• Sen. Rand Paul is pandering for campaign donations

    by supporting a HUGE increase in high tech immigration, though there is a GLUT of highly qualified and highly educated engineers in the U.S. that can't find work due to a shortage of engineering jobs. When the Department of Energy is hiring PhD engineers (chemical, mechanical, and electrical) at the GS-5 level (salary $34,075 to $44,293), Econ 101 tells you there is no shortage of engineers. Sen. Paul says this is in support of free markets... so why did Sen. Paul vote to extend unFree trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia, and isn't supporting increasing HUGE immigration increases for ophthalmologists, though there is a REAL shortage of ophthalmologists. His state of Kentucky is considering allowing optometrists to do some of the work ophthalmologists normally do to help alleviate the shortage. Many ophthalmologists would like to come to the U.S. to help fill the very real shortage but many have a difficult time finding a place to do their required residency because of interference from the AMA.


  • Dave Brat during his campaign also brought up the issue of

    excessive high-tech immigration that has resulted in many highly qualified, highly educated Americans not able to find work in their technical field of expertise, but Rand Paul still supports bringing in even more foreign engineers into our distressed job market. When the Department of Energy is filling GS-5 level positions that pay $34 -44,000/year with PhD engineers (mechanical, chemical, and electrical) there is no rational reason to bring more engineers here to work. I'm all for a free market, but imposing free market principles on labor in our highly crony corporatized economy will result in even more Americans unemployed or underemployed and getting government assistance to survive. Rand Paul, as well as our other liberty politicians, should focus on getting rid of the many unFree Trade treaties, corporate welfare programs that encourage companies to move overseas, and excessive regulations that favor corporate America over their smaller competitors before supporting implementing free market principles to the labor market. (Note: Sen. Rand Paul voted to extend the highly corporatized trade agreement with South Korea and Colombia, as he continues saying he supports free markets. He is sounding alot like the many elected corportists/globalists that have screwed up our job market while governing for their large campaign contributors... Sen Rand Paul did make a fund raising trip to Silicon Valley right after announcing his support for increasing high tech immigration.)


  • Agreed...

    ...but Rand supported Mitt Romney (who is as bad as the Bushes) as the Republican nominee without being disowned. I'd would just rather see Ron Paul run again in 2016... Rand is cozying up to the establishment too much for me.


  • Abolishing minimum wage would be wise if we had a free market..

    But we don't. If we had a free market, most of our workers would be making much more than $7.25/hour. As it is, upwards of 1/4 of those working are paid minimum wage. If minimum wage had kept up with the true increase in the cost of living since 1968 it would currently be $19.70/hour, and if minimum wage had kept up with the increase in productivity it would be over $22/hour. In a true free market, if workers were paid a fair wage for their work, wages should keep up with productivity increases. As it is, many workers pretend to work because their employer pretends to pay them!... and they aren't paid enough to live without relying on government assistance.

    We need to have a true free market, instead of the corporatized mess that we have, before we get rid of minimum wage.


  • What's wrong? Here's what's wrong...

    Work visas should be hard linked to the number of workers needed in the economy... With 12 million unemployed and another 8 million underemployed, there should be a general moratorium on all work visas and green cards for people coming to the U.S. to work for an employer. The economy is barely creating enough new jobs to keep up with the current level of legal immigration... the number of unemployed will never return to pre-2008 financial crash levels if we keep oversupplying the economy with workers as we have been doing. From 2008 to 2012 the U.S. economy created 6 million new jobs...unfortunately 5 million work visas were issued during these same 4 years. Many who support increasing legal immigration with our job market in such bad shape, also complain about the number of Americans on government assistance. If you want government assistance to be reduced significantly, quit supporting oversupplying workers so that the unemployed can find work and many of the low-wage employed have better opportunities to make enough money to live without government assistance.

    There should also be a moratorium on high tech immigration visas and green cards... our universities graduate many more students in STEM majors than the number of STEM jobs available in our economy, and this has been the case since at least the NASDAQ crash of 1999. The result has been that many highly educated and experienced engineers and scientists in the U.S. are unable to find work in their field of study. If we keep increasing high tech immigration, the many Americans that are more than able to enter STEM fields will not continue to do so... why would they when it is obvious that corporate America preferentially hires cheaper foreign engineers and scientists, many of whom have little experience and aren't as qualified as the Americans they displace.

    Green cards for people who are coming with capital to create jobs for people already living here legally should be welcomed.

    Dave Brat and Ron Paul understand what is needed to get Americans back to work, while Senator Rand Paul who supports increasing high tech immigration and providing a pathway to citizenship for illegals, is among those who apparently don't... or he is just pandering to Silicon Valley and other cheap labor corporate lobbyists for campaign funds.

    If we had a free market economy, there would be plenty of jobs created for Americans and those who want to come here to work... but we don't have a free market economy. Applying free market principles to labor without also applying free market principles to corporate America results in millions unemployed and under paid as we currently have.


  • No offense taken, thanks for the response

    But from what you are saying, 1 Cor. 10:27 verses was not translated accurately?... I'll look into it further when I am feeling better (got a nasty bug of some sort right now).

    OK, good works are the fruit of our Faith... we are saved through Faith and by repenting of sin. No disagreement here.

    I don't disagree with His commandments... I just hadn't heard of your point of view or understanding of the dietary laws so I thought I would ask a few questions while I had an opportunity to do so. Thanks... it's been an interesting discussion.


  • I follow what you are saying but

    to me it doesn't adequately answer my question.

    What about I Cor. 10:27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake.

    From this verse it does appear to be saying that there are no restrictions on eating for a Christian.

    Also, your comment about good works is confusing. See Ephesians 2:8-9

    8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

    Good works are the fruit of our salvation not the means to obtaining salvation, so no the atheist is not vindicated.


  • I didn't mean to come across as rebuking you,

    just sharing my understanding of Scripture.

    In I Corinthians 10:25-28, it says

    25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; (New American Standard Bible)

    You are correct that Paul specifically mentions meat sacrificed to idols, but why doesn't "eat anything that is sold in the meat market" include unclean animals listed in the Old Testament? To me it seems that anything would include Old Testament unclean meat. The pagan Corinthians would surely have not been following the Old Testament law.

    Then in Romans 14:20-21, Paul says

    20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

    Here Paul specifically says "All things are indeed clean".

    Again, it seems clear to me that Paul is saying that Gentile Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament dietary laws.


  • You are free to follow the dietary laws if you so choose,

    but there is no requirement to follow the Mosaic Covenant including the dietary laws, to be a Christian. Do a study on the Covenants in the Old and New Testament (See Jeremiah 31:30-32, Luke 22:19-21, and Hebrews 8). Jesus' New Covenant clearly replaced the Mosaic Covenant. Also Paul instructed believers to not offend those who hold to the Mosaic Law dietary restrictions by eating prohibited foods in their presence. I don't wish to get into a long discussion on this matter but would encourage a thorough study of the Covenants. The Mosaic Covenant points the Old Testament believer towards the New Covenant which then replaced the Mosaic Covenant. (Note: In many older Bibles, the Old Testament and New Testament were alternatively referred to as the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.)


  • Great... we should start by fixing the problems at the top first

    As Ron Paul said many times, he doesn't support the unconstitutional welfare state but would not make cuts there first and hurt the people that have been most adversely affected by our current government policies, but would rein in our interventionist foreign policy and use the savings to work our way towards a free market and a government that followed the constitution. Ron Paul has also stated he wouldn't end the Federal Reserve immediately but would introduce competing currencies and allow the Fed to wither away, which they most likely would do after a complete and thorough audit was made public.

    I support free markets but we need to be smart about working our way towards that goal. That's the point I was trying to make... bringing an excessive amount of high tech workers into the country hurts American engineers like you and me and rewards the many corporations that hire as many foreign engineers as the government allows instead of hiring from the huge pool of highly qualified American engineers. We need to rein in the corporatism in trade treaties and in regulations that have given large corporations a huge advantage over smaller competitors, and change tax laws that encourage corporations to outsource, and address the other items I had previously mentioned BEFORE allowing an even greater amount of excessive foreign engineers to come to the U.S. to work.


  • The problem is we don't have a free market,

    and it is asinine to implement free market policies that hurt those on the bottom before addressing the HUGE issues of corporate welfare, corporatized trade treaties, unnecessary regulations especially those that create artificial monopolies for the biggest campaign donors, etc. Also, there is currently not a free market to defend concerning the high tech job market. Those who come here on high tech visas are given an advantage over an American in that they are allowed to be hired for 29 months at sub-prevailing wages while they are doing on the job training. Foreigners who come to the U.S. to study at the graduate level (master's and PhD)are also given an unfair advantage in that the contracts of granted by the various federal agencies that fund much of the research in our universities incentivize our tax-payer funded universities to preferentially recruit foreign students by the way tuition is reimbursed. And it is no chump change we are talking about... the University of California system made an estimated additional $50 million in 2010 by having foreign graduate students doing government funded research over what they would have made if only in-state students were doing the research. The deck is stacked heavily against highly qualified Americans because the big money shovelers funding political campaigns have gotten what they have lobbied for.

    I'm all for a free market, but there needs to be a level playing field for American engineers BEFORE we allow the job market to be flooded with foreign engineers, not after as has been the case for at least 15 years. We most likely would both have engineering jobs (as would the other 300,000+ Americans with engineering degrees that are currently out of the engineering work force) if there were a level playing field. I know I would... I am very capable, have many years of experience, have a good work record and a U.S. Patent, and had graduated with my bachelor's AND master's degrees 4 1/2 years after graduating from high school.


  • Ron Paul and Justin Amash are much better than Rand in their

    understanding of economics and how to formulate policies that will get us back to a free market without creating even higher unemployment than we currently have. Bringing a flood of new immigrants into the country before addressing taxes, regulations, and corporatized trade treaties will result in more Americans on public assistance... that will only increase the size of government, not reduce it.


  • Look at how few Hispanic votes

    George Bush, Sr. got after Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1986. Why do you think Hispanics will vote for Rand in exchange for his support for a path to citizenship?


  • Rand won't get much of the engineer, scientist, or IT vote

    by increasing high tech immigration... anyone who has been looking for work in any technical field knows how few jobs are available in the U.S.


  • It is panderiing

    when you take a position to bring more engineers into the country when there is a glut of highly qualified American engineers that can't find a job. The job market for engineers has been terrible since the crash of the NASDAQ in 1999 despite the tripe that is reported in the headlines. Rand is playing right into the hands of the coporatists instead of representing the best interests of the country. Ron Paul consistently voted against increasing high tech visas when he was in Congress because of the rampant abuse of these visas by corporations.


  • Though I like much of what Rand is doing, he panders too much

    for campaign contributions from Silicon Valley. In March 2013 Sen. Paul announced his support for greatly increasing high tech immigration just before going to Silicon Valley to raise campaign funds. Since 1999 when the NASDAQ bubble burst, the high tech sector in the U.S. has had a severe shortage of jobs NOT a shortage of highly qualified people. In the 5 years from 2000 to 2005, there were more than 400,000 high tech visas issued while only 70,000 net new engineering and architecture jobs were created in the U.S. Per the Bureau of Labor Studies data, in 2010 there were 100,100 unemployed engineers actively looking for engineering jobs and another 244,000 engineer not in the engineering work force which has a total of ~ 1.5 million people in the U.S. Also, a detailed study of the high tech sector by the Economic Policy Institute found that only 54% of 2009 engineering graduates had a job in their field of study 1 year after graduating. As an unemployed engineer, I still consistently receive feedback from companies that they have hundreds of qualified applicants for every posted engineering position. I've been a Ron Paul supporter since 2007, but Rand's support of greatly increasing high tech immigration is a deal breaker for me. Note: Ron Paul consistently voted against increasing the number of high tech visas citing the widespread abuse of these visas by corporations.


  • The Federal government would rather

    raise the minimum wage than rein in spending and quit devaluing the dollar.

    Wages in general, not just the minimum wage, have not kept pace with the real rate of inflation. This is one of the ways middle- and lower-income people are hurt by a devalued dollar.

    Go Ron Paul!!!


  • Should've told her that knowledge

    will overcome fear as you offered her the info a second time


  • Why not carry banners with the Liberty Bell

    on it along with the U.S. flag in a respectful manner?


  • Not to get too sidetracked but ...

    I did some research online about the 14th amendment. It's original intent was only to grant U.S. citizenship to legal citizens of territories when they joined the United States as a state. It was not to grant citizenship to children born in the United States to parents that were not legal citizens. Apparently the courts mucked things up again by interpreting the 14th amendment to grant citizenship to those born in the U.S. toparents who are illegal aliens.