Rand Paul evidently knows something that no one else knows. Source: Pew Research Center
Posted on 06/20/2014 8:21:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
However, over half of Hispanics are literally telling us that they reject “capitalism,” and the two largest immigrant groups (Hispanics and Asians) are voting overwhelmingly for the more anti-capitalist of the two major parties.
Rand Paul evidently knows something that no one else knows. Source: Pew Research Center
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Rand should go look at the voting results from the Valley region in TX then shut his fool ass mouth ....free market capitalism as a draw in his idiotic dreams
The Obama DREAMER WAR ON CHILDREN continues at the Southern US Border with the very hostile Nation of Mexico.
The Obama DREAMER WAR ON CHILDREN is an excellent preview of what Obama wants Boehner”s Amnesty Bill to accomplish: Destroy America by replacing the resident population.
Every time I see rand paul on TV I think that the lights may be on but I’m not sure anyone is at home. He says some of the right things and then he follows it with some really stupid statements.
Cruz is the real deal, so brilliant the liberals can't touch him and the RINOs don't know what to do with him. Mike Lee is a close second. Sarah Palin is excellent. She doesn't have the intellectual firepower those two have, but she is very smart, and she, like the Gipper, has all the right instincts and articulates her positions very well. That is why they hate her. Scott Walker is awesome, and there are a few others that are good, but anyone who ties his fortunes to giving illegal aliens permanent residence in the US should join the Democrats.
Libertarian view of immigration.
COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
IMMIGRATION:
“”THE ISSUE: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
THE PRINCIPLE: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
SOLUTIONS: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
TRANSITIONAL ACTION: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
There is lots of talk of a war on women, or a war on minorities. The real war is the war on America by leftists, led by the warrior in chief, B. Hussein Obama.
There’s telling the story, and then there’s telling the WHOLE story.
I’ll take your citation of the LP platform to be gospel.
But it’s NOT a standalone statement. It only makes sense in the context of the entire platform.
If I tell you I want to take a knife and cut your heart out, it’s not going to be well received.
If I tell you that in order to prevent your immediate death a heart transplant is essential, and that I, with many years of experience, will be performing the operation, it takes on a whole different light.
Lots of the LP platform is similar. And it’s been over 20 years since I looked at it in detail, so there may well be parts that are ENTIRELY stupid, regardless of the context.
But to get an accurate picture, read the whole thing.
Why read the whole thing? Do you think that I will become convinced to end America and just make it a geographical spot on earth, with no borders, no culture, no national identity?
Do you think that I will come to support abortion? 1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Perhaps gay marriage and homosexualizing the military?
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.
Drugs, porn, a weak military and our eventual conquest?
John Bennett's article is interesting, but not really on the topic of Sen. Rand Paul's immigration reform proposal. He makes a mighty straw-man out of single line in Paul's OpEd: "Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States."EXCLUSIVE – RAND PAUL: SECURE THE BORDER
by SEN. RAND PAUL 12 Jun 2014 3978 POST A COMMENT
I am for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12 million more illegal immigrants into our country. If we do nothing, 12 million more illegal immigrants will come. We must be in favor of reform—smart reform that starts with border security.
Characterizing that position as "amnesty" is simply untrue. What we have now is a lawless border. Current policy is a beacon for more illegal immigrants. The Obama administration’s lawless executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration—unless we act now with real, strong, verifiable border security.
I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not the president.
My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn't get around the law.
My "Trust but Verify" plan will ensure that our border is secure. Under my plan, national security and border security will move as the first element of any reform and would require annual votes of Congress to establish that the border is truly secure. No other reform could go forward until this happened.
In addition to increased border security, our nation needs to modernize our visa system. We need to know who comes and goes on travel, student, and other temporary visas. There must be a workable system to ensure that visitors don't use travel visas as a way to enter the country then disappear. This will address the problem of visa over-stayers.
National security has to be a cornerstone to any border security and visa reform initiative. Our nation needs to look back at the September 11th Commission Report and study the recommendations regarding terrorists' use of visas to commit acts of violence against America. The 9/11 hijackers used visas to enter the country and to stay here while planning attacks.
Strong border security includes using cutting edge technology. Satellites, physical barriers, screening to bar criminals and terrorists from entry, increased patrols on the border—and yes, surveillance drones—all should be part of a comprehensive plan to physically protect the border. My plan is to take specific measures at the border and then have the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office produce a report to Congress on the progress of border security.
My plan takes border security a step further than anybody else in Congress. Under my plan, Congress will vote every year on border security. If Congress votes that the border is not secure, elements of immigration reform will cease to go forward and visa programs will be slowed. If Congress does not think the border is secure after five years, every element of immigration reform will be stopped.
Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Throughout history, our nation has been flooded with immigrants who have moved here with a flavor for the home country, yet they have assimilated into what we know today as America. That idea, and the American Dream, must be protected and preserved. Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work, make the American Dream a reality.
I do not support amnesty, which is why I don't support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.
I support legal, not illegal, immigration. We must embrace immigration and immigrants, and we must recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves. However, our current system is broken, and we cannot move towards reform until our border is truly and fully secure.
Bennett's point is that immigrants want a better financial situation for themselves, but that doesn't mean they actually like 'capitalims'. It's an important point, and he does an excellent job of making it, but it's a bit disingenuous to take a single line out of a two page OpEd and assert that it is the thesis of Rand Paul's thinking, and they crush it. Which is what he's done.
None the less, I completely agree with Mr. Bennett that immigrants are likely to drive us further into Socialism.
Just to add a modicum of intellectual honesty to this discussion I've posted the full text of Rand Paul's actual OpEd on the topic above.
It probably makes more sense to smash Rand based on what he actually says, rather than inferring that he supports the platform of a party he has never been a member of.
And Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, et al are not members of the Communist Party. It's a distinction without a difference.
Obviously Rand Paul is a libertarian, is campaigning as a libertarian, is reaching out to libertarians, and has worked for the party, and worked on one of their presidential campaigns.
I don't see Cruz as brilliant? Like many Americans I got to know him when he ran his doomed-from-the-start fillibuster of the debt extension earlier this year.
That seemed like a pretty pointless exercise. It was obviously a copy-cat of the tactic that Rand used to highlight the US's Drone policy. And it *did* work well to raise Ted Cruz's profile and get him lots of publicity. So I guess from that point of view it worked.
The difference between Rand's fillibuster and Cruz's was that Rand got some concessions from the Obama administration at the end of his filibuster. Cruz got nothing, except a huge piling on of bad press for threatening to harm the USA's credit rating, leave grandmas eating dog-food, and other nonsense. It played directly into the hands of the other side, and helped them advance their messages.
I like almost all of Ted Cruz's positions on things, but as a political tactic I felt it was the equivalent of leading your an Army squad into a dead end alley, where they are ambushed. I don't see that anything good came out of it.
The failure of a tactic because the GOPe joins the Democrats does not make it a bad tactic. It makes it one that failed, because of the timidity of a bunch of stupid RINOs. He hoped, as I did at the time, that at some point the RINOs would see that opinion was on our side this time, and start to fight. It became clear to a lot of us in that fight how much the GOPe is truly against everything we want during that battle, and for that alone, it was worth it to have the fight. Now we know who we have to fight, as well as what to fight for. There were many arguments to make in support of what Cruz was doing, but instead the GOPe talked as though not passing Obama's debt ceiling increase, or his budget would lead to a default on the debt, instead of a temporary decrease in spending. When they went along with Obama's lies, it told me something. And when people blame Cruz for fighting on that important issue, it tells me something about them.
Cruz' brilliance cannot be denied by anyone objective. Even uber lib Derschowitz calls him the best student in all his years of teaching at Harvard Law. He clerked for a federal judge and for the Supreme Court before going into private practice, where he argued a lot of cases in front of the Supreme Court. He has command of all the facts whenever he engages some lib moron, and they spring to his lips without him having to stutter or stammer, or try to remember or come up with what he wants to say. I have been completely impressed with Cruz every time I see him in action, he is to be awed.
Rand Paul, on the other hand, is a Paultard Lite, it appears to me, and one who is willing to go along with amnesty to get the favor of the GOPe.
But it may have served a function of separating the sheep from the goats.
I had not heard as much about his background, those are some impressive facts.
I'm definitely interested in hearing more from him.
On the other hand I do have some libertarian tendencies. I have been a fan of Rand Paul, and there were things I liked about his dad.
I do feel that the Federal Reserve is one of the most unconstitutional institutions in the USA, and it has far more power than any other impingement on our system. Ron Paul was virtually alone in challenging this for a decade, for that alone he earns my respect.
I also am not a fan of the Neocons, though I don't demonize them completely, I just think they were naive to think that everyone is basically the same and that Iraqis' wanted a little Kansas over there. On the other hand I think Ron Paul went a little too far with his 'blame America' rhetoric and non-intervention. There is some balance, and realism. I think Kissinger and Nixon were still better at foreign policy than almost everyone who came after. People give Reagan credit for winning the Cold War, but by 1980 you sort of knew we were going to win. Nixon's detente policy was the start of it all. And who can forget ping-pong diplomacy!
I'm comfortable with a lot of libertarian positions, but I detest their open-borders policy.
If Rand runs on that he's lost my interest.
They are crossing the border because the standard of living his higher. No other reason.
Kelly Ayotte told Howie Carr that illegals want to feed their families and that is a conservative thing.
I guess Democrats hate feeding children.
because we are a generous welfare state
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.