"Libertarian" Tucker Carlson complicit in call for martial law on the border

[jmdrake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-oHzwg_7y0

Right. Because what we really need to save freedom in the United States is to further erode freedom in the United States.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjnnNjJgugY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywlVtofH3hU

[Grandmastersexsay]

What delusional person ever referred to tucker as a libertarian? He doesn't even call himself one.

[Superfluous Man]

What delusional person ever referred to tucker as a libertarian? He doesn't even call himself one.

I think he used to call himself one. And he supported Ron Paul in all his presidential runs, including when he ran with the LP in '88.

That said, I think even then Tucker was an immigration restrictionist. I think he's become more of one since then though, and in recent years has also been inconsistent on the drug war.

Others who have called themselves libertarians include Sean Hannity and Bill Maher. For all his faults, Tucker has more of a right to the label than they do.

[Danke]

Tucker Carlson is "complicit" because of what one of his guest said about the border?

[Brian4Liberty]

"Libertarian" Tucker Carlson complicit in call for martial law on the border

Apparently you don’t want to be taken seriously if you are going to spin that segment that far from what it was about. Tucker’s show is all about hyperbole, but I think you trumped him with that.

What was in the segment? Mostly talk about how many US forces are deployed around the worl, and how they could be used to secure the border. This is what Tucker talked about, and Ron Paul has also taken this position.

The guest on the show said one time that there should be “martial law” on the border, but Tucker never even commented on that. It was extraneous to the entire conversation, and Tucker probably didn’t want to go off on a tangent.

[enhanced_deficit]

There is no risk of any 'martial law' there .. especially as long as social liberal Sheldon Adelson is MAGA's top funder. Let's remember Tucker, Coulter were banned from MAGA managed CPAC 2019, one more slip and they could be put by MAGA in same bucket of banishment as Steve Bannon.
At this point, there are many more signs of a 'martial kitchen' at the border than any 'martial law'.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_f1v0QjXFH0/T2jq1qWnNlI/AAAAAAAAB-I/KbmO-F1NVgI/s1600/army-cooks.jpg


Pentagon sending 100s of cooks to border to cook food for migrants (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533876-Pentagon-sending-100s-of-cooks-to-border-to-cook-food-for-migrants&)

Apr 26, 2019
The Pentagon plans to send about 300 more U.S. active-duty troops to the border as cooks and drivers, some of whom will come into contact with migrants as they hand out food to migrants as part of the mission to help U.S. Customs and Border Protection deal with the large number of migrants arriving at the southern border.



To give credit where due, MAGA is delivering on his 'big heart' policy promise.

[jmdrake]

Tucker Carlson is "complicit" because of what one of his guest said about the border?

Tucker is complicit because he didn't come back and say "Well I don't agree with that."

[jmdrake]

Apparently you don’t want to be taken seriously if you are going to spin that segment that far from what it was about. Tucker’s show is all about hyperbole, but I think you trumped him with that.

What was in the segment? Mostly talk about how many US forces are deployed around the worl, and how they could be used to secure the border. This is what Tucker talked about, and Ron Paul has also taken this position.

The guest on the show said one time that there should be “martial law” on the border, but Tucker never even commented on that. It was extraneous to the entire conversation, and Tucker probably didn’t want to go off on a tangent.

If blinding myself to the truth is what I need to be taken seriously by you then I don't need to be taken seriously by you. Yes, Tucker didn't comment on that. That is what is meant by being complicit! I didn't say Tucker advocated martial law, but he did not challenge a guest who advocated for martial law. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/edmund_burke_377528

If Tucker had a guest on that said "In order to save this country we need to send Jews to the gas chamber" and he didn't challenge his guest's position everyone (sane anyway) would see that as being complicit. I'm sure if Tucker had a guest on that said "To save this country we must impeach Trump" he wouldn't just let that slide.

[Brian4Liberty]

Tucker is complicit because he didn't come back and say "Well I don't agree with that."

Ok. So your rule is that every host is responsible for what others say on the show unless they immediately disavow what they said? That would make shows very hard to produce.

[jmdrake]

Ok. So your rule is that every host is responsible for what others say on the show unless they immediately disavow what they said? That would make shows very hard to produce.

:rolleyes: There was only one thing the guest said that Tucker possibly could disagree with which was martial law. Seriously dude, you can come up with a better argument than that.

Edit: Note that Tucker had already explicitly endorsed troops on the U.S. southern border before the guest came on. All he had to say was "While I agree with troops on the border, I don't think that necessitates martial law." That's it. Not hard.

[Superfluous Man]

Tucker is complicit because he didn't come back and say "Well I don't agree with that."

He didn't just refrain from disagreeing with it. The whole tenor of the segment was him cheering on what the guest was saying. I don't know if Danke asked his question before actually watching it or what.

[jmdrake]

He didn't just refrain from disagreeing with it. The whole tenor of the segment was him cheering on what the guest was saying. I don't know if Danke asked his question before actually watching it or what.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Superfluous Man again.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul supports Martial Law?

Oh dear...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlm0Ae9UYXE

[Anti Federalist]

Oh my...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p77XVmyNYLk

[Anti Federalist]

Oh heavens to Betsy...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK8UOs8mXs8

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul supports Martial Law?

Oh dear...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlm0Ae9UYXE

1) Did you stop listening to Ron Paul post 2016?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4YxREQBXNQ&t=12s

2) The military can be used to secure the border without martial law. For example using U.S. troops to help Mexico secure its southern border.

3) Why are you against my saying that Tucker should have said to his guest "I'm for troops on the border, but I'm against martial law?"

Seriously dude, I never said that troops on the border must mean martial law. But Tucker's guest specifically endorsed martial law and Tucker didn't call him out on it. I think he should have. I would hope if you had been Tucker you would have.

[kona]

I've never seen Tucker refer to himself as a libertarian, not now, not when he voted for Ron. In fact, I've seen him say quite often he's NOT a libertarian, and often makes fun of them.

[jmdrake]

Oh heavens to Betsy...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK8UOs8mXs8

Here is Ron Paul in 2018 explicitly saying he's against the militarization of the border. See at 16:15.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTbEszeLh88

We don't need a police state to fight illegal immigration according to Dr. Paul.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0pH-Ac6-No

[jmdrake]

What delusional person ever referred to tucker as a libertarian? He doesn't even call himself one.


I've never seen Tucker refer to himself as a libertarian, not now, not when he voted for Ron. In fact, I've seen him say quite often he's NOT a libertarian, and often makes fun of them.

Okay. How about just pro freedom? Is allowing a guest a pass on openly calling for martial law inside the U.S. a pro freedom stance? Yes or no?

[oyarde]

I've never seen Tucker refer to himself as a libertarian, not now, not when he voted for Ron. In fact, I've seen him say quite often he's NOT a libertarian, and often makes fun of them.

Hannity used to say he was a registered conservative which I think is an actual party in new york . I have never heard any of them claim to be libertarians . Martial law is and has been in force at the border longer than most posters here have been alive . The border Patrol is the sole authority . Formed in 1924 . his is nonsense but I am glad when JMDrake is here anyway.

[oyarde]

If anyone is complicit it is the american people . Most of whom do not want open borders as they see no benefit to them .

[Anti Federalist]

Here is Ron Paul in 2018 explicitly saying he's against the militarization of the border.

Ok, good, so honest people with strong convictions and principles can change their minds.

I've changed mine about this issue from where I was a few years ago...it is an invasion and must be dealt with in that manner.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Tucker Carlson isn't a libertarian. That's why he's effective. Well, one of the reasons. He's explicitly apologized for his libertarian phase in multiple talks.

[Stratovarious]

Tucker Carlson complicit in call for martial law on the border

You make it sound like a crime, is it a crime to not argue with a guest.

We aren't far from needing Martial Law at the border, Nancy Pelosi et al has set this up, ripe for it.

[nobody's_hero]

Tucker is complicit because he didn't come back and say "Well I don't agree with that."

Great, a fk'ing SJW soyboy tactic.

How about no.

"If you don't spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week personally denouncing all the stupid sh1t in the world, you automatically agree with it"

. . . .GTFO with that nonsense. Not everyone wants to play a king-of-the-hill version of who-can-be-the-most-indignant. That's what liberals who intend to live on college campuses their whole lives do. Definitely the liberal media expects you to apologize and denounce everything, and the thing is, even if you did, it would never be enough to please the fk'ers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz45J5bLxug

[TheCount]

"If you don't spend 25 hours a day, 8 days a week personally denouncing all the stupid sh1t in the world, you automatically agree with it"

What the hell does that have to do with him inviting a guest onto his "news" show, thereby giving him a global platform to say "all the stupid sh1t in the world," and then giving him a complete softball on it? Hell, he opened the segment by talking up how the military is "improving the lives of foreigners, a lot of foreigners, in a lot of different places."

If Tucker Carlson can't be expected to weigh in on Tucker Carlson's show, why is Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson's show?

[nobody's_hero]

What the hell does that have to do with him inviting a guest onto his "news" show, thereby giving him a global platform to say "all the stupid sh1t in the world," and then giving him a complete softball on it? Hell, he opened the segment by talking up how the military is "improving the lives of foreigners, a lot of foreigners, in a lot of different places."

If Tucker Carlson can't be expected to weigh in on Tucker Carlson's show, why is Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson's show?

Not-denouncing does not equal endorsement.

If I hadn't replied to you, does that mean I automatically agree with your comment? Is that how opinions work? Damn I better make sure I'm on here all the time to fire back at your comments, because there's a lot of stuff you say that I disagree with.

[oyarde]

Why is martial law at the border now disturbing to people ? The 100 year anniv is coming up . They no longer even wear the 75 yr anniv medal on the dress uniform .

[RJB]

Not-denouncing does not equal endorsement.

If I hadn't replied to you, does that mean I automatically agree with your comment? Is that how opinions work? Damn I better make sure I'm on here all the time to fire back at your comments, because there's a lot of stuff you say that I disagree with.

Neg rep. You didn't denounce The Count with strong enough language.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think he used to call himself one. And he supported Ron Paul in all his presidential runs, including when he ran with the LP in '88.

That said, I think even then Tucker was an immigration restrictionist. I think he's become more of one since then though, and in recent years has also been inconsistent on the drug war.

Others who have called themselves libertarians include Sean Hannity and Bill Maher. For all his faults, Tucker has more of a right to the label than they do.
The “Strippers for Paul” bit was a little disingenuous and cheap. FWIW.

[DamianTV]

This is Nazi America. Victims shall not be allowed to make any effort to defend themselves against the rightful abusers.

/s

[Swordsmyth]

I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22342301/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-dec/#.XKK-FFVKjcs)

[Danke]

The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.


US Military is allowed as authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress
This is from Carlton Meyer’s new book: The Spectrum of Future Warfare.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.g2mil.com/border.htm)
Myth #1 The US Constitution prohibits posting US troops on the border.
The US Constitution says no such thing. In fact, Article IV states:
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.
So the US Constitution clearly requires the federal government to protect states from invasion. Almost a million aliens illegally pouring across the border into states each year is clearly an invasion.
Myth #2 The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits US troops from guarding US borders.
This 1878 act was enacted to prevent Union troops from continuing to enforce federal laws in the defeated South after the American Civil war. Here is the text as modified by Congress in recent years:
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.
Guarding US borders from foreign invasion is not “law enforcement.”
The US Army exists to defend the US from foreign invasion, which is expressly authorized by the US Constitution. Guarding the Mexican border was the Army’s primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol wasn’t even formed until 1924, so claiming the intent of this law was to prevent US Army troops from guarding the border is absurd. The map at left shows US Army forts in Texas in the late 1880s when the entire US Army had fewer than 40,000 soldiers; it has 500,000 today. Clearly, defending the US border was a primary mission of the US Army for decades after this act was passed.
Some may argue that Chapter 18, Section 375 (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/375.html) of Title 10 US Code prevents military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement. However, defending US borders from foreign invaders is not law enforcement, it’s the basic purpose of the US military. While defending these United States from invasion, civilian law enforcement may be called upon to assist the US military. Does anyone believe the Border Patrol must operate fighter aircraft because the US Air Force can’t intercept aircraft crossing into the US because that’s “law enforcement”?
When you read about proposals in Congress to put US troops on the border, those are not proposals to allow US troops on the border, but proposals to force the President to put troops back on the border. However, recent Presidents have listened to their corporate advisors and their slogans and ignored the threat of unsecured US borders.
Myth #3 The National Guard should guard the border, not active duty troops.
The National Guard is an organized militia to deal with state and national emergencies. Guarding the US border is a full-time mission that the federal government is required to perform by Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution. The few states along the border shouldn’t be expected to defend the entire country from invasion. This myth is also spread by imperial minded Generals (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Commentary/barnes.htm) who prefer to rule an empire overseas than to defend their own citizens. Whenever citizens demand the Army protect their nation, Generals dodge this issue by stating that it may be a mission for the National Guard, so as not to waste resources of the US Army.
This is absurd; the primary mission of the US Army is to protect US citizens, and the US Constitution requires the federal government to protect states from invasion.
If there is a major war and the Army would like to deploy its border troops overseas, then National Guard troops from any state can be mobilized to guard the border until the war ends.

Myth #4 The US Army hasn’t the resources for border troops.

The active duty army has 500,000 full-time troops supported by over 300,000 civilians. The Border Patrol has 9700 agents. Certainly, the Army can form a infantry division of 10,000 troops to actually defend the USA, or Congress can authorize more troops. This G2mil article: Cut Surplus Army Units (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.g2mil.com/armycut.htm) identifies more than 10,000 unneeded positions in the US Army that can be cut to form an infantry division. There are several US military bases along the border that can host an infantry battalion for border security: NAS Whidbey Island, WA; Minot AFB, SD; Selfridge ARNG base, MI; Fort Drum, NY; Laughlin AFB, TX; Fort Bliss, TX; Fort Huachuca, AZ, Yuma Proving Grounds, AZ; and NAS El Centro, CA; plus several military facilities in the San Diego area. Some Army officers may express concern that border duty will hurt readiness for Army missions overseas. They don’t understand that defending the USA is their primary mission!

Myth #5 Soldiers aren’t trained for such missions
Soldiers are ideally trained to guard remote areas of the border. All they need are a few days of orientation training and to learn some Spanish or French phrases they can shout into a bullhorn: “Stop, you cannot enter the United States here, go back!” They will not process arrestees, fill out paperwork, search houses, run checkpoints, appear in court, or conduct investigations. They will just confront people who they directly view invading the USA. They will insist that foreign intruders turn back or face arrest by the Border Patrol.
This will prevent odd incidents like in 1997 when a marine on drug war duty near the border shot a local goat herder who had fired in his direction. Some suspect this young man was paid by drug dealers to provoke an incident in hopes of getting the marines removed. He succeeded, but didn’t expect to die. The marines were there because the President had authorized their use after Army Generals refused. The Marine shooter was there on temporary duty and did not view the goat herder entering the USA illegally. The establishment of orientation training and strict rules of engagement can ensure that US troops have no contact with US citizens.

Myth #6 Illegal immigration cannot be stopped
Of course it can. There is no illegal immigration from North to South Korea because that border is heavily guarded. Perhaps some of the 20,000 US troops there can transfer to the US border. Guarding the border will not stop the hundreds of thousands of visitors who overstay their visas in the USA, but at least they were checked and inspected prior to arrival. The Border Patrol estimates that 700,000 unknown persons slipped past them last year, cutting that to 7000 a year is not unrealistic. Some claim that illegals will just find another way to cross. However, most illegals cannot obtain a visa or shopping pass because they haven’t an address and job.

The Border Patrol Needs Help
While the corporate media keeps Americans confused with slogans, it rarely reports on the problems of illegal immigration, except for Bill O’Reily and Lou Dobbs. As a result, few Americans know that most of the US border is not guarded and vehicles routinely drive across. In May 2002, the US Immigration and Naturalization Service was required to pay back wages and cancel suspension and demotion orders for two Border Patrol agents who told a newspaper about security problems along the US-Canadian border. The agents, assigned to the INS field office in Detroit, were recommended for discipline after they told the Detroit Free Press that Michigan’s border lacked the resources to adequately protect the country from terrorists. Agents Mark Hall and Robert Lindemann said the 804 miles of shoreline border were guarded by 28 field agents, one working in a boat, several damaged electronic sensors and one broken remote camera. Keep in mind that these 28 field agents must cover that804 miles of border 24 hours a day, seven days a week, plus days off for vacation or illness. So there are only about six on duty at any given time, or three teams of two. Then when a team catches someone, they must transport and book him, so they’re gone for hours.

Another major problem is that guarding remote areas of the border is a tough mission, which is not compatible with the unionized Border Patrol. They prefer to work 8-hour shifts and their union contract requires the government to provide them with proper meals and lodging when away from home. Since it can take hours to reach remote areas from the nearest Border Patrol station, it’s not practical to guard vast areas of the border. As a result, agents set up roadblocks or cruise around roadways rounding up who they can. This is much more interesting than standing a post along the border all day. However, the effort becomes pointless as it requires hours for the Border Patrol to process each arrested alien, who is then released on the other side of the border and walks back across for another try. In some urban sectors, the Border Patrol has focused on deterrence by placing most agents right on the border to stand guard. However, this becomes boring, which accounts for the high turnover rate among Border Patrol agents.

Another reason much of the border is not patrolled is that it’s too dangerous. In 2002, six Mexican Army Hummers were two miles inside US territory when Mexican soldiers fired over 150 rounds from vehicle-mounted machine guns, and a dozen MK-19 40mm grenade rounds, at two US Border Patrol agents investigating narcotics trafficking in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife refuge north of Sasebe, Arizona. It is well known that some of the Mexican Army is involved in drug smuggling and Mexican troops are frequently encountered on the US side of the border in remote areas; see the great movie “Traffic” with Michael Douglas. In 2002, a US Park Ranger was killed when drug smugglers sprayed him with bullets from an AK-47, which struck him just below his bulletproof vest. With rogue Mexican army troops chasing off Border Patrol agents, Park Rangers wearing bulletproof vests, and thousands of recently deported criminal aliens walking back across, isn’t it time for the US Army to return to the border?

Two-term Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, in a January 2006 letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said reports of Mexican military units providing armed escorts to drug and alien smuggling operations represent “narco-terrorism in its purest form. Our borders are under attack by sophisticated organizations that have no qualms about firing on our Border Patrol units. As we get tougher and more committed, so do the organizations committed to smuggling death and terror across our borders.” Mr. Renzi said that during a tour of the Arizona border last month in a US Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) helicopter, the pilot showed him military-style Humvees lining up at dusk just south of the border to move drugs into the USA. He said the preparations occur nightly, noting that 50 percent of the drugs coming into this country pass though the Arizona desert.
Border Patrol agents are so busy rounding up aliens that they haven’t the time, equipment, nor motivation to conduct dangerous squad-size combat patrols into the wilderness. Most Border Patrol agents are hard working and dedicated, but the US Army is better organized for conducting combat patrols and continual surveillance along remote areas of the border. Once the Army sends squads to watch remote areas of the border, Army Generals will be shocked at the number of firefights that break out. Armed smugglers have used routes through remote areas for decades and will be surprised to encounter soldiers who are undeterred by their AK-47s.

The Army will only guard rural border areas and only detain people they observe crossing illegally until Border Patrol agents arrive. This will allow the Border Patrol to focus on running checkpoints, guarding urban areas, and processing arrestees. This is no small task considering the Border Patrol has made over four million arrests since the 9-11 terror attacks, including thousands of Arabs.

Squads of soldiers can deploy to the field for days at a time. A pattern of 72 hours in the field, 72 hours off duty, then 72 hours in garrison for admin and training will work great. This allows an infantry battalion with four line companies to rotate three of them so one is always guarding the border. Each company will go “off line” three months a year for leave, and some traditional infantry training to break up the routine. Since soldiers are transferred every three or four years, they will not face the boring prospect of watching the border for 30 years like Border Patrol agents.
Each border infantry battalion should be supported by a helicopter detachment for emergency medivacs and to move a reaction squad to where shooting has broken out. Some areas may be so remote that helicopters will be needed to rotate squads every three days. However, in most cases troops will be deployed to screen the flanks of border crossings to thwart the common game of just walking around a checkpoint and meeting up with their driver down the road. Squads are likely to rotate to different posts each month to keep border duty interesting.
This will provide great training for soldiers. Unlike canned peacetime exercises, the border is real and unpredictable. Border troops will become experts in map reading, surveillance, field living, and stealthy movement. Their goal will not be to arrest aliens, but to confront aliens near the border and turn them back. Anyone who is suspicious or uncooperative can be detained for the Border Patrol. Soldiers will enjoy the mission of actually protecting the USA, and probably engage in a few shoot outs during their border tour of duty. The first year of border duty will be especially chaotic as soldiers regain control of the wild frontier. Eventually, word will spread that crossing the US border is very difficult and problem will subside.

