For Love Of Country

Sure, I'm late to the party on this one, but the systemic impact from this could prove to be a great new talking point for the Modern American Right:

There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them. I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness. Not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there’s a forgiving God.

Somebody once said that when we’re young, we seek justice, but as we get older, we seek mercy. There’s something to that, I think. I feel that I’m now 67 I’m a grandfather. I have two wonderful grandchildren. I have two wonderful daughters and two great sons-in-law. Callista and I have a great marriage. I think that I’ve learned an immense amount.

And I do feel, in that sense, that God has given me, has blessed me with an opportunity as a person. Forget about all this political stuff. As a person, I’ve had the opportunity to have a wonderful life, to find myself now, truly enjoying the depths of my life in ways that I never dreamed it was possible to have a life that was that nice.

Because that's all it takes, doesn't it - asking forgiveness from some invisible man in the sky and wrapping it in the America Flag will make even the most scandalous of transgression go away; even from someone as high profile within the Modern American Right as Newt.

It's the new excuse du jour - I love my country so much that I ( insert what would normally be an unpardonable sin in accordance to alleged "standards" of the Modern American Right ) but I sure do love me some Jeebus!

So what happens when the Republican Debates ramp up and Newt has this thrown back in his face? Will that even happen? We've been accustomed to Right Wingers not heavily pressing their own. And if it's Palin that is questioned, then the entirety of the Modern American Right gets all twisted into knots that they don't know how to act. I'd look for the "rules" to change dramatically come May when Republicans gather at the Shrine of St. Ronnie - without Sister Sarah.

Maybe she's going to skip the other debates too because "she loves America and Baby Jesus so much" too?

EXIT QUESTION: I normally leave the "what ifs" to my ideological opponents, but wouldn't it have been great had Clinton used this as his excuse. It certainly would have made for great TV back then but likely would have made Newt's excuse even more preposterous than it already is.

Does "T" Stand For "Tantrum"?

During the Conway/Paul debate at the University of Louisville, Rand ended his portion of the debate by announcing that he would not shake Jack Conway's hand and why.



Rand just can't seem to come to grips with the fact that his entire life - even what happened 30 years ago - is going to be scrutinized. This was a very open and unblushing tactic that conservatives used ( and still use ) against Obama. Does Rand think he is above being examined? Apparently so, considering how he stormed off the stage like a child that was denied a cookie before bedtime.

Here's the ad he was referencing:



As the Daily Kos points out, Rand injected religion - his in specific - into this campaign to begin with.

From an article in May of this year by Sarah Posner of Religious Dispatches, she highlights how Paul spoke not only of his faith - in an interview on CBN's The Brody File - but that if all of America were Christians then we wouldn't need any laws.

I'm a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a Deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. . . . 98% of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life.

Posner goes on to show how Paul's version of Christianity is more like Christian Reconstructionism:

Reconstructionists share the worldview of the John Birch Society, which as Adele Stan reported, has enthusiastically praised Paul's victory over Republican Trey Grayson. (In 1963 -- the year Rand Paul was born and, he claimed on Rachel Maddow's show, he would have marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. -- the John Birch Society insisted that proposed civil rights laws were "in flagrant violation of the 10th amendment," and threatened individual freedom.) On the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, in 2004, the elder Paul stated on the floor of the House, "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society."

Many Christian Reconstructionists believe certain forms of slavery are biblical. As I wrote in a post last month, the resurgence of the JBS (it was a co-sponsor of this year's Conservative Political Action Conference) alongside Christian Reconstructionism signals a resurgence of the sort of mish-mash of states' rights and individual liberty arguments made by libertarians and tea partiers -- in Paul's case, federal civil rights laws are portrayed as some sort of government invasion of liberty -- in which civil rights protections are flipped on their head and portrayed as antithetical to (white people's) freedom

Paul seems to think that good Christians don't need civil laws (or civil rights laws, for that matter) for them to do the right thing. But it's crucial to acertain what that "right thing" really is.

This proclamation by Paul that his "faith" - and by logical extension his "values" - are strictly off limits. After all, it's perfectly fine for Paul Tea Bagger fan base to question someone's faith if they are a black man with a funny sounding name.

I'm from a very conservative part of Kentucky. I would actually posit that it's one of the reddest counties in the state. Republican voters here have more than just policy in mind when they make their selections on election day. I would actually argue that many of them vote for a particular candidate simply because they say they are "Christian" and support "family values", regardless of that candidates policy agenda.

As an aside, about 90% of the Rand Paul campaign signs I'm seeing around my community are on "public" land. For some reason that seems a little odd to me, if only because Paul just might be a little to "extreme" for even this town. Then again, maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

At Least It Wasn't Lamb's Blood

CBN's David Brody reports on a perculiar, yet common, "Christian ritual" that was conducted on Capital Hill:

The Christian group "Faith and Action in the Nation's Capitol" has made its way to Capitol Hill and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor might be interested in what they did. They blessed the doors of Senate Hart Building Room 216 with prayer and oil because they believe this will be the room most likely used for her confirmation hearing which begins July 13th.

I'll pass on the obvious discussions of the seperation of Church and State on this. What I find more interesting is that this man was allowed to take a vile full of "oil" into the Senate Hart Building and then smear it on the doors to Rm 216.

Was this authorized by security? I'd like to see someone take insences sticks in and light them and pray to some Buddist or Hindu god that the confirmation brings out the truth. Although that "what if" situation is better left to those on the Right side of the discussion, it's relevant to point out that this "blessing" can be seen as a security issue.

That aside, what happens when "Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital" President, Rev. Rob Schenck, sees that his "prayer" that he sanctioned didn't turn out the way he had hoped?

It's never been considered by any devout worshiper, whatever denomination they belong to, that pray doesn't work all the time - they honestly believe that it does. They tend to spin more on what God does and doesn't answer than Bill O'Reilly does when discussing conservatives actions, thoughts, and deeds. If this "prayer" isn't answered in the fashion that they desire, look for Rev. Schenck to say something along the lines that God is testing their faith, that he has a plan for Sotomayor, or that perhaps people simply didn't pray hard enough.

Sarah Palin : Itching To Amend The Constitution

More here from David Brody @ CBN.

This didn't work for Bush.

It is a massive act of hubris to think that people would fall in line with you and be willing to change the Constitution to define what marriage "means".

Nevermind that a "family" can't be boiled down to an equation - man + woman + 2.5 kids = family. Nevermind that "marriage" does not equal "family" to begin with.
Nevermind that over half of the marriages in America end in divorce.

Sarah Palin would rather pander to the most fringe of conservative groups on this - namely Dobson and his "Focus On The Family" crew - rather than understand that an overwhelming majority of Americans are more concerned with issues closer to home.

But, this is not suprising. Palin is cut from the same cloth as those that think homosexuality can be "cured" or that it's a "choice".