Well don’t stop there. Show us the 50% where he voted against life. Do you have links or anything?

Try watching the video again because you missed a key point. In 2001, we had a GOP President, Congress, and Senate; we still had Roe v Wade. If Santorum, Newt or Romney is elected, we will still have Roe v Wade. Only Ron Paul’s plan could overturn Roe v Wade by stripping the federal courts of the jurisdiction.

Right on, Tom!  Too many conciliar Catholics have lost their way, starting with their support for the whole Novus Ordo farce.  If they’re not willing to acknowledge the destruction of our traditional Catholic Faith, they’re not going to question the moral rectitude of these anti-Catholic government policies.

I agree, Td, it WOULD be nauseating to those who prefer not to think about these matters.

My wife and I are proud converts to the Catholic faith going on seven years.  We have been Catholic in our thinking long before we joined the Church.  We currently have three children and are open to having more.  We have always been conservative in our values and in our voting.  I personally LOVE Tom Woods’ books, especially “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.”  But his endorsement of Ron Paul is a huge disappointment.  His argument is uncharacteristically full of holes to someone familiar with the life and career of Rick Santorum.  If I can find the time, I hope to post a point-by-point analysis/refutation of Mr. Woods’ arguments.  So sad for me to watch this video!  Ron Paul, among other things, blames the USA for the act of terrorism on our soil on 9/11.  This in itself is strong caution to anyone thinking of supporting him.  Hopefully, I can post more later.  But for now, please take it upon yourselves to think critically about Mr. Woods’ arguments.  Don’t just suck it all in because of who is doing the talking.  Then research Mr. Santorum’s life and career.  Mr. Woods: I love you.  But the informed choice for my family is RICK SANTORUM!

Paul explained this during the last SC debate.  As with crimes like rape and murder, Paul believes the jurisdiction of abortions lies with the states.  Instead of conservatives waiting year after year for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade (which have never happened under any, so-called conservative Presidents), it would be done quicker at the state level.

Regardless, using social issues like Abortion to divide a country and elect politicians is flawed and has done the country more harm when the priority of both parties should be on keeping debt and spending in control and retaining individual liberties (versus things like Patriot Act and NDAA).

The New American link is a good one. This one, also posted earlier is superb, as well: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/personhood-usa-insults-the-only-true-champion-of-life-dr-ron-paul?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Oh, I was hoping you had evidence of the system working.  Thanks for the reply!  

Pray tell, how would you have proposed fighting the USSR if it had started a nuclear war against us during the Cold War?  You do realize of course that nuclear misslies tend to kill innocent people along with the guilty.

My point is that if you decide to fight a war without killing innocents you are committing suicide.  If your opponent is willing to fire missiles and drop bombs on the your population and you aren’t, you’ve lost the war.

Perhaps it would be nice to go back to the days before planes and missiles, and have wars fought between two armies on a battlefield, but we can’t.  Besides, even in the olden days, people killed innocents.  Do you really think everyone involved in naval battles was guilty?  How about the innocent captives below deck?

Also, as I mentioned above, innocent populations are not truly innocent.  An army cannot survive without its populace back home supporting it (and the government) in a million different ways — providing food, clothing, moral support, etc.

(And if one wants to talk about innocence, what makes the soldier so guilty?  Half the time, the poor opposing soldier is drafted and would like nothing more than to go home.  You think killing him is so moral?  War is a bad and unhappy business.  Sometimes, however, it’s necessary.  And when it’s necessary, it’s best to fight it with complete force and end it as soon as possible with minimal casualties on one’s own side [even if that means killing more on the other side].)

Answer this then…because this is definitely not a prolife position.  He might be personally against abortion but that’s what prochoice people say.  The question:    How can Rep. Ron Paul reconcile his states rights permissive theory of abortion with the statement in our pledge that “every human being is created in the image and likeness of God and is endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to life.” If in fact our right to life comes from God, not government, and we acknowledge that “to secure these rights governments are instituted among men,” how can Rep. Ron Paul adhere simultaneously to the theory that entire states in this union may trespass with impunity upon these fundamental rights while maintaining that these rights are unalienable?”  Huffington Post:  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-personhood-pledge_n_1170373.html

Sorry, Harold.  You need to read the article posted above which I have provided.  Ron Paul may be personally against abortion but it is a bit impossible for him to be prolife and say each state can decide.  That is not a prolife position…that is a prochoice position.  Yours truly, Katherine Bernadette, Cistercian Oblate.

Oh, so you actually think the branch of government that thrust this oppression on us, the Supreme Court will overturn it? I don’t care who you are, the Federal Government will not overturn an unconstitutional mandate, it first requires the grasroots to get ticked off about it. Once this has happened and the states have stuck it to the Federal Government via Nullification, and ignoring of the so called Supreme Court, it would only be a matter of time before pro abort institutions are defunded. That will signal the end of abortion, not waiting and holding our breath for  Anthony Kennedy to change his mind, which will never happen.

If it feels its national security is threatened, yes.  That’s what armies are for.  And that’s why we pay tons of taxes to make sure we have one of the best in the world (so that if another nation does decide to attack us, we’ll be able to defend ourselves and win decisively).

Is it your contention that we should not attack a nation that represents a significant threat to us?

It’s my contention that those that feel threatened by us have justification to play by the same rules. Moreover, sometimes the best defense does not involve swatting hornet’s nests. Sometimes it involves taking a sober look at what has been wrought, taking stock of our resources, and deploying them in a measured fashion i.e. constitutionally, not whatever the heck you’d call the last 50 years.

And “best in the world” doesn’t mean anything if it’s unsustainable, overpriced, poorly designed, poorly deployed and overstretched. Pretending that our taxes produce anything akin to what is actually effective is delusional at best. 

During the GHW Bush administration, which imposed sanctions on Iraq, I received from a Catholic order of nuns working in Iraq a mass mailing describing the effect our sanctions were having on ordinary people, and urging recipients of the letter to do what they could to reverse American foreign policy.  I appreciated the point you made, Mr. Woods, about the social responsibilities of Catholics–and Christians in general.

The life/choice problem resurrects itself, phoenixlike, every campaign season.  I just stumbled on this letter to the editor from many moons ago:

I repeatedly found myself befuddled this campaign season as to what, precisely, Al Gore, Jon Corzine and others seeking election had in mind when they described themselves, open-endedly, as “pro-choice.”  Does “pro-choice” mean “it is a woman’s right to do as she sees fit with her own body”?  Or, does “pro-choice” mean ”it is for a woman to choose whether the fetus she is carrying is, or is not, a human being with an inalienable right to life” (something presumably relevant when one is contemplating terminating a pregnancy)?If  a woman’s conscience dictates her fetus is in fact entitled to life, does”pro-choice” now mean she, and only she, the mother, still possesses a right(superseding any right of the fetus) to determine whether it lives or does not?Whatever the definition, to declare oneself “pro-choice” is in effect to stateone has satisfactorily resolved thorny philosophical and moral problems–problemseven the Supreme Court of the United States facilely and irresponsibly dodged,summarily dismissing fetal life as “nonpersonal.”A parasitic entity like a fetus, for example, hardly enjoys the same biologicalstatus as a permanent anatomic member.  A woman’s decision to abort is not then, strictly speaking, one that affects only, or even primarily her own body.But even more troublesome and laughable, really, would be the tacit contention that the identity of the fetus–as a human being or not–can in any given case be contingent upon a woman’s conscience.  Whether a being represents an individual of some plant or animal species has always been, in the Western intellectual tradition at least, the province of science and not a matter of private speculation.The term “pro-life” on the other hand is not similarly fraught with difficulty.  Could that be because there is nothing disquieting to slide under the rug?  I personally have yet to encounter a single “pro-choice” partisan who, while tolerating abortion where other fetal life is concerned, has not readily confessed to being  grateful his own gestation had been successfully carried to term.  A sad commentary, isn’t it, on the supposedly obvious intrinsic merits of the “pro-choice” position?Yet the frailty of human nature and the fulminant character of contemporary feminism have proven a deadly combination:  the ranks of the “pro-choice” continue to swell, conspicuously including public figures with names like Moynihan andKennedy, Cuomo and Lazio, Mikulski and now, closer to home, Maryanne Connolly.  With so many in public life and even Roman Catholics passionately advocating ”choice,” abortion on demand would easily have remained a legal option indefinitely had we as a nation failed at this juncture to upset the status quo.Given the absolute defenselessness of human fetal life, it is hard to imagine any legally sanctioned practice more dehumanizing to eachof us, or one more compromising of the Judeo-Christian ethos than abortion.  Voters defending human life categorically–in its manifold manifestations–would seem to have set aside, and properly so I think, every less pressing political concern in our recent election, judging from the victories of George Bush and, here in our own 7th Congressional District, Mike Ferguson.    Ferdinand Gajewski, PhDWestfield, NJ 07090

Interesting. Bombs or sanctions. I guess good people do nothing.

Allegorically speaking, yes, Dr Paul acts better than certain BAD CATECHIZED Catholics.

 Ouch!!
You payed no attentions to the warnings on Sundays from most of the Catholic Churches, regarding the voting record of Obama. Today, everybody is paying dearly.
I became so upset, I had to go to confession to calm my feelings after he won the presidency, I could not believe there would be some Catholic who betrayed the Church -that was my position at the time, but through praying and the Sacraments, I soften my heart and started praying for those who voted obama.

FREEDOM is Biblical. God created us with complete freedom of
choice. He also informed us as to the consequences of our choices.
Everyone wants freedom to pursue their happiness but they want to deny others
the freedom to pursue their happiness. If everyone agreed that everyone has the
freedom to pursue their happiness in such a way as not to deny others the
freedom to pursue their happiness there would be very little need for conflict.
Ron Paul said freedom brings people together therefor he is crucified by the
intolerant. Under freedom we use persuasion to win people to our way of
thinking not force.

 We have to work with what we have! What is better, waiting and waiting for abortion to be banned by the federal government which will NOT happen or we can attempt to ban it state by state!!! I am also a Catholic, however, I am a Catholic in High School and I KNOW Ron Paul is the best choice not just for pro-life but for everything. I’m sorry but abortion is not the only issue here.

Consider this – the GOP will continue to offer middle of the road, big government, almost like a Democrat, lesser of two evil candidates. They can do this because they know that come November, we will ask ourselves which candidate will do the least damage, and cast our vote accordingly. I’ve thrown my vote Republican for as long as I could vote, for just that reason. I didn’t want to throw my vote away.

But now I realize that voting for someone else (write in, Libertarian Party, Constitutional Party) isn’t throwing my vote away. Throwing your vote away implies that it did no good.

In contrast, if we can get 10% to 15% of Republicans to “throw their vote away,” it will be far from meaningless. The Republicans will get pounded. But this is a good thing. It will remind them that they can’t just settle for the lesser of evils. Instead, they need to give us a GOOD candidate!

I know this is an important year. The next president will appoint two Supreme Court Justices. Do I want them to be appointed by Obama? No! Will I vote for Romney? No!

I have voted Republican my whole life, and this I will vote for the GOOD candidate. The GOP should have thought of this 4 years ago. They should have addressed it this year. I will not help elect Romney just because they force me into a corner. They’re banking that they can control me, and it will continue until we (true) Republicans stand up and say no!

I would rather have no Republican than a fake Republican.