Ron Paul for President!

I'll watch it.

Republicans have had the white house for 20 of the last 28 years.(in 2008) Six with a republican house & senate, and did lip service to the abortion problem. I want to believe Paul, or Tancredo actually mean it, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Ron Paul introduced HR 776, "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005", while the GOP had control of Congress, but he couldn't get the support from the other members of Congress to see it get passed. I would love to see a conservative Constitutionalist like Paul get elected, the toughest part of his campaign will be getting over the hurdles that the Bush administration and the rest of the GOP leadership will place in his way.

 

They sure gave him a good amount of time toget his message out. I like his immigration statements, and the fact that he giggled when saying how rediculous the amnesty movement is.

 

I would put him in my top 10 ..is pragmatic on some issues

PILGRIM: The feel for candidates for the 2008 presidential race continues to grow. Now this past weekend, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas announced that he is forming a presidential exploratory committee, and Congressman Paul hopes his strong opposition to illegal immigration and the war in Iraq will set him apart from other Republican candidates. And he joins us now from Houston, Texas.

Thanks for taking the time, sir.

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, it's nice to be with you.

PILGRIM: You are one of only six Republicans who voted against the war. You also stood against sending 21,000 more troops to Iraq. What should the Iraq strategy be, now that you are declaring yourself in the race?

PAUL: I think we should come home as quickly as possible. There were a lot of -- a lot of false information on the reasons we went in there, and there's no good reason to stay right now.

They say that the main reason for staying now, after given numerous reasons, we're supposed to stay now, because if we leave there will be chaos. My argument is there's plenty of chaos right there now, and a lot of Americans are being killed. And it was never in our national security interest to go over there.

Besides, one of the reasons that was given for us going there was to enforce U.N. resolutions. And I'm a stickler for the Constitution. I was annoyed because they wouldn't declare war. They thought it was important to go to war. The people's representatives should declare war, and they should fight it and get it over with and win. So I didn't like the way they went, and I didn't think we were ever threatened by Iraq. minethis is naked truth)

PILGRIM: Let me -- let me just play for you, President Bush said something today. So let's listen to that for a second.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we leave before that country can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself there, will be chaos. And out of chaos will come vacuums, and out of vacuums will become an emboldened enemy that would like to do us harm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PILGRIM: Sir, that is a real worry. What do you say about that?

PAUL: Well, I think he's very sincere, and he believes it. But he believes it just as sincerely as I do, that the al Qaeda is there now, and it is a problem. But they weren't there before.

And it's our foreign policy that I object to. We used to be allies with Osama bin Laden. Now he's our enemy. We used to be allies with Saddam Hussein. Now he's our enemy. This on again/off again thing is what bothers me.

You know, 9/11 was not -- had nothing to do with Iraq. 15 of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia. So there are our bosom buddies, and we're their best friends. Pakistan is probably where Osama bin Laden is. We have essentially forgotten about him. So it's the foreign policy overall.

But yes, there's going to be problems and chaos. But my argument is that it's time that American soldiers quit being killed, and it's time for us to quit killing a lot of other people that have not attacked us.

PILGRIM: Your Iraq policy is very clearly defined. Let's move to the domestic front. You ran for president in 1988 on the libertarian line. And you now say there are two parties in Congress right now: big government conservatives and big government liberals. And the only difference is what they want to spend money on.

Now are you running because you think that there are, of the declared candidates, the true conservatives are not coming out of this pack?

PAUL: Well, certainly the Republican leadership in the last six, eight, even 10 years, and especially in these last six years, we have been the big party, a big spender party. We have spent more money on subsidies than ever before. We have -- we've doubled the size of the Department of Education.

We brought in one of the biggest new entitlement programs, the prescription drug programs, big, huge highway expenditures. So I would say that in some ways, yes, they have some differences. But in other ways, I think Republicans have grown to act just like Democrats.

In the foreign policy, certainly, we can't afford $700 billion in protecting an empire. That has to come to an end, because the truth is as we're flat out broke and we have to borrow every single penny to fight that war from the Chinese.

PILGRIM: Yes.

Sir, I really can't -- we're almost out of time but I want to get to your immigration platform. You're calling for action and not talk. And here's a couple of points for our viewers that you want.

You want to physically secure our borders and coastlines, enforce visa rules. No amnesty. No welfare for illegal aliens. You want to end the birthright citizenship and pass true immigration reform. Would true immigration reform include a guest worker program, in your judgment?

PAUL: Well, you know, those words are tricky, because some times if you say you're for a guest worker program, all of a sudden they construe that now, the conventional wisdom is that there will be amnesty.

You know, we've always had workers come to this country, but they have to be legal.

And we have to deal with the welfare state. We can't allow the illegal immigrants to qualify for Social Security after working here for 18 months. We just can't flat out afford it.

PILGRIM: All right, thank you very much, for laying it out so clearly for us, Representative Ron Paul. Thank you, sir.

PAUL: Thank you, thank you.


My comment I leaning towards amensty as long it has a major education program for those who are here and would be unchrist like to seperate familiys.My big beef is uneducated people coming into the country and I believe education with strong ethics will bring these people into our community and country ...I think the pro amnesty has already won how can you seperate 11 million people the best option is to educate them and welcome them as Americans....to all Christians you cannot seperate familys you just cannot it goes against our morals.

but other than that Ron Paul says some things that Karl Rove would love to destroy like a Joe Wilson and if Roves power is not diminished Rove will have his way.

 

ASLANSPAL, you highlighted all of Ron Paul's statments about the "war" in Iraq, and you did mention where you differ with him on the border issue. I would assume that if you were to look at where he stands on most issues you will find that he is probably far to much of a conservative Constitutionalist for your liberal views.

Everyone is focusing on the "war" in Iraq, but I think the issues of our nation being destroyed by the liberals in both of the big parties is a much larger issue. Amnesty, open borders, big spending, the National ID, the North American Union, etc. All of these issues will destroy our nation, regardless of the outcome in Iraq. Ron Paul is one of the only Constitutionalists running who is willing to fight these issues.

 

ya gotz it wrong jgrubbs

simple no...and ya gotz it wrong...oh well he is still in my top ten

Amnesty is just a reality and I think reality says that 11 to perhaps 20 million people are going to stay...we need to assimilate them and it is reckless to say they will ruin our way of life ..just will not happen and it is fear mongering. My salient point is about Christians separating family's and the way I see it ..churches will not preach separating familys...period.

So it is best to have solutions and the solution is to assimilate these hard working people with an education package and ethics ..I think the American people would buy into that and not the fear mongering of "oh my! our country is lost!" that is bunk.

I do agree with bush we are a country of immigrants and before you blame me I suggest you blame the corporations and those who enable them which would be republicans...ah that would be the conservative side J and not the liberal side...amazing!

How are you going to tear a child from its mother and order one of them across the border ...how are you going to tell a husband to leave his wife and go back...from a spiritual one ..you cannot it is immoral. How are yo going to put them in camps and get comparisons of Nazi camps from the past...listen the 11 to 20 million have won and the did it by numbers...so fine be a vocal minority and shout it loud ..you will only come off as being mean spirited ..like I said solutions and positive ones that assimilate these masses and not separate mother from child ..husband from wife....grandfather from grand children...just will not happen in Christendom...just will not.

back to Ron Paul I see him as pragmatic...and the reality of 11 to perhaps 20 million working in this country needs a pragmatic solution and not a draconian one.

 

I don't think I have every said anything about breaking up families. The best way to handle the illegal immigrants is to find them and send them home, with their entire families. The best way to find them is to start coming down hard on any businesses who hire them. There are immigrants who are waiting in line to follow the rules to become citizens legally, we need to punish those who break the laws, and only reward those who follow the laws.

The reason our current administration hasn't done anything about the immigration issue or the border problem, is that they want to solve the illegal immigration issue by simply creating an North American Union that would open the borders.

 

Amnesty is really the only choice...just reality

The best way to handle the illegal immigrants is to find them and send them home, with their entire families.(not a viable answer..not reality ...and is more complicated than "just finding them and sending them back"


Some are married to legit citizens...so are we sending Americans back across the border with the immigrant worker mate??? and be aware you are dealing with millions of people not just a few.

What of the children born from a citizen but given birth by an immigrant here working.

What about a child born from and American mother but an immigrant father...who goes ...who stays ??? it is not that simple that is why the massive numbers have won...the war you want to fight should have been fought years ago while corporations were piling these workers into our country and having side books for them ...or the government could not begin to address the millions of workers hired by meat packers...Tyson....Construction ...Wal-Mart vendors if not Wal-Mart...they did not have the man power or those in power throttled them from doing their job even to the point of gutting their budget and giving coorporations heads up as when they were coming.


Amnesty with an education package is the answer...they must be assimilated and respect who we are and embrace English and our flag and to do that we need to up their education and ethics ...we know they have a work ethic so that is a plus right off the bat.


Christendom will never support seperating familys...never!

 

Such children were never meant to be covered by the 14th Amendment:

www.vdare.com/sutherland/weigh_anchor.htm

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." - U.S. Senator Jacob Merritt Howard who introduced the amendment.

Anyone who is in this country illegally should be sent back home along with his/her children - period.

 

And if they do not respect our flag or English language, do we get to send them back then?
What more do we need to do in the way of education, we have already bent over backwards to accomadate these people while being taxed heavily for our efforts.
Amnesty???? They don't care about amnesty, they are citizens of Mexico and would really prefer to re-conquer what they believe is rightfully theirs.

 

I don't think you'll like his lobal warming stance either, A-Pal.

 

The humans causing global warming campaign nonsense is the cause that the statists joined after the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

Ha ! I said lobal warming !!! Talk about yer freudian typo....


... Paul began his speech in a refreshing way, by expressing his own reluctance to run for President. Paul is still in an exploratory phase, not having yet officially declared his candidacy. He spoke frankly about that reluctance to enter the race, explaining that he's not entirely sure he wants the job, but feels that his message is very important. He said that in the coming weeks he would determine whether he thought he could carry that message effectively. I found that attitude refreshing, especially in an age dominated by pompous politicians who feel that they are uniquely qualified to rule over us. Paul doesn't feel uniquely qualified. And he doesn't seem to want to rule over us. His focus is on his message, which is essentially that America needs a new direction. He noted that some people had accused him of not being a “strong leader,” but he rebutted that accusation: “Sometimes being a strong leader means resisting the temptation to use power.” During his time spent in Congress, Paul has consistently resisted the temptation to use power. He is consistently ranked among the highest members of Congress by civil libertarian groups for his commitment to American liberties....

...Throughout his speech, Paul was never vindictive. He didn't point a finger of blame at the President or at fellow Congressmen. He resisted any temptation to blame the Democrats for all that ails the nation. Instead, he consistently highlighted the fact that these problems have been going on for a long time. They are systemic failures, not the failures of a single person or a single administrator. In a political climate that rewards divisiveness, this too was refreshing...


...For my part, I hope Paul decides to run. In a weak field, Paul is a true champion. America is at a critical crossroads. Our liberties have been trampled. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in shambles. Our reputation has been tarnished internationally by decades of provocative foreign policy. Paul is the only candidate thus far who seems interested in reversing that trend. And for that, if he runs, he has my vote.

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=455&Itemid=36

 

You can find the video from this broadcast online here:

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/html/LatestNews_fs.html