Santorum was simply fantastic !! America should wise up.

Apologies Paul P for using a WMD image as a pacifist. David’s smooth stone might have been better as long as it hits forehead and not ears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Donald R. McClarey: The soul of clarity” Or is that McClarity? kay sorry.. ButI love Santorum… I am praying he wins.

Local conservative radio host here in Houston says Santorum is not a fiscal conservative. Tom Delay supports Santorum and stated he is a true all-round conservative. Have heard he is big on unions – I personally don’t care for unions.

HAPPY FEASTDAY today 28 JANUARY “Tommy Aquinas” -presume he is your hero ? i find myself drawing closer to Mr Santorum from my earlier views when he was good but not seemingly electable. I also operate on the Higher Side of our Humanness. The hatred spewed on him is Evil at work, as it is for any Good, witness what we did to the GOOD SHEPHERD Jesus. My prayer and hope is that the combination of positive Gospel of Life people, the disdain for 44 and his backers, and the other nebelous factors in any public debate will be swept up by the Holy Spirit who will see ” the good, the true and the beautiful ” voted to triumph. That could be Mr Santorum, or Mr Gingrich or Mr Romney. As I noted elsewhere we are not electing a replacement Messiah.

Santorum’s hometown newspapers – no, check that, they are disgusting rags and/or scandal sheets – have never stopped ripping into him. It seems that Santorum’s wife worked for an abortionist before she met and married Santorum. The key to all of this is to make the Santorums look like hypocrites on the pro life issue.

These disgusting rags – the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (the socialist rag) and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (the libertarian/anarchist rag) point out Karen Santorum’s previous life, but ignore Dr. Nathanson and Norma McCovey. It does not fit their “world view”.

I loathe the media. Actually I don’t like it enough to loathe it.

Everyone – outcasts or not – gets the same message and is treated equally: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”

Agreed, Mary. And Jesus’ message was the same to both Pontius Pilate and Barabbas: “My Kingdom is not of this world…repent.”

Wow….my roto rooter man did that tax collector con job. Maybe he’s a Biblical fan of the wrong parts of the gospel. He came to the house and quoted me $379 to snake out the tub only (main not involved because toilet flush caused no reaction). That’s a fifteen minute job. I escorted him to the door and the whole way, he’s cutting the price and I’m smiling and shaking my head no….and saying….”you’re not even close to my plumber”…..so he did it for $160 with a 6 month guarantee in writing. He started $219 higher than the $160 he did it for. He was almost an outcast into the street. Gospel tax collectors….tub drain snakers….”nothing new under the sun”. My gutter cleaners recently were on the grift too. As for outcasts….today Chris Christie and Dole both turned up the insult volume against Gingrich…word must have went out to introduce the hard line from the sidelines.

Bingo

I’m pretty sure Christ would tell us, “You must deny (turn your back on) the world, take up your Cross (whatever you need to do to grow in Faith, Hope, and Love, pray for Grace), and follow Me.”

It is personal and individual: one-on-one with God through Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Spirit. It’s what you do.

Love is a verb. It’s not a tingling feeling running your leg. We love by acting for others.

Politicizing the Gospels is illicit.

PS: You ain’t loving your neighbor if you ain’t trying to get him the make a quick, sharp U-Turn on the road to perdition.

Would that war deserve the later epithet “War is Hell”? Was number 4 above good for the native population or did they enjoy losing their land and broken treaties? Some of us who descended from conquered people and part of whose family still lives under colonial rule have a whole different take on war and occupying armies.

I disagree, Don, With your point 3. Amanda Foreman writes in ‘A World on Fire’:

“One of the legacies of the War of 1812 was a British fear that the United States might try to annex [Canada} and a conviction among the Americans that they should never stop trying. It was neither forgiven nor forgotten that precious ships and men had to diverted from the desperate war against Napoleon Bonaparte in order to defend Canada from three invasion attempts by the United States between 1812 and 1814. London regarded the burning of Washington and the White House by British soldiers in August 1814 as a well-deserved retribution for the sacking of York (later Toronto) by American troops.”

Another legacy was a hubristic assumption thet the Americans had “licked the British twice” when in fact in the first instance they relied on foreign support (and a lot of luck) and the second (the Battle of New Orleans) was fought after the peace treaty had been signed, accepting what was essentially a draw, and therefore in cricketing terms was the equivalent of a catch outside the boundary.

It never fails to disappoint me that some people always take the view of liberal revisionist history about the American Indians. Did the white man do wrongs? Yes. Did the red man do wrongs? Yes. Does that mean that the white man alone is guilty? All men have sinned and come short of the glory of God. PS, somewhere in my family tree – great grandmother on my father’s mother’s side – is Mohawk Indian. As Donald indicated, does anyone want to pay?

PS, there is no equivocation to be made between the paganism of the native American Indian and Christianity. That doesn’t mean that the white man always (or even often) acted in accord with Christian principles. But it does mean that just as too many white men in today’s society are pagans, so also were most native American Indians back then. I have seen zero improvement in the donning of paganism in modern society for either white or red man. BTW, there’s only one race: the human race – just in case anyone had any doubts.

I find no justification for any need to repeat comments that all humans are flawed and no race, ethnic group, or faith group is free now or ever was free of sin. My study of some areas of history is limited even now as an adult but as a very young child I learned all about Original Sin.

My views of Andrew Jackson can be summed up thusly:

Tis a pity that Jesse Benton wasn’t a better shot, or that Chief Junaluska lacked the foresight at Horseshoe Bend that he later lamented.

Paul, I’m generally in agreement with your commentary, but what you refer to as the so-called “liberal revisionist history about the American Indians” could probably just be shortened to “history”. The “revisionist history” was the one that portrayed the native peoples of this land as savages, who could, at times, prove noble, and portrayed those who took their lands from them by force and chicanery as “civilized” Christians “taming the Wild West”.

Just as slavery is a blight on this Nation’s history, so is the shameful treatment of the Indians. Now, I’m perfectly inclined to admit that the clash of cultures made the Indians’ decline inevitable, but the way it went down is absolutely shameful.

Yes, Jay, I am in agreement, but I would revise your statement to say that savage were both the native Americans and their opponents, the descendants of white Europeans.

To HT, let’s not bring the necessary but aweful and terrible nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki into this. BTW, as I mentioned before here at TAC, I was a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine. I had virtually no involvement with the nuclear weapons with which my submarine was armed (though due to limited bunking space in bearthing, I did sleep on a mat right next to one in the torpedo room). But being submarine qualified, I was trained in the rudiments of how to launch, assuming I were the last man alive. And if I had been given the order to launch, then I would have remorsefully but immediately carried out my orders. Liberals cannot understand such a sense of duty, nor did they ever understand the MAD doctrine that preserved the free world from communist aggression, and when defense – the SDI or “Star Wars” Program – was proposed as an alterantive to MAD, they opposed that tooth and nail, too. But none of that is relevant to the topic of this blog post.

You’re right, HT, war won’t end until we all repent.

But in the meantime, thank God there were men like Charles Martel to turn back the Islamic Moors at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD, and thank God for the intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary that led to the victory of the Holy League’s fleet against the Ottoman Sultan’s fleet at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 AD. There are many other examples, a great number that include Biblical heroes and heroines like Joshua, Deborah, Judith, David, etc. Personally, I thank God every day for our nuclear submariners who patrol the ocean’s depths, ever ready to unleash hell against enemies that might attack us. You see, regardless that that man of sin Obama is in charge, I love the US and we are the good guys, however flawed we may be. Indeed, when an Islamist bullet kills a woman or child, it’s a direct hit, but when an American does, it’s a complete miss.

“Peace of Earth to men of good will.” Everyone else “gets it.”

I never like to second-guess what GOD could have pulled out of His hat over the centuries in all the wars and ills of society, we humans decided what or who or which battle plan fed HIS Grand Plan the best. Neither do I give much credit to people who are not taught their own history or forget the lessons. Someone referred up there a while back about God and the Old Testament wars. They reflect the culture of the time and do not necessarily reflect His take on war and violence, nor do the wives and concubines of HIS Patriarchs reflect His current views on marriage. Neither would HE have approved Abrahan passing off his wife as his sister to get out of trouble or making a baby by his wife’s servant-woman. I do think GOD had some fun when little David’s slingshot got the Big Bad Goliath. By the standards of the day, and the later David’s tactics, and what might have happened if Goliath killed the boy, that was pretty mild.

War of 1812 and Mexican War are definitely in the top 5 wars that still shape the US today, but neither is remembered well enough or given the sort of public monument on the National Mall that they deserve. The Vietnam War gets a memorial, but there is no monument to the victorious war that added almost a third of our territory and gave us Pacific ports?

“War of 1812 and Mexican War are definitely in the top 5 wars that still shape the US today, but neither is remembered well enough or given the sort of public monument on the National Mall that they deserve.”

It’ll never happen because neither war is politically correct. Both wars are rightly seen as wars caused primarily by American expansionism (so-called “Manifest Destiny”), one at the expense of the Indians and the other at the expense of the Mexicans.

Jay,

That’s how long I’ve been out of school!

The US declared war against the indians in 1812? Who’d a thunk!

Did the brits go to war to save the Indians from us? That would be just like them. They acted in a similar charitable manner regarding Ireland in the late 1840’s.

We need to give back AZ, CA and NM to Mexico before they drag down the rest of the country. They are obama states, right?

Do you think Mexico would take meager Maine and insolvent Illinois off our hands, too?

Not Maine!

“Jay, your Texan ancestors would have vigorously disagreed with you.”

They’d have disagreed with me about stealing land from Mexicans? Imagine that.

They’d have probably disagreed with me on the issues of slavery, too. And Indian policy. And being anti-Catholic freemasons, no doubt they’d have disagreed with me on a much wider variety of issues on top of those.

“Even the Canadians are putting up a War of 1812 monument …”

That’s because (a) they arguably won the war, (b) it’s not considered politically incorrect in Canada because they’re seen as fighting on the side of the Indians, and (c) the War is sort of a defining national moment for the Canadians – arguably, the thing that defined them as a nation.

By the way, I would favor a memorial to the War of 1812 on the mall, just don’t think it very likely for PC reasons (the actual Star Spangled Banner in the Smithsonian sorta serves the purpose anyway).

For my part, I plan to take my kids to as many War of 1812 commemorations as I possibly can over the next 3 years. Fort Meigs and Put-in-Bay are only about an hour a way, so those are definites. Probably will try to get to Niagara for some of their commemorations, and will try to make it for Baltimore’s celebration of the bicentennial of the Star Spangled Banner.

I suppose the differing perspectives come from the fact that Texans interpret the event in light of independence from Mexico. For Texans, the defining event was becoming an independent Texas after years of being a province of the Mexican state of Coahila. For many years, they had sought independence from Coahila as a separate state within Mexico, and when this was viewed by the Mexican authorities as rebellion, it eventually led to the state of affairs that became the Texas Revolution and led to full independence for the Republic of Texas.

Non-Texans, however, interpret the event in light of U.S. expansion, so annexation becomes the defining event and therefore the key focus of their historical perspective. Clearly, the annexation of Texas would never have happened (at least not when and how it happened) without the Texas Revolution. And, clearly, the Mexican War was a direct result of the annexation of Texas.

But the reason Texans (and I believe even non-Texan historians should, as well) view the events as, although related, not the same conflict is because Texas’ existence as an independent entity from Mexico did not come about as the result of the Mexican War or the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. It came about because of the revolution fought a decade earlier by Texans. For 10 years, Texas existed in fact and in law as a free and sovereign (though financially struggling) republic (whether Mexico repudiated the terms of peace or not is somewhat irrelevant in that they were in no position to try to recapture what they had lost), and it did not come about because U.S. troops captured Mexico City a decade later.

Mexico might seethe about losing Texas, but they weren’t going to regain their lost province, and were somewhat content to fight an ongoing border skirmish with the Republic. But what they would not tolerate was the United States becoming their next-door neighbor to the north, and they had good cause for concern given that U.S. interests in territorial expansion into Mexican lands weren’t going to end there. The Mexican War was about Texas’ annexation, not Texas’ independence. That war had already been fought and won by Texas. Certainly, closely related events from a historical perspective, but nonetheless distinct events.

Darwin,
As a tax lawyer I must say your post is spot on correct. And I would add a few more points.

* Capital gain rates should be lower in order to accomodate the fact that some gain is illusory inflation gain. A person buying shares of Company X in 1980 for $10,000 may well be able to sell those shares for $20,000 today, but much of the nominal $10,000 gain is just inflation and does not represent income in a true economic sense.

* Capital gains are only taxed when they are recognized as a consequence of a sale. Selling investments is usually a matter of choice, and capital gains taxes act as a toll charge on a a voluntary sale. Accordingly high rates serve to encourage investors to stay “locked in” rather than liquidate their investments. In fact all tax scholars agree that high rates will result in reduced tax revenue for this very reason, but what they do not agree on is the tipping point. Personally, I think that there is some room to raise the rate without revenue loss, but I do not believe that one can remotely raise the rate to match with current ordinary rates without actually losing revenue. It would be a lose/lose — investors would be locked into unwanted investments while the government would get less tax revenue — all in the name of fairness.

Buffett is a hypocrite. He can and should pay himself a high salary taxed at ordinary rates, but instead deliberately keeps his gains in his investments in order to benefit from lower capital gain rates.

I have heard that the idea behind the earned income tax credit was to reimburse lower income workers for their payroll tax contributions. It is a reasonable goal, but I do not believe we should completely erase a citizen’s entire tax obligation. I think it changes the relationship between the citizen and the government in an undesirable way.

I also question if it is really true that most everyone actually has a tax liability. I know that my anecdote is not data, but for tax year 2010 I paid $0 income tax, ~$2900 payroll tax, and received ~$6200 in a “tax refund.” Now we have three children and one income, so that might change the math, but I do not consider us low income. We do not have a lot of budget leeway, but we are definitely not poor. If I make as much as I make and still get that kind of money from the government, how much more are other people getting?

We also qualify for reduced lunch at school, but I do not take that government money. I can afford to feed my daughter lunch! The difference is to receive that benefit, I would have to fill out a form that basically declares I need the government’s help to feed my children. That declaration would be a falsehood so I do not fill out the form and no one requires me to do it. However I am required to file taxes, so, even though I do not *need* the money, I take all the deductions and credits I am allowed and get a fat check. It definitely feels like dirty money, and yet I take it anyway. I’m not sure what that says for my moral fortitude.

I agree it is politically untenable. I hear folks calling the talk shows complaining about those ‘no-goods’ that don’t pay taxes and I wonder how many of the complainers actually pay income taxes themselves. Odds are that 50% do not.

I understand your thought that the earned income tax credit helps the people who would not ask for help. I am a prime example of that logic. I would be more sympathetic to it if the country were not driving off the debt cliff. It is a moral hazard to set up government assistance through programs–be it from manipulative citizens or nanny state bureaucrats–but we cannot afford to allow 50% of the country to free ride anymore.

I will attribute your changing opinions to reading economic policy rather than the pity you have for us down the income chain. 😛

If our goal is to help those who would not normally ask for help, we could keep the credits if we dramatically cut the income requirements to get the credits. For tax year 2011 you can still get a credit with an AGI of $50,270. That’s adjusted income higher than the country’s gross median. This is pure insanity.

I do not mind government subsidies helping the poor and even those teetering on the edge, but that is not our current policy. We are throwing money at solidly middle class people who would never ask for the money on their own. We cannot afford to do it anymore.

Excellent comments, Darwin and Jenny.
It seems to me that one persistent theme, even if perhaps somewhat subtextual, is the unwillingness of our elected officials to be truthful about the *character* of government benefits. It is true that social security is in part a welfare program. As long as its dominant characteristic, however, is that of a defined benefit retirement program, the welfare component remains disguised. Many Americans are comfortable with this, including those who don’t want to admit that they are receiving welfare (i.e., those whose payouts compare favorably to their contributions) as well as those who view welfare as social *justice* rather than taxpayer *charity* — the latter frankly bristle at the word.

When we employ tax credits, especially refundable tax credits, all too often they are not properly understood as welfare when they may well be exactly that . This is particularly true of refundable credits to compensate for social security contributions that are conceptually and financially necessary to fund future retirement benefits. This is no accident. Politicians do not want to wound the pride of their voting base. Truth is the victim.

In my view, the “everyone should pay some taxes” idea leads inevitably to bigger government for two reasons:

1) If everyone had to pay something in taxes, the poor would have to rely more on welfare programs like food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

2) To be politically viable, marginal rate cuts have had to be coupled with rate cuts across the board. But if you aren’t allowed to cut anyone’s taxes to zero, then you very quickly end up with a situation where you can’t cut taxes for a large segment of the American population. So no more tax cuts.

BA,

I think it is wrong to tax away anyone’s necessities or ability to pay for necessities. To the extent what we call the “poor” includes this group then I think we should not tax them. If we accomplish this by taxing and then paying rebates, that is fine with me — such an approach arguably has the virtue of greater transparency — i.e., truthfulness.

The idea that almost one-half of American households should not contribute to the common good is untenable. Aside from those whose necessities are at stake, all should contribute to the common good, even if in varying amounts computed at graduated rates.

St. Warren is correct! Among Obama aides, 36 owe $833,000 in back taxes.

Taxes are for the little people.

Salary of St. Warren’s secretary: $200,000 to $500,000.
Her second home with pool in AZ: $144,000.
Playing prop for Obama lies: Priceless!

Foxfier,

I accept your point about the audience make up of conservative talk shows, but it is likely that many getting welfare tax refunds do not realize it is happening. It is easy with tax prep software and companies do think that your refund is just a refund. Unless you are knowledgeable about the tax code or do the math by your own hand, you may not realize you are getting back more than you paid, and I wonder how many of those are complaining.

Darwin,

Here is the spot that your 33-year-old self has forgotten about your 25-year-old self:

When you realize you are getting welfare from the government, it makes you feel poor. When you know you are not poor, but either someone else thinks you are poor or is trying to buy your vote, you get angry. When your finances are such that, even though you don’t really need it, it would be very foolish to turn down the money, you feel worthless.

So you are now far enough away to see the wisdom in the overall policy without feeling the sting of having bribe money waved in your face.

BA,

You are probably right that making everyone pay taxes would make more people dependent on government programs. Perhaps the real problem is the qualifications for these programs. The income requirements need to be severely cut back. The argument made by the current administration that nearly 50% of the country is poor and in need of assistance is laughable on its face.

Worse yet. Consider Buffett’s motives for promoting a new tax on high income earners. He owns a significant stake in life insurance companies, which offer tax sheltering and avoidance strategies for the rich. The end result of his proposal? More clients, more revenue, more profits. And he’s since structured his assets that he wouldn’t even be effected. Just call him what he is: a corrupt crony capitalist lobbying for a law that he will substantially benefit from

Foxfier,
I don’t know about stupid, but certainly ignorant and lazy. Many people, including the college educated, are completely flummoxed about income taxes. This is exactly why outfits like H&R Block are in business. The vast majority of the returns the prepare as so simple a cave man could do it — but we live in a nation of people who don’t know the difference between income and a bank account — and that is just a fact.
Ask any VITA volunteer.
This is not to say that our income tax rules could not be made easier, but the complications are not really related to low income earners.

