 |
| Barack Obama v. Ron Paul |
Now my readers know I am a Distributist, and I certainly don't agree with Ron Paul's fiscal solutions across the board. However, when we consider just how badly this Union has been wrecked economically, his solutions may be a step in the right direction -- albeit just a step. I don't know if Congressman Paul has the capacity to understand that in order for small business to thrive, big business must be regulated. I don't know if he has the capacity to understand that healthcare is a right, and nobody should be forced into poverty to receive the medical care that God has mandated we provide to our neighbour. (Remember the Good Samaritan?) But Congressman Paul is a medical doctor, so I shouldn't put it past him. He has saved lives, and cared for the helpless, so anything is possible.
Ron Paul was born and raised a Lutheran, and at some point he became an Episcopalian. All of his five children were baptised Episcopalian. Congressman Paul eventually left the Episcopal Church, as did all his children. He now attends a Baptist church. When asked why, he cited it was a matter of principle. There were moral positions he took issue with in the Episcopal Church, and so he left, based on principle.
That's what it really comes down to doesn't it? Principle. You know, my father was the manager of a large department within a fairly important corporation that worked for the federal government. He had about 200 people working under him. Growing up, he always told me that when he had to choose between an honest worker who was less skilled, and a dishonest one who was more skilled, he always picked the honest worker. Why? Because he could train that honest worker to do anything he wanted, and get him up to the skill level he needed. But he couldn't train somebody to be honest.
Honesty. It's something I haven't seen in American politics for a very long time. Actually, I can't remember ever seeing it. Integrity? What's that!?! I don't think I've ever seen that in American politics. So it seems that every presidential candidate who might actually be a fairly honest man is crushed in the primaries. It looks like we might have another possibility here, but I really don't know if the Republican Party will even let him win. He challenges everything the American empire has represented for 150 years. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP establishment would sabotage the election to let Obama win another four years, rather then let somebody like Ron Paul get into the Whitehouse.
It is Ron Paul's foreign policy that is of particular interest to me. I like it. It's very 'Catholic' if you don't mind me saying. He truly is a consistent man of peace. I can't say that for any other candidate on the GOP side. I also like his idea of ending the Federal Reserve, the money cartel that has allowed our congress and the president to bring this Union into bankruptcy. There are a lot of ideas he has that I like, far more than I dislike. I'm not into political idolatry. I don't worship at the altar of any candidate. I know Ron Paul cannot save this nation, any more than New Gingrich, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry or Barack Obama for that matter. I'm not looking for a Messiah, just a man who won't take us to war with the Iranians at the behest of oil companies and zionists.
I'm not going to make an endorsement here. I did that in the last election cycle and probably jinxed my candidate. So there will be no endorsements from The Catholic Knight in the 2012 election. I'm just saying this candidate is worth a second look. As I went through his positions, I found them to be more in line with Catholic social teaching than any of the other GOP candidates. Granted, he is far from perfect or ideal, but it would seem he is better than most. As for his skill level and political shrewdness, I suppose he is lacking, but these things can be trained into a man. What cannot be trained is honesty, integrity and principle. These are three things Congressman Ron Paul seems to have already, and that puts him in a class of his own. You can't train a man in those things. Either he has them or he does not. I'll leave the rest up to my readers to decide.
Ron Paul's positions can be found from a fairly non-biased and neutral source here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Please review his candidacy and make your own decision.
13 comments; post here:
My only real problem with Paul is his consistent blind spot to the threat posed by radical Islam. I agree with his basic non-interventionist approach to global politics. For the most part I say let 'em eat each other. Unless they come knockin' at our door it ain't none of our business. But, radical Islam is more than just knockin' - they're pounding away with with a giant ram and the door is starting to split. Paul seems to think that we can talk our way out of this. In this respect he reminds me a bit too much of Carter.
This isn't to say that I'm happy with the nation building that we've attempted under Bush and Obama. Far from it. I just worry that Paul is GROSSLY underestimating the threat.
On most other issues he's got his finger on the pulse. And you're right, he's consistent and he seems honest in his views.
I do have to wonder, too, about his ability to lead. He's been in Congress a long time and he's been saying the same things a long time but he's not gotten anywhere with his beliefs or accomplished really reducing much of anything in the size of our government. His support is based more on a cult of personality than on any real strength. He seems to be a fairly weak and soft spoken individual. This may be a wrong impression but it's the one I have.
I don't know that I want him facing down Putin across a negotiating table. Again, visions of jimmy Carter are dancing in my head.
Catawissa Gazetteer - you are so right, in that Ron Paul is not a great orator. He comes across as a tired old man, does not have a charming charisma, his voice is weak and not authoritative. BUT, BUT his message is right on target. He is a Constitutionalist as the words and meaning were intended by the Founders. But there is hope for the future - his son Rand is young and projects himself 100% better than his father and professes his father’s vision for a limited government as intended. Only thing can we wait until 2016 when Rand might consider himself as a presidential contender.
Hank from TX
Thanks for the assessment of Ron Paul, Catholic Knight. You mentioned you were a distributist. I also picked up that you felt the Government had the responsibility to ensure that "in order for small business to thrive, big business must be regulated." You also said, "I don't know if he has the capacity to understand that health care is a right, and nobody should be forced into poverty to receive the medical care that God has mandated we provide to our neighbour."
In Australia a distributist (and sincere Catholic) was elected into its Senate last year (for the Democratic Labor Party). His name is John Madigan. He would support those two views you said of regulating big business and ensuring that medical is provided to the poor.
Not sure if Ron Paul and he would agree on other issues but they are two big ones to agree on.
Sorry CK but the way a regulated industry works at least here in the US is that the regulated industry captures the regulatory agency and Congress to benefit itself not small competitors. Big business can deal with regulations. Regulations kill small business.
Islam is only a threat in a secular society. It poses no threat to an armed Christian society.
A question regarding Paul and abortion. Paul is pro-life. No doubt about it. But as I understand it, his position on abortion is that the protection of unborn life is not provided for by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, his position is basically to remove federal jurisdiction so that states would be free to regulate it as they see fit. This would include, of course, allowing abortion.
Does the Catholic Knight think that is something a Catholic can or should endorse?
Barry A.,
Three cheers for the mighty DLP!! May it be, through God's Grace, brought into full flowering under the likes of John Madigan. !! Let us give thanks for the legacy bequeathed to us by the late, great B. A. Santamaria!!!!!! I will rally to his standard any day, any time!! (Wish my husband would let me join the DLP as a party member, but as an Irish Catholic (lapsed), for some reason, maintains a type of unreasonable hostility toward BASM that many of his mother's generation held a tragedy that they simply couldn't see what he was fighting for, and the incredible amount of integrity it took to stand his ground
Sarah,
Australia.
America will never elect Ron Paul b/c he is not good looking or charismatic enough. Regardless of his wisdom and honesty, America is caught in the dictatorship of the personality ethic. In the old days it was character that mattered but today Americans elect and reward people for their personalities. The US's shallowness will be rewarded with more crooked politicians of no substance whatsoever...
CONGRATULATIONS! FANTASTIC BLOG!
welcome to the site: www.virgemdeguadalupe.blogspot.com
Sir Knight, Ron Paul's "pro life" stand is merely his libertarian push to let the states decide, which is to say, he wouldnt object to abortion legality in, say Massachussetts, etc. His support of the repeal of DADT in the military shows he supports sodomy, or at least wont oppose it (same as on abortion, above). His almost deification of the constitution, rather than any kind of spiritual or religious moral convictions are also what makes me leery of him. As others have posted, his foreign policy sophistication is even worse than Herman Cain. Pete Frey
May I add that a couple of Ron Paul's children are now Catholic.
Secondly, I would not trust my country to globalists and New World Order agents like Gingrich, Perry and Romney. It's quite simple.
And regulating wealthy businesses means shutting off all loopholes in the tax code, doesn't it? If it was a fair playing ground, as Ron Paul wants it to be, there will be no government subsidies running wild.
Phil
Ron Paul, in his own words, on Abortion:
"I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit ferderal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.
The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic."
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 2&6-7 , Apr 19, 2011
Ron Paul, in his own words, on the repeal of DADT:
"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual.
To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."
Source: Washington Post 05/10
I think he is the best among the field. Obama is not good. The other Republican candidates are terrible. He is the one.
Check this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY
Post a Comment