Reflexiones Día del Padre: el futuro de nuestros niños en América – República O Presidencia Imperial

Inmigración: Debate Obama la Presidencia – Imperial de Obama al Departamento de Justicia de El Desafío de Arizona Immigration Law.    

Ley de Extranjería. Para una revisión detallada de las leyes de inmigración en Arizona y la historia de las leyes de inmigración de los Estados Unidos, véase: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from- ficción-se-que-cansados-de-ser-mintió-a /   

Justicia de Obama Departamento ha confirmado que presentará una demanda contra la ley de Arizona de Inmigración.  Una revisión detallada de la ley se puede encontrar en el sitio arriba.                             

JAMES MADISON

 Como este escritor ha declarado en anteriores posts, el desafío de la Administración se producirá un error.

El propósito de este artículo no es revisar la constitucionalidad de la ley de Arizona, sin embargo, me referiré brevemente a las tres razones del estado será la ley de Arizona encontró que Constitucional.

1). “equal La ley de Arizona no viola la Enmienda 14 ª de la Constitución, ya que no viola derechos de cualquier individuo a la “igualdad de protection” under the law. protección “ante la ley. La ley de Arizona prohíbe específicamente la discriminación por perfil racial. La ley no permite ningún agente del orden público “parar o detener a” una persona y pedir su identificación.  La ley ordena a la policía para interrogar a un “sospechoso” bajo investigación por la violación de algún delito, que no sea un delito la inmigración, sobre su estatus migratorio, si el sospechoso no puede identificarse durante el interrogatorio.  La ley enumera 11 tipos diferentes de identificación que se establece la presunción de la ciudadanía legal o de residencia legal.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

THOMAS JEFFERSON2).  La ley no viola el artículo 6 de la Constitución, ya que no violan el Gobierno Federal ‘s derecho a legislar leyes de inmigración del 

país. La ley de Arizona no “usurpar” el derecho del Gobierno Federal para establecer cupos de inmigración o la emisión de documentos de inmigración. El Gobierno Federal tiene el derecho exclusivo de determinar el número de los inmigrantes al País cada año y el número de inmigrantes se concedió la ciudadanía cada año. El Gobierno Federal tiene el derecho exclusivo de establecer requisitos específicos para aquellos que buscan la ciudadanía y los criterios de “deportar” a los que han entrado en el país.  La ley de Arizona no usurpar el poder reserva para el uso exclusivo del Gobierno Federal.

Las notas de la ley de Arizona que Arizona agentes del orden público tienen “jurisdicción concurrente y la responsabilidad” con la Ley Federal funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir la ley federal de inmigración, algo que se señala en la Ley Federal de los estatutos de inmigración. Específicamente, la ley exige que todos los de Arizona del Estado de Arizona agentes del orden cumplan con las disposiciones de la Reforma de Inmigración Ilegal y Responsabilidad del Inmigrante de 1996, la última “ley integral de inmigración” aprobada por el Congreso de los EE.UU.. La ley de Arizona no usurpar la Federal derechos Gobierno; los mandatos de cumplimiento del estado de Arizona Ley con los estatutos aprobados por el Gobierno Federal.

Me referiré brevemente a señalar aquí, que el artículo 6 de la Constitución reserva ciertos derechos para el Gobierno Federal. Artículo 6, se reserva los derechos para todos los tres poderes del Gobierno Federal; El Ejecutivo, el Legislativo y el Judicial. The Obama  Las acciones actuales de la Administración de Obama son un intento de usurpar las facultades constitucionales otorgadas a los poderes legislativo y judicial de nuestro gobierno. La Administración Obama cree en una Presidencia Imperial “en lugar de una” República Constitucional “. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c . htm   

3).Cuando los Tribunales de revisar la constitucionalidad de cualquier ley dada, la determinación de la constitucionalidad no se basa en

BEN FRANKLIN

 la posibilidad de que un individuo puede cometer un acto de “abuso de autoridad”.

Misfeasance is defined as: a). Abuso de autoridad se define como: a).  un agravio, real o supuesta, que surja de o que consiste en la acción afirmativa. b). el ejercicio ilícito de un legítimo actuar normalmente, el ejercicio abusivo y perjudicial de la autoridad legítima. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

Inconstitucional se define como: no autorizada por o incompatible con la Constitución. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional

Ejemplo: El límite de velocidad en frente de mi casa está a 25 millas por hora. No hay nada “inconstitucional” sobre esta ley o la creación de una milla 25 horas un límite de velocidad.  Si un agente de la policía tira más de un conductor negro, porque son de color negro y no porque exceso de velocidad se, este funcionario ha cometido un acto de discriminación racial El perfil racial es un acto de mala conducta que se castiga tanto en los tribunales penales y civiles, sin embargo, la ley límite de velocidad es constitucional y no hay duda de que la ley límite de velocidad es constitucional. Ninguno!

Varias secciones de la Ley de Arizona prohíben la discriminación racial. La ley de Arizona es constitucional. Si alguno de Arizona Aplicación de la ley oficial comete un acto de “perfiles raciales” hoy, en régimen de la nueva ley de Arizona o de otros leyes, este funcionario es culpable de “mal desempeño” y ha cometido un delito, tanto civiles como penales. El perfil racial es ilegal en Arizona hoy, la nueva ley de Arizona no cambia ese hecho, y lo confirma. https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-immigration-debate-mr-president-apologize -to-the-estado-de-arizona-infidencia-is-not-inconstitucional-obama-raza-Balter en jefe /

Imperial Presidencia de Obama

La Administración Obama sabe la Ley de Arizona que se Constitucional.

El desafío de la Administración de Obama de la ley es, sin embargo, sus raíces en una cuestión constitucional importante. La Administración Obama está tratando de subvertir nuestra Constitución y crear una presidencia imperial.

Presidencia Imperial vs República Constitucional

Los Estados Unidos es una República Constitucional. Una República se define como “un estado en el que descansa el poder supremo en el cuerpo de los ciudadanos con derecho a voto y se ejerce por los representantes elegidos directa o indirectamente por ellos.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic

En nuestra República Constitucional elegimos a nuestros representantes y gobiernan con nuestro consentimiento. En nuestra Constitucional nuestra República del Gobierno Federal se divide en tres ramas iguales, Ejecutivo, Legislativo y Judicial. Cada una de las ramas tiene sus propios derechos y sus deberes o responsabilidades. La responsabilidad primera de estas, un “deber” compartida por todos los miembros de todas las ramas de nuestro Gobierno, es el “deber” de “proteger y defender nuestra Constitución”. Nuestra Constitución también establece que no a un derecho específico otorgado al Gobierno Federal se reserva para los gobiernos de los estados individuales.

DEATH OF GENERAL WARREN AT BUNKER HILL

Imperial se define como: como, o en relación con un imperio, emperador o emperatriz. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Imperial

Un emperador se define como el soberano o supremo gobernante de un imperio masculina: como en los emperadores de Roma. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Emperor

Los emperadores fueron gobernantes autocráticos: una autocracia es una forma de gobierno en el que una persona posee un poder ilimitado. An t autocra es una persona (como en un emperador) sentencia con autoridad ilimitada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

Un solo gobernante con poder ilimitado y la autoridad ilimitada. Poder y la autoridad tomar de la

THE BOSTON TEA PARTY

 gente que no se concedió por el pueblo.

Bajo Régimen Imperial todos los derechos y las libertades civiles pertenecientes al Emperador. Nuestra República se funda en la creencia de que los derechos fundamentales pertenecen a los ciudadanos de la República y son “inalienables” de que esos derechos fundamentales no pueden ser transferidos a otra persona o quitado por el Gobierno.

el intento de Obama de eludir la Constitución y crear un Presidencia Imperial

De acuerdo con nuestra República Constitucional el derecho a crear y aprobar leyes recae en el Legislativo. Nuestra Corte Suprema ha dictaminado que el Congreso de los EE.UU. tiene el derecho exclusivo de aprobar leyes que establecen cuotas de inmigración o los límites y que todas las cuotas de inmigración “y” limitaciones “establecidos por el Congreso son vinculantes para el Poder Ejecutivo y los estados individuales. El Tribunal Supremo también ha declarado que los estados individuales tienen una “jurisdicción concurrente” para hacer cumplir nuestras leyes de inmigración federales. Para hacer cumplir las leyes federales de inmigración, para no volver a escribir.  La ley de Arizona no intenta reescribir las leyes aprobadas por el Congreso, de hecho, la ley de Arizona exige la aplicación de la Ley Federal de Inmigración 1996 – Reforma de Inmigración Ilegal y Responsabilidad del Inmigrante de 1996.

El presidente Obama y varios miembros de la Administración Obama cree en el concepto de “fronteras abiertas”.

La administración de Obama apoya una “amnistía” para los extranjeros ilegales.

Una política de “fronteras abiertas”, la eliminación de las cuotas de inmigración. Bajo una política de “fronteras abiertas”: cualquier migrante, de cualquier país, tendría libertad para entrar y vivir en los Estados Unidos una vez que cruzaron nuestra frontera.

Este artículo no se debate si debemos adoptar una política de “fronteras abiertas” o de la subvención sin embargo, un adicional de “amnistía”, el tercero una “amnistía” en los últimos 30 años, antes de asegurar nuestras fronteras.

Este puesto se nota el intento de la Administración de Obama para usurpar el poder otorgado por la Constitución a los Poderes Legislativo y Judicial y crear una presidencia imperial.

Cuando la Administración Obama afirma que quieren “una reforma migratoria integral” de la Administración significa que quieren una política de “fronteras abiertas” con una “amnistía” para los que actualmente dentro de nuestras fronteras ilegalmente.

La inmensa mayoría de los estadounidenses son diametralmente opuestas a esa “política de fronteras abiertas” o la aplicación de un adicional “amnistía”.

De acuerdo con nuestra República Constitucional, la aplicación de ese cambio en nuestras “leyes existentes” tendría que ser iniciado por nuestro Congreso, no la administración de Obama o el Poder Ejecutivo.

Una propuesta para adoptar un “política de puertas abiertas” o un programa de “amnistía” sería derrotado en las dos Cámaras del Congreso de los EE.UU..

La Administración Obama quiere aplicar dos políticas de inmigración, pero no tiene el poder constitucional para hacerlo, dos políticas fuerte oposición de la rama legislativa y la mayoría de los estadounidenses.

Prevenir la Constitución de forma unilateral la aplicación de estos cambios, la Administración de Obama ha adoptado políticas e ignoró las leyes existentes en la Administración de intento de implementar un “de facto” de fronteras abiertas y un programa de amnistía. (“De facto”: realmente existente, sin autorización legal). http: / / dictionary.reference.com / explorar / + de facto )

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR - PICKETT'S CHARGE - GETTYSBERG

La Administración está voluntariamente en su defecto para asegurar nuestras fronteras. La Administración se niega a enviar los recursos adecuados para asegurar nuestras fronteras y ha llegado siquiera a implementar el 1200 la Guardia Nacional había prometido a nuestros estados fronterizos. Al adoptar estas medidas la Administración de Obama ha pasado a usurpar (para usar sin autoridad o derecho) facultades otorgadas al Congreso por la Constitución. La Administración Obama no puede conseguir un programa de amnistía “o una política de” fronteras abiertas “pasó por el Congreso que la Constitución exige, por lo que la administración de Obama está adoptando extra constitucionales (no autorizada por o basado en una constitución, más allá de las disposiciones de una constitución) medidas para lograr políticas que no pueden obtener por la Constitución. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional 

el intento de Obama de eludir la Constitución y crear un Presidencia Imperial 

De acuerdo con nuestra República Constitucional el derecho a crear y aprobar leyes recae en el Legislativo. Nuestra Corte Suprema ha dictaminado que el Congreso de los EE.UU. tiene el derecho exclusivo de aprobar leyes que establecen cuotas de inmigración o los límites y que todas las cuotas de inmigración “y” limitaciones “establecidos por el Congreso son vinculantes para el Poder Ejecutivo y los estados individuales. El Tribunal Supremo también ha declarado que los estados individuales tienen una “jurisdicción concurrente” para hacer cumplir nuestras leyes de inmigración federales. Para hacer cumplir las leyes federales de inmigración, para no volver a escribir.  La ley de Arizona no intenta reescribir las leyes aprobadas por el Congreso, de hecho, la ley de Arizona exige la aplicación de la Ley Federal de Inmigración 1996 – Reforma de Inmigración Ilegal y Responsabilidad del Inmigrante de 1996.

  

WORLD WAR I - AMERICAN DOUGH BOYS

El presidente Obama y varios miembros de la Administración Obama cree en el concepto de “fronteras abiertas”.

 

La administración de Obama apoya una “amnistía” para los extranjeros ilegales.

Una política de “fronteras abiertas”, la eliminación de las cuotas de inmigración. Bajo una política de “fronteras abiertas”: cualquier migrante, de cualquier país, tendría libertad para entrar y vivir en los Estados Unidos una vez que cruzaron nuestra frontera.

Este artículo no se debate si debemos adoptar una política de “fronteras abiertas” o de la subvención sin embargo, un adicional de “amnistía”, el tercero una “amnistía” en los últimos 30 años, antes de asegurar nuestras fronteras.

Este puesto se nota el intento de la Administración de Obama para usurpar el poder otorgado por la Constitución a los Poderes Legislativo y Judicial y crear una presidencia imperial.

Cuando la Administración Obama afirma que quieren “una reforma migratoria integral” de la Administración significa que quieren una política de “fronteras abiertas” con una “amnistía” para los que actualmente dentro de nuestras fronteras ilegalmente.

La inmensa mayoría de los estadounidenses son diametralmente opuestas a esa “política de fronteras abiertas” o la aplicación de un adicional “amnistía”.

De acuerdo con nuestra República Constitucional, la aplicación de ese cambio en nuestras “leyes existentes” tendría que ser iniciado por nuestro Congreso, no la administración de Obama o el Poder Ejecutivo.

Una propuesta para adoptar un “política de puertas abiertas” o un programa de “amnistía” sería derrotado en las dos Cámaras del Congreso de los EE.UU..

La Administración Obama quiere aplicar dos políticas de inmigración, pero no tiene el poder

WORLD WAR II - D DAY - G.I. JOES - OMAHA BEACH

constitucional para hacerlo, dos políticas fuerte oposición de la rama legislativa y la mayoría de los estadounidenses.

Prevenir la Constitución de forma unilateral la aplicación de estos cambios, la Administración de Obama ha adoptado políticas e ignoró las leyes existentes en la Administración de intento de implementar un “de facto” de fronteras abiertas y un programa de amnistía. (“De facto”: realmente existente, sin autorización legal). http: / / dictionary.reference.com / explorar / + de facto )

La Administración está voluntariamente en su defecto para asegurar nuestras fronteras. La Administración se niega a enviar los recursos adecuados para asegurar nuestras fronteras y ha llegado siquiera a implementar el 1200 la Guardia Nacional había prometido a nuestros estados fronterizos. Al adoptar estas medidas la Administración de Obama ha pasado a usurpar (para usar sin autoridad o derecho) facultades otorgadas al Congreso por la Constitución. La Administración Obama no puede conseguir un programa de amnistía “o una política de” fronteras abiertas “pasó por el Congreso que la Constitución exige, por lo que la administración de Obama está adoptando extra constitucionales (no autorizada por o basado en una constitución, más allá de las disposiciones de una constitución) medidas para lograr políticas que no pueden obtener por la Constitución. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional 

La Administración Obama debe impugnar la Ley de Arizona, no porque la Administración considera que la ley sea inconstitucional, sino porque la administración teme que otros Estados aprobar leyes similares. La Administración Obama debe desafiar la ley de Arizona porque los intentos de las administraciones de Obama para aplicar “de facto” la amnistía y las políticas de fronteras abiertas se verá frustrado por los Estados, cuando los Estados se mueven para hacer cumplir las leyes aprobadas por el Congreso por la Constitución.

La Administración Obama se ve como una presidencia imperial – con el presidente Obama como el autócrata omnipotente – que poseen un poder ilimitado, la autoridad ilimitada y sin restricciones por limitaciones constitucionales. Un autócrata libre de ignorar su juramento de “proteger y defender la Constitución”, libertad en la aplicación selectiva o ignorar las leyes de la tierra como le plazca, libertad para aplicar sus políticas sin el asesoramiento o el consentimiento del Congreso o el pueblo estadounidense.

Prólogo:

La antigua Roma que comenzó como una República. Al igual que los Estados Unidos, la República de Roma fue fundada tras el derrocamiento de la monarquía. La República romana se basaba en una Constitución, que honra los principios de separación de poderes, de la necesidad de un sistema de frenos y contrapesos en el Gobierno. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

Guerra de Corea - marines en Inchon

El fin de la república romana fue provocada por los dirigentes romanos que “la transición” de Roma, los líderes que “una transformación fundamental” de Roma de una República a un Estado Imperial Un estado gobernado por emperadores autocráticos. Los emperadores eran hombres que subvierte la Constitución romana por su propio poder, para su beneficio político propio. El Emperador usurpado los poderes otorgados al Senado romano y la Asamblea Legislativa y después de consolidar su poder se proclamaron dictadores perpetuos (Julio César http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic ), Suprema Majestad (Augusto), César Imperator Maximus Naughtius Pretencioso Stroppius Homosexius Nero Augusto (Nero, http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nero ) y Calígula (Cayo Julio César Augusto Germánico, http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm ).

Dictador: una persona que ejerce el poder absoluto, un gobernante que tiene, sin restricciones el control absoluto en un gobierno. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictator

Mi generación estaba muy familiarizado con un dicho (en realidad es un título del libro), “Auge y caída del Imperio Romano”. Roma se levantó como una República y Roma cayó porque era “una transformación fundamental” en un imperio autocrático gobernados por déspotas. Déspota: un rey o gobernante otros con poder absoluto, ilimitado; autócrata. o cualquier tirano opresor. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot

Es irónico que la batalla que viene de Estados Unidos, una batalla que determinará si el país seguirá siendo una República Constitucional o ser “transformado fundamentalmente” en una presidencia imperial, se pelearon por la cuestión de la inmigración ilegal, y muy especialmente, la inmigración ilegal en el Estado de Arizona. verdadero objetivo del Presidente, una usurpación extra constitucional de las competencias conferidas al Congreso, se está disfrazado de una falsa “asunto de derechos civiles”. Una cuestión falsa, el Presidente está explotando para obtener el apoyo político entre los hispanos y su base de extrema izquierda. El Presidente es culpable de “hostigamiento raza” como se traslada a su esatblish Imperial Presidencia. El segmento hispano de su base tiene vínculos muy estrechos con nuestro vecino del sur, México. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/obamas-race-baiting/

VIETNAM: INSERCIÓN DE TROPA – “HOT LZ”

México, el país que dos veces tuvo que luchar para escapar del despotismo de los emperadores. (En 1821, cuando México declaró su independencia de España (la Independencia de México) y en 1867 al final del Segundo Imperio Mexicano).  México lucharon de nuevo, por tercera vez, para liberar al país de otro gobernante autocrático (Porfirio Díaz) durante la Revolución Mexicana (1910 – 1920). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mexican_Empire                                                                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution

¿Cómo puede el País de México, un país que ha probado la violencia del régimen autocrático 3 veces

AMNESTY - OPEN BORDERS

 en los últimos 150 años y tuvieron su Revolución hace menos de 100 años, el apoyo o aplaudir la “transformación fundamental” de América en lo que ellos, los los mexicanos, quieren huir. México ha rechazado la regla imperial tres veces, sin embargo, México apoyaría la “transformación fundamental” de la República a Estados Unidos a una presidencia imperial.

Es el propósito de venir a América sus raíces en el deseo de compartir en el sueño americano, a abrazar la República que representa o es el objetivo de “transformar radicalmente” Estados Unidos, transformar la República en otro imperio, un imperio gobernado por un imperial Presidencia, una Presidencia Imperial, donde un hombre o una mujer con autoridad normativa ilimitada y un poder ilimitado?

Recuerde estas dos cosas: 1). Nunca ha habido un dictador “compasivo” o “déspota”, y 2). Los dictadores no son ni liberales ni conservadores, sino que son primero y siempre, los dictadores. 

¿Cómo puede el País de México, un país que ha probado la violencia del régimen autocrático 3 veces en los últimos 150 años y tuvieron su Revolución hace menos de 100 años, el apoyo o aplaudir la “transformación fundamental” de América en lo que ellos, los los mexicanos, quieren huir. México ha rechazado la regla imperial tres veces, sin embargo, México apoyaría la “transformación fundamental” de la República a Estados Unidos a una presidencia imperial.

 

Es el propósito de venir a América sus raíces en el deseo de compartir en el sueño americano, a abrazar la República que representa o es el objetivo de “transformar radicalmente” Estados Unidos, transformar la República en otro imperio, un imperio gobernado por un imperial Presidencia, una Presidencia Imperial, donde un hombre o una mujer con autoridad normativa ilimitada y un poder ilimitado?

Recuerde estas dos cosas: 1). Nunca ha habido un dictador “compasivo” o “déspota”, y 2). Los dictadores no son ni liberales ni conservadores, sino que son primero y siempre, los dictadores.

IRAK 1991 - F15E

 

Father’s Day Reflections: Our Children’s Future In America – Republic Or Imperial Presidency

The Immigration Debate: Obama’s Imperial Presidency – Obama’s Justice Department to Challenge Arizona  Immigration Law. For a detailed review of Arizona’s immigration law and the history of America’s immigration laws see: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/
Obama’s Justice Department has confirmed that it will file a legal challenge to Arizona’s Immigration law. A detailed review of the law can be found at the above site.

JAMES MADISON

As this writer has stated in previous posts, the Administration’s challenge will fail.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

The purpose of this post is not to review the constitutionality of the Arizona law; however, I will briefly state the three reasons the Arizona law will be found to be Constitutional.

1). The Arizona law does not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as it does not violate any individual’s rights to “equal protection” under the law. The Arizona Law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The law does not allow for any law enforcement officer to “stop or detain” an individual and ask for their identification. The law instructs law enforcement officers to question a “suspect” under investigation for the violation of some crime, other than an immigration crime, about their immigration status, if the suspect cannot produce identification during questioning. The law lists 11 different types of identification that will create a presumption of legal citizenship or legal residency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause                                                          

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

2). The law does not violate Article 6 of the Constitution as it does not violate the Federal Government’ s right to legislate the country’s immigration laws. The Arizona law does not “usurp” the Federal Government’s right to set immigration quotas or to issue immigration documents. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to determine how many

BEN FRANKLYN

immigrants will enter the Country every year and how many immigrants will be granted citizenship every year. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to set specific requirements for those seeking citizenship and criteria for “deporting” those who have entered the Country. The Arizona Law does not usurp any power preserved for the exclusive use of the Federal Government.

The Arizona law notes that Arizona Law enforcement officers have “concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility” with Federal Law Enforcement Officials for enforcing Federal Immigration law, something noted in the Federal Immigration statutes. Specifically, the Arizona law mandates that all Arizona State Law Enforcement officers comply with the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the last “comprehensive immigration law” passed by the U.S. Congress. The Arizona law does not usurp the Federal Government’s rights; the Arizona Law mandates state compliance with the statutes passed by the Federal Government.

I will briefly note here, that Article 6 of the Constitution reserves certain rights to the Federal Government. Article 6 reserves those rights for all three branches of the Federal Government; The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. The Obama Administration’s current actions are an attempt to usurp the constitutional powers granted to the legislative and judicial branches of our government. The Obama Administration believes in an “Imperial Presidency” rather than a “Constitutional Republic”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause                                                                http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm       

3). When the Courts review the constitutionality of any given law, the determination of constitutionality is not based on the possibility that some individual may commit an act of “misfeasance”. 

DEATH OF GENERAL WARREN AT BUNKER HILL

Misfeasance is defined as: a). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. b). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

 Unconstitutional is defined as: unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional 

 Example: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law or setting a 25 mile an hour speed limit. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of racial profiling. Racial profiling is an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!

Multiple sections of the Arizona Law prohibit racial profiling.  The Arizona Law is Constitutional. If any Arizona Law Enforcement Officer commits an act of “racial profiling” today, under either the new law or other existing Arizona Laws, that officer is guilty of “malfeasance” and has committed both a civil and criminal offense. Racial profiling is illegal in Arizona today, the new Arizona Law does not change that fact, and it confirms it. https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-immigration-debate-mr-president-apologize-to-the-state-of-arizona-misfeasance-is-not-unconstitutional-obama-race-baiter-in-chief/

Obama’s Imperial Presidency

The Obama Administration knows the Arizona Law to be Constitutional.

The Obama Administration’s challenge to the law is, however, rooted in a significant constitutional question. The Obama Administration is attempting to subvert our Constitution and create an Imperial Presidency.

Imperial Presidency vs. Constitutional Republic

The United States is a Constitutional Republic. A Republic is defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic  

THE BOSTON TEA PARTY

In our Constitutional Republic we select our representatives and they govern with our consent. In our Constitutional Republic our Federal Government is divided into three equal branches, Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Each of the branches has its own rights and its own duties or responsibilities. The first such responsibility, a “duty” shared by every member of every branch of our Government, is the “duty” to “protect and defend our Constitution”. Our Constitution also states that any right not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the governments of the individual states.

Imperial is defined as:  like, or pertaining to an empire, emperor or empress. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Imperial

An emperor is defined as the male sovereign or supreme ruler of an empire: as in the emperors of Rome. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Emperor

Emperors were autocratic rulers: An autocracy is a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power.  An autocrat is a person (as in an Emperor) ruling with unlimited authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

A single ruler with unlimited power and unlimited authority. Power and authority taken from the people not granted by the people.

Under Imperial Rule all rights and civil liberties belong to the Emperor. Our Republic is founded on the belief that basic rights belong to the citizens of the Republic and are “inalienable”: that these basic rights cannot be transferred to someone else or taken away by the Government.

CIVIL WAR - PICKETT'S CHARGE - GETTYSBERG

Obama’s Attempt to Circumvent the Constitution and Create an Imperial Presidency

Under our Constitutional Republic the right to create and pass laws rests with the Legislative Branches. Our Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Congress has the exclusive right to pass laws that establish immigration quotas or limits and that all “immigration quotas and limitations” established by Congress are binding upon the Executive Branch and the individual states. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have “concurrent jurisdiction” to enforce our Federal immigration laws. To enforce the Federal immigration laws, not to rewrite them. The Arizona law does not attempt to rewrite the laws passed by Congress, in fact, the Arizona law calls for the enforcement of the 1996 Federal Immigration Law – Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

President Obama and various members of the Obama Administration believe in the concept of “open borders”. The

 Obama Administration supports an “amnesty” for illegal aliens.

WORLD WAR I - DOUGHBOYS

An “open borders policy” means the elimination of immigration quotas. Under an “open borders policy”: any migrant, from any country, would be free to enter and live in the United States once they crossed our border.

This post will not debate whether we should adopt an “open border policy” or grant yet an additional “amnesty”, the third “amnesty” in the last 30 years, before we secure our borders.

This post will note the Obama Administration’s attempt to usurp power granted constitutionally to the Legislative and Judicial branches and create an Imperial Presidency.

When the Obama Administration states that they want “comprehensive immigration reform” the Administration means they want an “open borders policy” with an “amnesty” for those currently within our borders illegally.

The overwhelming majority of American people are diametrically opposed to such a “open border policy” or the implementation of an additional “amnesty”.

Under our Constitutional Republic, implementing such a change in our “existing laws” would need to be initiated by our Congress not the Obama Administration or the Executive Branch. 

A proposal to adopt either an “open borders policy” or an “amnesty program” would be soundly defeated in both Houses of the U.S. Congress.

The Obama Administration wants to implement two immigration policies but lacks the Constitutional power to do so, two policies strongly opposed by the legislative branch and a majority of Americans.

Prevented constitutionally from unilaterally implementing these changes the Obama Administration has adopted policies and ignored existing laws in the Administration’s attempt to implement a “de facto” open border and amnesty program.  (“de facto”: actually existing, without lawful authority).  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de+facto )  

The Obama Administration is refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws. The Administration is willfully failing to secure our borders. The Administration is refusing to send appropriate resources to secure our borders and has even failed to deploy the 1200 National Guard Troops promised to our Border States. In adopting these actions the Obama Administration has moved to usurp (to use without authority or right) powers granted to the Congress under the Constitution. The Obama Administration cannot get an “amnesty program” or an “open borders policy” passed through Congress as the Constitution requires, so the Obama Administration is adopting extra constitutional (not authorized by or based on a constitution; beyond the provisions of a constitution) measures to achieve policies it cannot obtain constitutionally.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional 

WORLD WAR II - GI JOES - D DAY OMAHA BEACH

The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona Law, not because the Administration believes the law to be unconstitutional, but because the Administration fears that other States will pass similar laws. The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona law because the Obama Administrations’ attempts to implement “de facto” amnesty and open borders policies will be thwarted by the States when the States move to enforce the laws passed constitutionally by Congress.

The Obama Administration views itself as an Imperial Presidency – with President Obama as the omnipotent autocrat – possessing

OPEN BORDERS - AMNESTY

unlimited power, unlimited authority and unrestrained by Constitutional limitations. An autocrat free to ignore his oath to “protect and defend the constitution”, free to selectively enforce or ignore the laws of the land as he chooses, free to implement his policies without the advise or consent of the Congress or the American people.

Prologue:

Ancient Rome started as a Republic.  Like the United States, the Roman Republic was founded after the overthrow of a monarchy. The Roman Republic was based on a Constitution which honored the principles of separation of powers, of a need for a system of checks and balances within the Government.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

The end of the Roman Republic was brought about by the Roman leaders who “transitioned” Rome, leaders who “fundamentally transformed” Rome from a Republic to an Imperial State. A state ruled by autocratic Emperors. The Emperors were men who subverted the Roman Constitution for their own power, for their own political gain. The Emperor’s usurped the powers granted to the Roman Senate and Legislative Assembly and after consolidating their power proclaimed themselves perpetual dictators (Julius Caesar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic ),  Supreme Majesty (Augustus ), Imperator Caesar Maximus Naughtius Pretentious Stroppius Homosexius Nero Augustus (Nero,  http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nero ) and Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm).

KOREAN WAR - MARINES LAND AT INCHON

Dictator: a person exercising absolute power, a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictator

My generation was very familiar with a saying (it is actually a book title), “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”. Rome rose as a Republic and Rome fell because it was “fundamentally transformed” into an autocratic Empire ruled by despots. Despot: a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat. any tyrant or oppressor. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot

It is ironic that America’s coming battle, a battle that will determine whether the Country will remain a Constitutional Republic or be “fundamentally transformed” into an Imperial Presidency, will be fought over the issue of illegal immigration, most particularly, illegal immigration into the State of Arizona. The President’s true objective, an extra constitutional usurpation of powers granted to Congress, is being disguised as a phony “civil rights issue”.  A false issue the President is exploiting to garner political support among his Hispanic and far left base. The President is guilty of “race baiting” as he moves to esatblish his Imperial Presidency. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=race+baiting&page=1&qsrc=2891&dm=all&ab=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2010%2Fmay%2F03%2Fobamas-race-baiting%2F&sg=aqQrV3cX93bwZwf8zn%2BMF2wfMlOuCjIOuGwZHEDm8Vk%3D&tsp=1277047957762The Hispanic portion of his base has very close ties to our southern neighbor, Mexico.

Mexico, the Country that twice had to fight to escape from the despotic rule of Emperors. (In 1821 when Mexico declared independence from Spain (Mexican Independence Day) and in 1867 at the end of The Second Mexican Empire). 
Mexico fought again, for a third time, to free the Country from another autocratic ruler (Porfirio Diaz) during the Mexican Revolution (1910 – 1920: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution).

VIETNAM: TROOP INSERTION - HOT LZ

How can the Country of Mexico, a Country that has tasted the violence of autocratic rule 3 times in the last 150 years and fought its Revolution less than 100 years ago, support or applaud the “fundamental transformation” of America into that which they, the Mexican people, want to flee. Mexico has rejected Imperial rule three times, yet Mexico would support the “fundamental transformation” of the America Republic into an Imperial Presidency.                                       
Is the purpose of coming to America rooted in a desire to share in the American Dream, to embrace the Republic for which it stands or is the goal to “fundamentally transform” America, transform the Republic into another Empire, an Empire ruled by an Imperial Presidency, an Imperial Presidency where one man or woman rules with unlimited authority and unlimited power.

Remember these two things: 1). There has never been a “compassionate dictator” or “despot”, and 2). Dictators are neither liberal nor conservative; they are first and always, dictators.

IRAQ 1991 - F15E

 

The Immigration Debate: Obama’s Justice Department to Challenge Arizona Immigration Law – Obama’s Imperial Presidency

The Immigration Debate: Obama’s Imperial Presidency – Obama’s Justice Department to Challenge Arizona JAMES MADISON Immigration LawFor a detailed review of Arizona’s immigration law and the history of America’s immigration laws see: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/

Obama’s Justice Department has confirmed that it will file a legal challenge to Arizona’s Immigration law. A detailed review of the law can be found at the above site.

As this writer has stated in previous posts, the Administration’s challenge will fail.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

The purpose of this post is not to review the constitutionality of the Arizona law; however, I will briefly state the three reasons the Arizona law will be found to be Constitutional.

1). The Arizona law does not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as it does not violate any individual’s rights to “equal protection” under the law. The Arizona Law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The law does not allow for any law enforcement officer to “stop or detain” an individual and ask for their identification. The law instructs law enforcement officers to question a “suspect” under investigation for the violation of some crime, other than an immigration crime, about their immigration status, if the suspect cannot produce identification during questioning. The law lists 11 different types of identification that will create a presumption of legal citizenship or legal residency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause                                                          

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

2). The law does not violate Article 6 of the Constitution as it does not violate the Federal Government’ s right to legislate the country’s

BEN FRANKLYN

 immigration laws. The Arizona law does not “usurp” the Federal Government’s right to set immigration quotas or to issue immigration documents. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to determine how many immigrants will enter the Country every year and how many immigrants will be granted citizenship every year. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to set specific requirements for those seeking citizenship and criteria for “deporting” those who have entered the Country. The Arizona Law does not usurp any power preserved for the exclusive use of the Federal Government.

The Arizona law notes that Arizona Law enforcement officers have “concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility” with Federal Law Enforcement Officials for enforcing Federal Immigration law, something noted in the Federal Immigration statutes. Specifically, the Arizona law mandates that all Arizona State Law Enforcement officers comply with the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the last “comprehensive immigration law” passed by the U.S. Congress. The Arizona law does not usurp the Federal Government’s rights; the Arizona Law mandates state compliance with the statutes passed by the Federal Government.

I will briefly note here, that Article 6 of the Constitution reserves certain rights to the Federal Government. Article 6 reserves those rights for all three branches of the Federal Government; The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. The Obama Administration’s current actions are an attempt to usurp the constitutional powers granted to the legislative and judicial branches of our government. The Obama Administration believes in an “Imperial Presidency” rather than a “Constitutional Republic”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause                                                                http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm       

3). When the Courts review the constitutionality of any given law, the determination of constitutionality is not based on the possibility that some individual may commit an act of “misfeasance”. 

THE DEATH OF GENERAL WARREN AT BUNKER HILL

Misfeasance is defined as: a). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. b). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

 Unconstitutional is defined as: unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional 

 Example: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law or setting a 25 mile an hour speed limit. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of racial profiling. Racial profiling is an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!

Multiple sections of the Arizona Law prohibit racial profiling.  The Arizona Law is Constitutional. If any Arizona Law Enforcement Officer commits an act of “racial profiling” today, under either the new law or other existing Arizona Laws, that officer is guilty of “malfeasance” and has committed both a civil and criminal offense. Racial profiling is illegal in Arizona today, the new Arizona Law does not change that fact, and it confirms it. https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-immigration-debate-mr-president-apologize-to-the-state-of-arizona-misfeasance-is-not-unconstitutional-obama-race-baiter-in-chief/

Obama’s Imperial Presidency

The Obama Administration knows the Arizona Law to be Constitutional.

The Obama Administration’s challenge to the law is, however, rooted in a significant constitutional question. The Obama Administration is attempting to subvert our Constitution and create an Imperial Presidency.

Imperial Presidency vs. Constitutional Republic

The United States is a Constitutional Republic. A Republic is defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic  

BOSTON TEA APRTY

In our Constitutional Republic we select our representatives and they govern with our consent. In our Constitutional Republic our Federal Government is divided into three equal branches, Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Each of the branches has its own rights and its own duties or responsibilities. The first such responsibility, a “duty” shared by every member of every branch of our Government, is the “duty” to “protect and defend our Constitution”. Our Constitution also states that any right not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the governments of the individual states.

Imperial is defined as:  like, or pertaining to an empire, emperor or empress. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Imperial

An emperor is defined as the male sovereign or supreme ruler of an empire: as in the emperors of Rome. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Emperor

Emperors were autocratic rulers: An autocracy is a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power.  An autocrat is a person (as in an Emperor) ruling with unlimited authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

A single ruler with unlimited power and unlimited authority. Power and authority taken from the people not granted by the people.

Under Imperial Rule all rights and civil liberties belong to the Emperor. Our Republic is founded on the belief that basic rights belong to the citizens of the Republic and are “inalienable”: that these basic rights cannot be transferred to someone else or taken away by the Government.  

CIVIL WAR - PICKETT'S CHARGE AT GETTYSBERG

Obama’s Attempt to Circumvent the Constitution and Create an Imperial Presidency

Under our Constitutional Republic the right to create and pass laws rests with the Legislative Branches. Our Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Congress has the exclusive right to pass laws that establish immigration quotas or limits and that all “immigration quotas and limitations” established by Congress are binding upon the Executive Branch and the individual states. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have “concurrent jurisdiction” to enforce our Federal immigration laws. To enforce the Federal immigration laws, not to rewrite them. The Arizona law does not attempt to rewrite the laws passed by Congress, in fact, the Arizona law calls for the enforcement of the 1996 Federal Immigration Law – Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

President Obama and various members of the Obama Administration believe in the concept of “open borders”. The

 Obama Administration supports an “amnesty” for illegal aliens.

WORLD WAR I DOUGH BOYS

An “open borders policy” means the elimination of immigration quotas. Under an “open borders policy”: any migrant, from any country, would be free to enter and live in the United States once they crossed our border.

This post will not debate whether we should adopt an “open border policy” or grant yet an additional “amnesty”, the third “amnesty” in the last 30 years, before we secure our borders.

This post will note the Obama Administration’s attempt to usurp power granted constitutionally to the Legislative and Judicial branches and create an Imperial Presidency.

When the Obama Administration states that they want “comprehensive immigration reform” the Administration means they want an “open borders policy” with an “amnesty” for those currently within our borders illegally.

The overwhelming majority of American people are diametrically opposed to such a “open border policy” or the implementation of an additional “amnesty”.

Under our Constitutional Republic, implementing such a change in our “existing laws” would need to be initiated by our Congress not the Obama Administration or the Executive Branch. 

A proposal to adopt either an “open borders policy” or an “amnesty program” would be soundly defeated in both Houses of the U.S. Congress.

The Obama Administration wants to implement two immigration policies but lacks the Constitutional power to do so, two policies strongly opposed by the legislative branch and a majority of Americans.

Prevented constitutionally from unilaterally implementing these changes the Obama Administration has adopted policies and ignored existing laws in the Administration’s attempt to implement a “de facto” open border and amnesty program.  (“de facto”: actually existing, without lawful authority).  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de+facto )  

The Obama Administration is refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws. The Administration is willfully failing to secure our borders. The Administration is refusing to send appropriate resources to secure our borders and has even failed to deploy the 1200 National Guard Troops promised to our Border States. In adopting these actions the Obama Administration has moved to usurp (to use without authority or right) powers granted to the Congress under the Constitution. The Obama Administration cannot get an “amnesty program” or an “open borders policy” passed through Congress as the Constitution requires, so the Obama Administration is adopting extra constitutional (not authorized by or based on a constitution; beyond the provisions of a constitution) measures to achieve policies it cannot obtain constitutionally.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional 

WORLD WAR II - D DAY: GI JOES OMAHA BEACH

The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona Law, not because the Administration believes the law to be unconstitutional, but because the Administration fears that other States will pass similar laws. The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona law because the Obama Administrations’ attempts to implement “de facto” amnesty and open borders policies will be thwarted by the States when the States move to enforce the laws passed constitutionally by Congress.

The Obama Administration views itself as an Imperial

OPEN BORDERS - AMNESTY

 Presidency – with President Obama as the omnipotent autocrat – possessing unlimited power, unlimited authority and unrestrained by Constitutional limitations. An autocrat free to ignore his oath to “protect and defend the constitution”, free to selectively enforce or ignore the laws of the land as he chooses, free to implement his policies without the advise or consent of the Congress or the American people.

Prologue:

Ancient Rome started as a Republic.  Like the United States, the Roman Republic was founded after the overthrow of a monarchy. The Roman Republic was based on a Constitution which honored the principles of separation of powers, of a need for a system of checks and balances within the Government.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

The end of the Roman Republic was brought about by the Roman leaders who “transitioned” Rome, leaders who “fundamentally transformed” Rome from a Republic to an Imperial State. A state ruled by autocratic Emperors. The Emperors were men who subverted the Roman Constitution for their own power, for their own political gain. The Emperor’s usurped the powers granted to the Roman Senate and Legislative Assembly and after consolidating their power proclaimed themselves perpetual dictators (Julius Caesar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic ),  Supreme Majesty (Augustus ), Imperator Caesar Maximus Naughtius Pretentious Stroppius Homosexius Nero Augustus (Nero,  http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nero ) and Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm).

THE KOREAN WAR - MARINES LANDING AT INCHON

Dictator: a person exercising absolute power, a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictator

My generation was very familiar with a saying (it is actually a book title), “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”. Rome rose as a Republic and Rome fell because it was “fundamentally transformed” into an autocratic Empire ruled by despots. Despot: a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat. any tyrant or oppressor. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot

It is ironic that America’s coming battle, a battle that will determine whether the Country will remain a Constitutional Republic or be “fundamentally transformed” into an Imperial Presidency, will be fought over the issue of illegal immigration, most particularly, illegal immigration into the State of Arizona. The President’s true objective, an extra constitutional usurpation of powers granted to Congress, is being disguised as a phony “civil rights issue”.  A false issue the President is exploiting to garner political support among his Hispanic and far left base. The President is guilty of “race baiting” as he moves to esatblish his Imperial Presidency. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=race+baiting&page=1&qsrc=2891&dm=all&ab=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2010%2Fmay%2F03%2Fobamas-race-baiting%2F&sg=aqQrV3cX93bwZwf8zn%2BMF2wfMlOuCjIOuGwZHEDm8Vk%3D&tsp=1277047957762The Hispanic portion of his base has very close ties to our southern neighbor, Mexico.

Mexico, the Country that twice had to fight to escape from the despotic rule of Emperors. (In 1821 when Mexico declared independence from Spain (Mexican Independence Day) and in 1867 at the end of The Second Mexican Empire). 
Mexico fought again, for a third time, to free the Country from another autocratic ruler (Porfirio Diaz) during the Mexican Revolution (1910 – 1920: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution ).

VIETNAM - INSERTION INTO HOT LZ

How can the Country of Mexico, a Country that has tasted the violence of autocratic rule 3 times in the last 150 years and fought its Revolution less than 100 years ago, support or applaud the “fundamental transformation” of America into that which they, the Mexican people, want to flee. Mexico has rejected Imperial rule three times, yet Mexico would support the “fundamental transformation” of the America Republic into an Imperial Presidency.                                       

Is the purpose of coming to America rooted in a desire to share in the American Dream, to embrace the Republic for which it stands or is the goal to “fundamentally transform” America, transform the Republic into another Empire, an Empire ruled by an Imperial Presidency, an Imperial Presidency where one man or woman rules with unlimited authority and unlimited power.

Remember these two things: 1). There has never been a “compassionate dictator” or “despot”, and 2). Dictators are neither liberal nor conservative; they are first and always, dictators.

F15E IRAQ 1991

Day 62 Gulf Oil Spill: BP to sue Anadarko in Gulf Oil Crisis

BP is preparing to sue its main partner in the leaking Gulf of Mexico oil field for its share of clean-up costs after the company, Anadarko, said BP’s behaviour revealed “gross negligence” and that the ­accident was preventable.

In a fundamental split between the two companies with lead responsibility for the well, a senor BP source told The Sunday Telegraph that Anadarko was “shirking its responsibilities”, not accepting its liabilities and that legal action in the US was now likely to follow.

Anadarko, which has a 25pc stake in the well, signalled this weekend that it will refuse to pay up.

BP has already sent the company one demand for payment but, the BP source said, had yet to receive any costs for the multi-billion ­dollar clean-up operation.

Jim Hackett, Anadarko’s chief executive, launched a damning attack on BP, the majority owner and operating partner, alleging there were signs of “gross negligence or wilful misconduct”.

“The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP’s reckless decisions and actions,” said Mr Hackett. “BP’s behaviour and action is likely represent gross negligence or wilful misconduct.”

Mitsui, the 10pc owner of the well, has made no decision on whether to admit liability for its share of costs, but is likely to join Anadarko in its refusal to contribute. BP could then also take legal action against that company as well.

The deepening row over costs followed a call from US Congressman Edward Markey, saying Anadarko and Mitsui should be held accountable and set aside money to pay a share of claims tied to the spill. “They cannot escape responsibility,” he said.

“Other parties besides BP may be responsible for costs and liabilities arising from the oil spill, and we expect those parties to live up to their obligations.”

Analysts are also getting restive about the uncertainty surrounding Anadarko and Mitsui because their involvement in paying claims would have a huge impact on BP’s financial position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7840455/Oil-spill-BP-to-sue-partner-in-Gulf-oil-well.html

[Will Congress’ political theatre of this last week, a “show trial” called a “Congressional Hearing” conducted prior to the completion of any investigation, negatively affect the collection of damages from the responsible parties? Will Congress’ “rush to judgment” shelter at fault parties and prevent a full recovery of American damages? Will Congress’ rush to play the political CYA game, add insult to injury in the Gulf Coast?]

%d bloggers like this: