Liberal Hypocrisy in Academia Targets Condi Rice

Condi Rice Condoleeza Rice Rutgers University

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice

by Bob Quasius – Liberals in academia are at it again! A year after Condi Rice accepted an invitation to speak at Rutger’s commencement ceremony, liberals launched a nasty smear campaign to humiliate Condi Rice, seeking to force Rutgers to withdraw the invitation.

How dare this intelligent and successful conservative black woman invade sacred liberal turf!

The Rutgers University administration bravely refused to buckle to pressure. However, in the end Condi Rice decided to put the graduating students’ interests ahead of her own, and bowed out gracefully. She showed us once again that she is a class act. Her statement from her Facebook page puts Rutgers liberals to shame:

“Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time. I am honored to have served my country. I have defended America’s belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. These values are essential to the health of our democracy. But that is not what is at issue here. As a Professor for thirty years at Stanford University and as it’s former Provost and Chief academic officer, I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way. Good luck to the graduates and congratulations to the families, friends and loved ones who will gather to honor them.”

It’s not hard to see why Rutgers wold want Condi Rice as their commencement speaker. She’s an awesome speaker! Her commencement speech at SMU was both inspiring and uplifting, as all commencement keynote speeches should be.

It’s also not hard to see why she gracefully bowed out. Commencement is for the graduating seniors, not the speakers. At Princeton University she gave the commencement speech despite objections from liberals, and the result was noisy protests by hundreds.

Princeton University Condi Rice

Noisy Protest at Condi Rice Speech, Princeton University , 2005

A similar speaking engagement at Boston University likewise drew protests, and one professor even quit.

What was Condi Rice’s offense?

Rutgers liberals demanded the university administration un-invite her in order to humiliate her. What was Condi Rice’s offense that merited public humiliation? The Rutgers Faculty passed a resolution demanding Rutgers un-invite Condi Rice, including phrases like:

“played a prominent role in his administration’s efforts to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the existence of links between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime”, ”

“the lies thus promoted led to the second Iraq war, which caused the death of over 100,000 men, women and children, and the displacement of millions of others.”

“as a public institution of higher learning, should educate its students about past historical events, not pretend they never took place,”

“Rutgers “should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.”

Did Condi Rice Lie About Iraq?

Condi Rice has often been excoriated by liberals for “lying” about Iraq, but did she really intentionally lie? In an interview with NPR in 2011 she admitted she was wrong:

“The intelligence was as clear as any intelligence I’ve ever seen and I’ve been in this business a long time. … When you had intelligence assessments that said Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his biological and chemical weapons and could reconstitute his nuclear weapon in a year if he got foreign assistance — by the end of the decade if he didn’t — I’ve actually never seen clearer indications than that.”

“The problem is, the intelligence wasn’t right.”

However, there’s a huge difference between repeating bad information from others and deliberately lying, as the Faculty resolution states. The National Security Adviser and Secretary of State don’t produce intelligence information; they consume intelligence produced by the intelligence community. Condi didn’t make up lies about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction; she repeated what she was told by the intelligence community.

Moreover, at the time there was certainly a credible belief that Iraq had WMDs as Saddam Hussein had used WMDs in the past, constantly obstructed UN inspectors, and constantly mentioned WMDs in secret communications with his leadership.

Apparently either Saddam Hussein himself believed he still had WMDs or he wanted others, principally the Iranians, to believe he still had a WMD stockpile. There are also credible theories Saddam’s WMDs were quietly sent to Syria for safekeeping.

Is Condi Rice a politician?

The Daily Targum, Rutgers student newspaper, opined those with ‘questionable politics’ should not be invited as commencement speakers. In fact the editorial said they don’t want politicians as commencement speakers at all. ‘Questionable politics’ is liberal doublespeak for “conservative” and moreover politicians are often invited as commencement speakers.

Where was the The Daily Targum and Rutgers Faculty when Elizabeth Warren and other liberals were commencement speakers? Elizabeth Warren is certainly a politician with baggage after misrepresenting herself as Native American to gain affirmative action benefits in academia.

Who gets to decide whose politics are questionable? Condi Rice is widely respected, and has often been prodded to run for public office. However, she’s adamant she doesn’t enjoy politics, explaining:

“I didn’t run for student council president. I don’t see myself in any way in elected office. I love policy. I’m not particularly fond of politics.

She’s widely admired in Republican circles and would have been a slam dunk as Mitt Romney’s running mate, but she wasn’t even on the list because she didn’t want to run. She’s willing to help Republican candidates in an advisory role, but she is totally disinterested in running for public office.

So Why the Controversy?

Controversy about commencement speakers is nothing new. A survey by the Young America’s Foundation found of the top 100 universities listed by U.S. News and World Report, 62 have selected liberal commencement speakers and only 17 selected conservatives (the ideological leanings of the rest was unclear). Clearly, not many universities are willing to invite conservative commencement speakers!

However, usually conservatives are targeted for protests, though there are exceptions. Obama himself was once targeted, not long after becoming president, but by students, not faculty.

Hillary Clinton has been a commencement speaker numerous times, but how often has academia complained? Hillary Clinton has been embroiled in numerous major scandals, such as Whitewater, turning $100,000 profit on a $1,000 commodities investment despite 1:250 million odds and no knowledge whatsoever of commodities investments. Add to this TravelGate, Vince Foster, and Benghazi and it’s plainly evident Hillary has monumental scandal baggage.

Now why don’t we hear Academics objecting to Hillary Clinton commencement speeches? Answer: she’s a liberal and so too are most academics. Rutgers in particular is a notorious  bastion of liberalism in a deep blue state. Ditto for Princeton and Boston University, the scene of other Condi Rice commencement protests.

The truth about Condi Rice

Condi Rice has enjoyed an extraordinary career in academia and in public service. She obviously is extremely bright, as evidenced by earning her PhD in international relations at age 21, despite all the disadvantages of growing up in Birmingham during segregation. She is probably one of our brightest ever Secretaries of State.

This quote reflects Condi’s outlook in life and awesome success despite her humble origins and status as a minority woman:

“The essence of America – that which really unites us – is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion – it is an idea – and what an idea it is: That you can come from humble circumstances and do great things.”

There are no major scandals in Condi Rice’s past, and in the one legitimate are of criticism about the Iraq war she repeated information from others, and in my honest opinion she was misled. At least she’s honest enough to admit she was wrong. However it’s obvious she was misled.

So what? We’ve all been misled at some point in our lives. Does that make her any less of a success story? Not hardly! In truth, she’s a conservative and extremely successful black woman, and that upsets liberal notions of victimhood. It’s no coincidence conservative women and minorities often complain about the unduly harsh scrutiny and criticism they receive from liberals.

Can we get Condi Rice back as Secretary of State?

Sadly, since Condi Rice left office our foreign policy has been in full meltdown. Major wars are brewing in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are two of the worst secretaries of state in U.S. history. Hillary Clinton’s tenure was truly “amateur hour” at the State Department, and John Kerry is proving just as inept.

I would love to see Condi Rice back at the helm at the State Department. However, there’s not much chance Condi will return as long as our incompetent-in-chief, Barack Obama, is president.

Editor’s Note: reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link.

####

Bob Quasius is the president and founder of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Sooper Mexican is Symptomatic of a Bigger Problem with Conservatives

by Bob Quasius – Recently there’s been a controversy swirling around Sooper Mexican and his profane tweets on Twitter, which resulted in a Latino Rebels critique “Where Have You Gone Sooper Mexican?”

sooper mexican

Sooper Mexican has no class at all!

Eva Longoria

Eva Longoria – a liberal with much more class than Sooper Mexican

Sooper Mexican savagely attacked Cafe Con Leche Republicans for our support of immigration reform, for example calling us “maricones” (“homosexuals”) and “pendejos”, a particularly vulgar word never used in polite conversation (rhymes with “grass” and “poles”). Sooper Mexican’s vulgarity from behind a WWF style mask of anonymity embarrasses all conservatives, not just Hispanic conservatives.

Last October, Cafe Con Leche Republicans skewered Eva Longoria for her vulgar tweet calling any woman or minority “stupid” for voting for “racist/misogynistic” Mitt Romney. Unlike Sooper Mexican, Eva Longoria deserves credit for promptly apologizing for her retweet, a mistake she hasn’t repeated.

We don’t agree much with Eva Longoria’s politics, but she’s worked tirelessly on immigration reform. People on both sides of the aisle need to work together on finding practical solutions to difficult issues. Eva Longoria has shown us she has class; we can’t say the same for Sooper Mexican.

A vigorous debate over immigration reform is nothing new and should be welcomed. A healthy democracy hammers out solutions on the anvil of controversy. There are Republicans on both sides of the immigration debate who work hard and interact respectfully with their opponents.

“The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20% traitor.” – Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan 80% 20% rule

Ronald Reagan had class

Various polls peg Republican support for immigration reform including a path to citizenship at 75%, but ironically it’s a shrill part of the 25% opposition that accuses the 75% majority of being RINOS, traitors, etc., and drives many moderates in Congress to the sidelines on immigration reform.

“If you can’t win elections, you can’t govern.” – Rick Perry

Historically Republicans have always found the ‘big tent’ concept a winning strategy. In Reagan’s ‘big tent’ not all Republicans need to march ‘lock step’ on every issue, but as long as Republicans are ‘in step’ on most issues, we can come together to win elections, and iron out policy differences later.

However, how can Reagan’s ‘big tent’ work when someone is machine gunning others inside that ‘big tent’? I cannot recount how many times I have been called a “RINO”(Republican in Name Only), “open borders liberal”, “traitor”, “treasonous”, “Obama lover,” “progressive,” “illegal immigration supporter”, and countless other insults because I support immigration reform over mass deportations.

Sooper Mexican represents a disturbing trend that sadly, has taken hold in the Republican Party: the lack of civil political discourse. Bloggers, radio show hosts, and even many elected officials have seen personal benefit in polarizing and demeaning anyone who disagrees with them, and creating conflict to generate attention for themselves.

This lack of civility isn’t just directed to Democrats or liberals; as we have seen first-hand, fellow Republicans are unfairly being labeled RINOS, and in our case, subjected to profane treatment. It may generate more readers for their blog or support for their personal political ambitions in the short term, but in the long run, it undermines the party and alienates average Americans who would vote Republican but are repulsed by their behavior.

Sooper Mexican’s views on immigration are representative of just 8% of Hispanics, but his willingness to toe an ideological line has made him popular among some conservatives, especially the tea party.

Recent years have been difficult for Hispanic Republicans, as the rhetoric and demand for strict ideological purity on immigration has driven many from the party. Moreover, Democrats seek to put women and minorities into ideological boxes and criticize any woman or minority who strays from their box, which is just as unfair.

“Latinos are Republicans — they just don’t know it yet.” – Ronald Reagan

Hispanics have low turnout rates at election time and are under-represented on voter rolls. Rhetoric from both parties suppress voting by conservative Hispanics, which skews election results towards the left and reinforces the false narrative that Hispanics, and especially Hispanic immigrant, are natural Democrat voters, when poll after poll by Pew Research shows over 60% of Hispanics are center-right.

Editor’s Note: originally posted at Fox News Latino – original link.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Obama on Iran Nukes: “If you like your nukes you can keep them. Period.”

The Iran Nukes Deal and the 1938 Münich Pact

by Bob Quasius – In a move reminiscent of the 1938 Münich Pact that appeased Hitler by serving up part of Czechoslovakia, the Obama administration agreed to a bad deal on Iran Nukes to appease Iran.

Neville Chamberlain Adolf Hitler iran nukes czechoslovakia

Neville Chamberlain offers up Czechoslovakia as appeasement to Adolf Hitler

I use the term “appeasement” because Iran gave up little of any substance in return for a deal, while the U.S. and other great powers allowed Iran to keep their enrichment capability and heavy water reactor, and partially lifted economic sanctions and freed up frozen assets badly needed by the Iranian economy.

As in 1938, politicians needed diplomatic success to distract attention from domestic woes at home. Europeans were understandably war weary twenty years after the great war, and frightened by Hitler’s bellicose rhetoric.

With Obama’s Obamacare “train wreck” and leadership failures on immigration reform, he needed a diplomatic success at any cost. There’s also been a lot of bellicose rhetoric coming from Iran and it’s allies lately.

Obama has long been hostile towards Israel, and no doubt felt no need to protect Israel’s self-defense needs.

Lesson of the 1938 Münich Pact

In response to increasingly bellicose rhetoric about Czechoslovakia from German Füher Adolf Hitler, the great powers convened in Münich to find a diplomatic solution. Czechoslovakia was invited to early talks, but purposefully not invited to the final negotiations.

It’s obvious that British Chamberlain and the other great powers wanted a deal at any cost. Europe was still mired in the great depression and the memory of World War I deeply scarred the minds of many Europeans. Clearly Chamberlain and the others wanted a diplomatic success to distract attention from economic problems at home.

“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again.” – Neville Chamberlain, 1938

Hitler was all too willing to meet Chamberlain’s political need to agree to anything to “win peace”, and demanded that Czechoslovakia hand over the Sudetenland region to Germany. Not surprisingly Czechoslovakia refused. After the Münich Pact was signed – without Czechoslovakia – Neville Chamberlain bragged how he saved world peace.

The rest is history. Czechoslovakia’s frontier defenses were nearly all located in the Sudetenland, and the Czechs lost their capability to defend against the inevitable German aggression six months later. Germany also occupied Austria and the Ruhr without ever firing a shot.

11 months later Germany invaded Poland, miscalculating that England and France had no stomach for war.

Appeasement by England and France also encouraged Russia to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany, then turn on it’s neighbors Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

The Pretext for Iran Nukes

Iran has always claimed it needs nuclear power for its economy. However, Iran virtually floats on a sea of oil. Moreover, nations can buy nuclear plants and fuel from elsewhere without the need to develop their own nuclear energy technology.

To acquire nuclear power plants, nations must sign and follow the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran signed the NPT before the Ayatollahs came to power, but was caught red handed with a secret Uranium enrichment program in 2003 and remained in constant non-compliance ever since. Russia has sold Iran nuclear plants and fuel despite Iran’s refusal to abide by the NPT.

Nuclear reactors require low enriched Uranium of about 3.5% enrichment. Once Iran achieved the capability for low enriched Uranium, Iran quickly began work on 19.5% highly enriched Uranium, claiming Iran needs medical isotopes. However, medical isotopes are readily available for purchase on world markets, and producing medical isotopes requires technological mastery well beyond the capability of Iran.

There are only two other reasons for a nation to produce highly enriched Uranium:

  • Nuclear weapons.
  • Nuclear powered warships use highly enriched Uranium for more compact nuclear reactors. However, Iran lacks a blue water Navy, and thus doesn’t need nuclear powered ships.

There is just a short step from 19.5% highly enriched Uranium to even more highly enriched Uranium needed to manufacture nuclear weapons, and the same centrifuges that enrich Uranium to 3.5% can be used to make 97% enriched Uranium for nuclear bombs, but it requires large numbers of centrifuges to make enough material for nukes.

The Long Record of Deception for Iran Nukes

Hassan Rouhani iran nukes jew dogs

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani – Deceived West during years of nuclear negotiations

For decades, Iran told the West it wasn’t interested in talks about much of anything.

However, of the past ten years, whenever it appeared Israel or the West was prepared to act militarily to stop Iran’s nuclear program, Iran agreed to talks, then dragged its’feet before talks finally happened, and offered little of substance at the talks, which always ended with no progress. Meanwhile, Iran bought time to push it’s nuclear program forward without fear of a military strike while talks were upcoming or during talks.

Essentially took a page out of North Korea’s playbook. North Korea bought time with talks, and after agreeing to abandon nuclear weapons development in exchange for aid, developed nukes anyway. When North Korea surprised the world with a nuclear detonation, it was already too late: the ‘train had already left the station.’

Recently Hassan Rouhani was elected President of Iran. Rouhani bragged just a few months ago how he deceived the West for years about Iran nukes, as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.

The West has long vainly sought “moderates” in the Iranian regime, and liberals were ecstatic when Rouhani was elected, wishfully thinking at long last Iran had finally elected a “moderate.”

However, those who embrace Hassan Rouhani as a “moderate” fail to understand Iran’s system of government. The real power in Iran lies with the Ayatollahs, particularly Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei.

Iran’s Council of Guardians has veto power over candidates for public office, and every election vast numbers of candidates are rejected. Only a handful of candidates whose views are close to Khamenei’s are allowed to run. In short, there are NO moderates in Iran’s regime, and any thoughts to the contrary are nothing more than wishful thinking.

This past election cycle, the Council of Guardians rejected the candidacy of former president Rafsanjani, apparently in retaliation for not coming down hard on the Greens during the protests and civil unrest. which made him not extreme enough for Khamenei.

If you think Khamenei is a moderate, then listen to his comments shortly before the Iran nuke appeasement was offered up in Geneva.

 “Zionist officials cannot be called humans, they are like animals, some of them. The Israeli regime is doomed to failure and annihilation.”

Khamenei soon followed his speech with this Facebook post and tweet.

Khamenei jews rabid dogs iran nukes

Ayatollah Khamenei and Hassan Rouhani and the 12th Imam Cult

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Ali Khamenei iran nukes 12th imam mahdi

Ali Khamenei with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both members of 12th Imam Cult

Like Ahmadinejad before him Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani belongs to the 12th Imam Cult. So does Khamenei. Ayatollah Khomeini thought the 12th Imam cult so extreme, even by his standards, that he banned the cult! The Archbishop Cranmer blog aptly describes Rouhani’s 12er views:

“Cleric Hassan Rouhani is a pious man, devoted like all Shias to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam. This President, like the previous one, believes that his government must prepare the country for the Imam’s return. All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days in the company of Isa (Jesus). But President/Cleric Rouhani pledged himself with Ayatollah Khamenei decades ago to work for the return of the Mahdi. Indeed, Iran’s military involvement in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq is purposely designed to agitate against Israel to hasten the Last Day. Iran’s dominant ‘Twelver’ sect believes the Mahdi will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam and descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.”

Members of the 12th Imam cult believe the Mahdi, or hidden Imam, will return after a period of unprecedented bloodshed and create a worldwide caliphate, and that they can create conditions to bring about the Mahdi’s return.

Fanatics and Nuclear Weapons Don’t Mix!

Guess what fanatics with nuclear weapons can do?

Four nukes is sufficient to destroy tiny Israel. Israel has enough nukes to thoroughly damage Iran, a much larger nation. Many Western leaders who still don’t grasp the apocalyptic views of Iran’s leaders assume Iran would never use nukes or give them to terrorists who would.

However, when you listen to their own rhetoric about annihilating Israel and the constant talk about the Mahdi returning to Earth, the threat of a nuclear armed Iran with apocalyptic leaders must be taken very seriously! Just listen to Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN.

http://youtu.be/bMLodt_Dfc0

President Rouhani is cut from the same cloth as Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, and none of them are to be trusted with the capability to produce and deliver nuclear weapons!

War is the Failure of Diplomacy

“All war represents a failure of diplomacy.” Tony Denn, British Labour Party politician (source)

The 1938 Münich Pact was an abject failure, and so too will be the Geneva accords. Has the world forgotten North Korea use the same playbook to build nukes after agreeing not to, in exchange for food and energy aid?

The Geneva accords basically recognized Iran’s right to continue it’s nuclear program, and while certain aspects of Iran’s program are temporarily suspended while a permanent agreement is sought, as always verification is very difficult, and Iran has a long history of refusing to cooperate with nuclear inspectors, and hiding nuclear facilities until revealed by Western or Israeli spy agencies, or by Iranian resistance moles inside the regime.

Like the 1938 Münich Pact, the small nation that was ‘thrown under the bus’ was not invited to the talks but expected to abide by an agreement negotiated by others and fiercely resisted. Czechoslovakia wasn’t strong enough to refuse to abide by the Münich Pact, but Israel is quite a different matter.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned the world the deal being negotiated was a bad deal. Israel has enough military resources that we can fully expect Israel to strike Iran nuclear facilities, and reports are already rampant that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, who rightly fear a nuclear-armed Iran, will work with Israel to make a strike a reality.

Now that diplomacy has so clearly failed, we can expect Israel will waste no more time, and will act, and act decisively. I hope the world is ready for a regional war in the Middle East and South Asia that will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like schoolyard brawl!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and President of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Will The “Keep Your Health Plan Act” Save Us From Obamacare?

by Bob Quasius – I was content to learn this morning from The Hill that the House will schedule a vote  on the Keep Your Health Plan Act (H.R. 3350) for next week! Without this legislation, tens of millions of Americans seem destined to lose their pre-Obamacare individual or employer-based health insurance, through Obama’s administrative chicanery.

The Obama Administration Circumvented the Will of Congress with Administrative Regulations

In all the hoopla leading up to passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, or the “Unaffordable Don’t Care Act” Obama repeatedly made promises like these through 2012:

“We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.” – Barack Obama, June 15, 2009

“Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” – Barack Obama, September 9, 2009

A video from New York Magazine compiles video clips of Obama making this same “keep your health plan” promise 23 times from from 2008 to 2010, even as his administration crafted rules that all but precluded Americans from keeping their existing health plan!

Existing employer and individual healthcare plans were to be grandfathered, per the law passed by Congress.

However, insurance plans change constantly, often in response to regulatory changes at both state and federal levels. The Obama administration promptly wrote Obamacare rules that are tightly written so even the slightest change in an insurance policy makes it ineligible for grandfathering under Obamacare.

Around 19 million Americans are covered under individual insurance policies, and it appears the vast majority of these plans will be cancelled.

keep your health plan actThose unlucky enough to lose the insurance most are satisfied with are forced to purchase insurance that meets the high standards of Obamacare, including coverage for maternity, contraception, etc. If you’re a post menopausal woman who has an individual insurance plan without maternity coverage, you’re in for an unpleasant surprise because you’ll have to buy new insurance that includes coverage you don’t need!

Some employers with strong religious convictions, such as Hobby Lobby, are suing over the contraception mandate of Obamacare, and seem likely to drop health insurance rather than violate their religious convictions.

There are widespread reports that most covered by individual plans will now be forced to pay much higher premiums with much higher deductibles.

The Other Shoe Drops – Most Existing Employer Plans Are Not Grandfathered Either

Kathleen Sebelius keep your health plan act

Kathleen Sebelius tells Congress employer health plans are subject to the same grandfathering restrictions that forced cancellation of millions of individual health plans

Kathleen Sebelius recently told Congress that the same regulations that essentially block grandfathering for individual plans also apply to employer-based plans. Since the vast majority of health insurance not provided by government is through employers, we can expect employers to pay substantially higher premiums. Many employers will simply decide to drop health insurance rather than pay much higher premiums, incurring the Obamacare penalties.

The Obama administration, despite the explicit language of Obamacare, has also decided to defer employer penalties for a year, further incentivizing employers to simply drop health insurance, which confirms the suspicions of many critics that Obama’s real agenda is replacing employer provided health insurance with single-payer, and that Obamacare is designed to fail, setting the stage for single-payer.

Single-payer is like “the holy grail” of liberalism, based on the deeply flawed notion that government can always make things better for us.

The Keep Your Health Plan Act

The Keep Your Health Plan Act, H.R. 3350, was introduced last week by Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman. As of today, co-sponsorship has grown to 88 members, but not a single co-sponsor has a “D” for Democrat after their name. It seems Democrats in Congress are ready and willing to follow Obama off a political cliff next November in mid-term elections. Like so many other worthwhile bills addressing Obamacare, it seems likely to pass the House, but will be ‘dead on arrival’ at the Democrat controlled Senate.

Millions more Americans will lose their health insurance, and given the deeply flawed rollout of Obamacare, it seems likely we will have more uninsured Americans next year than this year. There’s nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act. Many Americans will simply decide its more economical to do without health insurance than pay much higher premiums, with deductibles so high they likely won’t benefit from having insurance unless they have high medical costs.

Guess what happens when health insurance is too costly for healthy people? They stop buying health insurance, leaving the insurance pool with more unhealthy people! Obamacare is predicated upon getting more healthy Americans insured, to help drive down costs for less healthy Americans, and particularly older Americans who naturally have more health issues!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Obama Can’t Keep His Obamacare Lies Straight Anymore!

obamacare lie trainwreck

The Obama administration is in full spin mode about Obamacare lies and failures.

It seems Obama has told so many Obamacare lies he’s having a hard time keeping them straight anymore! Where’s TOTUS (teleprompter of the United States) when you need him!

“We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.” – Barack Obama, June 15, 2009

“Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” – Barack Obama, September 9, 2009

Hear it direct from Obama’s own lips:

Then, in 2010 the IRS and HHS passed regulations that virtually ensured all health care plans would NOT be grandfathered. Anybody who knows anything about health insurance can tell you plans change each year, often in response to regulation requirements at both the state and federal levels. The regulations were written so tightly that if health care plans changed in the slightest, they were no longer grandfathered.

Estimates are there are 19 million health care plans purchased mostly by individuals and small business owners, without the clout to purchase group plans. It appears nearly all of the 19 million individuals will lose their insurance. Most will be forced onto the new Obamacare exchanges, and so far reports are rampant of huge increases in premiums and deductibles.

Now Obama is trying to lie about his lies! The Wall Street Journal is reporting Obama and his aides knew they were stretching the truth all along:

One former senior administration official said that as the law was being crafted by the White House and lawmakers, some White House policy advisers objected to the breadth of Mr. Obama’s “keep your plan” promise. They were overruled by political aides, the former official said.

Obamacare is rapidly turning into the train wreck many politicians on both sides of the aisle have warned about for years. Democratic Senator Max Bacchus, one of Obamacare’s chief architects, warned of the impending “huge train wreck.”

Recently, Senator Bauchus told a radio station:

“Let’s just see how much Humpty Dumpty can be fixed in the next month, and if it looks like Humpty Dumpty’s not getting better together then maybe we should start thinking about delaying the penalties,”

Unfortunately it appears Obama has ‘dug in his heals’ and no repeal or major changes are coming. Let’s see if Democrats in Congress are willing to follow Obama over the cliff during mid-terms next November.

Editor’s Note: reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans, with the author’s permission – original link.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Jimmy Carter Warned Us About Obama!

jimmy carter

Jimmy Carter is smiling – he’s no longer the worst president in history!

by Bob Quasius – Jimmy Carter warned us decades ago about Obama, energy problems, the economy, and the general economic malaise.

Now Jimmy Carter is smiling… he’s no longer the worst president in modern history. Obama has been crowned!

Soon Jimmy Carter’s presidency will be a distant unpleasant memory, while Obama’s presidency will be front and center as an epic failure. Obama is like ‘Jimmy Carter on steroids’!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Obamacare Lie: “keep your healthcare plan.”

by Bob Quasius – Until at least 2012, Obama has been promising that under Obamacare, Americans can keep their health insurance, their doctors, etc.

The Big Obamacare Lies

“We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.” – Barack Obama, June 15, 2009

“Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” – Barack Obama, September 9, 2009

Hear it direct from Obama’s own lips:

Obamacare Lies Exposed

Now, Fox News and other media outlets report the White House knew at least as early as 2010 that ten million or so Americans with individual policies would lose their health insurance, not to mention millions more losing their health insurance when businesses dropped spouses, dropped insurance altogether because the penalty for not providing insurance is less than the cost of the insurance itself, etc.

From the July 19, 2010 IRS 2010 Obamacare regulations:

In the individual market, one study estimated that 40 percent to 67 percent of individual policies terminate each year. Because all newly purchased individual policies are not grandfathered, the Departments expect that a large proportion of individual policies will not be grandfathered, covering up to and perhaps exceeding 10 million individuals.

Obama Obamacare

President Obama – Lied to Americans about keeping doctors and health insurance plans

More than likely, Obama knew from the very beginning, in 2008, that millions of Americans would lose their health insurance. Note the the IRS regulations cited a May 2008 study sponsored by the reputable Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which surely was available to Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in 2008.

Source: Adele M. Kirk. The Individual Insurance Market: A Building Block for Health Care Reform? Health Care Financing Organization Research Synthesis. May 2008. (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)

It’s implausible that Obama didn’t know about this massive loss of health insurance coverage all along. In other words, Obama has lied to the American people for years, in order to push his agenda.

Kathleen Sebelius obamacare train wreck

Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary Responsible for Obamacare train wreck

Kathleen Sebelius should resign, not just for lying, but the sheer incompetence evident in rolling out Obamacare.

The Obamacare train is rapidly turning into a train wreck, from the broken promises to the failed web site. While it’s fair to say that not everything in Obamacare is bad, it’s clear major surgery is needed. The individual mandate should be delayed for at least a year while the program is overhauled, if not repealed outright. Government should never be in the business of forcing consumers to buy a product!

Repeal Obamacare or Overhaul?

There are parts of Obamacare that I believe should be retained, though in some cases modified:

  • Removing barriers to insurance for treatment of pre-existing conditions.
  • Grants to community health centers, 501(c)3 organizations that often rely on volunteers, private grant funds, etc., which in my opinion to a particularly good job of providing health coverage in under-served communities and groups, such as migrant workers, immigrants, etc.

Congress should start from the position of total repeal, then retain the few good parts, rather than attempt to fine tune Obamacare.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Arnold Schwarzenegger for President?

by Bob Quasius – The web site Mediaite is reporting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is considering a run for president, and may challenge the constitutional requirement that presidents be natural born citizens. Quoting an unnamed source:

“Schwarzenegger has been talking openly about working on getting the constitutional rules changed so he can run for president in 2016. He is ready to file legal paperwork to challenge the rules.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger U.S. Citizen President

Arnold Schwarzenegger 1983 Publicity Photo Following His Naturalization

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger Even Eligible?

In a word, no!

When our constitution was adopted, the framers included a requirement that our president be a “natural born citizen.” No definition was provided, strong evidence the term “natural born” was widely understood at the time and the framers believed an explicit definition wasn’t needed. U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 states:

“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.”

The term “natural born citizen” derives from “natural born subject” from English common law. When we won our independence from Britain, all 13 states embraced English common law, except where it conflicted with their new state constitutions.

Obviously any aspect of the monarchy was not included in the new American common law, but other prevailing law, such as tort law and birthright citizenship remained. Not a single state adopted any other definition of  “natural born.” Some states continued to use the term “subject” and “citizen” interchangeably for a years.

Under the articles of confederation, the new United States of America had a weak central government, and strong state government. Immigration, citizenship, etc. were state matters.

Blackstones Commentaries

Blackstones Commentaries

So just what did English Common law say about natural born citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted often until after World War II.

Sir William Blackstone common law birthright citizenship

Sir William Blackstone

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic, though for some years both terms were used. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.  

Additionally, a 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was not born a U.S. Citizen, and so under our present constitution he clearly is not eligible to become president.

Can the Courts or Congress Authorize Arnold Schwarzenegger to Run?

Courts don’t have the authority to rewrite the U.S. constitution, though sometimes they may stretch it (i.e. Roe v. Wade), so any legal challenge in the courts has slim chance of success.

There have been two legislative attempts to expand eligibility to run for president. In 2004, Sen. Don Nickles introduced the Natural Born Citizen Act  to define the term, natural-born citizen, to include people who derived citizenship at birth from a U.S. citizen parent and to children under 18 who were adopted by U.S. citizens.

Derivative citizens are born outside the U.S. to citizen parent(s). They are U.S. citizens at birth and thus natural born citizens, though they are not birthright citizens. Derivative citizenship existed in the U.S. prior to independence, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 continued the practice:

” And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

However, it’s quite clear that children born as foreign citizens who later acquire U.S. citizenship by adoption were not born as U.S. citizens, and are not natural born citizens. Has the Natural Born Citizen Act become law this section of the law likely would have been struck down by the courts.

Should Arnold Schwartzenegger Be Allowed to Run?

Arnold Schwarzenegger California Governor

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run, but only if our constitution is amended. No end runs around our constitution. We have enough of that already with Obama!

Our constitution’s framers were concerned that a European noble could be granted U.S. citizenship and then made president, effectively returning America to rule by monarchy. This concern was well founded at the time, as most nations were governed by monarchies, and democracy was very uncommon, though not a new concept since the ancient Greeks had invented democracy. Requiring that a president be a natural born citizen precluded that possibility, since a president would have been born in America, or overseas to two U.S. Citizen parents who had resided in the U.S.

However, the days of monarchy have long been gone. Most of the few remaining monarchies are constitutional monarchies. The possibility of an American monarch are nil in the present era, and so eliminating the natural born citizen requirement and permitting long-term naturalized citizens to serve as president is not without merit.

Our constitution provides a mechanism for amending itself. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003 proposed the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment:

`Article–

`SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

`SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.’.

Should Arnold Schwarzenegger Run for President?

I”m not a huge fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger, though I admire his immigrant success story. He is unquestionably patriotic and loyal to America, and does have considerable support. In my opinion he has too much personal baggage, and didn’t leave California’s government with a solid financial foundation, though it’s fair to say Arnold didn’t inherit a good situation, and California’s Democrats have long held a stranglehold on the legislature!

Still, I don’t think as a nation we should limit ourselves to natural born citizens for president. Arnold Schwarzenegger became a U.S. citizen in 1983, 30 years ago. Someone who has been a naturalized citizen for 20 years or more should have a shot at the presidency.

However, if Arnold Schwarzenegger is seriously planning a legal challenge rather than constitutional amendment, then we cannot help but wonder if he respects our constitution! There’s a proscribed method for changing our constitution, and a court challenge isn’t one of them! Our current president doesn’t respect our constitution, and we certainly want our next president to respect our constitution!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Will Hispanics Kill the Republican Party?

Hispanics

“Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” – Mark Twain

by Raoul Lowery Contreras – In my 23rd year, I met U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) at the University of Oregon. He signed my copy of his earthshaking book, Conscience of a Conservative.

Being a Republican before I was a “conservative” however, I answered the call to arms of my former boss United States Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-CA) to join the fight for the Republican 1964 Presidential nomination on the side of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

I was disappointed when the Goldwater wave overrode Governor Rockefeller for the nomination and further disappointed when Lyndon Baines Johnson overwhelmed Goldwater in November, 1964. The GOP was almost killed by the Democratic wave.

The day after the election, pundits of all sorts pronounced the Republican Party dead, dead forever.

Rest in Peace GOP, November 1964… I was 23.

Fifty years later, I am hearing the same words about the Republican Party being dead. More than 95% of Blacks voted for Obama for racial reasons and that won’t happen again. 73% or so of Hispanics voted for Obama, as well, with higher percentages among Puerto Ricans and Dominicans than among Cubans and Mexican Americans. Will that happen again?

Most of the pundits are ultra-liberal writers/commentators of the mass media. Then there is MSNBC’s Chris Mathews who apparently had an orgasm when Obama won in 2008 (“I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg”).

Are they right? History tells us they are not. Republicans were routed in 1932 but came back in 1938 when they won 81 House seats and 6 new senators, and actually did so in 1952. Republicans just missed in 1960 after 8 years of President Eisenhower.

After the Goldwater defeat, the GOP was declared dead and buried but the GOP came roaring back just two years later around the country and elected Richard Nixon in 1968.

The 1966 midterm elections were a Republican romp just two years after Goldwater was heavily defeated. 47 new Republican House members were elected; 3 new senators, 8 new governors including Ronald Reagan (CA) and George Romney of Michigan and 700 new state legislators.

Nixon was reelected by the greatest victory wave in the country since Franklin Roosevelt, a victory in 1972 even greater than Eisenhower’s second victory in 1956.

Watergate came and the GOP stumbled but would have won the 1976 Election if President Gerald Ford had just received 10,000 more votes in Ohio.

1980 came and Ronald Reagan’s win was so convincing that Jimmy Carter conceded hours before the polls closed in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska.

He did better in 1984. In 1988 George H.W. Bush was elected President and carried forth the Reagan/Bush policies for another 4 years.

The Republican Party is not dead, though Democrat partisans wishfully insist that it is.

For example, the Democrat Latino Decisions (LD) group of Hispanic academics based at the University of Washington has published their projections of a growing Latino electorate and how it feels now and will feel in the future if there is no Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). Despite the fact that it was Democrats led by Harry Reid and Barack Obama that torpedoed the 2006-7 Bush CIR proposal, Latino Decisions tells us that Latinos will blame Republicans even if Obama sits on his hands and allows CIR to die.

More importantly Latino Decisions predicts growing Hispanic electorates in their projections but insist on a static 25% of the Latino vote going Republican in their future scenarios.

That, however, is a faulty assumption that destroys their conclusions of how Latinos will vote. They assume, wrongly, that the GOP Hispanic vote will remain at 25% despite the fact that the Hispanic Republican vote has approached 50 percent in past elections; i.e. Hispanic votes have been documented only since 1968.

Their 25% is based on the Romney Hispanic vote of 2012. Belying that assumption are actual Hispanic votes cast for John McCain — 31% and George W. is credited with 44% in 2004. No one knows how Hispanics voted in 1952 and 56 but we can guess that they voted for their Commanding General just like the rest of America did.

The percentage is the key. But it is not when one uses a static 25% based on an outlier election result of 2012.

We know this, since Hispanic votes have been counted and studied, each Republican that has earned 35% or more of the Hispanic vote has won the Presidency; that includes Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

hispanics juntos con romney

Can Republicans increase their Hispanic vote by a third more than Mitt Romney received in 2012? Fact: Hispanics hold two governorships (Brian Sandoval in Nevada, Susanna Martinez in New Mexico) and, one U.S. Senator named Marco Rubio.

Do pundits and Latino Decisions think that more Hispanics won’t vote Republican in 2016 if one of those three Hispanic political giants is on the Republican Presidential ticket?

If they do, they are blind and/or consider Hispanics to be stupid.

Editor’s Note: reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with the author’s permission – original link

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available at Amazon.com