The reaction to my blog Birther Madness is stunning, with nearly 400 comments in a heated debate over the “term natural born citizen.” Birthers claim our constitution’s framers meant “natural born citizen” born in the U.S. of two citizen parents in the U.S., based on Swiss philosopher Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Birthers critics say Vattel never used “natural born citizen” and common law had long defined natural born citizen as someone who was born a citizen regardless of their parents’ citizenship.

Natural Born Citizen – Jus Soli (law of the soil) vs. Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood)

Sir William Blackstone

Nations define citizenship in two broad categories, Jus Soli (law of the soil) and Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood). England and colonies all followed Jus Soli, so anyone born in England or colonies were natural born subjects regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The most authoritative text on Common Law during the colonial era was An Analysis of the Laws of England by William Blackstone. Blackstone is quite clear about the term natural born in the citizenship context:

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

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth…

What did Natural Born Citizen Mean When the Constitution was Adopted?

Our constitution doesn’t explicitly define the term “natural born citizen” but there is overwhelming evidence that “natural born citizen” was widely understood at the time and didn’t need definition.

Following independence, the articles of confederation were adopted, which concentrated power in the states, including immigration. Every state embraced English common law, except where it conflicted with their new constitution. For example, the Delaware constitution states:

The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this state, shall remain in force unless they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature, such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Constitution and the declaration of rights, & agreed by this convention.

Virginia’s reception statute:

And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.

English common law became American common law, and no state passed a statute embracing Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood). Immigration power was reserved to the states, until our constitution shifted that power to Congress.

Birther ‘Pretzel Logic’ and Vattel’s “Law of Nations”

Emer de Vattel, Swiss Philosopher

It takes ‘pretzel logic’ to believe our constitution’s framers meant Vattel’s notion of “naturals” to define citizenship, a drastic change from centuries of jus soli. Surely if our founders wanted to make such a drastic change they would have explicitly defined “natural born citizen”, indicating the term was widely understood. Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen.”

The framers did read Vattel, but never quoted the following passage from Emer de Vattel’s 1758 book, “Le Droit des Gens,” or “The Law of Nations.”

§. 212. Les Citoyens sont les membres de la Société Civile: Liés à cette Société par certains devoirs, & sourmis à son Autorité, il participent avec égalité à ses avantages. Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.

The bold phrase in English states les Naturels, ou Indigènes (the naturals or indigenous) are those who were born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Nowhere did Vattel use the phrases “natural born citizen” or “natural citizens.” Moreover, Vattel was Swiss, and his legal framework was Swiss law. Switzerland follows Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood), and in Switzerland one must be born of Swiss citizen parents to be born a Swiss citizen. Naturally Vattel would tend to view citizenship as jus sanguinis, or the two-parent rule.

Blackstones Commentaries

Vattel’s book is a treatise, a book of philosophy about international law. The framers also read law books, among them Blackstone’s Analysis of the Laws of England. Birthers stress the importance of Vattel to bolster their argument, but this analysis by Donald S. Lutz shows Vattel was tied for last place for influence by our founders, while Blackstone was #3 (7.9%), both of whom wrote extensively about English common law. For every founder quote of Vattel, there were 16 of Blackstone!

Birthers Epic’ Failure to Make Their Case!

Keith Russell Judd, Federal inmate number 11593-051. Most prolific birther

Of 337+ birther court decisions (see scorecard), birthers have won ZERO cases and several were fined for frivolous cases! Most losses were for lack of standing, technical deficiencies, but more than a ten judges explicitly ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. Here’s a list of those cases with links:

• Ankeny v. Daniels
• Fair v. Obama
• Farrar v. Obama (Secretary of State also found Obama is a NBC)
• Galasso v. Obama
• Jackson v. Obama
• Paige v. Obama
• Purpura et al v. Obama
• Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections
• Tisdale v. Obama (appeal too)
• Voeltz v. Obama

####

Bob Quasius is founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

The lightning bolt in nature is so spectacular it is beyond words for normal people to describe. Living in San Diego the lightning bolt is the stylized symbol of the half-century old National Football League San Diego Chargers. Famous for long touchdown strikes, the Chargers AKA BOLTS can strike from anywhere on the field. So can the federal courts; strike, that is, like lightning and in so doing judges certainly disappoint some citizens, local and state governments and sometimes the federal government itself. As it is often said, there are two sides to every story and case. Case in point: Valle del Sol v. Whiting, an Arizona case stemming from the state’s passing into law SB1070.

Kris Kobach, Author of SB1070

John Tanton

This law was written by Yale-educated Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach while moonlighting for the man the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled an American bigot, John Tanton.

Dr. Tanton founded the Federation for Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and Official English groups, all funded by an outlier foundation that studies Black penis size relative to crime rates. He also comes from population control groups like Zero Population Growth and Planned Parenthood.

A federal district judge eviscerated SB1070 and she was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States with one exception, that of a “papers please” section of SB1070 that allows local and state police to demand proof of legal residency when people are detained. It declared that issue not legally “ripe” but suggested that when that provision was enforced the courts would rule on it when someone with standing sued.

In the meanwhile, two other controversial SB1070 provisions jumped from the district court to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel unanimously upheld the lower court’s junking of these provisions of SB1070.

Politico:

The provisions in question make it illegal for a person in a car to pick up and hire a person for work, and for someone to enter a stopped car for that purpose, if the vehicle blocks traffic.

The judges agreed that the State of Arizona simply failed to prove the lower court injunctions wrong when SB1070 criminalized stopping on a road to offer someone a job or for an individual to ask for a job or enter a stopped car after accepting a job offer. The court said it was a broad assault on commercial and free speech. They also ruled that Arizona failed to show how traffic safety was actually involved.

Judge Raymond Fisher

Judge Raymond Fisher writing for a unanimous three-judge panel:

Arizona … has failed to justify a need to serve that interest through targeting and penalizing day labor solicitation that blocks traffic, rather than directly targeting those who create traffic hazards without reference to their speech, as currently proscribed under the state’s pre-existing traffic law. Laws like this one that restrict more protected speech than necessary violate the First Amendment.

