We must continue spending to supply our military with Tomahawk missiles, says … Rand Paul?

posted at 8:01 pm on March 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

This ain’t your daddy’s libertarian. More to the point, this ain’t his daddy’s libertarian.

First he went after Ted Cruz for trying to characterize him as a dove, now this. By the end of the year, he and McCain will be holding joint filibusters on the Senate floor demanding that America build the biggest nuclear bomb evah. Rand Paul, hawk?

In the current budget, the Obama Administration called for the elimination of the Tomahawk missile. This missile protects our troops and allows us to avoid much direct person-to-person combat. Our navy has depended heavily on them…

Nobody wants to cut spending, including Pentagon waste and abuse, more than me. I agree with former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen who has said that the greatest threat to our national security is the national debt.

But I don’t want to cut weapons that have been integral to maintaining a strong military…

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has identified nearly $70 billion in waste–everything from studying flying dinosaurs to making beef jerky–that somehow qualifies as Department of Defense spending. The $128 million President Obama plans to cut next year from the Tomahawk program could easily be replaced by cutting some of this $70 billion we are wasting right now…

America should be a country that is always reluctant to go to war and that only goes to war constitutionally through a declaration by Congress. But if the time comes when our security or interests are threatened, the United States must always be ready to fight and win, decisively and quickly.

I’d pay cash money to watch him and Ron debate defense. They could make it happen at any time on Fox News; presumably Rand, who’s peevish about being pressed by the media on his father’s views (isn’t he the same guy who’s constantly bringing up Bill Clinton’s sins as an indirect attack on Hillary?), has decided that that’s too risky. There are potential benefits in doing it — there’s no better way to draw a contrast with Paul 1.0 than by challenging him in front of a camera — but holding on to Ron’s libertarian base (especially in Iowa) is a core part of his strategy. The contrast helps him with grassroots conservatives but hurts him potentially with old-school Paulites, which is why today’s Tomahawk op-ed ran at Breitbart rather than Reason. And a joint appearance opens each of them up to awkward questions. Would Ron be comfortable with Rand as commander-in-chief knowing that he’s taken a line on Russia after the Crimean invasion that’s basically as hawkish as any other prominent Republican’s? Would Rand feel comfortable with a commander-in-chief like Ron who’s willing to look the other way at Russian interventionism and defend an obviously crooked Crimean referendum? Does Ron agree that Tomahawks are a vital defense measure worth protecting or are they just another enticement to “warmongering”? There must be some derivative of the “starve the beast” approach among isolationist libertarians that says it’s better to have fewer weapons lying around lest the Pentagon be tempted to use them abroad. How about that idea, Rand?

But maybe I’m overestimating Rand’s fear of alienating the Ron Paul voters of 2012. Could be that there are more hawks (or moderate hawks) among them than we think and that those differences with doves were papered over in the name of advancing Ron’s candidacy. Now he’s retired and Rand’s the man so the hawks can assert themselves a bit more. This statement yesterday by one of the founders of Students for Liberty condemning Ron’s approach to Russia caught my eye as a reminder that libertarians aren’t uniform on foreign policy. They have their centrists and hardliners too, like any political movement, and Rand’s emergence as a more hawkish mainstream candidate may be emboldening some of the centrists to speak up. He talks a lot about needing to change the Republican Party but maybe he’s changing some parts of Paulworld too. Or maybe they’re going to turn on him viciously now that he’s extolling the virtues of missiles at the top of Breitbart. They don’t call him the most interesting man in the Senate for nothing!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The boneheads who started, and lost, two wars have no business criticizing normal people like Rand Paul who are simply advocating for a strong defense. Arrogantly traipsing around the world and starting fights that you then go on to lose does not a foreign policy make.

This full-on attack against minding your own business should be remembered in light of the failed Neo-Progressive foreign adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where is their next war going to come from? What exactly are they demanding in all of this if we are to avoid their charges of “weakness” on Ukraine? Are they actually demanding an invasion of Russia over this Ukraine business? Crazy foreign policy indeed.

There is only one requirement to being a libertarian; adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle. That is why there is no such thing as “left” or “right” libertarians- these distinctions simply obscure the central tenet of this philosophy toward government.

The Non-Aggression Principle is a restatement of The Golden Rule. Having a strong defense does not violate that rule, hence Rand is perfectly within the realm of libertarian thought when he echoes Reagan. This idea that those who do not assault the world are somehow weak comes only from the minds of dictators and psychopaths.

Another Libertarian on March 26, 2014 at 2:39 AM

FUDpuppies

Murphy9 on March 26, 2014 at 6:08 AM

A sign of Rand Paul’s political deftness and potential greatness. He might be a game changer.

Viator on March 26, 2014 at 6:36 AM

The modern war, which is to say the highly advanced technological form of war that grew up in the Cold War era, is a ‘come as you are’ war. This means that the weapons system you have at the start of the conflict are very likely to be the ones you have at the end of it. Innovations for large scale weapons systems take too long to be developed and deployed during an active conflict, thus sustainment of what you have rises in importance. If you want to retire older platforms and systems, their successors must be: clearly identified, well tested, and in sufficient numbers to cover the role of the older system.

During Iraq and Afghanistan the US military revealed some strategic strengths, like the logistics branches utilizing modern tracking and sending methods so that there were fewer misplaced orders and fewer misdelivered orders than in any prior conflict any great power has been in. Ever.

The main problem was in consumables and specialized equipment. Ammunition had to be purchased not just on the open market but from the war reserves of our allies. There was not enough war reserve in the US stockpiles to address the needs of these two conflicts. A major place of problems in the start-up of the conflicts was in batteries for mobile electronics. These devices utilized non-standard battery systems and as the batteries die on the shelves over time, they must be constantly refreshed, thus you cannot lay in a war reserve of them. Soldiers were writing home to get new batteries and other consumables to help their equipment survive the rigors of desert warfare. One of those consumables was pantyhose, as they served as dust screens on generators and tanks to help keep the fine desert dust out of their gears and mechanisms, particularly the engines and the air intakes.

Over 4 years of WWII the US revamped its entire Navy, developed multiple new aircraft and provided them in thousands, and had a rich supply train that saw a ton of logistics supplies in the way of consumables for the average US soldier while for the average Japanese soldier it was measured in a few pounds. Ammo included.

When anyone argues to retire an older weapons system that has an apparent high cost of overhead, the solution has been to put in a newer system with an even higher cost of overhead and untested reliability. This is not to say that new systems should not be developed and deployed, but they must also demonstrate the ability to cover the roles of prior systems and have sufficient numbers to do that on the basis of the older system.

Where the US did very well was in smaller UAV and UCAV system development and deployment from the overhead hellfire carrying drones to the little remote controlled platforms that a soldier could toss into a building to scout the place with. These things saw great advances during Afghanistan and Iraq. Note that they are not main battle tanks, naval vessels, or supplanting older systems from the get-go. They offer some capabilities that older systems could not provide, supplement some missions that had previously had a high overhead cost soldier have to do the scouting physically, and are relatively cheap otherwise compared to their manned equivalents.

These are novel and innovative platforms that can be developed and deployed. They are not a deep set of systems that are easily mass produced in a general global conflict. None of our equipment is in that category either due to lack of numbers, lack of personnel or lack of logistical supply trains to support them. If any Nation fields a last generation military with simpler arms and methods to neutralize high tech advantages, like taking out the GPS constellation of all the Nations fielding them, then a lot of the whiz-bang stuff we got in the way of precision munitions is in jeopardy. The terrain following cruise missile, while augmented with GPS, can operate on its older basis but only if that older basis is sustained (that is the software and optical systems are retained) and it does not become reliant on GPS as its sole means of getting to its target.

Is the cruise missile a good system to have? Yup. Only if we don’t make it dependent on a newer guidance system that does not have older capacity to still get to target in case the newer stuff gets taken out.

Now if only Rand Paul would recognize that defense of the Nation doesn’t start at its military but at its borders. Its nice that he supports the cruise missile. The cruising narcotics cartels that follow the terrain or go under it, he is apparently far less concerned about and yet that is a threat right here, at home.

ajacksonian on March 26, 2014 at 6:43 AM

Rand Paul and Scott Walker are on my short list for president. Then after the election Obama is arrested and tried for treason.

SC.Charlie on March 26, 2014 at 7:00 AM

Another Libertarian on March 26, 2014 at 2:39 AM

Um, didn’t see us lose a war yet. Did I miss something?

hawkdriver on March 26, 2014 at 7:33 AM

Rand Paul and Scott Walker are on my short list for president. Then after the election Obama is arrested and tried for treason. the borders will be opened for anyone who wants to work here and 10 to 20 million net new democrat votes will materialize leaving all you crazy conservatives out of power for whatever short period this nation continues to exist!

SC.Charlie on March 26, 2014 at 7:00 AM

Fixed it for reality.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 8:18 AM

Political opportunist, anyone? Just who are you,Rand?

redware on March 26, 2014 at 8:19 AM

SC.Charlie on March 26, 2014 at 7:00 AM

Both good men. There are others who I also have in the running. I see a good slate of candidates shaping up.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2014 at 8:21 AM

Saw the footage of a missile being launched from a Navy ship and heard how dear leader wants to can the weapon but nothing about what’s going to replace that weapon. Is our cinc going to issue sling shots for the swabbies,(do they still call them that) or something less modern? There are reasons people still own shotguns instead of ARs. They work.

Kissmygrits on March 26, 2014 at 8:51 AM

This is hardly a new position for Rand Paul. For anyone paying attention he’s always said he favors a strong military, peace through strength, a la Reagan. It’s all about how and when to use that military that is the issue. He’s not a misguided Wilsonian interventionist like Bush. The U.S. must have the most powerful, effective military in the world. But NOT used to build “democracy” in stone-age backwaters or other places where they don’t even believe in democracy to begin with. The world’s most powerful military must always be guided by the principle of America’s best interest.

cicerone on March 26, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Rand Paul and Scott Walker are on my short list for president. Then after the election Obama is arrested and tried for treason.

SC.Charlie on March 26, 2014 at 7:00 AM

Me too.

magicbeans on March 26, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Fixed it for reality. – astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 8:18 AM

The reality is that they are already here. The damn Federal Government, under Republicans and Democrats, has continually refused to do its job to close the borders.

SC.Charlie on March 26, 2014 at 9:27 AM

The reality is that they are already here. The damn Federal Government, under Republicans and Democrats, has continually refused to do its job to close the borders.

SC.Charlie on March 26, 2014 at 9:27 AM

They sure as hell are not voting en masse right now. But Rand Paul says they should be.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Rand Paul has no real foreign policy or national security experience. He’s a first term Senator in his first electoral job. On balance, he’s less qualified for higher office than Hillary Clinton or the rat-eared wonder.

That’s not to say he’s a bad guy or as crazy as his daddy. But the GOP has others with more serious credentials who should be considered first.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Like who?

magicbeans on March 26, 2014 at 9:47 AM

They sure as hell are not voting en masse right now. But Rand Paul says they should be.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Odd. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard he does not think they should become citizens.

How, then, does he support them voting…?

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Rand Paul goes Godwin on Legal Immigration and Rule of Law Supporters.

Rand Paul Takes On ‘Amnesty’ Opponents: ‘Do They Want Us To Put Illegals In Concentration Camps?’

Here Paul is trying to hide his end goal. I do not think even the Democrats are saying that the current illegal aliens go from illegal to citizen with no period of in between. Halfway apparently is citizen later, voting out the conservatives later.

Excerpted from The Hill: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday said immigration reform legislation could quickly get through Congress, if Democrats are willing to meet Republicans “halfway” on key issues.

“Are you willing to try to bring the 11 million people who are here, bring them out of the shadows, give them an existence, try to be more humane, and try to get a better situation for them? That could happen tomorrow,” Paul said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“The problem is, is the sticking point going to be we have to have immediate voting privileges for those who came here illegally,” Paul added. “If the Democrats are willing to come halfway, I think we can pass some meaningful reform.” Read the whole thing

Here we have Paul trying to bribe people with tax dollars.

Paul also said he envisioned today’s illegal aliens becoming additional “taxpayers.” “Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers,” said Paul.

Of Course, Ann Coulter and pretty much any thinking person knew right off that was not reality.

By “paying taxes,” Rubio means “filing a tax return and getting a payment back from the government in the form of the earned income tax credit.” Another term for what Rubio calls “paying taxes” is “receiving welfare”

The general income area that the illegals fill is the same one where the CBO shows how much they will net pay in taxes.

CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in ‘Transfers’

Not exactly the cash cow Paul seems to think about them, eh?

Paul likes the open borders policy.

New illegal aliens who are enticed by the amnesty will continue to have a relatively open access to U.S. jobs because Sen. Paul opposes mandatory E-Verify and other means to keep employers from hiring illegal aliens.

Wants effectively open borders.

“If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.”

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Odd. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard he does not think they should become citizens.

How, then, does he support them voting…?

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Funny, you must be living under a rock with no contact with the outside world.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM

This ain’t your daddy’s libertarian. More to the point, this ain’t his daddy’s libertarian.

Heh, PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH.

petefrt on March 26, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Foreign policy since World War 2 has been about not repeating the mistakes that led to WW2. While we won that war decisively, we were vastly unprepared for it, and it was a very nearly existential conflict. More strength and engagement before WW2 would at the minimum have cut a couple of years off the conflict, and our dependence on the Soviets to defeat Germany led directly to the Iron Curtain that saw half of Europe become Soviet satellites, and divided Germany itself.

Unfortunately, too many people think no further back than avoiding the Iraq War or the Afghan War, both decidedly minor conflicts where the military outcome was never really in doubt. The result is that we have far too many people thinking that we only need to be prepared for another conflict in the Middle East, and dismissing the need for a strong army, navy, and air force. After all, you don’t really need the F-22 Raptors to take out the Taliban.

That is incredibly short-sighted thinking. If we do get involved in another war with a major power, the ability to stomp on petty little kingdoms in the Middle East won’t mean much.

There’s an interesting discussion here about Jacksonian War, or the principle of fighting any wars you get in decisively. That’s all well and good, but let’s not assume that being willing to fight decisively is any kind of substitute for being prepared for such a fight. Ironically, one of the best explanations for the kind of preparations necessary for a real war was posted by ajacksonian.

I’m heartened to see Rand Paul come down on the side of a stronger military. That doesn’t mean I trust him on foreign policy yet, since he may just be trying to distance himself from the pacifist Ron Paul followers. But it’s a good sign, even if not a reason to just throw your trust to him.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Funny, you must be living under a rock with no contact with the outside world.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM

So, of course, you have a quote of Rand Paul supporting citizenship for illegals, then…?

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM

The reduction of Tomahawk missiles reflects the Pentagon’s decision to invest more in next-generation land attack weapons, Lt. Caroline Hutcheson, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, told Defense News. She also noted that the military’s supply of Block IV Tactical Tomahawks currently exceeds combat requirements.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/death-of-tomahawk-and-hellfire-missile-program-2014-3#ixzz2x4ux9AKJ

What I would like to know is, how do they determine this? Will our adversaries never become stronger? Why would anyone say we are ‘over qualified’ to kill you? And, what exactly does the ‘next generation’ of ordinance entail? If this current class exceeds our needs, is the next gen. going to suk?

LastRonin on March 26, 2014 at 10:25 AM

So, of course, you have a quote of Rand Paul supporting citizenship for illegals, then…?

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Scroll upwards.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Galt’s Gulch:
Posted by $ stargeezer 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Carefully reread the section of the book dealing with life in the valley. There was just one person in the valley who had not been specifically invited to be there – Dagny. And she was only given 30 days to join or get out. :D When she left at the end of her time, she knew she had a invitation to return when she could agree to conform to their values and goals, but not until.

It would be nice if someone who chose to go by the name John Galt would actually at least somewhat resemble the character in some tiny small way.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM

“I believe in a strong national defense. I believe in Ronald Reagan’s policy of ‘Peace through Strength.’”

I happen to like Rand, (though the email spamming is a wee bit out of control), I am not truly convinced he believes these words.

Bmore on March 26, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Scroll upwards.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM

I did. And I found this:

“The problem is, is the sticking point going to be we have to have immediate voting privileges for those who came here illegally,” Paul added. “If the Democrats are willing to come halfway, I think we can pass some meaningful reform.”

See, that sounds exactly the opposite of what you are claiming… that Sen Paul will only do a deal if it means not giving citizenship (and therefore voting rights) to illegals.

Which makes you sound like quite the prevaricator…

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 11:02 AM

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Read it again and look at the qualifier. Immediate.

They would get into the back of the line and get no special privileges to do so,” said the adviser, who was not authorized to comment publicly. “What his plan is extending to them is a quicker path to normalization, not citizenship, and being able to stay, work and pay taxes legally.”

Notice the back of the line… That is line waiting to become citizens.

“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to normalize those who are here.”

Back at you…

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Sorry, Rand. You’re wasting your time running for President. Too many folks will tie you in to your nutjob Dad. Basically, you’re un-electable. Give it up. You have no chance.

Bob Davis on March 26, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Rand Paul is also willing to side with the establishment and support illegal alien amnesty.

VIDEO: Rand Paul shows his contempt for amnesty opponents:
http://youtu.be/pxQjlS7JwMo

Sorry, but I’ll take Cruz any day over Rand Paul.

I wouldn’t feel very enthusiastic about working to help elect Rand if he got the nomination, but I would be VERY enthusiastic about a Cruz candidacy.

bluegill on March 25, 2014 at 8:18 PM

^^^THIS^^^

Bob Davis on March 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Sorry, Rand. You’re wasting your time running for President. Too many folks will tie you in to your nutjob Dad. Basically, you’re un-electable. Give it up. You have no chance.

Bob Davis on March 26, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Dems and concerned lefties have started saying this exact thing. I love their concern for the fate of the conservative cause.

(BTW, I bet less than 5% of people in the country even know who Ron Paul is)

Clark1 on March 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

(BTW, I bet less than 5% of people in the country even know who Ron Paul is)

Clark1 on March 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

I would argue that more than half of conservatives know who Ron Paul is.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 11:49 AM

BTW, I bet less than 5% of people in the country even know who Ron Paul is)

Clark1 on March 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM
I would argue that more than half of conservatives know who Ron Paul is.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Exactly. And this not even to mention that Rand Paul is also willing to side with the establishment and support illegal alien amnesty.

VIDEO: Rand Paul shows his contempt for amnesty opponents:
http://youtu.be/pxQjlS7JwMo

Bob Davis on March 26, 2014 at 12:01 PM

…maybe I’m overestimating Rand’s fear of alienating the Ron Paul voters of 2012.

Actually Alahpundit, your problem is you don’t know jack about libertarians and think we’re isolationists. We aren’t. We are all for a strong defense (minus the waste), and free trade with the rest of the world. In my case, that free trade would include selling missiles to Poland and the Czech Republic.

earlgrey on March 26, 2014 at 12:05 PM

“They would get into the back of the line and get no special privileges to do so,” said the adviser, who was not authorized to comment publicly. “What his plan is extending to them is a quicker path to normalization, not citizenship, and being able to stay, work and pay taxes legally.”
Notice the back of the line… That is line waiting to become citizens.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 11:23 AM

So, no special path to citizenship.

Got it.

In your own quote.

So, what is the difference between normalizing them, with, once again, no special path to citizenship, and making them return to Mexico, in order to reapply for permanent visas, under current law..?

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Ron Paul is a conservative Pro-Life Christian who supports the ideas of small government and a strong national defense.

The chorus of shilltastic posters on right-wing blogs who call him a “nutjob” never have any credibility when they open their mouths with that laughable accusation. One has to wonder what “conservative” even means to these people.

If the (fake or deluded) “conservatives” do NOT support aspects of Ron Paul’s agenda, they have yet to make a real case. They have yet to describe their anti-Christian, anti-Life, Big Government agenda. They simply call Ron Paul names and pretend that is enough.

Well let’s hear it. What kind of Big Government “conservative” agenda is competing with Ron Paul’s vision of a strong, limited government, America united in liberty?

Another Libertarian on March 26, 2014 at 12:09 PM

“Now if only Rand Paul would recognize that defense of the Nation doesn’t start at its military but at its borders.”

The only defense the United States needs is a massive nuclear stockpile and an armed citizenry. Everything else is aggression.

Another Libertarian on March 26, 2014 at 12:11 PM

“Wants effectively open borders.”

For those who are worried about borders, borders, borders and amnesty, how do you feel about the H1B program?

Another Libertarian on March 26, 2014 at 12:13 PM

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 12:06 PM

1) The fact that you focus on Mexico seems to indicate your racial prejudice, they are not all from mexico.
2) They broke our laws for immigration, they are not deserving to be invited to be members in good standing.
3) Again, John Galt the character understands this stuff, these are the kinds of things he specifically fights against. People EARN, they are not granted. Granting them anything other than a ticket home is amnesty. Period.
4) Right now they have no path for citizenship, you cannot apply for the start VISA from within the United States of America. So any change to make that different is amnesty. Period.
5) Putting them at the back of the line is in fact a path to citizenship, regardless of what he says. Every person who knows anything about this topic knows that. They are not going to be BARRED from applying for citizenship and even if they are in what ever legislation passes it will be a very short lived bar.
6) It is funny that you take the quote from one of his advisers to make your argument but then fail to look at what Rand himself said.

“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to normalize those who are here.”

See that there? There would be an eventual path… Then that same qualifier, we don’t make anybody a citizen tomorrow. As if anyone believes they could or would do it that way. Basically they count on retards, I guess you must be one, to buy their lies and ignore their qualifiers while they point blank tell you where they are headed.

Back to you.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 12:17 PM

For those who are worried about borders, borders, borders and amnesty, how do you feel about the H1B program?

Another Libertarian on March 26, 2014 at 12:13 PM

It is an earned non permanent VISA that allows America to prosper when utilized properly. Some companies abuse it, but it has a restriction on numbers that limits the possible abuse. Better enforcement would improve it. Those who overstay the VISA should be marked as not to be granted a VISA in the future.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 12:20 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 12:17 PM

1) The fact that you focus on Mexico seems to indicate your racial prejudice, they are not all from mexico.

Sorry. Must have missed the racial classification “Mexican” on the census form. Where I come from, “Mexican” is a nationality. And, being a conservative, I bend to certain realities, like most of our illegals are of Mexican descent/origin. I don’t engage in fantasy, like, we can deport them.

2) They broke our laws for immigration, they are not deserving to be invited to be members in good standing.

If they have a child, parent or spouse who is a citizen, the US Code disagrees with you.

3) Again, John Galt the character understands this stuff, these are the kinds of things he specifically fights against. People EARN, they are not granted. Granting them anything other than a ticket home is amnesty. Period.

And, once again, I take my lessons on policy from history and reason, not fictional characters with ray screens to keep out illegal immigrants. If we had ray screens, then maybe you would have a point. Until we do, try to keep our feet on the ground, shall we?

4) Right now they have no path for citizenship, you cannot apply for the start VISA from within the United States of America. So any change to make that different is amnesty. Period.

So, you would have them go back, in most cases to Mexico, to apply for a visa that, if they have US citizen minor children, spice (the plural of spouse, IMHO), or parents, would be automatically granted.

Gee, and you wonder why these people view the GOP as irrationally nativist…?

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 12:37 PM

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 12:37 PM

What a dishonest person you are. But that is to be expected from people like you. Keep moving that goal post John Galt the tyrant. Keep on moving it.

So, of course, you have a quote of Rand Paul supporting citizenship for illegals, then…?

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM

You keep forgeting to face the fact that: Rand Paul said this!

“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to normalize those who are here.”

Back to the obvious retard.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Ron Paul is a conservative Pro-Life Christian who supports the ideas of small government and a strong national defense.

The chorus of shilltastic posters on right-wing blogs who call him a “nutjob” never have any credibility when they open their mouths with that laughable accusation. One has to wonder what “conservative” even means to these people.

If the (fake or deluded) “conservatives” do NOT support aspects of Ron Paul’s agenda, they have yet to make a real case. They have yet to describe their anti-Christian, anti-Life, Big Government agenda. They simply call Ron Paul names and pretend that is enough.

Well let’s hear it. What kind of Big Government “conservative” agenda is competing with Ron Paul’s vision of a strong, limited government, America united in liberty?

Another Libertarian on March 26, 2014 at 12:09 PM

After reading this former libertarian’s tale of why he fled libertarianism and became a liberal, I couldn’t help but wonder how many other Ron Paul supporters are now admitted liberals (see link). As I pointed out before, many of the Ron Paul supporters wanted Obama to win and I proved that by referencing a quote from a Ron Paul supporter who clearly stated that he was hoping for an Obama victory. This guy just wasn’t any Ron Paul supporter but was a major contributor to the campaign. Why should anyone really be surprised since libertarianism, as described by one commenter, is “a sort of training wheels for being liberal.” Still not convinced? Read what the former libertarian-turned-liberal felt when Obama took the oath of office in 2009.

“Through all the turmoil, the presidential election went ahead. Although I didn’t vote for him, I wept when Barack Obama took the oath of office in early 2009. They were tears of bewilderment, joy, pride and hope, despite the fact that I did everything within my own limited power to keep the moment from ever happening.

From the ashes of the election rose the movement that pushed me from convinced libertarian into bunny-hugging liberal. The Tea Party monster forever tainted the words freedom and libertarian for me. The rise of the Tea Party made me want to puke, and my nausea is now a chronic condition” (see link).

Link: Why I fled libertarianism and became a liberal

Bob Davis on March 26, 2014 at 2:03 PM

You keep forgeting to face the fact that: Rand Paul said this!

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM

And you keep forgetting that you said this:

They sure as hell are not voting en masse right now. But Rand Paul says they should be.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 9:32 AM

Once again, I have yet to read anything that says he thinks they should be voting en masse.

Which, once again, makes you sound like a prevaricator.

Back to the obvious retard.

Oh, I think the person who supports policies of rounding up tens of millions of people for deportation is fairly obviously retarded…

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Sorry, Rand. You’re wasting your time running for President. Too many folks will tie you in to your nutjob Dad. Basically, you’re un-electable. Give it up. You have no chance.

Bob Davis on March 26, 2014 at 11:24 AM
Dems and concerned lefties have started saying this exact thing. I love their concern for the fate of the conservative cause.

(BTW, I bet less than 5% of people in the country even know who Ron Paul is)

Clark1 on March 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Now with respect to RINOs, the following is a comment I found written by another conservative who has the same problems that I have with libertarians. He wrote the following:

“Libertarians are the rinos, it is the conservatives and conservatism who are the hated enemies of libertarians, that is why rinos and leftists all support so much of the libertarian pro-abortion, pro-gay, open borders agenda.

Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.

Libertarian Party Platform:

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries.”

Homosexuals: total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion: zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography: no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs: Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography: zero restrictions.

Military Strength: minimal capabilities.”

So to some people libertarians are RINOs because they have very liberal views on social issues. I would prefer to vote for a candidate who is a fiscal conservative and a conservative on social issues, like Ted Cruz.

Bob Davis on March 26, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Once again, I have yet to read anything that says he thinks they should be voting en masse.

Which, once again, makes you sound like a prevaricator.

Back to the obvious retard.

Oh, I think the person who supports policies of rounding up tens of millions of people for deportation is fairly obviously retarded…

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Nothing like moving the posts. The first position you attacked was that he does not support amnesty and making them citizens. Now that he has been proved to have said he does the post moves to arbitrary things. But still…

You do not see the connection between making them citizens and them voting? I put the qualifier of voting en masse there as a hedge against the argument that without voter ID requirements some might actually already be voting. BREAKING OUR LAWS yet again.

You are such a dishonest debate opponent. But, at least now we have you on record admitting that Rand Paul is an amnesty supporter that will enable the creation of 10 to 20 million net new Democrat voters. I guess we will just take the progress and build upon it.

Or are you going to fall back into some other lie and distortion?

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 2:22 PM

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Nothing like moving the posts. The first position you attacked was that he does not support amnesty and making them citizens.

He doesn’t support making them citizens. He supports normalizing them, with a chance, with a possibility, that somewhere years down the line, behind all the legal immigrants, they might have a chance of becoming citizens.

Stands is stark contrast to supporting them voting en masse, right now.

You do not see the connection between making them citizens and them voting? I put the qualifier of voting en masse there as a hedge against the argument that without voter ID requirements some might actually already be voting. BREAKING OUR LAWS yet again.

A valiant effort at deflection. Of course, it ignores the fact that if they were brought out of the shadows, any incentive they would have for committing voter fraud would be outweighed by the risk of loss of resident alien status.

But hey, why let valid policy points get in the way of your irrational nativism.

But, at least now we have you on record admitting that Rand Paul is an amnesty supporter that will enable the creation of 10 to 20 million net new Democrat voters.

Once again, nothing in there says that these people will become citizens, much less voters, much less Democratic voters.

But then, demagogues gonna demagogue. So, I’m less than surprised…

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 6:55 PM

“I want to show what conservatives would or can accept,” he said in describing his plan. “If we assimilate those who are here, however they got here — don’t make it an easy path for citizenship. There would be an eventual path, but we don’t make anybody tomorrow a citizen who came here illegally. But if they’re willing to work, willing to pay taxes, I think we need to normalize those who are here.”

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2014 at 6:55 PM

You are a LIAR, it is right there in easy to read text. His own words. His plan makes them citizens. Period.

Keep the lies up, the further down the tubes your reputation goes the better.

astonerii on March 26, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2