Why Obstetrician-Gynecologist Ron Paul Should Not Be President Of The United States (Vanity)

JoeClarke.Net ^ | 01/06/2008 | JoeClarke.Net

[joeclarke]

I know many Paul Bearers, and they are Christian - as most everyone, except Democrats, are now confessing to be. To say they are overly enamored with Ron Paul is an understatement as they think he is just an apocalypse shy of being the Second Coming. Ron Paul is the only "Constitutional" candidate, they claim, and he wants to High Tail It out of Iraq, eliminate the IRS, withdraw from the world, and kill welfare payments including Social Security and Medicaid. Who could ask for anything more?

Ron Paul does have more reasonable ideas such as "really doing something" about the Mexican border and illegal aliens, the NAFTA Highway, abortion, and other points I cannot think of right now. However, his lack of military and geopolitical depth as well as his "no-tax" plans have attracted such peaceniks as Potheads For Paul, Strippers For Paul, the Google people, Johnny Rotten, and other constituents not traditionally known for having a Christian ethic. Why does Mr. Paul attract stripping, pot-smoking folks who might enjoy the Sex Pistols music - as well as church hymns?

Mr. Paul does have that pariah messianic presence which Ross Perot exuded - before his crackpottedness surfaced even as he took 20% of Republican votes away from the general election, thus allowing Bill Clinton to be ushered into the Oral Office for just enough time to subvert all that was called holy in America.

Ron Paul's trouble with the military probably stems from his professional involvement with women. As a man who has delivered thousands of babies, and participating in the miracle of child birthing, he must be naturally resistant to sending this same infant to battle and possibly death. I mean that as a compliment. I have observed former military doctors, corpsman and medics who have this similar disposition. They are so up close and personal to the ravages of war that they are predisposed to be vigorously opposed to military conflict, no matter how necessary. Incdentally, Ron Paul, for all of his compassion, refused to medically treat patients who were on Medicaid and Medicare. I have seen no conclusive evidence that he would help such people for free so that he would not have to charge "the government dime." Medicaid and Medicare just would not pay him enough.

Ron Pallbearers also tout him as the only candidate that is "Constitutional." Some of their reasoning is sound, but one of Paul's more frequent mistakes is calling the Iraq War invalid because the U.S. did not declare war according to the Constitution which demands that Congress shall declare war. Well, Congress has voted on two resolutions to combat Saddam and eradicate Iraq of most of the extreme terrorists. The Constitution does not declare in what exact format Congress shall declare war, so two resolutions to go to war should be enough to satisfy the Constitution. The U.S. had planned to oust Saddam even during Clinton's reign for many more reasons than just WMD. Pauliacs and Democrats constantly ignore these historical facts. Ron Paul has no problem with leaving Iraq high and dry, as well as so many other struggling and fragile democracies around the world.

Under President Paul, Israel would be more at the mercy of their surrounding Islamic enemies without the assistance of the United States. Ron Paul states that the U.S. is "interfering with Israel's sovereignty" by HELPING her!! So, lets not aid Israel so she can retain her sovereignty and then be quickly driven into the Mediterranean by Islamo Fascists. Mr. Paul must also believe that we interfered with Vietnam's sovereignty by fighting the Communists who now have such oppresive control in Nam. He must also object to the post WW II treaties, such as SEATO, in which the United States and other freedom loving countries decided to protect, as much as possible, far flung countries from Communist takeovers. It worked fairly well in Korea and elsewhere until communism took over the Democrat Party left and its media. Ron Paul does not understand that if the United States does not win friends and influence people with money (as with Arab countries and Israel) and with and occasional rattling of the sword (as in Iran and Korea), there will be less incentive for these countries to heed America's nonimperialistic desires. If you are of the hate-America-first crowd, then nothing the United States does can gain the respect of international countries. In fact foreign countries, such as Venezuela, have developed a hatred with the help of the American media. We are so hated according to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, CNN, Hollywood, academia, the New York Times and others. No wonder we are despised, as the lib press damns everything President Bush does.

Ron Paul recently questioned the attendants at one of his Meetups and mockingly asked them if anyone really believed in the Domino Theory which was one of the motivations for fighting communists in Vietnam. The answer was "no" despite the fact that Laos and Cambodia were also claimed by fascists after the U.S. left Vietnam hanging in the lurch. Worse of all, the U.S. itself became another Communist domino since the 1970's takeover by the libs who are so much closer to totally communizing the United States during this presidential election of 2008 than ever before.

Some of RP's scarier statements include: "It would only take a few nuclear submarines to protect the U.S." When responding to Huckabee's Christmas commercial which displayed a floating cross, Ron Paul said, "Fascism has often come draped in a cross." [When did that last happen, Ron?] Ron Paul was also asked which Democrat most resembled his own platform [not just the Iraq war issue] "Dennis Kucinich," was his answer. Nothing more can be said about Ron Paul's candidacy. He's outta here.

[DugwayDuke]

Thanks for the compliment. It expresses my concern about Ron Paul who I think does not recognize the fact that we do not live in the 1800s but who would enact policies as if we did.

I haven’t selected a candidate at this time. I do find the Ron Paul supporters to be an amusing lot worthy of ridicule.

[eabinga]

Ha! I just posted almost the same thing... How does the quote with the great minds go?

[Michael Knight]

The same reason that every article about what Mormons supposedly believe contains numerous factual errors. The media is a bunch of lying liars.

Tonight at 6, the Two minutes hate will be directed at Ron Paul!

[B4Ranch]

>Consistantly a blame America first anti-American.<

I was taught to examine my own actions before casting blame on others. People such as yourself don’t do that so you can live in denial of the fact that you could be doing more wrong than the next person.

A few years ago I wrote a saying for *denial* folks, such as yourself.

If you want to make people angry, lie to them.
If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell ‘em the truth.

[Michael Knight]

I dont see why our laws and government really need to be significantly different from what they were in the 1800s. Just because the economy is growning doesnt mean the government needs to. Murder is still murder. And if we’d hang them like we did in the 1800s we’d have less of it.

[B4Ranch]

>Actions come from political movements, not Presidential decree. That is not to say Presidents have no power, just that they can do almost nothing by themselves.<

Really? You mean he would have to approach Congress with his plans to get rid of a few agencies in DC. Would he have to do that to get us out of the UN too? I’ll bet that’ll come as a shock to the man.

[B4Ranch]

This fits Ron Paul to a T

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.”
- Mark Twain

[B4Ranch]

Have you been keeping up with bush and Rice in Israel lately? Bush seems to be supporting Islam to a much further degree than Paul ever has.

[Vanbasten]

Good post.

I’ve posted the same questions to those who gripe about the U.S. ‘not declaring war’. Please tell me the difference! They never can answer.

[DugwayDuke]

OK, I’ll give you one example.

In the 1800’s we could stand back behind our ocean walls. No country could expect to project enough military power across those oceans to cause us real harm.

Today, an airplane can span an ocean in hours. Missiles can hit anywhere in the world in 20 minutes. Nuclear weapons can obliterate a city in seconds. Biological weapons in days. We have thousands of visitors arriving every day. The worlds financial markets are completely integrated. It is not the world of George Washington and Andrew Jackson.

BTW, if Ron Paul gets his way, murder would not necessarily be murder. Ron would declare an unborn to be a citizen with all rights. Ron would leave prosecution of abortion to the states meaning that what is treated as murder in one state might not be treated as murder in another.

[Michael Knight]

That may be true, but the president could set the agenda if he were strong enough to. Amazingly with both the House and Senate controlled by Dems, Reagan was able to get many of his policies made law. Its leadership.

I dont know if this fits Dr. Paul or not, but I’d like to see whoever gets elected having as a major priority downsizing the federal govt. I dont mean just the money, I mean the intrusion into every aspect of your life.

BTW, Semper Fi!

[Polybius]

I am down to taking a hard look at Ron Paul; might end up voting for him in my state’s primary. At least he’s consistent. Don’t really care for any of these folks. Except for Paul they are nothing but professional politicians who change their positions whenever it suits them. At least Paul is consistent.

So are these two.

Being "consistent" is not a good reason to vote for somebody without taking into account what they are being "consistent" about.

Do you really want somebody this consistently clueless about the dangers facing U.S. vital interests to be President of the United States of America?

RON PAUL to DFU on Iowa radio - he would not stop ship with nuclear missiles from N. Korea to Iran

[Michael Knight]

That may be, but the principals dont change is my point.

One of the reasons Dr. Paul is so popular in TX is he wants to actually do something about the border, which would obviously help with some of what you are describing. He also doesnt seem to unwilling to use a nuke, which I think should not be off the table when dealing with foreign policy. We have an awesome deterrent force out there and with the ballistic missile system coming on line we just took the game to a whole new level. (which is why Pootin is showing his hiney.)

Our country needs to become more self sufficient and that goes for fuel and our goods. If we suddenly had a war with china, you would have like 2 things left on the shelf at wal marts. Where would we buy diapers and cloths for our little rug rats then?

Look, I’m not a huge Ron Paul fan, but I have studied his website and am impressed with a lot of what he has to say.

My picks in order are Hunter, Thompson, Paul, no one after that. I originally thought Paul was a nut because everyone said he was, but a friend at work was all into him so I checked out what he had to say. I really only disagree with him on Iraq, but he does have a fairly thoughtful reason for his opinion on that as well, I just disagree with it.

[MichiganConservative]

Has Dr. Paul (OB-GYN) ever performed an abortion?

Maybe if you watched one of the last couple debates or his discussion with Russert, you would have actually heard him say that he has never performed an abortion, and was only in the room for one. He said he was disgusted when he learned what was happening and vowed to never do one.

[B4Ranch]

I suggest that you read this article

Ron Paul shocker: No more 'anchor babies', GOP gadfly's 'anti-immigrant' ad irks supporters<

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Ron Paul

A controversial new anti-illegal-immigration ad by GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul has sent his libertarian supporters into high dudgeon, but it's getting rave reviews from border-security hawks, including some Homeland Security officials.

In a surprise move, the strict constitutionalist has taken aim at the 14th Amendment as part of a proposal to control growing illegal immigration. U.S. Rep. Paul, R-Texas, proposes repealing the provision that gives automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S., even if their parents enter the country illegally.

"Ron Paul wants border security now," his new campaign ad asserts. "Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations."

[AndyJackson]

Ron would leave prosecution of abortion to the states

And you want this to become a federal matter unlike almost other "common law" crimes because?

[Polybius]

What I am beginning to believe is that Ron Paul is a threat to these folks not because he is likely to become President, but because he threatens their smug self-complacency about their own political beliefs. Republibanism is not a political belief. It is a party, and when Pubbies go on a 6 year spree to convert democratic pork into republican pork they finally got smacked down for it.

Ron Paul has been in Congress for over ten years and, when it come to pork, he is definitely not "Kosher".

Ron Paul's personal pork projects: .... According to the Houston Chronicle, Paul: ...leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function. ..... Paul also argued that these special earmarks, used by Congressman to increase their own popularity at home, don’t add anything to the budget. The funding is already in the budget he says and the budget is not increased to compensate for them. But spending $400 million on pork, as Paul requested, still means the $400 million is spent. And, under the current budget, if it is spent, it contributes to the deficit that will, no doubt, mean higher future taxes.

[rb22982]

Ron would leave prosecution of abortion to the states meaning that what is treated as murder in one state might not be treated as murder in another.

You mean the way it was until Roe Vs Wade? Is murder handled at the federal level? If not, then why would abortion? Paul at least would have a litmus test for repealing Roe vs Wade which is FAR more conservative than any of the other Republican candidates save Hunter.

[B4Ranch]

That’s a sad argument these days.

[DugwayDuke]

My objections to Ron Paul are on his stance on terrorism.