoof or on the hook, I bain’t so stupid as I look”

Those words tell a lot. The sheep were looking for respect and mutual respect would be the reward. This is secret that gave Babe and Farmer Hoggett an unprecedented victory at the trials, stunning the mocking crowd.

Like Babe, Obama and McCain have been looking for the password that will appeal to the sensibilities and beliefs of the faith community in America. The problem for them however, is that many, if not most on the right side of the theological ledger aren’t buying it. Or, at least they are very skeptical. And rightly they should be. After the revelations of the George Bush administration’s use of faith-based initiatives as a bait-and-switch tactic in appealing to the Religious Right, many in that sector have jaundiced eyes toward any politician using faith as an appeal point.

In my view, God’s Kingdom, at least the one Jesus spoke of in his Sermon on the Mount, is not based on a faith in man nor the ways of the world. Politics, although interesting and often alluring, is not the way to see true peace in the world. Any Christian who gets in the saddle of politics will find his or herself in a corral of enmity, division and contention. These are the works of the flesh, in other words, the world. If the truth of the Gospel is taking a second seat to political expediency, that faith is in vain, built upon the sand. If Jesus had thought politics would bring about peace, justice, and joy, he would have enjoined the political process. The reality is that these things are rooted in the condition of the heart, something politics is totally incapable of providing. Nevertheless, if you are a believer and hold to the idea that either Barak Obama or John McCain can lead the nation toward these legitimately sought after ideals, you should remember that these men and their political policies will only lead you to more empty promises. They certainly have a form of godliness, but deny the power of it. – 2 Timothy 3:5

But here’s the real caveat for anyone seeking political solutions to spiritual problems offered by politicians. It is found in the two verses following 2 Timothy 3:5. ” They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” In a nutshell, desperate people who don’t put their faith in God but in man will be deceived, never coming to the truth that sets free.

Related Reading:

Evangelical Expose: Bush’s Faith-based Fraud

The Obama Snooker

Reed Urges McCain to Appeal to Evangelical Flock

Christian Politics in the 21st Century

Taking America Back for God

During a recent “Speaking of Faith” radio program, Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne discuss whether there is a “Christian” way to vote. Here’s the segment. To see the complete episode of “Speaking on Faith”, click on the link below the video.

Speaking of Faith

Should I, an Evangelical, be afraid of Obama?

On most days I usually peruse a hefty sum of articles, blogs, and forum entries addressing a host of issues. More than not, I tend to gravitate toward those that are in the genre of the religio-political. It’s where I find the most interesting, outlandish, and mixed-up thinking on the planet.

Since Barak Obama sewed up the majority of the Democratic Party’s cache of delegates last week, the media (of all types) has been abuzz with prognostications. It’s natural that we do this. But my eye has been skewed mostly toward what my peeps (evangelicals) are saying. The responses have filled every part of the spectrum.

On one hand there has been praise for Obama and it seems likely that he will garner a large number of evangelical votes in the fall. Some have suggested that he could get up to 40%. That’s huge!. On the other side of the equation, there are those who not only claim that Obama is dangerous, but claim the he is the Anti-Christ. One writer posted some of these dubious and arguable points in a Topix Forum. (I thought I should add some questions to his facts for clarity.)

Yahaim wrote:

Obama is the Anti-Christ. This is the evidence:

1.– He will come as a man of Peace (Obama promises peace in Iraq, defeat for the US)
When did he promise defeat for the US?
2.- He will come mounted on a white Female horse(Obama mother is white who had 6 African husbands)
Does this mean that his mother was a white horse with 6 black legs?
3.– He will come to deceive( Obama says he’s a Christian but in fact he was born a Muslim, practices the Islamic religion, prays Friday’s facing Mecca)
Is there any evidence that he still prays toward Mecca, not that he claims to be a Christian.
4.– He will make himself the most powerful man on earth, if elected.
Really?
5.– He will try to destroy the Jewish People and Israel( Obama has said he loves the Arabs specially the Palestinians, hates Israel and Jews. Admires Hitler, Osama etc) 1.Try reading some Israeli material that says otherwise. 2. Oh yeah, the Hitler-Osama statement. How about some evidence. There is evidence that Obama admires George Bush and Ronald Reagan though.
6.– He will present himself as good and righteous but in fact he’s Satan himself. Violence is in his heart.
Again, really? Your evidence, please.
7.– Obama will help Al Qaida in its evil projects.
Yeah, that’s the impression I got when Obama promised to hunt down Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
8.– Barack Hussein Obama is the “King of the South” predicted in the Bible.(Daniel .11, Kenya is south of Jerusalem)
So is Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Tanzania, and Uganda.
9.– Obama comes to implant muslim Sharia Law upon America.
If Christianity hasn’t been successful in forcing Judeo-Christian theocratic law on a nation that promotes a seperation of church and state, how will Barak Obama?
Obama is the Anti-Christ, beware of him.
Watch him and don’t let you be deceived by Him.
Supporters of Obama: 1.5 billion Muslims, Oprah, Louis Farrakanh, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all American Muslims.
OBAMA’S GAME IS DECEPTION AND VIOLENCE
A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR OSAMA AND KILLER ISLAM!!
YIKES!!!
So, what do I think? Should I be afraid if Barak Obama is elected president? Should I throw up my evangelical, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage hands in surrender. Why, heck no! The fact is that for believers in Christ, who actually trust in, rely on, and cling to Him, there is no fear of the future. God is still in control.
If Barak Obama were to become Christian America’s worse nightmare (and I’m not saying he will be), do you think for one minute that God’s will is going to be undone? Only if God is a actually a man.

In the past two-and-half decades, all too many evangelical and fundamentalist Christian have placed their trust, not in the God who promises to heal their land by humbling themselves in repentance and prayer, but in numbers and political strength. They have fallen into the sin of counting on man’s strength, thinking, and method’s. Isaiah 55:8-9 warns believers that the thoughts and ways of man are contrary to God’s thinking. Naturally, when one’s thinking takes form, that which is formed is also contrary to God’s ways. The apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the church in Corinth, “for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

The root problem with most evangelicals who are “fearful” of certain political results and world affairs is that they are rooted in an earthly mindset, not on God’s Kingdom or it’s power. They rely on circumstances and conditions and fail to live in faith. They have not renewed their mind, but have continued in their old thinking. Unfortunately, many believers are being encouraged by politically-minded ministers, evangelists, and other religious luminaries to follow a world view that is born in an emotion that God tells us to cast aside. That powerfully deceitful feeling is fear.

The reason I don’t fear or lose any sleep whether Barak Obama or John McCain becomes president is because I know that God’s love for his people gives liberty. The Bible says, “perfect love casts out fear.” It’s not my love, but God’s love. I have faith in His love, therefore I fear nothing or no one. Furthermore, there are other truths that buoy my faith. I know that the God who is in me is greater that anyone in the world (1 John 4:4), that I am more than a conqueror through Jesus Christ (Romans 8:35-37), that my effectual, fervent prayers avail much (James 5:16), and that, as I learned from my childhood, “in all things God works for the good of those that love Him and are called to His purposes” (Romans 8:28). These passages of scripture provide the framework for being free from fear and being empowered to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with my God (Micah 6:8) The moral condition of national leaders do not change the efficacy of God’s Word.

So what if Obama is the devil some predict? What do I do? Do I call for his impeachment or God’s swift sword. Nope. God’s word tells me to do the opposite of what man’s thinking resorts to. He calls for me to pray for him, not curse him. (I Timothy 2:1-3)

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,

and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

For kings, and for all that are in authority;

that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour”

Notice the first (four) things Christians are to do in order to “lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty? They are:

1. Supplications – means to petition or entreat God for something with passion, zeal and a hunger to see the request fulfilled.

2. Prayers – activity motivated by our desire to be in God’s presence and to know His will. Prayer is an acknowledgment of our spiritual poverty and our reliance on God to speak to our poverty.

3. Intercessions – is the act of advocating for someone else. For the Christian, it is the continuation of the ministry of Christ, showing love for those who are sinners.

4. Thanksgivingan acknowledgment of appreciation for a thing received. If we believe that God hears and answers our supplications, prayers, and intercessions, then the proper attitude is one of thanksgiving

“Be joyful always; pray continually (no matter who gets elected); give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” I Thessalonians 5:16-18

Obama’s Specious Chivalry

The Obamas

Barak Obama’s dramatic defense of his wife showed a weakness in character and a specious act of chivalry. In an interview given on ABC’s Good Morning America program, the apparent Democratic nominee for president scolded the Tennessee Republican Party for producing and airing a video that re-played Michelle’s words from a speech she gave in Wisconsin this past February in which she declared, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction.”

Those words started a firestorm and the Tennessee GOP, obligidly has continued to fan the flames by releasing the video last week, just prior to a visit to the state by Michelle Obama. Sen. Obama, finally having enough of it has said, “lay off my wife.” He further noted, “The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “I’ve been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I’ve said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That’s what they do.” He went on to warn, “but I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable,” he said.

