Tema: Opinions on Rick Santorum

Here is the family tree of American neoconservatism:



The Neocons: An Illustrated Progression

To me, Santorum is not only a neocon but also another example of the failed Moral Majority that was founded and made famous by the late Jerry Fallwell. I don't care that he's Catholic, Catholicism is more palatable to me than Mormonism, but I do slightly care that he's just a rather transparent shill for the religiopolitical right in the U.S. The leadership of the Republican Party is pretty much little different than the leadership of the Democratic Party (i.e. American arm of international communism) as both are obsessed with the status-quo of liberal democracy (the fruit of the French Revolution).

The best thing that any politician could do to make the U.S. a more godly place would be to respect the particular ideas of the Founders, which was the idea that religious freedom exists so that the different denominations of Christianity can be practiced side-by-side without conflict, i.e. at the time of the country's founding you could, for example, find Quakers in Pennsylvania, Methodists in New York, Catholics (frequently Portuguese) in Massachuests, Puritans in Rhode Island, etc. The "wall" of separation that Jefferson mentioned, i.e. the separation of church and state, existed to prevent the favoring of one denomination over another in, I believe, the federal government.

Interesting topic!

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

The leadership of the Republican Party is pretty much little different than the leadership of the Democratic Party (i.e. American arm of international communism) as both are obsessed with the status-quo of liberal democracy (the fruit of the French Revolution).

Since you're not a monarchist or traditionalist, what other system of government do you stand for?


I may be naive, but I think Santorum is a sincere Catholic. His neo-con ultra-capitalist "tea-party" statements are a strategy to win in the Republican primaries. He's a grandson of an Italian coal miner and is proud of that. As a friend from Pennsylvania has told me, he appeals to Catholics, the "Rust Belt" States and the so called Reagan democrats. He supports manufacturers and the masonic establishment of the Republican Party doesn't like him.

Of course he's not perfect, but he strongly opposes abortion and stands for a cultural fight against promiscuity, contraceptives, secularism... That makes him a milion times better than most electable politicians in Europe.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

Since you're not a monarchist or traditionalist, what other system of government do you stand for?


I may be naive, but I think Santorum is a sincere Catholic. His neo-con ultra-capitalist "tea-party" statements are a strategy to win in the Republican primaries. He's a grandson of an italian coal miner and is proud of that. As one friend from Pennsylvania has told me, he appeals to Catholics, the "Rust Belt" States and the so called Reagan democrats. He supports manufacturers and the masonic establishment of the Republican Party doesn't like him.

Of course he's not perfect, but he stronly oposes abortion and stands for a cultural fight against promiscuity, contraceptives, secularism... That makes him a milion times better than most electable politicians in Europe.

In its classical, probably pre-Jacksonian sense.

Republicanism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critics of the U.S. call it a liberal democracy, which is true now, but the non-American critics of the U.S. largely seem unable to distinguish between how we (used to) conceive of democracy and republicanism. Actual people in the U.S. who espouse this political ideology in its classic sense seem to be as rare as, say, Carlists are in Spain. American republicanism was a short-lived idea before it was infected by the democratic (i.e. Marxist) ideals in, say, the middle and latter parts of the 19th century. To me, commies love the word "democracy" for a reason.

Santorum, I don't doubt his faith but I'm extremely wary of politicians of either of the two major political parties. Mistrust politicians and government is no longer one of the virtues that is too overly stressed in my country.

Santorum seems to be a good man but that doesn't mean he'd be a good President, but this is just my own opinion of him.

Santorum can also use his religious beliefs only so far before he, say, upsets civil libertarians or non-Catholics (there're some Christian denominations in the U.S. who still don't like the Church for some reason or another). The Catholic voting bloc in the U.S. is large indeed but they all mostly vote Democrat (the Kennedys, Irish Catholics, were all big-time Democrats). These are your mainstream Catholics, the majority, and not the Catholic traditionalists who probably vote Republican or belong to some sort of state conservative party. Santorum has done well among Christian conservatives (mostly Protestant) and even among some Orthodox Jewish groups- vastly better than that posterboy of corruption Gingrich.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

In its classical, probably pre-Jacksonian sense.
Republicanism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really don't see a big difference between a liberal Party-System Democracy (not like the Swiss model) and your Constitutional Republic model. Both systems are based on a human Constitution that can be ammended or interpreted freely. Your Constitution gives queers the "right" to "marry" and mothers the "right" to kill their children. Why does your Constitution give such immoral rights to the citizens? Because it doesn't say otherwise. A political system founded not on a human Constitution but on Natural Law would never grant its subjects such immoral "rights".

Iniciado por Rodrigo

I really don't see a big difference between a liberal Party-System Democracy (not like the Swiss model) and your Constitutional Republic model. Both systems are based on a human Constitution that can be ammended or interpreted freely. Your Constitution gives queers the "right" to "marry" and mothers the "right" to kill their children. Why does your Constitution give such immoral rights to the citizens? Because it doesn't say otherwise. A political system founded not on a human Constitution but on Natural Law would never grant its subjects such immoral "rights".

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

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

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

Yes, but it does not define what morality and religiousity are. The only thing your Constitution does regarding religion is to grant all false religions and doctrines the right to spread their errors and lies. Your Constitution does not admit the truth of any Church doctrines, not even the truth of the Bible. It only acknowledges the "truth" of people's will.

Since many of the so called Christian (Protestant) mainstream Churches today say it's ok and perfectly moral for mothers to kill their children and for queers to marry or adopt children, how can you prove that your protestant or deistic masonic founding fathers didn't mean that kind of distorted and false concept of morality and religiousity?

Iniciado por Rodrigo

Yes, but it does not define what morality and religiousity are. The only thing your Constitution does regarding religion is to grant all false religions and doctrines the right to spread their errors and lies. Your Constitution does not admit the truth of any Church doctrines, not even the truth of the Bible. It only acknowledges the "truth" of people's will.

The emergence of the U.S. is a part of the overall story of English history and, given that most of the Founders were of Protestant origin, you're not going to find very much in the way of existential specificity in the Constitution. The Constitution is a political document and not a religious one, but a political document that, at the time, presupposed that the people of the country were of a religious nature.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

A terrifying idea, this comment of Reagan's, but one that exists at the heart of the U.S. and to truly understand this you'd have to understand the history of the English (which does include the early U.S.): Anglo-Saxon tribal law, Rummymede, where King John was forced to acknowledge the rights of freemen, the law of the land, and so on in the Magna Carta; the codification of common law by King Alfred in his Domboc (which was influenced by the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament); the jurisprudence of the Anglo-Norman jurists, and so on up till the Age of Reason and men like John Locke and William Blackstone.

Since many of the so called Christian (Protestant) mainstream Churches today say it's ok and perfectly moral for mothers to kill their children and for queers to marry or adopt children, how can you prove that your protestant or deistic masonic founding fathers didn't mean that kind of distorted and false concept of morality and religiousity?

Purely immaterial as abortion, so-called gay marriage, and other unsavory social practices exist in many western countries. To offer a counter, gays can "marry" in Spain as of 2005 due to a ruling passed by the Cortes Generales whereas no such practice exists at the national level at the U.S. The socially conservative clergy and laity adamantly opposed this ruling in Spain, much as has happened in the U.S. wherever this problem has arisen.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has largely remain disinterested in this problem, leaving it to the states to handle. Gay "marriage" has been consistently struck down by the voters, i.e. California Prop 8 (California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but upheld by activist (progressive) judges. The will of the majority of voters is that gays cannot marry and that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is consistent with biblical religion, natural law, common sense, or whichever term you prefer.

There is no State Religion in the U.S. and there was never going to be a State Religion here. What sort of State Religion would you have us create, the sort of Progressive Christianity that emerged in Nazi Germany, when the popular religion was simply used as an arm of state terror and for indoctrinating the German citizens into the ideals of national socialism?

This is the potential slippery slope that politicians like Santorum walk upon when they begin to inject religious commentary into political speeches. Now, I will comment no more except on Mr. Santorum; the thread is going a bit off-topic.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

Purely immaterial as abortion, so-called gay marriage, and other unsavory social practices exist in many western countries. To offer a counter, gays can "marry" in Spain as of 2005 due to a ruling passed by the Cortes Generales whereas no such practice exists at the national level at the U.S. The socially conservative clergy and laity adamantly opposed this ruling in Spain, much as has happened in the U.S. wherever this problem has arisen.

I never said that our current Constitution or our political system is better than yours, so what's the point? This is not a "Spain is better than anyone else" debate. In fact, I believe that you have better politicians than we do (such as Rick Santorum) and that there's more faith and catholic activism there than it is here. I can even say that I'm ashamed of most of my countrymen's values and political attitudes. However, your Supreme Court does recognize a constitutional right of mothers to kill their sons and daughters, and making it a State issue wouldn't be much better or less immoral.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

here is no State Religion in the U.S. and there was never going to be a State Religion here. What sort of State Religion would you have us create, the sort of Progressive Christianity that emerged in Nazi Germany, when the popular religion was simply used as an arm of state terror and for indoctrinating the German citizens into the ideals of national socialism?

A traditional Catholic believes in what former Popes said, and they always said that Catholicism should be the State Religion. This has nothing to do with Nazi Germany. In fact, nazism, fascism, liberalism, republicanism, nationalism, communism, democracy have all a common origin, i.e. the American and French revolutions which ended up with the social order of the Christendom.

But you're right, this is off-topic, let's focus on Rick. Are you going to vote for someone else or you'll just not vote?

Rick Santorum is just another example of a so-called Catholic working for the system. He creates a campaign based on stands which are exactly the opposite of what he had been doing in all the years he was a politician before, and while he distracts the attention with some easy and emotional topics (abortion, gay marriage, etc), he completely and openly endorses the crazy neocon political agenda, which is absolutely unacceptable by a Catholic.

Ron Paul is, as a whole, a lot more acceptable by a Catholic than Santorum.

Iniciado por Donoso

Ron Paul is, as a whole, a lot more acceptable by a Catholic than Santorum.

I don't agree with that. Ron Paul believes that abortion should be dealt with at a State level whereas Santorum would ban it. Paul also believes that the morning after pill is just like any other contraceptive, thus he does not believe that life begins at conception. Paul is a libertarian. Apart from being the only one that is not pro-zionist, which is good, he has nothing to do with catholicism. Libertarianism is the most anticatholic idea ever.

Santorum stands for a cultural fight for the good principles, Paul stands for freedom above anything else.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

But you're right, this is off-topic, let's focus on Rick. Are you going to vote for someone else or you'll just not vote?

The points I made were just for comparative purposes and nothing more. Anyways, who am I going to vote for? I'm not really convinced by the moralistic platitudes of Santorum who, as Donoso points out, is just a career politician who is using his Catholicism, in part, to gain progress in the Republican nomination process. I think I'll pass on him. Ron Paul has appealed to me for years, and I did support him in 2008, but he's more or less never going to go all the way to the White House. There's also the fact that Paul tends to attract some unsavory followers: conspiracy theorists, neo-nazis, etc. This has turned me off a bit.

For a Catholic politician that I would consider voting for I'd like to mention Alan Keyes, who broke with the Republicans a while ago.

Alan Keyes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and I'm not making you an american Milesian, of course. Even if I could...)

As our Castillian speaking brethren say "somos todos Americanos" or "we are all Americas" from the tip of Alaska all the way to Straights of Magellan ! Also it has been said that the Iberian peninsula is a piece of the Americas in Europe. The American continent and Hispania share the sames hopes, dreams and there inhabitants have the same blood running through their veins. Not for one minute did I feel like a foreigner when I visited Portugal and Spain.


I'm am a Brazilian-American who is very saddened by the political situations of both my native Brazil and my adoptive country the United States. Paraphrasing what Annuit said; Mr. Santorum would make a good neighbor but a lousy president because he has bought into the lies of the neocon war party agenda. There is nothing pro-life about killing innocent civilians, which inevitably happens during these avaricious wars. There is nothing pro-life about sending our brave soldiers to there deaths or spending the rest of there lives in paralysis for the protection of Israel and controlling other nations' natural resources. There is nothing pro-life about fiscally bankrupting our country while trying to finance these wars through quantitative easing (money printing) and borrowing more than we can ever pay back from places like China. Those involved in the military industrial complex are enriched at the expense of our soldiers, innocent civilians and the American taxpayers for generations to come. In the end the Iraqi people, especially the ancient Chaldean Catholic minority were better off under Saddam then they are now.

don't agree with that. Ron Paul believes that abortion should be dealt with at a State level whereas Santorum would ban it.

There isn't that much a president can really do about this issue except nominate pro life judges to the supreme court and support pro life bills from Congress which Ron Paul would clearly do. The way the US system works is for decisions like abortion to be decided on a state to state basis and not at the federal level. That is the quickest way that Roe vs Wade can be overturned. The truth is that many Republicans really don't even care about the mothers, fathers and children devastated by abortion. To them its only a political football. As long as abortion is legal it will continue as a polarizing issue and the republicans can use it to keep on getting elected. From a realpolitik standpoint it would seem the Republicans would never want it made illegal so they continue using it in there political platform. On the good side Santorum or even Gingrich are both significantly better than Obama and Willard Mitt Romney who was once described as the worlds largest weather vane, saying and doing whatever it takes to get elected. I will either write in Ron Paul or vote for a third party candidate and keep my conscience clean. Also I don't live in a battle ground state so my vote is basically worthless anyways.

Iniciado por Milesian

There isn't that much a president can really do about this issue except nominate pro life judges to the supreme court and support pro life bills from Congress which Ron Paul would clearly do.

Would Paul support a bill from the Congress defining the beginning of life at conception (which would overturn Roe v. Wade)? Let me doubt it. Such an act would make illegal stem cell research, and things like in vitro fertilization and the morning after pill, which again, Paul supports.

Iniciado por Milesian

The way the US system works is for decisions like abortion to be decided on a state to state basis and not at the federal level.

That's not true, abortion is murder and the US constitution says it protects life, so it should be illegal at the federal level. The problem is that your Constitution (as all the other liberal Constitutions) is interpreted freely by politicians and judges.

If you see the 'system' as the US foreign policy. Then yes, Ron Paul is fighting the system. If you see the 'system' as something more, then they're all working for the system. But there's one guy that says that abortion from the moment of conception is murder and should be illegal.

Iniciado por Rodrigo

That's not true, abortion is murder and the US constitution says it protects life, so it should be illegal at the federal level. The problem is that your Constitution (as all the other liberal Constitutions) is interpreted freely by politicians and judges.

This is not so in all cases; progressivist politicians and judges see the Constitution as a "living" document that can be interpreted at-will and as they see fit. Others are like Ron Paul and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and are strict interpreters of the Constitution as a set of largely inflexible laws that can't be changed. The usual way to change or amend the Constitution in the U.S. is to do it in Congress. It requires both Houses of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) to have a successful supermajority vote, successful ratification by the majority of the state governments of the 50 states, etc. to amend the Constitution.

Why do you think appointing activist judges who can subvert the the Constitution (or state constitutions, etc.) via the judiciary is a very common progressive trick here? It's simply more expedient to have some verminous judge simply re-interpret the law at the local, state, or federal level then to have to worry about the nasty business of amending constitutions (which is a pain-in-the-butt process even at the local level). The judiciary in the U.S. has no powers of making law but this is done in a de-facto manner when, say, a progressive judge chooses to interpret a specific law in a clever or subversive manner- no new law has been passed by the legislature, no constitutional amendments have been made by the legislature, but the end result is if a new law had been passed or a constitutional amendment had been decided. How? Via the process of judicial precedent. Say, a corrupt judge interprets a law, etc. in a specific manner in a given case- until this judge's interpretation is overturned or that judge being removed from the bench for corruption (which has happened and in which cases all of the rulings, etc. are null and void), usually by an appellate court, it has the force of law. You can see why Ron Paul and Justice Scalia are strict in how they interpret law and the Constitution then, no?

Anyways, you might like Scalia, he's an archconservative traditional Catholic:

Antonin Scalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe we ought to open another thread for this non-Santorum commentaria?

This clearly lays out the difference in approach between Santorum and the Texan obstetrician.



Also I just saw this video for the first time which Paul where he lays out his take on the abortion issue!
http://rpflix.com/6068

Milesian,

Keep it in mind that Paul has never ran a campaign on a platform of religious values unlike, say, Mike Huckabee. As has been pointed out in the thread: finding a politicial candidate or a politician who possesses genuine religious values that haven't been compromised by progressivist values is rather uncommon.

As an aside, have you heard of Marco Rubio? He's another favorite Catholic politician in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio