An Open Letter To The Catholic Community In Behalf Of Ron Paul

[Pleural]

[url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods83.html"]Read this.[/url]

[Aloysius]

wouldn't expect any less than support for Ron Paul from a man who has been called the next Hilaire Belloc.

Ron Paul is probably the most in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church out of any candidate out there; bar none. support for torture, which is an inherent evil according to Church teaching, disqualifies nearly all the other republicans, support for the inherent evil of abortion disqualifies all the democrats and many of the republicans, and really, when it comes down to it, Ron Paul is a champion for everything that Catholics ought to believe about what the United States Federal Government ought to be; he will champion the cause of subsidarity and thus freedom, of support for life, of the authority of parents regarding the education of their children, et cetera; everything the man stands for is 100% in line with the teaching of the Church and the temporal advice of the Magisterium about various issues of international policy.

This man is a champion of all the causes a Catholic who lives in this Republic ought to support; and there is no one else out there who will champion these things.

[Rosemary's Goddaughter]

In this ugly race, he's looking more and more like the only real candidate of value, especially now that Sen. Brownback's dropped out.

[goldenchild17]

I agree. I disagree with his stance against capital punishment. I don't know that I care for his views on economics (based on the letter alone, I haven't read much about him on the subject). I disagree with what seems to be his views on the rights and freedom of each person, and as a result also think I disagree with his refusal to permit national regulation on matters of morality. But in this regard he is being true to the Constitution and the much of the foundation of our country so I can't really take him to task for it, when its the principles themselves I disagree with. Aside from this, to me he is still far and away the best candidate from what I can tell, and I will have no problem voting for him if he can get the nomination.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1423533' date='Nov 22 2007, 04:15 PM']

wouldn't expect any less than support for Ron Paul from a man who has been called the next Hilaire Belloc.

Ron Paul is probably the most in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church out of any candidate out there; bar none. support for torture, which is an inherent evil according to Church teaching, disqualifies nearly all the other republicans, support for the inherent evil of abortion disqualifies all the democrats and many of the republicans, and really, when it comes down to it, Ron Paul is a champion for everything that Catholics ought to believe about what the United States Federal Government ought to be; he will champion the cause of subsidarity and thus freedom, of support for life, of the authority of parents regarding the education of their children, et cetera; everything the man stands for is 100% in line with the teaching of the Church and the temporal advice of the Magisterium about various issues of international policy.

This man is a champion of all the causes a Catholic who lives in this Republic ought to support; and there is no one else out there who will champion these things.[/quote]
Did Hillaire Belloc advocate legalizing dope? Did he advocate "resurrecting" a republic that never died in the first place? Did he vote for government waste before he voted for against it? Was Belloc an anti-Semitic loon who thought Jews secretly run the world?

Honestly, some of claims people make about him make me go "[i]what[/i]?"

[Aloysius]

to the first question, I've never seen a quote from him that said one way or the other... though looking at his time you'd have to ask "did Hilaire Belloc advocate illegalizing dope?"... I'm not sure he would've; I don't think St. Thomas Aquinas would have, he'd probably have used the same argument he had for not illegalizing prostitution... and Belloc was a very Thomistic man
to the second question, that's a ridiculous question. come on now. it was me who used the term "resurrect the republic" and I stand by it, the principals that started this republic are ignored by every other candidate for president.
To the third question: Ron Paul has never voted for government waste in his entire record; he is absolutely consistent in his voting record; he has truly earned the nickname "Dr. No" in Congress, because he's a Doctor Md, and he always says "no"
Some people accuse Belloc of being anti-semitic; I disagree... but Ron Paul is not an anti-semitic loon who thinks Jews run the world... he's just not a zionist who thinks Israel should be allowed to rob arabs (also semites) of their land... I'd like to see some substantiation for your claim that he's an anti-semite; that word is thrown around so easily and calumniously that it really has barely any meaning any more. One should be able to talk about pro-zionist pro-israel lobbies in this country without being labeled a conspiratorial loon (though I have actually never seen Ron Paul discuss these things, you will need to substantiate your claims)

[quote]Honestly, some of claims people make about him make me go "what?"[/quote]
are you talking about the claims YOU are making about him?

btw, it is Thomas E. Woods, Jr., who has been called the next Belloc, because he is probably the best Catholic historian and writer since Belloc.

[Norseman82]

Well, I agree that it's refreshing to have someone who actually believes in looking at the Constitution. And, one of the built-in good things about the Constitution is that it can be amended.

I have read on Wikipedia about his stands regarding prostitution and drug decriminalization; whether or not these are true, I don't know, but it does raise a red flag that needs to be resolved.

But I guess I'm still trying to figure out a few things. He voted for DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in the mid-1990s, but is he against a constitutional amendment because he feels it should be left to the states? OK, so taking abortion out of the hands of the federal courts or reversing Roe vs. Wade would return th eissue to the states or allow Congress to illegalize it - but would he as President sign a federal bill outlawing abortion? There are some times I do believe that we need the federal government to step in, and I would like to know what Rep. Paul would do in such a case.

I read yesterday or the other day that Gov. Huckabee does not feel it is sufficient enough to send it back to the states:

[url="http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-campaign_digest_19nov19,0,1156817.story"]http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/new...0,1156817.story[/url]

[url="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-huckabee,0,2786141.story"]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,2786141.story[/url]

Edited November 22, 2007 by Norseman82

[Aloysius]

According to the traditional teachings of the Church, Ron Paul's ideas of not illegalizing things like drugs and prostitution are spot on, a very Thomistic approach to government.

As for his pro-life attitudes: [url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/[/url]

It seems to me that he sees letting the states decide as the practical course of action, but he would certainly sign a bill into law that made abortion illegal throughout the country; his proposed bill in the house, HR 1094, federally defines life as beginning at conception, for instance. If the congress offered him a bill illegalizing abortion, he'd sign it. If I am incorrect, someone point me to where he says he would not sign such a bill into law. He has strong words about it being murder, and strong convictions from his days as an OB/GYN.
But that's impractical, congress isn't going to offer him such a bill.

I don't think Ron Paul is better or worse than Huckabee on the pro-life issue, in fact, I think Ron Paul's government reforms will do more to practically start illegalizing abortion than any other candidate could do, but he's much better than Huckabee on a whole lot of other issues.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1423695' date='Nov 23 2007, 05:31 AM']to the first question, I've never seen a quote from him that said one way or the other... though looking at his time you'd have to ask "did Hilaire Belloc advocate illegalizing dope?"... I'm not sure he would've; I don't think St. Thomas Aquinas would have, he'd probably have used the same argument he had for not illegalizing prostitution... and Belloc was a very Thomistic man
to the second question, that's a ridiculous question. come on now. it was me who used the term "resurrect the republic" and I stand by it, the principals that started this republic are ignored by every other candidate for president.
To the third question: Ron Paul has never voted for government waste in his entire record; he is absolutely consistent in his voting record; he has truly earned the nickname "Dr. No" in Congress, because he's a Doctor Md, and he always says "no"
Some people accuse Belloc of being anti-semitic; I disagree... but Ron Paul is not an anti-semitic loon who thinks Jews run the world... he's just not a zionist who thinks Israel should be allowed to rob arabs (also semites) of their land... I'd like to see some substantiation for your claim that he's an anti-semite; that word is thrown around so easily and calumniously that it really has barely any meaning any more. One should be able to talk about pro-zionist pro-israel lobbies in this country without being labeled a conspiratorial loon (though I have actually never seen Ron Paul discuss these things, you will need to substantiate your claims)
are you talking about the claims YOU are making about him?

btw, it is Thomas E. Woods, Jr., who has been called the next Belloc, because he is probably the best Catholic historian and writer since Belloc.[/quote]
[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835179/posts"]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835179/posts[/url]

He hates blacks as well.

[Justin86]

Oh, and I've already shown on phatmass that all Ron Paul does with voting down government waste is puts his own pork in there and then votes against it, knowing it will pass anyway.

Like I said, he votes for government waste before he votes against it.

[Justin86]

Oh, and I'm not buying all that pro-life carp. Why does NARAL like him so much then?

Here's his ratings for the past three years:

2006: 65 percent
2005: 75 percent
2004: 65 percent

[url="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/paul.html"]http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/...ments/paul.html[/url]

Edited November 23, 2007 by Justin86

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1423838' date='Nov 22 2007, 11:39 PM'][url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835179/posts"]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835179/posts[/url]

He hates blacks as well.[/quote]
Yet he seems to attract African Americans.

[url="http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=137617"][b]Ron Paul’s inclusive message attracting African American voters[/b][/url]
- [url="http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=137617"]http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=137617[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EuNgqIiz60"][b]An African American view on Ron Paul for President not Obama[/b][/url]
- [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EuNgqIiz60"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EuNgqIiz60[/url]

[url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/15/ron-paul-is-highest-polling-republican-among-black-voters/"][b]Ron Paul is Highest-Polling Republican Among Black Voters[/b][/url]
- [url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/15/ron-paul-is-highest-polling-republican-among-black-voters/"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/...g-black-voters/[/url]

go figure...

[Justin86]

Yeah sure. I'm buying all that.

Edited November 23, 2007 by Justin86

[Aloysius]

Why don't you stick to what Paul actually does and says and not listen to the ridiculous smear campaign against him? It is a smear campaign, and those engaging in it are committing the sin of calumny.

Here's an explanation for that one obscure race reference (which Paul did not actually make) [url="http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822"]http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822[/url]

[quote]“Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”[/quote]

of course, I'm sure you just "don't buy" that too, you are blinded by a desire to see something wrong with him.

As to the comment about the Israeli government having a lobby in Washington, that's pure fact; like it or hate it, it's fact, there is a strong Israeli lobby in Washington.

You have not shown this about Paul getting pork through in any thread I have participated in here, please reference where you posted about it so I can evaluate it; it is already very apparent that your fact checking skills are incredibly lacking, you will jump on anything without even a second question that smears Paul... but then, of course, you "just don't buy" anything that makes him look good.

look at his actions, and his actual writings, and you'll see that Paul supports freedom for every individual, without distinctions of race. he makes that very clear, and drudging up an obscure comment in a newsletter that bore his name in the 80's, which he has since apologized for and made clear that the comments did not reflect his opinions, won't change that.

[quote]Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”[/quote]

one random obscure thing, which is completely contrary to everything he has ever written and sounds totally out of character to anyone who has read his writings, amongst a mountain of literature... you have to employ critical thinking and ask "what's wrong with this picture? perhaps there is an explanation for this one blip of inconsistency! let's see what he has to say for himself"

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1423862' date='Nov 23 2007, 07:21 PM']Why don't you stick to what Paul actually does and says and not listen to the ridiculous smear campaign against him?[/quote]
I do actually, and apparently you missed the thread with me and tgoldson.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=74474"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=74474[/url]

For your convenience the link to the site showing this is below:

[url="http://chip91.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects/"]http://chip91.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/ron...-pork-projects/[/url]

Apparently Paul never made comments against blacks. Oh well. There's way more than that proves he's suspicious, irrelevant scum regardless.

[Aloysius]

[quote]I do actually, and apparently you missed the thread with me and tgoldson[/quote]
yes, I did not see the Paul references in that thread. but no, not with the racist thing you were not sticking to the issues, but parroting a smear campaign. But I am glad you admitted you were wrong on that, this latest thing is more focused on the issues, more worthy of discussion.

The one comment on that site summed it up pretty well:

[quote]In other words: Paul effectively said, “I don’t want my taxpayers to be spending their money on government subsidies, but if they are, then I may as well try to get that money back to my district.”[/quote]

What's he supposed to do? Let every other district in the country get pumped full of projects from taxes that came from the whole country (ie some from his district)? Of course, I see in the other thread you already quoted that comment. No, I'm sorry, it DOES work that way. Simply put: that tax money is going to go somewhere, into some district, and some of those taxes come from the people in his district. He would be impractical and irresponsible if he didn't make sure that some of those taxes that he doesn't think should have been taken by the government in the first place don't at least go back into his own community somehow. He votes against that budget because he doesn't want government spending; he proposes those spending projects because he knows that's a futile cause and if there is to be government spending, at
least it shouldn't be uneven and leave out the community from which he came.

You just want to see something bad in him... it doesn't matter, you're looking for something. How about how he returns some of his congressional pay to the National Treasury? How about how he refused his congressional pension? How about how all the lobby groups are well aware that they cannot sway him no matter how hard they try, so they've stopped trying? no, apparently because he didn't want the taxes taken from his community to go to every other place in the country except his community, you have decided he must be "suspicious irrelevant scum"... please.

Of course, as President, he won't have a specific community that he has to watch out for and make sure gets some of that pie the government likes to take from the people and use as it sees fit, instead of just voting against such budgets as a futile cause, he'll veto them

Another very poignent comment from the blog:
[quote]What you highlighted isn’t pork. They are necessary expenditures that every state, especially his home state of Texas needs and is urged to putt into bills.

1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”
(anti-pedophilia and police actions)

3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
(industry)

4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”
(historical places and the environment)

5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.
(disease treatment and prevention)

6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”
(education and scholarship)

7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
(testing and research)

9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
(infrastructure and public property)

10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
(disease treatment and prevention)

11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”
(health care and employment)

12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”
(health care and employment)

15. $5 million for highway spending.
(infrastructure and public property)

16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.
(infrastructure and public property)

17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.
(public transportation)

19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.
(historical places)

20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.
(infrastructure and public property)

22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million
(historical places and the environment)

23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million
(historical places and the environment)

24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.
(historical places and the environment)

25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.
(historical places and the environment)

Most of the things highlighted by this blog were not pork whatsoever, seeing as how pork is wasteful spending to earn the esteem of lobbyists and their ilk, but what you highlighted was not that bad. It was all necessary. A very lame attempt to smear Ron Paul. Not good.[/quote]

He would be very irresponsible if he went around letting his district and state suffer without things like this based on principals.

one last comment from the site that made a good point:
[quote]Constituent says ” We need $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.”

Ron Paul thinks to self “I disagree with this. However, this is my constituent, and it is my sworn duty to put this request to a vote.”[/quote]

That last one is very likely a part of Ron Paul's idealogical reasoning for this, he really believes in the vision of the Founders of the country, for better or for worse, he believes that the government has to be representative of the people.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1423900' date='Nov 24 2007, 01:46 AM']yes, I did not see the Paul references in that thread. but no, not with the racist thing you were not sticking to the issues, but parroting a smear campaign. But I am glad you admitted you were wrong on that, this latest thing is more focused on the issues, more worthy of discussion.[/quote]
I would argue that whether or not my President is a racist would be an issue, but I'll move on.

[quote]What's he supposed to do? Let every other district in the country get pumped full of projects from taxes that came from the whole country (ie some from his district)? Of course, I see in the other thread you already quoted that comment. No, I'm sorry, it DOES work that way. Simply put: that tax money is going to go somewhere, into some district, and some of those taxes come from the people in his district. He would be impractical and irresponsible if he didn't make sure that some of those taxes that he doesn't think should have been taken by the government in the first place don't at least go back into his own community somehow. He votes against that budget because he doesn't want government spending; he proposes those spending projects because he knows that's a futile cause and if there is to be government spending, at
least it shouldn't be uneven and leave out the community from which he came.[/quote]
Yes, yes quite a nice little rationalization there. Do you REALLY think Ron Paul is going to veto anything out of a budget? If he doesn't have the guts to stand up to the lobbyists in his district he's not going to have the guts to stand up to Congress.

[quote]You just want to see something bad in him... it doesn't matter, you're looking for something. How about how he returns some of his congressional pay to the National Treasury? How about how he refused his congressional pension? How about how all the lobby groups are well aware that they cannot sway him no matter how hard they try, so they've stopped trying? no, apparently because he didn't want the taxes taken from his community to go to every other place in the country except his community, you have decided he must be "suspicious irrelevant scum"... please.[/quote]
That is one other reason he's so scary. Why would anyone refuse their pension and return some pay to the government? I in no way believe in the whole "for the good of America" thing. Yeah, you're trying to avoid attention Paul. What do you have to hide?

Oh and Ron Paul has his lobbyists he follows. They're just all the wealthy people from his district.

In regards to the blog post you cut and pasted:

Things like subsidizing industry and government funding for healthcare aren't very in-line with conservative thought, and has nothing to do with what the government is for in my ideology. If nobody is buying shrimp, maybe its time for the business to close. If nobody thinks there's a profit in looking into some idea for medical research maybe that's because all the reliable data indicates its a dead end.

In other words, [b]pork[/b].

Edited November 23, 2007 by Justin86

[Aloysius]

If there were anything substantial to it, okay, but random cheap blind accusations, that's not looking at the issues, that's participating in the sin of calumny.

He brings up what his constituents ask him to, but votes against it because he disagrees with his constituents.

He has never been in the pocket of a powerful lobby group. They all pretty much hate him for it, too.

Now he's hiding something by refusing his pension and giving part of his pay back to the government? Bull. He knows those are tax dollars. He hates the direction the federal reserve is taking the dollar. He does not wish to be part of the problem, part of the debt.

Yes, that's not what hard-core libertarian conservative principals are about, they're about the free market (and I think Paul probably has too much faith in the pure free market, Catholic Social Justice principals don't allow for the type of faith in the unfettered free market that he and other libertarians would have, but to certain large degrees we can agree with the economic principals about the benefit of the free market). But the question becomes: the taxes are already taken, should they be wasted in other people's district, or should some of them help the people in my district who also paid taxes; should my constituents be given the opportunity to propose things to the congress, even if I'll vote against them? But as was listed out: most of it was not pork, but maintenance of public facilities, historical places,

[Paladin]

In case anyone wants to hear what the USCCB has to say...

[url="http://defendlife.blogspot.com/2007/11/evaluation-of-presidential-candidates.html"]Evaluation of 2008 Presidential Candidates Against US Bishops' Criteria[/url]

Can't wait for the GOP apologists to explain that Rudy's pro-abort stance is insignificant next to the power of the Clintonian Fascist Empire that is eminent if we don't submit to Guiliani.

[Pleural]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1423571' date='Nov 22 2007, 05:23 AM']I agree. I disagree with his stance against capital punishment. I don't know that I care for his views on economics (based on the letter alone, I haven't read much about him on the subject). I disagree with what seems to be his views on the rights and freedom of each person, and as a result also think I disagree with his refusal to permit national regulation on matters of morality. But in this regard he is being true to the Constitution and the much of the foundation of our country so I can't really take him to task for it, when its the principles themselves I disagree with. Aside from this, to me he is still far and away the best candidate from what I can tell, and I will have no problem voting for him if he can get the nomination.[/quote]

Don't wait until then. Vote in your state's primaries, if you can.