Briefly on President Bush and the Southern Border:
(Aka "Mexicali Blues" Dept.)

The text below excluding the footnote was part of something I posted during lunch back on June 11, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in red font.

In 2000 he states the Southwest of the USA belongs to Mexico he said that while speaking to a large group of Latin Americans, I have the audio of it to back it up.

Can you post this please??? We bought portions of the southwest from Mexico and also beat them in a war for the rest. They signed a peace treaty which ceded the southwest to us and we bought a strip closer to the border for building a railroad track through. But as for the southwest portion of the United States, I quote from the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed by the Mexican government and by the President of the United States after the Senate ratified it. To wit (all emphasis is mine):

[The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.

The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled "Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell," of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries,. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.

In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.

The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution. (LINK)]

That is pretty straight forward stuff really. Frankly, if anything the Mexicans should be fortunate that we did not annex their entire country. But if Bush said what you claim, this may well explain at least part of why he is so lax on the whole border issue.

Addendum:

While I did not note it at the time the text above was first written, if Bush said what this person is claiming, then it makes a good case for the hypothesis that he has been lax on the southern border because he is placing personal interests over and above national security. And as I noted recently, this could well constitute an impeachable offense{1} and that is the bottom line really.

Note:

{1} I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:

--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!

I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:

Briefly on each article...

Creating Effective Incentives (Walter E. Williams)

The article starts off with the following line:

What should our response be if terrorists set off a nuclear explosion, or some other weapon of mass destruction, in one of our cities?

I cannot say I see anything rationally askew in Professor Williams' musings in the article above -it is well worth a read as his stuff so often is. Moving on...

Villains and the Immigration Debate (Jonah Goldberg)

A small taste to whet the appetite:

The beauty of a democratic system is that it depends on democratic arguments. Even if every partisan is a villain, he has to make his case in a way that will convince people. And it's those arguments we're supposed to be dealing with. It's very easy for me to say that while my opponent may say X that he secretly believes Y because he is a member of a supersecret Satanic cabal or because his fern is speaking to him through his dental fillings. But unless I have proof, debate should be confined to X.

The foundation of that position is one that we at Rerum Novarum have applied countless times to a variety of subjects over the years.{1}

And of course I would be remiss if I did not admit that I have used the last line of the article a few times as sarcasm to make a point since I first read it. Moving on...

Allied Angst (Oliver North)

To quote from the first paragraph of the above article:

There was a time when American military leaders worried about whether wobbly allies would rally to us when it came time to stand up to the Soviets. Now it's our allies who worry about us.

Those who approach the US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq with the idea that we should pull out and go home would do well to review the above thread and think long and hard about the message such an action would send to our allies around the world. And finally...

Schooling Michael Moore (Michelle Malkin/Bryan Preston)

It has been ages since either a Michelle Malkin or Bryan Preston thread graced this humble weblog. In the above thread, Michelle has a YouTube clip on the latest Moore crockumentary{2} and Bryan attended a screening of it and posted his observations in print. Based on their observations, it would appear that Moore has jumped the shark. Say what you will about Fahrenheit 9/11 but at the very least he got a lot of people conned into watching it. The same cannot be said for his latest crapsterpiece.

Notes:

{1} To note a couple of examples that come to mind offhand from the archives:

Unlike the lions share of people from various outlooks who set forth opinions in the public square, the present writer does not expect anyone to accept any of his statements as some kind of arbitrary out of context injunction simply because he says it. This would base the veracity or lack thereof of his statements on a subjectivist context and would imply that truth does not objectively exist.

If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]

And again:

[A] refutation or confutation of an argument must involve objective proof by rational argumentation that said theories or viewpoints or assertions are false or otherwise erroneous. Many who write self-styled "refutations" make references to what they believe to be a refutation or some equivalent which is actually an out of context injunction on their part and properly classified as normative argumentation and thus subjective. This will never do because a refutation properly speaking is non-normative and requires therefore objective criteria for being able to be accurately assessed as to its veracity or lack thereof. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 17, 2006)]

{2} To note a definition of crockumentary, I reference the sometimes-reliable Urban Dictionary which defines it here. For those with a sensitivity to certain words, I will abridge the text at that link and provide the following expletive-free version:

crockumentary

The Michael Moore style of filmmaking.

It involves trying to pass off a complete crock...as the truth. Then brazenly calling it a "documentary" when you know...that it's [not.]

I have shelved what I planned to blog at this time after getting a call from my mother about another family member passing on today. If I could ask for prayers for the eternal repose of the soul of Sharon Colson at this time, it would be most appreciated. (And those who do not believe in the efficacy of prayers for the dead to please pray for her family.)

Lord please remember Sharon Colson. In baptism she died with Christ: may she also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]

Points to Ponder:

To say you favor a law or a moral admonition but oppose any means of enforcing it is the cheapest form of mere posturing. [Victor Morton]

More on the 2008 Election and Early Candidate Selections:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To note briefly something I said back in April about a project I had in mind doing for the summer:

I plan to do an examination of the positions of the three candidates I am most in favour of (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson) in the coming weeks as time allows across an entire spectrum of issues. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]

Since writing those words, my views on this have changed significantly and that project --if it is ever gotten to-- will involve different names than the ones noted above. Duncan Hunter is still my preferred candidate of choice but the other two have fallen by the wayside. In the case of Tommy Thompson, I still like him but I do not view him as presidential. Furthermore, I cannot see him winning the nomination and if he did, I cannot see him campaigning hard enough to win in the general election. As far as Tom Tancredo goes, he nixed his chances with me when he opposed not just illegal immigration but even legal immigration.{1} This stance sunk his chances further when those views were aired and I did not think he could win the nomination before.{2}

Currently, my top three are Hunter, Fred Thompson, and third is a tossup between Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. I like John McCain as Secretary of Defense but not as president. My problem with Mitt Romney is not his Mormonism but his flip flopping on issues: the last thing the Republicans need is their own version of John Kerry. Romney would make a good vice president but not president.

Of course in all the cases above about preferences, if one of them gets nominated, I will have to do a reassessment and things move to a more pragmatic approach over a purely principled one.{3} One thing is sure, there is no way I would vote for either that ambulance chasing fraud John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. As far as Barak Obama goes, I have not ruled him out of the mix completely but the Republicans would really have to nominate some lower-tiered fella{4} before that selection would be a probable one for me.

Notes:

{1} That tells me he is a xenophobe and I am not going to support such a person.

{2} [E]ven if Tancredo would come out on top in such an examination, there is the issue of if he is electable and that is no minor bagatelle either. And while it is quite early, I am afraid I do not see much in the way of pre-announcement momentum for him. Considering that Tancredo made it reasonably clear he would seek the presidency back in February of 2005 -and more explicitly so in July of 2005- his lack of momentum in the two years since does not give me confidence that anything is going to change here. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]

{3} Though I would want as much of the latter involved as possible of course.

{4} For example, if Ron Paul won the nomination and was opposing Obama, I would almost certainly vote for Obama.