USA: Is There *One* Christian Presidential Candidate?



Rick Santorum is weighing his option as a candidate to be President, and I can’t say I like the way things are going.

Asked whether he would participate to a so-called same-sex marriage (you know: that kind of circus where two perverts smash their own perversion in your face and ask you to “celebrate” it) Mr Santorum is quoted with the following words:  

“I would not,” Santorum replied to radio host Hugh Hewitt. When asked why not, he said, “Because I don’t, I’ve just self, as a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”

What the Elton does that even mean? 

“A violation of my faith?” Is he apologising? What is he talking about, Truth or the Highway Code?

What about “an abomination”? 

And what the Elton (again) does the “support” thing mean? How can anyone “support” anyone else in the latter’s doing something that one knows is gravely evil?

This all sounds so stupid and hypocritical. The message Santorum sends (as read in the linked article) sounds so much like: “I will give you all the support I can, but alas, I can’t be at the ceremony itself”. This sounds like the boy saying “I would like playing soccer with you, but my father has said I must make homework instead; so very sad, but I must obey”.

If Mr Santorum believes in hell and heaven (which I am sure he does), he must say so openly.  He must say that he does not take part to the circus ceremony because the entire matter, and not only the ceremony, is gravely evil and bound to send the main actors to hell (and possibly those who area accomplices in their sin; I have no idea to what extent they would be punished in the same way, though I am sure they would be punished harshly) with the Sodom Express.


 It’s not about what Mr Santorum’s religion forces him to do, obviously with a degree of reluctant sadness as it clearly emerges from his words. It is about the very objective reality of right and wrong. If Mr Santorum thinks he can take refuge in a kind of “get out of embarrassment card” because hey, it’s his religion, but you can be assured of his “support” in everythign that does not involve participating in ceremonies, we have here another one who has sold his integrity for the sake of a dream that will never become reality anyway.

Man up, Mr Santorum. Stand up to the Truth. Don’t dance around the subject. You will never be President anyway. The best thing you can do is to contribute to the shift of the US political landscape towards sanity.

I am sick and tired of these politicians thinking they must be everything to everyone. The exceptional politician – as opposed to the usual little whore so common in Western democracies – is the one who fights for his own Christian vision of the world and tries his best to shift the voters on his position. It seems to me Mr Santorum is doing exactly the opposite.

Is there *one* candidate who is still ready to stand for Christian values? I dread to read of Ted Cruz making the same mistake Santorum is making. Perhaps he already did, but please don’t send me any link, my old heart asks for some respite at this time.


Santorum must man up and say loud an dclear how things stand. This will be more important as the US Supreme Court – as it appears certain now – will sit squarely on the side of Satan in a matter of one or two months now.

Santorum can’t seriously think the Supreme Court decision  will allow him to say “hey, relax, there’s nothing I can do now”. The real battle begins now. Roe vs Wade did not end the abortion controversy, either. He will have to take a stand, and “I would support them” is nothing like taking a stand.

Actually, it is more like bending over.   


Posted on April 19, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 23 Comments.

  1. Yes, Santorum reply about homosexual marriage seems weak…the Republicans just cannot seem to come up with a strong candidate.

  2. Mund, up in Canada a few years back, there was a politician who’s first name was Sven (I forget his last name) He was a sodomite. His campaign slogan was, get this, “Bend For Sven”. I just hope no candidates here in the USA takes up that slogan! BTW, Sven got elected.

  3. Conservatives and Christians should unite to support and vote for Ted Cruz. He is a born again Christian that has fought for conservatism and doesn’t cave to liberals. He is the complete package and can win. Ted Cruz is the real deal. Check out his website: And this for more info for the reasons to choose Cruz for President:

  4. This goes along with your last article by Ms. Barnhardt. On the FAQ section of her blog one of the questions she answers is about her running for office….she states that anyone who even THINKS about running for office cant POSSIBLY have any real morals. Bingo.

