Category Archives: Republican Party

Secret Republicans in California’s Silicon Valley and Hollywood

The two-party system is embedded in the institutional structural DNA of the United States. That’s why historically, third parties have built-in disadvantages and thus fare poorly in elections. Some of us still remember both the allure as well as the ultimate defeat of Ross Perot.

It is bad enough that at the élite leadership level, often there’s precious little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, despite the fact that a majority of Americans (62% in October 2010) identify themselves as “conservatives.” (Note: Conservative is not synonymous with Republican.) But in some states, California being a notable example, government has become the monopoly of the Democratic party, with all the attendant corruption and unaccountability endemic to single-party states. (See, for example, DCG’s “Shocker, not: Audit finds California departments break law, game personnel system for money“.)

Blacklist

Significant industries and sectors of America are also effective one-party states. Below is Rebecca Nelson’s article in the National Journal, April 8, 2015, on two such sectors that are dominant in forming and molding public opinion and popular culture — Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

Deep in Silicon Valley, where the free market reigns and the exchange of ideas is celebrated, a subset of tech workers are hiding their true selves. Working as programmers and software engineers, they don’t want the stigma that comes with revealing who they really are.

They’re the tech company employees, startup founders, and CEOs who vote for and donate to Republican candidates, bucking the Bay Area’s liberal supremacy. Fearing the repercussions of associating with a much-maligned minority, they keep their political views fiercely hidden.

“It’s a liberal echo chamber,” Garrett Johnson, a co-founder of Lincoln Labs, which was started in 2013 to connect the right-of-center outsiders in Silicon Valley, told National Journal. “People have been convinced that Silicon Valley is reflexively liberal or progressive. And so their response is to conform.”

Silicon Valley has long been a bastion of liberalism. Since George H.W. Bush won Napa County in 1988, Republican presidential nominees have lost every county in the Bay Area. In 2012, President Obama won 84 percent of the vote in San Francisco to Mitt Romney’s 13 percent and raised more for his reelection campaign from Bay Area donors than from those in New York or Hollywood. Political donations specifically from tech workers follow that trend: Google employees collectively gave $720,000 to Obama in 2012, versus $25,000 for Romney. Crowdpac, a nonpartisan political analytics firm, found that between 1979 and 2012, tech companies have overwhelmingly favored liberal candidates.

Rather than ruffle feathers—or worse—Republicans who work there often just keep quiet. Rich Tafel, who coaches tech companies in politics and policy, understands the dynamic. The founder of the gay group Log Cabin Republicans, he’s had many Republicans in Silicon Valley confide to him their true political views.

“You just learn how to operate, if you will, in the closet as a Republican,” Tafel told National Journal. “You keep your viewpoints to yourself.”

One startup CEO who has worked in Silicon Valley for more than a decade says that while it’s popular to talk politics in the workplace, the underlying assumption is that everyone has similar views.

The CEO, who generally votes Republican and donates to GOP candidates—he spoke on background to conceal his right-leaning views—said that in 2012, “you wouldn’t want to say you’re voting for Romney in the election.” At the same time, openly expressing one’s support for Obama was “incredibly common.”

His opposition to raising the minimum wage is just one area where he diverges with most of his colleagues…. But he would never reveal his more conservative outlook on the matter…. “They can’t fathom that somebody disagrees with them,” he said. “And I disagree with them. So I’m not going to open up that box.”

Closeted Republicans aren’t just a phenomenon in the tech industry. In Hollywood, where acclaimed movie stars and directors throw lavish fundraisers for Democrats and unabashedly support liberal causes, Republicans are a rare breed. Friends of Abe, a GOP support group of sorts, caters to A-list conservatives in the entertainment industry. Only a handful of its members have made their affiliation known, and its roster is kept secret out of fears of a blacklisting reminiscent of the McCarthy era.

For some right-leaning techies, the GOP brand itself is a liability. The startup CEO stressed that there are “a number of ideas that conservatives have that I totally disagree with,” such as opposition to same-sex marriage, and he abhors the thought of being lumped in with Republicans who deny climate change or evolution.

“Republicans are regarded as assholes,” he said. “And I wouldn’t want to be associated with assholes.”

Another Republican who founded a small San Francisco-based startup told National Journal that he’s worried potential partners and investors would be turned off by his libertarian views. Recently, it seems like all of his peers in Silicon Valley have been outspoken about their opposition to the thwarted religious liberty law in Indiana, he said. He thinks business owners should be allowed to decide whom they serve, and if they discriminate against gays, people can choose not to patronize their business. He won’t discuss that view, though, or debate his left-leaning colleagues on Facebook or Twitter.

“If I were to speak out about something like that, maybe one of these companies wants to buy my company one day and the CEO is like, ‘Oh, I remember this guy saying all this stuff about this thing that I really disagree with.’ And that obviously could have negative effects,” he said. “Getting your point across isn’t worth it.”

The consequences for being outed for conservative views can be dire. In a highly public controversy last year, newly-hired Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich stepped down after critics attacked his 2008 donation to support Proposition 8, the anti-same-sex marriage law in California. Eich, who declined to comment for this story, faced an internal uprising from within the Mozilla community, as well as boycotts from other tech companies, and quit after just two weeks on the job.

Though Eich’s was an extreme case, some Republicans in Silicon Valley fear that if they go public, they’ll face subtler, less direct repercussions. The CEO who spoke on background keeps his conservative-leaning views to himself, he said, because he doesn’t want to risk people not liking him, which could hurt his job in imperceptible ways. As a leader, he needs to be able to inspire people to join and thrive in his company. If he’s “contrarian,” he said, he can’t build the necessary camaraderie to succeed.

Matthew Del Carlo, the former president of the San Francisco Young Republicans and the COO of the California Young Republican Federation, said that transparent Republicans can have a much harder time finding work in the Bay Area. “I’ve had people tell me, ‘If I found out that this person’s a Republican, their resume’s off the list.‘”

Prominent Republicans do openly work in Silicon Valley, and not all of them feel stigmatized for their political views. Billionaire Paypal founder Peter Thiel is a high-profile GOP supporter who has made considerable donations to presidential contender Ted Cruz’s 2012 Senate run and former congressman Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential super PAC. And Sarah Pompei, who handled Romney’s regional press in 2012 and now serves as Hewlett-Packard’s director of corporate communications, told National Journal she’s never felt denigrated for her conservative views.

Both Pompei and Thiel, who declined to comment for this story, prove success in the tech industry is possible for Republicans who are open about their political leanings. But they wield more power and cachet than the average start-up employee.

“There’s fearless people out there that don’t care, but those tend to be people that are in a better position financially. They’re secure in their job,” Del Carlo said. Those with more to lose, he said, often find it easier to keep quiet.

Still, Thiel’s attention-getting fundraising for GOP candidates and libertarian causes, along with other high-profile Republicans in the tech sector, show that the climate in Silicon Valley is—albeit incrementally—becoming more politically inclusive. Lincoln Labs, the group dedicated to connecting right-of-center techies in the Bay Area, has been a big part of that effort. Earlier this year, its annual conference, Reboot, brought libertarians and conservatives from Silicon Valley to Washington to hear Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul speak on deregulation, net neutrality, and other tech-industry priorities.

Throughout the year, the organization holds meetups and hackathons to build a “sense of community, so that people don’t feel like they are isolated,” Johnson said. He and Lincoln Labs’ other co-founders, Aaron Ginn and Chris Abrams, want to empower a true exchange of ideas within the tech community, without ostracizing any one view.

Silicon Valley purports to be a place where the best ideas win,” Johnson said. “If we are going to encourage diversity, let’s not just stop with gender and ethnicity. How about ideological perspective?

Conservatives and libertarians in Silicon Valley like Johnson are pioneering a new kind of Republican. With a distinctly libertarian flavor, they align with the party on the principles of liberty and limited government, but don’t necessarily lean right on—or care much about—social issues.

The entrepreneurs and techies of the Bay Area, said Tafel, are “very aligned to what could be a Republican party.” They just need to come out.

See also:

~Éowyn

Is Ted Cruz an advocate of a North American Union?

Ted Cruz at Liberty U., March 23, 2015Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) met his wife, Heidi (née Nelson), while working on the George W. Bush presidential campaign of 2000. Heidi Cruz is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker for J.P. Morgan. Wikipedia lists Heidi Cruz as an  “investment banker” and a “historical member” of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which was launched in October 2004. The Task Force advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States as a North American region.

Comprised of a group of prominent business, political and academic leaders from the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the Task Force was organized and sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (U.S.), the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was co-chaired by former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, John Manley, former Finance Minister of Mexico, Pedro Aspe, and former Governor of Massachusetts and Assistant U.S. Attorney General William F. Weld.

Its main publication is the 70-page Task Force Report #53 entitled, Building a North American Community (May 2005). Heidi Cruz is listed as a member of the Task Force (page 9 of the report in PDF) and described as “an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas” who “served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.”

Task Force on North America Union members

The Report’s recommendations include (see pp. 7-32 of the Report; pp. 29-54 of the PDF):

1. Establish a common security perimeter by 2010

“The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he elects to enter first.”

2. Develop a North American Border Pass

“The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region.”

3. Develop a unified North American border action plan

Specific recommendations under this plan include:

  • “Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence of the list of “visa waiver’’ countries;
  • Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists);
  • By 2010, “Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be . . . the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

4. Law Enforcement and Military Cooperation

“Security cooperation among the three countries should also extend to cooperation on counterterrorism and law enforcement, which would include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center, the development of trinational ballistics and explosives registration, and joint training for law enforcement officials.”

Note: Now I “get” why U.S. police departments are hiring non-US citizens as officers.

5. Spread the Benefits of Economic Development

“NAFTA has transformed Mexico, but it has also deepened and made much more visible the divisions that exist in the country…. The gap in wages has led many Mexicans to travel north in search of higher incomes and better opportunities. For the past three decades, Mexico has been the largest source of legal immigrants to the United States, and Mexican-Americans make increasingly valued and growing contributions to the life of the United States and, through remittances, to their families at home. Mexico is also the leading source of unauthorized migration, with attendant economic and security problems in both countries and untold hardships for Mexican migrants. Over time, the best way to diminish these problems is by promoting better economic opportunities in Mexico.”

Note: In other words, more socialist “spread the wealth”!

6. Establish a Seamless North American Market for Trade

“With tariff barriers virtually eliminated, and the outlines of a North American economy visible, the time has come to take a more comprehensive approach to strengthening the economic prospects for citizens in all three countries. The first step is to encourage convergence in the most-favored-nation tariff rates each partner charges on imports from outside North America. Next, the governments should reduce the remaining nontariff barriers to the flow of goods and services, and address problems arising from charges of price discrimination and subsidization by competitors in North America. Finally, they should coordinate their approach to unfair trade practices by foreign suppliers to the North American market. The ultimate goal should be to create a seamless market for suppliers and consumers throughout North America.

7. Increase Labor Mobility within North America

“To make the most of the impressive pool of skill and talent within North America, the three countries should look beyond the NAFTA visa system. The large volume of undocumented migrants from Mexico within the United States is an urgent matter for those two countries to address. A long-term goal should be to create a ‘North American preference’—new rules that would make it much easier for employees to move and for employers to recruit across national boundaries within the continent…. Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor mobility altogether and work toward solutions that, in the long run, could enable the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well.”

Specifics on how to create a North American free flow of labor include:

  • By 2010, streamline immigration and labor mobility rules to “enable citizens of all three countries to work elsewhere in North America with far fewer restrictions than immigrants from other countries.”
  • “Special immigration status should be given to teachers, faculty, and students in the region.”
  • “Move to full labor mobility between Canada and the United States” by “eliminating all remaining barriers to the ability of their citizens to live and work in the other country.”

8. North American Political Institutions

The Task Force recommends the following North American regional political institutions be established:

  1. An annual North American summit meeting.
  2. A North American Advisory Council.
  3. A North American Inter-Parliamentary Group to meet every other year.

In the last part of the Task Force’s report, “Additional and Dissenting Views,” Heidi S. Cruz wrote (pp. 33-34):

“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”

Now you know why, despite his blustering against Obama’s executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in this country, on March 27, 2015, Ted Cruz indicated he “remains open to a path to legal status for undocumented workers.” 

Born in Canada of an American citizen mother and a Cuban father, Ted Cruz held dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship. But it was only when the Dallas Morning News in August 2013 pointed out his dual citizenship that Cruz finally applied to renounce his Canadian citizenship — which meant that in 2012 when Cruz had run for and was elected a U.S. senator, he was a Canadian citizen. On May 14, 2014, Cruz finally ceased being a citizen of Canada. See “Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential campaign, but is he eligible?

~Éowyn

Catholics are leaving the Democratic Party

It seems that every day, we are inundated by bad news, including posts published on FOTM.

It gets depressing.

But never fear! I bring you a piece of good news for a refreshing change!

Though U.S. Catholics are not a monolithic voting bloc, their votes are very important because in election after election, Catholics consistently voted the way that the majority in the election voted. In other words, the Catholic vote is a swing vote.

But the term “Catholic Democrats” should be and is an oxymoron. Despite church teachings on the sanctity of (heterosexual) marriage and on abortion being an un-negotiable “intrinsic evil,” too many American Catholics are and vote Democrat. Even worse, they remained Democrats despite their party openly and publicly denying God three times at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

But that is beginning to change. Catholics, especially white Catholics, are leaving the Democratic Party.

Hallelujah!

~Éowyn

Armor of God I can do all things through Christ

From California Catholic Daily, March 19, 2015:

It’s one of the central contradictions of American politics: that there’s no such thing as the “Catholic vote,” yet the Catholics vote still matters.

There’s no “Catholic vote” in terms of Catholics representing an electoral bloc that votes according to what their bishops tell them, or in lockstep with the tenets of their religion. Yet winning Catholic voters has been essential to almost every presidential victory in modern times. And the defection of Catholics voters has played a role in some of the most consequential congressional turnovers in recent history — from 1994 to 2014 — making Catholics the ultimate swing voters. And for Democrats, that could be bad news.

While Catholics have been swing voters since Richard Nixon’s second term, white Catholics are now identifying as Republican by historic margins. According to the most recent polling from the Pew Research Center, 53 percent of white Catholics now favor the GOP, versus 39 percent who favor the Democrats—the largest point spread in the history of the Pew poll. And for the first time, white Catholics are more Republican than the voting group usually considered the ultimate Republicans: white Protestants (a designation that includes both mainline and evangelical Protestants).

These are ominous signs for the Democrats, evincing a new and growing allegiance with the Republican Party that has long-term implications.

So why are white Catholics abandoning the Democratic Party? There are some long-term trends at play. Steve Krueger, head of the group Catholic Democrats, notes that conservative bishops have been beating the war drums since the George W. Bush administration, even going so far in some cases as to argue that “good” Catholics can’t vote for Democrats because of their support for abortion rights and, more recently, same-sex marriage — which has resulted in an increased politicization of the church.

Stephen Schneck of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies has noted that there’s been a certain “distillation” of the Catholic vote as a record number of presumably more liberal-leaning Catholics — some one-third of those raised Catholic — have left the faith altogether. “More and more of those who remain are those who actively choose to embrace the church and its teachings,” he wrote.

But neither of these trends explains why white Catholics have abandoned the Democratic Party so suddenly and so dramatically. After all, in 2008 Barack Obama managed to keep his margin of loss of white Catholic voters to John McCain to just 5 points. But four years later, he lost the white Catholic vote to Mitt Romney by a stunning 19 points.

Krueger points to the Catholic bishop’s demonization in 2011 of the “contraceptive mandate” in the Affordable Care Act, and their subsequent ginning up of the war on “religious liberty” — which was joined by elements of the religious right and fused with its war on Obamacare — as another factor helping to drive Catholics toward the GOP. And the numbers bear Krueger out. According to Pew, between 2009 and 2014, the number of white Catholics who said the Obama administration — and by inference the Democratic Party — was “unfriendly to religion” more than doubled from 17 percent to 36 percent. 

“The shift in the Catholic vote should really be a wakeup call to the Democrats,” says Krueger. “White Catholics are 18 percent of the electorate and Catholics vote 1 to 2 percentage points above their representation in the overall population. This is a significant voting bloc that now perceives Republicans as being more welcoming to people of faith.”

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential campaign, but is he eligible?

This morning, at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), announced his 2016 presidential campaign.

Ted Cruz at Liberty U., March 23, 2015Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drillers. Cruz’s parents returned to Houston in 1974. They divorced when Ted was in law school.

While Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent, Ted’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.

Rafael Cruz was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution when he was 14 years old, but claims he “didn’t know Castro was a Communist.” In 1957, 18-year-old Rafael fled Cuba and landed in Austin, to study at the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics. In 2005, Rafael became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is a pastor in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas.

Article II, Section 1:5 of the United States Constitution says:

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

So what does “natural born” citizen of the United States mean?

The problem is that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen” nor is the term found in any existing Federal statute. Although the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen parent is a U.S. citizen by modern-day policy, no existing Federal statute declares such a child to be a natural born citizen.

Stephen Tonchen, in his essay “Presidential Eligibility Tutorial,” presents at least three schools of thought on what “natural born citizen” means:

definition #1: “Natural born citizen” is anyone born in the United States

According to a Congressional Research Service memorandum (April 3, 2009), the weight of legal opinion is that anyone born in the United States, except the child of a foreign diplomat, is a natural born citizen:

The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country) … [Maskell (2009), p.5]

But the Heritage Foundation points out that “prior to 2009, the U.S. State Department [had] . . . seeds of doubt regarding the legal status, at birth, of children born in the United States, of alien parents who are in the United States temporarily or illegally.”

Definition #2: “Natural born citizen” also means a foreign-born child of U.S.-citizen parents

In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which said:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

But James Madison, in 1795, expressed concern that someone might erroneously infer from the 1790 Act that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens.

Sen. John McCain was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens, naval officer John S. McCain Jr. and Roberta (Wright) McCain. At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control. In 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding presidential candidate John McCain’s natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.

definition #3: A foreign-born child of a non-U.S. citizen parent cannot be a “natural born citizen”

Then there is the question of whether both the mother and father must be U.S. citizens for their foreign-born child to be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen:

  • According to federal case law prior to 1898, U.S. citizenship at birth was based on the principle of partus sequitur patrem or offspring follows the status of the father.
  • The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen.

In 2004, Senate Bill S.2128: Natural Born Citizen Act gave a definition of “natural born citizen”, but it never became law. As of today, there is no Federal statute that explicitly defines who is, and who is not, a natural born citizen. Even if there were such a statute, it would most likely be unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law that redefines a term that the Constitution uses. Only the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has to date refused to specify what “natural born” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution means. Alternatively, a definition of “natural born citizen” can be supplied via a Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz may be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen according to Definition #2 only if #2 refers to a foreign-born child who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

Ted Cruz is definitely not a “natural born” U.S. citizen under either Definition #1 or Definition #3.

 

Ted Cruz graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995, so he knows full well the above. And yet it was only after the Dallas Morning News, in August 2013, pointed out that Cruz had dual Canadian-American citizenship that he applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. On May 14, 2014, Cruz ceased being a citizen of Canada.

Now you know why the GOP never contested Barack Obama’s suspect “natural born” citizenship — he who supposedly was born in Honolulu, Hawaii (but document forensics experts say his Hawaii birth certificate is fraudulent) of a U.S. citizen mother but a Kenyan father who was then a subject of Great Britain because Kenya was then a British colony.

See also:

~Éowyn

Texas attorney general: U.S. is heading toward a constitutional crisis because of Obama flouting Congress and courts

Ken Paxton

In an interview on Fox News yesterday, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of the State of Texas, was asked whether America is heading toward “a constitutional crisis” because of Obama’s total disregard for Congress and now the courts. (The segment begins at the 2:55 mark in the Fox News video, here.)

Paxton replied:

“I think we are. If you think about what’s going on here — the President is violating federal law, the U.S. Constitution, which is going past what Congress is supposed to be doing, and now we’ve got the administration in court not being forthcoming about they’re supposed to be forthcoming about. We definitely have a huge issue here related to whether the Obama administration is going to follow the Constitution, and then once they get into court, whether they’re going to tell the truth.”

Paxton’s stunning remark was precipitated by Obama’s latest “F-you” to the court, specifically to Andrew Hanen, the federal judge who is single-handedly doing the job of the useless Congress by standing up to Obama’s reckless amnesty.

Judge Andrew Hanen

Judge Andrew Hanen

On Feb. 16, 2015, U.S. District Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to temporarily block Obama’s amnesty so as to give a coalition of 26 states the time they need to pursue a lawsuit to permanently stop the amnesty orders. If the implementation of Obama’s amnesty were not blocked, Hanen reasons, the 26 states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case” because once the millions of illegals obtain amnesty, “the genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” (See “Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals”)

At issue are two executive memoranda signed by Obama last November:

  1. The first memorandum expands eligibility for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
  2. The second executive memo, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

See also “Obama has issued more executive orders than any U.S. president in history.

Combined, DACA and DAPA could affect as many as 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally. Some estimates are as high as 10 to 12 million illegals.

4 days after Judge Hanen’s order blocking the implementation of Obama’s amnesty, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would seek an emergency stay of the judge‘s injunction. (See “Obama emergency order to restart amnesty in defiance of federal judge Hanen”)

Hanen responded by denying the DOJ’s request. So the federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

Obama vs. Hanen

 

The latest tussle between Judge Hanen and Obama took place last Thursday, March 19, 2015.

As reported by FoxNews, at a Texas hearing on Obama’s amnesty executive actions, Judge Hanen sharply scolded a DOJ attorney — that the administration had misled Hanen on a key part of the program, for which Hanen fell “like an idiot.” Hanen said he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds the DOJ indeed had misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ had misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama amnesty program would not go forward before he made the Feb. 16 ruling to temporarily halt it. The program is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that gives deportation reprieves (i.e., effective amnesty) to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as “minors.” The problem is that even before Hanen’s ruling on Feb. 16 to block DACA’s implementation, federal officials had already given 3-year reprieves and work permits to more than 108,000 illegal aliens.

Kathleen Hartnett Associate White House Counsel Kathleen Hartnett, a Harvard Law grad like Obama, successfully worked on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

At the Thursday hearing, Hanen chided DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the Feb. 16 injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to DACA until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted. “We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The coalition of 26 states have asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions against the Obama administration because, in the words of the coalition’s lead attorney Angela Colmenero (who is also a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office), DOJ attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming.”

Obama’s DOJ lawyer Hartnett insists “There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here. The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

See also:

~Éowyn

Colorado Democrats support infanticide

On March 3, 2015, Democrats on a Colorado state House panel defeated a pro-life bill — HB 1112: Born Alive Infant Protection Act — that would ensure babies who survive failed abortions receive appropriate medical care and protection.

That means those Democrats, like Barack and Michelle Obama, favor INFANTICIDE.

See “Michelle Obama wants to legalize partial-birth abortion” and “Obama is evil

baby

Steven Ertelt reports for LifeNews that in a party-line vote of 7 Democrats v. 6 Republicans, the Colorado House’s Public Health Care and Human Services Committee killed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, HB 1112.

Leading pro-abortion groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood encouraged the Democrats on the panel to reject the bill, by claiming babies are not born alive after abortions in Colorado.

That is a lie.

In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recorded 1,298 cases of infant death in the U.S. due to “Other perinatal conditions,” which includes ICD-10 category P96.4, death subsequent to a failed “termination of pregnancy.” Put in simpler English, that means babies had been born alive after “botched” abortions, but were left alone in a room, to slowly die from starvation and neglect.

born alive left to die

“If passed, HB 1112 would have required abortionists to provide medical care for a child born alive during a failed abortion. Currently in Colorado, there are no state requirements instructing an abortionist to provide any type of medical attention to the infant,” says Sarah Zagorski of Colorado Citizens for Life. “It is incredibly disappointing that members of the Committee failed to pass this common-sense bill that would protect infants who survive failed abortions. The infants that would have been protected under HB 1112 are viable babies in the second and third trimester of pregnancy and deserve the highest quality medical care possible.:

In the United States, 30 states have laws similar to HB 1112 and the legislation has received bipartisan support.

