These sort of shotgun blast comments kind of frustrate me-- not because we disagree but because they come across as ill informed and just sort of shooting from the hip but with a great sense of self assurance. It also seems as though you didn't actually watch the videos before at least implicitly disagreeing with them. If that is incorrect I'm sorry, but you didn't actually interact with anything in them.
Re: "gay marriage" - Paul wants the civil government to be uninvolved in marriage at a federal level, period. He does not think the federal government has a role to play in sanctioning (or not) any marriages. Whether you agree with this or not, I can see no clear biblical case for the idea that marriage must be regulated by the state, much less the federal government, and I can see Paul's legal reasoning that the federal government has no clear constitutional authority to regulate marriage.
Re: drugs - Again, Paul is opposed to using drugs personally, but sees no warrant for the federal government to engage in a "war on drugs." While the Bible certainly forbids certain behaviors that can be caused or induced by some drugs, I see nothing in the Bible that would imply that the the civil authorities are obligated to legislate the use of particular substances, much less prohibit them, and certainly not at the highest levels of government. Further, the practice of rounding people up who do use particular substances and locking them in cages for years at the expense of the rest of society has zero Biblical warrant, and strikes me as a failure of justice, immoral, inhumane, and a case of massive government over-reach. We need to distinguish more carefully between sins and crimes. There is overlap, but not every sin is a crime. Beyond that, the reasons generally given for prosecuting drug use seem to me to amount to little more than "pre-emptive prosecution" (i.e. X may lead to Y so we will prosecute X on the grounds that we are preventing Y, despite the fact that on it's face X is not a crime per se). Regardless of all of that however, Paul of couse supports the punishment of actual criminal behavior, whether resulting from the use of drugs, or for any other reason, and he supports the right of individual states and communities to regulate substances and prosecute immoral behavior as they deem necessary.
Re: abortion - This one astounds me. I would never support a candidate who did not oppose abortion. Paul is a former OB-GYN who refused to take payments from Medicare and Medicaid (working pro bono instead), and frequently lowered payments for those who could not afford services. He routinely worked with women to encourage them to pursue options other than abortion and has never performed, recommended, or supported an abortion. He has supported legislation that opposes federal funding for abortion and/or groups that provide abortions. More importantly than any of that Ron Paul has personally sponsored and introduced the "Sanctity of Life Act" which would effectively repeal Roe v. Wade by defining life and legal personhood as beginning at conception in every Congress he has been a part of since the 109th. This is huge. Yet the most recent introduction of the Bill in March of 2011 (H.R. 1096) received 0 co-sponsors. There's you're pro-life republicans for you. I could go on and on listing Paul's pro-life credentials, but I'll just note two more things. When Paul says that it is a state issue, he does not mean that states should be able to decide whether killing babies is okay. This is clearly evidenced by his frequently voiced belief that life begins at conception and introduction of legislation like that mentioned above. What he means is that the Supreme Court had no authorization to rule on abortion qua abortion. Rather, the government should recognize that unborn babies are persons and thus are afforded the same rights as any other person. And states should then go about the business of prosecuting those who murder them, just as they prosecute those who murder anyone else. Finally, it is telling that in 2008 Ron Paul received the endorsement of Norma McCorvey (a.k.a Jane Roe) of Roe v. Wade, who famously converted to Christianity and has become an outspoken pro-life advocate. I'll leave off this topic with these three quotes from Dr. Paul:
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle."
"As an OB/GYN doctor, I've delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life."
"Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."
Finally re: Israel - I suspect that differing views of eschatology and covenant theology will mean that we don't see eye-to-eye on the place of Israel in the cosmic plan of redemption. I do not believe that Israel is God's uniquely chosen people in the New Covenant. I believe that since Jesus' death and resurrection, and particularly after the judgement that occured in A.D. 70 in fulfillment of prophecy, that the people of God is now constituted of all who put their faith in Christ period, whether Jew or Gentile. There is no longer a particular nation or nationality that enjoys God's special favor, but rather his special favor is open to all who come to the Father by bowing the knee to the Son. Therefore I don't think that the modern state of Israel has any special role in fulfilling Biblical prophecy, end times, etc. That's a huge subject that it would take a great deal of time to get into, but I would just note that my view, while less common among evangelicals at this particular moment in history, is not at all uncommon in the history of the church, while the dispensational view is essentially a historical anomaly that did not exist until the mid 19th century.
Regardless of what you think about that though, Paul does not oppose or harbor ill will toward Israel. He simply does not believe that the federal government should fund the nation, nor act militarily on its behalf. In this he agrees with Netanyahu who said to Congress in May, "My friends, you don't need to do nation building in Isreal, we're already built! You don't need to export Democracy to Israel we've already got it! and you don't need to send American troops to Israel we can defend ourselves." Further, Paul stood alone in supporting Israel's sovereign right to act when they bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981, and he continues to defend their right to act in whatever manner necessary for their own defense, for instance with regard to Iran. His "anti-Israel" policy is nothing more than his policy with regard to all nations, namely that he doesn't believe the federal government is authorized to take money from its citizens to re-distribute around the world as it sees fit any more than it is authorized to take money from its citizens to re-distribute domestically as it sees fit. Paul is not a zionist, but he certainly recognizes Israel as an ally and a friend; however, he does not believe in treating her as a dependent. I can see nothing to indicate that Ron Paul's position toward Israel is unbiblical or even unchristian in some general sense. What does seem unchrstian to me is the foreign policy we have engaged in in the middle east that has contributed vastly to the militarization and de-stabilization of that region (i.e. CIA interference in Iran, arming of Saddam Hussein, etc.).
So, I guess I just don't see your point.