As we have noted before, the Religious Right today is absolutely convinced that the movement is a bunchofmodern-dayDietrich Bonhoeffers, the German theologian who resisted the Nazis and was ultimately put to death, for taking a stand against marriage equality, abortion, health care reform, and President Obama.
Metaxas' speech was the subject of yesterday's episode of the "Faith and Freedom" radio program where Matt Barber said that today's Religious Right is just like Bonhoeffer and anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce ... which, of course, means that those who support equality or reproductive freedom are like the Nazis and slave-owners:
Those who push radical homosexual activism and an immoral view of human sexuality, a moral relativist view of sexual morality, those who push abortion - and that's just a euphemistic term; those who push infanticide, that's what we're talking about here, the slaughter of babies, of little babies - they're on the wrong side of history, just as those who opposed Bonhoeffer and those who opposed William Wilberforce, who were advocating slavery, those who advocated the slaughter of six million plus Jewish people in Nazi Germany, they were on the wrong side of history. It's unfortunate that progressives find themselves in a similar situation where they are advocating things that are equally as horrific.
When it comes to the Religious Right, seemingly nothing can prevent the movement from willingly and endlessly repeating a known falsehood.
Case in point: several weeks ago we wrote a post about a situation in North Carolina where a preschool student had her homemade lunch confiscated by government bureaucrats who forced her to eat the less healthy lunch provided by the school.
That was, at least, the Religious Right's version of what happened ... and that version was, of course, utterly untrue.
But, as we said, untruth has never been much of an impediment to the Religious Right, which eagerly repeats these sorts of myths ad nauseum until they have become an accepted part of the narrative.
So it comes as no surprise to see that John Hagee has recorded a special message to voice his outrage about it, citing it as proof of this country has finally fully descended into socialism:
Now comes the federal government telling a mother in North Carolina that her child must eat a chicken nugget dish approved by the Federal Government. The mother was told that her child could not eat what her mother had prepared for that child and the child was forced to eat what the government mandated what the child must eat. Ladies and gentlemen, this is socialism at its ultimate pinnacle, telling you what you can eat and taking from you your basic freedoms of decision.
For the record, not one thing that Hagee said in this statement is even remotely true ... but that doesn't matter since Hagee's primary objective is to mobilize viewers to vote against President Obama, which explains why the video ends with Hagee declaring that "November 2012 will be the opportunity for you to express yourself" in opposition to just this sort of "robbery of America's freedom."
Rick Green of WallBuilders today appeared on Truth that Transforms with Carmen Pate and John Rabe where he claimed that the separation of church and state is the “exact opposite” of what the Founders wanted. He went on to claim that the separation of church and state is simply a tool to move the country “towards socialism and communism” and is responsible for increases in out-of-wedlock births and crime. Of course, this should come as no surprise as Green and WallBuilders president David Barton have made careers out of mischaracterizing church-state separation and blaming it for everything from a decline in SAT scores to a rise in sexually transmitted diseases.
Rabe: I think Rick if you ask most Americans today what the Constitution’s position is on the church they’ll throw out that phrase, ‘separation of church and state.’ That mantra is really, deeply embedded now but the picture that most people have is not exactly what the Founders meant by the First Amendment, is it?
Green: It is actually the exact opposite. Founders intended the First Amendment to restrict government, not restrict us, we the citizens it was actually intended to protect our freedom of religion, protect our opportunity to exercise that faith, whether that was in the public square or the private square, now we flip it on its head and we’ve used the First Amendment to actually restrict the individual. If you happen to step into the public square and sometimes even in the private square, government steps in and says ‘we’re not going to let you live out your faith.’ It’s exactly the opposite of what they intended and that only happens when we the people don’t know our history, don’t know where we came from, we don’t read the Constitution anymore, we don’t read the Founding Fathers, but I tell you there’s a lot of people now that are hungry to do that and they hear this phrase ‘separation of church and state’ and instead of just saying ‘oh yeah I guess that’s what the country was founded on’ they say ‘wait, wait, wait, where exactly in the Constitution is that’? People are starting to ask questions and I think that’s when you start turning this thing around.
Pate: They say when a lie is repeated often enough it becomes truth in the minds of the masses, it really causes us to stop and think, what has fueled the perpetuation of this myth?
Green: It’s a desire to get God out of the equation. At the heart of this entire debate, we’re right back to that question of whether as Rabbi [Daniel] Lapin says we’re going to be a Nimrod society or an Abraham society, will the church and God be the center of our culture and our nation or will government be the center? You cannot go towards socialism without moving away from God, you got to get God out of the equation to do that. Throughout history, anyone that has wanted a nation to move towards socialism and communism in that direction, has had to push God out of the equation first. So separation of church and state has been distorted.
Green: When you think about fifty years of this myth of separation of church and state and the impact on our culture it has been huge, it has had a dramatic impact on not only our children and school but you can look at any statistical graph on whether you want to look at crime, out-of-wedlock birth I mean you look at all of it, removing God from the equation from this supposed phrase ‘separation of church and state’ has had a devastating impact on our culture.
Yesterday on Today’s Issues, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and American Family Association head Tim Wildmon hosted New York City Councilman Fernando Cabrera to discuss the city’s decision to prohibit church groups from using public school buildings, which was recently overturned by a federal judge. During the interview, Cabrera attacked gay rights advocates for supposedly siding with the city government, to which Perkins replied that “homosexual groups” want “to silence the church. They want the church to go away because they don’t want that moral voice in the community.” Cabrera even claimed that gay rights supporters “want to censor language and speech”:
In another part of the program, Perkins said that while President Obama apologized for the burning of Qurans in Afghanistan his administration “is silent when Christianity is attacked in this country.” Later, Wildmon said that “Islam is not a religion of peace. That is not true.” Wildmon lamented, “President Obama on this issue, you’d at least like him to speak out on the violence committed against Christians around the world, but you don’t hear anything about that.”
However, last May President Obama defended the rights and freedoms of Christians in Egypt in a speech about the political crisis in the Middle East and earlier this week the State Department released a statement condemning Iran for giving him a death sentence because of his refusal to recant his conversion to Christianity. In fact, the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report documents and denounces the persecution of Christians in countries such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.
We are surprised to find that it actually took some Religious Right activist almost a whole day before publicly blaming Monday's tragic shooting at Chardon High School in Ohio on the lack of school prayer, as what Jerry Newcombe of Truth in Action did in an op-ed for Crosswalk yesterday:
There were never school shootings when prayer was in school. Nothing even remotely like it. But now, for the most part, God has been thrown out of our public schools, and they have had to install the metal detector instead. Even that is not fail-proof ... I find it ironic that yesterday’s shooting would occur in the shadow of the 50th anniversary of the infamous school prayer decision. In June 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could not officially participate in prayer.
Specifically, the High Court banned this seemingly innocuous prayer: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country."
As long as our schools don’t have a prayer, I suppose some of them need to have a sign installed out in front: Enter at your own risk.
Self-proclaimed “ex-terrorist” Kamal Saleem tells quite a story about his life, claiming that he worked for late Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and fought with Al Qaeda in Tora Bora, all before coming to the United States in order to carry out the “culture jihad.” Sure his entirestory is a fabrication, but that hasn’t stopped this descendent of the imaginary “Grand Wazir of Islam” from getting speaking gigs across the country where he criticizes Islam and warns of impending Sharia law in the United States.
Yesterday, Saleem sat down again with fellow anti-Muslim activists Jerry Boykin and Rick Joyner on Prophetic Perspectives where he warned that as part of the effort of Muslim-Americans to usher in an Islamic theocracy, they are replacing the words “In God We Trust” on the dollar with “In Allah We Trust”:
The Senate will reportedly vote this week on the Blunt amendment, an addition to the transportation bill from Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt that would, if it became law, throw the American health care system into chaos.
Blunt’s amendment, part of the right-wing overreaction to President Obama’s mandate that health insurance policies cover contraception, would allow any employer to refuse any employee insurance for any treatment on religious grounds. So not only could any boss refuse his female employees access to birth control, but any employer could refuse coverage for any procedure or medication he or she found morally offensive – including things like blood transfusions, vaccinations, or even treatment from a doctor of the opposite sex.
Not only would the Blunt amendment mean that comprehensive health insurance wouldn’t necessarily provide comprehensive health insurance – it would throw the country’s health care system into chaos, as each employer and each insurer carved out their own sets of rules.
The plan is bad public policy and antithetical to religious freedom, but it will probably get the votes of most Republican senators. In fact, the basic idea behind the plan is something that’s already been embraced by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
A large majority of Americans think that insurance policies should be required to cover basic reproductive care – including contraception – for women. The Blunt amendment would not only deny that care to women, it would go even further in denying health care to all American workers for any number of reasons totally beyond their control.
This is straight-up extremism: and American voters know that.
UPDATE: The Democratic Policy and Communications Center estimates that the Blunt amendment could put preventative care for 20 million women at risk.
Last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell buckled under nationwide pressure and forced his allies in the state’s legislature to revise a bill they had passed mandating forced, medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. That the bill was tweaked to no longer require women to be vaginally penetrated without their consent – a requirement that McDonnell, until he was met with a national outcry, was all set to sign into law -- was an important victory for pro-choice and common-decency activists.
But we need to remember just how far anti-choice politicians are willing to go. Just a few years ago, before the War on Women kicked into full swing, we wouldn’t have known that we’d have to be fighting state-mandated vaginal probes. In fact, just a few years ago, the amended bill passed by the Virginia Senate today would have been seen as extreme in itself.
The bill that the Virginia Senate passed in a 21-19 vote today requires all women seeking an abortion to first undergo a medically unnecessary external ultrasound – unless they can prove they are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.
It’s important to remember just how extreme the bill still is. Virginia Republicans are mandating that doctors perform a medically unnecessary procedure whether or not their patient requests it, unless that patient can produce a police report to prevent it. It creates a situation that’s ethically difficult for doctors and absolutely demeaning for women.
If Gov. McDonnell signs the bill, which he is expected to do, Virginia will join seven other states that currently require pre-abortion ultrasounds.
Yesterday on Prophetic Perspectives with Rick Joyner, Jerry Boykin sat down with self-proclaimed ex-terrorist Kamal Saleem. We have reported on Saleem’s ridiculously implausible story before, as he claims to be a descendent of the Grand Wazir of Islam, a title that does not exist, and claims to have worked for the secular Palestine Liberation Organization, the Islamist group Hamas, Moammar Qaddafi’s government in Libya, and Al Qaeda in Tora Bora, all until he came to the United States to wage “culture jihad.” Even though Saleem’s story has been thoroughly and routinelydebunked, he is still a prominent speaker in Religious Right circles and is an ally of Boykin, a former lieutenant general turned anti-Muslim activist.
On the show, Saleem and Boykin profusely expressed their love for Muslims, but warned that their religion is “evil.” Saleem said that “we’re anti-Islam itself, it’s coming to destroy humanity.” Boykin went on to claim that “Islam is evil, Islam is an evil concept” and said that “we need to reach out to the Muslim people and bring them the light of the Gospel, and we also need to be very clear that Islam in a pure sense, in an authoritative sense, is evil.”
Televangelist Pat Robertson on the 700 Club today slammed the Obama administration’s plan to scale back Defense Department spending as a ploy to “diminish us,” even though commentators believe the department avoided deep cuts and note that significant savings resulted from withdrawing troops from Iraq. Robertson maintained that the President “is suspect” because “he has made clear that his role in life is to diminish the power of the United States, he really just wants to diminish us.” He claimed that Obama “has an agenda” that is not “in keeping with the long rage goals of the United States of America.”
I don’t trust the motives of the President because he has made clear that his role in life is to diminish the power of the United States, he really just wants to diminish us, he wants to cut our nuclear arsenal dramatically, he wants to cut this, that and the other. If we had trusted his motives we’d say, “OK well maybe we can talk about it,” but I think I and many other Americans distrust him because he’s made clear in some of his writings and other things that he thinks the imperialist nations need to be restrained, need to be downgraded, that the great imperialist powers should no longer be allowed to roam freely on the globe. Furthermore, he does not believe in American exceptionalism. So we’ve got a President who is suspect. So when he comes out with these massive cuts, you say, ‘are you really doing something to the budget or are you really trying to just diminish us’?
That’s the problem we are dealing with here ladies and gentlemen is that we’ve got a man in charge of this country who has an agenda, and we question is that agenda in keeping with the long range goals of the United States of America? And I question it.
It’s not exactly a surprise when the American Family Association, home of the consistently unhinged Bryan Fischer, uses over-the-top rhetoric in its attacks on President Obama. Still, the latest fundraising letter from AFA President Tim Wildmon is memorably apocalyptic in tone:
In a very real way the year 2012 is as important to our nation as was the year 1776.
Just as then, this year Americans must choose between freedom and tyranny.
Wildmon goes on to call the administration’s recent regulations on insurance coverage of contraception “but the latest instance of the Obama Administration’s all-out war on Christians.”
Wildmon cites "the choice God put before the Israelites before He would allow them to enter into the Promised Land" and says
I believe God is asking America to make that same choice now:
Life and good … or death and evil.
Wildmon suggests Obama’s re-election would bring God’s wrath on America:
…everyone here at AFA is convinced that the elections this November will determine whether or not America will survive as a nation. After all, God has been long-suffering with us for decades now. How long will his patience last?
But, he says, if tens of millions of Christians register and vote for men and women who “respect our Christian heritage, will fight to protect religious freedom, and will work to build America’s crumbing moral foundation,” then
We can literally save America! As a nation we can stand before Almighty God and tell Him:
We love You, Lord! As a people, we will walk in Your ways and keep Your commandments!
The response card accompanying the letter seeks donation to “help elect godly leaders and to restore America to a nation that honors the one, true God.”
The latest direct mail letter from the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is an extended attack on the Commitment Campaign, a project launched last November by Third Way to bring a bipartisan message focused on committed couples to the hearts-and-minds campaign for marriage equality. Perkins suggests that not giving money to FRC, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group, is “a form of hate.”
FRC’s fundraising campaign against “fake marriage” includes a video that recycles lies about the impact of marriage equality – that schools will be forced to teach kids how to have gay sex, that pastors will be silenced, etc. – and also includes a twist on the now-standard Religious Right claim that anti-gay efforts are not about hate, but love for those “trapped in homosexuality.”
“Silence about the documented harm this lifestyle does is not loving,” says Perkins, “Such silence is, in fact, a form of hate.”
“So,” writes Perkins, “I’m asking you to say ‘No’ to silence [i.e. hate] and ‘Yes’ to speaking the truth in love at a decisive moment in America’s history…a moment when faith family and freedom are at stake.”
What he wants is a "generous financial gift." You wouldn't want to be a hater, would you?
Last month the British newspaper the Telegraph ran a story alleging that First Lady Michelle Obama spent $50,000 at a Madison Avenue lingerie shop with the Queen of Qatar, a claim which was laughable on its face and of course proven to be categorically untrue. In fact, the Telegraph later pulled the article from its website.
Almost one month later, even after the story was debunked, WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie of the conservative the National Center for Public Policy Research's Project 21, is regurgitating the very same story as if it was a fact. Massie writes that Obama’s vacations, appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and “personal $50,000 underwear spending spree” so she can have the “experience of picking out all those exotic undies,” shows her “disgusting elitism”:
What on earth can Michelle Obama possibly be tired from? What has she done since her husband was elected that gives her one reason to be tired? I know that flying, for the proletariat such as myself, can be tiring and, more times than not, a genuine pain – but she flies in presidential luxury, sans the president. And the only checkin’ in and full-body scan she goes through at an airport is when she looks at herself in a mirror.
Then again, maybe she was exhausted from her personal $50,000 underwear shopping spree with the queen of Qatar, at Agent Provocateur, the store that bills itself as selling “the most erotic lingerie in the world.” Realizing that you’re responsible for closing down Madison Avenue can be tiring, and watching staff carry all those bags back to her limousines … whew! – that would sure wear me out. And after the tiring experience of picking out all of those exotic undies, what better place to recover than an uber-posh Vail resort and the private home owned by Paula and Jim Crown?
Or maybe she’s worn out from rolling around on the floor to the delight of Ellen Degeneres, or making muscles on a daytime show, or pulling on a rope on another show, or eating at all of the restaurants where she loves to pig it up.
Then again, maybe Ms. Obama is just an arrogant, high-minded person who doesn’t give a rat’s tail about propriety or how her behavior looks to a suffering public because, after all, her husband claims the economy is improving, and who are we going to believe – the reality of our financial situation or her husband?
Michelle Obama can afford to live life large since every dime she’s spending comes on the backs and sweat of others. Nothing, zip, nada that she spends did she personally earn. And therein is the disgusting elitism of a woman who forgets where she came from, and dares you to remind her.
Franklin Graham, who has recently beengenerating controversy of his own, knows what Boykin went through becuase he too was disinvited from a prayer breakfast back in 2010 for making similar anti-Islam comments.
In response, Graham has now written a column complaining that he and Boykin and anyone else who "speaks out firmly for truth" are being persecuted by the forces of political correctness, which are weaking "very foundation of our Judeo-Christian morality":
One of the most sinister and menacing threats to our society today lurks under the lethal guise of two small initials—PC.
I’m talking about political correctness—the maddening and prevailing public sentiment of offending no one (except Christians). It has infected our schools, government, universities, and the marketplace, leaving no room for moral absolutes or the authoritative truth of Scripture.
Instead, political correctness demands tolerance of everything as it panders to the godless values of pluralism, marginalizing and even persecuting men and women of faith.
[W]hen some politically correct people discovered Gen. Boykin was speaking, they began a media campaign to stop him, pointing to his criticism of radical Islam, whose militant adherents have killed thousands of innocent civilians on American soil. One commentator on a national news network called the effort to block Gen. Boykin “political correctness gone amok.”
I know exactly what he was facing. Some of the very same people worked together against me in 2010 to force the Army to withdraw my invitation to speak at the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer because nine years earlier I had called the radical element of Islam what it is—evil and wicked.
The official explanation of my disinvitation was dripping with political correctness: “His past statements are not consistent with the multi-faith emphasis and inclusiveness of this event.”
Do you see the insidious nature of all this? Inclusiveness now means excluding anyone who speaks out firmly for truth. It is happening everywhere in the country. Wishing to offend no one, our nation’s politicians, leaders, and decision-makers now stand for absolutely nothing. The very foundation of our Judeo-Christian morality is severely threatened.
Sunday on Breakpoint, Chuck Colson hosted fellow Manhattan Declaration co-founders Timothy George and Robert George to discuss the mandate for contraception coverage and the need for “disobedience” to resist the policy. During the interview, Timothy George repeated his claim that the Obama administration is turning the United States into Nazi Germany, comparing the Manhattan Declaration to the Barmen Declaration of German Christians who opposed the Nazi Party and telling Colson that “there are many parallels” today with Nazi Germany. Later in the interview, Colson maintained that while “we’re not going through the horrors the Nazis did,” the “issue is the same” as the German resistors.
George: The Barmen Declaration was a document that came of May of 1934, it was issued by a group of Protestant Christians in Germany just at the beginning of the Third Reich in which they drew a line in the sand and they said to everyone who would listen that Jesus Christ as he is attest in the Holy Scripture is the one Word of God whom we are to hear, whom we are to trust and whom we are to obey in life and in death. It was a way of saying we will not go along with the usurpation of human rights and Christian commitment that Hitler was calling for at that time, and so we felt that something like that needed to be said in our own time. There are many parallels, it’s not exactly analogous, but we want to call people to the kind of faithfulness and fidelity demonstrated in 1934 in that very important and precious document.
Colson: I think, led by the Holy Spirit, these two extraordinary scholars with me and I were simply led along to do this and I think it is a document for our times, there is not an analogy with the Barmen Declaration because we’re not going through the horrors the Nazis did, but the issue is the same.
Clearly uncomfortable, Coulter hedged a bit before declaring that "violence will break out" when the Constitution is trampled upon and stated that the "current score" between murdered babies and murdered doctors was approximately fifty million to seven:
Potter: Let's talk about your appearance in Broken Arrow on March 3, your speaking at a fundraiser for the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry who is running for president on the Democratic ticket in Oklahoma. Why'd you take the gig?
Coulter: Well, for one thing, this is what I do for a living; I give speeches. But I love Randall Terry and I must say, if he beats President Obama in the Democratic primary, I'm going to be torn ... do I support Randall Terry or Mitt Romney, whom I've been pushing for the Republican Party? So it could end up being a very difficult choice for me.
Potter: You say you love Randall Terry, He's famous nationally for his efforts to shut down abortion clinics. He's used many graphic images in his protests. He even had words of support for the guy who gunned down that obstetrician in the Wichita church service back in 2009. You're cool with all that?
Coulter: Ummmmm .... well, I'm going to discuss the issue of the abortion clinic doctors being shot in my speech. But, by in large, the current score is, what, about fifty million to seven in terms of the number of people their side has killed and the number of people our side has killed. But I'll give you a brief preview, which is when you take democracy away from people, violence will break out. That is not, itself, an endorsement, but it is a suggesting that we go back to living under the Constitution.
Today the United States Reformation Prayer Network, an organization of “prophetic voices” using “strategic targeting coordinates for reformation prayer” founded by Cindy Jacobs, sent out a prayer alert for Michigan’s Tuesday primary which warned about the state’s Muslim community. Rick Joyner of the Oak Initiative previously warned that “there is actually an attempt to make Michigan our first Muslim state,” and in the prayer alert from Anita Christopher of the Heartland Apostolic Prayer Network and the West Michigan Prayer Center made the same claim today: “There seems to be an underlying agenda by Islam to have Michigan become the first Islamic state in America.” She went on to call for Michigan to ‘come into its Kingdom destiny” and for the government to “make covenant decrees over the people.” While such a claim is absurd on its face, it appears even more ridiculous after learning that Michigan’s Muslim community represents approximately 3 percent of the state’s population:
Michigan has suffered great economic hardship for many years due to foreign competition and costs of doing business. We have historically historically [sic] been an anti-Semitic state, and hold one of the largest population of Muslims outside of the Middle East. There seems to be an underlying agenda by Islam to have Michigan become the first Islamic state in America.
• Declare that Godly men and women will be elected who carry a Biblical worldview and have moral integrity.
• Declare that our elected leaders will stand with Israel.
• Declare that our elected leaders will uphold traditional marriage and the sanctity of life.
• Declare our elected leaders will preserve our God-given Constitution.
• Cry out for the wind of awakening to come into this region.
• Cry out for revelation for the Church to see Michigan’s issues with Kingdom mindsets.
• Decree that Michigan will come into its Kingdom destiny.
• Decree the government of Michigan will shift and begin to make covenant decrees over the people.
On Meet the Press yesterday, David Gregory questioned GOP presidential frontrunner Rick Santorum about the social issues – opposition to reproductive choice and gay rights – on which he has built his career. Stunningly, Santorum denied that he has focused on social issues and claimed, “There’s no evidence at all that I, that I want to impose those values on anybody else.”
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: It's so funny. I get the question all the time. Why are you talking so much about these social issues, as they, as, as people ask about me about the social issues. MR. GREGORY: Senator, no, wait a minute.
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Look, the... MR. GREGORY: You talk about this stuff every week. And by the way, it's not just in this campaign. FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: No, I talk about, I talk... MR. GREGORY: Sir, in this campaign you talk about it. And I've gone back years when you've been in public life and you have made this a centerpiece of your public life. So the notion that these are not deeply held views worthy of question and scrutiny, it's not just about the press. FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Yeah, they, they are deeply held views, but they're not what I dominantly talk about, David. You're taking things that over a course of a 20-year career and pulling out quotes from difference speeches on, on issues that are fairly tangential, not what people care about mostly in America, and saying, "Oh, he wants to impose those values." Look at my record. I've never wanted to impose any of the things that you've just talked about. These are, these are my personal held religious beliefs, and in many forums that I, that, that are, in fact, religious, because I do speak in front of church groups and I do speak in these areas, I do talk about them. But there's no evidence at all that I, that I want to impose those values on anybody else.
This is, of course, a bunch of baloney. While Santorum has spent a lot of time in his presidential campaign talking up regressive tax policies, irresponsible deregulation and anti-environmentalism, the core of his brand has always been social conservatism. His campaign has consistently and explicitly distinguished his anti-choice, anti-gay record with Mitt Romney’s in order to successfully appeal to culture-warring voters.
Santorum has also never shied away from wanting to “impose” his far-right values on the rest of the country. In a 2005 interview with NPR, for instance, he railed against the libertarian wing of the Republican party, saying, “They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”
Santorum’s interview on Meet the Press is far from the first time he’s claimed that he’s not overly interested in social issues. PFAW’s Right Wing Watch found a speech he gave in 2008 in which he claimed that it’s liberals who have made sex an issue on the campaign trail. For liberals, he said, politics “comes down to sex” and that the Democratic Party has become “the party of Woodstock.”:
And it’s just insidious. And it’s most of the time focused on the sexual issues. If you’re a hard-core free-market guy, they’re not going to call you “zealous”. They’re not going to call you “ultra-conservative”. They’re not going to do that to you.
It comes down to sex. That’s what it’s all about. It comes down to freedom, and it comes down to sex. If you have anything to with any of the sexual issues, and if you are on the wrong side of being able to do all of the sexual freedoms you want, you are a bad guy. And you’re dangerous because you are going to limit my freedom in an area that’s the most central to me. And that’s the way it’s looked at.
Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. The prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.
All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the Founding Father’s vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous.