A reader asks:
I was curious as to your take on Ron Paul as a candidate for 2012. Prior to my conversion, I was a mega-libertarian, who only had started to become more socially conservative. I now hold rigorously to the tenets of the Catholic Church.
His views are here: http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm
He’s not a Catholic candidate, but I definitely think he’s leagues above Obama.
The reason I ask this is that if we find him solid enough, and were able to get some sort of reply from the USCCB or other official Catholic responder, we could begin making a move in the online front. That is, we could work to get Obama out and Paul in.
I am by no means advocating this standpoint, but rather inquiring as to your thoughts as a more learned and outspoken Catholic. I know the Catholic swing vote has done quite a bit in past elections, and with the growth of the Internet, we would be in a good position to start making moves early on.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for your time and consideration!
I regard Ron Paul as one of the only people in Congress whom I would call an honest man. I think he is somebody of obviously good character who has a simple, clear dedication to his particular worldview and a principled unwillingness to depart from that worldview for the sake of political expedience. I can’t help but like him for that.
As to what that worldview entails, there is much I find admirable about it. He is pro-life and puts his money where his mouth is: helping to deliver countless babies for free when unwed mom could not afford it. He is an advocate of patriotism over nationalism and understands that love of country is at the heart of the former while arrogant pride—the pride that made the devil the devil is at the heart of the latter. He is full of common sense about our absurd obsession with Empire and the ruinous effects it is having on our civilization. So, for instance, looking at spending like this:
... he does not hesitate to point out that if we, you know, stopped fighting 6(!) wars and withdrew our “military presence” (aka “empire”) from the over 100 countries in which we are currently acting as globo-cop, as well as got the Feds out of the Nanny State business, we could use that money for sane things, like letting families keep their earnings and build with it. He is a “radical” (that is to say, common sense) believer that human beings are actually created for liberty and that subsidiarity is a good thing. (Subsidiarity is the basic principle of Catholic social teaching which holds that the people closest to the problem are typically the ones who are best equipped to deal with the problem.)
More than this, he is, virtually alone as far as I can see, the one figure on the national stage who has never asked us to support grave and intrinsic moral evil. He is equally opposed to abortion (the left’s favorite grave evil) and torture and unjust war (runaway favorites of the right). That does not make him a saint or a perfect politician, mind you. It means he passes the Minimal Decency Test by not asking me to support something I believe will make me worthy of the Everlasting Fires of Hell (which is, you know, what “gravely and intrinsically immoral acts” like abortion and torture do).
So Ron Paul is somebody that I could at least entertain voting for without fear that I am sinning gravely against God.
On the other hand, I do not confuse my politics with my religion, so I do not imagine that Paul is somebody who is thinking with the mind of the Church, nor that a lack of enthusiasm for Paul signifies hostility to God, America, Mom, truth and apple pie (a delusion that seems to strike not a few supporters of, say, Bachmann, Cain or Santorum—and sometimes the candidates themselves). Like the current occupant of the White House, a ... how to put it? ... robust sense of messianic destiny seems not to be in short supply anywhere in our Ruling Class on both sides of the aisle, such that I feel no obligation to add to the surfeit by supposing Ron Paul to be God’s Man for the Hour, nor an obligation to denounce as heretics or enemies of God those who would prefer not to support him.
Indeed, my own interest in him is fairly tepid, as it is for all things political and all those who, at the end of the day, seek power. Paul’s virtues, which shine out in comparison to the rest of the reek and stench of our Ruling Classes, are greatly helped by comparison with his fellows. We regard it as a marvel and a prodigy that a man in D.C. should be faithfully married for decades, live according to his principles and not grab other people’s money and spend it while posturing about his social conscience as he stands atop a heap of dead babies and/or the skulls of foreigners. But surely that is a very minimalist standard of greatness, isn’t it? When we think of a St. Francis or St. Paul, we tend to say something more than “He wasn’t a spendthrift whoring drunk with the blood of millions on his hands.” Something more positive is involved in sanctity than that.
So while I like Ron Paul, I’m not looking for holiness. Just minimal decency and, more than that, competence. He seems to me to have the former, but when I comes to the latter, I’m not so sure. The simple fact is that he will never be elected. That’s not a reason not to vote for him if, by some miracle, he ends up on the ballot in my state. I likely will, since I am done playing the stupid game of sacrificing my conscience so that some corrupt corporate shill can lie to me that he cares about abortion every four years. I will use my tiny voice to do what voices are made for: speak. I will say to the Duopoly of Republicrats that I opt out of the game and will vote for somebody who does not ask me to vote for grave evil. I will actually hope for change, not vote for people who do nothing about abortion while laboring to commit war crimes, followed by people who do nothing about war crimes while laboring to commit abortion.
Ron Paul, to his credit, stands against both these evils. Like a good revolutionary, he knows what is wrong with the current system.
I’m not so sure, however, that he knows what is right. For he is a Libertarian, and Libertarianism is, generally speaking, a philosophy for people with no children. He is, alas, almost right, but not quite. His sacred text is not Scripture but the Constitution, and his magisterium is the authors of the Federalist Papers, some libertarian economists, and the odious Ayn Rand, whom only Paul’s personal decency keeps from exerting a more baleful influence than she already does on his thinking.
Ron Paul is appealing because Ron Paul is an antidote to current statist and collectivist ills of a metastasizing corporatist and national security state. He’s quite incisive about what is wrong. The trouble, as is often the case with revolutionaries, is that his solutions are as blind to some essential aspects of Catholic teaching as are the things he criticizes. Just as they forget subsidiarity, so Libertarianism tends to forget solidarity and conceive of the individual—atomized, isolated, unbeholden to all communal ties—as the the basis of civilization.
But, in fact, it is the family (something Ayn Rand hated) that is the basis of civilization. So the Church emphasizes both subsidiarity and solidarity in a balance our demented age finds nearly impossible to strike. For this reason, I am cautious about Paul, while still honoring his many virtues—particularly in contrast to the rest of the Parliament of !@#$% who constitute our Ruling Classes.
Comments
Post a Comment
I think you are thinking of objectivists when you speak of libertarians. Objectivists such as Ayn Rand believe there is no moral duty to charity, for example, and Ron Paul disagrees with that, quite a bit. He believes in community and, as you note regarding the unwed mothers, practices and practiced it. When he was a flight surgeon he also moonlighted in a Catholic hospital at $3 an hour, and has always participated in community goals in and out of politics.
I don’t think he is a saint, but I do think he is a good man, and one who thinks the state interferes with community by encouraging dependence on the state rather than interdependence on one another.
But I appreciate your article and your thoughtful approach to this subject.
I don’t understand the author’s tepidity. It would be similar to look at Roman martyrs and say that they really didn’t do much different than your average Catholic does when he says (or sings) the Creed at Holy Mass. Paul’s honesty and integrity are impressive because of the pressure placed against them. I also don’t understand tepidity with regard to the one candidate who is more genuinely pro-life than any of the rest. Paul very much has a shot at the nomination, all the more were more Catholics to honestly consider if they really want a moral government that does not lie, steal, or murder, or if they want a government that enforces morality (usually a secular one). We would be wrong, as well, to ignore the simple fact that Ron Paul sees that the responsibility of elected officials, the president included, is to uphold the Constitution. It’s the Constitution, not Ron Paul the man, that prioritizes individual liberty and subsidiarity above “solidarity”. Whether or not you think our Constitution provides the basis for the most “Catholic” form of government is irrelevant.
Daniel Kluge
You stated that libertarianism is a philosophy for people without children. Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for over 50 years and has many children, one of whom is currently a United States Senator.
Overall, this was a well written article, but I would posit that Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he is a Constitutional conservative. As a Catholic and as a libertarian, I fully support Constitutional conservatives like Ron Paul who are truly pro-life in aspects such as abortion and war.
A person who is honestly pro-life cannot support the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya which are taking the lives of thousands of innocent people.
Thanks for the great piece as always,
Craig Smith
I really think your article is a fair one about Ron Paul, which I’m glad to see is becoming easier and easier to find these days. However, the one disagreement would be in saying that Ron Paul is not electable. Why do you think he is not electable? Because the mainstream media says so? I think the worst thing anyone can do is limit their optimism.
cureforapathy dot com
To say that Ron Paul (or anyone) can’t know what’s right because they are “libertarian” is an unfortunate statement. For libertarians, the most important tenets are doing know harm and maintaining individual liberty (rights to life and property). Much of the rest is extrapolation which can very greatly from person to person. Dr. Paul is also a man of Christian beliefs that are demonstrated in his personal actions and daily life. He is a strict constitutionalist, because it’s what is supposed to be used to govern our Republic at a federal level and not because it is his “sacred text”. Abiding strictly by the Constitution does not preclude one from strong faith and religious beliefs any more than being libertarian does. I say this as a Muslim of strong faith, while at the same time considering myself both a strict constitutionalist and a libertarian as well. All that is necessary is that one realizes religion is a personal belief to be applied to one’s self, taught to one’s children, and modeled through practice in one’s community, but never to be forced on others through legislation. I would say that Ron Paul understands the true meaning of separation of church and state quite well. I would also say that you need to drastically revise your conviction regarding electability. That might have been so in 2008. This is 2011 and it is a whole different ball game today. Personally, I look forward to having President Paul guide America back to sanity, peace and prosperity.
Thanks for the article. I enjoyed the links you posted as well. I think your assessment of Dr. Paul is pretty accurate with the exception of a few statements. First off, he is definitely electable. That dribble died in 2008 and as a previous poster said, don’t limit your optimism. Honestly that bit about him not being electable is wholly unnecessary and serves no purpose other than to discredit him(unintentional or not) Secondly, the Constitution is not his sacred text. It is the rule book one is supposed to follow when playing the politics game and he follows it extremely well. Do not mistake his commitment to honest politics as the substitute for his faith or religion. I think Susan Westfall touched on this quite well. Finally, the statement about him not knowing what is right because “Libertarianism is, generally speaking, a philosophy for people with no children” is puzzling to me. Could you elaborate? I do not see the correlation nor the causality there. Maybe I’m wrong but all I get from that statement is the sense that you are implying that Libertarians somehow do not support family nor community. If that is the case, then I would beg to differ. Most of the members of my large and active Catholic family see Dr. Paul as the only sensible and moral decision this election cycle, just as they did in 2008. Once again thank you for the article and the chance to respond. God bless.
I have been waiting for this very article from you! Thank you!!! (Very interesting and intriguing, as always.)
When fascism goes to sleep it looks under the bed for Ron Paul.
He has never taken a government junket.
He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program.
He returns a portion of his annual Congressional Office Budget every year.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget..
He has never voted to raise Congressional Pay.
He never voted to increase Executive Branch Power.
He will Reinstate The Constitution and Save The Republic
He will END the unconstitutional FED.
He will phase out the unconstitutional IRS beginning immediately
He will secure the borders
He will limit Big Government in your private affairs
He voted against regulating the Internet
He voted against the Iraq War and warned us against going forward with an undeclared war.
“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberty and wealth are in Jeopardy” July 10th, 2003
He voted against the un-patriotic so called Patriot Act.
He supports a non-interventionist foreign policy yet a strong military
He will end the inflation tax
He is a true Constitutional Conservative
He would have soundly beat Obama in 2008 because Independents trust him and like him.
Republicans could have had a V8 instead of McCain’t in 08
Vote for Ron Paul in Your state’s Republican Primary even if you usually vote Democrat!
Ron Paul for President 2012
Because no one else can be trusted to say what he means and do what he says like Ron Paul does.
Ron Paul is the man of the hour. They used to laugh at him for being way ahead of the others in his thinking and his warnings. Now, they are not laughing because what he predicted is coming to pass. Now, he is being called a prophet for having warned us and still calmly suffered through the barbs. “First they, ignore you, then they fight you, then you win.” Gandhi
I take Ron Paul very seriously. He may not be the most polished public speaker, but he speaks the truth with unvarnished power; He needs no teleprompter to carry on an intelligent discourse for over two hours to a packed auditorium of twenty and thirty something voters! He may not be the tallest, or the most strikingly handsome candidate, but people want the Real Deal. He’s been married to the same woman for 55 years. Ron Paul can win! Pray for him. Pray for America. Vote for Ron Paul
As a Christian, I support Ron Paul.
His principled stance is unwavering. He has reawakened a sleeping people and his liberty movement will live on long after he’s gone.
“Surely he will never be shaken; a righteous man will be remembered forever.”
Psalm 112:6
Great column! Thank you for writing it.
I am Catholic and an avid Ron Paul supporter. He is an honorable, honest man who is pro-life and as you noted socially conservative in many ways. But what sets Paul far apart from all of the others is his steadfast adherence to the Constitution, the document that guarantees our religious freedom. It also specifies a short list of federal government responsibilities, reserving all other governance to the states and localities. I believe that if we return to a truly states-based system, there would be a dramatically lowered tax structure, allowing for increased charitable activity. Too many of us believe the federal government should be a part of the pursuit of social justice but I think we’ve seen that , especially since the 60s, the federal government has proven itself to be a grossly inefficient administrator of social programs.
Typical of the far right that it cares only about ‘pro life’ issues (talk about an oxymoron!) and nothing of the larger issues. Google “Ron Paul antisemitism”. See what you come up with, you loyal children of a prolife church
I like many things about Ron Paul (I love his son!). He did however make a really dumb statement in the debate about how “the goverment should just get out of the marriage business” as his answer to gay “marriage”. Um, like what about all the legal ramifications of the marriage bond? It strikes me as a cop-out answer.
Ron Paul is a weird guy. He’s all for legalizing drugs , IF the state wants it; he’s all for legalizing prostitution, IF a state wants it; he’s all for abortion, IF the state wants it; ....I dont recall Christ teaching that if you lived here or there, it changes His teaching on whether a baby in the womb deserves protection of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution , or that it is a SIN to kill an innocent baby!!! in Louisiana or Montana!!——-Hey Ron, just say this pal: “It is just plain IMMORAL” (regardless of what the state says)......and legalizing prostitution?? !! Come off it !!
Paul has no core beliefs…He thinks that if this or that is ok by some state…thats fine with him. No moral intervention, no problems with it….I still am for a U S Constitutional Amendment to BAN ABORTION !!! Someone in Connecticut or New York should not be able to kill their unborn child because Ron Paul says a state makes the rule on life or death of the innocent !!! THE STATE OF X OR Y HAS NO RIGHT TO KILL A BABY, AND THE US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THAT CHILD…Go home Ron !!
In answer to Bob, I would like to point out that being Pro life means honoring life beginning at conception, but also means Anti Unjust War. All life is a BIG issue. Being part Jewish, I would also like to respond to your “race baiting” “culture baiting” by pointing out that Ron Paul is for America First and Foremost, and is against ALL foreign aid to other countries, not just Israel. He also points out that we give much more foreign aid to the other middle eastern countries than we give to Israel, so by cutting all foreign aid we would not leave them disadvantaged.
Ron Paul may have many good ideas/beliefs but I agree with Ron Curry’s comments. Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs…..and that’s ok with you? States have the RIGHT to legalize gay-marriage, etc??
Mr Shea, I take exception to your over the top statement…“torture and unjust war (runaway favorites of the right)” REALLY? Have you been watching too much MSNBC? Seems to me that most wars have been ok’d/started by Democrat presidents.
In response to David, this is not the only issue Ron Paul is called out on the carpet for. Hard core rightwinger Ben Stein (who is Jewish) has also called him an antisemite. And US foreign aid to Israel is much more important for Israel’s survival than foreign aid is to other countries. I suggest that Catholics who have concerns about antisemitism might do well to do some research. AND Catholics might want to google Ron Paul and Ayn Rand. Rand was a hard core radical atheist who wanted to destroy the Catholic church. So if you have blinders on, don’t mind hating Jews and wish to see the Catholic church go the way of the dodo, by all means, support Paul!
I campaigned for Ron Paul way back in the late 80’s, and got to know him and his family. I can unequivocally say that he is an excellent candidate on all sides, and as a Catholic…gosh, as a human being…I support him 100%. I encourage everyone here to learn more about him and what he stands for, and then let’s get this man into higher office.
@Ron Curry
States are guaranteed the right to delegate anything not under the Constitution. If you support keeping vice illegal (Prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc.) you have no humanity. Simply making them illegal does not cause the problem to go away. Sending the military to kill drug users will not help either.
These are social or medical issues and we need to find best ways to eliminate their dangers on society. But, making them illegal drives the vice into the black market where there is no hope to stop them. Everyone is human and we must be able to set our differences aside to help each other. Turning the blind eye, forgetting the role of church and community, and allowing the government to violently stop vice is not the way to solve the problem.
Dr. Paul supports the Constitution and the Constitution says things like abortion are left to the states. If, you believe that someone should make the states pass abortion laws, you are a dictator no different then Pontius Pilate, Hitler, or Stalin. The states must together pass an amendment, but one person alone forming the world in their image is a terrible idea.
Ron Paul is no doubt the best option. No one comes close to his avid support of Liberty and Free Enterprise. The others are just different forms of Obama, Dubya, Clinton, etc…
Ron Paul 2012!!
Very interesting. I don’t pretend to know anything about Mr. Paul one way or the other, but if what you say about him is true, then I might possibly be able to vote for somebody in the next election. It really is tough to find an American politician for whom I could conscionably cast a vote, and this seems like a tiny light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks for writing.
The thing that makes me nervous about Ron Paul is his son Rand.
“Dr” Paul…give me a break !!
Go to the libertarian website…here it is…and then READ what they say about abortion ...You cant be a Catholic and support a guy who says,“Whatever they (the states) vote for, its ok with me !!” ......and stop this mindless “It’s in the Constitution” MANTRA !!! The right to life is in the US Constitution, and saying, “I want the states to decide” is like saying to the South before the Civil war—> “Boys,,IF you want to have slavery, it’s fine !! Its states rights !!!...and so is gay marriage ok with libertarians !! Like that, Catholics????
NO, we amended the Constitution to protect life..and we should do that again !!
Here’s your libertarian junk !!!:
http://www.lp.org/platform
QUOTE !!!
.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
As a Christian, I support Ron Paul also. I saw a question about Marriage and I find it odd that a church member would question Paul on this issue. Marriage was an institution of the Church but some how along the way the issue of marriage was turned over to the state and then to the Federal Government. For all intents and purposes, marriages are a sham today. Marriage was an sacred institution, marriages lasted longer, produce happier children, and are better for society and the economy. Marriage isn’t just a meaningless piece of paper given to you by a government agency as it is treated today. It is suppose to be a contract with your Spouse and your GOD. Ron Paul might not look right on the surface but if you take the time to get to know who he is you will see that he is right on principle and therefore he will be right on the outcome.
In general, I agree with your assessment. That being said, Dr. Paul would have it be a state’s right to determine whether or not abortion should be legal and whether or not such a thing as gay “marriage” should exist. Clearly, no state has the right to declare an unborn baby to be anything besides human (and thus, clearly, no state has the right to legalize abortion). And clearly, with family being the fundamental building block of society, no state has the authority to legalize offenses against the family.
Of course, he does stick to his principles. He is an honest man (which, sadly, is a virtue that no one else in Washington has going for him). But I question his extreme concentration on states’ rights. Granted that that should have a much bigger place in our government than it currently does in our bloated federal system. Of course, you said as much. Still, I think that it might be enough to keep me from voting for him (realizing that that’ll probably keep me from voting altogether).
and Paul is all over the map with abortion…he wants the pro life vote but he wants it legal in the states…what a joke!
Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that “the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.” However, this has not stopped Paul from voting in favor of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000 and 2003.
Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction. In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction” from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion. In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade,” Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure.” He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court’s precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[211] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”
Ron Paul…a real fraud !!
What some of the posters fail to remember is that Paul is a Constitutionalist. His statements saying that issues of abortion, marriage, drugs, etc… should be left to the states simply reflect that.(10th ammendment).
It seems that some here would choose to use an elected position to push their views of what is right and moral on every American.
When states are given the power allotted to them in the Constitution (which is quite a bit) and are allowed to make decisions based on their local constituents then Americans are afforded the ability to, as Ronald Regan stated, vote with their feet.
If you live in a state that chooses to make abortion legal then you can move to another state that does not make that choice. States will fall in line with the majority when they realize that their legislative decisions are unpopular and people are moving away. Costing them money and jobs.
As far as Drugs and Prostitution, These are personal choices. As long as you are causing no harm to others while pursuing these activities then you should be free to. Personal safety cannot and should not be legislated. It’s up to the individual to choose what is right for them and to decide if that choice is moral and/or right.
Attempting to turn American government into a theocracy would be completely immoral.
Personal responsibility is the key.
Curry is mislead like so many others. http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/034987.html When you listen to sound bite news you mislead yourself and your country. Ron Paul is a MD who has birthed over 4000 babies and if you care to educate yourself you would listen to his speeches on Life. This is his position and has always been his position.
Life and Liberty and intertwined. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX5lfCFVx4I
@David
Ron Paul shall wave his right hand over the waters that Atlantis might rise from the sea and the Age of Aquarius dawn o’er all the earth.
Curb your enthusiasm; he wasn’t born in a stable in Bethlehem.
There is so much to like about Paul, especially his “without guile” approach to truth-telling. But, alas, he is an isolationist in a globalized, interconnected world. Certain scenarios call for interventions: Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda ... when the innocent are at risk.
@Meggan
Rand is a freshman senator and compared to the rest of the senators he is doing a good job. No one is perfect, but I believe there is not a better senator working for America. After he gets some years in, he may become VERY principled like his father, but right now you can really tell he is learning the ropes of how Washington runs (or does not run).
@Seeker
No one at all has the right to legalize murder. Therefore no state has that right. Period. End of story.
Again, no one has the right to work to destroy the fundamental building block of society. No one. Period. End of story.
It really is that simple…
In response to Ron Curry, GHU and Bob, Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the role of the Federal Congress and chains its authority to only these things stated. The 1oth Amendment states “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.” IPSO FACTO The Federal Government has no authority over the issue of mariage (hetro or otherwise). Neither does it have authority over the issue of Abortion (and a thousand other things now I think of it) These issues (becuase not delegated to The U.S. (Federal Gov) are constitutionally put in the authority and juristiction of the states and the people.
In the states We the people now have greater opportunity to elect Moral people, and to hold our representatives accountable. (It is now a myth to think people in D.C represent us anymore).
As Christian people WE are the ones responsible for the morality of society. Through the way we live, teach and hold our communities accounatble. IT is because we have abdicated this responsiblity that the Tyranny of the FED has come in so strong that it feels it can legislate on everything.
Generally speaking why have we as parents given our children up to the government to be educated. Why are we as a church not caring for the elderly, sick, widows and orphans. (most of our money goes to paying for Religious professionals and the buildings)
The other issue is that we now opperate under the LEGAl system of a CORPORATION know as “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. Under the corporation things are arbitrarily made illegal or are allowed to be legal instead of constitutional law, based on Common Law and Biblical law (God’s law) where crime is only crime when there is a victim (an injured person or damaged property) - in which case RESTITUTION was to be made. The fact is our prisons aboud with “criminals” of victimless crime (and at the expense of the tax payer). Drugs (plants) are made illegal so Big Pharma can make more money and Big Government can fund its black Ops. Europe has just passed CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (google search it) which is making ALL VITAMINS AND MINERALS ILLEGAL. where is the line to be drawn. Tyranical government will eventually make all of us “criminals”.
FOLKS we all got wake up and get passed thses false divisions of Republican/democrat, Left/Right, Liberal/conservative protestant/Catholic, Christian/Muslim, Black/White. They are diversions to divide us and conquer us.
God Created us to Have Life, Liberty that we may pursue happiness (property) all of which are attributes of God (He himself is life, perfectly and fully free, and the creator and therefore owner of all things).
This makes us responsible before God and dependant on Him. Those who choose to live apart from the law of God will be judge on the last day. Thise who choose to live and make unjust laws will be held accountable. We cannot legislate morality. We can preach it. We can live it, We can encourage it. But if we allow unaccountable government to decide what is legal and illegal to do in our bedroom, or to take into our bodies we will be one step closer to them regulating what we can and cant believe. Abortion will always be wrong and sin in the sight of God, But Contstitutionally it is a State issue. Therefore we should be active in our states to see that every murderer of the unborn (the victim) be brought to justice.
Ron Paul is for relief interventions in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc. He believes it should be carried out by non-government relief organizations, not the US government with all the waste, corruption and strings that entails.
This article was mostly well done, but I would like to clarify a few points for those unfamiliar with Paul and libertarianism in general. First, Ron Paul is not a huge fan of Ayn Rand. He may have some appreciation for her work, but he would never list her as an important intellectual influence - instead he would mention names such as Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard. Also, Ayn Rand has certainly had an influence on libertarianism, but she created her own philosophy, objectivism, distinct from libertarianism. Many libertarians encounter Rand’s works and beliefs on their intellectual journeys, but they often find themselves rejecting at least as much as they endorse. Paul’s libertarianism is more closely associated with the scholars of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (although he endorses constitutional government, not anarchism, as many of the Institute’s scholars do). Thomas Woods is one of the Mises Institute’s fellows and has written several books about Catholicism and libertarianism which may be of interest. Finally, Paul would reject the statement that the Constitution is his scripture. Paul endorses the Constitution because he believes in rule of law and thinks that the Constitution is a very good political document, not because he hold a quasi-religious veneration for it, as can be seen in the rhetoric of some politicians.
It saddens me that so many people cling to AYN RAND as the epitome of libertarianism. Libertarianism (0r classical liberalism) has been around MUCH longer than the control-freak, angry, bitter, antisocial ayn rand ever touted its value. I get a great kick out of her writing, and many libertarians do, but for the humor value of what the rest of the world would look like if those of us who are productive and take care of ourselves and our neighbors were to just drop out of society and let the squabbling “Gimmes” fend for themselves. It is by no means a spiritual approach to the matter, and for many of us it is just a frustrated, fed up fantasy on a bad day.
Ayn Rand is NOT LIBERTARIANISM. Libertarianism is NOT Ayn Rand. Try reading Tocqueville, Paine, Rothbard, ISABEL PATERSON, Epstien, Adam Smith, JOHN LOCKE, Frederick Douglas! These people are libertarians.
www.ronpaulsignbomb.com We still need county leaders!!!!!!!
Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, period. He also, however, recognizes the limitations of the federal government, which is not allowed to impose its will upon the states with respect to such issues. The fact is, had the states been allowed to vote on the issue in the early 70s, abortion would not have been legalized! The Supreme Court usurped the states on this issue. The anti-lifers want the US to forget that little tidbit. If you don’t believe that, see what they say about tyranny of the majority” when you mention the words “national referendum” to them.
Ron Paul’s position on this is the best chance pro-lifers have to succeed. If it is left to the states, then we don’t have to battle the federal machine, but we can take the fight for life to the local level. What he’s saying is “Hey, it’s not the job of the federal government to legalize killing of the unborn.” He’s counting on the popular vote in the states to overturn Row v Wade in that scenario. Anybody got any better ideas? I didn’t think so.
