« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Santorum is Correct about ‘satan’

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum said this in 2008 to students at Ave Maria University in Florida:

“satan has his sights on the United States of America …satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition… This is a spiritual war. And the father of lies has his sights on what you would think the father of lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were satan, who would you attack in this day and age? He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions… “

First it is important to put this in context. He is a conservative Christian who was speaking to a group of conservative religious students.

Second Santorum is absolutely right although we must understand that the term ‘satan’ refers to ‘evil’ and should not necessarily be taken literally.

Third more of our national leaders should be speaking out about increasing evil in our society. Because evil indeed is afoot in America.

The Media Left, of course, are having a field day as if Santorum is nothing but a 19th century tent-revival preacher. But as with everything that a conservative says Santorum is right on the mark and says he will defend himself.

The fact is that evil has spread in America, particularly in the last 50 years. And millions of American know this but have been reluctant to say it for fear of ridicule. Now Santorum has said it. And whatever happens in this presidential campaign, Santorum now has potentially carved out a role for himself as an aggressive activist speaking against the secularization of America and against encroaching evil.

Why have we seen such evil in the last 50 years?

Because secular/atheist media outlets and the far left of the atheist Democrat party have gained more and more power.

In the past, one single television network could not reach tens of millions of viewers with violent, dissolute, anti-Christian programs. Jerry Springer’s TV trash never would have reached beyond his own circus sideshow.

Today they can reach tens of millions at the flick of a switch. And the people who are ridiculing Santorum most loudly in fact are exactly the people who are putting this stuff out.

Remember when Hollywood movies had identifiable heroes who triumphed in the end by being good? Remember when nuclear families with traditional values were featured on TV shows every night?

Today the villain is likely to triumph or to be shone in a good light, just as network TV shows repetitively portray people living in social chaos with no family structure in sight.

Movies and television productions are full of violence and guns and shooting and murder. And adultery. And foul language. And degenerate behavior. Just one single clip from a popular TV show recently had a guy saying that his girlfriend was coming over but that he had “a half-naked broad upstairs”.

This is the kind of everyday trash that is implanting evil and social chaos all over our society. Because evil feeds on chaos and despises order.

Meanwhile the order and personal restraint essential to freedom have broken down in the pursuit of pleasure, narcissism and self-indulgence.

Our inner cities, controlled without challenge by far-left Democrats, are cauldrons of murder, violence, illegitimacy, promiscuity, poverty, sloth and ignorance. You can’t find a church, but you can find drugs on every corner.

More than one million females abort their babies every year with thousands of fetuses killed at the point of birth.  Tens of millions of Americans are under the care of psychiatrists or are medicated because their God-less lives have no meaning.

Meanwhile our military heroes are brought up on false charges, as in the Haditha case in Iraq, and our police are maligned for actions they take against criminals. Fathers are called unnecessary to a child’s well-being while pedophiles run rampant all over our society.

Indeed everywhere in our society there are signs of evil or signs of satan or whatever you wish to call them. And the people who are most vociferous in speaking out against Santorum are the same people who are enriching themselves by promoting, enabling and exonerating evil and violence and adultery and degeneracy, i.e., left-wingers in Hollywood and in the media and in our universities, while those same people attack American virtues like honesty, humility, thrift and personal restraint in the Tea Parties.

And that Santorum is willing to speak out terrifies these people. Because they have operated in the shadows for decades, methodically sowing their seeds and undermining our social order. They fear the light of truth shining on them as evil always fears the light and craves the darkness.

Indeed one single speech by senator Santorum has put the media into a frenzy which actually shows how correct Santorum is. Because if he were being disingenuous or frivolous, there would be no need to respond. He would be dismissed.

Thus liberals must malign and impugn and censor us conservatives and Christians at every turn. Because in their hearts they know that we are infinitely better than they are and that we are speaking the truth about everything from economics to foreign policy to the essential nature of evil.

Look at what happened when Tim Tebow, an openly Christian football player, had a string of good games in just one season after virtually no devoutly Christian athletes have appeared in sports for decades.

America was thrilled with Tebow. But the left-wing sports media (yes, they are lefties too) went koo-koo. Because not one single Christian is ever supposed to be praised or seen in a positive light. Ever. Because the left in America fears and is confounded by something that all atheists lack – Christian knowledge, inner peace, security, love and confidence.

And they understood that Tebow was connecting with millions of people even if they were not Christians. And this was seen as an imminent danger on the secular left.

Now along comes Rick Santorum. The moment he rose in the polls the media attack machine went into overdrive, parsing his every word and impugning his every statement. They said he couldn’t win because he is “too conservative” and “too Christian”. Then the Ave Maria speech was uncovered, and the media have exploded.

Yet liberals never can explain why the whole world for centuries has wanted to immigrate into Christian-based Europe and the United States instead of going to atheist/communist China or Cuba, or Hindu India or Buddhist nations in the Far East.

And by the way, the three most significant anti-Christian atheists in the history of the world were Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung who, among them, caused the deaths or outright murdered more than 150 million people and plunged hundreds of millions more into war, chaos and poverty.

Here is how AP covered some of Santorum’s recent comments in which he legitimately questioned Obama’s faith:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rick Santorum on Sunday condemned what he called President Barack Obama’s world view that “elevates the Earth above man” and requires insurers to pay for prenatal tests that will encourage more abortions.

…”I am talking about his world view, and the way he approaches problems in this country. I think they’re different than how most people do in America,” he said in the broadcast interview.

The former Pennsylvania senator said Obama’s environmental policies promote ideas of “radical environmentalists,” who, Santorum argues, oppose greater use of the country’s natural resources because they believe “man is here to serve the Earth.” He said that was the reference he was making Saturday in his Ohio campaign appearance when he denounced a “phony theology.”

“I think that is a phony ideal. I don’t believe that is what we’re here to do,” Santorum said. “We’re not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective.”’

Again Santorum is right on the mark. This is something that we conservatives have been saying about liberals and environmentalists for decades. And those of us not in a sensitive political position like Santorum will say outright that Obama is no Christian. He worshipped for 20 years at a fake Christian church that was nothing but a front for black-liberation theology.

What kind of real Christian would say what Obama said in May 2009 at a news conference in Turkey:

“One of the great strengths of the United States is … we have a very large Christian population — we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

None would. Because anyone with any knowledge of history knows that America was founded absolutely on Christian values. There are hundreds of documented Christian quotes and references from every founder in the pantheon.

CNN also reported:

‘Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt issued a response to the (Santorum) comments, but did not directly address whether the campaign saw this as a direct attack on (Obama’s) Christian credentials.

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the president who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class.”’

So in other words when any criticism of Obama is made that has any ring of truth Democrats must react immediately. Because they are fearful, defensive people. Don’t let their confident sheen fool you.

Thus if Rick Santorum is harming himself with his comments and is unelectable, why don’t the liberals simply let him talk?

Answer: Because they know that Santorum is speaking the truth just like the sports media know that Tim Tebow in fact is connecting with millions of Americans.

Look at what else Santorum said, from CNN.com:

‘Santorum told reporters that the message he was trying to convey was that the president merely holds “different moral values.”

“You may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values,” he said. “Whatever you want to call it. . . it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church.”

He said Obama has reached a “low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before.”

Asked if he believes the president is less of a Christian than someone such as himself, Santorum said that “no one is suggesting that.”

“In the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity. . . . I’m just saying he’s imposing his values on the church and I think that’s wrong,” he said.

…He added that liberals on “the left” have been imposing their own moral code on Americans for quite some time.

“You can call it a theology, you can call it a moral code, you can call it a world view,” he said. “They want to impose [that] on everybody else while they insist and complain that somehow or another people of Judeo Christian faith are intolerant of their new moral code.”’

Amen. And again Santorum is speaking the truth. And good for him. May he speak it for many more decades. A star is born.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more conservative insights. And enjoy the liverly new Arts section.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Xasteius

    no text

    • acat

      That and, of course, the question of “what does ‘christian nation’ even mean? everyone going to church? a full-on theocracy? ”

      Mew

    • jamesm

      We have freedom of religion in the United States, Christianity does not have a government component. Government is not Christianity.

      This country was founded on Judeo/Christian values not a specific religion. Is this a Christian nation. If you look at the numbers..absolutely.

      • jamesm

        nt

      • Xasteius

        Or have you missed santorum’s comment that he is a Jesus candidate?

      • Xasteius

        Here’s a link:

        http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

        Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

        • jamesm

          I did read it. See my post above.

  • rogsterling63

    thanks for clarification…was worried there for a moment ;)

  • Xasteius

    The Christian Church abdicated its authority to care for the poor to the government in 1932 with the support of Social Security. It actively pressured the community to support this measure that would ‘Holy Scripture’s mandates to care for the poor, provide for parents in their old age and give to those who ask of you.” (http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Theology-of-Social-Security-Douglas-Baker-07-20-2011?offset=1&max=1)

    And with each decade, the church has seceded more power to the state. We now expect the state to defund abortion, define marriage, and play morality police. What is the difference politically speaking between what Santorum advocates and the liberals advocate?

    ?He added that liberals on ?the left? have been imposing their own moral code on Americans for quite some time.

    ?You can call it a theology, you can call it a moral code, you can call it a world view,? he said. ?They want to impose [that] on everybody else while they insist and complain that somehow or another people of Judeo Christian faith are intolerant of their new moral code.?

    The Church should stick strictly to opposing (federal state, etc.) government mandates that threaten their freedom of conscience and to evangelizing the culture to change the politics.

    The solution nowadays would make the federal government ‘morally neutral.’ For example, no federal funding for any social services; the Church would have to fund its own hospitals, adoption services, etc. The federal government will have to establish a baseline public decency , but otherwise only ensures equality of public access for all religions that pose a threat to the public (i.e. Muslims blowing up buildings).

  • rogsterling63

    Yes, values like counting some human beings as whole, and others as 3/5ths of a person – chattel property to use the precise term, or literally interpreting “slaves obey your masters” as a matter of public policy?

    Values such as forcibly moving people from their homes and property and resettling them in new territories?

    Values such as imprisoning certain American citizens because their ethnic origins were a perceived threat in wartime?

    The United States government has done all of these things as a matter of law and public policy. If we were truly founded as a Christian nation, we’ve done some pretty evil things that I hope we are forgiven and continue to work way from.

    If Satan is present only now, where was God then?

  • acat

    Those who think a high school history course tells them anything about what really happened really piss off those of us who bother to learn the truth…

    Mew

  • Bill S

    …you sure do seem to have problems with basic principles like the difference between “values of the founders” and “behavior of the citizens”.

    But you seem to be specializing in “disingenuous” here.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …subject to you, but it’s not particularly fascinating to me, and you’re being frankly tiresome about it. I will be nice and not speculate about why you’re so mad about the rather commonplace observation that this country was founded and settled pretty exclusively by one variant of Christian or another; but you’re going to be a good deal less confrontational from here on out.

    Oh, and for the record: we are not having a conversation. I actually have the ability to correct your behavior, albeit in a fairly inelegant way.

  • jamesm

    from liberals. So…how do we know you have 3/5ths the intelligence of someone that was really intelligent? LOL. I would suggest you need to start over and read the works of the “founders”. It would take too long to explain it here and you would never get it

  • acat

    Nothing further

  • rogsterling63

    on any glaring errors you noticed in the post above? Or did slavery just simply not exist at the time of Constitutional ratification, were the Cherokees simply offered a better deal in Oklahoma, or did Japanese Americans just really want some more sun and vitamin C in the Arizona desert?

  • acat

    and is generally acknowledged as a “founding father” .

    Mew

  • rogsterling63

    The Founders valued individual liberty…if you were a property-owning white male.

    They were smart guys. Had they intended to extend that liberty to all Americans, certainly they would have from the start.

    At least they gave us a mechanism to correct their errors.

  • rogsterling63

    do not always equal historical facts. I’m in no way angry about such things. I just prefer for facts to be laid on the table when observations are grossly inaccurate. For example, many in this country have the commonplace observation that the Civil War was not at all about slavery…however, historical fact shows that observation to be wrong.

    This nation was settled by various denominations of Christians. Just as much settled by secular explorers with purely commercial interests. Those Christians certainly had an influence in creating the legal constructs of our nation. As did those with secular commercial interests.

    However to extend that “commonplace observation” to “historical fact” crosses a line that I’m willing to debate anytime.

    Unless your veiled threat to ban me prevents me from doing so – in which case you show absolutely no shared value with the Framers in terms of their views on freedom of speech and expression.

  • rogsterling63

    I have read the Federalist Papers, Jefferson’s Virginia statute on Religious Freedom, Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance

    any others you think I should read?

  • Aaron Gardner

    RedState is not an arm of the government, it is private property. Your right to free speech is not violated by RedState restricting the terms of debate. Nor do you have the authority to dictate the terms of debate on RedState’s private property.

    The Founders would mock you relentlessly.

  • Scope

    they were spoken by Ron Paul’s former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell.

    Rockwell stated in speeches that he thought the Constitution was a statist document, that was written by the left overs from the war, the military leaders, financiers, and other mucky mucks. He believes that the Constitution was only written because the elites at the time (the Founders) were worried about anarchy. He claimed that the Constitution was nothing more than a centralized assertion of power, disguised in false language of liberty and freedom.

    I would say you have unfortunately accepted the beliefs and goals of the early Ron Paul mentors and enablers.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Kids, dentist, new refrigerator; you know how it goes.

    Anyway, blam.

    Moe Lane

    PS: For those following at home; when the moderators tell you to behave, behave and don’t whine about freedom of speech. You don’t have any here: this is private property and we are unapologetic about establishing that, and – this is very important – at our discretion.

  • rogsterling63

    RS has every right to ban me. I’d have no ground for recourse either. However it would simply prove the site’s disregard for any open thought or debate, and I’ve honestly come to like this page as a plsce to have honest, intellectual conservative debate.

    I’d hate to be disappointed

  • Aaron Gardner

    Locke, Aristotle, Cicero, Burke, and Sidney. Then, once you have the proper context, read the Founders again.

  • Bill S

    which has nothing to do with what I said in response to you. But thanks for playing.

  • Bill S

    We usually let them beclown themselves until we can’t stand to watch it any more. You’re getting there.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Open thought and debate doesn’t require us to acknowledge the arguments of fools. In fact, it only works well when the fools are specifically kept out of the discussion.

  • rogsterling63

    I’d be quite interested to hear Aristotle and Cicero’s views on Christian nations

  • rogsterling63

    I’d be glad to make any technical corrections you find

  • Aaron Gardner

    I’ll let you flail around a bit and see if you can figure out your error.

  • Aaron Gardner

    If you want more instructions, I am afraid I will have to start charging you.

  • rogsterling63

    However, my primary interest is ascertaining and debating facts. I’m quite interested still in understanding where you think I’ve got mine terribly wrong?

  • Aaron Gardner

    ntnt

  • rogsterling63

    you simply can’t find any

    Happy Friday and Happy Hour!

  • Vegas_Rick

    but in none of your commentary have you attempted to make a specific point. Nor have you clearly tried to refute a point made by others. Sarcasm, innuendo, half-truths and snark do not equal open and honest debate.

    And, I suspect you do not really want a debate, which is why you write as you do.

    Rather, I think you enjoy being exactly what you are: a pesky little fly who contributes nothing of value, but just won’t go away.

  • Aaron Gardner

    You admit that the people in the colonies were predominantly Christian. I assume you admit that the government was made up of those same people. It isn’t a stretch, then, to assume that the government was predominantly made up of Christians.

    Now, having knowledge of what influences are natural in to process of forming government and law, you are left with no other conclusion than the Founders being influenced by the predominant religion in the formation of our government and our laws.

    This idea wasn’t alien to our Founders. To pull just one example, look to John Jay:

    “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.”

    Another would be the author of the 1st Amendment, Fisher Ames:

    “[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.”

    You really don’t know what you are talking about.

  • rogsterling63

    We may be headed down an evil future as Mr. Santorum suggests, but we must also acknowledge we’ve emerged from an evil past. When politicians harken back to an earlier time through the lens and assumptions those times were always “good” or “not evil”, its important to remember where we came from so that we don’t head there again.

    I don’t think I could make it any clearer

  • rogsterling63

    I love the Bible. I am a practicing Baptist. But there are countless examples of less than pure morals in both testaments.

    I don’t doubt Christianity had an influence on the Founders’ thinking. I do have questions as to the extent of their practicing the faith, both in their own writings and their own personal actions that at times point to the contrary.

    I merely imagine they must have had intense personal struggles in reconciling their faith with their views on governing a civil society and their own moral behaviors.

  • Aaron Gardner

    You are trolling.

  • lineholder

    the darker side of human nature, where human beings can become corrupted by things like power, does exist. They had seen it, day in and day out, in the form of tyranny from the government under which they lived. They learned a great deal from those experiences, and attempted to incorporate what they had learned, in a positive context that would support and protect the people who followed them, into the context of the Constitution of the United States.

    Their beliefs and convictions did play a part in their actions. Even for those who did not hold to Judeo-Christian beliefs, the hard cold reality that human beings can be and often are corrupted by things like power did play a part in the choices that they made.

    That’s abundantly obvious because had they not possessed those beliefs and convictions, they would not have included provisional measures that prevent excesses of government power in the Constitution for the purpose of protecting the freedoms and liberties of the individual.

  • Vegas_Rick

    from you that I’ve read today. I doubt many would disagree with you. Of course we must learn from our mistakes or we are doomed to repat them.

    But that is not to say that the country is better off today because we, as society, have largely abandoned the Christian family values that I certainly observed and was taught growing up..