Dark Corner News

uncle romulus

I’d like to begin this article by thanking Rick Santorum for running for President. Although the 2012 Presidential race has barely been inseminated, Mr Santorum has provided us with enough material to last through the third trimester and well into the arrival of our new president. Whether it’s abortion, homosexuality, the role of religion in society, the role of women in society or income disparity in the United States, Rick Santorum is quick to offer his dim-witted opinion to all who will listen. Below is a sample of past absurdities as well as a prognostication of things to come:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think, the dangers of contraception in this country…. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay; contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (Speaking withCaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)

First of all, there’s a reason no president has talked about it before. I presume no previous president feared the dangers of contraception anymore than they feared the dangers of brushing their teeth (George Washington aside).

Secondly, it is one thing to hold the opinion that contraception is dangerous (there is a package insert with all prescription medications detailing their dangers) but to make the preposterous claim that people having sexual intercourse while using contraception is dangerous because it is “counter to how things are supposed to be” requires substantiation. His attempt at this is to claim that sexual intercourse is for “purposes that are, yes, conjugal… but also procreative… and that’s the perfect way” it should happen. He adds that without these conditions sex is “diminish[ed]” and “deconstructed” to mere “pleasure,” followed by adding that pleasure “is an important part of [sex]. Don’t get me wrong.”

As Mr Santorum’s stream of consciousness begins to contradict itself he concludes his argument with the only rational point he makes. ”I know most presidents don’t talk about those things and maybe most people don’t want us to talk about those things…” only to quickly reestablish himself as an imbecile by adding that banning contraception and preserving his version of perfect sex are “important public policy issues” that have “profound impact on the health of our society.” I know whose public policies would have a profound impact on the mental health of our society.

“The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘We’re going to decide who are people and who are not people.’” (CNS News interview, Jan. 19, 2011)

Here we have a perfect example of someone heading in the right direction then suddenly veering off a cliff.  When a government decides that human life at conception is not a person but a corporation is, then they are defining life in manner not found in any scientific textbook I have come across.  It is sufficient to say that life begins when something possesses the characteristics that entail “life” by definition and that anyone’s opinion found to be in discord with this definition should be discounted and dismissed.

While I agree that there would be irony in a person whose ancestors were once considered property deciding that another form of human life is not a person, it was the Supreme Court, in fact, that made the decision. Also, Barack Obama’s ancestors were not American slaves but I guess they’re all the same to Mr Santorum.

“Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother; heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage too?” (Santorum’s Philadelphia Inquirer column, May 22, 2008).

Here is a case of comparing apples to oranges and ending up with bananas. Agreed, the relationship with one’s in-laws, offspring, siblings and friends are not marital. What Mr Santorum does not take into account is an important difference between these types of relationships and the relationship one has with one’s spouse or lover. If I may clarify; I love my brother and mother-in-law too but I don’t have sex with them.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy; you have the right to polygamy; you have the right to incest; you have the right to adultery; you have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does… That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.” (AP interview, April 7, 2003)

Guaranteeing the right to have consensual gay sex in no way guarantees the right for bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, let alone bestiality anymore than Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to go around killing adults and children or dogs and cats. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to believe congress would ever pass a bill that guaranteed the “right to anything.”

“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” (Campaign stop in Iowa, Jan. 2, 2012)

Well, I guess that takes Mr Santorum out of the running for Robin Hood’s 2012 Prime Ministers Social Heroes Award. Is it safe to assume that it will only be black people who are removed from government assistance and given an opportunity to earn money? What about everyone else? I applaud you, Mr Santorum for accomplishing the seemingly insurmountable feat of making a statement that is simultaneously discriminatory against all ethnicities. But let’s not stop there. Mr Santorum went on to deny, to the best of his, apparently, shoddy recollection that he used the word “black.”

Source

Santorum on CNN says he doesn’t remember saying “black” and believes instead he was simply tripping on his words. “It was probably a tongue-tied moment as opposed to something that was deliberate,” CNN quoted Santorum.

He told CNN’s John King that he’s “pretty confident” he said “blah” while deciding what to say.

After watching the video, I’m “pretty confident” the mumbling sound that many people have mistaken as the word “black” was, in fact, the sound of Rick Santorum’s campaign collapsing.

Why not come out and say it, Mr Santorum: You don’t like people who are different from you. Furthermore, you don’t value the rights and opinions of them either, which makes you a dangerous person whose potential presidency should be feared.

“If you ain’t like me, go hang from a damn tree.” – Early Kuyler

uncle romulus

Despite all the troop withdrawals, I’m pretty sure the terrorists are winning.  I’m just not exactly sure who the terrorists are?  In the beginning (circa 2001) we were told Al-Qaeda was the greatest threat to our freedom. That was easy to buy considering several of their members hijacked and crashed planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people.

By the end of 2002 many people were actively deceived, in my opinion, into believing that Iraq was our new threat and was, contrary to all evidence at the time and later shown to be completely untrue, stock piling weapons of mass destruction and somehow tied to Al-Qaeda.

In late 2007 there were rumors circulating about the US planning to invade Iran who skyrocketed to the top of the terror list and became our biggest threat:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/16/usa.iran

Let us not argue about who is top of the terror list and our greatest threat as it has no bearing on the purpose of this article. Let us instead assume for the moment that everyone outside of the lower forty-eight (as people who believe Iraq and Al-Qaeda were bedfellows probably distrust Alaska and Hawaii and have no understanding of our relationship with Puerto Rico) is top of the terror list and our greatest threat.

Questions:

How do we reconcile Dick Cheney actively lobbying the president to invade Iran as a state supporter of terrorism while continuing to receive renumeration from Haliburton – a company who, through it’s own subsidiaries, actively engages in profitable business dealings with Iran?

How do we also reconcile Haliburton’s (and any other US companies who deal with Iran through subsidiaries) relationship with Iran when the US currently has sanctions in place to prevent US companies from doing business with Iran?

Answer: rofl

Both scenarios are irreconcilable unless we entertain the notion that Dick Cheney and Haliburton, are primarily motivated by greed just like most everyone else.

Formula:

1. Find countries with an abundance of natural resources who are either unstable or controlled by extremely unpopular people.

2. Declare those nations state supporters of terrorism.

3. Invade (if necessary) and take control of those countries. (If step three fails, as in the case of Iran, skip to step 7).

4. Formulate a flexible, if not, indefinite timeline for building a democracy in those countries to buy yourself some time and keep everyone busy fighting over how to organize that democracy.

5. In the meantime, have your company sign a bunch of no-bid contracts with those countries and make billions of tax free dollar building infrastructure to extract those resources; maybe even lock down the rights to some of the resources or at least a portion of the profits.

6. Run all of your transactions through tax havens like Dubai and the Cayman Islands.

*So you made it to step 6 with the first two countries but your own citizens balked at the third war? (“Fool me once… shame on… shame on you. Fool me can’t get fooled again.” – George W. Bush http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A) Fear ye, not. Proceed to step  7.

7. Impose sanctions against said country preventing anyone from doing business with them without incurring the wrath of your country. Establish ties or rekindle prior ties to a company from your country and show them a loophole that allows them to form a subsidiary who, in turn, will do business with the newly sanctioned country now that most of the competition has been prevented from participating.

8. Follow step 6.

So are the terrorists and greatest threat to our freedom the people with whom we secretly do business? Does that make us a sponsor of terrorism against ourselves?  Do we continue to elect criminals and corporate pawns with no worthwhile allegiances to our country? Will we do it again in November?

I’d say, yes to all. Prove me wrong.