10 reasons why Ron Paul haters are misguided and ignorant

January 14, 2012

Now, confession: I’m a Ron Paul fanatic. I will readily admit that I believe he’s the next prophet. He predicted the recession, the bursting of the housing bubble and about a million other things almost a decade before these events came to take place. And he has a very logical and educated plan for the U.S., should he become president.

That being said, I came across an opinion piece on my Tumblr titled “10 Reasons Why Not to Vote for Ron Paul.” Only problem was, all of the conclusions were wildly off base. So I thought I might offer a few corrections to an obviously poor and misguided soul.

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863H.R.5909H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

Really? Ron Paul doesn’t value equal rights for minorities because he doesn’t support a discriminating practice that gives people an unfair advantage because of the color of their skin? Aside from the fact that affirmative action is a form of reverse racism and ultimately a handicap that makes minorities believe that they’re entitled to something, Ron Paul doesn’t support affirmative action because he believes in the smallest government possible. He doesn’t support laws that regulate who (or specifically, what color skin) employers should look for in prospective employees. Ditto goes for IRS. He doesn’t support an organization dedicated to taking away the money of working Americans. As for the other bills, Ron Paul’s political ideology has always been to make government smaller. That was at the crux of each of those bills. So before you assume zebras when you hear hoof beats, why don’t you actually research Ron Paul’s political ideologies first.

And before you call me a racist or hostile to minorities, keep in mind I’m a Filipina woman. My parents immigrated from the Philippines in the 1980s. My father is a naturalized citizen and my mother is here on a green card. So I’m condemning a practice that gives me an unfair advantage over my white peers. But hey — maybe a fair playing field just makes more sense to me. Maybe I’ll continue to let a group of sanctimonious, educated white men decide what’s best for all minorities and what we want.

2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

Okay. As I’ve said several times on this blog, I’m Catholic. I’m also pro-life. So it goes without saying that I know life starts at conception. But regardless of my abortion-related beliefs, Ron Paul is a board certified and licensed OB/GYN. He delivers babies for a living. Obviously he’s pro-life. And what the hell do you mean that it “goes against current medical and scientific information?” Ron Paul is a doctor and he says that life starts at conception as well. So isn’t it safe to say that the medical community might be split on what many consider a moral issue?

And to say that Ron Paul would deny women control over “their bodies” is ridiculous. Because believe it or not, when a woman is pregnant, she’s sharing her body with another tiny human being. So it’s not really just her body any more.

So what if Ron Paul is pro-life? At least he’s fighting for someone without a voice, unlike you so-called “progressives.”

3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030H.R.4604H.R.736, and H.R.2720

This is Economics 101. When governments employ any sort of floors or ceilings in a free market, there are adverse and unintended effects. Minimum wage often leads employers to hire less people and charge more for goods and services offered to cover extra expense. Ron Paul believes in a completely free market. Not a kind-of-free-but-not-really market.

Ron Paul also believes in deregulation because, once again, he believes in small government. He doesn’t think that the federal government should go around the country and tell employers how to run their companies.

4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes. He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary

His amendments would disallow income tax credits because he wants to repeal the income tax altogether. Bottom line: he doesn’t believe in taxation, period. Heaven forbid that people should keep their money. Even the middle and lower class.

5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504,H.R.7079H.R.7245H.R.2415H.R.393H.R.4639H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

How many times can I say “small government” and Economics 101 without sounding redundant or pissed off?

6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the U.S. among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the U.S. from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the U.S. withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the U.S. from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the U.S. funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the U.S., despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891H.AMDT.191H.AMDT.190H.R.3769H.R.1665H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

Believe it or not, our founders and pretty much all of the presidents before FDR believed in isolationism. In addition to returning us to our constitutional roots, he doesn’t believe taxpayer money should go to supporting issues that generally have nothing to do with us. Heaven forbid we mind our own business. Wasn’t that the liberal argument for staying out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

7.  Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

Forcing states to recognize same sex marriage across borders would be expanding the power of the federal government. So once again, Ron Paul has been consistent with his small government ideology. And sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the spending of taxpayer money on politically-loaded propaganda is just smart. I’m pro gay marriage, but I’d much rather have my taxpayer dollars go to building roads and bridges, not to organizations trying to convince bigots that gays are people, too. Because honestly, we all know that’s a waste of money.

8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424H.R.1897H.R.1096,H.R.407H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

Guess what? It’s the second amendment. Since whoever wrote this is all about personal rights, why do we always seem to forget that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution as well? Ron Paul is a Constitutional purist. He’s also a Texan, so I don’t understand the problem here.

9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?

It seems I cannot say this enough. Ron Paul is all for SMALL GOVERNMENT. He believes that government shouldn’t be dictating how we should teach our children and what we should teach our children. Obviously this has been a problem for years, what with banning prayer time and changing the pledge of allegiance. And let’s not kid ourselves in thinking that government regulation of our education standards have done us any good. The U.S. continues to place at the bottom in in terms of education in math and science. By privatizing education, every parent can decide where to send their children to school and what to teach them. That way we can avoid this whole evolution vs. creationism bullshit argument that’s been going on for decades.

Not to mention, pretty much every other foreign education system that we admire so highly is privatized.

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “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.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.

No, the exact opposite: Ron Paul is FOR the separation of church and state. But let’s face it: the growing secularism in the U.S. is a hostile reaction to people who have religious or spiritual beliefs.  Ron Paul doesn’t want to integrate church and state. He simply wants people to be able to express religious beliefs without atheists and agnostics making us feel like assholes or suing us for doing so.

In conclusion, I’ll say this one more time: RON PAUL BELIEVES IN SMALL GOVERNMENT. His voting record in the United States House of Representatives reflects his consistency and his beliefs. Don’t go assuming his a bigoted white guy just because he wants to take government out of the equation. Being pro-small-government doesn’t mean your racist, sexist or a homphobe.

So before you go jumping to conclusions and making yourself look like an asshole, why don’t you do your research?


Saturday Six: 2011 Edition

January 1, 2012

Saturday Six is a new thing. It’s also probably going to be a one-time-only thing, mostly because this is a New Year’s post and I kind of came up with it on the fly.

Anyway, since every other website, blogger, news station, newspaper, radio station and magazine is doing lists of shit that happened in 2011, I figured I’d do the same thing. I’m going to break down the three biggest things of 2011 — namely biggest book, biggest movie and biggest song — and give my take on it. Then, I’m going to give three predictions for 2012. So six in all.

1. Most popular fiction book in 2011: Hunger Games

I need not rant about how much I hate this series, mostly because the crappy writing and unoriginal premise speak for itself. Also because I’ve already ranted about it on this blog, and that blogpost just happens to be one of my top read posts. Go figure.

Anyway, despite my personal feelings, 2011 was a big year for Hunger Games. It’s been on the New York Times Bestseller list for 100 consecutive weeks since the tail end of 2010. Additionally, filming for the already predetermined piece of crap cinema feature-film adaptation began earlier this year and the trailers have already inspired anticipation and excitement for fans of the series for its release next spring.

So congrats, Suzanne Collins.

2. Biggest Movie: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

I have yet to rant-blog about my feelings on movie adaptations of books, particularly the Harry Potter film franchise, so in a nutsehll: I hate the movies. As an actress, Emma Watson is only marginally more talented than the lip-biting Queen Emo, Kristen Stewart. Daniel Radcliffe is hit or miss (mostly miss). There isn’t a consistent actor for my favorite character, Dumbledore, so the interpretations of Dumbledore vary greatly from movie to movie and that just annoys me. Really, the only enjoyable parts of the films are when Rupert Grint is in a scene. But he’s a ginger, so he can only be so good until you remember he doesn’t have a soul.

However, my friends and fellow Potterheads have sworn up and down that the last two movies follow the book faithfully. So I’ll just have to take their words for it, since I don’t ever plan on watching them.

Anyway, the fact is that the final Harry Potter film was the biggest grossing film of 2011. But more than that, it was the end of a cultural era. It marked the end of the Harry Potter evolution. No more new books. No more new movies. HP holds a very interesting and special place in the pop culture lexicon due to its mass popularity and also the extremely long timeline. For many fans, 2011 means an end childhood.

But you know what? The minute I crack open the well worn cover of my copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, I’m 11 years old all over again. So in a way, my childhood is never over.

3. Most Popular Song: “Party Rock Anthem”

So this one is the topic most up for debate and there are probably a couple people out there who completely disagree with me, but HEAR ME OUT! I defy you to find a more overplayed song of the summer. I also defy you to find a song of 2011 that has inspired more asinine Internet memes and flash mobs all over the world. Hell, just the videos of the flash mobs have as many views as the actual video.

And personally speaking, I was shuffling everyday of 2011.

All right, so for the predictions.

1. Barack Obama will win the election.

Big words, I know. But once again, HEAR ME OUT! Of our 44 U.S. presidents, 22 of them only served one term or less than one term. Out of those 22, only eight did not win reelection. The rest either died or did not seek reelection. And what did those eight who did not win reelection have in common? There was a strong third party candidate who stole enough votes to prevent a majority vote between the two main parties.

Take the most recent example: Bush Sr. failed to win a second term as president because Ross Perot ran as a third party and stole enough of the conservative votes to ensure that Clinton was elected.

So honestly, the only way Obama would lose the election is if a third party ran and stole enough of the liberal and/or democratic votes to ensure another outcome.

2. Bieber Fever will finally die.

By 2012, most of Bieber’s fanbase will mature enough to realize that real music exists. That or he’ll pull a Britney and go batshit crazy. And as his sanity takes a downward spiral, so will his career.

3. The world will end in December.

So none of this matters in the end anyway.