In 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law a federal version of this pro-life legislation, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA). That is the same bill that when he was an Illinois State senator, Barack Obama had thrice voted against. Imagine how heartless and soul-less he must be to vote again and again for infanticide.

If you live in Colorado, please contact your representative and if they opposed the legislation, let them know you are disappointed that they voted against protecting innocent infants.  Additionally, if your representative voted in favor of the bill please call and thank them for defending life.

Here are the bad guys — the 7 members of the Colorado House committee, all Democrats, who voted in favor of infanticide by voting against HB 1112:

  1. Rep. Dianne Primavera, Chair (D-23) – Email: dianne.primavera.house@state.co.us; Phone: 303-866-4667
  2. ​​​​Rep. Jonathan Singer, Vice-Chair (D-11) – jonathan.singer.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2780
  3. Rep. Dominick Moreno (D-32) – dominick.moreno.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2964
  4. Rep. Jessie Danielson (D-24) – jessie.danielson.house@state.co.us; 303-866-5522
  5. ​​Rep. Max Tyler (D-23) – max@maxtyler.us; 303-866-2951​
  6. ​​Rep. Joann Ginal (D-52) – joann.ginal.house@state.co.us; 303-866-4569
  7. ​​​Rep. Jovan Melton (D-41) ​- jovan.melton.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2919

Here are the good guys — the 6 Colorado House committee members, all Republicans, who voted in favor of HB 1112:

  1. Rep. Kathleen Conti (R-38): kathleen.conti.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2953
  2. Rep. Janak Joshi (R-16): ​janak.joshi.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2937​
  3. Rep. Lang Sias (R-27): ​lang.sias.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2962
  4. Rep. Justin Everett (R-22): justin.everett.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2927
  5. Rep. Lois Landgraf (R-21): lois.landgraf.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2946
  6. Rep. JoAnn Windholz (R-30): joann.windholz.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2945

Note that the good guys are all Republicans, which contradicts the assertion that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. (See Kelleigh’s post, “Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right, Part 1.”) That may be true at the national level in Congress (and even here, it’s a gross and unfair over-generalization), but it is certainly not true at the state and local level.

Those who insist Republicans are just as evil as Democrats must answer this question:

Since the U.S. political and electoral system is structurally set up as an effective two-party system, and since the historical record is that third party movements are signally unsuccessful, what are we to do? 

The challenge before us is how to get rid of the bad Republicans in Congress, especially those in leadership positions.

~Éowyn

We’re going after Congress, the enablers of King Obama

By now, for those with eyes that see, ears that hear, and minds that are clear instead of fogged, it is clear that the American Republic is moribund, our Founders’ vision and careful designs upended without a fight, for we are ruled by a self-anointed king instead of a president who answers to the people or their elected representatives.

And yet the latest polls say Obama still has a 49% approval!

During his first term in the White House, Obama was aided and abetted by a Democrat-controlled Congress, which made possible the passage of Obamacare into law.

Last November’s mid-term elections voted in a substantial Republican majority to the House of Representatives, and a slimmer Republican majority to the Senate. But that means nothing to Obama because months before the mid-term elections, he already had declared that “I will act with or without Congress.”

Obama as king

On January 15, 2014, King Obama told Senate Democrats that he plans to use his executive authority to act when Congress stands in his way, that is, without the second branch of the U.S. government. On January 28, 2014, at his 5th State of the Union address, King Obama pronounced to the entire country:

wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do. (Cheers, applause.) … I’ll act on my own ….”

So much for the Founders’ institutionalization of a separation of powers via dividing government into three branches of government — the executive, legislative, and judicial — so that the branches would check and balance each other. In so doing, the Founders believed, government would be prevented from becoming tyrannical, and individual liberty would be ensured and preserved.

True to his words, Obama proceeded to act without Congress in one executive action (executive orders, executive memoranda, presidential determinations, presidential notices) after another, the most malicious of which include:

All of which has already made Obama’s executive actions more numerous than those of any U.S. president in history.

To all that, Congress willingly and pliantly ceded their constitutional authority by doing nothing.

It is time for the American people to turn our wrath on Congress.

Obama, Boehner & McConnell

On Saturday, February 28, 2015, six ordinary Americans went to the local offices of their respective senator or representative and served them with an “Intent to Repossess” their offices, paid for by taxpayers. The six members of Congress are:

  • Senator Robert Casey (D-PA)
  • Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
  • Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
  • Representative Diane Black (R-TN)
  • Representative John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
  • Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO)

The Intent reads:

We The People of the sovereign and united States of America, the ultimate sovereigns of the elected tenant of this office (‘Tenant’), which Tenant is bound by law to serve and obey, hereby give formal notice to Tenant that we intend to repossess the Constitution for the United States of America.

  1. We intend to hold Tenant, our sworn public servant, to the letter of the Constitution.
  2. We will offer to Tenant opportunity to cease aiding and abetting organized crime benefitting industry under the guise of performing legislative duties, by Tenant formally agreeing to join the AmericaAgain! Good Guys roster.
  3. We will offer Tenant immunity from criminal prosecution by formally agreeing to support, co-sponsor, and/or vote for the 20 AmericaAgain! reform laws drafted and sponsored by We The People.
  4. Should Tenant refuse to cooperate, instead continuing to aid and abet violations of the U.S. Constitution in collusion with industry and with corrupt executive and judicial branch servants — We The People intend to pursue multi-count felony indictment in the courts of this Sovereign State against defendant Tenant, via the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine™.

The visits to the offices of Casey, et al., were the second batch of visits by members of a new group, AmericaAgain!, founded by David Zuniga, author of This Bloodless Liberty. On January 19, 2015, AmericaAgain! had visited the local offices of:

  • Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
  • Rep. Scott Peters (D-La Jolla, 52nd District)
  • Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ, 2nd District)
  • Rep. Grace Ming (D-NY, 6th District)

America Again!

At each of the senators’ and representatives’ offices in 11 cities, the AmericaAgain! delegates served them with the Intent to Repossess and a letter informing them about the AmericaAgain! campaign which you can read here. The delegates called on the 5 senators and 6 representatives to sign a public statement of agreement in principle that states:

  • Whereas, the People themselves are the highest governmental authority in America and according to the opening words of the Constitution, the only human power over that law; and
  • Whereas, I have been elected by the sovereign citizens of my State or U.S. congressional district to serve and represent them by obeying and supporting the U.S. Constitution; and
  • Whereas, all three branches of federal government for generations have engaged in violations of that supreme Law of the Land; and
  • Whereas, the People’s failure to enforce that supreme law in no way constrains them from taking up its enforcement at any time they see fit; and
  • Whereas, the criminal courts of the sovereign States of this republic must arrest felony crimes perpetrated by residents of their State – whether perpetrated by omission, commission, negligence, abuse of office, ignorance, or other condition – and must apply such sanctions as will address said conditions of perpetrators; and
  • Whereas, I have no desire to ignore, enable, legitimize, or cover up such crimes committed by Congress, however convenient or cherished the resulting funds may be to the recipients; and
  • Whereas, I am aware that many federal laws affecting industry and regulatory bodies have been, and are, written by operatives to favor the affected industry, and often voted for by legislators who have not considered — or even read — the bill;
  • Therefore, I support in principle the 20 legislative reforms put forth by AmericaAgain!, publicly asserting my intention to support such laws drafted by the People as presented to me for co-sponsorship, consideration, or vote, and I will make no attempt to amend, attach riders or earmarks to, or impede the expeditious passage of said reform bills through calendar and committee procedures, as that would constitute obstruction of the sovereign right of the People and States to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s a video explaining AmericaAgain!

So far, not one of the 5 senators and 6 representatives, whom the people had elected to Washington, DC, has the decency to respond. But AmericaAgain! vows to continue until every member of Congress is served notice.

To join this noble campaign to take back our country, visit AmericaAgain! (or go to AmericaAgainNow.com).

H/t Freedom Outpost 

See also “America’s Bipartisan Ruling Class vs. the People.”

~Éowyn