Why Atheists Shouldn't Vote for Ron Paul

With the 2008 presidential primary season soon to be in full swing, I figured it was worth the effort to write a post like this. I’ve received several pieces of unsolicited e-mail in the past few weeks, some from atheists, exhorting me to support the libertarian Republican candidate for president, Ron Paul. This, I believe, would be a grave error for any nonbeliever.

I’ve written in the past about why I’m not a libertarian, but my differences with Paul go far deeper than his advocacy of that political philosophy. Although I don’t think he has any serious chance of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency, I think it’s important to point out why his views are unacceptable, lest atheists be deceived by him or by someone like him in the future.

The first and most important reason why atheists should not support Paul are the serious, credible allegations that he is a racist, or at the very least has racist sympathies. A 1992 issue of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Political Report, contains blatantly racist language attacking black Americans and depicting them as criminals (such as “I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”).

Paul has never, as far as I know, explicitly repudiated these sentiments. His only explanation for the newsletter was that an unnamed staffer wrote those words, not him, and it went to press before he was aware of it – an extremely weak and implausible excuse, considering the article was written under his byline. Does Paul not have the time or the inclination to check in advance what is being written and published under his name? And why did he not publish a retraction in a subsequent issue, unless he himself believed those things at the time?

Second: Paul’s support for a variety of ludicrous conspiracy theories. Although, to his credit, he is not a “9/11 truther“, he does subscribe to other conspiracy theories that are at least as implausible – including that the United Nations wants to confiscate all firearms and impose a “global tax” (as if the UN were some all-powerful world government, rather than a loose gathering of overworked diplomats), and that unnamed “elites” are planning to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico to create an amalgamated “North American Union”. Here’s a fundraising letter sent out by Ron Paul endorsing these delusions, and here’s a link to Paul’s own website making similar claims.

Third: Ron Paul echoes much of the anti-scientific bent of the Republican party. For example, he is an evolution denier who uses standard creationist rhetoric about how evolution is only a theory, how nobody “has absolute proof on either side”, and how any discussion of human origins is a “theological discussion”. No person who has such dismally ignorant views on a major field of science should be considered qualified to hold an elected office where they will have to make crucial decisions on science and technology.

Fourth: Despite his alleged libertarianism, Ron Paul supports some of the most repressive, anti-liberty and anti-Constitution views of the religious right. Exhibit A is his horrendous “We the People Act“, another of the “court-stripping” bills cherished by Christian theocrats. This bill would make it illegal for any federal court to consider any lawsuit over state violations of religious freedom (not to mention lawsuits over the right to reproductive freedom or equal protection for gays, but that’s a separate topic).

If passed, this bill would literally undo the First Amendment. Both the states and the federal government could establish their own official religions and compel all their citizens to attend church or contribute to a particular denomination, and these acts would be immune to judicial oversight. This bill would, in effect, dismantle the judiciary and undo the system of checks and balances that has served America since its inception. How could any libertarian push a law that would allow a legislative majority to set an official state religion and coerce or punish those who’d rather not participate? And how could any rational atheist support a candidate whose views are so manifestly theocratic and destructive to the system of government that has protected our freedom so well?

UPDATE: See this comment downthread for further evidence of Paul’s racist associations.

About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, Broken Ring, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • Carl

    We are not left with much other choice if not Ron Paul. He at least wants to end the endless taxes on us that then get handed out to all the world and whatever lobby has the most pull. I can do more with my money then the Federal Government.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    Your priorities are seriously out of order. I’d rather pay taxes than live in a state that denies me the freedom to speak and believe as I wish.

  • http://bsalert.com/ Pile

    If you want to know more about Ron Paul’s libertarian agenda listen to this interview with a libertarian where hard & tough questions are asked about how the model would work. Ron Paul’s agenda seems interesting at first glance, but his policies don’t stand up to any realism. Listen to the podcast and it will become obvious, these people have no plan for America at all.

  • Tom Holland

    I am guessing that you are not accepting comments, but given the possibility that you might be and I might be first I guess I can give it a try… (I am a strongly atheist agnostic, and not a libertarian, however I believe in a system of government and morality that best protects individual liberty while protecting those who arguably need protection)
    I support Ron Paul, in the sense that I promote him and if I was a US citizen would vote for him (against other less preferrable candidates), for the simple reasons that he is calling the mainstream politicians on their dishonesty, and bringing points to the debate which are simply not reflected elsewhere.
    Where Ron Paul is wrong, (and I agree with your points above), he is wrong because of his fundemental assumptions not because he is dishonestly representing a reasonable interpretation of events. I approve of Dennis Kucinich for the same reason, however Ron Paul is currently causing more damage and gaining greater traction.
    I think the fundemental attacks on civil liberty, the gross misrepresentation of foreign affairs, a requirement for a sound fiscal policy are much more important than Ron Pauls proposed social policies. And even in that respect Ron Paul is arguing that the federal government should not be able to impose those rules on individual states.
    If Ron Paul was president and had solved all the above gross problems, which he is running on, then I would feel that it would be imperative to oppose many of his positions. However for the meanwhile I will support him for the reasons stated above.
    Tom

  • Mike

    I’ve seen no evidence to support the notion that Ron Paul is racist. In fact, his civil liberties stance and views on equality make it impossible for him. The reason Dr Paul no longer supports the death penalty is because of how unfair it is to minorities and the poor, while the rich always go free. One of his strongest arguements for legalizing marajuana is the discriminatory incarceration rate of minorities.

  • Alex Weaver

    I am guessing that you are not accepting comments, but given the possibility that you might be and I might be first I guess I can give it a try…

    …why the hell would you think that?

  • gorak

    The United Nations has, in fact, pushed for global civilian disarmament treaties. Before jumping to conclusions you should google it or something, check this Volokh post on the more recent one, http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_02-2006_07_08.shtml.

  • Rick4Ron

    Hard to believe this misinformation is still being circulated?

    As an agnostic, myself… I have examined Dr. Paul along theocratic lines, far more than any believer. Separation of church and state is paramount in earning my support as a presidential candidate.

    Ron Paul is for INDIVIDUAL liberty. He is against the collectivism of groups; be they racial, gender or lifestyle. It’s all about your individuality.

    Ron Paul is for LESS federal government and less presidential power. He wants to reduce our governments intrusion in to our lives. A position which limits the affect of legislating any moral positions he may hold, e.g., Pro life. He would remove federal influence and leave it for the states.

    I could add to this list, but after re-reading your post… I can see you are so clearly over-the-top in the other direction it would be impossible to educate you on the truth.

    As for conspiracy’s… do you always believe whatever the government line is? Throughout our history there have been plausible suspicions to the events influencing our countries directions. The blanketed acceptance of whatever pablum you are spoon-fed, is Orwellian, in practice.

    Your lack of constitutional understanding is disturbing.

    You have nothing to fear from a man who wants to dramatically reduce the roll of government in your life, then those who want to manipulate you from cradle to grave.

    If not Ron Paul… then WHO?

    Take a stand for your candidate, and I will debate you on facts!

  • random guy

    If you follow the links through the evolution denier article, RP states that he doesn’t know enough about the theory, but that evolution isn’t one of the primary concerns facing our political environment. As president he would have limited powers on what were taught in science classes around the country, according to his libertarianism this is an issue best left to the states. You might say that his power is based on the kind of appointments he could make (something that bush has used to stock our education and national health services with ignorant yes men), but were talking about a man who doesn’t even believe the DOE is something the federal government should have. He would rather disband the thing than staff it with his own people. Weather or not you think that is a good thing is another matter, personally Im on the fence with things like the DOE.

    And as far as many of the acts he has submitted to congress, take a look at how he voted on them. He has rountinely submitted laws and amendments to congress AND voted against them to make points. I don’t always agree with his voting record, but I understand his reasons on many positions and I think that on many occasions his small government stance has cast him in an unfavorable light on many other issues.

    As far as him being a dominionist, I’ve seen some evidence of that, and I think your right to question him on what his interpretation of first amendment rights are. But in general I like the man, hes at least honest about his beliefs. He has not appeared to me to be a man that falls back on dogmatism when it comes time to debate his policies and I think that makes him open to other options. I think people are so used to Republicans being uncompromising assholes over these past few years, that they just assume RP is unwilling to change his position if given proper reason.

    If by some odd stroke of luck he won the Republican nomination, I think he would be pressed very hard on these issues by the MSM. He threatens the establishment and groups like Fox News will not give him an easy campaign. He hasn’t been taken seriously yet, so no one off the internet is really probing him. He hasn’t been forced to answer many of the questions that the blogosphere have generated about him. Many of these questions come from comments of his that are 20+ years old, I would like to see his answer to them in the here and now. So I withhold my final judgment of the man until hes had to answer these questions for himself.

  • random guy

    wow i started writing that post when there were 0 comments and by the time i submitted it, it was down to nine, sorry if anything I said was mentioned or contradicted in previous posts.

  • anonymous

    The evidence that most people see regarding any racism coming from Dr. Paul can be found by searching for him on wikipedia. Apparently there was a comment made during his run for Congress in ’96 (I believe) that was misconstrued and became somewhat of a problem.

    Also, if I might add, I really don’t support the notion that anybody of any religion avoiding voting for Dr. Paul for the reason that in the US, as the constitution states, there is a separation of church and state. My understanding of this is that people should avoid voting for Romney and Huckabee because they consistently bring up their views on religion during debates and such, whereas Dr. Paul shys away from talking about his beliefs unless asked directly, where I’ve seen him become uncomfortable because I’m sure he understands, as I would think everybody does, that religion is a very personal experience and shouldn’t be worn on a sleeve, especially when you’re trying to become the leader of a country that has over 280 million citizens, each of different religious sects and denominations. We do have freedom of religion (well, the last time I checked anyway…has Bush signed a law abolishing this recently?), and I believe that freedom should be checked at the White House front door during business hours so that it doesn’t interfere with the duties the president is sworn to uphold, which is in keeping of the constitution, thereby separating church and state. Just my 2 cents y’all…Happy New Year!!

  • Brendan

    Dr. Paul is certainly NOT a racist. Dr. Paul doesn’t believe in giving special treatment to groups or races, but instead promotes personal freedom for ALL Americans. Is he against Rove v. Wade? Yes. Will he revoke it? Probably not, because we have a laundry list of other issues that need to be dealt with first (monetary policy, foreign policy, defense). I used to sympathize with atheists, because I gave them the credit of doing more research between the differences of science and religion, but if you can’t understand that the NAU is the true threat to our national sovereignty, then you, Daylight Athiest, are no better than those neo-con right wings at Fixed Noise.

    I CHALLENGE YOU, DAYLIGHT ATHEIST, to prove to me a better, more qualified, more understanding candidate for the job.

    Do your research: ontheissues.org, opensecrets.org, politifact.com, factcheck.org
    and rip, burn, or borrow Aaron Russo’s Freedom to Fascism.

  • Bryan Thompson

    I am an atheist, and I fully support Ron Paul.

    I fear the on coming evangelical revolution coming to this country if this trend of voting for who you think is the best Christian continues. We need a strong supporter of the constitution which guarantees separation of church and state.

    your claims about racism have been proven to be a lie. here is my video proof, and read the video description.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiV0vrjt1ZM

    here is a video I made to illustrate the oncoming evangelical revolution called Fascism is coming to America:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwTf8gIIzs

    Now, i feel you do a great disservice to atheists, and I question your motives to post this trash in your blog. In any case, I wish you the best.

  • Brian

    I’m an atheist and I support and will continue to support Ron Paul. First, I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist. The letter seemed to be one incident over his long career, and if you read his other writings over his career the single letter does not fit in. Second, He doesn’t want to give the UN any power over American citizens, its not a conspiracy theory, it is his belief in US sovereignty. US citizens are citizens of the United States, not a group of nations. To me it is common sense. Third, last I check I have the right to be an atheist and believe in evolution the same as Ron Paul has the right to be a christian and believe in creation. Its a two way street. Fourth reason I dont know enough about to make a comment on it. Only the second two seem to have any relevance to a person based simply on the fact they happen to be atheist. Also, I would like to know who would be a better choice for atheist? Does anybody else kinda get the feeling Obama may be a closet atheist?

    Thanks

  • http://badidea.wordpress.com Bad

    Paul says more than that he simply “doesn’t know” in regards to evolution. As I argued in the responses to my post, Paul as President will not have the power to simply eliminate all science funding or education policy. That means that, like it or not, he will be in the position of picking and choosing what passes his liking and what doesn’t.

    Additionally, I pointed out that it is a valid basis on which to judge his attitude towards empirical matters. If he can’t get science and evidence right when it comes to biology, why should I expect him to get it right when it comes to tax policy?

  • http://www.blacksunjournal.com BlackSun

    Ebonmuse, I agree completely with you about Ron Paul.

  • Brian

    “Additionally, I pointed out that it is a valid basis on which to judge his attitude towards empirical matters. If he can’t get science and evidence right when it comes to biology, why should I expect him to get it right when it comes to tax policy?”

    Talk about comparing apples and oranges, I didn’t know you had to be a Biologist to understand tax policy. WTF are you talking about?

  • Jeremiah

    First of all, I don’t think Ron has a racist bone in his body. It goes against his ideals of equality (and his kind nature) and further evidence of this is in the most recent ABC debate where he drew comparisons from himself and Obama. It is likely past comments he made were misconstrued and taken out of context. Some allegations weren’t even said by him directly – he does not always write his own newsletter, and he may have even apologized on behalf of those comments. Secondly, his personal beliefs about evolution are irrelevant to me. We have an economy that is about to collapse, a government that is a hair from becoming Soviet Russia, and you’re worried about a politician’s stance on evolution?! Btw, the legitimacy of the 911 truther’s and the North American union is like night and day. We’ve already seen the European Union come to fruition. There is solid evidence that there are plans for a highway that links us. Illegal immigration enforcement is a joke. It’s not such a stretch to believe in this conspiracy, or even the broader conspiracy of efforts to make a world government (the UN, recent attempts to make an international tax on carbon emissions, for example). Yes, I am an atheist and I support Ron Paul.

  • Kurt

    I’m an atheist.

    Do you want religious people to stop killing one another? Vote for Ron Paul. Do you want the first amendment observed strictly? Vote for Ron Paul. How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? Vote for Ron Paul. Do you want a President who will never take major political action because a god told him to? Vote for Ron Paul. Yeah, he’s a Christian. If he wasn’t, his campaign would have been long gone.

    Here’s another Paul-on-faith link to add to your collection.

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/ron-paul-on-mit.html

    Compare and contrast: “Barack Obama said that his faith “plays every role” in his life. ”

    http://christianity.about.com/od/religionpolitics/p/obamafaithss.htm

    The racism thing has been addressed so many times, it’s absurd to bring up again – here’s a recent explanation by Paul, last couple minutes of the mp3. This is perhaps the least bigoted man who has EVER run for office.

    http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulStephanieMillerShow120607.mp3

    Most importantly, the key endorsement of Author Bobby Henderson of venganza.org -

    “While religious organizations are not permitted to endorse candidates, my personal view is that Ron Paul best serves the interest of Pastafarians. Brilliant, fighting for equality and fairness for all, Ron Paul is not afraid to speak his mind and stand up for unpopular beliefs. Of all the candidates, I suspect Mr. Paul is the most likely to allow me to operate a floating pirate ship church, tax-exempt. Ron Paul 2008!”

  • Alex Weaver

    “Additionally, I pointed out that it is a valid basis on which to judge his attitude towards empirical matters. If he can’t get science and evidence right when it comes to biology, why should I expect him to get it right when it comes to tax policy?”

    Talk about comparing apples and oranges, I didn’t know you had to be a Biologist to understand tax policy. WTF are you talking about?

    If he draws conclusions about something he knows nothing about and engages in magical thinking on one subject, why should we believe he won’t on others?

  • OMGF

    Kurt,

    Most importantly, the key endorsement of Author Bobby Henderson of venganza.org -

    Bwaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    That’s a good one. Yeah, I’m sure that a misquote (I can’t find anywhere where he said what you’ve quoted) from a satire site is a ringing endorsement!

    Is it just me, or are there suddenly a lot of new “atheists” on this site, especially ones that support Ron Paul? Kinda fishy.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    Oh, I expected this post would bring Paul supporters out of the woodwork. I’m not surprised by that. The response makes it even more important for me to emphasize why Paul is and should be absolutely unacceptable to any nonbeliever.

    Bad’s comment on Paul and evolution was very much on point. Even disregarding the question of to what extent a president can influence science policy, the key observation here is that Paul’s evolution denial should be seen as symptomatic of a more general inability to think critically, and that is most certainly relevant for a candidate for national office. Frankly, rejection of evolution in favor of creationism implies an inability – or an unwillingness – to listen to qualified experts, to prefer evidence to faith, and to take relevant facts into account. Any person who suffers from that problem is absolutely unqualified for elective office.

    Also, on Paul’s racism: In addition to the comments I cited above, whose accuracy no one has disputed, I note also that Ron Paul accepts donations from white supremacist, neo-Nazi groups – and has refused to return those donations when asked about them. His excuse is that just because he takes their money doesn’t mean he’ll support their beliefs, but by accepting the money, he’s sending a message that he does not repudiate them or refuse their support. A far more appropriate action would have been to donate that money to anti-hate groups.

    For “random guy”:

    He has rountinely submitted laws and amendments to congress AND voted against them to make points.

    That may be so, but this isn’t one of those laws. At one of the Republican debates, he proudly cited his introduction of this bill as evidence that he’s in line with the right-wing agenda. He didn’t introduce it to make a political point, he introduced it because he really believes in it.

    For Bryan Thompson:

    We need a strong supporter of the constitution which guarantees separation of church and state.

    I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why Paul should be unacceptable to an atheist. Did you even read my post? Do you have any comprehension of exactly what his “We the People Act” would do?

