Perry Announces Details Of Texas National Guard Border Deployment

Conservative HQ ^ | 7/22/2014 | CHQ Staff

[Lakeshark]

My early list , of our four most consistent conservatives in order of my current grade of acceptability is:

1. Cruz
2. Walker
3. Perry
4. Carson

If Palin were to run, she would be on the list as well, but I don't think she's running; They all have strengths and weaknesses, my order of favor may change as the debate ensues, one or more may drop out as they decide about running and craft their message. Right now I would like any of them, my hope is that one of them catches fire early and that there will be multiple RINOs running to split the moderate vote, but that's a long way away (hey, I can dream).

I will no doubt be called a RINO and a heretic for this post.......:-)

[SoConPubbie]

I do believe you are exaggerating here, and I think you ought to consider deeply doing so no longer.

Thanks for your concern Lakeshark. I'll take the matter under advisement. As of now, I feel no conviction on the matter, so I will stand pat.

[Sola Veritas]

“...or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”

Naw...I don’t think the courts would see the current situation as being covered by this. To do so would require the Mexican Army to be crossing the border with intent to invade and conquer the U.S. (or Texas). That would constitute a “war” to engage in by the original intent of the passage.They might even consider “armed” criminals (like the drug cartels) crossing the border as “war.” However, a bunch of non-state actors (mainly children) crossing the border for a better existence (while I agree is definitely illegal and wrong) does not consitute and invasion calling for “war” by a state. This is not in keeping with - to me anyway - the obvious original intent of this portion of the COTUS. Also, I do not think a court would see the current situation as being an “imminent danger” necessary for a state to conduct a war. (Once again I would disagree with the court...but that is what I believe they would rule....the wording is too plain for the meaning to be obscure).

Regardless of how I disagree with the current situation where our borders are being ignored and illegal immigration is occuring. I realize this is in no way a situation where a true “war” against an invading hostile force is required Because the reason for this being in the COTUS is when immediate action (conducting a war) by the state being attacked by a foreign power is necessary because the federal government has not yet had time to respond.

[VerySadAmerican]

The anti gun nuts say the NG IS the “well regulated militia” mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, private citizens don’t have the right to own guns.

[Ditter]

Tell us how your state California, is handing the “legal” approach regarding the illegal children?

I am hearing nothing other than attacks on Texas and Perry. What is the “right” thing to do and why isn’t your state doing it?

[SoConPubbie]

Tell us how your state California, is handing the “legal” approach regarding the illegal children?

I am hearing nothing other than attacks on Texas and Perry. What is the “right” thing to do and why isn’t your state doing it?

This isn't an intra-state squabble and it is not an "attack on Texas and Perry".

This IS about conservative principles and those who want to be POTUS and a Leader.

On Amnesty and Border Issues, as my posts have proven, Perry fails. His history shows it, and his half-hearted PR Driven approach on this latest border issue proves it.

[deport]

Tell us how your state California, is handing the “legal”
approach regarding the illegal children?

***************

With open arms I’d guess. Seems that is what is happening all across the USA.

I believe some Europeans came this way and took this land from the Indians. I guess
others figure they can do the same and so far are doing it without a shot being fired.

[Ditter]

And again, you have not answered my question. What is your state doing about this problem?

[miserare]

Hey, Ditter...I am very happy about what Perry is doing. At least he is doing more than BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-ing.

Texas Rangers surely know what MS-13 gangsters look like...their tattoos, etc. They’ll be able to screen those bums out!

Deter? It all depends on what it means and how they’ll do it.

Refer? Wish they could refer all the punks to Joe Arpaio.

My nephew is a US Border Agent. He’s a bachelor—no kids. he has already put his application in with other US law enforcement agencies. So have most of his buddies. He didn’t sign up to change diapers. He’s going for the US Marshals service. At this point, he says, even the National Park Police looks like a better job.

Soon there will be ONLY Texas agents down there on the Rio Grande border.

[dragnet2]

it isn’t a real “threat” to national security

What??

This begs the question Sola:

Tens of millions entering the U.S. illegally, to the extent where they were found wandering around the inside of the private residence of Bush's Homeland Security boss, and nuclear submarine bases during war time is not a threat to national security?

Considering all the historic deadly economy changing terrorist attacks, tens of millions entering illegally from God knows where is NOT an epic national security threat?

Take your time here Sola...

[dragnet2]

BTW, specifically how in tarnation could the courts not see this epic invasion as a huge nation security threat?

I think they see very it very clearly..How could they not?