He is anti-imperialist, anti-war, and pro-life. Of course, that makes him an ideal target for both the left and the right. It is the country that is radicalized, not Ron Paul.
What are his opinions on a social safety net and such programs as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. As a senior and a person who is dependent on Social Security I would find his opinions valuable.
I’m glad he is pro-life.
Thomas Paine, John Locke, and Adam Smith are not admirable philosophers to have on your side (in terms of philosophy - they may or may not have been good men), better than Rand of course, but that’s not a high bar. Locke’s social contract theory, for instance, is directly contrary to the Church’s teaching.
It should be noted that we just agreed to a debt ceiling raise, structured largely by the libertarian far right. Medicare will be cut. And Ayn Rand’s economic disciple, Alan Greenspan, deregulated the US economy into the largest transfer of wealth to the smallest number of people in the Western world, just like Ron Paul’s economic mythology would have us continue. How’s that working out for the American economy and jobs? Bush’s 2 tax cuts, his war, and the deregulation of Wall Street, we doing OK? It might be noted that one of the primary inventors of credit default swaps which destroyed our economy…John Paulson…just gave $1 million to the GOP.
Mr. Shea,
Thank you for the well written and thoughtful article. The few differences I have in opinion with you have already been addressed by KJ, Ms. Westfall, and CP.
In response to the emotionally charged and unsubstantiated claims made by a few individuals here, I would strongly suggest that my fellow readers consider the scare tactics being employed to sway opinion. Compare these comments to Mr. Shea’s article and the thoughtful comments left by other posters. I also recommend researching Congressman Paul for yourselves.
Regards, Charles
@The Algebraist
No one at all has the right to legalize murder. Therefore no state has that right. Period. End of story.
Yes, but it does not follow that the Federal government has the right to stop them either.
BTW, I don’t find lots of exclamation points and CAPITAL LETTERS very convincing!!!!
B Dubya & Tom R: thank you for your wonderful comments! I am so very glad to see this growing support for Ron Paul! RON PAUL 2012!!! I am doing my best to spread the word on a daily basis. The only task is the GOP nomination! Obama loses Democratic support when polled against Ron Paul. This means a huge chunk of Democrats will vote for Paul over Obama! Obama will beat Romney or Bachmann… he does not stand a chance agains Ron Paul. We must vote in the GOP nomination!
Mark, I like Ron Paul too for the same reasons you mentioned and I thought it was a great article. I’m no longer a member of the Catholic church but am a devout disciple of Christ.
Ron Paul is a Christian man. His Holy text is thw Holy Bible. He just understands that religion and government do not mix, they are complete opposites. Because of that, he believes that if we are going to be governed, we should at least follow the guidelines set for that government (the constitution). The reason that he champions the constitution so much it because the further our government gets from the constitution, the closer it gets to tyrrany.
Ron Paul is a kook. I’m glad he stands no chance of being president.
“I will actually hope for change, not vote for people who do nothing about abortion while laboring to commit war crimes, followed by people who do nothing about war crimes while laboring to commit abortion.”
Bush did do something about abortion. For one thing, he appointed Alito and Roberts.If Obama were not elected and a decent pro-life person had been elected instead, think about what the Supreme Court would look like now. Who we elect as president matters if just for the Supreme Court, so do consider the ability to actual get elected when voting. The Supreme Court is not the only thing that has to change to abolish abortion, but it is a significant part.
Henry, his positive reception by many folks truly shows how crazed the political atmosphere in the US has become. We’re in danger of becoming a fundamentalist, economically bipolar state
The conservative Federal Judge Richard Posner recently commented that 4 of 5 most conservative justices in history since Teddy Roosevelt are on the SCOTUS right now. With the recent “Citizens United” decision, they legitimized selling our polical process to the highest bidders, including foreign govts. like Pakistan. This is what conservative juriprudence leads to; a govt of unrestrained corporate power. America is a plutocracy.
Just wondered…..its worth asking…Ron Paul’s son is named “Rand.” He’s Senator “Rand” Paul. Was he named after the athiest, Ayn Rand?? Did Ron Paul name his son after an athiest? (the “Rand” of Atlas Shrugged”)If so, I’ll await your song-and-dance on how that was a real cool thing to do !!!
It is a copout to say that that the people of the US cant outlaw abortion in a Constitutional Amendment. Lets have slavery again…REPEAL THE 13TH AMENDMENT !!!!...and let’s allow states to ok homosexual marriage ABND THEN SOME WILL NOT ALLOW IT TOO….. lets allow New York to have it, then when THE two sweeties move into Alabama,(for example) the US Constitution can be relied on to allow FULL FAITH AND CREDIT to the law of New york…so effectively, you have nationwide homo marriage…IF YOU DONT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN !!!
Ron Paul???? you gotta be kidding!
This is the first time I’ve read your blog. I’m impressed by the quality of the discourse. I’m not Catholic, I’m a Christian Yogi. I know you don’t know what that means but we have much in common. I have been a Libertarian nearly since the beginning of the party, a supporter of Ron Paul before he was well known and an Austrian economist since long before the term was public. I would like to be a part of this conversation.
Mr. Shea, please do as one of your readers suggests - go to Ron Paul’s web site and read his position papers or read his books. You will find him thoughtful rather than doctrinaire. He is solidly against abortion and quite outspoken about it. But he maturely recognizes that this is an area in which there is much confusion and debate.
Nowhere in the Bible are we given guidance on just when a human life begins. At what point is abortion murder? Murder of a person out of the womb is easy to interpret. Before, it is not.
He has his beliefs and personally condemns what he sees as immoral acts. But, he wants the federal government out of the business of legislating morality. He appears tolerant of others beliefs even when he firmly believes in their opposite. After all, we will be judged by God’s scales, not man’s. At best we can discourage our brethren from what we perceive as error.
When a priest by his authority absolves us from sins once we recognize our error is this not a symbol of a church which recognizes that it is the sin, not the sinner which is the enemy. Dr. Paul recognizes that people disagree. He does not say abortion is all right if the States recognize it, all he says is that it is none of the Federal government’s business.
It is the same with prostitution. He does not support its practice but finds individual liberty more important than judgement of what is a consensual act. He is against coercion. If Jesus could publicly forgive a prostitute may we not also do the same? You cannot change people by force. Paul recognizes this and condemns the government for its use.
It is also the same with drugs. He does not approve of nor encourage the use of recreational drugs. He is for legalizing them because he wisely recognizes that this is a personal issue not a legal one. He is well aware, as any informed citizen should be, that prohibition causes far more harm than good. Drug use is not declining while prison populations, anti-drug expenditures, government and law enforcement, support of criminal gangs, loss of liberty and broken families swell.
Dr. Paul is religious and stands by his principles. He is not an “in your face” fundamentalist happy to impose his will on those who disagree with him. He is a true Libertarian, not an Ayn Rand style objectivist. He believes that we must be free to live our own lives so long as we harm no other person (in a direct way) nor infringe on his property.
There is much to admire in this stalwart individual and we should not condemn him as the lesser of evils if he has chosen to labor in congress. He is nothing like the run of the mill politician.
He has always said that he saw danger in the direction government was moving and was motivated to run for congress to try to do something effective to help prevent that. Nobody has accused him of being a liar so why not take him at his word. He is a good, principled religious man. He is running for president, not savior. I believe we can support him with enthusiasm.
The fact that Ron Paul wants to turn issues like abortion over to the states, does NOT in anyway indicate that he is soft on abortion. His feelings toward abortion are personal and separate from his commitment to applying the constitution to America. It’s his job. It doesn’t mean he supports abortions part of the time. He believes that people are best persuaded. This is relly the realm of private outreach, within the states rights. He would support policies that would make it easier for private organizatios to offer charity and outreach in communities. This is where change can really happen. People don’t do things because the “government said so.”
Additionally, vices are not crimes against others. They should be treated differently. Here again, community outreach - coupled with strong, moral leaders - is the best approach to affecting cultural change. (One thing’s for sure, our national leadership does anything BUT promote morality as it is!)
G-d gave us free will. As long as there is free will, people are going to choose the wrong things some times. Some people will even choose the wrong things most times. I think G-d wants us to support and love and lead one another to make better decisions more of the time. The more, the better. That is not about governmental force (which is largely immoral anyway) that certainly creates a lot of immorality.
My main point though, is not to confuse Dr. Paul’s personal convictions with his intention of representing his country by the rules it came with. Hebelieves in changes to the constitution when they are persuasively and legally put forth and adopted. Even though I agree with him, I do not agree with unconstitional Executive Orders. Nor does he.
*And ditto the comment about the difference between “objectivism” and “libertarianism.” They are not at all the same thing, and should not be confused.
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in.
BTW David T is a kook.
Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doctors don’t try to kill people they try to save them.
Wake up America!
“He has never taken a government junket. He does not
participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program. He
returns a portion of his annual Congressional Office Budget every
year. He has never voted to raise taxes. He
has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never
voted to restrict gun ownership. He has never voted to
raise Congressional Pay. He never voted to increase
Executive Branch Power. He will Reinstate The
Constitution and Save The Republic He will END the
unconstitutional FED. He will phase out the
unconstitutional IRS beginning immediately He will
secure the borders He will limit Big Government in your
private affairs He will stop Illegal immigration and no
amnesty He voted against regulating the Internet He
voted against the Iraq War and warned us against going forward with
an undeclared war.“Let it not be said that no one cared, that
no one objected once it’s realized that our liberty and wealth are in
Jeopardy” July 10th, 2003He voted against the
un-patriotic so called Patriot Act. He supports a
non-interventionist foreign policy yet a strong military He
will end the inflation tax He is a true Constitutional
Conservative He would have soundly beat Obama in 2008
because Independents trust him and like him.We could have had
a V8 instead of McCain’t in 08 Ron Paul for President
2012 Because no one else can be trusted to say what he
means and do what he says like Ron Paul does.Ron Paul is the
man of the hour. They used to laugh him for being way ahead of the
others in his thinking and his warnings. Now, they are not laughing
because what he predicted is coming to pass. Now, he is being called
a prophet for having warned us and still calmly suffered through the
barbs. “First they, ignore you, then they fight you, then you
win.” Gandhi”
He stands for the Constitution, and lives his personal life as a Christian.
How can this not make sense to almost everyone of Christian belief?
RON PAUL 2012, the only HONEST choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Donna-
I noticed none of the other commenters wanted to answer your question “What are his opinions on a social safety net and such programs as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.” I can’t readily find his position on Medicaid, but his position page, which is linked in Mark’s original post, indicated he wants to abolish both Social Security and Medicare.
“Bush did do something about abortion. For one thing, he appointed Alito and Roberts.”
That would be the Roberts who declared that Roe v. Wade is “settled law”? Yeah, I can just feel the passionate zeal for abortion reform. Get it. The GOP leaders don’t care. They will *never* overturn Roe. If they had devoted 1/100th the energy to this that they just devoted to the budget (but, of course, they were too busy prosecuting an unjust war in Iraq for that) I’d take them seriously. But in fact their strategy has been, for 30 years, to frighten prolifers into voting for them while making empty promises and then to keep America at sub-Carthaginian levels of respect for the unborn by passing a couple of token regulations and telling prolifers to shut up and be grateful.
Ron Curry: No. Rand Paul is not named for Ayn Rand. Learn to use Google.
Steve: You’re right. I have no idea what a Christian Yogi is, other than further evidence that Ron Paul, God bless him, tends to attract eccentrics, which my Chestertonian side always appreciates. I am acutely aware that scripture is ambiguous on abortion and a great deal else when read apart from sacred tradition. But as a Catholic and a person with common sense, I don’t believe in sola scriptura and so think your ignorance of the Christian tradition on this point is not at all persuasive.
Conversely, I think Mr. Curry illiterate reading of Paul’s position is not merely unpersuasive, but so larded with “say anything” hostility to Paul that he simply has no clue what he is talking about. Paul is obviously pro-life. He is also obviously a Constitutionalist. He also obviously believes that people have to be allowed the freedom to sin and fail. So he opposes abortion and would always vote against it. He opposes a federal abortion regime. And he thinks the states should have the liberty to work the problem out. If he were a state legislator, he’d vote against it. He’s not. He’s a Congressman. So he votes against it there. Not a huge mystery.
Donna,
Dr. Paul does not wish to abolish Social Security and Medicare outright. We have an obligation to the seniors and people who have paid in. He has talked about waning us off the federal subsidies and welfare programs for these instances. Young people will have the option of opting out and saving their own money via 401k or other self retirement options.
Government has really messed this up for our seniors and the faster we are able to get the government out of retirement options, the better it is for everyone.
If he wants to ABOLISH medicare and Soc Security, he is a kook ! Great country this would be…legalize drugs (including herion),legalize prostitution, abolish Social Security and Medicare, lets have even MORE open borders.
His position on abortion is limp !! IF he is against it, and doesn’t want the Fed Govt to stop it by laws…he is in effect a SUPPORTER of it. You cant say what a great pro lifer you are and then say “Whatever the states want!!” You must say, “I am against it on moral grounds, and we should have a Constitutional Amendment to STOP IT !!!
Someone ask him ,” Hey Ron, should the federal government do anything to protect LIFE (as in “no person shall deny anyone of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness”—-US Constitution !!) Thats not UN Constitutional…It’s IN the Constitution.
Paul is a 75 year old doo-fuss….
RK-
How can you say Dr Paul does not want to abolish Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security? On the linked issues page, under the topic of “Healthcare”-
“Replace Medicaid with volunteer pro-bono medical care. (Apr 2008) “
“Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)”
and under the topic “Social Security”—
“Abolish Social Security, but not overnight. (Jan 2008)”
I am not convinced in Dr Paul as a candidate- but I will say this for him- he is very clear in his positions and does not waffle or flip flop. He has stated his position on these programs- and I do think these positions deserve a close look.
I just wanted to write and tell you, as a Catholic, and a Ron Paul supporter, I enjoyed your writing. I think you are spot on in many aspects. It is nearly impossible to be a libertarian and a Catholic, as Libertarian beliefs contradict the authenticity of Catholic Social Justice. I believe many Saints would be rolling over in their graves if we voted a libertarian. For many years democrats were the party to represent Catholics because of their charitable focus (welfare). Unfortunately, democrats became liberals on many other issues, issues that are destructive to life and liberty. Republicans have also become destructive. As I call it, one side loves war, the other side loves welfare.
Ron Paul IS electable. I believe the checks and balances we have in our system would make him an excellent president. I agree, he does not recognize some of the things that are “right”, but that’s why Congress and Senate are there to balance. My Catholic vote is with Congressman Dr. Paul, and I hope in the primaries, yours is too!
Ron Curry,
Read your comments on Ron Paul and abortion. Have you ever actually heard Ron Paul speak about abortion? I have, I marched with him at the March for Life. He tells everyone, life begins at conception, he learned this when he was in medical school. He saw the baby being thrown in a corner struggling to breath, and die. That was the first and last abortion he was ever a part of in his life as an OBGYN. More politicians should be brave enough to stand up for their beliefs the way Dr. Paul does, instead of hiding behind their faith (Biden). Ron Paul does not support Roe v Wade and has given multiple speeches on why it should be repealed. Don’t just go off talking points from a presidential debate, learn more about the man. He’s the only politician I “trust”.
Ron Paul does not support a Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion. He is in favor of making the individual states decide. If New York decides its ok by their laws….Ron Paul does NOTHING to protect…I DO !!!....I say we amend the US Constitution so that NO ABORTIONS ARE ALLOWED. Is that hard to understand????
I don’t think anyone disagrees with the fact that Dr Paul is personally pro-life, anti-abortion, and believes life begins at conception. But those are his *personal* views. His political view seems to be (from his issues page)- “Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)”
Don’t we, as Catholics, want the federal government IN the abortion decision- to outlaw it? I am genuinely confused about this. Are fellow Catholics saying it is better to vote for a politician that does not want the federal gov’t to outlaw abortion?
How can this paper support Ron Paul when he DOES NOT oppose gay marraige???!!! No good Catholic should ever support him.
This paper doesn’t support Ron Paul. My opinions are my own. And pretty tepid opinions they are too, when it comes to “supporting” any political figure. Saying “He’s not advocating intrinsic grave evil, so I can at least consider voting for him without fearing I am damning my everlasting soul” is not exactly a ringing endorsement. I oppose gay “marriage”, but Paul does not support it. He merely does not oppose it: again, a typically libertarian position. He’s wrong. But he’s not asking me to support intrinsic grave evil.
Remember: all this is academic, because the GOP will never ever *ever* tolerate him to be their nominee. So don’t get too worked up.
You are just playing with words! “Not opposing” gay marriage is the same as supporting it in that he would never try to stop it. His attitude is the worst because it misleads a lot of good Catholics into thinking he is a true social conservative, which he IS NOT. You didn’t even bother to mention this extremely important topic in your article!
“The simple fact is that he will never be elected”.
It is quite impossible for any human to predict the future. It is not a “simple fact”, it is a speculation.
Dear Mark Shea:
Dr & Congressman Ron Paul’s views are broadly Christian, and have appeal to both Catholics & Protestants (be they Reformed or Evangelical), and have deep appeal to all who lament American’s slide into moral & political relativism.
His faith is more organic and affirms the individuals right to Life & Liberty, and not the more predominant collectivist one, that looks at individuals and tries to categorize them only as to their ‘group’ - AKA: the ‘divide & conquer strategy’, via race, religion, gender, etc.
This anti-collectivist Principle confounds those who have been conditioned to only look for ‘groups & labels’, but don’t take the time to discern the Principles behind the views he states.
Here is Ron Paul’s ‘Statement of Faith’, as published:
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
STATEMENT OF FAITH by Dr. 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
Kay, you asked “Don’t we, as Catholics, want the federal government IN the abortion decision- to outlaw it? I am genuinely confused about this. Are fellow Catholics saying it is better to vote for a politician that does not want the federal gov’t to outlaw abortion?” Kay, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not give the Federal Government the power to sanction or prohibit many things, including abortion. As I understand Congressman Paul’s position, he wants the Federal Government to obey the law: “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” (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html). This is why he wants this issue and indeed most issues handled at the State/local level: It’s the law. Like all Congresspersons, he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I recommend you check for yourself rather than trust me (or anyone else for that matter), and I also suggest you research the “Sanctity of Life Act” which Congressman Paul authored (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show). Regards, Charles
I have seen some comments expressing confusion about (or criticism of) Paul’s desire to keep the federal government out of abortion legislation (possibly including a Constitutional amendment). Perhaps I can help clarify the matter slightly. It is critical to realize that there is absolutely no conflict - logically or philosophically - between being 100% against abortion and not advocating a Federal law against it. The mechanism by which such a law exists and is enforced is an equally important but separate question than the content of the law. Paul believes that allowing an entity as large as the federal government to make laws of most kinds is a very dangerous proposition. It leads to tyrannical legislation. Consequently, he believes that even a piece of legislation with a fundamentally sound purpose or goal may still be a bad piece of legislation, because it is an endorsement of a bad system - a tyrannical system. Instead, it is better to decentralize law to the greatest possible degree. A federal ban on abortion would not yield the results its advocates intend, as a study of any federal ban can show you.
In a similar vein, Paul opposes federal legislation against gay marriage, but he has supported the right of states to pass laws against it. However, in that instance he does not think that method (state bans) is a good idea - he thinks that government should be out of marriage altogether, so that it is purely a religious matter. To those who believe that state-sanctioned marriage is a good idea, I suggest you look into the origin of marriage licenses in the United States. They were created predominantly as a means for governments to prevent mixed-race marriages.
Interesting David Alan uses the term ‘collectivist’ since the last time I saw that word used was by the deeply religious Catholic Rick Santorum who said this nation needs a ‘collectivist’ (sic) morality to bring us back to god. Seems the theocrats can’t decide which form of collectivism is best. Certainly betrays a lack of deep thinking
I have seen some comments expressing confusion about (or criticism of) Paul’s desire to keep the federal government out of abortion legislation (possibly including a Constitutional amendment). Perhaps I can help clarify the matter slightly. It is critical to realize that there is absolutely no conflict - logically or philosophically - between being 100% against abortion and not advocating a Federal law against it. The mechanism by which such a law exists and is enforced is an equally important but separate question than the content of the law. Paul believes that allowing an entity as large as the federal government to make laws of most kinds is a very dangerous proposition. It leads to tyrannical legislation. Consequently, he believes that even a piece of legislation with a fundamentally sound purpose or goal may still be a bad piece of legislation, because it is an endorsement of a bad system - a tyrannical system. Instead, it is better to decentralize law to the greatest possible degree. A federal ban on abortion would not yield the results its advocates intend, as a study of any federal ban can show you. In a similar vein, Paul opposes federal legislation against gay marriage, but he has supported the right of states to pass laws against it. However, in that instance he does not think the method of state bans is a good idea - he thinks that government should be out of marriage altogether, so that it is purely a religious matter. To those who believe that state-sanctioned marriage is a good idea, I suggest you look into the origin of marriage licenses in the United States. They were created predominantly as a means for governments to prevent mixed-race marriages.
Phillip:
I was not attempting a full exposition of Paul’s views. I was merely saying why I, personally, had not noted any place where he asked me to support something intrinsically immoral. He does not ask me to support gay “marriage”, nor does he support it himself. So I didn’t bother with it, not with much else in his views with which I have differences.
Remember: “not supporting something intrinsically immoral” is a very low bar to set. Relax. He’ll never get elected.
Dear Mark:
Thanks for this great article. I hope your instinct to support Dr. Ron Paul will grow, over time.
Please give the “Ron Paul Statement of Faith” that I posted a look - check the URL it was posted well before the 2008 election.
Dr. Paul is a Christian statesman - something not seen this clearly expressed in our lifetimes.
He’s a modern day founding father - and the movement of Christian Liberty he is inspiring may well play a part in a Reformation of Life & Liberty in our time.
Your comments on the GOP ‘Never Ever tolerating’ him as nominee may be correct, but God is Sovereign, not man, and that is what our family is counting on.
I care not what the GOP dirty dealers may do - we’ll do the right thing, regardless.
It takes but a small rudder to steer a large ship.
“The Eyes of the LORD run to & from throughout the whole earth, to find those whose hearts are perfect towards HIM, and those he will strongly support.”
This the Word of God promises. Ron Paul is just such a man - imagine if millions do the same - the nation will never be the same.
Why not consider joining us ?
David Alan & family
Texas
When Ronald Reagan ran for president he was dismissed as an unelectable actor. The truth is that he graduated from college with a double-major in Sociology and Economics. Combine those degrees with the experience of being a radio announcer, an actor and the head of a union (the actor’s guild) and you have a pretty good background for leading a nation. There are a lot of similarities here. Ron Paul’s wisdom comes from a lifetime of study and service to the community both in the private and public sectors. Just like Reagan, the party elites hate and disparage Ron Paul. Both parties bludgeon candidates they cannot control, which is what is wrong with our political process. Just like Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul is taking his third run at the presidency. Its time we stopped buying into the lie that has kept our government from representing our values. He can win and a candidate should be judged on his own record and not on the shortcomings of people he has met along the way.
Mr Shea:
It was a good article. My comment is: Who cares what Ron Paul, the man, believes? It’s Ron Paul the guy who votes and imposes “policy” on me after he votes ....that guy…who bothers me !! If Ron Paul says that he wouldnt do anything to protect, as President, the unborn in New York after New York (like they just did homosexual “marriage”) votes to allow it, he is…repeat…is ....SUPPORTING IT! Why? Because he could do and advocate and support things to stop ALL abortions and to stop homosexual “marriage.” That’s why the Defense of Marriage Act was a Federal statute…to cover situations where queers “marrys” in New York, and then moves to Alabama, where (lets hope)they would not allow homo marriage. Why, oh Catholics, would you fight a FEDERAL law that would protect the citizens of Alabama and make marriage defined as GOD AND JESUS desires…between man and woman. It would prevent it in every state. Without a federal statute, the New York marriage MUST BE PROTECTED IF THE NEW YORKERS MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE….and SURPRISE SURPRISE——people will move to a state that allows it and then move to a state that MUST recognize that homo marriage. Ron Paul is not smart enough to see that !! But Mr Shea, you are correct….its over for Paul. He couldnt get elected dog chaser…much less catcher !!
The Constitution of The United States, as all generations of Americans have been educated, is the finest masterpiece of democracy ever conceived from the mind of man since civilization came to be. Soo my fellow Americans, I have some questions for you…what is freedom? What is liberty, and Who is Ron Paul?
I say it is our civic duty, not a privilege, to be active in the democratic process, always regarded in history books as the grandstanding triumph of our founding fathers and for mankind. We have a duty to return our country back from which it once came, to restore the role of We The People, To ensure that the legacy of liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness is given to our children and to others.
I believe in my search for hope, I have found a man who has been at the front lines, for our freedoms, the whole time and nobody cared to listen. A man who has been mocked for nearly two decades about his economics only to be devastatingly right in the end, a man who stood absolutely alone on the floor of congress, shunned by democrats and republicans alike for not voting for things that he believed were harmful to the nation and simply unconstitutional, a man that scares politicians so bad they bully him on stage or simply don’t allow him to participate in debates. I have found an American hero. I have found Ron Paul.
For a candidate for President of The United States of America in 2012, there is no one closer to our founding fathers, than Ron Paul. My generation is being awoken to the reality of the future of our country. For campuses and young people around this country to embrace, and speak out in massive volumes, along with a countless percentage of truly diverse people from both sides of the spectrum that all seem to say “man, when you listen this guy really makes sense!”. These people will literally walk across the heartland, ride a bike from coast to coast, or fly a hot air ballon doing anything to promote his message; all for a 78 year old soft spoken doctor from Texas who believes in sound secure money, no income tax, abolishment of the IRS, ending the federal reserve, legalizing marijuana, returning currency to the gold standard, and the true return of State’s Rights! It is about campaigning for freedom, it is about continuing our legacy. That is why it is so powerful because it’s from the roots, from the hear,t and does not operate with a win/lose philosophy. Its all about spreading the message of freedom and liberty and the constitution. You must ask yourself; What is freedom? What is liberty? And who is Ron Paul?
Very well said, Mark. Once again, I’m impressed with your very Catholic approach to politics. Such a nice change from the usual right wing/Republican/Libertarian stuff one usually hears from faithful well-meaning Catholics. Thanks!
What some seem to not realize is that with Ron Paul states could OUTLAW abortion (as it was before Roe v Wade). He has introduced legislation to strip Federal courts from having ANY say in state abortion laws. He wants to fight abortion on the state level, where it is easier to enact change.
Ron Paul is showing the pro-life movement the best and most expedient way to free our nation from the pro-death culture.
On marriage, Ron Paul doesn’t think government should license marriages. This would bring us back to 1900, when government had NOTHING to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious institution and government shouldn’t be interfering with the affairs of the family and the Church. Ron Paul is the best defender of the Church in Congress today, especially in conscience and religious protections.
I have to say I’m at a loss for explaining why people worship at the altar of ‘states rights’. That’s been nothing but a disaster for this country. Return to the gold standard for God’s sake? Why not bring in UFO’s to rescue the country? Fly a hot air balloon is probably the most rational approach to Ron Paul since THAT source of energy is free with the Tea Partiers. They are destroying this country with their economic fairy tales. This is a country hell bent on ensuring one thing and one thing only: the rich are protected. That is the rationale behind ‘deregulation’.
Maxime, marriage is a LEGAL institution. Witness property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. In fact this very day I heard, on our local NPR station, a discussion on gay marriage in which it was stated there are over 1100 rights according to married couples not available to non married couples. THAT is why we need marriage ‘laws’. Have you people taken leave of your senses?
All of those things could be taken care of by private contracts, wills, etc. Government’s job is to enforce contracts, and if contracts are broken, those parties should have recourse to a neutral judge/jury (government).
It’s like people seriously think that before government came along we just ran around and poked ourselves in the eye.
I didn’t get from Mr. Shea’s post that he was endorsing Ron Paul. He just did an analysis of the guy and left it pretty open for everyone to do their own research.
Ron Curry, I certainly can’t fault you for standing up for what you believe in. However, it is wrong of your to believe that you have the right to force you beliefs on others. If you want more people to take on your beliefs, then teach them. Don’t force it upon them. You can’t force faith on a person. I also hope that you’ve never made any complaints about, for instance, Muslims trying to force their religion on everyone. I think the irony of that should be obvious.
Maxime, are you seriously suggesting people are going to negotiate 1100 separate points? This is one of the problems with the Tea party approach: it assumes people have nothing better to do with their time than become totally educated on everything in the world from baby wipes to airplane safety. This is why it’s a fairy tale.
“the family (something Ayn Rand hated) … is the basis of civilization”
Ayn Rand would certainly disagree with you that family is the basis of civilization, but she had no hatred for it. Where did you get this idea?
Ron Curry, as part of the pro-life movement for over 30 years, I must say, the attempts to end abortion in this country via the Constitutional Amendment path has worked out really well hasn’t it?? Such wasted energy! Too bad the pro-life movement didn’t work towards Dr. Paul’s states strategy a lot sooner. Think of all the babies who might have been saved.
Rand’s creed of selfishness is the mortal enemy of the family. Not surprisingly, she supports abortion and her fiction is full of characters having sterile sex unencumbered by commitment or the possibility of children. So of course Rand would disagree that the family is the basis of civilization. As so many evil people are, she is blind to such common sense.
The chink in Ron Paul’s philosophy is that he accepts homosexual marriage. Not only is this position morally depraved, it reveals a lack of moral awareness about why it is evil. This makes Ron Paul’s pro-life stance far too small for Catholics to accept. Somehow is has missed the fact that homosexuality is anti-life. He can’t be trusted.
Radical individualism of the type supported by Rand is, as Shea points out, a concept not in keeping with Catholic social teaching. While not mentioning her by name, certainly Benedict XVI has excoriated those who hold to these ultrafundamentalist views of human nature.
As an aside, Allan Wafkowski’s characterization of gay marriage (a topic already beat to death in other discussions) as ‘evil’ is stupid. Downright stupid. It may be ‘immoral’ (if you believe it is), but EVIL? Let’s keeps a sense of perspective. Take a breath!
Mark,
You seem to have unleashed all the closet catholic Ron Paulians…That’s not a bad thing!
I don’t have much to add except to agree with those above who have indicated that your “balanced” view of Paul betrays perhaps some misinformation and/or preconceived ideas. For example, while it is true that Rand’s writings introduced Paul to “libertarianism” back in the late 1950’s, and that he therefore may acknowledge that influence, Paul’s own philosophy is so distinct from (and frequently opposite) Rand’s that associating them serves no useful purpose.
Likewise, you use the term “Libertarian” as an epithet that suggests a defined core set of beliefs. Granted, Paul himself uses the term to describe his own political philosophy. Yet some of his most virulent detractors also call themselves libertarian (see the clique at Reason magazine or at Cato), and depending on the specific issue (be it moral, social, economic, or political) you will find libertarians completely at odds with each other. So dismissing or downplaying Paul on the basis of that term does not reflect the kind of nuance of thought you normally display…:-)
Thank you!
That Ayn Rand had a “hatred” for something is a very specific charge. It is not something that can be proved by pointing out deviation from Catholic doctrine. If you mean that her ideas are harmful to your conception of family, say so. Or, if you can make a case she felt this way, do so. Admitting you were wrong is also an option.
While I agree with Ron Paul that states can accomplish a lot to end abortion, but this issue mustn’t be limited to solely a contest of which state has the most political smarts when it comes to putting the abortion clinics out of business. It still comes down to recognizing that this is a basic human rights issue, thus it automatically merits a national remedy which ultimately can be given only by the Supreme Court.
It’s great that various states are mandating the use of sonograms in abortion clinics. This has PP more frightened than any grandstanding demagoguing Congressman slipping in a rider amendment like Mike Pence did last winter because the sonograms hit home directly, the mother’s heart and even the most callous abortion clinic operator has to know just once glance at that child is worth more than a trillion of Pence’s carefully orchestrated and rehearsed bloviations. After all: his amendment was only going so far as President Obama’s desk and into the circular filing cabinet.
It was also legislative blackmail, as was a lot of shennanigans pulled off by the Republicans and their Tea Party hobbits.
I have to agree with William’s observations about the so-called “prolife movement” as it presently exists in DC. Besides, who’s it really working on behalf; unborn children whose lives we need to constantly be on vigil for—or the lobbyists who like a lot of retired pols or high-level House and Senate staffers (the real walking brains) ... always manage to find a new and highly lucrative field of political activity awaiting them. (A lot more lucrative indeed!)
The prolife side would do a lot more good by doing what the government’s going to be doing on a much larger scale in the days and months to come, go on a huge diet and trim itself down to just one “dream team” of legal eagles who specialize in abortion cases and are meticulously alert to any possible linkage to any ideological organization of any kind seeking to glom itself on (for their shared “glory.” As Napoleon said after a big battle he won in Germany against a wide coalition of armies, “Allies, give me more allies” to dispense with. Most allies are parasites to begin with and lawyers preparing to argue this most important kind of case do not need the distractions caused by such parasitical outfits like the Susan B. Anthony List. (Hmmm, just how active WAS Anthony regarding abortion?)
I have a lot of other disagreements with Ron Paul on issues like Social Security, libertarian philosophy in general and foreign policy matters. Though his heart is in the right place concerning abortion, his beliefs that this should be handled at the state and local level is where I part. It’s a federal issue because protecting the life of a conceived human being “endowed with inalienable rights” does not solely belong in state courts.
There seems to be some confusion about Dr. Paul’s position on drugs and abortion. I will clarify these positions and argue that he supports the Christian position on these issues.
I will first address his position on drugs, and then his position on abortion.
1) He does not want ANYONE to use drugs.
2) He views the drug problem as a MEDICAL problem, and not a CRIMINAL problem. He believes that putting drug users in prison is not a Christian position. As Christians, we should follow the advice of Jesus and volunteer our time and resources to the rehabilitation of our fellow man.
3) So please, do not say that he wants everyone to use drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. He simply believes that putting sick people in prison and turning them into hardened criminals is not humane, and certainly not Christian.
Dr. Paul’s position on abortion:
1) He is ABSOLUTELY against abortion.
2) However, he recognizes that we Christians are losing the war of public opinion on abortion. Until public opinion turns dramatically, the goal of outlawing abortion at the national level is impossible.
3) So, meanwhile, Dr. Paul would like you to have the option of outlawing abortion in your home state. That’s because, if you live in a state with a large pro-life population, then you have a much greater chance of affecting policy. Dr. Paul would like you to have the option of building at least a local community in which abortion is illegal. Dr. Paul isn’t for abortion just because a state allows it. He just realizes that the best way to stop abortion is at the state level, where activism can make a difference.
4) A lot of pro-abortion activists constantly make claims about how pro-life laws would increase teenage pregnancy, crime, poverty, etc. What better way could there be to refute such nonsense than to have YOUR state outlaw abortion and decrease those ills? Right now, the system is set up in such a way to prevent the states from proving through experimentation that the Christian pro-life position is practical as much as it is moral. Dr. Paul often talks about spreading the good of America around the world by setting a GOOD EXAMPLE. That position can be applied to the issue of abortion as well. If the states had the freedom to decide abortion laws, then the pro-life states could set a good example to the pro-abortion states, making it easier to convince them to change their ways.
The “pro-lifers” hyperventilating here do not want it left to the states because some of them might make the wrong decision. The abortion lobby, with its support of blatant judicial legislation, do not want it left to the states because some of them might make the “wrong” decision. Both share the same attitude: to Hell with that pesky little Constitution whenever it gets in the way of what We want.
How many people here have READ the Constitution?
It seems to me that Ron Paul a declared Libertarian may also be a Deist just as were a number of the Constitutional fathers. I suggest you check out this fact on Wikipedia as I did recently due to an article by a conservative writer who was speaking about Bachmann and her tendency to this same position. Plz vet your candidates very carefully and not just superficially based on personal likes or dislikes, emotional responses to a candidates or w/o deeply looking into all the facts of a candidates experience, positions, history, ideals, etc.
We ended up w/“O” based on very little actual vetting and/or delving deeply into his background. How’s that working for us?? Don’t simply go along w/what you believe based on your personal perspectives. This goes for our blogger as well. Casting Ron Paul as a solid Christian Constitutional candidate, better than all others, is misleading to say the least. And I agree that he is unelectable based on his extremism.
Mark Shea, still peddling the ‘Torture’ nonsense and both parties are the same nonsense.
Thanks Mark, I have always enjoyed your articles since the days you were with the “king” of apologetics, Karl Keating. A great article about a great candidate, Ron Paul. There are many things I like about Ron Paul but the most convincing was years ago when he was running for president he was the only candidate to show up in person on January 22 on a very cold day in Washington D. C. to speak and march for the “Right For Life”. Ron Paul practices what he preaches.
Well stated Allen. Dr. Paul is clearly the most pro-life presidential candidate.
Sam, are you saying we should apply a religious test to the presidency? And where does Mark say that Ron Paul is a “solid Christian candidate”?
Jasper: When people die, it was torture.
Allen: Just so. The GOP habit of phoning it on Roe v Wade day tell you how important prolifers are to the GOP leadership. Paul walks the talk.
Will: Just so. Paul is Christian, or some sort (Baptist?). He is “solid” in the sense that he has the strength of his convictions. I’m not so sure I share all his conviction, and I certainly don’t share his faith completely. But, as I keep reiterating, he’ll never get elected, so it’s all moot. I too wonder if Sam is trying to apply a religious test for office.
If he is, it would have excluded Lincoln, who had a reputation as an “infidel” because he did not belong to any church. (I suspect that if he was still around he would be a Unitarian.)
You might want to check out Ron Paul’s position on gay marriage and prostitution. He has come out in the past in support of both, and if I am remembering correctly, wants the decision about abortion to be left up to the states. As we all know too well, states are the leaders in promoting immoral issues. States legalized abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. before being legalized at the national level.
We need a leader who is charismatic and has the right ideas on all of these issues and uses his charisma to influence the masses to think rightly. Leaving everything up to the states is not going to help anything because too many people have the wrong opinions on these important issues.
I cannot see myself ever voting for Ron Paul. He strikes me as a principled, very committed person.
For a quick example of why I will not support him, take a look at the posts by fervent Ron Paul supporters above: people who have said, as above, that if you don’t support the right of states to legislate on abortion, then you are exactly the same as Hitler, Stalin, and Pontius Pilate. People who have state that everyone must be free to choose whatever they want, so long as it harms no one except themselves. Libertarians.
If you think that these statements can in the least be squared with Catholic social teaching…never mind the Pauline descriptions of government…then you are quite simply wrong. Between the in every respect uniquely modern, pseudo-intellectualized, individualist libertarianism gaining power in the Republican world, and the mind of the Church concerning governance and morality, there is a great and almost impassible gulf, a gulf which I find it simply impossible to bridge.
As a good example of this, in one of the recent Republican debates, Ron Paul said basically that in legal terms that there is no difference between recreational drug use and free practise of religion, and if we allow the latter, there is no possible justification for not allowing the former, as well as prostitution, gay marriage, and other such things. The stark staring chasm of incomprehension of all of human history, of two thousand years of legal tradition, morality, and human society, in that statement is enough to swallow mountains.
(for this reference, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIgT_NGgek)
So I will not vote for Ron Paul, who supports allowing the legalisation of the grave moral evils of gay marriage, prostitution, and drug use, any more than I would support Obama, who favors the legalization of the grave moral evil of abortion.
I stand with the Church.
To those folks who are saying they will probably not vote in 2012; Thats the best way to ensure a victory for Obama!! I beg you to research the candidates, whoever they are, listen/watch an assortment of media, learn all you can, and vote for the best anti-Obama you can find…..I pray there will not be another 4 years with this man!!!
I guess somebody forgot to tell the abortion lobby, who do NOT want it left to the states.
Samilou:
Your argument, when translated is “VoTe RePuBLicaN or THe baBY getS iT!” It’s an extortion note that has worked for years.
The state does not have the power to declare anything more deep about marriage than that a legal partnership has been formed. A state marriage license does not make a religious marriage come into being or render it just in the eyes of God, whether it’s an a holy heterosexual marriage, a gay marriage, an abusive heterosexual marriage.
I think that the majority of the debate around the state laws on marriage centers around the name “marriage license”. Personally I think that state marriage licenses should be abolished and any two consenting adults should be able to apply for a “domestic partnership” license from the state that implies all the bonds and benefits of the marriage license except for sexual involvement.
The world has changed, legalities have, in most places, taken the place of common sense community recognition of bonds and alliances. The new domestic partnership license would be available to solidify the legal protections of a multitude of sexual and non-sexual long term domestic partnerships. A heterosexual couple, two sisters who have decided to remain single, a gay couple, an ailing mother and her son, a widower and a widow who don’t want love again, just legal protection and partnership. What is the function of state recognition other than protection and there are many couples in need of that protection whether or not they are romantically involved.
@William: I noticed above you had this to say about Ron Paul, “Dr. Paul is clearly the most pro-life presidential candidate.” Perhaps after reading this you might have second thoughts. http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm
These are his “explanations,” that go along with his voting record on health care issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm#Welfare_+_Poverty
Again and again, why do so many prolifers stand willing to accept a pol’s word on face value when he or she proclaims to be “prolife” without examining the said pol’s WHOLE STAND? Is that too much to ask?
Here’s libertarianism when it comes to old age care. Now as Catholics, we believe the “prolife” message covers a human being from the moment of conception to a natural death, and we firmly believe that every human being is entitled to a dignified life at any stage in (hopefully) long-lived lives. Here’s Ron Paul’s take compared to ours:
“Replace Medicaid with volunteer pro-bono medical care”
” . . . In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.”
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 84 Apr 1, 2008
(Taken from http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm )
He rather (conveniently…for himself anyway…failed to admit that Medicare/Medicaid signed into law by LBJ with Harry Truman sitting by, in the mid Sixties, eliminated the largest remaining contributory factor leading to poverty among our elderly.
What kind of self-respecting politician in this day and age, much less one who’s a doctor, come up with this lame brain defense of his “let’s all go back to the good ol’ days when the elderly were left to their own meager resources and that FDR hadn’t messed things up with the New Deal, Social Security and LBJ had to later add Medicare/Medicaid?” That’s pretty much a lot of the swill I’ve listened to from Paul’s own party this past week during the bogus debt ceiling catfight.
Let’s take a good look at the acorn Ron Paul, America’s Libertarian Yoda, dropped on the Senate side of Capitol Hill, his son Rand, also a doctor, and self-styled expert on the virtues of ever-so-compassionate private charity for our elderly. http://www.thenation.com/blog/161587/rand-paul-americas-hungry-seniors-let-them-eat-private-charity, .
Marie Antoinette, you’ve just been replaced by no less than Rand Paul who believes our old folks shouldn’t be allowed to rely on the same government they’ve paid taxes to for decades for Meals on Wheels and other nutrition programs that have helped so many, especially isolated rural elderly obtain at least one decent meal a day. He wants them to rely on “charity.” What’s their local charity going to rely on for funds to create the meals, much less pay for the gas used by volunteers to deliver these meals when guys like Rand and his father are squeezing the Federal government which supplies the states, and so forth the funds needed to keep even private charities from going under?
No wonder FDR said it’s a terrible thing that a fat wallet groans louder than an empty stomach, or in the case of the two Pauls, a libertarian politician’s head and heart.
Take a look at this gem I found in Politico:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54769.html
” . . . “With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. I am a physician. You have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. You are going to enslave not only me but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants, the nurses. ... You are basically saying you believe in slavery.”
Let me leave you all with a chuckle by referring back to the Nation article about Rand Paul his neo-Bourbonesque views towards solving hunger among our elderly. Take a look at the last paragraph and see who gets the last laugh.
ProLife? If guys like the Pauls, and space-shots like Michelle Bachmann, et al are the best bonafide prolife pols the GOP/TP have to put up against President Obama, well, get used to saying “Wait’ll the next time….” again, and again, and again.
What the hell did Ron Paul teach Rand? And do we want him sharing it with our kids, too? LOL
@Katharine, I completely agree with you on marriage licenses needing to be abolished. What people don’t realize is that in all legality, a marriage license establishes a third party in your marriage, the state. It is the sole reason a court can intervene in every aspect of a divorce, child custody, etc.
As for the discussion on abortion here. There is some clear misunderstanding in Ron Paul’s position. Those criticizing moving it to the states, don’t realize that this is the necessary FIRST step to completely wiping abortion out of our society. One day, hopefully that will lead to Constitutional Amendment. However, we MUST get the federal government out of it, so that we can take those first major steps.
If you’d like to see Ron Paul’s position on Abortion, I highly recommend you look over: http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
If you are Christian, I think it’s important that you read Ron Paul’s Statement of Faith at http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith
Then, look at every other candidate. Does Romney not make us all cringe with how he flip flips on everything? Do you think Bachmann’s vote for the PATRIOT Act could possibly justify her claim to be a Constitutional Conservative? Does nearly every other candidates support of unjust war resonate with anyone here? Does the fact that 70% of Congress and the past 5 presidents being members of the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR), not deeply concern anyone here? What about Obama? You wouldn’t even be able to criticize the man, before he’d already be pointing his finger at you telling you it’s all your fault.
As a Christian and a veteran who deployed in ‘07 where I first learned of Ron Paul, I’ve come to better understand the Constitution and it’s intent. I came to appreciate a time in our history, when all men over 18 were lawyers because they all carried a Bible and the Bill of Rights.
They were also quite fluent in Shakespeare.
As to not ever let their sacrifices become in vain and in becoming so solidified in my virtue to protect our Constitution, I couldn’t possibly vote for anyone else. Who follows scripture and the Constitution more passionately and with more conviction, even in the face of humility? Who talks about the Constitution? Who STILL talks about ending the wars? Who’s not a blood-sucking lawyer in this charade?
Dr. Ron Paul.
He’s clearly ahead of the whole pack in every way - politically, morally, and spiritually.
While I think the author tried to be fair, I am not sure I agree with *all* his characterizations of Ron Paul. (among those his stance on the military - which he would practically abolish - leaving us open to all sorts of harm) As a faithful Catholic I have looked at the GOP field and believe, in my humble opinion, that Herman Cain is actually the best choice for Catholic Voters. One of the biggest reasons I take issue with Dr Paul is actually on his pro-life stance. I know he has delivered 4000 babies and I do like his quote “To me the womb is the same as the cradle.” Yet, when asked if he would protect life, as President, on a Federal Level, he would not. He would not. While Mr Cain is a constitutional conservative, who champions States Rights, he also believes that there IS a place for he President, and the Federal Government to Protect the Lives of the most vulnerable citizens. Dr Paul does not believe this. Mr Cain also believes that homosexual acts are sinful, and has no qualms with saying so. Dr Paul pivots to the states right argument and wont go further than that.
The Principle of Subsidiarity, and the concept of solidarity are better served by Herman Cain as President than by Dr Paul. Both of these social “doctrines” of the Church place the emphasis on Catholic Humanism - recognizing that the individual - each individual - is created with dignity, not utility, and that a truly just Government would protect this dignity - even on a Federal Level, for a Federal Government that cannot uphold and protect the Dignity and Freedom of the person - on that Federal Level, will never be able to allow States to do it. It is NOT infringing on the rights of persons to have a Federal Gov’t that recognizes that Freedom comes only when man is respected - from the moment of his conception- as a person - and that it IS the Federal Gov’t place to protect that Freedom - Freedom to live, freedom to worship, freedom to speak and assemble. John Paul II outlined these Basic Freedoms for the UN in 1979 - and unequivocally stated that nations who respected, nay promoted and defended, these Freedoms - ON a FEDERAL Level - were nations where citizens would truly have the Freedom to be who God created them to be. Ron Paul as President does NOT guarantee a President who would fight for these freedoms. Herman Cain does.
Brett, I was just wondering what planet you live on. You seem not to be aware of the situation on Earth. For example, you say the state can intervene in child custody. Well DUH!! A child has rights! Of COURSE the state can intervene! Somehow you think marriage is eyodthis legal black hole beyond the law. So, perhaps if you spent more time on Earth you’d become familiar with our ways!
Deep down inside, you all know that Ron Paul is the right choice. Ron Paul 2012
Mark Shea is the last person anyone should ask a political question because of his bias toward the republican party, he would never acknowledge that if Reagan appointee Robert Bork wouldn’t have been “borked” by Kennedy and the rest of the democrats in 1987 roe v. wade would have been overturned in 1993 and it’s fact….... and he continually lies about republicans saying they support torture (an absolute lie) and than putting that at the same level of evil as abortion. Mr. Shea, lying is intrinsically evil
Thanks Mark. You make many great points. I Ron Paul is a principled man. He bases his decisions on the Constitution and Scripture. He also is the only one who acknowledges the family is the core of the Polis- as having God given natural authority to make decisions for themeselves. No other candidate will do that. No other condidate believes that we need to ask permission from the government to homeschool, carry a gun, worship God as we choose, eat what we decide to eat. Its the other way around. The government gets its permission to act from US- the family.
I am a bit pessimistic though when I see Catholic/Christians who are poo pooing Ron Paul. Their reasoning and speech show that they are not in the habit of listening to objective truth in dialogue. THESE people will vote for whoever the next RudyMCRomney neo-con candidate the GOP decides to put up there. They will GLADLY vote for the baby butchering(in the womb and out of the womb in foreign lands) because their favorite guru(Rush, Beck, Dobson, Father Happy Clappy, Pastor fuzzy wuzzy, Sister butch) is rooting for him. And after all our very own USCCB acceptable to vote for the “lesser of two evils”- Political Pragmatism. Hence, thats why so many Christians voted for Obama. They knew McCain and Obama wouldnt end abortion so at least Obama wants to stop the wars. Whereas McCain was ready to nuke Iran already. Obama could be seen as lesser of two evils- at least he made people believe that he was in agreement with JPII and Pope Benedict with regards to our tragic involvement in the Middle East.
When voting don’t be lukewarm. Theres not much time left.
As for me and my house we will serve the Lord!
Ron Paul 2012!
Actually Ron’s not quite alone up on the hill - he has an equivalent counterpart on the other side of the isle that has also been a lone ranger in his party - Dennis Kucinich. While many of his views are aligned with Ron’s there are also many that aren’t. I feel that these two would make a great President/VP team. It will help to unite the two parties under a Constitutional ideology while giving a “left” tempering valve for Ron through Dennis. Three of the big agreements between Ron and Dennis are withdrawal of troops, ending the federal reserve and getting rid of the patriot act. The rest of his views are fairly conservatively liberal. Next to the other “republican candidates” I would choose Dennis first. Do some research on this guy and you’ll see what I mean.
For someone who claims to be “tepid” about politics, you write about the subject an awful lot.
I like Ron Paul, but sometimes I have to wonder about his competence. For example, I read something of his once where he said the Constitution prohibits the federal government from impairing the obligation of contracts, but was referencing a part of the Constitution that applies to the states. I also saw a colloquy between him and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke where he asked the Fed Chairman if gold is money. Well, of course gold isn’t money. Ron Paul would like it to be for some reason, but what was the point of asking Bernanke if gold IS money?
As for Dennis Kucinich, I like him too, but he abandoned his pro-life position to run in the Democratic primary for President. How principled was that? Also, he drew up articles of impeachment against George W. Bush that were basically a laundry list of his objections to Bush’s presidency. Not that there wasn’t much to object to about Bush’s presidency in my view, but impeachment is supposed to be a remedy for crime by an incumbent. It’s not a way of getting rid of people you disagree with.
So, principled is good. Knowledgeable and competent are good too. Intelligence, I think, is essential, as we should have learned from a recent presidency. I’m afraid that as to both Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, the requisite knowledge, competence, and intelligence are lacking, which would make them easy tools for less benign persons. I’m still looking for that candidate who won’t spatter blood on me when I pull the lever for them. I might just have to settle for the one who will be better for the country.
Greetings Mark and fellow bloggers, I was hoping you could clarify something about Ron Paul for me. I voted for him at the last election, for actually the very reasons Mark described in his article. Later, I read rumors (from what seem to be credible sources) that he was affiliated with the Freemasons, an occult organization which I am completely against, as a Christian. I definitely do not want to vote for him again if he has any ties to the Masons. So, is he a Mason or a Christian? On another note, I’ve also read that Sarah Palin made April 19-22, 2008 Prince Hall Masonic Week—definitely will not be voting for her!
I’m also anti-Ayn Rand—good to know from the other bloggers that he’s not really a big of a fan.
Katharine: At last, someone Gets It. I am driven out of all charity by the insistence from the liberal apparat that sexual relationships are the only ones that deserve “recognition”.... This is probably part of the inundation of serious sex WORSHIP that Lewis warned of decades ago.
He doesn’t want to legalize drugs and prostitution, hear this, he wants to decriminalize it. There is a BIG difference.
Laws don’t stop people from doing anything. It’s illegal to speed, but people still do it. It’s illegal to do drugs, but people still do it. When things are illegal it just makes it more expensive. People don’t have abortions simply because they are legal they have them because they had unprotected sex and don’t want the baby that came with it. NO law is going to stop people from killing their baby. You need to get to the source of the demand for abortions and kill it (no pun intended) rather than focusing on the evil product. And for those that say it will drop the number of abortions of course it will because abortions will no longer be counted, but that doesn’t mean that people aren’t getting them.
You Ron Paul people will say ANYTHING to make a silly point. Thinkgs are illegal, and we try to prevent these things to make as much of an attempt to sotp or REDUCE the HERION should be legalized !! . Not all murderers are caught…so we legalize murder. Not all speeders are CAUGHT so we take away the speed limits. Come on…Of course ALL robberies cant be prevented, but we dont give up catching them and deterring them. Your boy Paul says that its no big deal if drugs are legalized !! Read this !
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/article/Ron-Paul-favors-legalizing-heroin-1374192.php
He’s a fool !!!!
I agree with your statement’ “Parliament of !@#$% who constitute our Ruling Classes.”
The problem is power seekers are often destroyed by the power they seek. So most, if not all, politicians are damaged goods.
What is needed is for the Catholic Church to teach morals and get out of politics. This would be hard for many Bishops and Priests to do. But it is what our Popes have demanded.
If the Church taught morals loudly and consistently the people would be able to form their consciences correctly and then they would be able to select leaders that did not violate their informed conscience. This is the only way to cause change that will be respectful of God and create a society that respects those who love God.
Bill, now THIS makes sense. It seems that political action is a replacement for failure of Church learders to get ‘buy in’ from the people in the pews. This is a solution that’s logical and compatible with democracy.
In response to Laura R:
Dr. Paul is not against Military. The presidents job is to protect us from foreign invaders. He is however against the copy cating of the Roman empire that is happening now. JPII and Benedict strongly oppose this. Do not confuse defense with pre-emtive striking and occupancy of foreign lands. Just because their is someone down the street from me that has the ability and motive to attck me doesnt mean I can go kill him and his innocent children.
As for Herman Cain, he speaks a good game and uses the popular Tea party type lingo sometimes. But don’t forget he was Fed Chairman(we don’t hear about this)- aided in our nations immoral spending and mass theft of the peoples money by inflating the dollar. Bernanke’s predesessor. He is pro big government. Pro occupancy of foreign lands/War, supported Romney, TARP, un patriot Act, all Bush and OBama bailouts. Any candidate like this can use all the Christian hot buttons correctly, but when in office will be just another Bush/Obama- ultimately violating the fundamental rights of the family.
Bill I totally agree. Politics has a way of creating division as can be seen on just this combox alone.
Tea Party-ism, libertarianism, “constitutionalist originalism,” ... oh hell, just plain Republicanism circa 2011 ... ALL BUNK! And I would’ve put it in much saltier terms if this wasn’t a Catholic commentary box!
Because they all deserve it ... especially the Pauls and anybody who supports them and a lot of their phooey which won’t save the unborn any more than they’ll ever see a balanced budget amendment (what bunk that is, too!) or ever come up with a truly compassionate governmental system that comes anywhere close to what the Catholic Church teaches. What the Pauls, the Kochs, the GOP, the Tea Party are all pushing is nothing more than Calvinistic capitalism, just one flimsy floorboard above the depth of hell itself!
mrsceecee, you might want to check the number of abortions performed before Roe v Wade and the number performed after. That might give you a small indication of the effect of legalizing an immoral act.
Another reason to be concerned about Ron Paul: The American Free Press has promoted him for years. They are quite fond of Communist countries, Muslims, etc. as well.
I have checked the numbers, but common sense tells me that who would report that they did something illegal??? Not many, so the numbers may not be reliable. I think that we stand a better chance of eliminating abortions, by going to the people who create the demand rather than putting our faith in politicians who have continued to fail us.
It’s about time someone said what Steven did. The current religion of America is Calvinistic materialism. It assumes that the rich are favored of God and that ANYTHING which changes this is immoral.
Thank you Bob. I should’ve added there were (two) Calvins involved here. The one from Geneva and the other from New England who famously (or sometimes infamously) said “the business of America is business.” He should’ve added that sometimes the religion, (as you rightly pointed) of America, is business. All the more reason to shudder when I hear the “Let’s declare America a ‘Christian nation.’”
I am impressed by the quality and the spirit of most of those comments. Separation of church and state is a necessity and as some of you confirmed it, does not mean that somebody is against Christian principles when all for following the Constitution. According to scriptures, let give back to God what is His, and Caesar was is his. Yahweh is love and does not force His will on us. Free will is the key. We are the people of the State and by our vote can and should affirm God’s principles… As somebody said before, we are free to leave a state who vote against God’s moral law, or we can be agents of right where wrong is and conquer by love and respect as well as by examples. Ron Paul is a man of principle and sticks to them over the years. God will looks at people’s heart and be the judge. He asked us to let the judgement to Him and Him alone. Some of us may be His whatever denominations, religion, or faith. To say we are Catholics, Muslims, Adventists or any faith we choose is not a guarantee that we are accepted of God. So let love each other and respect each other’s liberty of freedom and choice and stand on God’s principle by example, not by the letter but by the spirit of His law.
If not Ron Paul, then who is the more principled candidate?
This article was decent but too brief in my estimation. How can you have an article about Ron Paul and not talk about monetary policy? He talks about it all the time.
Another thing worth mentioning about Ron Paul, is how his presidency would potentially change the country’s capacity for charity. The implications of ending the wars, cutting military spending, having a smaller, less-expensive government, and lower taxes would be huge. Aside from what can be said about the impact it would have on businesses and the economy as a whole, it would also mean that American families and individuals, the most generous people in the world in terms of supporting charities and non-profits, would have more money to give to those who really need it. All those church organizations and non-profits doing amazing work around the world, would have a lot to gain from Ron Paul becoming president.
I understand Ron Paul has faults and limitations. And I’m sure the congress would disagree with him on a number of things. But I think he would be an honorable President who would do a lot of good for the country simply by reforming and reducing an over-extended federal government.
As to whether or not he can actually win the nomination and national election, it’s too early to say. We don’t even know who all candidates are for the Republican nominee. But I could write a whole article about why Ron Paul could win. He has some of the most passionate and active grass roots supporters. He speaks intelligently and sometimes courageously about issues that the national media and other politicians often avoid. Independents want someone different for president and Ron Paul represents that quite well. If Ron Paul’s campaign manages to do well in Iowa and NH, then he will definitely have a national spotlight and momentum on his side. I hope he can at least get to that point. We really need someone like him in the White House.
@KC, I can assure you Ron Paul is not a Freemason. He has commented on this before already.
I couldn’t vote for a freemason either. The first two things I look at in a candidate is to see if they are Freemasons or members of the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR)(or any other globalist organization).
If either, you better believe I’ll be outspoken against them.
I think right now ALL the major candidates are CFR members, except for Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Gary Johnson. Michele Bachmann lost my respect with her PATRIOT Act vote. That just proves her allegiance isn’t to the Constitution. She should strip her “Constitutional Conservative” title she espouses.
@bob I question if you, in fact, know the current situation on Earth.
As much good intention as there is to regulate social and moral issues, it always creates worse consequences. Sure, we can forever counter with, “but what about this situation or that situation!” Yet, we never learn our lesson in history. This is why the founders warned us that we must keep our virtue, because without it, freedom cannot survive.
In this regard, I believe we have a moral obligation to ourselves and our neighbors, to uphold a strong virtue in our communities. By doing so, all those typical situations to argue for such legislation nearly go away.
I don’t think spreading what I find to be true, nearly as insulting as you saying I’m not from Earth, for speaking my mind. That’s pretty immature and it seems that you don’t have anything of substance to say.
I support Ron Paul, because he clearly understands the underlying problems we face. In 2012, we are deciding whether we want to keep the Constitution or shred it. That is the true nature of the situation, make no mistake about it. You can’t be halfway with the Constitution, you either follow it strictly or you get rid of it all together.
I take the time to speak out and show my support, because I took an oath to protect that Constitution and I deployed for what I thought was my country; only to realize it was entirely for corporate interests.
So I’m on the ground now, out of the military as a veteran, sharing my thoughts because I love everything about the idea of freedom and I am prepared to bore the hell out of everyone here with my rants on why it’s great.
::Flying back to Earth Orbit::
“Ron Paul… 2 . 0 .. 1 ... 2”
Brett, thanks for answering my question. Good to know that he is not a Mason. I will take your word for it. Now I can go back to feeling content for voting for him =).
@Richard: Sir, you ask “If not Ron Paul, then who is the more principled candidate?”
Barack H. Obama, by many heads n’ shoulders over Ron Paul. Any politician in this day and age who thinks highly of Ayn Rand isn’t fit to serve in an open town meeting form of government, much less serve in any constitutionally elected post. BTW, I also include Paul Ryan, a Catholic, no less, in the same boat with both Ron and Rand Paul.
More and more, the party of Abraham Lincoln is becoming the party of Ayn Rand. And that trend sure as hell showed its ugliest manifestations during the new Americanized Taliban of today’s Tea Party which the GOP allowed itself to become morphed into. I could do down the list of the rest of the intellectual pygmies and leave them just as withered, and that’s on a bad day. They are that bad, that unprincipled and that intellectually wanting ... every damn one of them!
“Hi my name is Rand Paul… My wife and I are big fans of Ayn Rand.. I read all her novels…Cut my teeth on her books in high school…My father met Ayn Rand…NEVER OCCURRED to me when my wife dropped the ‘y’ that people would ask about Ayn Rand.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU
So there you have it. Ron Paul did not name his child after Ayn Rand. LOL
Dr. Paul is dedicated and honest. Furthermore, he see major changes, which should be made in this society and Country, changes which make a lot of sense even though they are perceived as “radical” by many people. Our currency-monetary policy has failed in a very major way, for example, in the last 5 years. It has been designed to serve the Banking and Wall Street “Class” for a century, since the Fed was instituted in 1913. Dr. Paul has become an expert on how the monetary system works but also on how it SHOULD WORK. I think that is the key. His view of how “wealth” should be determined in our society. Not the Fed “loans money” to the Banks and the U.S. Government. The American People are COSIGNERS on that loaned money, NOT THE FED, NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. They risk NOTHING. The Banks jack up the interest and loan it to businesses and consumers AND have good COLLATERAL FOR THE LOANS. When the Banks got greedy and loaned more that they had good colateral for those loans….........The IMPLIED COSIGNER, THE AMERICAN CITIZEN, BECAME THE INHERITOR OF THE BAILOUT DEBT. Ron Paul wants to do away with this “culture of corruption” of our currency system which affects most activities and institutions in our society, including, to an extent, the “moral and morale fiber” of our society. I am a new Catholic but I am all for him…................A Great American. Millions of people are fed up with the Fed and the DISHONEST alternative candidates to become President of this Country. Ron Paul 2012-2020…........
“Dr. Paul supports the Constitution and the Constitution says things like abortion are left to the states.”
No, the Constitution doesn’t say any such thing. I’ve read the Constitution. I teach it to my students year after year. There’s nothing in it about abortion (or marriage, for that matter).
The individual states have no more right to keep abortion legal than does the federal gov’t. Than does any gov’t.
Toss the soggy guilt-trip towel and toss it in the trash: NOW, good news, some bad news and a kick butt reply.
Say what you want, call it tooting one’s horn by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but he filed the amendment to get the Federal Reserve’s dirty linen (when it comes to doling out trillions of dollars here and there) while our country was being mega-stadium-sized trough’s worth of lies and cleverly packaged half truths—one of my favorites is the “only half the people pay taxes” pushed by a right wing think tank and spread like a bad cold by Fox News – about the looming, crushing, oppressing and dooming burden of “government debt” on our children and future generations as far as the eye can see. And this was bleated out by politicians in the House and Senate, most of whom were already multi-multi-millionaires, as they continually defended in shameless fashion their insistence on raising not a penny of additional taxes on their caste, all the while knowing and pushing for deep cuts in social programs such as meals on wheels, Head Start, funding for higher educational research, never mind student loans, and so forth. A lot of those men and women would also tell you they’re devout Christians. But they sure as hell have a funny way of demonstrating it. http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9E2A4EA8-6E73-4BE2-A753-62060DCBB3C3
The money owed to us by the greatest welfare queens in history, no thanks to the Fed, would do wonders to ease the financial woes we face now. Even if the Fed held a “come to Jesus” meeting and managed to get back half of the $16T, yep, that’s right, 16 TRILLION, that’d still be a little less than double what S & P says we need to cut to get our AAA rating back. And there’d still be a lot of “change left over,” right? I think so. Even the S & P report says we need to raise taxes on the wealthy!
For all you wonks out there, I also included the link for the GAO audit of the Fed initially provided by Sanders’ office. http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf
As bad as this is, and it stinks, consider also that the same people who brought us to the brink no thanks to their very slick and packaged “crisis” that they now admit they pulled off to gain “leverage” and other politico-babel used to excuse their economic treason … kept quiet on this dirty secret while Sanders’ office released it just when the debates and machinations were coming to their near-train wreck ending on August 1. No wonder President Obama didn’t use the Fourteenth Amendment, even to the chagrin of Sanders (and myself.) He knew where he could get the money if he had to … though what a hell of a mess it’d cause with some of our “friends and allies” who are now sneering and ridiculing us for our handling of this matter. Putin called us “parasites” and the butcher boys of Beijing had the nerve to lecture us down about the way we handle our problems. It’s easy to lecture when your version of the fourteenth amendment is to make complainers disappear and sweep both the issues and the “agitators” under the earth’s crust.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/origins-of-the-debt-showdown/2011/08/03/gIQA9uqIzI_story.html
This story appearing recently in the Washington Post explains at length how the GOP organized its takeover of the House, (by creating a pseudo “independent political movement” the Tea Party) when in fact, what it did was allow the normally smaller GOP to inflate its numbers thro ugh the use of a false front operation funded largely by the Koch brothers and all their front organizations…no thanks to the infamous Citizens’ United decision, which was shaped largely by Justice Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, all of whom have been specifically invited to speak at Koch brothers gatherings—even though they had a hand in the shaping of the Citizens’ decision and Thomas’ wife was for a while, if not still, very involved under the surface with Tea Party activists. What a coincidence. With all the money that was suddenly available for the most right wing and not just fiscally conservative, but downright meanly stingy fiscally conservative hack pols the GOP could find to run.
The “Epilogue” in this story is very sobering; not just because of what happened recently. But primarily because of the underlying currents that are going on and being manipulated by the GOP/TP into serving the narrow interests of huge corporate interests who care for only one thing, and patriotism isn’t it; not even close. It’s more money and power than one could ever possibly amass. God help us all if a day comes when the production of nuclear weaponry becomes privatized.
Here’s another “epilogue” worth considering: No doubt a lot of conservatives are givng Senator John Kerry (D-MA) the “so what, poor loser” cold shoulder treatment for his remarks about the Tea Party yesterday. Let them. After all, he’s only taking them at their word. http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/wisconsin-tea-partiers-cheer-downgrade/
And it’s all on tape, too.
S & P, however, shouldn’t serve as the “gold standard” for preferred ratings agencies to base one’s opinons on its track record before the Crash of 08. But this report doesn’t drop us down in the hopper with truly “unexceptional “ nations. We’re far from a third world economy, though thanks to the recent GOP/TP’s supplications to the wealthy, not to mention its gouging of so many needed social programs, (many of which can be credited for preventing abortions), guess what, we might be on our way. According to the report, however, we’re only behind France, Germany, Britain and Canada…I might’ve left out one … but guess what, they all have some pretty strong “socialist” social safety net programs, like, psssst, I’d better whisper this… national health care. LOL. Too bad we’re pretty exceptional in many things I’d prefer that we wouldn’t be, especially our politics where groups the Tea Party can fight for the wealthy’s ability to dodge their tax duties even though their activities resulted in the banksters’ taxes (higher interest rates which will one eventually come.) Using the Fed now to play games with interest rates will only prolong our wait for the eventual rise in very costly interest rates. Nevertheless, S & P’s report isn’t the most disturbing report we should be concerned with; it’s the GAO’s recent review about the Fed’s strange loaning policies. Why the heck isn’t this making the front page of every newspaper (and “above the fold”) in this country remains a mystery.
What this nation was almost driven to the edge earlier a week ago is chump change compared to the $16 Trillion that’s been doled out by the Fed and could make all the difference in the world for not only balancing the budget, wiping out the debt, but also enabling us to fund so many necessary programs, building and rebuilding projects, medical research , and of course, keep our military in its pre- eminent position. Think of what it would mean in terms of lower state taxes, municipal property taxes.
Maybe I’m missing something in what Sanders brought to light, but when I look at all the money our Fed doled out to so many outsiders and wealthy insiders at a time when the nation was allowing itself to be run on fumes, thus allowing the GOP/TP an excuse to unabashedly assume the role of hostage takers, I can’t help wondering how on earth we could’ve allowed ourselves to let this ill-informed bunch of political rubes to mess things up so badly.
I’ll grant the Tea Party this much, they’re very good at organizing and getting their troops out during a campaign, and if we want to have anything like a workable two party system for much longer, with each one providing a check on the other, we could likely be facing one-party rule. Yeah, we could become as unexceptional as Mexico. However, on the bright side for more moderately and sensible thinking conservatives, moderates and liberals, it’s nice to know that the TP, the illegitimate child of the GOP and its newly embraced extremist “I’ve got mine, yer on yer own, bud” socio-economic philosophy, is proving itself woefully incompetent at governing. These guys couldn’t run a one-car funeral without a GPS device telling them how to get from the funeral home closest to the church and cemetery. Nor could this bunch find its way to bust its out of a wet paper bag with water running over it.
This is the same bunch along with their GOP paymasters who organized the recent crisis ostensibly to reduce taxes among their other key beefs. Apparently reducing the size of “guvmint” isn’t as high as they’d like the world to believe notwithstanding their rhetoric. After all, didn’t they squeal like pigs when the Democrats said, “ time to cut the fat out of the Pentagon’s budget, too.”
Maybe not in the immediate future, but one day in the not too distant future, when you look at your credit cards, when you apply for a bank loan, when life in general starts to become a lot more expensive than it used to be and the public sector’s ability to provide even the basic services of garbage pickup, keep our water supply clean, regulate aging nuke plants, and maintain decent public transportation services and keep our highways from falling to pieces before the first flakes fall … just remember who gave you all those new taxes, private sector taxes thanks to rising interest rates, while your [official] tax dollars are buying less. Then remember who’s mostly responsible for it all: Not the Democrats, not Independents, not the vast and overwhelming majority of the American people. Just look at the GOP/TP.
Pat, you’ve written far superior articles. But this “woe is us” article puts the primary onus of the the blame on the victims, damn near all 300,000,000 of us. Your points and tone are reminiscent of the old hand-wringing whiny liberal angst sessions I had to stomach during the Seventies. If you want to move forward, the very worst thing to do is sit and listen to the lies and clever half-truths tossed out by conservative pols, pundits, shock jocks and other undeserving liars who are getting so much fawning attention for their ever so-erudite post-mortems.
Can anybody, much less any Catholic familiar with his/her Church’s teachings on Social/Economic policies, stand by mutely, knowing Rush, Sean, Bill, Laura, Ann, Glenn, e/a, not to mention the Koch Industries, the 17 thousand companies with Benedict Arnold tax-dodging setups in the Caymans, top GOP Congressional leaders and their many millionaire pals who voted for their plans – all of whom pulling in at least $174K yearly salaries—will all come out of this totally untouched [tax-wise] while so many poorer and working middle class Americans will be “paying their tab” in the form of lost necessary educational, public safety, delayed infrastructure repairs, and social safety net programs—which they’ve paid into and are legitimately entitled to receive in full when they reach retirement. Or are they supposed to be happy with having the goal posts pushed back on that and say “well, we deserved it.” Like Hell!
What we deserve is no less than for Paul Ryan to get his head out of his damn accounting books, take the green shades off his head and do a little homework on the history of SSA, of which Medicare is part of. When Ryan proposed cutting off people under 55 and putting under a voucher system, he was violating one of the most fundamental building blocks of conservatism: honoring contracts. Imagine if you’re 54 years old, worked and paid FICA taxes for some 35 years and you turn 55 the day Ryan’s nightmarish law is signed into law and for your Medicare, all you get in return for your taxes is a chump-change check for six grand to help you find and pay for private insurance, with all its behind the doors death panels where insurance company bureaucrats beholden to stockholders, not taxpayers get to play God again as they did before Obamacare was signed into law, and a host of other horror stories. And look long and hard for any company that’ll give you a proportional price break because it pays for abortions. Good luck getting one.
Here’s my reply to all who sneer at the SSA and “entitlement programs” such as SS, SSDI, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid and “Obamacare.” It’s the same reply one of Barack Obama’s more illustrious predecessors and president who signed SSA into law, FDR:
“We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”
FDR really meant it’s your’s folks! Yours if you pay into and qualify for it. It’s yours, not for already well-heeled pundits and pols to play around with and scare you have to death with their “theories” and bogeyman prophesies. If the account’s getting low, fix it by putting more money into it! You don’t push your car off the cliff because it ran out of gas or the dipstick’s low.
It’s yours, ours, the people’s, just like “Your land” in the song!
I’ll be damned to join in any pity-party if Ryan and his pals are able to trash Social Security and trust me, they will NEVER give up until it’s dead or they’re retired and/or dead. Have you ever asked why they want to privatize it another public pensions? Their high-rolling pals on Wall Street can tell you. Thar’s gold in the same social safety net they keep saying is so broke n’ dry.
You’d be better off digging deeper into the motives of what the real culprits of this orchestrated form of a legislative coup de tat and start calling for criminal investigations and the people responsible for this to serve actual (hard labor) prison terms.
If we’re ever to see a rebellion break out again—and I hope to God it never has to happen—let it be a real revolution like the one started by Daniel Shays in 1786 – 1787. Shays and his men started their rebellion in Conkey’s Tavern, Pelham, MA, which was little more than a pile of rocks shaped like a building with a ramshackle roof above them. They were dirt poor farmers and veterans of the Revolutionary War who found themselves squeezed by the merchants, bankers, Massachusetts legislature and as usual, the banksters of their time. I’m not going to go into the details, but unlike the Tea Party, a wholly prepackaged product crafted by the wealthy to do their dirty work in today’s national legislature…which came out of Shay’s Rebellion which effectively put the old US government—held together by the toothless Articles of Confederation – out of business – Daniel Shays and his followers were a much more manly and in desperation, took action by themselves to save people they never knew or met before from losing all they had, their farms, homes, self-dignity and save these families from the shame of debtors’ prisons and penalties.
Life was a lot tougher then, the price for failure much steeper and yet Shays and his men risked everything and asked for nothing more than to live the rest of their lives without fear of unjustified economic oppression and be able to put food on the tables of their families under roofs they could call their homes. No handwringing, no navel -gazing and no over-the-top introspection and woe is us guilt-trips. We don’t have to grab muskets or take the law unto our own hands as the pioneers did two centuries ago, but we sure as hell have to get off our knees, rears, and start walking forward on our hind-legs insisting on answers for questions like, “When is our $16T coming back to so we can wipe our debts clear and be better able to put more people to work and make our economy strong again.”
When the moment comes when we [eventually] get whacked with inflation-causing higher interest rates—our Tea Party Tax— do you think for that for a single second the leadership of the GOP and TP will have any guilt trips for what they pulled? Nope: they’re too busy celebrating a “victory” based on a report that trashed them, and rightly so. I can’t believe I have to ask this question, but really now…have we come to the point where we’re more willing to roll the dice with a party of uncompromising rogue hack pols who are willing to suck up to the most selfish batch of wealthy Americans in our history who refuse “on principle” to give an inch when it comes to their caste having to pay a single dime more to make sure the Greatest Nation on the planet remains a far more exceptional nation than Pat is willing to give it credit for being today?
Want your country back? Turn off the tube and open up some history books, esp. those dealing with early American history. You’ll do your mind wonders and within a week you’ll learn more about the real essence of what makes America a truly exceptional nation and have more inside your heads and hearts than a hundred pundits, talking heads and pols, not to mention the GOP, Koch brothers and their easily-led, ill-informed Tea Party puppets. Give me the Dan’l Shay’s rebels any damn day over this bunch and let’s stop with all the “it’s our fault” stuff!
OMG ALERT! Pardon my mistake, but the above was supposed to be posted with Pat Archbold’s blog.For some reason or another, a pane I had up for Mark’s article about Ron Paul came up and I didn’t notice it until it was too late. I’m going to post it on Pat Archbold’s article’s combox for his article about Standard and Poor’s recent downgrade of our credit rating.
I stumbled upon this article while I was looking for more information about Ron Paul’s stance on abortion. I had watched numerous interviews of Dr Paul talking about his Pro-life views. Because I saw other peoples’ comments here and elsewhere that made it look a little “iffy” I decided to look a little more into it. I think many people don’t understand what Ron Paul is trying to do. We look at bills and see how people vote without really understanding what the bills even say. We think we know just based on the title of it. It can be very misleading. After reading the comments here, I found an interesting view of the partial birth ban that Dr Paul voted NO on and thought I would share it here. I think it sheds a little light on how he votes and why. It’s not much, but it is something. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html Everything I’ve read and seen from him for myself clearly shows that he IS in FACT PROLIFE and is doing what he can in those efforts. He tries doing REAL things not just hyperbole or “symbolic” votes.
Dr Tom Woods, a convert, on Dr Ron Paul. I hope people will read this article. Though written in 2008 just take out the other candidates names & its the same
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods83.html
Great speech on Dr Paul & his pro-life stance & more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3BE2jMQS8Q&feature=share
Paul’s stand regarding legality of drugs, prostitution, etc. being a state issue is based upon his quite accurate Constitutional position. He is not “for” legalizing any of these things. He is “for” the more local communities deciding this, not Washington. Sounds kind of like subsidiarity to me. Paul, like that super anti-Catholic dude, St. Thomas Aquinas, does not necessarily believe every vice must be illegal. Illegal and immoral are not co-extensive.
I do disagree with him on one issue - abortion is a Constitutional question, not just a state law question, because the Constitution guarantees due process to persons, whom the unborn unquestionably are.
You are just playing with words! “Not opposing” gay marriage is the same as supporting it in that he would never try to stop it.
Talk about playing with words. Not opposing is supporting? Very Orwellian. If supporting is positive (like the number 1), and opposing is negative (like the number -1), then saying “not opposing = supporting” is like saying 0 = 1. Not very good math.
Again, much like another very anti-Catholic historical figure - St. Thomas More, who by keeping silent about Henry’s grab of the Church in England, must have obviously supported it.
Ron Paul would legalize drugs like heroin? and prostitution?? Comonnnnn!!! Whats the matter with him. He has NO chance to win. Dont waste your vote!!!
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/article/Ron-Paul-favors-legalizing-heroin-1374192.php
From a catholic perspective:
a. Ron Paul has impecable pro-life credential. Romney does not have them.
b. Ron Paul opposes undeclared wars. Remember Pope John Paul II was visibly angry only twice: with the Iraq war and with the Sicilian mafia. You can’t be catholic and support these wars. All other candidates are in favor of more wars.
c. Regarding the social teaching of the church Dr. Paul is for eliminating the bias/discrimination that stem from the drug war. How is it possible that only minorities are drug dealers? The heroin flow comes from the northern border.
Cheers
Rick Santorum believes the family is the basic unit of society, he and Ron Paul when head-to-head over just that matter during one of the debates.
Ron Paul’s also does not believe in overturning Roe v Wade because he doesn’t believe it is the government’s job to interfere, and dangerous drugs should be legal, because if people want to hurt themselves that’s their prerogative. There is a danger to the anything-goes libertarian world view as well.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.