  • LindaJoy

    Two comments- if Ron Paul is a libertarian- why does he want government to tell me whether or not I can have an abortion?
    Brian- Barack Obama a closet atheist? Give me a break! He’s one of the worst when it comes to the meaning of the Establisment Clause. I could only wish and dream that he was an atheist.

  • Alex Weaver

    Brian- Barack Obama a closet atheist? Give me a break! He’s one of the worst when it comes to the meaning of the Establisment Clause. I could only wish and dream that he was an atheist.

    This is news to me. What evidence would you cite in support of that?

  • Alex Weaver

    (BTW, would the Ron Paul supporters kindly explain A) what exactly is desirable, in and of itself, about leaving decisions on social policy to the states and B) what exactly is desirable about withdrawing from participation in a global community? I’ve never understood that.)

  • OMGF

    As far as him being a dominionist, I’ve seen some evidence of that, and I think your right to question him on what his interpretation of first amendment rights are.

    If he is a dominionist, then we should all run screaming.

    (BTW, would the Ron Paul supporters kindly explain A) what exactly is desirable, in and of itself, about leaving decisions on social policy to the states and B) what exactly is desirable about withdrawing from participation in a global community? I’ve never understood that.)

    I’d like to see that too.

    From what I saw of the Republican debates, whenever a tough question came up the answer was always, “Oh, the states should decide.” It has become simply a way to dodge questions that the answerer is uncomfortable with. In the real world, we can’t leave everything to the states, it’s simply untenable, else we get situations like the lesbian couple in Vermont that got divorced and one of the women went to Virginia with their child so that Virginia would step in and keep the other mother away. This is why we need a federal government, among other reasons.

    Also, why should we step back from the global community? Like Alex, I don’t understand why we would want to be isolationist. Our country depends on foreign trade. We bring in a lot more goods than we send out, we depend on foreign oil, etc. Further, participation in a global community offers many benefits, like increased ability to act in a way that makes a difference, like on global warming (which we suck at), science initiatives, etc.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    I’m still working on tracking down a debate transcript where Paul says what I remember him saying, but in the meantime, here’s a press release clearly indicating that he genuinely supports the sentiments in the “We the People Act” and didn’t introduce it just to make a political point by voting against it.

    Update: Here’s a link to the transcript containing the remarks I mentioned earlier. It wasn’t an official Republican Party debate, but happened at a candidate event sponsored by the Family Research Council on October 19.

  • Crotch

    This is the internet. Say anything about Ron Paul, and BAM! instant response from his loyal followers.

    Myself? Eh. He’s kinda like Samson pulling down the pillars. He can do damage to some of the real threats, but I don’t think he’ll manage to avoid crushing himself.

    And by crushing himself I mean fading to obscurity. Which, really, is for the best.

  • golden

    ok go vote for hillary and obama so we can go bomb pakistan.

  • Brian

    “Two comments- if Ron Paul is a libertarian- why does he want government to tell me whether or not I can have an abortion?
    Brian- Barack Obama a closet atheist? Give me a break! He’s one of the worst when it comes to the meaning of the Establisment Clause. I could only wish and dream that he was an atheist.”

    I did not say he was an atheist, just given his life, father a non practicing muslim, mother an atheist, he was not religious or affiliated with a church until he started working with church groups as a politician. Im not saying his record as a politician makes me think he is a nonbeliever, just the circumstances under which he came to religion, atheist politicians dont exactly get very many votes.

  • Brian

    I hear everyones reasons against Ron Paul, but I have heard any alternatives to Ron Paul from anyone who is saying he is not good for atheist. Who Is????????????????????????

  • http://badidea.wordpress.com Bad

    Talk about comparing apples and oranges, I didn’t know you had to be a Biologist to understand tax policy.

    That’s not what I said. What I said was that one’s ability to judge one empirical matter tells you something about their attitude towards evidence in general. If Paul thinks there is no solid evidence one way or the other on evolution, that tells me a great deal about how he deals with and understands science and evidence. If he regards it as a “theological” matter, that tells me just how far he thinks the excuse of faith can extend into falsifiable areas. None of these things make a good impression.

  • KShep

    I hear everyones reasons against Ron Paul, but I have heard any alternatives to Ron Paul from anyone who is saying he is not good for atheist. Who Is????????????????????????

    No one. Atheists are a distinct minority here, there is no reason at the present time why any politician would try to win the atheist vote (of course, we all want that to change).

    No candidate is ideal. All we can do is try to decide who is best by avoiding those who would most damage our progress, or the country as a whole.

    Ron Paul is most definitely NOT that guy.

  • OMGF

    ok go vote for hillary and obama so we can go bomb pakistan.

    Huh?

    I hear everyones reasons against Ron Paul, but I have heard any alternatives to Ron Paul from anyone who is saying he is not good for atheist. Who Is????????????????????????

    I agree with KShep. At the present time, no candidate is good for atheists. If we are going to talk about who is better than the others, I think that pretty much any Republican candidate is a worse bet than going with a Democrat. The Democrats have shown at least some tolerance to those of no faith, while on the flip side we actually have Rep. candidates attacking atheists as not real citizens and falling all over themselves to get the religious right vote.

    If there’s one thing about Obama that scares me though, it’s his over the top god-i-ness.

  • Carry On

    The Democrats did not mention anything pertaining to religious belief last night, but does anyone have a sense of who among them is most likely to have a reverance for our Constitution and the founding fathers who clearly wanted a separation between church and State? That is probably the best we can hope for along with a person who doesn’t think science is a suspicions body of unconfirmed speculations.

  • Alex Weaver

    My impression of Obama is that he’s a religious humanist doing his best, and perhaps excessively, trying to appeal to religious moderates. On his policy positions, I’ve seen little to disagree with. I await evidence to the contrary.

  • Brian

    “No one. Atheists are a distinct minority here, there is no reason at the present time why any politician would try to win the atheist vote (of course, we all want that to change).

    No candidate is ideal. All we can do is try to decide who is best by avoiding those who would most damage our progress, or the country as a whole.

    Ron Paul is most definitely NOT that guy. ”

    OK, what Im asking is, who in your opinion would least damage it, if not Ron Paul?

  • RiddleOfSteel

    At one point in the campaign a few months back, Obama seemed to be jumping from one church to another on the campaign trail. In a speech in North Carolina Obama stated: “We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.” I don’t know enough about what god Obama believes in, so I don’t know what this kingdom on Earth would look like. Regardless I want reality based decision making by the next president.

    In the same speech Obama also said: “Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics. Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God.”

    Regarding the above quote, I want the next president to do service to the American people not to a god. And again I want decisions based on reality not what someone thinks a god might wish. Obama says some good things in the above quotation but then he brings his god into it. And I have heard him do this a bit too much for comfort. Yes we all know there has to be some religious pandering to get the vote and most candidates do it to some extent, but Obama has a bit too often for my liking gone over the top with his religious rhetoric. I am still considering voting for him, but I wish he would cool it with the religious stuff. And I hope if elected he will leave it out of the oval office.

  • Jim Baerg

    To the extent that I (from outside the US) have been following US politics, the Republican candidates seem to be either Nehemiah Scudder Wanna-bes or are pandering to such people.

    Are there any exceptions among the Republicans or even the Democrats?

  • http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com Tommykey

    I used to be a libertarian, and if this election were taking place 10 years ago, I probably would have been gung-ho for Ron Paul.

    I do not believe he will get the nomination, but while I share some of Adam’s concerns about him, I want Ron Paul to remain in the race for a while because at least he does inject an anti-war viewpoint into the Republican debates and at least forces the other Republican candidates to address the possibility that American foreign policy might be a factor in motivating Islamic terrorist violence against us.

  • RiddleOfSteel

    Regarding Ron Paul, last month at the train station, a supporter was handing out 4 by 5 inch cards with reasons to vote for Paul. On the card there was only room for five short points to convince voters why they should vote for Ron Paul, and yet the people who produced it wasted text telling people to “Pray for America” and “Read the Bible”. I don’t know if this was officially sanctioned by Ron Paul.

    Also another Ron Paul supporter came to my door collecting ballot signatures. Somehow I ended up in a conversation about the mandatory so called “moment of silence” legislation that had recently been enacted in our state. I strongly appose this legislation. But this supporter was for the legislation and explained why Paul would be for it as a states rights issue. I don’t know if this supporter was correctly relating the views of his candidate, but someone put this guy in charge of obtaining ballot signatures for Ron Paul. And given what Paul has in the past written regarding church/state issues, I have some concerns – see the two paragraphs below written by Paul in 2002 and posted on his web site:

    “Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to “Almighty God” in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.”

    “I previously introduced legislation entitled “The First Amendment Restoration Act” to address this kind of judicial overreach and reassert true First amendment religious freedoms. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid expressions of religion, including the Ten Commandments, in either public or private life.”

  • OMGF

    Isn’t Kucinich a staunch supporter of church state separation?

  • Kevin in the midwest

    Sorry, I must have missed the vote where you were elected to be the voice of atheist voters in America.

    All sarcasm aside, I am one of many atheists who supports ron paul. While i don’t agree with him on all issues, he is far and away the best candidate for America in this election. His positions on our overextended military commitments, on trade, on foreign policy, on monetary policy, his opposition to our increasingly federalized nature of police powers,, and his support for the fundamental idea that power belongs to the citizenry and not the government far outweigh any concerns I have about his Christian beliefs.

  • bbk

    “If not Ron Paul, then who…”

    How about the first guy off the street who accepts the theory of evolution? Nuff said.

  • bbk

    Question: If Ron Paul is a Libertarian, why on earth would he run as a Republican? Is it their solid track record of keeping their grubby little hands out of the pockets of the middle class, the sexual organs of women, the minds of children, the sovereignty of other nations? You know who else is a Libertarian? Bill O’Reilly. The fantasy world that these people live in trumps even Christianity…

  • MAC

    Alex,

    “(BTW, would the Ron Paul supporters kindly explain A) what exactly is desirable, in and of itself, about leaving decisions on social policy to the states and B) what exactly is desirable about withdrawing from participation in a global community? I’ve never understood that.)”

    A) The closer a decision is to the individual (i.e. at the state level instead of the federal level), the more control that individual has over it. If social issues were democratized nationally, you could end up with far more people miserable because 50.0001% decided to go with something the former people don’t like. If you leave it up to the states, people can actually choose where to go based on what social policies are in effect. Pretty much a market where people have more choice.

    B) There is nothing necessarily undesirable about being part of a global community. Thing is, we already are. If we give up our sovereignty, our constitution loses its force. Those of you concerned about someone trying to take away our First Amendment rights need to think about what would happen if there were a constitution trumping our own. Again, this is about decisions being closer to the individual, about you deciding things for yourself. That way there is the possibility for less misery and more happiness through choice and competition.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    If we give up our sovereignty, our constitution loses its force. Those of you concerned about someone trying to take away our First Amendment rights need to think about what would happen if there were a constitution trumping our own.

    This is another reason I don’t take Paul or, frankly, most of his supporters seriously. Who in their right mind actually believes that the US is one small step away from giving up its sovereignty altogether? To whom, the UN? Please.

    It’s bizarre how Paul supporters share with Rapture-believing Christians the paranoid fantasy that the UN is some sinister, all-powerful global body. In reality, it’s a loose, voluntary confederation of diplomats which rarely has the ability to persuade even its own members to keep up their commitments. Aside from talking, the only powers it wields are trade sanctions and a small peacekeeping force – and, lest we forget, the US already has a permanent Security Council seat which gives it the ability to unilaterally veto any use of these.

  • No To Paulistas

    Wow, you just cannot reason with Paulistas. They simply refuse to look at the facts, even those who are atheists!

  • Kari

    For good coverage of Ron Paul’s racist tendancies you can’t beat David Neiwert’s blog Orcinus. there have been a number of posts about Paul – so if you do a search you’ll find them.

    A couple of the main posts though are
    Ron Paul’s nativism and Ron Paul’s Friends — in Black and White.

  • Jim Coufal

    Lot’s of sound and fury signifying nothing. He isn’t going to be the nominee, and while it is important to have his differing voice in the mix, by the time I got done reading the original post and all the responses, I frankly don’t know what the hell Ron Paul O’really believes! Does anyone?

    Jim

  • MAZZQuestions

    I’ve been reading this website for a few months now and have been wanting to leave a post. Thanks to The Atheism Pages I was able to make the step from (pretty weakly) agnostic to Atheist and this site has done alot to help me see that my views are probably (as based on overwhelming evidence) the correct position. So before I start my post about Ron Paul I’d just like to thank Ebonmuse and the rest of the regular commentors on this site.

    Now, on to Ron Paul:
    Ive been watching Ron Paul on TV, I read his website and I’ve listened to opinions about him by bloggers and TV personalities.

    In my personal opinion Paul is a crazy old man. He has lots of fantastical ideas about our country but no actual plan. He says he wants to minimize or eliminate the federal government’s role in everyday life but then what? If we get rid of the DOE and leave education to inividual states, each state will teach what it wants. Kansas may teach creationism. Maybe another state will decide to teach pastafarianism. It is well established that America is very weak on a global scale in education already, having no oversight in education will undoubtedly make matters worse. Without a centralized government maybe some states will deside to seperate themselves from the union completely. What reason would there be to not do so?

    Sorry for such a long post, but I feel that Paul would do nothing but damage this country and is the last thing we need. I just hope that people wake up and think more critically about what it is that he is actually saying and the effects his actions would have on us all.

  • LindaJoy

    Alex- Obama opened his Presidential campaign announcement rally with “All praise and honor to God for bringing us together here today”. Obama’s campaign is running the Gospel Tour of South Carolina complete with gospel singers including a man who says God cured him of his homosexuality. Obama has a director of religious affairs on his campaign staff. Obama totally supports the White House faith based Initiative that uses our tax dollars to fund religious activities. This is a man who taught a course on the Constitution and forgot the part about no religious tests for office and the meaning of the Establishment Clause which is clear if he also read James Madison’s writings. He wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today where he basically said that his former leanings towards keeping the political arena secular were wrong and that we all need to accomodate religious opinion in politics and bring fundamentalists to the table (talk about idealism!). Is that enough for you?

  • DamienSansBlog

    Although, to his credit, he is not a “9/11 truther”, he does subscribe to other conspiracy theories that are at least as implausible – including that the United Nations wants to confiscate all firearms and impose a “global tax” (as if the UN were some all-powerful world government, rather than a loose gathering of overworked diplomats), and that unnamed “elites” are planning to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico to create an amalgamated “North American Union”.

    One of the few non-Spanish or Clear Channel radio stations in my area is a Christian network, which broadcasts the “Endtime Ministries” of one Irvin Baxter every weeknight.

    Last August, Baxter and Paul named these “elites”. They are the forces of the Antichrist.

    The actual program can doubtless be found on: http://www.endtime.com/radioarchive.asp Atheists should really think twice, or possibly even thrice, before supporting this particular candidate.

  • OMGF

    MAC,

    A) The closer a decision is to the individual (i.e. at the state level instead of the federal level), the more control that individual has over it. If social issues were democratized nationally, you could end up with far more people miserable because 50.0001% decided to go with something the former people don’t like. If you leave it up to the states, people can actually choose where to go based on what social policies are in effect. Pretty much a market where people have more choice.

    What? You really think people will simply pick up and move to a state where they like the policies better? Yeah, if they can find a job and make a living they might. Having federal protections, however, ensure that we don’t have to pick up and move every time a state gains a majority of some group. It actually protects us from having our state become a religious state right underneath our noses. Also, as others have pointed out, there are numerous other problems, like what would happen with education, etc.

  • KShep

    Brian:

    OK, what Im asking is, who in your opinion would least damage it, if not Ron Paul?

    Well, it’s still really early and things might change later, but right now I’d have to say Dennis Kucinich. At the very least, he seems more likely to try and keep one person’s religion from intruding on other people’s lives.

    At this time, I think that’s all we can really hope for.

  • MAC

    MAZZQuestions,

    “In my personal opinion Paul is a crazy old man. He has lots of fantastical ideas about our country but no actual plan.”

    What are his fantastical ideas?

    “He says he wants to minimize or eliminate the federal government’s role in everyday life”

    That’s part of his plan. Your previous statement is thus contradicted.

    “but then what?”

    What kind of things might you be referring to?

    “If we get rid of the DOE and leave education to inividual states, each state will teach what it wants.”

    State education will have to be in agreement with the state constitution, and in agreement with the U.S. constitution if anything in it still applies.

    “Kansas may teach creationism. Maybe another state will decide to teach pastafarianism.”

    As long as they legally can, what’s your problem with it? Maybe they can’t legally. Do you know? I don’t.

    “It is well established that America is very weak on a global scale in education already, having no oversight in education will undoubtedly make matters worse.”

    “No oversight” is a lot different from “state and possibly limited federal oversight”.

    “Without a centralized government maybe some states will deside to seperate themselves from the union completely. What reason would there be to not do so?”

    What’s wrong with state cecession if it’s allowed by the U.S. constitution? And if it isn’t allowed, then why worry?

    Paul is a constitutionalist. Unless you hold that what he advocates is not actually a constitutionalist position, then your issue is with the U.S. constitution, not with Ron Paul. This goes for everyone who thinks our country is great because of our constitution.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    State education will have to be in agreement with the state constitution, and in agreement with the U.S. constitution if anything in it still applies.

    Paul’s supporters seem determined to ignore Paul’s explicit support of a bill that would revoke the First Amendment’s guarantee of separation of church and state. I do think our country is great because of its Constitution, thank you very much, and I’d rather not see that Constitution trampled on by a kook.

  • MAC

    OMGF,

    “What? You really think people will simply pick up and move to a state where they like the policies better? Yeah, if they can find a job and make a living they might.”

    So having the issue decided at the federal level would make more people miserable, and then your pick-up-and-move scenario would be recast in terms of country, instead of state. Is it easier to move to a different country than it is to move to a different state?

    If you don’t accept something that can legally happen under the U.S. constitution, then complain about said constitution.

    “Having federal protections, however, ensure that we don’t have to pick up and move every time a state gains a majority of some group. It actually protects us from having our state become a religious state right underneath our noses.”

    I don’t know much about the U.S. constitution, but are you sure there wouldn’t still be federal protections for particular state actions?

    “Also, as others have pointed out, there are numerous other problems, like what would happen with education, etc.”

    If what you’re complaining about is a constitutional position, then complain about the constitution. If you approve of the U.S. constitution and Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, then you have little or no room to complain.

  • Alex Weaver

    FFS, MAC, do you actually consider the consequences of ANY decision relevant?

  • MAC

    Ebon, what bill is that? Could you link me?

  • MAC

    Is it the “We the People Act” you mentioned in your post?

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    Yes, it is.

  • MAC

    I’m going to read the act at your link. But for others’ reference, here’s a list of articles by Paul: http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/authors/ronpaul/ronpaul.php

  • Alex Weaver

    If what you’re complaining about is a constitutional position, then complain about the constitution. If you approve of the U.S. constitution and Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, then you have little or no room to complain.

    So far, you haven’t demonstrated that he’s a constitutionalist except when it’s convenient.

    I’m not a legal scholar, but as I read his agenda, he would not only gut the First Amendment but would pretty much torpedo at least four of the six reasons for the constitution’s existence mentioned in the preamble. That’s A Bad Sign when someone’s pretending to be a “constitutionalist.”

  • MAC

    Here are his positions as listed by Wikipedia. I find no fault with them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Political_positions

    If you want to see actual informal debates about Paul, look here:

    http://www.atheistforums.com/ron-paul-for-president-t2881.html

    We regularly talk about politics on that forum, so everyone has ample opportunity to voice their opinions and criticisms.

  • MAC

    Alex,

    Sorry I missed your comment.

    Yes, I do consider consequences relevant, which is why I have some doubts about empowering the states more. One has to weigh both the pros and cons of what we have now and what we’d have under a libertarian president. Since I don’t know how it would be under a libertarian-ish president, I’d like to find out.

    The thing with libertarian thinking–at least the type I side(d) with–is that it assumes that if you start out consistently respecting rights (I guess “natural”-ish rights) at the individual level, the consequences will always be better, because “better” is defined relative to the individual. Until we actually libertarianize the U.S., all we have to go off of is a bit of history (as far as I know) and probabilistic speculation based on some sociology and economics (if not some other things).

  • Kari

    There is a new article up at The New Republic about Ron Paul’s past named Angry White Man and written by James Kirchick.
    He has done some research into Ron Paul’s past newsletters and reports on his findings.

  • OMGF

    MAC,

    Yes, I do consider consequences relevant, which is why I have some doubts about empowering the states more.

    Make up your mind. You were just telling us about how great it is.

    So having the issue decided at the federal level would make more people miserable, and then your pick-up-and-move scenario would be recast in terms of country, instead of state. Is it easier to move to a different country than it is to move to a different state?

    No. What I’m talking about is that Paul is looking to curtail the Constitutional protections and leave them up to the states. Having Constitutional protection for our rights leads to more happy people, while allowing the states to trample the rights of the minority leads to unconstitutionality. If you say that Paul supports the Constitution, then he shouldn’t be lobbying to do away with most of the protections in it.
    As long as they legally can, what’s your problem with it? Maybe they can’t legally. Do you know? I don’t.

    I don’t know much about the U.S. constitution, but are you sure there wouldn’t still be federal protections for particular state actions?

    No, you don’t. Paul is looking to overturn those protections.

  • Jim Baerg

    Here’s a blog entry that seems relevant to current US politics. :-)
    http://weblog.xanga.com/bartoncii/635995532/governor-huckabee-is-praying.html

  • MAZZQuestions

    MAC
    “State education will have to be in agreement with the state constitution, and in agreement with the U.S. constitution if anything in it still applies.”

    Kansas may teach creationism. Maybe another state will decide to teach pastafarianism.

    “As long as they legally can, what’s your problem with it? Maybe they can’t legally. Do you know? I don’t.”

    As I understand it constitutions are made to list rights, not spell out what can and can not be taught in schools. Those decisions are left to the department of education to have a standard national curriculum. If your position is that deicisions will ultimately be left up to the U.S. constitution then what is Paul’s position? As it stands now the constitution is the ultimate law so are you saying nothing will change?

    Also, if you dont think anything is wrong with individual states teaching creationism just because it doesnt directly clash with the constitution your reasoning abilities are flawed.

    “What’s wrong with state cecession if it’s allowed by the U.S. constitution? And if it isn’t allowed, then why worry?”

    The civil war occured after the Constitution was written. The states that attempted it did not check the Constitution for its legality because the point of ceceeding is that they believe they should have their own Laws and be seperate from the rest of the Union. The Libertarian position seems to be the first step in allowing for just this type of action to happen. Your view of “Why worry?” appears to be your overall position as you’ve written it many times. I would have to agree with the other poster that questioned, “FFS, MAC, do you actually consider the consequences of ANY decision relevant?”

  • lpetrich

    Ron Paul seems to like statism when it’s the states that are being statist and not the Federal Government.

    Which seems to be a common opinion among self-styled libertarians.

    Also, RP stated that the breakup of the Soviet Union is a good model; the states becoming sovereign nations in a loose association.

  • Alex Weaver

    Here is another article on Ron Paul’s alleged racism.

  • http://angryatheist.blogspot.com/ Angry Atheist

    Despite the fact that he doesn’t stand a chance, I still find the support for Ron Paul to be frightening. There’s the obvious racist reason, but coming from a very poor family, I would never have been able to attend college if it were not for the federal government’s help. My family would be perpetually stuck in the class cycle. I’m actually voting for John Edwards because, despite the fact that he’s a Methodist and he holds personal views that I disagree with (on gay marriage) he has stated that he at knows where these biases come from, and that a President should never vote based on his faith or try to impose it on the American people. I also appreciated the moment during the ’07 N.H. debate when he answered the question about whether he believed prayer can “prevent things like 9/11 from happening.” His reply was a straightforward “No” – he had prayed all his life, but this had not prevented things like his son dying or his wife having cancer. I think this is important because religion does have such a numbing influence, with people praying instead of getting things done. That’s my two cents. Ron Paul could go to Hell, if there was one.

  • http://angryatheist.blogspot.com/ Angry Atheist

    For all of you Ron Paul supporting “atheists” who claim there is no alternative:

    “We have seen a president in the last six-plus years who tries to impose his faith on the American people. And I think it is a mistake and I will not impose my faith belief on the American people. I don’t believe any president should do that. I believe in the separation of church and state.” – John Edwards

    “I’ve been in courthouses where I’ve seen the Ten Commandments. I’ve never had a strong reaction to it. But how would Muslims or Hindus feel if they went into that courthouse? So I’m sensitive to that…probably it causes more trouble than good.” – John Edwards

    “If you look at my record through the entire time that I was in the Senate and when I was campaigning for the US Senate, I opposed NAFTA, I opposed CAFTA, I opposed the Colombia trade deal, I opposed the African Caribbean trade deal, I’m opposed to the South Korean trade deal, I’m opposed today to the proposal for a new trade deal with Peru. I think I’ve actually been very consistent.” – John Edwards

    “First, the very notion that this administration can arrest American citizens on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely-this runs contrary to everything we believe in this country. The notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased. What we have to remember-and I will when I am president-is what it is we are supposed to be fighting for, what it is we are supposed to be protecting. These very liberties, this privacy, these constitutional rights-that’s what’s at stake in this fight. And we cannot let people like John Ashcroft take them away in an effort to protect ourselves.” – John Edwards

    “We are there (in Iraq) propping up [the Iraqi gorvernment's] bad behavior. I mean really, how many American lives and how much American taxpayer money are we going to continue to expend waiting for these political leaders to do something? Because that is precisely what we are doing.” – John Edwards

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    For the people who are still skeptical that Ron Paul is an unreconstructed racist, there’s a post today on Dispatches from the Culture Wars that should lay to rest any remaining rational doubt on the matter. (I think this article has the same ultimate source as the one Alex linked to.)

    James Kirchick of the New Republic has found some back issues of Ron Paul’s newsletter in libraries in Kansas and Wisconsin. Some of them contain even more blatantly and disgustingly racist sentiments than the ones already mentioned. Here’s what the newsletter had to say in a special edition on the June 1992 L.A. riots:

    “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”

    Also:

    In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.”

    And:

    One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after [Martin Luther] King [Jr.], suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives.

    There also appears to be plenty of gay-hating mixed in with this overt racism:

    “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

    Paul’s only excuse is that he really didn’t bother to check on what was being printed by anonymous ghostwriters in the newsletter he published and distributed under his own name. Considering writings of this sort were published over a 20-year period, I find that excuse unbelievable. It’s a pathetic lie, and an insult to our intelligence that he expects us to believe this.

    EDIT: Some responses from libertarians in the blogosphere:

    Jason Kuznicki from Positive Liberty:

    I think most of Paul’s supporters and near-supporters felt likewise: Finally here’s a guy who understands us, who sides with us on the really important issues. How wrong we were.

    Jim Babka (a Ron Paul supporter):

    Frankly, I had no idea how bad the newsletter scandal would be. I knew this story was out there. But I had been led to believe (and as had thousands of supporters) that it was confined to a couple of quotes in very tight time span; that the author was sacked once Ron Paul found out. As Jason Kuznicki pointed out, one or two mistakes were understandable.

    I’ve watched this campaign as closely as anyone really could. I don’t believe Ron Paul is a racist. And I don’t believe he wrote those words.

    And I know people who have known Ron for a long time. Every one of them is convinced that he didn’t write those words.

    So what? Look at what appeared under his name and for how long. There’s a lot! It’s all too damaging.

    It’s a disaster.

    Babka also perceptively asks: Assuming Paul’s response (that he didn’t write these letters) is true, the question becomes, “Who is Ron Paul covering for?” The identity of the person who did write these things, if not Paul, has never been disclosed.

    Nick Gillespie for Reason Hit & Run:

    I don’t think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn’t matter–the newsletters carried his name after all–and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage.

    Also, a larger collection of responses also from Reason Hit & Run.

  • MisterDomino

    MAZZQuestions,

    //The civil war occured after the Constitution was written. The states that attempted it did not check the Constitution for its legality because the point of ceceeding is that they believe they should have their own Laws and be seperate from the rest of the Union. The Libertarian position seems to be the first step in allowing for just this type of action to happen.//

    Thank you. I was reading through this long list of replies, the entire time thinking, “Isn’t SOMEONE going to mention it?” I’m glad that you finally did. I have never posted on this forum before, but I’ve been reading it for some time now, and I thought this moment extremely appropriate to break my silence.

    As a professional historian, this is the main argument against Libertarianism that I always use: American history proves that the concept of “States’ rights” is not the magical solution to all of our problems. States being unable to settle their disputes was the reason that the Civil War occurred, and for those of you who weren’t paying attention in class that day, it cost our nation over half a million lives and left the South in a deplorable condition from which it is still recovering to this day. Numerous Supreme Court cases have consistently upheld the superiority of the Federal government (Gibbons v. Ogden is perhaps the best example) in regards to the States.

    Ron Paul’s staunch support of States’ rights is not a progressive ideal, nor is an isolationist doctrine or anti-tax rhetoric. Paul is running on a reactionary platform, just like the rest of the GOP candidates.

  • Alex Weaver

    Ron Paul’s staunch support of States’ rights is not a progressive ideal, nor is an isolationist doctrine or anti-tax rhetoric. Paul is running on a reactionary platform, just like the rest of the GOP candidates.

    So, he wants to take us back 200 years rather than the usual 100 (business right), 1,000 (Christian right), or 10,000 (Libertarian)? I guess that makes him a maverick after all.

  • TSJones

    This is so last week, but here goes nothing,
    just look up Ron Paul’s legislative record of all the bills he’s introduced and you will see what a Ron Paul world would look like.

    I’ve so got to get a gun.

    TS


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X