Monday, November 16, 2015

Nixon not joining governors saying no to refugees, asks feds to be careful

(From Gov. Jay Nixon)

Gov. Jay Nixon today issued the following statement regarding refugees:

“The safety of Missourians is my highest priority, and the terrorists who were involved in planning and perpetrating the attacks in Paris must be caught and brought to justice,” Gov. Nixon said. “The screening process for refugees is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and I call on our federal partners to implement the strongest possible safeguards to protect our state and nation.”


Anonymous said...

What a bunch of liberal bull crap. What has Obama promised you to be such a spineless,no balls dick.

Anonymous said...

All these governors who are proclaiming their state won't accept Syrian refugees are doing nothing more than political grandstanding. States have no power to reject refugees allowed in by the federal government.

Anonymous said...


It's the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program and the states do have the right to refuse to participate.

Did you frame your GED?


No promises needed. Nixon was born that way.

Anonymous said...

There is one solution to the problem. Since Catholic Charities is handling the resettlement program for the Feds, stop giving private donations. I only donate to charities that help American citizens. The charity can try to survive without my money. Also your right the Feds can house them on Government property but is does not mean they can be housed on state and private property. If they want to live here make them buy a house. No one has to rent to them.

Anonymous said...

Only mitigating thing here is that despite opposition by Nixon and our host, Missouri is a shall issue concealed carry state, and when I last got my renewal I learned that about 5% of the age eligible population in Jasper county has a permit. The number will be larger because Missouri's permit is very expensive, and to forestall Kansas City and St. Louis from playing games, as the latter indeed did, any US locality's permit is sufficient.

So as Paris just showed us, carry everywhere (most "forbidden" places aren't exactly that, they can ask you to leave and if you don't, for the first time you're in a small bit of trouble if they have to call the police, although you could also be charged with trespassing which much more severe), and be mentally and emotionally prepared. We Americans in "flyover country", really, most of the county and most of the people, have the option of not being defenseless sheep; exercise that right!

Anonymous said...

The states have the right to refuse refugees.
Today's Point To Ponder:

A Constitutional Lesson to teach the solution to the threat of violent immigrants.

Our Constitution actually created a very simple federal government...on purpose. Government was supposed to be simple so that we could easily control and limit it. As feared by our framers we have become inattentive ton the limits of government and have allowed politicians to complicate government with rules and procedures. We are to the point where we have no idea the proper role of the federal government and the proper means to limit it.

The immigration issues is not that complicated when we follow the Constitution and ignore all the ILLEGAL rules and procedures created by the politicians. 

Article 1 section 8 clause 4 delegates to Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That's it. We did not delegate enforcement of those rules, just establishment.

The 10th Amendment establishes:

"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."

Since enforcement was not delegated to the federal government is is a power RESERVED to the States. Which means, quite simply, that the States are the power to enforce the immigration rules and it is the States that are to refuse entrance to these potentially violent immigrants. 

The other point that is worth recognizing is that the delegation of power to the feds was for the purpose of creating "UNIFORM" rules of naturalization. These rules our feds have created that establish one standard for one people and another for others is not uniform. They are a violation of Art. 1 sec 8 cl 4 and therefore invalid pursuant to Art 6 sec 2. 

It is time for the States to live up to their obligations to preserve the Rights and the Liberties of the people. It is time for the States to protect their own borders when the feds refuse. There are States waking up to this reality. But its time for the People to demand their States do their jobs all across the union. The alternative is not what we want, I assure you. 

When the feds refuse to do the job they've been hired to do, the States must. When the States refuse to do the job they've been hired to do, then the People must. The whole purpose of government is protect the Rights of the people collectively against madmen like Isis. When they fail, we are left to do it alone. And those governments WE created should be reminded of two things proven throughout history...

1. People will eventually stand in defense of their own Right, their own Lives, and their own Property, with our without them.
2. If the people have to stand without them, governments have a tendency (proven throughout history) to be "altered or abolished."

History says people will NOT wait until total destruction to defend the Liberty that belongs to their children. So our States had better get off their dead ends and start doing their jobs.

Anonymous said...

Nixon is a regular "Rock of Jello"

Ferguson, MU.......and now this.


Anonymous said...

Maybe Jello, or maybe just on the other side? I've not been inclined to think the latter of Nixon, I mean, this is a guy who's fiscally responsible beyond many if not most Republican governors, but these aren't state fiscal issues. On the other hand, after the way he mishandled Ferguson his political career is over so now he has more flexibility, but on the third hand, does he realize that, or realize that it doesn't matter what a state governor says, and he's not willing to oppose Obama in actions to make a difference?