+
It is perplexing to me that many so-called Traditional Catholics will consider a man with a Libertarian Platform, a set of beliefs that hauntingly resemble the platform of the French Revolutionaries ("Liberty" Ad Nauseam). Ask Dr. Paul if he favors the restoration of a Catholic Monarchy?
You should study your history before questioning a historian. Yes, Ron Paul's views hail from the idea of liberty in revolution, but OUR revolution, not the one in France.
And even they recognized the need for a bit more order. And he mentions his "Libertarian Platform" in nearly every speech, though it goes by a more common name.
It begins "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union...".
I don't have a link for the text of George Washington and the Pope's dialog, but it was welcoming in both directions.
I don't understand if the whole exercise was to throw off an Anglican Monarchy why a Catholic Monarchy is even relevant.
Speaking of which, I hope Relevant Radio covers this latest (excellent) article by Thomas Woods, but it is only a hope for the reasons given in my comment upgraded to a post.
On a final note calling for charity but creating a contrast, here is the latest Huckabee ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E...h?
v=EjYv2YW6azE
What do "Value Voters" value again?
Thank you Mr. Woods for this excellent letter. Ron Paul has my vote!
One further point often missed about Ron Paul - he would have more authority than any president since Reagan. Probably more.
When the Bully pulpit is filled with someone who is the farthest thing from a bully.
Ron Paul represents balance between spiritual and temporal - church and state. And the difference is critical. And too often these are considered to be opposed - we have become used to the terms of the debate. When we think of a President's authority, it has been two decades since we've seen one with any Moral Authority.
The other candidates can only use force on issues. If any of them said "Shame on you", it would probably get a laugh. Now imagine Ron Paul saying it. That he isn't going to pass a law. That he isn't going to send in the army or police. That whatever it is - drug addictions, prostitution, reckless sports - is wrong, the consequences which he doesn't want you to have to bear, but that ultimately it is your choice. Won't that statement be a thousand times as powerful?
And I mean this more profoundly than just some talking points. Consider Reagan's "Tear down this Wall". Like some magical words of power, he spoke, and it came to pass. Ronaldus Magnus or Ronaldus Magus? And Ronaldus II comes.
He won't need executive orders, signing statements, or anything else. But will have more authority than anything the Neocons can even imagine. They can only move troops. Hearts and minds are being moved every day by this grandfatherly man from Texas.
And it is a wonder to behold.
Among the new cardinals there is reason he expressed concern for the Iraq war.
http://www.reuters.com/
articlePr...461181420071124
One of the new cardinals is Emmanuel III Delly, the Baghdad-based Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, and the Pope used the solemn occasion, known as a consistory, to express his concern for Iraq.
...
Speaking of Delly during the ceremony in St Peter's Basilica, Benedict said Christians in Iraq were "feeling with their own flesh the dramatic consequences of an enduring conflict ... "
Ron Paul is already having an influence across the world - more than any other candidate - even before the first caucus or primary. Imagine when he is president.
Words from someone ingenous and honorable are more powerful than tanks, troops and bombs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0...h?
v=07TVBLFroSM
I am sure that Dr. Paul is a man of integrity and some fine qualities even if some of his domestic ideas seem to border on the absurd and his foreign policy seems borrowed from Neville Chamberlain. And I respect those supporters of Dr. Paul who try to articulate their admiration in a moderately civil and balanced way, knowing that some of us, or perhaps most of us, do not yet feel ready to jump on the Paul bandwagon.
However, what disturbs me about the Ron Paul candidacy are the seeming rabid legions of two-fingered typists who flail away at their letters espousing support for the good Congressman as if he was Benito Mussolini and they all are wearing black shirts and practicing their stiff arm salutes between Internet breaks. Mention Ron Paul and one needs a can of Raid flying insect spray. Quite similar to the response that one gets if one should question whether having homosexual tendencies might indicate a sexual and personality disorder. Hopefully, what works on wasps and hornets will also work on flies and mosquitoes.
Check out my videos collection I put together at Ron Paul videos. It's a good site I think that everyone needs to see and then pass along to others. Ron Paul in 08'!
This moring, on "Weekend Live" (Nov. 25, 2007), on the Fox News channel, was caught in a lie over the Presidential Candidates Poll they were using.
Campaign Manager for John McCain was being interviewed and was shown a Poll on McCains Poll Standings for Iowa and Maine.
They had place McCain, at 6.4% and 6.6% in Iowa and Maine, respectively. A few minutes later, after questioning the poll ratings as to low, FOX NEWS ANCHOR APPOLOGIZED TO McCAINS CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR THE ERROR IN THE POLL NUMBERS.
THEY TURNED OUT TO BE, 16.4% AND 16.6% IN IOWA AND MAINE.
Then they went on to talk about how Ron Paul, has hit the $12 million mark, a month earlier than it was planning to.
Of course they followed this up with the reporting of Poor Poll numbers for Ron Paul. They had him at 4.4% and 4.5% in Iowa and Maine.
Even with all this support, the funding record, and now hitting the $12 million mark, a month ahead of schedule, could the Fox Poll be wrong again?
******Could it be actually, 10% more like McCains was? That would mean that Paul was actually around 14%. Interesting.
*******One bit of information. Iowas' Republican HQ has been getting slammed from phone calls, from the US MILITARY, due to the fact that Iowa has claimed that if Paul doesn't get 5% of voters, THEY WERE GOING TO LEAVE HIM OUT OF THE IOWA CAUCUS.
******THATS FUNNY, A MAN WHO BROKE ALL REPUBLICAN FUNDING RECORDS, IS GOING TO BE KEPT OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN DEBATES AND CAUCUS'S.
Could this be the possible reason for Fox News's Poll for showing such low poll numbers, to keep most of the American Voters out of the Actual Election of our Next President?
Humm, funny how that works isn't it.
NOT FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, BUT FOR THE GREEDY, BY THE GREEDY.
To protest the Republican Party HQ in Iowa, from keeping Paul out of the Debates and Caucus's, please respectively call: 515-282-8105 and show your support for the candidate that has this much support. Let them know its the peoples choice, not the BIG CORPORATIONS, LOBBIEST, NEWS MEDIA, ETC.. TO DECIDE FOR THE AMERICAN VOTERS.
Mark,
Your comment is true. However, there being no chance of the restoration of a Catholic monarchy, a vote for Dr. Paul in 2008 is the best pragmatic/prudential decision. Among the current contenders, he is the only one for whom a vote is worthy to be cast.
David C. LaPlante
Trad from Kansas
On the Catholic monarchy issue, given that there is no monarchical tradition in America to "restore," much less a Catholic one (would you prefer we revert to an Anglican monarchy, as in colonial days?), I'm curious as to how the occupant of the throne would be chosen.
I'm also curious as to why we are dealing in absurdities at a moment when all other major candidates apart from Ron Paul promise endless war and bankruptcy. This strikes me as rather an odd moment to indulge our eccentricities.
Agreed Dr. Woods. I quoted Mark out of context. I believe he was speaking more generally regarding support of the "Catholic monarchy."
+
Tom,
I realize that no candidate is in favor of a Catholic Monarchy. But more "freedom" (Ron Paul's platform) is certainly not the answer. I don't necessarily agree with all of President Bush's policies, but I certainly respect the man for governing more like a (Catholic)"King" than a (Protestant)"President."
Pax,
Mark Boutross
Mark,
First, apologies for my snide tone. Second, though, a Catholic king always governed within the law. The idea that the king was above the law came from Machiavelli, whom the Church placed on the Index.
President Bush has not done the same, I am sorry to say, what with his "signing statements," his view of presidential war powers (which is absolutely, 100% untenable), etc.
If more "freedom" means more transparency in government, which Ron Paul promises, then that's all to the good. We do believe in Original Sin, after all.
And as for more "freedom," well, no medieval king ever dreamed of imposing an income tax on his people, and the medieval state, such as it was, was hardly noticeable to most people.
+
Tom,
No offense taken. The root problem is not with people (ie:Bush, Paul etc.) but with a fatally flawed philosophy of government. GOD ordained Power trickles down, not up. Our Blessed LORD told Pilate "You would have no power if it were not given to you from ABOVE."
The medieval King was granted power from ABOVE (ie:anointed by the Church). The absurdity of U.S. democracy is that Power is granted from BELOW (ie:"We The People").
Since we are currently stuck with this flawed system, I prefer a strong Executive President who does not govern from BELOW (ie: caters to the People). Whether good or bad decisions have been made(we could argue on particulars for eternity), I do not believe that President Bush is a puppet of the people. He has generally not governed by "polls," nor has he kept the "Party Line."
Perhaps Ron Paul would also govern in this strong fashion. But it is doubtful, since his philosophy of government (hyper "We the People")is not good.
Pax,
Mark
Not entirely on the subject of this post, but I have a question about Ron Paul that I haven't been able to find an answer for, either here or on his campaign web site. If anyone here knows the answer, I would very much appreciate hearing it (preferably with some supporting documentation).
I know that Dr. Paul opposes military interventionism, including the war in Iraq. But what exactly is Dr. Paul's plan regarding our troops who are already in Iraq? Would he keep the troops there as long as necessary to stabilize the country, so that we do not leave Iraq in chaos, but then he would refrain from such military interventions in the future? Or would he pull all the troops out immediately, with no regard for the situation that they leave behind? Or has he perhaps never clarified his position on these questions?
Woods,
You're living a lie and the American people know it. The Good Doctor's campaign is at a dead end and Our Nation has chosen Courage and Honor over 9/11 Truth.
Fly High,
The Grizz
Commenting by HaloScan
