-11 votes

Rand Paul F*cked us all on the Immigration bill

Rand Paul f%cked us all on the immigration bill. The original Senate immigration bill is already enough to make anyone concerned about privacy and civil liberties vomit. It would create a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID. It would mandate all employers to look up every new hire in the database and verify that they match their photo. It therefore sets the precedent that you need permission from the government to work, and your activities can be restricted by failing to appear in the database.

As the heir to Ron Paul’s political machine, Rand is supposed to be the staunchest defender of our civil liberties in the U.S. Senate, but as the immigration bill was debated and amended, all we heard from him on the subject was concerning border “SECURITY”

Rand Paul could have, and should have, spoken out against the bill on civil liberties grounds. His father did, and if Rand had stood for liberty just like Ron, he could have peeled off support for the bill from Democrats trying to cover their civil libertarian flank.

Rand Paul could have, and should have, spoken out against the bill on fiscal grounds. The bill spends $46 billion dollars on border security and is packed with special interest giveaways like a youth jobs program and a waiver for Alaska fishing workers. And if he opposed the spending in the bill, the entire Tea Party wing of the GOP, which he now basically leads, would have stood right beside him.

Establishment Republicans would have opposed the bill anyway for lack of border security and the immigration bill would have died long ago.

But since Rand Paul decided to focus on SECURITY, trying to appeal to xenophobic, old, white conservatives as he campaigns for 2016, there was NOBODY in the conversation calling for LIBERTY. And with the one person in the Senate who was supposed to be the voice of liberty, calling instead for security, what we got was a loss of our liberty in the name of security.

We got the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the immigration bill that calls for 20,000 more border patrol agents, 700 miles of border fencing, surveillance drones, and infrared sensors. Lindsey Graham praised it for creating “an almost militarized border”. This amendment bought off 15 senate Republicans with a giveaway to the Military-Industrial complex. Democrats are still marching in lockstep behind it because they don’t give a shit about civil liberties. Police statists in the GOP get everything they wanted, and it now has enough votes to pass the Senate, with a good chance in the House as well.

On immigration, Rand Paul committed the cardinal sin that Ben Franklin warned us about. He surrendered liberty for security.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thanks for the BS free analysis

To the point, that makes total sense. I guess the reason my kind don't "get it" is that we're not trying to appeal to these rigid political castes.

Politics are ugly.

Another thing to keep in mind

Another thing to keep in mind is that he is only one man...trying to unite a very divided party.

His "Trust but Verify" act

His "Trust but Verify" act will toss out the national ID card.

i know this

Sis I elude to the contrary ? Apologies if so.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

I know you know but others

I know you know but others may not know what we know...so now they know what I know and what you know...you know?

This post is bullshit! A

This post is bullshit! A propaganda piece. People like you fuck us with this bullshit you post. If Rand Paul was in the libertarian party you would be drooling all over him. Fuck the LP they have accomplished NOTHING in 40 years on a national level and why? Because of people like you!

By that logic...

Ron Paul accomplished nothing because he didn't get a bunch of bills passed at the "National Level"...??

Your rant didn't refute a single point made in the post so I really don't understand your position at all.

Other than attacking the Libertarian Party what ideas are you putting out which will accomplish anything on the "national level" ??

oh pkease

Ron did bring awareness, inspired a highly successful movement, and moved toward solidifying a splintered group of liberty minded individuals. Something the LP has not only ,not been able to do in 40 years but some they actually hurt. The LP is an abject failure in comparison to Ron and the liberty movement, so don't even try and make that comparison.

You don't have to refute propaganda because it doesn't reason, it uses emotion.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

not to be slighted either

after all it was good enough for ron paul, harry browne, michael badnarik and gary johnson.

The Libertarian Party is not the issue...

It wasn't in the post and shouldn't be part of the debate. The Issue here is Rand, but I can't fault the guy for doing what he thinks is right.

But I don't think his way will gain ground for liberty in washington politics. I think washington politics will gain ground into our movement and squash our voice of dissent.

How can we win the argument if we fail to voice our ideas in fear that they will be unpopular?

this is where you're mistaken

Rand is trying to win at politics to change focus, to win the argument. Ron tried to win the argument by mostly dismissing politics in spite of the countries focus.

The LP was brought up because the OP is probably an LP drive by poster.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

you make me so angry!

That I didn't put it that way!

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Rand Paul Article on Immigration Bill

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/why-im-voting-no-on-im...

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

There's another problem with this bill:

Remember this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odkk4VD4p6Q

Our Constitutional law president knows the government can't deny a minority of the people living in the United States benefits they grant by legislation to the majority of the people living in the United States.

The Constitution does not address "citizens," it addresses people, as in we the people. If the people are living in the United States, no matter their citizenship status, these people cannot be denied Obamacare.

Obama is a liar. This is just one bad piece of legislation piled on top of other bad pieces of legislation all heading in the same direction. Formation of a totalitarian, socialist government.

HOW DID HE VOTE?

That's what matters.

Talky-talky from a politician means NOTHING. What they DO means EVERYTHING.

So, quit b*tching about what he said. What did he DO? How did he vote?

If such things surprise you...

I think you haven't been listening.

If one listens to fools like the ones licking the sone of RON's

BOOTS. You will wake up with cat scratch fever.

RAND TRAITOR TO HIS OWN FATHER and every single liberty minded supporter. YET most usful IDIOts SAY he is just faking it to look good to the NWO NEOCONS, are you kidding me!

If you dont know by now YOU AINT BEEN LISTENING.

sovereign

I suppose...

My post was slightly ambiguous.

Nevertheless, I pity anyone who ever has to share a foxhole with you.

I pitty you

Sound nice?

sovereign

You should find a hobby.

You should find a hobby. Politics is not your thing.

Who made you in such a position to declare what my thing is or

isnot. Anyone who does not go along with the liars, theives and mass murders called politions, politics is not their thing. Meybe its you that is the problem.

sovereign

Because you aren't able to

Because you aren't able to engage in a friendly debate without calling people boot lickers. It's childish.

if the shoe fits

wear it. Rand Paul indorsed Mitt Romney in your face and you do what LICK HIS BOOT.

sovereign

.

.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

I know, right? why is this kind of profanity allowed

on this forum?

It's dog-darned not right I tell you.

9-11 was a panda job.

Thank you, Chris

for keeping me in stitches....dog-darn-it-all anyway. lol.

He should

have every right to curse even if you disagree. It's called Freedom of Speech.

yes....

and I know it would have filled your heart with joy to hear Rand attack the civil liberties on this one.

And, like his dad, it would have fallen on deaf ears just as it did for his dad.

Rand did battle this thing out but, he attacked the bill from an angle that "plays well" amongst the current environment of debate...the enforcement first argument.

Rand plays the game well enough that he could be elected President. Ron couldn't be elected President...we tried...hard.

Question is; Do you want tuna with good taste Or tuna that taste good?

Now STFU and watch the man work.

The ends never justify the

The ends dont justify the means

Ron couldnt get elected

Ron couldnt get elected because he wasnt allowed, not because enough people in this country didnt like him. Rand will not get elected either, he is not allowed. So the only diference will be is Ron stuck to his principles and Rand stuck to his principles a little bit.