Sunday, September 14, 2008

McCain´s Hypocrisy: "I am more PRO Illegal than Obama!" Ad to Latinos

McCain-Palin have a new ad out on Latino TV. I posted it in the upper right hand corner of this page. Remember McCain? The politician who told the Young Republicans to "shhhh, put down your ´Build the Fence´ signs until after the election?"
Oh the hypocrisy of this ad! He is pandering and lying to both sides!
English Script For "Which Side Are They On?" (TV:30)
Announcer: Obama and his Congressional allies say they are on the side of immigrants. But are they? The press reports that their efforts were 'poison pills' that made immigration reform fail.
The result:
. No guest worker program.
. No path to citizenship.
. No secure borders.
. No reform.
Is that being on our side?
Obama and his Congressional allies ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to lead.
JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
Announcer: Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee. Approved by McCain-Palin 2008

60 comments:

Hran said...

"He is pandering and lying to both sides!"

Make no mistake, though, McCain is on your side, Dee. Would he not sign his own amnesty bill? Furthermore, I think McCain, like Bush, actually believes in the liberal ideal of a multi-ethnic nation. Therefore, he is essentially not on our side, but on the side of the nation-crushing liberal ideologues.

Dee said...

Hran,
Not on my side.
Here is what McCain wants:
1. To keep the 12-15M here, yes.
2. To keep them illegal. yes.
3. To keep the borders open so millions more come in. yes.
4. He wants these workers to continue to be exploited. That way Business continues to bring them in, exploit them, they make big profits. His cronies will continue to build the detention centers as payback. They will continue to use Contractors like Blackwater to keep all Americans under their power.

5. He wants to continue to remove our civil liberties of ALL Americans and keep us ALL living in fear!

Anonymous said...

It is well known to the readers of this blog that the Mexican immigrants are encouraged by their leaders to have as many babies as possible so as to speed the day that they take control of the Southwest USA.

What is not that well known is that the immigrants to the UK are following the exact same strategy with the exact same likelihood of success


A Hate Fanatic Has Boasted That Muslims Will One Day Conquer Britain — by Having More Babies.

Speaking at a rally marking 9/11, Anjem Choudary bragged that a birth explosion would let followers of Islam take control of the country.

Undercover Sun investigators secretly recorded Choudary telling a young and impressionable audience that they would eventually rule under strict Sharia law.

And our team listened in chilled silence as he predicted: “Islam is superior and will never be surpassed. The flag of Islam will rise over Downing Street.”

Lawyer Choudary also said it would be easy for vast numbers of Muslims to declare Jihad, or holy war, against Britain — and that every one of them could become “a time bomb waiting to go off”.

The Sun team watched vile Choudary, the right-hand man of exiled preacher of hate Omar Bakri, ranting to 100 young Muslims at a meeting in East London.

The mob bayed and cheered as he said: “About 500 people in Britain become Muslim every day.

“The Home Office say there are 1.5million Muslims but there were 1.5million ten years ago. Since then our brothers in Bethnal Green, Whitechapel and other places have had eight or nine children each. Eight children here, ten children, 15 children. There must be at least six million people.

“It may be by pure conversion that Britain will become an Islamic state. We may never need to conquer it from the outside.”

patriot said...

Dee, McCain in on your side at least for some of what you want. You want number 1 and 3 and you claim he does also. As for number 2, didn't he try to pass immigration reform in congress last year? So how can you say that he wants to keep them illegal? As for number 4, that is in conflict of what he wanted last year with the bill he co-sponored in congress. So how can you say that he wants to continue to have the illegals exploited? As for number 5, how are our civil liberties being removed? What Americans are living in fear? More of your usual BS, dee!

Dee said...

Pat,
I have to wonder about Bush and McCain and their true motivations.
I dont think there ever was an intent on passing CIR.
They are supporters of the Global Economy and multi national corporations. They believe in Profit and Power. They knew CIR wouldnt pass. They need large number of illegal workers so they can exploit them.

Remember the Beltwater Boys that helped out Simcox and the MMs pushing the fence a year and a half ago? Remember Fox and the media keeping them on their shows on a daily-weekly basis? McCain was supposedly helping Kennedy with CIR. But think about it? Was it all a front?

I think they (Bush and McCain) were, even then, playing both sides against each other. They are on the side of Big Business. Business thrives with illegal, exploited workers. And they are on the side of their cronies who receive no bid contracts for private prisons-detention centers, and as contractors for homeland security.

patriot said...

