Rick Santorum seems like he would be right at home running a Parish...or a theocracy.

I dislike Rick Santorum for several reasons, but the biggest is how he forces me to side with Democrats. Santorum is so confused, that his ridiculous comments can’t go unchallenged.

In his latest rant to be unearthed, he criticizes John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech about religion to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech,” said Santorum

In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Santorum adds:

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

He went on to note that the First Amendment “says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.”

“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”

Santorum needs to look at history. In 1960, there was a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment, and some believed the Pope would attempt to influence Kennedy, if he were elected. That was the main impetus for the speech: Convincing the ignorant. Now, more than 50 years later, we have another Catholic running for president, but this one would rather rely on the Bible to Govern, rather than the Constitution.

If Rick Santorum is so smitten with the idea of a theocracy, he should move to Iran and run against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iranian Flag

Did you know the United States Navy refers to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf? Personally, I really don’t care what they call it, but the Iranian Government is angry. Of course, the Navy went on to explain that no disrespect was intended.

I’m really happy the Navy cleared up their intent. After all, we wouldn’t want to make the Iranian Government angry at us. If they were mad, they might start to do bad things like smuggle weapons to terrorists who would then use them to kill U.S. soldiers, enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons, threaten to wipe Israel off the map, or send long range missiles to Venezuela. No, we wouldn’t want to get them angry and cause any of those things to happen.

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks

I think it’s safe to say that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is easily the most infamous person in the world. The big question is whether all the negative publicity is warranted.

Some have compared Julian Assange to a terrorist, and many have said repeatedly that he will have blood on his hands, since many of his leaks could endanger people. Of course, many of the people who are up-in-arms were also singled out for their own mistakes, so they might not be the best of choices if one is seeking an opinion. I’m not going to pretend there will be no negative ramifications from the Wikileak cables, but I do feel it will have some positive effects.

First, let’s start off by realizing that a lot of the information in those cables was absolute crap. Some mentioned the “voluptuous nurse” who travels with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, or Argentine President Cristine Fernandez De Kirchner’s anxiety problems. Who cares? Information like this is petty and of no importance. Of course, there were quite a few useful nuggets of information.

Argentina's President, Cristina Fernandez De Kirchner

One important revelation that jumps to mind is King Abdullah’s criticism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He would have never said anything of the sort in public, but it is good to see that Middle Eastern leaders aren’t completely in lock step. There was also Egypt’s comments about Iran’s role in sponsoring terror, which would have never been intentionally spoken in public. Then, we have information that China may be moving away from supporting North Korea. None of this information was meant for public discussion, but it might actually be positive in the long run.

Of course, there was some bad stuff in those cables, but that really isn’t his fault. For example, we found out that Hillary Clinton likes to turn diplomats into spies, which is highly unethical, perhaps illegal. That’s really what this boils down to: The government not wanting it’s inappropriate and unprofessional shenanigans exposed for the world to see. What seems to be forgotten is that their misdeeds wouldn’t have been seen if they didn’t exist.

Now, can we please spend less time focusing on Julian Assange and spend more time and energy tracking down real terrorists?

It seemed like a serious situation, and as I read on, a transcript of the offensive exchange was at the end. Here it is:

Smith: “Look who’s in.”

Lawler: “Hamed Haddadi. Where’s he from?”

Smith: “He’s the first Iranian to play in the NBA.” (Smith pronounced Iranian as “Eye-ranian,” a pronunciation that offended a viewer who complained.)

Lawler: “There aren’t any Iranian players in the NBA,” repeating Smith’s mispronunciation.

Wow. These guys were suspended for one game and forced to apologize not once, but twice for mispronouncing the word “Iranian.” I’m not going to ask if things have gone to far, since that happened a long time ago. The question is how much further will we go? Since when does intentionally mispronouncing the name of a country make you insensitive or a racist? By the way, would they have been suspended if the player were “Eye-talian,” or are people from “those” kinds of countries immune from being offended?

Iran’s lawmakers claim that their supposedly unfair treatment is politically motivated. Isn’t this the same country that allegedly sent weapons to Iraq that were used against U.S. soldiers, threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” and denied that the Holocaust occurred?