Decius wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that Ron Paul is going to start overfunding the military and running death camps, but if you don't beleive in the doctrine of incorporation, you're sure as hell not a libertarian.

I don't like anyone who says that the Constitution of the United States of America should not protect my individual right to freedom of speech, particularly if they are a serious political candidate who has millions in funding and support from a substantial percentage of my friends. I care more about my right to freedom of speech than I do care about lower taxes.

I'm not a fan of the doctrine of selective incorporation. I believe that the entire Bill of Rights should be fully incorporated, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. However, even those who adopt the selective approach typically include the First Amendment. Has Paul stated that he believes that the Constitution does not (or should not) protect individuals against censorship by state governments?

Decius wrote:
His campaign's success is a combination of anti-immigration xenophobia and nationalistic fevor (painted with imagry of the founding fathers and the overuse of the word freedom without real meaning).

When you say "anti-immigration," are you referring to illegal immigrants or all immigrants? More to the point, to which is Paul referring? I think you've addressed that question in a previous post, but I just wanted to make the distinction, for the sake of clarity.

There are many in this country (myself included) who want to get illegal immigration under control, but at the same time, we should not do anything to penalize those who observe the law and come here legally. If Paul is against illegal immigration, then I support his position. There's nothing xenophobic about that. If Paul is against legal immigration, and/or supports policies that penalize those who have gone through the trouble of entering this country legally (to work, reside, whatever), then I have a problem with him.

Back in November, you brought up Paul's sponsorship of the Social Security for Americans Only Act of 2007. I agree with you that any proposal that would penalize those who were here legally (before and after citizenship) and who've paid into the system is a bad idea, and I hope it doesn't pass, as-is.

You seem to be convinced that the negative consequences of this bill (as they pertain to those who were/are legally in this country) are by design, and that it's Paul's goal to punish all immigrants, be they legal or not. If that's Paul's design, then he's clearly in the wrong, as far as I'm concerned. Those who support such an effort are misguided at best, xenophobic at worst.

Given that I currently have no other evidence to suggest that Paul is against legal immigration, I still have to allow for the possibility that it wasn't Paul's intention for the bill to harm those who've played by the rules for years (or decades). Maybe the bill simply needs more work, so that it isn't retroactive, and so that it applies only to those initially entering the system [for example, Sec. 233(b) could be amended so that existing agreements will not terminate on 12/31/2007]. Yes, I would expect the sponsor of a bill to know exactly what it proposes, but sometimes, especially with Congress, good intentions get lost in the details. Not that I'm making excuses for Paul or anyone else in Congress, but before I condemn the man as being incompetent, uncaring, a xenophobe, a racist, or anything else, I need to see a definite pattern of behavior. To date, I haven't seen it.

Of course, were it up to me, Social Security wouldn't exist, so this would be a non-issue. ;)

RE: Ron Paul Supporters Make History with $6 Million Online Haul -- Updated | Threat Level from Wired.com