Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[Ridgerunner]

We hear the same business today from some folks on this Forum who assure us that there’ll be at least two new pro-life justices on the SC if only we get a Republican president, and tell us not to “throw away” our votes by refusing to jump on the GOP bandwagon. And, to them at least, it follows directly that a GOP president is tantamount to overthrowing Roe v Wade.

Wrong in both instances.

Another bullet hole through the strawman’s head.

Of course nobody can assure anyone that electing a prolife president in 2012 will guarantee two new prolife justices on the Supreme Court. That would depend on whether two die or retire, which nobody can know for sure will happen in a given presidential term.

But it is an absolute certainty that if Obama is reelected and if ANY seats on the SC open up, they will be filled with abortion supporters.

And it isn’t a “GOP bandwagon”. Since Obama is pro-abortion and is certain to be the Democrat nominee, and since it’s probable the only prolife candidate in the race with any chance of winning will be a Republican, characterizing it as a “GOP bandwagon” is as ridiculous as characterizing it as the “Female bandwagon” if, say, Bachmann is the nominee or the “Southern bandwagon” if it’s Perry. I would not vote for Bachmann becasue she’s a woman or because she’s a Republican. Nor would I vote for Perry because he’s a southerner or because he’s a Republican. I would vote for either because both are prolife.

The bandwagon we should be on is the prolife bandwagon, but only for a candidate who has a chance of winning, and everyone knows the winner will be either the Democrat Candidate or the Republican candidate. It’s just silly to say otherwise.

If Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, I’ll hold my nose and support him in the general, just like I did with McCain, and why? Because he would then be the only prolife candidate with any chance of winning. If somebody I like better than Paul decides to be a third party candidate, I would not support him, because outside the two parties, nobody can win.

 

[Homefries1313]

Ron Paul makes the case that the Iraq War Violates the Just War Doctrine. Is he correct?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ron Paul makes the case that the Iraq War Violates the Just War Doctrine. Is he correct?

What is the imminent threat from Iraq?

 

[1holycatholic]

What is the imminent threat from Iraq?

CCC:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Where does imminent come from?

 

[Gift_from_God]

Oops, I just realized that I put that on the wrong thread. Sorry

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Where does imminent come from?

I don’t know, lasting, grave, and certain.

Imminent: likely to occur at any moment. Sounds pretty much like “certain” to me. Why would you go to war with an entity if the threat was not imminent? If it isn’t imminent, then it is only speculative. I see no case in just war doctrine for speculative threats.

 

[miguel]

The point made is that the court said it wasn’t it’s place to decide if the unborn were persons or not. They even said that the Congress could declare the unborn to be persons by legislation, and then the 14th amendment would apply. Its right there in the ruling. That Congress hasn’t taken action on this in over 30 years is indicative of the scam the Republicans have been playing on the “conservatives” for years, and keep selling them on the notion that "If you just give us a majority in Congress and the Senate, and the White House, we will fix the Supreme Court so that Roe will be overturned. These are the very same “conservatives” who bemoan judicial activism. Right now, Roe is the law of the land. They will not overturn its precedent unless given good cause. Meanwhile, Congress, which actually has the power to do something, sits on its…(hands)… and does nothing.

Well, a bill was introduced, 3 times, that would have given personhood status to the unborn. But it went largely unnoticed by Congressional republicans, who opted to let it die in committee.

Blackmun’s majority ruling was that the unborn were not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. But I would like you to point me to where in the ruling it says Congress could declare the unborn to be persons by legislation. I’m not saying you’re wrong. The partial birth abortion ban act passed by Congress actually has language that a baby in the process of being born is not constitutionally protected until after it is born. And the GOP points to this as progress? This is why the Supreme Court upheld it. It was no challenge at all to Roe.

The relevant part of the 14th Amendment, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

The relevant quote from IX of Blackmun’s majority ruling in Roe:
“All this…persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”
law.cornell.edu/supct/htm…0_0113_ZO.html

Relevant quotes from the partial birth abortion ban act:
(14) Pursuant to the testimony received duringextensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:
(H) …A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a “person” under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a “person”.
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

From the 2008 GOP platform (unchanged for many years):
“…we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#5

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t know, lasting, grave, and certain.

Imminent: likely to occur at any moment. Sounds pretty much like “certain” to me. Why would you go to war with an entity if the threat was not imminent? If it isn’t imminent, then it is only speculative. I see no case in just war doctrine for speculative threats.

Catholic Answers: Just War Doctrine
LASTING, GRAVE, AND CERTAIN DAMAGE

The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.

The first condition indicates that there must be an aggressor who is harming the nation or the community of nations. One cannot go to war simply to expand one’s sphere of influence, conquer new territory, subjugate peoples, or obtain wealth. One only can go to war to counter aggression.

In recent wars, the aggressor often has been a nation-state, such as Germany was in the First and Second World Wars. But nation-states are relatively new in world history. Throughout much of history the aggressors were much smaller and more loosely organized. Even today many small wars are fought between tribes. In recent years they have been fought between national armies and drug cartels. And in the war on terrorism a principal aggressor has been the terrorist organization al Qaeda.

The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be “lasting, grave, and certain”, An aggression that is temporary and mild would not meet this condition. It must be foreseen to have effects that are both lasting and grave.

It also must be foreseen with moral certainty, moral certainty being the highest kind of assurance that is possible in geo-political matters. If this is present – and if the other conditions are met – then it is lawful to resort to war.

This means that it is not necessary for the aggressor to strike first. A moral certainty that the aggression will occur is sufficient. Such certainty might be present, for instance, if a party with a history of aggression began amassing troops or munitions.

In a world where it is possible for an aggressor to strike at a distance, with little or no warning, and to cause mass casualties, it is important to identify a potential aggressor early and determine whether he poses a morally certain danger.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Catholic Answers: Just War Doctrine
LASTING, GRAVE, AND CERTAIN DAMAGE

The first condition indicates that there must be an aggressor who is harming the nation or the community of nations. One cannot go to war simply to expand one’s sphere of influence, conquer new territory, subjugate peoples, or obtain wealth. One only can go to war to counter aggression.

In recent wars, the aggressor often has been a nation-state, such as Germany was in the First and Second World Wars. But nation-states are relatively new in world history. Throughout much of history the aggressors were much smaller and more loosely organized. Even today many small wars are fought between tribes. In recent years they have been fought between national armies and drug cartels. And in the war on terrorism a principal aggressor has been the terrorist organization al Qaeda.

The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be “lasting, grave, and certain”, An aggression that is temporary and mild would not meet this condition. It must be foreseen to have effects that are both lasting and grave.

It also must be foreseen with moral certainty, moral certainty being the highest kind of assurance that is possible in geo-political matters. If this is present – and if the other conditions are met – then it is lawful to resort to war.

This means that it is not necessary for the aggressor to strike first. A moral certainty that the aggression will occur is sufficient. Such certainty might be present, for instance, if a party with a history of aggression began amassing troops or munitions.

In a world where it is possible for an aggressor to strike at a distance, with little or no warning, and to cause mass casualties, it is important to identify a potential aggressor early and determine whether he poses a morally certain danger.

So, we are absolutely certain that Iraq and Afganistan were going to strike and cause grave damage to our country. So certain that we have been willing to commit resources and troops for 10 year to eradicate this threat? I don’t think so. It appears that these “wars” fit into the first “no-no” category…conducted to expand influence.

 

[kubark]

Blackmun’s majority ruling was that the unborn were not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. But I would like you to point me to where in the ruling it says Congress could declare the unborn to be persons by legislation. I’m not saying you’re wrong. The partial birth abortion ban act passed by Congress actually has language that a baby in the process of being born is not constitutionally protected until after it is born. And the GOP points to this as progress? This is why the Supreme Court upheld it. It was no challenge at all to Roe.

What is interesting about Roe v. Wade is that it denied a group of human beings status as legal persons without proving that they were NOT persons, before going on to allow them to be legally killed. Blackmun said, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then gauranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.” Of course, Blackmun never proved that they were NOT persons. The pro-aborts are the ones that have been creating the law and policy, so the onus is on them to be absolutely certain that the unborn is not a human person before they kill it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know, lasting, grave, and certain.

Imminent: likely to occur at any moment. Sounds pretty much like “certain” to me. Why would you go to war with an entity if the threat was not imminent? If it isn’t imminent, then it is only speculative. I see no case in just war doctrine for speculative threats.

I think it’s at least arguable. Saddam had started two wars, one of them a world war. He was violating the terms of the truce by shooting at Allied planes. He violated the “no fly” zone. He was genocidal. he used WMDs. He tried to assassinate a former U.S. president. He was responsible for the death of about a million people. He and his thugs were not removed during “Phase I” of the war only because the Arab nations wouldn’t put up with it at that moment. Had it been done, nobody would have argued that it was “unjust” to remove him and his supporters at that time. He had corrupted the UN and was starving his own people.

At the time of the renewal of the Iraq War, he was paying terrorists to assassinate Israelis. He had the capability and the desire to develop WMD, and we’ll never know for sure whether he had any. That can be argued. He did have training camps for terrorists that included all kinds of people from all kinds of countries.

So, how big a threat does there have to be to the “community of nations”, and how wide is that “community”? Was Iraq itself included in that, or did he have to be an imminent threat to Germany as well? He never renounced his claim to Kuwait. Did he have to kill another million people? Did he have to start another world war? Remember, Iraq was one war only. It was just in two phases.

I’m not trying to restart the endless argument here. I’m just saying its an arguable proposition and not as easy as some want to think it.

 

[kubark]

So, we are absolutely certain that Iraq and Afganistan were going to strike and cause grave damage to our country. So certain that we have been willing to commit resources and troops for 10 year to eradicate this threat? I don’t think so. It appears that these “wars” fit into the first “no-no” category…conducted to expand influence.

These wars are more in line with the “Ledeen Doctrine” of ex-Pentagon official Michael Ledeen, than they are with the Constitution or our founding principles. Ledeen says, “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small ****** little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.” In The War Against the Terror Masters(2003), he identified the exact regimes America must destroy: “First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with the Saudis…We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution…Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, form business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menances their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace…we must destroy them to advance our historical mission.” Norman Podhoretz in Commentary (2002) wrote that, " the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority…" Gee, does this any of this sound like it mirrors recent current events in the Middle East? Unless we start electing pro-life, pro-constitution men like Ron Paul, we are going to be commiting endless blood and treasure to these insane, unjust and unconstitutional wars.

 

[estesbob]

Ron Paul makes the case that the Iraq War Violates the Just War Doctrine. Is he correct?

In my opinion no. However from the standpoint of the Catholic Church that determination is left up to the Prudential judgment of the individual Catholic.

. I think those who claim this war is unjust do not realize that if that is true every single Catholic who fought in these wars is guilty of mortal sin and will suffer eternal hellfire unless they repent and go to confession. I seriously doubt those making this claim are confronting Iraq war veterans and informing them of how imperiled their souls are. The claim that the war is unjust is invariably made by those trying to use it to buttress their political opinions.

 

[kubark]

I think it’s at least arguable. Saddam had started two wars, one of them a world war. He was violating the terms of the truce by shooting at Allied planes. He violated the “no fly” zone. He was genocidal. he used WMDs. He tried to assassinate a former U.S. president. He was responsible for the death of about a million people. He and his thugs were not removed during “Phase I” of the war only because the Arab nations wouldn’t put up with it at that moment. Had it been done, nobody would have argued that it was “unjust” to remove him and his supporters at that time. He had corrupted the UN and was starving his own people.

Preemptive stikes have been the war options exercised by agressor nations like Japan at Port Arthur and at Pearl Harbor, and Hitler’s Germany against Poland. Or they have been the first resort of nations that cannot afford to lose a battle, like Israel in the Six-Day war of 1967. But preemptive strikes have never been America’s way. Wars for democracy may be the Wilsonian way, but they are not the conservative way. Additionally, the U.S. has found no compelling evidence Iraq was plotting to attack us or its neighbors, has found no evidence of ties between Sadaam and the perpetrators of 9/11, and has discovered no Iraqi nuclear program or any WMDs. Prudence is one of the marks of a true conservative.

 

[estesbob]

kubark;8268047:

Preemptive stikes have been the war options exercised by agressor nations like Japan at Port Arthur and at Pearl Harbor, and Hitler’s Germany against Poland. Or they have been the first resort of nations that cannot afford to lose a battle, like Israel in the Six-Day war of 1967. But preemptive strikes have never been America’s way. Wars for democracy may be the Wilsonian way, but they are not the conservative way. Additionally, the U.S. has found no compelling evidence Iraq was plotting to attack us or its neighbors, has found no evidence of ties between Sadaam and the perpetrators of 9/11, and has discovered no Iraqi nuclear program or any WMDs. Prudence is one of the marks of a true conservative.

Iraq was not a preemptive strike. Iraq was firing upon US warplanes several times a week and was in violation of the cease-fire agreement that ended hostilities from the first war. Even given these provocations the United States laid down conditions that if met would have The United States resuming hostilities.

 

[Wampa]

[re Roe v. Wade]The point made is that the court said it wasn’t it’s place to decide if the unborn were persons or not. They even said that the Congress could declare the unborn to be persons by legislation, and then the 14th amendment would apply. ** Its right there in the ruling. That Congress hasn’t taken action on this in over 30 years is indicative of the scam the Republicans have been playing on the “conservatives” for years**…

Blackmun’s majority ruling was that the unborn were not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. But I would like you to point me to where in the ruling it says Congress could declare the unborn to be persons by legislation. I’m not saying you’re wrong.

Scott, this is a pretty big accusation against Republicans and it deserves to be backed up. I’m also not saying you’re wrong (about Republicans intentions), but I want to see support for the assertion. I just went through the relevant parts of Roe and I can’t anything even close to what you’re suggesting. If you’re wrong on the legal nature of the situation, then your assertion about Republican intentions needs to be supported by some other argument or evidence, lest it fall apart.
Roe v. Wade p. 158:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn

The court based this conclusion on the other uses of the word “person” in the Constitution, precedent (citing 7 prior cases), and the fact that all existing state abortion statutes included exception language:

“When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?”

 

[estesbob]

Scott, this is a pretty big accusation against Republicans and it deserves to be backed up. I’m also not saying you’re wrong (about Republicans intentions), but I want to see support for the assertion. I just went through the relevant parts of Roe and I can’t anything even close to what you’re suggesting. If you’re wrong on the legal nature of the situation, then your assertion about Republican intentions needs to be supported by some other argument or evidence, lest it fall apart.

:

it is a typical politically motivated smear against those Republicans who have worked hand-in-hand with those of us active in the pro-life ministry to bring abortion to an end. . Those of us involved in the ministry know that every single limitation on this evil has comevia Republican Party and every single limitation was fought tooth and nail by the Democrat party. . I am saddened to see those who claim to be pro-life smear pro-life Republican elected officials for partisan political purposes

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scott, this is a pretty big accusation against Republicans and it deserves to be backed up. I’m also not saying you’re wrong (about Republicans intentions), but I want to see support for the assertion. I just went through the relevant parts of Roe and I can’t anything even close to what you’re suggesting. If you’re wrong on the legal nature of the situation, then your assertion about Republican intentions needs to be supported by some other argument or evidence, lest it fall apart.

The court based this conclusion on the other uses of the word “person” in the Constitution, precedent (citing 7 prior cases), and the fact that all existing state abortion statutes included exception language:

What about this country has gotten better under Republicans and Democrats in the last 30 years?

Has the business environment gotten better?
Poverty?
Drug Use?
Do we have more liberty or less?
How about our national budget?
How about that big one, abortion? I’ve heard alot of talk and some tinkering around the edges, but as far as a concerted, wholehearted, take no prisoners effort to drive a stake in the heart of that national vampire, what? Nothing. Just talk about stocking the Supreme Court and then complaints of judicial activism (irony?).
How about 10 year long wars against countries that have no more sophisticated weapons than AK47s and RPGs. Honestly. Both parties do a great job of getting their political bases all weeweed up about ideological battles, but in the end, the both follow the same trajectory.

The housing bubble can be laid squarely at the feet of both Republicans and Democrats.
The coming student loan bubble, same same.
Democrats have entitlement programs as a milestone around the taxpayers neck.
The Republicans have the DoD and their geewizz new Thundertricket, promising to strike fear into the very hearts of our enemies.
Both keep us perpetually engaged in wars against groups that really pose no imminent threat to our sovereignty.
Both continue to allow the Fed to create funnymoney so the banks can make trillions of dollars in profits at the expense of the taxpayer. And they both keep us busy pointing fingers “at the other guy”. WHy is it that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and a near 90% re-election rate? If you had an employee with a 10% approval rating, wouldn’t you fire him and hire someone more competant? No, we just find the next ideological Don Quixote and send him off to tip at windmills and begrudgingly pay whatever bill they send our way.
Why is it that every schmoe we put in the White House promises to be different, and within months they all appear carbon copies of each other?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

it is a typical politically motivated smear against those Republicans who have worked hand-in-hand with those of us active in the pro-life ministry to bring abortion to an end. . Those of us involved in the ministry know that every single limitation on this evil has comevia Republican Party and every single limitation was fought tooth and nail by the Democrat party. . I am saddened to see those who claim to be pro-life smear pro-life Republican elected officials for partisan political purposes

Maybe, just maybe, it is time for the Republicans to be as vocal and in your face regarding the abortion issue as the Democrats are. Why is it we need to be civil and dance the grand dance with a group of people responsible for the death of tens of millions of children since 1973? In the name of statemenship, we allow the most vulnerable to perish. Not very civil to me. They need to champion the cause of life as if it actually counted for something or shut up and get out of the way of people who will.

 

[estesbob]

Maybe, just maybe, it is time for the Republicans to be as vocal and in your face regarding the abortion issue as the Democrats are. Why is it we need to be civil and dance the grand dance with a group of people responsible for the death of tens of millions of children since 1973? In the name of statemenship, we allow the most vulnerable to perish. Not very civil to me. They need to champion the cause of life as if it actually counted for something or shut up and get out of the way of people who will.

Those of us who work in the ministry rather than just use it as a cudgel to try to adnvace their political agenda.know the political solution is much more complex than “let’s elect Ron Paul”.

After Ron Paul is once more eliminated from contention for the presidency, we will still be faced with 1.2 million children a year being killed in the nation obortuaries. And I am sure once again Ron Paul supporters who sit on the sideline, denying any help, and claiming it’s all our fault because we didn’t support their candidate.