Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves -  Abraham Lincoln

The absolute perfect version of immigration in the U.S. is the following: every immigrant should enter legally, learn the language, the history of the U.S. and if working in this country, pay taxes. Every immigrant should acculturate and then assimilate into what the “founding fathers” thought to be the United States. Those who immigrate can, then, learn to slowly forget their country of origin. After all, this is a question that is asked and required when someone is naturalizing into the United States. “Would you give up all allegiance to your country of origin?”

The reality is more complex than this. We can no more forget where we originated than we can our mother and where we were raised. These are memories that we cannot erase in an instant and it is this suppression of identity that is causing our great nation to be on life support. My vision is to advance understanding and meaningful discourse so that we can rise up to the level for us to remember what makes THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the greatest country in the world.

The America as we have known it is fighting for her life. Where the Statute of Liberty symbolized a new way of life for those immigrants coming to the United States, many have turned her into a tired old threatening woman holding a big billy club ready to pounce on any foreigner that tries to enter the U.S. Uncle Sam is not fairing any better, he’s a cranky old curmudgeon without courage, fearful of all kinds of illusionary enemies while the real ones steal, bomb, and have us feuding among ourselves over the most minute detail.

These two polar opposites is what is creating all kinds of spirited debate in the political theater. One recent example is of State Senator Chris Harris being offended by a Mr. Antolin Aguirre giving testimony in Spanish as reported by Bob Price.

While I cannot speak for Mr. Aguirre, there is a strong possibility that he was self conscious of not speaking flawless English and, therefore fearful of being misunderstood. While this is no excuse, afterall he has lived in the United States long enough to know how to communicate in English, his perception of hear was real. Moreover, from what we could hear, he speaks functional English and has the ability to communicate in the language. Being self conscious of his accent and being ridiculed for it, was no excuse. He had something to say. He had something to offer and like all of us who speak publicly, we prepare in advance to give the best articulated statement whether it is for a speech in class, to colleagues, or in this case a testimony before a Committee. We should be prepared in all instances to be effective enough to convey our message. A translator could have been used only as a last resource. Communication is all about what you say, and more importantly, how it is received and processed in the listener’s mind. Now many are upset that Senator Harris was a little rough when asking Mr. Aguirre if he spoke English. While I know that a long day listening to testimony can be grueling and may leave one with a short patience level, it was not necessary to humiliate someone while they were attempting something for the first time. Yet I agree with Senator Harris that if you can speak English, please provide your testimony in the language, even if you speak with an accent. Yet it was the manner in how that was conveyed to Mr. Aguirre that is being perceived as “mean.”

Hispanics in this great country are capable of many things. Yet we treat each other with careful white gloves, and take the pobrecito (poor me) attitude as a handicap almost as an excuse for not being able to accomplish something. We are not pobrecitos. We are a resilient people. We are a people of many talents, language abilities, and intelligence. If we don’t believe it, however, we will never learn to assimilate and command the respect that we deserve. This respect comes from learning how to communicate in a language of the land where we choose to live. We live in the twenty first century and in a country that offers freedoms and unlimited “pursuits of happiness.”

Immigrants continue to come to the U.S. seeking the American dream of freedom, prosperity, and a better future for their families. We as Latinos can still have that dream if we meet halfway and learn to acculturate and assimilate into this great country. We Latinos can have so much to offer, if we shed that pobrecito attitude and accept and learn to overcome the challenges necessary to be an Americano.

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.

Original link here.

####

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.

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

“A man’s country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.” - George William Curtis, American Writer

Multiculturalism is the embodiment of many cultures or the love of two or more cultures. In the news recently, it was the reason cited by, Breivik, the Norweigan terror suspect who felt that his country’s culture was threatened by Muslims. According to news reports, Breikik held contempt for cultures that weakened his country. Hence, individuals who do not integrate or assimilate into the “new” country run the risk of arousing misunderstanding that leads to unintended hatred. In the U.S., immigrants bring their native born cultural DNA and adopt the American way of life. They learn to blend the two and hold on to their conservative values that most often comes from their religious affiliations. The children of these immigrants, and their offspring fully assimilate and prefer the Conservative American values and way of life as their new identity and choice of loyalty.

Our country has attracted waves of immigrants who come from various cultures worldwide. Each has contributed to the creation of our nation in her strength and vitality. This pluralism of cultures has given us an enriched language, art, foods, music, and technological advantage to become a Superpower in one of the shortest periods of recorded time. Studies also show that these immigrants hold the strongest Conservative values equal to that of the Republican Party.

Some in the U.S. cling to a fear that America is losing its identity and becoming vulnerable to foreigners who have no love for our country. Yet others have gone on record to say that foreigners come to the U.S. to infiltrate our land with U.S. haters. These individuals and groups take some isolated person or action and magnify it and repeat it over and over till it becomes an unquestioned truth. In my opinion, “What we got here is a failure to communicate,” as was expressed in the movie, “Cool Hand Luke.”

As it was true in the 1700s, people from all over the world continue to come to America seeking freedom from oppressive governments while also looking for economic prosperity. Their work ethic speaks for their drive to better themselves and their family, gladly working in some of the most dangerous and physically demanding menial jobs. Many immigrants risk everything including their family, material possessions, and oftentimes their lives to come to America. They love their culture but they love the country that embraces them and affords them a better way of life beyond abject poverty. The Love for this country is magnified as the generations reach a level of a middle class that was not available to them in their country. While many independents are born in the U.S., those with high concentration of conservative values are immigrants who have naturalized into the U.S.

Our founding fathers were men of a great vision who formed America as a predominantly white European protestant nation, but the ideology on which it was built was consistent: freedom from tyranny and a free market. These beliefs would eventually become coined as American values that allow anyone with a great work ethic to reach the American dream and rise from rags to riches. In the next part of this series you will read about how a founding father, born in the West Indies, eloquently described his naturalized citizenship.

So what does love have to do with it? Plenty. Those who forget to honor this nation also forget that the Love for this country is the essence of our democracy.

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

Women vote on the issues. The world around them may change and new issues may arise thereby making voting more complicated, but women will voice their concerns by choosing a candidate after carefully studying the issues. Candidates may use countless of means to covet their vote, but in private, women are concerned with the basic things that will affect their money, the safety of America, and their families.

With the enactment of the 19th Amendment, women won the right to vote in 1920 but the elections didn’t see much of their participation immediately. Rather, it seemed that they settled to the back, uncertain at first on how to use this new found power. While Historians claim that there was apathy among women voters at first, it appears that they were more cautious. It was thought they took a big sigh to eye and figure out how to exactly how to use this new responsibility. For example, in 1929 women were in fact drawn to the Presidential election to support the candidate that they liked. Al Smith (D) was a New Yorker and anti-prohibition candidate, while Herbert Hoover (R) was the quiet candidate who was pro-Prohibition. Women could associate with conservative thought and Hoover. Moreover, Hoover was the Food Administrator during the Great War, something women saw as “familiar.” These were two basic but important issues to women and how they thought and more importantly, these issues directly affected their family. As a result, Hoover won the Presidency with, 41% percent of the women vote as compared to 35% of the male vote.

As women became more politically savvy, female voters were already setting the litmus test on how they would determine how to vote on issues. Women voters were using their everyday life to discern those issues that were important to them when deciding to support a candidate.

By the time Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, men voted as democrats at a higher rate than women. As this was a time of great economic depression and new situations, women retreated to assess the development of these issues. Women were the head of household during the depression. Although, they did not vote in a high number, they were acquiring new skills that would test their new found responsibilities. The last part of Roosevelt’s term saw the beginning of World War II which turned some women into hard workers. For example, women were left as single parents or widows during those bleak times, as a result of the War. Moreover, women learned new skills of survival that included managing their own money, entering the workforce is vast numbers, and voting according to their “needs.” This was the first time that they were able to demonstrate how their survival depended on their own sense of responsibility to their country and their family. By this time, they had developed a trend of stepping back to assess, learn, and then decide their vote. It was a trend that would continue even to date.

Women’s voting power reemerged during the election with Dwight Eisenhower, who won two terms. Women declared, at that time, that they had in fact, “put him” (Eisenhower) in power from 1953 to 1961. There was probably some truth to that. For the first time since obtaining the right to vote, women voted, at a 6% rate higher than men. But what drove them to the polls? Perhaps it was that women saw issues as the Korean War, inflation and corruption in D.C. as problematic. Hence, the only way to show their disdain against these issues was to use their voting power. They did.

Women by this time had learned how to protect their interests by using their vote. During the Eisenhower era they voted for a leader who brought calm after a war. Eisenhower created jobs with his highway plan and America was at a calm state since the end of the war. It was a prosperous time for America, and for the most part women felt that their families were unified and protected. The issues affecting the nation existed, but the economy provided for a time where women could focus on raising their families in a two parent household since before the war. It was a decade of prosperity, safety, and family stability and something women desired when selecting their candidate.

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

Outside the U.S. Supreme Court, the Goddess of Justice contemplates as she holds another female figurine that is blind folded. Throughout the world, this image is repeated in front of Courthouses and Government buildings: a blindfolded woman holds up scales, under-determined which way they will tilt. It is the image of fairness in the Justice System and in governing. Like with fairness, liberty is depicted by a woman in America with The Statute of Liberty. She holds the torch as if to light the way, for those who crossed the Atlantic Ocean to a better life. During American’s early years, she was the beacon of “Welcome” as they entered the U.S. for the first time. She evoked a safe haven and was seen as the welcoming ambassador for those seeking freedom from persecution, then and now. These Greek goddesses, as used around the world, evoke the same thoughts as in America: justice, liberty, and courage.

America has seen women undergo a development of great strength, a revolution if you will. During the initial settlement of America, it said that Abigail Adams often reminded her husband to not forget the females and their rights when drafting the documents that would procure freedom and rights for the new citizens of America. Yet women, who were involved in the settlement of this country, were not granted the same rights given to their husbands and leaders who penned the documents of freedom and laws. It is not clear as to whether the exclusion was a means to protect women or to carry on the tradition of seeing them as an extension of their husbands. Nevertheless, these documents that are the nexus of American freedom did not extend to women. Yet women were the quiet strength, and they took part in their contribution by creating symbols that depict the strongest sense of pride of patriotism to this day.

One particular symbol that Americans are jingoistic about is the American Flag or Old Betsy as it is often referred to. Although there are variations of the story on how Betsy Ross came to be the creator of the flag, she was commissioned by General George Washington, as many historians have documented. It was during that time that George Washington and others sought to display a flag at their first convention. Some accounts state that Ross made some changes on the stars and colors, and in fact she determined the shaping of the five star, as opposed to the six pointed star wanted by the men, was a better decision. The reasoning she gave was a simple and a more practical solution to the flag’s construction, from a woman’s point of view. Whether or not this is true, all agree that the U.S. flag is the symbol that evokes the most true and heartfelt ache of patriotism during funerals of fallen heroes, on the Fourth of July, and during war time. It is the most recognized symbol of America throughout the world.

In 1787, the U.S. Constitutional Convention allowed states to decide voting rights to extend to women. However, all of the states voted against it except for New Jersey, but shortly thereafter, this right was reversed in this state and women fell short in having a voice in government once again. Even at this time, States were flexing their strength in procuring rights for their residents without the intrusion of the Federal Government. In fact, The Tenth Amendment did not grant states their own right to regulate until 1791, but as stated previously, states were a strong voice when trying to give women access to voting.

Women transitioned from an unheard voice to that of great strength for America, from 1868 until 1920. It was during this string of years, that women gained the right to inherit property, keep their wages, file for divorce, and finally the right to vote. Yet all of this came with the heavy price of being ostracized from society because of their civil disobedience. The more restricted the rights became, the more tenacious women became about seeking a solution. For instance, they met in small sewing groups or tea time groups where they organized themselves into powerful bodies of social change. These groups were formed where women discussed everything from family, history, daily gossip, and politics. These groups grew in numbers and were quiet in their challenging laws they saw as restrictive, yet as they gained in numbers and confidence, their defiance increased as did their voice. States like New York, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, and Ohio allowed women to keep their own wages about this time. Women halted their strife during the Civil War, but when they saw that the granting of freedom to slaves in 1869 by way of the 15th Amendment also afforded them the right to vote, women began to gain momentum in their stride for a more equitable voice in their country.

In 1893, Colorado was the first state to grant women the right to vote. Soon others like Utah, Idaho, and California soon followed. These States granted female citizens rights that the U.S. Government did not see as essential or purposeful at that time. Susan B. Anthony and others joined in large amounts to procure strength and camaraderie for their suffrage movement. Finally, in 1920 after various protests and meetings, the 19th Amendment was passed granting women the right to vote. The Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

History shows us that women will be tenacious for a law that is equitable and fair. The right to vote and partake in electing leaders is a freedom that is pinnacle to shaping the America we now seek to advance and protect. Moreover, when laws are contrary to what women see as unjust, they will look for solutions that will slowly chisel away the strength of their existence until a resolution is implemented. Women have been demanding RESPECT, long before Aretha Franklin sang the chorus to make that mantra famous for all occasions. The methods women have been ensuing are crafty and intelligent. They formed groups of “similarly minded” individuals, or Rescuers, who took the leadership role and risked their lives, at times, to voice their concerns for other women in similar situations. These Rescuers saw the motions to shake up the establishment by echoing the desire to be equal, at least in political power.

For Immediate Release

Phoenix, Arizona – National Pro-Immigration Group Cafe Con Leche Republicans is pleased to endorse Jerry Lewis for Arizona Senate LD18.

Jerry was elected to this position as a result of the recall election of Russell Pearce, and has done an outstanding job as state senator! Some very positive qualities include fiscal conservatism, limited government, and sensible positions on immigration, supporting neither mass amnesty nor mass deportations.

Jerry’s four platform planks, education, economy, budget/taxes, and immigration show he knows how to address a range of problems and not focus on a single issue to the detriment of other issues. Also, Jerry has demonstrated that he can work across the aisle as needed to solve problems, a quality that sadly is disappearing in the current political arena.

####

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.

Marshall, MN – National pro-immigrant Republican group Cafe Con Leche Republicans, today reacted to Vice-President Joe Biden’s latest claim about immigration reform. Biden is quoted by Politico:

Right now, you’ve got the president and I and a lot of Democrats out there breaking our neck trying to get a real immigration law that takes millions of people out of the shadows, making sure that ‘Dreamers’ don’t have to go back in many cases to countries they’ve never been,

If the Latino vote comes out, the Hispanic vote comes out and changes the election, all of a sudden those guys who paid no attention to you, no attention to the Hispanic community, no attention to the Latino community. All of a sudden they’re going to say, ‘Oh my Lord I guess we better get in line with the president. I guess we better start moving in the direction of paying attention to this incredible, this incredible pool of talent we have out there. So this is a chance to gain influence that’s almost disproportionate to the impact that you may have directly in the election.

Bob Quasius, president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans, taken aback by Biden’s statements, reacted:

Earlier this week we blasted Obama for his long record of ‘immigration fakery‘, making promises at election time, then once elected putting nothing on the table, and blaming Republicans for his own lack of leadership on immigration reform. Obama ignored the Hispanic community until it was time to fire up his campaign and discovered enthusiasm among Hispanics was lacking.

Incredibly, now Biden claims the Obama administration has been ‘breaking their necks’ on immigration reform. The Obama administration has deported record numbers of immigrants, not just “gang bangers” as Obama claimed, but DREAM eligible youth, and many long term residents who did not have criminal records. During the first six months of 2011, our “Deporter-in-Chief” deported 46,686 parents who had at least one U.S. citizen child, while more than 5,100 children of immigrants have ended up in foster care because their parents had either been detained or deported, according to ICE.

Obama has aggressively rolled out secure communities nationwide despite widespread complaints the program fuels racial profiling, and a recent study found 3,600 Latino citizens were falsely arrested! Thousands of Latino citizens born in South Texas have also been denied U.S. passports, and as reported by CNN, some were deported, based merely on Hispanic surname and midwife birth.

Obama failed to exercise leadership with Congress on immigration reform and put nothing on the table during his first two years, even when Democrats enjoyed super-majorities in both Houses of Congress. Instead, in June of 2011 Obama offered a ‘deferred action’ plan (“Morton Memo“) for long term residents with family ties, DREAM eligible youth, etc., presenting as “new policy” existing DHS policy for deferred action,  that had existed since 2000 (“Meisner memo“).

Under DHS policy that has existed since 2000, the Obama administration could have curbed deportations of DREAM eligible youth and long term residents without criminal records, but failed to act until it was time to launch his reelection campaign.

One year after the Morton memo was released, ICE had ‘reviewed’ 411,000 cases for deferred action, and closed just 2%. Recent numbers for Obama’s latest deferred action plan showed that just 2% of those who applied had been granted relief. The program is a ‘band aid’ that offers two years of relief from deportation, with no guarantee applicants will be spared deportation after two years.

Biden’s choice of words was in poor taste, though not surprising given Biden’s long history of gaffes. This reminds us that Joe Biden is just a heartbeat away from the presidency, and his selection as Obama’s running mate a second time highlights another Obama bad hiring decision.

####

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.

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

The presence of a life, is without a doubt, a miracle.  An unborn struggles, unknown what it means to exists, inside this sack of fluids in the womb.  This unborn is  uncertain about what it is to be alive.  We, as a society, take over its fate as we dictate its future with our laws when we determine when its presence is considered “viable”.  Our laws look to when it is legal to destroy it, or allow it to develop even if deformed.  Our laws give us “permission” to end a life, and create one in order to save another in stem cell medicine.

Before Roe v. Wade (1973) gave women the permission to determine whether or not to medically end their pregnancy in a “legal” way, abortion was being performed illegally by non-medical people.  Women sought to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies with dangerous procedures that oftentimes ended in their own death.  In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court was unable to make considerable ethical arguments for allowing the unborn child any rights; instead, the court argued with the logic that the 14^th amendment and the due process clause allowed women the right, to make decisions over their own body.  It argued mainly on the right to privacy and how the laws did not have the power to circumvent this right as it applied to people in the U.S., mainly women.

With that decision, the Court opened a Pandora Box that has been hovering over the U.S. and our social attitude toward life.  In their argument, however, the Court did not carry the argument onto the unborn.   Rather, they shied away from the application citing that the question  of viability and that the due process clause could not protect the rights of a human being, and in this case, a being that was not yet “viable.”  Since that time, the slaughter of lives has been approximately 52 million and counting.

If the ruling had gone against the granting of abortion rights, this would not have stopped  abortion and the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.  After all, as stated previously, women were having abortions performed under considerably dangerous conditions before the Roe decision.  What the ruling in  Roe v. Wade, did was to give permission to the act of ending a life.   The Court never stated that the abortion was good, moral, or just.  It merely stated that abortion could not be dictated to women and therefore, it was legal.

As in many instances where we use our laws to circumvent moral behavior, we find it logical rather than deplorable and use this as an excuse for behavior.  Such is the case in Roe.  For example,  women aged 20-29 between the years of 1999-2008 had the majority of abortions.   The income for these women ranged from $30, 000 to $50,000.  Among the many reasons cited for having an abortion, women stated that they did not know how to handle responsibility to someone else’s life.  They also stated that they did not want an interference with work or school, or the financial burden, followed by having a problem with the current marriage or relationship.  Further studies show that 50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions and teenagers obtain 17% (AGI).

Other Studies show that White women accounted for 36% of abortions, while non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and non-Hispanic women of other races for 9%.  Many of these women, in fact, 45% reported themselves as single or cohabitating with a boyfriend.

The Religious affiliations were high in number among those stating to be of Protestant faith with 37%, while Catholics were at 28%.  Despite these many statistics that I post because the breakdown of the numbers, I feel, would give an understanding for the act, it does not.  It serves little or no understanding as to the mindset of this disheartening behavior.

When women were asked why they were more likely to have an abortion, they stated because of fear.  A fear of disrupting a patterned life, losing a relationship, and the financial addition of another life.  While this is not an acceptable excuse for the abortion, could it be that women are not well informed for this responsibility?  Still, the income level for many of those having abortions do not fall into the poverty level.  While the majority of women having abortions do fall to Non-Hispanic white women, followed by Black women, then Hispanic women, the income level of these groups is still high enough to recognize that the financial burden is a weak excuse.

Moreover, the statistics can be gathered and the blame can be assessed over women.  But so what?  The fear that these women feel is real.  They feel a desperation that cannot be explained and our society does not teach them a “responsibility” to accept the consequences of their actions.  Instead, we craft laws that allow them to act  in the quickest and disheartening LEGAL manner available to them.  These laws are the “permission” that women need to act  upon their fear.

by Bob Price (reposted with permission of author - original link. Agent Terry was murdered in Arizona, so this blog post should be of particular interest to Tucson Citizen readers.)

Nearly two years after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by a gang of Mexican thugs in the desert night of southeastern Arizona, the federal government has finally secured a conviction. Yesterday, Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, plead guilty to the murder but denied being the shooter. He pled guilty in exchange for having the death penalty taken off the table during the sentencing portion of the trial, set for January. Osorio-Arellanes faces life in prison as his maximum punishment. Is this conviction too little, too late from an Obama Administration that appears to be up to their ears in the Fast and Furious program that led to Terry’s murder and its subsequent cover-up?

I spoke with Brian Terry’s brother, Kent Terry, today about this news and his reaction. He indicated he was not aware that the defendant was going to change his plea and said, “I am glad justice was served somewhat.” Terry questioned the timing of this plea bargain and its proximity to the election next week.

As do many Americans, Kent Terry believes that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are directly involved in the Fast and Furious program that put two of the guns used in Brian Terry’s murder into the hands of these gangsters. Terry said, “I am ashamed of how Obama handled Fast and Furious and Benghazi.” He feels Obama’s failure to comment on Fast and Furious or pressure his Administration to get to the truth about Fast and Furious and Benghazi are indications of Obama’s direct complicity.

Osorio-Arellanes was part of a gang of Mexican bandits who had come into the United States illegally solely for the purpose of committing crimes. In his plea statement, Osorio-Arellanes admitted he was part of this “rip-off” crew. They sneaked into the U.S. from Mexico about a week prior to Agent Terry’s murder. They had stashed food and weapons (including at least two guns from Fast and Furious) and were searching for Mexican marijuana smugglers to rob when they encountered Agent Terry’s BORTAC team and engaged them in a fire fight. Osorio-Arellanes admitted raising his weapon but said he did not fire on the agents. Osorio-Arellanes was shot during the gunfight and has been in federal custody ever since.

Clearly our borders are not secure. Not only are drug smugglers free to traffic their products into our nation. They also are freely engaging in human smuggling, human trafficking and sex-slavery as they bring their human cargo into America. In addition, rip-off gangs like the one Osorio-Arellanes was a part of, freely come and go across our border preying on their victims and endangering our Border Patrol Agents.

President Obama has failed in his primary duty as Commander-in-Chief – that of protecting our borders from an invasion of an army of smugglers and gangsters who endanger the lives of American citizens every day. Brian Terry’s murder is not the only one attributable to Obama’s failure to secure our borders. Many other Americans have lost their lives to bandits like this.

Our nation deserves to have a president who will take seriously, the dangers associated with our unsecured borders. And we deserve the opportunity to engage in real reform of our broken immigration system that makes it too easy for people to enter our country illegally and much too difficult for many to find a legal way to come here.

While immigration reform and border security have not been talked about very much in this presidential election season, it is an important issue and one where Obama has failed. You can make a statement by getting out and voting for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Send a message of overwhelming magnitude and unarguable force that we reject the last four years of this Lawless Presidency and tell the Democrat party they must re-tool their issues from the ground up if they want to remain a viable party in our nation’s political system. You can do this by not just winning this election, but by getting every single voter you know to the polls. Vote a straight Republican ticket to send your message all the way down the ballot!

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

There is no right to be born in the U.S., according to the current U.S. President.  Children are not given these rights, unless they are considered viable, whatever that that may be.  To date, no one has been able to define the term, from scholars, legal experts, religious advocates, not even mothers. Abortion is a topic that is being avoided as of late from the scandalous funding cutoffs that are plaguing Planned Parenthood and the Komen Foundation.  Even the recent Mandate to Religious schools and hospitals, from the Obama Administration, is to make certain that these employers offer free contraceptives and other health benefits to their employees. However, in untold facts, the President is using federal funding to suppress religious freedom, while at the same time pretending to promote women’s health. And it is all about votes.

The Administration flaunts its defense in the name of women’s health and their importance.  They proclaim the obvious, and that is that women are important to everyone.  They are a large part of our economy.  They are the largest voting bloc. They are the organizers at home.  Moreover, currently women are the ones employed in the higher number within the U.S.  Additionally, women live longer.  They are the most economically organized group of individuals.  Yet, they are quick on emotion to help other women and to protect the less fortunate before looking at all of the details.  They rescue and ask questions later.  This is our nature.

The White House spokespersons mention women in all of their interviews when referring to the decision to call upon religious organizations to provide contraceptives to help women and their choices.  The wording is fabulous because  women will come to the aid of other women when it comes to health and choices.  This power was discovered, by women, only after the passage of the 19^th Amendment and one that has been nurtured and used with great force to elect Presidents since Hoover.  In fact, women have voted for those Presidents who pushed issues regarding women and their health.

As a result, politicians like our current President, have learned to use issues and language affecting women to their advantage.  And, we as women, allow them–him to whisper into our ears that famous language of hope and change.  Our President states, throughout his speeches, what matters is that women have power over their health and their choices.  And he has us believing that he cares about our well being all the while, he has an ulterior motive—-Votes.   He is indeed the master of language, but I don’t think that this is the Change and Hope that unborn children were looking from him.  His language is smoke and mirrors looking for the next 15 minutes of glory from his “new age” language. This does not make him fit to be President, but rather it makes him the King Confabulator.

Republicans leading the charge against this law, including Republican Senator Marco Rubio recently stated that, “From a practical standpoint this will force Catholic organizations to make an unacceptable choice: Ignore a major tenet of their faith, or not provide any insurance to their employees and be punished with a federal fine for violating Obamacare’s mandate on employers.”  This should be an important part of the equation women should consider before closing the door on this mandate, that is the part about religion and faith.

According to the Institute of Medicine, an independent group of doctors and researchers that the Administration relied upon, birth control is medically necessary “to ensure women’s health and well-being.”  In furthering their study, they conclude that this means that women would be less likely to succumb to unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will mean less abortions.  Now we understand the one part of the offering that is hidden in the plan.  The one concept no one wants to overtly talk about.  Abortions.

This mandate will give women more access to abortions.  And in order to avoid this or even get to this topic, the mandate stops with the rational to help women and their health.  It does not speak of the unborn children that will be affected by this law.  In as much as the funding pulled by the Komen Foundation did not explain why it was pulling its funding from Planned Parenthood.  The reasoning was to defund abortions.  The comingling of funds could not be honed in on those mammograms versus abortions that are performed by Planned Parenthood.  It is as though, women are not allowed to look behind the curtain to see the Wizard who dictates the destruction of lives that will not be born.

Sen. Rick Santorum has taken the position that health insurance plans should not be required to cover birth control.  He also favors allowing states to decide whether to ban birth control. Speaker Gingrich wants to withdraw government money from Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions in addition to providing contraceptives, because federal money cannot be used for abortions.  Therefore, just like Gingrich and Santorum, women ought to be outraged that they are going to be used like pawns to get votes to re-elect Obama.  In as much, the Catholic Church  has the right to be angry at the President for suppressing their faith in the name of politics.

In a diabolical but clever manner, the Obama Administration aims at the largest voting bloc of women, 18-29 year old women who care about contraceptives and abortions.  They are 54% of the voters.  Unmarried women are 41% of these votes, Latina women 42%, Black women 41%.  So this outcry for women’s health, is true to some extent.  But let us not forget that underneath that whisper of the importance of hope and change, are the smothered cries of the unborn’s rights.