Tuesday, February 28, 2012

When Politics Becomes Dangerous

I almost never blog about politics and I apologize for doing so now. When I want to make a political comment I usually go to http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com. Michael is a gay guy but mostly blogs about politics from a decidedly liberal point of view. I simply am a citizen concerned for his country, and I have no place else to express my opinion than this blog. And in this blog, I can't do to much harm because those of you who don't want to hear my political opinions can stop reading now and avoid the hassle.

The funny thing is (maybe it's not so funny) Michael and I couldn't be more different politically speaking; but it is amazing how often we agree in principle. I guess it is just proof of how polarized this country has become in its politics and in its citizen's viewpoints.

I'm not one of the 1% we hear so much about these days. I'm not one of the 99% either. I'm one of the top 10% and Michael probably is too. I'll admit I'm proud to be in the 10%. I don't see it as making me better than anyone else, but it does tell me I made the most of the opportunities this great country and my parents afforded me. It tells me I had what it takes to become a success given an even chance. Michael is a success too. Yet even sharing that and agreeing in principle a lot of the time, our politics are far different and that's ok. That is what this country is about.

I've been a moderate Republican for many years. I have come to resent that from my own fellow Republicans on the radical right, I am referred to as a RINO, a Republican in name only; because I refuse to tout the Party line concerning sexuality, birth control, abortion and separation of church and state.

Because I think for myself and make on own decisions on these very personal matters, I am seen not to be a good Republican by those who demand a political litmus test of ideological purity before one can really be called Republican. My thoughts do not count. I am a citizen in the country of my birth, yet I am an alien. How could we have gotten to this place? How did Republicans get to this place? I suspect that my ideals are much more in step with the greatest Republican of them all, Abraham Lincoln, than are the political snobs which make up the ideologically pure radical right, yet I am the outcast.

At the beginning of this political year, I like many other Republicans, made the statement that I would vote for anyone for President who had the letter "R" after his name on the ballot. I guess God thought that was funny, because He has made me eat those words. I said those words before I came to know Rick Santorum. I didn't come to know Santorum through the political ads of some financially bloated Democratic Political Action Committee or though the political ads of his Republican rivals for the Presidential nomination.

I came to know Rick Santorum through his own words. I heard him and saw him on National Television saying that the words of fellow Democrat, President John F. Kennedy, concerning separation of church and state made him sick to his stomach. I have heard him take the self appointed role as arbiter of public morality in America in suggesting that sex for any other purpose other than for procreation is wrong. I have heard him say with his own voice that separation of church and state has no place in American culture.

I'm sorry, I'm a Christian too. I've been a Christian all my life and as a life long Christian I don't want Rick Santorum in all his self-righteousness deciding for me and my family what is moral and what is immoral. Neither do I want his Church deciding what is moral and immoral for me and my family. As a true Christian who knows that God created all that is and called it good, I know that sex played a much bigger role in my married life that just procreation. Long after my wife and I made the decision to  have no more children, our sexual intimacy bonded us and supported us and gave us joy and a sense of oneness in our marriage. Santorum is evidently too stupid and too morally superior to the rest of us to conceive of that sort of thing and to see it as a part of God's plan.

Frankly in my heritage as a Christian my church has never once killed or persecuted someone for exposing a principle based on science that later came to be commonly accepted as scientific fact. The Church of Mr. Santorum has involved itself in such persecutions time and time again. Modern Popes have seen fit to apologize for such foolishness, yet they have never quite seen their way clear to refrain from repeating their errors. Their apologies have not restored the life of a single person they murdered in the name of God.

In my church, just last Sunday, my preacher stood before his congregation and told us there are many paths to God and that we should not think that the path we choose to follow is the only path recognized by God. Mr. Santorum's church takes quite the opposite approach. They see themselves as the only true church and they see their leader as the exalted representative of Christ on earth. The rest of us who call ourselves Christians are misguided and most likely damned in their eyes.

I'd rather not be subject to the reasonings and the rationales of men who are capable of such beliefs. The last time I checked, our forefathers came to this country to remove themselves from this kind of foolishness and pontification.

Mr. Santorum and all he represents are politically and socially dangerous to those who wish to remain their own arbiters of faith and choose their own paths to redemption in a country that has freedom of and freedom from religion. And many to whom I refer are not members of Mr. Santorum's church at all. The misguided fundamental Christians from the Protestant radical right are just as dangerous if not more dangerous than Mr. Santorum.

I've been a Republican all of my adult life, but if Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee for President, as much as it pains me; and it will pain me, I will be voting for Barack Obama for a second term. There is much I fear from an Obama second term; but I do not fear for the freedom to exercise my social conscience in a second Obama term. I do fear that in a Santorum Presidency.

And just to be clear, if worse comes to worse and I vote for Obama, it will not mean that I have accepted the mantel of Democrat. It will mean I have rejected the mantel of Republican Right Winger.

Jack Scott

30 comments:

  1. I tend to agree with you, but then on the other hand, voting for the lesser of two evils is why people are so disgusted with voting. We hear it from so many people. Woe is me, woe is us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree with you Bob. It is a crazy situation when the country is so polarized and so politically charged that in election after election we have no clear choice for casting our vote.

      There once was a time in this country when the majority of people including the majority of politicians stood on principles and held to those principles for better or for worse. That time is long past. Too many people stand for nothing other than self interests now.

      Rick Santorum is one of those people. It is clear even in the midst of his self-righteous sermons to the rest of us that the reality is he has made the calculated decision to throw his principles away and throw as much red meat in front of the Republican Right as he can in an all out effort to win the nomination at any cost. He is willing to say anything, do anything and BE ANYTHING to win the nomination.

      He has no principles at all.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  2. Jack,

    I suspect that you and I agree on much more than you think. And don't forget that I was a Republican for many years and only left the GOP when it became clear to me that the concept of separation of church and state was being discarded as a binding concept within the GOP.

    I treasure religious freedom and sadly, the current GOP and its religious extremist followers are now a threat to religious freedom. The GOP's anti-gay jihad is but one example of attacking and seeking to penalize those who fail to conform to a far right Christian form of Christianity.

    Compunding the problem - especially here in Virginia - is the subtext of racism that permeates today's GOP and the Tea Party.

    Yes, Obama may be the lesser of the evils, but at least he is not a threat to religious freedom and doesn't seek to keep me a third or fourth class citizen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, we certainly agree on the extreme importance of separation of church and state. It bemuses me that just 50 years ago I was being raised Baptist and in the Baptist church of that time separation of church and state was the MAIN tenet of the church. Now, they have completely turned away from that as they have been hijacked by the radical right.

      Likewise, the Congress of the United States of America is full of legislators who hold no allegiance at all to this most important concept. Like me, they should be able to look around the world where theocracies have taken hold and see the brutal results, but they seem blind to it all.

      Like me, they should be able to look back and marvel at the minds of our forefathers, Jefferson, Adams, Washington and others who insisted that separation of church and state be a lynchpin of our Constitution. Anyone with half a brain should be very much aware that there is not a single brain in in the present Congress that comes close to matching the intellect and the wisdom of the founding fathers. All the present bunch of incompetents would be wise to go across the street from the Capitol every day to the Library of Congress and read the words of our founding fathers which are written on the walls of the Library for all to see. Our country would be the better for it.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  3. I have a tendency to think that the american public wallows around in themselves, only to rise up as a unified group when there is a fear that we can all get behind, ex the cold war, terrorism, the millennium computer issue, for just a few. I also sometime think of the public opinion as a moving force that takes time to change, and we might be better off in the long run if someone like Santorum is elected President.

    If people don't get off their collective ass and participate in the democracy that we have in this country, then they have to live with the results. With recent changes in campaign reform, allowing a few rich white guys to have a very large impact on who is going to be elected president of the United States, it makes it just more so that the average person has dwindling power with their vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree with you Anonymous. Americans have the attention span of a 3 year old. We wax and wayne more often than the tides. All our enemies know they only have to wait us out to prevail.

      The fact that the Supreme Court of the land cannot figure out that the Constitution of this great land speaks of government of and by and for the people and not government of and by and for the biggest business corporations and their wealthy owners is just unbelievable.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  4. I can't help feeling that this is a pivotal time in our nation and the world for bringing into focus what unites us and how we can transcend the polarizing of beliefs and ideology, and yes, the corrupting influence of money. Rick Santorum is just another example of the intolerance and stupidity of those who would claim to know the absolute truth. They will not prevail, but we must not let them for any reason take away our liberties or self-respect. I agree with Bill Maher these days that we really have no more need for religion. I'm sure Jesus and the great prophets of equally great religions would agree. For my part, I intend to speak up whenever I have the chance, and to do so with civility and respect. President Obama has been a shining example, in my opinion, of someone who speaks with respect and tolerance, even to his harshest and ignorant critics who dislike him for nothing more than that he is black and a liberal democrat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting comment Jack. I agree we live in interesting times. I certainly agree that we need more focus on what unites us or should unite us than on the thing that polarize us.

      As a moderate Republican,I believe that we must get off this kick of cutting government to the bone and realize that we have to spend some money not to sustain the poor in their misery; but to help them get a leg up and become productive tax paying citizens. I'm a successful person; but I didn't get to where I am on my own. I had the help of parents who were themselves successful.

      Many in our society have nothing and no one to help them out along the way. As a country, we owe it to ourselves to see that everyone has a chance and some help to make themselves productive citizens.

      As for Bill Maher, I'm afraid I see the man as just an ass; but if he said, "these days we really have no more need of religion," I certainly agree that we have no need whatsoever of mainstream fundamental religion. It is destroying us! It is polarizing us! It is not serving us in any good way at all. As a country, as a people, we would be better off with NO religion rather than have people deluded by the false prophets who teach fundamentalism.

      Where Maher makes his mistake is by not doing enough research to find that there is another religion in American that is quieter, more loving, non judgmental and supportive of the human spirit in every way. That kind of religion we do need. But Maher can be forgiven for not knowing it exists. Even most Christians don't know it exists.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
    2. You know what they say about comedians and clowns...they often speak the truth and cut through the clouds of our everyday ways of thinking. Same goes for artists of all stripes. We should be celebrating our great diversity...it is what will save us.

      Delete
  5. Our current political system scares me. No matter whaat the parties are pushing, the candidates" agendas all seem self-centered and self-righteous and not necessarily what the people want.

    The money they spend to get elected is outrageous considering the millions of Americans who are suffering. I wonder what that money could do if it was used to help ease the hunger and suffering of those in need.

    I would like to see a leader who is willing to put their personal agendas aside and listen to what the the citizens really want. I implore the Presidential candidates to ask what they can do for their country and not themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DL, yep scares the crap out of me too.

      I think agendas seem self-centered and self-righteous because the candidates are all self-centered and many of them are self-righteous.

      We use to have statesmen who put country ahead of party, who put people ahead of political gain. No more! Self gain and money are all that anyone is after now. The people be damned.

      I hope the pendulum swings back soon to the kind of politicians you and I both would like to see. If it doesn't, this country is head for the scrap pile of history.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  6. The Pope once said in Istanbul: "Everybody knows that the Church does not want to impose anything on anybody." To so many Catholics, probably including Rick Santorum, that is just heresy. To me it says that Christianity is essentially tolerant. But so many Catholics don't seem to know that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to admit, I don't have a good impression of the current Pope. I talk on line to a Texas Catholic Priest who shares my lack of good impressions.

      To be honest, I'm glad to hear that he said, "the Church does not want to impose anything on anybody," but I'm not sure I believe him. Actions tend to speak louder than words and Benedict seems intent of reversing some of the great reforms of his predecessors.

      You're certainly right when you say that too many Catholics including Rick Santorum see an unwillingness to impose as heresy. Kind of matches my fundamental Protestant brothers who seek to impose their blasphemous view of the Gospel of Christ on everyone too.

