These days, people say "Season's Greetings," which, when you think about it, means nothing. It's like walking up to somebody and saying "Appropriate Remark" in a loud, cheerful voice.

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

This Is The Santorum I Know

I find it hard to believe I am writing these words. But the following is an excerpt from a column extolling the virtues of Rick Santorum written by, are you sitting down? George Will.

They (ordinary Republicans) crave fun. Supporting Mitt Romney still seems to many like a duty, the responsible thing to do. Suddenly, supporting Santorum seems like a lark, partly because a week or so ago he could quit complaining about media neglect and start having fun, which is infectious.

He can, of course, be tenaciously serious. On Sept. 26, 1996, the Senate was debating whether to ban partial-birth abortion, the procedure whereby the baby to be killed is almost delivered, feet first, until only a few inches of its skull remain in the birth canal, and then the skull is punctured, emptied and collapsed. Santorum asked two pro-choice senators opposed to the ban, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), this: Suppose the baby slips out of the birth canal before it can be killed. Should killing it even then be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say no.

On Oct. 20, 1999, during another such debate, Santorum had a colloquy with pro-choice Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.):

Santorum: “You agree that, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?”

Boxer: “I think that when you bring your baby home . . . .”

Santorum is not, however, a one-dimensional social conservative. He was Senate floor manager of the most important domestic legislation since the 1960s, the 1996 welfare reform.
It was Rick Santorum who took the fight over partial-birth abortion to the Dems. It was Rick Santorum who exposed the monstrous logic of the pro-aborts in Congress. It was Rick Santorum. He has made his mistakes, mistakes he admits, but that is the Rick Santorum I know. That is the Rick Santorum I support. That is the Rick Santorum you should support too.

Oh, by the way. Did you see that Boxer quote above? Your life is not protected by the Constitution until they bring you home. M.O.N.S.T.E.R.S.

Your Ad Here

31 comments:

Staying Aglow said...

Great article. I think you need to talk aboutKaren Santorum. She is awesome! They are a package deal. She would be the best first lady ever!

Michelle said...

Barbara Boxer's opinion is a great reason to have a home birth.

Anonymous said...

Monsters, indeed! Monsters in deed and in word.

Mary De Voe said...

George Will has a son, Ben, who is like Sarah Palin's son, Trig...and he loves him, dearly. George Will knows the beauty and innocence of the human being endowed with life by our Creator. Patrick Archbold for HHS.

Jay Anderson said...

Wow. Excellent piece. George Will seems to be trying to get back into my good graces.

He describes the Rick Santorum that was once my "favorite" politician (to the extent one can have a "favorite politician"). I'm supporting Santorum at this point. He's certainly the best from the standpoint of social issues and traditional family values, but I do wish he were a little more Catholic and a little less "Republican" on issues like Wilsonian foreign policy adventurism, so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques", and immigration.

ProudHillbilly said...

I've linked over and included this in my blog today - thanks for the post.

Peter and Nancy said...

I was so shocked by this one part of the article that I had to go back and read it for the main point. God help us. I am thankful for George Will -- he is a great thinker and student of history, as well as a principled man.

FWMN said...

If I were able to vote, RS would get mine!!!
Wish out prime minister Stephen Harper had his kind of courage.

Anonymous said...

Mark Shea writes on his blog that true Catholics can't support Santorum because he approves of waterboarding.

Michelle said...

But since Obama is opposed to waterboarding, the choice is clear...

Anonymous said...

I was saddened to see Mr. Santorum floundering when Bill O'Reilly asked him to defend his anti-homosexual, anti-same-sex marriage policies.
He simply had no explanation to offer. He had better come up with a defense of the natural law pretty quick or his done for.

My Chocolate Heart said...

I've watched the entire exchange between Santorum and Boxer that Will referenced, and I've read the transcripts, and Boxer's position is just.plain.EVIL. Santorum was heroic during that debate, and it was his tenacity that ultimately got that bill passed. He's the genuine article. His wife is a living saint, and the two of them together are a dynamic couple.
SANTORUM 2012!!

John H. said...

