- 1
- 2
Starting From Scratch
Well, "no plans" doesn't mean you won't.
The best way I can state it is: I have no plans. I can't conceive of it. But I guess in life there aren't that many absolutes.
You say that our sovereignty is under assault at home. By whom?
The philosophic group who likes governmental globalism—the people who would support, say, the U.N., the World Bank, the IMF [International Monetary Fund], the WTO [World Trade Organization].
Who are the people supporting that "group"?
I would say most leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties. I mean, I would have trouble finding someone who doesn't support that.
If most of Congress and successive presidents support those organizations, aren't they synonymous with the American people?
I'd like to think that they are truly representing people. But you know what the statistics were before we went into Iraq? Probably 70 or 80 percent of the American people said "absolutely not," they didn't want to go. The war propaganda changed their mind. There was just a small group of people in the administration who pumped up the nation to go to war, but that didn't make it right.
Who were those people?
The neoconservatives, the [Paul] Wolfowitzes, the [David] Wurmsers, the Dick Cheneys—the various people that saw this as a moral equivalent of spreading democracy.
It's long been law that if you are born here, you are a citizen, even if your parents are here illegally. You want to change that. Why?
I'd argue that the conditions are different, that we have to decrease the incentives to come. If they come, and are put into the welfare system, and [their kids] are born here—and I've delivered some of these babies—[the kids] are immediately put on benefits. They can get housing allowances, food allowances, and Americans resent it because our economy is so weak. Whether it's amnesty or birthright citizenship or special benefits, I want to change that. I want a healthy economy. Then we will be able to have a much more generous immigration policy, which would fit my personal philosophy and our Constitution.
© 2007
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Wendeen @ 02/04/2008 12:30:47 PM
Comment: Panama is set to double its traffic of ships through the Panama Canal by 2014, which will further erode US sovereignty since more and more East-West trade will go through "them" rather than us. We need to heed Dr. Paul's legislative attempts to regain sovereign control of the Panama Canal. As Paul tells us, Panama has only the population of Atlanta. They and the global bankers who support them should not be dictating so much of our future.
Posted By: WKlein @ 02/04/2008 8:45:08 AM
Comment: Great interview!
If you want to see the importance of US sovereignty and Constitutionalism, also examine Dr. Paul???s attempts to maintain American sovereignty over the Panama Canal in the 1970s, shown in his newsletter.
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/freedomApril1978.pdf
When the US gave up sovereignty over the Canal to Panama, it helped empower, as he eloquently puts it, a ???two bit dictator??? with ties to Castro. Dr. Paul argues with great passion that a country as strong as America should not let little countries be the boss. After the Canal was given up, the globalist international bankers got a lot of payback, and now you can see the result. A war to get back the Canal failed in 1989, and young people don???t even remember it. That group of greedy bankers and small Marxist countries now threaten to take over the entire United States. Go figure. The great US once had sovereignty over other areas of the world as well, but now all is being lost, but that would not be the case if we had obeyed the wise advise of Dr. Paul 30 years ago.
Wilbur Klein
Posted By: djonesss @ 02/03/2008 9:46:45 PM
Comment: The fourth quarter FEC reports reveal that Congressman Paul has received more donations from the military than all other republican candidates combined.