Recently in The Amnesty Kraken

Category

All McCain would have to do to secure a win -- if not a very big win -- this Fall would be to, tomorrow, stop over in Mexico and tell Mexico to provide for it's own citizens, that the U.S. isn't going to give any more millions (or billions) to Mexico for any reason whatsoever until Mexico reimburses the U.S. for, well, maybe so much as one-percent of the costs over the past, oh, say, five years that the U.S. has spent on healthcare, housing, food and educations for Mexican Nationals, and that if they don't like that, they can just lump it.

Or, say something approximating that, even so much as related to that. The important thing would be to see, hear and read that McCain has taken a realistic and affronting, blunt tact with Mexico (if not most of Central America -- Costa Rica not included): no more "Hispanic/Latino" pandering, just an entire turnaround by McCain in all things related to that general theme, a permanent end to this catering to crime and exploitations of our nation (and that includes our borders and our immigration laws) by a presumed ticket-to-pass, the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (or, that which they themselves define as their "blood" that is their "race"). (Same goes for all exploitive attempts and movements by way of race and/or ethnicity -- Obama's not excluded here, nor is his campaign.)

McCain can decidedly (and apparently, easily) go all the way to Columbia -- an allied democracy with the U.S. who does deserve our nation's respect -- but he still can't come out in front of this ridiculous pandering issue as to certain ethnic supremacists. I don't hear/read that Columbia's engaged in this game but the nations (and their populations) of Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaraugua, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and parts of Brazil are, so, why fool around with this hand-holding language with ethnicists who never seem to ever, actually, like the U.S. no more than they respect our boundaries.

What I'd really appreciate hearing is a Presidential candidate (and President) emphasizing the importance and value of U.S. citizenship and why there are requirements involved, and that these requirements and conditions must be respected. Because I've yet to understand -- academically or intellectually -- how it is that someone from another nation is entitled by sheer basis of their DNA to U.S. citizenship, and/or to "bypass" the laws of the U.S. in regards entry, residency and use of our nation.

McCain could win and win easily if he showed a degree of the fortitude and candor of, say, Dwight ("Ike") Eisenhower:

...Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol (...read the full article).

HOW EISENHOWER SOLVED THE ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS FROM MEXICO

Because there are many voters who really -- really -- want to see this problem solved by our government and solved immediately. Obama's not going to solve it, he's going to work the burgeoning of the problems into more monstrous proportions than they are already (Obama wants illegal aliens -- and their families -- and more of both -- to receive "national healthcare" in the U.S., billed to the U.S. taxpayers, to the detriment of taxpayers and citizens alike economically and resulting in deprived access to healthcare options for taxpayers and citizens), and McCain's still devoting far more attention if not "sensitivity" to Hispanic/Latino ethnic-supremacists (and their various nations of reference, meaning, not the U.S.A. as to this "amnesty for illegal aliens" issue) than many of us can, in turn, respect about him.

So, win the Election this Fall, McCain, stand up for the U.S.A. and be like Ike.

Note: The second graphic included, above -- Obama: "Why Can't I Just Eat My Waffle?" -- can be had on a tee-shirt from finishmywaffle.com.

"McCAIN MUM ON VEEP SPECULATION..."

Should Lindsey Graham -- not attending (so it's reported) the Memorial Holiday barbeque at the McCain's place in Arizona this weekend -- be named as Vice President, it would create a ticket I could not vote for even if McGovern or Howard Dean was the Democratic candidate this Fall. I'm not being flippant: Graham's nastiness toward Conservatives, complete with name-calling and emotional fits from the Senate floor as he demanded amnesty for illegal aliens (in support of McCain/Kennedy legislation, lending even more negativity to Graham's personna) renders Graham utterly unworthy of my vote and I'll not vote accordingly should Graham be named V.P., and if that's what McCain wants, then he'll select Graham, stick his finger in the eye yet again of Conservatives and he'll lose the election.

Bobby Jindal, on the other hand, is a superb fellow but I'd prefer to see him devote time and energy to the state of Louisiana and then be reconsidered in some future candidacy. I have no complaints about Jindal, however, as to what issues I know he supports, but, to be sensible -- whoever McCain names as Vice President will carry the likely possibility that that individual will assume the Presidency within an eight-year two-termer -- and, so far, I remain a bit insecure as to the idea of Jindal in the Oval Office at this stage of his lfe and experience.

I question why Charlie Crist is being considered for the V.P. slot. I don't see the point, I cannot see any measurable appeal by Crist to many Republican voters on a national level, I just do not see the point there.

Mitt Romney continues to be the candidate for the White House I'd most enthusiastically support, and, Romney named as V.P. would go a long way to encourage my doubts as to a McCain Presidency. However, what with Romney and wife recently purchasing a home in La Jolla, CA, the idea of Romney running for Governor of California in 2010 is very appealing (the state of CA could certainly use Romney's keen economic and financial abilities).

Wherever Mitt Romney positions himself politically within the Republican Party at this point will be greeted with enthusiasm from me but McCain would greatly improve his voter appeal to "the moderate Right," to Economic Conservative and to many Social Conservatives with Romney as V.P., as to issues and counterbalance to McCain's Liberal liabilties (which remain a source of unease if not unreliability to many of us voting Conservatives, especially McCain's apparent duplicity and contradictions on national security as it's impacted by border and immigration violations -- support for amnesty for illegal aliens is utterly out of the question for me as to who I vote for and McCain continues to campaign for his "comprehensive immigraiton reform," otherwise known as amnesty for illegal aliens; Romney's been far clearer on his views as to this issue and does not appear as "confused" or duplicitous or unclear on entertaining amnesty as does McCain).

The tough thing to vote for this Fall for me is knowing that the Republican Party remains "drifted Left" and is reliant on most votes from the Right out of desire to avoid a Democratic win. While that's an important incentive, it's unpleasant to realize that my vote's being taken for granted from the Right, and McCain's not doing too much to counter that presumption.

But, of course, it's a given, few Conservatives will be voting for a Democrat this Fall. My concerns are that even when a vote is cast for McCain, a vote is still cast for a Democrat.

Related:
Mitt Romney's new PAC and website, FREE & STRONG AMERICA

McCain's making headway declaring support for issues important to Social Conservatives, however ("Judges" among those issues).

Reading results this morning from a simple NEWS search in Google for terms, "illegal immigration," I found this delirious doozy of false representation:

"God for Illegal Immigration"

Intrigued, to put it mildly, I accessed the link and found a May 02, 2008 column from one of my favorite opinionators, Father Jonathan Morris.

The actual headlne, as Father Jonathan has written it, and as FOX News has published it, reads:

"IS GOD FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?"

In that article, Father Jonathan writes:

...Just as every immigrant has a right to be treated with dignity, every government has the right and obligation to regulate immigration to sustainable levels, for the good of its own citizens and its immigrants. Religious leaders should be saying this too, don't you think? Why aren't they? Some are.

...God is on the side of human rights and also on the side of legality and security. It is our problem if we choose one over the other and pretend that we are righteous.

Father Jonathan clearly emphasizes the importance of "the moral voice" and does not reject the importance of law enforcement, national security, nor lend any human -- or suggest any divine -- rationalization for individuals to plummet and exploit the legal requirements and boundaries of other nations, nor does he attempt to dismiss the culpability of those who exploit human beings as "cheap labor" and thus provide incentive to illegal aliens to exploit those requirements and boundaries.

However, to peruse Google's News search results, to scroll down through the headlines, the impression is decidedly edited to force a false 'divine' support for illegal immigration, and in reference to an article by a Catholic Priest, at that.

How many other headlines has Google opted to "edit" to tweak them into representing the opposite of what's stated?

View full-size, full-screen capture file HERE.

Every time I close my eyes and try to placate my doubts, worries and fearful observations about a vote for John McCain, McCain goes and confirms the worst fears about his representation of the nation, particularly as a Republican. As a voter, what I see before me for this Fall is an Anti-American canyon from all perspectives. And then there's that bad political route that we will have to drive for the next four years through that canyon, regardless of how the vote is cast.

Today is May 05. In Mexico, it's "Cinco de Mayo Day." Here we are, in the United States of America, and we have a GOP Presidential candidate not only commemorating a Mexican holiday, but participating in one to such an extent, that he's affirming the Hispanic ethnic-supremacy interests and their ratty group, La Raza, right here in the U.S.A.

I can barely begin to imagine just what George Washington would be doing were he here today to witness this rotten behavior, as is also the rotten politics involved.

Today, here in the United States of America, it is May 05th. Apparently John McCain is looking toward Mexico to elect him because many of us Republicans in the United States of America are just not going to tolerate his randy betrayals here at home.

The John McCain campaign celebrated Cinco de Mayo today by launching a Spanish-language version of its website-and announcing that McCain will speak at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza (July 14, 2008, San Diego, CA).

I've asked many people in general and specifically to define just who and what the "Hispanic vote" in the U.S.A. is. There is no definition offered because none exists. The term, "Hispanic vote" (or, "Hispanic voter") is a POLITICAL term that defines a voting interest bloc motivated by persons mostly affiliated with Central and South America who seek to grant amnesty in the U.S.A. for people from Central and South America, and to eliminate the borders and legal requirements of the U.S.A. as to boundaries and citizenship and/or use of our nation by people from Central and South America by sheer fact of their "blood" or "Hispanic-ness."

To be "Hispanic" is not to be of any defined racial type. The races of our human species are: Negroid (or, "Black"), Caucasian (or, "White"), Asian and Aborigine. That's it. People who have populated Central and South America are descendents of original (second and third wave) human migration from Central Asia, whose descendents later interbred with a few Spaniards and Negroes. What's resulted is a myriad of dozens upon dozens of ethnicities scattered throughout Central and South America.

