Posted on 02/14/2012 5:07:46 PM PST by VinL
Santorum doesn’t appear to be “very good fiscally”, so I think that’s just a supporter’s statement of wishing and hoping it were so.
Of all the things people have looked into and listed about Santorum, his big spending ways, which are the ways of Washington, and even his strong defense of voting as much money as possible for his PA district and defense of others who practiced the same, is probably the single worst thing about his record.
There are other problem areas, but that’s not for this post.
Newt, Jack Kemp, and Dan Quayle were also strongly for King Day; said it would open the GOP to black support!
So, in the context of religion he mentions the gift of sexuality, and that he thinks contraception cheapens that gift by making it all about pleasure and not about love and commitment. I, as a mainline protestant pastor, agree with an awful lot of that statement.
Now, since this is recently "out" it can only be inspired from the Romney camp, for this is Romney's MO and has his fingerprints on it out of the MSM Time magazine, and surprisingly, that means that Romney the Mormon is attacking Santorum's faith. Absolutely amazing!
How many realize that Mormon's consider Catholicism to be the Church of Satan?
"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea ... Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that's okay ... contraception's okay.'"It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal...but also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it—and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong—but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
"Again, I know most presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher. I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues."
- Richard John "Rick" Santorum (b. May 10, 1958), sometime U.S. Senator representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Senior Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a contributor to Fox News Channel.
Why are big money people “scum?” Rick, Newt, Mitt and Obama all have their own big money guys donating them. So the big money guys seem to have opinions as diverse as the rest of the population. Ron Paul has also proven you can play in the game with only small money donors, so it’s still an open system. No reason to demonize big money on this one. Bottom line, we can all look at who’s donating to whom, look at what those people believe in, and decide if we agree with them or not when we vote.
If you like lists, here’s a site with huge lists of one-liner issues and statements from the candidates, and I think you can drill down for full quotes...
http://www.issues2000.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm
Marriage, Obamacare, pro-life, and moral concerns that touch on public policy: that’s the precise context of the contraception discussion back in October, and it shows Santorum to be prescient about the turn the campaign would take. (Given Obama’s desire to overthrow religious liberty last week.)
Santorum says a president can discuss these things as part of a discussion, not as legislation, and that a president can have an impact.
He says he is who he is, and he’ll not pretend to be someone else.
Rather than soaring rates of single-mother parenting, absentee fathers, pleasure-only sexuality promoted by the culture, and children with guidance, his suggestion is that contraception can dull people’s judgement so they get into these kinds of messes. The dangers of contraception are real.
Marriage, Obamacare, pro-life, and moral concerns that touch on public policy: that’s the precise context of the contraception discussion back in October, and it shows Santorum to be prescient about the turn the campaign would take. (Given Obama’s desire to overthrow religious liberty last week.)
Santorum says a president can discuss these things as part of a discussion, not as legislation, and that a president can have an impact.
He says he is who he is, and he’ll not pretend to be someone else.
Rather than soaring rates of single-mother parenting, absentee fathers, pleasure-only sexuality promoted by the culture, and children WITHOUT guidance, his suggestion is that contraception can dull people’s judgement so they get into these kinds of messes. The dangers of contraception are real.
http://www.newt.org/answers#EdDept
Vote for Department of Education
As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities.
When Newt voted for the creation of the Department of Education, the institution was only structured to provide research and collect data. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy ballooned, so while Speaker, Newt aggressively campaigned to pare down the Department back to its appropriate role and return power to the states.
As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities. Most responsibilities and positions will be eliminated, and its new role will be to help find new and innovative approaches to then be adopted voluntarily at the local level. Newt will steadfastly oppose any national curriculum standards, and will reverse Barack Obama’s nationalization of the student loan industry.
If they keep spending money like this, they’re going to stimulate the economy so much that we’ll enter into a full-blown recovery. They’ll hand the election to Obama. ;)
I think Adelson is trying to keep it up to help Obama
I know....I wish he had been more fiscally sound. Maybe a Newt/Santorum ticket is best or vice versa.
Glenn Beck said yesterday he had a big announcement: perhaps we will hear of it in 16 minutes, E.S.T.
When this was written in 1968 a lot of people, including a great many Catholics, rejected it as outdated thinking, etc. However, we are now seeing that his predictions were completely accurate.
Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Truly, I believe the breakdown of the family was the objective of the feminist movement which was empowered by the Supreme Court decisions on contraception, abortion, etc. The feminist movement convinced many women that they would be second class citizens if they submitted to the traditional role of mother.
Contraception, including abortion on demand, was "necessary" to liberate them. Wide spread divorce fueled the fear, i.e. women had to be independent because their husbands might use them and lose them after they lost all marketable job skills.
Of course the whole campaign was a fabrication - but the masses are easily fooled by victim mentality, fear mongering and vague promises.
Instead, the feminist movement marginalized women to the role of sex objects who are routinely cast aside in favor of "trophy wives."
Of course the whole campaign was a fabrication - but the masses are easily fooled by victim mentality, fear mongering and vague promises.
It is not without reason that Catholic and most Protestant baptisms include a renunciation of Satan AND all of his empty promises. From the Garden onward Satan has routinely promised man whatever they wanted, but the promises have always proven to be empty and lead only to misery.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Am I reading it wrong?
******t*****
You’re reading is accurate-—it’s the scenario painted by the article that is logically disjointed. If Adelson gives money to Newt, it will solely be to support a friend and ally of 30+ years.
Any rationalization for the donation from Adelson, is only to placate Romney, who reportedly telephoned Adelson and asked that he stop supporting Newt.
When you’re inside the Beltway too long, you lose touch with reality and never get it back.
Geron, with respect, reportedly Adelson is unyielding in his support of Israel. That’s his commitment. Therefore, I doubt that he is pro- the Obama administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.