Judging from the comments to our previous post on Ron Paul, it appears his supporters haven’t read the position papers on his website, because they consistently misstate his positions.
Yes, Ron Paul does want to send Them back home and he does want to revoke birthright citizenship (even as he piously says the Constitution is his guiding light.) And says so on his issue page on immigration.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Ron Paul has taken no clear position on Iraq except for a vague “bring them home.” He doesn’t even say ‘bring them home now” or mention the word “Iraq.”
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home.
As for racism, quoting the Houston Chronicle.
“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,”Paul wrote.
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.”
Orcinus amply documents Paul’s continuing alliances with and support from the extreme Right.
While I think the evidence that Paul is incredibly insensitive on racial issues — ranging from a racially incendiary newsletter to his willingness to appear before neo-Confederate and white-supremacist groups — is simply overwhelming, it isn’t as simple to make the case that he is an outright racist, since he does not often indulge in hateful rhetoric — and when he has, he tries to ameliorate it by placing it in the context of what he thinks are legitimate policy issues.
…
Here, for example, is Clay Robison, writing in the Houston Chronicle the same week Molly wrote the above:
[Democratic candidate] Morris recently distributed copies of political newsletters written by Paul in 1992 in which the Surfside physician endorsed the concept of secession, defended cross burning as an act of free speech and expressed sympathy for a man sentenced to prison for bombing an IRS building.
…
Helping fuel the U.N.-bashing in the 1990s, you’ll recall, was the conspiracy theory holding that the “New World Order” suggested by the first President Bush in 1991 was actually part of a larger plot to enslave the world under a global government located at the U.N. Black helicopters and sightings of Chinese troops massing on the borders were part and parcel of these beliefs.
And helping promote these beliefs, and lend them the legitimacy of his office, was Congressman Ron Paul, who even to this day promotes the “New World Order” theories.
Watch out for the black helicopters and put on the tin foil hats.
Oh, then’s that little matter of the David Duke endorsement. If he’s so moderate why hasn’t he rejected the endorsement?
More on Ron Paul here and note especially the link in “Update 2” in that post.
I’ll try not to use big words. President Ron Paul can not end birthright citizenship. He can call for it, but the only way to amend the Constitution is for the States and Congress to do it. The President cannot do it. OK?
Have you watched the debates? Or really, read or watched anything expect the article that you have quoted? He has repeatedly and consistently said he would bring them home now. Here’s one – it took me about 1 second to find it on Google. It’s called “Bring Our Troops Home Now” which should give you a hint about the content. “http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul398.html”
Hillary Clinton does not reject the endorsement of the communist party, either. It does not mean she is one.
The racism has been refuted over and over. I will not waste time on it.
Ron Paul is not insensitive to racial issues. It is probably more accurate to say that he simply thinks they are largely a political tool. He has lectured time and time again about the dangers of collectivism.
Again, using little words, he certainly does not believe that people should be grouped together and judged. Each and every person should be judged individually. That’ is certainly not a “progressive” stance, that’s for sure. But giving certain groups of people special protection and privileges only isolates them, and you can’t integrate people if you isolate them. You cannot have it both ways.
Cross-burning is every bit as protected as flag burning. Freedom is like that, it applies to everybody, even the idiots. Maybe even especially the idiots. Besides, didn’t your Mom ever teach you that “sticks and stones” poem? There is no law, nor should there be, about being offensive. If there were, King George would have shut down “The Daily Kos” years ago. Watching what GWB has done with all our civil liberties, I’m just amazed and saddened that there are still people in this world who want to hand him more of them.
I can provide you with links and links of quotes from former members and Congressional testimony from high ranking officials that insist we need to give up our sovreignity and work toward a one world government. They’re very happy that people like you don’t see the harm, or simply refuse to believe it. They’re going to need serfs.
“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England … (and) … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule
established.”– Professor of History Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University
“We know in the not too distant future, a half dozen corporations are going to control the media. We took this step (merger) to ensure we were one of them”–Time Warner spokesperson.
“All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to building a new world order.”–Robert Kennedy, former U.S. Attorney-General, 1967.
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of freedom to Americans…” “And so alot of people say there’s
too much personal freedom.” – -President Bill Clinton
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..”–
Bill Clinton USA Today–3-11-93
“If a nation values anything more than freedom, then it will lose it’s freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort and security that it values, it will lose that too.Unknown Americans must decide :
Are we to be governed by Americans or by an International organization ? I, for one, owe no alliegence to the United Nations nor will I give it any. I obey only the U.S. Constitution. You had
better think about this issue, for if the U.N. can violate the Sovereignty of Haiti, Iraq and other countries, it can violate ours…The United States may not be the top dog 15 years from now. U.N. security council resolutions, backed by say chinese soldiers, could be aimed at us.”-Charley Reese-Orlando Sentinel
So tell me – are you really ready to watch the Chinese-led UN troops march into our country because a future President decides not to comply with a UN resolution? Sadly, I suspect you actually are.
> So tell me – are you really ready to watch the Chinese-led UN troops march into our country because a future President decides not to comply with a UN resolution? Sadly, I suspect you actually are.
There you go folks, this is precisely the type of extreme right wing paranoia typical of those who follow Ron Paul.
He’s not being ironic, he’s genuinely afraid hordes of commies will be massing on US borders.
Or maybe they just use scare tactics as a pretext for eliminating dissent, which is what Ron Paul and his followers would certainly do if they ever gained power. Shades of McCarthyism
ron paul is vague on iraq. that’s the first time i’ve heard that. “bring them home” means bring them home. it’s very simple. he stresses this over and over. he’d start bringing them home immediately. if you can’t figure out that he is talking about iraq (although he also means the entire world) from the context of the conversations, and that he means “now” from his explanations, then i don’t know what to tall you.
In my estimation, if a politician, any politician, doesn’t use a particular phrase it’s because he doesn’t want to. “Bring the troops home” without mentioning Iraq, while certainly a better stance than most of the Dems, is still nebulous, with much wiggle room.