A Facebook Conversation Today

My friend posted  something today and it turned into politics, natch. Her friend is a Santorum supporter and I am, well, it’s pretty obvious, I’d rather have a root canal than to vote for him.  I do, however, realize that there is a lot of support for him (why I am not sure) and I am further saddened by his lack of docility to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

There isn’t a single candidate running who is perfect. With that said you have to do the best you can when deciding who to vote for and that boils down to informing yourself through prayer and research to the best of your ability and voting on what you think is most important for our country. I have many reasons voting for Rick Santorum. He is passionate about what he believes in. I have seen him talk in person, on national television during the debates and he has consistently spoke out against abortion and the negative effects of contraception on women. He has not only spoken out about it and the importance of family values and defending marriages he has also put it into action through his leadership in the partial birth abortion ban and others. I agree with Ron Paul in most of his issues but when comes to things he seems to leave a gray area like in his stance on exceptions in the cases of rape and incest. He doesn’t come across as passionate and strong. As far as torture the Church isn’t 100 percent clear so again we have to apply prayer and discernment. He feels that Iran is already at war with us so I wouldn’t go as far to say he is pro war as people think he is without looking at the reasons why he is for the war with Iran.


While I address the other issues on Facebook,  I wanted to address the issue of torture and war here. I have pretty much beaten a dead horse about the pro-life issues and have done so on my blog, but torture and just war, I feel, need to be addressed.  I am keeping it simple, citing the Catechism and an encyclical here, but that is all we need to see that the Catholic Church does not, in anyway, support torture.

As far as the church teaching on torture, it is pretty clear. From CCC 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Further, the Church defines torture formally (i.e., what makes an action torture):

1. violation of human dignity in the form of
2. intentional mental and/or physical harm in order to
3. use a human person as a means (or instrument) for some producible end
4. against that person’s will.

These are the essential features of torture, and any material action with this form is torture. And it does not take any meticulous reasoning to figure out which material acts bear this essential form.

Church sources: Veritatis Splendor 80 & CCC 2297

Pope Benedict XVI, September 2007 “Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances” (Ibid., 404).”

He is reiterating what Blessed John Paul II said in 2004 in the COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH # 404. 

The Church is nothing but 100% clear on the situation.

How is Iran already at war with us? Have they attacked us? How so? Church teaching on Just War is just as clear:

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”106

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

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

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

– there must be serious prospects of success;

– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

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

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

Filed under: American Liberties, Catholic

Ron Paul Sign Wave

We were up early and dressed to go vote in our state primary for president. It’s no secret that I voted for Ron Paul. I wanted to take a picture of it, but I thought it might be against the rules, so I just took a moment to burn the screen in my mind and smiled.

I brought the kids back home and got ready to head down to Valdosta for a Ron Paul sign wave. Let me tell you, in the half hour I was there, we got lots of honks and waves and super duper support. It was awesome to see support for the cause of liberty so close to home!

This post, of course, would not be complete without pictures, so here you go, from my phone, so not the best, but pretty awesome none the less!

Caecilia wears that hat just about everywhere she goes, so it was fitting that she got the Ron Paul sticker on it today.



Benedict holding the sign. I was using the stroller to hold it up and he grabbed hold!

Trying his best to hold up the sign.

Working on getting it over his head. (He did, but I couldn’t get a picture fast enough, he was super cute!)

Karol, very excited about his sign.

Helping little brother hold up his sign.



Filed under: American Liberties, General Stuff, Home Schooling

Super Tuesday States

Super Tuesday States: Ron Paul wants to hear from you! Vote for him, vote for integrity, vote for a man who won’t have to spend time defending his record when facing Obama this fall! Vote for the man who hasn’t paid lip service to those of us working hard to end abortion! Vote for the man who wants to protect the Constitution!


From Ron Paul:

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum ALL:

*** Supported massive new government intrusion into your health care through the individual mandate and Medicare Part D, the largest entitlement expansion in 40 years before ObamaCare;

*** Joined union bosses in opposing a National Right to Work law, or, in the case of Gingrich, refused to lift a finger to help pass the bill when Speaker. Even more disturbingly, Rick Santorum joined Ted Kennedy in TWICE voting for a massive expansion of union power that could have broken the backs of hundreds of thousands of small businesses;

*** Supported the doubling in size of the federal Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind federal power grab;
And Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich went even further, not only supporting the bank and housing bailouts but personally enriching themselves by them.

