Catholics for Ron Paul

Ron Paul and Pius IX

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

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

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

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

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

Colbert on Ron Paul

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

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

The Federal Reserve is No Magisterium

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

Nicholas von Hoffman writes in The Nation:

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

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

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

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

National Catholic Register on Ron Paul

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul & Jane Roe

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

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

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

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

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

America: Ron Paul and Catholic Social Teaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isolationism?

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

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

Gold Standard

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

Social Welfare Programs

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

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

Ron Paul, Race, & Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In giving her testimony to life, King says:

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

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

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

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

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

The State Cannot Replace Caritas

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

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

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

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

Some Advice for Ron Paul

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

Did anyone notice this?

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

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

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

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

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

This is what Ron Paul has to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul's Finest Moment

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul Mentioned on EWTN

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

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

Fox News, You Had Me at "Spin"

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

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

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

Isn't it fun to remember?

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

It is fun to remember, isn't it?

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

Why Fox News is Excluding Ron Paul

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

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

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

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

Why does Ron Paul scare Fox News?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News, a new day is dawning!

Go Ron Paul!

Must a Catholic Vote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sabrin's "Open Letter to Pro-Lifers"

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

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

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

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

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

"Wrapped in the Flag Carrying the Cross"

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

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

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

The Tea Party Begins

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

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

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

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

Donate as much as you can TODAY!

Go Ron Paul!

The Ringing Endorsement from Daily Kos

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

You see Ron Paul is NUTS because:

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

God Bless Ron Paul.

"Turn Out the Catholics for Ron Paul"

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

HT: Nick Bradley, LewRockwell.com

Secular Original Sin & Secular Baptism

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

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

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

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

Catholic Outreach for Ron Paul

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

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

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

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

Pax et bonum,
Dan Scanlon

Ron Paul and Prostitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But does Ron Paul want to legalize prostitution?

No.

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

Is this something that Catholics can support?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Defend Life analysis can be read in detail here:

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

Open Letter to Catholics

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

In support of Ron Paul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul Would Rescue Catholic Charities

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

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

Here is his comment:

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

"tz" makes a very important point here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go Ron Paul!