News & Supplemental  

God’s Senator

Who would Jesus vote for? Meet Sam Brown­back

Sam Brownback Photo

At the Vet­er­ans Day parade in Empo­ria, Kansas

Nobody in this lit­tle church just off Times Square in Man­hat­tan thinks of them­selves as polit­i­cal. They’re spir­i­tual — actors and ath­letes and pretty young things who believe that every word of the Bible is inerrant dic­ta­tion from God. They look down from the bal­cony of the Morn­ing Star, sway­ing and smil­ing at the screen that tells them how to sing along. Nail-pierced hands, a wounded side. This is love, this is love! But on this evening in Jan­u­ary, pol­i­tics and all its worldly machi­na­tions have entered their church. Sit­ting in the dark­ness of the front row is Sam Brown­back, the Repub­li­can sen­a­tor from Kansas. And hunched over on the stage in a red leather chair is an old man named Har­ald Bre­desen, who has come to anoint Brown­back as the Chris­t­ian right’s next can­di­date for president.

Over the last six decades, Bre­desen has prayed with so many pres­i­dents and prime min­is­ters and kings that he can barely remem­ber their names. He’s the spir­i­tual father of Pat Robert­son, the man behind the preacher’s vast media empire. He was one of three pas­tors who laid hands on Ronald Rea­gan in 1970 and heard the Pasadena Prophecy: the moment when God told Rea­gan that he would one day occupy the White House. And he recently dis­patched one of his pro­teges to remind George W. Bush of the divine will — and evan­gel­i­cal power — behind his presidency.

Tonight, Bre­desen has come to breathe that power into Brownback’s pres­i­den­tial cam­paign. After lit­tle more than a decade in Wash­ing­ton, Brown­back has man­aged to posi­tion him­self at the very cen­ter of the Chris­t­ian con­ser­v­a­tive upris­ing that is trans­form­ing Amer­i­can pol­i­tics. Just six years ago, win­ning the evan­gel­i­cal vote required only a veneer of bland nor­malcy, noth­ing more than George Bush’s vague assur­ance that Jesus was his favorite philoso­pher. Now, Brown­back seeks some­thing far more rad­i­cal: not faith-based pol­i­tics but faith in place of pol­i­tics. In his dream Amer­ica, the one he believes both the Bible and the Con­sti­tu­tion promise, the state will sim­ply wither away. In its place will be a coun­try so suf­fused with God and the free mar­ket that the social fab­ric of the last hun­dred years — schools, Social Secu­rity, wel­fare — will be pri­va­tized or sim­ply done away with. There will be no abor­tions; sex will be con­fined to het­ero­sex­ual mar­riage. Men will lead fam­i­lies, moth­ers will tend chil­dren, and big busi­ness and the church will take care of all.

Bre­desen squints through the stage lights at Brown­back, sit­ting straight-backed and atten­tive. At forty-nine, the sen­a­tor looks taller than he is. His face is wide and flat, his skin thick like leather, etched by wind­burn and sun from years of work­ing on his father’s farm just out­side Parker, Kansas, pop­u­la­tion 281. You can hear it in his voice: slow, dis­tant but warm; a bari­tone, spo­ken out of the left side of his mouth in half-sentences with few hard con­so­nants. It sounds like the voice of some­one who has learned how to wait for rain.

“He wants to be pres­i­dent,” Bre­desen tells the con­gre­ga­tion. “He is mar­velously qual­i­fied to be pres­i­dent.” But, he adds, there is some­thing Brown­back wants even more: “And that is, on the last day of your earthly life, to be able to say, ‘Father, the work you gave me to do, I have accom­plished!’” Bre­desen, shrunken with age, leans for­ward and glares at Brownback.

“Is that true?” he demands.

“Yes,” Brown­back says softly.

“Friends!” The old man’s voice is sud­denly a trum­pet. “Sam . . . says . . . yes!”

The crowd roars. Those occu­py­ing the front rows lay hands on the contender.

Brown­back takes the stage. He begins to pace. In front of sec­u­lar audi­ences he’s a politi­cian, stiff and wonky. Here, he’s a preacher, not sweaty but smooth, work­ing a call-and-response with the back rows. “I used to run on Sam power,” he says.

“Uh-uh,” some­one shouts.

To quiet his ambi­tion, Brown­back con­tin­ues, he used to take sleep­ing pills.

“Oh, Lord!”

Now he runs on God power.

“Hal­lelu­jah!”

He tells a story about a chap­lain who chal­lenged a group of sen­a­tors to recon­sider their con­cep­tion of democ­racy. “How many con­stituents do you have?” the chap­lain asked. The sen­a­tors answered: 4 mil­lion, 9 mil­lion, 12 mil­lion. “May I sug­gest,” the chap­lain replied, “that you have only one constituent?”

Brown­back pauses. That moment, he declares, changed his life. “This” — being sen­a­tor, run­ning for pres­i­dent, wav­ing the flag of a Chris­t­ian nation — “is about serv­ing one con­stituent.” He raises a hand and points above him.

From the bal­cony a hal­lelu­jah, an amen, a yelp. From Bredesen’s great white head, now peer­ing up from the front row, Brown­back wins an appre­cia­tive nod.

This boy, Bre­desen thinks, may be the cho­sen one.

* * *

Back in 1994, when Brown­back came to Con­gress as a fresh­man, he was so con­temp­tu­ous of fed­eral author­ity that he refused at first to sign the Con­tract With Amer­ica, Newt Gingrich’s right-wing man­i­festo — not because it was too rad­i­cal but because it was too tame. Repub­li­cans shouldn’t just reform big gov­ern­ment, Brown­back insisted — they should elim­i­nate it. He imme­di­ately pro­posed abol­ish­ing the depart­ments of edu­ca­tion, energy and com­merce. His pro­pos­als failed — but they quickly made him one of the right’s ris­ing stars. Two years later, run­ning to the right of Bob Dole’s cho­sen suc­ces­sor, he was elected to the Senate.

“I am a seeker,” he says. Brown­back believes that every spir­i­tual path has its own unique scent, and he wants to inhale them all. When he ran for the House he was a Methodist. By the time he ran for the Sen­ate he was an evan­gel­i­cal. Now he has become a Catholic. He was bap­tized not in a church but in a chapel tucked between lob­by­ists’ offices on K Street that is run by Opus Dei, the secre­tive lay order founded by a Catholic priest who advo­cated “holy coer­cion” and con­sid­ered Span­ish dic­ta­tor Fran­cisco Franco an ideal of worldly power. Brown­back also stud­ies Torah with an ortho­dox rabbi from Brook­lyn. “Deep,” says the rabbi, Nos­son Scher­man. Lately, Brown­back has been read­ing the Koran, but he doesn’t like what he’s find­ing. “There’s some dif­fi­cult mate­r­ial in it with regard to the Chris­t­ian and the Jew,” he tells a Chris­t­ian radio pro­gram, voice husky with regret.

Brown­back is not part of the GOP lead­er­ship, and he doesn’t want to be. He once told a group of busi­ness­men he wanted to be the next Jesse Helms — “Sen­a­tor No,” who oper­ated as a one-man demo­li­tion unit against god­less­ness, inde­pen­dent of his party. Sen­ate Major­ity Leader Bill Frist, a man with pres­i­den­tial ambi­tions of his own, gave Brown­back a plum posi­tion on the Judi­ciary Com­mit­tee, per­haps hop­ing that Brown­back would pro­vide a coun­ter­bal­ance to Arlen Specter, a mod­er­ate Repub­li­can who threat­ened to make trou­ble for Bush’s appointees. Instead, tak­ing a page from Helms, Brown­back turned the posi­tion into a plat­form for a high-profile war against gay mar­riage, porn and abor­tion. Cast­ing Bush and the Repub­li­can lead­er­ship as soft and mud­dled, he reg­u­larly turns sleepy hear­ings into plat­forms for his vision of Amer­ica, invit­ing a parade of angry wit­nesses to denounce the “homo­sex­ual agenda,” “bes­tial­ity” and “murder.”

He is run­ning for pres­i­dent because mur­der is always on his mind: the abor­tion of what he con­sid­ers fetal cit­i­zens. He speaks often and admir­ingly of John Brown, the abo­li­tion­ist who mas­sa­cred five pro-slavery set­tlers just north of the farm where Brown­back grew up. Brown wanted to free the slaves; Brown­back wants to free fetuses. He loves each and every one of them. “Just . .
. sacred,” he says. In Jan­u­ary, dur­ing the con­fir­ma­tion of Samuel Alito for a seat on the Supreme Court, Brown­back com­pared Roe v. Wade to the now dis­graced rul­ings that once upheld segregation.

Alito was in the Sen­ate hear­ing room that day largely because of Brownback’s efforts. Last Octo­ber, after Bush named his per­sonal lawyer, Har­riet Miers, to the Supreme Court, Brown­back politely but thor­oughly demol­ished her nom­i­na­tion — on the grounds that she was insuf­fi­ciently opposed to abor­tion. The day Miers with­drew her name, Sen. John McCain sur­prised the mob of reporters clam­or­ing around Brown­back out­side the Sen­ate cham­ber by grab­bing his colleague’s shoul­ders. “Here’s the man who did it!” McCain shouted in admi­ra­tion, a big smile on his face.

Brown­back is unlikely to receive the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion — but as the can­di­date of the Chris­t­ian right, he may well be in a posi­tion to deter­mine who does, and what they include in their plat­form. “What Sam could do very effec­tively,” says the Rev. Rob Schenck, an evan­gel­i­cal activist, is hold the nom­i­na­tion hostage until the Chris­t­ian right “exacts the last pledge out of the more pop­u­lar candidate.”

The nation’s lead­ing evan­gel­i­cals have already lined up behind Brown­back, a feat in itself. A decade ago, evan­gel­i­cal sup­port for a Catholic would have been unthink­able. Many evan­gel­i­cals viewed the Pope as the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Baby­lon. But Brown­back is the ben­e­fi­ciary of a strat­egy known as co-belligerency — a united front between con­ser­v­a­tive Catholics and evan­gel­i­cals in the cul­ture war. Pat Robert­son has tapped the “out­stand­ing sen­a­tor from Kansas” as his man for pres­i­dent. David Bar­ton, the Chris­t­ian right’s all-but-official pres­i­den­tial his­to­rian, calls Brown­back “uncom­pro­mis­ing” — the high­est praise in a move­ment that con­sid­ers intran­si­gence next to god­li­ness. And James Dob­son, the movement’s strongest chief­tain, can find no fault in Brown­back. “He has ful­filled every expec­ta­tion,” Dob­son says. Even Jesse Helms, now in retire­ment in North Car­olina, rec­og­nizes a kin­dred spirit. “The most effec­tive sen­a­tors are those who are truest to them­selves,” Helms says. “Sen­a­tor Brown­back is becom­ing known as that sort of individual.”

* * *

As he gath­ers the forces of the Chris­t­ian right around him, how­ever, Brown­back has bro­ken with the movement’s tra­di­tion of fire and brim­stone. His fun­da­men­tal­ism is almost ten­der. He’s no less intol­er­ant than the angry pulpit-pounders, but he never sounds like a hater. His style is both gen­tler and colder, a mix­ture of Mr. Rogers and monk­ish detachment.

Brown­back doesn’t thump the Bible. He reads obses­sively, study­ing biogra­phies of Chris­t­ian cru­saders from cen­turies past. His learn­ing doesn’t lend him grav­i­tas so much as it seems to free him from grav­ity, to set him adrift across space and time. Ask him why he con­sid­ers abor­tion a “holo­caust,” and he’ll answer by way of a story about an eighteenth-century British par­lia­men­tar­ian who broke down in tears over the sin of slav­ery. Brown­back believes Amer­ica is enter­ing a period of reli­gious revival on the scale of the Great Awak­en­ing that pre­ceded the nation’s cre­ation, an epi­demic of mass con­ver­sions, signs and won­ders, book burn­ings. But this time, he says, the upheaval will give way to a “cul­tural spring­time,” a theo­cratic order that is pleas­ant and balmy. It’s a vision shared by the mega-churches that sprawl across the sur­bur­ban land­scape, the 24–7 spiritual-entertainment com­plexes where mil­lions of Amer­i­cans embrace a feel-good fundamentalism.

When Brown­back trav­els, he tries to avoid spend­ing time alone in his hotel room, where inde­cent tele­vi­sion pro­gram­ming might tempt him. In Wash­ing­ton, though, he goes to bed early. He doesn’t like to eat out. Indeed, it some­times seems he doesn’t like to eat at all — his staff wor­ries when the only thing he has for lunch is a com­mu­nion wafer and a drop of wine at the noon­time Mass he tries to attend daily. He lives in a spar­tan apart­ment across from his office that he shares with Sen. Jim Tal­ent, a Repub­li­can from Mis­souri, and he flies home to Topeka almost every Thurs­day. On the wall of his office, there’s a fam­ily por­trait of all seven Brown­backs gath­ered around two tree stumps, each Brown­back in black shoes, blue jeans and a black pullover. The old­est, Abby, is nine­teen; the youngest, Jenna, aban­doned on the doorstep of a Chi­nese orphan­age when she was two days old, is seven.

Brownback’s house in Topeka perches atop a hill, shielded from the road behind a great arc of dri­ve­way in a name­less sub­urb so new that the grass has yet to sprout on nearby lawns. On a recent Sun­day, Brown­back sits in the kitchen, look­ing relaxed in jeans and an orange sweat­shirt that says HOODWINKED, the name of his old­est son’s band. Hood­winked mem­bers drift in and out, chat­ting with the sen­a­tor. When the band starts prac­tice in the base­ment, Brown­back walks down­stairs, opens the door, jerks his right knee in the air and half wind­mills his arm. Hood­winked shout at him to leave them alone.

When he was a boy, Brown­back didn’t belong to any rock bands. He grew up in a white, one-story farm­house in Parker, where his par­ents still live. Brown­back likes to say that he is fight­ing for tra­di­tional fam­ily val­ues, but his father, Bob, was more con­cerned about the price of grain, and his mother, Nancy, had no qualms about hav­ing a gay friend. Back then, moral val­ues were sim­ple. “Your word was your word. Don’t cheat,” his mother recalls. “I can’t think of any­thing else.”

Her son played foot­ball (“quar­ter­back” she says, “never very good”) and was elected class pres­i­dent and “Mr. Spirit.” “He was talk­a­tive,” she adds, as if this were an alien qual­ity. Like most kids in Parker, Sam just wanted to be a farmer. But that life is gone now, destroyed by what the old farm­ers who sit around the town’s sin­gle gas sta­tion sum up in one word — “Rea­gan­ism.” They mean the voodoo eco­nom­ics by which the gov­ern­ment favored cor­po­rate inter­ests over fam­ily farms, a “what’s good for big busi­ness is good for Amer­ica” phi­los­o­phy that Brown­back him­self now champions.

In 1986, just a few years after fin­ish­ing law school, Brown­back landed one of the state’s plum offices: agri­cul­ture sec­re­tary, a posi­tion of no small influ­ence in Kansas. But in 1993, he was forced out when a fed­eral court ruled his tenure uncon­sti­tu­tional. Not only had he not been elected, he’d been appointed by peo­ple who weren’t elected — the very same agribusi­ness giants he was in charge of regulating.

The fol­low­ing year, he squeaked into Con­gress, run­ning as a mod­er­ate. But in Wash­ing­ton, in the midst of the Gin­grich Rev­o­lu­tion, Brown­back didn’t just tack right — he unzipped his quiet Kansan cos­tume and stepped out as the leader of the New Fed­er­al­ists, the small but potent fac­tion of fresh­men deter­mined to get rid of gov­ern­ment almost entirely. When he dis­cov­ered that the Repub­li­can lead­er­ship wasn’t really inter­ested in derail­ing its own gravy train, Brown­back began spend­ing more time with his Bible. He began to sus­pect that the prob­lem with gov­ern­ment wasn’t just too many taxes; it was not enough God.

Brownback’s wife, Mary, heiress to a Mid­west news­pa­per for­tune, mar­ried Sam dur­ing her final year of law school and boasts that she has never worked out­side the home. “Basi­cally,” she says, “I live in the kitchen.” From her spot by the stove, Mary mon­i­tors all media con­sumed by her kids. The Brown­backs block sev­eral chan­nels, but even so, innu­en­dos slip by, she says, and the nightly news is often “too sex­ual.” The chil­dren, Mary says, “exude their faith.” The old­est kids “opt out” of sex edu­ca­tion at school.

Sex, in all its var­i­ous forms, is at the cen­ter of Brownback’s agenda. Amer­ica, he believes, has divorced sex­u­al­ity from what is sacred. “It’s not that we think too much about sex,” he says, “it’s that we don’t think enough of it.” The sen­a­tor would gladly roll back the sex­ual rev­o­lu­tion alto­gether if he could, but he knows he can’t, so instead he dreams of some­thing bet­ter: a cul­ture of “faith-ba
sed” eroti­cism in which pre­mar­i­tal pas­sion plays out not in flesh but in prayer. After Janet Jackson’s nip­ple made its sur­prise appear­ance at the 2004 Super Bowl, Brown­back intro­duced the Broad­cast Decency Enforce­ment Act, rais­ing the fines for such on-air abom­i­na­tions to $325,000.

On Sun­days, Brown­back rises at dawn so he can catch a Catholic Mass before meet­ing Mary and the kids at Topeka Bible Church. With the excep­tion of one brown-skinned man, the con­gre­ga­tion is entirely white. The stage looks like a rec room in a sub­ur­ban base­ment: wall-to-wall car­pet, wood pan­el­ing, a few hap­haz­ard ferns and a cou­ple of elec­tric gui­tars lying around. This morn­ing, the church wel­comes a guest preacher from Promise Keep­ers, a men’s group, by per­form­ing a skit about golf and father­hood. From his pre­ferred seat in the bal­cony, Brown­back chuck­les when he’s sup­posed to, sings every song, nods seri­ously when the preacher warns against “Judaiz­ers” who would “poi­son” the New Testament.

After the ser­vice, Brown­back intro­duces me to a white-haired man with a yel­low Viking mus­tache. “This is the man who wrote ‘Dust in the Wind,’” the sen­a­tor announces proudly. It’s Kerry Liv­gren of the band Kansas. Liv­gren has found Jesus and now wor­ships with the sen­a­tor at Topeka Bible. Brown­back, one of the Senate’s fiercest hawks on Israel, tells Liv­gren he wants to take him to the Holy Land. When­ever the sen­a­tor met with Prime Min­is­ter Ariel Sharon to talk pol­icy, he insisted that they first study Scrip­ture together. The two men would study their Bibles, music play­ing softly in the back­ground. Maybe, if Liv­gren goes to Israel with Brown­back, he could strum “Dust in the Wind.” “Carry on my . . .” the sen­a­tor war­bles, try­ing to remem­ber another song by his friend.

* * *

One of the little-known strengths of the Chris­t­ian right lies in its adop­tion of the “cell” — the build­ing block his­tor­i­cally used by small but deter­mined groups to impose their will on the major­ity. Sev­enty years ago, an evan­ge­list named Abra­ham Vereide founded a net­work of “God-led” cells com­pris­ing sen­a­tors and gen­er­als, cor­po­rate exec­u­tives and preach­ers. Vereide believed that the cells — God’s cho­sen, appointed to power — could con­struct a King­dom of God on earth with Wash­ing­ton as its cap­i­tal. They would do so “behind the scenes,” lest they be accused of pride or a hunger for power, and “beyond the din of vox pop­uli,” which is to say, out­side the bounds of democ­racy. To insid­ers, the cells were known as the Fam­ily, or the Fel­low­ship. To most out­siders, they were not known at all.

“Com­mu­nists use cells as their basic struc­ture,” declares a con­fi­den­tial Fel­low­ship doc­u­ment titled “Thoughts on a Core Group.” “The mafia oper­ates like this, and the basic unit of the Marine Corps is the four-man squad. Hitler, Lenin and many oth­ers under­stood the power of a small group of peo­ple.” Under Rea­gan, Fel­low­ship cells qui­etly arranged meet­ings between admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials and lead­ers of Sal­vado­ran death squads, and helped fun­nel mil­i­tary sup­port to Siad Barre, the bru­tal dic­ta­tor of Soma­lia, who belonged to a prayer cell of Amer­i­can sen­a­tors and generals.

Brown­back got involved in the Fel­low­ship in 1979, as a sum­mer intern for Bob Dole, when he lived in a res­i­dence the group had orga­nized in a soror­ity house at the Uni­ver­sity of Mary­land. Four years later, fresh out of law school and look­ing for a polit­i­cal role model, Brown­back sought out Frank Carl­son, a for­mer Repub­li­can sen­a­tor from Kansas. It was Carl­son who, at a 1955 meet­ing of the Fel­low­ship, had declared the group’s mis­sion to be “World­wide Spir­i­tual Offen­sive,” a vision of manly Chris­tian­ity ded­i­cated to the expan­sion of Amer­i­can power as a means of spread­ing the gospel.

Over the years, Brown­back became increas­ingly active in the Fel­low­ship. But he wasn’t invited to join a cell until 1994, when he went to Wash­ing­ton. “I had been work­ing with them for a num­ber of years, so when I went into Con­gress I knew I wanted to get back into that,” he says. “Wash­ing­ton — power — is very dif­fi­cult to han­dle. I knew I needed peo­ple to keep me account­able in that system.”

Brown­back was placed in a weekly prayer cell by “the shadow Billy Gra­ham” — Doug Coe, Vereide’s suc­ces­sor as head of the Fel­low­ship. The group was all male and all Repub­li­can. It was a “safe rela­tion­ship,” Brown­back says. Con­ver­sa­tion tended toward the per­sonal. Brown­back and the other men revealed the most inti­mate details of their desires, fail­ings, ambi­tions. They talked about lust, anger and infi­deli­ties, the more shame­ful the bet­ter — since the goal was to break one’s own will. The abo­li­tion of self; to become noth­ing but a ves­sel so that one could be used by God.

They were striv­ing, ulti­mately, for what Coe calls “Jesus plus noth­ing” — a gov­ern­ment led by Christ’s will alone. In the future envi­sioned by Coe, every­thing — sex and taxes, war and the price of oil — will be decided upon not accord­ing to democ­racy or the church or even Scrip­ture. The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fel­low­ship, Christ reveals a higher set of com­mands to the anointed few. It’s a good old boy’s club blessed by God. Brown­back even lived with other cell mem­bers in a million-dollar, red-brick for­mer con­vent at 133 C Street that was sub­si­dized and oper­ated by the Fel­low­ship. Monthly rent was $600 per man — enough of a deal by Hill stan­dards that some said it bor­dered on an eth­i­cal vio­la­tion, but no charges were ever brought.

Brown­back still meets with the prayer cell every Tues­day evening. He and his “broth­ers,” he says, are “bonded together, faith and souls.” The rules for­bid Brown­back from reveal­ing the names of his fel­low mem­bers, but those in the cell likely include such con­ser­v­a­tive stal­warts as Rep. Zach Wamp of Ten­nessee, for­mer Rep. Steve Largent of Okla­homa and Sen. Tom Coburn, an Okla­homa doc­tor who has advo­cated the death penalty for abor­tion providers. Fel­low­ship doc­u­ments sug­gest that some 30 sen­a­tors and 200 con­gress­men occa­sion­ally attend the group’s activ­i­ties, but no more than a dozen are involved at Brownback’s level.

The men in Brownback’s cell talk about pol­i­tics, but the sen­a­tor insists it’s not polit­i­cal. “It’s about faith and action,” he says. Accord­ing to “Thoughts on a Core Group,” the pri­mary pur­pose of the cell is to become an “invis­i­ble ‘believ­ing’ group.” Any action the cell takes is an out­growth of belief, a nat­ural exten­sion of “agree­ments reached in faith and in prayer.” Deals emerge not from a smoke-filled room but from a prayer-filled room. “Typ­i­cally,” says Brown­back, “one per­son grows desirous of pur­su­ing an action” — a piece of leg­is­la­tion, a diplo­matic strat­egy — “and the oth­ers pull in behind.”

In 1999, Brown­back worked with Rep. Joe Pitts, a Fel­low­ship brother, to pass the Silk Road Strat­egy Act, designed to block the growth of Islam in Cen­tral Asian nations by brib­ing them with lucra­tive trade deals. That same year, he teamed up with two Fel­low­ship asso­ciates — for­mer Sen. Don Nick­les and the late Sen. Strom Thur­mond — to demand a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion of a lib­eral group called Amer­i­cans United for Sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State. Last year, sev­eral Fel­low­ship broth­ers, includ­ing Sen. John Ensign, another res­i­dent of the C Street house, sup­ported Brownback’s broad­cast decency bill. And Pitts and Coburn joined Brown­back in stump­ing for the Houses of Wor­ship Act to allow tax-free churches to endorse candidates.

The most bluntly theo­cratic effort, how­ever, is the Con­sti­tu­tion Restora­tion Act, which Brown­back co-sponsored with Jim DeMint, another for­mer C Streeter who was then a con­gress­man from South Car­olina. If passed, it will strip the Supreme Court of the abil­ity to even hear cases in which cit­i­zens protest faith-based abuses of power. Say the mayor of your town decides to declare Jesus lord and fire any­one who refuses to do so; or the prin­ci­pal of your local high school decides to read a fun­da­men­tal­ist prayer over the PA every morn­ing; or the pres­i­dent declares the United States a Chris­t­ian nation. Under the Con­sti­tu­tion Restora­tion Act, that’ll all be just fine.<
/p>

Brown­back points to his friend Ed Meese, who served as attor­ney gen­eral under Rea­gan, as an exam­ple of a man who wields power through back­room Fel­low­ship con­nec­tions. Meese has not held a gov­ern­ment job for nearly two decades, but through the Fel­low­ship he’s more influ­en­tial than ever, cred­ited with bro­ker­ing the recent nom­i­na­tion of John Roberts to head the Supreme Court. “As a behind-the-scenes net­worker,” Brown­back says, “he’s impor­tant.” In the senator’s view, such hid­den power is sanc­tioned by the Bible. “Every­body knows Moses,” Brown­back says. “But who were the lead­ers of the Jew­ish peo­ple once they got to the promised land? It’s a lot of peo­ple who are unknown.”

* * *

Every Tues­day, before his evening meet­ing with his prayer broth­ers, Brown­back chairs another small cell — one explic­itly ded­i­cated to alter­ing pub­lic pol­icy. It is called the Val­ues Action Team, and it is com­posed of rep­re­sen­ta­tives from lead­ing orga­ni­za­tions on the reli­gious right. James Dobson’s Focus on the Fam­ily sends an emis­sary, as does the Fam­ily Research Coun­cil, the Eagle Forum, the Chris­t­ian Coali­tion, the Tra­di­tional Val­ues Coali­tion, Con­cerned Women for Amer­ica and many more. Like the Fel­low­ship prayer cell, every­thing that is said is strictly off the record, and even the groups them­selves are for­bid­den from dis­cussing the pro­ceed­ings. It’s a lit­tle “cloak-and-dagger,” says a Brown­back press sec­re­tary. The VAT is a war coun­cil, and the enemy, says one par­tic­i­pant, is “secularism.”

The VAT coor­di­nates the efforts of fun­da­men­tal­ist pres­sure groups, uni­fy­ing their mes­sage and arm­ing con­gres­sional staffers with the data and lan­guage they need to pass leg­is­la­tion. Work­ing almost entirely in secret, the group has directed the fights against gay mar­riage and for school vouch­ers, against hate-crime leg­is­la­tion and for “absti­nence only” edu­ca­tion. The VAT helped win pas­sage of Brownback’s broad­cast decency bill and made the president’s tax cuts a top pri­or­ity. When it comes to “impact­ing pol­icy,” says Tony Perkins of the Fam­ily Research Coun­cil, “day to day, the VAT is instrumental.”

As chair­man of the Helsinki Com­mis­sion, the most impor­tant U.S. human rights agency, Brown­back has also stamped much of U.S. for­eign pol­icy with VAT’s agenda. One vic­tory for the group was Brownback’s North Korea Human Rights Act, which estab­lishes a con­fronta­tional stance toward the dic­ta­to­r­ial regime and shifts funds for human­i­tar­ian aid from the United Nations to Chris­t­ian orga­ni­za­tions. Sean Woo — Brownback’s for­mer gen­eral coun­sel and now the chief of staff of the Helsinki Com­mis­sion — calls this a process of “pri­va­tiz­ing democ­racy.” A dap­per man with a sooth­ing voice, Woo is per­haps the bright­est thinker in Brownback’s cir­cle, a savvy inter­na­tion­al­ist with a deep knowl­edge of Cold War his­tory. Yet when I ask him for an exam­ple of the kind of project the human-rights act might fund, he tells me about a Ger­man doc­tor who releases bal­loons over North Korea with bubble-wrapped radios tied to them. North Kore­ans are sup­posed to find the bal­loons when they run out of helium and use the radios to tune into Voice of Amer­ica or a South Korean Chris­t­ian station.

Since Brown­back took over lead­er­ship of the VAT in 2002, he has used it to con­sol­i­date his posi­tion in the Chris­t­ian right — and his influ­ence in the Sen­ate. If sen­a­tors — even lead­ers like Bill Frist or Rick San­to­rum — want to ask for back­ing from the group, they must talk to Brownback’s chief of staff, Robert Wasinger, who clears atten­dees with his boss. Wasinger is from Hays, Kansas, but he speaks with a Har­vard drawl, and he is still remem­bered in Cam­bridge twelve years after grad­u­a­tion for a fight he led to get gay fac­ulty booted. He was par­tic­u­larly con­cerned about the wel­fare of gay men; or rather, as he wrote in a cam­pus mag­a­zine funded by the Her­itage Foun­da­tion, that of their inno­cent sperm, forced to “swim into feces.” As gate­keeper of the VAT, he’s a key strate­gist in the con­ser­v­a­tive move­ment. He makes sure the reli­gious lead­ers who attend VAT under­stand that Brown­back is the boss — and that other sen­a­tors real­ize that every time Brown­back speaks, he has the money and mem­ber­ship of the VAT behind him.

VAT is like a closed com­mu­ni­ca­tion cir­cuit with Brown­back at the switch: The power flows through him. Every Wednes­day at noon, he trots upstairs from his office to a radio stu­dio main­tained by the Repub­li­can lead­er­ship to rally sup­port from Chris­t­ian Amer­ica for VAT’s agenda. One par­tic­i­pant in the broad­cast, Salem Radio Net­work News, reaches more than 1,500 Chris­t­ian sta­tions nation­wide, and Focus on the Fam­ily offers access to an audi­ence of 1.5 mil­lion. Dur­ing a recent broad­cast Brown­back explains that with the help of the VAT, he’s work­ing to defeat a mea­sure that would stiffen penal­ties for vio­lent attacks on gays and les­bians. Mem­bers of VAT help by mobi­liz­ing their flocks: An e-mail sent out by the Fam­ily Research Coun­cil warned that the hate-crime bill would lead, inex­orably, to the crim­i­nal­iza­tion of Christianity.

Brown­back recently mus­cled through the Judi­ciary Com­mit­tee a pro­posed amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion to make not just gay mar­riage but even civil unions nearly impos­si­ble. “I don’t see where the com­pro­mise point would be on mar­riage,” he says. The amend­ment has no chance of pass­ing, but it’s not designed to. It’s a time bomb, sched­uled to det­o­nate some­time dur­ing the 2006 elec­toral cycle. The intended vic­tims aren’t Democ­rats but other Repub­li­cans. GOP mod­er­ates will be forced to vote for or against “mar­riage,” which — in the lan­guage of the VAT com­mu­ni­ca­tions net­work — is another way of say­ing for or against the “homo­sex­ual agenda.” It’s a typ­i­cal VAT strat­egy: a tool with which to purify the ranks of the Repub­li­can Party.

* * *

Eleven years ago, Brown­back him­self under­went a sim­i­lar process of purifi­ca­tion. It started, he says, with a strange bump on his right side: a melanoma, diag­nosed in 1995.

Brown­back is sit­ting in the Sen­ate din­ing room sur­rounded by back-slapping sen­a­tors and staffers, yet he seems serene. His press sec­re­tary tries to stop him from talk­ing — he con­sid­ers Brownback’s can­cer epiphany suit­able only for reli­gious audi­ences — but Brown­back can’t be dis­tracted. His eyes open wide and his shoul­ders slump as he set­tles into the mem­ory. He starts using words like “med­i­ta­tion” and “soli­tude.” The press sec­re­tary winces.

The doc­tors scooped out a piece of his flesh, Brown­back says, as if mur­mur­ing to him­self. A minor pro­ce­dure, but it scared him. In his mind, he lost hold of every­thing. He asked him­self, “What have I done with my life?” The answer seemed to be “Nothing.”

One night, while his fam­ily was sleep­ing, Brown­back got up and pulled out a copy of his resume. Sit­ting in his silent house, in the mid­dle of the night, a scar over his ribs where can­cer had been carved out of his body, he looked down at the piece of paper. His work, the laws he had passed. “This must be who I am,” he thought. Then he real­ized: Noth­ing he had done would last. All his accom­plish­ments were hum­drum con­ser­v­a­tive mea­sures, bureau­cratic wran­gling, leg­is­la­tion that had noth­ing to do with God. They were worth nothing.

Brown­back turns, holds my gaze. “So,” he says, “I burned it.”

He smiles. He pauses. He’s wait­ing to see if I under­stand. He had cleansed him­self with fire. He had made him­self pure.

“I’m a child of the liv­ing God,” he explains.

I nod.

“You are, too,” he says. He purses his lips as he searches the other tables. Look, he says, point­ing to a man across the room. “Mark Day­ton, over there?” The Demo­c­ra­tic sen­a­tor from Min­nesota. “He’s a lib­eral.” But you know what else he is? “A beau­ti­ful child of the liv­ing God.” Brown­back con­tin­ues. Ted Kennedy? “A beau­ti­ful child of the liv­ing God.” Hillary Clin­ton? Yes. Even Hillary. Espe­cially Hillary.

Once, Brown­back says, he hated Hillary Clin­ton. Hated her so much it hurt him. But he reached in and scooped that hatred out like a can­cer. Now, he loves her. She, too, is a beau­ti­ful child of the liv­ing God.

* * *</
p>

After his spir­i­tual trans­for­ma­tion, Brown­back began trav­el­ing to some of the most blighted regions in the world. At times his moti­va­tion appeared strictly eco­nomic. He toured the dic­ta­tor­ships of Cen­tral Asia, trad­ing U.S. sup­port for access to oil — but he insists that he wanted to pre­vent their wealth from falling into “Islamic hands.” Oil may have spurred his inter­est in Africa, too — the U.S. com­petes with China for access to African oil fields — but the wel­fare of the world’s most afflicted con­ti­nent has since become a gen­uine obses­sion for Brown­back. He has trav­eled to Dar­fur, in Sudan, and he has just returned from the Congo, where the starv­ing die at a rate of 1,000 a day. Recall­ing the child sol­diers he’s met in Uganda, his voice chokes and his eyes fill with horror.

