Ron Paul – Not A Catholic Option

John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul

Here's the story: Ron Paul Unplugged – John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul On The Role Of Government

My thoughts:

Ron Paul is definitely a libertarian. There can be no question about that.

I can understand his appeal, but here's where I can't support him: he claims people should be free to do as they please, so long as they don't hurt anyone. That's not in keeping with the principles set forth in the preamble to the United States Constitution or Catholic teaching.

Ron Paul talks about legalizing drugs, legalizing prostitution, and allowing people to make their own choices. He adds that the government should not try to enforce virtue, because attempts to do so lead to a kind of totalitarianism.

Here's what I don't understand: I don't think there are federal laws against prostitution. It's regulated by the individual states. There are federal laws concerning drug use, and I suppose one could argue for leaving those laws to the state also, but Ron Paul goes beyond that. He's arguing that government should stay out of these things ad that they should be legalized.

Here's why they shouldn't (using Ron Paul's own standards).

Drug use, prostitution, abortion, suicide, physician assisted suicide, euthanasia, and any number of moral issues do, in fact, hurt others. The impact of those choices is not limited to those who choose to engage in those activities, they have a negative, overall effect on society.

People who abuse drugs cost society money. They miss work (if they work at all). They make poor choices under the influence (like the choice to drive). They show up for work under the influence or with lingering effects from their substance abuse and can cause injury or damage property. They abuse drugs while pregnant and injure unborn babies. They neglect their children and their other responsibilities.

Ron Paul is essentially arguing that everyone should be allowed to live like Anna Nicole Smith. Aside from the fact that Anna Nicole Smith's life was a train wreck, she hurt people by her choices. She hurt her children by her choices.

Ron Paul says government shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

The preamble to the Constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Laws against drug abuse don't just attempt to "protect people from themselves". They are designed to help protect the rest of us from the consequences of drug abuse.

Yes, one can argue the effectiveness of such laws. They clearly aren't 100% effective, but neither are laws against rape or murder. That doesn't mean society should throw up their hands and say the government can't stop such things from happening so the government should just stay out of such affairs.

Those who argue that it is wrong for government to become involved in people's lives seem to forget the section of the preamble that says one of the reasons the United States Constitution was written and the government created by that document exists is to "promote the general welfare".

It is not in the best interest of society to allow for the basic building block of society, the family, to be ambiguously defined and/or denigrated by allowing for anyone to call any sort of arrangement a marriage and/or a family. Yet, when Ron Paul says homosexuals should be free to do as they please, including calling their relationships a marriage, he essentially argues for the government to do nothing to protect the family.

Ron Paul's position is that the government should not concern itself with marriage. While that isn't exactly granting homosexual unions legal recognition, it amounts to about the same thing.

Moreover, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition
To Unions Between Homosexual Persons makes it clear that Ron Paul's position on homosexual unions is not the Catholic one:

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

It's tough to reconcile Ron Paul's position with Church teaching on the role of government with respect to homosexual unions.

It's tough to reconcile Ron Paul's view of government, in general, with Catholic teaching.

The role of human authority and human law is to uphold the common good. Salus populi, suprema lex [the good of the whole society ought to be the supreme law].

Ron Paul's vision of government, which is the libertarian position, is appealing in that it limits the expansion of government (which is also a goal of conservatives, hence libertarian appeal among conservatives).

The error of libertarianism (as espoused by Ron Paul) is that in its reactionary stance with respect to the role and influence of government (especially "big government" or "nanny state government" as espoused by liberals) and its zeal for individual freedom, libertarianism neglects the common good. It essentially leaves the common good to work itself out. Libertarian principles imply a kind of social Darwinism, and libertarian principles are not always in harmony with social conservatism, especially with respect to moral issues, as is evidenced by Ron Paul's positions on various moral issues.

Basically, true libertarianism is "pro-choice", not only with respect to abortion, but every personal moral choice. Libertarians will add that the limit is when personal choices hurt other people, but they're fuzzy on what that actually means and generally support the decriminalization of immoral activities they perceive as personal choices that are nobody else's business.

That's not a Catholic view of the role of human law and human government.

Here are some resources that will explain why:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised [Note: the emphasis is mine] by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8).

(Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Authority, The Common Good, Responsibility and Participation

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: Social Justice, Respect For The Human Person, Equality and Differences Among Men, Human Solidarity

Rerum Novarum (1891) Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor

Quadragesimo Anno (1931) On the Reconstruction of the Social Order

Mater et Magistra (1961) Christianity and Social Progress

Pacem in Terris (1963) Peace on Earth

Gaudium et Spes - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

Populorum Progressio (1967) On the Development of Peoples

Octogesima Adveniens (1971) Call to Action

Laborem Exercens (1981) On Human Work

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987) On Social Concern

Evangelium Vitae (1995) The Gospel of Life

Centesimus Annus (1991) One Hundred Years

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 95. Human law

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 96. The power of human law

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 97. Change in laws

Aquinas' Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Matthew]

I invite you to read "An Open Letter to the Catholic Community in Behalf of Ron Paul" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a Catholic.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods83.html

[Thomistic]

That letter fails to address my reasons for saying Ron Paul's positions are not positions Catholics can take.

You can find Catholics supporting all sorts of things, even things which are opposed to Catholic teaching. There are Catholic bishops who are good friends with prominent pro-abortion Democrats – which is a scandal.

Quoting a Catholic who supports Ron Paul, even one who claims to be a good Catholic (even a priest) or one who claims to be faithful to Church teaching, doesn't mean Ron Paul's positions are in harmony with Catholic doctrine.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Dr East]

If you do what is good because somebody forces you to, how have you made a moral choice?

In the end, the only method government has for causing obedience is the threat of force (or its actual application).

[Thomistic]

It'd be nice if everyone did the right thing because it was the right thing to do, but laws exist, not only to tell people the right thing to do and encourage them to do so, but also so we can prosecute and penalize people when they do things that are injurious to the common good.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Catholics for Ron Paul]

http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Thomistic]

Fantasy: Linking sites where Catholics support Ron Paul means supporting Ron Paul is okay for Catholics and Ron Paul's positions are in harmony with Catholic doctrine.

Reality: No it doesn't. Ron Paul's positions on homosexual unions, prostitution, drug abuse, etc. are not in keeping with Catholic doctrine. Moreover, his position on those issues is essentially the "pro-choice" argument in favor of legal abortion, so supporting someone who says the things Ron Paul says is inconsistent with pro-life arguments against abortion.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Joseph-USA]

Thomistic -

A nicely argued case to clarify the Ron Paul philosophy, congratulations.

Additionally, the Libertarian view is often stated as a "purist" type of thought process, e.g. an ideal. In truth it quickly descends to self-centered: "I got mine, screw you" at best, and further to a focused effort to damage "others" who may take or use "my" resources.

Notice the Libertarian views on Abortion "choices" by MINORS! The Libertarians are very "supportive" of this absolute attack upon the authority of the natural human family. They absolutely oppossed the various "Parental Notification Laws" which were largely defeated throughout America recently.

The Libertarians are very similar to the Feminists, similar in the disguise covering their Eugenics (selective removal of "defectives" from the "gene pool" type of horror, as their type of "civilization").

You identified clearly the reason that (amoral) Libertarians seem to "fit" with Conservatives (who are very much motivated by morality in governance), merely because both of those groups encourage a smaller government "footprint" on our lives. But clearly the Libertarian philosophy is NOTHING like a Conservative American view (an Originalist view) of our very heavily Judeo-Christian influenced moral social compact (aka, The Constitution).

[Texas Little El]

Thomistic, by who's standards do you determine what is the "common good"? The Common good for Muslims is entirely different than the common good for Catholics, compared to Protestants, etc.

The common good in the 1500's for the Catholic church was to kill, maim, arrest, or destroy the lively hood of ANYONE that didn't follow the Catholic faith to the letter.

You know the names of those that were persecuted by the Catholic Church and the Inquisition as well as I do. What was the common good in these cases?

As a Lutheran, the first name that comes to mind is Martin Luther and while the man wasn't perfect, he did; with the 95 Thesis point out the inconsistencies with in the Catholic Church and its dogma.

How is the common good helped by the Catholic Church protecting pedophile priests who were abusing young men and women?

I do not mean to pick on you or your faith, but use it as an example of what happens when one persons definition of the 'Common Good' is used as a template for everyone.
Atrocities are rampant throughout all religions and allowing 'ONE' religion to determine what is the common good is an affront to the very nature of God.

Men were made slaves based solely on there unwillingness to 'Convert' to the religion of the day. You cannot force someone to believe in the word of the Lord through force, yet your 'Common Good' can and would go from being a guideline, to being a law, to being an absolute commandment with unyielding penalties very quickly if we didn't question the very nature of what is the "Common Good".

Does someone smoking a joint frighten you to the point of apoplexy? If in smoking that joint and not injuring anyone else while doing so, how did that one man or womans decision damage you, your family or the community as a whole?

These are the questions that Rep. Paul brings to the table. You also ascribe that Rep. Paul is a Libertarian, which is incorrect. While Rep. Paul has Libertarian leaning, just as MOST conservative and liberals do, he is not lock step with Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.

Your attempts to link someones use of a drug that only harms themselves to rape or murder that harms others damages your case immensely. That argument is incongruent since you want to compare apples to bowling balls with that example.

Also your attempts to use the 'General Welfare' clause of the Constitution is a perfect example what has gone wrong with the United States. The Federal Government is ONLY supposed to do a few things and do them well. The States and the People are supposed to be the true holders of power. Read the tenth amendment to the constitution again.

Letting the Federal Government interfere with some of the issues that Rep. Paul alludes to is the reason our government has grown so huge, no longer respects the rights of people and interferes in the politics of other nations around the world to our detriment.

Also, Rep. Paul doesn't state that there shouldn't be consequences for bad behavior, the use of drugs, alcohol or promiscuous sex. He states that the federal government is ill prepared to deal with the issue, it is unconstitutional for them to attempt to regulate these issues and that 'One Size' does not fit all.

That 'each' state needs to determine for itself to what extent they will punish or to even punish those that drive drunk, consume alcohol or drugs, frequent a prostitute, damage their unborn child or any of the other questions at hand.

That the Catholic determination of what is the common good isn't its sole definition. That a myriad of people, places and ideas within each state should make those decisions, not a monolithic Federal bureaucracy.

Go to www.ronpaullibrary.org and do a bit more research on Rep. Paul. You might also do more research on the Constitution and what role the federal government was supposed to play in everyday American's lives.

God Bless

[rhys]

The problem with your argument is it ignores the detriment to the welfare of the nation that is a consequence of enforcing some of these laws. For example, it is illegal to murder, but should we assign a police officer to every single American as a personal bodygaurd? This would not promote the general welfare because the taxes required to enforce this policy would be onerous.

Also, in most of the cases that Paul is refering to, legalization and regulation are far more effective means to control forbidden trade. For instance, it is much more difficult for our government to control cocain than tabacco. I used to buy weed at my high school, yet I couldn't get alcohol or tabacco there.

The problem with any type of prohibition is that it creates a black market. The effects of these black markets are often worse than the original problem. Where this is the case, the government is actually diminishing the general welfare. There is a limit to the amount of welfare that may be promoted. The limit to the amount of welfare that may be successfully promoted by the Federal government is defined by our Constitution. Every progam that falls outside of this scope is harmful to our nation and should be excised just as the eye which doth offend.

Paul is the Catholic's choice because he understands the value of sibsidiarity; he respects life both for unborn children and our military troops; he holds his oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution, in the highest regard; and he defends the use of gold as money -

Deuteronomy 25:13
"Thou shalt not have in thy bag diverse weights, a great and a small.
14 "Thou shalt not have in thine house diverse measures, a great and a small.
15 "But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

Proverbs 20:10
"Diverse weights, and diverse measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD."

The Bible warns Catholics against the use of fluctuating or false measures and weights. This specifically refers to money. Gold and silver are the only things you can use as money that you can weigh out and measure. An unjust weight and measure, such as the dollar, remains an abomination.

[Thomistic]

The common good is determined by the natural law, which is common to all men and women.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Dar]

Though underground Christian teaching does exist where freedom is meager, it is in a free nation where the gospel can reach people, where true goodness can grow. A free nation requires limited government, though.

[MikeVA]

As far as the War on Drugs goes, I can agree and acknowledge the fact that drug abuse is detrimental to families and society.

However, the prohibition of drugs, along with the demand for them - creates a black market, encourages gang organization, and has given us a growing private prison industry. Akin to alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs simply has failed to achieve its objective.

[Thomistic]

Legalization of currently illegal or restricted drugs is not a moral option. Alcohol isn't inherently dangerous, though it can be abused. Heroin, cocaine, crack, and other hard drugs are inherently dangerous and instantly addictive. Legalizing them is not a moral option.

As far as Deuteronomy, Old Testament law is only binding in its moral teaching, because the moral law can't change. So ceremonial laws and laws about food, etc. Are no longer binding.

The parts of Deuteronomy dealing with weights is not a prohibition against changing the standard of currency, but rather, a prohibition against dishonest use of measurements with an eye toward defrauding people (which is essentially theft) combined with an admonition to live by divine, rather than transient human standards.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Thomistic]

Incidentally, saying the war on drugs isn't working, so we should legalize drugs is very much like saying public education isn't working, so we need to invest more money in public education.

Legalizing illegal drugs will only increase their presence in society. It will make it easier, not harder, for children to experiment with these substances. Fantasies about legalization being the solution are rooted in poor reflection on the repercussions of such a course of action while dwelling on the flaws in the status quo.

The devil we know will be better than the devil that we don't.

As I said before: Yes, one can argue the effectiveness of such laws. They clearly aren't 100% effective, but neither are laws against rape or murder. That doesn't mean society should throw up their hands and say the government can't stop such things from happening so the government should just stay out of such affairs.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Dwight]

Thomistic, you're repeating yourself, but not arguing the facts. I agree with the person who said that enforcing drugs laws does more harm than good, in many ways. Ergo, legalizing drugs is indeed a moral option. In a more generally way, freedom is a God-given right. We are free to reject God as well as love Him, otherwise there is no freedom. No one should presume to take freedom away from us, except where our actions impinge on the freedom of others.

[Jimbo]

I'm not sure why people who see the error of totalitarianism can't see that there is a reverse error: unfettered individualism. My problem with libertarianism is that it is becoming libertinism.

This partly explains the bizarre coalition backing Ron Paul, from anarchists and racists.

Does this mean everyone supporting Ron Paul is an anarchist or racist? Of course it does. (I'm so tired of this tedious nonsense.) You know a lot about someone in politics by who supports them. We know who supports Ron Paul.

Hopefully he'll disappear from the radar screen after Super Tuesday. Unfortunately, we'll have him around yapping at our heels until then.

[Thomistic]

Dwight,

Your maxim about freedom is not Catholic doctrine and is, in fact, incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

Freedom is God's gift to man not to allow him to do as he pleases, but rather, to allow him to merit when he chooses the good (and consequently, to be punished when choosing evil).

Catholic teaching has always allowed for legal restrictions on human activity. Absolute freedom is not a Catholic ideal, and the freedom you endorse is practically moral anarchy with vague, fuzzy restrictions that in no way resemble the certitude given by the natural law. Laws are good, not a necessary evil. In fact, without laws, the universe wouldn't function (e.g., laws of gravity, physics, etc.). Moreover, freedom is a relative principle. Freedom from one thing is, in a sense, enslavement to its opposite.

The fact that you agree with the person who said that enforcing drugs laws does more harm than good, in many ways, doesn't make it so. Ergo, your ergo doesn't follow.

The reality that legalizing drugs would increase their presence in society, makes it an irresponsible moral choice.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Atlanta Catholic]

Texas Litttle El,

Did you stop believing in Jesus because Judas was one of the Apostles? The Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus Christ, still has it's Judases within. Yes, these betrayers have absolutely wreaked havoc upon the reputation of the Church, but they have not changed one bit of truth that Christ set forth as an example. Christ founded and established the Truths of the Catholic Church.

One of the reasons that I like this blog is the exposing of the errors and the wolves within the Church. The Social Kingship of Christ, once played an important role in governing society. While the Social Kingship still remains "Perfectly" intact, the application of this, is not.

You are correct that the government has also betrayed it's initial purpose. The statement that you made about the woman smoking the joint and how does that affect you? This reasoning is simply not compatible with striving for total harmony with Christ's Social Kingship order for society.

I understand that you say Ron Paul is not saying that these wrong deeds should go unpunished. The fact is that there cannot be partial truth. There has to be an absolute resolve to eliminate the moral disorder that brings the disorder to begin with.

Partial solutions do not bring the promise of success. The promise of success will only come when the moral order intended by God is implemented and when society understands that the wrong actions of each person.....no matter how insignificant, (even smoking a joint) does in reality affect society as a whole. This is why we are called the Mystical Body of Christ.

Even the smallest wrong action done secretly and privately, affects society as a whole. Sin has devastating consequences. I know the "world view" is live and let live, but this is not the answer. This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Are all the members living and teaching this? No, they are not and you are right to point out the corruption.

The Cardinals and Bishops who have hidden evil and promoted partial truths, have had a destructive impact on society. There are many good priests, some good Cardinals and some good Bishops. Many have lost their salt completely. They are political and corporate thinkers. The holy priests, Bishops and Cardinals are paying the price for upholding the Truths in the Church. This goes with the territory. This is why there is great division and turmoil within. This is also why the government is having difficulty governing. The blind are leading the blind.

No government will succeed without the basic principals that flow from the Social Kingship of Christ. Look how well society is doing without them!

Ron Paul's message is not compatible with Christ's design for Society. Yes, everyone has free will to think, act and vote as they want. God never forces His Will on us. I know that you might claim that Ron Paul is not forcing his will on anyone else either. To be successful in God's eyes, he cannot compromise for the voter's eyes. Ron Paul pays the price for that choice.

We know the truth and we still get to choose whatever we want. That is precisely why we are in the big mess we are in! We are choosing partial truths. If your next question is...."Well, who is the best candidate?" My first response is, "Prayer to bring one and the Second Coming".

God Bless You!

[Dwight]

Thomistic, I agree that freedom was given us so we could choose the good, and using it to choose evil is a misuse of freedom. Nevertheless, in this world, subject to concupiscense, being free often means that we choose badly. That being said, does it mean that, in all cases where we may choose badly, our freedom of choice must be subject to human law? Of course not. What libertarian scholars have done (obviously I am not one) is take the natural law and determine what does need to be enforced by human law and what does not. We have long been trying to enforce more rather than less human action. Perhaps we need to rethink that.

The question about drugs provides a convenient starting point for this discussion. You argue that things would be worse for society if drug laws were loosened, and therefore morally wrong to do. I, on the other hand, agree with those who see that much more damage is done to human society because of the current drug laws. If that were true, it would be morally wrong to maintain them. So the question is, do the drugs laws to more harm than good? The evidence to me is clear that they do. I don't expect you to agree with that, only to accept that it may be a reasonable position to take. And, if it is not only reasonable but accurate, doing away with the current drugs laws would indeed be morally correct.

[Parick]

Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance of being elected president. Basically, we have a two party system. These third party candidates just stir the pot and draw votes from one or both of the two main candidates. In a very close election the third party candidate can actually throw the election. We saw this with Ross Perot. I think Republicans are worried that Ron Paul might cost the Republican candidate the election. But, at least Ron Paul is raising some interesting issues. I agree with some of the things he says.

