View Full Version : Other: All Paul Myths Debunked w/Sources

12-20-2011, 10:12 AM
A friend of a friend put this on her facebook - she wanted me to share it with you guys. This is from a former far left leaning Democrat. There's a lot here, so I haven't read all of it, but what I skimmed was really good. Sorry for the formatting and the wall o' text, ctrl+F helps.
I think she's got everything covered. What do you all think?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________
Today I woke up to people sending me this article in an email. This is the most insidious hate mongering I've seen in awhile. It's fine to not like a
political candidate. But to spread blatant lies is unacceptable and that article is FULL of lies. I have refuted each lie with Ron Paul's quotes or
information gathered from his time in gevernment. If you can read I hope you will and I hope that you will copy and paste or share this note.

1. He’s anti-gay marriage (supports DOMA)
Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well.
He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[194] For this reason, Paul
voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[194][195]

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[196] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[197] He
says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[198] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[199][200] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[199]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "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".[146] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.

2. He’s a young earth creationist
I cannot find any public view stated by Paul that says he is a young earth creationist. He is a creationist. I have different views. However, I’m not going
to be a bigot and tell him what to believe.
I did find this little gem that I like:

3. He’s a climate change denier
In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the
polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue
doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.
In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:
* I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
* I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
* Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
* I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.

Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and
livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.
Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depI don't think everybody knows everything about global warming, because you have reputable scientists on both sides of that argument. ... [If the government were to play a role] then you have to deal with the volcanoes and you have to deal with the pollution of China. So, do you want to invade China to make sure they don't pollute? And what are you going to do about the volcanoes? They are all contributing factors to global warming. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies.
— "Real Time with Bill Maher," March 30, 2007

[Global warming] is a problem. The environments are always better taken care of with strict property rights. Under property rights, you are never allowed to pollute. ... What has happened in industrial revolution, big business and government got together and permitted pollution. You ought to be able to stop a neighbor from polluting your land immediately. Just like if your neighbor dumped garbage in your yard, you could call the policemen; that's the way you should have protection of water and air.
— In Iowa, May 3, 2007

4. He believes that America, founded on principles of freedom of worship by many less-than-Christian framers, is a Christian country.
I’ll answer this one for you. Your money has In God We Trust printed on every single bill.

5. Worse, he believes that separation of church and state is a myth.
In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote:
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. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. 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 establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. 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. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[145]

6. He is against net neutrality (you know, liberty online)
He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation, and is opposed to internet gambling restrictions and network neutrality

Paul voted against an amendment[152][153] that would have legally protected net neutrality: "One of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly
oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set

7. He believes the civil rights act had a negative impact on the country
This is the full text instead of quotes. Read it for yourself.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting
racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and
private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of

1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting
raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

8. His stance on safety-nets (none, please)

9. His stance on student aid (do away with it)
He never said do away with it. He said that he paid his way through school and that he believes loans should be available but not from the federal government

10. His stance on health care (including Medicare, Medicaid)
Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care costs for families:[241] He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to
pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions.[242]
H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums.
H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other
serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.
H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or
cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.
Paul voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for drugs provided in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.[243]
Paul rejects universal health care, believing that the more government interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care
becomes.[citation needed] He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of a federal mandate in 1973.[243] He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals.[244] He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation,[245] but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.

Paul has also stated that "The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He also thinks that the talk about swine flu and getting vaccinated by the Federal Government is being blown out of proportion.[259]
Paul, was asked a hypothetical question at a Tea Party debate by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly requires intensive care for six months. Paul said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause. Paul mentioned he does not believe society should let the aforementioned hypothetical man die but emphasized that churches and communities – rather than governments – should take care of those in need.[260]

11. His stance on abortion (goodbye, Roe v. Wade)
Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[205] and "an unshakable foe of abortion".[206] In 2005 he sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act to define life as
beginning at conception.[207] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state
level".[208][209][210] He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction.

Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one
of his instructors during his residency, "It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a
bucket."[211] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.[212]

He never said do away with abortion. He said to put the deciding factor in the states. I am not threatened by this in any way.

12. He would shutter the EPA (goodbye environmental health regulations, hello toxic daily life for our children)
As with any federal agency, it is not authorized by the Constitution and is therefore not to be funded by your money. If you wish to fund a private
organization, then that is your prerogative.

His way of dealing with pollution is to examine and respect property rights within the courts. That means that if someone pollutes on your property, you sue them. Private property ownership is always better maintained then public ownership. By recognizing in the courts that you can sue the government or a company that pollutes on your land will cause the polluters to be hurt by pollution instead of taxpayers. This will create incentive to eliminate pollution instead of just creating rhetoric and doing nothing about the problem.

The EPA stands to lose their jobs if they solve this problem so they are on a tight wire of having to make it seem like they are working to fight pollution
but having every motivation for pollution to continue to be a problem.

As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul
argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting
activities—thus decreasing pollution.[229] He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property:
The environment is better protected under private property rights ... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property ... Too often, conservatives and liberals fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, "Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us ... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute." So I don't particularly like that method.[230]

Paul is a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition.[233]
In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234]
He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative
fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]
Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]
He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235]
He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]
He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]
He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
The League of Conservation Voters gave Paul a lifetime voting-record score of 30%,[239] while Republicans for Environmental Protection gave him a score of 17.[240]

13. His stance on Social Security (a hindrance to freedom)
Paul has given 12 updates on his Texas Straight Talk archive on the issue of Social Security.[133] Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape ... The
numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[13] He considers himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold U.S. Treasury bonds. Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would not like to pay Social Security taxes, in order to protect the system.[13 from wikipedia

14. His stance on taxes on the super-rich (no, thank you)
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

(Go SUCK IT Ron Paul haters. YOU CANNOT say the same thing about any other candidate)

15. His stance on financial regulations (none, please)
That’s funny that the absolute moron who work this piece of driveling vague lies didn’t take into account that Paul does NOT take issue with federal
regulations. ALL of the other presidents TOOK issue and voted against regulation
In 1982, Reagan signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act. This Act removed statutory restrictions on real estate lending, and relaxed limits on how much could be lent to any one borrower.

1989, President George H.W. Bush signed the Savings & Loan bailout bill, formally the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

This bill also modernized the charters of the two government sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with an eye to making them more effective in spreading home ownership to low and moderate income families.

Two of the biggest bailouts came in 2008 from the FM's. Seriously.

In November 1999, President Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act, which abolished a New Deal era rule that had kept insurance companies, commercial banks, and investment banks all separate.

He signed it on the way out and I believe he did that because he knew he would not be challenged and I love Clinton but this is where the problems we are experiencing now begin. Reagan 1982. That and that ridiculous Iran Bourse Deal in the 70's and Nixon taking us off of the gold standard.
Paul takes issue with the Federal Reserve.

16. His lack of support for renewable energy
In the past, Congressman Paul has noted that protection of the environment is not a function that the Constitution allows the federal government to perform.

He has therefore called for an end to the EPA. To address any possible pollution, Congressman Paul has stated that private property rights should function in this aspect as no man has the right to pollute another person's land, water, or air. He notes that if government regulation of the environment were removed and ill environment effects were addressed on a private property level, then the cost of any pollution would be built into the cost of that particular energy model. The best energy model would then prevail and would be the one that best balances the cost to bring the product to market and the effects it has on the environment.

Congressman Paul supports nuclear, wind, solar, and any other forms of energy production, However, he opposes subsidies to them as he does not believe that the federal government has the right to take money from one person to subsidize the energy desires of another. However, Congressman Paul has sponsored legislation to provide tax incentives to alternative energy sources.

17. He would close the Department of Education
Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level. He opposes the federal No Child Left Behind Act, voting against it in 2001 and remaining opposed to it as an ineffective federal program.[225]
Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[226] Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.[227

18. He wouldn’t be able to bring the troops home:
“Closing bases and withdrawing troops is an expensive process, and the DoD isn’t going to get very far if Congress forbids them from spending any money on it. It’s the exact same problem that prevented Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay.”
Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate who voted against the Iraq War Resolution,[18][19] and he continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes a just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001, attacks should have been directed against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.[20] In 2003, Paul said that when America seeks war, it must be sought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as previously planned, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory; he added, "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq."[21] However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq". Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization. During the 2003 invasion, Paul found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that [he] was taught as a Christian".[24] Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative and libertarian Republican support base[25] to include liberal[26] Democrats.[2

19. He signed the Pro-Life Presidential pledge, which includes a vow to only nominate pro-life judges to the Court.
Generally, serious presidential candidates should refuse to sign all pledges, since they remove the rights of citizens in a democracy to see their wishes represented, and make their reps beholden to outside interests.
You can read it here yourself. If anyone is surprised that a man who has delievered babies for an entire lifetime puts the rights of an unborn baby first
then I just don’t know what to say.

