Poll finds Santorum surging in Gingrich's home state Georgia

Flat tax/fair tax/tax reform are all nothing but euphemisms for shifting the tax burden from the wealthy and comfortable to the already suffering folks of modest means. As such, each is shameful. These are the proposals of many who think it clever to whine about "class warfare" without honestly recognizing that "class warfare" is a two-way street.

Since 1972 or so, folks who work with their hands for a living have, at best, suffered utterly stagnant real wages as their jobs have been ruthlessly transferred to such enlightened locales as Bangladesh to take advantage of the 7 cent an hour wage standards for 10-year-olds to improve that all important corporate bottom line for Romney's pals in the mega-investor class.

Some who regard themselves as conservatives think that working class folks should just suck it up in deference to their economic masters, that the well-being of our nation is synonymous with the ever more efficient care and feeding of the polo-playing set, that working folks should just sit down, shut up and accept abject poverty, lifelong economic suffering and neo-serfdom as their lot. I don't agree with them. Nor do Reagan Democrats.

Santorum's positions on these issues reflect the Roman Catholic Church's views as enunciated in Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno and many other papal encyclicals on the ordering of a just society and the relations between employers and employees. Rerum Novarum is a particularly revolutionary document of a mere 40 pages or so and it resonates through Catholic thinking to this day 119 years after its publication. Fang and claw capitalism is not Catholicism.

You face the problem of fashioning a political majority without the nation's largest Church if you insist on fang and claw capitalism. See how you can fashion that majority when 90% of blacks vote D, 60+% of Hispanics vote D and many "conservatives' are eager to alienate the rest. envirowhackos, sexual perverts, feminazis, unionized gummint employees, 2/3 of Jewish voters (live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans), anti-war robots, anti-Americans generally, etc. Since blacks and Hispanics are now 25% of the electorate, we need nearly 2/3 of Caucasian voters and those other categories of impacted Democrats make that very difficult. Without making sharp inroads into the Catholic vote, the task is nearly impossible.

We Catholics are not perfect conservatives. Capitalism is the default position. Socialism, Marxism, Fascism (generally) are always the enemy. Conservatives agree on those principles. Catholics who understand the Church's teaching on matters of economics, labor and commerce insist on more. Employees have serious obligations to their employers: honesty, diligence, loyalty in all matters moral, an honest day's work for an honest day's wages. Employers also have serious obligations to their employees: to keep them employed to the extent possible, to pay a fair family-supporting wage, fair treatment. Employees deserve not to be disposed of like used toilet paper at the employers' whim.

Manufacturing has been devastated in our nation. It needs and deserves special support to be revived. The alternative is to continue to outsource manufacturing to hostile Third World nations like Red China. It is hard to imagine that we are benefited by building Red Chinese economic strength at the expense of our own factory workers. Polo playing and paper shuffling produce nothing that you can drive, nothing that you can wear, nothing that you can eat, nothing that will refrigerate your food, etc., etc., etc. Worse still, when we lose our tool and die makers and others like them, we will no longer be able to build our own weaponry and we will be fully ripe for the slaughter. All this so that the polo players can more efficiently clip coupons, reaping the profits from the low wages of their Bangladeshi slaves.

Maybe Rick Santorum has had enough of reductions in the standards of living of ordinary Americans who have been willing to work their backsides off all their lives but have been rendered obsolete economically by the big shots in the front office with the multimillion dollar annual salaries and zillion dollar stock warrants out the ying yang.

As to Newt Gingrich vs. Santorum, give me either one. I would have gladly supported Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain or Rick Perry. Whichever of them has the best shot of defeating Romney gets my vote in the Illinois primary next month.

If I could wave a magic wand and choose one it would be Rick Santorum because he appears to be the very finest man to run for POTUS in my lifetime (and I was a Reagan state chairman). He is a superb husband and father. He was the greatest pro-life hero in the Senate in his time. His enemies have literally nothing against him that is usable. The worst that can be said is that he voted for spending consistent with Catholicism and bought Arlen Specter's support for pro-life judges in Specter's capacity as Senate Judiciary Chairman. Specter, though a pro-abort, was an honest one and had previously gotten Clarence Thomas on SCOTUS by absolutely demolishing Anita Hill and her cornucopia of lies.

