Controversy Over "Stupid Suckers" Ad Against McCain

An interesting article from www.alipac.us about John McCain's senate primary. This follows this post about the presidential candidate's stance on immigration issues. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

PAC Responds To Controversy Over "Stupid Suckers" Ad Against McCain


(Raleigh, NC) Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is issuing the following statement in response to the controversy regarding the group's new ad against John McCain that is currently being broadcast to Arizona voters via automated calls, online ads, and internet and phone based volunteers.

The new ad was released yesterday on Saturday, August 27, 2016, in the hope of reminding Arizona voters that John McCain lied to them during his 2010 campaign when he promised not to run for office again and not to support amnesty for illegal immigrants anymore. ALIPAC is asking for volunteers and donors to help reach as many voters as possible with the new ad titled John McCain's Arizona Suckers for Lies & Amnesty.

McCain's lies are well documented by the fact he is on the ballot facing a strong GOP challenger named Dr. Kelli Ward this Tuesday, August 30, and he voted for the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill (S. 744) in 2013!

ALIPAC's Controversial Ad
John McCain's Arizona Suckers for Lies & Amnesty
https://youtu.be/NHa37TrHxCs


"While some Arizona voters feel my use of the term "stupid suckers" is too harsh, the real problem is John McCain and all of the Americans who have lost their jobs, communities, homes, and very lives to the illegal aliens he supports with Amnesty legislation!" said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC, in response to the criticisms. "People can say that me and my message are the problem, but I'm not the one that lied to them, John McCain is. They can shoot the messenger if they want, but the truth is that every voter that voted to reelect McCain in the GOP primary of 2010 due to his promises to not run again and stop supporting amnesty got suckered! Whether they are stupid enough to reelect him again in 48 hours remains to be determined."

Some voters receiving the automated call from William Gheen of ALIPAC are choosing to interpret the message as Gheen calling Arizona voters "Stupid Suckers" while the ad attempts to be clear that John McCain is treating them like "Stupid Suckers" and are airing their complaints via phone calls, messages, and online posts.

William Gheen and ALIPAC volunteers plan to double down and stick to this controversial message until polls close on Tuesday August 30!

For more information about how John McCain is treating Arizona voters like "Stupid Suckers," the emerging controversy over ALIPAC's new anti-McCain ad, or to schedule interviews, please visit www.ALIPAC.us.
 

Editorial: Donald Trump's recent endorsements

Editorial

The interesting thing about Mr. Trump's endorsements is that he is doing his endorsing DURING the primaries of Mr. Ryan and Mr. McCain, while Mr. Trump himself has NOT been endorsed by Mr. McCain for the GENERAL election and Mr. Ryan has only given a "hold your nose" endorsement for the same GENERAL election.

This all does show that Mr. Trump is the peace-maker, willing to extend an olive branch to others who might not reciprocate. Will they, we shall see!

http://www.vdare.com/posts/ann-coulters-two-fine-philippics-against-paul-ryan-yesterday-videos
http://www.vdare.com/posts/pictures-from-paul-nehlen-ann-coulter-rally-dump-paul-ryan-is-the-cry

An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com about the wall with Mexico. This follows this post about immigrants and income tax.This follows this post about Pope Francis and immigration. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

<

Mexican Finance Minister Says Mexico Won’t Be “Bullied” To Fund Wall (There’s A Simple Solution)

>

---

Allan Wall

Trump’s border wall proposal, and especially his proposal that Mexico paying for it, continues to elicit strong condemnation and refusal among the Mexican elite.
The latest Mexican government official on the bandwagon is Luis Videgaray, secretary of Hacienda, the powerful finance ministry. Unsurprisingly, Videgaray (pictured right) is a white Mexican.
From Bloomberg:

Mexican Finance Minister Luis Videgaray called billionaire Donald Trump’s proposal to force the country to pay for a wall along the U.S. border, or face economic consequences if it doesn’t, a kind of diplomatic harassment that’s doomed to fail.
Mexico Won’t Be ‘Bullied’ by Trump’s Threat to Fund Border Wall
By David Biller and Eric Martin, Bloomberg, April 17, 2016

This whole business about the wall and having Mexico pay for it has certainly gotten their attention, hasn’t it?

“Mexico will not pay for that wall, not only because it doesn’t make any sense for either Mexico or the U.S. to enter into that type of threat rhetoric, but it’s also a matter of dignity,” Videgaray said Saturday in an interview in Washington. “There’s no way in which Mexico can be bullied into doing such a thing.”

