The McCain campaign continues to perpetuate its Big Lie in the run-up to Super Tuesday. And thanks to MSM enablers and open-borders Republicans rooting for a McCain win, voters are swallowing the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that McCain can be trusted on immigration and border security. Dinocrat reports that the McCain campaign called him again and left a recorded message touting the shamnesty promoter’s border security credentials. Here’s the text of the call:
On the issue of immigration there is no debate that our borders are broken. There are 12 million people here illegally. I’ve listened and learned. We must secure our borders first and restore trust and confidence in our government. As President, I’ll hire new border patrol guards, build a fence, ask governors to certify that their borders are secure. The two million people who have committed crimes will be deported immediately. No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior. They’ll go the the back of the line, pay fines and learn English. For those already in our country, there will be no special privileges, and we’ll punish employers who hire illegal immigrants. We’ll be humane and compassionate, but we will be firm. It’s a matter of national security.
According to the WaPo/ABC News poll released this weekend, 47% of respondents said McCain was the candidate they trusted most on immigration; 22% said Romney; 10% chose Huckabee; and 5% went with Paul.
You want straight talk? McCain’s tongue says he’s “listened and learned.” But his heart is with La Raza, the militantly ethnocentric, anti-immigration enforcement Hispanic lobbying group that honored him in 1999 and whose annual conference he keynoted in 2004.
Go back and watch McCain on the Senate floor during the amnesty debate. Refresh your memories. Here he is comparing guest-worker tax treatment to Jim Crow laws:
Let me remind you of how he and his good friend Teddy Kennedy engaged in nauseating identity politics straight out of the Raza playbook. From May 25, 2006, these are the true, extremist views of John McCain:
An extraordinary exchange just took place on the Senate floor over the last 40 minutes. It’s the most important debate of the year, in my opinion.
The questions are these: Who do we let into this country and how many?
On one side of the debate: Democrat Sen. Jeff Bingaman of N.M. and Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
On the other side, the blubbering open-borders duo of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Sen. Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Bingaman is offering an amendment to cap the number of visas for legal permanent residents at 650,000. The current Senate immigration bill essentially obliterates the current employer-based green card cap of 140,000. Spouses and children currently count against that cap. Under the Senate bill, that would no longer be true. There would be, in effect, no limits. Bingaman’s cap would be four times the current rate–yet both McCain and Kennedy are responding hysterically as if Bingaman has proposed some human rights crackdown on the world.
When Bingaman pointed out the need for prudence in opening the floodgates to unlimited numbers of low-skilled workers, both McCain and Kennedy pulled the race card. McCain’s immediate response was to sputter that the “Chamber of Commerce, unions, and Hispanic groups” oppose the caps! McCain called it un-American to be selective about whom we let into this country. Yeah, he did.
When McCain accused Bingaman of “discriminating against” poor immigrants, Bingaman pointed out that the McCain-Kennedy bill itself had a 290,000 cap. No response from the Open-Borders Tag Team.
Sen. Tom Coburn, a staunch amnesty opponent, has endorsed McCain. He’s letting bygones be bygones in the spirit of senatorial collegiality.
And here’s a reminder of John McCain’s “leadership” from June 2007 via the Washington Times:
Often lost in the big picture coverage of major legislative issues like the now-troubled Bush-Kennedy immigration bill are the little moments that say everything about how Washington works. They’re the little moments that your legislators don’t want you to know about and figure will never make it back home through the media.
But Stephen Dinan, our excellent national political reporter who has led the way for months on coverage of immigration legislation, captured this priceless moment in his story this morning as the supporters of the bill struggled to keep it together.
The late-night vote was on an amendment that would require illegal aliens who get legal status to have a minimum level of health insurance. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chamber’s most liberal member, was — not surprisingly — opposed.
Writes Mr. Dinan: “Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona both went to check with Mr. Kennedy before casting their votes to match his. Soon after, (Arizona Republican Sen. Jon) Kyl also switched his vote to match Mr. Kennedy’s.”
The amendment was defeated.
And let’s remember McCain pulling the threat-of-violence card in support of immigration capitulation: If we don’t give in, it’ll be like the banlieus in France!
Crooked talk: He says he’ll build the fence.
Straight talk: He resents what he calls the “goddamned fence.”
John McCain and La Raza-The Race share a deep-seated contempt for grass-roots conservatives who worked successfully to defeat the disastrous amnesty bill. And they share a common impulse to marginalize their political opponents as “haters.”
Thus, La Raza-The Race has launched a new “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign–smack dab in the middle of the campaign season–to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as “hate.” They protest that it is “racist” and out-of-bounds to talk about reconquista–even as the McCain campaign boasts a “Mexico First/”Just A Region”/”Free Flow of People” outreach director who’s practicing it out in the open for the leading GOP presidential front-runner.
Yes, an ethnic separatist group that calls itself “The Race”–a group that has embraced John McCain and vice versa–has the gall to crusade against “hate.” Chris Kelly notes that La Raza-The Race head Janet Murguia is calling for networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and that both La Raza-The Race and another open-borders group are pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes.
Ms. Murguia argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights: “Everyone knows there is a line sometimes that can be crossed when it comes to free speech. And when free speech transforms into hate speech, we’ve got to draw that line. And that’s what we’re doing here today. And we need to make sure that network executives will hold their people accountable and not cross that line.”
Murgia praised McCain and looks forward to the “tapering down” of immigration enforcement efforts if he wins the White House: “With his emergence as a leading Republican presidential primary contender, I do think that we’ll see this toned down… Does it mean that we know everything he’s going to do in that area of reform? And I know he’s got his work cut out for him with a number of people, and we’ll see him put this whole platform together, but we do believe that if he ends up being in a lead role here, we think that that issue will be tapered down.”
No respect for the rule of law. No respect for the First Amendment.
Like John McCain said: “I’ll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep.”
The company John McCain keeps:
blog comments powered by Disqus
It is with great amusement that I read the National Council of La Raza’s (NCLR) defense [from its president and CEO Janet Murguia.] against the facts contained in my article, “The Truth About ‘La Raza,’” that appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, April 10,2006. Instead of addressing the troubling facts outlined in the article, NCLR still seeks to hide from the truth through shrewd distractions.
Murguia claims: “Rep. Norwood mistranslates our name as the National Council of ‘the race.’ The actual definition of ‘La Raza’ is ‘people,’ referring to the Hispanic people or community.”
According to whom? The online encyclopedia Wikipeidia translation reads, “La raza: Spanish: ‘The race.’” Ditto with http://www.freetranslation.com, translation2.paralink.com, http://www.freedict.com/onldict/spa.html. But here’s even more online fun: Type in “National Council of the RACE” on Google, the world’s number one search engine, and it will take you straight to NCLR’s home page. Case closed.
NCLR’s second objection is where the real deception becomes glaring: “NCLR did not receive $15.2 million in federal grants last year and no federal funds of any kind were used to fund get-out-the-vote efforts or for any political purpose.”
By “last year” my article refers to the last fiscal year reported by NCLR on its official website, which is fiscal year 2004. NCLR very cleverly fails to mention this fact, even though they surely knew precisely where the $15.2 million the article mentioned was coming from.
According to page 48 of the National Council of La Raza Consolidated Statements of Activities, Year Ended September 30,2004, NCLR itself reports it received $15,170,182 in federal grants. [See Figure 1 on page 9.] In the same statement, under “Advocacy and Electoral Empowerment” NCLR reports on page 27, “while in 2002 activities centered on Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) efforts, in 2004 the project expanded to include voter registration, modest GOTV, and some elements of election protection,” and reports on page 48 that it spent $327,585 directly on “Legislative Advocacy” and another $2,611,827 on “Research, Advisory, and Legislation”-all while receiving that $15.2 million in federal grants.
Did NCLR’s receipt of $15.2 million in federal funds allow them to redirect other donations towards their combined $2.9 million in political activities? You be the judge.
But the real outrage in NCLR’s objections to the article is their disingenuous denial of their links to radical, racist and anti-American groups: “NCLR … unequivocally rejects, the motto Tor La Raza Todo, Fuera de la Raza Nada.’ (For The Race everything, for those outside The Race nothing.)”
No group can “unequivocally reject” a position while quietly paying out money to groups that support it, which is exactly what NCLR does.
The motto in question is that of the radical group MEChA and can be found online at the homepage of the Georgetown University MEChA Chapter. On the same site, you can read Georgetown MEChA’s Constitution, which contains the requirement that Georgetown MEChA maintain current membership in NCLR.
The Internal Revenue Service reports NCLR was actively funding the Georgetown University MEChA Chapter as recently as 2003, as documented in NCLR’s IRS Form 990, 2002 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, Exhibit 1, Page 1. [See Figure 2 on page 9.]
If NCLR is sincere in objecting to the facts in the article they should have no problem publicly agreeing to all six points mentioned in my article:
1. Denounce the motto “For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada,” as repugnant, racist, and totally incompatible with American society or citizenship-and stop funding groups who support it.
2. Acknowledge the right of all Americans to live wherever they choose in the U.S. without segregation.
3. Commit to sponsorship of nationwide educational programs to combat racism and anti-Semitism in the Hispanic community.
4. Denounce and sever all ties with MEChA and other organizations which hold to the racist doctrines held by MEChA.
5. Acknowledge our borders, the democratic right of U.S. citizens to determine immigration policy, and the right of the U.S. to enforce immigration law and secure its borders against unauthorized entry.
6. Repudiate all claims that current American territory rightfully belongs to Mexico.
Based on the documented and independently verified statements in the original article, not only does HUMAN EVENTS owe no correction to NCLR, NCLR owes the entire American public an apology for deceptively supporting groups seeking to undermine our national unity and sovereignty.
But perhaps the best solution would be for NCLR, from this day forward, to simply start living by the six points above.
Mass illegal alien amnesty violates our founding principles; Update: 14 15 Rs join Ds on Porker-Hoeven cloture vote
June 24, 2013 02:54 AM by Michelle Malkin
January 28, 2013 03:07 AM by Michelle Malkin
February 4, 2013 10:02 AM by Michelle Malkin
Updated amnesty bill would require completion of border fence … unless Janet ‘border is already secure’ Napolitano doesn’t think it’s necessary
June 23, 2013 04:30 PM by Doug Powers
Amnesty? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no; Update: Cloture motion passes, 82-15; procedure motion passes, 84-15
June 11, 2013 08:48 AM by Michelle Malkin