That pesky 1st Amendment to the Constitution — if only we had a President like Venezuela’s now-deceased Hugo Chavez who simply closed down newspapers, television and radio stations when they criticized him.

Another interesting part of the court’s decision was how the judges smacked Arizona around for trying to cover unconstitutionality by claiming it was trying to improve traffic safety. Judge Fisher wrote that SB1070 was a “classic example” of limiting free speech to a narrow band consisting of making it a crime to offer someone a job or to accepting one from a roadside or sidewalk.

On Arizona’s claim that the intent of the law was only “traffic safety” the court ruled:

The district court reasonably determined that the purpose of the day labor provisions was to suppress labor-solicitation speech rather than to promote traffic safety. Significantly, the purposes clause introducing S.B. 1070 describes it as an immigration bill, not a traffic safety bill…Finally, the day labor provisions’ punishment is far out of line with punishments for other similar traffic violations. For example, conduct that recklessly impedes traffic is punishable by 30 days’ imprisonment, but day labor solicitation that is not dangerous or reckless, but merely impedes traffic, is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment.

The decision does not rule these provisions unconstitutional but it prohibits them from being implemented. The judges also stated that if these provisions were enforced, they would most likely be ruled unconstitutional at the first opportunity in front of a judge.

Once again, the John Tanton/Kris Kobach legal conspiracy to attack legal and illegal immigrants with laws at the state (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia) and local levels (Texas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania) that violate the federal constitution’s power in Article 1, Section 8 for Congress to “make a uniform rule of naturalization (immigration)” suffers extreme mortal wounds in judicial courts.

Reposted with permission from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

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

Nativists quickly label any legalization plan as immigration amnesty and a magnet for more illegal immigration, but is that true? America’s Nativist lobby, led by the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA went into hyper-drive when the ‘gang of eight’ U.S. Senators announced plans for sweeping immigration reforms.

Net illegal immigration from Mexico recently dropped to zero, reflecting Mexico’s healthy economy and jobless U.S. economic recovery. Cartoonist Michael Ramirez offers his own perspective:

Copyright Michael Ramirez – re-posted with permission

America’s Mass Amnesty Experience

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued his The Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction giving amnesty to all confederates who swore a loyalty oath. Andrew Johnson continued Lincoln’s policy but added 14 exceptions.

Progressive era liberals were avid supporters of racial eugenics and passed very restrictive immigration laws to ban Chinese in 1882, all Asians in 1917 (Asiatic Barred Zone Act). Strict strict quotas followed in 1921 and 1924, with 85% of immigrant visas reserved for Nordic Northern/Western Europe, banning non-European immigration.

Early 20th century immigration shifted to Southern/Eastern Europe. Italy furnished 200,000 per year, but Italy’s quota was set at just 3,845! By the late 20s several million immigrants from Southern/Eastern Europe were here illegally, and granted immigration amnesty. In the 30s, “Mexicans” were blamed for depression era joblessness. One half million were deported; 60% of the “Mexicans” were citizens, and the rest mostly legal guest workers.

1965 immigration reforms removed nation quotas, and remains the policy foundation today. The “braceros” guest worker program implemented during wartime labor shortages was eliminated in 1960s due to pressure from big labor, laying the groundwork for future illegal immigration. Historically, whenever demand for immigrant labor far exceeds quotas, mass illegal immigration results.

During the Vietnam War, 100,000 Americans fled to avoid military service. In 1977, Jimmy Carter granted pardons to draft evaders, who by then had already lived at least several years in exile.

In 1986, Congress granted amnesty to most unauthorized immigrants, and 3 million received green cards. None of the dire consequences predicted by Nativists occurred. It’s no surprise we hear the same arguments today.

Is Immigration Amnesty a Magnet?

Opponents of immigration reform insist amnesty is a “magnet” for more law breaking, but what does history say?

In the civil war, millions of Americans committed treason, punishable by death, and yet despite Lincoln’s mass amnesty we have not experienced another civil war.

Did mass immigration amnesty to 1920s immigrants spark more illegal immigration? No. The great depression and massive unemployment deterred immigration in general. The next wave of mass illegal immigration came in the 1950s, when labor needs of a resurgent post-war economy far outstripped braceros quotas.

There’s no evidence amnesty for draft evasion led to more draft evasion. The Vietnam war was hugely unpopular among young Americans at the time. Many believed they would be denied conscientious objector status.

Did the 1986 Immigration Amnesty Increase Illegal Immigration? What is Amnesty?

Immigration restrictionists quickly label any immigration reform leading to legal status as immigration amnesty. However, amnesty is akin to a pardon, forgiveness without punishment for a wrong. All proposals in recent years required stiff fines, and long waits for permanent resident status behind those already ‘in line.’ Some plans barred citizenship forever. Nativists intentionally conflate “amnesty”  with “path to legalization” despite a range of solutions between mass deportations and mass immigration amnesty.

Congress promised to follow up with guest worker reforms and border security. Guest worker reforms still haven’t happened to this day, due to Big Labor opposition. Congress did follow-up with more border security, but slowly.

Is Immigration Amnesty the Answer?

Immigration amnesty by itself will not fix our broken immigration system, and is unfair to legal immigrants who waited a long time, some since 1989. Problems are solved by addressing root causes, not ‘band aids.’ We admit 1.8 million guest workers each year, while another 7.5 million ‘guest workers’ lack legal status, filling jobs not enough Americans want. Robust guest worker programs that flex with our economy are urgently needed, and would enhance border security by diverting migrant workers to legal channels.

Nativists claim we are overrun with immigrants and our economy will collapse due to immigration reform, but as a percentage of population the U.S. ranks #22 among 34 OECD nations. Our legal immigration level is just 0.334% of population. Tiny Luxembourg ranks #1, accepting 3.116%, while affluent Switzerland accepts 1.751%. Canada accepts 0.825%, 2-1/2 times that of the U.S. The Nativist lobby wants draconian cuts to ‘traditional’ 1956 levels, or 0.084%, #32 of 34 OECD nations. No, we are not overrun with immigrants!

