Skip to comments.Ron PaulPots' MoveOn/GeorgeSoros Support!
Posted on 12/19/2007 9:36:41 PM PST by jodiluvshoes
Desperate to take support from wherever he can get it.
Some - well more like all of two readers have gotten a little cross-eyed over the fact that I dared to imply that George Soros/MoveOn forces were working covertly to assist the most Soros-like candidate on the GOP ticket.
The truth is some of the support has been covert, some of it rather obvious...
For instance one MoveOn group assisted in the funding and production of this television ad:
(Excerpt) Read more at kevinmccullough.townhall.com ...
Putting the military on the border is unconstitutional?
Article 1, Section 8:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
We are being invaded on a daily basis by illegals coming through our southern border.
Oh and note the first part about executing the "Laws of the Union"
And then there is Article VI Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
And before you try and use the Posse Comitatus Act, here is what it says:
"Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
A militia is not the same as the US Armed Forces. It is comprised of the people. You apparently do not think we have the wherewithal to protect our own borders with our own arms. If you’d check into Ron Paul you’d see he is quite strong when it comes to border control. But don’t let the facts bother you. Apparently history began the day you were born. Our enemies just woke up on 9/11 and decided to hate us and attack our interests at home.
“A militia is not the same as the US Armed Forces. It is comprised of the people. You apparently do not think we have the wherewithal to protect our own borders with our own arms. If youd check into Ron Paul youd see he is quite strong when it comes to border control. But dont let the facts bother you. Apparently history began the day you were born. Our enemies just woke up on 9/11 and decided to hate us and attack our interests at home.”
When the Constitution was written, the U.S. Armed Forces as they exist today, or 50 years ago, or even 100 years ago did not exist.
I have looked at the whitewashed BS that paul says about our security. I have also looked at his VOTING RECORD. It is YOUR little pet retard that doesn’t want to use troops on the border or as you say “protect our own borders with our own arms”
Now you mention facts. Here’s a little hint for you....Go look at your pet retard’s voting record. Go look up the comments he has said in the past and stop relying on the BS that his campaign is feeding you.
And what do YOU know of history? From reading your posts fester, I’d say you don’t have a damn clue.
Our enemies have been around a lot longer than 6 years.
And the reasons why the terrorists hate us goes back further than the 50 years your pet retard claims.
The muslims hate us because we stood up against them going as far back as the Barbary Pirates.
But oh what do I know of history? rolleyes
The muslims hate everyone who doesn’t bow down before them.
Maybe we’ll have a dawn over marblehead, and you’ll finally realize it for yourself.
I am not a decided Ron Paul supporter, but I would rather not have his record or ideas misrepresented by people who are overly emotional and ignorant. (Hint. Hint.)
The following represents Dr. Paul's stance on border control and immigration. He is not weak in this area as you would like to present him:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. Thats a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
“I don’t think you’ll find Ron Paul disagreeing with our use of force against the Barbary Pirates or against the Taliban. Since you’ve cheapened the level of discourse with your “pet retard” remarks I doubt you have the mental and emoitonal stability to rationally address the issues in the first place.”
Oh like YOU address the issues? ROFLMAO....Wow you’re funnier than david letterman.
“I am not a decided Ron Paul supporter”
Pardon me while I put my hip boots on.
“but I would rather not have his record or ideas misrepresented by people who are overly emotional and ignorant.”
As opposed to the lying and ignorant who support him?
His record is quite CLEAR, and it CONTRADICTS the whitewashed BS that he’s spoon feeding to people like you.
Time and time again he has voted AGAINST putting troops on the border even though he says that “We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country”
He says whatever it takes, yet he’s against troops on the border. In other words he lied since it’s obvious that he’s not willing to do “whatever it takes”.
There have been only six Democrats in our nation's history who have managed to capture a majority of the popular vote. It goes to show that Democrats are really not that popular.
Please state, based upon Ron Paul’s own words, his reason for not supporting the stationing US Armed Forces on our borders. So far you’ve merely indulged verbal bloviation, misstating Dr. Paul’s position and his reason for the same. Unless you can do this, one can only hope the hip boots have some effect in arresting your jerk knee.
Meanwhile I agree with you, that on the face of it, to say one will do “whatever it takes” while taking troops off the table is self-contradictory. I think the point is debatable; that troops on the border would be an effective means of curbing illegal border crossing. I would not consider it the only means.
“Please state, based upon Ron Pauls own words, his reason for not supporting the stationing US Armed Forces on our borders.”
That’s nice but he doesn’t issue a statement to explain every single one of his votes.
“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.”
There seem to have been several times this amendment was offered (also as the Goode Amendment), each time meeting rejection by Paul. What I don’t understand is, if these amendments passed anyway, why they were voted on so many times.
Since it seems inconsistent with border control to vote against these amendments, why would Dr. Paul vote against them? Were there other elements expanding governmental powers, sacrificing individual liberties and responsibilities, increasing the tax burden, etc. that ultimately, in Dr. Paul’s view, outweighed the benefits?
At any rate, to flat out say Dr. Paul is not interested in border security based on the records to which you refer is to misinterpret the evidence altogether.
“At any rate, to flat out say Dr. Paul is not interested in border security based on the records to which you refer is to misinterpret the evidence altogether.”
His voting record proves that he’s dishonest about doing “whatever it takes” to secure the border.
More than likely he voted against them because *GASP* it was also going to stop drugs from coming across the border, and we all know that he’s all for legalization of all drugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.