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.

Is Marco Rubio a Natural Born Citizen?

Now that President Obama has been reelected, likely 2016 candidates are emerging, especially Marco Rubio, and undoubtedly the birther movement will question is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen? Is Marco Rubio eligible to be president? The alternative media started raising doubts when speculation began about Marco Rubio as a potential presidential candidate or VP running mate in 2012, and for sure birther speculation will increase as Marco Rubio is in the limelight as a likely 2016 presidential candidate.

Birthers will also likely ask the same questions about another potential presidential contender, Bobby Jindal, whose parents weren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents when Jindal was born.

Sadly, one likely reason Marco Rubio was passed over as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick was the likelihood that Marco Rubio would have been constantly dogged by birthers. In my opinion, Rubio would have helped Mitt Romney immensely with Latino voters once they got to know him better, and low support among Latino voters likely cost Mitt Romney the election, along with his unfortunate self-deportation comment.

No amount of hard evidence can sway conspiracy theorists. If you disagree with them or confront them with hard evidence to disprove their theory, the immediately accuse you propagating disinformation as part of the conspiracy, almost a ‘no win’ proposition.

Anonymous e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the Democratic primaries, igniting the birther movement when conspiracy theorists picked up on the issue. Most prominent among birthers is author Jerome Corsi, who makes a living creating conspiracy theories to sell books. Who can ever forget the North American Union conspiracy, which claimed President Bush would merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico without the approval of Congress? Corsi even claimed there was a new currency, the Amero, but just try to find one. You can buy Corsi’s book “The Late Great USA: NAFTA, the North American Union, and the Threat of a Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” for a penny from Amazon.com. Corsi’s North American Union is so lacking in facts and ridiculous that Corsi shouldn’t be taken seriously, but he continues to be a popular author. The more outrageous his conspiracy theories, the more books he sells!

Is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen?

Marco Rubio is undoubtedly a natural born citizen. So is Bobby Jindal, and so is John McCain, though John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama. All three were U.S. citizens at birth and therefore are natural born citizens.

At the time our constitution was adopted, citizenship was determined by English Common Law. Birthright citizenship was part of English Common Law, except for children born of slaves, who were considered slaves rather than subjects.

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years. The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a non-citizen throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If children born of non-citizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc. The legal status of their parents is irrelevant.

The only exception to birthright citizenship are children born on U.S. soil to foreign leaders, diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity under treaty and international law, and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a U.S. born child of a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket him for littering, they can claim diplomatic immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants. Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate race forever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding! Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

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

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. The most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century was William Blackstone. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

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

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. military base, and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction when he was born.

Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born. No doubt birthers will seek to delegitimize Marco Rubio’s citizenship by claiming one or both parents weren’t here legally, but it’s clear the legal status of one’s parents isn’t relevant to the child’s legal status. Ditto for Bobby Jindal, whose parents were not yet permanent residents when Bobby Jindal was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship. Most Hispanics are either immigrants themselves, or 1-2 generations removed, and sadly many Americans view all Hispanics as either unauthorized immigrants or ‘fake citizens’ who are citizens due to ‘misinterpretation’ of that pesky 14th amendment.

####

by Bob Quasius, founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans
Original link

“Hating Breitbart” – A Powerflul Movie that Explains Why We Lost in 2012

by Bob Price (re-posted with author’s permission from TexasGOPVote – original link. Author is the Texas State Director of Cafe Con Leche Republicans)

Hating Breitbart is a great movie about a great American patriot. Unfortunately it was released too late to help us understand what we were really up against in 2012. Governor Mitt Romney was not running against Barack Obama alone. He was also running against a liberal media that was determined from the beginning to re-elect the President they had installed in office in the 2008 election.

Hating Breitbart illustrates not just the bias of the liberal media, but the outright activism of the media. A point in case is the mythical Republican War on Women created by George Stephanopoulos during one of the Republican Primary Presidential Debates. Contraception was not and should not have been an issue in the 2012 campaign. But, Stephanopoulos created this myth that Republicans wanted to ban birth control and the rest of the media ran with it. This was not some kind of political fluke. It was, rather, a strategy implemented by the media to create and control the tone and content of the issues to be discussed in the election.

Abortion, likewise, should not have been a center issue for Republicans during this election. Granted, it is an issue of importance to people, and it should be a foundation of our platform and position, but this election should have been about jobs and national security. The media was not about to let that happen because those are losing issues for Obama. We followed their lead and let this be a promoted issue. The result – two stupid sentences from two Senate candidates – two lost Senate seats and a severely tarnished Republican brand.

There is no Republican War on Women. It is a myth created to drive a wedge between women and Republicans. If you want to understand where women are on politics, look at my interview with Debbie Georgatos and read her book, “Ladies, Can We Talk?”


Andrew Breitbart understood the media and its approach and tactics. After all, he had been one of them. But he saw the harm that was being done to our country and decided to do something about it. Breitbart went to war with the mainstream media and the Democrat propoganda machine.

When you watch the movie, Hating Breitbart, you will learn to look at the media in a different light. You will see how they are not only willing, but eager accomplices with the Democrats. Hating Breitbart illustrates this by showing how Breitbart dealt with Democrats and the media about the alleged issue of Tea Party member verbally assaulting black Members of Congress with racial slurs. It didn’t happen. There is no proof that it happened. But these Congressmen said it did, so the media ran with it. Evidence? We don’t need no stinking evidence!

All Republicans should see this movie. We need to learn and understand Democrat and liberal media strategies. We should learn their tools and use them against them. Radio talk show host Kira Davis has learned this and is using it very effectively to reach out to minority voters across the country.

In many ways, TexasGOPVote founder and publisher, John Stautner, shows much of the same warrior mentality as Andrew Breitbart. He is studying these tactics and teaching them to a small but growing army of bloggers and writers like me who will not sit back and allow the media to run unchecked.

Hating Breitbart - Times and Tickets

Hating Breitbart is a must see movie. To find show times at a theater near you, visit http://hatingbreitbart.com/theaters. Go see this movie and then join the army fighting the war against the liberal media.

YouTube Preview Image

 

National Pro-Immigration GOP Group: Time to Make Lemonade from Lemons

Original link

Marshall, MN – National pro-immigration reform group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today reacted to the presidential election debacle. Bob Quasius, president, said

Yesterday’s election results show it is imperative that the Republican Party improve Latino outreach or become permanently uncompetitive in presidential and many other races. Exit and election-eve polls put Mitt Romney’s votes among Latinos at 23%, although over 60% of Latinos are center-right, according to Pew Research.

Polls consistently show a majority of Republicans support immigration reform, including a path to legalization, and a PEW Research poll from May 2011 showed that even among staunch conservatives there is a 49/49% split on immigration reform. However, due to lack of engagement and outreach and shrill rhetoric on this issue from a small minority of Republican politicians, Democrats have been successful in unfairly framing the Republican party as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, particularly in states where there has been harsh rhetoric on immigration.

This trend started in California. Prior to proposition 187, Republicans were competitive in statewide races, but since Governor Pete Wilson jumped on the proposition 187 bandwagon, many Hispanics left the GOP and since then the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California.

Latino outreach improved during the Reagan/Bush years, and President Bush won over 40% of the Latino vote during his reelection campaign, proving that Latinos can be swayed to vote Republican with the right messaging and sensible solutions to issues of interest to Latinos like immigration.

However, since SB1070 and other harsh laws were passed, mass exodus of conservative Hispanics has occurred in Colorado following Tom Tancredo’s candidacy for Governor, in Arizona following SB1070, and in Nevada due to harsh rhetoric from Sharon Angle in the U.S. Senate race.

Cafe Con Leche Republicans initially supported Newt Gingrich, and one of our reasons is that Newt’s campaign recognized the importance of outreach to Latinos and a sensible stance on immigration reform, neither mass amnesty nor mass deportations but a solution that addresses our broken immigration system and seeks to strike a balance between accountability for illegal immigration, and the need to keep families together and avoid damaging our economy. Newt’s campaign reached out to us, and ultimately Cafe Con Leche Republicans provided five members of Newt’s national Hispanic leadership team.

When Newt dropped out of the race and Mitt Romney became the nominee, we decided to support Mitt Romney. Numerous attempts to connect with the Romney campaign’s Hispanic outreach proved fruitless. In our one year of existence, we’ve also had just one conversation with the RNC’s Latino outreach, and were left with the impression the RNC wasn’t interested in working with us due to our pro-immigration focus.

A common complaint among Latino Republican leaders is that RNC Latino outreach is dominated by a small clique of Latino Republicans from Washington DC and Florida, to the exclusion of others, particularly from the Southwest. We share the frustration of Latino Republican leaders from outside the DC/Florida clique that Mitt Romney received bad advice to largely ignore immigration, and some of Mitt’s rhetoric and association with immigration extremist Kris Kobach early in the campaign provided useful fodder for Democrats to frame Mitt Romney as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, which we don’t believe is the case.

It’s time to root out the small minority of immigration extremists from the GOP. That process is already underway, for example Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, has now twice been defeated by conservative Republicans who differed mainly by having sensible positions on immigration reform. We’d like to see Kris Kobach leave the party. Kobach is a top lieutenant to John Tanton, a notorious bigot and population control progressive, who once bragged how he manipulates Republicans. In a letter to a supporter, Tanton in 2001 stated:

The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

It’s time for the GOP to recognize this pattern of manipulation, and fully embrace immigration reform based on free market principles, and not arbitrarily low quotas promoted by population control progressives like Tanton. Harsh rhetoric on immigration coupled with lack of adequate engagement with Latinos and race baiting by Democrats has resulted in very low GOP support among Latinos, and we ignore this at our own political peril.

The 2012 election served up lemons for Republicans, but with sensible changes in strategy and direction we can make lemonade instead. Already we’re hearing that party leaders have woken up and ‘smelled the coffee’ and we’re hopeful this situation can be turned around.

President Obama promised to pursue immigration reform during his second term. Due to President Obama’s history of immigration fakery and failure to put anything on the table during his first term, we have reason to doubt this promise, but he is welcome to surprise us. With the election behind us, we have put our partisan hats and boxing gloves aside, and we stand fully ready to work with President Obama and Democrats on immigration reform, which won’t happen without bipartisan support. We hope that President Obama will ‘hit the reset button’ in his relationship with Republicans in Congress, as the hyper-partisanship that has characterized the last four years has been a major stumbling block to governing our nation.

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

It’s the Morning After the First Debate, and I’m Giddy

Wow!  I’m giddy.  I was surprised and thrilled by Gov. Romney’s performance in last night’s debate (Oct. 3).  I watched the debate with 7 other Conservatives, time-delayed by a Tivo box so that we could halt the action and toss in our own comments.

Several of us were apprehensive at the outset, but by the end of the debate we had worked ourselves into a frenzy of excitement, shouting “Yes! Yes! Yes!” as he pounded home those key points that free-market, limited-government, fiscal-responsibility Conservatives have been trumpeting for years.

Now I have to confess.  I had no idea that Gov. Romney had this in him.  Sure, he’d had some brief flashes on the campaign trail, and his style turned for the better after naming Paul Ryan as his VP.  But like many Conservatives, I feared the Governor was just the next-in-line Establishment Republican candidate — doomed to be another gracious loser.

I’m still absorbing what I saw & heard, and I’ll have to go through the whole debate again, but I do remember Romney’s first home run of the evening (for me) when he pointed out the immorality of the debt we are piling on the backs of our children.  As I’ve written in the past (herehere, and here for example), we are effectively selling them into a modern-day version of debt bondage.  At last we have a candidate who leads with that point against all those “compassionate” Democrats, the people who supposedly “care”.

As for Obama’s own performance, a repeated interjection among my friends was “He’s flailing, he’s flailing!”.  Time and again he reached back for his standard campaign talking points, sometimes well off-topic, and he was visibly shell-shocked when Romney put them down emphatically, with compelling refutation points, nicely bulleted and driven home like nails in a coffin (puns intended).

If you can watch the debate again, keep an eye on Obama’s upper jaw near his left ear as he stares down at his podium.  One of our friends spotted it first.  You’ll see a light spot come and go as he visibly clenches and unclenches his teeth. This man is used to adulation and acquiescence, not reasoned confrontation.  Bound up in his Leftist ideology and surrounded 24/7 by sycophants and a fawning, collaborative media, he was totally unprepared to defend his indefensible record. He spent much of the evening staring down at that podium as if being scolded by his school master.

Obama will be better prepared at the next debate, and Romney will have to guard against over-confidence.  But I’m no longer worried.  Obama’s hand is incredibly weak — almost everywhere, he’s holding a pair of deuces against Romney’s full house.  And Romney’s better at the game — much better.

Of course, the election ain’t over ’til it’s over, and the Obama machine, the Great American Left, and the Democrat Media Complex won’t go gently into the night.  But we have ourselves a candidate in Mitt Romney, and I have a new-found confidence that he and his staff might just run this campaign right across the finish line going away, and leading by several lengths.

Then, the long hard path to recovery begins.

[This article cross-posted from WesternFreePress.com]

Mitt Romney’s Introduction

YouTube Preview Image

Are the Democrats Sensing Defeat? Ask Chris Matthews.

Are any of you Conservative news junkies sensing what I’m sensing?

Namely –

It seems the Leftist media are finally sensing defeat in November.  And I mean really sensing it. The willful self-deception that they’ve cultivated for so long is crumbling.  Their messiah is false.  He’s failed.  And rather miserably at that.  And he may well take the party down with him in just a few weeks.

Why do I think they’re sensing defeat?

One of their media princelings, Chris Matthews, the bloviating, spittle-spewing host of MSNBC’s Hardball, shifted rather abruptly into defensive alibi mode on the August 31 edition of his show, less than 24 hours after Mitt Romney’s RNC acceptance speech.  Matthews began slathering blame on “Republican opposition” for Obama’s failure, this time including a freshly announced conspiracy, ostensibly hatched “in secret” back in 2009, to oppose the President’s policies.

Short memo to Chris:  The opposition opposes.  That’s what they do.  Especially when your messiah sets about to do what he’s done. And every minority party seeks to regain the majority.  It’s nothing personal, okay?

But more importantly –

What Obama failure are you talking about?  So now Obama has failures?  Are you now implying he’ll lose the upcoming election?  Are you seeking to lay off the blame for that in advance?

Sheesh.  This is quite a shift for a mawkishly liberal, self-delusional, sycophantic, Obama camp follower like you, no?  Has that 2008 tingle up your leg migrated to a 2012 chill up your spine?

What happened?  Did you watch the RNC speeches that your network wouldn’t air?  Were you frightened by the depth of the Republican bench?  (If so, eat your heart out, pal.)    Did you mentally compare Paul Ryan to Joe Biden and suffer a panic attack?

I occasionally enjoy your show for its unintentional humor, but the sea change in your August 31 show was positively delightful.  Please do it again on your next show.  Please.  As the RNC mystery guest said: Go ahead. Make my day.

Republican National Hispanic Assembly (RNHA) Statement Regarding Vice Presidential Pick Paul Ryan

RNHA STATEMENT REGARDING REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL PICK 

Lakeland, FL. – The RNHA applauds Governor Mitt Romney’s pick of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. RNHA National Chairman Alci Maldonado stated: “Governor Romney’s excellent choice of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate clearly demonstrates an affirmation of Mr. Ryan’s strength of character and leadership. Congressman Ryan has initiated the national discussion regarding the need for entitlement reform and budgetary restraint and management. Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan’s proposals to reform Medicare will ensure its future solvency and integrity and it will not be eliminated as some critics have charged. Medicare will not be eliminated as we know it, it will be saved.

America is headed for a fiscal catastrophe and the Obama administration has made things worse for America by refusing to deal with our skyrocketing debt, our lack of jobs and our financial insecurity. The Obama administrations mishandling of our economy has compromised our future security and will pass on a terrible legacy to future generations. It is indeed time for a change of administration in Washington and America has a clear choice between more of the same disastrous policies or with a new administration, a return to prosperity, balanced budgets and economic security for all.”

The mission of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly is to build a membership organization to foster the principles of the Republican Party in the Hispanic community; provide Hispanic Americans with a forum to play an influential role in local, state, and national Party activities; increase the number of Hispanic Republican elected officials; and create and maintain a network of Hispanic Republican leaders.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!

Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan 2012

It’s time to believe in America again.

Obama’s Political Payoffs And Middle Class Layoffs

YouTube Preview Image

Middle class families are struggling in the Obama economy. Instead of working to restore their economic security, President Obama is too busy rewarding his biggest donors. The Obama record is one of political payoffs and middle class layoffs.

Whatever Happened to Hope & Change?

YouTube Preview Image

Republicans on Immigration Issues and the Latino Vote

Here’s a quick wrap-up of what Republicans have been saying on President Obama’s non-enforcement measure, immigration and the Latino vote:

First my comments:

Next, Congressman Schweikert’s comments:

Click Here To view Reactions to Obama’s immigration executive order!

Then Senator Jon Kyl commented on Fox News:

YouTube Preview Image

Senator John McCain on Meet the Press:

YouTube Preview Image

Finally, Governor Mitt Romney at the National Association of Latino Elected Officials:

YouTube Preview Image

And if you’re curious, here is what the Republican Party Platform says on “Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law”

Immigration policy is a national security issue, for which we have one test: Does it serve the national interest? By that standard, Republicans know America can have a strong immigration system without sacrificing the rule of law.

Enforcing the Rule of Law at the Border and Throughout the Nation

Border security is essential to national security. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people. We simply must be able to track who is entering and leaving our country.

Our determination to uphold the rule of law begins with more effective enforcement, giving our agents the tools and resources they need to protect our sovereignty, completing the border fence quickly and securing the borders, and employing complementary strategies to secure our ports of entry. Experience shows that enforcement of existing laws is effective in reducing and reversing illegal immigration.

Our commitment to the rule of law means smarter enforcement at the workplace, against illegal workers and lawbreaking employers alike, along with those who practice identity theft and traffic in fraudulent documents. As long as jobs are available in the United States, economic incentives to enter illegally will persist. But we must empower employers so they can know with confidence that those they hire are permitted to work. That means that the E-Verify system—which is an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees—must be reauthorized. A phased-in requirement that employers use the E-Verify system must be enacted.

The rule of law means guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay – and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult. It means enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry. It means imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S., both for their lawbreaking and for their cruel exploitation. It means requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens. It does not mean driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits, except as provided by federal law.

We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.

Embracing Immigrant Communities

Today’s immigrants are walking in the steps of most other Americans’ ancestors, seeking the American dream and contributing culturally and economically to our nation. We celebrate the industry and love of liberty of these fellow Americans.

Both government and the private sector must do more to foster legally present immigrants’ integration into American life to advance respect for the rule of law and a common American identity. It is a national disgrace that the first experience most new Americans have is with a dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy defined by delay and confusion; we will no longer tolerate those failures.

In our multiethnic nation, everyone – immigrants and native-born alike – must embrace our core values of liberty, equality, meritocracy, and respect for human dignity and the rights of women.

One sign of our unity is our English language. For newcomers, it has always been the fastest route to prosperity in America. English empowers. We support English as the official language in our nation, while welcoming the ethnic diversity in the United States and the territories, including language. Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English. English is the accepted language of business, commerce, and legal proceedings, and it is essential as a unifying cultural force. It is also important, as part of cultural integration, that our schools provide better education in U.S. history and civics for all children, thereby fostering a commitment to our national motto, E Pluribus Unum.

We are grateful to the thousands of new immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces. Their patriotism is inspiring; it should remind the institutions of civil society of the need to embrace newcomers, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid patterns of isolation.

Welcoming Refugees

Our country continues to accept refugees from troubled lands all over the world. In some cases, these are people who stood with America in dangerous times, and they have first call on our hospitality. We oppose, however, the granting of refugee status on the basis of lifestyle or other non-political factors.

Mitt Romney: The Future Needs A Strong America

“You have to balance your budget, or you go broke. To make government simpler, smaller, and smarter we have to take government itself and make it more productive and more efficient. We can’t keep buying and spending and passing on debts to our kids. American strength is the best ally peace has ever known. The world needs a strong America. Our families need a strong America. The future needs a strong America. This is a critical time for us.” — Mitt Romney

YouTube Preview Image

 

Blame the “Headwinds”

Blaming anyone or anything but himself! Now it’s “headwinds.”

YouTube Preview Image

Mitt Romney releases new ad: The Promise of America

It has almost been one year since Mitt Romney announced his campaign for president in Stratham, New Hampshire. As he clinches the delegates needed for the Republican nomination, we look back on this journey to restore the promise of America.

YouTube Preview Image

Mitt Romney: Thank You

YouTube Preview Image