Rep. Ron Paul Asks Only “Secure Borders” Presidential Candidate to Join His Press Conference:
I received this e-mail from the Constitution Party today:
Rep. Ron Paul Asks Only “Secure Borders” Presidential Candidate to Join His Press Conference:
Chuck Baldwin of Constitution Party to be Joined by Border Agent’s Wife
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (www.Baldwin08.com) will join former GOP presidential candidate Rep Ron Paul (R-Tex.) at a News Conference at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Baldwin, who joined other constitutionalists at Ron Paul’s “Shadow Convention” on September 2 in Minneapolis, will be joined by Monica Ramos, wife of imprisoned Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. Baldwin has called for the immediate pardon and release of Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for attempting to uphold immigration law.
Congressman Paul, who is expected to present non-negotiable points voters must demand from a presidential candidate, invited Chuck Baldwin, the only anti-illegal immigrant amnesty presidential candidate, to the September 10 News Conference. Baldwin, a long-time critic of the open-borders policy,will join concerned Americans attending the annual Hold Their Feet To The Fire Radio Row protest and Lobby Days sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform(FAIR) Congressional Task Force.(http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=feettothefire08)
Baldwin, a popular political commentator on national TV shows, is a radio talk show host, author of two books, and pastor of the Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola. Florida. He is the only candidate who received an “EXCELLENT” rating by pro-secure borders group Numbers USA .
The group rated Obama and McCain “abysmal” and rated Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr “bad” on the immigration issue. (http://www.baldwin08.com/files/ImmigrationIssues.pdf)
“The United States government aids and abets illegal criminals, and jails its own law enforcement agents for doing their job. Despite these injustices, both parties controlling our government offer us more of the same with identical pro-amnesty presidential candidates,” Baldwin said.
“Neither Obama nor McCain will end the invasion from the south, nor have they called for the release of our brave border agents. I am the only candidate representing the 75% of Americans who want illegal immigration and amnesty to end.”
In April 2008, Chuck Baldwin was elected by delegates of the nationwide Constitution Party to be their presidential candidate. The CP, founded in 1992, was initially called the U.S. Taxpayers Party. It is the fifth political party to be recognized by the Federal Election Commission. It s expected to be on the ballot in almost every state.
Confirmation that NADER will be there!!!
http://www.myspace.com/phil_letten
Nader's campaign myspace posted a comment on my brothers page stating that Mr. Nader will in fact be in attendance! How exciting!
"Congressman Paul, who is
"Congressman Paul, who is expected to present non-negotiable points voters must demand from a presidential candidate"
I don't think it will be about illegal immigration, or any other single issue.
The non-negotiable point
The non-negotiable point is that "any presidential candidate must bear the name Ronald Earnest Paul".
RP2012!
I hope this is not true!
If it is, I would be very upset and let down
That is not what this Press Conference will be about.
The announcement will be huge and unprecedented! The aforementioned hardly classifies as huge and unprecedented, wouldn't everyone agree?
You hope what is not true?
Can you read?
This announcement does not say Ron Paul's pet issue is border control. It just spins the issue for Baldwin's supporters.
It's spin, pure and simple, and I'm not really fond of spin, but it's part of the game.
But this implies NOTHING about what Ron Paul is going to announce or do. NOTHING. All it says is that someone, who believes x, will be at y, with z.
RP2012!
I was getting super excited
I was getting super excited for the announcement. If it ends up being what this post suggests that will be super depressing.
Are you the same as LettenYouKnow?
All this post says is "Congressman Paul, who is expected to present non-negotiable points voters must demand from a presidential candidate..." The rest of it is about a particular issue Baldwin believes in. He never implies or states that Ron Paul agrees or will be showcasing this issue.
RP2012!
No that's my brother. It
No that's my brother.
It does say that he is only inviting secure borders candidates. That's already disappointing. I was hoping it was every third party candidate.
Where does it say he is inviting
only secure borders candidates?
Chuck Baldwin is tooting his own horn as being "the only secure borders candidate", and that he has been invited to the conference.
It's like if I were the only Alaskan on here (I'm not, though) and I said "Dr. Paul invites only Alaskan DP reader to press conference". It means he invited "the only Alaskan DP reader" to his conference (and also a whole bunch of other people who are not me), not that he invited no one else but Alaskan DP readers to his conference. See the difference?
RP2012!
We'll find out tomorrow what it's all about.
I can wait till then.
In the interim, I think that it is clear that RP supports a set of borders with rules for this country that is properly maintained and protected, and I agree with him on that point.
There even was quite a major "look in the other direction" going on by people in the US for a long time, regarding this border jumper issue.
So, they can't say people are "racist" or "intolerant" or any of that other nonsense.
These border jumpers massively abused a gracious host, with what has amounted to an "invasion".
Enough is enough.
I think the CP is getting ahead of themselves...
If this has any truth to it - why are Nader and McKinney going to be in attendance?
Fellow Veterans, This Is A Call To Arms!
http://www.facebook.com/events/192677970828185/
February 20, 2012 - Veterans For Ron Paul March on D.C.!
I agree neither
I really do not think Mrs. Monica Ramos should go along.... Ron Paul, not Chuck Baldwin and the CP, will set the agenda, as it is on his initiative in the first place.
No one said Chuck Baldwin was setting the agenda
He just spins the announcement to mention his pet issue of the day. But no where is it ever claimed that Ron Paul will be discussing this issue, is it?
RP2012!
There's a lot of emotion and
There's a lot of emotion and debate in this thread. Shouldn't it be enough to simply expect that our political leaders uphold the existing laws that are in place?
Uphold the law, or the law means nothing.
...
Constitution Party has problem upholding its own laws
Take a look at www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/020518.html.(Nevada Disaffiliation Roll Call Vote)
Howard Phillips and Darrell Castle are on the list of delegates to Tampa on April 21, 2006 who could not maintain the very motto of their own party: "Principle Over Politics". This is a big part in what impels me to WRITE-IN RON PAUL NOV 4!
If Chuck had picked someone like Don Grundmann as running mate, I could have voted CP on Nov 4, 2008. Or any of those 41 delegates who voted "Yes" to disaffiliate the Nevada representaion to the CP because they didn't uphold the anti-abortion platform. Bigtentism sucks royally! I equate this to any delegate not abstaining from voting McCain last week if they could have done so.
wrote him in in 2008, electing him in 2012.
http://i.imgur.com/TyW3y.jpg
Yes... but when a law has been "ignored"
for a long time and in such a widespread manner.
To then suddenly advocate that it be "upheld" (and "enFORCEd") becomes problematic.
There is also "unwritten law" in the form of "common law" that can and does have value over and above the codified sets of "regulations" (many of which are not "law" in the truest sense of the word, as they were never passed by any seated legislature, but rather were written by and for bureaucrats.)
And one established aspect of "common law" is that laws which have NOT been enforced for a significant period of time are deemed to be "de facto" obsolete. (For example, many states still have laws against "adultery" -- but people are never indicted or prosecuted for it).
As to the "emotion" in this thread... I dunno... seems pretty tame to me (especially compared to other threads).
here's a thought
Fortune Favors the Bold
I know everyone is very against amnesty... but it seems like if immigrants became citizens, and thus became subject to US labor laws, they would cease to have the competitive advantage against low skilled american workers...
Fortune Favors the Bold
Actually this is the ONE area I totally disagree with RP on.
I would think the BEST way to deal with the issue would actually BE a form of quasi-amnesty.
What I think should be done is something like the following:
1) Establish a series of deadlines (6 months, 1 year, etc.) and a final cutoff for the amnesty.
2) Allow ALL immigrants who are already here to VOLUNTARILY report to the INS.
3) Anyone who DOES voluntarily report will NOT be deported, but instead be "registered" and issued a temporary "green card" provided:
4) Put those who voluntarily report on a *possible* path to citizenship (provided fine is paid, time tolled, citizenship test passed, etc).
5) Establish an "open immigration" policy -- providing TEMPORARY worker cards for NEW immigrants on a FEE basis.
6) Systemically DETAIN and DEPORT any immigrants who are "found" by INS (or other agencies) -- i.e. ZERO amnesty if you do not "volunteer" within timeframe X -- and then also systematically PROSECUTE and FINE the employers.
To my mind this is the only FAIR and JUST way to eliminate the whole HOST of problems associated with illegal immigration (including the seldom discussed "oppression" of immigrants by less-than-scrupulous employers).
It would give the immigrants the OPPORTUNITY to "come clean" -- likewise it would give EMPLOYERS the opportunity to also "come clean" (possibly in exchange for a smaller fine, etc.) -- and would bring the whole "workings" of this problem above-board, and into the light of day.
Currently the whole thing operates as an "underground" economy -- which harms both the immigrants, the population at large (depressing wages, lost taxes, gov't service abuse, etc), and the "honest" businessmen.
The only ones who truly "benefit" from the CURRENT arrangement are the "smugglers" who bring the immigrants across (for a BIG FEE mind you) -- and the unscrupulous businesses/clients who then get cheap employees and services while foisting the true costs onto the taxpaying general public.
Conversely, IMHO, the only reason to OPPOSE such an arrangement is an inherent form of racism or false sens of nationalism/entitlement with racist undertones.
Not this Racist BS again...
Seriously, I was all set to begin campaigning for Baldwin (including turning the ManOfCommonSense into a pro-Baldwin site).
But then he started to focus on and emphasize the whole fear/hate BS against the immigrants -- which is nothing more than a pointless "Red Herring" issue, and a "symptom" rather than the real disease.
Which made me INSTANTLY drop my support for Baldwin. No money, no websites, no campaigning, and NO vote.
Hey, maybe he's grandstanding on what he thinks is a political "hot ticket" issue; maybe he's pandering to his perceived "base"; or maybe he sincerely believes this is the major problem -- but whatever the reason, he loses my support.
Racist?
How is wanted secure borders racist? You pro-amnesty types always conveniently forget to use the adjective ILLEGAL when discussing illegal immigration, and then throw that "racist" term around like the obamites.
INDEED!
Very one issue sided. Notice how he only mentions himself and Ramos who will attend the news conference, while Paul has invited Bob Barr (whom he criticizes
in this PR!) and possibly Nader & McKinney as well. Baldwin obviously thinks this is the major issue with all Ron Paul supporters, and he is so wrong about that. Take a listen to this thorough comparison between Barr and Baldwin's position on immigration, in relation to Ron Paul's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztqjMX8_BJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbxeRxPIL1w
Also: Ron Paul never made "no NWO" a main issue with his campaign, it is a "negative" connection, he rather made return to the original constitution, the revolution of 1776 his main issue, which is such a positive, powerful message of freedom. On the immigration issue Paul is always differentiated, e.g. noting that immigrants should not be made a scapegoat.
Barr's campaign has constant updates and releases on issue, every single day while on Baldwin's site there is nothing recent. As I feared Baldwin has his campaign mostly aimed at Ron Paul supporters, and NOT at expanding the power base of the Ron Pal revolution.
Yup. I think they are trying to "mine" the RP movement...
And use it to gain support for their local parties.
Unfortunately, IMO, this will accomplish nothing because the CP is very unorganized on the local level, tends to field few candidates for local office, and the few who they do field tend to be rather "single issue" candidates based on some individual "outrage" issue.
The LP is similar, but not to the same extent.
I *had* hoped that Baldwin would emphasize similar (important) issues to Ron Paul... but it seems that he has decided to go the same route as every other politican and play off of people's hot buttons instead.
SAD.
The CP does not seem to be very
organized indeed. They not even registered in most states, in some states they still use their previous name "US Taxpayers Party" and use affiliates in CA (which they do not have this year), NV, AK etc. The problem is that if a third party attracts percentages like only 1-2% or max. 5% consistency over a few years, they write themselves off. The Reform Party and Independence Party has been much more successful. You really need to merge large portions of the LP, CP as well as parts of the D's and R's together with Independents together
in a new party that can achieve at least double digits. The Minnesota Independence party candidates did get 20% plus in races in 2006 and so, so that is a way to build onto.
They need to focus on state and state specific issues and build up from there.
http://www.afr.org/
Reform Party? LOL
They don't exist anymore in any meaningful way since the John Hagelin mess in 2000.
The reason the CP is on the ballot in different states under different names is b/c some states do not allow parties to change their names without starting from square one (gathering thousands if signatures or even tens or scores if thousands of new signatures). Also the CP actually practices what they preach and allows state parties a certain level of autonomy (states' rights).
RP2012!
Yup
Well, third parties obviously gets much less news coverage, so they have to focus on issues they disagree with the main parties. But if they focus too much on non-main issues, then they isolate themselves. Another issue is the quality of candidates: you need someone that has a comprehensive approach.
Why don't they concentrate on the most burning issues, like the Iraq war and combine that with the economy and bread and butter issues...
I think Barr wants to position himself as someone that can approach a broad range of issues. He is not such a specialist as Paul in economics and monetary theory, but comes very close. He is very good on pro-gun issues and privacy etc. from his legal background and experience.
The whole success with the Ron Paul movement is the diversity of groups and coalition Ron Paul could attract, e.g. also people from the Greens, the left etc. and force them to rethink big government.
Paul has the right strategy: to call all four major third party candidates together in a joint meeting with the intent of facilitating the maximum amount of support for third parties, 25% or more and the common issue is foreign policy, which also affects domestic policy.
Yeah, but...
Baldwin -- in picking the immigration issue -- is NOT picking an issue he differs in stance from the other two parties, but rather one where he differs only in DEGREE of rhetoric.(Both the Dems and the GOP are officially "against" illegal immigration).
So what the heck does focusing on this issue gain him? The only thing I see that it "gains" him is the support of people for whom this is the HIGHEST or SOLE issue (and that typically because of the inherent racist aspect).
BTW, as to exactly whether Paul's "strategy" in this Wednesday thing is "brilliant" or "pointless" -- I think we'll have to wait and see. As of right now, we have no idea WHAT it is really about. It could end up just being some bland and boring "support your 3rd party candidates" speechifying... in which case it's a big ticket to yawns-ville (and will be totally ignored by the media).
Private property rights, not racism
Ask property owners along the border, ranchers along the AZ border for example, why they oppose the non-enforcement of border laws. These property owners are getting their properties trashed, their homes robbed, their wives raped, and some have even been murdered by illegals who you claim are not a problem. And if these guys try to defend themselves and their families, and their property, they are looked at as "bad guys". But since the government won't enforce the border, what choice do they have?
RP2012!
I hope this isn't the only
I hope this isn't the only thing that this "press conference" is about. Illegal immigration is the least of our problems. Although, I do agree something needs to be done, I am 100% against a fence on the border--this will not solve the problem just make it worse....
Geez, me too. Don't waste
Geez, me too. Don't waste valuable time on this, guys.
You'll find me online waiting for the new iPods from Apple tomorrow morning...
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore