Column: The numbskull-and-chief has committed treason

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill, radio broadcast, 1940.

Last May, in response to Arizona's passage of SB 1070 and the growing threat posed by the Mexican drug cartels, President Obama, in a purely political move, half-heartedly ordered the dispatch of a measly 1,200 National Guard troops to "protect" our 1,969-mile-long border with Mexico.

A border which, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Lloyd Easterling, is "safer than it's ever been." ("AP: U.S.-Mexican border actually very safe," cbsnews.com, June 3.)

Really? Then digest this: "The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state." ("Signs in Arizona warn of smuggler dangers," The Washington Times, Aug. 31.)

The 15 signs, warning travelers they are entering an "active drug and human smuggling area" and urging them to "use public lands north of Interstate 8," were the president's answer to a request by Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu for more troops.

And more: Sheriff Babeu, whose county "lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west," said his deputies are "'outmanned and outgunned ... Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona,' he said."

So much for "border safety": you're fine, as long as you stay at least 100 miles away from it. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, recently videotaped in front of one of those signs, called it "an outrage."

I'm afraid it's a little more than that, and this issue is no longer about Julio illegally entering the country with some good grass in his knapsack to sell while he's harvesting tomatoes. Now that Mexican drug cartels have actually seized military control of large portions of one of our 50 states, it's an invasion that constitutes an act of war.

As such, the appropriate American international response to the Mexican government needs to be as follows:

• The Mexican government has 30 days to dispatch its military forces to its northern border to control the entry of armed aliens into the United States;

• In the absence of such a move, the United States will dispatch whatever levels of military personnel and equipment to the border are required to ensure proper closure of all holes now subject to enemy attack;

• That the armed forces of the United States will then engage any and all armed entrants into the United States with orders to shoot to kill;

• And that, in the event the preceding points are inadequate at dissuading armed enemy penetration into America, the United States will determine the sources of the infiltrations and target those sources on Mexican soil for military obliteration.

Our declaration to the Mexican government, in short, needs to be: If you can't control your cartels, we will.

And, after we have disposed of the immediate military threat, our next step is to completely overhaul the currently insane drug and immigration policies that spawned this lawlessness in the first place, for neither have anything to do with the enforcement of individual rights.

Instead of such a measured and appropriate response to this sickening situation, however, what is the Obama administration doing instead? Pursuing a federal lawsuit against Arizona for seeking, via SB 1070 and in the absence of justified federal protection, to repel international aggression.

And more: Our gutless wonder of a president has now whined to the United Nations high commissioner herself about his "concerns" for "human rights violations" surrounding the implementation of SB 1070! ("Report of the United States of America in conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review," cfr.org, Aug. 20.)

Sure. As if the U.N., which promoted the serfdom of 300 million Eastern Europeans for nearly 50 years, has anything moral or rational to say about "human" - i.e., individual - rights. Has our presidential numbskull lost his collectivist mind? These "policies" qualify as treason to the United States and warrant nothing less than presidential impeachment.

In history, the final collapse of Rome is usually defined as the year 476 A.D., when the barbarian Odoacer executed Romulus Augustus and took over all of Italy.

What will our date be? Jan. 20, 2009, when a craven, traitorous, good-for-nothing appeasing barbarian with no thought for individual rights whatsoever took over the White House?