Would you like to add or edit content here? Here's how you can have an account!

Ron Paul

From FreeThoughtPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ron paul quote.jpg

Ron Paul was a Republican candidate for president in 2008 and 2012, and a very popular political figure among "Reagan conservatives"; while in the Republican party, his leanings are more towards anarcho-capitalist Libertarian in his views.


Ron Paul: Fundamentalist Christian Creationist

Ron Paul is an evangelical fundamentalist Christian who does not accept evolution. When asked about his response in a recent debate regarding acceptance of the theory of evolution and if it should be taught in public schools, he responded:

At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter and I think it's a theory... the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory.

He did not answer whether he supported teaching of it in public schools.

His answer betrays the fact that he does not understand the difference between everyday use of 'theory' (a guess or conjecture) and the scientific use of theory.[1][2]

Evolution question asked at 2:45 (-7:03).

Commentary on Ron Paul's Creationist Comments

What he says:

a) "I thought it was a very inappropriate question... for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter."

Asking whether a presidential candidate accepts evolution is not like giving them a pop quiz in organic chemistry. It's a test to see whether their public decisionmaking skills are compromised by the strength of their religious beliefs.

Evolution is not scientifically controversial at all, and it's not even necessarily religiously controversial. The Bible is filled with parables and metaphors, and there is absolutely no reason not to see the Genesis story as one, as a metaphorical description of the creation of the universe and humanity. A candidate who cannot accommodate his religious views with universally accepted science is dangerous for the public to put their trust in, and that's why asking if they believe in evolution is relevant.

b) "It's a theory -- the theory of evolution -- and I don't accept it."

Of course, evolution isn't a theory in the layperson's usage of the word, the way Ron Paul means it, as a sort of hopeful guess. Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of gravity. I don't need to fight this particular battle again tonight, but I will note that the "just a theory" defense is among the lamest possible, and really ill befits a doctor.

c) "I think it's a theological discussion..."

If you asked someone, "Why do objects fall down," and they said, "I think that's a theological discussion," you'd back away slowly. The truth of evolution is not a matter decided by theological discussion, but by science.

I think the best answer religious anti-evolutionists can give when asked this question is to tell the truth:

"I know that evolution is a scientific fact, but I also have religious beliefs that say there is more in the world and its history than science can ever know. I choose my religious beliefs as a source of truth over science in this matter."

The fact that so many antievolutionists can't acknowledge this indicates an amount of self-deceit that is unhealthy and unworthy of the public trust.

Ron Paul on The Supreme Court and the Judicial branch of government

Ed Brayton writes, "I am on record praising many of Ron Paul’s positions, but I’ve also said that while I think he is refreshing on many issues of executive power and bill of rights issues I cannot support him. And the most powerful reason why I can’t support him is because I think his ideas on other issues are extraordinarily dangerous. And nothing exemplifies that more than the We The People act that he has sponsored in the House.

This is a court-stripping bill, one that would reverse decades of case law that protects freedom and equality in a thousand different ways. Here is the core of the bill:"

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[3]

"This would reverse not only Roe v Wade but Griswold v Connecticut and Lawrence v Texas and every other ruling related to a right to privacy as well. That means the states could once again outlaw homosexuality and the use of contraception (and if you don’t think there are powerful political interests that favor doing both of those things, you haven’t been paying attention). It erases virtually every single church/state ruling in the last century, allowing public schools to once again force students to read the Bible aloud and to recite state-composed and mandated prayers. That is every bit as crazy as Newt Gingrich’s absolutely insane anti-judiciary policy proposals. And it is an absolute deal-breaker for me."[4]

Ron Paul does not believe in separation of church and state

The War on Religion

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron paul pros and cons.jpg

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

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. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

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 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.

Ron Paul - December 30, 2003

Theology, not Politcs

Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.

I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.

Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America – and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.

Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for maintaining that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.

Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope’s pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.

To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.

The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion – it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

Ron Paul - April 12, 2005

Ron Paul does not accept scientific reality of global warming

Ron Paul does not accept the global scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change[5]. He has said:

I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument.[6]

When asked if he considers climate change a major problem threatening civilization, he responded:

No. [Laughs.][7]

Q: "Do you think CO2 is part of the air quality issue?"

A: "...CO2 comes from ocean waters and volcanoes ... the degree to where the blame goes deserves discussion ... I think everyone should read both sides of it."

  1. CO2 does not come from the oceans
  2. human activity produces more than 100 times the amount of CO2 compared to volcanoes.[8]
  3. there is no credible scientific discussion over whether recent climate change is due to human activity. Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity.[9]

What global climate change?

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

- Ron Paul, address to Congress, June 4, 2009[10]

Ron Paul's anti-regulatory position and what that means

Ron Paul supports the free market, which will bring us marvels of civilization such as:

  • No minimum wage. Do you like working for a dollar an hour? A dollar a day?
  • Closing the border. Food prices will skyrocket.
  • No environmental regulations. Companies will be able to pollute your drinking water and air lawfully. The horror stories about fracking pollution are allowed because the natural gas strengthens our energy security. Do you want every industry to have that kind of zero-accountability free reign to poison you in order to fatten their margins?
  • Monopolies, everywhere. Don't like 6 media conglomerates owning all media in the US? Try 3. Try 1.

Ron Paul wants to end Medicare and Social Security

Speaking to MSNBC host Cenk Uygur, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul said if he were elected President of the United States he would try to transition the country off of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.


Ron Paul on 'States Rights'

In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States. In June 2003, he voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States. He believes that prohibiting flag burning is a state power, not a federal power. [11]

Ron Paul is often claimed as a "man of principal" but the notion that Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment to the Constitution can be suspended or altered state-by-state clearly undermines a fundamental ideal upon which America was founded. You cannot have it both ways.

States rights is typically a scheme that allows legislators to move controversial issues out of the federal venue and into a regional venue that can and will more-easily be manipulated by special interests.

Ron Paul Using Congress to Enforce his religious beliefs

Ron Paul sponsored/introduced HR1094, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007[12], and again as HR2533, The Sanctity of Life Act of 2009[13], bills that stated that "Life begins at conception", effectively attempting to turn abortion in murder and place it under federal jurisdiction, in addition to being an un-ambiguous attempt to use the United States Government to impose his personal religious beliefs.

Ron Paul on voting records and consistency

Ron Paul on the Constitution and Freedom of Speech/Expression

In opposition to people burning flags in protest of American policy, in 1997, Ron Paul introduce, House Joint Resolution 80: to amend the Constitution of the United States to grant the government the right "to prohibit physical destruction of the American flag."[14]

Ron Paul was the only member of congress to vote against a ban on lead in children's toys

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., (R-Texas) the former Republican and Libertarian Party candidate for president, cast the only vote against banning lead in toys in the House of Representatives:[15]

Alarmed by a year of recalls targeting millions of tainted toys, the House voted overwhelming Wednesday to ban lead and other dangerous chemicals from items such as jewelry and rubber ducks that could end up in kids’ mouths.
The legislation also would toughen rules for testing children’s products and take steps to give more muscle to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was criticized last year for its feeble handling of a flood of goods from China deemed hazardous to children.

Even flat-earthers like Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the ranking member of the committee that first passed the ban, were in favor of it. “[Our] children’s toys will be tested in the laboratory before they are tested by our children on the living room floors of America,” Barton said, in a prepared statement.


  • Ron Paul spoke against giving a congressional gold medal to Rosa Parks because he doesn't want to spend $30k of taxpayer money[16]. However, Mr. Paul:
1. Ignored the fact that the medal would be paid for by the US Mint Public Enterprise Fund, which is not funded by taxes but by proceeds from producing coinage.[17]
2. Cosponsored a bill that created coins for the Boy Scouts, and directed a surcharge back to the BSA.[18]
3. Introduced a bill that would give every soldier active during the cold war a medal -- estimated by the DOD to cost $240 million -- and passing the cost directly to the taxpayer.[19]
  • Ron Paul has published leaflets under his own name in the past that demonize blacks, jews and gays.[20]


  • Ron Paul supporters are fond of suggesting his voting record does not reflect his religious principals and he keeps those two ideals separate. This is not the case:

Ron Paul had this to say on the abortion issue:

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.[21]
In 2005, Ron Paul said, "Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues."[22]
Ron Paul authored H.R. 1094, a bill that declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception," a standard Christian Right viewpoint.[23] This was after he waffled and suggested that "states rights" should determine abortion laws. He talked of libertarian ideals and then undermined this "freedom" by trying to pass a law declaring a fetus as human on a Federal level, thereby taking away states rights on the issue.

