Compasion, Charity, Wisdom, and the Truth.

It is called NATIONAL SECURITY, not WORLD POLICING. We are supposed to keep OUR nation safe not the WORLD. By securing our borders and building up our national defense we will be more likely to make order with other countries and also to be able to negotiate better and get out economy in order.

I swear to god voters are SO stupid.

Like you REALLY are going to BOO the golden rule?

Go back to school.

 I support Ron Paul, but if I disagree with one or more of his views I won’t be afraid to voice them because it isn’t fair to voice the good and leave the bad out.

1.)He wants to pull out of the United Nations- The United Nations is a disgrace to mankind, they say they are all for human rights and for a better world. However whenever a country’s leader does not comply they impose harsh sanctions on the countries which punish the innocent men, women, and children of that country such as Iraq with the sanctions of the 90s which killed anywhere from 500,000 (conservative) to 1,500,000 (Iraq estimates), now how is that for human rights and a better world? Also on a more personal level the U.N’s workers whenever they were send to the Congo region for relief it came out that over time they were sexually abusing the men, women, and children of that country as well because they were incredibly poor and they would have to sell their bodies for food. “And it has become not uncommon that peacekeepers invite these girls in — and of course the younger the better, because there’s less chance that they will be infected by HIV/AIDS.” Now they are pushing sanctions on Iran which is either going to cause another war or the deaths of thousands of people. We pay 22% of the United Nations tabs for them to sit around and do nothing.

2.)Thinks that there should not be a rigid separation between church and state-Coming from a young Buddhist individual I see the logic and reasoning behind this. Granted I do not know what all he would do and how far the church would go, however religion does have an integral part in life and in government. This is a quote from him that will help me explain and thereafter defend him;

“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.”

Throughout history religion has both been important in establishing moral and civil values for human societies. The only problem is that people take the words as the literal meaning and hence mistake the finger for the moon. From my studies so far of Jesus I see his teachings of being distorted and that the Bible is essentially a double-edged sword because he incites hatred among groups. If Christians would stop relying on the bible and focus on the teachings of the actual teachings of Jesus then people would be a lot better off. Right now I disagree with Paul on this view because Christianity is not fit for a large role in government unless it becomes more tolerant and accepting of others ideas and values. I do believe that in time the Church could have a role in government but that time is not now. A good example is the Dali Lama(Although he was exiled by the Chinese government) however for years and years he was a great compassionate church leader who did not start or advocate any wars, which proves that church and state can have a place. (Besides many of our leaders have been influenced by Christian beliefs and traditions so church and state is never really THAT separated it’s just an illusion.)

3.)Would abolish the minimum wage- Now I’m not very knowledgeable on the economic impact of this however I will try my best to find various sources to see if it is good or bad for the American job worker;

“Eliminating the minimum wage would create jobs, lower the cost of living, and cause deflation in the American dollar. Goods would be able to be produced cheaper and sold for less. Countless jobs would be created because companies would no longer have to outsource. And with the strengthening of the dollar, individuals would be able to live on their wages. In 1970, minimum wage was 1.60. This 1.60 could buy 27, 12 oz cokes. At today’s prices and and a minimum wage of 7.25, a person could buy 12 cokes from one hour of work.”

“No one will be forced to work for less than they deem appropriate. If you don’t want to come sweep my store out for $3 an hour, then don’t, I’m sure there are others who could really use the money and are willing to work for it as opposed to wait for a government handout.”

“What if the government set the price of milk at $20 per gallon. Does that benefit the person who gets the $20? No, because the demand for milk would go down. Most people will only pay around $5 for milk.
Same thing with setting the price of labor. The demand for laborers who are worth $3/hour goes down when you are forced to pay them $8. The government destroys demand with its threats of violence against peaceful people, and creates unemployment.”

“Let’s be logical, people. Let’s say I don’t have a job, and as a result have no income. Let’s also say I don’t really have a marketable skill, education, or much experience. It will be much easier for me to earn SOME income if a business will hire me to take care of menial tasks at a low rate of pay. Aside from the chance to earn a little money, it also presents an opportunity for advancement into higher paying positions. Instead of being worried about your minimum wage job dropping your salary if this happens, let’s think about the people with 0 income. I’m sure many of them would jump at the chance to have a steady job paying 6 bucks an hour. If you don’t want it, if you think you’re too good to work for that amount of money, don’t take the job or put yourself in a position where this wouldn’t be an issue.”

 So far from what I’m getting it looks as if abolishing the minimum wage wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all, it may take a little bit for the free-market to get back on track and adjust but in the long run I think it would actually help the economy and the individual for the reasons above.

4.)Opposes equal pay for women-

“The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses, and in the name of rights, is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.”

 I can see where he is coming from with the idea of a free society and having as many rights as possible however I disagree with his notion that it can be applied right now. In our society women and minorities are still treated a bit unfairly in the workplace and it will take time for the mandates to be repealed and a free society finally be realized. I agree with the idea, but disagree with the timing of the implication.

5.)Against Planned Parenthood- This is the first thing that I am completley against with so far, planned parenthood is a really helpful tool for women and only 3% of the medical procedures are abortions, although I am Pro-Life the 97% of good positive help it generates would be lost if it were defunded. I am disapointed on Paul’s views on this subject and hope that he realizes that this is a huge error in his judgement.

6.)Eliminate the Estate tax, lower the corporate taxes, abolish the income tax, death tax, tip tax, capital gains tax, social security tax, and to allow Americans to claim more tax credits and deductions, including on educational costs, alternative energy vehicles, and health care- That is a lot and people mainly focus on the corporate tax and the estate tax because they think that Ron Paul is out to help the corporations however as you can see his tax cuts benefits the individual just as much and probably more then corporations. All of these tax cuts and the elimination of the minimum wage would help the greatly stimulate the economy, lower prices, lower the unemployment rate and get America back on top and with a strong economy to lower our ever growing debt.

7.)Wants to end birthright citizenship- I am not sure how he would institute this or the exact credentials but as long as he does it in a way that allows the naturalization process to be quick and easy then it should not be a problem for people with U.S parents. Just because you are born somewhere does not mean you are a citizen, it should be something everyone has to earn for it shows you have adapt knowledge for adequate competent citizenship. Everyone is born equally, so they should have to all take the same tests(unless they have a handicap of some sort obviously). Therefore one can now see the scope of why Paul would want to end birthright citizenship and as long as he can institute it in the right way then I believe it can be successful.

8.)Wants to take back the Panama Canal- This is perhaps one of the most random and ridiculous things I’ve ever seen, I do not care about the Panama Canal and whatever anyone wants to do with it, we should just leave it alone and not make a big deal out of it.

9.)Opposes the American with disabilities act, the civil rights act, and rights for minority groups- This is where the huge misunderstandings come into view and people see him as a racist, homophobic, sexist ignorant old man. However the first two acts are in a sense unconstitutional and he actually IS for the rights of minority groups and these quotes that come directly from his mouth are proof that he is misunderstood;

“I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement.”

“I’m not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero — because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence. Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”

“But no, I just don’t think with the scientific evidence now — I think I read an article yesterday on the death penalty, and 68 percent of the time they make mistakes. And it’s so racist, too. I think more than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks. This is the one place, the one remnant of racism in our country is in the court system, enforcing the drug laws and enforcing the death penalty. I don’t even know, but I wonder how many of those, how many have been executed? Over 200, I wonder how many were minorities? You know, if you’re rich, you usually don’t meet the death penalty.”

“It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.”

“Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty”

Those quotes adamantly show that is he for the rights of all individuals because he does not see minorities he sees people and because of that he want’s everyone to have the freedom to choose what is the best for them. The reason he is against the two acts stated above is because they essentially violate property rights of the individual. He SUPPORTS the intention of the bills sating that discrimination and racism are ugly and generate hate and he is completely against that. However as he is a constitutionalists he sees the violation and that is what he is against. He believes that the free market will punish those who discriminate those people who openly voice their ugly racism or discrimination. People misunderstand and see him as being the complete opposite of what he really is. He advocates individual liberty.

10.)Ron Paul had a racist newsletter- Yes, his newsletter that he sponsored had racist comments within it, but as he was an avid OBN/GYN surgeon at the time, he did not take direct review over what his writers wrote and yes that is a fault on his part and he should of stood up and explained the situation more clearly, and there is also evidence that Lew Rockwell wrote the newsletters, and it was a mistake that he regrets and he has dismissed it many times, and besides everything else over the past 76 years of his life have been anything but prejudiced towards minorities and everything he has been working for has been towards individual liberty.

Supported TARP bailouts.

Advocated socialized health care.

His socialized health care in Massachusetts was used as a model for Obamacare.

Has raised taxes. Government spending also increased during his time as governor of Massachusetts.

Advocates preemptive war.

Supports the Patriot Act,

Condones the use of torture.

Raised Taxes as a governor of Massachusetts

Supports the federal death penalty

Government spending in Massachusetts increased significantly under Romeny

He is a big wall street insider with a personal fortune of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars

Supported the Iraq War

Supported raising troop levels

Supports keeping troops in Iraq

Supports Iran Sanctions

Supports an Iran War

Supports GITMO

Supports the FED

Supported the Brady Bill

Supports concept of No Child Left Behind

Believes that the FBI should have the power to wiretap mosques and spy on new Muslims who came to reside in the country.

Supports the federal war on drugs.

Has flip-flopped on abortion.

Advocated cap and trade.

Incredibly soft on illegal immigration.

Supporter of gun control laws.

Major campaign contributions from lobbying organizations and Wall Street insiders.

Inconsistent

He supports continued economic sanctions, and diplomatic isolation on the regime against Cuba

Beginning in 2005, Governor Romney appeared on numerous news outlets restating his previous opposition to gay marriage, and stating that he opposed civil unions and stating that every child deserved a mother and a father. In debates and interviews, he stated that a hodgepodge of marriage rules in every state would not be a feasible situation. He supports a constitutional amendment to define gay marriage.

Supports covert activity in countries to topple regimes

Things he flip-flopped on

Opposed the stimulus, after he was for it

Abortion, Pro-Choice then Pro-Life

Against Reagan then for Reagan

Obamacare was modeled after Romneys Massachusetts healthare

Immigration, never hired illegal immigrants, but hired a lawn company with them

Humans cause Global warming, but then says we don’t know

Will not sign no new taxes pledge, but then signs it

Signed a legislation on assault weapons ban, then says he doesn’t support any new legislation for it

Supported TARP, then goes against it saying it should be ended

Opposed the Auto bail outs but when they worked he tried taking credit for them

Quotes from Romney and other information

“Corporations are people, my friend.”

“Everything corporations earn, ultimately goes to the people.”

“This for me, politics, is not a career.”

In an October debate, Romney claimed that he was all about helping the middle class, and that he so wasn’t concerned about helping rich people.

“If I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people.”

And yet, Mitt Romney’s tax plan benefits millionaires to the tune of $150,000 each, and billionaires $500,000 each, while it takes dollars away from the poor, and especially from families with children. Romney’s tax plan gives little or no benefit to middle class households, and the implementation of the plan would cause the deficit to sky rocket, all so Mitt Romney can buy the favorable opinion, and thus the financial support, of his fellow one percenters. Think Progress:

The Tax Policy Center released an analysis today showing that, contrary to Romney’s rhetoric, the overwhelming majority of the benefits under the plan would go to the wealthy. In fact, compared to the policy in place today, Romney’s plan would give millionaires a $150,000 tax cut, while raising taxes on many low-income families:

A sizable number of low-income families would see their taxes go up. For instance, about 15 percent of those in the $10,000 to $20,000 income group would get an average tax cut of about $140, but 20 percent would get hit with an average tax increase of $1,000, mostly because Romney would bring back the less generous versions of those refundable credits.

About one-third of those in $40,000 to $50,000 group would get a tax cut that would average about $400, but about one-six would face a tax increase of nearly twice as much.

Almost every millionaire would get a tax cut averaging roughly $150,000. As a group, those making $1 million or more would receive nearly half the benefit of Romney’s tax plan.

Romney plan hits hardest those making less than $40,000, and primarily those households with children, as he would undo President Obama’s expansion of the child tax credit.

And Romney’s proposal only gets more lucrative for those at the very top of the income scale, giving those in the richest 0.1 percent an annual tax cut of nearly half a million dollars. In 2015 alone, the plan would add $600 billion to the deficit.

Sounds a lot like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

The problem with Romney’s jobs message is that Romney made his money by downsizing companies and outsourcing jobs. Stephen Colbert via Steve Benen, emphasis mine:

“You see, Romney made a Mittload of cash using what’s known as a leveraged buyout. He’d buy a company with ‘money borrowed against their assets, groomed them to be sold off and in the interim collect huge management fees.’ Once Mitt had control of the company, he’d cut frivolous spending like jobs, workers, employees, and jobs. Just like America’s sweetheart, Gordon Gecko.”

“Because Mitt Romney knows just how to trim the fat. He rescued businesses like Dade Behring, Stage Stories, American Pad and Paper, and GS Industries, then his company sold them for a profit of $578 million after which all of those firms declared bankruptcy. Which sounds bad, but don’t worry, almost no one worked there anymore.”

“Besides, a businessman can’t be weighed down with a bleeding heart, as one former Bain employee put it, ‘It was very clinical…. Like a doctor. When the patient is dead, you just move on to the next patient.’ See? Mitt Romney is like a doctor!”

Anyone who believes in Romney’s jobs message needs to rethink that scenario, cause Mitt Romney surely does love him some good, old-fashioned American jobs slashing.

Steve Benen on Romney’s jobs record, emphasis mine:

Complicating matters, during Romney’s only service in public office, his state’s record on job creation was “one of the worst in the country.” Adding insult to injury, “By the end of his four years in office, Massachusetts had squeezed out a net gain in payroll jobs of just 1 percent, compared with job growth of 5.3 percent for the nation as a whole.”

How bad is Romney’s record? During his tenure, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states in jobs growth.

(http://www.politicalruminations.com/mitt-romney-quotes/)(source)

For example, Romney has criticized the president for choosing to withdraw troops from Afghanistan based allegedly on “electoral expediency,” but has not indicated any willingness to keep troops in the country past 2014 and has called for speeding up the handover of security responsibility to the Afghan government — which is precisely Obama’s position on the war. Yet, at the same time he has said “[W]e do not negotiate with terrorists. The Taliban are terrorists, they are our enemy” — a position that might score points on the campaign trail but could very easily limit his options as president in ending the war in Afghanistan.

How about Israel, which Romney has accused the White House of throwing under a bus — surely here the two candidates have sharply identified differences here? Not really. If anything, Romney rhetorically is more supportive of Israel (though not by much) but except for a pledge to reduce funding to the Palestinian Authority in retaliation for a unilateral declaration of statehood there does not seem to be much identifiable policy difference. But again, now that Romney has said no pressure against Israel is acceptable, what options does that give him as president for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict?

According to Devin Stewart, a China expert and senior fellow at the Carnegie Council, “Romney’s plan differs very little from what Obama is already doing. This is the trade equivalent of the generic, ‘I will defend the U.S. national interest.’ He is supporting rule of law, intellectual property, and free trade — just as Obama has.

Romney has also accused China of systematic exploitation, stealing intellectual property, cyber-hacking, and currency manipulation — among other indignities. Even if he is not actually suggesting a policy that markedly different in scope from Obama’s, will he be able to act as though it is simply business as usual with China’s leaders if he finds himself sitting in sitting in the Oval Office or will he be at risk of fraying relations with Beijing?

Finally, on Iran’s nuclear program, Romney’s policy of “crippling sanctions,” covert operations, keeping all options on the table, and working with allies in the region to isolate Iran is remarkably similar to Obama’s.

It isn’t just potential rivals that get a tongue lashing from Romney. Last night, in his victory speech in New Hampshire he — not once, not twice, but three times — castigated “European” economic policies and it’s “entitlement society” which he claims directly influence Obama’s “failed” economic policies (that first trip to Berlin or Paris of the Romney presidency might be a tad awkward). It’s a bit ironic, however, that a candidate who regularly lambastes the president for allegedly undermining Israel, a key U.S. ally, has no problem attacking the country’s key political and economic allies in Europe.

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/11/a_sheep_in_wolf_s_clothing?page=0,1)(Source)

Obama-Romney Similarities

TARP

Obama is the only person to vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program as a senator and then oversee it as president. Romney’s stance? In 2010 he told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that bailing out the banks “was the right thing to do” because it was “an investment made to try and keep a collapse of our entire financial system from occurring.”

Stimulus

Nowadays, Romney consistently sounds the common refrain that the stimulus “didn’t work,” but in 2009, a couple of weeks before Obama’s inauguration and a couple of months before passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Romney told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “I think there is a need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth” and “government can help make that up in a very difficult time.”

Payroll Tax Cut

On the one piece of Obama’s jobs package that he’s been able to get passed — the payroll tax cut — Romney is still with Obama. He called for a payroll tax cut in his 2009 USA Today op-ed that also called for renewing the Bush tax cuts and issuing tax credits for small businesses that hire new employees. Obama did both.

GM Bailout

Though Romney is known for his widely read New York Times op-ed titled, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” if you’ve actually read it, you know that he argues for the same kind of structured bankruptcy that Obama required as a condition for loaning GM the money it used to recently retake its place as the world’s number one seller of automobiles.

Obamneycare

And as presidential also-ran Rick Santorum wrote in this week’s National Review, “The Romneycare individual mandate is essentially the same as the Obamacare individual mandate.” But you already knew that.

For the next year, Romney will travel the country trying to convince voters to fire Obama and turn the White House over to him. He’ll say he plans to take the country in a totally different direction. But if anyone wants to get a better idea of what a Romney presidency might look like, all they have to do is look at what Obama’s already done.

(http://www.theroot.com/views/are-romney-and-obama-same?page=0,1)(Source)

1. Wants to repeal Roe V. Wade; that is significant because it would give jurisdiction back to the states. He would not be proposing a federal BAN on abortion he just sees it as something the states should have jurisdiction over and that is significant because he is also a constitutionalists. He would be giving the people of different states the right to chose and vote on whether abortion should be legal in their state or not because it is indeed a state power. The people of America have very diverse views on the subject so it would actually satisfy the people once all the laws get set. It would appeal to people of Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice, although he supports life and would make an act stating life begins at conception it would not infringe on the states right to decide. What he is doing is actually enforcing the liberty of the people by power of decision.

2. Cut taxes on corporate businesses; At first this may seem like a horrible idea and that he is Pro-Businesses however whenever you really examine the reasons why he would like to do that it becomes quite simple why he would want this. He would cut taxes on businesses because with a smaller government it would reduce the prices of goods and because of that it would help spur economic growth. He wants to have a small government so he will be able to slash taxes. Whenever the prices of business goods go down and the income of the family goes up the economy will slowly rise that is why he wants to cut businesses taxes.

3. Remove the FDA and FTC; I would be incredibly happy if the FDA were removed because it is corrupt as ever. The FDA is not for the consumers it is in for the money. It would be incredibly easy to pay off the FDA to allow some type of sweetener or such that is harmful to the human health. There is actually recorded instances where the FDA has allowed harmful substances into our food/water. Not only that but a lot of our protein shakes and dietary supplements aren’t regulated by the FDA and a decent amount of them have anabolic steroids in them.(on record). Therefore the FDA isn’t nearly as reliable as people think it is. As for the FTC, that is corrupt as well, the same things can happen with the FDA, the businesses can pay them off or they can ignore fraud checks all together. The FTC ought to be replaced with something more reliable that will give the consumer a more fair chance in the free market.

4. Repeal the Brady bill and allow pilots to carry firearms; This would be huge for the constitutionalists and the libertarians, for it would strengthen gun rights and allow pilots a better way to defend themselves in case they would need it. The Brady bill does not effectively protect people from getting guns for there are numerous ways to get around it. All it would take is a spouse or of age child or relative or friend to buy a gun for someone. The access is still nearly as easy and the bill is also unfair because people who want to get a gun but have had a accidental homicide by vehicle over 15 years prior are not able to get a gun that has nothing to do with gun violence or intentional violence of any sort can not buy one because of that. However someone can walk off the street and buy a gun and easily slaughter countless people, also anyone can buy a gun illegally and do the same. Therefore the Brady bill is simply unconstitutional the way it was enforced, that is why Ron Paul does not support the Brady bill.

5. Wants to end birthright citizenship; I am not sure how he would institute this or the exact credentials but as long as he does it in a way that allows the naturalization process to be quick and easy then it should not be a problem for people with U.S parents. Just because you are born somewhere does not mean you are a citizen, it should be something everyone has to earn for it shows you have adapt knowledge for adequate competent citizenship. Everyone is born equally, so they should have to all take the same tests(unless they have a handicap of some sort obviously). Therefore one can now see the scope of why Paul would want to end birthright citizenship and as long as he can institute it in the right way then I believe it can be successful.

6. Repeal Obama-care; This to me is unconstitutional because it really does not do much for the American people. It is not the nations job to give the people healthcare, they do not have a “right” to healthcare. They are entitled to health and longevity. It all depends on how they achieve those means. Obama-care makes the federal government bigger which means more taxes and more control over the American people. The bigger the government the more regulation and more socialist it becomes. It is not other Americans job to pay for others in the form of welfare, medicaid or medicare. A better solution would be charity such as an option to get money taken out of your paycheck to help those. Taking money from one group and giving it to another through force is stealing, health care should be affordable like it was whenever medicaid and medicare were not around. If we can shrink our government and cut taxes to be a more free market society then people will be able to afford healthcare with our individual liberties intact. Also this is straight from his site about Obama-care,

“Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS.”

7. Exempt those with illness from payroll an deducting payroll for caregivers of the terminally ill; This is also incredibly important and I will first give you the direct words from his site,

“Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions. Give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.”

The importance of this is that it will exempt people with cancer and other terminal illnesses from the employee taxes, and anyone who is the primary caregiver for the terminally ill. This is not unconstitutional in anyway because under Ron Paul he and his charitable friends will be the one supporting the medical costs and not other taxpayers. Those who are terminally ill deserve a tax break in order to pay for their medical costs. It would be different if others were paying for him and he was given another tax break then that would be unconstitutional. There isn’t much to say on the subject other then what has been stated.

8. Opposes the PATRIOT act and the NDAA(or the martial law act as some call it); Some people misinterpret Ron Paul as supporting the NDAA because he did not vote against it however he was campaigning at the time so he had no time to vote on the issue. There are numerous instances where he has voiced his opposition to both acts as they are unconstitutional and take away our rights. They strip up slowly of our personal liberties that all are born with. The PATRIOT act allows the government to spy on us in anyway they see pretty much and the NDAA allows the government to detain any US citizen indefinitely and even send them to Guantanamo Bay(which Ron Paul opposes) as long as they only “SUSPECT” they are a terrorist. There is nothing more to say as the blatant infringing of personal liberties are plain and simple. The big government spenders and presidents are curbing our liberties for their own mistakes and that is incredibly distasteful.

To every person who opposes Ron Paul and thinks he is a “misogynist” and “racist” or even a “homophobic” thank you, for if it weren’t for your oppressive and propagandist actions then we would have no one to defend and prove wrong. People don’t understand the action meanings of such words, misogynist, homophobic and racist definitions are as follows;

Misogynist: hatred of women

Racist: a person who believes in racism,  the doctrine that a certain human race  is superior to any or all others.

Homophobic: Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.

Now as far as Ron Paul goes and people saying that his is both of those because of his alleged “words” towards them are complete ludicrous. Yes, his newsletter that he sponsored had racist comments within it, but as he was an avid OBN/GYN surgeon at the time, he did not take direct review over what his writers wrote and yes that is a fault on his part but it in no means he is a racist.

These quotes are taken directly from his own mouth and they show that he is indeed not a racist and they are as follows;

“I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement.”

“I’m not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero — because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence. Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”

“But no, I just don’t think with the scientific evidence now — I think I read an article yesterday on the death penalty, and 68 percent of the time they make mistakes. And it’s so racist, too. I think more than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks. This is the one place, the one remnant of racism in our country is in the court system, enforcing the drug laws and enforcing the death penalty. I don’t even know, but I wonder how many of those, how many have been executed? Over 200, I wonder how many were minorities? You know, if you’re rich, you usually don’t meet the death penalty.”

As you can see above, he advocates individual liberty regardless of the color of ones skin, he actually supports them and their blatant mistreatment in the court of law and police. Now my question is, Why would a RACIST advocate such things? Why would he advocate everyone liberty, and more personally why would he support blacks and other minorities? He sees everyone as being equal and wants racism to end naturally, you can’t force people to see another as equal they have to see that for themselves and Ron Paul sees that vision.

Now that we have that cleared up lets move onto the problem that people see Dr. Ron Paul as a person who is a misogynist. As stated above a misogynist is someone who has a “hatred for women”. That is a very simple definition and it constitutes that someone who hates women would not want them to have any rights and would want to oppress them. Now the only thing the feminist can come up with is the fact that Ron Paul is Pro-Life, (or really Anti-Choice because he is also against the death penalty and torture which is what Pro-Life fully encompasses) now you can be Anti-Choice and not hate woman. Just because someone sees life in a different way then yours does not make them oppressive or hateful, he sees life as beginning at conception and will defend that as Pro-Choice people will defend that they have a right, but that is just a “view”. There is no fully “right” view because morals and rights are something humans invented. It’s all a matter of perspective, if that is what he believes then that is what he believes in, he’ll throw out Roe V Wade and give jurisdiction back to the states, so he is not actually OUTLAWING abortion, therefore he is essentially “neutral” to the argument so far in the fact he gives the states and the people the CHOICE to decide whether abortion will be legal in their state. Now I believe that is completely reasonable and in NO WAY constitutes that Ron Paul is a misogynist if anything he is giving the people the right to choose as to what is morally wrong or right whenever it comes to abortion.

Now onto the final argument saying that Ron Paul is homophobic which is again, completely absurd. He does personally believe because of his Christian faith that he thinks that marriage is between one man and one woman but he will not impose that onto the country with a federal definition of marriage, instead he wishes to leave it up to the states to decide and these quotes sums it up fairly well(and the first one applies to the above about abortion as well);

“It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.”

“Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty”

Now as you can see, he is all for individual liberty for everyone as I have stated above, even though his personal views differ from others he wants the people to decide with their liberty of CHOICE to decide what is right for their state. That is why he is called a Libertarian, he stands up for peoples rights and knows that in his power Racism or Homophobia or the oppression of woman won’t get out of hand because he has FAITH in the American people. He has HOPE that America can bond together and see itself as one and in such an inseparable unity that nothing can break the bond every human being shares.