It only takes a very little amount of freedom to cause enormous benefit. For example, look at the Reagan tax cuts. That launched a 25 year period of fantastic economic growth. Freedom is powerful. Freedom works. Even in little bits. Anyone who can limit the growth of government can cause powerfully positive things to happen.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party advocating freedom, the most powerful force there is.

1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
4. He’s Not For National Health Care
5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

Paul believes in the Bill of Rights, so your first comment is just wrong.

We shouldn’t support schools with federal money. In fact I’d say we shouldn’t support them with taxes at all. People are responsible for paying for their children’s education. If you want to help those who can’t afford it, you’re perfectly free to give to charity. But you are NOT free to force others to spend their money as you see fit.

If you support tax-funded national health care then you are both completely disrespectful of the rights of others’ to spend their earnings as they see fit, and you are blissfully ignorant about economic forces, and what kind of unholy pharmo-industrial alliance that would create (and is already starting to create).

Paul does not believe in federally outlawing abortion. He believes it should be up to states to decide. I’m sure that you would admit you agree with that, if forced to admit to your own logical failings. That is, if abortion were federally illegal tomorrow, you’d be in favor of making it a state decision instead of a federal decision. Misunderstanding Paul’s position on abortion is a common sign of the unresearched knee-jerk anti-Paul reaction.

As for global warming, you are again misrepresenting his position. He’s not saying that it’s not real. He’s saying that we have to be realistic about it and how much can really be done to curb it. And he’s saying that there is no absolute certainty about the severity of global warming.

Please do your homework before writing articles.

As to global warming, I don’t believe I’ve ever hear him say that there is “no evidence” but that we don’t know all of the facts. As for his environmental policies in general his statements are that if we enforced property rights we could greatly curb pollution. A company does not have the right to pollute a river that flows downstream, or put pollutants into the air that will go to someone else’s property. If the government were to do more to protect people’s property rights (one of the functions of government that he agrees with), then that would be a good start. I believe he also mentioned that perhaps if we stopped granting oil companies huge subsidies it might help to curb our use (and thus pollution).

It’s not perfect, but the main issues to me are foreign and economic. As the dollar slides into oblivion people are going to care much less for the environment. If we are prosperous and free we will be much more capable of dealing with the environment than if we’re taxed into starvation.

I just have to laugh because the comments here prove the point that RP’s disciples are blinded by their adoration for him. DARE NOT speak of the Reverend Doctor Saint Ron Paul in less than reverent terms, Infidel! Blasphemer!

I have no idea where the Disciples got the idea that attacking RP’s doubters is an effective way to convince voters that RP is the messiah. When’s the last time a troll crapping in your comments changed your mind?

Extremists suck.

(BTW, nice copypasta in some of these comments. I’m starting to see the same copypasta in the comments of a lot of different blogs. Typical spamming troll behavior.)

Justin, you do a disservice to have posted this without looking into where it came from.

All I can say is if the OP is actually surprised about Ron Paul’s stances on these things…. DUH! Many of them are EXACTLY why we support Ron Paul. Yes, he’s right, socialists need not apply!

2. He supports the voucher system and to generally head in the direction of Private Education – which is much more efficient and cheaper.

3. National Healthcare is the worst thing ever, it prevents competition and results in terrible service, the healthcare system has enough government intervention as it is. Watch John Stossel’s Special on Healthcare.

4. Abortion is murder, and even if you believe it isn’t – it still should be handled at the local level not through an arbitrary ruling.

5. Global Warming is not Man Made, carbon-dioxide levels rise hundreds of years after warming thus indicating that CO2 levels do not spur global warming rather the other way and around. The real cause of global warming is solar activity.

6. Stop Pretending, how are you a Ron Paul Supporter? If you don’t agree with him, make slanderous remarks, and proclaim him as a flawed candidate in your title (don’t bullshit me – that another supporter said it, in the end it was your choice to use it).

We’ve been through this SOCAS stuff before, folks. Ad infinitum nauseum. One more time for the newbies and slow-to-get-it types:

Establishment Clause + Free Exercise Clause = Separation of Church and State. No official religion + no stopping practicing religion = religion outside of government. Jefferson wrote it in Virginia and to Danbury. Madison wrote it into the First Amendment (not explicitly, people, implicitly!). The Supreme Court ruled it that way in 1868 and again in 1956 and it is settled law. That does not mean no religious people in government. It does mean no government law or policy based on religion not interfering with religion or religious practices (so long as other individual rights are not violated, either!).

As for the rest:

The only area where I disagree with Dr. Paul on is the abortion issue. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-life personally from losing one of my own, but I can’t force that position on anyone else, so I’m politically pro-choice. But the abortion issue has as much to do with the question of the biological beginning of human life (TBD, in great debate) as it does the LEGAL beginning of human life (at birth). They are in tension and conflict, no doubt, hence there would be no debate. BUT…it’s also about personal responsibility, which is another tense debate. A person should be responsible enough to use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy and should not use abortion as a means of brith control as that is shirking their responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place. OTOH, a pregnancy that threatens the health or life of the woman should have abortion allowable. Abortion on demand for convenience, no. No abortion period, no. It is a complex issue. However, I believe this, and I admit my own personal bias up front because of my own loss: there is a loving home for all born children, and we need to either find it or make it. We will never resolve the issue, and the disagreements will continue.

That being said, Roe v. Wade is a fine treatise on the application of legal rights in a proper context (NOT moral rights, which is different!). I suggest people go read it. It is based on the premise that a woman has a right to privacy in her medical decisions that the state should not interfere with under Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rules. I agree with that. I fear that an undermining of Roe v. Wade to the states will create a patchwork of rules that have a woman’s right upheld in some states and denied in others. That goes against the basic concept of the uniformity of our rights in this nation. That’s Dred Scot rules again. We cannot and should not go there.

Either a woman has a constitutional right to make a free choice about her pregnancy in a free society, or she does not in an un-free society. Rights under the law are acknowledged at birth and not before, morally correct or not.

As for Justin, man, you need to get off that fence. That picket spire you’re sitting on must really make your butt sore to put out junk like this post!

I’m not 100% sure that is actually his position but I’ll accept it as such based on the fact that our nation was founded on good, solid Christian values…. a moral center.

2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education.

…and thank you that he’s not! The “educational system” (system being the operative word), is broken… a farce. The curriculum is flawed in that if it teaches any thing at all, it’s how to work within this system of fraud.

3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans.

See #2

4. He’s Not For National Health Care.

Again, see #2 (more on this to follow*).

5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned.

This is true, HOWEVER, he supports this galvanizing issue being handled on a state-to-state basis, as is Constitutional. Handling it in such a way supports the Constitutional concept of individual rights. This, ideally, gives everyone walking this earth an option: if you don’t like your states policy on that issue, move.

6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing.

I was not aware that he held this position on that topic, and will look into that being factual (my sis is an environmental engineer in southern CA so I’m certainly on the “green” page).

* The fact is, numbers 2 – 4 relate directly to financial issues… MONEY.. or what is taught throughout the “educational” process is money. Ron Pauls position regarding this issue is the most important piece of his platform, simply because it negates issues 2 – 4 as well as so many others. A return to the gold standard is critical to the long-term health of any nation… this is historical fact, many times before. One must bear in mind that it’s taken us 94 or so years for us to get this far off the financial track, so it may take some time before it can be righted. But also remember that a journey of 1,000 miles starts with one step, and the sooner we take it, the better.

Also, in regards to pro-life issues. Allow the states to decide, and the people to decided through their locally elected representatives.

By the way, its our obligation to question science. He doesn’t deny global warming. But he does question peoples motives, like say maybe Al Gore.

It is not WHAT he votes for, it is WHY he votes for it. That said, he is not for immediately ending all entitlement programs; people have become adapted and accustomed to them, and need to be weaned off slowly.

The What: He is against federal funding (and more importantly, legislating) of education. The WHY: The Constitution has no provision allowing the Federal Government to make policy or give funding in these areas. Education should be left to students, parents, teachers, administrators, and local communities. In the case of Universities, their respective State as well.

The What: He’s against abortion (as an ob-gyn, can we blame him?), and wants to see Roe v Wade overturned. The WHY: He wants to see it overturned because Federal courts have no jurisdiction in a states’ rights issue, and the Federal government has no authority to either ban it OR subsidize it.

The What: Ron Paul is against Universal Health Care. Gee, that sounds bad! Especially coming from a..doctor? Maybe he knows something we don’t. The WHY: Yet again, the Constitution gives no jurisdiction to the Federal Government in the area of health care. Certainly that involvement was not always present, yet we have always had hospitals and the like. There is no need for rules and regulations from Washington to determine practices and legal and illegal medicines in the sovereign states. Our health care prices has gone UP because of government’s managed care practices. The Federal Government just doesn’t have the money or authority to give Universal Health Care to everyone in America, and neither does it have the Authority to impose the huge taxes on everyone that such a program would require.

That’s enough from me, I’ll let someone else do the rest :)

So yes, I follow the movement of freedom with my eyes wide open. Its not about Dr. Ron Paul – its about the message of minimizing government while maximizing freedom.

“I’m guessing a lot more of his faithful are having the same fear.” Why don’t you do some real investigative journalism before using someone else’s opinion to justify your own? Of course Ron Paul isn’t perfect. No candidates ever are. That’s all your article really says.

And as for these “controversial issues,” most Ron Paul supporters are fully aware of them, and we still all agree he’s the best man for the job. We discovered Paul through our own investigation and critical assessment of all the candidates up for consideration, and encourage any potential new supporters to do the same.

#2) As long as people are not allowed to force their religion on each other who cares about how you define the seperation of church and state… why doesnt someone bring up Thomas Jeffersons explaination about the “Seperation of Church and State” which is exactly what Jefferson called it and see what Ron Paul has to say… you cannot simply say he thinks it has no meaning… I have read his qoutes on this matter… he simply doesnt see a need to force christians to keep to themselves. I really wish christians would keep to themselves but I sure done support laws to force them to. THAT would be against seperation of church and state.

#3) What good does federally funding schools do? Why not just not let the feds have that money and we can have state and local funded schools? I would rather see private sector efforts like those by Bill Gates to make newer modern schools and teaching systems replace the federal mandated system.

#4) Ron Paul is not for federal government ran national health care… if WE THE PEOPLE come up with our own way to have single payer without the federal government getting involved what is wrong with that? Why not a single payer system based on the Red Cross? Or some other NGO?

#5) Ron Paul is correct about the abortion issue.. it is NOT slavery… let the states battle it out… science is making this more and more of a moot point anyway.