Thread: Look at Ron Paul closely if illegal immigration top issue

Ron Paul is far from the perfect candidate, let's face it we really do not have much of a choice. Tancredo and Hunter are going to be buried by the rhino repubs, so there isn't anything left. I have suspicions of Ron Paul, because after all he is a career politician and he does shape and pander to the appropriate audience. In other words, if he is speaking to a liberal (popular culture usage of the term) audience he speaks about illegal aliens as if they are "scape goats." He just takes a stright Libertarian party line which is, dry up the resources they will go away. Where I fault him heavily is his absolute failure to acknowledge the racists and radical elements behind this movement. He never pays any conversation to their street protests, racist claims or nationalist actions.

He has a B on his current Immigration Report card:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/vie ... &VIPID=787

But, he has received a D in the past and voted pro-illegalist on some very scary and anti-American legislation.
He was a no vote on Refugee and Asylum Fraud and was a no vote on Reducing chain migration.

I think he sometimes has a tendency to be contrarian. Here are some things he voted against that scare me:

2005: Voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437 to increase border controls Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.

2002: Voted against amendment to authorize the use of the military in border control efforts Rep. Paul voted against H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546 to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military to assist in border control efforts.

2005: Voted against H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815 to authorize troops on the border Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain conditions, to assist in the performance of border control functions. H. Amdt. 206 passed the House by a vote of 245-184.

2005: Voted against H.R. 418 to increase border controls Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 418 to strengthen border control by requiring completion of the last 3.5 miles of the San Diego border fence. As well, H.R. 418 would broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens. H.R. 418 passed by a vote of 261-161.

1999: Voted against the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 1401 to authorize the use of the military on the border Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the military to assit the Border Patrol in their efforts. The Traficant Amendment passed by a vote of 242-181.

2004: Voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200 authorize troops on the border Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain conditions, to assist in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.

2003: Voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588 to authorize the use of the military to assist in border control Rep. Paul voted against authorizing members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist in border control efforts. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.

2001: Voted against the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 2586 to authorize the use of troops on the border Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control efforts. The Traficant Amendment passed by a vote of 242-173.

2000: Voted against the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 4205 to authorize the use of the military in border control efforts Rep. Paul voted against the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 4205 to authorize the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant Amendment passed by a vote of 243-183.

I think he has some sort of Libertarian view on the use of troops. This is in fact a splitting point for many Libertarians, but in his case I would consider him to be a Marxist of the Right, as a famous Conservative once called libertarians. I wouldn't say this is the case for all Libertarians, but he seems to be of the mint your own money variety. But, with all that said, I think he is still a great choice. Imagine Hillary, Obama, McCain, Giuliani? They would be akin to electing Nero. I am so irritated at the Republican party in general, as far as I am concerened they can all burn in hell (insert corporate sponsor of hell here).

When are people going to realize that America cannot solve a problem of more than 1,000 years. The tribes always fought against themselves, we cannot rule and say that from now on they have to make peace between them.
Civil War is not a place for our soldiers.
If you want to save the world, lets go also to Darfur, to Birma etc..
We need our people here, taking care of our ow n country. I don't believe in "terrorist" from outside.
I'm not saying we have to cut and run, but we have to organize a redeployment not a running away.
Why do you think we need this huge embassy in Iraq? Do you ever Think about this ? Sometimes what it looks conspiracy theories or internet conspiracies (like Nau, SPP) has no other logic explanation and we need to think about.

Minnie, I like your ideas. I spend so much time on illegal immigration, I hardly have time to figure out what I really think is right regarding the war.

All I know is that I don't know HOW GWB has managed to keep us safe...so far.

I figure that if we would blame him for an attack, it makes sense to me that I should give him credit for not having one.

I just can't figure it out. Some people would say it's coming, just wait, that makes sense when I think about the number of people coming into the U.S. illegally through Mexico. As much as I'd like to put my head in the sand and just not think about it......it has to be thought about. Everyone thinks about it, whether or not we talk about it......we think about it.

It's so scarey.

It's like a mystery.

BearFlagRepublic wrote:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, explains the Ron Paul mystique.......

That sort of confirms our suspicions from our earlier discussion, doesn't it? I'm sure Minnie's not alone in her support of Ron Paul because of his strong stance against the war. I'm a retired military veteran and my son recently returned from his second trip to Iraq (called up from the Reserves). I've been to war, and sent my son to war (twice), however, Illegal immigration and border security are still my top priorities. I'll be damned if I'm going to ignore our national security and the ongoing invasion of my country because of the war in Iraq. Folks need to wake up, Ron Paul is not the best choice to secure our nation and repel the illegal immigrant invasion we're experiencing.

Chosen wrote:

Tancredo and Hunter are going to be buried by the rhino repubs, so there isn't anything left.

Unfortunately the MSM has convinced a lot of folks to join your camp of thinking. However, I'm not so easily deterred. I'll not surrender my principles and convictions based on what the gaggle does.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

Minnie, I like your ideas. I spend so much time on illegal immigration, I hardly have time to figure out what I really think is right regarding the war.

All I know is that I don't know HOW GWB has managed to keep us safe...so far.

I figure that if we would blame him for an attack, it makes sense to me that I should give him credit for not having one.

I just can't figure it out. Some people would say it's coming, just wait, that makes sense when I think about the number of people coming into the U.S. illegally through Mexico. As much as I'd like to put my head in the sand and just not think about it......it has to be thought about. Everyone thinks about it, whether or not we talk about it......we think about it.

It's so scarey.

It's like a mystery.

Isn't it amazing how with all our borders so completelly open, nothing happened since 9/11?
These questions I've made myself several times,
then I started searching and reading (I also couldn't believe) . It is really scary but there is no other explanation . Sometimes it seems like a mystery novel that is slowlly but clearly lifting the veil

there is no other explanation .

What could be the explanation?

MAYBE he is right that we're keeping the terrorists too busy over there?

I don't know the explanation, but sometimes that's one that we hear.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

there is no other explanation .

What could be the explanation?

MAYBE he is right that we're keeping the terrorists too busy over there?

I don't know the explanation, but sometimes that's one that we hear.

And we "want" to hear

I don't believe any more in Santa Clauss, to me the media explanation is Santa Clauss.
Didn't you ever ask yourself why congress is so "affraid" of bush ?

LegalUSCitizen wrote:

MAYBE he is right that we're keeping the terrorists too busy over there?

I too believe that to be true. Furthermore, I would hate to see the accomplishments we have made in Iraq so far go for naught and the thousands of Americans soldiers deaths become meaningless. We must not pull out blindly or before the time is right. I think Duncan Hunter's got it right:

Excerpt:

JUDY WOODRUFF: You've said, too, that you think the United States will win, that there will be victory. How do you define that?

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: Yeah, well, I think we're going to be victorious in this mission in Iraq. And the way we leave in victory in Iraq is to follow this same pattern that we've used for many years when we've expanded freedom around the world.

First thing we did was stand up a free government. We've done that. It's a clumsy government, somewhat inept, but most new governments are. We've stood up a free government. The second step is to stand up a military capability that can protect that free government. And that's the second step that we're working on right now. And the last step is the Americans leave.

Right now, we're standing up the Iraqi army. It's 131 battalions. Most of them have some battlefield experience now. And, you know, Judy, I've heard lots of people in their smooth road books, all of the people who've criticized the way we did Iraq, saying there was really a smooth road you could have taken. I don't think there is any smooth road to occupying a nation and changing it so profoundly.

But those people say we should have kept Saddam Hussein's army in place, and that would have made things a lot easier. Saddam Hussein's army had 11,000 Sunni generals in it, squads of generals who had made their living beating up on the Shiite population. We had to start this army from scratch. We've done that.

As we stand up those 131 battalions and get them battle-hardened, we're going to be able to rotate them into the battlefield and displace America's heavy combat forces, Marines and Army, rotate our guys out of the battlefield and move them back to the United States or other places in Central Command.

I think that the Iraqi government will hold. I think it will be a clumsy government, and I think it will stumble along, as most new governments do, but I think it will hold. And I think the army, the Iraqi army, will be an institution for stability in Iraq.

Now, there will always be bombs going off in Iraq, just as there will always be bombs going off in Israel. And if money and resources could stop bombs from going off, they wouldn't be going off in Israel. But I think that country will hold, and that will accrue to the long-term benefit of our country to have a friend, not an enemy, in that strategic location in the Middle East.

Rep. Duncan Hunter
R-Calif.

The Iraqi army is led by division commanders and brigade commanders who are Kurdish, who are Sunni, and who are Shiite. So the one place you have some reconciliation is in the army, in the military. That's an indicator for stability.

Progress in Iraqi military
JUDY WOODRUFF: And how long do you think it will take to get to that point that you just...

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: Well, we've got -- General Petraeus testified to us the other day that 75 percent of the Iraqi forces now are what he calls in the lead in their military operations. They've taken casualties at about three to one over the American forces.

I think it will be faster than we think, because as these forces mature, they're going to be able to step into the battlefield and take this responsibility. A reliable Iraqi army, I think, is a key to an American handoff.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what makes you confident -- you seem confident -- that the Iraqi government will hold, as you put it? What do you see? Because it's been difficult these last few years.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: Well, part of it's natural, in that the Iraqi government you have right now is in the majority Shiite. That's because the majority of the population is Shiite. So you don't have a situation where you'll have a minority in the country trying to hold on to a -- in a transition to a democracy, trying to hold onto power. That's sometimes the case.

In this case, the Shiite community is in the majority, and it's in the majority in the government, and yet there are seats that are held by the Kurds and the Sunnis and in the army, when I think this is, again, very important, because I think that the standup of a reliable Iraqi military that's responsive to the civilian arm of government is more important than all of the reconciliation and all of the legislation that we've set as metrics that we feel have to be passed by their government.

The Iraqi army is led by division commanders and brigade commanders who are Kurdish, who are Sunni, and who are Shiite. So the one place you have some reconciliation is in the army, in the military. That's an indicator for stability.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And how much should American public opinion and American patience be taken into account in America, in U.S. policy toward Iraq?

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: Well, I think the people run this country. And I think what this takes, this takes a lot of persuasion, and always informing the people, and talking to them constantly, because this isn't World War II where we finally all got together and moved forward as one, and where there was a lot of momentum for taking this thing down to the goal line.

We're going to have other situations. In fact, we're going to have a confrontation with this challenging situation in Iran, as Iran walks down the path to build a nuclear device and gets closer to what I call the edge of the cliff. The United States is going to have some very difficult challenges, and we're going to need to call on the American people, perhaps, to make -- to make some very tough decisions with respect to Iran.

So this is going to be an era of difficult decisions, difficult challenges, and challenges which will have to be explained to the American people and which leadership will be at a premium.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics ... 09-26.html

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Unfortunately the MSM has convinced a lot of folks to join your camp of thinking. However, I'm not so easily deterred. I'll not surrender my principles and convictions based on what the gaggle does.

It really doesn't have anything to do with MSM, I used to be a member of the RNC, I know what they are, what they have become and what they plan for the next election. Tancredo and Hunter WILL be buried by the rhinos. They will not give them front and center stage because they are openly opposed to illegal immigration, every time the issue of illegal immigration comes up their "boys" take a massive hit. Tancredo and Hunter can easily make the global corp boys look bad. I can tell you that the RNC is acutely aware of how important illegal immigration is to the base and how it could easily topple them. They have chosen to ignore it and move forward as if it doesn't matter, or isn't happening. The Clinton repubs like Giuliani and McCain bring in tons of globalist dough, they are "compnee boys," Tancredo and Hunter are Conservatives and appeal to the base. The RNC could care less, they simply want their interests represented as per the globalist contributors.

So their really isn't any influence of MSM as I have never heard of them even mentioning their inabilities, there is however an army of neo white trash, known commonly as rhinos, who are intent on having the next election be a giuliani-clinton run. I would vote for Tancredo over any of them, with Hunter a second.

Let's all be willing to admit that there really isn't much of a difference any longer between the parties. There are only two ways out of this mess, a ballot box victory or a Jeffersonian prediction, in the first we need a candidate who can win.

Here is an intersting article by someone who is convinced Thompson will be our next President:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/ ... mpson.html

Very interesting, MW. I trust Duncan Hunter A LOT to handle things, I really do. He's right, we have done this before. I had not thought about that, and he's right.....for sure we have some tough roads ahead of us.

I believe we are going to need to be strong. Thanks for that input from Congressman Hunter.