What Happened to the Recent STEM Bill to Help Immigrant Entrepreneurs?

House Republicans led the a recent effort in 2012 to revise U.S. guest worker immigration policy to help stem the exodus of immigrant entrepreneurs. The bill would have reallocated 55,000 green card lottery visas to STEM workers (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). STEM workers are prodigious immigrant entrepreneurs!

The current 7% cap on immigrants from any one nation would have been raised to 15%. The cap is the same for high-population nations like China and India as for Greenland. Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Filipino immigrants often face lengthy delays due to high demand for immigrant visas and this cap. Some Filipinos who applied in 1989 are just now receiving immigrant visas! If you’re from Mexico or the Philippines and not in a preference category, your wait for an immigrant visa is over 100 years!

The U.S. offers far fewer H1B visas available each year than foreign advanced degree graduates. We take in the ‘cream of the crop’ from other nations, give them the best education, then kick them out to go home and help foreign competitors.

We’ve been hemorrhaging those lucky enough to obtain an H1B visa after college. Many of these immigrant entrepreneurs haven’t been able to adjust their status to permanent resident, or bring their immediate families due to caps and quotas. Many get fed up with our broken system and return home, starting new companies abroad which compete with U.S. companies.

The green card lottery provides 55,000 immigrant visas each year to countries not already providing many immigrants, and only requires a high school education. House Republicans don’t see much value in the green card lottery, since the U.S. already has plenty of citizens and permanent residents with a high school education, many of whom are unemployed. Our worker shortfalls are at the extremes of the skills spectrum: high skilled professionals, and unskilled farm workers, etc.

Why Did the STEM Bill Fail to Staunch the Exit of Immigrant Entrepreneurs?

Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, objected to the introduction of the STEM bill, effectively killing the bill. Democrats are fond of the diversity visa program because they like promoting diversity, and the lottery brings many immigrants from Africa.

Big labor, a major backer of the Democratic Party, is always a huge foe of guest worker programs. Big labor has long subscribed to the protectionist notion that fewer immigrants and guest workers raises wages for American workers and immigrant workers. However, the effect of labor protectionism is to send more jobs overseas, and inhibit the creation of more jobs for Americans by immigrant entrepreneurs. Start-up companies, often founded by immigrant entrepreneurs, are huge engines of job creation.

Will the ‘Group of Eight’ Plan Help Immigrant Entrepreneurs?

We certainly hope so! President George W. Bush’s immigration reform plan failed largely over fixing guest worker programs. At the behest of Big Labor, Senate Democrats, including Senator Barrack Obama, introduced poison pill amendments to Bush’s reform bill that led many Republicans to drop their support and vote against cloture to end debate and take up a final vote. John McCain aide Mark Salter later wrote Obama would come to meetings and

draw from his shirt pocket a 3×5 index card, on which he had written changes he insisted be made to the bill before he would support it. They were invariably the same demands made by the AFL-CIO, which was intent on watering down or killing the guest-worker provisions.

All indications are that Big Labor is seeking to control guest worker programs through establishment of a commission to review guest worker quotas each year. During negotiations between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, the Obama administration leaked its immigration reform plan, which pointedly omitted any reform of guest worker programs. The leak apparently had the intended effect, because the U.S. Chamber caved and agreed to the commission concept, which no doubt will be dominate by Big Labor, seeking to protect unionized industrial sectors. The Wall Street Journal recently wrote:

The AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce on Thursday released a set of immigration reform principles, and the press is calling it a breakthrough. But don’t be fooled. The real story is that the backroom talks failed, and Big Labor is still holding out for a political commission to run any new guest-worker program.

The Chamber and AFL-CIO have been trying to work out those details in private talks, but they have made little progress. Our guess is that last weekend’s now famous White House leak about the President’s immigration plan was intended mainly to muscle the Chamber. Mr. Obama’s leaked outline didn’t include a guest-worker program, which labor negotiators cited in urging business to drop or limit the idea.

Despite the setbacks and obvious push back from Big Labor, I am optimistic about the prospects of immigration reform in 2013. I’d frankly like to see fixed quotas abolished because history has proven quotas are often disconnected from economic need, choking off the supply of immigrants needed by a growing economy, which sends U.S. jobs overseas and/or fuels illegal immigration.

If politicians are concerned about preserving American jobs, then let’s replace quotas with modest tariffs on guest worker wages, to be paid by employers. Such a tariff would ’tilt the table’ further encouraging employers to hire American citizens or lawful permanent residents, but provide access to guest workers without navigating through a mountain of bureaucracy.

####

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

Ann Coulter – Nativist

Ann Coulter has just insulted naturalized citizens with her absurd claim that President George H.W. Bush eliminated the naturalization test English requirement!

Naturalized citizens have every reason to feel proud to become naturalized citizens, after a lengthy process involving years of English, American history, and civics studies to prepare them for an interview and civics exam in English. Fully one third of native born adult citizens cannot pass the naturalization exam, but 97% of immigrants pass!

Naturalized citizens, especially those who arrived without much formal education, have every right to feel proud. I personally know a naturalized citizen of very humble origins who struggled with English and civic studies for many years. She felt such enormous pride when she became an American citizen that she had her naturalization certificate blown up and framed for display in a prominent place of honor in her living room!

Naturalization Test in English Has Been Law Since 1906

In 1906, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1906, stating:

That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States who can not speak the English language: Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply therewith, if they are otherwise qualified to become citizens of the United States.

In 1950, the McCarran Internal Security Act strengthened the English requirement to require the ability to read, write, and speak English, and demonstrate a knowledge of history and form of government. The revised statute states:

Sec. 304. No person except as otherwise provided in this Act shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States upon his own petition who cannot demonstrate -

1. an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language: Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to any person physically unable to comply therewith, if otherwise qualified to be naturalized, or to any person who, on the date of approval of this amendment, is over fifty years of age and has been legally residing in the United States for twenty years: Provided further, That the requirements of this section relating to ability to read and write shall be met if the applicant can read or write simple words and phrases to the end that a reasonable test of his literacy shall be made and that no extraordinary or unreasonable conditions shall be imposed upon the applicant; and
2. a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and the principles and form of government, of the United States.

Millions of immigrants have toiled through years of English studies, American history, and government to prepare them for an interview and civics test in English with an Immigration officer. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the naturalization test was made even more difficult, but 97% of immigrants still pass the exam. The same exam has been given to native born citizens, and fully 1/3 failed the same exam! Perhaps Ann Coulter would fail the naturalization test too!

Ann Coulter Insults Naturalized Citizens and Slams George H.W. Bush

Ann Coulter just diminished the accomplishments of naturalized citizens with another of her bald faced lies. In her most recent rant, Hispanicked GOP elite: They’ll respect us in the morning, Coulter showed contempt for President George H.W. Bush:

President George H.W. Bush created “diversity visas,” massively increased legal immigration and eliminated the English requirement on the naturalization test.

George H.W. Bush

Ann Coulter lies! The Immigration Act of 1990, signed by President George H.W. Bush, did not eliminate the English requirement.  The middle-aged  and especially the elderly have a difficult time mastering English. The 1950 law made an exception for those aged 50+ with 20 years of residency. The 1990 law merely added an exception for those who are 55+ with 15 years of residency. They still have to take the civics exam, but can take the exam with an interpreter. There is no exception to the civics exam unless one is 65+ and a 15+ year resident.

The vast majority of immigrants are still interviewed and take the civics exam in English. Exempting the elderly is consistent with the spirit of the 1906 law, which states “requirement shall not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply”, but doesn’t exempt the middle aged or elderly. The mentally impaired and physically disabled are exempted, consistent with the spirit of the 1906 law.

Do Today’s Immigrants Refuse to Learn English?

Not surprisingly, Nativists like Coulter often claim today’s Hispanic immigrants refuse to learn English, but credible statistics by Pew Research shows just the opposite! I blogged about this in Do Today’s Immigrants Refuse to Learn English. From Pew Research

As telling, perhaps, is a look at how many people said teaching English to immigrant children is not important. Among Latinos, only 2% held this view compared to 27% of non-Latinos.

The truth of the matter is that virtually all immigrants, both today’s and those of many decades ago, believe learning English is important, but also struggle with mastery of English, particularly if they are older when they arrive or have less formal education. The fact that a mere 2% of Latinos don’t think teaching English to immigrant children speaks volumes.

Ann Coulter Misrepresented Immigration Levels Too!

Ann Coulter also misrepresents immigration levels, and like many of her Nativist pals often claims the U.S. is being overrun by immigrants. The 1990 immigration law increased immigrant visas from 500,000 to 700,000, but Coulter fails to mention the quota had not been changed for decades and had not kept up with population growth.

In 2010, 1,042,625 immigrants obtained permanent resident status, compared with U.S. population of 310,383,948, 0.336% as a percentage of population. That numbers sounds large, until we realize the U.S. ranks #22 of 34 OECD nations in immigration as a percentage of population, near the bottom! A few nations that accept more immigrants than the U.S. as a percentage of population:

• Tiny Luxembourg: 3.116% of population, nearly ten times the U.S. immigration level
• Switzerland, 1.751% (Switzerland is one of the world’s most affluent nations)
• Canada, 0.825% of population, 2-1/2 times the immigration levels of the U.S.
• The U.S. – a mere 0.336%, or if Ann Coulter’s Nativist pals get their way and slash legal immigration to 1956 levels, 0.104%!

If the U.S. slashed its immigrant quota to 1956 levels to satisfy the Nativist lobby, we would then rank #31 of 34 OECD nations, near the very bottom!

Conclusion – Ann Coulter Will You Please Stop Insulting Naturalized Citizens!

Ann Coulter is right about many issues, but when it comes to immigration she is clueless. Since Ann Coulter is often held out as a spokesperson for the conservative movement, her rhetoric is very alienating to New Americans, such as Hispanics and Asians. She further insults these demographics with insinuations they are natural Democrat voters.

Canada’s Conservative Party was able to increase their immigrant vote support from a 3:1 loss (like Mitt Romney) to parity, 1:1. George W. Bush also won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, as compared to 21% in the 1996 presidential race, reinforcing that conservatives can win votes from immigrant dominant demographics.

Ann Coulter is woefully ignorant about all things Hispanic, and would do well to find new sources of information, as clearly she has been drinking the Nativist Kool-Aid from the Nativist (and liberal) lobby comprised of FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA.

####

Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

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

Our Founding Fathers never conceived that a massive “Brown Horde” would take over their White Male paradise, the United States of America. The “horde” has done just that in the last three Presidential elections including reelecting Obama, who by all political measures should have disappeared into one-term Hell.

First they voted for George W. Bush in 2004 in percentages (44%) for a Republican that topped any Hispanic vote for any Republican in history. Then they came back in 2008 and 67% of them voted for Barack Obama to experience helping elect the first “Black” President. They came back November 6 and threw in a 70% vote for Obama topping 2008.

Without that percentage and an increase in 30% more Hispanics than voted in 2008, Obama could have lost Florida, Nevada and Colorado and lost the election.

Tellingly, the same “gender gap” that existed among all women in their lack of support for Republican Romney, exists among Hispanic women. The University of Washington-based LATINO DECISIONS reviewed national exit polls and concluded that 76% of Hispanic women voted for Obama while 65% of Hispanic men voted for Obama – a gender gap of 11 points.

Professor Isidro Ortiz of San Diego State University told NBC San Diego: “Why would a Latino or Latina voter look at those (Republican) positions and say they are favorable to us?”

They seem to have ignored these facts: Record levels of unemployment and underemployment among Hispanics (19%), modern record levels of Hispanic/Latino poverty (28%), a drop of two thirds (67%) of Hispanic net worth since June, 2009 and the fact that Obama plain lied about “fixing” immigration in his first year in office. He never mentioned it again until an El Paso Speech in his third year, and then again in 2012 but never, never sent an immigration reform proposal to Congress.

These facts weren’t enough to convince them to dump Obama, so Professor Ortiz is correct – they rejected what they perceived the Republican Party to be – the illegitimate off-spring of insane ethnic-hating old White male Republicans. These haters themselves reject the GOP’s birth as the first legitimate opposition to America’s Original Sin, Slavery.

These people think that the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution are illegitimate. They think this not because the amendments were ratified by state governments created by Washington and staffed with newly freed slaves, but because they changed –forever – the status of what the Supreme Court had ruled weren’t people in 1857. It ruled that they were property and could never become citizens because they were African Blacks.

Those same Founding Fathers had written the first immigration laws in 1790 that required “new” citizens to be “free and White.” That was the law until 1868.

Compare the founding of the Republican Party and the bloody civil war it took to cement into the Constitution the rejection of the Founding Father’s preoccupation with race. The founder of what is now the Democrat Party – Thomas Jefferson – was a principal architect of legal slavery and original immigration laws. In his writings, he posited that Negro men smell like they do because they “urinate through the pores of their skin.”

Democrats have slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, lynching of thousands of Black men and total segregation of Blacks and Whites and in Texas, Mexicans. The Republicans have the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments, the Supreme Court’s race-based rulings in 1954 (Hernandez v. Texas, Brown v. Board of Education), Republican bayonets that integrated a Little Rock high school, Senate Republicans overcoming Southern Democrat Senators to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964/1965 and Southern school integration directed by Richard Nixon’s Justice Department.

Democrats killed George W. Bush’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2007 at the direct order of national labor unions. They are against the key element to any immigration reform, a guest worker program.

What, then, can Republicans do to meaningfully bring some Hispanics home?

They can name rising star Hispanic Republicans to a Commission – Senator Marco Rubio (Cuban), Representative Raul Labrador (Puerto Rican) and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (Mexican Americans) – that will provide Republican congressmen a market-based-outreach keyed on a Comprehensive Immigration Reform plan supportable by Speaker John Boehner and the Republican House. Then Obama and Senate Democrats can put up or shut up.

The GOP wins the economic argument every time; it loses the welfare argument every time. It can, however, win the immigration argument by simply creating immigration reform. It can also shed insane Mexican haters like Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, former congressman Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, his sister Bay and muzzle Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana.

The GOP cannot reflect only White male southerners, it must reflect a diverse society of 314,728,350 (million) Americans; better yet, it should not just reflect, it should mirror the country.

Sharing this news release, with Arizona context. Much of Arizona’s border is remote, and as border fencing, security, etc. has been beefed up in other states, Arizona, in particular the Tucson Sector, has become a funnel for increased illegal border crossing.

The U.S. currently has seven million unauthorized immigrant workers, with the capacity to remove approximately 400,000 per year. Just 1.7 million guest worker and training visas were issued in 2011. In other words, less than 20% of ‘guest workers’ have a visa! Most guest worker visas are subject to strict quotas. In many cases the quotas are a small fraction of need, and across the board employers and employees encounter considerable red tape, delays, etc., and once a visa is issued, guest workers cannot readily change employers, which allows unscrupulous employers to exploit them.

For example, the U.S. has 1.5 million non-citizen agricultural workers, but only 12% have some type of visa. Many states that have implemented immigration crackdowns quickly experienced farm labor shortages. Even states that did not crack down, such as Washington State, are experiencing farm worker shortages. Some Americans are willing to take these types of jobs, but not in the numbers needed by agriculture. Georgia and Alabama experienced widespread crop losses after implementing SB1070 type laws, as immigrant farm workers fled but few Americans took their place. After SB1070 was passed, over 100,000 immigrants fled Arizona, and yet Yuma’s unemployment rate remains at great depression levels.

Fixing legal immigration and guest worker programs can be expected to reduce illegal border crossings by diverting the flow of migrant workers into legal channels, allowing the border patrol to focus on those who are truly dangerous, such as drug traffickers, gun runners, and terrorists. The grid lock on immigration reform remains in Washington, with Obama blaming Republicans when in truth Republicans are deeply divided on immigration reform, but don’t trust Obama! Read our release below for more perspective…

Marshall, MN – National pro-immigrant group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today slammed President Obama for failing to include immigration reform in his second-term economic plan titled “A Plan for Jobs & Middle-Class Security.” In May 2011 Obama described immigration reform as an “economic imperative” and yet incredibly Obama fails to include immigration reform in his economic and jobs plan!

During both presidential campaigns, Obama often promised to introduce immigration reform during his first year in office. However, Obama failed to put anything on the table during his first two years in office, despite a strong majority in Congress, and a cloture-proof majority in the Senate.

In a recent interview with Univisión, Obama again blamed Republicans for his own lack of leadership on immigration:

“My biggest failure so far is we haven’t gotten comprehensive immigration reform done, but it’s not because for lack of trying or desire, and I’m confident we are going to accomplish that.

What I confess I did not expect, and so I’m happy to take responsibility for being naive here, is that Republicans who had previously supported comprehensive immigration reform, my opponent in 2008 who had been a champion of it and who attended these meetings, suddenly would walk away.”

Obama’s biggest failure has been failure to work with Congress on a range of issues, not just immigration, and the second part of his answer to Univisión highlight his constant blame of others for his own leadership failures. Obama also failed to put immigration reform on the table during his first two years, and yet still blames Republicans for blocking it!

Obama’s actions as a Senator underline a different explanation of Obama’s failure to lead. Obama claimed he supported Bush’s immigration reform bill, then quietly worked with Harry Reid to sabotage Bush’s immigration reform through poison pill amendments and procedure to encourage moderate Republicans to drop their support, and then blaming Republicans for the bill’s failure. In a 2010 Wall Street Journal Op-ed, former Bush administration official William McGurn described Obama’s “immigration fakery”:

Earlier this month President Obama gave us his speech on comprehensive immigration reform.

Since then, observers have commented on its similarity to the Oval Office address given by George W. Bush four years earlier. As someone who had a hand in the Bush speech, let me point out two striking differences.

First, President Bush actually wanted an immigration bill, and indeed many of his conservative critics loathed him for it. Second, because he knew that such a bill required bipartisan support, he did not disparage members of the other party.

Wait a minute. Hasn’t Mr. Obama told us how he “reached across the aisle in the Senate to fight for comprehensive immigration reform”? Well, yes, those are his words. The back story, however, suggests another face to our president. For then-Sen. Obama also favored a series of amendments that were plainly recognized as bill-killers—spurning not only Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain but the Democratic architect of that compromise, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.).

One such amendment was Mr. Obama’s own, which aimed to substitute family ties for education and skills when determining who gets green cards. That led to what the Associated Press called a “heated exchange” with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.). Mr. Graham accused Mr. Obama of undercutting Democrats and Republicans working for reform—contrary to his lofty campaign rhetoric about Americans coming together.

So when you are out on the campaign trail, my friend, tell them about why we can’t come together,” said Mr. Graham. “This is why.”

Mr. Obama’s mischief did not stop there. Though his own amendment failed, he supported another poison pill by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.). Mr. Dorgan’s target was the guest-worker provision, another key to GOP and business buy-in.

There were 70 “yea” cloture votes to introduce Bush’s immigration reform, including dozens of Republicans. After Obama’s fakery and Harry Reid’s chicanery in not allowing debate on most Republican amendments, immigration reform failed to gain the required “yea” votes in two cloture votes to end debate and take up a final vote. Although the second cloture vote came closer to the required 60 “yea” votes, instead of allowing amendments and debate to continue until 60 votes were secured, Reid pulled the bill.

A constant narrative from Democrats ever since is that Republicans blocked immigration reform, when in fact Reid pulled the bill from the floor as “yea” votes for cloture approached the required 60. Not surprisingly, Republicans in Congress learned not to trust Obama on immigration and other issues, trust that is essential for bipartisanship. In fact, there has been almost no bipartisanship during Obama’s presidency, a problem that began during Obama’s tenure as a Senator, as described Bob Woodward’s book “The Price of Politics.” In our opinion, Mitt Romney demonstrated the ability to work across the aisle as Governor of Massachusetts, where he had to work with a legislature with 85% Democrat majority, and this, combined with Mitt Romney’s economic plan and immigration reform platform led us to endorse Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney can be expected to work with both parties in Congress, find middle ground, and pass immigration reform as promised, while Obama will either ignore the issue or continue to use immigration as a wedge issue as he has done now for years.

Obama campaigned in 2008 on a strong commitment to pass immigration reform during his first year in office, but during his first two years in office Obama failed to put anything on the table despite a strong House majority and cloture-proof majority in the Senate. He failed to even call Democrat senators in support of the DREAM Act, and Reid combined abortion measures and gay marriage with the DREAM Act to ensure that few Republicans would vote for the DREAM Act. Despite failing to put anything on the table, Obama has continued to blame Republicans for his own lack of leadership on immigration reform. Sadly, ‘hope and change’ has become ‘hype and blame’ and we have seen no progress on immigration reform during Obama’s presidency.

During the last year of the Bush administration, the H2A agricultural guest worker program was streamlined to help farmers obtain the guest workers they needed, while also enhancing accountability for hiring unauthorized workers. Upon taking office, Obama promptly canceled Bush’s H2A improvements, and then made the H2A program even more difficult for farmers. About 88% of non-citizen farm workers are unauthorized immigrants as a result. The H2A system remains broken to this day, although there is flexibility to reform this program administratively just as Bush did.

When Marco Rubio sought to find middle ground and introduce a new version of the DREAM Act, DREAM Activists and Democratic congressmen and senators were told not to talk with Rubio by the Obama administration, and soon afterwards came the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a ‘band aid’ approach to providing relief for deportation for DREAM eligible youth, was rolled out to undermine Senator Rubio’s efforts. DACA angered Republicans in Congress, who rightly felt Obama was circumventing Congress, and ended any hope of bipartisanship solutions during the present Congress. A lawsuit was filed by immigration agents and union leaders, which seems likely to prevail on some points. In the rush to implement DACA, the Obama administration’s failed to follow the rule making process mandated by federal law.
Though jobs and economy remain top issues with New Americans, immigration is important too, with Latinos in particular, since a large majority of Latinos are immigrants themselves, or first or second generation immigrants, and often empathize with unauthorized immigrants. Obama’s continued “fakery”, as evidenced by his omission of immigration reform in his economic plan though he has described immigration reform as an “economic imperative” speaks to Obama’s continued “immigration fakery.”
His opponent, Mitt Romney, supported Bush’s immigration reform bills, and has demonstrated the ability to reach across the aisle as governor of Massachusetts. If Obama is reelected, he’s welcome to surprise us by hitting the “reset” button with Congress, and on this issue we will work with anyone who will work with us, but so far Obama has done little to inspire confidence he can turn around his relationship with Congress. We cannot help but note Mitt Romney’s strong commitment to turning our economy around, and his immigration reform platform promises badly needed reforms in guest worker programs.

####

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.

Democrats could anticipate the Latino vote without much effort or campaigning in past political races.  In fact, it used to be the norm that if Latinos voted, no one asked their political affiliation because it was presumed that they were Democrat, especially in Texas. Studies have shown us that Latinos will come out and vote at certain times and for certain candidates.  For instance, Latinos came out in heavy numbers in 2004 (44%) to vote for President Bush who is considered not only a friend to Latinos, but their protector.  Other than that, the voter apathy has been consistent for the community, even in 2008 for the Obama election.  This is perhaps the reason Obama laughs and says he will have five more years to work on issues that affect the community.  So while Latinos have voted consistently, it has been in small numbers and for Democrats.  Latinos are a group population who live in regions (like RGValley and California) that under represent their interests and keep them in an income below the poverty level.

Currently there are 3.8 million eligible voters in Texas, California leads with 5.4 million.  Of those 3.8 million those Latinos eligible as voters are currently at 25%(New Mexico leads with 38%).   The segment between the ages of 18-29 which is at 31.1%, is growing at a rapid rate.   This is also the segment that seeks to move up in the income category and the one that will impact the political movement in Texas in the next 2-6 years.

Every year the growing number of Latinos becoming eligible to vote increases by 500,000 either by gaining Citizenship or coming into the voting age of (18).  As a result, Latinos are gaining in political power in the U.S., not just in Texas.

Recently in Texas, two Democrat Politicians have switched sides to the right, and this trend is growing.  Democrats attempt to paint this as treason, but it is more of a logical and survival move.   The changing demographics and opportunities for Latinos seem to be the key.  In the past,  Latinos  struggled in Texas for “effective” representation by their own, that is Latino elected officials.   Latino leaders are encountering a resistance by Democrats who have developed a patronage system in California, and now seek it in Texas, especially in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.  This is a region that has afforded people only a slight opportunity for progress and change.  The Valley has been ruled by Democrats since the 1960s, and opportunities for Latinos have only slightly improved within the last 20 years.

However, things are changing with new educational opportunities for Latinos and new leadership building on the horizon.   In a recent redistricting plan, those who were in a solid Democratic district are now in a district that has more Republican voters.  The new redistricting has created a Darwinian concept of survival:  change to the evolving environment or perish.  Some Democratic candidates are adhering to this concept and thus are switching parties. But changes are usually rejected and feared by those who have held power for too long, in this case the Democrats.

Democrats fear this change for many reasons.  First, they are losing their long argument that the Democrat party is the only party for Latinos.  No longer will they be able to parade Latinos as loyal democrats–or as a needy minority whose only options are government programs–regardless of the policies passed to push down their potential.  Moreover, Democrats can no longer coast through an election campaign and anticipate the Latino vote to be in their favor.  They must now compete with the Republicans, who now have strong contenders and who offer more opportunity for Latinos in state policies.

An example of this is the 10% Admission into college. This program is advocated by a Republican Governor and Attorney General.  Both Governor Perry and AG Greg Abbott understand that this program is an opportunity for Latinos to become better educated which in turn places them in a higher bracket.  This will create a new taxpayer who will be fiscally conservative and produce a new voter loyal to that party who provided that opportunity.  And while this law is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court, the Democrats cannot effectively argue that is against opportunity for Latinos.  Likewise, the right cannot argue that it is affirmative action for minorities because it is a law that is based on merit and does not take into consideration the fact of race.  Yet, it is the first law that has increased the number of Latinos into higher education. It is rationally related to a governmental interest, and the only test that it must meet according to Constitutional law.

Second, there is new fresh leadership.  Democrats, in the Valley, have long been the uncontested candidates who ran for office.  Previously no one dared to questioned or even run for the positions because of lack of support from constituents and funding.  But this antiquated thought might be changing. Many Democrats are changing parties in the Rio Grande Valley.   J.M. Lozano recently changed from Democrat to Republican and has followed the footsteps of Rep. Aaron Pena who changed parties in 2011.  This is giving voters more of a selection.   These new Latino Republicans want a change where opportunity will be available for the voters and where politics will be based on merits, not patronage. Also, these new Republican Candidates want vast opportunities for all residents of the Rio Grande Valley and can now offer better choices to their constituent’s children and families.  This type of courage is attracting new young voters who are eager to have  other opportunities available for them and their future families, rather than just having the “same old same old” guard of representation.  That is, there is now more of a choice other than one political party.

So while the Democrats parade that there is a President of color in the White House and  Latinos could be next to occupy that same role in a “few years,” it is the latest promise that is heard often when vying for votes in the community.  However, this is no longer enough to sustain and hold onto the voters from an Administration who delivers nothing to the Latino community.   With the exception of George W. Bush who got up to 44% of the Latino vote in Texas, Democrats have controlled over 2/3 of Latinos vote for the last 40 years, in Texas.  The Obama Administration has not offered anything to Latino Democrats voters, in way of policies that offer opportunity, leadership in cabinet posts, or other high ranking officials.  Perhaps this is the wake-up call that Latinos need to finally abandon the antiquated politics of patronage.  Latinos should be thinking about their options and wondering why they keep voting Democrat and not moving up the ranks.

This has become evident to the all contenders who are eying the changing demographics in Texas.  If Latinos are to gain any credibility and perhaps have a stronger voice in religious freedom, let’s say, preserving Conservative mantras are the key.  As President Ronald Reagan once observed, “Latinos are conservative, they just don’t know it yet.”  Now is the time to awaken that realization to a new type of political candidate who will not only bring a change to the Latino Community but an opportunity that many never thought possible.

Read more of Linda’s articles on her page>>>>

We all vividly recall Bush derangement syndrome during the eight years of the Bush presidency, in which we constantly heard liberals whine and complain about Bush, blaming Bush for all of society’s ills. Even today we still hear Obama ‘blame it all on Bush’ in explaining his numerous failures as a president.

The term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” was coined by Charles Krauthammer, a Harvard trained psychiatrist turned columnist in his epic op-ed titled “Bush Derangement Syndrome“:

It has been 25 years since I discovered a psychiatric syndrome (for the record: “Secondary Mania,” Archives of General Psychiatry, November 1978), and in the interim I haven’t been looking for new ones. But it’s time to don the white coat again. A plague is abroad in the land.

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.

Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean’s sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that “the most interesting” theory as to why the president is “suppressing” the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it’s time to check on thorazine supplies.

When Rep. Cynthia McKinney first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former Rep. McKinney. Today the Democratic presidential front-runner professes agnosticism as to whether the president of the United States was tipped off about 9/11 by the Saudis, and it goes unnoticed. The virus is spreading.

Bush Derangement Syndrome had mostly faded from memory until campaign season began in earnest. Now, just as viruses often mutate, Bush Derangement Syndrome has mutated into Romney Derangement Syndrome, and all the symptoms are pervasive!

The first symptom of this malady came with a SuperPac ad making the outrageous claim that Mitt Romney caused the cancer death of a woman. This claim was too much even for liberal leaning CNN, which thoroughly debunked this ad:

Not surprisingly, hardly a peep out of the Obama campaign, other than to point out they didn’t produce the ad, though Joe Soptic, who talks about his wife’s cancer death in the ad, is a regular figure in the Obama campaign. The RNC was able to tie Joe Soptic to the Obama campaign:

The latest wave of Romney Derangement Symdrome stems is evidenced in the liberal blogosphere and twittersphere, which is aghast that Sensata, which is 51.8% owned by Bain Capital, is closing a plant in Illinois and opening a plant in China, and the workers trained their replacements. The headlines are blaring… “Mitt Romney Gets Tax Break Off Firm Sending Jobs To China” and “Romney Profits From Bain Outsourcing Sensata Technologies to China, Employees Plead for Jobs“, and “Sensata workers rally against ‘Romney economy,’ Romney defends Bain Capital in acceptance speech.” There’s even a blog posting here at Tucson Citizen titled “The Romney Economy”

These news stories/blog postings all blame Mitt Romney for Sensata’s plant closure, but is this even factual? Blogger Kimberly Morin of Examiner.com debunks these claims in her blog titled “Liberal lies and hysteria try to tie Mitt Romney to Sensata closure“, pointing out a number of blatant lies, among them:

• FACT: Mitt Romney has nothing to do with Sensata. Bain Capital Investors have a 51.8% share of Sensata stock.
• FACT: Romney actually transferred what stocks he did own in Sensata to charities
• FACT: Romney hasn’t made business decisions at Bain for many years now. He and his wife Ann have a blind trust with Bain which means they have zero clue where their money is invested.
• FACT: The key people running Bain Capital Investors are Joshua Bekenstein, John Connaughton, Paul Edgerly, Mark Nunnelly, Stephen Pagliuca, Jordan Hitch and Matthew Levin. It seems that the majority of these ‘key people’, who make decisions like closing Sensata, are Democrats who support Obama. (see blog for details of their ties to Obama and the Democratic Party)
• FACT: Romney doesn’t own Sensata and the ‘tax break’ for outsourcing jobs itself is a myth. It’s a minor moving deduction and it’s miniscule.
• FACT: Romney cannot alter the decisions made by the people are actually running these businesses. He has zero influence on what these people choose to do with their business or employees.
• FACT: This lie is being perpetrated by people like left wing hacks at DailyKos. The photo they use as ‘proof’ is actually of the Sensata plant in China. (note: Baja Democrat here on Tucson Citizen fell for the misleading photo too, but at least had the decency to apologize, something Daily Kos has failed to do after misleading liberals everywhere).

