Author Topic: Rick Santorum or Ron Paul (Read 12145 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:50:39 AM »

Quote from: RonCal26

If countries are killing each other, then the United Nations should intervene and constitute a plan to eliminate such a dilemma.

The United Nations is run by Freemasons.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #31 on:** January 31, 2012, 06:34:51 PM »

Much as I like Ron Paul in certain areas (e.g., foreign policy; fiscal policy), I decided I cannot vote for him according to Catholic principles.

Even the lesser of 2 evils will not allow me to.

He will try to end unjust wars at the federal level, to his credit, and also try to restore sound money/fiscal policy.

But he will leave to the states the issues concerning abortion, homo-marriage, gαy rights generally, and legalize drugs.

At the end of the day, he does more damage than good.

Also, his ideas that government have no interest in legislating who can marry are squarely at odds with the doctrine of Leo XIII and Pius IX: Secular politicians still have a duty to legislate according to the natural law in non-Catholic countries, and his practical indifference (whatever his personal beliefs might be) in leaving these issues to the state means I cannot support him.

Guess what: You can't either (But that won't stop you).

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #32 on:** January 31, 2012, 08:59:43 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

But he will leave to the states the issues concerning abortion, homo-marriage, gαy rights generally, and legalize drugs.

He doesn't support abortion. He just wants to turn it over to the states because he knows that most states will rule it illegal, whereas trying to ban abortion through the federal level could take years.

He isn't going to legalize drugs either. He just thinks the "war on drugs" is over the top. I don't completely agree with his stance on drugs, but it isn't immoral.

You're correct about his stance on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, that I disagree with. But you are missing the overall point. NOBODY except Ron Paul will try to stop the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

Maizar · « **Reply #33 on:** January 31, 2012, 11:38:13 PM »

Hi everyone. I am not in the US but take an interest, as many do, in US politics.

Ron Paul says he is not a Freemason, but most of his family (including his wife) belong or belonged to freemasonic organizations. He is presenting an "acceptable alternative" to the current US direction of self-destruction (contrary to what his supporters wrongly believe), and as such he is able to be elected, but voting for him will not change the ultimate course of US history. Traditional Catholics should be able to see this more clearly than anyone and should be already well prepared.

So participating in the GOP elections, or the US elections, is like waking up in a house of sin (of whatever variety) in which you are trapped. What the morally right way to behave in such a place is partly dependent on the individual's own weaknesses - some can only ever find salvation in true martyrdom, others by other paths, but a great many would be eventually deceived and give themselves over to the immoral world that surrounds them.

If you vote, you will inevitably lend support to something wrongful, but until now I haven't found a clear answer to the question of whether it is right to play a game in which the rules are wrong.

Nishant · « **Reply #34 on:** February 02, 2012, 10:19:44 AM »

Rick Santorum is a socialist? Lol! I wonder why supporters of Paul feel they have to resort to saying things like that.

As for abortion, Santorum has consistently been rated at 0%, no joke, by Planned Parenthood as well as NARAL and 100%, again no exaggeration, by national right to life, for several years consecutively. I am aware of Specter, that was a weak compromise but it was done, he says, with the intention of procuring the appointment of justices like Alito and Thomas. See this.

As for Paul being the "MOST PRO-LIFE MAN IN ALL OF WASHINGTON", I am afraid, hardly.

Ron Paul said,

Quote

"While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."

While I don't entirely agree with the link, the analogy of slavery and Douglas' statement used is a good one. It is the wrong way to go, will set a poor legal precedent, and will practically ensure the prospect of abolition will still be unreal a 100 years from now. A constitutional amendment is the way to go.

The states have no right to do wrong, they have a duty to do right. Every nation doesn't merely have the right, it has an absolute and binding obligation from the God who alone gives authority to all, as the Apostle says, to protect the inalienable rights of the life of the child which right no government can give and no government can take away lawfully.

Electability, whether of Paul or Santorum, is a complete non-issue to me. What matters is the record of implementation.

Paul has sponsored about 420 bills and passed only about one. Santorum has successfully fought for and passed difficult legislation on a wide range of issues including reform of welfare.

And if it's earmarks we're on about, why not be consistent, Paul has earmarked liberally too. Earmarks are not in themselves "big government".

Santorum's economic plan goes furthest of all with cuts to the extent of $5 trillion, much further than even Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

And finally, contraception - nobody even wants to talk about that. Few recognize that even the heretical and schismatic sects and their founders all unanimously condemned contraception before 1930. Protestants fought against it more than a hundred years ago, because its unfettered use and approval, as Pope Paul VI foresaw, is almost certain to corrupt the general sɛҳuąƖ morality of society, especially of the young, as the last 50 odd years demonstrably show. It is morally obligatory for Catholics in public office to at least speak out.

Santorum isn't perfect, but personally I still like the guy, though I think Paul is a decent candidate as well and I can understand people support him.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #35 on:** February 02, 2012, 10:41:07 AM »

People don't seem to understand Ron Paul's stance on abortion. No wonder he has yet to win any states, it's because of misconceptions like this that sway people who are on the fence about him in a different direction. I sure don't see as many people ranting and raving about the views of moderates like Romney and Gingrich, why not focus on the actual issues? Let's break down all four candidates and see who the most conservative one is.

Mitt Romney is a moderate AT BEST. His "RomneyCare" was basically his less-socialized version of ObamaCare. He can deny it until the cows come home, but it's the truth. He also flip flops on abortion and gun control. There is a video out there where he specifically says he's pro-choice (pro-abortion) and for gun control, then he changes his mind a few years later...supposedly. I've never seen him say anything about how horrible abortion is. I've never seen him at the March for Life or any other pro-life rallies. And Romney said he supports the NDA bill, the one Obama passed that allows the government to arrest Americans and lock them up without giving them a trial. And this guy wants to paint himself as conservative? One other thing about him that really concerns me is his Mormonism. He seems like a nice guy, but his faith his bizzare and cultish.

Newt Gingrich is a scuмbag. He cheated on both of his first two wives, married his mistress, and is a 33 degree Freemason and a member of the CFR (come to think of it, Romney is also a member of the CFR). He is also a war monger and is very pro-Isreal.

Rick Santorum may be pro-life and against gαy marriage, but he is such a war monger and pro-Isreal! He wants to end the slaughter of thousands of babies every day, sure, but then he wants to support the slaughter of thousands of soldiers every day over unnecessary wars. He plays right into the NWO's hands. He also supports the Patriot Act. Ugh!

Then there's Ron Paul, who is actually more Catholic than Santorum or Gingrich. There's a reason that almost all Traditional Catholics support him: he gets it. He wants to do away with the Department of Education, the EPA, FEMA, the CIA, the WHO, etc. His view on abortion is to turn it over to the states because most states will rule it illegal, whereas banning it through the federal level will take a LONG time. When are people going to realize this?

Read Hugh Atkins' article on Ron Paul. It only reaffirms a lot of what I just said. Do you want another NWO candidate, or do you want Ron Paul? The choice is yours.

Nishant · « **Reply #36 on:** February 02, 2012, 11:09:49 AM »

Spiritus, it seems we are destined to disagree, even on politics. :rolleyes:

I don't think too many Catholics would find themselves supporting Romney or Gingrich by choice, but that's just me.

Going through his recent articles on national security have convinced me that he understands the Catholic doctrine on war, really the only point against him, sufficiently well. See here and here. His 8 year experience in the armed services is telling.

Quote

Some say that this means we have to launch a military attack against Iran. I don't believe that. I think most Iranian people want to be free of their evil regime, and millions of them have taken to the streets, in the face of security forces all too happy to kill them, to show their contempt for their leaders. It's a revolutionary force, and we should support it.

We defeated the Soviet Union without using military means. We supported the Soviet dissidents and refuseniks, and the Soviet regime collapsed. I believe we can do the same thing in Iran.

These are scarcely the words of someone eager for war at any cost, quite the contrary, to do what is necessary to avoid open war, as a stronger president might well have done already.

And have traditional Catholics forgotten the glorious history of Christendom, of Catholic rulers and commanders, from Constantine, to Richard the Lionheart, to Don Juan of Austria, from the Crusades to the day the Mohammedan Turks overran Christian Constantinople in 1453 to the glorious battle of Lepanto in 1571, when the invaders were repelled by the Papal fleet, and the power of the Rosary? A medieval Christian Knight combined the discipline of a soldier with the discipline of the monk. Or were all these actions mandated by the Church unjust as well?

When war is conducted in defense against agressors, it is just. When it is waged on behalf of those who cannot fight oppression for themselves, it is even noble. When all other peaceful means have been exhausted, it is a duty. Neither pacifism, isolationism nor non-interventionism has been accepted by the Church.

In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan was unquestionably just. And I don't glamorize Saddam because I know he killed hundreds of thousands. Pope John Paul II did believe that it wasn't too late for a solution short of outright war to have been found, and I completely agree with him on the matter, but that is still a far cry from non-interventionism as such.

Note well, I believe one can still disagree on other grounds, like economic reasons not to wage war, but I deny any sort of moral equivalency between war and abortion.

Can you link the Hugh Atkins article?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #37 on:** February 02, 2012, 04:12:07 PM »

Sure, Nishant. First, here's a short video of Ron Paul talking about St. Augustine and the Catholic Church in regards to war.

http://www.catholicactionresourcecenter.com/apps/videos/videos/show/15629107-ron-paul-on-christ-and-the-evil-of-war

Here is Atkins' article about Rick Santorum vs. Ron Paul:

http://www.catholicactionresourcecenter.com/santorumvsronpaul.htm

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #38 on:** February 02, 2012, 10:18:52 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Rick Santorum is a socialist? Lol! I wonder why supporters of Paul feel they have to resort to saying things like that.

As for abortion, Santorum has consistently been rated at 0%, no joke, by Planned Parenthood as well as NARAL and 100%, again no exaggeration, by national right to life, for several years consecutively. I am aware of Specter, that was a weak compromise but it was done, he says, with the intention of procuring the appointment of justices like Alito and Thomas. See this.

As for Paul being the "MOST PRO-LIFE MAN IN ALL OF WASHINGTON", I am afraid, hardly.

Ron Paul said,

Quote
"While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."

While I don't entirely agree with the link, the analogy of slavery and Douglas' statement used is a good one. It is the wrong way to go, will set a poor legal precedent, and will practically ensure the prospect of abolition will still be unreal a 100 years from now. A constitutional amendment is the way to go.

The states have no right to do wrong, they have a duty to do right. Every nation doesn't merely have the right, it has an absolute and binding obligation from the God who alone gives authority to all, as the Apostle says, to protect the inalienable rights of the life of the child which right no government can give and no government can take away lawfully.

Electability, whether of Paul or Santorum, is a complete non-issue to me. What matters is the record of implementation.

Paul has sponsored about 420 bills and passed only about one. Santorum has successfully fought for and passed difficult legislation on a wide range of issues including reform of welfare.

And if it's earmarks we're on about, why not be consistent, Paul has earmarked liberally too. Earmarks are not in themselves "big government".

Santorum's economic plan goes furthest of all with cuts to the extent of $5 trillion, much further than even Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

And finally, contraception - nobody even wants to talk about that. Few recognize that even the heretical and schismatic sects and their founders all unanimously condemned contraception before 1930. Protestants fought against it more than a hundred years ago, because its unfettered use and approval, as Pope Paul VI foresaw, is almost certain to corrupt the general sɛҳuąƖ morality of society, especially of the young, as the last 50 odd years demonstrably show. It is morally obligatory for Catholics in public office to at least speak out.

Santorum isn't perfect, but personally I still like the guy, though I think Paul is a decent candidate as well and I can understand people support him.

Good post.

Nishant · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2012, 05:39:27 AM »

Seraphim, thank you. :)

Spiritus, well, let's talk about Just War and St.Augustine.

For consideration, the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, with frequent references to the thought of the venerable Bishop of Hippo below,

Quote

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' . If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them.

And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom ... Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."

Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matthew 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering.

Diego · « **Reply #40 on:** February 03, 2012, 12:46:39 PM »

Santorum is a fraud.

In the moment when his support mattered, he threw his support to the ZIONIST ABORTION ENABLING Arlen Specter, killing the chances of the Catholic pro-life Toomey.

Santorum is the "kosher Catholic" candidate.

Nishant · « **Reply #41 on:** February 06, 2012, 02:27:42 AM »

Between тαℓмυdic Judaism and militant Mohammedanism, it is hard to see which is the lesser evil. But there is no prospect of an amicable solution any time soon, that at least appears certain. The League of Nations proved to be an abject failure and the UN already appears destined for the same fate, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. This is the failure of secularism to forge a lasting peace. Any successful alliance of nations and countries will only ever come about within the Church, with the light of Faith, and under the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

As we know, Catholic prophecy and private revelation does suggest that WWIII and some great chastisement on those who left the Faith is due soon and will assuredly come. I doubt there will be secular republics remaining after it, in all probability in that promised era of peace that will herald the conversion of Russia according to the words of Our Lady of Fatima, there will be Christian kingdoms on earth once more before Our Lord returns.

Matthew · « **Reply #42 on:** February 06, 2012, 10:17:23 PM »

I'd side with the so-called "militant mohammedanism" which, by the way, has left us alone for *decades*. Even with all the interference, invasion of their countries via Hollywood and American corruption, etc. they STILL didn't do anything to us.

And 9/11 was an inside job by the Mossad and the CIA, so don't talk to me about "towel heads with box cutters".

True, they were our mortal enemy during the middle ages, but right now we have bigger fish to fry.

I think the choice is pretty easy -- side against the Jews.

Afterward, once we're a free people again, we can take on the Muslims with God's help. Right now, though, we're in spiritual and economic bondage to the Jews.

Matthew · « **Reply #43 on:** February 06, 2012, 10:19:37 PM »

I'm partial to Ron Paul, myself.

I know there's no perfect candidate, though.

All the other candidates are a big yawn. I'm not even following this election. Massive waste of time.

Nishant · « **Reply #44 on:** February 09, 2012, 06:36:45 AM »

Well, Matthew, I find that I don't actually disagree insofar as not aligning in any way with the Jews is concerned. They already plan to rebuild their temple and we know they will welcome the AntiChrist when he comes as their Messiah.

But, the reason I am wary of writing Islam off so lightly is that in my opinion whether you look at the aggression of the nearly 4 and a half centuries preceding the calling of the First Crusade, or the conquest of Christian Constantinople in 1453 under Mohammed II, or Abd Al Rahman's famous rejoinder to Thomas Jefferson about the right and duty of endless jihad imposed on Muslims by the Quran, history seems to show that when Islam leaves the rest of the world alone, it is only through lack of ability, not for want of intention.

I am not at all for needless war, especially since Scripture commands us to live at peace with all men, as much as possible. But I agree with Sen.Santorum that a military strike is not desirable, and it would be much better to strive to do with Iran what was done to Russia. To stand behind the people, and against the regime.

It might all be for nothing, though, since Israel is reportedly already planning a strike pretty soon.