Anon, it's waterboarding AND his support of unjust war, among other things. Pre-emptive and unjust wars are forms of murder. Perhaps not as bad as abortion, but still atrocities. Sontorum has a congressional record of supporting at least 1 such war, and he is running on a campaign platform of supporting another. Ron Paul is pro-life, anti-torture, and anti-premptive war. Thus, he is the candidate most in line with Catholic teaching.

Charles Culbreth said...

Anonymous @ 2:58 said...
"I was saddened to see Mr. Santorum floundering when Bill O'Reilly asked him to defend his anti-homosexual, anti-same-sex marriage policies."

That's not an accurate recollection of that exchange. O'Reilly basically stated, in the guise of a question, that Santorum should expect the full frontal brunt force of the PAC's, the media and all the blogging wagdom who support those respective agendas. IIRC, the quote went "You know they're going to come after YOU now, right? Santorum didn't falter, he just had that "well, duh, Bill...what do you want me to say?" expression on his face. That wasn't Santorum's mishap, it was O'Reilly's prompting to elicit a soundbyte at best, or just another attempt to self-affirm his own reputation as a sage social commentator with a sharp acumen.
I thought it was a blunder for O'Reilly and a "nothing to see here, move on" moment.

Mary De Voe said...

@Anonymous 2:58 Homosexual activity is the exercise of LUST. People have been forced to codify homosexual behavior as LOVE, but that is perjury in a court of law. LUST is the denial of the partner's immortal soul, the metaphysical, intellectual, free will, the unalienable rights. Homosexual behavior is addictive and compulsive. LOVE requires sacrifice.

Mary De Voe said...

but your life is protected by The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Government does not bestow LIFE nor Personhood, our Creator does. When two become one, our Creator gives the newly begotten HIS Name: "I AM" GOD IS EXISTENCE. The atheist says: "I AM an atheist" and uses God's name in vain and contradicts himself.

Michelle said...

Actually, my husband and I just happened to have this conversation tonight: the Declaration of Independence is not the law of our land, the Constitution is. The Constitution does not spell out protection for life, leaving that to the states to take care of.

My Chocolate Heart said...

But the guiding principles of the nation from its inception were those spelled out in the Declaration. The Declaration was the foundation for the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

I think bloggers, Catholic or otherwise, should stop telling others how to vote. We are not electing a pope, nor the leader of a sect, we are electing a leader of the nation. Religion should not enter into this. Romney is a strong family man, ethical, and the fruits of his years are clearly displayed by his grown family who also are the same quality as himself. Rick S. cannot get elected in the general and anyone who follows politics knows this. If you want 4 more years of "O" - go for Rick S. I am a Catholic who will not vote for him (because I know he will never beat "O" and will never make the cut for the general.

Tom Brown said...

Santorum is a Zionist.

Anonymous said...

"Mark Shea writes on his blog that true Catholics can't support Santorum because he approves of waterboarding."

Mark Shea is clever and a good writer, but sometimes comes across as one who will always, somehow, find an excuse to sit out the fight on the side lines as neither team is just quite good enough.

Santorum actively fighting against millions of dead babies every year is negated for not condeming two terrorsits being pestered a couple of years ago? Versus Obama the abortion promotor who vaporizes suspected terrorists, an American included, with Hellfire missiles from drones? Get a grip Mark, really.

Irenaeus of New York said...

An old pro-life veteran explained to me that the reason that procedure was invented was to ensure the baby would be silent(its head still in the womb while the rest of the body was out) while they engaged in murder, in order to combat another piece of legislation that said if the baby cried it was considered alive/human. Monsters is right.

Ryan said...

So just because he is pro-life, I should support him?? I just don't understand why one issue should outweigh all the other issues.. Don't get me wrong, I am pro-life but it is not the ONLY issue I look at when it comes to voting..

Irenaeus of New York said...

Ryan,

When we stop murdering millions of babies, then we can worry about the economy. There are other issues to be sure, but first things first.

Chris L. said...

With all due respect, I think Santorum is a just another cafeteria catholic. He picks and chooses Church teaching he wants to follow just as Pelosi and Biden do but on different subjects (all intrinsically evil though). Pelosi supports abortion. Santorum supports torture and the unjust murder of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocent ex utero people with unjust wars and immoral sanctions. I cannot in good conscience support a man who has promised to wage another immoral and unjust war that will further bankrupt this country and result in the deaths of only God knows how many more innocents.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, Senator Santorum is a backdoor dealer. Sure, he is strong on abortion, but he is also pro-torture. In regards to the rule of law, for him, it doesn't exist if his agenda is going to be stalled by it. When he even chooses to use congress to get a declaration of war, that is wrong. Now, we are up in arms against Obama using powers that do not exist. Does it make it more OK if it is your guy in the White House. When we follow the rule of law, there will not be tyranny. In regards to abortion, it is death by murder. Do we take the cases of murder to the Supreme Court or to the local law enforcement which then takes it to the state? You tell me. When we follow the rule of law, there won't be heaven on earth, but there will be an inoculation against tyrannic abuse of powers by the left and the right machinery.

Philip

dangerouslycatholic@gmail.com

Mary De Voe said...

@Michelle 7:21 You and your husband are correct. Our Constitution, written 12 years after the Declaration of Independence, by our founding fathers embodies all the truths inscribed in the Declaration. Our Constitution assumes that all persons are present and accounted for and acknowledges "the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity", all future generations as the purpose for the Constitution. A pro-abortionist once told me that the Preamble to the Constitution was not valid. To legalize abortion the Founding Fathers were ridiculed as senile old men who were no longer relevant. This is very intimidating to persons with young minds. Basically, the pro-aborts know exactly what they are doing. Pro-aborts have seized the power over life and death and care little for any person's unalienable rights. Read Isaiah chapt 29:15-16; 20-21; our Judeo-Christian principles are inscribed eloquently. Individuals who change our principles without two-thirds of the states ratifying the change are usurpers and tyrants and need to be deported. Obama expunged the Habeas Corpus from our Constitutional rights New Years Eve, when Obama signed a bill allowing citizens to be imprisoned without charges indefinitely. Martial Law. Only enemy combatants may be imprisoned indefinitely until they may be tried under the articles of war because they are ENEMIES. Obama wrote a "religious test" forbidden by our Constitution, for citizens to be given Obamacare. Next, the gulag, so if you do not read my next blog ask for me.

Mary De Voe said...

@Santorum: Congress declares WAR, and police action and military intervention. Congress is the will of the people. The will of the people is our government. Nothing less, nothing more.

Catholic Dad said...

I'm new here in terms of commenting, but my wife has been a reader of CMR for a couple of years, and she regularly shows/sends me the "best" posts. I'm an American and I'm Catholic... we teach pre-cana, homeschool our large family, attend daily Mass, donate lots of money to pro-life causes, etc. I'm not paid by any campaign. So I think we'd pass the muster to be able to join the discussion here.

My wife came to me today and said - "you have to reach out to the Archbolds about the election" and we discussed it. There are a few points that I wanted to bring out in my post:

1) A government powerful enough to enact the kind of social conservatism that aligns with our Catholic world-view is also powerful enough to force the kind of social agenda that we don't want. We have been fighting against abortion for 40 years, and I think we have made precious little progress politically (though I do think we are winning hearts and minds on the issue). The gay marriage issue isn't going to go away, and with the shifts in the population (i.e. old people dying and being replaced by young people), I see the odds going up that our country passes more pro-gay marriage laws, not less. So if we try to make everything a big, national "us vs. them" kind of struggle, we'll either not make any real progress, or we'll flat out lose, and have the alternative position forced on us. We don't have the votes to get a constitutional amendment on either abortion or gay marriage - that would really be the only way to "win" those issues at the national level.

Here's an extreme example - if we got enough popular support to have the US Dept. of Education to make sure that Theology of the Body is taught in every classroom across the country, that might seem like a huge win. But when others get in power and teach about casual sex, we'd be ready to march on that same department. My position is increasingly that we need to take as much power away from Washington DC as possible on all of these issues, and it just so happens to align with the US Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. The more power that they have, the more likely it will be used against us (just like Roe v Wade is used now). Santorum's solutions seem to be too much of the "all or nothing" mentality.

2) While we've been fighting for the social issues that we want, we've allowed our government to grow to a size that is out of control and unsustainable. Republicans have come along and told us that they cared about our social issues, and then proceeded to do little on those fronts while doing a lot to grow government (i.e. 2000-2006). I don't see any of the candidates except for Ron Paul being a true champion for reigning in the growth in government. None of them have a record of doing so in any serious way. Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling, double the Dept. of Education, and to add free prescription drugs to the federal entitlement system.

3) As Catholics, we can't be "cafeteria" on anything. We have to be pro-life, be open to life, receive the sacraments, etc. And we have to be against torture, pre-emptive war, and the death penalty (except under extreme cases). I don't think it is acceptable to go with candidates that are wrong on those issues, just because there are other issues that we like. And I think it is no excuse to say "well, Obama is worse".

Catholic Dad said...

4) As Catholics, we should know more than others, that we are brothers and sisters in Christ with the Church throughout the world. An innocent in Tehran is just as valuable as an innocent in Des Moines, but I only hear Santorum express any concern about the ones in Des Moines. We should fight harder than anyone else against "us vs. them" attitudes with people around the world. JPII cautioned us against pre-emptive war in Iraq, and most of us agree with him now (even if we disregarded him when he said it). I find it abhorrent to hear politicians like Santorum express the need to fight these wars without showing any sign of moral conflict about the innocents that might be harmed. In the debates, it almost seems like a contest to see who will bomb Iran first, and I think Santorum is ahead!

5) We can't afford to live in fear. I mean literally, we can't afford it. But that's what most of these candidates are trying to peddle... we'll be at war forever, and that 9/11 changed everything. It isn't going to be financially possible for us to outspend the rest of the world on military by 5x going forward, and we don't need to do so to be safe. We've spent an extra $4 trillion of our children's money (since we can't fund the government ourselves) to try and make ourselves feel safe again after 9/11 when all we really needed to do was put locks on the doors to the cockpits of commercial airplanes. In fact our $4 trillion has bought us very little, other than scads of enemies that arise with every misplaced bomb that kills civilians or every sanction we impose that hurts innocents. Not to mention the soldiers that we've lost, or that are ripped away from their families.

6) NDAA. SOPA. Patriot Act. TSA. Ron Paul is the only candidate that is opposed to all of this unconstitutional nonsense. I'd like my 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, thank you very much. And no one is stronger on 1st or 2nd amendment than Ron Paul either. I know the Constitution is in safe hands with Paul - no one else gives me that assurance.

7) Federal reserve. Probably the most under-reported issue of our age - they facilitate our huge deficit and were directly responsible for the housing bubble. And they are so unaccountable to the people, that even Congress can't do a full audit of their activities. Inflation is a hidden tax that hurts middle class families the most, and no one else is even talking about the rise in food prices, energy prices, etc. caused by this recklessness.

My post is already lengthy, so I won't go on any further for now. But I think faithful Catholics really need to take a look at Ron Paul and think through how his positions align with our Church. Don't let fear guide your hearts - learn about his positions for yourselves.

Anonymous said...

@CatholicDad
Hey Catholic Dad--I can understand your support of Ron Paul, I think he has many admirable positions, particularly with respect to the rule of law and how the last two administrations have undermined it. I can also understand some of your reservations about Rick Santorum. I share them. However it is important to keep some of the moral issues on the front burner, which is not something I believe that Congressman Paul is quite prepared to do as he would defer such questions to the states as a matter of principle (including with respect to gay marriage and drug use). Additionally, his positions with respect to supporting (or not) Israel are frankly more troubling (and willing to ignore reality) than Senator Santorum's on Iran. A further inspection of Senator Santorum's record reveals that he has used the government to benefit the less fortunate, earning praise even from U2's Bono, which is something Congressman Paul should, as a matter of principle be less willing to do. On balance, I believe that Senator Santorum's positions are most closely aligned with Catholic teaching and thus, although not perfect, most worthy of our support.

Post a Comment