Dear Catholic reader, if you live in the United States, or you know any Catholic who lives in the United States, I implore you to share this video with as many Catholics as possible. Please get this message out. The future of the United States, and the stability of the world, hangs in the balance. Feel free to use the 'share' icons below, or cut and paste this URL to an email: http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2012/01/catholic-vote-2012.html(The Remnant) - No one is more critical of libertarian error and nonsense than this Remnant columnist, but given the field of liberals that American politics has always been, in this election Paul is far and away the liberal who will do us the least harm. And unlike the serial philanderer Gingrich, Paul is a genuinely decent man, concerning whom even the ultra-sensitive nostrils of the media jackals have been unable to detect so much as a whiff of scandal. In the rogues gallery of American party politics that is saying quite a lot...
Christopher A. Ferrara
read full story here
Please spread the word.
18 comments; post here:
last polling before sc primary shows gingrich and paul catching up.
romney at 32, gingrich 26, paul 24, santorum 18
see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4IJYppcwds
http://cpctcss.org/
Sir Knight,
While I agree with much of what Mr. Woods is saying here, (and I am a Ron Paul supporter), I do take a couple of issues with one of his statements.
He referred to His Holiness JPII as calling the war in Iraq "morally wrong". While I agree the Pope is a much more qualified moral theologian for these matters (I am neither Catholic nor a "fan" of GWB but this bears saying) With all due respect to the Pope, His Holiness was not present during any of the CIA briefings or any other discussions that led to the decision to declare war in Iraq. You know as well as I do, it takes an act of Congress to declare war. This was one of the "beefs" I had with the Dems attacking Bush over "his" war. My US senator (a liberal democrat) was actually on the senate intelligence committee and HE made a speech on the senate floor saying there was reason to declare war. While all the "evidence" for this war may have proven pointless, all information is processed in the environment in which it is received. We knew for years Saddam had chemical weapons he used on the Kurds. However, knowing Saddam had chemical weapons on 9/10 is different than knowing he had them on 9/12.
And this brings me to another illustration (which Mr. Woods did NOT mention) but I think bears mentioning. I read a comment that Pope Benedict XVI had weighed in that he believed executed murderer Troy Davis was innocent. While I respect the Church's position on the death penalty and respect the Pope's judgment on the morality of the death penalty, Mr. Davis was condemned by a jury of 12 people and his case had gone through several courts one even granted an extraordinary stay to look at possible evidence of his innocence and yet no court in the land found "reasonable doubt".
I speak (write) with the utmost respect for the Church and Her leadership (while I'm not a Catholic I am a "flying buttress" supporting the church from the outside.
The H.F. was not privy to what went on in the jury room nor was he (that I'm aware of) involved in any of the court proceedings.
My point is, I believe the pope(s) while making a moral stand on a broad issue like war or the death penalty, we should also acknowledge the pope doesn't always have the same information the decision makers have.
Cordially,
Michael D. Duty
Santorum has been awarded Iowa, and it looks like Gingrich will win SC tonight. Getting interesting.... might not be just a "coronate Romney because he's next in line" primary after all.
Win, lose or draw, I would LOVE to see Gingrich be the nominee for no other reason than he would mortally skewer Obama in the debates.
Mr Knight, I assume by your posting of this biased video, that you support Ron Paul. A few facts are in order here: first off Rick Santorum's pro life, pro family bonae fidaes are beyond question. THe lunatic Paul actually may be just another "personally opposed" candidate, no matter how many babies he may have delivered. He just wants the Federal govt out of the abortion business, and is perfectly comfortable with it becoming a state matter, so he would divide the country into red and blue states according to their favoring (or not) of abortion. Naming his son for the arch-libertarian Ayn Rand clearly demonostrates his support of an atheistic, immoral philosophy of "objectivism" And yes, I have read Atlas Shrugs--- its a piece of trash. Ron Paul's lunatic foreign policy is a sure guarantee of WWIII, refusing to see any danger in an Iranian nuclear power. Mr Woods in your video glosses over these drawbacks in eliciting support for Paul, the wacko on the campaign trail. Santorum is at least an orthodox, pro life catholic, and his stand on the federal budget is not at all a valid reason which catholics need not support him. Once again, Sir Knight your radicalism is showing. Pete Frey
Pete, we can disagree on this issue from now till Kingdom come, but if you're going to attack Ron Paul you really should leave his son out it. He was NOT named after Ayan Rand. That is a myth. His actual name is Randal Howard Paul. Look it up. He goes by "Rand" as a nickname. He has since childhood. - his choice, not his father's.
Gingrich won big in South Carolina; therefore, it would be the 1st time since 1976 that South Carolina didn't choose the Republican nominee if Newt didn't become the eventual nominee. Hopefully, history will repeat itself as South Carolina has successfully chosen the eventual Republican nominee since 1980; between Newt and shallow plastic Romney, I will go for Newt.
Considering the primary election results in South Carolina tonight it seems now that Newt Gingrich has a strong chance at becoming the Republican nominee, so long as he keeps up the pressure against Mitt Romney.
That being said, I would say that Rick Santorum stands a very strong chance at being tapped for vice president by Newt, assuming he bows out of the race at a reasonable time and pays the former speaker homage with some cordial public remarks and a few private phone calls. A Gingrich/Santorum ticket would be a powerful one. What Gingrich lacks in moral credibility, Santorum makes up for in his personal life.
Sadly, they are both staunch Neoconservatives. They will pander to big business, allowing small business to be crushed by unfair competition, and likely take the nation to war.
The only glimmer of hope with such a ticket is the fact that both of them are members of the Catholic Church. This gives the Vatican a little (albeit very small) pull with a Gingrich/Santorum administration. Perhaps, just maybe, this could be used to temper their neocon tendencies and restore some sanity to American foreign policy. It's just a small hope, but some hope nonetheless.
As for Ron Paul, the future looks obvious from here on. Ron Paul peaked in South Carolina. It's all downhill from here for his campaign. Pity. Conservative Christians have made their choice. They've opted for big-government Conservatism and war. Very well, that's what it shall be then.
Not so fast. Newt is not even in the ballot in certain states like Virginia. What has happened is that the nomination process has become an extended process. It is anybody's ballgame now. It would seem to be a Romney vs Paul fight in the latter half. I see Santorum dropping out first followed by Gingrich.
I hope you are right anonymous. Ron Paul gets my vote and caucus support this year -- no matter what.
While Rick may be pro-life, his judgment is not unassailable, even on the pro-life issues. Remember Toomey. He sold out principle for pragmatism. Who's to say he wouldn't do it again. Moreover, as for arguing a vote for Paul = a vote for WWIII; maybe. But a vote for Santorum is a guaranty of WWIII, and a guaranty of our involvement in, if not instigation of, it. His foreign policy is atrocious.
This is true. World War III will be linked to Zionism and oil shock doctrine. These are Republican issues - primarily - and a vote for Romney, Newt or Santorum GUARANTEES greater stride toward WWIII and our involvement in it. It also guarantees American assistance of Islamic radicals in Syria and other nations, just as we helped them in Egypt and Libya. This of course guarantees more Christians in the Middle East will suffer and die.
Although Paul is sincere and truthful, he is more of a professor personality than the warrior personality that a country like the US craves. However, a warrior must also be wise and the belligerence of our foreign policy and neocon nation building fanaticism is not wise. We need a philosopher warrior who combines strength with wisdom. Romney is the opposite of that; he is as shallow baby boomer who doesn't take his own religion seriously but rather worships big business. A Romney nomination guarantees an Obama win as conservatives like myself would not bother to vote at all in November. The Obama people know this and are already supporting Romney in secret.
It seems like in the general election, you are going to support Obama. After all, you have posted several times you think a second Obama term in pre-destined. Are you a closet Obama supoorter? That would explain why you are viciously tearing down all the GOP contenders except for Paul, a "kook" in the style of Dennis Kuchinich, Jerry Brown, and Ross Perot, who has NO CHANCE of ever beating Obama.
LOL! That's funny anonymous. Me, an Obama supporter? You must be joking. Obama is God's chastisement on America, but he is just the beginning. No, I'll never vote for Obama, but just because I stand up for what I know to Be true and right does not mean I support the enemy.
You assume that because others don't think as you, (that we should just settle for whoever looks like they can beat Obama no matter how awful that person is), that they must secretly be supporting the enemy. How shallow. Surly you can do better than that.
Catholic Knight,
Tom Woods is an open dissenter when regards Papal Social Teaching. He picks and chooses which statements of the Popes he will follow. So I think you should take down this video of him.
I disagree. Tom Woods is not a papal dissenter at all. He does disagree with Distributists in how the pope's social encyclicals should be interpreted, in particular his interpretation of Subsidiarity puts him in line with the Austrian-Libertarian Capitalists. In this respect, I believe Woods is wrong and he is making a grave error, but I don't believe that makes him a heretic. To his credit, Woods properly interprets Subsidiarity insofar as the role of government in our daily lives, and most especially in how that relates I foreign policy. So the video stays up.
Good evening Sir Knight. I am pleased to say Ron Paul is still in the game. It's all about the delegates. And Ron Paul will be picking up more, so he is in it for long haul. And I believe it will be a Romney/Paul race very soon. Why Newt and Rick can't win: http://teapartywpbfl.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/newt-rick-unelectable-failed-to-register-in-states-ballots-totaling-564-delegates/
In regards to Mr Duty's comments. I have been a catholic all of my life and with respect to your respect of my faith, my pope is the representative of Jesus Christ Himself and I truly believe with all of my being that Jesus was present during all of the CIA briefings and other discussions that led to the decision to declare war in Iraq. Therefore, what the pope declares is what my Lord declares. Does God commandment "Thou shall not kill" ring a bell. It just does not make since to kill a person for killing a person. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Respectfully your,
Diane Seville
Post a Comment