It is always surprising to me how some groups can snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. At a time when calls for a crackdown on illegal immigration have been largely ignored, Deportracism.com, a Latino political action committee (PAC), has succeeded in eradicating any moral high ground that it once claimed in the debate. The organization released a disgraceful advertisement using children who make obscene gestures and profanity against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. If they were seeking to diminish Trump, they succeeded in precisely the opposite: making him look very statesman in comparison to their insulting, profane use of these children.
The three young children are shown saying things like “F*** you racist f***,” one young child says to Trump while holding up a middle finger. Two children go on to say: “Yo, Trump. You may be high in the polls. Thanks to pinches racist suckers but you’re all going to have to come thru me if you try to deport my abuelita m*****f*****.”
I wonder what an abuelita would say about adults teaching kids to speak like this and make obscene gestures.
While most people are appalled on the videotape below, the group continues to proudly market the video and also offer $5000 to anyone who would interrupt the Saturday Night Live performance of Trump. It is entirely clueless. While most groups are seeking to show undocumented people as hardworking and respectful citizens, Deportracism is striving to fulfill every stereotype of their critics.
The group has scoffed at objections that it is teaching children to be disrespectful and profane. After releasing the video entitled, “Trashing Trump: Latino Kids Pound Racism Like a Pinata,” the director of the video, Luke Montgomery insisted that:
“The adorable and articulate kids in the DeportRacism.com video are using bad word for a good cause. What’s more offensive? A four-letter word, or a Republican presidential frontrunner who is calling Mexican immigrants ‘rapists’ and ‘drug dealers’ and referring to American-born U.S. citizen kids as “anchor babies” and talking of changing the constitution to strip them of their legal rights as Americans?”
Well, most of us were raised not to use bad words for good causes or bad causes. Even those of us raised differently, were overwhelmingly raised not to use “adorable and articulate kids” — or any kids — to convey our vulgar ideas or statements.
Not only does Montgomery appear unable to distinguish good and bad actions, he also seems unable to distinguish between good and bad press. He insisted “It’s the reason so many media outlets are talking about it and the message from the Latino kids about Trump’s racism is being heard in a great way.” Here’s a flash for you, Luke, the press is about you and your organization . . . not Trump’s message. You have given Trump precisely what he could only have dreamed: taking the high ground and portraying his critics in the worse possible light. The offer of $5,000 reward to anyone who disrupts this week’s “Saturday Night Live” episode produced the same bad press not just for the group but all of Trump’s critics. That is quite a success story for Montgomery and his group.
According to conservative sites, this is the same person who previously went by the “Luke Sissyfag” and used other videotapes of profane performances by children. What is fascinating is that this guy is everything that his critics could want in a foul-mouthed, disgusting advocate. What I cannot understand are the parents who lent their children to be used in this way. Likewise, there are clearly donors who think that this is a productive way to engaging Trump on the immigration policy debate.
Here is the video if you have the stomach for it:
ForgotwhoIam writes, ““Natural born citizen” is born in the U.S. of parents who are citizens. . . .”
Natural born means you were dropped on American soil by your mother, no matter her legal status.
OMG, somebody said Marco Rubio.
Don’t get me started.
Rubio’s parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.
Rubio was born in 1971; his parents were naturalized in 1975.
Marco Rubio is not a “natural born citizen.”
Rubio, Cruz and Obama are not eligible to be President.
“Natural born citizen” is the requirement for President.
“Citizen” is the requirement for Congress and Senate.
“Natural born citizen” is born in the U.S. of parents who are citizens.
“Citizen” is born in the U.S. of one parent or naturalized.
The Washington/Jay Letter, 1786, raised the requirement for the presidency to
“natural born citizen” from “citizen” as a “strong check” against foreign
allegiances by the “Commander In Chief.”
************************************************************************************************
Section 1, Article II, U.S. Constitution
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States.”
*******************************************************************************************
“Law of Nations”
“…born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in
its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights.”
***********************************************************************************************
Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Charles Dumas of the Netherlands for sending
him 3 more copies of the newest 1775 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations
Another founder of our nation and framer of our Constitution, Benjamin
Franklin, was also quite familiar and well versed with the writings of
Vattel. He had his own personal copy prior to the advent of the Revolution.
And in 1775 he wrote to Charles Dumas an editor and journalist in the
Netherlands and thanked him for sending Franklin 3 copies of the newest
edition of Vattel (published in French). Franklin commented to Dumas that
his personal copy was in heavy demand by the other delegates to the
Continental Congress meeting in 1775. Dumas was the Editor for the newly
published 1775 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations (in the original French)
in the Netherlands. Franklin and most of the founders were fluent in French
which was the diplomatic language of that time. Dumas also made comments in
his writings to Franklin about Vattel’s enlightened writings and vision for
a new form of government for a nation where the people were sovereign and
the unique opportunity for its application to the affairs in America in the
colonies splitting from Great Britain. The words found in our Declaration of
Independence mentioning the “Laws of Nature” and the phrase
mentioning unalienable rights such as “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”
are right out of Volume 1 of Vattel. As are the words of seeking a more perfect
union in the Preamble of our Constitution were also inspired by the
teachings and writings of Vattel who wrote that government should always be
striving to perfect itself to better serve the people. Thus it is quite
evident that the founders read and used Vattel extensively. Here is a
reprint of the letter from Franklin to Dumas thanking him for sending the
books.
forgotwhoiam; check out http://www.birtherreport.com/ I look at this site every day praying for a ray of light in the darkness.
This type of vitriolic anti candidate advertisement and the using of children to spout obscenities is going to greatly backfire. Those who might be on the fence about allowing millions of illegal aliens to invade the country are getting an earful and eye opening look into the aggressive nature of some of the illegals and flagrant flaunting of the laws.
Those on the fence might be concluding that Trump actually does have a point.
BTW: Trump did not say that all of the illegals are criminals, rapists etc. Most are trying to get a better life and are more than happy to jump onto the gravy train of social benefits. Who can blame them. If there is free candy, why should anyone turn it down. However, it is undeniable that many of the illegals ARE criminals and are committing crimes while illegally in the country. Multiple crimes and are on the catch and release program. Just ask the family of Kate Steinle.
Either we have laws in this country or we don’t. If we don’t have laws that hold illegal aliens accountable, why should any of the rest of us obey the laws.
Either we are a country with borders or we are not. If we don’t enforce our laws or enforce our borders then what is the point of the United States?
Again…Why should any of us respect the law or obey the laws?
DBQ writes, “Either we are a country with borders or we are not. If we don’t enforce our laws or enforce our borders then what is the point of the United States? Again…Why should any of us respect the law or obey the laws?”
I agree mostly, and it’s hard to see the fairness in someone going through the bureaucratic tape for a year or four to immigrate here when another just drives through in the correct lane given by a coyote who’s paid off a CBP officer.
On the other hand, take Syrian refugees who’ve recently fled their homeland. WE caused it. Not Russia, not ISIS, not Iran. WE did. Syria was a stable country until we started arming insurgents, and ISIS is an outgrowth of our war to find the known unknown commodity called WMD. I think we have as much responsibility for accepting refugees as anyone.
For the same reason, we have a responsibility to Latin America. And I do not agree with the assertion that immigrants are somehow different. Our immigration policy shouldn’t be wealth or work prioritized. Human beings are the same. First come; first served.
stevegroen,
Here’s an eye opening article by Jon Rappaport. The endgame is in sight and only WE can stop it.
Sweden: test case for the new utopia
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/sweden-test-case-for-the-new-utopia/
Is it acceptable to mention Globalism here? In light of the TPP and countless other world events that are common knowledge I hope that the ostrich’s don’t come out of sand squawking, “She’s a conspiracy theorist! She’s a conspiracy theorist!” Because let’s face it; anyone who’s not is really confused at this point.
Using children where they shouldn’t be (racial marches, looting) is bad parenting. When a young child watches his father looting a store what message is he getting? Jehova’s Witnesses often have children knock on your door. Black Lives Matter marches including children can be dangerous. Politics is an adult’s interest. Leave children out of it.
Paul – I’ve been to jury duty twice, and served once. They never asked that question. Also, that is kind of a moot point if the entire potential jury pool is aware and *educated* about it. This is another aspect of public school failures- civics. Lets say they did screen out jurors who were informed about nullification. If enough people know about it, the prosecution and defense use up all their strikes and knowledgeable people will sit on the jury anyway.
Four boxes of democracy, right? The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, the cartridge box. WE the people have the power. Like so many commentators agree – education is key.
The real problem with jury nullification is not enough people have been educated about it. During my jury time, I informed the rest of my group about it. We did not nullify that case, but everyone was intrigued and open minded, and I hope some of them went home and researched further.
Steg; check out The Citizens Rule Book; Bill of Rights Jury Handbook. Buy a bunch and hand them out if you can afford it. http://store.infowars.com/Citizens-Rule-Book_p_82.html
What’s the big deal. These “dreamers” are typical pro-illegal immigration types who have nothing but contempt for our laws and an endless sense of entitlement. They just gave us the courtesy of revealing how they really feel. Don’t be mad at them for telling the truth.
Terrible to use children this way. Teaching them WHAT to think, not HOW. This has potential to cripple their minds for their entire lives- as they will never question their positions.
I am torn on these law breaking comments. I am a pretty conservative guy, and I advocate for (Judas Priest) Breakin’ The Law, breakin’ the law. IF – the law is unconstitutional, or just doesn’t apply. Like for instance, no turn on red. I ignore these when there is no traffic but me. I have also carried my pocket knife to high school every day, in plain sight, strapped to my pocket. Four years of this, without incident (save for when my dad caught me out the door and snagged it from me- not that often).
As far as NJ goes, we have a terrible reputation for a lot of stuff, but we have a great talk radio station: 101.5. The other day- one of the radio personalities had a commercial running advocating jury nullification- in it’s truest sense- and gave an example about a woman who had done nothing wrong but was sentenced under our draconian laws anyway. The ad said this would have been a great place for the people to wield their jury box power.
I think most people have noticed – what’s right and what’s legal are often at swords points. Although I am not excusing skirting our immigration system. That’s no equivalent to my examples. It’s just, that as a law breaker, I believe I hold a moral high ground (as I don’t instigate my life or choices on anyone).
American exceptionalism is embodied by immigrants who come here the right way, learn our language, adapt to our culture in public, and preserve their heritage in private. This allows them to span the gap between the old world and new, with the new being full of opportunity for anyone willing to work hard and seize it. It’s harder when you don’t speak English. Immigrants knew this back in the day.
Steg – the problem with jury nullification is that it is one of the questions asked of juries. So, if you would be the type prone to lead a run-away jury, you will be struck by somebody, even the judge.
Steve,
I’m not clear on what you are asking me to answer. Yes, the rule of law is not to be subordinated to the rule of men. I don’t care what example you want to provide that demonstrates that principle has been violated; I stand with the principle on not with the violator.
“Do you think the US had any part in the depraved third-world environment in Mexico and Central America over the past 150 years?” It would ignorant to believe the answer to be no. That being said, so what? Are you implying because we have contributed to the lawless cultures within other countries that we are somehow obligated to accept it in ours?
“Are we really a nation putting politics above human life, when it could very well be that the cause for emigration from Mexico and Central America is ours?” I wouldn’t say nation, but I would absolutely say government. Any study of history proves this is exactly what governments do and of course we were duly warned by the framers of our Constitution about this. This may be familiar to many:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
“Do immigrants have to kneel to this fiction called American Exceptionalism?” I checked out our immigration laws and no, kneeling is not required.
Olly writes, “‘Do you think the US had any part in the depraved third-world environment in Mexico and Central America over the past 150 years?’ It would ignorant to believe the answer to be no. That being said, so what? Are you implying because we have contributed to the lawless cultures within other countries that we are somehow obligated to accept it in ours? . . . ‘Are we really a nation putting politics above human life, when it could very well be that the cause for emigration from Mexico and Central America is ours?’ I wouldn’t say nation, but I would absolutely say government. Any study of history proves this is exactly what governments do and of course we were duly warned by the framers of our Constitution about this.”
We’re not obligated to accept lawlessness of immigrants. What we’re obligated to accept though are those whose culture we detrimentally contributed to. I sense you see no connection between what’s going on in the Middle East and what has happened in Mexico, and Central and South America. Our policy has always been about empire and protecting wealth-based US interests in those countries and more recently about destabilization with control by proxy as the objective. “[L]awless cultures” you call them, but our contribution has been the cause of the lawlessness I think we have a duty to protect those who we’ve harmed.
I would say those who support never-ending wars since WWII are as responsible for putting politics above human life as any government we’ve had. Why? Because they’re made up of those who control Congress and those who blindly follow them. And we all know who they are:
“‘The really dangerous American fascist… is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. . . . They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.’ ― Henry A. Wallace, as quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944”
Best regards.
Dave, you say “Donald Trump is bribery personified: he’s admitted — buoyantly — to buying favor with politicians and therefore having his voice rise above all other constituents of said politicians. And now he wants those same voters to vote for him, because he’s not able to be bought.
Am I missing something?”
Yes, you are missing something. Trump is akin to having a highly skilled hacker working on legitimate cyber security. He’s the only one in a position to know the weakness of the system.
“He’s essentially taking a stand against himself, with such stupidity that it drowns out what should be his disqualifying hypocrisy.”
No, he’s not. He’s simply elevated his investments in other than himself via his company, employees, and family. At the age of 60+ he’s grown up a bit. He has a young child and probably grand children. It was the USA that made him rich and famous. Call it a love affair and it’s dying before his and all of our eyes. Is he the savior? No. but he’s making a lot of waves that beg to be made.
Study enneagram personality types if you want to understand him better. He’s an 8 with a 7 wing; in the average range. He’s a “what you see is what you get” type of person. At least there’s no hidden agenda.
Three generations of imbeciles are enough! Where did I hear that? On this blog for sure. I looked it up on Google and one of your commentors with last name Holmes wrote it in a Supreme Court decision many years ago.
Sweden: test case for the new utopia:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/sweden-test-case-for-the-new-utopia/
“This is the perception the Globalists hope to engender: “When we look at Germany, France, Sweden, England, and parts of the US, we no longer see the old homogeneous population. Therefore, why call them separate nations? Why should they have borders? Why should they have immigration quotas? There are no immigrants. There are only ‘world citizens.’ Given that fact, they all must be governed as One, from an elevated management platform…”
How did we get to a point where we accept a violator of our laws to turn that violation into a public right? If any parent in this country violates the law they are subject to potential incarceration and the loss of custody of their children. However, when someone knowingly violates our immigration laws they are rewarded with benefits. Additionally, the plea to protect the rights of U.S. citizen children to not be deported along with their parents is completely missing the obvious choice the law-violating parents are allowed to make. Instead of locking them up within the United States and thus turning the children over to CPS or legal resident family, they still have the choice, THEIR CHOICE, of leaving their children behind or taking them with them. The State did not put these children in this predicament, their own parents have. If these children should be flipping anyone off it’s their parents.
‘Dear Mom and Dad, thanks for the opportunity you provided me and my siblings to be U.S. citizens, but we have learned in OUR country that nobody is above the rule of law. You need to follow the law and stop using us as pawns. Because of your unwillingness to follow the law, you are jeopardizing our status in OUR own country. If you have to (and you should) leave MY country to then try to become citizens of OUR country, please choose to leave us with family or friends. If this is really about giving us a better life then you should easily accommodate our wishes. Give us the choice to either join you in your return to YOUR country or to remain in OURS. Love, your U.S. citizen children.
Olly: True. Laws are not made to be broken. Why did Reagan permit amnesty in 1986? Do you think the US had any part in the depraved third-world environment in Mexico and Central America over the past 150 years? Are we really a nation putting politics above human life, when it could very well be that the cause for emigration from Mexico and Central America is ours?
And, though I don’t agree with it, even if the photo is legitimately from a pro-immigration group, is it only US citizens that get to be cocky? Do immigrants have to kneel to this fiction called American Exceptionalism?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The “Marco Rubio’s son” comment shows just how classless the left can be!!
wwd, You hit the nail on the head. Remember, the professional conspiracy theorists are left wing wackos Oliver Stone and Michael Moore. There is not a shred of truth. Just throw the conspiracy out there. They are hilariously imitating their professional slimer, James Carville. They don’t realize Carville and Rove are cut from the same cloth.
The biggest mistake Deportracism.com made was to treat Donald Trump as if he were a serious contender for president.
BFM: Good point. I hadn’t thought of Rove-styled tactics, but it makes me reserve judgment. Why would anyone in a vulnerable immigrant’s position want to piss off the anti-immigration crowd any more than they already are? That’s not Marco Rubio’s son in the photo, is it?
LOL. Re: prior responses: True to liberal form, they do something vile and despicable, and then their defenders lie and deny to turn it around and blame conservatives (as liberals so often do)! They can’t own up to the garbage their kind spew– that would confirm the moral bankruptcy of their causes and tactics.
Illegal immigrants are giving a big middle finger eff you to the US.
And Democrats support that.
All in all, a pretty accurate video.
The only problem is that, like the Planned Parenthood videos, the truth was not meant to be seen.
Confirmation of all Trump’s implications.