Connect with us

Rick Santorum, The New President Of Jesus

Published

on

As the South Carolina Primary approaches, and the prospect of Willard Mitt Romney becoming the Republican nominee begins to become more and more inevitable, the game of musical chairs that is the search for the Anti-Romney has reached new lows of desperation. Will Republicans be forced to endure yet another Presidential election cycle with an insufficiently hateful candidate at the top of the ticket? Must Evangelical Christians tolerate a candidate who is capable of even the smallest measure of tolerance?

Given this state of emergency, Evangelical leaders descended on the Texas ranch of Judge Paul Pressler in an effort to find a consensus Anti-Romney to swoop in and save the day. After two days of deliberation and three rounds of balloting, it was decided. Evangelical Christians have found their champion, and his name is Rick Santorum.

READ: Santorum Wins Key Endorsement Of Evangelical Anti-Gay Hate Group Consortium

Tony Perkins, President of certified anti-gay hate group Family Research Council and spokesman for the confab, had this to say:

Rick Santorum has consistently articulated the issues that are of concern to conservatives, both the economic and the social, and has woven those into a very solid platform.

As a gay man, I find any large gathering of Evangelical Christians terrifying, especially when that gathering includes people like Gary Bauer, James Dobson and Don Wildmon, or as I like to call them, the Three Tenors of Hate.

In the olden days when Christians gathered in groups it was probably to talk about Jesus, or The Bible, or perhaps to have potluck dinners. Those days appear to be long gone. The focus of modern Evangelical Christians appears to have narrowed to include only issues involving what people should do be allowed to do with their genitals. Oh, and abortion. They still hate the crap out of abortion. Christians have managed to turn from an organization concerned with spreading the message of God’s love, to one that spends most of its time coming up with long lists of things they hate. It must be very fulfilling.

Regardless, the new president of Jesus is Rick Santorum, and I for one would like to offer him my sincerest congratulations. There were several world class anti-gay bigots they could have chosen, and they went with one of the best. If mean-spirited bullying had a hall of fame, Rick Santorum’s induction would surely be lock.

So, if Rick Santorum is the man who best articulates the views of conservatives everywhere, perhaps we should examine some of those views.

READ: Rick Santorum’s Top Ten Most-Offensive Anti-Gay Comments

It is likely no surprise to you that gay people by and large dislike Rick Santorum, to put it mildly. This is because he says things like this little diatribe, delivered to students and local residents attending a Santorum event a couple of weeks go, as reported by the L.A. Times:

Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, “He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children’s lives.”

Allowing gays to marry and raise children, Santorum said, amounts to “robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true.”

That’s right. Rick Santorum would rather your child be raised by violent psychopathic convicts than allow them to be cared for by a loving homosexual couple. He doesn’t stop at merely insisting that gay people shouldn’t marry or raise children. He’s been pissed off since the Supreme Court declared that the government couldn’t put homosexuals in jail anymore.

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

Sure. That was in 2003. Perhaps he’s changed his tune. He did say this after all, during the recent Meet The Press debate, via TPM:

I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity.

He even outlined his response should his child come out to him:

“I would love him as much as I did the second before he said it,” Santorum said. “And I would try to do everything I can to be as good a father to him as possible.”

Has Rick Santorum softened his views? No. Not even a little bit. Here is quote from his apperance on renowned bigot Bradlee Dean’s radio show, as reported by the Minnesota Independent:

“I stood up from the very beginning back in 2003 when the Supreme Court was going to create a constitutional right to sodomy and said this is wrong we can’t do this,” Santorum said. ”And so I stood up when no one else did and got hammered for it. I stood up and I continue to stand up.” Santorum added, “I do not believe that sexual orientation should be added to hate crimes, but let me be honest, I don’t believe in hate crimes, period.”

I suppose the idea here is that he is OK with being gay, provided you never have sex with anyone. He would also prefer that view be enforced by penalty of law. Rick Santorum has quite a strange definition of “equality of opportunity.”

But it’s not just gay sex that Rick Santorum finds offensive. He’s got it out for you too, heterosexuals. According to Think Progress:

“(Sex) is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

He also goes after, of all things, contraception. The same article quotes him as saying:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Here is a video of him saying it, in case you catch him trying to deny it. Rick does this thing where he says something awful, and then tries to walk it back like he never said it. He tried it recently with his “Black Welfare” comment.

