|
|
|
|
Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show Tuesday that Rick Santorum will have to explain his warningthat “Satan has his sights on the United States of America.” “It’s part of the predictable attempt to impugn Santorum as an absolute religious nut and wacko,” Limbaugh said. “But he did say these things and he’ll have to have an answer for these things when queried.” The speech Santorum made at Ave Maria University in 2008 in which he said Satan has set his sights on the United States exploded across the Web and headlined the Drudge Report on Tuesday. “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,” the Republican presidential contender said in August 2008. “He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.” “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in the American tradition,” Santorum added. Limbaugh, who said the focus on Santorum’s speech shows that a “double standard does exist,” added that the former Pennsylvania senator’s comments are “not the kind of stuff you hear a presidential candidate talk about.” “That stuff is out there,” Limbaugh said, according to a transcript of the show. “It’s headlined on Drudge and the left has it, and Santorum will have to deal with it. He’ll have to answer it. I don’t know. It’s just not the kind of stuff you hear a presidential candidate talk about. It’s not ordinary in that sense.” In the speech, Santorum also said Satan was “the most and first successful” in conquering academia, which he said “a long time ago fell.” The next, Santorum said, “was the church.” “We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is in shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it,” Santorum said. |
News You Need To Know
Santorum ‘Satan’ Comment Resurfaces
N.C. dad who shot teen daughter’s laptop over Facebook rant: ‘I’d do it again
Angry dad Tommy Jordan has received national attention after he appeared in a video shooting his daughter's laptop with a .45-caliber pistol as payback for a bratty note she posted on Facebook.
A gun-slinging North Carolina pop isn't sorry for shooting up his teen daughter's laptop in a video that went viral over the weekend - he just wishes he wore a nicer hat.
Tommy Jordan videotaped himself last week firing nine bullets into his 15-year-old daughter Hanna's computer as payback for trash-talking him on Facebook.
The video has received more than 21 million views on YouTube, and, according to Jordan's Facebook page, prompted cops and Child Protective Services to visit his Albermarle, N.C. home.
Jordan's Facebook comments were first reported by The Daily.
"Of course came," Jordan wrote. They received enough 'Oh my god he's going to kill his daughter" comments that they had to."
"The police by the way said 'Kudos, Sir' and most of them made their kids watch it. I actually had a 'thank you' from an entire detectives squad," Jordan boasted.
"How's about those apples? Didn't expect THAT when you called the cops did you?"
Jordan also wrote that he and Hannah had separate chats with a "nice lady" from child services.
"No I'm not losing my kids…and I actually got to spend some time with the nice lady and learn some cool parenting tips that I didn't know," he wrote.
In the video, shot on Feb. 7, Jordan ripped into his daughter for complaining in a nasty rant on Facebook about having to clean up around the house, take out the trash and make coffee for her parents.
After vowing to put a stop to her spoiled behavior, Jordan whipped out a .45-caliber pistol and plugged the teen's laptop full of exploding hollow point rounds.
In a Facebook posts from the weekend, Jordan complained about receiving unwanted attention after the video went viral.
"I just had a friend run Good Morning America off my lawn.. grr," he wrote.
In a later post, he apologized for cussing in the video and said he regretted smoking a cigarette because he'd promised his wife he'd quit.
Otherwise, "If I had it to do again... let's see... I'd do it almost the same," he said.
I'd have worn my Silverbelly Stetson, not my Tilley hat if I'd known that image was going to follow me the rest of my life…" he wrote.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-dad-shot-daughter-laptop-facebook-rant-i-article-1.1021887Santorum’s quotes on the role of women
Santorum’s quotes on the role of women
By Washington Post
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is under fire for saying he has “concerns” about women in combat.
“I think that could be a very compromising situation,” Santorum said in an interview with CNN’s John King, “where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.”
This isn’t the first time he has sparked controversy with comments about the role of women in society. Here is a sampling of some of his recent remarks concerning women and combat, women and rape, working mothers, stay-at-home mothers and equal opportunity for women.
Clarifying his comments on women and combat
“I was talking about men’s emotional issues; not women. I mean, there’s a lot of issues. That’s just one of them. So my concern is being in combat in that situation instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.”
“You throw on top of that just simply physical strength and capability and you may be out there on a mission where it’s you and a woman and if you’re injured, the ability to transport that person back. And you know, there’s just, there are physical limitations,” Santorum said.
“Women have served and do serve and do wonderful things within the military and .?.?. they do have opportunities to serve in very dangerous positions. I mean, they serve in very dangerous positions. And I certainly understand that and respect that and admire women for doing so, but I think on the front line of combat is not the best place and it’s not maximizing what they can bring to the table.”
— ABC News interview Friday morning.
On rape
PIERS MORGAN: But do you really — do you really — let me ask you this. Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that — I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest — and you’ve got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped.
SANTORUM: Yes.
MORGAN: And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?
SANTORUM: I would do what every father must do, which is to try to counsel your daughter to do the right thing.
MORGAN: It’s an almost impossibly hypothetical thing to ask you, but there will be people in that position, and they will share your religious values.
SANTORUM: It’s not a matter of religious values.
MORGAN: And they are looking at their daughter, saying, how can I deal with this, because if I make her have this baby, isn’t it going to just ruin her life?
SANTORUM: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice, I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.
As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.
— Jan. 20, 2012 interview with Piers Morgan on CNN.
On unmarried mothers
“The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong.”
— From Santorum’s book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.”
On working mothers
“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.”
— From “It Takes a Family”
On stay-at-home mothers
“Respect for stay-at-home mothers has been poisoned by a toxic combination of the village elders’ war on the traditional family and radical feminism’s misogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect.’’
— From “It Takes a Family”
On equal opportunity
“Radical feminists have been making the pitch that justice demands that men and women be given an equal opportunity to make it to the top in the workplace.”
— From “It Takes a Family”
Pentagon Allows Women Closer to Combat, but Not Close Enough for Some
Pentagon Allows Women Closer to Combat, but Not Close Enough for Some
WASHINGTON — Reflecting the steady but glacial evolution of the role of American women in war, the Pentagon took a small step Thursday and announced that women would be formally permitted in crucial and dangerous jobs closer to the front lines. But it stopped short of officially allowing women to serve in combat.
The decision, the result of a yearlong Pentagon review ordered by Congress, allows women to be permanently assigned to a battalion — a ground unit of some 800 personnel — as radio operators, medics, tank mechanics and other critical jobs.
In actual practice, however, women already serve in many of those jobs, but as temporary “attachments” to battalions — a bureaucratic sidestep that has been necessary with the high demand for troops during the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon’s new rules largely formalize existing arrangements and in many ways are simply catching up with realities on the battlefield.
The new rules keep in place a ban on women serving in the infantry, in combat tank units and in Special Operations commando units. Nonetheless, many women in Iraq and Afghanistan have served in combat as attachments to infantry foot patrols, and in many cases they have come under fire and fought back. More than 140 women in the American military have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Serving in jobs like the infantry remains crucial to career advancement in the military, and critics of the current policy say that by not recognizing women’s real role in combat, women are unfairly held back. Supporters of the policy say that infantrymen in the Army and Marine Corps are not ready to have women serve at their sides in combat, and that the physical demands are too onerous.
Pentagon officials said at a news briefing Thursday that they continued to study whether women should be permitted in combat, despite the experiences of the last 10 years. They struggled at times to articulate the rationale for the current policy.
For example, a 1994 Defense Department ruling holds that women may be restricted from positions like the infantry, “which include physically demanding tasks that would exclude the vast majority of women.” Asked how the department knew that the majority of women would not meet the physical standards if they did not give them the opportunity to try, Vee Penrod, the deputy assistant under secretary of defense for military personnel policy, told reporters that the ruling was “based on experience with the leadership and experience in combat.”
Men in infantry patrols sometimes carry as much as 100 pounds of gear and have to be strong enough to carry a fellow soldier or Marine off the battlefield.
The new rules are to take effect gradually and will be reviewed by members of Congress, who are not expected to object to them. But Congress has repeatedly balked at allowing women in combat and has in recent years asked the Pentagon sometimes sharp questions when it became obvious through news reports that women were serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the meantime, a number of advocates for women in the military reacted with dismay.
“It’s a really, really tiny step forward,” said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine Corps captain and the executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group for women in the military. “We were hoping for more.”
Ms. Bhagwati added: “We’re not talking about opening up the infantry to every woman, but the women who do want to try these jobs, who are we to say that they can’t? A lot of women will leave service early when they know their career path is limited.”
Representative Loretta Sanchez, a California Democrat who has long urged that women be allowed in combat, said in a statement on Thursday that it was “ridiculous” to “open a few positions at the battalion level to basically create a pilot program.”
Nearly 15 percent of the nation’s 1.5 million active duty military personnel are women, and more than 255,000 women have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, even some male military officers who say that women might be strong enough for the infantry acknowledged some psychological barriers.
“I think the infantry in me will have a very hard time ever accepting that I’m going to rush against the enemy and there’s going to be a female right next to me,” Capt. Scott A. Cuomo, a company commander of 270 Marines in Afghanistan and a strong supporter of women in the military, said in an interview in 2010. “Can she do it? Some might. I don’t know if this sounds bad, but I kind of look at everything through my wife. Is that my wife’s job? No. My job is to make sure my wife is safe.”
The Pentagon’s new rules do open up for the first time six job specialties previously closed to women. Women may now be tank mechanics and fire detection specialists, among other jobs.
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.
As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.
Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.
“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.
Already Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the law and priests around the country have mobilized, reading letters from the pulpit. Donohue said Catholic officials will stop at nothing to put a stop to it.
“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” Donohue said.But pro-choice groups said they will fight the church and fight for the right of employees of Catholic institutions to have birth control and other services paid for.
“The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here,”National Abortion Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said.
Catholic leaders hope they will have more sway with the White House than usual because it is a presidential election year, hoping that if even a small percentage of Catholics back Obama’s opponent it could cost him the election.
When asked if this issue would affect who he would vote for in November, Wilton, Conn., resident Peter Taylor said, “Potentially, yes. I think it is a very serious issue, very meaningful.”
But not everyone views the situation as dire.
“I would certainly vote for Obama anyway. The church has to get up to date,” Manhattan resident Sue Thomas said.
Sources told Kramer that American bishops are contemplating a massive march on Washington, using people and school kids bused in from all over to protest the law.
More Articles...
- Susan G. Komen Top Officials Resign As Backlash Gains Steam
- FDA staffers sue agency over surveillance of personal e-mail
- 'We've Come Too Far to Turn Back Now'
- Joe Paterno dies, leaving a record for others to debate
- SOPA blackout: The Net strikes back
- Huntsman set to withdraw, back Romney
- Possible implications for November in exit poll data
- Poll: N.H. fight brews for who finishes behind Romney
- Earthquake Strikes Near Ohio Fracking Site
- Police beating of ‘girl in the blue bra’ becomes new rallying call for Egyptians
Page 1 of 27
