10 good reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul

I never understood this progressive fixation with Ron Paul.  I get the impression that he’s a mean little man with an evil soul.  All one has to do is actually look at his political agenda to be relatively certain of it, according to Addicting Info.

Pic:  Official Ron Paul Photo

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 ANYTHING 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.7955 Besides 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 ))

Now that being said, please, if you’re a Ron Paul lover take a minute to re-read these 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ronnie Paul and ask yourself if you would still support him.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 MadMikesAmerica
Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on November 5, 2011. Filed under COMMENTARY/OPINION. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Back to Main Page

51 Responses to 10 good reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul

  1. Milton Thornridge

    November 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Well, if he wants to get us out of the UN and paying dues this organization that serves mostly as an anti America propaganda forum, he can’t be all bad.

  2. Anonymous

    November 6, 2011 at 8:36 am

    It’s a sad commentary that even with all that great info, the political field is so uninspiring that people may vote for him anyway. Excellent resources. Thanks for inserting the links.

  3. Matt

    November 7, 2011 at 1:26 am

    Sad… You add links to legislation, but fail to see the Constitutional reasons behind them.

    He wants the Federal Gov. out of matters of the States.
    If we’re all equal, why do we need affirmative action.
    How is abolishing the minimum wage going to affect jobs by any means other than reducing unemployment. Servers around the country make less than minimum wage. In Ky servers are only required to be paid AT LEAST 2.13 per hour.

    Try rewriting this piece after reading and reviewing the legislation to the Constitution. Its poor journalism.

    • Michael John Scott

      November 7, 2011 at 7:13 pm

      No it’s not. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and they just don’t make sense. I don’t want the fed gov out of anything. We need them. The states have no clue when it comes to serious legislation, with a few exceptions. We pay federal taxes I want the Fed involved. Ron Paul is not the man for this country anytime.

      • DBS

        November 7, 2011 at 8:02 pm

        Michael John Scott- should not be taken seriously; he’s a moron, and doesnt understand the basic principles of this country or constitution. The tax payers have no control over how their taxes are spent. Polls show a majority of americans want out of the wars and oppose further pre-emptive strikes on places like kenya, lybia, pakistan, syria. This country isnt a democracy- its a two party dictatorship filled with lobbyist who undermine the basic morals of democracy. MIchael John Scott go research how our bureaucratic-capitalist system betrayed our wounded soldiers who we’re begging for help like animals; you research Agent Orange. The Fed uses and abuses the tax payers and citizens- you just havent been fucked yet so you dont understand.

      • Bob

        November 9, 2011 at 5:45 pm

        “I don’t want the Federal Government out of anything”

        With all the waste and deficits the Federal Government creates, there is a problem if you can’t find anything to cut.

        “We pay Fed Taxes I want the Fed involved”
        Why don’t we listen to Dr. Paul and solve both of these. Lets quit paying taxes and get the Fed uninvolved!

      • John

        November 11, 2011 at 5:13 pm

        “I don’t want the fed gov out of anything. We need them.” Says the author.

        Thus concludes my argument against this author. 😉

        • Say No to Corporate America

          December 11, 2011 at 10:28 pm

          Your simple argument won John!
          The fed takes all they can bleed us for and returns nothing but debt for our grandchildren to pay, unless you’re the Wall St thugs. The federal Justice Dept won’t investigate the frauds if the frauds agree to investigate and report their own crimes… but that should be expected from a CONgress that votes to strip due process for US citizens and for whom insider trading is legal.
          Big gov isn’t working for us and we do have more say when an issue is left up to the states.

      • Ryan

        December 31, 2011 at 1:59 am

        Unintelligent ramblings from someone who truly does not see how the world works. It must be nice living in a world where affirmative action isn’t straight up racism signed into law. If everyone is equal, why do we need to give bonuses to one race and not another? The very existence of this law perpetuates racism and the idea that we are separate, rather than one human race. Paul deals with individuals. Why? because that’s what freedom is. Once you start dealing with people as little subdivided groups that are allowed to use lobbyists to further their own agendas and power struggles, you no longer have freedom, you have fascism.

