Rick Santorum: An American Ayatollah?

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In, is now available.


It’s the latest Leftist talking point: Rick Santorum is a bit dangerous, a bit unhinged, deeply religious and dangerously fanatical, not to be trusted with the governance of our pluralistic republic, and certainly not with guardianship of the First Amendment protection of the freedom of religion. The prominent Leftist Muslim writer Reza Aslan has recently become a foremost exponent of these claims, although they did not by any means originate with him.

Leftist journalists and Islamic supremacist spokesmen always march in lockstep, using the same talking points, as I’ve pointed out previously in connection with Islamic supremacist boy Reza Aslan’s frequent recycling of tired and discredited Leftist/Islamic supremacist agitprop. Aslan is so abjectly intellectually bereft that he has apparently never had an idea of his own, but only repeats whatever his masters have determined to be the political line of the day, and can do nothing but hurl adolescent abuse at those who dare point out his unsavory allegiances and shoddy, dishonest reasoning. Aslan routinely lies about the positions of his opponents — apparently the real points they make are beyond his meager intellectual abilities to answer, so he has to resort to setting up straw men, and does so regularly.

Aslan’s latest straw man, and parroting of a Leftist talking point, comes in a piece so cutesy and self-conscious that the reader is almost embarrassed for him: “Grand Ayatollah or Grand Old Party?,” in Foreign Policy. It’s an exercise in moral equivalence, equating Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. The piece appeared on February 29, one day after — what a coincidence! — the Cagle cartoon above, which equates Santorum with Taliban suicide bombers. I am not saying Aslan cribbed from Cagle; what is more likely is that they’re both repeating a Leftist line that originated with neither of them.

Anyway, Aslan’s whole piece is summed up in its subtitle: “Who said it: Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or U.S. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum?” The bulk of the rest is a series of quotes, with the reader invited to guess which man said each, although only the most blinkered Leftist would fail to identify correctly the source of each one. Writes Aslan — and one can picture him mugging furiously for the cameras — “One is a religious fanatic railing against secularism, the role of women in the workplace, and the evils of higher education, as he seeks to impose his draconian moral values upon the state. The other is the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Yes, yes, Santorum is the American Khamenei, the American Taliban. No doubt he wants to mow down his own people who dare to dissent from his policies, blow up girls’ schools, throw acid in the faces of women who get out of line, make people wearing Western dress drink from latrine water, imprison and torture rivals and those who disagree with him, amputate the hands of thieves, murder apostates, stone adulterers — you name it. Of course, Leftists probably really do believe that Santorum wants to do those things, and are attacking him on that basis, even though it doesn’t seem to bother them all that much when the mullahs or the Taliban actually do them.

Behind this witless equivalence, there is a more sinister agenda. Aslan is a Board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), about which the Iranian human rights activist Manda Zand Ervin writes:

The Iranian American community widely believes NIAC…to be a Washington lobby group for the Khomeinist regime leadership. NIAC has long advocated unconditional negotiations with Tehran, and the total abandonment of all economic sanctions and military options against the Iranian regime. NIAC’s advocacy appears as a deftly veiled refusal to support the Iranian democracy activists and the Iranian freedom movement. This is not only un-American but contradicts all conservative ideals. The founder of NIAC, Trita Parsi is an unpopular figure within the Iranian-American community, as can be seen from his high disapproval ratings in a July 2011 poll of over 1800 Iranian Americans taken by the Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran. Senator Jon Kyl has called for an investigation into Trita Parsi and his work. Last month, on November 5, Parsi stated that criticism of Iran should be “punishable.”

So by equating Santorum with Khamenei, Aslan is not only smearing Santorum, but whitewashing the murderous mullahs, equating their bloody record with American social conservatism. In other words, Aslan is not just stupid; he’s evil.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • kblink45

    The left is always a few centuries behind. How progressssive.

    • Questions

      The problem with the Left is quite the opposite: They're always a few centuries ahead, imagining an idealized paradise on earth, achievable so long as the right people are in power. Rick Santorum, however, really is several decades behind. The ayatollah analogy isn't really accurate, but a James Dobson analogy would be. He may not be a monster, but I'm not voting him either.

