Catholics for Ron Paul

Catholics for Ron Paul 2012

2011-07-16T14:42:00.001-06:00

Check out the Catholics for Ron Paul 2012 here.

Ron Paul and Pius IX

2008-02-04T22:05:00.000-06:00

John Zmirak, of Taki's Top Drawer, offers a provocative argument in favor of the Ron Paul Revolution and what could be called Tory anti-statism:

It seems clear that the public sphere in America is irretrievably secular. So the only logical response of Christians must be to try to shrink it. Instead of attempting to baptize a Leviathan which turned on us long ago, we’d do much better to cage and starve the beast. We should favor low taxes—period, regardless of the “good” use to which politicians promise to put it. We should oppose nearly every government program intended to achieve any aim whatsoever. We can make exceptions here and there: We can favor the protection of innocent lives, which would cover things like fixing traffic lights and throwing abortionists into prison. But that is pretty much that. Christian public policy should focus not on capturing the power of the State but shrinking it, to the bare minimum required to enforce individual rights, narrowly defined. Likewise, the share of our wealth seized by the state must be radically slashed, to allow for private initiatives and charities that will not be amoral, soulless, bureaucratic and counterproductive (like the secular welfare state). Instead of asking for handouts to our schools in the forms of vouchers, we should seek the privatization of public schools—which by their very nature, in today’s post-Christian America, are engines of secularism. And so on for nearly every institution of the centralized State, which has hijacked the rightful activities of civil society and the churches, and which every year steals so much of our wealth to squander on itself that we can barely afford to reproduce ourselves.

Zmirak concludes, that while he would essentially prefer a return of the Hapsburg dynasty and that the unity of the crown and altar can be persued in some communities, it cannot be done so here in the good ole USA:

In many cultural contexts, the State can fruitfully employ its power to promote the faith and morals held in common by a community. But that can’t happen here. Not in America. Several of our Founders, and generations of our lawyers, have seen to that. We have no more reason to cooperate with the secular state than Irishmen have to trust the British Crown. And that’s how I reconcile Ron Paul with Pius IX.

Colbert on Ron Paul

2008-02-02T09:52:00.000-06:00

Stephen Colbert, political satirist and practicing Catholic, has a hillarious piece on Ron Paul's latest performance at the Republican debate:

The Federal Reserve is No Magisterium

2008-02-01T11:50:00.001-06:00

Nicholas von Hoffman writes in The Nation:

Paul is the contender who seems to understand that the Federal Reserve Board is not the Vatican and that its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not the pope. It's a fixed practice by our politicians to treat whoever is the chairman of the Fed as though he were endowed with infallible powers.

On Wall Street, the sharper ones know better. They understand that lowering interest rates every time the stock market swoons will eventually, or even a lot sooner, bring a world of pain down on us. As it is, thanks to the Fed, interest rates are lower than the rate of inflation. This anomalous condition is called "negative interest," and for savers it means that their money is disappearing even as it rests safely tucked away in certificates of deposit.

Our country's pervasive monetary ignorance is finally yielding to the wise instruction of Ron Paul and the bitter lessons of current experience. Inflation has been a problem in this country for many years, primarily from the fractional reserve banking practices of the Federal Reserve system. To Catholics who are interested in the moral problems behind economic phenomena, I urge a reading of this great essay by Professor Jorg Guido Hulsmann called "The Cultural and Spiritual Legacy of Fiat Inflation":

The spiritual dimension of these inflation-induced habits seems to be obvious. Money and financial questions come to play an exaggerated role in the life of man. Inflation makes society materialistic. More and more people strive for money income at the expense of personal happiness. Inflation-induced geographical mobility artificially weakens family bonds and patriotic loyalty. Many of those who tend to be greedy, envious, and niggardly anyway fall prey to sin. Even those who are not so inclined by their natures will be exposed to temptations they would not otherwise have felt. And because the vagaries of the financial markets also provide a ready excuse for an excessively parsimonious use of one’s money, donations for charitable institutions will decline.

National Catholic Register on Ron Paul

2008-01-23T11:20:00.000-06:00

Today's headline piece in the National Catholic Register, "Ron Paul Draws Passionate Support", by Charlie Spiering features two quotations from yours truly:

Paul stands alone among the Republican presidential candidates as one who voted against the Iraq war, stating that it was unconstitutional, since it never received a congressional declaration of war. If elected president, Paul promises to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Thomas Peters, who runs the blog American Papist, contributes to a blog called Catholics for Ron Paul. He noted that since the Vatican hasn’t spoken magisterially about the Iraq war, Catholics can continue to debate the issue. “He [Paul] has philosophical and rational reasons for why he thinks that American involvement isn’t the best choice,” said Peters. “He examines the question using principles of just war theory, specifically speaking about the Christian tradition of a just war,” he added.
Paul mentioned the Vatican’s comments regarding the Iraq War when paying tribute to John Paul II’s legacy. “The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty,” he said on the floor of the House of Representatives on April 6, 2005, four days after the Pope’s death.
Although initially a supporter of the death penalty, Paul changed his position after studying the issue throughout his political career.
Some religious voters remain skeptical about a vote for Paul, as his strict interpretation for the Constitution pits him against federal legislation to ban prostitution, drugs and homosexual “marriage.”
Peters said, “Ron Paul voted against the marriage amendment, but only because he thought it was non-constitutional, not because he doesn’t think marriage isn’t a union of a man and a woman.”

Ron Paul addressed the March for Life yesterday, but sadly I missed it. There were several Ron Paul supporters at the March, some of them carrying "Ron Paul for Life" banners.

Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) endorsed Dr. Paul for President yesterday, as Casey Khan predicted on Monday.

Ron Paul & Jane Roe

2008-01-21T17:05:00.000-06:00

The word on the street, with regard to tomorrow's March for Life, is that Norma Leah McCorvey, Jane Roe of the infamous Roe v. Wade, is going to hold a press conference with Dr. Paul at 10:30am at the Phoenix Park Hotel on the Hill.

According to David Freddoso at National Review Online, "The campaign would not directly answer whether she's going to endorse Paul, but they sure hinted at it."

For more on Ron Paul's pro-life views see here & here.

For a fresh approach to the abortion problem, see the We the People Act: HR 300, proposed by Ron Paul.

America: Ron Paul and Catholic Social Teaching

2008-01-18T14:47:00.000-06:00

Micheal Sean Winters has written a ridiculous blog post titled "Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and Catholic Social Teaching" for the left oriented Jesuit publication America. Nice title for a piece where only one mere sliver of Catholic Social Teaching is even mentioned. Further, he takes a very narrow view of libertarianism, namely the libertine variety that is often associated with places like the Cato Institute and he claims the libertarian patron saint is none other than the uber-egoist Ayn Rand. Of course, if this was libertarianism properly understood, as a universal philosophy of living life, then Catholics have no place holding such a political philosophy.

However, if there were ever a patron saint of libertarianism, particularly in the modern era, it would probably be the Catholic political philosopher Lord Acton, who famously stated that "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." While Acton holds such a high view of liberty, it should be noted that this view does not go beyond what is political. In other words, Winters is correct when he says "[Catholics] do not value human autonomy..." Naturally, the human person is more than just some automaton living out an existence of extreme independence. From birth, we are dependent on parents. At extreme old age and infirmity, we are dependent on our children and our siblings. In our economy, we are interdependent on the actions of our fellow man by making mutual gains from exchange, trade. Most importantly, as Catholics we are dependent on God. Without, the Lord the Giver of life, we'd have no life. Without the sacrifice of the Son on Calvary, we'd have no Resurrection. And so we come to the highest end of humanity, to love the Lord our God with all our hearts and all our souls. Thus, it is not a necessary condition that libertarian political ideal need be construed to encompass all facets of a persons life beyond its practice politically.

Libertarian political thought can be summarized as the Golden Rule in negative form, do not to your brothers as you would have not done to you. This ideal should be seen as a bare minimum for human interaction, and not as a complete universal to human interaction. Caritas to our fellow man is still required, but it does not follow that it is to be carried out through means of brute force and coercion. The Catholic or Christian libertarian simply looks to follow the Golden Rule in negative form regarding political interaction, and in positive form for the balance of his human interaction.

I'd recommend Winters look beyond the libertines to other sources of libertarian thought before spouting his mouth off about things he does not understand. Reading authors like Locke and Cicero, as well as to Catholic sources like John of Salisbury and the Spaniards at Salamanca of the Late Scholastic period to get a sense of where libertarians might be coming from. Besides since when was the Cato Institute the Libertarian Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Winters argues that since Cato once had a vile conference promoting a book on genetically altered "Designer Babies", that this passes for libertarian thinking everywhere. Winters seems to have no idea that the Cato Institute has never had nor ever will have any amity with Ron Paul. And as to why he didn't get the memo from his New Republic buddies on their well timed smear of Ron Paul, I don't know? In any case, Ron Paul has always been outside what is often held as mainstream libertarianism, namely because he's a pro-life country doctor and family man, that views libertarianism as a political philosophy and not as some means to live a life of decadent license. Ron Paul doesn't exasperate people like Winters at their cosmopolitan dinner parties with talk of eliminating traffic signals. No instead, Paul just goes home to see the grand kids.

So while we're talking about life, liberty, and Catholic Social Teaching, let's see how Winters measures up Paul.

Isolationism?

Winters, like most others, derides Ron Paul's foreign policy as isolationist. What practitioner of Catholic Social Teaching does Winters site in refutation? That Catholic paragon known as Harry Truman of course. Winters could at least cite George Weigel or Father Neuhaus, but Truman? You know, the only man crazy enough to deploy nuclear weapons against human beings at two of Japan's largest Christian cities. So, in a truly nuclear move, "[Paul's] isolationist foreign policy views were happily repudiated by Harry Truman and GOP Sen. Arthur Vandenberg more than 50 years ago." I guess the murders at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a smashing success in destroying the idea of an "isolationist" foreign policy. Maybe Winters is referring to the United Nations and all the fruitful works that have resulted with its interventions in Korea, Palestine, and the Balkans. But, then again, mass death comes with the blue helmets too. In any case, in calling Ron Paul a "wingnut" Winters fails to address Paul's invocation of St. Augustine's Just War thesis or his call to consider the Golden Rule when thinking about foreign regimes. It is quite disconcerting when an author at a prominent Jesuit publication derides a non-interventionist foreign policy invoking peace, diplomacy, and trade in an off handed manner by means of Harry Truman, an acolyte of belligerent warmongery. Paul's foreign policy can be rightly described by John XXIII's encyclical, Pacem in Terris, as a method to regulate relations between the US and other states by the principle of freedom. "This means that no country has the right to take any action that would constitute an unjust oppression of other countries, or an unwarranted interference in their affairs." Which is exactly what Ron Paul has consistently called for on the floor of the House of Representatives, in the GOP debates, and on the campaign trail. As for Truman's foreign policy, you know the Satanic idea that we have to kill them over there before they might try to think about killing us over here, Elizabeth Anscombe gets it right reminding us of Saint Paul who argued that we must not do evil that good may come:

"When I say that to choose to kill the innocent as a means to one's ends is murder, I am saying what would generally be accepted as correct. But I shall be asked for my definition of "the innocent". I will give it, but later. Here, it is not necessary; for with Hiroshima and Nagasaki we are not confronted with a borderline case. In the bombing of these cities it was certainly decided to kill the innocent as a means to an end."

Gold Standard

If one does not understand how the Federal Reserve operates, essentially by what is called fractional reserve banking, I can understand how they might not be alarmed by what is being done to our currency. However, through the means of merely printing money with no disciplined approach, the Federal Reserve has dramatically decreased the purchasing power of our currency. To those who worry about the ideal of a Just Wage, they should consider Ron Paul's arguments in favor of the gold standard as a means of reigning in a regime of monetary permissiveness that has consistently operated to serve the best interests of Wall Street bankers and corporate America. Further, monetary permissiveness has hurt most those living on fixed incomes, particularly the elderly. It is my understanding that all government policies, in light of the CST, should consider the common good rather than the private interests of a business elite. I'd hope writers at America who show concern for America's poor would consider how a stable currency comports with a view to the common good, in contrast to the chaos and hyper-speculative activity that results from fractional reserve banking.

Social Welfare Programs

It is true that Dr. Paul wishes, in the long run, to eliminate Federal welfare programs as well as federal income tax. However, he does take the realistic view that Social Security, Welfare, and VA benefits are programs that people have become dependent on which will take time to eliminate. He has consistently said that by reigning in our interventionist foreign policy, that he would use such funding to continue provide Federal welfare for those in need. Which brings us back to libertarians and understanding the human coniditon, where Paul recognizes the fact that many are dependent on such programs and that it would be inhumane to cut people from them cold turkey. Of course what is at stake for these people is their dignity, and as such, it is the hope of some Catholic libertarians that when government forms of welfare are eliminated, private forms of Catholic charity can more than fill the gap with the vigor and love which they have been renowned for hundreds of years. It's time to stop crowding out charity based on caritas, with the bureaucratic form, dull and lifeless.

Next time, when Micheal Sean Winters writes about Ron Paul's policy ideas and Catholic Social Teaching, maybe he could address them substantively, based on research about Ron Paul's actual ideas and not on some libertine caricatures. Hopefully he'll actually address, in some manner, the social teaching of the Church.

Ron Paul, Race, & Life

2008-01-13T18:37:00.000-06:00

The last few days have been a trying time for Ron Paul and his followers with regard to past newsletters. There is no denying that some of the content of these newsletters are particularly objectionable. Here is the now famous assertions about these newsletters which have come up in The New Republic. Of these reported newsletters, some, though not all the material is objectionable. The comments that deserve condemnation, are the characterizations of black people as "animals" and "fleet footed." These comments are racist and they violate the commandment that we shall "love our neighbor." There are also some objectionable and potentially slanderous comments about Dr. Martin Luther King. Without proof of these allegations about King, such comments violate the commandment to not bear false witness against our neighbors, which I think includes the dead.

Ron Paul has said in apology, "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin... I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

These past actions present an opportunity and should be seen as a blessing by the Ron Paul movement, as well as by the conservatives and libertarians who are advancing this small but growing political revolution. So let us take this opportunity to examine Ron Paul's consistent views on life and liberty and how they comport with a view of race that is rooted in agape, or love of fellow man. Of course, humanity itself does not exist without life, and as Paul has correctly explained, without life, there is no liberty. From the teaching of the Church, we know that life begins at conception. As such, Ron Paul has introduced Federal legislation recognizing this fundamental precept.

An ongoing discussion in the pro-life movement is the notion that the proliferation of abortion and contraception, originating in the Progressive Era of the 1900's, had a substantial eugenic motive to root out blacks, Catholics, and other minorities for the supremacy of the white race. Planned Parenthood foundress, Mary Margaret Sanger is often regarded as one such supremacist. In speaking about her Negro Project, Sanger states:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Enter pro-life advocate Dr. Alveda King. King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King and a victim of a forced abortion as well as one of her own choice. King reports that since 1973, 15 million black people have met the fate of abortion such that "[r]oughly one quarter of the black population is now missing."

“The great irony,” King said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”

Naturally, it makes sense that Sanger did her time with the evil Klan.

Which brings us back to Ron Paul. Dr. Paul, a pro-life obstetrician, makes a natural ally with Dr. Alveda King. He offers a fresh approach to the federal pro-life strategy in seeking to eliminate all funding of Planned Parenthood, as well as eliminating Federal court jurisdiction to hear cases regarding sexual matters and abortion. By such elimination of judicial review of such cases, they can be remanded to the states, where at least some pro-life states can enforce the law against such a murderous act. The murder of so many which includes a disproportionate number of blacks and hispanics, is as King argues, genocide.

In giving her testimony to life, King says:

"So I want to remind you, that the babies are lights too, and they have life. And so as we choose life, then we're giving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all people, and that is really the civil rights issue of the day."

Therefore, the Ron Paul Revolution would do well to heed the wisdom of the true heir to Martin Luther King's civil rights legacy, and speak out against the hard hearts which bring about the hatred which leads to both the evils of racism and abortion.

To that end, here are some more pro-life resources:

Priests for Life
National Black Pro-Life Union
Bioethics Defense Fund
==========================================

Update: Next Ron Paul Money Bomb is the day before the March for Life, Martin Luther King Day.

The State Cannot Replace Caritas

2008-01-12T18:37:00.000-06:00

The comboxes have had some great discussion lately. One of our commenters correctly states in regards to Ron Paul's stance of a de facto foreign policy:

"Neglecting the rest of humanity and hiding behind our own borders in wealth and prosperity with a 'too bad for you' attitude isn't compatible with Christianity."

Absolutely correct! However, it does not follow that government and the use of force must be the particular means of serving the rest of humanity. Actually, it means we are required to do a whole lot more. It means that we as Catholic Christians have the positive obligation to help the rest of the world by giving more with our gifts of time, talent, and treasure. We must do this through the Church, through private charity, and by giving with our right hand so that our left knows not. Of course, this means more prayer for, more reflection of, more listening to, and more understanding about the rest of the world. Too often in our age, we are willing to let the state serve as our proxy for caritas.

Some Advice for Ron Paul

2008-01-11T08:07:00.000-06:00

Did anyone notice this?

Is it just a coincidence that Fox News excluded Ron Paul from the pre-primary debates and then lost market share in the primary night ratings? What does this say about how the public are perceiving Fox News as fair and balanced?

Ron Paul has an opportunity because people are beginning to see him not as a silly old man (a la Gravel), but rather as a man of character who is being beat-up on for standing on selfless principle by enormously powerful forces.

Think of this as a good movie. What is needed for him to win.

First you need the audience/public to identify and empathize with the hero. This, has happened with the exclusion from the Fox debate and the money bombs (small guy winning over the big guys). The smear campaign is designed to destroy empathy with the hero.

After empathy we need a conflict, a battle where our hero is seen fighting the good fight.

This is what Ron Paul has to do.

1. He has to defend himself better and present his ideas in fresh terms that exposes the other candidates for what they are.

2. He has to stop the "class room style" tone, and adopt a "I'm here to save the nation" tone that is deeply seriousness and forceful (but not angry) [his voice should be deeper and stronger and he should talk more slowly when making his points]

3. When he is laughed at or set-up by the other candidates or Fox News, he has to chastise them for "playing fun" and "having a good time" when the American people are facing gravely serious issues in this election. He kind of did this last night when asked about 9/11 Truthers. He responded by saying, "May I contribute to this substantive debate?" That scored points. He needs to speak on behalf of the American people, so that when the others attack him, we see them attacking the American people.

As the campaign progresses, the economy will grow in importance as an issue. Ron Paul has to frame his arguments from the point of view of Ma and Pa American. He has to take on a populist tone, but with his substantive principles. He has to attack the other candidates as a champion and defender of the American people.

Yes our Constitutional Republic is at stake, yes Austrian Economics tells us that we are headed for a fall, yes the war is a fraud of the military industrial complex, but tell us from Ma and Pa perspective.

Ron Paul did this beautifully in the McCain exchange about 100 years in Iraq. He said that McCain had no right to commit 5 generations of boys and girls to die in Iraq. This kind of framing is what is needed for his arguments. And he needs to make these arguments in a deeply serious way, while directly going after the other candidates (and needs to prepare follow up comments for their likely comebacks).

For example, it is not enough to say we are going bankrupt, or that we don't have the money, Ron Paul has to talk about this from the perspective of middle class Americans in a concrete and personal way.

In short, the hero of this movie has to become the voice of the American people and fight for them. He has to be a zealous doctor fighting for his patient against the parasites that are killing her.

When the antagonists comes after Paul, it will be the American people who they are attacking, not him or his ideas.

Ron Paul has so much substance and principle, he just needs to place it in the service of the American people and fight for them on the issues, more so than his (very valid and powerful) ideas.

Paul's Finest Moment

2008-01-10T22:51:00.000-06:00

I've been a little down of late, with the poor results in New Hampshire and the latest smear attempts with regards to the old newsletters, but tonight's debate was a truly inspiring performance by Ron Paul. Here's my comment on his performance over at LewRockwell:

Lew, I think it was when the silly moderator tried to take Paul out of the substantive debate by harping on his de minimis following by 911 truthers. He forcefully but politely asked to be included in the actual debate, to which he was, where he performed masterfully. Also, I think the doctor deserves credit for keeping up the good fight for peace and freedom. Unlike the others on that stage, who are there seeking power for their own personal glory, Paul is not there for himself, but the cause. I'm sure there are times, especially when the smear artists are in full effect, that he would like to go home and spend his time with his noble family. But Paul keeps on going. He keeps advancing the argument and instructing the ignorant in the face of laughter and ridicule; in spite of his own self-acknowledged faults. While he may not even realize it himself, he's teaching us libertarians, both cosmopolitan and provincial, how to act with courage, fortitude, and dignity. So in short, what we are currently witnessing by Ron Paul in his struggle to keep on in the face of adversity and seemingly insurmountable odds, is his finest moment.

Here is blessing reminder for Ron Paul: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God."

And a blessing to all libertarians and the Ron Paul Revolution: "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for justice: for they will be satisfied."

Ron Paul Mentioned on EWTN

2008-01-10T19:19:00.000-06:00

The good doctor's stellar pro-life record is mentioned on EWTN.

Fox News, You Had Me at "Spin"

2008-01-04T23:40:00.000-06:00

Well the first caucus is over and it is time to take a moment and remember how it all started back at the first Republican Debate. Fox News was there to help us all figure out who can and who can't be elected President.

Ah, remember the good old days when Rudy was "The Man" Fox News wanted us to love?

Isn't it fun to remember?

Didn't Ron Paul kick Rudy's butt in Iowa?

It is fun to remember, isn't it?

Here is your moment of virtue: Ron Paul's humility vs. Fox New's smarmy arrogance. Enjoy!

Why Fox News is Excluding Ron Paul

2008-01-04T22:18:00.000-06:00

Fox News is coming under a lot of pressure for excluding Ron Paul from their up coming Presidential Forum, but they are fighting tooth and nail to keep him out.

Their excuse is so stupid, it makes one want to vomit for the sheer evil that it attempts to veil.

From the very first debate, they have consistently lied to the American public about Ron Paul and have tried every dirty trick in the book to murder his campaign. But it hasn't worked and now they are scared because no matter how often they say "Ron Paul can't win," his support keeps growing.

Why does Ron Paul scare Fox News?

Because Fox News represents the interests of global elites, including banking elites.

Have a look at who is on the Corporate Governance of News Corporation (the owner of Fox News). Among these is Andrew Knight, the director of the Rothschild Investment Trust. The Rothschild's are the world's bankers.

Ron Paul has been a consistent and articulate critic of central banking in America.

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned central bank (no one even knows who owns it) that gets to print money out of thin air, control the supply of money by lending that money to the Government and to big business, and then Jane and Joe America gets the privilege of paying for that money through oppressive income tax to the IRS (see Ronald Regan's Grace Report, "100 percent of what is collected [of the income tax] is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt" - that is, 100% of your income tax goes directly to private bankers to pay down the interest on the loans that Government has taken to pay for the Warfare State, the Welfare State and maintain its empire around the world).

The system of central banking and the "inflation tax" that it makes possible is why "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." It is not for lack of hard work that there is a shrinking middle class, it is because the very system in which we work is stacked aggressively against the poor and middle class.

For Ron Paul's entire political career he has been a lone voice in the wilderness crying out for justice on these issues and the restoration of the Constitution.

You see, the Constitution doesn't call for a central bank (and in fact, we don't need one), and the Federal Income Tax is un-Constitutional (which is why your senator will call it the "voluntary" income tax on the senate floor), and our fiat money system is also un-Constitutional because it calls for hard currency backed by silver and gold (our Founding Father's fought against central banking and fiat money because they know how it would turn the American people into slaves to the "Money Power.")

Ron Paul has been articulating the philosophical, moral, legal, economic and most of all Constitutional foundations for the Liberty we so dearly love in America.

The global elites would rather you be stupid sheep and keep working 60 hour weeks just to make ends meet and then give up to 50% of the fruits of your labor to the central bankers.

The Washington elites would rather you be stupid sheep and do what you are told so they can continue spending like a drunken sailor and send our country into an economic crash that will make the Great Depression look wonderful.

And the media elites are owned by interests working against the American people and American sovereignty.

That is why Fox News doesn't want Ron Paul to be at the forum this weekend. Fox News wants to dictate who can and can not be your President.

Since when was it the Media's job to pick our President?

Fox News wants you to believe that their mobile studio isn't big enough to fit Ron Paul at the table.

They don't want you to believe that it has anything to do with the powerful message that Ron Paul is spreading across this country. A message of freedom, peace and prosperity.

Fox News, a new day is dawning!

Go Ron Paul!

Must a Catholic Vote?

2007-12-31T14:12:00.000-06:00

Thomas Peters' blog, The American Papist, links to this CNS article where Most Reverend John McCormack, the Bishop of Manchester, NH explains voting is a moral obligation. Further:

"When candidates support or tolerate policies that include intrinsically evil acts, a Catholic must carefully assess the situation and decide which candidate will produce the least harm to innocent human life, if elected," he added.

I find this a difficult assertion to swallow and fail to see how exercising one's conscience to not materially cooperate with any evil by means of voting, would violate the moral precepts of the Church.

Should Ron Paul, our favored candidate for the Republican Party, not win the nomination, would it be a violation of the moral law should a Catholic chose not to vote for one of the other candidates which could be completely unacceptable? Let's say the ballot consists of Clinton, Giulliani, and the Libertarian candidate. Let's also say that all these candidates remain pro-abortion, pro-unjust war, and pro-death penalty [I know the last category is not necessarily intrinsically evil]. Does this mean that a failure to show up at the ballot box will constitute a sin? I would think that an intentional violation of a moral precept of the Church is a sin. Does such an ommission from voting generally constitute a venial or mortal sin? Does this mean Catholics must vote for and therefore materially cooperate with candidates that formally cooperate with intrinsically evil acts?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we are ever required by the Church and under Her moral theology to ever materially cooperate with evil. Politicians who explicitly endorse the pro-abortion cause or advance unjust aggressive wars, engage in formal cooperation with such evil acts. Voting for one of these candidates can be a formal cooperation with evil if the voter endorses the candidates' own cooperation or a material cooperation if the voter does not endorse the candidates' views but can find a sufficient justification. So while it can be justified it does not follow that material cooperation with evil is ever required.

Any readers care to give clarification? Should Ron Paul not win the RNC nomination or go on as a 3rd party candidate, I don't see a reason to vote. Are Catholics required to materially cooperate with evil by voting for one of the pro-aborts or pro-unjust warmongers?

Sabrin's "Open Letter to Pro-Lifers"

2007-12-18T08:26:00.000-06:00

Prof. Murray Sabrin explains Ron Paul's influence on his own conversion to respect the natural right to life for the unborn:

"...I knew Rep. Ron Paul, who I have known since 1982, was a pro-life libertarian Republican. I called him to get his input on the abortion issue. He told me he wrote a book on abortion making a libertarian case for the pro-life position. I asked him to send me a copy. I read his beautifully written 100-page Challenge to Liberty in one reading and from then on I became a pro-life libertarian.

I never ever thought I could ever be convinced that a pro-life position was consistent with liberty and limited government. But in Challenge to Liberty, subtitled Coming to Grip with the Abortion Issue, Ron Paul demonstrated that logic is an indispensable tool to change peoples’ minds, especially when it comes to hot button issues like abortion."

Sabrin is also considering the possibility of running for the New Jersey representative to the U.S. Senate for 2008 as a Ron Paul Republican, a decision he'll likely make in January.

"Wrapped in the Flag Carrying the Cross"

2007-12-18T07:55:00.000-06:00

After a condescendingly rude opening by this Fox and Friends interview, Ron Paul throws them off by quoting the Sinclair Lewis prediction that "[w]hen fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Of course the Fox interviewers couldn't handle such Harrison Bergeron type thinking and had to promptly move to commercial.

For Ron Paul's view on an excellent example of religion in the public life, particularly Catholicism, go here.

The Tea Party Begins

2007-12-16T07:48:00.000-06:00

It is almost 9 am EST and Ron Paul has already raised over 1.3 million since midnight.

This is an extremely important day for Ron Paul and for Americans because this is a protest against the inflation tax. Tomorrow the MSM will be talking about Ron Paul and the inflation tax. This is great for the campaign but even better for America. Wake America up!

Send a message to the elite banksters, government officials and corrupt big business that that don't own us and we're not going to take it any more!

Donate as much as you can TODAY!

Go Ron Paul!

The Ringing Endorsement from Daily Kos

2007-12-14T14:06:00.001-06:00

You see Ron Paul is NUTS because:

Ron Paul has authored legislation saying that life begins at conception, to prevent federal money from being spent on family planning (that would include contraception), and has tried to amend the Constitution to "guarantee the right to life."

God Bless Ron Paul.

"Turn Out the Catholics for Ron Paul"

2007-12-12T14:34:00.000-06:00

HT: Nick Bradley, LewRockwell.com

Secular Original Sin & Secular Baptism

2007-12-10T19:04:00.000-06:00

I have always lamented that in the modern totalist states, like the United States, our children receive their Social Security identification numbers and cards before their Baptisms. Now Butler Shaffer brings to our attention calls from some Austrailian medical journal to impose a $5,000 tax on every baby born to couples with greater than two children plus the addition of an $800 a year carbon tax:

"All of this is designed to compensate for the 'profligate consumption of resources' caused by humanity. This is but the most recent example of the environmentalists' version of 'original sin': we humans don't really belong on this planet; we are trespassers upon the lands and waterways rightfully belonging to other species; and, unless we manage to destroy ourselves through political means, we should at least compensate our victims (who?) in the interim."

A Ron Paul administration would naturally oppose any federal efforts to regulate the population and strike down any calls to tax human beings for their mere existence which supposedly imposes some kind of carbon footprint on the planet. Further, a Paul administration would seek to give people the ability to opt out of the world's most diabolical ponzi scheme.

Catholic Outreach for Ron Paul

2007-12-10T18:38:00.000-06:00

Dan Scanlon sends along this nice idea he has engaged in spreading the word about Ron Paul to other Catholics:

"I'm a member of the Greater New York Meetup and a few weeks ago I was at early morning mass when I got inspired with an idea to spread the good news about Ron Paul to my fellow Catholics. So I hurried home and got some flyers printed, checked parishes on line for mass schedules, took a cab over to a Republican nieghborhood and handed out flyers after mass as the faithful departed. The response was very positive and I only wish I had had six hands.
This is something important that anyone can do alone or preferably with another person to cover the other side of the street. No signs, no slogans, or crtical mass of members required; just a friendly "Good Morning, Catholics for Ron Paul" and a flyer. Here is a link to Parishes Online so anyone anywhere can cover any parish in the country. All you have to do is find a parish schedule, be there as the folks LEAVE (this is important in terms of tact as well as effect) and you're in business! Big bang for the buck as far as time investment (15-20 minutes) if not the two sided color flyers which cost a dollar a pop. This could be a national effort and we should be buying copies in bulk.

"Below is a link to the files section of the Greater NY Meetup for a copy of the flyer that another member had made up. "

Pax et bonum,
Dan Scanlon

Ron Paul and Prostitution

2007-11-27T15:31:00.000-06:00

Prostitution is evil. It is a system predicated on debasing the human person, it is born of abuse and makes that abuse a way of life. Where it flourishes, drug abuse, crime, suicide, disease and human misery grow.

Like all evils, it hurts those engaged with it the most, but the injury doesn't end with those who engage with it but casts a larger shadow that touches everyone in the community whether it is legal or not.

Over the last several years HBO has been advancing a campaign to "normalize" prostitution through its "reality" TV show The Cathouse - a state regulated legal brothel in Nevada. The reality of Nevada's legalized prostitution and of the effects of legalized prostitution in general are well documented.

Now the owner of the Cathouse has publicly endorsed Ron Paul and is encouraging "johns" to make a donation every time they pay for sex acts. This endorsement was arranged and created by a member of the MSM, Tucker Carlson - he called up the pimp and manufactured the news story.

In the Main Stream Media's general blackout of the Ron Paul campaign, this particular story has been picked up all over the place (Google news has 99 news hits for this story).

The story is an attempt to smear Ron Paul and his supporters.

But the fact is that Ron Paul supports the decriminalization of prostitution at the Federal level. His We the People Act would remove this issue from Federal and Supreme Court jurisdiction along with a host of other socially difficult issues in accord with the 10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. His legislation would make it solely a States issue an issue for the people to decide.

As Catholics, we recognize that the civil law has its foundation in morality. There is no law that does not have a moral dimension because it governs human action which is inherently laden with moral weight - the only question is whether the law is moral or immoral. This is why the Catholic Church has been an advocate for the abolition of chattel slavery for hundreds of years, it is why Holy Mother Church speaks out for the defense and respect for human life.

As such to legalize prostitution is to legalize the violation of basic human dignity.

But does Ron Paul want to legalize prostitution?

No.

He wants the States to deal with this question not the Federal Government. He is not advocating the national legalization of prostitution (something that CFRP could not support), but rather the removal of this subject matter from the Federal Court system to empower the States to deal with it.

Is this something that Catholics can support?

Yes, based on the principle of subsidiarity and prudential judgement we know that any social ill is best addressed at the most local level. We also know that when an issue is absorbed by a higher level of authority, the local level tends to become apathetic and passive because "it is no longer my problem." Compassionate liberals who vote for big government programs to solve social problems don't volunteer or give nearly as much money to charitable organizations as small government conservatives. This is because subsidiarity matters.

We also know that when the government funds a program to solve a social problem (be that in law enforcement or social welfare), that problem grows and expands and so too does the program's budget. This is because the incentives are in the wrong place. The incentive for government is to expand its power, its budget and its program, so the incentive is to expand the social problem it is addressing, not eliminate it. Compare that to the kind of local private charities who actually make a difference and have an incentive to end a difficult social problem.

For example, Emmaus Ministries walks the streets of Chicago and Houston every night to help males prostitutes get off the streets. I would rather they have my money rather than the Federal Government to help solve the problem of male prostitution. But they are struggling to keep their doors open because their donations are down due to the state of the economy. Send them a donation to keep their doors open.

At the state level prostitution should be illegal. I think that Dr. Paul might disagree stating that the government can't make you a moral person. I would agree with that idea, but remind him that Law has a major impact on forming culture because of its foundation in morality. Any law that violates the natural law is not a law at all - Martin Luther King knew this and so too did our Founding Fathers.

Ron Paul doesn't condone prostitution, he knows its effects on people and communities, but he doesn't think the Federal Government should be the one to address it, and he may even think that the States should decriminalize it too.

This is where libertarians part ways with Catholics and traditional conservatives. We recognize that the law has an intrinsic foundation in morality and the state has a duty to promote the common good, libertarians have a more reductive understanding of the law as there to preserve liberty.

What it comes down to is two different conceptions of the idea of liberty. But that is for another post.

Suffice to say that Ron Paul is running for President, and his policy on this matter is focused at the federal level. It is a matter of debate and prudential policy as to whether the federal government or local government and local voluntary associations should address this issue.

But know that as a Christian Ron Paul does not condone prostitution, he would rather have families, churches, and voluntary associations deal with this issue rather than the government.

Ron Paul is Best Catholic Choice - US Bishops' Faithful Citizenship Guidelines

2007-11-26T09:27:00.000-06:00

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been rated the Best Choice for Catholic Voters, based on an independent analysis by The Defend Life blog of Maryland. The analysis used the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' criteria in Faithful Citizenship - its guide for Catholic voters - to rate the various candidate's platforms and has determined that Ron Paul's positions are most compatible with the USCCB standards.

Using a point system that gave greater weight for "non-negotiable" issues such as abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage, the analysis lined up all the candidates to see where they stand on a broad array of issues.

Ron Paul (R) scored highest with a score of 99, with Alan Keyes (R) following with 70, and Mike Huckabee (R) third with 69. Dead last was the purportedly Catholic Rudy Giuliani (R) with -28 and Barack Obama (D) with -15. Hilary Clinton (D) scored a -11 and Fred Thompson (R) scored only a 4.

The Catholic vote in America is critical for the 2008 presidential election. Some have argued that Catholics are statistically invisible as voters, that they divide along the same partisan tribal lines as most Americans.

This is not true.

The last election was won in Ohio due largely to the presence of Catholic voters who significantly voted against John Kerry because of his culture of death platform and his rationally inconsistent statements such as, "I believe life begins at conception, but I can't impose my Catholic beliefs on others as president." Such idiocy was not going to wash over faithful and informed Catholics.

After this election, the Democrats began a deliberate "values voters" offensive to cloak these same culture of death positions in a rhetoric of "faith and values." The Democrats haven't changed their positions, they have just massaged their rhetoric and scheduled more speeches at churches.

The Republicans have shown their true colors as well. Last election was all about values, but then the neo-conservative radicals in the party have such a grip that the party has shrunk and they have given the electorate Rudy - the most terrible candidate on values - because he is a war hawk neo-con who will continue to wage an unjust war.

So the Catholic vote is important. But more importantly, Catholic voting principles are what matter. These principles are immutable and the best source for learning about them is the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

A number of faithful Catholics (and not so faithful Catholics) have published Voter's Guides to help inform the Catholic population as to the Catholic framework for choosing a candidate. In that same spirit, the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote "Faithful Citizenship." As a document of the USCCB, Faithful Citizenship does not have magisterial status along the same lines as a document from the Holy Father, or one of the Congregations in the Curia, or even one from a bishop writing to his flock.

Often bishop conference documents are criticised for being unhelpful, bland and inconclusive. A bishop's conference does not have ecclesial status and the process of creating a collective document results in undermining the authority that the Church truly has. Even Cardinal Ratzinger has noted that the bishops' conference in Germany during the rise of the Nazis had the effect of watering down and muting the strength of the church's opposing voice to this evil.

So in making reference to the Faithful Citizenship document, it is done with a hefty grain of salt and light because true to form the document tends to lack both.

The Defend Life analysis can be read in detail here:

http://defendlife.blogspot.com/2007/11/evaluation-of-presidential-candidates.html

Open Letter to Catholics

2007-11-21T09:45:00.001-06:00

In support of Ron Paul.

In the tradition of Walter Block’s Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul and Laurence Vance’s Open Letter to the Protestant Community in Behalf of Ron Paul, I’d like to say a few words to my fellow Catholics.

Never in my life have I felt as strongly about a presidential candidate – or about any politician, for that matter – as I do about Dr. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas. I’ve gone from being someone so disgusted with politics that I can’t bear to read about it to being a political junkie, avidly following the activities and successes of this great man.

As an American historian, I am not aware of any congressman in American history whose voting record is so stellar, and so consistently in accord with the Constitution.

Beyond that, Ron Paul is not a panderer. He’ll speak to an interest group and tell them to their faces that he has opposed and will continue to oppose funding their pet projects. Lobbyists know they’re wasting their money if they try to wine and dine him. He recently spoke before the national convention of an organization aimed at protecting the interests of a particular ethnic group, and began by saying: "Somebody asked me whether I had a special speech for your group, and I said, no, it’s the same speech I give everywhere."

Already by 1981, Ron Paul had earned the highest rating ever given by the National Taxpayers Union, received the highest rating from the Council for a Competitive Economy, and won the Liberty Award from the American Economic Council for being "America’s outstanding defender of economic and personal freedom."

Dr. Paul, who entered Congress in 1976 and returned to his medical practice in 1984, picked up where he left off when he returned to Congress in the 1996 election. I do not expect to see his like again.

He is also a good and decent man, who really is what he appears to be when you hear him speak. As a physician at an inner-city hospital, Ron Paul provided medical care to anyone who needed it, regardless of ability to pay. He never accepted money from Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to provide free care instead. That’s what people in a free society are supposed to do: be responsible for themselves, and then lend their assistance to those who are vulnerable and alone.

Ron Paul is a candidate who doesn’t insult his listeners’ intelligence, who answers the questions he is asked, and who doesn’t simply say whatever his audience wants to hear. And unlike other major names in the race, Ron Paul doesn’t have to run away from his record, which reveals an unswerving commitment to peace, freedom, and prosperity that is second to none in all of American history.

Although I would have supported Ron Paul back before I converted to Catholicism, I think Catholics will like what they see when they examine his record. Over at Defend Life, Ron Paul comes out decisively on top in a study of the candidates’ positions on the issues according to the guidelines recently established by the United States bishops. (If anything, I think this study understates Paul’s compatibility with Catholic teaching.)

On education and home schooling, Ron Paul is the clear winner. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter all voted for the execrable No Child Left Behind Act, and Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have both come out in favor of it. Ron Paul – as did the Republican Party itself not so long ago – opposes any federal role in education, which is the responsibility of parents and local communities.

In other words, Ron Paul believes in a little something called subsidiarity, which happens to be a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible, as opposed to the dehumanizing alternative whereby distant bureaucratic structures are routinely and unthinkingly entrusted with more and more responsibilities for human well-being.

On home schooling, Ron Paul has proposed legislation giving tax credits worth thousands of dollars to reimburse the educational expenses of home-schooling parents, as well as those of parents who send their children to other kinds of schools. What presidential candidate speaks like this?

Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family. By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets.

When it comes to abortion, Ron Paul – an obstetrician/gynecologist who has delivered over 4,000 babies – has been a consistent opponent of Roe v. Wade, which he rightly considers unconstitutional. But he has no interest in the failed strategy of the past 35 years whereby we sit and wait for a remedy in the form of good Supreme Court justices. His HR 300 would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. That would overturn Roe by a simple congressional majority.

Then we could see who is sincere on the issue, and who is just exploiting it for votes. Few in either party really want to see the abortion status quo overturned, since it means they can’t scare their supporters into sending them as much money anymore.

Upon the Pope’s death in 2005, Ron Paul paid tribute to John Paul’s consistent defense of life. On another occasion, he offered an additional tribute, of the sort few politicians would utter:
To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Speaking of John Paul II, it is important to remember that that pope was a strong opponent of the U.S. government’s attack on Iraq, sending his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to Washington shortly before the commencement of hostilities in order to insist to the president that such a war would be unjust. The Pope’s first comments after the war broke out were these: "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society."

Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked if a U.S. government attack on Iraq would be just. "Certainly not," came the reply. He predicted that "the damage would be greater than the values one wishes to save."

After the war ended, Ratzinger said: "It was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction…. It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world." "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," he elsewhere observed. "To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’"

Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in this obviously avoidable war, a war that was based on falsehoods that we would have laughed at if they’d been uttered by Leonid Brezhnev. But since they came from the White House we cheer as for a football team, and duck the appalling material and moral consequences. A country that (by regional standards) once had an excellent health care system, opportunities for women, liberal gun and alcohol laws, and – yes – lots of immigrants, was turned into a disease-ridden basket case, filled with dead, wounded, and malnourished children, for no good reason.

That’s just wrong, and it isn’t "liberal" to say so.

Likewise, Ratzinger/Benedict is not a "liberal" for opposing the war. He is a moral conservative, but a man whose conservatism is more mature than the sloganeering jingoism of so much of what passes for conservatism in today’s America. Ron Paul is an equally sober and serious statesman, and for that reason was one of very few Republicans with the courage and the foresight to oppose this economic and moral fiasco from the very start.

It is especially satisfying to learn that in the second quarter of 2007, Ron Paul received more donations from active duty and retired military personnel than any other Republican candidate. By the third quarter, he was receiving more than any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. Want to support the troops? Then support Ron Paul.

My main argument to you, though, is not a specifically Catholic one. It’s one that should resonate with anybody who values honesty, integrity, and decency. Ron Paul is a good man who believes in justice and the Constitution, and who cannot be bought. His ten terms in Congress have proven that again and again.

And that is why the media fears him. Unlike the rest of them, Ron Paul is unowned.
Now every establishment hack out there wants you to vote for one of the business-as-usual candidates. Are you really so happy with the establishment that its endorsement or cajoling means anything to you? If anything, it should make us all the more interested in Ron Paul – the one candidate the establishment fears, since they know their game is up if he should win.
Far from being in the unhappy position of a candidate whose children won’t even speak to him, Ron Paul is fortunate to have family members all over the campaign trail on his behalf. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years, and has been blessed with five children and eighteen grandchildren. There are some family values.

Just think: for once, you don’t have to choose the lesser among evils. You can finally vote for someone. You can not only be happy, but actually honored, to cast your vote for Ron Paul.
But don’t just vote for him. Find out about him, and get out there and spread the word.

Ron Paul Would Rescue Catholic Charities

2007-11-20T09:17:00.000-06:00

An interesting insight was posted by "tz" in the comments box about the effect Ron Paul's policies would have on Catholic Charities.

Here is his comment:

There is no contradiction in wanting Abortion banned across the nation - one state at a time. But the most important thing is that Catholic Charities can cease losing their souls for tax-deductibility. No IRS, no compromise such as not being able to express an opinion between a cross-dressing pro-abort and a man of honor who keeps his promises and is pro-life, but also properly understands subsidiarity. Ah, the martyrs of old, who would not drop the pinch of incense and mumble words and suffer torture and death. When you sell your soul, do you have to declare the proceeds on your 1040?

"tz" makes a very important point here.

Over the years, Catholic Charities have had their wonderful reputation slide because it has been pressured to conform to the world on issues such as gay adoption and in some cases have chosen to cease offering services rather than risk losing its tax status. The fact of the matter is that Catholic Charities is not prepared to fight a legal battle and between taking a stand and retreating from the works of mercy, they are forced into retreat (or worse, to conform themselves).

The state has even declared that Catholic Charities is not Catholic and so must pay for contraception.

This is part of a very sophisticated attack on the Catholic Church that seeks to remove the Church from its mission to spread the Gospel and love the needy.

What is the instrument of torture that will remove the greatest force of love and charity in our society? The IRS and the tax code.

Ron Paul's policies would seek to eliminate the IRS and that would liberate (there is that word Liberty again) Catholic Charities to continue its wonderful work unfettered by the state's totalitarian ideology of sterilization, homosexualization and secularity.

This is what the Founding Fathers meant when they spoke of Liberty. They weren't advocating a freedom were everyone can do what they like, that is not Liberty, but rather license, and total licence leads to licentiousness and spiritual, psychological and physical bondage. No, they were advocating the most fundamental Liberty - Religious Liberty - the freedom to pursue virtue, express faith, hope and love in a public and communal way, and to give thanks to God for His blessings, unrestrained by a State ideology. The Founding Fathers wanted a society based on the Liberty that is the fruit of the moral life, because a nation of virtuous men and women would ensure the survival of our country. Whereas a nation of licentious men and women would slide into a tyrannical state.

Tyranny is not on our door step of our nation, it is in the front hall!

Ron Paul's policies on taxation and the elimination of the IRS would abolish this modern day sophisticated structure of injustice, torture and coercion.

It is just one more reason why every Catholic should support Ron Paul.

Thank you "tz" for your insight and for reading CFRP.

Go Ron Paul!

Blogger: Paul Best Choice for Catholics

2007-11-19T21:00:00.000-06:00

At the Defend Life blog, blogger Joe Healy finds Ron Paul the best presidential candidate in light of the U.S. bishops' criteria.

CFRP Welcomes Readers of SpiritDaily.com

2007-11-19T12:36:00.000-06:00

Today one of CFRP's blog entries was picked up by Spirit Daily.

Thank you Spirit Daily and welcome to Spirit Daily readers!

Why Every Catholic Should Vote for Ron Paul

2007-11-19T08:37:00.000-06:00

Every Catholic should be engaged in politics because every Catholic has a duty to seek and promote the Common Good. But what is the Common Good? The catechism tells us:

By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily." The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

So the question you all should be asking yourself is, "What are the social conditions that allow everyone to flourish as persons and groups in our society most easily?"

To answer this question we have to know what the three essential elements that can not be abridged in our search for a flourishing society:

1. Respect for the Person - Here we are talking about the most fundamental respect for the inalienable rights of the person - The Right to Life, The Right to Liberty (properly understood), and the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion. (CC 1907) Society will decay and eventually collapse when any of these fundamental aspects of the person are violated.

2. Social Well Being & Development - The epitome of everyone's social duty is to seek the development of all peoples in society. (CC 1908) Does this mean that we should support a big welfare state that supplies all of our food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, etc.? No. Becasue this violates the principle of subsidiarity and cultivates dependencies and undermines the family. The state should not replace the family and voluntary associations like the Church and the local homeless shelter. It means that you and I, our families and our local churchs and voluntary associations should seek to ensure that no one in our community suffers due to a deficit of well being or can not develop because of some structural injustice in society (like slavery) or other impediment to flourishing.

3. Peace - this is not the peace of the hippies or of some wooly pacifist who wouldn't even fight to defend the innocent, nor is it the peace that we see in totalitarian societies where fear keeps everyone in line. Rather this peace is deep because it is the fruit of a society that respects persons and seeks development as part of a just and stable society. It implies a morally acceptable means of security and the right to personal and collective defense. (CC 1909) In other words, the right to bear arms, and a strong (moral) national defense that is governed by the Doctrine of Just War.

There is a lot more that can be said about this, but lets look at Ron Paul for a moment as he is on these issues:

1. Respect for Persons - Ron Paul's understanding of this issue is profound and deeply informed. He understands the philosophic relationship between the fundamental right to life and the liberty our founders recognized in the Constitution. Liberty is impossible without absolutely protecting the right to life from conception to natural death. He has said that "Abortion is the ultimate State Tyranny" because the state has no basis to deny someone of this most fundamental right. Ron Paul is against embronic destructive research (however he has talked about situations where the principle of double effect results in the unintended destruction of the life of the child). And perhaps the only issue that Ron Paul has changed his position on over the years is the question of the Death Penalty, previously he was in favor of it, but he is now against it. I don't know of another politician whose position is more in harmony with the philosophic position of the Church.

2. Social Well Being & Development - Ron Paul is an advocate of small government; stated another way, he is an advocate of personal responsibility and engagement with issues at the local level where you and your neighbors can make a difference. When the State tries to solve a social problem, the problem will grow because by its nature, the State is about power, and not compassion. Power always seeks to take and expand; compassion seeks to give away and sacrifice for others. So State programs tend to grow the problem and grow their budgets - this means they will take more money away from you and I. This is why the Church teaches about subsidiarity and the debilitatiing effects of a welfare state on the family.

Ron Paul is a constant advocate of reducing the size of government and reducing the tax burden on the American family. Today the tax payer has to work for close to 6 months to pay government before he can start working for the well being and development of his own family. In addition, Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about the immoral and unjust inflation tax that is imposed by our Federal Reserve system and the policy of borrowing and then debasing the currency. This policy is perhaps the greatest structural injustice against the poor and middle class in existence today. He wants to do away with our the unconstitutional currency, and eliminate the 16th Amendment and the federal income tax.

Ron Paul understands that the path to human flourishing is to get government off our backs, restore an ethic of personal responsibility to the people and let them keep the fruit of their labor by restoring a sound currency and taking away an income tax.

The American people are the most generous in the world. But how can we have time and money to give to charity or volunteer when we have such excessive taxation and the money we work hard to make is routinely debased as a matter of federal reserve policy? When American families have the conditions for their freedom and their prosperity restored and secured, they pour themselves out for others unlike any other time in history and we will see human well being spread by our good example.

3. Peace - Ron Paul is the only candidate calling for the abandonment of the "premptive war doctrine" and a return to Christian Just War principles. He is the only candidate calling for an immediate end to the war in Iraq. He is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. And a strong critic of the military industrial complex (our society is at risk when large powerful companies have direct and immediate incentives to go to war). Ron Paul is also a strong critic of the erosion of our civil liberties that have happened in the name of "domestic security."

No other candidate running, or in recent memory encompasses the principles of Catholic Social Teaching and the necessary conditions for the Common Good than Ron Paul.

Video: Ron Paul for John Paul

2007-11-13T23:37:00.000-06:00

Check it out!

Ron Paul & The Primacy of Life

2007-11-09T20:27:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul eloquently defends his position on the life issues.

Two interesting points here.

1. One of the interviewers aggressively attacks Ron Paul with the false dilemma of "Who are you going to put in jail, the woman seeking an abortion or her doctor!" Ron Paul answers with humility and a strong dose of reality. He is a passionate defender of life. This line of questioning reveals just how impoverished the thinking is on the pro-abortion advocacy side of things.

2. He says that the only way that embryonic research might be morally acceptable is when you have an ectopic pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother. Invoking the natural law principle of double effect, the action that seeks to save the mother's life results (in an unwanted fashion) with the death of the child. In this limited scope, Ron Paul suggests that it might be morally acceptable for that embryo to be reserved for research purposes.

This exchange shows how deeply informed Ron Paul is with natural law arguments on the life issue. But more so, how deeply he holds them.

Catholic Convert Kudlow Gives Ron Paul a Fair Shake

2007-11-09T20:05:00.000-06:00

Is the Main Stream Media really asking Ron Paul about how to fix our monetary system?

Yes, and they are discussing Hayek's The Road to Serfdom too!

This really is revolutionary!

"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

2007-11-08T20:27:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul does a masterful job of admonishing Ben Bernanke on the central bank's complicity in the current policy of confiscatory inflation.

The Manichean Presidency

2007-11-08T20:03:00.000-06:00

David Gordon of the Mises Institute writes an excellent review of Glen Greenwald's new book, A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. EvilDestroyed the Bush Presidency Mentality . Here is a money quote from the book:

The term Manichean refers in its most literal sense to a religion founded in the third century by the Persian prophet Manes … it central precept was that the entire world could be cleanly divided into two opposing spheres — God and Satan in the world of the eternal, and a corresponding battle of Good and Evil playing out on earth … the historical fate of the Manichees is of far less interest than is contemporary reliance on their religion's central moral tenets. In the overwhelming majority of President Bush's significant speeches and interviews throughout his political career — but particularly since the 9/11 attacks — he evinces a dualistic worldview lodged at the core of his belief system. (p. 46)

"The Bush administration views other countries as so dominated by evil that they cannot be expected to act rationally."

Here's praying for a foreign policy which looks at all other nations with the eyes of the Father, a good Creation, a rational Creation, capable of Redemption. Ron Paul's foreign policy would be based on a realistic view of our own faults and a realistic respect for the dignity of other peoples in their affairs. A non-interventionist foreign policy invokes the Golden Rule as its central principle, one which, if we have Faith, will serve this nation and the world well.

Dr. Paul defending John Paul II

2007-11-08T19:00:00.001-06:00

Here's a great quote of Ron Paul defending John Paul the Great from the secular statists.

"To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly."

In other words, as St. Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men." -Acts 5:29

The Meaning of November 5th

2007-11-05T09:21:00.000-06:00

The organizers of the 5th of November initiative have not formally responded to CFRP's post nor to my e-mail asking for clarification as to the meaning of November 5th.

However, they have posted a speech by Ron Paul about patriotism, the resistance to oppressive state power and non-violence means. It seems that this new addition to the website is a response to the valid criticism raised by CFRP and others about the meaning of November 5th as being anti-Catholic/Christian, and supportive of terrorism as a means of resisting an oppressive state .

By posting this video, the organizers, I think, are clarifying the spirit with which they are invoking the 5th of November. This is very welcome. It is a spirit that CFRP can agree with and support.

The following YouTube video was posted to the combox discussion of CFRP's earlier post about the meaning of the 5th of November from a Catholic perspective.

CFRP supports the effort to raise a fantastic money bomb for Ron Paul's campaign, but does not support the kind of resistance used by Guy Fawkes. In a sense, the "bomb" being dropped today on the government is a money bomb, and Ron Paul's statement makes clear that planting bombs (a la Fawkes) is to be rejected. Lets hope that if the organizers of this campaign get interviewed by the MSM that they too make that clear.

Lets hope that the campaign is a success and the message of the day is Ron Paul's message of Patriotism.

Donate here (as much as you can) to be part of history.

"The Sometimes Painful Realities of American Life"

2007-11-03T15:36:00.000-06:00

Here is a profound quote enunciated by Morgan Freeman in a Hollywood production on the Declaration of Independence:

The real glory of the Declaration of Independence has been our nation's epic struggle throughout history to close the gap between the ideals of this remarkable document and the sometimes painful realities of American life.

These painful realities were present in the beginning with slavery and later with racism. Today the gap manifests itself most overtly with the modern preventive war doctrines, but there is an even more profound painful reality that is all too obvious that it is often ignored, abortion. A whole generation of Americans have been eliminated with the judicial backing and financial support of the modern American state. While African Americans now largely enjoy the equal protection of the law, the same cannot be said for their unborn or any unborn in America. And while Thomas Jefferson's reputation suffers from his self-acknowledged hypocrisy to slavery, Martin Luther King's hypocrisy to the life of the unborn should be recognized as well. While there is no evidence King overtly supported abortion, he was a recipient of he Sanger Award by Planned Parenthood for his support of its "family planning" initiatives. Both Jefferson and King, two of America's greatest champions of natural rights and equality, personify the beautiful, yet sometimes tragic struggle that is America.

The gap which desperately needs to be closed today respects the life of the unborn of which I believe Ron Paul is a champion. Paul reminds us of the obvious, without life, there is no liberty. Further, as the great Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmstead exhorts us, we must notice the text of the Declaration stating that the endowed inalienable rights come to us upon our creation. We are created equal in rights by "the Lord the Giver of Life", not born equal in rights. Of course, one need not be Catholics to know when and how human creation occurs. Thus, the unborn are created equal as enunciated in our founding charter. Paul continually seeks to statutorily overrule Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and all their ilk with the "We the People Act." While he would remand the abortion question back to the states, it is an incremental strategy which will result in real restrictions on abortion. Further, I think he would do what he could to eliminate abortion in areas under Federal jurisdiction, like the District of Colombia.

Finally, under a Paul administration, I think a good strategy for cutting government spending would be to place a hierarchy among programs and their effect on life. After dealing with the most direct and immediate unjust Federal action, the Iraq war, at the top of the chop block should be Federal abortion and family planning financing during a Paul versus Congress budget battle. All other Federal budget cuts should be subordinate. I think he should bring the government to a shut-down over the issue, particularly since it is the extremely painful reality of this American age.

Here is the Morgan Freeman video on the Declaration of Independence:

Remembering the 5th of November - A Catholic Response

2007-10-31T21:25:00.000-06:00

Many Ron Paul supporters will be familiar with the Money Bomb campaign over at This November 5th.

Catholics for Ron Paul join in the desire to give Ron Paul a major boost in donations, however the meaning of November 5th leaves much to be desired in its anti-Catholic and anti-Christian symbolism.

The inspiration for this date comes from Guy Fawkes Day in England, a ritual re-execution in effigy of a Catholic who opposed the oppressive Protestant rule of James I. Guy Fawkes was involved with the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 - an attempt to relieve the persecutions against English Catholics by assassinating the King and blowing up Parliament. The plot was discovered and Guy Fawkes was executed. This event was used to introduce more oppressive measures against English citizenry by the State, these oppressive laws remained intact for over 200 years.

Every November 5th, Guy Fawkes is ritually re-executed in effigy as a ritual of Protestant sectarian boosterism. If anyone has visited the North of Ireland and experienced the way events from the 1600's are ritually enacted, they will know what this is all about.

But this is not why the organizers of this event chose November 5th, it is because of the film V for Vendetta - where the vigilante anti-hero of the film takes on the persona of Guy Fawkes and turns him into an anti-statist anarchist. (Note the anti-Catholic tract pictured at the beginning of this youtube clip.)

Here too, the symbolism is a bit off the mark.

Yes Ron Paul is a hero that is going against the state to seek freedom and repair a structural injustice within our system. But the film V for Vendetta is an openly anti-Catholic film that bizarrely glorifies a Catholic anti-establishment figure from history who sought to liberate Catholics from an anti-Catholic tyrannical regime, and puts him in a film which is overtly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. How does this fit with Ron Paul and his message?

There are many supporters for Ron Paul who read into his message an anti-establishment ethos, but Ron Paul himself is a believing Christian and remember that the Liberties that he and we are fighting for are rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview. Austrian Economics, the school of thought Ron Paul is speaking from, has its philosophical beginnings in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.

Equating Ron Paul with the V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes is a mess of symbolism. The historical Guy Fawkes fails in his plot and is killed by the state. The V Guy Fawkes is trying to over throw a the film's portrayal of Christianity in favor of a radical social agenda. How does this fit with Ron Paul's message? Ron Paul is on the record that he agrees that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a women - this position would place him among those organizing the concentration camps in the V for Vendetta film!

As for Catholicism - Ron Paul's son is Catholic and Ron Paul is one of the most eloquent defenders of Catholicism. Ron Paul is not for the elimination of Faith from the public square, he is for the repeal of all legislation that has limited the free exercise of religion (such as no prayer in public schools) in our society. This is not exactly the message of V for Vendetta.

Again, Catholics for Ron Paul is in support of giving Ron Paul a money Bomb and a big boost, however the choice of November the 5th is unfortunate and runs counter to Ron Paul's message.
Catholics for Ron Paul respectfully asks the organizers of the 5th of November Money Bomb initiative to clarify their use of this date, and distance themselves from the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic symbolism of the 5th of November Guy Fawkes/V for Vendetta message.

Why mix Ron Paul's positive message of with the off color symbolism and frankly distasteful message of V for Vendetta and Guy Fawkes Day?

UPDATE: It seems that CFRP is not the only one's out there questioning the meaning of the 5th of November date.:

The problem? Their huge political win is going to be mired due to Neocon criticism that Ron Paul is endorsing terrorism against the US government.

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

2007-10-30T13:46:00.001-06:00

This will send the warmongers up a wall, but here is the one non-crazed candidate speaking about foreign policy. The video is called "Ron Paul's First Action as President."

The Man in NYC

2007-10-24T14:05:00.000-06:00

I had the good fortune to meet with Ron Paul in New York City on the evening of October 12th at a nice party in a village penthouse. My mother in law got me the ticket, for which I am grateful. Here is me and Ron Paul:

Here is Dr. Paul and the Revolution at Grand Central station.

Ron Paul & Rudy on Marriage

2007-10-21T18:53:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul answers well on why he opposes a Federal marriage amendment primarily for federalism reasons. He also notes that marriage came under modern state control in the US about a hundred years ago for public health concerns. Secondarily, Paul makes the excellent point that he thinks marriage belongs to the private sphere, namely to ecclesiastical institutions.

Rudy says he disagrees marriage is not just a religious institution, but it is a civil institution as well. He knows, he married people.

For some LRC views on separating marriage and state see Prof. Stephen Safranek’s analysis here, and my own here. Along similar lines see Prof. Daniel Crane’s “A ‘Judeo Christian’ Argument for Privatizing Marriage,” in the Cardozo Law Review.

What Does Bella Have to Do with Ron Paul?

2007-10-21T17:55:00.000-06:00

Everything! Both are massive underdogs. Both are fighting for truth and justice in their respective ways. Both fight for the right to life.

A Catholic for Ron Paul VP?

2007-10-20T05:43:00.000-06:00

Murray Sabrin discusses the possibility of Judge Andrew Napolitano for Ron Paul's running mate. I always thought South Carolina governor Marc Sanford was the best choice, but I think I like the Napolitano idea better. Napolitano brings that extra charisma to an already charismatic campaign. I saw Napolitano give a speech at the Mises Institute last weekend which, while substantive, it was quite entertaining. As a Constitutional expert, he would make a nice addition to an administration focused on viewing the constitution as an important backstop to most decisions. He would do a great job explaining complex constitutional issues to the American people.

Also, Napolitano would really help Paul shore up the Catholic vote, emboldening an already strong pro-life candidacy. Napolitano, unlike most Catholics in the public eye, is unashamed of his Catholic faith. In his speeches he makes references to going to Church and saying the rosary. And while his explicit faith combined with a principled pro-life stand will shore up orthodox and traditional oriented Catholics, Napolitano's stands on civil liberties and just war will help shore up the more "progressive" and left oriented Catholics.

As a real native to the New York tri-state area, he will help Paul steal some votes from Hillary in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. I know of a number of New York area democrats whom I could convince to jump to the Paul camp with an endearing Napolitano on the team.

Finally, it I think Napolitano would be a great person to pick up where Paul leaves off with the Revolution.

Message from Ron Paul

2007-10-18T12:07:00.000-06:00

The other day, my old sparring partner in so many Congressional committee hearings, Alan Greenspan, was on the Fox Business Channel. After Alan promoted his new book, the reporter asked if we really needed a central bank. Greenspan looked stunned, and then said that was a good question; he actually talked about fiat money vs. a gold standard. Now, the ex-Fed chairman is not about to endorse our sound monetary policy, but you know our Revolution is working when such a question is asked in the mainstream media, and this powerful man gives such an answer.

You and I are reopening a whole host of questions that the establishment thought it had closed off forever: on war, on taxes and spending, on inflation and gold, and on the rule of law and our Constitution.

A few years ago, I asked a famous conservative columnist a question. What did he think about the prospects for a restored Robert Taft wing of the Republican party? He thought I was joking. As you know, I was not.

After all the aggressive wars, the assaults on our privacy and civil liberties, the oppressive taxation, and the crazed spending and deficits, I believe that many Republican voters are ready to return to our roots. And the big boys feel it too. It is no coincidence that the Republican National Committee invited me to a fundraising dinner involving only "top-tier candidates."
Some of the opposition claims that I am not a "real Republican," whereas I am the only one in the race. And our campaign is registering new Republican voters by the boatload. None of my opponents is doing anything approaching that.

Of course, they pooh-pooh our success. "He's just registering Democrats and Independents and people who have never voted before." Well, yes. It's called growth. We are laying the groundwork for the primaries.

All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.
The crowd cheered all our ideas, but especially our opposition to the Federal Reserve, and our support for real money of gold and silver, as the Constitution mandates, instead of prosperity-wrecking fiat money. American politics hasn't seen anything like this in many decades. It is truly revolutionary.

But time is getting short. We must do massive radio and TV advertising, open many small offices (three in just South Carolina the other day), staff them, pay all the bills, and turn out our vote with massive organizational and phone-bank efforts.

As you know, the blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers. And contributions are the key to more attention, and to our being able to do the actual work of victory. Good news: our recent green-eyeshade analysis of all the candidates' net finances, which got so much press attention, shows our campaign as one of only three in the top-tier.

But we must keep moving up, and the Iowa caucuses are now on January 3rd. The New Hampshire primary may be in early December!

As always, everything depends on you. Please, make the most generous donation you can https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ as soon as you can. I need your help so badly.
The other day, an 8-year-old boy handed me a small white envelope. It contained the $4.00 he had saved from his allowance, as a donation to our campaign. I can't tell you how seriously I take my responsibility to work hard, and spend frugally and effectively, to be worthy of his support, and yours.

Please help me keep working, even harder and more effectively, for all we believe in. Without you, I'd have to pack it in. Donate now https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ . We have more than an election to win. We have a country to save.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

Kudos to CBN; Will First Things Get Left Behind?

2007-10-18T08:58:00.000-06:00

David Brody, a national correspondent for CBN News, has been giving Ron Paul a fair shake recently. He recognizes Paul's rock star following noting Paul's opposition to the war and take on Roe v. Wade. While some evangelicals like Bob Jones are endorsing Romney, others have still left themselves open, like James Dobson and Pat Robertson.

It is interesting to note that the Chairman of Paul's Iowa campaign is from Iowa's Christian Alliance and the former chairman of Pat Robertson's Iowa campaign. There is still hope for big shot evangelical support of Ron Paul. The question for them is how beholden are they to the Iraqi nation building project to make a vote for a truly pro-life presidential candidate?

On the other hand, in the case of First Things, editor Joseph Bottum seems to foreclose a vote for a Ron Paul presidency as an act of "go[ing] mad." He fails to make any kind of substantive critique of Paul's ideas or even give credence to Paul's pro-life credentials. Paul offers a fresh approach which is rarely, if ever, considered by the pro-life establishment: enact a Congressional limit on Federal appellate court jurisdiction. In short, statutorily overrule Roe v. Wade. For a man who would "sup with the devil to see" Roe v. Wade overturned, it is sad to seem him summarily dismiss Ron Paul's bright ideas founded in Constitutional authority. It seems for the time being, First Things is much more beholden to the nation building project in Iraq.

Ron Paul on the bully pulpit would give the most radical pro-life Presidency ever, seeking within the confines of federal power a respect for life from cradle to grave, both foreign and domestic. And I dare speculate, that even if he didn't get Congress to statutorily overturn Roe v. Wade, if a state sought to enforce abortion statutes as murder, a Ron Paul executive would not enforce a decision by the Federal courts overturning such a state statute. Thus, while the court in that instance may have spoken, it would do so only with a mere opinion without the force of the executive behind it. Under a Paul presidency, the states could exert their proper plenary powers outlawing abortion without any kind of executive interference. In short, a Paul presidency would really allow for bold action by the pro-life movement in the several states.

Ron Paul on the PBS NewsHour

2007-10-16T12:31:00.000-06:00

A fine interview that examines Ron Paul's message in more than a sound bite:

Part 1

Part 2

Bringing Hell to Iraq

2007-10-11T20:56:00.001-06:00

Whether its US troops or soldiers of fortune hired by the President, the Federal government is killing more and more innocent civilians in Iraq. A.P. reports that grunts called in an airstrike, apparently going after Al-Qeada, killing 19 insurgents, 15 civilians, and 9 children. 9 children? I can't imagine what must be going through the soldiers' heads when they found out they've killed 9 children? And if they're not thinking about it now, assuming they survive, what is this horrid nightmare going to do to them later in their lives? And what about the families of all the dead, what kind of anguish this must bring? All this, so we can feel safer from the potential of a possible threat from a third world country with no airforce and an army decimated by Gulf War I?

We, as Catholics have an obligation as voters under this government to do what we can to stop the atrocities that are done in our name and Ron Paul is the only pro-life candidate who actually wants to stop this madness.

Excellent Ron Paul Video

2007-10-11T13:31:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul: A New Hope

Ron Paul Combating “Structures of Sin”

2007-10-11T12:44:00.000-06:00

Some people are astonished to discover Catholics for Ron Paul because of the widespread myth that Catholicism is an oppressor of human freedom and liberation. The reality is that Catholicism and the Church are the greatest champions of human dignity and liberty history has known. The Catholic Church has been combating “structures of sin” for a long time, so too has Ron Paul (just not as long). Although the Catholic Church doesn’t promote specific models or endorse particular public policies, she does articulate the moral framework for doing so.

For example, the Catholic Church teaches that the State has a “fundamental task” in economic matters of creating “sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency.” The Church also implores everyone to “combat, in a spirit of justice and charity, those “structures of sin” wherever they may be found and which generate and perpetuate poverty, underdevelopment and degradation. These structures are built and strengthened by numerous concrete acts of human selfishness."

Ron Paul has been combating one of the greatest “structures of sin” for a very long time: the Federal Reserve System, the fiat currency and its role in inflation, and the oppression of the middle class and poor in our country to the benefit of big government, big banks and big business. Say what?!?

In Ron Paul’s own words:

The dollar died on August 15,1971; after that date, it had no independent value for anyone. The new rules, with the dollar now simply a managed fiat currency, ushered in even greater inflation, economic turmoil, and set the stage for total loss of confidence in the dollar.

With the death of the dollar, the time is ripe for the institution of a trustworthy monetary system. The times demand it, and so does the survival of our economic and political order.

The task is not difficult, if we ignore—for once—the political pressures from the special interests whose demands are fulfilled through inflation of the money supply. Inflation, whether for the benefit of big companies, bankers, bureaucrats, monopoly wages, transfer payments, or political careers, must be ended.

If we expect to reverse the destruction of our economy, we must try to understand the motives of those who promote inflation.

Many big business people, bankers, union leaders, politicians, and professors all grew to love inflation, as they saw in it a chance to pursue their goals. Sometimes these were purely materialistic; at other times they embodied the lust for power. In both cases they were immoral.

When I studied the amount of inflation since 1970 and the proportion of Federal deficits in those years that needed to be monetized—created out of thin air—I came up with some startling figures. It is possible that only twenty percent of the inflation, the expansion of the money supply, was necessitated by deficit spending. Eighty percent of the inflation, therefore, may have been for "stimulation" of the economy to aid big business and big banking. Whatever the motive, these institutions profit from the depreciation of the dollar.

Some of the large banks, which have been prominent promoters of fiat currency, have certainly benefited from inflation. Their "profits" have been enhanced, since somebody has to broker all the new money created by government, and pass it on to the large corporations. The international bankers are delighted to do so.

The banks also have the privilege of creating checking account money, known as demand deposits. The banks create this money in the process of making loans—loans for which they charge interest. Much of our money consists of bank-created demand deposits.

Inflation bestows benefits, as well as wreaking havoc. Wealth is transferred from one group to another. Although the transfer has haphazard elements, it goes from the middle class and the poor to the government, the bankers, and the large corporations. This is the immoral process that must be stopped.

Interventionist economists carelessly criticize the spreading of economic growth throughout a free-market society as the "trickle-down theory." But inflation, by trickling, then rushing, through society, spreads economic misery among the poor, working, and middle classes, while enriching the special interests. It is this "trickling-down" that deserves condemnation from everyone concerned about poverty. (Gold, Peace and Prosperity, by Ron Paul)

Here Ron Paul clearly describes one of the greatest “structures of sin” plaguing our society today.

What is a structure of sin? It is the sum total of “the negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome.” Structures of sin are “rooted in personal sin [such as greed and the lust for power], and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people’s behavior.” (John Paul II – Sollicitudo Rei Socialis)

The Federal Reserve System, its necessary inflationary mechanisms and the way it very subtly and immorally transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to big business, banks and government is perhaps one of the greatest “structures of sin” leading to the oppression of the America people by special interests. These structures “generate and perpetuate poverty.”

The Catholic Church teaches that the State has a responsibility to ensure a “stable currency” as one of the fundamental tasks of the State in economic matters. The State’s current monetary policy is one of structural instability and inflation.

[The] State must adopt suitable legislation but at the same time it must direct economic and social policies in such a way that it does not become abusively involved in the various market activities, the carrying out of which is and must remain free of authoritarian – or worse, totalitarian – superstructures and constraints.

Our current Federal Reserve/Fiat Monetary System has surrendered our country to authoritarian and totalitarian superstructures that oppress the poor and destroy the middle class while advancing the “economic interests” of the elites of a global society against the basic and just interests of regular folks like you and me.

Our country and our economy are being destroyed and the reason is primarily our Federal Reserve System/Fiat Monetary System.

Oh, and the Founding Fathers also agree:

"It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution, as well as the history of the times which gave birth to it," said Andrew Jackson, "that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals."

"The loss which America has sustained since the peace," noted James Madison in Federalist Number 44, "from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the State chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice of the power which has been the instrument of it."

"The emitting of paper money is wisely prohibited to the State Governments," said Alexander Hamilton, "and the spirit of the prohibition ought not to be disregarded by the United States' Government."

Not only is inflation the result of the political demands of special interest groups, the career desires of politicians, and the ill-conceived motives of economists, it is also clearly unconstitutional. Money of real value, gold or silver, was clearly intended by the Founding Fathers, as evidenced in their writings and in the Constitution. Their abhorrence of paper money stemmed from their experience with the Continental, and irredeemable Colonial paper money. That same abhorrence is becoming evident today as well, which is a healthy sign for those of us interested in developing a sound money system. (Gold, Peace and Prosperity by Ron Paul)

Go Ron Paul!

St. Ignatius of Loyola Prayer for Ron Paul

2007-10-11T06:43:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul is fighting the good fight hard. Here he is on Tucker Carlson and he's looking a little tired. He needs our prayers.

"Dearest Lord, teach me to be generous.
Teach me to serve you as you deserve;
to give and not to count the cost;
to fight and not to heed the wounds;
to labor and not to seek for rest;
to give of myself and not to ask for reward,
except the reward of knowing that I am doing your will."
-St. Ignatius, pray for us.

Chaldeans for Ron Paul

2007-10-10T05:52:00.000-06:00

This guy now wants Paul to deliver his babies.

National Review warming to Ron Paul?

2007-10-09T14:15:00.000-06:00

I was surprised to find strong praise for Ron Paul on the National Review Online blog:

This weekend, I attended and spoke at the Second Amendment Foundation’s annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, which was held at a convention center in northern Kentucky, a few miles away from Cincinnati. What I saw and heard there changed my mind about the viability of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy; Paul is going to far outperform the expectations laid out for him.
... Last Saturday night, at the buffet dinner and reception, the speaker was Ron Paul. The difference between Paul as a speaker in 1988 and in 2007 was startling. In 1988, he was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson.
...Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized, many of them sporting Ron Paul Revolution t-shirts. (The shirts are very clever, since they use “Revolution” to also say ““LOVE”,” which makes revolution seem a lot nicer.)
...
Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. It is true that Republicans have, for over half a century, nominated whoever was leading in the first Gallup poll after Labor Day. But the past doesn’t control the future. Until 2000, for instance, no-one who had lost the New Hampshire primary had ever won the general election.
Polls show that about quarter of Americans are libertarians, in a general sense, so Paul has lots of room for growth. If he can keep raising enough money to get his message out, then with some strong finishes in the early states, he will start getting earned media. And beyond that, Ronald Reagan is among the many candidates who have proven that many voters will support someone even if they disagree with him on many issues, if they respect his integrity and find hope in his optimistic vision.

Ron Paul, John Paul II, and the Iraq War

2007-10-04T15:51:00.001-06:00

Below is an article written a few months ago by a good friend of mine, Kathryn Landreneau. We tried to get it published in some other venues to no avail. So what better place to post this than Catholics for Ron Paul?

-------

"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." This was Rudy Giuliani’s scathing commentary on Ron Paul’s discussion of the Iraq situation during the Republican debate on May 15. Paul was the only candidate there who does not support U.S. involvement in Iraq, so he drew plenty of fire. Sean Hannity was another one of Paul’s attackers. During the Fox News interview after the debate, he would not allow Paul to finish his sentences, and called his ideas “immoral.” Since both Giuliani and Hannity are Catholics and Ron Paul is not, it should be safe to assume that Paul’s ideas are unacceptable to Catholics. However, to make that assumption would be nothing more than to judge a book by its cover.

During the debate, Paul outlined his opinions on Iraq quite clearly. He believes that the traditional Republican foreign policy is to avoid entanglements with other countries. Ronald Reagan, the quintessential modern republican, said that it is particularly unwise to become involved in the Middle East, because the region is so “irrational.” According to Paul, the U.S.’s continuous meddling in Iraqi affairs for the past ten years, including an occupation of their holy land in Saudi Arabia, bombings in their country, and sanctions, were part of the cause of the 9-11 attacks. Paul is not pulling these ideas out of thin air. The official 9-11 report written by the CIA says the same thing. Yet, people like Giuliani and Hannity insist on calling Paul’s assertions absurd and immoral.

Perhaps someone should ask them if they thought John Paul II was absurd and immoral. During his State of the World address in 2003, the late Pope begged world leaders not to solve the problem of terrorism in the Middle East by going to war. The way to attack terrorism, he said, is by going to its root causes. People are driven to terrorism when they are being treated unjustly: “History, in fact, shows that the recruitment of terrorists is more easily achieved in areas where human rights are trampled upon and where injustice is a part of daily life,” he said, naming Iraq as one of those countries. He explains that, among other things, it has been “sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo.” He clarifies that none of this is an excuse for terrorist acts. However, we cannot expect terrorism to end as long as we provoke a country by going to war against it.

It’s really no surprise that people like Giuliani and Hannity are not in line with John Paul II’s opinions on Iraq. After all, despite their claims to Catholicism, each of them stands against many other things John Paul II fought for. Giuliani has repeatedly asserted that he is pro-choice. He supports government funding of abortions and has said that partial birth abortions should not be banned. As New York mayor, he pushed the city council to protect the rights of homosexual partnerships. He has been married three times; the last marriage was to a woman he had had an extramarital affair with. Besides the fact that Hannity supports Giuliani in the presidential race, further evidence of his “cafeteria Catholicism” was exposed by Fr. Thomas Euteneuer recently. In his weekly column as president of Human Life International, Euteneuer challenged Hannity for being pro-contraception. Hannity then invited Euteneuer onto his show and proceeded to treat the priest rudely, even going so far as to blame Euteneuer in part for the clergy sex abuse scandals.

Despite the fact the Ron Paul is not Catholic, the convergence of his ideas on the war with those of John Paul II is no accident. Paul highly respected the late Pope and his views on social issues. On the occasion of John Paul II’s death, Ron Paul wrote a column praising him. In it, he said, “The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America.” In the column, Paul distanced himself from other political conservatives who resented the Pope’s views on the war. In this way, he shows himself to be a unique candidate in the presidential race, and one that Catholics should take notice of.

Kathryn Landreneau is a mother of two, heroically helping her husband attend Pepperdine Universtity School of Law in Pasedena, CA.

Benedict XVI & Ron Paul

2007-10-04T14:58:00.000-06:00

In August of 2005, over four hundred thousand youths from around the world flocked to Cologne to see a frail old man preach the message of the Gospel. Benedict XVI did not have the fire or charisma of his predecessor John Paul II, but nonetheless, the world's youth hung on this man's every word. There was no need for fireworks, no need for liturgical dance, the world's youth needed none of the worldly things many of their parents try to placate them with. What they needed was the Message: "My dear young people, you too offer to the Lord the gold of your lives, namely, your freedom to follow Him out of love, responding faithfully to His call..." With that call, thousands knelt behind this old bishop in Eucharistic adoration. Benedict XVI's profound commitment to the Message, in spite of his relatively bland persona, has won over world youth. It is their hope that Benedict will deliver into action the wonderful ideas and rhetoric espoused by the great John Paul.

Currently, in America we have a similar phenomena with Dr. Ron Paul. The media, the elites, and most baby boomers are baffled by the growing youth movement in support of a man whom they describe as "ordinary, frial-looking" with an "unexceptional" speaking ability. Of course, once again youth are lured not by the condescending superficialities of the candidate's persona, but his commitment to a profound message, freedom. Paul's predecessor in the freedom message was none other than the late Ronald Reagan. Like John Paul II, Reagan's charisma and freedom oriented rhetoric inspired Americans throughout the 1980's. What America's youth are hoping for in Ron Paul today, is that Reagan's freedom oriented rhetoric is set into action, particularly against both the domestic and foreign policies of the culture of death.

And so their respective followings grow, in spite of derision by American elites. For instance, when the Tridentine Latin mass was recently given liberalized status in the Catholic Church, Cardinal O'Malley of Boston tried to downplay its significance: "This issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country..." He, of course fails to see the growing number of young families as well as old pre-boomers who are finding a great interest in the ancient liturgy. The same goes for Ron Paul's messages. For example, with regard to banking and finance, Paul seeks to eliminate the Federal Reserve, replacing it with a gold standard. While elites deride these ideas as both anachronistic and unrealistic, America's youth is much more skeptical of the current power structure, with a growing interest in the "classical" ways of doing things. In both Benedict XVI and Ron Paul, we see a rebirth of the practices and ideals held onto for decades by a tiny remnant. [Maybe we needed restoration of the Latin Mass before we could restore the gold standard.]

I was originally tempted to compare Benedict XVI and a Ron Paul presidency to the collaboration between John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, but their collaboration dealt with a more black and white challenge than what we face today. Today, like in the early 20th Century, we see a world fractured by nationalism, terrorism, and total war. I'm hoping we see the waning of the leviathan that began amidst the heroic protests of Benedict XV and Blessed Karl of Austria less than a hundred years ago. I'm hoping for a Ron Paul presidency to help Benedict XVI bury the leviathan and curtail the destructive power lust of the 20th century. Benedict eliminated the papal tiara from his coat of arms, symbolically demonstrating that the Church's authority is not authoritarian. Paul, like Benedict, seeks to restore the proper role of power vested in the American presidency by bringing its office back to the enumerated powers delegated to it by the Constitution. In other words, the President and the Federal government's authority is not authoritarian. A Ron Paul presidency during a Benedict XVI papacy would make a formidable challenge to a world enthralled by the culture of death. Both men know how to intelligently deal with the Middle East such that both east and west will mutually benefit from a peace based on free trade, actual diplomacy, and understanding.

I wonder if Benedict XVI knows who Ron Paul is and how well the revolution reconciles with the Message of his Papacy?

Blessed Karl and Benedict XV, pray for us.

Rosary for Ron Paul's Campaign Success Begins Today

2007-10-04T12:13:00.000-06:00

This e-mail came in from a reader of Catholics for Ron Paul. Looks like CFRP is making a difference in the campaign. Thank you Catherine for tuning in and being an advocate for Ron Paul.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hello!

Thanks for all the wonderful info on Catholics for Ron Paul.

I'vealready converted at least one Catholic to his cause thanks to you, and we both had the idea of praying the Rosary for Ron Paul's campaign success. We'll be having a prayer vigil from the feast of St. Francis until the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. (Think Lepanto, thePhilippines, and all the other victories attributable to the power ofthe Rosary.)

Here's the info: From the feast of St. Francis to the feast Our Lady of the Rosary (October 4-7) join us in praying a daily Rosary for the success of Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign.

We are also praying for peace in our world, an end to Roe v. Wade, anda restoration of total religious freedom in America.

For all those not totally convinced about a Ron Paul presidency (Iunderstand, I've been there), please join in praying the Rosary forour country, for our next president, and for the upcoming elections.

N.B. Dr. Paul is not a Catholic, so the Rosary is probably not histhing; on the other hand, he is pro-religious freedom, so we figure itcan only be for the good.

If any of you are on facebook, check out the event!

http://thomasaquinas.facebook.com/event.php?eid=5154084639

Thanks again and God bless your efforts!

Sincerely,

Catherine

Is a Non-Interventionism the same as Isolationism?

2007-10-04T09:13:00.000-06:00

The most frequent swipe taken against Ron Paul is that he is a "isolationist." When talking to people about Ron Paul the response is often, "Isn't he an isolationist?!?"

Isolationism conjures up images of a militia style survivalists radically relying on his bowie knife and wits to keep himself warm and alive but loath to interact or even talk to his suspicious neighbors.

In an interconnected networked global economy, isolationism sounds kind of crazy. So if Ron Paul is an isolationist, then isn't he kind of crazy too? And thus the slur against Ron Paul does its job and goes unchallenged in the minds of unsuspecting voters.

But what is isolationism, and is Ron Paul an isolationist?

From Wikipedia:

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). It asserts both:

1. Non-Interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related directly to direct territorial self-defense.

2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries.

Isolationism is nonintervention combined with economic nationalism (protectionism). Most non-interventionists are not isolationists. Most, like Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul in the United States, favor nonintervention combined with free trade and free cultural exchange.

+ + + + + + +

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist, rather he, along with our Founding Fathers, is a non-interventionist.

Ron Paul is opposed to our current foreign policy which was crafted by neo-conservatives in the latter part of the 1990's. These neo-conservatives, many of whom are signatories to the Project for a New American Century, espouse a policy of direct intervention in the affairs of other countries because America has a responsibility to be the policeman of the world, and has almost a divine mandate to spread peace, freedom and democracy around the world by using military power!

Our current foreign policy is one of global entanglements and the "spreading of our values" abroad through "pre-emptive war" and other methods of naked and stealth coercion. This is a policy of empire and neo-imperialism. This is not the policy of our Founding Fathers; it is the English policy our Founding Fathers fought to liberate themselves and us - their posterity - from living under.

Does Ron Paul advocate economic Protectionism?

Not at all.

He wants to get America out of these global trade agreements that "manage trade" in a way that is akin to protectionism.

Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is a canard to deflect from a serious debate about America's current foreign policy of "never-ending pre-emptive war for an ever ascending global peace and security." This policy is unconstitutional, it is an affront to the American people in whose name it is advanced, and it is giving us a tyrannical domestic policy and fueling suicide terrorism.

This policy is the problem. Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President who is making this point.

Don't let anyone get away with calling Ron Paul an isolationist - he isn't. Calling him one is an attempt to slur him and make him seem crazy.

Go Ron Paul!

Ron Paul astounds with $5m in 3rd quarter

2007-10-03T17:53:00.000-06:00

Amazing news, but not unexpected by those who have been following Ron Paul's campaign closely:

The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter. Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.
...
Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent. [source.]

The third quarter (which includes the slow summer months) is normally a slower quarter for presidential campaigners. Ron Paul defies this trend by more than doubling his total earnings , putting him in a very good place for the upcoming months.

This is really "go time" for Ron Paul supporters. His campaign is growing stronger and his base is becoming wider. The more people that hear Ron Paul's message and and the more people that learn what he actually stands for (as opposed to media misrepresentation) - the more supporters he will gain. Mainstream news organizations such as the Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times, USA Today, and cable networks are being forced to take notice.

Ron Paul's earnings put him well ahead of Mike Huckabee, another appealing candidate to conscientious Catholic voters. It will be very difficult for Huckabee to continue campaigning with his limited funds. Ron Paul, however, with a 100% pro-life voting record and a platform very much in-tune with Catholic social teaching, continues to gain momentum. In a related vein, I think the totality of his positions as well as his previous record make him a more favorable candidate in many ways than Fred Thompson.

For instance, his opposition to the Iraq War is not a result of an isolationist tendency. He believes the US should not go to war illiegaly and without a declaration of Congress. He supported the war in Afghanistan, for instance, because it directly focused on eliminating terrorist cells and was conducted within the rule of law.

He is a strict constitutionalist, and will not vote for any legislation that he believes contradicts it. This principle has earned him the nickname "Dr. No", but it also reveals a man who is uncompromising in his principles, even if it means political harm.

Again, his take on economics issues is nuanced and well-founded, in contradistinction to the profligate, dangerous spending increasingly embraced by the mainstream GOP. He wants to eliminate undue taxes and let people keep the fruits of their labor. He supports personal liberty, but includes within his definition of a person the unborn child from the moment of conception.

Ron Paul is also not afraid to change his mind when he is proven wrong, as his stance on the impermissibleness of the death penalty in America demonstrates. He is a politician without the vices that sadly characterize most politicians.

That's just a few things about Ron Paul. There is much more to say. Please continue reading these pages or ask in the comment box about clarification regarding his views on other issues. Thank you!

Ron Paul & The Death Penalty

2007-10-01T19:11:00.000-06:00

Nowadays, in America as elsewhere in the world, a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other "bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State's disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender 'are now very rare, even non-existent practically'". (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America January 1999)

Ron Paul, the most consistently principled politician living today has changed one of his positions. That position is on the Death Penalty.

Ron Paul has studied the issue very carefully and now his position is for the abolition of the Federal Death Penalty altogether. He gives his reasons at the All-American Forum debate hosted by PBS on September 27th.

This is just one more public policy position of Ron Paul that is in deep harmony with Catholic Social Teaching.

Go Ron Paul!

Ron Paul raises 1.2M in 7 days

2007-10-01T14:20:00.000-06:00

He (we) did it. Ron Paul raised over $1.2M in seven days, far exceeding the original goal of $500k. This is good news for the campaign and improves the chances that more people will get to hear his message as a result.

An MSNBC politics blog has a favorable report of RP's recent New Hampshire rally, which went very well.

It was a family walk and RP was joined by 30 of his family members [source]. Unlike the other candidates he doesn't continually shove his family into the public eye for political gain.

Because of his humility and respect for privacy you might not know that he has five children, eighteen grandchildren and one great-grandchild. He just celebrated his golden anniversary [source].

Now that's living what you believe, without wearing it on your sleeve.

Props to a Boston Globe article for covering this story.

Help Ron Paul Break a cool Million in the Next Two Days!

2007-09-28T09:00:00.000-06:00

The Ron Paul 2008 Campaign has been busy.

They gave us a challenge: raise $500,000 before the end of the 3rd quarter, so that the Ron Paul Campaign could report a big boost in funds.

Well, you responded. You raised $500,000 so quickly that Ron Paul has issued a bigger challenge: DOUBLE THAT AMOUNT TO $1,000,000!

If you haven't given a donation yet, NOW IS THE TIME.

If you have donated already, DONATE AGAIN!

Check out the campagin website for a real time count of the money. If you donate, you can see your name register on the site too.

You only have until September 30th to help him get over the one million dollar mark.

As of this posting the donation level is very close to $685,000. That means we only have to raise a few hundred thousand dollars to do this.

Let's send a message to the psudo-conservatives in the Republican party and in the elite media who have been so disrespectful to our candidate.

Let's send a message to the American People to take Ron Paul seriously.

Come on, let's DO THIS!

Go Ron Paul!

Laws passed to combat terrorism will be used against Americans

2007-09-25T07:52:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul recently said this at the Values Voter debate. His point is that government is not our friend, it is not our benevolent savior, it should not be our "big brother."

Limited government is a central tenant of Catholic Social Teaching as the government has a duty to respect the dignity of persons and families and a host of intermediary organizations including the Church.

This news story covered by Drudge today speaks to the reality of a government with a bloated budget and nothing better to do than waste American tax payer's money. It also speaks to the reality that when we give up our liberties for security we do end up losing both.

Ron Paul is the only candidate raising these urgent issues in the campaign.

Go Ron Paul!

Ron Paul Roundup (9/24/07)

2007-09-24T00:11:00.000-06:00

Stories and blog posts related to Ron Paul:

LewRockwell: More Ron Paul Secrets Revealed
BaltimoreSun: Anti-war Republican
DetroitNews: "Texas Rep. Ron Paul may be barely showing a political pulse in state and national polling, but his message that the federal government has grown obese and unresponsive, and interferes with the daily lives of Americans, struck a chord at breakfast this morning with Michigan Republicans gathered here for at a pep-rally type conference."
DetroitFreePress: GOP meets on island: "But the most surprising presence for conference-goers arriving on the island was the swarm of supporters of maverick U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas."
Notice: Ron Paul will be in New York City on October 12th.
Ron Paul’s Internet Blitz Continues: Campaign to Stream Live Video of Chicago Rally Saturday: "Paul has been routinely gaining crows over 1000 people at his events across the country. While placing an emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire, Paul’s campaign appears to be already running a national campaign to some extent."
Ron Paul in Mackinaw City, Mich
DetriotFreePress: Get troops out of Iraq, let states decide marijuana issue, GOP candidate says (I just recently heard a priest who works in prison ministry complain that poor non-violent drug abusers are sent to jail while rich non-violent drug abusers are sent to rehab. That constitutes a problem I think).
Ron Paul's sticky revolution: "America is better for having Ron Paul in the thick of its political fray. He is a man of intelligence and vision in a crowd of pretty faces and speeches. The geek may not get the girl in the end, but he can teach a thing or two to the jock. Here's hoping that the thorn in the side of the America's political establishment does a lot more damage before he's through."
Free Republic Kick Out Ron Paul?
Is Ron Paul Really Trying to Win?

Note, CFRP does not vouch for the objectivity of each source cited. Care and judgement, as always, are expected from our readership in these matters. Topics deserving their own post will shortly be discussed separately.

Ron Paul shows at Michigan GOP straw poll

2007-09-23T22:53:00.000-06:00

A New York Times blog reports.

Giuliani's longest ferry ride of his life

2007-09-23T21:25:00.000-06:00

Iza Ding reports:

It was the last ferry back from the island to Mackinac city. Nearly 100 Ron Paul supporters were waiting on the dock when they were surprised to see Mayor Giuliani appear with his bodyguards walking toward the ferryboat. The crowd started cheering Ron Paul’s name and Mayor Giuliani’s smiling face suddenly turned thunderstruck. Informed that it was the last ferry, Giuliani ended up boarding with those Ron Paul supporters and took the “longest” ferry ride in his life.
The ferryboat was going like the wind, cleaving the waves on the Great Lakes in the inky darkness, as if the Black Pearl in the movie Pirates of Caribbean. Giuliani was “hiding” beneath the window in the captain’s cabinet, with bodyguards standing around him to block the sight. The crowd kept cheering Ron Paul’s name again and again all the way, for almost 20 minutes, many of them were calling their friends and family to give them the play-by-play.
When the ferry reached Mackinac City, Giuliani went out of the captain’s cabinet with a cheering face and offered to shake hands with passengers sitting in the first row but they were reluctant to do so. Afraid of Ron Paul supporters’ enthusiasm, Giuliani got off the fore of the boat, instead of taking the normal path at the stern.
Also on board were FOX News reporters who covered the whole ride with their vidicon, but it wasn’t put on air.

Actually, from the comments section, part of it was:

CFRP Welcomes Dr. Christopher Manion

2007-09-21T08:05:00.000-06:00

Catholics for Ron Paul is honored to add Dr. Christopher Manion to its growing list of regular bloggers who take Catholic Social Teaching seriously and are looking at the Ron Paul message for its compatibility with the Church's teaching.

Dr. Christopher Manion studied at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business and Notre Dame University, where he earned a Ph.D. in government. Since then, he has taught at various universities, spent six years as a subcommittee staff director on the Senate side of Capitol Hill, and helped found the political satire group The Capitol Steps. He has been a contributing editor and music critic for Saturday Review and High Fidelity magazines, and his op-eds and book reviews appear frequently in The Wall Street Journal. He is also the founder of Manion Music, LLC - which sells royalty free music.

Please give Dr. Manion a warm welcome.

Go Ron Paul!

Pope Benedict: "No one likes taxes!"

2007-09-21T06:50:00.000-06:00

In an off the cuff statement on Wednesday, Pope Benedict the XVI made reference to the third-century revolt against excessive taxation saying, "some things never change."

Benedict was refering to the current Italian debates about taxation, but he could just as easily been referring to the Ron Paul Revolution.

Although the comment was a moment of levity, the Holy Father is pointing to an important principle. The Church's view of the State is that it is limited. Limited formost by the inherent rights of the person and family, and further by the legitimate role of intermediate associations and the Church, as well as by the most local level of government.

By its nature, the State seeks to absorb all power and authority to itself. Its natural tendency is to grow, become bloated and tyrannical with the illegitimate idea that the people exist to serve the State, rather than the State exists to serve the people.

A clear sign of this sickness of the State is over taxation.

And when you tax the people too much, you get a revolt.

Whether in third-century Rome, or the twenty-first-century United States, when the State opresses the people through excessive taxation, the people speak up.

This is one of the principles awakening the Ron Paul Revolutionaries - an inate desire for their inalienable Liberty from an opressive State!

Go Ron Paul!

"Bernanke Stumped by Representative Ron Paul"

2007-09-20T16:51:00.000-06:00

Scott Reamer:

In today’s testimony before the house, Fed Chairman Bernanke was questioned by Representative Ron Paul in what was a remarkable exchange. Remarkable for how straightforward, lucid, and anti-statist the question was. In his questioning, Ron Paul stated:
"I want to follow up on the discussion about moral hazard. I think we have a very narrow understanding about what moral hazard really is. Because I think moral hazard begins at the very moment that we create artificially low interest rates which we constantly do. And this is the reason people make mistakes. It isn’t because human nature causes us to make all these mistakes, but there is a normal reaction when interest rates are low that there will be overinvestment and malinvestment, excessive debt, and then there are consequences from this. My question is going to be around the subject of how can it ever be morally justifiable to deliberately depreciate the value of our currency?”
His statements continued (about how much oil, gold, wheat, corn, etc. has gone up since the rate decrease) but the heart of his question was the following moral question: ...consciously depreciating the value of the USD has winners and losers (Wall Street/banks/the rich and everyone else), Mr. Bernanke. How do you constantly choose Wall Street over the rest of America?

I'd highly encourage CFRP viewers to read the rest here.

New Gallup Poll: Ron Paul tied with Huckabee!

2007-09-19T21:28:00.001-06:00

--> The latest Gallup Poll is out. <--

My breakdown:

Guliani still leads, but he is near a record-low
Fred Thompson second, but not moving
McCain has risen a bit to third
Romney has fallen dramatically (to 7%)
... and fifth is Ron Paul, (only 3 points from Romney)!
Huckabee is tied with Ron Paul at 4%
Duncan Hunger/Sam Browback at 2%

I think Thompson will fade as he gets more exposure. Ron Paul continues to increase as more people a) hear about him in the first place and b) get past the misconceptions the media has made about his platform and views. Spread the word!

Jews for Ron Paul

2007-09-19T21:25:00.000-06:00

The LRC Blog:

Jews for Ron Paul Offended by Dr. Paul's Exclusion From Debate; Calls for Jewish Republicans to Boycott "Republican Jewish Coalition"
Calling on the Republican Jewish Coalition to change its criteria for inclusion in its Victory 2008 Republican Jewish Coalition Candidates Forum, Jews for Ron Paul for President Executive Director Jim C. Perry asked Jewish voters to avoid joining the organization that purports to be representing Jewish Republican voters. "The Republican Jewish Coalition has decided to exclude Dr. Ron Paul from their 'debate', not because of any objective criteria, but because they disagree with Dr. Paul on issues of foreign policy," he said. [More]

Ron Paul Re-Introduces Ballot Access Bill

2007-09-19T20:58:00.001-06:00

Ballot Access News:

On September 19, Congressman Ron Paul introduced a bill, outlawing restrictive ballot access laws for minor party and independent candidates for the U.S. House. He had previously introduced this bill in past sessions of Congress.
... Article One of the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to override state election laws pertaining to Congressional elections.

The bill would make it easier for third-party canditates to campaign for office. Currently, state-level laws make it extremely difficult for thirty-party candidates to get on the ballot.

Constitution Party Endorses Ron Paul

2007-09-19T20:50:00.000-06:00

Update: We should be precise. This is actually an endorsement from the CP presidential candidate from '04, not the CP party officially (thanks to NB):

I endorse Rep. Ron Paul for President. And I endorse him not because he is the lesser of two evils. A Christian can never endorse any kind of evil. I endorse Rep. Paul because — from a Christian/Biblical and Constitutional perspective – he is, by far, the best candidate running for President.
Rep. Paul takes his oath to God as a Congressman seriously and believes, correctly, that the Constitution is the highest man-made law in our land, that it severely restricts what the Federal Government can legally do, and it must be obeyed. This is why, as he states on his campaign web site, he has: never voted to raise taxes; never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a Federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to raise Congressional pay; never taken a government-paid junket; and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
...He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Rep. Paul, again correctly, is truly pro-life and believes that there are no circumstances under which it is OK to murder by abortion any innocent unborn babies. Another admirable characteristic demonstrated repeatedly by Rep. Paul is that he speaks honestly and plainly.
... God bless you, sir, and your family as you proceed in this campaign. And God does bless us when we obey Him. Rep. Ron Paul is a real patriot who understands that true love of country requires, first, trusting in God’s Providence and next obedience to our Constitution. He is a man who rejects mindless jingoism such as “My country right or wrong.” Instead, he believes that when our country is wrong – as it is today in many ways — true patriots must work to set us right. As President, Ron Paul, I believe, would work Christianly and Constitutionally to set our country right. This is why, in good conscience, I endorse his candidacy for President of the United States. [source]

More on the CP at Wikipedia, that "it ranks third nationally amongst all United States political parties in registered voters, with 366,937 registered members as of November 2006."

Ron Paul & Alan Greenspan

2007-09-19T10:58:00.000-06:00

Alan Greenspan recently published a book in which he "accused Bush of racking up big budget deficits, saying the president and Congress' former Republican leaders abandoned the party's conservative principles favoring small government" and also writes that he regreted each time when President Bush did not use his presidential veto power to address "out-of-control spending." (source: AP)

Today the Free Market News Network highlights three exchanges that took place between Alan Greenspan during his time as chairmen of the federal reserve and Dr. Ron Paul which demonstrate Ron Paul's long track-record for demanding fiscally-sound and sane federal monetary policies which defend freedom and avoid exploitation. A sample:

2/11/2004 — DIALOGUE TWO
(In which Ron Paul gets Greenspan to admit the Fed has ‘inordinate power.’)
Dr. PAUL: "Maybe there is too much power in the hands of those who control monetary policy, the power to create the financial bubbles, the power to maybe bring the bubble about, the power to change the value of the stock market within minutes? That to me is just an ominous power and challenges the whole concept of freedom and liberty sound money."
Dr. GREENSPAN: "Congressman, as I have said to you before, the problem you are alluding to is the conversion of a commodity standard to fiat money. We have statutorily gone onto a fiat money standard, and as a consequence of that it is inevitable that the authority, which is the producer of the money supply, will have inordinate power."

The Morally Obtuse "Values Voter"

2007-09-18T21:52:00.000-06:00

If I weren't under tremendous pressure to meet a book deadline over the next couple of weeks I'd write a whole piece on the "values voter" debate the other night. Ron Paul did an excellent job, and refused to pander to the various interest groups demanding their federal goodies. (You'd think they'd at least respect him for refusing to pander.)

According to what "values," exactly, are we to devote all our energies to getting pornography out of hotel rooms, but be utterly unmoved -- and I mean unmoved -- by the completely avoidable deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq? Why is this not a moral issue, and why is the just-war tradition to be dismissed with such sneering contempt? And pardon my bluntness, but what kind of blockhead thinks you have to be a "liberal" to be outraged at this? What kind of religion do these people believe in? (Their definition of a just war seems to be a war waged by the U.S. government.)

As for Islam, the point is that U.S. policies do motivate people to join up with the radicals. Assuming arguendo that the radicals themselves would wish to wage jihad no matter what, the rank and file in these groups are --gasp -- human beings who respond to U.S. government policies that hurt them. How can you expect to play empire and not suffer the consequences?

Video: Ron Paul at the Value Voters Debate

2007-09-18T21:11:00.000-06:00

After being treated rather unfairly at the Value Voter's Debate, Ron Paul composed himself and delivered this final speech. Note especially, at the end of this clip, his remarks about the "Christian Tradition of ... Just War" (which he apparently mentioned earlier in the debate). Ron Paul accurately understands, describes and applies it in the limited time he is allowed:

Alan Keyes makes 3rd bid for presidency

2007-09-18T20:53:00.000-06:00

Associated Press:

Alan Keyes, a Republican whose two previous runs for president ended in failure, is making a third try for the White House.
... He joins a crowded Republican field of nine candidates and is scheduled to participate Monday night at a debate involving lesser-known candidates in Florida.

Iosue Andreas at The Western Confucian makes some interesting - albeit vitriolic - observations about a potential Keyes vs. Paul competition.

Casey Khan has posted on this same topic at greater length over at the LewRockwell Blog, saying he "can't help but think that Keyes was drafted after Ron Paul's defeat of Huckabee." Johnny Kramer, of the LewRockwell site proper, has a very extended analysis, which begins with the claim that "The Ron Paul campaign has the establishment running scared" and explains Keyes' late entrance to the race in that light.

Speaking personally, think Alan Keyes is probably more likely to draw-away Huckabee or Brownback supporters than those of Ron Paul, because Keyes shares H&B's pro-war stance, etc.

Ron Paul's views on homeschooling

2007-09-18T20:47:00.001-06:00

Again, very complimentary with Catholic Social Teaching:

Many parents of home schooled children are likely wondering how the 2008 Presidential Candidates are feeling about the issue of home schooling. Many of the candidates have not made a formal statement regarding home schooling, perhaps because many of them think the issue is not as pertinent as other issues.
However, Ron Paul has voiced his opinion on home schooling. He calls it a “practical alternative” for families. He strongly supports the issue and option of home schooling in America and puts such a strong emphasis on it, one wonders why the other candidates haven’t mentioned their takes on this interesting educational issue ...
The reason Ron Paul agrees home schooling is an important part of American education is because he believes parents should have more control over the education of their children. He wants to take home schooling incentives even further by advancing tax credits via the Family Education Freedom Act. This would allow parents to use more of their own income for their home schooling efforts. He vows to protect home schooling parents by promising “federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents”. [source]

Ron Paul Roundup (9/12/07)

2007-09-18T19:56:00.001-06:00

Stories and blog posts related to Ron Paul:

New Hampshire State Representative Paul Ingbretson Endorses Ron Paul: "Congressman Ron Paul understands, like no presidential candidate in recent history, that the central purpose of government in America is to secure the liberty of her citizens," said Representative Ingbretson. "He has the unbelievable integrity and guts to speak out and vote the liberty agenda of the Founding Fathers-not once, or occasionally, but every time. Never in my lifetime have I seen anyone running for president so oriented and in these days of Patriot Act madness I endorse his candidacy unequivocally."
Ron Paul Seen Winning Values Debate Poll (50%)
Ron Paul raises $350,000 on West Coast Tour (not that he can't use more!): "Given the increase in fund raising and the size of the crowds Paul is attracting it looks like Paul’s Conservative/Libertarian message is likely to play out well in Western states."
(old news, but not covered before): Ron Paul Wins New Hampshire Straw Poll (73%)

Note, CFRP does not vouch for the objectivity of each source cited. Care and judgement, as always, are expected from our readership in these matters. Topics deserving their own post will shortly be discussed separately.

Clinton: health care a requirement before work

2007-09-18T13:48:00.000-06:00

The Associated Press reports:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system. "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
...
Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the [telivision] ad.
The ad also continues her campaign's effort to appropriate the mantle of change away from rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards. The word change or its variations appears four times in the ad, which ends: "So, if you're ready for change, she's ready to lead."

The annual cost of this proposal? $110 billion a year.

... [Clinton] told the AP she relished a debate over health care with her political opponents, including Republicans "who understood that we had to reform health care before they started running for president."

I wonder if she would relish a debate with Ron Paul on this issue.

Here's what he had to say last year about requiring proof of health care before employment, and also what he thinks about universal health care initiatives (underlining is mine):

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
[Ron Paul then lists several bills he currently supports in Congress.]

Ron Paul has a reasonable critique, personal experience and offers a concrete solution to America's health care crisis.

Clinton is serving up the same proposals that she did in the early 1990's. Is she really relishing a debate with Ron Paul, or instead, the other republican candidates? Who is truly about change?

"We are drifting into a Totalitarian State" - Ron Paul

2007-09-18T06:53:00.000-06:00

Last night at the Values Voter Debate, Ron Paul expressed his profound concern at the erosion of our civil liberties in waging the so called War on Terror. He said that legislation that is created to fight this war will be used against Americans especially Christians.

This morning, Drudge Report, presented this video of a college student who was arrested for asked a question to John Kerry about his membership in the same secret society as George Bush. Regardless of one's opinion about this line of questioning, this American has the Freedom, protected in the Constitution, to ask any question he likes. The police, for some reason, acts as if he has no Liberty. They proceed to "taser" him - that is subject him to electric charges.

What is most disturbing about this video? The clear erosion of our Liberty in the face of a kind of police state action, or the way that the majority of the citizens sat back and let it happen?

We need Ron Paul to restore the Republic and restore our Liberties that are given to us by God, and protected in our Constitution.

Oh, and the justification for this man's arrest and public torture was that he was inciting a riot.

CFRP Welcomes Thomas Peters from American Papist!

2007-09-17T22:12:00.000-06:00

Catholics for Ron Paul welcomes Thomas Peters of American Papist as a contributing blogger.

Thomas Peters recently completed his Masters in Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary and currently is pursuing higher studies at Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

Catholics for Ron Paul is very pleased to add him to our growing group regular bloggers.

Values Voter Debate - Ron Paul Comes in 2nd

2007-09-17T20:41:00.000-06:00

Tonight Ron Paul took part in the National Values Voter Debate.

Results:

1st Mike Huckabee at 63% and with 219 votes.
2nd Ron Paul with 44 Votes
3rd Alan Keynes

This straw polling was more sophisticated than other polls. They took a vote at the beginning and the end of the debate to see any shifts. Ron Paul lost 9 votes over the course of the debate. There were a number of issues where Ron Paul voted alone and contrary to the rest of the candidates but didn't take the opportunity to clarify his positions. This hurt him.

Ron Paul will have to do a better job of framing his positions vis-a-vis values voters on the difficult issues like drugs and pornography. He will have to explain his policies better within a Judeo-Christian Constitutional framework if he wants to win these voters.

After the debate, the organizers had a discussion in which Ron Paul's position on the war was kicked around and with it the classical Judeo-Christian principle of Just War doctrine. It was cheap and a deeply biased conversation where the Bible was taken out of context and Ron Pauls position as well to beat the drums for war. Ron Paul is right, using Christianity to justify our immoral and unConstitutional war is very dangerous. They paid lip service to Just War but immediately ejected it. The mixing of unbiblical rapture theology, eschatology and Middle East policy is very very dangerous. The comments of the post-debate seemed to have such a vision behind there comments.

Again, Ron Paul will have to better explain his positions using a Judeo-Christian Constitutional frame to draw more values voters to his message.

Here is a quick round up of his answers (grossly paraphrased, any errors are my own):

Marriage Amendment to the Constition as Man and Woman
Lead by example. 50 Years married. No to a Constitutional Amendment. Traditionally Judeo-Christianity sees marraige as under the jurisdiction of the Church not the State. The DOMA is enough to protect against Full Faith and Credit attacks on the State level. Should not concede this to the Federal Government. Look up the definition of Marriage in the dictionary - it is between a man and a women. We don't need the Federal Government to define this. This should be left to the States to decide.

Constitutional Amendment to protect Life from Conception to Natural Death
The Amendment process is too long and cumbersome, we have a process already provided for in the Constitution that is to remove this issue from Federal Jurisdiction. Why hasn't there been more Congressional support for my (RP's) Sanctity of Life Act? This is an immediate action that could be taken but isn't. We don't need an Amendment, the Constitution has the answer.

How will you protect America from Radical Islam?
Have to understand motives. They attack us because we are over there. Legislation that is used to fight Radical Islam will be used against Christians by the Government - we have to be very careful. The Answer is found by following the Constitution.

Talk about your faith.
Declared belief in Christianity. Up held Just War Doctrine against the unChristian aggressive doctrine of pre-emptive war. When when justify what we do by using Christianity, it is very dangerous. (Interestingly Brownback declared his belief that the war was a Just War, despite John Paul II's statement that it was not a Just War).

Security and Prosperity - Will you oppose a North American Union?
(Very strong answer from RP) Yes, and out of the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, the World Bank, World Trade Organization; strong declaration of American sovereignty.

What do you intend to do to counter act the Homosexual Agenda?
Rights are based on the individual NOT based on groups, be they race, gender, sexual orientation. We have to influence through persuasion and Churches, but we can't use Government to force people to accept our values. This doesn't work. We have to eradicate the Hate Laws. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect individual rights, not groups. Advocate through persuasion and Churches and pass legislation at the State level.

Yes & No Round

Do you support impeachment for Judicial Activists? RP - NO.

Will you defund Planned Parenthood? RP - YES.

Does "multi-culturalism" (used by Liberals) weaken America? RP - YES

Will you oppose immigration until US youth unemployment is below 5%? RP - YES

Do you support personal retirement accounts for social security? RP - YES

Jude Roy Moore Question on supporting a protection to express religious beliefs (display the 10 Commandments)? RP - YES

Will you nominate textualist judges who will reverse non-textualist decisions to the Supreme Court? RP - YES

Do you support an executive order protecting Military Chaplians right to religious expression? RP - YES

Would you veto Fairness Doctrine legislation? RP - YES

Would you prevent socialized health care via government universal heath care coverage? RP - YES

Would you eliminate and block any Hate Crimes legislation? RP - YES

Would you work to eliminate the national debt? RP - YES

Would your policy be the same that caused a boarder patrolman to be sentenced to 11 years for wounding an illegal alien who was smuggling drugs? RP - NO

Terri Shiavo question: Would you support legislation that would protect cognitively disabled Americans from being killed through starvation and dehydration? RP - NO
(This question has to be explained better by Ron Paul. Because it was one where he was the only candidate who voted no.)

Would you prosecute white collar distributors of hard core pornography that violate our obscenity laws? RP - NO
(This too is an issue Ron Paul will have to better explain to the values voter.)

Would you support human embryo destructive research? RP - NO

Would you support academic freedom for researchers who are persecuted at the Universities for their work on creationism and intelligent design? RP - YES

Would you extend broadcast indecency laws to cable networks? RP - NO
(This is another issue where Ron Paul voted contrary to the pack. It is another issue that needs clarification.)

Would you support legislation that would cause forfeiture of funding to any federally funded schools that teach homosexual indoctrination? RP - YES

Would you place Abstinence Programs on equal funding levels as contraception education? RP - YES.

Would you work to establish a comission to eradicate slavery of Christians in the Sudan? RP - NO
(This is another issue that Ron Paul must take time to better articulate his position upon.)

Would you support legislation to protect Christian symbols across our country that are being attacked by the ACLU? RP - YES

Would you veto non-discrimination employment act that makes sexual orientation a protected class? RP - YES

Would you eliminate the gag rule on 501(c) 3 organizations that prevent them from endorsing candidates? RP - YES

Would you recind Bush's executive order that permits Mexican truckers to freely drive across America competing directly with Americans and making dangerous conditions on the roads? RP - YES

Will you stand behind Isreal to keep their land? RP - YES

Would you support private health care initiative that create incentives for leading a healthy moral lifestyle that leads to fewer health care issues? RP - YES

Would you endorse an autonomous region for Iraq Christians as possible in the Iraq Constitution? RP - NO. (He voted counter to the rest on this one).

There was a question by Voice of the Martyrs on visas, didn't catch it. RP - NO

Will you oppose the effort to make abortion a human right? RP - YES

Do you support school choice? RP - YES

Do you support the NAFTA Super Highway? RP - NO

Open ended direct question to Ron Paul on drugs.
States should regulate, these controversial issues were designed to be delt with by the States not by the Federal Government. The War on Drugs has been a colossial failure - Prohibition was a failure - when will we wake up and realize this, stop spending the money on a failed policy. Drug addiction is a health issue and should not be treated as a Federal criminal issue. When the Federal government acts it removes power from the States, you conceed power to the governement. The government can't solve these problems. We can't dictate our values. It doesn't work.

Ron Paul finished strong reiterating that Governement can't solve these issues and we shouldn't look to government to solve them for us. We are drifting into a Toltaritarian society with National IDs and laws that are made for the War on Terror but used on Americans. We have to restore haebus corpus and the rule of law. Jesus is the King of Peace, we are not entitled to use pre-emptive war to spread our Christian beliefs. We have to return to the moral justifications for war. Remember Jesus's message, which is a message of non-intervention, peace and turn the other cheek.

(Please forgive the mistakes and some missing questions which I didn't catch while watching the debate).

Libertarianism, Catholicism, and Ron Paul

2007-09-14T08:33:00.000-06:00

InsideCatholic.com is the website that has replaced the print publication Crisis. They ran pieces this week called "Why I Am a Catholic Democrat" and "Why I Am a Catholic Republican." Mine, today, is called "Why I Am a Catholic Libertarian." It mentions Ron Paul more than once.

California Catholic Daily on Ron Paul

2007-09-13T10:29:00.000-06:00

An even-handed piece on Ron Paul that discusses his views on trade, immigration, privacy, war, abortion, and more.

(Thanks to Chris Rhoades.)

The Message of Our Founding Fathers, the Message of Ron Paul

2007-09-12T10:15:00.000-06:00

This video captures very well Ron Paul's message and links it directly to the principles of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

In the coming days, Catholics for Ron Paul plans to look at some of these issues in more depth to see how Catholic Social Doctrine sets out these same principles.

Big Government & Corportism = Abortion Fraud

2007-09-10T20:07:00.000-06:00

This is the kind of thing that a Ron Paul Presidency would eliminate.

Planned Parenthood taking over $300 million of your tax dollars to perpetuate fraud, protect rapists, violate parental authority over their children, and make money off of the murder of pre-born Americans.

"Abortion is the ultimate State Tyranny!" - Ron Paul

Which Founding Father advocated a philosophy of government that says the State has an interest in funding abortions with public funds? None.

Which Founding Fathers advocated a philosophy of government that says the State is limited, most especially when compared to the inalienable right to life? All.

This is why our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are perhaps two of the most important legal documents for the Culture of Life.

Vote for Ron Paul to restore the Constitution and return America to a Culture of Life.

A National Strategy for Ron Paul

2007-09-10T15:21:00.000-06:00

How A Dark-Horse Can Win The Nomination

Have a read of this article by prominant Catholic Thomas Roeser. He gives Ron Paul a strategy that could put him over the top in the primary. It is a well reasoned argument, and funny too.

Take Note HQ!

Go Ron Paul!

Thomas E. Woods Joins Catholics for Ron Paul

2007-09-10T14:11:00.000-06:00

Catholics for Ron Paul would like to extend a warm welcome to Thomas E. Woods who will be a regular blogger. Among Thomas Woods achievements is the excellent book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. For those non-Catholic Ron Paul supporters who read this blog and think Catholicism (or religion in general) is an obstacle to liberty and peace - then read this book.

Welcome aboard Dr. Woods, we look forward to your contributions!

Go Ron Paul!!!

A short bio of Dr. Woods:

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. His most recent book is 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (Crown Forum/Random House); his others include the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Regnery), How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Regnery), and The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Lexington). His critically acclaimed 2004 book The Church Confronts Modernity was recently released in paperback by Columbia University Press. Woods' books have been translated into Italian, Spanish, Polish, German, Romanian, and Chinese.

Woods' writing has appeared in dozens of popular and scholarly periodicals, including the American Historical Review, the Christian Science Monitor, Investor's Business Daily, Catholic Historical Review, Modern Age, American Studies, Catholic Social Science Review, Inside the Vatican, The Freeman (Foundation for Economic Education), Freedom Daily (Future of Freedom Foundation), University Bookman, Journal of Markets & Morality, New Oxford Review, Catholic World Report, Independent Review, Religion & Liberty, Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, AD2000 (Australia), Christian Order (U.K.), Crisis, and Human Rights Review. He is the editor of The Political Writings of Rufus Choate and of a 2003 edition of Orestes Brownson's 1875 classic The American Republic.

Woods won first place in the prestigious Templeton Enterprise Awards for 2006, given by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the Templeton Foundation, for his book The Church and the Market. He was the recipient of the 2004 O.P. Alford III Prize for Libertarian Scholarship and of an Olive W. Garvey Fellowship from the Independent Institute in 2003. He has also been awarded two Humane Studies Fellowships and a Claude R. Lambe Fellowship from the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University and a Richard M. Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

For eleven years Woods served as associate editor of The Latin Mass magazine; he is presently a contributing editor of The American Conservative and a member of the editorial advisory board of the Journal of Libertarian Studies. A contributor to six encyclopedias, Woods is also co-editor of an 11-volume encyclopedia of American history to be released in 2008.

Woods has appeared on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Fox & Friends, and The Big Story with John Gibson, as well as on MSNBC's Scarborough Country and C-Span2's Book TV. He has been a guest on over 150 radio programs, including Fox News Live with Alan Colmes, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, and the Michael Medved Show. Published interviews with Woods have appeared in the Washington Post's Live Online, Washington Times, Our Sunday Visitor, the Pittsburgh Tribune, California Literary Review, Human Events, Italy's L'Avvenire, Spain's Alfa y Omega, Germany's Die Tagespost, and Brazil's Folha de S. Paolo.

"We have to change our foreign policy"

2007-09-09T21:10:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul has been doing America a great service in reminding us of our recent history and the great principles our Founding Fathers gave us in our Constitution.

This video entitled "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis," by Bill Moyers (1987), is extremely relevant to the debate that Ron Paul has raised on foreign policy.

The elite conservative media are trying to make Ron Paul seem crazy for his principled return to the Christian Just War doctrine and to the Constitution. They want him to seem hair brained for advocating a humble foreign policy based on the same non-interventionism (not isolationism as he is cast) recommended by our Founding Fathers.

Well, have a look at this documentary and you will discover why Ron Paul is winning so many hearts and minds in America across the political divide.

Thank you Dr. Paul for bringing this to the American people.

Go Ron Paul!

Stay Tuned . . .

2007-08-29T21:17:00.000-06:00

Efforts are under way to expand Catholics for Ron Paul into a group blog with prominant Catholic contributors.

With more contributors there will be more regular posts and additional developments.

Please check back for more updates on developments.

Vote in the Ames On-Line Poll

2007-08-10T16:42:00.000-06:00

Please vote in the Ames on-line poll.

Please pray for a win for Ron Paul tomorrow!

New Video From Christians for Ron Paul

2007-08-01T12:51:00.000-06:00

2007-07-26T13:10:00.000-06:00

Please take the Republican Presidential Straw Poll and vote for Ron Paul. Currently, Fred Thompson is winning and Ron Paul is in second place.

Careless with Life = Careless with Liberty

2007-07-26T11:44:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul's Speech at the Right to Life National Conference.

Mother Teresa once said, "The fruit of abortion is nuclear war."

Ron Paul understands this. He understands that the social fabric is an organic whole and that if first principles are violated, it will have devastating effects.

Some key quotes:

"We have to look at the fetal parts. We have to get people to look at this issue as a REAL issue."

For those who have the courage to see abortion as a REAL issue as Dr. Paul advocates, click here for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.

"America was great because of our great respect for Life and Liberty."

"But over the last 100 yrs we have lost that respect and I believe that is why we are in great jeopardy today be it in our foriegn policy, domestic policy, fiscal policy or monitary policy."

"If the issue of Life is not resolved, Liberty doesn't mean anything."

The reality is that without an air tight protection of Life, protection of Liberty means nothing.

(Quote may differ slightly from speech.)

Ron Paul on Jesus Christ and Faith in Public Life

2007-07-22T22:05:00.000-06:00

Statement of Faith

By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

(hat tip to maiki ;)

Ron Paul on John Paul II's Legacy

2007-07-17T21:23:00.000-06:00

The following is an article written by Ron Paul:

Theology, not Politics
April 11, 2005

Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.

I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.

Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America-- and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.

Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for refusing to accept that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.

Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope’s pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.

To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin-- he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.

The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

[emphasis in bold by Catholics for Ron Paul]

Gay Marriage - A Catholic Look at Ron Paul's Policy

2007-07-17T21:03:00.000-06:00

If any of you have watched the recent extended Google interview with Ron Paul, you know he was asked a question about his support of so called "gay marriage" within the context of the principle that government should not interfere with the right of contract between two individuals.

Ron Paul responded with, "I'm supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call it what they want."

This is a nuanced answer and a far cry from what the judges are doing in Massachusetts.

What then is Ron Paul's policy on so called "gay marriage?"

1. Ron Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman," and he also opposes the idea to create a constitutional amendment to define and defend traditional marriage:

"Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power."

2. Ron Paul supports the "Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state." Ron Paul also was one of the co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction."

3. Ron Paul sees marriage as an institution that predates government and that is rooted in the religious freedom of the individual. His position is that the federal government does not have the authority to interfere with this level of personal association.

4. On the definition of marriage: "The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution. This means Congress should restrict federal court jurisdiction when necessary, and social matters should be left up to states under the Ninth and Tenth amendments."

In essence, Ron Paul is against the efforts to use the courts to impose the redefinition of marriage onto the American people. To him this is an issue of Constitutionalism and Federalism and basic freedoms such as the freedom to contract and the freedom of association.

What he is saying is that the Federal Government (be it the Congress or Courts) do not have authority to govern the marriage between two people, just like it generally doesn't have the jurisdiction to rule on the terms of a contract between two people.

Of course, as Catholics we believe that marriage is an institution rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition and is no mere contract, but an unbreakable covenant. But this is far from the law's view of marriage today.

The real question is:

Can Catholics vote for Ron Paul in good conscience given his policy position on "civil unions" and "gay marriage?"

Yes.

Ron Paul is not an advocate of civil unions or gay marriage, he is an advocate of Federalism, the Constitution, and the rights of free association. He is saying that it is the job of you and me, and not the Federal Government, to defend and restore a Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage in culture and law at the State level. He understands the abuses of judicial tyranny and opposes it. He would veto a Congressional law that would seek to legalize gay marriage. And he would veto any hate speech legislation seeking to censor speech about the pathological nature of homosexual behavior.

Before Kinsey and his backers launched a war on Christian America, we had common law protections of Judeo-Christian marriage on the books that promoted the common good and helped hold marriages and therefore society together. But that is no longer the case.

Our marriage laws are in shambles - they reflect a post-Christian pagan worldview that isn't going to be changed over night by banning gay marriage at the Federal level (in fact such an action would imprudently add fuel to the homosexual cause).

Voting for Ron Paul would ensure that a veto would stop legislation that seeks to push gay marriage or civil unions onto America. Voting for Ron Paul would ensure a veto of any hate speech legislation that comes out of Congress that tries to make it a crime to say, "homosexual behavior causes disease and hurts those who engage in it (oh, and it will sink the unrepentant soul into eternal hell)." That the question of marriage would be left to the states where you and I can exercise our freedoms to defend traditional marriage and present the ample evidence for its objective good for society.

Is Ron Paul a gay agenda advocate?

No. Quite the opposite.

He is fundamentally opposed to the idea that we derive special rights by being a member of a particular group (racial, sexual or otherwise).

Does he support homosexuals in their desire to have gay marriage?

Not quite.

He supports the individual's right to freely associate and contract and to call their association whatever they want. But he is opposed to gay pressure groups seeking to socially engineer through he federal courts and he is opposed to one State forcing it policy on another state.

If Massachusetts wants to have gay marriage, let them have have it through the legislative process, but don't push it onto Kansas, and don't force it on the whole United States through judical tyranny.

Politics is the art of the possible.

Ron Paul's position is rooted in the Constitution and basically protects the religious freedom of Catholics and political freedoms of homosexuals to battle it out on the State level. This is not only a prudential path and one that is well within the conscience of Catholic voters, but this path is one that homosexuals should support and vote for as well.

If they gay agenda has the merit they claim then they should be able to sway the electorate rather than force their positions on the American people, and they should have the freedom to make that case.

The Catholic position is the winning side, so we should welcome Ron Paul's position as a means to ensure our liberties in a time when our religious freedoms are being attacked, not the least by homosexual activists.

Ron Paul Visits Google - Raises Issues Sensitive to Catholic Voters

2007-07-15T16:05:00.000-06:00

This is a long video, but important to watch because it is an in depth exploration of the issues by a group of very smart and influential people at Google.

Early on in the interview with Elliot Schrage, Google's Vice President for Global Communications & Public Affairs, a number of issues arise which are sensitive to Catholic voters.

So called "Gay Marriage" & the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy in the Military
Legalization of Marijuana
Legalization of Prostitution
Forcing Pharmacists to Prescribe Contraception and Abortifacients

Ron Paul has positions on some of these issues present serious questions for the committed Catholic voter:

Ron Paul has no problem with "domestic partnerships" between homosexuals
Ron Paul is in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana
Ron Paul is in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of prostitution
Ron Paul supports the rights of employees and employers to resolve issues of conscience through private employment contracts

These are serious issues for the Catholic voter as we are prohibited by conscience for voting for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil public policies that attack the common good.

However, Ron Paul's policies are sophisticated, subtle and complex and not black and white in regard to their moral content. In each of these serious issues, Ron Paul is asking us to reflect on what the Federal Government should and should not be involved with while leaving open the freedom on the local state level for citizens to work out these moral questions.

For example, there is a difference between making the case that gays should have special protection by the law of the Federal Government to get married (an intrinsic evil), versus saying that the Federal Government should not speak on the matter one way or the other, except to protect the local state's right from having to recognize the gay marriage created by another state (a question of prudential judgement and federalism).

In the days ahead, Catholics for Ron Paul will examine these issues and Ron Paul's policy positions in more depth.

On a final note, pay close attention to how many Google questions come from a socialist worldview: the association of fairness with big government education, healthcare, special rights advocacy for gays & women, etc. Of particular interest is the implication made by Elliot Schrage that problems like "Global Warming" call for "collective" action - i.e. socialism on a global scale. This is a red flag in the eyes of Catholics for Ron Paul, especially since Al Gore is a top advisor to the company. The issue of "Global Warming" and the hype around it is seen by some as a ploy to make the case for globalist governance, e.g. to "save the planet" we need a global authority to solve the problem. The tone of Elliot Schrage's question about this issue has only confirmed the sense that Google's public policy drift is toward collectivism.

Iowa Gets to Hear Ron Paul

2007-07-15T15:56:00.000-06:00

In response to the censorship carried out by the leadership of Iowan's for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance, a network of Ron Paul supporters organized a rally at the Presidential Forum and as a result attracted more participants than the Forum attracted for the other candidates.

Good job Ron Paul Supporters who got the word out!!!

Censorship American Style

2007-06-19T14:25:00.000-06:00

ACTION ALERT!!!

This just in from the Ron Paul 2008 Campaign HQ:

June 19, 2007

Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate.

Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.

We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.

The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended.

Lew then called Mr. Steve Sheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Sheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond.

Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day?

We couldn’t get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Sheffler. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Their contact information is below.

It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul’s participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.

Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008

Contact Information

Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761

Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org

Steve Sheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265

Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please take a moment and contact both of these people to register your disgust with censoring the one candidate who has won consistently all the debates thus far.

This is about censoring the American People and denying them the right to a real debate on the very serious issues facing America Today.

These organizations are seeking to blind the American people by suppressing a real debate of the issues. Don't let this happen to our country. Call and register your complaint!

Ron Paul supporters in Iowa who want to attend the debate you can register here.

UPDATE:

In addition to Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance, the following is the contact information of the Co-Sponsors for the Event. Please contact them and urge them to invite Ron Paul to the debate. Their sponsorship of this event makes them accomplices to this attack on American freedom and the democratic process of open debate.

Coldwell Banker Mid-America Group, Realtors (ask to speak to the owner/senior manager)
2120 Rittenhouse Street
Suite ADes Moines, IA 50321
Office Phone:(515)287-0009
Toll Free Phone:(800)225-7683
Voice Mail:(515)224-8601
Fax:(515)224-8644
Email: mlc@midamericagroup.com

http://www.fairtax.org/
Americans for Fair Taxation
PO Box 27487Houston,
Texas 77227-7487
Phone: 713-963-9023
Toll-Free: 1-800-FAIRTAX (324-7829)
Fax: 713-963-8403
Email: Info@fairtax.org

Krishna Engineering Consultants (ask to speak to the owner)
1454 30th Street, Suite 104
West Des Moines IA 50266-1311
Phone: (515) 224-6300
Fax: (515) 224-0000

Light Expressions by Shaw (ask to speak to the owner)
750 Alice's RoadWaukee, IA 50263
Phone: (515) 987-3808
Fax: (515) 987-3812
Emial: clsmeltzer@shawelec.com

UPDATE II:

Also, please contact the local media in Des Moines:

letters@dmreg.com, DesMoines Register

staff@iowapolitics.com, Press Release Dept., Iowa Politics.com

dorsey@iowapolitics.com, Des Moines Bureau Chief, Iowa Politics.com

RadioIowa@learfield.com, News Dept. Radio Iowa

Blog Round Up

2007-06-18T13:08:00.000-06:00

Here are a couple of blog posts covering the connection between Ron Paul and the most essential concerns of Catholic voters.

The Western Confucian has a post which tracks back to Catholics for Ron Paul - a big shout out to Iosue Andreas! The Western Confucian draws our attention to Catholic Anarchy's discussion as to why the republicatholics are ignoring Ron Paul.

For the debate, check it out Catholic Anarchy here.

A shout out to Mark Shea who has given us a wave at Catholic and Enjoying it!

Hat tip to Stephan Hand over at TCRNews Musings for giving us a bump!

Nate Wildermuth at Vox Nova asks "Ron Paul, Anarchist?"

Fr. Tim at Sprit of Vatican II thinks Ron Paul for President is a "Great Idea!"

More Blog round ups as the "Catholic-Ron Paul Thing" begins to attract discussion . . .