What I find so specious about all this is that the speech Michelle Obama gave in February was not at all unrelated to her husband’s campaign. It was clearly in the context of a political speech. I’m sure Barak wasn’t surprised to find Michelle in Wisconsin that day giving that speech. It’s not like she had nothing else to do that day. Heck, Obama knew exactly what she was doing. He, (being the head of his campaign) has sent his wife Michelle as a lamb among the wolves and now says its “low class” for the Tennessee GOP to take her to task for the “Obama ‘08” campaign-sponsored comments she made in a political speech. Although I agree with the statement Obama made that for Republicans “to try to distort (which they did) or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her (which they are)…is low class,” I have mixed views on his subsequent comments. He duly noted, and I agree, that it “was detestable” to do these things, and “especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people.” He would have been fine if he left it there. But he didn’t. He asserted that it was detestable, “to start attacking my wife in a political campaign.” Although I absolutely agree with him on the “attack” point, I would be probably be more sympathetic if not for the fact that these attacks happened as a result of having Michelle give political speeches for his campaign.

I’m just wondering why Obama would put his wife in the arena of political rhetoric, ad homenum comments, innuendo, and gossip, by having her give speeches where he knows full well that doing such will encourage attacks from his political foes. It seems to me that if Obama didn’t want the opposition attacking his wife for political statement, he would keep her out of the crossfire. Anything otherwise, seems to be careless, or perhaps, just bating the opposition. No matter what, I feel Obama needs to take some blame for putting his wife in the attack zone. Perhaps if Obama was really concerned about his wife taking hits from the opposition, he might just consider keeping her out of the killing zone. Anything otherwise would be negligent or even, low class.

So what does the junior senator see as appropriate means, if any, to questioning his wife’s political comments and philosophies? Perhaps Peggy Shapiro of the American Thinker has the appropriate ground rules for criticizing Obama & Company. She suggested these rules:

Rule 1 Don’t criticize family no matter who they are or what they do.

Although his wife Michelle is an active member of his campaign and a virulent critic of other candidates, she must not be made an issue in the election. “The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.” To criticize Michelle is not part of the normal political fray, but a violation of the sanctity of family. Michelle Obama has immunity from condemnation and free reign to denigrate the country and Obama’s opponents.

Rule 2 Don’t criticize any policy that the candidate might have even if he is not mentioned by name.

The opposition must not challenge Obama’s plan to meet face-to-face with state sponsors of terror, even if the challenge does not mention the Senator by name. A Democratic firestorm broke out when President Bush told an Israeli Knesset audience that negotiating with Iran’s President, who has repeatedly committed himself to the destruction of Israel, is the false comfort of appeasement. Obama, whose policy is just that sort of false comfort, attacked the speech as “a false political attack” launched on foreign soil. Although Democrats have been critical of the U.S. on foreign soil (Obama’s recently dismissed foreign policy advisor Samantha Power is just the first that comes to mind.), partisan politics past our shores is not protocol.

Rule 3 Don’t imply that Obama’s stunning rise to power was the result of anything less than divine intervention.

As Bill Clinton discovered, referring to Obama’s unprecedented rise from an undistinguished state senator, with a short stop in the U.S. Senate, to candidate for the most powerful position in the world was “a fairytale.” Of course, Clinton did not imply that Obama conjured magical powers, but that unusual circumstances were in play. The “fairytale” remark was distorted and regurgitated as a play of the “race card.” There is no more damning or frightening epithet than to be called a racist.

Rule 4 Don’t examine any of Obama’s anti-American, racist, terrorist, or criminal associates.

It’s out of bounds to criticize a public member of his campaign in a key foreign policy position. Criticism of Obama’s associations with Reverend Wright, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko are characterized as “witch hunt” and “guilt by association.” The critic is stained by association with two of America’s darkest periods in history: the hysterical unfairness of America’s Salem Trials and Joe McCarthy’s prosecution of Americans for their “suspected” associations with Communists.

So let’s clarify the rules for the general election so that Republicans are not labeled as destroyers of families, indecent purveyors of false attacks, racists, or McCarthyites. Don’t make negative mention of Obama’s wife, his policies, his inexperience, or his associations.

What’s left? The GOP had better contact the Obama campaign to issue a list of permissible topics.

Related articles:

Michelle Obama is Fair Game (Boston Globe)

Obama’s Chivalry Nice, but…(Hartford Courant)

When cowardice masquerades as chivalry . . .

“Oh my god Marge. I think I said something stupid!”