The President of No – Obama!

By Raoul Lowery Contreras – Former Marines and friends knocked federal government barriers aside so they could visit the iconic and world famous outdoor bronze statute memorializing the raising of the American flag on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima Island in 1945 by six U.S. Marines and one Navy Corpsman. The barriers were placed there across the river from Washington, D.C. on orders from the Obama Administration on “shutdown day.”

Obama shutdown iwo jima memorial civil disobedience

Marine veterans breached the barrycades at the Iwo Jima memorial

Obama Shutdown iwo jima memorial barrycades

Marines reached the summit at Mr. Suribachi at Iwo Jima Memorial

Republican Congressmen and veterans and their friends knocked away barriers put up on Obama Administration orders to block off the outdoor World War Two memorial built by almost $200 million dollars of private money on the first day of the “shutdown,” October 1, the first day of the new fiscal year.

Veterans and friend visitors at the outdoor Vietnam Wall Memorial were turned away from the memorial under orders from the Obama Administration because there is no money authorized for spending.

Vietnam Veterans move barricades barrycades

Vietnam War veterans move barricades at Vietnam war memorial in Washington DC

Parking lots at the privately funded George Washington’s Mt. Vernon Estate, were closed by the Obama Administration on “shutdown” day.

Obama shutdown civil disobedience

“Barrycades” at George Washington’s Home in Mt. Vernon

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid answered why the Senate didn’t vote for a House-passed bill re-funding with “Why save one child with cancer?”

Democrat after Democrat parroted their President – NO NEGOTIATIONS with Republicans. The clock is ticking towards the United States of America led by President Barack Obama defaulting for the first time in world history.

We see the Obama legacy developing in front of our eyes. He would destroy the United States singlehandedly in order to destroy his political opposition.

A fire broke out on Marine Base Camp Pendleton outside Oceanside, California, causing the base Naval Hospital there to be evacuated as were 200 base residential units on Sunday.

On the first day of “Shutdown” the Obama Administration had ordered military commissaries closed. Hundreds of evacuees were taken to church and recreation buildings without supplies that normally would come from commissaries such as diapers for babies, bottled water, food and other things they couldn’t bring with them.

With the base on emergency shut down because of the Saturday/Sunday wildfire, crying babies and small children suffered through hours of isolation and fear. The base fire department wasn’t answering its phones because they are civilian union firemen and they had been essentially shut down while infantrymen fought the fire.

Left untouched by the Obama Administration were golf courses on federal property. Interestingly, the Obama Administration placed barriers on a highway in South Dakota so motorists cannot park on the road shoulders to take photos of Mt. Rushmore. The highway is a state highway.

Obama shutdown Mt. Rushmore

The National Park Service put cones on a state highway to prevent viewing of Mt. Rushmore

The President disappeared for the weekend. The Senate did not meet because senators went home for the weekend, as ordered by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The clock is ticking towards midnight Thursday, October 17th when the country runs out of authority to borrow money.

In the meanwhile, billions of tax revenues are flowing into the Treasury every day, week and month – BILLIONS. As much as ten times needed to pay maturing treasury notes and bonds for ever, thus making default impossible if prioritizing of expenditures are made.

Nonetheless, President Barack Obama keeps speechifying that, never in American history has there been negotiations on potential default. THAT IS A LIE!

During the 1973 Watergate scandal, Senate Democrats refused to pass debt limit increase legislation because they insisted on campaign contribution reform (during the Watergate scandal). They went so far as to filibuster their own Democrat-controlled senate which threatened default. Democrats also controlled the House. Simply put Obama lies about debt legislation.

Moreover, Senator Obama himself voted against increasing the debt limit in 2007 as he declared President Bush practically a criminal or at least a traitor for asking for an increase in debt limit.

He says he won’t negotiate with Republicans.

He won’t negotiate for America. No President in history has refused to negotiate in the face of default or a new recession and a potential worldwide economic earthquake.

The clock is ticking. Will the United State go into default next week? Only President Obama knows for sure.

####

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

Obamacare – The Audacity of Nope

Obamacare Affordable Care Act

Obamacare

 

by Manny Fernandez – It has cost the American taxpayer $634 million to launch the Obamacare web site. I am sorry, but that as a reckless and misleading statement. The truth of the matter is that it has cost the American taxpayer $634 million to launch the Obamacare WEBSITE. The website plagued with major glitches has cost the American taxpayer six times as much as the bid from the private contractor bid for the contract to create the website.

Now, let me ask you something. How come Mark Zuckerberg can make billions launching a website that has hundreds of millions of subscribers without charging them a cent, but the federal government is 600 PERCENT OVER BUDGET launching the portal that is supposed to take Americans that do not have health insurance or are losing their health insurance because their employers have dropped insurance coverage in response to Obamacare? That is correct. The cost to date for a website that does not work is $540 MILLION MORE than the contractor agreed the website would cost.

If you think about it, the Obamacare website is the portal or front porch for Obamacare. So, let’s say you were having a contractor build a $250,000 home for you. Let’s assume that the soft cost line item for the plans was $5,000. Let’s say that the hard cost line items for the front door and the porch you decided would make a nice feature for the home totaled $10,000. What would you do if the contractor who was building the house for you came back to you and said that those line items — which your construction contract provides will cost $15,000 — will cost $90,000 instead. Do you still think your contractor is going to bring the job in on budget?

I think the GOP needs to go all in. I would rather bet the farm on a bold new strategy and give the country an opportunity to recover if a Obama does not play ball than allow Obamacare, as presently enacted, to bankrupt the treasury. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell should agree to end the shutdown and draft a clean continuing resolution that will raise the debt ceiling for six months. They should publicly lobby for the roll-out of Obamacare to be delayed until all of the bugs are fixed. They should also lobby for the assembly of a non-partisan blue ribbon panel of business people and computer nerds who will work together to make recommendations on how to fix Obamacare so that the program:

  1. Provides affordable healthcare for Americans who do not have and cannot currently get healthcare insurance;
  2. Incentivizes Americans to buy healthcare and incentivizes businesses to offer healthcare to their employees; and
  3. Does not create an incentive for businesses to fire employees, cut back their hours or stop hiring them.

I firmly believe that American business people have the ingenuity to make recommendations that will accomplish the laudable goal of providing affordable healthcare for those who cannot currently obtain it without creating a healthcare brothel where the government is the pimp, insurance companies are the hookers and the American taxpayer is getting royally screwed. Instead of using all of the obvious problems with the ACA to make the President look bad, John Boehner should ask for one concession to the end of the shutdown. He should ask for the President to go on national television and promise the American people that he is going to work with Republicans and Democrats to fix the law and agree that the discussions of the blue ribbon panel will be televised. In turn, Boehner and McConnell should promise the American people that they will stand up to both the left and the right in order to do whatever is necessary to fix the glitches in the law.

Like it or lump it, Obamacare is the law of the land. All we can do in a divided government is work together to fix it. The notion that a political party completely devoid of leadership like the GOP — or where what passes for leadership is the Audacity of Nope — is going to be able to overturn a piece of legislation that the President regards as the signature achievement of his administration without a majority in the Senate, absolutely no chance of acquiring veto proof majorities in Congress in 2014, no currently viable Presidential candidate for 2016 and dwindling support for the intransigent ideologues it sent to Congress in 2010 and 2012 is just plain silly. On the other hand, if the GOP demonstrates a willingness to work with the President to fix Obamacare, it will acquire the credibility it needs in order to convince the American public that there is more to this once Grand Old Party than the Audacity of Nope.

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

####

Manny Fernandez is the Florida Director for Cafe Con Leche Republicans

We Must Stop Amnesty! But, is anybody even asking for it?

AmnestyThe battle cry goes far and wide… No Amnesty, No Way, No How! Great! I am with you 1000%. Absolutely no amnesty. But wait, no one is asking for amnesty. So why is it that you hear someone parroting this mantra of “No Amnesty, No Amnesty” every time you turn on talk radio or go to a meeting where anything even remotely connected (or sometimes not even connected at all) to immigration is being discussed? It is the new word for “Shut the hell up!”

You see, the left has been doing this for years. Disagree with something they want and they scream “RACIST!” at the top of their lungs to the offending conservative knowing that because no one wants to be called a racist, you will simply shut up. Well, we all know that quit working a long time ago, but you still hear it from the left.

Now a small group from the loud extreme right has adopted this tactic using the word “Amnesty!” They know that no elected official, or any conservative political candidate wants to, in any way, be associated with the word amnesty so they shout it loudly and often in an attempt to halt any discussion of anything that resembles meaningful reform of our broken system of immigration and border security. What they have accomplished during this time is they have stopped anything from happening that would either secure our borders or do anything about the millions of undocumented people living within our borders. They have left our borders wide open and delivered a virtual amnesty that the causes the continuation of lawless behavior.

Case in point is the Gang of 8 bill from the U.S. Senate. While no where near perfect, it is certainly a good starting point for discussion when the House comes back into session next month. And, it is certainly not amnesty.

Let’s take a look at this video from the Cato Institute which lays out all the steps, background checks, fines, fees and taxes that must be paid by an illegal immigrant before they can even apply for a green card after ten years. I don’t know about you, but if I had to do all of this for a traffic ticket, or any other kind of offense, I don’t think I would feel like I got amnesty…

Like the word racist, let’s save the word amnesty for a case where it truly applies. Let’s give the word back some meaning and power. For those on the extreme right who want to continue screaming “AMNESTY” at every conceivable moment, I would suggest you take a look at MSNBC when they are screaming “RACIST” at every person who dares to criticize Obama’s economic policies. That will give you a real image of just how foolish you sound and how meaningless your argument has become.

Editor’s Note: Re-posted from TexasGOPVote.com with author’s permission – original link.

####

Bob Price

Bob Price

Bob Price is a political commentator for TexasGOPVote.com. He is an expert about issues related to border security and illegal immigration and has expanded to cover stories of local, state and national interest from a Conservative Texas Perspective. He also volunteers with US Border Watch, a civilian volunteer border security organization, as Communications Director. He has been with USBW for over six years. Price is a Life Endowment Member of the National Rifle Association.

Recently, Price became the Texas Director of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. CCLR is an organization established to foster better communication within the Republican party toward immigrants.

Is It Time for a Hillary Clinton Coronation?

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Donna Brazile said if Hillary enters the presidential race, we can expect a Hillary Clinton coronation.

…if Hillary Clinton gets into the race, there will be a coronation of her, because there are so many Democrats who last time around supported her, who I think are anxious to see her back out there again.

Let’s Have a Hillary Clinton Coronation Now…

We shouldn’t wait for the 2016 presidential campaign to begin for a Hillary Clinton coronation. Let’s nominate Hillary Clinton for Queen of Benghazi and worst secretary of state in modern history, for her disastrous job performance as Secretary of State, culminating in the horror of Benghazi, and the cover-up that followed. Her testimony in Congress demonstrated indifference and insensitivity towards our fallen heroes at Benghazi and their grieving families.

Hillary Clinton: What Difference Does It Make?

“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” (Then let them eat cake)
– Marie-Thérèse of Spain, wife of Louis XIV (note: quote often mis-attributed to Marie Antoinette)

Hillary Clinton coronation

Hillary Clinton: “What difference does it make?”

The comment “what difference at this point does it make” reminded me of the complete indifference and contempt European royalty often showed towards their starving masses.

I cannot help but wonder how the survivors and families of our fallen Benghazi heroes felt when they heard this insensitive comment. I’m sure they’re more interested in getting to the truth than Hillary Clinton’s rhetorical gymnastics to evade responsibility and preserve her chance for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton Amateur Hour

I blogged recently about Hillary Clinton’s lack of qualifications for Secretary of State, a job usually filled by those with considerable foreign policy and diplomatic experience, often with cabinet level experience as well. Hillary had none of those qualifications, unless we count sipping tea with foreign first ladies.

Her successor, John Kerry, is only slightly more qualified for secretary of state than Hillary Clinton. He served as chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, not exactly the depth of foreign policy and diplomatic experience needed for secretary of state, but at least more than Hillary Clinton’s. Like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry had also never run a cabinet department, though the State Department is one of the largest departments, with far flung embassies, consulates, and offices in almost every nation.

Bad Secretary of State Appointments Reflect on Obama’s Incompetence

You’d think Obama would have learned that foreign policy and diplomatic experience makes a huge difference for a Secretary of State, but Obama still doesn’t ‘get it.’ Initially, Obama wanted to appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State, but she withdrew after howls of outrage about her own lackluster job performance as UN ambassador, and as Assistant Secretary of State when our embassies in Africa were destroyed.

I’d like to propose another coronation: Barack Obama as the worst president in modern history. Jimmy Carter is smiling now, as he’s been surpassed as the worst modern president. Barack Obama is like ‘Jimmy Carter on steroids.’ Jimmy Carter threw our long time friend and ally the Shah ‘under the bus’, in the process creating conditions that led to the Afghan wars, the Iran-Iraq war, and the two Gulf wars.

One need only watch some of Morsi’s speeches to realize Muhammad Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood represent radical political Islam, hardly a source of moderation. In Morsi’s campaign kick-off rally, Egyptian Cleric Safwat Higazi Launches Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Mursi’s Campaign: Mursi will restore the “United States of the Arabs” with Jerusalem as its capital. Video:

http://youtu.be/QI3wG3loKlA

Obama has thrown Mubarak and several other friends and allies ‘under the bus’ and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take their places. I shudder to think what lies in store during the rest of Obama’s presidency, as conditions have deteriorated in the region, and should remind us of the Balkans just before World War I, needing only a spark to set off a major war.

The sad part about all of this is that the Middle East is burning, Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear terrorist power, and America has lost virtually all credibility in the region. The blog Debka reported recently that Obama called Egyptian military leader Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, but he refused to take Obama’s call. Apparently el-Sisi didn’t want the same dressing down Obama gave Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, when Obama demanded that Mubarak step down. El-Sisi’s staff offered to transfer Obama’s call to interim president Adly Mansour but Obama refused.

For thousands of years in the Middle East, leaders have admired strength, and despised weakness. Obama set a tone of weakness during the first months of his presidency, with an ‘apology tour’ of the world, especially the Middle East. Obama even bowed down to Saudi King Abdullah, which is not the custom.

Hillary Clinton Coronation Obama Saudi King Bow

Obama Bows to Saudi King

Hillary Clinton continued the apology tour by apologizing for a third-rate video posted on YouTube that our government had nothing to do with producing. Initially, Benghazi was spun as a demonstration about the video that spun out of control. The apologies were apparently intended to reinforce the spin that Benghazi was nothing more than a demonstration that turned violent, but conveniently after the election it has emerged there was no demonstration, there was an organized terror attack, and the video had nothing to with the attack, and in fact the video was posted months before the attack. Here’s Hillary Clinton and Obama apologizing for something our government had absolutely nothing to do with, implicitly accepting blame for Muslims who were offended by the video.

The Benghazi Cover-up Has Clinton Fingerprints

The Clinton years were infamous for numerous scandals, and aggressive tactics designed to cover-up these scandals. All of the same trade craft tactics are evident in the Benghazi cover-up, such as intimidation of prospective witnesses, withholding evidence, and constant spin, spin, and more spin.

Two days after the attack the ‘spin cycle’ was in full play when Hillary Clinton testified before a Congressional committee. Rep. Adam Kinzinger told the Washington Times:

“Two days after this attack, we were in a briefing with Hillary Clinton and she screamed at a member of Congress who dared suggest that this was a terrorist attack. Now we find out that while it was happening, they knew it was a terrorist attack.”

Hillary Clinton Coronation as President?

Unfortunately, unless the GOP gets its act together, nominating a good candidate, and growing the base to include many more Hispanic and Asian voters, Hillary Clinton is likely to become the next president and we will indeed have a coronation!

####

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

Hispanics = Republicans? Pretty Much!

The tough prosecuting District Attorney and her husband, lifetime Democrats both, went to lunch with Republican friends and a couple hours later came away exclaiming, “I’ll be damned, we’re Republicans.”

So told New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez to Republicans in 2012. She had discovered a famous quip of former California Governor and U.S President Ronald Reagan, “Latinos are Republican. They just don’t know it yet.”

To understand both Governor Martinez and President Reagan one has to know what the three basic areas of political policy are in the Republican Party.

There are three “legs” that make up the philosophical base of Grand Old Party (GOP) thinking: National Security, Social/family/individual responsibility, and Economics.

Republican Value – National Security

National Security has been a huge element in GOP thinking since December 7, 1941. The Republican 80th Congress created the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the remnants of the World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS) which President Roosevelt created despite his Secretary of State Cordell Hull had declared, “Gentlemen do not read other Gentleman’s mail.”

Democrat mistakes that led to modern Republicans. In 1949 Democrat Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, declared Korea outside the America’s Pacific defense perimeter. Result, North Koreans Communists aided by the Soviet Union invaded South Korea. 34,000 Americans died.

The GOP was successful in nominating and electing General Dwight D. Eisenhower (Ike) President and Richard Nixon Vice President in 1952. Ike ended the Korean War. He created the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy that served the United States well for over 30 years against the Soviet Union. He kept thousands of American troops in Europe and Japan/Philippines/Korea. He kept us out of Vietnam despite the French begging us for help.

Richard Nixon inherited Vietnam, the worst foreign policy mistake of the 20th Century. On his first day in office (January 20, 1969) he ordered troops out of Vietnam where eventually 58,000 Americans died in the amateur Kennedy/Johnson folly. Nixon started the fall of the Soviet Empire by diplomacy with China.

Our real enemy today is Muslim terrorism, not the Soviet Empire which imploded thanks to Republican policies of MAD and intelligent diplomacy. It didn’t hurt that Ronald Reagan started rearming the USA, a policy heavily supported by Hispanics whose individual support was highlighted by more Hispanic military service than in all U.S. History. Today, 20%, one in five Combat Arms soldiers and Marines are Hispanic, almost all Mexican Americans.

Military strength, a strong U.S. Navy and a policy of assistance to varied allies have kept a world-wide American presence in support of American interests throughout the world. That has been Republican policy since 1941. There are, however, isolationists who demand a U.S. pullback to our borders because they don’t believe in our being “Policeman of the World.” Our interests need defending no matter where in the world.

Republican Value – Social/Family/Individual responsibility

Social/Family/Individual responsibility covers a huge swath of American behavior. Abortion, forced birth control, food stamps, welfare, the destruction of family, and federal stripping of 1st Amendment constitutional protections in religion and religious practice are huge issues with Hispanics.

73 percent of Black babies are born out of wedlock, 52% of Hispanic and 30 percent of White babies are also born out of wedlock. This is a disaster. Abortion speaks for itself.
Obama care is forcing religious institutions like hospitals and universities to violate their own beliefs in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Record numbers are drawing food stamps and disability funding and labor participation is at modern lows. Hard work doesn’t count any longer for many, but not Hispanics.

A Safety Net is fine. The Hispanic family, however, is the foundation of civilization; food stamps, welfare and no-growth Democratic policies are destroying the family.

Republican Value – Economics

Economics supported by Republicans include less government intrusion, a fairer tax system for all, less over-regulation, a free labor market and a government that encourages growth, job creation and more domestic energy production.

80,000 pages of tax laws and an Internal Revenue Service that is unfair for political reasons must be corrected in the interest of fairness. President George W. Bush’s tax reforms have been set in concrete despite fervent opposition by Democrats. More needs to be done. A tax code of ten pages will unleash economics which can revitalize the economy more than the industrial revolution did.

Basically, the Republican economics policy is two words: ECONOMIC GROWTH. Target, four or more percent growth.

The military record shows that Hispanics have supported a strong international USA since 1941 (31 Medals of Honor since 1941). President George W. Bush raked in over 90% Hispanic approval when he attacked Afghanistan in 2001. Surveys show that Hispanics are generally pro-life, pro-marriage and are not afraid of hard work. Mexican American labor force participation, for example, is the highest in the country. Hispanics thrive on economic growth because they are workers, hard workers.

Was Reagan right? Yes, Hispanics are natural Republicans!

Editor’s Note: reposted with permission from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – 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

Republicans not RINOs: Immigration Reform a Republican Tradition

Americans and immigrants share the same values of work, family and opportunity. There is no reason to fear the newcomers arriving on our shores today. If anything, they will energize what is best about our country.” – Republican Congressman Jack Kemp

Republican Jack Kemp

Jack Kemp

Many of my fellow conservatives consider Republicans like Marco Rubio and myself as sellouts and RINOs. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we come from a long tradition of conservatives who have led on the issue of immigration and fought for reform.

As Republicans, we are the party of personal responsibility. We are the party of rugged individualism, where we pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and work hard to overcome adversity. This is exactly what most immigrants do, as they boldly leave their homes, their country, their people, and their native tongue – giving up everything they once knew, in order to better themselves and their families. This sounds like the type of people we would want to come to our nation and be integrated into our society – people who are seeking a better life and are willing to give up everything for it. These are the type of people who would make great additions to our nation, whether they be guest workers, legal residents or even naturalized citizens.Another principle from the Republican tradition that pro-immigration reform leaders stand on is family values. Being a descendant of a Mexican immigrant myself, I was taught at an early age about the importance of prioritizing my life. The order was to put God first, family second and then school/work third. Just as my family is important to me, so it is for the millions of immigrants and their family members who came here illegally. At the end of the day, if we believe in parental rights and are pro-family, we should not be seeking to deport mothers and fathers of American citizens. A great conservative voice for this was President George W. Bush, who said,

“I know there’s a compassionate, humane way to deal with this issue. I want to remind people that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River. People are coming to our country to do jobs that Americans won’t do, to be able to feed their families. And I think there’s a humane way to recognize that, at the same time protect our borders, and at the same way to make sure that we don’t disadvantage those who have stood in line for years to become a legal citizen.”

Thus, it is hypocritical to say that we are a party of pro-family values if we are not willing to at least consider dealing with the reality that many of these illegal immigrants are related to United States citizens. Also, many of these citizens are the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants. Historically, this is something Republicans have taken into consideration.

Moreover, Bush believed as many Republicans do, that we will never be able to secure our borders until we have an immigration program that allows immigrants who are seeking work to be able to participate in our economy legally. Bush States,

Republican

George H.W. Bush

Regan also was a compassionate conservative leader who not only believed in amnesty, but who passed amnesty.  He stated in 1984,

“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”

Republican

Ronald Reagan

Reagan believed that America was a city on a hill for immigrants. He did not believe in building a wall because he did not see that as beneficial. Instead, Reagan thought of an idea where people could come here and work and then go home freely. Here Reagan and Bush talk about immigration,

 

Another great leader from this Republican tradition is Jack Kemp. Back in 2006 Kemp stated,

“In many respects, the way Republicans position themselves on immigration will determine whether the party retains the mantle of majority leadership. Will we remain a party that governs – that offers practical solutions to the problems facing the country? Or will we revert to the harsh rhetoric of criminalizing illegals and even those who provide services, albeit unwittingly? Immigration – including the robust annual flow required to keep our economy growing and the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country – is a fact of life in the United States today. And the only practical way to deal with these stubborn realities is with a comprehensive solution, one that includes border security, interior enforcement, a guest-worker program and status for the illegal immigrants already here.” (bold added)

The question then becomes will we heed the words of those Republicans like Bush and the late Jack Kemp who were leaders on the issue of immigration, or will we hid behind the usual rhetoric? Republican leaders, like Marco Rubio, wish to actually deal with immigration in a conservative way – a plan that emphasizes border security while still dealing compassionately with the 11 million illegal immigrants who are here today. We have a strong tradition and we will stand on this tradition.  Jeb Bush also seems to echo the warnings of Jack Kemp. Jeb Bush makes the point that the rhetoric that is used against immigration reform is “wrong and stupid” and the “combination to be incorrect and stupid is very dangerous in politics.”  He is right, we need to stop using immigration as an issue of division that divides  our nation, because doing nothing is irresponsible to the millions of lives that will be affected by whatever law passes congress.

Moreover, it is not just compassion that drives Republicans to seek for real reform, but the fact that immigration has a net positive impact on our nation. I became a Republican because they had sound policies that were responsible, especially as it relates to economic policy. This is why many Republicans like Rubio, Flake and Ryan have embraced immigration reform because they have a sound policy for increasing immigrant labor. As I have stated in a previous research blog post,

“There any many benefits to having affordable labor. As previously mentioned, in cities that boast a high percentage of low skilled immigrant labor, goods and services are provided at a more affordable rate. This translates into cost savings for the population as a whole.  It is imperative to understand that the total national income is not lost from these savings; rather it is redistributed by creating employer gains and savings for consumers.[33]  The savings for the consumer will allow them to later choose where they would like to spend the extra cash, which would in turn help another business, consequently, helping the employees of that business. In the end, the wealth is not lost.  In addition, high skilled laborers who are paid less than native born employees actually add to economic growth and job creation. Economist Peri explains that “firms pay immigrants less than their marginal productivity, increasing the firms’ profits. Such cost savings on immigrants act as an increase in productivity for firms…[T]his allows firms to expand production and employ more people in complementary task many of which are supplied by natives.”[34] Therefore, immigrant labor helps to creates more affordable goods and services by increasing profits to businesses and helps them to employ more Americans, which are net benefits, instead of a net loss.”

Ultimately, immigration reform is good for both employers and individuals and for the growth for our economy as a whole. It is positive for the immigrants and their families. This is why many Republicans like Paul Ryan, conservatives leaders like Grover Norquist and conservative economists like Arthur Laffer and Arthur Brooks  are strong proponents of immigration reform.

Republican Marco Rubio

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio

In conclusion, those conservatives who say that Republicans who believe like me are RINOs and leftists who hate America, need to be reminded of the great Republican leaders of the past and present. There are leaders fromthe past such as the late Jake Kemp and Ronald Regan.  And there are current Republican leaders such as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who has come out in favor of a path to citizenship, along with Senators Marco RubioJeff Flake, and Congressman Paul Ryan all of which support reform. Furthermore, these leaders do not support amnesty; rather they support giving illegal immigrants an opportunity to work here legally and the potential to earn a green card and later citizenship, if the immigrant desires. This is not amnesty, which would be a pardon; rather, it is an opportunity, not a guarantee. We all know Walker stood up to the unions in Wisconsin, and Flake has stood up to the Republican establishment opposing federal spending in Washington DC. Then there is Paul Ryan who for years has fought to balance the budget and reduce America’s deficit.  These great leaders and many others like them have impeccable conservative records. Therefore, when one says that Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake, Scott Walker and Paul Ryan are RINOs, I would respond, “No, they are Regan, Kemp and Bush Republicans.”

####

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar Cafe Con Leche RepublicanThomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and     raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

Corruption is as Corruption Does AKA Eric Holder

eric holderThe Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is calling for the resignation of United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Why?

Is Holder corrupt, incompetent, stupid, or some combination of all three? Holder is not an amateur at what he does, he has been around holding Democrat patronage jobs for almost 20 years, minus the Bush years.

With the best of intentions we need to spend a few moments on recalling a real Attorney General and how he and his President were smeared over an inconsequential firing of a handful of U.S. Attorneys. No one questioned Bill Clinton when he fired 93 U.S. Attorneys on the same day.

Alberto GonzalezLet us recall, too that Alberto Gonzalez was the highest ranking federal government Hispanic in the history of the United States of America.

The media and the Democratic Party hounded President George W. Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez who first served as White House Counsel. Before the 2001 Bush inauguration, Gonzalez served Governor Bush in Texas as a Supreme Court Justice.

Corruption, they passionately charged in all media. Corruption!

The firing of the U.S. Attorneys was an excuse to attack Bush and Gonzalez for the Iraq War and “lies” these two men told so we could invade Iraq for its oil on Bush’s part; and for the opportunity to open a prison camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. Those were the Democrat fantasies they breathed, consumed and lived for during the Bush years.

Gonzalez – as White House Counsel — was accused of soliciting staff legal arguments supporting the invasion, Guantanamo and “torture” by sponsoring legal justifications supporting “enhanced interrogation” or what critics called torture and water-boarding on captured Islamic fanatics caught attacking the US and fighting the US on foreign fields.

Leading Gonzalez’ legal efforts was the brilliant John Yoo, now teaching at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall law school. He wrote the memos used by the government that supported “enhanced interrogation.” It should be noted that Obama/Holder’s AG office embarked on a witch hunt of Yoo that failed to expose any unethical writings or activities by Yoo and fellow Gonzalez associates.

miguel estradaOn another front, the Democratic Party unrelentingly and unrepentantly indulged in the grossest racism seen in a generation when it destroyed Bush’s nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals of the brilliant Honduran immigrant, Harvard Law-trained Miguel Estrada.

Estrada had perfected the American Dream beyond imagination arriving here as a child speaking Spanish-only and graduating from Harvard Law and serving brilliantly in the government. Blocking Estrada was a way at getting after Alberto Gonzalez and President Bush. Estrada never was voted on, Senate Democrats refused to put him up for a vote. Though most racist Democrat Senators thought Estrada was Mexican (they all look alike) he wasn’t.

Despite the political hatred of Gonzalez by war critics and the Democratic Party, he was never charged with corruption except for the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. He was despised because he was and is a conservative Hispanic Republican, not a liberal/radical ultra-liberal Mexican American.

Fact: U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President; they are not civil servants. The President does not have to have a reason to fire a U.S. Attorney.

Contrast that with President Obama’s friend and Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder who has served as the U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia under President Bill Clinton and then as Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General.

His record: the corrupt pardon of the worst tax cheat and fugitive in American History, Marc Rich which Clinton signed on Holder’s recommendation. As Attorney General Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers for voter intimidation. As AG, he signed on to what appears to be a hugely unethical criminal investigation into Fox News Reporter, James Rosen, and is now being investigated for lying to Congress about that case. As AG he apparently authorized a highly questionable massive seizure of phone records of the Associated Press, something never ever done in U.S. History and Congress is wondering whether he has lied about that as well. Then there is the FAST & FURIOUS program of gun-running to Mexican Drug Cartels for which he has been found in Contempt of Congress.

There isn’t an objective person in the world who can say that Alberto Gonzalez was a bad Attorney General when compared to President Obama’s good friend Eric Holder, not one.

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

####

Raoul-Contreras-LoweryRaoul 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 availab

Conservative Principles and Gang of Eight Immigration Reform

A great debate is raging among conservatives these days. One camp argues the gang of eight immigration reform is amnesty, contrary to conservative principles, amnesty encourages more illegal immigration, and immigrants vote Democrat.

Marco Rubio gang of eight immigration reform

Marco Rubio

The other camp, led by Senator Marco Rubio and Grover Norquist, argues our legal immigration system has been broken for decades, and we effectively have de facto amnesty because it’s simply not practical, humane, nor economically wise to deport 11 million. They believe our present immigration system, with its arbitrary quotas and massive bureaucracy is inconsistent with conservative free market principles. They reject the notion that immigrants invariably vote Democrat, and see opportunity to win more New American votes, as proven by Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and recently by Canada’s Conservative Party.

A May 2011 poll by Pew Research found “staunch conservatives” split 49%/49%. Three Republican groupings, “staunch conservatives”, “main street Republicans”, and “libertarians” split roughly 60/40% in favor of immigration reform including a path to citizenship.gang of eight immigration reformA recent poll found 60% of Republicans  support immigration reform, and after details of the gang of eight immigration reform plan were explained, support rose to 75% with just 10% strongly opposed. The perception fostered in the mainstream news media for years is that Republicans are monolithic and opposed to immigration reform, but clearly Republicans have been and still are divided. Before November, Republicans who were shrill about immigration were often quoted in the media, while most Republican leaders tended to avoid the topic or only talk about immigration enforcement, which is less divisive. Since the November election debacle, pro-reform Republicans are more vocal, pushing back against the shrill minority who for years have berated immigrants.

gang of eight immigration reform grover norquist Grover Norquist has been staunchly pro-immigration reform for many years. He participated in a series of immigration reform conferences during 2012. Only the last conference, just weeks after the election, garnered any media attention at all, while Mitt Romney’s self-deportation rhetoric garnered constant media coverage. Most media coverage of conservatives who support immigration reform is recent.

Immigration Before the Progressive Era

Prior to the progressive era, American had no immigration quotas and a few common-sense restrictions, such as barring criminals, prostitutes, paupers, etc.

America’s first unauthorized immigrants were African slaves, imported after Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808. In the Southern states slavery was still legal, and more slaves needed, and so the importation continued despite the ban.

Later, many Irish immigrants bypassed legal ports of entry because they were simply too impoverished to pay the head tax. The federal government did not have immigration inspectors until 1890, though some states had immigration inspectors. Very few immigrants who arrived in America were turned away. Those who chide unauthorized immigrants with the claim their grandparents came legally would do well to compare today’s immigration laws with the past; the laws are vastly different now.

Immigration as a Tool of Progressive Social Engineering

Prior to the first quotas, Ellis Island admitted 98% of immigrants who arrived. There were no immigrant visas; those who wanted to immigrate simply arrived, and unless they were in an excluded class (i.e. criminal, prostitute, sick, etc.) they were admitted.

Madison Grant The Passing of the Great Race

Madison Grant, progressive and author of “The Passing of the Great Race”

In 1921 and 1924 strict per-nation quotas were imposed, designed to bar non-Europeans altogether, and severely restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Early modern progressives like Margaret Sanger, Madison Grant, and Harry Laughlin argued Southern and Eastern Europeans were genetically inferior and lowered the intelligence of America’s people”, would never assimilate, came seeking charity, increased crime rates, etc, many of the same arguments we hear today.

Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder

Harry Laughlin infamously testified in Congress that 82% of Jewish immigrants were feeble minded.” Madison Grant wrote the book “The Passing of the Great Race, or the Racial Basis of European History” (read here), which argued “Nordics” were superior, and greatly inflamed American public opinion against immigration. Hitler called Grant’s book his “Bible” and ordered it translated and published in Nazi Germany, and Nuremberg war crimes defendant Karl Brandt referred to Grant’s book. Not surprisingly Hitler praised the 1924 National Origins Act.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and an ardent supporter of eugenics, wrote of immigrants and blacks in Pivot of Civilization: 

“…’human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

Harry Laughlin President Pioneer Fund, Deputy Director Eugenics Research Office anti-Semite anti-immigrant eugenics activist immigration amnesty

Harry H. Laughlin, architect of 1924 immigration quotas

Later, Laughlin founded the Pioneer Fund, which later financed today’s leading anti-any-immigrant organizations with millions, and still funds academic “research” about “differences” between the races. Numerous Pioneer funded studies were referenced in the book “The Bell Curve“, which insinuates blacks have lower intelligence levels than whites for genetic reasons. The book has been widely debunked by other researchers, but the ideology keeps cropping up, most recently among the anti-any-immigrant lobby headed by FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies. FAIR grew with the help of millions in funding from the Pioneer Fund.

John Tanton FAIR NumbersUSA CIS Center for Immigration Studies Eugenics US English ProEnglish gang of eight

John Tanton – who founded FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS.

John Tanton, founder of the modern day anti-any-immigrant movement is very much like Madison Grant, except Tanton’s bigotry is much more subdued, since most modern day Americans won’t listen to bigots. Like Madison Grant, John Tanton is a liberal, conservationist, eugenics activist, and has held leadership positions in Planned Parenthood, Zero Population Growth, etc. Most of the arguments Tanton and his disciples use to argue against immigration and for population reduction are identical to those of his ideological great-grandfathers Madison Grant, Harry Laughlin, Margaret Sanger, and Paul Ehrlich (author of The Population Bomb).

Is the Gang of Eight Immigration Reform Amnesty?

Those who constantly throw out the term “amnesty” in describing the gang of eight immigration reform would do well to consult Webster’s dictionary:

amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

pardon: the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty.

With $2,000 in fines and a ten year wait to even apply for permanent resident status, clearly a stiff penalty is exacted, in addition to a tough set of requirements such as proof of payment of taxes, background check, etc. The 1986 immigration reform clearly was amnesty, as no fine or wait time was required. Those who met the requirements were simply granted permanent resident status.

Is “Amnesty” a Magnet for More Illegal Behavior?

Opponents of the gang of eight immigration reform argue amnesty is a magnet for more illegal immigration, and point to the increase in illegal immigration after 1986 as evidence that amnesty is a magnet.

Historically, what has been America’s experience with mass amnesty? Did past amnesties lead to more illegal behavior?

America’s first mass amnesty was Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation granting amnesty to confederates who would swear a loyalty oath to the United States. Lincoln didn’t live to see the end of the civil war, but President Andrew Johnson honored Lincoln’s amnesty, though he added exclusions, for example refusing amnesty to top confederate leaders. How many civil wars have we experienced since 1865? Zero!

If the U.S. had made a serious effort to prosecute confederates for treason during time of war, we could probably have denuded a number of forests building gallows for hanging hundreds of thousands. However, the nation saw the need to move on after a bloody civil war, and virtually all confederates were granted amnesty in exchange for regaining their loyalty to the U.S.

Immigration Amnesty

America’s first immigration mass amnesty came in the late 1920s. Early modern progressives saw immigration laws as a tool for social engineering. Immigrants from various nations were barred, starting with the Chinese in 1882.

In the early 20th century, 200,000 Italians immigrated to the U.S. each year, but in 1924 Italy’s immigration quota was set at under 4,000, a 98% reduction! Similar reductions were imposed on Russia and other Eastern and Southern European nations. Not surprisingly, within a few years the U.S. had several million unauthorized immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were “inspected” and allowed to stay. Then, as today, it was considered impractical to deport so many. Recently the New York Times opined that Hispanics are the New Italians, drawing parallels with 20th century immigration.

Did the late 1920s immigration amnesty lead to more illegal immigration? Clearly not, because the great depression soon followed and the economic forces that led so many to immigrate illegally vanished.

Critics of immigration reform argue the 1986 amnesty served as a magnet to more illegal immigration, but was this really the case? In statistics, there’s a term “correlation is not necessarily causation.” A doctor once pointed out in an op-ed the correlation between pantyhose usage and lung disease, but pantyhose clearly doesn’t cause lung disease!

There has indeed been more illegal immigration after 1986, but a review of the inflows of unauthorized immigrants reveals that inflows followed to the state of the economy, not policy. During the late 1990s illegal immigration inflows surged, while in recent years net illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped to zero, as the U.S. experienced a jobless recovery while Mexico’s economy has been strong, and Mexican birth rates have declined. AFTER a 1996 law that toughened immigration enforcement, there was a surge in illegal immigration. Clearly illegal immigration inflows have much more to do with economics than policy!

Is Today’s Immigration Policy “Conservative” or “Progressive”?

The quota concept originated with early modern progressives, who were huge believers in racial eugenics and social Darwinism. The infamous Dillingham Commission (1907-1910) authorized by Congress devoted entire volumes of their report to immigrants as charity seekers, criminals, and predicted immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe would never assimilate and become a vast underclass. Children of immigrants were often “retarded” according to the Dillingham Commission.

immigrants who refuse to learn English

Dillingham Immigration Commission – Retarded Children of foreign-born non-English speaking fathers.

I have read through several volumes of the Dillingham Commission Report, and one thing stands out: Southern and Eastern Europeans were smeared in the same manner as Hispanic immigrants are today. A vast permanent underclass was predicted by early modern progressives, but for some reason I’m not able to find a vast underclass of Southern and Eastern European descendants in America today, nor am I able to locate a large population of feeble minded Jews as predicted by 1924 National Origins Act architect Harry Laughlin. In fact, Jews are among the most successful demographics.

The blatantly racist per nation immigration quotas and bars to non-European immigration were eliminated in 1965, but the quota concept remains with us to this day, for both immigrants and guest workers.

Do quotas make sense? I think not! Immigration is driven by economics, and inflows should be driven by labor markets, not arbitrary quotas influenced by special interest groups (i.e. big labor). Critics of immigration reform point to America’s immigrant quota as largest in the world. However, as a percentage of population U.S. immigration inflows are #22 of 34 OECD nations. Canada admits 2-1/2 times as many immigrants; Switzerland and Germany five times as many, and tiny Luxembourg ten times as many immigrants, as a percentage of population. For some strange reason our demise as a nation is predicted if we accept more immigrants, but 21 other nations already accept more immigrants and don’t experience the dire consequences predicted for America.

Similar arguments were made by slavery proponents, that freeing the slaves would bankrupt the U.S. We freed the slaves and paid for a long civil war, but didn’t go bankrupt in the process.

Conservative Principles in Immigration Reform

Conservatives believe in limited government in free markets and limited government, but are current immigration policies consistent with conservative principles? I say emphatically not! The main features of today’s immigration policy are arbitrary quotas with no basis in free market capitalism, with massive government bureaucracies telling employers how many immigrants they can hire, how to recruit them, and even how much to pay. Some employers, particularly farmers, must deal with several big bureaucracies, with no assurance their harvesters arrive in time for harvest, and big fines for honest paperwork mistakes. Not surprisingly, farmers bitterly complain how difficult the system is to use, and less than 10% of farm ‘guest workers’ have visas.

Conservatives also believe in the ‘rule of law’ and conservatives are against amnesty, as amnesty by itself is a temporary solution. As a conservative, I am opposed to amnesty in and of itself, as that doesn’t address the underlying problem. In 1986 Congress passed immigration amnesty with some enforcement provisions which proved largely ineffective. Congress failed to follow up for many years on border security, and never followed up on guest workers. In effect, in 1986 Congress ‘kicked the can down the road’, making three million immigrants legal, without addressing the root causes of the problem.

Current immigration and guest worker quotas have no rationale in economic need. Historically whenever economic demand for immigrants and guest worker labor exceeds quotas, the result has always been widespread illegal immigration. This happened in the 1929s, again in the 1950s when a resurgent post war economy required more guest workers than the quota. We’ve often experienced illegal immigration since the braceros program was eliminated during the 1960s at the behest of big labor unions. Big labor continues to be a major obstacle to guest worker programs. We presently have 9-9.5 ‘guest workers’ of which 1.8 million have a work authorized visa. The balance would no doubt be happy to obtain a visa if those were available to them, but they’re not.

Immigration Reform and the Rule of Law

As a conservative, I support the ‘rule of law’, but I also recognize that enforcement alone cannot turn bad policy into good policy. If we lowered superhighway speed limits to 20 MPH to conserve gasoline we’d surely have enforcement problems! Then would we pour massive enforcement resources to stop speeding, or step back and recognize that policy and enforcement are intertwined, and sensible policies result in manageable enforcement? Or would we take an ‘enforcement first’ stance and massively enforce a 20 MPH speed limit until everyone stops speeding, before setting rational speed limits?

When guest worker visas are limited by arbitrary quotas to less than 20% of demand, we should not be surprised that many come here illegally seeking work. Obviously we’d like for everyone to enter the U.S. through the front door, but when that door has been broken for decades we should not be surprised that our ‘hired help’ enters through the back door or windows. It’s obvious that the best way to divert migrant workers from illegal channels to legal channels is with sensible guest worker programs.

It’s Time to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform

I’m not happy with all aspects of the gang of eight immigration reform. I’d rather see us get rid of quotas, perhaps implementing a tariff on guest worker wages payable by employers, to tile the table in favor of hiring Americans workers first. It’s easy to predict future waves of illegal immigration, when demand exceeds quota and Congress again fails to act, under pressure from big labor. Big labor has already been hard at work undermining guest worker reforms, for example limiting the number of guest worker visas in the construction industry. However, once housing rebounds, and the need for guest workers exceed quotas, we can expect unauthorized immigrants to fill that gap.

I’m also not keen about e-verify. The federal government has been trying to make e-verify work since 1996. E-Verify is a deeply flawed system. Unauthorized immigrants can readily circumvent e-verify by using a real person’s name and social security, with fake ID. As long as the name and social security number match, most will pass e-verify. U.S. citizens who are unlucky enough to be the subject of errors in government databases, and their employers, can expect to spend weeks dealing with mammoth bureaucracies to get errors fixed!

The gang of eight immigration reform plan calls for increased use of e-verify, and buried within the bill are provisions to incorporate biometrics into e-verify. Biometrics will make it much more difficult to circumvent e-verify, but many Americans will balk at providing biometric information such as fingerprints, DNA, etc., viewing it as the invasion of privacy it is. Another major annoyance will be exit controls for everyone leaving the country. Without capturing information about those leaving the U.S., the entry/exit tracking for visa overstayers cannot work. However, this will impose delays on all travelers exiting the U.S.

However, all-in-all, the gang of eight immigration reform plan would be a big improvement over the present situation. Eliminating quotas is not likely as long as progressives and their big labor backers are wedded to the notion of quotas, especially for guest workers. Guest worker programs would be streamlined, and guest worker visas would become portable. It may also be easier for Congress to act in the future with the most contentious issue – legalization – behind us. We should all back the gang of eight immigration reform plan, while also writing our elected representatives with suggestions for improvement.

####

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

Freer Labor: A Biblical Concept for Immigrant Labor

Freer Labor: A Biblical Concept for Immigrant Labor[1]

Holy BibleAt first glance when reading through the Bible, one would think that the Bible does not directly address the concept of free labor – the concept that immigrants should legally be allowed to travel and be employed without any overly encumbering restrictions. However, if one takes a closer look, one will notice several key biblical principles that can support the idea behind a biblical policy for immigrant labor. Moreover, economic data also reveals that there is also a net benefit that is achieved from immigrant labor. In Romans 13, Paul is clear that God gave the sword to the government to punish those who do evil and God expects the government to reward good behavior. The United States government does much good and it gets many things right. Yet, one of its grave shortcomings has to do with the issue of immigration. The current immigration system in the US can even be considered unjust due to three inherent flaws: (1) its regulations infringe on the Christian individual/business owners’ rights to be able to carry out God’s command to be hospitable towards immigrants, (2) its regulations are unrealistic towards immigrant laborers and employers, (3) and its regulations go against God’s command to do good for the nation’s people.

First, the scripture makes it clear that God expected His people to be hospitable towards immigrants. The Hebrew word used to refer to resident aliens or immigrants in the Old Testament is gēr. This term is used to refer to both Israel and any other people group residing in a foreign land (Ex 23:21). In a sense gēr is referring to an individual’s status or position in the foreign nation.[2]  The scriptures also makes mention of the verb gur, which means to “reside [as an alien].”[3] According to Rousas Rushdoony, the biblical laws dealing with hospitality towards aliens both “permanent and temporary” are dealing with those who resided in the land and not those foreigners who were just passing through.[4] This concept of hospitality was a personal, individual, or familial decision to take care of the immigrant.[5]

God called his chosen people to treat the resident immigrant justly. In fact, the Old Testament is very specific in requiring the people of God to treat the immigrant as a protected class (Ex 20:10, 23:12; Lev 16:29). This is most clearly shown in Exodus 22:21 which states, “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt,” and Deuteronomy 27:19, “‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” (NASB) In the book of Exodus, God reminds the nation of Israel that they were once resident aliens in Egypt. One can therefore infer that the reason God willed for them to remember this, was so they would make it a point to treat the immigrants in their land as they would have wished to be treated in Egypt.

God also had expectations of how the nation of Israel was to treat foreign laborers, in matters such as being given the right to glean for food and to be employed as residents if taken in by a family to work on their residence. Daniel Carrol states,

Without land and kin, many sojourners would be dependent on Israelites for work, provisions and protection. They could be day laborers (Deut. 24:14), and the Old Testament mentions that they were conscripted to do the labor in building the temple (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 2:17-18). [6]

In other words, God expected his people to treat the immigrant labor justly. Bernhard Asen even further bolsters this point by stating that Israel was not just to treat the ger as a protected class, but the people of Israel were to also incorporate or include them into their society. Asen States, “in addition to protection, inclusion of the gēr into the community to share privileges also is seen as important.”[7]  This incorporation according to Christopher Wright included the “feast of weeks and booths,” and a resident alien who happened to be a hired laborer could also be included at Passover.[8] Write argues the eligibility was based on the fact that they would have been included within an Israelite family with whom they were residing.[9] Therefore, the people of God in the Old Testament were to be hospitable toward the resident alien and include and protect them as a class, just as they would have wanted to have been treated when they were in slaves in the land of Egypt.

This concept is even more important if one looks at the teaching of Jesus. As he stated in Luke 6:31, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.”  Thus, just as Christians would want people from other nations to give them help and employment, so that they could take care of their families, so then should Christians help out those immigrants who wish to labor for their families. However, this has proven problematic in the United States since there are unrealistic worker visa programs that make it almost impossible for Christian business owners to be able to be hospitable and have the opportunity to hire immigrant laborers who are in need. The current federal caps on immigrant labor incentivize many immigrants to come here illegally and risk being caught. Many of these people, if they could, would have obtained a work visa or a legal means to come to the United States.

This becomes a problem, biblically, for Christians because as the chosen people of God they too should be hospitable towards aliens and any other class of people who should be protected. This is why the current immigration policy restrictions pose a dilemma for Christians, because while they are to be submissive and respectful to the government God has placed over them, they also have an obligation to protect and seek justice for those who are in classes that need to be protected, like the resident alien. Christian individuals/business owners should respect their government, while at the same time seek for a more biblical policy that will lead to a more realistic policy towards aliens seeking work, and continue to work to incorporate the alien into the community. This is all founded on the basic biblical concept of loving one’s neighbors and treating them, as the believer would want to be treated if he or she were in a similar situation.

The second problem with the immigration system is that it has unrealistic regulations on immigrant labor. As previously mentioned, the scriptures do not ban migrant or immigrant labor. Rather, it takes for granted that foreigners would be around and would need protection. Just as prohibition failed because it was an unrealistic regulation on human action; so too the current immigrant labor quota system is failing because it is unrealistically regulating labor. There is not a biblical mandate on the total number of immigrants a nation should allow to enter its borders; rather, the Scriptures simply presuppose that resident aliens will be around.  The guest worker program in the United States is broken down into three major sections H-1b[10](skilled labor) which is capped at 65,000 persons and the  H-2a(agricultural) and H-2b[11] (non agricultural) visas – both capped at 66,000. These all do not even come close to meeting the demand for labor that many American industries need.

In addition to these quotas, the Federal government, under the current administration, has made it harder on farmers to legally higher immigrant labor. According to an Immigration Works policy brief, the Obama administration’s new regulations eliminated “the streamline application process for employers” implemented by the Bush administration and instead in required employers to “submit to a lengthy DOL(Department of Labor) review,” to apply for immigrant laborers.[12] The Obama administration also has raised the federal minimum wage on foreign workers to $9.48, and increased fines to $1,500 per employee for farmers who are missing even one piece of paper work.[13] This is on top of that fact that it costs farmers thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to help them file all the legal paper work with the department of labor. Another added cost for farmers created by new regulations is the increased risk for being sued. David Bier explains,

Labor Department requirements mandate U.S. employees be treated similarly to migrants, but Obama officials created a new definition of ‘corresponding’ treatment that could be interpreted by courts to include the housing, transportation, and in some instances, meals that H-2A regulations require employers to supply to migrants. Disgruntled employees who are citizens or permanent residents could sue under the ambiguous definition and potentially collect damages.[14]

The current administration has also passed new regulations on highly skilled laborers with H-1b visas that are adding cost to businesses that would keep their business here in America if it were not for these added costs. One such regulation dictated that no company who had employees with H-1b visas could be eligible to partake in federal bailouts through the Trouble Asset Relief program known as TARP.[15] There has also been an increase in the processing fees of business with more than 50 employees who wish to higher immigrants with H-1b visas “from $325 to as much as $2,300.”[16] These are all added cost that do harm to business and ultimately the nation’s economy.

All of these added costs and legal liabilities incentivize farmers to hire illegal immigrants. The caps on legal immigration also incentivize immigrant workers to come work in the United States illegally, even with increased federal enforcement.  The fact is, “if the extra cost of such enforcement[along with these new regulations] is larger than the net fiscal cost of illegal immigration, then driving illegal immigration to zero would fail a cost benefit test.”[17] Current federal enforcement for hiring legal immigrants may cost more than to take a risk to higher immigrants who are not authorized to be here. A perfect example of this risk taking by business owners can be found in Arizona, since it passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). LAWA required Arizona employers to use E-verify to ensure the legal status of their employees. In response to this law, employers and immigrants responded differently. First, there was an increase in self employment by 73%, of which, “about 25,000 Arizona Hispanic noncitizens dropped out of the formal wage market and became self-employed.”[18] Moreover, employers responded with only a “72 percent” participation rate in 2010, and a “67 percent in 2011.”[19]  The reality is that this is a Genesis 3 world; unrealistic laws like prohibition and immigration labor regulations are unjust because they do not coincide with basic human nature. The government should seek to do good for its citizens (Rom 13:4), and placing unrealistic labor restrictions that incentivize individuals to sin by breaking laws is not good. This is why Christians should seek to reform immigrant labor laws to be more free and open by removing these unrealistic restrictions.

Thirdly, the current immigration policies inhibit economic growth and reduce national productivity. This is counter to the idea that, “one of the primary responsibilities of government is to act as God’s servant to ‘do good’ for the citizens of a nation (see Rom. 13:4).”[20]  The reality is that immigration will increase the nation’s ability to produce and therefore increase economic growth. Yet, there are some detractors who disagree with this position like Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), and possibly the most academic detractor when it comes to low skilled immigrant labor is Economist George Borjas.

For example CAPS runs sensational TV ads, insinuating that Americans are unemployed, because immigrants are “taking American jobs.”[21] This is clearly Malthusian’s thinking that there are only a set number of jobs. There are not a set number of jobs. Jobs are created and lost every day; there is no set labor force. Since the 1950s, there has been an increase of about 90 million new workers in the labor force including women, and baby boomers.[22] This has not resulted in any “long term increase” in unemployment rates.[23]  Many activists who support immigration and immigrant labor argue that immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t do,  at least for the wages being offered, but if the wages were increased then Americans would apply for those jobs. In some cases this may be true, but it does not ring true in all situations. The problem is that higher wages would mean that many of those jobs would no longer be there.[24]  Benjamin Powell explains,

Approximately one third of all garment workers in the United States are immigrants. If wages needed to be higher to get Americans to take the jobs, many of these jobs would have gone overseas. .. In Arizona, for example, only 30 percent of the 2004 lettuce crop was harvested; the rest was left in the ground to rot. Losses were nearly $1 billion. Farmers certainly could have paid higher wages to get the crop harvested, but losses would presumably have been even greater.[25]

In the end, an increase in wages could result in a loss of productivity and economic growth.

Another proponent of the idea that immigrants are taking “American jobs” is Harvard Economist George Borjas.  In 2010 he coauthored an article arguing that African American incarceration rates were on the rise because low skilled immigrants were taking their jobs.[26] Diana Furchotgott-Roth explains the flaws in Borjas’s study. First, African American men started to “withdraw from the labor force in the 1960s,” when immigrants made up “less than 1 percent” of the labor force.[27]Moreover,  “The percentage of black men between ages 16 and 24 who were not in school, not working, and not looking for work rose to 18 percent in 1982 from 9 percent in 1964. It then reached 23 percent in 1997 and remained at that level as of 2011.”[28] Finally, Borjas does not even mention in his study the changes in laws and policies, nor does he consider how both have been enforced. Therefore, immigration is not the reason for the rise in African American unemployment or the direct reason for the increase in their incarceration rates.

Another problem with this argument that immigrants take American jobs is the fact that, many more families are moving towards both parents working outside of the household. Hanson found that this, “often requires hiring outside labor to care for children, clean the home, launder clothes, and tend to the yard.”[29] He also found that the in cities where immigrant labor was prevalent that these services were more affordable.[30]

Borjas in several of his studies showed that cheap immigrant labor harms the high school dropouts by reducing their wages. In 2003 he claimed wages dropped by 9%, in 2004 by 7%, and in 2006 by 5%.[31] There are two other studies worth noting.  One is by David Card which showed that low skilled immigrant labor reduced low skilled workers wages by 3 percent in cities where the population of immigrants was higher. The second study was done by Giovanni Peri, who found that immigrants only cause 0.7 percent decrease in low skilled workers’ wages.[32] In other words, even though wages are depressed for high school drop outs, there is not enough decisive evidence to point out how much wages are lowered, nor is there enough negative evidence to call for a reduction in low skilled immigrant labor compared to its benefits.

There any many benefits to having affordable labor. As previously mentioned, in cities that boast a high percentage of low skilled immigrant labor, goods and services are provided at a more affordable rate. This translates into cost savings for the population as a whole.  It is imperative to understand that the total national income is not lost from these savings; rather it is redistributed by creating employer gains and savings for consumers.[33]  The savings for the consumer will allow them to later choose where they would like to spend the extra cash, which would in turn help another business, consequently, helping the employees of that business. In the end, the wealth is not lost.  In addition, high skilled laborers who are paid less than native born employees actually add to economic growth and job creation. Economist Peri explains that “firms pay immigrants less than their marginal productivity, increasing the firms’ profits. Such cost savings on immigrants act as an increase in productivity for firms…[T]his allows firms to expand production and employ more people in complementary task many of which are supplied by natives.”[34] Therefore, immigrant labor helps to creates more affordable goods and services by increasing profits to businesses and helps them to employ more Americans, which are net benefits, instead of a net loss.

In conclusion, a biblical policy towards immigrant labor would be to allow for a freer more open system, because it fulfils God’s command that the government do good to the people, and it allows Christian individuals/business owners to legally carry out God’s command to be hospitable towards immigrant laborers. This should include the removal of federal caps on labor and a shift towards a system where the free market decides the number of laborers that are needed.  There should also be a removal of unrealistic federal mandates and regulations that make it harder for business owners to legally hire immigrant labor. A policy based off the free market would not just benefit the United States, but it would also benefit the immigrant who comes to the United States to make several times more than he or she could have earned in their home nation. In many cases, this move would also improve the immigrant’s standard of living. Some may argue that these immigrants harm low skilled native born workers; but the reality is that these people already have protections which come in the form of unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps and so on. Ultimately, the government’s job should not be one of creating jobs, but one of being just. A just society creates the ideal framework for economic growth and prosperity – for both the citizen and the immigrant.


[1] The term freer labor is used instead of Free Labor because, the author does not believe in open borders, but does believe that the free flow should be allowed by the Government who should screen and have limited regulations, but not cap allowing people to freely and legally come to work in the United States.

[2] Baker, D. L. Tight Fists or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2009.178.

[3] Baker, Tight Fist Open Hands, 178.  This verb “gur” (1481a.גּוּר)has been translated by the NASB several ways which many can convey the idea of residing, or dwelling: “abide*(1), alien(1), aliens(1), assemble(1), colonize(1), dwell(3), dwells(1), habitation(1), live(4), live as aliens(2), lives(1), reside(13), resided(1), resides(3), sojourn(11), sojourned(9), sojourning(1), sojourns(13), stay(6), staying(4), stays(1), strangers(3).” Robert L. Thomas, ‘1481aגּוּר   gur.” New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

[4] Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law 2, Law and Society. (Nutley, N.J.]: Craig Pr, 1982.):199.

[5] M.  Daniel Carrol R., Christians at the Boarder: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2008): 95.

[6] Carrol, Christians at the Boarder, 103.

[7] Bernhard Asen, “From Acceptance to Inclusion: The Stranger (גֵּר /gēr) in Old Testament Tradition, in Christianity and the stranger: historical essays. (ed. Nichols, Francis W. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995): 16-35.

[8] Christopher J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990.): 101.

[9] Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 101-102.

[10] United States citizen and immigration services, “Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants,” 17 April 2013, (21 April 21, 2013).

[11] Andorra Bruno, “Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues,” Congressional Research services. (2012): 9.

[12] Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access: New Regulations Aimed at Temporary Worker Visas.” (2009):1.

[13] David Beir, “Obama’s Secret Anti-Immigrant Campaign.” Real Clear Politics.com, 9 July 2012,  (16 April  2013).

[14]Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012.

[15] Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012; & Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access,” 2009, 3.

[16] Beir, Obama’s Secret, 2012

[17]Gordon H. Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, CATO Journal. 32, 1 (2012): 31.

[18] Alex Nowrasteh, The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws, Cato Policy Analysis No. 709. (2012).9.

[19] Nowrasteh, The Economic Case, 9.

[20] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for understanding Modern Political Issues in the Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010), 269.

[21] Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Press Release: Memorial Day TV Ad Ask why President Obama is admitting millions of Immigrant Workers when 1 in 3 Young Veterans are Jobless.” 22 May 2012.

[22] Benjamin Powell, An economic Case for Immigration, 7 June 2010.

[23] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[24] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[25] Powell, Case for Immigration, 2010.

[26] Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2010. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.” Economica 77, no. 306: 255-282.

[27] Diana Furchotgott-Roth, “The Path Forward for Immigration”. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 12 December 2012.8.

[28] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 12.

[29] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[30] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[31] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 9.

[32] Furchotgott-Roth, The Path Forward, 2012, 9.

[33] Harrison, Immigration and Economic Growth, 2012, 28.

[34] Peri, Giovanni. “IMMIGRATION, LABOR MARKETS, AND PRODUCTIVITY.” CATO Journal 32, no. 1 (Winter2012 2012): 35-53.44.

Bibliography

Asen, Bernhard, “From Acceptance to Inclusion: The Stranger (גֵּר /gēr) in Old Testament Tradition, in Christianity and the stranger: historical essays. ed. Nichols, Francis W. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1995.

Baker, D. L. Tight Fists or Open Hands?: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2009.178.

Beir, David, “Obama’s Secret Anti-Immigrant Campaign.” Real Clear Politics.com, 9 July 2012, (16 April  2013).

Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson. 2010. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.” Economica 77, no. 306: 255-282.

Bruno, Andorra, “Immigration of Temporary Lower-Skilled Workers: Current Policy and Related Issues,” Congressional Research services.2012.

Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), “Press Release: Memorial Day TV Ad Ask why President Obama is admitting millions of Immigrant Workers when 1 in 3 Young Veterans are Jobless.” 22 May 2012.

Carroll R., M. Daniel. Christians at the Border Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2008.

Furchotgott-Roth, Diana ,“The Path Forward for Immigration”. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 12 December 2012.8.

Grudem, Wayne, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for understanding Modern Political Issues in the Light of Scripture, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010.

Harrison, Gordon H.,  Immigration and Economic Growth, CATO Journal. 32, 1 (2012): 31.

Immigration Works USA, “Reduced Access: New Regulations Aimed at Temporary Worker Visas.” (2009):1.

Nowrasteh, Alex, The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws, Cato Policy Analysis No. 709. (2012).1-20.

Peri, Giovanni. “IMMIGRATION, LABOR MARKETS, AND PRODUCTIVITY.” CATO Journal 32, no. 1 (Winter2012 2012): 35-53.44.

Powell, Benjamin , An economic Case for Immigration, 7 June 2010.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law 2, Law and Society. [Nutley, N.J.]: Craig Pr, 1982.

Thomas, Robert L.  ‘1481aגּוּר   gur.” New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition,Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998.

United States citizen and immigration services, “Cap Count for H-2B Nonimmigrants,” 17 April 2013, (21 April 21, 2013).

Wright, Christopher J. H. God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1990.

This was originally published on Thomas’s personal Blog Arizona Seminarian

####

Reposted with author’s permission – original link.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar

Thomas Salazar

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

Obama Impeachment?

Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the stunning prediction that Obama will not finish his second term. Huckabee, widely respected and not known for partisanship, may be right!

The Political Demise of Richard Nixon

Richard NixonJohn F KennedyMany older Americans remember the Nixon years. Richard Nixon was reelected in a landslide, but the groundwork for Nixon’s demise was laid during his first term. The Nixon administration engaged in dirty tricks to aggressively undermine his opposition.

The White House “plumbers” were hired to repair “leaks” of sensitive information that embarrassed Nixon. With no accountability or oversight, the “plumbers” were soon out of control. One night they broke into Democratic National Headquarters (DNC) at the Watergate Hotel, and were arrested.

Nixon didn’t know in advance about the burglary, and was furious. Like most presidents, Nixon’s king-sized ego that would not allow apology, and instead he covered-up, which led to Nixon’s downfall.

Nixon, like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson before him, unleashed the IRS to go after his enemies, which also came to light during the furor over Watergate.

Nixon was able to cover-up scandals during his first term, but during his second term a steady drip-drip-drip of revelations about Nixon’s abuses of power appeared in the news media, and eventually Congress began impeachment proceedings, and when impeachment became apparent he resigned.

Obama’s Abuse of the IRS

Obama impeachmentLike Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy, the Obama administration used the IRS to intimidate enemies. The latest revelations are truly shocking. Any organization whose name included “tea party” or “patriot” received intense scrutiny from the IRS, which demanded answers to questions about donors, volunteers, Facebook posts, even which legislators they had talked to.

Now Jewish groups who had opposed Obama’s Mideast policies have revealed they were abused by the IRS too, and the Koch brothers revealed in 2010 the White House had information about them which could only have come from the IRS.

If Obama abused the IRS to intimidate and harass his political enemies, that may well lead to an Obama impeachment, just as it did with Nixon.

‘Fast and Furious’ may also lead to Obama impeachment

During Obama’s first term, the Obama administration sold over 2,000 high powered assault weapons to Mexican narco-traffickers, supposedly to track these weapons, but nobody put tracking devices in the guns or tracked them. Border patrol agent Brian Terry was killed with one of these guns, which initiated the scandal.

Basically the guns were allowed to ‘walk.’ The Mexican government was not told and dozens of innocent Mexicans were killed by drug traffickers with these weapons.

When Congress investigated, the Obama DOJ dragged its feet for months, withholding requested information. The eventual subpoena led to a showdown with Obama. With Holder about to be held in contempt of Congress, Obama threw an overreaching blanket of executive privilege over everything related to ‘fast and furious.’ Congress held Eric Holder in contempt, and not surprisingly the DA refused to prosecute his boss. Any day now we can expect a court to order compliance with the subpoena, court appeals, but in the end Obama will lose and the truth about ‘fast and furious’ will be public.

Will the Benghazi cover-up lead to Obama impeachment?

The full story of the tragic loss of four American heroes in Benghazi begs to be told. Benghazi was unmistakably a terror attack from the beginning, but Obama lied for weeks to assure his reelection.

There was nothing criminal about Obama’s actions leading up to Benghazi, but the incompetence will sink Hillary’s career and tarnish Obama’s leadership. Terror attacks on American diplomatic outposts are nothing new. Two U.S. embassies in Africa were destroyed by car bombs during the Clinton years with massive loss of life. Hillary Clinton was first lady, and Susan Rice the Associate Secretary of State for Africa at the time. Amazingly, Hillary Clinton ignored numerous urgent requests for beefed up security.

Obama failed to authorize military support when told about Benghazi, and at least two who died could have been saved with military support in the region. The Obama administration sought to cover up this gross incompetence to get past the election just two months later, and Susan Rice and Obama clearly lied to the American people about a third-rate video and “spontaneous” demonstration, to divert attention from the fact Al Qaeda is as dangerous as ever.

It remains to be seen whether witnesses in Congress were induced to lie and obstruct. There are already serious allegations a recent witness was the victim of retaliation. One thing is already apparent. The “talking points” from the intelligence community, which Jay Kearney said received one minor insignificant edit before release, were edited 12 times and scrubbed of any terror references. The Review Board that reviewed Benghazi didn’t interview key witnesses, who now are testifying in Congress. Apparently, the review board was a whitewash from the start!

Will Congress consider an Obama impeachment?

If an impeachment vote were held today, it would undoubtedly fail. Congress generally won’t impeach a popular president.

Bill Clinton committed impeachable offenses and was impeached, but the Senate balked at removing Clinton from office because he was still popular.

However, as these scandals grow and the wheels fall off of Obamacare next year, Obama’s approval ratings can be expected to sink to rock bottom levels, and we may well see an effort to impeach Obama. The Obama recovery is worse than the Bush recession, and the public is tired of a jobless economy. Bush has been out of office for four years now, and Obama owns the economic morass though he still blames Bush.

In my opinion, Obama is the worst president in modern history, and the only reason he was reelected is that Mitt Romney wasn’t the best candidate, and didn’t run a good campaign against Obama.

####

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