User Profile
Learning and understanding Bible prophecy. Spiritual warfare. Exposing lies. Studying esoteric kn...
» View CMGINAV's profile
» Send Private Message
Search
Blog Viewer
of Abraham Lincoln
Friday, May 28 2010 - 06:52 PM
Ron Paul Defends Rand Against
Ron Paul Defends Rand Against Concerted Corporate Media Attack
Ron Paul
May 28, 2010
Dear Friend,
It sure didn’t take long for the entire establishment to attack my son Rand in the days after he won the Kentucky Senate primary.
As I left Kentucky last week, I was both happy for Rand and anxious for what I knew would be coming at him soon. But it came sooner than even I feared.
A mainstream media network has gone into all-out warfare against Rand, beginning with a full 24 hours of repeating outright lies by Rand’s Democrat opponent.
It’s funny. Rand’s opponent’s ideas are anti-freedom. They’re pro Big Government. They’re pro-welfare state, and will stand lock-step with the Obama agenda. And if they are the issue, he can’t beat Rand in Kentucky. So he’s trying to make sure this race is on a different playing field.
Rand needs to fight back. Some of it will be now, some will be in the coming months. But he needs your help to do it.
I know it seems like he won his primary by a lot, and it certainly was a great achievement. But having done this many times before, I urged him to take nothing for granted, and to run like he was 10 points behind. He did just that, and it was an amazing victory to watch! I was very proud of him and his team.
And thanks to you, he had the funds to do everything he needed to do. But he wisely used those funds in the primary, and has only a small amount left in his campaign treasury as we begin the general election.
And now he’s under all-out attack.
I hope you’ll help him out the way you did in the primary. We can’t count on others to help. Sure, he’ll have a few more friends now. But we need that to be in ADDITION to what our movement can give him. We can’t rest now, this is one of the biggest opportunities for a liberty minded candidate in a long time.
Please consider helping Rand today, and as often as you can throughout the general election. He’s going to need to raise three of four times what he raised in the primary to compete with the national special interests that will pour money into Kentucky to stop him.
These early attacks prove one thing for sure: The establishment and the powers that be in Washington are scared to death of a Senator Rand Paul. And they should be.
Now let’s start helping him get there to shake up the Senate!
Please donate today at www.RandPaul2010.com.
In Liberty,
Ron Paul
Sovereignty Soldier says...
Roxi don’t be so cynical. Neither Rand nor Dr. Paul are Republicans but rather, Libertarians using the platform of an established party to coax out the true conservatives and patriots. They would not have the success or the media coverage if they ran as Libertarians. What a ring that has to it, Libert(y)arian-one who believes in limited government, states rights, and individual liberty and freedoms. What part of the story did you see anything about Tea Party or BP? The “Tea Party” is worthless. They consist of half awake sheep still clinging to the same two parties, and still putting their faith in career politicians and their words. Dr. Paul is the real deal. Before you trash him, or his children, you should take the time to listen to him, watch a few speeches, remember the media blackout on him, and ask yourself why the establishment (both sides), seem so afraid of him. He has a more dedicated following than any other politician and it is because we can see he cares and he has principles and a moral compass. He doesn’t say what he needs to to get elected and then offer excuses why he didn’t fulfill his campaign promises the way the globalist candidates do, the way ol’ Barry, I mean Barack and Bush did. Stop being loyal to a party and be loyal to truth and liberty. Then you will see the two parties are one in the same with the same corporate and banking masters.
( send private message )
CMGINAV says...
UPDATE:
Next Rand Paul Slam: Anchor Babies
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 28, 2010
In the wake of the “scandal” of Rand Paul’s unwavering support of property rights, the corporate media has fired another salvo from its trebuchet. Now it insinuates that Rand Paul is a racist because he is opposed to the government granting citizenship to anchor babies.
The establishment media will attempt to portray Paul as a racist because he opposes illegal immigration.
“U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is stirring it up again, this time by saying he opposes citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegal immigrants,” reports the Associated Press. “Paul, who a week ago won the GOP primary, told a Russian TV station in a clip circulating on political Web sites Friday that he wants to block citizenship to those children.”
Often called “maternal tourism,” the anchor baby phenomenon is allowed under federal law. For illegal immigrants, having a child born in the U.S. becomes the Golden Ticket to staying in the country. Anchor babies become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. “anchor” for an extended immigrant family, notes Andy Selepak of Accuracy in Media.
The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated in 2007 there were between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. These numbers are based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1,000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population–between 8.7 and 11.
Others put these numbers even higher, explains Selepak. When using the higher estimate of 20 million illegal immigrants and FAIR’s 33 births per 1,000, the higher estimate would roughly double FAIR’s figure to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 anchor babies born in the U.S. each year.
“I’m not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country,” Paul told Russia Today. “But I think what we should do is we shouldn’t provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics. If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat, so the Democratic Party is for easy citizenship and allowing them to vote. I think we need to address that.”
The Associated Press attempted to get Paul to do a flip-flop on his comments. But his campaign chairman David Adams said Friday that Paul stands behind his statements. “Illegal immigration is a real problem in this country,” Adams said, “and if we can’t talk about this, what can we talk about?”
It will be difficult for the establishment corporate media to use illegal immigration against Paul. University of Louisville political scientist Laurie Rhodebeck told the Associated Press Paul’s position is not a political liability in Kentucky where polls show people strongly disapprove of illegal immigration.
“Clearly, people here seem to be even more in favor of tight control over immigration issues than folks nationwide,” Rhodebeck said. “So, if Paul wants, he could take the issue and run with it.”
(
send private message
)
138hwy says...
Good for Rand Paul. How will his opponent debate this? And why is it a “Rand Paul Slam?”
Since illegal immigration will be the top political issue in their campaign, me thinks these protests by illegal aliens and their increasing demands will just add more fuel to the fire.
( send private message )
roxi says...
This paragraph is interesting, since my mother and her 3 siblings were considered ‘illegal aliens’ when they were born in this country – primarily because their FATHER was not a citizen, not their mother. Laws changed, and they were granted ‘citizenship’ in Boston. Were they viable ‘citizens’-did they murder & pillage the neighborhoods? No. They were all Veterans of WWII, serving in the Army, Navy, Merchant Marines/Army and Coast Guard.
Too bad we have become so narrow-minded and caustic.
““I’m not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country,” Paul told Russia Today. “But I think what we should do is we shouldn’t provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics. If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat, so the Democratic Party is for easy citizenship and allowing them to vote. I think we need to address that.”
Yeah, lighten up.
(
send private message
)
Ray Cunneff says...
Denying citizenship to “anchor babies” brings cheers from the Tea Party folks until someone points out that citizenship to anyone born in this country is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, regardless of the legal status of their parents.
For people who say they strongly support the Constitution, this presents something of a conundrum.
(
send private message
)
Amir Raheem says...
Part one of the Constitution states;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There is NO provision that allows for illegally entering the U.S.in direct violation of the law.
(
send private message
)
Ray Cunneff says...
“There is NO provision that allows for illegally entering the U.S.in direct violation of the law.”
Quite right. But the issue is the citizenship of the children of illegals born in this country. Unless we’re prepared to negate those Constitutional guarantees, we come back to the core issues of securing the border and removing the economic incentives for both illegals and those who employ them.
(
send private message
)
whomeye says...
I believe the only way to solve this problem is exactly what Ray says. We also need to amend the the 14th amendment as it was initially meant for slaves (don’t have that anymore) and a flat tax so they and everyone pays into the system, a heavy fee for any money being wired to Mexico. Mexico’s economy benefits from the illegals coming here.
( send private message )
Amir Raheem says...
Yes Ray on that point you are correct and we can agree. However the activity of the parents (entering in violation of law) is not part of the 14th. As a matter of fact that act as you know is grounds for removal based on immigration law. So we are once again back to enforcement.
( send private message )
Amir Raheem says...
Whom, Regarding the 14th you are correct. And as Ray pointed out this is one big fat conundrum. The solutions are not that illusive, finding the political body with the strength to do what is necassary, I belive is really the heart of the problem.
( send private message )
Sovereignty Soldier says...
Sorry Roxi but immigration NEEDS to be stemmed or even stopped for awhile. Look around. Americans traditional are disappearing. Whenever I go somewhere I look around and listen. I am a minority in my own country. Both my parents and grandparents were born here, as was I. I owe no allegiance to any other flag or nation. I do not call myself Mexican American but only American. At this time in history, with so many so-called citizens who love flying foreign flags, who love marching in the street demanding rights that are reserved for citizens, with so many who believe in mythical places like Aztlan and taking back the southwest, Rand Paul has it right and speaks for the majority.
( send private message )
Sovereignty Soldier says...
05/29/10 – 04:42 PM
Ray Cunneff says…
Denying citizenship to “anchor babies” brings cheers from the Tea Party folks until someone points out that citizenship to anyone born in this country is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, regardless of the legal status of their parents.
That was written for the newly freed slaves Ray and you know it. So-called citizens like you who like to twist laws to hurt America and Americans are pitiful. We love the Constitution and the spirit it was written. But purposely interpreting it wrong is a sure sign of un-allegiance. Like saying the Constitution doesn’t expressly provide for citizens rights to keep and bear arms and our right to form militias NOT controlled by the government that they are formed to protect against.
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
Ray
Key words that you skip over “subject to the jurisdiction”. The legal question, not a constitutional one directly other than a ruling on the keepers of what the Constitution means aka the Supreme Court, do children born of people who are not here legally fall under the jurisdiction of the US.
I’m all in favor of a court case that would reach the US Supreme court to sort out the meaning of the 14th Amendment words, we are after all a country of laws governed by the Constitution.
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
Here’s more info for those that choose to be educated on the topic of what the 14th Amendment means, at least from a Federalist and originality point of view. Link to a long piece by the Federalist blog.
I think Rand Paul is sort of wrong, but there should be a legal challenge that takes this question to the US Supreme Court to be decided.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
14th Amendment: Section 4:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
This is the only place in the 14th Amendment where slaves are mentioned. On the other hand, it does state that neither the US or States should be held to financial obligation to pay for any insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
Suppression of Immigration has and always will be a method of weeding out the beggers from the haves. It also has a lot to do with what ethnic group or class contributes to the welfare of the country and which one does not. The Irish were spit upon as being poor and not worthy of citizenship, yet some became statesmen. At one time only Christians could be citizens and own property. To regress to this way of thinking is madness.
If whites are so afraid of losing their ‘identity’ as being Americans and living the American way of life – it doesn’t say much for their depth of character, does it?
(
send private message
)
Sovereignty Soldier says...
Laws are laws Roxi. If you had an extra car and you let me use it for a week while mine was in the shop, and when the week was up you called about the car and I told you that I had grown used to it and had all my stuff in it and that I thought I would go ahead and keep it cause you already had another car, would you think that was fair OR right of me? Would you feel crapped on? That is how I feel when these people call us racist and demand equal rights to citizens. Then when they tell me they are taking back the southwest that my ancestors fought for, well that is the last straw. Are we supposed to ignore the illegals until we no longer have any political clout and live in an unrecognizable state? Are we to sleep on the issue until we wake up in 10 years with an all latino legislation and governor who are loyal to Mexico first? Maybe you hate nation states but the majority of the people want a seperation in nations and the right to self govern and determine their own destiny. Why is it every other people on earth understand tribalism and unity except Americans. The Asians come here and buy only asian cars and hire asians in their stores. The Mexicans hire their own. Yet Americans feel this need to prove they are not racist and hire illegals and foreign. This is fine, but why when they shut you out do you not return the favor?
( send private message )
Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!
roxi says...
Sorry, Dad – (Ayn)Rand’s just reading from the TeaBag script – or did you raise him to resent civil rights and love BP?
( send private message )