Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:34:27 AM
Santorum: Obama ‘trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian values of America’
People wait in line to attend a campaign rally at the Sabbar Shrine Center for Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012, in Tucson, Arizona.
(AP Photo/Eric Gay)
By Felicia Sonmez
Posted at 05:51 PM ET, 02/22/2012
TUCSON, Ariz. – Rick Santorum on Wednesday showed no signs of backing down from his provocative statements about President Obama and religion [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-its-the-authenticity-stupid/2012/02/22/gIQAto8XTR_blog.html ], accusing the president of working to undermine the country’s “Judeo-Christian values” through his implementation of health-care reform and other policies.
“Essentially, we are going to have to hold together on some set of moral codes and principles,” Santorum said at the Sabbar Shrine in downtown Tucson, speaking before an enthusiastic tea party crowd of about 500 people ahead of an evening CNN debate.
“And we’re seeing very evidently what the president’s moral codes and principles are about. We see a president who is systematically trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian values of America. We saw it with Obamacare and the implementation of Obamacare, where his values are going to be imposed on a church’s values.”
The criticism of the Obama administration’s policy on religious-affiliated institutions and contraception is not a new one on the GOP presidential trail – Santorum, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House speaker Newt Gingrich alike have struck the theme at campaign events over the past month.
But Santorum’s rhetoric Wednesday was more explosive than that of his rivals, a move that suggests the former senator is not planning on retreating any time soon from his habit of speaking provocatively about religious issues on the stump.
Toward the end of his wide-ranging, hour-long remarks, Santorum – whose forehead was dusted lightly with ashes in observance of Ash Wednesday [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/faith-could-be-on-display--literally--at-ash-wednesday-cnn-debate/2012/02/20/gIQAOhg5OR_blog.html ] — issued a ringing defense of his focus on religion, noting that “this is what I know gets everybody in the secular left just bonkers about my campaign; they just go crazy.”
“Keep it going, Rick,” a woman in the crowd said.
Santorum argued that “people who have faith actually are more respectful of folks who have different faith” – a line that was met with loud applause from the mostly older crowd of Tucson tea party supporters.
“It’s the statists who are intolerant,” Santorum said. “They’re the ones who want to impose their values on everybody else.”
The remarks come as polls show Santorum is pulling into a competitive race [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-wins-straw-poll-in-arizonas-largest-county/2012/02/21/gIQADxiuRR_blog.html ] against Romney in next Tuesday’s Michigan and Arizona primaries, the two big races before Super Tuesday on March 6. A loss by Romney in either – or both – states would be viewed as a major blow to his campaign, particularly in Michigan, Romney’s childhood home state.
“You’re going to have a huge impact,” Santorum told the crowd. “Everybody’s focused in on Super Tuesday. Well, there are a lot of states up on Super Tuesday. But more than anything else, what happens in Michigan and Arizona next week is going to have the biggest impact on Super Tuesday and this election than any two states.”
He criticized Romney several times by name, arguing that his newly-unveiled tax plan [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-obama-release-dueling-tax-overhaul-proposals/2012/02/22/gIQAKOLrTR_story.html ] amounts to “lowering the tax rates to, well, the tax rate I proposed.”
“Welcome to the party, governor,” Santorum said to applause.
In a jab at Romney’s record, Santorum urged voters to choose the candidate who is authentic and believable, not one who is a “well-oiled weathervane” and a “Johnny-Come-Lately to the conservative cause.”
“Is it the guy reading from the teleprompter, or the guy out here on a high-wire line telling you what’s in his heart and what’s in his gut?” Santorum said of the choice facing voters – a line in keeping with his campaign’s newly-ramped-up emphasis on the notion that Santorum is the most authentic candidate in the race [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-its-the-authenticity-stupid/2012/02/22/gIQAto8XTR_blog.html ].
In an e-mailed response, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said: “It’s no surprise that Senator Santorum would try to associate himself with Governor Romney’s conservative, pro-growth plan to cut taxes and grow the economy. But there are crucial differences. First, Governor Romney’s plan will not explode the deficit in the way that Senator Santorum’s will. Second, Senator Santorum takes the exact same approach to tax policy as Barack Obama — he wants government to pick winners and losers. And finally, Mitt Romney has the leadership experience necessary to actually get his pro-growth plan passed into law.”
Santorum was introduced at the tea party event by Jon Justice, a popular conservative radio host, who asked the crowd how many of them had made up their minds about who to support next Tuesday. About half of those in the hall raised their hands.
As he spoke, Santorum – who made a point of noting at the event’s outset, “I don’t do tea party events without taking questions” – displayed an easy rapport with the crowd, joking and at times encouraging audience participation.
“The president yesterday, his people came out and said the reason they didn’t build the Keystone pipeline? It was the Republicans’ fault!” he told the crowd at one point.
“Li-ar!” one woman yelled out in a sing-song voice.
“He lies!” a man said as the crowd laughed.
“I mean, how do you – how do you do that?” Santorum said as the crowd continued laughing. “I mean, how stupid does he think you are? That he can go out and blame everybody for everything bad, except...” He paused.
“Himself,” the crowd responded in unison.
“Is that leadership?” Santorum asked the crowd.
“No!” the audience boomed.
“It’s arrogance,” a woman said.
© 2012 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-obama-trying-to-crush-the-traditional-judeo-christian-values-of-america/2012/02/22/gIQAUZdzTR_blog.html [with comments]
===
Rick Santorum’s ‘phony theology’ criticism of Obama follows a familiar theme
Rick Santorum:?Former senator Rick Santorum has come under heavy criticism recently for accusing President Obama and his allies of supporting a “phony theology.”
Video [embedded]
Rick Santorum on Sunday condemned what he called President Barack Obama's world view that "elevates the Earth above man," discouraging increased use of natural resources. He referenced the issue again at a Monday appearance in Ohio. (Feb. 20)
By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: February 22, 2012
When Rick Santorum [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/rick-santorum-2012-presidential-candidate/gIQA61AHdO_topic.html ] accused President Obama of having “some phony theology” last weekend, it was neither an isolated event nor an offhand remark.
Instead, Santorum’s comments were a new twist on a steady theme of his Republican presidential candidacy: that Obama and other Democrats have a secular worldview not based on the Bible, one they are intent on imposing on believers.
Campaigning in Iowa in December, Santorum said Obama and his allies have “secular values that are antithetical to the basic principles of our country.” In Des Moines a few days later [ http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/202171-santorum-touts-family-values-at-christian-school-in-final-pre-caucus-appearance ], he said the same people adhere to a “religion of self” rather than one based on the Bible. Speaking to a group of ministers in Plano, Tex., earlier this month, Santorum argued that the left is “taking faith and crushing it.”
In Tucson on Wednesday, Santorum said the president is “systematically trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian values of America.”
Santorum has regularly argued on the campaign trail that Obama and his allies’ views on abortion, same-sex marriage and the proper role of government prove they have distinctly secular values — and that the election offers a key and perhaps final chance for religious people to fend off their intrusions.
The relationship between religion and government has emerged as a flash point in the presidential campaign in recent days after an effort by the Obama administration to require religious institutions to include contraception in health insurance plans for employees. All of the Republican candidates objected to the effort, which the administration tweaked after a massive outcry, especially from Catholics.
But even in a nominating process heavy on Christian themes, Santorum, who is Catholic, stands out for his comfort in embracing religion. His contention that government is intruding into religious liberty predates the Obama decision.
After he made the “phony theology” remark, Santorum said he was discussing the president’s environmental policies, not questioning his Christian faith. And Hogan Gidley, a Santorum spokesman, said the media are more focused on such comments than voters are. Gidley said news stories have put too much emphasis on Santorum’s comments about religion and not enough on his views on job creation, improving manufacturing and slowing government growth. And, he said, they fail to properly cast them as part of Santorum’s “overarching theme” about the role of government.
“He discusses religion in a broader context, that we are given rights, we are endowed by our Creator with rights, and those rights are being taken away when government grows in size,” Gidley said. “People clap for that. They don’t gasp. People say, ‘Yes, our rights do come from God and yes, the government is taking them away.’?”
During his December stop in Marshalltown, Iowa, Santorum made his case in typically emphatic terms. Opposition to abortion, he suggested, is the only logical conclusion of core American beliefs. He raised the promise, made in the Declaration of Independence, that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
“Do we still believe that?” Santorum asked. “If everyone is endowed by God — not any god, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God, with the right to life, then there are certain things that we need to follow through and have in our law.”
Santorum does not limit his emphasis on religion to religious settings. Last week, in a speech ostensibly focused on the economy, he said Obama’s proposal to limit deductions for upper-income taxpayers, including for charitable donations, was a direct attempt to reduce the role of churches and other civic organizations in people’s lives.
“We need to create a rich society with lots of places for you to go before you go to the government for help and assistance in the problems that you’re dealing with. Charities, churches. It’s no wonder that the president, one of his tax proposals, sought to limit charitable contributions. They get in the way of government, you know, in providing for you,” Santorum told the Detroit Economic Club [ http://www.freep.com/article/20120219/OPINION05/202190367/Transcript-GOP-primary-candidate-Rick-Santorum-s-speech-Detroit-Economic-Club- ]. “Families get in the way of government and your reliance on it.”
It was his comments about Obama — which he said were about the president’s environmentalism rather than his faith — that landed Santorum in the spotlight just as his candidacy was surging. He spent most of last weekend explaining his remarks.
In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Santorum said he does not question whether Obama is a Christian. He insisted that his comment about Obama’s “phony theology” was being misconstrued.
“I accept the fact that the president is a Christian,” he said in the interview.
Two days later, Santorum blamed the media [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-slams-media-gives-defiant-defense-of-campaign-misstatements/2012/02/21/gIQAjGeMSR_blog.html#pagebreak ] for picking the theology remark out of his “hundreds and hundreds of hours” of speeches and town halls, delivered without teleprompters. He said that voters find his unscripted speak-from-the-heart style refreshing and authentic.
“I’ll defend everything I’ll say — because it comes from here,” he said, indicating his heart.
At the same time, Mitt Romney [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/mitt-romney-2012-presidential-candidate/gIQANxIecO_topic.html ] has made similar claims about his Obama and religion in the wake of the contraception controversy, arguing at a town hall in Michigan on Tuesday that Obama associates with people with a “secular agenda” who have “fought against religion.”
Yet Santorum’s comments have the potential to sound extreme. Earlier this week, the Drudge Report [ http://www.drudgereport.com/ ] led the day with a report of a 2008 Santorum speech [ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/santorum-criticizes-drudge-report-item-about-2008-speech/1#.T0UTOocgcfU (three posts back at {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72331869 {and preceding and following})] in which he warned that Satan had set his sights on the nation.
That and other stories make some Republicans nervous about the prospect of a Santorum nomination, which independents could view as divisive and Democrats could use as a rallying cry.
“I think historically, religion has been divisive when it’s gotten connected with politics,” said John Danforth, who served 20 years as a Republican senator from Missouri. “I think Republicans are better if they stick with the big issues and the economic issues and the power of government and don’t frame it in religious terms.”
An ordained Episcopal minister, Danforth argued in a pair of 2005 New York Times columns [ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html ] that Republicans had become too entangled [ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html ] with the religious right. He has endorsed Romney but said he has not “fallen into a faint” over Santorum’s words.
“I don’t think that Santorum would say that people who don’t agree with him are not religious people,” Danforth said.
Republican pollster Whit Ayres [ http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/whit_ayres.html ] said he does not think that Santorum has questioned Obama’s Christianity or the sincerity of the faith of his opponents. But he urged caution.
“It is very shaky ground to even come close to the line,” he said. “It tends to blow up in your face, politically.”
To some, Santorum’s language is part of his appeal, said Bob Vander Plaats [ http://www.thefamilyleader.com/inside-tfl/leadership ], president of the Iowa-based Family Leader, whose endorsement helped Santorum defeat Romney in the state’s caucuses.
“He’s transparent, he’s authentic and he’s not trying to play games with his message,” Vander Plaats said. “I think it goes to the core of Rick Santorum. I’m quite sure he believes that this is a battle of worldviews and the worldviews are simply ‘God is’ or ‘God isn’t.’?”
He said Santorum will attract independents looking for authenticity rather than a candidate who falls in the “mushy middle.”
Staff writer Felicia Sonmez in Arizona contributed to this report.
*
More from PostPolitics
Obama sings blues with B.B. King
Natalie Jennings FEB 21
VIDEO | President Obama sang “Sweet Home Chicago” with blues legends at a White House event Tuesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/president-obama-sings-sweet-home-chicago-with-bb-king-and-buddy-guy/2012/02/21/gIQAblnVSR_blog.html
Rick Santorum’s euthanasia fantasy
Glenn Kessler FEB 22
FACT CHECKER | There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html
SHE THE PEOPLE: Birth control a winner for Democrats
Melinda Henneberger FEB 21
COLUMN | Wondering why the Republicans would want to ride such a losing pony? They don’t.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/its-democrats-who-are-putting-focus-on-birth-control/2012/02/21/gIQARV6ISR_blog.html
*
© 2012 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-santorums-phony-theology-criticism-of-obama-follows-a-familiar-theme/2012/02/21/gIQA3TIpTR_story.html [with comments]
===
Rick Santorum’s Inquirer columns offer a window into the candidate’s mind
Rick Santorum:?Former senator Rick Santorum has emerged as Mitt Romney’s chief rival for the GOP presidential nomination.
By David A. Fahrenthold, Wednesday, February 22, 2012
One year after he lost his seat in the U.S. Senate — at a moment when his political party was hobbled and his own name had become a national dirty joke — Rick Santorum got a new job.
He became a newspaper columnist [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/ ]. Starting in November 2007, the former senator (R-Pa.) wrote a biweekly column for the Philadelphia Inquirer [ http://www.philly.com/ ] in which he developed and refined the political and ideological messages that have sparked his surge to front of the GOP presidential field.
“At a time when the conservative movement is rudderless and the lineup of future standard bearers is a mix of Johnnies-come-lately and Johnnies-never-been,” Santorum wrote in his first column, “I hope to provide some ideas that could help restore America’s confidence in the conservative movement.” He noted in that first column that another Inquirer columnist had recently called him a “doofus.”
Over more than 2-1/2 years, the beaten former senator tried to find a new voice on a range of topics: anger over same-sex marriage and abortion, suspicion of Iran, and calls to defend religious liberty from government. Santorum wrote movingly of his young daughter’s struggle with a genetic disorder, which has become a keystone of his campaign biography.
But the columns also reveal Santorum’s limits as a politician.
Several columns are devoted only to other people’s failures, and he comes across as a tremendous downer. In the columns, he struggles to lift his message above fist-shaking outrage and (sometimes literal) prophecies of doomsday.
“Often wrong,” he called himself in one column. “But never in doubt.”
Santorum’s columns are difficult to find now — this week, only a few of them were publicly available [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/ ] on the Inquirer’s Web site. He was paid $1,750 for each one, according to [ http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/Inky_is_paying_former_Sen_Santorum_1750_per_column.html ] the Inquirer’s rival Philadelphia Daily News.
The arrangement ended in the summer of 2010.
“It was really a financial decision,” said Harold Jackson [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/harold_jackson/ ], the Inquirer’s editorial-page editor, in a telephone interview. He said Santorum’s column was axed during a round of budget cuts: “We decided to end a number of [columnist] contracts, and he was one of those.”
Santorum’s columns returned often to the social issues that had made him famous — and infamous — in the Senate.
He mentioned abortion in at least 18 of them, and same-sex marriage in at least 11. In 2008, Santorum said he had not regretted “sounding the alarm” on gay marriage in 2003, referring to an interview [ http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm ] in which he compared homosexual acts to bigamy, adultery and “man on dog.”
“Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other?” he wrote in that column, reiterating his opposition to same-sex marriage. “I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”
Santorum predicted that the government would soon crack down even on people who spoke out against same-sex marriage.
“Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches,” he wrote.
Despite the new platform, the columns retained the feel of a Senate floor speech — occasionally funny, often clunky, with little new information to fill them out. Santorum made only scant and awkward references to pop culture, with one major exception.
That was another 2008 column [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/20080103_The_Elephant_in_the_Room___5_characters_reject_abortion_in_a_cultural_shift_in_movies.html ], which celebrated recent movies in which characters chose not to have abortions.
“The recognition of the life in the womb is going mainstream,” Santorum wrote. “In a nation with one of the world’s most wide-open abortion regimes, U.S. audiences flocked to see five motion pictures with life-affirming texts or subtexts: Knocked Up [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478311/ ], Waitress [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473308/ ], Bella [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482463/ ], August Rush [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Rush ] and Juno [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467406/ ].”
These movies were about premarital sex, adultery, premarital sex, premarital sex and premarital sex in high school, respectively. Santorum said that was okay: “They are meeting audiences where they live.”
But this was a rare upbeat moment. Santorum used several of his columns to underline the gravity of social issues — and to castigate both fellow politicians and fellow Catholics for their views.
In one column, Santorum blasted Catholic colleges [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/20080410_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Mandate_for_Catholic_colleges.html ]: “You might be surprised to learn that most professors are not Catholic and that the Catholics are often nonpracticing.” Even Notre Dame University, he said, had hosted performances of “The Vagina Monologues [ http://www.randomhouse.com/features/ensler/vm/ ].”
And Santorum personally criticized two Democratic politicians — then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [ http://pelosi.house.gov/ ] (Calif.) and then-Rep. Patrick Kennedy [ http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=k000113 ] (D-R.I.) — for not following Catholic teaching on abortion.
“Catholics must be true to their consciences. But that is not a free-floating guide that we can define ourselves,” Santorum wrote in August 2008. “A Catholic is required to form his conscience in accordance with the church’s teachings on faith and reason.”
Santorum’s other obsession was Iran, which he mentioned in at least 12 of his columns. He criticized that country’s treatment of non-Muslims and warned about its connections with leftists in Latin America; and he attacked President Obama for doing too little to stop its nuclear ambitions.
“Obama’s acquiescence will either give this supermarket to the world’s terrorists a high-end line of nuclear weapons to purvey at what I am sure will be bargain prices, or force an Iran/Israel war,” Santorum wrote.
Santorum also warned about the dangers of an electro-magnetic pulse attack, in which a nuclear weapon detonated in the upper atmosphere would fry the circuits of all electronic machinery.
The result, he suggested, would be a society thrown back to the 1800s — and a deadly struggle to adapt.
“Waves of death, starting with the passengers on commercial airplanes falling out of the sky, explosions in manufacturing facilities, and patients on life support; followed by the chronically sick, such as patients on dialysis machines or lifesaving medications; and then the victims of ruthless violence, disease, and starvation,” said Santorum, basing his predictions on a novel called “One Second After [ http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765317583 ].” “All told, the novel suggests 90 percent of Americans won’t survive a year.”
“In short,” Santorum wrote, “doomsday.”
These columns undoubtedly helped Santorum reestablish himself as a national conservative voice, after an 18-point electoral drubbing [ http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-17/santorum-s-electability-pitch-undermined-by-18-point-senate-loss.html ] and a devastating Internet campaign that made his name into something vulgar.
Is there anything in them that could sink him in this Republican primary? In one column, Santorum suggested a solution to the problem of imported oil that the tea party might not like. “Hold on to your hats,” Santorum wrote [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/20080131_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Reducing_U_S__oil_appetite.html ], talking to his fellow conservatives. “What we need is a government mandate!” He meant a mandate that all cars be able to use 85 percent ethanol gasoline.
And, in one column from April 2008, Santorum used a word [ ] that has since become one of the dirtiest in Washington. Santorum was talking about then-candidate John McCain: “a thorn in the side of many of us who supported important appropriations earmarks for our states.” The dirty word, of course, was “earmarks.”
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2012 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-santorums-inquirer-columns-offer-a-window-into-the-candidates-mind/2012/02/17/gIQAbg26SR_story.html [with comments]
===
Paul: U.S. "slipping into a fascist system"
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks to supporters at a rally held at Union Station Saturday, Feb. 18, 2012, in Kansas City, Mo.
(AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
February 18, 2012 10:54 PM
(AP) KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul warned the U.S. is "slipping into a fascist system" dominated by government and businesses as he held a fiery rally Saturday night upstaging established Republican Party banquets a short distance away.
The Texas congressman drew a couple thousand standing and chanting people to Kansas City's Union Station as the party's establishment dined on steak across the street at the Missouri GOP's annual conference. Kansas Republicans were holding a similar convention in a suburb across the state line.
Paul staged his rally near the nation's World War I museum, asserting that the U.S. got off track about 100 years ago during the era of President Woodrow Wilson, who led the nation through World War I and unsuccessfully advocated for the nation's involvement in a forerunner of the United Nations.
"We've slipped away from a true Republic," Paul said. "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen."
Although campaign aides were aware, Paul told reporters after his speech that he did not know his rally was coinciding with long-established Missouri and Kansas Republican Party events, where Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell — a vice presidential prospect — was the keynote speaker.
Several Republicans slipped away from the banquets to join the Paul rally. Among them was Ralph Munyan, a Republican committeeman in Kansas City's home county, who said he agreed with Paul's warnings of a "fascist system" and his pledge to the end nation's involvement in wars overseas and against drugs.
"His foreign policy is one of peace," Munyan said.
Paul repeatedly denounced President Barack Obama's recent enactment of a law requiring military custody of anyone suspected to be associated with al Qaeda and involved in planning an attack on the U.S. Obama said when he signed the legislation that his administration would not authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens without a trial.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57380947/paul-u.s--slipping-into-a-fascist-system/ [with comments]
===
N.J. Gov. Chris Christie gay marriage veto shows hypocrisy on equal rights
Gov. Chris Christie conditionally vetoed the gay marriage bill today.
John Munson/The Star-Ledger
By Tom Moran/ The Star-Ledger
Published: Friday, February 17, 2012, 6:42 PM
Updated: Friday, February 17, 2012, 6:45 PM
Gov. Chris Christie just vetoed the marriage equality bill, as promised [ http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/gov_christie_vetos_gay_marriag.html ]. And he's trying to limit the damage by emphasizing that he supports equal rights for gay couples under the state's civil union law, and is prepared to strengthen it if needed.
It is good to see that even conservatives like him feel the need to underscore their commitment to equal rights. But in the end, it's a phony attempt to have it both ways.
There are plenty of documented cases of discrimination under the civil unions law, in hospitals, in insurance markets, and in workplaces. But even if you could magically eliminate them, it is still an insult to deny these couples entry into the club of marriage. It sends the message that their unions are something less than traditional heterosexual unions, something separate and different.
Ask yourself this: What if the Supreme Court in 1967 had denied full marriage rights for interracial couples, but said they could join in civil unions with all the same legal protections? The court didn't do that - it simply granted equal rights to interracial couples. And if it had established a second tier, people would ask why the separate category was needed at all.
We have the same question today for the governor: Why are gays not entitled to join the club?
This is likely about politics. Christie has national ambitions, and signing this bill would severely diminish his standing in the Republican Party, and probably kill his chances of reaching the White House. The veto will protect his career, but at the expense of gay citizens of this state.
If the governor really wanted to ensure equal rights to gays, he could have signed the bill. It's that simple. His refusal to do so is not a surprise. But it is a disappointment.
© 2012 New Jersey On-Line LLC
http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2012/02/nj_gov_chris_christie_gay_marr.html [with comments]
===
Rhode Island public school agrees to remove prayer
By Mary Ellen Godin
CRANSTON, Rhode Island | Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:51am EST
CRANSTON, Rhode Island (Reuters) - A Rhode Island school board voted on Thursday to comply with a federal court order to remove a prayer banner that has been displayed in a public high school for nearly a half century, saying the cash-strapped district cannot face a costly appeal.
A federal judge ordered the controversial banner, which addresses "Our Heavenly Father" and ends with "Amen," removed last month in response to a lawsuit by a high school junior and atheist who said its religious language made her feel excluded.
But the lawsuit by Jessica Ahlquist stirred strong feelings in the city of Cranston, where some residents saw the effort to remove the 8-foot high by 4-foot wide banner, on display since 1963 in the school auditorium, as a slap at tradition and an assault on religion.
"I'm pleased with the vote," said Ahlquist, guarded by one of the police officers who ringed the packed school board meeting after scouring the space with bomb-sniffing dogs. "Obviously it was the right decision to make."
The board voted 5-2 against filing an appeal, a move that means the school must now remove the banner within 10 days under the court order, a board member said.
"The ACLU is going to win solely because of the fiscal condition of Cranston," school board chairwoman Andrea Iannazzi told a crowd of 500 people, as some cheered and others booed the vote to comply with the order to remove the banner at Cranston High School West based on a mandate of separation of church and state.
Tempers flared during the four-hour debate leading up to the vote over a lawsuit that has already cost the city close to $200,000, and a city attorney warned that an appeal could more than double costs.
City attorney Joseph Cavanagh appealed for calm, urging parents to remember painful school budget cuts and consider the best use of their shrinking resources. Still, some in the crowd could barely contain their anger.
"What's happening now is an attack on any type of religion," said Ron Valiquette, of Lincoln, R.I. "This is about more to us than one atheist objecting when there is something on the wall that doesn't pertain to her."
FELT EXCLUDED
Ahlquist, who was raised a Catholic but became an atheist at around age 10, said a friend first pointed out the banner during her freshman year, and she experienced feelings of exclusion and ostracism because of the prayer.
The prayer banner, currently under a wooden cover, reads: "Our Heavenly Father, grant us each day the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, to be honest with ourselves as well as with others."
It continues: "Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win, teach us the value of true friendship, help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West. Amen."
Kate Katzberg, a mother with two children in Cranston schools who was at the meeting, said the banner needed to come down.
"Religion has no place in public schools," Katzberg said. "The banner is a beautiful object but it expresses a concept that we cannot all agree on."
Also favoring the removal was Daniel McCarthy, an Irish Catholic who told the crowd he supported Ahlquist because his father fought religious persecution from Protestants years ago.
"I don't want my tax dollars spent in any school district that promotes one religion over another," McCarthy said.
Rhode Island is among the most Catholic states in the nation. Some 43 percent of adults in the two states of Connecticut and Rhode Island identified with Catholic traditions compared with 24 percent nationwide, according to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published in 2008.
The emotional battle over the prayer banner and separation of church and state is one of a host of so-called "culture war" issues gaining attention during an election year.
They range from the clash of President Barack Obama's administration with the Catholic church on birth control to the uproar over a breast cancer foundation cancelling funding to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, and approval of same-sex marriage by several state legislatures.
(Additional reporting By Lauren Keiper; Editing by Paul Thomasch, Greg McCune and Cynthia Johnston)
Copyright 2012 Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-prayer-banner-rhodeisland-idUSTRE81G07U20120217 [with comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72422578 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72418508 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72400965 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72380337 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72428663 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72425011 and preceding and following
People wait in line to attend a campaign rally at the Sabbar Shrine Center for Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012, in Tucson, Arizona.
(AP Photo/Eric Gay)
By Felicia Sonmez
Posted at 05:51 PM ET, 02/22/2012
TUCSON, Ariz. – Rick Santorum on Wednesday showed no signs of backing down from his provocative statements about President Obama and religion [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-its-the-authenticity-stupid/2012/02/22/gIQAto8XTR_blog.html ], accusing the president of working to undermine the country’s “Judeo-Christian values” through his implementation of health-care reform and other policies.
“Essentially, we are going to have to hold together on some set of moral codes and principles,” Santorum said at the Sabbar Shrine in downtown Tucson, speaking before an enthusiastic tea party crowd of about 500 people ahead of an evening CNN debate.
“And we’re seeing very evidently what the president’s moral codes and principles are about. We see a president who is systematically trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian values of America. We saw it with Obamacare and the implementation of Obamacare, where his values are going to be imposed on a church’s values.”
The criticism of the Obama administration’s policy on religious-affiliated institutions and contraception is not a new one on the GOP presidential trail – Santorum, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House speaker Newt Gingrich alike have struck the theme at campaign events over the past month.
But Santorum’s rhetoric Wednesday was more explosive than that of his rivals, a move that suggests the former senator is not planning on retreating any time soon from his habit of speaking provocatively about religious issues on the stump.
Toward the end of his wide-ranging, hour-long remarks, Santorum – whose forehead was dusted lightly with ashes in observance of Ash Wednesday [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/faith-could-be-on-display--literally--at-ash-wednesday-cnn-debate/2012/02/20/gIQAOhg5OR_blog.html ] — issued a ringing defense of his focus on religion, noting that “this is what I know gets everybody in the secular left just bonkers about my campaign; they just go crazy.”
“Keep it going, Rick,” a woman in the crowd said.
Santorum argued that “people who have faith actually are more respectful of folks who have different faith” – a line that was met with loud applause from the mostly older crowd of Tucson tea party supporters.
“It’s the statists who are intolerant,” Santorum said. “They’re the ones who want to impose their values on everybody else.”
The remarks come as polls show Santorum is pulling into a competitive race [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-wins-straw-poll-in-arizonas-largest-county/2012/02/21/gIQADxiuRR_blog.html ] against Romney in next Tuesday’s Michigan and Arizona primaries, the two big races before Super Tuesday on March 6. A loss by Romney in either – or both – states would be viewed as a major blow to his campaign, particularly in Michigan, Romney’s childhood home state.
“You’re going to have a huge impact,” Santorum told the crowd. “Everybody’s focused in on Super Tuesday. Well, there are a lot of states up on Super Tuesday. But more than anything else, what happens in Michigan and Arizona next week is going to have the biggest impact on Super Tuesday and this election than any two states.”
He criticized Romney several times by name, arguing that his newly-unveiled tax plan [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-obama-release-dueling-tax-overhaul-proposals/2012/02/22/gIQAKOLrTR_story.html ] amounts to “lowering the tax rates to, well, the tax rate I proposed.”
“Welcome to the party, governor,” Santorum said to applause.
In a jab at Romney’s record, Santorum urged voters to choose the candidate who is authentic and believable, not one who is a “well-oiled weathervane” and a “Johnny-Come-Lately to the conservative cause.”
“Is it the guy reading from the teleprompter, or the guy out here on a high-wire line telling you what’s in his heart and what’s in his gut?” Santorum said of the choice facing voters – a line in keeping with his campaign’s newly-ramped-up emphasis on the notion that Santorum is the most authentic candidate in the race [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-its-the-authenticity-stupid/2012/02/22/gIQAto8XTR_blog.html ].
In an e-mailed response, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said: “It’s no surprise that Senator Santorum would try to associate himself with Governor Romney’s conservative, pro-growth plan to cut taxes and grow the economy. But there are crucial differences. First, Governor Romney’s plan will not explode the deficit in the way that Senator Santorum’s will. Second, Senator Santorum takes the exact same approach to tax policy as Barack Obama — he wants government to pick winners and losers. And finally, Mitt Romney has the leadership experience necessary to actually get his pro-growth plan passed into law.”
Santorum was introduced at the tea party event by Jon Justice, a popular conservative radio host, who asked the crowd how many of them had made up their minds about who to support next Tuesday. About half of those in the hall raised their hands.
As he spoke, Santorum – who made a point of noting at the event’s outset, “I don’t do tea party events without taking questions” – displayed an easy rapport with the crowd, joking and at times encouraging audience participation.
“The president yesterday, his people came out and said the reason they didn’t build the Keystone pipeline? It was the Republicans’ fault!” he told the crowd at one point.
“Li-ar!” one woman yelled out in a sing-song voice.
“He lies!” a man said as the crowd laughed.
“I mean, how do you – how do you do that?” Santorum said as the crowd continued laughing. “I mean, how stupid does he think you are? That he can go out and blame everybody for everything bad, except...” He paused.
“Himself,” the crowd responded in unison.
“Is that leadership?” Santorum asked the crowd.
“No!” the audience boomed.
“It’s arrogance,” a woman said.
© 2012 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-obama-trying-to-crush-the-traditional-judeo-christian-values-of-america/2012/02/22/gIQAUZdzTR_blog.html [with comments]
===
Rick Santorum’s ‘phony theology’ criticism of Obama follows a familiar theme
Rick Santorum:?Former senator Rick Santorum has come under heavy criticism recently for accusing President Obama and his allies of supporting a “phony theology.”
Video [embedded]
Rick Santorum on Sunday condemned what he called President Barack Obama's world view that "elevates the Earth above man," discouraging increased use of natural resources. He referenced the issue again at a Monday appearance in Ohio. (Feb. 20)
By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: February 22, 2012
When Rick Santorum [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/rick-santorum-2012-presidential-candidate/gIQA61AHdO_topic.html ] accused President Obama of having “some phony theology” last weekend, it was neither an isolated event nor an offhand remark.
Instead, Santorum’s comments were a new twist on a steady theme of his Republican presidential candidacy: that Obama and other Democrats have a secular worldview not based on the Bible, one they are intent on imposing on believers.
Campaigning in Iowa in December, Santorum said Obama and his allies have “secular values that are antithetical to the basic principles of our country.” In Des Moines a few days later [ http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/202171-santorum-touts-family-values-at-christian-school-in-final-pre-caucus-appearance ], he said the same people adhere to a “religion of self” rather than one based on the Bible. Speaking to a group of ministers in Plano, Tex., earlier this month, Santorum argued that the left is “taking faith and crushing it.”
In Tucson on Wednesday, Santorum said the president is “systematically trying to crush the traditional Judeo-Christian values of America.”
Santorum has regularly argued on the campaign trail that Obama and his allies’ views on abortion, same-sex marriage and the proper role of government prove they have distinctly secular values — and that the election offers a key and perhaps final chance for religious people to fend off their intrusions.
The relationship between religion and government has emerged as a flash point in the presidential campaign in recent days after an effort by the Obama administration to require religious institutions to include contraception in health insurance plans for employees. All of the Republican candidates objected to the effort, which the administration tweaked after a massive outcry, especially from Catholics.
But even in a nominating process heavy on Christian themes, Santorum, who is Catholic, stands out for his comfort in embracing religion. His contention that government is intruding into religious liberty predates the Obama decision.
After he made the “phony theology” remark, Santorum said he was discussing the president’s environmental policies, not questioning his Christian faith. And Hogan Gidley, a Santorum spokesman, said the media are more focused on such comments than voters are. Gidley said news stories have put too much emphasis on Santorum’s comments about religion and not enough on his views on job creation, improving manufacturing and slowing government growth. And, he said, they fail to properly cast them as part of Santorum’s “overarching theme” about the role of government.
“He discusses religion in a broader context, that we are given rights, we are endowed by our Creator with rights, and those rights are being taken away when government grows in size,” Gidley said. “People clap for that. They don’t gasp. People say, ‘Yes, our rights do come from God and yes, the government is taking them away.’?”
During his December stop in Marshalltown, Iowa, Santorum made his case in typically emphatic terms. Opposition to abortion, he suggested, is the only logical conclusion of core American beliefs. He raised the promise, made in the Declaration of Independence, that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
“Do we still believe that?” Santorum asked. “If everyone is endowed by God — not any god, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God, with the right to life, then there are certain things that we need to follow through and have in our law.”
Santorum does not limit his emphasis on religion to religious settings. Last week, in a speech ostensibly focused on the economy, he said Obama’s proposal to limit deductions for upper-income taxpayers, including for charitable donations, was a direct attempt to reduce the role of churches and other civic organizations in people’s lives.
“We need to create a rich society with lots of places for you to go before you go to the government for help and assistance in the problems that you’re dealing with. Charities, churches. It’s no wonder that the president, one of his tax proposals, sought to limit charitable contributions. They get in the way of government, you know, in providing for you,” Santorum told the Detroit Economic Club [ http://www.freep.com/article/20120219/OPINION05/202190367/Transcript-GOP-primary-candidate-Rick-Santorum-s-speech-Detroit-Economic-Club- ]. “Families get in the way of government and your reliance on it.”
It was his comments about Obama — which he said were about the president’s environmentalism rather than his faith — that landed Santorum in the spotlight just as his candidacy was surging. He spent most of last weekend explaining his remarks.
In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Santorum said he does not question whether Obama is a Christian. He insisted that his comment about Obama’s “phony theology” was being misconstrued.
“I accept the fact that the president is a Christian,” he said in the interview.
Two days later, Santorum blamed the media [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-slams-media-gives-defiant-defense-of-campaign-misstatements/2012/02/21/gIQAjGeMSR_blog.html#pagebreak ] for picking the theology remark out of his “hundreds and hundreds of hours” of speeches and town halls, delivered without teleprompters. He said that voters find his unscripted speak-from-the-heart style refreshing and authentic.
“I’ll defend everything I’ll say — because it comes from here,” he said, indicating his heart.
At the same time, Mitt Romney [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/mitt-romney-2012-presidential-candidate/gIQANxIecO_topic.html ] has made similar claims about his Obama and religion in the wake of the contraception controversy, arguing at a town hall in Michigan on Tuesday that Obama associates with people with a “secular agenda” who have “fought against religion.”
Yet Santorum’s comments have the potential to sound extreme. Earlier this week, the Drudge Report [ http://www.drudgereport.com/ ] led the day with a report of a 2008 Santorum speech [ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/santorum-criticizes-drudge-report-item-about-2008-speech/1#.T0UTOocgcfU (three posts back at {linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72331869 {and preceding and following})] in which he warned that Satan had set his sights on the nation.
That and other stories make some Republicans nervous about the prospect of a Santorum nomination, which independents could view as divisive and Democrats could use as a rallying cry.
“I think historically, religion has been divisive when it’s gotten connected with politics,” said John Danforth, who served 20 years as a Republican senator from Missouri. “I think Republicans are better if they stick with the big issues and the economic issues and the power of government and don’t frame it in religious terms.”
An ordained Episcopal minister, Danforth argued in a pair of 2005 New York Times columns [ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html ] that Republicans had become too entangled [ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html ] with the religious right. He has endorsed Romney but said he has not “fallen into a faint” over Santorum’s words.
“I don’t think that Santorum would say that people who don’t agree with him are not religious people,” Danforth said.
Republican pollster Whit Ayres [ http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/whit_ayres.html ] said he does not think that Santorum has questioned Obama’s Christianity or the sincerity of the faith of his opponents. But he urged caution.
“It is very shaky ground to even come close to the line,” he said. “It tends to blow up in your face, politically.”
To some, Santorum’s language is part of his appeal, said Bob Vander Plaats [ http://www.thefamilyleader.com/inside-tfl/leadership ], president of the Iowa-based Family Leader, whose endorsement helped Santorum defeat Romney in the state’s caucuses.
“He’s transparent, he’s authentic and he’s not trying to play games with his message,” Vander Plaats said. “I think it goes to the core of Rick Santorum. I’m quite sure he believes that this is a battle of worldviews and the worldviews are simply ‘God is’ or ‘God isn’t.’?”
He said Santorum will attract independents looking for authenticity rather than a candidate who falls in the “mushy middle.”
Staff writer Felicia Sonmez in Arizona contributed to this report.
*
More from PostPolitics
Obama sings blues with B.B. King
Natalie Jennings FEB 21
VIDEO | President Obama sang “Sweet Home Chicago” with blues legends at a White House event Tuesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/president-obama-sings-sweet-home-chicago-with-bb-king-and-buddy-guy/2012/02/21/gIQAblnVSR_blog.html
Rick Santorum’s euthanasia fantasy
Glenn Kessler FEB 22
FACT CHECKER | There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum’s claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/euthanasia-in-the-netherlands-rick-santorums-bogus-statistics/2012/02/21/gIQAJaRbSR_blog.html
SHE THE PEOPLE: Birth control a winner for Democrats
Melinda Henneberger FEB 21
COLUMN | Wondering why the Republicans would want to ride such a losing pony? They don’t.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/its-democrats-who-are-putting-focus-on-birth-control/2012/02/21/gIQARV6ISR_blog.html
*
© 2012 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-santorums-phony-theology-criticism-of-obama-follows-a-familiar-theme/2012/02/21/gIQA3TIpTR_story.html [with comments]
===
Rick Santorum’s Inquirer columns offer a window into the candidate’s mind
Rick Santorum:?Former senator Rick Santorum has emerged as Mitt Romney’s chief rival for the GOP presidential nomination.
By David A. Fahrenthold, Wednesday, February 22, 2012
One year after he lost his seat in the U.S. Senate — at a moment when his political party was hobbled and his own name had become a national dirty joke — Rick Santorum got a new job.
He became a newspaper columnist [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/ ]. Starting in November 2007, the former senator (R-Pa.) wrote a biweekly column for the Philadelphia Inquirer [ http://www.philly.com/ ] in which he developed and refined the political and ideological messages that have sparked his surge to front of the GOP presidential field.
“At a time when the conservative movement is rudderless and the lineup of future standard bearers is a mix of Johnnies-come-lately and Johnnies-never-been,” Santorum wrote in his first column, “I hope to provide some ideas that could help restore America’s confidence in the conservative movement.” He noted in that first column that another Inquirer columnist had recently called him a “doofus.”
Over more than 2-1/2 years, the beaten former senator tried to find a new voice on a range of topics: anger over same-sex marriage and abortion, suspicion of Iran, and calls to defend religious liberty from government. Santorum wrote movingly of his young daughter’s struggle with a genetic disorder, which has become a keystone of his campaign biography.
But the columns also reveal Santorum’s limits as a politician.
Several columns are devoted only to other people’s failures, and he comes across as a tremendous downer. In the columns, he struggles to lift his message above fist-shaking outrage and (sometimes literal) prophecies of doomsday.
“Often wrong,” he called himself in one column. “But never in doubt.”
Santorum’s columns are difficult to find now — this week, only a few of them were publicly available [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/ ] on the Inquirer’s Web site. He was paid $1,750 for each one, according to [ http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/Inky_is_paying_former_Sen_Santorum_1750_per_column.html ] the Inquirer’s rival Philadelphia Daily News.
The arrangement ended in the summer of 2010.
“It was really a financial decision,” said Harold Jackson [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/harold_jackson/ ], the Inquirer’s editorial-page editor, in a telephone interview. He said Santorum’s column was axed during a round of budget cuts: “We decided to end a number of [columnist] contracts, and he was one of those.”
Santorum’s columns returned often to the social issues that had made him famous — and infamous — in the Senate.
He mentioned abortion in at least 18 of them, and same-sex marriage in at least 11. In 2008, Santorum said he had not regretted “sounding the alarm” on gay marriage in 2003, referring to an interview [ http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm ] in which he compared homosexual acts to bigamy, adultery and “man on dog.”
“Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other?” he wrote in that column, reiterating his opposition to same-sex marriage. “I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”
Santorum predicted that the government would soon crack down even on people who spoke out against same-sex marriage.
“Within 10 years, clergy will be sued or indicted for preaching on certain Bible passages dealing with homosexuality and churches,” he wrote.
Despite the new platform, the columns retained the feel of a Senate floor speech — occasionally funny, often clunky, with little new information to fill them out. Santorum made only scant and awkward references to pop culture, with one major exception.
That was another 2008 column [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/20080103_The_Elephant_in_the_Room___5_characters_reject_abortion_in_a_cultural_shift_in_movies.html ], which celebrated recent movies in which characters chose not to have abortions.
“The recognition of the life in the womb is going mainstream,” Santorum wrote. “In a nation with one of the world’s most wide-open abortion regimes, U.S. audiences flocked to see five motion pictures with life-affirming texts or subtexts: Knocked Up [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478311/ ], Waitress [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473308/ ], Bella [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482463/ ], August Rush [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Rush ] and Juno [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467406/ ].”
These movies were about premarital sex, adultery, premarital sex, premarital sex and premarital sex in high school, respectively. Santorum said that was okay: “They are meeting audiences where they live.”
But this was a rare upbeat moment. Santorum used several of his columns to underline the gravity of social issues — and to castigate both fellow politicians and fellow Catholics for their views.
In one column, Santorum blasted Catholic colleges [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/20080410_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Mandate_for_Catholic_colleges.html ]: “You might be surprised to learn that most professors are not Catholic and that the Catholics are often nonpracticing.” Even Notre Dame University, he said, had hosted performances of “The Vagina Monologues [ http://www.randomhouse.com/features/ensler/vm/ ].”
And Santorum personally criticized two Democratic politicians — then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [ http://pelosi.house.gov/ ] (Calif.) and then-Rep. Patrick Kennedy [ http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=k000113 ] (D-R.I.) — for not following Catholic teaching on abortion.
“Catholics must be true to their consciences. But that is not a free-floating guide that we can define ourselves,” Santorum wrote in August 2008. “A Catholic is required to form his conscience in accordance with the church’s teachings on faith and reason.”
Santorum’s other obsession was Iran, which he mentioned in at least 12 of his columns. He criticized that country’s treatment of non-Muslims and warned about its connections with leftists in Latin America; and he attacked President Obama for doing too little to stop its nuclear ambitions.
“Obama’s acquiescence will either give this supermarket to the world’s terrorists a high-end line of nuclear weapons to purvey at what I am sure will be bargain prices, or force an Iran/Israel war,” Santorum wrote.
Santorum also warned about the dangers of an electro-magnetic pulse attack, in which a nuclear weapon detonated in the upper atmosphere would fry the circuits of all electronic machinery.
The result, he suggested, would be a society thrown back to the 1800s — and a deadly struggle to adapt.
“Waves of death, starting with the passengers on commercial airplanes falling out of the sky, explosions in manufacturing facilities, and patients on life support; followed by the chronically sick, such as patients on dialysis machines or lifesaving medications; and then the victims of ruthless violence, disease, and starvation,” said Santorum, basing his predictions on a novel called “One Second After [ http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765317583 ].” “All told, the novel suggests 90 percent of Americans won’t survive a year.”
“In short,” Santorum wrote, “doomsday.”
These columns undoubtedly helped Santorum reestablish himself as a national conservative voice, after an 18-point electoral drubbing [ http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-17/santorum-s-electability-pitch-undermined-by-18-point-senate-loss.html ] and a devastating Internet campaign that made his name into something vulgar.
Is there anything in them that could sink him in this Republican primary? In one column, Santorum suggested a solution to the problem of imported oil that the tea party might not like. “Hold on to your hats,” Santorum wrote [ http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/rick_santorum/20080131_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Reducing_U_S__oil_appetite.html ], talking to his fellow conservatives. “What we need is a government mandate!” He meant a mandate that all cars be able to use 85 percent ethanol gasoline.
And, in one column from April 2008, Santorum used a word [ ] that has since become one of the dirtiest in Washington. Santorum was talking about then-candidate John McCain: “a thorn in the side of many of us who supported important appropriations earmarks for our states.” The dirty word, of course, was “earmarks.”
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2012 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-santorums-inquirer-columns-offer-a-window-into-the-candidates-mind/2012/02/17/gIQAbg26SR_story.html [with comments]
===
Paul: U.S. "slipping into a fascist system"
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks to supporters at a rally held at Union Station Saturday, Feb. 18, 2012, in Kansas City, Mo.
(AP Photo/Ed Zurga)
February 18, 2012 10:54 PM
(AP) KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul warned the U.S. is "slipping into a fascist system" dominated by government and businesses as he held a fiery rally Saturday night upstaging established Republican Party banquets a short distance away.
The Texas congressman drew a couple thousand standing and chanting people to Kansas City's Union Station as the party's establishment dined on steak across the street at the Missouri GOP's annual conference. Kansas Republicans were holding a similar convention in a suburb across the state line.
Paul staged his rally near the nation's World War I museum, asserting that the U.S. got off track about 100 years ago during the era of President Woodrow Wilson, who led the nation through World War I and unsuccessfully advocated for the nation's involvement in a forerunner of the United Nations.
"We've slipped away from a true Republic," Paul said. "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen."
Although campaign aides were aware, Paul told reporters after his speech that he did not know his rally was coinciding with long-established Missouri and Kansas Republican Party events, where Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell — a vice presidential prospect — was the keynote speaker.
Several Republicans slipped away from the banquets to join the Paul rally. Among them was Ralph Munyan, a Republican committeeman in Kansas City's home county, who said he agreed with Paul's warnings of a "fascist system" and his pledge to the end nation's involvement in wars overseas and against drugs.
"His foreign policy is one of peace," Munyan said.
Paul repeatedly denounced President Barack Obama's recent enactment of a law requiring military custody of anyone suspected to be associated with al Qaeda and involved in planning an attack on the U.S. Obama said when he signed the legislation that his administration would not authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens without a trial.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57380947/paul-u.s--slipping-into-a-fascist-system/ [with comments]
===
N.J. Gov. Chris Christie gay marriage veto shows hypocrisy on equal rights
Gov. Chris Christie conditionally vetoed the gay marriage bill today.
John Munson/The Star-Ledger
By Tom Moran/ The Star-Ledger
Published: Friday, February 17, 2012, 6:42 PM
Updated: Friday, February 17, 2012, 6:45 PM
Gov. Chris Christie just vetoed the marriage equality bill, as promised [ http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/gov_christie_vetos_gay_marriag.html ]. And he's trying to limit the damage by emphasizing that he supports equal rights for gay couples under the state's civil union law, and is prepared to strengthen it if needed.
It is good to see that even conservatives like him feel the need to underscore their commitment to equal rights. But in the end, it's a phony attempt to have it both ways.
There are plenty of documented cases of discrimination under the civil unions law, in hospitals, in insurance markets, and in workplaces. But even if you could magically eliminate them, it is still an insult to deny these couples entry into the club of marriage. It sends the message that their unions are something less than traditional heterosexual unions, something separate and different.
Ask yourself this: What if the Supreme Court in 1967 had denied full marriage rights for interracial couples, but said they could join in civil unions with all the same legal protections? The court didn't do that - it simply granted equal rights to interracial couples. And if it had established a second tier, people would ask why the separate category was needed at all.
We have the same question today for the governor: Why are gays not entitled to join the club?
This is likely about politics. Christie has national ambitions, and signing this bill would severely diminish his standing in the Republican Party, and probably kill his chances of reaching the White House. The veto will protect his career, but at the expense of gay citizens of this state.
If the governor really wanted to ensure equal rights to gays, he could have signed the bill. It's that simple. His refusal to do so is not a surprise. But it is a disappointment.
© 2012 New Jersey On-Line LLC
http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2012/02/nj_gov_chris_christie_gay_marr.html [with comments]
===
Rhode Island public school agrees to remove prayer
By Mary Ellen Godin
CRANSTON, Rhode Island | Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:51am EST
CRANSTON, Rhode Island (Reuters) - A Rhode Island school board voted on Thursday to comply with a federal court order to remove a prayer banner that has been displayed in a public high school for nearly a half century, saying the cash-strapped district cannot face a costly appeal.
A federal judge ordered the controversial banner, which addresses "Our Heavenly Father" and ends with "Amen," removed last month in response to a lawsuit by a high school junior and atheist who said its religious language made her feel excluded.
But the lawsuit by Jessica Ahlquist stirred strong feelings in the city of Cranston, where some residents saw the effort to remove the 8-foot high by 4-foot wide banner, on display since 1963 in the school auditorium, as a slap at tradition and an assault on religion.
"I'm pleased with the vote," said Ahlquist, guarded by one of the police officers who ringed the packed school board meeting after scouring the space with bomb-sniffing dogs. "Obviously it was the right decision to make."
The board voted 5-2 against filing an appeal, a move that means the school must now remove the banner within 10 days under the court order, a board member said.
"The ACLU is going to win solely because of the fiscal condition of Cranston," school board chairwoman Andrea Iannazzi told a crowd of 500 people, as some cheered and others booed the vote to comply with the order to remove the banner at Cranston High School West based on a mandate of separation of church and state.
Tempers flared during the four-hour debate leading up to the vote over a lawsuit that has already cost the city close to $200,000, and a city attorney warned that an appeal could more than double costs.
City attorney Joseph Cavanagh appealed for calm, urging parents to remember painful school budget cuts and consider the best use of their shrinking resources. Still, some in the crowd could barely contain their anger.
"What's happening now is an attack on any type of religion," said Ron Valiquette, of Lincoln, R.I. "This is about more to us than one atheist objecting when there is something on the wall that doesn't pertain to her."
FELT EXCLUDED
Ahlquist, who was raised a Catholic but became an atheist at around age 10, said a friend first pointed out the banner during her freshman year, and she experienced feelings of exclusion and ostracism because of the prayer.
The prayer banner, currently under a wooden cover, reads: "Our Heavenly Father, grant us each day the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, to be honest with ourselves as well as with others."
It continues: "Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win, teach us the value of true friendship, help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West. Amen."
Kate Katzberg, a mother with two children in Cranston schools who was at the meeting, said the banner needed to come down.
"Religion has no place in public schools," Katzberg said. "The banner is a beautiful object but it expresses a concept that we cannot all agree on."
Also favoring the removal was Daniel McCarthy, an Irish Catholic who told the crowd he supported Ahlquist because his father fought religious persecution from Protestants years ago.
"I don't want my tax dollars spent in any school district that promotes one religion over another," McCarthy said.
Rhode Island is among the most Catholic states in the nation. Some 43 percent of adults in the two states of Connecticut and Rhode Island identified with Catholic traditions compared with 24 percent nationwide, according to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published in 2008.
The emotional battle over the prayer banner and separation of church and state is one of a host of so-called "culture war" issues gaining attention during an election year.
They range from the clash of President Barack Obama's administration with the Catholic church on birth control to the uproar over a breast cancer foundation cancelling funding to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, and approval of same-sex marriage by several state legislatures.
(Additional reporting By Lauren Keiper; Editing by Paul Thomasch, Greg McCune and Cynthia Johnston)
Copyright 2012 Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-prayer-banner-rhodeisland-idUSTRE81G07U20120217 [with comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72422578 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72418508 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72400965 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72380337 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72428663 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72425011 and preceding and following
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
