PDA

View Full Version : Farah Calls Paul a Liar




oldpaths1611
07-11-2007, 07:30 AM
Jesse Benton, Ron Pauls Communications Director wrote a letter to WorldNetDaily in response to its article yesterday regarding Dr. Paul calling for the elimination of the Border Patrol 20 years ago. Immediately following the letter are comments by Joseph Farah in which he strongly implies that the campaign is lying. The more Farah opens his mouth, the more it seems he has some sort of personal vendetta against Dr. Paul.

http://www.wnd.com/letters.asp


On staffing the border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw that the piece on Dr. Paul and, based on your poll, it seems to have caused some spirited debate among your readers. I was glad to see that, at the time of this e-mail, a plurality of respondents support Ron for president!

I want to clarify three points on the sub-piece titled "Ron Paul runs away from '88 position" and ask that you post this e-mail.


Rather than give you a response from me to your question about the Border Patrol, we set up an interview for you directly with Dr. Paul. The campaign in no away ducked the question as your piece seems to imply.

Dr. Paul does not remember making a call to replace the Border Patrol with the Army. He has, however, been a consistent advocate of beefed-up border security as well as a vocal critic of the administration's decision to remove border guards from our southern border and send them to patrol the borders of Iraq and Syria.

Replacing the Border Patrol with the Army is not a soft position on security or sovereignty. In fact, many of the strongest advocates of secure borders have called for troop deployment and think the armed forces would do a far more effective job than the Border Patrol.
Thank you for your work. The campaign appreciates the opportunity to communicate with your readers.

[Note from Editor Joseph Farah: Jesse Benton personally promised me a response to the documented charge that Ron Paul called for the elimination of the Border Patrol in 1988. I asked for it in writing twice and once on the phone. He further promised to brief Dr. Paul on the question so that he could be prepared to answer it in the interview. Instead, Dr. Paul chose to say he just didn't recall his position in 1988. The nation is all-too familiar with politicians who can't remember their campaign promises – even if they are from 20 years ago.]

Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC

LibertyEagle
07-11-2007, 07:38 AM
Well, I don't think the campaign has answered the question adequately either. I would expect something much more definitive. The taste this is going to leave in readers' mouths is that Dr. Paul is ducking. At the very least, he should come out with a very strong statement of what he thinks needs to be done to stop the illegal alien invasion of our country.

Original_Intent
07-11-2007, 07:39 AM
Farah's "beef" with RP is that RP is against the war in Iraq, and Farah, although of Arab descent, is VERY pro-war in the region. Farah has said other than his position on getting our troops out of Iraq, that RP has consistently supported his own positions (I think he worded it that he and Paul would have voted the most alike) of any other candidate running). That said, the war is a huge issue to Farah, and he has been pretty open with his opposition to Paul, although they have published several decent positive articles on Paul as well.

So they are not exactly RP fans, but they have given him more fair coverage than any other news outlet of their size.

LibertyEagle
07-11-2007, 07:41 AM
Yes, but the illegal alien thing is a HUGE issue for Americans. The campaign needs to do a better job on this and cut the legs out from under what Farah is saying. To do otherwise is political suicide.

JaylieWoW
07-11-2007, 07:43 AM
Isn't it the Libertarian position that borders should be opened and not secured?

I agree that the campaign response is not what it should have been but I also don't see any proof from the "accuser" that Paul actually said something along these lines. However, I am starting to think that because it is the Libertarian stance and since in 88 Paul was on the Libertarian ticket, is it not possible this could have been assumed to be his position rather than him coming right out and saying so? I'm trying not to jump into defensive stance too much, but rather to analyze why this would be said and I also would like to see the proof of it.

Andrew76
07-11-2007, 07:43 AM
Sounds to me like Paul originally meant something like, - eliminating the border patrol, and replacing them with military personnel, ie: the army or others - not simply eliminating the border patrol altogether. If this guy wants to quote Paul out of context, then it's simply bad journalism (bloggerism? blournalism? ... bullsh*t?) on his part. Then he says the campaign people never contacted him, and they say they did. Who you gonna' believe? I'm with Paul.

Kuldebar
07-11-2007, 07:45 AM
It's lame....even if Paul somehow said or appeared to advocate the use of the military on the borders that would be an extremely strong stand for secure borders...not a weak one.

For me, after following Ron Paul's positions and writings since 1994, I have never came across any suggestion like the one to which Farah is referring.

Perhaps it came up in a simple comment like "it would make more sense to have our troops on our borders than over in the Middle East" or something to that effect. Who knows?

I do know I don't have a reason to distrust Ron Paul. It seems to me that Farah (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56177) is the one that's been misrepresenting things about Paul's campaign and positions.

fedup100
07-11-2007, 07:46 AM
Farah is a blind Vhristian neocon and in bed with the current administration. His wnd is now a dangerous rag.

LibertyEagle
07-11-2007, 07:47 AM
Isn't it the Libertarian position that borders should be opened and not secured?

It is my understanding that some believe that; others do not. Dr. Paul most certainly does not.

LibertyEagle
07-11-2007, 07:49 AM
It's lame....even if Paul somehow said or appeared to advocate the use of the military on the borders that would be an extremely strong stand for secure borders...not a weak one.

For me, after following Ron Paul's positions and writings since 1994, I have never came across any suggestion like the one to which Farah is referring.

Perhaps it came up in a simple comment like "it would make more sense to have our troops on our borders than over in the Middle East" or something to that effect. Who knows?

I do know I don't have a reason to distrust Ron Paul. It seems to me that Farah (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56177) is the one that's been misrepresenting things about Paul's campaign and positions.

I agree. I don't distrust him in the least! However, for people who already are not sold on him, they are likely going to get the wrong idea about his stance on illegal immigration and what he would do to remedy it. We cannot afford for this to happen. Illegal immigration is a huge issue in this election. The campaign must make Dr. Paul's stance much more clear.

Kuldebar
07-11-2007, 07:53 AM
It is my understanding that some believe that; others do not. Dr. Paul most certainly does not.

Agree. "Big L" libertarians generally believe that borders should be free and open. Having once been a Libertarian Party member and supporter I agreed with this philosophically to some extent.

But, as Ron Paul has stated many times about other issues, we can't get to that place from here with some big changes and some serious plans for transition.

Open borders may work in a free world that doesn't face the threats of a one world government, a welfare state and terrorism brought on by years of foreign interventionism...but we don't live in that world.

LibertyBelle
07-11-2007, 08:04 AM
Well, I don't think the campaign has answered the question adequately either. I would expect something much more definitive. The taste this is going to leave in readers' mouths is that Dr. Paul is ducking. At the very least, he should come out with a very strong statement of what he thinks needs to be done to stop the illegal alien invasion of our country.

I agree. That response doesn't clear anything up, and is wishy washy IMO.

It needs to be stated what RP believes needs to be done, there is no reason not to be direct and straightforward. I don't get this response, and it did make it seem like he is avoiding/ducking.

I believe they need to come back with a definitive statement, too. Also, where is this 'survey' or whatever that WND is mentioning?

RonPaul2012grassroots
07-11-2007, 08:23 AM
S If this guy wants to quote Paul out of context, then it's simply bad journalism (bloggerism? blournalism? ... bullsh*t?) on his part. Then he says the campaign people never contacted him, and they say they did. Who you gonna' believe? I'm with Paul.

Farah has a well-established history of 'shoddy' journalism (not checking with sources). I emailed him about a story I had personal, first hand knowledge of where he and his staff completely failed to verify a quote from someone which as a result put the issue in an entirely different light, i.e. way out of line fear-mongering. It could not have been much more inaccurate reporting. I knew the source of the 'quote' and he was livid when he found out. The source threatened to sue WND. Farah sent me the meanest profanity-laced nasty-gram you could image when I pointed out to him the total inaccuracy/fabrication of the quote the article was based on. Farah is not stable and I'm clueless as to how he's able to continue to function as an 'editor'.

sunny
07-11-2007, 08:35 AM
ok guys,
perhaps the thing to do is to forward this page to HQ and let them read the feedback on this forum.......i agree, this is a HUGE issue and it needs to be nipped in the bud. WND is read by alotta people........not me tho........and having farah paint dr. paul in this light is NOT good.
if there are no objections i will forward it now....

smtwngrl
07-11-2007, 09:43 AM
I agree with Kuldebar. This is really lame!!!

First of all, Dr. Paul has answered the question. Farah's question had to do with Ron Paul's position in 1988, not Ron Paul's position now.

Ron Paul has answered that he doesn't recall advocating that, and that he isn't advocating that. But, as Jesse Benton said, they don't consider it a problem even if he was advocating it. Dr. Paul was simply answering the question as asked.

I think the key thing here is that Farah seem to be saying that in order to answer the question, Ron Paul needs to prove that he didn't say that. You know, as in guilty until proven innocent If he doesn't prove that, Farah will say that he is avoiding the question.

But the truth is, if Farah has some grounds for saying what he does, he needs to produce somewhere that Ron Paul said that, or drop it. And if he wants to know what Ron Paul thinks about the idea now, he should ask that.

LibertyEagle
07-11-2007, 09:46 AM
Yes, you're right, but that is not the perception left after reading both Farah's contention and Kent's response. In my opinion, the campaign can't just wait around hoping that Farah will ask the right question. They need to attack this head on and make it abundantly clear exactly what their stance is on securing our borders and dealing with the illegal alien invasion of our country.

smtwngrl
07-11-2007, 09:54 AM
I can see your point.

Do you think that if they do, though, that Farah will drop the 1988 rant?

billv
07-11-2007, 10:01 AM
Well, it would be freakin nice if farah were a real journalist and actually provided Ron and us with the quote in complete context that he is refering to instead of just infering it in the interview. I would have answered his question in the same way as RP because it's hard to respond to something without knowing exactly what you are responding to. I'm glad Farah gave Ron an interview but I seriously hate his "journalism".

oldpaths1611
07-11-2007, 10:05 AM
The story is spreading and the perception is not good.

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=50323

sunny
07-11-2007, 10:06 AM
update:
i just spoke with andrew at headquarters and he gave me his personal campaign email to send the thread.......so hopefully jesse benton will check this out and do whatever he is gonna do...

rg123
07-11-2007, 10:39 AM
I believe that it is unconstitutional to put the military on the border it is for foreign purposes only and that only the National Guard can be deployed on the border
unless a declaration of war is declared I might be wron on this but I think thats how it goes

torchbearer
07-11-2007, 10:42 AM
Yeh, i don't think the states would appreciate the federal army invading their territory.

iamso910
07-11-2007, 10:43 AM
Libertarians have been split on the idea of open v protected borders for a long time.

As the social welfare state has become a bigger lure for immigrants, more libertarians have moved toward a position of closed borders, as a means to decrease the growing flood of peoples who are more interested in social security than liberty and self-responsibility.

The US was built by immigrants seeking a life of freedom and opportunity and taking on the risks invloved.

If Ron Paul has changed his position on the matter of immigration, as a result of new arguments and the growth of the social welfare incentives to immigrants, then his change of opinion on immigration policy is one that mirrors many libertarians.

God forbid that Ron has changed his mind on something in 20 years. If he has changed his opinion, it is nothing compared to the 99% of congressional and senatorial representatives who continually accept money to lobby on behalf of vested interests.

Farah is a moron who deserves to be dropped amongst the Iraqis he claims to want to liberate. He has enjoyed beating the war drums from a distance for too long, and now he strains to inhibit a movement toward real liberty. His imminent downfall will be well deserved.

constituent
07-11-2007, 11:38 AM
Man guys, Mexico is so beautiful and still has some symblence of culture! .. particularly in the villages and wonderful internation cities like monterrey.

If we had truley open borders, you would see a flood of immigration in the other direction, largely anglos and saxons I would venture to guess. Why? Unlimited potential for economic growth and low start up costs.

[Think about it, their economy can't get much worse and the Peso will not decline as rapidly as the dollar is doing and will continue to do... Furthermore as the NAU concept develops (sorry folks, the fascist mind is made up on this one with or without and admission), their currency upon conversion to Ameros or some other digital currency, will benefit at the expense of ours ... same reason why UK is so opposed to dropping Sterling and the Germans were so stodgy about changing over as well.]

Because if there was no difficulty in crossing the border, the mexicans and OTMs would have no reason to stay. Pre 1930, (and really to this day) people came all the way from monterrey, all over Chihuaha, Tamaulipas, etc. into Texas, sold their goods in San or elsewhere, went back home, came back across and vice versa. It would be no different today (see coyotes and small time trafficers)

TheConstitutionLives
07-11-2007, 11:56 AM
Paul needs to just tell the truth like he usually does. If he was running on an open border platform 20 years ago then he simply needs to say he's changed his mind over the last 20 years.

Hell, I change my mind to some degree on issues all the time. It's part of growing and part of learning. Nothing wrong with changing one's mind, especially given the fact that this issue with Ron Paul on border control is 20 years old.

This isn't a big deal. What person or politician agrees with their party on every single issue yet they run as a representative for that party?

ronpaulitician
07-11-2007, 11:56 AM
Yeah, not a real strong response from the campaign, but on the other hand, it's hard to respond if you don't know what you're responding to. A "CNN questionnaire"? Guess it's up to the Paul campaign to find that questionnaire.

quickmike
07-11-2007, 01:22 PM
Isn't it the Libertarian position that borders should be opened and not secured?

I agree that the campaign response is not what it should have been but I also don't see any proof from the "accuser" that Paul actually said something along these lines. However, I am starting to think that because it is the Libertarian stance and since in 88 Paul was on the Libertarian ticket, is it not possible this could have been assumed to be his position rather than him coming right out and saying so? I'm trying not to jump into defensive stance too much, but rather to analyze why this would be said and I also would like to see the proof of it.

Yeah, thats pretty much the libertarian stance on borders, and I would agree with them if we didnt have so many immigrants getting on social programs when they arent even in the system and paying taxes. Im not talking about all, but many of them. If we didnt have the welfare, I would agree with free immigration. Thats just me though.

LibertyEagle
07-11-2007, 02:42 PM
Yeah, not a real strong response from the campaign, but on the other hand, it's hard to respond if you don't know what you're responding to. A "CNN questionnaire"? Guess it's up to the Paul campaign to find that questionnaire.

Maybe not, but he should know if he ever had that belief about the border. He also knows what his stance is now. He doesn't need to be asked the "right" question. He needs to step out and be rather boisterous in declaring what his stance is on illegal immigration and how he plans to deal with it. He could also backup his stance with a few key references to votes he made. This A-Hole Farah can be smacked down right where he belongs in short order, but Ron has to put forth his plan. Otherwise he will be seen as ducking and possibly weak on this issue.

This issue needs to be stopped dead in its tracks before it gets spread and stuck in people's minds. Ron has a great stance on illegal immigration. He just has to lay it out and the vast majority of people will love it.

jj111
07-11-2007, 02:53 PM
Maybe you are right that national HQ can come up with a better response to WND, but Ron Paul HAS talked a lot about some of his positions about immigration. The point being, Ron Paul has certainly not remained silent on the issues of borders and immigration. Not by a long shot. Ron Paul has been very vocal about his positions on these issues in general.

Check out www.lewrockwell.com for articles, and other sites such as Ron Paul library for writings.

Here are some things he has said on internet videos:

Ron Paul in his own Words – Get the troops home; illegal immigration (1 minute)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdeCXUJ9ok&mode=related&search=

Ron Paul at Rally in Uptown Theater in Kansas City [PART 1/3] 2007 June 16 (Immigration, Drug Laws, Marriage, Legalize Competition, ) (10 minutes) (5 stars)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajgBylfi03o

Ron Paul Speaks at PHX Airport - Part 3 (Oil; Envirnment; Immigration; Entitlements and Debt; North American Union) (7 minutes) (6.5 stars)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGP_1vOvgbs&mode=related&search=

WMUR-TV Ron Paul Interview 2007 June - Part 5 of 6 (9 minutes) – Discusses Immigration; Roadblocks to Third Parties (9.5 stars)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVh0_1vu1Gw&mode=related&search=

Ron Paul on the issues – CNN Lou Dobbs Show 2007 February – includes immigration stance (5 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJJ1GHteLM&mode=related&search=

Ron Paul on Immigration & Borders (3 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38&NR=1

Ron Paul’s Immigration Reduction Report Card gives him an “A minus”
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TX14&VIPID=787

Ron Paul: Discusses Border Policy, Deficit Spending - 2007 May (2 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY3WVnGEM70

LibertyEagle
07-11-2007, 02:58 PM
Yes, but unless you are a Ron Paul junkie, you wouldn't know where he stood. He has not talked about what he recommended to deal with the illegal alien issue in any detail, in any debate or MSM interview that I recall. People know where he stands on the war in Iraq, but even that they misunderstand. They certainly do not know where he stands on illegal immigration. Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and even 'ol Fred are seen as the tough guys on this issue. Not Paul. He could turn this around however, but he's going to have to start talking forcefully about it whenever he gets the chance.

oldpaths1611
07-11-2007, 03:25 PM
I actually called campaign headquarters a few weeks ago to get some clarification on Dr. Pauls stance on illegal aliens. Specifically, I wanted to know what his plans were for the millions that are already here. The web site did not really address that issue. What I was told was that Dr. Paul does not think that mass deportation is a feasable solution.

Instead, the idea is that when the incentives that brought the illegals here in the first place are taken away they will leave of their own accord. In other words, once the jobs and benefits go so will the illegals. At least that's the idea. Seeing how things are progressing though, I'm left wondering if there will be a mass uprising rather than a mass emigration as a result of denying jobs and benefits.

Many illegals have come to view their presence in the US as a right. They were here first and the Europeans invaded their land, etc. The more radical groups are openly calling for the reconquering of parts of the US for Mexico. Backing them are drug cartels, elements of the Mexican government and even some within our own.

I believe taking away the incentives for coming here is absolutely necessary, as is the need for a very strong enforced border. However, I also believe that there has to be a plan in place to deal with the millions of illegals that are already here. Somehow, I just don't think they're going to leave so easily of their own free will.

I'm curious about something else as well. What if it was one of the other candidates that was in Dr. Pauls shoes today in not remembering a policy he held several years ago? What if Romney or Giuliani were on the spot like Dr. Paul is about this right now? How would folks in this forum react? Would we kind of take it easy on them like we are Ron Paul, or would we tear into them and their hypocricy? I'm asking this to point out how those outside the Ron Paul camp will view this, just as we would if it was any other candidate. I believe the campaign must address this. I also agree that Congressman Paul must present a much stronger stance before the American people regarding national defense and the immigration issue. He cannot appear to be weak in those two areas.

LibertyEagle
07-11-2007, 03:31 PM
I believe the campaign must address this. I also agree that Congressman Paul must present a much stronger stance before the American people regarding national defense and the immigration issue. He cannot appear to be weak in those two areas.

I totally agree.

Sematary
07-11-2007, 03:53 PM
Isn't it the Libertarian position that borders should be opened and not secured?

I agree that the campaign response is not what it should have been but I also don't see any proof from the "accuser" that Paul actually said something along these lines. However, I am starting to think that because it is the Libertarian stance and since in 88 Paul was on the Libertarian ticket, is it not possible this could have been assumed to be his position rather than him coming right out and saying so? I'm trying not to jump into defensive stance too much, but rather to analyze why this would be said and I also would like to see the proof of it.

Actually, I believe the Libertarian position is that we should have open (legal) immigration with no upper limit on the number of people who can come here legally from other countries

stevedasbach
07-11-2007, 04:10 PM
Here is what Paul was asked during the WND interview and his answer:

WND: In your 1988 presidential bid you called for the dismantling of the Border Patrol. Is that a position you would still adhere to today, have there been changes or was it a mistake back then?

Ron Paul: No. I do not call for that, and I do not recall calling for that. I'd have to have somebody show me exactly where that was said. I have no recollection of that and it's certainly not my position, because I emphasize beefing up the Border Patrol.

The clear implication of the question as framed is that Paul was soft on border security back in 1988.

However, this is what was quoted as Paul's response to a 1988 CNN questionaire:

In the 1988 Presidential campaign, Paul argued that “the U.S. Border Patrol should be eliminated. Any necessary guarding of our borders should be done by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.” [CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988]

It's not surprising that Paul didn't remember this given the way the question was framed. If WND had included the part about using the military, Paul would have been more likely to remember.

Also, since this was a questionaire, there's a good chance that Paul didn't actually fill out the form (it was probably done by staff), which makes it harder to remember 19 years later.

OTOH, Paul should have been briefed better about this prior to the interview, given that WND had asked about it in advance.

goldenequity
07-11-2007, 08:09 PM
Here is Ron Paul's answer regarding Border Enforcement:

in a June 24, 2007 interview with Terry Anderson KRLA

HERE (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulTerryAndersonKRLA062407.mp3)

Basically, it comes down to Civilian and State National Guard employment

Randy
www.ronpaulaudio.com

Lord Xar
07-11-2007, 08:24 PM
I actually called campaign headquarters a few weeks ago to get some clarification on Dr. Pauls stance on illegal aliens. Specifically, I wanted to know what his plans were for the millions that are already here. The web site did not really address that issue. What I was told was that Dr. Paul does not think that mass deportation is a feasable solution.

Instead, the idea is that when the incentives that brought the illegals here in the first place are taken away they will leave of their own accord. In other words, once the jobs and benefits go so will the illegals. At least that's the idea. Seeing how things are progressing though, I'm left wondering if there will be a mass uprising rather than a mass emigration as a result of denying jobs and benefits.

Many illegals have come to view their presence in the US as a right. They were here first and the Europeans invaded their land, etc. The more radical groups are openly calling for the reconquering of parts of the US for Mexico. Backing them are drug cartels, elements of the Mexican government and even some within our own.

I believe taking away the incentives for coming here is absolutely necessary, as is the need for a very strong enforced border. However, I also believe that there has to be a plan in place to deal with the millions of illegals that are already here. Somehow, I just don't think they're going to leave so easily of their own free will.

I'm curious about something else as well. What if it was one of the other candidates that was in Dr. Pauls shoes today in not remembering a policy he held several years ago? What if Romney or Giuliani were on the spot like Dr. Paul is about this right now? How would folks in this forum react? Would we kind of take it easy on them like we are Ron Paul, or would we tear into them and their hypocricy? I'm asking this to point out how those outside the Ron Paul camp will view this, just as we would if it was any other candidate. I believe the campaign must address this. I also agree that Congressman Paul must present a much stronger stance before the American people regarding national defense and the immigration issue. He cannot appear to be weak in those two areas.

I think you are completely right. I want something a little more definitive about how are we gonna deal with who is here now. Do we prosecute business that have been hiring illegals etc.. I and many many others want a better idea of his full plan of action here. Also, what is the plan if there is an uprising because as the poster above mentioned there is this sense of entitlement that has been fostered by special interests. Its ridiculous. I would love a better understanding of this. I personally do not think that "civilians" are gonna go down to the border because they have to make a living. And if states like California, who decidely have a huge hisanic population, do not post guards.. then what? terrorsist and illegals can stream across in addition to drug cartels.

Ron Paul must come out on this with a better stance, or lets say a more clarified stance. I am not satisified.

Kuldebar
07-11-2007, 08:25 PM
Concerning some comments about the US Military from forum posters...the days are long gone where there's any real distinction between the State's National Guard and the national military. Yes, it would be great to go back to the original intent of the state militias but the Vietnam War years pretty much put a big wrench in that system.

From a practical standpoint, there is no real reason to object to border patrols being made up of national guard members (under state control) versus any other government controlled uniformed service doing the same job. The real issue is about returning a lot of the power back to the states and local government.

Texas, for instance. may decide to use their national guard units, California may want have a branch of their state police to do the job...my point is...a flexible process could allow for different competing solutions.

But the decades long drug war, the sprawling welfare state and the current economy and monetary system create further issues that make immigration such a sticky wicket.

Lord Xar
07-11-2007, 08:28 PM
Concerning some comments about the US Military from forum posters...the days are long gone where there's any real distinction between the State's National Guard and the national military. Yes, it would be great to go back to the original intent of the state militias but the Vietnam War years pretty much put a big wrench in that system.

From a practical standpoint, there is no real reason to object to border patrols being made up of national guard members versus any other government controlled uniformed service doing the same job. The real issue is about returning a lot of the power back to the states and local government.

Texas, for instance. may decide to use their national guard units, California may want have a branch of their state police to do the job...my point is...a flexible process could allow for different competing solutions.

But the decades long drug war, the sprawling welfare state and the current economy and monetary system create further issues that make immigration such a sticky wicket.

ok.. I just listened to the audio and he supports the border patrol AND national guard at the borders AND civilian militias... so basically, he seems to support everyone but the military.... and he said he "prefers" it.. but not outright against it.

can someone elaborate more on this?

Kuldebar
07-11-2007, 08:41 PM
I dig that.. but you know.. There are alot of "assumptions" about how RP feels and how he plans to implement things or have things implemented. I understand others have a better understanding than me on his issues and solutions, but in the case of illegal immigration I think he needs a clearer and more declarative stance. For instance, like in the previous example.. perhaps california doesn't really want to patrol their borders.. then what?


I am listening to the posted radio interview...he touches upon a lot of things.

Concerning:


For instance, like in the previous example.. perhaps california doesn't really want to patrol their borders.. then what

I doubt that any state government would do so...after all states could "decriminalize" murder, but I doubt that would happen. But, using your example, it would depend on what happened after California decided to do that... If a flood of immigrants flowed over into California because of their "open" policy the initial reaction would be left up to the citizens of California. Other neighboring states would have to react if the situation continued, essentially by extending their border patrol system to include their shared border with California.

But, we can't look at this in a vacuum, the issues are all interlocked: shoddy border security, economic policy, welfare policy, monetary policy, global war on terror, and regulatory systems all combine into a one royal mes.

A holistic solution is called for to fix it. I believe as Paul states, immigration would pretty much be a non issue if other things were "right".

timeisnow
07-11-2007, 09:10 PM
how many of us said something "20" years ago that we'd take back today? If indeed Ron said it......fess up and move on and explain your position today. It's just not that big of a deal. Farah needs to cut him alittle slack as well (if he is calling Ron out).

klamath
07-11-2007, 09:32 PM
Some of the lines of reasoning are starting to scare me here. Yes we have a problem with our border being to open. Yes we are drawing illegals over the border with our social programs. This problem has been growing since the '60's and '70's. What scares me is the implication that the federal government should be kicking in the doors of 8 to 20 million people if "a person determined to be, or who is under reasonable suspicion of being, in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws." (wording from California Prop 187) Sounds a lot like the Patriot Act also. How much federal force are you willing to have roaming around on a reasonable suspicion for people who are here illegally? I totally agree with Ron Pauls opinions on the subject. His main goal is to secure the borders and eliminate federal tax funded incentives. What do we want, a federal Law forcing private emplorers to varify the legal statis of those they employ? Sure is sounding a little hypocritic. Awful close to the NeoCon ideas about middle eastern terrorists.

Lord Xar
07-11-2007, 10:24 PM
Some of the lines of reasoning are starting to scare me here. Yes we have a problem with our border being to open. Yes we are drawing illegals over the border with our social programs. This problem has been growing since the '60's and '70's. What scares me is the implication that the federal government should be kicking in the doors of 8 to 20 million people if "a person determined to be, or who is under reasonable suspicion of being, in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws." (wording from California Prop 187) Sounds a lot like the Patriot Act also. How much federal force are you willing to have roaming around on a reasonable suspicion for people who are here illegally? I totally agree with Ron Pauls opinions on the subject. His main goal is to secure the borders and eliminate federal tax funded incentives. What do we want, a federal Law forcing private emplorers to varify the legal statis of those they employ? Sure is sounding a little hypocritic. Awful close to the NeoCon ideas about middle eastern terrorists.

hmm, well... for me, border security/illegal immigration is big issue for me.. so I like to find the adressing of it. Perhaps for you, Taxes or whatever might be top priority... but for me, living in Los Angeles, illegal immigraion is huge. Given the fact that California is rather liberal that frightens me that they can iniialize their own securiiy or programs. This might be an issue because if you have big business or speical interest with a lot of money they then could 'influence' politicians in any state to have illegal immigration workers.... for instance, IF national can be used.. WHY are they not used now? What makes anybody feel safe that this would happen if its not happening now?

Also, if oregon is not a border state yet are dealing with these problems because cali or whatever state isn't doing their jobs, can Oregon then send "its" national guard across california to the border??? You see the possible mess that would ensue by allowing states to represent security that affects the whole?

Roxi
07-11-2007, 10:34 PM
Paul reportedly stated in that questionnaire: "The U.S. Border Patrol should be eliminated. Any necessary guarding of our borders should be done by the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force."
(Ron)P


well here is the quote and he clearly stands in favor of beefing up security with US military instead of BP, so farah is an idiot or a liar or both

Lord Xar
07-11-2007, 10:46 PM
well here is the quote and he clearly stands in favor of beefing up security with US military instead of BP, so farah is an idiot or a liar or both

wow.. where did you get that..???? becaue the audio is different from this...

klamath
07-11-2007, 10:53 PM
" for instance, IF national can be used.. WHY are they not used now? What makes anybody feel safe that this would happen if its not happening now?"

I am assuming you were talking about the California National guard. I just retired for the California National Guard and we do have guard on the border. In fact we lost a helicopter to a wire strike in the last year.

I am not to worried about troops or a fence on the border. My concern in an attempt to evict those that are already here. I feel this could get out of hand like any other powerful program.

Kuldebar
07-11-2007, 11:31 PM
how many of us said something "20" years ago that we'd take back today? If indeed Ron said it......fess up and move on and explain your position today. It's just not that big of a deal. Farah needs to cut him alittle slack as well (if he is calling Ron out).


If it was a multiple choice questionnaire, we all know how idiotic some of the stock answers listed on such questionnaires can be...then the answer was pretty much determined by the choices. I saw this in the Harry Browne Campaigns, various publications and web sites would "spell" out the candidates positions....but they would do so in an overly simplistic or wrongheaded manner. Sometimes the very language of these things confuses the issue being covered.

You know, like Ron Paul is pro-life and would outlaw abortion? Well, is that his position? No, not quite.

I think WAY TOO MUCH is being made of this issue, because other than what FARAH and his 20 year questionnaire quote, there is absolutely no other evidence being presented that Paul supported open borders in the 1980's.

I am sure there's a lot of dolts out there that will continue to support the status quo, this issue of WND article isn't even on the radar screen in regard to that. Don't turn a mole hill into a mountain just because Farah serves up this crap and calls it proof of some major inconsistency.


* Rather than give you a response from me to your question about the Border Patrol, we set up an interview for you directly with Dr. Paul. The campaign in no away ducked the question as your piece seems to imply.

* Dr. Paul does not remember making a call to replace the Border Patrol with the Army. He has, however, been a consistent advocate of beefed-up border security as well as a vocal critic of the administration's decision to remove border guards from our southern border and send them to patrol the borders of Iraq and Syria.

* Replacing the Border Patrol with the Army is not a soft position on security or sovereignty. In fact, many of the strongest advocates of secure borders have called for troop deployment and think the armed forces would do a far more effective job than the Border Patrol.

The above quote fromBenton, Communications Director Ron Paul 2008, pretty much points out what matters. It is not inconsistent with Paul's position today, except that his position has been tempered and further refined by the last 2 decades and world events.

What exactly is trying to be established here? That Paul was too much for secure borders during the 80's? I'll refer to the recent audio interview and my other posts regarding Paul's idea of states and local governments taking control of their border security challenges whether by their state militias or some other uniformed service or police force.

BillyBeer
07-11-2007, 11:34 PM
Surprise Surprise World NUT Daily is after Ron Paul...

Kuldebar
07-11-2007, 11:36 PM
Surprise Surprise World NUT Daily is after Ron Paul...

Farah and many of his ilk want the book of Revelations to come true, so they got to have their war in the the Middle East kept hot.

BillyBeer
07-11-2007, 11:46 PM
Farah and many of his ilk want the book of Revelations to come true, so they got to have their war in the the Middle East kept hot.

This is a scray thought, for the success of the Paul campaign and stability in the Middle East.

You have a substantial wing of the Republican Party that wants WWIII with Iran and the Middle East so they can experience the Rapture.