    • thomas mc

      Typical Conservative, bashing the Left for daring to see the truth.

  • maturin20

    But without folks like Reza Aslan, what would you do for work, Mr. Spencer?

    • Poppakap

      But without conservative website comments sections, what would you do for work maturin?

      At least Mr. Spencer writes honestly and uses his real name. You, on the other hand, enjoy the safety of a gutless online personna where you can troll to your Marxist content.

      • maturin20

        As for me, my name is Ray Diaz.

  • hashim

    Like Santorum, Spencer is a Christian taliban.

    • Al Sayyid

      I bet you are the Islamic version if Santorim is the Christian Taliban.

    • Poppakap

      Like maturin20, hashim is the REAL taliban; willing to kill, defame, shout down, and critically injure those that don't accept "Lifestyles of the Middle Ages" as enlightenment.

      • maturin20

        I think you're overcompensating for Jose Padilla.

  • Amused

    Santorum's a liar and hypocrite .His stories about "being victimized " for his views while a student at Penn State are total Bullsheet , and THAT corroborated by his professors and students who knew him at Penn State ..He would ban abortion under any circumstance , unless of course it was his own wife who had one performed to save her life . His voting record as a legislator was anything but Conservative , lol….he voted FOR Alaska's bridge to nowhere .And yes he is an "ayatolloah " as per his positions on contraception and "sex for procreation " only . His rants about Satan make him a screwball . But hey , if Republicans want to put him up against Obama ? Expect another four years of Obama .And like the other clown and liar , "flipper " Romney , he has had to, on too many recent occcaissions , deny or backpeddle on statements that he made that are on the record ….making him a LIAR ..
    But you will blame who for outing this miscreant ? The Left ? LOL….anyone with a working brain can see through this clown . Smarten up Repocons ! Or go down with your delusions.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      And like the other clown and liar , "flipper " Romney , he has had to, on too many recent occcaissions , deny or backpeddle on statements that he made that are on the record ….making him a LIAR ..

      Romney's is alleged to be a flip flopper because his words didn't match his rhetoric when he ran for office and later became governor of liberal Massachusetts. In other words, Romney's words indicated that he would be far more liberal if elected than he actually turned out to be. However, since Romney's actions as governor turned out to be far more conservative than his words, he is ludicrously condemned and deemed as being a flip flopper. For instance, Romney vetoed a bill that would have made fetus farming legal in liberal Massachusetts.

      Nevertheless, on the other hand, if you are a conservative as opposed to a liberal, it is ludicrous to condemn Romney as a flip flopper, since he flip flopped in all the right ways.

      Meanwhile, Gingrich and Santorum's false claims of being real conservatives are betrayed by their long track records of actions that indicate that neither Gingrich nor Santorum are real conservatives.

      • Amused

        Nope ..I aint a conservative …no way no how . Neither is Romney .

        • ObamaYoMoma

          It doesn't matter. He is still easily the most conservative out of the three, notwithstanding that unhinged kook Ron Paul.

    • Poppakap

      Your comments are truly amusing. Thanks for the comic relief.

    • jbiafra

      You're nuts. You're awful angry though., You must really be afraid that he might win.

      • Amused

        please , dont try your projections on me , you have no idea whether I'm happy angry or indifferent . Santorums a phony hypocrite , as well as Romney and Gingrich ….Republicans have my sympathy , if the dreggs of the party is all they can put up for election . But that sympathy is limited , for Republicans have passed up good men in order to pander to the christian right , teabaggers and pro-lifers . They're letting the idiots run their party .

        • Beth

          Christianity:

          Do not lie

          Do not steal

          Do not cheat

          Do no murder

          Do not covet (for that leads to violating the other 4 laws)

          Yeah….I guess those laws would erk any liberal. Do they not?

          And beyond those carnal laws of Christianity – there are no more. When the simplicity of the teachings of Christ are put forth for all to see (and leaving no debate) that leaves your personality quite naked Amused (for all to see).

