It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sen. Rand Paul to Block Obama 'political' (anti-gun) Surgeon General Nominee

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Dr. Vivek Murthy. Described as 'rabidly anti-gun' and a very active promoter of 'Obamacare'
Born in Huddersfield, England
His parents are from Karnataka, India and Karnataka is what he spoke at home.
Moved from England to Miami Florida at age 3. Attended Harvard and Yale.
Residency in Internal Medicine in 2006 from Brigham and Women's Hospital
Donates lots of $$ to help out his 'ancestral place' - India.
Info on Dr. Vivek Murthy

Sen. Rand Paul to Block Obama 'political' Surgeon General Nominee


Sen. Rand Paul is trying to block the nomination of President Obama’s surgeon general nominee, Dr. Vivek Murthy, over what he calls “serious concerns” about Murthy’s leadership in a group that promotes ObamaCare and gun control.

Paul, R-Ky., told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a letter that he objects to Murthy’s nomination because he questions Murthy’s ability to impartially serve as “America’s Doctor.” The letter marks an escalation in a simmering fight over the nominee, for a post that is typically not so controversial.

“Historically, the Surgeon General of the United States has been a position with the purpose of educating Americans so that they may lead healthier lives, rather than advancing a political agenda,” Paul wrote. “Dr. Murthy has disqualified himself from being Surgeon General because of his intent to use that position to launch an attack on Americans’ right to own a firearm under the guise of a public health and safety campaign.”


Washington Times

President Obama is using every executive power in his arsenal to infringe on Second Amendment rights. His latest maneuver is to nominate a rabidly anti-gun doctor to be the next U.S. surgeon general. Dr. Vivek Murthy is facing Senate approval in upcoming weeks.

Dr. Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that advocates for Obamacare and gun control laws.

The group calls gun violence “a public health crisis.” It pushes for Congress to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines and calls for spending tax dollars for more gun-control research.

The organization also lobbies for doctors to be allowed to ask patients, including minors, whether they have legal guns in the home. If the patient admits to having guns, Dr. Murthy wants doctors to “counsel them appropriately about safety measures.”


.. and of course there is discussion at chat sites that Obama picked this guy, not only for the far left politics, but also because he is non-white and foreign born. I won't link to those chat sites and comments sections. They are out there and that is being discussed as part of the motive for picking this guy. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with them .. I'm just stating that there are people who are thinking in that direction.

The only thing that should matter ... is he qualified and is he the best choice because of medical/health reasons, or is he being picked for political reasons. Sen. Rand Paul says it's politics. He's going to try to block the pick. I don't think he'll be successful in the block.

Putting the players in position to chip chip chip away at our second amendment.
Chip chip chip ... and then one day, while we are all asleep ... BAM ... it'll be gone.




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





The only thing that should matter ... is he qualified and is he the best choice because of medical/health reasons, or is he being picked for political reasons.


Obama picked him like all of his cronies.

We know they are not qualified.

They are only picked to tow the administrations line.

That is what they call a win-win for the regime from Mordor.

Healthcare, and gun control.

Evidence of that is they are trying to make gun ownership a 'mental disorder' as we saw earlier.

In the gun control advocates political talking points.

Yeah Rand Block that Obama admin crony.

The surgeon general doesn't need to be a clone of Holder.
edit on 26-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
paul said....he is disqualified because of his (the nominee) intent to launch an attack on gun ownership...really?....where is this attack?...Paul Ryan simply makes stuff up, and everyone believes him.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


This attack :



President Obama ordered two more executive actions Thursday to restrict guns, banning the re-importation of military surplus firearms to private entities and proposing a regulation that would close a loophole in background checks. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Then there was the attempt by Obama's party to introduce gun control legislation that epically failed.

After Sandy Hook, and used the victims as props to push the decades old agenda.

Really haven't paid attention to the last 70 years of that party going after guns nonstop ?

They are like a dog with a bone.

They ain't ever going to let it go.

Because for some asinine reason they think guns should only be in the hands of the police.

Use to think the military too that is until recent events about defense cuts.

And besides there is no gun control law on the books that is needed.

Since the previous laws against hurting/murdering someone ALREADY covers.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
What is it about the british and an irrational hatred for guns, my country I weep for thee.

We keep exporting anti-gun type to the US please, please send some pro-gun people over here instead.


edit on 2622014 by monkofmimir because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
What I find ironic is that even if the guy was pro-gun, built his own fire arms and hated Obamacare -- he'd still be blocked by the GOP.

Anyone else remember that secret little Washington DC dinner where it was agreed by GOP leadership to block Obama at every turn no matter what?


Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.

The dinner table was set in a square at Luntz's request so everyone could see one another and talk freely. The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012, Draper writes.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority," said Keven McCarthy, quoted by Draper. "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."


Vanity Fair Article

I'm not surprised that Obama has to turn to EO's to get anything done.
edit on 26-2-2014 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


According to Webster's New World Democrationary:

Obstructing: V. Refusal to give Obama everything he demands, in complete absence of expecting any movement whatsoever from him off of his ivory pedestal

Compromise: V. Clearly demanding the GOP give you everything you demand while simultaneously refusing to give even an inch of ground to them in negotiation.

