Assassination Nation

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, age 32, along with his driver, was the third Iranian nuclear scientist in two years to be successfully assassinated last week during the morning rush-hour in Tehran by a bomb attached to his car. It was the fifth similar assassination attempt targeting Iran’s nuclear scientists. One scientist managed to survive an earlier plot.   

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's top religious cleric blames the United States Government Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Israel’s Mossad Intelligence Agency for the killings, claiming they have hard evidence of their involvement.

"We have reliable information, documents and evidence that this terrorist act was planned, guided and supported by the CIA [to assassins] directly involved in Roshan's killing," the Iranian foreign ministry said in a letter handed to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, who represents U.S. interests there in as much as Washington has no diplomatic ties with Iran.

This shows that "the global arrogance spearheaded by the U.S. and Zionism has reached a deadlock in confrontation with the determined, devout and progressive nation of Islamic Iran," Ali Khamenei declared. They will not own up to it but this "has been carried out by the planning or support of CIA and Mossad, like all other crimes of the network of international state terrorism."

Iran reportedly also delivered a letter to Britain accusing it of having an "obvious role" in the killing. It said that a series of assassinations began after British intelligence chief John Sawers hinted in 2010 at intelligence operations against the Islamic Republic.

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency is also blamed in light of the fact that it made public a list of Iranian nuclear scientists and officials that "has provided the possibility of their identification and targeting by spy networks."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, both condemned and "categorically" denied any role in the assassinations, but urged Iran to halt its quest for a nuclear bomb. "We were not involved in any way … I'm not sure who was involved, we have some ideas as to who might be involved... but I can tell you one thing: the United States was not involved in that kind of effort, that's not what the United States does," said Panetta.

Israeli President Shimon Peres said Israel had no role in the attack, to the best of his knowledge. "I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don't shed a tear," said Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for Israel Defense Forces.

Iran has accused Israel in the past of causing major mishaps to its nuclear program. Israeli officials never comment on their involvement but some have publicly expressed satisfaction at the results. The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear dispute. Iran says it would retaliate if attacked.

Republican presidential candidate and bombastic war mongering chicken-hawk, Rick Santorum, said afterwards that the U.S. was wrong to condemn the assassination. "Our country condemned it. My feeling is we should have kept our mouth shut," Santorum opined at a campaign event in Greenville S.C.

"If these are people who are developing a weapon to be used to either destroy the state of Israel or to spread terror -- a reign of terror -- around the world, we shouldn't be sitting on the sidelines and letting it happen," Santorum added. "They cannot have a nuclear weapon, because you, in Greenville, will not be safe."

So Rick Santorum, the American prince of jingoistic sanctimony, believes that our nation is perfectly justified in indiscriminately going around the globe sponsoring assassination squads to murder in cold blood innocent civilian scientists simply because they are involved in projects such as nuclear facilities with which he disapproves.  

The last time I checked, America, Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, France, the U.K., and especially Israel, can all boast of having nuclear scientists, nuclear weapons, and nuclear facilities. Many more nations on the planet have nuclear scientists and nuclear facilities if not also nuclear weapons of mass destruction. If Santorum’s reasoning is sound then any nation is justified in assassinating the nuclear scientists of another nation in the interests of safety.  

This is just an educated guess on my part, but my gut tells me, despite all the pious denials, condemnations, and disingenuous denunciations, that America, Israel and the U.K. are up to their eyeballs in this appalling violation of international law. No other entities have the motive, means and opportunity to carry out such a vile scheme. It has CIA written all over it.

If they are involved, and if our own government believes that this kind of criminal conduct is justified by any stretch of reasoning, then they must accept the plain truth that the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 on the United States, and all other terrorist acts before and after, are perfectly justified as well. After all, those criminals likewise didn’t approve of our aims and projects either.

Sadly, it appears likely that the United States of America; the land of the free and home of the brave, has become a criminal assassination nation.

Dear Leader

North Korea announced last week this latest nauseating scenario: the embalmed corpse of its former “Dear Leader,”  the late Kim Jong Il, now formally enshrined with the label “Eternal Leader,” will be put on permanent display as a macabre object of worship at Pyongyang's Kumsusan Memorial Palace, near the moldering corpse of his late father, dubbed the “Eternal President,” Kim Il Sung, founder of the Korean communist Kim dynasty.

February 16, the Dear Leader’s birthday, will now and forever hereafter be known as the "Day of the Shining Star," a supposed reference to his "military first" policy, just as his father’s birthday is called the "Day of the Sun." Statues and portraits of the Dear Leader together with "towers to his immortality"  will also be set up everywhere in the country.

The Political Bureau of the Workers' Party Central Committee declared North Korea's "unanimous desire ... to hold the great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il in high esteem as the eternal leader of the party and the revolution." His father got exactly the same cult of personality treatment when he died in 1995.

And the dynasty lives on for now in the form of the son, twenty-something year-old Kim Jong Un, who inherited a boat load of his daddy’s magnificent political and military titles with the hope that he too can impose himself and his personality on the nation’s pitiful populace with absolute power and manufactured legitimacy as well as his authoritarian father and grandfather did before him.

The never ending propaganda praising Kim Jong Il's life and works has gone up several notches since his death and the privileged class has vowed to uphold his policies in an attempt to justify the hereditary transfer of communist power to the kid.

All of this has got to be the most bizarre version of George Orwell’s Animal Farm I have ever witnessed. It is the horrible nightmare of Authority run amok. It is big government and big military completely unrestrained where the truth is far stranger than the fiction. The people of North Korea are starving; there is zero freedom; no dignity; no life, liberty or pursuit of happiness; no rights whatsoever; nothing to live for. They are beyond pity.

The life of the average North Korean is a perpetual charade in which their very being is entirely exposed, monitored, dominated and controlled 24/7 by human monsters -- humanoids deprived and devoid of empathy, bereft of sympathy, totally lacking in even the tiniest shred of human kindness, mercy or decency.

North Korea makes the proverbial Devil’s territory of Hell in the Holy Bible seem like a desirable summer vacation destination.

And now we learn that these monstrous savages are actually rounding up and punishing numerous hapless souls who fail to sufficiently exhibit sincere manifestations of sadness and despair at the death of the Dear Leader.

According to North Korean sources, the brutal regime “authorities are handing down at least six months in a labor-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period, or who did participate but didn’t cry and didn’t seem genuine.”

Amnesty International reports that there are about 200,000 offenders and families held in North Korean prison camps camps known as “zones,” where 40 percent of inmates in the camps will die from malnutrition and every former inmate interviewed for the report had witnessed at least one public execution while being held.

Total Control Zones, are for people who have committed “serious crimes.” People in these camps are never released. Revolutionary Zones, are camps for people who have committed less serious offenses such as making critical comments toward government policy or trying to cross the border. Sentences range from a few months to 10 years in these zones.

This is what people get when they seek a Dear Leader – when they seek Authority!

Compulsory Education: The Slippery Slope

"I believe that every child should have the opportunity, even if they don't go, to at least apply to a college," gushed Washington, D.C. Council Chairman Kwame Brown last week.

That’s nice. What a sweet guy – thinking about kids. I believe every child ought to have opportunities too. Certainly, if a kid, after finishing high school, desires a chance to apply for admission to a college, he or she ought to have the opportunity to do so.

It’s part of the American dream: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  

Is that what Councilman Kwame is talking about? Liberty? Freedom? Opportunity? Equality under the law?

Unfortunately, no; I’m afraid it’s the opposite. He’s talking about forcing his own personal agenda upon every young man and woman within his ambit of political power whether they like it or not.

He introduced a bill to require every high school student to apply to a college or trade school even if the student has no interest or desire in attending.

The bill would establish a "mandatory workshop" to teach teenagers how to apply for aid and admission. It would then require all to apply to at least one post-secondary school before graduation, and further require that every kid take the SAT or ACT college admission tests..

Brown says he’s worried that that some D.C. students aren't going to college simply because they "don't know how to navigate the enrollment process," and he wants to make sure they all learn it whether they want to or not. He doesn’t care what they want for themselves. He just wants to exercise his power over them.

Actually, Brown has it ass backwards. These kids don’t know how to navigate the college enrollment process because they simply don’t want to go to college. It’s as simple as that. Why should they learn it? They aren’t interested in pursuing more formal education. They lack the skills and aptitude for college. They’re sick and tired of compulsory education, teachers, principals, school administrators and people who think they know better about how to lead their own lives than they do. They want their freedom!

The main reason why high school and undergraduate college education in America is quickly becoming worthless these days is because of the attitudes and statist thinking of Authorities like Councilman Kwame Brown. When every kid graduates from high school, including those who are dumber and less ambitious than a bag of marbles, a high school diploma is next to meaningless. When every kid is admitted to college, college loses its value.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that compulsory education laws in America are patently unconstitutional, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Incredibly, the highest court in the land has ignored the Constitution altogether and held that the state as a proper function of its police power may require school attendance – for their own good.

Forget about liberty. Forget about the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments; the right to free speech; freedom of religion and personal conscience; freedom of association; due process; and the rest of the Bill of Rights – none of it matters when the Authorities want to dictate how you lead your own life.  

If the Authority is looking for justification for ObamaCare and the individual mandate for every person to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, there is no better precedent than the laws mandating and upholding compulsory education.

If the state can compel the attendance of children in school, it can compel the conduct of adults to buy health insurance – or to do anything else for that matter – for their own welfare; for their own good.

And the United States Constitution may be damned.

Frivolous Lawsuit Hypocrisy

Politicians, especially Republicans it seems, love to complain about the justice system in America and what they call “frivolous lawsuits.” As far as they are concerned, for instance, every lawsuit against a doctor or hospital brought by an injured patient victim of medical malpractice is frivolous.

Lawsuits brought by little people against big shots and fat cats for fraud, negligence, product liability, or breach of contract, are almost always frivolous according to these blabbering blowhards. They’re constantly demanding judicial reform designed to slam the courthouse door in the little guy’s face regardless of the merit of his claims.  

Moreover, when a little person claims a fundamental right not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, or the right to do as they wish with their own body, these same statist politician hacks are quick to say: “Oh, no!; no way! – if it’s not specified in the Constitution, then it doesn’t exist,” they always proclaim.

Trial lawyers who have the temerity to represent injured poor people on a contingent fee basis to remedy the deliberate, reckless, or negligent conduct of wrongdoers are deemed “ambulance chasers” and “legal vultures” by these politicians who yearn for “tort reform,” i.e. harsh rules and procedures which would intimidate the little guy from bringing a meritorious lawsuit.

Yet when one of these sanctimonious fork-tongued political weasels gets the idea that he’s been somehow “wronged” by an individual, a group, or the system at large; or if he thinks his rights have been violated, he’s always the first to run crying and whining to the lawyers and the courts for relief.

That’s because the legal rights, complaints, and causes of politicians are never frivolous in their eyes, especially when they believe that their own ox has been gored.

Take the recent Virginia ballot-access lawsuit situation for example. Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Perry failed to meet the long-standing legal requirements for ballot access in the state’s March 6^th presidential primary contest because his campaign didn’t collect enough valid signatures. So he filed a lawsuit in federal district court demanding inclusion on the ballot anyway.  

Days later, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman, all of whom either failed outright to satisfy the same requirements, or simply failed to even try, ran whining to their own lawyers clamoring to join in on the lawsuit claiming that their constitutional rights are violated and demanding that their names also be included on the ballot.

Virginia requires presidential primary candidates to obtain 10,000 valid signatures from registered voters in the state, including at least 400 from each of 11 congressional districts. It’s been the law there for many years.

Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both satisfied the requirements without difficulty and their names will be on the ballot.

Newt Gingrich said his campaign's failure to qualify was a result of fraud. "We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. We turned in 11,100 – we needed 10,000 – 1,500 of them were by one guy who frankly committed fraud,” Gingrich told CNN.

Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Michelle Bachmann didn’t even go to the trouble of filing the necessary paperwork to be included on the ballot. Santorum whined that Virginia's strict rules favor the richest presidential candidates. Perry claims his freedom of speech rights have been violated and calls the requirements "onerous."

“We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support," declared Perry's communications director.

"The challenge in Virginia isn't about the candidates; it is about the voters," Gingrich said with a straight face. "For the voters in Virginia to be told that ... their options are limited to two people who between them are clearly a minority of the Republican voters is probably unacceptable."

It’s not about the candidates – it’s about the voters. It’s not about me and my failure  – it’s about you, Newt explains without even a trace of shame. He was “defrauded” he claims, but if so, it certainly was not by the State of Virginia. He admits his own hired hand is responsible.

And now he claims like the rest of them that his constitutional rights are violated.

But, where is it spelled out, or even inferred or implied, in the Constitution the right to be included on the Virginia Republican Primary contest ballot in the absence of minimal compliance with the rules?  

The “onerous” rules were in place for many years but none of these bumbling candidates ever thought of challenging them until after the fact. The fact is that they all failed to meet the simple  requirements plainly set forth in the rules, and three of them didn’t even bother to try. The situation is as plain as day.

This is a frivolous lawsuit. If there were ever a frivolous lawsuit, this is it. This is exactly and precisely the kind of lawsuit that these disingenuous politicians always complain about when they holler at the top of their lungs for judicial reform against the little people.

A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit brought by a party which has either trivial or no merit whatsoever under the law or the facts, and therefore this is a blatant, obvious, trivial, frivolous lawsuit; an archetypal, quintessential, law school textbook definition of a frivolous lawsuit, and there  is simply no way around it.

But wait a minute! It’s not quite over yet. Corrupt and sleazy politicians usually get their way when it comes to their own selfish interests, and here there just might possibly indeed be a way around the rules.

Virginia's Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, another slippery politician, spoke out immediately, again after the fact, against what he now calls a "deficient" system. He plans to propose “emergency” changes to the system which would re-open the process and “loosen the rules” for the pathetic failed candidates.

Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has also indicated that he is “open to reviewing Virginia's rules."

All of this is proof once again (if such proof were ever necessary) that when it comes to the interests of politicians, in stark contrast to the little people they claim to represent, they demand entitlement to immunity from their own frivolous lawsuit hypocrisy.

Rick Santorum: Republican Candidate for Religious Bigot in Chief

“I’m always told that what I say is controversial. Why is it controversial? Because I speak from a tradition that has now fallen out of favor with the dominant media in this country. And so when I say things like marriage should be between one man and one woman, I’m called a bigot.” – Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum.

Yes, it certainly is what he’s always told, and that statement about marriage is among some of the more mild and moderate utterances from the intolerant mindset of Rick Santorum. This fellow represents the physical embodiment of the word “bigot.” He makes Archie Bunker look like a paragon of personal liberty, reason, acceptance and social tolerance.

Last March, Rick Santorum insisted that America should go to war over “moral” values: “America is about an idea, and it has to be about shared value, or what is it? What is it? And that's why these moral issues, that everyone says oh, maybe we should step to the side and have a truce on, you can't. It is who we are. It is the purpose of our country. And I have been out fighting the wars on these moral issues.”

Add my name to the list of those congratulating Mr. Santorum today for his smashing success: almost beating Mitt Romney flat out in the Iowa caucuses; a virtual victory which has left me dazed and amazed by the inept political judgment of the people of Iowa.

I shouldn’t be. The result is merely an affirmation of the fact that, if California is the land of fruits and nuts, Iowa is the land of scolds and religious bigots.

“You can say I’m a hater. But I would argue I’m a lover. I’m a lover of traditional families and of the right of children to have a mother and father… I would argue that the future of America hangs in the balance, because the future of the family hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?” he asks. “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”

Rick Santorum has voted “yes” on a proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In fact, he wouldn’t offer any legal protections at all to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president.

During his 99-county tour of Iowa, he frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like trees, basketballs, beer, and paper towels; and even tried to blame the economic crisis on gay people.

He believes that religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays: “We have a right in the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.” Santorum declared.

“Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships.” “Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” “[Gay marriage] threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country.”

You see, Rick Santorum has it in his head an obsession that the United States of America should be likened to a huge ant colony and he’s vying for the job of Queen ant. The only purpose of love and marriage as far as he is concerned is to produce children for the society. The future of our nation hangs in the balance on the issue of (gasp!) gay marriage.

Santorum is positively disgusted by anyone who might tolerate gays in society. “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts,” he once said. “Gay people should stop being gay.” “This is common sense. This is nature, and what we’re trying to do is defy nature because a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society.”

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum told The New York Times Magazine in May 2005.

Huh? Couldn’t the exact same conclusion follow from the right to have consensual straight sex within your own home?

“Does that [gay consensual sex] undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created [in] Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family.”

There you have it! Santorum’s religious bigotry is not just limited to homophobia, no; he actually believes that the fundamental constitutional right to liberty in America does not include a right to privacy – the basic human right to be left alone. "[The] right to privacy…doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution," according to Rick Santorum.

Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception and allow the states to outlaw birth control:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal… but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen… This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”

 “I don’t think it [contraception] works,” he opines. “I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. I think it has, as we’ve seen, very harmful long-term consequences for society. So birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”

Asked once if he would allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives, Rick Santorum, employing his ‘states rights’ argument, replied: “the state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”

Not surprisingly, Mr. Santorum also spews an absolutist anti-liberty position on the issue of abortion: “Life begins at conception, no exceptions for incest, rape, or the life of the mother, and doctors performing abortions should be criminally charged.”

Speaking out on Christian television early last year he said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained.

“Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more ‘professionally’ gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment… Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders.” Rick Santorum; It Takes a Family, Pg. 95, July 2005.

This guy actually stated recently that the fundamental rights to “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness,” as set forth in the Declaration of Independence by America’s founding fathers, does not include any individual’s right to pursue his or her own wants and desires.

In short, we don’t enjoy the right in America to pursue our own version of life, liberty and happiness according to Rick Santorum.  

Rick Santorum, Heritage Foundation Lecture #804: “My colleague Senator John Ensign of Nevada told me a story that epitomizes the selfishness of our culture: ‘When I was a teenager, I had a sticker in my car with a picture of a bear scratching himself on the tree, and under it was the saying, “If it feels good, do it!”’ “That was the motto of the '60s and the '70s, and certainly it is the motto today. The image of the bear scratching himself highlights a view of human beings as animals, and that people should do what pleases them at the moment without a thought to the broader long-term consequences of their actions.”

“The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire,” says Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum fervently believes that the state has an absolute right to prevent you from scratching your own itch. All it has to do is pass a law, says Rick.

“The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of “diversity” as a central educational value… The goal of diversity is wrong.” Rick Santorum: It Takes a Family, Pg. 406, July 2005.

Everyone should be the same, think the same, and act the same in America, according to Rick Santorum. Cultural diversity is wrong.

Rick Santorum on the efficacy of government imposed torture: “[John McCain] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information.”

Rick Santorum on the problem of nuclear proliferation: “The U.S. should assassinate certain nuclear scientists from countries like Russia, North Korea and Iran.”

Rick Santorum on the War on Terror: “The war against Islamic fascism will be won or lost in America.” “We have a great game plan [in Iraq], and Rumsfeld does fine job.” “War in Iraq is one front in war on Islamic fascism.” “Iran is at the heart of the Iraq war.” “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical.”  

Rick Santorum on big government: “Candidly, I believe most corporations actually don't mind big government.”

Rick Santorum on the Democratic Party: “The political base of the Democratic Party is single mothers running households that ‘look to the government for help.’” “The American Left hates Christendom. They hate Western civilization.”

Rick Santorum on President Obama: “Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions.”

Rick Santorum on poverty in America: “Poor children should have to suffer hunger and other ills to prevent them from developing the sense of entitlement that comes from relying on government social programs... suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is part of life… Is that what Jesus meant by suffer the little children’”? 

Rick Santorum, as a U.S. Senator, voted YES on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration; YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping; YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses; YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act; and YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provisions.

Rick Santorum voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees; and NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

Calling Rick Santorum an ultra-right-wing religious extremist is putting it mildly.  Next to him, statist tyrants like Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich seem like  timid moderates. That being the case, I don’t envision Santorum coming close to capturing the Republican Party nomination, much less the presidency, but stranger things have happened in the course of history.

In this regard, Mitt Romney is surely the lucky beneficiary as his chances to win the nomination are enhanced. The fact, however, that the Republican Party in Iowa has given this man Santorum political credibility within the GOP ranks, I think, bodes ill for Republican chances in the November general election against Barack Obama.

The average American now is going to view the Republican’s as a bunch of religious extremists as Rick Santorum is allowed equal status with Romney in the debates and at the convention leading up to the eventual nomination.

They’re likely to view the whole process from here on out as the:

Republican Candidate’s for Religious Bigot in Chief.

Pulpit Politicking Pastors in Iowa

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich held a conference call with Iowa pastors last week in a last ditch effort to seek their support and the flagging support of their congregations in the Iowa caucuses race for the GOP nomination.  

Conservative Christian leaders Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in San Diego and Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, both of whom are supporting Gingrich, also participated in the call.

In a letter sent to pastors inviting them to call in, Wildmon emphasized Gingrich’s “thrust to remove elitist judges who ignore the American people, like the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who voted in 2009 to impose homosexual marriage on all Iowans.”

Several other GOP candidates in the race have been doing the same and many Iowa pastors have been actively involved in the process. At a forum on moral values held at First Federated, an evangelical church in Des Moines, candidates sharply attacked secularism and the Supreme Court while calling for greater restrictions on abortion and gay rights.

Gingrich decried a shift toward secularism in America which he called a “disaster.” “The degree to which the left is prepared to impose intolerance and to drive out of existence traditional religion is a mortal threat to our civilization and deserves to be taken head-on and described as what it is, which is abuse of government to oppress the American people against their own values,” he said.

Two politically active Iowa pastors said recently that an effort has been under way to persuade either Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann to consider quitting the Republican presidential race and endorsing the other to avoid splintering this influential voting bloc’s influence in the state’s caucuses.

“Otherwise, like-minded people will be divided and water down their impact,” explained Rev. Cary Gordon, a Sioux City minister. He said he asked Santorum several weeks ago to consider exiting the race but has since endorsed the former Pennsylvania senator, who is rising in polls. Rev. Albert Calloway, a retired pastor from Indianola, said he asked Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, several days ago to consider quitting the race.

Jeff Mullen, pastor of one of the Des Moines area’s mega churches, helped lead Bachmann’s winning campaign for Iowa’s Republican presidential straw poll last summer. Bachmann told reporters she wasn’t quitting and planned to announce additional clergy who were supporting her candidacy. “The pastors who have endorsed my campaign want to see me as the next president of the United States,” she explained.

Several Iowa pastors spoke with reporters recently about their views on the presidential campaign, sharing advice they have to give to Christian voters about how to determine what a good president will be from a Biblical standpoint, and how to search for the qualities that will allow a candidate to lead the people in a just and Christian way.

Pastor Steve Schmaljohn from the Apostolic Church of Tipton, IA, wrote to his congregants in a long email that there are no perfect candidates: “I believe that we have a responsibility as Christians to choose a candidate prayerfully and in a way that gives consideration to all of the important issues and the needs of the nation. I think it is unwise to choose a candidate based on one single issue, while neglecting others … So, I think first and foremost, for me to support a candidate, they must be respectful towards religion, and particularly (as I believe that Christianity is under attack from many quarters) they must be respectful towards Bible-based Christianity.”

Of course, all pastors on behalf of their churches and their congregations have every right to involve themselves in political campaigns to whatever extent they wish. They can do all the partisan politicking they like from the pulpit and there is nothing to prevent them. That right is guaranteed by First Amendment Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution.

But nowhere in the United States Constitution are pastors and churches in Iowa or anywhere else in America guaranteed the right to continued IRS tax exempt status as religious organizations regardless of their partisan political activities. 

Religious organizations in America as well as all other non-profit entities enjoy tax exempt status under  Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This means that they are exempt from reporting their income and paying taxes on it like the rest of us working stiffs as long as they comply with certain rules.

Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious and the government, rightly or wrongly, has decided that these activities should not be taxed because of the so-called “benefits” to society. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics.

In 1954, Congress approved an amendment to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in any political campaign activity.

Pastors on behalf of houses of worship may not endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. Penalties for violating the federal tax laws in this manner include loss of tax-exempt status.

Moreover, the vast majority of Americans -- 75% according to a recent survey – believe that it is inappropriate for churches to publicly endorse candidates for public office.

Bottom line: Churches have no business mixing partisan politics with religion. In the United States of America there is supposed to be a separation between church and state.

These pulpit politicking pastors in Iowa are blatantly violating the federal tax laws and therefore the IRS tax exempt status of their religious organizations should be revoked.

War That Never Ends

Johnny came marching home for Christmas from Iraq only to learn that he’ll be marching straight back to Afghanistan in six months time.

That’s because former president George W. Bush spawned a war that never ends.

World War I, the war to end all wars, lasted about four years, from 1914 to 1918.

World War II, the greatest world conflict in history, lasted about 6 years, from 1939 to 1945.

The Korean War, though technically not formally ended, lasted just over three years, from 1950 to 1953.

U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War escalated in the early 1960’s, peaking by 1968, and ended in ignominious defeat in 1975, after about 14 years.

Bush’s so-called “War on Terror” started shortly after September 11, 2001, and there is no end in sight.

U.S. Soldiers who just returned from Iraq are being ordered shortly to Afghanistan as part of a mission designed to beef up Afghan forces ahead of a planned 2014 U.S. military withdrawal.

The Obama administration supposedly has a plan to withdraw forces, beginning by pulling 33,000 "surge" troops deployed to help quell the violence by the end of 2012. The remaining 68,000 troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2014. It’s a plan that many military commanders have said is unreasonable. They want to halt it.

It looks like the military brass is going to get their way.

Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, Marine Corps Gen. John Allen, wants to keep a U.S. "military presence" in Afghanistan beyond 2014 when NATO is scheduled to withdraw its forces. He has indicated that forces should remain as long as 2016 when the Afghan Air Force is completed.

Meanwhile, according Reuters, to the Obama administration is considering transferring to Afghan custody, at their request, Mohammed Fazl, a senior Taliban official and "high-risk detainee" held at the Guantanamo Bay, suspected of major human rights abuses, as part of a long-shot bid to improve the prospects of a peace deal in Afghanistan.

Fazl is said to be responsible for the killing of thousands of Afghanistan's minority Shiite Muslims between 1998 and 2001. Military documents also indicate that he was on the scene of a November 2001 prison riot that killed CIA operative Johnny Michael Spann, the first American who died in combat in the Afghan war.

Now, senior U.S. officials are proposing an exchange of "confidence-building measures," including the transfer of five detainees from Guantanamo and the establishment of a Taliban office outside of Afghanistan in an attempt to set up negotiations between the Taliban — a fundamentalist group that refers to Americans as infidels and which is still killing U.S., NATO and Afghan soldiers on the battlefield — and government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

All of this despite the fact that supporters of the potential deal admit that the odds of striking a peace accord are slim.

That’s right; Obama is considering handing over without a trial the worst of the worst Taliban thugs as a “bargaining chip” for a peace that will never happen. He knows like you and me and everyone else that the moment U.S. forces are gone in Afghanistan the place will return immediately to what it was before 9/11 – a Taliban controlled nation.

The same is true in Iraq. Very soon now that place will be worse off than it was under the tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

George Bush’s “War on Terror” never ends.