Tom Woods Endorses Ron Paul over Rick Santorum and says Catholics Should Too

Editors’ Note: This is seriously old news. Vote for either Thing 1 or Thing 2.
—The Cat in the Hat.

He also gives Ron Paul the nod over Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Who is Tom Woods, and why should you care? Sure, I’m always the last one to know, but he has a resume that is half a mile deep and two miles wide. Here’s a taste,

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of eleven books, most recently Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse and Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. His other books include the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, as well as Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (with Kevin R.C. Gutzman), Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. His critically acclaimed 2004 book The Church Confronts Modernity was recently released in paperback by Columbia University Press.

And there is more, much more. He has over 17,300 Facebook likes? Yes, I live under a rock. So, you see, I’m glad he made a little video that folks like us might want to have a look at.

Below he outlines why he supports Ron Paul, and why other Catholics, and small “c” catholics too, should consider voting for him as well. Roll clip.

I’ve already stated that if Ron Paul is on the ballot come Super Tuesday in the primary in my state, he’ll be getting my vote. And basically for the same reasons that Dr. Woods outlines above.

Sure, you’ve been told that Ron Paul is crazy, a menace to society, etc. Maybe you’ve even been told that libertarianism is “incompatible” with Catholicism, which it would be if it were operating in a vacuum. But in our system, a) it’s not and b) beating a hasty retreat from the Police State is what you could expect from a Ron Paul presidency. Because the thing is, the pendulum of the single party of the Republicrats and Demoblicans, what with their undeclared wars, dictatorial police-state like power grabs, and propensity to enrich themselves while the rest of us suffer and die, has swung too far. Have you heard the other candidates in the debates? They’re all for the Patriot Act, continuing with the policy of undeclared wars, etc.

Ron Paul may be a libertarian, but the government of our nation is a republican form of government, not a libertarian one. Or you can continue to fool yourself that this time it’s different, and doing the same thing and expecting different results isn’t insane. Good luck with that. For those of you who believe that, here’s a poster just for you, though I think the saying shouldn’t be “NeoConservatism” but “Americanism” instead.

I’ll even throw in a soundtrack at no additional charge.

  • http://www.hermitofbardstown.com Stephen Taylor

    I can’t say I like his books for I do not, but I do think that Ron Paul right now, God help me, is the best we have going for us.

  • Rachel

    Thanks for this post. I also think Paul’s the best choice of the four remaining, and shows the most integrity in his beliefs.

  • http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com kneeling catholic

    Dear Frank!

    Cong. Paul has referred to Bradley Manning as a patriotic hero. The youtube of Paul’s endorsement can be found here.

    I don’t understand how you can just let something like that go by. You probably at some time, in your long military career, held a security clearance of some kind? perhaps you still do? What do you think of someone who swears to guard sensitive information about our nation’s security in confidence, and then turns around and starts shovelling it wholesale to our enemies? Mr. Paul says Manning is his hero.

    K.C.

    • Frank Weathers

      I never said Ron Paul is perfect, and neither does Dr. Woods. But seeing’s how St. Michael the Archangel isn’t on the ballot, and the Shock and Awe/ status quo candidates are the only other choices being prepared for us, I’ll be voting for Paul in the primaries.

  • http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com kneeling catholic

    >>>I never said Ron Paul is perfect,<<<

    that is hypo-bole!

    …when we are at war, what would you call Americans who give intentionally aid those who threaten us and kill our troops– daily (!)? Bradley Manning is one of the above. Do you not see a bold line which should not be crossed by any patriot?

    Ron Paul says Manning is a hero. How is that not an encouragement to any who might want to emulate Manning? How can a 'strict constitutionalist', like Ron Paul, be so clueless to the only crime to be clearly spelled out in our Constitution?

    K.C.

    • John J. O’Sullivan

      According to the definition of our “war,” we at war now and forever and unto the ages of ages. So, according to your lunatic assertion, the Constitution is no longer valid. So, according to you, we have no rights.

      Fortunately, the Constitution is still valid, and your view is not the majority one. And fortunately, we have people like Dr. Paul—and Private Manning—who are willing to blow the whistle on our government’s indiscretions.

