Why are the republicatholics ignoring Ron Paul?
While some of the loudest voices of the Catholic blogosphere get worked up over the possibility of Rudy Giuliani gaining the Republican nomination, I find it scandalous that most Catholics of the “Oh no, I’m not beholden to the Republican party, I just don’t know how else to vote because of the abortion issue” variety are continuing to ignore Ron Paul, the Republican Texas congressman who tore Giuliani to shreds (it doesn’t take much, of course) during recent Republican debates. Paul wasn’t even that eloquent; all he did was tell the truth. But you would think Catholics who claim to be serious about a consistent pro-life ethic would at least show some interest in this anti-abortion, anti-war candidate. Sadly, the only Catholic blogger I know of that has talked about Paul is Stephen over at TCR News.
While I will not be endorsing any candidate for the presidency here at Catholic Anarchy, I can’t help but find any politician compelling who could write something like this after the death of Pope John Paul II:
Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.
He goes on to skewer both Republicans and Democrats—both are “secularists,” he says—for their idolatry of the nation-state:
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.[...]
Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion—it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.
In addition to having read some Chalmers Johnson, as was evident in his performance during the FOX News debate, quotes like this make me think he might be reading some Hauerwas as well.
It seems to me abundantly clear at this stage of the game (and I do mean “game”) that Ron Paul probably represents the best that a Catholic could hope for, assuming the Catholic in question takes seriously the entirety of her Church’s teaching. And it makes one wonder what might happen if Catholics spent more time supporting someone like Paul and less time worrying about a fraud like Giuliani. Unfortunately, this won’t happen because most Catholics who lean faithfully to the Republican side are, in fact, solidly in favor of war, as much as they protest that fact. There is no other explanation for the way they ignore Ron Paul.
But more than having a seemingly better tally on some hypothetical Catholic voting issues scorecard, Paul’s stances are firmly rooted in a theological understanding of the problem of idolatry of the nation-state. He exposes that idolatry for all to see, a temptation that few American Catholics really want to grapple with. And that’s enough to make any Republicrat uncomfortable.
I’m glad to see this post, this is an excellent question that demands an answer from Catholics.
Be very, very careful, folks, before you get all worked up about Ron Paul. “Pro-life”? Yes, he opposes abortion, and he voted against the invasion of Iraq. But voting against a particular war doesn’t make one “pro-life.” Moreover, Paul favors absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership—that’s “pro-life”? And be advised that Paul has received kudos from many in the “Christian Reconstructionist” movement—those “pro-life” sorts who want to instiute “Biblical law,” right down to stoning and debt slavery. Certainly, I’m not attributing these positions to Paul. But doesn’t the company one keeps, or attracts, tell us something?
Paul’s opposition to NAFTA and CAFTA are certainly praiseworthy as well, but as far as I can tell, he’s never been a champion of workers’ rights or ecological protection—the best reasons to oppose those treaties. Paul looks to me like a kinder, gentler Pat Buchanan, if you can imagine that.
He wants to roll back programs that hurt the poor and you attack him for your speculation about his motives for doing so? He cares more than you may realize about the environment, but doesn’t trust the EPA or the government in general to do anything about it. Ron Paul believes in social justice, but does not trust the government’s ability to provide it, believing that civil society is the strongest answer to social injustice. You may enjoy the book The Voluntary City on this note.
Whatever differences you may find between yourself and Ron Paul, on the whole he is very pro-life and will offer more opportunity, under his program of massive government reduction, for positive change than any other politician on the stage. Ending the war in Iraq and resisting a centralized pro-abortion policy is a top priority, no? On both these counts he is leading the fight against the culture of death. I share Michael’s skepticism about the long-term soundness of government, and in some sense it is a game, but if there is to be any winner, let it be someone like Ron Paul. Whatever your disagreements are with him, you can at least have the knowledge that the problems Ron Paul may cause in your view will pale in comparison to the current bipartisan regime.
If you vote and if you’re Catholic, who else is there?
Another very enthusiastic and Catholic supporter of Ron Paul has been Joshua Snyder of the Western Confucian.
I have been watching Mr. Paul very intently. I did not know he was Pro Life until I found a Youtube video in which he made it very clear that he thought Abortion was murder. I would not say that I would “endorse him” yet, but I am very close to making a decision on who I pull the trigger for in the primary.
I would like to go with Sam Brownback, but there is something that bothers me about him, although I am not sure what it is.
Needless to say I am very, very, very, very intrested in Mr. Paul at this point. Hopefully he will be able to raise enough funds to make some noise.
Gene—Point taken. I don’t know where Paul stands on every issue, which is why I will not get worked up about him. I wouldn’t attribute the term “pro-life” to him (I don’t think I did so in the post), but noted that he was anti-abortion and claims to be anti-war as well. My main point was to criticize those Catholics who think of themselves as “pro-life” while ignoring a candidate that at least should have them thinking in different directions.
Whether somebody will help or hurt the poor is ambiguous at best. Some people think “free markets” will help the poor, others the opposite. So instead of throwing around these sorts of vague terms, let’s find out if he pro-free market, etc, or not.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/
Ron Paul’s writings on the issues….
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
Dr. Paul opposes the war (he brought up the Just War Doctrine in the second debate). He opposes abortion. He opposes the death penalty.
Show me another candidate who comes as close to the Seamless Garment, a.k.a. Consistent Ethic of Life.
Dr. Paul has stated that slashing goverment programs is not high on his agenda, as he recognizes that generations of people have been taught to be dependant on them.
As an OB-GYN, he refused to accept medicaid payments, saying that they interfered with the patient-doctor relationhsip. Rather, he pffered reduced rates to the poor.
Also, how does supporting the second amendment call into question one’s “pro-life” credentials?
Adam, Ron Paul is a supporter of the free market, but also a supporter of civil organizations and movements that are focused on helping the poor. He is against many organizations that pretend to help the poor but actually oppress them in the process. You may think he doesn’t go far enough or goes too far on certain issues, but he has a consistent ethic of life and provides the scope for voluntary civil action on local levels, without hindrance from the federal government.
OK, folks, let’s slow down the Ron Paul Express for a moment and look at the vehicle.
“Consistent pro-life ethic”? Ok, he’s against abortion, and he opposed the war in Iraq. Maybe I’m missing something, but I fail to see how that manifests a “consistent ethic of life.” He’s not a pacifist, which would seem to me the only way to characterize a “seamless garment ethic.” He has a strange position on gun control for a guy who’s “pro-life”: he is utterly opposed to federal restrictions on gun ownership, a stance quite compatible with what’s grimly called “Texas Justice.”
Many are lauding his opposition to “Big Guvment,” as Reagan used to call it. Great—is he also opposed to Big Business, the rise of which precipitated the rise of Big Guvment? I don’t think so—witness his fondness for “the free market,” which is tantamount to letting corporations do what they will. Take, for instance, his stance on health care. What’s the problem, in his view? HMOs “created” by the government. Now HMOs are incorporated by the state, to be sure, but they exist as products of economic competition in medical services and insurance. They’re models of corporate capitalism. What’s his solution? Tax credits—which do nothing to address the corporate structure of medicine, insurance, or pharmaceuticals.
People seem to like his views on welfare and the poor. What’s the problem, in Paul’s view? Government welfare “demoralizes the poor.” First, that’s one of the oldest conservative chestnuts. Second, it obscures the fact that the U.S. welfare system, on the federal and state levels, has long been the stingiest and most moralistic in the developed world. (It used to be acceptable to investigate the sexual lives of female welfare recipients. Do we really want that kind of prurience and intrusiveness?) So what is St. Ron’s solution? “Welfare to work”—but at what wages? Looks like we’re back to the problem of corporate capitalism, which doesn’t seem capable to providing enough jobs with living wages and health benefits. (Oh, I forgt, we’re going to solve that problem with tax credits for income that isn’t sufficient to begin with.)
“The federal government is the boss, and everybody knows it.” Give me a friggin’ break. Ask the workers at Wal-Mart, or people who’ve had medical treatments denied by insurance companies, if the Feds are the ones who run their lives. People like Paul who whine about big Guvment should be complaining as loudly, if not louder, about Big Corporations. But they don’t, usually, and neither does Paul.
Paul does complain about blacks, though, as Max Blumenthal points out on his blog. Paul has appeared before white supremacist and neo-Confederate groups; made assertions about crime that do more than flirt with racism; and continued associations with people and groups that are, to put it charitably, challenged on the subject of race. (By the way, Blumenthal’s post only underscores my earlier suspicion that Paul is at least a front man for Reconstructionist types.)
So enough about Prince Valiant Paul. He’s a well-mannered crackpot, plain and simple.
Gene, the Catholic Church is not pacifist. It is virtually pacifist, but that is not the same thing. War is justly used, according to the teachings of the Church, if it is strictly defensive and serves to protect life. If someone comes into my household and tries to harm my family and my only option is to inflict violence upon them, I am defending life and may even have a duty to use violence. For all intents and purposes Ron Paul is antiwar and believes that there is practicall no such thing as a just war in our modern period. Recognize your essential agreement and move on, Ron Paul will not start a war.
Ron Paul is consistently pro right to bear arms, but that is hardly going against a pro-life policy. People have a right to defend their families and themselves from government. If you choose not to bear arms, that’s your choice, of course, and my own incidentally. The cause of violence in America is not guns, it is much more complex than that and to reduce it to the presence of guns doesn’t explain why Israel and Switzerland, where guns are all but mandatory, for example, don’t have the same problem.
Yes, Ron Paul is against big government, as well as big corporations. He has spoken about how corporations use the government to gain unfair leverage in the market and skim money from the middle and lower classes. The oil companies are subsidized by the government, as our many other companies. The FDA and federal copyright laws allow corporations to patent drugs vital to millions of poor across the globe, and Ron Paul is against this. Corporations have gained in their current stature because of their association with the government, period. If you really don’t like Walmart and Microsoft, you can do what you will to promote local stores and Linux/Apple, and many supporters of Ron Paul and maybe even Ron Paul himself would support you, but that’s up to you, not the government, considering most of these problems take place at the federal level. Ron Paul wants to give people more power at the local level—that is good whatever your politics is!
Health care is more complicated, but remember he is a doctor and knows a little about this. Read what he has written about medicine and what his solution is. Medicine is very complicated economically speaking and I would recommend you some analysis of this issue, but it’s somewhat beside the point. If we have billions of dollars saved from stopping this war and cutting back harmful government programs, we are in a much better position to improve healthcare for the poor, without trying to institute rationing of healthcare for everyone, for example.
Ron Paul has integrity, even Dennis Kucinich admits it. Whether you agree with him on every point or not is somewhat beside the point. Who else is rigidly anti-war, prolife and in favor of local control of politics and the recreation of civil society? There is something for everyone here, not because he will create the central government of your dreams, but precisely because he will remove the agreed upon evils of the central government and allow you to build the society you want to live in from the ground up. If you want to waste your vote every four years and complain all the time, that’s fine, but the only way the world is ever going to change is at the local level.
Who else can a Catholic support in this election, Gene?
He also speaks out against the drug war, our huge federal prison system and various anti-poverty programs that actually encourage poverty. I understand what you are saying about welfare, but I respectfully disagree. Read Malcolm X’s autobiography for a vivid understanding of what prolonged exposure to welfare does to people’s dignity and wellbeing. My mother, a single mother raising two kids, was on welfare for a few years and I often used food stamps. Most people who advocate welfare know nothing about it except that it’s good to help poor people. Yes, it is! Social justice is important, and if you’re Catholic it is especially important, but the federal government screws it up and makes people dependent and weak. I urge you to read Malcolm X on this.
Dear Mr. McCarraher,
About the “consistent ethic of life,” Dr. Paul is anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy. In the last debate, he said our country’s greatest moral issue is that “preempive war” has replaced the Christian Just War Principles. The Catholic Church has never advocated pacifism. Heck, even Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a relative pacifist.
Your insinuations about “Texas Justice” could easily be construed as insulting to the people of that state. I believe Dr. Paul’s stance on the Second Amendment comes not from a lynch mob mentality as you suggest but from the Founders. George Orwell summed it up:
“The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER’S COTTAGE IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE.”
Dr. Paul would end corporate welfare, which is why he has no corporate backing, unlike all the major Rebuplicrat and Demublican candidates. On the Welfare/Warfare State:
During a campaign stop in Austin Texas this weekend, Presidential candidate Ron Paul called for bringing home U.S. troops and an end to a welfare state that benefits only big business at the expense of the poor and the middle class…. The Congressman also sounded off on the welfare state, stating that while some welfare, mostly crumbs, goes to the poor, most welfare actually goes to “the military industrial complex and to bankers,” a problem he would address as President.
On small business, which is as close to Chesterbellocian Distributism as we’ll ever get in America:
Jack Farris, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, has said, “Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business….He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates.”
Dr. Paul himself, on “big guvment” programs:
And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis [Kucinich] might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people.
To paraphrase Clare Boothe Luce, if you think the federal government can do a good job managing every aspect of your life, take a look at the American Indian. Dr. Paul’s positions are fully in line with the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity, which “holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization.”
As to your use of the “race card” in the last paragraph, Dr. Paul himself:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
Yours,
Joshua Snyder
John: True, the Catholic Church isn’t officially pacifist—more’s the pity, in my view, but you’re right to point that out. I can’t follow you, though, in thinking that Paul’s views on gun ownership are “pro-life.” While you’re right that guns in themselves don’t cause violence, I can’t help but appreciate the wisdom in something Napoleon once said: “You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them.” In other words, weapons invite use.
My point about Paul’s relative silence about corporations was not to obscure the symbiotic relationship between government and corporate America. I just wish that people who attack Big Guvment would realize that, if you just complain about that, you’re going to wind up with Big Business as the government, in effect. There are numerous problems with merely ” Iocalist” strategies, I think. Localities can be just as dominated by business interests as the state and national levels. And focusing on consumption—where you shop, etc.—doesn’t really do much to address the issue of workplace power. (To put my cards on the table, I’d identify myself as an anarcho-syndicalist or guild socialist.)
I think you’re identifying a single-payer health system with “rationing.” I wish we could lose that word “rationing”—it’s a red herring. First, we have “rationing” right now—it’s called getting your treatment on the basis of what the insurance companies want to provide. Second, health care is and always will be “rationed” —any economic system, capitalist or otherwise, is a way to allocate resources in some fashion.
I also notice, John, that you didn’t address my observations about Paul’s flirtations with racism. Comments?
As for who a Catholic can support? As I see it, you’ve got two options. One is what most people do (and I’m not necessarily dismissing this): vote for whoever fulfills most of your requirements. Nader did for me in 2000, so I voted for him, and I still don’t regret it. The other is, don’t vote. I didn’t in 2004, and frankly, it’s looking like I’ll staying home with my wife next November, too. I’m becoming more and more convinced that the Catholic Worker strategy is the right one: make changes that you can effect. Organize co-ops, help out unions, etc. The military-industrial complex is still Moloch, whether it’s in Republican or Democratic hands.
Mr. Goes is absolutely right about welfare—I’ve seen what it does first hand in my very family. Also, not only Mr. McCarraher but every American should read The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
As Dorothy Day said:
Christ commanded His followers to perform what Christians have come to call the Works of Mercy: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the harborless, visiting the sick and prisoner, and burying the dead. Surely a simple program for direct action, and one enjoined on all of us. Not just for impersonal “poverty programs,” government-funded agencies, but help given from the heart at a personal sacrifice.
Joshua: You posted more quickly than I did, so some of what you bring up I addressed in my remarks to John. On gun ownership, I always thought the ballot box , not the rifle, was the “symbol of democracy.” (I’m never impressed by references to Orwell, before whom we’re all supposed to genuflect.) As for distributism, there’s a lot of it I like, but the comments you quote from Paul sound to me like standard Rotarian boilerplate: “tort reform” means I don’t get sued if I’m negligent and incompetent (and by the way, Robert Bork, an advocate of “tort reform,” is now suing his country club for an injury he sustained—a perfect example of the very thing he’s been crusading against). “Burdensome mandates” means don’t regulate me if I want to pollute the river.
Paul’s remarks on the Lew Rockwell post are cited and exegeted on Blumenthal’s blog.
My apologies to any Texans who may be reading this blog. Please don’t string me up.
Joshua: I reiterate: I love Dorothy Day. But her remarks about government programs can’t be separated from her anarcho-syndicalist economic vison. Decentralized, worker-owned enterprises are the best remedy for “welfare.”
Well if you are an anarcho-syndicalist one would think that you would support a voluntary renunciation of use of weapons. Locally, if you are faced with corporations and companies and you know that a power federal government can’t do anything to help you, except to stay out of local affairs, then you know what you need to do. Use local government and local coalitions to improve your life in the way you see fit. If anarcho-syndicalism is anything more than a utopia (and it may well be), get started. Ron Paul isn’t harming your ability to begin your project, which surely you don’t think will be accomplished with a federal election. I have never voted myself, though I will reconsider if Ron Paul gets the nomination, but if you do vote you have to take the best choice in front of you (assuming you have a choice). Nadar supports abortion, I understand, Ron Paul is against it, against all wars that could be fought in the century, against the death penalty and a strong federal government. I know you have differences, but if you are not afraid to take responsibility for your own life and to get to work locally through concrete action in building the community you want, it is hard to see what is stopping you.
I have no comment about the so-called racism except to say that I understand that to have been written by a fired staffer many years ago and that having known Ron Paul as a public figure for some years I don’t have the impression that he’s racist. I truly don’t think he is and if you knew him better you might agree. But even so, this isn’t a popularity contest, all that matters is what is he going to do, period. If you want to play the race card, I can’t reply further, but I suggest you focus on what he will change.
Gene McCarraher wrote:
“I also notice, John, that you didn’t address my observations about Paul’s flirtations with racism. Comments?”
Perhaps he didnt respond to it, because we’re all tired of responding to it. Its been debunked 10 years ago, and since its resurfacing because thats what people do during elections is dredge up any dirt they can find. Its be debunked again and again, and its REALLY frustrating that people
find something like this and care so little to invistigate it AT ALL. They just take an obscure article
as Fact. Everything your quoting is from The Houston Chronicle, and there is no actual documents other than that. If you’d care enough to research that for any accuracy you’d have found many sources to set your straigh, such as the Ron Paul wiki. But if you’re still too lazy to check for yourself, Ill tell you basically, A writer who was fired from Ron Paul’s campaign wrote
those racist quotes in a publication with Ron Paul’s name on it. He denied speaking those
quotes, its been disproven, and He went on to express his anti-racist views very elloquently in this article among many others. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism,”-Ron Paul
You are a very lazy researcher, or you just dont care. Please stop recycling hateful propoganda
articles.
Also please learn what “Free Market” means I promise you it doesnt mean what YOU think it means, Also Free Markets do have regulation from various Fair Trade social organizations
rather than the Government so that Corporations do not do whatever they want. Maybe you’ll even be led by your research to learn about The Federal Reserve, and how Ron Paul opposes that most corrupt of institutions the US has been under absolute rule for the past 100 years.
But somehow I doubt you’ll do any of that and immediatly go to replying. But you dont ever vote so really, what does it matter even writing. Your just another apathetic consumer waiting to die.
John: I couldn’t agree more. One of my pet peeves is academic liberals who whine and whine and then vote for—Kerry. I do think Paul would get in the way, eventually—“defense of property rights,” and all that—but otherwise, we’re in agreement.
Joel: Thanks for your Christian sentiments. While I’m waiting, lazily, to die, perhaps I should sit and receive instruction from you about economics. Alas, I’m too lazy, or apathetic, or I just don’t care.
Paul claims that a former aide ghostwrote the piece in question, but there’s no evidence for that. I do notice, also, that you don’t seem to care enough to respond to the indisputable fact that Paul has appeared before several white supremacist and neo-Confederate groups. No disgruntled former aide made him do that.
By the way, the Lew Rockwell article you cite is just bizarre. Multiculturalism is “racist”? Sounds like middlebrow crackerism to me. But then, just about everything on that site is bizarre, so I’m not surprised. Rockwell frequently features goldbugs of every wacko variety—Y2K-boy Gary North, for instance. The historical relationship of goldbugs with anti-Semitism and racism in general—here and in South Afica—is just too clear to be fortuitous.
Gene, please give us names and dates of Dr. Paul’s appearances before white supremacist organizations. Did Dr. Paul appear at a Klan rally? A neo-Nazi rally? A White Aryan NAtions rally? That would be odd from a man who said “[r]acism is simply an ugly form of collectivism.”
[Please don’t mention neo-Confederate groups. Being a neo-Confederate does not make one a white supremacist; indeed, the are black neo-Confederates. It’s about localism and particularism. My dad flies the stars ‘n’ bars and welcomed his black brother-in-law, my uncle, into the family with open arms. I suggest reading Flannery O’Connor’s thoughts on race relations to get a more nuanced view of the issue from the Southern perspective.]
And your talk of “[t]he historical relationship of goldbugs with anti-Semitism and racism” is guilt by association of the most tenuous sort.
You need not support the man, but please don’t slander him.
Pax, Joshua
I prefer cathlofascist, but Republocatholic is pretty good too. I suppose a Republocatholic could be a Republocatholic without being a cathlofascist.
Again, the names and dates of Dr. Paul’s appearances before white supremacist organizations?
Calumny is a grave sin.
Ron is also anti-capital punishment, so he is fully pro-life.
As one who is currently a part of a Catholic Worker Community (and, incidentally, not Catholic) and as someone who finds Ron Paul’s policy ideas to be refreshing in today’s world of Democrat/Republican divisiveness, I’m so happy to see the two being discussed meaningfully here.
Workers rights? You do not get your rights because you are a worker. You get your rights because you are an individual. Uniquely created by God. All men are endowed with these inalienable rights. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congressman Ron Paul Champions these positions. He clearly and unequivocally states that racism and hatred will continue as long as individuals continue to espouse their rights as inherently bequethed to them because of the group they belong to. Get rid of that small thinking. Change the world. Understand that the God who loves you doesn’t love you because you are black or white, rich or poor, talented or average, man or woman, catholic, jewish or muslim. He loves you because He created you in his likeness and image!
Catholics and
Ru Paul rawks. i’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
(surely someone has made this joke already…but i didnt read all the comments).
LoA.
Well as a Roman Catholic, I am truly amazed at the weak arguments concerning Ron Pauls stand on abortion. His main goal is getting all individual rights out of the debate in Washington and returning them to the states so that the people will have a more effective way of opposing or accepting them.
!!
1973 and counting all it has been on abortion is a political ( crap ) ball, every President has done nothing to get it repealed and especially the so called Christian Presidents they have
all done the exact opposite they have made it harder to ever repeal the Roe v Wade law.
Ron Paul is without a doubt the most Pro-Catholic Presidential candidate without actually being
a candidate who is Catholic.
If we as Catholics ignore what this man is saying and most of all what he has done while in Washington then we will get more of the same and most important our God given rights to be free will be taken away.
I have followed the Republican hierarchy since Ford and now it is time to stand our moral ground and help elect the only TRUE constitutionalist and most honest politician in my lifetime 52 years,Congressman Ron Paul for the Republican Presidential party nomination
GOD BE WITH ALL OF US ALWAYS
This is the last chance for Americans to break up NWO game plan. Everything is masterminded, prepared the path for Hillary capturing the white house.
Think about it: If Republican party is really sincere to fight for Americans it won’t bring up Julie Annie who is more liberal, more immoral than Hillary. When Julie get nominated his conducts (promiscuos sex life, mob related as well as financialy corrupted) will be revealed to public and at least 40 % party conservatives will stay home, and Hillary automatically win the election.
Republicans and Democrats are all belong to NWO. Rep. Ron Paul and a lot of grassroot Americans knew it very well that when they got power they will destroy Christianity especially Catholic Church. Last chance. Think about it!
Wait and see if Ron Pall did not get elected. Catholic church will be persecuted up to terminating level since she is the only true church standing up for freedom. They are all over now and have been infiltrated to undermine and destroy the Church from inside. Remember Jesus Christ Church is only target to be decimated for world enslaving. Vote for RP.