For more information visit RONPAUL2012.com
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I personally believe that modern American democracy is a sham, and it has been for the last 40 years or so. I think I'm about to be proved right once again, perhaps within weeks. (Please God, prove me wrong!) Every so often a candidate for president of the United States will arise to the surface that truly represents some American ideals and values. He may not be perfect. In fact, he may be flawed in some serious ways, yet nevertheless, he does speak for the heart and soul of the people. He is in every way a 'representative' of his nation. Once he approaches the top of the heap, and has a real shot at the nomination for president, the political party machinery kicks in and crushes him.
In 1996 we saw this happen in the GOP with presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan. For a brief time in the early days of the '96 primaries, Buchanan was the front-runner among GOP presidential hopefuls. It was at that time the Republican Party leadership met with one agenda in mind -- how to deal with the 'Buchanan threat.' The GOP then decided to throw the election. They painted Buchanan as a radical, extremist and anti-Semite, then they put forward their favourite son (and certain loser) as the alternative -- Senator Bob Dole.
 |
| Pat Buchanan (left) -- Ron Paul (right) |
 |
| Ron Paul surpassed all presidential candidates in military donations |
 |
| U.S. Active Military Overwhelmingly support Ron Paul |
 |
| Ron Paul is a medical doctor. He worked for a Catholic hospital for $3/hour and never once accepted Medicare or Medicaid payments. He is 100% Pro-Life and has personally delivered thousands of babies. |
 |
| Ron Paul enjoyed a good working relationship with Ronald Reagan during his presidency. |
UPDATE 12-20-2011...
It looks like Patrick Buchanan (mentioned in the article above) is poised to give an endorsement to Ron Paul... read more here
Sadly, I have been proved right in less than 24 hours since writing this article. The infamous 'conference' is beginning to happen, and the GOP elites are already kicking around the idea of throwing the election should Ron Paul make a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republican governor of Iowa has just told the mainstream national news media to 'ignore' a Ron Paul victory in Iowa and focus on who comes in second place instead. Next on the agenda will be a direct effort by the GOP to destroy Ron Paul, just as they did Pat Buchanan in 1996, and put forward a fall guy instead -- a GOP party man who will 'take one for the team.' Make no mistake about it, the attacks against Paul will be personal and vial. The Republican elites will spare no expense. They will try to dig up whatever dirt they can about him, and when they find none, they will just resort to lies. Rumours of election fraud are being circulated as well, but when pressed on the matter, nobody gives any credible details. What they all agree on however is that Ron Paul is a 'threat' and a 'problem.' The 2012 GOP sabotage has just gone into effect. The election is being thrown as you read this. It's 1996 all over again. When will we all learn the GOP and Democrats are working together? When will we learn they are both on the same team? If the Republican Party actually does this again, there may be a serious miscalculation this time. Ron Paul supporters are fed up with the Republican Party already. This kind of unfair black balling their candidate may push them over the edge, and Ron Paul will be under considerable pressure to run either as an Independent or third-party candidate. If that happens, the GOP may suffer more permanent consequences. Especially of Ron Paul decides to run as a Constitutionalist on the CONSTITUTION PARTY ticket. The Constitution Party is America's largest third party. A Ron Paul association would put the Constitution Party over the top as far as exposure goes, energising it, and turn it into a permanent fixture in American politics. The GOP doesn't want to do this. It would spell the end of their two-party dominance with the Democrats that has remained the status quo in America for the last 150 years.
It looks like Patrick Buchanan (mentioned in the article above) is poised to give an endorsement to Ron Paul... read more here
Sadly, I have been proved right in less than 24 hours since writing this article. The infamous 'conference' is beginning to happen, and the GOP elites are already kicking around the idea of throwing the election should Ron Paul make a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republican governor of Iowa has just told the mainstream national news media to 'ignore' a Ron Paul victory in Iowa and focus on who comes in second place instead. Next on the agenda will be a direct effort by the GOP to destroy Ron Paul, just as they did Pat Buchanan in 1996, and put forward a fall guy instead -- a GOP party man who will 'take one for the team.' Make no mistake about it, the attacks against Paul will be personal and vial. The Republican elites will spare no expense. They will try to dig up whatever dirt they can about him, and when they find none, they will just resort to lies. Rumours of election fraud are being circulated as well, but when pressed on the matter, nobody gives any credible details. What they all agree on however is that Ron Paul is a 'threat' and a 'problem.' The 2012 GOP sabotage has just gone into effect. The election is being thrown as you read this. It's 1996 all over again. When will we all learn the GOP and Democrats are working together? When will we learn they are both on the same team? If the Republican Party actually does this again, there may be a serious miscalculation this time. Ron Paul supporters are fed up with the Republican Party already. This kind of unfair black balling their candidate may push them over the edge, and Ron Paul will be under considerable pressure to run either as an Independent or third-party candidate. If that happens, the GOP may suffer more permanent consequences. Especially of Ron Paul decides to run as a Constitutionalist on the CONSTITUTION PARTY ticket. The Constitution Party is America's largest third party. A Ron Paul association would put the Constitution Party over the top as far as exposure goes, energising it, and turn it into a permanent fixture in American politics. The GOP doesn't want to do this. It would spell the end of their two-party dominance with the Democrats that has remained the status quo in America for the last 150 years.
(Politico) -- Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
In spin rooms, bar rooms and online forums, the what-to-do-about-Paul conversation has become pervasive as polls show him at or near the top here just weeks before the January 3rd vote....
....Leading Republicans, looking to put the best possible frame on a Paul victory, are already testing out a message for what they’ll say if the 76-year-old Texas congressman is triumphant.
The short version: Ignore him.
“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Gov. Terry Branstad. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”...
....Paul officials note that they’ve embraced the Iowa way. And even establishment Republicans like Branstad concede that the congressman has done it “the old-fashioned way” and enjoys the best organization of any of the candidates....
read full story here
UPDATE 12/21/2011
The media lynching of Ron Paul is now underway. Right-wing talk radio hosts are beginning to attack Dr. Paul across the board, on every issue imaginable, and they are questioning his sanity. In fact, some are now just calling him 'crazy' outright. This is becoming a full-court press from the right-wing establishment. 'Destroy Paul' is the message from the GOP board room. They are using a similar pattern they used against Pat Buchanan in 1996. They are painting him as a 'racist anti-Semite lunatic' who is 'dangerous.' This can only mean one thing. The GOP is willing to throw the election. In their minds, another four years of Obama is preferable to someone like Ron Paul who might dismantle the military-industrial-banking cartel they've worked so hard to build over the previous decades.
UPDATE 12/28/2011
The GOP onslaught against Ron Paul is now in full gear, as virtually every GOP presidential candidate has now turned their guns on him, and yet he still leads the polls in Iowa. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has just let the cat out of the bag, signalling that a Barack Obama victory in November of 2012 would be preferable to a Ron Paul victory. Newt (an old party-man) has just sent the signal to the GOP party bosses that Ron Paul must be taken down, even if it means throwing the election. Can there be any doubt now that the Republicans and Democrats are working together? Make no mistake about it. Should Ron Paul win Iowa, the election choice will be between Ron Paul verses Barack Obama. Any other GOP candidate will spell certain (and intentional) failure.
UPDATE 12/29/2011
Tonight I just heard a right-wing radio talk-show host liken Ron Paul to Adolf Hitler, basically saying that anyone who supports Paul is being snookered, just as Hitler snookered the German people. What was the context of this tirade? Zionism of course. The host is apparently a Zionist. He more than implied that Ron Paul is an Anti-Semite because he doesn't unconditionally support the State of Israel.
The media lynching of Ron Paul is now underway. Right-wing talk radio hosts are beginning to attack Dr. Paul across the board, on every issue imaginable, and they are questioning his sanity. In fact, some are now just calling him 'crazy' outright. This is becoming a full-court press from the right-wing establishment. 'Destroy Paul' is the message from the GOP board room. They are using a similar pattern they used against Pat Buchanan in 1996. They are painting him as a 'racist anti-Semite lunatic' who is 'dangerous.' This can only mean one thing. The GOP is willing to throw the election. In their minds, another four years of Obama is preferable to someone like Ron Paul who might dismantle the military-industrial-banking cartel they've worked so hard to build over the previous decades.
UPDATE 12/28/2011
The GOP onslaught against Ron Paul is now in full gear, as virtually every GOP presidential candidate has now turned their guns on him, and yet he still leads the polls in Iowa. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has just let the cat out of the bag, signalling that a Barack Obama victory in November of 2012 would be preferable to a Ron Paul victory. Newt (an old party-man) has just sent the signal to the GOP party bosses that Ron Paul must be taken down, even if it means throwing the election. Can there be any doubt now that the Republicans and Democrats are working together? Make no mistake about it. Should Ron Paul win Iowa, the election choice will be between Ron Paul verses Barack Obama. Any other GOP candidate will spell certain (and intentional) failure.
UPDATE 12/29/2011
Tonight I just heard a right-wing radio talk-show host liken Ron Paul to Adolf Hitler, basically saying that anyone who supports Paul is being snookered, just as Hitler snookered the German people. What was the context of this tirade? Zionism of course. The host is apparently a Zionist. He more than implied that Ron Paul is an Anti-Semite because he doesn't unconditionally support the State of Israel.
58 comments; post here:
Nice write up Sir Knight :) my bro in seminary with the FSSP tells me huge support for Dr Paul by the seminarians there
So according to your brother in the FSSP, the most Traditional of all Catholic priests an seminarians are coming out in support of Ron Paul. Hmmm. Interesting.
Obama will try to trick Americans into voting for him again by acting tough, like Bush did, on national defense; he will brag about getting Bin Ladin and others. Then he will use his color to act like any great criticism of his performance is not fair but prejudiced. You all have a big challenge ahead of you. I suggest you remind everyone how much worse the economy has gotten since he took office; that may be the only way to replace him.
Mr Knight, I have said this before, and i will say it again, you have taken leave of your senses to even consider supporting Ron Paul!!! Catholics by and large vote LIBERAL democrat, totally disregarding the moral teachings of the church. The few trads who might support Paul seriously dont count numberically. Paul is best described as the "loony uncle everyone has in their basement." He's NOT pro life, but merely wants to hand the issue over to the states; his support of DADT indicates he supports sodomy in the military. You're right about Gingrich: he's got too much baggage and too many loose ends in his past. His glib tongue wont hold up to Soetoro's rhetoric. In terms of an electoral train wreck we can describe the newt as the locomotive and Paul as the caboose. The GOP is the party of born again losers and get ready for 4 more years of the Muslim in Chief. Pete FRey
Sir Knight, as far as I am concerned, the only true conservative (morally and politically) is Rick Santorum. I back him 1000%. Fully realizing his poll numbers etc, but still some folks out there who dont like the newt will take a second look at Rick. As a conservative catholic HE's the one those seminarians ought to be backing, not this mason, libertarian, Ayn Randian "objectivist". Even Sarah Palin said Rick is worth taking a closer look at. If you want a REAL catholic in the white house, Rick is the one. He doesnt have the baggage of the religion-of-the-moment Gingrich, who has had nearly as many wives as Henry VIII. and talk of linking him with Cain is beyond laughable. But no matter, Barry wins again. Pete FRey
Considering the economic and political implosion that will soon befall the United States, do you really want a Catholic in office (of any type) to take the heat for that? I'm just saying. Seriously? How many centuries will we have to endure the Masons and Protestants telling us "America didn't fall until a conservative Catholic was elected president."
Even though we know that is rediculous, it won't matter. It will make about as much sense as the lies they tell about the crusades, Galileo and the inquisitions, but people will believe it anyway, and teach it to their children as "fact."
Santorum is definitely the right choice. Ron Paul ?? dont make me laugh. The guy is a nut, and would get MILLIONS of people killed with his foreign policies.
NOT to mention he is a RACIST, and Anti-Semite (will you write an article addressing those accusations? )
and your constant fear mongering is shameful. Stop scaring folks. ( you sound like GB )
Lighten up, pick a side and let the chips fall where they may.
Wear your stripes , you like to ride the fence on many issues leaving you room to jump from side to side.
BTW , LOVE your Anti-Capitalistic views. A true patriot I see.
Ron Paul LOL give me a break. The guy is BAD NEWS.
Why on earth would you bash a true conservative catholic who is pro life pro marriage pro freedom etc , is beyond me.
You so misrepresented him in your article that, my head is spinning. RSsantorum "ATTACKS" Pope and bishops? really?
I didnt seem that way to me.
But whatever , you seem to live in an echo chamber so I dont expect this to sink in.
Sir Knight you are 100% correct. Newt/Romney are the fall guys. I pray most Americans wake up and vote for the only candidate who can beat Obama, Ron Paul.
The previous anonymous doesn't get it; its not that Ron Paul is electable or even 100% correct in his views, its that he is the onely one with the courage and integrity to tell the truths that no one wants to hear about what our nation's problems are. The rest are just spinning the same old cliches that appeal to the parties but do nothing to enlighten or political discourse. Therefore, even if Paul is only half right, he is the only one who is not showboating nonsense.
