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

Originally Posted by MW

After reading the link I provided to the Ron Paul site, it would appear Chloe24 and libertygrl are one and the same. Additionally, these aren't her real words, they're are borrowed:

Sandra Miller, the author of this speil, is an AVID Tom Tancredo supporter. She is also (and has been for a LONG time) on a power kick. What she got SOO irate about is that she sent the RP HQ an email several weeks ago and they didn't see fit to go down and answer her little missive in the point by point manner that she desired sssooooo....she sent then another email and still failed to get exactly the response that she wanted. As this made Ms. Miller feel like she wasn't as important to the RP Campaign as she feels like she deserved, she wrote out this garbage about Dr. Paul's record. I have attempted to clue her in about why Dr. Paul voted against some of those bills that she liked so well (there were amendments attached to them that Dr. Paul couldn't support) but, she's having too much fun and garnering too much attention to back off her stance now.

How do I know all this, you ask? I am a co-founder of the Tennessee anti-illegal immigration organization (www.tnrip.org) and have had dealings with her for YEARS now. As a matter of fact, a little over a year ago, she called me long distance to DEMAND that I change something on our home page!! When I politely refused, she went on a tirad and bad-mouthed our group all across the country even though we are all fighting for the same cause. She's an attention seeking, control freak which is pretty well negating a lot of the good work she's done on this issue in the past.

Something else that may be pertinent is the fact that I have known and admired Congressman Tancredo for several years and have gotten to spend quite a bit of time with discussing a variety of issues. Everyone who knows me is well aware of how I feel about Tom and, yet, I have come out as an avid supporter of Dr. Paul because I can not be a one-issue voter. With that being said and, as someone who is deeply involved in this illegal immigration mess, I wouldd NOT be supporting Dr. Paul if I were not 100% comfortable with him on this issue as well as a host of others.

A little deceitful, don't you think, Chloe?

Well, someone needs to get their eyes examined. First of all, there was no deceit involve at all. Perhaps if you would have read my post correctly the first time, you would have read the part where I clearly state that the two quotes came from other people. I NEVER said that they were MY words. These 2 people replied to me. I posted their responses here, just to give some perspective on that article.

As far as seeking help from other people, yes I do check the Ron Paul forums from time to time. You are correct that I am Chloe here and Libertygrl there. (But since when is THAT a crime? Doesn't everybody use different screen names when they join different forums??)

I know that there are politically experienced people on those forums, and have a greater depth of knowledge than I do about Ron Paul and legislative issues. And if I can use some backup to help promote Ron Paul, and articulate them better, then I'm not ashamed to do it. But I have NEVER taken another person's comments and claimed they were my own!

I've never been involved in politics before. I'm just a novice. Perhaps the more I go along and start learning these things, the more secure I will feel in articulating the finer details of legislation and such.

But I do NOT appreciate your accusations of being deceitful. I like and respect the people on these forums and I enjoy our discussions. I have nothing to hide and to try and "catch me" in a lie (which you seem to find great pleasure in trying to do with Ron Paul) says more about your character than it does about mine.

Finally, to start another thread about this is nothing more than a childish attempt to gain attention for yourself and to punish Paul supporters. Plus it's hypocritical. Let's be honest, you've done a pretty good pushing numerous posts on your candidate as well. And aren't we ALL guilty in some way of trying to sway one another? But to do it by slandering me or anyone else is crossing the line. I want to build bridges among people, not tear them down. Sorry you've chosen to do otherwise.

Chloe, I understand what you are saying, but MW's link to that site was pretty informative and eye-opening. Especially because the guy who wrote the hit piece on Sandra Miller is the same who said very disrespectful things about William. And he seems interested in writing a hit piece on him as well. I appreciate that you stay respectful and want to build bridges. Unfortunately, too many people on that site are building walls, and have some disrespectful and inaccurate things to say about us......very few of us promote "massive deportation." We support attrition through enforcement. And it is evident that some of those people are slamming us without doing their homework.

Chloe24 wrote:

Well, someone needs to get their eyes examined. First of all, there was no deceit involve at all. Perhaps if you would have read my post correctly the first time, you would have read the part where I clearly state that the two quotes came from other people.

After reading the above, I went back and read your post again. You are correct, you did say that. I'm sorry for missing it the first time. You have my apology for my mistake (I sincrely mean that) .

Chloe wrote:

I know that there are politically experienced people on those forums, and have a greater depth of knowledge than I do about Ron Paul and legislative issues.

Perhaps some are knowledgeable, however, some strike me as being completely off their rocker.

Chloe wrote:

Finally, to start another thread about this is nothing more than a childish attempt to gain attention for yourself and to punish Paul supporters.

You're wrong about that! I posted the link simply because I though it would have entertainment value for the members of ALIPAC, especially since ALIPAC was mentioned several times. I don't see posting the link to another site as "childish" and I certainly didn't do it to gain attention or punish Paul supporters. You're way over in left field on that one.

I have to say that I can't really question Ron Paul's character and do not really desire to get into this sort of old fashioned character assasination.

I deem Ron Paul to be consistent, most of his views are pure Libertarian and he hasn't really swayed from them. I think I could nitpick him to death, but the fact of the matter is that I am fairly certain he would act in the best interests of the country. Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Hillary, Osama, Edwards and the rest of the Democratic Party and a good deal of the Republican party are simply part of the system. Ron Paul has enough of a conviction to make a difference and I think it would be fair to say that you have a much better idea where he stands than the other candidates, Tancredo and Hunter aside.

I think the problems I would have with some of Ron Pauls beliefs would be the problems I have with Libertarianism in general, some ideas of Libertarians I wish others would pick up on tho', but in the end he appears to be no-nonsense. It is bizarre how those who whisper in the ears of all the candidates are keeping them focused away from illegal immigration, as if no person in the US is concerned about it.

I would vote for Tancredo, Hunter or Ron Paul those are really the only ones that will give us any sort of chance to survive as a nation, otherwise we face a disintegration.

My problems with Ron Paul are in 2 categories. Some of his supporters are just dem activists looking for something different "to do" and I think that there is an unfortunately large portion of his base that is comprised of the disaffected, anti-war crowd. For them, they see this as a way to get back at Republicans Ross Perot style. This is kind of funny to me seeing the run of the mill pro abortion girl, wearing her Che shirt waving a vote for Ron Paul sign. Saw it downtown in Seattle! The reason I think she may not have been connected was that the RP supporters generally seem to wear Ron Paul clothing. Now to be fair she may not have been connected to the campaign, but from my observations you get a good deal of the "white wussy" crowd, pseudo intellectuals who weigh about 90lbs and wear Elvis Costello glasses (men and women)- the passive agressive types- and those folk are really in it for self gratification. So association is problem number one.

Number two can best be summarized in this article:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

I think that this article is extreme, but it does bring up some good points at least about ability to manage. Libertarians seem to make an assumption about human nature, that I don't find well suited to anything other than defending pure free will.

I should add that I personally refer to collectivists as a particular type of political, social and economic organization.

I think the links BrightNail posted are very instrutive for those who like to research about the candidates.


http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-88649.htmls

Hey folks, many interesting posts here, and some good info.
One of the key arguments I am finding here against Dr. Paul is that he voted against the Hunter amendment. Has anyone read WHY he did this?

Here is the official transcript and it clearly states Dr. Paul's concerns.

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2005
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes:

Mr. PAUL . Mr. Chairman, I rise with serious concerns over this legislation, which although it does address some illegal immigration problems is woefully weak on real substance. I fear that should this bill become law as is, six months or even a year down the road we will see no substantial improvement on the critical issue of deporting illegal aliens and protecting our borders. Some measures in the bill sound good, but are in effect superfluous. Do we need new legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to achieve ``operational control of the borders''? Shouldn't the federal government already have ``operational control of the borders''?
Here is a road map for real immigration reform. First we need better enforcement of the laws we've got--which plainly call for illegal immigrants to be arrested and deported and for our borders to be secure. These things are already law, but the executive branch over the past decades has failed to enforce them. Congress can pass any law it wants, but unless federal agencies enforce those laws they are meaningless.
Second we need to eliminate the two main magnets attracting illegal immigrants to illegally enter the country, the welfare magnet and the citizenship magnet. Failure to address these in an immigration bill raises questions about achieving real results. That is why I introduced three amendments to this bill, in the hopes that we can finally do something about the problem of illegal immigration. I introduced an amendment to end so-called ``birth-right citizenship,'' whereby anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically an American citizen. I introduced an amendment to end the practice of providing U.S. Social Security payments to non-U.S. citizens. And finally I introduced an amendment to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving food stamps, student loans, or other federally-provided assistance. Unfortunately, none of my amendments were even allowed to reach the Floor for a vote.
There are some elements of this new bill to be applauded. Measures to require detention of and expedited removal of aliens, for example, are a good step. Also to be applauded is the requirement for an additional 250 inspectors at U.S. ports of entry each year from 2007 through 2010, although this is unfortunately subject to the availability of funds. But overall this bill is a weak substitute for real immigration and border reform. As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) says, H.R. 4437 ``treats some of the symptoms, it does not, in fact, do enough to actually cure the illness.

Now how can one consider Ron Paul weak on immigration when he felt that HR. 4437 was too weak?
"If you can answer that one folks, you're smarter than me."

One of the things many here are also saying is that Dr. Paul voted against placing the military on the border. He did this with good reason because the Constitution does not authorize the president or congress to utilize the military for border protection. According to Article IV Section IV of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

Article IV Section IV clearly does not define how this "protection" is to be implimented.

Lastly, I see where Dr. Paul's potentially negative voting record has been posted, so here is his positive one as well.

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act. (Hunter voted to make this permanent)
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Dr. Paul was the ONLY congressman who voted against their pay raises. That in itself speaks volumes to me. In addition, Paul voted AGAINST the UNPATRIOTIC Act, in which Congressman Hunter voted to make it permanent. There is nothing patriotic in the patriotic act whatsoever!

Yes Dr. Paul voted against the Iraq war, but many seem to forget why. There was no declaration of war by Congress. We all know BOOSH pushed for this war, a war with a country which HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. And, the dems were stupid enough to relinquish their Congressional requirement of war declaration powers and stupidly give them to JORGE.

Now, I'm not trying to bash either of these presidential candidates, and I have the utmost respect for Hunter, but I simply don't buy the fact that Dr. Paul can't manage, and Hunter would be better at it.
If it comes down to it, I will vote for either Paul, Tancredo or Hunter because these three are far better than their top tier rivals. These losers are a joke.

BOOSH can't manage either, and that's why presidents have a cabinet. They are not supposed to "rule on high" by themselves. But when you appoint crappy managers in your management team, of course you won't be able to do much.

sippy You made some good points, and thanks for clearing up some things.

So far, I don't believe we have had any kind of immigration bill come up for a vote. We have had smokescreen, such as the fence, voting in bills that are already on the books, etc.

We do not need any more bills - except the one to deal with anchor babies, right now.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."


Now we are going to disagree, I don't see anything in this that says troops can't be used to defend the border. In fact the phrase, shall protect each of them against invasion seems to me to be an absolute stated use for the military on the border. It didn't say we are to protect Iraq against invasion, or any other foreign country. Where else does the government protect against invasion, except on or borders or points of entry - airports?

We had military on the border during WWII - and quite few miles inland guarding key bridges, etc.

There is nothing else more important the military should do besides protect our borders. Somehow we have the idea our military is to fight foreign wars - not so.

I don't know why Paul voted against using the military - but I do think it is absolutely the duty of the military to protect the borders. And if what is happening now is not an invasion, I don't know what an invasion looks like. It doesn't always takes tanks and bombs to invade a country.

It is said that Paul believes drugs and prostitution should be legalized. As for drugs, I am a little hesitant - but we have to be able to say to ourselves what we are doing now isn't working. It has only served to bring a lot of crime - violent crime - into the picture and it has served to give more and more power to the government in their 'war on drugs'.

Would more people use drugs if they were legal and sold from a store? I don't know - I can't say. I do believe the criminal element would be greatly reduced and the government interference and 'no knock invasions' would be seriously curtailed. Neither of these things could be bad.

As to prostitution - why is prostitution illegal in the first place? Think about it now. Really think about it. Do we for a moment believe our government(s) have kept prostitution illegal because of some moral reasons? Give me a break. We kill unborn babies in this country for goodness sakes!!

I suggest prostitution should be legalized - not even sure it should be regulated in any way - except it should be taxed as in any other income.

Trixie, you also bring up some good points. I am merely speculating that Paul didn't vote to militarize the border because maybe he believes the Constitution doesn't interperet that way.
It's hard to say.
For me personally, I think we need a strong military presence on the border, especially since we are neck deep in the war on terror.

Interesting points you bring up on his views of drugs should be legal.
But he is not listing all drugs should be legal. He does promote legalization of industrial hemp. Which as many may not know is the male cannibus plant. Hemp is made into many useful things, and is very cheap to grow. In addition, the male cannibus plant does not contain the THC ingredient which creates the high.
I am for the legalization of this because the "war" on drugs isn't working. I personally don't partake of cannibus, but it's impossible to overdose on this drug, and I too believe the crime rate would drop significantly. After all, folks who partake of that can attest that robbing a bank or committing some other violent crime takes too much energy when one is high!
And, we all know that cancer patients can use cannibus during their chemo treatments to help w/ the pain and nausea. Cigarettes and alcohol have killed more people than cannibus has. On top of this, cannisub isn't physically addicting like tobacco and alcohol.
I say legalize it and tax it heavily, like they do tobacco and use the tax monies for the good of society.

The bottom line here is, regardless of one's views on Hunter, Tancredo and Paul, that one of the 2nd tier candidates must get the nomination because the top tier flakes are worthless and will do nothing to cure the problems plaguing our nation.

The bottom line here is, regardless of one's views on Hunter, Tancredo and Paul, that one of the 2nd tier candidates must get the nomination because the top tier flakes are worthless and will do nothing to cure the problems plaguing our nation.

Amen on that one. If we go for the same old garbage - we are lost.

There is a lawsuit right now for the right to grow industrial hemp - some farmers in one of the Dakotas, I think.

As an old fogey, I know absolutely nothing about drugs, but I do know what we are doing is not working. I don't think I have a problem with legalizing all drugs - and taxing them.

It won't happen, though, because too many people are getting rich off these drugs. Think of the SA cartels, think of those in the US who are moving this stuff around (and I don't mean the street corner pusher, either), think of the Mexican drug dealers - wouldn't surprise me if the Mexican government wasn't taking a big cut.

I think perhaps the reason he didn't vote for the militarizing of the border is because something else was attached to the bill - don't know.