[dragnet2]

I do not think the courts would consider the current situation to be such that regulars could be used because it isn’t a real “threat” to national security that requires a military force.(I would not agree with them though)

BTW, did the courts actually say this or rule on it?

If so I would love to see a link. Thanks.

[SoConPubbie]

And again, you have not answered my question. What is your state doing about this problem?

And again, I don't care. This is not about your state vs. my state.

It is, however, about those who would be POTUS, and whether or not they are leaders on issues important to conservatives.

[Lakeshark]

Pissant never felt conviction either, he was too busy making a fool of himself for the next president, so he kept exaggerating the horrors of Palin's various positions, including "proving" she was an amnesty queen. He had links too, convincing too many here of something that was flat out untrue. There are multiple fools on FR that still recycle the same garbage as a result.

Starting down his road will never be a good thing for anyone.

[SoConPubbie]

Pissant never felt conviction either, he was too busy making a fool of himself for the next president, so he kept exaggerating the horrors of Palin's various positions, including "proving" she was an amnesty queen. He had links too, convincing too many here of something that was flat out untrue.

Sorry Lakeshark, my conscience doesn't answer to you, but to God.

I've provided a long post of proven history where Rick Perry and his Pro-Open Borders nonsense is concerned. You want to ignore it, so be it.

[Lakeshark]

If you want to ignore what you're starting to do, so be it.

I still prefer Cruz, if he runs, so on that we'll agree.

[Sola Veritas]

“it isn’t a real “threat” to national security”

Obviously open borders are a threat the national security - but that is not the issue I was discussing. What I meant by “reat threat” is in the sense of an invading military force.

Chaplain xzins has cited a portion of the COTUS that prohibits a “state” (like Texas) from conducting a war (which implies a somewhat organized armed force - not illegal children) unless a rapid invasion (implied again is a military force) occurred that required the state to react quickly because of a logistical/communication delay for the “countries” forces to respond.

When the COTUS was written in the late 18th Century, it was set up with the Central/Federal government alone having the power to wage a war. States could not do so. The only exception - and necessary for that time period - was if an invading force was to rapidly move into a state. The state could then wage a (of necessity) limited war until the central/federal government could take over. The circumstances would not allow for the delay of the federal military to get organized and respond. Plus, a state’s officials would get news of the invasion much sooner than the federal officials in Washington would (under the communication systems of the 18th Century). The times required this exception to be put into place.

Illegal children crossing the border is bad and undesirable, and even a threat to the nation’s security. However, it would not (IMO) meet the criteria for a court to rule that a Governor was correct to “wage” war on these illegals. They are not an invading army or even a para-military organization.

Now if the Mexican Army was to cross the border, or their federalles, etc. (or even the para-military drug cartels) as an armed force...then this may meet the criteria for the state of Texas to wage war. However, since there are numerous federal military forces already stationed in Texas..that could respond rapidly to such an invasion. The danger of a “delay” is not there as the COTUS invisioned. I’m not sure if a court would agree with Texas waging a war then either.

Bottom line is that there is no invading military (or para military) force, and the central/federal government is aware of what is taking place and has not acted (as dead wrong as this may be), therefore, the state of Texas does not have the constitutional authority to wage a war(the central gov has decided there is no imminent danger - again dead wrong). I am not remotely an attorney and I can clearly see the meaning of the COTUS.....even a dumb judge could as well.

[dragnet2]

Bottom line is that there is no invading military (or para military) force

I would say it's arguably worse considering.

And I would imagine the tens of hundreds of thousands of American victims, left in the wake of this violent invasion might disagree with you.

I am talking about a whole lot of people who've been left dead, robbed, stabbed, raped, shot, ran over, victims of illegal drunk driving, maimed, killed, injured, conned, burglarized, victims of ID theft, and on and on and on..

No it's not a typical war invasion, but it certainly a brutally violent lawless invasion of our country..

Ya see, this is all sponsored by government at all levels with the tax payers forced to pay for it all. This would actually qualify this epic decades long invasion as being equally as bad or actually worse than a legitimate war. situation.

[mbj]

If it deters any terrorist infiltration, or adds manpower that helps prevent an outbreak of infectious disease by way of triage, then it is worthwhile.

Sending troops of some kind to the border sounds like a ~good~ idea to me. At the *very least*, those troops will be already mobilized and under local authorities’ control, if some more serious events show themselves.

Governor Perry is spending my Texas tax dollars thoughtfully and appropriately.

[mbj]

LOL!