Why Hasn't Congress Not Called Cal's National Guard Into Anaheim?

[don Gabacho]

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?

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.

BTW, Congress is empowered to do so.

[Wo Tan]

On 7/29/2012 9:39 AM, Fair Play wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:09:52 -0400, don Gabacho<jpas...@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

Fuck no, esad, troll.

[Wayne]

"Fair Play" wrote in message
news:dvla18d1lmnm4iijp...@4ax.com...

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:09:52 -0400, don Gabacho <jpas...@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.

[don Gabacho]

On 7/29/2012 11:39 AM, Fair Play wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:09:52 -0400, don Gabacho <jpas...@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:

http://bit.ly/nkqBuS
http://bit.ly/odEZbI
http://bit.ly/nWDzCU

And on the part of US government in covering it up:

In the State of GA:

http://goo.gl/Qu5Yf ,

http://goo.gl/9nca2

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):

http://goo.gl/agQDo ...

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

> http://rt.com/usa/news/anaheim-mayor-shooting-investigation-969/

So, he's demanded the Fed's instead of Brown and the State's Department
of Bureau of Investigation. How conveiently political.

The Mayor has in fact admitted that Anaheim must be a failed city, like
any in Mexico, and California, like Mexico, a failed state.


> TAGS:Crime, Scandal, Law, USA, Police
>
>
>
> 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."

[Ramon F. Herrera]

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.

-Ramon

[Delma T. Ivey]

On 7/29/2012 7:09 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
> To quell the rioters?

You fuckwit - that's a state function.

[Bob Wilson]

"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in news:9149d750-df97-4d0f-
a4cc-74f...@p6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

Hey Ramon, how's that myopia working out for you?

[Wayne]

"Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
news:9149d750-df97-4d0f...@p6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

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.

[don Gabacho]

"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

[Delma T. Ivey]

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.

[don Gabacho]

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.

[Delma T. Ivey]

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?

[don Gabacho]

"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.

[Sancho Panza]

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?

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

[George Plimpton]

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.


> It is.

Not against the federal government, it isn't.

You fuckwit.

[Sancho Panza]

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?

[George Plimpton]

Long before that, sparky.

[Sancho Panza]

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.

[George Plimpton]

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.

Just when were *you* born, sparky?

[Sancho Panza]

Enough to be on duty in '68.

[Sancho Panza]

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:

"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

[George Plimpton]

On 7/30/2012 4:53 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> 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.

You asshole.

[don Gabacho]

On 7/30/2012 4:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

Come mierde pendejo.

[don Gabacho]

He's lying. He said "The National Guard is a state function"---period.

At least he has admitted that the rioting in Anaheim is an "insurrection."

And yes Congress can call up the National Guard to quell it.

Because, as the moron even stated it, it (so far) is contained to a
single State: California.

[don Gabacho]

On 7/30/2012 4:49 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:

Note how "Plimpton" is mixing himself up with "Ivey."

They are the same person.

[George Plimpton]

It isn't.

[George Plimpton]

On 7/30/2012 5:19 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 4:49 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?
>
> He's lying. He said "The National Guard is a state function"---period.

No, that's not what I said, you fuckwit.

[George Plimpton]

Note how you're a fuckwit - a fuckwit-by-choice.

[don Gabacho]

I had said Congress is empowered by the US Constitution to call out the
National Guard in matters contained to a state.

That they haven't, doesn't mean that they can not or, in this casee,
should not.

If Congresss did, and Gov Brown or the state's "adjuctant general" (or
nowadays equivielent)" refused to take command of the National Guard
Congress called for by Congress, they'd be instantly liable for far more
than be than mere "Contempt of Congress."

They'd be instantly liable for treason; and Congress can then order the
President to send in the army.

> 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

[Delma T. Ivey]

And that's false.

[Delma T. Ivey]

I asked you for an instance of it, you fuckwit, not a repetition of your
false claim.

[don Gabacho]

On 7/30/2012 4:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

While the US Constitution empowers Congress to call our the National
Guard to quell "insurrection" within or against a state.

Save us of any more of your moronics.

We heard you, Ivey/Plimpton, the first time.

That the US Constitution is a "conspiracy theory."

>
>> It is.
>
> Not against the federal government, it isn't.
>
> You fuckwit.
>

Does "come mierda pendejo" have to be translated for you?

[don Gabacho]

You have already erased the exceprt from the US Constitution that makes
it true.

Yet again:

[don Gabacho]

You've been given instances.

Now let's get down to your level for the last time: "Come mierda
pendejo" means "Eat shit pubic hair."

[Sancho Panza]

Because your complete bullshit about the president never federalizing
any of the national guards was, shall we say, inaccurate. Or maybe in
your terms a complete lie. But dealing in ad hominem epithets seems to
be more your style than dealing in facts.

[don Gabacho]

On 7/30/2012 8:32 PM, don Gabacho wrote:


> ��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,...

While the President can, given your cite, it doesn't exclude the
Constitutional empowerment of the US Congress to call forth the National
Guard.

Particularly when the President and the Governor are not.

That Anaheim's Mayor has asked (supposedly on his own accord) of all
people (begging for distractions from Fast & Furious) Holder to
investigate the police when the police chief's very home has been
deliberately targeted---meaning himself and family---for insurrection,
and given Brown's and Obama's dereliction of official duty, Congress
must act as it is constitutionally empowered to do.

[Sancho Panza]

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.

"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;."

[don Gabacho]

On 7/30/2012 9:12 PM, Sancho Panza 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.
>
> "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;."

While "The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of
the state militias 'when called [by Congress] into the actual Service of
the United States' (Article II, Section 2)" stands.

So? What is Congress waiting for?

Plimpton? Ivey?

[Delma T. Ivey]

On 7/30/2012 5:53 PM, don Gabacho wrote:

No, it doesn't, you fuckwit.

[Delma T. Ivey]

The "exceprt" [sic] does not support your claim, you fuckwit.

[Delma T. Ivey]

Nope - not a single one, you fuckwit.

[Sancho Panza]

You mean with their eloquent pronouncements?

[George Plimpton]

Never said that, you fuckwit. I said that in *all* the riots of the
1960s, the governor of the state called out the guard. That is true.

[Delma T. Ivey]

On 7/30/2012 6:12 PM, Sancho Panza 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.
>
> "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,

"*AND* of the United States within the State..." [emphasis added for
fuckwits].

> that any
> part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity,

> or protection named in the Constitution...

Hmm...looks like a requirement for a federal interest, you fuckwit,
which some rioters burning a liquor store would not be.

[don Gabacho]

On 7/30/2012 9:24 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:

what's with you?

You have to have the shit to eat served on a silver platter?

[Delma T. Ivey]

On 7/30/2012 7:20 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 9:24 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>
> what's with you?

What do you mean? I enjoy kicking your ignorant ass, that's all.
What's wrong with that?

[don Gabacho]

On 7/30/2012 9:29 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 6:12 PM, Sancho Panza 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.
>>
>> "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,
>
> "*AND* of the United States within the State..." [emphasis added for
> fuckwits].

So? Congress can "within the state" and order the Governor to act as
Governor or have his "adjuctant general" act or, if not complying, the

President to send in the army.

It would be interesting to see if Brown would act. Likewise Obama.

If either did not comply with a Congressional order delivered
publically, do recall the act of treason rquires only two witnesses.

>> that any
>> part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity,
>> or protection named in the Constitution...
>
> Hmm...looks like a requirement for a federal interest, you fuckwit,
> which some rioters burning a liquor store would not be.

Where did you ever get your notions about US law? A school in Mexico?

When no one legal in the USA can be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process---guranteed by the US Constitution---you
are having it that "licquor store" owners can when victims of
insurrectionists looting.

At least looting a store where there is "no federal interest."

You're not just an idiot.

You are a malicious idiot.

[Delma T. Ivey]

Congress cannot, of course, "order the Governor [sic] to act".

You're not a lawyer. You're not a constitutional scholar. You're an
ignorant fuckwit and cocksucker. Why don't you shut the fuck up?
You're done. You're finished. Just shut up.

>>> that any
>>> part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity,
>>> or protection named in the Constitution...
>>
>> Hmm...looks like a requirement for a federal interest, you fuckwit,
>> which some rioters burning a liquor store would not be.
>
>
> Where did you ever get your notions about US law? A school in Mexico?

You are not, of course, either a lawyer or a constitutional scholar.
You're an ignorant blowhard, a shitbag, a liar, a crackpot. It really
is well past time for you to shut up and fuck off. Now do it.

[don Gabacho]

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

> You're not a lawyer. You're not a constitutional scholar. You're an
> ignorant fuckwit and cocksucker. Why don't you shut the fuck up? You're
> done. You're finished. Just shut up.

"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

>>>> that any
>>>> part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege,
>>>> immunity,
>>>> or protection named in the Constitution...
>>>
>>> Hmm...looks like a requirement for a federal interest, you fuckwit,
>>> which some rioters burning a liquor store would not be.
>>
>>
>> Where did you ever get your notions about US law? A school in Mexico?
>

> You are...

...censoring again.

The looting of insurrectionists is not the "due process" guaranteed by
the US Constitution: the same Constitution that the Governor of
California is obligated to uphold, the same Constitution the President
of the USA is sworn to uphold.

Got it?

Meanwhile:

"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

> not, of course, either a lawyer or a constitutional scholar.
> You're an ignorant blowhard, a shitbag, a liar, a crackpot. It really
> is well past time for you to shut up and fuck off. Now do it.

How is it you can write but can't read. Except of course by simply
relaying whatever garbage comes down the tube from MxCty?


Meanwhile:

"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

[don Gabacho]

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?
>

You're losing it. Big time. "Fuckwittery!" Hanh!

[don Gabacho]

Now we have it. Ivey/Plimpton is "deadrat."

Or is it the other way around?


Meanwhile:

"According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States
Congress is given the power to pass laws for 'calling forth the Militia

[don Gabacho]

[Sancho Panza]

On 7/30/2012 11:33 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 9:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> State governors called out the guard to quell the riots of the 1960s.
>

Followed by

[Sancho Panza]

While we're on the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680.html

[Delma T. Ivey]

Nope. I didn't prevent you in any way from saying whatever ignorant,
corn-pone, stupid bullshit you wished to say.


> The looting of insurrectionists

The protesters in Anaheim, misguided though they may be, are not
"insurrectionists". You don't know the meaning of the word.

You don't really *know* much of anything. You believe a lot of shit,
but it's all shit.

[Delma T. Ivey]

Nope.

You never had "it". You're an ignoramus - a fuckwit.

[Delma T. Ivey]

On 7/30/2012 8:29 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 10:33 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 7:20 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 9:24 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>>
>>> what's with you?
>>
>> What do you mean? I enjoy kicking your ignorant ass, that's all. What's
>> wrong with that?
>>
>
>
> Now we have it.

All you have, you knuckle-dragging fuckwit, is your pencil-thin dick in
your hand.

> Meanwhile:
>
> "According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14

...which you have never read...

[Delma T. Ivey]

On 7/30/2012 8:33 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 9:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> State governors called out the guard to quell the riots of the 1960s.
>

Exactly.

[Delma T. Ivey]

On 7/30/2012 8:39 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 11:33 PM, don Gabacho wrote:

>> On 7/30/2012 9:26 PM, Delma T. Ivey wrote:
>>> State governors called out the guard to quell the riots of the 1960s.
>>
> Followed by

...a complete demolition of your crackpot cracker corn-pone bullshit.

Right.

[Red Cloud]

On Jul 30, 5:43 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
> -Ramon

That's because you are using made in China GPS device, Fruitcake!
All those electronic gadgets control your life is all designed by
Korean and Japanese and manufactured in China. You never find any
high tech device produced by your Hispanic/Latino race.

[Homer Stille Cummings]

The intellectual mentality required for high tech development and
production is entirely foreign to Hispanics.

[Sancho Panza]

Seeing as how the OP's have apparently not bothered to read the cite,
here is the pertinent second graf:

"President Bush authorized the dispatch of 7,200 active-duty ground
troops to the area -- the first major commitment of regular ground
forces in the crisis -- and the Pentagon announced that an additional
10,000 National Guard troops will be sent to Louisiana and Mississippi,
raising the total Guard contingent to about 40,000."

[plainolamerican]

On Jul 29, 9:09 am, 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?
>
> 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.
>
> BTW, Congress is empowered to do so.

Why Hasn't Congress Not Called Cal's National Guard Into Anaheim?
---
because the spics haven't killed enough Americans and destroyed enough
property yet?

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jul 29, 9:09 am, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
> To quell the rioters?

> BTW, Congress is empowered to do so.

"Why Hasn't Congress Not [sic] Called Cal's National Guard Into
Anaheim?"

Mr. Gabacho:

Because we have better things to do than being an instrument of your
hatred.

-Signed: The US Congress

[Al]

In article
<f506b07e-6dd9-4d9a...@d32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

Riot control = hatred.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jul 31, 7:23 pm, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f506b07e-6dd9-4d9a-83f1-7cd203e13...@d32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

You don't even know the story of hatred and insanity that afflicts Don
Gabozo. He became deranged in these very forums. Sad case, really.

Congress DOES NOT NEED TO IMPLEMENT RIOT CONTROL. That is an insult to
the proper authorities.

-Ramon

[Wo Tan]

On 7/31/2012 6:33 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> You don't even know the story of hatred and insanity that afflicts Don

Most of us have seen your insanity and said, that's more than enough.

[Dave Wells]

In article <jv7fdh$mvp$1...@dont-email.me>

Progressives will eat shit from anything. Look at Obama and his
occupooper movement.

[Al]

In article
<40878232-8b1f-4f36...@j8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

> On Jul 31, 7:23 pm, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <f506b07e-6dd9-4d9a-83f1-7cd203e13...@d32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 29, 9:09 am, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
> > >  > To quell the rioters?
> > >  > BTW, Congress is empowered to do so.
> >
> > > "Why Hasn't Congress Not [sic] Called Cal's National Guard Into
> > > Anaheim?"
> >
> > > Mr. Gabacho:
> >
>
> > > Because we have better things to do than being an instrument of
> your
> > > hatred.
> >
> > Riot control = hatred.
>
> You don't even know the story of hatred and insanity that afflicts Don
> Gabozo. He became deranged in these very forums. Sad case, really.

The comment was directed at you. The guy wonders why there isn't more done
to quell a riot, and you interpret it as hatred. Maybe the guy hates riots?

[don Gabacho]

Ramon knows I do not "hate" anyone. He and his troupe are simply in the
service of the MxGov which certainly "hates" me.

[don Gabacho]

Recall "Fama"? During the Inquistion "Fama" was the black robed and
hooded denouncer pointing his crooked finger in fevered denouncement at
the targeted victim.

"Fama" was to 'defame' with false incrimintions prior to and during the
procedures of Inquistorial trial.

Though changing costumes, the Inquistion never ended in Latin America
and especially Mexico; now exported to the USA and of course the I-Net.

It is to impose MxCty's rule.

[Al]

In article <jvjklo$9vv$1...@dont-email.me>, don Gabacho <jpas...@nettaxi.com>
wrote:

One-trick ponies.

Progressive, in that they are old, stale, and have no new ideas - only a
perpetual grievance machine, and Americans are growing tired of them.

[don Gabacho]

It is more than a mere "grievance" machine and, though in different
words, hardly limited to liberals.

Ramon and cohorts are in the service of the MxGov which does not
tolerate any dissent, any opposition, any resistance at all to those
issues it is exploiting to further impose its governance in the USA.

[Al]

In article <jvmj7g$38j$1...@dont-email.me>, don Gabacho <jpas...@nettaxi.com>

They lie a lot, they expect Obama to lie, and they know when he is lying.

[don Gabacho]

Of course Ramon, his troupe and the MxGov expect and know when Obama is
lying.

Obama and Holder have refused to hold the MxGov accountable for having
and using still untold numbers of voter registration forms. The reason
being that any accountability would---at minimum---render his own, among
many others (both Democrat and Republican), invalid.

That's is the leverage that the MxGov has (with not only Obama) to, not
only continue imposing its governance in the USA but to also enforce,
formally or informally and by any means, its governance in the USA.

[Al]

In article <jvmu5m$vd9$1...@dont-email.me>, don Gabacho <jpas...@nettaxi.com>

By any means necessary.

It's not really totalitarian tactic if it's done for the good of America -
Romney would destroy everything like Reagan did, we all know that.

As Liberal Tiger Russ Feingold said "it's not over till we win".

"es ist nicht vorbei, bis wir gewinnen"

[plainolamerican]

On Aug 6, 5:46 pm, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jvmu5m$vd...@dont-email.me>, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/5/2012 5:48 PM, Al wrote:

> > > In article <jvmj7g$38...@dont-email.me>, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com>

> > > wrote:
>
> > >> On 8/5/2012 11:10 AM, Al wrote:

> > >>> In article <jvjklo$9v...@dont-email.me>, don Gabacho
> > >>> <jpast...@nettaxi.com>

> > >>> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On 7/31/2012 8:23 PM, Al wrote:
> > >>>>> In article

> > >>>>> <f506b07e-6dd9-4d9a-83f1-7cd203e13...@d32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

Feingold is a jew who promotes socialism in America. He should take
his sorry ass and the rest of his family home to israel.