THE BORDER EMERGENCIES ... and Arizona

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 21, 2005, 10:36 AM | #

As the border states are being invaded and D.C. is (deliberately) doing absolutely nothing to help them, they have, each individually or all collectively, the right under the Constitution to declare war on the invader, Mexico:

ARTICLE I, Section 10, paragraph 3 of the Constitution: 

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops or Ships of War in Time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of Delay.”  (Emphasis added.)

Were I governor of California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas I’d mobilize the state National Guard, call up the State Militia, and defend my state from invasion as is clearly permitted under the Constitution, if necessary invading Mexico in an offensive operation (no need to add that those states in combination could by themselves easily defeat the entire country of Mexico in three weeks with few casualties[ * ]).

While I’m on the subject of the Constitution:  twice over the past year or two after posting a comment in a web forum saying I longed to see George Bush impeached for high treason (and other high crimes), frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, and jailed for life or face the legal penalty meted out to the Rosenbergs, someone has e-mailed me to protest that “a president can only be convicted of impeachment, his punishment being removal from office, and ending there.”  Not so:  his punishment can include the full monte meted out to anyone else:

ARTICLE I, Section 3, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Constitution:

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:  and no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two Thirds of the Members present.  Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to Removal from Office and Disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:  but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment according to Law.”
______

( *  few on our side, that is—dunno about the Mex’s ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 21, 2005, 11:00 AM | #

John Ray of course will deride the above, saying,

“Scroob it ain’t gonna happen!  So stop dreaming and face reality:  deal with it, accept it, learn to love it.  Because it ain’t gonna change!” 

To that, I answer,

“Throughout history are examples of transformations at first considered impossible, even unthinkable by some, that came to pass.  None of those transformations considered impossible or unthinkable came to pass without first being thought, discussed, proposed, and advocated by ‘unrealistic dreamers’—not one came to pass in any other way.  Not one. 

“Now, draw the conclusions you like from those known facts, John.  I’ll draw mine ...”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 21, 2005, 03:14 PM | #

Joe Guzzardi

:

“The important thing is that Richardson and Napolitano have become firm critics of lax border control and that they identify federal non-enforcement of immigration law as the cause of the economic and social havoc in their states. [...] Consider that we now have the governors of New Mexico and Arizona loudly declaring that because of relentless illegal immigration their states are under siege. How much sweeter for us that Richardson—constantly puffing himself up as the only “Hispanic” governor—and Napolitano have been up until now visible, vocal proponents of illegal immigration.  Both governors have large dossiers of ugly pro-illegal alien statements and actions.”  (Check out the original, not just for the rest of the article but for its copious links, which I haven’t gone to the trouble of re-inserting into this pasted excerpt since they’re there.)

In the article, by the way, Joe reminds us of statements Bill Richardson made in 2003 when addressing a busload of Mexican aliens:

“New Mexico [the state Richardson is governor of] is your home.” “We will protect you.” “You have rights here.” “Viva la raza!  [Long live the (Mexican) race!].” 

(Who today can exclaim “Long live the white race!” and not get in trouble?  Who?  What politician can, and survive?  Not one.)

Joe continues:

“I think reality has forced their hand.  Richardson and Napolitano must see exactly what I as a resident of California’s San Joaquin Valley see.  That is that the rate of illegal immigration is so astonishing that the demographics of cities and entire counties shift at wildfire-like speed.”  (Emphasis added.)

Can’t be.  Can’t be, because John Ray has told us there’s nothing to worry about demographically, whole populations don’t just change their race like that in the twinkling of an eye, race-replacement is a fantasy.  Sure, that guy “Commenter” came here and told us he’d seen it happening with his own eyes—whites “on the move” all over the Southwest, as he put it, pulling up stakes and leaving in order to get away from the invading Mexican hordes, leaving the land—cities, towns, communities—to be filled by Mexicans, cities, towns, and communities that were filled by whites before.  That would be race-replacement, you see, and John tells us that’s bunk—doesn’t exist.  So, we have it on excellent authority—John being a top college professor, and all that—that Joe Guzzardi is wrong.  Which is a good thing, because if Commenter had been right and John Ray wrong,

are the kind of people, the kind of society, we’d be replacing ourselves with, transforming ourselves into, and for what?  For nothing.  So, damn good thing it’s not happening ....

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 21, 2005, 08:27 PM | #

Marvellous stuff. Your increasingly mad President could do worse than read something about Mexico before he actually turns America into it.

Posted by Lurker on August 21, 2005, 09:56 PM | #

Steve - Bush knows Mexico and he likes it! Just like libertarians who look forward with glee to the fully free market globalised world (which is never going to happen anyway) think Brazil is wonderful advert for the future. Personally it looks like a terrible warning.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 21, 2005, 10:53 PM | #

“Bush knows Mexico and he likes it!”  (—Lurker)

He knows the life-styles of the dozen-and-a-half-or-so richest Mexican Oligarchs, who run the country exactly like the Mafia or drug-cartel kingpins many of them are (and all of them—or their fathers or grandfathers—once were) and he likes those.  He could care less about the Mexican peasant innundation he’s unleashing on everyone—he’s never met one of those in his life and never will, and has no conception whatsoever of what they are like, and absolutely, positively could not care less.  On a personal level Bush is odious like you cannot imagine.  It can be hard to find the words to describe just how low a human being George Bush is.  It can be hard to find the words for it ...  Suffice it to say that when people admit they’ve developed a visceral loathing for the man you can believe there’s good reason behind it ...

Posted by Lurker on August 21, 2005, 11:27 PM | #

Fred - Sorry I should have clarified, obviousley Bush has seen the aspects of Mexico he likes and feels it unfair to deny the rest of you the benfefits thereof.

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 22, 2005, 12:39 AM | #

Actually, I don’t mind his irreverant style - it’s refreshing when our leaders show their open contempt for their office and their subjects (rather than trying to conceal it like that despicable fellow Tony Blair). For example, whenever I’ve seen Bush discuss, say, the threat of nuclear terrorism in America, he wears this ridiculous grin as if he’s about to get to a punch-line. Same goes for the Iraq War - he’ll be talking about the Iraq insurgency while smirking inanely.

What’s up with that? I mean, he’s obviously nuts, but aside from that, don’t his minders ever say, “hey Georgie boy, getting nuked isn’t really that funny”?

Clearly, the only member of that administration who has kept their wits is Dick Cheney; unfortunately, he is also probably the most dangerous.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2005, 12:55 AM | #

“What’s up with that? I mean, he’s obviously nuts, but aside from that, don’t his minders ever say, ‘hey Georgie boy, getting nuked isn’t really that funny’?”

LOL!!

Posted by Stuka on August 22, 2005, 01:16 AM | #

Bush’s frat-boy grin is as irritating as it is insulting.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on August 22, 2005, 01:22 AM | #

For example, whenever I’ve seen Bush discuss, say, the threat of nuclear terrorism in America

I dont blame Bush or Rice, their neocon handlers preselected them for stupidity and pliability. His IQ is just under 125, which Gottfredson has identified as the minimum necessary for independent abstract thinking. Thus, he is biologically incapable of seeing past his nose, in the metaphorical sense.

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 22, 2005, 02:55 AM | #

Dick Cheney seems to be the real “power behind the throne” so to speak. Dick Clarke noted as much in “Against All Enemies” - within minutes of 9/11 Cheney had already set up his own parallel command and decisions were flying out of this safe-house thick and fast. He also apparently played a role in setting up the Office of Special Plans to undermine the CIA on Iraq intelligence. It would almost be considered an open power grab, if it weren’t for the fact that the President is essentially indifferent.

Posted by Amon on August 22, 2005, 06:24 AM | #

Thus, he is biologically incapable…

‘nuff said.

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 22, 2005, 06:25 AM | #

Gentlemen, do read this article by Naomi Klein where she argues that “more” multiculturalism will save the West from terrorism -

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&s=klein

You will agree that it is a truly disgusting piece of work from Naomi Klein, one of the most morally bankrupt “intellectuals” on the planet, but hardly surprising given that… uh…due to her…um…because… well… never mind, just read Naomi Klein’s article and remember to turn away from the computer before you vomit.

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 22, 2005, 06:31 AM | #

Try that link again:

www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&s=klein

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 22, 2005, 06:33 AM | #

For Christ’s sake, what is wrong with this page?

Just google “naomi klein” + terror and click on the first link. It is of the highest importance that we understand the true mindset of Klein et al.

Posted by Svigor on August 22, 2005, 11:09 AM | #

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7218.shtml

Now, finding three Jew headshrinkers willing to call any “conservative” a psychotic is a given, but still…that’s just creepy.

P.S., what the hell is wrong with Chimpoleon’s leg?  Is it a trick leg like that guy from SNL? (“I can’t stop my leg, there it goes again”)

Posted by Svigor on August 22, 2005, 11:24 AM | #

Steve’s Naomi Klein psycho-piece:
http://tinyurl.com/959fc

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 22, 2005, 11:30 AM | #

Svigor’s first link is terrifying. Utterly terrifying. We are in very deep trouble.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2005, 10:43 PM | #

Gov. Richardson, who must’ve caught hell behind the scenes from the Dem Party higher-ups for declaring a State of Emergency, is now out there attempting damage control:

”

In case you just tuned in

, [Gov. Bill] Richardson on Aug. 21 told ABC’s ‘This Week’ that extending the fence along our southern border would be ‘anti-immigrant.’  A fence, he says, ’... sends a message that America is a nation that is not valuing immigrants.’  In other words, Richardson wants tighter borders, but let’s not get carried away, OK?”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2005, 10:52 PM | #

Steve Edwards, you’re right, the article is frightening.  Unfortunately we in the U.S. are living the nightmare you other guys only read about.