-9 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.

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

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...

Josie The Outlaw http://www.josietheoutlaw.com/

"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

.

.

In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.
-Eric Hoffer

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

on this forum?

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

Potential Annualized National Debt Allowance - a look back at 40 years of PANDA diplomacy next Pandaline

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.

http://www.politico.com/story

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

This thread is purely for attention. Totally off base.

Exactly

Some people here want Rand to shoot himself in the foot and destroy his own platform before he's even made any progress, by standing against something, the way they want, that is clearly a no win political scenario.

It happens EVERY single time he does something like this. You have the same people who have a distinct and unfounded disdain for him. They post rhetoric like this in an attempt to draw a sharp contrast with him and Ron. Yes, we know he isn't Ron. Ron is an awesome guy, but he's not a politician, and our government is a political machine. In order to cause the most damage to the machine you have to get into the system first.

If you throw bleach at a car it might hurt the paint job but the machine keeps rolling. If you take the time to take off the gas cap and put it in the gas tank, you'll fuck it up good.

All it takes is a miniscule amount of common sense to see that going up against this bill, any other way than how he did it, would have politically screwed him.

It's called choose your battles.

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

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Ok, I can respect your point of view.

I'm not sure I agree, but you've made a counter argument which the conversation benefits from immensely. I'd rather see principled civil disobedience at all levels, which I see as way more effective in the long term than a strategy of compliance and enablement with the hopes of some secret ninja strike from the inside.

What Ron did which was effective is that the shined a light on issues and brought the American people into the debate. Now this strategy didn't get bad bills defeated, and maybe it didn't even get good bills passed; but what it did do was to build a greater educated public.

The problem here with Rand's strategy is that the bad bill was still passed, and there was no outcry to with which the public could have been educated, there was no light shinned on the loss of liberty, and so I see no progress here.

lost the battle will win the war

Sometimes you have to sacrifice opportunities to attack to build a better strategy.

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

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Slaves need the ruling family of Kings and Queens

HE BETRAYED ME< THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT< HIS FATHER wtf. So many stooges here that are so in love with the Idea of the son of paul that they dont see betrayal after betrayal, makes me sick. You all deserve what you get go lick the boots of the slave of Mitch McConnel. They have coopted half of the liberty movement. Rand the pied pipper has led you off the cliff, your lost your mind.

Get in bed with Rand is getting bed with the GOAT that endorced Mitt Romeny.

dam dumg and I agreee that he once again sold you out but oh how lovely that river in egypt, DeNYLE.

sovereign

We shall see...

No reason to give up on him yet, though. Afterall, the mainstream political process is only one angle.

However, we cannot afford to put all our eggs in one basket. We must be prepared for the possibility that Rand is a "double agent". But we must also be prepared for the possibility that he is double-agent working on our side

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Sounds reasonable

I just never have looked to a liar or a turncoat for anything in my life.

Rand is either a lier in order to be a double agent, ie endorse his fathers oposition, Mitt Romney was a lie, hence a liar. Or a turncoat that betrayed his own father as well as me. It will all come out in the wash. At best anyone in DC can only be a minor deterent to the Rothschild zionist agenda.

Ill go along with you and get along. Best to you.

sovereign