Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 183

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,009

    Ron Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
    Quote Originally Posted by BrightNail
    no worries. also, hunter has a ton of ties to miliatry contractors and some of his past behaviours have leaned towards..uhm... I think that we choose our candidates for whatever reason. I am not trying to convince you but I also don't think its fair to say 'ron paul' is weak on illegal immigrants. He isn't. Its been noted that besides Tancredo, he is the strongest. I think ending the welfare state for them will do much more than a wall for stopping illegal immigration. I don't think either of them is the ONLY solution, but both must be done.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul344.html
    Also, punishing employers must be done....Does Paul support this? Honest question.
    From NumbersUSA:

    Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003
    Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.

  2. #32
    Senior Member BearFlagRepublic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,839

    Re: Ron Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by tancredofan
    From NumbersUSA:

    Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003
    Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.
    From what I gather, Paul would do the same for the illegal cheap laborers.....As long as they do not get welfare, they are welcome to stay on as "temporary workers." IMO, his position differs little from the Libertarian Party's official position.

    BTW today seemed to turn out to be a ALIPAC war on Ron Paul....Not blaming you tancredofan, it just seemed to turn out that way.
    Serve Bush with his letter of resignation.

    See you at the signing!!

  3. #33
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    BearFlagRepublic wrote:

    BTW today seemed to turn out to be a ALIPAC war on Ron Paul....Not blaming you tancredofan, it just seemed to turn out that way.
    Come on BearFlagRepublic, shoot from the hip. Tancredofan was on a Ron Paul head hunting expedition today - he wanted to hang Paul's head on his trophy wall.

    Hey, it's all good (at least he wasn't attacking Hunter today ), but I do believe we need a Presidential Candidate forum on ALIPAC for these lively discussions.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #34
    Senior Member loservillelabor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Loserville KY
    Posts
    4,799
    I think we should leave all the anti-amnesty candidates alone and concentrate on educating people about the MSM lefty picks that are getting pushed along?
    Unemployment is not working. Deport illegal alien workers now! Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,087
    IT IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION for our military to operate WITHIN THE U.S. They are for FOREIGN INTERVENTION.

    The NATIONAL GUARD (or millitia) CAN handle DOMESTIC problems within the U.S. If anyone is sent to the border, constitutionally, it should be the Guard.

    I wish when you see this item around the internet, you would address it.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,087
    It sure is getting tiresome listening to people complain because Ron Paul is against our military on the border. For the 4th time today.......

    OUR MILITARY IS FOR FOREIGN PURPOSES.........O N L Y.

    DOMESTICATE (MEANING WITHIN THE U.S.) PROBLEMS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    RON PAUL WAS VOTING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

    I also checked H RES 365(2002) and HR 1885 (2001). People using these votes to discredit Paul, are really grasping at straws. Before accepting this info as gospel, check for yourself before passing this erroneous info on.

  7. #37
    Senior Member BearFlagRepublic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by girlygirl369
    It sure is getting tiresome listening to people complain because Ron Paul is against our military on the border. For the 4th time today.......

    OUR MILITARY IS FOR FOREIGN PURPOSES.........O N L Y.

    DOMESTICATE (MEANING WITHIN THE U.S.) PROBLEMS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    RON PAUL WAS VOTING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

    I also checked H RES 365(2002) and HR 1885 (2001). People using these votes to discredit Paul, are really grasping at straws. Before accepting this info as gospel, check for yourself before passing this erroneous info on.
    What if we are invaded? Can the military be used on our soil then?
    Serve Bush with his letter of resignation.

    See you at the signing!!

  8. #38
    rg123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by MW
    Still awaiting a response to the following:

    BrightNail wrote:

    Duncan Hunter was a sponsor of the Military Commission Act. The piece of legislation that stripped away your habeas corpus rights.

    MW wrote:

    How did Hunter cosponsor a bill that originated in the Senate?

    I believe McConnell sponsored this piece of legislation and Frist and Warner were cosponsors.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... -515h.html

    Nice picture of Hunter the Happiest person in the world when Bush signed the bill

    Hunter was the sponser in the House

    H.R.6054
    Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 9/12/2006) Cosponsors (19)
    Related Bills: H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929, S.3930
    Latest Major Action: 9/25/2006 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 409.
    House Reports: 109-664 Part 1, 109-664 Part 2
    Note: For further action, see S.3930, which became Public Law 109-366 on 10/17/2006.

    here is a copy of the bill in pdf final http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf I believe you can find removal of Habeas corpus around pg 55.

    Duncan is a warmonger and basically supports anything that has military contracts in it where he and his companies lobbies can make money here is another example of that you might find interesting

    Duncan Hunter: Never Mind What the Navy Says, This Plane is AWESOME
    http://2008central.net/?p=917#more-917

    As far as Birthright citizenship Ron Paul has a bill in the house to end it

    4. H.J.RES.46 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
    Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/13/2007) Cosponsors (6)
    Committees: House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 6/25/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,087
    MILITARY COMMISSION ACT OF 2006

    SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

    (a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and

    (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    `(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

    `(A) is currently in United States custody; and

    `(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an enemy combatant. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights.

    In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), re-confirmed the right of United States citizens to habeas corpus even when declared an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus of a citizen could not be revoked.

    In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. ___ (2006), Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay "violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions. In a 5-3 ruling the Court rejected Congress's attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Though Congress had previously passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 which stated in Section 1005(e), "Procedures for Status Review of Detaineed Outside the United States.":

    "(1) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    (2)The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination ... was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

    On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[1][2] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.[3]) President Bush signed the Military Commissons Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.

    With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from "alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay":

    "Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.
    Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as enemy combatants, or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful; if not, then the government can change the prisoner's status to something else, at which point the habeas restrictions no longer apply.

    In January 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that in his opinion: "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away." He was challenged by Sen. Arlen Specter who asked him to explain how it is possible to prohibit something from being taken away, without first being granted.[4]

    The Department of Justice has taken the position in litigation that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not amount to a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision, on February 20, 2007, which the U.S. Supreme Court initially declined to review. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed its decision to deny review and took up the case in June of 2007.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_cor ... ted_States

    The amendment to the act was SPONSORED BY MITCH McCONNEL, CO-SPONSORED BY WM FIRST AND JOHN WARNER.

    Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo BOTH VOTED YEA. Ron Paul VOTED NAY. The Constitution forbids taking away habeus corpus.

  10. #40
    Budvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
    Quote Originally Posted by girlygirl369
    It sure is getting tiresome listening to people complain because Ron Paul is against our military on the border. For the 4th time today.......

    OUR MILITARY IS FOR FOREIGN PURPOSES.........O N L Y.

    DOMESTICATE (MEANING WITHIN THE U.S.) PROBLEMS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    RON PAUL WAS VOTING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

    I also checked H RES 365(2002) and HR 1885 (2001). People using these votes to discredit Paul, are really grasping at straws. Before accepting this info as gospel, check for yourself before passing this erroneous info on.
    What if we are invaded? Can the military be used on our soil then?
    Well said, trying to Educate an american is like trying to Educate a Fly on not to eat on cow dong. Keep up the Great work! Somedays there Eyes will open for them all to see the Truth as well!
    Like someday I will figure out how we are getting screwed by the Federal Reserve and there Printed/Computerized Money system we pay high Interest Rates on, for some darn reason for a Full money amount! If only I could make money from Thin Air I wouldn't have to Work! Someday I will figure out how to do this like the FED! And Buy out America one business at a time, with the printed money, and then Rename the Land... China! Oh never mind China is already doing this. I think i might be to late! Oh well back off to Walmart to spend that paper dollar, on some China goods. So they can save it till they got enough to buy american business one biz at a time! Only if we has some kinda of hard currency that takes tons of labor to produce, and can't be made out of thin Air or Printed on some cheap paper and ink, this probably wouldn't be possible,! I just can't think of what we could use for this hmm... !

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •