As for your ten reasons for not voting for Ron Paul, I find them to be a little short sighted and in line with current propaganda.  As for your first about affirmative action, did you ever think that it actually causes more discrimination?  It means discrimination against those who are not minorities.  Discrimination against any race or religion is not allowed by the Constitution, therefore bills that allow special treatment to one race, ie accepting enrollment for a Hispanic over a black or white to meet a quota is discriminating.  I support him on this stance.  Everyone should have an equal chance for jobs and enrollment into colleges.  As for not allowing citizenship to babies born of illegal parents, I have to agree with this as well because of the burden it puts on our system.  We end up footing the bills for these children and the families that are here illegally.  There is a legal way to enter this country and you must respect the law of our land to enter here.  Breaking this initial requirement states that you will not respect any of the rules we have and place a greater burden on our society through police, prison, and courts.  We end up footing the bill again.  We have many individuals, including my husband, who come over here legally and provide a positive benefit to our society with out making themselves a burden, these immigrants are from all over the world.  I support Ron Paul in stopping this illegal burden on our society.  My advice is for you to do more research on this issue to have a better understanding of this problem. There are a lot more facets to it than what we are lead to believe.

On your second point about going against woman's rights in overturning Roe vs Wade, is mistaken.  That entire court case was staged to further erode woman's rights and the family.  I'm not sure what medical and scientific information you are referring to, so I can only assume that you are referring to government and pharmaceutical information in your statement.  Being that Dr. Ron Paul was an ob/gyn and delivered over 4000 babies, I would tend to take his medical word on the subject over those.  I would also have to include my own experience being that I have given birth to 2 children and had a miscarriage.  Life begins at conception, and there is no doubt in my mind about that as I have gone through the experience.  Ask any loving mother and I am sure yo will get the same response.  In regards to asking people, why don't you ask some woman about their experience with abortion?  Those are some pretty telling stories as well.  Aside from that though, take a look at the ramifications of this decision.  The break down in the family responsibility of such decisions is sad.  Woman feel that they don't have to be responsible for their bodies, that they have to fight against it, against the monthly curse, the inconvenience of getting pregnant.  Men are not expected to be part of the conception process, they are not expected to be responsible for their actions in this regard either.  Let me tell you that when I was dating my husband he impressed the hell out of me when he stated that he was responsible and part of the process of conceiving children.  No man I had dated from here had ever taken that stance.  Now before you state oh you are one of those pro-lifers, you are wrong.  My whole stance has been that it is the woman's choice and it should never be the governments decision on what I do with my body.  When I heard Dr. Ron Paul state that in all his years of delivering babies he never once came across a reason for the mother to abort the child.  I did my research on the subject again because I realized I needed more information.  What I discovered sadden me because I saw a whole lot of support missing for these woman and seeing a system that did not respect the woman nor the dignity of life.  What I had been told about the issue was wrong. Ron Paul stated was right the government should not be involved at all.

On your third piece, do you realize that the federal minimum wage actual inhibits employers from paying a decent wage?  They can get a way with paying a worker the minimum wage and not have the problem of being discriminatory?  It interferes with the market for setting fair and reasonable/competitive wages.  The government should not be involved in regulating businesses as it creates irresponsibility  in those businesses.  They don't have to worry about creating a relationship with their employees, customers or community.  Hence all the problems we have currently with big businesses, ie when was the last time you received real customer service for a problem?  When was the last time you experienced a company taking responsibility for their error? When was the last time you saw a company being loyal to their employees who keep their business going? Ron Paul supports the working class because he wants to end government involvement in businesses and he wants to end unnecessary reductions in your pay to the IRS and social security.  Yes he will freeze it because he needs to take care of those that are currently involved in the system, but he doesn't think it is right that young people have to keep paying into the system that doesn't work.  We should be educated enough to plan for our own future in the way we see fit and not have it dictated to us.  I don't want to pay the bills for someone else, that is forcing me to work for them.  I want to work for myself and my family, and put the money where I see fit to put it.  If my mom or dad gets too old and needs help I will be there for them, I don't expect some stranger to dole out their money for them.  Ron Paul wants to put the money back in our pockets where it belongs.  Let us make our decisions about our charity and our work.

On your next point about tax, this one is complicated.  However, to get to the point we should not be paying income tax.  The constitution doesn't allow it.  Our income is our property because that is what we exchange for our hard work and efforts.  We have taxes on gas, food, and lots of other things.  From what I remember of some of the cursory things I have read on Ron Paul's stance regarding tax, I still support him because he looks to remove the income tax and the IRS.  I do admit I have not read enough on this one, but it is only because of he stance on the IRS and income tax, and I respect his judgment on the other taxes.  He has not once failed to uphold the Constitution in the bills he has proposed and those ones he voted against.

On point five, these things only continue to inhibit the free market and the natural regulation that would come out of these.  Again this is misinformation, and I think companies would find ways to to positively impact the environment if the government did not have their hands in the business.  All the regulations stifle the innovation of the company to find good solutions to the problems. I think if businesses were held accountable for their misuses there wouldn't be an issue.  Let the people worried about a certain area sit down with the developers and find a good solution to address the needs.  You cut people out of the process, you let a government agency that plays favorites in on it and you are destined to end up with abuses.  Leave it local and let the people handle because they know their area best.

On point 6 you are incorrect.  Our image in the rest of the world is horrible and increasing daily by our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and our continued bullying of other countries.  They want us out of their countries and to leave them alone!  Ron Paul would change that image one hundred and eighty degrees.  We would have a President that adheres to the Constitutional stance of Non-Interventionism, and countries would be allowed to solve their own problems, and we could solve our own.  We could be friends and at peace.  That is what is Ron Paul would bring to our image.  Finally a positive image after all these years of the bad presidents.  Have you been out of the USA lately? Have you traveled at any time to other countries?  I would guess by your comment that you have not.  I have and I have experienced first hand how they dislike us because of our foreign policies.  With Ron Paul as our president traveling abroad would not be an issue. As regards to the UN, it is corrupt and does not help as much as it supposed to, do some research on it.  In addition, the UN takes away our sovereignty guaranteed by the Constitution.  I agree that we should be out of the UN.  You mentioned that President Clinton signed a treaty with International Criminal Court.  According to our Constitution the Congress is only allowed to sign a treaty, did Clinton have the backing of congress on this?  I doubt it, so it is illegal.  It also trumps our judicial system which is not allowed by the Constitution.  Try to remember that all of Ron Paul's stance tie to the Constitution because that is where our congressmen and president and judicial branch are supposed to be getting their instruction on how to handle things. Not making it up as they see fit.  As for him blocking the dismantling the ballistic missiles in the US, I agree we should be able to protect ourselves. However, the larger picture is needed here, and I'm not sure I can correctly convey it.  In my opinion, if everyone stopped meddling in each others affairs, the elitist that are trying to garner every inch of power and money are shut down and people are left to their lives I think things would be a lot more peaceful between all countries and the UN would not be needed.  We do not need to clump every single nation under one government because it shuts out the individual, ignores the beauty of different cultures, and undermines freedom.  The UN is about control and the control they wish only creates more conflicts and this is proven by the continued problems all over. 

As for point 7, he does not discriminate against these people, he respects the right to individual choices as long as it does not harm others.  The government should not be involved in a person life and dictating what constitutes a marriage is getting involved where it should not be.  Marriages used to be handle by the churches alone, why has that changed?  Why do we need a legal status for a marriage?  It does help them get more taxes from us.  Marriage between two people should be a family affair and with the Church if the couple so chooses.  It should not be dictated by the government and there is no where in the Constitution that it states they have the right to define it.  Again refer back to the Constitution and you will find Ron Paul's stance on this is completely in line with it.

Your next point about an unnatural obsession with guns, seems to be lacking in the information department as well.  The Constitution states clearly that every individual is allowed to bear arms.  It is a form of protection.  It is not guns that kill, it is people.  Crime rate is low in areas that criminals know the citizens can protect themselves.  It used to be respected in this country carrying a gun and knowing how to use it properly, I don't think there was many problems as we have now back then.  Again it is propaganda that is being used on this one to get people to give up their right to protect themselves from harm.  Sorry the police can not be there in time and that has been proven.  Gun laws only succeed in taking them away from law abiding citizens, putting them in the hands of the criminal and giving the criminal carte blanche to go on a crime spree.  Wouldn't you feel safer if you knew that most of the population knew how to handle a gun properly and you could defend your family immediately if someone went wacky?  Check into Switzerland, I believe, were every citizen is armed, their crime rate is very low if it exists.  Gun laws only make citizens feel they can't protect themselves and more dependent on the government which doesn't really have any interest in protecting them.  Gun laws only give the criminal element more freedom to commit crimes.  Please do some research on this and hopefully can come to understand this issue more clearly.  I plan to have my children go through gun safety classes and learn the proper uses for a gun.  I see Ron Paul's stance as a natural understanding of guns, and that the issue is not the guns, but the people.

In regards to point nine about the education system, did you ever think that it might actually be the governments involvement that has created the sad state of affairs for our schools?  Again this is the government going against the Constitution and involving itself in something that it should not be in.  They should not be dictating the structure of education because learning should not be a structured event.  It should be exploratory and the allow the children to grow at their pace.  Why suddenly in the last hundred years has it become necessary to try to control the information that children are learning?  Where does it makes sense to force a group of children to learn at the pace of the slowest in the class?  Where does it make sense to teach the children in the same boring fashion?  Where does it make sense to have children learn a series a facts without understanding the basis and the reasons for deriving those facts?  Why does learning have to be boring and only focused on achieving a certain performance level on a test?  The Department of Education is not outlined in the Constitution and is damaging our children's education, it needs to go.  Ron Paul's stance is to return the education back to the parents and the states where it belongs, not the federal government.  I agree.  I grew up with our eroding education system and I will not let my children go through what I did.  I will be homeschooling them.

Finally with your last point, again you are wrong and your information source is again suspect.  There has been an eroding of family values in this country because it is tied in with individual sovereignty and the erosion of that.  He believes that the Government should not be involved in religion, again in the Constitution there should not be a bias against a religion.  He believes that children should have all the facts in education to make up their own minds about what they believe.   religion has been driven from public view and scorned.  I am not against people having their own beliefs and nor is Ron Paul, but nor should any religion be scorned.  This reminds me of the issue with Muslims being allowed their prayer time at work and school, but if a "Christian" was seen praying in public they would be scorned, this is discrimination.  As for hating gays you are wrong about that, Ron Paul may not agree with their choices, but he recognizes their right to make those choices about their life.  In addition, Ron Paul is not trying to push his values on anyone, he is trying to protect our freedoms guaranteed to us through the constitution.The Constitution protects are right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Life begins at conception and should be protected from being taken by force by those that wish to control the population.  Once an individual is free from fear of their life being taken from outside forces they are liberated to pursue those things that make him happy as long as he does not force other people into harm or constraint or slavery. Goes back to that golden rule of do unto to others as you would have done unto you. 

All the points you list are full of misinformation and propaganda.  Please do some more research and look at all sides, not just what the government and their media outlets want you to know.  Big government does not work and it is proven by the current problems that we have.  Additional programs and laws will not resolve the issue we have today.  Returning to the Constitution, make those who have gone against it held accountable for their actions, and proceeding as the Constitution originally set out with a limited Federal government will resolves our problems.  Research the Constitution, read what it says about what the government is allowed and not allowed to do and you will see the Ron Paul has consistently voted according to the Constitution.  You will see the Ron Paul has been and continues to be a man of principle.  You will see that he respects individual sovereignty and our right and power to live how we see fit and that we are capable of taking care of ourselves.  He doesn't want to run our lives, and he has stated that on a number of occasions.  He wants the government out of pockets and out of our lives.  Please do more research before you go off half cocked on misinformation and propaganda. 

I have a million reasons to vote for Ron Paul, which includes his has the history of supporting the Constitution, his honesty, his integrity, his balanced budget (He is the only presidential candidate that is not in debt with his campaign), and his undying support for those individuals he represents in Congress and the rest of us by voting against those which would take away our freedom.  I will continue my unwavering support for him because he is the only candidate that is qualified for the position of President and the only one that will get us out of this mess we are in!

I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!

FALSE: Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. RON PAUL IS FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS – By separating people by their race, etc. you only CREATE hate. Also, the bills cited have SO MUCH more to them than what people think. Ron Paul is one of the ONLY Congressmen who actually read a bill before voting on it. The Patriot Act WASN’T EVEN AVAILABLE for ANYONE to read when it got voted on. Is that what you want? Your representatives voting on things they can’t even see???

FALSE: 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. – Ron Paul wants to give the PEOPLE the right to vote on what they want… not the government telling us what we should want or do.

FALSE: Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. – Ron Paul works for lower taxes and more rights for everyone.

FALSE: Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes. – That is completely FALSE. You REALLY need to do your OWN homework.

FALSE: Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. - That is completely FALSE. You REALLY need to do your OWN homework.

FALSE: A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations - That is completely FALSE. You REALLY need to do your OWN homework.

FALSE: Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. – The Advocate (A GLBT Magazine) writes positively about Ron Paul all the time.

FALSE: Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.  - That is completely FALSE. You REALLY need to do your OWN homework.

FALSE: Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. - That is completely FALSE. You REALLY need to do your OWN homework.

FALSE: Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. - That is completely FALSE. You REALLY need to do your OWN homework.

I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!

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.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.
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
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.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720
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
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.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US 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 US, 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.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154
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.
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 JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.
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?
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.”¹ 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.7955 Besides 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.

So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious.