It’s not a personal cult.
That’s what me, Santorum and the Founders are all arguing about when they talk about natural rights. There’s disagreement on what exactly constitutes natural rights. In America, the BOR contains the rights that have been ageed upon, while stating again, that those rights not enumerated belong to the people.
They argue that they exist - like tables and chairs, apart from people and human society. That even if you were to take the people out that these rights still exist.
What Rick Santorum is doing - is showing that the government has a constitutional obligation to defend the constitution. If we were to let everyone do as they want, he would be abdicating the obligation of the state. He’s arguing against the libertarians and Paul to show why their understanding of how the government works is flawed.
Which state? You seem to conflate the real states with the United States.
States do have immense powers to control things.
FedGov? Not so much.
The Federals have a very limited set of things they can control.
Law enforcement is left to the States, except in cases of Treason. Try reading Art. 3.
It certainly isn't a federal issue.
/johnny
If that's what he were doing no one would have a problem with it.
"...government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
Besides the completely fabricated idea that someone claimes government shouldn't get involved in cultural issues (every issue is a cultural issue when you're the government of that culture, Rick), he is proving why he doesn't have the intellect to be president, IMHO. He conflates ideas from the right, left and Libertarianism as if he is talking about one group, losing all the differences in those various positions as he argues for government involvment in all phases of life and claiming that is 'conservative.'
Your attempt to nuance his position by referencing things he didn't is desperate, and is dishonest. If he wanted to say what you claim he did, why didn't he just SAY that?
"In 2003, Santorum voted for the Medicare drug entitlement that costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" bill and was an earmark enthusiast his entire career.
"These days, Santorum regularly joins a chorus of voices claiming that he would greatly reduce the role of federal government in local education. When he had a say, he supported No Child Left Behind and expanded the federal control of school systems. In his book, in fact, Santorum advocates dictating a certain curriculum to all schools. The right kind. It’s not the authority of government that irks him, but rather the content of the material Washington is peddling today."
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/01/04/santorum-conservative-technocrat/
Please explain how those votes coincide with your version of his beliefs. Because they read a lot more like what I'm hearing from him, not his spinners.
Among the many government programs he supported: national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, and economic-literacy programs in “every school in America” (italics in original).
Santorum’s voting record shows that he embraced George Bush–style “big-government conservatism.” For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.
He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere.” The quintessential Washington insider, he worked closely with Tom DeLay to set up the “K Street Project,” linking lobbyists with the GOP leadership.
He voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey. He still supports an industrial policy with the government tilting the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287068/santorum-s-big-government-conservatism-michael-tanner
LOL. What a delusional statement. I have studied Santorum. He has the spirit and beliefs that are the polar opposites of our Founders.
Our Founders had an instinctive and outspoken hostility towards anything but a "severely limited" government.
Rick is a pure-breed Statist that would use the power of the State to forcibly bend the individual to be subservient to "his" view of the State.
The biggest thing Rick Santorum fears is true Liberty and limited government.
When this Conservative fraud drops out, Liberty can breathe a sigh of relief.