Current Events

Power

64 Comments

Daniel Webster is running for Speaker of the House and if that doesn’t terrify you it probably should. You see, Webster is a long-time Gothard man who has ties to the Christian Reconstruction movement. As Down with Tyranny blog reports:

Daniel Webster’s intimate, over three decade long involvement with evangelist Bill Gothard appears similar to a classic guru-disciple or mentor-pupil relationship and has included speaking multiple times at Gothard’s conferences, traveling with Gothard to Korea in 1996, using Bill Gothard’s material to homeschool his six children, making an instructional video for Gothard’s Institute For Basic Life Principles, and, when Webster became speaker of the Florida legislature in 1996, hiring four of Gothard’s IBLP employees as high-level Florida State House staffers.

I actually heard this man give a speech from the platform at PCC. At the time my young Republican heart was inspired by this upright and forthright man battling against the powers of Democrat darkness. That was a long, long time ago.

64 thoughts on “Power”

    2. Yeah, AP just dropped us to 13th. WTH?? Yeah, it wasn’t the prettiest win in the world, and it was against an unranked team, but it was a SHUT-OUT fer cryin’ out loud! Look how ugly some of those other teams have played recently — without dropping in the rankings one bit. And yeah, our O-Line needs a lot of help, but our Defense is awesome-sauce!!

      Roll Tide!! And fire Lane Kiffin!

        1. The point I was trying to make by obeying Godwin’s Law is that, at the start. very few people shared that little Austrian-born twerp’s high opinion of his own leadership abilities, and nobody thought he would get very far. In the end even Christians got sucked in, and realised too late what was happening. History repeats itself. It has to. Nobody listens.

        2. Enough with the Godwining. Some things have a clear parallel and squawking “GODWIN” is no way to win an argument.

  8. It’s interesting that, in the quote, Got Hard’s name is mentioned multiple times, but the name of Jesus is not mentioned once. Neither is God.

    1. I don’t understand the point. Why would the quote need to mention Jesus or God? The point is to identify an affiliation between Webster and Gothard.

      1. maybe i was being silly. But I do wonder if the guy can tell the difference between the voice of God and the voice of Gothard.

  11. I doubt he could garner the votes to be Speaker. The Republican Party is fractured, perhaps beyond repair. Not that I’m grieving.

    I recommend the book “One Nation Under God” by Kevin Kruse, a Princeton history professor. The book makes it clear that the movement to merge the Constitution with the Bible and Cxianity has a long history in the U.S.

    In the midst of the Civil Rights movement, there was a very strong push to amend the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment. This would’ve allowed Cxianity to be promoted in our public schools.

    There is nothing new under the sun.

      2. Yes. In God We Trust and the modification to the pledge of allegiance go back to Eisenhower’s term. My point was, this theocratic crap is at least 60 years old in the U.S.

    2. I expect he will get it. The Republicans will at least fall into line to have a speaker, even if they don’t follow him, and they will do anything to keep a Democrat from being speaker!

      The Tea Party is getting crazier all the time. I am reminded of the history of the Communist Party in Russia, where the Bolsheviks had an ideological purge of people from their party ranks who did not agree with them. Although we are minus the bloodshed at this point, the consolidation of power into the hands of the extreme has a lot of historical precedent. It will happen here, too.

      The only hope we have is that they will become so odious as to render them unelectable even in their own districts. But the crowd this attracts would welcome the anarchy and the political disasters, no matter who it hurt.

      1. The situation with Boehner reminds me of what I read about the Jacobins and the Terror in France in 1793-94 (i.e., during the French Revolution). You couldn’t be radical enough for those guys, they’d send you to the guillotine. I think we’re seeing a repeat.

        1. And fundamentalism sells its goods on the premise that people are essentially bad.

          The remedy sought for is a dictatorship of the individual while allowing corporate and religious groups unprecedented freedom to rule and exploit. Historically, this is probably closer to Italian fascism than Other totalitarian forms, as the rich rule the government and everyone else. But the progression toward totalitarianism is remarkably similar no matter what the ultimate form.

    2. I would think that the Duggar connection to Gothard would submarine this guy’s chance to be elected dog catcher these days.

  14. This gentleman hails from my State, California (the lunatic fringe division). I live in God’s Country, otherwise known as the SF Bay Area. The Bakersfield area is more like somewhere in the Deep South.

    I’m a registered Republican because I am conservative in many areas, but the GOP is now so crazy that I have voted Democrat in the last several elections. I am probably going to re-register as either an Independent or a Demo. I personally think that the Republicans, with all their drama, will probably lose the next presidency. They are just too fractured, and their “important” candidates have too many screws lose and don’t even know what Presidents can actually do. They are subject to the Constitution, the Senate, Congress and the courts, not to their own ideas about building walls across the border, ordering a hit on the Ayatollah, or requiring that Sharia law be revoked. I may end up voting for the Bloom County penguin, Opus. He is running a campaign to restore two spaces after a common when typing. It seems like a worthy cause.
    http://www.gocomics.com/bloom-county/2015/09/25

  15. I am reposting this SFL post on some news media/political sites (why not help me out here). The last thing the world needs is a hateful, misogynistic Gothardite with that much political power. They might not know Gothard, but they will know the trainwreck Duggar family he inspired.

        1. Selective amnesia happens everywhere in politics. People shift roles and take on personas appropriate to their roles. There usually is no real conviction, except that of knowing one’s constituency and pandering to keep their support. Deeds which would be distasteful to ordinary people are part of their daily fare, whether it be bribery or conspiracy or murder. Yes, murder, too. What would you call invasion of another country on the basis of wholesale lies? Or refusing to make sure laws are just and actually convict the truly guilty? Or allowing businesses to jack up the price of desperately needed drugs beyond reach of families and individuals? Or making sure that the wages and working policies of big business are slave and starvation-level?

          There is no real pro-life movement among conservatives in the United States. To be pro-life, you have be concerned with issues that go well beyond the womb.

  16. I am under the impression that the Speaker of the House position goes to the next ranking partisan in the House. I’m sure various Tea Party boneheads will want a shot at it. I’m thinking the Republican leader, whoever that person is, will get it. Because the party leader is in a position of convenience. Sort of like how the Assistant HR manager in certain workplaces gets promoted to human resources manager, just because that person was one rung down in the hierarchy.

    1. It isnt automatic. It is a political contest, who can gather the most support, be the most vocal, the most extreme. It isn’t about governing or peacemaking any more. It is about control.

      So I expect the worst, no matter who gets it. The Republicans are looking for days of extremism.

    2. It doesn’t go to anyone automatically. Members vote for the Speaker, and Kevin McCarthy appears to be a certainty to get it.

  17. I would say that I don’t think he has a real chance but recent history seems to favor picking leaders viewed as extremist by the opposing side. When Nancy Pelosi was running for Speaker of House I didn’t think she had a chance because her views and voting history were too left wing extreme. When Obama ran for president I didn’t think he would get the nomination because he was historically seen as voting far left extremist. Now there’s Daniel Webster, a far right extremist with the opportunity to push that agenda. He’s certainly not one of the high probability picks but he’s not out of the running either.

    In the end I doubt it matters who is selected.

    1. I wouldn’t really characterize Nancy Pelosi as being left-wing extreme. I know that is how she is portrayed, but the slander belies the reality.

      So, for the sake of discussion, I would request you or others who see her as “left-wing extreme” to submit her positions-votes-words etc. that reflect policies on the left you feel are extreme.

      One request. Leave the right of women to choose whether or not to have an abortion out of it. I will admit she is in favor of a woman’s right to choose. She is not, I submit, “pro-death” or “pro-abortion.” And one policy position does not mean that a person is extreme in everything. The right wing has made this religious (and unbiblical) position their standard, characterizing themselves as the party of morality, good and right. It ain’t so!

      This is not an attack. It is a request for dialog. What about Nancy Pelosi, other than the fact she supported a woman’s right to choose would you find “too extreme”?

        1. I feel this is probably correct. Had she been a true liberal, she would not have been allowed such power.

          She did not press for criminal charges against those involved in war crimes, torture, etc., but protected them against prosecution. She has shown support for reducing Social Security benefits to seniors who earned those benefits. Only when her fellow house members threatened revolt did she back down.

          She did support publicly some progressive measures, but in the long run was incredibly ineffective at pushing them.

          I cannot fault her desire to compromise for the sake of running the government. But all too often the Conservatives got far more out of the compromises than the rest.

      2. Perhaps I didn’t clarify my post well enough. The point was that Pelosi is portrayed as and thought of as far left wing. The current GOP could easily use this opportunity to try to swing far to the right.

        My personal beliefs about specific politicians shall remain personal. Those discussions are, in my opinion, too complex for this style of communication. Also, and more importantly, I believe it truly doesn’t matter who is in charge. There may be slight variations in how the government acts and responds but they are all so corrupt there will be no real, effective change that benefits the average person.

        1. Okay. I can respect your answer. And I know I am more vocal on these subjects than some are comfortable with.

          I happen to agree with you that who is in power seems to make little difference in the long run. The partisan split is terribly wide, and those who might wish dialogue are shouted down.

          I don’t know how things can be repaired. Frankly, I am afraid of the rabidly that parades itself as conservativism. It is the political iteration of fundamentalism, with the same flaws plus the power to thrust itself on people who want nothing to do with it.

      4. I wouldn’t really characterize Nancy Pelosi as being left-wing extreme. I know that is how she is portrayed, but the slander belies the reality.

        Gee, that might work the other way, too. Ya think? 😉

        For the record, I think Pelosi is totally “left-wing extreme.” She’s also reportedly a terror to work for. NOT a nice person at all.

        I know little about this Webster dude, and I certainly wouldn’t want a Gothardite as Speaker, but sheesh, y’all. Is a more conservative perspective *ever* tolerated (or even allowed) around here? 😮

        Oh well. Roll Tide, Roll Tide, Roll Tide!

        1. You may say that she is totally “left-wing extreme” but you don’t tell any reasons why.

          And yes, I tolerate conservative opinions. I just like them to have reasons behind the accusations, not just statements without justification.

          So explain already! I’m willing to listen. Why do you think she is totally left-wing extreme? What policies and such tell you so?

          You don’t have to answer, of course. But reasoning and being reasonable require reasons.

    2. I think Demos get elected because people, like me, are afraid of the lunatic Tea Party. I’m a moderate. Republican who often votes Demo because of Cruz, Palin, Hucksbee….

      1. And have Democrats (“Demos” seems rather insulting and dismissive to me) actually done you or the country any harm?

        What do you object about their policies? Just want to know.

        Jesus would not be Libertarian, Republican, nor Democrat. But He would advocate feeding the poor and needy, paying fair wages, promoting justice and mercy, going the extra mile and loving others as yourself. He never blasted the poor, but blasted the rich. He never condemned sinners, but He condemned the religious leaders.

        Somehow I think He had it right, and our “Christian Conservatives” have it wrong.

  18. I am aware that there is a process of running for the office, followed by a vote. I remember watching Boehner’s victory speech of five years ago. The Republicans won the majority, and he gets in front of the cameras, and starts talking about his humble beginnings, and all but proclaiming that he is the next Speaker of the House, and I remember thinking that this ought to be considered bad form. He was not elected Speaker yet.

    Mentioning Kevin McCarthy just reaffirms my presumptions about the selection process.

Comments are closed.