The Obama camp claims the GOP refuses to compromise and is obstructionist. I say the democrats no longer even know what compromise means and act like petulent brats if they don't get their way. As a parent I can honestly say there is no compromising with small children... if they are demanding ice cream and you give them a cookie, they will bitch and whine and act abused. Sometimes you just have to stand firm and say "No, no more sweets for you." and if the whining continues, you start removing privledges until it stops. Obama is still whining, so of course he will continue to see his toys taken away.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

MystikMushroom
What I find ironic is that even if the guy was pro-gun, built his own fire arms and hated Obamacare -- he'd still be blocked by the GOP.

I wish Obama would put your statement to the test ... pick a person for this position that is pro-gun and hates Obamacare. Heck, let's make him white and American born and speaking with an 'American' accent while we are at it. Let's go REALLY all out and see what the GOP would do.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Does anyone else here find it odd that the issue here is a Dr. that sees fit to push his political agenda is calling out the President's nominee because his political pursuits oppose his? Last time I checked we are free to have our own political philosophies. Only issue that should matter here is the man qualified for the job? From what I see yes he is qualified.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
This is just Sour Grapes.

Dr. Vivek Murthy earned his qualification to be known as Doctor.

Rand Paul had to invent his.

Paul's Phony Prefix



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Of course the GOP is going to try to block about everything O does. He has brought it onto himself with his pen and phone.
get it?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


The irony...
He allowed his ABO certification to expire in protest of the ABO board's decision to not require recertification for older eye doctors (which make up the entire board). If it was anyone other than Rand Paul throwing up middle fingers at the good ol' boy network, your posting history says you'd be cheering him on. Disingenuous indignation is disingenuous.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Uh, Paul is a US senator. He's kind of, sort of been sent to DC to voice his personal political ideals. Unless his constutents are big supporters of the surgeon general candidate, he's doing EXACTLY what he was sent to DC to do... like it or not.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

burdman30ott6
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


The irony...
He allowed his ABO certification to expire in protest of the ABO board's decision to not require recertification for older eye doctors (which make up the entire board). If it was anyone other than Rand Paul throwing up middle fingers at the good ol' boy network, your posting history says you'd be cheering him on. Disingenuous indignation is disingenuous.


^^ Agreed. I read the link BritofTexas posted. I don't see his prefix as "phoney" -- and I really don't see anything wrong with him thumbing his nose at the establishment. Isn't that what we need more of? He was pushing back against the hegemony of older "grandfathered in" doctors that didn't have to re-test every 10 years.

I see nothing wrong with that, and I think calling Paul's prefix "phoney" is disingenuous to say the least.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Fact is the nominee is not really all that different from anyone else to hold the post. That and I have yet to meet any doctor that will recommend getting shot as being conducive to a long healthy life. What are you afraid the SG is gonna put a warning on a box of rounds? The man is entitled to his own political views.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

KeliOnyx
Does anyone else here find it odd that the issue here is a Dr. that sees fit to push his political agenda is calling out the President's nominee because his political pursuits oppose his? Last time I checked we are free to have our own political philosophies. Only issue that should matter here is the man qualified for the job? From what I see yes he is qualified.


No some people don't.

Just ask the IRS what it thinks about conservatives, and ask D'Souza.

Only those who tow the administrations line has the 'freedom' of their political views.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

burdman30ott6
reply to post by BritofTexas
 

The irony...
He allowed his ABO certification to expire in protest of the ABO board's decision to not require recertification for older eye doctors (which make up the entire board). If it was anyone other than Rand Paul throwing up middle fingers at the good ol' boy network, your posting history says you'd be cheering him on. Disingenuous indignation is disingenuous.


Yeah. You're right.

He qualified as a doctor. His Home Made Board Certification, However is true. So perhaps my link should have read....


Senator's Spurious Suffix!


Rodman confirmed that if a board is not on the list, then a Kentucky specialist is prohibited from advertising himself as board certified. That list does not include the National Ophthalmology Board.





posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

burdman30ott6
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Uh, Paul is a US senator. He's kind of, sort of been sent to DC to voice his personal political ideals. Unless his constutents are big supporters of the surgeon general candidate, he's doing EXACTLY what he was sent to DC to do... like it or not.


Paul is a Senator from Kentucky most of his constituents would have a problem explaining what the surgeon general is much less know what he does.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The surgeon general warns that being shot is hazardous to your health.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Dr. Murthy has disqualified himself from being Surgeon General because of his intent to use that position to launch an attack on Americans’ right to own a firearm under the guise of a public health and safety campaign.


Perhaps I missed something, but how does anyone know this nominee has the "intent to use that position to launch an attack on Americans’ right to own a firearm under the guise of a public health and safety campaign". Has he made comments to support that assertion? I always laugh at those that claim to know one's "intent", because they are usually wrong.

And let's say this guy is anti-gun and would want to ban them.....etc, what powers does he have as SG to effect our rights under the 2nd amendment?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join