Spread the love


by Don Hank

(Sept. 25, 2010) — I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.

I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.

This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.

Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:

“Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”

The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Further, and more directly:

It the administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.

This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.

It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.

Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.

When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.

Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.

Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.

Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.

The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.

And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.

Nothing significant will happen until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. WND has an article pointing to this link


    In which the author has written a book about
    the Russians desire to takeover America..

    very important, that Obama could . through an
    EXECUTIVE order, cancel mid-term, November 2010

    Hmmm….. I would not want to be in Obama’s shoes
    if he decides to actually do that.

  2. Now this is important…..oath of what office…….uphold the Constitution and law enforcement……..very impeachable and treasonous…..there is more than one way to skin a skunk.

    1. It appears as though the Hawaii Democratic Party refused to include the “are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” statement in their Obama/Biden certification document as they had done previously for Gore/Lieberman and Kerry/Edwards. Given their refusal to include this language, the Democratic National Committee was forced to add the language to their certification document. The DNC doesn’t normally have this language in their document as evidenced by what they submitted to the other 49 states. The state of Hawaii requires that the party have this language in there. Either the state party organization (HDP) or the national party organization (DNC) has to do it. The HDP usually does it, but this election they refused to. Why?

      1. I would like to know if the other 49 staes that received the DNC document without the words, “per the Constitution” in it all had those words in their state qualification form?

        Anyone know about any state form, besides Hawaii, and whether or not it contained the words “per the Constitution?

    2. Any chance this could factor into Hawaii’s decision to leave out the “per the Constitution” words in the 2008 Hawaii Democrat Party certification for Obama/Biden? The same lawyer who handled Stanley Soetoro’s divorce in 1980 also, I have been told, works for the Hawaii Democrat Party, and has for years. If true, it stands to reason he would know everything there is to know about Obama’s citizenship, and his real, long-form birth certificate. For the lawyers name, check out Stanley Ann’s divorce papers here:


      You can then Google the lawyers name and find a lot of information on him.
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: Several people are looking into this, but we always need citizen researchers.

  3. Why can’t civil action(s) on behalf of the United States citizens be filed on all the complaints we have? You can’t tell me that the Nation does not have standing!? I have always felt this would be a good action for the Social Security fraud against our Trust Fund.

  4. …….but what I want to know is why nobody has sued the DNC for failure to certify their candidate (obama the traitor) as constitutionally able to assume the office of POTUS. Every single eligibility lawsuit has kind of missed the slow boat to Indonesia on this one. I’m sure there is some part of USC that has been violated, eh?

    1. Sue in what court? You do realize that no court will hear any case that must neccessarily return a verdict implicating treason by the entire congress and senate. Nov 2nd is the earliest day a new government can be formed with enough representatives to run the government. All those remaining can be charged and impeached by a quorum of those new and untainted.

      I would hope there are travel restrictions from 1 Nov going forward so none of the traitors can escape. We don’t need to be running up and down the southern coast of Spain looking for them.

  5. Yet another flagrant breach of the Presidential Oath of Office by Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

    Here’s yet another. Two days ago Federal prosecutor Christopher Coates testified at a U.S. Civil Rights Commission Hearing that the top officials in the Department of Justice “…gutted a voter intimidation case against a fringe African American militant group because the suspects were black and their alleged victims were white.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42676.html#ixzz10dmAoI79

  6. To this I would like to add:
    “No state shall,without the consent of congress…engage in war,UNLESS
    actually INVADED,or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
    Article 1,Section 10 (USConst).

    Hordes of Illegal aliens entering into our country constitutes an invasion. A State has a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to engage in WAR against an Invasion WITHOUT the consent of congress. Especially,when the DUTY of the United States government to defend said state(s) has been abrogated or witheld.

    1. Additionally,insofar as Barry Dunham aka Barack Obama,Jr. has never BEEN,nor is he now,
      “President”,he is NOT entitled to the procedural protocols outlined in the Impeachment process. Obama must be ARRESTED and tried as a private person.

      1. EXACTLY CORRECT ROBERT LAITY, as usual – thank you. Arrest and trial “as a terrorist from within” is a must because with such a vicious assault on America it must be taken very seriously, or other such assaults will just never end. Or do we think that it would be fun to have a Somalia war-lord type government? WAKE UP AMERICA