Newt Gingrich is a recent convert to Catholicism. Rather ironically, it seems that he converted in order to facilitate his marriage to his newest wife,Callista,after abandoning two previous wives . After converting he was subsequently invited to give a speech at this year’s National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.
Did Newt Gingrich cheat on his first two wives for the benefit of America? He seems to think so. Newt pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.
He divorced his second wife, Marianne, for Callista, with whom he had an affair while she was his staffer on Capitol Hill. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network last month Newt explained his double spousal abandonment this way:
“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” - Newt Gingrich
What other inappropriate things has he done?
This video below explores yet another aspect of his tainted past.
Surprising to me, the polls now show that Professor Newt Gingrich is far out ahead of his rivals in popularity among Republicans. I really thought his campaign was dead in the water with his staff abandoning him and his lack of adequate campaign finances. But it seems the dead can rise again. Although many have asked whether he can ever live down his reputation of being the ultimate Washington insider he seems confident in himself. And why not, I suppose, when one considers the other possible candidates.
And Gingrich himself seems to believe that he will be the Republican nominee for president. And just as I was beginning to think that Ron Paul might really stand a chance of getting it, as other candidates seem to be self-destructing before our eyes.
In this clip from a video interview below I don't see Newt knock on wood. So, I guess his self confidence or perhaps more correctly his arrogance is genuine.
Pat, the term “dominionism” was not completely defined in your post. First of all I couldn’t find the word in either Webster’s or Random House. And when I went to Wikipedia I found this quote:
“The use and application of this terminology is controversial. Apart from a handful ofsocial scientistswho first coined it, the term is almost exclusively used by journalists and bloggers,and there’s a lively debate about whether the term is even useful at all.
That makes me feel the term doesn’t come from a legitimate source. Instead it seems it is an invention of faux academics trying to convince people there is a problem where little or no evidence supports it.
My question is how can “threads of dominionism run deep in the GOP” when the concept exists only in the imaginations of small-minded men? I’m not saying you are a small-minded man, of course, but maybe you read short books.
It is natural that people having deeply held convictions, whether they be religious or secular, are going to believe that “real” solutions are to be found within their own moral code. There is nothing wrong with that as long as we follow the constitution. I personally haven’t seen any evidence of a resurgence of the “Spanish Inquisition” or the equivalent of Sharia Law being imposed on the nation by anyone, not even the hated GOP.
The original motto of the United States of America, that was part of the original Great Seal, was "E Pluribus Unum" -- literally meaning in In Unity One in Latin, signifying the bond created between the thirteen colonies. It was printed on US currency and stamped on US coins until the motto was replaced by "In God We Trust" in 1956 during the height of the cold war with the USSR. The tone of the original motto may have been too suggestive of the collectivist spirit embodied in the "godless" philosophy of the communist state.
Two years earlier, in 1954, The Pledge Of Allegiance which was originally composed by Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942, was changed by adding the words "under God."
Little if any consideration was given to the atheist minority or the original secular intent of the founding fathers when these changes were made. And later as we have seen the religious right has gained even greater influence in Washington, and they have been making an even greater concerted effort to rewrite history in order to reach their religiously motivated goals. We now hear a continuous misrepresentation of the intent of the founding fathers, and a constant repetition of, "We are a Christian nation," with little consideration for people of other religions or the nonreligious.
But many doubt the Christian dominated GOP will not be satisfied until their ideas about their Christian god dominate all aspects of American life. The following video offers evidence of their growing desire for a Christian theocracy.
