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.

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.

'DEHUMANIZING AND DANGEROUS'

Trump Team’s Efforts to Rein Him ‘Wilted’ in Waco as He Invoked ‘Retribution and Violence’: Report

Published

on

Any hope that Donald Trump’s new re-election team may have had that they could steer him into running a more conventional campaign appears to have been swept aside as he used his first major rally to whip up the crowd with a litany of grievances and personal attacks.

According to the Guardian’s David Smith, during Trump’s appearance in Waco late Saturday, the former president used his speech to “invoke retribution and violence” at his perceived enemies, with attacks on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) who might possibly challenge him for the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

As Smith wrote, “Efforts by Trump’s team to steer a more conventional, disciplined candidacy have wilted in recent days as the 76-year-old unleashed words and images that – even by his provocative standards – are unusually dehumanising, menacing and dangerous,” before adding nothing the past week Trump used “increasingly racist rhetoric as he launched ever more personal attacks against Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, raising fears that supporters could try to lash out on his behalf. Trump even shared an image of himself holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Bragg.”

RELATED: Trump is giving his ‘violent followers’ time to get organized: former FBI official

According to the Guardian report, “Wearing a dark jacket, white shirt and no tie, he said: ‘I got bad publicity and my poll numbers have gone through the roof – would you explain this to me … It gets so much publicity that the case actually gets adjudicated in the press and people see it’s bullshit.'”

The former president also, once again, called his 2024 run the “final battle.”

“Our opponents have done everything they can to crush our spirit and to break our will. But they failed. They’ve only made us stronger. And 2024 is the final battle, it’s going to be the big one. You put me back in the White House, their reign will be over and America will be a free nation once again,” he told the crowd.

You can read more here.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Desperate to Keep Any Possible Criminal Evidence From Supreme Court: Legal Expert

Published

on

Donald Trump’s decision to allow one of his lawyers to speak before a grand jury on Friday morning, instead of appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, may have been made out of fear of what the justices on the nation’s highest court might see if they reviewed the case.

According to MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, under normal circumstances, the former president would have dragged out a legal fight over attorney-client privilege that would have kept attorney Evan Corcoran from testifying under oath about Trump’s possession of government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort that led to the FBI showing up with a warrant.

As Rubin notes, the fact that Trump let Corcoran testify over three hours raised eyebrows.

“For one, yes, it is indeed unusual, if not unheard of, for a lawyer to be litigating against a party one day and then testifying under court-ordered examination by that same party the next one,” she wrote before suggesting Trump and his legal team were looking at the long game when he might need the predominantly conservative Supreme Court to lend him a helping hand.

RELATED: Revealed: Emails show how Trump lawyers drove Michael Cohen to turn on the president

Writing, “Trump has made clear he believes this Supreme Court — controlled by conservative justices, three of whom he appointed — owes him one,” she added, “My hunch is that Trump’s team let Corcoran’s testimony happen because of what’s likely involved in any request to pause, much less, review a crime-fraud-related ruling: the evidence.”

“Put another way, if Trump had petitioned the Supreme Court to stay Corcoran’s testimony and document production, the justices would have seen some, if not all, of what Judge Howell and the three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit have already reviewed: proof that Trump misled Corcoran and engaged in criminal conduct,” she elaborated.

Rubin went on to note that Trump would likely appeal any conviction to the Supreme Court, writing, “And for someone whose one last hope, if he is ultimately charged or tried by any of the multiple entities now investigating him, is that same Supreme Court, letting the justices see evidence of his alleged crimes now would be a bridge too far.”

“Trump can’t afford to lose the Supreme Court yet,” she suggested.

You can read more here.

Continue Reading

News

No TX Congressional Republican Will Say If They’re Attending Trump’s Rally in Waco – Will He Have Trouble Filling Seats?

Published

on

Donald Trump‘s Saturday campaign rally in Waco, Texas, falls during the 30th anniversary of the 51-day siege that community is known for, when 86 people died after a failed ATF raid on an anti-government religious cult suspected of illegally stockpiling firearms amid allegations of sexual abuse, statutory rape, and polygamy.

Experts have been warning for a week that Trump’s choice of Waco, synonymous with violent anti-government extremism, was no accident. His rhetoric this week, including most recently Friday when he warned of “potential death & destruction” should he be indicted, has been seen as encouraging violence.

NCRM was among the first news outlets to report experts’ concerns over Trump’s choice to hold a rally in Waco during the 30th anniversary of the deadly siege.

Not a single congressional Republican from Texas will say they are attending, nor has the town’s GOP mayor, according to a report from Insider, which contacted over two dozen Republican lawmakers and other elected officials.

“None of the 30 Texas Republicans Insider contacted about the event said they were going,” Insider reveals.

“Most of the 30 GOP members contacted about Donald Trump’s inaugural visit to the site of a 30-year-old standoff between cult leader David Koresh and federal authorities did not respond to requests for comment about whether they intended to rally with the scandal-plagued candidate and perhaps say a few kind words,” Insider reports.

“Rep. Pete Sessions, a Waco native who now represents the surrounding 17th congressional district, praised Trump for shining a light on his hometown but said he’d have to miss the spectacle,” Insider adds. “Aides to Rep. Troy Nehls, one of the four House Republicans from Texas who have formally backed Trump’s 2024 run, told Insider he wouldn’t be heading to Waco because of a prior commitment in Washington, DC, this weekend.”

READ MORE: ‘Utter Cowardice’: Jim Jordan Blasted for Telling Reporter He Can’t Read Trump’s Violence-Threatening Post Without Glasses

Meanwhile, in addition to guest list challenges – the campaign refused to tell Insider who the guest speakers will be – Trump may have trouble filling seats.

Mary Trump, the ex-president’s niece who opposes him, has been running a campaign to get anti-Trump Americans to “sign up” for tickets to the Saturday rally, in the hopes of being able to turn away supporters.

“Donald has a rally in Waco this Saturday,” she also said via Twitter. “It’s a ploy to remind his cult of the infamous Waco siege of 1993, where an anti-government cult battled the FBI. Scores of people died. He wants the same violent chaos to rescue him from justice.”

“But we can stop him. If we book the 50,000+ venue, we can make sure most of the seats are empty when the traitor takes the stage,” she said. “We can no longer fail to hold powerful men accountable for their crimes against our country.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.