When Brown­back talks about Africa, he sounds like JFK, or even Bono. “We’re only five per­cent of the pop­u­la­tion,” he says, “but we’re respon­si­ble for thirty per­cent of the world’s econ­omy, thirty-three per­cent of mil­i­tary spend­ing. We’re going to be held account­able for the assets we’ve been given.” His def­i­n­i­tion of moral deca­dence includes America’s fail­ure to stop geno­cide in the Sudan and tor­ture in North Korea. He wants drug com­pa­nies to spend as much on med­i­cine for malaria as they do on feel-good drugs for Amer­i­cans, like Via­gra and Prozac. Ask him what dri­ves him and he’ll answer, with­out irony, “wid­ows and orphans.” It’s a ref­er­ence to the New Tes­ta­ment Epis­tle of James: “Reli­gion that God our father accepts as pure and fault­less is this: to look after orphans and wid­ows in their dis­tress and to keep one­self from being pol­luted by the world.”

Brown­back is less con­cerned about the world being pol­luted by peo­ple. His biggest finan­cial backer is Koch Indus­tries, an oil com­pany that ranks among America’s largest pri­vately held com­pa­nies. “The Koch folks,” as they’re known around the senator’s office, are among the nation’s worst pol­luters. In 2000, the com­pany was slapped with the largest envi­ron­men­tal civil penalty in U.S. his­tory for ille­gally dis­charg­ing 3 mil­lion gal­lons of crude oil in six states. That same year Koch was indicted for lying about its emis­sions of ben­zene, a chem­i­cal linked to leukemia, and dodged crim­i­nal charges in return for a $20 mil­lion set­tle­ment. Brown­back has received nearly $100,000 from Koch and its employ­ees, and dur­ing his neck-and-neck race in 1996, a mys­te­ri­ous shell com­pany called Triad Man­age­ment pro­vided $410,000 for last-minute adver­tis­ing on Brownback’s behalf. A Sen­ate inves­tiga­tive com­mit­tee later deter­mined that the money came from the two broth­ers who run Koch Industries.

Brown­back has been a staunch oppo­nent of envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions that Koch finds annoy­ing, fight­ing fuel-efficiency stan­dards and the Kyoto Pro­to­col on global warm­ing. But for the sen­a­tor, there’s no real divide between the preda­tory eco­nomic inter­ests of his cor­po­rate back­ers and his own moral pas­sions. He received more money fun­neled through Jack Abramoff, the GOP lob­by­ist under inves­ti­ga­tion for bilk­ing Indian tribes of more than $80 mil­lion, than all but four other sen­a­tors — and he blocked a casino that Abramoff’s clients viewed as a com­peti­tor. But get­ting Brown­back to vote against gam­bling doesn’t take bribes; he would have done so regard­less of the money.

Brown­back finds the issue of finances dis­taste­ful. He refuses to dis­cuss his back­ers, smoothly turn­ing the issue to mat­ters of faith. “Pat got me elected,” he says, refer­ring to Robertson’s net­work of Christian-right orga­ni­za­tions. Sit­ting in his cor­ner office in the Sen­ate, Brown­back returns to one of his favorite sub­jects: the scourge of homo­sex­u­al­ity. The office has just been remod­eled and the high-ceilinged room is almost bar­ren. On Brownback’s desk, adrift at the far end of the room, there’s a Bible open to the Gospel of John.

It doesn’t bother Brown­back that most Bible schol­ars chal­lenge the idea that Scrip­ture opposes homo­sex­u­al­ity. “It’s pretty clear,” he says, “what we know in our hearts.” This, he says, is “nat­ural law,” derived from obser­va­tion of the world, but the logic is cir­cu­lar: It’s wrong because he observes him­self believ­ing it’s wrong.

He has worldly proof, too. “You look at the social impact of the coun­tries that have engaged in homo­sex­ual mar­riage.” He shakes his head in sor­row, think­ing of Swe­den, which Chris­t­ian con­ser­v­a­tives believe has been made by “social engi­neer­ing” into an outer ring of hell. “You’ll know ‘em by their fruits,” Brown­back says. He pauses, and an awk­ward silence fills the room. He was cit­ing scrip­ture — Matthew 7:16 — but he just called gay Swedes “fruits.”

Homo­sex­u­al­ity may not be sanc­tioned by the Bible, but slav­ery is — by Old and New Tes­ta­ments alike. Brown­back thinks slav­ery is wrong, of course, but the Bible never is. How does he square the two? “I’ve won­dered on that very issue,” he says. He ten­ta­tively sug­gests that the Bible views slav­ery as a “person-to-person rela­tion­ship,” some­thing to be worked out beyond the intru­sion of gov­ern­ment. But he quickly aban­dons the argu­ment; call­ing slav­ery a per­sonal choice, after all, is awk­ward for a man who often com­pares slav­ery to abortion.

* * *

Although Brown­back con­verted to Catholi­cism in 2002 through Opus Dei, an ultra­ortho­dox order that, like the Fel­low­ship, spe­cial­izes in cul­ti­vat­ing the rich and pow­er­ful, the source of much of his reli­gious and polit­i­cal think­ing is Charles Col­son, the for­mer Nixon aide who served seven months in prison for his attempt to cover up Water­gate. A “key fig­ure,” says Brown­back, in the power struc­ture of Chris­t­ian Wash­ing­ton, Col­son is widely acknowl­edged as the Chris­t­ian right’s lead­ing intel­lec­tual. He is the archi­tect behind faith-based ini­tia­tives, the nego­tia­tor who forged the Catholic-evangelical unity known as co-belligerency, and the man who drove sex­ual moral­ity to the top of the movement’s agenda.

“When I came to the Sen­ate,” says Brown­back, “I sought him out. I had been lis­ten­ing to his thoughts for years, and wanted to get to know him some.”

The admi­ra­tion is mutual. Col­son, a pow­er­ful mem­ber of the Fel­low­ship, spot­ted Brown­back as promis­ing mate­r­ial not long after he joined the group’s cell for fresh­man Repub­li­cans. At the time, Col­son was hold­ing classes on “bib­li­cal world­view” for lead­ers on Capi­tol Hill, and Brown­back became a prize pupil. Col­son taught that abor­tion is only a “thresh­old” issue, a wedge with which to intro­duce fun­da­men­tal­ism into every ques­tion. The two men soon grew close, and began coor­di­nat­ing their efforts: Col­son pro­vides the strat­egy, and Brown­back trans­lates it into pol­icy. “Sam has been at the meet­ings I called, and I’ve been at the meet­ings he called,” Col­son says.

Colson’s most admirable work is Prison Fel­low­ship, a min­istry that offers coun­sel­ing and “world­view train­ing” to pris­on­ers around the world. Many of his pro­grams receive fed­eral fund­ing, and Brown­back is spon­sor­ing a bill that would make it eas­ier for more gov­ern­ment dol­lars to go to faith-based pro­grams such as Colson’s. Social sci­en­tists debate whether such pro­grams work, but politi­cians con­sider them unde­ni­able evi­dence of the exis­tence of com­pas­sion­ate conservatism.

And yet com­pas­sion­ate con­ser­vatism, as Col­son con­ceives it and Brown­back imple­ments it, is strik­ingly sim­i­lar to plain old author­i­tar­ian con­ser­vatism. In place of lib­er­a­tion, it offers as an ideal what Col­son calls “bib­li­cal obe­di­ence” and what Brown­back terms “sub­mis­sion.” The con­cept is derived from Romans 13, the scrip­ture by which Brown­back and Col­son under­stand their power as God-given: “Whoso­ever there­fore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi­nance of God: and they that resist shall receive to them­selves damnation.”

To Brown­back, the verse is not dic­ta­to­r­ial — it’s sim­ply one of the demands of spir­i­tual war, the “world­wide spir­i­tual offen­sive” that the Fel­low­ship declared a half-century ago. “There’s prob­a­bly a higher level of Chris­tians being per­se­cuted dur­ing the last ten, twenty years than . . . through­out human his­tory,” Brown­back once declared on Colson’s radio show. Give
n to fram­ing his own faith in terms of bat­tles, he believes that sec­u­lar­ists and Mus­lims are fight­ing a world­wide war against Chris­tians — some­times in con­cert. “Reli­gious free­dom” is one of his top pri­or­i­ties, and secur­ing it may require force. He’s spon­sored leg­is­la­tion that could lead to “regime change” in Iran, and has pro­posed send­ing com­bat troops to the Philip­pines, where Islamic rebels killed a Kansas missionary.

Brown­back doesn’t demand that every­one believe in his God — only that they bow down before Him. Part holy war­rior, part holy fool, he preaches an odd mix of the­o­log­i­cal naivete and diplo­matic savvy. The faith he wields in the pub­lic square is blunt, heavy, unsub­tle; brass knuck­les of the spirit. But the reli­gion of his heart is that of the woman whose exam­ple led him deep into ortho­doxy: Mother Teresa — it is a kiss for the dying. He sees no ten­sion between his intol­er­ance and his ten­der­ness. Indeed, their suc­cess­ful rec­on­cil­i­a­tion in his polit­i­cal self is the mir­a­cle at the heart of the new fun­da­men­tal­ism, the fusion of hell­fire and Hallmark.

“I have seen him weep,” growls Col­son, anoint­ing Brown­back with his high­est praise. Such are the new Amer­i­can cru­saders: tear-streaked strong men hud­dling together to talk about their feel­ings before they march forth, their sen­ti­men­tal faith sharp­ened and their man-feelings hard­ened into “nat­ural law.” They are God’s promise keep­ers, His defend­ers of mar­riage, His knights of the fetal cit­i­zen. They are the select few who embody the para­dox­i­cal love promised by Christ when he declares — in Matthew 10:34 — “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Stand­ing on his back porch in Topeka, Brown­back looks down into a dark patch of hedge trees, a gnarled hard­wood that’s nearly unsplit­table. The same trees grow on the 1,400 acres that sur­round Brownback’s child­hood home in Parker; not much else remains. When the sen­a­tor was a boy, there were eleven fam­i­lies liv­ing on the land. Now there are only the Brown­backs and a friend from high school who lives rent-free in one of the empty houses. When the friend moves on, Brownback’s father plans to tear the house down. The rest of the homes are already tak­ing care of them­selves, slowly crum­bling into the prairie. The world Brown­back grew up in has vanished.

In its place, Brown­back imag­ines another one. Stand­ing on his porch, he thinks back to the days before the Civil War, when his home state was known as Bloody Kansas and John Brown fought for free­dom with an ax. “A ter­ror­ist,” con­cedes Brown­back, care­ful not to offend his South­ern sup­port­ers, but also a wise man. When Brown was in jail await­ing exe­cu­tion, a vis­i­tor told the abo­li­tion­ist that he was crazy.

“I’m not the one who has 4 mil­lion peo­ple in bondage,” Brown­back intones, recall­ing Brown’s response. “I, sir, think you are crazy.”

This is another of Brownback’s para­bles. In place of 4 mil­lion slaves, he thinks of uncount­able unborn babies, of all the per­se­cuted Chris­tians — a nation within a nation, await­ing Brownback’s lib­er­a­tion. Brown­back, sir, thinks that sec­u­lar Amer­ica is crazy.

The sen­a­tor stares, his face gen­tle but unsmiling.

He isn’t joking.

JEFF SHARLET

Discussion

17 comments for “God’s Senator”

  1. To pro­vide an updated answer to the ques­tion posed in the sub­ti­tle “Who would Jesus vote for?”, the answer for 2012 will be hum­ble small busi­ness­man Mitt Rom­ney (bar­ring a con­tin­u­ance of “Newt-mentum”). More specif­i­cally, Jesus would be super psy­ched about Mitt’s pro­posal to pri­va­tize vet­er­ans’ health care:

    “Some­times you won­der, would there be some­way to intro­duce some pri­vate sec­tor com­pe­ti­tion, some­body else that could come in and say, you know, each sol­dier gets X thou­sand dol­lars attrib­uted to them and then they can choose whether they want to go on the gov­ern­ment sys­tem or the pri­vate sys­tem and then it fol­lows them, like what hap­pens with schools in Florida where they have a voucher that fol­lows them. Who knows.”

    Oh, some­one knows Mitt, and his gen­tle face is smil­ing.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 11, 2011, 8:00 pm
  2. I stand cor­rected!

    Cain says God per­suaded him to run for pres­i­dent
    AP

    By RAY HENRY — Asso­ci­ated Press | AP – 6 hrs ago

    ATLANTA (AP) — Repub­li­can Her­man Cain said God con­vinced him to enter the race for pres­i­dent, com­par­ing him­self to Moses: “‘You’ve got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?’”

    The Geor­gia busi­ness exec­u­tive played up his faith Sat­ur­day after bat­tling sex­ual harass­ment alle­ga­tions for two weeks, try­ing to shift the con­ver­sa­tion to reli­gion, an issue vital to con­ser­v­a­tive Repub­li­cans, espe­cially in the South.

    In a speech Sat­ur­day to a national meet­ing of young Repub­li­cans, Cain said the Lord per­suaded him after much prayer.

    “That’s when I prayed and prayed and prayed. I’m a man of faith — I had to do a lot of pray­ing for this one, more pray­ing than I’ve ever done before in my life,” Cain said. “And when I finally real­ized that it was God say­ing that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. ‘You’ve got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?’”

    Once he made the deci­sion, Cain said, he did not look back.

    Four women have now accused Cain of sex­u­ally harass­ing them when he led the National Restau­rant Asso­ci­a­tion more than a decade ago. Cain, who has denied wrong­do­ing, was silent about the alle­ga­tions and did not take reporters’ questions.

    Cain isn’t the first to say God prod­ded him toward a cam­paign. Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s wife, Anita, has said she felt God was speak­ing to her about the race, adding that her hus­band needed to see a “burn­ing bush,” a Bib­li­cal ref­er­ence to God’s first appear­ance to Moses.

    ...

    God cer­tainly works in mys­te­ri­ous ways...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 12, 2011, 9:50 pm
  3. Too...many...choices...for...baby...Jeebus. He’s just a baby!

    Dur­ing a town hall meet­ing in Ottumwa, Iowa Fri­day after­noon, Rick San­to­rum argued that Amer­i­cans receive too many gov­ern­ment ben­e­fits and ought to “suf­fer” in the Chris­t­ian tra­di­tion. If “you’re lower income, you can qual­ify for Med­ic­aid, you can qual­ify for food stamps, you can qual­ify for hous­ing assis­tance,” San­to­rum com­plained, before adding, “suf­fer­ing is part of life and it’s not a bad thing, it is an essen­tial thing in life.” How­ever, almost all states have cur­tailed their aid pro­grams, just as the eco­nomic down­turn is expand­ing the pool of eli­gi­ble applicants

    Near the end of the linked video God’s new favorite Sen­a­tor explains that there’s both the tan­gi­ble types of suf­fer­ing (lack of food, shel­ter, etc), and the intan­gi­ble kind of suf­fer­ing like a lack of dig­nity. So any of you starving/dying folks, just know that he’s suf­fer­ing too. It’s a good thing.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 21, 2011, 8:46 am
  4. Newt­men­tum? :

    Gin­grich Says Child Labor Laws Should Be Rolled Back So Kids Can Be Janitors

    David Teich Novem­ber 21, 2011, 11:07 AM

    Newt Gingrich’s desire to roll back Social Secu­rity is no secret. But appar­ently his quest to tackle decades-old New Deal poli­cies doesn’t stop there.

    Now Gin­grich is tak­ing on an issue he says “no lib­eral wants to deal with” — eco­nom­i­cally suf­fo­cat­ing child labor laws.

    Dur­ing a Har­vard address on Fri­day, Gin­grich blamed child labor restric­tions for doing “more to cre­ate income inequal­ity in the United States than any other sin­gle pol­icy.” “It is tragic what we do in the poor­est neigh­bor­hoods, entrap­ping chil­dren in…child laws, which are truly stu­pid,” said Gingrich.

    Most of these schools ought to get rid of the union­ized jan­i­tors, have one mas­ter jan­i­tor and pay local stu­dents to take care of the school,” he added. “The kids would actu­ally do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of ris­ing.
    ...

    No, it’s just plain old God­men­tum, and Newt’s got it!

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 21, 2011, 8:55 am
  5. I bet the GOP pri­mary vot­ers might like to learn more about this Catholic-based legal sys­tem Newt’s talked about:

    Gin­grich: Ave Maria to help Catholic-based legal sys­tem replace left, sec­u­lar judi­cial branch

    By KELLY FARRELL
    Posted Novem­ber 19, 2010 at 11:46 p.m.

    NAPLES — For­mer Speaker of the House Newt Gin­grich spoke of the impor­tance Ave Maria School of Law will have in replac­ing the cur­rent lib­eral, sec­u­lar legal sys­tem dur­ing the law school’s 10th Anniver­sary cel­e­bra­tion held at the Naples Ritz Carl­ton Beach Resort on Fri­day night.

    The poten­tial 2012 pres­i­den­tial hope­ful con­verted to Roman Catholi­cism in 2009, which is the same year the law school relo­cated from Ann Arbor, Mich., to Naples.

    The law school’s stu­dents would be pre­pared to write the laws, defend the laws and defeat the left, Gin­grich said. The mod­ern, sec­u­lar law, he said, can be seen every few min­utes on TV.

    “Ads on tele­vi­sion, basi­cally say ‘do you know some­body with money we could mug together?’ …Call…’” Gringrich said.

    This school mat­ters, he said, by replac­ing the “neu­tral tech­nol­ogy for the redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth” with a morally-based legal system.

    ...

    He’s a lit­tle vague on the details about this new “morally-based legal sys­tem” but I’m pretty sure at least pizza will still be legal.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 28, 2011, 9:51 am
  6. This David Bar­ton fel­low must be the guy Newt calls when his his­to­rian work requires a Con­sti­tu­tional inter­pre­tion:

    Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 08:44 AM PST
    Gin­grich in Video Which Claims Con­sti­tu­tion Based on Old Testament

    by Trout­fish­ing­Fol­low

    Does Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date and For­mer Speaker of the US House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Newt Gin­grich believe that the United States Con­sti­tu­tion is based on the Old Testament?

    On Sep­tem­ber 19, 2011, at an Orlando, Florida hotel, Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial hope­fuls Newt Gin­grich and Rick Perry gath­ered, along with hun­dreds of pas­tors brought in for a secre­tive “Pas­tors Pol­icy Brief­ing” meet­ing (which excluded the press), and lis­tened as Chris­t­ian his­tory revi­sion­ist David Bar­ton, for­mer Vice Chair of the Texas GOP, explained (link to video clip of Bar­ton) that key con­cepts in the United States Con­sti­tu­tion were derived from Old Tes­ta­ment scrip­ture, includ­ing from the books of Deuteron­omy and Leviticus.

    Footage from Gingrich’s and Barton’s talks at the Sep­tem­ber 19th meet­ing is now being show­cased in a 2-hour long video that’s being screened in churches across Amer­ica, titled “One Nation Under God”.

    In his Sep­tem­ber 19th talk fea­tured in the “One Nation Under God” video, David Bar­ton declares that the authors of the Con­sti­tu­tion “gave us the First Amend­ment, not because it guar­an­tees sep­a­ra­tion of church and state — there’s no such thing”. As Bar­ton went on to explain,

    “Strik­ingly, if you look through that doc­u­ment, it is amaz­ing how many Bib­li­cal clauses appear in Con­sti­tu­tional clauses. Bib­li­cal verses and phrases — you’ll find them through­out — so many con­cepts, the found­ing fathers pointed to bible verses as the source of those con­cepts. See, today we’re “oh no, the government’s sec­u­lar” — that’s that com­part­men­tal­iza­tion again. They never believed it was sec­u­lar. They looked to God to be included in every­thing they did.

    While Bar­ton nar­rates, the video shows the pair­ing of impor­tant clauses in the Con­sti­tu­tion with their alleged sources in scrip­ture from the Bible’s books of Jere­miah, Isa­iah, Ezra, Exo­dus, Deuteron­omy and Leviti­cus. The Book of Leviti­cus pre­scribes ston­ing as a cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment for a range of trans­gres­sions includ­ing blas­phemy and curs­ing, adul­tery, and witchcraft.

    Gin­grich has made numer­ous appear­ances at events along­side David Bar­ton, head of the non­profit group Wall­builders and author of numer­ous works of Chris­t­ian nation­al­ist his­tory revi­sion­ism, and Gin­grich has pledged to seek Barton’s advice dur­ing his 2012 pres­i­den­tial campaign.

    “One Nation Under God”, which heav­ily pro­motes Newt Gin­grich as the can­di­date who can best enable Chris­t­ian nation­al­ist vot­ers “retake” Amer­ica in the 2012 elec­tion, is con­nected to pas­tor David Lane’s ongo­ing Renewal Project/Pastors Pol­icy Brief­ing events being held over the past sev­eral years in swing states includ­ing in Iowa, that trace back to efforts by Lane to rally pas­tors behind Rick Perry in Texas. An April 2, 2011 New York Times story char­ac­ter­ized Lane’s events as a “broad effort to revi­tal­ize the reli­gious right.”

    “One Nation Under God” is being deployed in a well-funded and orga­nized national cam­paign, orches­trated by an entity, whose efforts seem to inter­lock with Lane’s Renewal Project events, called United in Purpose/Champion The Vote that aims to reg­is­ter and get to the polls, mil­lions of new con­ser­v­a­tive evan­gel­i­cal vot­ers–with Gin­grich as the cur­rent ben­e­fi­ciary. The effort includes the tar­get­ing of African-American and His­panic evangelicals.

    ...

    Newt Gin­grich and the New Apos­tolic Reformation

    As reported by the LA Times, one of the major finan­cial back­ers of the Cham­pion The Vote, United In Prayer ini­tia­tive is tech boom entre­pre­neur Ken Eldred, whose sev­eral non­profit foun­da­tions are endowed with upwards of $50 mil­lion dol­lars. In his 2008 book Domin­ion! How King­dom Action Can Trans­form The World, C. Peter Wag­ner iden­ti­fies Eldred as a “mar­ket­place apos­tle” who has pro­vided “what might prove to be our most viable guide­lines for a new strat­egy of social transformation.”

    Accord­ing to the 990 tax forms of his sev­eral “Liv­ing Stones” foun­da­tions, Ken Eldred has financed sev­eral aspects of Wagner’s move­ment includ­ing the work of apos­tle George Otis Jr., whose Trans­for­ma­tion videos show evan­gel­i­cal believ­ers achiev­ing dom­i­nance over cities, towns, and geo­graphic areas by dri­ving away demon spir­its and hound­ing out or neu­tral­iz­ing ide­o­log­i­cal foes, often por­trayed as witches and warlocks.

    In Sep­tem­ber 2008, shortly before the 2008 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, footage sur­faced show­ing a star from Otis, Jr.‘s first Trans­for­ma­tion video, Kenyan evan­ge­list Thomas Muthee, bless­ing and anoint­ing Sarah Palin against “every form of witchcraft.”

    ...

    Oh my, so it sounds like Newt likes to pal around with Joel’s Army. I won­der how promi­nent evan­gel­i­cal lead­ers feel about Newt’s recent con­ver­sion to Catholi­cism:

    ...
    MATTHEWS: A lot of peo­ple I know are hap­pily mar­ried for the sec­ond
    time, some­times the third time.

    In fact, I bumped into an old friend of mine the other day. He‘s on
    his forth. I‘m not here to judge. I‘m not a min­is­ter. I‘m not a man of
    the cloth. In fact, I don‘t really judge peo­ple myself on that. I think
    peo­ple should seek hap­pi­ness on Earth in a rea­son­able way and in a moral
    way.

    OK. Now, Newt Gin­grich, three times mar­ried, Opus Dei, right-wing
    Catholic, is he OK with you? Are you OK with him?

    PERKINS: You know, this issue came up when he was kind of toy­ing with
    the idea of run­ning four years ago. And he addressed those issues.

    And I absolutely do agree he has seri­ous prob­lems with women,
    con­ser­v­a­tive vot­ers. I think they will give some­body one pass, but I do
    think he has a dif­fi­culty that he may not be able to over­come. But this is
    what he has done in the debates. He has not been out front and won every
    debate, but he‘s kind of had this — every time he‘s said some­thing, it‘s
    been pretty good.

    I mean, he‘s a pretty smart guy.

    MATTHEWS: I know that.

    PERKINS: And he has kind of been a senior states­man and he‘s brought
    some clar­ity to these debates. So I think peo­ple are giv­ing him a sec­ond
    look.

    ...

    Well, ok, his Opus Dei affil­i­a­tion doesn’t seem to be a prob­lem with folks like Tony Perkins. And, as Tony pointed out, he’s brought a lot of clar­ity to the debates.

    Although, given these friends of his, I have a lot more ques­tions now. Like, since he’s a mem­ber of a far-right Catholic cult, but pals around with far-right Evan­gel­i­cals, which the­o­log­i­cal inter­pre­ta­tion wins? For instance, since his evan­gel­i­cal His­to­rian friend David Bar­ton appears to oppose week­ends and over­time laws, how will this jive with Newt’s envi­sioned Opus Dei Catholic-based legal sys­tem (I’m guess­ing he’ll find a way make it work).

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 28, 2011, 8:38 pm
  7. Ok, I think we’ve finally found God’s Senator.

    San­to­rum: ‘Sci­ence Should Get Out Of Politics’

    Yep, def­i­nitely God’s Sen­a­tor. It’s a pow­er­ful, almost sur­real, state­ment too. Or maybe “hyper­real” is a bet­ter description.

    Oh Ricky, may your story never end.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | December 9, 2011, 8:05 pm
  8. @Pterrafractyl: I seri­ously hope this guy does NOT win the GOP nom­i­na­tion next year, the oth­ers suck really bad as it is.

    Posted by Steven l. | December 10, 2011, 8:50 am
  9. @Steven L.: I wouldn’t worry about ol’ Ricky, although I could see him as an Ashcroft-like cab­i­net pick some­day. Unfor­tu­nately his polit­i­cal career, like his cur­rent cam­paign, seems to have joined the ranks of the undead. We haven’t seen the last of the Santorum.

    Newt, on the other hand, I would be more wor­ried about, although it looks like he may have peaked. In a way, it’s too bad, because I would be grimly curi­ous to see how recep­tive the pub­lic would be to Newt’s new “best of three” form of Con­sti­tu­tion rule:

    Decem­ber 18, 2011 12:45 PM
    Quote of the Day

    By Steve Benen

    At this week’s debate for Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates, Newt Gin­grich empha­sized one of his favorite sub­jects: his dis­gust for the fed­eral judi­ciary. The dis­graced for­mer House Speaker warned of “an upris­ing” against the courts, adding that he’s “pre­pared to take on the judi­ciary” unless fed­eral courts start issu­ing rul­ings he agrees with. He went on to say he under­stands these issues “bet­ter than lawyers,” because he’s “a historian.”

    Yes­ter­day, Gin­grich hosted a con­fer­ence call with reporters and went even fur­ther, sketch­ing out his vision for pol­i­cy­mak­ers lit­er­ally ignor­ing fed­eral court rul­ings. Ref­er­enc­ing Supreme Court find­ings on the han­dling of sus­pected ter­ror­ist detainees, for exam­ple, Gin­grich said, “A com­man­der in chief could sim­ply issue instruc­tions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as com­man­der in chief to pro­tect the country.”

    Gin­grich went on to describe “the rule of two of three” — a made-up rule with no foun­da­tion in Amer­i­can law — in which two branches of gov­ern­ment could out-vote the other one.

    He wasn’t kid­ding, by the way.

    This led CBS’s Bob Schi­ef­fer to ask Gin­grich a good ques­tion on “Face the Nation” this morning.

    SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Con­gress should sub­poena the judge and bring him before Con­gress and hold a con­gres­sional hear­ing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capi­tol Police down to arrest him?

    GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Jus­tice Depart­ment to send a U.S. Marshal.

    Just so we’re clear, this week, a lead­ing pres­i­den­tial can­di­date artic­u­lated his belief that, if elected, he might (1) elim­i­nate courts he doesn’t like; (2) ignore court rul­ings he doesn’t like; and (3) take judges into cus­tody if he dis­ap­proves of their legal analyses.

    ...

    So where did Newt come up with his novel notions of con­sti­tu­tion orig­i­nal intent? Let’s just call it divine inspi­ra­tion:

    ...

    He said he devel­oped his pro­pos­als after the Ninth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals in 2002 ruled that recit­ing phrase “one nation, under God” in the Pledge of Alliance in pub­lic schools infringed on the sep­a­ra­tion of church and state.

    I was frankly just fed up with elit­ist judges impos­ing sec­u­lar­ism on the coun­try and basi­cally fun­da­men­tally chang­ing the Amer­i­can Con­sti­tu­tion,” Gin­grich said. “The more it was clear to me that you have a judi­cial psy­chol­ogy run amok, and there has to be some method of bring­ing bal­ance back to the three branches.”

    God’s lil’ crypto-fascist, that’s our Newtster!

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | December 18, 2011, 4:47 pm
  10. Well this is a bit unex­pected. God’s pick just might be Ron Paul:

    Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Reli­gious Fringe In Iowa
    share

    Pema Levy & Benjy Sar­lin Decem­ber 28, 2011, 3:32 PM

    Ron Paul has faced a tor­rent of crit­i­cism in recent weeks over newslet­ters printed in his name dur­ing the 1980s and 1990s which con­tained racist, anti-semitic, and homo­pho­bic con­tent. He is also on the hook for accept­ing the sup­port of fringe right-wing groups. While Paul dis­misses these con­cerns, his cam­paign seems to have no prob­lem work­ing with and enjoy­ing the sup­port of anti-gay extrem­ists, includ­ing one sup­porter who has called for the imple­men­ta­tion of the death penalty for homo­sex­ual behavior.

    Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorse­ment of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pas­tor at the Domin­ion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws mem­bers from Iowa, putting out a press release prais­ing “the enlight­en­ing state­ments he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to gov­ern­ment is con­sis­tent with Chris­t­ian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homo­sex­u­al­ity go way beyond the bounds of typ­i­cal anti-gay evan­gel­i­cal pol­i­tics and into the vio­lent fringe: he recently authored a paper argu­ing for crim­i­nal­iz­ing homo­sex­u­al­ity and even advo­cated impos­ing the death penalty against offend­ers based on his read­ing of Bib­li­cal law.

    “Dif­fi­culty in imple­ment­ing Bib­li­cal law does not make non-Biblical penol­ogy just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homo­sex­u­als would be exe­cuted, the threat of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment can be restora­tive. Bib­li­cal law would rec­og­nize as a mat­ter of jus­tice that even if this law could be enforced today, homo­sex­u­als could not be pros­e­cuted for some­thing that was done before.”

    Reached by phone, Kayser con­firmed to TPM that he believed in rein­stat­ing Bib­li­cal pun­ish­ments for homo­sex­u­als — includ­ing the death penalty — even if he didn’t see much hope for it hap­pen­ing any­time soon. While he said he and Paul dis­agree on gay rights, not­ing that Paul recently voted for repeal­ing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he sup­ported the cam­paign because he believed Paul’s fed­er­al­ist take on the Con­sti­tu­tion would allow states more lat­i­tude to imple­ment fun­da­men­tal­ist law. Espe­cially since under Kayser’s own inter­pre­ta­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion there is no sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State.

    Under a Ron Paul pres­i­dency, states would be freed up to not have polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness imposed on them, but obvi­ously some state would fol­low what’s polit­i­cally cor­rect,” he said. “What he’s try­ing to do, whether he agrees with the Constitution’s posi­tion or not, is restrict him­self to the Con­sti­tu­tion. That is some­thing I very much appre­ci­ate.
    ...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | December 28, 2011, 7:24 pm
  11. The NY Times has a piece on Fos­ter Friess, the Koch-buddy bil­lion­aire back­ing Rick San­to­rum (He’s was smit­ten with Mit­tens four years ago, but Ricky wins its this time). God’s king-makers have deep pock­ets:

    A Wealthy Backer Likes the Odds on San­to­rum
    By JIM RUTENBERG and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
    Pub­lished: Feb­ru­ary 8, 2012

    Mitt Rom­ney and Fos­ter Friess, a wealthy donor to con­ser­v­a­tive causes, were walk­ing out of an event together a few months ago when Mr. Friess broke the news: After back­ing Mr. Rom­ney for pres­i­dent four years ago, he was get­ting behind Rick San­to­rum this time around.

    “He couldn’t quite fig­ure out why Rick was even both­er­ing to go through the effort,” Mr. Friess recalled in an inter­view on Wednes­day. “I mean, I don’t mean to fault him for say­ing, ‘Why take Rick seri­ously?’ Nobody took Rick seriously.”

    Many more Repub­li­cans are tak­ing Mr. San­to­rum seri­ously now, thanks to his vic­to­ries in Min­nesota, Mis­souri and Col­orado on Tues­day — and per­haps none more than Mr. Rom­ney, for whom Mr. Santorum’s unex­pected rise poses another threat from the right.

    Few peo­ple played a more piv­otal role in Tuesday’s turn of events than Mr. Friess. An investor who made mil­lions in mutual funds and now lives in Wyoming, he is the chief backer of a “super PAC” that has helped keep Mr. Santorum’s can­di­dacy alive by run­ning tele­vi­sion adver­tise­ments on his behalf.

    His role as out­side fun­der — one that Mr. Friess indi­cated he would con­tinue to play in the con­tests ahead — esca­lates the bat­tle among a few dozen wealthy Repub­li­cans to influ­ence their party’s choice of a pres­i­den­tial nominee.

    They are exploit­ing changes to cam­paign laws and reg­u­la­tions that have allowed wealthy indi­vid­u­als and busi­nesses to pool unlim­ited con­tri­bu­tions into super PACs that in turn have inun­dated the air­waves with neg­a­tive advertisements.

    Mr. Friess’s cho­sen out­let, called the Red, White and Blue Fund, pro­vided crit­i­cal sup­port for Mr. San­to­rum as he suc­cess­fully sought to resus­ci­tate his cam­paign with vic­to­ries in Tuesday’s con­tests. At a time when Mr. San­to­rum could not afford to pay for a sin­gle com­mer­cial of his own, the Red, White and Blue Fund focused in par­tic­u­lar on Min­nesota, where the super PAC sup­port­ing Mr. Rom­ney, Restore Our Future, broad­cast a last-minute blitz of adver­tis­ing against him, accord­ing to an analy­sis from Kan­tar Media/CMAG.

    ...

    Mr. Friess’s per­sonal Web site calls him “The Man Atop the Horse”; his father was a horse and cat­tle trader. He is rel­a­tively rare among the major back­ers of super PACs for his close asso­ci­a­tion with the reli­gious con­ser­v­a­tive move­ment. His Web site quotes Scrip­ture, and he often says that God is “the chair­man of my board.”

    He is also rare for his will­ing­ness to speak openly about his polit­i­cal giv­ing, a break from Mr. Adel­son, who has not spo­ken pub­licly about his dona­tions of $10 mil­lion, with his wife, to the super PAC sup­port­ing Mr. Gingrich.

    “There are not many donors who are really will­ing to be out there as such an advo­cate,” said the founder of Red, White and Blue, Nick Ryan. “It takes a lit­tle bit of the cloak and dag­ger out of the whole thing.”

    ...

    Mr. Friess, 71, said that he liked Mr. San­to­rum for his faith, but that he also believed he was the best can­di­date to com­pete with Pres­i­dent Obama, whom he blamed for exces­sive gov­ern­ment. He said he came to know Mr. San­to­rum sev­eral years ago and par­tic­u­larly approved of his oppo­si­tion to abor­tion rights and his hawk­ish for­eign pol­icy stance.

