tagged w/ SICK OF THIS TOPIC ON CURRENT
It's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you're a total slave to the police state, it doesn't really matter whether you're on the left or the right, does it?
Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don't worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor is the principles that Ron Paul stands for -- the very same principles President Obama has outright abandoned in his broken promises and disturbing reversals against the American people. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has the ethical and moral strength to carry out his office from a place of principle rather than betrayal.
#1) Ron Paul supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs. Obama does not.
Remember when Obama promised he would decriminalize marijuana, but now his own administration continues to raid legal drug dispensaries in California? That's a classic Obama lie: Say one thing to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, openly supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the failed War on Drugs. Although he doesn't promote recreational drug use (and neither do I), he understands that treating weed smokers as hard-core criminals is ethical, morally and economically wrong. See my related article on Snoop Dogg and his recent drug bust in Texas: http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_S...
#2) Ron Paul supports the freedom to choose what you eat and drink, including raw milk, but the Obama administration continues to run armed raids on raw milk farmers
Under Ron Paul, the FDA would be forced to end its vicious armed raids on Amish farmers and raw dairy producers. Obama has openly allowed such armed raids to continue under his watch, refusing to even take a stand for food freedom in America.
Ron Paul understands that liberty is the most important component of abundance. If you are not free to choose what you want to eat, smoke what you want to smoke, and choose your own type of medicine and health care, then you are a slave, not a citizen. Ron Paul seeks to get Big Government out of your life, away from your kitchen, out of your medicine cabinet and away from your children.
#3) Ron Paul would seek to eliminate FDA censorship of the scientifically-validated health claims for herbs, nutritional supplements and natural remedies
Under Bush and Obama, the FDA's continued censorship of truthful statements about medicinal herbs, homeopathy and nutritional supplements has been fully supported by the White House. Obama is just a corporate puppet, of course, and that means he does whatever the powerful corporations tell him to do -- especially the Wall Street and Big Pharma corporations. So it's no surprise he hasn't taken a stand to support health freedom for foods and supplements.
But Ron Paul has pushed the Health Freedom Protection Act year after year (http://www.naturalnews.com/019382_H...), tirelessly working to legalize nutrition in America and restore Free Speech for Chinese Medicine herbs, Western medicine herbs and dietary supplements. Where Obama wants people to remain ignorant and malnourished, Ron Paul wants to restore your right to know the truth about supplements and natural medicine. As Ron Paul said in late 2005:
"The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease."
#4) Ron Paul would shut down secret military prisons like Gitmo, but Obama wants to expand those prisons and fill them with Americans!
It is now common knowledge that Obama lied when he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay. As it turns out, Obama actually signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) on New Year's Eve (when no one would notice). The NDAA grants the U.S. government the claimed "legal" right to "indefinitely detain" U.S. citizens, throw them in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them with no due process. All this can now take place without a person even being charged with a crime, much less given their day in court. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_N...)
Obama quietly signed this bill on New Year's Eve, hoping no one would notice. This is how low his morals have stooped, by the way -- to signing traitorous bills in the dark of night, on the evening before a major holiday where half the nation is hung over from alcohol. Why no signing ceremony with full coverage by CNN, huh? Maybe it's because national traitors don't want their crimes against the United States Constitution to be filmed on camera.
In signing this, Obama violated his own oath of office, nullified the U.S. Bill of Rights, and essentially committed an act of mass civil rights violations against the People of America. Rep. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of the very few people who has openly and sternly opposed this unlawful NDAA which blatantly and arrogantly violates the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
This single point alone outweighs everything else you might think about Ron Paul. Even if you disagree with Ron Paul on other issues, none of that really matters if you're rotting away in a secret military prison for daring to protest in a public park, for example. Without the Bill of Rights, nothing else really matters because tyranny takes over. The Bill of Rights must be defended first and at all costs. It is the only thing limiting the power of government and protecting the People from tyranny. Without it, we are all little more than slaves to a military dictatorship.
#5) Ron Paul is anti-war, Obama is pro-war.
Remember when Bush was the President, and everybody on the left was screaming about getting us out of all those wars in the Middle East? Funny how they suddenly fell silent when Obama took over the reins from Bush and continued running those same wars, isn't it?
Ron Paul is solidly anti-war. Although he agrees with the need to "defend our shores," he also believes that the United States has no moral authority (nor financial stability) from which to engage in running around the world as some sort of global police force, intervening in the business of nations, especially in the Middle East.
He is solidly against a war with Iran even as all the other candidates seem to be almost desperate to throw other people's sons and daughters onto the front lines of violent conflict. Only Ron Paul truly honors the troops by bringing them home. All the other war-mongers who say "support our troops" are really screaming, "Let our troops get killed overseas!" And unlike Gingrich, Ron Paul actually served his country as a military man, even with a child to care for:
(+5 more @ link)
http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.htmlIt's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals... more
A court in the Follo suburb of Oslo (Norway) sentenced a Muslim girl to pay 10,000 kroner in fines and 1,500 in court costs for having hit a fellow student for something she said.
The two former students at Ås secondary school disagree on what was said and by whom on that April day in 2008.
The Muslim girl was eating with a friend in the classroom. The other girl supposedly turned and said "I will piss on the Koran".
In court the other girl denied she'd said that, and that she had said that if it had been a graduation celebration prank-assignment to piss on the Koran, she would have done it.
The two disagree on what happened next as well. The non-Muslim girl says that the Muslim girl said "I will piss on the Bible".
The Muslim girl denies that and says she answered "It's not allowed to say something like that - it's a holy book". Later she admitted to the court that she said "I'll piss on you."
After recess that two went into the classroom. At the end of class the teacher noticed that the Muslim girl was crying. After hearing the story the teacher said that they won't make more out of it.
The two girls had no contact with each other during class. Right after class, the Muslim girl went up to the other girl and hit her in the face. The court didn't get a clear answer on how many punches there were and whether it was with a fist or not. The victim got a red mark on her cheek.
The Follo court says that the Muslim girl saw the statement about pissing on the Koran as both insulting and hurtful, but that the statement couldn't be considered defamation. Therefore, the girl's anger can't be justified by the law.
According to the non-Muslim student, they sat together and spoke in the classroom about the graduation festivities and then she said it. It wasn't meant to be insulting. When she came home crying with a red mark on her cheek, the father contacted the police.
The Muslim student will not appeal the decision, but she thinks it's unjust.
"Regardless of which county I was in, I wouldn't have done anything of what she did. I don't want somebody saying 'I will piss on the Koran'. When we read in the Koran, we wash our hands and cover parts of the body before we take the book, since it's a holy book. I have nothing against the Bible. I said that I respect her. Please resepct me," says the girl.
She thinks she did nothing wrong. "I didn't hit so hard, but so that she'll learn a lesson. I had warned her several times. I've lived in Norway for six years, I have never done anything wrong and followed all the laws in the country. But when somebody says they will piss on the Koran, I will hit," she says.
Yet she doesn't blame her 18-year old fellow student. "It isn't her fault, but (rather) her parents who should have raised her properly.
According to the principal, he had spoken to each girl separately and then they both met in his office together with a teacher to speak about it. They didn't want to be in the same class, but he couldn't accept that. He also got each one to apologize to the other, and as far as he knew, the case was closed.A court in the Follo suburb of Oslo (Norway) sentenced a Muslim girl to pay 10,000... more
Teresa says that she was harassed by other players and later suspended from XBOX Live because she identified herself as a lesbian in her profile. When she appealed to Microsoft, she says they told her that other gamers found her sexual orientation "offensive."
I just recently saw a thing on your site about someones gamer tag being banned because it had the word gay in the tag.
I had a similar incident, only my account was suspended because I had said in my profile that I was a lesbian. I was harassed by several players, 'chased' to different maps/games to get away from their harassment. They followed me into the games and told all the other players to turn me in because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap.
As if xbox live is really appropriate for kids anyways! My account was suspended and xbox live did nothing to solve this, but instead said others found it offensive.
Today I received a message from another gamer calling me a fag. I am a lesbian, so they aren't too smart if they cant get their anti-gay slurs right.
Microsoft does nothing to stop this or prevent it, but instead sides with the homophobes. No one will help me get the word out about Microsoft's anti-gay policy. Not even the HRC who says Microsoft has a positive image with them. Not to me it doesn't!
We've heard of gamers being suspended for identifying themselves as gay in their GamerTag, and even one case of a guy whose name was actually "Richard Gaywood" but his tag was suspended anyway because apparently the word "gay" is so offensive that it doesn't matter if its actually your name.
As far as we know, Microsoft is unwilling to reconsider this position.Teresa says that she was harassed by other players and later suspended from XBOX Live... more
“Fifty years ago in America, we lived in a society where Christian assumptions were largely taken for granted,” said D’Souza. “Even someone who wasn’t a believer might accept the authority of the Ten Commandments and that Jesus was a great, moral teacher.”
But we are no longer living in the 1950s.
“Today, those Christian assumptions cannot be taken for granted,” D’Souza said. “Moreover, in the past few years, we have seen something rather surprising. And that is, for the first time, atheism has become a real option in our society—particularly for young people.”
D’Souza attributes this to what he calls “a new atheism.”
“It’s very different from the atheism of the past. We’ve had atheism in America for a very long time, but a generation ago atheism was not something with mass appeal. Moreover, the atheism of the past had a narrow agenda—to police the boundaries of Church and state. In other words, they said, ‘If you wanted to practice your faith, do it in private.’ “
That, D’Souza said, is no longer the case.
“The new atheism is different in that it attacks belief in the private sphere. Its goal is to eradicate, demolish and discredit Christianity. Many atheists want to make each and every Christian feel like a complete idiot.”
Ouch! Yet that's a sentiment I hear so frequently here on Current- the idea that the only thing on the Atheist's to-do list is make religious people feel bad.
Atheists, is this true for you? What is your "atheist agenda"?
Religious people- is this how you feel?
What do both sides want in order to be able to coexist peacefully? Is it possible?“Fifty years ago in America, we lived in a society where Christian assumptions... more
"Rather than return fire at atheists or get defensive and caustic, The Journey’s senior pastor, the Rev. Darrin Patrick, decided to explore the nature of doubt with his congregation.
He’s asking the church’s 2,300 members to be honest about their own skepticism and doubts about Christianity and is encouraging them to meet atheists halfway.
"Why are skeptics hostile to Christians and Christians hostile to skeptics?" Patrick asked in an interview. "We have to learn to live together rather than setting up straw-man arguments and portraying each other as caricatures."
On a recent Sunday, Patrick encouraged his congregation to go see Religulous and assured them he would, too. Church officials play a short video of atheists and skeptics they’ve interviewed making thoughtful points about unbelief, or questioning the nature of a certain Christian theology or doctrine."
There is a lot more to the article, but I thought these pieces were really compelling. Atheism, religion, atheism vs religion, etc has been getting a lot of hype lately- maybe it's the holiday season, or maybe more atheists are "coming out".
Either way, religious people are going to have to deal with the fact that there are people who don't believe in god, and that being skeptical of religious dogma is not only OK, but common- even for believers! Atheists will have to deal with the fact that calling religion stupid and being disrespectful will not make people give up god or even hear their POV.
We can be on different 'sides' for the sake of debate, but at the end of the day we all share this planet together, and what is important is not what god you believe in or if you have faith, but how you treat those around you and influence the world."Rather than return fire at atheists or get defensive and caustic, The... more
If you live in the United States, you are almost certainly friends with at least one atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever, skeptic, or unaffiliated humanist, whether you know it or not. And your friend almost certainly endures prejudice and unequal treatment, whether you know it or not. And your friend is roughly as decent, good, loyal, honest, courageous, and generous as your other friends, and you know it.
Those who get along without God are not lynched or stoned in this country, but neither do they have equal rights or acceptance. They encounter prejudice and cruelty on a personal level often. They pay taxes that support "faith based" programs and discriminatory organizations, as well as proselytization in the military, they see religion and religious based pseudo-science imposed on their children in public schools, and the stigma attached to their free-mindedness restricts their participation in public life. There are probably 20 atheists in Congress, but only one who admits it, and he won't use the word. President Obama's parents were both atheists, whether or not they used that word for it, and he got along fine without religion but would not have gone far in politics had he not adopted it.
There is a parallel in the campaign for equal rights for atheists with the campaign for equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people, but it is inexact. The more atheists can come out of the closet, the more they will be accepted, and the more they will then be willing to come out of the closet, etc. But, unlike the myth of gay proselytization, there really is a significant danger / promise that in opening society to atheism, more people will be converted to atheism who were never atheists before. From a broad view of society this would likely be a good thing. Less religious nations than ours tend to be more charitable, less violent, less accepting of suffering at home or abroad, and less prone to war. But from the point of view of the religious proselytizer, there is a danger here that is more real than the danger the "gay agenda." A closer analogy is the danger that accepting African Americans might lead to your child marrying one. Fortunately, fewer and fewer Americans view that as a danger. But check out this statistic: A 2003 survey asked Americans what group they would not want their child to marry a member of. Twenty-seven percent said African-American, 34 percent said Muslim, and 48 percent said atheist.
The strange thing is that while there are more non-theists now in the United States than gays, Hispanics, Jews, and perhaps African Americans, there is less of a movement on their behalf. One problem is, of course, the greater stigma and prejudice. Another is that atheists look exactly like everyone else. But a movement is growing, and the relatively newly formed Secular Coalition for America (http://secular.org ) is leading the way. Seventy-five percent of secularists who voted, voted for Obama, so alliances are likely with Democrats, as opposed to Republicans.
Are you friends with an atheist? Are you aware of discrimination against atheists?If you live in the United States, you are almost certainly friends with at least one... more
"If you walk around Washington, D.C., on a regular basis, you’re likely to see some rather peculiar posters. But you won’t see anything more peculiar than the ads put out by the American Humanist Association. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake,” say the signs, in Christmas-colored red and green.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Just be good for goodness’ sake. You don’t need some Big Man in the Sky telling you what to do. You can be a wonderful person simply by doing the right thing.
There’s only one problem: without God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.
That’s because a Godless world is a soulless world. Virtually all faiths hold that God endows human beings with the unique ability to choose their actions—the ability to transcend biology and environment in order to do good.
Atheism may work for individuals. There are moral atheists and there are immoral religious people. But as a system of thought, atheism cannot be the basis for any functional state. If we wish to protect freedom and equality, we must understand the value of recognizing God. We must recognize the flame of divinity—free will—He implanted within each of us."
I posted this because I disagree very much with most of it. The idea that in order to have free will, there must be god, is the type of logic that makes people with any sense at all shake their fist to the sky.
I beg of all of you: THINK. Think about how society has changed, about how our laws and cultural acceptance of things have changed. WE, people, humanity, determine morality.
Atheists are obviously capable of morals. If you don't think so, get to know a few. See how they act, what their jobs are, how they raise their families. I think you would be surprised to see that *gasp*- most of us are just living our lives, doing what we think is right. Where did we learn morals? Perhaps from our families, our cultures, perhaps from observing society and coming to conclusions through reason and logic.
The only part of this opinion piece I DID agree with is "But as a system of thought, atheism cannot be the basis for any functional state." - Atheism is NOT a "system of thought"- it is simply the DISBELIEF in god/gods/deitys/supernatural entities. It is not a religion, set of beliefs or guideline on how to live. Atheists choose their philosophies and ideologies individually. But one thing is for sure: our viewpoint deserves respect, and to call us all 'morally bankrupt' is not only offensive but simply wrong."If you walk around Washington, D.C., on a regular basis, you’re likely to... more