Stem Cell Research

Ron Paul has been consistent in his desire to defund and prohibit stem cell research. He voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007[24] as well as other similar legislation.

Ron Paul: his agenda in his own words

Many claim Ron Paul just sits on the sidelines and throws rocks. All he wants to do is end a whole bunch of stuff. He uses the "States Rights" excuse to end everything the government has accomplished in the last century.

Most of these citations are straight from Ron Paul:

  • Uses fear tactics and preaches doom
  • Bin Laden Raid was unnecessary
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/05/13/ron-paul-bin-laden-raid-absolu# :http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/
  • He would have not ordered the raid on Osama

  • Get rid of FEMA – It is unconstitutional
  • Says we shouldn’t help people in disasters
  • Taxes are theft
  • Wants to get rid of the Department of Education
  • Wants to privatize all schools
  • Education is not a right
  • Get rid of the Fed
  • Get rid of the IRS
  • Get rid of Social Security (says it’s unconstitutional)
  • Get rid of Medicare
  • Get rid of Medicaid
  • Get rid of birthright citizenship
  • US to quit the UN (says it has a secret plan to destroy the US)
  • Wants US to quit NATO
  • Quit the World Trade Organization
  • Wants to end Roe vs. Wade
  • End federal restriction on gun regulation
  • Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and other minorities
  • Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Get rid of income taxes (with no replacement)
  • Get rid of all foreign aid
  • Get rid of public healthcare
  • End all welfare and social programs
  • Get rid of the CIA
  • Close all bases abroad
  • Wants to isolate us from the rest of the world
  • Does not believe in evolution
  • Does not believe in separation of church and state
  • Because of Paul's hardline isolationist and anti-government philosophies, he is doing very well in winning the support of white supremacists and other, shall we say, race-obsessed individuals
  • Strongest opponent of all "Hate Crime" Laws

Ron Paul's world

What would a society look like that followed Ron Paul's vision?

Ron Paul's vision of America is a twisted, perverted version of 18th century ideals.

  • There would be no monetary economy like what we're used to, because our entire financial system relies on the Fed moving money around. Without the Fed, no banks. Without banks, no economy. It's really that simple. You can reform the Fed (which is a good thing), but you simply cannot abolish it, not without replacing it with something as powerful immediately. Ron Paul promotes a reactive, il-conceived abandonment of the entire current financial system in favor of a "gold standard" which cannot in actuality be implemented without a complete destruction of the existing economy.
  • Ron Paul would undo the Civil Rights Movement through his desire to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment, basically legalizing discrimination against individuals with no protection from the federal government. Without the 14th amendment, States have absolutely no obligation to respect any article of the Constitution. The 14th amendment was specifically enacted to impose upon the States the obligation to protect your rights. The 14th amendment is a favorite target of most neo-Confederates (which include Paul), because they know that without it, States could go right back to owning people as slaves.
  • Ron Paul would eliminate the Sixteenth Amendment, but also the Seventeenth, removing direct elections from America and further marginalizing the actual people he's supposed to be "protecting."
  • Ron Paul claims he would "remove government" and "increase freedom" except, of course, where that conflicts with his own views on abortion, immigration, religion, etc.
  • Through his elimination of most of the federal government, he would undo years of progress we've made with immunizations, public health, and public safety, not to mention the economic damage he would do by eliminating the Fed and returning to the gold standard.
  • The infrastructure of the US would crumble even further than it has, because it is utterly dependent on Federal support for its existence. Goodbye interstates (you think private interests wouldn't turn the whole nation in a spaghetti of toll roads?). Goodbye federal controls on nuclear and coal-fired power plants (hello Fukushima!). Goodbye FBI, ATF and every other National Security agency. Can you think of a more tempting target for terrorists?

In short, his view of America is neither reasonable nor an option. It's a dystopia wrapped in a sexy layer of "savings," "deregulation," and "freedom." Underneath, Paul would gut the Constitution and return America to its "progressive" ideals of 200 years ago. The only saving grace is that there's likely no way he could do all the things he wants to do without a military coup.

