Reader: WSJ bemoans drop in consumer debt, Vile sex-ed planned in NYC, Jindal reelected, Santorum slams the pill

Welcome to the Lunchtime Reader, where we assemble important stories to keep your eyes on.

Since the financial crisis, millions of families have stopped using credit cards, have accelerated mortgage payments and have delayed purchased until they have the cash. Total household debt has dropped by $1.1 trillion or 8.6% since mid-2008. To this glorious news, leave it to the Wall Street Journal to wag their finger. Jon Hilsenrath and Ruth Simon wrote an article called “Spenders Become Savers, Hurting Recovery.” Talk about insanity. http://cvote.to/69 (Subscription required).

A proposed sex ed curriculum for New York City schools is getting parents angry. Workbooks for older students direct them to a website run by Columbia University, which “explores topics such as sexual positions, porn stars, and bestiality,” according to NBC New York. http://cvote.to/67

Good grief: Sen. John McCain raised the prospect of military action against Syria. “The Syrian revolution may now be entering a new phase. The opposition has formed the Syrian National Council seeking to better organize itself. There are increasing reports of defections from the army,” said McCain. http://cvote.to/68

Bobby Jindal, a pro-life Catholic Republican, sailed to an easy re-election as Governor of Louisiana Saturday. He won 67% of the vote and won every single parish (county) in the state. His nearest competitor had only 18%. Once considered a possible 2012 presidential candidate, Jindal opted to endorse neighboring governor Rick Perry. Jindal’s next term will likely focus on education and health care reform.  http://cvote.to/6A

Sen. Rick Santorum says if he’s elected president, he’ll not only end all funding for contraception, but he’ll talk as president about the dangers of contraception. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” said Santorum. That quote might endear him to Culture of Life Catholic voters, but it pretty much guarantees that he won’t win the White House in this current cultural climate. http://cvote.to/6D

Quote of the Day

“Conservatives ought to hate the big banks because they are the enemies of capitalism.” – Tim Carney, Washington Examiner columnist. http://cvote.to/6C

Notes:

Stay tuned later today for my interview with Sen. George LeMieux, R-FL. LeMieux was appointed to the U.S. Senate in August 2009 to serve out the remainder of Mel Martinez’ term. Marco Rubio now holds that seat. LeMieux now wants back in the Senate and hopes to defeat incumbent Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson.

Listen to Drew Mariani’s show this afternoon at 5:15 pm Eastern. I’ll be on to discuss Herman Cain’s recent comments on abortion. You can listen online here. http://cvote.to/6B

Other articles of interest:

The harm of addiction to pornography documented. http://cvote.to/6E

Roll Call forecasts the six most-expensive Congressional races in 2012. http://cvote.to/6F

After attacking Rick Perry for charging illegal immigrants tuition at the same rate as citizens of Texas, the L.A. Times notes that Romneycare provided health care for illegal immigrants. http://cvote.to/6G

1,530 views

Categories:Uncategorized

7 thoughts on “Reader: WSJ bemoans drop in consumer debt, Vile sex-ed planned in NYC, Jindal reelected, Santorum slams the pill

  1. Ryan Haber says:

    That’s because the Wall Street Journal, admittedly coming from a different perspective than most MSM, and having a considerably more intelligent staff, is still operating out of a fundamentally Keynesian framework.

    The Tim Carney quotation is pretty right-on in what he means, but not what he says. Big banks are a form of concentration of more and more wealth/power in fewer hands, every bit as much as collectivist state is. They are both the enemies of free trade: only one is capitalist and the other communist.

    The first proper functions of man-made law is to restrain the strong from abusing the weak and to teach right from wrong. Secondly, law is to provide a modicum of order to society by codifying conventions (like driving on the right, etc). It is not the province of law to steal peoples’ wealth or to aid and abet those who do so. For a society to be safe and free, some law is absolutely essential. This fact is no less true in a society’s economic life, which is after all just a part of the overall life of a society. We must dispense with the idea that a regulated market is not a free market, when in fact, without appropriate regulations, a market will become increasingly dominated by a few very wealthy and powerful interests, as surely as the same happens in a market with too many regulations.

  2. Andy Kirchoff says:

    For the Sen. LeMeiux interview:

    - Why does he support abortion in cases of rape and incest?
    - Why does he support civil unions?
    - What does he think about his former boss, Charlie Crist, becoming an independent?
    - Why did he vote against the DREAM Act?

  3. Brian C says:

    Joshua,

    I understand what you have said in your responses. My point is that, because the comments (most Americans don’t agree with him, he can’t win emphasizing those positions) are going to come from the secular media anyway, they don’t need to be repeated by us also.

  4. Brian C says:

    “Sen. Rick Santorum says if he’s elected president, he’ll not only end all funding for contraception, but he’ll talk as president about the dangers of contraception. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” said Santorum. That quote might endear him to Culture of Life Catholic voters, but it pretty much guarantees that he won’t win the White House in this current cultural climate.”

    I had been skeptical of the claims of Whitney and others regarding the coverage of Santorum by this website, but I must comment. Why did you need to include the last sentence in the above paragraph?

    1. Joshua Mercer says:

      Brian, I said that because as we stand here today, 86% of Americans believe that the Pill is “good” for society, with 54% stating that it is “very good.” Source: http://cvote.to/6H. That doesn’t mean that a person who thinks the Pill is bad is unelectable. It just means that the more that a candidate emphasizes the issue, the greater the chance voters will pick a different person to serve as president. A candidate who was concerned about winning the general election would chose to not talk about this subject. But since I believe Santorum realizes that his chances of winning the nomination are small, I think he’s emphasizing this to endear him to a block of Culture of Life Catholic voters. I think he sees his role in the 2012 campaign as the social conservative conscience. The person that ensures that the Republican Party doesn’t forget to emphasize the life and family issues.

    2. Whitney says:

      When Santorum is mentioned on this website, he is not painted in a negative light, but it’s done with defeatist wording. Rick Santorum stands up for Catholic beliefs and prioritizes them according to how important they are, and the implication is that we should give up on him for doing so because those beliefs aren’t mainstream across the USA. In other words, because Rick Santorum won’t compromise on his beliefs (and good for him), we need to compromise on ours by voting for the “most electable” candidate. And now, it’s happened again. In other news, scroll down a few stories on this blog to see an article patting the duplicitous Rick Perry on the back, who (all of a sudden!) has discovered sudden gusto for a pro-life platform.

      1. Joshua Mercer says:

        Whitney, it’s not about compromising moral teaching. If one has as his goal changing the hearts and minds of 86% of Americans from thinking contraception is good into thinking it is bad, I’m all for it. To do so in a presidential campaign would mean you would almost surely not win. Substitute anything else that has 86% support and this remains true. (Keeping heroin illegal likely has near 90% approval). Does this mean that a pro-life candidate can never broach the subject for fear of losing? Not necessarily. One could say something like: “Contraception is not the panacea that everyone makes it out to be. There are consequences.” In analyzing Santorum’s remarks, I believe I am simply making an observation about how Americans would perceive what he is saying and how they would vote based on it. I might be wrong. But I don’t say this with malice. The comment earlier about heroin might have seen out of left field, but at a presidential debate May 6, Rep. Ron Paul advocated legalizing heroin. On that issue, he’s a true believer, but giving that answer pretty much guaranteed that he wouldn’t win the Republican nomination.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.