Ron Paul on education

Abolish the department of Education?? Ridiculous! Or is it? Let's break this down....

1) The US Department of Education was formed in 1979. Can the United States exist without this department? YES! Some of you may have parents that went to school before the DoE, and now they managed to send you to college, didn't they? Henry Kravis didn't have the DoE meddling in his education, he's doing fine now.

2) Ron Paul wants to abolish the FEDERAL DoE. That means that every state can still have their own state DoE. Less schools for one department to manage= more efficient running of matters.

3) WHAT ABOUT FUNDING for poor schools????!! If you care so much, start cutting box tops off of your boxes. I do it, I send it to schools that I never went to. And now I am getting my mentee from Uncommon Good to do it. Bottom line: only YOU can make a difference.

4) What about funding in general? The really good schools will be fine with money. As for the bad schools, see above. For the students, there exist private loans and scholarships/ financial aid provided by schools as well as outside sources. To get more money for the school for financial aid, see above. Note that there are other ways for an institution to raise money as well. E.G The Montclair Mall is providing a very generous gift to a school if their students win a competition.

5) What if the kids and parents don't care enough to raise money? I am sick of caring for people that don't care. Why should I care if they don't care?! If one kid really cares, he will find dozens of ways by doing research on how he can get a better education.

6) The DoE was responsible for No Child Left Behind, adding billions to the federal deficit.

7) How will schools gain any credibility without DoE? Well, doesn't there exist private companies that write exams nationally for the schools? Doesn't there exist private companies such as the US World News Report that rank these schools?

Ron Paul on wedge issues

As a firm believer in separation of church and state, I do not believe that I should have a say in whether other people should or should not be able to get married. I do not believe that the government should have any say in who should and should not be able to get married, although I do believe that the government, OUR government, should protect the rights and liberties of all citizens. So call it what you want, but I do not want to have the right to prevent certain groups from gaining what other people take for granted- the privileges of civil unions (both gay and conventional unions). Note- I regard all "marriages" as a civil union unless it took place in a religious temple or church, because I believe that marriage is a religious issue, not a political one. This is exactly what Ron Paul is a firm believer of, which you will see in the video above.

Since we are talking about gay marriage, I want to talk briefly about gays in the military. Ron Paul supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell and so do I. Why? Not because we are not compassionate (I actually resent that stigma because most people don't bother to dig deeper into the problem) but because Don't Ask, Don't Tell removes the labeling of humans into gays and non-gays. Yes, be proud of who you are, but do not let one part of your identity define you as a whole person because there is so much more to everyone's story than just their sexual orientation. You can watch Ron Pual talk about gays in the military below:




With regards to abortion- it's simple. Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies throughout his career, and he understands the preciousness of life. He personally does not agree with abortion but he will fight for your liberty and your right to exercise choice. That is what I love about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, Churches and Healthcare

Tempted as I was to talk about other stuff (ie Ron Paul's appearance on The Daily Show!!!), let's take a moment to discuss politics in American churches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Am2bWQRNw

Ron Paul's stance on medicaid/medicare is simple: freedom is all about taking your own risks. Where did we get to the point when we become so reliant on the government taking care of every single person? When did taking care of our own welfare not become our responsibility? We are so dependent that we need the government to tell motorcyclists to wear helmets, and actually have to enforce rules like this? And if they refuse the wear helmet, it is the government's responsibility to take care of that idiot? Should they have to?

I like it when Ron Paul said that back when he was practicing medicine, before medicaid, when someone was hurt and could not take care of themselves, charities and churches were there to help, and they "never turned anyone away". That sounds very American to me. This sense of camaraderie should not have to come from the government, it should come from the community. A church or a house of worship is not necessarily preachy all the time, they are there to help people, and their ultimate goal is to teach others to help others!

The video does not show this, but Ron Paul eventually turns the tables on the person asking the questions and says that he hates that (the person asking the question) is insinuating that libertarians are not compassionate. We are, and that's why we want less people to get hurt from the inefficiency of the government. This is coming from someone who was exposed to the horrors of the NHS (nationalized healthcare in the UK)- trust me, all the good doctors will eventually flock to the private healthcare systems abroad and America will get stuck with sub-par medical care.

Ron Paul on Muslims

This is very refreshing; it seems Ron Paul is the only candidate these days willing to stick to his guns and say what is unpopular but true. Notice how he gets booed by teapartiers simply for quoting Al Qaeda's and Osama bin Laden's motives for the unfortunate attacks. I couldn't agree more with Ron Paul's statement that "we had been bombing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years, would you be annoyed? If you're not annoyed then there's some problem."

Earlier this week, Ron Paul condemned the killing of American born al-Awlaki, calling it "assassination". This was again, another unpopular view with the mainstream pro-corporation, pro-war media. I really like that Ron Paul's whole stance on Islam and the wars fits in and is consistent with his views during his 12 term as congressman. There is no flip-flopping or taking the easy way out, it seems there is someone here who is willing to say the unpopular and wants to make America the way it was, post World War I, when Americans refused to join the League of Nations as proposed by president Woodrow Wilson. Maybe you cannot be a complete isolationist these days because of globalization, but I am all for giving smaller nations breathing space- let them prosper, and America will prosper.