Notwithstanding the obvious cowardliness of California's Governor Jerry Brown?
Could it be, the California National Guard, despite the on-going threat posed by the MxGov, is conveniently tucked away in Afghanistan? Iraq?
Could it be Obama is preparing to have Holder send Feds to Anaheim to
take control of Anaheim's police force as Holder is now doing in New Orleans?
In Anaheim's case for the benefit of the MxGov?
Obama must be, after all, still beholding to that government for its being provided, having and using still untold numbers of US voter registration forms. Likewise, officials and employees of the MxGov as perceptible US voter registrars.
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:09:52 -0400, don Gabacho<jpast...@nettaxi.com>
> wrote:
>> To quell the rioters?
>> Notwithstanding the obvious cowardliness of California's Governor Jerry
>> Brown?
>> Could it be, the California National Guard, despite the on-going threat
>> posed by the MxGov, is conveniently tucked away in Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> Could it be Obama is preparing to have Holder send Feds to Anaheim to
>> take control of Anaheim's police force as Holder is now doing in New
>> Orleans?
> Could it be the Anaheim police need investigating
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:09:52 -0400, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com>
wrote:
>To quell the rioters?
>Notwithstanding the obvious cowardliness of California's Governor Jerry
>Brown?
>Could it be, the California National Guard, despite the on-going threat
>posed by the MxGov, is conveniently tucked away in Afghanistan? Iraq?
>Could it be Obama is preparing to have Holder send Feds to Anaheim to
>take control of Anaheim's police force as Holder is now doing in New
>Orleans?
# Could it be the Anaheim police need investigating and you are full of
# loony conspiracy theories?
Could it be that the Anaheim police are facing a lawless population?
Hey, I got lost late at night in Anaheim one time when the freeway was closed for repairs. I actually chased an Anaheim cop and stopped him, got directions, and got the hell out of there with a police escort.
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:09:52 -0400, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com>
> wrote:
>> To quell the rioters?
>> Notwithstanding the obvious cowardliness of California's Governor Jerry
>> Brown?
>> Could it be, the California National Guard, despite the on-going threat
>> posed by the MxGov, is conveniently tucked away in Afghanistan? Iraq?
>> Could it be Obama is preparing to have Holder send Feds to Anaheim to
>> take control of Anaheim's police force as Holder is now doing in New
>> Orleans?
> Could it be the Anaheim police need investigating and you are full of
> loony conspiracy theories?
What "theories"?
Conspiracies? Yes. One on the part of the MxGov to involve itself even in our elections. Though the US Constitution does not empower any foreign power, including the MxGov, to involve itself in US elections, officials from the Mexican Government's 'Instituto de Mexico" in State of Georgia, USA:
and, in the case of even the Feds, who, though long in receipt (see below) of both a petition for a Holder's opinion and with full proofs, could not even bother themselves to even respond (quite the contrary):
Obama and Holder did however purge the Voter Rights Section of the USDOJ's Civil Rights Division including its then head Loretta King to replace her with a perceptible proxy of the MxGov.
> Anaheim mayor demands federal investigation after cops kill two men in
> two days
> The mayor of Anaheim, California is asking for federal assistance in
> an investigation of the local police department after law enforcement
> officers shot and killed two men in separate incidents over the
> weekend.
> Anaheim, California Mayor Tom Tait is looking for answers after two
> people were gun downed in unrelated officer involved shootings this
> week, triggering city-wide protests that have targeted area cops for
> alleged police brutality. With little information being released about
> the killings, citizens of Anaheim are demanding an investigation.
> On Monday, Mayor Tait joined their side and pleaded for assistance
> from officials outside of the city and the state in hopes of getting
> to the bottom of any misconduct in the force.
> "Like many residents, I am very, very concerned with what occurred in
> our city on Saturday night," Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait said in a
> statement. "I am asking the state Attorney General's Office and the
> federal U.S. Attorney's Office for assistance with a full and
> independent investigation of the entire situation."
>> In Anaheim's case for the benefit of the MxGov?
>> Obama must be, after all, still beholding to that government for its
>> being provided, having and using still untold numbers of US voter
>> registration forms. Likewise, officials and employees of the MxGov as
>> perceptible US voter registrars.
On Jul 29, 11:47 am, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hey, I got lost late at night in Anaheim one time when
> the freeway was closed for repairs.
# The price of GPS has dropped dramatically.
My car has a very nice GPS...just press a button and an operator asks you where you want to go, then downloads the destination without your having to touch the GPS.
But, the operator doesn't know how to route you around the barrios in Anaheim. The cops knew.
I feel more comfortable in Guadalajara than Anaheim.
> On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> To quell the rioters?
> You fuckwit - that's a state function.
"Fuckwit"? Idiot:
"According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' Congress is also empowered to come up with the guidelines 'for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (clause 16). The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias 'when called into the actual Service of the United States"'. (Article II, Section 2). ---Wikipedia
> On 7/30/2012 10:24 AM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>> On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>> To quell the rioters?
>> You fuckwit - that's a state function.
> "Fuckwit"?
Yes, you fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit.
> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
> Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia
> to execute the Laws of the Union
The laws being violated in Anaheim are not the "Laws of the Union", you fuckwit - they're the laws of the state of California and the city of Anaheim.
> On 7/30/2012 12:05 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 10:24 AM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>> To quell the rioters?
>>> You fuckwit - that's a state function.
>> "Fuckwit"?
> Yes, you fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit.
>> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
>> Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia
>> to execute the Laws of the Union
> The laws being violated in Anaheim are not the "Laws of the Union", you
> fuckwit - they're the laws of the state of California and the city of
> Anaheim.
> God damn, but you really *are* a fuckwit.
You are dense. If you and your like insist, Congress can simply pass an addtional law declaring the insurrection in Anaheim being indeed an insurrection.
Or even a foreign invasion.
In any case: "The power of Congress over the militia 'being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress...."---http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/47-militia.html
In matters pertaining to a particular state, Congress does not need either the approval of the state's governor or the President to call forth to a state the National Guard of that state.
> On 7/30/2012 3:11 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 12:05 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 10:24 AM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>> To quell the rioters?
>>>> You fuckwit - that's a state function.
>>> "Fuckwit"?
>> Yes, you fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit.
>>> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
>>> Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia
>>> to execute the Laws of the Union
>> The laws being violated in Anaheim are not the "Laws of the Union", you
>> fuckwit - they're the laws of the state of California and the city of
>> Anaheim.
>> God damn, but you really *are* a fuckwit.
> You are dense. If you and your like insist, Congress can simply pass an
> addtional law declaring the insurrection in Anaheim being indeed an
> insurrection.
Can you cite *any* instance of that happening since the Constitution was ratified, you fuckwit? Did that happen in any of the great riots of the 1960s, you fuckwit?
Have you ever heard of the Insurrection Act, you fuckwit? In particular, the 2006 amendments to it.
You really are a stupid fuckwit. In fact, it's obvious you *work* at being a fuckwit. Why? Why not just let nature take its course, and let your natural fuckwittery shine?
> On 7/30/2012 12:29 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 3:11 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 12:05 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 10:24 AM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>>>> On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>>> To quell the rioters?
>>>>> You fuckwit - that's a state function.
>>>> "Fuckwit"?
>>> Yes, you fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit.
>>>> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
>>>> Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia
>>>> to execute the Laws of the Union
>>> The laws being violated in Anaheim are not the "Laws of the Union", you
>>> fuckwit - they're the laws of the state of California and the city of
>>> Anaheim.
>>> God damn, but you really *are* a fuckwit.
>> You are dense. If you and your like insist, Congress can simply pass an
>> addtional law declaring the insurrection in Anaheim being indeed an
>> insurrection.
> Can you cite *any* instance of that happening since the Constitution was
> ratified, you fuckwit? Did that happen in any of the great riots of the
> 1960s, you fuckwit?
> Have you ever heard of the Insurrection Act, you fuckwit? In
> particular, the 2006 amendments to it.
> You really are a stupid fuckwit. In fact, it's obvious you *work* at
> being a fuckwit. Why? Why not just let nature take its course, and let
> your natural fuckwittery shine?
"Insurrection Act"?
Irrelevant. Even if the Insurrection Act did not apply to powers granted the Persident, "when called into the actual Service of the United States" only, to, instead, particular states also, all Congress would have to do is pass a law that it only can.
It wouldn't even be up for "judicial review."
You began with "The National Guard is a state function."
And you had the nerve to tell me that I am a "fuckwit."
You cut the following again, you can argue with anyone else.
This is where it stands. With the US Constitution:
"According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' Congress is also empowered to come up with the guidelines 'for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (clause 16). The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias 'when called into the actual Service of the United States"'. (Article II, Section 2). ---Wikipedia
Do you care to argue that what is happening in Anaheim is not even an "insurrection"?
It is. The publisher---a perceptible proxy of the MxGov no less--of Orange County's "alternative newspaper" has been calling upon the rioters to "get drunk," continue the rioting and has even published the home address of the duly appointed Chief of Police of Anaheim.
That sir is "insurrection."
And YES Congress can constitutionally deal with it.
Particularly given how, just as officials and employees of the MxGov are being provided (no less), having and using US voter registrations forms, those same officials could walk into California's Governor's mansion and the WH piss on their beds and shit on their flags and Brown and Obama will do nothing.
> On 7/30/2012 12:29 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 3:11 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 12:05 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 10:24 AM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>>>> On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>>> To quell the rioters?
>>>>> You fuckwit - that's a state function.
>>>> "Fuckwit"?
>>> Yes, you fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit.
>>>> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
>>>> Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia
>>>> to execute the Laws of the Union
>>> The laws being violated in Anaheim are not the "Laws of the Union", you
>>> fuckwit - they're the laws of the state of California and the city of
>>> Anaheim.
>>> God damn, but you really *are* a fuckwit.
>> You are dense. If you and your like insist, Congress can simply pass an
>> addtional law declaring the insurrection in Anaheim being indeed an
>> insurrection.
> Can you cite *any* instance of that happening since the Constitution was
> ratified, you fuckwit? Did that happen in any of the great riots of the
> 1960s, you fuckwit?
Yes. By the executive branch of the federal government, the president and his defense secretary.
A few sources can order federalization:
"National Guard units can be mobilized for federal active duty to supplement regular armed forces during times of war or national emergency declared by Congress,[20] the President[20] or the Secretary of Defense.[21]"
> Have you ever heard of the Insurrection Act, you fuckwit? In particular,
> the 2006 amendments to it.
Which were "were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008."
SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109 364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES. (a) INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. (1) IN GENERAL. Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 333. Interference with State and Federal law The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. . (2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE. Section 334 of such title is amended by striking or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws after insurgents . (3) HEADING AMENDMENT. The heading
> On 7/30/2012 3:40 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 12:29 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 3:11 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 12:05 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>> On 7/30/2012 10:24 AM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>>>> To quell the rioters?
>>>>>> You fuckwit - that's a state function.
>>>>> "Fuckwit"?
>>>> Yes, you fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit.
>>>>> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
>>>>> Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the
>>>>> Militia
>>>>> to execute the Laws of the Union
>>>> The laws being violated in Anaheim are not the "Laws of the Union", you
>>>> fuckwit - they're the laws of the state of California and the city of
>>>> Anaheim.
>>>> God damn, but you really *are* a fuckwit.
>>> You are dense. If you and your like insist, Congress can simply pass an
>>> addtional law declaring the insurrection in Anaheim being indeed an
>>> insurrection.
>> Can you cite *any* instance of that happening since the Constitution was
>> ratified, you fuckwit? Did that happen in any of the great riots of the
>> 1960s, you fuckwit?
>> Have you ever heard of the Insurrection Act, you fuckwit? In
>> particular, the 2006 amendments to it.
>> You really are a stupid fuckwit. In fact, it's obvious you *work* at
>> being a fuckwit. Why? Why not just let nature take its course, and let
>> your natural fuckwittery shine?
> "Insurrection Act"?
> Irrelevant.
It's fully relevant, you fuckwit. It spells out just when the guard can be called out for federal issues.
> It wouldn't even be up for "judicial review."
> You began with "The National Guard is a state function."
Nope - I said that calling it out to quell a riot is a state function. It is.
> And you had the nerve to tell me that I am a "fuckwit."
Because you are - you work at it.
> You cut the following again, you can argue with anyone else.
> This is where it stands. With the US Constitution:
> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
> Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia
> to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
> Invasions.'
> Do you care to argue that what is happening in Anaheim is not even an
> "insurrection"?
Not against the federal government, it isn't - not an "invasion", either.
> On 7/30/2012 1:49 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 4:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> You began with "The National Guard is a state function."
>>> Nope - I said that calling it out to quell a riot is a state function.
>>> It is.
>> Were you even born in 1968?
> Long before that, sparky.
Then you ought to know that all sorts of federal and state troops were deployed to quell the nasty riots, just as they were deployed in 1970 for the postal strike. As for the National Guard itself, Ike took over the whole shebang for Little Rock in 1957.
> On 7/30/2012 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 1:49 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 4:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> You began with "The National Guard is a state function."
>>>> Nope - I said that calling it out to quell a riot is a state function.
>>>> It is.
>>> Were you even born in 1968?
>> Long before that, sparky.
> Then you ought to know that all sorts of federal and state troops were
> deployed to quell the nasty riots, just as they were deployed in 1970
> for the postal strike. As for the National Guard itself, Ike took over
> the whole shebang for Little Rock in 1957.
State governors called out the guard to quell the riots of the 1960s. The guard was not federalized and not called out by the president in any of them.
Eisenhower federalized the guard in Arkansas in 1957 in order to enforce a federal court ruling.
> On 7/30/2012 3:32 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 1:49 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 4:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> You began with "The National Guard is a state function."
>>>>> Nope - I said that calling it out to quell a riot is a state function.
>>>>> It is.
>>>> Were you even born in 1968?
>>> Long before that, sparky.
>> Then you ought to know that all sorts of federal and state troops were
>> deployed to quell the nasty riots, just as they were deployed in 1970
>> for the postal strike. As for the National Guard itself, Ike took over
>> the whole shebang for Little Rock in 1957.
> State governors called out the guard to quell the riots of the 1960s.
> The guard was not federalized and not called out by the president in any
> of them.
> Eisenhower federalized the guard in Arkansas in 1957 in order to enforce
> a federal court ruling.
> On 7/30/2012 3:32 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 1:49 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 4:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> You began with "The National Guard is a state function."
>>>>> Nope - I said that calling it out to quell a riot is a state function.
>>>>> It is.
>>>> Were you even born in 1968?
>>> Long before that, sparky.
>> Then you ought to know that all sorts of federal and state troops were
>> deployed to quell the nasty riots, just as they were deployed in 1970
>> for the postal strike. As for the National Guard itself, Ike took over
>> the whole shebang for Little Rock in 1957.
> State governors called out the guard to quell the riots of the 1960s.
> The guard was not federalized and not called out by the president in any
> of them.
Not quite, slick:
"With the intervention of federal forces, the Maryland National Guard was called into federal duty, resulting in a shift from state control (reporting to the Governor of Maryland) to federal control (reporting through the Army chain of command to the President). The federal force, Task Force Baltimore, was organized into three brigades and a reserve. These were (roughly), the XVIII Airborne Corps troops, the Maryland National Guard, and troops from the 197th Infantry Brigade from Fort Benning, Georgia (which arrived two days later)."==wikipedia
> On 7/30/2012 7:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 3:32 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 5:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 1:49 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/30/2012 4:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> You began with "The National Guard is a state function."
>>>>>> Nope - I said that calling it out to quell a riot is a state
>>>>>> function.
>>>>>> It is.
>>>>> Were you even born in 1968?
>>>> Long before that, sparky.
>>> Then you ought to know that all sorts of federal and state troops were
>>> deployed to quell the nasty riots, just as they were deployed in 1970
>>> for the postal strike. As for the National Guard itself, Ike took over
>>> the whole shebang for Little Rock in 1957.
>> State governors called out the guard to quell the riots of the 1960s.
>> The guard was not federalized and not called out by the president in any
>> of them.
> Not quite, slick:
Why did you omit this, shitworm?
Spiro T. Agnew, the Governor of Maryland, called out thousands of
National Guard troops and 500 Maryland State Police to quell the
disturbance. When it was determined that the state forces could
not control the riot, Agnew requested Federal troops from
President Lyndon B. Johnson.
That *preceded* the federalization of the guard. The federalization only happened because troops from the regular army were sent...at the request of the governor.
> "With the intervention of federal forces, the Maryland National Guard
> was called into federal duty, resulting in a shift from state control
> (reporting to the Governor of Maryland) to federal control (reporting
> through the Army chain of command to the President). The federal force,
> Task Force Baltimore, was organized into three brigades and a reserve.
> These were (roughly), the XVIII Airborne Corps troops, the Maryland
> National Guard, and troops from the 197th Infantry Brigade from Fort
> Benning, Georgia (which arrived two days later)."==wikipedia
> On 7/30/2012 1:07 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 3:40 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 12:29 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 3:11 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>>>> On 7/30/2012 12:05 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/30/2012 10:24 AM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>>>>> To quell the rioters?
>>>>>>> You fuckwit - that's a state function.
>>>>>> "Fuckwit"?
>>>>> Yes, you fuckwit. You *are* a fuckwit.
>>>>>> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
>>>>>> Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the
>>>>>> Militia
>>>>>> to execute the Laws of the Union
>>>>> The laws being violated in Anaheim are not the "Laws of the Union",
>>>>> you
>>>>> fuckwit - they're the laws of the state of California and the city of
>>>>> Anaheim.
>>>>> God damn, but you really *are* a fuckwit.
>>>> You are dense. If you and your like insist, Congress can simply pass an
>>>> addtional law declaring the insurrection in Anaheim being indeed an
>>>> insurrection.
>>> Can you cite *any* instance of that happening since the Constitution was
>>> ratified, you fuckwit? Did that happen in any of the great riots of the
>>> 1960s, you fuckwit?
>>> Have you ever heard of the Insurrection Act, you fuckwit? In
>>> particular, the 2006 amendments to it.
>>> You really are a stupid fuckwit. In fact, it's obvious you *work* at
>>> being a fuckwit. Why? Why not just let nature take its course, and let
>>> your natural fuckwittery shine?
>> "Insurrection Act"?
>> Irrelevant.
> It's fully relevant, you fuckwit. It spells out just when the guard can
> be called out for federal issues.
Congress is empowered to call out the National Guard on "state" issues.
Thus its reserving to the President...
You have censored the post again. What I was going to again refer to.
