Posted on 04/16/2002 10:15:59 PM PDT by johnreed
After decades of New Deal and Great Society social activism ... combined with the rapid decline in civics and American history education in our government-run public schools ... mixed with a growing population of ill-informed and apathetic voters ... government at every level in this country continues to be too big, too intrusive and too expensive.
Founded in 1990, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas works to advance the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free markets within the Republican Party and throughout Texas. Our focus is on a broad range of issues, including education, taxation, property rights, gun rights, free speech, federalism and the proper role of government.
While rolling back decades of government "nannyism" will require a great deal of public education and grassroots lobbying, the most important means of changing public policy is to change public officials. Therefore, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas works to elect pro-liberty Republicans to offices at all levels, partisan and non-partisan, in both primary and general elections..
The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas is committed not to just electing more Republicans ... but better ones, as well.
###
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas |
|
|
Name ten real quick.
LP = The futile way to bring about change.
-------------------
Paul is brilliant in some areas, but a fool in other. The fault more than cancels the virtue.
I assume you mean this one:
Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in 2002 Rep. Paul FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later. The illegal aliens also would not have to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries. The lowest estimate from supporters of the bill was that some 200,000 illegal aliens would benefit. H RES 365 included language that would implement some important visa-tracking regulations helpful to discouraging illegal immigration. But all of those provisions had already been passed previously in H.R. 3525, making the assistance to illegal aliens the sole purpose of the bill.
Rep. Paul was one of 275 Representatives who voted in favor of the 245(i) amnesty. The bill narrowly passed by a vote of 275 to 137.
Perhaps the honorable Rep. Paul voted for it because he does NOT have "anti-immigration fever":
"Individuals who remain in the country after their visas have expired must be treated as lawbreakers. Remember, only U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to be on American soil; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. We should not tolerate lawless behavior or anti-American activities from guests in our country." -- Ron Paul, 1-7-02
His words don't seem to match his actions.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!
Folks in the area I live in voted him in(stealth Libertarian) and I have seen other instances of the "curtain" being accidently moved..........NONE OF 'EM EVER WORK RIGHT!! They're ALL broken!
Perhaps like G.W. Bush making an oath on the Bible to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"...and then signing into law that blatantly violates the First Amendment?
Which of those instances is worse, in terms of "words not matching actions"? A violation of an oath (on a Bible) to follow The Law? Or a vote to change a law that shouldn't even be on the books in the first place? (As any person who truly values liberty will tell you, there should be no numerical limits on immigration.)
Oops...I left out two words:
Perhaps like G.W. Bush making an oath on the Bible to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"...and then signing into law a bill that blatantly violates the First Amendment?
(I assume everyone understands this as a thinly veiled reference to the campaign finance reform law.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.