Thread: Ron Paul: U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil

U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil

by Ron Paul
October 22, 2001

The tragic events of the past month have forced both President Bush and Congress to reassess the priorities of our federal government. The obvious consensus is that we have to do a better job of protecting Americans against future acts of war here on our own soil. Indeed, the President has promised that his administration will use every available resource to fight the war on terrorism. Yet our most potent resource, the U.S. military, is spread far too thin around the world to adequately protect us from growing terrorist hostilities and the possibility of a full-scale war.

The sober reality is that on September 11th millions of foreigners abroad were better protected by American armed forces than were our own citizens at home. In fact, on that fateful morning we had tens of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars in weapons deployed worldwide- all standing by helplessly while our citizens were savagely attacked in New York and Washington. It is beyond frustrating to consider that there are literally dozens of places around the globe where an unauthorized commercial jet straying off course would have been confronted by American fighters, yet the New York skyline and even the Pentagon were left almost completely unprotected. The American people have a right to know, for example, why the Iraq-Kuwait border, the DMZ between North and South Korea, and the skies over Serbia were better defended that morning than our own cities, borders, and skies.

We must understand that U.S. troops currently are permanently or semi-permanently stationed in more than one hundred countries. As one prominent columnist recently noted, the 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet empire and the end of the Cold War have hardly been peaceful for the United States. Our armed forces have been engaged in dozens of conflicts, including Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo. We currently maintain active military commitments throughout the Middle East, Colombia and Central America, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, central Asia, and the Taiwan Strait. We undoubtedly are involved in more regional conflicts than any other time in our history; in fact, our present obligations make the east vs.west Cold War seem relatively manageable! Yet our military is only half the size it was during the Reagan era. This imbalance between our shrinking armed forces and our ever-growing military role in foreign disputes leaves our own borders woefully unprotected.

Examples of the ill effects of our misguided policies are not hard to find. Consider the Coast Guard, whose seemingly obvious mission is to secure America's coastlines. So why are Coast Guard vessels busy patrolling Mediterranean waters and the shoreline of Colombia? Similarly, why do we need the help of German NATO AWACS planes to patrol American skies when we have 33 of our own? Are all 33 being used overseas?

The simple solution is not huge increases in defense spending. The federal budget is not unlimited; taxpayers cannot be expected to pay infinite amounts of money for national defense. While non-defense spending certainly should be cut drastically, the most realistic approach is to reassign most of our troops currently overseas to stateside duty defending our borders.

Clearly our efforts in playing policeman to the world have failed to make us more secure. This does not mean that we are in any way responsible for the barbaric acts of Bin Laden or any other fanatical murders who hate the U.S. Yet we have no choice but to honestly assess the threats we now face here at home in the wake of these terrorist attacks. The most basic and important function of our government must be to provide national defense, and our overseas commitments directly interfere with the government's ability to defend you and your family.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst102201.htm

Thanks for sharing.

As American citizens, it is our DUTY to put Ron Paul into office. Seriously, this guy is the SOLITARY VOICE OF REASON AND COMMON SENSE amongst the entire battery of 08 candidates.

Let's get on it folks. Forget that Republican/Democrat nonsense. They couldn't care LESS about you, your family, your future, or your the future of this country. They're ALL millionaires. They're ALL silver spoon babies. There isn't a SINGLE candidate who's even remotely in touch with what America needs except Ron Paul, who clearly isn't just "occasionally" in touch, he GETS IT.

For the sake of our future, for the sake of your children and generations to come, drop your party affiliations and vote for Ron Paul. Our lives depend on it.

I admit I have not researched him thoroughly, but I do like what I hear.

What I don't hear is what he would do about the illegals who are here.

Would he deport them?
or
Would he punish the employers, thereby drying up their jobs?

What about limiting their access to freebies - say to just emergencies?

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I admit I have not researched him thoroughly, but I do like what I hear.

What I don't hear is what he would do about the illegals who are here.

Would he deport them?
or
Would he punish the employers, thereby drying up their jobs?

What about limiting their access to freebies - say to just emergencies?

I too am in the process of learning the details of all the current candidates and getting to the finer details of their positions. I don't necessarily know what he would do about current illegals and that is a very good question.
I believe I heard him indicating in a previous interview that he wants the laws on the books enforced and that he acknowledged that employers who hire illegals are at the core of the issue.

I'll be happy to share the "immigration relevant" info I find out on Ron Paul here just as soon as I have MY head wrapped around it. (by the way, that "how hard is it to wrap you head around that" comment I made earlier wasn't meant to offend, it was just for emphasis. I use it often, sorry if offended, it definitely wasn't meant to).

Peace and Patriotism to all!

Oh, goodness, no offense taken. I use that phrase also -

If he wants to go after the employers, and really go after them, he may just be my man.

It has always been my contention that the employers are the pivot point. They are the ones providing the magnet to get them here, and paying the politicians to keep them here.

If employers are made to see that breaking the law is painful, the illegals will look a lot less attractive. Without jobs, most of them will go home on their own.

They come for the jobs and the freebies. They might stay without the freebies, but most won't stay without the jobs. I would like to see both dry up for them.

HarmFamily wrote:

There isn't a SINGLE candidate who's even remotely in touch with what America needs except Ron Paul, who clearly isn't just "occasionally" in touch, he GETS IT.

I disagree. IMHO, there are two other candidates that "GET IT" too and are probably better suited to be President of the United States.

The proof that Ron Paul does not want our active duty military forces on the border has been well documented, yet some folks seem to completely ignore that fact. Once again, for those that may have a hard time digesting the facts as presented, here you go:

Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005

Rep. Paul voted against the H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 245-184.

Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004

Rep. Paul voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.

Voted against using the military to assist in border control functions in 2003

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588, to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.

Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control efforts in 2002

Rep. Paul voted against H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 232-183.

Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.

Rep. Paul voted not to enforce the border by voting AGAINST the Traficant amendment to HR 2586. This amendment authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 173, but this measure was never considered by the Senate.

Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST enforcing the border by opposing the Traficant amendment to H.R.4205. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.

Voted against authorizing the use of troops on the border in 1999

Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.

Here's a few other goodies for you:

[quote]
Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005

Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. Specifically, it mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border. As well, it includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.

Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003

Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.

Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) program in 1997

Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Paul declined. The Section 245(i) program dealt with certain illegal aliens who were on lists that could qualify them eventually for legal residency. It provided them a loophole in which they could pay a fee and avoid a 1996 law’s provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant. The controversial experimental program was supposed to “sunsetâ€

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I admit I have not researched him thoroughly, but I do like what I hear.

What I don't hear is what he would do about the illegals who are here.

Would he deport them?
or
Would he punish the employers, thereby drying up their jobs?

What about limiting their access to freebies - say to just emergencies?

nntrixie, good questions! I think you'll find what you're looking for here--

Immigration Reform in 2006?

by Ron Paul
September 11, 2006

With the November elections looming, politics is taking priority over sensible policy. It appears congressional leaders have no intention of addressing the issue of illegal immigration this year, preferring not to tackle such a thorny problem for fear of angering voters one way or another.

But this is a mistake. The American people want something done about illegal immigration now-- not next year. All sides in the immigration debate agree that the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,â€

MW: Thanks for sharing. Frankly, if Tancredo weren't a draft dodger I'd be able to get behind him as he speaks loudly to a few issues that I allign with...immigration and states' rights to name a few.

I don't think any of the candidates are perfect. I suspect if I were to take those votes you pointed out, based on Ron Paul's spoken stance on illegal immigration, I suspect he may have voted against those for reasons other than their stated substance (i.e. what other pork and byproduct was rolled into those agendas?). He also stands firmly on the belief that we don't need NEW legislation, and believes that the administration should enforce the laws we already have. Either could be a reason for voting against those particular issues. Contextually you've only provided conclusions and not the issues surrounding those conclusions.

I'm sure Ron Paul isn't perfect, but imho he's significantly more alligned with my own beliefs as a whole than any other candidate in the race.

Again, thanks for sharing. I stand by my choice currently. That may change as information comes to light, but for now, Ron Paul gets it, and will get my vote in 08.

HarmFamily wrote:

MW: Thanks for sharing. Frankly, if Tancredo weren't a draft dodger I'd be able to get behind him as he speaks loudly to a few issues that I allign with

As a 48 year old military retiree, I share your concerns regarding Tancredo's convienient bout of depression. Furthermore, I'm also bothered by his failure to live up to his term-limit commitment to the citizens of Colorado. Like you said though, none of the candidates are perfect. However, in my opinion Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is pretty darn close!

Originally Posted by MW

HarmFamily wrote:

MW: Thanks for sharing. Frankly, if Tancredo weren't a draft dodger I'd be able to get behind him as he speaks loudly to a few issues that I allign with

As a 48 year old military retiree, I share your concerns regarding Tancredo's convienient bout of depression. Furthermore, I'm also bothered by his failure to live up to his term-limit commitment to the citizens of Colorado. Like you said though, none of the candidates are perfect. However, in my opinion Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is pretty darn close!

Yep, they all have their faults, and as much as it is trying to pick a candidate who shares our convictions and beliefts, it's trying to pick a candidate who's pitfalls and shortcomings we can live with, always a daunting task. We're electing human beings, and I always try to keep that in mind...we all have faults....*all* of us.

I'm going to do some more looking into Mr. Hunter. Have any concise info regarding his platform you'd like to share? Always up for more info!

Thanks,
HF