The lesson of 1986 is piecemeal solutions and ‘ band aids’  don’t work. If Congress followed up with robust guest worker programs, we wouldn’t have 10 million immigrants here illegally! True, we have more than in 1986, but illegal immigration waxes and wanes with our economy. The magnet is jobs, not future amnesty that is far from certain.

####

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

A recent YouTube video, “Wealth Inequality in America,” has been steadily circulating through various internet sites and social media outlets. The viral video seeks to educate the American populace on how unjust or “skewed” the American Economic system is because it creates horrible economic inequality.  However, the video is rather vague for it seems to only emphasize the topic of the distribution of wealth, without actually explaining why they believe this inequality is ghastly and unfair. The video raised the question of whether or not CEOs are worth what they earn.  According to the video, a CEO earns in one hour what the average employee earns in one month.  The video also made the hypothetical query, “Does a CEO really work 380 times harder than his average worker?”; implying that this is immoral because  Americans do not ideally think or even perceive the value placed on CEOs as being fair distribution of wealth.  So then I pose this question, “Is this supposed unjust distribution caused by an inherently evil unjust system and do the rich like CEOs and athletes get paid an unjust amount?”. I have concluded that this is view is inaccurate as it is a misconception of how wealth is actually earned and dispersed.

First, we must become aware of how wealth is actually distributed in the United States, with the exception of government contracting, bailouts, grants and loans, social security, welfare (both corporate and individual). Whereas the Federal government chooses the winners and losers, wealth distribution is based off the free market. The market is simply people – millions of people that make day to day decisions. In fact, every time you choose to shop at Wal-Mart, Target or any other store you are deciding where to distribute your wealth. There is no system or outside force that causes you to purchase goods and services at any particular store in the United States or even a particular brand. Instead, we the American people decide how to spread our wealth. Economist, Walter E. Williams clearly conveys the truth of this idea,

Look at how Wal-Mart Stores generated wealth for the Walton family of Christy ($25 billion), Jim ($21 billion), Alice ($21 billion) and Robson ($21 billion). The Walton family’s wealth is not a result of ill-gotten gains, but the result of Wal-Mart’s revenue, $422 billion in 2010. The blame for this unjust concentration of wealth rests with those hundreds of millions of shoppers worldwide who voluntarily enter Wal-Mart premises and leave dollars, pounds and pesos.

In other words, millions of people are freely choosing to shop and distribute their wealth as they see fit.  This can also be seen when you choose to buy a generic brand over the name brand or when you decide to eat at a chain restaurant or a local restaurant; and by the fact that store owners and managers respond to your purchases by stocking the shelves with the products you desire most. These are all actions and reactions to people’s decisions.

Second, there seems to be a misconception of where people get the money to distribute the wealth they have. So where does wealth come from? Economist, Thomas Sowell explains this best,

Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on “income distribution,” the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: It is earned. People paying each other for goods and services generate income…[M]ost wealth is not distributed at all. People create it, earn it, save it and spend it.  (Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, 1995, pg 211)

It is crucial for one to understand Sowell’s point that most wealth is earned and created by innovation and hard work. With this earned wealth, these people then can choose to spend, save, invest or even give their money away.  Ultimately, this is an admirable thing because it demonstrates free people making free decisions based on their own family and unique life situations.  It is not some central organization or mystical entity that distributes money – if so, it clearly would be unjust. Moreover, the video’s argument that there must be something inherently wrong since the desired and perceived distribution of wealth is categorically off from the actual wealth distribution numbers, is no real argument at all! This does not make for a cogent argument, especially if a person’s perception is already based on a false understanding of how wealth is created and distributed.  Economist Walter E Williams expounds on these common misconceptions some more,

I think some of the ignorance and much of the demagoguery stems from the usage of the phrase “income distribution.” It might make some people think income is distributed; in other words, there’s a dealer of dollars….An alternative vision might be that there’s a pile of money intended for all of us. The reason why some are rich and some are poor is that the greedy rich got to the pile first and took their unfair share. Clearly, in either case, justice would require a re-dealing, or redistribution, of the dollars, where the government takes ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners.

Williams is right, although many in our culture seem to think they were given the shaft by some mythical dollar dealer or somehow they did not get their fair share as if there was a predestined share they were entitled to receive at birth. Now contrast that to the reality that wealth is created by producing goods and services that are pleasing to “one’s fellow man,” as Williams states. In other words, the only way you will obtain wealth is to earn it from your “fellow man” and to do that you need to produce goods and services that will be of use to them.

Thirdly, the video poses the idea that Athletes and CEOs do not produce as much as their employees. As a reference library assistant, I get paid for the services I provide to students for the university. I am paid a wage that is on par with the value the university places on me, and thus is willing to pay me. Furthermore, I work there because I am willing to be compensated at that rate. Again, millions of people do this same process all over the nation voluntarily.  This same voluntary process happens for CEOs, athletes and other rich members of our society by getting paid based on how much their employers value them. For example, Derek Jeter the short stop for the New York Yankees is to be paid this year about $24.5 Million. Now to you and me, Jeter may not be worth 24 million dollars nor does he necessarily work as hard as you or I combined. But to the New York Yankees, he is worth every penny. According to Andrew Marhand of ESPN New York,

“He [Jeter] is the brand,” said St. Louis Blues interim CEO Mike McCarthy, who ran MSG Network when it owned the rights to Yankees’ games. From McCarthy’s unique position as a top television executive and now as part of an ownership group in St. Louis, the 36-year-old Jeter adds premium value to the Yankees and YES — both estimated to be worth more than a billion each, maybe much more — as he likely becomes the first Yankee with 3,000 hits.

Kurt Badenhausen of Forbs magazine gives us even more perspective:

During his Yankees career Jeter has made $213 million in salary (with another $43 million still to come) and roughly $100 million in endorsements. Yet his value to the Yankees has been even greater. The value of the Yankees and its related enterprises has increased by nearly $5 billion during Jeter’s career. Yes other stars contributed greatly to the Yankees success, but no one quite like the Captain.

In other words, Jeter adds more to the team in value than just what he produces out on the field. This is not an unjust distribution of wealth because again it is millions of people like you and I who buy the Jeter memorabilia and watch the Yankee games on TV which adds to ratings – all of these situations examples of wealth being distributed on account of the voluntary decisions of free individuals and not some scheming system planers.  The same goes for CEOs, for it is not  society that gets to decide how much the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, University of Phoenix, or any other company gets paid for the job they do. Society does not know the value that these positions is worth to those individual stock holders.

In conclusion, we are the ones who choose how to spend our dollar votes.  Therefore, the next time you go shop at a store or buy a Derek Jeter Yankee’s jersey, realize that you are distributing your wealth. There is no system that is ideal. The video clip, “Wealth Inequality in America,” is talking about an imaginative system or idea of more equality that does not exist and never will exist. Free markets are not perfect, but compared to all other economic systems there is nothing better. If you wish for more just results, then maybe giving to charity or starting a business and employing people at a wage you believe is fair would be a start. Either way, it is up to the millions of individuals to decide how they will distribute their wealth, because they are the ones who make up the market.   Therefore, let’s looks beyond idealism and ignorant perception and seek understanding.

Originally published on the Cafe con Leche Republicans blog.

####

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

Few realize that the “green movement” is about building large personal fortunes (green money) for an elite few. As with all robber barons, it is about the money. It is why President Barack Obama laid out his threat to again bypass Congress and ignore the American people during his 2013 State of the Union address. Mr. Obama will attempt to force his ill-conceived green energy plans into existence with the stroke of his pen via Executive Orders:

“I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.” – President Barack Obama, February 12, 2013

Obama is determined to resurrect his green energy schemes by drying up America’s access to oil and gas no matter the pain inflicted on American families and businesses. Having put the coal industry on life-supports, his next target — restricting power plants that generate electricity to homes and businesses.

Al Gore

What the President hides behind the curtain and does not reveal is his alliance with international green elites, White House and Wall Street cronies and energy regulatory czars who have orchestrated a CO2 carbon-taxing scheme that puts billions of dollars into their own hands. It’s a money scheme. Three years ago, the global-warming money transfer scam surfaced and named not only this president, but a former Democrat president and vice-president as participants planning to accumulate vast personal wealth as a result. One need only ask, why did Al Gore so confidently tout that he was destined to become the “first global-warming billionaire?”

Long in the designing, the elements were close to being in full play. The plans were drawn, the carbon-credit trading exchange registered as the Chicago Climate Exchange was formulated (New York Times – Click here // Trading symbol CCX – Click here.), set to both transfer and stash cash, the green barons’ privately-owned Chicago bank was on the ready and the right president was in office to perpetrate the scam on the American people. That is, until the great global-warming-climate-change fraud stopped the United Nations-supported, elite cadre of well-connected political, banking and Wall Street associates in their tracks. British Freedom quotes The Times of India:

George Soros

“Billionaire globalists like George Soros fund green groups and seek to promote the globalist ‘climate change’ scam as a way to enrich themselves and infiltrate developing nations in order to financially exploit them and their natural resources for profit.”

The June 2009 Bloomberg article, Sandor Got Obama’s Nod for Chicago-Style Climate Law by Jim Efstathiou Jr., reported that a carbon-capping bill set to be imposed on American businesses was the cornerstone of Obama’s environmental agenda. Bloomberg quotes CCX founder Richard Sandor as saying that the bill “began “way, way to the left with provisions to push U.S. utilities into bankruptcy.” The article further reads: “Sandor launched the Chicago Climate Exchange, or CCX, in 2003 after getting two research grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation. Obama was on the foundation that gave us the grant, Sandor said. We know him well.” CCX reportedly now operates under the auspices of Environmental Financial Products.

When “global-warming-climate-change” was exposed as a blatant fraud, the American people and a Republican House refused to play ball. By doing so, they stymied the global clique of politicians and socialist ideologues who remain ready to bring America to its economic knees for their own financial and ideological gains. Even so, Mr. Obama is making another high-stakes play to push through his green agenda to fully activate the global CCX exchange despite the high cost to even the poorest of Americans.

While Obama is gearing up to invest billions of America’s tax dollars into the green abyss, other countries are backing away. Never mind that China and India refuse to put a dime into the scam. European nations have already experienced a severe hit to their economies and negative blow-back from their citizens. In the face of worldwide data to the contrary, Obama claimed during his State of the Union address that: “the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.” How an American President can make such an erroneous claim to the American people in the face of existing facts reveals him as sorely misstating or misinformed.

A February 27, 2013 news release by the Global Warming Policy Foundation states that it has highlighted the global warming standstill for many years against fervent denial by climate activists. Its Chairman, Nigel Lawson, states: “there has been no further recorded global warming at all for at least the past 15 years.” Backing-up Lawson’s findings are reported reversals by such global-warming heavy-weights as the United Nation’s Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA’s James Hansen who both reportedly now recognize that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.

Europe is facing a green backlash.

“The BBC has backed down over Sir David Attenborough’s widely contested claim that parts of the world have warmed by 3.5C over the last two decades. …The comment was removed from Sunday night’s repeat of the show.” – Harley Dixon, The Daily Telegraph, 11 Feb. 2013

“…long-term consequences of the Energy Bill will be horrible. It’s a recipe for deindustrialization.” – Professor Gordon Hughes, Mail on Sunday, 24 February, 2013

“Today energy policy is framed with only one factor in mind: satisfying the green lobby. It is, to be blunt, mad.” – Stephen Pollard, Daily Express, 20 February 2013

“Carbon emissions are no longer the driving factor setting UK energy policy. The new and dominant issue is cost.” – Nick Butler, Financial Times, 21 February, 2013

Scientific facts that Mr. Obama and his cronies prefer you not know come from Edmund Contoski, an environmental consultant for more than 40 countries. In Liberty Unbound, Contoski writes: “The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.” Based on scientific data, “Not only are worms contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere,” Contoski further notes that, “volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Even natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined.” Nature itself foils the environmentalists as The U.S. Department of Energy admits that once emitted that 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are again absorbed by nature. Contosky then queries,

“Termites emit ten time more CO2 than humans, should we cap-and-tax them?”

The media neglect the real reason Barack Obama wants your dollars to flow into his green machine that will swallow them up and then divvy them up among an elite group that will reap financial gain as America loses. The scheme is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps a great investigative journalist like Bob Woodward will peel back the layers of this political fraud. After all, he’s already endured one tongue-lashing threat from the White House.

List of reported quotes from Green Globalists compiled by real-world-news, click here.

YouTube: White House and Green Globalists’ Action Plan, click here.

Email a link of this website with the information provided to fellow Americans and to Congress.

Sharon Sebastian (www.DarwinsRacists.com) is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, “Darwin’s Racists: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow,” highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists, “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian is a featured guest on broadcasts nationwide on topics ranging from politics, the economy, healthcare, culture, religion and evolution to Agenda 21′s global green movement. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses on a wide range of national and global events are published nationally and internationally. Website: www.DarwinsRacists.com. “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be purchased at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com, www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide. Listen to Sharon Sebastian’s analysis on YouTube: Click here.

Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with permission – original link

Ellen Ochoa – astronaut

Ellen Ochoa has a life story that highlights just how well second generation immigrants from Mexico are doing in America today! Her story should inspire us all, especially the children and grandchildren of immigrants from third world nations. Ellen Ochoa’s origins are humble, but she reached for and realized the American dream, becoming a PhD, an engineer, the world’s first female Hispanic astronaut, and now the director of one of NASA’s premier facilities, the Johnson Space Center, also known as mission control.

Early Life and Family of Ellen Ochoa

Ellen Ochoa – child

Ellen Ochoa was born in 1958 in Los Angeles, one of five children of Joseph and Roseanne Ochoa. Joseph Ochoa was a retail store manager, and Roseanne Ochoa a homemaker. Ellen grew up mostly in La Mesa, California.

Joseph was born and raised in Arizona to immigrant parents from Sonora, Mexico, one of 12 children. His parents were born in the 1870s, and his father was a newspaper editor in Mexico, then owned a store in Arizona. Ellen didn’t know her grandparents, as they were already in their 80s when she was born, but certainly their hard working immigrant values and ambition passed down to Ellen. Had they still been alive for Ellen’s first space flight, we can be sure they would have felt immense pride.

While growing up in Arizona, Joseph felt the sting of rampant discrimination against Hispanics, for example Hispanics were only allowed to use the public pool the day before cleaning because it was felt they dirtied the pool. Though Joseph was bilingual, he spoke English only at home, not wanting to teach his children Spanish, fearing the lash of discrimination he had experienced if they spoke Spanish or spoke English with an accent.

Roseanne Ochoa, mother of five, began part-time college studies when Ellen Ochoa was just one, and though she could only take one class at a time and didn’t graduate from college until 22 years later, her example of perseverance clearly inspired Ellen Ochoa to excel in school.

Joseph and Roseanne Ochoa divorced when Ellen was in junior high school, and Ellen and her four siblings lived with their mother.

Education of Ellen Ochoa

Ellen Ochoa was an excellent student, and despite the trauma of her parents’ divorce, Ellen graduated as valedictorian of Grossmont High School in San Diego. Ellen then attended San Diego State University, majoring in physics, and graduated once again as valedictorian!

Ellen Ochoa graduation photo

Ellen Ochoa then received a master of science degree and doctorate in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1981 and 1985. At the time there were few women studying engineering and the sciences, and Ellen Ochoa was discouraged from pursuing these fields because she was a woman, but she persevered and excelled.

Side note: as an electrical engineer myself, I can tell you that electrical engineering is a grueling curriculum, requiring a strong foundation in math and the sciences. Stanford is a top notch university for engineering and the sciences,  and just being admitted to a prestigious university like Stanford is an accomplishment in itself. I studied Electrical engineering about the same time as Ellen at UNO, and just six of 150 students were women, who were all especially hard working and motivated to succeed.

Ellen Ochoa’s Career

From her NASA bio:

As a doctoral student at Stanford, and later as a researcher at Sandia National Laboratories and NASA Ames Research Center, Dr. Ochoa investigated optical systems for performing information processing.  She is a co-inventor on three patents for an optical inspection system, an optical object recognition method, and a method for noise removal in images.  As Chief of the Intelligent Systems Technology Branch at Ames, she supervised 35 engineers and scientists in the research and development of computational systems for aerospace missions.  Dr. Ochoa has presented numerous papers at technical conferences and in scientific journals.

Selected by NASA in January 1990, Dr. Ochoa became an astronaut in July 1991.  Her technical assignments in the Astronaut Office include serving as the Crew Representative for flight software, computer hardware and robotics, Assistant for Space Station to the Chief of the Astronaut Office, lead spacecraft communicator (CAPCOM) in Mission Control, Acting Deputy Chief of the Astronaut Office, Deputy Director of Flight Crew Operations, and Director, Flight Crew Operations, where she managed and directed the Astronaut Office and Aircraft Operations.  A veteran of four space flights, Dr. Ochoa has logged over 978 hours in space.  She was a mission specialist on STS-56 (1993), was the Payload Commander on STS-66 (1994), and was a mission specialist and flight engineer on STS-96 (1999) and STS-110 (2002).  Dr. Ochoa currently serves as Director of the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

Here’s a video clip of the launch of mission ST-56, first space flight of Ellen Ochoa, also the first Hispanic woman astronaut!

And here’s the landing:

And post flight press conference, in which Ellen Ochoa explains their mission.

Director of the Johnson Space Center

Ellen Ochoa – Director of Johnson Space Center

Ellen Ochoa’s latest accomplishments were at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, where she became the 11th director effective January 1, 2013. The Johnson Space Center, often called mission control, is NASA’s premier center for human spaceflight training, research, and flight control. There are approximately 3,200 civil servants, including 110 astronauts, employed at Johnson Space Center. The bulk of the workforce are the over 15,000 contractors.

Conclusion

Ellen Ochoa is an inspiration to us all, and yet another example of how well the children and grandchildren of even the most humble immigrants from some of the poorest nations on Earth can realize the American dream. Ellen’s family is typical in many ways. Her father came from a very large family, and Ellen herself has four siblings. Ellen has just two. Mexican-American demographics are for large families in the first generation, less in the second generation, and still less in the third (Ellen Ochoa and her husband have two children which is the norm for Americans in general these days). In terms of education, immigrants from Latin America tend to have low educational levels, reflecting the lack of opportunities in their home nations, then each successive generation greatly surpassed the previous, reflecting access to better educational opportunities.

If Nativists had had their way, Ellen’s grandparents might well have been barred from ever immigrating to the U.S. In fact, from 1924 until the 1950s, immigration was restricted to those who could naturalize, and from 1790 to 1965 only whites could naturalize. There was a legislative attempt in Congress in 1930 to ban Mexicans altogether, and during the great depression approximately one million “Mexicans” were deported or forced out, of which 60% were U.S. Citizens. Fortunately for America, Ellen Ochoa’s parents and grandparents were spared the “Mexican repatriation.”

Nativists like Ann Coulter insist that allowing immigration from third world nations is importing poverty and creating a permanent underclass, but when I look at Ellen Ochoa and countless other successful Hispanic Americans whose families immigrated 1-2 generations ago, I see the American dream, not poverty and dependency.

Recent immigrants are no different that those of previous eras, often arriving poor and undereducated, and then within 1-2 generations fully assimilating and realizing the American dream. Sadly, many of today’s Nativists still don’t ‘get it’ and the myths about immigrants often still drive bad immigration policy. Immigrants are an asset, not a liability! The more immigration we have, the more America benefits!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans web site – original link

The American population is 300-million and counting. The American population used to be composed of mostly English Protestants, a few English Roman Catholics, a few French Catholics and Protestants, Dutch Protestants and starting in the 1700s, Germans, mostly Catholic Germans.

Lest we forget, at the nation’s founding there were also a large number of Africans and their families, almost all slaves. They, of course, were not citizens, nor were they able to be citizens even if free.

Jordi Farragut

In the mix, a Spaniard named Jordi Farragut (George Farragut) came to America, fought as an American Navy lieutenant in the Revolutionary War and fathered a boy named James, later to become David Farragut, the greatest naval hero of the American Civil War.

Admiral David Farragut

Between Lieutenant George Farragut’s naval service and Admiral David Farragut’s service almost a century later, the United States made war on Mexico. When it won, it absorbed territory larger than most countries, the territory we now call the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and parts of Kansas and Oklahoma.

With that annexation, Mexicans north of the Rio Grande River automatically became Americans. A dozen years later, these former Mexicans organized themselves into battalions of the Union Army to fight for America in the Civil War. Combined with Union militia from New Mexico Territory and what is now Colorado they trounced the Confederate invasion of New Mexico and sent the Confederates back to Texas on foot, without food, weapons or even shoes.

From 1848 on, then, Mexicans have been an integral part of the American community before, in fact, the Italians, many of the Irish, Germans, the Poles and Russians. Some didn’t come here as they were already here because the border literally crossed them. In fact, until the 1920s there was no border and Mexicans could come and go as they pleased and they did.

Then, in 1923-24, the raging predominate political climate in the country was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish and, of course, Jim Crow “separate but equal” Black. Two distinct and powerful groups, the Ku Klux Klan with millions of members and an influential cabal of racial purity types known for their theories of eugenics (racial breeding), led the political climate.

Eugenicists hate Mexicans because Mexicans are a combination of white European and Amerindian blood. They hate anyone not of pure European white blood.

The Congress of the United States, including one woman and one Black, was heavily influenced by these two groups and the immigration door was slammed shut on Italian Catholics, Jewish Poles and Russians and myriad other Mediterranean types. Swarthy Europeans, Jews and Catholics, were the primary target of the Ku Klux Klan and its numerous allies.

Mexicans, however, were the number one targets of the eugenicists. Never in American history had Mexicans been denied free access to the United States until Congress made them instant illegal aliens in 1924. It even chartered the Border Patrol that year to “guard” the Mexican border.

Ex-Texas Rangers were hired, who, in the grand corrupt tradition of the Rangers rounded up Mexicans as they emerged from the Rio Grande and sold them to ranchers for .50 cents apiece. They also received federal paychecks to supplement their rancher finder’s fees.

For the next thirty years, Mexicans were treated like lice in Texas, Colorado, Arizona and California. In sunny California Mexicans were forced to attend segregated schools until 1947.

Segregated Mexican La Jolla School

In Texas, an all-white jury convicted a Mexican man named Hernandez of murder. He appealed his conviction because no Mexicans served on his jury despite their numerous numbers in his county s population.

Texas argued that it didn’t discriminate against Mexican defendants, that Mexicans could serve on juries. Mr. Hernandez showed the United States Supreme Court that, in fact, though there were plenty of Mexicans in the county, none had ever served as jurors in a criminal trial, ever.

Pedro Hernandez – Hernandez v. Texas

Mr. Hernandez made history when the Supreme Court threw out his conviction and ruled that Mexicans in Texas were to be defined forevermore as a “discrete class.” (Hernandez v. Texas, 1954) That means that Mexicans in the United States were a “group,” an ethnic group that had been officially discriminated against.

This was not the first time Texas had picked on Mexicans. After the American civil war, Texas refused to enforce civil rights laws backed up by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. It refused to treat Mexicans as U.S. citizens, even if born in the United States (14the Amendment).

In Texas v. White (1870), the Court threw out the Texas contention that Mexicans couldn’t be citizens. Texas believed that when they were so declared in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war with Mexico the immigration laws in 1848 prohibited anyone not “free and White” from becoming a citizen.

Thus, Texas reasoned Mexican could not be or become United States citizens.

The Court ruled that the Treaty had the force of the Constitution and that any treaty and the Constitution took precedence and supremacy over any congressional act. Thus, it ruled, Texas was wrong.

We find ourselves today in a situation that draws from the Texas experiences with the Supreme Court and with the flaming rage of the 1920s fired by the then powerful Ku Klux Klan and the cabal of people with a purely racial basis for ethnic hatred of Mexicans.

And, they are everywhere. Former President Jimmy Carter, a proud Georgia Democrat White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP), is quoted in an August, 1996 New York Daily News article saying:

I see nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained. – Jimmy Carter

He was elected President three months later and managed not to find a single Mexican American to serve in his government above the rank of Navy secretary.

The man who defeated him four years later, President Ronald Reagan then his successor President George H.W. Bush, Republicans both, managed to find two Mexican Americans to serve in their cabinets.

Look carefully at those screaming in opposition to the Senate s comprehensive immigration reform bill, to those opposing the President who supports it and to anyone who supports it outside the government. Look and listen to what they say, their words, and, the mass hysteria they manifest.

Ann Coulter – Nativist

Example, look at cute commentator Ann Coulter who offers the possibility that illegals from Mexico will get affirmative action entry into American colleges ahead of deserving American citizens. This while she and her kind complain that illegals from Mexico aren’t high school graduates. She and they want it both ways. So, she screams!

Opponents scream treason, they scream open-borders, they scream sovereignty they scream about Mexico They scream!

They scream when reasonable people look at them and see them for and call them what they are, racist.

David Duke KKK

A cosmic race, or as some are prone to say, LA RAZA, but certainly not Irish, English, German, French, other Northern European or like the descendents of African slaves. Mexicans are not like the screamers.

These people call themselves Minutemen, Immigration reformers/activists and patriots but they are properly called racist like their 1920s antecedents.

Unfortunately, members of the Congress of the United States are among their ranks.

Editor’s Note: Originally published June 6, 2006 and still relevant today! All opinion’s expressed are the author’s, and not necessarily those of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted with author’s permission – original link.

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

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

Since the early 1990s this writer has focused attention on people who hate Mexicans, some for racist reasons, some for ethnic hatred, some for just plain white supremacy reasons. Now, these people have come out from under their rocks for all to see.

While many Americans seethe privately about Mexicans and where they come from, Mexico, as well as Mexican history, Mexican religion and Mexican economic, social and personal contact with America and Americans, few have publicly manifested their hatred and profound anti-Mexican racism in public. It wasn’t polite.

Polite American society no longer tolerates public racism like it used to before the civil rights revolution. That revolution was fueled by the United States Supreme Court decision in a critical Texas ruling (Hernandez v. Texas 347 U.S. 475) in which it ruled official governmental discrimination against people of Mexican origin was illegal.

That decision took anti-Mexican racism out of the state capitols and buried in the minds of some individuals

Pat Buchanan – Nativist

In the early 90s, however, it surfaced in public discourse with the emotional and hysterical campaign by people like Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Jesse Jackson, a group labeled the Halloween Coalition, that arose to fight the North American free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Ross Perot

“The Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming” became Ross Perot s 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaign themes. Pat Buchanan tried it in 2000 and again in 2004. Last year, dozens of Republican congressional candidates, some incumbents, campaigned against Mexicans in thinly veiled “anti-illegal alien” campaigns.

They failed miserably. Perot and Buchanan were slaughtered (giving us Bill Clinton in 1992). Buchanan received less than one half of one percent of the presidential vote.

J.D. Hayworth

Republican hysteric congressman J.D. Hayworth was slaughtered in a Republican district as was his fellow hysteric, Randy Graf, who lost in an open Republican seat partly because he was endorsed by the Minutemen and former Klansman David Duke. Other hard line Mexican haters in Congress defeated and replaced by Democrats.

These losers were all open about their hatred but they managed to couch their hatred and racist feelings by claiming they had little against Mexicans; they only were against illegal aliens. By claiming they didn’t hate Mexicans, even though they did, they managed to cover up their racism behind terms like “sovereignty,” “open borders,” “American jobs,” “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” ad infinitum.

Now, in 2007 in the wake of their 2006 electoral disaster, the haters are coming out more publicly than ever in a last ditch effort to destroy Mexico, its people and its relations with the United States.

Mark Krikorian

The Center for Immigration studies (CIS) had a public presentation this week In San Diego, the largest American city on the Mexican border. It included panelists Professor George Grayson (College of William and Marry, Virginia), S. Lynne Walker, longtime correspondent from Mexico for the San Diego-based Copley Press and CIS Executive Director, Mark Krikorian. The panel was moderated by former United States Attorney and Undersecretary of the Treasury, Peter Nunez, who serves as CIS Chairman.

John Tanton

Note: The CIS was founded by John Tanton, defined by many as the most effective bigot in America and a prime Mexican hater. He also founded a publication, Social Quarterly, in an effort to legitimize racism; he founded NumbersUSA, another anti-immigrant group. He also founded the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR). He used racist Pioneer Fund money to start up FAIR.

When he founded CIS, he installed as its head Mark Krikorian who worked for Tanton at FAIR. The CIS is theoretically a non-partisan “think tank.” It is not.

It is vehemently anti-immigrant, legal and illegal. If there was any doubt, here are ideas proposed by Mark Krikorian at the presentation.

Thousands of Mexicans cross the border every day in San Diego to spend $3-billion a year on goods and services in San Diego annually; consider further that an estimated 50-75,000 Mexicans legally cross the border every day to legally work in San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles counties.

