Rick Santorum Thread

[kbf1970060]

The way that the Constitution is enforced with regards to the U.S. military is completely irrelevant to how it is enforced with non-military citizens. I honestly don’t see why you are bringing this up.

Alleged criminals are brought into custody through the due process of law; they are either caught committing a crime or in pursuit after a crime, or a warrant is issued by the Judicial branch for their arrest. This is not the case with those arrested under the NDAA, who are subject only to the Executive branch for both arrest and trial. Furthermore, such criminals are presumed innocent and given a trial and legal representation, and both of these things are side-stepped by the NDAA.

These are serious violations of the Fifth Amendment.

Peace and God bless!

The act in question has nothing to do with U.S. citizens.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Ok, let’s talk about Iran.

Imagine if Iran had conspired to overthrow the government of the United States and install a brutal dicatorship in its place.

Then imagine Americans were able to remove the dictator who then fled to refuge inside Iran.

Then imagine that the United States is invaded by Mexico, which is aided by…Iran.

Then imagine Iran shoots down an American civilian airliner killing 290 people on board.

Then imagine Iran invades Canada…and Mexico…and now has military forces in two of the US’s neighboring countries.

Then imagine Iran declares it is in their national security interest to maintain free passage for shipping on the Great lakes, regardless of what the US or Canada has to say about it. Violation of Iranian rights in the area will be cause for a military response.

Now imagine Iran is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in anger and has recently stated their willingness to use them again, even against conventional targets such as hardened underground bunkers.

Flip flop Iran and the US in the above. Change out Mexico for Iraq and Canada for Afghanistan, and the Great Lakes for the Persian Gulf and you have another part of the history between these countries that many Americans are completely ignorant of.

If the roles were reversed Americans would be screaming that we have a just cause for war against the enemy.

My comments are not denying the oppressive nature of the current Iranian government, but they do show that there is some rational reason for people in Iran not to be jumping up and down with enthusiasm for the US. We are told we must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons at all costs (while we sit on top of plenty of our own) because they are a suicidal nation who can not be detered? Their foreign policy does not appear to have been suicidal so far.

Now contrast any sort of willingness to consider the above facts of history not to* justify *the Iranian position but at least to understand it with what we saw at the one GOP debate:

Candidates, including Rick Santorum, arguing that if we crashed an unmanned spy plane in Iran, and they refused to give it back, it would be time to kill people.

Excuse me?

What happens when an Iranian spy plane crashes in the US? What happens if an Iranian spy plane even flies over the US? We’d shoot it down, that’s what, and we wouldn’t give it back.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

He has accomplished his goal of creating a personality cult which has hurt the cause of every real conservative candidate who might have had a chance of saving our dying nation.

Can you define “real conservative” and tell me which candidates are real conservatives?

 

[kubark]

Rick Santorum is pro-life.

That’s what he says, but his record demonstrates otherwise.

First, it must be noted that “pro-life” covers not only beginning of life and end of life issues, but everything in between, like waging war. Taken in this context, Santorum fails miserably.

Second, Santorum doesn’t really seem to understand or care that the only real solution to Roe v. Wade is going to have to be a Constitutional solution. Santorum is a domestic interventionist and his approach to the Constitution will never bring a real, lasting solution to Roe v. Wade. Only Ron Paul understands the nature of the problem.

Romney and Santorum are similar in their foreign policy beliefs. Evangelicals generally support the post-Cold war foreign policy of not giving in to isolationism, and confronting the evil of radical islamic terrorism and terrorist supporting regimes - such as the one in Iran that Ron Paul seems to have no problem with. So your assertion that it was a compromise for evangelicals to support Santorum over Romney because of foreign policy is false.

Similar in the sense that they both defend an unconstitutional and immoral foreign policy. As a Catholic, Santorum should know better.

Ron Paul will need much more than the support of James Ninzey. Looking at the polls, he seems to be in 4th place in S. Carolina and 4th in Florida (single digits!). Anyone who thinks Ron Paul to be a serious, viable candidate is seriously deluded.

Not according to the most recent ARG poll that I mentioned. Nice try.

Isn’t it the duty of the president to defend our country from threats from abroad? Ron Paul would fail in that task, imo.

No, it is not the duty of the President to protect us from imaginary and potential threats from abroad. You have confused militarism/interventionism with providing for the national DEFENSE. Of course, if a war with Iran comes, we have all been witnesses in realtime to the manner in which Obama and the Neocons have done their best to ensure a conflict does occur. Between Bush and Obama I am witnessing some of the greatest foreign policy blunders (whether intentional or done thru ignorance hardly matters at this point) in American history. Santourm is standing on the wrong side of history, again. If only he would have listened to the guidance of Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger.