      And, FYI, not a single troop has been “endangered” by Manning’s leaks. And, even better, a President Paul would get our boys the hell out of Afghanistan. And Iraq. And Japan. And Germany. And every other country in the world. Hey—you want to support our troops? Support the guy *they* support: Ron Paul.

      Or go support the fascist Santorum that “good” Catholics are telling me I should vote for. I think they’re assholes. They may like the Latin Mass, but they’re still assholes nonetheless.

      • Frank Weathers

        Easy on calling folks @**holes, there John. Okay? Check the comment policy below the banner. Thanks.

        • John J. O’Sullivan

          Sorry. But I’m tired of hearing about how I’m not a pro-life Catholic by people who support someone who loves murdering people in other nations. I’m tired of dealing with Catholics who don’t understand that Santorum has supported abortion through federal funding. And I’m tired of having to deal with being told that Santorum is the pro-lifeist pro-lifer of them all, even though he clearly isn’t (along with the fact that the man is a fascist). Using a dirty word in righteous indignation for someone who deserves it is no vice IMHO.

          • Frank Weathers

            After the results in South Carolina, I suspect you won’t have to hear that much longer.

  • Jude

    NEVER…the man is a looney….and further more he said he would put the abortion problem back to the states…ridiculous!….it belongs on a federal level and it should be taken back to the ILLEGAL status….and Ron Paul claims he is pro-life….hahahahah…he is a joke. I could give much more examples of how he is pro-abortion but you might have to read it with an open clear mind and I’m not sure that is possible after writing this article.

    • Frank Weathers

      Crazy. Like what they thought about that fellow in todays’ gospel reading (Mark 3:20-21).

    • John J. O’Sullivan

      If we put it in the states, we will have abortion stop pretty nigh well *immediately* among some states. And, if you love Santorum (and I’m assuming you do), he said the same thing years ago. Until he realized it didn’t sound the prolifiest of them all. So he has his current stand…which will still allow abortion to continue non-stop. He also wants to continuing the murder of kids around the world—by our military. He also doesn’t care that this war is killing our troops and driving them mad. Santorum is a pro-death candidate. On top of the fact he voted for a bill that funds Planned Parenthood. But he’s catholic so LOLS WE HAZ TO VOTE FOR HIM. Nonsense.

      Also, Ron Paul—pro abortion? Are you aware that he is an OB/GYN and he hates the practise? Of course not. You love Santorum and Everything He Says Is The Truth™. Vote for the guy. Be sure that he hasn’t a chance in hell in winning. I am a God-loving orthodox Catholic Christian and I will *NEVER* vote for Santorum. And I’m not the only one.

  • http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com kneeling catholic

    JOS >>>And fortunately, we have people like Dr. Paul—and Private Manning—who are willing to blow the whistle on our government’s indiscretions. …And, FYI, not a single troop has been “endangered” by Manning’s leaks.<<<

    Mr. O'Sullivan,

    Nice pontification! Can you back it up? As I understand it, Bradley Manning did not sort thru the mountain of intelligence he publicized. He just shoveled as fast as he could–his motive being revenge because the Armed Services were not promoting homosexuality enough. Are you saying that Manning sorted thru it and carefully removed anything which might aid those who are killing our troops? Please, refer me to your source.
    K.C.

  • Faith Roberts

    I’ve never read anything by Woods, but now I’m intrigued. I’m on the fence about Paul but that video clip is very convincing.

  • Paul

    Our society has become so infused with liberal dogma, that even “conservatives” don’t recognize true conservatism anymore. Ron Paul is the true conservative and will be getting my vote too.

  • http://www.newcommonwealth.org/ Silverfish2910

    Please join us on Facebook:

    Filipino-Americans for Ron Paul 2012
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/276683682183/

    Filipino Libertarians
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Filipino-Libertarians/108079822610155

    and

    New Commonwealth Herald
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Commonwealth-Herald/130264583656042

    Hope to see you there!

  • wineinthewater

    My thought on Paul basically comes down to this:

    - He’s kind of nutty, but its the opposite kind of nutty from what we have now, and we’d have to go through something more sane before we ever got to it.
    - Pure Libertarianism is actually partially incompatible with Catholicism. But it’s not like he’d stand any chance of ever moving many (if any) pure Libertarian solutions.
    - I trust him. I may not agree with him on everything, but when he says something, I believe he means it. I’d love to have a “you get what you see” president.
    - He’s the only major presidential candidate left who does not embrace any intrinsic evils. We might find his answers to some of those intrinsic evils less than satisfying, but at least he’s in the realm of prudential judgment.

    And John, no fruit chucking. ;P

  • https://www.facebook.com/Silent.Souls.for.Santorum?sk=wall Jeanette O’Toole

    Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic that began attending daily Mass in 1990. He and his wife as most know, lost one child soon after birth (Gabriel) and they have a seriously disabled child (Isabella). His wife wrote a book on their lost child, Gabriel, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta penned the forward to that book. I do not think any of this as happenstance, but rather occurrences that helped in forming an orthodox Catholic. What would be an interesting poll to take is how many post-abortive and regretful parents (they are the ones that well understand the horrendous effects of abortion and can usually spot who is true to their word regarding the pro-life cause) are voting for Rick Santorum compared to how many are voting for Ron Paul — My silent soul for Santorum.

  • http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com kneeling catholic

    Frank,

    Please forgive my returning to this topic, but since Mr. O’Sullivan never gave me sources to indicate that PVT Manning evaluated all 700,000 documents that he handed over to our enemies, I feel I need to point something out to you- that I am sure you will understand what Mr. O-Sullivan has not. This is because you are a veteran.

    I am certain you are familiar with the concept of Operational Security i.e. when members of a unit are forbidden to reveal even the most innocent logistical detail to their familes for fear that an adversary might piece things together and use that innocent detail to do us harm.

    What woud you have thought of one of your marines who deliberately publicized such a detail? Now multiply that times 700,000. Now remember that those 700,000 documents were not just logistical details to which all service members have acces, but contained sensitive intelligence which, at times, cost American lives to gather.

    I think you understand Mr. O’Sullivan’s statement that ‘not one life has been lost as a result’ is as meaningless as saying John Anthony Walker’s revealing our means of tracking Soviet submarines never cost us lives. Who knows? What is clear is a criminal indifference to possible consequences which can harm our national security.

    ‘Adhering to our enemies’ is adhering to our enemies. Mr. Paul’s failure to grasp this should rule him out to anyone who takes article 3 section 3 of our Constitution at face value.

    k.c.

    • Frank Weathers

      I believe Pvt. Murray is awaiting a court-martial, which will settle his particular case in the very near future.

      I made your link to Ron Paul’s video “live” so folks can view it easier. If they do view it, they will probably understand that what Mr. Paul appears to pointing out is the irony of a soldier being prosecuted for these alleged crimes, when, meanwhile, the big crime the undeclared wars being waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and, some candidates seem to hope soon, in Iran, go unpunished. Mr. Paul believes, unlike the other candidates, that these are all unconstitutional and illegal wars.

      Mr. Paul has good company on this, as Publius (writing in Federalist Paper #3) would likely be shocked at these recent actions. Publius, as John Jay, for example, had this idea in mind regarding just war,

      So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the safety of the people.

      As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter.

      Such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.

      The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.

      But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.

      I daresay Publius/Jay would be amazed that the last declared, and therefore lawful, war that our nation has waged was World War II, which, also interesting, was a just war. As for most of the others our country has engaged in since, Mr. Jay warned us about them in Federalist # 4 (bold is mine),

      It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances…

      The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in such a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country…

      But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.

      Ah, Publius…what a crazy dove he was.

  • Steve

    Great link on Libertarians & Catholics http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken139.html the quotes from Doctors of the Faith are outstanding too

  • http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com kneeling catholic

    Frank said>>meanwhile, the big crime the undeclared wars being waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and, some candidates seem to hope soon, in Iran, go unpunished.<<<

    Frank, are you saying that waging an undeclared war is per se illegal and immoral? If that is your position, or Mr. Paul's, I don't think either of you is on very solid ground.

    Undeclared wars are an American tradition — going back to the ones waged on the "shores of Tripoli" by Pres.' Jefferson and Madison.

    Paul calls us "back" to a history we never had!

    k.c.

  • Norminha

    Excellent!
    I like Santorum’s pro-life (in the womb) choice. But when it comes to life, we all have a choice -to choose life at all stages.
    Santorum believes because he belongs to the gop he suppose to share its killing ideas when things do not go the way the establishment demands. Why he wants to please the gop? As a devout Catholic, his first and last stance suppose to be for LIFE, in the womb and outside the womb. He must know wars kill innocents, children in the womb, outside the womb and adults.
    For a true conservative candidate, Dr Paul is the man. To clean up decades of mold in the White House, Dr Paul is the right President.
    For a vote with my conscience and not with my feelings, Dr Paul!!!

  • Philip

    Dear Mr. Weathers,

    Thank you for your clarity. I am grateful to see that there are some Catholic leaders out there who are not just aligning themselves with the status quo. In today’s era of politics, we will do ourselves harm if we listen to the narrative coming from the very people who seek to deceive us and to leave us with very little information.

    I’m a little bit surprised at how easy it has been for Catholics to fall in line with neo-conservatism. Now, we hail preemptive war as the only way to export freedom. We have forgotten about the true definition of what it means to be pro-life.

    In addition, we have also turned a blind eye to the evisceration of our civil liberties. Yes, the pro-life issues are paramount, but we have let the state take control of our lives in unprecedented ways –and I am not just talking about the Patriot Act and the recent NDAA law. We have let the banks get away with writing monetary laws through their lobbyists.

    In light of all of this, I have come to realize that every bill that is supported by both the Democrats and Republicans need to be looked over with a magnifying glass because chances are these two parties are really being ruled by lobbyists.

    May God help us

  • MBlanton

    Now wait a minute, before you write off Rick Santorum about what he says about Libertarianism (actually he has a problem with its origin and abuses) perhaps you should listen to what John C. Medaille writes about it:
    ‘One of the more egregious examples of Liberalism masquerading as “conservatism” is known as Austrian Libertarianism, an economic and social philosophy that traces to Ludwig von Mises and his student Murray Rothbard. It is not an idle charge that Mises considered himself a product of the Enlightenment, a “man of 1789” (the French Revolution); this he says himself. The question, therefore, is not whether Mises is the very embodiment of Liberalism; Mises did not dispute this and in fact boasted of it. The real question is whether the philosophy he represents can in any way be reconciled to the Catholic faith and serve as a basis for the understanding of Catholic Social Teaching, or indeed of anything Catholic or even Christian.

    As one who has studied Mises and his work, I find his economics useless and his philosophy jejune. But the academies are full of jejune and useless doctrines, and it just doesn’t do to get too upset by any one of them. So why should a book dedicated to refuting his work and Austrian libertarianism in general be of particular interest to Catholics? Because Austrianism has insinuated itself into the struggle over the interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching, in ways that in fact subvert that teaching, even to the point of rendering the Gospel null and void.

    That, of course, is a serious charge, and should only be made on serious and overwhelming evidence. That is the burden of Christopher Ferrara’s book ‘The Church and the Libertarian’, and it is a burden that he has met and even surpassed. Those who find Austrianism a useful interpretation of the Church’s teaching should give careful consideration to Mr. Ferrara’s presentation. He has done the Church a great service with this well-researched and well-reasoned discussion.’
    What we really need is a politician who is brave enough to stand up for the economic and social philosophy that Pope Leo XIII wrote about in his encyclical: Rerum Novarum which has a third way: Distributism which is basically Capitalism with morality, and not just Capitalism on a runaway to train to greed.

  • Katrina

    @Jude and anyone else who continues to say Ron Paul is prochoice…He has been trying to pass “The Sanctity of Life Act” several times since 2005. It defines life at the moment of conception at the FEDERAL LEVAL! It is constitutional since abortion is an act of violence against the human person. As of January, 2012 so called “prolife” senators are trying to mimic Ron Paul by putting forth “The Sanctity of Human Life Act”. How sincere can they be when they had a chance to save millions of lives and have ignored “The Sanctity of Life Act” since 2005. Not to forget how much money they end up giving Planned Parenthood by supporting bills they partially agree with.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X