On the issue libertarian policies vs. laws for the common good, nobody can realistically hope to implement a pure example of either theory. We all draw a line and make compromises somewhere. For example, we probably all agree that adultery harms the family and the common good, but how many of us want to put people in jail for it? And, even libertarians must become uncomfortable with the idea of crank being sold over the counter at the Circle K.

God gave us the power of reason to deal with problems on an individual basis within the context of time, place, culture, etc. There are always practical considerations which get in the way of a pure implementation of a theory.

On the issue of "drugs," we need to have a more sophisticated approach. There are many different chemical substances, having different effects, which we label "drugs." It is important for out leaders to have some grasp of the differences between these various substances, their effects and the reasons why people are attracted to them. I don't want some redneck fool to just say: "Drugs Bad! Drug People Bad! Throw bad drug people in jail!" People like that are enough to drive one to take "drugs!"

And, Texas Little El, I think the goal is to win-over the hearts and minds of people so that they willingly support our view of the common good. I doubt that Thomistic is in favor of religious oppression. Also, do people have to dredge up the inquisition whenever they disagree with a Catholic on a public policy issue?

[Texas Little El]

So Ron Paul is a racist or anarchist? Give the rest of us a break....Which pseudo science did you call on to get that formulated?

Taking $500.00 from 1 racist makes Rep. Paul a racist eh? Guilt by miniscule association, gotta love it.

Okay, here is the $64,000 dollar question.
Who do you think Catholics should support if Ron Paul isn't the right guy? No mish mashing, no obfuscating, who is the correct Republican for people to vote for if they are Catholic?

Any Republican that ignores the 'Just War' doctorine?

1) Giuliani - The thrice married Catholic that thinks authoritarianism is the way to run the United States. Who made huge amounts of money off the misery of those who died on 9/11/2001?

2) Romney - The Flip Flopping Mormon, that thinks abortion is okay, oops, no it isn't (sticks finger in air) hmmm, yes it is.

3) Huckabee - The tax and spend Christian right wanna be that advocated a know rapist be released knowing full well that he had raped before? Or lies endlessly about the tax cuts he implemented?

4) McCain - The liberal arm of the Republican party with McCain - Feingold and McCain - Kennedy. Who's only claim to fame is something that happened 40 years ago and uses it tirelessly to show his martyrdom.

5) Fred Thompson - Declared the laziest Senator in office. If guilt by association is supposed to hold true, his drug smuggling buddy who's plane he flew in for two months should really turn you off.

6) Tancredo - The one trick pony for immigration.

And please don't tell us your are voting democratic....T

Yep, these are all a fine bunch of candidates to pick from. Just name one that has better credentials than Ron Paul on the issues.

[Parick]

I made a big mistake above. I had so often heard Ron Paul mentioned as a Libertarian I thought he was a Libertarian. I just found out he actually trying for the Republican nomination. Silly me :o) How well...he still doesn't have a snowball's chance.

I think the guy who talks and acts like Gomer Pyle will win the Republican nomination and the Presidency. That is what usually happens.

[gorak]

Forgive me for being old fashioned, but where in the New Testament does Jesus tell his followers to use the power of Caeser to implement his goals?

[Mike]

So Catholics shouldn't vote for the only man who would stop the war?

[Patrick]

Forgive me for being ignorant about these candidates. I am disillusioned with politics. I belong to the disaffiliation party. But, does anyone else find this guy to be a dilemma?

I watched the video again, and I disagree with his statement that radical Moslems do not hate our culture. He says they attack us because they don't want our military bases on their lands. Of course they hate our culture. They attack us for both reasons.

But, I agree with what he said about spreading ourselves too thin around the world and that our country will tank as a result. However, in either case the answer is the same--we should pull back and be more careful about how and why we start wars.

He believes the government should not pass laws regulating drugs, prostitution, etc. I am not sure I am in complete agreement on that. But, I agree with him in that it should be left up to the states. In either case, the solution is the same--the Federal goverment should stay out of it.

He is definitely more interesting than that Huckleberry guy.