      At one point last night on TV, I heard a report that Catholics in Michigan had actually voted against Santorum for the most part. If that is true, it will certainly be a refreshing breeze.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
    2. Question: If this priest you're talking about doesn't agree with the Pope (or maybe, by extension, with church doctrine), why doesn't he just leave the church? That's how hundreds of Protestant denominations were created! I'm sure he can find a place for himself elsewhere. I, by the way, still call myself a Roman Catholic, but don't go to church. And, I am still a "believer" to the great joy of my 80+ year old father.

      Having read most of this particular blog, I think many commentors are a little paranoid and ignorant. Specifically, one commentator refered to the Tea Party as racist. (This is a typical rant by a liberal to shut down the dabate!) About a year ago, I went to a Tea Party event in San Francisco. One of the speakers was black. Yes, African-American. She was also a woman! She was cheered by all of the white folks in the audience! (Oh, wait...there were also Spanish-speaking Hispanics in the audience!) I heard no racial epithets anyswhere from anyone! It really pisses me off that critics of the Tea Party resort to these kinds of scurrilous attacks. Just so you know, I, too, am a "person of color" (aka non-white American who VOTES).

      Delete
    3. Well, he a kind of unusual priest. He came into the priesthood late in life after the death of his wife.

      I can't actually speak for him, but I think from what I know he would tell you that there are more ways to fight the system than by abandoning it. While the Church has a strong arm with a long reach it cannot reach into every confessional and into every conversation its priests have with their parishioners. As a thoughtful and forgiving man, filled with compassion for those around him, he is in a great position to moderate the sometimes compassionless applications of dogma of which the Catholic Church (and others) are guilty.

      As to your feelings that some of the commenters are a little paranoid and ignorant, I guess my question would be, "Who among us is not in these dark and complicated days?" As for racism, it is like what Christ said about the poor, it will always be with us. In fact, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that racism is largely part and parcel of being poor or having been raised poor.

      I personally see nothing at all racist about the Tea Party though it does contain, like every other entity, a few racists. Even as a moderate Republican, I do see many of the Tea Party folks as ignorant in the classic sense of the word. They just do not realize the implications that would impact the country if their extreme policies were implemented.

      I see racism among the Democratic ranks as well. My personal view is that all too often Democrats use minorities as cannon fodder but never really give them a seat up front in the party. And then, of course, there are the black leaders who are so well known nationally who have made themselves rich men on the backs of their black brothers and sisters. That too is racism.

      Unfortunately, politics has always seemed to appeal to and bring out the baser qualities of those who are a part of it. I think what we have to concentrate on is that in this great country, no matter how harsh the rhetoric during the campaign, on January 20, 2013 all the considerable power of the most powerful office in the world will be peacefully transferred to a new President or peacefully remain in the hands of the present one for another four years.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  7. I am just pleased that all comments here were respectful. That is not the case on most gay Blogs. I too am a moderate Republican, but you would think that I am worse than Satan in the majority of gay circles. It does get tiresome that you are expected to vote one singular way if you are gay. I don't subscribe to that and never will. I am in the minority though and defined as "self-loathing" as i question the gay political status quo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, I am too. I hate disrespectful rhetoric. The English language is so rich and full that any sentiment can be expressed forcefully and respectfully.

      I don't run in gay circles as a bisexual man who is mostly closeted; but I do often hear anecdotal comments on the intolerance of the gay community. To me that is just something I cannot understand. How can a people who have had to fight intolerance tooth and nail all their lives allow themselves to fall into the trap of intolerance themselves? It just doesn't make sense.

      I have several very close gay friends who are with you. My suggestion is that you all continue to hold your heads high and continue to speak out for individual freedoms and against intolerance where ever it may raise its ugly head - even in the gay community.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  8. Yes, Obama will indeed win by a landslide.

    Why?
    Republicans have no one to vote for!
    Romney -- just another rich guy representing the one percent, whose wife drives two Cadillacs & friends are NASCAR owners!
    Santorum -- represents the far right ultra-conservative wingdings, who does not believe in separation of church and state.
    Gingrich -- nut case who was booted out of Congress for corruption, then made millions as a lobbyist.
    Paul -- a libertarian, not a republican.
    So republicans will be apathetic since they have no choices. Democrats and independents do have a choice! Obama!
    Hopefully, the democratic coat-tails will sweep the tea party out of power for good. The tea party accomplishes nothing because all they do is obstruct.
    Then, Obama can really get down to work with an all Democratic Congress! It is time for this country to move forward instead of backward!
    R= reverse; D = forward. Put the USA in D and let's all move forward!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment Uncutplus.

      We can both agree on the need to go forward.

      I see flaws in all the Republican candidates. They are of course human. I think the only two left who are fatally flawed are Santorum and Paul. The flawed description has to also be applied to President Obama in my personal opinion. While he has not been as bad at the job as I thought he would be and as most Republicans say he has been, there is no doubt, in my opinion, that the country would now be better off if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2008 than it has been under Obama or would have been under John McCain.

      As a moderate Republican, I'll gladly vote for Mitt Romney. I'll even vote for Gingrich though I don't think Gingrich could beat Obama.

      Thanks again for your comment.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  9. Jack, this post captured my thoughts exactly. I too have always considered myself to be a moderate Republican, but regardless of party, this election was about getting rid of Obama. How many Republicans do you know who now wish that Hillary had been elected? I bet a lot.

    In spite of the fact that I continue to believe President Obama is taking us down the wrong path, I will proudly support him and give him my vote if my fellow Republicans nominate Rick Santorum. I don't pray much, but I pray that someone like Larry Flint uncovers proof that Santorum blows young guys and crossdresses on weekends. Thankfully, the extreme religious right who seem to have taken over the Republican party can't handle a man that would do that, so he would be a goner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know of one at least JF - ME! Had Hillary been the Democratic nominee in 2008, I'd have probably voted for her rather than John McCain. I've heard a number of people say the same thing.

      I have no doubt that Hillary's experience, along with her intellect and willingness to work hard would have made her a far better President that President Obama.

      I know it is a point of view that liberal Democrats will never admit to; but I don't think anyone other than the libs believe that President Obama was elected because he merited the job. He was elected because he could read a speech convincingly and because he was NOT George Bush or anyone remotely like George Bush.

      I doubt that there is any sexual skeletons in Rick Santorum's closet for anyone to find. The man is so homophobic and so repressed sexually that I'm more than sure that each of his children have been conceived with he and his wife in the missionary position. Both may have been fully clothed at the time too. Sorry, just a rude attempt at humor.

      Jack Scott

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  10. Miracles do happen! The MIchigan UAW couldn't propel Santorum and Romney was the beneficiary. The newspapers aren't kind to Romney, but I think that iti is a good day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, indeed miracles do happen. Sometimes common sense even prevails.

      I hope that Mr. Santorum continues to campaign in the same manner as he has over the last couple of weeks to give more voters a chance to hear his message of hate and intolerance.

      I heard at one point last night on TV that Santorum failed to get majority of Catholic votes in Michigan. If true, that says a great deal that is good about Catholic voters and their ability to understand demagoguery when it slaps them in the face.

      I hope voters across the country are blessed with such common sense and critical judgment.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  11. This is so interesting. Here I was trying to find a married bi blog to read and got a political one. I was born and raised catholic by a military family and I was in the military too. So what am I? A liberal, married, gay guy from Texas who lives in Pa and voted Santorum out of his senate seat. Pa won't vote for him and most Catholics won't either. Most Catholics I know use the pill and condoms too.

    Roger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know Roger, as I have gotten older I have come to see just how out of touch the political class is with the rest of us. Perhaps it is because they are consumed with so little else than their personal political welfare that they see the rest of us in tiny little boxes where they can peg us with simple identities.

      The reality is that most of us as Americans are just like you. We're really hard to peg an ID to and place in a single box. Like you I'm a mixture of many things. I was raised a fundamental Baptist. As an adult I'm a middle of the Road United Methodist. I'm a fiscal conservative who supports a safety net for the poor. On social issues I'm quiet liberal indeed. As a bisexual man, I support marriage between a man and a woman; but I don't see what two guys marring takes away from my marriage at all. At the same time my son is career military and I, of course, support the military and understand its roll in protecting our freedoms, even when the are more often than not engaged half way around the world in hell holes that I'd just as soon nuke into oblivion.

      I'm glad to hear that PA folks won't vote for Santorum. I laughed my head off the other night when they reported he had not even won the Catholic vote in Michigan. The man is a fruit cake.

      I appreciate your writing to me. You just happened to write in when I was about to explode if I didn't vent about Santorum. I hope you'll look back through the blog. You'll find plenty for you to think about as a bisexual man. I'd like to hear your comments on the bi stuff. I learn from comments.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
    2. Jack, I honestly think you are a moderate "no label" -- just a moderate! While I think of myself as a moderate Democrat, we have a lot in common -- about the same age, United Methodist (reconciliation branch), a fiscal conservative who believes we have too much bureaucracy and spend too much on foreign aid, instead of spending it on education and US infrastructure. I support our wonderful military, but not the recent and current wars.

      I think Obama has done a good job so far, especially considering the Congress -- with healthcare, allowing gays in the military, closing down the wars, foreign policy (with Hillary's able help), job and economy recovery, considering what he inherited from the Bush administration.

      Perhaps, we do need more choices such as a third party, but since that is not on the current horizon, my support will be with Obama.

      Delete
    3. Actually UncutPlus, your right for all intents and purposes. I am more appropriately labeled as a moderate independent voter.

      It's just that in Texas, you really only have the choice of registering as a Democrat or a Republican. I vote much more often as a Republican than as a Democrat though I sure have to hold my nose and my tongue when voting for some of the religious nuts and otherwise nuts that the Republicans put up to represent them.

      Good insight.

      Jack Scott

      Delete
  12. I understand that this is a bi-sexual blog and not a political one. But my general point of view was not expressed in the comments so far, so I am daring to add my two cents.

    I understand where you are coming from, but I will still be voting for anyone who has an (R) behind his name this time around. I do not dislike Obama on the basis of his race. I don't care about anybody's skin color or sexual orientation. I care about policy. And specifically I have been concerned lately about the role of the U.S. Constitution - and how the Obama administration has viewed the U.S. Constitution.

    The executive branch can not unilaterally declare that the a house in the legislative branch is in recess when that house has not recessed. President Obama has dared to do something that no other president has ever done. He has made "recess appointments" while the Senate (which is controlled by his own party!) is not actually in recess. I don't care if you agree with Obama's agenda or not, this is not something we want ANY U.S. President doing. For those who are more liberal, how would they like it if a future Republican president ignored the Constitution's content (in this case the advice and consent clause)? It is an extreme "ends justifies the means" stance that our president has taken. And it is simply and clearly extra-constitutional. I believe that such actions set an extremely dangerous precident.

    The entire issue with Santorum and birth control was not raised by Santorum in the first place. He was not going around talking about this - originally. (Though I do agree that he has totally "stepped in it" by saying many of the things he has said. . . . Personally, I like JFKs statement - and most rational Americans do!) But this issue was raised when the Obama administration ignored the First Amendment to the Constitution and declared that Catholic organizations had to offer abortive drugs (RU486) and contraception even though their conscience did not allow it. It does not matter if individual Catholics use contraception on their own or not. That is their choice. As free Americans, no one has been stopping them from purchasing and using them at all. And no one (not even staunch conservatives like me) have been or will be trying to stop them either. But Catholic institutions should ALSO have their religious liberty. If I don't like my employer, I go get another job or I create my own job as self-employed. It is not for individuals or government to force others to "our/their" way of thinking - or force them to pay for something with which they disagree. This is especially true given the protections established in the First Amendment.

    Separation of church and state works both ways! I agree that the Church should not be dictating anything in the legal/political realm. (Among some Christians, I get flack because I do not support prayer in public schools. But I do not support it because that is not the place for it - at all! I don't want the kids from my church led in prayer by someone who does not share their religious faith.) But, that specific issue aside, if it is true that the Church should not interfere with the State, then the State should ALSO not be dictating to churches. It does not matter if an insurance company has to pay for contraception instead. That is a false compromise. (And do we really want to be compromising the Bill of Rights away in the first place?!) Seriously, do we think that insurance companies will just give away more "stuff" for free? Their costs will be passed on through premiums - and Churches will then be paying for what goes against their conscience then anyway. Directly or indirectly their First Amendment rights have been swept away.

    This is a very serious matter. We are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis. I, too, want separation of church and state. But I see far more danger from President Obama than from ANY of the Republican candidates - even the bumbling Santorum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hooray, Anonymous! Right on! Cogent and precise. By the way, why the hell are we discussing politics? Just kidding! In this context, it's interesting to read ALL of the comments, even though I seriously disagree with some of them.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous, I really do appreciate you taking the time to write such a great comment. I cannot reply to you personally since I don't know your email address, but I hope you see my reply here.

    I agree with almost all of your comments and certainly with the main thoughts you have expressed.

    You are absolutely right when you say Santorum did not begin the discussion on birth control and the associated subjects. Obama began those discussions. With the Obama actions in mind, the liberal press, which knows Mr. Santorum well from his days as a U.S. Senator actually laid an ambush for Santorum. They knew he would step right into the trap and he did. They couldn't have planned it better.

    Unlike the liberal press, I did not know anything about Santorum's Senatorial days until recently. When he first began his campaign for President, I actually liked what little he had to say. But as he got more and more opportunities to express his rather extreme right wing views my support for him quickly vanished.

    I agree with you that Mr Obama has ignored the Constitution, and he has done it in more than just the instances you mentioned. However, though it looks like there is a chance Obama may be elected again he will not have control of the House. Though I expect him to control the Senate, with gasoline approaching $5 or $6 a gallon, he may loose even the Senate.

    In either case there is nothing Obama will be able to accomplish in a second term. He will begin it as a lame duck.

    I was pretty ticked off by Santorum's radical views, but I honestly don't know if I could pull the lever for Obama in the voting booth or not. I guess I'll just hope that I don't have to make that choice. I don't really think Santorum or Gringrich can pull the nomination away from Romney so I'm not too worried.

    And oh, by the way, it is not really Romney's lack of conservative credentials that are keeping him from sewing up the nomination. He's more conservative than George Bush ever was. Romney's problem in sewing up the nomination is that the radical fundamental right does not like that he is a Mormon. The are discriminating against his religion or, as they see it, his lack of religion. They can't say that out loud and in public, so they pretend he is not conservative enough. Actually most Mormon's are very conservative both socially and fiscally.

    They are just considered non-christians by the Christian right wing nuts.

    Jack Scott

    ReplyDelete

I deeply regret that I must reinstate the verification process for those who want to leave comments on my blog. This is due to the intolerable amount of spam that spammers are attempting to leave on the blog.

At the same time I am changing settings so that those of you who have a Google Blogger ID or other recognized blogger ID will not have to have your comments moderated. My hope is this will encourage more readers to take the time to comment. The fact is I want to read comments with those of you who disagree with me as well as those of you who agree with me. All I ask is that you keep your comments clean and non-threatening.

The only reason I take the time to write this blog is to spur your thoughts and comments. Please do not let the spammers cause you not to comment. I know entering the verification words and numbers is a pain in the ass, but I hope you will not let the spammers cause you not to comment.

I still very much look forward to hearing from you.

Jack Scott

Anyone can comment on what I write in this blog. Regretfully, the recent amount of spam in my email account as required that I reinstate the word verification process for comments which I personally hate.

But at the same time I have loosened the comment moderation process so that those of you who have a Google Blogger ID or other recognized blogger ID will no longer need to wait for your comment to be moderated. I'm hoping this will tempt you to take the trouble to comment.

The truth is I want respectful comments both from those who agree with me and those who do not. All I as is that you keep comments to the point, clean and non-threatenting.

I look forward to hearing from each of you.

Jack Scott