Gay Patriot Header Image

Betting on Illegal Immigration

President Obama was in Las Vegas yesterday, pitching his plan for “comprehensive immigration reform” and claiming credit for Monday’s “bipartisan” proposals on that matter.  Although it cost a fortune for him to make what is essentially a campaign stop in Nevada just to make a speech that he could have made in Washington, the implications of the speech having been given in Las Vegas, a city best known for gambling, were not lost on me.

The more I think about it, the whole idea of “comprehensive immigration reform” as a way of addressing the problem of illegal immigration is really the consequence of a number of bets made by members of both political parties and by the illegal immigrants themselves.

Here’s a summary of a few of them, along with a quick assessment of some of the odds involved in each.

Obama is betting that he can snooker enough Republicans into going along with what is essentially a ploy to secure a large voting bloc for the Democrats, a bloc that will partake of many government services and will continue to vote for the expansion of government power.  He is betting that with enough illegal immigrants rewarded with legal status and placed on a path to citizenship, he will be able to turn “swing states” such as Nevada and Florida into reliable states for Democrats and that he may even be able to chip away at Republican margins in strongholds such as Arizona and Texas.   And if he gets everything he’s asking for (and the way the current reports sound, he just might), his odds of achieving all of those things seem pretty good, indeed.

He is also betting, though, that if he doesn’t get everything he wants, or even if he gets some of it, he and the Democrats will have another issue with which to bludgeon the Republicans.  The odds of this happening are excellent.  Any Republican attempts to oppose his proposals will be branded as racist and xenophobic, and Democrats and their allies in the media will be able to attack Republicans over this issue for years and years to come.  In fact, I’d say that the president has already won this side of the issue, just by getting a few Republican lawmakers to come to any sort of “bi-partisan” agreement concerning immigration reform.

Then there are those Republican lawmakers who were part of this agreement.  Their motives are mixed, but at least a few of them are betting that if the “bi-partisan” proposal passes both houses of Congress and illegal immigrants are granted some form of amnesty and some are put on a path to citizenship, then suddenly, out of the blue, a large block of these new voters will start voting Republican for reasons that no logical or well-informed person could rationally believe.  Furthermore, some of them appear to believe that if Republicans compromise with Obama and enact “bi-partisan immigration reform,” then suddenly the Democrats and the media will stop saying so many bad things about Republicans.

Do I even need to explain why both of these are bad bets and why any Republican who goes along with any “bi-partisan” “comprehensive immigration” proposal endorsed by Obama is going to regret it down the line?

YouTube Preview Image

Finally, there are the illegal immigrants themselves.

A few years back, I rented a film called The Visitor on DVD. The film is intended to be a parable about illegal immigration. A college professor from Connecticut goes to his apartment in New York to find an illegal immigrant couple squatting there without his knowledge. At first he asks them to leave, but then when he realizes they have nowhere to go, he invites them to stay.


SCOTUS Split Decision on Arizona Immigration Law

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:24 pm - June 25, 2012.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Supreme Court

Here’s the definitive summary of the ruling from SCOTUS Blog.  (If you don’t follow the SCOTUS Blog, you should be… shame on you!)

Here is a rundown on the Court’s ruling with respect to each relevant challenge:

1. Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.

2. State Law Crime of Being In The Country Illegally. Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment. The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced. The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.

3. Ban on Working In The State. Section 5(C) of the statute also makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants from applying for a job or working in the state. It is also held preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Because Congress obviously chose not make working in the country without proper authorization a federal crime, states cannot enact additional criminal penalties Congress decided not to impose.

4. Warrantless Arrest Of Individuals Believed To Have Committed A Deportable Crime. Section 6 of the statute authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense. The Court held that this provision is preempted. Whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government.

Very interesting…. SCOTUS has left no doubt that immigration laws should be the realm of the Federal Government. 

