-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

A Libertarian’s Battle Cry on Super Tuesday

If you are a Libertarian, a Constitutional Republican, or a freedom-lover of any sort, your battle cry on Super Tuesday should be “Anyone but Santo.” The Santo Surge is a threat to personal liberty and to those who believe fervently in the separation of church and state. Not only has Rick Santorum (a notorious earmarker) defended his big government spending habits, these days, he can frequently be found preaching his generations-old positions on gender and sexuality. Such positions should offend any modern-day advocate of less government intrusion in our personal lives.

True, morality is important, and many of us like the idea of our nation’s leader being a religious or spiritual person. But we who prefer self-reliance don’t want government making personal decisions for us. We believe politicians have no place in our bedrooms, in our children’s lunchboxes, or in our doctors’ offices. So long as our decisions aren’t jeopardizing another person’s life, liberty or personal property, the decisions should be left to us, the individuals, and the consequences of those decisions between us and our God.

Santorum has, in recent weeks, proven that his presidency would be his platform. Instead of being called to lead us, he seems to think he’s been called to “save” us – and I don’t mean “save” in the sense of rescuing our economy from the Socialist clutches of Obama. I mean that he seems to want to ensure that we all make “right” decisions in our personal lives so that we can all go to heaven. On paper, this is not so different from Obama, who also wants us to make the “right” decisions, and when we don’t make the decisions he agrees with, he wants to make them for us.

Santorum’s sanctimonious speeches are divisive, when what conservatives need most is to be united. He seems to be on a personal mission to reverse the decades of progress that women and homosexuals have enjoyed, to return women to the kitchens and gays to the closets. How can this sort of leadership possibly be good for our country? How does it even remotely address the real issues we are facing: outrageous jobless numbers, high gas prices, illegal immigration, a crippling deficit, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran?

The Santorum message is a distraction to the mission, which is to get Obama out of the Oval Office as swiftly and decisively as possible. Americans must see a clear rejection of Socialist and Marxist principles. Because of his presence in the race, we are talking about contraception (good grief, wasn’t this decided in the 1950s?) instead of energy independence and meaningful tax reform.

On Super Tuesday, even if one candidate enjoys a massive lead in your state, vote for anyone but Santorum. Make him fight for delegates, and don’t buy the “social conservative” message he’s selling. Voters won’t be mobilized by a discussion on birth control, so don’t fall into the trap the MSM is trying to set. They want Santo to surge, for him to be the focus, because the Democrats know he is NO REAL THREAT to President Obama in a general election.

So stand up against Santorum’s theocratic ideology, because trading one extreme for the other is never a good thing for freedom.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to Technorati

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Michael James Gleason says:

    You have not read Original Intent by David Barton or you would never say we must preserve the separation of church and state. Barton’s book is the new textbook on the subject that contains the most thoroughly documented records of the founding fathers beliefs about religion and its inseparable connection with good government. It has the most extensive source material referencing I have ever seen in a book designed to inform the average reader as to the true nature of government, and I speak as a former school teacher.

    My personal opinion is that libertarianism suffers from a lack of respect for historical context. The great libertarian Patrick Henry’s attitude toward religion and government will surprise you. He is quoted often by Barton.

    The Founding Fathers would not approve of today’s liberal detachment of humans rights from Judeo/Christian undertanding of human life, right to life and the mandate found in Genesis to “multiply and replenish the earth” and since we are fast approaching zero population growth in America that alone is proof positive we are far afield of the truth in respect to reproductive rights. Children are a heritage of the Lord and happy is the man whose quiver is full of them. So said the Psalmist David.

    We are failing to understand and appreciate the historical and cultural background which guided the thinking of the founders as they established this nation. They clearly understood that mankind cannot rule himself without Divine inspiration and guidance. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. If the Son shall set you free you shall be free indeed.”

    America doesn’t need a new revolution. It needs a Reformation and revival after the kind that inspired the world in the personages of Martin Luther and John Calvin.

    Santorum is closer to their piety than the other two candidates who will simply continue the progressive movement away from that of the original intent for America the founders dreamed of.

  2. DP Everhart says:

    I must disagree with the premise that Senator Santorum would rule over us like the Pope. From what I have read and investigated myself, he has stated that he would not impose his personal beliefs on all Americans. He would govern according to the principles of his faith, but allow people to live their own lives.

    Also, this mentality of “we can’t afford to offend anybody”, combined with a lack of fortitude to withstand name calling and mudslinging, is what has brought to the dangerous edge of the cliff where we stand as a nation.

    While Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have their problems as ideal candidates, I will vote for either of them long before I pull for Obama with a MBA (Romney) or Dr. Paul.

  3. I couldn’t disagree more. I respect the libertarian view point, but I think as a conservative I would have to support whatever GOP candidate won the primaries, including Santorum. We are all looking for that perfect “Frankenstein” candidate. A little of Dr. Paul, a little of Newt, a smattering of Romney, the part without the healthcare mandate, and a little of dare I say, Rick Santorum. We have to unite behind a candidate and give him the tools to beat Obama, and stop beating ourselves up. We need to save our strength for victory.

    Thanks for your post Lauri.

    • Lauri Bohanan says:

      I agree wholeheartedly that we will have to unite behind the eventual nominee, but I believe 1) Rick Santorum could never beat Obama (primarily because of his extremist social views) and 2) his candidacy would set the GOP/Libertarian movement back decades. Both of these beliefs compel me to fight against a Santorum nomination more passionately than I would fight against a Gingrich or Romney one. On the foreign policy issue, I’d fight just as strongly against a Paul vote (if he were surging like Santorum).

      I think I see your point that the infighting doesn’t help the eventual nominee. However, I just feel strongly that we can’t afford to put someone on the top of our ticket who will lead to our downfall, and that’s what I think a Santorum nomination would do.

      Thanks for reading my post and taking time to comment on it!