Miss you, Rand Paul | 'He desperately needs to get to Northern Kentucky'

[libertarian101]

Even though the majority of conservatives voters hate Rubio for supporting amnesty, they don't have a clue that Rand also supports amnesty or that his position on immigration is not only worse than Rubio but also the majority of democrats as well. Rand already had a minor clash with some of conservative in his home state for his stance on immigration and if he doesn't want to change the political suicide course he is on now, i hope at list he stops talking about immigration voluntarily or use better conservative words on immigration when he speaks to his constituents.

On immigration Rand were anti-amnesty guy when he run for office and I think him and Jim DeMint sponsored a bill which banned amnesty for children of illegal immigrants born in US. After a few years Rand has become the most pro-illegal immigrant senator from both party. Not only does he support giving gradual citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants and their 20 million family who will follow them at a cost of adding 6.3 trillion dollar on the national debt but he site the main reason he voted against the immigration bill is because he oppose a bipartisan plan by both party which limited work visa for immigrants in order to protect American workers. Even though Rand is against minimum wage, he wants to give unlimited work visa to immigrants and he wants them to work not only in farms but anywhere they want. These will not only devastate American working class but the middleclass also.

Rand position of giving congress power to decide weather the border is protected or not will be not be considered strong conservative position because it not effective as half of illegal immigrants came here through work visa program and they overstayed their visa as they can work without showing a verifiable ID and they could get amnesty from politician like Rand Paul if their number reach 11 million.

Even Rubio demises for supporting amnesty is not deterring him from committing this political suicide because he wrongly believes Zionist donors like Sanger will bank role him into presidency for supporting amnesty though the most likely outcome is the Zionist donors won't give him a zilch and he will lose national primary to candidate who are to right of him on immigration ( which is everyone including Scott Walker and Christie).

War mongers and pro police state establishment are also prepared to primary liberty candidate by using any excuse and their top target are Rand, Justin amash, Thomas Massie. Even Mitch McConnell democrat challenger are to the right of Rand on immigration and Rand will easily lose his senate set to primary challenger. All a neocon funded primary challenger has to do to defeat Rand is run ad depict Rand as the most liberal candidate in America. Rand is not social conservative on things like gay marriage and drug law ( I agree with him on that) , so all they have to point out his flip-flop on immigration and how it will heart American workers badly. They can also bust the myth that Rand is the most fiscal conservative senator by pointing out to older voters that even though Rand wants to cut your Medicare and social security in guise of nation debt, he added 6.3 trillion to the national debt by supporting amnesty to illegal immigrants and created 30 million democrat voters.


Rand could have gone in history as on of the greatest politician who restored liberty and democracy, saved America from financial ruin and a guy who left a foreign policy doctrine that will be desired by many in future, but unfortunately Rand will remembered as a one term senator who lost everything for damn illegal immigrants.

Northern Kentucky Republicans and local tea party supporters miss Rand Paul. Northern Kentucky hasn’t seen the state’s junior senator visit for a year – not since his speech Nov. 30 at the Boone County Republican Christmas Gala. .... And many also think his business in Congress has provided an adequate excuse for his absence from Northern Kentucky. “If there’s battles in Washington that he needs to fight, then that’s where he needs to be,” Brueggemann said.

But some of his tea party support in Kentucky might have started to fray. Lexington tea party activist John Kemper was surprised to hear Paul hadn’t visited Northern Kentucky in a year.
“I think that’s unusual with the conservative base that’s here,” said Kemper, while attending the Boone County GOP Christmas Gala this year. “These folks worked very hard, long hours to get Sen. Paul elected, and to be almost a year since he’s been here, I think that reflects the changing feeling of folks up here.”
Kemper said he thinks Kentucky Republicans and tea party members still agree with 95 percent of what he does, but many are opposed to Paul’s support for some form of amnesty for some illegal immigrants and his endorsement of McConnell.
more: http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...ul-He-desperately-needs-get-Northern-Kentucky

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

good read... and by this i was referring to the courier-journal article.

 

[jtstellar]

zionist zionist.. people almost throw that term around like a religion these days.. why not either use a generalized term--interventionist, or be more specific altogether? you might as well call them satanists

edit: oh gosh, didn't even realize who the thread op was, wasted breath here

 

[idiom]

Rand could have gone in history as on of the greatest politician who restored liberty and democracy, saved America from financial ruin and a guy who left a foreign policy doctrine that will be desired by many future, but unfortunately Rand will remembered as a one term senator who lost everything for damn illegal immigrants.

Then he will have stood for something.

 

[libertarian101]

zionist zionist.. people almost throw that term around like a religion these days.. why not either use a generalized term--interventionist, or be more specific altogether? you might as well call them satanists

edit: oh gosh, didn't even realize who the thread op was, wasted breath here

lol, Why are you upset ? Sanger calls him self a proud Zionist.

 

[AlexAmore]

wtf?

How do you call yourself "libertarian101" if you're for government controlled immigration? This is a core issue of libertarianism brah. Free movement of people and resources allowing for the free market to handle the issue is the only way it can work.

 

[libertarian101]

wtf?

How do you call yourself "libertarian101" if you're for government controlled immigration? This is a core issue of libertarianism brah. Free movement of people and resources allowing for the free market to handle the issue is the only way it can work.

Where Libertarians Go Wrong on Immigration

Libertarians and conservatives agree on many issues and are allies in the fight against statism. But there are several areas where they disagree quite vehemently. One of them is immigration.
The libertarian refrain goes something like this: Isn’t a policy of “open borders” the only approach consistent with freedom and individual rights? Besides, policing the borders and restricting immigration requires still another government bureaucracy. And for pete’s sake, we have enough of those already.
The conservative answers that capturing criminals, defending the nation, and engaging in foreign relations require bureaucracies also. But they are necessary bureaucracies. Immigration policy is no different. It is a legitimate function of our government – to defend the borders and preserve the freedom and order of society.
The question is not, should we as a nation allow for “open borders,” or endeavor to “close down our borders.” The question is: what level of immigration is conducive to preserving the American culture of ordered liberty? Closed borders (permanently) would asphyxiate us; open borders would balkanize us. Ever since the 1965 Immigration Act, we have been hell-bent to balkanize ourselves. With the stratospheric rise in illegal immigration over the past 30 years, the balkanization process is now firmly imbedded in our culture and spreading its ruin at an accelerating pace.
Yes, America has always been a nation of immigrants. But never has she been a nation of unrestricted immigration. From the beginning of their formation of America into a nation, the Founders were acutely aware of the need to lay down rules for entrance into the country and the acquiring of citizenship. Read more: http://afr.org/where-libertarians-go-wrong-on-immigration/

 

[libertarian101]

Then he will have stood for something.

Rand stand for many important thing already. If Rand were not in senate now, the police state would have gone much farther than it is at moment, war with Syria and thus Iran would have started by now and many more bad things. Rand is too important to America to sacrifice himself for illegal immigrants.

 

[ObiRandKenobi]

as long as he curbs entitlement and welfare spending, most conservatives can stomach amnesty.

it just doesn't seem like there's any movement on the spending front, all the movement is on the amnesty front.

 

[RonPaulMall]

wtf?

How do you call yourself "libertarian101" if you're for government controlled immigration? This is a core issue of libertarianism brah. Free movement of people and resources allowing for the free market to handle the issue is the only way it can work.

Free movement of people only works in a situation of true free market property rights and the absence of "Democracy". Otherwise, immigration is nothing more than state sanctioned invasion.

 

[jtstellar]

can we start a voting system so we can vote out the idiots..

 

[Barrex]

From strategic point of view:
-He will win Kentucky;
-He needs them to donate and get out and vote (that is it);
-There are other states where his presence is needed more to improve his chances of winning.

People of Northern Kentucky will be little disappointed but it is of little relevance.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Rand could have gone in history as on of the greatest politician who restored liberty and democracy, saved America from financial ruin and a guy who left a foreign policy doctrine that will be desired by many in future, but unfortunately Rand will remembered as a one term senator who lost everything for damn illegal immigrants.

You are delusional.

 

[gwax23]

Nothing wrong with immigration. We should have open immigration like we did for most of our history up until 1924. It worked then and we had a growing economy and a booming population. We became the biggest economic power in the world infact and our country benefited tremendously from the immigrants diversity, adding to our melting pot culture and history. Without it we would of remained an underpopulated economic backwater. This all change with the racist quotas in the 20's. All economic arguments against it are based on economic fallacies. Only legitimate argument is its effect of overburdening the welfare state. But who cares? The welfare state should and will collapse, if it happens sooner than better. Immigrants add the the economy, they dont take away from it. All other arguments against immigration slowly become subtly racist.

If the Republicans had a fucking clue they would play on the fact that most of these Hispanic Immigrants are traditionally conservative and come from large catholic families fleeing failed socialist states. They would be an ideal voter base just like conservative black baptists in the south. Of course both groups are turned off by the Republican parties xenophobia. So now Republicans are trying in vain to fight against inevitable demographics by sticking to a losing platform.

 

[KingNothing]

zionist zionist.. people almost throw that term around like a religion these days.. why not either use a generalized term--interventionist, or be more specific altogether? you might as well call them satanists

edit: oh gosh, didn't even realize who the thread op was, wasted breath here

When someone says "zionist" that's how you know to never care about what that person ever says.

 

[BringBackLiberty]

I'm not going to bother to argue against the specifics of what the OP said, but I haven't seen such a misguided post here in a long time.

Immigrants (legal) are an extremely important building block for a strong economy. Take some economics courses or read some free market economics books to help you on this issue.

Being "conservative" on drug laws and gay marriage does not equate to the opinion of Republicans. Most Republicans aren't conservative, especially in the Senate.

 

[philipped]

Nothing wrong with immigration. We should have open immigration like we did for most of our history up until 1924. It worked then and we had a growing economy and a booming population. We became the biggest economic power in the world infact and our country benefited tremendously from the immigrants diversity, adding to our melting pot culture and history. Without it we would of remained an underpopulated economic backwater. This all change with the racist quotas in the 20's. All economic arguments against it are based on economic fallacies. Only legitimate argument is its effect of overburdening the welfare state. But who cares? The welfare state should and will collapse, if it happens sooner than better. Immigrants add the the economy, they dont take away from it. All other arguments against immigration slowly become subtly racist.

If the Republicans had a fucking clue they would play on the fact that most of these Hispanic Immigrants are traditionally conservative and come from large catholic families fleeing failed socialist states. They would be an ideal voter base just like conservative black baptists in the south. Of course both groups are turned off by the Republican parties xenophobia. So now Republicans are trying in vain to fight against inevitable demographics by sticking to a losing platform.

This covers my opinions on the subject. GOP needs to literally switch up the whole game plan if the goal is to take the senate, keep the house and get a GOP candidate in the white house all by 2016.

If I could put it in my own words, I would call it "modern conservatism" - Fiscally Conservative with a modern understanding of economics and Socially Conservative with a modern acceptance of other peoples lifestyle choices.

WHAT IS SO DAMN HARD ABOUT THAT?

 

[gwax23]

This covers my opinions on the subject. GOP needs to literally switch up the whole game plan if the goal is to take the senate, keep the house and get a GOP candidate in the white house all by 2016.

If I could put it in my own words, I would call it "modern conservatism" - Fiscally Conservative with a modern understanding of economics and Socially Conservative with a modern acceptance of other peoples lifestyle choices.

WHAT IS SO DAMN HARD ABOUT THAT?

yes you are completely right. The Republicans push their bad point and hide their good ones. They need to open up to have a future and prevent a one party state.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Free movement of people only works in a situation of true free market property rights and the absence of "Democracy". Otherwise, immigration is nothing more than state sanctioned invasion.

Because we don't have a free market, we need to further restrict the market in order to get a free market.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Nothing wrong with immigration. We should have open immigration like we did for most of our history up until 1924. It worked then and we had a growing economy and a booming population. We became the biggest economic power in the world infact and our country benefited tremendously from the immigrants diversity, adding to our melting pot culture and history. Without it we would of remained an underpopulated economic backwater. This all change with the racist quotas in the 20's. All economic arguments against it are based on economic fallacies. Only legitimate argument is its effect of overburdening the welfare state. But who cares? The welfare state should and will collapse, if it happens sooner than better. Immigrants add the the economy, they dont take away from it. All other arguments against immigration slowly become subtly racist.

If the Republicans had a fucking clue they would play on the fact that most of these Hispanic Immigrants are traditionally conservative and come from large catholic families fleeing failed socialist states. They would be an ideal voter base just like conservative black baptists in the south. Of course both groups are turned off by the Republican parties xenophobia. So now Republicans are trying in vain to fight against inevitable demographics by sticking to a losing platform.

Exactly the sort of pipe dream nonsense that will be the death knell of not only Republican Party, but the entire country. This is not the turn of the century. A Mexican Peasant with an IQ hovering around 70 is not the same as a Eastern European Jew with an IQ north of 120. The idea that blacks and Mexicans will ever vote for limited government in meaningful numbers is simply delusional. And only a rich, liberal elitist would argue that the "only" argument against immigration is the welfare state. What if you are a middle class American living the areas that these immigrants are about to invade? These folks are being pushed out of their neighborhoods and homes. Democrats love Mexican immigration for two reasons. First, unlike Republicans, Democrats are smart enough to understand nearly all these immigrants will be Democratic voters now and for generations to come. But there is another aspect that is less obvious. Immigration helps to change society in to a model that makes the existing population more likely to vote Democratic too. Single white women tend to vote Democratic, while married white women tend to vote Republican. Therefore it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party to make marriage and children as difficult as possible for whites. Flooding a state with poor Mexican immigrants, which forces middle class whites to put off having children (because the cost buying a home in a "good" neighborhood skyrockets to a level that takes decades of savings) means more single white women and more Democratic votes. This is exactly what has happened in California.

There is nothing "racist" about noting that different peoples and cultures are in fact different. In fact, people like me, who have traveled the world extensively and absolutely love visiting different countries and cultures understand this reality better than anyone. "Diversity" isn't just some slogan. The differences between population groups, even those who live right next to each other, are often profound. "Immigration" can not be discussed in a vacuum. The particular people doing the immigrating have to be considered. And the idea that importing 30 million Mexican peasants is an economic, cultural, or net quality of life positive is flat out insane. And its not like you even have to take our word for this. Southern California exists! Go there and compare it to what it was 60 years ago and tell me with a straight face the sort of immigration you advocate is good for anybody.