20. Given his ground game, he’d be tough for President Obama to beat. A lot of liberals, including myself, would be tempted to vote Paul. I’d rather Obama get to bat around damaged-goods Newt or wooden-1%er Mitt.

Still, with the exception of Jon Huntsman, he’s the best—by far—of the rest of the GOP field.

And here are a few things that he DIDN’T mention about Paul but I will

Paul broke with his party by voting against the PATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment.[170] He has said, "Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America."[66] He has spoken against federal use of what he defines as torture and what he sees as an abuse of executive authority during the Iraq War to override Constitutional rights.[171]
REAL ID Act Paul voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, an Act to create federal identification-card standards, which has been challenged as violating the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine, and other civil liberties.[172][173] Enforcement of the Act has been postponed until 2011.[174]

21.Domestic surveillance
Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the role of government is to protect American citizens' privacy, not violate it.[175] He has signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge not to violate Americans' rights through domestic wiretapping and to renounce autonomous presidential signing statements, which rely on unitary executive theory.[168] In December 2007, he stated his opposition to the US House Resolution 1955, arguing that it "focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against violent radicalization."[176]

Paul is strongly opposed to reintroducing the draft.[177][178][179][180][181] In 2002, he authored and introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of
Representatives expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[182] In the 110th Congress, he has proposed a bill which would end Selective Service registration.[183]
Eminent domain
Paul opposes eminent domain. He wishes to "stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and
ranches". He opposes "regulatory takings ... Governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties—all without paying 'just

And finally for those of you who can actually read, here are Ron Paul’s own words about his mission in politics and his mission to become President:

got involved in politics because of the tragic decisions I saw our so-called statesmen making in Washington D.C. I was troubled by the laws being passed that impact our lives on a daily basis. Those crucial issues of our day that no man or woman can sit back and let be decided by those out of touch and
unresponsive from the first day they get into office. These men and women who state they are public servants doing the common good, and yet are nothing but petty thieves with silver tongues and shiny three thousand dollar suits. To quote: "Don't steal, the government hates competition." An informed electorate is our only hope for the future. We can no longer afford to let the Federal Reserve act as a common pickpocket. Nor allow the military industrial complex to pillage and plunder around the world as they blaze a trail of bloody innocence.
I never thought of running for President when I was a hall monitor and felt the awesome yet abusive power over other people. Nor do I want to become
President in order to continue the family tradition. And, I do not seek this office to enlarge the riches of my friends or those who have donated to my
campaign. I will grant neither privilege nor favor to reward loyalty or support. I aspire to the presidency to give you back control of your lives. I do not know how to run your life. Unlike many others in this race, I do not pretend to.

I want the American people to enjoy the privileges of our forefathers and experience the benefits of self-determination that they fought and died for. Those are your right and privilege that the founding fathers in their infinite wisdom bestowed upon us if only we are willing to preserve them.

This is the greatest challenge we face today.
We live in a time of a constantly deflating dollar. A time where we see deficits and debt increase at levels we have not seen in 40 years. Our civil
liberties are vanishing at the whim of the president's signature. It is a time when our empire is expanding and causing untold devastation and destruction
with no end in sight.

I want to make a difference, to send a message to the world that the remnant is still alive, that it is growing stronger and stronger every day as its
message spreads by word of mouth, roads, byways, and the amazing electronic superhighway. And, foremost, to educate the citizenry that we can indeed return to the path of peace, freedom, and prosperity.

I believe that we can become a beacon of hope for the world. We can regain the goodwill that we once enjoyed as a symbol of hope and opportunity for all. We can once again aspire to be "the shining city on the hill" that Ronald Reagan once dreamed of. But, we cannot achieve this by robbing from Peter's grandchildren to pay the privileged Paul's of today.

We will have to face the reality of this path toward destruction that we have set ourselves on by listening to the false promises of politicians without
principle. We will have to make tough choices and take responsibility. Responsibility both personally as it relates to our own lives and as a whole when it
comes to matters of finance and friendly relations with the rest of the world. The American people yearn for this freedom. We all yearn for the ability to be free to choose and direct and determine the future of our own lives and that of our families. We, as citizens, also seek to restrain the growth of government and even decrease its size in order to take back our lives and limit the burden that we place on our children and our children's children.

We cannot let this go on anymore. It is just that simple. If we are set on this course then we are destined for "the dust heap of history." It is a hard
fact to swallow, but it is a certainty. We shall follow the fate of Rome. Or, we will become another chapter in the history books just as the British Empire

Fortunately, we have time to redirect and set sail upon a new wind of respect for life and liberty. Our time is running out, but it is not too late. The
choice is ours to dedicate ourselves with new determination toward that often heard phrase, but rarely executed: a new birth of freedom.
We are no longer disparate voices in the wilderness without a cause to rally around. The time is now to join together around principle and send a message to the powers that be that it will not be more business as usual on K Street, Wall Street, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, 1400 Defense Pentagon, and, certainly not at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
(December 15, 2011)

12-20-2011, 10:13 AM
That's great. Bookmarked to keep handy.

12-21-2011, 10:02 AM
ugh on #19, why did he have to sign that, it goes against everything he talks about in not speaking in absolutes.

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

why discriminate against = representation and deadlock your choices like this. If he is presented with two choices for department of health and human services, he eliminates all pro-choice candidates even if they have better qualifications then the pro-life candidates.

He has said over and over he wouldnt do this, I am so disappointed right now :( why ron, why!

12-31-2011, 11:06 AM

12-31-2011, 11:14 AM
one thing to note, and perhaps the OP should try to find something more solid-
in god we trust, does not infer christianity. jews believe in god- they are not christians. muslims believe in god- they are not christians.
now- if the money said- In Jesus Christ we Trust. then you'd have a point.

Okie RP fan
01-04-2012, 08:15 PM
What about prostitution? This was recently brought up, as some brothel in Nevada endorsed him.

Prostitution is not federally illegal is it?

01-04-2012, 08:20 PM
What about prostitution? This was recently brought up, as some brothel in Nevada endorsed him.

Prostitution is not federally illegal is it? no its not a federal law, if it was- the feds would have their people in neveda fucking people's shit up.

Okie RP fan
01-04-2012, 08:22 PM
no its not a federal law, if it was- the feds would have their people in neveda fucking people's shit up.

I chuckled a bit on that one.

Ok, that's what I figured. Thanks for the response.

01-04-2012, 09:13 PM

01-04-2012, 09:32 PM
This thread is so useful we ought to sticky it.

01-05-2012, 03:46 AM

01-05-2012, 07:44 PM
I'm glad you folks like it, I can't take the credit though, it was a friend of a friend.
If you see stuff that needs correction (like the "In God we Trust" on money, she's already acknowledged she could have done that section better), please feel free to add and critique - maybe we can make it kind of a "Living Document" adding to it as Ron Paul adds statements himself on each subject.

Maybe a wiki style page? I know there is always wikipedia, but maybe we need an entire wiki devoted to Ron Paul.
If Stong Bad has a wiki (http://hrwiki.org/wiki/Strong_Bad) surely, Dr. Paul deserves a wiki !!

03-02-2012, 11:54 AM
OP, I scanned this thread as well as I could. Eyes getting tired, but I didn't see anything on the DADT issue. I've got a rabid dog attacking me on Paul voting no on the
repeal. Any help on that? Good Job on your work though. Very nice and helpful.

03-02-2012, 01:21 PM
Hey - sorry - I posted it for a friend, I didn't write it, but I'll try to help.

I know he's against DADT. I'll try to find a good source on it in his own words.

03-02-2012, 01:24 PM

"Well, like I said, everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn’t a problem," Paul said. "It’s only if they’re doing things they shouldn’t be, if they’re disruptive. But there’s … men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there’s a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they’re causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same.”

Paul had originally favored keeping the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, but decided in 2010 to switch his vote and support repeal. Then he explained his shift as one based in economics, and again reiterated that both hetero- and homosexual service members had the potential to be "disruptive."

"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said to The Washington Post. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

Does this work?