What Can Ron Paul Actually Do As President? Are His Campaign Promises Realistic?

Go onto his website and take a look at how many times it promises he, personally, 'will do' something.

Now, take a close look at those things. How many of them exist because of laws? Laws can't be changed by any president. They take a president and a full congress to change. So those promises, at best are maybes, right?

Now narrow the filter. Those things that would require a congress, how many have a snowball's chance in hell of being passed by this current congress? Abolish the fed? Nope. Eliminate Income taxes? Hell no. Eliminate whole federal agencies? Please. What are the odds that the 112th congress is going to go along with any of this? Even a hypothetical 113th?

Now look at your realistic handful of promises. He can radically change the DoD, because the Commander in Chief has nearly all the power there. He can restructure or remove personnel and effectively end Executive level agencies, but he can't de facto end them because that would require the repeal of the laws that created them, needing congressional assistance.

Then he has to insure, or well hope, since he doesn't control state governments, that the states, 50 different states, magically come up with alternatives to the services, protections and regulation these agencies provided and that these likely completely disparate regulation and protection regimes somehow work when interstate commerce is concerned or problems cross state borders.

So say if Mississippi doesn't give a crap if you use dioxin, what happens when it goes into the river and kills Louisiana's wildlife or even citizens? Does Louisiana or its citizens sue in federal court? We all know how long tort suits and systems of law take to handle disputes, especially environmental ones, which require reams and reams of competing science and experts. And this is better than an EPA?

What's he do to replace the thousands of decent paying jobs he just took from career professional employees? The Dept of Education itself is 5,000 employees, and it's Federal Student Aid department alone oversaw $448 billion dollars of grants and loans. No more FAFSA, no more easy applying for all your grants and loans, you're on the private credit market now. We all know how much more secure less predatory and dependable that is, right?

And that's before we get to the real nitty gritty, which is the actual moral and ethical stance he takes when it comes to the implications of his ideas. Forget the political realities of needing one or two branches of government to completely agree and go along with his ideas to have any chance of them succeeding.

Let's consider the what now seems far out scenario of a President who somehow completely repeals the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical leave act, Title 9, hell the whole education part of the United States Code, and basically any law that mandates how states must treat their people.

Is that really the picture you see of America when you think of a 'more perfect union'? Morally, do you want to imprison women who don't want to bear a child for 9 months? Forget that it might be distasteful to you, even wrong, do you want to make it a crime? In some places it would be tantamount to murder. Anti-gay, disabled-unfair, all kinds of laws that we struck down and made illegal to pass would be fair game in some places, even whole states.

Ron Paul's policies would allow us to create an America where some places might be a paradise of progressive inclusion, and others might be a fortress of repressive laws, with rights stripped all the way down to those and only those provided by the bill of rights and limited only by the constitution. And these 50 states have to somehow remain a union, with no unifying character. We saw how that ended once, why would we go back there, ever?

Now the constitution is a pretty good document, but man, in my eyes, it's the minimum we're supposed to do for our citizens. Knowing America's past, seeing how many really ugly bills die in state congresses all over this nation and even how many really regressive bills die in the US congress, I shudder to think what some states would do and definitely some localities would do, given free reign from the pesky chains of civil rights laws.

Some places actually have minority issues and I bet it wouldn't take a but a second for states with immigration issues to have a field day with Mexican-American rights.

Sorry, the man's full of pipe dreams that can't or won't happen, and as a minority, even if they could, what remains scares me. I have something to lose in this game. I'm supposed to trust the states to maintain my rights? It took some of them until 1964 to actually insure I was even guaranteed them. If it weren't for that federal law, I might not have them at all in a few states.

You can go there, but I'll be damned to hell before I will. That's not the America I want to live in. I don't know why Reddit has animosity against the man, but this is why I do.[25]

Ron Paul's voting record

Ron Paul's voting record can be seen at: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

Ron Paul Articles

  • Old Ron Paul video warns of one-world religion dictatorship - In a 1998 John Birch Society film unearthed by Andy Kaczynski, Paul endorsed some of the more paranoid ideas outlined in the Ron Paul Survival Report—including the the idea that a United Nations dictatorship was imminent. A "one-world religion" will ensue which centers around humanism, which they claim is occultism.
  • Ron Paul: Reactionary Racist Leprechaun - "Man of Principal" - was the only member of congress to vote against the Darfur Divestment Act, which proposed the radical idea of prohibiting the American government from investing in businesses fueling a genocide.
  • Ron Paul's bizarre campaign request letters - Ron Paul claims the new monetary designs are part of some conspiracy and he's holding onto his old wrinkled money, or as Paul Puts it, "A financial Manhattan Project where the government wants to drop a bomb on us."
  • Ron Paul - Is he a true libertarian, or an evil crackpot?
  • Ron Paul's long record of glorious failures - Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law. An analysis by The Washington Post shows that Paul's success rate of 0.2 percent falls far below that of most legislators, as Paul has chosen to stand up for his personal crusades, rather that build coalitions for more popular, but less ambitious, proposals.

Ron Paul in-a-nutshell

  • RP does not believe the First Amendment (or any of the Amendments for that matter) applies to states, and that they should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference, gender, race or religion if the local populace agrees. (See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html)
  • RP voted against a flag burning amendment, but for a law against flag burning in Texas. He has no problem with government restricting peoples' Constitutional/free-speech rights, as long as it's the states and not the Feds. (See: http://www.reasontofreedom.com/statement_on_the_flag_burning_amendment_by_us_rep_ron_paul.html) RP's "Bill-of-rights-only-applies-to-the-Federal-Government"-plan means all of the rights protected in the Constitution can be overriden by the states, including the right to bear arms, right to a fair trial and protections against improper search and seizure, abolition of slavery, term limits, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.
  • RP claims he would not let his religious beliefs influence his public policy. But he has twice introduced "The Sanctity of Life Act" which federalizes abortion as murder and says, "life begins at conception" which is clearly based on his evangelical christian ideology. (See: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1096:)
  • RP claims to be a libertarian but imposing his religious ideals upon everyone at the federal level is the antithesis of respect for individual rights. Even his own bible doesn't define life as beginning at conception. RPs belief in "states rights" means states can restrict peoples' civil liberties.
  • RP wants to get rid of the EPA. There would be no federal oversight of pollution and environmental protection.

Paul fans will follow up on this with a huge barrage of copy-pasted stuff that does NOT contradict these facts. Ironically, many Paul followers claim he doesn't flip-flop, but he continually does, especially when it comes to going back and forth between entirely shutting down whole government departments, and then backpedaling and saying, it's only "after more moderate things have been done". Depending upon who Ron Paul is talking to, his rhetoric is more or less radical, but he's never backed off his claims of completely shutting down a huge area of government departments and services, and whenever he's asked about how society would function, his standard response is to evade the question and spew a red herring: "Why do you hate the Constitution? None of these things are Constitutional" (See: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-20/ron-paul-vs-ed-schultz-end-the-department-of-education-and-the-department-of-agriculture/).

Ron Paul FAQ

Q: Is there a conspiracy against Ron Paul?

A: Yes. A large group in the US has decided to block his rise to power, since his policies would grievously threaten their interests. Little is known about this shadowy organization beyond its name - The Voting Public.


  1. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
  2. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
  3. . http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539:
  4. . The Best Reason to Oppose Ron Paul, December 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm Ed Brayton http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/12/27/the-best-reason-to-oppose-ron-paul/
  5. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
  6. . http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
  7. . http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
  8. . http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
  9. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
  10. . http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html
  11. . http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.J.RES.82:
  12. . http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show
  13. . http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2533
  14. . http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.J.RES.80:
  15. . http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5916189.html
  16. . http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm
  17. . http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.573:
  18. . http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110Z1ZGH9::
  19. . http://thehill.com/business--lobby/veterans-fight-for-cold-war-medal-2007-10-18.html
  20. . http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man
  21. . http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html
  22. . http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul240.html
  23. . http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094
  24. . http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00003:
  25. . Periphery722272 http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/oilbe/ron_paul_opposes_sopa_pipa_ndaa_and_the_wall_st/c3hne4s

See Also

This site costs a lot of money in bandwidth and resources. We are glad to bring it to you free, but would you consider helping support our site by making a donation? Any amount would go a long way towards helping us continue to provide this useful service to the community.

Click on the Paypal button below to donate. Your support is most appreciated!

Personal tools
Partner Sites
Support Freethoughtpedia.com

Online Shop