My government is killing me

Oh my aching government!

by Don Hank

I am tired of reading about innocent people being killed as a result of federal actions and policies.

I first noticed this when the Christians in Iraq started getting killed (over 50 were killed there when a church was destroyed just this week). There are now almost NO Assyrian Christians in Iraq. They had survived for over a millennium and were thriving under, of all people, Saddam Hussein. But they succumbed to the actions of a RINO president. (No, I am not a Saddam fan, but if you don’t know what the consequences will be, think twice about invading a country).

Now Obama, in his role as “President of the world,” has demanded that Mubarak step down, and lo and behold, the same thing happens in Egypt: The Coptic Christians are being slaughtered.

To some, it may seem far-fetched to observe this, but in this country, with the same stupid policies of aiding the enemy, we find 2 federal agents killed with guns apparently supplied by the good old US government, one just this week.

Like I said, I’m tired of watching good people die as part of a government experiment conducted by idiots with a rocket scientist mentality.

I don’t think any of the actions that caused these unintended consequences were constitutional.

Can we have that document back?

Islamization and Mexicanization — two designs, same architects

By Don Hank

The slow but sure Islamization of Europe, illustrated in the below-linked video, is headed this way. Dearborn Michigan is a showcase example, where Christians are forbidden to hand out tracts in many places where Muslisms would be offended.

Europe and the US are in the same basic set of hands: PLCSDs (progressives/ liberals/ communists/ socialists/ Democrats) who rule the West by controlling the media, education, film and the arts, the universities, much of the political world, etc.

The Fabian socialists started in London in the early 1880s. Karl Marx’s sister was one of them. Their avowed goal: To spread socialism and eliminate Christianity from Western culture.

How are they doing so far?

Their influence spread and spun off other like-minded groups (the Frankfurt School, the UN, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Democrat and Socialist Parties in the US, socialist parties in Europe, Common Purpose in the UK), which spread the virus.

Their goal in Europe is being achieved in part by importing large numbers of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to dilute the already waning Christian influence there. The result is a growing state of anarchy in the street and an untenable, often desperate social situation, for example, in many European schools, where European students are bullied mercilessly by Muslim kids.

On this side of the Atlantic, their goal is being promoted by supranational government schemes like NAFTA, the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and the Trans-Texas Corridor), all of which aim to obliterate borders toward the short-term goal of achieving an EU-style borderless America with a single central government that dictates to what is left of national governments (to be reduced to puppets that only harmonize central legislation). The longer-term goal is a one-world government such that no nation or region has any significant power over its own destiny.

The huge influx of illegal aliens you see all around you is part of that plan. They are portrayed as victims, ie, the “poor,” in the media but a growing percentage have ties to the cartels that have made life unlivable and short in Mexico. They are creating crime-filled ghettos in our cities in their quest for a “better way of life.”

I guarantee that the useful idiots who lend themselves to the implementation of this scheme to help illegal aliens gain increasing privileges in our nation, including — now — the right to vote in our elections, will some day rue the day they were duped into becoming pawns in this evil game.

Here is a foretaste:

Post left at another LF column by a lady living in Germany:

Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for speaking the truth again, Don.

Perhaps I should add that I live in Germany, and we see the encroaching creep of Islamism here without a doubt.

I think of a church in Reutlingen in the south of Germany, who have spoken up against the way the Lutheran Church in the town has (I use the singular intentionally) been in recent, close fellowship with the Turkish nationalistic, fascist youth organisation, the ‘Grey Wolves’, who, any search in Google will show, are murderers and assassins, and with whom even the CIA are linked. The Lutherans had allowed them on to the church board, allowed them access to their premises, church hall, etc, all ‘in the name of dialogue’ with Muslims, in order to help them to integrate into German society.

It beats me that the ‘Pfarrer’ didn’t have the wisdom to find out for himself what sort of people these are, but perhaps he in his mistaken, humanistic, naive way, thought that he could turn them from their Jihadist thinking. If so, then he was wrong. A video was made of a Grey Wolves meeting in the Lutheran church hall, presumably by one of the partaking group, with the Cross and other Christian symbols covered up, showing the Grey Wolves members saluting, (very similar to the Hitler salute, forbidden in Germany). The video was put on You Tube and caused a furore when the local press got hold of it.

The Lutheran church then accused the free church of being religious intolerant fundamentalists, and even said that they had filmed the meeting, which any common logic would make clear, was a ridiculous accusation. They then ostracised, cold-shouldered and slandered the free church. The sad thing is that other churches in town did the same, pandering to the fear of the Grey Wolves, who hold even other Muslims in terror, unwilling to take a stand for the truth. They said that the free church was destroying the town’s ‘Christian unity’. If that’s Christian unity then I’m the Pope.

Ninth Circuit poisoning the well

 Ninth Circuit “legalizes” voter fraud, undermines all authority

by Don Hank

According to the judges of the 9th Circuit, Arizona laws requiring potential voters to present documentation for AZ elections are “illegal.” Supposedly they discriminate against the poor who do not have driver’s licenses.

All the potential voter now has to do is swear that he is a citizen under penalty of perjury and he or she can register to vote.

But since it is illegal to prove that he is lying, this is a de facto legalization of voter fraud and the 9th Circuit knows it. So does any thinking American.

This decision is an attack on the entire legal process. If it is now illegal to ask for documentation for voter registration, then it is automatically illegal for courts to require documentation for anything at all because some are too poor to afford documents.

An applicant for a passport would not have to prove he is the person he says he is. He would only be made to sign a sworn statement that he is that person. Any attempt on the part of officials to prove he is not would be illegal. And because the government is concerned with the poor and their rights, this applicant could not be charged one penny for the passport.

All applicants would be issued passports without proof.

Youngsters would now be free to purchase liquor and cigarettes at will, simply by providing a sworn statement that they are over 21. No one could force them to produce any documentation.

Nor could a suspect be required to present documentation to prove he is who he says he is. He can deny that he is the suspect who was picked up by the police on suspicion of a crime. If they try to prove he is the suspect, he can simply sign a sworn statement that he is in fact someone else, under penalty of perjury. The prosecution would not be allowed to look for evidence to the contrary because, by the 9th Circuit’s logic, the suspect would have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Hence, case closed, no decision allowed.

For that matter, no criminal would ever be tried again in the USA if 9th Circuit logic were applied across the board, because by extension of this twisted logic, a suspect would need only swear he did not commit the alleged crime and would immediately be set free, no questions asked. Sorry for the annoyance, Sir.

As for banks, they have already ceased to require documentation of loan applicants, and the result is a worldwide financial and economic crisis that keeps on taking.

The 9th circuit is also in effect enforcing the notion of equality for every human being on the planet: the right of every person on earth to vote in US elections.

If this decision is allowed to stand, then citizens of other countries can argue that they are being discriminated against because they are “too poor” to travel to the US to vote in our elections.

By the logic of these judges, all human beings over a certain age can vote in US elections simply by swearing they are US citizens.

They can now go to a US embassy and vote there. By 9th Circuit logic, no US embassy official would be allowed to ask for a passport or any other proof except a sworn statement that the voter registration applicant is a US citizen.

I think you can see that Arizona must recover its sovereign right to require proof of citizenship or we are all in grave danger.

First, Arizona can and should appeal this decision and should keep the old law in place until such time as the appeal is heard. But in the event the appeal fails, the election officials and officials involved, including legislators, who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, have several types of constitutional recourse, including the 10th Amendment. They can refuse to go along with the decision on the basis that the decision unconstitutionally interferes with the internal affairs of a state and on the basis of their oath of office.

Or if they want to preserve decorum, they can throw the decision back in the 9th Circuit’s face, declaring the old law requiring documentation upon voter registration null and void, based on the 9th Circuit decision, and replacing it with a new law that allows a sworn statement of US citizenship plus proof positive of citizenship – not just the applicant’s sworn statement – but without specifying what kind of proof.  The new law could allow an applicant to use a driver’ license or birth certificate as proof but would not require that particular kind of proof. The sworn statement would not be accepted as proof positive but would be allowed, as long as proof positive were also provided. It would be up to the applicant to provide proof positive but the type of proof – in accordance with the decision – would be up to the applicant. Or in the event such a statement is mandated by federal law, it could even be required, but would not be considered as proof positive, since it obviously is not.

The law would be written as a temporary law, but without an expiration date.

The law in question would state that it would expire shortly after the court that abolished the old law provided an adequate substitute of proof positive of citizenship, whereupon a new law would be written specifying the use of that type of proof specified by the court. The court could not argue against this new law giving it the right to specify the type of proof allowed without admitting it does not allow any proof at all and in fact wants illegal aliens to have the vote.

This would elegantly throw the issue back in the laps of the justices who would now be responsible for coming up with a kind of proof that would satisfy human logic. The beauty of such a law is that, on its face, it at least seems to go on the assumption that the court is not malicious and does not have an interest in allowing undocumented aliens to vote. In fact, while it is obvious that the court is malicious and wants illegal aliens to vote, it would never dare admit this. The court could not come out and say they wanted illegal aliens to vote and hate Arizonans. They have to have something to hide behind, and this decision lets them hide behind the poor.

Such a new “temporary” replacement law in Arizona would on the surface satisfy the letter of the law but would also put the onus on the court to decide the nature of the proof positive that must be provided by voter registration applicants.

The court certainly could not say that a sworn declaration of citizenship provides such proof because Arizona would then point out that such sworn declarations are not seen as proof of anything in other areas of law, such as criminal and commercial law.

If the court kept up the farce despite this revision of the law, Arizona could argue that a sworn statement is not accepted as proof of anything in other areas of law and that the court must provide an alternative that satisfies human logic as to what proof positive actually is. The court would have to admit that it is mililtating against all human logic and then Arizona would have an airtight motive for ignoring the decision. The fact is, it already does, but such a strategy as I have proposed would catapult the issue into the media in such a way that other states would be encouraged to rebel in like manner. People are on the verge of rebelling anyway, and Arizona could be the fuse that sets off the charge.

If all of the above happens to fail, natural laws will intervene as they always do, but the result may not be pretty.

By way of illustration, the irresponsible behavior of the banks and their public partners Fanny-Freddy and insane legislation like the CRA, inevitably resulted in a financial meltdown with universal consequences. More and more people are noticing this, including people outside the US (The NGO Transparency International recently found the US to be perceived as a significantly more corrupt nation than previously). The exact consequences of wholesale voting by non-Americans are hard to imagine or predict.

But eventually, the court’s decision to eliminate the requirement for documentation will affect us all, including the progressives responsible for the decision, because it eliminates almost all authority over anyone, including criminals, thereby undermining the authority of the very court itself. Anarchy is the inevitable result.

So if you want to poison the well, be careful where you drink.


Further reading:

The SAVE Act: not worth saving

My Position On The “Feel Good Act” AKA The SAVE Act

by Dave Levine

The SAVE Act will never pass and for good reason–it doesn’t go far enough and gives a false sense of having supposedly halted the Invasion from Mexico. Arizona’s 1070 Law (which is being contemplated by 22 other states) goes much farther and has made the SAVE Act obsolete before it becomes law, if ever.

If supporters believe what they read from the left-leaning Pew or the anti-enforcement DHS reports, they are delusional. They are not to be believed and are based on anecdotal evidence, not empirical evidence. BP boots on the ground will tell you that along the 2,200-mile Southern Border, between 5,000 and 10,000 illegals break into the U.S. every 24 hours. While the break-ins may have dropped to the 5,000 per day level, that is still 1.5 million illegals breaking in per year NOT including the 40-50% of all visa holders who overstay and are not tracked down and deported. We’re letting in close to 2 million legal aliens per year, an unheard of amount in the Western world. That’s at least 800,000 overstayer illegal aliens you can add to the 1.5 million (min.) Border jumper illegals.

The SAVE Act is what I term “a feel good act”. Here’s what it does and doesn’t do:

-Leaves out “for all employees, both Current and New” from the E-verify mandatory change that is proposed. What about the 8 million-plus illegals earning a paycheck? Why are they being left alone? I’ll tell you why–the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

-Doesn’t remove the word “knowingly” from Federal Immigration law. The entire “enforcement against criminal employers” is a waste of taxpayer money and time as only a handful of employers have been prosecuted and convicted. Why? The word “knowingly”. It is virtually impossible to prove “intent” and get convictions! So prosecutors, rather than risk losing millions of dollars in litigation, don’t even bother with indictments against employers. This is THE biggest loophole for employers of illegals in the U.S.

-Doesn’t require or guarantee more ICE raids like the ones under Bush in 2005 in Ontario and Temecula, CA involving the BP or the ones post-2006-2008 by ICE. Simply hiring more agents won’t guarantee anything. To track down the MILLIONS of visa overstayer illegals, we’d need a hundred thousand ICE agents! Immigration expert Michael Cutler says there are only 200 or so ICE agents being used on overstayers for the entire country. Obama halted all raids against business hiring non-criminal illegal aliens in 2009.

-Doesn’t require that BP agents be stationed ON THE BORDER! Due to the Drug Cartel’s move into Arizona and due to the dangerous situation with the Zetas along the Border, the BP has been told to move BACK and allow break-ins to occur for the agent’s safety. This is insane! A border is supposed to be defended! If it isn’t being defended, for whatever reason, then troops must be used to defend it.

-The “pilot program” is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer’s money.

-Doesn’t increase funding for 287.g, a highly successful program training local police and sheriff’s deputies.

-Doesn’t get rid of the EOIR as recommended by vdare’s Juan Mann. As Mann wrote, “The lengthy EOIR system of hearings and appeals enables illegal aliens and criminal alien residents to remain in the United States both legally and illegally.” Hiring more judges isn’t the solution but only part of that solution.

There are others, but these prove to me that the SAVE Act should be called “The False Sense Of Security Act”. And one other thing. The advent of 1070 has made the SAVE Act a dinosaur in its own time.

Read about the SAVE Act here:

Administration’s inaction criminal and impeachable

Constitution: Obama guilty of treason, must be impeached

By Don Hank

I recently published a column on the gradual seizure of ranches in Arizona

by Mexican cartels with the tacit consent of the current administration.

I need to clarify that any person in a position such that he/she can be reasonably expected to be protecting US assets (US president, Homeland Security Chief, Border Patrol chief, etc) and who refuses to protect said assets is on a par with — but in fact is more culpable than — the actual perpetrators (in this case, the cartels, Mexican criminals and other invaders) of the harm to the assets.

This means that these people are liable and must be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Obama and his administration have made it clear that they not only will not meaningfully defend our borders and perform a modicum of their duties to protect American lives and assets (see the definition of security in the above-linked column). They have in fact clearly sided with the criminals, aiding and abetting them in harming a state and its citizens. Suing the state of AZ for protecting borders that can be expected to be protected by the federal government and is their duty to protect under the Constitution, is nothing short of treachery.

Here are the parts of the Constitution that are being directly violated – first an Article that applies indirectly, then an Article that applies directly:

 “Art. IV, Section 3: ….The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the US; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the US or of any particular State.”

The Obama administration has “construed” the Constitution “so as to prejudice the claims of” a “particular State” (AZ). That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Further, and more directly:

The administration has violated Section 4 of Art. IV, which clearly states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against Invasion….”

There is no wiggle room here for the Executive. Obama and the agencies subordinate to him, must protect the states against invasion and they are failing to do so, in flagrant violation of Constitutional Article IV. In fact, they are illegally suing AZ under color of law in an attempt to cover their tracks.

This passive refusal to protect a state and the pro-active frivolous and malicious lawsuit against AZ for attempting to defend itself amount to one of the grounds for impeachment explicitly enumerated under Article II, Section 4, because the inaction on the one hand and the active step on the other hand are quite simply treason. There can be no other word for it.

It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. Each state has the right to decide whether the government has denied them aid.

Regardless of this, it is time for the states to defend themselves against all blatant violations of their Constitutional rights, whether these violations be perpetrated by the Executive or a higher court, including the SC.

When a higher court violates the Constitution, it is up to the people (on the state level first) to assert their rights and just say no — as Sheriff Joe Arpaio has done, BTW, in refusing to provide documents improperly requested by the feds.

Arpaio is in his right under the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution does not grant to the federal government the right to interfere with law enforcement activities on the State level.

Nor did AZ, according to this same Amendment, have to accept the intervention of the higher court to hamstring their immigration law. They chose to do so. It needs to be recognized, in this regard, that Jan Brewer is willing to defend AZ only in part, but not in whole. She is behaving first as a politician and, as a distant second, as a defender of her State and its Constitutional rights.

Her endorsement of John McCain is evidence that she is only willing to half-heartedly defend her people.

The fact that the people chose McCain in the primary election is evidence that they are willing to allow the tail to wag the dog.

They have not fully grasped the Tea Party principles and the significance of the Constitution.

And there is one salient reason for this: Neither Brewer nor the people have actually read the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.

The government is not about to protect us from invasion without a significant change, and that change starts with education on the grassroots level. No significant steps toward securing our nation will be taken until the Articles mentioned above are read and understood by a majority of the people.

Cartel seizing US assets, with tacit consent of US government

by Don Hank

Today I sent out the following link to a report showing how one American ranch and its occupants (one of many) were physically threatened by dangerous criminals due to inaction on the part of the Obama government – inaction that, if it occurred on a local level, would immediately be seen as criminal. The fact that it is criminal on any level will not be missed by rational, thinking people. (BTW, there is a pattern here: The DOJ has recently been shown to refuse to prosecute perpetrators on the basis of their race).

I sent the link with this message:

The below-linked report was written by an Iraq war returnee. It contains foul language, but is so full of truth it can’t be ignored.


We need to get control of our border.

To do that, we need to get control of our treacherous government.

Failing that, armed volunteers need to go to these ranches en masse and help protect what is ours.

Don Hank


Shortly thereafter, I received the following message from a friend whose work I am familiar with. This man, by the way, does not publish and should not be confused with anyone who has recently been published either in this forum or elsewhere.

Quote from that message:

“So, when our representatives say that ANYONE can have access to this nation, to its people, property, and information, what does that say about their opinion of us?

And my friend, doing nothing to stop it is doing nothing to protect us, which is the same thing as actively allowing it.”



My I offer some thoughts in this regard?

As you know, I have been in the “protection” field for over a quarter century and am professionally educated and credentialed in that field.  

At its most basic, things that are to be protected, assets for want of a better term, fall into 3 categories:  people, property, and information.   These can range from a single person or a dignitary to an entire population; from a single item of property to a building or a nation, etc.

Now here is the rule:  90% of protecting anything, no matter what, is access control, making sure that only the right people have access to the valued asset and likewise, making sure that the wrong people don’t.  

There is ALWAYS a security-convenience trade off.  That is the cost of it and these are opposite ends of a continuum.  As one moves along that continuum toward one, there is motion away from the other.  If one wants more security, less convenience is the cost, and vice versa.

Further, effective protection is in layers, or progressively more stringent “rings of protection,” actual physical, psychological, or procedural barriers that a person must negotiate before they gain access.  And these rings have objectives.

The basic strategy for designing a protective system is to include 4 basic goals—the 4 D’s:  deter, detect, delay, defend / deny. 

In other words, any system wants to DETER the “wrong” person from even attempting access in the first place by raising the chances that they will get caught and pay a price for it.  While we cannot change the value of the asset they are trying to gain access to, we can do much to change the cost of attempting access, and the likelihood of having to pay it.  Deterrence is THE first step, and a major one.

We also want out system to be able to immediately DETECT an attempted or accomplished breech in our protection (i.e. deterrence did not work) at the outermost  perimeter ring (i.e. property, border, wall, etc).  We then want to DELAY the person with other barriers of some kind, until a human response can be mustered to the breech site, and finally, we must DEFEND the asset-i.e. DENY access to it in a physical confrontation if need be.

This is NOT rocket science.  But, no matter what anyone says, until the basic decision to control access is made, and the cost of it paid, there IS NO, AND CAN BE NO, SECURITY FOR THAT ASSET, period.  OPEN ACCESS MEANS NO SECURITY!

Personally, there is also an inescapable corollary implied in access control:

How we define “the right person” to be granted access is based on the value of the asset to the owner.  The greater the value, the greater the inconvenience that will be tolerated in countermeasures, and the greater the required trustworthiness for persons to be granted access.   It is based on value, not cost, but value in the mind of the owner.

So, when our representatives say that ANYONE can have access to this nation, to its people, property, and information, what does that say about their opinion of us?

And my friend, doing nothing to stop it is doing nothing to protect us, which is the same thing as actively allowing it.

Mexican Church confirms immigrant abuse by authorities

Mexican Church confirms my 2006 accusation

Don Hank

In March of 2006, I wrote an open letter to President Vicente Fox in which I accused Mexican authorities of the hypocrisy of blaming the US for abusing Mexican immigrants while abusing their own immigrants – mostly Central Americans – in the most callous manner.

I wrote that the immigrant Central Americans I had spoken with consistently confirmed stories of the Mexican police and border guards stealing the money from male immigrants and raping or molesting immigrant women.

I had spoken with enough Central American immigrants about this to be convinced, but was concerned that there was no authority to cite. After all, the Mexican authorities could not be expected to denounce themselves, and the US authorities were busy supporting “immigration reform,” so the false accusations of Mexican authorities of abuse by the US, i.e., by the border patrol and by any American opposed to illegal immigration, were grist for their mill. An accusation of abuses perpetrated by Mexican authorities would have softened their argument considerably. The media said nothing about this open blight on Mexico.

Hence, information on this abuse was painfully – tragically — slow to come.

Today, however, the local papers here in Panama reported on an editorial written by the Mexican Archdioces in response to the massacre of 72 Hispanic immigrants in Tamaulipas. With previously unheard-of candor, they explicitly condemn the Mexican authorities.

Below is my partial translation of that editorial. The first part is merely a summary of the massacre:

“The 72 immigrants murdered in Tamaulipas, Central and South Americans, were apparently undocumented and were pressured by the drug traffickers to join their ranks as hitmen. When they refused, they were murdered.”

But the second part confirms my earlier accusation and alerts the world to a vile situation that has smoldered for many years:

The abuse of this group starts with the police and the immigration authorities [my emphasis]. The criminal gangs follow suit in view of the indifference and complicity of evil corrupt officials.”

Leo Tolstoy wrote a short story entitled “God knows the truth but is not quick to tell it.” (Usually rendered as “God knows the truth but waits”). He was referring to the way injustices may remain under cover for years before finally coming to the light.

How true that is. And how terribly sad that 72 innocent people had to die before the world finally got its wake-up call.

Even now, there is no guarantee that the story of government complicity in immigrant abuse in Mexico will spread far enough to have a significant impact in the sense of bringing pressure to bear on Mexico. It may come down to your simply passing this along to your friends and asking them to do the same.

Reverse migration — look for it

By Don Hank

I ran into a guy from Kentucky today that I had met once before. He’s a heck of a nice guy, doesn’t speak much Spanish and likes to chat with other gringos. I hadn’t had much time to talk to him the first time we met, in a Toyota dealership near Panama City.

But this time I had a chance to ask what he was doing in Panama.

It turns out he came down here to work on construction. He’s a hard hat, and the people I was with later told me that’s a good job here, paying up to $15 an hour or more, or starting at $8 for flunky labor.

Other workers make about $300-400 a month, but construction pays great.

This is because Panama runs on that old fashioned system we have ditched in the US: common-sense free market. You get what you give; you got credit and a job, you get loans – that is, after the bank knows you for a few years; you don’t pay, you don’t get any more credit, for a long time; the bank checks out your background, your income, your work history, etc. And you don’t have these politician clowns causing a bank crash and then running around saying “we gotta find out who caused this! Duh.”

Panama is booming and banks are healthy, it goes without saying. This may eventually be the last country on earth to give in to the New World Order. But as long as there is a sovereign Panama, there is hope for humanity. BTW, one of the favorite domestic beers here is called Soberana, meaning “sovereign.” Sovereignty means a lot to Panamanians, who have no aspirations to be “world citizens.” They’re too smart for those shenanigans.

As our friend was leaving he said “I couldn’t find work back home.”

Folks, we’re talking about the USA!

That’s reverse migration and this is just the beginning of a trend. Look for it.

Arizona: As a dog returneth to its vomit…

by Don Hank

Arizona re-elected McCain to the Senate yesterday, thereby demonstrating that, despite their support for SB 1070, the majority either have a perhaps subconscious desire to be dominated by Mexican narcoterrorists or they are unfit to govern themselves. Either way, they have moved one more step toward an alien takeover and further isolated themselves from the rest of the American border community that desperately needs courage and wisdom, not folly and dhimmitude in the face of the enemy.

And who will cry for them? My tears are reserved for the innocent, not the complicit.

People wounded in the past by John McCain’s constant treachery will stop sympathizing with Arizona’s illegal alien problems at this point.

The vote for McCain was a slap in the face to every decent patriot.

If the narcoterrorists and small time Mexican thugs decide to take over completely, Arizona had better not expect a lot of sympathy from those who warned them about McCain’s treacherous ways.

McCain was their senator. Now he’s ours, again.

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Proverbs 26:11

As you will understand, this article was written to chastise the lazy, illiterate morons who voted for McCain. I recognize that there are some very hard-working patriots in Arizona who have worked unselfishly for years to stop illegal immigration. They have my deepest sympathy and prayers at this difficult time.

Arizona, you CAN’T blow THIS one!

Don Hank

A recent article by Jesse Mathewson tries to show that maybe McCain and Hayworth are both wrong for Arizona. He’s right about McCain. But he uses a now largely discounted scandal and an obscure vote on Singapore free trade to cast doubt on Hayworth.

Now in all fairness, Jesse has written a fair number of articles with genuinely conservative content. However, he has consistently supported an obscure no-experience candidate, Jim Deakin, whose chances to defeat McCain are remote, while Hayworth is fairly well — if precariously — positioned.

Further, Mathewson’s attempt to equate John McCain and J.D. Hayworth is definitely skewed if you consider the ratings of Hayworth and McCain given by the American Conservative Union (ACU).

In 2005, for example, ACU assigned a grade of 65 to McCain and 100 to Hayworth.

In 2005, it was 80 to 100 in favor of Hayworth.

I don’t know about you, but if I were a college admissions officer considering 2 students and one had McCain’s near-failing to lackluster grades and the other had Hayworth’s top notch grades, I would choose Hayworth in a heartbeat.

Of course, there is this other guy Deakin, who may be ok. But how can we know? By what he says he’ll do? Remember how Obama sweet-talked us? Are you ready to vote for an unknown when you have a hard-working tried and proven A student waiting in the wings? And, strangely, Mathewson doesn’t say a word about illegal immigration, the key issue this year. If his candidate has a strong position on it, why doesn’t he say so? It’s his golden opportunity.

JD Hayworth obviates all other alternatives this year. After all, given the state of the polls today, a vote for Deakin is probably a vote for John McCain and we can’t afford another 6 years of waffling and pandering to illegal aliens.

On the other hand, Deakin has a chance to show Arizonans he has real character. By throwing his weight toward JD Hayworth and ridding America of a dangerous RINO once and for all. That in itself could be the start of a brilliant political career.