• Your cart is currently empty.
Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Life Issues > Faith > McCain’s visit to Mexico’s Basilica de Guadalupe is misguided campaign move

McCain’s visit to Mexico’s Basilica de Guadalupe is misguided campaign move

LatinaLista — An odd thing happened this morning in Mexico City where Sen. John McCain is “having talks” with Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
McCain, his wife and entourage, descended upon the Basilica de Guadalupe, at 8 a.m. The Basilica is the Mexican version of Mecca for Catholics of Mexican descent. In fact, every Mexican American community in the United States has at least one church in their town named after the patron saint of Mexico.
' border=
John McCain and his wife Cindy listen to Monsignor Diego Monroy Ponce explain the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
(Source: El Universal)

It’s a fact that should not be news to an Arizona native like Sen. McCain and for that reason, and because the Senator is Protestant, Mexican pundits were having a field day with McCain’s visit to the Basilica. As one reporter who has covered many presidential campaigns said, “The Basilica is usually not on the list of presidential campaign stops.”
However, when you’re stumping for Mexican American votes it just might be.


According to a video report featured in the Mexico City daily El Universal, McCain was met by a young protester outside the Basilica. The student derided McCain’s support of the Iraqi War and accused the candidate for only visiting the Basilica to “get votes.”
It’s that transparent.
That this is Sen. McCain’s first visit to Mexico City is a little hard to believe or that this would be his first visit to the Basilica. The Basilica, a national treasure, is usually visited by most tourists to Mexico. To use his visit to the Basilica as a way to show solidarity with Mexican Americans or that he is “in touch” with the culture is a misguided campaign move.
As a Senator from Arizona, he should have long before visited Mexico City and the Basilica.
If McCain really wanted to reach out to Latino voters in the U.S., he should try visiting anyone of the hundreds of Our Lady of Guadalupe churches in the United States.
Yet, that prospect seems unlikely. Since most of these churches are in the heart of Hispanic communities and have large Latino congregations, the territory may not be as desirable for someone trying to appease his own conservative colleagues while asking for votes of a population under attack by his own party, which is leading the charge against them.
So McCain plays it safe by paying his respects to a revered Mexican figure — across the border.
Shameful!
If McCain really wants the Latino vote, and in the process assure Latinos that he can equally represent Latino constituents along with others, then he needs to come where we live — not where our cousins, grandparents or ancestors lived.
Evidently, McCain thinks by holding closed door meetings with pre-selected Latino community members or appearing on a Spanish talk show — as he will this week on Azteca America’s Issues: Caras y Voces, he’s reaching out to Latinos.
Esta equivocado (he’s wrong).
His campaign still refuses to work with most Latino bloggers and some Spanish media. He isn’t going into Hispanic communities and talking cara a cara (face-to-face) with people.
The Senator’s behavior, as most of the Republican Party candidates running in local elections, don’t illustrate an honest effort to tell the Latino electorate that he/they can be a President/Representative for ALL people.
So far, it’s pretty obvious that the only times Senator McCain feels comfortable coming face-to-face with Latinos is when it’s on the other side of the border.

Related posts

Comment(43)

  • Horace
    July 3, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    “As a Senator from Arizona, he should have long before visited Mexico City and the Basilica.”
    The basilica is in Mexico, so why would a politician whose constituency are U.S. citizens be concerned with Mexicans? This is the problem with dual citizenship Latinos, they are only partially loyal to the U.S. and have to be pandered to like spoiled children.
    How does this illustrate that he can’t be president of ALL the people, after all, he isn’t visiting the former homelands of ALL the people. When did he last visit Ireland, Germany, Great Britain, China, Korea, or any of the other hundreds of countries of origin of U.S. immigrants? As it is, he’s making a special effort to court the Latino vote. This nation is comprised of more than Latinos, although you couldn’t tell by this blog. Latinos can’t seem to understand that the president has to balance the interests of ALL Americans, so can’t always bend to the will of the Latino population, exclusively.
    Marisa’s commentary appears just another contrived bone to pick with the Republicans that she apparently loathes so much.

  • Marisa Treviño
    July 3, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    Ok, Horace. First things first: you will always find me writing about issues that impact the Latino community. If Latina Lista bores you that much, then you should probably find one that is in more alignment with your opinions.
    Secondly, why shouldn’t McCain have gone to Mexico for vacation and visited the Basilica? He’s been a Senator of a border state all these years.
    Thirdly, you’re full of bs tonight in saying that Latinos are only partially loyal to the U.S. Try telling that to Latino families who have lost husbands, children and friends in all the wars this country has fought.
    Fourthly, you’re right. I do have a bone to pick with the Republican Party – not because I “loathe” them but because I loathe being ignored. When I ask politely to be included on a press list and I am dismissed like I don’t exist then yeah, I’m going to be mad that the campaign of a man who says he can represent everyone, can’t even show the courtesy of responding to someone he aspires to represent.
    It’s about professional courtesy- all the way around.

  • Frank
    July 4, 2008 at 8:12 am

    I have to agree with Horace about ethnic politics. I abhor this practice by both the politican who plays this game for votes and those that expect to be catered to by ethnic group. We have to stop being divided and dividing ourselves as Americans.

  • Joe
    July 4, 2008 at 9:42 am

    This is in response to Frank: The division started years ago with the elitism, classism, racism and discrimination, and so far not much has changed. Once you take away those factors then maybe there will not be a division. Personally speaking, I don’t expect anyone to cater to me. As a 6th generation Texan, I can’t wait for the day that as a nation we arent divided by race. All I am asking for is equality, and basic human rights for all. Marisa, my apologies for getting off the subject, but I wanted to address the comment.

  • Horace
    July 4, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    “Fourthly, you’re right. I do have a bone to pick with the Republican Party – not because I “loathe” them but because I loathe being ignored. When I ask politely to be included on a press list and I am dismissed like I don’t exist then yeah, I’m going to be mad that the campaign of a man who says he can represent everyone, can’t even show the courtesy of responding to someone he aspires to represent.”
    So the whole Latino community’s perspective of the Republican candidate is to be skewed by a personal slight by some press secretary to the party, and not because of his stand on the issues? Not very mature. How many other journalists pundits were there representing Latinos?

  • Chico
    July 4, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    “Fourthly, you’re right. I do have a bone to pick with the Republican Party – not because I “loathe” them but because I loathe being ignored.”
    Perhaps you should shouldn’t let these personal slights influence your columns and stick to issues instead, after all, this campaign is not about you, but how it affects the Latino population.

  • Frank
    July 4, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    Joe, I beg to differ. A lot has changed from the past. But it doesn’t matter how much help minorities are given to give them equality, they still complain and constantly bring up the past just like you just did. FYI, everyone in this country is afford basic human rights, including illegal aliens. In the case of illegal aliens however, they want more than just basic human rights.

  • laura
    July 4, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    McCain is certainly not showing himself as a friendly neighbor by talking about the wall he wants built between the US and his hosts during this Mexico trip.
    More importantly: Latina/os have seen the vast majority of politicians are Republicans, among those who support the present, ongoing human rights abuses against undocumented people, and who oppose simple civil rights for undocumented people. Civil rights like sleeping in your house without fear of armed men without warrants knocking on your door.
    John McCain is at the head of the Republican party now – so any past, present or future visits to Mexican churches anywhere won’t change the clear perception of the man by Latina/os who are fearing for their loved ones.

  • Evelyn
    July 5, 2008 at 4:18 am

    Chuck Baldwin
    For President
    Why Conservatives are Losing the Illegal Immigration Issue
    I have heard the argument made that illegals are a drain on the social system. Yet who is to blame for this? Who set up the welfare state system that others – besides illegal aliens – are abusing? We did. The issue is a welfare state issue. It’s been used as an argument against illegals. Yet the Field of Dreams argument (if you build it, they will come) only partially explains, if at all, the undocumented immigration. There would be still be a problem even if there never were welfare state programs to be taken advantage of. If conservatives are going to make a case against illegal immigration based on this alone, it won’t stand the test of scrutiny. This is just a convenient argument based solely on emotional grounds. If social programs were all that illegals come for, then eliminating them means that they’ll go elsewhere. But I doubt that this is why they’re here. A better argument based on solid facts will be needed.
    Frankly, I don’t think there is one. Any immigrant – legal or illegal – brings in $80,000 more than he pays in taxes over his lifetime into the country. These are figures from the National Research Council. And there’s more: it costs over $300,000 to raise a native-born child in the country – a cost that is never included in the immigration debate before they are ready to contribute to the economy – not including government-paid schooling costs either. The immigrant comes already educated, ready to work – because another country has paid for raising that person to a productive, working age.
    We are getting this immigrant’s services free. Imagine if there were a clearing house the world over where an emigrant country were compensated for the costs of its citizens leaving them. But there is an even stronger moral argument regarding the illegal immigration issue – and conservatives are on the wrong side of it – and why they are losing the battle. There are two types of laws – natural law and artificial laws. The former include things like theft, murder, rape – and I’d include slander and adultery too. These things are universal in human treatment thereof.
    The second category is that man-made laws – artificial ones where laws are passed just because we don’t like what somebody is doing and we make it a crime. This is where immigration falls. Immigration is an activity that has existed throughout human history – and will continue to do so forever. If it is part of human nature, then there’s nothing that can be done about it. The very fact that there are some estimates from 13 to 20 million “illegals” is proof that this is human nature in action. And this comes as laws have become ever stricter. The unpleasant truth for conservatives is that laws such as this that run contrary to human nature are bound to fail – making a mockery of law in the process. You can pass all the laws you want, but if nobody abides by them, then what good are they?
    There is another problem too. European white Americans descended upon the New World continents in massive numbers and I don’t recall that they ever asked permission of the Native Americans if they could do so. This may seem to some here as trivial, but we are now complaining that others are doing to white Americans what we did to the native Americans before us. This is hypocritical – no matter how you slice it. And this argument HAS to be addressed because it focuses on the moral aspect of immigration. And there is no way conservatives can address this aspect of morality successfully, given the history of America. Conservatives invoke obedience to laws, yet our ancestors themselves didn’t have a problem running off the natives to expand the country. And now we demand that others obey the law? How are you going to enforce stricter laws without becoming a police state? Impossible.
    Its quite ironic that liberals are having a field day observing that conservatives are demanding more government on their pet issues while excoriating liberals for government involvement in theirs. I recall a local conservative host complaining that Mexico had strict laws that are enforced. That’s a canard. If another country enables torture, does that mean we too get to employ torture too? No nation anywhere has ANY right to enforce immigration policies – except one: Israel. Their authority comes from the Bible. Where does it say in the Bible that this continent belongs to white Americans? Can someone show me the book, chapter and verse of that scripture? Who does this planet belong to? The only reason that there is a debate at all is because government has become big enough to try to muscle its way into making policy. As we can see by the numbers and the reality – that has failed badly. It has failed badly because the morality of illegal immigration just isn’t there. When you fail on a moral basis, you’ve LOST the battle. HE WHO OCCUPIES THE MORAL HIGH GROUND ULTIMATELY PREVAILS. In the process, government has become so big that it can’t fulfill its current social program obligations. The days when government will be able to make immigration policy will soon be over because it will become so broke that it can’t pay its bills. Frankly, for me – that day can’t come soon enough.
    http://www.commentaryusa.com/commentary/illegal-immigration/why-conservatives-are-losing-the-illegal-immigration-issue.html

  • Dee
    July 5, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Marisa,
    You are right. McCain´s people did not respond to my request for interview either. I heard from both Hillary´s people and Obama´s and Obama posted.
    Is it possible McCain only wants to associate with only those Latinos that accept “mordidas” and write what they are told to write.

  • Dee
    July 5, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Joe,
    Beautiful words! I agree with you!
    Joe said:
    “I don’t expect anyone to cater to me. As a 6th generation Texan, I can’t wait for the day that as a nation we arent divided by race. All I am asking for is equality, and basic human rights for all.”

  • Horace
    July 5, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    “…..who oppose simple civil rights for undocumented people. Civil rights like sleeping in your house without fear of armed men without warrants knocking on your door.”
    Laura you are silly and naieve and you don’t make sense at all. There is no civil right to break our laws and get away with it. Since they are wanted for breaking our laws, illegal aliens aren’t entitled to a comfortable presence in this country, any more than are those wanted for theft or murder. Part of breaking the law is the threat of being punished, in this case, being arrested and deported. How else are we to impress upon them that crossing our border will not result in theme profitting by their action?

  • Frank
    July 5, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    LOL! Quote: “Where does it say in the Bible that this continent belongs to White Americans?” It doesn’t, and no one has said that it does!!!!! On the other hand where does it say in the Bible that this entire continent belongs to “the indigenous” even those indigenous who only occupied certain parts of this continent? Different tribes occupied different parts of it and they weren’t all the same. Hypocrisy anyone?
    White Americans are only claiming to belong to the USA, not the rest of the continent!!! Mexicans are claiming they own the whole continent even though they didn’t live on the entire continent!!! Hypocrisy anyone?
    Even the “indigenous” came here most likely through the Bering Straits from Asia. They didn’t sprout out of continent’s ground like corn for God’s sake!

  • laura
    July 7, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Horace, my friend: In fact, a bankrobber has the right not to have his house entered by police without a warrant.
    As for people whose visas are out of status – they are breaking the law just as Jews in 1939 Germany broke the law when the went to a movie theater.

  • Evelyn
    July 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    LOL! Quote: “Where does it say in the Bible that this continent belongs to White Americans?” It doesn’t, and no one has said that it does!!!!!
    E responds
    Wrong! Yes they have!
    White Supremacy
    In the mid-1800s, new historical developments served to strengthen
    the concept of whiteness and institutionalize White Supremacy. The
    doctrine of Manifest Destiny, born at a time of aggressive western
    expansion, said that the United States was destined by God to take over
    other peoples and lands. The term was first used in 1845 by the editor of
    a popular journal, who affirmed “the right of our manifest destiny to
    overspread and to possess the whole continent which providence has given
    us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated
    self-government.”
    Since the time of Jefferson, the United States had had its eye on
    expanding to the Pacific Ocean and establishing trade with Asia. Others
    in the ruling class came to want more slave states, for reasons of
    political power, and this also required westward expansion. Both goals
    pointed to taking over part of Mexico. The first step was Texas, which
    was acquired for the United States by filling the territory with Anglos
    who then declared a revolution from Mexico in 1836. After failing to
    purchase more Mexican territory, President James Polk created a pretext
    for starting a war with the declared goal of expansion. The notoriously
    brutal, two-year war was justified in the name of Manifest Destiny.
    Manifest Destiny is a profoundly racist concept. For example, a
    major force of opposition to gobbling up Mexico at the time came from
    politicians saying “the degraded Mexican-Spanish” were unfit to become
    part of the United States; they were “a wretched people . . . mongrels.”
    In a similar way, some influential whites who opposed slavery in those
    years said Blacks should be removed from U.S. soil, to avoid
    “contamination” by an inferior people (source of all this information is
    the book _Manifest Destiny_ by Anders Stephanson, Hill & Wang, 1995).
    Earlier, Native Americans had been the target of white supremacist
    beliefs which not only said they were dirty, heathen “savages,” but
    fundamentally inferior in their values. For example, they did not see land
    as profitable real estate but as Our Mother.
    The doctrine of Manifest Destiny facilitated the geographic
    extension and economic development of the United States while confirming
    racist policies and practices. It established White
    Supremacy more firmly
    than ever as central to the U.S. definition of itself. The arrogance of
    asserting that God gave white people (primarily men) the right to dominate
    everything around them still haunts our society and sustains its racist
    oppression
    ~~~
    On the other hand where does it say in the Bible that this entire continent belongs to “the indigenous” even those indigenous who only occupied certain parts of this continent?
    E responds
    No one has ever claimed the bible said this land belonged to the indigenous, native, first people. It doesent have to. I’ll leave you to figure out why. LOL!
    ~~~
    White Americans are only claiming to belong to the USA, not the rest of the continent!!!
    E responds
    No one of any importance is claiming otherwise. Euro Americans are more than welcome. It shows. They run everything in a land that belongs to Native American Indigenous first people.
    The only people not accepted are racist anarchist no matter what race they belong to. (kkkers, black and Latino gang bangers killing over territories or racism and other anarchist groups that want to exclude people because of the color of their skin.
    ~~~
    Mexicans are claiming they own the whole continent even though they didn’t live on the entire continent!!!
    E responds
    You keep forgetting that Mexicans are Indigenous native firs people of this land. If white people can come here and be accepted than in all fairness Mexicans that have set down roots here should be allowed to stay. Those that are in Mexico or other countries below our borders should be given back some of the wealth our gov. has taken so that they wont have to leave their homes in pursuit of a better life and the ability to feed their families.

  • Texano78704
    July 7, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Is it just me or do others find it bizarre that the very same people that brought us the most lawless, corrupt administration in probably over a century have the continued gall to use words like “illegal.” In doing so, they turn around and shout “hypocrisy,” as if it now means something coming directly from the hypocrite.
    Finally, we have those that believe that they, having never ventured to Latin América nor likely have first hand knowledge of Latino immigrant culture (visiting Taco Bell does not count, sorry), can tell us where the loyalties of “dual citizenship Latinos” actually lie, and why these US citizens are special case over other immigrants that hold dual citizenship.

  • Horace
    July 7, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    “As for people whose visas are out of status – they are breaking the law just as Jews in 1939 Germany broke the law when the went to a movie theater.”
    Laura, Why do you persist in these inane analogies? The comparison of the transgression of our immigration laws with that of the persecution of the Jews is so out in left field as to be non sequitur. Using your logic flow, one could easily claim that the arrest of anyone for any reason would be comparable to the persecution of the Jews. And it seems that you are out of step with the reasoning of the rest of the world, as other nations do exactly what we do, without being haunted by the holocaust when they arrest and deport. It’s funny that international courts do not prosecute them for crimes against humanity when they enforce their immigration laws.

