Santorum: another reason I won't vote for him

Rick Santorum has recently said he'll shut down internet pornography.

This is reason enough for me not to vote for Santorum.

You start to mess with my very dear First Amendment rights and you're gone, as far as I'm concerned. You're completely off my radar screen.

Because, as I frequently write: "do the logical extension." Its an easy reach for me to be next up for suppression (in terms of this blog) under this or another Leftist administration.

Let's refamiliarize ourselves, shall we, with the First Amendment from the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Once the government officially stops my ability to access information over the internet, then it is a very easy movement to extend these limitations to other venues as well; venues wherein the government tends to disagree with the opinions of those private individuals and/or groups who express them. On both sides of the aisle.

This is path upon which I am not willing to tread.

If Conservatives are successful in cutting off this area completely, then a subsequent Leftist's administration building but upon only the prior administration's precedent, may find itself easily deciding to curb Rush Limbaugh, to curb the Heritage Foundation, to curb the Drudge Report, to curb Michael Medved, to curb Alex Jones, to curb Adriana Huffington, to curb Markos Moulitsas when they disagree with the current running meme.

On the other hand, let there be no mistake:

Child porn, animal porn, porn involving individuals or creatures who have no ready ability to understand or make an informed consent of their involvement -- that is wrong. Sexual acts amongst consenting adults portrayed on various sites which do not involve violence or suppression of the ability to refuse are not my problem nor should be the concern of government.

If I decide to watch or visit these legal sites, that is my prerogative. If I decide to disdain these sites, that is my prerogative as well. The final decision to view or not view images and sites on the internet should rest with the End User. In terms of children in a home, the overarching End User is the parent(s), whose duty it is to limit or constrain product entering the home.

If you, as the parent(s) don't deploy your ability to limit your child's access to the internet, that's quite not my problem. If you lack the balls to pull the computer or television -- if you object -- out of your child's bedroom, that is not my problem. If you lack the spine or ability to speak to your children about these issues and points because you're insipid, that's not my problem.

It is my problem when you -- the individual or Collective You -- cannot make an individual determination for a given situation and instead lump the entire nation into a limitation. Enough "tions" for you yet?

Because, then, you completely misunderstand our Constitution.

You obviously don't read my blog or grok my thrust.

As I wrote here, there are theories about what some writers -- myself included -- quantify as positive vs negative rights:

POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

- The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures

- It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT "guarantee" so-called "rights" to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs -- rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: "RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM."

Leftists wish to enable a solid "privileges or immunities clause" which becomes open-ended and -- therefore -- susceptible to specific 'interpretation" by such pre-chosen federal judges!

A "logical extension" might be to allow "privileges or immunities" to create new "rights" which could "guarantee" social or economic "equality."

If the law moves this way, then your possessions, my possessions, could and would be "redistributed" as seen fit by your government.

Your "rights" will be parsed out, in dribs and drabs, by appointed berobed iconoclasts and Leftists.

This will supplant "representative" decision-making and throw decisions onto those who are appointed and -- therefore -- completely immune from accountability or responsibility.

It is not the government's job to tell me what I can or cannot eat, what I can or cannot wear, or what I do with the property or items I lawfully purchase. The government increasingly could care less about personal property and does not respect the rights thereof.

And finally: Conservatives can be generally broken down into the classic triumvirate of

• Fiscal Conservatism: less government, balanced budgets, less spending, fewer taxes; you can't tax and spend your way out of a deficit;
• Social Conservatism: the tenets of western religion place us on the track; our government was founded upon religious principles; abortion, gay marriage - these are abominations that will drag us down societally and collectively;
• Defensive Conservatism: these United States of America need to be sovereign, answerable to naught but domestic positions, strong, vast, overwhelming. We would rather be feared than respected. If something is in the best interest of this country that's the overarching determinant.

I've said it before and I'll write it again: Social Conservatism is last on my scale. Dead last. Only when the other two are firmly in place and holding do I believe we have the time to focus on Social Conservatism.

Disagree with me or not, these are my views. I may lose some Social Conservative Priority readers. If so, then so be it. You're always welcome to comment.

When your priority argument involves, for example, contraceptives and, simultaneously, the entire nation is in danger of complete fiscal and defensive collapse -- then this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Again, bottom line: Rick Santorum, your priorities are flawed and, as such, I will never vote for you. In my opinion, we just don't have the time or the resources to waste on this right now.

BZ