Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman: “Moon Beam” in a Skirt?

By John W. Lillpop

Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. Which, considering the state of that state, means she is either a glutton for punishment, or delusional, or both.

Whitman runs under the R brand against Democrat Jerry Brown who was elected governor 35 years ago, who was Mayor of Oakland for eight years, and who currently “serves” as California’s Attorney General.

Jerry Brown has been, and continues to be, an over-the-hill public menace that needs to be retired, either voluntarily, or by voters come November.

Unfortunately, Meg Whitman’s views on the crucial issue of illegal aliens are indistinguishable from those of moon beam Brown.

Whitman made that perfectly clear in a recent article titled “Americans Must Come Together to Address the Problem of Illegal Immigration.” (Reference 1).

Excerpts follow:

She said, in part:

“What has bothered Latinos for too long is the harsh rhetoric around the immigration debate. Too often, the debate has-been tinge with hurtful words or worse signaling intolerance to many Latinos.”

The Inconvenient Truth:

The “harsh rhetoric” that Whitman laments is not directed at legal immigration.

Rather, it is the result of the American people reaching the breaking point with the invasion of America by penniless, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking aliens from south of our borders.

The debate is about homeland security, American sovereignty, the rule of law, economic and social stability, and good old fashioned common sense.

The debate is about our nation spending $113 billion a year on millions of aliens who have no business being here, at a time when the national debt is soaring out of control and our nation is broke.

The debate is about the cost of educating illegal aliens, a cost that significantly impedes the ability of educators to provide a quality education for citizens.

The debate is about California spending $20 billion a year on illegal aliens while the state slithers towards bankruptcy.

The debate is about elected officials who refuse to enforce the law.

We Californians are indeed “intolerant”-- when it comes to those who refuse to honor and enforce our borders and laws. We the people have every right to demand that government secure the borders, enforce the laws, and remove illegal aliens through deportation, as provided for in existing law.

If that makes us “intolerant,” then so be it!

She said, in part:

“Former governor Brown seems to share many of my positions on immigration. He is also against Proposition 187 and is opposed to the new Arizona immigration law. It is clear when we examine our positions on immigration, there is little in what Jerry Brown and I are in disagreement.”

The Inconvenient Truth:

Being of the same persuasion as Jerry Brown on any issue should automatically disqualify any alleged Republican from seeking elective office.

Fact is Whitman’s opposition to California’s Proposition 187 is nothing more than hypocritical trolling for votes, a hideous practice most often associated with Democrats.

For the record Prop. 187 was approved by voters with nearly a 2-1 margin. The voter -approved measure was circumvented by a liberal judge and a corrupt liberal Governor (Gray Davis) who broke his campaign promise to honor the will of the people.

Prop. 187 would have denied benefits to illegal aliens. The idea was to take away the incentive for invaders to come to California in the first place.

Take away the free health care, food stamps, education, housing and other welfare items paid for by taxpayers, and the flow of illegal aliens across the border would slow to a mere trickle.

Whitman’s opposition to SB 1070 is equally outrageous, particularly for one who claims to be opposed to illegal invasions.

She and others claim that these laws are unacceptable because they are “divisive.” And 20-40 million illegal aliens among us is not?

She said, in part:

“We must find a fair and practical solution to the status of the millions of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.”

The Inconvenient Truth:

Undocumented immigrants, Ms. Whitman?

Use of that misleading term is a sure indicator of terminal fogginess on this issue.

Indeed “undocumented immigrant" is intended to deliberately skirt the issue of criminal invasion.

The fact is that illegal aliens Are NOT immigrants!

Migrating to America (legally) is, and should be, a long, drawn-out procedure meant to protect the interests of American citizens. It involves more than simply jumping a fence and heading north in pursuit of free health care, education, food stamps and other handouts paid for by taxpayers.

Legal immigration means enduring rigorous hurdles like background checks to detect a criminal background or possible ties to terrorists.

It means medical examinations to detect diseases still prevalent in third-world nations, but long since eradicated here, and

It means proof of financial solvency so as to prevent newcomers from becoming a burden on U.S. taxpayers.

Those who have jumped the fence into America in order to avoid our immigration checks are not immigrants.

In truth, people who come here illegally leave America vulnerable to undetected crime, terrorism, disease, and financial devastation. And they have no legal or moral justification for being here.

Why engage in silly word games and euphemistic cover-ups?

People here illegally are illegal aliens and need to leave, or be deported, as provided for in existing law.

Bottom Line:

Meg Whitman’s “moon beam” position on illegal aliens means that she is not Republican and not conservative. Not even close.

Vote for Whitman just because of the R next to her name?

No, and hell no!

Reference 1: