By Thomas Martin Salazar, (content originally Published through Cafe con Leche Republicans)

In 2008 President Obama made a promise to many Hispanics and Latinos that said he would make immigration reform priority. He promised that immigration reform was an important issue that should not wait to be addressed down the road, but during his first term.

Here we are four years later and in an interview with Univision, Obama tells the American people that his greatest failure was not passing comprehensive immigration reform.  This would be ironic if it was not such a tragic understatement. In fact, President Obama and his administration are aggressively  enforcing  immigration laws.

In the last four years President Obama rounded up and deported more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants. Moreover, he masqueraded as an immigration reformer – working to seduce the Latino community, by suing Arizona all the way up to the Supreme Court for passing SB 1070 and by opposing Maricopa county Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Yes Obama and his campaign surrogates boast with pride about how Obama is the immigrant’s champion, but they neglect to tell the truth about Obama’s own immigration policies.

They conveniently ignore the fact that Obama has pioneered the Secure Communities program. According to a Research Report by Aarti Kohli, Peter Markowitz, and Lisa Chavez, President Obama took this pilot program, which was started under President Bush, from 14 jurisdictions to 1,595. This program empowers state and local police all throughout the United States, to do the very exact things for which his administration sued Arizona and Maricopa county Sheriff Joe Arpaio. More revealing statistics from the same research study states,

“Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population in the United States;”

And

“Only 2% of non-citizens arrested through Secure Communities are granted relief from deportation by an immigration judge as compared to 14% of all immigration court respondents who are granted relief”

This is unequivocally a disproportionate assault on Latinos. But the facts do not stop here.  The President has deported more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants, which averages to just below 400,000 people a year. Furthermore, Obama’s immigration policies have left more than 5,000 American citizens in foster care because their parents were rounded up and deported. His administration in the name of national security continues to deny passports to United States citizens whose birth certificates came from midwife and not through a hospital. This has disproportionately affected Latinos. This new policy of no longer accepting midwife birth certificates as an acceptable form of Identification goes far beyond just impacting Latinos who are seeking to obtain passports; in fact, there are even incidents where Federal immigration officials coerced United States citizens into signing away their citizenship. These are not the actions of a man who cares about immigrants and their families nor is it the actions of an immigration reformer.

Recently Obama has again been making his rounds – reaching out to Latinos with his promise and message of reform. Ironically, Obama and his campaign want Americans to believe that immigration reform will become a reality within the next four years. Indeed, it is such an important issue to our President that he failed to even reference immigration in his new glossy pamphlet. Thus it seems that immigration reform is not as important as the President claims.  Then again, in the first four years immigration reform was supposedly a high priority.

While the President plays the victim, blaming lack of bipartisanship for why he has failed to pass immigration reform, I would ask you to look at his real record on immigration. Look at the millions of people he has rounded up and deported. Moreover, how debased it is that our government would see fit to seize children from their own parents, and place them in the foster care system. What type of nation have we become, when basic parental rights and child rights are neglected? Sadly, under President Obama this is a reality. Obama needs to be held accountable for his deception. In the end, Latinos have a choice of either voting for the deporter-in-chief or they can vote for a new direction.

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

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

by Bob Quasius

Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.
- The Art of War, Sun Tzu, 512 BC

Apparently, President-Elect Obama in 2008 followed the age old advice of Sun Tzu, appointing Hillary Clinton, a former political enemy and potential future political enemy in 2012, to a job where he could keep keep a very close eye on her, and she would be so busy she wouldn’t even have time to contemplate running against Obama in 2012.

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought bitterly, attacked each other, then when Obama was elected he appointed Hillary to be his Secretary of State, despite her complete lack of experience in foreign policy (unless we count sipping tea with first ladies of other nations), or running large government agencies like the State Department.

One of the most memorable attack ads of the 2008 primaries, is this ad by Hillary Clinton, asking who would we want taking that crisis call at 3 AM?

I recently blogged about ‘Amateur Hour’ at the White House comparing Hillary’s qualifications to every Secretary of State since at least World War II. She had no diplomatic experience, had never run a cabinet or served as a governor, served on a foreign relations committee in the senate, etc. Only Jimmy Carter’s second Secretary of State, Edmond Muskie, even came close to Hillary’s lack of qualifications, and he had served much longer in the U.S. Senate and had been governor of Maine.

The State Department has long known of the vulnerability of our embassies and consulates. Under Jimmy Carter, in 1979 our embassy in Tehran was overrun by violent protestors, and our staff held hostage for a humiliating 444 days until minutes before a new president, who appeared more resolute about facing Iran, was about to be sworn into office. I was stunned recently to learn that Jimmy Carter had covertly funded Ayatollah Khomeini and pressured the Shah’s military to accept the Shah’s departure when Jimmy Carter threw the Shah ‘under the bus. We should have known that those we support in overthrowing regimes aren’t always reliable in protecting our embassies and consulates afterwards. Though we had covertly funded Khomeini and paved the way for the Shah’s departure, Khomeini didn’t lift a finger to free our embassy in Tehran when it was overrun and our embassy held hostage for 444 days!

