Skip to comments.Why Obstetrician-Gynecologist Ron Paul Should Not Be President Of The United States (Vanity)
Posted on 01/06/2008 6:42:04 AM PST by 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.
My issue is the inconsistency.
If you want to pass a federal law declaring the unborn to have the rights of citizens, then the federal government has an obligation to defend those rights.
If Ron wants to leave abortion up to the states, then let each state decide if the unborn are citizens and have rights that should be protected.
See post #61.
That’s one of the reasons I like the guy. I am against us having military bases in 130 countries when they are not needed. If we want to provide foreign aid, let’s do so and call it foreign aid. I am fed up with politicians BS’ing us every step of the way.
May as well write an article about why Dennis Kucinich should not be the President.
Neither has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening.
“At least Paul is consistent.”
But he isn’t. Just look at illegal immigration. He’s for it, then he’s against it...
Paul’s Immigration Voting Record & Report Card on the NumbersUSA website:
(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:
2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815 2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200 2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588 2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546 2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586 2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205 1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.
(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.
(3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359),
(4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - “Enforcement Only” Bill).
(5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.
(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.
Everyone needs a reminder of some of Pauls BAD immigration votes.
Especially Item #2. This was an amnesty and allowed for chain migration, more visas, blah,blah, and one reason it has gotten as bad as it has. It was pushed by the White House.
H.R.3525 Title: To enhance the border security of the United States, and for other purposes. (introduced 12/19/2001) Related Bills: H.RES.365, H.R.1885, H.R.3205, S.CON.RES.106, S.1618, S.1749 Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 107-173 [GPO: Text, PDF] Note: On 3/12/2002, H.Res. 365 was agreed to by the House. H.Res. 365 incorporated the text of H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, in H.R. 1885, previously the Section 245(i) Extension Act dealing with certain immigration petition filing deadlines. Subsequent action on border security returned to H.R. 3525.
The White House [snip]
H.R. 1885 - Section 245(i) Extension Act The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.1885 as expected to be considered on the House floor. H.R. 1885 would extend the window created under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act during which qualified immigrants may obtain legal residence in the United States without being forced to first leave the country and their families for as long as several years. This legislation reflects the Administration’s philosophy that government policies should recognize the importance of families and help to strengthen them.
Rep. Paul is a cosponsor of H.R. 793, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the timing of issuance of H-2B visas during a fiscal year. Specifically, H.R. 793 would split the H-2B visa cap so no more than 33,000 visas are made available for the first six months the fiscal year, and another 33,000 visas would be available in the second half of the year. However, H.R. 793 exempts from the annual cap aliens granted an H-2B visa within three years prior to approval of an H-2B petition, thus potentially TRIPLING the number of H-2B workers in the United States at any one time. Although timing the issuance of H-2B visas is a common-sense approach that would help prevent the situation that occurred in FY 2004 and FY 2005 when the 66,000 annual cap on H-2B (low-skill) nonimmigrant visas was hit within the first quarter of the year, H.R. 793 would ultimately harm American workers by creating exemptions which potentially could triple the number of H-2B workers in the U.S. at any given time. Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998
Voted on House floor against Hunter amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005 Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. Specifically, it mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border. As well, it includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.
Citizens have the rights of citizens, yet the Federal government does not defend murder cases. I don’t see the inconsistency.
This is in a public university supported by our tax dollars. The rest appeared to be mainly middle eastern or Indian. Lots of Mohammad's. All in Electrical Engineering. What are they trying to build over there?
Also, these guys are all full time students. Obviously getting money from somewhere. I’m working a full time job and using my money from being a weekend warrior to pay my tuition and books. So I have two jobs to their one. Plus starting up a farm and taking care of 3 kids with my wife. I’m not complaining mind you, but it seems a little weird to me that there were not any other Americans in there.
Also, I have a problem with these folks from overseas getting into medical school ahead of Americans. My sister didnt get in because they told her she was too young because she got her 4 year degree in 3 years. She had excellent grades while competing on the cross country team running 16 + miles a day. We shouldnt put foreigners until all qualified Americans have gone in. We paid the taxes to support this crap, not them.
I enjoyed your quote page.
“Funny you say that because Bush and most other Republicans running for the nomination in 2000 said the same thing about Clinton and the Democrats at the time.”
You refering to the Democrats penchant for using the U.S. military to cover up sex scandals?
It has? I would have expected something like that would have generated a lot of MSM coverage. Do you have a link?
You want consistency? Duncan Hunter has a lifetime of consistency. You need look no further. http://www.gohunter08.com/
>>>I want someone to compile a list of the top ten agenda items of each of the Republican candidates, not compared with each other, but what they as individuals have as their platform.<<<<<
I won’t do that but I encourage everyone to read Hunter’s positions. I guarantee you will be impressed. The best part is that his positions weren’t arrived at for this election cycle. He has lived them his entire career.
I think I’ve never seen someone work so hard to prove himself wrong as you did with that post.
If you want to make people angry, lie to them. If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell em the truth.
What does that have to do with cut and run consistently being a blame America first anti-American?
In maybe not all but certainly the majority of instances in our lives when something doesn’t go the way we thought it should, if we sit down and go back through the situation we can find something that we did or didn’t do that would have corrected it, enabled it or just darn well would’ve made it happen the *right* way.
America has been the world’s cop for too long. What gave us the right to tell the rest of the world how to live? If two countries want to have a war and it affects any part of our economy, or a friends economy, we think that we need to jump in and tell everybody to calm down and sit up straight. And if they don’t obey right away then we start threatening them with all kinds of punishments. Who in the hell made us the world’s Mommy?
Fast forward a couple years -—
The business world is afraid that Hunter would mess up the (globalist) trade agreements and fence off the border. That’s a no-no. So Hunter is a no-no.
RP claims to have been a flight surgeon on the radio here.
Are you implying he wasn't?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.