  • Amused

    A religious theocrat has no place in American politics , ACCORDING TO Our Own Constitution as so many of you here claim to know and love . And as for the above mentioned Robert Spencer ? He has an extremely important message and job to do , and would do well , for the sake of his own credibility ,to distance himself from such screwballs as Santorum .

    • Al Sayyid

      So why you viteral hatred for Santorum and not the Islamic groups that would curtail your freedom of speech? That’s why leftists are nuts, the real threat is in front but they go chase some imaginary boogeyman. I am waiting for you to blame the Jews since you leftists are anti-Semitic .

      • cc

        I’m not a Santorum person, but you are so right…the hatred is sickening and belongs elsewhere..with the real terrorists.

        • WildJew

          My main problem with Santorum has more to do with his position with respect to the global jihad than his positions respecting his Church. Like Romney, Santorum talks tough on Iran, but when Romney and Santorum were offered a chance to stand strong against jihadists, they folded. That was the December 10 Iowa debate when Gingrich was confronted by George Stephanopoulos on the Palestinians, who Gingrich said invented themselves into a phony people in order to destroy Israel.

          Speaker Newt Gingrich: 22:04:50:00 Somebody oughta have the courage to tell the truth: These people are terrorists.

          GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: 22:05:09:00 Governor Romney, (APPLAUSE) you just heard the Speaker say he was just telling the truth. Do you take any issue with that characterization of the Palestinians as an invented people?

          GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: 22:05:22:00 I– I happen to agree with– with most of what the speaker said, except by going down and saying the Palestinians are an invented people. That I think was a mistake on the speaker's part. I– I think– you– you– I think the speaker would probably suggest that as well. I– I don't think we want to–

          22:05:35:00 (SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: UNINTELLIGIBLE)

          GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: Maybe not. I– (LAUGHTER) I think we're very wise to stand with our friends, Israel, and not get out ahead of them.

          Romney: 22:05:51:00 They– Israel does not want us to make it more difficult for them to sit down with the Palestinian (terrorists – wildjew).

          SENATOR RICK SANTORUM: 22:11:50:00 If I can finish my s– comment, I'll get to that, George. (LAUGHTER) That– that we– we have an ally here that we have to work closely with. And I think Mitt's point was– was the correct one. We need to be working with the Israelis to find out, you know what? Is this a wise thing for us to do, to step forward and to engage this issue? Maybe it is.

          22:12:10:00 My guess is, at this point in time, it's not. Not that we shouldn't tell the truth, but we should be talking to our allies. It's their fight.

          It's "their fight?"

    • Beth

      Article. VII (and the last) of the Constitution of the United States of America

      Done in Convention by the UNANIMOUS Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only one possible Lord for this Constitution] and of the IINDEPENDENCE (from all other nations) of the United States of America.

  • adheeb

    Rick Santorum is often misunderstood because half the prople talking about him are lying.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Well the fact that he spent money like a Dhimmicrat on steroids and helped GWB to more than double the size, scope, and power of the federal government while in the senate is undeniable, and the fact that he also voted against “Right to Work” laws and pandered to big labor is also irrefutable.

      While I agree that Santorum like GWB is a social conservative, when it comes to everything else like GWB, Santorum is a stealth leftist on steroids. Indeed, when GWB was president, the Republican Party was morphed into the second-coming of the Dhimmicrat Party, as it grew government like Dhimmicrats on steroids and without regard to how we would pay for everything. Which is also why as soon as the economy headed south in 2008, the budget deficits and the national debt both exploded through the roof completely out of control.

      Indeed, this country has already had way too much of Rick Santorum and his ilk and the last thing it needs is for him to get elected president no less. He did enough damage when he was in office already, which is why he and a lot of his big spending ilk were all kicked out of the Senate and congress in 2006. Indeed, even though Santorum was a Republican, the size, scope, and power of the federal government increased by 80 percent during his time in office. We need Republicans like Rick Santorum like we need a heart attack.

    • thomas mc

      Only the half that support him.

      • kentatwater

        A swing and a miss.

    • Amused

      yea ,yea , blah , blah , blah ….he's a LIAR and Hypocrite …..thats fact .