You can second guess the two candidates all you want but ultimately it will come down to what congress does and not what either one of the candidates want.

I noticed you avoided my last two questions, dee. As I said, there is no violation of our civil liberties and Americans are not living in fear. More BS by you.

Dee said...

Anon,
You are scaring yourself.
Look around. If you count the people who are 1-4 Hispanic like Ali suggested, then we have 150 million Americans of Latino descent. Past 1 generation, we are just plain, regular Americans, like anybody else. At least a third of the people on TV and movies are at least 1-4 latino.

patriot said...

If someone is only 1/4 Latino, then I wouldn't consider them Latino per se. They themselves would probably relate to the other dominant 3/4 of their ethnic/genetic makeup rather than the mere 1/4 Latino side.

You are incorrect that past one generation Latinos are assimilating now. That isn't the case anymore as Ultima already stated. Most still choose Spanish as their primary language of usage and they are colonizing rather than assimilating now because of their high numbers both legal and illegal.

Take yourself for example, dee. You say that your family has been here for several generations and yet you are not assimilated yourself. You still have that tribal mentality that Hispanics typically have. Instead of standing up for the rule of law which is an American ideal you have gone in a different direction. You yourself are the best example of non-assimilation by a Hispanic in this country whose family has been here for many generations. You make our point for us.

Nelson said...

These types of posts make Dee look like just another anti-Republican bigot. If McCain had a D after his name instead of R, she'd be singing his praises.

The Arizonian said...

Dee,
You are not Tom Joad.....

Hran said...

"Look around. If you count the people who are 1-4 Hispanic like Ali suggested, then we have 150 million Americans of Latino descent."

While other brown nationalists look forward to the day when Latinos are the majority, in your mind, Dee, they already are! Where do you come up with this stuff?

Dee said...

Pat,
You make my point for me. To you Assimilation is a white anglo ANTI.

If a person is a loyal American, Hispanic descent, is business focused, well educated, military supporting, speaks English perfectly, but doesn´t agree with your ANTI rhetoric, you believe they are NOT assimilated!
Ridiculous! That is why your side continues to lose this argument.


Pat said...
Take yourself for example, dee. You say that your family has been here for several generations and yet you are not assimilated yourself. You still have that tribal mentality that Hispanics typically have. Instead of standing up for the rule of law which is an American ideal you have gone in a different direction. You yourself are the best example of non-assimilation by a Hispanic in this country whose family has been here for many generations. You make our point for us.

Dee said...

Nelson,
No.
I am merely pointing out McCain´s hypocricy. If you look at the ad and what he did to the YAFers (Fence sign) and you were honest, you would agree!

Dee said...

Hran,
In his day, Teddy Roosevelt had your same fears about the Germans. Hispanics, like everyone else, assimilate after a generation.

Where do I get this stuff? All I have to do is look at my children and grandchildren. I always share with them my Dad´s key to success, Education and Family. They are all doing very well. Remember, my children are 1/2, my grandkids 1/4. I know so many families like mine. That is where I obtain the calculations.

Dee said...

Ok AZ.
I will byte.
Why do you say I am not like Tom Joad. Grapes of Wrath, right?

Dee said...

Nelson, AZ,
I have been thinking about McCain and Palin. We all agree Palin is a controversial choice, but when we think about it, McCain was a very radical choice as well. Neither of them support your view of No Amnesty. Doesn´t it make you wonder about how these two were chosen?

Perhaps the Republican powers that be do want to lose the election. Also, maybe they want to get Palin out of the Govs chair and if these trials pan out like some say they will, out of politics forever.

Alie said...

Ooh, ooh, ask me! Ask me! I think I know why McCain was chosen.

The Republican establishment has made a strategic decision that they cannot win by energizing the base like they did back in 2004. The feeling is that the candidate who can pull in the Independent votes will be the winner.

The theory is that neither Obama or McCain can win merely by energizing their base. Both sides need the Independent vote and to pull some votes away from the opposition side.

McCain was thought to have appeal to Independents and conservative/moderate Democrats.

Of course, McCain couldn't win by alienating the conservative base either, and I think that's what the Palin pick for VP was all about.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just a theory.

I'm not sure why Obama was chosen as he certainly has an extremely liberal background, coming up through the far left Chicago political machine. However, maybe it was thought that his charisma and oratory abilities would pull in the voters. As well, many people are unhappy with Republicans and maybe the time was right to put forth a very liberal candidate. The far left seems to have a lot of influence in the Democratic party nowadays.

Also, immigration is just not the #1 issue with many people. It is in those areas which are most affected, but it is not in other areas. In those areas, the economy, gas prices, Iraq, national security, top immigration. Not that people don't think it is important, it's just that right now they put other issues before it.

Therefore, most people are not choosing their candidates based upon their stance on the immigration issue, but on several others.

However, when the amnesty debate rolls around again, people will make their wishes known as they did the last time.

patriot said...

Dee, again you twist what assimilation is. Assimilation is adopting the ideals and the culture of this country. This country's ideals is based on the rule of law. If one doesn't respect our laws then no, they are not assimilated and they are not loyal Americans.

I don't care how business focused an American is or educated or if they served in the military. Not adopting such an important ideal of our country is a non-assimiliation factor.

Since the Civil Rights Era our country has been trying to wipe out racism also. Another one of our ideals. What we have today with those like you who don't respect our immigration laws and because it is directly due to the illegals being ethnically like yourself, racism is rearing its ugly head again. It is also another ideal you have not assimilated to.

The Arizonian said...

Dee said:
We all agree Palin is a controversial choice, but when we think about it, McCain was a very radical choice as well. Neither of them support your view of No Amnesty

I can not speak for Nelson, but you are greatly mischaracterizing my position.

First, I do not see Palin as a controversial choice, you do. I believe she is a fine choice, you and others like you are drawing up the controversy.

Second, the "amnesty" issue seems to be full of mis-truths in and of itself. So, what was this amnesty?

Anyone that was in this country "illegally" (unauthorized) for a continuous period of ten years or more, and had not violated the law in that time period would be allowed to stay pending legal status processes.

I actually had no problem with this.
Why you ask?
If these people were able to stay under the radar, and not getting themselves into trouble, they are ahead of most native born Americans in regards to "civic lawfulness".

The Arizonian said...

Allie said,
Therefore, most people are not choosing their candidates based upon their stance on the immigration issue, but on several others.

Hmmm.......

Partly. Listen to the debate between Nixon and Kennedy. Nixon crushed him. Now watch the debate between Nixon and Kennedy. Kennedy crushed him.

And Kennedy won.....

The Arizonian said...

Dee said,
Why do you say I am not like Tom Joad.

Simple, Tom actually did something to help people. He was a man of action.

You are a person of talk. This is the same reason I now dislike Bono. Talking about an issue is nice, but doing something for an issue is better.

The Minutemen were actually doing something about the issue, you blasted them. Companies that are sympathetic to them and hire them, you blast them. Someone tries to pass a CIR, runs for President, you blast them.

I think I figured it out Dee, if someone fixed the problem, you would not have anything to complain about, and you would blast them for it.

The Arizonian said...

Lindsay..... Lohan...... Speaks.....

http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/09/15/lindsay-lohan-calls-out-sarah-palin-for-homophobia/

Dee said...

Alie,
The problem with your rationale is it is based on the base voting for the candidate and then targetting your agenda towards the independents. The strategy would NOT be to select a candidate whose primary philosophy is opposite of their base. If so it would only be logical the base would NOT vote for the candidate.

The key is keep the base then select an independent minded candidate. That would be someone like Ron Paul.

Dee said...

Alie,
I again disagree.
If the Republicans wanted to win, keep the base, interest the independents they would select Ron Paul. Then, as a further extension towards the non traditional voters, select someone like Condoleeza Rice as VP. That is, IF they were SERIOUS about winning this election.





Alie said...
Of course, McCain couldn't win by alienating the conservative base either, and I think that's what the Palin pick for VP was all about.

Dee said...

Alie,
Perhaps even Colin Powell as VP.

IF they wanted to win!

patriot said...

Are you saying that the Republican party doesn't really want to win this election, dee? What are you smoking?

The Arizonian said...

And Dee is a Democrat believer: in it for the long haul, even if the bridge is out.

Dee said...

I think Obama was selected because he is a believer. He believes that Change is possible and he can help change the problems we have been facing in our country.

Let me give you an example Alie.
I work in a very large corporation. We staff tens of thousands of managers.

New managers can be divided into several groups including: Believers, Connected and Schmoozers.

The believers are the best of the best. They come up the right way, through hard work and their belief in the Company´s Mission. No mentors. Just hard workers that are smart. These folks, by far, are the long termers. They withstand any downsizing. They withstand any outsourcing.

From a corporate perspective:
Barack is a Believer.
McCain is Connected (good or bad)
Palin is a Schmoozer.

The Arizonian said...

Dee said:
I work in a very large corporation.

That exists only because of private enterprise. Just the kind of thing Obama wants to tax and regulate into non-existence.

Dee said...

Pat,
No.
I do not believe the powers that run the Ring Wingers want to win this election.
Why else would they select McCain or Palin?

Why else allow McCain to run? (none of the ANTIs want him)
Why else would they allow McCain to select Palin? (she is extremely radical and who supports her anyway??)

Dee said...

AZ,
You are way off base.
The MMs failed for a number of reasons and NONE of them had ANYTHING to do with Me.

Here is why the MMs failed:
1. The Leaders of the MMs were more concerned about their own personal fame than the cause. There are so many lower level details to this entire issue!!! They started this whole thing about donations for a fence that was never built!
Start with Simcox. He allowed the people from the Beltway Boys to come in and take over his campaign. They attempted a take over. They screwed up his books. They changed his agenda. Then they ran off and left him holding the bag.
2. Gilchrist saw this happening and got out early. He tried to tell them that they screwed up. They turned on him!!! Including Simcox, Schwilk and the Beltway Boys themselves. They made Gilchrist the scapegoat.

AZ, I could go on and on, but I defy you to dispute anything I have said. Gilchrist and Simcox are both frequent posters here. THey will acknowledge what I said.

patriot said...

It would be a cold day in hell that either party wouldn't want their candidate to win the presidential election. As I said, you aren't thinking rationally at all, dee.

Those who voted in the primaries decided they wanted McCain to be their candidate. They probably thought he was the best choice to beat the Democratic candidate. He is a war hero and is experienced. I don't feel he was the best choice but the majority rules.

Evidently McCain thought that bringing something new to the table with Palin being a female vs the Dems having a black candidate was a necessary move on his part to win the election but to say that the Republican party or that Republican voters don't want the Republican candidate to win this election is ludicrous.

patriot said...

I could say the same thing for the Democrats, dee. What were they thinking nominating a candidate with racist affiliations? Were they trying to throw the election? Yeah, right!

The Arizonian said...

Dee said:
The MMs failed for a number of reasons and NONE of them had ANYTHING to do with Me

Dee, LEARN TO READ......
what I said was:

The Minutemen were actually doing something about the issue, you blasted them.


And you did criticize (blast) them. Did I say YOU caused them to fail?
But they didn't fail:
They brought light to an issue. In that sense, they succeeded. That was their first goal.

Dee said...

Pat,
Any other election I would agree with you. For the Republicans, this election is extremely different.

ALL the ANTIs HATE McCain. I dont understand how he was elected.
Think of Ron Paul!
With all of his independent voters and independent campaign contributions, why wasnt he the candidate?

McCain was the LEAST popular candidate and you know it. HOW ON EARTH WAS HE SELECTED?

WHY on earth did he select PALIN?? That is truly bizarre! Very Strange!!

I think the right wingers are purposely selecting candidates that will lose!

patriot said...
It would be a cold day in hell that either party wouldn't want their candidate to win the presidential election. As I said, you aren't thinking rationally at all, dee.

Those who voted in the primaries decided they wanted McCain to be their candidate.

Dee said...

AZ,
Actually, I do not understand why your side picked McCain or Palin.

You would have won if you selected Romney and a good candidate like Ron Paul or Huckabee or even Guiliani.

Why on earth did your side pick McCain-Palin. It doesnt even make sense.




The Arizonian said...
And Dee is a Democrat believer: in it for the long haul, even if the bridge is out.
September 15, 2008 4:16 PM

The Arizonian said...

Dee said,
Think of Ron Paul!
With all of his independent voters and independent campaign contributions, why wasnt he the candidate?


Because you are thinking that voters care about cashflow? They vote based on who they see. The majority of voters did not see Ron Paul.

On a side note...
I wish to show outrage that a liberal person, such as yourself, would dare invoke the name of Dr. Paul.
Dr. Paul stands for just about the complete opposite of your liberal leftist agenda. Why you even mention him seems to be an insult to everything he stands for.
(This message was paid for by People Against Socialism, and I approved this message.)

And this basically what you were saying about Palin even mentioning Hillary.....

And now I must go to work, to help pay for those that won't.....

The Arizonian said...

Dee said:
AZ,
Actually, I do not understand why your side picked McCain or Palin.


Oh for Darwin's sake, and for the now 4th or 5th time: I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.

Dee said...

Pat,
Republicans are an enigma.

patriot said...

I already answered your questions why McCain was selected by the primary voters and one of the reasons yet you keep asking the same questions over and over, dee. You can read, can't you?

patriot said...

Ok in your bizzario world dee why would the "right wingers" want to lose this election? You keep stating that yet you don't explain what you think the reason would be for that.

Dee said...

Pat,
Regardless of your OPINION as to why McCain was selected, it STILL does NOT make any sense, especially since most on your side view Immigration or Economy as the most important issue!!


pat said...
Those who voted in the primaries decided they wanted McCain to be their candidate. They probably thought he was the best choice to beat the Democratic candidate. He is a war hero and is experienced. I don't feel he was the best choice but the majority rules.

Dee said...

Oh AZ, You disappoint.
The MMs DID fail and it had nothing to do with me.
My role was NOT blasting, even though you may call it as such. I merely told the truth!

As an fyi, the MMs FAILED due to their own insecurities, biases and need for attention.


Arizonian said...
Dee, LEARN TO READ......
what I said was:
The Minutemen were actually doing something about the issue, you blasted them.
And you did criticize (blast) them. Did I say YOU caused them to fail?
But they didn't fail:
They brought light to an issue. In that sense, they succeeded. That was their first goal.
September 15, 2008 5:09 PM

patriot said...

Yes, it does make sense, dee. As Alie has already pointed out there are those states who haven't been heavily impacted by illegal immigration yet. They view the war, health insurance, education, the economy as more pressing issues right now. Once they have been negatively impacted by illegal immigration as the southwestern states have, it will be on the front burner with them also. All Republicans aren't right wingers either. There are Republican moderates also. There is more than "one side" to Republicans. One of those sides is the "anti" side but not all of them are. Not all antis are Republicans either some are Democrats. Why don't you leave party affiliation out of the argument? This isn't a "one size fits all" argument.

AZ is correct. The MM reported many illegal aliens crossing our border to the Border Patrol and brought illegal immigration to the attention of the sleeping Americans, so how do you call that a failure?

patriot said...

CIR also failed and I give some of the credit for that to the MM as they brought illegal immigration to the attention of other Americans and resulted in them slamming congress with phone calls and e-mails about it.

Nelson said...

Neither of them support your view of No Amnesty.

Look through all of my posts. Please find even one where I advocated "No Amnesty."

Doesn´t it make you wonder about how these two were chosen?

I've never even heard of Palin before she was selected for McCain's running mate, but as for McCain, I voted for him in the primary. One of the reasons (but not the only reason) I chose him was he was the most pro-immigration candidate. I'm willing to concede that the anti vote was divided amongst his rivals, but that doesn't mean all Republicans are anti-immigration.

The Arizonian said...

So the Republicans picking McCain is so weird? Because majority of Republicans don't want CIR?

Are you insane? The Republican party was founded by slavery abolitionists. It was the Democratic party that stalled the civil rights movement in the 60's. They didn't go for it until Kennedy died.

The Arizonian said...

Dee said:
The MMs DID fail and it had nothing to do with me.
My role was NOT blasting, even though you may call it as such. I merely told the truth!


you're right, they had nothing to do with bringing the issue of border security to light. They had nothing to do with the mounting pressure to hire more Border agents. They had absolutely had nothing to do with the National Guard being dispatched out to the border to help the Border Patrol until their new recruits were ready.

Oh, wait a minute.....
None of those issues were adressed until a small group of "racists" were down on the border reporting crossings, then getting media attention. That attention made Americans more aware of the issue and called, and voted, their representatives. Those representatives then made bills and then voted on them.

Saying the Minutemen had nothing to do with more agents and border security, is the same as saying Dr. King had nothing to do with civil rights.

Dee said...

Nelson,
I do agree with you.
In fact, I would venture to say most Republicans are NOT anti immigration.
I think many ANTIs were previously
Republican and some were Democrat. We agree the ANTIs leading agenda item is Immigration.


nelson said...
but that doesn't mean all Republicans are anti-immigration.

Dee said...

AZ,
Shall I remind you of the Republican Prez candidates and their views of Immigration?
Should we start with Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, Romney, etc. etc.

The Arizonian said...
So the Republicans picking McCain is so weird? Because majority of Republicans don't want CIR?

Are you insane? The Republican party was founded by slavery abolitionists. It was the Democratic party that stalled the civil rights movement in the 60's. They didn't go for it until Kennedy died.

Dee said...

AZ,
No. It was the Beltway Boys who infiltrated the MMs who brought their Media contacts and AM shockjocks into the mix that drew all the media attention.


The Arizonian said...
Saying the Minutemen had nothing to do with more agents and border security, is the same as saying Dr. King had nothing to do with civil rights.

patriot said...

Republicans are not ANTI-IMMIGRATION, they are anti-illegal immigration. Keep the terminology straight or it becomes a dishonest and bogus argument.

The Arizonian said...

Dee said
.....MMs who brought their Media contacts and AM shockjocks into the mix that drew all the media attention.

Ever hear of double think?

You just validated what I said, with admitting I was right.

Dee said...

AZ,
No double think.

I said the BELTWAY BOYS !!!!infiltrated the MMs who brought their Media contacts and AM shockjocks into the mix that drew all the media attention.

Key words, Beltway Boys!!

The Arizonian said...

Keywords: Media attention

Allow me to explain so Democrats can understand:

There are these group of guys.
These guys say they are going to watch the border.
They believe in that by doing this it will bring public attention to the problem.
When they see someone crossing the border in a place other than a port of entry, they will call border patrol.
They call the border patrol.
They get media attention.
The public sees what is going on.
The public demands more agents and a fence.
The border patrol gets more agents.
They start building/renovating the fence.

They believe in that by doing this it will bring public attention to the problem

It does not matter whether or not someone from Washington showed up.
The objective was completed:
THE ISSUE GOT PUBLIC ATTENTION.

The Arizonian said...

OK, I decided to have so fun. Here are so excerpts from the Minuteman Project website:

In the about us page:
Jim Gilchrist founded the multi-ethnic Minuteman Project on Oct. 1, 2004, after years of frustrated efforts trying to get a neglectful U.S. government to simply enforce existing immigration laws.

In the FAQ'S page:
The Minuteman Project disassociated itself from SOS and Immigration Watchdog when it appeared that these organizations were simply racist gangs using so-called political activism as a veil to apparently hide what seems to be a hateful agenda to bash Mexicans. Brook Young, the owner and operator of Immigration Watchdog, is a skinhead (shaved head) who, in our opinion, seems to promote a hostile attitude toward immigrants in general. He does not seem to have the emotional stamina required to respectfully engage in political activism...at least in respect to the immigration crisis.

Gilchrist visited the Mountain Minutemen on April 5, accompanied by Corona Mayor Jeff Miller, and personally scolded Lil" Dog for producing that video . Lil' Dog's lawyer friend, Daniel Lula, was at the border with Lil' Dog during that reprimand and came to Lil' Dog's defense. Gilchrist quickly dressed down the lawyer, and a few other people at that border outpost, for being associated with someone who produces videos apparently portraying minutemen and women as "Mexican killers".

The video is despicable. The horrible image of minutemen shooting and killing illegal aliens as they wander across the international border is NOT the mission for which Gilchrist created the Minuteman Project and there is no tolerance for that kind of conduct�anywhere. Attorney Daniel Lula claims in an email to a Gilchrist associate to be a member of Lil' Dog's Mountain Minutemen.

The Minuteman Project warns all persons to stay away from those who encourage lawlessness and violence against illegal aliens. That warning distinctly applies to the Mountain Minutemen border observation outpost run by Robert Crooks (Lil' Dog) in Campo. Ca. Illegal aliens are human beings, just like U.S. citizens. They should be respectfully repatriated back to their homelands...not beaten or killed.

--------------

The Arizonian said...

Besides you are probably thinking of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which is separate from The Minuteman Project. The MCDC was corrupt from the get-go.

Dee said...

Az,
The MCDC, Jim´s group and the Mountainmen were once all together as a National group and had affiliations with local chapters.

Then there was the takeover by the beltway boys in the MCDC - corrupt and mismanaged (stole?) all the donations for the fake fence.

Someone broke into Jim´s accounts. More infighting. Lawsuits.

The Mountainmen sided with the MCDC and alipac and others sided with them too against Jim.

Now the Mountainmen have disbanded. The MCDC is ineffective.

Minimal speaking engagements for any of them.

Most of the MM groups that are still out there have disassociated themselves from each other.
The Beltway boys are long gone.
Minimal media coverage for any MM or groups previously affiliated with them.

Many AM Shock Jocks have moved on to other bashing opps.

Luis Cabrera said...

This video just hit my inbox. You are not alone suggesting that he has different stories on both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyF3uleiJds

Dee said...

Luis,
Welcome to my blog. I hope you come back often.
Thank you for the Video.
It tells the truth!!

Page Hits