What have you heard about Dr. Paul and his beliefs? What have you heard about his plans for our country, if elected President? Have you relied on second or third hand accounts of his words? Have you heard that he is for legalizing drugs and prostitution? Have you heard that he is an isolationist who does not the United States of America involved with others countries whatsoever?
Here are some sound bites from various debates or interviews Dr. Paul has done, as well as information found (very easily) on his Presidential Campaign Website (www.ronpaul2012.com)
On Drugs and Prostitution (Video)
On National Defense (link to his campaign website)
On Abortion (link to his campaign website)
On Homeschooling (link to his campaign website)
On Homebirthing here and here (the second link is a few quotations from the video, the first link)
It all comes down to freedom!
I believe in freedom for the unborn – even if they are conceived as a result of rape or incest. Ron Paul does not.
http://washingtonindependent.com/108709/ron-paul-cases-of-rape-incest-should-be-dealt-with-by-morning-after-pill-not-abortion
If you take a minute to read what he actually wrote, you’ll see that RP is misrepresented, both in his intention and in his words. You can see the full text to which they are referring here:
http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/26/rep-ron-paul-announces-his-presidential-exploratory-committee-writes-about-abortion/
Specifically, he says:
“So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.”
I think there are two issues to talk about: first, that the article said that RP says cases of incest and rape “should” be treated with birth control (which we know can cause an abortion for an early pregnancy, and is not okay). However, he actually says “can” be treated that way, and I think that the sense is obviously conciliatory to those who argue that abortion is “necessary” in those cases. (While we may disagree that this is a good approach, it seems apparent that it is both in the context of that text and his whole political career.) He’s saying that a law isn’t going to change things alone; since people want a loophole, they can be sure that there’s one already available.
He’s not endorsing this at all; indeed, the whole of his political career and campaign manifest an unwaivering commitment to protecting the life of the unborn. Combine this with the facts that his approach is the most likely to get an actual protection amendment, he is more likely to get elected than other top-tier candidates, and once he’s there he’s got a much more consistent whole policy to make changes that are effective (being in line with the intention of the Founding Fathers and common sense), and I don’t see a better pro-life option available. Not even one who comes close.
Ron Paul? Really?
I was hoping you would write about your recent travels!
Yes! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!
[…] sick of your political views”. Interestingly, I have had people thank me, both here  and  here and via email/facebook for standing up and speaking my mind about Dr. Paul and against candidates […]