  • scotsirish

    Thank you, Robert Spencer, for your commitment to Freedom and to the truth. If all else fails we can make a last stand with you and with Pamela and your mature and thoughtful battles for the Patriots of America and for Western Civilization. As Pamela stated today "I am ready to wear a cross and a Star of David on my neck."
    Thank you, again.

  • David

    When I read the comments of that amused person and others with the same outlook on life I am sorry to say but I believe that America is past the point of no return, so sad for a nation that used to be great.

    • Amused

      lol…that;s funny , you paranoid hypocrites here are the doomsayers . America's in great shape , and will be , that';s before numbskulls like you got the spotlight and after you're gone .When chicken hawks like your lot , and liberal pacifists have both turn and run , it'll be the centrists and independents like me who will be left with the guns and the task .

      • Beth

        Oh I do believe you have thoroughly UNDER-ESTIMATED the strength of the 'red-necks' of this country Amused. I have no doubt about that. And time will tell.

  • Lrnglbrt

    Santorum is no theocrat, he is a person with conservative moral convictions. The sad truth is this country is past the point of being able to elect a moral conservative.

    Besides, what does the Constitution guarantee? GOD given rights, end of story. You can't have one without the other, it just doesn't work that way. If you can't grasp that most important single simple point you are completely clueless.

    If you enjoy the downward spiral of this country by all means vote for the politically convenient.

    • Questions

      Where does the word "God" appear in the Constitution? And if there is a more totalitarian phrase than "end of story," I should like to know what it is.

      • Steeloak

        It does not as you know – however, "Lord" does. Our founding fathers were deeply religious men whose ideas on the constitution were illuminated by their faith. Any reading of their writings makes that quite clear.
        They were from many different faiths & understood that to have freedom of religion & lack of religious strife, all religions must be free to practice as they see fit. They also believed that there should be no state religion, as was the case in England & much of Europe.
        Hence the language in the first amendment – "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

        • Questions

          Our Founders generally were Christian-influenced Deists. But they were not nearly as religious as many on the contemporary Right have made them out to be. And yes, I've read Locke several times.

          • Steeloak

            You have obviously not read their own writings for you to be repeating the Deist myth.
            I am an agnostic, so I have no religious axe to grind. They were Christians in belief, in words, and in deeds.
            Here are some examples:

          • Steeloak

            George Washington:
            "I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large; and, particularly, for their brethren who have served in the Geld; and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacifick temper of the mind, which were the characteristicks of the divine Author of our blessed religion ; without an humble imitation of whose example, in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
            Circular Letter to the Governours of the several States (18 June 1783).

          • Steeloak

            Benjamin Franklin:
            "You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
            "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

            "I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it… I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."

            [Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778

          • Steeloak

            Jefferson was indeed a Deist, but not in the modern sense of the word. For him Deism meant belief in one God. http://www.amorian.org/2010/01/14/thomas-jefferso

          • Steeloak

            The only one who fits the modern description of a deist is Thomas Paine, who was famous for his anti-religious views.

            "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

            From "The Age of Reason" 1794

      • Beth

        Article. VII (and the last) of the Constitution of the United States of America

        Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only one possible Lord for this Constitution] and of the Independence of the United States of America.

        Need more? There is more proof. But if that piece of proof is not loud enough for you 'Questions' – then nothing will be good enough for you – and that leaves only one question: Are you a traitor to America's laws?

    • Steeloak

      You misunderstand the constitution, it does not guarantee our rights, it limits the power of the federal government to infringe on our rights. Our rights are unalienable, read Locke on natural law to understand better.

    • thomas mc

      Santorum also wants to give pedophile priests immunity from prosecution.

      Think about that.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Ridiculous. Prove it …

      • Beth

        Just as Stephen points out – Prove it! There are laws for slander and I do believe that Rick Santorum could have a good case against you in the court of law. Freedom of speech does not protect slander.

    • Amused

      Oh screw you Lmglbrt , I dont need no assshole telling me sex is for procreation , and women have to explain how they use their contraceptive ….that religious -bullssshhheeet dogma, and that 's the stuff theocrats are made of , Santorums no exception . If I remember correctly the Constitution gives people the right of choice , and is regardless of your particular moral foibles.

  • pagegl

    The Constitution hasn't been taught in public schools in ages, so, I doubt Amused ot Maturin20 really know what it says. Their knowledge of the document probably comes primarily from leftist talking points that center around the idea that the Constitution is a living, growing document.

  • Questions

    Here's what you ought to "get": Religions are not governments and governments are not religions. Neither should run each other. Just as government shouldn't censor religion, it shouldn't sponsor it either.

    I believe in freedom of religion — and freedom from it. That includes the right not to be taxed to support this or that church. It comforts me that this was the position taken by the Framers, contrary to the nonsense spouted by the likes of Glenn Beck.

    • Steeloak

      Funny, having watched Glenn Beck for years, his position is exactly what the constitution says and is exactly the same as what you stated.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Once agaiin, however, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the right to worship from unwarranted governmental interference.

      What would be unwarranted? If a religious group practised human sacrifice, that would be unwarranted, even if the sacrifice went to the altar voluntarily. Human sacrifice would deprive the perso being sacrificed of one of the cornerstones of the Republic … the Right to Life.

      Righ now, the government … led by President Obama … is exercising unwarranted governmental interference against religion by REQUIRING that religious-based institutions violate their doctrines and conscience by providing contraceptive services to their employees. Unwarranted and un-needed, since contraceptive services are available nationwide, at little or no cost. This is a direct attack on the institutions, and on the spirit of the Constitution.

      Once again, people of faith need protection from the government which … as you point out … is not a religion.

      One quick point: bringing up Glenn Beck, in this context, is an attempt to misdirect the discussion, and get it off-point. It's called a "Red Herring" (at least, that's the common term for the logical fallacy).

      • Questions

        There's no red herring here. Glenn Beck is representative of an all-too-common tendency to view religious freedom in this country as a one-way street — freedom of it, but not from it. And inevitably, he and others (mis)use the Constitution to make their point.

        • Stephen_Brady

          You have a perfect right to be free of religion. But you don't have the right to be free of people of faith, without some sort of holocaust. The Founders would have been appalled at the very notion that believers must keep their beliefs to themselves, and not allow those beliefs to influence how they address the problems of the nation.

          I am a believer in Jesus Christ. Nowhere in th Constitution am I forbidden to take that belief into the voter's booth, or into public service.

          Once again, you don't have a right to be free of me. So, over the course of time, let's test our own reiigious perspectives (or lack of same, as the case may be) in the public arena, and see which one prevails. It what our Republic is all about …

  • Moishe Pupick

    Tu., 03/13/12 common era

    I'll vote for Santorum, if he is the nominee. However, I think that his abortion stance is more strict than the Orthodox Jewish position. To hear him talk, as President, he would likely approve the creation of a U.S. Department of Intra-uterine Surveillance and approve of bumper stickers reading "I Brake for Zygotes."
    Sometimes, according to Jewish Law, saving the life of the mother takes precedence over saving the life of the unborn child, as long as no part of the child has emerged outside the mother. As I understand the Orthodox rabbis, once any part of the child emerges from the mother, his/her life is equally as important as the mother's.

    • RonL

      All well and good, but Santorum cannot possibly ever do this. The Supreme Court will not allow this. And if, by some chance, Santorum were able to replace some of the leftist ersatz krytocrats with Constitutionalists and Roe Vs Wade were overturned, this would no longer be a federal issue. Rather, abortion would be a state issue.

      Before quoiting Jewish law to talk about American politics, why not learn the Constitution?

      • kentatwater

        Just another mask for a troll. It doesn't care for Jewish law, the Constitution, or much of anything else beyond mockery.

      • Moishe Pupick

        W., 03/14/12 common era

        Yes, I'm fully aware that a President Santorum couldn't unilaterally outlaw all abortions under all circumstances, but a Supreme Court with at least 5 members who agreed with him could do so.
        Yes, reversing Roe versus Wade would be a wise choice; let the States decide for themselves under the 10th Amendment. The religious belief that human life begins at conception (based on the Papal Doctrine of Ensoulment, a 19th Century Catholic dogma) arguably conflicts with the Anti-Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, as applied to the States through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. I reread the U.S. Constitution very often.

      • Amused

        Its fun watching two idiots argue …I'm amused and neither of you two knpow your asss from a hole in the ground .

  • Beth

    Great Article Robert!

  • Beth

    Replying to Amused:

    Article. VII (the last) of the United States Constitution

    Done in Convention by the UNANIMOUS Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only one possible Lord for this Constitution] and of the Independence of the United States of America.

    ("that year signifies only one possible Lord for this Constitution" and still does – every time you sign a dated check or document)

    Deny all you want Amused – But the facts speak for themselves.

    • Questions

      I was waiting for that one. "The Year of Our Lord" — or A.D., if you will — is longtime customary practice of dating a document to ensure it isn't confused with the same year "B.C." The Framers were thinking long-term. The phrase's inclusion in Article VII has absolutely no more to do with a Christian sermon than saying "God bless you" to someone who's just sneezed. It is a legal formality, nothing more and nothing less.

      • RonL

        And the First Amendment protected state Churches in 7 of the 13 states.

      • Beth

        yeah – right 'questions'

        Just so you know – every time you sign a dated check or document – you are testifying to the fact that time for this world began with the birth of Christ. For you to to pretend that that fact has no significance is – well, how shall I put this? Ignorance? But I digress.

        In no way – will you have an easy time of changing the laws of America. And I (for one) am glad that you have no such power.

      • Beth

        Yeah…and let every one know ALL OF THE FACTS – shall we? In islam…if you sneeze….you're the devil. Does that answer any of your 'questions' question? And the fact that such a normal bodily function could get you murdered in islam…….is something to ponder 'question' – is it not?

      • Beth

        And so, you claim Questions. Just because you claim…does that make it true? Remember that each time you sign a dated check or document.

        That's the power, of which you are bent on denying (…even as you sign any legal dated document – using the date of our Lord) ….presented by the very testimony of the Founders of America in our Constitution.

    • Amused

      A.D. Anno Domino Beth , it's an expression of date ….most of the founders were masons anyway . But all your tripe is besides the point , what does that have to do with any governmental official , decree law etc telling me or anyone else whether to use a condum or take a birth control pill . People like Santorum are no better than the Saudi Virtue Police .

      • Beth

        "A.D. Anno Domino Beth , it's an expression of date"

        And so you claim Amused.

        But the words of the laws of America – STILL speak for themselves – and so does every dated check or document that you have ever signed.

  • bryce armstrong

    Why dont we stop blaming the pinkos for a while and start blaming objectovist from timt to time

    • Stephen_Brady

      Because the pinkos are actually to blame?

      • bryce armstrong

        Because Ann Rand and her lot are just as pro abortion ass anybody and yet no one blames them. Also why dont you look at the Capmag.com homepage and tell me what you find.

        • Stephen_Brady

          Were you referring to the Michael Hurd article, concerning Santorum? If so, let me tell you that I am as social conservative as they come, and I do NOT wish to use the power of government to "enforce" my brand of morality, with the exception of abortion (inasmuch as it deprives the unborn of their right to life). One can be a socially-conservative President and NOT use the power of government against those who don't share your sense of morality.

          Ann (Ayn? Were you talking about her?) Rand and the entire libertarian movement stands with the Left on many social issues, including abortion, the legalization of drugs, and so on. So, on this, we completely agree. This is why a vote for Ron Paul is not forthcoming from most social conservatives (not to mention his stances on foreign & military policy).

          I, for one, do blame libertarians for their social policy ideas, which are as offensive as anything that Obama could do,

  • http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ First_One

    Stephen:
    Very good point, I think that many people do not realize what the Constitution actually says. The United States was founded by a moral and religious (Christian) people; in the final analysis it must strive to be a moral and religious; aka Christian, nation. If we fail in this we will perish.

    • Questions

      Statements like these are exactly what the Framers wanted to avoid. We are a nation where Christianity is the prevalent religion. But we're NOT officially a Christian country. And never have been.

      • kentatwater

        Semantic straw man games. You are objecting to something which First_One never said.

        But here is something that a Founder did actually say:

        Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.

  • SchlomoBagelbaum

    Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, what's the difference? As long as they put Israel's interests before those of the American goyim, they're all OK in my book. Not like that vicious anti-Semite Ron Paul. Oy!

    • Steeloak

      That you Hermie? A troll by any other name is still a troll.

    • Amused

      spoken like a true IDIOT Schlomo ….sure that aint SCHMUCKO ?

  • Asher

    Get ready to be attacked by the desperate left who have a miserable record of non-achievement, and disastrous policies. They will go after a Conservative ferociously because they don't have any moral fiber to stand their ground, all they can produce is lies, deceit, foul mouths, and tall tales of Woe…they are so exposed!

  • curmudgeon

    i am heart and soul against the subjugation of the west by islamic tyranny,, and will do whatever is in my power to prevent it, but when islam does inevitably take over, as ordained by our liberal betters, and when i am forced to pray 5 times daily to a god of pure evil, and venerate the worst arch criminal the world has ever produced as the prophet of my new adopted religion of peace, i will inwardly chuckle at the far worse treatment being dealt out to the femnazis, jews, liberals, and homosexuals who were so determined to aid islam in its conquest of the west. it is like they dont have the sense to recognize they are aiding and abetting their worst nightmare.

    • Beth

      curmudgeon: "i am heart and soul against the subjugation of the west by islamic tyranny"

      I would like to produce facts on that thought:

      Taught in the koran:

      Mass Murder……………………………009.005 – 033.061
      Gang Rape (of female 'infidels')……033.052
      Beheadings……………………………..047.004
      Crucifixions………………………………005.033
      Looting……………………………………008.041
      Telling lies to non-muslims………….003.028
      Cutting off hands and feet…………..005.033
      Treason…………………………………..008.067
      Racism……………………………………005.041

      If you (who ever you are) support such teachings…then that is what you are. If you support rape…you're a rapist (no matter how much you deny)….if you support murder – you're a murderer.

      The koran is online for all to see for themselves. Be your own judge. I prefer living in a society that is sickened to the core over such teachings. And I prefer living in a society that is not afraid to speak out loud – the truth when it comes to the facts – no matter how ugly they may be.

  • Stephen_Brady

    Santorum wins Alabama and Mississippi.

    I think Mr. Romney might find a better use for millions of dollars. Perhaps, he could use it to clearly enunciate his vision of the nation, when and IF he is elected, instead of attacking his opponents. Who knows? He might actually connect with the people he inends to rule, that way. I still don't know … after all of his complicated position reports and books … what the guy intends to do, and I don't trust him. He's got to give me a reason to vote for him, rather than just being the "inevitable anti-Obama". He's not there, yet.

    If he doesn't connect with us … the actual voters … there will be four more years of the hellish-nightmare called Obama …

  • kim segar

    Well, checking out all runners. I would say most people don't know a LIAR when they see or hear one. not may if any bother to check out all the bagage either. as for Romney, a shadow of Obama. Gingrich we can thank for the housing bublle, making everyone think freddi and fannie wrere great, kNOWING they were not. but the million in his pocket burnt a hole in it. so much crap done by a one world gov man. Gee…For me, I will vote for Rick Santorum and the ones following the herd can believe HE CAN"T debate the ilegal obama …really !! so they all want to go for the plastic man who invested into Eron, business's and then took his money out soon as he knew a good money grab was the time. And all those who have made government their god and are still drinking from the TIT,, sure as hell, this game like Hitler's..giving many much from those who work hard and then like Hitler, HE WILL TAKE it all back..bet me ?

  • Amused

    The rights abject hatred of Obama , blinds them to their own blunder I love how all of you screach how the left "hates " this and that ….but look at you guys ! Your words drip with hatred .You're no better you bloody hypocrites .It certainly blinds you to the idiot you're trying to put up against the one you so hate .