Where Will Ron Paul's $1 Trillion Budget Cut Come From?

[TCassidy]

So, Mr. Constitution, Ron Paul would violate law and deploy troops within our borders?

I am sorry Mr. InTheLight It is not illegal to deploy US troops within our borders. As of January 2010, a total of 1,137,568 personnel were on active duty within the United States and its territories (including 84,461 Navy and Marines aboard ships). The vast majority, 941,629 of them, were stationed at various bases within the Contiguous United States. There were an additional 37,245 in Hawaii and 20,450 in Alaska. 84,461 were at sea, 2,972 in Guam, and 179 in Puerto Rico.

What the Posse Comitatus Act does is prohibit members of the military from enforcing civil law on non-federal property. The Border Exclusion Zone is a federal right of way that includes all US borders and the ADIZ (Air Defense Intercept Zone) includes shore line that terminates in international waters. The US military can and does enforce federal immigration laws in those zones. I have lived on the US/Mexico border for over 30 years and many of the members of our church were military personnel assigned to the International Border Task Force working with CBP to help secure the border.

 

[poncho]

The NDAA makes it legal under the color of law, (Marbury vs. Madison) for active military to detain and imprison American citizens on American soil without charge or trial. Posse Comitatus is just as dead as due process in the United States.

Besides the military has been training with state and local police and helping to police citizens in this country for years in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. If anyone questioned it they were called names like conspiracy theorists or unpatriotic.

InTheDark evidently doesn't read the news much or he'd know we already crossed the Rubicon. Ron Paul wouldn't use the military to police US citizens. Actually "US citizen" is a misnomer the United States is a corporation. To my knowledge one cannot be a citizen of a corporation. States have citizens corporations have share holders.

 

[Salty]

I am sorry Mr. InTheLight It is not illegal to deploy US troops within our borders. As of January 2010, a total of 1,137,568 personnel were on active duty within the United States and its territories (including 84,461 Navy and Marines aboard ships). The vast majority, 941,629 of them, were stationed at various bases within the Contiguous United States. There were an additional 37,245 in Hawaii and 20,450 in Alaska. 84,461 were at sea, 2,972 in Guam, and 179 in Puerto Rico.

T- of those 1.1 million troop STATIONED in the US - how many are DEPLOYED! Deployed has the connotation of moving out for battle.

Just curious - those military members you mentioned - were they National Guard? and did they preform actual border control or were they use for support?


and as always when someone comments on the military- I am always interested in your military experience.

 

[TCassidy]

T- of those 1.1 million troop STATIONED in the US - how many are DEPLOYED! Deployed has the connotation of moving out for battle.

I think of "deployed" meaning "in a position ready for use." As defenders CONUS they would have to be here in order to be read for use.

Just curious - those military members you mentioned - were they National Guard? and did they preform actual border control or were they use for support?

Some were Regular Army and some were National Guard. And they patrolled the border and worked with the CBP personnel in searches, seizures, and transportation of prisoners.

and as always when someone comments on the military- I am always interested in your military experience.

PM on the way.

 

[TCassidy]

T- of those 1.1 million troop STATIONED in the US - how many are DEPLOYED! Deployed has the connotation of moving out for battle.

Just curious - those military members you mentioned - were they National Guard? and did they preform actual border control or were they use for support?


and as always when someone comments on the military- I am always interested in your military experience.

I tried to PM you but got this notice:

Salty has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.

 

[NiteShift]

Using US troops to secure the borders would greatly increase our national security. Using US troops to secure ports of entry would greatly increase our national security"

And yet R. Paul has consistantly voted against any bills that included provisions to use troops at the border.

HR 4200 - Sec. 1077. Assignment of members to assist Bureau of Border Security and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Paul voted against.

H.R. 1588 - Sec. 1055 deals with assignment of members to assist Bureau of Border Security and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Paul votes against.


HR 1815 - The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 includes a large section devoted to border security. Provision 1035 authorizes the U.S. military to be deployed to the border. Paul voted against.

HR 4546 – Sec 374a Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control. Paul voted nay.

And there are others. I am sure he has perfectly logical reasons for opposing the bills, but he has no record of actually voting to authorize US troops at the border.

 

[poncho]

And yet R. Paul has consistantly voted against any bills that included provisions to use troops at the border.

HR 4200 - Sec. 1077. Assignment of members to assist Bureau of Border Security and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Paul voted against.

H.R. 1588 - Sec. 1055 deals with assignment of members to assist Bureau of Border Security and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Paul votes against.


HR 1815 - The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 includes a large section devoted to border security. Provision 1035 authorizes the U.S. military to be deployed to the border. Paul voted against.

HR 4546 – Sec 374a Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control. Paul voted nay.

And there are others. I am sure he has perfectly logical reasons for opposing the bills, but he has no record of actually voting to authorize US troops at the border.

Maybe he feels the states could do it better themselves. What's the National Guard for if not guarding our nation? Besides dern few in Washington want to see the borders actually secure. It gets in the way of their "deep integration" with Mexico and Canada.

That's an inference to the North American Union still being formed, Obama is to deep integration and security perimeter with Canada as Bush was to deep integration and security perimeter with Mexico.

No need for secure borders when there aren't any borders. Right? Why waste money on borders that are going to be phased out eventually when it could be better spent arming, funding, harboring and directing terrorist organizations to undermine and overthrow middleastern and African regimes?

Yeah I know the North American Union doesn't exist. The framework is there though, Just a matter of the lawyers wrangling it all out now.

 

[NiteShift]

Maybe he feels the states could do it better themselves. What's the National Guard for if not guarding our nation?

You mean everytime R. Paul talks about bringing US troops home to patrol the border he is actullay talking about the Texas National Guard? No that's not what he says.

And then he turns around and says "Guns and barbed wire are not the answer." Looks like another case of having it both ways.

 

[carpro]

And yet R. Paul has consistantly voted against any bills that included provisions to use troops at the border.

HR 4200 - Sec. 1077. Assignment of members to assist Bureau of Border Security and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Paul voted against.

H.R. 1588 - Sec. 1055 deals with assignment of members to assist Bureau of Border Security and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Paul votes against.


HR 1815 - The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 includes a large section devoted to border security. Provision 1035 authorizes the U.S. military to be deployed to the border. Paul voted against.

HR 4546 – Sec 374a Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control. Paul voted nay.

And there are others. I am sure he has perfectly logical reasons for opposing the bills, but he has no record of actually voting to authorize US troops at the border.

Just more hypocrisy from Mr. Paul.

 

[righteousdude2]

It will either come from...

...our pockets, or it is one more political fantasy that, should he be elected to POTUS, will be too much to deliver, and, like all other presidents, yhis fantasy will become one more fading campaign promise. :tear:

 

[NiteShift]

Just more hypocrisy from Mr. Paul.

It seems he's just another politician like all the others.