New Jersey Today:”Ron Paul Endorses Murray Sabrin for US Senate”

New Jersey Today reports that former Congressman Ron Paul has endorsed Libertarian Party candidate Dr Murray Sabrin for U.S. Senator from New Jersey.

“I am pleased to endorse my good friend of 35 years Murray Sabrin for United States Senate,” said Paul. “Murray’s dedication to, and knowledge of, the principles of liberty will make him an effective advocate for freeing the people of New Jersey—and the nation–from excessive taxes, debt, and inflation, as well as ending the ongoing violations of our right to free speech, property, and privacy.”

“Murray will also be an outspoken Senator for peaceful relations with other nations, and work to ensure that our immigration policies adhere to common sense solutions like his proposal to have immigrants obtain sponsors so they can assimilate and become financially independent,” said the former congressman, whose son is US Senator Rand Paul.

Dr Sabrin has previously run for Governor of New Jersey as the Libertarian Party candidate, in 1997. In that race he received more than 114,000 votes, 4.7%.  Dr Sabrin has been a candidate for U.S. Senate three times in the Republican primary, in 2000, in 2008 and in 2014. In 2008 he was New Jersey spokesman for Congressman Ron Paul in his bid for the Republican nomination for President.

This year Dr Murray Sabrin has accepted the Libertarian nomination for U.S. Senate, guaranteeing a spot on the November ballot against Sen. Robert Menendez. Senator Menendez was recently investigated on bribery charges, and was admonished by a unanimous vote of the Senate ethics committee.


Murray Sabrin for Senate campaign site @

Hat tip  to Ballot Access News

18 thoughts on “New Jersey Today:”Ron Paul Endorses Murray Sabrin for US Senate”

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    “Murray will…work to ensure that our immigration policies adhere to common sense solutions like his proposal to have immigrants obtain sponsors so they can assimilate and become financially independent,”

    There goes the old coot Ron Paul slipping in a little implied racism any time he gets a chance.

    Someone should tell Stormfront Ron that immigrants already assimilate, use less welfare than true blue Americans (thus are more financially independent), and don’t need a white American to hold their hand through the assimilation process.

  2. robert capozzi


    Yes, “assimilate” is a dog whistle if ever there were one.

    As for use of “welfare,” I remain unconvinced. It’s my understanding that the public funds for education and possibly uninsured emergency room usage don’t seem to be included in the studies I’ve seen summarized.

    Given things as they are, I’m open to screening mechanisms that protect taxpayers. For that, I get labeled a “xenophobe.” It’s inaccurate, but whatever.

  3. Andy

    Robert, you are correct. Another thing that gets often gets left out of the statistics are the taxpayer funds that get used for the offspring of immigrants, of the legal and illegal variety, who, under the current idiotic and insane interpretation of Birthright citizenship, are counted as American citizens.

  4. Andy

    July 18, 2018 at 11:12
    Andy, as a descendant of immigrants yourself, should we physically remove you?”

    I am only partially descended from immigrants. Around half of my ancestors were not immigrants, they were pioneers/colonists from England, Scotland, and France. My English and Scottish ancestors fought in the American Revolution (they were revolutionaries). My French ancestors were in land that was a French colony at the time of the American Revolution, but was later acquired by the USA.

    A pioneers or a colonist/settler is not the same thing as an immigrant. Remember, there was not much of anything here prior to the arrival of explorers/pioneers/settlers/colonists from Europe. Yes, there were Native American Indians here, but their population was very spare. It is estimated that at the time when Europeans started to arrive, there were around 1.7-2 million American Indians in the land that presently makes up the USA. That is less people than are in the present city limits of Houston, Texas, which has over 2.3 million people. There was basically no infrastructure here, and the pioneers/settlers from Europe were not trying to move in with the American Indians, they built their own settlements on land that was unoccupied (most of the country was unoccupied at the time). Yes, they did end up coming into conflict with the American Indians, and yes, they did in some cases violate the rights of the American Indians, but it should be kept in mind that there were situations where the American Indians initiated attacks against them, and it should also be kept in mind that the various American Indian tribes fought among themselves, and that people have been fighting over land since the dawn of time.

    I also have ancestors who were Irish, Dutch, and Spanish, who came to the USA later. My Irish ancestor came around the early 1880’s as child. My Dutch ancestor arrived in the early 1900’s, before 1910. My Spanish ancestor arrived via South America in the early 1920’s. They all entered the country legally. They also spoke English. There was no welfare state at the time that they arrived. Also, note that there were Irish, Dutch, and Spaniards in land that makes up the present day USA during the colonial era of American history, so these were not people from some culture that was completely alien to the people that were here at the time that they arrived.

    Comparing the pioneer/colonialist era (who were not immigrants), and legal immigrants in the latter 1800’s and early 1900’s, which was pre-welfare state, to the immigration of today, is intellectually dishonest.

    Also, I have never said that all immigrants should be kicked out of the country, or that there should be no immigration. My goal is not to end immigration, but rather to reform it, so this country is no longer a magnet for Marxists, theocrats, welfare seekers, criminal thugs, and people with communicable diseases. Having some immigration, if the immigrants are productive and freedom loving people, can be a good thing, but having an immigration policy that threatens and/or overwhelms the existing population is not a good thing.

  5. robert capozzi

    AJ, but am I correct that the desire to “assimilate” people is a dog whistle for haters?

    Paul, I personally would not consider removing citizens. I find yours to be a specious question. The question is: Is it appropriate for taxpayers to protect themselves from paying for incremental immigrants who pose a financial or security risk to current citizens? If that makes me a “xenophone,” my response is: I’m sorry you feel that way. I reject the label.

  6. robert capozzi

    AJ, you lose me. There are refugees, and it’s no surprise they need help. Singling out “Muslims” is offensive to me.

  7. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    July 18, 2018 at 12:09
    AJ, but am I correct that the desire to ‘assimilate’ people is a dog whistle for haters?”

    Reality is that when you live in proximity to other people, particularly when you live under the same system of government, you need to be able to get along with/co-exist with those people. There certainly are going to be differences in tastes and lifestyle choices, and even some beliefs. The problems occur when there are irreconcilable differences between people. This leads to conflict. The people whom you live around have a direct correlation to your level of freedom and prosperity.

  8. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    July 18, 2018 at 12:11
    AJ, you lose me. There are refugees, and it’s no surprise they need help. Singling out ‘Muslims’ is offensive to me.”

    First of all, my point was not to single anyone out. I was providing an example.

    Second of all, the US government should not be in the charity business, If people need help, they should go to a church or some other type of charity. It is bad enough when Americans get on welfare, but at least one can argue that they, and or their parents or grandparents, paid into the system. Foreigners, who are late comers, have no such claim. Also, if the real intention is to help these people, the worst thing to do is to bring them over here, given the cost of bringing them here, and the fact that the USA has a higher cost of living than the country’s they are from and the countries that are near where they are from. So if the true intention is to help these people, more of these people could be helped if they staid in their own country, or went to a country that was closer to where they are from.

    Finally, if you are that easily offended, it sounds to me like you have been brainwashed by the mainstream media and you should reduce the amount of television that you watch.

  9. Anthony Dlugos


    Surely, its possible that an accounting of the costs of immigration hasn’t included education and uninsured emergency room usage yet.

    Off the top of my head, I thought some of the Cato studies have.

    On the other hand, I am willing to be proven wrong. Organizations like Cato are willing to do the scholarly work that might demonstrate some taxpayer protection is required in order to cover (hypothetically speaking) said public education and emergency room expenditures.

    But here’s the point: further research and dialogue is possible between your position on immigration and mine (which might be a little more open, at the present time).

    But what dialogue is possible between either of our positions and the full-blown NAPist/anarchist position? None is.

    Its akin to an evolutionary biologist trying to have a discussion about the origins of life with a young earth creationist. What’s the point? The Young Earth Creationist is ALWAYS going to end up saying, “god did it.”

    We know where the NAPist/anarchist is going to end up, so why do they even care what the data shows? Why have a discussion with someone to whom the data is not relevant?

    I just finished reading this article by Brink Lindsey (I think for the second time, which I realized while I was reading it). Interesting last few paragraphs:

    “It is, of course, possible to argue for Libertopia on consequentialist grounds, as libertarians frequently do. But without the moral trump card of natural rights to undergird and reinforce them, those consequentialist arguments don’t pack much persuasive force.

    To be sure, the larger liberal intellectual tradition, including the modern social science of economics, provides powerful and persuasive support for stable property rights and competitive markets. There is a wealth of empirical evidence that shows relatively more market-oriented systems produce better results along many different margins than do more state-controlled economic systems. But radical libertarians are obligated to go beyond merely arguing for less regulation and lower levels of taxation and government spending; they must argue that a complete elimination of preventive regulation and tax-financed redistribution would improve welfare. But there is no convincing evidence for that proposition – first, because there are no real-world examples of such policies in modern times whose results can be evaluated and compared; and second, because there is plentiful evidence that government actions over and above protecting property rights can improve welfare relative to the laissez-faire status quo. Consequently, in the move from classical liberalism to radical libertarianism, the quality of consequentialist argument declines from the well-founded to the simplistic and dogmatic.

    I believe the best path forward for libertarians is to abandon radical libertarianism’s intellectual muddle altogether. Instead of spinning utopias, libertarians should focus instead on the humbler but more constructive task of making the world we actually inhabit a better place. Freed from their illusory fortress, libertarians will find that the rich intellectual tradition of liberalism affords them ample resources to participate in crafting answers.”

  10. robert capozzi


    It’s a bad idea to show an example that singles out an ethnic group. It positions you as a bigot, even if you are not one.

    On some level, I agree that the charity of accepting refugees should be voluntary. It’s not now. IF the ONLY problem with the current immigration regime was “refugees,” that would probably be apropos. For me, the big issue is, What is the direction we should go in terms of what circumstances should immigrants be allowed to come to America? Anything goes? No immigration? Or something in between?

    In between is my answer. Where that lands: Not sure exactly, in my case.

  11. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    July 18, 2018 at 13:45

    It’s a bad idea to show an example that singles out an ethnic group. It positions you as a bigot, even if you are not one.”

    It is called showing an example, and there is actually some value in pointing out statistical differences between different groups of immigrants. Would it not be fair to say that immigrant groups who are less likely to get on welfare are more desirable than immigrant groups who are more likely to end up on welfare?

    “What is the direction we should go in terms of what circumstances should immigrants be allowed to come to America? Anything goes? No immigration? Or something in between?

    In between is my answer. Where that lands: Not sure exactly, in my case.”

    I agree with you is that the answer is in between the two extremes.

    The libertarian dream of no government control over migration cannot be properly achieved unless the state were completely eliminated, and a private property anarcho-capitalist society emerged in its place. This is in the realm of far of fantasy land right now, and anyone who is intellectually honest knows this. Libertarians do not even control one local government, or even have one example of a libertarian enclave set up (beyond something like the weekly “tent cities” at the annual Porcfest in New Hampshire and the Jackalpe Freedom Festival in Arizona). So given this reality, how does anyone think that libertarians are in a position to privatize all land and eliminate the entire government at the federal/national, state, and local level in this country? Anyone who acts as though this possibility is on the table right now is not living in the real world.

    Reality is that we live in a country with a welfare state, forced association laws, and lots of taxpayer owned and funded property and infrastructure, and that we have a thing called elections. Who enters the country, and especially who become an American citizen, impacts all of these things.

    So given that the libertarian dream of private property owners being able to regulate migration across their own private property borders in a stateless society does not exist, what should the policy in place be in the here and now?

    Like I have suggested multiple times, the policy in place should not be one that attracts people who hold Marxist or theocratic ideologies, nor should it attract welfare seekers or criminal thugs, or people with communicable diseases. If any of these people sneak into the country anyway, they should not be rewarded with welfare or other taxpayer funded services (I would be willing to make an exception for emergency healthcare, followed by deportation), nor should they, or any offspring they have while here, be rewarded with American citizenship. The citizenship process should be made more difficult, and it shoudl require a thorough understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, as well as free market economics, and it should include a special emphasis on the right to keep and bear arms, which should include trips to a firing range. There should also be some sort of restriction against immigrants working as lobbyists for foreign governments. The volume of immigrants also should not be so great as to the point where it overwhelms and displaces the existing population.

    I believe that the policies I put forth are the best that can be done in lieu of a private property anarcho-capitalist society being established, and even if such a society were established, it would have to have a defense mechanism in place in order to remain an anarcho-capitalist society. That defense mechanism should of course be decentralized and/or voluntary.

  12. robert capozzi

    aj: It is called showing an example, and there is actually some value in pointing out statistical differences between different groups of immigrants.

    Me: Are there differences? And, if there are, is war-torn refugees factored into the analysis?

  13. robert capozzi


    Yep, communicating with any dogmatists, including NAPists, is virtually impossible.

    If I’m looking at the correct Cato study, this is what they measure:

    “Means-tested welfare programs are intended to aid the poor. For the purposes of this brief, they include Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (cash assistance), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). ”

    from: Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigrant and Native Use Rates and Benefit Levels for Means-Tested Welfare and Entitlement Programs
    By Alex Nowrasteh and Robert Orr
    May 10, 2018

  14. Anthony Dlugos


    That might be what I previously read. Its possible it was not even a Cato study.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *