Remembering the 5th of November - A Catholic Response

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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

Part 1

Part 2

Bringing Hell to Iraq

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

Ron Paul: A New Hope

Ron Paul Combating “Structures of Sin”

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

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

This guy now wants Paul to deliver his babies.

National Review warming to Ron Paul?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.