No way? How about the taxing of remittances to Mexico?
For Mexico, though, there is a simple solution. If the Mexican government doesn’t want to pay for the wall, then its officials should tell Mexicans not to send back remittances from U.S. territory.
Bloomberg has noticed Mexico’s strategy to get more Mexicans naturalized in the United States.

Mexico has taken action to counteract Trump’s anti-immigrant message, including mounting an unprecedented effort to covert the country’s many permanent residents in the U.S. into citizens, a status that would enable them to vote — presumably against Trump. Officially, Mexico says it respects U.S. sovereignty and has no strategy to influence the result of the presidential race. Yet diplomats are mobilizing to assist immigrants in gaining U.S. citizenship, hosting free workshops on naturalization.

For more information see Main Stream Media FINALLY Notices Meddling Mexicans Encouraging Immigrants To Naturalize And Vote Against Trump—But WHERE IS GOP? and Citing “Anti-Mexican Climate”, Names Carlos Sada As Next Mexican Ambassador To U.S.
Ask your senators and representatives if they think it’s ok for Mexico to meddle in our electoral politics.
Back to Videgaray.

 “The proposal to make Mexico pay for a wall and trying to achieve that through a set of threats is a proposal that has already failed,” said Videgaray, who was attending the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

“Already failed”? It hasn’t even been tried!
According to Bloomberg’s own calculations, remittances were up in 2015:

Mexico received $24.8 billion in remittances last year, the highest level since 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In 2012, 98 percent of remittances to the Latin American nation’s $1.29 trillion economy came from the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center.

When remittances go up, that means either (1) there are more Mexicans in the U.S., (b) they are sending back more money, or (3) both. Either way, it’s money that could be taxed to build a wall.

An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com about the general election. This follows this post about immigrant terrorism. This follows this post about Pope Francis and immigration. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

These are Trump voters--does the GOP think they'll come out for a generic Republican?

<

Ann Coulter: Only Trump Can Bring GOP Victory In The Electoral College

>

---

Ann Coulter

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?
Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.
If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.
A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote—and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.
Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”
Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)
Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?
Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states—Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).
Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.
If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois—where Romney’s white vote was below his national average—Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn’t an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)
Trump could lose any one of those states and make up for it by winning Minnesota and Wisconsin—where Romney actually lost the white vote. Or he could lose two of those states but add victories in places outside the Rust Belt, where Romney’s white vote was also below average, such as Colorado, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. (In 1992, Ross Perot came in second in Maine, beating George Bush.)
I haven’t even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens’ dream candidate, Marco Rubio, a sitting senator—and a Cuban!—in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes.
If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally.
Stevens’ analysis assumes that there will be no new voters—and, again, there isn’t a mammal on the North American landmass who knows less about winning presidential elections than Stuart Stevens.
It’s as if we’re only allowed to divvy up the pile of voters from 2012. Unless you voted in 2012, you can’t vote in 2016! Use it or lose it, buddy.
That’s not how it works.
Trump is saying he’ll bring in lots of new people, as he has throughout the primaries. In the Florida GOP primary, for example, Trump got nearly half a million more votes than Romney did in 2012—about half a million new people voted. Trump may be wrong, but it’s insane to say that it’s impossible for him to bring out new voters.
What’s impossible is for any Republican candidate, other than Trump, to win a single state Romney lost. Ted Cruz’s corny speaking style is creepy to anyone who doesn’t already agree with everything he says. He’s the less likable, more hard-edged version of Romney. Every other Republican is, one way or another, a less attractive version of Romney.
Maybe 50 years of Third World immigration means it’s too late, and even Trump can’t win. But it’s an absolute certainty that any other Republican will lose.
Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is the author of ELEVEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.
Her book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, was released on June 1, 2015.

Editorial: Should ANYONE be punished if abortion is illegal?

Editorial

In the past week, Donald Trump made the comment that women should be punished if abortion is illegal. Later he backtracked and said that only providers should be punished, which is the standard pro-life line.

However, if abortion is illegal, wouldn't the person who goes to get one done be punished? Take another example of drug use. As much as the drug pusher should be punished for providing the drugs, the drug user still faces a fine and possible prison time for using. It is the liberals, such as president Barack Obama, who want to decriminalize drug usage, which was his stated reason for pardoning another round of prisoners recently. Similarly, it is not only the provider, but the person who attempts to get an abortion who should face some penalty for deterrence, even if it is a minimal penalty.