Some kind of angel, some kind of halo. /UPI photo
My dear Santorum:
Though your pious crusade will flee my endorsement, I want you to know I earnestly, even wickedly stand behind you. Allied for years with the Rightwing Chaos Party, I had been advising Newt Gingrich, that loose cannon, but your relentless, sanctified zealotry promises even greater disruptions. Your spiel still appears plausible, especially against two opponents with zero creditability. Really, what bright-eyed, bushy-tailed newcomer wouldn't outflank a reprobate with three messy marriages? Stay the holier-than-thou course, but do consider upgrading your less than presidential trash talk.
Take calling me the "Father of Lies." Is that where any ruthless politician prone to untruths wants to go? I am more properly the Lord of Misrule, finding truthiness works better than mendacity. Compared to rightwing politicians, who lie when their lips move, I need little deceit: exchange your soul for power and riches in this world.
Since personhood now includes everyone, including the supernatural, I happily join billionaire human devils to fuel your PAC. Actually, unlike the transient rich, my support comes with zero strings attached. You don't ever have to take my calls to serve my purposes. If your outlandish, McCarthyite demagoguery needs to bash me, go for it. After all, nothing connects us "soul brothers" more than our mutual conviction: the greater the leap of faith, the more the end justifies nasty means.
But imagine the fun and games if you pulled off the long shot of winning the White House. You'd immediately enact "your mandate," namely force-feeding medieval theocracy on America. Zealots tend to overplay their hands so we're talking censure, even impeachment, maybe termination. Be still my beating heart, envisioning pandemonium unseen since Bubba was mortified or W. stole the Florida vote.
Perfect Sugar Daddy
Nor do I give a fig what political foolishness you initiate, for I remain confident the results will disrupt national and world orders. Let's revel in new pre-emptive, unilateral wars inciting global antagonisms, racial conflicts, economic meltdowns, and environmental fiascos. History proves religious fanatics and crusades achieve far more horrendous damage over a longer period than secular, ideological excesses. Remember when crusades and religious wars spanned 100 years? Plus, a Santorum win will raise rightwing hopes to the stratosphere, only then to be dashed to despair.
But that's the cheery future. Now I offer deepest thanks for resurrecting me from a century of media blight and theological purgatory. My star-power, after all, relies solely on human trepidation. Consider the dilemma of a discredited devil bartering souls when folks only guffaw. Without more of your vibrant fundamentalism, I'm no more than a come relic, an obsolete deity, laughed off the stage.
Kudos also for your delusional flattery, suggesting that I or my demonic cadre have brought about America's fall from grace: "the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country -- the United States of America." Good? Decent? Really? Were I the moralistic One above, I'd say this smacks of presumption, vainglory, even pride. Would I have caused a country plagued with know-nothings to rule the world by letting it accumulate so much wealth? Actually, not a bad idea, with your bloated defense budget rippling out its doomsday agenda.
Truth is, I work best in backward Christian cultures where I am feared (and distorted) into a scary, cloven-footed, horned evil-doer with a pitchfork. Did you know there's no Biblical basis for that slanderous depiction, a gift of medieval Catholicism? In any case, who needed my disruption when America had agents of disorder like W. and Cheney, plus that diabolically comic genius, Rumsfeld the Torturer? Do you think I started all those idiotic, bankrupting wars? Or inspired that load of flimsy war lies, or rushing into the Patriot Acts? Frankly, I am embarrassed by the implied compliment.
Okay, give me the credit but it's a dodge. And since I am on the subject, I must comment, if only as the Father of Lies, on your monumentally mediocre performance as a bad liar. Lying takes finesse, far more than you demonstrated when willfully misreading JFK's famous separation between church from state: "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... that people of faith have no role in the public square." Hardly, as JFK never objected to religious groups speaking out, nor did he exile "people of faith" from the public square. Total invention. Look, presidential candidates either fudge better or go the way of Herman Cain.
And what in the world were you smoking, during your South Carolina rant, blaming "the American left" for descriptions of blatant Christian aggression during the Crusades, that history has been corrupted by "the American left who hates Christendom." Right, did the non-existent Yankee left fantasize the horrendous Christian massacre of Jerusalem in 1099? Likewise, what's this malarkey about Obama warring against religion, even your off the wall BS this administration wants to force the Catholic Church to accept female priests? Say what? Or that overall Obama's "a hostile president, not just to people of faith, but to all freedoms." Look, did you miss the party lesson that lies have to be plausible or they flop? Or the line between lying and appearing insane?
Good Lies, Bad Lies
Ditto: your weirdness that Obama once defended the killing of infants who survived botched abortions, utterly false. Or that the Dutch have "death panels" whereby half of the euthanized seniors are done away with involuntarily, simply because they are old and sick. More misdirection on Europe: what did you think you'd get away with, making the gross distortion that never "in the last 20 years [have] the French stood by us with anything?' How about Afghanistan, the Balkans, counter-terrorism or Iranian sanctions?
1 | 2