Obama: I am fully committed to “the Mexican people” — as I trash Arizonians (video)

PolitiPage.com ^ | 05/22/10 | jeff j

[FreeperDoll]

What we look like doesn’t matter anymore? So should police simply dispense with sketch artists? After all, the sketch might be incorrect, or the sketch could create a general image that many people might match in many respects, thus forcing many innocent people to fall under suspicion “simply because of what they look like.”

Also, if what we look like doesn’t matter, why am I forced to spend hours at a time waiting to obtain proper photo identification for the purposes of 1) driving, 2) purchasing alcohol, 3) purchasing a firearm or 4) traveling outside the United States?

Oh, that’s right. I’m a white American citizen, and therefore, it’s OK to subject me to any range of intrusions into my privacy and liberty. But don’t let us dare EVER look cross-ways at a Mexican. That there is downright unconstitutional, immoral and evil. Sorry. I’ll get back in line again and pretend I live in a country in which laws are enforced sensibly and equally.
obozo time to go!

[AmericanInTokyo]

Yes indeed, while I am no constitutional or criminal lawyer, on the face of it, this is Impeachable.

I have been furiously studying tonight wherever I can, both from the FEDERAL and ARIZONA LAW positions, the situation of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The U.S Justice Department and the President, if he specifically ordered it as they have threatened, in the State of Arizona as a retaliation against Arizona Law, to defacto impede or ignore federal crimes brought to their attention, would in fact be guilty of the Felony of "Obstruction of Justice", which justifies an Article of Impeachment from the House Judiciary Committee (or from any member that fact), brought to the Full House, against the President of the United States. There are also issues pertaining to his violation of administered Oath as President, considering his position as chief law enforcement officer of the United States. He is treading on very, very dangerous ice here.

[Spok]

“Obama: I am fully committed to “the Mexican people”

The United States needs its own president. Maybe in 2012 we’ll get one.

[bigheadfred]

I see where top Democrats are sporting wristbands now to criticize Arizona. Round up the entire bunch and throw their asses in Leavenworth.

Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting. Multiple counts. Multiple felonies.

One count per illegal. Obama is a felon 20 million times over.

[AmericanInTokyo]

It is obstruction of justice. We should take names.

[bigheadfred]

Just put them ALL on the list. It will be easier to weed out the few on our side by working in reverse, IMO.

[Natural Born 54]

Why? For the same reason Arabs finger the big, bad West for all their problems. Can’t have the people looking internally for the source of their problems or they might see the truth.

[AuntB]

“In plain english, he thinks Mexicanos are dumb enough to vote for Socialism more than once.”

Mexican senator calls for US to vote Democratic (while in USA!)

El Universal (Mexico City) 5/20/10

Speaking from the US while part of President Calderon’s entourage, the president of the Mexican senate, Carlos Navarrete Ruiz, called on the Hispanic community to deliver a triumphant victory to the Democratic party in order to assist the White House in negotiating an immigration reform. The senator of the left-leaning PRD party said, “I have no problem expressing that, as I see the circumstances in the US Congress, it would be useful and would serve Mexico if the migrants give a victory to the Democrats to increase the majority in congress and this will permit the reform that is needed to protect migrants.” [Only five readers’ comments followed this story. All accused their own politicians of meddling in US politics.]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2518428/posts

[Natural Born 54]

FReeper Travis McGee on the Mexicans' bogus claim to S.W. USA:

“The True History of the Southwest,” by Matthew Bracken

The fallacies surrounding the history of the Southwest are staggering, chief among them the “Aztlan” fairy tales. What is the truth? How did the Spanish Europeans conquer the Southwest? The “conquistadores” (that means “conquerors”) did it with the lance, and the lash.

For example, in 1541 Coronado entered present-day New Mexico (which included present-day Arizona during the Spanish era) searching for the “lost cities of gold.” One of his first actions upon meeting the natives was to burn hundreds of them alive in their dwellings, for not handing over suspected horse thieves. That is how Spain conquered the natives of the present US Southwest—not with hugs and kisses. It was certainly no love-fest between long-lost brown-skinned soul-mates, as it is often portrayed today by the delusional Aztlaners, who spin the “new bronze race of Mestizos” toro-mierda fable.

By 1821, Mexico City was strong enough to overthrow the even more decrepit and ineffectual Spanish colonial rule. However, the distant provinces of the current U.S. Southwest were far beyond the reach of the authority of the independent but strife-torn new government in Mexico City. These distant northern provinces received neither military protection nor needed levels of trade from the south. Under Spanish colonial rule, trade with the USA was forbidden, but at least Spain provided trade and Army protection from hostile Indians. Under Mexican abandonment and neglect, the Southwest received neither trade nor protection from Mexico City.

For example, Comanches and Apaches ran rampant in the 1830s in the power vacuum created by Mexican neglect, burning scores of major ranches that had been active for hundreds of years and massacring their inhabitants. Mexico City could neither defend nor keep the allegiance of its nominal subjects in these regions. Nor did it provide needed levels of trade to sustain the prior Spanish colonial era standard of living. Mexican governmental influence atrophied, withered and died at the same time that American pathfinders were opening up new routes into the region.

Increasingly, a growing United States of America was making inroads into the Southwest, via ships into California, and via wagon trains of trade goods over the Santa Fe Trail from St. Louis. The standard of living of the Spanish inhabitants of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas subsequently increased enormously, which is why they did not support Mexico City in the 1846-48 war. In fact, the Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Southwest never considered themselves “Mexicans” at all, ever. They went, in their own eyes, from Spanish directly to American. To this very day, if you want a punch in the nose, just call an Hispanic native of New Mexico a “Mexican.”

So how long did Mexico City have even nominal jurisdiction (in their eyes) over the American Southwest? For only 25 years, during which they had no effective control, and the area slipped backwards by every measure until the arrival of the Americans. The Spanish inhabitants of the Southwest never transferred their loyalty to Mexico City, because all they received from the chaotic Mexican government was misrule, neglect, and unchecked Indian raids.

Since then, how long has the area been under firm American control? For 150 continuous years, during which time the former Spanish inhabitants of the region, now American citizens, have prospered beyond the wildest dreams of the Mexicans still stuck in Mexico. To compare the infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc. of the two regions is to understand the truth. The Mexican government has been mired in endemic graft, corruption, nepotism and chaos from the very start until today. The ordinary Mexican peons have been trampled and abused, while only the super-rich elites have thrived. This is why millions of Mexicans want to escape from Mexico today, to enjoy the benefits of living in America that they can never hope to obtain in Mexico.

And because today Mexico is a corrupt third-world pest-hole (despite having more millionaires and billionaires than Great Britain), we are supposed to let any number of Mexicans from Chiapas, Michoacan or Yucatan march into the American Southwest, and make some “historical claim” of a right to live there?

From where does this absurd idea spring?

At what point in history did Indians and Mestizos from Zacatecas or Durango stake a claim on the American Southwest? Neither they nor their ancestors ever lived for one single day in the American Southwest. The Spanish living in the Southwest in 1846 stayed there, and became Americans by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There were no Spanish inhabitants of the Southwest who were marched to the border and driven into Mexico. It didn’t happen. The Spanish in the Southwest welcomed American citizenship, which brought stability, protection from Indian raids, and a vast increase in their standard of living with the increase in trade with America.

In summary, no current inhabitants of Mexico have a claim on even one single inch of the American Southwest.

Not one single citizen of Mexico is sneaking into the United States to reclaim property their ancestors were deprived of. Not one. They are criminal invaders and colonizers, pure and simple.

It’s time Americans learned the true history, as a counter to the currently prevalent “Aztlan” fairy tales put out by “La Raza” (The Race), “MEChA” (the Student Movement for Aztlan) and other radical anti-American groups.

by Matthew Bracken

[Natural Born 54]

The swearing in process is just for show. The Constitution does not require it for the president to be officially in office. However, since he is not a natural born citizen, he is a usurper, sworn in or not.

[SunkenCiv]

"Death to America!"

[saintgermaine]

The only reason Liberals- Democrats- Socialists want more illegals in this country as well pushing for legalization of illegals is because they want as many warm blooded creatures as they can lay their hands on as they are the lifeblood of their party. They couldn’t care less about their well being or civil rights violation, what is just a ruse. Unfortunately way too many people are ignorant and dumb enough to fall for it.

[Jay W]

“The swearing in process is just for show. The Constitution does not require it for the president to be officially in office. However, since he is not a natural born citizen, he is a usurper, sworn in or not.”

Actually, the U.S. Constitution DOES require the president to be sworn in:

Article II, Section 7 reads: “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

[Natural Born 54]

There’s a FReeper lawyer here I need to correct if I can recall which one it is. At any rate, the oath does need to be administered but the ceremony isn’t necessary - that would be accurate. Thanks for the info.