Republican Primary

[CatholicBoy1957]

Santorum’s charitable donations must look like a nail to CNN, and they have a hammer.

Seriously though, I wonder if Santorum has an excuse for this. It looks just terrible. Or is it similar to some of these “studies” we’ve been reading about lately, done by l------ causes, where they create results to say what they want to say. 2 percent is just horrible.

That 14 percent given by Obama. Do we have names of the charities he gave it to? I don’t suppose Planned Parenthood is one of them, is it? Or is that hushed up by law, like most of his past?

 

[ringil]

Santorum’s charitable donations must look like a nail to CNN, and they have a hammer.

Seriously though, I wonder if Santorum has an excuse for this. It looks just terrible. Or is it similar to some of these “studies” we’ve been reading about lately, done by l------ causes, where they create results to say what they want to say. 2 percent is just horrible.

That 14 percent given by Obama. Do we have names of the charities he gave it to? I don’t suppose Planned Parenthood is one of them, is it? Or is that hushed up by law, like most of his past?

What’s a l------?

 

[new_User1357246]

Quote from Santorum’s book:

So what’s the status of America’s social capital account? Church membership in this country rose steadily from the 1930s to about 1960. Since then it has dropped about 10% from the 1960s to the 1990s. We are also less likely to have friends over to our house today than in past years. These trends hold true for our generosity, as well. As a percentage of our income, Americans’ donations to charity steadily increased from after the Depression until 1960. But since then they have steadily declined. As of last year, we gave only one and one-half cent of every dollar made in America to charity, down from over two cents several decades ago. And on this score, I have joined Congressman George Radanovich in an effort he calls the One Percent Solution, to increase the charitable giving rate to 2.5 percent.

Yet he only gives 2.2% himself… hmmmm…

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

What’s a l------?

I think I’m not allowed to say.

Do you have any feelings on the topic?

 

[ringil]

I think I’m not allowed to say.

Do you have any feelings on the topic?

Weird. . . .

Anyway, regarding the OP, I would think that a strict conservative such as Santorum would have a rather high percentage of his income dedicated to charity being that rightists tend to put emphasis on personal charitable giving related to meeting the needs of their fellow man.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Santorum’s charitable donations must look like a nail to CNN, and they have a hammer.

Seriously though, I wonder if Santorum has an excuse for this. It looks just terrible. Or is it similar to some of these “studies” we’ve been reading about lately, done by l------ causes, where they create results to say what they want to say. 2 percent is just horrible.

That 14 percent given by Obama. Do we have names of the charities he gave it to? I don’t suppose Planned Parenthood is one of them, is it? Or is that hushed up by law, like most of his past?

Obama has only increased his charitable giving in the past few years.Prior to that his record was at least as paltry as what is being reported about Santorum.I too am surprised that Santorum has given so little.

 

[bellasbane]

Weird. . . .

Anyway, regarding the OP, I would think that a strict conservative such as Santorum would have a rather high percentage of his income dedicated to charity being that rightists tend to put emphasis on personal charitable giving related to meeting the needs of their fellow man.

One would think, but the the numbers reported certainly tell a different story:

“In 2010, the rate dropped to 1.76% of his $923,411 in income. That same year, President Obama gave 14.2% of his income to charity, while Mitt Romney donated 13.8% and Newt Gingrich gave 2.6%.”

The Catholics are certainly lagging behind. One would think the Church’s social justice work deserves better support than that.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Weird. . . .

Anyway, regarding the OP, I would think that a strict conservative such as Santorum would have a rather high percentage of his income dedicated to charity being that rightists tend to put emphasis on personal charitable giving related to meeting the needs of their fellow man.

Weird indeed. I can’t make sense of what he’s saying, or not saying.

But yes, it does not seem to complement is proclaimed views very well at all.

Imagine that, a politician who says one thing an does the opposite. What are the odds?

 

[Dawnia]

Quote from Santorum’s book:

Yet he only gives 2.2% himself… hmmmm…

Actually this only means he claimed the 2.2% on his taxes. Tax returns aren’t always an accurate picture of charitable giving. If it was, then I am owed a refund from quite a few charities, since my tax return lists my giving at 0%.

 

[Thomas_B]

Not necessarily.

When anyone jumps to “government action” as the solution to any problem, I have to interject, and ask, “Why?”.

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America. Many people don’t eat healthfully, or exercise nearly as much as they should (sloth and gluttony, anyone?) That said, I am not okay with the government forcing me to jog, or taking away my burgers.

(Btw, I’m not saying each individual’s heart disease is caused by sloth or gluttony, but across America, there’s no doubt both sins are huge factors.)

Edit: I do believe a good answer to any of these issues is changing our culture through evangelization.

Hi Havard,

Well, the government certainly plays a role in creating laws to regulate ‘practical’ morality. That is, murder is a crime because it impinges upon the rights of others to live, stealing is a crime because it deprives another of justly acquired resources. Your example of heart disease is an interesting one because there is no direct cause and effect link that impinges on another’s rights. But when you think about, widespread poor eating choices increases the health insurance risk pools which then translates into higher premiums on those who responsibly lead a healthy lifestyle. So one could argue that the government should play an active role in health policy.

Then there is the governnment’s role in ‘non practical’ morality, such as laws passed to prohibit gay marriage. Gay marriage does not impinge upon a straigh couple’s right to get married- so you are not depriving the straight couple of their rights. However, society at times sees fit to define its institutions according to its beliefs.

At any rate, if we as Catholics believe that abortion is murder (and we do), and murder is illegal from a practical morality, then it only follows that an anti-abortion/pro-life candidate should support outlawing birth control- at least oral contraceptives. But again, in addition to practical morality, Santorum must also practice ‘practical politics’. There is widespread acceptance of birth control by our society and many other major religions in our country are okay with it, so Santorum cannot be too strongly against birth control or it will kill his candidacy.

 

[Thomas_B]

Are you really advocating that we encode the Catechism of the Catholic Church into the US Code of Federal Regulations? What’s next, mandatory celebration of the Eucharist?

Why not, if Catholicism presided in this country, you would theoretically have a great country because of the truth embodied in our religion.

But of course from a practical standpoint this is not likely to happen, at least not for a very long time. But what I am saying is that there is an inherent conflict in Santorum’s life position.

He is pro-life, against abortion. As a Catholic he believes abortion is murder. He would favor outlawing abortion. Oral contraceptives are abortifacients that facilitate abortion but he is okay with other’s rights to use them. So his position on life issues is politically inconsistent. But like I say, I get why he is not taking a stronger stand against birth control- because the vast majority in this country think its okay and if he took a stronger stand he would not be a viable presidential candidate.

 

[Thomas_B]

No one asked me to be specific. Of course I find all abortifacient drugs to be a moral anathema and should be outlawed. The direct and purposeful killing of another person by whatever means must be made illegal.

Sounds like we are on the same page.

 

[The_Rock]

Yes Obama’s giving increased in the last few years, so has his income.
Here is his income and charitable giving prior to holding national office:

2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)
2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)
2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)

 

[ProVobis]

He is pro-life, against abortion. As a Catholic he believes abortion is murder. He would favor outlawing abortion. Oral contraceptives are abortifacients that facilitate abortion but he is okay with other’s rights to use them. So his position on life issues is politically inconsistent. But like I say, I get why he is not taking a stronger stand against birth control- because the vast majority in this country think its okay and if he took a stronger stand he would not be a viable presidential candidate.

You do have a good point and perhaps something the candidate probably doesn’t realize. While contraceptives are not a problem per se for non-Catholics, certainly the ones which can abort can at least be put on some warning list as potential killers. And I wouldn’t trust the Department of Health with producing such a list.

 

[kubark]

link to article: cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57380947/paul-u.s–slipping-into-a-fascist-system/

I can’t say that I disagree with the good doctor’s assessment.

Ron Paul is a student of John T. Flynn. In 1944, Flynn wrote the classic yet largely overlooked work, *As We Go Marching *(can be read in PDF format for free here: blog.mises.org/5772/as-we-go-marching-by-john-t-flynn/).

Some of Flynn’s observations:

"*If fascism is the work of a handful of brutal and lawless men, we need have no fear of it here. We are never without leaders both able and corrupt. But they are not sufficiently numerous and powerful to make very much headway against the peculiar structure of our government. If the phenomenon is merely a manifestation of the paranoid mentality of the German people then certainly we are in no danger of infection unless we, too, are a little demented.

But alas, the most terrifying aspect of the whole fascist episode is the dark fact that most of its poisons are generated not by evil men or evil peoples, but by quite ordinary men in search of an answer to the baffling problems that beset every society. Nothing could have been further from the minds of most of them than the final brutish and obscene result. The gangster comes upon the stage only when the scene has been made ready for him by his blundering precursors.*"

Flynn goes to identify some of the major devices of Fascism:

1. Unrestrained government managed by a “leader.”
2. Corporativism.
3. Syndicalist economic model.
4. Autarchial principle.
5. Public spending and borrowing.
6. Militarism.
7. Imperialism.

Flynn goes to say that:

"The commonly accepted theory that fascism originated in the conspiracy of the great industrialists to capture the state will not hold. It originated on the Left. Primarily it gets its first impulses in the decadent or corrupt forms of socialism - from among those erstwhile socialists who, wearying of that struggle, have turned first to syndicalism and then to becoming the saviors of capitalism by adapting the devices of socialism and syndicalism to the capitalist state. The industrialists and nationalists joined up only when the fascist squadrons had produced that disorder and confusion in which they found themselves lost. Then they supposed they perceived dimly at first, and then more clearly, in the preachments of the fascists, the germs of an economic corporativism that they could control. Fascism is a leftist product - a corrupt and diseased offshoot of leftist agitation."

Flynn goes on to say that:

"One of the most baffling phenomena of fascism is the almost incredible collaboration between men of the extreme Left and the extreme Right in its creation. The explanation lies at this point. Both Right and Left joined in this urge for regulation. The motives, the arguments, and the forms of expression were different, but all drove in the same direction."

Flynn goes on to demonstrate how Agostino Depretis, Italy’s first Liberal prime minister, started Italy on the road to fascism. Flynn’s study of Italy, the first modern Fascist state, is the best part of his book. It is a historical paradigm worth examining as the situation in Italy at the end of the 19th century is very similar to our current crisis.

Whittaker Chambers, in his 1944 review of Flynn’s book, concludes that:

Americans have been told, and most of them in their simple way believe, that a fascist is a man in a brown, black or silver shirt who hates Jews. These shirted hoodlums, says Mr. Flynn, certainly exist. But their numbers are comparitively small and their activities are a matter chiefly for the police. The real fascists in the United States do not dress like color charts. Neither do they invariably hate Jews. Nor is fascism primarily a revolt against civilization. “It is, alas,” says Mr. Flynn, “not a revolt against Western culture but a fruit - bitter and poisnous - of that culture.”

 

[_Abyssinia]

Bad news for Barack Obama – the culture war is back

It’s official: the culture war is back. The flap over Barack Obama’s attempt to force Catholic organisations to provide their employees with contraception coverage has reignited the decades old conflict between feckless libertines and fundamentalist Christians. Who will win this round, we cannot know. But the 2012 election could easily turn from a battle over dollars into a battle over souls. And that’s probably not good news for Obama.

In short, the revival of the culture war is probably good news for Rick Santorum, bad news for “Massachusetts moderate” Mitt Romney, and even worse news for Obama. The fight is on and it’s going to get nasty. As Pat Buchanan would say, “Culture warriors, don’t wait for orders from headquarters! Mount up and ride to the sound of the guns!”

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100137181/bad-news-for-barack-obama-the-culture-war-is-back/

 

[JimR-OCDS]

While society today judges this event as rather macabre, I find it a solid indictment of his pro-life credentials in that he and his wife considered their son to be human and part of their family before he was even born.

I agree. My wife, myself and the rest of our family, held the body of my dead grandson, who was still-born at 20 weeks. We did it in the delivery room where the doctors and nurses let us have our quiet time together, as we morned the loss of my daughter’s son.

However, it’s public perception that wins or loses elections.

For many, sleeping with the corpse is over the top.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I really took a serious look at Santorum over the past couple weeks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we’d end up with another George W. Bush.

His voting record while in Congress is dismal, supporting everything Bush put forth, which is why he was booted from congress by a large margine, by the people of his own state

I’m seriously thinking of voting for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday. Not that I think he has a chance of winning, but because I can’t vote for he rest of them.

Jim

 

[gnjsdad]

I really took a serious look at Santorum over the past couple weeks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we’d end up with another George W. Bush.

His voting record while in Congress is dismal, supporting everything Bush put forth, which is why he was booted from congress by a large margine, by the people of his own state

Yes indeed.

What we should never lose sight of, is that what’s going on here is first and foremost a quest for votes. Santorum, as the last under-scrutinized un-Romney standing, is trying to capitalize on the obvious distaste for Romney among GOP primary voters. This quest for votes should in no way be taken as an indication of a future policy thrust of a future Santorum administration. Because his message is aimed at social conservatives does not mean he will follow through on their agenda. It’s happened before. History tells us something. Santorum is also taking money from interests that have an altoghther different agenda than that of the “blue collar” Catholics he is appealing to now.

I believe follow the money is appropos. Thus, if Santorum gets elected, we will get an aggressive “bomb Iran” foreign policy and a corporatist economic agenda. IOW, as you said, another George W Bush agenda. The social conservatives will once again be left to wait their turn, something they have been doing almost 40 years now.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes indeed.

What we should never lose sight of, is that what’s going on here is first and foremost a quest for votes. Santorum, as the last under-scrutinized un-Romney standing, is trying to capitalize on the obvious distaste for Romney among GOP primary voters. This quest for votes should in no way be taken as an indication of a future policy thrust of a future Santorum administration. Because his message is aimed at social conservatives does not mean he will follow through on their agenda. It’s happened before. History tells us something. Santorum is also taking money from interests that have an altoghther different agenda than that of the “blue collar” Catholics he is appealing to now.

I believe follow the money is appropos. Thus, if Santorum gets elected, we will get an aggressive “bomb Iran” foreign policy and a corporatist economic agenda. IOW, as you said, another George W Bush agenda. The social conservatives will once again be left to wait their turn, something they have been doing almost 40 years now.

Not to mention a man who lacks knowledge of the Middle East and supports Israel blindly.

Jim