Sir Knight, you're onto something. According to an article by the Des Moines Register, Bob Dole has announced he backs Romney.
Santorum for president? No way! He betrayed the pro-life cause when he supported Arlen Spector in a Senate race against Toomy, a Republican pro-life candidate. No "Catholic" who betrays the babe in the womb should ever be trusted in a public office again!
Thanks Steve. Another thing that spooks me about Santorum is how easily he buys (and preaches) the Zionist lie that we did absolutely nothing to provoke the retaliatory terrorism of 9-11. As shown in the video above, he boldly and indignantly scolds Dr. Paul for daring to suggest that 9-11 was committed for any other reason than "they simply hate us." I remember listening to Benjamin Netanyahu (prince of all Zionists) sometime after 9-11 who said the exact same thing. Nevermind all that stuff we did with the CIA over there back during the 1950s through 1980s. Nevermind that great big war we fought over there in the early 1990s, and that permanent base we set up in their holy land of Saudi Arabia. Nevermind all that money, bombs and bullets we sent to Israel during all this time. None of that matters. They attacked us because they hate us -- just because -- and for no other reason. Give me a break!!! Nothing excuses the murderous evil that the terrorists did to us on that fateful day. It was pure evil, but at the same time, it was not unprovoked. It frightens me that a candidate for president, let alone a 'Catholic' candidate would support this Zionist nonsense so boldly.
Newt Gingrich is even worse, telling the Jewish press that the Palestinian people are not a legitimate people and have no right to a Palestinian homeland. This flies in the face of everything the popes have said, everything the bishops of the Church have said, and even what the American and Israeli governments have said!!! This coming from a supposedly 'Catholic' candidate for president. This is downright scary.
I could probably excuse such ignorance coming from the Mormon candidate, but not the Catholic candidates. They should know better. Ironically, the most 'Catholic' view on foreign policy comes from a Baptist (former Episcopalian) named Ron Paul. When it comes to foreign policy, he is more 'Catholic' than the whole lot of them. It just goes to show that being a Catholic does not mean you will hold to Catholic positions on everything. The two Catholics in this race are denying a Catholic approach to foreign policy, while the one Baptist affirms it. It's downright ironic if you ask me.
SEE ABOVE UPDATE IN RED....
I had already burned my GOP card before 2006 and am now a registered independent. If Paul does not get the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for the "anti-Obama", but if Barry wins the election, it will confirm that my suspect citizenship in the Empire is pure fiction. I will tirelessly work toward Southern Independence no matter what the cost.
We need a philosopher-king. In a field chock full of careerists and phonies from both parties(including Santorum), Dr. Ron Paul, a politician of character, is the closest thing on offer.
Word to the angry anon: Since when did unreserved support of "Capitalism" (or Crony Capitalism, more accurately) become synonymous with patriotism? I urge you to brush up on Tocqueville after you manage to calm down.
Mr. Knight, in my eyes, you are as patriotic as they come.
Luciana
Imagine having to have the congress declare war before committing US troops to fight anywhere in the world. We just put Al Qeada in charge of Lybia for goodness sakes. we will soon, if not already be fighting a proxy war in Syria. If red China flew a drone over the US and we caused it to land would we give it back? Well, probably, but the list goes on. I'm a Santorum guy, but I'm voting for Ron Paul in the SC primary.
Shortly after the civil war, corrupt party bosses took over both parties effectively ending democracy. Things improved a little when a tough intellectual of great integrity named Theodore Roosevelt became President when the party bosses convinced him to be William McKinley`s new vice-presidential running mate; they did that to get him out of the governorship of New York. Little did they know, McKinley would get shot right after winning the election and Teddy would become one of America`s truly great presidents. Since that time, our democracy has once again become non-existent. Until Americans get that, nothing will change.
Great article, but I must differ about Dr. Paul not being a libertarian. He always talks about the constitution, but then the founders--especially Jefferson--were VERY libertarian, very distrustful of government. That is why they tried so hard to limit its powers. It was good while it lasted ('cept slavery of course), but it seems to be over now. (The last nail was driven last week, with the passage of the NDAA and the effective suspension of the writ of habeas corpus).
Ron Paul's underlying libertarianism (note the small-"l") always comes out when he cannot refer some problem directly back to the constitution. In those instances he falls back to first principles, i.e. liberty & freedom from all governmental coercion except for the protection of life, liberty and property. That is libertarianism, pure and simple, and if you listen to him often enough you will see it come out.
Since he is running for president, he appropriately condemns most actions of the federal government and considers them state issues. That does not mean that he would please all the busybodies at the state and local level if he were involved at that level. At home he would staunchly condemn local tyranny and advocate individual liberty.
[Incidentally, He could never be a distributist if it involved the initiation of violence to make it happen. He would be perfectly happy, however, to let distributists do their thing as long as they left everybody else alone. Not really an issue I suppose, since even Belloc had no hope that distributism could ever be achieved.]
Ron Paul is neither a liberal, nor a libertine. He is a pro-peace, pro-life libertarian. Every Catholic should vote for him.
Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano in 2012!
Anon - TR was a Progressive and hardly what I call a good president.
Mr Knight, Ron Paul is a gutter politician. He has called Rick Santorum (an honorable man) a hate monger because he "hates muslims and gays" AHEM--- since when did denouncing those who intend to destroy christianity and western civilization as enemies the same as "hatred"? Did we not hate the "Japs" during WWII and the Germans during WWI? And since when is standing for traditional marriage and family equal to "hating gays"? Rick doesnt want them in the military (and truth be told, neither does the military) Opposing gay "marriage" is equal to hating gays? Paul is SICK. He supported the repeal of DADT and his opposition to gay "marriage" and abortion is confined to federalism. He wouldnt care if they were legalized at the state level, which is NOT a pro life, pro marriage position at all. His "ayn rand" brand of objectivism and individualism is still devoid of moral principles. Paul is SICK and so is anyone who endorses him and claims he is more "catholic" than either Rick or the newt. Pete Frey
Pete, without calling you 'sick' or insulting your fedility to the gospel, might I suggest to you that your support for Santorum is honourable based the moral reasons I know you hold dear.
Might I also suggest, that while Santorum is obviously of upstanding moral character, and stands on the right side of many of the important issues of our time, he suffers from the same stigmatism that seems to ail most of our national politicians. They have succumbed to the seduction of empire. It is the idea that every problem must be addressed at the federal level, with a one-size-fits-all uniform solution. It is the idea that the president, congress and federal courts settle all issues, and the states are mere provinces (wards) of the fed.
Thanks to judicial tyranny, and weak politicians, the issues of abortion and homosexuality are now a permanent part of our post-Christian culture. These issues will not be settled by democracy. They cannot be. Only the Great Monarch, or the Heavenly King of kings himself can settle them now. The best we can hope for now is to follow our constitution, which permits states' rights (Subsidiarity), and gives us the power to rectify these matters in our home states at the very least. Then when the inevitable collapse of America comes, and it will come, at least those states that have rightly addressed the moral issues of the day, will have a foundation to rebuild on, while those that have wrongly addressed them will be free to wallow in the resulting chaos until they finally figure it out. What the states need right now is freedom to govern themselves. That is the most important thing, because we can no longer expect reform on moral issues to come from Washington DC. The federal government is unreformable. It is lost. There is no hope for it anymore. The states must be free to govern themselves now, so they can reorganise after the fall of the fed.
Ron Paul is flawed in many areas. This I do not deny. I don't particularly care for his libertarian mindset on some things, but I know that as President of the United States that will not be a problem. You see, we are not electing a dictator, or at least we are not supposed to be. We are electing a president, with limited powers, and so long as we understand that, we will never need to seek messianic figures to occupy the Whitehouse. I'm not looking for a president who will solve all our problems. I'm not looking for a president who agrees with me on all the issues. That's because I'm not looking for a president who will abuse his power to force his agenda on everyone. At this juncture, the only kind of president I want is one that will let my home State of Missouri govern itself. Because by in large, when it comes to both moral and economic issues, we do a hell of a lot better job at that than Uncle Sam. The only kind of president I want is one that will work to keep the federal courts and congress out of our business. We Missourians can handle our own business just fine, thank you very much, and Washington DC can take their judicial tyranny and shove it where the moon don't shine. I am personally looking forward to the day when we can govern ourselves completely, independent of Washington DC, but until that day comes, just give me a president that will keep the fed out of our affairs.
Amen. Unless Ron Paul is the greatest actor of all time, he is the one candidate that would actually execute the office of President as it was intended by the Constitution. At this point, that is the best you can hope for.
However, I fear it will play out as you predict. RP will go third party after being ground up by the GOP establishment, thereby ensuring 4 more years for Obama (even without RP running 3rd party, Obama will probably win just because of the disillusionment with the GOP the grinding process will create).
You've lost me, good sir knight.
You back Ron Paul over the staunch conservative Catholic Rick Santorum because you and Paul agree that we in the West are to blame for Islamic jihad? Are you mad? Have you heard of the Islamic conquests, or the Caliphate, or the Koran? All of these preceded the Gulf War by centuries. Have you any idea what Islam is all about?
Is the GOP as responsible for the fall of Constantinople as it is the attacks of 9/11 (in which two of my conservative Catholic friends perished?)
Do you believe that St Louis and the Crusaders, or Don Juan and the Holy Leaguers, or Charles the Hammer Martel and his Knights who stopped the Mohammedans at Tours were defending the West against Muslim belligerents? Or were our Christian forebears to blame for Muslim attacks against us back then as well?
I find it ironic that someone using the pen-name Catholic Knight would side with the soldiers of Mohammed over the Men of the West. Perhaps the “Catholic Dhimmi" would serve you better. Have you heard of the Stockholm Syndrome? Look it up - you may be in need of treatment.
As far as Israel is concerned you're on the wrong team again. The issues involved are too complex to discuss here, but read my article "Let Freedom Win" for details. God help us when self-described Catholic Conservatives are defending the jihadists against us Christians and our Jewish allies.
Regards,
Michael St. Joseph
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/author/michael-st-joseph/
Michael, I'm afraid the only one with Stockholm Syndrome here is you, and perhaps others here who so vigorously defend Zionism and American imperialism. I am an unreconstructed Southerner and a practical Roman Catholic. Let me explain this to you in just two words -- JUST WAR.
Pope John Paul II took President G.W. Bush to task publicly, stating our 'pre-emptive' invasion of Iraq did not qualify as a 'Just War' under Thomas Acquinas' teachings.
I am very familiar with the intentions of the jihadists, and we certainly put them in their place in Afghanistan, but that's not the point. You can't seem to see the forest for the trees on this one Michael. Open your eyes, if you can.
Everything has a cause and effect. America stuck its nose into Iran (covertly) back in 1953, and we've been dealing with the blowback every since. Then because of that blowback in 1979, we stuck our nose into Iraq during the 1980s, which resulted in the blowback against our ally and trading partner Kuwait. Thus we stuck our nose into Saudi Arabia this time, which resulted in the blowback against the World Trade Center in 1993 and again in 2001 along with the Pentagon. Our foreign policy has consequences. That's the nature of blowback. Things generally just don't happen out of the blue. The Muslims have desired a worldwide caliphate for over a thousand years now -- nothing new here. So why now all of a sudden they spring up out of nowhere and try establish it? Simple. We are enabling them by giving them the focus of evil they need to rally their troops.
There is something you need to learn about knights Michael. We don't go on crusades against Muslims without prior authorisation from the pope. The pope has not given such authorisation. In fact, he's spoken out against Western invasions of the Middle East, on more than one occasion. You can go through the history of Christianity and Islam all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the pope has not authorised a crusade against Middle Eastern Muslims. Sorry, it just hasn't happened.
The only crusade I'm on is the crusade against relativism, which the pope has authorised in more messages than I can count. Again, as I said above to Pete. The federal government cannot be reformed. This matter of moral relativism (abortion, euthanasia, gay-marriage, etc.) must be left up to the states, which many have already demonstrated their willingness and ability to do something positive about it. Here in my home state of Missouri we have already placed a constitutional ban on gay-marriage and driven nearly every abortion clinic out of the state. We are doing just fine on moral issues, thank you, and the only thing we need from the next president is to get the federal government off our backs! Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate in the mix who understands this concept.
Now as I said, the only one suffering from Stockholm Syndrome is you. You are defending the American imperial actions that have killed your Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq and sponsored uprisings that did the same in Egypt and Libya. Next it will be Syria. Christians will die by the hundreds soon, and you support this!?! You defend this!?! Stockholm Syndrome!?! Yep, you've got it -- bad.
Dear Catholic Knight,
I am a traditionalist Catholic. I agree with you that Ron Paul is the best candidate amongst all of them. He may not be perfect but he is what America needs now.
Muslims have been attacking the West since the 8th century AD, yet you claim jihad has not happened in a 1,000 years? The fall of Constantinople was in 1453, the Armenian Genocide was 1915, Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims in the Mid East have had their necks hewn, Churches burned, children slaughtered and enslaved, and cities bombed continuously for 14 centuries.
And your answer is 'we deserve it'? We are the 'focus of evil'?
You are identifying with our enemies and blaming the true victims - the very definition of the Stockholm Syndrome.
It is important to note that the Church waited four centuries to resppond to the initial Islamic conquests - waiting in vain while her people were slaughtered and enslaved. The Church is infallible on questions of faith and morals, not necessarily on matters of global politics and war.
It is an article of the Catholic faith that God has instituted governments on earth to protect the people. Perhaps the Church has not responded more forcefully to the threat of militant Islam because the armies of the West have been emasculated by the European equivalents of Ron Paul.
As Stalin famously asked during the Cold War "how many divisions does the Pope have?" John Paul II sided with US might to help defeat the Soviets because the Vatican has no army.
Each secular ruler has the authority and responsibility to wage War to protect his people. Our current efforts against Islam do fit St. Augustines criteria for Just War.
I'm with you CK. This mindless militarism has got to stop, and of all the candidates, Ron Paul offers the best chance of this happening. I am very leery of any leader who seems a little too anxious to go to war, and I really see this in Santorum and Bachman. Maybe I'm cynical, but the US has not been justified in going to war since WWII. You speak of blowback. In many of the debates Ron Paul will ask how we (the US) would feel if some other country was doing that to us? Bingo. The kind of wars that American has been involved in since WWII are just another form of a huge government program, and sadly with deadly consequences.
The mindless and effete pacifism displayed by the blame-America-first Paul supporters here is every bit as much in error as is the mindless relativism we all oppose.
If the West does not defend herself against her enemies, the danger will only increase. As tolkein wrote in the LOTR, those without swords may still die upon them.
Okay Michael, let's be reasonable here. You need to stop and listen to yourself. What you are advocating is total war. There is a difference between defending America and acting like an empire. I don't think foreign policy should be based on fictional novels. We are not battling Sauron and his army of orks. This is not an epic struggle of good against evil. It is not the purpose of the United States of America to avenge the massacres of Muslims against various peoples around the world. We are not a 'tool' to be used in some grand scheme to bring down the Arab nations. I see what you're looking for is a crusade. Well, then go put on your armour, see if you can raise a little army, and then you go first! I have no desire to follow you.
The pope has not called for any such modern crusade, so I will not be part of it. As for America, we are not the world's policeman. When it comes to the war against the jihadists, the only legitimate action our troops have ever seen is in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan they fought and died for America. In Iraq they fought and died for western oil interests. In Afghanistan you have a just war, which was pure retaliation for 9-11. Nobody ever said anything about that, not even the pope. Because we were right and just to go in there, based on what they did to our people. It should have stopped there, but it didn't. Then we went on into Iraq, then we orchestrated uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and now Syria. Who are the CIA working with? They're working with the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD of all people! Our government, under G.W. Bush cut deals with these monsters, and those deals are now being carried out under the administration of Barack H. Obama!
American involvement in the Middle East is anything but a crusade. It has nothing to do with helping Christians in the Middle East (like the original crusades did) because everything we are doing is resulting in the death of Christians over there. They're dropping like flies! And we are doing NOTHING to help them. All we are doing is making everything worse for them. Listen to the Christians in the Middle East, they will tell you. They want America out, both military and covert operations!
Let's use your own information, and follow your logic to its most natural conclusion. You say Muslims have been at war with the West for 1,000 years now. I agree with you. Some Muslims have been. (Not all but certainly some.) So by your own admission, things have been pretty messed up in the Middle East for at least a good 1,000 years or so. Again, I agree with you. The only lasting time of peace the Middle East has ever known was when it was ruled by Christians. Moving on, you say that Muslims are unruly and warlike. Again, I agree, while most Muslims are not, a large enough sub-culture is always causing problems for them, and they seem unable to police their own religion. So by extension, we must admit that so long as Muslims live in the Middle East, there will never be peace in the Middle East. The Middle East will always be a tinderbox of warfare and extremism. So now what?...
...We are involved in the Middle East so deeply it's like an octopus wrapped up with its tentacles. Since Muslims can never have peace in the Middle East, and so long as we are involved, the potential for blowback is high for us, than there are only three options available for us. (1) We can stay over there forever, in perpetual occupation and covert operations, exhausting our war chest and continuing to make more enemies. (2) We can nuke the whole Middle East, killing all of them, turning the region into a sea of glass. (3) We can slowly disengage, pulling our troops and interests out of the region, and warning the radical Muslims that if they ever try anything like 9-11 again, the consequences will be far worse.
I'm for option #3. So is Ron Paul. The problem with all the other GOP candidates is that they fail to see their foreign policy will lead to either option #1 or #2. Since I don't think anyone has the stomach for option #2, it looks like option #1 will be chosen, and as a result we can look forward to perpetual warfare with Arab Muslims forever.
Now as I said, when it comes to American foreign policy, I prefer not to use fictional novels, but rather two sources as our guide. These would be (1) the Christian faith as expressed in the New Testament and the teachings of the Church, and (2) the writings of the Founding Fathers who warned us against entangling alliances, the influence of international corporations, and perpetual wars. You can make your ridiculous comparisons to "Stockholm Syndrome" if you want, but I don't think you're medically qualified to make such a diagnosis and bantering around that term makes you look like a warmongering fanatic who is just looking for an excuse to bomb people.
I have allowed you to comment here for one reason, and one reason only. That is to demonstrate to my readers the kind of mentality that goes into the foreign policy American taxpayers are currently funding. Now you can go ahead and rant all you want in response, but I am done with you and others like you. You may want to keep your response short and to the point, because I will not let you turn this thread into a soapbox for warmongering. You have been fairly warned.
I have neither the time nor inclination to debate with reactionary pacifists; nor will I engage the type of straw men arguments in which you wallow (Such as my advocating total war or wanting to battle orcs).
As far as the legitimate arguments you've advanced above are concerned(and admittedly, there are some very reasonable ones) I have covered them all many times over and don't wish to reargue them here.
If interested you can read my published work on this and other topics (the majority of which we would agree upon)at:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/author/michael-st-joseph/
Sir Knight, tochee to some of your comments about Santorum. I agree he is unelectable due to the scenario you put out about the GOP as the party of losers (Just ask Bob Dole and John McCain). But the thought of either Gingrich or Romney on the ticket fills me with dread. While I agree that the AMerican "empire" needs to come to an end (just read Pat Buchanan's latest book), and while Rick is a "part of that problem" I would prefer his hand on the red telephone than any of the others. Sure he made a blunder supporting 1 bullet Specter, but atleast now Toomey is in the Senate. I agree with you that DC is totally out of control and corrupt beyond redemption, but as i have argued before that doesnt ipso facto insure good govt at the state level (just ask Gov Blagovich) I know in my head Rick cant win, but my heart tells me MORALLY he is the best of an imperfect bunch. But i will probably need a barf bag when i go to vote next Nov God help us. Pete Frey
Do you believe that St Louis and the Crusaders, or Don Juan and the Holy Leaguers, or Charles the Hammer Martel and his Knights who stopped the Mohammedans at Tours were defending the West against Muslim belligerents? Or were our Christian forebears to blame for Muslim attacks against us back then as well?
Although I personally think the crusades were justifiable acts of defense, it is interesting you bring them up. The Crusades, justified or not, were military disasters for the most part. Martel, on the other hand was fighting invaders; not going to other lands to liberate. Ditto with Ferdinand and Isabella - they were fighting on home turf against invaders. What we are doing in the ME is closer to the crusades, not Martel and F&I. If they land on American soil and try to conquer, then you betcha they are going to meet resistance - armed resistance. But that is a far different thing from trapsing around the globe looking for monsters to slay (there may in fact be plenty of them, but the US is in no economic codntion to slay them, even if it wanted to and even if it was justified to do so).
For those of you sympathizing with Muslim Terrorist for attacking the United States. The Christian world sympathized the same way with them before they saw the light and started the crusades. Chamberlin and his cronies felt the same way about the Nazi's, despite Churchill's warnings. You will follow Ron Paul and repeat the same mistakes those pacifist did.
If you don't think Israel has rights in the Middle East then go burn you bible now. I do not see Israels children strapping bombs on themselves to kill non-Israelis. I only see one side doing that, do you not? The only thing I ever see them do is retaliate so say what you want but actions speaker much louder than words.
I'll say it this way. Newt Gingrich is the only one running who went to Washington and made some changes (that includes Ron Paul who in several decades made no changes). That's why they hate Mr. Gingrich so much and you all fall for it. Do not even attempt to put Newt in the same category as Romney as Romney has not changed anything in government except to make it bigger and more powerful.
Mr Knight,
I am with you all the way in your comments regarding American military campaigns in the Middle East. America is run by and for corporations and the rich elite (including politicians), This includes its wars, where its brave men and women who fight these wars are sacrificed not for ideals but for material gain of a very few.
Why so many otherwise intelligent and orthodox Catholics think a false dichotomy exists between conservative republicans ("good") and left-wing liberals ("evil") continues to elude and vex me. I have thought long and hard about this question, and I suspect it has to do with the corrupting influence of material wealth.
Note to Michael St. Joseph, Intellectual Conservative - as a cultural conservative myself who knows the conservative intellectual tradition well (I grew up in an eccentric home where the ideas of Burke, Goldwater, Russell Kirk, Chesterton, etc. were read and discussed with the children on a regular basis), I wish to state that calling Mr Knight a "reactionary pacifist" is not supported by the facts. In fact it is childish name-calling. I personally know a number of combat veterans who oppose the Iraq war because they see that it is about money and deliberate destabilization of the Middle East which will eventually result in the collapse of America. The fact that you can't see this is sad, but I won't call you a "brainwashed neocon" because of it.
Luciana
Thanks you, Mr. Knight for shedding light on the issue with the Republicans. CatholicOnline writer Matt Barber smeared Ron Paul with fanatical gusto today, painting him to be an irresponsible extremist. How sad. Santorum supported Arlen Spectre whose big name career was launched by his choosing to defend Charles Manson. Santorum also will lead us into WWIII to protect the terrorist state of Israel. No, Israeli terrorist don't commit suicide in their attacks. They just steal land and kill those for protesting whose land they have stolen. I certainly do not defend Moslem killers, but commenters like Steve ignore the fact that 100 times as many Arabs, Christians and Moslem, have died by means of Israeli guns and bombs than the number of Israeli Jews.
Paul recognizes the no-win nightmare for what it is in the Mid-East. The American imperialist policy fuels the hatred. Arabs and other Mid-East peoples know why we have troops there. To protect global oil interests, which adds up to fighting Israel's wars. So, Paul speaks common sense, bring the troops home and stop foreign aid to belligerent countries that take our money and kick us in back while laughing at American stupidity.
Mike
Mr Knight,
Please see the following article about Gingrich:
http://newswithviews.com/Cumbey/constance130.htm
His treatment of women aside (speaking personally, I am always very cynical about so-called "repentant sinners" who seek wealth and fame instead of penitent obscurity) his affiliations as outlined in this article would be a big red flag.
Luciana
Steve,
Walk into a Melchite, Marounite or Chaldean church and try and defend yourself; this heterodoxy IS hurting Middle Eastern Christians TODAY!! It IS HURTING YOUR PALESTINIAN EASTERN RIGHT CATHOLIC BRETHEREN TODAY!!Shame on you! Have a care for them and know that they are not only suffering at the hands of the likes of Fatah et al but also at the hands of israel, who have long viewed them as expendible. have a care for the orthodox priests in the Palestinian territories who have been bumped off by Mossad one after the other (not on some tin foil internet news site, but on Australia's flag-ship news service some five years ago now). Newt is incapable of defending the Indigenous Arab Christian population in IL/ME; neither recognizing them nor viewing them as legitimate.
once again, have a care, and remember the past - many indigenous ME Christians suffered under the Crusades to supposedly liberate them from Islam ; does the sacking of Constantinople in the early years of the 13th century (if memory serves me correctly on the date) ring a bell?
Many ME Christians feel utterly betrayed.
Once again, have a care,
A once again royally mad Marounite!!
I thank you Sir Knight for having the courage to stand up for Dr. Paul. As a midwife, I met him in 1989 when I had to transport a woman to his office. I have never met a more humble, gentlemanly doctor. But that, of course, is not why I am voting for Dr. Paul and NO ONE ELSE. I always try to vote for the most conservative Republican, and always vote for the republican in the general election. But I usually am voting for the lesser of two evils. This time I am voting for the best man no matter what. And that man, that modern day Thomas Jefferson, is Ron Paul. Of course the founders were libertarians. And for that very reason, we should realize that we need to go towards libertarianism. Remember the scene from A Man for All Seasons where St. Thomas More says that he would give Satan himself the benefit of the Law, and if we cut down all the laws, man's laws, then we ourselves would have nowhere to hide. Ron Paul is the only one who will truly uphold the constitution, and its the constitution that is the true law of the United States. Of course God's law is higher, but if the constitution is truly followed by the GOVERNMENT, then the PEOPLE will always have the LIBERTY to follow God's law to the utmost, however they understand God's law and desire to follow it. Thank you for your bravery and have a Blessed Christmas.
We should shoulder the duty of reminding all who now oppose Ron Paul within the GOP that we will make sure a repeat of 1996 results from their opposition.
We should tell them that if Romney loves America he will withdraw now and support Ron Paul.
We should repeat those memes as often as possible.
I hadn't planned on carrying on this debate any longer, but after what happened in Nigeria on Christmas I could no longer hold my peace.
I ask you what did our Nigerian Catholic brothers and sisters do to deserve to be murdered in their own Churches on Christmas day?
According to the pacifist blame-the-victim Ron Paul sycophants around here, Muslims don't attack the innocent, so the bombers must be the real victims and those dastardly Catholics the real perpetrators, right?
Quit blaming the innocent and prostrating yourselves before these evil murdering bastards already!
Michael, you're propping up a strawman argument here. Nobody here blames Christians for their persecution by Muslims, and I don't think anyone here is a pacifist -- certainly not me.
The event that happened in Nigeria was a tragic event of martyrdom and a cowardly act of evil committed by Muslim jihadists. What shall we do about it? Shall we bomb Nigeria now? Is that what you are suggesting? I don't think you are suggesting that, but if you stop and reread your own comments, that might be construed as the logical conclusion of your argument.
I am not a pacifist, and neither is Ron Paul nor his supporters. If somebody attacks America, than we should strike back, and we did after 9/11 we destroyed the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. What Ron Paul and I object to is the notion that America is the world's policeman, that we must enter into every conflict and atrocity as if it is our business to rectify every situation. What Ron Paul and I object to is the manipulation of our government's foreign policy by big oil and money cartels that buy off our politicians and coax them into making war against countries that refuse to trade with these money and oil cartels.
Nobody blames Christians here Michael. Your argument is a strawman. We blame Muslims for being jihadist terrorists, and Zionists for being hypocritical tyrants. We blame secular oil and money cartels for manipulating our foreign policy, and American Evangelicals (along with some American Catholics) for falling for the dispensationalist heresy that promotes all this.
Those Christians who died in Nigeria are innocent victims, just as the Christians who died in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine.
If you think bombing Muslims into the stone age is going to solve that problem, you've got a surprise coming. Even people bombed into the stone age can fight back. The only problem is they usually lash out upon those whom they can reach, and in this case, that includes Middle Eastern Christians.
Nobody here ever said Muslims don't attack innocent people -- certainly not me anyway -- and nobody I know is suggesting that. That's a strawman Michael. Please get your facts straight before posting this nonsense.
Mike, the Muslims have been killing Christians in Africa forever. It's not Ron Paul's fault that those people died. It is the fault of the Nigerian government who failed to control the Muslim extremists. It is their responsibility, not ours to bring the Muslims to heel.
Also Mike, where are the Muzzies getting all the money they need to finance jihad? The last time I looked, it was coming from the oil they sell to us. Hey, maybe we should start using our own oil reserves, such as shale oil and off-shore oil sources that the enviromental wackos won't allow us to use becase we're so dang afraid of pollution. Yep, we could cripple Muslim terrorism withot firing one shot by drilling for our own oil in America.
I am not making straw man arguments here. There are two competing and mutually exclusive premises put forth here: I maintain that Islam is an expansionist, violent, religio-political world view whose adherents have always wagedd war against non-believers; on the other hand you and Ron Paul suggest that Muslim violence is an understandable reaction to the political moves made by the United States and Israel. This is demostrably false as an understanding of historical relations between Islam and the rest of the world will attest.
Moreover you make the claim that the US went to war in Iraq for oil and monetary interests. This is outrageous and you don't even offer the slightest shred of evidence or argumentation to support this thesis.
Islam has always been an enemy to free and moderate peoples across all cultures. This will not change if the US suddenly retreated before its global obligations.
Michael, it was a straw man argument because you misrepresented my position (see above). Now you are changing your version of my position, which is at least a little closer to accurate (though not entirely), but it is at least close enough to actually discuss some of your general premises, not all of which are wrong.
I will agree with you that Islam is violent. While not all Muslims are violent, a large enough minority of them are, and the non-violent majority does not seem to have the faculties to police them. This violent faction of Islam is now, and has always been, a threat to their non-Muslim neighbours, but I also assert that they are just as much a threat to their fellow Muslims when they have no one else to kill. Yes it is true that this violent faction needs to be erradicated, but the question is who does it? And how should it be done?
For the most part, this violent faction of Muslims have never been a threat to the United States which is deeply nestled in the Western Christian world. Prior to 9-11, these violent Muslims were only a problem to their immediate neighbours in the Middle East and other Islamic regions. However, our involvement in Middle Eastern politics has caused the violent factions to focus their rage on us in addition to their immediate neighbours. Both the 93' bombing and the 9-11 bombing on the WTC were manifestations of this. I have never questioned that the United States was justified in retaliation for these events. What comes around goes around.
The question here is what do we do beyond that? And is it our place to police Muslims around the world? I assert that the answer to the first question is to now disengage from a position of strength, having accomplished our goals in Iraq and Afgahanastan. I also assert that the answer to the second question is 'no' it is not our place to police the world's violent faction of Muslims. When they attack us directly, sure! We should kick their a**, but we shouldn't go cruising through their regions looking for a fight either.
I know full well that the behaviour of violent Muslims will not change with or without American intervention, but that is exactly my point. They are not going to change, at all, ever! The only thing that will change them is a conversion experience to Jesus Christ. That is a job for missionaries and martyrs, not the United States military nor the CIA....
...The notion that you seem to be asserting is that we should be militarily and covertly involved in the Middle East, BECAUSE Muslims are violent and they must be policed. If that's what you're saying I believe you are sorely mistaken. They should be policed, but by their neighbours, (Muslim and Non-Muslim alike) not by us.
We should be concerned with getting our affairs in order here, and shoring up our demographics shortage, so we don't end up having to import Muslim immigrants to our region like Europe has, thus importing Middle Eastern problems into our own area.
The biggest problem facing America is not violent Muslims in the Islamic world. Our biggest problem is our demographic crisis, which is caused by our moral degeneration and a general loss of Christian faith. This effects us both socially and economically, and we are seeing the results all around us. The greatest threat Muslims present to us is if we lose this battle against Secularism. If Christendom falls (in totality) than our population will fall too (via low fertility rates), and just like Europe, we will be forced to take in Muslims to shore up our population gap. That's the real threat we face.
The position of Ron Paul mirrors my own position. That is these wars and covert operations in the Middle East have absolutely NOTHING to do with policing violent Muslims. In fact, we are actually working with violent Muslism (the Muslim Brotherhood in particular) to achieve our desires. These wars, and covert operations, are designed to exploit Middle Eastern resources (for the financial gain of corporations not our country) at the expense of our country. To do this we need to tax our people highly, and shore up the short fall by printing money through the Federal Reserve. This impoverishes all of us through heavy taxation and steep inflation. It's designed to make a very small group of people very VERY rich, while impoverish Americans while raping Arabs of their resources. It gives America a tremendous amount of military and economic clout internationally (though not necessarily at home), by creating an imperial hegemony. That's why NOTHING WILL EVER BE DONE about the church bombing in Nigeria. Nigeria has no resources big money cartels are interested in. So America will no nothing. The only areas we will seriously involve ourselves in are those rich with oil or minerals. Last I checked, Nigeria had nothing.
That's how American foreign policy works Michael. That's the cold hard truth. We are not knights in shining armour protecting the weak and punishing the wicked. Far from it. American foreign policy is about $$$$, and nothing more. It's not money for you and me. It's not money for the benefit of Americans. It's money for a very small number of people who are already rich enough to buy off our politicians before they ever get elected. That's how it works Michael. We're not the good guys here. Not us. There are no good guys -- except maybe the those dying in their churches.
Thank you, Catholic Knight, for your insightful remarks regarding the upcoming election (especially your defense of Ron Paul), and for illuminating the diverse problems with our foreign policy. Some previous commentors have wrongly implied that Ron Paul is a pacifist-- he isn't. Essentially, he is advocating for a constitutional foreign policy, one that respects the constitutional mandate to receive a declaration of war from congress before engaging in battle. The last time we went to war with a declaration from Congress was WWII, meaning that all of these other wars we've been fighting were unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Also, I cannot support Rick Santorum, because he has advocated for these wars, even against the express rebuttal of Pope John Paul II http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html He also, as has been mentioned, backed Arlen Specter. Additionally, he routinely voted to increase the size of the federal government while he held office. We are going to stop fighting these wars one way or another; either we voluntarily follow a constitutional approach, or we print and borrow so much money that our currency collapses, hyper-inflation sets in, and we are forced to withdraw.
Zionism is against the teachings of the church. Anyone supporting any of the candidates other than Paul is in favor of Zionism and is apostate. This is an important fact for all Catholics to educate themselves on and take into serious consideration.
The rest are crony corporatists as well. Distributism as taught by Chesterton/Belloc is most closely resembled by the state subsidiarity espoused by Dr. Paul. The author here is correct in that calling Paul a libertarian is not accurate. The word "libertarian" is a modern construct, but Pauls philosophy predates what has been pigeonholed as "liberatrianism" by centuries.
Calling him an "objectivist" is even more absurd, a common smear now, and many sadly believe is son is named after Ayn Rand. This is patently false, his full name is Randal. This has been told and re-told by Rand and Ron Paul repeatedly (videos still abound on YouTube) and people still find only the truth they seek.
I am a Catholic, and of course Ron Paul is not perfect. Why must be preface every sentence on Paul with "he isn't perfect," when was the last time you prefaced that about any other political figure? Why the obligatory (dis)qualifier? It's absurd. Anyhow, I'm a lifelong Catholic, and although I'm not perfect, I will definitely be voting for Paul, as any American who calls themselves a Catholic out to do.
Democracy is indeed a sham, which is why the empire wants to impose it upon foreign nations. It is based on the strange notion that you need the force of government to carry out the will of the majority. Of course if the majority truly want something they would get it voluntarily. What democracy really means is getting everyone else to pay for the things you want but would not pay for on your own. It is a greedy, hypocritical form of government.
Ron Paul campaigned valiantly and drew enthusiastic crowds unlike any other candidate. Yet Republicans apparently want a guy who instituted Obamacare in Massachusetts or a Catholic who supported a pro-abortion Republican senator who turned Democrat at the next election.
I've noticed the Democrats always get what they campaign for regardless of what party is in charge. Ron Paul is the only candidate who would give us something different than the warfare/welfare state that has bankrupted us and destroyed freedom. Apparently there is not much interest in the Republican party in the Republican platform. The funniest thing to me was seeing how those who support the Tea Party movement voted. In CNN's polling Santorum got the most support from those who favored the Tea Party. Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement! It was his ideas and passion that launched it. The Republican Party is the stupid party. God save us from them and the Democrats.
A Catholic's Case for Ron Paul
http://www.altcatholicah.com/altcatol/a/b/spa/4383/
Nice blog. I did a search for Ron Paul Catholics because I can no longer stomach the Neocons on other (that shall remain nameless) blogs. I see Steve Dalton here, good to "see" you, Steve. Why hang out with war mongers and phoneys who pretend to be pro-life but want the US bombing the whole world for Israel. Santorum, ugh.
"I see what you're looking for is a crusade. Well, then go put on your armour, see if you can raise a little army, and then you go first! I have no desire to follow you."
Well said!! But these chickenhawks are the last ones who will go over there and fight the zionists wars. That is for those who aren't as important or as elite.
Sir Knight,
From my position here in Australia, I have been shocked to learn of the so called 'independant' media juggernauts known as 'Super Packs' who, while not directly affiliated with one political party or another are guns for hire - their brief to expressly destroy the candidate against whom their 'employers' are running.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/
Search yesterday's (Wednesday's) programme for more information, including audio and complete text transcripts shed light on these shannanigans.
Of interest, the journalist covering the political race interviewed many who are simply fed up with the soul destroying depths to which the political race has descended in the US. Sir Knight and readers, I believe the people are sick and tired of said ratbags who peddle character assassination etc. as a legitimate means of knocking out the opponent or throwing the match altogether. The people just might at last stand up to this filth and lodge the biggest protest vote in generations!! I shall continue to pray over the US electoral process.
blessings,
Sarah,
Australia.
Well, I do hope you are right Sarah, but the history of American voters is to ignore problems until they lead to bloodshed. Let's hope we've finally learned our lesson.
Imagine having to have the congress declare war before committing US troops to fight anywhere in the world.
What were those founding father nutjobs thinking?!?
I tend not to vote for any republican or democrate. I see little difference between the one party. I usually vote for third party orthodox Catholic candidates. These would see to make the best Presidents for our country.
Democracy is a sham, which is why the Founders avoided it and started a constitutional republic...which now has been obsoleted since about 1861...
Yeah, it's looking like the Iowa caucus was rigged, according to folks who were there.
Post a Comment