Originally posted by cbaskins
I wouldn't vote for Rant if he was the last candidate on earth. Have you really seen his politics and beliefs? Although he may be voting against the
patriot act, he is waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy to far to the right and would create an almost totalitarian rule based on a Christian version of Sharia
Law. although SF thanks for keeping up on the times.
Specifically, what beliefs does he hold that would be based on a totalitarian Christian version of Sharia Law? Specifically?
You are using #5 from the Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify
as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists",
"conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out
of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
While I know Wikipedia isn't always the most trustworthy of source material, in this case, it does a good job of summarizing his beliefs:
He is a States rights guy, how is that bad?
Abortion and bioethics
Paul is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act.
He also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, but supports use of the morning-after pill.
He opposes federal funding for abortion.
He takes a states' rights position, favoring the overturn of Roe v. Wade and allowing states to decide on the legality of abortions without federal
Ok, if you support the abortion industry, I can see how you might get bent out of shape by this, but he does leave it to the States to decide. It
might not be nationally available, but I guarantee a neighboring State would allow it, not every State would outlaw it.
Campaign finance reform
Paul opposes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and has called it a "dangerous piece of legislation". Instead, he supports regulating the
contracts given out by Congress and placing limits on corporations receiving government contracts. Paul opposes legislation limiting the amount of
money individuals, corporations, and organizations can give to candidates. Additionally, Paul has proposed "mandating a clause in all federal
contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract."
How is this bad? How does this relate to Sharia law? Basically, if you are working for the Government on a $1MM+ contract, you can’t lobby….
Paul opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless searches and breach of individual privacy.
Every true American representative should oppose this draconian legislation down to their core.
Economics and tax cuts
Paul has been a longtime opponent of the bank and auto industry bailouts.
He also opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the money supply and interest rates. He has advocated allowing
the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports Congress' constitutional role in controlling the money supply. Paul endorses H.R. 1207, the
Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bill, introduced by his father, mandating an audit of the Federal Reserve. Although Paul would abolish the
Federal Reserve, he supports transparency and accountability of the semi-private institution. Additionally, Paul opposes inflation and supports
"restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913".
Paul supports tax cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment, and has criticized both Republicans and Democrats on deficit spending.
In October 2010 the Kentucky coordinator for Americans For Fair Taxation stated that Paul would "vote for the FairTax", which would replace federal
income taxes with a 23% national consumption tax and includes rebate provisions for taxes on all money spent up to the poverty line. The Associated
Press confirmed with a representative of the Paul campaign that the statement fairly reflected Paul's position, but the next day Paul distanced
himself from the proposal, saying that while he supports tax reform in general, he hasn't committed to the proposal, adding that it is "a little
complicated to administer" and that "it would probably work better at the state level than the national."
In case you haven’t been paying attention, the Federal Reserve is at the core of ALL our monetary and economic woes. A elastic, fiat currency is
what has allowed us to get into the debt we are in now. In case you didn’t know, the Federal Reserve isn’t even a Government institute, it is a
private bank that we pay interest to and give them the privilege of printing our currency, a power given to our Government in Article 1 Section 8 of
the US Constitution. Why should we be paying a private bank to print something that the Government has the power and authority to do?
I disagree with him on the FairTax, see this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education, but he says
that some functions of the Department of Education, such as disbursing student loans and Pell Grants, should be transferred to other departments
instead of being eliminated. Paul opposes federal regulation of homeschooling.
The federal government is doing a bang up job of educating our kids, aren’t they?
Despite increase in spending, student performance is flat…. BTW, where is Sharia in this one?
Paul supports allowing the free market to compete and dictate which forms of energy to use. He opposes subsidizing energy companies, and would
support allowing tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy such as wind, solar, or geothermal. He has said that subsidizing the energy
industry will only add incentive for companies to lobby the federal government.
Wow, progressive thinking for a Sharia loving Christian.
Paul opposes federal government involvement in health care. He would repeal the HMO Act of 1973 that "drives a wedge between the patient and [one's]
doctor". He believes that government has driven up the cost of health care and causes the quality and coverage to decrease. Paul would support a free
market approach to health care, including tax deductions for medical expenses. He opposes federal regulations discouraging businesses from providing
coverage. He supports Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). On Medicare, Paul has suggested higher deductibles as well as changes to premiums or eligibility
rules as ways to address what he sees as the program's looming financial problems, saying "You want to have more participation by the person who's
receiving the entitlement... by that I mean that they need to be more involved with some sort of economic transaction every time they use their
entitlement, and that means they have to bear more of the burden." Paul also stated that he does not support such changes for current retirees or
people nearing retirement.
I don’t see him proposing cutting off people’s hands here either.
Paul has proposed adding security to the border by installing an electronic fence and helicopter stations to respond to breaches. He opposes
birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. Paul has said that courts should review the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship
to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," to conclude whether or not it should apply to the children of illegal immigrants. If court
challenges fail, Paul would support a constitutional amendment that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the
What’s wrong with this?
Paul believes the issue of medical marijuana is a states' rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere. In August, the
Associated Press reported that Paul said he was opposed to the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, but the Paul campaign says he was
misquoted. Though Paul describes himself as a "social conservative," he was nonetheless described by the AP reporter as holding "libertarian leanings
on drugs" and believing some drug sentences were too harsh.
Yes, you are right, this is a very similar to the liquor stance of Sharia law
Foreign policy and national defense
Paul holds that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, and that the greatest national security threat is
the lack of border security. He supports eliminating issuance of visas to people from “about ten rogue nations.” He supports trying terrorists
caught on the battlefield in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Paul believes that when the United States goes to war, Congress must
declare war as mandated by the United States Constitution.
During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is "killing more terrorists than it creates." He supported the
war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq. He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the
intelligence was manipulated."
He also spoke against U.S. overseas military bases.
Agreed! Unless of course you LIKE war?
Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the States to decide.
Again, he said he’ll leave it to the States.
Paul would oppose all gun control legislation, a position he says is supported by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Great, it’s in there for a reason.
edit on 5/25/2011 by Finalized because: grammar and formatting