Santorum: If the idea of government-granted rights wins out, government will own you

posted at 1:55 pm on February 10, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Rick Santorum’s is a familiar face at CPAC. He’s been here in years when he was little more than a sidenote in the programming, and he’s been here in years, like this one, when his is the face attendees crowd to see. But, year in and year out, what he has stood for has not changed. That consistency was especially evident in his speech today,  in which he expounded on his — and, indeed, Americans’ — long-held conviction that men are endowed with rights by their Creator — not given those rights by the government.

“We know there’s a lot of excitement here because this election is about big, big things,” Santorum said. “We know it’s about big things; it’s about foundational principles. Every speech I’ve given from the 381 townhall meetings I did in Iowa, I talked about founding principles. This campaign is gonna be about a vision, about who we are as Americans.”

That vision? No more and no less than the one outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the document that Santorum said explains the “why” of America.

“Are we going to believe, as our Founders did, that our rights don’t come from the government, that they come from a much higher authority?” Santorum asked today. “There are those in the Oval Office who believe that’s not the case, that rights do, in fact, come from the government, and they have gone around convincing the American people that they can give you rights. We see what happens when government gives you rights. When government gives you rights, government can take away those rights. When government gives you rights, they can coerce you in doing things in exercising the rights that they gave you.”

Santorum cited Obamacare as a perfect example of a government trumped-up right and predicted a dire outcome of government-defined rights.

“As a result, government will own because you will have to pay tribute to Washington in order to get the care you need for your children,” he said.

The major reason Santorum entered the presidential race, he said, was because he saw Obamacare as a “gamechanger.” As a longstanding supporter of bottom-up solutions to out-of-control health care costs and lack of access, Santorum is in an enviable position — at least from the perspective of his competitors — to make Obamacare a central issue of the race in 2012.

But it won’t be Santorum’s only issue. Among other topics, he touched today on jobs (his economic plan, he said, harnesses “supply-side economics for the working man,”) and energy (which he said is an issue we must not allow to be demagogued), drawing clear contrasts between his positions and the past positions of his competitors.

He left his audience with a question and a challenge: “Why would an undecided voter vote for a candidate the party is not excited about? We need conservatives now to rally for a conservative to go into November, to excite the conservative base, to pull with that excitement moderate voters and to defeat Barack Obama in the fall. … Please walk out of this gathering and choose the candidate that you believe is the right person to lead this country, so you can say, ‘I have done my duty. I have kept my honor.’”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Santorum supporters are really delusional…Wow!!! These are the people I am having a discussion with. Either you are downright stupid or you are being disingenuous…and I pick the latter, and it’s really pathetic.

Chudi on February 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Drama Queen.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Madison, didn’t you write an article recently related to this quote? My HA search skills are failing me today.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I did. If you click my name, I think it’s the second one on the list. Some troll complained I was self-promoting by linking my article with the quote(because I didn’t want people thinking I made it up), I stopped linking.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Can anybody give me a good reason how Santorum can run this economy

Chudi on February 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Good grief! Again with the “run the economy” crap. WTF would we want to elect anyone who claims to be able to “run” trillions of individual transactions every day? He doesn’t claim to be able to “run the economy” which is part of his draw.

Do you truly believe we should elect someone who wants to try to control economic choices from the top down?

Lost in Jersey on February 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Indeed.

We need someone who will get government out of the way so that the economy can run itself.

Bitter Clinger on February 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Even Peggy Noonan gets it:

The Romney campaign is better at dismantling than mantling. They’re better at taking opponents apart than building a compelling candidate of their own.

conservative tarheel on February 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

aww, here you are, worshiping at Peggy Noonan’s altar…the same ones who were probably calling her names and a closeted liberal, etc, etc, etc, not long ago….now she’your new hero…consistency :-)…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

If Rick were to be elected, would he have to get congress to write such legislation, or do you believe he would write executive orders that regulate behaviour in the bedroom?

tom daschle concerned on February 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

No idea, but I really don’t want to find out.

Oh, good, MadCon is here to advocate for NO government/NO law/NO regulation/greedy libertinism, ie anarchy. I was afraid he/she was sick, since I haven’t seen that cut and paste posted anywhere in a couple hours.

/

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Greedy libertarianism, eh? GREEDY? I think that says enough about you, without even having to address the endlessly tiresome and incorrect conflation of libertarianism and anarchy.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Do you truly believe we should elect someone who wants to try to control economic choices from the top down?

Lost in Jersey on February 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Santorum supporters are really delusional…Wow!!! These are the people I am having a discussion with. Either you are downright stupid or you are being disingenuous…and I pick the latter, and it’s really pathetic.

Chudi on February 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Your response to this question shows who’s really ‘downright stupid’.

Bitter Clinger on February 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Go away, Rick. America needs an economic champion in the White House. Not a religious busy-body that likes to stick his nose in people’s bedrooms.

Cordell on February 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Our economic problems stem from immorality.

Too many are unwilling to work. Sloth is a moral problem.

The Dems divide Americans with their class warfare games. How many liberal ideas have been implemented based on the idea of “fairness.” (progressive income tax for instance). At one time Americans just wanted equal opportunity. Today liberals have certain groups believing that means equal outcomes (egalitarianism). It’s all based on envy. Envy is a moral problem.

At one time in America people knew it was wrong to steal. We have legalized theft and we call it redistribution of wealth.

I could go on and on.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

, I stopped linking.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Screw the trolls.

Mark it zero.

portlandon on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Yeah, nothing captures the “founding principles” of America like a big spending cryptofascist nutjob who believes in a big and scary sky god.

lulz

Aquateen Hungerforce on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Yeah, nothing captures the “founding principles” of America like a big spending cryptofascist nutjob who believes in a big and scary sky god.

lulz

Aquateen Hungerforce on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

This is indicative of a society in decline.

Goodbye America, you had your run. May you wallow in your cultural and moral rot.

tom daschle concerned on February 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

now Washington ‘experience’ is in!…consistency…in the same tradition like running on the bandwagon of three crackpot candidates, one whackier than his predecessor…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I guess the answer is that Mitt would not, and you were to embarrassed to answer it.
No one ever said Washington experience is “bad”, many liked Newt because of his experience…not having any experience in Washington is not good, just like not having any business experience is bad if you want to run a business.
If you want to run a school, education experience is nice to have, if you are running a tennis school, being a tennis player helps…it’s being controlled and subject to Washington, or by any entity is bad.
Example: Mitt’s top ten financial supporters (at least up to a couple of weeks ago) are all insider Wall Street, that benefited from TARP, and 18 of his top 20 were that…that gives you an insight of who will control his policies.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

At least, he has run a state. Santorum has never done that. His only experience is being in the senate for 12 yrs, and losing in a blowout to a liberal in a swing state.

Please keep this up Romneybot Chudi. The only reason Mittens didn’t lose in a blowout as an incumbent governor to a liberal in a good year for the GOP is that he saw the writing on the way and didn’t run again. Keep up the talking points…it’s fun to blow your arguments out of the water.

LtBarnwell02 on February 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I did. If you click my name, I think it’s the second one on the list. Some troll complained I was self-promoting by linking my article with the quote(because I didn’t want people thinking I made it up), I stopped linking.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Hi MadCon,

I’ve been told the same thing but you know what? Ed totally supports what is called “shameless promoting”, and he has no problem whatsoever with us doing so. Whenever I am on his show, I write my blog and sometimes my Twitter account.

Go for it. They don’t own HA. Unless AP or Ed himself write a note about this as a rule, there’s nothing wrong with it. So *raspberry* them.

ProudPalinFan on February 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Mark it zero.

portlandon on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

They’re callin’ the cops, man.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Yeah, nothing captures the “founding principles” of America like a big spending cryptofascist nutjob who believes in a big and scary sky god.

lulz

Aquateen Hungerforce on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I guess you’re unaware that America was founded on a Judeo-Christian system of ethics and values. Tell me…how do you remember to breathe?

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

ProudPalinFan on February 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Thanks, but even though they’re trolls, one of the last things I want to be accused of is self-promotion. Plenty of people hate my guts, so I don’t really care about my reputation. I primarily care about getting information out when I don’t see it being reported by the big guys, especially when that information might make people think twice before throwing their money and support behind a politician.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I love coffee. Oh noes, Mormons don’t drink coffee or tea. That means Romney will take away my right to drink caffeine. No telling what they would do about the beer in my refrigerator or the bottles of wine above my bar.

/

Stayright on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

*way should be wall

LtBarnwell02 on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

The problem, of course, is that rights were never god given – despite what our overzealous, aristocratic “founding fathers” would have you believe.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I did. If you click my name, I think it’s the second one on the list. Some troll complained I was self-promoting by linking my article with the quote(because I didn’t want people thinking I made it up), I stopped linking.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The only time it’s irritating, and never with you, is when someone doesn’t comment, but just say “Here is my take”, and doesn’t defend or explain what his/her “take” is, they are doing it to just drum up hits, but are not adding to the comments.
There is a difference between self-promotion, and promoting ideas…

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Our economic problems stem from immorality.

At one time in America people knew it was wrong to steal. We have legalized theft and we call it redistribution of wealth.

I could go on and on.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

.
You don’t have to. Just look at the congressional approval rating. You want thieves ? Look no further ! You want to fix it ? Look for someone other than a career politician. Dream on, right?

FlaMurph on February 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Example: Mitt’s top ten financial supporters (at least up to a couple of weeks ago) are all insider Wall Street, that benefited from TARP, and 18 of his top 20 were that…that gives you an insight of who will control his policies.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

oh, please… if said ‘financial supporters’ gave to Newt or the new crackpot candidate, you would be more than delighted…no ‘moral’ qualms there, am sure…as we know by now, the ‘true conservative’ morality on issues is purely circumstantial…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The problem, of course, is that rights were never god given – despite what our overzealous, aristocratic “founding fathers” would have you believe.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

As an atheist I will say that if it was a lie it was a beautiful lie, and has served to preserve liberty and freedom for a very long time. In other places and other times those freedoms rapidly vanished when based on rights bestowed by men alone.

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Go away, Rick. America needs an economic champion in the White House. Not a religious secular busy-body that likes to stick his nose in people’s bedrooms.

Cordell on February 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Fixed it because Obama is already in the White House. I can’t comprehend that people are freaking out about Santorum’s supposed future legislation that’s based on nothing but speculation while Obama is demanding that church’s pay for abortifacients.

Mitt’s supporters are digging him an even bigger whole the more they shill for him.

BakerAllie on February 10, 2012 at 3:05 PM

No one ever said Washington experience is “bad”,

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

huh?? this was the main narrative of TP, where were you these past 2 years??

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

You don’t have to. Just look at the congressional approval rating. You want thieves ? Look no further ! You want to fix it ? Look for someone other than a career politician. Dream on, right?

FlaMurph on February 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM

excuse me, as per right2bright Washington experience is in and a good thing now (after it wasn’t)…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Our economic problems stem from immorality.

At one time in America people knew it was wrong to steal. We have legalized theft and we call it redistribution of wealth.

I could go on and on.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

.
You don’t have to. Just look at the congressional approval rating. You want thieves ? Look no further ! You want to fix it ? Look for someone other than a career politician. Dream on, right?

FlaMurph on February 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM

That’s why I was for Cain.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM

He’s a BIG Gov’t conservative in the mold of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, i.e. wanting to force his religion onto others (see Abrahamic religions and their ongoing fight over the ownership of God). He has stated that he is against Libertarianism, which is probably why he supported Arlen “RINO” Specter. Better than Romney/McCain…barely.

Karmi on February 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

He’d be a great candidate for Pope Of America. For president, he’s just as much a tyrant as Barack Obama, just with a different agenda. When either speak the word freedom, they should both be laughed off the podium.

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Get ready for Santori’a Law.

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Okay, ernesto, from where do they come?

DrMagnolias on February 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You’re about 45% right, as that beautiful lie did not help women or ethnic minorities without much effort. Either way, a lie is a lie, and honesty is the best policy. Rights as we understand them are the function of law, which is a function of government. We are as a people equipped to deem the right to marriage to be universal regardless of gender, end of story.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

How the hell does Santorum square this:

“Are we going to believe, as our Founders did, that our rights don’t come from the government, that they come from a much higher authority?”

with this:

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.

If we are in fact “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”, then who the hell is Rick Santorum to say that the government should get involved in whats going on in your bedroom? Is this ass running for President or for God?

thphilli on February 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

EASY. Abortion is a “cultural issue.” Why, it’s even a “bedroom” issue, the way that term is used. Not that I expect you to understand this, given that you’re a bigot.

Neither will this religious nutjob.

thphilli on February 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

You sound like a leftist.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

The problem, of course, is that rights were never god given – despite what our overzealous, aristocratic “founding fathers” would have you believe.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Your rights are granted to you by your very existence, even if you don’t believe in God. The point is that government DOESN’T grant rights.

Bitter Clinger on February 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

He’d be a great candidate for Pope Of America. For president, he’s just as much a tyrant as Barack Obama, just with a different agenda. When either speak the word freedom, they should both be laughed off the podium.

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Get ready for Santori’a Law.

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

You people are as intellectually dishonest as the Left. I’m ashamed that you claim the title of “conservative.”

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Thanks, but even though they’re trolls, one of the last things I want to be accused of is self-promotion. Plenty of people hate my guts, so I don’t really care about my reputation. I primarily care about getting information out when I don’t see it being reported by the big guys, especially when that information might make people think twice before throwing their money and support behind a politician.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I doubt plenty of people hate your guts, MC, since hate is such a strong word, but even if they do, no worries. If you’re not annoying all the right people, you’re not doing it right.

troyriser_gopftw on February 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Greedy libertarianism, eh? GREEDY?
MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Yeah. How dare you want to keep your own money and preserve your rights. Don’t you know everything belongs to the collective?

Wendya on February 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

He’d be a great candidate for Pope Of America. For president, he’s just as much a tyrant as Barack Obama, just with a different agenda. When either speak the word freedom, they should both be laughed off the podium.

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Oh for petes sake. Stuff like this is why a lot of us can’t take the Santorum critics seriously. If he’s the nominee are you going to vote for Obama then instead?

BakerAllie on February 10, 2012 at 3:21 PM

You’re about 45% right, as that beautiful lie did not help women or ethnic minorities without much effort. Either way, a lie is a lie, and honesty is the best policy.

Except they were helped and it was the Christians who largely made it happen due to their silly belief in equality, which is also a lie.

Rights as we understand them are the function of law, which is a function of government. We are as a people equipped to deem the right to marriage to be universal regardless of gender, end of story.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

We are also as a people equipped to deem Jews as a threat to the nation and worthy of being exterminated in a ‘final solution’ or to deem the wealthy and middle class to be ‘traitors to the revolution’ and send them to the Gulags.

Christians have a far better track record of respecting the rights of those they disagree with than atheists do when they are given power.

The very concept of magical rights from thin air are a lie so where does that leave us Ernesto?

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I can’t wait to start a manufacturing company so I don’t have to pay any more federal taxes. Go Rick! You economically illiterate moron!

echosyst on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Umm unless you’ve worked at a pharmaceutical company or for a worldwide corporation, shut it. People that are INSIDE the bubble and cannot see the big picture of what these corporations, companies and such that bring goods and services not only where they are stationed, but what they provide throughout the world benefits the cities with several tiers of businesses, large and small around it and all of these create JOBS.

Think of every little think a company needs inside a building in order to function properly, starting with their employees. Trickle-down economics. That corporation leaves = ghost town. They lose those contracts, customers, goods that they used to supply and boom-unemployment kicks in.

In order for those corporations that do file taxes not only here but in other countries, they must remain competitive or “to China we go”. To save, they must restructure. Yes they make a TON of money but they give back in more than one way, including a charity of their choice.

Ever since I can remember this was a major issue in Puerto Rico. Tax breaks or tax cuts to these corporations had the same reactions with people who ignore the consequences. And of course, the politicos that are willing to send the wrong message in order to get elected regardless of the consequences for the people they represent. Off with their necks, but I am in power and then backtrack on what I promised or what I stated. That’s bull.

Once these tax breaks expired (in PR) guess what? The domino effect was so incredible that people that worked for 25 years lost their jobs with a two-week warning. Seniority does not matter anymore, and if the trade you’re good at (sewing, industrial) is scarce, forget about Christmas. Bonus, final check and outta here.

Like I wrote about a month ago, the city of Ceiba suffered incredibly because the Naval Base closed. They had submarines, battle ships, the works. Unfortunately one person died in an accident in the island of Vieques and I will sum it up: The east coast regrets it. BIG TIME. Thousands of people gone = imagine the impact starting with housing.

Now give me a good excuse why eliminating tax cuts for corporations is bad for the country. Because as far as I see it, We The People do not think on how WE benefit from them sticking around.

-PPF

ProudPalinFan on February 10, 2012 at 3:23 PM

huh?? this was the main narrative of TP, where were you these past 2 years??

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I guess the difference between experience and being an elite insider, escapes some people, or they just don’t have a capacity to comprehend the difference between swimming and drowning…they are both in the water after all…

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Oh for petes sake. Stuff like this is why a lot of us can’t take the Santorum critics seriously. If he’s the nominee are you going to vote for Obama then instead?

BakerAllie on February 10, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I thought I was committed to ABO, but if Santorum is the nominee, there’s nothing there that I want. His desire to control the individual is repugnant. If I thought maybe I was getting a true fiscal conservative in the deal, I might be able to hold my nose enough to vote for him, but that is a very iffy proposition given his big spending history. In a Obama/Santorum matchup, there is no “lesser of two evils”.

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

overzealous, aristocratic “founding fathers”

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Poor guy. If only Britain was still in control, I’m sure you’d be so much happier.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Santorum is so strong on many points….but so big government minded.

timberline on February 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Well, first of all, I never typed greedy libertarians. It is greedy libertinism, as in libertine. Secondly, what do you call a group of people who apparently only care about money, and the ‘right’ to do any and all immoral things under the sun? I have come up with ‘greedy libertines’ as my pet name for that subset of people that Santorum is referring to in that excerpt you constantly quote, and I believe you know that is who he’s talking about. The vocal Libertarians anymore come across more as ‘greedy libertines’. Now, if that is what you embrace, all about money and immorality, own it, but stop accusing a good and decent man like Santorum of being some sort of medieval theocrat when he is a traditional conservative who does embrace the same policies that most conservatives hold.

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

this coming from the guy who thinks warrants should be done away with. brilliant.

Kaptain Amerika on February 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Well, first of all, I never typed greedy libertarians. It is greedy libertinism, as in libertine.

Libertarians and libertines are, once again, two different things, just as libertarians and anarchists are. It’s a mistake commonly made by small-minded people.

Secondly, what do you call a group of people who apparently only care about money…

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

So being in favor of lower taxes and less regulation now means a person only cares about money. Tell me, how cold are those tents down on Wall Street?

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Well, first of all, I never typed greedy libertarians. It is greedy libertinism, as in libertine. Secondly, what do you call a group of people who apparently only care about money, and the ‘right’ to do any and all immoral things under the sun? I have come up with ‘greedy libertines’ as my pet name for that subset of people that Santorum is referring to in that excerpt you constantly quote, and I believe you know that is who he’s talking about. The vocal Libertarians anymore come across more as ‘greedy libertines’. Now, if that is what you embrace, all about money and immorality, own it, but stop accusing a good and decent man like Santorum of being some sort of medieval theocrat when he is a traditional conservative who does embrace the same policies that most conservatives hold.

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

So all this time, traditional conservatives have supported the idea of government in the bedroom? Really? I thought that was just over wrought hyperbole of the left. Here we have someone who has dlearly enunciated it, and “traditional conservatives” are jumping on board.

I don’t think taking responsibility for one’s actions is part of being a libertine. It is very much a part of libertarianism.

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

FYI, Ricky, the government didn’t grant anyone the right to contraception, either. And yet, you think people shouldn’t have that right.

Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM

The very concept of magical rights from thin air are a lie so where does that leave us Ernesto?

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM

It leaves us frightfully responsible for our own actions. I will not let fear of human nature force me to believe a lie. Yes, it is scary to know that what rights we have are at the mercy of our imperfect governments, but that is the truth. It behooves us, given such truth, to pay very close attention to the actions of our governments – we must be ever vigilant in the face of government that can declare gays a menace that ought to be exterminated. This is our responsibility, however, and certainly not a responsibility that need be foisted upon some comforting myth.

The truth is scary, but it is the truth nonetheless.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

One of the concerns I’ve heard about Santorum is that he does not believe in the separation of church and state, believing just the opposite, and that being the case it is also fair to say: If the idea of church-granted rights wins out, the church will own you.

It’s one thing to say that our rights come from beyond the power of man, from God, and therefor man doesn’t have a right to infringe on our rights, but that applies to men in the church as well as in the government.

FloatingRock on February 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Sorry, that’s not the vision the founders had.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”
–Patrick Henry

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.”
–Thomas Jefferson

Separation of church and state was meant to limit the power of the state to interfere with the church, not for the church to stay out of public affairs. I personally think the Founders would be horrified at what has become of public morality, especially with Liberals, like President Obama, doing all they can to actively undermine Christianity using the power of government.

Note: I am pro-Newt, anti-Romney, and more or less neutral on Santorum.

Gladtobehere on February 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Don’t the atheists and Christian bigots have a site? I am sure they do since they have been inflicting their immoral views into our lives for years.

fight like a girl on February 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

You really don’t understand what being libertarian (as I believe MadCon is) means, do you?

It is specifically about NOT inflicting our “immoral” views into your lives. And likewise, you don’t inflict you “moral” views (as you see it) into our lives. If someone is inflicting their morality on you, then they are NOT libertarian.

As a libertarian and strict constitutionalist, I will fight all day every day for you to live your life by whatever moral or religious code you prefess faith in. I will stand all day long for you not to pay for contraceptives or whatever other issue of the day involves the government or people encroaching on your rights to worship and live as you see morally fit. And in return, I ask that you not “inflict” your morality, as you view it, on my life.

You get to live your life by your moral code, I get to live my life by mine, with neither “inflicting” ours on the other. I fail to see how that is “inflicting our immoral views on you”. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

gravityman on February 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Separation of church and state was meant to limit the power of the state to interfere with the church, not for the church to stay out of public affairs.
Gladtobehere on February 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

You have half of it right. . . The 1st Amendment also says that the government cannot establish an official religious doctrine for the country.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I guess the difference between experience and being an elite insider, escapes some people, or they just don’t have a capacity to comprehend the difference between swimming and drowning…they are both in the water after all…

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 3:27 PM

oh, excuse me I was blinded as for the nuance there…so, Newton, prominent Republican and former Speaker of the House, is just an ‘experienced’ Washington critter, a lobbyist extraordinaire and Freddie Mac historian, but somehow never been an ‘elite insider’….it makes a lot of sense :-)…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

oh, please… if said ‘financial supporters’ gave to Newt or the new crackpot candidate, you would be more than delighted…
jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Gee, a mind reader…but not a very good one at that.
No, I don’t like any candidate that is so obviously tied to a particular group who has benefited from Mitt’s support of TARP or bailouts, these guys made a fortune off of Mitt’s support of these issues.
This removes Mitt from a debate about bailouts, TARP, gov. takeovers, it further weakens his chance of beating Obama, since they agree on all of those, and praise each other…how sweet.
You should try, but you won’t, to stick to facts, not some fairy tale you make up in your head to support your weak candidate.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

His whole speech was an attack on Romney.

Chudi on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Santorum was ripping into liberals, so yes, It was an attack on Romney.

portlandon

HA! Good one, lol.

xblade on February 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

I guess government-granted rights are fine as long as the idea comes from someone who calls himself a conservative.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I know this is going to be hard for you to accept, but you have no right to do whatever/whoever you want in the bedroom (or anywhere else for that matter). If that were so, then laws against incest and polygamy would be in violation of your inherent rights as a human.

Santorum is right in the post you quoted. Oh, and he never said that rights come from the government in the quote either.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I dont remember Jesus signing the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Right Act.. and on. Just exactly when did God give us rights again? So next time you people have to go before a judge will pull out your bible

Isserley on February 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM

You have half of it right. . . The 1st Amendment also says that the government cannot establish an official religious doctrine for the country.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM

WRONG! The first amendment says you can’t establish a STATE CHURCH. If you look back over the history of America, you would be surprised at all the statements that presidents have made that are religious in nature.

Gladtobehere on February 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

we must be ever vigilant in the face of government that can declare gays a menace that ought to be exterminated.

Why shouldn’t gays be exterminated? If what you believe is true then there is nothing immoral about doing so. They exterminated the Jews and they exterminated the Kulaks. If there is no higher authority then why not go to town on whoever annoys you?

The truth is scary, but it is the truth nonetheless.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

The truth you mean usually ends up with you staring at the world through a barbed wire fence.

I will go with the Christians because with them it usually ends up with having your dinner interrupted by a knock on the door and some guy wearing a sweater vest trying to save your soul.

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I thought I was committed to ABO, but if Santorum is the nominee, there’s nothing there that I want. His desire to control the individual is repugnant. If I thought maybe I was getting a true fiscal conservative in the deal, I might be able to hold my nose enough to vote for him, but that is a very iffy proposition given his big spending history. In a Obama/Santorum matchup, there is no “lesser of two evils”.

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

So all this time, traditional conservatives have supported the idea of government in the bedroom?

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

You’re a hack. You swallow all kinds of made-up crap about Santorum, “interpretting” whatever he says in the most negative light possible in the mind of a Christian-religion-hater, because the Left’s decades-long Progressive cancer has had its desired effect no you. You may not be a full-blown “useful idiot”, but you’re on your way.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Our economic problems stem from immorality.

Too many are unwilling to work. Sloth is a moral problem.

The Dems divide Americans with their class warfare games. How many liberal ideas have been implemented based on the idea of “fairness.” (progressive income tax for instance). At one time Americans just wanted equal opportunity. Today liberals have certain groups believing that means equal outcomes (egalitarianism). It’s all based on envy. Envy is a moral problem.

At one time in America people knew it was wrong to steal. We have legalized theft and we call it redistribution of wealth.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

OK, then. What is it that you think Rick Santorum is going to do to stem the tide of immorality ?

I’ll ignore the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution that give the federal government any more right to legislate morality than it does the right to mandate buying health insurance.

The really ironic thing is Santorum fans on the one hand want to say, “don’t worry, Santorum isn’t going to enact laws about contraception and homosexuality” (despite his continued protestations to the contrary), but then on the other hand, tell us again and again how he is right about the lack of morals destroying the country.

So which is it ? Is our immorality really destroying us, or is Rick saying what the non religious zealots in the audience want to hear ?

Seems pretty clear that not only will liberals argue that Santorum is a theocrat out to legislate private bedroom behavior, but they’ll also be right.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM

FYI, Ricky, the government didn’t grant anyone the right to contraception, either. And yet, you think people shouldn’t have that right.

Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM

What are you even saying? Your comment doesn’t make sense at all.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM

WRONG! The first amendment says you can’t establish a STATE CHURCH. If you look back over the history of America, you would be surprised at all the statements that presidents have made that are religious in nature.

Gladtobehere on February 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

That’s what I said. I never said the Founding Fathers weren’t religious or had no religious opinions.

Yes, we all know they were Christians. However, they did not establish Christinaity as the official religious doctrine of the country, or as a state church as you put it.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Separation of church and state was meant to limit the power of the state to interfere with the church, not for the church to stay out of public affairs. I personally think the Founders would be horrified at what has become of public morality, especially with Liberals, like President Obama, doing all they can to actively undermine Christianity using the power of government.

Note: I am pro-Newt, anti-Romney, and more or less neutral on Santorum.

Gladtobehere on February 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

do you think they would be horrified at Newt’s morality too?? oh, but that’s a matter of personal morality, right, excuse me if for a second I got obfuscated on the distinction between the two…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:55 PM

oh, excuse me I was blinded as for the nuance there…so, Newton, prominent Republican and former Speaker of the House, is just an ‘experienced’ Washington critter, a lobbyist extraordinaire and Freddie Mac historian, but somehow never been an ‘elite insider’….it makes a lot of sense :-)…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

NO, Newt orchestrated one of the most dramatic takeover of Republicans in the House, he worked with Reagan, and being the Speaker of House, I think it is fair to say he was an “insider”, duhhhhh!!! What a surprise, he fought and won with the Contract with America, which brought the establishment of Washington to their knees, you don’t win those battles on Wall Street, in a board room consulting, or being an “outsider”, you win those by hand to hand combat in the halls of and within the walls of Washington…you are quite naive, or at least faux naive to try to make your point.

He was the Speaker of the House, you didn’t know that?
I think you may be confused by the term “insider” as it defines a Washington insider, the Eastern Elite, the guys who hang around and kiss the rings of the elite press, and the elite wall streeters, and bend to the will of the liberals establishment…and yes there is a “nuance” there, I prefer the word discernment, that intellectually honest people can discern, and the desperate ones contort to make their case…you are one that the word discernment confuses.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Having to choose between three big government statists is making this primary depressing.

mythicknight on February 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM

In a theoretical sense, he says – the same thing – as most other candidates on constitutional / states rights issues — on a state’s right to regulate… private sexual behavior. Be frank, this is a major but disingenuous anti-Santorum issue.

This is key. He says the same thing about a state’s right to regulate homosexuality (and heterosexuality), but he says that HE does not favor such regulations. We are going to have to beat a dead horse in order to make this clear in this case.

anotherJoe on February 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Too bad he, and anyone else who would claim states have a right to legislate private sexual behaviors, is WRONG.

You want to argue about whether there is a “right to privacy” in the Bill of Rights, go ahead. But so long as the SCOTUS has ruled on that topic and the 14th amendment has long since applied the federal Bill of Rights upon the states, there is no “states rights” issue to debate here.

I know Santorum thinks Griswold was decided wrongly. Good for him. And if you agree with him, good for you. Means nothing. Roe V Wade is not ever going to be overturned. And if you think some kind of ban or legislation against anything short of abortion – like contraception or sodomy – is going to pass constitutional muster, you’re out of your mind.

If you think a good candidate is someone who is going to tilt at that windmill, you’re a fool.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

When government gives you rights, government can take away those rights. When government gives you rights, they can coerce you in doing things in exercising the rights that they gave you.”

Richard Santorum

Like the right to work?

Go pro-union Richard.

Gunlock Bill on February 10, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Too bad he, and anyone else who would claim states have a right to legislate private sexual behaviors, is WRONG. deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Better overturn all those laws on incest, polygamy, and (as you worded it) even pedophilia. Because you’ve just declared them unconstitutional.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM

So which is it ? Is our immorality really destroying us, or is Rick saying what the non religious zealots in the audience want to hear ?

Seems pretty clear that not only will liberals argue that Santorum is a theocrat out to legislate private bedroom behavior, but they’ll also be right.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Anyone who trots out the “oooh scaaaaary theocracy” line to describe someone like Santorum is clearly not much of a conservative, and is certainly not honest.

There’s no sign here that you’re even TRYING to be honest. It seemed like the “which is it” thing would come in the vein of “which is it — is our immorality really destroying us, or will Santorum NOT push tyrannical ‘bedroom’ laws”? Even THAT is a loaded question, but at least we can give a simple answer: BOTH, and it’s ridiculous that you think it’s one or the other! But no, you had to pose it with the foundation of “just saying what so-and-so wants to hear” (bad enough) and then insert your bigotry and hatred into the thing by spewing that crap about “religious zealots.”

You have Progressive cancer, my friend. It’s not as bad of a case as the Left’s, but its source is the same, and it’s just as deadly.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I feel pretty sure than Santorum is solidifying the not-Romney vote pretty effectively, at this point. If the base can succeed in vetoing Romney, I think folks that you can pretty comfortably say hello now to your new nominee.

Boomer_Sooner on February 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Indeed. And soon after you can pretty comfortably say hello to 4 more years of Obama. Wow. Won’t you all feel so superior then ?

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Indeed. And soon after you can pretty comfortably say hello to 4 more years of Obama. Wow. Won’t you all feel so superior then ?

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Better than Santorum, though, amiright??? /sarc

You’re not a conservative. Your disgust at nominating a conservative is noted, but inconsequential.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Santorum and Newt are the only ones running who helped roll back government a little bit with welfare reform, and he is the only one who was against the massive government bailouts.

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Right. Because only when he didn’t have a VOTE did he oppose government expansion. Any time he DID have a vote, he was fully in support of government expansion.

Oh. Except welfare reform. So there IS an exception to the rule.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:07 PM

He was the Speaker of the House, you didn’t know that?
I think you may be confused by the term “insider” as it defines a Washington insider, the Eastern Elite, the guys who hang around and kiss the rings of the elite press, and the elite wall streeters, and bend to the will of the liberals establishment…and yes there is a “nuance” there, I prefer the word discernment, that intellectually honest people can discern, and the desperate ones contort to make their case…you are one that the word discernment confuses.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

oh, so very thrilled to read more propaganda garbage on Newt’s ‘stellar’ record as a Speaker, before he was ousted by the ‘elite insiders’, I suppose…just because you invent definitions of non-existent entities and you get out of your way to craft distinctions where there are none, it doesn’t make it any more real or sustainable…and btw, what more kissing the ring of the wall street is there, than lobbying…when he was a paid consultant for the drug-industry’s lobby group, Newt worked hard to persuade rep congressmen to vote for the Medicare drug subsidy that the industry favored…Three former rep congressional staffers recounted how he was calling around Capitol Hill and visiting rep congressmen in 2003 in an effort to convince conservatives to support said bill. No wonder that the cons on capitol hill were wary about expanding a Lyndon Johnson-created entitlement that had historically blown way past official budget estimates. Drug makers, on the other hand, were positively giddy about securing a new pipeline of government cash to pad their already breathtaking profit margins. so, how do you call that ‘intervention’ on Newt’s part? equidistance I suppose, and non-insider behavior :-)…I thought so…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Say’s Mitt…now here is a question, if he was looking to consult for a company, would he choose someone to run that company that “never worked a day in business”?

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

aren’t you showing your smarts now…you forgot when you and the ever angry TP were so vocal about not wanting the Washington critters to run the country…now Washington ‘experience’ is in!…consistency…in the same tradition like running on the bandwagon of three crackpot candidates, one whackier than his predecessor…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

ABRtards are like that.

Gunlock Bill on February 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

do you think they would be horrified at Newt’s morality too?? oh, but that’s a matter of personal morality, right, excuse me if for a second I got obfuscated on the distinction between the two…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Actually, YES.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when we have to make some compromises to get an acceptable candidate. I find Romney to be completely dishonest about all his political positions. Between Newt and Santorum, Newt has in the past been willing to fight for conservative causes. Santorum has been more of a follower than a leader, except for a few social causes. I’m well aware of all Newt’s problems, which are considerable. I still think he’s got the best chance of making some changes that would benefit the country. We have a weak Republican field, and we have to make the best with what we’ve got.

Gladtobehere on February 10, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Right. Because only when he didn’t have a VOTE did he oppose government expansion.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Gingrich didn’t have a vote either and he supported it.
Romney didn’t have a vote and he supported it.
A great number of Republicans supported it.

Santorum didn’t.

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Libertarians and libertines are, once again, two different things, just as libertarians and anarchists are. It’s a mistake commonly made by small-minded people.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Hello…that’s exactly what I argued. I said that many of the more vocal ‘libertarians’ this round come across as greedy libertines and that those are the ones Santorum is talking about in your oft posted quote. What are you missing here? And attacking people as small-minded… You aren’t as smart as you think you are.

Secondly, what do you call a group of people who apparently only care about money…

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

So being in favor of lower taxes and less regulation now means a person only cares about money. Tell me, how cold are those tents down on Wall Street?
MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Ah, so now I’m an occupier because I don’t support libertines. Great… I used to respect your posts, not that it matters… I really find it hard to believe you are that dense about what Santorum was referencing. There is clearly a subset of the Tea Party that are all about money and legalizing their pet immorality. They are greedy libertines. Pointing them out and opposing them does not make one a theocrat statist, but you go on and attack conservatism. I’ll keep supporting the one who most closely adheres to the founding documents, ie…looking to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…

What a bunch of theocrat statists we had founding this country!!! Glad we have the ‘libertarians’ spitting in the face of Divine Providence!! /

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Indeed. And soon after you can pretty comfortably say hello to 4 more years of Obama. Wow. Won’t you all feel so superior then ?

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:06 PM

of course they will, because that means that they won on ‘principles’ and ‘morality’…plus wait to hear the amount and extent of the rationalizations of the loss, it might literally blow your mind…the mental gymnastics they are capable of in rationalizing their switching support from one candidate to another is unparalleled, am sure they will come up with an unique explanation as for why Santorum would have lost to Obama in a landslide…I know ehat Dr Tesla would say: ‘it’s the gay, stupid’ :-)…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Yeah, nothing captures the “founding principles” of America like a big spending cryptofascist nutjob who believes in a big and scary sky god.

lulz

Aquateen Hungerforce on February 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

This is indicative of a society in decline.

Goodbye America, you had your run. May you wallow in your cultural and moral rot.

tom daschle concerned on February 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Look, I get it. We all get it. Certainly this country would be better off if the vast majority were God fearing Christians. I’m not one of them, but I do get that the more moral the people, the better fit this Constitution has.

But Rick Santorum is not going to make the people of this country more religious or more moral. He’s just not. So I get that people who don’t respect your religion give you fits, but you are effectively arguing against a strawman here. Rick Santorum can be as religious as he wants. It isn’t going to do this country one bit of good.

George W. Bush was a very religious man. Did that help him ? Did he manage to make us a more moral or religious people ? No, he did not. The religious devotion of a candidate should honestly not even be a factor IMO. I’d prefer a moral upstanding individual that can be trusted, but beyond that, it doesn’t matter to me and frankly, I don’t think it should. This country should not be looking to its President for its moral compass.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Well said.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

George W. Bush was a very religious man. Did that help him ? Did he manage to make us a more moral or religious people ? No, he did not. The religious devotion of a candidate should honestly not even be a factor IMO. I’d prefer a moral upstanding individual that can be trusted, but beyond that, it doesn’t matter to me and frankly, I don’t think it should. This country should not be looking to its President for its moral compass.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

in all honesty, W kept his religion out of politics and he didn’t try to tell anybody what to do in their bedrooms. everything else you wrote there, I agree entirely.

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 4:21 PM

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

In other words, “character doesn’t matter.” Amazing just how much more “enlightened” this generation is compared to the Founders, with their silly ideas about how the Republic is doomed to utter failure if the people aren’t moral.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You’re a hack. You swallow all kinds of made-up crap about Santorum, “interpretting” whatever he says in the most negative light possible in the mind of a Christian-religion-hater, because the Left’s decades-long Progressive cancer has had its desired effect no you. You may not be a full-blown “useful idiot”, but you’re on your way.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Oh Great Conservator Of What Is Hackery and Conservatism, what “made-up crap” have I swallowed? Please do tell. And please tell me how you have determined that I am a “Christian-religion-hater”. Is Christianity now equivalent to government in the bedroom? Really?

Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 4:21 PM

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

nope not worshiping at any alter …

a blind squirrel sometimes finds a acorn…

conservative tarheel on February 10, 2012 at 4:22 PM

There is clearly a subset of the Tea Party that are all about money . . .

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I thought that the Tea in Tea Party stood for “Taxed Enough Already.”

If so, then yes, fiscal issues are the core of the original Tea Party movement, not social, moral, etc issues.

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 4:22 PM

You have Progressive cancer, my friend. It’s not as bad of a case as the Left’s, but its source is the same, and it’s just as deadly.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Yeah, you really pegged me there. I wonder if whatever party you people end up in will have less than the 20% that liberals have. Then you can re-nominate Santorum for that little niche party again in 2016.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:22 PM

In other words, “character doesn’t matter.” Amazing just how much more “enlightened” this generation is compared to the Founders, with their silly ideas about how the Republic is doomed to utter failure if the people aren’t moral.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:21 PM

well, it didn’t matter when Newt was the candidate and flavour du jour, no? weren’t his supporters trying to rationalize his lack of character and morality as a little human imperfection that should be overlooked because of his stupendous debate skills…oh, sorry, I know Newt is out, and Santorum in, but I thought I’d just mention it…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 4:24 PM

nope not worshiping at any alter …

a blind squirrel sometimes finds a acorn…

conservative tarheel on February 10, 2012 at 4:22 PM

ok, I give you that…the mental image of the squirrel and the acorn made my day…besides it shows that you have a great sense of humor :-)…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Oh, and just in case anybody is confused, I don’t care if Santorum will or will not try and pass legislation about private bedroom behavior. The fact that he has given serious thought to the idea is beyond the pale in my opinion.

The whole “I’m ok with homosexuality so long as they don’t have that icky butt sex” claim is such a crock.

The bottom line here, however, is that whoever the nominee turns out to be – Newt, Romney, or Santorum – if they lose, the “Republican Party” is done, over, kaput.

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 4:24 PM

According to who, exactly? Newt supporters? Ha! Newt is a Progressive. Any conservative who would vote for him in the primary is ignorant of the man’s political positions, let alone his extreme moral failings.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I dont remember Jesus signing the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Right Act.. and on. Just exactly when did God give us rights again? So next time you people have to go before a judge will pull out your bible

Isserley on February 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Although this point seems to need further restatement every five minutes or so, here it is again: according to the Declaration of Independence, the whole of humanity (not just Americans) is ‘…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…’

Jefferson wasn’t referring to the Christian God, although he did refer to ‘Nature’s God’ elsewhere in the text. Many of the Founders, Jefferson and Washington specifically, were Deists, children of the Enlightenment. They believed in Divine Providence, a Creator. Santorum was only reinforcing a point made by the Founders: if rights are derived from men, then those rights can be taken away by governmental fiat or decree. If endowed by God, Nature’s God, Their Creator, Divine Providence, et al, then these rights can never lawfully be taken away.

So what is it about this you have trouble understanding?

troyriser_gopftw on February 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Your whole argument relies on the falsehood that atheists cannot be moral, or make moral judgements. You yourself identified as an atheist – are you a savage murderer who is held back solely by the god you don’t believe in? I don’t think so.

Accept lies if you wish, but I will do no such thing.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:28 PM

deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Individual states barring the oxymoron known as “gay marriage” =/= banning the bedroom behavior you’re referring to.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Let’s be clear here.

We’ve got three choices.

Romney is a liberal. He will implement the same types of policies as Obama…but competently.

Newt? A wildcard. Would we get the guy from ’94 or the guy from Pelosi’s couch? Some upside but a lot of risk.

Santorum – same successes as Newt, got along too well with the Bush agenda after ’00…but was still on the right side of most of the big issues – AGW, SS Reform, Amnesty, WoT, etc.

So any of them are a risk, but Santorum is clearly the best bet. And at the worst, if he merely tries to pull us back to 2007, isn’t that still ok…

18-1 on February 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:28 PM

It relied on no such thing. No, it relied on LOGIC – the fact that a right isn’t much of a “right” if it’s NOT inalienable, and it’s not inalienable if the government can “GIVE” it to you (for what they can give, they can take away). And then it used history as a backdrop to drive the point home.

CanofSand on February 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I know this is going to be hard for you to accept, but you have no right to do whatever/whoever you want in the bedroom (or anywhere else for that matter). If that were so, then laws against incest and polygamy would be in violation of your inherent rights as a human.

Pattosensei on February 10, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Incest is largely illegal because of the high risk of genetic problems in their offspring, and even the laws regarding that have been challenged by people like Eugene Volokh. Polygamy is largely illegal because of the known effects that occur when a serious imbalance between eligible males and females exists. If you outlaw something, you better have a damn good reason, and “god says it’s bad” doesn’t cut it, pal. You and Santorum need to learn that, if you give a damn about the Constitution that keeps this country from falling into chaos.

MadisonConservative on February 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Accept lies if you wish, but I will do no such thing.

ernesto on February 10, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Do you really have to call what sharrukin believes in “lies” to make a point on atheist morality?

cmsciulli on February 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4