One major ruling left for this year… the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.  That will come Thursday.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A Nightmare Over

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 1:58 pm - December 18, 2010.
Filed under: 111th Congress,Illegal Immigration

Before we all get jubilent over the impending repeal of DADT (oh, and we will), let’s also take a moment to celebrate this morning’s defeat of the preposterous DREAM Act.

With our Nation’s borders breached so frequently these days by criminals entering our Country illegally and the current Administration having the cajones to actually sue a border state for doing its job, can we pause and agree that rewarding criminals by guaranteeing their progeny legal citizenship status is a bad idea?

Just a thought before we throw our caps in the air over DADT’s repeal later this afternoon, that there are other reasons to celebrate today also.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Susan R. Bolton Hands GOP A(nother) Campaign Issue

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:06 pm - July 28, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Legal Issues

While at the gym earlier today doing cardio, I watched to see the various CNN anchors and reporter jubilant that Clinton appointee Judge Susan R. Bolton striking down the most “controversial” provisions in Arizona’s immigration law.

Given that poll after poll after poll has shown that a sizable majority of Americans support this law, this can only strengthen the hand of Republicans going into the fall elections, particularly given the Democratic Administration’s grandstanding opposition and successful suit.

Here, you have two issues, immigration and judicial overreach redounding to Republicans’ benefit.

(South) Lake Tahoe Is Fortunate:

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 9:18 pm - May 20, 2010.
Filed under: Conservative Ideas,Illegal Immigration

I have watched this video of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) three times and still have yet to find anything to which I object. (Transcript follows the jump.)

As with my new fat best friend, here’s a guy who says what needs to be said:


Palin Bashed US Apology in China Over AZ Immigration

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:27 pm - May 18, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Sarah Palin,Strong Women


On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn’t actually bothered to read Arizona’s 10-page long “secure the border” bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona’s necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing. Crowley’s statement follows similar admissions from Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. This now seems “the Washington way” of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what’s actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.

Still I can’t help but feel outraged on behalf of Arizona’s citizens for the incompetence shown by these Administration officials. Arizonans have the courage to do what the Obama administration has failed to do in its first year and a half in office – namely secure our border and enforce our federal laws. And as a result, Arizonans have been subjected to a campaign of baseless accusations by the same people who freely admit they haven’t a clue about what they’re actually campaigning against.

The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.

Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?

Surely our U.S. Ambassador to China, John Huntsman, must disagree with the Obama Administration’s continued apology tour? We have nothing to apologize for. If Administration officials want to apologize to anyone, apologize to the American people for the fact that after a year and a half in office, they still haven’t done anything to secure our borders, and they join our President in making false suggestions about Arizona’s effort.

- Sarah Palin (via Facebook)

GP Ed Note – I added the BOLD to Palin’s words.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Taylor’s No Carrie

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 8:31 pm - May 17, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration

Did America witness another Carrie Prejean moment last night?

Miss Oklahoma, Taylor Treat (great name if she needs, um, a different line of work) was asked a question by judge Oscar Nunez (I had to Google him to find out he’s some sort of b-rate commedian and actor) this weekend at the Miss America pageant. Nunez started his question about the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law that, according to him “authorizes law-enforcement authorities to check the citizenship of anyone they believe may be in the country illegally.” At this point, the reaction from the crowd grew to a point he couldn’t ignore, and he implored the audience to “now, listen to the question before you boo.”

Perhaps they were booing because Nunez was (just like the press, and the president) misstating what the law said. Likely he (just like the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security) hasn’t even read it, but will gladly criticize it.

While Treat’s response starts out pretty good (“I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America.”), she tends toward the more can’t-we-all-get-along mushyness toward the end.

Meh, what can you do? It’s just a silly beauty pageant.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Cinco de Mayo – I Nearly Forgot

I’m a day behind this week for some reason.  Anyway, I was going to put this post up first thing tomorrow thinking that today is May 4th.  Nope.

So to illustrate how meaningless Cinco de Mayo is to me, I’m going to link to this slasher post about the “made for beer” holiday

If it weren’t for beer companies, most Americans wouldn’t know about Cinco de Mayo, a celebration of – well, I’m just not sure. It originated as a commemoration of the anniversary of a victory on May 5, 1862, by the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. (Wow, if everyone celebrated when they defeated the French military, fighting thousands of miles from home, in a desert… half of Africa would be celebrating Cinco de Mayo.) But in recent years it’s become a celebration of victimhood, partially by those here illegally, at the hands of the evil white people who built up the Welfare, Medicare, and Education systems and wanted to spread goodwill towards those who seek a better life in America.


So, instead of this being another beer holiday where we loosely celebrate another culture such as St. Patrick’s Day… Cinco de Mayo has become a full-on assault of American culture. Speakers at rallies across the country will proclaim that the rest of us are racists and that obeying the law should be the last to do. I’m not saying that those here illegally should all be rounded up and sent back especially, as Ann Coulter said, “smoking-hot Latin guys who stand around not wearing shirts between workouts.” But at LEAST get some better border protection to mitigate against an even bigger crises.

Nor should we forget the richness that legal Mexican immigrants (and their decendants) have added to American culture. But I will not feel guilty about wanting to protect that American culture… and American laws.

I’ll drink to that!


-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On Immigration, First, Let’s Secure the Border

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:06 am - May 3, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration

Just before I learned we got hacked on Friday, I had planned a couple of posts, the first on immigration, pointing out my ambivalence on the Arizona law which has caused such hysteria in the media.  In an ideal world, I would oppose such legislation, but, in the real world in states like Arizona, I understand that sometimes we must take drastic action to confront an increase in crime.

The Arizona legislature thought this action was necessary to protect their citizens.  Provided safeguards are in place to ensure that police do not randomly stop citizens because of their ethnic background or foreign accent, a law requiring an individual to provide verification of his immigration seems a reasonable precaution.

If it’s such a bad thing to ask for such verification, Mark Hemingway wonders whyDemocratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.

The Arizona law would like be unnecessary if the federal government secured our border.  And U.S Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is right on the money when he says, “President Barack Obama should force on securing the border before bringing up immigration reform“, saying

. . . that border security would have to precede any conversations on comprehensive immigration reform, for which an outline of legislation was released by Senate Democrats this week.

“When the border’s secure, then we can deal with people illegally here, and how they become citizens or not,” Alexander said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Once the border is secure, we can move onto the more difficult issues of how to deal with those who are already here.  The problem with “amnesty” is not just rewarding those who have broken the law to come here, but also that it encourages other people to follow suit.  If the border is closed, that would make such journeys much more difficult.

(What) Was Connie Mack Thinking?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:28 pm - April 29, 2010.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Republican Embarrassments

You’re subscribing to NRO‘s Morning Jolt from Jim Geraghty (I always have to cut-and-paste his name…that spelling is beyond me), right?

Yesterday he had a great piece in his daily newsletter that outlined the much more moderated, level-headed, and sober criticism of Arizona’s new immigration law. (You know, the one MSNBC declared “Makes it a Crime to be [an] Illegal Immigrant”.) I’ll cut and paste at length below the jump.

Well, leave it to Connie Mack, a guy who represents the 14th CD of Florida (which includes not a border with a dangerously unstable narco-nation, but, rather Naples) to destroy the concept of a temperate and reasoned objection (of which, admittedly, there are some):

This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause

Perhaps Representative Mack should do some investigating before he opened his mouth. The part I highlighted above is completely untrue and misrepresents the law totally. It could have come from Keith Olbermann. Maybe it did.

Clearly put, the law requires law enforcement to check citizenship only while engaged in “lawful contact, i.e., pulled over already for, say, speeding or hazardously driving. Can this law perhaps be abused by bad cops? Abso-freakin’-lutely. But so can all the laws up to now. Not that this isn’t a legitimate concern, but to characterize this as some sort of Hitler-esque Stasi move is ridiculous and below a Congressman. Espeically a Republican one. Having an issue with this and it making one feel uncomfortable is fair. I’m not totally sold on it myself. But come on, Connie.


Obama’s Agenda: Castro’s Dream

Much will be made, no doubt, about this article, noting how Communist thug Fidel Castro considers the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 (is my name for it starting to make sense now?!) a “miracle” and “about time”.

Now, ask any Tea Partier and he’ll tell you you can’t choose your fans any more than you can choose your family members. Fair enough, but look at what else Fidel wants the US to do, post haste:

…the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform

Hm… climate change

Hm… immigration reform

Now, I’m not one to suggest that Obama is taking his cues from our nearest Communist dictator. Just that it surely is curious that he’s pretty much doing just what his “amigo” suggests he should.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Is The United States In a “Low Grade” Civil War?

It is a chilling question and one that has been troubling me for about two weeks.  I read the “low grade civil war” phrase as a declarative statement from a commenter on a news story about the Congressional Town Hall meetings and it has been rattling in my brain ever since.

I’ve been wanting to post about this question and today seemed like the right time since now I’m not the only one worried about this question.  In today’s Washington Times, actor/activist Jon Voight makes this statement:

“There’s a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?” Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.

“We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can’t see this is probably hoping it isn’t true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation.”

“Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don’t know what that method is, I implore you to get the book ‘Rules for Radicals,’ by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods.”

Now this is old news to anyone who really studied Obama’s past.  And I’m not as concerned about this kind of argument, nor the “birthers” distraction.

Here are my real fears about the United States heading into a civil war:

  1. There is a clear distinction between those who want a more authoritarian/socialist nation versus those who want to preserve the capitalist/democratic America we live in.
  2. There is a clear distinction between those who understand the principles and guidance and importance of the representative legislative process versus those who hide behind the Constitution as an excuse to create laws from the bench.
  3. There is a clear distinction between those who favor strong national security vs. those who want a borderless, global government.
  4. There is a clear distinction between those who hold US Constitutional principles dear (1st, 2nd, 10th Amendments in particular) and those who are ignorant or want to subvert those principles.
  5. There is a clear distinction between those who want to maintain a sensible fiscal policy versus those statists in Washington who spend our tax money with reckless abandon.
  6. There is a clear distinction between those who see themselves as Americans first versus those who want to segregate themselves into communities and ignore the national identity.
  7. Despite his promises, surveys show that Americans have elected one of the most divisive Presidents since Richard Nixon.

These are serious issues that fundamentally challenge the formation of the Republic itself.  Don’t buy into the childish arguments that every criticism of the Federal Government is based in racism.  That is ignorant and simple-minded talk.

I hope I am wrong, but my perspective has been reinforced by my reading of a 1997 book called “The Fourth Turning”.  I’ll do a review later, but needless to say — it is a chilling book that talks about unmovable historical cycles.  We are in The Crisis period now, according to the authors.

I’m anxious for a vigorous and respectful discussion on my question posed here.  No Americans in 1773 knew there would be a Revolution; no Americans in 1857 knew there would be a bloody Civil War; no Americans in 1928 knew there would be a global Depression and a 2nd global war.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

New SF Supervisor: Openly Gay, Former Illegal Immigrant

Ah, only in the City by the Bay would a Federal law-breaking gay guy be named to the Board of Supervisors by the California law-breaking Mayor.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom swore in openly gay attorney David Campos to replace Tom Ammiano on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Ammiano won his election to the California State Assembly on Nov. 4, carrying a Victory Fund endorsement.

Campos, who will represent the city’s ninth district, came to the United States at the age of 14 as an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala. He became an American citizen in 1997, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

“I might be the first undocumented person elected to the Board of Supervisors,” Campos said to cheers. “I think it’s only fitting in this very difficult time to be an immigrant that something like this would happen in San Francisco. It says a lot about the city.”

Arghhhhhhhhh.   Is there some way to saw off San Fran and allow it to be its own country?  Which is worse?  The fact he was an illegal immigrant…. or that he’s a lawyer?

By the way, The Victory Fund folks want me to be happy cuz he’s openly gay.  I guess gay trumps “rule of law” now.  

And just exactly what is so interesting about a gay guy on the San Fran Board of Supervisors?  I’d just assume they were all gays or lesbians by now.   Is there gay discrimination in elections in San Fran? 

/sarcasm off

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Another Reason Why Obama Is Not Worthy Of The White House

So enforcement of US immigration laws is terrorism to Mr. Obama? Oh my. Such an audacious display of shameless pandering could be admirable, as far as practical politics go, if it didn’t betray the utter cluelessness of the man. Ed Morrissey from Hot Air asks a very pertinent question that the Obamessiah needs to answer:

[I]f that’s what Obama thinks of ICE, why has he done nothing about them during the three years he’s been in the Senate?

Well, Senator, what say you? Surely if ICE has behaved in such a nefarious manner as you suggest they have it would be incumbent upon a man of your position to do something to stop them. What exactly have you done about this, other than campaigning for the highest office in the land after only a year’s experience as a junior senator?

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Does McCain Think USA Is A “Nation Of Laws”?
Or Not?

I’m telling you, I’m on the verge of not voting for President in November and just sticking with putting my energy into the NC Governor’s Race. 

Just when I’m starting to think that McCain is the better of two evils, he says something that completely disgusts me and, more importantly, concerns me about his willingness to sacrifice the fundamental principles of the United States of America.

QUESTIONER: Senator, you have been a leader on immigration reform in the Senate but unfortunately Congress has failed to make progress on this very critical issue. As the next President of the Unites States of America will comprehensive immigration reform, and not just enforcement, be one of your top policy priorities in you’re first 100 days in office?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: It will be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

The first part is bad enough.   But it gets worse….

And my friends, thank you for the question, and let me just review for you again, we tried. I reached across the aisle to Senator Ted Kennedy, and by the way I know that he’s in your prayers, and we worked in bipartisan fashion. And we were defeated. And by the way, it wasn’t very popular, let’s have some straight talk, with some in my party, and so I did that and worked together so we could carry out a federal responsibility.

We have to secure our borders, that’s the message. But we also must proceed with a temporary worker program that is verifiable and truly temporary, we must also understand that there are 12 million people who are here and they are here illegally and they are God’s children, they are God’s children and they will be treated in a humane fashion based on the principle obviously that someone who comes here legally cannot have priority over someone who comes here illegally.

Although Byron York reports that “The McCain campaign says that in the answer above, McCain fumbled the words “legally” and “illegally” when he said that “someone who comes here legally cannot have priority over someone who comes here illegally,” and they want to assure readers he was not setting some bold new policy“…. it doesn’t much matter.

What McCain doesn’t seem to realize is that “God’s Children” do not have an “automatic divine right” to American citizenship.  Especially if they break the laws of this country in the process of getting here.  What the hell is wrong with him?

Since McCain thinks that anyone who enters the country illegally has automatic dibs on US citizenship, and since the Supreme Court believes that Constitutional legal protection should extend to non-US, foreign enemy combantants, then I say — let’s just go for the full monty.

No more immigration laws, dismantle the border crossings, no customs checks at airport.   Just open it all up and let chaos reign.

Oh and by the way, I’ll stop paying my US taxes immediately… become a citizen of Canada…. and then re-enter the USA illegally (along with some Al-Qaeda sleepers, I’m sure) to get all of the benefits of the US Constitution that I have now — but this time for free!!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GayPatriot Endorsements:
McCrory, Hillary & ‘NOTA’ in North Carolina Primary

The time has come as I finally get my official “say” in the 2008 election.  Tomorrow is the North Carolina Primary!  And we have a lot going on in the Tar Heel state besides that one primary race you are hearing a lot about.

So for all of you from North Carolina who read GayPatriot or have family/friends that do…. here are my official, personal endorsements.  (GP Ed. Note:  I respectfully still disagree with Dan on his support of John McCain, so these are my PERSONAL endorsements).

FOR REPUBLICAN NC GOVERNOR:  Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory.

It is about time that the largest metro area in the state have a larger say in Raleigh.  Our voice has been minimized lately because the former DEMOCRAT from our area who was the Speaker of the House is sitting his ass in jail due to massive corruption.

McCrory is the seven-term Mayor of the City of Charlotte.  He has governed with, what I would call, a conservative pragmatism.  Not perfect, but just right for being a Republican mayor in the second largest city in the South. (Yes, that’s right Atlanta!)   He has made job growth, fighting crime and cracking down on illegal immigration the cornerstones of his campaign.   I think he is the best GOP candidate to win back the Governor’s Mansion for conservative governing this year.

DISCLOSURE:  I am a proud financial contributor to McCrory for Governor.


As a proud footsoldier of Operation Chaos, it is my duty to urge unaffiliated and switched-Republicans in North Carolina to VOTE HILLARY!!! (I think a little vomit just came up…)   

Ahem, anyway… if we have to have a Democrat in the White House I’d much rather have the devil we know than the silver-tongued devil we don’t know.   

Oh yeah….and on gay rights — Hillary, Obama & McCain are all the same; why waste my breath on that topic?


We have a cool option on the North Carolina ballot that I plan to use tomorrow:  None Of The Above (NOTA); technically the spot on the ballot reads: No Preference – Republican.

I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain who, without the pantsuit and cackle, looks to be a lot like Hillary Clinton rather than Ronald Reagan to me.  I fear the unchecked President McCain (with support/acquiensence) of the Democratic Congress) will roll the clock back on securing the border, ensuring economic growth and may allow millions of Americans to be vaporized because he doesn’t want to even consider the Jack Bauer-treatment of terror suspects.  Don’t even get me started about the threat as President he poses due to his blatant disregard to the freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment (McCain-Feingold).

Sorry John…. you may have won over others in the Republican Party — but you have a LONG way to go with me.   I can at least let you know how I feel … with my vote for ‘NOTA’ tomorrow in North Carolina.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

NC GOP Candidate Smith Speaks Out
Against Illegal Immigration, Too

In my pro-McCrory for NC Governor posting on Thursday, I made the following sweeping statement….

None of the other GOP candidates can make the same claims since they don’t have executive experience and have not made illegal immigration a priority like McCrory has.

At the time I wrote it, I nearly didn’t because I thought it was too sweeping and I admittedly haven’t studied every piece of the other GOP candidates’ platforms in their campaigns for NC Governor.

So, I’m happy to present another side (and a correction-of-sorts) from an email I received from a Fred Smith for NC Governor supporter.

Fred Smith has been campaigning all over the state and since August has visited all 100 counties at least once. He has set out specific things he would do as governor. He has talked at length in every county he has visited about the problems caused by illegal immigration, what it costs the state and what the governor could do to address the problem. He has the support of sheriffs all over the state and has talked with them at length asking them what they need to address the problem.

This reader also referred me to a speech given by Smith which includes strong words against illegal immigration.


We believe that we are, as our national motto says, one nation under God. And we believe we ought to speak the English language. And the problem we have today is we have illegal aliens coming to this country with such velocity that they’re overwhelming our melting pot and the reason for that is the federal government has let us down on border security. The federal government has let us down on upholding the rule of law and that’s going to leave it to the states and the state of North Carolina to put a Band-Aid on this problem.

And as governor I would do four things. The first is I would try to make sure that every sheriff’s department had a chance to be a part of the 287(g) program to catch, detain, and deport illegal aliens violating our laws. Second, if you get a driver’s license you be legally entitled to get a driver’s license in this state. Common sense says if that’s what they do in Mexico that’s what we ought to be able to do here in North Carolina. The third thing, we need to pass illegal immigration reform like the states of Georgia, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Colorado, have to say if a government agency or institution is going to give a benefit they must enforce federal law which they ask are you legally entitled to this benefit. And fourth we need to have a voter ID card to protect the integrity of our voting system.

Sounds good to me. I’m still a staunch McCrory supporter, but I’m happy that Smith is taking a strong stand on illegal immigration, too!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

McCrory Takes On Illegal Immigration
in NC Governor’s Race

Republican NC gubernatorial candidate (and Charlotte Mayor) Pat McCrory has a new ad up touting his success in cracking down on illegal immigrants. None of the other GOP candidates can make the same claims since they don’t have executive experience and have not made illegal immigration a priority like McCrory has.

Primary Election day is May 6. Go, Pat, go!

DISCLAIMER: I have personally contributed to the McCrory for Governor campaign

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Economic Stimulus for Illegal Immigrants?

Oh, wonderful…

The $146 billion stimulus package intended to jolt the economy by giving taxpayers rebates up to $1,200 includes cash returns for illegal immigrants who pay taxes.

Under the plan passed by the House, illegal immigrants who qualify as “resident aliens” and earned a minimum of $3,000 would be eligible for rebates of between $300-$600, FOX News has learned.

Only those illegals who have been assigned an Individual Tax Identification Number that allows them to file income taxes would be eligible. Resident aliens are defined as people who spend a “substantial” amount of time in the U.S. and have not been deported.

The provision has irked illegal immigration opponents, who say the assigning of TINs and collection of taxes from illegals sanctions their presence in the country.

Luckily, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) is making a stink about this horrible new incentive to cross the US-Mexico border.  


I wonder what GOP Frontrunner John McAmnesty thinks about this provision.   Do I have any confidence that CNN will even ask the question at tonight’s debate?

PS — Yours truly, a legal-natural born resident of the USA for 39 years, will be getting no “rebate” with my own tax dollars.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): This is McCain’s chance to show that he has heard from conservatives concerned about his immigration stance. Let’s hope he supports Ensign on this.

Immigration Is Top Issue for GOP, Independent Voters

This doesn’t come as any surprise to me.

In a recent Associated Press-Pew Research Center poll, 17 percent of likely Republican voters in the New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary named illegal immigration as the one issue they want to hear candidates talk about, making it second only to Iraq. In Iowa, where caucuses kick of the presidential nominating season, immigration was the leading issue for 18 percent of Republicans, ahead of Iraq.

The figures are somewhat surprising in New Hampshire, a state of 1.3 million people with a small immigrant population and even smaller illegal one. There were 14,000 more foreign-born residents in the state last year than in 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A report last year by the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the state is home to somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 illegal immigrants.

Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said he has believed for a year or so that illegal immigration would be important in the GOP primary because it strikes so many chords.  There’s the economic argument: Illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans.  There’s the legal one: They’re breaking the law.  There’s the cultural argument:  They’re not assimilating into American culture.”

The surprise is that most INDEPENDENT primary voters are also expressing support for a more security-conscious immigration policy… and opposition to blanket amnesty of law-breakers.

A sizable majority — an average of 65 percent of voters in those three states [Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania] — said that they would vote for the candidate they agreed with on other issues but not on immigration. But an average of 22 percent said that illegal immigration could be a deal-breaker for them when it comes to voting for a candidate.

That would be a significant number in a close election.  Most interesting is that 27 percent of independents — the key swing voters who decide elections — say immigration could turn them away from a candidate, more than either Democrats or Republicans.

Democrat voters, on the other hand, are content to live in their made-up land of Bush Derangement Syndromeville and cast their votes from that warped perspective.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)