If you get busy, like me, you may have stopped following Ron Paul’s progress after the Primary results came in. It’s not that I lost interest in Ron Paul’s politics, but rather that I lost interest in modern U.S. presidential politics.
What are we left with as viable candidates? There is Obama, Hillary, and McCain.
Obama
Obama started out as a promising candidate. He became an overnight sensation due to his age, and skin color. Partially as a linguistic remnant of our racist past, Obama is referred to as black, despite the fact that his genetic make-up is better described as multi-racial. Yet, Obama’s legitimate newness in the realm of politics does not appear to transfer in policy.
Obama fills a void. He offers Rorschach-ink-blot-style symbolism. A candidate who fulfills your every political desire, even if you change your mind tomorrow. For all the empty buzz about Obama, there are a few things that stand out in his policy-making. Obama does offer the voter an exit from Iraq. When? Soon. Maybe. He also offers neoconservatives hope that we may invade Pakistan someday under his “leadership”.
We get a sense of justice from a theoretical Obama presidency. Finally, a “member” of a much maligned “race” in recent history, especially in the United States, gets a chance to hold one of the most powerful political positions in the world.
There is not a single enlightened person in the world who does not feel good about this possibility. In today’s racially-tense urban areas, particularly well-depicted by the movie Crash, such an event resolves a deep cognitive dissonance shared at many levels by “white” people who are constantly labeled “oppressors” - ironically oppressed occasionally by policies enacted with benevolent intent, such as affirmative action.
And Obama’s policies do not deviate from this pattern of humanitarianism. He wants to pursue more affirmative action, create programs that encourage students to fill 50 hours of community service, and enable civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
As a matter of political savvy, or perhaps hypocrisy, Obama stands against actual marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Though incremental steps are always wise, one must wonder why Obama has chosen to hide his intentions, if he indeed favors gay marriage. Some theorize it has to do with appealing to the Christian vote. After 8 years of incompetence, Obama is a welcome sight, but in terms of “new”, the only thing he offers is his background.
Hillary
There’s little to say about Hillary, whose policies mirror those of Obama’s. The only contrast between Hillary and Obama is a heightened sense of fakery and disingenuity, from her fake laughs to her unlikely emotional outbursts during televised events.
Well, Hillary does offer more to neoconservative-leaning folk. She is ambiguous about Iraq, but less ambiguous about pursuing conflict with Iran. And she is definitely not ambiguous about protecting Israel at all costs simply because Israel is an ally. One wonders if the defense industry chose to fund her for her interest in Israel, or if she developed an interest for Israel as a result of the funding.
McCain
Where Obama’s background appeals and Hillary’s repels, McCain’s background also offers the voter a chance to sympathize. A former prisoner of war who refused to use his familial connections to escape Vietnam without his fellow soldiers, McCain appears deserving of sympathy.
One would expect such an experience to change a person for the better. Why, then, does McCain insist on provoking Iran with an attempt to get them kicked off the Soccer World Cup? Why, if he so despises torture, does McCain insist on resolving conflict through war? Is this a case of “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”?
Perhaps McCain could conduct a war more responsibly than his predecessor. Perhaps anybody could. But is he wise enough to ask himself why we need war in the first place?
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is not without his shortcomings. But in the areas that are relevant to the presidency, Ron Paul shines. Foreign Policy and Economics. Ron Paul’s presidential bid offered hope to the families of soldiers deployed in Iraq. It also offered a platform that differed from most others. The difference? Substance.
While most candidates were out distorting facts to fit their platform and appealing to emotion, Ron Paul stuck to the facts. Factcheck.org released some criticism on Ron Paul’s claims that the Iraq War was costing the United States 1 trillion dollars a year. They claimed they had not criticized Ron Paul because of his visibility (lack thereof), which may be true. However, their insinuation that Ron Paul was exaggerating is misleading at best.
The central question
What happened to Ron Paul is at one level, very simple: Ron Paul’s policies are counter-intuitive. Fighting racism by dissolving affirmative action? Enabling gay rights by leaving the government out of marriage? Fighting drug-related violence by legalizing drugs?
Ron Paul is not without blame. When faced with questions regarding a newsletter published under his name, Ron Paul should have gone as far as to produce the name of the ghostwriter(s). His counter-intuitive (but intelligent) libertarian-leaning solutions were too consistent, whether by chance or by design, with some of the ideas expressed in the infamous politically-incorrect newsletters.
Had the writings been his own, an admission with contextual explanation would have sufficed. Everyone who has heard Ron Paul speak knows that he has either never uttered such non-sense, or it no longer represents his informed views. Then, again, giving a false rumor undue attention would have also backfired.
Ron Paul’s misplaced emphasis on NAFTA and the hypothetical North American Union and his association with unsavory individuals or organizations, whether mutual or not, fueled perceptions that Ron Paul was a “kook”.
The mainstream media ultimately earns the blame for Ron Paul’s mostly disappointing official poll numbers. Not just because they distorted the results on occasion, or asked him irrelevant or loaded questions at the debates; The media deserves the majority of the blame because they censored him every chance they had. This is not a “conspiracy theory” in the modern sense of the word. The censorship and misrepresentation is well-documented, on occasion by the offenders themselves, when it suited ratings.
A Ron Paul presidency was a long-shot. Especially from the beginning. However as Ron Paul’s supporters organized massive one day donations, the media began to take notice and Ron Paul’s numbers in the polls improved dramatically. After all, you can be featured in a debate, asked irrelevant questions and still get little coverage on the news. As an avid Ron Paul supporter I might watch every debate he is featured in, but what about the average uninformed or uninterested voter who sees the Ron Paul-less highlights on CNN or FOX News? This is why Ron Paul could give the most intelligent answers, and generally outperform the other candidates at the debates, and still be relatively unknown.
Add to the general media blackout the typical misrepresentation, and you have voters believing Ron Paul has “no chance” even before the official results come in. Had Ron Paul been given an equal amount of fair airtime on the news as Obama, or Giuliani, when Ron Paul announced his candidacy, the results would be dramatically different. There is no delusion here - Ron Paul would have still had to work hard at better explaining his ideas, and his ideology would not appeal to all who were accurately exposed to it. Nevertheless, the mainstream media didn’t do Ron Paul any favors. Not in the way they gave Obama and Giuliani a free pass.
Ironically, the premature labels of “non-factor” and “he has no chance” would have been better suited for Giuliani, whose only source of viability was a fake expertise on terrorism, and a willingness by the mainstream media to monetize a symbolic figure of IX.XI.
Do you want substance in your elected leaders? You may need to move to the 14th Congressional district.
[l]ibertarianism has experienced a resurgence likely to resonate in politics for quite some time. I did not agree with Ron Paul on some issues, and I don’t think strict libertarianism is the answer to everything. But at a time when liberties are threatened by irrational fears, a little reasonable freedom couldn’t hurt. We can all thank Ron Paul for bringing this to the global stage.
The next 8 years could be very long. Fortunately, Giuliani’s authoritarianism will not be a factor. Now we only have to worry about a 100-year war, and/or more deficit spending in the name of equality with a dash of dogmatic authoritarianism.
In the pursuit of responsibility and peace of mind, I may vote against a 100-year war for the alternative 5-6 years of war and limited interference abroad. Nevertheless, I’d much rather abstain from that “choice” and write-in Dr. Ron Paul as a statement of disapproval.
We issue 200,000 student visas a year. One of the hijackers had an F-1 student visa. The majority had tourist, business, or visit visas.
So if you are looking to protect the country, a more logical thing to do is ban (1) male (2) Saudi Arabians (3) between the ages of 21 and 43 (4) religious (5) possibly training in flight school.
And, yet, an irrational “strategy” as such would foment more terrorism:
It is necessary to note that relative deprivation
creating exclusion is a comprehensive phenomenon. It
is not merely a socio-economic driver. In fact, relative
deprivation in terms of political space and human
dignity is often even more significant than socioeconomic
factors. The Palestinians in Israel-occupied
territories, whose mobility is curtailed by the Israeli
defence forces, feel deprived of dignity. The Tamils in
Sri Lanka, who have to give up their linguistic advantage
and political balance of power because of constitutional
changes, feel deprived. The Acholis were socioeconomically
deprived for years but it wasn’t until the
Musevini government began to target them specifically
that they took up arms. The Moros of the Philippines
who see migrants from other parts of the country
dominating their economy feel relatively deprived not
just in an economic sense but also in a political and
cultural context. The Iraqis who see their country
overtaken by an external force feel relatively deprived
irrespective of the economic condition of any
particular citizen.
Another reason why “terrorism” is a poor qualifier. We define terrorism to suit our “needs”.
It is possible for any ideology, delivered by
determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to
transform those feeling excluded from their society
into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse,
however, there is an unfortunate effort made to
emphasize certain forms of terrorism. As the global
power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on
Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks
that do not target the United States and its allies are
defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or
mere violence
Terrorism is vague and ill-defined. A “terrorist nation” is too, by consequence.
Western discourse on terrorism, with a focus on
Islamist extremism, is therefore neither entirely about
terrorism nor about Islamist extremism. It is not
entirely about terrorism because it does not include
terrorism practised by several national, sub-national
groups, labeling some of them as liberation
movements. It is not entirely about terrorism because
it hardly considers rural-based revolutionary
organisations, responsible for killing thousands of
people in Asia and Latin America. It is not entirely
about Islamist extremism because it blames the groups
in the Middle East that have no ambition to alter the
international order, while giving inadequate attention
to the specific organisations that want to establish a
Caliphate by violent means and that are positioning
themselves to succeed Al Qaeda in the International
Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. In
ignoring the threats of terrorism around the world
from nationalist, sub-nationalist and revolutionary
groups that commit violent acts and ignoring the threats
posed by Central and South Asian Islamist
organisations to the global security, Western discourse
is selectively focussed on the Middle East. It is more
about the strategic interests of the West in a particular
region than the threats to humanity emanating from
the ideologies of mass destruction.
The media manipulates the focus and definition of terrorism by framing.
The mutually obsessive discourse in Western and
Islamic societies is manipulated by the media, either
by design or otherwise. If North Korea tests a nuclear
weapon the news disappears from the front page of
most newspapers within a couple of days. If Iraq or
Iran is suspected to have even the most elementary
capacity to develop such a weapon, this is major
news for months after months. If Lord’s Resistance
Army forces children to kill their siblings in thousands,
it is a human interest story that appears only
occasionally in the inside pages. If Iran’s President
threatens Israel, it is major news and the subject of
endless op-ed analysis.
In short, terrorism exists on exclusion. Especially unfair exclusion and perceived loss of dignity.
What do you suppose a disproportionate and ignorant measure like banning students from “terrorist nations” accomplishes?
It gets ignorant people to feel good about their safety. It excludes more people who are already living under conditions that fuel terrorism, and it completely misses the point.
Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called
proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially
responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This
will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater
hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is
so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke
the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.
Thornton says that it ‘is difficult to predict how long bubbles will last,’ but the geoclassical half of the geo-Austrian theory does provide an indication. Historically, the real-estate cycle has had a duration of 18 years, aside from the interruption of World War II. That puts the next real estate bottom around 2008 [link mine]. If past patterns continue, and so far they are right on schedule, we can expect the next recession to take place towards the end of this decade.
Fighting terrorism the way Bush wants to fight it is stupid. IF you want to fight terrorism, the best way to start is to stop creating terrorists, and furthermore, to stop giving them reasons to attack us.
If you don’t think about why they attack us in the first place, regardless of whether it has to do with us or not, YOU WILL NEVER ADDRESS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.
The lack of exposure on Ron Paul’s amazing fund-raising yesterday is only compelling his vocal supporters to pick up the slack and do the media’s job for them.
“When this Paul campaign is over I think we should continue the meetup groups and use our influence to bury the main stream media!! Lets demonstrate outside their buildings, boycotts their programs, petitions against their staff and company, mail bomb their comments and feedback, trash and flood their online surveys and hound their reporters everywhere they go!!”
Due to the inaccessibility to English speakers of the Univision debate in Spanish, there are a lot of lies, half-truths, and misreporting about what actually went on there.
I translated the debate to clear up any confusion. As you will see, Ron Paul was cheered loudly for the most part especially regarding his opposition to a mandatory ID card, his opposition to the war, and when he spoke about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Strangely, he was booed when he advocated normalizing trade and foreign relations with Cuba and Venezuela. As I soon found out, this is because there is a strong hatred among Cuban-Americans for Castro. However, as Ron Paul explained his position further, some began to clap. The rest of the candidates received polite applause after most responses, but none was cheered as loudly as Ron Paul.
Of course, Ron Paul’s advocacy for restoring trade and positive diplomatic relationships with Cuba and Venezuela was not well-received in Miami. In Los Angeles, or a different location, the response to Ron Paul’s argument would have been mostly positive because the logic would not have been clouded by personal anti-Castro resentment.
I can imagine Ron Paul regrets not mentioning that the point of restoring trade and positive relations is not to please Castro, but instead to stop punishing Americans who want to trade, and to stop punishing Cubans who want to trade for the actions of their dictator. Ron Paul did mention that we talked to Khrushchev and others during the Cold War. In an unrelated question Ron Paul even mentioned how we restored relations with Vietnam, to which everyone cheered. This inconsistency in the response of the audience (negative for improved relations with Cuba and positive for improved relations with Vietnam) is very telling; it shows that anti-Cuban sentiment is a rather automatic and deeply-ingrained emotional response, and that while restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam instead of imposing sanctions is good, doing the same with Cuba (however logical) is unacceptable.
The other Republican candidates demonized Castro, and Giuliani took a shot at Ron Paul by implying he was weak (to which he received a mixed audience response). Although the moderators didn’t grant Ron Paul a rebuttal, Ron Paul comes out on top, and here is why: While Ron Paul is advocating trade and diplomacy, the other Republicans are advertising just how isolationist they are. Quite ironic, since they inaccurately like to call Ron Paul an isolationist.
Ron Paul is willing to talk and trade with all countries. If anyone is an isolationist, it is Giuliani, Romney, and the other Republicans AND Democrats who would not even talk to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Most of the time they oppose trade with China, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo and Lebanon. Perhaps McCain can think twice before he ever calls Ron Paul an isolationist again - it is especially hypocritical of McCain since he tried to get Iran kicked off the FIFA World Cup in Germany (and failed).
Univision GOP Debate: Ron Paul Highlights with English translation (English Subtitles)
*Note: Subtitles are English translations of what the interpreters said in Spanish (that is, what the audience heard in Spanish, and not necessarily a verbatim transcript).
Here is a full transcript of the entire debate
**Youtube has removed the video due to possible copyright infringement issues. If there is enough demand, we may look for a work-around; however, we recommend visiting univision.com instead.
It appears our military backs Ron Paul in the most important issue facing the United States: Terrorism and our foreign policy. For the second time in a row, Ron Paul receives more donations among Republicans. Data for Democrats is not yet available, but Ron Paul crushed Democrats in this statistic last quarter as well.
This data is sourced from FEC Reports for Q3 and was compiled here by jfletch and RP4.US
*This list uses donators who listed their employer as some variation of Air Force, Army, National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Retired Vet, Veteran, Civilian Military employee, or Military (no branch indicated). This is preliminary data and may contain insignificant errors.
Now that McCain’s donations are a matter of public record we can see that he received 5.7 million only passing Ron Paul by a mere 0.6 million in third quarter donations. Furthermore, McCain spent approximately the entire amount earned in Q3, leaving McCain with the 3.4 million he started out with and a debt of 1.7 million.
Some other notable republican campaigns owe considerable amounts of money.
As the 3rd financial quarter draws to a close, Ron Paul and John Edwards have set campaign goals to raise a million in the last 7* and 10 days of Q3. Ron Paul started with a humble goal of raising $500,000, but when contribution money continued pouring in at a faster rate than expected, the campaign extended the goal to one million dollars. As of yesterday at 11pm John Edwards’ site indicates $878,000 raised so far; Ron Paul is not far behind at $800,000.
Current projections will place both candidates at 1.2 million by the end of the quarter. Although these numbers reflect only the last 10 days of the quarter, it raises very interesting questions about Ron Paul’s financial standing this third quarter. If John Edwards pulled in 9 million last quarter, will we see Ron Paul triple last quarter’s numbers?
With straw polls placing Ron Paul in first place among Republican contenders, and the GOP recognizing Ron Paul as a de facto 1st tier candidate, any financial reporting over 5 million is bound to cement his position. Let’s not forget Ron Paul surprised everyone by taking in more military contributions than ALL the Republican and Democratic candidates in Q2, and amassing more cash-on-hand than Sen. John McCain.
If you want to see Ron Paul out-raise John Edwards in the 10-day boost that ends this Sunday, donate now: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
Update*: It was brought to my attention that Ron Paul started his boost last Monday, meaning Ron Paul is out-pacing Edwards, who has a 3-day advantage.
“Making it even easier for the terrorists. Prelude to the North American Union. The Teamsters Union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border on Saturday.”
Yeah, because Mexican Trucks = terrorism.
Oh, and the world is going to end soon.
Here is some rational analysis, to counter your irrational xenophobia:
Special Interest Groups consider U.S. Immigration laws racist, inhumane and unjust. A possible answer to the problem would be abolishing all U.S. Immigration Statutes and adopting “word for word” Mexico’s standards and law per their government constitution. How could any group in the United States including LULAC or ACLU be offended? DHS Secretary Chertoff appears to hate the idea of enforcing U.S. laws on the books because it would separate families. […]
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
Factual, straight from the constitution:
Article 32. Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.
In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of pratique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.
Claim:
Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Factual:
Article 34. Men and women who, having the status of Mexicans, likewise meet the following requirements are citizens of the Republic:
1. Having reached eighteen years of age, if married, or twenty-one years of age if unmarried;
2. Having an honest means of livelihood.
Claim:
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
Factual:
Article 37.
1. Mexican nationality is lost:
1. By the voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality;
2. By accepting or using titles of nobility which imply submission to a foreign state;
3. By residing, if a Mexican by naturalization, for five consecutive years in the country of origin;
4. By passing in any public instrument, when Mexican by naturalization, as a foreigner, or by obtaining and using a foreign passport;
2. Mexican citizenship is lost:
1. By accepting or using titles of nobility which imply submission to a foreign government;
2. By rendering voluntary services to a foreign government without permission of the Federal Congress or of its Permanent Committee;
3. By accepting or using foreign decorations without permission of the Federal Congress or of its Permanent Committee;
4. By accepting titles or functions from the government of another country without previous permission of the Federal Congress or its Permanent Committee, excepting literary, scientific, or humanitarian titles which may be freely accepted;
5. By aiding a foreigner or a foreign country, against the Nation, in any diplomatic claim or before an international tribunal;
6. In other cases which the laws may specify.
Claim:
The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Factual:
Article 38. The rights or prerogatives of citizens [emphasis added] are suspended:
1. Through failure to comply, without sufficient cause, with any of the obligations imposed by Article 36. This suspension shall last for one year and shall be in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law for the same offense.
2. Through being subjected to criminal prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment (pena corporal), the suspension to be reckoned from the date of the formal order of commitment;
3. Throughout a term of imprisonment;
4. Through vagrancy or habitual drunkenness, affirmed in the manner prescribed by law;
5. Through being a fugitive from justice, the suspension being reckoned from the date of the order of arrest until the prescription of the criminal action;
6. Through final sentence imposing such suspension as a penalty.
The law shall specify those cases in which civil rights may be lost or suspended and the manner of rehabilitation.
Here is the rest of the article, summed up for brevity. You can still follow the links to the English version, to compare
Claim:
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
Factual:
Article 73 -Simply outlines the structure, powers and responsibility of congress, but says nothing about “keeping track of every single person in the country” or cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Claim:
A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
Factual:
Articles 85 and 86 -85 talks about the reasons and procedures for appointing interim presidents. 86 talks about acceptable causes for presidential resignation. There’s nothing about a National Population Registry.
Claim:
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Factual:
Article 87 - Outlines the presidential oath that must be taken when taking office. Article 91 - “To be a secretary it is required to be a Mexican citizen by birth, to be in exercise of his rights, and be at least thirty years of age”.
Claim:
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Factual:
Article 116 - The States have the power to fix their respective boundaries among themselves, by amicable agreements; but such agreements will not be put into effect without the approval of the Congress of the Union.
Claim:
Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Factual:
Article 117 - Limits the powers of the states (for example, states cannot make coins).
Claim:
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Factual:
Article 118 - Limits states further - they may not impose certain port levies, nor start wars with foreign powers.
Claim:
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Factual:
Article 119 - Each State has the obligation to deliver without delay the criminals of another State or of a foreign State to the authorities who claim them.
Article 120 - The governors of the States are required to publish and enforce federal laws.
Article 121 - States must respect each others’ laws.
Claim:
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
Factual:
Article 123 - Why would a constitution contain the specific monetary fine? Either way, this talks about Labor and Social Security.
Claim:
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Factual:
Article 125 - “No individual may fill two popularly elected federal offices at the same time […]”
Claim:
Foreigners who “attempt contempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Factual:
Article 126 - “No payment may be made that is not included in the budget or provided for by a subsequent law.”
Claim:
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Factual:
Article 127 - President, Supreme Court Justices, and other public officials receive compensation specified and paid by the national treasury.
Claim:
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132) *1917 Mexican Constitution… ref. Center for Security Policy
Factual:
Article 132 - Certain buildings used by the government for public service and common use are under federal jurisdiction.
So what “Mexican Constitution” was John W. Slagle using? [See 9/2/07 update].
UPDATE (9/2/07): It may not be an intentional fabrication, but rather a bad honest mistake: They are quoting the General Law of the population, and not the Mexican Constitution, even though they claim to be quoting the Constitution.
UPDATE (9/3/07): I apologize for passing judgment hastily. The source of the article is simply The General Law on Population, and not the Mexican Constitution as originally claimed.