    • There are, I am sure, few exceptions.
      But they are exceptions.
      The more so, as ideology disappears to make place for a fluffy collection of common places.
      Once you had the communist as an enemy. It was different. Now the worst enemy are bad polls…

  5. You can see his true colors in this statement. Trying to people please and still keep his foot in the Christian pool. Not smart since we know what happens to the lukewarm. I worked on his first campaign for local Congress as a college freshmen. I liked him. Now? Sadly, I see his spinelessness and it makes my heart sad. He needs prayers if he is going to fight the demonic sodomites. But the US is doomed to fail. It was doomed from it’s beginning since it was founded by heretics and “endarkenment” principles. I say let it fall and let’s rebuild with a Catholic model:+) Speaking of, Mundy. Have you checked out the website “Throne and Altar”? I think I’m becoming a Theocratic Monarchist Parlimentarian:+) God bless~

  6. I think your critique is overly harsh, Mundabor. I think we both understand very well what Santorum means. I think his response does rather well on the whole. It’s quite clear that he does not support gay “marriage” and will not attend a gay “wedding”. On the other hand, he doesn’t wish to slap you in the face with his objection.

    If he didn’t state it quite that way, I don’t think the “gay rights” lobby will have any difficulty understanding it.
    If you’re looking for someone to speak boldly and clearly, I suggest you arrange to be part of the PR campaign that speaks that boldly and clearly. You’d best be prepared for the ugly dogfight that will ensue.

    • I understand very well that he will not make of this any kind of confrontation. He will “support” every faggot in the land.

      Cruz might be speaking boldly, but who knows how long he will last.

      As to the PR campaign, with God’s grace I frankly think I am already part of it.


    • “He will “support” every faggot in the land.”

      If by that you mean that he will do what he may to offer the Truth to actively homosexual persons, I think that’s true. If, however, you think he’s going to approve gay marriage or agree to attend a “wedding”, I think you quite incorrect.

      “As to the PR campaign, with God’s grace I frankly think I am already part of it.”

      It appears to me you’re mostly concerned with offering needlessly critical commentary for those who read your blog. Unfortunately, the Presidency will not be decided here. If you want to aid in crafting a PR campaign to persuade people to change direction, you’ll need to pick a candidate and offer your services. Obviously, you’ll need to suffer the wrath of those who disagree if you do so.

    • Read his words again: he would “support” the fags, short of goign to their “wedding”.

      If you think that this means “telling them they are in mortal sin”, you are ready for Francis.


    • I did read his words, Mundabor. He came as close as anyone will to saying what you want.
      Politicians don’t answer to factions who don’t mobilize votes.

    • No, he didn’t at all.
      He came as close as being seen as “supporting gay couples” without having to say he does.m

    • Politicians with a conscience should address issues they know unpopular, when their Christian conscience demands that they speak of the issue.

      It is astonishing that on such an issue as institutionalised sodomy a Catholic candidate finds nothing better to say than to blubber about his “support”.


  7. Anyone who makes it to the ‘big time’ in politics has been compromised and the powers that be know where all of the bodies are buried and where all the closets containing skeletons are located. NO ONE in politics is ‘for real’ so don’t buy into that garbage about Cruz, Jindal, Rand Paul, or anyone else. It’s all a side-show; it’s all theatrical distraction. The real ‘movers’ and ‘shakers’ are not the politicos. They get bent and stay bent for the duration of their political carriers.

    p.s. I have it on good authority that the Paul family are in freemasonry. But you can bet that all the candidates have popped out of the coffin wearing an apron (or worse) before being allowed into the club. Also, don’t forget the ‘clinton body count’.

    • This is cheap generalisation, and conspiracy mentality.

      There must be differences among politicians as there are among all of us. But democracy, by its nature, tend to prevent the real men from running.


  8. Pat Archbold did a good job, (like he’d ever run):
    But to clarify, close relative must include son, daughter, brother sister, mother, father. We must say it & do it.

  9. Stephen Dalton. His name was Sven Robinson. He later fell into disrepute for stealing a ring from a jewelry store.

  10. It is gravely sinful to “support” someone in engaging in grave evil.

%d bloggers like this: