Ron IS Unreliable on National DefenseSubmitted by jabowery on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:53
Ron has now discredited every technique to secure the border against the ongoing invasion that is changing the character of the electorate.
Ron is strong on national defense when he says to bring our troops home.
But defending US territory from invasion is another matter.
I agree that a border fence is undesirable for a variety of reasons, including that it would be ineffective without massive deployment of boots on the ground which would render a fence largely moot. HOWEVER Ron's argument against the border fence -- that it could be used to "keep us in" -- can be used against any and every technique used to secure the border against the on-going invasion that is changing the character of the electorate.
Yes, I know that the other candidates are most likely lying when they talk about border security.
Yes, I know that Ron has made statements -- very strong statements -- in the past about securing the border.
But here's the problem:
Ron's muddle-headedness on the issue of border security, placed in the position of the President, would be a perpetuation of the on-going destruction of national security through massive and unprecedented changes in the very character of the electorate.
The US isn't exceptional in its right to a strong national defense. The US is exceptional only in the importance to the world of preserving it against the further destruction of its founding character. The world is filled with cultures in which the very idea of individual sovereignty is unthinkably alien. We live in a world where peoples who have no strong roots in the ideals of individual sovereignty, have become the highest growth rate in the electorate due to immigration -- legal and illegal. This "experiment" with the very core of the United States -- its People -- is not simply irresponsible. It is treason.
Ron is still, by far, the best candidate for President, but on this issue he is losing core support.
PS: Since all but a few of the responses demonstrate abysmal reading comprehension of the main point, stated in the very first sentence and reinforced repeatedly throughout, that the problem is not that Ron Paul opposes a fence but that his REASON for opposing a fence undercuts ALL techniques for securing the border, I perhaps should have used a different closing sentence. Yes, perhaps Ron is losing some "core" support from this. But more importantly, he is losing the support of intelligent leadership at a stage in his campaign where that support is the most critical. In 1991 I was credited during my testimony before Congress, by the sponsor of the legislation, with coordinating a successful national grassroots effort to privatize orbital launch services. In 1995 I was credited by a founder of the US fusion program with a legislative program to terminate the US fusion program and replace it with private risk capital. In 2008 I led the successful fight to put repeal of the 16th Amendment and demand for Constitutional Declarations of War into the Washington State GOP's platform during that State's GOP convention. I have been doing other things during this campaign that have required significant sacrifice on my part -- things that no one else was doing that needed to be done. This "mistake" by Ron Paul is causing me to significantly re-evaluate my support of his 2012 campaign.