'The Ron Paul Revolution?'
By David R. Usher (11/09/07)
I have recently been deluged by emails from my readers who swear on a stack of bibles and lawbooks that Ron Paul is the saviour of the 2008 race, if not America itself.
Having made the mistake of following candles in the dark before, and in light of the fact that Republicans have been as liberal as Hillary on our most important social issues, I am not about to waste my time working for people who do not expressly have a pro-marriage (“Marriage Values” if you will) agenda stated right up front.
In my analysis, Ron Paul is just the latest Texan to enter the scene with an original campaign method that stands out in the pack for its unusual style and emphasis on return to constitutional law. If his candidacy were patriotic rocket whistling over a blackened battlefield, it would surely miss the target -- most important ingredient of the fuel mix is sorely missing!
Ron Paul has absolutely no position on any social issue on his website (abortion is a medical and a moral issue, not a tangible social issue). But then, Ron is not alone in this cavernous political grandstand. Republicans have pretended that social issues don’t exist ever since “Family Values”” drove the 1994 landslide victory.
On top of that, Republicans turned all favorite radical feminist funding bills, such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) over to Paul Wellstone, Joe Biden, and various other “I’m not Hillary Democrats-in-pantsuits” feminists. Never mind that (at the time) Democrats didn’t have the clout to get so much as a private stall in any bathroom on the Hill.
Now, in all fairness I must say that Ron Paul is head-and-shoulders over various man-eaters such as Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Brownback. For these guys, “Marriage Values” stops at the words “child support enforcement”. (Never mind that divorce and the billions Congress spends feeding the feminist minority is the biggest driver of abortion, illegitimacy, and marriage-absence in America). Perhaps the elephant in the room really is an elephant in the room?
Ron Paul recently voted in favor of H. Res. 590: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. This resolution is a laundry list of the favorite feminist fantasies about how the world would be a perfect place if we just blame all domestic violence on men, and lock them up whenever anyone hollers “abuse”. (In all fairness I must point out that every other spineless Republican in the House also voted “aye” on this piece of hate legislation too.)
Ron Paul also voted to support the goals of International Women’s Day – a precursor to I-VAWA, and voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment.
On the bright side (when it comes to funding radical feminists and ravenous family-munching trial lawyers), Ron did vote against the VAWA Reauthorization in 2005, and against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 and against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (which is just a cutesy name for welfare benefits to encourage illegitimacy -- which has risen by a horrifying 36.2% since welfare was supposedly reformed in 1996).
But this is not enough: Marriage-absence is the greatest national social problem we face. Reducing a few entitlements to feminists does not constitute replacement of what we have with truly pro-marriage legislation.
Paul supporters mistakenly believe that he can erase several libraries of tremendously anti-family federal code from the oval office. It would be easier to redact the 19th amendment cold-turkey. A strong “Marriage Values” policy agenda to deliver strong marriages and happier lives for women, children (and of course the men we never talk about) is the only way to accomplish a political transformation in Washington.
Perhaps Ron (and Mike Huckabee) have not realized that strong leadership on social issues now could easily translate into a second Republican congressional landslide – so he could have something to sign. I know it is in their hearts. Perhaps they are afraid of winning and changing a very disgruntled America?
But Ron’s ignorance of social policy is not the only problem. Anyone who thinks we can just walk away from the Middle East is smoking jenkum. Can anyone imagine what would happen if terrorists were funded by third largest load of oil on the planet? They would spend America into bankruptcy, just like Reagan did to the U.S.S.R. (Need I mention that terrorists do not use imaginary weapons?)
Perhaps the entire Republican presidential lineup (and every Republican on the Hill) needs an examination by someone other than a gynecologist; (unfortunately SCHIP would not pay for that because it is just another welfare program to entitle more rampant illegitimacy and divorce).
Congress continues blithely funding the destruction of the American family – the only possible cornerstone on which a nation of sustainable communities can be founded -- to the tune of $600-billion annually. This is by far the largest line item in the federal budget
This platform of destructive funding (which creates nothing except wreckage and more problems to entitle) is greatly responsible for the weak dollar. Just as business fled America’s urban cores for safer suburban grounds in the 1980’s and 1990’s, it is now fleeing America entirely. High taxes, high crime rates, and an unstable workforce keep America less competitive in comparison with countries that can invest everything in infrastructure and growth (did I mention that there is no such thing as feminism in China)?
Tiptoeing around the dinosaur in the room, Congress adopted a 4-day work week (did anyone hear Republicans complain?); so it has less time to look stupid titrating things of no consequence whatsoever. This maximizes time for extracurricular bathroom activities of directionless Republicans – who having totally abandoned the very conservative base that put them in power – in the private potty stalls Democrats were actually intelligent enough to give them.
David R. Usher
(Printer friendly version) Email: David R. Usher
