Should Roman Catholics Support Congressman Ron Paul? : An Examination Of A Conscience!

Posted on April 11, 2011

God In Turn Set Us Free: The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” John 11:44

Within 4 Days Of The Christ Banishing The Money Changers From The Temple….

The Sanhedrin/Money Changers Violated Every Word Of The Torah And Controlled God To A Cross.

Parsed In Purple By Volubrjotr:

Saturday, April 9, 2011 A.D. | Author D.L. Jones

Should Catholics support Congressman Ron Paul? Is it reasonable for Catholics to support Congressman Ron Paul? What is said regarding his father is true for Senator Rand Paul as well. They follow the same ideology, they have the same advisers, and they have the same monetary backers. An apple never falls far from the tree.


Anybody who has followed my posts over the last year know that I have struggled to come to terms with Libertarianism and its implication with applying and contrasting it to our Catholic faith. I recognize the Catholic Church does not endorse any specific political or economic system. It stands in judgment (??) of them all.

When I read the below article though it really sent alarm bells going off. Lew Rockwell is referencing Ron Paul’s newest book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. How can a Catholic support this position on abortion? Even if they can legitimately support this position, should they? In all fairness to both Lew and Ron I need to read this and other related portions of this book to see his comments in full context.

Campaign For LibertyIt’s Time to Rethink Everything by Lew Rockwell

The book is arranged alphabetically, which makes the subject of abortion the very first entry. Where do you suppose Ron Paul stands on this issue? Let’s just say that if you think you have followed the conventional debate, you are in for something completely different.

Ron is a vehement opponent of abortion, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has delivered thousands of babies). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on this subject runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized pro-life policy is as wrong as a centralized mandatory-legalization policy. He wants a repeal of Roe. He doesn’t want state funding. But if a community wants to permit the practice, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.

The federal government comprises three distinct branches of government, a legislature, an executive and a judiciary.

I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul, to the extant that The Federal Government violates the Constitution when it attempts to dictate one’s tax dollars for another’s abortion/euthanasia. IMO, The Federal Government should have nothing to say about it either way when it comes to enforcing a Civil Right above an Inalienable Right. This is what I believe Ron Paul Meant! Because I dearly know, The U.S. Constitution Is To Protect Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Happiness – Which Is Inalienable.

I understand why Dr. Paul has stated a ‘centralized’ pro-life policy is as wrong as a ‘centralized’ mandatory legalization euthanasia/abortion policy.  Basically it plays into the hands of those who are attempting ‘centralization’ it in the first place – you know – by the money changers/Rothschild. It is already in The U.S. Constitution ‘Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit Of Happiness’ and to get into a pissing contest with all the skunks is simply a waste of time. Life is ‘self evident’, should not the banter be rubricated as conception vs. nothing? Are we that stupid to believe that life happens when the doctor hands us our child and we smoke that cigar?  Are we to be suckered into this as if we were monkeys (talk to dickie dawkins on this – rothschild has him working this angle) thus wasting our time with the banter of pro-life vs pro-choice by death and thus granting them a modicum of legitimacy? Good gravy, had SCOTUS elected in the first place to protect conception aka; life, by upholding Inalienable Rights [Bestowed By God] over civil rights Statutory Rights, which are  [Bestowed By A Government], this mess would be settled! Further, there would not be a $Billion dollar industry born, against the United States Citizen’s tax dollars for a Sebelius to bilk. So now abortion became a ‘choice issue’ in statutory rights over-riding inalienable rights and we Americans must pay for another’s choice. Most Americans know that SCOTUS made the wrong decision by placing life lower than money….,

“Republicans, on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar.”

– President Abraham Lincoln

…..and it was all couched in rubricated language of ‘civil rights’ (Statutory won over Inalienable) which is anathema. So someone has the civil rights to destroy and subjugate mankind? Man cannot say that life begins at 1 day after conception, or 1 week later after conception, or 3 months after conception, and or outside the birth canal after conception. The operative words are ‘begin’ & ‘conception’, which are mutually exclusive events, and self evident of the reality that delve infinitely into the mystery of God Himself. One can play with a petri dish all day long and until the end of the world ‘fertilizing’, without ever being able to infuse the soul into matter, See The Constitution Inalienable Rights. Remember, the watch can never make the watch maker!

Flag Half Mast – In Remembrance To Abraham Lincoln Who Was Assasinated By A British Agent.

“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes… As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

Abraham Lincoln

De-funding Planned Parenthood: Founder Of Planned Parenthood White Supremacist Margaret Sanger.

His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, abortion clinics compete with alternative women’s clinics to provide for those in need of pregnancy services. In fact, if you want to look where the pro-life movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to abortion. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.


I recognize that good Catholics can disagree on the prudential application of moral matters. We can and should debate on how abortion should be limited or prevented, but something seems to be going astray with this line of argument above.

I wonder if someone could make the same argument regarding slavery for example? Sure it’s evil, but allowing one neighbor do it who supports it and another not do it who rejects it seems incongruous. If it’s evil, it must be prevented to serve the common good. The entire presupposition from a Libertarian perspective though is that all government is evil. How is this reasonable?

I am one Roman Catholic who disagrees with such a sweeping conclusion, about Libertarians who are a subset of The Republican Party. In a Republic  such as ours, it is the Liberal money hoarders who would have us believe America is a democracy such is not the case. A Republic is free from the tyranny of a Monarchy while a democracy is not. Our form of Federal government was created by the States to serve the States and it is the endeavor of the Rothschild/British Monarchy to turn this foundation upon its head. Our Founding Fathers were Libertarians and the construct of democrats and republicans were later perverted by the money changers into divide and conquer mechanisms. Libertarians want nothing more than The federal Government to be what The Founding Fathers meant it to be, a protector of our boarders for The States. Federal Government should not be into interstate commerce and nor should it ever be a dictator of taxation for healthcare and certainly not abortion. -Volubrjotr

The American Catholic

Related Posts:
Somalia, Libertarian Paradise!

The Conservative American Party

Transforming Culture through Politics?

One shoe size too small

A Union of Conservatives and Libertarians?

Libertarianism vs. Catholicism

Thomas Woods and His Critics, The Austrian vs. Distributist Debate Among Catholics

The Bastardization Of U.S. Higher Education & The Implementation Of George Soros/Rothschild Esperantism aka; Teutonic Zionism aka; Political Correctness.

Following in his father’s footsteps, [Soros] spent many an afternoon as a student in London propounding Esperantism at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. This means Soros speaks Esperanto, the linguistic construction universally considered naive in its intention, of replacing existing linguistic challenges with a synthetic language. This synthetic language is to delude others by inverting ‘empathy’.

To Overtake The Moral Language Of The United States, To Render The United States Defenseless Against Exploitation By The Money Changers Who Centralize.

In 1988: The ADL initiated a nationwide competition for law students to draft anti-hate legislation for minority groups.  That competition is won by a man named, Joseph Ribakoff, whose thesis proposes that not only must hate motivated violence be banned, but also any words which stimulate: supiscion; friction; hate; and possible violence, these must also be criminalised.

This ADL prize-winning paper suggests that not only should state-agencies monitor and restrict free speech in general, but they should also censor all films that criticize identifiable groups.  Furthermore, even if the person making the statement can justify it, for example Christians criticizing homosexuality because the bible expressly forbids it, Ribakoff asserts that the truth is to be no defence in court.


Abolish The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 Petition

State’s Constitutional Militias: Sovereign Militias Buy More Firearms In 3 Months, Than What It Takes To Outfit The Entire Chinese And Indian Armies Combined!