The sad truth is, none of these three candidates can give us change.

In fact, they can’t even help us defeat Barack Obama this fall.

If we’re going to defeat Obama, our Republican candidate for President must show a CLEAR, TRUE contrast with Barack Obama.

I’m afraid Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum simply won’t be able to do that.

We can’t defeat Obama without making an issue of ObamaCare, bailouts, and massive federal power grabs.

Polls continue to show that I’m the candidate to take on and defeat Barack Obama this fall.

Can you imagine the clear choice my campaign would give voters?

You see, I’m the only candidate with a real plan to cut spending and balance our budget.

My Plan to Restore America cuts $1 trillion in federal spending during the first year of my presidency by eliminating five unconstitutional departments, and it balances our nation’s budget by the third year.

And I’m the only candidate in this race with a lifetime record of standing up for constitutional government.

Because of my strong defense of the right to keep and bear arms, I’ve received the prestigious “Defender of the Second Amendment” Award from Gun Owners of America.

And since I believe that liberty cannot be protected if life is not respected, I’ve fought hard to defend the unborn

I’ve introduced legislation to federally recognize that life begins at conception, repeal Roe v. Wade, and strip federal judges of any jurisdiction over the abortion issue.

And when it comes to our borders, I’m the only candidate talking about securing OUR borders – instead of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I’ve opposed every single bailout, and I have NEVER once voted for a tax increase.

I’m known as the “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” in Congress.

If you want a real constitutional conservative with a 30-year track record of standing up to the Big Government, big spending status quo in Washington, then, if you live in a state voting tomorrow, I ask for your support.

Together, you and I can Restore America NOW!

For Liberty,
Ron Paul.

Filed under: American Liberties

Ron Paul On Marriage

Seeing that misinformation regarding Dr. Paul’s position on marriage is being passed around on the interwebs, I respectfully ask you to read these speeches and interview from Dr. Paul.





Filed under: American Liberties

For Every Food Post

I post two political posts:


LifeSiteNews interviews Ron Paul: protect family, marriage, life by protecting subsidiarity


WASHINGTON, January 19, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When it comes to the voting booth, pro-life and pro-family voters are among the most passionately dedicated to their issues. Their zeal may be challenged by only one other group: Ron Paul enthusiasts.

Although mainstream politics may look at both groups askance, the relationship between the two themselves is not so clear. At the center of the question, of course, is Ron Paul himself: is the Paul philosophy compatible with the voter who puts life and family first?

In a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews.com Wednesday, the Texas Congressman proposed his vision on government as an alternative strategy in securing the future of America: casting limited government as not just a libertarian quirk, but a key to protecting religious rights in battles yet to be seen.


Despite a considerable pro-life pedigree, Paul, whom polls still show in serious contention as the conservative Romney alternative, is anything but synonymous with the national pro-life movement. In large part, he says this is because of his record in Congress: he has voted against several federal abortion regulations as unauthorized by the U.S. Constitution.

So why should those who vote pro-life first, vote for “Dr. No”? Paul suggested the answer requires a broad-angle lens on the state of affairs, including the struggle in higher echelons for control over America’s soul. When it comes to choosing the next U.S. president, he says, conservative Christians, including pro-lifers and homeschooling families, should be looking for someone willing to turn against the tide of greater centralized power.

“They [progressives] would like to excommunicate us, so to speak, from the social system, because we have Christian values,” said Paul. “Once you give the government this power to make these decisions, then we’re in trouble – even though some people might think, oh, well, we’re in charge, and we’re going to make the right decisions, and we’ll always tell [citizens] the good things they should do. I don’t think it’s possible.”

Paul doesn’t eschew all federal involvement on the question, and favors going right to the top: he says he hopes to build towards a constitutional amendment banning abortion, while pursuing a constitutional method to help the culture of life turn itself around on the state level. This includes federal personhood legislation, which he has personally introduced into U.S. Congress, as well as measures to take the power away from federal courts to mandate a “right” to abortion. History shows that this method locks in to the real dynamics of the abortion issue – which has always been mainly spiritual, rather than legal, he said.

“The real problem started in the 60s when there was a change in the morality of our people, who started defying the law and doing abortions, and respect for life dropped off,” he said. “The law was changed to conform to the lack of moral standing in this country. So that’s where the real problem is.”


But Paul’s emphasis on Constitutional fidelity has also run the Texas Congressman into trouble with marriage defenders, such as the National Organization for Marriage, who have heavily criticized his opposition to federal moves to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Again, said Paul, it becomes a question of state versus federal power. He emphasized that, speaking “as a presidential candidate,” his words against government power are largely directed at the federal level.

When asked if he would veto a same-sex marriage bill as a state governor, he said yes, “if they were going to call that marriage.”

“For state purposes, I’ve defended the right of the state to be able to set the standards,” said Paul. If we let the federal government mandate a marriage definition, he warned, nothing would necessarily keep it the right one.

“If the federal government gets involved, they are going to write a definition. They might not want a dictionary definition or a Christian definition of marriage,” he said. “That’s why I fear the federal government getting in, because they will put pressure on all the states to follow their definition.”

Paul added that he would like marriage to take place “personally and through the church,” which he said was not without historical precedent, and said that issues like spousal benefits and custody battles can be properly handled on a community level.

In short, he says, “the people closest to the situation should have the most to say about it.”


When it comes to homeschooling rights, Paul’s radical views come into even sharper relief: the Congressman says his bill to remove federal jurisdiction would remove power of federal courts to bully homeschoolers as well. Paul foresees that homeschooling might one day be as threatened in America as in Germany or Sweden, where parents have lost children to state custody because they homeschooled.

“If you want homeschooling to become a national issue, we’re going to lose,” said Paul. “What we want to do is get the federal government out, and make sure states protect us in having homeschooling.”

He spoke in similar terms regarding one of the biggest conservative hangups over the candidate: loosening regulations on drugs and prostitution. While states have the right to restrict or ban such things, he said, choosing not to regulate certain activities through government does not constitute endorsement.

“If we embark on this idea that the government can sort all this out, we’re in big trouble, because that’s what [progressives] are trying to do right now,” he said.

“The states have a lot of leeway in what they want to do,” he concluded, “but I look at the Constitution as only allowing us to explicitly what we’ve been given the power to do.”

Filed under: American Liberties, General Stuff

Yeah, let’s just not count those votes…

“The totals reflected about 84 percent of the state’s precincts. Webster insisted that any caucus results that come in after Saturday wouldn’t be counted no matter how close the vote. “Some caucuses decided not to participate in this poll and will caucus after this announcement,” Webster said. “Their results will not be factored in. The absent votes will not be factored into this announcement after the fact.”


That is not how the Maine Caucuses work! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Republican_caucuses,_2012

The 2012 Maine Republican caucuses will be held from January to March, 2012, at various locations throughout the state of Maine. The Maine Republican Party is encouraging all municipal committees to hold their caucuses between February 4th to the 11th, though each committee is free to choose a different date.The first caucus was in Waldo county on January 29th, and the last one in Hancock on March 3rd.

So, did the Maine GOP disenfranchise a whole segment of the population? Regardless of who you support in Maine, votes are votes and they need to be counted.

For the record, this has nothing to do w/Ron Paul, I promise! It is my disgust over the fact that the GOP in Maine is changing the rules mid -game.

Filed under: American Liberties


I just want all my readers to know that I write this blog and I approve all content before things are posted. Joshua, my husband, has posted only one time on this blog and I asked him to do so.

I received this comment on my blog, in response to a post I wrote :


Joshua, I feel so sorry for you small-minded haters. You certainly aren’t following the teachings of Christ by going around judging and bashing good men like Rick Santorum. You give Ron Paul all sorts of room to double-back on his word. You insist that the readers see what Ron Paul “really meant” by twisting his words to fit your agenda, yet you don’t give any room for explanation with Rick Santorum. He is a good, Catholic man. He is, as the rest of us (yourselves excluded of course), on a journey to the truth. Aside from the Facemyers, the rest of us are not perfect and don’t have ALL the answers to EVERYTHINNG. We are learning and growing in our faith – not perfectfly formed. You people need to stop the self-righteous hate campaign you have going against anyone who remotely disagrees with you. It’s ugly, anti-Christian and sad. This used to be a nice blog to read before Joshua turned it into his personal soapbox of hateful assaults. Man up, respect your wife and let her get back to sharing the beauty of motherhood with us. We are sick of your political views.


This is my response to it (in addition to the one my husband has posted as a reply to the comment, as it attacked the both of us):

How are we haters? When, in any of my posts, have I said anything other than that facts to be considered?

Am I going around bashing and judging good men (and by this we all know it means Santorum)? No, I am simply putting out his own words and trying to figure out: How is he considered the best pro-life candidate? and How is he in line with the teachings of the Church regarding just war?

I have never once in any of my posts “twisted” Dr. Paul’s words to make him sound better or to fit my desires of what I want him to be.

I too am on a journey for truth. I am also tired of being lied to. I am tired of candidates standing up and saying they are pro-life, then voting to fund organizations like planne.d paren.thoo.d. For example, just last night, I was reading up on bills that Dr. Paul and Rick Santorum have voted on. (Yes, I do things like that, cause I am a political geek.) While my research on the subject is not completed yet, I did discover that George W. Bush increased funding for Title X and signed budgets over his years in office that continued that funding. I was horrified. I campaigned for that man, I voted not once, but 3 times for him (Michigan Primaries 2000, General Election 2000 and in the General Election of 2004.) While I wasn’t a fan of him by the time 2004 rolled around (mainly because of the war in Iraq) I voted for him because I thought he was a pro-life (in terms of abortion) man who would defend life in our country. Now I just want to shower and get the 12 hours I spent making phone calls and working a meet and greet and my three votes back.

As far as getting an explanation for Santorum, how does one justify saying: “On occasion, if scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead I think that is a wonderful thing. I think we should send a very clear message, if you are a scientist… working on nuclear weapons, you are not safe”. And how does one justify, really justify, voting for a budget that has funding for PP in it? Doesn’t that just insult all of us who have prayed in front of clinics, prayed rosaries, held rallies, working for the protection of the most innocent lives?

I am far from perfect, by the way; ask my husband, ask my children, ask my confessor, ask God. (Go ahead, I give you permission.) Again, I am on the search for truth. I am not perfectly formed in my faith either, that is why I work hard and pray for direction from God. I seek counsel of good, holy priests and ask hard questions. When on retreat last month, I asked our retreat master if he could talk to me about just war, I posed questions and he answered them. I learned a bit but over all I was confirmed in the knowledge that we cannot go around hurting/attacking other people, we are not allowed to preemptively attack a country because they might be doing something bad. And yes, this priest was solid, not wishy washy, not liberal, just a good solid priest.

I am hurt that anyone would think that I have a “self-righteous hate campaign” toward anyone who disagrees with me. You know me, you know I am not that kind of person, nor is Joshua.

“This used to be a nice blog to read before Joshua turned it into his personal soapbox of hateful assaults. Man up, respect your wife and let her get back to sharing the beauty of motherhood with us.” This is probably the most laughable, and sad, line. If you look at my posts you will see that I seldom post about politics and often post about the children and our activities. If you do the math, in the past six months 13.6% of my posts have been about Dr. Paul or Rick Santorum, hardly anything to get that upset about.

Also, as I said in the first line, I write my own posts. Furthermore, the person who wrote this hid behind a fake name and email address, so if we do want to talk about manning up, use your real name and information, or, since you know us, send an email or a letter or call us. Finally, are you saying that I am not allowed to have a mind or thoughts of my own? That if I am doing something other than diapers, folding laundry or making dinner, that must come from Joshua and not me? That is just insulting.

“We are sick of your political views”. Interestingly, I have had people thank me, both here  and  here and via email/facebook for standing up and speaking my mind about Dr. Paul and against candidates who are not what they say they are.

Lastly, let me say that I am not the only person who has noticed this and who is standing up against the idea that Santorum is the most pro-life candidate out there. Many people in the pro-life movement here in Georgia find it insulting that Santurum was endorsed, along with Gingrich, by the Georgia Right to Life group. This isn’t a campaign by us Facemyers to bash or judge Rick Santorum, it is a campaign for me (Beth Facemyer) to get people to wake up to the fact that Rick Santorum is not all he claims to be.


Filed under: American Liberties, General Stuff, Social Commentary



I believe, Mr. Santorum, you were elected, in some part, on your pro-life convictions, therefore, you should have stood up and said that you would not vote for a budget that funded any sort of abortifacient birth control and voted no, it’s called INTEGRITY.


Filed under: American Liberties, Catholic, General Stuff

Ron Paul IS Pro-Life

Ron Paul IS Pro-Life

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

by Congressman Ron Paul
Libertarians for Life
Copyright 1981

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the “right” to extinguish individual life.

Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian’s support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the “right” of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

Filed under: American Liberties, Catholic, Social Commentary