First, Krikorian demands that the United States “insulate ourselves” from our largest neighbor, Mexico. In rejecting the idea that the side-by-side economies of America s 7th largest city, San Diego, and Mexico s fourth largest city, Tijuana, were economically interdependent, Krikorian said, “It, frankly, is a parasitic phenomenon” and that, it is “fundamentally in conflict with the interests of the United States.”

San Diego Union: “He (Krikorian) also suggested getting rid of border-crossing cards that (legally) allow Mexicans who go through a screening process to enter the United States to go shopping or visit family as well as taking away green cards from people who live in Mexico and cross the border to work every day.”

There it is, on the table for all to see. Prohibit legal Mexican border-crossers from crossing to do business, visit doctors, work or go to the world famous San Diego Zoo. Why? Will stopping legal Mexican border-crossers and workers from coming to San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville enhance American security? Will a fairy godmother pour billions of dollars into San Diego to make up what it will lose if such a program of border crossing denials is implemented?

What we have here is pure deep-seated racism, the likes of which was exposed in Hernandez v. Texas. Mr. Krikorian reveals what he and the CIS are all about.

Stopping legal Mexican visitors and workers from crossing the border boggles the mind. What part of legal don’t these people understand? Legality, you see, means nothing to the CIS, Krikorian and their fellow travelers.

Reason: Mexicans are Mexicans and they have a different skin color, speak Spanish and, as Catholics, worship differently than the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who are behind Armenian-origin Krikorian and his English-origin boss, John Tanton.

####

Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with the author’s permission – original link

Raoul Contreras Lowery

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

Albert Baez

Young Albert Baez

We should all thank a Mexican immigrant, Albert Baez (1912-2007), for modern medicine and astronomy, for his pioneering work in X-Rays led to critical breakthroughs in science! If the name Baez seems familiar, it’s because rock star Joan Baez is his daughter! The late Mimi Baez Fariña was also his daughter and another great singer.

Early Life of Albert Baez

Albert Baez was born in Puebla, Mexico, the son of a Methodist minister. His family moved to Brooklyn in 1914, where Albert Baez grew up, and his father was minister at the First Spanish Methodist Church, whose members were predominately Puerto Ricans, Spanish speaking, and impoverished. As son of the minister, Albert grew up in a compassionate and caring environment.

Albert Baez was also interested in the ministry, but ultimately chose mathematics and physics. Albert Baez earned a bachelors from Drew University in 1933, a masters degree from Syracuse University in 1935, and a doctorate from Stanford University in 1950.

Mimi Baez Fariña, daughter of Albert Baez

Joan Baez, Daughter of Albert Baez

Albert Baez met Joan Chandos Bridge, an immigrant from Scotland, in High School, and later married her. He took his daughters Joan Baez and the late Mimi Baez Fariña to concerts as teenagers. Little did he know that both would later achieve stardom! A nephew, John C. Baez, is also a noted physicist and professor of mathematics at the University of California – Riverside.
Joan Baez’s performance of “Blowing in the Wind” is one of my favorites from the 1960s. Here’s an original recording:

Did you know Joan Baez and Mimi Baez Fariña also sang in Spanish?

Albert Baez and the Invention of X-Ray Microscopes and X-Ray Telescopes

While at Stanford, in 1948 Albert Baez and Paul Kirkpatrick, his doctoral adviser, invented the first X-Ray Reflection Microscope for looking at living cells, a vital part of modern medicine that is still used today! After receiving his PhD, Albert Baez developed zone plates—concentric circles of alternating opaque and transparent materials to use diffraction instead of refraction to focus X-rays, very important in the development of X-Ray telescopes. Practical application of X-Ray microscopes and telescopes had to wait for decades for technology to catch up, but we can thank this Mexican immigrant for these wonderful inventions that have benefited mankind so much!

Albert Baez and His Contributions to Science Education

Baez authored the textbook The New College Physics: A Spiral Approach (1967), and co-authored of the textbook The Environment and Science and Technology Education (1987), and the memoir A Year in Baghdad (1988). Albert Baez also produced almost 100 films about physics for Encyclopædia Britannica. Baez also chaired the Commission on Education of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources from 1979 to 1983.

Though Albert Baez has passed on, he is still inspiring young Hispanics to pursue the sciences, with the Albert V. Baez Award for Technical Excellence and Service to Humanity, established by the Hispanic Engineer National Achievement Awards Corporation (HENAAC). Baez himself was inducted into the HENAAC Hall of Fame.

Albert Baez and the Cold War

Unlike many of his colleagues in that era, Albert Baez did not work for the arms industry, due to his pacifist beliefs. He and his wife had become Quakers. Instead, Albert Baez stayed in academia. After receiving his PhD, he was a professor at the University of Redlands, where he continued his X-ray research, from 1950-56. Baez worked for UNESCO in 1951, stationing his family in Baghdad to establish the physics department and laboratory at Baghdad University.

In 1959, Baez accepted a faculty position at MIT, and moved his family to the Boston area. In 1960, working with the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, MA, he developed optics for the X-ray telescope. Later that year he moved to the faculty of Harvey Mudd College, and moved his family to Claremont, California. He directed science teaching for UNESCO in Paris from 1961-67.

Albert Baez – Immigrant From Mexico

We are indeed fortunate that Albert Baez was not caught up in the “Mexican repatriation” of the 1930s and 1940s, when 1 million “Mexicans”, of whom 60% were U.S. Citizens, were forced out of the U.S., often simply rounded up and put onto trains headed deep into Mexico. Without Albert Baez, who knows if X-ray microscopes and telescopes would have been developed? His contributions werea great asset to America, and those who think Mexicans form a permanent underclass need to read more history.

Albert Baez apparently never forgot his roots either, nor his father’s mentoring of his poor flock in Brooklyn. Growing up as the son of a minister for a poor congregation in Brooklyn, he would have been aware of the grinding poverty that affected many Puerto Ricans and immigrants during the Great Depression. Later in life, Albert Baez, served as president of Vivamos Mejor (we live better), a charity which is active in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Brazil.

####

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