Newt Gingrich has been badly wounded by the obvious charges as to marital infidelity. I would gladly vote for him nonetheless but I won't do so as part of a losing minority. If Santorum is in a better position to stop Romney, then Santorum it will be. Gingrich and his supporters must revive his campaign prospects or he is done. I would love to see him and Santorum run together. I would trust Gingrich to come to his senses on the tax questions you raise and that those tax exotica will be DOA in Congress in any event just as 9-9-9 would be.

Finally, as to these persistent attempts to somehow tie religion to voting. I am a Catholic. Each and every POTUS candidate for whom I have voted has been a Protestant of some sort and a Republican. To the extent that some of those candidates have been closer to your sort of Protestantism (if I understand it correctly), that has been a plus and not a minus. I liked Pat Buchanan before he lost his mind on foreign policy and such, not because he was Catholic but because of his positions on issues. I could easily have voted for Pat Robertson for the same reason. I revile Romney because he is a liberal and I do not and cannot trust him. That is in spite of the fact that I have admired personally every Mormon I have ever known. I don't agree with Mormonism (or any other faith not my own) but Mutt's major problem is that he cannot be trusted to be as pro-life, as pro-family and as pro-morality in public policy as a Mormon (or anyone else) should be. Ron Paul is a man I view not as a Baptist but as a crackpot and a very poor excuse for a Baptist. Hopefully that gives you some explanation of why a candidate who is a lifelong and seriously practicing Catholic, well-catechized in the Faith, is not merely Ron Paul in Catholic drag.

God bless you and yours.

“Flat tax/fair tax/tax reform are all nothing but euphemisms for shifting the tax burden from the wealthy and comfortable to the already suffering folks of modest means. As such, each is shameful. These are the proposals of many who think it clever to whine about “class warfare” without honestly recognizing that “class warfare” is a two-way street.”

That’s ridiculous. What we’re talking about is lower tax, equal treatment under the law, and a pro-business environment. I don’t remember saying anything about paying people at 7 cents an hour. All those poor, myself included, would receive a great deal of benefit. You make a lot of assertions, but you don’t actually demonstrate how anything of what you say is correct. You just throw a lot of emotional arguments like some liberal that have absolutely no meaning. However, I do realize that this is typical Catholic stuff, and I recognize a great deal of what you wrote in statements Santorum has repeated. In other words, it’s the anti-reform, pro-welfare state “socialism-lite” that so many believe in.

“You face the problem of fashioning a political majority without the nation’s largest Church if you insist on fang and claw capitalism.”

First of all, the Catholic church represents roughly 20 percent of the population. More than half of that twenty percent is not actively practicing Catholicism. (Maybe even more than that.) More than half of them prefer voting for the same Rats who have promoted abortion, depravity and big government for years. And the leadership of the Catholic church, your priests, your Bishops, your “mighty men”, your publications, so many of them are actively pro-democrat. Conservative leaders are a rarity, and even some of them are still hesitant to bash illegal immigration lest they alienate the hispanic immigrants who are their best replacements for all the native Catholics who are slowly drifting away, or aren’t having any children.

I’m not so sure that I can really alienate your voting bloc by promoting a fair tax or a flat tax.

And THEN you have the nerve to threaten that we will lose the blacks and hispanics too? Hellooooo, they’re slaves to BIG GOVERNMENT, because people keep telling them they NEED IT.

I AM Hispanic, FYI, and I have a great deal of black friends. Believe it or not, the vast majority of them are far more conservative than they even realize. They gravitate to the Democrats because they believe the rhetoric that you spout, but not because they themselves are unreachable.

“If I could wave a magic wand and choose one it would be Rick Santorum because he appears to be the very finest man to run for POTUS in my lifetime (and I was a Reagan state chairman). He is a superb husband and father. He was the greatest pro-life hero in the Senate in his time. His enemies have literally nothing against him that is usable. The worst that can be said is that he voted for spending consistent with Catholicism and bought Arlen Specter’s support for pro-life judges in Specter’s capacity as Senate Judiciary Chairman. Specter, though a pro-abort, was an honest one and had previously gotten Clarence Thomas on SCOTUS by absolutely demolishing Anita Hill and her cornucopia of lies.”

No, the greatest attack against Santorum is that he has no ideas. He offers no solutions, except what has already been tried before. His solution is to continue in the same mediocrity that each of his predecessors have promoted. That is why you spout this meaningless nonsense, while at the same time offering nothing in return except that he’s Catholic and has family values.

By the way, the Catholic Church is also suffering from this same disease that you are promoting. It is also slowly dying, because the old Catholics don’t believe strongly in anything and embrace platitudes. The young are not excited by those platitudes. And the leadership no longer leads. Liberation theology reigns supreme. If the Catholic church wants to survive, it needs to repudiate Socialism, enforce Catholicism, and purge a good portion of Bishops and Priests who have long qualified for it!

Until that time comes, keep your decay to yourself!

My, my, somebody must have peed in your Wheaties today.

Let me translate: Flat tax and "fair" tax are simply schemes to make people of modest means pay income taxes or at least be more likely to do so. Who cares if they are impoverished by the last several decades of shananigans of Muffy, Skipper and Mitt using their trust funds to buy ever better tax treatment at the expense of everyone else. "Lower tax" means lower taxes for the big shots and for no one else. "Equal treatment" means: The rich have to pay taxes. Why not squeeze income taxes out of poorer people. You didn't say anything about paying anyone 7 cents an hour. That is, however, the policy of the greedheads in the big board rooms in the sky. They don't consult you and they don't consult me. If you are actually poor, now you know why. A "pro-business environment" is elitist euphemism for an anti-labor environment. There ought to be a balance between capital and labor as outlined in Rerum Novarum. "Reform" means a program to screw the ordinary American financially for the benefit of the soulless plutocrat.

I make a lot of assertions and I know what I am talking about. This is not high school debate class. I shall consider myself flattered by your recognition that my positions are "typical Catholic stuff."

The accepted number for the percentage of Americans who are Catholic is 26-28%. Next comes the Baptist Church (I believe SBC) with 17%. Now, you may have a point that the Catholic percentage is smaller than the accepted figure if you reduce the percentage by those baptized Catholic who no longer practice (the locus of most of those claimed to be Catholic who vote Demonrat). A Catholic who does not attend weekly Sabbath Masses without adequate excuse is self-excommunicated as are those living in sexual relationships without benefit of marriage, and anyone else in a state of mortal sin. You cannot easily get a handle on the number on any given day. Those Catholics who DO attend weekly Mass are estimated to vote 65% Republican in POTUS elections. When you include everyone ever baptized Catholic and still voting, you get (in 2008) 47% Republican. I would wager that non-churchgoing Baptists are less likely to vote GOP as well.

I am not going to answer each point but here is another one where I disagree with the prevailing "conservative" view at least as measured by noise level: I am English, Irish, Scottish and German in ancestry. To the best of my knowledge, NONE of my ancestors arrived here with "papers" and I am proud of that fact. It is shameful that racial and ethnic quotas were ever developed in the first place. The anti-immigration hysteria WILL have long term deleterious effects on American politics. It is the hysteria and not the immigration that is the problem. How have you become so alienated from your own people as a Hispanic? Is it reflected in your grumbling about most of them remaining Catholic?

That's nice that you have black friends. Are most of them in any danger of voting Republican regularly anytime soon? Yes, they tend to be socially conservative but it is not by the politics of coddling trust fund babies that they would ever be attracted to the GOP.

That's nice that you are Hispanic. Do you doubt that Obozo got 65% of the 2008 Hispanic vote? Do you doubt that anti-immigration hysteria alienates future Hispanic citizens as well as present ones? Would you end "anchor baby" status or deport the parents? Do you think that there is a supersecret handshake that Mexicans must master before they can stay? Shall we deport 15-25 million "illegals?" Shall we recognize that Ronaldus Maximus was ALWAYS favorable to immigration from south of the border from his bracero program as California governor to the amnesty program of the last year of his presidency?

Read the following sooooo slooooowly that even you can understand: I would support Sarah Palin in a heartbeat and she left Catholicism to become a Pentecostal as a minor when her parents did likewise. I would support Michelle Bachmann in a heartbeat. She has never been Catholic, is an Evangelical and formerly belonged to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod which claims the pope (any pope) to be the antiChrist. She is a great lady and that belief (which she denies) would not keep her from getting my vote. Herman Cain is an ordained Baptist minister. No problem. Every single POTUS candidate I have voted for from 1968 to present has been a Protestant. Whatever reservations I have had as to any of them (Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Dole, McCain) had absolutely NOTHING to do with their respective forms of Protestantism or with the fact that they were all Protestants. I voted without reservation for Ronaldus Maximus and Bush II and both were Protestants. Given that history, do you actually suppose that I would vote against either Gingrich or Santorum because each is a fellow Catholic. I would vote against either if he were an actual liberal. Insufficient (to some) money obsession does not define "liberal."

What you actually know about the Catholic Church would fit in a thimble and not all of that would be accurate. Whatever the Church "needs" to survive, it already got from its Founder who guaranteed to be with it to the end of this world. It was in all the Bibles. We are not here to excite anyone. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is our worship not some pathetic "That's Entertainment." We are not here to heed your advice on politics or economics. His Kingdom was and is not of this world. It was in all the Bibles. Your opinions from the wilderness as to which bishops and priests (if any) need to be purged is rather irrelevant to say the least. We are the Church and not a democracy and, thank God, never will be a democracy. As to "liberation theology," see Michael Novak: Will It Liberate? See also the various actions of Popes Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the more localized actions of CELAM, the Latin American Council of Catholic Bishops, and its then secretary Dario Castrillon Cardinal de Hoyos of Columbia in the early 1980s. JP II went to an annual meeting of CELAM, condemned "liberation theology," demanded it be purged and suppressed, delegated to then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (B-XVI today) the job of defrocking and excommunicating its practitioners.

You will be surprised at what we old Catholics believe strongly and what you call "platitudes" are the truth of the Faith.

All that having been said, you won't win politically without us nor shall we without you. You are stuck in alliance politically whether you like it or not. When you deride other Baptists as not being true Baptists, one suspects that you are expressing displeasure at SBC leadership. That is an intramural matter for Baptists. I am glad to be aligned with their political views and efforts. Richard Land, for example, has made major contributions to conservatism.

Perhaps you have a Biblical citation for Christ's sermon on the need to lower upper bracket income taxes or on the need for the widow and orphan to pay more and more and more while the polo players pay less and less and less?

As to keeping our "decay" to ourselves, not to worry. We draft no one. Catholics who are drifting away??? No properly catechized Catholic is ever likely to drift away. The Mass, the Holy Eucharist and the seven sacraments are the guarantee. There may be many departed but poorly catechized "Catholics" who have not a clue as to the tenets of the Faith, the Teaching Magisterium and dogma. They were not of us before they leave. They may be looking for excitement! If they leave, they are not missed. If and when they return, they will be welcomed back. Life goes on.

God bless you and yours.

“Let me translate: Flat tax and “fair” tax are simply schemes to make people of modest means pay income taxes or at least be more likely to do so. Who cares if they are impoverished by the last several decades of shananigans of Muffy, Skipper and Mitt using their trust funds to buy ever better tax treatment at the expense of everyone else. “Lower tax” means lower taxes for the big shots and for no one else. “Equal treatment” means: The rich have to pay taxes. Why not squeeze income taxes out of poorer people. You didn’t say anything about paying anyone 7 cents an hour. That is, however, the policy of the greedheads in the big board rooms in the sky. They don’t consult you and they don’t consult me. If you are actually poor, now you know why. A “pro-business environment” is elitist euphemism for an anti-labor environment. There ought to be a balance between capital and labor as outlined in Rerum Novarum. “Reform” means a program to screw the ordinary American financially for the benefit of the soulless plutocrat.”

Again, you did not bother to actually demonstrate how any of this applies to Newt’s Flat Tax, Perry’s Flat tax (when he was running), Cain’s 999 (a precursor for the fair tax), or the Fair tax.

In each of these situations, the tax is equalized among EVERYONE. In the Newt flat tax, you have the choice of either remaining in the current system with all its deductions and progressive tax rates, or you can choose to go into the 15 percent. Corporate taxes I believe are all flattened to a rate of 12 or so percent.

In 999,the 9 percent income tax almost matches what people would pay who are around the poverty line (provided they are actually working), with perhaps a 1 or 2 percent increase. The vast majority of individuals would be receiving a tax cut. Business taxes would be severely cut to a mere 9 percent. The sales tax, though allegedly regressive, would actually be replacing the embedded 30 or so percent that businesses used to be paying beforehand. In other words, market forces will cheapen products.

The actual Fair Tax follows the same logic, though there is no income tax whatsoever, just a single sales tax of roughly 20 or so percent (I forget the exact number).

In eeevil Texas, we have a sales tax but no income tax, and so we are accused of being “regressive” and all the words of envy you spouted in your post. Despite that, our cost of living is much lower than in other states, and there is far more job opportunity and less debt.

What you fail to realize is that these so called “regressive” taxes, which are actually more fair, are pro-business, which is why the cost of living gets lower, products are cheaper, and there are more jobs. The progressive tax rate is... well, progressive, designed only for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. It does not treat all Americans equally, but punishes success, but without benefiting the actual poor.

As for my black friends. All of them voted for Obama because he was black. When Cain was around, I had them all sold on the 999 plan. My best friend, who is black, was calling herself a Republican despite voting Dem.

Of course, losers like Santorum bashed Cain’s 999 ignorantly, and eventually Cain dropped due to false allegations and due to conservatives unwilling to help support a good man.

So, now I don’t even know who they’re going to vote for. The 999 plan made a lot of sense to a lot of folks.

Instead of pushing this envy stuff, you should actually try analyzing things. None of the emotional arguments work on anyone except for the gullible.

As for illegal immigration. Your opinions on the matter is another example of why Catholics are not as reliable as you say. I have long noticed that many good Bishops, people I would see as quite conservative, were also mushy on illegal immigration. They push words like being “charitable” and all kinds of stuff, but they ignore reality.

My family is entirely Catholic, except for myself. The family is also conservative and anti-illegal immigration. Mind you, I live in Texas, so maybe it’s just the prevailing culture... or it could be that those Hispanics who came over legally, often spending years getting the paperwork and waiting for approval, such as my family for example, would think differently about giving a free pass to the illegals who just swam across the river. My mother, who comes straight from Mexico, considers them all to be criminals and degenerates. This assessment is correct. And considering the sorry state of Mexico and its politics, embracing the poorest of their poor who ignore both Mexican and American laws probably isn’t the wisest thing. Few people also appreciate how strong Liberation Theology (marxist Catholicism) south of the border.

These people like their handouts. Others, of course, are just looking for a better life. They’re poor, but they’re willing to do honest work. Still others are habitual criminals who, honestly, represent the majority of them.

The solution is not a free pass. We as a country have a right to control who can enter our country, since someone who is very poor, with no skills, no ambition, and no desire, can only leach off of our system, which you promote in the name of a misguided government charity.

As for Catholicism’s problems. I assure you, I am correct. The problem is a general weakness amongst the membership and, most especially, in the leaders themselves. The leaders who claim all these powers from God, to forgive sins, to perform their rituals, do not know how to Rule. They are shy. They are afraid. They want to fit in. They want to embrace modernism and to be trendy. So they dance around during mass, sing songs like in a Protestant mass, violate their own dogmas in order to fit in. They embrace shallow charity groups, empty political slogans, and sleep with corrupt people. They have all the imagry of something divine, but lack all of its power. And that is why homo-commie Priests and Bishops run things, and why everyone insists on these flawed, shallow political positions (they don’t like to look at things too closely). They match, much like most of the West, Nietzsche’s description of the “Last Man” in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Mind you, we have the same problem amongst Protestants. But we don’t have any Popes or anything, so our corruption and our weakness isn’t so visible.

As for Papist demographics. According to the CIA world factbook, Catholics represent 21 percent of the population. Protestants I believe were either 48 or 50 percent. From what I know of Catholic culture, half of that 21 percent aren’t practicing Catholic... maybe even 60 or 70 percent. Most of the “new” Catholics are the illegals who swam across the river, or maybe those of us who came over legally, such as my parents. The children of those older Catholics are not that interested. I do sense signs of a somewhat conservative revival amongst younger Catholics, but a lot of them are wishy-washy... like you, and cannot be relied upon.

Either way, they aren’t as big a group as you would think. These Reagan Democrats you mentioned earlier. I don’t think I’ve ever met one. I suspect they are a myth.

9 posted on Sunday, February 12, 2012 3:11:15 PM by Happy Rain: “Newt needs to step aside and endorse Rick—otherwise he will be responsible for splitting the conservative vote and thus hand the nomination to Mitt who will then get stomped by Obama. Newt needs to do what's best for America and let go his big ego. (sounds like the Newt fans not so long ago, doesn't it?;)”

Hey, I was annoyed by the “Shut out Santorum” group a few weeks ago, too, but I said then and I still say now that it's too early for candidates to be dropping out.

Santorum and Gingrich both reach distinct though overlapping constituencies. Polls have consistently showed that a significant percentage of Santorum supporters would vote for Romney as their second choice, unfortunately. I suspect that's also true for some Gingrich supporters.

Let's focus on defeating Romney. Right now it looks like Santorum can take upper midwestern industrial states away from Romney, possibly even including Michigan, while Gingrich is probably going to be more effective in the South. I'm not quite sure why that is happening, but Gingrich seems to be able to get significant numbers of southern religious right voters in South Carolina and probably other states as well.

At least for now, if the goal is to defeat Romney, having Gingrich and Santorum both in the race seems to help.

55 posted on Sunday, February 12, 2012 6:51:09 PM by bog trotter: “I guess that I would rather put my trust in Newt’s claim of repentance over a guy who almost pretends he is ‘without sin.’ I have known both really good cops and pastors who had initially gotten off on the wrong foot. But because they had been there, done that, they were much better able to relate and deal with “sinners” than those who had led a “spotless” life and want to fix everybody else. THAT kind sre scarey to me!”

Show me where Santorum has claimed to be without sin.

I'm not an expert on Roman Catholic theology, but as far as I know, his church teaches that applies only to Jesus and Mary; not even Peter who they claim to be the first Pope falls into that category.

I don't recall anything in canon law or promulgated by the Pope stating that there's a special dispensation from both original and actual sin for former senators from Pennsylvania who are now running for president.

If you're going to criticize a candidate based on his faith, getting the facts about his faith right may be helpful.

My grandparents on my moms side came from Mexico in the twenties. My dad was blond hair with blue eyes, European mix. I went to Catholic elementary and high school, but have been an evangelical Christian for years. When teaching CCD the church told me I was not allowed to teach my second graders scriptures and I should not have a bible; that was only for priest to understand. My mom, sister and I were pushed out of the church because we stood our ground.

Years ago I noticed the pro-abortion people being tolerated and allowed to receive the sacraments, while I could not have a bible. When Al Gore was allowed to use a Catholic gym to speak, I was livid. I was glad I left the church.

This being said, I know God has lead me in my faith and placed me in a church that is in line with God's word. I am so happy to see the Catholic Church finally standing up to what they believe. I have been waiting for all the Bishops to make strong statements about abortion, gay marriage,...like they did these past weeks on health care/contraceptives. I hope to see them “live” their faith by not allowing the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage... politicians receive sacraments and having them excommunicated if they continue to promote sin. Nancy Pelosi is constantly saying she is a practicing Catholic and no one calls her on it.

I think Obama woke a real sleeping giant. Many Catholic people don't practice their faith in their personal lives, but don't like how the left is targeting their church. I think some know they don't live like they should and standing up for the church's rights makes them feel like they are doing something right. If the church stood up to the leftist politicians and their friends, I think most Catholics, even those imperfect ones would stand with them and we would see some drastic changes in many of our politicians positions. The Catholic leaders have the power to move this country in a more righteous way. The question is will they do it.

I am a Christian first and a conservative second, but I do agree with you on several things, that seems to not part of the conservative beliefs. I too think the truly poor should be helped through the tax system. We are to take care of the widow and orphan. Unfortunately, the orphans are a result of mothers who did not marry their father and the children are left fatherless.
I remember around Reagan's time, journalist actually were doing stories about the abuse of the welfare and other social programs. The people who said they could not work, were caught on tape lying about their condition. Some people were caught on tape selling there food stamps so they could buy alcohol, drugs...It looks like it will take the Breitbarts to show how much more cheating their is in the social programs today. We should have common sense rules on receiving government help. Drug testing of all who get any kind of assistance, unwed mothers should be given time; 2-3 years to get a skill or go to school, so they can learn to depend on themselves, and take some of those IRS people and have them investigate those who make living on government assistance and help them cut the cord. Conservatives should help those in need; but make it a centerpiece they will not stand for the fraud that has been accepted for too long.

I believe Santorum wants the tax rates to be up to 28% for the wealthier people and I agree. I look at Romney who makes 20 million a year on interest. I know he gives a lot to his church (I disagree with your respect of the mormon church—people think Ron Paul is out there, take a closer look at mormon beliefs. Besides the fact that they blaspheme Jesus by calling him satans brother, they think they are gods; The first commandment) Should my dad who is retired and makes $22,000 a year pay more taxes so romney and people like him have their taxes stay low? If we handled the truly poor correctly we would take away obama’s platform. Conservative candidates get branded mean-spirited because too many focus on helping the rich keep them money, rather than saying we Will do what is right with the poor.

As far as the immigration problem here is what my mom's side of the family thinks and I agree. We need first and quickly to close the borders and toss out the criminals. My aunt moved out of where they lived so long because the gangs that have taken over the neighborhoods for the last 10 to 15 years. They intimidate all the people and their is no one to stand up to them. Any gang members (check their tattoos) and their families MUST be thrown out, even if they have not broken any laws. As for the rest, I'm not sure. I kind of agree with Newt that we must not throw out those who have been here a long time, have not broken laws (other then being here illegally), who have paid their taxes and
have kept steady work, not taken any government assistance. I don't really like Rick's position to kick them all out. We are suppose to be kind to the strangers in our land.

Of those who chose to read my posting, I'm sure I have made romney, newt, santorum & paul backers mad. I think IF we do what is right and look to both God's word and the constitution when voting, God will honor our vote and answer our prayers. This election has taught me not to trust a party; RNC and their cohorts in the right media have been pushing romney on us conservatives which proves they don't care about the base. When all is said and done, we can only trust God. As for the atheist; you are with us because someone is praying for you and will continue to do so.

After years of being an Evangelical, it may seem strange to you that the Church insists on the right to interpret and apply Scripture. That you attended Catholic elementary and secondary schools does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that you were well-educated (catechized) in the Catholic Faith. Since Vatican II, all too many Catholic school students have been quite poorly served by Church schools and often precisely because the teachers themselves were either poorly catechized or undisciplined substituting their own ideas for Church teaching.

"Standing your ground" in this case means trading in the Mass and the Sacraments and Catholic preaching in exchange for no Mass, fewer Sacraments (i.e., no genuine Eucharist and no Sacrament of Penance as such). Having been catechized by Jesuits sooooo looooong ago that the Jebbies were themselves still Catholic, I cannot imagine voluntarily engaging in that trade.

When a Catholic insists on the "right" to be his or her own authority on the meaning of Scripture, it is time to leave as you did. God gave each of us the gift of free will. Our country via the First Amendment has guaranteed the free exercise of that gift. I cannot imagine a Catholic authority asserting that you should not have a Bible. You may well have suffered the fate of meeting up with such a fool but I can assure you that he was flying in the face of papal authority on the subject.

Whether or not you were to have a Bible or teach other people's children in a second grade class your insights on same has nothing whatever to do with Al Gore appearing in a Catholic gymnasium as a speaker. Gore is a hideous pro-abortion creature (formerly pro-life). He and any other pro-abort should not be allowed to speak in any Catholic venue. That was the policy of John Cardinal O'Connor of NY and of many other bishops although, unfortunately not all. The Nancy Pelosis and Kathleen Gilligan Sebeliuses have been publicly instructed not to approach for Communion in the DC Archdiocese and in Kansas City, KS, in Sebelius's case. John Kerry was publicly instructed not to approach for Communion in many dioceses during his campaign for POTUS and presumably thereafter.

Put me in charge and I would burn every one of these miscreants at the stake after a very brief and one-time-only opportunity to repent as publicly as they have sinned. Given the realities of our declining legal system, I would see each one who claims to be "Catholic" formally and publicly excommunicated and shunned as the moral leper that he or she is: Christopher Dodd, Rosa DeLauro, Tom Daschle, Susan Collins, Scott Brown, Patty Murray, Maria Caldwell, Pat Quinn, Richard Durbin, Tom Harkin, Martin O'Malley, Barbara Mikulski, Robert Menendez, Deborah Stabenow, Lisa Mikulski, Anthony Cuomo, Joseph Biden, and so tragically many more in Congress and governorships. The Catholic Church has disappointed you in this respect and has gravely disappointed the Catholic faithful in this respect as well. I hope that the Catholic Church will do a lot better in the future.

I agree with you on the political issues raised and would add that I have an income less than that of your father. I cannot imagine it just that "conservatives" think that he or I should pay income taxes at all much less at the rate of Romney and those like him.

As to Mormonism, I respect Mormons as people. I obviously do not agree with most of the tenets of the Mormon faith and I am aware of the wilder shores of same which makes me wonder how Romney imagines that his nomination would not cause him to be reviled rather than elected. I do not understand what correlation there could possibly be between Mormon beliefs and the wonderful Mormon people I have known. I remind myself that we Catholics believe that a priest prays over a wafer of unleavened bread and a cup of wine and transubstantiates them into the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the continued appearance of bread and wine. That must seem strange to those not Catholic. I believe nonetheless.

When all is said and done, we CAN only trust God.

May God bless you and yours!

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.