Santorum Says He Would Enforce US Obscenity Laws That Obama Ignores

MSNBC ^ | March 16, 2012 | Andrew Rafferty and Alex Moe

[Steelfish]

Santorum Says He Would Enforce US Obscenity Laws That Obama Ignores By NBC's Andrew Rafferty

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL -- Rick Santorum accused President Barack Obama of not enforcing the country's obscenity laws and said Friday that as chief executive he would crack down on illegal pornography.

Santorum found himself answering pornography questions during a stop at an Italian restaurant here after the discovery of a statement posted in his campaign website in which he asserts that "America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography." Recent reporting has shed light on the letter in which the former Pennsylvania senator vowed to "vigorously enforce" all the country's obscenity laws, though he said the statement was posted three weeks ago.

"We actually respond to questions that we get into our campaign when they say 'What are you going to do about these issues?' And when we respond we post them up on our website. And the response is, ‘we'll enforce the law,’" said Santorum.

"I don’t know what the hubbub about that is," he said. "We have a president who is not enforcing the law, and we will."

The candidate best known for espousing family values argues on his website that pornography causes changes in the brain to both children and adults, and contributes to violence against women, prostitution and sex trafficking. "The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography," he wrote.

[trappedincanuckistan]

As for the green beer, I prefer a Shamrock shake, but thanks for bringing up another strawman to support your leftist perspective.

It’s a perfect ending to this conversation between a conservative American (me) and a Canadian leftie (you!). :)

Don’t be so silly. It is you that favors government intervention to realize your vision of a moral utopia. It is you that is no different from the left.

Enjoy your day! :)

[Marguerite]

"Santorum, the "compassionate Christian conservative" founded a charity that was actually a scam. In 2001, following up on a faith-based urban charity initiative around the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, Santorum launched a charitable foundation called the Operation Good Neighbor Foundation. While in its first few years the charity cut checks to community groups for $474,000, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation had actually raised more than $1 million, from donors who overlapped with Santorum's political fund raising. Where did the majority of the charity's money go? In salary and consulting fees to a network of politically connected lobbyists, aides and fundraisers, including rent and office payments to Santorum's finance director Rob Bickhart, later finance chair of the Republican National Committee. When I reported on Santorum's charity for The American Prospect in 2006, experts told me a responsible charity doles out at least 75 percent of its income in grants, and they were shocked to learn the figure for Operation Good Neighbor Fund was less than 36 percent. The charity – which didn't register with the state of Pennsylvania as required under the law --- was finally disbanded in 2007."

[PapaBear3625]

Same for all speed limit laws. Every driver has violated them at least once.

And most drivers violate them habitually. When I get on the Interstate, the flow of traffic in the left lane is 80mph. Some people do 65, hardly anybody does 55 (and they better stay in the right lane if they don't want the other drivers seriously pissed off at them). Some do more than 80, but 80 seems to be the threshold around here where the cops will pull you over.

Once you are used to violating one set of laws, and see most people also violating them with impunity, then other laws lose much of their power.

[Marguerite]

"Likewise, a so-called "leadership PAC" created by Santorum that was supposed to fund other Republicans instead seemed to mostly pay for the lifestyle of Santorum and those around him. Only 18 percent of its money went to fund political candidates. What America's Foundation did spend a lot on with what looked like everyday expenses, including 66 trips to the Starbucks in Santorum's then hometown of Leesburg, Va., his multiple fast-food outings and expenditures at Wal-Mart, Target and Giant supermarkets. Santorum also funded his large Leesburg "McMansion" with a $500,000 mortgage from a private bank run by a major campaign donor, in a program that was only supposed to be open to high-wealth investment clients in the trust, which Santorum was not, and closed to the general public."

[caww]

That’s exactly right....and remember people were saying that about Santorum right from the beginning....he hasn’t changed rather the media is driving this now with Obamas full signiture of approval.

I am a Christian but I do not support making religious issues front and center of this Primary as is being done. Simply put it’s a clear distraction by the enemy of mens souls IMO....coming across as the fakery he’s known for using the same tactics as always......cover it with religious jargon and the sheep will follow....same old story.....and no wonder it’s written:

“for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” ...Luke...

[sodpoodle]

Perfect!!!!

Tailored for PowerPoint, Twitter, Sound Byte, bumper sticker afficionados and all the other voters who are in too much of a hurry to study the records.

This needs to go viral;)

[caww]

Yes, I had read about that one some time ago....you can bet that will be brought out by the Democrates as well as other ‘Not so clean” aspects about Santorum.

[gardencatz]

If that were true we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Right now he’s the “default” unvetted candidate. That’s exactly what the media is doing now. Vetting isn’t just about issues but one’s ability to handle different situations. The press sets the narrative or the candidate does, period. Our candidates have to better and stronger than the media, that’s a given. If he can’t even beat the press at their own game what’s he going to do when the 3:00 am phone call comes in.

I have a son deploying in a few months, if he can’t stand up to the press and keep them from setting the agenda how will he be able to stand up to Karazai, the UN, the press, the left, etc. when the situation is as tense as it is right now? You can consider me selfish if you want, but I’m not the only military parent who is a bit more concerned about Afghan policy than obscenity laws. I’m more concerned about his energy plan (so my son might not have to go on yet another deployment) than whether someone is watching Internet porn.

I want to hear him talk TO THE PRESS, THE SAME NATIONAL PRESS THAT’S MAKING THIS A NATIONAL STORY about dismantling 0bamacare, whether he’s for a flat tax, what, if any, over bloated government agency would he get rid of. He may be getting his message out in the small venues he’s speaking in but while he’s doing that the national media is giving the rest of the country their first impression of him.

If he can’t keep from getting stuck on this issue how will he handle it when they really start in on him if he’s the nominee? Honestly, while most of America has a moral backbone they’re also thinking “why is he talking about this instead of the economy?” It’s a given the press is going to hit him with this, it’s his job to be sharp enough to turn this opportunity WHEN HE HAS THE EAR OF THE NATIONAL PRESS into a way to get his bread and butter issues out to the people NOT attending a rally in Illinois or Ohio or Alabama.

Cindie

[PapaBear3625]

You'll never convince me that you want the laws on murder and child molestation removed, so your 'legislating morality' bunk falls flat on its immoral face.

When you get down to it, laws determine the set of offenses that you are willing to kill over, that you are willing to use men with guns to prevent.

I am willing to kill in order to prevent my loved ones from being murdered. I am willing to kill in order to not have my children be molested. I am not willing to kill in order to stop somebody from looking at some woman's breasts.

[dirtboy]

Santorum as most corrupt? Are you sinking so low as to rely on the Dem hack organization CREW to attack Santorum? That’s pathetic.

[ohioWfan]

Don’t be so silly. It is you that favors government intervention to realize your vision of a moral utopia. It is you that is no different from the left.

That's absolutely hilarious! MY vision of 'moral utopia?' You couldn't be more wrong if you tried (but I'm pretty convinced that you are trying to be wrong, because otherwise, you're really scary...

How about enforcing the laws of the land? (conservatism) How about understanding that the Founders (of America, not Canada) understood that a country with out morals would not survive? (conservatism).

You need a few more years away from your leftist influences to figure it out. Maybe you should move down here and live among us. It might help.

Enjoy your green beer up north. :)

[Marguerite]

You’ve just have to compare Newt’s voting record with Santorum’s.

Anyway, let’s look at Newt’s actual record:

Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips” tax hike in 1990.
Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the “Contract for America” effort that he led) in 1995
Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996

The Federal spending while Gingrich was Speaker of the House (1995-1999) increased only with 3.1% a year, compared with Bush era 6.7% (Santorum’s years in the Senate, in which the federal spending DOUBLED) and the disasterous Obama’s term of 9% per year. Also, under Newt leadership of the House, the Federal spending as a % of GDP fell from 21% to 18.5%, a whopping decline in 4 short years.

People must know all these date, before choosing a real conservative candidate.

[ohioWfan]

Wow. That's an odd definition of laws.

I don't think you picked that pov up from the Federalist Papers or the Constitution, but what the hey? You believe what you believe, and that's what drives your very strange perspective on right and wrong.

Nothing absolute. Nothing Judeo-Christian. Nothing the Founders said. Just what you FEEL like you are willing to do.

At least I know now where you're coming from, PapaBear. It's weird, but now your posts make more sense.

[Longbow1969]

I am not willing to kill in order to stop somebody from looking at some woman's breasts.

But breasts are a marxist plot! Haven't you learned that by reading this thread by now? In the name of freedom, liberty and the American way we need to censor and regulate the internet to prevent citizens from seeing boobs. You know, kinda like the actual communist countries do now. I'm sure you'll agree that Santorum will know what is best for us, what qualifies as "obscene" and "hardcore" and what doesn't. We can all count on Rick to know what amount skin one can view online without suffering eternal damnation!

[ohioWfan]

The media will continue to push the issue because the media is the media, and is our enemy. If Gingrich were higher in the polls, the media would be attacking whatever they think is his achilles heel, like they think moral issues are Santorum's.

I agreed with someone upthread who said that at some point Santorum should shut them down, but the moral issues are not a losing issue for the American people.....especially for conservatives.

And I continue to reject the false argument that if you care about Obama's disregard for the laws (DOMA, porn, whatever), that you are not concerned about how he's messing up everything else, and destroying this country before our very eyes.

I just wish anti-Santorum people would stop setting up this false argument that because he has addressed moral issues, he doesn't care about anything else.

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous.

[ohioWfan]

You know, I used to think you were a rational freeper until I read this post of yours Longbow.

What happened to your brain? What happened to your logic? Reason? Common sense? Intellect?

This posts shows no signs of any of those things. Just emotional, reactionary fictional silliness.

Disappointing from one I thought above that sort of thing. (Did you become a Paulite when we weren't looking?)

[Gene Eric]

Rick’s candidacy is about moral revenge. There’s no plan.

[katiedidit1]

Santorum is walking a thin line with his pious attitude. There has been child abuse in the catholic church by priests; the bible itself has many risque tales...starting with Adam and Eve.

There are already laws on the books that deal with child abuse and child porn. I do know there was rampant cover ups dealing with child molestation in certain churches. America is broke! our economy is in dire straits and there are serious problems with the war in Afghanistan, Iran, Africa and the middle east. Our energy problem is getting so far out of control that God help us if something isnt done. Soc Sec is another issue that needs to be addressed NOW! Vesty has cut his throat with this one...too bad he and Mitt won't debate Newt in Portland and clarify their postions on how they would solve the economic issues and how they would change our military BACK ..etc.

[Joe 6-pack]

I have to laugh when people say Santorum hasn't been vetted. The most viscious elements of the left, from the lavender mafia to the pro-death cultists and radical secularists have spent 15+ years trying to destroy him and his family with the most vile attacks. In 2006, Charlie Schumer, then head of the DSSC focused the vast majority of that organization's efforts and money on Santorum making his removal from the Senate their #1 priority.

Santorum may have lost his last election due to that and a number of other factors, but he has not been personally destroyed, nor has he compromised on his core values.

Like any other candidate at this stage, it's silly to ask them for specific strategic policies or plans when they aren't privy to classified briefings and information to which the POTUS is entitled, and any candidate who does issue such specific pronouncements without access to the full information is posturing.

What is far more desireable is for a candidate to articulate clear guiding principles and demonstrate a record of abiding by them so that you can have confidence in the decisions they make once they have adequate information to make informed decisions.

If you were truly concerned about his stands on the middle east and energy, obamacare, etc. you would read the numerous issues pieces he has on his website (all well ahead of his stance on pornography), rather than glomming onto the tiny little policy paper on pornography that msnbc has chosen to place under the magnifying glass.

[ohioWfan]

Rick’s candidacy is about moral revenge. There’s no plan.

Wow. Time to leave this thread.

There have been some bizarre posts up until now, but this one has crossed the edge of sanity.

Moral revenge??? Yikes.