In 1979, our Pakistan embassy was burned down to the ground, as well as our embassy in Tripoli, Libya.

In 1983, or embassy in Beirut was bombed, killing 63, and our embassy in Kuwait was also bombed.

In 1998, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, Al Qaeda totally simultaneously destroyed with bombs two U.S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. killing 223 and wounding 4,000. You’d think that day would be seared into the memory of Hillary Clinton, since she was first lady at the time.

Now fast forward to 2012. In Libya, despite the unstable environment and heavy Al Qaeda presence, amazingly Hillary Clinton declined to authorize marine contingents, and special teams of Navy Seals who had provided protection were prematurely withdrawn, over the strong objections of embassy security officials, who pointed to a series of alarming attacks on embassies, consulates, diplomats, and non-governmental agencies present in Libya. Instead, the State Department relied on militia units of dubious reliability provided by the new Libyan regime.

Within two hours of the start of the terror attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11, we already had intelligence the consulate was under attack by dozens of militants with heavy weapons such as rocket propelled grenades, mortars, assault rifles, etc. E-mails are starting to be revealed that showed just how much information was received at both the White House. From the Blaze:

When the attack began, the U.S. military also deployed an unarmed predator drone over the consulate, and remote operators watched as the horror of four Americans were slaughtered by terrorists with burning hatred in their eyes. According to various sources, as reported in the New York Post, the U.S. military had special forces deployed in Libya and nearby Italy, and heavily armored AC-130 gunships were available but shockingly inadequate response was mounted to rescue our embassy staff and their handful of guards as they desperately fought for their lives.

The administration sought for two weeks to convince us this wasn’t a terror attack, that a spontaneous demonstration over a offensive video escalated into a full fledged assault, until the overwhelming evidence confirmed this was a terror attack. Obama and Clinton even went to lengths to keep apologizing for the video, when the U.S. government had absolutely nothing to do with producing the video!

When did President Obama and Hillary Clinton find out it was a terror attack? It seems they were made aware by late afternoon, and a web site owned by terror group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility. From The Blaze (summarizing other sources):

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m.Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

by Bob Quasius

Update: Eva Longoria has apologized.

Our statement about Eva Longoria’s most recent offensive tweet has generated a firestorm of controversy, and criticism from both sides of the aisle. I hope that our fellow bloggers from TucsconCitizen.com of a liberal persuasion can at least agree on one point. This is both vulgar and offensive!

From Eva Longoria:

From Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Does Eva Longoria think 35% of Latino voters who will likely vote for Mitt Romney are stupid? We find this remark extremely offensive and demand an immediate apology.

From Fox News (Megyn Kelly):

Update: See Fox News Story. Eva Longoria has also apologized.

Why do some liberals feel compelled to hate on conservatives, especially conservative women and minorities? Sharing our latest news release about Obama’s National Campaign co-chair, Eva Longoria. Note, we’ve edited a vulgar term she used in her tweet with “–”.

National pro-immigrant Republican organization Cafe Con Leche Republicans tonight demanded an apology from Eva Longoria and the Obama For America Campaign.

Bob Quasius, president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans, expressed outrage at a tweet from Eva Longoria: “‘I have no idea why any woman/minority can vote for Romney. You have to be stupid to vote for such a racist/misgynistic tw–.’ This comment is truly over the top even compared to other recent comments about prison rape, etc.

Does Eva Longoria think 35% of Latino voters who will likely vote for Mitt Romney are stupid? We find this remark extremely offensive and demand an immediate apology. There are millions of conservative Americans who happen to be women or members of minority groups who will vote for Mitt Romney, and deserve the same respect as those who decide to vote for President Obama.

Ideological conformity based on gender, race, or ethnicity are a form of bigotry, and her commentary reminds us of the venom that has been directed at minority Republicans like Marco Rubio, Michael Steele, and Condoleeza Rice. Apparently many liberals hold these outstanding American leaders in complete contempt for no reason other than that ‘they’ve wandered from the liberal plantation.’

A famous Republican, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said ”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Apparently many liberals just don’t ‘get it’ even decades later, though they will gladly hurl race cards at Republicans with feigned outrage. If Dr. King were alive today, we cannot help but wonder if Eva Longoria would be attacking Dr. King with such venom, when she likely owes Dr. King for leading the civil rights movement that won many freedoms and opportunities for success for minorities and women.

We’re surprised that President would select someone as tempermental as Eva Longoria as his national campaign co-chair, but then this is the same president who has made a number of bad hiring choices, and his presidency is coming unraveled because of those leadership failures.”

#####

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 author and Latinos Ready to Vote) – Part II - Part I

“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” – William James (1842 – 1910 American psychologist and philosopher who was trained as a physician).

The United States is a living breathing dynamic embodiment of Adam Smith’s works. In his first work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith explained the benevolent nature of man. In it, he professed that human beings will answer to disaster and the suffering of others by offering compassion and assistance during the worst of times. America’s generosity and benevolence during natural and manmade disasters abroad are a living testament of our American soul. However, this selfless, self sacrificing nature has been strained due to criticism of Americans and the accusations of greed, leading many to question why are we not providing this compassion and aid for our own here in the United States?

Enter “The Wealth of Nations” as the theoretical antithesis to limitless generosity. In his later years Smith came up with the theory that a man in pursuit of his own interests would benefit others. He wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Businesses offer us the necessities not because they are nice, but because they want to make a living and earn a profit. Yet, we feel that they operate only to serve us as a personal level.

Businesses want to please their consumers at any cost. Commercial advertisements concentrate on pleasing the public, and if the public does not approve of the advertisement or cannot be convinced of the desired effect of the product, that product will not do well in the market. Hence, businesses fail. Businesses seek approval and the public seeks to please. All of this is done without government intervention. This is what Smith envisioned as the market self-regulating itself. In fact, he believed that at the purest form, a free market would self regulate and self correct constantly without any government intrusion. While this was probably true in his day, as mercantilism was the government’s control of foreign trade and the economy, in today’s market, it would not be as effective. The market at present has changed because our communication systems have changed and they have made the market more accessible and instant rather than what Smith had available during his time. The market that Smith described is flawed by present standards, but it was the best alternative, to its predecessor feudalism.

History shows us that a global product from America starts out as a disruption or an innovation to fill a need in the market. When one looks at the entrepreneurial drive of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, Larry Page, Jim McIngvale, and others; they struggled to fulfill their needs and in the process provided thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues. When Smith’s theories of Man’s benevolence and his acting in self interest are applied by management and elected officials companies, and economies unleash a wave of innovation and entrepreneurship. A modern example is the internet and the masses of digital entrepreneurs. The web is a near perfect example of free market globalization. Free software created by keen minds wishing to educate others in the operation and the benefit of computers, unleashed a massive playground for businesses and communication forms for the world. Everyone has benefited from the internet, by selling books on Ebay, streaming music, or selling products to those on social forums. This unregulated e-commerce has made millionaires of ordinary people.

The government intrusion in this area has been minimal possibly because the lack of jurisdiction in unknown territory. If the government were to intrude in the internet, Adam Smith and our founding fathers would argue that capitalism would stop working. The concept of choice to the individual would become minimal because the regulations on the market and the taxation would be so intrusive that many would see it as a protection for the larger businesses and special interests. The consumer, hence, would be the loser in this scenario of government intrusion as more regulations would leave the consumer with fewer choices.

Another example of market stagnation is that of taxation. If you recall, when Joe the Plumber asked then Candidate Obama about taxing businesses who earn over $250,000 a year, then Candidate Obama stated that it was good to distribute the wealth. In fact, Candidate Obama stated that most small businesses did not generate more than $250,000 and therefore, would be protected by not being taxed at a higher rate. Joe the Plumber had his version that those small businesses that made over $250,000 were successful and this taxation was a punishment under Obama’s plan. There was no incentive to live out the American Dream of success. Better yet, maybe those small businesses didn’t want to earn more than $250,000 because of fear of taxation. Obama’s reply was that spreading the wealth was what taxation was all about. Perhaps this is true in the antithesis of Capitalism which is Socialism, but this is not what our economy is based upon. Heavy taxation, over regulation, and reduced consumption in the market has led to failing, “too big to fail” market segments that have displaced millions of Americans and underemployed even more. What is needed is the loosening of market controls, less taxation, and incentives for small business start ups.

Many aging baby boomers and recent college graduates with little or no job prospects have resorted to starting small businesses. However, the success of these small start-ups depends on the incubation they would have against the monopolistic regulations designed to keep competitors from entering the market. One of these, is the taxation on the profit of over $250,000 a year mentioned above. This is hardly something anyone wants to pay and it seems excessive in the present market to say the least, not to mention it acts as a deterrent to success.

The “market” is driven by supply and demand of labor and goods. It is blind to geo-politics, ethnicity, legal or illegal status, and other forces. During boom times the U.S. economy creates a demand for labor that the existing workforce cannot fill. This vacuum and the prospect for attaining the American Dream is what have driven immigration both legal and illegal. The market is also manipulated by the passing of immigration laws that impact our economy. For instance, immigration laws in Arizona and Georgia, have jeopardized agriculture, hospitality and construction markets. In fact, Arizona’s state economy could “shrink that state economy by $48.8 billion.” The economic aftershocks have been down played because of fear. Again, the immigration crises is: economic, economic, economic. The lack of low paying unskilled workers has rotted crops sitting in the fields and our prices for tomatoes and grapes are climbing at the supermarkets. How is it that we cannot understand this connection? We are left with minimal choices at higher cost.

One promising piece of legislation is to encourage foreign investment by supplying U.S. Visas to those immigrants who bring capital into the U.S. for the sole purposes of creating a new business that will create jobs. This is a win 3 proposition, the country wins, the market wins, and the foreign investor immigrant wins.

The 2012 election needs to be about jobs. Wall Street has been hesitant to invest trillions of dollars due to the market uncertainty. Combined with all the other market threats this has been a near perfect storm for the economy.

Aspiring presidential and congressional candidates should have a convincing strategy for how they plan to create jobs by stimulating and deregulating the ailing market. Can it be that simple? Yes. As Adam Smith postulated, government needs to stay out of the marketplace and let the market do what it knows to do fuel consumer demand.

My invitation to you our reader is this: reclaim the hope grounded in the principles of free market capitalism as envisioned by our founding fathers. It’s time we elevate the discourse above the noise of cable news and headline news sound bites. Participate in our democracy. Vote.

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

Words are strong and can persuade.   They can create division or they can unite.  Words can hurt or they can heal. It is the rhetoric that will drive Latinos away from the GOP, many contend.  What many journalists and bloggers, and other people scream about is what is not being said regarding Latinos. And it matters. The Liberals state that GOP Presidential candidates cannot count on the Latino vote because of the rhetoric that has instilled fear in the Latino community.  They are correct.  However, what they fail to address is that actions speak louder than words.  Actions brought to light by the present administration are dangerous to Latinos because they are perilous to the Latino families and community.  In implementing Secured Communities, which by all accounts was supposed to secure the U.S. and Communities across the nation, the Obama Administration has managed to use Secured Communities to deport Latinos (U.S. citizens and not), separate families, and drown out opportunity.  In fact, this Administration has done more to discourage, separate families, and harm the Latino community than any other previous Administration, Republican or Democrat.

In a study done by the Berkley School of Law and the Cardozo Law Center, the Obama Administration deported 400,000 Latinos in one year using the Secured Communities as an excuse.  My reaction at first was great, it is doing what it intended.  Secured Communities, as it was introduced by President Bush in April 2008, was intended to help keep our communities safe by identifying those in the U.S. who were criminal illegal aliens, and those who were in the U.S. with the intent of furthering any bombing or terrorists activities.  However, the present Administration took it a step further and began mass deportations of Latinos.

The use of the word “discretionary,” in the law allows (as it is in SB 1070) authorities to apprehend, question, detain, and often times deport, those looking “illegal.”  This has never been defined exactly.  Instead, authorities are given “discretion” to question those looking “illegal.”

No one in the media like CNN, NBC, or Latino Fox News has reported that out of the pool of 400,000 in one year 1.6% of these persons detained by ICE were U.S. citizens.  This is more than the Bush Administration deported (even with errors) in 4 years.  In fact, DHS Secretary Napolitano boasted that the program was doing its share and was helping to keep American safe.    What the DOJ and the Obama Administration failed to voice was that at least 1.6% of those arrested were U.S. citizens.  In a further law recently signed by the President, these U.S. Citizens can now be detained indefinitely under the  National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  Further studies by AILA, American Immigration Lawyers Association, report that deportations are closer to 1 million in two years.   That amount is close to the total population of San Antonio, which is at 1.33 Million.   Imagine, an entire city gone, by “legal means.”   What is more alarming is that while there is an alleged 11 million undocumented in the U.S.,  only 77% are Latino/Hispanic.  Those detained and arrested under Secured Communities were 93% Latino.  There is a disproportion in usage of this program.  In other words, this Administration is targeting Latinos.

Rather than report on this truth, the media  and their articles concentrate only on Republican rhetoric.  While words are powerful, do we, as Latinos and Americans, not feel in danger when Latino U.S. Citizens are randomly selected, harassed and incarcerated by this Administration as law breakers?  When the Attorney General and the President use their power, over Congress, to increase deportations they are not deporting Europeans, Asians, or other immigrants.  They are deporting Latinos.  So while the rhetoric in the GOP may be against illegal immigrants, this current Administration is effectively doing the cleansing of America by deporting Latinos, illegal and U.S. Citizens.

Additionally, when the “fast and furious” debacle came to light regarding the issuance of guns to Mexican Cartels, who were they aiming at?  Those who live along the border and are mainly Mexican, including U.S. Citizens.  Once again, the rhetoric of the GOP pales in comparison to what is being done against Latinos in this Administration.  The idea that the Attorney General would allow such a violent act against a group of people and believe that the guns would not be traced back to the Administration is negligent and contentious.  Latinos cannot begin to believe that a President and a “friend” to Latinos would commit such atrocities, but he has.  In using the laws and his Administration, this President has endangered families and Latinos who continue to view him as the leader of the free world.  What is even more deplorable is that Latino Democrats have not stood up to state that these actions are wrong and need to be remedied regardless of party loyalty.  These acts are wrong against Americans, Latinos, families, and the United States and all of its freedoms.    In fact, this Administration has failed the Latino Community because it lacks the interest and the understanding of what values are embodied within the community.

When Candidates like Newt Gingrich address the actual facts about food stamps stating that Americans have increased as recipients of this entitlement under the Obama Administration, Democrats cite this as racist. But they fail to address the fact that the largest number, of the population, who is receiving food stamps are white Americans not blacks. So why are they playing the race card?  If we ask what Latinos hope to gain under the Obama Administration, let’s look over the last three years, deportations, guns to cartels, cuts in education availability, and separation of families.

When those who attack the GOP as being anti-Latino because of rhetoric that looks to deport illegal immigrants, let us be clear about who is acting on these words.  Unlike that famous speech that then Sen. Barrack Obama delivered at the DNC in which he said, we are not a black American or white America, we are the United States of American.  He forgot to mention the Brown part of America, Latinos.

by Bob Price (re-posted with permission of the author and TexasGOPVote.com)

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have made their bailout of General Motors Company (GM) the shining star on their re-election tree. Their claim is they saved the jobs of GM employees. But that is simply not the case. Yes, they may be saving jobs for their union supporters to whom they are obligated, but high-paying middle-class non-union jobs are being exported by the Outsourcer-in-Chief faster thanFelix Bumgartner fell from space yesterday.

Earlier this month, I wrote a story entitled, “Osama Bin Laden is Dead and GM is alive… and well in China“. In that story I illustrated with comments taken from GM’s website directly about the engineering and design jobs that were being moved from America to China. Here is an ad fromLet Freedom Ring confirming my story. For more information on Let Freedom Ring, please refer to this interview I did with LRF’s Alex Cortes.

The article I wrote prompted a response from General Motors.  Here is that response:

“This is Rob Peterson from General Motors Communications.  

“GM has a global policy to “build vehicles where we sell them,” which lowers vehicle cost for consumers in the over 120 markets where we do business.  Currently, 30 percent of GM’s GLOBAL sales occur in the United States.  All of the vehicles sold in the United States, except for the low-volume, Korean built Chevrolet Spark are built in North America.  Although GM does not import vehicles from China to the United States, several vehicles built in the United States are exported to China, including: the Chevy Volt, Buick Enclave and Cadillac SRX, CTS and Escalade are exported from North America to China 

“Doing business in China requires every foreign manufacturer to have a joint-venture with a Chinese company. GM has strategic partnerships in 30 countries, including China, which positions the GM brand as the leading automaker in the world’s largest and fastest-growing automotive markets – success other auto manufacturers like Ford, Toyota and Honda are feverishly attempting to duplicate.

“GM has not used any U.S. government bailout money to build a manufacturing footprint in China. Nor have we shared any of our first generation electric vehicle technology developed mostly before the bailout (Volt develoment began 3 years prior to the bailout) with our partners.  

“Since bankruptcy, GM has announced investments at 30 U.S. facilities totaling more than $7.3 billion, which created or retained more than 18,600 jobs.

“Factcheck.org has also looked into this and found the notion that GM was becoming a Chinese company to be false (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/is-gm-becoming-china-motors/).
“Thanks, Rob”

Nice of them to include the rebuttle from the liberal hacks at FactCheck.org. I had some other thoughts about Rob’s response, but I thought I would look for someone who has been looking at this issue longer than I have for a response. I asked the co-author of the book “Death by China” and Board Member of the American Jobs Alliance, Greg Autry for his thoughts.  Here is his reply:

“The fact that GM, like most American companies is filled with MBAs who have been taught that the only thing on God’s Earth that matters is Return on Capital means they are going to do this. If we keep playing along with their Emperor’s New Clothes version of international trade and excusing reprehensible behavior things will continue.

“If you take money from A and invest other money in B at the same time you are still transferring capital. Any further explanation is accounting masterbation. You could track each physical piece of currency by serial number for all I care, it doesn’t change the fact. We all know this intuitively and it is just insulting when the financial hand waiving starts.

“There is nothing liberal or conservative in that. It is a fact If you take a loan on your home and then buy a car, sure there are lots of shenanigans you can play for tax purposes, but the fact is you’ve got so much money to make investments with and pouring more in from the house loan enables you to buy the car (hopefully not a GM one). Sure GM might have used money from a different pot or claim they can’t repatriate money because of tax treatment or whatever. Doesn’t change the fact.

“They are either one company or they are not. Either they are an American firm or they are not. I think they are not and should be treated like a foreign corporation doing business in the US and it should be made clear that their operations and employees abroad do not enjoy the protection of the US government. If they don’t like that, they can start behaving like a firm that puts America and American values ahead of profits.

“Honestly, I would like to see your friend at GM explain this before he says one more word:”

Cadillac, Official Sponsor of the Chinese Communist Revolution Celebration

It is clear, the earlier story touched a nerve with General Motors. Sorry about that… Sending our badly needed American jobs to China hits a nerve also… With your stockholders, the Voters of the United States of America.

President Obama wants you to believe he rode in on a white horse while wearing shining armor and rescued GM and American Jobs.  The truth is, he took your money, stole pensions from non-union employees, shipped non-union jobs to China and gave away important technology about American automobile manufacturing technology to the Chinese government – and he borrowed the money from them, that you will have to pay back with interest, to do so.  No thanks, Mr. President. That shining star is not very pretty anymore.

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

We have professional politicians running our country whose theory on government is a mess, to say the least. These policy makers and elected officials lack the clarity, simplicity, and intellectual honesty to live up to free market ideals that helped form our way of life as the United States of America. This over regulation has strangled and put our economy in a straight jacket leading to our unspoken depression as a nation. Even a high dose of Prozac or Zoloft could not clear the fog now. This Fourth of July marks 235 years of freedom from an oppressive, unjust, and taxing government that some would argue has reincarnated its tyrannical clutches. Let’s remember how our freedom was obtained the last time and ask, who is willing to lead us out of the mess today?

In 1776, two events that changed the world happened: the publishing of Adam Smith’s Treatise on “Wealth of Nations,” and the founding of our country. It is known historically that Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton studied “The Wealth of Nations.” It was influential to their entrepreneurial free minds and allowed them to create a young nation’s blueprint that guided it to become the United States of America a World Super Power. The yearning to be free from a control of taxation without representation was a powerful message to Great Britain. And so was the thought that,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No stronger words have ever been written, in my opinion. These poetical words were enough to awaken the people to their rights; it reaffirmed their independence and sense of responsibility.

The truth is we have strayed from our responsibility as citizens. If our nation is in a crippling crises, it is then our duty as American Citizens to rise and save our nation. Our country needs us. It is imperative that we educate ourselves on the basic truth from which we have strayed and understand that we must vote for the truth and not four more years of fortune cookie economics. Capitalism, as Adam Smith proposed, is nothing whatsoever to the one we have been made to believe as bad. The portrayal of greed by the fictional character Gordon Grekko in the movie “Wall Street,” is just that: fiction. Capitalism brings good if people are allowed to work, earn, and spend as they wish. Too much regulation is an insult to our intelligence and tells us that we don’t know how to spend our money the right way.

Adam Smith lived at a time when governments taxed and oppressed the poor. He believed that government “is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor” as well as an entity that “drained money from the pockets of the people.” Which is true? They both are. The rich own and implement industries that create jobs. The wages earned are done so by the quality of work. If the work is insufficient then the companies fold because no one buys an inferior product. However, the “poor” are given the false information that they have no recourse but to stay poor because their choices are limited due to the rich. The government manipulates both sides as we are currently living this double message.

Smith’s theory was simple. Let people decide how to spend their money. Through this lens he saw the role of limited government. The government protects and serves the people by creating an education system for all citizens, public works as well as public services. Under this system the people pay for this through a personal “badge of liberty” (tax) as opposed to a badge of slavery (forced unjust taxation).

He warned though,

“High taxes, sometimes by diminishing the consumption of the taxed commodities, and sometimes by encouraging smuggling, frequently afford smaller revenue to government than what might be drawn from more moderate taxes.”

In other words, too much of anything can make it less appealing and people will not cooperate. Like in everything, moderation is key.

Was Adam Smith pro or anti big business? He was for neither. He was for a free market that was vibrant and dynamic. A market that was constantly adjusting to find its natural balance. In his plan, the market is a playing field for entrepreneurs, without government interference to protect the established rich and powerful monopolies. His writings were clear and stated that government should stay out of economic decisions. In fact, Smith believed that consumers and businesspeople could make far wiser decisions than a central static government. Was he wrong?

If Adam Smith and our founding fathers were to see the current state of affairs, they would no doubt be aghast by the bloated government and its micro managing of our market. I think that they would ask,

“where is the Independence that echoed that famous right of equality and the pursuit of happiness?”

“We should be ready to revise any belief, we should change a belief where there is compelling reason to change it, and we should not change a belief wantonly without some good reason. The first point needs intellectual courage, the second, intellectual honesty, and the third, wise restraint. Do not believe anything but question only what is worth questioning.” – John Grinder

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

President Obama’s “new” found voice by way of his Executive Power, is a 180 degree change from a speech where he stated that as President, he had to enforce the laws on the books and that he could do nothing else to help the plight of the undocumented youth in the U.S., whose Latino population exists in the hundreds of thousands.  This power that he previously said that he didn’t have, is now conveniently discovered by way of the Napolitano Memo, five months before the November election and is expected to “temporarily” offer a band-aid fix, to a problem that has this country in a state of limbo.

The Napolitano Memo also comes after Obama received  a  letter about two weeks ago signed by nearly 100 law professors, who offered a strategy to President Obama outlining his authority to provide temporary relief from deportation. The announcement also comes on the thirtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe, which held that states cannot exclude undocumented children from elementary and secondary schools.

Deferred action exists under, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), §103(a), USC 8 §1103 and states that

“The Attorney General shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this Act or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.”

By way of the Executive Power, the Supreme Court has ruled that the President will grant power to its administrative agencies so as to enforce certain laws. Additionally, depending on the timing, the deferred action can prevent someone from being placed in removal proceedings, suspend a current deportation order, or stay an existing deportation order.  What the Memo Directive does not provide, is a way to change or adjust status under deferred action.

In using his executive power, Obama is not circumventing the law, but he is conveniently using it, by way of the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland Security at a time when he seeks to desperately keep Latinos on his side with “nuggets” of empty promises.  Previously, Obama never pushed for immigration reform in 2008 or thereafter.  He taunted the hopeful by stating that he would pass the Dream Act if placed on his desk, but never lifted a finger to fight for it.

The Napolitano Memo is also at the heels of criticism for the Morton Memo, put in place one year to date, which was supposed to use Prosecutorial Discretion to prevent low priority cases from being placed in deportation proceedings.  This was supposed to have included the young immigrants without a criminal record and who were currently in school.   But the Morton Memo failed to give any type of relief as ongoing review of pending removal cases yielded disappointing results and cases continued to surface, of immigrants being denied prosecutorial discretion despite compelling circumstances.

When Senator Rubio introduced the idea of a new “Dream Act” version, which by the way is very similar to what this “memo” of deferred action seems to say, the President did not applaud the Senator for attempting to help the youth.  He instead, laughed during an interview and stated that he (the President) would work on immigration in the next five years.  And so, for the next few years, Latinos can expect “nuggets” of promises to be thrown our way.

This outreach is temporary and is a promise to the Latino community that the youth will be out of harm’s way, for the moment.  This Memo is slight power that now is distributed to agencies by way of  the Attorney General, and is applied in a discretionary fashion.  For now it is temporary and fails to address what will happen to the young adults in a few years after they age-out or cannot travel, or adjust their status.  For now, everyone is on board, but the after affects when felt, will stir us to ask why didn’t we fight for more?

Senator Rubio’s version was more plausible because it sought to go through the proper channels to have the Dream Act become Congressional Law.  The law would have allowed the youth to become educated and then follow through to a non-immigrant visa that would have placed them in line for receiving their Legal Permanent Residency.  It would have created a set of educated, high tax payers, who could have become part of our society and eventually become U.S. Citizens by competing for it.

The Napolitano Memo is Administrative and non-binding meaning that it can be rescinded at any time, and these Latino youth would be in the same limbo as before.  Moreover, the Memo gives approximately 800,000 to 1.5 million the opportunity to apply for the deferred action if they have the following:

1. immigrants may apply for a two-year renewable grant of “deferred action” if they entered the United States before age 16;
2. are younger than 30;
3. have lived continuously in the United States for at least five years;
4. have not been convicted of a felony or significant misdemeanor; and are currently in school, have graduated from high school or earned a GED, or served in the military.

First, the Memo states that all laws are to be enforced and those with the initial power to decide whether to implement the Memo for those outside the court system are CBP, USCIS, and DHS.  These agencies who first encounter the youth shall have the power to use discretion as to whether the youth should be placed in removal proceedings.

Second, if the youth are currently in removal proceedings, the standard will be applied in a discretionary manner on a case by case basis, by whom is not clear.  Using the criteria stated above, those making the decision will decide the fate of these youth.  The many who did not finish school or were not enlisted in the military are not eligible for this temporary relief.   Moreover, it is unclear whether those  about to be 31 years will be in unlawful status as this deferred action does apply to them.

Finally, those who are not currently in proceedings will be eligible to apply for the deferred action through USCIS.  The agency will  use the criteria stated above, and use discretionary authority to decide the status of the youth.  It is not for certain if the applicants will be approved or not, but it is a careful choice that the many will have to make.

If we listen to what Obama is saying, he speaks loud and clear in that he states, that this is not amnesty, it is not a benefit, and will not give the youth a path to citizenship.  What it gives us is a promise that will not be a congressional “law” and may not be enforced if we use the Morton Memo as an example.  He is trying to win favor by now coming forward to use powers that he had all along and has given us the Napolitano Memo that is limited.  In other words, he is promising to right a wrong that he should have legally done a long time ago, again.  Latinos should remind him that we are conservative when it comes to family, and will protect our children and their dreams this time around.

Linda Vega is an Immigration Attorney and  Founder of Latinos Ready To Vote

By Raoul Lowery Contreras (re-posted with permission from Cafe Con Leche Republicans)

In the face of the worst economic crisis in seventy years that has buried the American Hispanic community with 28% poverty (Pew Hispanic Center), 19% unemployment/underemployment and a loss of two-thirds of net worth all since Barack Obama became President, he continues to reach out to Hispanics expecting them to respond to him like he is a tribal cacique (kah-see-keh, Indian or political chief).

His latest outreach occurred in Keene, California where he dedicated a national monument to Cesar Chavez, the founder of the United Farm Workers Union that was born among Filipino grape-pickers in Delano, California, in the 1960s.

Being Mexican American Chavez and his members were initially ignored by the historically racist American labor movement.  Chavez called his group an “Organizing Committee” because the movement didn’t recognize his “union.”

Some will remember that Chavez convinced white liberals to “boycott” grapes to give him negotiating power with farmers.  Some will also recall that the Nixon Administration issued Defense Department purchase orders for millions of pounds of grapes to serve our soldiers in Vietnam.

Before that Nixon move, however, boycotting grapes became a very chic liberal cause. Joining in was the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy-created Bobby Kennedy. As Attorney General, he disgraced the American justice system when he ordered the illegal wire tapping and spying of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and the sexual adventures of the civil rights leader.

Bobby Kennedy, Chavez and other ultra-liberals turned on the John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson war in Vietnam; they were the non-violent peace movement of the Sixties.

Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian terrorist. Meanwhile, the non-violent “Ghandi-like” Cesar Chavez publicly professed non-violence but directed his union members to physically attack Mexican workers in the fields, in border towns and on the Mexican border itself.

Chavez gladly welcomed any Mexican illegally-present workers if they joined his union. If they didn’t, his union members attacked non-members in the fields and blamed farmers with the violence and even one death of a “tocayo” (namesake) Rufino Contreras in the Imperial Valley. No one was ever charged with Contreras’ death during a union day-light attack in a lettuce field. Imperial Valley authorities whispered that Contreras might have been shot by one of his fellow union supporters so the farmers would be blamed. No one was ever charged.

Chavez made little progress in the Sixties especially when the Nixon Administration crippled the grape boycott. Then, came Watergate…

Favored and supremely qualified Republican State Controller Houston Flournoy was an odds-on favorite to defeat Jerry Brown, the son of the Governor Ronald Reagan defeated by a million votes in 1966 for the California governorship. Then Nixon resigned in August of 1974 and the Flournoy campaign ground to a halt. Brown squeaked out a tiny win and he became the ultra-liberal Governor of California his father never was.

He partnered up politically with ultra-liberal Willie Brown, Speaker of the Assembly, and Cesar Chavez. Brown appointed an ultra-liberal Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) that enthusiastically joined the farm worker’s fray. Miraculously Chavez started to win elections around California thanks to the ALRB’s interesting way of counting votes of illiterate farm workers from Mexico.

Forcibly collecting dues from farm workers who could only get work through the United Farm Workers (UFW) made the union rich. It quickly became the second largest California political campaign fund machine for Democrats. Chavez distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats to solidify their hold on government.

Using UFW money Brown/Brown sunk Democrat roots into every corner of California. Brown was only the third California Democrat governor in the 20^th Century.

Chavez’ power grew. Chavez testified in Congress that the country had to chase down and deport any illegal alien working here because they took jobs away from his union members. The union turned in any illegal workers who refused to join the union. Union gangs went to the border and attacked Mexicans sneaking into the country and turned them over to the Border Patrol.

Cesar Chavez was the original “Minuteman.”

A corrupt Chavez feathered his family’s nest so that they had union jobs, some to this day. The hierarchy of the UFW was permeated with liberal white Democratic Party “apparatchiks” busy funneling money to the Democratic Party forced from illiterate farm workers ineligible to vote.

This was the man campaigning Obama honored this week. When Chavez died, he was no longer powerful; his union had shrunk from a force of 70,000 members (out of 500,000 California farm workers) to 5,000 and had gone almost thirty years between field worker election wins.

Nonetheless, a Presidential photo op is a photo op. It goes without saying that Obama needs every Hispanic vote he can find, for if he doesn’t match his 2008 Hispanic vote (67%), he will lose.