Fermer X Les cookies sont necessaires au bon fonctionnement de 24hGold.com. En poursuivant votre navigation sur notre site, vous acceptez leur utilisation.
Pour en savoir plus sur les cookies...
AnglaisFrancais
Cours Or & Argent en

Ayatollah Santorum the Sanctimonious (ASS)

IMG Auteur
 
Publié le 08 février 2012
777 mots - Temps de lecture : 1 - 3 minutes
( 21 votes, 4,2/5 ) , 7 commentaires
Imprimer l'article
  Article Commentaires Commenter Notation Tous les Articles  
0
envoyer
7
commenter
Notre Newsletter...
Rubrique : Editoriaux

 

 

 

 

In a January 18 interview with Glenn Beck Rick Santorum decided to compare his view of the Constitution with that of Ron Paul. His statements can only be described as delusional and totalitarian.


Santorum first claimed to have read an eighteenth-century dictionary that defined happiness as "to do the morally right thing." This is how the founding fathers defined happiness, he said. This is Santorum’s definition of "happiness," not the founding fathers. It’s a good bet he is lying when claiming to have read an eighteenth-century dictionary. (But I suppose anything is possible with a man who brought his deceased infant home who died two hours after birth and slept with it after showing it to his children, as Santorum admits to have done).


The freedom to do whatever you want to do – as long as you do not harm anyone else or interfere in their equal freedom – would "lead to libertinism and lead to chaos" said Sanctimonious Santorum, who has also pledged to do what he can to put an end to contraception if elected president. Contraception changes "the way things ought to be," he says. Santorum is self assured that he, and he alone, understands "the way things ought to be" and pledges to use the powers of the state to forcefully impose his "understanding" on the entire country.

But the founding fathers are known as champions of freedom, are they not? But what kind of freedom? According to Santorum, who apparently fancies himself as an historian, freedom in America means "the freedom to do what you ought to do – what you are properly ordered to do [by a politician like himself] – as someone living a good, decent, and ordered life" (emphasis added). "That’s the differentiation that I believe Ron Paul and I have with respect to what liberty is," said Santorum. To Rick Santorum, "freedom" means doing what government "properly" orders you to do, as long as government is controlled by good, proper, moral people like himself, the K-Street lobbyist for the Pennsylvania coal mining industry (and anyone else who will pay his huge fees for influence peddling).


This is not the view of the American founding fathers, as Santorum claims. It is more likely to have been the mindset of the founders of the Soviet Union, not the American union. It is the mindset of the neoconservatives whose founding members were, after all, Trotskyite communists. This includes the self-described "godfather" of neoconservatism, the late Irving Kristol, who reveled in talking about his youthful Trotskyite roots.

If Santorum really wanted to know how the founding fathers defined freedom he would not make up imaginary, two-century old dictionary entries but would read what the founders actually said. A good place to start would be Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address where he stated: "[A] wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . ." It is hard to imagine that Jefferson, the author of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that strongly opposed the governmental imposition of any religious views on anyone while defending religious liberty in general, would have admired an Uber-Catholic Theocrat like Santorum. For government to compel a man to support a religious cause with which he disbelieves, wrote Jefferson, is "sinful and tyrannical."


When Ron Paul says that such victimless crimes as prostitution or smoking pot should be decriminalized, says Santorum, "that’s not the moral foundation of our country," once again pretending to be The Expert on the thinking of the founding fathers. There’s one problem with Santorum’s historical revisionism, however. Prostitution was in fact pervasive in Colonial America. Prostitutes traveled with George Washington’s army, serving as nurses and cooks as well as prostitutes. In fact, there were no laws in America banning prostitution until Massachusetts enacted the first one in 1917. (The 1910 "Mann Act," named after Congressman James Mann, prohibited "white slavery" for the purpose of prostitution). Federal laws against prostitution were first enacted after women got the right to vote and immediately outlawed prostitution in the vicinity of military bases when their husbands and boyfriends were off serving in the military. In other words the founding fathers agreed with Ron Paul, not Rick Santorum, on personal liberty issues.


America is "not just a collection of freedoms," said the insufferably sanctimonious Santorum. It is, instead, a collection of orders from the state defining what "proper" behavior is. Stalin himself could not have said it better.



 

 



<< Article précedent
Evaluer : Note moyenne :4,2 (21 votes)
>> Article suivant
Publication de commentaires terminée
  Tous Favoris Mieux Notés  
Jim C.,

You attack on the 10th validates mine, so thank YOU:

People->States->Federal Govt.

That is the order. You have it backward. The Federal govt has the least power of all. Only because of the un-ratified 14th amendment subjugating the People to the Congress, robbing the people of sovereignty, can you even argue any of your points. Therefore, all your arguments are baseless and invalid.

You probably also think the Fed is doing a standup job.
Evaluer :   1  3Note :   -2
EmailPermalink
A very disturbing article!

It's disturbing cuz this blowhard liberal has access to young minds that may think he has a point besides the one on the top of his head!

It's disturbing cuz this so called "Educator" is so bitter against the United States that he resorts to innuendo, finger pointing and lies to advance his misguided "lack" of values.

It's disturbing cuz this self described member of the "intelligentsia" hates God so much that he is willing to use slander and libel in an effort to belittle any one who has faith in our creator.

It's disturbing cuz this clown has never held let alone used a tool more substantial than a pencil.

It's disturbing cuz people of his ilk are actually in control in Washington and state capitols and we are seeing our freedoms being squandered as the consolidate more power.

It's disturbing cuz people like me have compromised for the last time and refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils", I will vote for the person I believe will bring this once great country back from the slippery slope it has started down even if he is a write in. This may keep the Marxists like Tom DiLorenzo and the "elites" in power for four more, but I would rather have that than put a pretender that the combined ignorance of congress think they can work with.

If you aren't sure what compromise is, see a large glass of fresh cool spring water. Mix in just a little dog excrement. You can't see it our smell it in there, just enjoy the refreshing sustaining liquid and be happy you could compromise to get a little of what wanted.
Evaluer :   3  5Note :   -2
EmailPermalink
Indeed, religious nutters, slavers, totalitarians whom strike their medals and pin them on their chests;
they are the enemy.

Reasonable people seem to be corrupted by absolute power.

Santorum appeals to me, dear readers fully support me in that- -

Ayn Rand had a message; How does humanity escape madness?

Faith can become that, and partisanship, and greed.

When I site Stalin and Hitler in response to an 'article' I get censured.

Well, I did find a supplier and trader of metal much better than BBay,

So, many advisors in the stoke, I'm not long for this site that tolerates fans, like Howard, of Ted "Kaching"sky.

I don't have a clue how to translate these political, and in some cases purely hate-filled messages from "Kaching"-sky, into profitable trades.

I hate it when a great site loses its vision, but hey, it happens.

The day comes when some guy can rant on about Hitler, and I can't return a comment without being "edited": Hey, that's what they want and I want: gotta move on.

Many thanks to all of the posters here.

Watch those red arrows, liberal and lefty ash orifices controlling those.

E-bay editors gotta give their collective heads a shake:

"KUNSTLER AND HIS ILK DO NOT BUY METAL"

See yah.



Evaluer :   3  5Note :   -2
EmailPermalink
Religious nutters, regardless of faith and denomination, are the most dangerous and destructive animals on the planet.
Evaluer :   8  1Note :   7
EmailPermalink
There are two differenting view of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the Bill of Rights currently at war with one another. We have the traditional John Hosper's Libertarians more or less spearheaded by Senator Santorum and the radical Lew Rockwell, Tom Dilorenzo (Von Mises Institute), and Ron Paul ursurpers to that mantle.

The traditionalists believe in a limited government as did our Founding Fathers, a Federal Governement empowered to protect the rights of all within the individual states. The ursupers believe the opposite: that the Federal Government has no such power over those individual states, and constantly tout the 10th Amendment as their bible.

This difference surfaced during the Aug 11th Republican debate over mandated heath care. Ron Paul, against Federal mandated care, argued that such mandates by the State were outside the authority of the Federal Government to police. Michele Bachmann and (you guessed it) Rick Santorum argued otherwise: that wrong was wrong whether initiated by Federal or State governments. In another debate Ron Paul argued further that "..the Federal Government can't go in and prohibit states from doing bad things."

Thus we have the above rant by Tom Dilorenzo against Rick Santorum -- that Santorum would have the audactity to tell a state that it was violating it's citizens rights!

This explains DiLorenzo's zany articles condemning Lincoln for responding to an act of aggression by the Southern States. DiLorenzo and Paul would argue that a State does, indeed, have the right to do anything it wishes and is not subservient to a Federal overseer. Ron Paul himself has condemned Lincoln for not allowing the South to secede from the Union. That these professed advocates of human freedom would argue for the cause of slavery is incomprehensible. A state does indeeed have a right to secede, but only if the Federal Government becomes oppressive of rights. The pre-Civil War Federal Government was not oppressive; in fact doing everying to placate the south and it's slavery system -- mainly because the South controlled the surpreme court and had their men in the White House.

These ursurpers to traditional Libertarian lean toward anarchism -- Lew Rockwell has professed himself an 'anarcho-capatialist.' For if a state can leave the Union by whim, what is to stop that state from breaking up into smaller and smaller units -- until only the individual is left? Nothing, logically, and that is their goal.

One has only to look at Somalia to see the consequences of this: clans, private armies and police forces, private court and justices systems -- one nation divided by all.

At this point in time Rick Santorum is the true voice of Libertarianism and individual freedom. Support him.
Evaluer :   7  12Note :   -5
EmailPermalink
What a ridiculous analysis of this article. You CLEARLY have no idea what you are talking about and set up the weakest of arguments to compare adherence to the Constitution so as to result in Somalia.

Go back and re-read the Constitution before you open your stupid mouth. And to think you get a vote. Pathetic.
Evaluer :   15  2Note :   13
EmailPermalink
Your personal attack validates my argument. Thanks!
Evaluer :   7  10Note :   -3
EmailPermalink
Dernier commentaire publié pour cet article
Jim C., You attack on the 10th validates mine, so thank YOU: People->States->Federal Govt. That is the order. You have it backward. The Federal govt has the least power of all. Only because of the un-ratified 14th amendment subjugating the People to t  Lire la suite
devlyn811 - 10/02/2012 à 12:51 GMT
Note :  1  3
Top articles
Flux d'Actualités
TOUS
OR
ARGENT
PGM & DIAMANTS
PÉTROLE & GAZ
AUTRES MÉTAUX