You don't have to be a conservative or a Republican to be opposed to Barack Obama. Here are some of the reasons that almost anyone should oppose him:

1. PERSONALITY CULT As a host of Youtube videos, comments on blogs, chants at rallies, and even tattoos show, Obama clearly has a growing personality cult. About the only policy positions some of those supporters could name would be "hope" and "change". Most of his supporters find little fault with him and are willing to believe in him whole-heartedly. In the U.S., we should be supporting ideas, not blindly following Great Leaders. Such movements are extremely dangerous in all cases, including when the Great Leader eventually is shown to be a mere mortal. Who knows how his supporters will react should he finally be shown to be an empty suit.

2. SMART, BUT UNTESTED Obama is indeed smart. However, a good part of his reputation is due to his speaking skills and the fact that he's only very rarely been challenged. He's frequently said things that, were someone around to engage him in dialogue, would reveal that he hasn't thought things through in much depth. However, the media has completely given him a pass. During the last debate he was momentarily flustered after he was called on his past associations and on about the only occasion when he was pressed by the media he did not respond too well. He clearly has a narcissistic personality, and that personality type is prone to breaking down when challenged in the right fashion. America's enemies will attempt to take advantage of that.

3. HIS INDOCTRINATION PLAN FOR PRE-TEENS No, really. Right on their website, the Obama campaign is specifically reaching out to pre-teens, and he wants to use those kids 12 and under to get votes. That plan is like something from Red China or the Soviet Union.

4. PART OF THE CHICAGO MACHINE While Obama wasn't originally part of the Machine, he is now. Electing him will bring Machine politics to our national government. It won't be as bad as, for instance, electing Mayor Daley (either one) to be president, but there's no way that someone who's part of the Machine and who has advisors and supporters linked to the Machine will not give them something.

5. DIRTY CAMPAIGNING Obama himself has largely kept his hands clean, while his surrogates have done the dirty work. Nothing McCain or Palin have said or done comes remotely close to the dirty campaigning that Obama's surrogates and supporters - including those in the media - have done. An Obama win would validate all of the tactics that Obama's supporters have engaged in.

6. SUPPORTING QUESTIONABLE PEOPLE WITH QUESTIONABLE LINKS The person Obama supported to be Illinois Treasurer had little experience and a questionable background. Such links go beyond Obama's links with radicals.

7. VALIDATION OF INCREDIBLE MEDIA BIAS In this election, the mainstream media has become little more than an arm of the Obama campaign. The smallest infraction by McCain is blown out of proportion and Sarah Palin is taken to task for failing to state things in the most exact and legalistic terms. At the same time, Obama is allowed to make false statements and propose plans that have hugely obvious flaws. The press has served as both the source for and amplifier of outrageous smears, especially those targeted at Palin. They've also failed to ask Obama tough questions at the same time as engaging in ambush journalism against Palin. They've even taken quotes out of context. An Obama win would completely validate and reward the media's coverage. An Obama defeat would also be a crushing, humiliating defeat to the mainstream media.

8. RACE CARD Obama himself has played the race card; as he said, he's not like all the presidents on the dollar bills. But, his surrogates and supporters have taken it to a new level, with one of them even claiming that "socialist" was a code-word for "black". The supposed "post-racial candidate" is in many ways simply a slicker version of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

9. NEARLY ONE-PARTY CONTROL If Obama wins, the Congress will be Democratic, the mainstream media will continue lying and covering up for Obama as they have been doing, and Obama's past associates will still be around. And, millions of people at various levels within various public agencies will be more or less controlled by Obama through their unions: teachers, office workers, low-level bureaucrats, etc. While extreme Democratic Party hacks will certainly have no problem with something approaching one party rule, everyone else should be deeply concerned. Those who are extremely partisan should also note that any failures will clearly be the responsibility of the Democrats.

10. THE PERMANENT GOVERNMENT Just as George Bush has done, Obama will stock the permanent government - the faceless mid-level bureaucrats, Assistant Undersecretaries, etc. - with his cronies. Some of those will come from the Chicago Machine.

11. SOME SUPPORTERS HAVE FASCISTIC TENDENCIES It used to be that liberals would oppose corrupt foreign governments "losing" a reporter's paperwork in order to shut them up. Now, see the response from some of those in Obama's netroots base to such a case. While some at those sites no doubt oppose such things, very few of them spoke out against it. Some of the people highlighted at the previous link would have been right at home in East Germany.

12. ASSOCIATIONS WITH RADICALS In 'Dreams from My Father', Obama said, "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully... The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.". That's continued until very recently, with a long line of associations with radicals, extremists, and those on the far-left. Most politicians would not associate with largely unrepentant terrorists, racists, and the like. And, in fact, Obama has thrown several of his past friends and affiliates under the bus, but only after his association with them became an issue. Just as one might expect that a politician who spends their days going to Chamber of Commerce events has some sympathy with the positions of the Chamber of Commerce, Obama clearly has sympathies with the positions of the radicals with whom he's been associated. In fact, it's difficult to find many past Obama associates who are completely mainstream.

13. CRITICISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED The case of Joe the Plumber should be shocking to anyone who supports the U.S. Constitution. Someone dared to ask Obama a question and was later mentioned several times during a debate. Obama's supporters and surrogates responded by leaking private information on him and by trying to drive him out of work. The Obama campaign was probably involved in that, and at the least they did absolutely nothing to stop it. Those are the types of activities more commonly found in authoritarian societies. If Obama is president expect similar situations and perhaps even worse.

14. THE FIRST AMENDMENT Barack Obama is a clear threat to the First Amendment. Some Democratic leaders support the Fairness Doctrine and the like; for instance, the Center for American Progress supports more government control over radio station ownership. And, Obama himself has said that "hate" has no place on the airwaves. However, the "hate" part was a reference to Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh, both of whom he's also smeared. Whether Obama personally pushes it or not, the Democrats will attempt to pass some sort of bill having an impact on what you can hear on the radio and perhaps on the TV as well. Petitioning the government is also a key part of the First Amendment; as described above, Joe the Plumber was almost driven out of work after asking Obama a question.

15. THE GREAT UNKNOWN There's been controversy over Obama's eligibility to be president, with some thinking he could be a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia. There's a very good chance that he is indeed a U.S. citizen, but he has not proved it despite what you might have heard from "fact checkers". He could have easily prevented all the speculation by releasing his original birth certificate and other information to, for instance, an impartial judge. Yet, he did not. And, he even refuses to release something as simple as his college applications. Even the New York Times has noted that Obama isn't telling the truth about his years at Columbia University ("Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say", link). His failure to release even the most basic background information isn't just a stunt designed to tie up his opponents; it's clear that there's something that he does not want to reveal. His opponents will only fight harder to discover potentially embarrassing information if he's elected. If something damning is found it will have a dramatic impact not just on his administration but also on the Democratic Party and all of those public figures who supported him.

16. CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS The head of Obama's transition team and some of his advisors come from one of the lowest-wattage think tanks around, the Center for American Progress. They also support illegal immigration; per them, a "progressive" precept is opposition to xenophobia, and in their case that's manifested by supporting illegal activity. One of their senior fellows is part of the Mexican government's extended network. They also run the blog ThinkProgress, a juvenile site that specializes in gaffes, mockery, enforcing political correctness, and the like. That blog also refers to mainstream rightwing talk radio as "hate radio".

17. IMMIGRATION Both Obama and McCain support illegal and massive immigration, both would allow it to continue, both are panderers, and both would push amnesty ("comprehensive immigration reform"). McCain might try to push it earlier in his administration than Obama would, since his goals are less sweeping and he'd have less to do. However, Obama has shown himself even worse than McCain, such as by uttering 'reconquista'-style comments, thanking an open borders extremist for his work, and the like. The American public blocked amnesty once, and it can be blocked again.

18. BUSH'S SPP.GOV Obama supports a Bush trade scheme called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov). That highly secretive plan - conducted completely without Congressional oversight - has been called "NAFTA on steroids", and some think it's a precursor to a North American Union. One doesn't have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to think that a highly secretive Bush trade scheme could be much more than we're being told. Obama continued the secrecy surrounding the plan by speaking in code when he came out in support of it.

19. HABIT OF LYING McCain and Palin have both made false and misleading statements. However, Obama has taken it to a new level by uttering obviously false statements that he's rarely been called on. See, for instance, the list here. His campaign has also silently modified his website as his lies were revealed and silently omitted part of a quote to make someone look bad. See also this ad which even Joe Klein eventually called him on. In one case he even admitted to having been deceptive.

To summarize: please do not vote for Barack Obama.

The CNN/Youtube Democratic debate was horrible because a) almost all the videos submitted were incredibly weak, and b) CNN chose the weakest of the bunch. Rather than forcing those who want to be president of the U.S. to defend their policies, the candidates got off easy and were for the most part simply able to launch into their stump speeches.

This problem will continue in one form or another as long as CNN or another biased group is the gatekeeper.

The better way to choose the videos is to ask known quantities (such as bloggers and pundits who have reputations they would presumably want to protect) to rate the videos on their difficulty vs. their triviality or generality. Then, the most difficult videos would be selected.

Each individual rating would be made public. That way, those rating the videos could be held accountable for their selections. If they rate something incorrectly or refuse to rate some videos, they would hopefully face a hit to their credibility. Those rating the videos could also indicate whether they think the statements made on a video are inaccurate; that would be made public as well, and the videomaker and others could reply...

Continued here.

I can put a site like this together, but I need some backing to fund the development and, more importantly, the promotion.

Imagine what would happen if an amnesty supporter were forced to endure an hour-long, nationally-televised interview just about immigration matters where they were asked a series of tough questions about amnesty and forced to defend what they support.

As long as the questions were tough enough, and they were asked follow-up after follow-up, their lies and misleading statements would be revealed. That would almost certainly result in them losing a great deal of credibility and it would almost certainly have a significant impact on their political careers.

<blockquote>And, that would go a long way towards ending any chance of amnesty, as all the other supporters realize that their arguments could similarly be exposed and they would lose credibility as well.</blockquote>

So, how do we get something like that? The mainstream media is definitely part of the problem: they're completely corrupt and instead of trying to expose the lies by asking tough questions, they work to cover up the lies that politicians tell.

But, there is a way to do an end-around, and I urge everyone who wants to prevent amnesty to take part:

1. Choose a politician who supports amnesty, then go to their public appearances and ask them one or more very tough questions designed to reveal exactly how they're wrong and forcing them to defend what they support.

2. Publicize their answers (via Youtube, blogs, forums, press releases, Digg, Reddit, etc. etc.)

3. Repeat the first two until the politician loses credibility and support.

While you can choose others, I'm recommending concentrating on John Edwards, with Bill Richardson a possibility as well. While Edwards has "concerns about parts of the [latest Senate bill]" http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070518/ZNYT02/705180380/1015/SPORTS, he supports amnesty in general. Richardson doesn't appear to have spoken out about the Senate bill, but he too supports amnesty in general. We might force John Edwards to come out whole-heartedly against the Senate scheme, but at the least we'll sharply reduce the credibility of those who support any form of amnesty. You can find Edwards' campaign schedule here http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/john-edwards/, and Richardson's is here http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/bill-richardson/.

Here are a few questions to start with:

<blockquote><em>"Senator Edwards: you've falsely claimed that there are only three options to deal with illegal immigration: the status quo, massive legalization, or massive deportations (listen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGqxLeD1Qg8). You forgot to mention a fourth choice: simply enforcing the current laws and thereby encouraging many illegal aliens to leave voluntarily over time. That would also reduce future illegal immigration. Do you agree that it's misleading to omit that fourth choice? Why didn't you push for the fourth choice when you were in the Senate?  In 2003, just four (4!) companies were fined for immigration violations. Why weren't you pushing the Bush administration to enforce the laws when you were in the Senate, in order to help avoid the current situation?"</em></blockquote>

<blockquote><em>"Senator Edwards: no matter what it's called, won't millions and millions of people around the world see any form of 'comprehensive immigration reform' as an amnesty, and won't they try to come here to take part in that amnesty or in future amnesties? And, doesn't the federal government's failure to enforce the laws over the past decades strongly indicate that any provisions designed to keep those new prospective illegal aliens from coming here will not be enforced or will be watered down?"</em></blockquote>

<blockquote><em>"Senator Edwards: you voted for the DREAM Act (link http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=NC&VIPID=483), which is also part of the latest Senate amnesty bill. In addition to being an amnesty of its own, that Act lets illegal aliens attend college at the in-state rate. Since there are only a finite number of college discounts available, every discount that goes to an illegal alien is one that is taken away from a U.S. citizen. I would like you to tell us exactly what you would say to a U.S. citizen who can't go to college because of the legislation you supported. Please bear in mind that, once again, there are only so many discounts available, and every one that goes to an illegal alien deprives a U.S. citizen of a discount."</em></blockquote>

Feel free to offer your own questions in comments, and please leave links in this or future posts if you go out and ask him some tough questions.

Please go to the campaign appearances of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Richardson and ask them the questions on the following videos. Then, publicize their responses. If enough people do that, they might lose some support.

* Barack Obama video
* Video of Bill Richardson
* Question for Bill Richardson
* Question for Hillary Clinton
* John Edwards video

Nancy Pelosi and her plane are all over the news, but a perhaps more important - although certainly less salient - story happened earlier today.

Pelosi and three other members of the U.S. House of Representatives met with three members of Mexico's House of Representatives. The latter were there to discuss immigration matters and push for "reform". [1]

In addition to the Speaker, those from the U.S. were Joe Baca, Luis Gutierrez, and Hilda Solis.

What did our apparent U.S. representative talk about with their Mexican colleagues? I called Pelosi's office yesterday and was stonewalled. I might try again, but I'll probably meet with the same result. And, as far as I can tell, no U.S. MSM source has said anything about it. (Roger Hedgecock apparently mentioned this while filling in for Rush Limbaugh today).

Given Pelosi's (and Baca's, Gutierrez', and Solis') history of supporting both illegal immigration and "reform", there probably wasn't a lot of disagreement during the meetings. Did Pelosi present the U.S. side of things? Did she chide the Mexicans for their lead role in causing illegal immigration? Or, did she agree to work with them in some way?

Please give her a call and ask: (415) 556-4862

[1] News report in Spanish here (translation here).

UPDATE: Lou Dobbs briefly covered this on Thursday's show. One of those speaking to the U.S. reps. was Jose Jacques Medina of Mexico's PRD Party. You can see him in this older 8Meg WMV file. And, the New York Times News Service covered this issue as well, but the story doesn't appear to have made the NYT itself and has only been picked up by three papers so far. As discussed at the last link, they brought "Citizen Saul" Arellano - the U.S. citizen son of illegal alien Elvira Arellano - along as a prop.

UPDATE 2: Here's a Lou Dobbs segment, presumably from Friday February 9's show. Apparently Pelosi couldn't make room on her schedule to meet with the Mexican representatives. Either that, or she realized just how bad it would have made her look.

Please send this video to everyone you know.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), chapters of the ACLU, and chapters of the American Friends Service Committee are part of the new "Border Human Rights Working Group" [1]. At least three other groups in that coalition have links to the Mexican government.

This doesn't mean that the SPLC, ACLU, MALDEF, and AFSC are directly collaborating with the Mexican government. However, their constant support for illegal immigration should be examined in the light of this new coalition. The reader is encouraged to contact any media source that reports on those groups' position on immigration, suggesting that they disclose such links when covering the groups.

One of the Mexico-linked groups is the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, headed by Peter Schey [2]. His organization is collaborating with Mexico on a "Pilot Program" described at the website vocesunidas.org [3]. A paper he wrote discussing how Mexico can combat "vigilante" groups is available on a Mexican government website. [4] And, he's involved in the defense of some illegal aliens who were picked up as part of Joe Arpaio's posse in Phoenix. Schey says the only involvement of the Mexican consulate was to introduce him to those illegal aliens. [5]

The other Mexico-linked groups are Derechos Humanos and No More Deaths. In July they signed an "agreement of hospitality with the Mexican government". [6]

[1] A copy of a letter listing the members of the "BHRWG" is at this link. However, you'll need to right-click, choose "Save as", and add ".pdf" to the end of the file name since it doesn't have an extension. Here are the members listed in the letter:

American Civil Liberties Union of Texas
American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico
American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
American Friends Service Committee (San Diego, CA)
American Friends Service Committee (Tucson, AZ)
Binacional Migration Institute (Tucson, AZ)
Border Angels / Gente Unida (San Diego, CA)
Border Action Network (Tucson/Nogales/Douglas)
Border Network for Human Rights (El Paso, TX)
Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services (El Paso, TX)
Coalicion de Derechos Humanos (Tucson, AZ)
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
No More Deaths (Tucson, AZ)
South Texas Civil Rights Project (McAllen, TX)
Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery, AL)
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid

[2] CHRCL's site is at centerforhumanrights.org. They apparently have a non-profit arm as well as a corporation. The non-profit arm receives money from the California Legal Services Trust Fund, which disburses interest earned on CA's lawyers' trust funds. I'm informed that no state-directed money is given to their collaboration with Mexico. Schey also argued Plyler v. Doe before the Supreme Court, the case that led to public schools being forced to provide free education to illegal aliens.

[3] From vocesunidas.org/summary "the Direccion General de Proteccion y Asuntos Consulares of the Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores of the Government of Mexico and the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law ("CHRCL") have jointly established a two-year Pilot Program for Mexican National Women and Children Victims of Domestic Abuse in the United States ("Pilot Program"). In 2005 the Pilot Program operated in four States, California, Arizona, Texas and Illinos. In 2006 the Program will operate nationwide."

[4] portal.sre.gob.mx/ime/pdf/IV.8_Anexo.pdf

[5] See the letter from Andrew Thomas, the Maricopa County Attorney complaining about Mexico's involvement in the case here.

[6] From "Mexico will let Tucson-based groups offer aid to migrants south of border"/July 12, 2006/link: "Two Tucson-based immigrant-aid groups were expected to sign an agreement of hospitality with the Mexican government Tuesday evening. Members of the Coalicion de Derechos Humanos/Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras and the faith-based No More Deaths movement were scheduled to sign the document, along with Jesus Lopez Quiroz of Mexico's National Institute of Migration and Enrique Flores Lopez of Sonora's State Commission for the Care of Migrants."

Many of those who attended the recent immigration marches are foreign citizens who are here illegally. But, it doesn't stop there. For instance, one rally organizer is a former Mexican consul general and another is an official with a Mexican political party.

Not surprisingly, the MSM has barely mentioned such links. The reader is strongly encouraged to contact media sources and suggest that instead of simply reporting what goes on at future marches they do some journalism and look into any links between organizers and foreign governments or institutions.

If you see any MSM reports that fail to report such links, please contact the reporter and suggest that they tell the whole truth next time. And, if you have a blog, publicize that reporter's omission of such a key fact.

Here are some of the links, there are probably more:

1. One of the organizers of the March boycott/rally in Georgia [1] was Teodoro Maus, a former Mexican consul general.

2. Jorge Mujica is a spokesman for the March 10 Committee [2], which organized the Chicago rally on that date. He's also an official with Mexico's PRD Party ("Party for Democratic Revolution"). [3] [4]. He has some involvement either as a leader or a spokesman of the newly-formed umbrella group called the "National Alliance for Immigrant Rights". [5] [6] [7]

3. The group that organized the March 10 rally in Chicago first met on Feb. 15. The two who convened the meeting were an organizer in a Service Employees International Union local and Omar Lopez, who "serves on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, an advisory council to Mexican President Vicente Fox". [8] In April, Lopez spoke out about the ICE show raids of IFCO Systems. [9]

4. One of the sponsors [10] of one of the May 1 Los Angeles marches was CHIRLA ("Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles") [11], a group that has allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government. They're also a member of the We Are America alliance with several other groups. [12] [13] [14]. They are also in the National Capital Immigration Coalition with the ICIRR, also a member of the WAAA.

5. The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) is partly funded by the Irish government. It's unknown whether they've helped organize any of the larger immigration marches, but in addition to minor things such as taking part in St. Patrick's Day parades wearing t-shirts supporting legalization [15], and at least providing t-shirts to two participants in a March Los Angeles rally [16], they've organized trips to Washington which were greeted by major politicians. [17] Other activities are listed on their press page. [18]

Please contact news sources that might cover the upcoming marches and suggest that they do a little journalism instead of simply transcription service for groups that might be linked to foreign governments or foreign political parties.


Footnotes:

[1] "Immigration rallies draw thousands nationwide" 3/14/06 AP

[2] "March organizers seek citizenship for all immigrants" by Oscar Avila, Chicago Tribune, 5/23/06. (excerpt)

[3] This cached page says: "[Mujica has] participated in several political and community based organizations, and is currently the Secretary General of the Mexican Party for Democratic Revolution, PRD, as well as a member of the Steering Committee of the March 10 Movement, organizer of the march and May Day immigrant marches in Chicago".

[4] Search for "jorge mujica" prd
    
[5] "Pro-immigration groups seek formal political power" by Oscar Avila and Antonio Olivo, 8/14/06 (link)

[6] tinyurl.com/nc4lf, describing the convention where NAIR was formed, says: "The most important thing is that we gave the movement a national structure that will allow us to coordinate our actions," Jorge Mujica, one of the key organizers of the convention told reporters shortly after the meeting concluded. (That page also links to this google video featuring Mujica: tinyurl.com/qz5mk)

[7] workers.org/2006/us/immigrant-rights-0824

[8] Chicago 'Giant' put rest of country on notice by Scott Fornek, April 2 2006 (link)

[9] link

[10] todayweact.org/en/May_1_Los_Angeles_March

[11] chirla.org

[12] cccaction.org/cccaction/waaa_about_us.html

[13] In addition to the groups listed in [12], the National Council of La Raza has joined their alliance: nclr.org/content/news/detail/39296/

[14] "Immigrant Supporters To Counter Bush Speech" May 15, 2006 link

[15] "Irish join battle over illegal immigration", S.F. Chronicle, 3/15/06 (reprinted at irishlobbyusa.org/press/sfgatemar15.php)

[16] "Irish On the March in LA" 3/29/06 (link)

[17] The 3/10/06 article "McCain and Hillary Rally Illegals" has more on their funding by the Irish government and includes the following: “More than 2,400 undocumented Irish immigrants and their supporters rallied in Washington yesterday in support of an immigration reform bill that would allow them to remain in the U.S. legally.” This report further noted that “Senators Kennedy, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer addressed the demonstrators, who wore white T-shirts with the slogan ‘Legalize the Irish.’”

[18] irishlobbyusa.org/press.php