We sir are in accord.

Only if they are forced to see a real battle will they show their true colors. Right now, we have set out the welcome mat for illegals, and still the Mexican government criticizes us for not being lenient enough. I have heard of bending over and grabbing the ankles, but this is way beyond that.

To arms my friend. It has been quoted many times Mexico really thinks they still own Texas, N.M., AZ., CA. and want the land back so they send their illegals north to accomplish their agenda. They seem to forget one thing. In the heat of real battle I think "Santi Anni" the coward will show their true colors.

Suppose you purchased a piece of land from X, paid him and got a “Bill of Sale” or Deed. At the time, you knew X acquired the land from Y with a condition subsequent which specifically provided any attempt or actual transfer revokes the transfer from Y to X and the land reverts to Y. The rule of law is a buyer (with the exception of a bona fide purchaser for value, which you are not by reason of you knowledge of the condition subsequent) cannot acquire a title better than the title of the seller. What quality of title do you acquire? The answer is none. Change you for the U.S., X for France and Y for Spain and you have the same situation.

Then add you are a corporation without the power to purchase land. That is, and was, the U.S. position because there is, and was, no such power delegated to the federal government. If you are the president sworn to uphold the constitution and you deliberately violate it, should you not be impeached instead of lauded?

The U.S. was supposed to be the first nation based upon the rule of law. Your (correct) use of the word “conquest” when referring to the theft of land from Mexico illustrates well that at least from 1803, the U.S. has not been based upon the rule of law and it has been a land-grabbing country just like all the others in Europe. This should be a matter of shame, not veneration.

I did not deal with other aspects of your comments because it would take too long and is not appropriate for a blog.

This is what happens when reason trascends reality or, on the other, it just goes out the window. Why is this not the case with the French Canadian border? Haven´t the French during colonial and the XIXth Century had conflicts with the British and later "american" part of the continent, as did the Spanish-Mexican ones? These questions aren´t hard to answer, yes/yes would be the simple and easy way. But I would add that every conflict has it´s singularities.

The Spanish colonization of North America was real, with occupants and the Roman Catholic Church converting natives into catholics and, therefore, second class citizens. The apolalyptico version of what is considered a savage and bloody colonization of Mexico and the rest of America isn´t entirely wrong for "south of the border" none would celebrate thanksgiving. In Tenochtichlan there weren´t any free tribes, it was the capital of the Aztec Empire. Same with the Mayans and the Incas further South. Natives, unlike the Aztecs, were hostile to the occupation of their land and the Church´s aid in colonization was crucial, they introduced a new phenomena to the concept of colonization: guilt. But it was still a very difficult conquest, that extended well into the XIXth Century and the beginning of the XXth.

Mexico and the prior Spanish Colonies had long before occupied and exploited what is now the state of California, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado and the entire south western region of the US. The gold rush were all Spanish-Mexican mines that usually never made it back to spain (the gold), becoming victims to piracy at sea or worse, corruption in america. A great part of the federal reserve is Spanish Mexican gold, as a matter of fact.

But there´s much more. The names of this region´s states are spanish ones, Texas meaning "tejas", which is what great part of the soil was used for: the colonial terracota shingle or "teja". The fact that today many illegals are Mexicans and the border policies are so strict is due to many things, some even amoral and in clear dissadvantage to the people "south of the border". This isn´t a race or cultural issue, let´s not confuse things. This is an economical and political issue.

It´s wrong, I agree, that Mexicans should do this. But isn´t also wrong that they were robbed of their mines and gold, used as cheap labor in the states and left to starve in the waste lands beyond the great texan oil reserve (which is all "american", no doubt about it)? For an official Federal Trooper to attack a border policy isn´t just mear mayhem...

All wall alone will never be effective...they already find tunnels regularly (ac, lighting, water, etc.). I have a solid solution - move all National Guard Bases with the first 15 miles along the borders and have them patrol between them. Use Air Guard to provide air cover a recon for intel. Use border patrol after 15 miles and monitor social services and hospital use to remove those already embedded in our society. It'll never happen. Not keen on the labor idea.

Here we go again! I have have a solution but it might be seen as slave labor. Here it is: At the Az. border set up all the FEMA trailers to house all illegal aliens crossing into Arizona. Give them tools to first dig their own wells and septic pounds for the camp then have them start producing mud bricks for the Great Wall of Arizona. Then can have their own gardens to help feed themselves. Then after a month or so send some back across the the border to make room for new illegals. In a few years there will be a border wall to rival the Great Wall of China all constructed by illegal aliens. This could eventually deter them crossing the border both from the fact that they will become indentured laborers and the wall will stop them after it is completed.We could lower the population of illegal aliens in AZ Jails and Prisons with the wall building solution.

These are a few things I can remember that main stream sources actually reported on. I'll leave the subjects a mystery to add to the shock value of what we are made to put up with in Phoenix.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/06/26/...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/13/border....

http://www.ketv.com/news/update-93-year-...

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=sign+wa...



I hope that last one works.

Hear you. Don't doubt that it could happen as you and others say. However, I lack objective evidence or any first person accounts. It is plausible and you are a quality member of our Gulch; therefore, it goes in the "look out for info about this" bucket in the brain.
Notwithstanding the plausibility, this kind of overzealous reporting is counterproductive, particularly in bringing the "swing votes" around.

Unfortunately, as I and other have said, these things happen all the time along the southern border. Between the MSM not reporting, the government not doing anything to defend against incursions, and the state department not making a huff to Mexico about sovereignty violations. what you receive are mostly independent reporters trying to get the word out to anyone who will listen.

Agree. Details inconsistent with assertions. Reads like an interrogation of a 6yr old about a broken window, by a 9yr old Flat Earth Society member.

Ok, you have a depth of history. Even so, the reality is that there is a bill of sale, money did change hands for that bill of sale and the US could have just taken the land after its conquest, giving Mexico nothing. However it occurred this land became and is US soil.

As for it :too bad about history not being taught in government schools" I agree. Still, if it weren't for the illegal aliens, the crime they bring and the economic burden they create, I wouldn't give a damn about Mexico outside of its food and perhaps, in my younger years, tequila.

I notice that you avoided my questions about Spain.

These comments are tu quoque and diversion fallacies, among others. I refer you to David Kelley’s book “The Art of Reasoning” to see the errors in what is stated. In short, the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to purchase anything. This issue was discussed in 1803 when Jefferson did the Louisiana purchase. Jefferson acknowledged the lack of authority, so the politicians changed the “character” of the purchase by changing the name to a treaty, for which there was Constitutional authority. However, the French (from whom the purchase was made) only owned it for three weeks and obtained it from Spain under a deal in which France was not permitted to transfer title, and if France did transfer then the deal was it reverted to Spain. Spain at the time objected, but did not the power to enforce the deal. Which means, the US snubbed its own constitution and ignored the legalities of the Spain-France deal of which it had knowledge. And this is only one transgression: Louisiana. Too bad history is taught in the government schools, eh?

As a person born and bred in Texas, but living in Florida now, it is time for another Battle of San Jacinto.

Your source is second-hand, from Pittsburgh, with no numbers. What did the Denver police expect, in non-violent crimes and violent crimes (though I don't usually picture stoners as violent)? Violent deaths are often ambiguous as to motivation, so the jury is still out on how many homicides are related to a marijuana black market.

The Colorado highway patrol has listed a 3% increase in what they call marijuana-related traffic deaths. The admitted problem with that number is that THC remains in the blood for weeks after its reaction delay effects are gone. Is the increased number due to an increased focus on drug impaired driving, or is it an expected effect of increased consumption?

if they were after drug smugglers why aren't they working with our border patrol making then aware of the situation. cooperation exists between the drug smugglers from mexico and recipients on the usa side of the border. things go deeper than we know.

Gotta Love what our, and the world's. ridiculous "War on Drugs" and other prohibitions result it.
It completely corrupts what otherwise may be decent law enforcement personnel - from the bottom to the top.

Footnote -
The Nuremberg Trials established that . . .
Legislation is not the same as law
Legislation must be moral to be lawful
“Government” actions that violate moral rules are criminal

Mexicans lost and the USA won....end of story. If the USA had the attitude of Russia, Mexico might not even exist anymore!!!

The U.S. agents shoot across the Mexican border and kill children; a group of "officers" beat a man to death in front of an American crowd yelling at the officers to stop at the Tijuana border with San Diego on the American side, and the list goes on. Does one suppose this causes some unhappiness south of the border?

No one in authority is taking the border seriously on either side. One day this kind of incident is going to escalate beyond ability to contain... Why aren't we training our military along the borders and on our coastlines instead of stationing many of them in foreign lands like Germany and Japan?

Lets not forget PAID for despite winning in battle. There is a bill of sale and a deed complements of the Mexican government.

So Spain, Mexico's origin, wasn't imperialist when they conquered and murdered millions of natives all over the American continent? What about the extinction of an entire established culture? Imperialist? LOL Mexico and Mexicans should talk.

Actual Colorado news report (not that I would consider typical reporter or police a source of analyzed data):
"We have not seen a huge onslaught of crime like you might have thought. And fortunately we have not seen violent crime, which is our biggest concern."

This is from the police department in Denver, CO - I think one of the larger places in the state...

http://www.wtae.com/news/local/allegheny...

My, this comment sounds very hostile. I’ll only address one item stated. Let me see, “won in battle.” I suppose you are referring to the trumped up Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American War? Yup. Won in battle. Exactly as every other imperialist country gained territory.

My source is the Colorado news media (both TV and papers). When you see a video of one of the stores with signs posting $80-$170 an ounce, I find a quote from the Huffington Post laughable. All of the points in my original statement came from CO state sources, including the law enforcement statements about the increase in drug-related vehicle deaths, and the lack of sufficient police resources to combat the cartel-backed black market.

As for taxation, regulation, and defining certain transactions of a legal substance as "illegal", I agree that it's just a different form of prohibition. However, the sales pitch for legalizing marijuana was based on expected tax revenue and reduced law enforcement cost.

I do think throwing people in prison for victimless crimes is counterproductive. Go after the black market by enacting heavy fines on unlicensed growers and sellers, and don't worry about where the users got their stash.

The sales tax in CO was set too high (higher than the tax on alcohol), and the regulatory overhead cost was badly underestimated. The state should have aimed to target prices at a reasonable level, to discourage a black market.

So the standoff was only ended after the border patrol agents drew their guns? So they were being "held" by the 2 Mexican soldier-sized military invasion and they kept their guns? And they didn't draw them earlier (and shoot the other poor dumb bastards) why? This story doesn't make a lot of sense.