Addicting Info posted an article several months ago regarding Ron Paul and his ties to white supremacy, and we were barraged with pleas and “stories” to win us over. In honor of Ron Paul’s obsessive fans we’re publishing the following article, showing his history of discrimination.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are giving some credence to Ron Paul’s campaign and message. He somehow comes across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling the Republican ticket.
I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!
1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH! ((Orcinus: Ron Paul’s Record in Congress ))
Thank you for being a voice of reason in a world of crazy Ron Paul supporters!
This is the corrected post (without typos). Thanks.
Please erase this post. (It includes a typo “dick” instead of sick.) Sorry about that slipup
It should be “NEIN”reasons!
How can you have an unnatural obsession with something that isn’t natural?
Is anybody actually surprised by any of what the author is saying? It all sounds like pretty typical republican stuff. If you aren’t voting for a candidate for any of these reasons, you are most likely voting democratic. Giving left-wing reasons for not voting for a right-wing candidate seems……. ridiculous.
No. No, actually, that’s not what matters most. What matters is what it IS and what it DOES. If somebody passed a law forbidding you from wearing blue shirts, would you really give a rat’s ass as to WHY they voted for it? Of course not. This righteous holier than thou crap is ridiculous. I don’t care how honourable your REASONS behind doing something are, I care what it IS. “Oh, don’t worry. I had happy thoughts when I shot that person. It’s cool.” That kind of “logic” fails.
Paul also wants to eliminate the Department of the Interior, of which one of its functions is to oversee the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What does anyone suppose is his plan for the 66 million acres of the reservations? Consider that 70% of the resources in the US lie on reservation territory.
Before assuming that the US government would not re-amend the reservation system at the convenient moment of stripping out its federal administration, one might want to remember that beginning in the 1940s into the 1960s under similar talk of austerity 2.5 million acres of native lands were stolen and 109 tribes de-listed. They called this act “termination”. Termination stripped the de-listed tribes of all the benefits guaranteed them by law in exchange for their quitting their war against the US government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_termination_policy
Also, though this is his son Rand, not Ron Paul himself, I cannot help but wonder from where he developed his views. In any event, Rand Paul can certainly be considered as an associate of Ron Paul. If it matters where a candidate goes to church, from whom they receive support, the character of their associates, then this is worthy of consideration in scrutinizing Paul. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/02/08/sen-rand-paul-set-to-ignore-treaty-obligations-to-indians-16363
I really question how sincere is Paul in his stated desire not to interfere in others’ affairs. As of yet he has made absolutely no statement of his intent toward our “domestic dependent nations”. Somehow, I’m envisioning something entirely different.
He is a paleolibertarian conservative sociopath, a doctor who doesn’t understand evolution
He understands that if we came from apes, then we would not have apes. Either that or we would have ape-men walking around everywhere. Some would be 90% ape and 10% human, some would be 30% ape and 70% human. Evolution makes sense, but at the same time it doesn’t make sense at all. And besides, more people believe in a higher power than don’t. Why would we teach a school of say, 70% Christian children that God doesn’t exist. Oh, yeah, that’s right, because the federal government told us to.
Nathan, you give our species, and yourself, too much credit. Evolution does NOT hold that we came from apes, but that we share a common ancestry. From an evolutionary standpoint your anthrocentric world is a farce, because apes are as advanced as we are from an evolutionary standpoint.
You really need to grow up and put things in proper perspective before you attack them.
I’m not a Paul supporter; I’m not particularly politically active. However. Do not abuse science in political arguments, or you will burn in the lowest layers of hell.
““To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information”
This, of course, is utter horse shit. Biologists define life by 7 traits common to all organisms. There is not an explicitly stated decision concerning the point at which human fetuses are considered “alive”. What you choose, and what Ron Paul chooses to believe about it are purely conjectural and personal. Do not tell me your opinion is “of course” aligned with “current medical and scientific information” and that Mr. Paul’s is “of course” not.
Watch and learn boys and girls
Curious… I mostly tend to side with the arguments that swear the less…
Hate to tell you these problems were not caused by the Free market and deregulation they were caused by government involvement. In a truly free market banks cannot do what they did because the gov does not bail anybody out so they are forced to do the right thing because if they don’t they go out of business. If you or anybody could create money out of nothing loan it out and the tax payers back it all we would all do the same thing. With the gov involved instead of loses stopping with just the depositors we have enslaved generations to come. I know freedom seems scary but even with all it’s down falls it’s still better than slavery.
The responses to this article prove once again that facts are ignored by Paul’s supporters whenever they are inconvienient to Dear Leader. His hero worshipping acolytes creep me out too.
First of all, some of the bill links don’t work, so I just googled them. Some of the bills have nothing to do with the reason. The women’s rights thing is just abortion. That’s a debatable topic, but I’m pro life. He has stated in numerous interviews that he does not want to ban gay marriage and he wants to keep church and state separated. Also, the author stole this from a website called who would jesus vote for?
If you hate America so much, then leave.
Ron Paul will not get the nomination; he is much too old. He will be 77 before the election. That means, if elected, he would be 80 halfway through his first term.
For all of you who support the essence of this article, I recommend watching an actual response, done by Adam Kokesh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuI_kppIE0&feature=g-u&context=G22600b0FUAAAAAAAAAA
Guys… go find a job. Get a new hobby, do something worth your time.
Affirmative action is racist. Reason number 1 listed already tells me that whoever came up with this list is not worth listening to. Treat everyone the same: that’s your civil liberty in full strength. Anything done to alter that is unfair.
The title of this article should be: “Ten Reasons Why Every American Should Vote For Ron Paul.” I would have voted the same way he did in all of those bills. More civil liberty and less big government is always a good thing.
RP on Democracy, compromise and minorities.
http://runronpaul.com/interviews/ron-paul-on-compromise-democracy-and-protecting-the-minority/
It’s funny that there is so much hypocracy going on both sides here. I am an independent who respects both Paul and Obama, but I now want Paul to win in 2012 because Obama has backed on his many campaign promises and now with the NDAA he can arrest ANY US citizen he wants to. Do you guys expect me to vote for this guy? He took forever to end Iraq he wants to stay in Afghanistan till 2025, he does nothing to stop the Teabaggers from passing the crazy stuff they propose, he is now escalating troubles with Iran with the drone that should have never been there, and he has done nothing to help liberals, in fact the Left is quiet only because Obama is there to shut them up and let the neo-cons get away with all the crap they want. This article is so dumb because most of this legislation came from the 80s a time in which everyone hated Commies and Homosexuals, and bigotry was still strong. I am not surprised Paul sponsored such legislation, but you cannot expect me to believe he holds the same values he did from the 80s when he clearly is showing today that he respects everybody. Your other points like #2-#5 are inherently bias towards the Left and are not well warranted. Huntsman had a flat tax himself and he said that it worked for every economic class. While I am not too sure to believe him I think the flat tax cannot be assumed to be hurtful to the lower classes (I am a poor 17 year old btw). The UN thing is being blown out of proportion, and the UN has failed to do stop wars anyways which was its original purpose, and its not like we will stop trading with other countries. In fact, I think the people in the Middle East would enjoy us not bombing them everyday and wouldn’t give a damn as to whether or not we are in the UN. So its ridiculous to claim our image would be hurt. #10 is simply wrong since Paul has been fighting the religious right throughout his campaign and it would be fair to teach both intelligent design and evolution in schools. If you are against that then you are arguing that you should teach your views in school only and not teach any other opinion which is exactly what the religious right tries to do so you are being a hypocrite(I am strongly pro-evolution btw). And to the other jerks who claim that Paul supports are idiots, first you guys are no more than bigots like the neo-cons, second, what are you going to do? Vote for Obama again? As I showed earlier he literally did a political 180 so what is the point in voting for him? You might as well vote for Gingrich or Romney because there is no difference between the three if you look at their flip-flopping records. Lastly, most of the things you are against can be stopped by congress anyways. IF you disagree with Paul’s economic views its irrelevant since he needs congress for that. But Paul has more control over Foreign Policy and Social Issues and other than being pro-life (he witnessed the killing of newborns if you haven’t known that), Paul has many views that liberals should agree with. And at least you will have honesty from him as compared to Obama. I honestly think the writer of this article has taken things out of context and his “research” I bet wasn’t very through since he had a bias view to begin with. He is merely justifying his bias but in this approach he has more than likely not seen the entire record of Paul.
Geez, reading this extended drivel reminds why I don’t get into arguments with the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul fanatics anymore. It’s pointless, and mind-numbing.
It was particularly entertaining, though, to see Mr. Desmond’s verbatim quote from the Constitution get disparaged as “butchering” it–by actually quoting the, you know, Constitution.
I suppose some of the more thoughtful Paulites would not have made such a dumb statement, but there’s a common thread nonetheless: fanatic devotion to “the Constitution” that excludes any actual study of it (let alone relevant court precedents over the past 200 years, since they are of course part of the conspiracy blah blah blah).
Thus a straightforward exposition of things Rep. Paul has supported (complete with dry factual links) is somehow propaganda–because you’re attacking their fictional hero, not the real, flawed, corrupt politician.
There are actually things I admire about Ron Paul. There are times when the government needs to pull back, and even well-intentioned legislation can go seriously awry. But it’s clear, from his own legislative history, that, like other Big-L Libertarians, Mr. Paul is not a consistent supporter of freedom. Rather, he supports the “freedom” of the temporarily powerful to exploit the less so, and purport to believe (I think he’s a liar) that, contrary to the history of the last three decades, that simply letting the market dictate the fate of the world will produce an outcome beneficial to all.
Yeah, I know, the acolytes of Hayek and Mises (who didn’t have the same benefit of history we do) will argue strenuously that some bullshit change–e.g. reinstatement of the gold standard–will prevent the legalized fraud that got us into this mess in the first place (read “13 bankers” by Simon Johnson and James Kwak, for a mercifully succinct synopsis). But it’s not the mere existence of the Fed (itself a flawed response to the panic of 1907), or monetary policy, that led to this mess.
What we have is a international corporate economy that buys and bypasses governments, squeezes the citizens dry, and profits from all of it. This is not done via legislation, except legislation that keeps any of the major players from being inconvenienced.
Do any of these idiot Paulites even NOTICE what’s happening in Europe?
Mr. Desmond, kudos for your thoughful and calm responses, though I fear you’re wasting your time and intellect here.
Fuck.
A racist, sexist, homophobe. Sounds like he reflects American values.
Stop talking about Obama like that!!!
I don’t get it. Was that supposed to be a joke?
Pretty good troll. 4/10
What’s hilarious is that you actually believe that.
10 Socialist Lies Exposed:
A. Read the Comments section of that article, Ron Paul’s supporters are very intelligent and have done much to debunk this article on it’s own page. Also youtube/google ‘ron paul ‘
1. Ron Paul supports the Constitution which guarantees equal rights, and he supports the individual’s sovereignty over the State. Not only is the State the greatest violator of equal rights by far, but he’s opposed to that legislation precisely because it takes away liberties UNDER THE GUISE OF protecting minorities. Denying liberties is, in our system, the ultimate attack on minorities.
http://tinyurl.com/6ovr74d
2. Outright lie. What Ron Paul has said repeatedly is that the federal government has no authority in abortions whatsoever, and his voting record agrees. Ultimately I feel he thinks abortion is murder, but his message is that people should decide that locally.
http://tinyurl.com/6tr6deh
3. Very obviously reason why Ron Paul would be a savior for the working class. The minimum wage, for example, MANDATES UNEMPLOYMENT for precisely those who need it most by prohibiting you from working for less than the government allows. Social Security is a huge tax on the working class, an astronomically large future burden, and a Ponzi Scheme and a massive con and fleecing program. And so on. The author thinks socialism (mass government intervention) is good for the working class, Ron Paul (and economics) disagrees.
http://tinyurl.com/88fcqfs
http://tinyurl.com/7t638gb
4. He says Ron Paul’s tax plan is “unfair”, and proceeds to not say a single thing about Ron Paul’s tax plan. He says RP is opposed to certain tax credits, but doesn’t say WHY. Ron Paul is consistently opposed to legislation which is unconstitutional or which expands government. Ron Paul hopes to cut taxes by a trillion dollars in a single year. That’s more than the tax plans of all other candidates from both parties combined.
http://tinyurl.com/88j58p7
5. I don’t need to say anything about this. “Already strained”? By what?—that’s Ron Paul’s question. The author wrote very eloquently precisely how Ron Paul would like to remove the government’s stranglehold on our “already strained” economy.
http://tinyurl.com/6o2t2sl
6. The author believes the UN (a very strong move towards world government, and a thorough undermining of the Constitution) was a good thing. Socialists and communists alike have pushed this lie for a long time. Naturally, for sanity and liberty, Ron Paul strongly disagrees.
http://tinyurl.com/7pz9588
7. Again, Ron Paul supports rolling back government, this time in the area of marriage, and the socialist author can’t fathom why.
http://tinyurl.com/73lm9qo
8. “Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns”. No, the US military and the Federal government have an unnatural obsession with guns. Naturally, the socialist author is scared of an armed, free populace, because armed, free people are scared of socialism.
http://tinyurl.com/87yzgff
9. Ron Paul would get the government out of the way of education, so that kids can actually learn and become valuable and grow mentally and socially instead of being indoctrinated and imprisoned during the most important years of their young life. This part is funny because nobody believes our governments indoctrination system (aka “education” system) is anything but a joke.
http://tinyurl.com/6lwfc9h
http://tinyurl.com/6tfjm5g
10. Another outright lie. In fact, it’s all the other candidates who use religious propaganda to get votes. Ron Paul votes the Constitution, and to shrink government or at least prevent its expansion, regardless of his religious views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTh3gxd19x0
http://tinyurl.com/7umqru2
In defense of the author, at least he’s a consistent hardcore socialist (communist?). Thankfully, we have youtube and google to dismantle socialist propaganda.
this article is total misinformation; ron paul is about personal freedom. he is about restoring the constitution and shut down big government. whoever wrote this article clearly also works for Fox news. ron paul is the only politician that is against invading another country (iraq/afganistan/libya), which has successfully bankrupt this country in the process and killed millions of innocent people. each american citizen carries a deb of $15,000 to the Chinese government. this is a very sad and difficult time to be an American. how does a first world nation owe money to a third world nation, of all places a communist third world nation? the other politicians are sell outs, they always flip flop. ron paul is unaffected by corporations and their bribes. ron paul is agains the patriot act, which has also successfully taken away all of our rights and freedom as US citizens. I don’t see any other politician standing up against the patriot act. I may not agree with everything ron paul has to say, but his major points and his voting record shows he is consistent with his believes and he is not a lieing SOB like every politician out there. the article is misinformed of the reason why he voted, and I am certain the reasons behid his votes is about personal freedom, let the state decide on the policies and it should not be the federal government’s job to have any type of regulations. when he votes against a certain item, it’s about protecting our freedom instead of government intervention. if you really listen to his message you would understand. look at the big picture, and understand the fundamentals of his believes. I was not born an american citizen, but I bought into the whole system of freedom and the constitution, but as I learn more about what the laws have been put in place to take away the rights of the americans today I realized freedom in the US is just a government propaganda. ron paul believes in the constitution and have a clear understanding of it, and I believe in his vision to restore america to the roots of what the founding fathers of this country intended. instead of fighting and arguing and reading misinformation on the internet, please youtube his videos and debates.
So most of the points on this list are not bad at all. Most of the points listed come down to this, Ron Paul wants to overturn unconstitutional laws.
You’re either wrong or misinformed about all ten issues.
1. “Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance…”
Affirmative action sets up special treatment/considerations for minorities. It disadvantages whites, white males in particular. Private schools should use whatever factors they want to include or exclude students. The Federal government should have NO say in this issue. These are private schools after all. Get the government out of education all together.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
This is just a lie. Paul’s position is that the Federal government shouldn’t have an abortion policy, pro or con, at all. It’s a state and local matter. Without the Federal mandate, some states wouldn’t allow free wheeling abortion others would. Abortion would become a private matter again, as it should. (Even if abortion is considered a “right,” what is the obsession with making available death factories for women to abort their babies? How sick to make this the sine qua non of a women’s movement.)
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
It would be the best thing in a long time for the working class. The government agencies you name lead to unemployment, especially for minorities. They also impose costs upon businesses that directly lead to the decision to outsource whatever labor can be. Workers would be free to strike and organize under Paul, so “greedy” bosses would still be punished/confronted. However, the most important thing of less Federal government is that the working class and unions would have to go back to building independent organizations to serve their needs.
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
The government should have nothing to do with redistributing income, either from the rich to the poor or the poor to the rich. The obsession with giving politicians (viz., lawyers elected to office) the power to tax and redistribute income shows a lack of understanding about the real problems besetting America’s economy.
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
Strong property rights based on individuals are the only protection to the environment. Contrast the environment in socialist countries, where there’s little to no individual property rights, to what exists here to understand the differences. However, if you are of the ilk that says all pollution is bad, then there’s no way to argue this with you.
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
If by “other nations” you mean the governments of other countries, you’re right. However, I don’t think the people of other countries hold the UN in as high esteem. Also, by what right do politicians here collect money and send it anywhere else? Do you have no limits on what politicians can do to you?… Other than leaving you free to make your own decisions, send money to where you want, oversee the education of your own children, work for the wage you agree to…
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
You’re right. Ron Paul is not “open” to same sex marriage or “new definitions” of marriage. He is for everyone being treated equally before the law. However, forcing others to legally recognize your definition of a personal arrangement, he is against. This is also his position on heterosexual marriage as well.
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
There’s no way around it some Americans see weakness as a positive virtue. Ron Paul is not arguing that anyone be forced to own arms. However, why do you want Americans to be defenseless? As long as an individual gun owner is law abiding why shouldn’t he or she be able to purchase guns and as much ammunition as desired? Only criminals and a run-away government have anything to fear. And it was against government that the Founders wanted Americans to be armed against. By the way, 200 years ago people did walk around with the equivalent of today’s AK47 and as much ammo as they saw fit. What we didn’t have 200 years ago were citizens afraid of other armed citizens.
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.
You clearly don’t have children in public schools. The dismantling of the present government-run education is long overdue. Parents can decide who’s worthy of being called a teacher and what an education should look like. Comments like yours ignore the plain fact that education has gotten worse as Federal government involvement has increased.
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
There is war on religion. Perhaps this can be seen most clearly in US Mid-East foreign policy. In rhetoric, at least, we target the backwards religious beliefs as a prime reason for our killing there. In this country, the war is against Christianity. We don’t any longer allow prayer in schools or at many public events. The Cross is bared from many government offices. Easter is replaced with “Spring Egg Hunts.” However, Ron Paul believes in separation of church and state, which by its original meaning meant that government should not promote one religious belief over another, not that religion should be driven from public life. Religion, Christianity in particular its values, creeds and practices, has been one of the prime glues of America. Look around the world, it is difficult for major competing belief systems to exist harmoniously in the same nation. Today, the major competing belief system against religion is the belief that government has made religion obsolete. Politicians and bureaucrats jealously guard this belief and attack all others.
So, it’s okay for police in Atlanta to run motorcycles over harmless protestors (even though I find the whole Occupy movement idiotic at best), pr campus police to pepper spray silent vigilists, but it is not okay for citizens to have the means to protect themselves? Is our educational system, 17th in the industrialized world, so sacrosanct as to be above challenge? Are we having a serious discussion about “separation of church and state,” words, which, by the way, NEVER once appear in the Constitution. There was only a prohibition against a State-sponsored church, so that different denominations would not be discriminated against. By disallowing prayer in schools and expressions of faith in public ceremonies, the religion of the humanists, Statism , atheism, or whatever you wish to call it, has become a de facto State religion. Bah. why am I giving this nonsense my precious time…
Dear Summer.
Do me a favour…don’t do me no more favours! People like you are the reason why there is so much poverty and inequality in this world. The well intentioned policies that you speak of like minimum wages etc. kept me out of work for over 24 months after I left school because no-one was legally allowed to hire me at the price I was willing to work for. I could not wield the one weapon I had to land my first job, which was to compete on price, because you ‘do-gooders’ took it from me – if I was worth $7.50 an hour I am sure someone would have hired me. I would happily have worked for less just to get a foot in the door.
Maybe it’s no fun working for low wages but it’s a helluva lot better than being on benefits!!!
I wonder how many other young people and minorities that your well-intentioned policies have shafted?! It’s no wonder that both youth and black unemployment rates are through the roof – because people like you, Summer, choke their opportunities, meaning they miss out on vital work experience and vital on-the-job training making it nearly impossible to climb the job ladder (hence more inequality than there would otherwise be). And even if there are racist or sexist employers out there (of course there are, I worked for one!) under minimum wages they no longer have to bear the cost of exercising their bigotry because there is no wage penalty for hiring the ‘whiter’ person (no offense intended) who may in fact be no more, if not less, productive.
Summer, people ought to able to live their own lives without the likes of you meddling in one way or another.
P.S. I also believe in a woman’s right to choose…but that’s another topic altogether!
One Reason Not to Read This Article
Its full of manipulative lies……………
Hey, here’s a thought. Try having a conversation without bringing up queers every 5 seconds. It’s quite possible, but you might be seen as less idiotic/”hip”. The Bible is clear, you’re wrong and you need to get right. All your fag friends in the world can’t save you, only Jesus can. You know those fags are just using you like a useful idiot to push their agenda.
This was a poorly written article. Let’s keep in mind that the president has limited powers and that the assumptions you make are unfounded. Maybe I won’t be voting for Ron Paul (mostly because I like Newt Gingrich), but this article will not affect my decision.
Most of the people who are knocking Ron Paul probably voted for Obama or George Bush. Enough said. STFU
I find it hilarious how when someone posts the truth about Ron Paul, all his nutty cheerleaders come out of the woodwork swearing up and down that they know what Ron Paul thinks. Any intelligent person would look at this article, read through the bills linked, and just have to agree with what is stated. As a minority, I can speak for my black and brown brothers. Fuck Ron Paul, he’s not getting the GOP nomination, and will be cast to the dust bin of history along with Ross Perot. Just you dumb ass RP sycophants watch the crumbling of your boy before your very own eyes. Before you wingnuts set up your strawmen against me, I am an anarchist and a nihilist. Your “insults” of fascists statist supporter don’t phase me, I just want to watch the world burn.
I agree with you 100%. His supporters get riled up and prove they have no idea what they’re talking about. The BEST thing I’ve found on the internet was a site with a link back to THIS article, from someone BEGGING their friends to discredit it, since they weren’t personally familiar with Ron Paul’s voting record. THAT is how stupid they are. Even if they can’t discredit the TRUTH about Ron Paul they still REFUSE to believe it. They’re lunatics.
and what about your white, yellow an tan brothers??? it’s all about one color????
Who’s the nut? and the only one I see insulting anyone is you.
Louie, you speak for Louie. I am quite black, and proud of it, and need no one to speak for me; especially a self-proclaimed ararcho-nihilist. Thank you for your concern. Good day.
Except the bills don’t tell you why he voted the way he did which is what actually matters. Again addictinginfo shows why it is the blaze of the left lol
Please review your definition or racism. That is not racism.
Actually the ‘Why’ behind a vote doesn’t matter. It’s the vote that gets things done (or doesn’t) and it’s the vote that matters. You’ve heard the old saying about ‘good intentions.’
if ‘why’ didn’t matter, then voting would be moot.
“As a minority, I can speak for my black and brown brothers.”
The fact that you identifty “brotherhood” on the basis of similarity in skintone not only makes you a minority, it also makes you a racist. By definition.
I’m not going to address the article, I just wanted to reply to Louie’s comment.
“As a minority, I can speak for my black and brown brothers.” First of all, that is an incredibly racist mindset. As a hispanic, I can tell you, you absolutely do NOT speak for me.
It’s incredibly racist and ignorant to assume that simply because you are a minority, that you can speak for your “black and brown brothers.”
IF you really just want to be in a burning world, wouldn’t he be perfect?
Fastest way to the collapse of america? Ron Paul 2012!
lol……
If you’re an anarchist and you dislike Ron Paul, then you are the WORST anarchist in the history of anarchy, buddy.
@ Louie : word !
Name calling is the first sign of a failing argument.
I find it ironic when you talk about reading the bills linked, since many of the ones submitted in 1979 don’t have text available on THOMAS.
And the belief system isn’t to say Ron is anti-whatever_point, rather that the subject isn’t permitted by the Constitution. To say that Ron Paul hates a woman’s reproductive rights, is absurd. Yes, he would prefer Roe v. Wade not be effective, not because he wants a _federal_ law to say no abortions. Rather, that the federal government has _NO AUTHORITY_ to say one way or the other.
Then again I don’t know what being black has to do with anything, I’d just stop pulling out the race card, if we want race to become a non-issue. But since it’s out, how do you determine Ron hates black people? And since when did you become Jessie Jackson, or, when did he get the right to talk on behalf of ALL black people? So, assuming hyperbole here, you’re referring to your personal belief system and the getting rid of affermative action clause of this article.
If I’m safe to assume you’re talking about the affermative action point, and referencing my earlier point of missing text on THOMAS, we’ll look to Article point #1. The only available text is
H.J.RES.42 “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.”
If you read the bill, it would alter the ‘natural-born’ clause of the 14th Amendment, to allow citizenship to only people born or naturalized where parents of the born are legally inside of the United States. Far be it from me to call this guy a racist so far. The other bills have no text, so I can’t read to tell you how I feel.
I could go on, but it’s really useless. You’ve clearly made up your mind to read some dudes post online, not click a link, and agree with what ever he linked to or talked about. I wish you the best in whatever rut you’re stuck in!
r[LOVE]ution 2012
and his fanatics talk about Ron Paul as if he can:
1. walk on water
2. they’re with him 24/7 and know his inner most thoughts & feelings.
never put anyone on a pedestal like that, the fall for both will be inevitable
but they never want to address his actual voting record which pays homage to Jim Crow, his white nationalist friends and his newsletters
Really… This article was ghost-written by Michael Moore, right?
I’ll try to keep this simple. The President is supposed to have limited powers, he can not magically make laws by the stroke of pen. Checks and balances prevent such a thing from happening.
Withdrawing from the UN would not “continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations”. THE UN is 25% supported by us and votes against the constitution and the country’s interests a vast majority of the time. The UN doesn’t support private property, the right to bear arms, juries and has no elections.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act, if someone is within a thousand feet of a school, gets pulled over and is caught with someone else’s pistol, there’s a chance that guy would be looking at prison time. The GCA has not deterred crime. Gun control never does that, it just weakens the weaker by disarming them.
America went from the best and brightest to the bottom of the list since the feds got involved in education. HR 7955 simply reaffirms that no child should be forced to attend a public school, especially a drug and gang infested one, it has nothing to do with segregation.
It’s simple you can vote for a shady Chicago-styled politician who is extremely Wall Street friendly, has renewed the Patriot Act, kept the Bush war machine going, invaded a country that didn’t attack us without congressional approval and left it vulnerable to terrorists, is accelerating the debt and erasing our sovereignty or you vote for a guy who knows his bounds and will end all occupations everywhere, will end torture, work to repeal the war on drugs, the patriot act, NAFTA, preserve our borders and our sovereignty and abolish the Wall Street owned Federal Reserve.
You’re obviously well informed and can see things as they are instead of how you want them to be. I point out the many similarities between Obama and Bush to people and I wonder how can they still be supportive of Obama when they strongly disliked Bush.
In some ways Obama is even worse than Bush. At least Bush and Cheney had the ‘decency’ to lie about there being WMDs in Iraq in order to get Congress to approve killing over 500,000 Iraqis, but Obama didn’t even ask Congress if he could go kill Gaddafi. What nerve!
Totally right on. Seems to me the only ones offended by Ron Paul clearly don’t see the truth of the ones they think are cool. He is the only one who has consistently upheld the Constitution, instead of selling out to mega corporations and the UN whose lifelong intention is to dissolve any sovereign nation and become THE world’s ONLY ruling organization.(study the true history) Many don’t see the devious agenda of the UN(they are still under the delusion that they are going to ‘help’ people,when in truth they plan to rule, and mistakenly think they will have ‘rights’).Maybe if they actually had NOT had institutionalized education they could think;Maybe if they understood how history has been basically re-written to ensnare them into believing all this nonsense fed to them over the past 100+ yrs.;maybe if they understood that the Second Amendment is to protect us from tyrannical gov’t.,and has nothing to do with the false stats pushed about the ‘danger’ of arming ourselves…maybe if they knew factually true history, and not the one ‘taught’ by the institutional system of ‘education’ that was put into place to create a 95% population of ‘non-thinking work-force’, to be lead by the 5% who think they know what’s best(for them, obviously), then maybe they could see beyond the hyperbole being fed to them… To those who doubt, read The Underground History of America(a book), read Global Governance,How,Why,When(well researched internet article), read http://beaz-place.blogspot.com/ (facts on candidates)and then re-evaluate. Clearly, the ones fed the hyperbole don’t have a clue as to what the candidates are really about, and possibly have never actually read our Constitution or Declaration of Independence. “…bad government results from too much government”. The happiness of Americans is assured “if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people UNDER THE PRETENSE OF TAKING CARE OF THEM”. Our founding documents are ELASTIC so they are, and always will be, fitting for any time.
Are you insane? The UN isn’t a country, and it doesn’t have any jurisdiction over gun control or private property? What the hell are you saying with elections? Are you gonna elect countries? Who gets to vote? What’s this crap about “the country’s interests” ? There are more countries in the world than just this one. If we were to leave the UN, it would render the organization entirely irrelevant because of the size of our military and economy. Leaving the UN is just begging for WWIII.
HR 7955 takes the crappy schooling responsibility of uneducated parents and grandparents and allows that responsibility to be transferred to a learning institution run by uneducated teachers. Wow! Let’s take religious propaganda and stop making submissive Christian mothers proliferate it at the kitchen table while alienating their kids from their peers! Let’s have those same submissive Christian mothers be hired as teachers so they can get a whole group of vulnerable children to believe it together!
How can you blame Obama for keeping the Bush war machine going but then criticize him for leaving Libya vulnerable to terrorists? What exactly do you think Obama was trying to accomplish in Iraq? By the way, we didn’t invade Libya. Ever heard of leading from behind?
I can say from personal experience that this essay and the links provided will convince (or even give cause to reconsider to) not ONE Ron Paul supporter. His actual record is of absolutely no interest to those who have convinced themselves Ron Paul is the ideal, or as close to it as anyone is likely to find. It’s no different than trying to convince Cain’s supporters that he has no idea what he’s talking about, Perry fans that he’s dumb as a box of rocks, or Michele Bachmann zealots that she’s a dishonest, ill-informed hypocrite who favors a theocracy.
When it comes to his well-documented record, Ron Paul’s acolytes are either proud white supremacists, or every bit as well-meaning, irrational, closed-minded and uninterested in the irrefutable facts as any neo-conservative who insists George W. Bush was a great President, second only to St. Ronnie Reagan. If Ron Paul said “You’re doin’ a heck of a job, Brownie,” his champions would repeat it as a chant with applause.
I suppose we can at least be grateful their numbers are minuscule, though it makes life a bit tedious that each is so ardently devoted to spreading the silly propaganda about him where ever they find him mentioned. But they’re as informed and interested in the whole truth as the pranksters who call in to CSPAN and guffaw before they shout “Howard Stern rules!” and then hang up.
Perhaps only a buster could so well at writing such empty words. Although there are always simple followers in every group, the most honest and intelligent candidate will attract the most honest and intelligent supporters.
With that being said, if Dr. Paul showed himself to be as dishonest, foolish, flaky, and out of touch as the other GOP candidates then his supporters would soon leave him. Fortunately, Dr. Paul hasn’t said anything as silly as your Brownie quote; he had many issues with Bush’s policies; and he’s even spoken out against some of Reagan’s actions.
Well said. But there is an image of Ron Paul as honest and consistent. This holds true. I liked the article because it went deeper into the public sound-bites and provided links to actual legislation instead of merely laying out abstract nouns and generalisations to make a point. I know the RP supporters will attempt to refute this – in an endless circle of strange logic but to those who are not rampant tea-party RP supporters no matter what and despite any rational argument, this article is helpful. However it will be necessary to hammer the facts, the real facts and distil the key points over and over and over again, because the tea-partiers will do that emotional tagging sound bite rallying the pitchfork carriers that they do so well to pull the crowds.
In response:
#1 — that is a dream come true for every conservative American. Do you even know how “Affirmative Action” works? It’s essentially reverse discrimination against whites specifically. It focuses on racial quotas rather than equalizing the playing field, or considering the actual qualifications of an individual. It highlights race above individual ability, talent, and accomplishment. As far as bills aimed at delegitimizing and removing “anchor baby” status, I’m all for it. Those bills seek to restore order and consistency in the immigration process, keeping it legal and avoiding loopholes such as the “anchor baby” method.
#2 — Rescinding the Roe v. Wade decision would not deny women “rights” over their own bodies. There are many ignorant statements in this item. Roe v. Wade was Unconstitutional and grossly perverted and misconstrued the concept of the “right” to privacy. Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to terminate life expressly listed. On the contrary, in the Declaration of Independence, which lays out the basic tenets of liberty and its principles in America, the very first UNALIENABLE RIGHT is the Right to Life. Nevertheless, Paul’s support of the bills mentioned only seek to remove Federal funding of abortions and give the power to determine those individual rights to the states themselves. Modern science has also shown that life does in fact start at conception, and multiple journals and research articles have pointed to this fact of life http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
#3 — I don’t fully understand why the guy gripes about the deregulation Ron Paul wants in these areas, that is unless he’s actually a Socialist goon. OSHA is just another big brother style Fed agency, masquerading in the interests of worker safety, but seems to only contribute to stagnating business growth through excessive regulation and conformity to the point they can actually kill a business. Establishing safe work practices is one thing but OSHA is in the business of collecting heavy fines on businesses for finding any number of practices it deems unsafe or unlawful. If OSHA were in the business of ensuring safety, it would seek authority to fine the employee guilty of committing unsafe or unlawful work practices, rather than attacking the employer and forcing the employer to host training sessions that the employee could care less about because there is no liability to the employee as severe as the fines and punishment imposed on it by OSHA.
#4 — Honestly, I don’t think the guy who wrote the article has even looked at Ron Paul’s 11 point plan to save America, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-trice/ron-paul-11-point-plan_b_947832.html And I don’t know where this person got the info that Ron Paul wanted to eliminate all those tax credits. In fact RP has consistently voted to uphold tax relief reforms for the greatest benefit for working families http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm What the writer describes is more akin to Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, which I won’t even get into because it’s just that stinking bad and is the plan that would greatly injure America’s working class citizens most!
#5 — I have to LOL at this item. The writer says “he [Paul] supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel,” Anybody who has a problem with these sort of energy independence initiatives may need to check just how much red, white, and blue runs in their veins. People opposed to this sort of thing probably don’t understand just how beholden America has become due to its petroleum/oil dependency and investments in other countries, such as OPEC. Sure, we need a clean environment and measures should be taken to ensure the environmentally safest methods to drill and produce energy in America, but at what cost? Let’s have clean energy, but don’t kill the companies that are currently providing the electricity to run your nice air-conditioned homes, the gas to run your cars so you can get to work, etc. etc. Most importantly, let’s fund and keep the companies that want to create cleaner energy resources here in America by not regulating them to death.
#6 — Ok, anybody who supports America being in the UN is definitely no friend of Constitutional America. The writer completely loses on this point, especially if he/she is trying to win over conservative Americans loyal to the idea that we as a country abide by our own laws. America should 110% remove itself from the UN for the sake of our national sovereignty alone! Not to mention the US provides the majority of the funding that goes to the UN, that hosts many states that are anti-American and anti-democratic, but still pressure the US to relinquish certain rights and enter into hostile treaties against America’s best interests, and that of Her closest allies.
#7 — This is maybe the one area that Ron Paul may lose the more liberal, left-wing side of his supporters. Most of it is pretty much true, but people must understand that psychology science continues to shed light on the idea that LGBT persons suffer from mental and psychological disorders, such as was held by the American Psychiatric Association through the 1970′s until militant gay activists began disrupting APA conferences and threatened APA with lawsuits and bodily harm. Thus it was not the result of scientific research that caused the removal of homosexuality from the APA’s DSM (diagnostic manual), but political pressure and threats of harassment/violence. Proponents of “gay gene” theory have also failed to substantiate their claims with modern scientific research, and through the diligent work of various organizations aiming at rehabilitation of homosexual behavior, such as NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), it has been shown that homosexuals can be reoriented to heterosexuality, thus validating the idea that it is a choice, that can be made on a subconscious level dependent upon varying levels of trauma and deviance in early child and identity development. So the real question should be not why the LGBT community is discriminated against, but should Americans be awarding “special rights” and “privileges” that no other citizens (See Heterosexuals) are eligible for? Rather than accomodating the idea of “same-sex marriage” to appease the wishes of those suffering from mental disorder, should we not much more be concerned with offering better avenues of treatment and reparative therapies? Would we entertain a pedophile’s fascination and fetish for sexual encounters with underage children? Why then entertain the fascinations of another mental illness, when doing so certainly influences youth involved in such a maligned coupling face a greater risk of reciprocating the same homosexual tendencies and behaviors http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html
#8 — Again, your argument on this item of gun ownership and availability to guns would only affect any Ron Paul supporters that do not believe in a strong reality of the 2nd Amendment and Constitution. I own several firearms and Ron Paul has my vote. I only wish “open-carry” would be passed in my state. Historical and recent studies have shown that countries with populations denied access to firearms experience dramatic increases in crimes with guns and violent crimes in general (to include rape, theft, assault, etc.) http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/flawed2.htm The Communist and National Socialist regimes of Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Lenin/Trotsky, Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler, among others, historically attest to the fact that once the citizenry is universally disarmed it is rounded up, genocidally “purged”, and enslaved. I’m keeping my firearms and my 2nd Amendment rights, thanks Mr. Writer.
#9 — Getting rid of the bloated and UnConstitutional Dept of Education (DOE) would essentially return almost $35 Million to the US Treasury and perhaps be used towards our nation’s deficit. The DOE coupled with the “No Child Left Behind” Bush-era policy have gone down in America’s history as one of the most expensive community outreach failures. Ron Paul’s plan to gut the DOE would allow educational standards to be determined by local school districts and parents interested in home-schooling through voucher (scholarship) programs. In essence, it would give educational authority back where it belongs, in the hands of educators and parents, not the Federal government.
#10 — Not sure where the writer pulled the Ron Paul quote from, or if can even be attributed to Dr. Paul, but the idea that Paul is against separation of church and state is a pointless argument since that phrase and idea is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Separation of church and state is a fallacy, and its origin can be found in Jefferson’s writings, specifically the 1802 letter written to Baptist Assoc. of Danbury, Connecticut. In it, Jefferson reassures the congregation that Anglicanism (or the predominant religion of the New Englanders) would NOT become the preferential denomination of the new states because of their overwhelming presence and voice. In fact, The First Amendment’s widely misunderstood Establishment Clause simply means that the state will not set up any Official state religion, but neither will it prohibit any person from freely exercising the religious dictates of his or her own conscience (whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, et al), so long as they do no infringe upon the rights or safety of other citizens. Dr. Paul understands this and the remark the writer attributes to him, “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” can certainly be validated. It is a fact that the secular Left has been going to great lengths to remove religion from the public arena, here are just a few– (1) “The Federal Hate Crimes Bill that attacks religious liberty and freedom of speech.”; (2) An activist judge ordered a homeschool mom in New Hampshire to stop homeschooling her daughter because the little girl ‘reflected too strongly’ her mother’s Christian faith.” (3) “Police called to East Jessamine Middle School in Lexington, Ky., to stop 8th graders from praying during their lunch break for a student whose mother was tragically killed.” (4) San Diego-area high school math instructor ordered to take down banners celebrating America’s religious heritage, heralding “God bless America”. (5) An Ohio county middle-school science teacher fired for having Bible on his desk and teaching both sides of creation and evolution in class. (6) Veterans’ war memorial ‘Mojave Desert Cross’ and local graves desecrated by anti-religious criminals. (7) A California couple fined (initially $300, then increased for subsequent “offenses”) by the city of San Juan Capistrano for holding Bible studies and religious gatherings in their home, which has some wondering about the future of religious freedom in America.
RON PAUL 2012
LOL, who the fuck believes this bullshit? If you are voting for cain you’re ok, stupid people have run countries before. If you’re voting for Romney… well, welcome to happy place end of the world, where you will be giving money to me. So I guess thank you! I love money from dumb ass fucks! I bet you guys will take me lightly and vote for Romney (which is what I want) since I get good $$ from this. If you vote for Ron Paul (which you will not, since you’re a dumb fuck) you’re life will be better, since he is clearly the more educated and intelligent individual, that truly cares about his country.
This up here is too long, and you’re probably too stupid to even read. So vote for Romney dumb ass! :3 Ron Paul might be the best candidate, but you don’t want the big bosses angry. I need to get my bonus this year, a whole 3,00,000$
JAMES J. SCHIRO
Goldman Sachs
wtf is “3,00,000$ hahahahaha if you work for goldman sachs of shiznit it’s no wonder . you’re either mentally challenged or an clown provocateur
>Reply based on pointing out other people’s mistakes
>Has mistakes
seriously…
Well there’s a couple things wrong with what u say. He doesn’t want to get rid of the fed government, he wants to limit it, because the amount of government involved in each and everyone of our lives is insane. Did u know the US has the most laws out of any country in the world, and people call us the land of the free? :p and the fact that state can’t govern themselves without the fed government stepping in and stopping them is unconstitutional itself. If u took a history lesson u would know thats what the founding fathers had intended. Ur arguments contradicts the ideas that this very country was based on.
Where would our UNITED States be if there was no federal government regulation and everything was left ‘up to the states’? Firstly, you think our FEDERAL taxes are high? If you leave it all up to the states to provide the services for the people, state taxes would go through the roof! Secondly, if each of the 50 states can adopt any old legislation they want, we wouldn’t be much of a union. We might as well just become 50 little independent countries, all with different immigration laws, worker safety laws, banking laws…oh, and don’t go on vacation to another state and expect to get any money from an ATM – as all banking laws would differ from state to state. Do you people actually have a clue what happens when there is no federal oversight? Here’s one clue…the banks and financial institutions are free to almost single-handedly cause the 2007 economic crash! Think about that!
“….Do you people actually have a clue what happens when there is no federal oversight? Here’s one clue…the banks and financial institutions are free to almost single-handedly cause the 2007 economic crash! Think about that!”
Ally, who do you think was responsible? Banking laws? Really? With banks charging ATM fees of up to $4, who cares. My credit union gives me a VISA check card with no fees and allows me to access my money from other credit unions around the country free of charge or for a small fee in some cases. Maybe it is YOU who has something to think about. States SHOULD be responsible for their constituents needs. If a state raises taxes too high and is irresponsible with state funds, people will only move to another state and leave that state penniless…..would you rather people had no choice but to leave the country entirely to avoid over taxation? Simmer down, unplug from your corporate sponsored fast food world, pick up a book by the Dr and educate yourself.
I applaud Dr Ron Paul for his honesty, sincerity and straight-forward politics that uphold the Constitution rather than sucking up to whatever lobbyist comes his way. I appreciate his unwavering dedication to our troops, for serving our country and for his service to the people of this country who could not afford hospital treatment. He has donated thousands of hours of his services to people who could not pay, and he refused medicaid payments for those services. He does not take a federal pension or health insurance policy and he has been married to the same woman for over 50 years. If people cannot see the value of that, then it doesn’t matter who they vote for….everyone else is bought.
Well stated Ally!
What services does the federal income tax provide?
Are you serious?
Well, first, you get an army to defend the US with. Second, you get roads. LOTS of roads. And road maintenence. There are also many electrical power plants that are maintained with federal money. You get food inspectors so your food isn’t poisonous. etc.
For more info, go here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
The ONLY thing I like about Ron Paul is that he’s honest and consistent. Otherwise he’s a racist crackpot who wants to give other people the power to take away your reproductive rights.
I didn’t know the world was filled with such idiocy. The author of this article and anyone who agrees with this article have been raised in a society where it is okay to have their rights violated. Jaded by the actions and words of previous and current governments, it’s amazing we’re all still alive.
How can any of you morons sit back and let your taxes go to foreign policy?!?!?! Did you know foreign policy was created to “contain communism”? Which is why our troops occupy countries like Vietnam, Germany, South Korea, Guam, etc etc etc. Containing Communism was established after world war 2, how many communist countries are there? actually, how many communist movements are there? not many…what…two countries? one country believes in Marxism and uses isolationism to operate in seclusion. the other country is 90 miles off the coast of the U.S. and they’re not doing much of anything.
I’m pro-choice, but i believe in Ron Paul’s vision to leave that decision up to the states. If people don’t like it, then move to another state that does allow you to do it. This is another example of a free market and a competitive market, something jaded people know nothing about because they’re so used to having their lives dictated by the government.
When are you nOblahma, McCain, and ROmmney and all these other knucklehead supporters going to wake up and get your collective heads out of your collective asses?
This is the reason why our economy struggles, because supporters are so low on their knees, that they’ll do and say just about anything to have their lives dictated by the federal government.
All of you who do not believe in Ron Paul’s cause should re-read the Constitution of the United States…remember what that is? that’s that piece of paper in which our country was founded on and limits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS power over the people.
Ugh, people like the author of this article make me sick. I will be voting for Ron Paul next year and when he win’s you should forward an apology to Dr. Paul for your idiocies and misjudgments.
We don’t occupy Vietnam. We occupied Germany after WWII for a time. By the way, that was after the defeat of Adolph Hitler, an avowed anti-communist. Guam is a territory of the United States and has never been Communist.
We are a country, not a confederation of independent States. The 14th Amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” That means the rights of citizens are the same in every state. No matter what Rick Perry says.
What does the free market have to do with a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body? One is an Economic principle, the other deals with personal privacy.
The Constitution also limits the governments of “the several States” I have read this document, sir. I believe ALL of it should be followed; not just those parts I agree with.
I will never vote for Ron Paul. And, when he is NOT elected next year, who will you apologize too?
We still have military bases in Vietnam and Germany, which can be considered occupying that country. East Germany was communist after WWII and the US military occupied West Germany to keep communism from spreading.
We are a country that is made up of the individual states wanted to participate in a combined governance in order to provide equal rights and protection to all those individuals that live in those states. Those rights are spelled out in the Constitution. If states rights don’t matter, why do we have them? Just let the federal government make all the laws.
The free market principles still apply to laws, including abortion laws. If you disagree with a law in your state you will move to a state that has laws you agree with. When companies and people start leaving a state because of the laws, the state will have no people left to govern and will lose power in the federal government because they have a small population. Thus creating pressure to make the state repeal the law.
For most laws I feel this would take way too long and it would never really work like this. The principle still does apply though. If you don’t like it, move. In reality state laws would more accurately reflect the population of the state then a federal government law would. If you disagree with a law you can get it changed a lot more quickly at the state level than you ever can at the federal level. That is the beauty of states rights.
Yes the states rights are limited in that the states cannot regulate commerce with foreign countries nor with other states, nor can they naturalize citizens, fix standards of weights and measures, declare war, nor raise or support an army or navy. No one is wanting the states to do that. That is the federal governments job. However everything else should be left up to the states.
Prithee tell me how we occupy Vietnam? We LOST that war, over 30 years ago, and were driven out of that now reunited country.
we have bases in Vietnam? I dont think so.
Who would vote for a sexist, bigot? I guess another sexist bigot. Thank you for outing yourself.
Big business would disembowel you and sell your organs if they made money off it and were allowed. Learn some history. Like how workers were treated before the turn of the last century and during the beginning of it. That is what free market does. A free market with a non corrupt government of oversight is the ideal balance.
Why do we not learn from history? We do not have to look far back. The 1980s recession was the worst since the great depression. The 1980s featured the S&L scandal and collapse. The S&L industry was deregulated and look what happened. They created a bubble and when it burst, they failed. Notice you don’t see a whole lot of S&L monikers anymore.
So more recently we thought it would be a good idea to deregulate real banks and investment firms. Even though they have proven to be cheats and liars. In 2002 the industry paid $1.4 billion in fines for lying to people. Between 98-03 Fannie paid $400 million in fines for accounting fraud, Freddie paid $125 million for the same. Instead of tighter regulations we gave them even more freedom! The Commodity Exchange Act really screwed us all by deregulating derivative trading. This is the result people. Big business, banks, and investment firms WILL NOT regulate themselves. They succumb to greed and we all get screwed while they get bailed out. They are still in business, still making huge bonuses and they caused this mess, more importantly they KNEW what they were doing. This was all caused by deregulation. The proof of this lies in the fact that countries with adequate regulation, such as Canada, were almost completely insulated from this disaster.
If you watched even an hour of the congressional hearings you would want to puke in disgust.
Thank you, FreedomWriter!
Where is your source for the US having military bases in Vietnam? that’s simply not true.
Not sure about Vietnam, but we do have military forces in Japan, South Korea, Afghanistan, and Antarctica and navel ships around several other countries waiting to invade or deal with another ‘conflict’. Our military powers cover the globe and yet we are broke. No one else sees a problem here?
why cannot we work towards ending military presence overseas, (the only place we now occupy is Iraq – but yes there ARE bases elsewhere, hardly an occupation) – . But why not come to an agreement about SOME laws, regulations and policies which need changing or rethinking without saying that the whole government and ALL regulations must go? why alll this all or nothing talk? I can understand some people not liking abortion but why should they have the say over everyone else? I can even understand people wanting to keep guns (even if I don’t like them) but surely a sane person cannot really think that means all and everything? Surely there must be limits? Why do ALL limits on ANYTHING signal a “lack of freedom”?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=us%20military%20bases%20around%20the%20world%202011&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CE8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalpost.com%2F2011%2F10%2F28%2Fgraphic-mapping-a-superpower-sized-military%2F&ei=Mxn6TrTPCJHdggeHl_SoAg&usg=AFQjCNH1eBvoxPIQODuRooTLZ1qG3hk-kw. List and graphic of us military bases around the world…
but what about civil rights? should states be responsible for their civil rights laws and enforcing them?
Not all black people are poor, not all white people are rich, and not all Asians ace the SAT, those are stereotypes that affirmative action supports, abolishing it would go a long way towards promoting equality.
Abortion is immoral and wrong, you should be responsible to avoid pregnancy in the first place. if abortion wasn’t an option it wouldn’t need to be, condoms and birth control do just fine.
The minimum wage is BAD for the working class. when employers lay off employees, it is because they cannot afford to keep them on at that salary. I do not know one person who would rather be out of a job completely right now than to have taken a pay cut back in 2008. allowing businesses to pay less allows them to keep more people on the payroll. and the employee can always decide if his time is worth more than what the job offers, and leave.
You clearly don’t know how taxes, or anything to do with money at all works.
Global warming is so scary. al gore said it should be around 700 degrees by now. it was about 98 today.
Oh no not the UN, then we would have to stop bailing out failing nations and worrying about their petty disagreements.
guns are good and only morons disagree, look at london. no guns there, still violent and rioty. baseball bat sales are through the roof. must really love baseball in soccer country eh? or perhaps they need to defend themselves with SOMETHING.
tldr you are wrong on all points and wrong for all the wrong reasons. it is sad that your vote counts as much as mine, i hope you die before 2012.
“Abortion is immoral and wrong, you should be responsible to avoid pregnancy in the first place. if abortion wasn’t an option it wouldn’t need to be, condoms and birth control do just fine.”
Well if I’m ever in a situation where I’m being raped, I’ll try to remember to ask my rapist if he has a condom because I don’t want to become pregnant.
Wow… just
those are special cases.
If special cases such as this exist, the government should take them into account.
But in the VAST majority of cases, abortion should be abolished.
Women HAVE to have a responsibility over their bodies.
“Abortion is immoral and wrong” – well, I think it is not. I don’t like it, but even worse is telling a woman what she must do or not do to/with her own body. I think THAT is immoral and wrong. I do not consider a life equal to the woman’s until it is OUTSIDE her body. Before that it is part of the woman. you claiming otherwise is difference of opinion and belief, yet you hold that yours must be enforced. that makes YOU the one against personal freedom. I say if you don’t like abortions, don’t have them. If you are a man, never have sex without a condom. Then shut up.
Well put Halima and Kim, Well put.
It’s funny how often statists talk about it as some vicious attack on freedom and justice when someone wants to deprive them of the right to violently force their beliefs on others. Lots of things that sound nice, compassionate and tolerant, are nothing but threats of violence. The “minimum wage,” “affirmative action,” the “Americans with Disabilities Act,” “gun control,” and so on, constitute politicians threatening violence against everyone, and pretending it has something to do with fairness and justice. Dr. Paul’s position on most things can be summed up as: “Government shouldn’t forcibly interfere.” Yet state-worshipers try to spin this as some heinous attack on the innocent, because they WANT “government” interfering, robbing and controlling people.
still no one saying anything about whether or not the federal government should be in charge of civil rights? should individual states be responsible for enforcing civil rights laws?
EVERYONE should focus on enforcing civil rights. God knows big or small government won’t back you up here… or maybe they will, while rupturing your spleen, kicking your fetus, and drowning you in teargas…
Civil rights? The right for all to be treated equally in all things? It’s guaranteed by the constitution. So the states would have to enforce.