United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: The Ron Paul Mystique Part 1
Source:
federalobserver.com
URL Source: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11832
Published: Dec 19, 2009
Author: By S. J. Miller
Post Date: 2009-12-19 21:05:51 by WhiteSands
Keywords: Open Borders, Ron Paul, NoPath-Just Amnesty
Views: 3250
Comments: 42
By S. J. Miller Dust from the November 2006 election had barely settled when presidential candidates began assembling for the 2008 campaign. With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), most were known quantities. Lots of "folklore" has been circulated about Congressman Paul, but how much is actually fact vs. "factoid?" Dr. Paul's distinction among Republican candidates is that he's the only one who opposes the War in Iraq. As an American who long ago realized that the US military is used as a corporate security force to protect globalist assets and interests overseas, and the "wars" and "police actions" are mounted whenever global capital interests are threatened, I felt Dr. Paul deserved further investigation as a viable candidate. Whether or not he actually emerges as the winning GOP candidate isn't as important as his forcing RNC recognition of opposition to the Iraq War among conservative voters. "Doing my homework" as an informed voter didn't mean I began with Ron Paul as a blank slate; an old family friend had told me of his Libertarian background, his unorthodox "Constitution-only" stands and her respect for him. Like most Southern Californians, she thoroughly disapproves of his "open borders" position and his past support for illegal alien amnesty, but she supports him because she knows of his love for America. Selecting the Immigration/Border Security issue as my yardstick for evaluating whether Congressman Paul's positions were well-founded and realistic doesn't make me a "one-issue" voter. I chose the issue that I'm most savvy on; many years as an activist on an issue that politicians don't want to discuss has given me valuable experience in recognizing evasion and "phony baloney." As of early 2007, Dr. Paul hadn't published his "official" position on Immigration/Border Security. His House of Representatives website (www.house.gov/paul) doesn't have an "issues" page, nor did I find anything on his Liberty Caucus site. The www.ronpaul.com site that his supporters claim gives a thorough explanation of all pertinent information and links was under construction, as was his "Exploratory Committee" website. So my only feasible starting point was the Libertarian Party website, where I found that I agree with many Libertarian views. I do join many Americans in the two I oppose strongly: "open borders" and "open access to drugs." Congressman Paul's campaign website agrees with these LP positions. Since reports that Dr. Paul supports legalizing prostitution lack substantiation, I discarded them as gossip. Mrs. Penny Langford Freeman came to town. A great "educational" opportunity arrived in February 2007 via a program with speakers opposing the North American Union, including Ms. Penny Langford Freeman, assistant to Congressman Ron Paul. I recognized a great opportunity to learn more about a Presidential candidate that held the promise of the new blood Americans are calling for the in the 2008 election. I was particularly interested in learning how Congressman Paul reconciles his opposition to NAU and NAFTA with his Libertarian Party's "open immigration" platform. When evaluating politicians' promises and "positions," I've adopted The Judge Judy Test: "If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true." Not only is it easily understood by virtually everyone, but it's also been foolproof. Considering the current interest of Americans on the immigration issue, it wasn't easy to locate his position. Despite Mrs. Freeman's insistence that www.ronpaul.com and the "Exploratory Committee" websites answered all questions on Dr. Paul's position, they were still under construction. Just before the speech, I revisited the Libertarian Party website where its "Issues" page listed what the LP regarded at the time as "Hot Issues:" High Gas Prices, Corruption on Capitol Hill, the Iraq War. Neither the NAU/SPP nor Immigration/Border Security qualified as "hot issues!" Without the Dr. Paul's Immigration Report Card of his votes assembled by NumbersUSA, I'd have been sunk. Mrs. Freeman spoke on Congressman Paul's early recognition of the virus affecting America (erosion of US sovereignty). Hearing Mrs. Freeman tell us that Paul "always tells the truth, even when he knows it isn't what people want to hear" certainly sounded promising for hearing a candid and forthright statement on where Ron Paul really stands. When she called for audience questions, I lost no time in getting to the mike. Ron Paul's voting record (1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border: (3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359), (4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - "Enforcement Only" Bill). (5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners. What a surprise to hear Mrs. Freeman focus her reply not on the five items I'd presented, but instead on Congressman Paul's introduction of a bill banning "birthright citizenship" (actually one of several in the Congressional hopper). Was this another example of the politicians' shell game? I reminded her that my questions weren't about birthright citizenship, but instead about using the military on the border, opposing the border fence amendment to HR 4437, his support for several Section 245i amnesties for illegal aliens and increased guest-worker visas for jobs Americans want. She apparently realized that I wouldn't be blown off so easily and spoke to the questions presented. She said a border fence wasn't needed; sensors at the border would be enough. On the matter of the military on the border, she said it wasn't necessary--the Border Patrol should be fully empowered to do the job. She claimed that the job was done more effectively without the military when states patrolled their own borders, adding an anecdote about Texas Rangers' success in stopping diseased cattle from crossing the border. My genealogical research tells me this is baloney. My great-grandfather served on the southern border at Fort Ringgold, TX while in the US Army (Fifth Infantry, Company E) from 1885-1889. Post Returns and Annual reports filed by military commanders to their superiors telling their duties and activities make clear that the Army and Cavalry patrolled the southern border at the time during Arizona and New Mexico territorial days. These reports were published as leather-bound books, distributed to senators, congressmen and others who eventually donated their copies to public and private collections (the set I used is maintained at the University of Nevada Reno library). "Post Returns" are a land military base equivalent of a ship's log, and are maintained by the National Archives. She complimented the Minutemen on how effective their work has been, suggesting that she believes their mission is permanent. (Perhaps she hasn't heard Chris Simcox tell that the Minutemen eagerly await the day when the federal government will assume their constitutional duty and let the Minutemen go home.) When Mrs. Freeman insisted that Ron Paul has NEVER voted for illegal alien amnesties, I further questioned, "He's never voted to support amnesties under 8 USC Section 245i?" with the bill numbers above. After a slight hesitation, she repeated the denial. While the "Section 245i Amnesty" wasn't the same "path to citizenship" or "earned legalization" touted in "comprehensive immigration reform," it qualified as amnesty by "allowing an illegal alien to remain in the US legally"--the distinction is that 245i was for a temporary amnesty period rather than permanent. 245i was a loophole in the 1996 IRCA that barred illegal aliens from receiving visas for 10 years. By paying a "fee," illegal aliens who applied for legal status could remain in the US while their application was reviewed and evade the usual investigation done in their home countries. (This has a familiar ring!) The 245i program has since ended, but Ron Paul voted for its continuance in 1997, 2001 and 2002, and voted AGAINST ending it later. Because all illegal alien amnesty bills during the past 5 years have originated in the Senate rather than the House, Congressman Paul hasn't been put in a position of casting a publicly-recorded vote on illegal alien amnesty since 2002. It was obvious that Mrs. Freeman was not only unprepared but also unwilling to speak to Paul's voting record on immigration issues, which shocked me. Others in the audience apparently recognized Mrs. Freeman's evasions when they approached me afterward and inquired the source of my research. To encounter from the Ron Paul camp the same evasions characteristic of typical hack politicians was disappointing, but I knew other opportunities would be forthcoming as the presidential campaign continued. Directly from the Paul Campaign They were wrong. The 6 Points raised more questions than it answered; I was underwhelmed. So on July 8 2007, I e-mailed an inquiry to the Ron Paul campaign via its website, outlining specifics that I recognized were missing from the "6-Point Plan." Activists on the immigration issue have learned that what a politician DOESN'T say is just as important as what is acknowledged and it was clearly true of Ron Paul. The inquiry can be found HERE. Public posting not only shared awareness of how ambiguous was the "6-point Plan, but the current interest level in Ron Paul generated lots of speculation and postings even without the campaign's reply. It effectively "opened the public debate." My July 8 inquiry remains unreplied to this day. Not what I would have expected from a candidate claimed to tell the whole truth, even when it's not what people want to hear. On the other hand, it wasn't such a surprise after the February speech experience. 10 days later on July 18, I re-sent the inquiry and this time followed up with a phone call to the campaign. I did learn that the campaign staffers monitor phone calls much more conscientiously than e-mails when I received a call the following day from the campaign's "point-person on immigration," Don Rasmussen. He wanted me to go to RonPaul2008.com, where he would "walk me through" each point that would answer all my questions. "Not so fast, Mr. Rasmussen," I said. "I've read your 6-point plan and it's the result of the ambiguities it contains that I sent my inquiry. Since I've spent the time to organize the "action items," why don't you give me your e-mail address, I'll send you a copy of the inquiry and you can respond to that." That Mr. Rasmussen gave me his e-mail address @ronpaul2008.com told me he was a legitimate campaign spokesman. I was initially impressed that, true to his word, Mr. Rasmussen did reply within 24 hours. I would have been even more impressed had his reply actually addressed the items I presented rather than just offer a generic "one size fits all" evasion of hiding behind some nebulous definition of "we always follow the Constitution." Past emphasis on Congressman Paul's integrity led me to expect more than the standard evasion that I've heard from staffers of (for example) Senators John McCain or Jon Kyl. In the next installment, read Congressman Paul's positions on immigration, directly from the campaign's "point person on immigration," Mr. Don Rasmussen.
I'd collected Ron Paul's voting record on the very strategies urged that night to reverse the influence of "one-world government:" hiring Americans, no amnesty for illegal aliens and border security based on Paul's Immigration Voting Record & Report Card on the NumbersUSA website:
2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815
2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546
2001: Traficant amendment to HR 258
6 2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.
(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.
And that's exactly what happened. As months passed, the Ron Paul Campaign website (www.ronpaul2008.com) was updated with his http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform on Immigration Reform / Border Security, and several Paul supporters assured me it would answer all my questions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
#4. To: WhiteSands, borntoweardiamonds (#0)
Have either of you ever heard the term Posse Comitatus? Perhaps you should google 18 U.S.C. § 1385
Perhaps you should google 18 U.S.C. § 1385 What a coward. We're being invaded and you don't even want to use all means to protect our nation. Typical Paultard. Markets and profits before citizenship.
I have stated before that I would love to have the military on our border, IF Congress would declare war on Mexico. Anything short of that is illegal. You can't use the military for civilian law enforcement.
How do you propose that we round up tens of millions of illegals and remove them from the country?
Military, State Militias, local police and a government volunteer police force of unemployed Americans could be used to round up Illegals. We essentially did a round up in the 1950s with Operation wetback. though it was only with a million illegals. But I think it could be done. But the fact of the matter is corporate anti american shills will never go for it under the guise of humanitarianism. While there are some nobley intentioned people who genuinely think it would be inhumane, most of the people that oppose it are in the pockets of Latino Lobby groups, the ADL, SPLC, and corporate America. They don't want their profits disturbed and their plans to turn America into a third world melting pot disturbed. What I don't understand is you attack Ron Paul for having the same position as Sarah Palin. Why won't you attack her? Interviewer: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported? Palin:There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration. http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2
most of the people that oppose it are in the pockets of Latino Lobby groups, the ADL, SPLC, and corporate America. What I don't understand is you attack Ron Paul for having the same position as Sarah Palin. Interviewer: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported? Under what and whose authority? You don't believe the ACLU wouldn't have anything you suggest tied up in court for years, if not decades? Please provide a link to Palin's support of open borders. I fail to see any mention of Palin supporting amnesty or open borders.
You didn't answer my question. Why are you criticizing Paul for saying the same thing as Palin? Seems your agenda is Anti Paul, not anti illegal immigration. If you were anti illegal immigrant, you would critcize Palin for making a statement nearly identical to Paul. "I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case." "There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration." http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2
Seems your agenda is Anti Paul, www.univision.com Where did Palin say she supports open borders? I never brought Paul into the discussion. I CCL about him, but you hold him up as a messiah. He is just as fallible and hypocritical as everyone else. What is univision? Why should I care, or why do you care?
You should care because you claim to be for deporting illegal immigrants, and she isn't. I could care less, I am not a registered republican or a "conservative".
Hell, I doubt you are a US citizen.
#26. To: Ibluafartsky (#23)
If I was an illegal latino immigrant Palin would certainly want me to become one. To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? Palin: "I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country. " Palin also said, " I will tell you, I wish that there were more hours in the day so that we can get out there and to more of the communities with such the strong Latino vote that is out there and really tell them that we desire to work for them. We are asking them to hire us and let us work for them." http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:
#6. To: We The People (#4)
(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border: Have either of you ever heard the term Posse Comitatus?
#8. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#6)
#10. To: We The People (#8)
You can't use the military for civilian law enforcement.
#14. To: Ibluafartsky (#10)
(Edited)
#17. To: Thor (#14)
Military, State Militias, local police and a government volunteer police force of unemployed Americans could be used to round up Illegals.
#18. To: Ibluafartsky (#17)
#19. To: Thor (#18)
Why are you criticizing Paul for saying the same thing as Palin?
#21. To: Ibluafartsky (#19)
#23. To: Thor (#21)
I am not a registered republican or a "conservative".
Replies to Comment # 23. 
End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]