Thread: Ron Pauls Website: On Immigration

It is as if people that support Ron Paul are under a spell alright. There is no doubt.

So you are all okay with Paul putting even more Marxist, Communists, and all of the other people who hate America in high seats in Washington DC when He appoints His administration?

edit.....Guess you won't mind when La Raza is also part of Ron Paul's adminstration along with Code Pink members.

Alrighty. Just so I know what side you are coming from.

I have almost 50,000 posts on this site ... if there are any doubts where I am coming from... go to all my posts and check them out

Restore The Republic: Legalize The Constitution

"A republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin

Ron Paul Revolution -Turn Up the VOLUME!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnLLcsqa ... re=related

Strictly Following the Constitution for OVER 24 YEARS

With a PERFECT RECORD

NEVER WAIVERING

http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/c ... cript.html

The Constitution says this.....

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

But Paul says this...........

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don't need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

Paul supporters, please explain this. Paul has a huge beef with the founders, and apparantly a disagreement with the United States Constitution.

While I'm at it, anyone chime in with an answer to this: What was the first bill signed into law by the first congress?

An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths[1] was the first law passed by the Congress assembled after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It was signed by President George Washington on June 1, 1789, and parts of it remain in effect to this day.

The House of Representatives reached its first quorum on April 1, 1789. Five days later, it appointed a committee to draft a bill on the manner of administration of the oath for members of Congress required under Article VI of the Constitution. The House also voted that day to instruct the committee to include the following wording for the oath:

"I, A B a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_act_to_ ... tain_oaths

Sorry, I guess I phrased my question incorrectly. I should have said: What was the first substantive legislative act of the first congress?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400280.html

The Tariff Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 24), signed into law by President George Washington on July 4, 1789, was the first substantive legislation passed by the first Congress. This act, together with the Collection Act of 1789, operated as a device both to protect trade and to raise revenues for the federal government. The constitutional authority for the act is found in the powers given to Congress "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises" and "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Among other things, the act established the first schedule of import duties and created an additional duty of 10 percent on imports carried on vessels "not of the United States."

U.S. TRADE POLICY
The specific provisions of the act are of little interest (by 1799 it had been superseded by subsequent, more detailed legislation). However, the act remains significant for setting the basics of U.S. trade policy. In supporting its enactment, Alexander Hamilton argued that tariffs would encourage domestic industry. Other nations offered their industries significant subsidies, or money given by a government to support a private business. Hamilton contended that a tariff would protect U.S. industry from the effects of these subsidies. (Concerns over "dumping"—imported goods sold at less than their fair value to gain unfair advantage over domestic goods—would also be addressed in the Tariff Act of 1816.) Another argument in favor of tariffs is now easy to forget. Before the income tax was authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the tariff was a key source of federal revenue. Thus, for over a century import duties (along with domestic excise taxes) were the major source of government revenue, with sugar duties alone accounting for approximately 20 percent of all import duties.

That's right, the founing fathers of the first congress' first substantive legislative act was constructing a tariff. Something Ron Paul thinks is terrible and we should eliminate. Hell, protectionism was one of the primary reasons the American Revolution happened in the first place. Why is Ron Paul a free trader? The founders weren't. Maybe because Paul's loyalty is not truly with the constitution, and actually falls squarely on his fanatic loyalty to libertarian dogma?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Skip~ Maybe because Paul's loyalty is not truly with the constitution, and actually falls squarely on his fanatic loyalty to libertarian dogma?

Great question. I noticed you are not intimated or blinded by the Ron Paul propaganda the left wing radicals are pulling off so well.

Ron Paul is a radical liberal Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Paul has close associations like Lew Rockwell whose girlfriend Cindy Sheehan is a member Code Pink (now former girlfriend). These frauds are disguised as conservatives. When you look in to Ron Paul's past, you see what the people who promote him are actually supporting. It is not the Constitution, but many of Ron Paul's sheep have been led to believe it is.

Off topic a bit here. Look what you get with a Ron Paul presidency....
For instance, if you live in the left wing state of California, and if Ron Paul gets his way, you will have the power as a state to vote for what ever you want to legalize. Take the issue of live birth abortions. Killing the baby will be perfectly legal EVERYWHERE IN THE STATE. If a person decides while in labor they want the baby killed as she/he is being born and getting ready to take her first breath, it will be legal to have her heart stopped and her brains pulled out of her skull as her head begins to come through the birth canal.

The Federal government does not allow murder. Guess killing babies as they are being born does not fall under the Federal government as far as Ron Paul is concerned. Ron Paul took part in thousands of deliveries, and there is no doubt he knows a baby being born is a living HUMAN LIFE just as valuable as a one year old baby! So why does Ron Paul believe it should be left up to the state to decide whether the baby lives or dies?

If you vote for Ron Paul, and he gets his way, you as a state will have the power to vote for anything you want. You can vote for one woman to be married to another woman and a man at the same time, or three men can marry. Or a woman can marry two men......and eventually who knows.

Same with legalizing heroin and all of the other illegal drugs. Just vote it in in your state and you can shoot up all you want right out in your front yard right in front of the neighboring children.

BearFlagRepublic, like you said, this is 2011 not 1782. There is no resemblance.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Sorry, I guess I phrased my question incorrectly. I should have said: What was the first substantive legislative act of the first congress?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400280.html

The Tariff Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 24), signed into law by President George Washington on July 4, 1789, was the first substantive legislation passed by the first Congress. This act, together with the Collection Act of 1789, operated as a device both to protect trade and to raise revenues for the federal government. The constitutional authority for the act is found in the powers given to Congress "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises" and "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Among other things, the act established the first schedule of import duties and created an additional duty of 10 percent on imports carried on vessels "not of the United States."

U.S. TRADE POLICY
The specific provisions of the act are of little interest (by 1799 it had been superseded by subsequent, more detailed legislation). However, the act remains significant for setting the basics of U.S. trade policy. In supporting its enactment, Alexander Hamilton argued that tariffs would encourage domestic industry. Other nations offered their industries significant subsidies, or money given by a government to support a private business. Hamilton contended that a tariff would protect U.S. industry from the effects of these subsidies. (Concerns over "dumping"—imported goods sold at less than their fair value to gain unfair advantage over domestic goods—would also be addressed in the Tariff Act of 1816.) Another argument in favor of tariffs is now easy to forget. Before the income tax was authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the tariff was a key source of federal revenue. Thus, for over a century import duties (along with domestic excise taxes) were the major source of government revenue, with sugar duties alone accounting for approximately 20 percent of all import duties.

That's right, the founing fathers of the first congress' first substantive legislative act was constructing a tariff. Something Ron Paul thinks is terrible and we should eliminate. Hell, protectionism was one of the primary reasons the American Revolution happened in the first place. Why is Ron Paul a free trader? The founders weren't. Maybe because Paul's loyalty is not truly with the constitution, and actually falls squarely on his fanatic loyalty to libertarian dogma?

Free Trade

46 Responses

[b]Ron Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.â€

Originally Posted by GoodOleDays

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Skip~ Maybe because Paul's loyalty is not truly with the constitution, and actually falls squarely on his fanatic loyalty to libertarian dogma?

Great question. I noticed you are not intimated or blinded by the Ron Paul propaganda the left wing radicals are pulling off so well.

Ron Paul is a radical liberal Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Paul has close associations like Lew Rockwell whose girlfriend Cindy Sheehan is a member Code Pink (now former girlfriend). These frauds are disguised as conservatives. When you look in to Ron Paul's past, you see what the people who promote him are actually supporting. It is not the Constitution, but many of Ron Paul's sheep have been led to believe it is.

Off topic a bit here. Look what you get with a Ron Paul presidency....
For instance, if you live in the left wing state of California, and if Ron Paul gets his way, you will have the power as a state to vote for what ever you want to legalize. Take the issue of live birth abortions. Killing the baby will be perfectly legal EVERYWHERE IN THE STATE. If a person decides while in labor they want the baby killed as she/he is being born and getting ready to take her first breath, it will be legal to have her heart stopped and her brains pulled out of her skull as her head begins to come through the birth canal.

The Federal government does not allow murder. Guess killing babies as they are being born does not fall under the Federal government as far as Ron Paul is concerned. Ron Paul took part in thousands of deliveries, and there is no doubt he knows a baby being born is a living HUMAN LIFE just as valuable as a one year old baby! So why does Ron Paul believe it should be left up to the state to decide whether the baby lives or dies?

If you vote for Ron Paul, and he gets his way, you as a state will have the power to vote for anything you want. You can vote for one woman to be married to another woman and a man at the same time, or three men can marry. Or a woman can marry two men......and eventually who knows.

Same with legalizing heroin and all of the other illegal drugs. Just vote it in in your state and you can shoot up all you want right out in your front yard right in front of the neighboring children.

BearFlagRepublic, like you said, this is 2011 not 1782. There is no resemblance.

again with the Bizzarre Statements

Same with legalizing heroin and all of the other illegal drugs

this is Wacko land ... where in the heck did you get that .. WOW... do you really believe this? or are you trying to make others believe this non sense

If you vote for Ron Paul, and he gets his way, you as a state will have the power to vote for anything you want.

you apparently have not heard about the 10th Amendment ... what state or politician is advocating anything bizzarre in your mind. I guess you also think the Federal Government should rule all... The Federal Government has only the rights given to them by the states... not the other way around

10th Amendment ~ The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amen ... nstitution

GoodOleDays wrote:

Off topic a bit here. Look what you get with a Ron Paul presidency....
For instance, if you live in the left wing state of California, and if Ron Paul gets his way, you will have the power as a state to vote for what ever you want to legalize. Take the issue of live birth abortions. Killing the baby will be perfectly legal EVERYWHERE IN THE STATE. If a person decides while in labor they want the baby killed as she/he is being born and getting ready to take her first breath, it will be legal to have her heart stopped and her brains pulled out of her skull as her head begins to come through the birth canal.

off topic and in Bizzarro land is more like it

Abortion http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/



AN EXPERIENCED PHYSICIAN

As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.

After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life. And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.â€