I have just come across a quote by the founder of an Hispanic group called La Raza ('The Race'; apparently wanting to return much of the United States to Mexico),1 who has gone on record as saying,"We have an aging white America...they are dying... They are shitting in their pants with fear! I love it!" And as if that were not enough of a provocation, he has gone on to say: "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."
I wonder if any of the Mexicans in my 'cosmopolitan' neighborhood in a beach town in Southern California think that way about me?? The bearded old gringo gent with the daypack and the floppy shade hat??? Who watches the local Hispanic youth play soccer in the local park, and is fairly cordial to everyone he meets on the street. If not deep in thought, about which ones of these darkfaces might be harboring thoughts of doing him in...2
And from the distaff side of La Raza, here's a quote from a lady on its National Council who, when being interviewed last year by Al Sharpton on his radio show, called for "a black-Latino alliance against Caucasians to 'attack those common enemies'."3
Ah. Memories. I remember when this same sort of revolutionary rhetoric was going on here in California in the '60s/early '70s. The heyday of the SDS/Weatherman movements and the Black Panthers/SNCC; Tom Hayden and Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and Stokely Carmichael and Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver, and all that crowd. A nascent attempt was made by far-Left forces to unite the blacks and Hispanics against the established-order power structure at that time, for the same sort of revolutionary reasons; but those two communities were often at odds (jobs, attention from the government, etc.), and the nexus never went very far, as far as I know.
Until now.
When it has gone very far, indeed. Under the Obama administration, and all those old lefties that he has brought front and center in American administrative politics.
To the point where the Department for Homeland Security - with huge amounts of ammunition, and automatic assault-tylpe weapons and armored vehicles and drones, at its disposal - is - as a nascent 'civilian national security force' - threatening takeover of the American Republic by the Left, in repression of the 'reactionary forces' of the Right, that has begun to awaken to what is really going on in the nation. Which is not politics as usual. Is, in fact, very far from politics as usual.
We were warned. How many heard, or were aware of, Obama's campaign speech in Colorado in July of 2008 when he said: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Say what?? Run that by me again???
Can't, very easily. It's been scrubbed from the record. But the Internet, being the Internet - for however much longer, now - has it; and him. Fair, and square. If not precisely understood.
Well. That is to say: by some people.
On the Right.
But it would appear that that was a tip-off. His inside followers knew what he meant. What he was talking about. To go along with another '08 campaign statement of his, that seemed rather 'campaign hyperbolic' at the time. That was his statement about how close we were (at that point, five days away) "from fundamentally transforming the United States of America".
Campaign hyperbole. Seemingly...
I think Average Joe and Jill Citizen have been asleep at the switch, from a constitutional republic (under some duress, granted, by a Republican executive and a poodle dog of a Congress) to a collectivist empire.
But they're waking up.
Fast.
Fast enough???
I wonder.
Just as I wonder why it has taken so long for a groundswell of anger to develop over the man's apparent purloining of the American presidency. I don't mean by all the known, and unknown, voter fraud that went on in this last election.4 I mean his eligibility even to run for the office.
I won't go into all the details over the 'natural born citizen' question. I understand that there are arguments for both sides of the debate; the 'eligible' side being the beneficiary of obscurities in the matter. There is some confusion/complexity in the historical record as to what was covered by English common law and what by American common law, or Natural Law/the Law of Nations. But the bottom line is based on common sense; to wit:
The Framers of the Constitution wanted, and meant, by that specific requirement for that particular office, and that particular office only (all other federal offices can be held by simple citizens), to prevent foreigners and foreign influence from having command over the nation's armed forces. They were trying to rule out from the presidential office any person having allegiance to a foreign country, as in having dual citizenship; i.e., being the product of less than two U.S. citizen parents.5
The bottom line: The president cannot owe allegiance to any foreign power. I don't care what the Supreme Court may or may not have met in Wong Kim Ark, and so forth. Discrepancies in law creep in over the years.6 The 'original intention' of the Framers was to make sure that a candidate for that particular office had to have absolute allegiance from birth only to the United States.
All that matters, in a constitutional republic, is what was meant when the Constitution was either formulated or amended, and passed those rigorous tests.
You can amend the Constitution, and make the office of the presidency open to any and all takers. That is to say, you can try to get such an amendment through the amending process.7 Which was made rather rigorous; on purpose: to make sure that the law of the land - which (both The Law and the Republic; essentially indistinguishable) was meant to last for the centuries - was not changed for light or transient reasons; had plenty of thought put in to it.
You can change The Law of the Land by either executive fiat, or 'participatory democracy', over my dead body.
Which, given the degree of rhetoric going on these days, and the development of a police state, is not far off. Can apparently occur without my having to do a thing about it.
--
I am the Enemy??
I think not. Really.
--
P.S. My summary of the matter. From teaparty.org: 'Government ammunition stockpiling story breaks through media censorship' - Mar. 14; orig. from infowars.com - Mar. 13
Stan Stanfield · Top Commenter · Stanford University (Mar. 14)
We were warned about all of this, straight from the dictator wannabe's mouth, when he said on the campaign trail in '08: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Say what??
And when he followed that up with this comment near the end of the campaign: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." From what, to what, Obama???
I think it's obvious by now. Not from a warmongering rightwing despot-in-waiting empire to a society more caring about its people. But from a warmongering rightwing despot-in-waiting empire to a leftwing one. And he is very close to accomplishing his mission.
Patriots, start your engines.
---
footnotes:
1 and wanting to re-establish it as the indigenes' original homeland, purportedly of Aztlan. Over the dead bodies of the current Mexican 'race' as well, presumably. But let's not quibble about details.
2 I jest. But barely.
3 quoting from a short article in the March 2013 issue of whistleblower magazine, titled 'Immigration Cops: Feds Are Making Us The "Enemy"' by Taylor Rose.
4 Which kept me from being involved in/having anything to do with the charade, other than confirm that my local precinct was not being very 'tight' on its voter eligibility procedures. And so I walked away. I will be no one's fool, running a fool's errand.
5 The gist of the argument is that some 'experts' on the matter say that the Framers were applying English common law (which, incidentally, refers to natural born subjects) which only refers to what is called jus soli - born of the soil (not as well jus sanguinis - born of the blood - which applies under American common law); so, in their book, anyone born jus soli is a natural born citizen. But that is to defy the logic of the piece: the whole point of the exercise was to make sure that the prospective candidate for the office didn't have dual loyalties or allegiances. Dual citizens need not apply. Unless - apparently - you have powerful friends in high places.
Including in the opposition political party. Who may well have their own reasons for wanting that requirement watered down...For more on which, see under f/n 7.
6 It's the same sort of sophistic and smokescreen hocus pocus that caused the American citizenry not to be properly aware when the federal government began to move from a governing entity ceded by the states limited and delegated powers - "few and defined," in the crystal-clear words of 'the Father of the Constitution', James Madison (The Federalist Papers, No. 45) - to a ravenous creature assuming default power except those specifics that it grudgingly accedes to the states in the difficult-to-ignore terms of the Bill of Rights. Although those specifically-spelled-out limitations on its power (which are only examples of such a separation of powers) are often abrogated, by legalistic flummery.
A sad, sad state of affairs. But it was ever thus, in human society. A trait that the Framers did their best to guard against. The rest would be up to the succeeding generations. It's past time for takers.
7 Which members of both sides of the political aisle tried; for a total of eight times, between 2003 and 2008, to get an amendment on this very issue starting through the Congress. And failed each time even to get the attempts out of committee.
So obviously, an end-around was conspired in, by both the Democrat and the Republican parties. 'A little nudge-nudge, wink-wink, and we'll be home free, mate. Who's to stop us. The People? But we can get The People to follow the bouncing ball that we provide them.'
So the only recourse that patriots have is to the Constitution.
Ever wonder why such people, and that document, are being singled out as objects of scorn by The Powers That Be?
Or I should say, The Powers That Were.
Because their time is over.
And all who believe like them.
Believe, that the end justifies the means.
The philosophy of tyrants down through the ages.
Whose time is now up. As we move into a New Era.
All of which is, really, another conversation, than this one.
Which is about what is going down right now. Before our very eyes:
the taking of America 1-2-3.
No comments:
Post a Comment