Foxfier,

I did not imply that people are stupid. I flat out said they do not pay attention. Since we are exchanging work experiences, I worked at a bank in the era before direct deposit for tax refunds became widespread. The rapid refund loan checks outnumbered treasury checks probably four to one. It is not hard to imagine that those people had no idea how much money they had actually paid in taxes.

I’m not sure what you are suggesting by pointing out the average employee income is $45,559. Are you saying that is poor or not poor?

Foxfier,

I bring up the rapid refund checks not to point out that they wanted the money faster, but to say it is likely that these people indeed went to “a company where you just drop off your paperwork and they do it.” I understand that you are supposed to look over the return before signing, but a lot of people do not, which is why the ‘innocent spouse’ provision exists. We are also supposed to read the ‘terms and conditions’ on websites, but most people do not. It is in our nature to trust and accept what is presented to us at face value. And you do not give yourself enough credit for adjusting your withholdings in high school to avoid a refund. A lot of people prefer the check from Uncle Sam, not understanding it is a loan without interest.

So, approaching half of tax filing households do not pay income tax and have been deemed ‘poor’ by the government. Is this a precise enough statement for you? Does it seem reasonable to you that half of tax filings are from poor households? I think the point you are making is that a married couple making 80K is counted as one household, but a divorced couple each making 40K is counted as two households. It does tip the numbers in the wrong direction.

My argument is that 40K is not poor in the majority of the country and should not be treated as if it were. If the average individual income is ~45K in the richest country on earth, it would seem that 45K is not poor and yet our current government policy is that it is.

I am very much in favor of burning it down and starting over, but I do not see much chance of that happening as long as the government promotes the idea that 45K is ‘low-income.’ It may be driven by social engineering goals, but we cannot afford these delusions any longer.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1

Darwin – Where is the exact quote that you are calling a lie? Did Warren Buffett state that he paid a lower tax rate than the average tax rate of the middle class? And did he also define middle class in terms of a dollar income range? It is not at all unbelievable that the secretary to the richest man in the world (she probably is a well paid secretary but still arguably in the middle class) would pay a tax rate higher than 17%. We don’t know what rate she paid so how can you say he is lying?

Thanks for the article Foxfier. I don’t see a lie here. Even if the secretary does make between 200k and 500k it still speaks to the point Obama is making. Warren made AGI of $62 million and paid 17% tax rate and the secretary made up to 500k and paid a higher tax rate. Why can someone who lives off of his great-great-grand-daddy’s fortune pay a lower rate than someone who actually works? (I undertand Warren actually made his fortune but his kid didn’t and his great-great-great grand kids wont be able to say the same.)

I agree the phAresident is not being deceptive. He is fabricating that which supports the agends.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Planting seeds of confusion and mistrust in the minds of his people he swore a oath to serve, he tends the growth of evil.

Too tired … saw the Capitol Bldg. on Mon. afternoon which fell between two nights riding on a bus, but there were tears this am during the conversion of St. Paul and Jesus sending the eleven readings at church. Wish our deficit spending were as cute as the one in the picture.

Yeah, I guess my fear is that Gingrich will on alternate days have a nitroglycerine jaw and no jaw at all. Heck, if we were okay with a flaky philanderer for our nominee why couldn’t we stick with Herman Cain? At least he didn’t have the bad congressional history and we could have pizza at all the campaign events.

If Santorum were the one polling equal to or above Romney, and if either Santorum or Gingrich weren’t doing a lot worse in the general election polling, I’d be moderately happy to support Santorum. But although I’d reluctantly support Gingrich if he wins the nomination (which is perhaps more than I could say for Ron Paul) I have to admit I’d prefer Romney at the top of the ticket to Gingrich. (Kind of the way I supported Dole over Buchanan.)

Now I think about it, I think my preference is based on one other expectation: Obama is clearly going to run one of the most viciously negative campaigns in recent memory. There will be no more of the hopey changey drivel we got last time — even his own base doesn’t believe it any more. So instead we’ll get one of the lowest and nastiest campaigns ever.

There are, I guess, two ways to go after that. One is to put in someone like Gingrich who will fight back tooth and nail. The other is to go for someone like Romney who will try to do the teflon routine and brush it off with a, “You’re saying that because you’re a failure. Now are we going to move on and get the economy together or are we going to focus on looking for scapegoats for the next four years?”

My instinct is that the latter will work better — though my crystal ball is no more functional than any other, so we’ll see what happens.

Romney consistently polls best against Obama in head to head match-ups, he has better favorable/unfavorable ratings than Gingrich, his implied electability on Intrade is higher, and of course he doesn’t have Newt’s history of blow-ups. Why anyone would think Gingrich is more likely to beat Obama is beyond me.

If Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels got in I would be thrilled. But I don’t see that happening.

I could understand holding one’s nose and voting for Romney in the General Election because one sees him as the better of two bad alternatives. I disagree with it, and won’t do it myself, but I understand it.

But I just cannot understand actually supporting him in the primary. Fortunately, Darwin, Sarah and I will be more than happy to cancel out your vote in the Ohio Primary.

😉

And that’s why the GOP establishment will keep shoving guys like Romney down our throats … because we’ve proven time and again that we’ll throw over good, decent pro-life candidates like Santorum and, in the end, support whatever pro-abort RINO stiff gets the nomination.

Please don’t take the foregoing as a harsher criticism than what it is meant to be. But it is frustrating for me to see a couple of gentlemen for whom I have the utmost respect and with whose poltical instincts I generally concur, take this line.

Here’s my present voting stance:

1) Santorum
2) Gingrich
3) Romney (holding my nose)

…Ron Paul NEVER!

WCC

It’s not conservative vs. moderate vs. liberal. It’s about the credentialed eiltes whose world views separate them from us. Seems they get upset when knuckle-draggers, such as myself, rise up on our hind legs and get in the way of their choices.

Them there conservative elites didn’t excoriate Palin because she was liberal or moderate. They feared and loathed Sarah because she is not one of them.

Newt will fight. He is from Mars.

Santorum hasn’t shown any fight. He is from Venus.

Romney is afraid or ashamed of himself. So, he can’t counter-punch. He is from Uranus.

Paul and libertarians are worse than liberals. They are from Jupiter: could not be more stupider.

Anyhow, Obama is at 44% approval rating. That’s down from 47% in second year; 57% first year; and 69% approval Inauguration.

Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush had better polling numbers at similar dates in their failed re-election runs. Carter was slightly worse. I can’t understand that last one.

Can anybody name a candidate for national office whose winning campaign strategy against an incumbent was to build a majority out of reluctant supporters?

Art, you may be right. But I would note that I voted for Ronald Reagan. Twice. Rick Santorum is no Ronald Reagan.

I have to echo Micha Elyi’s comment: “Can anybody name a candidate for national office whose winning campaign strategy against an incumbent was to build a majority out of reluctant supporters?” And let me add to it: Can anybody name the last time the candidate running against an unpopular incumbent won by being bland, moderate and uncontroversial?

Whoever the GOP nominates, the Democrats are going to ask the swing voters, “Granted that BHO hasn’t done a very good job, do you really want to replace him with this guy?” And if it’s someone the core can’t get excited about, you can’t expect the swing to get excited about him, either. Just being “not Obama” in the most literal sense possible isn’t enough; the not-Obama has to be clearly not Obama in terms of policy and philosophy as well as identity. Romney simply hasn’t convinced anyone outside his own camp that he’s anything but “kinda-sorta-not-Obama”. That’s not a recipe for success — if we’re not careful, someone’s gonna think we’re afraid of Obama. He’s not an 800-pound gorilla! And neither Santorum nor Gingrich are that scary! (Ron Paul, on the other hand ….) I think either one of these two could get the core whipped up enough to pull the swing to the right. Mitt simply isn’t that attractive. Let’s not vote scared.

Brother Dan thanks God that he is not like that taxpayer over there.

Thank you for posting this, it is eye-opening. Man does he sound angry – can’t he just pop in Brother Sun and Sister Moon and chill out?

Seriously though, does anyone know to which province Horan belongs? I’d like to know how they consider his viewpoints. While we live in a democracy, there is, or at least was, a discipline in religious orders when it came to statements like his in public forums. I apologize for coming across as naive about Franciscans. The Franciscans I know are Pro-Life (albeit they fixate on physical poverty over spiritual poverty, ironically) and would never hold forth in such a manner.

I will strongly reconsider financial support of the Franciscans, which I have done in the past.

All I can wonder is when the last time Brother Dan was at the March, because he seems significantly out-of-touch with what goes on and the type of person who attends the March for Life.
If Americans died at the rate of 3,000 daily from any other cause, you can bet we would want to fight that cause! We would vote based on that illness or natural disaster and its relief; we would have banners and posters to fight that reality; we would march. What is wrong with publicly denouncing the murder of literally thousands of our brothers and sisters daily with an annual protest?
I’m a Salesian Sister of St. John Bosco; I’m pro-life, and I intend to educate the young to speak up in respect for life, especially the life of the unborn.

Br. Dan and Fr. Angelus aren’t about to let something so trivial as the “so-called pro-life movement” stand in the way of their devotion to the Democrat Party (and the praise from the “smart-set” Catholics that accompanies such devotion).

The National Catholic Reporter column mentioned “REASON” no less than five times in its short piece. Everybody else is unreasonable, and only they have the “REASON”, but they would not have “REASON” if their brain had been aborted and their tax dollars used to experiment on their aborted brain.

Before I continue reading (I am excruciatingly slow) it is extremely important to realize and accept that the MARCH FOR LIFE is the Constitutional First Amendment right to peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress, and if there were only one person attending, he would be a majority of one. I did so enjoy seeing all those persons expressing their freedom (and mine). and thinking WOW. And although I could not march, I got to see Nellie Gray and Chris Smith and Father Pavone. Thank God. Government does not have authentic authority to define the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, giving food to the hungry, to Terry Schiavo, or to dictate the will of God to God and to the people of God, when the person is constituted by his immortal soul and brought into existence. Government has no legal ability to redefine the human person by withholding the acknowedgement of his conscience. Government is establised to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our constitutional posterity, all future generations. Taxing citizens for obligations not fulfilled is extortion and taxation without representation. At least Brother Dan might have spoken up for some of our money, if not our life. Obama has subsummed all future generations as liabilities.

Donald R. McClarey:
I am so glad you set Brother Dan straight on his path. Thank you.

“While the generational divide is usually traversed by a diverse representation of different ages and from idealistic youth and young adults to the more narrowly focused and opinion-concretized geriatric crowd, there is very little racial and ethnic diversity represented. ”

– ! – idealistic youth: Br., it is good that they exist and haven’t been drowned in misery and evil of opinions. There were many accompanied by parents, teachers, and priests (some of whom are becoming reality’s super heroes and, by example, teaching the Gospel).

– ! – narrowly focused opinion- concretized geriatric crowd: This red flag of a phrase from a Franciscan brother is abomination. Who passed the law to begin this mess? Can’t resist saying it sort of takes one to know one.

“I have heard numerous people, even those who avidly support the march, lament that the Vigil Mass has become more a “Who’s Who” of a sector of the American Catholic Church than it has the Eucharistic celebration it alleges to be.”

– ! – Good thing for the American Catholic Church. Also, is this sentence an invitation to the evil of gossip.

“Perhaps, just maybe, a single Samaritan or even a few might be among the crowd and stop to pick up the ignored and forgotten and left-for-dead issues that continue to threaten life and human dignity in our world.”

“Binary” good/evil, “Binary” moral, Boutique issue.

What could be the in-between of good and evil that you frightfully imply? Maybe, yesterday you missed the chance to see any Samaritans while you were in the boutique. It will be televised Sat. at 2:00.

“Yet, innocence is a construct that has theological and ethical implications and characteristics that have been explored on this website as well as on the excellent WIT: Women in Theology website. I will not rehearse those discussions here.”

Here’s a link to WIT. I haven’t checked but I suspect they might look upon the fetus as an unjust aggressor on a woman’s body.

http://womenintheology.org/

I was not able to force myself through all his drivel. Made me nauseous. I simply cannot understand how the slaughter of a defenseless innocent child can be ho-hummed away. I know monumental injustice, intimately, but these are children burned to death or torn to shreds……

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. However not so much for WIT:

“First, it is for this reason that some moral theologians (including, I think, Cathy Kaveny on the Commonweal blog) have argued that the fetus could be thought of in some situations (such as the Phoenix case) as a materially unjust aggressor. It does not intend to attack the mother’s body in an unjust way, but it nonetheless is doing just that, for reasons out of its control. Thus the fetus would be in the same category as the starving but insane man who lunges at your head with a knife because he is convinced it’s actually a melon that sits atop your shoulders. Killing such a person could be said to constitute self-defense.

Second, and of more interest to me in this post, is that formal innocence is not usually what we mean when we talk about a fetus being innocent. Rather, we mean innocent in the sentimental way that we call adorable animals and babies innocent (Augustine notwithstanding). We mean they are helpless, pitiable, and not [yet] mean beings who can insult us or harm us–and how could you be so cold-hearted that you’d kill such a creature? This kind of rhetoric automatically juxtaposes the innocent fetus with other kinds of people whom society (and a large portion of the pro-life demographic, judging from voting statistics) does not usually call innocent and finds generally threatening or disgusting: enemy soldiers, death row inmates, and worst of all in this discourse, the women who seek abortions in the first place. It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that the pro-life movement is often criticized for failing to care about just this kind of life outside the womb.”

http://womenintheology.org/2011/01/25/fetuses-are-not-innocent/

” because of the so-called innocence of the fetuses ”

whats next brother Dan? Spokesperson for Planned Parenthood?

Richard,

Having experienced Brother Dan’s in Chanceries and formation programs in several dioceses, I can say he truly believes he is carrying out God’s work. His type are possessed of a radical ideology formed of the sixties that reduces the Gospel to social issues. They pick from authentic Catholic Social teaching when it meets their needs – even shouting out “its infallible” when needed. Then turning their back upon authentic teaching when it doesn’t suit their ends.

The “Seamless Garment” is a perfect example. It is used to manipulate others to accept that any opposition to raising the maginal tax rate or any govt. cuts is equal to supporting abortion.

Of course if you take the thoughts of Brother Dan and Women in Theology such things are not the same. Opposing tax hikes is worse than aborting an “unjust aggressor.”

A good rule of thumb is, whatever the National Catholic Distorter says is good and reasonable, really isn’t.

“Radicalism was certainly not something he would have absorbed from his social matrix.”

What social matrix would that be?

Not so much scorn as heartfelt response. Just as Br. Dan is heartfelt in his comments. We just believe he is wrong.

Bro, sounds guilt-ridden. Maybe because he’s so wrong and his conscience is trying to tell him something. Yes, the poor can be fed but the aborted baby is DEAD. Which should take priority. You can convince people to help the poor but can you bring the DEAD back to life? Should I try to help a woman shot by a gun or give her a sack of flour, Bro.? Seamless garment is a cop out. What judging of peoples movtives who are attending the March. Should we keep bringing it to the light or sit home and run the soup kitchen while 54 million children have been killed in this country alone. How many poor have died in this country? thousands proably. No comparision. Its not a matter of innocence vs. guilty it about LIFE vs. DEATH. You can’t be any poorer than DEAD.

St. Francis is weeping.

Micha Elyi: Let me add: The person is invited by the marital act and therefore cannot be an “UNJUST aggressor”. In a tubal implantation which might cause death, both the mother and child must be saved, if possible. Otherwise, intent to commit abortion is extrauterine homicide. The contradiction here is that the person whose existence is willed by God cannot be both and at the same time, a non-person and a criminal. The child is innocent until the age of reason counted at seven because of a lack of reason, and then counted as an infant child in a court of law until emancipation. To give informed consent after the age of emancipation to a crime is against the law. In cases of rape, the innocent victim who is doing the will of God and nature’s God cannot be put to death because of the crimes of his parent. Only for his own crimes can a man be put to death. Rapists ought to be put in jail for their rest of their lives. Abortion defies the will of God. Nobody comes into existence but by the will of God.

What social matrix would that be?

Utica and St. Bonaventure.

Mary @4:24P.M. You are good. Keep up the good work

Art,

Reading the information from St Bonaventure, it seems it is well affected by the spirit of the 60’s.

One needs not have been born in the sixties to be affected by the university environment fostered by it.

@Mary De Voe “Art: Born in 1982? Brother Dan sounds like a decrepid old, very old man, whose brain has atrophied. No tongue-in-cheek.”

Bingo! Br. Dan’s Church of the Hip ’70s is dying. Did you notice that he has two Master’s degrees from the Washington Theological Union. Guess what? WTU is closing this year because of lack of funding, students, and support from the consortium of religious orders that founded it.

Bingo! Br. Dan’s Church of the Hip ’70s is dying.

He grew up in the Diocese of Syracuse. The church of the Hip ’70s is fairly unusual if not unknown therabouts. The church of casual violations of liturgical norms and music appropriate to score a TV movie sponsored by Hallmark and inane homilies in which the phrase ‘relationship with God’ occurs again and again is what you gett here (and I would wager what he grew up with). The benefit of growing up in Utica is that the Eastern-rites are close at hand. Those parishes are anything but packed, however.

It’s a good thing Br. Dan’s mother didn’t have the same attitudes that he does, OR he wouldn’t be here!

His superior should be monitering what he says about any Catholic teachings. Oh yeah, Br. Dan what are you doing for the unborn?

Donald:

As the Hispanic Services Coordinator (unpaid) at a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, I, like you, counsel the women that deal with unplanned pregnancies on a daily basis. I help them deal with the “choices” that confront them, the racism they deal with on a daily basis when they elect to keep their children, and I work with women who suffer the indignities and emotional turmoil that result from having had abortions (freely or not). I support the March for Life and I am dismayed at the attitude of this Franciscan Brother. Thank you for so succinctly debating his insidious remarks and for pointing out what seems the almost obvious for those of us who are in the trenches. We may be winning slowly, but we ARE winning. LIFE will prevail over DEATH.

This is the problem with academia: They take obvious church teachings (i.e. the stand against abortion) and twist them using convoluted phraseology which the average person doesn’t understand (and hence cannot dispute). These academic theologians (for that is what Brother Dan is) rely upon the “openness to dialogue with others” created by Vatican II. That, plus the absolute absurdity created by feminist theologians (i.e. the Women in Theology website) creates an atmosphere in which official Catholic teaching is obscured at best, and actively hindered at worst. Now imagine going to a college influenced by these factors (i.e. St. Bonaventure) and we can see how Brother Dan may have arrived at the conclusions that he has.

In response to Will: Br. Dan belongs to the Holy Name Province. You can find this site here: http://www.hnp.org

With all due respect to Mr. Douglass, and to you, Don, this passage reads like the sort of nonsense one would expect to read at NC Reporter:

“Where is your religion that takes care for the poor—for the widow and fatherless—where are its votaries—what are they doing? The answer to this would be, if properly given, wasting their energies in useless debate on hollow creeds and points of doctrine, which, when settled, neither make one hair white nor black.”

What hogwash! We were treated to the same sort of attacks on the Church by the so-called progressive Catholics during the debates over the new Roman Missal: “Why are we spending so much time debating the words of the Creed – ‘consubstantial’? Really? No one even knows what that means! – when there is so much suffering in the world?”

Examples can be found here:
http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2006/09/catholic-liturgical-liberals-are-so.html

http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2006/09/catholic-liturgical-liberals-are-so_05.html

http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2006/10/multi-tasking.html

The truth is that the Church can walk and chew gum at the same time. It can (and has throughout its entire 2000+ year history) debate creeds and still care for the poor. To accuse the Church in Ireland of not being there for the poor is outright calumny. The Church was ALL they had, and did what it could to alleviate their suffering.

Whatever Mr. Douglass’ virtues as an abolitionist, in this instance, at least, he was either grossly misinformed or a liar.

“The man also only spent four months in Ireland so he hardly had time to become expert on what the Church was doing to alleviate poverty.”

Then he probably should’ve kept his mouth shut regarding aspects of the situation about which he was ignorant.

My problem with ALL progressives, even ones who are right about such things as slavery, is that religion is all to often for them a cheap scapegoat.

“not matched with *actions.*”

In linking to this post, I also link to Douglass’ “Narrative,” the first account of his life in slavery. It makes a difference when reading him here.

Douglass was a remarkable man, and not afraid to change his opinions, startling even those who were staunch political allies. He alienated a lot of radical abolitionists when he broke with them over whether the Constitution was a slave-enabling document beyond redemption. He came to the conclusion that it was not, and shocked Garrison by arguing against him on that point in public.

A minor point of correction. The issue of 1828 was not that Irish Catholics did not have the right to vote (they did, and the electors of County Clare voted for O’Connell) and in any case the franchise at that time was not a right – most Englishmen did not have it. It was that legislation dating back to the 17th century prevented Catholics from sitting in the House of Commons.

Reason #1 of 50.
This is a man aligned against the human spirit.
Survive the abortionist’s vacuum and then get assigned to an inferior public school that treats you as an object.
Make it out of the public schools intact then work half your life to pay taxes that pay for more abortions and more inferior public schools.

“It’s sad that so many Roman Catholics in America have cast aside the issue of abortion in favor of other social issues.”

Unfortunately in part because our shephards so teach us. At today’s Mass (which is offered in the Missal for the legal protection of the unborn) the priest only talked about respecting all life from conception to natural death. No mention specifically about what this day meant. Thus he ignored the number of abortions that routinely occur and intentionally or not equated the contingent nature of judgments about other social issues and legitimate means to end poverty etc with outright killing.

But it isn’t just this priest. This is now the constant theme that I have heard from other priests and bishops. It was the theme at this weekend’s March for Life in our capital. They seek to equate all social issues (and unfortunately their chosen solutions) with abortion.

Prudential solutions about problems of homelessness, immigration and poverty do not equal the intrinsic evil of abortion. The fact that some clergy have courted this line is coming home to roost in the attack on conscience.

To Phillip’s comment: At my parish yesterday we had a very powerful sermon, primarily about abortion. The deacon did talk about broader issues, specifically care for the needy, but then brought it back around to abortion – in our area, Catholic charitable organizations have seen their aid cut because they don’t provide their employees with “family planning services”.

Pinky,

Good to hear. What diocese are you in? Obviously not all clergy have a disordered sense of moral issues. Unfortunately for me, I have not heard a homily about abortion without being equated to other issues in an exceptionally long time.

I did read a blog post from a priest of the D.C. diocese recently that noted the issues involved in political judgments, allocating scarce resources, legitimate differences in solving problems etc. Much more balanced than the simple “life issues” theme.

We need to spread such intelligent thought throughout the clergy.

I am so depressed reading hours of pro-life blogs and comments. After each one I emit an unconsciously led audible sigh. I am trying to understand why. Maybe at 62, I don’t feel I will live long enough to see abortion disappear. Do any other people get these feelings of hopelessness even when they are reading words whose intentions are to be uplifting?

Also, thanks for the picture.

Our daughter-in-law is expecting our grandchild in July.

I pray for that little baby, growing, every day.

[email protected],

I don’t disagree. The ultimate path to all justice, including social justice, is the personal holiness of all the members of society.

That being stated, my point was to address the cover that is being given to ignore the evil of abortion by equating it with other social issues which are not intrinsic evils. (See Don’s post on Brother Dan above.)

The picture … there was one on a screen in the center of the route of a quarter standing on its edge with two little hands near the bottom kind of holding on to it or balancing it, definitely showing us dimensions in a heartstopping, dramatic way. And only God knows whose hands they were or whose feet are up there – I was lucky or blessed enough at that moment to focus on the voice of a Priest ahead beginning the third sorrowful mystery and think from behind he looked like Mr. Gingrich …

(I just had to go back to see the title.) A vote to stop the reason for the subject and photography isn’t a lot to ask when you think of the purpose those two unknown lives had. Heard some young people saying they wanted to tell Obama that his mother was pro-life and wondered what she thought of him. Bill, there’s hope. Your sighs could be prayers, like in the Psalms. Listen to TShaw, Don, Foxfier, elm, and the Marys. Your prayer adds to it. Maybe our salvation depends on remembering the little ones to God. Some on them could be very young grandparents by now since that law.

Thank you, Philip, for seeing my point on the vital role for us the Faithful to push this campaign to its logical conclusion – i.e. the end of abortion and all the other bestialities the Obama man is ramming down the throats of Americans and to all the other countries where America holds a vice-like control. @T. Shaw, I am 73 heading to 74 and I am determined to be around to America abolish abortion and same-sex pervesions, embryonic stem-cell experiments and euthanasia…..I pray to God every day for this. And to think this man – whose philandering father is my countryman – was the perfect subject for abortion but for the human love and compassion of his betrayed mother….it makes me want to cry.

Pray for the conversion of sinners and America. And, you won’t be going to Heaven if you vote democrat PERIOD.

Jay, I’ve heard it said that Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and others were pro-life until the political wind shifted the other way. Could White have been affected similarly, in which case it might have been a calculated decision to wait rather than something to which he didn’t give much thought?

Thank you Paul. In light of that, his decision to want to be replaced by a democrat appointee seems odd.

Better a flawed messenger than none at all.

I apologize; “ancient religious hatred” is a quote from godless, serial rapist/sexual harasser Clinton’s Press Secretary Joe Lockhart slandering Christians for opposing gay privileges.

I think it concisely reveals the enemies of God and man and their attitudes toward the little people.

Even if he doesn’t get the nomination, its been refreshing to see someone speak truth to power regarding religious bigotry in the gov’t and media in a way that finally gains national attention.

I went to Mass Sunday noon at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception; sat near the front. A few minutes later as I was craning my neck to see the mosaics, I saw that Speaker Gingrich was directly behind me in the next pew.

After pondering all through Mass on the Face of Christ beyond the altar, I turned to Mr. Gingrich after the recessional and said, ” If you sit here weekly and see this rendering of the Face of Christ, how could you not be headed on the right path? He agreed. He seems to be very comfortable in his own skin. I’m still wanting the morals and ideals of Santorum to win; perhaps God has him in this race to be a constant voice for the unborn and marriage. But having met the Speaker face to face, and hear him sing praise to God in the Mass setting, my allegiances are taking a turn towards Gingrich. My “sincerity” meter gave him good marks. May God protect him and keep him close to His heart.

1) The inevitable oh-so-electable Romneybot is now 1 for 3 in his own party.

2) Santorum got hosed by Newt’s ego starting on Monday night.

3) Santorum needs to stay in the race, and every time he’s asked about that he needs to say, “Absolutely, it’s only a matter of time before Newt implodes and we all know it and I plan to be here to give people that solid conservative choice when he does.”

Whatever happens, Obama has got to go. Seeing how Obama and Sebelius destroyed any pretense at conscience protection has infuriated me to no end. The days of my ever being nice to liberals are over (if indeed there were any such days). They have got to be shoved out of power for good. As to Gingrich, may God bless him. I prefer Santorum to be sure, but Gingrich isn’t a bad choice and even the Weather Vane as Donald calls him is far superior to that man of depravity and idolatry now sitting in the Oval Office. I just finished posting a nasty letter to http://www.whitehouse.gov (I wasn’t threatening, but did make the King Manasseh comparison) and then prayed the Rosary for God’s mercy on our nation and on his soul. Let’s see if I am arrested tomorrow morning! 😉 Nothing would surprise me at this point.

Godless wicked Democrat! Arrrrrggggghhhhh! But hoorah and thank God for Newt!

A thought

The Daley machine hack in the White House had his second machine provided Chief of Staff decide to go back to Chicago and his replacement did not come from the machine. With Ritchie Daley retired I wonder how many more of the President’s entourage will want to go back to Chicago.

Will this put a crimp in his operation?

Who Knows? But interesting

Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

The gingrich performance in response to John King was an embarrassment, his win in SC is an embarrassment and if he would be president, he would be an embarrassment. Glib, manipulative, brilliant-but-phony, pugnacious, opportunist, cheater – not exactly words I would like to apply to our president.. He is not the best man in the race… may be the worst.

Ninety-seven percent of us are worried about the economy. Seventy-nine percent are very worried. There are significant numbers preparing for economic and societal collapse.

It ain’t Newt that will implode.

Gingrich? Newt Gingrich?

Wow.

The man has political skills, but I think the best case scenario is that he loses by McCain’s margin.

Unless the economy significantly weakens, which, long term, is more likely than the current smooth patch indicates.

I dunno. Nominating Newt seems like the ultimate own-goal.

I recognize Santorum’s profound executive weaknesses and sometimes grating demeanor in the spotlight (though he’s a winning, genuine guy in person, as I can attest), and I think I’ve even acknowledged the same here. But unless one gets hives at the thought of a sincere social conservative with the nomination (e.g., the Reason [sic] fanbois), he has far less baggage to explain away than Gingrich or Romney.

Thanks, Jindal, Christie, Jeb, etc.

Rotifer
The Church records are confidential but guessing despite that: Newt’s second marriage was probably annulled by the Catholic Church because the wife was married prior and did not annul her first marriage. His first marriage could well have been annulled because Newt himself at the time was morally incapable of really knowing what a Christian marriage is nor capable of vowing it til death. An annullment is a declaration by the Church that a real marriage in the past never took place before God even if Catholic Church authorities or separated Christian authorities authorized one at the time…..while not knowing the true hidden moral maturity or lack of it
in one or both people….OR….a separated Christian authority permitted a second marriage despite a first (Newt’s second wife’s case).
Does Church infallibility enter into this area? No. Just as the Church could have been incorrect marrying a couple, it could be incorrect permitting an annullment.

I wonder if any of the remaining candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will
join, even for a short time, the March For Life tomorrow?

As a catholic, I am especially grateful for the redemption I have received from Jesus Christ through His Church. Examination of Newt should include a thoughtful examination of his character post conversion to the Catholic faith. The Lord seems to like to use those of us who have been the greatest sinners to serve Him–just look at His choice of King David, Mary Magdalen, Augustine, and Thomas Becket to name a few. To me, considering Newt as a serious contender in this Presidental race was cemented when he stated emphatically that marriage is a sacrament. He gets it! Additionally, his SC victory speech emphasized the extremely important issue of religious liberty his number 1 point of contention. Of all the contenders, Newt is the only candidate in my lifetime since Ronald Regan that actually speaks truth to power. We need to pray to the Lord that His choice for President be done. Perhaps its time for America to begin a fast of sack cloth and ashes.

Don,

2002 was ten years ago. Perhaps it’s a sign of my relative youth, but that seems like a fairly long time. And in any event, Gingrich was still supporting a federal individual mandate, cap and trade, and embryonic stem cell research after all of the cases you cite against Romney.

Can we agree at least that, going by what they’ve said in this campaign, Romney is clearly the more conservative candidate, and that the only way to say Gingrich is more conservative is if you believe what he says but not what Romney says about their own positions?

Tess. Pope Gregory in 590 or so made up the story about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute. There is nothing to support the assertion. Give the girl a break.

Re Newt. He went thru 3 wedding ceremonies. He has bought his way out of one or (possibly) two thru annulments. He was of legal age, 19 yr old, at his first wedding and married his math teacher, 7 years his senior, after a 3 year ‘affair’. In all, he had affairs with his next two wives, while married to someone else. It’s called adultery. Another affair has been documented. All the time he was beating up on fellow legislators for doing the same. Is this the guy u think should be the leader of the free world; appoint moral judges; push the right kind of social legislation (or lack thereof)? This guy into repentence? He’s too arrogant. He has rationalized all this as part of working too hard. Have u read his reasoning? Seen the tape? **choke**

Re Newt. … He has bought his way out of one or (possibly) two thru annulments.
-Rotifer

“Bought”, eh? Care to reveal what the bid-ask spread is on annulments these days?

If the media stops the Gingrich attacks, does Gingrich then fade into normality…?
-bill bannon

If the past is any guide, the establishment media doesn’t stop attacking Speaker Gingrich until he’s long since stopped bringing himself to public attention. I doubt they can even help themselves anymore, they just can’t resist trying to attack him. Likely, the South Carolina results shocked them; bunches of media operatives are probably still shouting “inconceivable!” Come Monday, they’ll be back.