“Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is
calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how
porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
Pelosi's Stake in Illegal
Immigration
The Minuteman
Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book
Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen
volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the
border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the
law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists,
racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off the speaker’s platform
at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their
handmaidens in the liberal press.
So it was no
surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release,
issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy
Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American –
including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here
the proper way: “Do we really need a
House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial
interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security
of everyday American citizens?”
Gilchrist did
not stop there. He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in
just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.” But
you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this
demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the
wake of the Foley page controversy.
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks
ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa
Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign
labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal
immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I
previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to
pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that
would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee
seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens
from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
At the same
time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls
or documentation requirements. She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed
into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border
security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must
use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work
in this country. She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal
aliens in 2005. This year she opposed
legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID
to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere
in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is
dead wrong. For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was
just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau
of Motor Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a
conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall.
How many other
terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like
Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she continues to advocate our
recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates
provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the
“matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank
accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify
themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’
licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally
register to vote in our elections.
Pelosi also
believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She opposed legislation to deny
federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to
share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with
Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s
hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect
for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our
immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.
Jim Gilchrist
cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media
does not want you to read:
"As we’ve
shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but
are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their
only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no
matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is
dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien."
Pelosi sees
Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the
Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So
she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S.
taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen
patrols may be located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of
business – permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work
of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed
questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to
the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House.
Gilchrist, of
course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting
his message out. In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech
at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College
Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter
the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took
the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are
no illegals." More protestors then stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and
the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance,
which was precisely the protestors’ objective. As reported online by the staff
of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and
community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and
White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!" They also put out a statement
declaring:
“The Minutemen
are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist,
armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing
countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should
exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual
people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added)
We have come
to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide
who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public
policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless
world is a basic human right. They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of
lawful residency. They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border
and reporting illegal entry to the authorities.
Leftist
slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings. It is not the human
being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal.
One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is. Immigrants who follow our
rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be
here. A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not
deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much
poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he
has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly
define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves. We
are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core
values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to
accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around. That is the way
prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through
Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now?
What we are
witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us
before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the
border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country
illegally. They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats
believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first
place. For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the
right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders
to a globalist governance body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House
Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders?
Do we really want to risk finding out?
It is high
time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream
media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the
illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker.
CALL NANCY PELOSI
Washington , DC - (202) 225-4965 San Francisco , CA - (415)
556-4862
USE THE EMAIL AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POSTING AND SEND A COPY TO LA
RAZA PELOSI
EMAIL NANCY PELOSI sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
EMAIL FORM FOR NANCY PELOSI www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html
If you are out of her district,
you can still make your feelings heard: Americanvoices@mail.house.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment