Posted on 03/16/2012 10:56:03 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
Try reading my post at least once. I described a possible "get out the vote" message BY DEMOCRATS. That's why the message sounds like it could have come from Democratic Underground.
than it is to teach these Paul punk, self-absorbed libertines to understand the value of practicing the moral values that have separated America from the rest of the world.
Paulbots are annoying, yes. The drug addled hippie types who just want legalized drugs and some peacenik foreign policy are essentially just liberals that I am not even considering as part of a better tomorrow. But there is a LOT of libertine minded conservative young people who are not paulbots. Most of them aren't in fact. I consider these people part of a positive future and well on their way to being the next generation of conservative voters - and many, perhaps most, will become more socially conservative as they grow older as well.
I have a lot of younger people working at my company and I am actually excited about many of this new generation. I may not agree with them on some of the social issues, but what they do understand is that big government creates dependence and dependence will destroy the nation. In my mind, the younger people that I see graduating from university and holding this position gives me some hope for future generations. Many, I think, see the dependence problem much more clearly than a lot of social conservative voters who are much more focused on re-fighting things like contraception and smut.
I think maybe you see the deluge of porn and violence on TV, the internet, games, etc and think the future is lost. But didn't your parents generation have the same worry, and the one before that, and probably before that? Americans voted for FDR in the 30's and 40's. I mean, come on, FDR was a very radical economic leftist and began many of the disasterous social programs that we have today. I am not sold on the idea that things were somehow better in the "old days", and I certainly wouldn't want to go back to living in that time period. I think people will deal with the information age just fine. I think the availability of things like porn will cause damage to some folks, but new generations of people that have grown up in the information age will be able to process it, adapt and adjust.
In my opinion, dependence on government causes vastly more damage to society than porn. It simply isn't even a close call. Government dependence has absolutely destroyed urban areas, not smut. The key to turning things around is reducing the size and scope of government, not finding reasons to expand its influence by regulating how much skin one can see online. I think the libertine conservatives get that, and perhaps I am just not so pessimistic about the future (in the long term) as you are.
I believe you underestimate the destructiveness and the gripping addiction of porn, but I don't believe that I underestimate the destructiveness of dependence on government, the total annihilation of the black family by the welfare state, or any of the other damage that big government causes.
I'm glad you are optimistic about the young people with whom you come in contact. I am optimistic about the handful of young people I know who understand that morality is an integral part of conservatism. If there are enough of them in the country, we may survive. If there are only libertines, I seriously doubt it.
From what I've seen on this forum, these punks offer no hope for America's future. They need to understand the danger their unbridled desires and addictions pose to not only themselves, but to the future of America. I truly don't believe that their 'conservatism' has anything to do with logical politics. For most of them, it has only to do with their pre-adolescent desire to do whatever they want to do.
And that has not one whit to do with conservatism.
Sorry to be such a pessimist, but the more I see of these libertines, the less hope I have for America's future.
Three examples come to mind -
Laws against statutory rape (when it is non-violent and consensual). Is that not 'legislating morality?' Should those laws be removed? Are those of us who believe in them mindless 'moralists' who want a 'nanny state?'
Laws against polygamy (when it is non-violent and consensual). Should those laws be removed as they are 'moralist' and promoting a 'nanny state?'
Laws against homosexual marriage. Should those laws be eliminated as 'legislating morality' and promoting a 'nanny state?'
How far does your desire to protect pornography go? How far does your desire for license and not liberty take you? (Be careful with the third question, as this is still a conservative website, the presence of so many libertines, notwithstanding).
Thanks for any well-reasoned response to questions on those three kinds of laws which clearly, and unambiguously 'legislate morality.'
it's not a desire to "protect porn". It is simply the viewpoint that fighting porn is MUCH less important on the priority scales of most American voters than the economy, national security, crime, etc. A politician who does not recognize this and tailor his message to align with the priorities of the people he wants to vote for him, will lose.
How do feel about the clear examples I gave of doing just that, where no violence is involved? Any response?
But since your here, how do you feel about the fact that looking at women's breasts degrades women, and that the majority of women who are in porn flicks have been sexually abused and/or trafficked, and that's why they're there.
Does the inextricable link between porn and sexual violence bother you at all?
btw, the question of whichs is a 'higher priority' isn't really the issue, because the issues can all be discussed without the necessity of prioritizing and saying things like, because the economy is important, we shouldn't discuss the evil of pornography........as you seem to be saying.
Arghh!
A 13 year old girl runs away from home because she has been abused, and within 24 to 48 hours, she is trafficked for prostitution or kiddie porn where she is abused by her pimp, or the producers of the porn.
She gets older, and at 18 she thinks the only way she can make a living is to be a porn star, or continue prostitution. She's an adult, with adult breasts.
And it's those breasts......those of an abused young woman (and the majority of women in porn)....... who is now an adult and whose breasts are ogled by 'conservative' men who don't think it's any of our business because there are more important issues.......like the economy.......
You OK with that, PapaBear? Even if it were a relative, or a friend's kid?
THAT is the reality of porn, and it most definitely IS an issue that needs to be addressed.
Mockery may begin now. I don't care. The issue is real, it is destructive, and it should be talked about......HONESTLY....... by anyone who cares about the future of this country.
My wife doesn't feel degraded by my looking at her breasts.
and that the majority of women who are in porn flicks have been sexually abused and/or trafficked, and that's why they're there.
It seems more likely that they are there because it's easy money and they don't have the skills to earn as much in a conventional job. One of my wife's friends was a topless dancer in her younger days. She did it because of the money. She was not abused or trafficked. She is now a public school teacher.
As far as Rick is concerned, what I'm saying is that whenever he makes remarks about porn, that is treated as his primary issue. You seem like somebody who will not be happy unless Rick DOES make it his front-and-center primary issue.
As far as your three examples are concerned, none of the three are properly the business of the federal government -- they are all regulated by state laws. But if I was offered a deal where we could abolish the EPA, Dept of Education, BATF, HEW, etc and cut the federal bureaucracy in half (not just re-assign them, but lay them off completely, their budgets abolished, and the legislation enabling their authority repealed entirely) in exchange for accepting polygamy and gay marriage, I would take the deal.
Statutory rape exists because society has set the age of adulthood at 18. Which means that society believes that anyone under 18 is not fully capable of making decisions on their own.
That has nothing to do with G-d’s word or whether lawmakers heard the good word while crafting the legislation. If they had, then the age of consent would be 13... as that’s the age when the Lord considers you an adult (Bar Mitzvah).
As for polygamy and gay marriage... I’ve long argued that it’s wrong for the government to even be in the business of marriage. That is the realm of religion. The thought of dirty politicians telling religion was is/is not allowable in religion is wrong... and probably why Obama thinks he can tell the Catholic Church to violate it’s beliefs on health care and abortion.
And as a return challenge, what was the morality on these laws? (as you claim all law is based on morality)
1. What moral was used for the creation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005)
2. What moral was used for the enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_and_Harbors_Act_of_1965)
3. What moral was used for the Telecommunications Act of 1996? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Telecommunications_Act_of_1996)
But if I was offered a deal where we could abolish the EPA, Dept of Education, BATF, HEW, etc and cut the federal bureaucracy in half (not just re-assign them, but lay them off completely, their budgets abolished, and the legislation enabling their authority repealed entirely) in exchange for accepting polygamy and gay marriage, I would take the deal.
Outside the box and very interesting. I would agree that those Federal bureaucracies cause INFINITELY more harm to families and the social fabric than gay marriage and polygamy.
...You OK with that, PapaBear? Even if it were a relative, or a friend's kid?
If it were a relative or friend's kid, she would not be in that position, because I would help take care of her. And those who really care about girls in that situation (I notice you don't seem to care as much about boys) could help her out by helping her get conventional employment.
Many such girls, though, are broken. They have emotional, mental, addiction, or cognitive issues that preclude them from conventional employment. They are in porn because all the alternatives are worse (and yes, there are worse alternatives to being in porn).
That has nothing to do with G-d’s word or whether lawmakers heard the good word while crafting the legislation. If they had, then the age of consent would be 13... as that’s the age when the Lord considers you an adult (Bar Mitzvah).
Actually, if we really want to go back to Biblical practice, then fathers would arrange their daughter's marriage to a good, self-supporting man when she's 13. It might even be an improvement over current practice. Over the years, states have removed parent's ability to consent to under-age marriage without court approval.
As for polygamy and gay marriage... I’ve long argued that it’s wrong for the government to even be in the business of marriage. That is the realm of religion.
The reason we have the issue at all, is because a spouse becomes eligible for his or her partner's work benefits, social security benefits, etc. Take those incentives away, and few advocates would continue to care.
Thanks for the more in-depth clarification. Philosophically we’re on the same page; such laws — if they exist — ought not be the purview of the Federal Government, but at some level closer to the people as the best government is SELF government.
Nice dodge, Papa, but you're the one who brought up the subject regarding pornography, which you don't feel is problematic. Pornography degrades women, and that should concern you.
It seems more likely that they are there because it's easy money and they don't have the skills to earn as much in a conventional job.
It really what it 'seems' to you because the facts refute your instinct. Look them up. And if they don't have the 'skills' because they have been trafficked and abused, that's not a problem for you?
And you can find single anecdotes of individuals who choose 'easy' money, but again the facts don't support you. The connection between trafficking and women who go into porn is factual.
And you didn't actually address the issue of statutory rape or polygamy, or homosexual marriage, and whether or not there should be laws against them.
The position you have argued is that matters of morality should not be addressed by a Presidential candidate because it is not as important as other issues.
And to that I say, based on the facts, you are flat wrong.
Nice cheap shot about the boys, Papa. Really enhances your argument.
Are you seriously saying that the thousands upon thousands of trafficked children (we were talking about women because YOU were referring to the harmlessness of ogling other women's breasts, not because the problem doesn't exist with boys as well) can all be 'helped out' by someone's offering them a job? C'mon now. That's absurd.
Actually because of the fairly recent awareness of the depth of this problem, people are beginning to provide more shelters for these kids to protect them.
Yes. The girls and boys are broken. And that's why they think so little of themselves that they pose for pornography. It's all ugly, and NO one calling himself a conservative should be supporting it as harmless.
There are areas where there are no facts, only studies which strive to prove the agenda of the people who gave money for the study. This appears to be one of them.
And if they don't have the 'skills' because they have been trafficked and abused, that's not a problem for you?
And if they don't have the skills (for whatever reason) and porn was the least-bad option among even more distasteful choices, do you seriously thing the porn-star will just get a job as an auto mechanic?
You completely misunderstand and mistate what has been said by others as well.
It has been accurately stated that all laws are based on someone's morality.....I never stated that all laws were based on my morality......or even yours (presuming you don't deny that you have it).
The argument that you can't legislate morality is ridiculous, because that is exactly what law does. It's just an excuse to say, don't make a law about something you want to do.
As to your first point, it completely supports my argument. Statutory rape is against the law....even though it may not involve violence of any kind, and is between consenting individuals......because of the morality of society's determination that the age of consent is 18. To say that such a law, or the laws against homosexual marriage (be careful about supporting that here on FR), are NOT legislating morality, is foolish.
btw, I went back to read some of your posts to me and saw that at least one had been pulled by the mods. I found that quite interesting. I guess your mockery went over the top, eh?
I urge you to try to understand that the Founders presumed morality when they founded this great Republic, and the farther away we get from our Judeo-Christian roots the more danger we are in. That is NOT to say that the dangers socialism (in other forms) poses, but to dismiss the removal of values from our laws is to push us farther down the path to extinction as a nation.
What's your alternative? Keep them in shelters (ie, offer them welfare) for the rest of their lives? Or do you prefer to euthanize them rather than permit them to engage in immorality?
No problem for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.