Hypocrite 'Anti-Colonial' Lefties Call For Biden To Use Nat Guard To Invade TX

P. Gardner Goldsmith | February 1, 2024
DONATE
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

It's understandable, if you, like many, feel confused by their double-standard.

After decrying what they claim were historic “colonizers” who wielded power to dominate and exploit politically weak or “underrepresented” groups, two prominent Democrats are weighing-in on the Texas v. DC border battle. They are calling for Joe Biden’s central government to “federalize” the states’ National Guard units, and they’re espousing, essentially, that the President turn Texas into an occupied zone.

Wearing a mask of “in the interests of put-upon migrants,” both Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and perennial candidate and table-surfer Robert “Beto” O’Rourke have neglected their previous opposition to powerful political forces occupying the lesser-lands, and have expressed what easily can be seen as calls for federal military occupation of Texas.

RELATED: Multiple Red States Back Texas In Attempt To Protect Border (mrctv.org)

As Brady Knox reports for The Washington Examiner, Castro finds Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) in contempt for Abbott’s constitutionally sound move to use the Texas National Guard and the Texas State Guard to stop an influx of foreign migrants passing into the state.

“’Governor Greg Abbott is using the Texas National Guard to obstruct and create chaos at the border,’ Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) wrote in a post on X. ‘If Abbott is defying yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, @POTUS needs to establish sole federal control of the Texas National Guard now.’”

And Beto O’Rouke took time away from riding restaurant tables and skateboards to offer his brilliance and discernment, likening the Texas/DC struggle to President Dwight Eisenhower’s unconstitutional 1957 move to federalize the Arkansas National Guard after then-Governor Orval Eugene Faubus mobilized it to prevent the implementation of the “Brown v. Board of Education” Supreme Court ruling:

“’Abbott is using the Texas Guard to defy a Supreme Court ruling. When Gov. Faubus did this in 1957, Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas Guard to ensure compliance with the law,’ former presidential and governor candidate Beto O’Rourke wrote in a post on X. ‘Biden must follow this example of bold, decisive leadership to end this crisis before it gets worse.’”

In addition to noting that, despite being heralded as “moving towards equality” in public education, the “Brown” decision was based on an improper Supreme Court reading of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause (education is not protection, it is a “service” – a “service” that is best left to private, not government, organizations) – these two contemporary leftists seem to have forgotten their old positions.

They’re calling for the big sweep by the big feds, the controlling authority of local people and the state government to be crushed by DC.

 

Related: Multiple Red States Back Texas In Attempt To Protect Border (mrctv.org)

 

 

 

When it comes to Castro, he has been one of many so-called “progressives” decrying years of powerful Israeli government expansion into the homes of Palestinians, and he was part of a lengthy, tax-funded 2018 Foreign Affairs subcommittee “hearing/report” on Chinese government colonialism in Africa.

For his part, O’Rourke has tried catering to audiences by pushing for immoral and impossible-to-justify “reparations,” i.e. tax cash, to contemporary “minority” members for things which weren’t done to those people, but were done by people now long-dead to other, long-dead, people.

A key portion of O’Rouke’s rhetoric being, of course, a drumbeat of supposedly opposing “exploiters” and opposition to the “white supremacy” enacted through colonization.

Troublingly, he hasn’t fully addressed what some researchers discovered: that he is the scion of slave-owners, who has yet to deconstruct his wealth and hand it away to the descendants of those slaves.

Of course, in an America where members of the pop media fawn over people like Beto and have called him a “rock star,” can one expect serious reportage of this hypocrisy?

Can one even ask the minimum of reporters, which is to look at the fundamental terminology and rules of the Constitution when it comes to major issues such as borders, immigrants, and the meaning of the “National Guard”?

As I have reported for MRCTV, Greg Abbott’s recent letter to Joe Biden, in which he spelled out the constitutional justifications for his policing the Texas-Mexico border via the use of Texas State Police, Texas State Guard, and Texas National Guard is sound. 

Biden, the pop media, and Biden’s political cheerleaders, such as O’Rourke and Castro, offer nothing substantive, no constitutional citations, and no justification for “federalizing” the Texas National Guard.

But some might see the title “National Guard,” and then erroneously support the Eisenhower error in 1950s, imagining that Abbott is in the wrong. Some Americans might think that the “National Guard” is always under Presidential control and that a President can employ the “Insurrection Act” to “federalize” the guard and rush into any state he desires to invade.

We’ve been hearing that a lot, recently. From people who don't seem to know what they are talking about.

Article Four, Section Four allows the feds to move into a state with military force if, and only if, the legislature or governor of a state have requested aid to quell rebellion, insurrection, invasion, or violence – NOT if the feds usurp the power to do so, which is what the Insurrection Act claims to let the feds unilaterally do.

Second, many people claim that the current National Guard has its origins in the 17th Century "guard" started in Massachusetts. But the difference is profound. The Massachusetts Bay force was a "citizen Militia". A close study of history shows us that the contemporary National Guard is not supposed to exist. It’s supposed to be the Militia, which is all of us of gun-bearing age.

The founders did not support a standing army. They supported citizen militias. In fact, even the California Constitution notes this reality, and that was written 100 years after the US Constitution.

The Militia is “the body of the people,” and we are to be able to come to the defense of our state of residence, should the state government ask. Only when the Congress has Declared War, or, as noted above, if another state government has asked for wider help, are we to be open to joining a federal government engagement of military force.

Thus, Biden cannot simply “federalize” the National Guard. In fact, the so-called “National Guard” actually is supposed to be state-based and is really supposed to be the Militia: individuals, ready with their own firearms to act within their state and only to be called up by the feds for War or to aid another state against invasion or violence.

The lessons are clear, and so is the hypocrisy of people like Castro and O’Rourke, who fatuously laid down stakes in the territory of “fighting colonization” but who now call for a contemporary colonizer, the Biden Administration, to invade Texas, clearly contrary to the rules of the US Constitution.

Follow MRCTV on X!

 

donate