        There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting rid of the massive amount of fat that has accumulated at the waistline of this bloated Federal government. If that includes outdated legislation, so be it. I believe it’s time that we as human beings start living these very principles ourselves, and not relying on some group of rich politicians to police our world for us. You responded to someone here saying that “we need the Fed.” I mean… I don’t even know how to begin to tell you how sorry I am for you. That you have forgotten so quickly that the government needs US not the other way around, is truly sad. That you can’t see how the Federal government has literally bent you over for the past 100 years, with the worst and most blatant of it being in the last two decades, is equally painful to witness. I truly hope that someday you can cut the addiction to being told how to live and learn how to be your own master.

    • david

      December 16, 2011 at 5:14 am

      You left out the abortion issue. Try rewriting your piece, when you include all of the topics, and don’t cherry-pick.

  4. Dave Wren

    November 7, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    DBS is the moron here and clearly the least intellectual. What we have here is a rabid RP supporter, one who will do anything to defend their “Ron of Arc.” Don’t talk about wounded soldiers asshole; unless you’ve been one.

    • USNavy

      November 8, 2011 at 3:25 am

      DBS didn’t just spout emotion all over the page, he/she gave ideas and thoughts. Try and do the same. If your a wounded vet, let us know. I am a USNavy Vet and personally I think what DBS has to say was spot on. If Ron Paul was to accomplish what he thinks would be a better direction for this country, there would be some years of adjustment. That’s assuming Paul can accomplish his intentions… …everyone will oppose him just as the Republicans are opposing Obama now.

  5. John

    November 8, 2011 at 9:47 am


    I respect that you are putting clear objections to Ron Paul, which is more than most critics do. But your arguments are more non-sequiturs than valid criticisms.

    For example, your first argument says that he does not value equal rights for minorities. A more accurate remark would be that he does not favor legislation that enforces equality onto others. There is a difference between what a person believes and what is legal according to the constitution. The last bill is a bit different because it would remove the so-called anchor baby interpretation of the 14th amendment but that again that does not mean he does not value equal rights.

    In fact if someone really valued equal rights then they should value the right for someone to discriminate even if they don’t agree. I think the whole equal rights arugment is a red herring used to give one group rights over another.

    I won’t critique all 10 here but basically people like Ron Paul value freedom over equality. It is his belief, as well as mine, that if people are allowed the maximum amount of freedom to pursue their own goals that greater equality will inevitably occur. The idea that by limiting freedom you can increase equality has simply not worked. And it is also unconstitutional.

    • Michael John Scott

      November 8, 2011 at 10:28 am

      John I thank you for your careful and diplomatic approach to my article. That is appreciated. The fact is time and space is limited when writing articles, and every effort is made to make certain that all bases are covered, so to speak, but that is not always possible as the research is quite extensive. So we do the best we can. If you would be interested in writing a counter-argument just send it to me in email and I will publish under your name if you wish. We are equal opportunity over here, but admit to being slightly left of center.

      • John

        November 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm

        I would be interested in that but it could take a long time to research it all. If I ever get around to such a thing I will let you know.

      • Anonymous

        November 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm

        I’d just like to say here that while I thought the original article was a little misinforming, I believe you both know what’s up after reading the comments.

        Though I don’t think we’re really going to have many choices in the end when it comes down to it.

  6. Frank

    November 8, 2011 at 10:01 am

    For an ex law enforcement and a teacher now , someone sure needs to do more homework on Ron Paul.

  7. Adam

    November 8, 2011 at 10:35 am

    This is nothing more than a bs slander article. Ron Paul is a discriminating slave driver gun nut according to you? Really?

    The core of RP’s platform is respecting personal freedoms and keeping a small, fiscally responsible, federal government.

    Maybe you should spend a little more time researching broken promises by Obama including keeping Guantanamo Bay open, renewing the Patriot Act, renewing the Bush tax cuts, and increasing the amount and scale of illegal occupations the US is involved with.

  8. KridikJones

    November 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    10 good reasons if your liberal.

  9. Eddy melendez

    November 8, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Mike your a fuckin idiot and you wouldnt kniw politics if it bit you in the ass! Ron paul is the last true politician, in which he stands up for what he belives i and if he doesnt happen to get elected, I wanna see how opinionated youll be after all your civil liberties get stripped away from you little by little.

  10. Phil

    November 10, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    WOW – talk about not completing your homework, lol… Ron Paul wants many of these issues to be handled at the state level, you know, like actually following the constitution…

    It’s not even worth commenting further because you have either consciously distorted Ron Paul’s actual beliefs, or you just failed to do your research…

  11. Adam

    November 10, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    I will out-rank your website with a pro-Ron Paul site within several weeks.

  12. Mecox

    November 11, 2011 at 10:58 am

    a skewed view of a fanatic liberal, this is a bunch of nonsense. I can’t believe I had to read through this idiotic writing…

  13. Greg

    November 18, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    I found your article to be a little unbalanced in presentation, in that you assume motivation by a related but a not necessarily demonstrative voting record. As a person who comments on political matters, I’m quite sure you are aware that no bill makes it into law without an often hidden rider or two. There is also the matter of your characterization on the bills in question – it would be irresponsible to support every bill that addresses a legitimate concern, without examining precisely what said bill does & examining the methodology. For example -I would love to see incidents of lung cancer reduced by a huge margin – but not to the point of supporting execution of smokers. Extreme example I know, but aptly demonstrates the dynamic.. Then there is the issue of riders – do you vote for a bill that supports a cause you believe in, but also does a number of unrelated things you object too? The dynamics of legislative process is far to complex to assume a simple yes or no vote is actually indicative of intent and perspective.

  14. Pingback: Do you want ABSOLUTE life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? - Page 2

  15. Anonymous

    November 30, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    This is such a Bull Shit article. Do your HW…. Vote Ron Paul! He will restore our constitution and our unalienable rights!

    • Michael John Scott

      December 1, 2011 at 4:15 pm

      Every word in this article is true. Everything has been vetted. Ron Paul is an idiot.

      • Anonymous

        January 24, 2012 at 10:16 pm

        “Ron Paul is an idiot.”

        Coming from a person who clearly have never even heard of the Constitution, or simple economics, yet decided to write an article about both topics… I think Ron should feel complemented.

        You have no clue what you are talking about.

        • Imrahn Zakahev

          July 9, 2012 at 9:04 pm

          I’m going to quote you on that “You have no clue what you are talking about.”.
          Yeah coming from the guy who is supporting an anti-choice, anti-union, pro-gun nut, pro-discrimination and who is also against programs that help others simply because they are in the constitution. You’re one to talk. Look in the mirror because you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Dr Paul said:
          “… I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
          “Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!”
          “An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible…. I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”
          “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came ‘out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don’t believe so, medically or morally.”
          “[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.”
          “The criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types [people with AIDS] under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act;” and “We all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers [AIDS patients]

          • Imrahn Zakahev

            July 10, 2012 at 7:21 am

            oops meant to say “against programs that help others simply because they aren’t in the constitution.”

  16. Nick

    December 11, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    I don’t really agree about the things people want and need that would be effected badly bye Ron Pauls legislation or support of such. Though if he really started doing all this destructive shit. Then it technically would be good for the country and potentially world. Everyone needs to grow the fuck up and become real individuals who can choose to do anything at whim if needed while having the wisdom to make right changes. Everyone needs to be a scientist as much as a farmer as much as a soldier. This will all happen if Ron Paul gets his drive over our laws. People will see this and strengthen bye either understanding what I just said. Or really going to war against the evil powers that fuck up humanities existence. Bye force. Threw warfare. Sadly. The military is less then 3% of the total population? If everyone becomes true individuals of wisdom. True nobleman. From the radical flux of change. They would gain the care and compassion for “everything” as we know it. Truly advancing our culture to the best of there abilities. Truly all his initiatives in the end work for progressive. Since war will beat out peace and only true peace can come from a majority. A empire. Though the empire we have now is fucked. We are so stupid. Using all of our energy for leisure and no real restrictions on how we populate and consume…….. Seriously… Everyone wake up. Your worried about what will happen from his stuff. Then your gonna have to fight back literally in order to stop it. I want this because it’s going to come to that anyway. So best start it up all now.

  17. Damian

    December 11, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    I’m gonna break down this guys list to show the truth.
    1. affirmative action is completely statist and wrong. If you were a person that was a minority and you knew the organization was racist why would you want to work there? it would create so much tension at the work place and bullying is sure to happen its a recipe for disaster. Supporting the IRS lol? As far as denying citizenship to the children of illegals, yeah its a huge loop hole in our system.
    2. Yes Ron Paul is pro life BUT he is for states deciding if it should be legal or illegal not the federal government.
    3. Minimum wage makes it impossible for small business to hire anyone and promotes corporate monopoly. For people that don’t know social security is a scam to take more in taxes from you, there is no trust fund the money people put in can be used by the government for what ever it wants.
    4. a case for the income tax? fail… >.>
    5. well that maybe the case but what the article does not mention is that Ron Paul wants to legalize HEMP and that would eventually phase out fossil fuels thus saving the environment. Look this stuff up put “hemp” on google or youtube learn something.
    6. a case for supporting the UN…..fail….
    7. states rights issue?
    8. doesn’t understand the second amendment more failure on the part of madmike.
    9. great the federal government shouldn’t be in education how does that make any sense? its 1 fucking group in 1 city that wants to tell every school in america how and what to teach. seriously wtf? I went to public school or as i like to call it Government school, it sucks it partially ruined my child hood.
    10. *facepalm* nuff said.

  18. Say No to Corporate America

    December 11, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    I am not 100% sold on Ron Paul, (it’s stupid to be 100% for any politician) but I am 100% against the other GOP candidates and Obama based on their record. I could list 100 reasons NOT to vote for Obama or all the other GOP candidates.
    I like Freedom and Liberty, and I miss it! Ron Paul abides by the Constitution that the globalist puppets are shredding while they rob this nation and shut down Liberty. Ending the Fed, AWESOME, ending the wars and ALL occupations, HUGE. We the People who like Loiberty want to get rid of that treasonous Patriot Act and stop the raping of People everywhere.
    I do not agree with Paul on some issues, but his explanations of his reasons for his beliefs make sense… RULE OF LAW. If it’s not in his job description, he won’t do it. IRS, imperialistic wars.. the guy might have a shot. I despise the less evil argument because evil is evil, but there are light-years between him and the MSM field.

    I am still hoping my guy tosses his hat in the ring. If not, I will be looking at all Third Party and Ind candidates, and NOT even a shred of thought for the Uniparty Inc globalist candidates. Besides, a lot can happen in the next 11 months.

    Must see video! ‘Proof Obama will sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law in a few days’,

  19. Pingback: lauraborusas | Pearltrees

  20. Anonymous

    December 12, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    1) ron paul doesnt believe in dividing people by groups, he wants equal rights for all INDIVIDUALS
    #2 Ron Paul said he would leave it to the states and they can legalize abortion if they want
    #3 Ron Pauls plan will save the working class and bring jobs back here
    Ron Paul’s tax plan greatly lowers taxes for the low eaners, so much that its never been done before, all the way down to 10%
    #5 Ron Paul would reduce pollution because the government conspiracires with companies to make more pollution
    regulation has opposite effect, causes more pullution
    #6 Ron Paul would fix the image of the US to the world by ending all wars
    #7 Ron Paul doesnt believe in groups or group rights , he believes in individual rights so he cannot discriminate. He says in videos that gay marry is up to the states
    #8 Ron Paul has no obsession with guns and hardly ever talks about them, Ron Paul believes in the 2nd amendment, as it is a part of the bill of rights. Guns are the least talked about topic Ron Paul has done, again exact and equal opposite of truth
    #9 the government butchers education and Ron Paul will eliminate the federal dept of education which only existed for a few decades anyway, and leave it up to the states. Sinc ethe 70s when dept of education was formed, education got worse with dumber test scores
    #10 Ron Paul believes its ok for people to say christmas or have some jesus statue because he believes in liberty, tolerance & coexistence. He doesnt believe that you have to cover up culture in order to by happy co-existing, and that doing so will just make things worse, and is very dark and coercive
    So MR.Scott I suggest you brush up on your journalism skills because they are way off.

    • Sam

      January 17, 2012 at 4:05 am

      Unfortunately leaving something such as same-sex marriage is not giving equal rights to all individuals– so I’d be able to get married in New York State but once I get to Mississippi that right would be denied, and I would be part of a group who is denied a certain right… Ron Paul’s policy of letting marriage be decided upon by states is creating a group! If he really Supported the rights of the individual he would repeal any laws defining marriage and make it so any two consenting adults can get married…

  21. Bill Michtom

    December 13, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Thanks for laying it out so clearly. I am always warning people off him. Now I can just link your piece!

  22. Joshmo

    December 15, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Hey, do you work for fox news? Whatever!!! “Ron Paul 2012!!!”

  23. John

    December 15, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    I read them all. Checked out the links. Some links go back to 1980…a mere 31 years ago.

    This writer, like so many other Americans, does not understand LIBERTY. He has posted RP’s bills and items without the rational behind them. Also, he ‘claims’ that RP’s approach to education would be disastrous. What is the current level of our educational system? ANS: Wasting billions and getting poor results.

    This guy wants the UN to run our country. What happened to the constitution? I saw no mention of that in these statist comments.

    He thinks RP’s suggestions reflect “negatively” on the US? How bout drone attacks on civilian wedding parties? What, that is positive?

    Lastly, this joker never addresses the DEBT, the spending, which will destroy our entire society if we do not reign in the spending.

    Anyone taking this writers comments seriously DO NOT KNOW Ron Paul…as this person demonstates with these 10 comments.

    RP 2012-16.

  24. Pingback: Don’t Fall For Ron Paul « Lauren Michelle Kinsey

  25. Anonymous

    December 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    Vote Ron Paul restore America look and read through this all it’s just not true. Vote RON PAUL whoooooooaaa

  26. JasonR

    December 21, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Yep. Still sounds good to me. What about the bill of rights that Ron has been fighting to preserve vs the encroachment of the federal & state governments? Free speech zones? Warrant-less seizure of property, indefinite and secret detention of citizens in military prisons, interventionist foreign wars, massive federal military contractor systems, militarization of our civilian police forces in the name of “terrorism security” and on and on. I’m much more worried about my basic right to speak and not be arrested for no reason and held in a secret prison by the military than I am about pretty much any other issue.

  27. Sam

    January 17, 2012 at 3:58 am

    You forgot gays… Republican absolutely hate gays- because, you know, we dont just want intimate relations with other men, but dogs too! Logical right?!

  28. Imrahn Zakahev

    July 10, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Look folks it is not that complicated. Ron Paul is a:
    a) a free market capitalist (yeah we now how well deregulation worked in 2008) who doesn’t give two shits about the rights of workers or the poor
    b) he is a gun-loving friend of the NRA, correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the 2nd amendment was intended by the founding fathers to give everyone the right to carry AK-47s in the street.
    c) he is a crackpot, radical Christian conservative who thinks that school prayer and intelligent design have have some sort of God-given place in public schools, guess he should brush up on his constitution reading too, separation of church and state, guess being illiterate is also part of one of his many problems
    d) that a woman’s right to choose should be crushed, how is forcing a woman to have a baby she don’t want liberty, yes I know he wants it left up to the states but what conservative state will give her the right to choose
    e) that same-sex marriage is repugnant, guess spending the rest of your life with someone you want is also unconstitutional, yep I guess he knew what the founding fathers wanted
    f) he is a Congressman that has voted against affirmative action and thinks that desegregation somehow violated the Constitution, I should’ve known, racial equality was an attack by the statists to take over America.
    g) he is a candidate that hates immigrants, not just the illegals, but the legal ones too, guess they are all here to suck up welfare and jobs
    I was using sarcasm to make my point with this some of it anyway. Sarcasm against Ron Paul.

  29. Imrahn Zakahev

    August 17, 2012 at 10:33 am

    from civilliberty.about.com
    This is what the Paulbots don’t want you to know.
    “Ron Paul is a marketing genius. His Tenth Amendment paleoconservative schtick sounds like a small-government philosophy – but if you look at how it would actually affect your day-to-day life, it’s clear that the system he proposes would actually be much more restrictive, and much more authoritarian, than that of any of his primary opponents.

    If Ron Paul is elected president and gets the full power of Congress behind him, you can say goodbye to these six basic rights – starting with…

    1. Your right to privacy.
    In 2005, Rep. Ron Paul sponsored the We the People Act (H.R. 539), a bill intended to limit the power of the Supreme Court. While the law would appear to be a prima facie violation of the separation of powers (necessitating a constitutional amendment for enforcement), Paul took it seriously and made it a centerpiece of his legislative policy agenda.
    The law’s primary function was to eliminate the right to privacy as it had been defined in past Supreme Court cases. Section 3 explicitly states that (emphasis mine)…
    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–(1) shall not adjudicate–
    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
    (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
    (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).”
    As we’ll discuss below, this would have major repercussions on LGBT rights and reproductive rights, which rely on an implicit privacy right extended by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments – but because it doesn’t specify what kind of privacy rights are covered by this clause, it would also overturn all search-and-seizure restrictions brought about by federal rulings grounded in the Fourth Amendment.
    End result: if put into effect, Ron Paul’s policy agenda would allow unlimited government searches and unlimited government surveillance – restricted only by state-level rulings, which don’t apply to federal law enforcement agencies. It would also interfere with…

    2. Your right to have sex.
    It’s no secret that Ron Paul’s political future hinges on the Religious Right, which has controlled the Republican base for thirty years. And few things upset the Religious Right more over the past decade than Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-gay sodomy laws on the basis of the implicit right to privacy.
    Ron Paul hated this ruling, writing in an essay that “there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution” and that “the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex.”
    So it’s probably not a coincidence that Rep. Paul wrote the We the People Act while the ink was still drying on Lawrence, and specifically included a clause pertaining to privacy-rights rulings having to do with “any issue of sexual practices…” If put into effect, the We the People Act would overturn Lawrence and – especially coupled with the general prohibition on privacy rights described above – give the bedroom police more power than they have ever had before. And it would destroy federal circuit court rulings based on Lawrence’s privacy standard, which have overturned archaic laws banning everything from cohabitation to sex toys.
    And if you do only have the heterosexual, missionary, married sex that would be permitted in Ron Paul’s America, that could spell trouble, because Ron Paul would also eliminate…

    3. Your right to purchase and use birth control.
    It’s no secret that Ron Paul wants to ban abortion; he’s said so since at least 1981, when he infamously compared abortion to the Holocaust and described Roe v. Wade (1973) as “the ultimate state tyranny.” Sadly, that’s pretty standard rhetoric for a national Republican candidate – and his decision to join with other Republican candidates in support of a federal Human Life Amendment banning abortion is consistent with that fairly common position. But his radically authoritarian views on birth control are much more eccentric.
    The right to privacy as we currently understand it was defined not in Roe, but eight years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). It was there that the Supreme Court defined bodily autonomy as implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, establishing the very right to privacy that the We the People Act would overturn. And because the We the People Act would prohibit new privacy-related federal court cases on issues dealing with “sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction,” the federal court system would be helpless to prevent future state-level bans on birth control. Ron Paul has also attacked U.S. Department of Health funding for birth control on dozens of occasions, referring to reproductive health funding as a series of “government family-planning schemes.”
    And be careful how you protest in Ron Paul’s America, because one of the first things to go would be…

    4. Your right to show a lack of respect to the U.S. flag.
    Many Ron Paul supporters have taken to using a modified U.S. flag as their online profile picture – upside down, crossed out, burning, or otherwise indicative of protest. But if their candidate was actually elected, his history indicates that this would become illegal in many states.
    Ron Paul doesn’t get much flak on this issue because he has consistently opposed federal constitutional amendments banning flag burning, most recently – and persuasively – in a 2003 speech. But pay special attention to how he closed that speech:
    We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
    He wasn’t kidding. In 1997, Rep. Paul had already proposed a constitutional amendment:
    SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.
    And if you’re familiar with the history of flag desecration statutes, you know that they have historically been enforced on a state level anyway. Ron Paul is fine with laws banning flag burning; he just wants to be sure they’re not enforced by the federal government, and he wants to be sure the federal court system doesn’t interfere with their enforcement.
    And this isn’t the only First Amendment issue where Ron Paul runs right of center. No, he would also eliminate…

    5. Your right to exercise your own religious beliefs.
    You may have noticed section 1(A) of the We the People Act above, which would have eliminated all federal court precedents “relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion.” Does this make you nervous? It should, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack thereof), because it allows any state to target minority faiths and uncommon religious practices. It also allows states to marble the distinction between religious doctrine and secular law – exactly the sort of theocratic policymaking that has done so much damage in the Middle East and elsewhere.
    The federal court system is the sole mechanism of enforcement for the U.S. Bill of Rights. By removing questions of religious free exercise and church-state separation from federal judicial consideration, Ron Paul would be, in effect, repealing those parts of the First Amendment. This is no accident. According to a December 2003 speech, he sees himself as a leader in what he appears to see as a Dominionist struggle against the perpetuation of a secular, “collectivist” state:
    “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers … Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion … The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.”
    And all of these rights either follow naturally from, or exist in connection with, a fundamental right with which Ron Paul is not in sympathy…

    6. Your right to equal protection under the law.
    When I wrote about Ron Paul four years ago, he had no real chance of capturing the Republican nomination – and I argued that his ideas, which represented a then-unique paleoconservative agenda, could have a positive effect on what looked to be an increasingly neoconservative Republican Party:
    “…[T]here is still one Jeffersonian left in Congress, and his name is Ron Paul. However slim his chances of capturing the nomination, however impractical his ideas, his appeal to the Tenth Amendment is no thinly veiled reference to the days of segregation. He is serious about advocating Thomas Jefferson’s approach in every area of government, and the consistency of his platform is both uncommon and refreshing.”
    Now that the Tea Party has made Ron Paul a mainstream figure, his views are less refreshing than unsettling. We’ve now known for years about Ron Paul’s racist book and newsletters, and much has been made, by his supporters, of anecdotal evidence suggesting that his actions have not always been as harsh as his words, or (less believably) that until recently he had no idea what had been published and sent to his constituents under his name, using his policy vocabulary, with his funds, over a period of decades.
    But this is an article about policy concerns, and intent – malicious or otherwise – is not policy. As I wrote in 2009, regarding racial profiling:
    For two consecutive years, strong segments of the U.S. Supreme Court have held that intent is the defining standard in discrimination suits. Justice Scalia’s concurrence in the Crawford v. Marion County (2008) voter ID case would have legalized not only restrictive voter ID laws, but also (if followed to its logical conclusion) the old Jim Crow standards of poll taxes and literacy tests. And the Supreme Court’s execrable majority opinion in … Ricci v. DeStefano hamstrings the decent efforts of municipalities and other local governments to address real racial disparities in their midst by holding them to the impossible standard of proving, in a court of law, that racial disparities are more intentional than the attempts to address them.
    What both of these opinions have in common is that they say that intent defines discrimination–that discrimination is about the 93% and the 7%, about Sgt. Crowley and me, and not about the people who are actually affected by these policies. It is, in and of itself, a racist standard that denies the validity of the experiences of people of color.
    What matters most to me is what Ron Paul’s policy agenda would do, not the state of his soul, and in that respect his record is damning. His radical commitment to a state’s rights agenda has given him a Dixiecrat’s civil rights platform. He has worked against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the application of Brown v. Board of Education. He has proposed amending the Constitution to retroactively strip citizenship from native-born Americans based on their parents’ immigration violations.

    Does this sound like a civil libertarian to you?”

    Yet some more reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Freedom loving American my ass.

    • Michael John Scott

      August 17, 2012 at 1:15 pm

      Wow. Good background here. Thanks.

    • Gisela

      August 26, 2012 at 3:00 am

      @Imrahn, please email me I need to ask you several question concerning Ron Paul. [email protected] Please, Please! Its very important!

      • Gisela

        August 26, 2012 at 1:02 pm

        Michael, I loved your article about Ron Paul. Is there anyway that you can pass my email to Imrahn? I have some more questions concerning Ron Pauls health plan, that ties into taxes.

        • Michael John Scott

          January 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm

          I’m not comfortable doing that Gisela. Sorry.

      • Imrahn Zakahev

        September 6, 2012 at 9:53 am

        My schedule is booked at the moment, I will let you know ASAP when I can answer. Dr Paul wants free-market care if you were wondering. Unregulated health I industry, no thank you! Capitalism is the best system but it requires regulation.