Of course none of the liberal blogosphere/twittersphere care to mention that a leading exporter of U.S. jobs to China is General Motors, also known as “Government Motors” because taxpayers own a huge stake in GM. GM has exported thousands of good U.S. jobs since the Obama rescue of GM, far in excess of the 200 or so jobs lost at Sensata, and taxpayers will likely lose tens of billions when our stake in GM is eventually sold.

Joe Biden is fond of serving up ‘red meat’ to supporters with “Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive and well.” However, since GM is exporting thousands of good U.S. jobs to China, it would be more appropriate to say “Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive and well… in China” as we recently blogged!

Obama’s economic policies are also driving U.S. employers to export jobs to China, as we pointed out in our blog “Devastating Realities of Obamacare: A Call to Repeal” (also posted here on Tucson Citizen). By increasing employee costs for U.S. employers, operations in the U.S. become less competitive and employers are encouraged to locate operations overseas to remain competitive.

No doubt we won’t hear from the liberal blogosphere about the damage to U.S. workers from Obama’s economic policies, ObamaTax/ObamaCare, and massive increases in regulations that are strangling businesses, but we’ll hear endlessly about how Mitt Romney profited from Sensata’s decision to close a small plant in Illinois, even though Mitt Romney had nothing to do with that closure. Now that’s Romney derangement syndrome!

Records of every sort fall in the United States like autumn leaves. We now have a record 53 million Hispanics in the USA; the 1950 Census recorded two and a half million people with Spanish surnames.

Every time a Hispanic American baby is born, the Hispanic/Latino population makes another new record. The percentage of American born vis-a-vis foreign born grows with each birth.

Among teenage and adult Hispanics, one in five (19%) are now unemployed or underemployed with over half totally, completely unemployed (11% plus which is 30% higher than the general population). Hispanics suffered a near-mortal economic wound when they lost two-thirds of their personal net worth in the housing crash.

“Latinos’ average net worth fell from $18,000 in 2009 to $6,000 today, while Caucasians(non-Hispanic whites) saw their net worth fall from $134,000 to $113,000,” according to the National Council of La Raza.

One in six Americans is in poverty. The Hispanic population has been buried by poverty. The Pew Research Center concludes that the current Hispanic poverty rate is 28.2%, almost one in three.

Poverty is worse among Hispanic/Latino children. It is in fact a disaster among our young.

For the first time in history, Hispanic poor children outnumber White children, Black children. According to the Pew Research Center Hispanic poor children number 6.1 million, White poor children 5.5 million and Black poor children number 4.4 million.

The percentages look even worse: Hispanic poor children, 37.3%, White poor children 30.5% and Black poor children, 26.6%. Poverty and unemployment/underemployment is a daily catastrophe for the American Hispanic population.

There is another new Hispanic/Latino record to report: According to the Pew Research Center, “A record 24 million Latinos are eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election, according to analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center…this is up by more than 4 million, or 22%, since 2008, when 19.5 million Latinos were eligible to vote.”

Concurrently, Republican Mitt Romney’s popularity among Swing State (Florida, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and Iowa) Hispanics has inched higher to the current 33%, just two points lower than he needs to carry those states with 5 weeks to go before the election.

October 1, “The ImpreMedia – Latino Decisions (national) tracking poll puts Obama ahead with 73% overall to vote for him and 21% for Romney.  In the battleground states (However) Obama gets 61% of the voters versus 33% for Romney, with Florida respondents comprising a significant share of Latinos in battleground states.”

Experienced Hispanic vote analysts conclude that if this 61% Obama margin doesn’t improve, Obama will lose the election. He needs, they say, more Hispanics to vote for him than did in 2008 (67%) because so many non-Hispanic White and Independent voters have abandoned the President for myriad reasons.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2011 there were 51.9 million Latinos in the U.S., making up 16.7% of the nation’s population.

Pew: “Latinos today comprise a greater share of the nation’s 215 million eligible voters than they did just a few years ago—-11.0% this year, up from 9.5% in 2008 and 8.2% in 2004.”

A record Hispanic vote helped Obama win in 2008. That continued a long-term Democrat vote trend by Hispanics that started in earnest in California in the 1994 election that featured a Republican Governor (Pete Wilson) sponsored highly discriminatory anti-Mexican “Proposition 187” that passed but was quashed by the federal courts as unconstitutional.

California has elected only three statewide Republicans since 1994, one of them Arnold Schwarzenneger. Republicans were blanked in the 2010 California elections; this, in a state that had elected only two Democrat governors in the first 74 years of the 20^th Century. It was no accident that California sent powerful Republicans like Senator Hiram Johnson, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Senator Bill Knowland, Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to Washington.

A skeptical view of Hispanic voting comes from Steve Malanga, Senior Editor of the City Journal who writes, “In the only four states that report such records by ethnicity—-Alabama, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina—-the 2012 registration levels of Hispanics have already surpassed the 2008 levels.”

Malanga doesn’t understand that the national figures don’t matter much, as indicated by Latino Decisions polls in Swing States, states that do matter.

How Puerto Ricans vote in New York is immaterial, for if none voted at all, Democrats would win New York. Democrat Puerto Ricans do count somewhat in Florida; however the larger Republican Cuban American vote largely offsets it, so Florida matters; so does North Carolina and Colorado with their substantial Mexican American votes.

Suffice it to say, that if Romney receives 35% or more of the Hispanic votes in those three states that Obama carried in 2008, he probably wins the Presidency.  If that happens, Malanga’s 2007 prediction will be remembered for being totally wrong.

“Given what the voting numbers show us, it’s unlikely that Hispanics will become an important voting bloc as soon as many predict.”

With record Hispanic poverty, unemployment and loss of wealth in the past four years and a record number of Hispanic voters, predicting an Obama victory based on Hispanic votes looks like a 50-1long shot more than an even-money sure thing.

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.

####

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.

Under George W. Bush, foreign policy was simply defined after 9/11: You are either with us or against us. To that end we invaded two countries and operated militarily in several others. Result: we killed thousands upon thousands of terrorists in their own countries or killed soldiers of misfortune who believed their Muslim mullahs about “Satan” America and flocked to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill Americans. They died.

During those Bush years, he also took care of business; for example: Bush negotiated several trade agreements with Central American countries — Central American Free Trade Agreement — (CAFTA) and Panama, Colombia and South Korea.

He worked with Mexico’s President Vicente Fox to allow some guns purchased in the United States to make their way to Mexico where joint Mexican and American officers could track the guns and bust drug cartel people by following hidden GPS (satellite) trackers imbedded in the weapons. The program didn’t work well, so it was stopped.

He also worked with President Fox to organize the first and only Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposal since the 1986 Immigration Control Act Ronald Reagan signed into law. Democrats, including Barack Obama, killed it in Congress.

Bush worked with the Poles and Czechs to develop a missile shield in their countries to protect Europe from Russian and Iranian missiles. Obama killed the program.

Bush did all that while prosecuting two wars.

American Foreign Policy was sidetracked by the election of Barack Hussein Obama. The question is: Is the United States better off today in foreign relations than it was on January 19, 2009?

From the American Hispanic viewpoint, no! American foreign policy has deteriorated so badly it hardly exists today. From the Latin American standpoint, American foreign policy today is worse than even under Democrat President Woodrow Wilson who invaded Mexico twice in two years (1914 and 1916) and Haiti (1915) and the Dominican Republic (1919).

The invasions of Mexico were spearheaded by the U.S. Army and both failed miserably. Haiti and the Dominican Republic were U.S. Marine operations and they were successful. Interestingly, from the American Hispanic view, in the Dominican Republic the Marines organized horseback special operations Marines from Mexican American troops and they “terrorized” the Dominican rebels and bandits that had rendered the countryside helpless before the Marines arrived.

Thousands of Mexicans have died during the Obama Administration. They died by guns the Administration allowed to be purchased illegally and smuggled into Mexico. The Obama people called the program “Fast & Furious.” Despite widespread exposure by Congress of this Obama Administration adventure, no one has been fired from Obama Administration jobs and the President has invoked Executive Privilege to keep 100-thousand “Fast & Furious” documents secret.

From the Latin American viewpoint, for three years Obama totally ignored Latin America by not sending the Bush-negotiated Panama and Colombia trade agreements to Congress for ratification. He also did not negotiate any new agreements with twenty other Latin American countries and Brazil that would stimulate new employment in all concerned countries.

His most serious foreign policy faux pax (screw-up for Joe Biden) occurred when Obama and Hillary Clinton totally screwed up the Honduras emergency that greeted Obama early on in his Administration.

First of all, it was obvious that neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton knew where Honduras was. Secondly, they were not aware that the Honduras Constitution empowered the country’s Supreme Court to expel an elected President if he was successfully impeached by Congress. This leftwing radical Castro-supported Honduran Presidential clown was properly impeached and expelled from the country.

So, did Obama and Clinton side with the legal Honduran government? No, they sided with the clown and canceled visas for Honduran government officials as punishment. Eventually, of course, Obama and Clinton had to quit supporting knee-jerk leftists and let the legal Hondurans run their own country. The Mighty Duo of Obama/Clinton totally screwed up on Honduras.

Back to trade which we need to create good jobs in the U.S. Obama is against free trade agreements as envisioned first by Ronald Reagan, then the Bushes and even Bill Clinton. Obama actually campaigned against the 14-year-old established North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. It helped Clinton create 20-million jobs in 6 years.

In the Senate (2005), he voted against the CAFTA agreement and then voted against its implementation. He also voted (2005) no on a bill that would have expanded work visas for farm workers who the entire universe knows are mostly Mexican.

Add in millions of angry Muslims rioting from North Africa to Australia who hate Americans out of profound jealousy and Americans being murdered by some Muslim terrorists and we are left with one conclusion —- Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy rates little more than an “F-plus.”

Editor’s Note:  as with all postings appearing with a by-line, this op-ed is the author’s opinion, and not necessarily the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

####

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.

Like swarms of angry hornets True Believer Hispanics, Chicanos and 70s-style radical La Raza Unida Party types or their children attack Republicans on the subject of immigration. And because these people are purists – Mirror, mirror on the wall who’s the purist “person of color” in the barrio? — these people viciously attack “vendidos” (sell-outs), “coconuts” (Brown on the outside, white on the inside) at every opportunity as if they are the only true Hispanics in the universe.

No observer of these people could label them representative of the Hispanic community under any circumstances. They are True Believer fanatics.

Of the 53 million-plus American Hispanics, of which 34 and-a-half-million are of the Mexican persuasion, these angry hornets are not a super-majority by any means. Proof: Probably 90% of Puerto Ricans and Dominicans voted for Obama. 50%-52% of Cuban Americans voted for Obama and probably 55% of Mexican Americans probably did.

Although the economy and the President’s economic failures are issues number one and two for the country and Hispanics, some are hung up on immigration and the Obama-friendly media ignores the fact that it is not in the top five issues Hispanics have.

So, let’s take a look at how the Democratic Party and Democrats have handled the issue.

1994: California’s anti-illegal entrant Proposition 187 made the ballot with Governor Pete Wilson’s help and the State Republican Party’s $300,000. Wilson campaigned for it. However, if every single Republican voted for Proposition 187 and Pete Wilson, he and it would have lost. Democrats voted for it and for him.

1994: President Bill Clinton imposes a new policy in and around El Paso (TX) and San Diego (CA) the two principal entry points on the border for the 10,000 or more daily illegal entrants. Border Patrol agents from all over the country are stationed fifty yards apart which drove potential illegal border crossers into the mountains and desert east of San Diego and around El Paso.

Result of Operation Gatekeeper: thousands of dead men, women and children at the rate of 400 to five hundred a year for the past 18 years and illegal entry spiked upwards especially into Arizona. They didn’t come across through San Diego and El Paso in the numbers they used to.

1994: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) launches the giant smear against American citizens born in the U.S. that hadn’t been an issue since 1898 when the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution’s 14th Amendment for the first and only time. It concluded that – any child (excepting children of invading soldiers, children of diplomats on those born on foreign ships) born in the United States or its territories (jurisdiction) are American citizens.

Reid called them “anchor babies” which are defined as American citizen babies that lie in wait for 21 years so they can legalize their illegally present parents. That theory is wrong and naturalization statistics from Immigration and Customs (ICE) prove it. The number of parents sponsored by these babies is miniscule. Reid wants to kill the 14th Amendment.

1996: Democrats in the House and Senate (Where Democrats were a majority) voted to restrict benefits for LEGAL immigrants and criminalize illegal entry upon returning to the United States after being deported by making re-entry a felony.

2001: Dream Act legalizing youngsters brought here as children is introduced by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Democrats oppose, President Bush supports. Lost in the 9/11 tragedy.

2006: President Bush proposes Comprehensive Immigration Reform that includes Dream Act, guest workers and legalization (amnesty some call it). Democrats actively oppose it; does not pass in the Democrat U.S. Senate.

2007: Democrats take over the House and Senate. Comprehensive Immigration reform is brought up in the Senate under Harry Reid who engineers labor union-sponsored poison pill amendments that Republicans won’t vote for; Senator Barack Hussein Obama votes for poison pill amendments that kill the bill.

2009: President Obama never proposes immigration reform from the day he is sworn in until today.

2010: Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) reintroduces a sweeping Dream Act without Republican sponsorship. Obama does nothing to support it; it loses when five Democrat Senators vote against it even as enough Republicans vote for it to pass it.

2012: With Hispanic votes in mind, President Obama issues executive order lifting prosecution/deportation from young people brought here as children who meet certain criteria.

No one knows if the Obama pseudo-amnesty will or can survive court challenges. Nor does anyone know if ICE (Immigration) will round-up all the applicants and their families and deport them by cattle car; no one knows. We do know that Democrat polices have resulted in dead bodies.

“Operation Gatekeeper, 15 years later” NBC San Diego, Sept 30, 2009—

“(Activists) estimate that as many as 5,600 people have died while crossing the border through rugged mountain and desert areas of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas since the (Clinton) operation was launched Oct. 1, 1994.” Add another four years of bodies.
Editors note: As with all postings on this blog which appear with a byline, the posting represents the author’s opinion and not the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

###

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.

President Obama told the “60 Minutes” audience that he ended the Iraq War. He didn’t. He said the deficits he has overseen in his three years were trillion dollar deficits because of two wars in the previous administration, a popular Medicare medicine program and Bush tax cuts that weren’t paid for.

This man is a blatant liar.

George W. Bush negotiated the end of the War and the final departure of all troops leaving it to Obama to execute properly. Meanwhile, he adopted the Afghan War as his own and everyone can see that we can’t trust those very people he promised to help – they are killing Americans at record rates. I do not speak of the Taliban-enemy killing our people but soldiers and police we have trained under Obama.

On Iraq, Obama flinched at leaving troops there after combat troops were withdrawn. Result, Iraq is allowing Iranian planes to overfly with weapons and munitions in Iran’s effort to buttress Syrian Dictator Assad in killing his own people. Would that happen if there were American troops there helping Iraq on its path to a democratic future? I don’t think so.

One wonders what Obama would do and say if Israel decided on its own to shoot down those planes in an effort to help Syrian next-door-neighbors eject Assad, whom Secretary of State stupidly called a “reformer.”

Obama should be publicly chanting “Hey, Hey Assad, how many Syrians have you killed today?” Instead he says nothing. Obama says nothing about Assad killing more than 20,000 Syrian men, women and children.

Let us go back to the deficit and the growth of government. Tax cuts are not to be “paid” for, they are tax cuts. Did John F. Kennedy “pay” for his famous tax cuts? Did Ronald Reagan “pay” for his 1983-1986 tax cuts that let loose a tsunami of economic growth and prosperity that continued up to and through the Clinton Years interrupted only by a mild recession in 1991-1992?

The Bush Medicare drug program has proven to be exceptionally popular and less costly than projected. Doesn’t matter to Obama, his Obamacare destroys the program and also steals $716 billion from Medicare in order to finance his unpopular Obamacare that most Americans despise.

None of the Bush deficits approached the Obama deficits during 7 of his 8 years and the one year it did, his last, was so large because of emergency aid to the financial industry, to banks and insurance companies that saved the industry and the economy while Obama was still campaigning. There was an economy on January 20 only because Bush stepped up to the plate and saved the country from collapse. The kicker is that the ungrateful Obama doesn’t even mention that almost every cent of the Bush Rescue (called T.A.R.P.) has been repaid while Obama political slush fund money (The Stimulus) is down a rat hole that saved some public employee jobs but saddled the states with long range expenses they cannot afford even by borrowing more money every day.

The most egregious Obama bromide during his “60 Minutes” interview involves the Middle East. This interview was made on September 12, the day after our Consulate in Benghazi was destroyed and three Americans including our Ambassador to Libya were killed. He doesn’t mention the killings in this interview, nor the consulate’s destruction nor is there any mention of all the trouble in the Muslim world since September 11.

Obviously he couldn’t have foreseen everything that has happened in the Middle East and in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia since then but why didn’t he have CBS in to tape comments on the current situation.

He sends his petty little “achichinqles” (ah-chee-chink-less, gophers) like Susan Rice the ersatz phony Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary to make TV commercials for Pakistan, but he doesn’t discuss the obvious failure of his outreach to Muslims that hate the United States, Obama notwithstanding.

Obama still won’t state publicly that the murder of our Ambassador was a terrorist act. If he did he would have to admit he is an abject failure. He promised to close Guantanamo prison in one year. Four years later it is still open. He promised to try terrorists in federal courts and to do away with military tribunals President Bush set up. No federal trials and the military tribunals are ongoing in Guantanamo.

Adding the abject failure of the Obama outreach to Muslims, to the killings of Americans under his watch, to his failure at reconstructing a stronger economy and to his blatant, we conclude that Obama is the worst President since James Buchanan left office in 1861. Buchanan’s legacy: the Civil War.

Obama’s legacy: a broken economy, a Middle East burning and our only friend there is on the brink of nuclear threat and destruction while Obama attends fundraisers.

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.

####

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.