My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (

The Curt Jester


Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Society of St. Pius X Bishop Richard Williamson Claims 9-11 Was An Inside Job | Main | On Tape: Homosexual Activist U.S. Priest Blasts Vatican Cardinal and Archbishop over Homosexuality During Homily »

Wednesday, November 28, 2007



Ron Paul is da man! I think what he's saying is that it is up to the states to regulate prostitution, not the federal government.

Ron Paul is the only way one who vigorously opposes the Iraq War--like me--can vote Republican. All the leading GOP candidates are taking a "stay the course" (or escalate!) mentality.

Richard Cook

I do not support prostitution in any way, yet, if we are going to pull back the hand of government in our lives I would support alot of libertarian initiatives. I want to marketplace to be as free as possible. What is your alternative? It clearly is not a freedom as the founders where thinking of.


I would support state laws and local ordinances to regulate things that pertain to the state and federal laws regulating things that pertain to things across state lines and the federal government in general.

Opposing the Iraq war at this point is a bit of a waste of energy, is it not?

If gun control laws are "feel good legislation" (and I believe they are) I think it could also be argued that opposing a war that has been going on for about five years (and which is beginning to go successfully) is "feel good opposition". The war is a done deal, whether one opposes it or not. Opposition won't solve the war any more than gun control laws stop gun violence.

A vote for Ron Paul in the primaries is a vote for pro-abortion Giuliani as the GOP's presidential nominee.

Ron Paul is the new Ross Perot, only this time, the damage will be done in the primaries.

What will be even worse than pro-abortion Giuliani as the nominee will be if the end result is the same as with Ross Perot: a Clinton in the White House.

Those who support Ron Paul have very good reasons for supporting him, don't get me wrong. I agree with lots of things Ron Paul says, more than I'm comfortable admitting in polite company, actually.

I can't support him though, because the abortion issue is too important to throw my vote away on a candidate who can't win.

Supporting Ron Paul is essentially a betrayal of the pro-life cause. Those who are doing so are in denial about the fact that Ron Paul has zero chance in a general election (because he comes off like a reactionary crank and sometimes a crackpot and people won't want to elect him as our leader and representative to the world).

The supporters try to rationalize that the GOP hasn't done enough to end legal abortion and they console themselves with the fact that their losing candidate is also pro-life. They also sound (to me) as wrong-thinking as those who rationalize voting for Democrats when they make other issues (even the war) as important as ending abortion.



Alex Hammer

See also:
Ron Paul as Vice President For Barack Obama

Dennis Kucinich … and Ron Paul?



Those opposed to the Iraq war are more concerned about another war in Iran (or who knows where else?) that could involve the catastrophic loss of innocent human life abroad, make Americans less safe at home, and spin us into a recession or depression.

Nevertheless, war is not one of the five issues not up for debate for a Catholic voter. While I feel strongly anti-war, I know it is not as important as abortion, except in the case of nuclear war. I've been to Hiroshima and it is a horrid crime our country committed.

Will voting for another candidate stop brothels in Nevada? Or worse, pornography? These are not issues for the president according to the Constitution, which, while imperfect, is the U.S. rule of law. The media knows it can set up Dr. Paul like this because so many people will just catch the headline (I'm not accusing this blog here of doing this, just saying it is human nature) and assume Dr. Paul says it's ok. And what is he doing? Honoring his oath of office to follow the rule of law, the Constitution.

Why is Giuliani the candidate who will win? He is high among "likely republican voters", which means those that went in to vote for Bush in 2004 when he was the incumbent. Why should we scare ourselves into voting for X so we don't get Y? Not Hillary! Not Giuliani! I'd invite you to take another look at the amazing following Dr Paul has and the lack of any following other candidates have: those rabid supporters will be out and voting in the primaries, whereas the people who are more ho-hum about things will stay home.

Kerry polled 4% before Iowa! Ron Paul has doubled twice in 3 months amongst that group that voted for Bush! That is electable momentum.

I think this blog is a reflection of the changing face of the way the country discusses politics, and it is going to open discussions wide up beyond the pony race it has been on FOX and CNN. That said, it remains to be seen if this election will reflect it if it will be a few years.

God bless and thanks for the chance to chat politics and religion.

Dr East

To believe that a government allowing prostitution and a government endorsing prostitution are the same thing is to cause government to become the highest arbiter of morality. If we obey God's law because our government forces us to out of threat of violence, in what way are we acting morally, as opposed to simply acting in self-preservation?

The belief that the only options that an institute has towards any belief are either prohibition or endorsement is to believe that that institution is both omniscient and omnipotent. Why can not a human institution, such as the U.S. federal government, simply admit its limitations and say, "I'm sorry, but we are not capable of managing this issue. It is up to you, our citizens, to do your best to live as righteous men and women"?



While you're right that perhaps I have not been a thorough follower of your blog, there's a certain bias that can be detected from your not so subtle headlines. In fact, I ran across this blog in a search to see what my fellow Catholics were thinking about the 2008 Presidential Race. At first, you candidly posted some articles and videos on Ron Paul without any commentary but now it seems that you've joined the mainstream in misinterepting Paul; that is, by posting sound bytes that seems perplexing to a Catholic that has not read Ron Paul and looked into his history with much substance.

Instead, you've posted links on Thompson and Huckabee and while you add some criticism, the title of the posts seemingly tell a different story. Of course, you have cited in each Ron Paul post a source from the media from which presumably you make your decisions. Yet the fallacy is in that the media provides unbiased news--a rebuttal to this point can be found in Paul Levinson's lecture on the media bias against Ron Paul:

The truth on Ron Paul is that he wishes to reduce the power of government, especially the power of the office he is running for. As such, as President he would have substantial power over foreign policy but on other issues it would be incumbant for the local government to decide. And Ron Paul makes this distinction in the powers enumerated to the office of President clear. All the other top tier candidates, republican and democrat alike, would embrace the power and misdirected authority without a second thought.

I am reminded of this quote... "power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely"


I just ran across CFRP's despinning of the prostitution thing:


Now, everybody take a deep breath. These comments are directed to all the Ron Paul bashers out there. How about some facts. First, the federal government currently does not regulate prostitution. Do you want them to make it a federal crime or leave it the way it currently is with local and State governments handling it. Hmmm, sounds like the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Second, Ron Paul is not a crank or a crackpot. Have you actually heard him speak? He comes across as a thoughtful, intelligent gentleman. You are merely repeating what you have heard from those who are terrified of a President Paul. With a Ron Paul presidency, the neo-conservative nanny state is history. Third, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul. Nothing more or nothing less. If you're looking to gamble and place bets, then you should go to the racetrack and stay away from the polls. Ron Paul will win or lose without your vote. Fourth, the Iraq war is definitely a Catholic issue. It is an offensive war, does not meet the criteria of a just war and thus is immoral according to Catholic teaching. You could look it up - Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also illegal under the U.S. Constitution. Fifth, the Republican Party is not pro-life and never has been. Oh sure, they'll take your pro-life vote, but they won't lift a finger after the election, because they know you'll keep voting for them. They controlled both houses of Congress for 6 years and didn't even hold a hearing on the Human Life Amendment. Not even one measly hearing! You're even ready to vote for the pro-murder adulterer Giuliani if he is the Republican nominee. Is there anyone you wouldn't vote for who is running as a Republican? Oh, I forgot, you won't vote for Ron Paul.



Diogenenes, over at Off The Record, quoted C.S. Lewis the other day, in reference to the possible conversion of Tony Blair: "When the modern world says to us aloud, 'You may be religious when you are alone,' it adds under its breath, 'and I will see to it that you never are alone.'" This quote is extremely apropos of this topic.

While prostitution and other indecencies are dangerous to all people, the greatest danger this coming election cycle are not these things, but the shrinking of the private sphere.

What do I mean? While we can pay lip service to the current interpretation of the Separation of Church and State, it is the prevailing interpretation. The larger the state gets, be it so-called "liberal" or so-called "conservative", it will inevitably push religious practice and expression further into the periphery. The state is beginning to tell us when it is appropriate to practice our faith, or speak up, and it is even starting to tell us how to raise our own children, forcing them from the home at younger ages and teaching them things that many parents disagree with, without consulting the parents.

I don't see any difference in the major party candidates pertaining to the size and scope of government.

As for your suggestion that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for abortion, I can only say that those who vote for candidates whose positions they don't like shouldn't be surprised when they get a president who's policies they don't like.

God bless.


It seems the Paulnuts are out in full force this morning. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that most of these identities are the same person using an IP mask.

As I said before, the most important issue is ending legal, elective abortion. Period.

It's not restricting government, preventing future wars (what if war is necessary?), or any of the other things Ron Paul supporters want people to focus on.

Ron Paul cannot win and will not win. He's at about 5% in national polls. He will never win support from Democrats and he can't win support from the majority of Republicans.

At present, Huckabee is leading in Iowa (largely due to anti-Mormon sentiments, which is not a shocker, though the fact that people are going for Huckabee is).

Hopefully, Ron Paul will drop out after losing in the first few primaries, as he most certainly will (lose). If he keeps going all the way through, he will likely swing the GOP to having a less favorable candidate (like Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee) as their nominee.

If Ron Paul pulls a full blown Ross Perot, runs in the general election, and thereby puts Hillary Clinton in the White House, I will blame every nutjob who insisted on propping up Ron Paul for the Clinton presidency.

When Ron Paul does lose in the first few primaries (if not all of them), I want all the Ron Paul supporters to come back to this post and admit they were dead wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it in a new post (but I won't be).

Ron Paul was, is, and ever shall be a fringe candidate. No matter how much Ron Paul supporters talk about how he "could" win and has a chance, the reality is that Ron Paul will never be President of the United States, and those who vote for him in the primaries are essentially wasting their votes, thereby supporting the Republican front runner, who is, at present, pro-abortion, gun-grabbing, pro-gay marriage, Rudy Giuliani.




It's your blog. You can do what you like. But shame on you for calling a fellow Catholic a nut and accusing him of logging into your blog in separate IP's. Even St. Thomas Aquinas was charitable when debating with others.

I agree that abortion is the biggest issue. Period. Remember when Bush was pro-life? Yeah, he's done a wonderful job with that, eh?
If I were to base his presidency on abortion alone, I would fire him.

Is there a politician you believe would truly make abortion an issue? Huckabee seems to be truly adamant about it, but he's unelectable. All the rest (exc. Paul) will do what the others have done in the past: nothing.

Check out, for five minutes, Ron Paul's words on abortion. Nope, nevermind, I'll just cut and paste from his site:

"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

This is a man with a plan of action that can drastically begin to reduce abortions within a few years. If abortion is truly your number one priority, you need to give him another look.

If you can, send an email to my ship. I'm on leave now, but I will respond when I return in a couple of weeks. Hope that is proof enough of my individual identity.

In Christ our King,



I have not been uncharitable.

Supporting a candidate that will lose while insisting that candidate won't lose is to deny reality. It's nutty.

It's also exasperating.

What's even more frustrating is that at 5%, Ron Paul could conceivably throw an election in a nation as polarized as ours. Gore almost won in 2000, thanks in large part to Pat Buchanan.

In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, the popular vote showed the country is split, almost down the middle.

Propping up a losing candidate like Ron Paul when we are one justice away from overturning Roe vs. Wade is nothing short of insanity.

Bush put Samuel Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court, and as far as abortion is concerned, because of Roe vs Wade, that's all he can do.

What more could you expect of him?

In terms of reducing the number of abortions, they are down, so since you seem to think that's a sign we should all respect indicating that someone's doing a good job, then you should think someone (if not Bush) is doing something right.




Ron Paul doesn't approve of immoral behavior anymore than he approves of abusing the Constitution. The point, which some people seem to be willfully ignoring in the furor over this prostitution thing, is that such matters are left to the states, not the national government, to regulate. Advocating that we adhere to the rule of law is not the same as advocating for some unsavory practices that are bound to arise from liberty.

As an aside, I wish people would quit phrasing their arguments from the premise that Ron Paul is going to lose. Let's wait and see what happens when people actually vote instead of trying to propagandize people out of supporting him by touting opinion polls drawn from a few hundred die hard Bush supporters. Don't get me wrong, I voted against Kerry too, but it wasn't because I approved of Bush gutting the First Amendment or abusing signing statements.


Bush could have supported removing abortion issues from the jurisdiction of the federal courts, thus returning the nation's jurisprudence to a pre-Roe world. Ron Paul supports such a move. So no, Bush hasn't done all he could to end abortion. He has just done all that is politically expedient for him to do.



It looks like a big part of your argument stems from your belief that Ron Paul:
A: is planning to run as a third party candidate
B: cannot win a general election vs Hillary

Allow me to refute both.
First, Ron Paul is always asked if he will run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination, and he has emphatically said "no" every time. He's done this once (in 88) and knows how impossible it is even with billions (a la Perot). The election system is gamed to a two party "choice".

Second, Ron Paul beats Hillary squarely in health care, the Iraq war, and the economy. He will get the pro-life vote then as well. Many on the left are very disappointed with their party's attitude towards war and are choosing Ron Paul due to his anti-war stance alone. Finally, as a doctor who has never accepted Medicare or Medicaid from patients, but chose to work for free or work out a payment together, he shows that Big Government is not necessary for sweeping health care reform, and is able to articulate why the best way to help people afford health care is to get the government out of it (via well intended but restrictive regulations).

I'll offer a Rosary to end abortion and ask if anybody else wishes to do the same. I think we can agree on that, whatever else we may disagree on.

In Christ our King


A big part of my argument is that Ron Paul can't possibly win a general election. Period.

He's at 5% in the national polls. He's trailing in every state poll. He won't win a single primary.

Supporting him in the primaries will only help Giuliani.





Don't you know that you must never, ever, under any circumstance criticize in anyway whatsoever the savior of our nation, Doctor Ron Paul.

You should immediately apologize personally to Doctor Ron Paul and all his supporters and immediately ask for their forgiveness for doubting the savior of our nation, Doctor Ron Paul.

Doctor Ron Paul doesn't need to defend his positions. Doctor Ron Paul above such petty concerns. Just remember he is the savior of our nation.


(And if you ever ever in anyway dare criticize Doctor Ron Paul again you will bring the chastisement of the savior of our nation, Doctor Ron Paul upon your unbelieving head. You have been warned.)


Less federal government support doesn't necessarily equate to support for an issue. Let's take your If Paul (and the constitution) had their way, abortion wouldn't be a federal issue. How much more good would be done today even if just a few states had the opportunity to make it illegal? How many lives would be saved? Then how many other states could look at those and change for the better rather than being ruled by fear that society would collapse. It allows the message to grow through example.

I'll be voting for Paul in the primaries. As I get older, I'm losing so much voting for lesser of two evils I'm finding it hard to project myself a vote into a general election without Paul. Write in?

John Harden

The problem with this video is that it is selective. Prostitution is legal in this country. Specifically it is only allowed in all but 2 counties in Nevada, but that still makes it a federally legitimate activity. To say that only Ron Paul supports this is dishonest. What needs to be asked is: Are the other candidates for making prostitution ILLEGAL? If they don’t want to lose half of southern California (people within a short drive to Nevada) then they will say ‘no’. Ron Paul is honest, flawed but honest. Plus, this is a far lesser evil than abortion. According to Aquinas (as cited in the article) this is a tolerable evil. Murder is not. All the other candidates are for the murder via abortion or this unjust war, with the exception of Allen Keyes, who is not eligible to running in every state and is therefore a non-viable candidate.


Question: Who would take Ron Paul's votes to defeat Giuliani in the primaries? Iowa shows Romney and Huckabee in the lead, and N.H. has Romney far above Giuliani as well.
All the other "top tier" candidates are polling in double digits. The four are mostly interchangeable and offer few differences. Romney, Thompson and McCain are far more likely to spread out votes and cancel one another out to let Giuliani win, although I think that the four of them together are so similar as to dilute themselves and let an outsider (Paul or Huckabee) win.

If Paul can only garner 5%, how is that going to guarantee a win for Giuliani? It's only if his numbers are larger than that (and they are, as the polling methods are inaccurate) that there could be a non-victory for Paul that hurts conservatives.

If you are most concerned about being pro-life and anti-abortion, a cause you and I share, then you need to be promoting all of the pro-life politicians, and not simply headlining and grandstanding the issues that the media wants us to focus on. I'm sure you are aware of the bias that mass media outlets have against facts-especially if you follow the Traditional Latin Mass and what the press says about the Church. They're full of errors and general silliness.
The reason I bring this up is you'll need to dig a little deeper to see if Ron Paul is electable or not. Regardless, the level of erudition that the OB/GYN brings to the abortion debate is spectacular, as seen here:
He is bringing many liberals and independents into the Rep party because of his anti-war views...that means he has their respect as an authentic person. While we can try to legislate to illegalize abortion, ultimately we need to change people's hard hearts on the issue. This is a man who can credibly do that.

Let me repeat that: Ron Paul, M.D., knows exactly how important the pro-life issue is and is in a position not only to legislate it as president, but he will bring the pro-life debate to a national level and do it well.
I would pay $500 right now for a Clinton v Paul debate televised. Imagine, win or lose, what that would do to invigorate the pro-life movement!

I think he comes off as a little unpolished, but I want to add that it is mainly in the debates when he is that way, if you watch other clips of him. And I think his authenticity would be a perfect anti-Clinton antidote.

In Christ our King,

John Harden


If Ron Paul is not electable, then why has he just suprpassed Fred Thompson in the polls, claiming 4th place?

He is very electible. He is gaining ground. He is the ONLY viable pro-life candidate. He is the ONLY candidate that fits Catholic teaching on Social Justice. To vote for another candidate in the primaries would be to materially cooperate with the evils they stand for.


4th place is electable?



John Harden


Yes, it is electable, because he is only going up, while the other candidates seem to continue to give him points, he gives none to any candidate.


OK, deep breaths again, everyone. Thomistic, your argument against Ron Paul seems to be that he is unelectable because the polls show his support too low - 8% in the latest. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that the polls showed him leading the pack at 30%, and, beating Hillary in a one-on-one. Would you still be against his candidacy, and, if so, what is the real reason you are against his candidacy?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic