Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning The Applause Offered To Felipe Calderon By The Democrats

And, here is the latest travel warning from the U.S. State Department regarding fake Mexican Checkpoints:

Travel Warning
U.S. State Department
May 24, 2010

If you were watching the news last week, then you know that when Mexican Presdient Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress and viciously and hypocritically maligned the United States, the Democrats jumped up and applauded his anti-American diatribe. I have written to both of my Senators, both of whom are Democrats and both of whom jumped up and applauded with their peers.

Feel free to use them as guides in writing your own Senators and Representatives and letting them know that you do not appreciate them applauding a foreign leader coming to America and making hypocritical criticisms.

Any supporters of Jim Webb or Mark Warner are especially encouraged to respond to this post. I would love a public debate about how these two humiliated the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Letter to Webb:

Mr. Webb, I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting. A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.” Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts. For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.” These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities. And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him! I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted. You claim to be a man who was “Born Fightin’” and yet, you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would be calling out your fellow Democrats and demanding to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane U.S. system. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would call out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would demand that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce. I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon. Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the points I made in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all. Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely. 2012 is little more than two years away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

Letter to Warner:

Mr. Warner, I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting. A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.” Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts. For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.” These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities. And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him! I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted. Why do you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned? Why have you not called out your fellow Democrats and demanded to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane and lenient U.S. system? Why have you not called out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold? Why have you not demanded that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce? I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon. Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the questions I ask in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all. Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely. 2014 is not far away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

I’m not holding my breath for any kind of meaningful response from either one of these cowards.

Obama, Illegals, Amnesty And The Twelve Million Voter Bloc

Last year, I posted the following item about Obama’s plans to legalize at least 12 million illegal aliens:

Barack Obama Would Grant Citizenship To Twelve Million Illegals
84rules
October 22, 2008

I was not alone in sounding the alarm as many other bloggers and New Media journalists also put forth their ideas on the matter. Our warnings went largely unnoticed if not completely ignored. Some even claimed that we were being paranoid.

Well, Julia Preston of the New York Times has confirmed what we warned people about last October. From her article:

Mr. Obama will frame the new effort — likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue — as “policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system,” said the official, Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House. Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall. … He said then that comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office. Latino voters turned out strongly for Mr. Obama in the election.

Those of us who were called “paranoid” are now the wise prescient sages. We saw this coming and no one listened.

You can access this complete article on-line here:

Obama To Push Immigration Bill As One Priority
Julia Preston
New York Times
April 8, 2009

Obama will try to make the claim that this legislation is for the “economic good” of the United States or that it is the “humane” thing to do with 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants. But those would be lies. The only reason for doing this that makes any sense at all is that Obama wants to ensure Democrat/Socialist power by creating a new voting bloc of 12 to 20 million voters. Granting amnesty to the illegals currently in the United States is the way he and his cronies in Congress are going to do it.

The move cannot be economic since it would ultimately hurt the American worker who is already struggling under a tough economy. Jobs that could have been taken by legitimate Americans will now be permanently in the hands of those who broke the law by coming here illegally. Further, it would let employers who illegally hired these workers off the hook thereby ensuring that those jobs for those who came here illegally.

For some odd reason, the unions will support this legislation. They see the opportunity to increase their memberships. But this will backfire on them as union members who are legitimate Americans begin to realize that these former illegals were placed at the head of the line in front of them for job openings. In other words, the current rank-and-file will see that jobs that would have gone to them will instead go to new union members who do not have as much seniority. That will not go over well with the union membership.

And what about the immigrants and hopeful immigrants who are trying to come to the United States legally? How do we explain to them that they are not as important as those who broke the law and came to the United States the wrong way? That is a very bad message to send out to the world. It will only encourage more illegal immigration and then new pushes for more amnesty after that.

As for the humane aspect, how humane is it to saddle the legitimate American taxpayer with higher bills for more welfare recipients? The illegals who will be granted amnesty under this proposal will become eligible for welfare benefits even before the government begins to collect taxes from them. That will mean a higher tax bill for legitimate Americans.

The only reason for this proposal that makes sense is that Obama and the socialist Democrats know that their policies will cause them to lose power in 2010 and 2012. Thus, they need to find millions of new voters to buy votes from and fast. Their answer is amnesty for illegals.

That will mean the end to fair elections here in the United States. Tom Hoffman of the American Thinker explains why and the historical evidence supporting this claim:

Remember when “B1 Bob” Dornan lost his House seat to a woman named Sanchez? The election was stolen by Hermandad Nacional Mexicana a group that made a concerted effort to register illegal aliens. Since then, the art of rigging the vote has been refined and perfected by the likes of ACORN and other community activist organizations. The modus operandi is clear. First, there must be a team of lawyers to challenge any efforts to determine voter eligibility. What we end up with here in California is “motor voter” registration. This means DMV workers urge anyone getting a driver’s license to go ahead and register to vote. Lawyers and Democratic state legislators have made it illegal to require documentation regarding immigration status; it’s the honor system. If an illegal feels uncomfortable lying to a bureaucrat at the DMV, he or she can apply by mail and receive an absentee ballot. This way they need not even have to show up at the polling place; just mail it in. It’s just too easy to cheat. Of course, at the polling place there is no need to prove who you claim to be; honor system again. Sign in and vote with no questions asked. The lawyers and legislators paved the way for the “undocumented worker” to vote like a native born citizen by doing away with need to document anything, let alone citizenship. All that is necessary is a mailing address; and, no kidding, the same culprits are busy doing away with that so the “homeless” can now register.

The evidence behind the stealing of Dornan’s seat is documented here:

The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan’s Defeat
Sound Politics
December 29, 2004

We need to really stand together nad make our voices heard that we Americans are opposed to granting amnesty to illegals under any circumstances.

The Dems make the ridiculous claim that machinery needs to be put in place to allow illegals to become legal. That machinery already exists. The illegals simply need to go back to their countries of origin and apply for entry into the United States in the correct, legal way.

Anything other than that would be tantamount to giving away our national sovereignty.

You can access Hoffman’s complete column on-line here:

The End Of Fair Elections
Tom Hoffman
The American Thinker
April 9, 2009

DREAM Over: Illegal Alien Student Amnesty Awakens To Fiscal Reality

Illegal aliens have always been a drag on our economy. We’ve seen it everywhere, most notably in hospitals that are required to treat illegals in the Emergency Rooms even when the illegals have no means of payment for services. This little rule (The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed in 1986) has resulted in a loophole that allows illegals to take their kids to Emergency Rooms for regular check-ups, all paid for by U.S. taxpayers and private insurance holders. The result is that the rest of us pay higher prices for medical services and that many hosptials are shutting down because the illegals have bankrupted them.

The next group of institutions to begin feeling the pinch of granting priviliges to illegals is our schools. The Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act is going to do to ur colleges and universities what the Supreme Court is doing to our hospitals. The DREAM Act would eseentially be a back door amnesty for illegal aliens at the expense of legitimate Americans and legal aliens. Among other things, it would give in-state tutition to illegals while still charging much higher out-of-state tutition to American citizens.

Writing for Town Hall, Ira Mehlman, Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, notes the following:

While public university budgets, programs, and seats fall victim to state budget crises, the DREAM Act would compel all states to provide seats and tuition breaks to newly-amnestied illegal aliens. Backing the DREAM Act would be a body blow to the interests of the people who actually did elect Barack Obama: America’s embattled middle class. Few issues personally concern as many Americans as whether their children will be able to get the college educations they need, and how they will pay for it. Those voters are not likely to be pleased by a bill that takes educational opportunities and resources away from their own kids and turns them over to the children of illegal aliens.

Despite these economic realities, the Democrats are dead set on granting amnesty to illegals in any way possible. Why? Because it would provide them with a potential voting bloc of 12-20 million voters and allow them to continue forcing socialism on the rest of us. The Dems don’t care what damage they will be doing, only that they will continue holding power over us, which is their ultimate goal here.

And Ira’s parting shot:

An idea that was flatly rejected by the American public during a period of relative prosperity and low unemployment makes even less sense in a bad economy and governments at just about every level facing record shortfalls and deficits. Because of the economic and fiscal realities that he will soon inherit, President Obama will be compelled to make decisions that are painful to a broad swath of the electorate. If the pain is dispensed equitably the public is likely to be understanding and forgiving. If hard-working, law-abiding Americans are asked to sacrifice while people who broke our laws are rewarded and political pressure groups are paid off, the reaction will quite different – especially if it hurts their own kids.

But, as noted above, if the Democrats can make newly amnestied illegals a part of the “broad swath of the electorate,” then the sufferings of legitimate Americans will be of absolutely no concern to them at all.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

DREAM Over: Illegal Alien Student Amnesty Awakens To Fiscal Reality
Ira Mehlman
TownHall.com
December 3, 2008

Fifteen Questions For People Who Think The GOP Should Be More Moderate

Over at Town Hall, John Hawkins has fifteen questions that he poses directly to those who think the GOP should move to the Center. But before we get to those questions, let’s all understand that the GOP tried moving to the Center in the last two elections and got its collective butt whipped both times. So, you have to wonder why, if that has been the proven outcome twice in a row, anyone would want to embrace such a losing strategy.

The questions:

#1) If both the GOP and the Democrats support bigger government, how does the country survive long term given the size of the debt we already have and the deficits we’re running right now? In other words, how can running massive deficits possibly be sustainable over the long haul? #2) If the GOP were to officially become a big government party, wouldn’t there be a real danger of having a large third party spring up that would represent the considerable number (I’d say a majority, at least in the abstract) of Americans who do want smaller government and less spending? #3) If the GOP becomes a big government party, how do you see us differentiating ourselves from the Democratic Party? Do we spend almost as much as they do, but not quite as much? Do we spend even more? Do we favor deficit spending, but just on different things? Isn’t there a real danger that Democrats — since their base tends to generally be OK with excessive spending — could simply outbid us on anything we offered to the American people? #4) Since the majority of the GOP’s core supporters don’t agree with “moderate” positions like big spending or amnesty, feel very strongly about it, and feel those positions harm the party politically, how can the party continue to hew to those positions over the long term without being permanently at odds with the people who should be their strongest supporters? #5) Let’s do the math on amnesty: there are roughly 12-20 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics. Hispanics broke 70/30 for the Democrats in 2006 and 69/31 for the Dems in 2008 according to the latest exit poll data. If the split stayed at 70/30 and 12-20 million new illegals were made citizens, that would mean the Democrats would add another 4.8 to 8 million potential new voters as a result of amnesty. The top end of that scale is a larger margin than what Barack Obama won by in 2008. Additionally, even if the GOP improved our numbers with Hispanics — which we certainly need to do — we’ve never come close to getting 50% of the Hispanic vote. With all that in mind, isn’t amnesty political suicide for the GOP? #6) Some people tend to assume that Hispanics vote almost entirely on the illegal immigration issue, but I would assert that there is very little objective evidence for that. George Bush and John McCain are the two biggest proponents of amnesty in the Republican Party and neither of them is particularly popular with Hispanics today. In fact, according to exit polls, against a candidate who was thought to be weak with Hispanics, John McCain only got 31% of the Hispanic vote. So, what objective evidence convinces you that Hispanics vote largely on illegal immigration and that if the GOP supports amnesty, it will get us over the 50% threshold with Hispanics? #7) Given that the mainstream media overwhelmingly supports the Democrats, it’s extremely important for the GOP to have the support of conservative talk radio hosts, magazines, and the RightRoots. Since the new media is overwhelmingly comprised of conservatives, how does a moderate GOP gain their genuine support over the long haul? #8) Follow-up question to #7: If the GOP can’t get the new media back enthusiastically on its side — which is likely to be the case unless there are changes on spending and illegal immigration policies — how does the GOP get the base fired up? In other words, if Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc., etc., are telling everyone who’ll listen that the Republicans stink, how does the Republican Party work around that? #9) Setting aside the conservative media, obviously the conservative movement is lacking energy and passion right now. Many people, myself included, would say that this has a lot to do with the position that the GOP has been taking on immigration and spending issues. How does the GOP get conservatives supporting the GOP again, instead of just opposing the Democrats, if the party continues to pursue big government policies and amnesty? #10) If amnesty, big government, and deficit spending are winning issues for the Republican Party, why did we take such a huge beating in 2006 and 2008 despite pursuing those very policies? #11) Over the last two elections, moderate Republicans haven’t quite been wiped out, but percentage wise, they’ve suffered much higher losses than conservative Republicans. If moderate Republicans can’t even win elections in moderate districts now, why would we want to adopt that losing philosophy across our whole party when conservatives are winning at a much, much higher clip across the country? #12) As moderate columnist David Brooks has said, There is not yet an effective Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas. There is no moderate Club for Growth, supporting centrist Republicans. The Public Interest, which used to publish an array of public policy ideas, has closed. Reformist Republican donors don’t seem to exist. Any publication or think tank that headed in an explicitly reformist direction would be pummeled by its financial backers. National candidates who begin with reformist records — Giuliani, Romney or McCain — immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base. So, there are no moderate think tanks, no moderate donors, the new media is overwhelmingly conservative, the Republican base and activists are overwhelmingly conservative — shouldn’t that tell people something about whether the idea of a moderate GOP is workable? #13) Follow-up question to #12: If a moderate Republican Party is workable, how do you make it work without the new media, think tanks, money, or an excited base on your side? #14) John McCain was the most moderate candidate the GOP has run since Richard Nixon. In fact, he’s the standard bearer of the “moderate Republican” wing of the party and yet the media trashed him, he had trouble raising money — and other moderates, including prominent moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, voted for Obama. In the end, McCain received almost 4 million less votes than Bush did in 2006. Doesn’t that suggest that moderate Republican candidates may have trouble raising money, retaining moderates, and generating the enthusiasm from the Republican base that will be needed to win? #15) When the Democratic Party was out of power, the party moved to the left, not to the center. They obstructed the GOP at every opportunity, put hard-core left-wingers in charge of everything, and ran an extremely liberal candidate in 2008. Granted, they also had moderate Democrats that they ran in states and districts that leaned red, but those people are almost completely locked out of power and their agenda is largely ignored. Since that strategy worked so well for the Democrats, doesn’t it make more sense for the GOP to pursue the same strategy instead of continuing the move to the center that has done so much damage to the party over the last two elections?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Fifteen Questions For People Who Say The GOP Should Become More Moderate
John Hawkins
TownHall.com
November 14, 2008

Barack Obama Would Grant Citizenship To 12 Million Illegals

How would a Democrat president who has raised taxes, opened our borders, been soft on terrorism and is now presiding over an economy heading into depression, maintain power in the next election? Simple, he and his rubberstamp Democrat-controlled Congress, will grant amnesty and then citizenship to a voting bloc of 12 million illegal aliens.

Sound preposterous? Before you start saying that, consider the following:

A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration warned Tuesday. Obama also has said he wants to make the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon as he can — an amnesty program that would make them legally entitled to full government benefits, including Social Security and health care. William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it politically impossible to secure America’s borders. He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration security. “I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,” Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken advocate for stronger border control policies, tells Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a year. That means in the next presidential election, you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million illegal aliens who turn into voters.

And the reason we can be so confident in that statement is:

As a state senator in Illinois, for example, Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM Act, which allowed youngsters in the country illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate. … Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his pro-immigration positions as politically motivated “distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically: Obama’s plan for universal health care would include coverage for illegal immigrants, according to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals “adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health care. In March, Obama voted to table a Senate amendment that would support the withdrawal of federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote. Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since then, McCain has taken the position that securing the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama continues to support a process to “bring people out of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status (at which point they would be eligible for the federally mandated benefits available to anyone, such as Social Security). Obama also calls for enhanced border security. The Democratic candidate for president supports, in principle, providing state-funded welfare benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator, Obama supported allocating state funds to provide Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants, according to OnTheIssues.org. Obama has supported increasing the number of work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa, especially for applicants with specialized skills. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored, along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill that would provide federal funding to help states provide health care and education to non-U.S. citizens. Obama strongly supports encouraging American children to become bilingual and, at one point in the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate provision that would declare English the national language of the United States. McCain voted for it.

If these illegals are granted amnesty and then citizenship, it would turn the United States into the economic hell-hole that is today’s Mexico.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals To Get Citizenship
David A Patten
NewsMax.com
October 22, 2008