Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Agency of Lies Forcing a Religious Test On the Wrong Candidate

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The excessive concentration on Rick Santorum's beliefs amounts to a religious test conducted in the court of public opinion.

It  is coming from both the Left (major TV and newspapers) and from the Right (e.g. all of Salem(witch) Broadcasting's talkers either directly or by snide implication.)

Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama attended Islamic madrassa  in Indonesia when very young, had two fathers who were Muslim. And we are to suppose that the young Barack Hussein never had to declare allegiance to Allah (to which apostasy garners the convert to Christianity a fatwah)? The agents of the Agency of Lies have declared questioning Mr. Obama on this out of bounds since day one of his appearance on the national scene.

The good news is that America will not fall for this anal cavity search on Mr. Santorum as long as my bare handful of regular readers dare make note of what I'm saying here to the handful of people they talk with daily.

Get the word out. The way the Agency of Lies is attacking Mr. Santorum could be called what? Satanic? Why did that word come to mind?



  1. Pasc, I only listen to one Salem talker, Bill Bennett. Santorum and he are good friends and Santorum was a guest host for a long time there, where I've listened to him.
    They never dis him.
    The others I can't speak to.
    I'm listening to the religion issue on Shepard Smith's Fox news show, which I despise (yet don't turn off) at this moment. It appears balanced, displaying Santorum giving his side prominently.
    Beyond that, Obama is the least examined president in history, on all fronts.
    Madrassas? Jeremiah Wright anyone?
    Trying to expose this president is like spitting in the wind. Younger folk are uninterested in criticism of him.
    BTW, you sound like the Church Lady: "Could it be hmmm.. Satan? :)
    You're right of course. We have to continue talking to friends, relatives, and co-workers.
    Thanks for the reminder.

  2. I heard Mark somethingorother sitting in for Dennis Prager in the 3 hours before noon, and that was followed by Medved for 3 hours. And 3 hours after that by Hugh Hewitt. Mark set me off by acting like a Romneybott even as he claimed to detest Obama (who was destroying the coal industry in West Virginia where Mark's regular audience is.) Every excessive Leftist ploy was accurate by implication. He didn't even have the balls to really let anyone defend Santorum in those 3 hours. Hence this post was the result.

    And then I heard Medved do his bit against Santorum even as he claimed to like Santorum. God protect me from friends like Medved, nobody needs any enemies. I followed up at my cross-post at Crusader Rabbit about Medved here: http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/?p=11436#comment-7521

  3. Well, here I go....see if I can explain myself clearly enough, so as not to be misunderstood.

    1. I personally do not care what your personal beliefs/religion/path to enlightenment is, if you plan on running for President, or are fortunate enough to win.

    2. We have seen this concern before, just take a trip in the ol' "Way-back" machine, to around 1960. There were a lot of folks (and not just those in the bible belt) who were more than a little concerned about Kennedy making it to the Oval Office. "Will he be taking his marching orders from the Pope?" "Will we see Catholic Churches sprouting up all over the country, as the new "state sponsored" religion?" None of that happened then, and I doubt it will happen under a Santorum Presidency.

    Because the left is a bunch of idiots, and the media hasn't a clue on how to write a clearly thought out and reasoned article on what Santorum's real problem is....it isn't his Catholicism ... but they are so anti-Christian, and particularly anti-Catholic they miss (or more likely are unwilling to look at the gorilla in the room, cause it would lead to a discussion about their own fair haired boy, and HIS issues along the same lines.

    "Get to the point, damnit!!"


    Barry is a Muslim/Black Liberation Christian/Who knows what...

    Romney is a Mormon

    Paul is a Christian (Protestent)

    Santorum is Catholic

    Gingrich is Catholic (converted)

    And it does not matter, in the least, what any of the men listed above profess their faith to be.

    With the possible exception of Dr. Paul, all the above DO have one thing in common.

    To some greater, or lesser, extent, they will endeavor to impose their will, via the federal government, upon the people of the United States. They may claim to be taking "a higher moral ground". They may believe they are "our betters", and as such have the obligation to "set us straight" (again, via federal fiat) in forcing us to do what is best for us (either individually or, more likely, collectively). They may even cloak it under a "mandate" from God, Allah, hell...Cthulhu's younger elder god brother even, but it doesn't matter.

    At the end of the day, it is all about them imposing their will/moral code/agenda (or all the above) upon us. It's not (particularly) based on their religion or religious upbringing...it IS based on their respective egos.

    And frankly, all of em give me the willies!

  4. Yes Guy. None of them comes up to the shoe tops of George Washington, the 280th anniversary of his birth having been forgotten this Feb 22, today, by most.

    At this point I look on Santorum as the best of a sorry lot.

    You are correct to feel the willies. Not so much because the men themselves are necessarily so bad (other than the Bummer as he's proven), but we fear what can happen to them once they step into that office that now has so much more power than in General Washington's time. The system has built so much power into the government that even a chief executive who does nothing will have all sorts of mischief carried out by the bureaucracy in his name.

    That was the brilliance of Madison in trying to follow Washington's lead when he constructed the bulk of the constitution. It's too bad that Hamilton snuck in those poison pills I've mentioned before. All sorts of mischief has grown from those small seeds.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Tonight, O'Reilly called for the president to take the oil execs into the oval office and demand that a certain amount of oil be reserved for American consumption, or face sanctions.
    Is O'Reilly that stupid?
    Do we want to continue having an imperial president meddle in the economy?
    Or continue having an imperial president?
    @Guy: I don't believe that Santorum would be that imperial president.

  7. Thanks for the heads-up Ed. I alerted an O'Reilly fan to monitor tonight's segment. Great timing on your part!

    Guy is correct to worry about Santorum, but not because he himself is imperialistic. There is simply too much power in the office of President today (in great part due to America's preeminent role) and I view Santorum, based on his record, as too easily manipulated by advisers in the manner of John Adams. And Santorum is no Adams. Maybe Santorum can find the strength and humility he will need in his faith. I perceive that he's currently growing in that role as he battles in the dens of vipers, so who knows.


View My Stats