Posted by: L | May 31, 2007

Ron Paul on Immigration.. and a critic on Paul

“I mmigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists.”

More here.

Poor Ron Paul. Does he think rationality, sincerity, erudition, and plainspeaking are things people want?

The mob – in any class – likes to be told it’s always right. It disguises its self interest in high-sounding palaver. And that’s invariably the case whenever you turn away from some attempt (feeble, no doubt) at rationality and law to pure brute interest-group politics.

The same end awaits every foot-loose republic – it turns into an empire of cacaphonous voices, each more strident, self-righteous and ignorant than the next. Each so sure that any one who contradicts his self-serving image of reality is as much a charlatan as he is:

One of those who can always find logs, even redwood forests, in other people’s eyes but never one speck – not the tiniest sub-atomic antiparticle – in their own eyeballs speaks up against the Pauline menace:

The Ron Paul that Ron Paul doesn”t want you to know
By Richard Searcy. Staff Writer
Atlanta Progressive News
May 25, 2007

“Republican Presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul is making a name for himself by emerging as an antiwar republican in the 2008 race for the White House. While those of us who oppose the mindless war in Iraq welcome all voices of opposition, there are some troubling questions arising about Mr. Paul.

Paul has been consistent in his opposition to the war, but he hasn”t been very vocal or visible about that opposition. Most Americans knew nothing about Mr. Paul before this election season or had no idea thatsuch an animal as an antiwar Republican even existed….”

The letter goes on with even more ghastly logic, but I will stop there. There is only so much you can take at one sitting.

Anti-interventionism was not only the quintessential Republican tradition until Mr. Buckley took over the party and turned it into the All-Soviet Committee for Infinite Expansion into the Known Universe, it is the expressly designated constitutionally-defined role for the Federal government envisioned by Messrs. Jefferson and Madison.

That Mr. Searcy doesn’t know this is proof of his own limitations and not that of conservatives or libertarians – or for that matter, Republicans.

Not that Ron Paul has been silent either, as a glance at his archive will tell you. The media has, yes. For obvious reasons. And some people would sooner have the Middle East blown to smithereens and this country bankrupted than make common cause with a white male Republican who doesn’t fit their stereotype of a frothing redneck who chews glass and sacrifices babies by moonlight behind his double-wide.

So much for the opposition to the war in this country. It is bound up so completely and utterly in short-sighted unctuous self- interest that it is incapable for a nanosecond of reaching out generously to any one except someone made in its own insular – yes, despite all the lip-service to diversity, insular – image.

Ron Paul has apologized for the remarks that so offended the ayatollahs on the left.


But when are the ayatollahs going to start apologizing for their uninformed, divisive rhetoric, their incessant class-warfare, their male-bashing, anti-Christian diatribes, for the power politics that, fooling no one except themselves, they disguise as solicitude for humanity?


But go and read Ron Paul’s archive. That will be the best antidote for this kind of know-nothing hatchet job.





  1. Perhaps those who claim Ron Paul did not speak loud enough could not hear him because they cataloged him as one of those with nothing worth hearing. This prejudice warrants a turnabout, an apology, and a penitence expressed in reading Ron Paul’s archive and explaining it to others.

  2. Yes..

    I wonder if I was too strong about the poor man who wrote that. But anyone whose watches Paul speak can see he’s a decent, principled person.

    People must be judged in their totality not by random remarks.

    Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if I had to vote for Kucinich. It would affect me not one bit. He would be principled and antiwar too. But in my opinion, his economics is all wrong and will do more damage than good. But he is right about the war. So I could live with it.

    I was prepared to go with Nader last time round.
    But this silly Paul bashing is pure prejudice.

  3. Yeah, I was miffed about the “he hasn’t been very vocal” comment by Searcy. I think it was because Searcy was not ready to listen to him. After all, would he, for example, pay attention to John Stossel’s interview? (I’m assuming he would be prejudiced against the works of John Stossel.) To be fair, personal research is a limited resource.

    Yet, this prejudice can be damaging. It can blind one to something good.

    In this case, I hope Searcy drops any mental commitment to his past “ignoring” Ron Paul, and starts afresh, standing alongside Ron Paul.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: