(Tehran, Iran) — Reports surfaced today that the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had donated 1.25 million Rials to the Santorum super PAC, “Red, White, & Blue.” The super PAC had recently been plagued with accusations of foreign support when a London-based securities firm donated $50k. The Santorum PAC has promptly returned both donations.

Calls to the grand ayatollah’s silo were returned with a comment from Khamenei’s press secretary, bin al-ot Bulsht-in: “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei apologizes for any confusion over his gift to the presidential candidate, Mr. Rick Santorum. Though the ayatollah finds common ground with the former senator from Hersheyland on so-called women’s rights, the ayatollah had read a poor translation of an old Santorum speech. Our dear ayatollah thought Santorum had proclaimed the inevitable, internal turmoil and corruption of the ‘Great Satan’ that is America.”

An audio of Senator Santorum’s full “Satan Speech” can be found online. Bin al-ot Bulsht-in stated that the inaccurate translation is owing to “a Chinese nuclear physicist briefly taking overtime pay as an intern for Khamenei.” The press secretary provided an excerpt from the incorrectly translated speech below:

The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a greedy, dictatorial, powerful, influential country — the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you side with in this day and age? There is no one else to go with other than the United States, and that’s been the case for now almost 200 years, once America’s preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers…Using those great virtues of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in American tradition, [Satan] was successful. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in America. He understood pride of ’smart’ people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were in fact smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different, pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it, ‘because we’re smart;’ and so America a long time ago fell.

In contrast, TFAT has included the above excerpt’s original wording:

The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, 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? There is no one else to go after other than the United States, and that’s been the case for now almost 200 years, once America’s preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers…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 American tradition. He was successful. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of “smart” people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were in fact smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different, pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it, ‘because we’re smart;’ and so academia a long time ago fell.

Ali Khamenei “had been concerned that Santorum was against ‘radical Islamic policies’ but then he found out that an aide had simply misspoke,” said bin al-ot Bulsht-in. Coupled with the resurfaced statements of Santorum about the “Great Satan,” the grand ayatollah had “decided to financially support a US presidential candidate for the first time.”

Sources inside the grand ayatollah’s silo confirmed that this whole mishap occurred because of the ayatollah recently watching 2010’s State of the Union address. At the time, President Barack Obama had exaggerated the Citizens United decision as allowing US elections “to be bankrolled…by foreign entities.”

A senior Russian “diplomat” inside the ayatollah’s silo had mentioned that the Chinese “intern” had been distracted from his translating assignment due to “watching highlight reels of Jeremy Lin on loop.” TFAT has not been able to confirm this with other sources.

While Ali Khamenei’s support for Santorum has dissipated, bin al-ot Bulsht-in wanted to remind infidels in America that the grand ayatollah still outspokenly supports Congressman Jesse Jackson’s jihad against his Great Satan opponent.

Joseph Maddalone’s new brainchild, Loquiveri, features me today. The new site is all about adding “exposure capital to the social generation.”

Maddalone is (in)famous for his track record of cold calling heavy hitters in business — with some success.

Joseph Dozier, president emeritus of the University of Chicago Republicans, spent four years building the organization on President Obama’s home turf. Dozier serves as the Texas Young Republicans Federation finance chairman; and is active in the Chicago Young Republican. Dozier currently works with candidates to develop their message in the 2012 election cycle.

In a wide-ranging interview, Dozier spoke with Loquiveri about how he first got into politics, his thoughts on the election year, and how the Republican Party should position itself to attract a new generation of leaders…

Over the last few years, Rick Santorum has earned a cumulative $3.6 million with the highest gross in 2009 at $1.1 million.  Over the last two years, Mitt Romney has  grossed +$40 million.

The candidates and media have squabbled over tax returns for months now. Gingrich keenly released his tax returns during a GOP debate while pointing his finger at Romney to do the same. The issue of taxes and investments memorably dominated much of the discussion during a CNN Florida debate (granted, other debate conversation revolved around militarily liberating Cuba and colonizing the moon).

The Republicans (supposedly) trumpet free enterprise and all things that can legally catalyze wealth. Going from rags to riches is all-American, and earned wealth is something that should be respected — not demonized. Yet Santorum, who earned his blue-collar stripes as a coal miner lawyer, has positioned himself as the viable, every-man alternative to Romney. Both Gingrich and Santorum juxtapose their salaried earnings and higher tax rates to those of Romney. Clearly, both Santorum and Gingrich have contributed much to our society and created numerous jobs since they ended their political stints — that’s exactly what a post-insider consultant does for America. There’s no talking point here for the candidates. Gingrich and Santorum earn income from salary; Romney earns income from capital gains. Both Gingrich and Santorum brag about giving to Uncle Sam at a higher tax rate but both desire to bring that rate down (way) below 30%. And if government is so wasteful with its spending and czars and agencies, why would a red-blooded American tout his financial decisions to throw more money away to such inefficiency?

Mitt Romney is supposedly the fool for keeping wealth in trusts, in mutual funds, and in stocks, while Rick Santorum brags “I don’t have investments…I don’t have capital gains.” Potential leaders of our country would (you’d think) manage their personal assets responsibly and try to maximize those assets to the best of their ability. God bless them for (understandably) desiring to grow their earnings — and hopefully having more to give away to charity. So I ask, “Why doesn’t Santorum invest his money?”

The cyncical hilarity of this situation is how disconnected our potential leaders are to the difficulties facing the average American. Sure, Rick Santorum is presidential poor compared to most candidates. And there’s nothing wrong with our candidates being financially successful and even using that success as a positive campaign line. But when Santorum says he doesn’t “have wealth” and when Romney utters that he doesn’t make “very much” (i.e., $375k last year) from speaking fees, how can a voter believe such a candidate’s talking points?

The daily resolve exercised by Americans in their steadfast toiling and their willing sacrifices is so commendable. Our future leaders need to recognize that — or at least stay their tongue to make us think they do.

2008: Anybody-But-McCain
–>Romney seen as conservative hope.

2010: Obamacare passed.

2012: Anybody-But-Mitt

When Rick Perry says “Dozier, you’re a crazy Texan”, is that a wake-up call or an epic compliment?

His peppy attitude probably didn’t appreciate the question I then asked him…

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) responds to questions about the role within the GOP of libertarian Republicans and the libertarian ideology.

DeMint’s interview with Reason.

]]> http://thoughtsfromatexan.com/blog/jim-demint-at-cpac/feed/ 0 http://thoughtsfromatexan.com/blog/super-bowl-conflict/ http://thoughtsfromatexan.com/blog/super-bowl-conflict/#comments Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:22:48 +0000 Tex http://thoughtsfromatexan.com/?p=734 The Super Bowl conflict of a Cowboys fan: cheer for your ruthless, division rival or cheer for the quarterback with the highest narcissist rating.

1) SGK was foolish for citing its investigation grant policy as the reason for defunding. Should have been simple logic of PP not offering mammograms at most facilities (not good ROI for SGK).

2) Dangers of politics determining health care policy. It doesn’t matter whom you elect if the individual can arbitrarily open “investigations” and manipulate the system.

On January 26th, candidates exchanged words over various issues from colonizing the moon to best practices for tax havens at the umpteenth GOP presidential debate. But Florida voter Suzanne Bass brought the discussion back to earth when she asked the candidates if their religious beliefs would impact their governing. While local Jacksonville news states that all the candidates agreed, a careful listening to each of their responses would lead one to conclude otherwise. The candidates provided nuanced answers that shrewdly catered to potential electoral bases. For Ron Paul’s Jeffersonian reawakening movement, his Christian beliefs have no relevance to his policy making. Both Romney and Gingrich espoused seeking God’s guidance as psychological assuage during difficult decisions. But Gingrich immediately began pandering — focusing his answer on (unsurprisingly) an attack on the media and liberals for waging a war on Christianity. Romney only hinted at and Santorum expounded on the broader context of one’s faith to civic understandings of American’s Judeo-Christian values (i.e., God-given rights). What persists is the continual hesitation of our public leaders to not stalwartly defend their theistic worldviews.

Christian candidates disown their faith when they deny that their religion will have an effect on their governing. Moreover, our Christian leaders devalue America’s liberal democracy (Kantian definition) when they do not elucidate how our natural rights require a natural moral law, which a Supreme Being has ascribed into man. This inaction is a political copout in response to the modern populous misconstruing the oft touted “separation of church and state.” Even more alarming, this inaction is a concession to the ever-more-popular perspectives of postmodernism and philosophical naturalism. What is at stake is not a simple shift in talking points of debate lingo. What is at stake is the very foundation of our republic, the role of morality in our society, and the purpose of our laws — why we hold it self-evident that all men are created equal.

The relativism of a non-theistic worldview provides a weak rationale for moral conduct and a poor source for man’s liberty. Philosophical naturalists strangely profess strong trust in universal moral standards. In spite of man’s inhumanity to man, naturalists cling to their book deals and Darwin as they attempt to qualify moral action as an evolutionary response for survival. But if a preserving, adaptive behavior guides natural selection, then this worldview would provide a moral truth where man cannot even trust his own senses — or his natural rights. A candidate that reveres natural rights as the bedrock of our republic must avow that a Supreme Being endowed man with these rights — our negative liberties. If nature is the source of those rights, then we are gods, who judge the deplorable state of nature and determine standards of normalcy through social contracts. But how can we separate the natural and enlightened? If humanity or the state dictates the “good” and endows us with our rights, then we are slaves to an arbitrary propriety and a potential tyranny of majority. “Man is but man, before God we are all equal.” Yet, when our leaders are timid to defend our theistic natural rights, our Supreme Law, and our moral fabric, then “now this God has died”, and the morality that remains is whatever the pen writes.