The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Catholics Santorum, Hannity Attacked by Ron Paul Activist

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Catholics Santorum, Hannity Attacked by Ron Paul Activist

By Jeffrey Lord on 1.2.12 @ 1:51PM

Bear with me as we connect the dots.

This latest journey into Paulville began when I received a missive from a self-identified South Carolina Catholic Ron Paul activist named Chris Golden. The note, clearly part of a mass e-mail, and addressed to “Dear Fellow Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and other Patriotic Americans,” attacked the surging former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum — a famously staunch Catholic — as being a “heretic.”

The all-important South Carolina primary is scheduled for January 21.

Curious, no? As a Pennsylvanian who knows Mr. Santorum a bit (and if needed to know, voted for him for U.S. Senator), I am well aware that he is constantly under attack from the left precisely because he is a Catholic. So to see this odd missive attacking him as a heretic was, well, strange.

So what’s up here? Ahhhhhhhh. As always, more than meets the eye.

Included in this hot note from the South Carolina Catholic Ron Paul supporter were two very interesting articles. By which hangs the yet again inevitable tale that always seems to pop up in Paulville. On the surface the attack revolves around Santorum’s national security beliefs — famously far apart from Ron Paul. But this difference of political opinion between two presidential candidates was used as an excuse to circulate two quite specific articles on Catholics to Paul supporters.

The first article attached by Golden and circulated was by one Robert A. Sungenis. In which this Protestant boy was startled to see our friend Sean Hannity, a Catholic, attacked in this fashion:

Typical examples of leading Catholic figures who have been ensconced by the Neo-con agenda (or, worse, are mere plants posing as Catholics) are Sean Hannity who, having advertised his stance against the pope’s opposition to the Iraq war, had the temerity to host Protestant Franklin Graham (Billy Graham’s son) on his popular Fox television show, allowing him to chastise the pope. So enamored is Hannity with the Evangelical agenda that his best-selling book, Deliver Us From Evil, contains the Protestant, not Catholic, version of the Our Father on the inside cover.

There was more, but you get the flavor.

Nor was Hannity alone. Also attacked by Sungenis were Catholics George Weigel (biographer of Pope John Paul II), the late William F. Buckley Jr. and his brother, former New York Senator and federal judge James A. Buckley, the Catholic philosopher Michael Novak, Princeton’s Professor Robert P. George, former Reagan Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, former Judge Robert Bork and wife Ellen Bork and… well… you get the picture.

The second article attached was by Daniel McCarthy. The 2005 piece, attacking Catholics like the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, can be found here at the American Conservative — but that isn’t where I found the link. Where did I find the link to the McCarthy piece?

That’s right. Over there in Paulville — aka the Lew Rockwell Report. Mr. Rockwell, you will remember, is the longtime Ron Paul ally and ex-chief of staff who was publicly fingered recently in the Wall Street Journal by no less than Cato Foundation president Edward H. Crane as the “likely source” of those controversial Ron Paul newsletters.

So, who is Robert A. Sungenis that his writings would be cited in a mass e-mail as back-up evidence of Senator Santorum’s alleged heresy?

Sungenis is the man behind a publication once called Catholics Apologetics International but now renamed the Bellarmine Report, found here. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) was a Cardinal and is a saint in the Catholic Church. And while I could not find a link to the article quoted above, I have found that Mr. Sungenis apparently renamed his publication after being directed to do so by his Bishop. Why? The Most Reverend Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania was not happy over Sungenis’s writings on Jews and Judaism. Quite aside from the Catholic side of this curious incident, this is a familiar problem yet again with a Paul supporter and allegations of anti-Semitism that seems to eternally pop up with Ron Paul supporters.

Here is the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Sungenis, and another story from the Washington Post that says:

Sungenis’s writings on Jews have been sharply criticized by fellow Catholics, who accuse him of anti-Semitism. His local bishop, Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, has demanded that Sungenis stop writing about Jews and made him stop using the word “Catholic” in his organization’s name.

Sugenis posted a statement on his wrangle with Bishop Rhoades here. Interestingly, when one scrolls down at this site, one finds photo scans of original correspondence from Bishop Rhoades himself on Mr. Sungenis written to a third party.

What do we have here after following all these dots?

Senator Rick Santorum’s Catholicism is under attack in a mass e-mail by South Carolina’s Mr. Golden, a South Carolina GOP activist who self-identifies as a Catholic Ron Paul supporter.

Mr. Golden was recently in the news for a tangle with prominent South Carolina Republican Dean Allen, a veteran and one-time candidate for South Carolina Adjutant General, over Allen’s letter to the state GOP chair requesting Paul and his supporters be banned from future debates based on what Allen believed to be “the boorish behavior of the Ron Paul idiots” at the November, 2011 nationally televised debate from Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Mr. Golden made his case on Santorum with material by Mr. Sungenis and Daniel McCarthy as backup evidence. In the latter case the McCarthy piece is linked by the Lew Rockwell Report.

One last thing:

Mr. Golden ends his attack by saying this of Santorum:

Let Santorum follow Bill Kristol. I’ll worship Jesus Christ and follow His Vicar: the Pope.

That’s a curious statement when one realizes the Catholic Church and the Pope say homosexulaity is a “sin” — and Ron Paul, as heard here in 2008, specifically denies this to be the case. Which apparently means Mr. Golden makes exceptions to Catholic doctrine and the views of the Pope on what is a “sin” — if Ron Paul has a different view. Does this make Golden a “heretic”?

Golden adds a P.S. with this note — all in caps — at the bottom:

PS: PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ALL THE CATHOLICS YOU KNOW — ESPECIALLY IF THEY LIVE IN IOWA OR NEW HAMPSHIRE. THANK YOU.

Consider it done.

View all comments (153) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Hobbes| 1.2.12 @ 2:14PM

Your desperate smears against Ron Paul will have no effect. The Revolution will continue!

spike59| 1.3.12 @ 6:31AM

back to the mother ship with you

James Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 7:16PM

Mr. Lord also attempts to smear Dr. Robert Sungenis in this article. Sungenis, a brilliant Catholic apologist knows full well that The American Spectator is nothing more than a neo-con Zionist mouthpiece. His stunning response to this particular article is found at http://www.catholicintl.com/in.....-santorum.

Servitus| 1.6.12 @ 4:21PM

According to Sungenis himself, he was forced by his bishop to stop calling his organization "Catholic". It's right on his geocentric website:

"...[Bishop Rhoades] forced me to take the name 'Catholic' from my website."

http://galileowaswrong.com/gal.....ures/4.pdf

The reason why Sungenis' bishop publicly denounced him and he was forced to stop calling his organization Catholic is easy enough to find. It's all over the Internet. It's because of things like this:

http://sungenisandthejews.blog.....genis.html

Servitus| 1.6.12 @ 4:24PM

Sungenis' new slanders against Bishop Rhoades were shown to be false, including his carping about "supersessionism", which is a non-existent teaching of the Catholic Church. Read:

https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations

It looks as though Sungenis keeps attacking his bishop as a heretic just to get attention off the real reasons he's gotten into such trouble with the Catholic Church.

What he's doing is not Catholic. Ron Paul supporters aren't helping themselves by associating their candidate with this kind of stuff.

Jay| 1.2.12 @ 2:28PM

Lord smears Ron Paul again. Yawn.

Jack in Wi.| 1.2.12 @ 9:45PM

Lord doesn't know how to do anything but smear Ron Paul. That is what he is paid to do. It won't matter. As I have said for months the nomination is down to Dr. Ron Paul and Willard Romney. All the huffing and puffing in the world won't change all that. People like Lord have a job to do make sure there is no change in the national government. Bush 1 Clinton, Bush 2 Obama, Romney, etc are all part of the same Klan. They all wear white sheets and you can't tell them apart.

Clint| 1.3.12 @ 12:15AM

The Smear Bund RINO-CINO's Don't Get It.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hvuru-Slls

James Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 7:19PM

Louis Nardozi | 1.2.12 @ 2:31PM

I know you're really stupid and it's hard for you to keep up, but the person said Hannity had the protestant Our Father instead of the Catholic. In what way is that an 'attack'? And what does ANY of it have to do with Ron Paul, other than some guy identifying himself as a supporter? Have you ever seen Hannity interview Ron Paul? You want to talk about hate speech, why not start there?

Rich D| 1.2.12 @ 7:26PM

What is the difference? Are the two versions in Scripture denominational? What a surprise!

Nick| 1.2.12 @ 11:09PM

Rich D.,

The so-called Protestant version of The Lord's Prayer is not in the Sacred Scriptures. The last part, i.e., "For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power, the Glory, forever" is not found in the earliest manuscripts that have survived.

Although, it is true, that this doxology was used in several early Eastern Rite Catholic liturgies dating back to the fifth century A.D., e.g., Greek and Syriac; the earliest Scripture manuscripts, in which we find this doxology included in Matthew 6:13, are from the 12th century, in manuscripts being rescued from Constantinople during the Moslem invasion. Almost everyone agrees that it was added by transcribers of that time.

I don't know how this addition to the Our Father ended up being the version that Protestants commonly recite. I need to do more research on this subject.
God Bless!

aware| 1.2.12 @ 2:49PM

And here in Lordville another Paul hit piece. As usual, personal attacks, name calling, attacking "surrogates" who aren't really surrogates at all, etc.

I can't help but notice that after your pitiful 16 or 18 smear piece attempts Paul's support has gone up. Are you sure you're not a Paul surrogate?

Jeffrey Lord | 1.2.12 @ 2:56PM

OK...

I'm puzzled. I get repeated e-mails from Ron Paul supporters. This one, from a prominent South Carolina Ron Paul activist, had specific attachments, all accurately linked or quoted. So how is this an attack on Ron Paul? Is Mr. Golden secretly a Newt Gingrich/Romney or Establishment GOP activist pretending to be a Paul supporter? Evidence please.

aware| 1.2.12 @ 4:30PM

Puzzled? It is an "attack" by how you are attempting to use it. And your reply is once again misdirection. The issue is not this guy Golden since he ain't running. His problems with his fellow Catholics is a matter for Catholics to worry about, which I don't happen to be. The same thing goes on with Baptists. Or any other grouping of human beings. So what?

And he, or anybody else, has the right to support whomever he wishes, whether the support is welcome or not.

The issue is your insistence on personal attacks instead of policy differences. Try writing a piece on policy and why you disagree for a change. Candidates don't draft supporters and don't even have to agree to have that support. Stop acting like Paul should be vetting every person who professes support.

beebop2| 1.3.12 @ 5:11AM

Why is it with Paulinistas that ANYTHING that raises a question about Paul -- who is a JOKE -- is an attack? You guys make the 0bamabots look benign. Damn if I want to see that for a full freaking year!

aware| 1.3.12 @ 5:37AM

Why don't you just bee bop away. I don't happen to be a Paul supporter. Bet that ain't the only thing you are wrong about, jerk.

Dai Alanye | 1.2.12 @ 8:00PM

From the viewpoint of some people, speaking or writing the truth is an attack. Many of these people seem to be supporters of Ron Paul.

spike59| 1.3.12 @ 6:33AM

'mere plants posing as Catholics'
==========================
typical of the Paulite Paranoia Syndrome...

Quartermaster| 1.2.12 @ 8:13PM

Puzzled? I just bet you are Lord.

Another excursion into the fever swamp of Lordville. I think Reagan would be ashamed of you for doing to someone else what was so often done to him by leftists like you.

If you can't refute what he says, then you need to quit smearing the man. Act like a conservative instead of a moonbat.

Occam's Tool| 1.3.12 @ 1:54AM

Bradley Manning is a Traitor if he released data to Wikileaks, not a hero. Paul says he's a hero if he did that. The man is not fit to be POTUS. He's an eccentric wombat with no ability to understand what is necessary to protect American security. Period.

beebop2| 1.3.12 @ 5:12AM

Thank you for your succinct response that is current events focused. Paul is a frightening spectre.

aware| 1.3.12 @ 5:40AM

Occam is a tool believes in "nuking" Iran and that the State should be able to do anything in secret. Some "conservative".

Con Chef (NB) | 1.3.12 @ 10:23AM

Yeah. Especially when they've sworn to use said weapons against us. What? Idiots like YOU worry? You people are laughable in your ignorance.

Quartermaster| 1.3.12 @ 7:41PM

I have stated that the Bradley Manning statement is enough to kill Paul. I do not regard hims as any kind of hero. Period. Try to keep up here.

That does not make Lord's idiocy any less pathetic, or any less of a smear. There is enough out there to do Paul in without engaging in the type puerile smears Lord is engaging in.

Reagan would be ashamed of Lord.

Anthony M| 1.2.12 @ 3:00PM

Can Mr. Lord just once make an argument against Ron Paul based on his actual stances on issues? There are legitimate reasons to disagree with Paul on many issues but Lord always wants to argue like a Trotskyite bringing up guilt by association, name-calling and misrepresentation of facts. The funniest of which is the so-called "racist" newsletters which if one is able to read are far from racist. Come on Lord, act responsibly.

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 3:02PM

" Written By : Eric Dondero ( Rittberg)

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88

I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.

I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.

Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.

He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Oldefarte| 1.2.12 @ 5:02PM

I notice that this supposedly qouted article is not dated/sourced naturally since it's no doubt ficticious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 6:08PM

Asked And Answered.

Do Your Homework.

Hint: Hawkins

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Old Smelly.

spike59| 1.3.12 @ 6:37AM

i see that you SELECTIVELY left out the rest of Dondero's remarks:

he is “most certainly anti-Israel and anti-Israeli in general,” and “supports [the Palestinians] calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”

Jeffrey Lord | 1.2.12 @ 3:05PM

Anthony M...

If you bothered to click on the WSJ link...it is a defense of Ron Paul but a disavowal of the newsletters....So even someone who knows and likes Ron Paul thinks the newsletters are indefensible....Why not you?

Anthony M| 1.2.12 @ 5:37PM

Because I've actually read the newsletters. It's not the 70s anymore, we have a little thing called the internet now so us lowly citizens can gather information on our own. I learned a long time ago not to trust media types when they disparage Republican candidates on racial issues.

WL| 1.3.12 @ 12:59PM

Anthony, if you think Mr. Lord is a "media type" that smears republicans...think again.

Go do your voting for Paul and have at it.

He is a disaster, and I firmly believe that he is prepared to and will deliberately sabotage the effort to un-elect Obama from office by running third party...

Now, I am sure that you Paul supporters will have a fit,, but that is what I believe.

There is a reason that he gets so much play...There is a reason that he goes on the Bill Maher show and gets a wonderful reception...

He's a phony.

And this election will show it.

Quartermaster| 1.3.12 @ 7:45PM

Alas, Lord is smearing a Republican. And since he is published in the media, he is a media type. As I have said before, there are plenty of things Paul really has done that are enough to sink the man without engaging in leftist style character assassination. Lord is being truly puerile here.

Any more strawmen you'd like demolished while we are at it? Or are you fresh out?

Tom| 1.2.12 @ 3:05PM

Mr. Robert Sungenis also embraces geocentrism--the belief that the sun revolves around the earth rather than vice versa. He has even offered an offier of $1,000 to anyone who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun.

http://biblelight.net/kepler.htm

Yet this is the kind of person that Paultards use to justify their positions and advance the cause of their Kult Fuhrer!

How totally appropriate.

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 3:27PM

Catholics For Ron Paul 2012

" Below are some of the reasons that certain Catholics in Iowa are citing in their support of Ron Paul:

“Dr. Paul’s record on the sanctity of life cannot be questioned. I appreciate that he offers pro-life advocates new ways of thinking on this important issue, such as through affirming states’ rights,” continued Mr. DeVries. Mr. DeVries serves as Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus Council 10282 out of All Saints Catholic Church in Des Moines. He is also a Ron Paul campaign co-chairman for Iowa’s 3rd congressional district.

Story County GOP Chairman Cory Adams, who endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican nomination earlier in the week, also serves on the “Catholics for Ron Paul” national advisory board.

“I support Ron Paul because of his strong pro-life stance. He believes that life begins at conception and has pledged to veto any budget that funds Planned Parenthood or any other abortion services. His views on life and abortion both line up completely with the teachings and positions of the Catholic Church,” said Mr. Adams.

“Ron Paul has committed to vetoing any spending bill that funds Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion or family planning schemes. This is exactly what Catholics expect from our next president. America needs Ron Paul in the White House,” said A.J. Spiker, a “Catholics for Ron Paul” national advisory board member, a Republican Party of Iowa Central Committee member, and Vice Chairman of the Ron Paul presidential campaign in Iowa."

Many Of Us Tea Party Catholics Support Dr.Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Smear Bund Boys.

Tom| 1.2.12 @ 3:39PM

1. I'm not Catholic.

2. Dr. Nutjob's opposition to Planned Parenthood funding has to do more with his views on federal funding (except of course when it comes for earmarks for his home district) than with any professed pro-life convictions.

3. If Paultards such as Herr KKKlint want to welcome geocentrists such as Robert Sungenis into their camp, they are more than welcome to have them.

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 4:13PM

I Am A Catholic For Dr.Ron Paul And We Know You Are A Smear Bund Girl, Thomasina.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Smear Bund Girlie,Thomasina.

Tom| 1.2.12 @ 4:29PM

We all know that Herr KKKlint is a Jew-hating, neo-Nazi, ignorant, Paultard scumbag who is the best kind of friend that the enemies of America could ever have.

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 6:10PM

That's A Lie.

You're A Liar, Smear Bund Boy.

The Tea Party Rebellion Has The Smear Bund Apoplectic.

Tom| 1.2.12 @ 10:15PM

Prove it, you lying insane piece of neo-Nazi Paultard trash.

Oldefarte| 1.2.12 @ 5:10PM

Then explain the following and how it contrasts to the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality:

http://youtu.be/zIeW0DY64bE

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 5:49PM

You're One Of The Hypocrite Non-Catholics,Who Has Badmouthed Us Catholics Before & Made Slandering Reference Comments Regarding Dr.Ron Paul In His Short Shorts.

" Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner. "

While Mr.Neutered & The Hermanator Messed With The Young Lovelies,We Catholics Are Allowed To Vote For ThemToo, And Jews And Even RINO-CINO Frontman Mormons.

The Tea Party Catholic, Clint Throws Holy Water On The Fart Man.

Dai Alanye | 1.2.12 @ 8:06PM

It is still true: among the best reasons for voting against Paul is the type of support he attracts.

Occam's Tool| 1.3.12 @ 1:56AM

Indeed, Dai. By the way, happy New Year.

Margie| 1.2.12 @ 9:09PM

Ken the Reprobate and RCV say it isn't Sin.
They say God made Homosexuals that way, and that Christians who say it IS Sin are being 'judgmental' and "Pharasitical' and 'hateful."

Oooh, just like RU PAUL.

Apparently, they haven't gotten the memo from God.
Us "Bible Idolators" and "Satan-women" and "Scripture-throwers" still stand on the Scriptures and spit in the faces of the lying Reprobates who call God a liar.

"For if God did not spare the Angels when they sinned, but cast them into Hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes He condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly.."2 Pe. 2:4-6.

"And the Angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by Him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the Judgment of the great Day; just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." Jude. 1:6 & 7.

mike| 1.3.12 @ 8:05AM

So God sent a memo to Margie?

Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 2:25PM

I love you, Margie.

Margie| 1.2.12 @ 9:10PM

p.s. The Catholic "church" has been indulging in this SIN for centuries, and they protect their own.

Babylon the great doesn't get a pass.

mike| 1.2.12 @ 10:26PM

Who is worse Clint or Margie? It is embarrasing to have these two here saying they are voting for Republicans. I think they are both Democrats posing as Republicans to make us look stupid and intolerant.

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 12:58AM

One of us is a liar, the other tells the truth.
And God will be the Judge!
So, stuff it, mikey boy.

mike| 1.3.12 @ 8:04AM

Is that all you think about pervert, "stuffing it?"

Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 2:25PM

I love you, Margie.

Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 2:25PM

I love you, Margie.

Oldefarte| 1.2.12 @ 5:04PM

Why don't you tell everyone about Ronnie's stance on HOMOSEXUALITY, and HOW IT IS CONTRARY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S TEACHINGS ON SAME??????????????

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 5:53PM

I Just Did Fart Face.

The Tea Party Catholic Sprinkles Some More Holy Water On The Fart Man.

The Knife| 1.2.12 @ 3:06PM

This is but another look into the disgusting world of Ron Paul supporters. Among bigoted whites there is a contigent that stirs up racial hatred. With respect to Jewish Americans there is nonstop attacks that they are somehow not legitimate Americans. Among Catholic Paul supporters there is the charge that Santorum of anybody else Catholic that doesn't support Paul are not truly Catholic and should follow Bill Crystal. Wherever you look in the Paul campaign you find rotten or truly clueless people. Is there any place his campaign is unwilling to go?

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 3:32PM

Catholics For Ron Paul 2012

Below are some of the reasons that certain Catholics in Iowa are citing in their support of Ron Paul:

Story County GOP Chairman Cory Adams, who endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican nomination earlier in the week, also serves on the “Catholics for Ron Paul” national advisory board.

Many Of Us Tea Party Catholics Support Dr.Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On These Smear Bund Agendists.

Oldefarte| 1.2.12 @ 5:06PM

See above 5:04PM, Robo-brain [and answer the GD question]!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 5:57PM

I Already Did.

And You Said A Bad Word, Fart Mouth.

You Seem So Cranky And Blocked This Fine Evening, Fart Face.

Apparently, You Didn't Eat Your Prunes This Mornin'.

The Tea Party Catholic, Clint Smites The RINO.

Oldefarte| 1.2.12 @ 5:11PM

Then explain this:

http://youtu.be/zIeW0DY64bE

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 6:02PM

Wow, I Already Did, Smelly.

Apparently, You're Up To The "H" in Alzheimer's.

Here, Pin This Note With Your Address On You.

Dear Lord, Please Help This Poor Alzheimer's Victim, Mr.Fart Face.

Dai Alanye | 1.2.12 @ 8:09PM

No-one who supports the decrepit-looking eccentric Ron Paul should carelessly throw around references to Alzheimer's.

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 9:52PM

What Are Ya Gone Do About It Ass Clown ?

Hmmmmm ?

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

anonoped| 1.2.12 @ 3:10PM

How is the support of a random Ron Paul supporter emailing people news?

Is this all the smearing you can come up with? This is comical and pathetic.

Why do you hate freedom and liberty?
Why aren't you writing your outrage against the congress and president signing the NDAA?
If you were truly religious your blog here would be dedicated to the ending of war in the Middle East.
If you don't support Ron Paul then you're for the murder and maiming of children overseas.
Not very Catholic, Christian or religious of you now is it?

William R| 1.2.12 @ 3:18PM

The Pope came out against the Iraq war. It didn't meet the Catholic Just War Theory

http://catholicism.about.com/o.....Theory.htm

Rick InSanatorium is just another GOP Chicken Hawk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Robert Steele is a former Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years and was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer with the Central Intelligence Agency. He is the founder and CEO of OSS.Net as well as the Golden Candle Society. Steele also was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University in the mid-1990s.

Nick| 1.2.12 @ 7:21PM

William R.,

Did you read your own link?

"The current Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2309) defines the four conditions for determining the justice of a war as:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
[Saddam had not kept any of the promises he made to get the cease-fire to stop Operation Desert Storm. He also shot at our military aircraft for 11 years. Saddam was a "lasting, grave, and certain" threat.]

"2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
[Again, Saddam flaunted all the terms of the cease-fire and fired at our aircraft. President Bush gave him 6 months to give full access to all WMD sites before we invaded. Saddam refused to comply.]

"3. there must be serious prospects of success;
[There was no question which side was going to succeed.]

"4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
[The very low number of victims of collateral damage were far outnumbered by the victims of Saddam's brutality.]"

Also, Pope John Paul II never said that Operation Iraqi Freedom did not meet the qualifications of a Just War. The Holy Father just wanted more diplomacy. But, John Paul the Great did not have the information that President Bush had.

Since both John Paul II and Benedict XVI lived through the horrors of WWII, it is understandable that they would want negotiations to continue. Unfortunately, Saddam chose to go to war. Thus, making it Saddam's war of choice, not President Bush's.

Margie| 1.2.12 @ 9:12PM

Who CARES what the Vatican teaches, they are NOT LORD.
They are a corrupt, filthy cult, and have NO say in our affairs or in anything, especially not in Christianity.

Jesus Christ is LORD.
Repent and believe the Gospel of God, as written in the Bible, not the Vatican.

Nick| 1.2.12 @ 10:00PM

Margie,

Do infants sin, or don't they? It's a simple question, for those who can understand Greek and the Bible.
Where are the answers to my other two questions, by the way?

"Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing." - 1 Peter 3:9

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 1:06AM

Apparently, as I've said before, your cult believes that they do~ they baptize them.

And yet, baptism is for adults according to the Bible.

The Spirit of God says, "Repent and be baptized." Acts 2:38.

Infants can't repent, I don't care what anyone says.
So, I've answered your question for the umpteenth time, Nick.. are you still going to stalk me like an idiot saying, "answer my question."

And anyhow~ who do you think YOU are, anyhow? You throw your weight around like you have some kind of authority, and perhaps you do, but only in the Catholic church, but not with Christians.
Just like the Popes you sadly worship.
Got it?
Zip, zero, nada.
So,

Nick| 1.3.12 @ 12:27PM

Margie,

"Apparently, as I've said before, your cult believes that they do~ they baptize them."

Ahh, but I did not ask you what the Catholic Church teaches, did I? Stay focused and quit trying to change the subject. Like you always do.

"Infants can't repent, I don't care what anyone says."

To repent, one has to have sinned against God, doesn't one? How can infants sin against God? This is the question that you refuse to answer.

"So, I've answered your question for the umpteenth time, Nick [...]."

You have not answered the question. And, there were two other questions, remember? You never attempted to answer either of them. In case you forgot them, here they are:

Did Paul mess up when he wrote, in the same chapter, that "many have sinned"?
Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Old Testament authors to write that Enoch and Elijah did not die, and then inspire Paul to write that "ALL [pantes] have died"? If He meant ALL, as in everyone who ever lived?

"[...] are you still going to stalk me like an idiot saying, 'answer my question.'"

Pot calling kettle. Aren't you the one who hounds Ken in every thread, demanding answers to your questions? Didn't you repeatedly castigate James the Mormon for not answering your questions? Physician, heal thyself.

"And anyhow~ who do you think YOU are, anyhow?"

I'm not anyhow, I'm Nick from Detroit. Your former friend, remember? Although, I still consider you a friend, despite all of your unfriendly behavior.

I don't throw my weight around. I just defend my deeply held beliefs and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Don't you do the same concerning your beliefs? What's that word that means a person who doesn't practice what they preach? I believe it begins with an "H".
Happy New Year and God Bless!

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 2:38PM

So, why is it that your cult teaches the baptism of innocent children, Papist?

Nick| 1.3.12 @ 3:54PM

Margie,

Why do you always try to change the subject? Like Toddard and 3/5 Bob?

Stay focused like a laser-beam, as Michael Medved likes to say. Answer my three simple questions, if you are able.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 5:42PM

So, why is it that your cult baptizes innocent infants and children?

Nick| 1.4.12 @ 1:10AM

Margie,

Do you not understand what stay focused like a laser-beam means? It does not mean deflect and try to change the subject.

The issue, here, is your interpretation of Saint Paul's words in Romans 3:23 and 5:12, remember? Not what the Catholic Church teaches about infant baptism.

So, why do you continue to refuse to answer my three simple questions?
Do infants sin against God, or not?
God Bless!

Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 2:23PM

I love you, Margie.

PapistDan| 1.2.12 @ 10:30PM

BIGOT ALERT!!!! BIGOT ALERT!!!!!

Idiot Bigot Margie has crawled from under her rock, mouth foaming, head spinning for her daily anti catholic bigotry that nobody wants to hear.

She still poses as a so called Christian when she admits she doesn't believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is God.

She is angry and frustrated about her emails and we have to put with her.

Say it Bigot: papist, liar, punk, burn in hell, blah blah.

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 1:07AM

Stuff it, retard.

Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 2:24PM

I love you, Margie.

Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 2:25PM

I love you, Margie.

Jack in Wi.| 1.2.12 @ 10:03PM

Nick none of theose conditions were ever met by the Iraq war. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict both said so. Pope Benedict after his election specifically said so and added that modern war is so horrible that he doubted if any war could be called just today. Rick Santorum specifically is wrong to push for a preventive war against Iran. He should be excommunicated for such warmongering.

Pre-emtive war is because you don't like the government of a country that could some day attack you. Ihat is against Catholic Doctrine If that was the case we should of attacked Pakistan, North Korea, China, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact.

Preventive war is to attack someone who may some day have the means to attack you. In the case of Iran has no nuclear weapons program and would only be attacked at the insistence of Israel that they might some day get one. Both pre-emptive and preventive wars are war crimes and many Germans were hung for advocating and participating in them. It is the reason many Israeli big wigs are afraid to leave the country. You won't see Kissenger, Cheney, or G W. Bush going on many out of country excursions either.

Nick| 1.2.12 @ 10:33PM

What would you know about Catholic doctrine, Jack-boot?
John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI never said any such thing. Provide a quote and cite a source, der schweinehund fuhrer.

I told you the other day, "You are NOT the Pope."
So, you can't excommunicate anyone, Hitler-lover.

Operation Iraqi Freedom met every one of the criteria for a Just War, as Saint Augustine taught. Saddam and his two sadistic sons are dead. And that is a good thing.

I know it probably ticks you off, because Saddam was probably another one of your heroes, like Hitler and Stalin.

Occam's Tool| 1.3.12 @ 1:59AM

Iran just displayed a fuel rod necessary for a Nuke. They are actively working to get one. That should be obvious even to a moldy cheesehead.

Jeffrey Lord | 1.2.12 @ 3:37PM

William R.

So Vietnam, which killed 50,000 Americans and who knows how many Vietnamese, was a success because it was run by people who served?

The men and women who serve our country in the military are priceless assets...but service per se....as demonstrated in stark fashion by the fact that the Vietnam disaster was entirely run at the top levels by those who served ...is not the deciding factor. Otherwise John Kerry and George McGovern would have been president...like the stellar Navy man Jimmy Carter.

Sorry...doesn't wash....alas.

Liberal Reader| 1.2.12 @ 4:55PM

I've always been interested in how military service often does not translate into electoral victory at the presidential level. Consider recent elections:

Jimmy Carter served in the navy honorably; I believe he served mostly in peace time, but he did serve. Ronald Reagan did not serve and won their election.

George H W Bush, who of course was a vet, won his first election, against a vet, but then lost to Bill Clinton, who to the best of my recollection never served.

George W. Bush beat a war hero, John McCain, in a primary and then defeated Al Gore, who did not serve, although he wrote articles in Vietnam for a few months, spending more time there than Cheney and W. combined.

And say what you will about Kerry, he did serve and he did fight in Vietnam, unlike his opponent.

Obama never served and beat McCain, a war hero whom conservatives mysteriously hate.

Anyway, it seems apparent to me that the American people respect veterans and honor their service, but most voters don't require their presidents be vets.

Nick| 1.2.12 @ 6:18PM

Hey! Marxist Reader! How have you been?
You still come here, huh?

As usual, your recall of history is severely lacking.

Ronald Reagan served honorably in the U.S. Army, and Army Air Force, during WWII. Due to his nearsightedness he could not serve overseas. He joined the Army Reserves in 1937, well before the war started.

LBJ falsely put in for, and received, a Silver Star, during WWII. He wanted to join after December 7th, but, FDR wanted him to stay in the House of Representatives, because Johnson was his man in Congress.
'Peanut Brain' Carter entered Annapolis in 1943, and conveniently missed serving during WWII.
'Snoopy Helmet' Dukakis served his two years from 1955-57, and conveniently missed the Korean War.
How could you forget about Bubba 'the pervert' Clinton's famous draft-dodging?

Algore did serve in the U.S. Army, as a journalist, and spent a whole 5 months in Viet Nam. He only joined to try to save his daddy's re-election bid for the U.S. Senate, which algore, Sr., lost. Jr. was coddled the whole time he was in the Army and shipped out of Viet Nam before something happened to him.

John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam, in case you didn't know) joined the Navy so he could be JFK II. When he was tranferred to Swift-Boats, and started getting shot at, he reported every scratch he got, in order to get three Purple Hearts, and a ticket home.

Reminds me of the M.A.S.H. episode were Frank Burns put in for a Purple Heart and listed his wound as "shell fragment." Ferret-Face had a piece of an egg-shell fly into his eye during a sniper attack. And Ferret-Face Kerry did the same thing in Viet Nam.

Occam's Tool| 1.3.12 @ 2:00AM

W was a fighter pilot in the national Guard, i believe. Fighter PILOT.

mike| 1.3.12 @ 8:09AM

George McGovern flew B-29's in WW II.
JFK and Nixon served in WW II.
Truman served in WW I as an infantry captain.
And of course, Eisenhower.

Bob K.| 1.2.12 @ 6:20PM

Ronald Reagan was an army reserve officer from 1937 to 1942 when he was assigned active duty with the Army Air Force through 1945. He served his entire duty stateside in California. His rank was Captain.

Liberal Reader| 1.3.12 @ 2:24PM

Indeed. My mistake on Reagan's service. Thanks for the corrections, Bob K and Nick.

Obviously there's some correlation between getting elected president and serving; I think it's interesting that there's less correlation than might be imagined.

I was shocked when people chose W. over McCain in 2000; W. had a questionable service record and no obvious conservative credentials. He was the slightly more conservative son of a famously moderate blue-blooded Republican from Connecticut. John McCain, on the other hand, had a robust conservative voting record and was a veritable war HERO, probably the most honorable man to run on the Republican ticket since Eisenhower. Naturally, conservatives hated him, even after he selected their Darling Mistress as running mate in 2008.

Liberal Reader| 1.3.12 @ 2:25PM

I say McCain was probably the most honorable, but I should add with the possible exception of George H. W. Bush, who was also a war hero.

Nick| 1.3.12 @ 3:50PM

Nice try, Marxist Reader.

Your "mistakes" (read: ignorance) were numerous, as I listed in great detail.

I will not denigrate McLame's military service, at all. Nor, President G. H. W. Bush's service. He got shot-down, lost his two crew-members, and almost died in the Pacific, before he was rescued. But, he wasn't a great president. And, neither would McLame have been a good chief executive. Military service does not equate to great leadership skills, or strong conservative principles.

I do believe that we should start electing people who have served in the military. It will take a great former-general, with the organizational skills of Ike, to fix the bloated pustule that is our federal government.

Caleb Plain | 1.2.12 @ 3:39PM

It's a good sign that we're winning when Jeffrey Lord is upset over an email forward. I have a cute one of a monkey on unicycle that you might like as well.

Looks like you have a great career ahead of you at snopes.com. Best of luck.

Jeffrey Lord | 1.2.12 @ 5:18PM

Caleb Plain....

If Ron Paul is the GOP presidential nominee....you will be vindicated.

We shall see.

American_overseas| 1.2.12 @ 5:28PM

Better fact checking Jeffrey would had revealed that heretics do not believe in the Trinity, that means, Romney not Santorium is a heretic, mormonism believes in polytheism and teaches and influences their members to believe that the Bible is corrupt and untrustworthy in order to accept extra-biblical material as gospel truth, to demote Jesus from being the Son of God, the second member of the Godhead or Trinity, to our level like some big brother type figure. Mormonism also subtly teaches that Jesus failed his mission; this is supported by Mormonism removing the laws and ordnances that were nailed on the cross and burdening their members with a laundry list of things they must do if they want to be saved. Mormonism is fundamentally SMITHIAN and not Christian.

Richard Baker| 1.2.12 @ 5:39PM

The more Paul's "supporters" keep talking is going to enlighten the country as to how loony the entire Paul phenomenon is. Guaranteed. so you Paulites, keep on, keepin' on. What next, a Paul fatwa against Catholics who disagree with him?

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 6:13PM

What's Looney Is How Desperate The Smear Bund Boys Are To Try To Stop Us Catholics ,Who Support Dr.Ron Paul.

Catholics For Ron Paul 2012.

Louis Nardozi | 1.2.12 @ 6:44PM

Santorum was apparently taking bribes from Accuweather to introduce legislation that prevents the NWS from giving out free weather reports - now that information is given to AccuWeather to sell to us. But it gets better - he sold us out for a lousy $2000.
Hm. He also sold us out on a $10 billion bailout of tobacco farmers - for $9,000. Nice work if you're a tobacco farmer I guess.
He took $6,000 to reduce the federal tax on a keg of beer by 1/2. Nice work if you can get it.

Hey I could do this all day but why don't YOU take a look at http://www.citizensforethics.o.....df?nocdn=1

Mike w| 1.2.12 @ 8:21PM

This homo Lords definitely is a Paul hater. Personally I don't think Paul will get the nom but it's fanatic agendas such as this blogger's that makes me want to vote for him.

Margie| 1.2.12 @ 9:19PM

Ron Paul hasn't a CHANCE at winning the Republican nomination.

And if he ever did, you'd have to kill me first because I won't vote for him.

Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann or even Romney at least differ from Obama in some way. Actually like night and day for the most part.

Ru Paul's not a conservative, nor is he even really a Republican, but a Libertarian in Republican's clothing.. but as we've all seen, the Emperor truly has no clothes.

Clint| 1.2.12 @ 9:58PM

Attendants Get The Net.

Margie Gnawed Her Way Out Of Her Straitjacket.

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 1:09AM

Yeah, I know.
After all, nothing I say makes a bit of sense, and YOU make all the sense in the world.
Asshole.

Michael Toth | 1.3.12 @ 8:33AM

Your reply show your true colors. Please always be against Ron Paul so I know I'm right. Sad thing is Ron Paul has fought all his life so you can keep calling people names and showing your ignorance without any restrictions. I dare you to show me another person in the race who comes close to fighting for YOUR liberties.
Dr. Paul cured my apathy.

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 2:39PM

I know assholes when I see them. Sorry you are one.

Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 2:26PM

I love you, Margie.

Mr. Everyman| 1.2.12 @ 9:30PM

So Ron Paul must be guilty by association, right?

And you get paid to write this tabloid stuff?

Hobbes| 1.2.12 @ 10:02PM

Your girlyman smears are powerless. Vive la revolution!

Jeffrey Lord | 1.2.12 @ 10:12PM

Hobbes...

I reported what one of your guys is saying to as many people as possible in South Carolina....

So he's a girlyman? Wow....you are Mr. Take No Prisoners!

Occam's Tool| 1.3.12 @ 2:02AM

Tomorrow, my prediction is: Romney/Santorum 1 and 2, Paul 3rd---and essentially out of race. If he can't win Iowa, he's going to win NOWHERE, and Romney would never name him VEEP.

Richard Baker| 1.3.12 @ 6:03AM

No one's desperate to stop Paul as he'll do that himself everytime he opens his mouth. It just incenses you Paulites that others dare to disagree.

Sassan| 1.3.12 @ 6:28AM

Reality is, Ron Paul is not only anti-American but anti-Semitic and anti-humanity. His core followers also tend to be the most vile of individuals and conspiracy theorists including such radical and fanatics as the Nazi Stormfronters, the 9/11 truthers, the Islamic terrorists and their supporters, the Libertarian advocates of child molestation and hard drug legalization, and other enemies of western civilization. I personally hope he wins Iowa so the media finally starts to focus on his fringe and wacky conspiracies, positions, and fanatical ideas and beliefs.

Sassan| 1.3.12 @ 6:29AM

The fact is that Ron Paul was one of two congresspersons to vote against funding for malaria immunization and prevention in Africa which saves millions of lives a year is also "wise". Away from the vital humanitarian concerns (as we are a hope and beacon for liberty, freedom, and human rights) imagine the void that this would create in which Islamicists would quickly fill without avoiding an eyeblink. And then, Islamicists would control and run a new terror haven called AFRICA.

Jeff| 1.3.12 @ 3:59PM

Send your own money to Africa you bleeding heart liberal. Stop picking my wallet and throwing my money down a bottomless pit.

Sassan| 1.3.12 @ 6:29AM

I urge people to watch this short video clip with Ron Paul answering a question on "why won't he come out on the truth about 9/11". It is astonishing and it makes a rational observer conclude that Ron Paul indeed is a truther. Watch for yourselves: http://youtu.be/3u0tgNUfOL8

Seve| 1.7.12 @ 10:00PM

I never saw that one before. I have to admit it does look like he's a 9-11 Truther, too. I don't think the man is stupid. But some people just have no common sense or they're overly distrustful and prone to believe conspiracy theories. He sounds like one of them.

Big Bob| 1.3.12 @ 7:47AM

Wow, I had hoped to read some interesting, and maybe thoughtful comments in this thread. But the Paul comments here remind me of the mindless Obama supporters prior to the 08 election. I am very disappointed, yet not surprised. The anger and vitriol are palpable. Thank you Mr. Lord for keeping us informed. You are one of the first columns I look for on this site. happy new year!!

Michael Toth| 1.3.12 @ 8:20AM

I don't get the point of this story. How is this news? All I know is one's religion shouldn't matter in politics. When choices need to be made I don't want someone who feels "it's in God's hands" and that will lead them to the right way. I want someone who has faith in themselves to make the right move when needed. These people we elect harbor our faith in them to do what's right for "We the People". They protect our lives. I trust Ron Paul. I have faith in him!

Resist We Much! | 1.3.12 @ 9:01AM

Ron Paul: Truther. Period.

Video and transcript

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....eriod.html

And, another:

Q: Why won't you come out about the truth about 9/11?"

A: "Because I can't handle the controversy, I have the I.M.F., the Federal Reserve to deal with, the I.R.S. to deal with -- no because I just have more, too many things on my plate."

- Ron Paul

Resist We Much! | 1.3.12 @ 9:02AM

Ron Paul: All Aboard! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaa! Mental Wounds Still Screaming! Driving Me Insane I'm Going Off The Rails On My Crazy Train! (And I Want To Take You Along For The Ride)

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....ha-ha.html

Expanded with new info!

Randy | 1.3.12 @ 9:29AM

The Paulbots are like deranged cultists. If Paul loses I hope they all put on their sneakers and drink the Kool Aid.

Resist We Much! | 1.3.12 @ 9:46AM

It was recently observed that Ron Paul was to the left of Obama on national security and the best evidence for that statement can be found when one year ago Ron Paul joined forces with Barney Frank on a proposal to gut national defense via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros.

In July 2010, Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a Huffington Post article rolling out their Sustainable Defense Task Force. The Task Force “consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum” would recommend a trillion dollars in defense cuts. The experts, however, didn’t quite “span the ideological spectrum” — more like float under it.

11 of the 14 "experts" were tied to George Soros.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/0.....ense-plan/

Paulistinians, how did you overlook that "conspiracy"?

Alex Jones goes nuts at the mere mention of Soros' name.

Resist We Much! | 1.3.12 @ 9:53AM

9 of 14. Sorry.

Jeff| 1.3.12 @ 3:56PM

You neocons are expert in the manipulation of words. Ron Paul to the "left" of Obama? Um no- it is conservative to fight wars only for our own national interest. The war in Iraq and the upcoming war against Iran benefit one country only, and that's Israel! America First! Vote Ron Paul!

Mike| 1.3.12 @ 11:45AM

As a Catholic Pennsylvanian I can say that there is a reason that Santurom got voted out harshly. This author I think forgot that. I can also say that the best thing we as catholics can do in our religion is question it. Is Gay a sin? Maybe and yes according to the current Pope. But a pope also said that you had to pay money to get to heaven. Mistakes can be made. Regardless, I was always taught we shouldn’t judge. By definition a sin is knowing its wrong and doing it anyway. So if you are gay and think what you are doing is right is that still a sin? Regardless, Santurom says we need to respect life yet would start a world war to make abortion illegal. Sounds like someone that loves and respects life. The point is nobody can really say what God wants us to do. So stop judging and let God figure out who is in the wrong.

Nick| 1.3.12 @ 12:56PM

Mike,

Your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches is severely lacking. As was your catechesis, apparently. Did you grow up in the 1970s, '80s, or '90s? Catechetical instruction was very poor during these decades.

Get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read it carefully.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 2:55PM

Yes, read it carefully. It's an Apostate Religion based on the false teaching that the "Pope" is the bloodline of Peter, whom THEY say was the first "Pope."

And that's just the beginning.

Read some real history:

OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES

*OF THE EVIL SUCCESSION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, CONSISTING ONLY IN THE SUCCESSION OF THE PERSONS, AND NOT OF THE DOCTRINE

*OBJECTION OF THE PAPISTS, BY MEANS OF THREE PASSAGES

*REPLY TO THE FIRST PASSAGE
*REPLY TO THE SECOND PASSAGE
*REPLY TO THE THIRD PASSAGE

*THE GROUNDLESSNESS [OF THE ALLEGATIONS] OF THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSTOMED TO DEDUCE THE ROMAN SUCCESSION FROM PETER THE HOLY APOSTLE, AND WHEREIN THIS CONSISTS

*VARIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SCRIP TURES, SHOWING THAT PETER WAS NOT AT ROME DURING THE TIME PAUL WAS THERE, EXCEPT (AS HAS BEEN EX PLAINED ABOVE) AT THE CLOSE OF HIS LIFE

*DISCORDANCE OF PAPISTIC WRITERS. 1. WHETHER PETER WAS AT ROME. 2. HOW LONG HE WAS BISHOP THERE. 3. WHO FOLLOWED HIM

*OF THE RISE OF THE POPES AFTER THE YEAR 606, AS ALSO OF THE INTERRUPTION OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE SAME

*OF THE ELECTION OF THE POPE; AND OF SUCH AS HAVE USURPED THE CHAIR

*OF SOME WHO ATTAINED POSSESSION OF THE ROMAN CHAIR THROUGH SECULAR POWER AND OTHER UNGODLY MEANS

*OF THE DREADFUL TIME, CALLED BY THE PAPISTS THE IRON AND LEADEN CENTURY, WHICH WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE ELECTION OF THE POPES

*TWO, THREE, AND FOUR POPES REIGNING AT THE SAME TIME; THE CHAIR OF ROME OCCASION ALLY WITHOUT A POPE FOR A LONG TIME

*HOW THE ROMAN CHAIR STOOD VACANT

*OF THE UNGODLY LIFE AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT OF SOME OF THE POPES

*OF THE DIVINE JUDGMENTS AND PUNISHMENTS VISITED UPON SOME OF THE POPES

*CONCLUSION OF THE MATTERS HERE RELATED

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Nick| 1.3.12 @ 3:35PM

"And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this kephas I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

"I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things." - 2 Peter 1:13-15

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thess. 2:15

"Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands [...]." - 2 Timothy 1:6

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." - 2 Timothy 1:13-14

"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." - 2 Timothy 2:1-2

There you have it. The meaning is crystal clear, if you ask me.

By the way, is that the same Martyrs Mirror that praises great Catholic saints, like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon? Oh, and Origen?
Where's those answers to my three simple questions, Margie? Do infants sin, or not?

"Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing." - 1 Peter 3:9

"Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour." 1 Peter 5:8
God Bless!

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 3:20PM

Mike,

You said, "The point is nobody can really say what God wants us to do."

Yes, we can. God gave us the Bible so we could come to know Him, and therein lies the Greatest story ever told.
The Bible IS the Mind of God, His Words spelled out for our sakes.
It is how we come to know about the existence of Jesus, and exactly HOW to come to know Him spiritually.
Without it we would be in utter darkness.

His Will is written therein, and He says this:

"Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Will of the Lord is." Eph. 5:17.

He wouldn't have said this if it were impossible to know what His Will is!

And His definition of love isn't the World's definition of love.
According to His Words in the Bible, LOVE is telling others the His TRUTH so that they can come to know Him, according to His Way. And Jesus claims to be the ONLY Way:

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

"I love those who love Me, and those who seek Me diligently find Me." Prov. 8:17.

James Phillips| 1.3.12 @ 11:57AM

The article states: "The first article attached by Golden and circulated was by one Robert A. Sungenis. In which this Protestant boy was startled to see our friend Sean Hannity, a Catholic, attacked in this fashion:"

For the record in case the reader only got this far in this article, Sungenis is a Roman Catholic and father of 11 children with one wife. He is an outstanding Catholic apologist and his tremendous work stands on its own merits. He is not a "Protestant boy" as the author of this article refers to him.

I note that this site says that comments will be deleted if they are "profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite." And yet if you were to review comments left on this site you will not fail to regularly see regular comments long posted which make "profane, bigoted, and grossly impolite" attacks on the Catholic Church. Let those with eyes to see know that The American Spectator is an anti-Catholic publication.

Nick| 1.3.12 @ 12:50PM

Mr. Phillips,

Did you miss this part of Mr. Lord's blog-post:

"[...] I have found that Mr. Sungenis apparently renamed his publication after being directed to do so by his Bishop. Why? The Most Reverend Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania was not happy over Sungenis's writings on Jews and Judaism."

When a bishop tells someone to remove the word "Catholic" from their organization, it's a big deal.

Also, I'm no expert as to all of the Catholic apologists out there, but, I am familiar with quite a few. I have never heard of Mr. Sungenis.

Finally, there are several Catholics who write for The American Spectator. To write that it "is an anti-Catholic publication," just shows your ignorance. Please, think before you type.
God Bless!

James Phillips| 1.3.12 @ 3:51PM

You misjudge the situation with the bishop and Dr. Sungenis. There is much more to it than can be discerned in the simplistic article which clearly manifests a bias against Dr. Sungenis.

Also, you misjudge this publication. I have personally communicated with the people who run it and have been informed by same of their anti-Catholic sentiment. As for the fact that several Catholics write for the publication, that means about next to nothing and if you knew the state of Catholic affairs in the world today I think you would realize that. Please think before you type.

P.S. I won't dignify Marge's rants with a reply.

Nick| 1.3.12 @ 4:05PM

Mr. Phillips,

I assume that this was aimed at me? It is considered polite to address the person by name, when replying to his comment.

So, Lisa Fabrizio is too stupid to realize that she contributes to an "anti-Catholic" publication? I find that highly unlikely.

I'm well aware of the state of Catholic affairs in the world today. This a terrible assumption, on your part.

Perhaps, you could provide a link, rather than just a mere assertion, about Mr. Sungenis' relationship with his bishop?
God Bless!

James Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 7:06PM

Nick, here is the link you requested in your latter post: http://www.catholicintl.com/in.....k-santorum

After you read the whole article (I hope you will anyway.) please respond to same. The link is actually Dr. Sungenis' response to this very article by Mr. Lord.

Servitus| 1.6.12 @ 4:13PM

According to Sungenis himself, he was forced by his bishop to stop calling his organization "Catholic". It's right on his geocentric website:

"...[Bishop Rhoades] forced me to take the name 'Catholic' from my website."

http://galileowaswrong.com/gal.....ures/4.pdf

http://sungenisandthejews.blog.....genis.html

Servitus| 1.6.12 @ 4:14PM

Sungenis' new slanders against Bishop Rhoades were shown to be false, including his carping about "supersessionism", which is a non-existent teaching of the Catholic Church.

https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations

It looks as though Sungenis keeps attacking his bishop as a heretic just to get attention off the real reasons he's gotten into such trouble with the Catholic Church. What he's doing is not Catholic. Ron Paul supporters aren't helping themselves by association their candidate with this kind of stuff.

Margie| 1.3.12 @ 3:30PM

Bigoted is in the eyes of the beholder.
Speaking the truth about the cult of the Apostate Religion, Catholicism isn't hatred or bigotry in the eyes of God.

This Religion is responsible for the deaths of millions of Bible believing for six centuries.

To expose its false teachings is to love those who are deceived by it.

No one can serve two Masters. You either love the Truth as it is written in the Bible, or you believe a false gospel.

Your choice.

Liberal Reader| 1.3.12 @ 2:30PM

I am back to being baffled by conservatives and Republicans in general.

75% of you say you don't like Mitt Romney.

True, he's a phony; true, he sounds like the Republican version of John Kerry.

But I believe he will probably beat Obama if he's nominated, and I can't see anyone else doing that. You're talking about an election that will be won in the suburbs of Philadelphia and other districts where middle class, college-educated people live. Sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but these people just are *not* going to vote for Perry, Bachmann, or Gingrich, anymore than they would vote for Palin or Ted Nugent or any of your other dream candidates. But they will vote for Romney.

Ed| 1.3.12 @ 3:06PM

Would someone expect the paultard jew haters to like Catholics? They are mental defectives, living in their long suffering parent's basements, longing for the free marijuana RonPaul will pass out.

Joe| 1.3.12 @ 3:51PM

Nothing in that email was false. Hannity is a spineless piece of garbage who supports all of our immoral wars for Israel as well as artificial contraception. He's so ignorant of his own purported faith that he uses the Protestant Our Father as well. Santorum is a great pro-life leader, but he is a big-government, war-mongering, neo-con tool as well. No thanks, I will reject the kosher Christianity that Bill Kristol and this neo-con rag is trying to shove down our throats.

Ed| 1.3.12 @ 4:39PM

Here, here, let's reject kosher christianity in favor of .... I'm sorry, I'm a paultard, I lost my train of thought worrying about the bilderbergers and how the jews blew up the World Trade Center.

FeFe| 1.3.12 @ 5:39PM

Reminds me of our textbook committee.

Kathleen| 1.4.12 @ 12:42PM

What is missing, I think, from Mr. Lord's dot-connecting is this: among Catholics there is an important -though unofficial-distinction: those who accept as true the "modern" Church (changes made as a result of "Vatican II" and those Catholics who do not. The latter group believes the New Church is heretical-and those who promote the new order are heretics as well. This would include members of the clergy.
I don't know to which camp this Ron Paul supporter relates. Rick Santorum is a "Novus Ordo" (new order) Catholic-so that is why a traditionalist would not accept him as a "real" Catholic. There is more than meets the eye if one only divides Catholics among those who accept Church teaching and those who do not. By the way, there is a huge misunderstanding-as expressed by the Ron Paul supporter-about obedience. Catholics do not "obey" the Pope blindly. The Pope must be in obedience as well.

Robert Sungenis | 1.4.12 @ 1:59PM

Mr. Lord, allow me to connect your Neo-con dots. My response to your hit piece is posted here: http://www.catholicintl.com/in.....t-news/608

Seve| 1.7.12 @ 9:45PM

Interesting. That's almost exactly what Sungenis said to columnist Jared Olar:

"Here is a response to your hit piece, Mr. Olar."

http://www.pekintimes.com/opin.....on-Galileo

At least Sungenis hasn't accused you of being a Jew (yet) as he did to Olar and others.

Quote from Olar:

"In response to my reference to his anti-Semitism and his penchant for anti-Semitic conspiracy theory: 'Here is an interesting factoid for you. 'Olar' is a Jewish name. So it doesnt surprise me that Mr. Olar would venture into this area.'

Yes, you read that right: Sungenis' response to my pointing out his anti-Semitism is to shout, 'Jew!!!'

It's both pathetic and hilarious at the same time. For the record, sadly my father is not aware of any Jewish blood in his ancestry...No, I don't oppose anti-Semitism because I'm Jewish (I'm not) but because anti-Semitism is evil. Nor is my non-existent Jewish heritage the explanation for my column's reference to Sungenis' penchant for anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. The explanation is simply that I was showing the quality of intellect that is behind the pseudoscientific geocentrism conference. This isn't the first time Sungenis has erroneously attributed criticism of his zany ideas to nonexistent Jewish heritage on the part of his critics. Sad to say, he is entirely unaware that there can be no clearer evidence of his anti-Semitic paranoia than the ease with which he accuses his critics of being Jewish."

(End Olar quote)

Maybe I'm just a heretic too, but I think I can understand why a Roman Catholic bishop wouldn't want gems like that being associated with the R.C.C.

I rummaged around the article links and I can't imagine being the poor bloke who's got to be this guy's overseer. I suppose it would at least give him an inside track to being a Roman Catholic saint. Sungenis seems to fancy himself a super-bishop or some such.

http://sungenisandthejews.blog.....heory.html

gho| 1.5.12 @ 7:37PM

While you're spreading the "Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell" are racist smears why not enlighten your readers as to WFBuckleys comments? Neocons are so tiresome, and that goes for the "Catholic" Neocon zionists as well.

CHRIS GOLDEN| 1.6.12 @ 3:42PM

I AM THE INFAMOUS CHRIS GOLDEN.. I HAVE JUST YESTERDAY BECAME AWARE OF MR. LORD’S HIT PIECE ON ME, AND BY EXTENSION, RON PAUL.

THE REASON WHY I DIDN’T COME ACROSS MR. LORD’S HIT PIECE SOONER IS BECAUSE I CAN’T TAKE THE NEOCON PROPAGANDA MR LORD SPEWS FORTH ON THIS WEBPAGE -AND PROPAGANDA IS THE RIGHT WORD TO DESCRIBE MR LORD’S WORK.

prop·a·gan·da

misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread

AS I WILL SOON DEMONSTRATE, MR LORD’S ATTACK ON ME IS PROPAGANDA AND MY DEMONSTRATION SHOULD DISCREDIT MR LORD FOR GOOD.

FIRST, HOWEVER, LET ME STATE THAT I AM NO ANTI-SEMITE OR ANY KIND OF RACIST. RACISM VIOLATES CHARITY AND IS UNFAIR.

SECOND, MY “back-up evidence of Senator Santorum's alleged heresy…” WAS THE SECOND LEAD IN QUOTE [AFTER THE AP LEAD IN QUOTE DESCRIBING SANTORUM’S SUPPORT FOR A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST IRAN] WHERE AS THE FMR CARDINAL RATZINGER STATED AFTER THE IRAQ WAR IN MAY 2003, “the concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…”. [MY ENTIRE MASS EMAIL IS POSTED BELOW]. HOWEVER, MR LORD LEFT RATZINGER’S QUOTE OUT. SUCH SELECTIVE PRESENTING OF EVIDENCE IS HOW MR LORD CONDUCTS HIS PROPAGANDA - WHICH IS WHERE WE NOW TURN.

NOW, LET ME FURTHER DEMONSTATE HOW MR LORD KNOWINGLY LEAVES THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT I HAVE NO MORAL OBJECTION TO THE HOMOSEXAUL LIFESTYLE. QUOTING LORD:

“Mr. Golden ends his attack by saying this of Santorum:

Let Santorum follow Bill Kristol. I'll worship Jesus Christ and follow His Vicar: the Pope.

That's a curious statement when one realizes the Catholic Church and the Pope say homosexulaity is a "sin" -- and Ron Paul, as heard here in 2008, specifically denies this to be the case. Which apparently means Mr. Golden makes exceptions to Catholic doctrine and the views of the Pope on what is a "sin" -- if Ron Paul has a different view. Does this make Golden a "heretic"?”

BELOW I WILL POST MY ENTIRE MASS EMAIL THAT IS AT THE CENTER OF THE CONTROVERSY [NOTICE THE DATE AND TIME]. IN IT YOU WILL SEE MY EXPLICIT OPPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOW I CALL LIBERAL ‘CATHOLICS’ WHO SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY HERETICS AS WELL [BELOW THE POSTING OF THE MASS EMAILING, AFTER THE DANIEL MCCARTHY PIECE, I HAVE POSTED A 2007 LTE IN THE GREENVILLE, SC NEWS WHERE I STATED THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I SUPPORT RON PAUL IS BECAUSE HE WOULD ALLOW THE STATES TO CRIMINALIZE CONSENSUAL SODOMY].

OBVIOUSLY, BY READING MY MASS EMAIL, MR LORD KNEW MY OPPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUALITY-BUT HE INTENTIONALLY LEFT THOSE PARTS OF MY MASS EMAIL OUT SO TO LEAVE THE OPPOSITE AND FALSE IMPRESSION.

WHAT OTHER FALSE IMPRESSIONS AND DISTORTIONS WHERE LEFT AND MADE BY MR LORD? WHAT OTHER REPUTATIONS HAVE BEEN HARMED BY MR LORD’S PROPAGANDA?

MY MASS EMAIL:

From: Chris Golden [mailto:cmarshg@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 4:41 PM
To: cmarshg@earthlink.net
Subject: "Catholic" Santorum: Neocon Heretic

“Santorum tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would tell Iranian leaders that either they open up those facilities, begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors - or the U.S. would attack them…” - AP 1/1/12

“the concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…”

- the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Dear Fellow Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and other Patriotic Americans:

Since the infamous Kennedy speech in Houston in 1960, America has grown accustomed to “Catholic” politicians refusing to follow and apply Church teachings to their positions on issues - or, as Mario Cuomo said, “[Church teaching’s] have no bearing” on his views.

However, liberals like the Kennedy’s and the Cuomo’s aren’t the only type of heretics. There has arisen a new type of dissenter: the ‘Catholic’ neocon. Unlike the liberals who dissent from the Church on abortion, homosexuality, subsidiarity, and church/state issues; neocon catholics dissent from the Church teaching on war and subsidiarity. Such catholic neocons include Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry. However, no one, and I mean no one, more epitomizes the catholic neoconservative than Richard John Santorum.

Santorum started off his political career as a solid catholic conservative populist - a “Street Corner Conservative”. He represented the bastion of Street Corner Conservativism of western Pennsylvania. However, since entering the Senate, Santorum had entered into the neocon orbit - where he remained ever since.

Santorum has been a subscriber to First Things and Crisis - he was a monthly columnist for the latter. If the National Catholic Reporter is the paper of ‘catholic’ liberals like Chris Matthews, First Things and Crisis are the papers of the ‘catholic’ neocon. Below is a piece by Robert A. Sungenis that explains how the neocons have infiltrated the Catholic Church in America via First Things and Crisis. Below that is a piece by Daniel McCarthy that shows how neoconservative Catholicism is an oxymoron.

Many have wondered why I am both against the liberals on such issues like abortion, homosexuality, church/state, and the welfare state; while opposing the neocons on issues like war, empire, Israel, and the warfare state. It is because I am a Papist and a unreconstructed one at that. I subscribe to the real Roman Catholic papers in America: The Wanderer and The Remnant.

Let Chris Matthews worship JFK. Let Santorum follow Bill Kristol. I’ll worship Jesus Christ and follow His Vicar: the Pope.

CHRIS GOLDEN

PS: PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ALL THE CATHOLICS YOU KNOW - ESPECIALLY IF THEY LIVE IN IOWA OR NEW HAMPSHIRE. THANK YOU.

The New World Order and The Neo-Catholic Connection:

by Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.

Deal Hudson, George Weigel and Michael Novak are not alone in the Catholic connection to the Neo-con agenda. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine, a former liberal Lutheran who has since converted to Catholicism but kept his liberalism, has made a name for his publication by promoting it under the Neo-con flag, and being endorsed in return by many of the prominent war-party ideologues.In a recent advertisement for First Things, various Neo-cons are solicited for their blurbs. Among them are William F. Buckley who writes: â€œHow happy for right reason that Richard John Neuhaus disposes of much talent...â€; and Robert L. Bartley, a writer for the Wall Street Journal and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (1992) says: â€œThe time could not be more apt for First Thingsâ€; and Mary Ann Glendon, another CFR member (1992): â€œIn my experience, no new magazine since the New York Review of Books has elicited so much interest...â€ The New York Times called First Things: â€œThe flagship monthly of religious neoconservatism.â€ Richard Neuhaus then boasts in a four-page flyer that his writers, among others, include: Michael Novak, George Weigel, Midge Decter, Mary Ann Glendon, Bernard Lewis (another CFR member). In turn, Neuhaus has been giving lectures at the American Enterprise Institute, which, as we noted in our last article, specializes in globalization of American political interests through financial and militaristic means, while much of their income originates from the sale of munitions and armaments. Two other Neo-con war-promoters and radio talk-show hosts, Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity, have had Neuhaus as their featured guest, with the subject material, of course, focusing on Americaâ€™s self-justifying invasion of Iraq. Neuhausâ€™ colleague, Michael Novak, was sent as the Neo-con envoy to Rome in order to persuade John Paul II to sanction the invasion of Iraq, prompting the Vatican to return the favor by telling America it has a Messiah complex and a fixation on materialism. Novak was also a guest on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo, touting the Neo-con agenda in Iraq and further solidifying the Neo-Con/Neo-Catholic alliance. Henry Hyde, noted Catholic from Illinois, took issue with the popeâ€™s assessment of America in a July 2004 Chicago Tribune article. Not surprisingly, Hyde was recently recruited by Deal Hudson to write a financial appeal letter to Crisis subscribers, wherein Hyde touted it as â€œone of the most influential and important Catholic magazines in America today.â€

Neuhaus, perhaps, deserves some consolation for finally realizing that: â€œThere is a lively and legitimate argument about whether, knowing what we know now, this war was justified...â€ (First Things, Dec. 2004, p. 67). Similarly, William F. Buckley, while stating in an interview with Rush Limbaugh in July 13, 2004: â€œ...with the intelligence we had, it would have been foolish not to attack Iraq...Libya is a good example of the good that came from it,â€ admitted a few months later: â€œIf I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.â€ This hand-wringing doesnâ€™t go very far unless both Neuhaus and Buckley are willing to tell Mr. Bush, firmly and directly: â€œGet out of Iraq, and stop threatening the other Arab nations with American Imperialism,â€ since, in Catholic doctrine, preemptive war is never justified, and thus there is no place for the Neo-con agenda in Catholic thought and practice. Buckley, especially, needs to cease using National Review to brand as â€œanti-semitesâ€ those who donâ€™t agree with the Neo-con party-line.

Other prominent Catholic institutions are tending in the same direction. Ave Maria School of Law, initiated by Dominos Pizza entrepreneur, Tom Monaghan, has on its board of directors James L. Buckley (brother to William F. Buckley, Jr.), who, while sitting on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is a member of the Skull & Bones society, class of 1944. Kate W. Oâ€™Beirne, Washington editor of William Buckleyâ€™s National Review, also sits on the Ave Maria board. That Skull & Bones members can infiltrate these Catholic institutions with impunity shows just how far the Neo-con agenda has advanced. Another Ave Maria director is Robert P. George. In March 2005, Crisis had a full-page ad touting the winners of the prestigious â€œBradley Prize,â€ among them being Robert George. This is the same Neo-con outfit that funds Crisis from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which specializes in setting up Neo-con think-tanks to enhance Middle East war efforts for the Bush administration. In addition, George has had several meetings with Bush campaign mastermind, Karl Rove, the man who recognized first that without the Catholic vote Bush would not be in the White House. Unfortunately, Rove is only exploiting gullible Catholics. He is just as immoral as the rest of the bunch. His sexual preferences were recently exposed when in March 2005 reporters saw him enter a gay bar in Washington D.C., and there is much more to tell about Rove. Robert Bork, professor of law at Ave Maria and member of the American Enterprise Institute (a Neo-con war-party group), often collaborates with his wife, Ellen Bork, who has written about a dozen articles for the Project for the New American Century, the same war-party outfit that Kristol, Bennett, J. Bush, Cheney, Podhoretz, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are members. Incidentally, the website of the New American Century contains an article written on September 4, 2000 by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld titled â€œRebuilding American Defenses.â€ In it the authors state that removing Sadaam Hussein was only a minor goal. The main objectives were: (a) to secure the oil fields of Iraq since they contain the worldâ€™s richest reserves; (b) to possess Iraq as a military launch base to the rest of the Middle East; c) to initiate sales of military hardware; (d) to train the military for urban suppression. Mind you, this is an official government document. Catholic bishop John Steinbock called its â€œusing military power for political and economic interestsâ€ a threat to â€œthe very future of humanityâ€ (The Sentinel, 4-12-03).

More on Skull and Bones

Skull & Bones, according to the book by Anthony Sutton (a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University from 1968-1973) Americaâ€™s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones (1983, 2002), is a secret society that originated at Yale University in 1832 and has been instrumental in instigating many of Americaâ€™s wars and rumors of wars. For example, Henry Stimson, prominent Skull and Bones member of the Truman administration, prides himself on being the major influence upon Truman, based on his April 25, 1945 memorandum to the president, to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. What we know now, of course, is that Japan had been attempting to surrender for the entire six months prior, but their pleas couldnâ€™t get past the deaf ears of Stimson, the Secretary of War. It is probably no coincidence that Hiroshimi and Nagasaki had the largest Catholic populations in Japan. (The Colonel: The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson 1867-1950 by Godfrey Hodgson, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992 ).

Today there is little difference between Stimsonâ€™s policies and the â€œpre-emptiveâ€ war policy of Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz and the Bush Skull and Bones cartel. It is probably no coincidence that Wolfowitz, appointed as head of the World Bank by George Bush; Michael Chertoff, appointed as secretary of Homeland Security by George Bush, along with Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer who are very active in the Bush administration, all have dual citizenship, with Israel as their second country of allegiance. No one seems to have paid attention to the U.S. Law, section 1448, that prohibits dual citizenship, especially when this duplicity puts them in very powerful governmental positions. In March 2005 the American Free Press reported that Michael Chertoffâ€™s mother, Livia Eisen, was an Israeli national involved with the Mossad. Consequently, unless Chertoff renounces his Israeli citizenship then Israeli law considers him one of its own. To know the extent of Chertoffâ€™s present power one only needs to read the Patriot Act, one of the most abusive stretches of government power against the citizenry ever devised. You can depend upon it that Chertoff will use it for Israelâ€™s interests. Benjamin Chertoff, Michaelâ€™s cousin, has spent the last four years trying to stall independent investigative reports on 9/11, which many critiques have begun to compare to Hitlerâ€™s burning of the Reichstag building to foment his rise to political power. There is a mountain of evidence that the New World Order tyrants knew of 9/11 long before it happened and that Osama bin Laden is their patsy. There is simply not enough room to demonstrate it in this article.

Robert H. Goldsborough, familiar to many traditional Catholic readers, has investigated Skull and Bones and has concluded that its members seek nothing less than the rise of the New World Order to replace the Christian World Order. Skull and Bones was originally called â€œThe Orderâ€ in its 1833 formation under the Russell Trust. Quoting Anthony Sutton, Goldborough writes: â€œThe Order is the core, the inner circle of the conspiracy for change which run the outer circles including The Council on Foreign Relation, the Trilaterals...a terrifying long range conspiracy that seeks to control our lives from cradle to grave...The Order is a Bush family traditionâ€ (Washington Dateline, 7-26-99).

In fact, the Bush family has 8 generations of Skull & Bones inductees, which includes grandfather Prescott Bush, notorious for digging up the skull of the Geranimo, the Indian chieftain, and placing it at Yale. According to the Associated Press, Prescott Bush was â€œdirector of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitlerâ€™s rise to power,â€ leading in 1951 to a $1.5 million kickback from stock invested in slave labor at the internment camp in Auschwitz (The Sentinel, 10-18-2003; Chris Millegan, Fleshing Out Skull and Bones, 2003; Toby Rogers: â€œHow the Bush Family Wealth is Linked to the Jewish Holocaust,â€ Clamor Magazine, May-June 2002; John Buchanan, The Guardian, 2003). His son, George Herbert Walker Bush (the first president to use the phrase â€œNew World Orderâ€) is a member of Skull and Bones, as is George W. Bush and John Kerry, class of 1968 and 1966, respectively. In fact, Bush and Kerry are distant cousins. That two presidential candidates with the same pedigree could run against each other shows the grip that these anti-Catholic societies have on America. A shining example of the naivety of Catholics appeared in a July 22, 2004 political ad in the Wanderer advising people to vote against Kerry because he â€œis a graduate of Yale University and a member of the infamous secret society based at Yale, â€˜Skull and Bones,â€™â€ neglecting to mention, of course, that Bush has a much deeper pedigree than Kerry. For Bush and Kerry to run against each other presents no contradiction to the society, since the same Hegelian dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) has been the philosophical/political engine of Western culture for the past two hundred years. Hegelâ€™s philosophy is the only way men with opposing designs on controlling the rest of the world can be curtailed from pushing the red button and ending it all. Of course, the same Hegelian dialectic eventually led Skull and Bones to accepting homosexuals (as long as they had high SAT scores), and thus it is no surprise that George Bush seems to have no problem hiring homosexuals for high-level posts in his administration.

A favorite meeting place of Skull and Bones members is the Bohemian Grove in northern California, a 2,700-acre fortress 60 miles north of San Francisco. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July 15, 2004, most people think of the Bohemian Grove as a place for beatnicks to listen to Grateful Dead music and â€œgab...drink and urinate on trees.â€ But thatâ€™s how good their cover has been since the Groveâ€™s 1872 inception. As of 2000, its underworld machinations were finally exposed. Investigative reporter Alex Jones infiltrated the highly secured compound with video camera in hand. He recorded nothing less than mock human sacrifices by robed and hooded individuals chanting and groveling in demonic ecstacy to a giant statue of an owl. They engage in a ceremony called the â€œCremation of Care,â€ an attempt to rid themselves of their consciences so that they can proceed with world domination unabated by human sympathies. They themselves claim to be worshiping the Canaanite god Molech (Lev 18:21; Jer 32:35). And you thought such things were confined to the Old Testament? The film was distributed by the BBC, since they had financed Jonesâ€™ work. The Bohemian Grove should be of interest to us since its members include: William F. Buckley, Warren Buffet, George Bush, Jeb Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Alexander Haig (also on Advisory Board of Crisis), Jack Kemp, Henry Kissenger, Colin Powell, David Rockefeller, Donald Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich, Ed Meese, Richard Nixon, Manuel Noriega, Elliot Richardson, Karl Rove, George Schultz, Casper Weinberger and hundreds of other prominent officials we donâ€™t have room to list, both foreign and domestic. To his credit, David Gergen resigned from the Bohemian Grove in â€œdisgust.â€ Jones possesses a photo of George H. W. Bush and President George W. Bush standing next to the giant owl at the Bohemian Grove. Helmut Schmidt, former chancellor of Germany, in his autobiography, Men in Power, states that although he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (the same as Weigel, Novak, Buckley, et al) and the Trilateral Commission, he maintains that his greatest thrill was performing Druid death-rituals every July 15th at the Bohemian Grove in California in the company of hundreds of other world leaders. Schmidt stated that it is at the Bohemian Grove that major national and international deals are struck between the world leaders.

Having Protestant evangelicals already in their pocket, todayâ€™s Neo-cons are desperately seeking Catholics and their voting block to shore up their partyâ€™s anticipated victories. As the two faiths are melded together in the Neo-con crucible, naive Catholics have been â€œProtestantizedâ€ as never before. As C. Joseph Doyle has noted: â€œWhat weâ€™ve created in the past 30 years is a whole new generation of public Catholics who are cultural Protestants.â€ Or as Likoudis says:

â€œThe Catholic Church is taking hits from every side of the Protestant power spectrum: from Episcopal bishops claiming the Church is promoting violence against homosexuals, to Pentecostals claiming the Church is a Babylonian mystery cult, to neoconservative Christians claiming the Vatican is a rogue state for opposing the war in Iraqâ€ (The Wanderer, June 10, 2004).

Typical examples of leading Catholic figures who have been ensconced by the Neo-con agenda (or, worse, are mere plants posing as Catholics) are Sean Hannity who, having advertised his stance against the popeâ€™s opposition to the Iraq war, had the temerity to host Protestant Franklin Graham (Billy Grahamâ€™s son) on his popular Fox television show, allowing him to chastise the pope. So enamored is Hannity with the Evangelical agenda that his best-selling book, Deliver Us From Evil, contains the Protestant, not Catholic, version of the Our Father on the inside cover. Hannityâ€™s real loyalties were revealed when, after his bellicose rantings against Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski, he was confronted with an even more sordid tale in the exploits of his Neo-con colleague, Newt Gingrich, a regular commentator on Hannityâ€™s program. Ignoring Gingrichâ€™s improprieties, Hannity continually treated him like a knight in shining armor, much like Rush Limbaugh treats William F. Buckley. All the while Gingrich was committing serial adultery on his second wife during the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. The adulteress was a young Congressional aide. She was also a Catholic who sang as a member of the prestigious choir at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. Showing no repentance, Gingrich divorced his wife and married the young aide, and the newlywed couple continued to attend the Shrine, now under the protecting arm of the pedophile protector, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. I myself was in Washington at the time to hear her sing the glories of the Christian faith. Hannity also knows the cruel way in which Gingrich treated his first wife, insisting that she come to terms for divorce while she was recovering from cancer surgery in a hospital bedroom. But this is to be expected. Gingrichâ€™s behavior and Hannityâ€™s looking the other way is the convenient morality of the Neo-con political machine. As John Galbraith stated it:

â€œThe modern conservative is engaged in one of manâ€™s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.â€

Hannity also buys into the same biblical eschatology as Billy and Franklin Graham, which, for most of the last century, has been awash with Puritan millennium-seeking. Their ultimate goal is to prepare the Middle East, particularly Israel, for the Second Coming of Christ who, they think, will soon begin a physical, 1000-year reign from Jerusalem. Naturally, in this eschatological schema the good guys are the Neo-cons, the Evangelicals and the Zionists, while the bad guys are anyone who opposes them, including but not limited to the Arab nations and the world of Islam. Moralist icon, William Bennett, prior to the exposing of his gambling habits, thought nothing of gambling away American lives when on September 12, 2002 in a CNN interview he said so self-righteously that America was â€œin a struggle between good and evil,â€ and that â€œoverwhelming force must be used against militant Islam.â€ Bennett then proceeded to name the nations of his war-mongering fury: Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and China. As Buchanan writes: â€œNot, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osamaâ€™s terrorists.â€ By the way, Bennett is also on the advisory board of Crisis magazine.

Of course, the underworld is not limited to Skull & Bones and the Bohemian Grove. Similar secret societies bent on world conquest have been around for quite a while. We know some of them as the Freemasons, the P2, the Illuminati, and about a dozen other such illustrative names. We need not be naive â€“ big money and man-made philosophies control almost every sector of this world. Thatâ€™s what the Apostle John tells us in the Apocalypse. This is not, as some try to dismiss it, a â€œconspiracyâ€ theory. Catholics got a good taste of reality when in the 1970s-80s they saw that many of the prelates they trusted had already succumbed to its power. One very revealing source was a list of Freemasons discovered by Italian police and later sent to Pope John Paul I by Mino Pecorelli, editor of Lâ€™ Osservatore Politico (who was soon afterward assassinated, mafioso style). Among the names on the short list of Masons were 121 Catholic prelates, including prominent office holders such as: Augustin Cardinal Bea, Secretary of State to John XXIII and Paul VI; Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, creator of the Novus Ordo mass; Agostino Cacciavillan, Secretary of State, and until very recently, Papal Nuncio to America; Agostino Casaroli, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Achille Lienart, Bishop of Lille, France and designated as â€œMasonic Grand Masterâ€ and very active in slanting Vatican II in the liberal direction; Leo Cardinal Suenens (leader of the Charismatic movement) and Jean Cardinal Villot, the Secretary of State. These names came complete with Masonic code names and numbers. Villotâ€™s name was â€œJeanniâ€ with number 041/3 and he was enrolled in the Lodge on August 6, 1966. So vast was Villotâ€™s power and influence that when Paul VI had excommunicated Pasquale Macci for heresy, Villot, after the popeâ€™s death, had Macci reinstated and saw to it that he was elevated to Cardinal. Pio Laghi, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States is also on the list, and it is no coincidence that he is a great friend to the Bush family.

Paul Marcinkus, Director of the Vatican Bank and numerous money laundering schemes, was also on the Freemason list. It was John Paul Iâ€™s stated quest to Cardinal Villot to remove Marcinkus and his collaborators, such as Cardinal Baggio (also on the Freemason list). But Villot and company silenced the pope before he could act. All this is common knowledge now, thanks to David Yallopâ€™s book â€œIn Godâ€™s Nameâ€; Paul Williamsâ€™ book â€œThe Vatican Exposed,â€ as well as the work of Richard Hammer, Claire Sterling, Nick Tosches and John Cornwell. What we also know is that, immediately after becoming the new pope, John Paul II closed the door on all the internal investigations initiated by John Paul I, and thus it became business as usual at the Vatican. Instead of ousting Marcinkus the pope elevated him, on the third anniversary of John Paul Iâ€™s death, to the position of the Pontifical Commission for the State of Vatican City, which is more or less like being its governor. Instead of reporting the misdealings of the Banco Ambrosiano (which was the source for Marcinkusâ€™ money laundering schemes as he defrauded its depositors), John Paul II paid off the creditors with $250 million of the Vaticanâ€™s money. When appeals came to the Vatican from the Italian government to help prosecute Marcinkus, John Paul II protected Marcinkus by citing the immunity granted by article 11 of the 1929 Lateran Treaty with Mussolini, as he also did in protecting, Bernard Law, the infamous pedophile shuffler. Cardinals Benelli and Rossi pleaded with the pope to expel Marcinkus but to no avail. It was later discovered that Marcinkusâ€™ money laundering allowed the funneling of $100 million to the Solidarity Trade Union of Poland, a favorite project of the popeâ€™s. Unfortunately, for every Yallop and Williams we can depend upon to expose these historical facts, we have authors such as Carl Bernstein (â€œHis Holiness: John Paul II and the History of Our Timeâ€) and George Weigel (â€œWitness to Hope: John Paul IIâ€) who refuse to mention them.

Bush vs. Benedict
Catholic neoconservatives grapple with their church’s Just War tradition.
By Daniel McCarthy
Four months into the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal Ratzinger, it is too soon to say what will distinguish the new pontiff’s tenure from that of his epochal predecessor—beyond the safe prediction that it will be shorter. But continuities are already clear: like John Paul II, Benedict will stand firm in the church’s teachings on sexual morality and the sanctity of human life. And like John Paul II, the new pope is a man of peace whose vision for the world does not include wars of the sort lately waged against Iraq.

The priority Benedict places on peace was apparent even in his choice of name. The sixth century St. Benedict had brought monasticism to the West, becoming a patron saint of Europe. This German pope reaffirmed the church’s commitment to the historical heartland of Christianity by his choice—as if to say that Europe is not to be surrendered either to secularism or surging Islam. But above all, he paid tribute to Benedict XV, the “Peace Pope” who occupied the Throne of St. Peter in the harrowing days of World War I. The new pope made the connection explicit on April 27 in remarks he made at his first general audience:

I chose to call myself Benedict XVI ideally as a link to the venerated pontiff Benedict XV, who guided the Church through the turbulent times of the First World War. He was a true and courageous prophet of peace who struggled strenuously and bravely, first to avoid the drama of war and then to limit its terrible consequences. In his footsteps I place my ministry, in the service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples, profoundly convinced that the great good of peace is above all a gift from God, a fragile and precious gift to be invoked, safeguarded and constructed, day after day and with everyone’s contribution.

Conservatives of almost all stripes had cause to rejoice in Ratzinger’s election, as even non-Catholics among them saw in him a man who would uphold the values dear to them. An ephemeral but telling sign of his support was the presence on the Internet of sites announcing themselves as the “Ratzinger Fanclub” and “Protestants for Ratzinger.” The new pope would be a sure ally for the Right in the Culture War. But where hot wars are concerned, many of Ratzinger’s most ardent admirers—Catholic neoconservatives especially—find themselves diametrically at odds with the pope.

Michael Novak, George Weigel, and Richard John Neuhaus are three of the most prominent Catholic neocons whose reading of Just War doctrine clashes with the views of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Novak and Neuhaus fit the classic mold: they were radicals in the 1960s and early 1970s, both involved in protesting the Vietnam War. Neuhaus—a Lutheran pastor before his 1991 conversion to Catholicism—founded Clergy Concerned About Vietnam alongside Fr. Daniel Berrigan and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel; Novak co-wrote with Heschel and Robert M. Brown Vietnam: Crisis of Conscience. By the 1980s, both had moved rightward, trading social democracy for Novak’s “democratic capitalism.” Today, they and Weigel, a biographer of John Paul II whose ideological background is less exotic, champion an interpretation of Just War theory that strongly favors the foreign policy of George W. Bush.

Disseminating the views of Neuhaus, Novak, and Weigel—and often making bolder statements in defense of the administration than the big three themselves—are such journals as Crisis, co-founded by Novak, and First Things, established and until recently edited by Neuhaus. In October 2004, Crisis ran a cover story touting “The Case for an American Empire”; four months later, it published an article calling for the return of the draft. First Things has, by contrast, been more genteel, even publishing a debate on war and statecraft between Weigel and the Church of England’s Rowan Williams. But a recent article by the journal’s new editor, Joseph Bottum, suggests the underlying tendency. In “The New Fusionism,” arguing for an alliance between neoconservatives and social conservatives, Bottum laments, “Much of the Roman curia seems to have fallen into a functional pacifism that threatens a damaging loss of the traditional Catholic theory of just war.”

Writing in National Review Online—a venue not explicitly Catholic or neoconservative but colored by both—shortly after the death of John Paul II, University of Reading philosophy professor David Oderberg put the neocon line bluntly. “When it comes to applying tradition to life-and-death moral issues”—such as the Iraq War—“Bush 43 wins hands down over John Paul II.” George Weigel or Michael Novak would never write such a thing, but the conclusion is one to which their arguments readily lead. Where foreign policy is concerned, for the Catholic neoconservative, it is Bush si, Benedict no.

The new pope and his predecessor have been consistent—some, like Osterberg, would say to a fault—in taking the most restrictive possible view in favor of life in matters of capital importance, whether abortion, the death penalty, or war. Neoconservative Catholics have met this papal position with defiance. They point out, correctly, that abortion and war are not parallel—the former is wrong in all instances, the latter permissible in some. Novak and Neuhaus also take care to emphasize the wording of Section 2309 of the Catholic Catechism, which states that deciding when the conditions for a just war have been met “belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good”—meaning the Bush administration, as they would have it.

Yet war is a matter of both moral judgment and prudential judgment. The church is not competent to deduce the likelihood of strategic success or to address other purely prudential considerations of Just War doctrine. But there remain moral considerations in going to war about which a pope certainly can speak with authority, if not with infallibility. Neither John Paul II nor Benedict—whose intellect neoconservative Catholics have in other contexts praised —needs reminding about what the Catechism says. In Benedict’s case, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he supervised its recent abridgement. In a May 2003 interview reported by Rome’s Zenit news service, Ratzinger was asked about the justice of the Iraq War in light of the Catechism. He agreed that Just War doctrine may require revision, as Weigel and other Catholic neoconservatives have suggested—but in a more, not less, restrictive direction.

The pope [John Paul II] expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith. The Holy Father’s judgment is also convincing from a rational point of view: There was not sufficient reasons to unleash a war in Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’

As for “preventive war,” Ratzinger flatly stated in September 2002, the “concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” The then-cardinal’s remarks also suggested that the United Nations, rather than George W. Bush, would be the proper public authority to decide upon war with Iraq: “the United Nations … should make the final decision,” he said. “It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power.”

The doctrine of papal infallibility does not, of course, extend to Benedict’s remarks as a cardinal nor even, for that matter, to any of John Paul’s opinions about the Iraq War, however well informed they were. But there is no mistaking the gravity of their views. If, as both men believed, the attack on Iraq in 2003 was unjust, support for the war becomes unconscionable. Novak, Neuhaus, and Weigel have spent much of their careers battling relativism, arguing forcefully that there is moral truth at the core of even the most contentious and divisive issues. There is a moral truth, they would surely agree, at the heart of the Iraq War—the justice of the war is not something that is ultimately moot or merely a question of perspective. The war in Iraq is a matter of moral right and wrong. Catholic neoconservatives say it was right; Benedict says it was wrong.

Faithful Catholics of conservative disposition face a difficult choice here. Their president, the Republican Party, and the leading Catholic intellectuals who identify themselves as conservatives all support a policy that the pope opposes. Yet the antiwar movement seems at a glance to consist of people whose values are unalterably opposed to a Catholic’s—a motley collection of secular leftists, many of them supporters of abortion and homosexual marriage. Even the history of faithful antiwar Catholics in America has since World War II been marked by radicalism and outright pacifism, from Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers Movement to Fr. Daniel Berrigan.

There is, however, a conservative alternative, one that does not have the financial reach or media savvy of the neoconservative press but which has a long and venerable history and which agrees with the pope on hot wars and the culture wars alike. This brand of antiwar Catholicism is to be found in periodicals like The Wanderer, a 138-year-old newspaper based in Minnesota, and the considerably younger New Oxford Review.

The price paid by antiwar Catholic conservatives for upholding the pope’s thought in foreign policy as well as in cultural battles at home has been ostracism from the respectable Right. Even the late Brent Bozell, a founding father of postwar conservatism—William F. Buckley’s brother-in-law, ghostwriter for Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative—found himself marginalized after he and the Catholic magazine he founded, Triumph, began to grow critical of the Vietnam War. The conservative movement that has built itself a big tent in so many other respects still counts dissent in the foreign-policy arena as an excommunicable offense.

Yet in the end, American Catholics are not faced with a choice between conservatism and their faith—conservatives in the realist, anti-militarist traditions of George Kennan, Robert Nisbet, Russell Kirk, and the 1930s Old Right have always held foreign-policy views compatible with Benedict’s. But between what commonly passes for conservatism today, as represented by the president’s Iraq policy, and the vision of the pope there is an unbridgeable gap, on one side or the other of which American Catholics will have to take a stand.

Andrew Bacevich, himself a Catholic and a conservative, observes in The New American Militarism, “If in the aftermath of the Cold War a religious counterweight to the evangelical influence on U.S. policy were to have emerged, that counterweight ought to have been the Roman Catholic Church. Great in numbers, political influence, and material resources, with anti-Catholicism largely a thing of the past, the church was eminently well-positioned to put its stamp on public policy.” But the opportunity was squandered by a hierarchy enmeshed in scandal. This makes the efforts of lay Catholic leaders and individual priests—people like Novak, Weigel, and Neuhaus—all the more important. Lately there have been hints that Neuhaus, at least, is beginning to re-evaluate his support for the Iraq War (“There is a lively and legitimate argument about whether, knowing what we know now, this war was justified and necessary”) even as he still makes excuses for the president (“leaders do not have the convenience of making decisions retrospectively”). Perhaps Novak and Weigel, reflecting upon Pope Benedict’s thought, will follow suit. More likely, Catholics in search of a consistent application of the principles of their faith to the realm of foreign policy will have to look to the periphery of the conservative movement—and, of course, to Rome.

MY JUNE 2007 LTE:
Dear Editor:

I am writing to encourage all Christian conservatives to support Congressman Ron Paul for president. As I will outline below, Paul’s constitutionalist philosophy will help cause a re-Christianization of America.

According to Paul’s philosophy, the Constitution only gives Washington limited, defined powers - powers that can only be exercised by the elected Congress, not by unelected judges and bureaucrats. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has usurped powers not delegated to it by the States via the Constitution, while most lawmaking that is done in Washington is done by bureaucrats and judges.

The Federal Leviathan has been de-Christianizing America over the last 60 years. The Federal Judiciary (which should be limiting Federal power by striking down Federal laws) has been striking down State and local laws that restrict abortion, sodomy, pornography as well as State religious displays (e.g: the Ten Commandments). Also, the Federal Bureaucracy has been waging war on Christianity by funding anti-Christian ‘art’, ‘gay’ plays in the Bible Belt, Planned Parenthood, and secular public education and welfare programs (which deprives funds for Christian education and charities). Under a Paul presidency, appropriations for Federal agencies like the NEA and the Department of Education would be vetoed (because the Constitution gives the Federal Government no power concerning education, welfare, or the arts - funding of which has been increased by the Bush Administration) and a President Paul would only nominate justices that would strike down federal laws, not State and local ones.

For these reasons, Christian conservatives should support Ron Paul for President.

Christopher M. Golden

Servitus| 1.6.12 @ 4:26PM

According to Sungenis himself, he was forced by his bishop to stop calling his organization "Catholic". It's right on his geocentric website:

"...[Bishop Rhoades] forced me to take the name 'Catholic' from my website."

http://galileowaswrong.com/gal.....ures/4.pdf

http://sungenisandthejews.blog.....genis.html

Servitus| 1.6.12 @ 4:29PM

I found this file by Dr. William Cork about Sungenis as well:

http://wquercus.com/sungenis/

Sungenis' new attacks against Bishop Rhoades were shown to be false, including his carping about "supersessionism", which is a non-existent teaching of the Catholic Church.

https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations

Kurt| 1.6.12 @ 10:08PM

The internal squabbles amongst Roman Catholics is interesting I suppose but the lowdown on this Sungenis fellow got me wondering about this Philips fellow so I googled around and found some interesting tidbits. How does it not surprise me that he's a Holocaust revisionist? How does it also not surprise me that he's a 9-11 "truther"?

"For the record, I like Mr. Hoffman, do not accept the 'official' 6 million gas chamber myth nor a lot of other things which are presented to us (i.e, forced upon us) as official history...I do not accept the government's official 9-11 story."

http://socrates58.blogspot.com.....5102521639

His lengthy apologia for Holocaust revisionism is here,

http://www.angelqueen.org/foru.....5efdfa462d

Kurt| 1.6.12 @ 10:12PM

Philips is also a major fan the work of the anti-Semitic Michael Hoffman:

http://revisionistreview.blogs.....5301159821

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Michael A. Hoffman II

I have to agree that Ron Paul needs "supporters" like Sungenis, Golden, and Philips like the proverbial hole in the head.

CHRIS GOLDEN| 1.7.12 @ 2:57PM

I am writing this post so as to clarify my reason in citing the Sungenis essay - in that it was solely about documenting the neoconservative infiltration of the Catholic Church in America via First Things and Crisis. In no way was I endorsing Sungenis theological views on Judaism or on anything else [this is not to imply a disagreement with Sungenis’s theological arguments either. It’s just to say that advanced theology is way over my head - heck, I don’t even know what the hell “supersessionism" means - and I sure damn do not think the sun revolves around the earth]. I just put the entire Sungenis essay in my email so as not to take anything out of context.

Seve| 1.7.12 @ 10:26PM

The attack on Santorum isn't fair, imo. He's always been a pro-life lion. I can still remember when he went toe to toe with Barbara Boxer about partial-birth abortion and pressured her to tell him exactly how much of a baby has to be outside the womb before it should be protected by the law. She lost it.

You can read the exchange here:

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL1199/boxsan.html

The bloke made a lousy political calculation in regard to Arlen Specter but it wasn't because he doesn't care about the great moral issues of the day. He did it because he didn't believe Toomey could win and he knew that 2 SJCs were coming up in the next presidential term that would have a critical impact on things like abortion.

His judgment wrong and he's publicly admitted it and apologized.

http://www.creativeminorityrep.....ecter.html

The Spectacle Blog

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 6:42PM

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 6:13PM

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:48PM

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5:30PM

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 4:15PM

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface

Kyle Peterson | 12:55PM

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|130 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|136 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|53 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|17 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|24 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|27 comments

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?