The Republicans the vast majority of whom are Evangelical in their leanings won one of Houses of Congress in the 2010 Elections (largely due to the Evangelical vote since 70% of the Christians that voted voted for Republican candidates ) and they're wanting to secure the other one this time around.  Now one of the major tenets that Republicans tend to agree upon is that they want to due away with the Department of Education.  Why do they want to do this?  Because they want a population that is basically only educated on "Good Biblical Principles" and that is too dumb to vote them out of office like they did in 2008 (the purpose of the religion that they subscribe to has always been to control the masses).  Now, the reason that only two Senators and only  one Republican (Rand Paul) voted against the NDAA when it passed Congress was that the overwhelming majority of them want to be able to have the same power that Obama received by signing the NDAA in the first place which in the Republican's case basically means locking up anyone that teaches evolution, supports gay rights, is in favor of abortion, or that knows the Bible is BS and says so.

Well, you've got the crux of the matter right there when you say Santorum considers gay marriage to be an affront to his Catholicism.  Catholicism was a religion started by the Roman Emperor Constantine because he wanted an easier way to keep the rabble in line than the constant wars he was having to wage against The barbarians.  If you can control how people think, then you don't have to put forth energy on forcing them to stay in line. just like the Senators that voted for the NDAA want to keep whatever part of the public they disagree with in line as the religion that the Republican ones almost all follow has been the world's longest lasting and most effective means keeping the barbarians / slaves in line dating all the way back to its creation in Ancient Egypt when the pharaohs convinced their slaves to haul massive stones up the sides of the pyramids ( with many of the slaves dying in the process) simply to immortalize the pharaohs in stone.

At any rate Paul doesn't want a Federal endorsement of gay marriage.  Meanwhile he does feel that State's should have the right to vote on the issue and determine if they want gay rights to be allowed in their states.  And on the other hand, Santorum wants to make a Federal Amendment against gay marriage (which would mean that it would be illegal in all States of the Union) based on the tenets of his bogus population controlling religion that also feels that an imaginary Sky Daddy is right by saying that women shouldn't be allowed to do what they want to with their own bodies and that has demonstrated in its history that those that don't worship their imaginary Sky Daddy should be stoned to death or set on fire.

I know which one of those two positions is best for the largest amount of people in the free world and it's not the one that is based on the tenets of a bogus Dark Ages religion.  Note:  this also goes for the tenets of Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry as well whose principles and policies would stem from their own similar variations of that bogus Dark Ages Religion.

As Paul just said in the debate just now He's the one that's preaching the Gospel of Liberty and as I assert that means he's not advocating the religion whose sole purpose is controlling the slaves. 

Again, extralegal =/= illegal. All Santorum wants to do is prevent the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. That's also all Ron Paul wants. Their reasons may be different but again, it is a distinction without a difference because the end result is the same.

And the most dangerous religion at the moment is quite clearly secular progressivism. At least traditional religions are based on faith in spite of a lack of evidence, whereas progressivism demands faith in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. For example, your implication that the Department of Education is worth one single shit. It is not, and the billions and billions it spends every year are a complete waste.

No, Santorum wants an Amendment to the Constitution that would forbid gay marriage in America.  I think you're splitting hairs on the legal / illegal semantics.  Could gays be married if Santorum had his way?  No.  Would they receive the ammenities of being married?  No.  Would the marriages that there are now be broken up?  Yes.  So, whether they're illegal or whatever, they wouldn't exist.  Therefore, since there's nothing particular sacred about marriage anyway, since that's just a myth, gays would still be being denied a right that everybody else has in the supposed freest nation on earth.

There's certainly not any moutains of evidence for anything any of the religionists claim:  Everything from the age of the earth, to the earth's position in the universe, to the who wrote the Bible and when has been thoroughly disproven by mainstream academia.

How do you think all of the poor people from rural and inner city areas would receive proper educations without the Department of Education?

State education agencies?

Well, State Education Agencies would probably work and would probably be endorsed by Ron Paul.

The Department of Education doesn't run rural and inner city schools. 

From what I generally know about people wanting to get rid of the Department of Education, none of them want to get rid of federal funding of schools, they just want to get rid of the DoE, and it's ridiculious counter intuitive funding guidlines that at best force teachers to drill into their students specific rigid test ideas that will rarely be used by them later on... or as is often the case, rampant cheating. 

Simply so they can get funding... they would be MUCH better off writing a check to each state based soley on student population.

It's hardly splitting hairs. There is a massive difference between illegal behavior (criminal behavior that is punishable by law) and extralegal behavior (behavior that simply isn't recognized by law). Even a constitutional amendment wouldn't prevent states from recognizing gay marriages or civil unions if they chose to do so. After all, what would be the penalty for doing so?

I'd argue that rural and inner city students aren't receiving proper educations now. How do you suppose people managed to educate their kids prior to 1979 when the Department of Education was first established? Has giving the federal government a functional monopoly over education improved things for anyone other than bureaucrats and teachers' unions?

I can't think this is the picture you meant to show... since it shows a few tempeture rises as big as the current one that seem to be happening in a pretty uniform patern.... and then a HUGE CO2 concentration increase... with a tempeture increase not being one of the hugest ever.

I mean, if before it was Concentration at 200%, then Tempeture is at 200% everywhere on that graph.

And today it's Concentration at 1,000%, tempture at 200%....

Shouldn't tempeture rise be WAY higher if there was causation?

Also... an inconvient truth is generally a movie most people who believe in global warming think is flawed and overpanicy... and also made by one of the biggest "Single person" polluters out there.  Al Gore I think was just in it for the money.

Additionally, when  you consider India, China and third world countires, we could all cut our greenhouse gases to zero and it wouldn't mean shit since they would be using more on thier own then all of us use now.

Espiecally when you consider that greenhouse gases generally cause a feedback loop after a while.

More greenhouse gases get in the air, it causes ice to melt, which is containing greenhouse gases and well water vapor is a green house gas too.

That gets in the air, and it gets hotter... etc.

I'd keep in kind that polls favor those who care a lot since people have to be willing to donate their time for a fairly long survey for no reward, and "caring a lot" tends to skew away from the main parties. 

Those who care a lot, almost always vote. Those who don't care a lot, doesn't always vote. That happens a lot in my country, although, I don't know the level of participation that the presidential elections i the U.S. have.