Detailed Response to this Article

I have written a part-by-part analysis of why I did not think this was a good article. You may read my general conclusion at the bottom, under the heading, "Re: Deconstructing Ron Paul". There is personal opinion mixed with Ron Paul quotes and Bogado quotes, I hope it isn't too confusing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aura Bogado is not simply writing an overview of Ron Paul's stances and career history; she is mixing and guiding it with her personal opinions and assumptions, frequently spouting off HER OPINIONS as though they were undenyable facts.

She starts off on the wrong foot in the introduction by writing, "And… oh yeah: he hates immigrants." The topic of immigrants is not addressed again until the end of the article, and she never can prove that he hates immigrants. This is an unsubstantiated attack.

Re: I Loves My Guns
I don't see what the big deal is about the 2nd Amendment. The police are going to have guns (and tasers), no matter what. Criminals are going to have guns, no matter what. Why should the law-abiding average citizens be the only ones unarmed?
And I'm not talking about some hunting rifles, and a pistol stored in a safe at home.

Ron Paul:
<"I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans form exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms.">
(taken from:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=662)


Hmmm, sounds like Thomas Jefferson was pretty fanatical about guns and the constitution, himself. I wonder why Bogado didn't quote Jefferson in this portion of her article?
Another good RP speech to read, given after the Virgina Tech shootings:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=509


So yes, Bogado is accurate in stating that Ron Paul "champions the cause to allow people to carry concealed firearms." But according to her, abiding by the Constitution in principle and in process is ridiculous when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. I assume she feels we should toss out this Amendment, and that the right to bear arms SHOULD be infringed.

Re: Paul and the Christian Right

Ron Paul does not OPPOSE the "separation of church and state", as Bogado claims. He opposes the misinterpretation and abuse of the 1st Amendment by the misuse of this non-Constitutional phrase.

Ron Paul:
<"I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.">
Taken from:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=641


Bogado only quoted part of the 1st amendment. The somewhat recent ideas on this topic both prohibit the free exercise of religion and abridge freedom of speech. Again, Ron Paul supports the Constitution.

"IF" Ron Paul opposed this "separation" then, as a Christian, I would assume that he would want the government to mandate Christianity as the right and only religion and outlaw all others. But that is not his position!

As far as evolution and intelligent design in the classroom:
First of all, evolution is a THEORY. It can't be proven. In other countries it is taught as a fact, but it is not. It seems that, as such, any other theories may also be presented. If there are 12 theories, then perhaps all 12 should be presented in school. Bogado said, "Intelligent design may have its place in church, on the street or at home, but in terms of science, it doesn't propose any hypotheses which can be tested through experiment; it's simply not science." Sorry, but evolution can't be tested through experiment, either. Then again, maybe it can - but as we are still waiting to see one creature evolve into an entirely different, more intelligent creature, then we'll have to hold our judgement until that happens.

Bogado also said, "Teachers should certainly not be forced to teach right-wing conservative Christian ideals about God in any classroom." But then again, why should they be forced to teach left-wing liberal ideals against God? This is a pretty subjective area. It seems appropriate to inform students, "Here are some theories, and there are people out there who believe these different theories. We can't prove any of them." That's because it is a fact that they are theories, and it is a fact that there are people who believe in evolution, and it is a fact that there are people who believe in intelligent design.

Bogado is wrong when she says real scientists dismiss the concept of intelligent design. There aren't hoardes of them, to be sure - but it is also a problem that people interested in Science are, in essence, forced into the evolutionary premise, otherwise they aren't taken seriously. Due to this, students pursuing Science usually must choose either to abandon their intelligent design interests or else abandon their studies.
Here is an interesting USA Today dialogue between a conservative and a liberal on this topic:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-30-common-ground_x.htm


Abortion:
Ron Paul is not only a pro-lifer, he is also an M.D. who has delivered over 4000 babies and never performed an abortion. He does want Roe vs. Wade overturned, but that is because of his belief in the Constitution, as he feels this is the right of the States, not the federal government.

Some of Ron Paul's thoughts on this topic:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=114


Yes, "Under Paul's proposal, States could CONCEIVABLY pass laws that bar women from obtaining abortions, including in cases of rape or incest, and even when the woman's life is at risk." (emphasis mine) They could also pass laws that don't do that. You'd probably have varied results from the States. This is a somewhat risky move on the part of conservatives, too! Pro-lifers would typically prefer a candidate who would try to have abortion completely banned, federally.
It would seem that this is a tenuous situation for both viewpoints -- however, as it is based on following the Constitution, it seems reasonable, even though the outcome is unknown.

Homosexual marriage:
Sticky subject, of course, but it comes back to the Constitution and balance of power. I don't think his "careful wording" is a "camouflage." He doesn't keep his personal view hidden. If this issue is at all a concern, people who do a little research can quickly realize his position.

Ron Paul:
<"Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty.">
Taken from:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=590


AGAIN, this isn't necessarily something that will make either the right or the left happy, and again, the states would probably decide in different directions. This isn't exactly the move that those against homosexual marriage would like to take, either.

Re: Affirmative What?
Bogado is assuming (and wrongly) when she says, "Paul seems to want to go back to the times when racial segregation was the norm and the law."

Ron Paul:
<"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, EVEN THOSE WHOSE ACTIONS DECENT PEOPLE FIND ABHORRENT, must be respected if we are to maintain a FREE society."
"...WHILE I JOIN the sponsors of H.Res. 676 IN PROMOTING racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."> (emphasis mine)
Taken from:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html


<"All rights are individuals. We do not get our rights because we belong to a group. Whether it's homosexuals, women, minorities, it leads us astray. You don't get your rights belonging to your group. A group can't force themselves on anybody else. So there should be no affirmative action for any group."
"This violates the principle on the importance of the individual, and confuses us about the importance of individual rights, which is the purpose of the Constitution. Defend our individual rights.">
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Bogado says, "Paul conveniently ignores the truth that individuals from the white group are treated one way and individuals from the people of color group are treated another way." Paul does NOT ignore the fact that we aren't yet a completely color-blind society, where all people are treated equally. He's all too aware of this and he thinks bigotry/racism is a sin:
<"Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations."
"Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.">
Taken from:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=508


Regarding the quotes regarding "95% of African-American people" and "animals", I could not find them in their original context, I would be interested in doing so.
It would seem that these could easily be taken out of context. It seems that the 95% quote was his view of a report that had been published, and that statement may have been merely an observation of said report, or even perhaps part of a criticism of the report.

I do think that Bogado's assertion of "It's easy for Paul to dismiss affirmative action as something that violates individual liberty, but what hides behind that is the fact that he is a hate-spewing presidential candidate aligned with some of the most blatant, odious racists on the planet." is an unmerited attack.

Let's see... presidential donations. Each of these people gets millions given to them by tens of thousands of people in small increments through the mail, over the phone, and through the internet. It's not like some KKK guys are eating lunch all buddy-buddy with Paul and then handing him a big fat check. That most of these candidates will receive some money from some people that they don't agree with or even want supporting them is just something that will happen. The fact that some terrible weirdos gave him some money doesn't mean that he is of the same mind! The other candidates have gotten some dough from strange people, and questionable organizations, too. For that matter, it is possible that some of these donations were suggested or encouraged by opposition in order to make Ron Paul look bad. I don't think it's possible for any candidate to "chase away" all the "undesirable" supporters, and I don't notice the other candidates going out of their way to tell people NOT to support them.

Re: More "American" than You and I
I don't see how the terms "illegal alien", "illegal immigrant" and "illegals" can be put in the same category as slurs such as "beaner", "spic" and "wetback." But Bogado says, "Not surprisingly, Paul offensive terms like "illegal alien", "illegal immigrant" or plain-old "illegals" when referring to human beings who live in the United States without proper documentation. Besides "beaner", "spic" and "wetback", I cannot immediately think of other words that approximate the bigotry that these terms are loaded with."
I'm just not sure why calling a person who has illegally immigrated into a country an "illegal immigrant" is offensive. Bogado admits that "nearly all presidential candidates and even well-meaning everyday people continue to use these terms", so I would like to know what terms she deems to be politically correct.

Here we learn her main problem with Ron Paul's use of these terms - apparently she has decided "that Paul is not well-meaning when it comes to the undocumented."
Okay, so apparently I should say "The Undocumented" now. That term could apply to a lot of other things besides immigration issues, so that could be confusing.

She tells us that Paul is "not well-meaning". In her next paragraph, she says, "While addressing a group of supporters, Paul claimed that in terms of work ethic, some undocumented workers "are more American than some of us.""
That looks like a compliment to "the undocumented". So now she brings up the problem of how United States citizens call themselves Americans, when technically all the people of North and South America are considered Americans. This is a problem of terminology. Frankly, Ron isn't alone. That term is in wide use. Last time I checked, we ARE called Americans. People from the Republic of Singapore are called Singaporeans. People from Canada are called Canadians. People from the United States of America aren't called United Statesians. People in most foreign countries also think of U.S. citizens when they say "Americans." I know people from Canada and South America get irritated with this, but I ask: What other term should Ron have used in this context?
Perhaps a grammar or semantics expert could tell me.

Okay, so the USA doesn't have an untarnished history. That's not news, and it's certainly not Ron Paul's fault. None of us were alive back in the 1400s, or even the 1800s.

As to immigration issues themselves, I haven't made up my mind. It IS important. Here are several articles and statements from Ron:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5


There doesn't seem to be any clear, cut-and-dry ONE right way to address this situation - that's why it's under such debate. Bogado certainly has a strong interest in one side that could understandably influence her viewpoint. That does not make her either right or wrong. It's complicated, and Ron Paul may not have the best solution.
However, I don't feel this wording is fair: "Paul's scheme (like so many of his others) is completely absurd."
COMPLETELY absurd? I don't think so, and Ron Paul and I certainly are not alone.

Re: Deconstructing Ron Paul

This is where I find the main problem. Bogado summarizes:
"Ron Paul is a free market capitalist who doesn't care for the rights of workers or the poor; he is a gun-loving friend of the NRA, he is a radical Christian conservative who thinks that school prayer and intelligent design have a God-given place in public schools, that a woman's right to choose should be crushed, and that same-sex marriage is repugnant; he is a Congressman that has voted against affirmative action and thinks that desegregation somehow violated the Constitution; and he is a candidate that hates immigrants."

Here she weaves a conclusion of her earlier discussion that weaves some truth with some assumptions, slander, and mistruths.
"Ron Paul... doesn't care for the rights of workers or the poor"??
"he... thinks that desegregation somehow violated the Constitution"??
"he is a candidate that hates immigrants"??

I think these are unfounded and unsubstantiated statements.
As far as I can tell, Ron Paul DOES care for the rights of works and the poor. Can Bogado look into Ron Paul's heart and mind? Has he made direct statements she can quote that tell us precisely that he doesn't care?
The earlier discussion was about affirmative action, not desegregation. I am sure Ron Paul is a firm believer in desegregation, as he affirms the rights of ALL people regardless of race.
He "hates immigrants"?! Please! She pulled this one out of the air. Again, can Bogado see into Ron Paul's heart? Does she know his every thought? Has he professed to hate them? She may perceive his concern and suggested plan of action for the welfare of the United States of America and the consequences (real and theoretical) of "the undocumented" illegal immigrants to that country as "hate" but that is NOT proof.

IN CONCLUSION, there is some truth contained within this article, but the ad hominem attacks, decontextualization and misinterpretation of Dr. Ron Paul's statements and actions is why I did not care for this article. Bogado quotes Thomas Jefferson when it is convenient to her, and disregards him in the same vein. She seems to disagree with (or at least not affirm) all of the Constitution and its Amendments. So it looks like she is a "constitutionalist" only when it suits her; whereas Ron Paul seems willing to follow the Constitution for the good of the country, even when it may not be the most advantageous to his personal convictions.


The only "hate-spewing" around here seems to be from Bogado towards Ron Paul. But that's somehow okay, isn't it?? Tweet