Thread: To the Ron Paul Campaign--Where do you Stand?

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Dude, c'mon - you are venturing onto demogoguery -- You are liking the border crossing to an invasion? In my eyes, I abhore illegal immigration, but its not an "invasion" - so stop with the dramatics...

BrightNail, just my two pesos ...

invasion: (Merriam Webster) 2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

In November 2006 the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security reported that federal law enforcement estimates 10 percent to 30 percent of illegal aliens are actually apprehended and 10 percent to 20 percent of drugs are seized. Therefore, in 2005, as many as 4 to 10 million illegal aliens crossed into the United States.

Indeed, in July of 2005, the U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 stated on their website that "There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure..."

Let me cite a number: 16.1 million. That is the number of U.S. armed forces personnel who served in World War II between Dec. 1, 1941, and Dec. 31, 1946.

If I was an enemy of the United States, and I knew of a way to bring my enemy the U.S. down without firing a shot, I would be very interested in this Plan.

Send four million (low estimate) over the border with the hope that 70 percent (high estimate) will successfully get through. Have them begin to drain soical services, crowd out the schools, flood and thus close hospital emergeny rooms, commit crimes, crowd the jails and strain police and emergency services. Start with a four-year plan ... and keep it going knowing my enemy will do little or nothing.

While it's true that Hollywood is part of my city of Los Angeles I don't feel I am being dramatic when I use the term invasion: I have been living through one for years -- and take my word for it, it's no movie.

I am so tired of this arguement about Ron Paul not putting troops on the border! He has voted against it because we don't have the troops available and because of the cost!! He would bring our troops home from Iraq, gradually (not all at once) and if they needed to be at the border, he would put them there! The below is from a recent interview with Paul on WorldNetDaily:

WND: Describe your perspective on the status of the U.S. border, security and the position of those who are in the United States illegally. What should the government's next step be?

Ron Paul: There they have a responsibility. We shouldn't be sending our border guards to Iraq to train border guards in Iraq. I mean that's pretty hard to understand. The people don't understand it. Of course, I'd be bringing troops home so we'd have personnel and we'd have funds to use to beef up our borders, and that's one way you can pay for it. Today you have no way of paying for anything because we're in horrendous debt. So, we should stop the inflow, but I emphasize in a strong manner the idea of removing the benefits, no amnesty and changing the law so it's very clear there's no birthright citizenship and making sure there are no federal mandates on the states for free services, no free medicine, no free education, no bilingualism where we have to pay more money to teach kids in Spanish to illegal aliens to having food stamps and getting on our Social Security. You've got to get rid of the incentives and I think the whole process would change. Right now, there's a much greater move on for the New World Order which incorporates the North American Union. I don't think our current leaders in either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party care about borders any more, and I would be emphatic. Although the law was not changed in 2005, our president agreed with Mexico and Canada that they would work in that direction, that they would have a North American Union and I would make it very clear that that's not my intent, and yet I would still want to be friends with our neighbors and trade with our neighbors and be peaceful and not get involved in their internal affairs. I certainly would change this whole attitude about the obliteration of our borders and working toward a North American Union.

Another Ron Paul quote dated April 4, 2006:

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

Another Ron Paul quote from August 9, 2005:

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

This doesn't sound to me like he doesn't want to secure the borders!!

[quote=BrightNail]

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Originally Posted by "girlygirl369":55kmp2ad

It sure is getting tiresome listening to people complain because Ron Paul is against our military on the border. For the 4th time today.......

OUR MILITARY IS FOR FOREIGN PURPOSES.........O N L Y.

DOMESTICATE (MEANING WITHIN THE U.S.) PROBLEMS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RON PAUL WAS VOTING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

I also checked H RES 365(2002) and HR 1885 (2001). People using these votes to discredit Paul, are really grasping at straws. Before accepting this info as gospel, check for yourself before passing this erroneous info on.

Foreign purposes only????

Boy, I don't understand that one?

I don't undestand that one either.

Ron Paul's belief that is unconstitutional for the United States military to defend this nation's border against an invasion is absurd.

Dude, c'mon - you are venturing onto demogoguery -- You are liking the border crossing to an invasion? In my eyes, I abhore illegal immigration, but its not an "invasion" - so stop with the dramatics... as I mentioned earlier, army and airforce national guard is completely within the jurisdiction. Also, there have been several quotes by Ron Paul that, not verbatim, ala "we need to get our troops home to secure our own borders" - this is in print.

I was told about Tancredo and NAFTA from another Ron Paul supporter. I will inquire with him to that claim. If he is baseless, I will prostrate myself and apologize -- internet representation of course.

If there is any demagoguery present in this thread or other threads about the use of the military on the border, it is coming from Ron Paul supporters.

Apparently, you don't consider millions of illegal aliens unlawfully invading this country to be an invasion. I do consider the illegal entry of millions of illegal aliens into this country to be an invasion.

Further, it was a Ron Paul supporter that made the point that it was the National Guard's constitutional duty to repel an invasion and not the constiutional duty of the United States military. That Ron Paul supporter. girlygirl369, is wrong. The U.S. military can constitutionally repel an invasion.

It is not necessary, though, for there to be an invasion in order for the United States military to lawfully and constitutionally be present on the United States borders. It is constitutional for the U.S. military to guard this nation's borders against the entry of illegal aliens.

You apparently believe it is unconstitutional for the U.S. military to protect this nation's borders from the entry of illegal aliens. Many Ron Paul supporters also believe that. Ron Paul supporters have posted that Ron Paul believes it is unconstitutional for the U.S. military to guard this nation's borders.

Ron Paul voted seven (7) times against using the U.S. military to assist the United States Border Patrol in guarding this nation's borders. On the June 25, 2007, edition of The Terry Anderson Show he once again refused to support the use of the U.S. military to guard the borders.

well, wait up... I am not saying I agree with his stance. I think that Ron Paul has a more laid out plan, to me. Now I WANT military on the border, others don't. I hate illegal immigration. But you have been known to pull bills out of the past (almost 20 years ago) and use that as a basis for things when certain parts of any particular bill might be in violation of the constitution.
To me Ron Paul is alot strong than Tancredo on Foreign policy, monetary considerations.. and I don't agree with pre-emptive strikes...

I put forward alot of your concerns to ron paul's followers and put these same questions to his campaign to answer.. so hopefully they will be address.

I agree, to me, there is a disconnect with the border being 'international', thus falling within federal jurisdiction.... To me that seems odd - so I do agree with you. BUT that is not to say that I think Ron Paul is soft on illegal immigration, on the contrary, he is very hard on it. It really depends on what you find important on the issue... if you think military on the border is huge, then Tancredo is stronger, if you think cutting all social and state services, then Ron Paul is your man...

Hopefully those others will get back to me.. because I am still trying to wrap my brain around the border being national or international etc...[/quote:55kmp2ad]

If you are claiming that Ron Paul "has a more laid out plan" to fight illegal immigration that Rep. Tancredo, I disagree. I don't believe that Rep. Paul has ever introduced legsilation that comprehensively addresses the problem of illegal immigration. Rep. Tancredo has on multiple occasions introduced legislation that comprehensively addresses the problem of both illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.

You state that I "have been known to pull bills out of the past (almost 20 years ago) and use that as a basis for things when certain parts of any particular bill might be in violation of the constitution." The descriptions of votes cast by Ron Paul on issues involving immigration andillegal immigration come from NumbersUSA, a highly respected organization in the immigration field. Unlike a certain Ron Paul supporter, I have always disclosed the source of any information I used as a basis for posts about Congressional bills.

I have never discussed any votes that were "almost 20 years ago". The oldest vote that I have posted about was in 1997.

If Ron Paul voted "yes" for a bill, Ron Paul supporters obviously can't justify his support for a bill on the basis of a portion of that bill being unconstitutional. Many of the votes about which I posted were "yes" votes by "Dr. No."

Ron Paul opposes the use of the U.S. military on the borders to stop the entry of illegal aliens into this country because he believes it is unconstitutional. He stated on The Terry Anderson Show that he opposes the federal government being in control of the National Guard. Ron Paul would leave the decision about whether members of the National Guard should be on the border to governors. I do not believe that the security of America's borders should be left to governors.

Originally Posted by CitizenBob

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Dude, c'mon - you are venturing onto demogoguery -- You are liking the border crossing to an invasion? In my eyes, I abhore illegal immigration, but its not an "invasion" - so stop with the dramatics...

BrightNail, just my two pesos ...

invasion: (Merriam Webster) 2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

In November 2006 the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security reported that federal law enforcement estimates 10 percent to 30 percent of illegal aliens are actually apprehended and 10 percent to 20 percent of drugs are seized. Therefore, in 2005, as many as 4 to 10 million illegal aliens crossed into the United States.

Indeed, in July of 2005, the U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 stated on their website that "There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure..."

Let me cite a number: 16.1 million. That is the number of U.S. armed forces personnel who served in World War II between Dec. 1, 1941, and Dec. 31, 1946.

If I was an enemy of the United States, and I knew of a way to bring my enemy the U.S. down without firing a shot, I would be very interested in this Plan.

Send four million (low estimate) over the border with the hope that 70 percent (high estimate) will successfully get through. Have them begin to drain soical services, crowd out the schools, flood and thus close hospital emergeny rooms, commit crimes, crowd the jails and strain police and emergency services. Start with a four-year plan ... and keep it going knowing my enemy will do little or nothing.

While it's true that Hollywood is part of my city of Los Angeles I don't feel I am being dramatic when I use the term invasion: I have been living through one for years -- and take my word for it, it's no movie.

I work in Hollywood. I know exactly how you feel. Perhaps you are right on this account. I am for Ron Paul, but I will hammer away at him (emailing his staff) and try to get some traction on why this isn't a federal matter at this point. But, to me, after reviewing the national guard sites and such.. to me, they 'are' the military to a great extent are fine considering we have about: 350,000 national guard troops.

though I just read that the 6000 troops that were there, have been reduced to 3000, because half went to Iraq.. Thanks George, what an azzzz.

Originally Posted by imblest

I am so tired of this arguement about Ron Paul not putting troops on the border! He has voted against it because we don't have the troops available and because of the cost!! He would bring our troops home from Iraq, gradually (not all at once) and if they needed to be at the border, he would put them there! The below is from a recent interview with Paul on WorldNetDaily:

WND: Describe your perspective on the status of the U.S. border, security and the position of those who are in the United States illegally. What should the government's next step be?

Ron Paul: There they have a responsibility. We shouldn't be sending our border guards to Iraq to train border guards in Iraq. I mean that's pretty hard to understand. The people don't understand it. Of course, I'd be bringing troops home so we'd have personnel and we'd have funds to use to beef up our borders, and that's one way you can pay for it. Today you have no way of paying for anything because we're in horrendous debt. So, we should stop the inflow, but I emphasize in a strong manner the idea of removing the benefits, no amnesty and changing the law so it's very clear there's no birthright citizenship and making sure there are no federal mandates on the states for free services, no free medicine, no free education, no bilingualism where we have to pay more money to teach kids in Spanish to illegal aliens to having food stamps and getting on our Social Security. You've got to get rid of the incentives and I think the whole process would change. Right now, there's a much greater move on for the New World Order which incorporates the North American Union. I don't think our current leaders in either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party care about borders any more, and I would be emphatic. Although the law was not changed in 2005, our president agreed with Mexico and Canada that they would work in that direction, that they would have a North American Union and I would make it very clear that that's not my intent, and yet I would still want to be friends with our neighbors and trade with our neighbors and be peaceful and not get involved in their internal affairs. I certainly would change this whole attitude about the obliteration of our borders and working toward a North American Union.

Another Ron Paul quote dated April 4, 2006:

[quote:192pp9vv]We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

Another Ron Paul quote from August 9, 2005:

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

This doesn't sound to me like he doesn't want to secure the borders!![/quote:192pp9vv]

yes.. I think one just needs to read a bit to find these nuggets. My only problem is that I want him, Ron Paul, to come out more about it in interviews --- but I think I just need to hear it from him more.

this is the air national guard: http://www.ang.af.mil/
this is the army national guard: http://www.arng.army.mil/default.aspx

To me, this is fine. We just need them down there in HUGE NUMBERS... This IS the military...

Originally Posted by MW

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't agree with this assessement. Obviously some of you folk have a lot more confidence in Hilliary than I do. She may look good now, but when the pimaries are over - it's a whole new ball game. Honestly, I don't believe Hildabeast will take one single red state from a Republican candidate. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Obama. I do believe he has the potential of taking a couple red states if he can get the African-American community out in force.

HRC is the worst possible candidate the Dems could nominate.

Right now any generic Democrat enters the race with a lead over his Republican opponent.

The only exception is Hillary Clinton.

Yes, she can win-if for no other reason than the fact that she commands the same support as Kerry and the GOP has made a hash of things-but she would be the Dem. Party's weakest candidate.

I didn't know much about PAUL until he was on the FOXNEWS REPUBLICAN
debate a few weeks ago and I have no interest in voting for PAUL personally ! I listened to the debate on XM RADIO not TV and I don't think PAUL is a REPUBLICAN from what I heard ! R.I.N.O. !

Originally Posted by KYGOLDWATER

I didn't know much about PAUL until he was on the FOXNEWS REPUBLICAN
debate a few weeks ago and I have no interest in voting for PAUL personally ! I listened to the debate on XM RADIO not TV and I don't think PAUL is a REPUBLICAN from what I heard ! R.I.N.O. !

hahahahaha... good one

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

Ron Paul voted 4 times against military on the border because IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

The MILITARY is for FOREIGN use only. DOMESTIC protection is by the NATIONAL GUARD (states militia).

There is too much misrepresentation of facts, i.e., above, being bandied about by those who favor another candidate over Ron Paul.

Ever hear of the "Bonus Marchers"?

Originally Posted by POTUS

Ever hear of the "Bonus Marchers"?

Led by Douglas MacArthur no less. Officer to the right with hand to face is Dwight Eisenhower.
The Army was called in as Washington DC is federal territory and does not have a "national guard."
What did in the Bonus Marchers was the infiltration of communist agitators -- who never wore a uniform in their lives.
As a veteran myself I know what a heartbreaking part of American history that was. Which begs the question: will we ever learn from history?