  • Frank
    July 7, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    I was referring to modern day whites, who cares what was said in the past? It is irrelevant in today’s world. Not one white that I know of today believes that the “Bible” gives them permission to take over another country today!! Get with the present for God’s sake. Most of those people of the past are all dead and gone and we whites alive today are not responsible for their actions. You werent’ alive back then either, so why the hell do you care? I am sick of this b@tching about the past!
    No, Mexicans don’t have a right to walk right into this country without immigration papers. Times have changed, borders have been drawn, wars fought, treaties signed, money passed hands, a new government was formed over 200 effing years ago and we have immigration laws now!! All countries do!! Mexicans were “indigenous” to Mexico, not here and it doesn’t matter anyway. They are citizens of Mexico not the USA. And even they migrated from somewhere else. They didn’t sprout up out of the ground like corn!

  • Alex
    July 8, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Evelyn, You’ve responded to these xenophobes better than how I was going to. Well done.

  • Frank
    July 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Who are the xenophobes? We are the most diverse nation on this planet. A xenophobe is someone who fears strangers. We have no fear of that. We do however have immigration laws just like every other country does. Does that make this country and other country’s xenophobes?

  • Evelyn
    July 8, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    “And it seems that you are out of step with the reasoning of the rest of the world, as other nations do exactly what we do, without being haunted by the holocaust when they arrest and deport. It’s funny that international courts do not prosecute them for crimes against humanity when they enforce their immigration laws.”
    E responds
    Other nations people, are indigenous to that nation and that Continent. They didnt go there as immigrants and push out the natives to steal the land and then conjure up racist laws to keep natives off their land.

  • Matthew
    July 9, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Why is it that only the United States has to defend herself against those that would take away her right to protect her boundaries? The government has responsibilities toward its citizens, who alone have civil rights by definition. The US is not potentially responsible for the world’s population.

  • Frank
    July 9, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    “Other nations people, are indigenous to that nation and that Continent. They didnt go there as immigrants and push out the natives to steal the land and then conjure up racist laws to keep natives off their land.”
    The ONLY REASON why the Europeans are still in possession of their continent is because they were able to FIGHT OFF all of their aggressors!
    Are you really so ignorant and uninformed that you think that NO OTHER PEOPLE ever invaded Europe????
    The Mongols conquered 3/4 of Europe before they were finally defeated and pushed out! The Muslims made it to the gates of Vienna before they were defeated. Back in those days, the land went to the victors! THAT’S THE WAY IT WAS!
    Are you really so ignorant and uninformed as to believe that all of the so called “Muslim lands” were really Muslim lands? NO! They were inhabited by people with their own customs, languages, and religions!!! Just as an example, the ancient Persians were a people with their own religion and customs called Zoaroatrians; they WERE NOT “Muslims” or Arabs. The Muslims swept though those lands within 100 years and conquered them and IMPOSED their culture, language, and religion on them! Just like the Spaniards did to the “indigenous” in the New World.
    In fact, the Spaniards themselves were conquered by the Muslims (Moors) for 800 effin years! The money that financed Columbus came from the fallen Muslim caliphate of Grenada a few months prior to his setting sail in 1492. The Arabs were very advanced in their knowledge of sea navigation and ship building. If they had not been defeated at Lepanto, the so-called New World could very well be an Islamic world right now. Do you really believe that the “indigenous” of this land would have been left alone to continue to only fight and war with each other if only the evil white man hadn’t have “discovered” this land??? Sorry! It was not a matter of “if” but “when” and “by whom” they were discovered.
    And I haven’t even gotten into the area now known as Russia or Asia yet! Why the hell do you think the Chinese built the Great Wall????? To keep out the panda bears????? Take some World History classes; and NOT ones run by Marxist Chicano/ethnic studies professors. And you might learn something!
    It is quite clear to even the dimmest among us that you are full of hatred for whites based upon historical events. Those who think like you are not those who want to become a part of our society, become one of us, but are presenting themselves, through their hatred and antipathy towards us as the opposition. Let’s be clear about that. Let’s stop hiding behind the “we just want “justice and equality” for immigrants. NO! You are a hater. You hate this country, its majority white population for what was done to “your people” and you now want pay back. Drop the pretense and let’s get down to it. Gather up you army and fight once again for the land. Don’t hide like a coward behind the Constitution which OUR PEOPLE created; don’t hide behind the legal system which OUR PEOPLE created. Don’t hide behind the lie that you are only filled with compassion. You and those like you are using this tidal wave of illegal aliens to bring your own hostile and oppositional agenda to fruition. We know it and you know it!
    Unfortunately, you are hurting the very same people you purport to care so deeply about as to allow you to get your way would mean national suicide for us. Let us hide no longer behind smoke screens and false accusations of “racism.” It has nothing to do with racism, it is the age-old situation of a hostile people confronting another people, regardless of race, except this time using our own system against us instead of military means. You are merely taking advantage of our sensibilities in regards to racial matters and using it to disarm us. And “your people” are paying the price for your treachery to us. The “illegal aliens” are your Trojan horse and we know it. You will not be successful because the majority of Americans do not share your hatred or radical views!

  • Liquidmicro
    July 9, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    “Other nations people, are indigenous to that nation and that Continent. They didnt go there as immigrants and push out the natives to steal the land and then conjure up racist laws to keep natives off their land.”
    How long must one live in an area to be deemed “Indigenous”? Even those in Europe are migrants, dating back 40,000 + years ago. The world became populated due to migration, no matter how long ago.
    For the USA and your argument of “Mound Builders”, what of those that were “Mound Builders” from Europe dating back to before the “Mound Builders” of the USA? Could they be related? What of the White skinned mummies found in the Utah and Nevada caves, carbon dating them back to the time of the Bearing Straight? Could they be my ancestors therefor deeming me and the White Anglos as “Indigenous” as well on this continent? What of the Chinese who discovered the Coast of California in 498 AD. Should they also be considered “Indigenous” to this Continent? What about the Vikings who founded the east coast in 1000 AD?
    I ask again, how long must one live in an area to be considered “Indigenous” to that area? How can one then claim the entire continent when they merely passed through and settled where they ended up or there last known final location?

  • Evelyn
    July 10, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Matthew said:
    Why is it that only the United States has to defend herself against those that would take away her right to protect her boundaries? The government has responsibilities toward its citizens, who alone have civil rights by definition. The US is not potentially responsible for the world’s population.
    E responds
    You’re missing the whole point here. The U.S. never defended herself from the immigrants. On the contrary, the U.S. welcomed them and in many cases recruted them in Mexico.
    Now that a few racists got wind of this they want to throw them out. Well the racist better think again, because it’s not going to happen! The first peoples on this continent are better armed than the few loud mouth ignorant racists.
    First peoples are armed with collage degrees and the law on their side. The one that states “whats good for the goose is good for the gander.” HA!

  • Evelyn
    July 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Frank said
    “Other nations people, are indigenous to that nation and that Continent. They didnt go there as immigrants and push out the natives to steal the land and then conjure up racist laws to keep natives off their land.”
    The ONLY REASON why the Europeans are still in possession of their continent is because they were able to FIGHT OFF all of their aggressors!
    Are you really so ignorant and uninformed that you think that NO OTHER PEOPLE ever invaded Europe????
    E responds
    Are you sooo ignorant that you dont understand that it was not Europe I was referring to, but America.
    The Europeans killed most of the natives and pushed out most of the remaining Natives to live isolated on reservations or to live below what is considered our southern border. This was done to steal their land and resources to benefit white people. It was and is wrong because it still continues today.
    ~~~~
    Do you really believe that the “indigenous” of this land would have been left alone to continue to only fight and war with each other if only the evil white man hadn’t have “discovered” this land??? Sorry! It was not a matter of “if” but “when” and “by whom” they were discovered
    E responds
    The natives were not discovered and neither was this land. The land and the Natives had been here for thousands of years. They were massacred by some Idiot named Columbus that was lost. Study History !
    I already told you that crystal balls are not a good source to get your facts! LOL! Only ignoramuses use them.
    ~~~~
    haven’t even gotten into the area now known as Russia or Asia yet! Why the hell do you think the Chinese built the Great Wall????? To keep out the panda bears????? Take some World History classes; and NOT ones run by Marxist Chicano/ethnic studies professors. And you might learn something!
    E responds
    You call me ‘ignorant’ because it infuriates you that with ease and eloquence I dispell your racist rants as fast as you can invent them. LOL! Tell me, did the Berlin wall work? Was it right? Did the great wall of China serve it’s purpose?
    NO NO and NO!
    ~~~~
    It is quite clear to even the dimmest among us that you are full of hatred for whites based upon historical events.
    E responds
    You are DEAD WRONG! It is because I unlike you have a conscious and am able to feel empathy for all people suffering in the world. When the suffering is caused by those like me whites or Indians in the U.S. it affects me even more and I feel ashamed to have to admit I am a part of this group. Making people aware so that these mistakes wont happen again doesent make me a race hater.
    It makes me a person who is willing to accept that the past was wrong and use the mistakes of the past so these mistakes will not happen in the present or the future.
    If I whitewashed, swept these injustices under the rug, told people they didnt happen (lie about them), or just forgot about them all together to further a racist agenda that would use these same injustices all over again, I would be no better than those who comitted them in the first place. Get used to it, THOSE INJUSTICES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THIS DAY AND AGE!
    ~~~~
    . Those who think like you are not those who want to become a part of our society, become one of us, but are presenting themselves, through their hatred and antipathy towards us as the opposition
    E responds
    You are damn right about that! I want nothing to do with your racist agenda!
    I believe that people who choose to participate in this evil behavior should be dealt with harshly. I know many white Americans who are against illegal immigration. I am against illegal immigration. Non of these people, including myself, would dream of expressing their views the way you do. Using lies and rhetoric, against immigrants. Harassing all hispanics on street corners while dressed in the American flag (a violation of flag etiquette). Desecrating the American flag by hijacking it and linking it to blatant displays of racism and other unacceptable behaviours like advocating the murder of Mexicans. You are right, I do not want to be like your group!
    ~~~~
    Let’s be clear about that. Let’s stop hiding behind the “we just want “justice and equality” for immigrants. NO! You are a hater. You hate this country, its majority white population for what was done to “your people” and you now want pay back.
    E responds
    Because I point out the injustices that MY people (you forget I’m also white) comitted in the past ruin your expectations of doing the same without having to remember the inconvenient past thorn stuck in you side.
    You claim I am a hater, which is true. I hate racism.
    You say I hide behind Justice and equality, that I hate my country for being majority white and that I want pay back for the injustices white people comitted to the Native Americans.
    Is it not normal to want to defend people when acts of unprovoked violance are comitted against them. How did you react after 9-11?
    Now you want to commit those acts all over again?
    ~~~~
    Gather up your army and fight once again for the land.
    E responds
    If I had barbaric tendencies like you, it wouldent be a fair fight. Even without counting the many Americans who would refuse to defend your racism you would have to face an army of 823,162,615 people to your 283,192,684. That number includes the population of Canada on your side. Do you really think you could win. Silly Silly man. America consists of two big Continent’s and the majority of her people have indigenous blood running through their veins. You must have forgotten that, when you suggested this war that would end in your own death or imprisonment. LOL!
    ~~~~
    Don’t hide like a coward behind the Constitution which OUR PEOPLE created; don’t hide behind the legal system which OUR PEOPLE created
    E responds
    Why do you insist on putting your foot in your mouth, It’s not polite! You should do some research on subjects you only think you know about.
    Oldest Living Participatory Democracy on Earth
    The Tree of Peace
    by John Kahionhes Fadden
    The people of the Six Nations, also known by the French term, Iroquois [1] Confederacy, call themselves the Hau de no sau nee (ho dee noe sho nee) meaning People Building a Long House. Located in the northeastern region of North America, originally the Six Nations was five and included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. The sixth nation, the Tuscaroras, migrated into Iroquois country in the early eighteenth century. Together these peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth. Their story, and governance truly based on the consent of the governed, contains a great deal of life-promoting intelligence for those of us not familiar with this area of American history. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations. In our present day, we can benefit immensely, in our quest to establish anew a government truly dedicated to all life’s liberty and happiness much as has been practiced by the Six Nations for over 800 hundred years.
    On June 11, 1776 while the question of independence was being debated, the visiting Iroquois chiefs were formally invited into the meeting hall of the Continental Congress. There a speech was delivered, in which they were addressed as “Brothers” and told of the delegates’ wish that the “friendship” between them would “continue as long as the sun shall shine” and the “waters run.” The speech also expressed the hope that the new Americans and the Iroquois act “as one people, and have but one heart.”[18] After this speech, an Onondaga chief requested permission to give Hancock an Indian name. The Congress graciously consented, and so the president was renamed “Karanduawn, or the Great Tree.” With the Iroquois chiefs inside the halls of Congress on the eve of American Independence, the impact of Iroquois ideas on the founders is unmistakable. History is indebted to Charles Thomson, an adopted Delaware, whose knowledge of and respect for American Indians is reflected in the attention that he gave to this ceremony in the records of the Continental Congress.
    ~~~~
    Unfortunately, you are hurting the very same people you purport to care so deeply about as to allow you to get your way would mean national suicide for us. Let us hide no longer behind smoke screens and false accusations of “racism.” It has nothing to do with racism, it is the age-old situation of a hostile people confronting another people, regardless of race, except this time using our own system against us instead of military means. You are merely taking advantage of our sensibilities in regards to racial matters and using it to disarm us. And “your people” are paying the price for your treachery to us. The “illegal aliens” are your Trojan horse and we know it. You will not be successful because the majority of Americans do not share your hatred or radical views
    E responds
    If I am hurting or thwarting your racist agenda that is my intention.

  • Frank
    July 11, 2008 at 9:51 am

    Oh, I see you don’t want Europe or any other continent’s wars or histories of conquest brought up because it doesn’t support your agenda about this country or continent!!!
    You are nothing but a bald faced liar! I have never advocated violence against Mexicans!!! You lying POS! I haven’t stated any untruths in here about illegal aliens either and I have never displayed a racist agenda you lying POS! You are attributing others remarks to me and that is just plain deceitful and dishonest you lying POS! That is about as low as you can go when you openly tell lies about others in here when their posts don’t indicate any of the lies you are attributing to them. You are nothing but vile scum! As I have asked before, stay the hell away from me until you can stop lying in here and name calling. If I called you any names it is in retaliation for your hateful remarks first. You can go straight to hell and you will, believe me!

  • Evelyn
    July 12, 2008 at 2:52 am

    Frank
    You are nothing but a bald faced liar! I have never advocated violence against Mexicans!!! I haven’t stated any untruths in here about illegal aliens either and I have never displayed a racist agenda! You are attributing others remarks to me and that is just plain deceitful and dishonest! That is about as low as you can go when you openly tell lies about others in here when their posts don’t indicate any of the lies you are attributing to them. You are nothing but vile scum! As I have asked before, stay the hell away from me until you can stop lying in here and name calling. If I called you any names it is in retaliation for your hateful remarks first.
    (Edited by Latina Lista moderator)
    E

  • Evelyn
    July 12, 2008 at 2:59 am

    Oh, I see you don’t want Europe or any other continent’s wars or histories of conquest brought up because it doesn’t support your agenda about this country or continent!!!
    AGAIN ????POS???? Is that something you use at mod b? LOL!
    Are you sooo ignorant that you dont understand that it was not Europe I was referring to, but America.

  • Frank
    July 12, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Of course you don’t want to talk about Europe just as I stated because they like every other continent have had their own histories of wars, conquests of peoples and lands exchanging hands just like we have! The only thing that matters is who owns the lands today!!
    So bitching about the past history of this continent/country or any other one doesn’t mean squat either. If someone wants to conquer this country/continent again, then let them take up arms against us. I am opposed to violence myself but I would defend this country in a defensive mode if attacked first.

  • laura
    July 12, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    Hi Evelyn,
    what is POS?
    May I suggest you simply ignore our courteous, gentlemanly friends “Frank, Horace, etc”?
    Sir “Frank” has never met an undocumented person in his life. What can he possibly have to contribute to a discussion worth our time?
    In the meantime, keep those informative posts of yours coming. Thank you for those.

  • Horace
    July 12, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Actually, Evelyn, the Berlin wall worked quite well, with only 5,000 persons successfully crossing it over the 28 years of its existence, or less than 200 per year since it was in place, and most escaped before all its lethal countermeasures were completed. Over 4,000 wound up in East German jails as the result of escape attempts. I’m sure that most East Germans would have made attempts if they thought that they would be successful. The Berlin Wall by any measure was a great deterrent, to say the very least. Most escapees from the East escaped from East Germany rather than more heavily fortified East Berlin. You’re ignorance is not surprising to the rest of us Evelyn.
    (Edited by Latina Lista moderator)

  • Frank
    July 12, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    laura, how the hell would you know if I have met an illegal alien in my life or not? I live in Calif. and I there are plenty here. I don’t have to know them personally to know that they have violated our immigration laws. That is all I need to know about them. Why they came here or even if they are the nicest people on the face of the earth means nothing to me when it comes to our laws.
    You are correct Horace, the Berlin Wall did work and so did the Great Wall of China. Walls are huge deterrents and that is why the pro-illegals don’t like them.

  • Evelyn
    July 13, 2008 at 10:13 am

    e :
    Actually, Evelyn, you stupid whackjob, the Berlin wall worked quite well, with only 5,000 persons successfully crossing it over the 28 years of its existence, or less than 200 per year since it was in place, and most escaped before all its lethal countermeasures were completed. Over 4,000 wound up in East German jails as the result of escape attempts. I’m sure that most East Germans would have made attempts if they thought that they would be successful. The Berlin Wall by any measure was a great deterrent, to say the very least. Most escapees from the East escaped from East Germany rather than more heavily fortified East Berlin.
    And those statistics are what you would call a success, 4,000 jailed, many dead, and people living in fear without freedom????
    Actually you stupid ignorant whack job the Berlin Wall devastated East Berlin. It has taken years and years of work to bring East Berlin out of that destruction. People lived in fear, their freedom was taken from them.
    If you want to live like that their are a few countries you can go to.
    The Berlin Wall was called the wall of shame. It was torn down because it didnt achieve the purpose for which it was created.
    Which was to keep intelligent people in East Berlin by force. If it had worked it would not be thought of in a negative manner. It would still be standing in splendid glory, instead it has been torn down and turned into rubble. LOL!
    If that is your idea of success, I pity you.
    ~~~~~
    You’re ignorance is not surprising to the rest of us Evelyn.
    Have you got a mouse in your pocket?

  • Marisa Treviño
    July 13, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Yes, the Berlin Wall was a great deterrent but it also became synonymous with oppression and a symbol for a Communistic regime that denied basic rights to its people. What was the lesson we were supposed to learn from its demise? I thought it was that no government should impose that kind of restraint on its citizenry. The argument will always be that the wall, in our case, is to protect us from people “stealing” into the country but walls/fences are always symbols of a false sense of security. What’s really needed to deter people from entering unlawfully is to create policy that recognizes their need to work, our need for labor and if given the opportunity, most people would come only to work for a short time and voluntarily return home. Yet, any kind of wall would prevent that from happening because while a wall only slows people coming into the country, it stops people from leaving.

  • Frank
    July 13, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    You all miss the point of course and that was that is was proof that walls do work! Neither Horace or myself said that we approved of the “reason” that the Berlin wall was built. It was built to seperate citizens from each other. Our wall is to seperate our citizens from would be illegal aliens and terrorists. How silly that you refuse to acknowledge the difference!

  • Evelyn
    July 14, 2008 at 3:59 am

    How silly that you refuse to acknowledge the difference!
    E
    There is no difference. Between countries walls are degrading, bridges are what they should be building.
    Countries that share common borders should get along with each other. In unity there is strength.
    If Mexico one day decided to become friends with a country like Iran because of our hostile behavior, we would be up a creek.
    It is better to have these countries on our side then against us.

  • Frank
    July 14, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Just because a country puts up a border wall doesn’t mean they don’t get along with their neighboring countries. What about terrorists entering thru their borders who are from far away? Mexico has already proven that it has no respect for our borders so why should we worry about their feelings? You gain respect by giving respect.
    Our country takes in more immigrants than any other in the world and Latinos have the second highest quota for legal immigrants into our country. That is unfair? How can Mexico or any other Latino country say that we are hostile to them under those circumstances? You are just blowing smoke because you would prefer that we allow an unlimited number of Latinos in our country so that they become the majority and take over numerically and politically. That is why we have immigration laws…to prevent that from happening with any one ethnic group. We have every much of a right to retain our traditional society, language and culture as any Latino country does.

  • Alex
    July 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Frank, why don’t you, instead of just meeting an undoccumented worker, try to get to know him, or her, better? Or, are you afraid to discover that they are human beings with feelings, aspirations, dreams, just like yours. I challenge you, and all your racist friends, to befriend any undocumented. Maybe, that way, God will show Himself through them and will change your evil hearts.

  • Frank
    July 15, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Alex, am I supposed to go up to someone and ask to prove their legal status in this country in order to do this? As I said, what has the fact that they are human beings with feeling, etc. have to do with it? Charles Manson is a human being also but he broke the law and is in prison for it. That is the way most countries work. Geez, I feel like I am talking to an uneducated moron having to explain this to you!
    How dare you accuse me of being a racist or that I have racist friends! You are basing this on what? Your side makes me absolutely sick! This kind of talk and false accusations of law abiding Americans is what is going to bring your side down! We know your agenda and it is the racist side of this issue, not ours!

  • Evelyn
    July 16, 2008 at 4:38 am

    Frank :
    Just because a country puts up a border wall doesn’t mean they don’t get along with their neighboring countries. What about terrorists entering thru their borders who are from far away? Mexico has already proven that it has no respect for our borders so why should we worry about their feelings? You gain respect by giving respect.
    E
    It is the U.S. who has no respect for other countries borders. They have repeated the following scenario over and over around the world.
    I choose to focus on Guatemala because that is the country the victims of the terrorist ICE raids in Pottsville were from.
    These are the reasons people below our southern border are forced to leave their homes and families to come here to work.
    An Anti-Democracy Foreign Policy: Guatemala
    by Jacob G. Hornberger
    by Jacob G. Hornberger
    Unfortunately, the CIA “success” in Iran, which produced the CIA’s ouster of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, bred a CIA “success” in another part of the world, Latin America. One year after the 1953 coup in Iran, the CIA did it again, this time in Guatemala, where U.S. officials feared the communist threat even more than they did in Iran.
    This time, the target was the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, a self-avowed socialist whose domestic policies were in fact modeled after the socialist New Deal policies of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.
    Arbenz’s socialist mindset had driven him to adopt an “agrarian reform plan,” a type of land-distribution scheme that unfortunately is all too common in Latin America. The plan entailed the confiscation of a portion of land owned by a major U.S. corporation operating in Guatemala at that time, United Fruit, and its redistribution to Guatemalan peasants. While the plan was an almost perfect embodiment of the socialist concept of taking property from the rich to give to the poor, in actuality it was no different in principle from the wealth-redistribution revolution that FDR’s welfare-state concept brought to America, whereby the primary purpose of the federal government became taxing the income of the rich in order to redistribute the money to the needy (or, in reality, to the politically privileged).
    So Arbenz had two strikes against him already as far as the CIA was concerned – his belief in socialism and his confrontation with a major U.S. corporation that had strong allies in the U.S. Congress. His third strike knocked him out – his unwillingness to obey U.S. government orders to rid his government of self-avowed communists.
    Consequently, flush with the “success” of its coup in Iran the year before, in 1954 the CIA secretly organized and engineered a military coup in Guatemala that ousted the democratically elected Arbenz from power. Schlesinger and Kinzer write:
    The United States organized, financed, and equipped the invasion forces. U.S. personnel flew the rebel aircraft and filled the airways with bogus transmissions suggesting a much larger force had invaded. Unrelenting U.S. diplomatic and political pressure encouraged treason and demoralized supporters. CIA assets in the officer corps and the administration worked actively to undermine President Arbenz’s authority and block efforts to move against the rebels.
    Unaware that the CIA was orchestrating the military coup against him, throughout the crisis Arbenz turned to the U.S. government for help, innocently placing his faith in a government that was purportedly committed to advancing democracy. On Sunday, June 27, 1954, democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz was ousted from office and fled Guatemala. The CIA replaced him with an unelected Guatemalan military dictator, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, whom the CIA designated the “Liberator” of the Guatemalan people.
    Canceling the presidential election scheduled for 1955 and continuing “emergency” suspension of civil liberties, including freedom of the press, Castillo Armas retained the unwavering support of the U.S. government. A year after taking office, he visited Washington, where he was warmly greeted by Vice President Richard Nixon and, not surprisingly given that he was a military man, was accorded the privilege of reviewing a U.S. military honor guard with Nixon at his side. Nixon visited Guatemala in 1955, declaring that “this is the first instance in history were a Communist government has been replaced by a free one.”
    The CIA’s new “free” regime lasted for three years. Plagued by corruption, chaos, dissent, and violence, the Castillo Armas regime came to a violent end in 1957, when the CIA’s “Liberator” was assassinated by one of his guards, who supposedly committed suicide immediately after killing the president.
    Castillo Armas was then followed by a succession of U.S.-approved Guatemalan military regimes, regimes whose military men, over the years, would be trained in torture, assassination, and counter-insurgency techniques at the Pentagon’s infamous School of the Americas. The CIA-induced Guatemalan coup and the four decades of brutal, torturous, U.S.-government-supported military rule that came with it precipitated a civil war in Guatemala that would last some 40 years and ultimately take the lives of more than 200,000 Guatemalan people.
    In their book Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer write,
    The [Historical Clarification Commission], which was headed by a German lawyer, Christian Tomuschat, estimated that the conflict had caused more than 200,000 deaths, and blamed the military for 93 percent of them. In a speech presenting the report, Mr. Tomuschat said that while he and his fellow commissioners knew when they began their work more or less what had happened during the conflict, “no one of us could have imagined the dimensions of this tragedy, not even the Guatemalan commissioners who had lived through the experience directly.”
    “It is with profound sadness that the commission learned of the extreme cruelty with which many of the violations were committed, of the large number of girls and boys who were victims of violent cruelty and murder, and of the special brutality directed against women, especially against Mayan women, who were tortured, raped and murdered,” Mr. Tomuschat said. “State security forces blindly pursued the anti-Communist struggle without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values.”
    In 1999, President Clinton, visiting Guatemala, candidly admitted, “For the United States, it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake.”
    What if the CIA had not intervened in the domestic affairs of Guatemala? What if it hadn’t violently ousted its democratically elected president? What if it had not installed a series of brutal U.S.-approved military dictatorships in Guatemala? What if it had simply stayed out of the natural democratic progression in Guatemala, letting regularly scheduled national elections to take place in 1955, one year after the coup? Schlesinger and Kinzer write,
    Had Arbenz served out his term, the opposition might well have been strong enough to contest and even win the 1955 elections. Although a distinct minority, the conservative opposition had both money and organized religion on its side…. In short, the democratic option – however uncertain its results – was still open to Guatemalan conservatives in 1954. The U.S. intervention gave them an opportunity to win by opting instead for the security of authoritarian repression. In taking this path, they condemned their country to four decades of unremitting brutality and violence.
    The CIA’s easy “success” in Iran and Guatemala then drove it to seek regime change in Cuba, where President Fidel Castro’s steadfast refusal to do the bidding of U.S. officials led not only to the Bay of Pigs disaster but also to the U.S. government’s 45-year obsession with ousting Castro from power. (While Castro is an unelected communist dictator, it has never been a lack of democracy in Cuba that has driven the U.S. government’s obsession with ousting him from power. Instead, the obsession is rooted in Castro’s longtime, steadfast commitment to keeping Cuba independent of U.S. government control, unlike other Latin American regimes, both elected and unelected, which consider it an enormous honor and privilege to be well-paid vassals in the U.S. government’s vast overseas empire.)
    Then, in 1973, faced with the democratic election of another self-avowed socialist in Latin America, Salvador Allende, the CIA supported his violent military ouster and the installation of a military strongman into power, Gen. Augusto Pinochet. I wrote about Pinochet’s U.S.-supported 17-year reign of murder, torture, and terror in my recent article “U.S. Regime Change, Torture, and Murder in Chile.”
    In 1971, after drifting across Europe with his family and then living for a time in Uruguay and Cuba, Jacobo Arbenz died while residing in Mexico. A broken man by that time (his 25-year-old daughter had committed suicide with a revolver in 1965), the official cause of Arbenz’s death was that he had died of natural causes (he drowned in his bathtub) but some people had doubts about that explanation.
    In 1996, the long Guatemalan civil war, which had its roots in the U.S. government’s anti-democracy coup in 1954, finally came to an end with the signing of a peace accord. As Schlesinger and Kinzer put it in the Afterward to the 1999 edition of their book Bitter Fruit, “The longest war in Latin American history had come to an end.” But not without a high price, not least of which included the lives of more than 200,000 people and the brutal torture of countless more at the hands of U.S.-supported and Pentagon-trained military regimes.
    A deep-seated culture of violence has taken root in Guatemala. Military regimes, army units and police squads have set an awful example, teaching entire generations that terror and murder are appropriate ways to achieve both political and personal ends. For their crimes they have enjoyed nearly complete immunity, as the police and judicial systems exist to serve the unjust ruling order….
    [With the signing of the 1996 peace accord] a long and bleak winter has ended in the supposed land of eternal spring, and that is a genuine cause for rejoicing. The terms of public debate have shifted dramatically, with even many conservatives openly accepting the need for change in terms that would have been considered subversive only a few years ago. Now begins the long task of rebuilding a shattered land, not simply politically and economically but also morally. It will take all the efforts of the long-suffering Guatemalan people, and all the help the outside world can give them, to consolidate the great victory they have won and finally drive a stake through the heart of darkness that terrorized them for so many years.
    Since the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials have consistently maintained that foreigners hate “us” because of our “freedom and values.” Rather than accepting that official mantra, Americans would be better served by studying the history of the U.S. government’s foreign policy, including its anti-democracy “successes” in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, to get a grasp on why so many people around the world hate the U.S. government – and to appreciate why the only solution to America’s woes lies in a dismantling of the interventionist empire that currently holds our nation in its grip and in a restoration of a non-interventionist republic that guided the founding of our nation.

  • Frank
    July 17, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    Don’t expect Americans for the rule of law to pay for the sins of our government and accept the consequences of them. The majority rules in this country as we are a democracy. Many decisions are made without our consent and that needs to change.

  • Evelyn Chavez
    August 9, 2008 at 12:42 am

    Yeah like the majority of Americans voting for Obama and McSame the only two presidential candidates who will enact CIR!!! HA! HA! LOL!

Comments are closed.

43 Comments