Witch Hunting 101

All along we thought that the facts about what Foley did or did not do mattered. Apparently not. Now conservative Donald Lambro says that if Foley has not violated any laws then the laws should be changed. Now do I understand this correctly?

Other than a plea for bigger government Lambro seems to be saying that if Foley has not violated any laws then we need to change the laws so that he would have done so had they been in place. Lambro, who is exhibiting the ugly spirit of today's conservative movement said: "...if he has committed a crime agains these young men (which really isn't clear right now), then the laws dealing with predators who sexually prey on young people need to be changed."

At least he didn't pull out the bullshit about how he was preying on children. He admits they were young men. They were young men over the age of consent. One was almost 19 and one was 21. Hardly kids. Remember how they started passing new intricate laws in order to protect children. They also wanted to protect young people who are not children but were under the age of consent. Now they want laws to "protect" young people above the age of consent. Exactly where do they intend to stop?

Now if you understand the fundamentalist authoritarianism behind the Theopublicans you know where they intend to stop. They intend to ban all sexual activity that is outside of marriage. That's what they want. And they are using the Foley incident as an excuse to now call for banning sex between consenting adults. This isn't about protecting children and hasn't been for a long time.

Imagine driving regulations under the Lambro theory of regulation. Speed cameras show cars all under the speed limit by 1 mile per hour. It's close but legal. So the Lambro theory kicks in and they lower the speed limit simply because people aren't breaking the law. The idea is to keep changing the legal limits in order to create offenders. Welcome to the intellectually and morally bankrupt modern Republican.

Meanwhile Associated Press produces bull to keep the scandal going. They mention the page Jordan Edmund and say he is now 21 years old but was a "House page from September 2001 to June 2002, which would have made him 16 and 17 then." That is true. And in 1995 he would have been ten years old. This is a smokescreen. The emails from Foley weren't sent in 2001 or 2002 or 1995 but in 2003. Edmund turned 18 in February of that year and was going on 19 when he received the emails from Foley. By leaving out when the Foley emails were sent they keep the lie going that Edmund was a minor.