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.
I too, will be voting Paul. Every one of the other candidates are promoting illegals, altho they don’t outright say so. When they get in power, they will do what they want, and to hell with what we want. Paul, at least says not one dime for illegals, no welfare, no Anchor babies deserve citizenship and welfare. Just like they threw out Pat Buchanan a few years ago, they are doing the same to Paul. If we would have had Pat as president, we would not have the illegals, the NAFTA deal, the Mexican trucks, the NWO, and the Iraq war. I say, I’m for a decent president for a big change, and that is Ron Paul.
Now flame me all you want.
And maybe if you had not been so snarky in response to a legitimate question I wouldn’t think that you’re an ass-hat.
More like a half truth.
Thanks for the link. I see that the article is talking about per capita GDP rather than the respective total GDPs. With the 'per-capita' qualifier added, the claim that the UK has surpassed the US becomes much more plausible. :=)
The per-capita GDP difference seems to be minimal and is, in all likelihood, largely the result of the current weakness of the US dollar.
I also found a thread posted to FR earlier but the story hasn't gotten a lot of attention here.
Since the thread we're on here is primarily on a somewhat different topic, if I have any further comments, I'll use that thread rather than this one. Thanks again for the link.
* Flight Surgeon, United States Air National Guard, 1965-1968
* Flight Surgeon, United States Air Force, 1963-1965
There's any number of sources for the same info. I'll assume you were repeating disinformation you heard elsewhere and didn't bother to check yourself; consider yourself informed now.
Hardly, read my second post to you.
It’s long , but I don’t see Bush directly quoting Mao Tse Tung the way Paul does.
I’d rather fight terrorism over there rather than overhere.
Here’s why I think it’s inconsistent.
If Ron’s position were that whether the unborn were citizens with all the rights thereof was up to the states, then whether an abortion was murder would also be up to the states.
But when Ron says that the federal government should declare that they are citizens and have all the rights of citizens, then it is inconsistent to say that the states should have the option of treating abortion as murder or not.
Either they are citizens or not. If they are citizens, then abortion should be treated as murder. If they are not citizens, then the states can do as they will.
Now, Ron is correct in saying that Congress should pass a law removing jurisdiction over abortion from the court system.
Bush was saying he was against nation building and putting troops all over the globe. Basically the same thing Paul says. But w/e some of you put your head in the sand and pretend wasn’t the anti-war person in 2000.
I don’t see the inconsistency in declaring who is a citizen (which is done federally always) and whether or not it is a murder (done at the state level). Sorry.
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.