Politics and Religion Don’t Mix

I am a staunch supporter of the First Amendment ⁱand also an advocate against the government’s position, when the Progressives are in on it, against persecution of a religion – which in recent American history has been Christianity – more violent in the Islamic world. I find it odd that religious zealots have committed murder in the name of their religion and God, yet little is said about this problem. They, the Progressives, have been attacking the very tradition of Christmas, a holy time of the Christian faithful who celebrate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. It is forbidden, socially and according to some businesses, to say the word “Christmas” and more politically correct to say “Happy Holiday” – on the pretense of not “offending” someone who wasn’t Christian. The Christmas tree has suddenly become the “Holiday Tree” and so on; down to the wire of preventing a student in a public school from saying a prayer before eating their meals in the school lunchroom. Prays at social events and sports events is something of a tradition, but no one has ever, in my recollection, been chastised for not joining in the prayer. 

Maybe it’s because the Progressive doesn’t like their faults presented – only others. 

However, the coin can flip and reveal something overboard from the Christian community as well. Like preaching about Satan this and Satan that. A president must be a leader for all the People and that includes the myriad of their religions and beliefs. Otherwise, he/she alienates a segment of the population over religion. It is why tradition has it, despite the Judeo-Christian heritage of colonial America and the founding of our nation who believed in one and only one God, that one does not have to put aside their religious beliefs in order to be president – but the Oval Office or the campaign trail is not an evangelical mission.

Of course, too many Americans allowed Obama to get away with what he has said, concerning this subject, but it’s not okay for Santorum. Why? It’s called “double standards” – what is wrong for the conservatives is okay for progressives.

This election, mostly with Rick Santorum has been preaching from the political pulpit; unlike Newt Gingrich who brings the point out that persecuting Christians for saying the word “God” and stifling the word “Christmas” during the season holiday needing to stop.

According to Tell the Truth, a media research blog, Kyle Drennen wrote in his article concerning NBC and Rick Santorum’s mention of Jeremiah Wright, the minister of 20 years for Barack Obama, and previously claimed his mentor; until he publicly spewed the most vile rhetoric and racist ideology one can hardly believe and then Obama didn’t want anything to do with him, forgetting he stated that Rev. Wright had been his pastor and mentor.

… Peter Alexander announced: “Rick Santorum isn’t backing down from what some viewed as a shot this weekend at the President’s faith….On Fox News, Santorum may have fanned the flames, when he again insisted he was not questioning the President’s Christianity.” … A sound bite was included of Wright shouting “God damn America!” in a sermon and Alexander noted: “Reverend Wright, of course, is the Chicago pastor forced to resign from his church after some of his controversial sermons were made public during the 2008 campaign.” In reality, Wright retired in 2008 and was rewarded with a luxurious $1.6 million home paid for by the Trinity United Church.

You can read the transcript at MRC.

There is too much religious rhetoric mixed with political in this primary election campaign.

Progressives choose only to cite the Constitution when it fits their purpose; otherwise they ignore or suggest that it be changed because it is “outdated”. The Constitution can be changed, with amendments, and so can amendments be changed, deleted, or added to by two-thirds majority of Congress. This was done purposefully, the founders realizing that as time went on this would be a necessary action – thus the women finally got the right to vote and slavery completely abolished.

Santorum needs to address issues that those in government need to not encourage persecution of Christians – their faith, their traditions, and forbidden to say or write the word “God”. On the other hand, although our nation was created by a people who were Christian; we must not mix politics with religion – and certainly not forbid a candidate to mention religion or his beliefs. But there is a time and place for everything and Jesus said himself that he cared not for the business of the material world for the spiritual world was far more important. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. He, of course, meant that taxes consisted of money and it was government that produced it and it was a material kingdom and that he, Jesus, was a promoting the kingdom of the afterlife.

What Santorum is doing is inserting religion into the picture and attacking another person’s religion; despite the truth being that the person is Wright and he is a bigot, et cetera.

But when it gets down to the gist and purpose of this primary election campaign – what does all of this have to do with issues? What does Santorum’s religious views have to do with the issues at hand?

This GOP primary election campaigning has become a three-ring circus – Mitt Romney acting like a Progressive, more focused on making others look bad than addressing the important issues. Rick Santorum acting like a preacher at the pulpit, and Newt Gingrich making some bad political choices during the campaign that caused his drop in popularity; and finally, Ron Paul, a great congressman, but many fear him to be the next Commander-in-Chief, as well as his far-out libertarian concepts of what are rights and liberties, versus the combat against evil and the rule of law.

It seems that the only person focusing on what is coming up – the final debate with the great debater and a president who has a vast army of progressives and corrupt Chicago political machine members at his disposal – they better get more prepared then they seem to be at the moment – whoever wins.

If it is Mitt Romney, he will be eaten up because he can’t answer direct questions and would give in to the pressure of the Obama crowd. After all, he’s lost before.

Newt can perform well in a debate as well as under pressure – he has had a lot of experience dealing with mainstream media and the GOP establishment. He is solid on his ideas and apparent fortitude in keeping the standards of his beliefs, matches that of Ron Paul.

Rick Santorum is still a big questions mark and I am uncomfortable with how much of other people’s money he likes to earmark – claiming it was all “good” earmarking. With the national debt in the shape it is in, I hardly think there would be very much “good” earmarking.

I know this is going to be another election where the People are forced to choose the best of the worst, like it was when GW Bush ran for president. I know, for certain, however, that the Progressives will use any loophole and cheating methods they have used in the past – the cemetery voters, mysterious chads, and other ways to get the votes. No wonder the Progressives want to get rid of the electoral vote process. The Campaign Finance Reform legislation was a waste of time – there is always a way around something, especially when nothing happens to candidates who get caught.

But what do you expect. No candidate running for office is required to take a background check – if they did, Obama wouldn’t be sending our nation into a deeper hole than Clinton and GW Bush did.

And, like Donald Trump (who endorsed Romney after rumor had it he was endorsing Gingrich) said:

There’s no gift, no Christmas gift, that could be given better than Rick Santorum for the Democrats.

Well, Mr. Trump, the guy you endorsed won’t be able to take the heat either. 

Why do you think the mainstream media made sure they sided with the GOP establishment against Newt Gingrich? Because he would be able to stand up against Obama’s rhetoric combined with his rhetoric one-liners.

My advice to Santorum – don’t be ashamed of your religion, but don’t push it into politics. It just doesn’t mix well.

We have, or supposed to have a democratic republic – not a theocracy. We have already experienced and seen how bad that form of government is dealing with the Near and Middle East.  

Rick Santorum is young and appealing – something that seems to be more important to voters of the 21st century than qualifications and congressional track record — and most importantly that a candidate be a constitutionalist. He may surprise us. We can’t afford a fourth disappointment of the office of the President of the United States — Congress is busily alienating themselves on their own.

The semiotic search for the racism beneath Newt’s food-stamp line. The dismissal of ‘the Constitution’ in haughty air quotes. The wasting of prime-time minutes pondering which wife would make the best first lady. The obsessive deposing of Romney on the legality of condoms. The condescending identity politics of carting out a token Latino to ask an immigration question. The dings. The bells. The buzzers. The Google Chat notification tones. … These are just some of the lowlights of the umpteen Republican debates thus far. And … they were all brought to us by the mainstream media. That’s the same media that daily carry water for the Obama administration, approach the tea parties as anthropological curiosities, and persistently skew the public discourse leftward in ways large and small, conscious and unconscious. … While dismantling the presuppositions of the political media is surely a skill a conservative president would do well to acquire, it does not rank with the ability to clearly and persuasively articulate a conservative policy vision for solving America’s most pressing problems, or with the ability to display fiscal sobriety, strategic acumen, and strong instincts toward liberty when presented with new challenges, foreign and domestic. These abilities — and not the ability to cleverly parry liberal inanities — are what the primary debates are meant to test. … [W]e favor the plan recently floated by Hugh Hewitt. Come the 2016 election season, the RNC should set the number, dates, and locations of debates. They should be fewer in number than the 20-odd we will see before this year is out, so that they are not so unduly agenda-setting. And the party should partner with local party officials, conservative think tanks, alternative media, tea-party groups, and grassroots organizations to determine formatting and questions. … The alternative is to hope MSNBC and CNN come into the flock between now and 2016. Don’t hold your breath. —National Review

Enuff, for now.

We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. —John Adams

Passing Note:  In 1976, the GOP establishment gave us Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter became president. In 1996 they gave us Bob Dole and Bill Clinton became president. In 2000 they shoved on us GW Bush and he became president.
In 2008, the GOP establishment gave us John McCain and Barack H. Obama became president.
In 2012, they are pushing on us Mitt Romney — do you really want Obama for a second term?
We need not to elect the same types of candidates — we need to pick our own – not what the media or the GOP elite want – or even Ann Coulter’s pick. We need someone who will be able to stand up to the debate against Obama and convince the American people that they will do from day one what they say they will do before elected.
Choose the candidate that the media and the GOP establishment has tried to force out of the contest. Check out Newt Gingrich. We need someone who not only preaches the Constitution, but insists that government follow it and limit itself. He knows what is wrong – he wants the opportunity to fix it. 

i Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.