On January 3, Santorum said this:

I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.

When asked about it by Bill O’Reilly a few days later, he said this:

“I looked at that, and I didn’t say that,” Santorum told O’Reilly. “If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — came out. And people said I said, ‘Black.’ I didn’t.”

We have this stuff on tape Rick, so stop lying. I thought Christians had a thing about not lying. Perhaps you should try reading the parts of The Bible that don’t deal with gay sex.

To recap. Rick Santorum thinks homosexuality should be illegal, and that contraception leads to, well, I’m not even sure what contraception is supposed to lead to. Jazz and Gin? The loss of womanly virtue? “Doing things in the sexual realm?” Who knows. Rick Santorum is a crazy fundamentalist. What is clear is that Santorum has a lot of opinions about everybody’s sexual business. He also spends a lot of time thinking about sodomy, which is a little strange for a straight guy. When I look at Rick Santorum I see a man terrified of the future, and so filled with hate that he would see the lives of millions of LGBT people around the country destroyed simply to see the world conform to his extreme religious beliefs.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, see the embodiment of the Republican Party.

This raises a question that I would like to ask you rank and file Republicans out there: Are you sure about this? Do you really want to be associated with Rick Santorum? Every civil rights movement contains opponents like Rick Santorum; vicious, nasty, ideologues who remain dedicated to outdated and vile prejudices long after the rest of society has moved on. You read about guys like this in history class. George Wallace comes to mind. People that you look back on, and wince. Rick Santorum is one of these people. The future reveres men like Harvey Milk, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and makes people like Anita Bryant and groups like the KKK the villain of the story. History doesn’t look kindly upon those who work to deprive others of their civil rights.

Who do you want to be? I understand that you are conservatives, but must your desire for smaller government and lower taxes also mean that you must support the deprivation of rights to an entire class of your fellow citizens? Why are those two things connected? Must the preservation of a strong military and the pursuit of an aggressive foreign policy also mean that you must support efforts to deprive LGBT couples hospital visitation and access to adoption? Is that actually who you want to be? Why would that even make sense?

Let’s be clear. If you throw your support behind Rick Santorum, you are making a decision you don’t get to take back. You are deciding to be an embarrassment to your grandchildren. You are choosing to place a black mark on your personal legacy. You are declaring for all to hear that when the time came to stand up for civil rights, you instead worked to keep those rights from people who have never done you a moment’s harm. It makes you the villain of the story. All I am asking is that you consider this carefully, and make absolutely certain that this is who you want to be. Please think this through. Try to take a long view. Rick Santorum is a bad person, and you, or at the very least your children, will be ashamed that you supported him. Don’t let people like Tony Perkins decide who speaks for you, or who represents your values. Speak for yourself. Do the right thing. Don’t be self-righteous. Be righteous.

 Image, top, by boris.rasin

Benjamin Phillips is a Humor Writer, Web Developer, Civics Nerd, and all around crank that spends entirely too much time shouting with deep exasperation at the television, especially whenever cable news is on. He lives in St. Louis, MO and spends most of his time staring at various LCD screens, occasionally taking walks in the park whenever his boyfriend becomes sufficiently convinced that Benjamin is becoming a reclusive hermit person. He is available for children’s parties, provided that those children are entertained by hearing a complete windbag talk for two hours about the importance of science education, or worse yet, poorly researched anecdotes PROVING that James Buchanan was totally gay. If civilization were to collapse due to zombie hoards or nuclear holocaust, Benjamin would be among the first to die as he has no useful skills of any kind. The post-apocalyptic hellscape has no real need for homosexual computer programmers who can name all the presidents in order, as well as the actors who have played all eleven incarnations of Doctor Who.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation

Published

on

Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.

Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”

“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”

In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”

He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”

“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”

“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”

“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”

The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.

“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”

Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”

Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.

Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs

Published

on

President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.

“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”

The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”

Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”

TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”

Critics blasted Trump.

“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.

One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”

Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”

The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.

According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.

Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”

“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”

Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”

Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.

Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.

The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.

“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.

The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.

“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.