Ron Paul deserves to be voted against - his shameful attacks against Santorum’s proven pro-life record are example of this. About twenty years from now he will be an asterisk - smaller than that other guy from Texas, Ross Perot who gave us president Bill Clinton.

The only shameful thing worth speaking of is that an allegedly pro-life, so-called Catholic like Rick Santorum would ENDORSE the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey. The only “asterisk” (actually more like an exclamation point) worth speaking of is that Ron Paul AUTHORED the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005.

 

[Dan_Daly]

He went on to say that while Texas governor, Rick Perry, was also an evangelical, the deciding factor for his endorsement was fidelity to the Constitution. “The tell-tale sign of being qualified for the presidency is not faith, but loyalty to the Constitution which defends the open expression of faith. Ron Paul seems to be the candidate most loyal to the Constitution according to the records.”

This is an important point.

I don’t agree with Paul about everything. But I do believe he is truly willing to uphold and defend the Constitution. Not what he wishes the Constitution says, but what it actually says.

If we support a candidate who we know does not intend to uphold the Constitution, are we aiding the sin of blasphemy when they falsely swear to do so at the inauguration?

It’s an interesting question for a Catholic to reflect upon I think.

 

[rlg94086]

My understanding is he inroduced exactly one bill that passed into law in his entire career in congress.

Wait a minute! I thought nothing he authored passed. That changes everything!

 

[Dan_Daly]

Congressman Paul wrote the bill that would stop the government from demanding that citizens either have naked pictures of them taken or be sexually assaulted simply because they want to fly on an airplane.

That the bill hasn’t passed I see as an indictment of his peers in Congress (and of the American public who seem to have meekly gave up caring about their honor, dignity, and safey after a brief public outrage).

Pax

 

[kubark]

Congressman Paul wrote the bill that would stop the government from demanding that citizens either have naked pictures of them taken or be sexually assaulted simply because they want to fly on an airplane.

That the bill hasn’t passed I see as an indictment of his peers in Congress (and of the American public who seem to have meekly gave up caring about their honor, dignity, and safey after a brief public outrage).

Pax

That’s the same issue that destroyed Rick Perry’s credibility among independent conservatives. See: youtube.com/watch?v=E4eTldMDdcA.

 

[Dan_Daly]

That’s the same issue that destroyed Rick Perry’s credibility among independent conservatives. See: youtube.com/watch?v=E4eTldMDdcA.

What is conservative or independent about not believing in the Bill of Rights?

Is your wife a terrorist? Mine’s not. Yet the government seems bent on treating her like one. The fact that she wears floor length skirts makes her subject to extra scrutiny.

For a government agent to strip search someone they would need probable cause that a crime has been committed. Wanting to fly on an airplane is not probable cause. It’s not even reasonable suspicion. What magically makes an airport a consitution-free zone? Did I miss that ammendment?

Pax Christi

 

[kubark]

What is conservative or independent about not believing in the Bill of Rights?

Is your wife a terrorist? Mine’s not. Yet the government seems bent on treating her like one. The fact that she wears floor length skirts makes her subject to extra scrutiny.

For a government agent to strip search someone they would need probable cause that a crime has been committed. Wanting to fly on an airplane is not probable cause. It’s not even reasonable suspicion. What magically makes an airport a consitution-free zone? Did I miss that ammendment?

Pax Christi

Right on. The fact of the matter is that TSA has politicized airline security and have actually made us less safe. Any future airline terrorism becomes blood on their hands.

 

[kbf1970060]

This pic. at The National Right to Life has Sen. Rick Santorum with then Pres. W. Bush signing Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html; additionally, here is at least one document of The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, with Santorum’s name on it, which did eventually become law: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1019:. He sponsored The Combating Autism Act as well: govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-843.

As regards his position on Iran, under the paragraph Avoiding War in The Catechism of The Catholic Church, paragraph 2309 there are strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force, such as the following: " … damage inflicted by an aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; … ". Iran – to my knowledge – has not, yet, acted as an aggressor. " … all other means of putting an end to it – * – must be shown to be impractical or ineffective; … ". Sanctions against Iran, supported by Santorum, reportedly have been working. Although, a recent article: [bigpeace.com/jwhitman/2012/01/13/iran-has-begun-enrichment-of-uranium-at-the-fordow-facility/]](http://bigpeace.com/jwhitman/2012/01/13/iran-has-begun-enrichment-of-uranium-at-the-fordow-facility/]) aimed to dispell doubt(s), that Iran will not pose an immediate threat through the development of nuclear warheads, to fit their part of a missile defense system specifically designed to carry such warheads, effectively, as reported in a recent article in The Council on Foreign Relations is cause enough to reconsider the matter. " … There must be serious prospects of success; … ", given recent acts, not welcome, but done just the same, by Israel: implementing former C.I.A. operatives I.D.'s, within Iran, to hinder development of nuclear warheads, not related to deaths of their scientists, but other matters: it would appear, that success is more than likely. " … the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. … ": to allow Iran use of such weapons, nuclear warheads, would place them in a possession, that would force them to consider this aspect of “Just War Theory”. Whether or not it would be just war, or just war, is an arguable, moot, point. The significance of Iran, must be painstakingly clear at this point, at The Strait of Hormuz. I agree, that Santorum is correct: when asked by a reporter, considering Ron Paul’s stand on Iran, and potential to be a U.S. Pres., that he, Ron Paul, would indeed be a very dangerous man to have act as Commander in Chief, and I would hope, that the electoral college would have enough sense to see this, and vote down a popular vote, that may give him the position. The Pentagon – last I heard – is the single largest consumer of oil. It is a clear national security issue. It is an issue across eight years on national security – possessed by Rick Santorum – qualifying Rick Santorum to act as Commander in Chief. It would be an absurdity to have Ron Paul function as Commander in Chief. I hope, that voters will have enough good sense to avoid furthering his campaign.*

 

[RACJ]

Can you define “real conservative” and tell me which candidates are real conservatives?

 There is nothing conservative about Paul's sympathy toward Iran wanting nukes. Legalizing drugs is sheer insanity, and not conservative. I don't know everything about Ron Paul, but I do know that every time I see him in a debate, he says some things that sound kooky to me. On others, I agree, but he has been an ineffective congressman who loves to grandstand. 
 Santorum, and to some extent Perry, are the conservatives left in the race. Gingrich on some things. Each has lost support thanks to the Paul cult of personality. Paul will ensure that a moderate to liberal, Romney, who believes in mandates, will be nominated, and I think that's his goal. But honestly, as much as I dislike Romney, I'd vote for him over Paul, b/c I think that Paul's foreign policy is as dangerous as Obama's. :bigyikes: Rob

 

[RACJ]

Congressman Paul wrote the bill that would stop the government from demanding that citizens either have naked pictures of them taken or be sexually assaulted simply because they want to fly on an airplane.

That the bill hasn’t passed I see as an indictment of his peers in Congress (and of the American public who seem to have meekly gave up caring about their honor, dignity, and safey after a brief public outrage).

Pax

Ask the Democrats why this stupid policy which tramples our civil rights was implemented. There are 53 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, so it cannot pass. :rolleyes: Rob

 

[pnewton]

Do you think he is a viable candidate - as opposed to a kind of protest candidate that one supports to make a point or advance a set of ideas?

Ishii

Yes, as I have stated on the appropriate thread. Here, I prefer to discuss Santorum.

 

[ishii]

Yes, as I have stated on the appropriate thread. Here, I prefer to discuss Santorum.

Ron Paul is a viable candidate? He is a joke - a 77 year old nut fudge fringe candidate who sees no problem with a nuclear Iran. The only thing Ron Paul is capable of (other than making a fool of himself) is helping Obama win a 2nd term.

Ishii

 

[Dan_Daly]

There is nothing conservative about Paul’s sympathy toward Iran wanting nukes. Legalizing drugs is sheer insanity, and not conservative. I don’t know everything about Ron Paul, but I do know that every time I see him in a debate, he says some things that sound kooky to me. On others, I agree, but he has been an ineffective congressman who loves to grandstand.
Santorum, and to some extent Perry, are the conservatives left in the race. Gingrich on some things. Each has lost support thanks to the Paul cult of personality. Paul will ensure that a moderate to liberal, Romney, who believes in mandates, will be nominated, and I think that’s his goal. But honestly, as much as I dislike Romney, I’d vote for him over Paul, b/c I think that Paul’s foreign policy is as dangerous as Obama’s. :bigyikes: Rob

As far as I can tell Santorum’s foreign policy is essentially the same as President Obama’s which is essentially the same as President G.W. Bush’s.

-Attack “enemies” that are not aggressing against us (Iraq/Libya/Iran)
-Attack the civil liberties of those in the US (now designated as “the battlefield”) by unconstitutional searches, illegal detentions, and torture (apparently it is ok if we just rename it “enhanced interrogation”)

Pax

 

[kbf1970060]

As far as I can tell Santorum’s foreign policy is essentially the same as President Obama’s which is essentially the same as President G.W. Bush’s.

-Attack “enemies” that are not aggressing against us (Iraq/Libya/Iran)
-Attack the civil liberties of those in the US (now designated as “the battlefield”) by unconstitutional searches, illegal detentions, and torture (apparently it is ok if we just rename it “enhanced interrogation”)

Pax

Ron Paul, and Obama, have comparable foreign policy positions with respect to withdrawal of troops, although, Ron Paul is more extreme: he would withdraw troops from everywhere – S. Korea, Japan, Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all twenty-something other countries of operations Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom.

Both Iraq, and Iran, failed repeatedly to comply U.N. security measures regarding the development of nuclear energy, in addition to other agencies of international scope.

It’s irrelevant, that neither Iraq, nor Iran, are direct aggressors against The U.S… Treaties we honor as a matter of international law, in addition to our involvement in The U.N., etc., not to mention time-honored commitments to allies as through such matters as St. Augustine’s “Just War Theory”, but what else may be mentioned: The U.S. Constitution? Article I, Section 8, item [10] " … To define and punish piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations. … " . Then there is Article II, Section 2, item [1] / [2], " … The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of … The United States, and … of the several States when called into the actual service … [2] He shall have power, … to make treaties, … .". We have a great many treaties – I trust – implemented by The Executive Branch of Government, concurrent with The Legislative Branch of Government. Ron Paul’s foreign policy would be to nullify those treaties, which would be wrotten foreign policy in my humble opinion.

The attacks not only against The World Trade Center, but also The Pentagon, supported Al-Qaeda’s declaration of war, not against The U.S. Armed Forces, but every U.S. citizen, which turned not only every state, American, and The District of Columbia, (D.C.), into a battleground, but also embassies of The U.S., such as the one bombed on The Continent of Africa, during the mid- 1990’s.

Military jurisprudence is not governed by Constitutional law, but empowered by it. Your use of The U.S. Constitution as a measure of military force, and the use of it: it is an inadequate, inappropriate, and irrational measure.

If Ron Paul is such a strong Constitutionalist, then he perhaps ought to go back to TX, and adhere to The Constitution of his own country, TX. … a story from him, about The Alamo, might be appropriate. A story about Rednecks, may be even better, …

 

[Dan_Daly]

Ron Paul, and Obama, have comparable foreign policy positions with respect to withdrawal of troops, although, Ron Paul is more extreme: he would withdraw troops from everywhere – S. Korea, Japan, Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all twenty-something other countries of operations Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom.

Both Iraq, and Iran, failed repeatedly to comply U.N. security measures regarding the development of nuclear energy, in addition to other agencies of international scope.

It’s irrelevant, that neither Iraq, nor Iran, are direct aggressors against The U.S… Treaties we honor as a matter of international law, in addition to our involvement in The U.N., etc., not to mention time-honored commitments to allies as through such matters as St. Augustine’s “Just War Theory”, but what else may be mentioned: The U.S. Constitution? Article I, Section 8, item [10] " … To define and punish piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations. … " . Then there is Article II, Section 2, item [1] / [2], " … The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of … The United States, and … of the several States when called into the actual service … [2] He shall have power, … to make treaties, … .". We have a great many treaties – I trust – implemented by The Executive Branch of Government, concurrent with The Legislative Branch of Government. Ron Paul’s foreign policy would be to nullify those treaties, which would be wrotten foreign policy in my humble opinion.

The attacks not only against The World Trade Center, but also The Pentagon, supported Al-Qaeda’s declaration of war, not against The U.S. Armed Forces, but every U.S. citizen, which turned not only every state, American, and The District of Columbia, (D.C.), into a battleground, but also embassies of The U.S., such as the one bombed on The Continent of Africa, during the mid- 1990’s.

Military jurisprudence is not governed by Constitutional law, but empowered by it. Your use of The U.S. Constitution as a measure of military force, and the use of it: it is an inadequate, inappropriate, and irrational measure.

If Ron Paul is such a strong Constitutionalist, then he perhaps ought to go back to TX, and adhere to The Constitution of his own country, TX. … a story from him, about The Alamo, might be appropriate. A story about Rednecks, may be even better, …

With charity you are rambling (something I do myself sometimes) and also incorrect.

The 9/11 attacks does not mean the US can attack whoever we want regardless of whether they were involved or not.

Please name me one treaty that Ron Paul has said he would unilaterally break by himself. Considering his appreciation for the proper authority of congress (which it has largely surrendered) I don’t think you’ll find one.

What right does the United States have to tell another country they can’t develop nuclear weapons or nuclear energy?

I’m not sure what is meant by the “A story about Rednecks, may be even better” comment. It does seem to fit a pattern I’ve noticed which is very interesting…

You hear all the candidates critiquing each other. What you don’t hear is Romney criticising Newt supporters or Santorum blasting Perry backers, etc. The only voters I’ve heard candidates criticize are Paul supporters, and I see the same thing online. The message is almost “We don’t want your votes anyway” which would seem to be a poor message to send if the GOP is really concerned about having a “united front” come November. Paul supporters are told they’ll ruin the country if they don’t get behind the nominee in November no matter how objectionable he might be, but at the same time told they are lunatics. Not a very good way to build unity.

Hopefully, Paul is the nominee and consideration of what to do if he’s not won’t matter.

Pax Christi

 

[Ghosty]

The act in question has nothing to do with U.S. citizens.

Section 1022 most certainly extends the act to American citizens. In the Senate debates it was made explicitly clear that it was intended to extend to American citizens.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Josephene]

Good to read about the endoresement for Santorum , by the Evangelical Council ; in one sense , let us hope that heaven would consider that as a step in unity and healing of divisions , which can bring amazing results !

A major strenght for the candidate would also be the capacity to repent any areas / hasty decisions /uncharitable comments etc ; as someone who most likely would be going for regular confessions , to hear the words of new life , from The Lord , through the priest

• 'I forgive you of all your sins ’ .

Thus , he would be able to compassionately tell those struggling under various trials of fallen nature , where to turn, not to loose hope or dignity .

He can turn , to plead to The Father , for the countless hosts of heaven and the spirttual army, against what the nation is facing , at all levels , to bring forth results ,as in the fall of communism !

Thus , even in economy or energy issues , a nation of hope and trust in The Lord can be on the right path .

He , hopefully is already praying for those who curse and persecute him, and rejoicing over the great reward , in the grace to be forgiving and merciful , in The Lord , who makes it possible !

In discerning what ought to be the path to follow , he can have a great advanatge , if he is thus open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit - beyond being an expertise in laws written out by humans ( agree , good bit of it likley , under Divine guidance and there is need to follow same , since such is the oath .)

After all, we have been given enough life experiences of saints , who are often given the infused knowledge as needed , in His mercy .

In God we trust - we proclaim !

This election might need to hang on that fundamental aspect .

Do we trust in a God /god, revealed by someone whose name alone might be telling enough - Moroni , ? to laught at us , as of I , moron !

That , in contrast to the great 'I Am who Am ’ !

Thus , we are faced with a system that caters to the fallen trait of lust as a god , which has been the tool the enemy has used , for the demise / derangements of pagan nations , African nations and for the control/conquest mentality of Islam .

What is even worse is , it is offered under the guise of Christianity itself , thus to seduce and confuse !

Man , who is to find the deepest joy , yes , even ecstacy beyoind all human experineces , by knowing and even parttaking in the nature of the infinite God of holiness , love and mercy , the endless love for and from all that are in Him , is instead misguided into thinking that he is to be a god , through endless procreations ( ? like the worm that never dies - or ? just being in the fire of producing lustful thoughts and despair !)

Thank God The Church has been well armed , by Her Spouse , to have foreseen these heresies of fallen nature and gifted with the Dogmas , prepared far in advance - possibly having foreseen how clever and cunning the enemy would be , in our times !

True, the followers of these teachings may be incapable of even recognising what they are doing and thus the need for the rest of us , to plead for mercy , on their behalf too , that while straining out gnats , through prohibitions against tea / coffee and alcohol , to be freed from what have swallowed them up , which is moronic !

May the powerful intercession of the Ever Virgin , the Dark Woman , who was sent to Guadalupe, to reveal the care and love of our Father whose only begotten Son, also showed thats same oneness with us His children , be able to bring the Light into many hearts !

Our Thrice Holy God , whose Father Love is revealed to us His children , in The Son and The Spirit !

May all glory and honor be to Him , as it was in the beginning and for ever !