Rules of Engagement
Four rules of engagement can ensure that soldiers do not clash with innocent US citizens:
1) Soldiers will not enter private property without permission of the landowner.
The Border Patrol is legally allowed to enter private property along the border without permission. Most landowners are happy that someone is protecting their property. However, a few will protest if US troops camp out on their land, and radical groups will sue claiming 3rd Amendment rights are violated. So its best to leave those few alone and let the Border Patrol deal with each issue. There have been cases where smugglers purchased US property on the border to help their operations, so they’d object to US troops. Since a quarter of the land along the Mexican border is already federal property, US troops can stay busy just guarding federal lands. Patrolling American parks along the border has become so dangerous (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.azstarnet.com/border/20908PERILOUS-FEDSKNEWD.html) that park rangers are twice more likely to suffer injuries from an assault than DEA agents overseas.

2) Soldiers will only conduct surveillance on Mexico, Canada, or international waters to detect persons entering the USA illegally. They will not conduct intelligence missions at targets within the USA, even at the request of law enforcement agencies.

Many law enforcement agencies work along the border and may ask soldiers to keep an eye on a certain house or building or person they are investigating on the US side of the border. This may seem harmless, but it’s not a role for soldiers. If soldiers see a crime in progress, they should report that immediately and intervene if lives are at stake, but they must not become involved in law enforcement investigations or domestic surveillance.

3) Soldiers will only confront or detain persons who they directly observe entering the USA illegally. They will not confront or detain persons who they suspect have crossed the border illegally.

This will eliminate accidental confrontations between local citizens, unless a US citizen knowingly breaks the law by attempting to enter the US illegally, which is probably because he is involved in other illegal activities. Sometimes soldiers will spot a suspicious group of people on the US side who they didn’t observe crossing the border. They may be 99% certain this group slipped across the border, but they cannot be certain, so all they can do is to radio the information to the Border Patrol. This restriction will ensure soldiers have no contact with local citizens while on duty, except with property owners along the border who have given permission to guard their land.

4) Soldiers will not directly assist other government agencies along the border on a routine basis.
Some Army officers and government officials may decide that Army manpower can help guard the border by assisting other agencies. For example, helping search cars and trucks, guarding prisoners, or assisting in raids. However, this is not a role for the Army or soldiers. There will be occasional emergencies or natural disasters where soldiers help out like they do near all Army bases. However, soldiers should not be used as a federal manpower pool.
Army Transformation
While the Army bureaucracy churns out paperwork about “transformation” the greatest need is for the Army to defend the US border. While Americans were shocked when 3000 citizens were killed by the 9-11 terror attacks, more Americans have been killed by illegal aliens over the years. While they may not be more violent than US citizens, if they cannot cross the border they cannot harm Americans. Most people who illegally cross the border are desperate and they will do whatever it takes to survive. That may require fake IDs, identify theft, shoplifting, robbery, or the transport and sale of narcotics.
As the US tracks international terrorists, restricts visas from certain countries, and tightens port security, future terrorists are more likely to just walk across the unguarded border. While some people worry about China’s military, they should worry about the thousands of former Chinese soldiers that slip across the border each year. Placing troops on the border will require orders from the US President, yet it is doubtful that Army Generals have made proposals. In contrast, Generals continue to spread the myths described in this article. The United States has the only army on Earth that thinks defending its nation from invasion is not their role. It is time for the US Army to transform and assign 2% of its manpower to its basic mission of defending the USA from invasion.

Most Dangerous National Parks –

On June 28, the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police released its third annual survey of the 10 Most Dangerous National Parks. The rangers cited increasing problems with illegal immigrants, drug smuggling, and potential terrorist threats.
Arizona‘s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument topped the rangers’ list for the third year in a row. Following is the list.

1. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (Arizona): After the August 2002 murder of National Park Service Ranger Kris Eggle, the NPS bolstered its force at the monument with tactical teams, since removed, and has failed to restore staff levels to previous levels.

2. Amistad National Recreation Area (Texas): Amistad shares the same problems of drug and alien smuggling as Organ Pipe. Seven rangers attempt to hold the line on 85 miles of an international border. With days off, it means that only one or two are on duty at any given hour of the day, and at night, the park is turned over to the smugglers.

3. Big Bend National Park (Texas): This park, which has the largest boundary with Mexico, struggles with an overwhelming flow of illegal aliens. According to the rangers, the park has violated NPS orders to hire law enforcement staff before hiring other personnel, leaving the few remaining rangers understaffed.
The corporate media in the USA is extremely powerful and dumbs down all Americans. They want cheap labor pouring across US borders to drive down wages, so they invent simple phrases to confuse Americans. “We are a nation of immigrants” is a meaningless phrase used to end rational discussion about what is best for the American people. England and Mexico are also nations of immigrants. In fact, most scientists agree that man originated from a spot in Africa, so every nation on Earth is a nation of immigrants and everyone’s ancestors were immigrants. Even the misnamed “native Americans” came from Asia, albeit a few thousand years before those from Europe.
US citizens are not demanding new immigration laws, they just want the federal government to enforce existing laws. If the nation needs more immigrants, quotas can rise and those selected screened for diseases, criminal records, and motives. People who break the law by entering the US illegally, then break more laws by working illegally using false identification, do not qualify as potential good citizens. To keep the gates for cheap labor open, corporate television along with corporate sponsored politicians have used irrational slogans to convince many Americans that putting US troops on the border is unconstitutional, illegal, impractical, dangerous, and futile. This is why the few thousand “National Guardsmen” recently deployed to the border are prohibited from guarding the nation; they can only perform menial chores.
This report has been prepared by Ron Bass and posted in the UPA (United Patriots of America) web site prior to 2011.
The information in this report was extracted from various documents and the book mentioned at the beginning of the report. This is from Carlton Meyer’s new book: The Spectrum of Future Warfare.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.g2mil.com/border.htm)

[Schifference]

If the goal is to defend the country, it seems the best defense is at the border. If I live in Kentucky and want to defend my house, the effective place to do that is on that property in Kentucky not in Nebraska.

[Superfluous Man]

If the goal is to defend the country

It isn't.

[Brian4Liberty]

...If Tucker had a guest on that said "In order to save this country we need to send Jews to the gas chamber" and he didn't challenge his guest's position everyone (sane anyway) would see that as being complicit. I'm sure if Tucker had a guest on that said "To save this country we must impeach Trump" he wouldn't just let that slide.


This is Nazi America. Victims shall not be allowed to make any effort to defend themselves against the rightful abusers.

/s

Godwin’s Law strikes early...

[RJB]

The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.



Really the only legit duty of the military is defence of our country and that is the border.

[Sammy]

Tucker Carlson is a Paleo-Conservative & not a Libertarian...

[Swordsmyth]

It isn't.

It is.

[nobody's_hero]

Godwin’s Law strikes early...

Another SJW tactic.

[nobody's_hero]

Neg rep. You didn't denounce The Count with strong enough language.

And don't forget they found some "dog whistle" in my comment where it can be proved that I secretly agree with him.

[enhanced_deficit]

From what I had read he was more like Libertarian-neocon and not a libertarian per se and like fake libertarians Bill Oreally, Glenn Beck media shills etc thoroughly worshiped Bush after he invaded Iraq.

That said, even after he apologized for comparing Iraqi civilians to 'monkeys', some left-wing libs still keep branding him as a racist:


Samantha Bee Demolishes ‘White Supremacist’ Tucker Carlson



https://www.thedailybeast.com/samantha-bee-demolishes-white-supremacist-tucker-carlson-of-fox-news

That is puzzling.

[jmdrake]

Godwin’s Law strikes early...

Educate yourself about "Godwin's law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[10][11] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by the American lawyer, journalist, and author Glenn Greenwald.[12]

In this case the comparison to the Nazis is actually appropriate. Tucker Carlson's guest advocated for martial law inside the freaking United States at a time that is arguably not a national emergency. Invoking martial law was a crucial step in Adolf Hitler's rise to absolute power. Any sane person would be concerned about that. And this idea, that there should be martial law inside the United States, goes way back at least as far as the Oliver North hearings.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0IL7k3elQ

[jmdrake]

Ok, good, so honest people with strong convictions and principles can change their minds.

I've changed mine about this issue from where I was a few years ago...it is an invasion and must be dealt with in that manner.

Do you support martial law inside the United States? Do you support a 100 mile "constitution free zone" that includes basically the entire state of Florida? Are you for the face scanning cameras that Trump put at the airport and by executive order and is planning on putting on the border wall? Let's get specific here. Enough with the generalizations. Everybody can say "I'm for border security." Well how much freedom are you willing to sacrifice for it? I put forward my own proposal of helping Mexico secure its southern border since most of this current wave of migrants first have to "invade" Mexico before "invading" the United States. So far I have not had any positive responses on this from you or anyone else and even a couple of negative responses from those who CLAIM they believe the migrant crisis is an "invasion." Well if it is REALLY an "invasion" then it is not wrong to attempt to stop the "invasion" before it gets to the U.S. border. That's just common sense. And yet nobody from your "it's an invasion" side seems to want to do what we would really do if faced with an actual military invasion. Curious. Quite curious.

(See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534088-So-stopping-an-quot-invasion-quot-before-it-gets-to-the-U-S-is-now-quot-nation-building-quot)

[Superfluous Man]

Do you support martial law inside the United States?

Remember when AF's big issue was that he was anti-cop? Boy, did he ever do a 180.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you support martial law inside the United States? Do you support a 100 mile "constitution free zone" that includes basically the entire state of Florida? Are you for the face scanning cameras that Trump put at the airport and by executive order and is planning on putting on the border wall? Let's get specific here. Enough with the generalizations. Everybody can say "I'm for border security." Well how much freedom are you willing to sacrifice for it? I put forward my own proposal of helping Mexico secure its southern border since most of this current wave of migrants first have to "invade" Mexico before "invading" the United States. So far I have not had any positive responses on this from you or anyone else and even a couple of negative responses from those who CLAIM they believe the migrant crisis is an "invasion." Well if it is REALLY an "invasion" then it is not wrong to attempt to stop the "invasion" before it gets to the U.S. border. That's just common sense. And yet nobody from your "it's an invasion" side seems to want to do what we would really do if faced with an actual military invasion. Curious. Quite curious.

(See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534088-So-stopping-an-quot-invasion-quot-before-it-gets-to-the-U-S-is-now-quot-nation-building-quot)

We can use the military at the border without a 100 mile "constitution free zone" that includes basically the entire state of Florida or face scanning cameras and we don't need to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", at most we only need to send the military 100 yards into Mexico to placate those who falsely believe that Posse Comitatus prevents the use of the military to secure the border.

[Swordsmyth]

...



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Danke http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6791323#post6791323)

The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit US Military on our borders.


US Military is allowed as authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress
This is from Carlton Meyer’s new book: The Spectrum of Future Warfare.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.g2mil.com/border.htm)
Myth #1 The US Constitution prohibits posting US troops on the border.
The US Constitution says no such thing. In fact, Article IV states:
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.
So the US Constitution clearly requires the federal government to protect states from invasion. Almost a million aliens illegally pouring across the border into states each year is clearly an invasion.
Myth #2 The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits US troops from guarding US borders.
This 1878 act was enacted to prevent Union troops from continuing to enforce federal laws in the defeated South after the American Civil war. Here is the text as modified by Congress in recent years:
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.
Guarding US borders from foreign invasion is not “law enforcement.”
The US Army exists to defend the US from foreign invasion, which is expressly authorized by the US Constitution. Guarding the Mexican border was the Army’s primary peacetime mission until 1940, and no one ever declared this was in violation of this 1878 act. The US Border Patrol wasn’t even formed until 1924, so claiming the intent of this law was to prevent US Army troops from guarding the border is absurd. The map at left shows US Army forts in Texas in the late 1880s when the entire US Army had fewer than 40,000 soldiers; it has 500,000 today. Clearly, defending the US border was a primary mission of the US Army for decades after this act was passed.
Some may argue that Chapter 18, Section 375 (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/375.html) of Title 10 US Code prevents military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement. However, defending US borders from foreign invaders is not law enforcement, it’s the basic purpose of the US military. While defending these United States from invasion, civilian law enforcement may be called upon to assist the US military. Does anyone believe the Border Patrol must operate fighter aircraft because the US Air Force can’t intercept aircraft crossing into the US because that’s “law enforcement”?
When you read about proposals in Congress to put US troops on the border, those are not proposals to allow US troops on the border, but proposals to force the President to put troops back on the border. However, recent Presidents have listened to their corporate advisors and their slogans and ignored the threat of unsecured US borders.
Myth #3 The National Guard should guard the border, not active duty troops.
The National Guard is an organized militia to deal with state and national emergencies. Guarding the US border is a full-time mission that the federal government is required to perform by Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution. The few states along the border shouldn’t be expected to defend the entire country from invasion. This myth is also spread by imperial minded Generals (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Commentary/barnes.htm) who prefer to rule an empire overseas than to defend their own citizens. Whenever citizens demand the Army protect their nation, Generals dodge this issue by stating that it may be a mission for the National Guard, so as not to waste resources of the US Army.
This is absurd; the primary mission of the US Army is to protect US citizens, and the US Constitution requires the federal government to protect states from invasion.
If there is a major war and the Army would like to deploy its border troops overseas, then National Guard troops from any state can be mobilized to guard the border until the war ends.

Myth #4 The US Army hasn’t the resources for border troops.

The active duty army has 500,000 full-time troops supported by over 300,000 civilians. The Border Patrol has 9700 agents. Certainly, the Army can form a infantry division of 10,000 troops to actually defend the USA, or Congress can authorize more troops. This G2mil article: Cut Surplus Army Units (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.g2mil.com/armycut.htm) identifies more than 10,000 unneeded positions in the US Army that can be cut to form an infantry division. There are several US military bases along the border that can host an infantry battalion for border security: NAS Whidbey Island, WA; Minot AFB, SD; Selfridge ARNG base, MI; Fort Drum, NY; Laughlin AFB, TX; Fort Bliss, TX; Fort Huachuca, AZ, Yuma Proving Grounds, AZ; and NAS El Centro, CA; plus several military facilities in the San Diego area. Some Army officers may express concern that border duty will hurt readiness for Army missions overseas. They don’t understand that defending the USA is their primary mission!

Myth #5 Soldiers aren’t trained for such missions
Soldiers are ideally trained to guard remote areas of the border. All they need are a few days of orientation training and to learn some Spanish or French phrases they can shout into a bullhorn: “Stop, you cannot enter the United States here, go back!” They will not process arrestees, fill out paperwork, search houses, run checkpoints, appear in court, or conduct investigations. They will just confront people who they directly view invading the USA. They will insist that foreign intruders turn back or face arrest by the Border Patrol.
This will prevent odd incidents like in 1997 when a marine on drug war duty near the border shot a local goat herder who had fired in his direction. Some suspect this young man was paid by drug dealers to provoke an incident in hopes of getting the marines removed. He succeeded, but didn’t expect to die. The marines were there because the President had authorized their use after Army Generals refused. The Marine shooter was there on temporary duty and did not view the goat herder entering the USA illegally. The establishment of orientation training and strict rules of engagement can ensure that US troops have no contact with US citizens.

Myth #6 Illegal immigration cannot be stopped
Of course it can. There is no illegal immigration from North to South Korea because that border is heavily guarded. Perhaps some of the 20,000 US troops there can transfer to the US border. Guarding the border will not stop the hundreds of thousands of visitors who overstay their visas in the USA, but at least they were checked and inspected prior to arrival. The Border Patrol estimates that 700,000 unknown persons slipped past them last year, cutting that to 7000 a year is not unrealistic. Some claim that illegals will just find another way to cross. However, most illegals cannot obtain a visa or shopping pass because they haven’t an address and job.

The Border Patrol Needs Help
While the corporate media keeps Americans confused with slogans, it rarely reports on the problems of illegal immigration, except for Bill O’Reily and Lou Dobbs. As a result, few Americans know that most of the US border is not guarded and vehicles routinely drive across. In May 2002, the US Immigration and Naturalization Service was required to pay back wages and cancel suspension and demotion orders for two Border Patrol agents who told a newspaper about security problems along the US-Canadian border. The agents, assigned to the INS field office in Detroit, were recommended for discipline after they told the Detroit Free Press that Michigan’s border lacked the resources to adequately protect the country from terrorists. Agents Mark Hall and Robert Lindemann said the 804 miles of shoreline border were guarded by 28 field agents, one working in a boat, several damaged electronic sensors and one broken remote camera. Keep in mind that these 28 field agents must cover that804 miles of border 24 hours a day, seven days a week, plus days off for vacation or illness. So there are only about six on duty at any given time, or three teams of two. Then when a team catches someone, they must transport and book him, so they’re gone for hours.

Another major problem is that guarding remote areas of the border is a tough mission, which is not compatible with the unionized Border Patrol. They prefer to work 8-hour shifts and their union contract requires the government to provide them with proper meals and lodging when away from home. Since it can take hours to reach remote areas from the nearest Border Patrol station, it’s not practical to guard vast areas of the border. As a result, agents set up roadblocks or cruise around roadways rounding up who they can. This is much more interesting than standing a post along the border all day. However, the effort becomes pointless as it requires hours for the Border Patrol to process each arrested alien, who is then released on the other side of the border and walks back across for another try. In some urban sectors, the Border Patrol has focused on deterrence by placing most agents right on the border to stand guard. However, this becomes boring, which accounts for the high turnover rate among Border Patrol agents.

Another reason much of the border is not patrolled is that it’s too dangerous. In 2002, six Mexican Army Hummers were two miles inside US territory when Mexican soldiers fired over 150 rounds from vehicle-mounted machine guns, and a dozen MK-19 40mm grenade rounds, at two US Border Patrol agents investigating narcotics trafficking in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife refuge north of Sasebe, Arizona. It is well known that some of the Mexican Army is involved in drug smuggling and Mexican troops are frequently encountered on the US side of the border in remote areas; see the great movie “Traffic” with Michael Douglas. In 2002, a US Park Ranger was killed when drug smugglers sprayed him with bullets from an AK-47, which struck him just below his bulletproof vest. With rogue Mexican army troops chasing off Border Patrol agents, Park Rangers wearing bulletproof vests, and thousands of recently deported criminal aliens walking back across, isn’t it time for the US Army to return to the border?

Two-term Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, in a January 2006 letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said reports of Mexican military units providing armed escorts to drug and alien smuggling operations represent “narco-terrorism in its purest form. Our borders are under attack by sophisticated organizations that have no qualms about firing on our Border Patrol units. As we get tougher and more committed, so do the organizations committed to smuggling death and terror across our borders.” Mr. Renzi said that during a tour of the Arizona border last month in a US Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) helicopter, the pilot showed him military-style Humvees lining up at dusk just south of the border to move drugs into the USA. He said the preparations occur nightly, noting that 50 percent of the drugs coming into this country pass though the Arizona desert.
Border Patrol agents are so busy rounding up aliens that they haven’t the time, equipment, nor motivation to conduct dangerous squad-size combat patrols into the wilderness. Most Border Patrol agents are hard working and dedicated, but the US Army is better organized for conducting combat patrols and continual surveillance along remote areas of the border. Once the Army sends squads to watch remote areas of the border, Army Generals will be shocked at the number of firefights that break out. Armed smugglers have used routes through remote areas for decades and will be surprised to encounter soldiers who are undeterred by their AK-47s.

The Army will only guard rural border areas and only detain people they observe crossing illegally until Border Patrol agents arrive. This will allow the Border Patrol to focus on running checkpoints, guarding urban areas, and processing arrestees. This is no small task considering the Border Patrol has made over four million arrests since the 9-11 terror attacks, including thousands of Arabs.

Squads of soldiers can deploy to the field for days at a time. A pattern of 72 hours in the field, 72 hours off duty, then 72 hours in garrison for admin and training will work great. This allows an infantry battalion with four line companies to rotate three of them so one is always guarding the border. Each company will go “off line” three months a year for leave, and some traditional infantry training to break up the routine. Since soldiers are transferred every three or four years, they will not face the boring prospect of watching the border for 30 years like Border Patrol agents.
Each border infantry battalion should be supported by a helicopter detachment for emergency medivacs and to move a reaction squad to where shooting has broken out. Some areas may be so remote that helicopters will be needed to rotate squads every three days. However, in most cases troops will be deployed to screen the flanks of border crossings to thwart the common game of just walking around a checkpoint and meeting up with their driver down the road. Squads are likely to rotate to different posts each month to keep border duty interesting.
This will provide great training for soldiers. Unlike canned peacetime exercises, the border is real and unpredictable. Border troops will become experts in map reading, surveillance, field living, and stealthy movement. Their goal will not be to arrest aliens, but to confront aliens near the border and turn them back. Anyone who is suspicious or uncooperative can be detained for the Border Patrol. Soldiers will enjoy the mission of actually protecting the USA, and probably engage in a few shoot outs during their border tour of duty. The first year of border duty will be especially chaotic as soldiers regain control of the wild frontier. Eventually, word will spread that crossing the US border is very difficult and problem will subside.

Rules of Engagement
Four rules of engagement can ensure that soldiers do not clash with innocent US citizens:
1) Soldiers will not enter private property without permission of the landowner.
The Border Patrol is legally allowed to enter private property along the border without permission. Most landowners are happy that someone is protecting their property. However, a few will protest if US troops camp out on their land, and radical groups will sue claiming 3rd Amendment rights are violated. So its best to leave those few alone and let the Border Patrol deal with each issue. There have been cases where smugglers purchased US property on the border to help their operations, so they’d object to US troops. Since a quarter of the land along the Mexican border is already federal property, US troops can stay busy just guarding federal lands. Patrolling American parks along the border has become so dangerous (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.azstarnet.com/border/20908PERILOUS-FEDSKNEWD.html) that park rangers are twice more likely to suffer injuries from an assault than DEA agents overseas.

2) Soldiers will only conduct surveillance on Mexico, Canada, or international waters to detect persons entering the USA illegally. They will not conduct intelligence missions at targets within the USA, even at the request of law enforcement agencies.

Many law enforcement agencies work along the border and may ask soldiers to keep an eye on a certain house or building or person they are investigating on the US side of the border. This may seem harmless, but it’s not a role for soldiers. If soldiers see a crime in progress, they should report that immediately and intervene if lives are at stake, but they must not become involved in law enforcement investigations or domestic surveillance.

3) Soldiers will only confront or detain persons who they directly observe entering the USA illegally. They will not confront or detain persons who they suspect have crossed the border illegally.

This will eliminate accidental confrontations between local citizens, unless a US citizen knowingly breaks the law by attempting to enter the US illegally, which is probably because he is involved in other illegal activities. Sometimes soldiers will spot a suspicious group of people on the US side who they didn’t observe crossing the border. They may be 99% certain this group slipped across the border, but they cannot be certain, so all they can do is to radio the information to the Border Patrol. This restriction will ensure soldiers have no contact with local citizens while on duty, except with property owners along the border who have given permission to guard their land.

4) Soldiers will not directly assist other government agencies along the border on a routine basis.
Some Army officers and government officials may decide that Army manpower can help guard the border by assisting other agencies. For example, helping search cars and trucks, guarding prisoners, or assisting in raids. However, this is not a role for the Army or soldiers. There will be occasional emergencies or natural disasters where soldiers help out like they do near all Army bases. However, soldiers should not be used as a federal manpower pool.
Army Transformation
While the Army bureaucracy churns out paperwork about “transformation” the greatest need is for the Army to defend the US border. While Americans were shocked when 3000 citizens were killed by the 9-11 terror attacks, more Americans have been killed by illegal aliens over the years. While they may not be more violent than US citizens, if they cannot cross the border they cannot harm Americans. Most people who illegally cross the border are desperate and they will do whatever it takes to survive. That may require fake IDs, identify theft, shoplifting, robbery, or the transport and sale of narcotics.
As the US tracks international terrorists, restricts visas from certain countries, and tightens port security, future terrorists are more likely to just walk across the unguarded border. While some people worry about China’s military, they should worry about the thousands of former Chinese soldiers that slip across the border each year. Placing troops on the border will require orders from the US President, yet it is doubtful that Army Generals have made proposals. In contrast, Generals continue to spread the myths described in this article. The United States has the only army on Earth that thinks defending its nation from invasion is not their role. It is time for the US Army to transform and assign 2% of its manpower to its basic mission of defending the USA from invasion.

Most Dangerous National Parks –

On June 28, the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police released its third annual survey of the 10 Most Dangerous National Parks. The rangers cited increasing problems with illegal immigrants, drug smuggling, and potential terrorist threats.
Arizona‘s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument topped the rangers’ list for the third year in a row. Following is the list.

1. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (Arizona): After the August 2002 murder of National Park Service Ranger Kris Eggle, the NPS bolstered its force at the monument with tactical teams, since removed, and has failed to restore staff levels to previous levels.

2. Amistad National Recreation Area (Texas): Amistad shares the same problems of drug and alien smuggling as Organ Pipe. Seven rangers attempt to hold the line on 85 miles of an international border. With days off, it means that only one or two are on duty at any given hour of the day, and at night, the park is turned over to the smugglers.

3. Big Bend National Park (Texas): This park, which has the largest boundary with Mexico, struggles with an overwhelming flow of illegal aliens. According to the rangers, the park has violated NPS orders to hire law enforcement staff before hiring other personnel, leaving the few remaining rangers understaffed.
The corporate media in the USA is extremely powerful and dumbs down all Americans. They want cheap labor pouring across US borders to drive down wages, so they invent simple phrases to confuse Americans. “We are a nation of immigrants” is a meaningless phrase used to end rational discussion about what is best for the American people. England and Mexico are also nations of immigrants. In fact, most scientists agree that man originated from a spot in Africa, so every nation on Earth is a nation of immigrants and everyone’s ancestors were immigrants. Even the misnamed “native Americans” came from Asia, albeit a few thousand years before those from Europe.
US citizens are not demanding new immigration laws, they just want the federal government to enforce existing laws. If the nation needs more immigrants, quotas can rise and those selected screened for diseases, criminal records, and motives. People who break the law by entering the US illegally, then break more laws by working illegally using false identification, do not qualify as potential good citizens. To keep the gates for cheap labor open, corporate television along with corporate sponsored politicians have used irrational slogans to convince many Americans that putting US troops on the border is unconstitutional, illegal, impractical, dangerous, and futile. This is why the few thousand “National Guardsmen” recently deployed to the border are prohibited from guarding the nation; they can only perform menial chores.
This report has been prepared by Ron Bass and posted in the UPA (United Patriots of America) web site prior to 2011.
The information in this report was extracted from various documents and the book mentioned at the beginning of the report. This is from Carlton Meyer’s new book: The Spectrum of Future Warfare.
http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20110426202131/http:/www.g2mil.com/border.htm)

[jmdrake]

We can use the military at the border without a 100 mile "constitution free zone" that includes basically the entire state of Florida or face scanning cameras and we don't need to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", at most we only need to send the military 100 yards into Mexico to placate those who falsely believe that Posse Comitatus prevents the use of the military to secure the border.

Do you support Tucker Carlson's guest's call for martial law? Yes or no. Answer the question yes or no if you are not a coward.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you support Tucker Carlson's guest's call for martial law? Yes or no. Answer the question yes or no if you are not a coward.
I support using the military to secure the border as it always did before the creation of the Border Patrol.

Martial Law at the border might be required at some point but we should see if we can deal with the problem without it if we can.

[jmdrake]

I support using the military to secure the border as it always did before the creation of the Border Patrol.

Martial Law at the border might be required at some point but we should see if we can deal with the problem without it if we can.

Tucker's guest called for it now. So I take it you think that's a no? Or you are not sure?

[Swordsmyth]

Tucker's guest called for it now. So I take it you think that's a no? Or you are not sure?
Read what I said.

But I can certainly understand Tucker's guest's point of view and your claim that Tucker is evil for not denouncing him is Hillaryous.

[jmdrake]

Read what I said.

I read it. You didn't give a simple "yes or no" to what was a "yes or no" question.


But I can certainly understand Tucker's guest's point of view and your claim that Tucker is evil for not denouncing him is Hillaryous.

Yes or no. Did you agree with the guest. Yes or no.

[Swordsmyth]

I read it. You didn't give a simple "yes or no" to what was a "yes or no" question.



Yes or no. Did you agree with the guest. Yes or no.
This is not a court and my position is more complex than a simple yes or no.

Read what I said.

[jmdrake]

This is not a court and my position is more complex than a simple yes or no.

Read what I said.

I read it. Yes or no.

[Swordsmyth]

I read it. Yes or no.

:sleeping:

[jmdrake]

:sleeping:

Okay. I'll answer for you. No. Thank you for not answering.

[Swordsmyth]

Okay. I'll answer for you. No. Thank you for not answering.
If you think you can state that my position is "no" then I must have answered the question.

[jmdrake]

If you think you can state that my position is "no" then I must have answered the question.

It's a 50/50 guess.

[Swordsmyth]

It's a 50/50 guess.
Then you must not be very smart.
I pity your clients.

[jmdrake]

Then you must not be very smart.
I pity your clients.

You think a yes or no question has a different probability? What did you get on your ACT test? A 7?

[Swordsmyth]

You think a yes or no question has a different probability? What did you get on your ACT test? A 7?
I think that:

A if you only have a 50/50 guess it is stupid to put words in someone's mouth
B My answer is not exactly yes or no, as I said
C if you are going to simplify my answer to either yes or no it is clear enough that you should have better than a 50/50 idea of which one

[jmdrake]

I think that:

Thought is above your pay grade.


B My answer is not exactly yes or no, as I said

The question was yes or no. You probably DID get a 7 on the ACT.

[Swordsmyth]

Thought is above your pay grade.
Projection.




The question was yes or no. You probably DID get a 7 on the ACT.
No it wasn't, this is not a court or a classroom and I can answer in as many words as it takes to accurately describe my position.

[jmdrake]

No it wasn't, this is not a court or a classroom and I can answer in as many words as it takes to accurately describe my position.


You can do whatever you like. You just can't honestly claim to answer the question when you didn't. Changing the question isn't answering the question.

[Swordsmyth]

You can do whatever you like. You just can't honestly claim to answer the question when you didn't. Changing the question isn't answering the question.
What I said does answer the question.

[PAF]

Oh my...


Take no offense, AF, but you are stuck in the past and dated material. Ron did not stop reading after the first book he read as a youth, or stop learning about what makes this corrupt government tick, or stop examining actual cause and effect of good intentions/consequences. I am sure that after pondering the right to freely travel, eminent domain issues and how the government strives to document every man, woman and child, along with tax payer money to construct, he came to realize the only liberty/freedom/fiscally responsible thing to do is educate others every opportunity he can get to eliminate the root cause which is incentives/welfare. But here some people such as you and @SwordShill are bucking the momentum.

I advocate freedom 100% of the time. But as old as I am, I am still learning about cause/effect, which for me leads to more freedom and fiscal responsibility. Perhaps you can do the same.

[Swordsmyth]

Take no offense, AF, but you are stuck in the past and dated material. Ron did not stop reading after the first book he read as a youth, or stop learning about what makes this corrupt government tick, or stop examining actual cause and effect of good intentions/consequences. I am sure that after pondering the right to freely travel, eminent domain issues and how the government strives to document every man, woman and child, along with tax payer money to construct, he came to realize the only liberty/freedom/fiscally responsible thing to do is educate others every opportunity he can get to eliminate the root cause which is incentives/welfare. But here some people such as you and @SwordShill are bucking the momentum.

I advocate freedom 100% of the time. But as old as I am, I am still learning about cause/effect, which for me leads to more freedom and fiscal responsibility. Perhaps you can do the same.
Our economy (which would be even better if we achieved the end of welfare) is the only incentive they need.

Cause: millions of communist invade
Effect: Communism

Therefore you will not end or stop the growth of welfare with open borders.

[Danke]

Take no offense, AF, but you are stuck in the past and dated material. Ron did not stop reading after the first book he read as a youth, or stop learning about what makes this corrupt government tick, or stop examining actual cause and effect of good intentions/consequences. I am sure that after pondering the right to freely travel, eminent domain issues and how the government strives to document every man, woman and child, along with tax payer money to construct, he came to realize the only liberty/freedom/fiscally responsible thing to do is educate others every opportunity he can get to eliminate the root cause which is incentives/welfare. But here some people such as you and @SwordShill are bucking the momentum.

I advocate freedom 100% of the time. But as old as I am, I am still learning about cause/effect, which for me leads to more freedom and fiscal responsibility. Perhaps you can do the same.

LOL, that was an ad from 2012. You mean he became enlighten after 2012? What happen to your promise to leave this forum? Or are you now "still learning."

[nobody's_hero]

This thread has gone dumb. Pure hypothetical nonsense.

Mexico would NEVER allow us to send the amount of troops it would take to secure its border. Hell practically every year there is a fk'up at the border of some sort where a US official crosses the border and it causes a diplomatic incident.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

[PAF]

What happen to your promise to leave this forum?

Fail. There was no “promise”. However I invite you to try to find and quote one.

Perhaps you are just overly excited and wish for me to leave so that it will be easier to rewrite the site mission.

[Danke]

Fail. There was no “promise”. However I invite you to try to find and quote one.

Perhaps you are just overly excited and wish for me to leave so that it will be easier to rewrite the site mission.

No, I'm not going to scour the forum tonight, but you clearly said you were out.