So the whole "La Raza" -- which means, in Spanish, "The Race" -- term and intents represented are nothing more than ethnic-supremacy. There's nothing glorious, honorable, respectable or even lucidly realistic about what their purpose is as group or what they seek. It's purely political for ethnic-supremacy goals: "Hispanics" get free access, U.S.A. citizenship by merits of their DNA only, the U.S.A. somehow has to provide for them, make allowances for them, elevate them, eradicate laws and legal requirements for them, just bow down and eradicate standards for purposes of devotion to their DNA (or, ethnicity, because, again, they're not a race).

Ludicrous and profane, of course. But what's most profane to me as a citizen (and voter) of this nation is that ANY Presidential candidate (or President, for that matter, or any legislator, anyone in public office) is even associating with such an organization. Horribly, the HIllary Clinton campaign has La Raza "personnel" employed, I can't speak as to Obama and I'm not investigating that here, now, for time constraints, and here we go, McCain chugging away at the La Raza disgust and promoting it.

Enter McCain's association reaffirmed today with just such a disgusting group...READ Michelle Malkin's post about this.

McCain's speech today was startling, as it was also preposterously false.

He alleges...

..."everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message."

"I am confident that I will do very well," he said. "I know their patriotism, I know the respect for the family, the advocacy for pro-life, I know the small business aspect of our Hispanic voters."

Either McCain is demented or he's a demented liar, or, I'll try to be generous here, he's just another average, lying politician saying whatever works to make for misty votes.

Because he's obviously oblivious to the May Day "Communist Workers'" "protests" by "Hispanics" who pummel, burn, tear, rip and offend the U.S. flag every possible terms, the worst being sewing a flag of Mexico inside two American flags or to one side of the U.S.A. flag such that the Mexican flag "shows through" the flag of the U.S.A. So I don't see much to any respect for the U.S.A. and certainly nor for our flag, by these. And McCain has opted to vote against nearly all legislative attempts that are categorized as "pro-life," though I suppose it 's a useful campaign ruse for him to use the term.

As to "family values," the internet is awash in news articles about children by the hundreds of thousands abandoned by illegal aliens, every possible range of perversions and sexually-related crimes by illegal aliens (as also in their largely "Hispanic" nations from whence they've originated). Crimes of all sorts and across classes and throughout these societies and now throughout ours is represented by higher percentages from among both Hispanic people and illegal aliens, as are over sixty percent (the majority) of illegal aliens also Hispanics, from Hispanic countries, and therefore, also responsible for immigration crimes.

I would find it refreshing if any one political candidate, certainly for the Presidency, would even so much as begin to confront the ridiculous terms that are currently being used to talk all around but avoid talking about the actual issues. As long as candidates continue to use these terms --- "Hispanic voters" and "the Hispanic vote" -- they'll avoid being specific and continue to encourage usery stereotypes for purposes of misleading the public.

I'd enjoy someone asking McCain to define just what and who he means by "Hispanic voter" and why he's courting "the vote" from Central and South America. Same goes for Hillary and Obama.

Here are some of those "Hispanic family values" from the streets of Los Angeles, CA on May 01, 2008:

Hillary Clinton interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, PART ONE from April 30, 2008 and PART TWO from today, May 01, 2008.

On it's own merits, the interview was engaging. O'Reilly was a bit too talkative but so was HIllary but despite them both being too eager to talk and overtalk one another, I valued the interview and thought Hillary Clinton was not only smart to appear with O'Reilly but also considerate to do so: it allowed the more Moderate and Conservative voters to hear what she has to say and how she handles herself when asked extemporaneous (so I assume) questions that are not from among the Liberal school yard or sandbox.

I also thought Clinton was more "meaningful" in this context with O'Reilly than I've considered her in nearly all previous media appearances. Her stage speeches at campaign stops captures her being theatrical and stiff, like she's "enacting" some personna that's expected of her. On these televised interviews before O'Reilly, who rarely lets a guest relax and I appreciate him for that (the exception was certainly his patient, quiet questioning of President Bush a while ago, but that was understandable as it also was respectful), on these two parts of this interview, Clinton appeared far more reasonable than she has before in media.

However, every reasonable thing she said is reduced to meaningless when you take into consideration that among her key campaigners is and has been affiliated with Hispanic/Latino ethnic-supremacy organization, La Raza, and that Hillary declares decidedly before O'Reilly that she will not end sanctuary cities in the U.S. (she says it's due to wanting illegal aliens to report crimes to U.S. law enforcement, which I think pales in consideration of their illegal context and the damages done to our nation by sanctuary cities overall).

As long as Hillary Clinton -- and any political campaign -- is associated with that or any other ethnic-supremacy organization and individual, and puts illegal aliens and increased Socialism ahead of national security, they won't get my support.