Friday, April 10, 2015

Rick Santorum Visits Iowa, Is He Going To Run in 2016?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


It looks as if Rick (Frothy) Santorum is seriously considering tossing his hat in the republican circus ring for the 2016 republican presidential nomination. As one would expect Mr. Santorum, in a recent appearance in Iowa, focused on his conservative religious credentials and strength to stand up in support of conservative religious values and lead the social conservative fight. Presumably this includes an anti gay and lesbian agenda, especially with respect to marriage.

While Santorum was critical of theocracies he seems to miss the the point that RFRA's in states mentioned are in all reality the attempt to legislate law based on theocratic beliefs. Law that would allow for discrimination against certain communities. In other words institutionalized bigotry and discrimination.

Santorum, like most religious and social conservatives simply want to impose their brand of "religious freedom" upon the rest of American society.

“I know you all as state legislators have seen what happened in Indiana and Arkansas. What happened there was the media creating a firestorm and leaders didn’t lead. I have been through that firestorm. I can go back 13 years when I was in the United States Senate and stood up and said if the Supreme Court decides a case this way (decided Federal RFRA law could not be applied broadly to states) then all of these bad things are going to start happening and I said we would have same-sex marriage in 10 years. I was wrong – it was five,”

“I was put through a national wringer like no one had been put through and have been put through it over and over again because I am not going to back down from what I believe is the right course for our country. And you learn that the media can be brutal. It can be intimidating. It can be overwhelming, and you can look folks and say, ‘That is a stand-up person, they are going to stand-up tall. They are not going to back down when it gets tough.’ Then you realize, ‘Wow, that is not what I thought was going to happen.’ I share this with you because there is nothing… and this is what Walt (Rogers) was talking about… there is nothing that substitutes for experience, and particularly experience being in the middle of a vortex of a firestorm when your conservative principles and ideas are under the most intense scrutiny. And you’re being called everything you can possibly imagine and they’re trying to intimidate you from backing away from your position,” Santorum said this as an indirect criticism of Governors Mike Pence (R-IN) and Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), who backtracked from their original support of their state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Acts as originally written.

“That is when you find out if the person has what is necessary to stand up and lead through a difficult time and not back down, not run for the hills, not bail out, but actually stand-up in a positive and hopefully winsome way and make the arguments. I always say when it comes to religious liberty now or the marriage issue or a whole bunch of other things we are losing these arguments simply because we are not making them. We’re not making them because we are intimidated from making them. That’s just a… if that continues then life as we know it, particularly the family, is going to be on a very, very bad track in the world,”



Find the complete story BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

12 comments:

  1. Santorum is another member of the "No Evolution on Previous Views" Club. In their view, you cannot change from a previously held view, because it evidences squishyness. You also cannot disavow a prior stance, because those views are, essentially, Gospel.

    And yet, they do, without realization.

    Let's take homosexuality. People like Santorum support laws that allow people to discriminate against gays if people are doing do from a sincere, evidenced faith position. They believe they cannot participate in a behavior, like making a cake, for a gay couple, because to do so, would show support for a sinful lifestyle.

    However, I would wonder, is it okay to deny a person a cake for a marriage after a divorce? That is decried in the bible? How about a baby shower cake for an unwed mother? What about for a wedding for two people who have been "living in sin" for years?

    Would not all of those situations also qualify as supporting the sinful, non biblical behaviors of people? Is Santorum for allowing the cake maker to discriminate against these folks as well, or just gay folks?

    This is the problem for many of my Christian brethren... literally, they are okay with certain behaviors that in the not too distant past were viewed just as sinful as homosexuality is by some today. But today, they are okay with those behaviors, and people... just not gays.

    You've gotta ask why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I stopped asking why Dave, you get no answers that make rational sense. I've often though these folks are threatened by and therefore fear their latent homosexual tendencies; so this all becomes a safe defense mechanism and barrier for them. But I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist so of course this is merely conjecture on my part.

      Delete
  2. I see Rev Rick got a lot of applause at the NRA Convention. So, like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal and Donald Trump, who also worshiped at the feet of Wayne Lapierre, I am erasing them from my list of considered candidates:
    if they lack the backbone to confront the lucrative gun lobby, they lack, IMO the backbone to confront
    ISIL, Boko Haram and the rest of the 'free to carry' international thug associations. I guess that leaves
    Rand Paul, but he is not at all like his dad. Guess that leaves Huntsman?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt Huntsman is interested. Too bad because I would support the man during a campaign and vote for him if he were nominated.

      I can't consider voting for Hillary because a) I do not trust her, and b) she has way too much baggage IMO. That and I surely do not want to hear how Bill is again running things, albeit from behind the curtains. A claim the republicans would likely to repeat many times.

      Delete
    2. Gee, RN, you could end up a Huckabee guy! :)

      Delete
    3. Oh NO! Running for the hills... :-)

      Delete
  3. We did pretty well as a country last time Bill was in charge of things. Afraid that he would balance the budget again...something others only talk about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He never did, Jerry. If you count the entire budget, he ran deficits all the way out. But the deficit was, however, much lower than it had been for a long time. And since.

      Delete
    2. Actually, if you look at just the budget, he did balance it. However, because of off-budget expenditures, the debt increased.

      Delete
  4. Truth is Jerry the responsible republican congress had much to do with that singular event.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...a situation we most likely would have with a Clinton presidency.

      Delete
    2. ...well, the republican part anyway. I am not so sure about the responsible part.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.