    ...

    Like donors to rival super PACs, Mr. Friess ranks among the country’s lead­ing patrons of Repub­li­can and con­ser­v­a­tive causes. He has given hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars to the Repub­li­can Party and can­di­dates in recent years, includ­ing to Mr. Santorum’s two chief rivals for the pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion, Mr. Rom­ney and Mr. Gin­grich, to whom Mr. Friess donated last spring. Late last year, Mr. Friess gave $100,000 to Gov. Scott Walker of Wis­con­sin to help fend off a Democratic-led recall effort.

    He said dur­ing the inter­view Wednes­day that he had spo­ken to Mr. Adel­son recently. And he has also been an ally of the bil­lion­aire Koch broth­ers, per­haps the lead­ing financiers of con­ser­v­a­tive causes in the nation. He has attended the Kochs’ semi­an­nual retreats for major donors, includ­ing the most recent one, held late last month at a resort in Cal­i­for­nia, and like them has donated to Tea Party-inspired can­di­dates and groups, includ­ing the Tea Party Express polit­i­cal action committee.

    ...

    “Well, I think that if he does that it is so excit­ing,” he said, “because it finally rec­og­nizes that Rick San­to­rum is a threat.”

    To make mat­ters worse, take a look at what Fos­ter specif­i­cally thinks res­onates with the “pro-Israel” block of Evan­gel­i­cal and Catholic con­ser­v­a­tive vot­ers in Rick “Let’s bomb Iran” Santorum’s pol­icy port­fo­lio:

    ...
    Friess said he doesn’t coun­sel his cho­sen can­di­date on strat­egy, but he does think San­to­rum can woo the “pro-Israel vot­ing bloc,” Catholic and Evan­gel­i­cal voters.

    San­to­rum is con­stantly men­tion­ing on the stump the dan­gers of a nuclear Iran and how the coun­try would never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon if he were pres­i­dent, but Friess specif­i­cally men­tioned his work on both Iran– and Syria-related issues as rea­sons he would do well with vot­ers that are inter­ested in a more hawk­ish and con­ser­v­a­tive Israel stance.

    ...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 8, 2012, 10:52 pm
  12. Here’s a story that’s impres­sive in how it’s able to encap­su­late so much of what has gone awry in a soci­ety:

    Dug­gar Says Over­pop­u­la­tion Is a Lie & More Con­tro­ver­sies
    Mar 30, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
    Michelle Dug­gar, of 19 Kids and Count­ing, claims the Earth’s over­pop­u­la­tion prob­lem is a “lie.” See 8 (and count­ing!) of the biggest debates involv­ing reality-TV’s mega-brood.

    Michelle Claims Over­pop­u­la­tion Is ‘a Lie’

    Did you know that if every sin­gle human being in the world stood shoulder-to-shoulder they would fit within the city lim­its of Jack­sonville, Fla.? That’s the truth about over­pop­u­la­tion, accord­ing to Michelle Dug­gar, the baby-popping matri­arch of TLC’s 19 Kids and Count­ing. In a Web inter­view with the Chris­t­ian Broad­cast­ing Net­work, Dug­gar answered a ques­tion about whether her over­size fam­ily hurts the envi­ron­ment by dis­put­ing the idea of over­pop­u­la­tion entirely. “First off, the idea of over­pop­u­la­tion is not accu­rate,” Dug­gar said before propos­ing her the­ory about Jacksonville’s abil­ity to accom­mo­date 7 bil­lion peo­ple. In fact, she pointed out, the world is in need of more babies. “We’ve had other coun­tries com­ing to our doorstep, ask­ing us to please let their peo­ple know that they need to have more chil­dren,” she said. “They are see­ing that their death rates are out­num­ber­ing their birth rates and they’re in crisis.”

    Cam­paign­ing for Rick Santorum

    Given their staunchly anti-abortion beliefs, it per­haps isn’t sur­pris­ing that the Dug­gars sup­port Rick Santorum-they did, how­ever, raise a few eye­brows by pack­ing up their things and hit­ting the road to cam­paign with him. “He is the true con­ser­v­a­tive in the race,” Michelle has told The Daily Beast. “Rick San­to­rum has the fam­ily val­ues that we hold dear in our hearts.” The Dug­gars have even recorded a “19 Rea­sons and Count­ing to Vote for Rick San­to­rum” video, in which they get the entire fam­ily involved, even man­ag­ing to get their second-youngest (who sounds like she’s still very new at talk­ing) to utter, “Rick San­to­rum for president!”

    ...

    Dug­gar Fam­ily Clones? The Bateses

    For any­one who thought the Dug­gars were a sin­gu­larly bizarre fam­ily, meet the Bate­ses. As of Feb­ru­ary, they’re now tied with the Dug­gars as America’s largest fam­ily. The Ten­nessee brood has also suf­fered through two mis­car­riages; they also don’t believe in birth con­trol; they also sup­port Rick San­to­rum and-you guessed it-they also just scored their own TLC real­ity show. You might think the two fam­i­lies are rivals, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The two fam­i­lies have met and (so far) have noth­ing but nice things to say about each other. “The Dug­gars are some of the kindest-hearted peo­ple,” Gil Bates (patri­arch of the Bates fam­ily) said. “We’re all in a race against time to fin­ish what­ever work God has for us in the time we have left.”

    So there’s not one, but two, TLC shows that cel­e­brate the lives of fam­i­lies with 19 chil­dren and a dis­tinct patri­ar­chal Chris­t­ian world­view. That some great expo­sure for the “Quiv­er­full” move­ment since both fam­i­lies are also liv­ing bill­boards for the non-denominational patri­ar­chal anti-feminist Chris­tian­ist move­ment that arose in the last cou­ple of decades. The Chris­t­ian authors that cre­ated the sys­tem of “Bib­li­cal wom­an­hood” aslo push a “contraception=abortion” the­o­log­i­cal argue­ment that’s becoue part of the present day polit­i­cal sub­text in sud­den con­tra­cep­tion ker­fuf­fle in the US’s pres­i­den­tial race. The term “Quiv­er­full” is derived from the the­o­log­i­cal ima­gry of each child as an arrow in the parent’s quiv­ers as part of some sort of spir­i­tual arms race. And as a Domin­ion­ist movement(ie. the spir­i­tual arms race includes a man­date to “sub­due” the earth and phys­i­cally take over and rule soci­ety), the Quiv­er­full move­ment also intends to pro­vide expo­nen­tially grow­ing blocks of vot­ers for the Domin­ion­ist cause:

    Newsweek
    Extreme Moth­er­hood
    Mar 16, 2009 8:00 PM EDT
    Under­stand­ing Quiv­er­full, the antifem­i­nist, con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian move­ment that moti­vates pop­u­lar reality-TV fam­i­lies like the Dug­gars.
    by Kathryn Joyce

    If there is a whole­some coun­ter­point to the gossip-rich tra­vails of single-mom Nadya Sule­man and her 14 chil­dren, it might be Jim Bob and Michelle Dug­gar, who had their 18th child just weeks before the arrival of Suleman’s octu­plets in Jan­u­ary. The Dug­gar birth was tele­vised on the Arkansas couple’s pop­u­lar TLC real­ity show, “17 Kids and Count­ing” (now “18 Kids and Count­ing”). Unlike Sule­man, who was vil­i­fied as the freak­ish, government-assistance-dependent “Octo­mom,” the Dug­gars’ abun­dant prog­eny often attract admi­ra­tion. Their chil­dren play vio­lin, their pala­tial home is immac­u­late and the fam­ily matri­arch is a soft-spoken mul­ti­tasker who gen­tly keeps order in her immense household.

    Watch­ing Michelle Dug­gar man­age her Her­culean tasks is addic­tive. We like to mar­vel at the logis­tics of life in over­sized reality-TV fam­i­lies like the Dug­gars or the par­tic­i­pants of the series “Kids By the Dozen” (also on TLC), which fea­tures fam­i­lies with at least 12 chil­dren each. How do they do all that laun­dry every week? Afford all those gal­lons of milk or cope with a joint birth­day party for 13?

    But there’s one big omis­sion from the on-screen por­trayal of many of these fam­i­lies: their moti­va­tion. Though the Dug­gars do describe them­selves as con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians, in real­ity, they fol­low a belief sys­tem that goes far beyond “Cheaper by the Dozen” high jinks. It is a pro-life-purist lifestyle known as Quiv­er­full, where women forgo all birth-control options, view­ing con­tra­cep­tion as a form of abor­tion and con­sid­er­ing even nat­ural fam­ily plan­ning an attempt to con­trol a realm-fertility-that should be entrusted to divine providence.

    At the heart of this reality-show depic­tion of “extreme moth­er­hood” is a grow­ing con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian empha­sis on the impor­tance of women sub­mit­ting to their hus­bands and fathers, an antifem­i­nist back­lash that holds that gen­der equal­ity is con­trary to God’s law and that women’s high­est call­ing is as wives and “pro­lific” mothers.

    Mary Pride, an early home­school­ing leader whose 1985 book “The Way Home: Beyond Fem­i­nism, Back to Real­ity” is a found­ing text of Quiv­er­full, con­vinced many read­ers that reg­u­lat­ing one’s fer­til­ity is a slip­pery slope. “Fam­ily plan­ning is the mother of abor­tion,” she writes. “A gen­er­a­tion had to be indoc­tri­nated in the ideal of plan­ning chil­dren around per­sonal con­ve­nience before abor­tion could be pop­u­lar.” Instead, Pride and her peers argue, Chris­tians should leave fam­ily plan­ning in God’s hands, and become “mater­nal mis­sion­ar­ies”: birthing as many chil­dren as He gives them as both a demon­stra­tion of rad­i­cal faith and obe­di­ence, as well as a plan to effect Chris­t­ian revival in the cul­ture through demo­graphic means-that is, by hav­ing more chil­dren than their polit­i­cal opponents.

    Quiv­er­full advo­cates see their lifestyle, and their abun­dant prog­eny, as a liv­ing denun­ci­a­tion of what they call “the con­tra­cep­tive men­tal­ity”: demon­strat­ing their com­mit­ment to end abor­tion by accept­ing all chil­dren as “unqual­i­fied bless­ings” from God. They often under­score the point by refer­ring to their chil­dren as “bless­ings,” as in their “eight”-or 10, or 12-“blessings at home”: lan­guage that has spilled over into the main­stream among fam­i­lies that do not fol­low the Quiv­er­full con­vic­tion, such as the Gos­selins (of TLC’s “Jon and Kate Plus Eight”), Sule­man and even for­mer vice pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Sarah Palin. It’s this ide­o­log­i­cal ground­ing, tying the Quiv­er­full con­vic­tion to grow­ing anti­con­tra­cep­tion efforts among abor­tion oppo­nents world­wide, that makes Quiv­er­full argu­ments rel­e­vant far beyond the movement’s small but grow­ing num­bers. (As a move­ment, it likely num­bers in the tens of thou­sands, though hard num­bers are not available.)

    Often, chil­dren of the move­ment are also called “arrows.” Quiv­er­full takes its name from Psalm 127: “Like arrows in the hands of a war­rior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they con­tend with their ene­mies in the gate.“A wealth of mil­i­tary metaphors fol­lows from this name­sake, as Pride and her fel­low advo­cates urge women toward mil­i­tant fecun­dity in the ser­vice of reli­gious rebirth: cre­at­ing what they bluntly refer to as an army of devout chil­dren to wage spir­i­tual bat­tle against God’s ene­mies. As Quiv­er­full author Rachel Scott writes in her 2004 move­ment book, “Birthing God’s Mighty War­riors,” “Chil­dren are our ammu­ni­tion in the spir­i­tual realm to whip the enemy! These spe­cial arrows were hand­crafted by the war­rior him­self and were care­fully fash­ioned to achieve the pur­pose of anni­hi­lat­ing the enemy.”

    Quiv­er­full advo­cates Rick and Jan Hess, authors of 1990’s “A Full Quiver: Fam­ily Plan­ning and the Lord­ship of Christ,” envi­sion the worldly gains such a method could bring, if more Chris­tians began pro­duc­ing “full quiv­ers” of “arrows for the war”: con­trol of both houses of Con­gress, the “recla­ma­tion” of sin­ful cities like San Fran­cisco and mas­sive boy­cotts of com­pa­nies that do not com­ply with con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian mores. “If the body of Christ had been repro­duc­ing as we were designed to do,” the Hesses write, “we would not be in the mess we are today.” Nancy Camp­bell, author of another move­ment book from 2003 called “Be Fruit­ful and Mul­ti­ply,” exhorts Chris­t­ian women to do just that with promises of spir­i­tual glory. “Oh what a vision,” she writes, “to invade the earth with mighty sons and daugh­ters who have been trained and pre­pared for God’s divine purposes.”

    Quiv­er­full doesn’t fol­low from any par­tic­u­lar church’s teach­ings but rather is a con­vic­tion shared by evan­gel­i­cal and fun­da­men­tal­ist Chris­tians across denom­i­na­tional lines, often spread through the bur­geon­ing con­ser­v­a­tive home­school­ing com­mu­nity, which the U.S. Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion esti­mates has more than 1 mil­lion school-age chil­dren, and which home­school­ing groups say eas­ily has twice that num­ber.

    Quiverfull’s prona­tal­ist empha­sis is linked to a com­pan­ion doc­trine of stri­dent antifem­i­nism among con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians who see the women’s lib­er­a­tion move­ment as the ori­gin of a host of social ills, from abor­tion to divorce, women work­ing and teen sex. “Fem­i­nism is a totally self-consistent sys­tem aimed at reject­ing God’s role for women,” Pride wrote in 1985; since then, the move­ment she helped cre­ate has erected an oppo­site and equally self-consistent sys­tem of “bib­li­cal womanhood.”

    At the fore­front of evan­gel­i­cal oppo­si­tion to fem­i­nism is a group of self-described “patri­archy” advo­cates, who have reclaimed the term from women’s stud­ies cur­ric­ula to advo­cate a strict “com­ple­men­tar­ian” the­ol­ogy of wives and daugh­ters being sub­mis­sive to their hus­bands and fathers. This resur­gent empha­sis on women’s sub­mis­sive­ness takes many forms, from the state­ment by the 16 mil­lion mem­ber South­ern Bap­tist Con­ven­tion that wives must “gra­ciously sub­mit” to their husband’s “lov­ing head­ship” and the the­o­log­i­cal works being writ­ten by the SBC-affiliated Coun­cil on Bib­li­cal Man­hood and Wom­an­hood, to far more severe inter­pre­ta­tions that claim women’s absolute obe­di­ence to their hus­bands is the first, nec­es­sary step toward Chris­tians reclaim­ing the cul­ture. Part of the Quiv­er­full mis­sion is rais­ing large fam­i­lies that embrace these tra­di­tional gen­der roles and teach their daugh­ters to do the same.

    ...

    So while pop­u­la­tion growth, envi­ron­men­tal degra­da­tion, and the ongo­ing cap­ture of the state by far-right cor­po­rate inter­ests promises to usher in an age of pink slim and peak water across the world, it’s worth rec­og­niz­ing that the cor­po­rate inter­ests are going to be increas­ingly rely­ing on this rapidly grow­ing Domnin­ion­ist move­ment with a the­o­log­i­cal man­date to trash the envi­ron­ment and hyper-breed in order to main­tain that grip on power. And, pre­sum­ably, to pro­vide the far-right with quiv­ers full of shock troops to fight for a theo­cratic future in the has­tened resource wars of tomorrow.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 31, 2012, 7:15 pm
  13. Eric Can­tor: Today’s turd in the Grand Old Party punch bowl:

    Spe­cial Topic
    Can­tor Sug­gests Anti-Semitism Is A Prob­lem Within The House GOP Cau­cus
    By Annie-Rose Strasser and Scott Keyes on Apr 19, 2012 at 11:15 am

    A few weeks ago, the House GOP was up in arms over House Major­ity Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) $25,000 dona­tion to anti-incumbent can­di­date Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who ulti­mately defeated his oppo­nent, incum­bent Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL). But the story got a lit­tle more fraught when it turned out that Manzullo once said Can­tor would not be “saved” because he is Jewish.

    Today, Can­tor, the only Jew­ish House Repub­li­can, nearly affirmed that this was the rea­son he fought against Manzullo’s re-election, insin­u­at­ing that anti-Semitism — and racism — are lin­ger­ing prob­lems among the House GOP gen­er­ally. He speak­ing at a break­fast event orga­nized by Politico.

    Call­ing it the “darker side,” Can­tor responded to Politico’s Mike Allen’s ques­tion of whether there is anti-semitism in Con­gress by try­ing to avoid com­ment­ing. But even­tu­ally he let up: “I think that all of us know that in this coun­try, we’ve not always got­ten it right in terms of racial mat­ters, reli­gious mat­ters, what­ever. We con­tinue to strive to pro­vide equal treat­ment to everybody.”

    “We’re talk­ing about the House Repub­li­can Cau­cus, not Amer­ica,” Allen pushed.

    Can­tor then sat in silence, grim­mac­ing for sev­eral sec­onds before Allen changed the topic.

    ...

    There’s a video at the link that has to be watched to really get the non-verbal com­mu­ni­ca­tion of Can­tor at the end when he sat there “in silence, grim­mac­ing”. There’s a “I’m not going to say yes, but yes [I am talk­ing about the GOP House mem­ber­ship]” ele­ment to the gesturing.

    The one part of the arti­cle I actu­ally found sur­pris­ing was that Can­tor is the only Jew­ish GOP mem­ber of the House. I don’t know why...I just didn’t expect that to be the case.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 19, 2012, 8:44 am
  14. Ok, it’s obvi­ous now. Paul Ryan is clearly God’s Cho­sen War­rior. Not only is he cor­rect­ing the US Con­fer­ence of Catholic Bishop over the church’s moral objec­tions over the Ryan bud­get (like pro­tect­ing human dig­nity and feed­ing the hun­gry and home­less) but he’s also cor­rect­ing the Joint Chiefs of Staff after they com­plained about the Ryan Bud­get giv­ing them TOO MUCH MONEY. Too much for the gen­er­als and too lit­tle for the poor? Sounds Jesus-approved to me!

    God’s War­rior? No. God’s Gen­eral.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 19, 2012, 2:41 pm
  15. Just FYI, in case things seemed all topsy-turvy yes­ter­day it was appar­ently opposite-day:

    Think Progress
    After Pre­vi­ously Prais­ing Her, Paul Ryan Now Disses Ayn Rand: ‘I Reject Her Philosophy’

    By Scott Keyes on Apr 26, 2012 at 11:40 am

    In 2005, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) heaped praise on Ayn Rand, a 20th-century lib­er­tar­ian nov­el­ist best known for her phi­los­o­phy that cen­tered on the idea that self­ish­ness is “virtue”. The New Repub­lic wrote:

    “The rea­son I got involved in pub­lic ser­vice, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one per­son, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gath­er­ing four years ago hon­or­ing the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

    Ryan also noted in a 2003 inter­view with the Weekly Stan­dard, “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christ­mas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well... I try to make my interns read it.”

    But today, Ryan is singing a far dif­fer­ent tune.

    From an inter­view with National Review’s Bob Costa this week:

    “I reject her phi­los­o­phy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an athe­ist phi­los­o­phy. It reduces human inter­ac­tions down to mere con­tracts and it is anti­thet­i­cal to my world­view. If some­body is going to try to paste a person’s view on epis­te­mol­ogy to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pur­suit of knowl­edge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

    ...

    I hope that clears every­thing up.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 27, 2012, 6:47 am
  16. Our mod­ern Amer­ica:

    Fox News guest laments ‘mis­take’ of let­ting women vote
    By Stephen C. Web­ster
    Raw­story
    Mon­day, May 7, 2012 15:20 EDT

    Rev. Jesse Lee Peter­son, a tea party activist that’s appeared sev­eral times on Fox News, and founder of an orga­ni­za­tion where Sean Han­nity serves as an advi­sory board mem­ber, said in a ser­mon recently pub­lished to YouTube that America’s great­est mis­take was allow­ing women the right to vote, adding that back in “the good old days, men knew that women are crazy and they knew how to deal with them.”

    In the video, pub­lished to YouTube in March, Peter­son explains that he believes women sim­ply can’t han­dle “any­thing,” and that in his expe­ri­ence, “You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love.”

    Despite his state­ments being online for more than a month, Han­nity wel­comed Peter­son on his show last Tues­day to cas­ti­gate the Obama admin­is­tra­tion over “tak­ing credit” for the Osama bin Laden assas­si­na­tion — but the seg­ment didn’t exactly go as planned.

    ...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 8, 2012, 2:04 pm
  17. It’s worth not­ing that Opus Dei isn’t the only fas­cist ultra-right-wing Catholic group that Ricky has been a mem­ber of over the years:

    Salon
    MARCH 15, 2012 8:25AM
    Rick San­to­rum and the Politi­ciza­tion of Religion

    March is Rick Santorum’s moment to strut the stage like a minor Shake­spearean buf­foon, who mor­ti­fies but enter­tains the crowd before he is yanked behind the cur­tain. Much of his mes­sage is old news, but he also rep­re­sents a move­ment to insert the most con­ser­v­a­tive brand of Catholic the­ol­ogy into sec­u­lar polit­i­cal dis­course. But Catholic vot­ers reject this guy. Why? Despite the church’s right­ward drift under Pope Bene­dict, the church has had an at times uneasy rela­tion­ship with Opus Dei and Reg­num Christi, two branches of Catholic lay prac­tice that San­to­rum endorses and that have been highly sus­pect to many within the church.

    Of the two groups, Reg­num Christi is the more vir­u­lent. It is the lay branch of the Legion of Christ order founded by child rapist and bigamist Father Mar­cial Maciel. Accord­ing to the New York Times, San­to­rum has long been a sup­porter of the group and in 2003 was the keynote speaker at a Reg­num Christi event in Chicago. Though this occurred a decade ago, Maciel, who had been under inves­ti­ga­tion since the 70s, was already well on his way to repu­di­a­tion by the church.

    ...

    Any­one vaguely famil­iar with the church’s ago­niz­ingly slow response to the pre­pon­der­ance of evi­dence con­cern­ing its decades-long priestly sex scan­dal has to find the straight­for­ward nature of this con­dem­na­tion rather strik­ing. And yet Maciel’s legacy, Reg­num Christi, is a pet project of Santorum.

    “The Cul­ture Did It”

    Rick San­to­rum has fol­lowed the lead of many apol­o­gists for the Catholic sex scan­dal, which cost the U.S. church $2.6 bil­lion in set­tle­ments from 1950 to 2009; he blamed the cul­ture. He said:

    It is star­tling that those in the media and acad­e­mia appear most dis­turbed by this aber­rant behav­ior, since they have zeal­ously pro­moted moral rel­a­tivism by sanc­tion­ing “pri­vate” moral mat­ters such as alter­na­tive lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by cul­ture. When the cul­ture is sick, every ele­ment in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scan­dal, it is no sur­prise that Boston, a seat of aca­d­e­mic, polit­i­cal and cul­tural lib­er­al­ism in Amer­ica, lies at the cen­ter of the storm.

    ...

    I have to agree with Ricky on one point...there does appear to be a cul­tural sick­ness at work in con­tem­po­rary pol­i­tics. For instance, Ricky is the guy that almost got the GOP nom­i­na­tion. That’s pretty sick.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 16, 2012, 2:55 pm

Post a comment

ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND

Martin BormannMartin Borman, Nazi in Exile by Paul Manning. German corporate capital flight program in the waning years of WWII.
Available for download. Read more about the Bormann Organizaton »