July 23, 2007
In a move courting the Hispanic group, La Raza (the Race), Senator Barack Obama told a group in Miami Beach, Florida that he has earned their support for his presidential campaign. He claims he earned their support “by marching in last year's May 1 immigrant rallies.”
In a Washington Times article titled Obama solicits La Raza backing, the first term Senator also said of the failed Illegal Immigrant non-amnesty/amnesty bill, [it] “was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights.” I guess the fact that many broke our immigration laws to be here escaped the first term Senator from Illinois.
More troubling to me is who he is courting and what they are purported to advocate.
Reconquista is a policy of taking a sizeable portion of the Western and Southwestern United States and reintegrate it to Mexico as the land of Aztlan. While I don’t have appropriate numbers available, it appears a significant portion of Hispanics within the country advocate this policy.
To be fair, The National Council of La Raza states about “reconquista,” “…while it is difficult to repudiate something we’ve never been for, we want to make very clear that, …NCLR has never supported and does not endorse the notion of a “Reconquista” or “Aztlán,” and has never used, and unequivocally rejects, the motto “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada.” ”
I have no reason to disbelieve the Council, but what of the members of La Raza? Can the Council categorically state that no one within La Raza advocates ‘reconquista?” When asked if they would “Repudiate all claims that any current American territory rightfully belongs to Mexico,” the NCLR replied, “NCLR has not made and does not make any such claim.”
They weren’t asked if they made that claim, they were asked if they “repudiate all claims of that position.” To me, that would include claims made by other Hispanic groups such as MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán) {Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán}. To me, merely stating they don’t advocate it while not repudiating the calls of MEChA and other groups isn’t exactly sincere.
These are the groups that first-termer Obama claims owes him their votes because he marched in one demonstration.
At the march, a Melanie Lugo said, “We are the backbone of what America is, legal or illegal, it doesn’t matter.” Well, Senator Obama, does it matter? Does the fact that widespread illegal votes are being cast by those not entitled to vote matter, Senator?
The 15th Amendment to our Constitution, ratified in 1870 says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Later, the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920 said, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex,” adding and ensuring that legal female citizens of the United States, born or naturalized, shared in the right to vote. Nowhere do I find that illegal immigrants, those who break our laws by being here, have been given any right to vote in national Elections. Yet, many Democrats court the illegal immigrant vote.
Returning to La Raza, we see they were asked, “Does NCLR support undocumented immigration?” They reply, “No. NCLR believes that all immigration to the U.S. should be safe and legal.” Yet, in the very next question they are asked, “Does NCLR support undocumented immigrants?” In reply they state, “NCLR advocates on behalf of the entire Latino population regardless of immigration status.”
NCLR also has a pdf file of Common Myths About Undocumented Immigrants. I am also troubled by another pdf file they have available, Q&A for Voters (in states where ID is not required to vote). Although the pamphlet truthfully says, “Naturalized immigrants over 18 years old who are registered to vote have the right to vote,” I don’t find anywhere on this pamphlet discouraging illegals from trying to vote. In fact, why the emphasis on “in states where ID is not required?”
Is Obama fearful that he may not win without votes cast by illegal immigrants? Is that why he courts votes of legal and illegal immigrants as well? Is that why he brags his Muslim Ties are a strength, yet accuses Christian Right of hijacking faith, maintains a People of Faith for Barack website, all the while hiding the White Grandmother who raised him?
Are we ready for a president during war that says preventing genocide isn’t reason to keep U.S. Troops in Iraq, yet also desires Troops in Darfur to “prevent genocide?”
What else should we expect from a candidate who panders to Hispanics and tells them they owe him their vote for one March and also panders to Unions by telling them he would step out of the Oval Office to walk in their picket lines with them.
That might put him in a ticklish situation should he win the election and any of the Federal Employees Unions were to strike.
Lew
Monday, July 23, 2007
Obama: Hey esé, You Owe Me Your Vote
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Obama gets it
by A.J. Rossmiller · 8/01/2007
Obama delivered a speech today on terrorism, demonstrating his clear understanding of both the situation in Iraq and the real threats we continue to face abroad. Crucially, he addressed Iraq not as something we need to fix in order to fight terrorists but rather *a significant detriment to* our anti-terrorism goals and policies. Iraq has gone from being completely unrelated to global terrorism to a major factor in advancing its cause, and unlike the Bush administration, Obama recognizes the affirmative policies necessary. To wit:
[W]e must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.
Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan.
He went on to stress the importance of non-military activity in Afghanistan as well. It's this kind of overall foreign policy understanding, as well as the insight to know that al Qaeda is neither the primary source of violence in Iraq nor widely supported, that makes him such an attractive candidate from a foreign policy perspective.
I was a little concerned when I heard he would address potential military action in Pakistan, but it ended up being less militaristic than I anticipated. Regarding that enigmatic nation, he said,
[L]et me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
The pledge to use actionable intelligence in Pakistan sounds pretty tough, but it's really nothing new -- the U.S. has for some time now violated sovereignty in its counter-terror operations, and you don't hear about it much because those actions tend to be quiet, precise, and brief. They don't involve, say, massive invasions. Based on his track record on Iraq, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on something like this -- given that he resisted the overwhelming political pressures to be pro-war in 2003, I think he will be able to make the right judgment call on targeted attacks.
Of course, an invasion of Pakistan would be a terrible idea, and it's even risky to contemplate taking action in that nation given the precarious nature of Musharraf's handle on power. That is why it's important to have someone with good judgment in the White House, someone who we can trust to make the right decision on whether something would, overall, be good or harmful to our overall policies and security. So far, there's nothing to demonstrate that Obama doesn't have that kind of judgment.
Well, Bricklayer, I don't know just what this has to do with Obama pandering to Latino's, but since you brought it up, I'll address it.
To quote the Queen of the leftist Democrats, Obama's comemnts have been "irresponsible and frankly naive." As much as it might pain me, I have to agree with her thighness, this time.
For a man of Rossmiller's supposed caliber to claim that Iraq was "completely unrelated to global terrorism boggles the imagination, until you see that he has gotten embroiled with the Kos gang of leftist moonbat far left radicals.
Somehow he must have missed, or deliberately ignored, the known terrorists Saddam gave safe harbor to, prior to our invasion.
I find it quite laughable that the left cries fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq is "a significant detriment to our anti-terrorism goals and policies," yet also claim Al Qaeda flooded into Iraq after we entered there, but we need to fight them elsewhere, not Iraq, since they aren't in Iraq.
That begs the question of just who are the Sheiks and Tribal leaders getting fed up with and joining US efforts to oppose lately. Maybe Rossmiller missed that memo.
Democrats in Congress have the Constitutional power right now to "end the war." All they need do is cut off all funding for it, but that leaves them holding the bag, doesn't it? Instead, we get the daily smoke and mirrors dance desparately trying to make out that all is lost, when the majority of our Troops, the ones actually fighting it, not sitting at a desk or sipping tea safely in the rear with the gear on a short visit, say they are winning and pushing Al Qaeda back.
You can praise Rossmiller all you please, but others with a lot more training and know-how than he say different.
He must have also missed that Afghanistan became more under NATO, what the left demands for Iraq as well and things there haven't gone as well, especially with Al Qaeda regrouping. And to think, the left desires that in Iraq as well?
I also laugh at hearing admissions that Al Qaeda is and was everywhere, except Iraq.
Obama may be a glib talker, but that doesn't qualify one to be President. He has no experience in foreign policy, what you all condemned Bush for. He didn't serve in the Military, which you all condemned Dan Quayle and George Bush for. He has no long standing record, which you all condemned Bush for.
To me, that makes claims of "an attractive candidate from a foreign policy perspective" very suspect. But, ya'll cling to whatever straws you need to.
It isn't those of us on the right you need worry about for Obama, but the Queen of the leftist Neocom Democrats. She and her hubbie haven't even started with their usual politics of personal destruction they are well known for.
Post a Comment